THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Minister decided that this species was not eligible for listing as threatened on 01/09/2020 Listing Advice Lerista lineata

Perth Slider

Summary of assessment

Conservation status Lerista lineata has been found to be not eligible for listing in any category, as outlined in the attached assessment. Reason for conservation assessment by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee This advice follows assessment of information provided by Western Australia as part of the Common Assessment Method process, to systematically review species that are inconsistently listed under the EPBC Act and relevant state/territory legislation or lists.

More information on the Common Assessment Method is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/cam

The information in this assessment has been compiled by the relevant state/territory government.

Public consultation Notice of the proposed amendment and a consultation document was made available for public comment for 31 business days between 23 February 2017 and 10 April 2017. Any comments received that were relevant to the survival of the species were considered by the Committee as part of the assessment process.

Recommendations (i) The Committee recommends that Lerista lineata is not eligible for inclusion in the list referred to in section 178 of the EPBC Act.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee

27 April 2020

Lerista lineata (Perth Slider) Listing Advice Short form Threatened species nomination form (Version Mar 2016)

Abridged Threatened Species Nomination Form

For nominations under the Common Assessment Method (CAM) where supporting information is available, but not in a format suitable for demonstrating compliance with the CAM, and assessment against the IUCN Red List threat status. Cover Page

Species name (scientific and common name): Lerista lineata (lined skink, Perth slider)

Nomination for (addition, deletion, change): No change

Nominated conservation category and criteria: Does not meet the criteria

WA Threatened Species Scientific Committee assessment of eligibility against the criteria:

This assessment is consistent with the standards set out in Schedule 1, item 2.7 (h) and Yes No 2.8 of the Common Assessment Method Memorandum of Understanding.

A. Population • Insufficient information to assess. size reduction

B. Geographic • EOO and AOO meet area thresholds for Endangered. range • Continuing decline assessed with respect to further areas of remnant vegetation likely to be cleared. • ’Number of locations’ is not applied in the assessment (see explanation below). • Fossorial species with relatively small areas of suitable habitat required and limited natural dispersal capacity, however it is unlikely that >50% of the species’ AOO is in habitat patches smaller than required to support a viable population. Not severely fragmented. • Does not meet Criterion B.

C. Small • No data on number of mature individuals. population • Insufficient information to assess. size and decline

D. Very small or • Population likely to be >1000 mature individuals, not highly restricted and not likely restricted to become CR or EX in a very short time period. population • Does not meet Criterion D.

E. Quantitative • Insufficient information to assess. analysis

Page 1 of 13 Outcome:

Scientific committee Meeting WA Threatened Species Scientific Committee: 22 June 2016 date:

Scientific committee comments: See evaluation statement below. Assessed as Near Threatened.

Recommendation: Not eligible for listing as nationally threatened.

Ministerial approval: N/A Date of Gazettal/ N/A Legislative effect:

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE EVALUATION STATEMENT Lerista lineata, lined skink. Nominated for listing as Endangered Lerista lineata has been nominated as Endangered under the EPBC Act for consideration by the Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee. As the species is restricted to Western Australia, it has been referred under the Intergovernmental MOU (Common Assessment Method) to the Western Australian Threatened Species Scientific Committee (WATSSC) for assessment. Lerista lineata has a small distribution on the southern Swan Coastal Plain, south of the Swan River and mostly near the coast. The nomination was under Criterion B. The species does not meet Criterion A (no data on population decline rate), Criterion C (no data on number of mature individuals) or Criterion D (population likely to be >1000 mature individuals, not highly restricted and not capable of becoming CR or EX in a very short time period). EN under Criterion B requires EOO <5000 km2 and/or AOO <500 km2, no more than 5 locations or severely fragmented, and a continuing decline. Vulnerable under Criterion B requires EOO <20 000 km2 and/or AOO <2000 km2, no more than 10 locations or severely fragmented, and a continuing decline. A population that undergoes extreme fluctuations is a further option to qualify for EN, but this is not applicable to L. lineata. EOO and AOO. The EOO is estimated by the nominators to be 3,000 – 5,000 km2 and the AOO is estimated to be 136 km2 (2 km x 2 km grid, 2006-2015 records). [The Busselton record is now considered unreliable and with no voucher specimen, but its inclusion does not affect eligibility under criterion B.] Thus, both EOO and AOO meet area thresholds for Endangered. Number of locations. The nomination stated that there are 3 locations: 2 near-shore islands and the mainland. It also stated that on Rottnest Island L. lineata “remains unrecorded for over two decades and has been previously documented ‘locally extinct’ (Storr 1984)”. However, NatureMap has a 2003 record from the Conservation Department, Rottnest Island Authority, and one of the nominators provided updated information that he had trapped three animals during a survey in 2015. For Garden Island the nomination states “no recent surveys but recorded by Robinson et al. (1987); Brooker et al. (1995)”. Brooker et al. (1995) did use pitfall traps and detected Lerista lineata in 9 of 20 of their sites during spring, suggesting that it was, at that time, reasonably widespread. Decisions on the number of locations are not straightforward where parts of the range have no significant threats. The over-riding threat driving the decline of L. lineata is land clearing, now mainly for urbanisation. Most parts of its range on Rottnest and Garden Islands and almost all parts of its range in conservation reserves and other protected areas on the mainland have not and will not be cleared. Section 4.11 of the Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (Version 12) state: “When parts of the distribution are not affected by any threat, the following options will be appropriate under different circumstances: (a) number of locations is not used (i.e., the subcriteria that refer to the number of locations consequently are not met), especially if the unaffected area is more than half the taxon’s range; (b) number of locations in the unaffected areas is set to the number of subpopulations in those areas, especially if there are several subpopulations; (c) the number of locations is based on the smallest size of locations in the currently affected areas; (d) the number of locations is based on the most likely threat that

Page 2 of 13

may affect the currently-unaffected areas in the future. In any case, the basis of the number of locations should be documented.” In this case (a) seems the most appropriate as more than half the species current range is unaffected by land clearing, being in conservation estate or areas proposed to be reserved under the Strategic assessment of the Perth and Peel regions; therefore the number of locations cannot be used in the evaluation of the status of L. lineata. Alternatives that could also be considered are (b) or (d) whereby the separate subpopulations are deemed to be separate locations (which may be impacted to a lesser degree by a range of factors such as recreation use, fire and introduced predators), which would then exceed the threshold limits for number of locations for EN (5 locations) or VU (10 locations). So, whichever option is followed, the number of locations cannot be used to assign a threat category. Severely fragmented. The term “refers to the situation in which increased extinction risk to the taxon results from the fact that most of its individuals are found in small and relatively isolated subpopulations ... These small subpopulations may go extinct, with a reduced probability of recolonization.” (Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, Version 12). The nomination stated that the major threat to Lerista lineata is habitat loss, something with which WATSSC agrees. The nomination also stated “As this species most likely has poor dispersal abilities and relies on litter ground cover and other debris for shelter the impact of intense and frequent bushfires may have a negative impact. We reiterate this point by highlighting the steady increase in deliberately-lit fires in the Perth metropolitan area which have been a frequent news topic”. WATSSC consulted Dr Richard How (recently retired from the WA Museum) who has surveyed and monitored reptile communities in bush remnants around Perth and continues a long-term reptile monitoring program at Bold Park. He advised that L. lineata was known to occur in several bush remnants near Perth including Mt Henry bushland (13 ha), Hartfield park (45 ha), Forrestdale Lake Nature reserve (45 ha), Jandakot Airport (c. 100 ha), Modong Nature Reserve (155 ha) and Woodman Point (c. 170 ha), and that “The immediate impacts of fire are devastating to litter-dwelling and arboreal reptiles… However, for fossorial forms, most escape the immediate impacts of fire and only after years, if ever, do their populations show a decline. That is the clear experience at Bold Park, where population recovery within the entire assemblage (25 spp.) took up to eight years”. [Lerista lineata does not occur at Bold Park as it is north of the Swan River; however, other Lerista species and other fossorial reptiles do.] This suggests that in Dr How’s opinion, fire will not cause an immediate reduction in population size for L. lineata. Clearly the species has survived fires over aeons; the question is whether it causes local extinctions in small vegetation remnants where recolonisation is unlikely. Noting that it has been detected in bush remnants as small as 13 ha (Mt Henry bushland has been isolated for many decades), this appears unlikely. There are no data to suggest that L. lineata is significantly impacted by introduced predators or recreational use of bush remnants. Lerista lineata occurs in other bush remnants than those mentioned by Dr How, including Yalgorup National Park. While it is a fossorial species with limited reliance on migration and recolonisation of subpopulations, most of the current range of L. lineata is in protected areas that will not be cleared and as these subpopulations do not appear under threat from fire, the species is not considered to be severely fragmented. Continuing decline. Areas of remnant bush south of the Swan River continue to be cleared for urban development and some will be cleared under the Strategic assessment of the Perth and Peel regions. As habitat loss is the major threat to L. lineata, WATSSC concludes that the species is affected by a recent, current and projected future decline. Committee conclusion and recommendation. WATSSC concludes that Lerista lineata does not meet criteria for Endangered or Vulnerable under criterion B. It possibly meets Near Threatened, as the Red List Guidelines state “To qualify for the Near Threatened category, the taxon should be close to qualifying for the Vulnerable category. The estimates of population size or habitat should be close to the Vulnerable thresholds, especially when there is a high degree of uncertainty, or possibly meet some of the subcriteria”. In this case the species has a very restricted EOO and AOO and is subjected to a continuing decline and WATSSC therefore considers that its status is NT (approaching B1ab(ii,iii,iv,v)+2ab(ii,iii,iv,v)). The Committee recommends that Lerista lineata not be listed as threatened and remain on the Western Australian Priority Fauna List.

Page 3 of 13

Nomination summary

Current conservation status

Scientific name: Lerista lineata

Common name: Lined skink, Perth slider

Family name: Scincidae Fauna Flora

Nomination for: Listing Change of status Delisting

1. Is the species currently on any conservation list, either in a State or Territory, Australia or Internationally? Provide details of the occurrence and listing status for each jurisdiction in the following table 2. Is it present in an Australian jurisdiction, but not listed?

State / Territory in Date listed or Listing category i.e. Listing criteria i.e. Jurisdiction which the species assessed (or critically endangered B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) occurs N/A) or ‘none’

International (IUCN N/A Red List)

National (EPBC Act) N/A

State / Territory 1 . WA Priority List 19/02/2004 Priority 3 Poorly-known

2.

3.

Consistent with Schedule 1, item 2.7 (h) and 2.8 of the Common Assessment Method Memorandum of Understanding, it is confirmed that:

• this assessment meets the standard of evidence required by the Common Yes No Assessment Method to document the eligibility of the species under the IUCN criteria;

Comments:

• surveys of the species were adequate to inform the assessment; Yes No

Comments:

• the conclusion of the assessment remains current and that any further information Yes No that may have become available since the assessment was completed supports or is consistent with the conclusion of the assessment.

Comments: The nominators recommended that the species be listed as B2b(ii,iii,iv)c(iii), however the Species and Communities Branch (S&C) suggests that the species is better suited to B1+2ab(ii,iii,iv) based on the information provided by the nominators. S&C recalculated the AOO based on 2kmx2km IUCN grid method for 2006-2015 records, but both the nominators and the S&C conclusions of the current EOO meet the same criteria. Species and Communities Branch have assumed the number of locations meets the nominated category of EN, alternatively the nominator does refer to severe fragmentation of habitat remnants.

Page 4 of 13 Nominated national conservation status: category and criteria

Presumed extinct (EX) Critically endangered (CR) Endangered (EN) Vulnerable (VU)

None (least concern) Data Deficient Conservation Dependent

What IUCN Red List criteria support the recommended B1+2ab(ii,iii,iv) conservation status category?

Eligibility against the IUCN Red List criteria (A, B, C, D and E)

Provide justification for the nominated conservation status; is the species eligible or ineligible for listing against the five criteria. For delisting, provide details for why the species no longer meets the requirements of the current conservation status.

A. Population size reduction • It is estimated that there has been an 86% loss of remnant (evidence of decline) vegetation in the EOO over the last 50 years since extensive clearing for urban development began. However, there are no estimates for actual loss of habitat, nor of population size and population size decline. • Insufficient information to assess

B. Geographic range • (B1) EOO is estimated to be 3,000 - 5,000 km2 (by the nominators et. al. (EOO and AOO, number of based on Bush (2010) distribution account; calculated using locations and evidence of the area of a polygon extending 25 km inland from Swan River to decline) Binningup and Swan River to Busselton). • The single individual collected in 1949 near Busselton is considerably further south (~60 km) that other confirmed records of the species. The specimen was not retained, and the species has not been found in any biological survey conducted between Bunbury and Busselton. • S&C calculated the EOO to be 6,137 km2 (using a minimum convex polygon of all records 1900-2015) including the Busselton record and as 3,884 km2 excluding the Busselton record. • (B2) AOO is estimated to be 136 km2 (2kmx2km grid, 2006-2015 records). • (a) Past, present and future extensive land clearing for urbanisation and infrastructure development has led to small pockets of remnant habitat. Each isolated patch of habitat is separated by large distances and the species likely has poor dispersal capabilities. Therefore, the species’ remaining habitat may be considered to be highly fragmented. Additionally, based on geographic location and threats, the species is only found at 3 locations:

o Mainland: ongoing threat of habitat loss and degradation due to urbanisation and infrastructure development.

o Garden Island: ongoing habitat degradation due to Defence activities

o Rottnest Island: ongoing habitat degradation due to tourism related activities • (b) (ii, iii) 86% of remnant vegetation in the EOO has been lost in the past 50 years, with declines continuing due to ongoing urban expansion and infrastructure development. The remaining

Page 5 of 13 vegetation is often highly modified and degraded, with further threats from weed infestation and bushfires. This would relate to a decline in available habitat, but not quantified. • (b) (iv) It is projected that the number of locations will progressively decline, because ongoing vegetation clearing of the already highly fragmented habitat will result in local extinctions. • Meets criteria for Endangered B1+2ab(ii,iii,iv)

C. Small population size and • It is estimated that there has been an 86% loss of remnant decline vegetation in the EOO over the last 50 years since extensive clearing (population size, for urban development began. However, there are no estimates of distribution and evidence of population size and population size decline. decline) • Insufficient information to assess

D. Very small or restricted • There are no estimates of population size. population • Insufficient information to assess (population size)

E. Quantitative analysis • Insufficient information to assess (statistical probability of extinction)

Summary of assessment information

EOO Approximately 3,000-5,000km2 AOO 136 km2 (2kmx2km grid based on Generation 2 years (provided by nominators based on 2006-2015 records) length Bush et. al. (2010) distribution 196 km2 (2kmx2km grid based on account) (calculated using the area 1996-2015 records) of a polygon extending 25 km inland from Swan River to Binningup and 304 km2 (2kmx2km grid on all Swan River to Busselton) records, 1900-2015) 6,137 km2 (calculated by S&C using a minimum convex polygon of all records 1900-2015, Perth to Busselton) and as 3,884 km2 excluding the Busselton record (an outlier)

No. locations Interpreted as 3 Severely fragmented Yes No Unknown (mainland and two islands)

No. subpopulations 5 No. mature individuals Unknown but assumed to be declining

Percentage global population within Australia 100%

Percentage population decline over 10 years or 3 generations 86% loss of vegetation in EOO in the last 50 years, but not specific to habitat

Page 6 of 13 Threats (detail how the species is being impacted)

Threat Extent Impact (describe the threat and how it impacts on the (give details of impact on (what is the level of threat to species. Specify if the threat is past, current or whole species or specific the conservation of the potential) subpopulations) species)

Habitat loss and degradation Entire Severe • The species is largely restricted to the Swan Coastal Plain, mostly within the highly developed southern Perth Metropolitan Area. • Extensive land clearing for urbanisation and infrastructure development has led to small pockets of remnant habitat which are highly fragmented and often have modified vegetation. The ongoing fragmentation and habitat loss are likely to result in local extinctions. • It is predicted that the metropolitan area will be home to 2.2 million people by 2026. • Past, present and future

Increasing frequency and intensity of bushfires Entire Moderate to high • The species likely has poor dispersal abilities and relies on litter ground cover and other debris for shelter, which makes it vulnerable to fire. • There has been an increase in purpose-lit fires in the Perth metropolitan area • Present and future

Weed infestation Entire Unknown • Further degradation of remaining habitat • Past, present and future

Cat and fox predation Mainland Unknown • Past, present and future

Management and Recovery

Is there a Recovery Plan (RP) or Conservation Management Plan operational for the Yes No species?

List all relevant recovery or management plans (including draft, in-preparation, out-of-date, national and State/Territory recovery plans, recovery plans for other species or ecological communities, or other management plans that may benefit or be relevant to the nominated species). • N/A

Page 7 of 13

List current management or research actions, if any, that are being undertaken that benefit the conservation of the species. • Targeted surveys of species at significant areas of interest (e.g. Busselton area, Rottnest Island) to better define the species’ current distribution.

List further recommended management or research actions, if any, that would benefit the conservation of the species. • Impose restrictions on and manage future vegetation clearing to prevent/reduce ongoing reduction and fragmentation of remaining habitat, particularly in the Perth Metropolitan area. • Improve quality of remnant habitat (including weed control and fire management) where significant subpopulations are located. • Ongoing cat and fox control. • Research taxonomy to fully understand any levels of divergence between subpopulations, and the viability/long-term survival of subpopulations in small vegetation remnants.

Nomination prepared [Personal information removed] by:

Contact details:

Date submitted: 25/03/2015 (submitted to Department of the Environment for EPBC Act listing)

If the nomination has been refereed or reviewed by experts, please provide their names and contact details:

Dr Paul Doughty, WA Museum Dr Mike Bamford, Bamford Consulting

Page 8 of 13

Appendix A

Summary of subpopulation information (detailed information to be provided in the relevant sections of the form)

Subpopulation Land tenure Survey information: AOO Site / habitat Condition Threats Specific management Date of survey (or actions (2x2km grid (note if past, present or specimen collection) method) future) and no. mature individuals

Refer to Appendix A, Figures 1-3.

Swan Coastal Plain: Various incl. Crown Reserves 1900-2015: 92 km2 Extensive clearing Habitat loss and Minimise future Swan River, Perth, for conservation (Forrestdale 112 records. (calculated using and modification of degradation (past, vegetation clearing to Mandurah Lake Nature Reserve (NR), 37 records from remnant vegetation, present and future) Improve quality of Modong NR and Thomsons 2006-2015) highly fragmented Fire (present and remnant habitat Lake NR), and for utilities, 148 km2 future) education, recreation, Predator control (calculated using railway, and harbour Weed infestation 57 records from purposes, and freehold (past, present and 1996-2015) future) 228 km2 Cat and fox (calculated using predation (past, 112 records from present and future) 1900-2015)

Swan Coastal Plain: Various incl. Crown Reserves 1987-2015: 40 km2 Vegetation within Habitat loss and Minimise future Mandurah to for conservation (Yalgorup 23 records (calculated using national park is in degradation (past, vegetation clearing Binningup National Park) recreational 18 records from good condition, present and future) Improve quality of purposes, and freehold 2006-2015) areas of extensive Fire (present and remnant habitat clearing and 44 km2 future) modification of Predator control (calculated using remnant vegetation Weed infestation 19 records from outside of NP (past, present and 1996-2015) future) 48 km2 Cat and fox (calculated using predation (past, 23 records from present and future) 1987-2015)

Page 9 of 13 Appendix A

Swan Coastal Plain: Unknown as collection site 1949: Extensive clearing Habitat loss and Minimise future Busselton not confirmed 1 record and modification of degradation (past, vegetation clearing remnant vegetation, present and future) Outlier by ~60km Improve quality of highly fragmented Fire (present and remnant habitat Specimen not kept future) (species Predator control identification Weed infestation cannot be (past, present and confirmed) future) Cat and fox predation (past, present and future)

Garden Island Department of Defence 1960-1995: 12 km2 Extensive clearing Habitat loss and Minimise future 6 records and modification of degradation (past, vegetation clearing (~12 km2) remnant vegetation present and future) Improve quality of Fire (present and remnant habitat future) Predator control Weed infestation (past, present and future)

Rottnest Island Rottnest Island Authority 1972-2015: 4 km2 Historically, Habitat loss and Minimise future (Crown reserve) 7 records (calculated using extensive vegetation degradation (past, vegetation clearing (~19 km2) 2 records from clearing and present and future) Improve quality of 2006-2015) significant vegetative Fire (present and remnant habitat structural alteration 4 km2 future) Predator control (calculated using Weed infestation 3 records from (past, present and 1996-2015) future) 12 km2 (calculated using 7 records from 1972-2015)

Page 10 of 13

Appendix A

Figure 1: Map of Lerista lineata distribution (Rottnest Island, Garden Island, Swan Coastal Plain), including the unconfirmed historical record near Busselton.

Page 11 of 13 Appendix A

Figure 2: Map of Lerista lineata distribution (Swan River, Perth to Binningup, excluding Rottnest Island).

Page 12 of 13

Appendix A

Figure 3: Map of Lerista lineata distribution (Swan River, Perth to Mandurah, excluding Rottnest Island).

Page 13 of 13

Threatened Species Nomination Form for amending the list of threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 2014/15 Nomination Period The purpose of this form is to provide a nomination to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) for assessment of a non EPBC Act listed species/subspecies for inclusion on the list of threatened species or to nominate a species/subspecies for reassessment for consideration for listing in another category of threat.

For a non-EPBC Act listed species to be eligible for listing as a threatened species it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for listing. For a species already listed as threatened under the EPBC Act to be eligible for listing in a higher or lower category of threat it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for a particular indicative threshold. For example, for a species listed as endangered to be found eligible for listing as critically endangered, it must meet the critically endangered indicative thresholds for at least one of the listing criteria.

If there is insufficient information to enable details to be provided because of a lack of scientific data or analysis please include any information that is available or provide a statement next to the relevant question identifying that the data or analysis is not available. Please provide references in your nomination to support information provided.

If you are nominating a species for removal from the list please complete the nomination form to delist a species.

The Committee recognises that completing a nomination form is demanding as a result of the information required by the Committee to undertake an assessment to determine the eligibility for listing. Nominators are encouraged to seek expert advice where appropriate to assist in the completion of the nomination form.

Important notes for completing this form • Please complete the form as comprehensively as possible – it is important for the Committee to have as much information as possible, and the best case on which to judge a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act criteria for listing. • Certain information in this nomination is required to be provided by Division 7.2 EPBC Regulations 2000 (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html). Nominations that do not meet the EPBC Regulations can not be provided to the Committee for consideration. All required questions are included in this nominations form. If information to answer any of the questions in this form is NOT available please state this in your answer as this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the EPBC Regulations. • Reference all information and facts, both in the text and in a reference list at the end of the form. • The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as personal communication, with their approval, in support of your nomination. Please provide the name of the experts, their qualifications and contact details (including employment in a state agency, if relevant) in the reference list at the end of the form. • If the species is considered to be affected by climate change, please refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2). • Identify any confidential material and explain the sensitivity. • Note that the information in the nomination (but excluding any information specifically requested by you to remain confidential) will be made available to the public and experts for comment. However, your details as nominator will not be released, and will remain confidential. • Figures, tables and maps can be included at the end of the form or prepared as separate electronic or hardcopy documents (referred to as appendices or attachments in your nomination). • Cross-reference relevant areas of the nomination form where needed. Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A. If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).

Details of Nominated Species or Subspecies

1. NAME OF NOMINATED SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Lerista lineata Common name(s): Perth Lined Skink (Slider) 2. CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY What category is the species currently listed in under the EPBC Act? (If you are nominating the species for removal from the list, please complete the nomination form for removal from the list). X Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent 3. 2014–2015 CONSERVATION THEME A conservation theme has not been established for this nomination period N/A

Transfer Information (for transferring of a species to another category) Note: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories please complete questions 4-6. If the nomination is for a new listing please proceed to question 7. If the nomination is to remove a species from the list, please use the delisting form. 4. REASON FOR THE NOMINATION FOR CATEGORY CHANGE Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. What is the reason for the nomination:

Genuine change of status New Knowledge Mistake Other Significant habitat loss of approximately 86% on the Swan Coastal Plain combined with uncertain status of some subpopulations is our reasons for nomination of this species.

Taxonomic change – ‘split’ newly described ‘lumped’ no longer valid

5. INITIAL LISTING Describe the reasons for the species’ initial listing and if available the criteria under which it was formerly considered eligible N/A 6. CHANGES IN SITUATION With regard to the listing criteria, how have circumstances changed since the species was listed that now makes it eligible for listing in another category? N/A Taxonomy

7. TAXONOMY Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order).

Order: Squamata, Family: Scincidae Lerista lineata Bell, 1833, there are no synonyms. Bell, T. 1833, Characters of two new genera of reptiles. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1: 98‒99. This species represents the type Lerista and according to Cogger (1983), the whereabouts of the holotype remain unknown. Re-described by Storr (1971) based on 10 available specimens from the vicinity of Fremantle including Garden and Rottnest Islands. Recent phylogenetic analysis by Skinner et al. 2008 suggests L. lineata and L. planiventralis are closely-related and constitute a natural group.

8. CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED Is the species conventionally accepted? If the species' taxonomy is NOT conventionally accepted, then please provide the following information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000: • a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature; OR • evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species, and a written statement signed by a person who is a taxonomist and has relevant expertise (has worked with, or is a published author on, the class of species nominated), that the species is considered to be a new species. Yes the taxonomic classification of L. lineata is conventionally accepted remaining unchanged since description over 180 years ago.

Threats

9. KNOWN THREATS Identify any KNOWN threats to the species, and state clearly whether these are past, current or future threats and whether the threats are actual or potential. .

NB – CLIMATE CHANGE AS A THREAT. If climate change is an important threat to the nominated species it is important that you provide referenced information on exactly how climate change might significantly increase the nominated species’ vulnerability to extinction. For guidance refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2). The main identified threat to L. lineata is habitat loss from past, current and future land clearing for urbanisation and infrastructure developments. Additional potential threats include increasing frequency and intensity of bushfires, weed infestation that degrades habitat and predation from increasing cat and fox populations. 10. IMPACT OF THE THREATS Identify how the species is affected by the threats. As this species is largely restricted to the Swan Coastal Plain where its distribution is centred on the highly disturbed and developed southern Perth Metropolitan Area, all remaining populations of L. lineata are highly fragmented with very few of these (e.g. Garden Island and Yalgorup National Park) in conservation areas of significant size. The primary concern with L. lineata, notwithstanding we can only speculate on population size or trends, reproductive potential for recovery and ecological or reproductive specialisation (Cogger et. al. 1993), is range size in Australia which is progressively decreasing due to habitat loss. As this species most likely has poor dispersal abilities and relies on litter ground cover and other debris for shelter the impact of intense and frequent bushfires may have a negative impact. We reiterate this point by highlighting the steady increase in deliberately-lit fires in the Perth metropolitan area which have been a frequent news topic.

The threatened status of L. lineata due to habitat loss has been widely advocated for since 1984: in Burbidge and Jenkins 1984; Ehmann and Cogger 1985; Wilson and Knowles 1988; Kennedy 1990; Ehmann 1991; Egerton 1997; Nevill 2005; Davis and Brooker 2008 and Bush et al. 2010. 11. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed. There are no recovery or threat abatement/mitigation actions for this species.

Eligibility against the criteria To be considered eligible for listing a species must be eligible for at least one of Criteria 1-5 (Q12-16). The species does not have to be found eligible for all Criteria and information is not required for all criteria if unavailable, however an answer to all questions must be provided, if data/information is unavailable a statement to this effect is required. The Committee refers to the ‘Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria’ http://jr.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf for interpreting the criteria please refer to this document for explanations of how to address answers to the criteria.

12. CRITERION 1 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, on any extent of occurrence and/or quality of A3 Population reduction, projected or suspected to be of the habitat met in the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) [(a) following cannot be used for A3] (d) actual or potential levels of A4 An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or exploitation suspected population reduction where the time period must include both the past and the future (up to a (e) the effects of introduced taxa, max. of 100 years in future), and where the causes of hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, reduction may not have ceased OR may not be competitors or parasites understood OR may not be reversible.

In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria and if available include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on : • whether the population trend is increasing, decreasing or static • estimated generation length and method used to estimate the generation length

Include and explanation as to why either A1 – A4 was chosen. The species/subspecies is only required to be eligible under 1 of A1 to A4. 13. CRITERION 2: Criterion 2. Geographic distribution is precarious for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Very restricted Restricted Limited 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: (a) Severely fragmented OR Number of = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10 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; (number of mature individuals

Population Historical area of Current area of habitat Loss of area of Area of habitat habitat Occupancy Swan Coastal Plain 1500 km2 94 km2 1406 km2 196 km2 (Swan River to Mandurah) Swan Coastal Plain 504 km2 146 km2, very few 358 km2 40 km2 (Mandurah to records and not Binningup) recorded during recent Status uncertain survey in Yalgorup National Park (How et al. 2009). Swan Coastal Plain Tentative 10 km2 Tentative 10 km2, only 10 km2 4 km2 subpopulation one individual recorded (Busselton) in 1949 and specimen Status uncertain not kept. Shark Bay (Woodleigh) Tentative 10 km2 Tentative 10 km2, only 0 4 km2 Status uncertain three individuals recorded from one site (McKenzie et al. 2000). Garden Island 12 km2 10 km2, no recent 2 km2 8 km2 subpopulation surveys but recorded by Robinson et al. 1987; Brooker et al. 1995. Rottnest Island Tentative 19 km2 Tentative 19 km2, none 0 8 km2 subpopulation recorded since 1986 and Status uncertain not recorded during surveys from 2002-07 (J. Dell, pers. comm.) Swan Coastal Plain 46 km2 0 0 0 (other available non- protected habitat) Total 2091 km2 289 km2 86% loss of habitat 260 km2

In this assessment, the area of occupancy is calculated for all records of Lerista lineata in the NatureMaps database (see attached maps provided). However it should be noted that a number of these locations have no habitat present and been cleared for urban expansion. Also the legitimacy or accuracy of a number of records is dubious and the authors plan to systematically go through submitted historical records over the next 12 months to validate the specimens. This in turn is likely to reduce the area of occupancy further for this species. •

14. CRITERION 3

Criterion 3. Small 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 a 25% in 3 years or 1 20% in 3 years or 1 10% in 10 years or 3 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

In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria, including the estimated total number of mature individuals if known. Note: If the estimated total number of mature individuals is unknown but presumed to be likely to be >10 000 you are not required to provide an answer to either part of the criterion as the species would be ineligible under this criterion.

15. CRITERION 4:

Criterion 4. Very small population

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Extremely low Very Low Low

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

In answering this question provide details on how the figure derived

16. CRITERION 5

Criterion 5. Quantitative Analysis

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

In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criterion

17. NOMINATED CATEGORY Note: after completing questions 12-16 sufficient evidence should be available to determine the category for listing. Refer to the indicative threshold criteria at Attachment B. The Perth Lined Skink (Slider) is currently listed Priority Three (DPaW 2013). This species is eligible for listing as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 based on meeting Criterion 2 B2, (b ii, iii, iv) (c iii) with the following explanations: CRITERION 2 B2 Based on Table 1 in Section 23, historically the species occurred in an area on mainland Australia with two insular subpopulations estimated to be 2,091 km2 based on areas where the species has been formerly recorded via WA Museum, DPaW and additional data. See Table 2 for more concise data on area of occupancy on the Swan Coastal Plain between the Swan River and Mandurah – the main distribution for this species. Based on this data the species current determined area of occupancy is best estimated to be 289 km2, this represents a reduction of area of occupancy (= available habitat) by 86%. This figure was determined by examining what remaining remnant vegetation exists within this species range and approximating total hectares (Table 2). See attached map for illustration of habitat loss and remaining habitat on the Swan Coastal Plain between the Swan River and Mandurah. Table 2 does not include other subpopulations including from Mandurah to Binningup due to uncertain status ie. poorly documented due to lack of survey effort.

(b ii, iii, iv) The above data supports the continuing observed and projected decline in the area of occupancy, extent and/or quality of habitat and number of locations or subpopulations for this species on the Swan Coastal Plain where the human population is highest in Western Australia and it is predicted that by 2026, 2.2 million people will live in the metropolitan region (WAPC 2012).

(c iii) The number of locations for this species will progressively decline as outlined above due to habitat loss in effect creating smaller subpopulations within its already highly fragmented range resulting in local extinctions. It has been estimated that 80% of the Swan Coastal Plain has been completely cleared and this continues at an alarming rate (B. Maryan and G. Gaikhorst, pers. obs.). The status of some subpopulations remain uncertain as outlined in Section 23 Table 1 showing this species has not been recorded for several decades at Busselton and on Rottnest Island. Justifying the extreme fluctuations for this species is difficult due to the species fossorial lifestyle and there is no available information on population density and dispersal distance. Therefore, it could be argued this species also meets Criterion (a) severely fragmented: based on each isolated habitat patch being separated by a large distance and each occupied habitat area representing the remainder of the species range as shown on attached map and listed in Table 2.

18. CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE SPECIES IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. Criterion 1 A1 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A2 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A3 (specify at least one of the following) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A4 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e)

Criterion 2 B1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c); AND/OR B2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

Criterion 3 estimated number of mature individuals AND C1 (specify at least two of the following) OR C2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) ) Criterion 4

Criterion 5

For conservation dependent Criterion 1 (refer to Q26 below) nominations only: Criterion 2 (refer to Q 27below)

Species Information

19. DESCRIPTION Provide a description of the species including where relevant, distinguishing features, size and social structure How distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified?

Lerista lineata is a small (total length: 9 cm), slender fossorial species with 2 fingers, 3 toes, immovable eyelids and brownish or silvery grey body with prominent black paravertebral lines, a broad black upper lateral stripe and narrow pale midlateral stripe. The combination of its number of digits and striped pattern is very distinct; however, it is superficially similar to L. elegans in the Perth area which has 4 fingers and 4 toes.

20. DISTRIBUTION Provide a succinct overview of the species’ known or estimated current and past distribution, including international/national distribution. Provide a map if available. Is the species protected within the reserve system (e.g. national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, or other conservation estates, private land covenants, etc.)? If so, which populations? Which reserves are actively managed for this species? Give details.

The most current distributional account is provided by Bush et al. (2010) stating this species is locally restricted to the Swan Coastal Plain south of the Swan River including Garden and Rottnest Islands, extending south to Binningup (near Bunbury), with a single, old record from Busselton (specimen not kept), and only recorded for the first time during the mid-1990s north of the Swan River on Woodleigh Station just east of Shark Bay.

If the Busselton record is accepted, L. lineata historically occupied an area from Fremantle to Busselton, a linear distance of 218 kilometres, occupying a narrow strip extending inland to 25 kilometres. However this area includes large areas of water bodies, wetlands, rivers, creeks and clay soils unsuitable for L. lineata.

Lerista lineata is protected within designated conservation areas (mainly regional parks and very few nature reserves; see attached map) on the Swan Coastal Plain, however these are fragmented with further clearing anticipated even in designated conservation areas due to the pressures of housing and infrastructure developments, as demonstrated by the recent approval to extend the Roe Highway through existing L. lineata habitat, therefore reducing its overall range even more.

Lerista lineata is known from only one significantly-sized national park on the mainland (Yalgorup: 12,000 ha including wetlands), however there are few records and it was not recorded during a recent biological survey in Yalgorup National Park (How et al. 2009). The two insular populations on Garden and Rottnest Islands appear to show a contrasting difference in relative abundance, which may be attributed to the degree of habitat disturbance between the two islands. For example, on Rottnest Island L. lineata remains unrecorded for over two decades and has been previously documented ‘locally extinct’ (Storr 1984). No areas are actively managed for this species by conducting surveys to monitor existing populations. It appears the southerly extent of this species known distribution remains uncertain as well as the relative abundance of the insular populations with particular attention to Rottnest Island. The widely disjunct Woodleigh population east of Shark Bay is not afforded any statutory protection on conservation lands and requires further investigation to resolve taxonomic identity with molecular analysis. Additional information is provided below in section 21.

21. BIOLOGY/ECOLOGY Provide a summary of biological and ecological information.

Include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: • life cycle including age at sexual maturity, life expectancy, natural mortality rates • specific biological characteristics • habitat requirements for the species • for Fauna: feeding behaviour and food preference and daily seasonal movement patterns • for Flora: pollination and seed dispersal patterns

Based on current knowledge and as with many other small species of reptiles in Australia, the basic biology of L. lineata is virtually unstudied. The limited information available suggests males are in reproductive condition during spring and females collected in November have two to three (typically three) eggs (Ehmann 1992). The restricted mainland habitat consists of pale sands (calcareous and siliceous) on coastal plains with Banksia and/or Eucalyptus, and coastal and low fixed dunes, supporting heathlands and shrublands, providing a well-developed patchy litter ground cover. This species shelters in the upper layers of loose soil beneath leaf litter, logs, at the base of shrubs, inside bulldozer spoil heaps alongside firebreaks/tracks, in abandoned stick-ant nests, and occasionally in loose soil beneath discarded rubbish.

The disjunct Woodleigh population east of Shark Bay consists of only three individuals pit-trapped in limestone uplands with Acacia grasbyi scrub on reddish soils, a strikingly different environment to their southern counterparts over 700 kilometres away from Perth. These records require additional investigation to conclude identification. In any case the region was thoroughly pit trapped as part of the broader Carnarvon Basin surveys (McKenzie et al. 2000). 22. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Is the species known to have cultural significance for Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available. N/A

23. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/INFORMATION Please include any additional comments or information on the species such as survey or monitoring information, maps that would assist with the consideration of the nomination.

In conclusion, the species current area of occupancy is estimated to be approximately 289 km2. The species’ natural habitat has been highly fragmented through land clearing for development. As a result, the species’ current distribution is also highly fragmented and progressive clearing will reduce existing habitat even more as predicted in the rate of population growth on the Swan Coastal Plain (WAPC 2012). A decline in the number of populations, the area of occupancy and quality of habitat is projected due to the ongoing threats outlined in the threats section above and advocated by multiple authors since 1984 (see references in Section 10).

Population Historical area of Current area of occupancy Loss of area of occupancy occupancy Swan Coastal Plain (Swan 1500 km2 94 km2 1406 km2 River to Mandurah) Swan Coastal Plain 504 km2 146 km2, very few records and 358 km2 (Mandurah to Binningup) not recorded during recent Status uncertain survey in Yalgorup National Park (How et al. 2009). Swan Coastal Plain Tentative 10 km2 Tentative 10 km2, only one 10 km2 subpopulation (Busselton) individual recorded in 1949 and Status uncertain specimen not kept. Shark Bay (Woodleigh) Tentative 10 km2 Tentative 10 km2, only three 0 Status uncertain individuals recorded from one site (McKenzie et al. 2000). Garden Island subpopulation 12 km2 10 km2, no recent surveys but 2 km2 recorded by Robinson et al. 1987; Brooker et al. 1995. Rottnest Island Tentative 19 km2 Tentative 19 km2, none recorded 0 subpopulation since 1986 and not recorded Status uncertain during surveys from 2002-07 (J. Dell, pers. comm.) Swan Coastal Plain (other 46 km2 0 0 available non-protected habitat) Total 2091 km2 289 km2 86% loss of habitat

Table 1 above provides an historical, current and loss of area of occupancy for L. lineata. SOURCES LOCATION NUMBER OF WAM YEAR CONSERVATION REFERENCE RECORDS RECORDED (if LANDS known) WAM South 1 None Fremantle WAM East 2 1966 None Fremantle WAM Wilson 3 1972‒73 None WAM Manning 3 1972, 1977 None WAM Alfred Cove 1 1975 None WAM Queens Park 2 1975 None WAM Singleton 2 1977 None SURVEY Canning Vale 4 1977‒87 None Maryan (1993) SURVEY Jandakot 121 1978‒79, 1986 Jandakot Regional Davidge (1979); Park (2,362ha) How and Dell (1994) OBS “ - 2000-present “ B. Maryan, G. Gaikhorst, D. Robinson pers. obs. WAM The 1 1979 The Spectacles Spectacles Wetlands ‒ Beeliar Regional Park (360 ha) WAM Mandogalup 1 1978 None WAM Beeliar 1 1979 Thomsons Lake Nature Reserve ‒ Beeliar Regional Park (551ha) WAM Wattleup 1 1981 Harry Waring Marsupial Reserve ‒ Beeliar Regional Park (200ha) WAM Murdoch 2 1983 None WAM Myaree 7 1983, 1985‒87 None WAM Bullcreek 2 1984, 1998 None SURVEY Salter Point - 1985 Salter Point Reserve Orr (1986) (7.5ha) SURVEY “ - 1994 Mount Henry (16 ha) How and Dell (2000) WAM North Lake 1 1985 North and Bibra Lake Reserves ‒ Beeliar Regional Park (364ha) SURVEY “ - 2005 “ Bamford and Wilcox (2005) SURVEY “ - 2006 “ GHD (2006) SURVEY “ - 2011 “ Phoenix Environmental Sciences (2011) OBS Forrestdale - 2000-present Forrestdale Lake G. Gaikhorst Nature Reserve pers. obs. (245ha) WAM Yangebup 3 2004 Beeliar Regional Lake Park (103ha) SURVEY “ - 2005 “ Bamford and Wilcox (2005) WAM Bibra Lake 2 2003 Cocos Reserve ‒ Beeliar Regional Park (˂1ha) SURVEY “ - 2003 “ Reynolds, S. (2008) WAM Leeming 1 1992 Ken Hurst Park (49ha) SURVEY “ - 1992 “ Dell and Cooper (1992); How and Dell (1994) OBS Woodman - 1985 Woodman Point B. Maryan pers. Point Regional Park obs. (252ha) SURVEY “ 44 1994‒95 “ How and Dell (2000) OBS Oakford - 1997‒98 Modong Nature B. Maryan pers. Reserve ‒ Jandakot obs. Regional Park (153ha) OBS Hamilton Hill 1 1998 Manning Lake B. Maryan pers. Bushland ‒ Beeliar obs. Regional Park (364 ha) SURVEY Jandakot - 1994 Commonwealth How and Dell Airport Airport Lands (2000) (100ha) WAM Jandakot 4 2000‒01 “ Airport SURVEY “ - 2002 “ Bamford et al. (2002) WAM Kwinana 1 2001 None WAM Anstey 2 2001 Rockingham Lakes Swamp Regional Park (4,270ha) SURVEY Port Kennedy - 1991 Port Kennedy Maryan and Scientific Park ‒ Browne-Cooper Rockingham Lakes (1991) Regional Park OBS North - 2009 C Y O’Connor G. Gaikhorst Coogee Reserve (29ha) pers. obs. OBS Orelia - 2012 None G. Gaikhorst pers. obs. OBS Casuarina - 2013 None G. Gaikhorst pers. obs. SURVEY Baldivis - 2013 Baldivis Children’s Maryan (2013) Forest (19ha)

Table 2 above provides an overview of historical Western Australian Museum records combined with surveys and observations of L. lineata in the southern Perth metropolitan area. Sources are based on Western Australian Museum records (WAM), fauna surveys (SURVEY) and observations (OBS). 24. FURTHER STUDIES Identify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.). No relevant studies or management documentation specifically relate to this species. The applicants are currently planning a future molecular analysis in collaboration with the WA Museum of all populations of L. lineata to fully understand any levels of divergence. Funding is required to properly target-survey this species at significant areas of interest such as the Busselton area and on Rottnest Island.

25. IMAGES OF THE SPECIES Please include images of the species if available.

Conservation Dependent Considerations Note: Only complete this section if nominating for consideration under the conservation dependent category, or if nominating a fish (or harvested marine species) with a management plan. Answer either Q.26 OR Q.27, whichever is more appropriate. 26. CONSERVATION PROGRAM (if species is a fish or harvested marine species, see Q.27 first) a) Give details of the conservation program for which this species is a focus. b) Provide details of how the species would become vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered should the program cease. N/A 27. FISH MANAGEMENT PLANS a) Give details of the plan of management that focuses on the fish. b) Provide details of how the plan provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of and support the recovery of the species, so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised. c) Explain the effect on the fish if the plan of management ceased N/A 28. MANAGEMENT PLAN’S LEGISLATIVE BASIS Is the plan of management (or some component/s of it) in force under Commonwealth or State/Territory law? If so, provide details. N/A

Reviewers and Referencing

29. REVIEWER(S) Has this nomination been peer-reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include their names, current professional positions and contact details. Yes the nomination has been peer reviewed and supported by Dr Paul Doughty and Dr Mike Bamford.

Dr Paul Doughty Curator of Herpetology Department of Terrestrial Zoology Western Australian Museum

Dr Mike Bamford Senior Zoologist

30. REFERENCE LIST Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination. Bamford, M.J., Saffer, V. and Wilcox, J. (2002). Fauna Survey at Jandakot Airport. Unpublished report to Jandakot Airport Holdings. Bamford, M.J. and Wilcox, J. (2005). The amphibians, reptiles and mammals of three reserves in the City of Cockburn: Bibra Lake, Yangebup Lake, Little Rush Lake. Unpublished report to City of Cockburn. Brooker, M.G., Smith, G.T., Saunders, D.A., Ingram, J.A., Leone, J. and deRebeira, C.P.S. (1995). A biological survey of Garden Island, Western Australia: 1. Birds and Reptiles. The Western Australian Naturalist 20: 169‒184. Burbidge, A.A. and Jenkins, R.W.G. (eds.) (1984). Endangered vertebrates of Australia and its island territories. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. 34pp. Bush, B., Maryan, B., Browne-Cooper, R. and Robinson, D. (2010). Field Guide to Reptiles & Frogs of the Perth Region. Western Australian Museum, Welshpool. 183pp. Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E. and Cogger, H.M. (1983). Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Volume 1 Amphibia and Reptilia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 313pp. Cogger, H.G., Cameron, E.E., Sadlier, R.A. and Eggler, P. (1993). The Action Plan for Australian Reptiles. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. 254pp. Davidge, C. (1979). A census of a vertebrate community of small terrestrial vertebrates. Australian Journal of Ecology 4: 165‒170. Davis, R.A. and Brooker, L. (2008). Ecological Linkages and Urban Fauna at Risk on the Swan Coastal Plain, Perth WA. Final Report. The University of Western Australia. Dell, J. and Cooper, N.K. (1992). Vertebrate Fauna of Ken Hurst Park, City of Melville. Unpublished report to City of Melville. Department of Parks and Wildlife (2013). Threatened and Priority Fauna Rankings. Department of Parks and Wildlife website. Egerton, L. (ed.) (1997). Reader’s Digest Encyclopedia of Australian Wildlife. Reader’s Digest (Australia) Pty. Ltd., Sydney. 624pp. Ehmann, H. and Cogger, H. (1985). Australia’s endangered herpetofauna: a review of criteria and policies. Pp 435‒447 in G. Grigg, R. Shine and H. Ehmann (eds.) Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney. Ehmann, H. (1992). Encyclopedia of Australian Animals: Reptiles. Angus & Robertson, Pymble. 495pp. GHD (2006). Fiona Stanley Health Precinct Site Investigation: Fauna Assessment. Unpublished report to Department of Housing and Works. How, R.A. and Dell, J. (1994). The zoogeographic significance of urban bushland remnants to reptiles in the Perth region, Western Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 1: 132‒140. How, R.A. and Dell, J. (2000). Ground vertebrate fauna of Perth’s vegetation remnants: impact of 170 years of urbanisation. Pacific Conservation Biology 6: 198‒217. How, R.A., Maryan, B. and Stevenson, C.A. (2009). An assessment of herpetofauna on near-coastal landforms between Dawesville and Binningup, southern Swan Coastal Plain. Unpublished report to Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation. Kennedy, M. (1990). A complete reference to Australia’s Endangered Species. Ausworld Publishing, Sydney. 192pp. McKenzie, N.L., Rolfe, J.K., Aplin, K.P., Cowan, M.A. and Smith, L.A. (2000). Herpetofauna of the southern Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement 61: 335‒360. Maryan, B. and Browne-Cooper, R. (1991). Amphibians and Reptiles of the Port Kennedy Area. Unpublished report to Ninox Wildlife Consulting. Maryan, B. (1993). Herpetofauna of an Urban area near Perth, Western Australia. The Western Australian Naturalist 19: 174‒183. Maryan, B. (2013). Herpetofauna Survey of the Baldivis Children’s Forest. Unpublished report to City of Rockingham. Nevill, S. (2005). Guide to the Wildlife of the Perth Region. Simon Nevill Publications, Perth. 303pp. Orr, K. (1986). Salter Point Foreshore Management Plan Reserve 23967. City of South Perth. Phoenix Environmental Sciences (2011). Vertebrate Fauna Survey for the Roe Highway Extension Project. Unpublished report to South Metro Connect. Reynolds, S. (2008). Biodiversity attributes of an isolated woodland fragment in metropolitan Perth, Western Australia. The Western Australian Naturalist 26: 99‒111. Robinson, D., Maryan, B. and Browne-Cooper, R. (1987). Herpetofauna of Garden Island. The Western Australian Naturalist 17: 11‒13. Skinner, A., Lee, M.S.Y. and Hutchinson, M.N. (2008). Rapid and repeated limb loss in a clade of scincid lizards. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 310. Storr, G.M. (1971). The genus Lerista (Lacertilia, Scincidae) in Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 54: 59‒75. Storr, G.M. (1984). Species of Flora and Fauna recorded on and around Rottnest Island. In: Rottnest Island Management Plan. Volume 3. Western Australian Planning Commission (2012). Western Australia Tomorrow, Population Report No 7, 2006 to 2026, Forecast Summary, Local Government Areas of WA. 5‒73pp. Wilson, S.K. and Knowles, D.G. (1988). Australia’s Reptiles: A Photographic Reference to the Terrestrial Reptiles of Australia. Collins Australia, Sydney. 447pp.

Nominator's Details Note: Your details are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice regarding the nomination is sought from such parties. If there are multiple nominators please include details below for all nominators. 31. TITLE (e.g. Mr/Mrs/Dr/Professor/etc.)

32. FULL NAME

33. ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)

34. CONTACT DETAILS

35. DECLARATION I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct. Date: 25.03.2015

Lodging your nomination How to lodge your nomination Completed nominations may be lodged either: 1. by email to: [email protected], or 2. by mail to: The Director Species Information and Policy Section Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

* If submitting by mail, please include an electronic copy on memory stick or CD.

Where did you find out about nominating species? The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised as widely as possible.

Please tick DSEWPAC website Australian newspaper X word of mouth X Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one…………………………………………………………………. web search Other………………………………………………………………………………….. Comments:

Attachment A: Further information on completing this form

1. NAME OF NOMINATED SPECIES/SUBSPECIES You may nominate a native species or subspecies for listing under the EPBC Act. If the taxon you wish to nominate is not a species or subspecies (e.g. a family, race, variation or hybrid) please contact the Director of the Species Information and Policy Section, on (02) 6274 1052 for further guidance. For the purposes of this form, subspecies are hereafter referred to as ‘species’. You may wish to search the current list of threatened species in the department’s Species Profile and Threats Database, found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl You can also find a full list of fauna and flora that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora

You will find a list of unsuccessful nominations that have been assessed here: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/unsuccessful-species.html

2. CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY Please specify the EPBC Act listing category in which the species is listed: • Extinct • Extinct in the Wild • Critically Endangered • Endangered • Vulnerable • Conservation Dependent. For more information about these categories, see Attachment B, or, you can also find a full list of fauna and flora that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora

4. REASONS FOR THE NOMINATION TO TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CATEGORY

Please specify the reason for the nomination to transfer to another category.

• Genuine. The change in category is the result of a genuine status change that has taken place since the previous assessment. For example, the change is due to an increase in the rate of decline, a decrease in population or range size or habitat, or declines in these for the first time (owing to increasing/new threats). • Knowledge. The change in category is the result of new knowledge, e.g. owing to new or newly synthesized information about the status of the taxon (e.g. better estimates for population size, range size or rate of decline). • Taxonomy. The new category is different from the previous owing to a taxonomic change adopted during the period since the previous assessment. Such changes include: • newly split (the taxon is newly elevated to species level) • newly described (the taxon is newly described as a species) • newly lumped (the taxon is recognized following lumping of two previously recognized taxa) • no longer valid/recognised (either the taxon is no longer valid e.g. because it is now considered to be a hybrid or variant, form or subspecies of another species, or the Red List Guidelines 11 previously recognized taxon differs from a currently recognized one as a result of a split or lump).

• Mistake. The previous category was applied in error.

• Other. The change in category is the result of other reasons not easily covered by the above, and/or requires further explanation. Examples include change in assessor’s attitude to risk and uncertainty (as defined in section 3.2.3) and changes in this guidelines document.

5. INITIAL LISTING Information on the reasons for the initial listing may be available in the original listing and or conservation advice for the species. You can also find a full list of fauna and flora that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act and advices associated with them here: • http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna • http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora

If there is insufficient information to provide details as to the reasons for the original listing please state this.

7. TAXONOMY • What are the currently accepted scientific and common name(s) for the species (include Indigenous names, where known)? Note any other scientific names that have been used recently. Note the species’ authority and the taxonomic group to which the species belongs (Family name is sufficient for plants; both Order and Family name are required for invertebrates). • Is the species known to hybridise with other species? Describe any cross-breeding with other species in the wild, indicating how frequently and where this occurs.

9 & 11. THREATS For each threat, describe: a. whether the threats are actual or potential ; b. how and where it impacts on this species; c. what its effect has been so far (indicate whether it is known or suspected; present supporting information/research; does it only affect certain populations); d. what is its expected effect in the future (is there supporting research/information; is the threat only suspected; does it only affect certain populations); e. what is the relative importance or magnitude of the threat to the species.

If subject to natural catastrophic events, i.e. events with a low predictability that are likely to severely affect the species, identify the type of event, explain its likely impact and indicate the likelihood of it occurring (e.g. a drought/cyclone in the area every 100 years). Identify and explain any additional biological characteristics particular to the species that are threatening to its survival (e.g. low genetic diversity).

11. THREAT ABATEMENT • Describe how threats are or could be abated. • Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date. • Describe any mitigation measures or approaches that have been developed specifically for the species at identified locations. Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date. • For species nominated as extinct in the wild, provide details of the locations in which the species occurs in captivity and the level of human intervention required to sustain the species.

19. DISTRIBUTION • If the species occurs only within the Australian jurisdiction: - Describe the species’ current distribution within Australia (including its external territories if relevant). - Provide a map, if available, indicating latitude, longitude, map datum and location names. • If the species also occurs outside of the Australian jurisdiction: - Include information on the species' geographic distribution within and outside Australia. - What percentage of the global population occurs in Australia, and what is its significance? - Is the Australian population distinct, geographically isolated, or does part or all of the population migrate into/out of Australia’s jurisdiction? - Explain the relationship between the Australian population and the global population. - Do global threats affect the Australian population? • Give locations of other populations, e.g. captive/propagated populations, populations recently re-introduced to the wild, and sites for proposed population re-introductions. Note if these sites have been identified in recovery plans. Provide latitude, longitude, map datum and location name, where available, in an attached table. - For fauna species only – give details of the species’ home ranges/territories. Describe any relevant daily and seasonal pattern of movement for the species, or other irregular patterns of movement, including relevant arrival/departure dates if migratory. • Does the species occur within an EPBC Act listed ecological community? You will find a list of EPBC Act listed ecological communities here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl

21. BIOLOGY/ECOLOGY • Life Cycle: Provide detail on the age at sexual maturity, average life expectancy, natural mortality rates, and generation length - "Generation length" is defined as the average age of parents of the current cohort (i.e. newborn individuals in the population). Generation length therefore reflects the turnover rate of breeding individuals in a population. Generation length is greater than the age at first breeding and less than the age of the oldest breeding individual, except in species that breed only once. Where generation length varies under threat, the more natural, i.e. pre-disturbance, generation length should be used. It is often calculated as =(longevity + age at maturity)/2. Provide details of the methods used to calculate the generation length. • Reproduction: Provide detail on the reproductive requirements of this species. - Flora: When does the species flower and set fruit? What conditions are needed for this? What is the pollinating and seed dispersal mechanisms? If the species is capable of vegetative reproduction, include a description of how this occurs, the conditions needed and when. Does the species require a disturbance regime (e.g. fire, cleared ground) in order to reproduce? - Fauna: provide an overview of the species' breeding system and breeding success, including: when it breeds; what conditions are needed for breeding; whether there are any breeding behaviours that may make it vulnerable to a threatening process? • Habitat - Provide information on aspect, topography, substrate, climate, forest type, associated species, sympatric species and anything else that is relevant to the species’ habitat. - Explain how habitats are used (e.g. breeding, feeding, roosting, dispersing, basking, etc.) - Does the species use refuge habitat (e.g. in times of fire, drought or flood)? Describe this habitat. • For fauna: - Feeding : Summarise the species’ feeding behaviours, diet, and the timing/seasonality associated with these. Include any behaviour that may make the species vulnerable to a threatening process. - Movement: provide information on daily and seasonal movement patterns.

26 CONSERVATION PROGRAM Note that according to the EPBC Act a fish includes all species of bony fish, sharks, rays, crustaceans, molluscs and other marine organisms, but does not include marine mammals or marine reptiles.

A species that has a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered, may be eligible for listing as conservation dependent.

Please provide information such as: Details of the program, its publication and/or availability for viewing • Who implements the program? • What is the length of the program, date of termination, or is it perpetual? • Is it a single program or a combination of programs and/or actions, and if so, provide details. • Does the program manage the entire range of the species, or part? • If part, to what extent does this prevent the entire species from being eligible for listing as as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered. • What is the estimated probability of decline to vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered for the species if the program ceases. • Does the program address all known threats to the species that would otherwise cause the species to become vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered?

Note: If eligible as conservation dependent based on a specific conservation program (Section 179 (6)(a)), the species cannot also be found to be eligible as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

27 FISH MANAGEMENT PLANS • Provide details of the management plan, its publication and/or availability for viewing. • Who implements the management plan? • What is the length of the management plan, date of termination, or is it perpetual? • Is it a single management plan or a combination of plans, and if so, provide details. • Does the management plan manage the entire range of the species, or part? • Provide details of the management actions that stop the species’ decline, and support its recovery so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised? Note that only legislated actions (in force under law) can be considered in this criterion. • What is the projected recovery under the plan (population numbers, percentage of virgin biomass) and in what timeframe? • Is there an estimation of likelihood of recovery under the plan within the timeframe provided (e.g., % chance of recovery to the identified level)?

Note: If a fish is found eligible as conservation dependent based on a management plan (Section 179 (6)(b)), the species is not necessarily ineligible as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

28 MANAGEMENT PLAN LEGISLATIVE BASIS • Is the plan in its entirety legislated? - If yes, provide details of the legislation. - if no, are specific actions within it legislated? Note, only these actions can be considered in meeting this criterion. Provide specific details of the legislated actions and explain to what extent the plan is not in force under law. To what extent do these management actions provide for the entire species?

35. DECLARATION In signing this nomination form, you agree to grant the Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of the Environment) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to use, reproduce, publish, communicate and distribute information described in the nomination form (i.e. information you have provided that is not referenced to other sources), but excluding any information specifically requested by you to remain confidential, in the Department’s websites and publications and to promote those web sites and publications in any medium. As nominator however your details are automatically subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice regarding information in the nomination is sought. If you subsequently agree to be cited as the author of specific, cited information, you will be acknowledged in all publications and websites in which that information appears, in a manner consistent with the Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (latest edition).

Attachment B: Guidelines for Assessing the Conservation Status of Native Species according to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) and EPBC Regulations 2000

Threatened Species Scientific Committee

Assessments of the conservation status of native species under the EPBC Act are made against statutory criteria which are established under the EPBC Regulations 2000. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee has developed indicative thresholds to help the application of these criteria to the nomination process, and which may be used by the Committee to assess whether a species is eligible for listing (see Part B1 below). It should be noted that the Committee does not apply these thresholds strictly, but has regard to them when making judgments about species in terms of their biological contexts, and on a case-by-case basis.

More detailed information on all categories for threatened species can be found in Section 179 of the EPBC Act, and the statutory criteria can be found in Division 7.1 of the EPBC Regulations 2000. These are available at: www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html.

For questions regarding nominations, please contact: The Director Species Information and Policy Section Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone (02) 6274 1052

Part B1 Statutory listing criteria and indicative thresholds Part B2 Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species

PART B1: Indicative thresholds that may be used by the Committee to determine the eligibility of species for listing under the EPBC Act When assessing a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act listing criteria (as established under the EPBC Regulations 2000), the Committee exercises its judgement to give practical meaning to the subjective terms of the criteria. The Committee does this by considering the information provided to it via the nomination form in the context of the species’ biology and relevant ecological factors, and having regard to the degree of complexity and uncertainty associated with that context and the information provided. The Committee is also informed, but not bound, by indicative thresholds, which have been adapted from “IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1, 2001”. When considering whether to use these thresholds, the Committee judges whether they are appropriate to the species in question. For example, a relatively long-lived species with slow reproduction and relative population stability (such as most mammals) might be more impacted by, for example, a 30% decline in numbers than might a relatively short-lived species with fast reproduction and naturally fluctuating populations (such as most insects). This consideration of biological attributes is placed in the context of matters such as the relative population size so as to judge whether, for the species in question, a decline is substantial, severe or very severe, for the purposes of the criteria for listing. When considering thresholds for assessing commercially harvested marine fish, the Committee refers to the “Commonwealth Government Harvest Strategy Policy”. This policy allows that declines of up to 60% (from pre- fishing biomass levels) are acceptable for commercially harvested fish species where depletion is a managed outcome. Variations in the extent of acceptable decline depend on the biology of the individual species. The Committee is informed, but not bound, by a series of biological reference trigger points (commonly referred to as BLIM and BTARG) provided in the policy for management intervention for species that decline below 60% of their pre- fishing biomass. These interventions include listing assessments.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee’s Indicative Thresholds to judge the subjective terms provided by the criteria for assessment of eligibility for inclusion listing in the categories of vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered in the list of threatened species 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 are (a) direct observation [except A3] clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased. A2 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or (b) an index of abundance appropriate to suspected in the past where the causes of the reduction the taxon may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR based may not be reversible. (c) a decline in area of occupancy, on any extent of occurrence and/or quality of A3 Population reduction, projected or suspected to be met in of the habitat the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) [(a) cannot be following used for A3] (d) actual or potential levels of A4 An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected exploitation population reduction where the time period must include both the past and the future (up to a max. of 100 years in (e) the effects of introduced taxa, future), and where the causes of reduction may not have hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be competitors or parasites reversible.

2. Geographic distribution is precarious for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Very restricted Restricted Limited 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: (a) Severely fragmented OR Number of = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10 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; (number of mature individuals

3. Small population size and decline

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Very low Low Limited 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 a 25% in 3 years or 1 20% in 3 years or 1 10% in 10 years or 3 max. of 100 years in future generation generation generations (whichever is longer) (whichever is longer) (whichever is 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 each ≤ 50 ≤ 250 ≤ 1,000 subpopulation (a) (ii) % of mature individuals in one 90 – 100% 95 – 100% 100% subpopulation = (b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals

4. Very small population

Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Extremely low Very Low Low

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

5. Quantitative Analysis

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

Table 2: Criteria for listing as CONSERVATION DEPENDENT

Conservation Dependent

The species is the focus of a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the Criterion 1 species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

The species is a species of fish; and • The species is the focus of a plan of management that provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, the species so that its chances of long term survival in Criterion 2 nature are maximised; and • The plan of management is in force under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; and Cessation of the plan of management would adversely affect the conservation status of the species.

PART B2: Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species Anthropogenic climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate and is likely to place greater climate stresses on species than has occurred for many thousands of years. All species will be affected by climate change to a greater or lesser degree. Species will respond to these stresses in a range of ways: they may remain in areas where they are able to tolerate or adapt to conditions; move to more suitable habitats where possible; or die out. These guidelines are to assist you in determining whether the important threat posed by climate change has had, is having, or will be an important threat to the nominated species’ and will increase the species’ vulnerability to extinction in the immediate to medium term future (i.e. 10 to 50 years). A species’ vulnerability to climate change will depend on a combination of biological traits and microhabitat use and behaviour, as well as its degree of exposure to climate change.

If climate change is an important threat to the nominated species it is important that you provide referenced information on exactly how climate change might significantly increase the nominated species’ vulnerability to extinction. Please cite the climate change references that you use to argue for significant climate change impact the nominated species over the immediate to medium term time frame (i.e. 10 to 50 years). A species’ sensitivity to change is reflected in its life history characteristics and can be assessed from information provided in the nomination form. References: Hobday AJ, Okey TA, Poloczanska ES, Kunz TJ, and Ricardson AJ (eds) (2006). Impacts of climate change on Australian marine life. Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, Australia. http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/pdf/Hobday%20et%20al%202006.pdf Steffen W, Burbidge A, Hughes L, Kitching R, Lindenmayer D, Musgrave W, Stafford Smith M & Werner P (2009). Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change. CSIRO Publishing. Steffen W, Burbidge A, Hughes L, Kitching R, Lindenmayer D, Musgrave W, Stafford Smith M & Werner P 2009. Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change, Technical Synthesis. Technical synthesis of a report to the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. Department of Climate Change. Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/biodiversity/biodiversity-climatechange.aspx (only available online)

20200421 - Lerista lineata - nomination - final for CA Page 23 of 23 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000

PERTH /"*#

ROTTNEST ISLAND /"

6460000 *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# FREMANTLE *# *#/" *# *# *# *# 6450000 *# *# *#*# *#*# *# *# GARDEN ISLAND /" *# 6440000 *# *# *# *# 6430000

6420000 *#

#

6410000 *

MANDURAH /" 6400000

*#*# 6390000 *# 6380000

*# 6370000 Legend *# L. lineata records ¯ Remnant vegetation 1:430,000 6360000 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 *# Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: GDA 1994 0 4 8 16 24 km 6350000 340000.000000348000.000000356000.000000364000.000000372000.000000380000.000000388000.000000396000.000000404000.000000412000.000000420000.000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 5 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 9 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 9 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 8 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 7 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 6 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 . 3 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 . 3 0 6 0 0 6

.000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 .000000 5

340000 348000 356000 364000 372000 380000 388000 396000 404000 412000 420000 3 6

Paper Size A3 Date 29 Apr 2015 0 2.25 4.5 9 13.5

Kilometers Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: GDA 1994 Grid: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 o Lerista lineata locations

Additional information provided by the nominators regarding Assessment of Lerista lineata under EPBC Act.

1) Do you have any information on the generation length of the species?

There is no available information on captive or wild populations in relation to longevity for many Australian reptiles, therefore our information is purely speculative and based on field observations and the limited studies on the closely-related Comb-eared Skinks (Ctenotus). Breeding adult females with eggs have been recorded in November = spring (Ehmann 1992), resulting in a probable incubation period of over a month (typically 60 days), juveniles would therefore be hatching during January-February = summer which would comprise non-breeding sub-adult individuals in winter. We suspect this species may have a reproductive life for up to two years with sexual maturity achieved after 20 months. Therefore the generational length for the species is 20 months plus 2 months for hatching equating to 22 months of age or approximately 2 years.

2) How did you calculate the historic and current areas of habitat, as provided in the additional table that was emailed to us on 1 May 2015? (ie. what is the source of these data?)

To calculate the historical area of occupancy we looked at known locations of L. lineata and mapped available habitat at that location ie. island or habitat type. To get a current area of occupancy = habitat we overlaid the same points from the historical areas with land gate remnant vegetation areas and calculated the remaining habitat within known lizard locations (see attached map).

3) Over what time period is the calculated reduction in habitat?

This is difficult to determine, however, the development (urban sprawl) on the Swan Coastal Plain has occurred during the past 50 years, based on Storr (1971) redescription of 10 available specimens to now ˃ 200 specimens housed at the Western Australian Museum, mostly a product of surveys for development projects from throughout their known range. It is likely that 50 years is high, however we have taken a conservative approach.

4) Could you provide details of the valid and invalid records for area of occupancy?

Since our submission since May 2015, we have been researching the validity of existing (mainly outlier) records at the Western Australian Museum. The assessment involves going through each record notes and associated data to extrapolate the validity of the locational data. Additionally this included other database records, images and on-ground research. This also involved contacting (where possible) the collectors involved to verify the data. Based on this assessment the provided table (see below) show the valid and invalid records for the species to date. This process is not yet completed, however the table identified several records that are incorrect and need to be removed from the occupancy assessment.

Record location Number of Conclusion Accept or reject the records records Shark Bay 1 Individual recorded from Monkey Mia. Specimen incorrectly identified and Reject record. is Lerista planiventralis. Woodleigh Station 3 There is some doubt regarding the provenance of these specimens. Despite Reject records until their significance, consultation with people involved at the time cannot proven otherwise. recall them. There is a possibility a mix-up has occurred at the WAM during the processing of multiple specimens from different localities. Geraldton 2 Specimens recorded from Geraldton. Incorrect species identification, Reject record. specimens reside in Museum Victoria and are Lerista lineopunctulata. See image below.

Perth 3 Very old specimens with a generic Perth identification location in their Reject records, data; this is not the capture location rather the residing location of the however these specimens which is incorrect. No capture location provided. specimens are lodged with the one below

and likely from the Bullcreek Area. Perth 1 Very old specimen with a generic Perth identification location in their data, Move specimen to this is not the capture location rather the residing location of the specimen Bullcreek area. It is which is incorrect. This specimen does have a capture location provided likely the 3 and is from the Bullcreek region and not Perth as identified in data entry. mentioned above are also from this location. Indian Ocean 1 Appears to be a replicate of an existing animal R71220 already recorded on Reject record. the mainland. This specimen sitting in the Indian ocean. Armadale 11 Incorrect location of these records and need to be moved to Woodman Reject records. Point Busselton 1 Collected in 1949 and not kept therefore cannot be verified. Despite Reject record until biological surveys between Bunbury and Busselton this species has never proven otherwise. been recorded.

5) Could you provide an updated estimate of area of occupancy to account for the developed areas? (for the entire distribution of the species?)

Based on the research undertaken we have excluded the Woodleigh Station location near Shark Bay, the Busselton record is more realistic and retained owing to their existence just north of Bunbury and on Rottnest Island we have refined the species local distribution to 1 km2 based on our observations of available habitat. We have therefore provided a new table (see below).

Population Historical area Current area of Current area of occupancy Loss of area of occupancy of occupancy occupancy May 2015 May 2016 Swan Coastal Plain 1500 km2 94 km2 94 km2 1406 km2 (Swan River to Mandurah) Swan Coastal Plain 504 km2 146 km2, very few 146 km2, very few records and 358 km2 (Mandurah to records and not recorded not recorded during recent Binningup) during recent survey in survey in Yalgorup National Status uncertain Yalgorup National Park Park (How et al. 2009). (How et al. 2009). Swan Coastal Plain Tentative 10 km2 Tentative 10 km2, only Tentative 10 km2, only one 10 km2 subpopulation one individual recorded individual recorded in 1949

(Busselton) in 1949 and specimen and specimen not kept. Status uncertain not kept. Shark Bay Tentative 10 km2 Tentative 10 km2, only 0 0 (Woodleigh) three individuals Status uncertain recorded from one site (McKenzie et al. 2000). Garden Island 12 km2 10 km2, no recent 10 km2, no recent surveys but 2 km2 subpopulation surveys but recorded by recorded by Robinson et al. Status uncertain Robinson et al. 1987; 1987; Brooker et al. 1995. Brooker et al. 1995. Rottnest Island Tentative 19 km2 Tentative 19 km2, none 1 km2, 3 individuals found July 0 subpopulation recorded since 1986 and 2015 in remnant Acacia Status uncertain not recorded during thickets which have been surveys from 2002-07 (J. extensively cleared and Dell, pers. comm.) modified on the island. Swan Coastal Plain 46 km2 0 0 0 (other available non- protected habitat) Total 2091 km2 289 km2 261 km2 86% loss of habitat

In conclusion, we have refined the area of occupancy to include invalid records and research activities we have undertaken in the past year. Therefore the new area of occupancy is 261 km2.

[Provided by the nominators] 10 May 2016 0 340000 350000 360000 370000 380000 390000 400000 410000 420000 0 0 0 7 4 6

PERTH /"*# 0 0

0 ROTTNEST ISLAND Swan 0

6 /"

4 River

6 *# *# *# *# *# *# *# *# FREMANTLE *#

0 /" 0

0 *# *# *# 0

5 *# *# 4 6 *# *# *#*# *#*#

0 # *#

0 * 0

0 GARDEN ISLAND *# 4 /" 4 6 *# *# *# *# 0 0 0 0 3 4 6 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 *# 0 0 0 0 1

4 #

6 * 0 0 0

0 MANDURAH 0 /" 4 6

Peel 0

0 Inlet 0 0

9 *#*# 3 6 *# 0 0 0 0 8 3 6 0

0 *# 0 0 7 3 6 Legend *# Lerista lineata ¯

0 Remnant vegetation 0

0 1:430,000 0 6

3 Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50 6 Projection: Transverse Mercator *# Datum: GDA 1994 0 4 8 16 24 km