Threatened Species Nomination Form 2014/15 … · Web viewSiphons can protrude slightly when feeding, spawning or releasing glochidia. When threatened, all soft tissues can be withdrawn

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 criter i a f o r li s ti n g . 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 fora 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 i nd icat i v e th r esh o l d s 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 d elist a s p ecies.

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 (w w w.en v i r o n m ent. go v .a u / ep b c / a b o u t / i nd e x . h t m l ). 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.

Ref e re n ce all in f o r m at i o n and facts, both in the text and in a refe r ence l i s t at the end of the form. The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as p ers o n al c om m un ic a ti o n , 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 cl i m a t e c h a ng e , please refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (A t tac h m ent B; P a r t B 2 ).

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 w i l l n o t b e r e l e a s e d , 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 At ta c hmen t A .

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

W_carteri_EPBC_Nomination_2014-2015 Assessment Page 2 of 61

Details of Nominated Species or Subspecies

1. N A M E O F N O M I N AT ED S P ECIES (OR SU B S P ECIES) Scientific name: Westralunio carteri Iredale, 1934Common name(s): Marailya / Inbee / Carter’s Freshwater Mussel

(Grey, 1841; Bindon & Chadwick 2011; Klunzinger et al. 2011, 2013)

2. CU RR ENT L IST I NG C A T E G O R Y 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 n o m i n a t ion f orm f or r em o v al f r o m th e l i s t ).

Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically EndangeredEndangered 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.Yes. The listing will provide additional protection of a terrestrial (freshwater) fauna species that would benefit fromnational listing under the EPBC Act 1999. The species has undergone significant range decline and is currently undergoing population losses which are expected to increase in the future. Listing the species under the EPBC Act will increase its long-term chances for survival through legislative protection.

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 d e li s ti n g fo r m .

4. R E A SON F O R T HE N O M I N AT I O N F O R C A T E G O R Y CH A N G E 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. IN I T I A L L IS T ING 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. TA XO N O M Y Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference;synonyms; Family and Order).

Kingdom: ANIMALIA Phylum: MOLLUSCA Class: BIVALVIA Order: UNIONOIDA Family: HYRIIDAEGenus: Westralunio Species: carteri Iredale, 1934

The species is recognised as Westralunio carteri Iredale, 1934 as per McMichael & Hiscock 1958 and Walker et al. 2013. The species was last reviewed taxonomically by McMichael & Hiscock 1958.Two sub-species were recognised by Iredale (1934) – Westralunio ambiguus ambiguus and Westralunio ambiguuscarteri, however McMichael & Hiscock 1958 recognised Westralunio carteri as a single taxon to avoid confusion with


Velesunio ambiguus, a widespread species from eastern Australia.Synonyms: Unio australis Menke, 1843; Unio moretonicus E.A. Smith, 1874; Hyridella ambigua Cotton & Gabriel, 1932; Centralhyria angasi subjecta Iredale, 1934; Westralunio ambiguus carteri Iredale, 1934; Iredale, 1943; Westralunio ambiguus ambiguus Iredale, 1934; Iredale, 1943.

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.

Yes

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

Physical appearance:Adult shells brown to brick red and sometimes almost black, usually with conspicuous erosion on umbo region with remainder of shell covered by periostracum with concentric lines;Growth rings visible in juveniles <40 mm long;Juveniles <20 mm distinguished from other Australian genera by w-shaped umbo sculpturing; Adult shell length = 40-101 mm, but rarely exceeding 90 mm;Juveniles <25 mm in length;Larvae (‘glochidia’) length = 0.3 mm; morphology distinct – shells have larval “teeth” used for attaching to fish; Species lacks a byssus;When in burrowed, filter-feeding position, siphons extended, mantle and siphons have a mottled red/black appearance;inhalant siphon lined with papillae;Adult shells distinct from other species by the presence of robustly serrated cardinal teeth, which are lacking or greatly reduced in other Velesunioninae. The species is usually found clustered in colonies with densities ranging from 1 to>100 mussels/m2.(Iredale 1934, 1943; Klunzinger et al. 2012a,b, 2013; McMichael & Hiscock 1958; Walker et al. 2013; Zieritz et al. 2013)

10. DISTRIBUTI O N 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.

Historic distribution – Historic (pre-1992) records indicate the species once extended from Moore River in the north to King George Sound in the south and inland to the Avon River (McMichael & Hiscock 1958; WA Museum Records; Kendrick 1976; XXXX, in review).

Current distribution – The species is found in freshwater streams, rivers, reservoirs and lakes within 50-100 km of the coast, from Gingin Brook southward to the Kent River, Goodga River and Waychinicup River (Klunzinger et al. 2012b,XXXX, in review; Walker et al. 2013).

11. BI O L O GY/ E C O L O GY 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


Life Cycle:Sexes are separate and hermaphroditism is rare. Spawning occurs in winter (June-August). Fertilisation occurs in specialized chambers of females’ gills, known as ‘marsupia’. Embryos are brooded in marsupia to mature glochidia which are released in strings of mucus, cued by temperature change and increased day length (late-August – December/early- January) and females are baron for the remainder of the year. Glochidia attach to fish and encased in a cyst for 3-4 weeks before detaching to begin life in the sediments as juveniles (no change in shell length while on the fish).

Age at sexual maturity: 3-6 years

Life expectancy: at least 36 - 52 years

Natural mortality rates: Mortality rates in glochidia are unknown, but are thought to be high in juveniles due to benthic predation by fishes and other macroinvertebrates. Natural mortality rates of adults are unknown, but erosion of the umbos by dissolution of the shell surface may eventually lead to a shell breach and death as the pericardial sinus becomes exposed and normal circulation can no longer occur. Predation by birds, reptiles and water rats (Hydromys chrysogaster) has been documented in some studies of other Australian species, but predation rates for this species has not been quantified.

Specific biological characteristics: Like other bivalve molluscs, most soft tissues are protected within two valves held together by a hinge ligament and a series of adductor muscles connected to either valve. A muscular foot, which can be extended out through an opening in the mantle space between both valves, aids in burrowing and movement through the sediments. Siphons can protrude slightly when feeding, spawning or releasing glochidia. When threatened, all soft tissues can be withdrawn inside both valves and a tight seal is formed through the contraction of adductor muscles to hold the valves together.

Habitat requirements: The species is patchily distributed in sandy/muddy sediments of freshwater lakes, rivers and streams with greatest densities associated with exposed submerged tree roots of flooded gums (Eucalyptus rudis), Melaleuca spp. and others, woody debris and overhanging riparian vegetation near stream banks and edges of lakes/dams. Precise habitat requirements and quantification within habitat types are in the early stages of study for this species. Juveniles may require specific micro-habitats and are difficult to locate in the wild.

Feeding behaviour: Freshwater mussels are filter-feeders. They feed by circulating water in through their inhalant siphon, sorting food items in the labial palps, into the mouth and digestive system and moving water through the gills for oxygen exchange and excreting waste through the exhalent siphon and via the mantle space as pseudofaeces.Circulatory action of water is controlled by cilia beating in the gills and other internal organs.

Movement patterns: Glochidia “wink” with rapid opening and closing of shells, aided by a single adductor muscle, upon release from females in preparation for attachment to fishes. Adults are mostly sessile, but do move through sediments with a muscular foot, creating visual tracks in the sediments. Seasonal movement is limited. Some preliminary movement studies indicate movement is limited to a home range of less than 20 m, but juveniles are much more mobile, moving in a similar fashion as a caterpillar and have a ciliated foot thought to aid in movement. The species lacks abyssal thread and is free to move in the sediments, presumably in response to fluctuations in water level and flow rates. Adults capable of moving localized distances of 7-10 m over a long period of time, but generally sessile. Glochidia are parasitic on fishes, which is thought to be a dispersal mechanism.

Confirmed host fish species:Common name Scientific Name Glochidia metamorphosis?IN TROD UCED FISHE S :Goldfish Carassius auratus Linnaeus, 1758 NoEastern Gambusia Gambusia holbrooki (Girard, 1859) YesOne-spot Livebearer Phalloceros caudimaculatus (Hensel, 1868) LikelyPearl cichlid Geophagus brasiliensis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824) UnknownN ATIVE FISHE S:Freshwater Cobbler Tandanus bostocki Whitley, 1944 YesWestern Pygmy Perch Nannoperca vittata (Castelnau, 1873) YesSouthwestern Goby Afurcagobius suppositus (Sauvage, 1880) YesSwan River Goby Pseudogobius olorum (Sauvage, 1880) YesNightfish Bostockia porosa Castelnau, 1873 LikelyWestern Minnow Galaxias occidentalis Ogilby, 1899 LikelyWestern Hardyhead Leptatherina wallacei (Prince, Ivantsoff & Potter,

1982)Likely

(Kendrick 1976; Klunzinger 2012; Klunzinger et al. 2012a,b, 2013, 2014; Walker et al. 2013; Zieritz et al. 2013)


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.

According to early European accounts by Sir George Grey, in his book entitled ‘A Vocabulary of the Dialects of South Western Autralia’ (Grey 1841), the Nyoongar name used for this species was probably either ‘Inbee’ or ‘Marailya’ which he described as being “a species of unio, generally called the fresh water muscle. The natives of this part of Australia will not eat them, having a tradition, that many years ago some natives were poisoned by them; but to the north-west part they are a favourite article of food. Europeans about the Swan River occasionally eat them, a nd I have made several hearty meals from them.”

Although his account may be accurate for the Nyoongar individuals he spoke with, it is most likely they were men andtraditionally this species was woman’s tucker (MWK pers. comm. With individuals of the Nyoongar community). There may have also been different names used for the species depending on which Nyoongar language group they are located in. Oral tradition is maintained by elders within each Nyoongar language group and a full account of the traditional knowledge of this species should be sought through the appropriate cultural protocols and Indigenous Engagement agencies such as the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, South West Catchments Council and others..

Threats

13. KN OW N T H R EA TS 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 (At t a c h me n t B; P art B 2 ).Known Threats:The following threats are known to have occurred in the past, are current and likely to continue into the future.

Primary threats – Salinity: Salinity tolerance experiments indicated LC50 limits of 1.3 – 3.0 ppt and LC95 limits of 3.2 – 4.3 ppt

and no W. carteri were found alive in systems in which average salinity was >1.5 ppt (XXXX, in review).

Dewatering: Dehydration resulting from reduced flow and artificial removal of water from regulated rivers and dams have led to mortalities of 17 - 25% (XXXX in prep). In dehydration tolerance experiments, W. carteri was unable to withstand extreme drying without shade for more than 5 days (XXXX in prep).

Secondary threats – Habitat destruction: Livestock and humans are known to be causing destruction of habitat, sedimentation

and erosion and trampling on live W. carteri, resulting in death.

Environmental tolerances: Specific environmental tolerances have not been quantified except for salinity and dehydration. High water temperatures and nutrient pollution resulting in low dissolved oxygen and high ammonia concentrations may cause local population losses.

Loss of suitable host fishes: This species is probably a generalist in terms of host fish use by its glochidia for the completion of the species’ life cycle. However, introduced fishes (e.g. Goldfish) may not support the species’ life cycle. Not all species of fishes which occur throughout W. carteri’s range have been confirmed as competent hosts and is an area for future study.

Other threats may include those listed for other Australian species (see Walker et al. 2013; Brainwood et al. 2006,2008a,b; Jones & Byrne 2013; XXXX in review).


14. IMPACT OF THE THREATSIdentify how the species is affected by the threats.

Salinty and extreme dehydration (i.e. exposure to direct sunlight or lack of sheltering habitat) causes 100% mortality within a few days and may be immediate in some cases.

Low dissolved oxygen is known to cause abortion of glochidia in most species and has the potential to cause death over prolonged exposure periods in some species (Walker et al. 2013).

Trampling by cattle and motor vehicles are known to cause death.

Burying by deep loose sand or fine silty sediments are known to cause death in W. carteri (Klunzinger, pers. obs.).

Prolonged reduction in recruitment may lead to long-term population losses.

(Walker et al. 2013; XXXX in review)

15. T H R E A T A B A T EMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed.There have been a few select threat abatement actions in localised populations. However, the success of translocation strategies to mitigate impacts is unknown (Klunzinger et al. 2011, 2012c). Otherwise, there are currently no recoveryor threat abatement/mitigation actions proposed or planned for the species.

Eligibility against the criteriaTo be considered eligible for listing a species must be eligible for at least o n e of Criteria 1-5 (Q18-22). The species d o e s n ot have to be found eligible for all Criteria and information i s n ot required for all criteria if unavailable, however an a ns w e r t o all qu es ti on s must be provided, if data/information is unavailable a statement to this effect is required

16. CRI T ERI O N 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 reductionor 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.

The population trend is decreasing Longevity = 36 52 years, possibly longer;

Age at sexual maturity = 3 - 6 years; Generation length = 19.5 - 29 years (=(longevity + age at maturity)/2). Three generations = 58 – 87 yr.

There has been an observed, estimated and inferred population substantial (>30%) size reduction over the last th ree generations, where the reduction and its causes have not ceased and may not be reversible, based on (c) a decline in extent of occurrence and quality of habitat.


Applicable criterion: A2c


17. CRITERION 2: Geographic distribution (based on ei th e r of B1 or B2)B1. E xt e n t of o ccurr e n ce estimated to be very restricted <100 km2, restricted <5000 km2 or limited < 20 000 km2

B2. Ar e a of o ccu p a n cy estimated to be very restricted <10 km2, restricted <500 km2 or limited <2000 km2

ANDGeographic distribution is p r e cari ou s 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

Populations of the species’ metapopulation include those which are separated by terrestrial land barriers between streams, rivers, tributaries and lakes. In some river systems, such as the Blackwood River, sub-populations have become restricted to tributaries which are spring-fed and not yet affected by salinity, whereas main river channels may have become too saline for the species to persist. Smaller, isolated populations exist in small coastal creeks such as Waychinicup River and Goodga River. Within catchments, there is separation of upstream from downstream populations by artificial weirs and dam walls.

Where W. carteri was historically present and were able to be resampled, the species had disappeared from 34% of these sites. The estimated current EOO of the species is 22,584 km2, a reduction of 49% from its estimated historical EOO of 44,895 km2. It is now absent from 275,518 km2 in the South West Coast Drainage Division.

Decline is measured as:% Change = [(Historic EOO – Current EOO) ÷ Historic EOO] x 100

= [(44,895 – 22,584) ÷ 44,895] x 100= (22,311 ÷ 44,895) x 100= 49.695%

(from XXXX in review)

Area of occupancy could not be determined given the uncertainty of finer scale distributions within habitats and the current lack of information on the area of all occupied habitats. The Extent of the species has, however, been determined by modeling environmental variables and limits of extant occurrences from robust survey efforts (see Appendices).

Criterion 2 is not applicable given that EOO is >20,000 km2 and AOO is currently unknown and because no formal assessment of EOO had previously been attempted.


18. CRITERION 3The estimated total nu m b e r of mature individuals is very low <250, low <2500 or limited<10 000;

and either of (A) or (B) is trueA) 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) orsubstantial (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 p r e cari o u s 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

The number of mature individuals is unknown.

19. CRI T ERI O N 4 : Estimated total number of mature individuals(a) Extremely low < 50 (b) Very low < 250(c) Low < 1000

Not applicable.

20. CRI T ERI O N 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.

Probability of extinction in the wild based on quantitative analysis is currently unknown.

21. N O M IN A T E D C A T E G O R Y Note: after completing questions 16-20 sufficient evidence should be available to determine the category for listing. Refer to the indicative threshold criteria at At t ac h me n t B .

VULNERABLE

22. CRI T ERIA UNDER W HICH T HE S P E C IES IS ELI G IB L E F O R L IS T ING Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.

Cr i terion 1

Cr i terion 2

Cr i terion 3

Cr i terion 4

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/ORA4 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e)

A1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c); AND/ORA2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

A1; AND/ORA2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

W_carteri_EPBC_Nomination_2014-2015 Assessment Page 10 of

Cr i terion 5

For co nse rvat i o n d e p e nd e n t nominations only:

Cr i terion 1 (refer to Q23 below) Cr i terion 2 (refer to Q 24below)

Conservation Dependent ConsiderationsNote: O nl y co m p l e te 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. C O NSE R VA T I O N P R O G R A M (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. F I SH M A N A G E M E N T P LA NS 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. M A NA GE M EN T P L A N’ S L EG I S L A T I V E BA SIS 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.Yes.1) Dr Keith F. Walker (Assoc. Prof., School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide,keit h . w al k e r @a d e lai d e . e du . a u )2) Dr Alan J. Lymbery (Assoc. Prof., School of Veterinary & Life Sciences, Murdoch University, [email protected])3) Dr Stephen J. Beatty (Senior Research Fellow, Freshwater Fish Group, School of Veterinary & Life Sciences, MurdochUniversity, [email protected])4) Dr David L. Morgan (Senior Research Fellow, Freshwater Fish Group, School of Veterinary & Life Sciences, MurdochUniversity, d .morgan @ mu rd o ch .edu .a u )5) Dr Arthur E. Bogan (Assoc. Prof., Dept. Population Health & Pathobiology, North Caroline State University, art hu r. b oga n @n a t u ral s ci e n c e s . o r g )6) Dr Winston F. Ponder (Senior research Fellow, Malacology Collection, Australian Museum in Sydney; Editor ofMolluscan Research; wp ond er @bigp ond .n et.au )7) Dr Kevin J. Roe (Asst. Prof., Iowa State University, Dept. Natural Resource Ecology & Management, Iowa State University; Research Associate, Malacology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History / Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia; k j r o e @ i a s t a te. ed u )8) Dr Hugh A. Jones (Freshwater Ecologist & Senior Biometrician, Science Division, Office of Environment & Heritage, New South Wales Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, hu g h .j on e s @ e n v iro nm e n t. ns w .go v . a u )9) Dr Mary Seddon, Chair of the Mollusc Specialist Group, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, m ar y .mollu s c s @ g m ail.c o m )10) Dr Manuel Lopes-Lima, Chair of the Mollusc Specialist sub-committee on Freshwater Bivalves, IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species, lo pe s li m a . ci i ma r @ gm ai l .co m )


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.).See reference list.

28. REFERENCE LISTPlease list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.AWRC. (1976). Review of Australia’s Water Resources 1975. Australian Water Resources Council (AWRC), Department of Natural Resources: Canberra.

Bindon P & Chadwick R. (2011). A Nyoongar Wordlist: From the South-west of Western Australia. Western AustralianMuseum: Perth, Western Australia. 476 pp.

Brainwood, M., S. Burgin & M. Byrne, 2006. Is the decline of freshwater mussel populations in a regulated coastal river in south-eastern Australia linked with human modification of habitat? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16: 501–516.

Brainwood, M., S. Burgin & M. Byrne, 2008a. The role of geomorphology in substratum patch selection by freshwater mussels in the Hawkesbury–Nepean River (New South Wales), Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 1285–1301.

Brainwood, M., S. Burgin & M. Byrne, 2008b. The impact of small and large impoundments on freshwater mussel distribution in the Hawkesbury–Nepean River, southeastern Australia. River Research and Applications 24: 1325–1342.

Edward DHD, Gazey P, Davies PM. (1994). Invertebrate community structure related to physico-chemical parameters of permanent lakes of the south coast of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 77: 51-63.

Geoscience Australia. (2003). GEODATA TOPO 250K, Series 2. National Mapping Division, Commonwealth of AustraliaDepartment of Industry, Tourism and Resources: Canberra.

Grey G. (1841). A Vocabulary of the Dialects of South Western Australia. T & W Boone: London. 140 pp.

Growns IO & Davis JA. (1994). Longitudinal changes in near-bed flows and macroinvertebrate communities in aWestern Australian stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13: 417-438.

Iredale T (1934). The freshwater mussels of Australia. Australian Zoologist 8: 57-78.

Iredale, T (1943). A basic list of the fresh water Mollusca of Australia. Australian Zoologist 10: 188-230.

Jones HA & Byrne M. (2013). Changes in the distributions of freshwater mussels (Unionoida: Hyriidae) in coastal southeastern Australia and implications for their conservation status. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2402.

Kendrick GW. (1976). The Avon: Faunal and other notes on a dying river in south-western Australia. The WesternAustralian Naturalist 13: 97-114.

Klunzinger MW (2011). Freshwater shrimp (Palaemonetes australis) may be involved in glochidia release from the freshwater mussel Westralunio carteri. The Western Australian Naturalist 28: 61-65.

Klunzinger MW. (2012). Ecology, life history and conservation status of Westralunio carteri Iredale 1934, an endemic freshwater mussel of south-western Australia. PhD Thesis, Murdoch University: Perth, Western Australia.

Klunzinger MW, Beatty S J and Lymbery A J (2011). ‘Freshwater mussel response to drying in the Lower Helena Pipehead Dam and mussel translocation strategy for conservation management.’, Centre for Fish & Fisheries Research (Murdoch University), report to Swan River Trust.

Klunzinger MW, Beatty SJ, Morgan DL, Thomson GJ, Lymbery AJ (2012a). Glochidia ecology in wild fish populations and laboratory determination of competent host fishes for an endemic freshwater mussel of south-western Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 60: 26-36.

Klunzinger MW, Beatty SJ, Morgan DL, Lymbery AJ (2012b). Distribution of Westralunio carteri Iredale, 1934 (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Hyriidae) on the south coast of south-western Australia, including new records of the species. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 95: 77-81.

Klunzinger M W, Beatty S J, Allen M G and Keleher J (2012c). ‘Biodiversity management within the Serpentine Pipehead Dam, relocation of freshwater mussels during engineering works’, Freshwater Fish Group & Fish Health Unit (Murdoch University) report to the Western Australian Department of Fisheries.

Klunzinger MW, Thomson GJ, Beatty SJ, Morgan DL, Lymbery AJ (2013). Morphological and morphometrical description of the glochidia of Westralunio carteri Iredale, 1934 (Bivalvia: Unionoida: Hyriidae) as compared to other Australasian hyriids. Molluscan Research 33: 104-109.


Klunzinger MW, Haag WR, Beatty SJ, Morgan DL, Lymbery AJ (2014). Age and growth in the Australian freshwater mussel, Westralunio carteri, with calcein as an in situ experimental growth marker. Freshwater Science

Lymbery A, Lymbery R, Morgan D, Beatty S. (2008). ‘Freshwater mussels (Westralunio carteri) in the catchments of Geographe Bay, south-western Australia.’ Fish Health Unit (Murdoch University), report to the Water Corporation, Western Australia.

Mayer X, Ruprecht J, Bari M. (2005). Stream salinity status and trends in southwest Western Australia. Salinity andLand Use Impacts. SLUI 38. Department of Environment: Perth, Western Australia.

McMichael DF & Hiscock ID. (1958). A monograph of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of the AustralianRegion. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 9: 372-507.

Pinder AM, Halse SA, McRae JM, Shiel RJ. (2004). Aquatic invertebrate assemblages of wetlands and rivers in the wheat belt region of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement 67: 7-37.

Walker KF. (1981). Ecology of freshwater mussels in the River Murray. Australian Water Resources Council: Canberra.

Walker KF, Byrne M, Hickey CW & Roper DS. (2001). Freshwater mussels (Hyriidae) of Australia. In: Bauer, G. &Wächtler, K. (Eds.) Ecology and Evolution of the Freshwater Mussels Unionoida. Springer: New York.

Walker KF, Jones HA, Klunzinger MW (2013). Bivalves in a bottleneck: taxonomy, phylogeography and conservation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoida) in Australasia. Hydrobiologia DOI10.1007/s10750-013-1522-9.

Williams WD, Taaffe RG, Boulton AJ. (1991). Longitudinal distribution of macroinvertebrates in two rivers subject to salinization. Hydrobiologia 210: 151-160.

Zieritz A, Sartori AF, Klunzinger MW (2013). Morphological evidence shows that not all Velesunioninae have smooth umbos. Journal of Molluscan Studies 79: 277-282


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 NAMEXXXX

33. ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)XXXX XXXX

34. CONTACT DETAILSEmail: XXXXXXXX Phone: XXXXFax:

Postal address: XXXX

35. DECL A R AT I O N I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct.

Signed: Date: 25 March 2014

Lodging your nominationHow to lodge your nominationCompleted nominations may be lodged either:1. by email to: e pb c. n o m i n a t io n s @ e n v iro n m e n t.go v . a u , or2. by mail to: The Director

Species Information and Policy SectionDepartment of the EnvironmentGPO 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

DoE website Australian newspaper word of mouth

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

web search Other…………………………………………………………………………………..

Comments:


Documents

Threatened Species Nomination Form 2014/15 … · Web viewSiphons can protrude slightly when feeding, spawning or releasing glochidia. When threatened, all soft tissues can be withdrawn