Preliminary Draft Design considerations for post natural disaster (fire...

Preliminary Draft Design considerations for post natural disaster

(fire) on-ground assessment of status of species, ecological communities, habitats and threats

Dr Darren Southwell, The University of Melbourne April 2020

Kangaroo Island glossy black-cockatoo at a breeding site that escaped the Jan 2020 fires. Photo Nicolas Rakotopare

1

Preliminary Draft – Design considerations for post natural disaster (fire) on-ground

assessment of status of species, ecological communities, habitats and threats

Darren Southwell, University of Melbourne

Purpose: This initial version is intended to provide guidance for the delivery of projects funded by the Wildlife and Habitat Recovery Program that include assessments, however its value is likely to extend to other stakeholders undertaking on-ground assessments. The document is a preliminary draft. It will be updated with more specific guidelines for rapid reconnaissance surveys after further consultation with species experts. Consideration will be given to guidance for plants following release of the list of priority plants requiring intervention following the bushfires. This next, more mature, iteration of the document will be available to guide project delivery.

2

Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 3

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Aim of document .................................................................................................................................... 3

Step 1: Identify target species that may occur in fire affected region ................................................... 4

Step 2: Determine the optimal timing of surveys ................................................................................... 5

Step 3: Determine the optimal location of surveys ................................................................................ 5

Step 4: Establishing a reconnaissance site .............................................................................................. 6

Step 5: Measuring fire severity ............................................................................................................... 6

Step 6: Measuring habitat condition ...................................................................................................... 7

Step 7: Conducting surveys for priority species or communities ........................................................... 7

Selecting the entity to be measured ................................................................................................... 7

Select preferred sampling method for target species ........................................................................ 8

Threatened ecological communities ................................................................................................. 13

Select preferred sampling method for vertebrate predator threats ................................................ 13

Step 8: Decide on minimum survey effort ............................................................................................ 14

Step 9: Ensure appropriate personnel and ethics approval ................................................................. 15

Step 10: Data recording and management ........................................................................................... 15

Published detectability studies for priority species .............................................................................. 16

Birds .................................................................................................................................................. 16

Mammals .......................................................................................................................................... 32

Fish .................................................................................................................................................... 52

Frogs .................................................................................................................................................. 69

Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................... 86

Reptiles ............................................................................................................................................. 91

Spiny crayfish .................................................................................................................................. 114

References .......................................................................................................................................... 115

3

Executive summary The purpose of this document is to highlight design considerations for conducting post-fire reconnaissance surveys to assess fire severity, habitat condition and threats, as well as the status of priority threatened species and ecological communities listed by the Federal Government as most vulnerable to the 2019-20 wildfires. It reviews the published literature on the preferred sampling method(s), minimum survey effort and the optimal timing of surveys to detect priority species and faunal threats with a high degree of confidence. Careful consideration of these factors in the design of post-fire reconnaissance surveys will maximise the chance of understanding the impact of the fires while providing the necessary information to prioritise management.

This initial version of the document is intended to provide funding applicants to the Wildlife and Habitat Bushfire Recovery Program with guidance in the development of their project applications; however, its value is likely to extend to other stakeholders undertaking on-ground assessments. It is a preliminary draft and will be updated with more specific guidelines after consultation with species experts. Consideration will be given to guidance for plants following release of the list of priority plants requiring intervention following the bushfires. This next, more mature, iteration of the document will be available to guide project delivery.

Background The 2019-20 wildfires in southern Australia have had an unprecedented impact on native species and ecological communities. Monitoring is crucial for quantifying the impact of such catastrophic events, for prescribing management interventions, and for measuring the recovery of populations over space and time (Possingham et al. 2012). However, designing large-scale, multi-species monitoring programs is complex: decisions must be made about where to monitor, what to record, the type(s) of sampling methods, the duration of monitoring, the arrangement of monitoring sites, and the frequency and intensity of sampling (Southwell et al. 2019). These decisions are further complicated by limited budget, logistical and time constraints, and the fact that monitoring is already underway for many species and environments across a range of jurisdictions.

On 11th February 2020, the Australian Government released a list of threatened faunal species considered most vulnerable to the 2019-20 wildfires (Legge et al. 2020). The species were selected by the Wildlife and Threatened Species Bushfire Recovery Expert Panel based on their degree of range overlap with the fires and an assessment of their ecological traits such as dispersal ability. The initial assessment provided a provisional list of 113 species which included 20 reptile species, 17 frog species, 13 bird species, 19 mammal species, 5 invertebrates, 22 crayfish and 17 fish. On 24th March, a further 8 species were added to this list and two species were removed, increasing the number of priority faunal species to 119. A list of Threatened Ecological Communities with more than 10% of their range burnt has also been released, while assessments of vascular plants and invertebrates are in progress.

Aim of document The aim of this document is to highlight preliminary design considerations for how, where and when to survey for the priority threatened species and ecological communities, as well as how to assess fire severity, habitat condition and faunal threats. While long-term

4

monitoring should aim to track the recovery of fire affected species and communities over time, the focus here is how to conduct rapid reconnaissance surveys to better understand the immediate impact of the fires on the distribution and status of listed species and communities.

Post-fire reconnaissance surveys are already being conducted by other land management organisations for some of the listed priority species. The goal of this project is to provide guidance from a national perspective on how and where to survey while complementing these important survey efforts already underway. This will identify regions/species currently under-represented in post-fire assessments and promote a unified approach to on-ground surveys.

Reconnaissance surveys should consider where to survey, the choice of sampling method(s), and the minimum survey effort required to have a high chance at detecting target species. This document describes 10 key steps required for effective surveys, with preliminary guidance on:

• preferred sampling method(s);• minimum survey effort required to ensure species can be declared absent with a high

degree of confidence;• how to assess fire severity, habitat condition and threats.

Importantly, this document is preliminary as it is the first step in developing reconnaissance survey guidelines. It does not provide information for all species and does not cover all considerations for effective threatened species monitoring. The document will be updated with more reliable species-specific guidelines after further consultation with species experts. More in-depth discussions of monitoring principles and practice can be found in Legge et al. (2018) and Lindenmayer et al. (2020).

Work is also underway to developed species distribution models for 119 faunal species. These models will be combined with fire severity maps in a spatial optimisation to provide further guidance on where to prioritise new reconnaissance surveys. The spatial optimisation will account for reconnaissance surveys already underway by other organisations to identify species and/or regions that are currently under-represented in post-fire survey efforts.

Step 1: Identify target species that may occur in fire affected region The first step is to clearly identify the monitoring objective and reason for surveying. Many monitoring programs fail because the monitoring objective for target species is not formulated early in the design or planning phase (Lindenmayer et al. 2020). Once this is clear, it is important to identify target species or ecological communities of interest as this will determine where, how and when to survey. Alternatively, a region of interest could be chosen first followed by the species or communities likely to occur at that location. This can be determined from published range maps (see final section of this document), species distribution models (currently being developed for the 119 priority species), or by inspecting biodiversity atlas data, such as the Atlas of Living Australia.

5

Step 2: Determine the optimal timing of surveys Early assessment will inform where, when, and how management should be deployed to avoid further population declines, local extirpation, and at worst, extinction. However, rapid reconnaissance surveys should be conducted as soon as burnt areas are declared safe. Fire grounds and areas with burnt vegetation are dangerous places to be. Death or serious injury may result from entering bushfire affected areas, for example due to falling trees or hazardous materials. In addition, the timing of surveys should also consider the seasonal activity and breeding patterns of target species. Some amphibians, reptiles or migratory mammals and birds may not be present or most active at burnt sites when they are first accessible (Lemckert and Mahony 2008). For example, many frog and reptile surveys are often more productive during the summer months (Department of Environment 2010). This can complicate decisions about when to survey as trade-offs might exist between delaying surveys to maximise detection and acting immediately to reduce the risk of further declines of fire affected populations.

Step 3: Determine the optimal location of surveys Deciding where to survey is crucial for understanding the impact of the fires on the status and distribution of priority species and communities. The size of the target species’ range will influence how survey locations are chosen. For species with restricted distributions, known only from a handful of locations, it will likely be possible to survey all known populations. For example, the critically endangered Stocky Galaxias (Galaxias tantangara) only occurs in single stretch of the Tantangara Creek in Kosciuszko National Park, New South Wales. Surveys should focus on this stretch of creek to determine the status of this population unless the goal is to also discover new populations elsewhere.

For species covering larger geographic extents, the location of surveys should consider the distribution of target species prior to the fires. Species distribution models are currently being developed for the 119 priority species to further inform the optimal positioning of sites within known ranges, while complementing existing surveys already underway by other organisations. Ideally, surveys should be stratified across fire severity classes so that the response of populations (i.e. species occupancy or abundance) to variation in fire severity can be modelled (Swan et al. 2018). Site accessibility should also be considered: positioning sites that are more accessible (i.e. within close proximity to roads) can reduce travel costs, which in turn, can increase either the number of sites sampled or the time spent surveying.

A challenge in assessing the impact of fire on species persistence is that populations fluctuate naturally over time. Experimental ‘before-after’ or ‘before-after-control-impact’ survey designs are needed to disentangle seasonal variation from population change in response to fire. In addition to stratifying surveys across fire severity classes, new sites could, where possible, be established in regions with existing or historical population data for target species. This would help compare the current status of populations with baseline trends, improving inferences that can be made about the impact of fires. However, if this is possible, care should be taken to ensure the ‘after’ survey is conducted at a similar time of year to the ‘before’ surveys, using consistent sampling methodologies so that data are compatible.

6

It is recognised that choices in this step, for example on where to survey and how many survey locations to include, are essentially about finding a ‘sweet spot’ in the trade-off between available resources and the power of information gathered through the survey. It is not possible to provide ‘top-down’ guidance in this document that will be meaningful for every situation in which such judgements will need to be made. However, it is important that managers are as explicit as possible about the nature of those decisions. This plays out practically in giving attention to documenting the survey activity in well described consistent metadata, as discussed in Step 10 below.

Step 4: Establishing a reconnaissance site Once in the field, the area of a site should be clearly defined to standardise survey effort. Standardised monitoring effort means that occurrence, abundance or activity data can be more easily compared between sites (i.e. inventory) or within sites over time (if surveys are repeated to monitor population recoveries). Many of the priority listed terrestrial vertebrate fauna and habitat assessment sampling methods are typically conducted within a 100 x 100 m plot. However, it may be necessary to adjust the configuration or area of a site depending on the target species’ ecology, behaviour or preference for critical habitat features, such as riparian strips or rocky outcrops.

Step 5: Measuring fire severity Fire severity is a measure of the loss of above ground and below ground organic matter caused by fire. Fire severity directly influences the mortality of plants and the subsequent availability of resources and light. For animals, it influences whether species survive a fire event, and then the amount of shelter and resources available to surviving individuals afterwards. Common above ground measures of fire severity include height and degree of crown consumption and scorch, as well as understorey and ground litter cover. In heathlands and potentially some woodlands, the minimum twig diameter method has been shown to be effective (Whight and Bradstock 1999). This involves calculating the mean minimum diameter of branch tips remaining after fire. Measuring fire severity and the mosaic of burnt and unburnt areas at reconnaissance sites can help understand the distribution and abundance of priority species in relation to the amount and level of fire disturbance.

Remote sensing is increasingly being used to map the extent and severity of fires both in real time and after the event. Many remotely sensed indices of fire severity are reported in the literature. For example, the Normalised Burn Ratio (NBR) and Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) can estimate fire severity and the overall impact of fire on canopy and understorey vegetation cover. Comparisons of NBR and NDVI have shown that NBR is better than NDVI at discriminating lower fire severities which predominantly effect the understorey vegetation. However, both indices discriminate the same level of severity when assessing a hot burn site impacted by a high severity crown fire, which predominantly removes canopy cover (Chafer et al., 2004).

The use of high-resolution (20 cm or less) colour and infra-red aerial photography has substantially improved fire severity and extent mapping in recent years. For example, McCarthy et al. (2017) remotely assessed burnt area mosaics and patchiness in southern Australian eucalypt forests where tree canopy densities were > 30% cover. Importantly, they

7

accurately mapped the impact of fire severity on the understory layer beneath green canopies that were not damaged by fire. This combination of colour and infra-red imagery is a significant methodological improvement for post-fire severity assessments.

On-ground assessment of fire severity is crucial for ground-truthing remotely sensed classification of fire severity classes. On-ground methods for assessing fire severity can broadly be divided into those that measure the above ground impacts of fire and those that measure processes occurring at or below the soil surface. Fire severity above the ground is usually assessed by measuring the height of canopy scorch and canopy scorch volume. The edges of fire severity classes and burnt/unburnt areas can also be walked with a GPS to ground truth remotely sensed maps. Below the ground, post fire soil samples can measure charring depth as an indicator of fire severity.

This project will explore options for the collection of on-ground fire severity data in consultation with state and territory agencies. For example, the NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub will soon be launching a citizen science app Bush After Fire underpinned by the Atlas of Living Australia’s BioCollect tool. The app simplifies the collection of on-ground data for ground-truthing of fire severity mapping.

Step 6: Measuring habitat condition Measuring the on-ground habitat condition at a site is important for identifying the features that have enhanced population persistence (e.g. logs and rocks) and for identifying the regions or populations in most need of management. Habitat assessment methods vary among different state and federal policies; for example Victoria uses the Habitat Hectare method (Parkes et al. 2003), Queensland use BioCondition assessments (Department of Science Information Technology Innovation and the Arts 2015) and NSW use the Biodiversity Assessment Method (NSW Department of Planning 2020). While these methods have their own way of measuring and valuing habitat and landscape attributes (i.e. canopy cover, understorey cover etc), they generally do not target important habitat features unique to specific rare or threatened species.

On-ground measures of habitat condition should therefore reflect the behaviour and ecology of target species. For example, measuring understorey cover will be important for ground-dwelling mammals; the presence of tree hollows for birds and arboreal mammals; the presence of logs, leaf litter and rocks for reptiles, mammals and invertebrates, or; water turbidity for fish and crayfish. Where possible, species-specific habitat attributes should be measured consistently across sites. However, maintaining consistency might be challenging for widely distributed species spanning multiple jurisdictions or when multiple organisations are conducting surveys. This project will work scientific experts to improve guidance on how habitat condition should be measured for target species.

Step 7: Conducting surveys for priority species or communities Selecting the entity to be measured

Decisions must be made on what population metric to measure during surveys. A complete census of populations might be possible for range restricted species known from only a handful of sites. Alternatively, surveys might aim to confirm species occupancy at a site. Presence-absence data is often much easier and cheaper to collect than abundance or

8

activity data because only direct or indirect evidence of an individual being present is required. However, care should be taken to ensure that indirect signs such as scats were not produced before the fires, resulting in false-presences. For this reason, direct signs of occupancy are far preferable than indirect signs unless the age of the sign can be reliably confirmed.

Select preferred sampling method for target species

The choice of sampling method will be determined by the monitoring objective and target species. Many of the priority species can be detected using ‘generic’ sampling methods commonly used in inventory surveys, such as pitfall trapping, funnel trapping, cage trapping, Elliott trapping, diurnal active searches etc (Table 1). However, some species might require more specialised equipment or approaches due to their behaviour, ecology or localised habitat requirements. For example, the freshwater turtles listed should require a combination of specialised methods, such as snorkelling or seine netting. A brief description of preferred sampling methods with links to standardised protocols is presented in Table 1.

9

Table 1: Description of primary sampling methods used to detect target species and links to standardised protocols

Method Description Target species Considerations and protocols Pitfall trapping PVC pipe or buckets sunk into the ground, so

the rim is level with the surface. A drift fence erected between buckets directs small animals into the bucket traps.

Ground dwelling amphibians, reptiles, mammals, spiders

The number, dimensions (e.g., width and depth of traps) and array of pitfall traps may be influenced by the habitat being surveyed or the target species. Larger animals (e.g., snakes and goannas) can escape. Further discussion on survey protocols can be found at: https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed

Funnel trapping A soft mesh funnel shaped trap that is difficult for animals to escape from due to the shape of the entrances.

Reptiles (especially snakes), but can catch small mammals, ground-dwelling birds, invertebrates

The number and array of traps can be influenced by the habitat being surveyed or the target species. Can be added to pitfall arrays or used independently. Further discussion on survey protocols can be found at https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-reptiles-guidelines-detecting-reptiles-listed

Diurnal active search

Involves actively searching site for animals present. Can involve turning rocks and logs, looking under bark for cryptic species.

Reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, invertebrates

The optimal time to conduct searches will vary depending on the season, region, target species and local weather conditions. Surveyors should be aware of observer bias. Further discussion on survey protocols can be found at https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed

Nocturnal spotlight search

Involves actively searching a site during night for eyeshine (with a spotlight) or listening for activity

Reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, spiders

Surveyors should be aware of observer bias and local weather conditions. Further discussion on survey protocols can be found at:

https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed



https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-reptiles-guidelines-detecting-reptiles-listed





10


Box trapping Collapsible aluminium box traps (e.g. Elliot traps) usually baited

Mammals, but can catch reptiles, amphibians, small birds

The number and arrangement of box traps as well as the bait type will influence the ability to detect species. Further discussion on survey protocols can be found at https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed

Cage trapping Wire mesh cage with a door that closes when a baited trigger is activated

Medium sized mammals

Can have poor detectability compared to camera traps. May not be necessary if the objective is to determine if a species is present. Further discussion on survey protocols can be found at https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed

Diurnal area bird survey

Active area search to provide direct census of diurnal bird occurrence or abundance

Birds Requires highly skilled observers. Bird activity fluctuates widely, although best time to survey is typically in the morning. Time spent surveying will depend on the target species and habitat. Repeat surveys recommended over consecutive days to improve detectability. Further discussion on survey protocols can be found at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/107052eb-2041-45b9-9296-b5f514493ae0/files/survey-guidelines-birds-april-2017.pdf https://birdata.birdlife.org.au/survey-techniques

Point transect bird survey

Conducting a series of point surveys along a transect at regular intervals

Birds See points above http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/107052eb-2041-45b9-9296-b5f514493ae0/files/survey-guidelines-birds-april-2017.pdf https://birdata.birdlife.org.au/survey-techniques










http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/107052eb-2041-45b9-9296-b5f514493ae0/files/survey-guidelines-birds-april-2017.pdf



https://birdata.birdlife.org.au/survey-techniques





11

Camera trapping

Deploying a fixed digital camera (or array of cameras) to capture images or video of target species. Cameras can be positioned vertically or horizontally depending on the target species. Cameras are usually baited but this depends on the target species.

Mammals, but can detect large reptiles, ground dwelling birds

Careful consideration should be given to the number, arrangement and placement of cameras, as well as camera model and settings. Can be left for long periods of time to increase detectability. Surveys should account for the cost and time required to process large batches of photos. The camera model should remain consistent across space and time. Meek et al. (2014) provides a good summary of camera trapping protocols.

Call playback A species call is played to elicit a response from the target species

Birds, mammals Often conducted during terrestrial bird surveys or before spotlighting. Local weather conditions can influence detectability https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed https://birdata.birdlife.org.au/survey-techniques

Echo-location call detection

Recordings of bat calls recorded and viewed/analysed on a sonogram.

Mammals Experienced personnel and specialised equipment required. The choice of bat detector will depend on the purpose and design of the survey. Careful consideration should be given to the local weather conditions http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2f420bf1-d9e4-44ec-a69c-07316cb81086/files/survey-guidelines-bats.pdf

Scat and sign search

Active search of plot for secondary signs of occupancy. Sign includes tracks, scratches, feeding marks, scats, nests, roosts, hair or feathers

Mammals, birds, reptiles

The number or incidence of sign is often used as an index of abundance. Consideration should be given to the age of the sign as it might remain at a site for much longer than the species. https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed

Electrofishing Either mounted on a boat or backpack. Passes an electrical current through the water, stunning fish so they can be netting and processed

Fish, spiny crayfish

Mostly limited to freshwater https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-fish-guidelines-detecting-fish-listed-threatened





http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2f420bf1-d9e4-44ec-a69c-07316cb81086/files/survey-guidelines-bats.pdf





https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-fish-guidelines-detecting-fish-listed-threatened



12

Snorkelling Individuals located by searching the sides and bottoms of streams

Reptiles (turtles) Water clarity influences detectability. Observer skill and experience also has a large effect on detectability. Time spent searching and number of observers influences detectability https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-fish-guidelines-detecting-fish-listed-threatened

Harp trap Consist of vertically strung nylon lines held in an aluminium frame above a calico bag.

Mammals (bats) Useful for detecting the presence of species whose calls cannot be separated or identified using bat detectors http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2f420bf1-d9e4-44ec-a69c-07316cb81086/files/survey-guidelines-bats.pdf

Seine netting Reptiles (turtles) Usually requires special authorisation by the relevant fishing authority. https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-reptiles-guidelines-detecting-reptiles-listed

Automatic acoustic recording

Sensors deployed remotely to record an individuals vocal behaviour

Birds, mammals, frogs

Recording quality will depend on weather conditions. Can require manual study of sound recordings unless detection is automated. Further information can found in Stowell et al. (2019)

eDNA DNA is extracted and then amplified from water or sediment samples.

Potentially all taxonomic groups

Can only determine presence or absence. Requires advanced molecular methods and computational tools. Further information can found in Ruppert et al. (2019).








13

Threatened ecological communities

Many of the principles of monitoring for threatened species and the condition of their habitat also apply to monitoring of threatened ecological communities. However, an assessment of an ecological community in a burnt area might also include measures of species composition, diversity and abundance, areal extent, fragmentation, disturbance history and successional stage. Unfortunately, few standardised monitoring protocols are available for ecological communities. This project will work with states and territories and other scientific experts to improve guidance on how the impact of fires on ecological communities should be measured.

Select preferred sampling method for vertebrate predator threats

Surveys should measure and record the presence and intensity of threats on priority species and communities. Threats might include invasive predators (i.e. foxes, cats, deer, pigs etc), disease or increased competition or predation by native species. The impact of threats on threatened species can become more acute post-fire. For example, fox and cat densities can increase in the weeks to months following fires as individuals move in from surrounding unburnt areas. Hunting success can also increase during this period as there is usually less ground cover for native species to seek refuge. This means the timing of post-fire surveys for invasive predators is critical. Delaying surveys could miss the period of time when levels of threat on priority species are highest.

A range of sampling methods exist for invasive predator surveys. Common sampling methods for foxes and cats include live trapping, spotlight surveys, sand pad surveys, camera-traps and scat collection. Live trapping is the least feasible method as invasive predators can be very trap-shy, but if paired with telemetry tracking can provide valuable information on ranging behaviour. Spotlight surveys and sand pad monitoring are more feasible, but may not allow individual identification of foxes and can be biased by behavioural changes (e.g. avoiding spotlight shine). Fox scat surveys can estimate both density and dietary changes, but do not provide information on any other species and rely on scats being deposited after the fire event.

Camera trapping is probably the most commonly used sampling method for foxes and cats as it allows for occupancy and activity analyses for many species over relatively long time frames, increasing the probability of detection. Camera-traps are also the safest survey tool in recently burnt areas as they only require a single deployment and retrieval. However, the choice of the camera model, settings, placement (on or off roads), as well as whether cameras are baited will influence their effectiveness (Meek et al. 2014). For example, monitoring threats passively with cameras placed off-tracks without lures will result in fewer detections (Raiter et al. 2018), but might better reflect the level of threat placed on a species at a site (van Hespen et al. 2019).

The choice of sampling method for threats will also depend on what is being measured. Estimating invasive predator density robustly requires capture-recapture methods, which involves identifying individuals. Some individual feral cats can be identified through camera-trap photographs as they have unique natural coat markings. Foxes lack unique markings and therefore cannot be reliably identified through camera-traps. This means that camera trapping can only estimate fox activity (i.e. the number of capture events) or occupancy, rather than abundance or density. Genetic sampling of large numbers of fox scats collected

14

along forest tracks can estimate fox densities, although this method is relatively time consuming and costly.

Step 8: Decide on minimum survey effort Post-fire reconnaissance surveys should account for sources of uncertainty inherent in biodiversity sampling (Wintle et al. 2004). One of the most important sources of uncertainty to consider is detectability (MacKenzie et al. 2002). Species presence at a site will be determined through direct observation of the animal or indirect observation of signs. However, confirming the true absence of a species is challenging because detection probabilities are often much less than one. This has important implications for post-fire reconnaissance surveys because species can be falsely declared as absent (known as the false-absence rate), potentially triggering management interventions towards species in less need than others.

It is therefore essential to consider the minimum survey effort required for target species to minimise the chance of false-absences (Garrard et al. 2008). Ideally, knowing detection probabilities for a unit of survey effort with the preferred sampling method (i.e. a night of camera trapping) will inform how many times a survey should be repeated to be confident in a true absence. The final section of this report summarises published detectability estimates for some of the 119 priority species. It is important to note that almost all of the published estimates were reported during surveys in unburnt habitat. It is highly likely that detectability will be much lower in burnt habitat due to a lower density of animals and decreased movement than what is summarised here. The recommended survey effort reported here should therefore be treated as a minimum and further discussed with species experts.

An additional limitation is that published estimates of detectability are available for only a fraction of the 119 priority species. Information on how detectability might vary across both space and time is also sparse. In these situations, the minimum survey effort required to reduce the chance of false-absences should be determined in close consultation with species experts. Repeatedly surveying sites using the preferred detection method(s) will then increase the probability of detection, but also allow for detection probabilities to be estimated for the poorly studied species, guiding subsequent surveys.

Patterns of faunal activity often vary temporally in response to the time of day (day versus night), lunar cycle, temperature, humidity and seasonally (e.g. spring versus winter), influencing detectability. In particular, the detection of frogs and reptiles is one of the most variable amongst all faunal groups, as their activity is patchy at both temporal and spatial scales. They are strongly influenced by weather conditions and many are only conspicuous at breeding locations when weather conditions are suitable (e.g. after heavy rain). Detectability, and therefore survey effort, can be minimised or accounted for by:

• not undertaking surveys in inclement weather • Recording conditions at the time of each survey in a systematic and standardised

manner • training survey staff as a group against a standard prior to the surveys to improve

repeatability (precision) and accuracy by reducing bias in the application of survey techniques and approaches

15

Step 9: Ensure appropriate personnel and ethics approval Success of surveys is strongly dependent on the adequate training of field staff. In most cases, the preferred sampling approach will require experienced field personnel with good biological identification skills. For example, diurnal bird searches require familiarity with species calls and adequate knowledge of bird behaviour. Surveys must also be conducted with the appropriate permits and animal ethics approval.

Step 10: Data recording and management Data management is fundamental to extending the value of survey effort across different landscapes and across time. If survey data are not well described and repeatable, it is impossible to make meaningful use of them apart from the immediate insight they provide to the surveyor on the day of survey. Data from all surveys must therefore be well described and published, with appropriate protection of location information for threatened species (as per the Commonwealth’s Sensitive Ecological Data Policy). This project will explore alternative repositories for gathering and storing data collected during reconnaissance surveys. For example, a national repository for site ecological data (known as SHaRED) has been established within the Terrestrial Ecological Research Network. The repository facility.

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/246e674a-feb1-4399-a678-be9f4b6a6800/files/sensitive-ecological-data-access-mgt-policy.pdf

https://www.tern.org.au/shared-data/

16

Published detectability studies for priority species

Note: Information in the following section is preliminary. The purpose, at this stage, is to guide readers towards published detectability estimates or existing survey guidelines. Preferred sampling methods and minimum survey effort will be updated, where possible, after further consultation with species experts. Range maps (sourced from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species website and the National Environmental Significance Database) will be replaced with species distribution models and a spatial optimisation will guide where best to survey within burnt regions without duplicating existing survey effort.

Also note that EPBC listed status may have changed since preparation of this document. Please check the Department of Agriculture, Water and Energy website for latest listing.

Birds Bassian Thrush (South Australian), Western Bassian Thrush

Taxonomic group: Birds

Scientific name: Zoothera lunulata halmaturina

EPBC listed status: Vulnerable

State: SA

Description and habitat: Cryptic species that forages amongst dense vegetation. Is easily flushed during searches.

Preferred sampling method: Area search or point survey along transect

Timing of surveys: Dawn and dusk

Single visit detection probability: No published estimates

Minimum survey effort: No published estimates

References and further reading:

17

Black-faced Monarch


Scientific name Monarcha melanopsis

EPBC listed status: Migratory

State: NSW Qld Vic

Description and habitat: Found in eucalypt woodlands, rainforests, coastal scrub and damp gullies.


Timing of surveys: Migrant to south-eastern Australia from September – March.

Single visit detection probability: Detectability for 10 min point count estimated at 0.352 (± 0.056) (Pavlacky et al. 2015)

Minimum survey effort: Seven 10 minute point surveys needed for a 0.95 detection probability


Pavlacky (2015) Integrating life history traits and forest structure to evaluate the vulnerability of rainforest birds along gradients of deforestation and fragmentation in eastern Australia, Biological Conservation 188:89-99

*Detectability estimates are based on surveys in unburnt areas.

18

Eastern Bristlebird


Scientific name Dasyornis brachypterus

EPBC listed status: Endangered

State: NSW Qld Vic

Description and habitat: Is shy, cryptic species mostly occurring in dense, coastal vegetation. They are commonly detected by their sharp alarm-call or loud, melodic song. They can be also detected scampering across open clearings.

Preferred sampling method: Area search or point survey along transect (with call playback)

Timing of surveys: Dusk, dawn

Single visit detection probability: Detectability for 5 min point count estimated at 0.23 (± 0.043) in unburned and 0.16 (± 0.031) in burned landscapes (Lindenmayer et al. 2009a, Lindenmayer et al. 2009b).

Minimum survey effort: Federal guidelines recommend 9 hours of transects/area searches over 3 days, 5 hours of call playback over 5 days (Department of the Environment 2017). Twelve 5 min surveys gives 0.96 detection probability in unburned areas. Eighteen 5 min surveys gives 0.95 probability in burned areas (Lindenmayer et al. 2009a, Lindenmayer et al. 2009b).


Lindenmayer, D.B., et al. 2009a. What factors influence rapid post-fire site re-occupancy? A case study of the endangered Eastern Bristlebird in eastern Australia. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 84-95.

Lindenmayer, D.B., et al. 2009b. Do observer differences in bird detection affect inferences from large-scale ecological studies? Emu 109, 100-106.

19

Gang-gang Cockatoo


Scientific name: Callocephalon fimbriatum

EPBC listed status: Not listed

State: SA Vic NSW ACT

Description and habitat: Nests in eucalypt hollows that are at least 10 cm in diameter well above the ground. Favours old growth forest and woodland attributes for roosting and nesting.

Preferred sampling method: Area searches of feeding or roosting groups

Timing of surveys: Dusk, dawn

Single visit detection probability: No published studies

Minimum survey effort: No published studies


20

Kangaroo Island Glossy Black-Cockatoo


Scientific name: Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus


State: SA

Description and habitat: Prefers woodlands dominated by Drooping Sheoak. Nest hollows are used for breeding often in successive seasons.


Secondary sampling method: Searching for chewing’s and recent feed at base of trees

Timing of surveys: Birds found most readily during first or last two hours of daylight


Minimum survey effort: Federal guidelines recommend 5 hours of area searchers for 1 day, 20 hours of targeted searches for sign of feeding or nests over 4 days (Department of the Environment 2017).


Department of Environment, W., Heritage and Arts, 2017. Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened birds: guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.


21

Kangaroo Island Southern Emu-wren


Scientific name: Stipiturus malachurus halmaturinus


State: SA

Description and habitat: Found in marshes, low heathlands and dune areas.


Secondary sampling method: Call playback

Third sampling method: Mist netting

Timing of surveys: Early in the day


Minimum survey effort: Federal guidelines for the closely related Mt Lofty southern emu wren recommends 10 hours of areas searches over 5 days, 6 hours of call playback over 3 days, or 12 hours of mist netting over 4 days (Department of the Environment 2017).




22

Kangaroo Island Western Whipbird


Scientific name: Psophodes nigrogularis lashmari


State: SA

Description and habitat: Occurs in mallee, often in open mallee vegetation with a dense, tall shrub layer up to 1.5 m tall. Nests are placed low in dense shrub making them vulnerable to predation.


Timing of surveys: Early morning or late afternoon


Minimum survey effort: Federal guidelines for the Western whipbird (eastern) recommend 12 hours of area searches or transect surveys over 6 days and/or 10 hours of call playback over 4 days (Department of the Environment 2017).




23

Mainland Ground Parrot


Scientific name: Pezoporus wallicus wallicus


State: NSW Qld Vic

Description and habitat: Occurs in coastal heathland or sedgeland with very dense cover. Nests on the ground beneath low, dense vegetation.

Preferred sampling method: Automated acoustic recording

Secondary sampling method: Auditory surveys from fixed points in 400m grids (when there’s multiple observers)

Third sampling method: Transect point method (when there’s a single observer)

Fourth sampling method:

Timing of surveys: 60-90 min before-after sunrise-sunset

Single visit detection probability: Single visit detection probability for 30-min sound recordings was 0.678 (95% CI 0.575-0.766) and 0.647 (0.404-0.832) for a 60 min observer visit (Bluff 2016).

Minimum survey effort: 30 min sound recordings repeated 3 times has 0.96 probability of detection. 60 min observer counts repeated 3 times has 0.95 detection probability


Baker, J., et al. 2010. Managing the Ground Parrot in its fiery habitat in south-eastern Australia. Emu 110, 279-284.

Bluff, L.A., 2016. Ground Parrots and fire in east Gippsland, Victoria: habitat occupancy modelling from automated sound recordings. Emu 116, 402-410.


24

Pilotbird


Scientific name: Pycnoptilus floccosus


State: ACT NSW Vic

Description and habitat:


Timing of surveys:





25

Red-browed Treecreeper


Scientific name: Climacteris erythrops


State: ACT NSW Qld Vic

Description and habitat: May remain silent for long periods, but its chattering call can be heard from nearby. It is usually seen climbing up trunks of old trees feeding on insects and invertebrates.


Timing of surveys:





26

Regent Honeyeater


Scientific name: Anthochaera phrygia

EPBC listed status: Critically Endangered

State: ACT NSW Qld SA Vic

Description and habitat: Inhabits dry open forest and woodland, particularly Box-Ironbak woodland that supports large numbers of mature trees and high canopy cover.


Timing of surveys: Crates et al (2017) found site and weather covariates such as time of day had no impact on detectability. Can be conspicuous in the breeding season.

Single visit detection probability: Detectability for 5 min point count with playback equal to 0.59 +/- 0.07 (Crates et al. 2017).

Minimum survey effort: Federal guidelines recommend 20 hours of area searchers over 10 days or 20 hours of targeted searches over 5 days (Department of the Environment 2017). Single visit detection estimates by Crates et al. (2017) suggest four 5 min point counts has 0.97 detection probability.


Crates, R., et al. 2017. An occupancy approach to monitoring regent honeyeaters. Journal of Wildlife Management 81, 669-677.



27

Rockwarbler


Scientific name: Origma solitaria


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Prefers woodlands and gullies with exposed sandstone. Restricted to the Sydney region of New South Wales.


Timing of surveys:





28

Rufous Scrub-bird


Scientific name: Atrichornis rufescens


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Requires dense ground cover and deep leaf-litter in rainforest and wet eucalypt forest.

Preferred sampling method: Automated acoustic recording (if possible)

Secondary sampling method: Area search or point counts along transect

Timing of surveys: 30 min before-after, dawn-dusk

Single visit detection probability: Ferrier (1984) estimated a 0.4 probability of detecting a male call in one survey in rainforest and a 0.6 detection probability out of rainforest.

Minimum survey effort: Ferrier (1984) concluded that 6 rainforest surveys have a 95% detection probability, while 4 repeat surveys are required out of rainforest for a 0.97 detection probability.


Newman M, Sturt A, F Hill (2014) Rufous scrub bird monitoring at the extremities of the species range in New South Wales, Australian Field Ornithology 31: 77-98.

Stuart A, Newman M, Stuart P, I Martin (2012) Development of non-intrusive method for investigating the calling pattern of Rufous Scrub birds. The Whistler 6:24-34.

Stuart A, O’Leary (2019) A method for investigating rufous scrub birds using automated recording and rapid, semi-automated data analysis, Corella 43: 57-64.

Ferrier (1985) Status of the rufous scrub bird. PhD thesis


29

South-eastern Glossy Black-Cockatoo


Scientific name: Calyptorhynchus lathami lathami


State: Vic NSW ACT Qld

Description and habitat: Is found in woodland and forest with abundant Allocasuarina species. Requires tree hollows nesting.


Secondary sampling method: Searching for chewing’s and recent feed at base of trees

Timing of surveys: Birds found most readily during first or last two hours of daylight


Minimum survey effort: Federal guidelines recommend 5 hours of area searchers for 1 day, 20 hours of targeted searches for sign of feeding or nests over 4 days (Department of the Environment 2017).




30

Superb Lyrebird


Scientific name: Menura novaehollandiae



Description and habitat: Nests most likely to occur in rainforest or wet forest with deep litter and complex vegetation (Maisey et al. 2019).

Preferred sampling method: Point survey along transect

Timing of surveys:




Maisey, A.C., et al. 2019. Habitat selection by the Superb Lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae), an iconic ecosystem engineer in forests of south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 44, 503-513.


31

Western Ground Parrot


Scientific name: Pezoporus wallicus flaviventris


State: WA

Description and habitat: Occurs in coastal heathland or sedgeland with very dense cover. Nests on the ground beneath low, dense vegetation.

Preferred sampling method: Automated acoustic recordings

Secondary sampling method: If multiple observers, auditory surveys from fixed points in 400m grids

Third sampling method: If single observer, transect point method

Timing of surveys: 60-90 min before-after sunrise-sunset

Single visit detection probability: Single visit detection probability for 30-min sound recordings for the mainland ground parrot estimated at 0.678 (95% CI 0.575 0.766) and 0.647 (0.404-0.832) for a 60 min observer visit (Bluff 2016).

Minimum survey effort: Federal guidelines recommend point surveys for 12 hours (4 days), broadcast surveys 6 hours over 3 days (Department of the Environment 2017). Given detectability reported by Bluff (2016), 30 min sound recordings repeated 3 times has 0.96 probability of detection. 60 min observer counts repeated 3 times has 0.95 detection probability.

References and further reading: Bluff, L.A., 2016. Ground Parrots and fire in east Gippsland, Victoria: habitat occupancy modelling from automated sound recordings. Emu 116, 402-410.


Gibson, L., et al. 2007. Dealing with uncertain absences in habitat modelling: a case study of a rare ground-dwelling parrot. Diversity and Distributions 13, 704-713.

Burbidge, A.H., Rolfe, J., McNee, S., Newbey, B., Williams, M., 2007. Monitoring population change in the cryptic and threatened Western Ground Parrot in relation to fire. Emu 107, 79-88.


32

Mammals Broad-toothed Rat (mainland), Tooarrana

Taxonomic group: Mammals

Scientific name: Mastacomys fuscus mordicus


State: ACT NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Sheltering nests are built in the understorey or under logs.

Preferred sampling method: Area search for scats

Secondary sampling method:

Timing of surveys:




Milner et al. 2015. Distribution and habitat preference of the broad-toothed rat (Mastacomys fuscus) in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Australian Mammalogy 37, 125-131.


33

Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby


Scientific name: Petrogale penicillata


State: NSW Qld Vic

Description and habitat: Prefers rocky habitats, including loose builder-piles, rocky outcrops, steep rocky slopes, cliffs and gorges.

Preferred sampling method: Camera trapping

Secondary sampling method: Cage trapping

Third sampling method: Scat search

Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Probability of recording one individual at a colony with four cameras (with baited lure) ranged from 0.24-0.43 (Gowen and Vernes 2014).

Minimum survey effort: Assuming estimates reported by Gowen and Vernes (2014) are daily, four cameras deployed for 11 days gives a 0.95 probability of detection.


Gowen, C., Vernes, K., 2014. Population estimates of an endangered rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata) using time-lapse photography from camera traps.


34

Golden-tipped Bat


Scientific name: Phoniscus papuensis


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Roost mainly in rainforest gullies on small first- and second-order streams. May also roost in dense foliage or tree hollows.

Preferred sampling method: Harp trap

Secondary sampling method: echolocation

Timing of surveys:


Minimum survey effort: Two harp traps set for 5 nights required to have >90% detection probability (Law et al. 1998).


Law, B., Anderson, J., Chidel, M., 1998. A bat survey in State Forests on the south-west slopes region of New South Wales with suggestions of improvements for future surveys. Australian Zoologist 30, 467-479


35

Greater Glider


Scientific name: Petauroides volans



Description and habitat: Highest abundance is typically in taller, montane, moist eucalypt forests, with relatively old trees and abundant hollows

Preferred sampling method: Spotlighting

Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Detection probability per night of spotlighting estimated at 0.51 (0.46-0.57) (Wintle et al. 2005).

Minimum survey effort: Five nights of spotlighting needed for 0.97 probability of detection


Wintle, B.A., Kavanagh, R.P., McCarthy, M.A., Burgman, M.A., 2005. Estimating and dealing with detectability in occupancy surveys for forest owls and arboreal marsupials. Journal of Wildlife Management 69, 905-917. *Detectability estimates are based on surveys in unburnt areas.

36

Grey-headed Flying-fox


Scientific name: Pteropus poliocephalus


State: ACT NSW Qld SA Vic

Description and habitat: Roost sites are typically near water, such as lakes, rivers or the coast. Roost vegetation includes rainforest patches, stands of Melaleuca, mangroves and riparian vegetation.

Preferred sampling method: Ground counts of known roosting sites

Timing of surveys:





37

Hastings River Mouse, Koontoo


Scientific name: Pseudomys oralis


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Requires dense, low ground cover with a diverse mixture of ferns, grasses, sedges and herbs within close proximity to creeks and gullies. Rocky outcrops and fallen logs are important for shelter.


Secondary sampling method: Elliott trapping

Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Detection probability for 20 Elliot traps over one night estimated at 0.43 (Lawes 2016).

Minimum survey effort: Surveys should conform to the survey guidelines provided in the species’ recovery plan (NSW DECC 2005). Detectability estimates reported by Lawes (2016) suggest six nights of camera trapping gives 0.95 detection probability.


Law (2016) Recent decline of an endangered endemic rodent

Meek (2016) Can camera trapping be used to accurately survey and monitor the Hastings River Mouse

NSW DECC 2005. Recovery Plan for the Hastings River Mouse (Pseudomys oralis), Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) (now NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water), Hurstville


38

Kangaroo Island Dunnart


Scientific name: Sminthopsis griseoventer aitkeni


State: SA

Description and habitat: Inhabits mallee heath and laterite soils. It is believed that there are fewer than 500 individuals prior to the fires.

Preferred sampling method: Camera trapping on drift lines

Secondary sampling method: Elliott traps

Third sampling method: Pitfall traps (60 cm depth)

Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability:

Minimum survey effort: To reach a cumulative nightly detection probability of 95%, a site needs to be trapped for 51 nights; an array of 6 cameras on fence lines need 29 nights, or; 3 baited camera traps need 125 trap nights (Hohnen et al. 2018)


Hohnen, R., Murphy, B., Gates, J., Legge, S., Dickman, C., Woinarski, J., 2018. Detecting and protecting the threatened Kangaroo Island dunnart. Conservation Science and Practice.

Department of the Environment, W., Heritage and the Arts, 2004. Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened mammals: guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.


39

Kangaroo Island Echidna


Scientific name: Tachyglossus aculeatus multiaculeatus


State: SA

Description and habitat: Widely distributed through all types of habitats


Secondary sampling method: Area search

Timing of surveys: Dusk or after dark





40

Koala (combined populations of Qld, NSW, ACT)


Scientific name: Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW, ACT)


State: ACT NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Lives in eucalypt woodlands and forest.

Preferred sampling method: Acoustic surveys

Secondary sampling method: Line transect

Third sampling method: Spotlighting

Fourth sampling method: Scat search

Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Acoustic recorders have 0.45 detection probability per night. Declined from 0.57 per night at 3C minimum to 0.32 at 23C (Law et al. 2018)

Minimum survey effort: Five nights of acoustic monitoring needed for 0.95 probability of detection


Law, B.S., Brassil, T., Gonsalves, L., Roe, P., Truskinger, A., McConville, A., 2018. Passive acoustics and sound recognition provide new insights on status and resilience of an iconic endangered marsupial (koala Phascolarctos cinereus) to timber harvesting. Plos One 13.


41

Long-footed Potoroo


Scientific name: Potorous longipes


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Occurs in a range of forest types where there is dense understorey, a mixed-species overstorey and moist soils.

Preferred sampling method: Vertical cameras with lure

Secondary sampling method: Hair tunnels

Third sampling method: Cage traps

Fourth sampling method: Sign

Timing of surveys: Nocturnal

Single visit detection probability: Vertical camera placement influenced detection probability significantly.

Minimum survey effort: The Federal guidelines recommends an integrated approach that combines detection methods (Department of the Environment 2004). Smith and Coulson (2012) concluded that vertical camera trapping (with lure) is required for 17 days to reach 95% probability of detection; while horizontal cameras (with lure) require 97 days (Smith 2012). In contrast, Taylor et al. (2014) suggests horizontal camera should survey for 6 nights to achieve 95% detection probability.


Smith, J.K., Coulson, G., 2012. A comparison of vertical and horizontal camera trap orientations for detection of potoroos and bandicoots. Australian Mammalogy 34, 196-201.

Taylor, B.D., Goldingay, R.L., Lindsay, J.M., 2014. Horizontal or vertical? Camera trap orientations and recording modes for detecting potoroos, bandicoots and pademelons. Australian Mammalogy 36, 60-66.


42

Long-nosed Potoroo (SE Mainland)


Scientific name: Potorous tridactylus tridactylus


State: NSW Qld SA Vic

Description and habitat: Require dense understorey with occasional open areas in coastal heathland and dry and wet sclerophyll forests.

Preferred sampling method: Vertical cameras with lure

Secondary sampling method: Hair tunnels

Third sampling method: Cage traps

Fourth sampling method: Sign


Single visit detection probability: Vertical camera placement influenced detection probability significantly.

Minimum survey effort: The Federal guidelines recommends an integrated approach that combines detection methods (Department of the Environment 2004). Smith (2012) concluded that vertical camera trapping (with lure) is required for 17 days to reach 95% probability of detection; while horizontal cameras (with lure) require 97 days (Smith 2012). In contrast, Taylor (2014) suggests horizontal camera should survey for 6 nights to achieve 95% detection probability.


Smith, J.K., Coulson, G., 2012. A comparison of vertical and horizontal camera trap orientations for detection of potoroos and bandicoots. Australian Mammalogy 34, 196-201.

Taylor, B.D., Goldingay, R.L., Lindsay, J.M., 2014. Horizontal or vertical? Camera trap orientations and recording modes for detecting potoroos, bandicoots and pademelons. Australian Mammalogy 36, 60-66.


43

Mainland Dusky Antechinus


Common name:

Scientific name: Antechinus mimetes


State: Vic NSW ACT

Description and habitat: Only discovered recently

Preferred sampling method:


Timing of surveys:





No range map available

44

Mountain Pygmy-possum


Scientific name: Burramys parvus


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Confined to builder fields in alpine environments

Preferred sampling method: Elliott trapping


Third sampling method: Spotlighting

Fourth sampling method: Hairtube

Timing of surveys:





45

New Holland Mouse, Pookila


Scientific name: Pseudomys novaehollandiae


State: NSW Qld Tas Vic

Description and habitat: Consume seeds, stem and leaf tissues, roots, fungi, insects and other invertebrates. Mostly associated with early to mid-stages of vegetation succession following fire.

Preferred sampling method: Elliot traps

Secondary sampling method: Cameras

Third sampling method: Hairtubes

Timing of surveys: Detectability showed considerable variation within and across seasons, with notably lower detection probability in December-February (Burns et al. 2019)


Minimum survey effort: 1-2 nights of surveying in April or October would have 95% confidence in detection with 30 Elliot traps, no rainfall, and 3.5 individuals at a site. At 1 individual per site, the number of nights increases to 5. Surveys in Dec-Feb with full moons required impractically high numbers of consecutive nights (Burns 2019)


Burns, P.A., McCall, C., Rowe, K.C., Parrott, M.L., Phillips, B.L., 2019. Accounting for detectability and abundance in survey design for a declining species. Diversity and Distributions 25, 1655-1665.


46

Parma Wallaby


Scientific name: Notomacropus parma


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Is found in wet sclerophyll forest with a dense understorey



Timing of surveys:





47

Platypus


Scientific name: Ornithorhynchus anatinus


State: ACT NSW Qld SA Tas Vic

Description and habitat: Found in permanent freshwater streams and shallow lakes

Preferred sampling method: eDNA (where possible)

Secondary sampling method: Trapping

Third sampling method: Camera


Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Conditional probabilities of platypus eDNA being captured in a single water sample (paired dataset: 0.838, unpaired: 0.879), and detected in a single water sample by qPCR (paired: 0.892, unpaired: 0.858), were higher than the conditional probability of detecting a platypus with a single trapping visit (paired: 0.470, unpaired: 0.219) (Lugg et al. 2018)

Minimum survey effort: Achieving a cumulative detection probability >0.95 would require two water samples, each with two qPCR replicates. For trapping, sites need to be surveyed on 13 (unpaired) or 5 (paired) occasions (Lugg et al. 2018).


Lugg, W.H., Griffiths, J., van Rooyen, A.R., Weeks, A.R., Tingley, R., 2018. Optimal survey designs for environmental DNA sampling. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9, 1049-1059.


48

Silver-headed Antechinus


Scientific name: Antechinus argentus


State: Qld

Description and habitat: The silver-headed antechinus was only described in 2013 and is known only from Kroombit Tops National Park in Southeastern Queensland.

Preferred sampling method: Elliott trapping

Secondary sampling method: Camera trapping

Timing of surveys:





49

Smoky Mouse, Konoom


Scientific name: Pseudomys fumeus


State: ACT NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Occurs in a range of habitats including heathy woodlands, coastal heathlands, subalpine heathlands, subalpine woodlands, dry Eucalypt forests.



Third sampling method: Elliott trapping

Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Nightly detection probability equal to 0.717 - 0.753 with 20-200 traps per night (Burns et al. 2015)

Minimum survey effort: Three nights of camera trapping achieves 0.97 detection probability


Burns, P.A., Rowe, K.M.C., Holmes, B.P., Rowe, K.C., 2015. Historical resurveys reveal persistence of smoky mouse (Pseudomys fumeus) populations over the long-term and through the short-term impacts of fire. Wildlife Research 42, 668-677.


50

Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tail Quoll, Tiger Quoll


Scientific name: Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (South-east mainland population)



Description and habitat: Found in a range of forest types but hollow logs, tree hollows or rocky crevices to den.

Preferred sampling method: Camera

Secondary sampling method: Hairtube

Third sampling method: Cage


Single visit detection probability: Daily detection probability using 1-4 cameras per 1 km2 was 0.1 (0.06 - 0.170) (Nelson 2014)

Minimum survey effort: Deployment for 3 weeks resulted in a cumulative probability of detect >0.8 with 1-4 cameras per km2 (Nelson et al. 2014). 12.6 camera nights to achieve a 95% probability of detecting northern quolls using 5 downward facing baited cameras (WA DBCA 2017)


Nelson, J.L., Scroggie, M.P., Belcher, C.A., 2014. Developing a camera trap survey protocol to detect a rare marsupial carnivore, the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus).


51

Yellow-bellied Glider


Scientific name: Petaurus australis


State: NSW Qld SA Vic

Description and habitat: Occurs in tall mature eucalypt forest. Require tree hollows in large trees for dens.

Preferred sampling method: Point count for 10 min (with playback for 15 min), then 40 min area spotlighting


Single visit detection probability: Detection probability per night estimated at 0.41 (0.34 - 0.49) (Wintle et al. 2005). Detection per night of spotlighting varied from 0.71 - 0.28 depending on the season (Goldingay 2018).

Minimum survey effort: Six nights of spotlighting needed for 0.95 probability of detection


Wintle, B.A., Kavanagh, R.P., McCarthy, M.A., Burgman, M.A., 2005. Estimating and dealing with detectability in occupancy surveys for forest owls and arboreal marsupials. Journal of Wildlife Management 69, 905-917.

Goldingay, R.L., 2018. Population monitoring of an urban gliding mammal in eastern Australia. Australian Mammalogy 40, 214-219.


52

Fish Blue Mountains Perch, Hawkesbury Perch Taxonomic group: Fish

Scientific name: Macquaria sp. nov. 'hawkesbury taxon'

EPBC listed status: Endangered at the species level

State: NSW

Description and habitat: Almost exclusively found in near pristine, clear streams within rugged gorges, with minimal sediment and nutrient loads, little or no instream vegetation, and among complex boulder habitat.

Preferred sampling method: Electrofishing


Timing of surveys:





53

Cann Galaxias

Taxonomic group: Fish

Scientific name: Galaxias sp. 17 'Cann'


State: Vic

Description and habitat: Very little information available



Third sampling method:


Timing of surveys:






54

Clarence River Cod, Eastern Freshwater Cod


Scientific name: Maccullochella ikei


State: NSW

Description and habitat: The only breeding population of the species is in the Mann-Nymboida sub-catchment of the Clarence River. Prefers clear rocky streams and rivers with low flow velocity and abundant instream cover of rocks, timber or tussocks.





Timing of surveys:





55

Dargo Galaxias


Scientific name: Galaxias mungadhan


State: Vic

Description and habitat: Known only from a small stream in the upper Dargo River system of the Gippsland region of Victoria (Raadik and Nicol 2012).


Secondary sampling method: Scoop nets

Third sampling method: Fyke nets


Timing of surveys:




Raadik, T.A. & Nicol, M.D. 2012. Assessment of the post-fire status and distribution of the Dargo Galaxias (Galaxias sp. 6), affected by the White Timber Spur fire, upper Dargo River system: Black Saturday Victoria 2009 – Natural values fire recovery program. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria, 29 pp.


56

East Gippsland Galaxias


Scientific name: Galaxias aequipinnis


State: Vic

Description and habitat: This species is only found in the Arte River system of East Gippsland, Victoria.





Timing of surveys:





57

Flathead Galaxias


Scientific name: Galaxias rostratus


State: NSW SA Vic

Description and habitat: Little is known about this species, although historically it was collected from a variety of habitats including billabongs, lakes, swamps and rivers.





Timing of surveys:





58

Honey Blue-eye


Scientific name: Pseudomugil mellis


State: Qld

Description and habitat: Inhabits clear tannin-stained lakes, streams and wetlands where there little or no flow. Dense, aquatic vegetation is important for shelter.



Timing of surveys:





59

Macquarie Perch ‘MDB taxa’


Scientific name: Macquaria australasica 'MDB taxa'

EPBC listed status: Endangered at the species level

State: ACT NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Inhabits cool, clear water of rivers, lakes and reservoirs, demonstrating a preference for slow-flowing deep rocky pools.

Preferred sampling method: Fyke nets

Secondary sampling method: Bait traps

Third sampling method: Gill nets

Fourth sampling method: Electrofishing

Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Fyke nets captured Macquarie Perch at 100% of sites; gill nets 86%. Spotlighting, boat electrofishing, backpack electrofishing and bait traps had <50% detections (Lintermans 2016).

Minimum survey effort:


Lintermans, M., 2016. Finding the needle in the haystack: comparing sampling methods for detecting an endangered freshwater fish. Marine and Freshwater Research 67, 1740-1749.


60

McDowall's Galaxias


Scientific name: Galaxias mcdowalli


State: Vic

Description and habitat: Known only from the headwaters of the Rodger River in the Snowy River National Park, East Gippsland, Victoria.




Timing of surveys:





61

Non-parasitic Lamprey


Scientific name: Mordacia praecox


State: NSW Qld Vic

Description and habitat: Mordacia praecox is a freshwater species of southern topeyed lamprey that occurs in south-eastern Australia.




Timing of surveys:





62

Oxleyan Pygmy Perch


Scientific name: Nannoperca oxleyana


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Has a patchy distribution confined to freshwater systems draining through sandy coastal lowlands and 'wallam' heaths (Banksia dominated heathlands) between north-eastern NSW and south-eastern Queensland. Requires slow-flowing, fresh, acidic waters with abundant aquatic vegetation.

Preferred sampling method: Trapping

Secondary sampling method: Electrofishing

Timing of surveys:


Minimum survey effort: Ten traps found to provide precise estimates of relative abundance. Traps set for 30-60 min detected all individuals. Knight et al. (2007)recommend saturating sites with unbaited traps for at least 30 min and sampling with a backpack electrofisher.


Knight, J., Glasby, T., Brooks, L., 2007. A sampling protocol for the endangered freshwater fish, Oxleyan Pygmy Perch Nannoperca oxleyana Whitley. Australian Zoologist 34.


63

River Blackfish (south western Victoria)


Scientific name: Gadopsis sp. nov. 'Western Victoria'


State: Vic

Description and habitat: Found in cooler, flowing streams with plenty of rock cover, fallen timber and debris.



Timing of surveys:





64

Roundsnout Galaxias


Scientific name: Galaxias terenasus


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Typically found in clear water in slow to moderately flowing creeks to large rivers.




Timing of surveys:





65

Short-tail Galaxias


Scientific name: Galaxias brevissimus


State: NSW

Description and habitat: The Short-tail Galaxias is restricted to upper reaches of the Tuross River system in southern, coastal New South Wales.



Timing of surveys:





66

Stocky Galaxias


Scientific name: Galaxias tantangara


State: NSW

Description and habitat: This critically endangered species is known only from the type locality: a single stretch of Tantangara Creek, upstream of Tantangara Reservoir, in Kosciuszko National Park, New South Wales.



Timing of surveys:





67

Swan Galaxias


Scientific name: Galaxias fontanus


State: Tas

Description and habitat: Lives in freshwater streams free of other fish species except eels. Streams range in size, but are in lightly forested areas with low gradients.



Timing of surveys:





68

Yalmy Galaxias


Scientific name Galaxias sp. nov. 'yalmy'


State: Vic

Description and habitat: Yalmy Galaxias is only known from very small sections of streams in East Gippsland, Victoria.



Timing of surveys:


Minimum survey effort: National guidelines suggest at least 30 min of backpack electrofishing is needed for streams and lake shores. One to two nights with 10 fyke nets usually adequate for detection



69

Frogs Davies' Tree Frog

Taxonomic group: Frogs

Scientific name: Litoria daviesae


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Found in upland streams in heathland or dry open forest on the tablelands or wet sclerophyll and rainforest vegetation on the edge of the escarpment.



Timing of surveys:





70

Fleay's Frog


Scientific name: Mixophyes fleayi


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Occurs along stream habitats but is not found in ponds or ephemeral pools.



Third sampling method: Dip netting larvae

Timing of surveys: Calling period (Sep – Mar), larval period (Oct-Mar)

Single visit detection probability: Detection probability for 100m transect was highly variable, ranging from 0.08 - 1.00 at Tuntable Falls and 0.38 - 1.00 at Brindle Creek, but mostly above 0.5 for males (Newell et al. 2013).

Minimum survey effort: Assuming a single visit detection probability of 0.5, five surveys required for 0.95 detection probability. National guidelines suggest a minimum of two nights under ideal conditions (one week after rainfall). Should be repeated on at least four separate occasions (Department of Environment 2010).


Newell, D.A., Goldingay, R.L., Brooks, L.O., 2013. Population Recovery following Decline in an Endangered Stream-Breeding Frog (Mixophyes fleayi) from Subtropical Australia. Plos One 8.

Department of Environment, W., Heritage and Arts, 2010. Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened frogs: guidelines for detecting frogs listed as threatened under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.


71

Giant Barred Frog


Scientific name: Mixophyes iteratus


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Occurs in upland and lowland rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest.




Timing of surveys: Calling period (Sep – May), larval period (Oct-May)


Minimum survey effort: National guidelines suggest a minimum of two nights under ideal conditions (one week after heavy rainfall). Should be repeated on at least four separate occasions (Department of Environment 2010).




72

Giant Burrowing Frog


Scientific name: Heleioporus australiacus


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Occupies a wide range of forest communities in the south of its range. In NSW, it is associated with sandy soils that support heath vegetation.

Preferred sampling method: Spotlighting by foot

Secondary sampling method: Spotlighting by road


Timing of surveys: Calling period (Feb-April), Larval period (Feb – May)


Minimum survey effort: National guidelines suggest a minimum of 4 consecutive nights under ideal conditions (during rainfall) (Department of Environment 2010)




73

Kroombit Tinker Frog


Scientific name: Taudactylus pleione


State: Qld

Description and habitat: Associated with Piccabeen Palm rainforest and boulder scree gullies. Found around rocky shelves and boulders, under rocks near seepage zones. Most sites have little no surface water.

Preferred sampling method: Call detection




Timing of surveys: Calling period (Sept-Mar), Larval period (unknown). Day and night surveys


Minimum survey effort: National guidelines suggest a minimum of four nights under ideal survey conditions (one week after rainfall), focusing on rocky banks along rocky scree banks in riparian zone along first order streams in subtropical rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest (Department of Environment 2010)




74

Littlejohn's Tree Frog, Heath Frog


Scientific name: Litoria littlejohni


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Inhabits sclerophyll forest associated with sandstone outcrops. Can sometimes prefer rocky streams. Calls around permanent and ephemeral pools in the north of its range.





Timing of surveys:





75

Mountain Frog


Scientific name: Philoria kundagungan


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Usually found among saturated or moist leaf litter and vegetation near small creeks in rainforest, especially in seepage areas.





Timing of surveys:





76

New England treefrog, Glandular Frog


Scientific name: Litoria subglandulosa


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Prefers slow flowing and small streams in dry and wet sclerophyll forest, rainforest, montane forest and heathland.





Timing of surveys:





77

Northern Corroboree Frog


Scientific name: Pseudophryne pengilleyi


State: ACT NSW

Description and habitat: Prefers to breed in sphagnum bogs and wet heath in sub-alpine areas.

Preferred sampling method: Shout response technique

Secondary sampling method: Active search

Timing of surveys: Calling period (Jan-Feb), larval period (Aug-Dec)


Minimum survey effort: Probability of detection after 3 surveys per day was 0.99 (SE=0.0004) (Scheele et al. 2012). National survey guidelines recommend at least two consecutive days (Department of Environment 2010)


Scheele_2012_Decline of an endangered amphibian during an extreme climatic event



78

Peppered Tree Frog


Scientific name: Litoria piperata


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Known to occupy open forest and wet sclerophyll forest

Preferred sampling method: Spotlighting, focusing on streamside vegetation and on exposed rocky shelves and banks.


Timing of surveys: Call period (Nov-Mar), Larval period (Nov-Mar)


Minimum survey effort: A minimum of four nights under ideal conditions, covering a range of stream structures (pools, riffles, stretches) (Department of Environment 2010).




79

Pugh's Frog


Scientific name: Philoria pughi


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Usually found in streams or temporary pools in high rainfall rainforest





Timing of surveys:





80

Richmond Range Sphagnum Frog


Scientific name: Philoria richmondensis


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Inhabits montane moist forest and subtropical rainforest where there are seepage areas beside seasonal or permanent stream (Willacy et al. 2015).

Preferred sampling method: Acoustic monitoring




Timing of surveys:




Willacy, R.J., Mahony, M., Newell, D.A., 2015. If a frog calls in the forest: Bioacoustic monitoring reveals the breeding phenology of the endangered Richmond Range mountain frog (Philoria richmondensis). Austral Ecology 40, 625-633.


81

Southern Corroboree Frog


Scientific name: Pseudophryne corroboree


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Prefers to breed in sphagnum bogs and wet heath in sub-alpine areas.

Preferred sampling method: Shout response technique

Secondary sampling method: Active search

Timing of surveys: Call period (Jan-Feb), Larval period (Aug-Dec)


Minimum survey effort: Probability of detection after 3 surveys per day was 0.99 (SE=0.0004) (Scheele 2012). National guidelines recommend at least 2 consecutive days of surveys (Department of Environment 2010)


Scheele, B. C., D. A. Driscoll, J. Fischer, and D. A. Hunter. 2012. Decline of an endangered amphibian during an extreme climatic event. Ecosphere 3.



82

Sphagnum Frog


Scientific name: Philoria sphagnicola


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Lives in extensive beds of sphagnum moss and seepages on steep slopes





Timing of surveys:





83

Spotted Tree Frog


Scientific name: Litoria spenceri


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: The species is found almost exclusively in association with rock habitats along streams. It occurs along steep banks, especially in steeply dissected country or gorges with numerous rapids and waterfalls.





Timing of surveys: Call period (Oct – Dec; Feb), Larval period (Nov-Mar)


Minimum survey effort: National guidelines suggest a minimum of 2 nights under ideal conditions (wet leaf litter), focusing on rocky shelfs and riffle areas in first to third order streams. Should be repeated on at least four separate occasions (Department of Environment 2010)




84

Stuttering Frog, Southern Barred Frog


Scientific name: Mixophyes balbus


State: NSW Qld Vic

Description and habitat: Typically found in permanent streams free from any disturbance with a thick canopy and relatively simple understorey.

Preferred sampling method: Spotlighting with call playback while walking transect along stream or creek. Most suitably in riparian rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest.


Timing of surveys: Call period (Sep-Apr), Larval period (Jan-May)


Minimum survey effort: National guidelines suggest a minimum of two nights under ideal conditions. Should be repeated on at least four separate occasions (Department of Environment 2010).




85

Tyler's Toadlet


Scientific name: Uperoleia tyleri


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Commonly found near water in dry forest, woodlands, shrublands and grasslands.





Timing of surveys:




86

Invertebrates Alpine Stonefly

Taxonomic group: Invertebrates

Scientific name: Thaumatoperla alpina


State: Vic

Description and habitat: Inhabits high altitude areas at least 760 m above sea level, including areas above the tree line. Most commonly found in steep, stony, cool streams, often below a cascade of water.

Preferred sampling method: Active search

Timing of surveys:





87

Banksia brownii Plant Louse


Scientific name: Trioza barrettae


State: WA

Description and habitat: A sap-sucking bug species endemic to Western Australia.

Preferred sampling method: Sweep-netting host plant species




Timing of surveys:





88

Banksia Montana Mealybug


Scientific name: Pseudococcus markharveyi


State: WA

Description and habitat: Found on the host species Banksia montana on Bluff Knoll in WA

Preferred sampling method: Sweep-netting the host species Banksia montana




Timing of surveys:





89

Bathurst Copper Butterfly


Scientific name: Paralucia spinifera


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Requires open woodland or open forest with a sparse understorey that is dominated by the shrub Blackthorn Bursaria spinosa subsp lasiophylla

Preferred sampling method: Active search for caterpillar




Timing of surveys:





90

Eastern Stirling Range Pygmy Trapdoor Spider


Scientific name: Bertmainius colonus


State: WA


Preferred sampling method: Active search for burrows

Secondary sampling method: Pitfall traps



Timing of surveys:





91

Reptiles Alpine Bog Skink

Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Pseudemoia cryodroma


State: Vic

Description and habitat: The Alpine Bog Skink is a skink found in Victoria



Timing of surveys:





92

Alpine She-oak Skink


Scientific name: Cyclodomorphus praealtus


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: Is found in litter and under rocks in alpine fields above 1500 m in the Australian Alps



Timing of surveys:





93

Bell's Turtle Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Wollumbinia belli


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Found in pools usually less than 3 m deep in small tributaries.

Preferred sampling method: Cathedral traps

Secondary sampling method: Camera



Timing of surveys:





94

Blue Mountains Water Skink Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Eulamprus leuraensis


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Restricted to the middle and upper Blue Mountains west of Sydney, the Blue Mountains Water Skink is known from approximately 70 threatened highland peat swamps (Dubey et al. 2013).

Preferred sampling method: Pitfall traps

Secondary sampling method: Funnel traps

Timing of surveys:




Dubey, S., Pike, D.A., Shine, R., 2013. Predicting the impacts of climate change on genetic diversity in an endangered lizard species. Climatic Change 117, 319-327.


95

Broad-headed Snake Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Hoplocephalus bungaroides


State: NSW

Description and habitat: The Broad-headed Snake is restricted to the sandstone ranges in the Sydney Basin. It shelters in rock crevices and under flat sandstone rocks during autumn winter and spring. In summer, it can also shelter in hollows in large trees.

Preferred sampling method: Area search


Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Single visit detection probability when searching a 200 x 30 m site equal to 0.25 ± 0.04 (Goldingay and Newell 2017).

Minimum survey effort: Eleven repeat visits needed to achieve 0.95 probability of detection


Goldingay, R.L., Newell, D.A., 2017. Small-scale field experiments provide important insights to restore the rock habitat of Australia's most endangered snake. Restoration Ecology 25, 243-252.


96

Broad-tailed Gecko Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Phyllurus platurus


State: NSW

Description and habitat: The Broad-tailed Gecko is found in the Sydney basin. It mainly inhabits rocky areas including boulders, rock faces or small rock crevices, but can also naturally be found on trees including.



Timing of surveys:





97

Georges' Snapping Turtle Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Wollumbinia georgesi


State: NSW

Description and habitat: A short-necked freshwater turtle endemic to the Bellinger Catchment on the north coast of NSW.

Preferred sampling method: Cathedral traps

Secondary sampling method: Active search (divers)

Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Detectability for 1 day of active searcher (diving) equal to 0.59 (Chessman et al. 2020)

Minimum survey effort: Four days of diving gives 0.97 detection probability


Chessman, B.C., McGilvray, G., Ruming, S., Jones, H.A., Petrov, K., Fielder, D.P., Spencer, R.J., Georges, A., 2020. On a razor's edge: Status and prospects of the critically endangered Bellinger River snapping turtle, Myuchelys georgesi. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 30, 586-600.


98

Glossy Grass Skink Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Pseudemoia rawlinsoni


State: ACT NSW SA Tas Vic




Timing of surveys:





99

Granite Leaf-tailed Gecko Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Saltaurius wyberba


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: This species is endemic to south-east Queensland and northern NSW



Timing of surveys:





100

Guthega Skink Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Liopholis guthega


State: NSW Vic

Description and habitat: The Guthega Skink is known from the Snowy Mountains in the vicinity of Mt Kosciuszko, New South Wales (NSW), and from the Bogong High Plains in Victoria. Usually found in close association with rock outcrops and shrubs where it excavates burrows.



Timing of surveys:





101

Kaputar Rock Skink Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Egernia roomi


State: NSW

Description and habitat: The Kaputar Rock Skink is known only from the rocky summit area of the Nandewar Range.



Timing of surveys:






102

Kate's Leaf-tail Gecko Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Saltuarius kateae


State: NSW

Description and habitat: The Kate’s Leaf-tail Gecko is restricted to rocky outcrops at the southern end of the Richmond Range in NSW.



Timing of surveys:





103

Long Sunskink


Scientific name: Lampropholis elongata


State: NSW






Timing of surveys:





104

Manning River Helmeted Turtle Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Myuchelys purvisi


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Prefers relatively shallow, clear, continuously fast-flowing rivers with rocky and sandy substrates. Shelters under boulders and submerged logs.



Timing of surveys:






105

Moritz's Leaf-tailed Gecko Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Saltuarius moritzi


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Widespread south of the Clarence River, from coastal areas west through the rocky gorge systems of the New England Tableland.



Timing of surveys:





106

Mustard-bellied Snake Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Drysdalia rhodogaster


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Recorded in the Blue Mountains, around Wollongong, and along the South Coast of NSW (Cabrelli et al. 2014).

Preferred sampling method: Active search


Timing of surveys:




Cabrelli, A.L., Stow, A.J., Hughes, L., 2014. A framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change: a case study of the Australian elapid snakes. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 3019-3034.


107

Nangur Spiny Skink Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Nangura spinosa


State: Qld

Description and habitat: Occurs in two locations within southeast Queensland (Borsboom et al. 2010).

Preferred sampling method: Area search for burrows


Timing of surveys:

Single visit detection probability: Hannah (1997) detected 24 burrows and 36 individuals over a 6 day period



Borsboom, A.C., Couper, P.J., Amey, A., Hoskin, C.J., 2010. Distribution and population genetic structure of the critically endangered skink Nangura spinosa, and the implications for management. Australian Journal of Zoology 58, 369-375.


108

Oakview Leaf-tailed Gecko Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Phyllurus kabikabi


State: Qld

Description and habitat: Endemic to Oakview National Park in Queensland



Timing of surveys:






109

Rainforest Cool-skink Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Harrisoniascincus zia


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Found in coastal northern NSW and adjacent parts of southern Queensland.



Timing of surveys:





110

Red-tailed Calyptotis Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Calyptotis ruficauda


State: NSW

Description and habitat: Known to the Lower North Coast of NSW in wet and dry sclerophyll forest and adjacent rainforest. Is found under logs, stones and surface litter.



Timing of surveys:





111

Ringed Thin-tail Gecko Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Phyllurus caudiannulatus


State: Qld

Description and habitat: Endemic to the Bulburin State Forest in the Dawes Range and Many Peaks Range in southeastern Queensland



Timing of surveys:






112

Southern Water-skink Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Eulamprus tympanum


State: NSW SA Vic

Description and habitat: Usually found beside small creeks. Basks on rocks and logs and shelters under rocks, logs and cracks in fallen timber.





Timing of surveys:





113

Three-toed Snake-tooth Skink Taxonomic group: Reptiles

Scientific name: Coeranoscincus reticulatus


State: NSW Qld

Description and habitat: Occurs in subtropical rainforest, wet sclerophyll forest Due to its burrowing habits it is seldom seen. Preferred sampling method:


Timing of surveys:





114

Spiny crayfish Taxonomic group: Spiny crayfish (species combined)

Scientific name:

EPBC listed status:

State:



Secondary sampling method: Active search for burrows

Third sampling method: Trapping


Timing of surveys:


Minimum survey effort: Minimum of 40 min of electrofishing for streams <4m average width or minimum 60 min for streams with >4m average width. Active searches for burrows by 2 people also recommended, with 12 box-type traps set along 2 transects for a minimum of 8 hours overnight.


Department of Sustainability and Environment Approved Standards for Spiny Crayfish (2011)


115

References

Bluff, L. A. 2016. Ground Parrots and fire in east Gippsland, Victoria: habitat occupancy modelling from automated sound recordings. Emu 116:402-410.

Borsboom, A. C., P. J. Couper, A. Amey, and C. J. Hoskin. 2010. Distribution and population genetic structure of the critically endangered skink Nangura spinosa, and the implications for management. Australian Journal of Zoology 58:369-375.

Burns, P. A., C. McCall, K. C. Rowe, M. L. Parrott, and B. L. Phillips. 2019. Accounting for detectability and abundance in survey design for a declining species. Diversity and Distributions 25:1655-1665.

Burns, P. A., K. M. C. Rowe, B. P. Holmes, and K. C. Rowe. 2015. Historical resurveys reveal persistence of smoky mouse (Pseudomys fumeus) populations over the long-term and through the short-term impacts of fire. Wildlife Research 42:668-677.

Cabrelli, A. L., A. J. Stow, and L. Hughes. 2014. A framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change: a case study of the Australian elapid snakes. Biodiversity and Conservation 23:3019-3034.

Chessman, B. C., G. McGilvray, S. Ruming, H. A. Jones, K. Petrov, D. P. Fielder, R. J. Spencer, and A. Georges. 2020. On a razor's edge: Status and prospects of the critically endangered Bellinger River snapping turtle, Myuchelys georgesi. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 30:586-600.

Crates, R., A. Terauds, L. Rayner, D. Stojanovic, R. Heinsohn, D. Ingwersen, and M. Webb. 2017. An occupancy approach to monitoring regent honeyeaters. Journal of Wildlife Management 81:669-677.

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. 2010. Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened birds: guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Ennvironmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Department of Science Information Technology Innovation and the Arts. 2015. BioCondition: a condition assessment framework for terrestrial biodiversity in Queensland.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2004. Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened mammals: guidelines for detecting mamamls listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Department of the Environment, W., Heritage and the Arts. 2017. Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened birds: guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Ennvironmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Dubey, S., D. A. Pike, and R. Shine. 2013. Predicting the impacts of climate change on genetic diversity in an endangered lizard species. Climatic Change 117:319-327.

116

Garrard, G. E., S. A. Bekessy, M. A. McCarthy, and B. A. Wintle. 2008. When have we looked hard enough? A novel method for setting minimum survey effort protocols for flora surveys. Austral Ecology 33:986-998.

Goldingay, R. L. 2018. Population monitoring of an urban gliding mammal in eastern Australia. Australian Mammalogy 40:214-219.

Goldingay, R. L., and D. A. Newell. 2017. Small-scale field experiments provide important insights to restore the rock habitat of Australia's most endangered snake. Restoration Ecology 25:243-252.

Gowen, C., and K. Vernes. 2014. Population estimates of an endangered rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata) using time-lapse photography from camera traps.

Hohnen, R., B. Murphy, J. Gates, S. Legge, C. Dickman, and J. Woinarski. 2018. Detecting and protecting the threatened Kangaroo Island dunnart. Conservation Science and Practice.

Knight, J., T. Glasby, and L. Brooks. 2007. A sampling protocol for the endangered freshwater fish, Oxleyan Pygmy Perch Nannoperca oxleyana Whitley. Australian Zoologist 34.

Law, B., J. Anderson, and M. Chidel. 1998. A bat survey in State Forests on the south-west slopes region of New South Wales with suggestions of improvements for future surveys. Australian Zoologist 30:467-479.

Law, B. S., T. Brassil, L. Gonsalves, P. Roe, A. Truskinger, and A. McConville. 2018. Passive acoustics and sound recognition provide new insights on status and resilience of an iconic endangered marsupial (koala Phascolarctos cinereus) to timber harvesting. Plos One 13.

Legge, S., D. Lindenmayer, N. Robinson, B. Scheele, D. Southwell, and B. Wintle. 2018. Monitoring threatened species and ecological communities. CSIRO, Clayton South, Victoria, Australia.

Legge, S., J. Woinarski, S. Garnett, D. Nimmo, B. Scheele, M. Lintermans, N. Mitchell, and J. Ferris. 2020. Rapid analysis of impacts of the 2019-20 fires on animal species, and prioritisation of species for management response – preliminary report.

Lemckert, F., and M. Mahony. 2008. Core calling periods of the frogs of temperate New South Wales, Australia. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3:71-76.

Lindenmayer, D., J. Woinarski, S. Legge, D. Southwell, T. Lavery, N. Robinson, B. Scheele, and B. Wintle. 2020. A checklist of attributes for effective monitoring of threatened species and threatened ecological communities. Journal of Environmental Management 262:1-8.

Lindenmayer, D. B., C. MacGregor, J. T. Wood, R. B. Cunningham, M. Crane, D. Michael, R. Montague-Drake, D. Brown, M. Fortescue, N. Dexter, M. Hudson, and A. M. Gill.

117

2009a. What factors influence rapid post-fire site re-occupancy? A case study of the endangered Eastern Bristlebird in eastern Australia. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18:84-95.

Lindenmayer, D. B., J. T. Wood, and C. MacGregor. 2009b. Do observer differences in bird detection affect inferences from large-scale ecological studies? Emu 109:100-106.

Lintermans, M. 2016. Finding the needle in the haystack: comparing sampling methods for detecting an endangered freshwater fish. Marine and Freshwater Research 67:1740-1749.

Lugg, W. H., J. Griffiths, A. R. van Rooyen, A. R. Weeks, and R. Tingley. 2018. Optimal survey designs for environmental DNA sampling. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9:1049-1059.

MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, G. B. Lachman, S. Droege, J. A. Royle, and C. A. Langtimm. 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83:2248-2255.

Maisey, A. C., D. G. Nimmo, and A. F. Bennett. 2019. Habitat selection by the Superb Lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae), an iconic ecosystem engineer in forests of south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 44:503-513.

McCarthy, G., K. Moon, and L. Smith. 2017. Mapping fire severity and fire extent in forest in Victoria for ecological and fuel outcomes. Ecological Management & Restoration 18:54-65.

Meek, P. D., G. Ballard, A. Claridge, R. Kays, K. Moseby, T. O'Brien, A. O'Connell, J. Sanderson, D. E. Swann, M. Tobler, and S. Townsend. 2014. Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research. Biodiversity and Conservation 23:2321-2343.

Nelson, J. L., M. P. Scroggie, and C. A. Belcher. 2014. Developing a camera trap survey protocol to detect a rare marsupial carnivore, the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus). In Fleming, P. Meek, P. Banks, P. Ballard, G. Claridge, A. Sanderson, J. Swann, D., editors. Camera Trapping: Wildlife Management and Research.

Newell, D. A., R. L. Goldingay, and L. O. Brooks. 2013. Population Recovery following Decline in an Endangered Stream-Breeding Frog (Mixophyes fleayi) from Subtropical Australia. Plos One 8.

NSW Department of Planning, Innovation and the Environment. 2020. https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/biodiversity/biodiversity-assessment-method.

Parkes, D., G. Newell, and D. Cheal. 2003. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the habitat hectares approach. Ecological Management & Restoration 4: 29-38.

118

Pavlacky, D. C., H. P. Possingham, and A. W. Goldizen. 2015. Integrating life history traits and forest structure to evaluate the vulnerability of rainforest birds along gradients of deforestation and fragmentation in eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 188:89-99.

Possingham, H. P., B. A. Wintle, R. A. Fuller, and L. N. Joseph. 2012. The Conservation return on investment from ecological monitoring. Pages 49-61 in D. B. Lindenmayer and P. Gibbons, editors. Making Biodiversity Monitoring Happen in Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Raiter, K. G., R. J. Hobbs, H. P. Possingham, L. E. Valentine, and S. M. Prober. 2018. Vehicle tracks are predator highways in intact landscapes. Biological Conservation 228:281-290.

Ruppert, K. M., R. J. Kline, and M. S. Rahman. 2019. Past, present, and future perspectives of environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding: A systematic review in methods, monitoring, and applications of global eDNA. Global Ecology and Conservation 17.

Scheele, B. C., D. A. Driscoll, J. Fischer, and D. A. Hunter. 2012. Decline of an endangered amphibian during an extreme climatic event. Ecosphere 3:1-15.

Smith, J. K., and G. Coulson. 2012. A comparison of vertical and horizontal camera trap orientations for detection of potoroos and bandicoots. Australian Mammalogy 34:196-201.

Southwell, D. M., L. D. Einoder, J. J. Lahoz-Monfort, A. Fisher, G. R. Gillespie, and B. A. Wintle. 2019. Spatially explicit power analysis for detecting occupancy trends for multiple species. Ecological Applications 29: https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1950

Stowell, D., M. D. Wood, H. Pamuta, Y. Stylianou, and H. Glotin. 2019. Automatic acoustic detection of birds through deep learning: The first Bird Audio Detection challenge. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10:368-380.

Swan, M., H. Sitters, J. Cawson, T. Duff, Y. Wibisono, and A. York. 2018. Fire planning for multispecies conservation: Integrating growth stage and fire severity. Forest Ecology and Management 415:85-97.

Taylor, B. D., R. L. Goldingay, and J. M. Lindsay. 2014. Horizontal or vertical? Camera trap orientations and recording modes for detecting potoroos, bandicoots and pademelons. Australian Mammalogy 36:60-66.

van Hespen, R., C. E. Hauser, J. Benshemesh, L. Rumpff, and J. J. L. Monfort. 2019. Designing a camera trap monitoring program to measure efficacy of invasive predator management. Wildlife Research 46:154-164.

Whight, S., and R. Bradstock. 1999. Indices of fire characteristics in sandstone heath near Sydney, Australia. International Journal of Wildland Fire 9:145-153.

119

Willacy, R. J., M. Mahony, and D. A. Newell. 2015. If a frog calls in the forest: Bioacoustic monitoring reveals the breeding phenology of the endangered Richmond Range mountain frog (Philoria richmondensis). Austral Ecology 40:625-633.

Wintle, B. A., R. P. Kavanagh, M. A. McCarthy, and M. A. Burgman. 2005. Estimating and dealing with detectability in occupancy surveys for forest owls and arboreal marsupials. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:905-917.

Wintle, B. A., M. A. McCarthy, K. M. Parris, and M. A. Burgman. 2004. Precision and bias of methods for estimating point survey detection probabilities. Ecological Applications 14:703-712.

This project is supported through funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program.

http://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/

Further information:

Preliminary Draft Design considerations for post natural disaster (fire...

Documents

Transcript of Preliminary Draft Design considerations for post natural disaster (fire...