Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for Four Grassland Earless Dragons (Tympanocryptis spp.) of Southeast Australia) Instrument 2026

Contents

1 Name #

This instrument is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for Four Grassland Earless Dragons (Tympanocryptis spp.) of Southeast Australia) Instrument 2026.

2 Commencement #

This instrument commences on the day after it is registered.

3 Authority #

This instrument is made under subsection 269A(3) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

4 Jointly made recovery plan #

The National Recovery Plan for Four Grassland Earless Dragons (Tympanocryptis spp.) of Southeast Australia in this instrument is jointly made with the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria, as agreed by the following State and Territory Ministers:

Ownership of intellectual property rights

Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licence

All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be emailed to copyright@dcceew.gov.au.

Cataloguing data

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: DCCEEW (2026) National Recovery Plan for Four Grassland Earless Dragons (Tympanocryptis spp.) of Southeast Australia. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Australian Government, Canberra, CC BY 4.0.

This publication is available at dcceew.gov.au/publications.

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water

GPO Box 3090 Canberra ACT 2601

Telephone 1800 920 528

Web dcceew.gov.au

Disclaimer

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying on any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Acknowledgements

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and recognise the continuing connection to land, water and culture. We pay respect to Elders past, present and emerging.

The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water acknowledge the guidance, support and input of all contributing experts, particularly the grassland earless dragon recovery groups and representatives from the Australian, Victorian, Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales governments.

Cover page image details

Grassland earless dragon habitat © Garry Peterson.

An adult male Victorian grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) © Nick Clemann 2023.

An adult Canberra grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis lineata) © Emma Carlson.

Associated documents

A detailed Conservation Advice and/or Listing Assessment is available for each of the four species covered by this recovery plan at:

Australia is home to approximately 1,150 species of lizards and snakes (Uetz et al. 2024). Three of the four species of grassland earless dragon (GED) covered by this recovery plan are in the top 20 list of Australia’s most imperilled lizards and snakes (Geyle et al. 2020):

 Victorian grassland earless dragon (# 1).

 Bathurst grassland earless dragon (# 5).

 Canberra grassland earless dragon (# 17).

 Monaro grassland earless dragon (# 31).

All four species were considered a single species (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) until a genetic analysis in 2019 identified significant divergences that have subsequently led to them being accepted as four separate species (Melville et al. 2019).

All four species are endemic to natural temperate grasslands of southeast Australia, which have been degraded, fragmented, and reduced to approximately 0.5 % of their extent at the time of European colonisation. The remaining areas of natural temperate grasslands are subject to a complex array of interacting threats.

The Bathurst GED has not been seen for almost three decades. The Victorian GED was rediscovered at one small area in early 2023, having gone undetected for more than half a century despite surveys for the species across its range. The Canberra GED persists, but in 2024 it was undetectable at two of only five known locations in the Australian Capital Territory. The Monaro GED has shown signs of decline since the Millennium Drought (2001–2009).

The Bathurst GED and Victorian GED occur in areas with a long history of habitat loss and degradation from agricultural and urban development. Following European colonisation, development initially occurred in the absence of regulation, and often during drought conditions. These impacts intensified as gold mining and expansion of the agricultural sector fuelled the growth of Bathurst – Australia’s first inland city – and then Melbourne. The result was major, and often irreversible, modifications and losses of natural grasslands that support these four GEDs.

The recent rediscovery of the Victorian GED gives hope for the Bathurst GED, which was last detected in 1996. Appropriate surveys are essential to clarify if this species persists. Precedents for re-discovery of the Bathurst GED are the redetection of the Canberra GED in 1993, Monaro GED in 1996, and Victorian GED in 2023, after each was presumed extinct.

The Monaro GED almost certainly has a larger population size and geographic range than the other three GEDs. Monitoring and research programs that focus on the Monaro GED offer the best opportunity to learn how to effectively manage grasslands and to implement recovery programs for all four species, including the highly fragmented Canberra GED.

Each of the four GEDs is cryptic and under-surveyed across its likely range. Grazing land is likely to support undetected populations of these four GEDs.

People and organisations who are responsible for, and interested in, recovering these four GEDs gathered for workshops in June, August, and October 2022, and throughout 2023 following rediscovery of the Victorian GED. These workshops all had a common goal: to bring together expertise and experience to identify pathways that give each species the best possible chance of survival and recovery. It was agreed that the situation for all four species is precarious. It is not only complex in terms of detection, monitoring and habitat management, but also because of uncertainty regarding the impacts of habitat management actions and the social context in which these species occur, i.e. in productive and sought-after land for agriculture and urbanisation. Most areas where these species occur are not protected.

It was agreed that a clear plan of action and ownership is needed to maximise the likelihood of re-detecting the Bathurst GED and additional populations of the other three GEDs, particularly the Victorian GED. It was also evident that clear objectives and actions are required to ensure the Canberra GED and Monaro GED do not continue declining towards extinction.

All four GEDs were listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 in June 2023; the Monaro GED as Endangered and the other three GEDs as Critically Endangered. With the listing of the four species, conservation advice was published to guide conservation action. The Minister for the Environment and Water also agreed that a recovery plan would be prepared for the four species.

This recovery plan builds on the conservation advice and listing assessments for the four species by providing the following:

 An emphasis on the importance of a co-ordinated and adaptive approach to recovery of all four species due to common challenges and learnings across all four species.

 Clear recovery objectives, strategies and actions that reflect their situational contexts.

 An emphasis on the importance of habitat protection, restoration and management for recovery including clarity about important habitat attributes.

 Clarity about knowledge gaps that affect recovery planning and action.

 Guidance about how to account for knowledge gaps and the importance of habitat protection and restoration during planning.

 Guidance about how to manage dynamic grasslands to support recovery of the listed GEDs.

 Guidance about appropriate survey methods and maximising detectability to support planning.

 A rediscovery protocol to support persistence of the Bathurst GED and any additional occurrences of the Victorian GED and Canberra GED.

This recovery plan also provides updated information about the Victorian GED following its rediscovery.

Contents

Maps

Map 1. Approximate distribution of the listed grassland earless dragons (GEDs) that are covered by this recovery plan.......3

Map 2. Modelled distribution of the Victorian grassland earless dragon...........................4

Map 3. Modelled distribution of the Canberra grassland earless dragon...........................4

Map 4. Modelled distribution of the Bathurst grassland earless dragon............................5

Map 5. Modelled distribution of the Monaro grassland earless dragon............................5

Figures

Figure 1. Annual life cycle of a grassland earless dragon in temperate southeast Australia.............11

Figure 2. Generalised overview of threats and impacts on grassland earless dragons.................28

Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of interactions among strategies, actions to achieve them, and outcomes of those actions. Note that Strategy 1 (co-ordinate recovery actions) is excluded due to its overarching role in co-ordination.......37

Figure 4. Initial guide for determining the importance of an area in supporting persistence and recovery of a listed GED.......50

Figure 5. Key occupancy drivers for a listed GED within an area.................................51

Figure 6. Decision-making pathways that support persistence and recovery of a listed GED when further assessment about the importance of an area is necessary (Figure 4).......52

Figure 7. Optimal biomass and structure diagram for listed GEDs...............................55

Figure 8. Example of an artificial spider tube design used to mimic a natural arthropod burrow (Madani et al. 2023).......61

Tables

Table 1. The four grassland earless dragon species that are addressed under this plan.................1

Table 2. Number of individuals and distribution of Canberra GED and Victorian GED captive populations..29

Table 3. General guidance for determining the value of an area for persistence and recovery of a listed GED where the listed GED has not been detected or it is unlikely to occur at the time of an assessment (see Figure 6).......53

Table 4. Rediscovery response protocol for a listed GED......................................64

Table 5. Threatened species and ecosystems that do or may co-occur with the listed GEDs.............67

Table 6. Recovery partners...........................................................68

Photographs

Photograph 1. A Victorian grassland earless dragon after rediscovery in early 2023...................iv

Photograph 2. Habitat of the Canberra grassland earless dragon................................viii

Photograph 3. A Canberra grassland earless dragon in the hand.................................2

Photograph 4. A lack of a visible outer ear is a diagnostic feature as seen on this Monaro grassland earless dragon.......8

Photograph 5. The four listed grassland earless dragons (GED) of southeast Australia..................9

Photograph 6. An active Canberra grassland earless dragon...................................12

Photograph 7. A Canberra grassland earless dragon shelters in a native tussock grassland.............13

Photograph 8. Burrow-creating invertebrates and their burrows: wolf spider (top), Canberra raspy cricket (bottom).......15

Photograph 9. A wolf spider burrow under loose surface rock provides shelter for a Monaro grassland earless dragon.......16

Photograph 10. Habitat of the Victorian grassland earless dragon on the Keilor Plains during summer (top), early autumn (bottom left), and late autumn (bottom right).......18

Photograph 11. Habitat of the Canberra grassland earless dragon during optimal (top), drought (middle) and high biomass (bottom) conditions.......19

Photograph 12. Habitat of the Monaro grassland earless dragon including during high biomass conditions (top right).......20

Photograph 13. Highly modified grasslands within the distributions of the listed grassland earless dragons. 22

Photograph 14. Habitat of the Canberra grassland earless dragon during good conditions in 1998 (left) and drought conditions with heavy grazing pressure by kangaroos in 2006 (right).......23

Photograph 15. High biomass conditions on the Monaro plains, indicative of poor habitat quality for the listed GEDs.......24

Photograph 16. A native temperate grassland grazed during drought on the Monaro plains............24

Photograph 17. African lovegrass has established and is developing a high biomass monoculture in a native grassland.......25

Photograph 18. Confirmed and potential predators of the listed grassland earless dragons (GED)........27

Photograph 19. A captive program for the Canberra grassland earless dragon at Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve. 30

Photograph 20. One of the first hatchling Victorian grassland earless dragons produced by the Zoos Victoria conservation breeding program (left) and the Tidbinbilla captive breeding facility for the Canberra GED (right).......31

Photograph 21. A Canberra grassland earless dragon........................................35

Photograph 22. Example of patchy open and closed grassland habitat supporting grassland earless dragons on the Monaro high plains.......56

Photograph 23. Example of patchy open and closed tussock grass cover supporting a high abundance of grassland earless dragons during a wet season in the ACT.......56

Photograph 24. Example of grassland condition and structure supporting the Victorian grassland earless dragon.......57

Photograph 25. Collaborative use of fire to manage grasslands that provide habitat for the Monaro grassland earless dragon: by NSW DPE, Southeast NSW LLS, NPWS Jindabyne, and Friends of Grasslands.......57

Photograph 26. The Monaro plains.....................................................58

Photograph 27. Supplementary monitoring of artificial arthropod burrows using remote cameras.......63

Photograph 28: A Monaro grassland earless dragon.........................................71

This recovery plan outlines the management, monitoring and research actions that are necessary to stop the decline, and support the recovery, of four species of threatened grassland earless dragons (henceforth the ‘listed GEDs’). It steps recovery partners through a framework to support coordination and implementation of actions and programs to support the recovery of all four of these threatened species.

This recovery plan supersedes the previous recovery plan developed for the Endangered grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla), when all four species were considered to be this one species. A genetic and morphometric revision of this species by Melville et al. (2019) identified species-level divergences that correlated with four geographically discrete areas. As such, Melville et al. (2019) described – or in the case of T. pinguicolla, redescribed – four species that are conventionally accepted:

 Tympanocryptis pinguicolla (Victorian grassland earless dragon).

 Tympanocryptis lineata (Canberra grassland earless dragon).

 Tympanocryptis mccartneyi (Bathurst grassland earless dragon).

 Tympanocryptis osbornei (Monaro grassland earless dragon).

All four of these listed GEDs continued to be included in the threatened species list under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) from the time of their re-description, having been collectively listed as Endangered – as Tympanocryptis pinguicolla – since July 2000.

In 2023, the four GEDs were re-assessed and listed independently. Three of the listed GEDs were uplisted to Critically Endangered and one species remained listed as Endangered (Table 1).

Table 1. The four grassland earless dragon species that are addressed under this plan.

Common name	Scientific name	Jurisdiction	Listing status*
Victorian grassland earless dragon	Tympanocryptis pinguicolla	Vic	Critically Endangered
Canberra grassland earless dragon	Tympanocryptis lineata	ACT, NSW	Critically Endangered
Bathurst grassland earless dragon	Tympanocryptis mccartneyi	NSW	Critically Endangered
Monaro grassland earless dragon	Tympanocryptis osbornei	NSW	Endangered

* Aligned Australian and state / territory listing status under the Common Assessment Method (CAM).

Australia has over 1,000 species of squamates, i.e. snakes and lizards (Uetz et al. 2024). Geyle et al. (2020) identified and ranked Australia’s 20 most imperilled squamates, i.e. those most likely to become extinct in the next 20 years.

 The Victorian GED was identified as Australia’s most imperilled squamate after not being recorded for over 50 years (Melville et al. 2019) until it was rediscovered in early 2023 (Melville 2023). At the time of publication, the Victorian GED persists in one small area and remains at high risk of extinction. An ex situ conservation breeding program has commenced.

 The Bathurst GED was identified as the 5^th most imperilled squamate. It has not been recorded for nearly 30 years and may be extinct or on the verge of extinction. A rediscovery program has commenced.

 The Canberra GED was identified as the 17^th most imperilled squamate. It is one of the most intensively monitored reptiles in Australia and it has declined at monitoring locations since 2006 (Dimond et al. 2012), rapidly so since 2017. Ex situ populations are housed at two facilities in the ACT.

 The Monaro GED was identified as the 31^st most imperilled squamate. It does not currently have an ex situ conservation breeding program.

A listing assessment for each species is available on the Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) at:

 Tympanocryptis pinguicolla – Victorian grassland earless dragon

 Tympanocryptis lineata – Canberra grassland earless dragon

 Tympanocryptis mccartneyi – Bathurst grassland earless dragon

 Tympanocryptis osbornei – Monaro grassland earless dragon

The four listed GEDs form a distinctive south-eastern clade within earless dragons of Australia (Melville et al. 2019). They occur in geographically discrete areas across Vic, the ACT and NSW (Map 1). Historical and contemporary records of the Victorian GED are from inner Melbourne and the Keilor Plains including greater Geelong. The Canberra GED is restricted to the ACT and adjacent areas of Queanbeyan in NSW. Historical records of the Bathurst GED are from the town of Bathurst (NSW) and surrounding plains. The Monaro GED occurs on the Monaro high plains of NSW.

Map 1. Approximate distribution of the listed grassland earless dragons (GEDs) that are covered by this recovery plan.

Species distribution models have been developed for each of the four listed GEDs (Map 2 to Map 5). These models identify the potential geographic range of each species (i.e. areas they ‘may occur’) based on information available as at January 2024. They also include areas where each species is most likely to occur within its potential range (i.e. ‘likely to occur’) based on proximity to vetted detection records and mapped habitat attributes (e.g. vegetation type). These maps provide initial guidance for further investigation.

Map 2. Modelled distribution of the Victorian grassland earless dragon

Map 3. Modelled distribution of the Canberra grassland earless dragon.

Map 4. Modelled distribution of the Bathurst grassland earless dragon.

Map 5. Modelled distribution of the Monaro grassland earless dragon.

Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.

Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken, by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein. Due to limited survey effort and information available, the listed GEDs, and their habitat, may occur in areas where they have not yet been recorded, and the modelled distributions should be considered as indicative only.

Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental modelling techniques and documented scientific research.

The Victorian GED and Canberra GED are significant to the local communities in which they occur. These species – under their former identity as T. pinguicolla (grassland earless dragon) – regularly feature in community art and as flagship species for grassland conservation. The Victorian GED is nationally significant for being the most imperilled reptile on mainland Australia (Geyle et al. 2020). The Victorian GED is a priority species in Zoos Victoria’s ‘Fighting Extinction’ campaign. The Canberra GED is one of Australia’s most intensively monitored reptiles, with a well-known, long-term monitoring program established in 2002 (Dimond et al. 2012) that is informing recovery actions (Legge et al. 2018).

The Bathurst GED and Monaro GED have lower community profiles due to a general lack of knowledge about their existence. A children’s book about the Monaro GED – ‘The Last Dragon’ (Massey & Foot 2021) – was published to improve awareness about the plight of this species.

All four species of listed GEDs are a focus of the Grassland Earless Dragon Alliance, a community group dedicated to raising the profile of threatened grassland earless dragons of southeast Australia. Activities of the GED Alliance can be followed on social media (@earless_dragon_alliance).

The cultural, customary and spiritual significance of animals, plants and ecological communities are diverse and varied for Indigenous Australians and their stewardship of Country. This section describes some examples of this significance but is not intended to be comprehensive or speak for First Nations Australians. Such knowledge may be held by First Nations Australians who are custodians of this knowledge and have the rights to decide how this knowledge is shared and used.

The geographic ranges of the four listed GEDs occur on lands of numerous First Nations groups. In the ACT and surrounding region, the Ngunnawal People are the Traditional Custodians of the native grasslands that are habitat for the Canberra GED. The Ngarigo People are the Traditional Custodians of the native grasslands on the Monaro high plains that support the Monaro GED. The Wadawurrung, Wurundjeri (Woiwurrung), and Bunurong Peoples of the Kulin Nation are Traditional Custodians of native grasslands within the modelled distribution of the Victorian GED. The Wiradjuri People are the Traditional Custodians of native grasslands that are habitat for the Bathurst GED. The scientific name of the Bathurst GED (T. mccartneyi) is named after Ian McArtney, a local Wiradjuri man who first recorded this species in 1948. It is referred to locally as the Wiradjuri dragon.

The natural temperate grasslands that are habitat for the four listed GEDs have First Nations significance. These grasslands support forbs with underground organs (e.g. tubers, bulbs, corms, rhizomes) that are important food sources for First Nations peoples, and they can also support large amounts of game and varied freshwater lake foods (Williams et al. 2015). Prior to colonisation, these temperate grasslands were renowned for the abundance of murnong (Microseris lanceolata and M. walteri), the native daisy that was a staple food for First Nations peoples (Williams et al. 2015).

All dragons from the Tympanocryptis genus have a hidden outer ear (tympanum) that is covered in scales (‘Tympanocryptis’ = hidden ear), which differentiates them from almost all other Australian dragons in the Agamidae family (Mitchell 1948; Melville & Wilson 2019).

The four listed GEDs are small (up to 15 cm total length) and cryptic lizards with short, round heads and bodies. They are patterned in shades of grey-brown to red-brown with 5–7 dark crossbands on the back that become dark blotches on the tail. All four species have five continuous or briefly interrupted cream stripes running down the back and sides that overlie all other patterning. The underside of these dragons is off-white in colour, with or without a yellow to orange-pink flush, and there is often faint grey to black speckling on part, or all, of the underside.

All four of the listed GEDs are genetically and geographically distinct from each other, and from other species of Tympanocryptis (Melville et al. 2019). They look similar to each other but can be differentiated morphologically with close scrutiny. Detailed species descriptions and differentiations are available in Melville et al (2019) and in the conservation advice or listing assessment for each species.

The listed GEDs occur in a temperate zone where ambient winter temperatures regularly fall below 0°C with frosts and snow, and maximum ambient temperatures can remain below 10°C for extended periods. Summer temperatures can reach 40°C and rainfall can occur throughout the year (Bureau of Meteorology Climate Statistics in March 2023 for Canberra, Cooma, Bathurst, Werribee).

The biology and ecology of each listed GED, where known or inferred, is detailed in each species’ conservation advice or listing assessment. A summary of this information for the four species (as of 2026) is provided below.

The Canberra GED and Monaro GED are short-lived, maturing within one year and usually not surviving more than one breeding season (Nelson 2004; Dimond et al. 2012). A small proportion of individuals survives for two (females) to four (males) years, but they usually die once they breed (Nelson 2004; Dimond 2010; Madani 2022 pers. comm.). In captivity, longevity can be extended to more than five years, individuals can breed over multiple breeding seasons, and both sexes have produced viable offspring at four years of age (Robertson and Coventry 2019; Zoos Victoria 2022).

Female Canberra GEDs lay their eggs in burrows. They use either existing burrows that are created by invertebrates, or they dig burrows themselves before laying eggs then backfilling the burrow with sediment, small rocks, grasses, and occasionally sheep or kangaroo manure (Dimond 2010; Doucette 2022 pers. comm. 15 Feb.; Zoos Victoria 2022). Some females have been observed to actively defend their nests for a few days (Doucette 2022 pers. comm. 15 Feb.). Canberra GED hatching coincides with a high abundance of invertebrate prey in late summer and early Autumn (Nelson 2004). Captive Canberra GEDs can produce up to three viable clutches of 3-6 eggs per season, which indicates that wild populations of the listed GEDs may also have the capacity to produce multiple clutches when food resources are abundant (Zoos Victoria 2022).

The annual life cycle of the listed GEDs (Figure 1) includes a winter brumation period when cool temperatures reduce their metabolism and they become inactive and unresponsive in their shelters (Nelson 2004; Doucette et al. 2023). The short-lived, annual life cycle of the listed GEDs means they are sensitive to disturbance of their breeding cycle.

Figure 1. Annual life cycle of a grassland earless dragon in temperate southeast Australia.

The diet of each listed GED is likely to be similar. The Canberra GED, Monaro GED and Victorian GED eat grassland invertebrates – primarily beetles and ants, but also moths and butterflies, spiders, grasshoppers, crickets, flies, termites, centipedes, true bugs, and cockroaches (Benson 1999; Dimond 2010; EPSDDE 2017). Maggots, mealworms, and silkworms are readily eaten in captivity (Swan 2000).

GEDs are diurnal, being active during the day (Stevens et al. 2010; Nelson 2004). They can be observed in invertebrate burrows during the day (or artificial burrows used to monitor this species), and they are occasionally observed basking on a tussock or actively moving about in habitat.

Ten radio-tracked Canberra GEDs exhibited strong – but not exclusive – site fidelity around one or two burrows from February to April (late summer and autumn). They revisited these burrows multiple times, even after being away for extended periods. Fidelity to burrows increases with the onset of winter (Stevens et al. 2010).

The outer home range size of seven Canberra GEDs that were radio-tracked from February to April was approximately 900–4,800 m² (0.09–0.48 ha) with a core area of approximately 40–300 m² (0.004–0.03 ha) around their burrow/s (Stevens et al. 2010).

Grassland earless dragons usually remain within 1 m of a burrow (Stevens et al. 2010) and rarely move more than 40 m over days or weeks (Rowell 2014). However, a Monaro GED moved 67 m over three days, and another moved more than 110 m during summer, then returned to within 5 m of its initial point of capture, retracing an almost identical course (Nelson 2004). A subadult Canberra GED moved 70–80 m between traps that were checked three times per week (Rowell 2014).

Genetic analyses have demonstrated that the Canberra GED has limited to no ability to disperse across roads, degraded grasslands, or rivers (Hoehn et al. 2013; Colley 2021). The Monaro GED has low levels of genetic structuring and variation (Carlson et al. 2016). While this indicates a connected population, high-resolution genetic analysis with a large sample size has demonstrated some population structuring across this species’ distribution (Ryan Colley unpublished data). The small and fragmented populations, combined with a limited ability to naturally disperse, means the listed GEDs are sensitive to further fragmentation.

Areas of habitat for the listed GEDs, or that have the potential to provide habitat, are shown by the modelled distribution of each species in Map 2 to Map 5.

Habitat for each of the listed GEDs consists of areas that are currently occupied, areas that could be occupied in the future (e.g. as part of a reintroduction program), and areas that are confirmed or inferred to have been occupied in the past based on:

The listed GEDs are cryptic and can be undetectable at known locations for extended periods of time despite intensive survey effort (McGrath 2015; McGrath et al. 2015; Dimond et al. 2012; Banks et al. 2017). Consequently, areas with important habitat attributes for a listed GED that occur within the modelled distribution of the species may be occupied but the species is not able to be detected despite significant survey effort.

At the broadest scale, all four of the listed GEDs occur in native tussock grasslands that have little or no woody vegetation. Habitat for these species often occurs within two Critically Endangered ecological communities: Natural Temperate Grassland of the South Eastern Highlands and Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain. Both ecological communities have been reduced to approximately 0.5 % of their extent at the time of European colonisation.

The listed GEDs can also occupy areas below the condition thresholds for these threatened ecological communities. These are native grasslands, including pastures, with low floristic diversity that may have been degraded, e.g. from intensive and prolonged grazing, weed invasion, and minor modifications. These areas can be important for recovering the listed GEDs, particularly for dispersal, habitat restoration, and reintroduction.

The presence – but not necessarily dominance – of native grass tussocks is an important habitat attribute for the listed GEDs. Native grass species within habitat of the listed GEDs can vary among the four species:

 Historical Victorian GED records are mostly from volcanic plains west of Melbourne and south to Geelong, which are dominated by tufted grasses such as Austrostipa bigeniculata (tall speargrass) and shorter Rytidosperma spp. (wallaby grasses), Themeda triandra (kangaroo grass) and Poa labillardierei (tussock poa). The rediscovery site has a similar mix of native grasses (Sutton 1916; Robertson 2023 pers. comm. 15 Nov.). Some historical records are from coastal alluvial soils (DCCEEW 2023).

 Canberra GED habitat is dominated by Austrostipa bigeniculata (tall speargrass) and shorter Rytidosperma spp. (wallaby grasses) and Bothriochloa macra (red grass, redleg grass) (Osborne et al. 1993; Robertson and Evans 2012; ACT Scientific Committee 2022; Rowell 2023 pers. comm.)

 Bathurst GED habitat has not been documented. Historical observations by local herpetologists indicate that habitat for this species was dominated by native grasses that were rich with forbs, particularly peas and orchids (BGEDWG 2022). Natural grasslands have been documented in the Bathurst area (Semple 1997).

 Monaro GED habitat is dominated by Poa sieberiana (snow grass), Austrostipa scabra (rough spear-grass) and/or Themeda triandra (kangaroo grass) with sub-dominant Rytidosperma spp. (wallaby grasses) (Robertson & Evan 2012, Eco Logical Australia 2009, McGrath 2015, Melville et al. 2019; Armstrong 2023 pers. comm.).

Research and monitoring programs focusing on the Canberra GED and Monaro GED have indicated that an open and heterogenous grassland structure with bare ground between dense grass tussocks, low biomass levels and low grass height (5–10 cm) may also be important habitat attributes.

Soil type and substrate structure are important habitat attributes for the listed GEDs. They can vary among the four species from well-drained or alluvial soils derived from limestone, granite, or basalt that are devoid of loose or partially embedded surface rock (Kershaw 1927; GSV 1959; Melville et al. 2019; BGEDWG 2022) to heavy basalt-derived clay with an abundance of surface rock and/or deep cracks (McCoy 1889; TSSC 2008; Osborne et al 1993; McGrath 2015).

Photograph 9. A wolf spider burrow under loose surface rock provides shelter for a Monaro grassland earless dragon.

Photographed and supplied by Matt Clancy.

Invertebrate burrows are an important habitat attribute for all four listed GEDs. All four species are likely to use invertebrate burrows for protection from predators and extreme temperatures, as observed for the Canberra GED and Monaro GED (Stevens et al. 2010; EPSDDE 2017, McCoy 1889; McGrath 2015; Doucette et al. 2023). The Canberra GED uses both wolf spider (Tasmanicosa spp.) and Canberra raspy cricket (Cooraboorama canberrae) burrows (Robertson & Evans 2012) and the Monaro GED and Victorian GED use wolf spider burrows (Osborne 1993; McGrath 2015; Robertson 2023 pers. comm. 15 Nov.). The Bathurst GED historically occupied areas with both wolf and trapdoor spider burrows and may use both (BGEDWG 2022). Wolf spiders are abundant and widespread across Australia, including in natural grasslands of southeast Australia (Framenau & Baehr 2016; Humphreys 1973; Hanna 2016). Shelter and predator-prey relationships and interactions may be quite complex between the listed GEDs and burrow-creating spiders (Rowell 2014).

Invertebrate burrows that are occupied by the listed GEDs can be positioned under, or alongside, loose basalt boulders, or they can be stand-alone burrows that are not associated with loose surface rock (Lucas & Frost 1894, McArtney 1968; Osborne et al 1993; McGrath et al. 2015).

In addition to providing shelter resources, grassland invertebrates are prey for the listed GEDs throughout their life cycles (Benson 1999; Dimond et al. 2012). As such, the presence of invertebrate prey is also an important habitat attribute for the listed GEDs.

 Native temperate grassland

 Presence of native grass tussocks. The dominant species differs among the four listed GEDs

 An open and heterogenous grassland structure with bare ground between dense grass tussocks, low biomass levels and low grass height

 A suitable soil type with or without surface rock. These attributes differ among the four listed GEDs

 Invertebrate burrows

 Invertebrate prey

These important habitat attributes are necessary for a listed GED to occur in an area. They are sensitive to disturbance or loss of any of these attributes.

There may be further species-specific detail about important habitat attributes in the relevant conservation advice or listing assessment.

This section provides a brief summary of the threats impacting one or more of the listed GEDs. Detailed species and context-specific information about threats is available in the conservation advice or listing assessment for each species.

The primary cause of decline, local extirpation, and potential extinction of the listed GEDs is significant loss, fragmentation and degradation of their habitat by agricultural and urban development. Three of the four listed GEDs occur in, and around, capital or regional cities (Melbourne, Canberra and Bathurst) and all four species occur in landscapes and soils that are important or attractive for agriculture. Development has resulted in fragmentation and direct loss of habitat to the built environment, seeded pastures, and crop fields. Much of the remaining habitat has been degraded by weed invasions and excessive biomass buildup, as well as overgrazing, prolonged drought and extensive fire, and the loss of important functional groups such as invertebrates, macropods and dingos.

The removal of Indigenous fire and land management, native grazers and their predators, seed-eating and dispersing birds, and insect pollinators has resulted in a loss of ecosystem functions across much of the remaining grasslands that provide habitat for the listed GEDs. Populations of the three extant species are now small and declining, and are genetically compromised and/or undetectable.

Ongoing urban expansion around Melbourne, Geelong, Canberra and Bathurst, and renewable energy projects, quarries and mines in the Monaro, Werribee (Melbourne) and Bathurst regions have the potential to impact GED populations including through impacts on habitat and limiting expansion and/or reconnection of populations.

All four listed GEDs occur on soils and in landscapes that are used extensively for cropping and pasture supplementation. Grasslands that are likely to provide habitat for the listed GEDs – particularly on the Monaro plains – continue to be converted to cropping and improved pasture making them uninhabitable for the listed GEDs. The occurrence of a listed GED is incompatible with ploughing, cropping, sowing of exotic pastures, fertilisation, de-rocking (a.k.a. ‘rock picking’), or ongoing pesticide use due to the reliance of these species on invertebrate burrows and established soil cracks, native grasses, rocks, and invertebrates. These activities reduce the diversity of flora, and the diversity and abundance of arthropods and insects that create burrow shelters for the listed GEDs and provide food. Agricultural activities that disturb the soil or require the application of herbicide also increase the potential for weed invasion within disturbed areas and adjacent grasslands. The use of improved rock crushing technology has the potential to increase rates of de-rocking, and hence cause significant and irreversible damage to habitat for the Victorian GED and Monaro GED. These impacts are exacerbated by the promotion of grassland areas where the listed GEDs occur as suitable for agriculture.

The listed GEDs occur in areas that are attractive for native, domestic and introduced grazing animals (e.g. kangaroos, sheep, cattle and rabbits). Monitoring has demonstrated that a low to moderate level of grazing, particularly sheep grazing, is beneficial for the Canberra GED and Monaro GED (and likely also for the Victorian GED) but sustained high-intensity grazing that retains little, or no, ground cover is likely to be detrimental to these species, particularly in areas with few surface rocks (Robertson and Evans 2012). Sustained high-intensity grazing reduces tussock cover and structure, as well as prey and burrow availability. Excessive bare ground and soil compaction by sheep and cattle further degrade habitat for the listed GEDs by promoting the establishment and spread of weeds, increasing exposure to predation, and increasing the risk of damaging and destroying important habitat attributes like burrows. The impacts of overgrazing are exacerbated during droughts.

In contrast, insufficient grazing can result in an overabundance of biomass that reduces the availability of inter-tussock spaces (i.e. bare ground) for foraging and basking, lowers soil surface temperatures for basking, reduces the ability to disperse, and increases the risk of severe fire. Additionally, high biomass creates less favourable conditions for arthropods and other important food sources. Maintaining suitable grazing pressure during periods of high grass growth is often challenging because these periods generally follow drought when many land managers have reduced stock densities and, as such, have no or limited access to grazing stock for reducing biomass in a way that benefits the listed GEDs.

Photograph 14. Habitat of the Canberra grassland earless dragon during good conditions in 1998 (left) and drought conditions with heavy grazing pressure by kangaroos in 2006 (right).

An unpalatable weed – serrated tussock – is visible in the drought image. Both images photographed and supplied by Will Osborne.

Nassella trichotoma (serrated tussock), N. neesiana (Chilean needle grass) and Hypericum perforatum (St John’s wort) are grassland weeds that are degrading habitat across the range of all the listed GEDs (Williams et al. 2015). Further to this, habitat of the Canberra GED and Monaro GED continues to be substantially modified or lost due to the ongoing spread and establishment of Eragrostis curvula (African lovegrass). This weed develops monocultures that outcompete native plants to significantly reduce grassland floral diversity, partially because it is avoided by domestic stock (Dorrough 2015; Brown and Ingram 2022). High rates of non-selective herbicide application to control African lovegrass reduces the diversity and abundance of invertebrate prey feeding for the listed GEDs, which feed on grasses that are also impacted by herbicide control. Further to this, grassland weed monocultures are likely to reduce the abundance and diversity of native invertebrates that create shelter and are prey for the listed GEDs. Dense swards of grassland weeds may also restrict both the dispersal and thermoregulation capacities of the listed GEDs.

The continued spread of African lovegrass across the Monaro plains is a significant impediment to recovery of the Monaro GED: it jeopardises progress towards the promotion and expansion of native grasslands that support both profitable and low-input primary production and grassland conservation goals (Dorrough 2015). African lovegrass thrives in open areas between grass tussocks, making it a challenge to control and eradicate while maintaining and restoring inter-tussock bare patches that are an important attribute of GED habitat. Potential methods for controlling this weed require high rates of inputs that can reduce grassland diversity and habitat condition, such as the application of chemical control (Dorrough 2015).

Fire is a natural, creative and regenerative process in the grassland ecosystems that are inhabited by the listed GEDs (Morgan et al. 1999; Lunt and Morgan 2002; Williams et al. 2015). However, fires that are too frequent, too hot, or regularly occur in the wrong season may damage grasslands by altering vegetation composition and structure, reducing the availability of prey, and causing significant mortality to the lizards either directly or via predation due to the temporary loss of grassy shelters. Dry season fires are anticipated to increase in severity and frequency as climate change impacts progress (Pitman et al. 2007; Sullivan 2010).

The listed GEDs are highly susceptible to population decline caused by prolonged drought, which is exacerbated by overgrazing (Dimond et al. 2012). Droughts reduce vegetation cover resulting in exposure to higher temperatures and desiccation, which increase mortality rates of eggs and hatchlings, and reduces the period when conditions are suitable for foraging. Droughts may also be contributing to an observed decline in arthropod prey and the burrows they create that shelter the listed GEDs. The longevity and intensity of droughts in southeast Australia is expected to increase as climate change impacts progress.

Climate change is increasing the frequency, intensity and duration of heatwaves, rainfall events, storms, and droughts in southeast Australia (BOM & CSIRO 2022), which is impacting the listed GEDs. The risks are high from a changing climate given these species’ life history traits (e.g. burrow use and shallowness of oviposition sites, short generation length) and the pressure on their habitat from agricultural activities such as over- or under-grazing. An eco-physiological study of the Canberra GED determined that this species was subject to an estimated 40 % increase in energy requirements as temperatures increased from 2000–2020 and this has been exacerbated by an 8 % reduction in available daily foraging time due to the need to avoid high temperatures, (Doucette et al. 2023). Further reductions in foraging times and increased energetic costs due to higher metabolic rates are anticipated as climate change impacts continue. Climate change is also expected to increase mortality rates of the listed GEDs from drought and promote the growth of invasive C4 weeds such as African lovegrass (Fuhrer 2003; Ramesh et al. 2017).

A greater frequency and intensity of consecutive La Nina events, due to climate change, is causing abnormally high vegetation biomass conditions across native temperate grasslands that are habitat for the listed GEDs. The increase in vegetation growth (Madani et al. 2023):

 Reduces and removes inter-tussock spaces that are important for basking, foraging and movement of the listed GEDs.

 Reduces the abundance of invertebrate prey and burrowing invertebrates that create refuges.

 Increases rodent abundance and creates additional shelters for snakes that prey on both rodents and the listed GEDs.

Climate change is also causing increasingly frequent and dramatic changes from drought to high rainfall conditions, making it increasingly challenging to effectively manage grassland biomass for the listed GEDs. Climate change may also create more arable land where the listed GEDs occur leading to increased pressure on remaining habitat and potential restoration areas, particularly where low temperature or limited rainfall may currently constrain cropping opportunities (e.g. Monaro plains) (Kingwell 2006).

Cats and foxes may prey on the listed GEDs, particularly where the predators are more numerous near urban areas (Legge et al. 2017; Stobo-Wilson et al. 2022). The small population sizes of the listed GEDs mean they are highly susceptible to predation. Reduced vegetation cover from overgrazing and drought increases exposure and the risk of predation from both introduced and native predators (e.g. magpies, ravens, raptors). Conversely, dense grasslands can support high densities of snakes and potentially higher predation risk. Snakes were the highest cause of mortality for reintroduced Canberra GEDs (Croak 2023 pers. comm. 8 Nov.). Dumping waste in, and adjacent to, remnant grasslands may increase the risk of predation by cats and snakes. The use of tiles to monitor the listed GEDs may also increase the risk of predation by snakes by providing supplementary refuges for these predators.

Figure 2. Generalised overview of threats and impacts on grassland earless dragons.

All populations are important for avoiding extinction and recovering the listed GEDs.

In this recovery plan a population is defined as an occurrence of a species in a particular area. Population boundaries are often unclear but in some circumstances are well-defined e.g. captive populations or populations that are separated by areas that are clearly uninhabitable. For some species (e.g. Canberra GED) genetic information can help define populations. For others, this information is not available. All populations of all the listed GEDs, including those in captivity, are essential for their long-term survival and recovery.

In 2026, four populations of the Canberra GED and one population of the Victorian GED were housed in captivity. No individuals or populations of the Bathurst GED or Monaro GED were housed in captivity at this time.

Table 2. Numbers of individuals and distribution of Canberra GED and Victorian GED captive populations (current as at 2026).

Species	Zoos Victoria	University of Canberra	Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve (captive colony)	Tidbinbilla ring experimental tanks	Total in captivity
Canberra GED	76	30	39	36	181
Victorian GED	79	-	-	-	79

A captive breeding population of the Canberra GED was established at the University of Canberra (UC) in 2013 for research and to insure against extinction (Doucette & Sarre 2018). Additional captive colonies were initiated in 2019 at Melbourne Zoo and in 2021 at Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve. The goals for the captive populations of the Canberra GED are (ACT Scientific Committee 2022):

 To provide an insurance population for the Canberra GED to prevent extinction, including the preservation of genetic diversity

 To provide a source population for reintroducing / establishing new populations of the Canberra GED and for supplementing existing populations if required

 To learn how to maximise captive breeding success for listed GEDs

 To provide research opportunities to better understand the breeding, behaviour and genomics of listed GEDs and inform conservation actions

 To inform the development of effective in-situ monitoring systems and programs for listed GEDs.

Captive populations of the Canberra GED have demonstrated that the listed GEDs can be successfully maintained and bred in captivity for conservation and recovery actions, including reintroduction and research.

Based on learnings from the captive Canberra GED population, and in response to rediscovery of the Victorian GED, Zoos Victoria commenced an ex situ conservation breeding program and insurance population for the Victorian GED in 2023. The VGED program provides insurance against extinction and further loss of genetic diversity while reintroduction areas are identified. Based on a population viability analysis by Zoos Victoria, a conservation breeding program of 500+ individual is required to achieve these goals and produce 100+ individuals annually for release into new areas to secure this species in the wild (Robertson 2023 pers. comm. 15 Nov.).

By 2026, 140 captive Canberra GEDs (19 from Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve and 121 from Melbourne Zoo) were experimentally released into a confined population as part of a research project to intensively monitor and understand reintroduction potential for the listed GEDs and to identify unanticipated challenges.

At the time of finalising this recovery plan, the Victorian GED, Canberra GED and Monaro GED have extant in situ populations, there is no known in situ population of the Bathurst GED, and the location of the in situ Victorian GED population is confidential.

The Canberra GED has three genetically discrete populations (Colley 2021) across twelve sites. Roads, other infrastructure, and degraded grasslands have caused almost complete fragmentation of the twelve areas within these three populations (Carlson et al. 2016; Colley 2021).

The Monaro GED has low levels of genetic structure across its distribution, with no indication of significant isolation by distance, suggesting it occurs as one population (Carlson et al. 2016) with two, possibly three recognisable genetic groups (Ryan Colley unpublished data). The relatively contiguous tracts of natural grassland that remain in the Monaro landscape, and the primary pursuit of grazing natural grasslands rather than urban development, support this finding. As of 2022, management and recovery actions were focused across Sherwin’s Range, Cooma, The Brothers, and Dry Plain based on detections in these areas (NSW DPE 2022). The Monaro GED is likely to occur in situ elsewhere within its range.

In the late 1800s, the Victorian GED was “not very uncommon at Essendon and plains near Sunbury etc. to the north of Melbourne” (McCoy 1889). However, despite substantial survey effort since the early 1990s, there were no confirmed detections of the Victorian GED between 1969 and 2023 (Pescott 1969; Banks et al. 2017; Melville et al. 2019). Since its rediscovery in early 2023, a monitoring program has been developed to assess population trends at its only known location. The trajectory of this population was unknown in 2026. Any impacts on a population of the Victorian GED that would lead to the decline of its habitat or individuals would be considered to place a population under pressure.

Since their rediscovery in 1993, populations of the Canberra GED have been assessed at least annually using spider tube arrays at one site since 2002, an additional two sites since 2006, and a further two sites since 2009 and 2011. Populations have also been monitored sporadically at four more sites to give a total of nine locations where population trends may be assessed (ACT Scientific Committee 2022). The Canberra GED has declined significantly and concerningly across its regularly monitored distribution. In 2023, it was undetectable at two of the five monitored sites in the ACT (Pulsford 2024 pers. comm; Armstrong 2022 pers. comm).

Population trend monitoring for the Monaro GED is limited (Osborne et al. 1993a; Robertson & Evans 2009). Following the 2002–2008 drought, McGrath (2015) observed a notable decline and disappearance of the Monaro GED from areas around Cooma where it was formerly common (Dorrough et al. 1996; Dawson 1999). Intensive surveys at 67 sites from 2011–2015 failed to detect the Monaro GED at some sites where it had been recorded (McGrath 2015; McGrath et al. 2015). The Monaro GED population has been repeatedly monitored at 18 sites across its distribution since 2019, using transects consisting of both artificial tube shelters and roof tile shelters (Madani et al. 2023; NSWDPE unpublished data). Detections began declining at all sites where dragons were present in 2021, which coincided with increased vegetation biomass following consecutive La Nina events, and this decline continued in 2022 (NSWDPE unpublished data).

All populations of the Monaro GED are under pressure from one or more threats except areas where large-scale, consistent sheep grazing operations occur that have low intensity grazing regimes. Such areas are most likely to occur south of the Brothers, around Bobundara and around Nimmitabel. Further to this, all populations of the Monaro GED are considered under additional pressure in:

 Drought years because of increased exposure to predation, egg desiccation, and hatchling mortality from loss of cover, and loss of burrows from soil erosion during intense drought-breaking storms.

 Consecutive La Nina years due to prolonged high biomass conditions promoting population declines.

The Bathurst GED, which has not been seen since 1996, is known from three vetted records and a handful of anecdotal reports (McArtney 1968; Melville et al. 2019; Mahoney 2019; BGEDWG 2022). It may still occur around Bathurst (Mahoney 2019; BGEDWG 2022). Any impacts on a detected population of the Bathurst GED that would lead to the decline of its habitat or individuals would be considered to place a population under pressure and at extreme risk of extinction.

The listed GEDs with detectable populations at the time of finalising this plan (Canberra GED, Monaro GED, Victorian GED) occur across a variety of tenures and management arrangements including:

 Freehold or leasehold land that is or is not managed to support biodiversity conservation.

 State/Territory land that is or is not protected and managed for biodiversity conservation.

 Commonwealth land that is not protected and managed to varying degrees for biodiversity conservation.

 Local council land that is or is not protected and managed for biodiversity conservation.

 Crown Land in NSW occurring as travelling stock reserves that is or is not protected and managed for biodiversity conservation.

The undetected Bathurst GED could occur in an equally diverse array of tenures and management arrangements including on private pastoral property, airport, council or Defence land, and/or road reserves and travelling stock reserves.

Programs and actions were in place in 2026 under NSW or ACT legislation to manage areas to benefit the Monaro GED and the Canberra GED where they occur in a protected area. These are underpinned by the following management plans and departments:

 Protecting the Canberra GED: a threat management and research initiative funded by the ACT Government to arrest the decline, and avert permanent loss, of the Canberra GED from grassy ecosystems of the ACT.

 NSW Saving our Species program for the Canberra GED and Monaro GED (NSW DPE 2022).

 NSW Local Land Services Travelling Stock Reserves Statewide Plan of Management (NSW LLS 2019) (Monaro and Bathurst regions).

In addition, there are stewardship agreements in place for private landholders across the distribution of the Monaro GED, where this land is actively managed to benefit this species. This occurs in NSW on private lands under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) through both the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme and through funded private land conservation agreements in the Queanbeyan and Monaro regions.

In 2026 the Victorian GED was managed in situ through a private and confidential arrangement that is primarily managed by the Victorian Government in collaboration with the Victorian GED Recovery Team.

In 2026, the Canberra GED is known to occur in four areas of Commonwealth land:

 Campbell Park (approximately 35 ha): Land adjacent to Department of Defence offices in Canberra. Formerly occupied by Canberra GED, possibly extirpated. Site is in poor condition with severe weed incursion and a history of being overgrazed by kangaroos, particularly in drought years. An intensive search in 2018 detected no GEDs. The population was not being monitored at the time of publication.

 Canberra airport (approximately 22 hectares): Good condition natural temperate grassland that is subject to slashing at a minimum height of 15–20 cm, when required, to support a bird reduction program and operational needs. Plant diversity is high, and weeds are well controlled. The grassland is managed as per the Threatened Species Management Plan (2010) for the airport. Canberra GED detection surveys have been undertaken every 1–3 years since 1999 (Canberra Airport 2020). Historical removal and off-site translocation of individuals has been undertaken for research and breeding programs when detected during pre-construction works. The Canberra GED has not been detected on site from 2017–2026.

 Majura Training Area 1 (approximately 139 ha north of Canberra airport): Military training area that includes the Air-services Beacon paddock. Habitat for the Canberra GED is in moderate to good condition with ongoing weed management challenges. Part of the population and habitat is monitored by the ACT Government, who advises the Department of Defence about management of this area. Four individuals were detected during 2019/20 surveys, and none were detected in 2021. Two individuals were detected in 2022 and one in 2024.

 Majura Training Area 2 (approximately 90 ha at Malcom Vale): Military training area. Habitat severely degraded by horse/sheep grazing and weeds. May be extirpated. Population not monitored.

These areas are important to the recovery of the Canberra GED because they are essential:

 to maintain large and viable populations sufficient to provide an acceptably low probability of extinction,

 for use as corridors to allow the species to move freely between sites that are used to meet essential life cycle requirements, and/or

 to ensure the long-term future of the species through reintroduction or re-colonisation.

Each listed GED is resilient to extinction because it has numerous viable populations within healthy, connected, functional and expanded grassland ecosystems that require minimal management intervention. Local communities place a high value on retaining, connecting, and expanding the network of functional grasslands that provide habitat for each of the listed GEDs.

This recovery plan is guided by five objectives that support progress towards the long-term vision:

Objective 1: Recovery programs and actions for the four listed GEDs continue to be well co-ordinated, communicated and governed.

Objective 2: The amount, quality, connectivity, and extent of habitat for each extant species is increased.

Objective 3: The persistence or extinction of the Bathurst GED is clarified.

Objective 4: A resilient wild population of each extant species is secured.

Objective 5: Community interest, engagement, and participation, in recovery of the listed GEDs has demonstrably increased.

Actions under eight strategies are essential to recover the four listed GEDs. Figure 3 outlines how the strategies and actions interact.

Action priorities should be interpreted as:

Critical: Prompt actions that are essential to prevent extinction.

Priority 1: Actions to halt in-situ population declines and maintain / improve remaining genetic diversity.

Priority 2: Actions to increase species abundance and habitat quality / extent / area / connectivity.

Priority 3: Supplementary actions to support long-term recovery.

A functional recovery team/s is vital to ensure in-situ recovery actions are co-ordinated across partners, learnings are shared, and captive populations are effectively housed and managed.

Action no.	Description	GED Species	Priority	Responsible partners	Indicative timeframe	Anticipated outcomes
1.1	Formalise recovery team/s.	All	Critical	Australian, state and territory governments.Recovery team/s	Year 1.	Effective co-ordination of recovery actions and communications.
1.2	Secure ongoing funding / in-kind support for governance of active recovery team/s.	All	Critical	Recovery team/sConservation and community organisations.Australian, state and territory governments.	Years 1–10.	Effective co-ordination of recovery actions and communications.
1.3	Assess recovery progress.	All	3	Australian government.	Years 5 & 9.	Adaptive and improved management understanding and recovery success.
1.4	Provide regular recovery updates to recovery partners, environment departments and the public	All	3	Recovery Team members and partners	Years 1–10	Improve recovery coordination and community awareness

Preventing any further net loss and fragmentation of habitat for all four species is central to recovery.

Action no.	Description	GED Species	Priority	Responsible partners	Indicative timeframe	Anticipated outcomes
2.1	Refer actions that may have a significant impact on a listed GED under relevant government impact assessment processes.	VictorianCanberraBathurstMonaro	1111	The public.Conservation organisations.Local councils.	Years 1–10.	Reduce the risk of unassessed habitat change inadvertently losing the Bathurst GED or a population of the Victorian GED or Canberra GED.
2.2	Undertake comprehensive pre-development surveys in all areas with potential habitat for a listed GED, including areas supporting recovery.	VictorianCanberraBathurstMonaro	CriticalCriticalCritical1	Australian, state and territory governments.Species experts ^a.Local council.Traditional Owners.Developers.	Years 1–10.	Significantly reduce the risk of inadvertently losing the Bathurst GED or a population of the Victorian GED or Canberra GED.Re-detection of potentially extinct species.
2.3	Continue to monitor compliance of grassland and other vegetation changes using real-time satellite imagery.	VictorianCanberraBathurstMonaro	1111	Australian, state and territory governments.Conservation and community organisations.	Years 1–10.	Reduce the risk of unassessed habitat change inadvertently losing the Bathurst GED or a population of the Victorian GED or Canberra GED.
2.4	Ensure all landholders and real estate agents in areas that are important for recovery of the listed GEDs are aware of the listed GEDs and their legal protections.	VictorianBathurstCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical11	Australian, state and territory governments.Local councils.Land holders and land managers.	Commence in year 1.	Significantly reduce the risk of inadvertently losing the Bathurst GED or a population of the Victorian GED or Canberra GED.
2.5	If a population/species of listed GED is rediscovered, implement all actions in the ‘Rediscovery response protocol’ section of this Recovery Plan.	Bathurst	Critical	Australian, state and territory governments.Local council.Species experts.Recovery team/s.	When detected in a new area.	Significantly reduce the risk of inadvertently losing the Bathurst GED.
2.6	If an extant but Critically Endangered listed GED is detected in a new area, implement all actions in the first 24 hours of the ‘Rediscovery response protocol’ then work with agencies and the relevant recovery team/s to determine an appropriate course of action. ^a	VictorianCanberra	CriticalCritical	Australian, state and territory governments.Local council.Species experts.Recovery team/s.	When detected in a new area.	Significantly reduce the risk of inadvertently losing a population of the Victorian GED or Canberra GED.
2.7	Ensure all approval holders within the modelled distributions of a listed GED are familiar with the ‘Rediscovery response protocol’ section of this Recovery Plan.	VictorianBathurstCanberra	CriticalCritical1	Australian, state and territory governments.Approval holders.Ecological consultants.	Ongoing	Significantly reduce the risk of inadvertently losing the Bathurst GED or a population of the Victorian GED or Canberra GED.
2.8	Through engagement with recovery team/s, relevant government agency/s and species experts, identify areas of habitat that may benefit from listing on a relevant Commonwealth, State or Territory habitat register.	VictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical1	Australian government.Recovery team/s.	Years 1–2.	Reduce the risk of losing a Critically Endangered GED or a population of an Endangered GED.Landholder collaboration.Clear conservation benefits.
2.9	As new information arises, update publicly available species mapping tools that inform impact assessments for listed GEDs.	BathurstVictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical 11	Australian government.	Whenever detected in a new area.	Improved decision-making capacity and habitat protection.

^a Action becomes critical for the Bathurst GED once detected.

Recovery of all four listed GEDs requires grassland restoration to strategically re-connect isolated populations and increase the area of habitat available for population expansion, recolonisation, reintroduction and translocation. This will be an iterative process as new information is gained from surveys and restoration actions. Building this flexibility and adaptive context into spatial planning processes is a priority for the persistence and recovery of these species.

Effective grassland habitat restoration requires support from land holders and managers, and it should be guided by qualified restoration ecologists. Planning required for restoration is well documented in Gibson-Roy & Delpratt (2015). GED-friendly agriculture is an emerging opportunity where improved biodiversity management of lands under agricultural production can provide access to new investment markets.

Action no.	Description	GED Species ^a	Priority	Responsible partners	Indicative timeframe	Anticipated outcomes
3.	Identify and strategically prioritise areas for habitat restoration across each species’ distribution. Focus on increasing connectivity and iteratively expanding the area and extent of occurrence. Integrate with existing grassland mapping and restoration programs where relevant.	VictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical2	Recovery team/s.Australian, state, territory & local governments.Land holders and land managers.	Years 1–2.	Best-practice recovery planning implemented.Increased likelihood of recovery success.
3.2	Identify and ensure landholders for areas that are important for recovery of a listed GED are supported to implement effective in-situ grassland protection, management and restoration actions.	VictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical1	Recovery team/s.Australian, state, territory & local governments.Local Land Services, Catchment Management Authorities, NRM, NLP & RLP service providers.Land holders and land managers.	Years 1–10.	Increased area of occupancy.
3.3	Monitor and report on grassland restoration progress.	VictorianCanberraMonaro	333	Ecologists and researchers.Land holders and land managers.	Years 2–10.	Adaptive management implemented.Increased likelihood of long-term recovery.

^a Actions become critical for the Bathurst GED once detected.

Recovery of all four listed GEDs requires their habitats to be carefully managed through integrated monitoring programs, targeted research and support from landholders and land managers

Action no.	Description	GED Species ^a	Priority	Responsible partners	Indicative timeframe	Anticipated outcomes
4.1	Secure ongoing funding / in-kind support for effective in-situ grassland habitat management programs, including containment and eradication of biological threats (weeds, pest animals).	CanberraVictorianMonaro	Critical11	Australian, state and territory governments.Conservation organisations.Other land custodians.	Years 1–10.	Reduced biological threatsIncreased area of occupancy and extent of occurrence.Improved resilience.
4.2	Implement best-practice grassland habitat management programs to optimise GED recovery using an adaptive management approach based on shared monitoring and research outcomes (see Strategy 6 and Strategy 8). Ensure management programs and practices are optimal for the location and species by consulting with location, species, and habitat experts.	CanberraVictorianMonaro	Critical11	Australian, state, territory and local governments.Traditional Owners and organisations.Local Land Services.Not-for-profit conservation organisations.Land holders and land managers.	Years 1–10.	Increased area of occupancy and extent of occurrence.Improved likelihood of recovery.
4.3	Capitalise on opportunities to protect and manage GED habitat through land stewardship programs.	VictorianCanberraMonaro	Critical11	NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust.Local Land Services.Traditional Owners and organisations.Not-for-profit conservation organisations.	Years 1–10.	Increased area of occupancy and extent of occurrence.Improved likelihood of recovery.
4.4	Implement engagement programs to increase community support for GED conservation.	VictorianBathurstMonaroCanberra	CriticalCritical12	Australian, state and territory governments.Zoos Victoria, Tidbinbilla.Earless Dragon Alliance.Local Land Services.National Landcare Program.	Years 1–10.	Improved likelihood of recovery.

^a Actions become critical for the Bathurst GED once detected.

Detection surveys are necessary to determine if the Bathurst GED persists and to find additional populations of the other three listed GEDs.

Action no.	Description	GED Species	Priority	Responsible partners	Indicative timeframe	Anticipated outcomes
5.1	Identify habitats where undetected GED populations may occur.	BathurstVictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical11	Recovery team/s.Landholders and land managers.NSW Local Land Services & Landcare.Traditional Owners.	Years 1–10, with a primary focus in years 1–3.	Effective recovery planning implemented.Support prioritisation of resources and effort to re-detect the Bathurst GED or new detection of a Victorian GED or Canberra GED population.
5.2	Develop, publish and update (as necessary) species-specific survey information and guidance to support detection surveys.	BathurstVictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical11	Recovery team/s.Researchers.Australian, state or territory governments.	Years 1–10.	Ensure the most effective survey techniques are required and implemented during all detection survey programs.
5.3	Secure funding / in-kind support and implement habitat assessments in areas of potential habitat, followed by comprehensive detection surveys if a possibility of occupancy is identified.	VictorianBathurstCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical11	Field ecologists with GED expertise.Land holders and managers.Australian, state and territory governments.	Years 1–10, with a primary focus in years 1–3.	Re-detection of potentially extinct Bathurst GED or new detection of a Victorian GED or Canberra GED population.
5.4	Assess habitat condition and threat risk at all new locations.	All	1	Field ecologists with GED expertise.Research institutions.Landholders.	Ongoing as new locations are detected.	Capacity to assess viability and inform in-situ management actions.
5.5	Report outcomes among recovery partners and relevant government agencies.	VictorianBathurstCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical11	Field teams.Recovery team/sState/territory & local governments.	Years 1–10, with a primary focus in years 1–3.	Capacity to assess viability and inform in-situ management actions.
5.6	Continue to implement community engagement programs to increase the potential for GEDs to be reported by the public.	BathurstVictorianMonaroCanberra	CriticalCritical13	Australian, state & territory governments.Zoos Victoria, Tidbinbilla.Local Land Services.Conservation organisations.	Years 1–10.	Re-discovery of Bathurst GED. New detection of Victorian GED or Canberra GED.Increased understanding of distribution.

Co-ordinated and integrated monitoring programs are essential for providing key information about effective recovery actions for these cryptic species. Monitoring provides insight into the impact of management actions and disturbances on population dynamics. Citizen science can support population trend monitoring by identifying individual GEDs from photographs (Gould et al 2024).

Action no.	Description	GED Species ^a	Priority	Responsible partners	Indicative timeframe	Anticipated outcomes
6.1	Develop a network of core standardised monitoring sites across the distribution of each extant species where GED population abundance and genetic health, habitat composition and condition, and threat pressures are frequently and simultaneously monitored.	VictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCriticalCritical	Recovery team/s.Researchers.Land custodians.Australian, state and territory governments.	Years 1–2.	Capacity to effectively inform in-situ management actions and monitor population trajectories.
6.2	Maintain/develop a network of supplementary monitoring sites across each species’ distribution to track GED persistence and population trajectory.	VictorianCanberraMonaro	Critical11	Field ecologists with GED expertise.Land custodians.	Years 1–2.	Capacity to monitor population trajectories, including for recovery assessment.
6.3	Develop and maintain a central repository of monitoring and supplementary data for each species.	All	3	Recovery team/s.Australian, state and territory governments.Researchers.	Established by the end of Year 2, then maintained.	Increased capacity to understand drivers of population trajectories for effective adaptive management.
6.4	Secure funding for monitoring programs for all standard and supplementary sites.	CanberraVictorianMonaro	CriticalCriticalCritical	Australian, state and territory governments.Conservation organisations.Researchers.	Years 1–10.	Assurance that critical information can be collected and regularly analysed to support effective recovery action in an adaptive management framework.
6.5	Frequently and systematically monitor all standard and supplementary sites.	CanberraVictorianMonaro	CriticalCriticalCritical	Field ecologists with GED expertise.Research institutions.Land custodians.	Years 1–10.	Provide critical information about the effectiveness of management interventions.
6.6	Develop/maintain a consolidated repository of tissue samples for genetic assessments for each listed GED. Integrate genetic information from these samples into a central repository of monitoring and supplementary data.	VictorianCanberraMonaro	Critical11	Researchers.Recovery team/s.Australian, state and territory governments.	Years 1–2.	Capacity to seamlessly integrate genetic information into regular monitoring analyses (e.g. effective population size, gene flow, inbreeding) and targeted research programs.
6.7	Regularly analyse monitoring data (integrating population, genetic, habitat and threat data) and share among recovery partners.	CanberraVictorianMonaro	CriticalCriticalCritical	Researchers.Recovery team/s.Australian, state and territory governments.	Years 1–10.	Capacity to inform adaptive management programs for best-practice conservation actions.
6.8	Develop and regularly refine ecological and genetic models based on analyses of monitoring data supplemented with targeted research outcomes (see Strategy 8: develop and implement informative research programs).	All	1	Researchers.	Years 1–10.	Improved capacity to guide management and research actions and interpret population changes.
6.9	Develop a full annotated genome of one or more extant species.	CanberraMonaroVictorian	333	Recovery team/s.Researchers.	Years 1–2.	Capacity to interpret genomic data from captive and wild populations to minimise the risk of deleterious inbreeding.
6.10	Report outcomes of monitoring activities among recovery partners and relevant government agencies.	CanberraVictorianMonaro	CriticalCritical1	Field team.Recovery team/sResearch Institutions.Ecological consultants.	Years 1–10.	Recovery team members are informed and can integrate outcomes into additional recovery actions and programs.

^a Actions become critical for the Bathurst GED once detected.

Maintenance and expansion of the captive breeding program is critical for ensuring the long-term persistence of the Victorian GED and Canberra GED. Captive insurance populations are also likely to be critical for preventing extinction of the Bathurst GED, if detected. Reintroduction into restored grassland habitat is likely to become a critical recovery action as the management of grassland habitat improves.

Action no.	Description	GED Species ^a	Priority	Responsible partners	Indicative timeframe	Anticipated outcomes
7.1	Continue existing conservation breeding programs.	VictorianCanberra	Critical Critical	ACT Parks and Wildlife Service, Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, Zoos Victoria.	Years 1-10.	Insurance population & genetic diversity maintained while in situ recovery actions are trialled and implemented.
7.2	Expand existing conservation breeding program(s) so they include three geographically separate and viable populations of each species.	VictorianCanberra	CriticalCritical	ACT Parks and Wildlife Service.Captive care organisations including Zoos Victoria and Tidbinbilla.	Established by end of Year 3, then maintained.	Significantly reduce the risk of species extinction.
7.3	Monitor and maximise genetic diversity and eliminate/reduce disease risk in captive populations.	VictorianCanberra	CriticalCritical	Captive care organisations.Research institutions.	Years 1–10.	Healthy and genetically diverse captive populations are available for reintroductions.
7.4	Where suitable, release captive individuals to establish new populations / supplement existing populations. Monitor results.	VictorianCanberra	CriticalCritical	Recovery team/s.Captive care organisations.Land custodians.Field ecologists & researchers.	As needed.	Increased occupancy, abundance, and genetic diversity.
7.5	Where suitable, translocate captive individuals to climate refuges outside their previous distribution and monitor results.	CanberraMonaro	22	Research institutions.Recovery team/s.Captive care organisations.Land custodians.Field ecologists.	As needed.	Increased occupancy, abundance, and genetic diversity.

^a Actions become critical for the Bathurst GED if detected and for Monaro GED if the number of viable populations is significantly reduced.

Research programs will continue to contribute to recovery of the listed GEDs. The primary research focus of this plan is to inform effective in situ threat management interventions.

Action no.	Description	GED Species	Priority	Responsible partners	Indicative timeframe	Anticipated outcomes
8.1	Continue to trial new and novel survey techniques to improve detectability (e.g. detection dogs, remote cameras, eDNA, smart burrows).	VictorianBathurstCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical12	Zoos Victoria.Museums Victoria.Ecological consultants.	Years 1-3.	Significantly increase survey accuracy and efficiency.
8.2	Assess how management actions, threats and dynamic habitat conditions impact GED populations using information from pre-existing and new standard monitoring sites (see Strategy 6: Monitor populations). ^a	VictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical1	Research institutions.	Years 1–10.	Provide critical information about the effectiveness of management interventions. Inform adaptive management.
8.3	Investigate the relationship between GEDs and:	VictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical1	Research institutions.	Years 2–6.	Understand the fine-scale needs of the listed GEDs in relation to these critical shelter-creating organisms and how to ensure they are available.
8.4	Investigate the relationship between GEDs and:	VictorianCanberraMonaro	111	Research institutions.	Years 4–10.	Increased capacity to identify potential habitat, and to implement effective management actions.
8.5	Continue to trial methods for effective grassland restoration and maintenance (e.g. fire, managed kangaroo / sheep / weeds, grazing, replanting) in an adaptive management framework. ^a	VictorianCanberraMonaro	CriticalCritical2	Research institutions.Landholders and managers.	Years 1-10.	Provide critical methods for increasing the area of available habitat.
8.6	Investigate the feasibility of a cryopreservation program and assisted reproductive techniques to supplement genetic variation in captive colonies. Implement if feasible. ^a	CanberraVictorian	33	Zoos Victoria, Tidbinbilla, Taronga Zoo, University of Canberra.Museums Victoria.Research Institutions.	Years 2-4.	Preserve genetic diversity. Reduce the risk of inbreeding depression inhibiting recovery.
8.7	Investigate the feasibility of using genomic analysis of population dynamics and gene flow estimation to monitor population trajectories, as alternatives for capture/recapture. ^a	VictorianCanberraMonaro	333	Research institutions.	Years 1-5.	Potential to improve monitoring efficiency and capability.
8.8	Continue to identify and ground-truth potential climate refuge areas for a translocation program. ^a	VictorianCanberra	22	Research Institutions.	Years 1-5.	Increase species resilience.

^a Actions become critical for the Bathurst GED once detected.

This section provides guidance for identifying areas that are important for persistence and recovery of the listed GEDs.

Due to the listed GEDs being cryptic and there being limited habitat available, prioritising protection and targeted management of areas based on known occupancy alone is insufficient to support recovery and persistence. Areas where occupancy is unconfirmed and some unoccupied areas are also important for the persistence and recovery of the listed GEDs.

The Canberra GED and Victorian GED (and potentially the Bathurst GED) require habitat restoration, reintroductions and conservation translocations in conjunction with ex-situ breeding programs to persist and recover.

Areas that are important for persistence and recovery of a listed GED can include:

 Areas that are confirmed to be occupied.

 Areas with important habitat attributes and no confirmed detection.

 Unoccupied areas that can expand or connect populations or support reintroductions or translocations. These may have all the important habitat attributes, or they may require restoration.

 Isolated areas (occupied or unoccupied) that support ex situ trials and genetic management.

The guidance in this section comprises three figures and one table. Figure 4 is a flow-chart for initially determining if an area is important for a listed GED. It refers to information in Figure 5, which is a compilation of factors to consider when determining if a listed GED is likely to occur in an area. Some pathways in the flow-chart in Figure 4 lead to a situation where a more detailed assessment is required. This is available in Figure 6, which is a secondary flow-chart that provides insight into the relative value of an area for a listed GED. It has three different starting points depending on the status and likelihood of occurrence. Table 3, at the end of this section, is referred to in the flow-chart in Figure 6. This table provides guidance for determining the value of an area for persistence and recovery of a listed GED where there hasn’t been a detection, or the listed GED is unlikely to occur.

Figure 4. Initial guide for determining the importance of an area in supporting persistence and recovery of a listed GED.

Figure 5. Key occupancy drivers for a listed GED within an area.

Figure 6. Decision-making pathways that support persistence and recovery of a listed GED when further assessment about the importance of an area is necessary (Figure 4).

Decision-making begins at one of the three gold boxes.

¹ See Table 3 for guidance.

²In 2026, this option is most relevant to the Monaro GED. It may be relevant to the Canberra GED or Victorian GED in extenuating circumstances, as an example, a patch of remnant grassland (< 0.5 ha) that has recently been completely surrounded by housing, so connectivity to a larger area is unable to be restored. This option may become more relevant to the listed GEDs that are Critically Endangered when the amount of grassland habitat that is available and occupied is significantly increased through further detections and habitat restoration and expansion.

Recovery value	Contexts	Condition/s	Example/s
High	Adjacent to an area where a listed GED has been detected.Disconnected from an area that is occupied by the listed GED but can feasibly be connected by restoring habitat in the intervening area ^a, or by other means, within 10 years of targeted restoration effort. ^b Identified and delineated as critical for supporting recovery, including for ex situ and research programs. ^b	Usually has all, or most, of the attributes that support occupancy of the listed GED (Figure 5, Figure 2).Temporarily lacking one or more important habitat attributes due to climatic factors.If degraded, can be restored within a 10 year period of focused action.	A high quality or degraded grassland adjacent to an area that is occupied by the listed GED and where site-level management can restore habitat within 10 years.A small, isolated grassland that can feasibly be connected within the next 10 years to an area that is occupied by the listed GED.A small, isolated and contained patch of habitat that has all, or most, of the attributes that support occupancy so the area can be used for trial translocation and reintroduction programs.
Moderate	Adjacent to an area of high recovery value for a listed GED but where the species has not been detected.Disconnected from an occupied area or area of high recovery value for a listed GED but can feasibly be connected by restoring habitat in the intervening area, and/or by other means¹. Part of a contiguous grassland that is isolated from occupied or high value recovery areas for the listed GED but is large enough to support a viable population in the long term (e.g. > 2 ha), has most of occupancy drivers (Figure 5, Figure 2), and any attributes that are lacking can be restored.Identified and delineated as potentially contributing to recovery. ^b	Can have all or most of the attributes that support occupancy of the listed GED (Figure 5, Figure 2).Temporarily lacking one or more important habitat attributes due to climatic factors.Can be degraded, but missing habitat attributes (Figure 5) can probably be restored.	A degraded grassland adjacent to an unoccupied area of high conservation value for the listed GED, where site-level management can restore all drivers of occupancy for the listed GED.A small, isolated grassland that can feasibly be connected to an unoccupied area of high conservation value for the listed GED in the future.A large, partially degraded grassland that is unlikely to be connected to another high value conservation area for the listed GED but can support a reintroduced population in the long-term.
Low or nil^c	Usually isolated and too small to sustain a population of the listed GED in the long term as an example < 0.5 ha and surrounded by non-habitat or areas that can’t be restored to provide habitat).Identified and delineated by an environmental authority as unlikely to contribute to recovery.	Missing habitat attributes are unlikely to be restored within 10 years of targeted restoration effort.	A degraded grassland where attributes supporting occupancy of the listed GED can may be restored but it is a small, isolated area and habitat restoration will probably take > 10 years.

^aTo be determined through consultation with a grassland restoration ecologist.

^b Can include small, isolated areas.

^c Areas should not be assigned as low value unless they have been identified as such through consultation and expert advice.

This section provides guidance on how to achieve and maintain grassland conditions that support the persistence and recovery of the listed GEDs. It is not site-specific but provides generalised information relevant to the habitats of all four listed GEDs.

A flexible site-specific approach (both in space and time) that considers the context, tenure, seasonal conditions etc. in each area is necessary to manage grasslands and pastures to benefit the listed GEDs. Different management actions are required in different years in response to variations in weather and climate.

The following guidance below is derived from ACT Government (2019), ACT Scientific Committee (2022) and NSWDPE (2022) together with expert advice on grassland management and listed GED habitat.

 Maintain a well-defined tussock structure, i.e. tussocks with inter-tussock spaces. Aim for tussock sward heights of mostly 5–15 cm (but 7–13 cm is optimal), with well-defined inter-tussock spaces composed of shorter grasses, forbs and bare ground.

 This structure can be achieved by maintaining intermediate herbage biomass (see Figure 7). Avoid creating a grass sward that is uniformly very short (< 5 cm) or uniformly very tall and dense (> 15 cm tall with very few inter-tussock spaces). A mosaic or ‘patchy’ sward containing grass tussocks of mostly intermediate height interspersed with patches of taller and shorter tussocks is likely to provide listed GEDs with a greater range of sites for shelter and thermoregulation and will support arthropods that are prey and burrow engineers for the listed GEDs (Melbourne 1993; Stevens et al. 2010; Barton et al. 2011; Taylor 2014).

 Where possible, manage grassland structure and herbage biomass with native herbivores to create areas of interspersed dense and sparse tussocks.

 Use livestock grazing where native herbivore grazing is insufficient to control herbage biomass and the site has a history of livestock grazing. Prioritise sheep (rather than cattle) to avoid compaction of soil and GED burrows, maintain inter-tussock spaces, and disperse nutrients.

 Native grazers and livestock should be removed when drought conditions are predicted. Livestock should be completely removed/rotated from sites where inter tussock sward height is < 5 cm average height.

 Graze livestock lightly from March–October if grass swards are tall and dense (> 10 cm, bare ground < 5 %), and also during the breeding season of the listed GEDs (November–February) if the grass sward is too tall and dense (> 15 cm, bare ground < 5 %).

 Grazing intensity may be increased where very tall and dense biomass occurs (e.g. > 20 cm).

 During periods of high biomass conditions, focus grazing stock on areas either known, or likely, to support the listed GEDs.

 Apply patchy burns, if necessary, to control excessive biomass growth and the development of thatch.

 Restrict burns to one or more small patches at a site, aiming for 30–50 % area unburnt for refuge. Cool burns in late autumn (after first rains), winter and early spring are likely to be patchier and more controlled. They are also more likely to reduce the risk of direct mortality because GEDs are protected from fires when they are sheltering in their overwinter burrows.

 Ecological signals like the build-up of dead material, i.e. thatch, and drying of thatch, could be used to trigger burns rather than prescriptive seasonal timings.

 Slashing may be a necessary risk mitigation tool at some sites where other methods are not feasible: it should only be used as a last option for managing sward height and/or herbage biomass. Slashing should only occur in the afternoon on warm days when lizards are most active and less likely to be killed by blades or soil compaction. If unmanaged, slashing will increase thatch cover on the ground unless captured, which is detrimental to GED habitat. Capturing thatch may reduce the nutrient content of the grassland. Grass should not be slashed below 10 cm.

Figure 7. Optimal biomass and structure diagram for listed GEDs.

Source: NSW DPE, modified from ACT Government (2017).

Habitat restoration is an essential part of recovery to support the expansion and improved resilience of listed GED populations.

Intensive interventions may be required in highly degraded areas, e.g. soil scalping, reversing the fertilisation history of the site and/or direct seeding where nutrient or weed levels are too high to restore grassland habitat with less-intensive measures. The approach, cost and success of restoration will vary depending on the state and context of an area for restoration. State transition models can be an effective tool for formulating specific management objectives, for providing clear communication, and to support conversations among on-ground managers, ecologists, stakeholders and planners in an adaptive restoration framework (Sinclair et al 2019). Once restoration activities have successfully established habitat, ongoing management will be required to maintain the habitat values for the listed GED.

Greening Australia has pioneered native temperate grassland restoration in Australia (Gibson-Roy & McDonald 2014) as demonstrated by their Grassy Groundcover Restoration Project. Intensively farmed agricultural land and semi-urban landscapes have been transformed into functional, resilient, and attractive native grasslands that meet condition thresholds for Critically Endangered native temperate grassland ecological communities. These ecological communities provide habitat for the listed GEDs in both restored and mildly degraded condition states (e.g. when weeds are present). Greening Australia provides best practice restoration guidance in A Revegetation Guide for Temperate Grasslands. Habitat restoration programs for the listed GEDs should be guided by restoration ecologists experienced in restoring native temperate grasslands.

Where possible, low impact weed removal (e.g. by hand pulling or spot spraying) is recommended to prevent large infestations of weeds such as African lovegrass and serrated tussock impacting the listed GEDs and their habitat. Flupropanate is the best weed control for African lovegrass and serrated tussock. It can take months to have noticeable effects and up to 18 months to kill the plants (NSW DPI 2024).

Successful weed control relies on implementing best practice, including follow up after initial efforts. Using a combination of control methods is usually more successful.

For management of weed infestations on private land, the following organisations provide important weed management advice:

 Weeds Australia as part of the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions (e.g. African lovegrass, serrated tussock, Chilean needle grass, St John’s wort)

 NSW Local Land Services

 NSW Department of Primary Industries

 Agriculture Victoria

 Relevant local and regional city councils

To prevent introduction of weeds to an area:

 Avoid bringing in hay, grain, or silage from weed infested areas

 Limit animal movement from infested areas into clean paddocks

 Check the coats of new livestock for weed seeds

 Keep new livestock in an area that can be inspected for seedlings for at least 10 days

 Clean vehicles and machinery before coming onto the property.

Pastures / native grasslands with less than 70% ground cover are at most risk of invasion by weeds such as African lovegrass, Chilean needlegrass and serrated tussock (DPI 2024). To avoid these species infestation of native pastures / grassland supporting listed GED populations, it is recommended to rest pastures between grazing periods and or reduce numbers of grazing animals before overgrazing to maintain cover. Where a grassland is considered of importance to a listed GED but is heavily infested by a weed such as African lovegrass, a more intensive management regime of fire, chemical control and or grazing may be required (NSW DPE 2024).

This section presents best-practice methods for optimising detectability of these cryptic GED species. New methods (e.g. detection dogs) and technologies may significantly improve detectability.

Surveys are essential to improve information on the occurrence and ecology of listed GED. Detection surveys and habitat assessments will help to improve knowledge about each listed GED and support more informed project planning.

The listed GEDs may occur undetected in an area despite extensive survey effort. An ecologist should be on-site during any clearing activities in areas where a listed GED may occur but has not been detected during surveys. This ensures any live individuals that are found during clearing operations can be collected and transferred to an ex situ program. It will also enable any deceased individuals to be salvaged for research programs (e.g. genetic analyses) and museum collections.

Target areas vary considerably in relation to drivers of occupancy for the listed GED. Optimising detectability requires consideration of the characteristics of the target area. Survey effort must achieve comprehensive cover across the target area, including the full range of variation in habitat composition, structure, slope, and aspect. Surveys must be implemented at a suitable time for each method, and with sufficient frequency and density, to maximise detectability.

The number of survey sites within a target area and minimum level of effort that is required to detect a listed GED will vary across the diversity of potential target area configurations and conditions. The survey design should be justified based on site configuration with reference to variation in likelihood of occurrence and conditions during survey periods.

All survey teams who are working in an area where a listed GED may be rediscovered, or where a disparate population may be detected, must ensure they have appropriate equipment and facilities to safely house several individuals for several days (or more) while experts determine the most appropriate recovery action for these individuals. This may include transfer to an ex situ program to improve genetic resilience.

A target area is a general area where there is a possibility that a listed GED may occur. It is usually within the modelled distribution of a listed GED.

A site is an area where one or more survey methods are implemented within a target area. The number and arrangement of sites within a target area must optimise detectability while being proportional to the size of the target area and the survey method/s used.

Three proven detection methods should always be applied concurrently at a site within a target area to maximise detectability of the listed GED:

In areas where cracks are abundant, mini pitfall traps should also be installed, and a greater emphasis placed on endoscopic inspections rather than large arrays of artificial arthropod burrows.

Pre-installed artificial arthropod burrows (‘spider tubes’) is the optimal method for detecting two of the four listed GED at the time of publication (Canberra GED and Monaro GED).

Spider tubes consist of two lengths of PVC or clay tubing (an inner and an outer length) that is installed vertically in the ground with the upper part flush with the ground surface (Figure 8). Spider tubes should be installed with a shade roof above each tube.

Figure 8. Example of an artificial spider tube design used to mimic a natural arthropod burrow (Madani et al. 2023).

Photographed and supplied by George Madani.

Radio tracking has demonstrated that the Canberra GED has an average core home range size of 170 m², i.e. approximately 13 × 13 m (Stevens et al. 2010). As such, spider tubes should be placed 5 m apart, and they will usually be positioned along linear transects to maximise coverage across a target area. The number of transects and density of spider tubes should maximise the potential to detect the listed GED across the entire target area. Spider tube transects must be accompanied by roof tile or mini pitfall trap, and endoscopic inspections.

Spider tubes must be pre-installed at least seven days prior to the first survey and be left undisturbed for this settling period. Each spider tube survey period must span a minimum of eight weeks after the initial installation. Spider tubes that are made from PVC must be closed or removed at the end of the survey period.

Spider tube surveys are best implemented between January and May as fidelity to winter burrows increases (Stevens et al. 2010) and juveniles are abundant. Alternatively, they can be implemented from September through to November when breeding activity is highest.

Spider tubes should be checked 2 or 3 times per week for surveys between January and May. They should be checked at least every second day from September to November to minimise the risk of GED eggs desiccating in the tubes (i.e. to detect and remove eggs for artificial incubation).

Roof tiles (both concrete and terracotta) have proven to be an effective technique for detecting the listed GEDs in some circumstances. Detection probability increases with increasing ambient temperature (Madani et al. 2023). Tiles are best placed at 10 m intervals parallel to, and on either side of, a spider tube transect (see Madani et al. 2023). They can also be placed in independent grid arrays or transects. Tiles should be installed several weeks before surveys commence. Tile surveys should span the entire active period including summer/autumn. Apart from long-term monitoring and research programs, tiles must be removed at the end of the survey period to avoid increasing the risk of snake abundance and predation in a target area, and to reduce impacts to vegetation.

Invertebrate burrows and/or soil cracks can be examined with an endoscope to detect the listed GEDs (Banks et al. 2017). This can be an effective technique when used in combination with artificial spider tubes and tiles. Endoscopic inspections should occur several times per week concurrent with checks of spider tubes and tiles. The minimum recommended effort to optimise detectability is an hour of endoscopic inspections in the vicinity of each spider tubes and / or tile transect.

Mini pitfall traps are small, smooth-walled cylindrical containers that are installed in the ground with the top being flush with the soil surface. These traps should be shaded to prevent mortality from exposure.

Mini pitfall traps are particularly effective in areas with cracking soils, which have an abundance of potential shelter sites that are not invertebrate burrows. They target active GEDs. Mini pitfall trap surveys should occur at the same time as spider tube and tile surveys.

Mini pitfall traps should be installed along transects. Drift fences must be installed between traps to guide individuals into the trap. The number of pitfall transects should be proportional to the size of the target area, the variation in habitat attributes across this area, and align with the number of tile and or spider tube transects.

Detailed transect design and logistics of checking mini pitfall trap surveys may be subject to relevant state and territory guidelines and / or scientific and animal ethics permit requirements. Traps must be checked at least daily, and surveys must be mindful of extreme heat or heavy rain. To prevent mortality, traps should be closed and not operational during these conditions.

Remote cameras can detect the listed GEDs, but they have low detection rates (McGrath et al. 2012; Banks et al. 2017). As technology improves, this technique may become more effective. In 2026, camera surveys are only recommended as a supplementary technique to concurrent spider tube, tile and endoscope inspection surveys (with or without mini pitfall traps – see above). Remote camera surveys target active GEDs and should occur at the same time as spider tube, tile and mini pitfall trap surveys.

Rock turning is not recommended because it can be destructive and ineffective (McGrath et al. 2015). Rock turning must not be used as a survey technique, but it may be used during a final pre-clearance survey the day before, or of, an action that will irreversibly remove habitat.

The use of dogs to detect the listed GEDs was trialled by Zoos Victoria in 2023 and 2024. This method has the potential to greatly improve detectability of these cryptic species.

This section outlines the necessary response protocol for rediscovery of the Bathurst GED. Parts of this protocol may also be applied to new and disparate detections of other listed GEDs – particularly the Victorian GED.

Table 4. Rediscovery response protocol for a listed GED.

Timeframe	Action	Responsible partner/s
At the time of a potential rediscovery	Photograph at least one individual in detail to enable a preliminary identification by experts.	Survey team.
Temporarily hold all captured individuals in separate and secure calico or cotton bags in breathable solid containers in a thermally suitable area until the relevant grassland earless dragon (GED) Recovery Team is notified and can provide advice.
Notify the relevant GED Recovery Team directly through a member, via a recovery team website (if/when available), or via the NSW Government Threatened Species unit, NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust, Zoos Victoria, Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve or University of Canberra.
Within 24 hrs of a confirmed rediscovery	Notify:	GED Recovery team.
Establish a communication and confidentiality protocol.
Pause any actions or activities that may have a detrimental impact on the rediscovered population while initial activities in this protocol are completed.	Survey team, landholder or their delegate, others as relevant.
Discuss legal obligations and responsibilities.	Cwth & relevant state / territory environment department & landholder or their delegate.
As soon as is practicable after rediscovery e.g. within 1-3 days	Notify the following in accordance with the agreed confidentiality protocol:	GED Recovery Team
As soon as is practicable after rediscovery e.g. within 1-3 days (continued)	Identify the most beneficial course of action by rapidly assessing the level of immediate risk to the population. Factors to be considered include:	GED Recovery Team in consultation with notified parties and the survey team.
Identify if there is an urgent need to harvest individuals from the rediscovered population for a captive care program, based on the rapid threat risk assessment and any follow-up detections.	GED Recovery Team with support from the survey team.
Consider all relevant permits and approvals under commonwealth, state and local legislation for agreed courses of action. Commence action to obtain any outstanding permits or approvals.	Survey Team & GED Recovery Team
Determine how essential recovery activities and essential landholder activities can occur concurrently.	GED Recovery Team & landholder or their delegate.
Provide advice to all notified agencies and organisations about the proposed immediate course/s of action.	GED Recovery Team.
Ethically collect and safely store a genetic sample from each captured individual and associate the sample with detailed photographs of the individual including its unique back and head patterns as photographed from above.	Survey team
If a captive care program is advised by the GED Recovery Team:	Survey team & captive facility provider.
Within the first week of rediscovery.	Thoroughly document habitat at the rediscovery site (including photographs) to inform future planning and survey efforts in the region. Habitat attributes to be assessed include:	Survey team.
Adapt any fauna survey program at the site to focus on the redetection area to maximise the potential for local population abundance to be estimated.	Survey team in consultation with the land holder or their delegate.
Begin planning for follow-up detection surveys at additional sites that may support habitat.	GED Recovery Team & survey team.
Within the first month of rediscovery	Develop and begin implementing a site-specific recovery action plan for in situ and – where relevant – ex situ management of the detected population.	Landholder or their delegate, GED Recovery Team.
Source ongoing funding to implement essential recovery actions.	GED Recovery Team.
Update generalised distribution mapping that informs planning and regulation for the listed GED.	State & Cwth environment agencies.
Begin detection surveys in additional areas that may support the species.	Survey team.
Longer term actions e.g. within the first year of rediscovery.
Develop and implement a long-term and integrated population, habitat, and threat monitoring plan where appropriate.	GED Recovery Team.
Identify areas for reintroduction and habitat restoration. Develop a reintroduction plan.
Develop research programs that clarify habitat requirements, threat impacts and effective threat management actions.
Investigate options for long-term in situ protection of the species.
Organise long-term storage of genetic material.
If a captive program is deemed to be an appropriate recovery action, start increasing the captive population abundance and genetic diversity as per guidance from successful programs for the Canberra GED and Victorian GED.	Captive facility provider.
When necessary to support recovery	Update, or produce new, listing and conservation documents for the species.	State & Cwth environment agencies.

All four of the listed GEDs co-occur with other listed threatened species and protected ecological communities (Table 5). Programs to restore and reconnect grassland habitats has the potential to benefit multiple species and ecosystems including the listed GEDs.

Table 5. Threatened species and ecosystems that do or may co-occur with the listed GEDs.

Type	Name	Legislation	Co-occurring GED/s
Flora	Calotis glandulosa (mauve burr-daisy)	Cwth EPBC Act 1999ACT Nature Conservation Act 2014 91NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act	Canberra GEDMonaro GED
Flora	Dodonaea procumbens (trailing hop-bush)	Cwth EPBC Act 1999NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act	Monaro GEDVictorian GED
Flora	Rutidosis leiolepis (Monaro golden daisy)	Cwth EPBC Act 1999NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016	Monaro GED
Flora	Rutidosis leptorhynchoides (button wrinklewort)	Cwth EPBC Act 1999ACT Nature Conservation Act 2014NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016Vic Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988	Canberra GEDMonaro GEDVictorian GED
Flora	Thesium australe (austral toadflax)	Cwth EPBC Act 1999ACT Nature Conservation Act 2014NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016	Canberra GEDMonaro GEDBathurst GED
Fauna	Delma impar (striped legless lizard)	Cwth EPBC Act 1999ACT Nature Conservation Act 2014NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016Vic Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988	Victorian GEDMonaro GEDBathurst GEDCanberra GED
Fauna	Perunga ochracea (Perunga grasshopper)	ACT Nature Conservation Act 2014	Canberra GED
Fauna	Pseudemoia pagenstecheri (tussock skink)	Vic Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988	Victorian GED
Fauna	Suta flagellum (little whip snake)	NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016	Monaro GEDBathurst GED
Fauna	Synemon plana (golden sun moth)	Cwth EPBC Act 1999ACT Nature Conservation Act 2014NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016Vic Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988	Victorian GEDCanberra GED
Fauna	Sminthopsis crassicaudata (fat-tailed dunnart)	Vic Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988	Victorian GED
Ecological community	Natural Temperate Grassland of the South-eastern Highlands	Cwth EPBC Act 1999	Canberra GEDMonaro GEDBathurst GED
Ecological community	Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain	Cwth EPBC Act 1999	Victorian GED

Many agencies, organisations and individuals have a role in implementing this recovery plan, including those described in Table 6.

Table 6. Recovery partners

Category	Recovery partners	Role	Interests
Australian government	Environment department e.g. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water	Lead plan development and review.Implement the plan on Commonwealth land.Provide funding support.Participate in the recovery team/s.	Resourcing for recovery plan coordination including recovery team/s membership and support.
	Environmental regulators	Assessment of referred actions
	Education and research department/s, Australian Research Council	Funding to address knowledge gaps.	Resourcing for researchers and programs.
	Agriculture, development, planning, and defence departments e.g. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Department of Defence	Implementation of the plan including through development approvals and management programs
	First Nations affairs department/s e.g. National Indigenous Affairs Agency	Funding and support for Traditional Owner organisations e.g. Aboriginal Land Councils.	Connection and custodianship of First Nations People and Country.
State and territory governments	Environment and land management departments for ACT, NSW and Vic e.g. ACT Parks and Conservation Service; ACT Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate; NSW Parks and Wildlife Service; NSW Department of Planning and Environment; NSW Biodiversity Conservation Trust; Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; NSW South East Local Land Services; NSW Central Tablelands Local Land Services	Contribute to plan development and review.Participate in the recovery team/s.Implement the plan, including on-ground activities.Funding support.	Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.Landholder relationships and information dissemination.Assessment of development applications.
Environmental regulators	Assessment of proposed actions
Natural resource management (NRM) organisations	Corangamite Catchment Management AuthorityMelbourne WaterACT NRM	Engage with landholders about the species and plan.Facilitate partnerships.Survey and monitoring.Provide progress updates to recovery team/s.	Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.Partnership development and consolidation.
Traditional Owners	Dhawura Ngunnawal Caring for Country Committee.The United Ngunnawal Elders CouncilBega Local Aboriginal Land CouncilBodalla Local Aboriginal Land CouncilEden Local Aboriginal Land CouncilMerrimans Local Aboriginal Land CouncilMogo Local Aboriginal Land CouncilWagonga Local Aboriginal Land CouncilBathurst Local Aboriginal Land CouncilOrange Local Aboriginal Land CouncilPejar Local Aboriginal Land CouncilWadawurrung Traditional Owners Aboriginal CorporationWurundjeri Woi Wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal CorporationNgarigo organisations	Participate in the recovery team/s.Bring Traditional Ecological Knowledge to the plan and actions.	Capacity to develop, lead and engage in healthy country projects.Capacity to link healthy country and management plans, projects, and assertions with conservation of the listed GEDs.Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Local councils	Snowy Monaro Regional CouncilQueanbeyan-Palerang Regional CouncilBathurst Regional CouncilOrange City CouncilGreater Geelong City CouncilWyndham City CouncilMoorabool Shire CouncilMelton City CouncilHume City Council.	Raise awareness of the plan and species.Undertake surveys.Contribute to the recovery team/s.	Development applications.Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Private land holders and lease holders	Individual farmers and their representative organisations including but not limited to: National Farmers Federation,Victoria Farmers FederationNSW Farmers federationMonaro Farming SystemsBiodiversity Conservation Trust partners	Work with local partners.Implement the plan.	Agricultural productivity.Regulatory responsibilities.Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Zoological institutions	Zoos VictoriaTidbinbilla Nature Reserve	Lead and guide captive conservation programs.Contribute to reintroduction/ translocation programs.Raise awareness.Surveys and monitoring.	Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Research institutions	Including but not limited to: University of Canberra.	Participate in the recovery team.Provide progress updates to recovery team/s.	Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Ecological consultants & ecologists	People and organisations with knowledge and experience that is relevant.	Surveys and monitoring.	Capacity to support threatened species and ecological community conservation.Development applications.Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Community groups	Including but not limited to:Friends of GrasslandsGrassland Earless Dragon AllianceCentral Tablelands LandcareBoundary Road Reserve LandcareSnowy LandcareLandcare ACTQueanbeyan LandcareLandcare Victoria	Engage with landholders and communities about the species and plan.Facilitate partnerships.Provide progress updates to recovery team/s.	Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Conservation organisations	Including but not limited to:Trust for Nature.Greening Australia.Bush Heritage Australia.	Surveys and monitoring.Support implementation of targeted actions.Provide progress updates to recovery team/s.	Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Commercial businesses	Current and future developers within the modelled distribution (Map 1). Includes urban, commercial, renewable energy, airport, and agricultural developments.Businesses seeking biodiversity / conservation credentials.	Informed decision making regarding environmental assessment processes.	Resourcing for existing and expanded program work for the listed GEDs.
Local community	People interacting with known and potential grassland earless dragon habitat for general living, recreation, and tourism.	Report potential detections in new locations.Raise awareness.

This recovery plan has been prepared with a 10-year timeframe.

Objective 1 will be met when:

Objective 2 will be met when:

Objective 3 will be met when:

In addition, this recovery plan will be effective when:

ACT Government (2017) ACT native grassland conservation strategy and action plans (11 MB). Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, Canberra.

ACT Government (2019) Draft Herbage Mass Management Guidelines for Lowland Grassy Ecosystems of the ACT. Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, Canberra.

ACT Scientific Committee (2022) Threatened Native Species Assessment – Tympanocryptis lineata.

ASH (2022) Database: Official List of Australian Species. Australian Society of Herpetologists. Accessed 29 June 2022.

Barton PS, Manning AD, Gibb H, Wood JT, Lindenmayer DB and Cunningham SA (2011) Experimental reduction of native vertebrate grazing and addition of logs benefit beetle diversity at multiple scales. Journal of Applied Ecology 48, 943–951.

Banks CB, Robertson P, Magrath MJ &, Harley D (2017) Searching for the Grassland Earless Dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla in western Victoria. The Victorian Naturalist 134, 187–198.

Benson KA (1999) Resource use and selection by the grassland earless dragon, Tympanocryptis lineata pinguicolla: microhabitat and diet. Honours Thesis. The University of Canberra.

Brown J and Ingram L (2022) Increased above-ground biomass and plant species decline related to the presence of Eragrostis curvula across multiple grazing grasslands in the Snowy Monaro Region of Australia. International Grassland Congress.

Canberra Airport (2020) Airport Environment Strategy. Appendix 1 in the Canberra Airport Master Plan. Available at https://www.canberraairport.com.au/2020-master-plan

Canberra Airport (2010) Threatened Species Management Plan. Available at https://www.datocms-assets.com/88007/1675732819-canberra-airport-threatened-species-management-plan-9-3-10.pdf

Carlson E, MacDonald AJ, Adamack A, McGrath T, Doucette LI, Osborne WS, Gruber B and Sarre, SD (2016). How many conservation units are there for the endangered grassland earless dragons? Conservation Genetics 17, 761–774.

Chapple DG, Tingley R, Mitchell NJ, Macdonald SL, Keogh JS, Shea GM, Bowles P, Cox NA & Woinarski JCZ (2019) The Action Plan for Australian Lizards and Snakes 2017. CSIRO Publishing.

Colley R (2021) Gene flow and effective population size of the Canberra grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis lineata). Honours Thesis. University of Canberra.

BOM & CSIRO (2022) State of the Climate 2022. Bureau of Meteorology and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

DCCEEW (2023) Conservation Advice for Tympancryptis pinguicolla (Victorian grassland earless dragon). Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

DEWHA (2013) Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 - Matters of National Environmental Significance. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. EPBC Act Policy Statement.

Dimond WJ (2010) Population Decline in the Endangered Grassland Earless Dragon in Australia: Identification, Causes and Management. PhD Thesis, University of Canberra.

Dimond WJU, Osborne WS, Evans M, Gruber B & Sarre S (2012) Back to the Brink: Population decline of the endangered grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) following its rediscovery. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 7, 132–149.

Dorrough J (2015) African Lovegrass and endangered grassy ecosystems on private land: trends and risks. Pages 60–65 (labelled 1–6) in Grass half full or grass half empty? Valuing native grassy landscapes. Friends of Grasslands forum proceedings. October–November 2014.

Doucette LI & Sarre SD (2018) Maintenance and Breeding of Grassland Earless Dragons in Captivity. University of Canberra.

Doucette LI, R Duncan, WS Osborne, B Gruber, A Georges, M Evans, D Fletcher, T Ezaz and SD Sarre (2017) How hot is too hot? Will high temperatures cause the extinction of the Grassland Earless Dragon? Presentation to the Grassland Earless Dragon Recovery Team. Institute of Applied Ecology.

Doucette LI, Duncan RP, Osborne WS, Evans M, Georges A, Gruber B & Sarre S (2023) Climate warming drives a temperate-zone lizard to its upper thermal limits, restricting activity, and increasing energetic costs. Scientific Reports 13, 9603.

DSWEPaC (2011). Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities of the Victorian Volcanic Plain: Natural Temperate Grassland and Grassy Eucalypt Woodland. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Accessed 11 November 2021.

Eco Logical Australia (2009) Unpublished Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Boco Rock Windfarm, Wind Prospects Pty Ltd.

EPSDDE (2017) Grassland Earless Dragon Action Plan. Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate – Environment, ACT Government. Accessed 14 February 2022.

EPSDDE (2021) Information page: Grassland Earless Dragon. Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate – Environment, ACT Government. Accessed 15 November 2021.

Framenau VW & Baehr BC (2016) Revision of the Australian Union-Jack wolf spiders, genus Tasmanicosa (Araneae, Lycosidae, Lycosinae). Zootaxa 4213, 1–82.

Fuhrer (2003) Agroecosystem responses to combinations of elevated CO2, ozone, and global climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 97, 1–20.

Geyle HM, Tingly R, Amey AP et al. (2020) Reptiles on the brink: identifying the Australian terrestrial snake and lizard species most at risk of extinction. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 3–12.

Gibson-Roy P & Delpratt J (2015) The restoration of native grasslands. Pages 332–389 in NSG Williams, A Marshall & JW Morgan (eds) Land of Sweeping Plains: Managing and Restoring the Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia. CSIRO Publishing.

Gibson‐Roy P & McDonald T (2014) Reconstructing grassy understories in south‐eastern Australia: Interview with Paul Gibson‐Roy. Ecological Management & Restoration 15, 111–122.

Gould J, Beranek C, Madani G (2024) Dragon detectives: citizen science confirms photo-ID as an effective tool for monitoring an endangered reptile. Wildlife Research 51, WR23036.

GSV (1959) Melbourne & suburbs 40 chains to 1 inch, geological map. Geological Survey of Victoria. Department of Mines, Victoria.

Hall LS, Krausman PR & Morrison ML (1997). The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 173–182.

Hanna M (2021) Thermoregulatory behaviours and ecology of wolf spiders in the Australian alpine region. Field Studies in Ecology 3(1). Australian National University.

Hoehn M, Dimond W, Osborne W & Sarre SD (2013) Genetic analysis reveals the costs of peri-urban development for the endangered Grassland Earless Dragon. Conservation Genetics 14, 1269–1278.

Humphreys WF (1975) The influence of burrowing and thermoregulatory behaviour on the water relations of Geolycosa godeffroyi (Araneae: Lycosidae), an Australian wolf spider. Oecologia 21, 291–311.

IUCN SPC (2022) Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 15.1. International Union for the Conservation of Nature Standards and Petitions Committee. Accessed 29 August 2022.

Kershaw JA (1927) Victorian reptiles. The Victorian Naturalist 43, 335–344.

Legge S, Robinson N, Lindenmayer D, Scheele B, Southwell D & Wintle B (2018). Monitoring threatened species and ecological communities. CSIRO publishing.

Legge S, Murphy BP, McGregor H, Woinarski JC, Augusteyn J Ballard G, Baseler M, Buckmaster T, Dickman CR, Doherty T and Edwards G (2017). Enumerating a continental-scale threat: how many feral cats are in Australia? Biological Conservation 206, 293–303.

Lucas AHS & Frost C (1894) The lizards indigenous to Victoria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 4, 24–92.

Lunt I & Morgan JW (2002) The role of fire regimes in temperate lowland grasslands of southeastern Australia. Pp 177–198 in RA Bradstock, JE Williams & MA Gills (eds) Flammable Australia: The Fire Regimes and Biodiversity of a Continent. Cambridge University Press.

Lunt ID, Prober SM & Morgan JW (2012) How do fire regimes affect ecosystem structure, function and diversity in grasslands and grassy woodlands of southern Australia? Pp 253–270 in Bradstock RA, Gill AM & Williams RJ (eds) Flammable Australia: Fire Regimes, Biodiversity and Ecosystems in a Changing World. CSIRO Publishing.

Madani G, Pietsch R & Beranek C (2023) Where are my dragons? Replicating refugia to enhance the detection probability of an endangered cryptic reptile. Acta Oecologica 119, 103910.

Mahony S (2019) The remarkable tale of Bathurst’s unique Grassland Dragon. Australian Museum Research Institute. Accessed 9 June 2022.

Massey C & Foot M (2021) The Last Dragon. National Library of Australia.

McArtney IB (1968) Reptiles and amphibians of the Bathurst district. Australian Zoologist 14, 265–267.

McCoy F (1889) Tympanocryptis lineata (Peters). The White-streaked Earless Lizard. Pp 297–298 in Prodromas of the zoology of Victoria: figures and descriptions of the living species of all classes of the Victorian Indigenous animals. Volume II (Decades XI to XX).

McGrath T, Hunter D, Osborne W & Sarre SD (2012) A trial use of camera traps detects the highly cryptic and endangered grassland earless dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla (Reptilia: Agamidae) on the Monaro Tablelands of New South Wales, Australia. Herpetological Review 43, 249–252.

McGrath (2015) The conservation and ecology of a rare and declining agamid lizard, the grassland earless dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla in the Monaro region of New South Wales, Australia (4.8 MB). Masters Thesis, The University of Canberra.

McGrath T, Guillera-Arroita G, Lahoz-Monfort, JJ, Osborne W, Hunter D and Sarre, SD (2015) Accounting for detectability when surveying for rare or declining reptiles: turning rocks to find the grassland earless dragon in Australia. Biological Conservation 182, 53–62.

Melbourne BA (1993) The assessment of insect biodiversity. A case study: ants and carabid beetles in grasslands of the ACT. Honours Thesis. Australian National University, Canberra.

Melville J, Goebel S, Starr C, Keogh JS & Austin J (2007) Conservation genetics and species status of an endangered Australian dragon, Tympanocryptis pinguicolla (Reptilia: Agamidae). Conservation Genetics 8, 185–195.

Melville J, Smith K, Hobson R, Hunjan S & Shoo L (2014) The role of integrative taxonomy in the conservation management of cryptic species: the taxonomic status of endangered earless dragons (Agamidae: Tympanocryptis) in the grasslands of Queensland, Australia. PLoS ONE 9, e101847.

Melville J & Wilson S (2019) Dragon Lizards of Australia: Evolution, Ecology and a Comprehensive Field Guide. Museums Victoria Publishing.

Melville J, Chaplin K, Hutchinson M, Sumner J, Gruber B, MacDonald AJ & Sarre SD (2019) Taxonomy and conservation of grassland earless dragons: a new species and an assessment of the first possible extinction of a reptile on mainland Australia. Royal Society Open Science 6, 190233.

Melville J (2023) Identification of field-caught grassland earless dragons, Victoria 2023. Unpublished report by Museums Victoria.

Mitchell FJ (1948) A revision of the lacertilian genus Tympanocryptis. Records of the South Australian Museum 9, 57–86.

Morgan JW (1999) Defining grassland fire events and the response of perennial plants to annual fire in temperate grasslands of south-eastern Australia. Plant ecology 144, 127–144.

Nelson L (2004) Thermal ecology and implications for life history variation in Tympanocryptis pinguicolla (Grassland Earless Dragon). PhD Thesis, The Australian National University.

Nelson LS & Cooper PD 2017. Seasonal effects on body temperature of the endangered grassland earless dragon, Tympanocryptis pinguicolla, from populations at two elevations. Australian Journal of Zoology 65, 165–178.

NSW LLS (2019). Travelling Stock Reserves Statewide Plan of Management (7 MB). NSW Local Land Services.

NSW DPE (2022) Help Save the Monaro grassland earless dragon. New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment project report for the Saving our Species program. Accessed 3 November 2022.

NSW DPE (2022) Species Profile: Monaro Grassland Earless Dragon. NSW Department of Planning and Environment. Accessed 6 September 2022.

NSW DPI (2024) African lovegrass. NSW Department of Planning and Industries Weed Wise fact sheet.

Osborne WS, Kukolic K, Davis MS & Blackburn R (1993) Recent records of the earless dragon Tympanocryptis lineata pinguicolla in the Canberra region and a description of its habitat. Herpetofauna 23, 16–26.

Osborne WS, Kukolic K & Williams KD (1993b) Conservation of reptiles in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Pp 151–158 in D Lunney & D Ayers (eds) Herpetology in Australia: A Diverse Discipline. Transactions of the Royal Society of New South Wales, Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty. Ltd.

Pescott T (1969) Earless dragon lizard. Geelong Naturalist 6, 57.

Pitman AJ, Narisma GT and McAneney J (2007) The impact of climate change on the risk of forest and grassland fires in Australia. Climatic Change 84, 383–401.

Ramesh K, Matloob A, Aslam F, Florentine SK & Chauhan BS (2017) Weeds in a changing climate: vulnerabilities, consequences, and implications for future weed management. Frontiers in Plant Science 8, 95.

Rittel HWJ & Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155–169.

Robertson P & Coventry AJ (2019) Reptiles of Victoria: A Guide to Identification and Ecology. CSIRO Publishing.

Robertson P & Evans M (2012) National recovery plan for the grassland earless dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla. ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services, Canberra.

Rowell A (2014) Monitoring of grassland earless dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla at Bonshaw, 2014. Unpublished report for the Department of Defence.

Semple WS (1997) Native and naturalised shrubs of the Bathurst granites: past and present. Cunninghamia 5, 803–833.

Sinclair SJ, Zamin T, Gibson-Roy P, Dorrough J, Wong N, Craigie V, Garrard GE & JL Moore (2019) A state-and-transition model to guide grassland management. Australian Journal of Botany 67, 437–453.

Stevens TA, Evans MC, Osborne WS & Sarre SD (2010) Home ranges of, and habitat use by, the grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) in remnant native grasslands near Canberra. Australian Journal of Zoology 58, 76–84.

Stobo-Wilson AM, Murphy BP, Legge SM, Chapple DG, Crawford HM, Dawson SJ, Dickman CR, Doherty TS, Fleming PA, Gentle M and Newsome TM (2021). Reptiles as food: predation of Australian reptiles by introduced red foxes compounds and complements predation by cats. Wildlife Research 48, 470–480.

Stuwe J (1986) An assessment of the conservation status of native grasslands on the Western Plains Victoria, and sites of botanical significance. Technical Report no. 48. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg.

Sullivan AL (2010). Grassland fire management in future climate. Advances in Agronomy 106, 173–208.

Sutton CS (1916) A sketch of the Keilor Plains flora. Victorian Naturalist 33, 112–123.

Swan M (2000) Notes on the southern lined, or grasslands earless dragon, Tympanocryptis lineata pinguicolla, in captivity. Herpetofauna 30, 22–24.

Taylor KA (2014) Behavioural ecology of captive Grassland Earless Dragons (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla). Honours Thesis. University of Canberra, Canberra.

TSSC (2008) Listing Advice: Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain. Threatened Species Scientific Committee. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Accessed 12 November 2011.

Uetz P, Freed P, Aguilar R & Hosek J (2024) The Reptile Database. Version of 28 March 2024. Accessed 10 May 2024.

Williams NSG, McDonnell MJ & Seager EJ (2005) Factors influencing the loss of an endangered ecosystem in an urbanising landscape: a case study of native grasslands from Melbourne, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning 71, 35–49.

Williams N, Marshall A & Morgan J (2015) Land of Sweeping Plains: Managing and Restoring the Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia. CSIRO Publishing.

Zeeman BJ (2017) Natural Grasslands of the Victorian Volcanic Plain: Vegetation Change in the Face of Intensifying Urbanisation. PhD Thesis, La Trobe University.

Armstrong (2022 & 2023) Personal communication via feedback on drafts of this plan on 7 December 2022 and 26 October 2023. Rob Armstrong is a senior threatened species officer with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment. He has experience surveying for the listed GEDs in New South Wales.

BGEDWG (2022) Insights from the Bathurst grassland earless dragon working group held at Bathurst on 18 August 2022. Attendees were Ian McArtney, Gavin Waters, Peter Carter, Jane Melville, Stephen Mahoney, Tim McGrath, Alan Wray, Joel Little, Ray Mjadwesch, Alex Carter, Stephanie Jones, Roger Hargraves, and Matt Seaman.

New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment (NSW DPE) (2024) unpublished data from monitoring of Tympanocryptis osbornei on the Monaro plains. Monitoring has been undertaken by George Madani, Robert Armstrong and David Bain through funding under the NSW Saving our Species program.

VGEDWG (2022) Insights from a Victorian grassland earless dragon working group meeting held at Zoos Victoria on 7^th October 2022. Attendees were Melissa Bruton, Tim McGrath, Rory Keenan, Deon Gilbert, Garry Peterson, Alex Mitchell, Peter Robertson, Nick Clemann, Steve Sinclair, Jane Melville, Vanessa Craigie, Rachael Beecham, Matt White.

Croak (2023) Personal communication on 8 November 2023 via feedback on a draft version of this recovery plan. Dr Ben Croak is a research ecologist with the ACT Government. He leads the Canberra GED captive breeding and release program based at Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve.

Doucette (2022) Personal communication via email on 15 February 2022. Dr Lisa Doucette studied Canberra grassland earless dragons intensively (including radio-tracking) for five years during her postdoctoral fellowship with the University of Canberra.

Madani (2022) Personal communication via feedback on an early draft of the plan on 10 December 2022. George Madani is an ecological consultant and director of the Grassland Earless Dragon Alliance. He has extensive experience monitoring and surveying for the Monaro GED.

Robertson (2023) Personal communication on 15 November 2023 via feedback on a draft version of this recovery plan. Peter Robertson is a Victorian grassland reptile expert with multiple decades of experience searching for the Victorian GED.

Rowell (2023) Personal communication on 3 November 2023 via feedback on a draft version of this recovery plan. Alison Rowell is a biologist and ecological consultant with over 30 years of experience with surveying grasslands of the ACT and southeast NSW, including for the listed GEDs.

Zoos Victoria (2022) Insights from the Zoos Victoria team via feedback on an early draft of the plan on 28 December 2022. Zoos Victoria have extensive experience housing and breeding the listed GEDs and searching for the Victorian GED. Contributors included Rory Keenan, Garry Peterson, Alex Mitchell, Adam Lee, Deon Gilbert and Nick Clemann.

Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation at legislation.gov.au, © Commonwealth of Australia, licensed under CC BY 4.0. Compilations may have been reformatted.

1 Name#

2 Commencement#

3 Authority#

4 Jointly made recovery plan#

1 Name #

2 Commencement #

3 Authority #

4 Jointly made recovery plan #