Threatened Species Nomination Formfor amending the list of threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(EPBC Act)

2014/15 Assessment PeriodThe purpose of this form is to provide a nomination to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) for assessment of a non EPBC Act listed species/subspecies for inclusion on the list of threatened species or to nominate a species/subspecies for reassessment for consideration for listing in another category of threat.

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

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

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

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

Important notes for completing this form

Please complete the form as comprehensively as possible – it is important for the Committee to have as much information as possible, and the best case on which to judge a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act criteria for listing.

Certain information in this nomination is required to be provided by Division 7.2 EPBC Regulations 2000 (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html). Nominations that do not meet the EPBC Regulations can not be provided to the Committee for consideration. All required questions are included in this nominations form. If information to answer any of the questions in this form is NOT available please state this in your answer as this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the EPBC Regulations.

Reference all information and facts, both in the text and in a reference list at the end of the form.

The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as personal communication, with their approval, in support of your nomination. Please provide the name of the experts, their qualifications and contact details (including employment in a state agency, if relevant) in the reference list at the end of the form.

If the species is considered to be affected by climate change, please refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part

B2). Identify any confidential material and explain the sensitivity. Note that the information in the nomination (but excluding any information specifically

requested by you to remain confidential) will be made available to the public and experts for comment. However, your details as nominator will not be released, and will remain confidential.

Figures, tables and maps can be included at the end of the form or prepared as separate electronic or hardcopy documents (referred to as appendices or attachments in your nomination).

Cross-reference relevant areas of the nomination form where needed.Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A.

If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).

Details of Nominated Species or Subspecies

1. NAME OF NOMINATED SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Crinia sloanei      Common name(s): Sloane’s Froglet      

2. CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY What category is the species currently listed in under the EPBC Act? (If you are nominating the species for removal from the list, please complete the nomination form for removal from the list).X Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered

Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent

3. 2013–2014 CONSERVATION THEMEIs the current conservation theme ‘terrestrial and marine flora and fauna that would benefit from national listing’ relevant to this nomination? If so, briefly explain how.Sloane’s Froglet would benefit greatly from national listing. Peri-urban areas on the outskirts of a few NSW and Victorian, Murray Valley towns are the remaining strongholds of this frog. Its remaining habitat largely occurs on rural small holdings. Its survival is dependent on sympathetic management by many people on private property. The recognition and potential funding sources that national listing would entail, would raise the profile of the froglet and enhance efforts to research and produce management guidelines for the species and increase the level of adoption and implementation of these guidelines. Listing would also help co-ordinate conservation efforts across NSW and Victoria.

Defence and other Commonwealth land is an important component of the remaining habitat of the species, particularly the Wirlinga Ammunition Depot and Training Area. Much of the habitat in the Thurgoona –Albury stronghold area are former lands of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, and Commonwealth funding has been provided to manage these lands for environmental conservation. Listing will re-enforce the importance of these lands for the froglets’s conservation.

Transfer Information (for transferring of a species to another category)Note: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories please complete questions 4-6. If the nomination is for a new listing please proceed to question 7. If the nomination is to remove a species from the list, please use the delisting form.

4. REASON FOR THE NOMINATION FOR CATEGORY CHANGE Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.What is the reason for the nomination:

Genuine change of status New Knowledge Mistake Other

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

5. INITIAL LISTING Describe the reasons for the species’ initial listing and if available the criteria under which it was formerly considered eligible     

6. CHANGES IN SITUATIONWith regard to the listing criteria, how have circumstances changed since the species was listed that now makes it eligible for listing in another category?     

Species Information

7. TAXONOMY Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order). Sloane's Froglet (Crinia sloanei Littlejohn 1958) was first identified from other co-occurring species of Crinia on the basis of its call, breeding behaviour and morphological appearance (Littlejohn 1958). Male Sloane's Froglet call while floating in open water of temporary ponds, while closely related sympatric species call out of water (C. parinsignifera) or under cover of overhanging grasses or sitting on submerged vegetation (C. signifera). The difference in call between the species is distinctive, with Sloane’s Froglet producing a short, high pitched chirp (Knight 2013a). Littlejohn (1958) also described morphological differences with an emphasis on the difference in throat and belly colour and markings among the three species. Molecular phylognetic study of Crinia and related taxa concluded that the taxonomic status of C. sloanei is stable (Read et al. 2001). It's closest related species are in Western Australian including C. insignifera and pseudinsignifera rather than the co-occurring C. signifera and C. parinsignifera (Read et al 2001).

Hybrids are unknown.      

8. CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTEDIs the species conventionally accepted? If the species' taxonomy is NOT conventionally accepted, then please provide the following information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000:

a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature; OR

evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species, and a written statement signed by a person who is a taxonomist and has relevant expertise (has worked with, or is a published author on, the class of species nominated), that the species is considered to be a new species.

Sloane’s Froglet is conventionally recognised as a species with no subspecies, and was first described in 1958 (Littlejohn 1958).

9. DESCRIPTIONProvide a description of the species including where relevant, distinguishing features, size and social structure How distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified?Sloane's Froglet (Crinia sloanei) is a small ground-dwelling frog of between 15mm – 20mm, belonging to the family Myobatrichidae. Males average about 15.6 mm in size, with females being slightly bigger at 17.6 mm (Littlejohn 1958). It has a brown or browny-grey back often with darker brown or olive markings and males may also have orange or ochre coloured spots. The belly is white and peppered with small black spots. The throat of females is white, while breeding males have a greyish-green lower jaw and a pale grey throat. There is no webbing on the feet and toe-pads are absent. Eggs are pigmented and laid individually at the bottom of pools attached to blades of grass or other submerged vegetation. Tadpoles grow to 25 mm and are light grey or brown all over with scattered dark flecks (Knight 2013a, Antis 2002).

Sloane’s Froglet tadpoles are difficult to distinguish from those of C. signfera and C. parinisignifera (Antis 2002). Adult froglets are hard to see and hide quickly so they are best identified by their call. During the winter months and after heavy rain it makes its distinctive "chirp" while floating on top of a water body. It calls during the day and at night (Knight 2013a). On the basis of its call and appearance, adult Sloane’s Froglet are unlikely to be misidentified.

10. DISTRIBUTION Provide a succinct overview of the species’ known or estimated current and past distribution, including international/national distribution. Provide a map if available.

Is the species protected within the reserve system (e.g. national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, or other conservation estates, private land covenants, etc.)? If so, which populations? Which reserves are actively managed for this species? Give details.Crinia sloanei is endemic to the Murray-Darling Basin from where it has been recorded from widely scattered locations in north central Victoria and central western NSW from the Victorian to the Queensland border. Nearly, three quarters of the records are from the Riverina Bioregion which straddles southern NSW and Central Victoria, with a further 18% of records within the NSW South Western Slopes. Other records are from the Darling Riverine Plains, Cobar Peneplain and from the edges of the Victorian Midlands, Brigalow Belt - South and Murray Darling Depression bioregions (Atlas of Living Australia 2014, Knight 2013a see Figure 1).

It seems quite likely that Sloane’s Froglet could have occurred in the past or still may occur in southern central Queensland given that the most northern record in NSW occurs at Mungindi

and is within 200 metres of the Queensland border. The complete lack of records in Queensland may be because the species occurred there rarely or lack of familiarity with the species or inappropriate survey (Knight 2013a).

Since 1998 most of the former range of Sloanes Froglet has been the subject of extensive frog surveys or targeted surveys for the froglet (See Table 1 and Figure 2). Sloane’s Froglet has disappeared from much of its former range and now appears to be restricted to a very small northern population in the vicinity of Mungindi and a larger southern population centred on the Albury and Corowa/Rutherglen areas with small disjunct populations at Wangarratta, Chiltern, Little Lake Charm and Moodies Swamp near Cobram (Knight 2013a)

Historic records of the froglet exist from several conservation reserve in NSW including Pilliga CCA Zone 3 (Pilliga East State Conservation Area), Round Hill Nature Reserve, Woomargama National Park, Goobang National Park, Benambra National Park, Bogandyera Nature Reserve and Cocopara National Park, but it would appear that the froglet is now extinct in these areas.

Fragmented populations of probably a few tens of frogs still occur at Moodies Swamp Wetland Reserve and Wangarratta Common in Victoria (Knight 2013a)

Damian Michael undertook a survey on the Albury Environmental Lands in Albury residential and rural residential areas in Winter 2012. He found Sloane’s Froglet at 22 of the 38 sites surveyed (XXXX Pers. Com). These crown lands are zoned ‘Environmental Protection’ under the Albury City Local Environmental Plan. They are managed for conservation by the NSW Department of Trade and Investment with funds provided by the Commonwealth when the lands were transferred from the ownership of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation.

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

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

Sloane’s Froglet lives and breeds in temporary and permanent waterbodies including oxbows off creeks and rivers, farm dams, large and small natural wetlands, constructed frog ponds and temporary puddles. It prefers wetlands that contain riparian and aquatic vegetation. Most often it has been found in waterbodies that contain grasses and reeds that are of medium height and have small stem diameters such as couch, watercouch or the Common spikerush, Eleocharis acuta. Waterbodies containing this type of vegetation are essential for Sloane’s Froglet as it lays its eggs attached to vegetation rather than as a frothy mass on the surface of the water like some other frogs (Knight 2013b). Gilgai and other depressions are favoured habitat on clay plains, while elsewhere they are generally restricted to temporary ponds in the river valley and up to 8 km on either side of large rivers (Littlejohn 1958).

As well as requiring particular breeding habitat, Sloane’s Froglet needs connections between breeding and refuge sites. Inland Australia’s extremely variable climate means that for Sloane’s to survive it has to move across the landscape when it is wet. Sloane’s Froglet uses roadside drains, table drains, irrigation channels and inundated grasslands to move from one spot to another (knight 2013b).

The majority of the natural vegetation providing Sloane's Froglet habitat is listed nationally as critically endangered. It is either Seasonal Herbaceous Wetlands (Freshwater) of the Temperate Lowland Plains or White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland or the endangered Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia.

Recent extensive survey has only located the froglet at a few general locations and relatively large populations were only recorded in ponds and depressions found within rural residential or peri-urban areas in the Albury – Thurgoona, Howlong and Cowora - Wahgunyah and Rutherglen areas. (Alexandera Knight 2013b and see Figure 3). 95% of all Sloane’s froglets recorded since 2000 have been in these three stronghold areas. It is unclear why rural residential areas are the remaining stronghold of the species, but it may be related to the provision of dams and ponds in these areas and generally light or no stock grazing of wetland and depression areas.

Little is known about the biology of the species. The peak calling time for males is from June to August, though they will also call throughout spring and after summer rains. Males usually call while floating in open water of temporary ponds. Females lay small eggs (around 3-3.5mm) individually and may lay fewer than 30 eggs in total (XXXX Pers. comm.). Hatching occurs 10 days after laying, no data is available, but metamorphosis may occur in late spring to autumn if breeding takes place in winter or spring (Antis 2002). It is unknown whether a female may lay multiple clutches in a year. Preferred breeding sites are shallow natural or constructed pools to 20 cm depth containing grass (XXXX Pers. comm.).

Adults are insectivorous. Tadpoles are bottom-dwellers and are thought to feed on fine particles in the sediment on the substrate (Antis 2002).

The generation length of Sloane's Froglet is unknown, but is likely to be between 18 months and 3 years. Crinia signifera is known to live for four years reaching sexual maturity in 18 months to 2 years (Bull and Williimson 1996). XXXX (Pers. Comm.) undertook surveys for Sloane’s Froglet within the Murray Valley over repeated years and considers that the froglet has some ability to increase numbers during wet favourable years.

12. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCEIs the species known to have cultural significance for Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.No particular significance publicly known

Threats

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

NB – CLIMATE CHANGE AS A THREAT. If climate change is an important threat to the nominated species it is important that you provide referenced information on exactly how climate change might significantly increase the nominated species’ vulnerability to extinction. For guidance refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2).The specific cause for decline and threats to Crinia sloanei are unknown. The timing of the observed decline from the 1980’s to present day suggest that the cause of decline may be related to declines seen in many other Australian amphibians during this period. Factors that occurred during this period that may have impacted on frogs include major droughts in eastern Australia from 1977 to 1982, and 2002 to 2006, the introduction and spread of Chytrid fungus and increased UV-B radiation due to atmospheric ozone depletion (Pennay 2007).

The period of decline corresponds with the disappearance of the Southern Bellfrog (Litoria raniformis) from much of its range in the Murray Darling Basin (IUCN 2004b, Mahony 1999). Litoria raniformis overlaps substantially in range with Crinia sloanei. The speculated cause of decline for Litoria raniformis is linked to Chytrid fungus, predation by the Plague Minnow, increased UV-B radiation, viral infection and salinity (IUCN 2004b, Mahony 1999).

Loss of habitat due to clearing of native vegetation The entire known range of Crinia sloanei occurs across highly cleared landscapes with clearing rates amongst the highest for either NSW or Victoria (See Figure 4). It is likely that the natural habitat of this species has been substantially impacted by land clearing (Pennay 2007, Knight 2013a).

Chytrid fungus Chytrid fungus is a fatal disease in frogs and is associated with the decline or extinction of many frog species (Berger et al. 1999). Tests of 14 individual Sloane’s Froglets from Thurgoona and Corowa undertaken in 2011 showed that 10 tested positive, which is a high rate of infection. However, it is difficult to know what influence the pathogen is having. (XXXX, Pers. Com.) Chytrid fungus has also been reported in 4 closely related species of the genus Crinia, these are Crinia georgiana, Crinia glauerti, Crinia insignifera and Crinia pseudinsignifera (Speare & Berger 2005).

Predation by introduced fish Plague Minnow occurs throughout the range of Crinia sloanei (NPWS 2003). The Plague Minnow Threat Abatement Plan prepared by NPWS (2003) includes a model predicting susceptibility to Plague Minnow predation based on physical and ecological characters of each frog species. Crinia sloanei is ranked in the moderate range (score of 14 out of a range of 0-24, 0= low 24= highest susceptibility). Introduced European Carp, trout species and Redfin Perch also infest waters throughout the range of Crinia sloanei. Carp, trout and Redfin Perch are believed be major predators on aquatic frogs in the Murray Darling Basin (DNRE 2001, Gillespie & Hines 1999, Gillespie & Hero 1999).

Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands Crinia sloanei may also have been negatively impacted by the alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands. The species natural range occurs in the Murray Darling Basin the location of the most highly regulated and altered river system in Australia. Major dams occur in all catchments where Crinia sloanei is known. Specific factors likely to impact the frogs include loss of wetlands associated with removal of water for irrigation and lowered water tables (Pennay 2007).

Stock GrazingThe distribution of Sloane’s Froglet corresponds with one of the heaviest stock grazed environments in Australia. Trampling or destruction of habitat by grazing and the deterioration of water quality in wetlands by stock, may also threatened this species.

Climate ChangeGonzalez et al (2011) describe some of the expected climate changes that will be experienced across the Murray Darling Basin. These include: less frequent floods, resulting in reduced frequency of inundation of temporary wetlands and

floodplains, and longer dry periods between floods; and increased evaporation, which will mean wetlands, will dry out more rapidly.Thus it is expected that climate change will increase the likelihood that the shallow wetlands favoured by the froglet will be less abundant in both space and time and there will be increased likelihood that breeding habitat may not remain wet long enough for a life cycle to be completed.

Mac Nally et al (2009) note that climate models for south-eastern Australia predict a long-term shift to ‘flashy’ summer rainfall events rather than the autumn–spring peaks, which are very unlike the precipitation patterns in which frogs like Sloane’s Froglet evolved. Mac Nally et. al. (2009) also note that like Sloane’s Froglet, most of the frogs in Central Victoria are autumn–spring breeders, so these shifts in water availability are likely to have significant impacts on population viability. While there are many water bodies in the landscape, the lack of breeding cues (e.g. heavy rains in the cooler parts of the year) seems to have been the overriding factor in generating the apparent steep decline in incidence, abundance and breeding activity of the frog fauna of Central Victoria.

14. IMPACT OF THE THREATSIdentify how the species is affected by the threats.Loss of habitat due to clearing of native vegetation     Sloane’s Froglet can thrive in man-made dams and rural areas, so clearance of woody vegetation may not have direct consequence. However, it is likely that this clearance results in changes to hydrology and evaporation rates, increased stock grazing and reduction in water quality. Combined these impacts reduce the availability and suitability of breeding habitat. Clearing and altered hydrology has also increased the fragmentation and isolation between wetland habitat, meaning that local extinctions can’t be readily replenished from core refuge areas once favoured conditions arise. At the pond scale clearing is likely to reduce the availability of dry season refuge features, such as large fallen logs, increasing the likelihood of local extinctions.

Chytrid fungusIt is noteworthy that the five species of Crinia known to be infected by Chytrid fungus include

Sloane’s Froglet and its closest relatives (Read et al. 2001, XXXX Pers. Comm.). Members of this clade may possess a genetic predisposition of susceptibility to this disease. Berger et al. (1999) note that host biology may be a key factor in vulnerability to the disease and explain why certain species are more affected than others. Chytrid fungus is believed to have been introduced into Brisbane in the 1970’s and spread during the 1980’s, the timing of this spread correlates with the decline in records of Crinia sloanei (Pennay 2007).

Predation by introduced fishSpecific impact on Crinia sloanei is unknown however research on the impact of Plague Minnow indicates that the eggs of Crinia species may be unpalatable to the Plague Minnow, however studies on tadpole predation indicated Crinia tadpoles are more susceptible to predation than larger species of frog (NPWS 2003).

Climate Change, alteration to hydrology and stock grazingAs Sloane’s Froglet needs shallow pools with grasses and reeds in which to breed, a drying of the landscape, reduction in flooding and simplification of pond vegetation is likely to adversely affect this species.

15. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed.Alexandra Knight of Charles Sturt University is near completion of a PhD on the ecology and distribution of Sloane’s Froglet. The Albury Conservation Company, a non-government not for profit conservation company, has utilised the work of Ms Knight to raise the profile of the froglet in the Thurgoona area, held a public workshop on its conservation and in conjunction with NSW Environment and Heritage is seeking to produce habitat management guidelines, particularly for implementation by private, education and government landholders in the Thurgoona area.

The NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (undated) has prepared a Priorities Action Statement (PAS) that identifies five broad strategies to help Sloane’s Froglet recover in New South Wales. These strategies and their priority are; ACTION PRIORITYUndertake surveys to determine the current distribution of the species. HighIdentify the threats operating at extant sites and where possible implement High actions to address the threats.Determine the prevalence and impact of Chytrid on the species. MediumInvestigate opportunities for environmental water flows to assist with Medium providing breeding opportunities to improve reproductive output and recruitment.Design and implement a monitoring program at sites across the species range to Medium determine ongoing occupancy or persistence.

Since 2006 there has been a national Threat Abatement Plan for Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus Resulting in Chytridiomycosis. However, a 2012 review of this plan found that the two goals of the plan had largely not been achieved. That is, the further spread of amphibian chytrid fungus within Australia had been slowed to some extent but it had not been prevented from reaching almost all climatically suitable areas in Australia; and the impact of infection with amphibian chytrid fungus on populations that are currently infected has only been somewhat decreased (Dept.

of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Community (2012).

Eligibility against the criteriaTo be considered eligible for listing a species must be eligible for at least one of Criteria 1-5 (Q18-22). The species does not have to be found eligible for all Criteria and information is not required for all criteria if unavailable, however an answer to all questions must be provided, if data/information is unavailable a statement to this effect is required

16. CRITERION 1 Reduction in numbers (based on any of A1 – A4)

A1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population very severe 90%, severe 70% substantial 50% size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased, based on (and specifying) any of the following:(a) direct observation(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon(c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.

A2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.

A3. A population size reduction very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.

A4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size reduction very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%over any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.

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

Criteria A.2Sloane's Froglet has undergone a very severe reduction in its extent of occurrence and inferred population size over the last 30 – 40 years. The reasons for the decline are not understood, are likely to be continuing and may not be reversible. As detailed below, it is difficult to provide meaningful information as to the extent of this decline within the last ten years or any particular ten-year period, but it is a reasonable assumption that decline within the last ten years has at least been substantial.

Knowledge on the geographical extent of Sloane’s Froglet derives from two main sources: ad hoc records made since the frogs discovery in 1958 and generally one off comprehensive frog or targeted Sloane’s Froglet surveys, which across most of the froglet’s range have only occurred since

1998 (see Table 1 in the attached appendix for full survey list). Thus the known change in the extent of occurrence is the difference between the extent of all recorded ad hoc occurrences and those that were observed during the last ten years or so as part of comprehensive surveys. As indicated in Figure 5 147,000 sq km is the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary, which can be drawn to encompass all known past and present occurrences. Recent comprehensive survey indicates that the extent of occurrence post 1998 has been reduced to 21,800 sq km. An 85% reduction in area since the first records in 1958.

Pennay (2007) used the number of records for Crinia sloanei compared with those of the related Plains Froglet (Crinia parinsignifera) as an indication of population decline. Crinia parinsignifera shares a number of similar features with Crinia sloanei that are likely to affect their detectability equally; • both are small cryptic froglets primarily identified on the basis of male advertisement calls; • both breed from late winter to spring, and call at other times of the year following heavy rains;• both species occupy the same range, inhabiting the tributaries and plains of the Murray Darling Basin, although Crinia parinsignifera is more widespread; and• both species occupy habitats of woodlands, grasslands and disturbed areas and mate in vegetation floating in the water after inundation.

Because Crinia parinsignifera has a wider range than Crinia sloanei, Pennay (2007) restricted his comparison to the known range of Crinia sloanei. The numbers of both Crinia sloanei and Crinia parinsignifera records have increased over the past two decades (Figures 6 and 7 in the Appendix). This upward trend can be explained by the amount of intensive survey undertaken in the area where the two species occur since the late 1980s. However it is apparent from the data that the rate of increase in records for Crinia sloanei is much lower than in Crinia parinsignifera. The number of Crinia parinsignifera records can be viewed as a surrogate for appropriate survey effort given the similarities between the species both in habit and in survey methodology used to detect them. The ratio of records for C. sloanei/C. parinsignifera (within the range of C. sloanei) in the decades 1977-86, 1987-96 and 1997-2006 has decreased from 4/12 (33%), to 15/74 (20%) and 17/339 (5%), respectively. It would appear that this trend has continued, as from 2007-2013, the Atlas of Living Australia only includes 3 new records for Sloane’s Froglet as opposed to 218 new records for the Plains Froglet, a ratio of 1.4%. However, this includes all records of the Plains Froglet for NSW, not just those within the range of Sloane’s Froglet, also it would appear that data collected from targeted Sloane’s Froglet surveys by Knight and Michael has yet to be added to the Atlas of Living Australia. The number of Crinia sloanei records compared to the corresponding increase in survey effort (i.e. number of Crinia parinsignifera records) shows a marked decline (95%) in Crinia sloanei records over a 40-year period (Figure 7 in the Appendix.).

From 2004 – 2013 there are 3 records of Sloane’s Froglet entered into the Atlas of Living Australia, and 953 Plains Froglet over the same time. Over the previous decade 29 records of Sloane’s Froglet were added as opposed to 1,174 records of Plains Froglets. This equates to 2.470 Sloane’s Froglet records for every 100 of Plains Froglets in the years 1994-2003 and 0.314 for every 100 in the years 2004 –2013. An 87% reduction in recording between the two ten year periods (Atlas of Living Australia -Accessed 9 March 2014).

Pennay (2007) also compared the records for Sloane’s Froglet against the number of all amphibians

recorded per decade from the Atlas of NSW Wildlife, Australian Museum and CSIRO National Wildlife collection databases. The number of all amphibians recorded per decade being indicative of the amount of survey work undertaken during that period in NSW. The number of Crinia sloanei recorded over the past 40 years relative to the number of all frogs recorded fell by 44% (Figure 8.)

Pennay demonstrated by two different means that the reported occurrence of Crinia sloanei has decreased disproportionately to frogs in general or Crinia parinsignifera in particular at a rate of between 44% and 95% below the expected rate over the past 40 years. Pennay (2007) found a similar decline when he analysed the Victoria records, with numbers stable through the 1960’s and 1970’s and declining from the 1980’s.

It is also possible that Sloane’s Froglet had already suffered population decline prior to its relatively late discovery. Clearance and intensive agricultural are two key potential threats and both had a long and extensive history within and neighbouring the known range of the froglet.17. CRITERION 2: Geographic distribution (based on either of B1 or B2) B1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be very restricted <100 km2, restricted <5000 km2 or limited < 20 000 km2

B2. Area of occupancy estimated to be very restricted <10 km2, restricted <500 km2 or limited <2000 km2

ANDGeographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the species, (based on at least two of a–c)

a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location.b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:

(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.

c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals

NOTE: The distribution of the species within Australia is assessed in two ways, the EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE and the AREA OF OCCUPANCY. The two concepts are closely related, and often confused. Therefore, before you answer this question, please see the definitions and explanatory material in Attachment A. Note that the area of occupancy or the extent of occurrence must be very restricted, restricted, or limited and its geographic distribution must be precarious for the survival of the species.

In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria and if available include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on : Whether there are smaller populations of the species within the total population and, if so, the degree of

geographic separation between the smaller populations within the total population Any biological, geographic, human induced or other barriers enforcing separationCriteria B2Sloane’s Froglet certainly has a limited area of occupancy and probably has an area of less than 500 square kilometres. The Froglet does has the ability to move across flooded or damp plains and appears to be reasonably mobile (XXXX Pers. Comm..), but during times of prolonged drought or

perhaps annual dry periods its area of occupancy is restricted to water-holding or damp refuge areas. This is essentially the ponds, dams and swamps in which it has been recorded and which occur within the current range. Knight (2013a) visited over 400 potential sites largely between Echuca and Albury. Her survey sites were predominantly easy to access wetlands located on the edge of roadsides on public and private land, on public land such as Traveling Stock Reserves and in the newly established NSW River Redgum National Parks. Surveys were initially undertaken at known historic locations, particularly where the species had been recently recorded. Not all waterbodies in the regions were surveyed due to difficulty or restrictions on access. She also sought information from all experts working in the field across the range of the froglet, about recent observed locations. The froglet is currently known from 180 wetlands ponds or dams, most of these in the Thurgoona, Howlong or Corowa -Rutherglen areas. If we assume that the area of occupancy is a 1km radius around a recorded observation this gives a total area of occupancy of 180 square km. Even if the froglet is only known from half the wetlands/dams in which it actually occurs, it is highly likely to only have a restricted and certainly a limited area of occupancy.

As indicated by Figures 2 and 3 in the Appendix, Sloane’s Froglet has a very fragmented distribution, with only the populations in the strongholds of Thurgoona – Albury, Howlong and Corowa –Wahgunyah-Rutherglen areas having the ability to move between multiple known locations. These area also the only populations of a large enough size to maintain genetic diversity. As detailed under Criterion 1, Sloane’s Froglet has suffered and appears to be continuing to suffer a severe decline in its area of occupancy.

18. CRITERION 3The estimated total number of mature individuals is very low <250, low <2500 or limited<10 000;

and either of (A) or (B) is true A) evidence suggests that the number will continue to decline at a very high (25% in 3 years or 1 generation (up to

100 years), whichever is longer), high (20% in 5 years or 2 generations(up to 100 years), whichever is longer) or substantial (10% in 10 years or 3 generations years), whichever is longer(up to 100) rate; or

(B) the number is likely to continue to decline and its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival (based on at least two of a – c):

a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location.b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following:

(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat(iv) number of locations or subpopulations(v) number of mature individuals.

c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following:(i) extent of occurrence(ii) area of occupancy(iii) number of locations or subpopulations(iv) number of mature individuals

In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria, including the estimated

total number of mature individuals in known.Note: If the estimated total number of mature individuals is unknown but presumed to be likely to be >10 000 you are not required to provide an answer to either A or B as the species would be ineligible under this criteria.

If you are answering (B) as part of this criteria and have provided and answer to the second part of the criteria in Criterion 2 above you are not required to repeat the information provided in Criterion 2, just referred to it and add any additional information that may be relevant to this criterion.

Criterion 3BThere are probably less than 10,000 Sloane’s Froglets remaining today and its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival.

Knight (2013a) recently undertook a survey across the southern half of the froglet's range (southern NSW and northern Victoria) as well as undertaking a targeted survey in the Yetman region of Northern NSW. In northern NSW she located Sloane’s Froglet at just one pond at Mungindi, with an estimated population of twenty calling males. Knight (2013a) also reports that ecologist Phil Sparks heard a small number of froglets calling at Mungindi and also near Walgett in 2012, and in the last five years had only additionally heard the froglet at Toorale Station near Bourke. Since 1993, various frog surveys have searched 688 wetland sites across the northern range of Sloanes Froglet, without finding one froglet (Gosper 2002, RACD 2000, Pennay 2002, Masters and Foster 2000, Date and Paull 2000, kay et. Al. 2013). It is possible that there may be fewer than 100 froglets surviving within the northern half of the range.

Knight’s survey across the southern half of the range revisited sites with historical records and other accessible wetlands within the Echuca to Holbrook section of the Murray Valley. Abundance at each of the 180 sites at which froglets were recorded, was categorized into seven classes based on an estimate of the number of individuals males calling; <5, 6 – 10, 11 - 20, 21 - 50, 51-100, 100 –499. or 500. Numbers of males calling was recorded over a number of years at some of the sites. If the highest recorded value is taken for all of the recorded sites the maximum number of calling males was estimated to be around 3,500 (Knight 2013a). Relative numbers of calling males are shown in Figure 3 in the Appendix. Froglets are known from outside the areas surveyed by Knight (2013a), but numbers of calling males at these further sites total less than 150 (Knight 2013a, Pennay 2007, and see table 1 in teh appendix). Significant numbers of the froglet are now restricted to just a few peri-urban areas in the vicinity of Thugoona/Albury Howlongand Cowora/Wahgunyah/Rutherglen where it is estimated from the number of calling males that populatiosn are in their high hundreds to low thousands. These populations are crucial to the long term survival of Sloane’s Froglet.

There are likely to be further unsurveyed sites of potential habitat on private land, but the froglet has now been subject to comprehensive survey across its range. Ms Knight surveyed somes sites repeatedly over a three year period and noted fluctuations in froglet numbers depending on the amount of rainfall. During dry times Ms Knight considers that the total Australian population of calling males may be below 1,000 and during periods of good rainfall may rise to about 3,500 animals (XXXX Pers. Comm.). If a 1:1 sex ratio of males to females is assumed then even during good seasons the total population is limited and may drop to low numbers in times of drought.

Pennay (2007) considered it highly indicative of low Sloane’s froglet numbers that it has been recorded far less often than many other NSW frog species already on the EPBC and/or NSW threatened species lists including nine frog species currently listed under the EPBC Act.

The froglet has a substantianly fragmented distribution, tied to wetlands and waterbodies. The small isolated populations away from the bigger populations are susceptible to extinction during prolonged drought, due to dessication of habitat. The froglet has also suffered a severe decline in its occupancy, which appears to be continuing. For example, Knight (2013a), could not locate any froglets downstream of Corowa, despite the froglet being observed downstream of Corowa in 2004 (Ward 2004).

19. CRITERION 4 : Estimated total number of mature individuals (a) Extremely low < 50(b) Very low < 250(c) Low < 1000

Survey by Knight (2013a) indicates a current population in excess of 1000 individuals.

In answering this question provide details on how the figure derived

20. CRITERION 5 : Probability of extinction in the wild based on quantitative analysis is at least (a) 50% in the immediate future, 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer); or(b) 20% in the near future, 20 year or five generations (whichever is longer); or(c) 10% in the medium-term future, within 100 years.

No relevant data availableIn answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria

21. NOMINATED CATEGORY Note: after completing questions 16-20 sufficient evidence should be available to determine the category for listing. Refer to the indicative threshold criteria at Attachment B . Vulnerable (This is a conservative rating based on lack of detailed data tied to a 10 year period, and assuming that not all current locations of the froglet are known.

22. CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE SPECIES IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.

Criterion 1

Criterion 2

Criterion 3

A1 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A2 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A3 (specify at least one of the following) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A4 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e)

A1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c); AND/OR A2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

A1; AND/OR A2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

For conservation dependent nominations only:

Criterion 1 (refer to Q23 below) Criterion 2 (refer to Q 24below)

Conservation Dependent ConsiderationsNote: Only complete this section if nominating for consideration under the conservation dependent category, or if nominating a fish (or harvested marine species) with a management plan. Answer either Q.23 OR Q.24, whichever is more appropriate.

23. CONSERVATION PROGRAM (if species is a fish or harvested marine species, see Q.24 first)a) Give details of the conservation program for which this species is a focus.b) Provide details of how the species would become vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered should the

program cease.     

24. FISH MANAGEMENT PLANS a) Give details of the plan of management that focuses on the fish. b) Provide details of how the plan provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of and

support the recovery of the species, so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised.c) Explain the effect on the fish if the plan of management ceased

     

25. MANAGEMENT PLAN’S LEGISLATIVE BASIS Is the plan of management (or some component/s of it) in force under Commonwealth or State/Territory law? If so, provide details.     

Reviewers and Further Information

26. REVIEWER(S)Has this nomination been peer-reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include their names, current professional positions and contact details.

27. FURTHER INFORMATIONIdentify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.).     

28. REFERENCE LISTPlease list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.Antis, Marion (2002) Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia: a Guide with Keys. New Holland Publishers.

Atlas of Living Australia. Search of Sloane’s Froglet records. Searched on 9 March 2014.

Berger, L., Speare R., Hyatt, A., 1999. Chytrid Fungi and Amphibian Declines: Overview, Implications and Future Directions. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Campbell, A.(Ed.) Environment Australia. Canberra. 23-33.

Bull, CM and Williamson, I., 1996. Population ecology of the Australian frog Crinia signifera: adults and juveniles. Wildlife Research 23 , 249–265.

Campbell, A.(Ed.) 1999. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia. Canberra.

Date, E.M. and Paull, D.C., 2000. Forestry in Western New South Wales – Fauna Survey of the North-west Cypress / Ironbark Forests. State Forests of New South Wales, Western Region. Dubbo.

Department of Environment and Conservation (undated) Priority Action Statement – Sloanes Froglet: www.environment.nsw.gov.au threatenedspeciesapp/PasSearchSpecies.aspx?speciesName=Sloane's+Froglet&generalType=Amphibian(accessed 1/2/2014)

Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Community (2012) Review of the Threat Abatement Plan for Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus Resulting in Chytridiomycosi. Australian Government

DNRE, 2001. Freshwater Ecosystems Biodiversity Management Issues. Introducing Fish Outside Their Natural Range. Parks Fauna and Flora Division. Geoscience Australia., 1990. Dams and Water Storages 1990. GIS Shapefile ANZLIC unique identifier: ANZCW0702000011

Gillespie, G., Hero, JM., 1999. Potential Impacts of Introduced Fish and Fish Translocations on Australian Amphibians. in Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs Campbell, A.(Ed.) Environment Australia. Canberra. 131-144.

Gillespie, G., Hines, H., 1999. Status of Temperate Riverine Frogs in South-Eastern Australian, in, Declines and Disappearances of Australian frogs Campbell, A.(Ed.) Environment Australia. Canberra. 109-130.

Gonzalez, D., Scott, A. & Miles, M., 2011. Assessing the vulnerability of native vertebrate fauna under climate change to inform wetland and floodplain management of the River Murray in South Australia. Report prepared for the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board

Gosper, C. ,2002. Darling Riverine Plains Biodiversity Survey. Technical Report.National Parks and Wildlife Service, Western Regional Assessments Unit. Dubbo.

IUCN, 2004a. Crinia sloanei, Global Amphibian Assessment , Assessors: Hero, J.-M., Robertson, P. & Lemckert, F. http://www.globalamphibians.org.

IUCN, 2004b, Litoria raniformis, Global Amphibian Assessment , Assessors Gillespie, G., Lemckert, F., Littlejohn, M., Robertson, P., Brereton, R. & Brown, P. http://www.globalamphibians.org.

Kay, Geoffrey M.; Michael, Damian R.; Crane, Mason; Okada, Sachiko; MacGregor, Christopher; Florance, Daniel; Trengove, David; McBurney, Lachlan; Blair, David; Lindenmayer, David B. (2013) A list of reptiles and amphibians from Box Gum Grassy Woodlands in south-eastern Australia. CheckList Vol. 9 Issue 3, p476-481.

Kerle A. (2013) Cowal Gold Mine and Surrounds Threatened Fauna Survey. A report prepared for Barrick Cowal Ltd.

Knight A,. 2013a, The distribution of Sloane's Froglet, Crinia sloanei, in southerb NSW and northern Victoria: a review of historical distribution records and results fro surveys undertaken in Winters 2 010 - 2013. Report No 70. Charles Sturt University. Albury.

Knight, Alexandra (2013b) Sloane’s Froglet, (Crinia sloanei)- Fact sheet. Albury Conservation Company, Albury.

Lemckert F. (1998) A Survey for threatened herpetofauna of the South-west Slopes of NSW Australian Zoologist 30(4)

Littlejohn, M.J., 1958. A new species of frog of the genus Crinia Tschudi from south-eastern Australia. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 83(2): 222–226.

Mac Nally, R., Horrocks, G., Lada, H., Lake, P. S., Thomson, J. R., & Taylor, A. C. (2009). Distribution of anuran amphibians in massively altered landscapes in south-eastern Australia: effects of climate change in an aridifying region. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 18(5), 575-585. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00469.x

Mahony, M., 1999. Review of the Declines and Disappearances within the Bell Frog Species Group (Litoria aurea species group) in Australia, in, Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs Campbell, A.(Ed.) Environment Australia. Canberra. 81-93.

Masters, P. and Foster, E., 2000. Investigating fauna distribution on the Cobar Peneplain. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Museum Victoria, Melbourne, Australia, 2006. Bioinformatics Victorian Faunal Web Site. Published on the Internet; http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/bioinformatics/ [accessed 19th March 2013].

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2003). NSW Threat Abatement Plan. Predation by Gambusia holbrooki – The Plague Minnow. NPWS. Hurstville, NSW.

Pennay, M., 2002. Vertebrate fauna survey, analysis and modelling projects. NSW Western Regional Assessments, Brigalow Belt South Bioregion (Stage 2). Planning NSW. Sydney.

Pennay, M., 2007. Nomination of Sloanes Froglet (Crinia sloanei) as a vulnerable species in NSW. Nomination to the NSW Scientific Committee.

RACD., 2000. Brigalow Belt South: Regional Assessment (Stage 1), Report on Preliminary Fauna Survey of Pilliga and Goonoo Forests, November 1999 to January 2000. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Western Directorate

Read, K., Keogh, J.S., Scott,I.A.W., Roberts, D.J. Doughty.,P. 2001. Molecular Phylogeny of the Australian Frog Genera Crinia, Geocrinia, and Allied Taxa (Anura: Myobatrachidae) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Vol. 21(2). 294–308.

Rowley, J., Bulbert, M., Miehs, A. (2005) Oberservations of calling and breeding of frogs in Central Western New South Wales. Herpetofauna 35(1) 25 - 29.

Shea, G. M. Sadlier, R. 1999. A Catalogue of the Non-fossil Amphibian and Reptile Type Specimens in the Collection of the Australian Museum: Types Currently, Previously and Purportedly Present. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum. No. 15. Sydney.

Speare R and Berger L. 2005 Chytridiomycosis status of wild amphibians in Australia. http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/chy-au-status.htm[accessed 24 March 2013).

Ward, P.A. (2004) Monitoring frog response to flooding in Barmah-Millewa Forest: 2003/04.Final report prepared for the Barmah-Millewa Forum, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra

Wassens S., Arnaiz O.L., and Watts R.J., 2007 Assessing the Diversity, Abundance and Hydrological Requirements of Frog Populations at Burrawang West and Yarnel Lagoons, two small wetlands on anabranch creeks of the Mid-Lachlan River. A report prepared fro the Department of the Environment and Climate Change.

Wassens, S., Sass, S., Swan, G., Thompson, L.A., 2004. Frog diversity in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area: a baseline survey for Murrumbidgee Irrigation Pty. Ltd. Johnstone Centre Research in Natural Resources & Society Environmental Consulting. Report No. 69.

29. IMAGES OF THE SPECIESPlease include images of the species if available.

30. APPENDIXPlease place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can provide them as an attachment.Appendix attached

Nominator's DetailsNote: Your details are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice regarding the nomination is sought from such parties. If there are multiple nominators please include details below for all nominators.

31. TITLE (e.g. Mr/Mrs/Dr/Professor/etc.)XXXX

32. FULL NAME      XXXX XXXX

33. ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)      XXXX

34. CONTACT DETAILSEmail: XXXX      Phone: XXXXFax:      

Postal address: XXXXXXXX XXXX

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

Signed: * If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signatureDate: 18/03/2014

Lodging your nominationHow to lodge your nominationCompleted nominations may be lodged either:1. by email to: epbc.nominations@environment.gov.au, or2. by mail to: The Director

Species Information and Policy SectionDepartment of the Environment

GPO Box 787Canberra ACT 2601

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

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

Please tick

DSEWPAC website Australian newspaper word of mouth

Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one………………………………………………………………….

web search Other…Phone contact with DSEWPAC staff ………………………………………………………………………………..

Comments