Threatened species nomination form (Version 2018) Threatened species nomination For nominations to the WA Threatened Species Scientific Committee (and the Minister for Environment) to amend threatened species listings under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 or their assigned IUCN Red List threat status ranking. Cover Page (Office use only) Species name (scientific and common name): Hesperocolletes douglasi (Douglas’s broad-headed bee) Nomination for (addition, deletion, change): Addition Nominated conservation category and criteria: Critically Endangered D Scientific committee assessment of eligibility against the criteria: A. Population size reduction B. Geographic range C. Small population size and decline D. Very small or restricted population E. Quantitative analysis Outcome: Scientific committee meeting date: Scientific committee comments: Recommendation: Ministerial approval: Government Gazettal/ Legislative effect: Page 1 of 28 Threatened species nomination form Nomination summary (to be completed by nominator) Current conservation status Scientific name: Hesperocolletes douglasi Common name: Douglas’s broad-headed bee Family name: Colletidae 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? Date listed or Listing category i.e. Jurisdiction List or Act name assessed (or critically endangered or Listing criteria i.e. N/A) ‘none’ B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) International IUCN Red List National EPBC Act State of WA Threatened list 8/04/1994 Presumed extinct 10/4/2018 Critically Endangered D TSSC Priority list 1 2 3 4 Other State / Territory Nominated conservation status: category and criteria (including recommended categories for deleted species) Critically endangered (CR) Endangered (EN) Vulnerable (VU) Presumed extinct (EX) Other Specially Protected Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 None (Conservation Dependent) What criteria support the conservation status category above? Refer to Appendix A table ‘Summary of the five criteria (A-E)’ and the D check version that can be completed to indicate all criteria options Eligibility against the criteria 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 The population size is unknown. (evidence of decline) Possibly inferred population size reduction due to reduction in Page 2 of 28 Threatened species nomination form habitat EOO, AOO and quality. The species is presumed extinct on Rottnest Island due to loss of habitat in the past. However this reduction occurred > 10 years/3 generations ago. The Banksia woodland TEC met eligibility for listing due to loss of geographic extent, which may be inferred as a reduction in bee habitat and population size that occurred in the past and is likely to continue into the future. A proportion of this reduction may have occurred in the last 10 years and may occur in the next 10 years, however, actual percentage of reduction applicable to the bee is unknown. Insufficient information to assess B. Geographic range The geographic range is unknown. (EOO and AOO, number of The species is only known to be extant at 1 location, Pinjar, with the locations and evidence of decline) EOO and AOO calculated as 4 km2 based on the 2 km x 2 km grid method. There is the historical loss of EOO and AOO on Rottnest Island and could be continuing decline in mainland habitat EOO, AOO and quality based on the Banksia Woodland TEC, but given the lack of knowledge of the habitat requirements of the species, this cannot be inferred. Insufficient information to assess C. Small population size and decline The population size is unknown. (population size, distribution and There is likely a small population size (< 250 mature individuals) as evidence of decline) there have only been two individuals ever found, even though there has been intensive searching and targeted surveys. There may be a continuing decline based on the TEC habitat and 100 % of individuals are within the 1 known extant subpopulation, but given only one individual found a continuing decline in population cannot be determined. Insufficient information to assess D. Very small or restricted The population size and number of mature individuals is unknown. population There is likely to be a very small (< 50 mature individuals) and (population size) restricted population as there have only been two individuals ever found despite intensive searching, even at known locations, and only one extant location. Assessed as eligible for listing as CR D E. Quantitative analysis NA (statistical probability of extinction) Reasons for change of status Genuine change New knowledge Taxonomic change Previous mistake Other Provide details: The monotypic bee genus Hesperocolletes and its type species H. douglasi were erected in 1965 based on a single male specimen collected in 1938 from Rottnest Island. The species was listed as ‘presumed extinct’ after no other specimens were found, despite extensive searches for the bee in the Perth Region (including Rottnest and Garden Islands). Page 3 of 28 Threatened species nomination form A female of Hesperocolletes collected during 2015 in Banksia woodland on the western extremity of the RAAF Weapons Range east of Muchea on the Swan Coastal Plain is considered by Terry Houston to be H. douglasi, and hence the species is now not considered to be extinct. (Pille Arnold et al. (in prep) The ‘Rediscovery of the ‘extinct’ bee Hesperocolletes douglasi Michener, 1965 (Colletidae: Paracolletinae) in Western Australia and first description of the female’) Surveys of the collection site failed to re-locate the species, indicating that the species was not common at the collection site. Summary of assessment information (detailed information to be provided in the relevant sections of the form) EOO 4 km2 AOO 4 km2 Generation 1 year length (as per IUCN guidelines, EOO cannot (One 2 km x 2 km grid be less than AOO, therefore EOO square) must be at least equal to AOO) No. locations 1 Severely fragmented Yes No Unknown No. subpopulations 1 No. mature individuals Unknown Percentage global population within WA 100 % Percentage global population within Australia 100 % Percentage population decline over 10 years or 3 generations Unknown Page 4 of 28 Threatened species nomination form Summary of subpopulation information (detailed information to be provided in the relevant sections of the form) Subpopulation Land tenure Survey information: Area of Site / habitat Condition Threats Specific management actions location Date of survey and subpopulation (note if past, present or future) No. mature individuals Extant Pinjar UCL (Dept. 8 October 2015 4 km2 (One “The collection site Past, present, future: Vegetation clearing Prevent negative impacts of Defence) 2 km x 2 km was in an area of and land development, land degradation, to the Banksia woodland in (1 female grid square) almost pristine Banksia fire, herbivore grazing and possibly the the vicinity to where the collected) woodland but use of pesticides. bee was captured. dissected by roads and Prescribed burns not to be firebreaks.” (Pille conducted during the time Arnold et al., in prep) when adults are flying (spring), but may be when the immature stage is below ground (autumn, winter). Presumed extinct Rottnest Island Crown 9-12 November 0 No details of the Past: Land degradation, fire, and NA Reserve 1938 circumstances of herbivore grazing. (Class A) capture (i.e. flowers (1 male collected) Dramatic changes to the island vegetation visited, vegetation has occurred since European settlement; type) or exact location caused by human activities, frequent fire on the island were and overgrazing by quokkas and that recorded (Houston probably eliminated the bee’s food plants 2014) (Burbidge 2004). However as the bee’s floral preferences are not yet known, and not all native flora has been eliminated on the island and not every kind of flowering plant was surveyed on the island, it is possible that the bee is still extant on the island (Houston pers. comm. 2018). Page 5 of 28 Threatened species nomination form Nomination detail Please refer to the Departments guidelines on nominating species for amendment of the Western Australian threatened species lists at http://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants-animals/threatened- species/Listings/Threatened_Species_Nomination_Guidelines_2014.pdf For technical information on terminology used in this form, and the intent of information requirements, as they relate to an assessment of this nomination against the IUCN Red List criteria, refer to the 2001 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 3.1 Second Edition http://s3.amazonaws.com/iucnredlist-newcms/staging/public/attachments/3192/redlist_cats_crit_en.pdf and Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 13 (March 2017) http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/RedListGuidelines.pdf Section 1: Taxonomy 1.1 Current taxonomy Species name and Author: Hesperocolletes douglasi Michener, 1965 Subspecies name(s) and Author: NA Is the species/subspecies conventionally accepted? Yes No Is there any controversy