Page 1 of 20

Threatened Species Nomination 2019

Details of the nominated species or subspeciesNAME OF SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES)Scientific name: Grevillea montis–cole subsp. montis–coleCommon name(s): Mount Cole Grevillea

TAXONOMYProvide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order).Grevillea montis–cole R.V. Smith sp. nov. subspecies montis–cole (Smith 1983);Smith, R.V. (1983). Grevillea montis–cole sp. nov. (Proteaceae) from Victoria. Muelleria 5(3): 223; Family: Proteceae;Order: Proteales;

CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTEDIs the species’ taxonomy conventionally accepted?

Yes No

If the species is not conventionally accepted please provide the following information required by theEPBC 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.

N/A

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?

A significant proportion of Victoria’s 49 Grevillea species occur in central Victoria – many of which are Victorian endemics or threatened local endemics of the “southern Holly–leaf group” with a highly restricted range. One of these is Grevillea montis–cole subsp. montis–cole Mount Cole Grevillea, known only from Mount Cole range (Makinson 2000). The taxon was first collected from Mount Cole in 1965, but not formally described until 1983 as Grevillea montis–cole R.V. Smith sp. nov. subspecies montis–cole (Smith 1983).According to the Flora of Victoria (FOV online no date), Mount Cole Grevillea is a relatively long–lived, straggling to open semi–erect and spreading shrub 1–1.5 m high, usually with sparse villous 5–15 partite leaves longer than wide, erect to decurved terminal conflorescences, a green to brown perianth (dull purplish inside, a bright red style, a greenish or yellow pollen–presenter and a pistil 26–27.5 mm long), with flowering occurring mostly in October to November and regeneration strictly from seed.Although Mount Cole Grevillea is readily distinguished from the other subspecies, Langi Ghiran Grevillea (subsp. brevistyla) by its longer pistil, a recent phylogenic analysis of southern Holly Grevilleas (Holmes et al. 2014) showedthat the two subspecies fall into separate clades and “possibly occupy different niches [subsp. montis–cole is found as an understorey shrub in granitic loam soil, whereas subsp. brevistyla grows mainly in cracks and depressions in large granite outcrops at more exposed sites at higher altitude].” The researchers went on to note that: “this pattern of variation was unexpected for morphologically similar plants separated by just a few kilometres, [and they speculated that] “It could reflect historical hybridisation and introgression.” On the basis of this evidence, the Langi GhiranGrevillea (subsp. brevistyla) may soon be elevated to species status (i.e. Grevillea brevistyla) and Grevillea montis–cole subsp. montis–cole may be subsumed into Grevillea montis–cole, making the species entirely endemic to the Mount Buangor/Mount Cole Range and further reinforcing its uniqueness and significancepers. comm.).

Page 2 of 20

DISTRIBUTIONProvide 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.

Mount Cole Grevillea is restricted to the Mount Buangor/Mount Cole Range in eucalypt forest and woodland (sometimes amongst granite outcrops) above ~450 m ASL. The Mount Cole, Buangor and Ben Nevis range comprises three plutons separated by a thick band of metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. Mount Cole granite (G378), and the much smaller Hickman Creek granite (G384), occupy roughly the southern half, while Ben Nevis granite (G374) the northern quarter, with a contact metamorphic aureole – comprising hornfels derived from the Warrak and Pyrenees Formations marine sediments – sandwiched in between (see codes and further detail in Cayley and McDonald 1995). Throughout this range, the granites are most prominent, with large outcropping tors common in the north around Mount Ben Nevis (reaching 863 m ASL) and also in the south around Mount Buangor (at 965 m ASL) and the Mount Cole Tower (at 974 m ASL). The Mount Cole granite, as the largest pluton in the region, effectively forms an expansive, undulating, elevated plateau, with prominent outcropping rocks in mosaic with flatter, interconnecting terraces and minor valleys with much deeper soils supporting tall, productive forests often dominated by Victorian Blue Gum or Eurabbie (E. globulus subsp. bicostata).The 78 records (all collected since 1965) extracted from the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA and incorporating records from the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas VBA and Australia’s Virtual Herbarium AVH) span from the Victoria Mill Scenic Reserve region south of Mount Ben Nevis, across the Mount Buangor/Mount Cole montane plateau, south alongMount Cole Road, and also in the Cave Hill Creek region down to as low as ~450 m ASL. The TYPE locality for this taxon is from “Mt Cole State Forest, Glut area, east aspect slopes close to Sandersons Road – Glut Road link, c.400 m from Glut Road, c. 520 m alt.” (Holotype: MEL 611505; Smith 1983).However, nearly two–thirds of these records occurred before 1997 (1965 to 1995) and all of the more recent records are from the Cave Hill Creek region, plus a few along Mount Cole Road immediately to the south. Virtually all of the recent records are from unprotected crown land currently managed as Mt Cole/Beeripmo State Forest. Only one of the recent records is in Mount Buangor State Park (Appendix 1). There are also two old records from the adjoining Raglan plantation dating from the 1960s and 1970s that are now probably extinct.On the face of this analysis, even though this narrow endemic is only found on the Mount Cole range, it appears thetaxon’s environmental domain may well have undergone a serious decline and geographic contraction in the order of 75% in recent decades; down from some 2,570 ha (before 1997) to only ~700 ha (or less) mostly centred in the Cave Hill Creek region today (Appendix 1).Preliminary field searches suggest the vast majority of the taxon’s population within this smaller environmental domain could well be concentrated in just two discrete patches totalling as little as ~30 ha – one at Tunbridges Track (~11.4 ha), and another on Sandersons/Glut Roads (~18.4 ha) (Appendix 1). Both of these patches are close to the Cave Hill camping area in State Forest in lower elevation drier eucalypt forest dominated by species like Blue Gum, Manna Gum and Messmate (on the boundary between Herb–rich Foothill Forest and Grassy Dry Forest). Elsewhere, (mostly in Herb–rich Foothill Forest) many of the records appear to represent erroneous locations, possible local extinctions, small numbers or even single individuals. Abundance in the two main patches in the Cave Hill Creek region rangedfrom relatively thick (≥1 per square metre) to sparse/intermittent and total numbers are estimated to be in the tens to possibly low hundreds of thousands. Total numbers could be as low as 30k to 60k within a very restricted geographic range. Given population size, there is no indication of genetic deficiencies, however, apart from the sampling undertaken for the Holly Grevillea study (Holmes et al. 2014), further work would be needed to assess genetic diversity.Note: see biology/ecology section and Appendices for latin plant names and Ecological Vegetation Class codes

BIOLOGY/ECOLOGYProvide 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

Mount Cole Grevillea is associated with lower elevation, generally dryer forests (typically within or close to the margins of Grassy Dry Forest; EVC 022), as well as higher elevation moister forests and woodlands on the Mount Buangor/Mount Cole Montane plateau (see Foreman 2018; typically Herb–rich Foothill Forest EVC 023; or sometimes Rocky Outcrop Shrubland/Rocky Outcrop Herbland Mosaic EVC 073). The largest remaining patches occur in the CaveHill Creek region on State Forest within or close to Grassy Dry Forest mostly below ~450 m ASL (see Appendices).

Page 3 of 20

At lower elevation, associated vegetation typically has a canopy comprising Broad–leaf Peppermint (Eucalyptus dives), Messmate Stringybark (E. obliqua), Blue Gum (E. globulus), and Manna Gum (E. viminalis), and shrubs such as Spreading Wattle (Acacia genistifolia), Prickly Moses (A. verticillata), Myrtle Wattle (A. myrtifolia), Common Heath (Epacris impressa), Sweet Bursaria (Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa), Dwarf Boronia (Boronia nana) and occasionally Hazel Pomaderris (Pomaderris aspera). Other associated species include: Small Grass Tree (Xanthorrhoea minor subsp. lutea), Bracken (Pteridium esculentum) and the robust graminoids: Flax Lily (Dianella revoluta), Sword Sedge (Gahnia sieberiana), and Wire Grass (Tetrarrhena juncea).At high elevation, associated vegetation typically has a canopy comprising Long–leaf Box (E. goniocalyx), Red Stringybark (E. macrorhyncha), Blue Gum (E. globulus), Snow Gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora) and Narrow–leaf Peppermint (E. radiata), and shrubs including: Silver Wattle (A. dealbata), Myrtle Wattle (A. myrtifolia), Smooth Cassinia (Cassinia complanata), Common Correa (Correa reflexa), Gorse Bitter Pea (Daviesia ulicifolia), Hop Bush (Dodonaea viscosa subsp. cuneata), Violet Kunzea (Kunzea parvifolia), Prickly Tea Tree (Leptospermum continentale), Woolly Tea Tree (L. lanigerum), Grey Everlasting (Ozothamnus obcordatus), Bootlace Bush (Pimelea axiflora), Large– leaved Bush–pea (Pultenaea daphnoides), and Dusty Miller (Spyridium parvifolium).

Information about the generation length and reproductive biology of the species:

o Age at sexual maturity; Generation length (“the average age of parents of the current cohort”) is estimated to range between 30 and 70 years based on expert opinion for related species (i.e. other Holly Grevilleas) and is indicative of the range of age at sexual maturity for this taxon;

o Life expectancy; Based on estimates for Generation length, plants can survive for over 70 years. Many large, sprawling plants have been observed in the field that could plausibly be this age or more;

o Natural mortality rates; Anecdotal observations in the field (where there are currently no disturbances such as fire) suggest low level continuous mortality rates in the order to 1 to 2% per year, in line with estimated life expectancy but again no data is available;

o Pollination; No data available on pollination biology although given “style bright red” taxon possibly bird pollinated (such as honeyeaters) but likely also insects (and other fauna) based on observations for closely related taxa such as Grevillea bedggoodiana (Enfield Grevillea), and Ben Major Grevillea (Grevillea floripendula; Carter et al. 2006b).

o Seed dispersal; Given seed “surrounded by a thin pale yellow wing from 0.5 mm to almost obsolete on the lateral margins, to 1-2.5 mm wide at the top” (Smith 1983) presumably taxon is mostly wind dispersed, although distances from parents likely minimal due to relatively short plant height;

Threats

IDENTIFICATION OF KNOWN THREATS AND IMPACT OF THE THREATSIdentify in the tables below any known threats to the species, under the provided headings indicate if the threat ispast, current or future and whether the threats are actual or potential.

Past threats Impact of threatLegacy of historical over timber cutting and the absence of any substantive logging reserves;

The Mount Cole Range was recognised early on for its timber resources, and axe and cross cut saw timber harvesting began in the mid1840s, closely followed by the use of steam powered mills in the 1850s to help supply the nearby gold rushes. By the turn of the century, some thirty mills operated in the region supplying building materials, firewood and railway sleepers. On the back of this historical over cutting, the Forests Commission was forced to close Mount Cole State Forest around 1920 and today timber cutting still operates but on a much diminished scale (DSE 2012). Over 75% of the total apparent environmental domain for this taxon overlaps with Herb–rich Foothill Forest EVC 023 – the vegetation type most associated with productive forestry at Mount Cole. It is also highly significant that the vast majority of the taxon’s range contraction described earlier is from this vegetation type. On face value, it seems reasonable to suggest the kinds of disturbances associated with multiple rotation clear felling or selective harvesting (e.g. soil disturbance, vegetation destruction, coupe fires etc.) are likely to be incompatible with this taxon (and indeed many other indigenous species). Homogenisation of forest vegetation (degradation in condition), created by weed invasion, declines in species diversity and structural complexity as well as degradation of soils and hydrological processes, is often implicated in the demise of many native plants, and Mount Cole Grevillea isprobably no exception. It has been recently noted that the closely related Ben

Page 4 of 20

Page 5 of 20

Major Grevillea (Grevillea floripendula) (see Carter et al. 2006b; DSE 2008b) has also lost populations in the Musical Gully State Forest in areas subject to logging and fuel reduction burning (VEAC 2018 p.95; pers. comm.).

Frequent fuel reduction burning (in part justified to protect commercial timber resources) and wildfire

Incidental observation suggests this taxon readily recruits without fire, although given it only regenerates by seed, occasional (lower intensity) fire may well stimulate pulses of germination and recruitment. However, frequent burning (say for fuel reduction) – especially if very intense – may in fact have a significant adverse impact by killing plants before reaching reproductive maturity and by destroying/depleting portions of the soil seed bank. Any degradation of vegetation condition resulting from fire regimes that are too frequent or intense could also indirectly drive declines in the abundance of this taxon. Lightning strikes are a threat in the area, as are fires ignited by people – both on crown land and outside the public estate – that can quickly spread to the areas supporting the largest known numbers, and all clearly pose anincreasingly serious threat.

Human recreational impacts As the Mount Cole Range is a popular recreational destination, the direct and indirect impacts of human uses such as camping and cutting firewood, bushwalking, horse riding, four wheel driving, hunting, mountain biking etc. may well also adversely impact this taxon. Direct impacts can include vehicular and pedestrian trampling, vandalism, roadside and infrastructure construction and maintenance, as well as camp grounds and camp fires. All of these actions can directly damage or destroy plants and even whole patches of plants, and through the degradation of vegetation condition, can also inhibit regenerationand locally diminish abundance.

Current threats Impact of threatTimber cutting See above

Frequent and/or intense fuel reduction burning or and wildfire

See above

Human recreational impacts See aboveClimate Change Climate Change is also likely exerting an increasingly important adverse impact

on this taxon. A drier, warmer climate, driving lower soil available moisture, increasing fire frequency and severity (both anthropogenic and non– anthropogenic fires) and soil loss/degradation could all serve to exacerbate many of the other threats already discussed. If it is the case that much of the higher elevation portion of the population of this endemic shrub has been seriously diminished (perhaps even largely wiped out) due to a range of past and ongoing threats, then it may be a critically important long term recovery strategy to translocate back into this region, provided it is managed under appropriate protection and restoration to maintain or improve vegetation condition. Such a strategy may, in fact, be essential given Climate Change seems likely to drive elevation range contractions. The fact that the lion’s–share of the extant population at Mount Cole is found at lower elevation in drier vegetationcould mean that it is increasing in jeopardy as Climate Change deepens.

The browsing of mature or juvenile plants by wallabies, and also deer and rabbits

The browsing of mature or juvenile plants by wallabies, but probably also deer and rabbits, may also be an issue for Mount Cole Grevillea, especially in close proximity to cleared farming land, disturbed areas or recreation zones. Simple browsing exclosures and field investigation would readily determine the level and extent of the impact by quantifying densities of browsers and impacts interms of defoliation and any inhibition of regeneration.

Cinnamon Fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi)

According to the FFG Action Statement for Langi Ghiran Grevillea (DSE 2008a), the accidental introduction of the root–rot fungus Cinnamon Fungus(Phytophthora cinnamomi) is considered “the most immediate and real threat” because of the highly sensitive nature of closely related taxa (such as Anglesea Grevillea Grevillea infecunda; DSE 2009). Although it is unclear whether Cinnamon Fungus is present at Mount Cole and already impacting this taxon, it is considered by some a high risk that warrants further investigation and mayrequire active management to control the potential introduction, spread and impacts.

Other threats A recent conservation review undertaken for this range lists the followingadditional threatening processes likely to impinge on taxa like Mount Cole

Page 6 of 20

Grevillea: Clearing of native vegetation; Habitat fragmentation; Firewood collection; Alterations to hydrological flows; Invasion of native vegetation by ‘environmental weeds’; Road construction and maintenance (Ralph 2010).

Actual future threats Impact of threatTimber cutting See aboveFrequent and/or intense fuel reduction burning or and wildfire

See above

Human recreational impacts See aboveClimate Change See aboveThe browsing of mature or juvenile plants by wallabies, and also deerand rabbits

See above

Cinnamon Fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi)

See above

Other threats See abovePotential future threats Impact of threat

THREAT ABATEMENTGive an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed.

The recent recognition of the genetic distinctiveness of this species and its apparent decline, strongly suggests its conservation status (currently listed as rare) should be reviewed and possibly elevated to endangered or even critically endangered (Holmes et al. 2014; pers. comm.); also see later recommendations of putative EPBC conservation status). The long term conservation of this distinctive species rests entirely on the future management of crown land that is currently almost entirely managed as State Forest.While there are at least FFG Action Statements written for three related taxa: (1) Langi Ghiran Grevillea (Grevillea montis–cole subsp. brevistyla) (DSE 2008a); (2) Ben Major Grevillea (Grevillea floripendula) (DSE 2008b); and (3) Anglesea Grevillea (Grevillea infecunda) (DSE 2009), Mount Cole Grevillea is not listed under the FFG Act, nor therefore is there any Action Statement written, funded and actively implemented. Apart from the incidental monitoring work by a handful of dedicated naturalists (such as next to no threat abatement actives are either planned or being actively implemented. Only a small part of the very restricted natural range of this taxon at Mount Cole is passively protected within Mount Buangor State Park. The vast majority of the taxon occurs unprotected in Mount Cole/Beeripmo State Forest. The Victorian Environment Assessment Council (VEAC) is now undertaking a review of the Western Forests, but current recommendations show no substantive change to the extent and distribution of protected lands at Mount Cole. To all intents and purposes the taxon, which appears to be in active decline (see earlier discussion), is not subject to any planned or active recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions. This inaction has serious implications for the taxon’s future if not addresses as soon as possible.

Listing categoryCURRENT LISTING CATEGORYWhat 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).

Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent

NOMINATED LISTING CATEGORYNote: after answering the questions below relating to the eligibility again the criteria sufficient evidence should be available to determine the category for listing. Refer to the indicative threshold criteria in the guidelines.

Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent

Page 7 of 20

Transferring a species to another category in the listNote: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories in the threatened species list, please complete this section. If the nomination is for a new listing please skip this section and proceed to the Eligibility section below.If the nomination is to remove a species from the list, please use the nomination form for removal from the list.

REASON FOR THE NOMINATION TO TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CATEGORYPlease mark the boxes that apply by double 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

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

N/A

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?

N/A

Eligibility against the criteriaCRITERION 1

Population size reduction (reduction in total numbers)Population reduction (measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations) based on any of A1 to A4

Critically Endangered Very severe reduction

Endangered Severe reduction

Vulnerable Substantial reduction

A1 ≥ 90% ≥ 70% ≥ 50%

A2, A3, A4 ≥ 80% ≥ 50% ≥ 30%A1 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or

suspected in the past and the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased.

A2 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or suspected in the past where the causes of the reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible.

A3 Population reduction, projected or suspected to be met in the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) [(a) cannot be used for A3]

A4 An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population reduction where the time period must include both the past and the future (up to a max. of 100 years in future), and where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible.

(a) direct observation [except A3]

(b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon

based (c) a decline in area of occupancy,on any extent of occurrence and/or quality ofof the habitatfollowing

(d) actual or potential levels of exploitation

(e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites

Please identify whether the species meets A1, A2, A3 or A4. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets the criterion (A1 – A4). 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 lengthYou must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate a population size reduction this must be statedThe 78 records (all collected since 1965) extracted from the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA and incorporating records from the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas VBA and Australia’s Virtual Herbarium AVH) span from the Victoria Mill Scenic Reserve region south of Mount Ben Nevis, across the Mount Buangor/Mount Cole montane plateau, south along Mount Cole Road,

Page 8 of 20

and also in the Cave Hill Creek region down to as low as ~450 m ASL. The TYPE locality for this taxon is from “Mt Cole State Forest, Glut area, east aspect slopes close to Sandersons Road – Glut Road link, c.400 m from Glut Road, c. 520 m alt.” (Holotype: MEL 611505; Smith 1983).However, nearly two–thirds of these records occurred before 1997 (1965 to 1995) and all of the more recent records are from the Cave Hill Creek region, plus a few along Mount Cole Road immediately to the south. Virtually all of the recent records are from unprotected crown land currently managed as Mt Cole/Beeripmo State Forest. Only one of the recent records is in Mount Buangor State Park. There are also two old records from the adjoining Raglan plantation dating from the 1960s and 1970s that are now probably extinct (Appendix 1).On the face of this analysis, even though this narrow endemic is only found on the Mount Cole range, it appears thetaxon’s environmental domain may well have undergone a serious decline and geographic contraction in the order of 75% in recent decades; down from some 2,570 ha (before 1997) to only ~700 ha mostly centred in the Cave Hill Creek region today (Appendix 1).Preliminary field searches suggest the vast majority of the taxon’s population within this smaller environmental domain could well be concentrated in just two discrete patches totalling as little as ~30 ha – one at Tunbridges Track (~11.4 ha), and another on Sandersons/Glut Roads (~18.4 ha) (Appendix 1). Both of these patches are close to the Cave Hill camping area in State Forest in lower elevation drier eucalypt forest dominated by species like Blue Gum, Manna Gum and Messmate (on the boundary between Herb–rich Foothill Forest and Grassy Dry Forest). Elsewhere, (mostly in Herb–rich Foothill Forest) many of the records appear to represent erroneous locations, possible local extinctions, small numbers or even single individuals. Abundance in the two main patches in the Cave Hill Creek region ranged from relatively thick (≥1 per square metre) to sparse/intermittent and total numbers are estimated to be in the tens to possibly low hundreds of thousands. Total numbers could be as low as 30k to 60k within a very restricted geographic range. Given population size, there is no indication of genetic deficiencies, however, apart from the sampling undertaken for the Holly Grevillea study (Holmes et al. 2014), further work would be needed to assess genetic diversity.These trends suggest A2 decline of Endangered as >50% population decline, but less than 80%

CRITERION 2:

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

Critically Endangered Very restricted

Endangered Restricted

Vulnerable Limited

B1. Extent of occurrence (EOO) < 100 km2 < 5,000 km2 < 20,000 km2

B2. Area of occupancy (AOO) < 10 km2 < 500 km2 < 2,000 km2

AND at least 2 of the following 3 conditions:

(a) Severely fragmented OR Number of locations = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10

(b) Continuing decline observed, estimated, inferred or projected in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals

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

Please refer to the ‘Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria’ for assistance with interpreting the criterion particularly in relation to calculating area of occupancy and extent of occurrence and understanding the definition and use of location.

Please identify whether the species meets B1 or B2. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets at least 2 of (a) (b) or (c).

Please note that locations must be defined by a threat. A location is a geographically or ecological distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the species present.

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 separationYou must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate that the geographic distribution is precarious for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy this must be stated.Under B1 (b), meets the following criteria:(i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat; (v) number of mature

individuals

Page 9 of 20

See discussion above.EOO estimated to be 33 kms sq based on all known records and as low as 8.3 kms sq if this is restricted to just post 1997 records (Critically Endangered as <100 kms sq);AOO estimated to be 77 kms sq based on all records and approximately half of this valu if only include the post 1997 records (Endangered as <500 kms sq but > 10 kms sq);No additional survey data to support listing under criterion 2 B1(a)(b) is available. Only the estimates already provided in the relevant sections of the nomination as specified earlier.

CRITERION 3

Small population size and declineCritically Endangered

Very lowEndangered

LowVulnerable

LimitedEstimated number of mature individuals < 250 < 2,500 < 10,000

AND either (C1) or (C2) is true

C1 An observed, estimated or projected continuing decline of at least (up to a max. of 100 years in future

Very high rate 25% in 3 years or

1 generation (whichever is longer)

High rate 20% in 5 years or

2 generation (whichever is

longer)

Substantial rate 10% in 10 years or

3 generations (whichever is longer)

C2 An observed, estimated, projected or inferred continuing decline AND its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival based on at least 1 of the following 3 conditions:

(i) Number of mature individuals in each subpopulation ≤ 50 ≤ 250 ≤ 1,000

(a)(ii) % of mature individuals in one

subpopulation = 90 – 100% 95 – 100% 100%

(b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals

Please identify the estimated total number of mature individuals and either an answer to C1 or C2. Include an explanation, supported by data and information, on how the species meets the criteria. 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 evidence in support of C1 or C2 just state that the number is likely to be >10 000.

You must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate small population size and decline this must be stated.See discussion above.Estimated range: 60,000 to 200,000 mostly in two main discrete patches within State Forest;Less than Vulnerable as >10,000 mature individuals but all plants at one subpopulation and location, and Very High to High rate of decline with up to 25% reduction in one generation;

CRITERION 4:

Very small populationCritically Endangered

Extremely lowEndangered

Very LowVulnerable

Low

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

Please identify the estimated total number of mature individuals and evidence on how the figure was derived.

You must provide a response. If there is no evidence to demonstrate very small population size and decline this must be stated.

See discussion above.Estimated range: 60,000 to 200,000 mostly in two main discrete patches within State Forest;Less than Vulnerable as >1,000 mature individuals but all plants at one subpopulation and location and Very High to High rate of decline, with up to 25% reduction in one generation;

Page 10 of 20

CRITERION 5

Quantitative AnalysisCritically Endangered

Immediate futureEndangered Near future

Vulnerable Medium-term future

Indicating the probability of extinction in the wild to be:

≥ 50% in 10 years or 3 generations,

whichever is longer (100 years max.)

≥ 20% in 20 years or5 generations,

whichever is longer (100 years max.)

≥ 10% in 100 years

Please identify the probability of extinction and evidence as to have the analysis was undertaken. You must provide a response. If there has been no quantitative analysis undertaken must be stated.

Only coarse estimates of future decline have been been attempted (~75% in three generations) and no formal quantitative analysis undertaken; Unable to classify;

SUMMARY OF CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE SPECIES IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTINGPlease mark the criteria and sub-criteria that apply.

Criterion 1 A1 (specify at least one of the following) a) A2 (specify at least one of the following) a) A3 (specify at least one of the following)A4 (specify at least one of the following) a)

B1 (specify at least two of the following) a) B2 (specify at least two of the following) a)

estimated number of mature individuals ANDeither C1 or C2 either a or b

C1 OR 2 of C2 a(i), a(ii) or b C2 a (i) a (ii)C2 b)

Criterion 1Criterion 2

b)b)b)b)

b)b)

c) d)c) d)c) d)c) d)

c); AND/ORc)

e); AND/OR e); AND/OR e); AND/ORe)

Criterion 2

Criterion 3

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

For conservation dependent nominations only:

Conservation Dependent ConsiderationsOnly 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 the first or second question below, whichever is more appropriate.

Please note that the currently only fish species that have been listed under this criterion. However it can be applied to other species.

CONSERVATION PROGRAM (if species is a fish or harvested marine species, answer the question below instead)

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 Endangeredshould the

program cease.

a)b)

Page 11 of 20

FISH MANAGEMENT PLANSa) 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

a)b)c)

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

Other Considerations

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.

Unknown

CONSERVATION THEMEThe conservation theme for the 2019 nomination period is:‘Species and Ecological Communities that are severely affected by fire regimes’Explain how the nomination relates to this theme. Note that nominations which do not relate to the theme will still be considered.

Incidental observation suggests this taxon readily recruits without fire, although given it only regenerates by seed, occasional (lower intensity) fire may well stimulate pulses of germination and recruitment. However, frequent burning (say for fuel reduction) – especially if very intense – may in fact have a significant adverse impact by killing plants before reaching reproductive maturity and by destroying/depleting portions of the soil seed bank. Any degradation of vegetation condition resulting from fire regimes that are too frequent or intense could also indirectly drive declines in the abundance of this taxon. Climate Change is also likely exerting an increasingly important adverse impact on this taxon including exacerbating fire regime threats, driving increasing fire frequency and severity (both anthropogenic and non– anthropogenic fires).

FURTHER STUDIESIdentify 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.).

The current Victorian Environment Assessment Council (VEAC) study for the Western Forests is formally reviewing the conservation status of all the public lands on Mount Cole; Otherwise there are no specific recovery or conservations plans known.

Page 12 of 20

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

Appendix 1: Mount Cole Grevillea distribution from Atlas of Living Australia records

Appendix 3: Breakdown of Atlas of Living Australia records for Mount Cole Grevillea by elevation, before and after 1997

Page 13 of 20

Appendix 4: Plants associated with Mount Cole Grevillea at low and high elevationsLatin Name Dominant

Elevation

Reco

rds

# <700

m

ASL

>700

m

ASL

Smith (1983)

Acacia dealbata High 8 3 5 LowAcacia genistifolia Low 5 3 2 Low, HighAcacia myrtifolia Both 4 2 2 LowAcacia verticillata Low 5 3 2 LowAcrotriche serrulata High 5 2 3Astroloma humifusum Low 6 4 2Boronia nana Low 10 7 3Brachyscome multifida High 5 1 4Bursaria spinosa subsp. spinosa Low 11 7 4 LowCassinia complanata High 5 2 3Clematis aristata Both 6 3 3Coronidium scorpioides High 6 1 5Correa reflexa High 3 0 3 LowDaviesia ulicifolia High 4 1 3 HighDianella revoluta Low 12 9 3Dichondra repens Low 8 5 3Dodonaea viscosa subsp. cuneata High 4 1 3 HighEpacris impressa Low 13 10 3 Low, HighEucalyptus dives Low 7 4 3 ? HighEucalyptus globulus Both 6 3 3 LowEucalyptus goniocalyx High 3 1 2 HighEucalyptus macrorhyncha High 3 1 2 HighEucalyptus obliqua Low 14 12 2 LowEucalyptus pauciflora High 3 1 2 HighEucalyptus radiata High 2 0 2 ?Eucalyptus viminalis Low 5 3 2Gahnia sieberiana Low 5 4 1Galium gaudichaudii High 5 1 4Gonocarpus tetragynus Both 6 3 3Goodenia lanata Low 7 5 2Hardenbergia violacea High 5 1 4Hovea heterophylla Low 8 5 3Hypericum gramineum Both 6 3 3Kunzea parvifolia High 2 0 2 HighLeptospermum continentale High 2 0 2 HighLeptospermum lanigerum High 4 1 3Lomandra filiformis High 7 2 5Mentha laxiflora High 6 2 4Ozothamnus obcordatus High 5 1 4 HighPimelea axiflora High 8 1 7Platylobium obtusangulum High 4 1 3 LowPoa sieberiana Low 10 6 4Pomaderris aspera Low 5 4 1Pteridium esculentum Low 11 8 3 LowPultenaea daphnoides High 3 1 2 HighSpyridium parvifolium High 6 2 4Tetrarrhena juncea Low 5 3 2Tetratheca ciliata Low 6 4 2Viola betonicifolia Both 6 3 3Viola hederacea Low 6 4 2Xanthorrhoea minor subsp. lutea Low 7 5 2Totals 51 308 159 149 23

Page 14 of 20

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

Appendix 2: Selected images of Mount Cole Grevillea

Images removed due to Copyright

Page 15 of 20

Reviewers and ReferencesREVIEWER(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.

REFERENCE LISTPlease list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.

Briggs J.D. and Leigh J.H. (1995). ‘Rare or Threatened Australian Plants.’ Fourth Edition. (CSIRO publishing, Melbourne).

Carter, O., Downe, J. and Murphy, A.H. (2006a). National Recovery Plan for the Langi Ghiran Grevillea Grevillea montis–cole subspecies brevistyla. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Carter, O., Murphy, A.H. and Downe, J. (2006b). National Recovery Plan for the Ben Major Grevillea Grevillea floripendula. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Cayley, R.A, McDonald P.A. (1995). Beaufort 1:100,000 map geological report. Geological Survey of Victoria Report104. State of Victoria, Melbourne.

DSE (2008a). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Action Statement No. 223 Langi Ghiran Grevillea (Grevillea montis– cole subsp. brevistyla). Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

DSE (2008b). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Action Statement No. 206 Ben Major Grevillea (Grevillea floripendula). Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

DSE (2009). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Action Statement No. 204 Anglesea Grevillea Grevillea infecunda. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

DSE (2012). Forest Notes – Mount Cole State Forest. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Ballarat.

FOV online (no date) Grevillea montis-cole subsp. montis-cole Mt Cole Grevillea. Flora of Victoria online, Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne. https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/flora/taxon/303eb263-9616-4f6c-9760-0bfa720c1988

Foreman, P. W. (2018). Strategic Flora and Vegetation Assessment of Public land at Mount Cole, near Beaufort. Victorian Environment Assessment Council 2018 Central West Investigation First Consultation Period. Report prepared by Blue Devil Consulting, Castlemaine.

Holmes Gareth D., Downing Trisha L., James Elizabeth A., Blacket Mark J., Hoffmann Ary A., Bayly Michael J. (2014). Phylogeny of the holly grevilleas (Proteaceae) based on nuclear ribosomal and chloroplast DNA. Australian Systematic Botany 27, 56–77.

Makinson R.O. (2000). Grevillea. In ‘Flora of Australia. Vol. 17A: Proteaceae 2’. (Ed. A.J.G. Wilson) pp. 1–460. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne)

Ralph, M. (2010). Conservation Values of the Mount Cole and Pyrenees Landscape. An assessment by The Wilderness Society, Ballarat Environment Network, Wombat Forestcare and Bendigo and District Environment Council.

Smith, R.V. (1983). Grevillea montis–cole sp. nov. (Proteaceae) from Victoria. Muelleria 5(3): 223

VEAC (2018). Central West Investigation, Draft Proposals Paper For Public Comment. Victorian Environment Assessment Council, Melbourne. (Revised full DPP report Oct.pdf)

Nominator's DetailsNote: Your details are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties, except for state and territory governments and scientific committee which have agreed to collaborate with the Commonwealth on national threatened species assessments using a common assessment method.If there are multiple nominators please include details below for all nominators.

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

Page 16 of 20

FULL NAME

ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE)

CONTACT DETAILSEmail: Phone:

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

Signe

* If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature

Date: 14/3/19

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 appropriately.

Please tick

Department website Web search The Australian newspaper word of mouth

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

Social media? If so which ...........................................................................................................................................

Other..........................................................................................................................................................................

Lodging your nomination

Completed nominations may be lodged either:1. by email in Microsoft Word format to: epbc.nominations@environment.gov.au, or2. by mail to: The Director

Species Information and Policy Section Department of the Environment and Energy GPO Box 787CANBERRA ACT 2601

* If submitting by mail, you must include an electronic copy on a memory stick.

NOMINATIONS CLOSE AT 5PM ON 28 MARCH 2019.