Fauna Spotters logo

Yampi Sandslider (Lerista praefrontalis)

The Yampi Sandslider is a poorly known, burrowing skink recorded from Western Australia, with its type locality on King Hall Island. Its habitat and activity are not well documented. Works in the Kimberley should use cautious survey and clearing procedures.

Conservation status

Western Australia, WA Threatened and Priority Fauna List: Priority 1.

Seasonal planning

Use this planning reminder when scheduling work.

Known seasonal information: No months are recorded for activity, breeding or movement.

Use project requirements and current site conditions to guide seasonal planning.

  • Survey and clearing planning: Planning window only. Schedule assessment and clearing safeguards according to project requirements and current site conditions.

Identification: Appearance and size

Species-specific information is sparse, and field identification may be difficult without close examination.

A detailed description of colour or pattern is not available. Maximum snout-to-vent length is reported as 70 mm.

The taxonomic diagnosis notes distinct prefrontals and four phalanges on the fourth toe of the hind foot, rather than five in other members of the bipes species group.

Identification: Similar species

The diagnosis compares the species with members of the Lerista bipes species group. A researcher has suggested that the type specimen might be an aberrant Lerista griffini, but this remains a taxonomic opinion, not a confirmed synonymy.

Identification: Field signs

Species-specific tracks, burrow form and other field signs have not been described. For skinks generally, crews can inspect leaf litter and loose ground carefully, but these signs do not confirm this species.

Distribution: Known range

The known record is exceptionally limited and does not establish a continuous range.

The species is recorded from Western Australia. The type locality is King Hall Island, at 16°05′S, 123°25′E. It is known only from the holotype.

Distribution: WA records and region

The DBCA list flags the Kimberley region. Atlas of Living Australia records show one WA record at one distinct 0.1-degree location, around latitude -16.1 and longitude 123.4. This record count does not establish the full distribution.

Distribution: Status and limitations

The species is listed as Priority 1 on the DBCA Threatened and Priority Fauna List. It is known from few locations, none of them on conservation lands. No national listing is recorded.

Habitat: Recorded habitat information

Habitat information is limited to a brief description of terrestrial, fossorial habits and an association with leaf litter and burrowing.

The skink is described as fossorial and terrestrial, and associated with leaf litter and burrowing. No specific vegetation community, soil type or site-scale habitat description is recorded.

Habitat: Site assessment

Treat areas with leaf litter and ground suitable for burrowing as potential search areas, without assuming these features are exclusive or sufficient habitat. Confirm local conditions during the site inspection.

Foraging habitat: Diet and foraging

Use a precautionary approach when assessing potential foraging habitat.

Diet, prey and foraging method have not been documented. Do not infer a species-specific food source or foraging microhabitat from its common name or genus.

Foraging habitat: Precaution on works sites

Where ground disturbance is planned, retain access to undisturbed leaf litter and burrowing ground where practicable until the fauna assessment is complete. This is a precaution based on limited habitat information, not a confirmed foraging requirement.

Breeding habitat: Breeding information

The species is reported as egg-laying, but breeding sites and timing are not documented.

The species is oviparous. Clutch size, egg-laying locations, incubation period and breeding months are not recorded.

Breeding habitat: Precaution

Do not assume that a particular season or substrate is free of breeding activity. If eggs or suspected breeding evidence are encountered during works, pause disturbance in the immediate area and seek advice from the project ecologist.

Sheltering habitat: Known shelter information

Burrowing and association with leaf litter are reported, but shelter sites have not been described in detail.

The skink is described as fossorial and associated with burrowing and leaf litter. Burrow depth, structure and use of other shelter types are not recorded.

Sheltering habitat: Search implications

As general skink survey practice, examine leaf litter and loose ground carefully. Do not treat an empty-looking burrow or disturbed patch as proof that fauna are absent. Do not attribute an unoccupied burrow to this species without evidence.

Threats: Known pressures

Specific threats and population trends have not been documented.

The DBCA Priority 1 category reflects that the species is poorly known and known from few locations, with none on conservation lands.

Threats: Works-site risk

Clearing or ground disturbance could affect a fossorial animal or leaf-litter habitat where present. This is a precautionary works-site risk, not a documented species-specific threat.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

The species is rarely recorded, and no validated survey protocol or detectability estimate is established.

Check current DBCA records, the project’s environmental databases and known WA information before fieldwork. Give particular attention to the Kimberley and the King Hall Island type locality, while recognising that the known range may be incomplete.

Survey methodology: 2. Habitat inspection

Inspect ground and leaf litter where these occur in the development footprint. As general practice for skinks, search carefully by hand or with suitable survey methods, replacing disturbed cover and substrate promptly where safe and appropriate.

Survey methodology: 3. Record and verify

Record search effort, conditions, location, photographs where possible, and any evidence encountered. As the diagnosis includes features that may require close examination, arrange expert verification for uncertain records and follow applicable animal handling and permit requirements.

Vegetation associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific vegetation association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Ecosystem associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific ecosystem association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Soil and substrate associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific soil association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Water and wetland associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific water association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Fauna records and mapped habitat: Not yet analysed

Record locations can be overlaid with mapping, but record frequency alone does not measure habitat preference. No species is excluded from desktop assessments by this analysis.

No quality-controlled record-to-map analysis has been completed for this species. The existing generalised distribution dots and indicative range polygons have not been treated as precise occurrence coordinates.

A defensible run needs dated, independently attributable records, coordinate uncertainty, duplicate and captive-record checks, layer versions and regional scope. Preference and absence require additional survey-effort and detection evidence.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: No supported exclusion recorded

Not recorded is not the same as cannot occur. Low suitability, resident habitat, breeding habitat and occasional movement are different conclusions.

This library has not established a vegetation, ecosystem or soil-type exclusion for this species. This does not mean all habitat is suitable; the evidence needed to justify an exclusion has not been assembled.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: Before using a negative association

  • Confirm the taxon, geographic region, life stage and habitat function covered by the evidence.
  • Check survey methods, season, repeated effort and detectability before interpreting non-detection.
  • Investigate credible contradictory records and microhabitats absent from broad mapping.
  • Do not convert a missing map class, low record count or failed data request into species absence.

Before habitat disturbance: 1. Review the footprint

Plan for uncertainty because the species is poorly known and survey detectability is not documented.

Have the project ecologist review existing records, the DBCA priority status, and the extent of ground and leaf-litter habitat within the footprint. Do not assume other suitable areas are unoccupied because only one Atlas of Living Australia location is reported.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Brief the crew

Explain that this is a small, fossorial skink with limited records and no established field signs. Identify the stop-work and notification process for an animal or possible burrow encountered during clearing.

Before habitat disturbance: 3. Set safeguards

Where practicable, mark no-go areas around habitat features identified by the ecologist and stage clearing so inspections can occur before disturbance. Keep suitable undisturbed ground available nearby while fauna risks are assessed.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Clear progressively

Use staged, careful clearing and respond conservatively to any possible fauna encounter.

Follow the approved clearing sequence and have the nominated fauna spotter catcher inspect the active work area. Avoid unnecessary rapid disturbance of leaf litter and loose ground where practicable.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Stop and assess

If a skink, possible burrow or other relevant evidence is encountered, pause work in the immediate area and notify the project ecologist. Do not assume the species is absent because it has not emerged or been seen.

During habitat disturbance: 3. Handle with care

Do not handle or relocate an animal unless authorised and undertaken by a suitably qualified person under applicable requirements. Record the encounter and follow the project’s fauna management procedure.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Complete records

Document outcomes and maintain clear follow-up procedures after clearing or an encounter.

Record the area cleared, inspection effort, any fauna observations, actions taken and the names of relevant personnel. Submit confirmed or suspected records through the project’s agreed reporting pathway.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Review incidents

If an animal or potential shelter site was disturbed, have the ecologist assess the incident and advise whether further inspection or changes to the work method are needed. Clearly distinguish unverified evidence from a confirmed species record.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Restore disturbed ground

Rehabilitation should address local ground and leaf-litter conditions without assuming unrecorded species requirements.

Where rehabilitation is required, reinstate suitable local ground cover and leaf litter where available and consistent with the approved rehabilitation plan. Do not claim that this recreates confirmed habitat for the species.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Monitor and adapt

Use the project’s rehabilitation monitoring requirements and report any fauna observations. As species-specific habitat and response measures are not recorded, seek ecologist advice before setting species-specific success criteria.

Sources