Draft for Comment June 2010

National Recovery Plan for the Southern Brown Isoodon obesulus obesulus

Geoff W. Brown and Micaela L. Main

Prepared by Geoff W. Brown and Micaela L. Main, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg .

Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) , 2010.

© State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne.

ISBN 1 74152 339 7

This is a Recovery Plan prepared under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with the assistance of funding provided by the Australian Government. This Recovery Plan has been developed with the involvement and cooperation of a range of stakeholders, but individual stakeholders have not necessarily committed to undertaking specific actions. The attainment of objectives and the provision of funds may be subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved. Proposed actions may be subject to modification over the life of the plan due to changes in knowledge.

Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

An electronic version of this document is available on the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts website www.environment.gov.au For more information contact the DSE Customer Service Centre 136 186

Citation: Brown, G. W. and Main, M. L. 2010. National Recovery Plan for the Isoodon obesulus obesulus. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.

Cover photograph: Southern Brown Bandicoot, Isoodon obesulus obesulus (M. Johnston)

Table of Contents

Summary ...... 1

Species Information...... 1 Description ...... 1 Distribution ...... 2 Population Information ...... 7 Habitat...... 8

Decline and Threats...... 9 Populations Under Threat...... 14

Recovery Information ...... 15 Existing Conservation Measures ...... 15 Recovery Objectives ...... 16 Program Implementation and Evaluation...... 17 Recovery Objectives and Actions – Detail...... 17 Management Practices ...... 29 Social and Economic Impacts...... 29 Role and Interests of Indigenous People...... 30 Affected Interests ...... 30 Biodiversity Benefits...... 30

Priority, Feasibility and Estimated Costs of Recovery Actions...... 32

Acknowledgements ...... 35

References ...... 36

List of Figures

Figure 1a Records for the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus) in South-eastern , pre- and post-1990 ...... 3 Figure 1b : records pre- and post-1990...... 4 Figure 1c Victoria: records pre- and post-1990...... 5 Figure 1d : records pre- and post-1990...... 6

Abbreviations

Abbreviations

ARI Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research (DSE, Victoria) CMA Catchment Management Authority (Victoria) CMB Catchment Management Board (NSW) DECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW) DEHSA Department for Environment and Heritage (South Australia) DEWHA Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Commonwealth) DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria) DTEI Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (South Australia) EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 FFG Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria) FNSW Forests New South Wales NRM Natural Resources Management Boards (SA) NSW New South Wales PV Parks Victoria RBG Royal Botanic Gardens SA South Australia SAM South Australian Museum SBBRT Southern Brown Bandicoot Recovery Team TSC Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) VIC Victoria

Summary The Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern subspecies) Isoodon obesulus obesulus is a medium-sized, terrestrial that occurs in a patchy distribution along a broad band of south-eastern Australia. This distribution extends from in South Australia through southern Victoria and south-eastern NSW to Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park just north of . The species occur in a variety of habitat types, including heath, shrubland, sedgeland and heathy forest and woodland. Extant populations of this species are mostly isolated and relatively small, and their status is of great concern. Major threats include continued habitat loss or modification, inappropriate fire regimes, introduced predators, and isolation of populations. The Southern Brown Bandicoot is listed as Endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It is also listed as Vulnerable under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1972 (NPWC Act), Threatened under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) and Endangered under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). This National Recovery Plan for the Southern Brown Bandicoot outlines current knowledge about its ecology and the steps necessary to improve its .

Species Information

Description The Southern Brown Bandicoot is a medium-sized (0.4–1.85 kg) terrestrial marsupial (Braithwaite 1995; Van Dyck and Strahan 2008). Like other members of the family ( and bilbies), this species has a long tapering snout with a naked tessellated nose, a compact body and a short tail. The head has small rounded ears that barely extend above the crown and small black eyes. The dorsal surface of the body usually appears grey-brown at a distance but grizzled (with golden-brown flecks) at close range because of banded spiny guard hairs. The underparts and forefeet are creamy white or pale yellow in colour, and the tail brown above and creamy yellow below. The forelegs are short with curved claws on each of the five digits, and the hind limbs much longer. The hind feet have five toes, with the first digit small and clawless, while the second and thirds digits are fused. The Southern Brown Bandicoot is mostly solitary, relatively short-lived (maximum longevity of 3.5–4 years), has a home range of 0.5–10 ha (Heinsohn 1966; Lobert 1990; Moloney 1982; Paull 1993) and can disperse up to 2.5 km. (B. Hope pers. comm. 2009). The Southern Brown Bandicoot is omnivorous, feeding on invertebrates, seeds and hypogeal fungi, with small vertebrates also consumed (Claridge 1988; Claridge et al. 1991; Moloney 1982; NSW NPWS 2001; Paull 1993; Quin 1985). The species exhibits sexual dimorphism, with males having generally longer heads and bodies (mean 330 mm cf. 300 mm) and generally heavier (mean weight 850 g cf. 700 g) (Braithwaite 1995). This dimorphism may become apparent at 12 months of age (Lobert and Lee 1990). Southern Brown Bandicoots have a potentially high reproductive output — the period for gestation is short, less than 15 days, and the lactation period about 60 days (Lobert and Lee 1990; Menkhorst and Seebeck 1995). Both litter size and the number of litters per year (up to three) appear to be related to food abundance (Lobert and Lee 1990). The Southern Brown Bandicoot is polyoestrous — the species breeds seasonally or all year round, depending on location, with peak breeding season occurring between spring and mid-summer. The breeding season

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 1

is variable; in most populations the timing of breeding is probably related to the influence of proximate factors on females (Lobert and Lee 1990). This species may demonstrate a high level of juvenile dispersal (Stoddart and Braithwaite 1979), a trait that, in combination with high reproductive output, could enable rapid colonisation of suitable habitat as it develops. Across Australia five sub-species of the Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus are formally described (Lyne and Mort 1981; Pope et al. 2001; Van Dyck and Strahan 2008). The sub-species restricted to south-eastern Australia (excluding ), Isoodon obesulus obesulus, is the subject of this Recovery Plan. Although elsewhere the common name Southern Brown Bandicoot is used for the entire species, in this plan it refers just to the south-eastern sub-species. Taxonomic relationships of Isoodon are problematic (Wildlife Australia 1996). Substructuring within the Isoodon genus varies with morphological or genetic analyses (Close et al. 1990; Lyne and Mort 1981; Pope, Storch et al. 2001; Westerman and Krajewski 2000; Zenger et al. 2005), and the status of Isoodon obesulus obesulus is ambiguous. The South Australian Museum is currently reviewing the broad genetic affinities of regional populations of all Isoodon species, in part because there appears to be a major genetic dichotomy between eastern and western groups (the divide being the Murray Basin) (M. Adams pers. comm. 2009).

Distribution The known historical distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot took in a broad coastal band of south-eastern Australia from the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia through southern Victoria and south-eastern NSW to Ku-ring-gai Chase just north of Sydney New South Wales. In NSW, the species is now primarily restricted to two general areas: Ku-ring-gai Chase and Garigal National Parks just north of Sydney, and Ben Boyd National Park and Nadgee Nature Reserve in the south-east of the state (Ashby et al. 1990; Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006). In between these two areas the species has been found in a small number of national parks and state forests (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006). In Victoria, the Southern Brown Bandicoot is generally restricted to coastal/near coastal plains, although populations also occur well inland in the Grampians National Park and in the Dandenong Ranges (Menkhorst and Seebeck 1995). The species has a disjunct distribution across southern Victoria, with most records clustered within parts of several southern Victorian bioregions, including the East Gippsland Lowlands, Gippsland Plain (Western section), Otway Plain (Anglesea section), Warrnambool Plain (Port Campbell section), Greater Grampians, Glenelg Plains and Wilsons Promontory (Coates et al. 2008). In South Australia the species occurs in the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu Peninsula, the lower south-east and on Kangaroo Island. In the lower south-east, all current records are located in ForestrySA Native Forest Reserves. While there are records for the Southern Brown Bandicoot on the Eyre Peninsula, surveys conducted in 1993 were unable to confirm its continued occurrence (Paull 1995) and the species is almost certainly now extinct there. A 1994 record from the Eyre Peninsula is likely to be an escapee from a captive population (K. Long pers. comm. 2010). There are also subfossil records from , although the species no longer occur there (Paull 1995). The distributions of the Southern Brown Bandicoot in each state and across south- eastern Australia are provided in Figure 1. Data were sourced from the Biological Database of SA (DEHSA), Atlas of NSW Wildlife (DECCW) and the Victorian Fauna Database (DSE). Records from some sites are not included — these sites include observations based on remains found in faecal pellets or fossil records.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 2

Figure 1a Records for the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus) in south-eastern Australia, pre- and post- 1990.

ADELAIDE SYDNEY

MELBOURNE

Elevation (m) -33 - 80 81 - 164 165 - 245 246 - 329 330 - 415 416 - 509 510 - 632 pre 1990 633 - 817 post 1990 818 - 1,092 1,093 - 2,048 no date Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 3

Figure 1b New South Wales: records pre- and post-1990.

SYDNEY

Elevation (m) -33 - 80 81 - 164 EDEN 165 - 245 246 - 329 330 - 415 416 - 509 pre 1990 510 - 632 633 - 817 post 1990 818 - 1,092 no date 1,093 - 2,048

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 4

Figure 1c Victoria: records pre- and post-1990.

HORSHAM

BAIRNSDALE MELBOURNE Elevation (m) -33 - 80 PORTLAND 81 - 164 165 - 245 246 - 329 330 - 415 416 - 509 pre 1990 510 - 632 633 - 817 post 1990 818 - 1,092 no dat e 1,093 - 2,048

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 5

Figure 1d South Australia: records pre- and post-1990.

ADELAIDE

KINGSCOTE

Elevation (m) -33 - 80 81 - 164 165 - 245 246 - 329 330 - 415 416 - 509 510 - 632 pre 1990 633 - 817 post 1990 818 - 1,092 MOUNT GAMBIER 1,093 - 2,048 no dat e

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 6

Population Information The apparent scale and rapidity of declines of the Southern Brown Bandicoot mean that all extant populations are considered important for the survival of the species. Each location listed below may be considered a functional ‘population’ for management purposes, and managed to ensure the conservation of the species in that locale. Some of these locations may be clustered together to the scale of local government boundary for management purposes.

National/State Parks, Conservation Reserves NSW: Ku-ring-gai Chase NP, Garigal NP, Ben Boyd NP, Nadgee NR, South East Forests NP. VIC: Croajingolong NP, Cape Conran CP, Coopracambra NP, Wilsons Promontory NP, Wonthaggi Heathlands NCR, The Gurdies NCR, Quail Island Wildlife Reserve, Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, Dandenong Ranges NP, Bunyip SP, Mornington Peninsula NP, Great Otway NP, Port Campbell NP, Grampians NP, Mt Napier SP, Mt Richmond NP, Cape Nelson SP, Discovery Bay CP, Lower Glenelg NP, Dergholm SP, Wilkin FFR. SA: Morialta CP, Mt Billy CP, Warren CP, Horsnell Gully CP, Kenneth Stirling CP, Cleland CP, Belair NP, Mark Oliphant CP, Scott Creek CP, Kyeema CP, Mt Magnificent CP, Cox Scrub CP, Myponga CP, Springmount CP, Deep Creek CP, Parndana CP, Latham CP, Flinders Chase NP, Western River CP, Kelly Hill Caves CP, Mt Taylor CP, Seddon CP, Dudley CP, Newland Head CP, Mylor CP, Bullock Hill CP, Mt George CP, Flinders Chase NP, Ravine des Casoars WPA, Kelly Hill CP, Western River WPA, Parndana CP, Vivonne Bay CP, Seal Bay CP, Cape Gantheaume WPA, Lashmar CP, Telford Scrub CP and Lesueur CP.

State Forest NSW: Maroota SF, Mumbulla SF, Nalbaugh SF, Nullica SF, East Boyd SF, Nadgee SF, Timbillica SF, Yambulla SF, Bruces Creek SF. VIC: Bemm SF, Wingan SF, Otways SF, Cobboboonee SF, Nangeela SF, Drajurk SF. SA: Nangwarry NFR, Mt Burr Mill Drop NFR, Mt Lyon. Native Wells NFR, Glencoe Hill NFR, Mt Watch NFR, Windy Hill NFR, Windy Hill S NFR, The Woolwash NFR, Long NFR, Hacket Hill NFR, Wandilo NFR, Grundy Lane NFR, Kangaroo Flat NFR, Honan NFR, The Heath NFR, Paltridges, Honeysuckle NFR, Dry Creek NFR, Kay NFR, Whennen NFR, Mt McIntyre NFR, McRosties NFR, Overland Track NFR, The Marshes NFR, Burr Slopes South NFR, Christmas Hills NFR, Congeratinga NFR, Springs Rd NFR and probably also Tower NFR.

Other NSW: private land Oxford Falls; private land Beacon Hills; private land Westcliff Coalwash Stage 4, Appin; private land BHP Billiton Appin Area 2 extension; Hornsby Council land, Berowra VIC: Private and public land in the Cardinia Shire Council (Bayles, Bunyip - Koo Wee Rup Swamp, Garfield-Longwarry), The Inlets. SA: Private and public land in the following local Council areas: Wattle Range Council, Adelaide Hills Council, City of Onkaparinga, Alexandrina Council, City of Victor Harbor and District Council of Yankalilla, Kangaroo Island Council.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 7

Habitat Populations of the Southern Brown Bandicoot occur in heath, shrubland, sedgeland and heathy forest and woodland vegetation communities that are usually associated with well-drained soils (Atkins 1999; Coates et al. 2008; Croft et al. 1999; Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006; Menkhorst and Seebeck 1990; Paull 1993; Wildlife Australia 1996; Willoughby et al. 2001; Wilson 2004). Within these vegetation communities bandicoots typically inhabit areas of dense ground cover. Early investigations into the habitat relationships of the species suggested a preference for early successional stage vegetation after disturbance. For example, at Cranbourne, Victoria, Stoddart and Braithwaite (1979) observed more bandicoots in young heath regenerated after mechanical clearing. There is some doubt, however, about the value of early post-fire successional stages for the Southern Brown Bandicoot, given that later studies at the same site identified no such pattern (Lobert and Lee 1990), with other studies showing reduced use of recently-burnt sites (Paull 1999; Wilson 2004). Arguments for burning bandicoot habitat at longer intervals (decades), to create an appropriate habitat mosaic, have been proposed (Claridge et al. 1991; Newsome and Catling 1979; Possingham and Gepp 1996), supported by data from south-eastern South Australia where this species occupy some sites five decades after fire (Paull 1999), although the relative abundance of the species across different seral stages has not been investigated. While fire history may have some bearing on bandicoot occurrence, it has been suggested that other factors such as vegetation and soil may be more important (Paull 2004). The uncertainty of these findings is likely to relate to how the different vegetation types occupied by bandicoots respond to fire. Some vegetation types probably provide sufficient food and shelter resources sooner than others (Haby and Long 2005). Vegetation structure appears to be more influential than floristics in determining bandicoot abundance. In particular, the density of ground-layer vegetation appears to be important — sites with greater vegetation density in the ground layer are generally preferred by bandicoots (Claridge and Barry 2000; Claridge et al. 1991; Lobert 1985; Lobert 1990; Opie 1980; Paull 1993; Paull 1999; Wilson 2004), although they may sometimes move through or feed in less dense vegetation (Ferla 2007). Dense, low vegetation is used for nest and shelter-sites (Lobert and Lee 1990; Paull 1993; Stodart 1977; Wilson 2004), with bandicoots constructing leaf/grass nests in depressions within this vegetation (Paull 1993; Paull 1995) and possibly also digging burrows (Long 2009). In south-eastern South Australia and near Sydney, grass-tree Xanthorrhoea spp. was found to be particularly important for bandicoots, with establishing their nests within the ‘skirts’ of dead foliage that reach the ground (Paull 1995; Wilson 2004). Density of ground cover is a significant predictor of bandicoot diggings in eastern Victoria and south-eastern NSW (Claridge and Barry 2000). Coarse woody debris is also important, as logs may offer shelter and nesting sites (Claridge 1988). Bandicoots in northern Sydney have also demonstrated opportunistic use of spaces under rocks and burrows created by other animals (Ecotone Ecological Consultants 2003) and the species may dig its own burrows to avoid extreme weather conditions and fire (Long 2009). Cover for bandicoots is generally provided by native vegetation, though exotic species may also feature — in the Mt Lofty Ranges, for instance, blackberry Rubus spp., gorse Ulex spp. and broom Cytisus spp. are components of some bandicoot habitat (Department for Environment and Heritage 2004). Bandicoots are secretive and rarely venture far from cover, possibly to avoid predation (Claridge 1998). The critical habitat components required by the species are currently not fully understood and require further investigation. As a result it is not possible at this stage to identify habitat critical to the survival of the species.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 8

Decline and Threats The following aspects of the biology and ecology of the Southern Brown Bandicoot are particularly relevant to the consideration of threatening processes.

 The current distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot is not as extensive as it once was, with declines in populations and local in parts of its range. Recent surveys in south-western Victoria, where the species was previously thought to be abundant, show that large amounts of apparently suitable habitat are unoccupied (Department for Environment and Heritage 2003; Rees and Paull 2000). Surveys in other parts of the species’ Victorian range have also revealed a decrease in numbers and more restricted distribution (e.g. Coates et al. 2008; Ecology Australia 2009), suggesting a continuing decline in parts of Victoria. In South Australia, it is considered generally uncommon (Kemper 1990; Paull 1999) and populations have been reduced and fragmented, particularly in the south- east (D. Paull pers. comm. 2009). The species is still locally common at some localities in the Adelaide Hills (Erin Sautter DEH SA pers. comm. 2010) but habitat patches are restricted in size. In eastern NSW have become increasingly isolated in the central part of the species’ range. For instance, ‘bandicoots’ were observed in large numbers in the Bega district of NSW in the late nineteenth century, and declined rapidly in the first decade of the twentieth century; no records of I. obesulus have been collected there since the mid-1970s (Lunney and Leary 1988).  Overall, the Southern Brown Bandicoot exhibits a curious distribution, given that it currently occupies a range of habitats, from extensive, intact habitats to small, disturbed, degraded fragments (Coates et al. 2008). In Victoria the Southern Brown Bandicoot has been found to exploit degraded habitats that are dominated by environmental weeds and exotic pastures, as well as using sheds, car bodies and other low artificial structures for shelter (Coates et al. 2008). Some bandicoot populations appear to have remained relatively stable over the last 20 years in fragmented habitats (e.g. sections of the Mt Lofty Ranges, Armstrong et al. 2003), yet some have declined substantially in regions where its perceived habitat is more intact (e.g. parts of NSW).  The occurrence of the Southern Brown Bandicoot is determined by several environmental factors, some of which have been identified by Paull (2003), who modelled the distribution of the species at different spatial scales (national, state and regional) and found climate, soil patterns and drainage properties to be important determinants in south-eastern South Australia. The Southern Brown Bandicoot is relatively widespread within its range and shows little direct association with land-uses (see above for distribution across different land disturbance categories; McIntyre and Hobbs 1999).  Many of the habitats within which the Southern Brown Bandicoot is found regularly experience fire, either wildfire or planned burns. For example, many habitats are regularly control-burnt by government agencies to minimise severe wildfire risk. Severe wildfires in 2003, 2006 and again in 2009 in NSW and Victoria prompted efforts to develop a more comprehensive and effective strategy for minimising such wildfire events on public land (Fire Ecology Working Group 2004; NSW NPWS 2003a). While well-planned ecological burns may be beneficial for the Southern Brown Bandicoot, the overriding pressure to apply burns for other reasons, such as public safety and protection of assets in the prevention of bushfires, can lead to fire regimes that are inappropriate for the bandicoot, possibly with long-term negative outcomes.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 9

The major threats to the Southern Brown Bandicoot include habitat loss or modification, inappropriate fire regimes, extensive wildfires, introduced predators, and isolation of populations (Claridge 2000; Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2006; Wildlife Australia, 1996; Haby, 2005). Each threat is discussed briefly below. More detail can be found in separate state biodiversity plans or strategies (Croft et al. 1999; Department of Natural Resources and Environment 1997a; Department of Natural Resources and Environment 1997b; Department of Natural Resources and Environment 1997c; Ecology Australia 2009; Forests NSW 2007; Haby and Long 2005; NSW NPWS 2001; Willoughby et al. 2001).

Habitat loss or modification Almost all ecosystems in Australia have experienced depletion and simplification (ANZECC 2001; Williams et al. 2001). This is the case for forest and heath ecosystems in south-eastern Australia within which the Southern Brown Bandicoot has been recorded (Graetz et al. 1995). , fragmentation and modification resulting from vegetation clearance are considered the greatest threats to biodiversity conservation (ANZECC 2001; Burgman and Lindenmayer 1998; NSW NPWS 1999; Sivertsen 1995). Habitat may be lost through the removal of native vegetation, such as exemplified by clearing for agriculture or clear-fell timber harvesting (Lunney and Leary 1988; Williams et al. 2001). Habitat may be rendered unsuitable through the loss of key habitat elements such as the modification or removal of the lower vegetation strata through inappropriate fire regimes or stock grazing. Over-grazing and trampling by kangaroos may also degrade habitats and increase accessibility to predators (E. Sautter DEH SA pers. Comm.. 2010). Wide-scale clearing of native vegetation is implicated in the decline or disappearance of a variety of taxa (Sivertsen 1995) — in the Bega district of south-eastern NSW the rapid decline of bandicoots (and other taxa) coincided with such clearing (Lunney and Leary 1988). Habitat complexity is important for most terrestrial , including the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Catling, 2002; Claridge, 2000; Kimber, 1997; Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006; Wilson, 1999; Wilson, 2004). Increased habitat complexity especially that of the understorey, is a crucial environmental characteristic for the bandicoot. Degradation of such habitat complexity can occur through several processes. Weed invasion can degrade Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat complexity. For example, in many areas of Victoria (Grampians National Park, Port Campbell NP, Greater Otway NP, Wilsons Promontory NP), Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat is subject to weed invasion including from Coast Wattle Acacia sophorae sp. complex and tea-tree Leptospermum spp. that has the potential to simplify heathland habitats over time (M. Antos pers. comm. 2009). However, in some areas, weed control may also adversely affect bandicoot populations, as the species appears to benefit from the shelter provided by some weedy species in these areas. In South Australia, the home ranges of Southern Brown Bandicoots varied with the removal of blackberry, and the removal of introduced heaths Erica spp. probably led to the localised decline in bandicoot numbers (Reese 2000). Phytophthora cinnamomi, a soil and water-borne watermould, can alter the structural and floristic composition of habitats. This fungus-like organism causes disease and death in a variety of native plants, and can affect the Southern Brown Bandicoot by destroying its shelter and food resources (Environment Australia 2001; Haby and Long 2005). Grazing and trampling by domestic stock can also degrade bandicoot habitat (Brown 1989; Haby and Long 2005).

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 10

Timber harvesting also has the potential to affect populations of the Southern Brown Bandicoot through the removal of both the overstorey and understorey. Richards et. al. (1990) considered that in the short-term the species was potentially at risk immediately following logging, primarily through the loss of ground cover and increased predation. Other observations indicate that the Southern Brown Bandicoot is capable of successfully recolonising previously logged forest, leading some authors to suggest a lack of deleterious impact (Fanning and Rice 1989; Recher et al. 1980). Monitoring of bandicoots in state forests in the Eden region of NSW detected them in recently harvested (1–5 yrs) and regrowth forests of various age classes (P. Kambouris FNSW pers. comm. 2010).

Fire The impact of fire on the Southern Brown Bandicoot can occur through both wildfires and prescribed burning. The south-eastern Australian mainland is very fire-prone and experiences regular wildfires or prescribed fires (Claridge and Barry 2000; Wilson 1996; Wilson and Friend 1999). Fire produces substantial effects on forest and heathland vegetation communities (Fox 1996; Gill et al. 1981) and, in turn, influences mammal community succession (Friend et al. 1999). The introduction and suppression of fire are both features of semi-urban landscapes. These landscapes are also often highly fragmented due to urbanization and agricultural development. The management of fire regimes therefore plays a critical role in maintaining the suitability of sufficient habitat to support populations. The impacts of fire on the Southern Brown Bandicoot are generally unknown, although the impacts of extensive wildfire on terrestrial mammals, including bandicoots, have been investigated in south-eastern NSW (Catling and Newsome 1981). Numbers of bandicoots increased in five years following wildfire, then decreased, a response pattern attributed to the change in dense vegetation cover preferred by the species. This general pattern has also been recorded for other Australian mammals in different ecosystems (Fox 1996). However it is unclear if time since fire per se, or some other variable such as vegetation density, is driving these population responses. Wildfire is known to have caused the local of at least one population of the Southern Brown Bandicoot — the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires decimated the Southern Brown Bandicoot population at Kyeema Conservation Park, South Australia (Armstrong et al. 2003). Some preliminary information in relation to effective fire frequency for ecological management is available. In south-eastern NSW, the time since fire was found to be a significant predictor of bandicoot diggings, an indicator of bandicoot occurrence — recently-burned habitats (0-20 years since fire) seemed to be less favoured by this species (Claridge and Barry 2000; Newsome and Catling 1979). Elsewhere, predictive modelling has been used, with the narrow objective of maximising bandicoot population viability of a single population. Possingham and Gepp (1996) modelled the prescribed burn interval of Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat for a population in south-eastern South Australia and arrived at a strategy, with caveats, to burn at 15-year intervals. Bandicoots in the (SA) have been recorded using sites regenerating 2-3 years post fire (K. Long pers. comm. 2009). While this does not necessarily reflect habitat preference, it highlights the need to clarify the seral stage preference of the species (if it has one) and determine if this varies across the species’ range. Recent surveys indicated the recovery of the Wandilo population (in the lower south-east of SA) following an extensive wildfire in 2000. The percentage of sites occupied remained the same post-fire as pre-fire (E. Sautter unpubl. data), demonstrating resilience to a potentially catastrophic event.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 11

The integration of fire management with fauna conservation is problematic, given the dearth of information available about the impacts on fauna of fire of varying intensity and frequency. However, although there appears to be a relatively consistent successional sequence following fire in some ecosystems, such as forest and mallee/heath (Friend et al. 1999). Overviews of the patterns of Australian wildlife responses to fire are provided by several authors (Commonwealth of Australia 1996; Friend et al. 1999; Wilson 1996; Wilson and Friend 1999). Prescribed burning is used to reduce fine fuel loads to reduce the risk of severe wildfire, and as a tool in ecosystem management (Fire Ecology Working Group 2004; Friend et al. 1999; NSW NPWS 2003a). However, there is some concern over the impacts of this practice on native mammals (e.g. Catling 1991). Others have advocated the use of such prescribed fires to ‘create’ suitable habitats for the Southern Brown Bandicoot, amongst other species, in particular ecosystems, notably forests and heathlands (e.g. Fanning and Rice 1989; Menkhorst and Seebeck 1995). Notionally, such ecological management should provide a mosaic of different-aged habitats, with the constant availability of suitable successional habitats favoured by bandicoots present in sufficient quantities to permit the long-term persistence of viable populations. However, monitoring at sites in northern Sydney subject to fuel reduction burns or wildfire showed declines or absences of bandicoots in the five years following fire at sites where they were regularly caught (M. Ewings pers. comm. 2009). This demonstrates the uncertainty about the value of early post-fire successional stages for the Southern Brown Bandicoot. High-frequency fire is listed as a threatening process under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, with the Southern Brown Bandicoot cited as a species for which “high frequency fire and inappropriate fire regimes have been identified as threats” (NSW NPWS 2004). In support of this listing, the NSW Scientific Committee acknowledged that the “long-term survival of plants and animals over repeated fires is dependent upon two key features: i) the ability of species to maintain life cycle processes, and ii) the maintenance of vegetation structure over time as habitat for species. Where fires occur very close together in time (high frequency fire) both these key features can be disrupted”.

Isolation of habitat patches The impacts of habitat fragmentation and isolation on fauna are diverse, causing loss of species, changes to the composition of faunal assemblages, and changes to ecological processes (e.g. Bennett 1999; Burgman and Lindenmayer 1998; Fahrig and Merriam 1994; Haila et al. 1993). Isolation has negative effects on the distribution and occurrence of many species, due primarily to animals being restricted or prevented from dispersing between isolates (Bennett 1999). The isolation of populations is usually a consequence of other threatening processes (e.g. habitat loss and modification, predation), but is treated separately here because many Southern Brown Bandicoot populations are already significantly isolated. Population modelling has indicated that the probability of extinction for a single population in continuous habitat is much less than for the multiple isolated populations of the same total size in a fragmented landscape (Reed 2004). In many areas the Southern Brown Bandicoot demonstrates this arrangement of multiple isolated populations in fragmented landscapes. In south-western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia, the species occurs as a series of local populations occurring in isolated patches of remnant native vegetation (Croft et al. 1999; Paull 1999; Rees and Paull 2000). These patches are separated from one another by extensive pine plantations and largely cleared agricultural land, through which animals cannot easily disperse. Fragmentation of bandicoot habitat (and

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 12

populations) is also a result of increasing urbanization, with examples in areas such as south-central Victoria and in the peri-urban Mt Lofty Ranges, SA (Ecology Australia 2009; Haby and Long 2005). Records of this species on private property in built-up areas of the Mt Lofty Ranges are not uncommon. The semi-urban environment of the Mornington Peninsula and the Koo Wee Rup swamp region in south-central Victoria provides further examples of fragmented bandicoot habitats (Coates et al. 2008; Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation 2008). A study in south-western Victoria found that fragmentation of forest habitat was one important reason for the decline and local extinctions of the local mammal fauna, with species including the Southern Brown Bandicoot absent from smaller patches (Bennett 1990). Similar regional declines have been documented in south-eastern NSW (Lunney and Leary 1988). Connectivity is likely to be an important factor in the species survival in fragmented and isolated habitats. Relatively small areas of habitat, such as linear strips along drains, roads and rail reserves, may be important in providing connectivity between larger habitat patches, and bandicoots use such habitat in the Western Port region of Victoria (Coates et al. 2008). Recent studies on the genetic diversity of the Southern Brown Bandicoot indicated low levels of mitochondrial DNA variability and divergence in Sydney, south-eastern NSW, East Gippsland and Mt Gambier (Zenger et al. 2005). The study also revealed a small effective population size of female bandicoots, most likely a consequence of large-scale population contraction and recent population bottlenecks in some areas.

Introduced predators The introduced predators Vulpes vulpes, wild and domestic Cat Felis catus and wild Dog Canis lupus familiaris have had a profound effect on the composition and abundance of the native fauna, especially terrestrial mammals (Commonwealth of Australia 2002; Olsen 1998; Wilson and Friend 1999). Introduced predators, especially the Red Fox, have been implicated as a primary cause in the total or regional extinction of an array of Australian mammal species, most of which are small to medium-sized and ground-dwelling (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989; Dickman et al. 1993; Morton 1990; Morton 1999; NSW NPWS 2001; Short and Turner 1994). Analysis of hair from predator scats has shown the Southern Brown Bandicoot to be a regular prey item of introduced predators, especially dogs and foxes, in many areas (e.g. Atkins 1999; Brown and Triggs 1990; Brunner et al. 1975; Coates 2008; Coates and Wright 2003; Kennedy 1995; Lunney et al. 2003; Paull 1999; Wallis et al. 1996; Wilson 2004). The significance of cat predation is not known. Cats are widespread throughout all Kangaroo Island habitats (P. Pisanu pers. comm. 2009), and predation by feral cats is considered a major threat to the bandicoots there (Paull 1993) and are likely to require significant management (Commonwealth of Australia 2002). Both circumstantial and empirical evidence indicates that the impact of fox predation on Southern Brown Bandicoots (various sub-species) is serious in many locations (e.g. Coates 2008; Coates and Wright 2003; Department of Sustainability and Environment 2003; Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008b; NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001). The Southern Brown Bandicoot is widespread (although not abundant) on Kangaroo Island, where the fox is absent (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001; Willoughby et al. 2001). Some fox control programs in southern Australia have had success in suppressing fox numbers (as measured by bait take and activity indices), and facilitating an increase in numbers of some terrestrial mammals including the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Catling and Reid 2003; Coates 2008; Dexter and Murray 2009;

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 13

Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation 2008; Morris et al. 1995; Murray et al. 2006; Rees 1997; Reese 2000; Robley and Wright 2003). There are some bandicoot populations, however, that have been able to persist in the presence of substantial fox populations. For example, Southern Brown Bandicoots still occur in areas of the Adelaide Hills and Fleurieu Peninsula (South Australia) where very little fox control has occurred (E. Sautter pers. comm. 2010). Such persistence, despite the lack of fox control, also occurs in the Koo Wee Rup Swamp region in Victoria (T. Coates pers. comm. 2009). While populations may be able to exist in areas lacking fox control, the relative impact of foxes on bandicoot survivorship is not known (R. Incoll pers. comm. 2009). It is likely that factors such as habitat density affect the vulnerability of bandicoots to predators (K. Long pers. comm. 2010) meaning that in some areas improving the quality and extent of dense habitats may provide an alternative means of reducing predation rates. Activities that reduce or modify habitat structure, such as frequent prescribed burning and weed management, may expose terrestrial species that rely on dense ground cover, such as bandicoots, to increased predation (Catling and Burt 1995; Claridge 1998; Claridge and Barry 2000; Richards et al. 1990). The impacts of predation on terrestrial mammals are also likely to be exacerbated in areas where natural habitat is fragmented. The proximity of cleared areas could lead to increased fox densities in remnant habitat, and greater levels of predation of dispersing individuals because of reduced cover (Claridge 1998; NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001). Fox control programs have also revealed that some native mammals such as possums Trichosurus spp. and Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus will modify their foraging behaviour in response to the risk of predation (Banks 2001; Gresser 1996). Thus, some prey species show the potential population-level effects of predators through reduced foraging and altered foraging patterns (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001). The Southern Brown Bandicoot has demonstrated such changes in foraging behaviour in response to fox predation (Coates 2008). Small terrestrial mammals, such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot, may often be restricted to sites that offer protection from predation through high levels of ground cover (Caughley 1994). Coates (2008) found that when fox control reduced predation pressure, bandicoots used new sites with sparser vegetation cover. The significant impact that the Red Fox and Cat have on native fauna is reflected in recent legislation and state-based strategies. National Threat Abatement Plans for the Red Fox and the feral Cat have been adopted (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008a; Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2008b). In NSW, predation by the European Red Fox and Predation by the Feral Cat are listed as a threatening processes under the TSC Act, and a Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the Red Fox has been prepared (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001; NSW NPWS 2003b). Predation of native wildlife by the Cat and Red Fox are also listed as Potentially Threatening Processes in Victoria under the FFG Act.

Populations Under Threat The scale and rapidity of declines of the Southern Brown Bandicoot over most of its range suggest that most, if not all, extant populations are under threat, especially those at the limits of its range, and in small isolated pockets of habitat in urban and semi-urban areas. Most populations are isolated and relatively small, and their status is of great concern. Most bandicoot populations in South Australia are considered under threat (Croft et al. 1999; Haby and Long 2005; Paull 1995; Paull 1999). Key management responsibility in South Australia is variously assumed by

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 14

DEH, SA Water and Forestry SA. Some populations also occur on private land and on land managed by local government. In NSW, where the Southern Brown Bandicoot is restricted to two major (and widely separated) localities, the population status is unknown. In the northern population, in the Ku-ring-gai Chase and Garigal National Parks, predation by dogs and foxes is known to be a major threat (Kennedy 1995), along with habitat fragmentation, road mortality, and inappropriate fire regimes (Department of Environment and Climate Change, 2006) The northern population is located in National Parks and therefore managed by DECCW; the southern populations are managed by DECCW and FNSW; the latter currently implements permanent predator control activities across the species known range in state forest and undertakes seasonal monitoring for the species (P. Kambouris FNSW pers. comm. 2010). In Victoria, the populations in the south-central region are particularly threatened. Populations around Melbourne and the Mornington Peninsula region are at risk through threatening processes that result in the loss or fragmentation of areas of suitable habitat (Coates et al. 2008). Land clearance increases the risk of decline of bandicoots in this region, as do road mortality, changes in fire regimes and isolation of populations. The Koo Wee Rup Swamp population is of particular concern due to the bandicoot’s occurrence in tiny patches of remnant habitat in a predominantly agricultural landscape (Ecology Australia 2009). Populations in decline occur at other locations in Victoria including Mt Richmond and Portland (A. Govanstone pers. comm. 2009; Coates et al. 2008). Most bandicoot populations occur on public land and thus are managed by DSE (for populations in state forest) or Parks Victoria (for populations in Parks and Reserves). Other populations are managed by the Royal Botanic Gardens (Cranbourne), Portland Aluminum, and local government (e.g. Bass Coast, East Gippsland, Glenelg, Southern Grampians and Surf Coast Shires).

Recovery Information

Existing Conservation Measures A number of initiatives are already in place to improve the conservation status of the Southern Brown Bandicoot and its habitat. These include:  Official listing as a threatened species under the EPBC Act and as threatened in each range state.  The development of recovery plans for some South Australian populations (Haby and Long 2005; Harley 2006), a state Recovery Plan and local management plan for populations in NSW (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006; Forests NSW 2007), and recovery plans in Victoria for local and regional populations (Ecology Australia 2009; Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation 2008).  Surveys and monitoring of some Victorian, South Australian and NSW populations (Visser 2004; Harley 2006; Dowle 2008; Nicholls 2008; Sanderson 2006; Le Duff and Stratman 2009; Jones et al. 2010; T. Coates pers. comm. 2009; P. Homan pers. comm. 2009; D. Nicholls pers. comm. 2009; P. Pisanu pers. comm. 2009; R. Willig pers. comm. 2009).  Current or recent research on bandicoots in relation to habitat use, the effects of prescribed burning or the control of environmental weeds or introduced predators, and improved survey techniques and monitoring approaches ((Alessio 2000, Alessio 2002; Carne et al. 1997; Jones et al. 2010; Kovac 2002a; Kovac

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 15

2002b; Le Duff and Stratman 2009; Long 2009; Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation 2008; Reese 2000; Reese 2001; Regal et al. 1996; Richardson 1999; Richardson 2003; Sanderson and Kraehenbuehl 2006; Scarman et al. 1998; Scroggie 2008; Visser 2004; Ferla 2007; T. Coates pers. comm. 2009; M. Ewings pers. comm. 2009; K. Long pers. comm. 2009; A. Robley pers. comm. 2009).  Site-specific management actions that include predator control (on public and private land), environmental weed control, implementation of protocols for reducing the spread of Phytophthora cinnamomi, and the development of fire management plans.  Official listing of introduced predators and the adoption of Threat Abatement Plans and Action Statements for introduced predators (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2007; Department of Sustainability and Environment 2003; Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004; NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001). There are on-going control activities for the management of introduced predators in numerous state forests, national parks and reserves that support Southern Brown Bandicoot populations (Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) 2006; Harley 2006; Ecology Australia 2009; Murray 2006; David Nicholls pers. comm. 2009; A. Robley pers. comm. 2009).  Landscape-scale projects to improve habitat connectivity in parts of the bandicoot’s range are either planned or recently-commenced (e.g. Habitat 141 in western Victoria, M. Antos pers. comm. 2009).  Increased community awareness of and engagement in bandicoot management in some locations (e.g. Portland, Western Port and Mornington Peninsula, RBG Cranbourne, Mt Lofty Ranges, lower south-east of SA, Kangaroo Island), especially through Threatened Species Networks, that include activities such as field days, distribution of Southern Brown Bandicoot information sheets, re- vegetation programs, and bandicoot monitoring activities by volunteers (e.g. Aldgate Valley Landcare Group S.A.) (K. Long pers. comm. 2009).

Recovery Objectives The overall objective of recovery is to minimise the probability of extinction of the Southern Brown Bandicoot in the wild and to increase the probability of populations becoming self-sustaining in the long term. Within the duration of this Recovery Plan, the specific objectives for the recovery of the Southern Brown Bandicoot are to: 1. Ensure that existing bandicoot populations and their habitat are protected and managed; 2. Identify threats and threat abatement management practices to assist the recovery of the Southern Brown Bandicoot; 3. Determine the distribution, abundance and population structure of the Southern Brown Bandicoot; 4. Identify the key attributes of existing or potential habitat that are important for the Southern Brown Bandicoot; 5. Evaluate population responses of the Southern Brown Bandicoot to recovery actions, and adapt actions as required;

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 16

6. Build a network of government and non-government organisations and individuals to facilitate recovery of the Southern Brown Bandicoot; 7. Manage and review Recovery Plan implementation; 8. Promote public awareness of and involvement in the Southern Brown Bandicoot recovery program. 9. Assess the requirement for captive populations.

Program Implementation and Evaluation This Recovery Plan guides recovery actions for the Southern Brown Bandicoot and will be implemented and managed by the relevant nature conservation agency in each State, supported by other agencies, educational institutions, regional natural resource management authorities and community groups, as appropriate. Technical, scientific, habitat management or education components of the Recovery Plan will be referred to specialist groups on research, in situ management, or community education, as required. Contact will be maintained between the State agencies on recovery issues concerning the Southern Brown Bandicoot. The Recovery Plan will run for five years from the date of its adoption under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and will be reviewed by state agencies towards the end of the 5-year period. A national Recovery Team will be established, comprising representatives of key governmental management agencies (as listed in ‘Affected Interests’) and conservation groups and research organisations.

Recovery Objectives and Actions – Detail

Objective 1 Ensure that existing bandicoot populations and their habitat are protected and managed. Recovery Criterion: Southern Brown Bandicoot populations and their habitat are protected and managed effectively, both on private and public land.

Action 1.1 Prepare management documents (e.g. local or State recovery plans, Action Statement) as required. Several actions will assist in the statutory protection of the Southern Brown Bandicoot: continue current management arrangements in NSW, as outlined in the NSW Recovery Plan; in Victoria, develop an Action Statement for the taxon and update or refine management actions under the DSE Actions for Biodiversity Conservation program; in South Australia, continue to develop and implement Regional Recovery Plans (Haby and Long 2005; Harley 2006). Funding for the development and implementation of each of these state recovery programs is likely to be required over the long-term (>5 years). Responsibility: DSE, DEHSA, DECCW, NRM Boards.

Action 1.2 Protect populations on public land through management appropriate to Southern Brown Bandicoot requirements.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 17

Most of the known distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot currently lies on public land (i.e. Parks and Reserves, State Forest). The effects of logging, roads, planned burning and pest plant management on the Southern Brown Bandicoot are not clearly understood, but may reduce populations, at least in the short-term. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain a mix of potential habitat in those areas on public land where activities such as logging and burning are planned, and until the specific habitat preferences of the Southern Brown Bandicoot are known. For instance, in Victoria this can be achieved through the negotiation of Public Authority Management Agreements under relevant state and federal legislation (e.g. FFG), and in Victoria and NSW through the negotiation of Special Protection Zones in State Forest. Public Authority Management Agreements are suitable mechanisms through which public authorities and larger commercial companies can use business planning to incorporate ecologically sustainable development goals and biodiversity conservation measures into their management processes (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2009). Such mechanisms are currently in place in some areas, including State Forests in the Eden region of NSW (Forests NSW 2007). Population-specific key management actions should be developed, for each major bandicoot population, as part of landscape-scale integrated public-land management. Management guidelines or protocols, based on research and monitoring results, should be developed, where appropriate, and regularly revised, to inform best- practice management and provide threat abatement information for land managers. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA.

Action 1.3 Protect bandicoot populations on private land. The provisions of the EPBC Act protect all populations of the Southern Brown Bandicoot, including those on private land. However, the protection of the bandicoot on private land will be enhanced through effective extension activities, and the adoption of schemes and legislation that protect habitat or control clearing of native vegetation on private property. Liaison with local government and other government agencies regarding the mechanisms for conserving the Southern Brown Bandicoot on private land should also be used to facilitate the protection of the taxon. Such mechanisms may include Municipal Planning Schemes and Strategic Development documents or processes. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, CMAs, CMBs, NRM Boards.

Action 1.4 Identify and support appropriate habitat management on private land. The provision of, and guidance with respect to, habitat management on private land is important, particularly where bandicoot populations occur in highly fragmented or modified landscapes. The quality of bandicoot habitat may need to be improved or the extent of available habitat increased. Assistance to private land-holders such as through natural resource management grants programs is important at the local scale for such conservation actions. Such grants can financially assist in rehabilitation and protection projects, such as revegetation, fencing, control of introduced predators and the control of environmental weeds. Support, in the form of evidenced-based guidelines and fact-sheets, that guides private land-holders on how to manage habitat on their property is valuable, and exemplified by the South Australian fact- sheet “Blackberry Control in Bandicoot Country” (Department for Environment and Heritage 2007). Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, CMAs, CMBs, NRM Boards.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 18

Action 1.5 Develop guidelines for habitat reinstatement or re-creation. Although the protection and management of existing habitat is currently a higher priority, there may be some cases where the reinstatement of habitat is needed. In areas where habitat is highly fragmented, it may be necessary to increase its extent through the promotion of natural regeneration or the undertaking revegetation. Revegetation is regularly undertaken by private land-holders and community groups but often falls short of creating habitat with a dense, complex structure which the Southern Brown Bandicoot requires, as only trees and large shrubs are typically planted (K. Long pers. comm. 2009). This is usually because the need for understorey vegetation is not highlighted or that many understorey plants are difficult to propagate and therefore not commercially available. Compounding this, weeds often out-compete understorey species, and large scale cost-effective solutions to this problem are currently not available. Guidelines for habitat reinstatement or re- creation that include manuals for species selection and plant sourcing are needed, as is research into effective methods of weed control while native understorey species are establishing. Responsibility: DSE, DEHSA, CMAs, CMBs, NRM Boards

Objective 2 Identify threats and threat abatement management practices to assist the recovery of the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Recovery Criterion: A reduction in mortality and an identifiable population increase in response to conservation management practices.

Action 2.1 Identify and address current and potential threats. Each key population of bandicoots is subject to a variety of threats, and the relative severity of each threat at each location is likely to be undetermined. The most common threats include habitat loss and fragmentation, inappropriate fire regimes, extensive bushfire in fragmented habitats, forest management activities (including timber extraction), road mortality, predation by introduced predators, attack by domestic animals and habitat degradation due to weed invasion, grazing by stock, overgrazing by native herbivores, plant dieback, and removal of understorey vegetation. The status of bandicoots on both public and private land should be determined (see Action 3.3 & 3.4), with a view to assessing the relative risk of each threat impacting on each population. There is an urgent need to identify the most important populations and their key threats in order to determine the full range of management options that should be applied. State-based reports (e.g. Harley 2006) that identify priority threats and major causes of mortality or population decline for each key bandicoot population should be developed and key management actions identified and implemented. Actions should be implemented in an adaptive management framework to ensure that the targeted threatening processes are being sufficiently controlled or alleviated. For some populations or localities, the development of local management plans will provide valuable supplements to state-based or national plans and protocols (Ecology Australia 2009; Haby and Long 2005). Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 19

Action 2.2 Ensure fire management activities accommodate the conservation requirements of the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Fire, whether wildfire or deliberately employed for management purposes, is one of the major causes of habitat disturbance within the distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Research is required to assess the impact of current planned burning regimes and wildfire on this species, across the various geographic locations and vegetation communities that define its range. This research should fit with existing operational procedures, where possible, and be designed to evaluate the response of bandicoots to successional stage following fire. This could be investigated retrospectively (using sites of varying age post-fire) or opportunistically, by monitoring sites known to be occupied by the species that are subject to fire, either by deliberate or natural means (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006). Such work, examining the effects of prescribed burning on resident bandicoot populations and their ability to recolonise sites, has commenced in areas of South Australia and Victoria (K. Long pers. comm. 2009, T. Coates pers. comm. 2009). Mitigating the threat of wild fire requires investigation. Reducing the risk of wildfire, and consequently the threat of local bandicoot extinctions, will be important for populations that are within fragmented habitats or are geographically isolated from other populations. Existing fire management measures, where they apply to bandicoot sites, should be reviewed by the local authority to ensure that they conform to the conservation requirements of the species; that is, to maintain or enhance floristic diversity and provide a suitably dense ground cover. Responsibility: DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA.

Action 2.3 Implement effective control for introduced predators and monitor bandicoot response to such controls. The Red Fox, Wild Dog (Dingo, feral dogs and hybrids) and Feral Cat are recognised predators of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001; NSW NPWS 2003b; Wildlife Australia 1996). To ensure the short-term persistence and enhancement of bandicoot populations already under pressure from predators, the implementation or continuation of predator control programs will be essential in many bandicoot localities (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006; Harley 2006) and have already been implemented in some bandicoot localities (e.g. Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002a; Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002b; NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001). Assessing the effectiveness of such control programs is a significant component of the Glenelg and Southern Ark projects, two major initiatives by the Victorian Government, whose aim is to facilitate the recovery of native animals through large-scale intensive fox control programs (Robley et al. 2009). Other large- scale programs are also in operation in other states, including the NSW Fox TAP project (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001). Predator control should be extended to cover additional bandicoot sites as the opportunity allows, though large- scale control programs may not be feasible for some locations (e.g. urban and peri- urban sites). In these areas alternative methods may need to be employed (e.g. feral proof fences). Responsibility: DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, CMAs, NRM Boards.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 20

Action 2.4 Evaluate the impacts of weed invasion and develop a protocol for managing weeds. One important (though problematic) issue for bandicoots, at least in the Mt Lofty Ranges, is habitat degradation due to weed invasion (K. Long pers. comm. 2009). Much of the occupied habitat in the Mt Lofty Ranges is degraded through the occurrence of environmental weeds, notably Blackberry, Broom and Gorse. While land-holders and land managers have a legal responsibility to control proclaimed weeds, these plants are known to provide habitat for bandicoots and there are anecdotal reports of bandicoot populations disappearing following broad-scale weed control (K. Long pers. comm. 2009). Staged, ‘minimal disturbance’ weed control is currently advocated in the region to ensure natural habitat gradually replaces the shelter resources provided by weed infestations. The effectiveness of this management approach requires evaluation, and the relative habitat values of blackberry-infested habitats compared to natural habitats in the Mt Lofty Ranges is currently being investigated (K. Long pers. comm. 2009). Environmental weeds in some areas of bandicoot habitat in Victoria are being monitored and controlled by PV with the objective of retaining diverse heathland habitat. Further work is required to ascertain whether some blackberry-infested habitats are facilitating the persistence of bandicoots in fragmented habitats and their dispersal through the landscape. Responsibility: DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, universities.

Action 2.5 Control (or reduce) threats from commercial forest management. A proportion of the suitable habitat for the Southern Brown Bandicoot in south- eastern Australia is subject to intensive (integrated) logging practices. There have been no long-term studies on the effects of logging practices on the species. Richards et. al. (1990) considered that in the short-term the species was potentially at risk immediately following logging through loss of ground cover and increased predation. Other observations indicate that the Southern Brown Bandicoot is capable of successfully recolonising logged forest, leading some authors to suggest a lack of deleterious impact (Fanning and Rice 1989; Recher et al. 1980). There is a need to identify the key threats associated with timber extraction, and the extent or longevity of their impacts. This should inform the integration of habitat retention prescriptions with timber management. Such a long-term project is currently underway in the Eden region of NSW, monitoring the effects of forest management practices on the Southern Brown Bandicoot at a landscape scale (Forests NSW 2007). Responsibility: DECCW, FNSW, DSE.

Action 2.6 Control or reduce road mortality of bandicoots. Bandicoots may be injured or killed by vehicular traffic where roads intersect with suitable habitat and home ranges; road deaths have been recorded in NSW, South Australian and Victorian populations (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006; Haby 2005) The impact of road mortality, at a bandicoot population level, is relatively unknown and its severity needs to be assessed, especially where management budgets may be limited and potentially more significant threats are operating. If road mortality is a consequential threat, then bandicoot ‘hot spots’ need to be identified and monitored. Available mitigation measures need to be reviewed and the most effective and feasible techniques identified. Implementation of mitigation methods needs to be conducted in consultation with local councils and road authorities. Sites should be monitored before and after implementation of mitigation

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 21

methods (e.g. signs, speed limit changes, tunnels) to evaluate the effectiveness of such measures. Responsibility: DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, VicRoads, RTA, DTEI.

Action 2.7 Improve the control of companion animals, particularly dogs and cats. Domestic animals in urban or peri-urban areas can pose a threat of increased predation and disturbance to the Southern Brown Bandicoot, when in close proximity to populations. Domestic dogs have been reported to attack bandicoots and to roam free within bandicoot habitat in NSW, including conservation reserves (Ecotone Ecological Consultants 2003; Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006). To minimise the threat posed by domestic animals, it is recommended that authorities in urban areas close to bandicoot populations improve the enforcement of regulations relating to responsible domestic/companion animal ownership and control. Specific management actions could include the registration of domestic cats and dogs, keeping cats and dogs indoors at night, restricting off-leash dog walking in areas of bandicoot habitat and restricting the movements of unaccompanied cats and dogs during the day. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, local councils.

Action 2.8 Understand and mitigate the impacts of Phytophthora cinnamomi on Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat. The plant pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi has the capacity to alter the structural and floristic composition of habitats, potentially causing the degradation of Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat through the destruction of shelter and food resources (Environment Australia 2001; Haby and Long 2005). The impact of P. cinnamomi on bandicoot habitat is relatively unknown and its severity needs to be assessed. Measures to prevent the spread of the water mould should be enforced in areas of known and suspected occurrence, including compulsory vehicle and equipment hygiene around key bandicoot populations and habitats. Responsibility: DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA.

Objective 3. Determine the distribution, abundance and population structure of the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Recovery Criterion: The distribution, abundance, genetic and conservation status of the Southern Brown Bandicoot are determined and the information used in management actions for conservation of the species.

Action 3.1 Further clarify the and genetic status of populations to enable an accurate conservation status assessment of the taxon. The taxonomic status of Isoodon needs clarification — morphological and genetic analyses of the taxon reveal different sub-structuring within the Isoodon genus (Close et al. 1990; Lyne and Mort 1981; Pope et al. 2001; Westerman and Krajewski 2000; Zenger et al. 2005). The conservation status of known sub-populations, and the taxon as a whole, cannot adequately be assessed until the true distribution and the demography of the taxon is determined (and the taxonomy resolved). Genetic studies are required to clarify the northernmost extent of the distribution of this subspecies, as well as the degree of genetic partitioning across its entire distribution.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 22

This has commenced with the recent development of a rapid and reliable genetic test to identify each of the three potentially sympatric species of bandicoots found in the Sydney region (Zenger et al. 2003; Zenger et al. 2005), and work on tissue samples collected from northern Sydney (M. Dowle, UWS pers. comm. 2010). It is not entirely clear if the Southern Brown Bandicoot, throughout its distribution, is a metapopulation or sub-populations separated by discrete geographical boundaries, with distinct genetic characteristics. There is significant genetic division amongst I. obesulus populations from the Sydney, East Gippsland and Mt. Gambier regions (Zenger et al. 2005). The existence of separate taxonomic groupings east and west of the Murray River is highly likely (Pope et al. 2001; Wildlife Australia 1996, M. Adams unpubl. data), with populations west of the Murray River representing a separate subspecies or perhaps a different species. Information on the genetic relationship between sub-populations is useful for tracing past dispersal routes and determining levels of sub-population isolation. The identification of genetically distinct populations will inform future translocation proposals and identify ‘key’ populations for prioritised protection. Genetic research is also an important component in the recovery objectives of the Southern Brown Bandicoot, for predictive and explanatory modelling and, consequently, informing the management of populations. Modelling of population viability for other bandicoot taxa has revealed the potential to identify critical factors in the decline of a population (e.g. Catling et al. 2002; Possingham and Gepp 1996; Todd et al. 2002). Current research into gene flow between populations of Southern Brown Bandicoot in fragmented habitats is being conducted by Adelaide University and the South Australian Museum, and will aid management via knowledge of bandicoot movements through agricultural and pine forest matrices (S. Cooper pers. comm. 2009). Responsibility: universities/research institutes.

Action 3.2 Refine or develop standardised survey and monitoring techniques. The relative ability of different methods to detect and monitor the Southern Brown Bandicoot is important in the interpretation of data collected for status assessments. There is a need for reliable, yet cost-effective methods of survey that allow for the detection of trends in status over time. A recent evaluation of different monitoring methods for the Southern Brown Bandicoot (automated cameras, hair-sampling device (“hair-tube”) and cage-traps) found, with respect to the relationship between survey effort and probability of detection, automated motion-sensing cameras to be the most efficient (Scroggie 2008). The effectiveness of two types of hair-tubes (‘Handiglaze’ and Faunatech) at detecting bandicoots was tested in both South Australia and Victoria, with the ‘Handiglaze’ hair-sampling device found to perform better (K. Long pers. comm. 2009, A. Murray pers. comm. 2009). The use and effectiveness of alternative survey techniques, such as buried baits (Nicholls and Coates 2008), should also be explored. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, universities/research institutes.

Action 3.3 Clarify the extent of the species current distribution. The geographic distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot is relatively well-known, but the recent rapid decline of the species means that an up-to-date assessment of the status of many populations is required. Hence, general surveys are required at key localities across the historic range of the species to establish its current distribution. Such surveys need to identify the area and extent of key populations,

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 23

and provide estimates of the number, size and structure of these populations. While it would be desirable to obtain data on population estimates, it may be particularly impracticable in areas where bandicoot densities are low. For areas where there is a shortage of records it may be more practical to focus on presence/absence data to assess the current distribution of the species. Nevertheless, database records should be updated and the current distribution of the species accurately mapped, and existing locality records validated and assigned a reliability rating. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, universities/research institutes.

Action 3.4 Implementation of monitoring to identify patterns of decline and identification of causal factors contributing to species decline. Surveys are required at key population sites across the range of the species to establish current patterns of decline. Such surveys would augment recent and on- going local surveys (e.g. Ku-ring-gai Chase and Garigal National Parks, Mt Lofty Ranges, Portland), although broad-scale landscape monitoring may be a better indicator of population influences than localised programs. Such a landscape approach is currently being used in the Eden region of NSW (Forests NSW 2007). Data from these surveys could be modelled to assess the relative contributions of various environmental factors to the observed patterns of decline. Such surveys could also provide the basis for establishing appropriate population monitoring programs. A standard set of environmental and site variables should be collected to create uniformity between state databases and facilitate the easy sharing of information. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, universities/research institutes.

Objective 4. Identify the key attributes of existing or potential habitat that are important for the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Recovery Criterion. Habitat characteristics that are essential to the survival of the Southern Brown Bandicoot are identified.

Action 4.1 Accurately survey known habitat and identify important microhabitat attributes, especially fire history. The Southern Brown Bandicoot currently occupies several different habitat types; within these habitats, some parts are used more frequently than others (Ferla 2007). The specific determinants of bandicoot occurrence in each of these habitats are not well understood, thus information is required on the key habitat and environmental characteristics of known sites, to evaluate the relative importance of preferred microhabitats for the completion of the bandicoot’s essential life-history stages. This action will measure and compare the habitat features of parts of bandicoot habitat at key locations. Patterns or differences found will be used to (i) identify preferred (high quality) microhabitat, (ii) determine the available potential (i.e. unoccupied) habitat with the intention of ear-marking for future translocation programs or linking to existing habitat through vegetation enhancement programs, (iii) provide a focus for vegetation enhancement and revegetation programs, and (iv) assess the effects of burning for generating suitable habitat for Southern Brown Bandicoots. This action should build on previous research of the habitat preferences of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (e.g. Claridge 1988; Claridge and Barry 2000; Haby and Long 2005; Kimber 1997; Paull 1993; Paull 2004; Sanderson and Kraehenbuehl

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 24

2006; Wilson 2004), and contribute to the mapping of habitat critical for bandicoot survival (see Action 2.2). Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, universities/research institutes.

Action 4.2 Identify and survey potential habitat, using ecological and bioclimatic information that may indicate habitat preference. Quantitative methods should be further developed to investigate the relationships between the occurrence and density of Southern Brown Bandicoots, and the structural and floristic characteristics of its current and historical habitat. This investigation should assist in identifying potential habitat (and target areas for survey). Such work was recently conducted at multiple scales, including continental, in relation to climate, geology and vegetation cover (Paull 2004). At the state and regional scales, in this case the south-east of South Australia (Paull 2004), the distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot is constrained by climate and also by soil and vegetation patterns. Predictive models for potential habitat may need to be developed and tested at regional and local scales in other parts of the species’ distribution. These models should build on existing habitat models (in tandem with analyses of the impact of management regimes). The ability of the Southern Brown Bandicoot to utilise a range of habitats from pristine to highly degraded can lead to problems with modelling habitat preferences at a local scale. Therefore, the predictive power of these quantitative methods needs to be evaluated by ground- truthing. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, universities/research institutes.

Objective 5 Evaluate population responses of the Southern Brown Bandicoot to recovery actions, and adapt actions as required. Recovery Criterion: Increased appreciation of the relative effectiveness of recovery actions with respect to bandicoot population viability.

Action 5.1 Assess the effectiveness of recovery actions by monitoring bandicoot populations at managed sites. The impacts of management actions on population trends of the Southern Brown Bandicoot can be evaluated via the collection of demographic information, including recruitment and mortality, timing of life-history stages and morphological data. Regular monitoring of representative Southern Brown Bandicoot populations will enable the effects of land management activities to be assessed, as well as providing information on the condition, breeding biology, diet, population densities and dispersal characteristics of the taxon. Recent monitoring programs could be extended or existing programs expanded to incorporate additional populations and research foci. Parks Victoria’s “Signs of Healthy Parks” program is an example of such monitoring, focusing on Southern Brown Bandicoots and other ground-dwelling mammals and their responses to various land management activities. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, universities/research institutes.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 25

Objective 6 Build a network of government and non-government organisations and individuals to facilitate recovery of the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Recovery Criterion: The formation of a National Southern Brown Bandicoot Recovery Team (SBBRT) that meets at least annually; regular coordinated communication with local and interstate government agencies and other organisations involved in the recovery; the promotion and support of scientific research into Southern Brown Bandicoot biology and recovery issues.

Action 6.1 Form a national Recovery Team which meets regularly. The distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot incorporates three Australian States and a relatively large number of disjunct populations across south-eastern Australia. Consequently, management of the species is primarily the responsibility of several state-based government agencies, and its status is of interest to a range of non-government conservation groups. The species has been the subject of various local recovery plans and strategies, and research programs. A national Recovery Team has an important role in overseeing and coordinating the implementation of all these recovery actions, evaluating their effectiveness, and planning and directing future actions. The Recovery Team should be comprised of representatives of key management, conservation and research groups. It should oversee the coordinated management of the species by developing and maintaining a network of relevant organisations and individuals. This network should be used to consolidate historical information, monitor current management and research activities, and inform the development and implementation of legislation and policies. A Recovery Team already exists for the Southern Brown Bandicoot in NSW, and this model could easily be adapted to accommodate issues and actions across its whole range. Many of the threatening processes and recovery actions that must be addressed by the Southern Brown Bandicoot Recovery Team are also relevant to the conservation of other terrestrial mammals, some of which already have Recovery Plans and Recovery Teams, developed or adopted under the EPBC Act (e.g. Long- footed Potoroo Potorous longipes, Eastern Barred Bandicoot gunnii). These Recovery Teams could inform the function and direction of the national Southern Brown Bandicoot Recovery Team. Responsibility: SBBRT, DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, CMAs, CMBs.

Action 6.2 Encourage and support research, disseminate results at scientific meetings and in journals, and assist in the preparation of funding applications for research and the formation of research partnerships. The SBBRT and State conservation management agencies have a responsibility to ensure that knowledge on the ecology, biology and management of the taxon is assembled in a scientifically credible and cost-effective manner, and that this knowledge is disseminated in appropriate forums, notably via extension and education activities and through the publication of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Such extension and education activities should include conference and workshop presentations within the appropriate stakeholder groups. The SBBRT and State management agencies should also assist in the preparation of funding applications for research and the formation of collaborative research partnerships. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, CMAs, CMBs and research scientists (e.g. Museums, universities).

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 26

Objective 7 Manage and review Recovery Plan implementation. Recovery Criterion: Southern Brown Bandicoot funding is included in annual funding applications; an external evaluator prepares a review and evaluation of the recovery program.

Action 7.1 Undertake a formal review and evaluation of the implementation of this Recovery Plan. This Recovery Plan will run for five years from the date of its adoption under the EPBC Act. The Southern Brown Bandicoot Recovery Team will conduct a regular review (every 1-2 years) to assess progress towards the implementation of the Recovery Plan and success in achieving the Plan's objectives. The review should ensure that successes and failures in implementation are identified, and that a process to overcome failures is developed. The SBBRT will engage an external evaluator to undertake a formal review and evaluation of the implementation of the Recovery Plan in the fifth year after its adoption. In addition, in the final year of the Plan, the team will commence planning for the next five year Recovery Plan. Responsibility: SBBRT, consultant.

Objective 8 Promote public awareness of and involvement in the Southern Brown Bandicoot recovery program. Recovery Criterion: Greater community awareness of the bandicoot and issues surrounding its management and survival.

Action 8.1 Heighten public awareness of the Southern Brown Bandicoot recovery program. There is a need for greater public awareness of the Southern Brown Bandicoot and its status to assist in the recovery of the taxon. Public awareness could be increased in a number of effective but relatively economical ways. These include the development of a Southern Brown Bandicoot home page on the World Wide Web, the erection of interpretive signs and high visibility warning signs at key bandicoot localities, and local media coverage of management and research activities. Increasing public awareness of bandicoots can be relatively effective where bandicoots inhabit urbanised environments (e.g. Mt Lofty Ranges, Portland). Local residents can be made aware of issues like weed control and responsible pet ownership. Land-holders close to known colonies could be encouraged to undertake predator control work as part of a coordinated community program and In locations where the delivery of effective predator control programs is feasible, and should receive support to do this work. Opportunities also exist to involve people outside the conservation agencies in field management of the species. This could be through the establishment of 'Friends' type groups or the enlistment of the support of existing voluntary community action groups — the localisation of major bandicoot populations makes it a suitable species for this. This type of community involvement has benefited the species in the Mt Lofty Ranges with habitat restoration and management programs run by several Landcare Groups (e.g. Aldgate Valley Landcare Group, S.A.).

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 27

Implementation of the Recovery Plan and the development of new extension and education material (e.g. website, signs, references) should be undertaken by staff of the relevant government agencies and members of the SBBRT. Southern Brown Bandicoot reference material should be collated and distributed to local libraries, schools and other information providers at key localities within the bandicoot’s distribution. Responsibility: CEFs, SBBRT, DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, CMAs, CMBs, shires, local councils and regional NRM groups.

Action 8.2 Undertake community extension by encouraging individuals to report sightings of Southern Brown Bandicoots. The establishment of a web-based sighting register, such as that already operating as part of the Mt Lofty Ranges Recovery Program, will increase the number of bandicoot records across its range. Such a register would include both road-kills and live observations. The NSW Recovery Plan (Department of Environment and Climate Change 2006) advocates the establishment of a mortality register to monitor road kills on public roads in the northern Sydney metropolitan area. Where possible, suitable road-killed specimens could be collected, and their morphological, biological and genetic information recorded. Responsibility: DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, CMAs and regional NRM groups.

Objective 9 Assess the requirement for captive populations. Recovery Criterion: The completion of a feasibility report that assesses the need for, as well as the function and management of, a captive breeding population.

Action 9.1 Assess the need for and feasibility of a captive breeding population. There are currently no plans to develop a captive breeding program as a source of animals for re-introduction to the wild, although such a program has potential in NSW if the sub-populations there decline further. There could, however, be other reasons for holding and breeding Southern Brown Bandicoots in captivity, such as promoting public education and providing research opportunities. If a captive breeding program was considered appropriate, the requirement for animal husbandry versus a captive population breeding without human intervention should be investigated — Southern Brown Bandicoots appear to breed readily in captivity without assisted reproductive husbandry (e.g. RBG Cranbourne, R. Willig pers. comm. 2009). The time-frame for implementing such a strategy and identifying potential source populations also needs to be examined. The relative genetic divisions between populations across the distribution of the species will need to be taken into account when considering a captive breeding program. Responsibility: SBBRT, consultant, zoos (e.g. Taronga Zoo, Zoos Victoria, Zoos South Australia).

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 28

Management Practices The bases for recovery of the Southern Brown Bandicoot are habitat conservation, restoration and management combined with an understanding of the ecological and biological requirements of the animal. The framework for the acquisition of information is based on using knowledge to better implement in situ management techniques that protect populations and promote breeding and recruitment. To achieve this, recovery actions are primarily structured to (i) acquire baseline data, (ii) assess habitat condition, including ecological and biological function, (iii) protect populations to maintain or improve population growth, and (iv) to engage the community in recovery actions. On-ground site management will aim to mitigate threatening processes and thereby minimise extinction risks. Major threats requiring management include habitat degradation and destruction, introduced predators extensive wildfire and inappropriate fire regimes. A range of strategies will be necessary to alleviate these threats and their relative effectiveness should be measured. Broad-scale protection measures applicable to all populations include legal protection of sites, habitat retention and liaison with land-managers, including private land-holders. In addition, searches of known and potential habitat should continue to better define the distributions and size of populations. The Recovery Plan advocates strategies to fill some of the major gaps in our knowledge, including an understanding of the causes of decline, factors potentially limiting recruitment and dispersal, essential habitat characteristics, and the genetic effects of isolation. Successful in situ population management will be founded on understanding the relationships between the Southern Brown Bandicoot and associated habitat, and its response to environmental processes. Demographic censusing will be necessary to gather life-history information and to monitor the success of particular management actions. Community participation in recovery actions will be sought, particularly in regard to the collection of data (e.g. ‘sightings’ register) and implementation of some on-ground works (e.g. re-vegetation).

Social and Economic Impacts The implementation of this Recovery Plan is unlikely to cause any significant adverse social and economic impacts. Most populations occur within parks and reserves where management for biodiversity conservation is already a high priority. For the populations occurring along roadsides, management will be negotiated with local government and relevant transport agencies, supported by the negotiation of legal instruments such as Public Authority Management Agreements for protection of key sites and populations. Key populations on private land will be protected through negotiation and voluntary agreements with landowners, supported where possible by the provision of incentives available through regional natural resource management authorities. The implementation of this Recovery Plan may potentially impact on how some reserves are managed in relation to public recreational activities. Restrictions on companion animals and leashing laws both in the reserves and the surrounding areas may influence the use of such areas by the community.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 29

Role and Interests of Indigenous People Indigenous communities on whose traditional lands the Southern Brown Bandicoot occurs will be advised, through the relevant regional Indigenous facilitator, of the development of this Recovery Plan and will be invited to be involved in the implementation of the plan.

Affected Interests

Agency/Organisation State Involvement

Department of Environment, National All stages of the Recovery Plan. Any action that Water, Heritage and the Arts will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on the species requires approval from the Environment Minister.

Department of Environment, NSW DECCW is the primary agency involved in Climate Change and Water threatened species management on public and private land.

Forests New South Wales NSW FNSW has responsibility for implementing appropriate management actions in State Forest tenure.

Department for Environment South DEH is the primary agency involved in and Heritage Australia threatened species management on public and private land.

Forestry SA South Forestry SA has responsibility for implementing Australia appropriate management actions in Native Forest Reserves. Forestry SA will be involved in the planning of monitoring and recovery actions.

Natural Resources South NRM boards are responsible for managing all Management Boards (NRM) Australia natural resources in SA.

Department of Sustainability Victoria DSE is the primary agency involved in and Environment threatened species management on public and private land.

Parks Victoria Victoria PV has responsibility for implementing appropriate management actions in the parks and reserves system. PV will be involved in the planning and delivery of monitoring and recovery actions.

Biodiversity Benefits The Recovery Plan includes a number of potential biodiversity benefits for other species and ecological communities in south-eastern Australia. Principally, this will be through the protection and management of habitat — there will be substantial local benefits for specific taxa and vegetation communities if native vegetation is re- instated or improved. The adoption of broad-scale management techniques and collection of environmental data will also benefit other native species occurring in

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 30

association with the Southern Brown Bandicoot, particularly those species with similar habitat requirements. These include small to medium-sized terrestrial mammal species, such as native (e.g. Swamp Rat Rattus lutreolus, R. fuscipes, Heath Mouse shortridgei, P. novaehollandiae), Long-nosed Potoroo Potorous tridactylus, Short-beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus, Long-nosed Bandicoot Perameles nasuta, Antechinuses Antechinus spp., Dunnarts Sminthopsis spp., Pygmy-possums Cercatetus spp, as well as a broad array of other non-mammalian vertebrates. An example of the latter is the Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu Wren Stipiturus malachurus intermedius, a species considered Endangered nationally (Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts 2009) and one which occupies swamp and dry heath habitats on the Fleurieu Peninsula where the Southern Brown Bandicoot occurs (R. Incoll pers. comm. 2004). The Recovery Plan will also provide an important public education role as threatened mammals have the potential to act as ‘flagship’ species for highlighting broader nature conservation issues in terrestrial habitats.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 31

Priority, Feasibility and Estimated Costs of Recovery Actions Priority categories follow are: 1 (Essential), 2 (Highly Desirable), 3 (Desirable).

Action Description Priority Feasibility Responsibility Cost estimate ($000s) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total

1 Ensure that existing bandicoot populations and their habitat are protected and managed 1.1 Prepare management documents 1 100% DSE, DEHSA, DECCW, NRM Boards 25 10 35 (Vic, SA) 1.2 Protect populations on public land 1 80% DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA 50 25 25 100 1.3 Protect populations on private land* 1 60% DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, CMAs, 50 25 25 100 CMBs, NRM Boards 1.4 Identify and support appropriate 1 60% DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, CMAs, 100 50 50 50 50 300 habitat management on private land CMBs, NRM Boards 1.5 Develop guidelines for habitat 1 100% DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, CMAs, 40 30 70 reinstatement or re-creation CMBs, NRM Boards 2 Identify threats and threat abatement management practices 2.1 Identify and address current and 1 90% DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA 50 50 potential threats 2.2 Ensure fire management activities 1 70% DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA 100 100 50 50 50 350 accommodate the conservation requirements of the Southern Brown Bandicoot^ 2.3 Implement predator control and 1 90% DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, 120 120 60 60 100 460 monitor bandicoot response^ CMAs, NRM Boards 2.4 Evaluate the impacts of weed 2 80% DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, 50 30 20 100 invasion and develop a weed universities management protocol^ 2.5 Control (or reduce) threats from 2 90% DECCW, FNSW, DSE 100 50 50 50 250 commercial forest management^ 2.6 Control or reduce road mortality 3 80% DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, 50 30 30 30 30 170 VicRoads, RTA, DTEI 2.7 Improve control of pets 3 80% DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, local councils 30 20 20 20 20 110 2.8 Understand and mitigate the 3 50% DECCW, FNSW, DSE, PV, DEHSA 50 40 90 impacts of Phytophthora cinnamomi

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 32

3 Determine distribution, abundance, population structure 3.1 Clarify genetic status 1 90% Universities/research institutes 35 20 55 3.2 Develop standardised survey and 2 90% DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, 100 80 180 monitoring techniques^ universities/research institutes 3.3 Clarify the extent of the species 1 90% DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, 80 40 120 current distribution^ universities/research institutes 3.4 Monitoring to identify patterns and 1 75% DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, 100 100 200 factors of decline^ universities/research institutes 4 Identify the key attributes of existing or potential habitat 4.1 Accurately survey known habitat 1 100% DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, 100 50 150 and identify important microhabitat universities/research institutes attributes^ 4.2 Identify potential habitat using 1 100% DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, 20 12 12 44 ecological and bioclimatic universities/research institutes information that may indicate habitat preference 5 Evaluate population responses of the Southern Brown Bandicoot to recovery actions 5.1 Assess the effectiveness of 1 80% DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, 150 150 300 recovery actions by monitoring universities/research institutes bandicoot populations at managed sites^ 6 Build a network of government and non-government organisations and individuals to facilitate recovery 6.1 Form a national Recovery Team 1 100% SBBRT, DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, 20 20 25 25 25 115 CMAs, CMBs 6.2 Encourage and support research, 2 70% DECCW, DSE, DEHSA, CMAs, 20 20 25 25 30 120 disseminate research findings and CMBs, scientists coordinate funding submissions 7 Manage and review Recovery Plan implementation 7.1 Formal review and evaluation of the 2 100% SBBRT, consultant 40 40 implementation of the Recovery Plan

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 33

8 Promote public awareness of and involvement in the Southern Brown Bandicoot recovery program 8.1 Heighten public awareness 3 80% CEFs, SBBRT, DECCW, DSE, PV, 30 30 30 30 30 150 DEHSA, CMAs, CMBs, shires, local councils and regional NRM groups 8.2 Community extension by 2 80% DECCW, DSE, PV, DEHSA, CMAs, 30 15 15 15 15 90 encouraging reporting of sightings regional NRM groups 9 Assess the requirement for captive populations 9.1 Assess the requirement for captive 2 100% SBBRT, consultant, zoos 25 25 50 populations TOTALS 1375 875 497 375 677 3799 ^ there are obvious efficiencies to be gained in relation to budget and logistics by combining these field-based research actions. * potential costs of land purchase, conservation covenants etc are unknown.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 34

Acknowledgements

This Recovery Plan benefited from the input of many individuals and agencies, particularly the following:

New South Wales DECCW: Andrew Claridge, James Dawson, Meagan Ewings, Ben Hope, Paul Mahon, Michael Saxon; Forests New South Wales: Neil Hampshire, Peter Kambouris, Jim Shields, Chris Slade; Australian Museum: Sandy Ingleby; Macquarie University: Peter Johnston, Kyall Zenger; University of New South Wales: Peter Banks, David Paull, Roy Wilson; University of Western Sydney: Rob Close, Matt Dowle, Brad Purcell.

South Australia DEH: David Armstrong, Mark Bachmann, Peter Copley, Daniel Harley, Ryan Incoll, Michelle Le Duff, Kirsten Long, Trish Mooney, Graeme Moss, Paula Peeters, Phil Pisanu, Erin Sautter, Jason van Weenen, Andrew West; South Australian Museum: Mark Adams, Steve Cooper, Cath Kemper; Flinders University: Ken Sanderson; Adelaide University: Susan Carthew.

Victoria DSE: Barbara Baxter, Andy Govanstone, Steve Henry, Merril Halley, Richard Hill, Jim McGuire, Peter Menkhorst, Adrian Moorrees, Andy Murray, Martin O’Brien, John Seebeck (dec.), Craig Whiteford, Rolf Willig, Mark Winfield; Arthur Rylah Institute (DSE): Nick Clemann, Carol Harris, Lindy Lumsden, Phoebe Macak, Ina Meybaum, Graeme Newell, Alan Robley, Michael Scroggie; Parks Victoria: Mark Antos, Scott Coutts, Susan Hansen, Phil Pegler, Nisha Powell; Museum Victoria: Wayne Longmore; Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne: Terry Coates, Cassie Wright; Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation: David Nicholls; RMIT University: Peter Homan; Deakin University: Rob Wallis, Haylee Weaver; Biosis Research: Sally Koehler. Zoos Victoria: Graeme Gillespie

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 35

References

Alessio J (2000) The habitat preference and diet of the southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus), within Scott Creek Conservation Park, South Australia. Honours Thesis, Flinders University. Alessio J (2002) Bandicoot studies at Scott Creek in 2000. South Australian Naturalist 76(1/2), 19. ANZECC (2001) 'Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity.' (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council: Canberra) Armstrong DM, Croft SJ, Foulkes JN (2003) 'A Biological Survey of the Southern Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia, 2000-2001.' Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia. Ashby E, Lunney D, Robertshaw J, Harden R (1990) Distribution and status of bandicoots in New South Wales. In 'Bandicoots and Bilbies'. (Eds JH Seebeck, PR Brown, RL Wallis and CM Kemper) pp. 43-50. (Surrey Beatty & Sons: Chipping Norton). Atkins K (1999) 'Review of the distribution and abundance of the Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus in northern Sydney.' Consultancy Report. Threatened Species Unit, NSW NPWS, Hurstville. Banks PB (2001) Predation sensitive grouping and habitat use by eastern grey kangaroos: a field experiment? Animal Behaviour 61, 1013-21. Bennett AF (1990) Land use, forest fragmentation and the mammalian fauna at Naringal, south-western Victoria. Australian Wildlife Research 17, 325-347. Bennett AF (1999) 'Linkages in the Landscape. The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation.' (IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK). Braithwaite RW (1995) Southern Brown Bandicoot. In 'Mammals of Australia'. (Ed. R Strahan) pp. 176-177. (Reed Books: Chatswood). Brown GW, Triggs BE (1990) Diets of wild canids and foxes in East Gippsland 1983-1987, using predator scat analysis. Australian Mammalogy 13, 209-214. Brown P (1989) 'Management Plan for the Conservation of the Eastern Barred Bandicoot, Perameles gunnii, in Victoria.' A report to the Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Victoria and the World Wildlife Fund Australia. Brunner H, Lloyd JW, Coman BJ (1975) Fox scat analysis in a forest park in south-eastern Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 2, 147-154. Burbidge AA, McKenzie NL (1989) Patterns in the modern decline of Western Australia's vertebrate fauna: causes and conservation implications. Biological Conservation 50, 143-198. Burgman MA, Lindenmayer DB (1998) 'Conservation Biology for the Australian Environment.' (Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd: Chipping Norton). Carne V, Davy C, Fisher C, Kraehenbuehl J (1997) Microchipping of Bandicoots (Isoodon obesulus) in Belair National Park. South Australian Naturalist 71 (3/4), 49-50. Catling PC (1991) Ecological effects of prescribed burning practices on the mammals of southeastern Australia. In 'Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna'. (Ed. D Lunney) pp. 353- 363. (Royal Zoological Society of NSW: Mosman). Catling PC, Burt RJ (1995) Studies of the ground-dwelling mammals of eucalypt forests in south-eastern New South Wales: the effect of habitat variables on distribution and abundance. Wildlife Research 22, 271-288. Catling PC, Burt RJ, Forrester RI (2002) Models of the distribution and abundance of ground- dwelling mammals in the eucalypt forests of north-eastern New South Wales in relation to environmental variables. Wildlife Research 29, 313-322.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 36

Catling PC, Newsome AE (1981) Responses of the Australian vertebrate fauna to fire: an evolutionary approach. In 'Fire and the Australian Biota'. (Eds AM Gill, RH Groves and IR Noble) pp. 273-310. (Australian Academy of Science: Canberra). Catling PC, Reid AM (2003) 'Predator and critical weight range species monitoring in the South-east Forests. Results of Spring 2002 and Autumn 2003 surveys.' Report for the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra. Caughley G (1994) Directions in conservation biology. Journal of Animal Ecology 63, 215- 244. Claridge AW (1988) The diet and ecology of the Southern Brown and Long-nosed Bandicoots in south-eastern New South Wales. MSc thesis, Australian National University. Claridge AW (1998) Use of tracks and trails by introduced predators: an important consideration in the study of native ground-dwelling mammals. The Victorian Naturalist 115, 79-83. Claridge AW, Barry SC (2000) Factors influencing the distribution of medium-sized ground- dwelling mammals in southeastern mainland Australia. Austral Ecology 25, 676-688. Claridge AW, McNee A, Tanton MT, Davey SM (1991) Ecology of bandicoots in undisturbed forest adjacent to recently felled logging coupes: a case study from the Eden Woodchip Agreement Area. In 'Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna'. (Ed. D Lunney) pp. 331-345. (Royal Zoological Society of NSW: Mosman). Close RL, Murray JD, Briscoe DA (1990) Electrophoretic and chromosome surveys of the taxa of short-nosed bandicoots within the genus Isoodon. In 'Bandicoots and Bilbies'. (Eds JH Seebeck, PR Brown, RL Wallis and CM Kemper) pp. 19-27. (Surrey Beatty & Sons: Sydney) Coates T, Nicholls D, Willig R (2008) The distribution of the Southern Brown bandicoot Isoodon obesulus in south central Victoria. The Victorian Naturalist 125, 128-139. Coates TD (2008) The effect of fox control on mammal populations in an outer urban conservation reserve. Australian Mammalogy 30, 51-63. Coates TD, Wright CJ (2003) Predation of Southern Brown Bandicoots Isoodon obesulus by the European Red Fox Vulpes vulpes in south-east Victoria. Australian Mammalogy 25, 107- 110. Commonwealth of Australia (1996) 'Fire and Biodiversity. The Effects and Effectiveness of Fire Management. Proceedings of the Conference held 8-9 October 1994, Footscray, Melbourne.' (Biodiversity Unit, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories: Canberra). Commonwealth of Australia (2002) 'Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment 2002.' (National Land and Water Resources Unit: Turner, ACT). Croft T, Carruthers S, Possingham H, Inns B (1999) 'Biodiversity Plan for the South East of South Australia.' Department for Environment Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs. Department for Environment and Heritage (2003) '2003 Review of the Status of Threatened Species in South Australia. Proposed Schedules under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Discussion Paper.' National Parks and Wildlife Council and the Department of Environment and Heritage, South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage (2004) 'Threatened Species - the Southern Brown Bandicoot.' (DEH: Adelaide, South Australia). http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened-species/bandicoot.html. 25 June 2004 Department for Environment and Heritage (2007) 'Blackberry Control in Bandicoot Country.' DEH, Adelaide. Department of Environment and Climate Change (2006) 'Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) Recovery Plan.' NSW DEC, Hurstville, NSW. Department of Environment and Climate Change (2007) 'Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW. Threatened species. Species, populations and ecological

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 37

communities of NSW.' (DECC: Sydney, NSW). http://threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/index.aspx. February 5, 2009 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997a) 'Victoria's Biodiversity - Sustaining Our Living Wealth.' (Department of Natural Resources and Environment: East Melbourne). Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997b) 'Victoria's Biodiversity: Directions in Management.' (Department of Natural Resources and Environment: East Melbourne). Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997c) 'Victoria's Biodiversity: Our Living Wealth.' (Department of Natural Resources and Environment: East Melbourne). Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002a) 'Victorian Pest Management. A Framework for Action. Fox Management Strategy.' Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002b) Victorian Pest Management. A Framework for Action. Wild Dog Management Strategy. (Department of Natural Resources and Environment). Department of Sustainability and Environment (2003) 'Action Statement No. 44. Predation of native wildlife by the introduced Red Fox Vulpes vulpes.' (DSE: East Melbourne, Victoria). http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/, Department of Sustainability and Environment (2004) 'Action Statement No. 80. Predation of native wildlife by the Cat Felis catus.' (DSE: East Melbourne, Victoria). http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/63A6422ACB02A4A4CA2570EC0082B8ED /$File/080+Predation+of+Native+Wildlife+by+the+Cat+Felis+catus+1997.pdf. 27 May, 2009 Department of Sustainability and Environment (2009) 'Victoria's Firewood Strategy for Public Land. Discussion Paper.' DSE, East Melbourne. Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts (2008a) 'Threat Abatement Plan for predation by feral cats.' DEWHA, Canberra, ACT. Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts (2008b) 'Threat Abatement Plan for predation by the European red fox.' DEWHA, Canberra, ACT. Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts (2009) 'Threatened species and ecological communities – species profiles and threats database (SPRAT).' (DEWHA: Canberra, ACT). http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1665. March, 12, 2009 Dexter N, Murray A (2009) The impact of fox control on the relative abundance of forest mammals in East Gippsland, Victoria. Wildlife Research 36, 252-261. Dickman CR, Pressey RL, Lim L, Parnaby HE (1993) Mammals of particular conservation concern in the Western Division of New South Wales. Biological Conservation 65, 219-248. Ecology Australia (2009) 'Southern Brown Bandicoot Strategic Management Plan for the former Koo Wee Rup Swamp area. Prepared for Cardinia Shire Council, Casey City Council and Melbourne Water.' Project: 08-26. Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Fairfield, Victoria. Ecotone Ecological Consultants (2003) 'Species Impact Statement "Bibbenluke" Proposed 8 Lot Rural Residential Subdivision Lot 447 in DP 489649 Bibbenluke Ave & Wyong Rd, Duffy's Forest.' Final report prepared for Simon Maxwell and Mal Corbett. Environment Australia (2001) 'Threat Abatement Plan for Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi'. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. Fahrig L, Merriam G (1994) Conservation of fragmented populations. Conservation Biology 8, 50-59. Fanning FD, Rice B (1989) 'Natural Resource Inventory of the Southern Portion of Rockton Section, Bondi State Forest.' Forest Resources Series No. 7. Forestry Commission of NSW.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 38

Ferla L (2007) Microhabitat use by the southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus) in Heathland and Woodland habitats within the Royal Botanic Gardens, Cranbourne, Victoria. B.Sc. (Hons) thesis, Monash University. Fire Ecology Working Group (2004) 'Guidelines and Procedures for Ecological Burning on Public Land in Victoria.' Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Forests NSW (2007) 'Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus - South Eastern NSW Species Management Plan.' Fox BJ (1996) Long-term studies of small-mammal communities from disturbed habitats in eastern Australia. In 'Long-term Studies of Vertebrate Communities'. (Eds ML Cody and JA Smallwood) pp. 467-501. (Academic Press: San Diego) Friend G, Leonard A, McLean A, Sieler I (Eds) (1999) Management of Fire for the Conservation of Biodiversity - Workshop Proceedings. (Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne). Gill AM, Groves RH, Noble IR (Eds) (1981) 'Fire and the Australian Biota.' (Australian Academy of Science: Canberra). Graetz RD, Wilson MA, Campbell SK (1995) 'Landcover disturbance over the Australian continent: a contemporary assessment.' Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 7. Department of the Environment, Sports and Territories, Canberra, ACT. Gresser SM (1996) Anti-predator behaviour of the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) at Burrendong Dam, New South Wales. B.Sc (Hons) thesis, University of Sydney. Haby N, Long K (2005) 'Recovery Plan for the Southern Brown Bandicoot in the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia, 2004 to 2009.' Department of Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, South Australia. Haila Y, Saunders DA, Hobbs RJ (1993) What do we presently understand about ecosystem fragmentation? In 'Nature Conservation 3: Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems - Global and Regional Perspectives'. (Eds DA Saunders, RJ Hobbs and PR Ehrlich) pp. 45-55. (Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd: Chipping Norton). Harley D (2006) 'Recovery of Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) populations in the South East of South Australia.' Department for Environment and Heritage, Conservation Programs – South East. Heinsohn GE (1966) Ecology and reproduction of the Tasmanian bandicoots (Perameles gunnii and Isoodon obesulus). University of California Publications in Zoology 80, 1-96. Jones S, Mooney P, Ross J, Pisnau P (2010) The distribution and ecology of threatened small mammals on Kangaroo Island. Department for Environment and Heritage, Kingscote, SA. Kemper CM (1990) Status of bandicoots in South Australia. In 'Bandicoots and Bilbies'. (Eds JH Seebeck, PR Brown, RL Wallis and CM Kemper) pp. 67-72. (Surrey Beatty & Sons: Chipping Norton). Kennedy MS (1995) A dietary analysis of introduced predators in remnant vegetation. BSc (Hons) thesis, Macquarie University. Kimber S (1997) Aspects of the ecology of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) and other small mammals in an urban heathland remnant at Frankston North, Victoria. BSc (Hons) thesis, Deakin University. Kovac M (2002a) Bandicoot studies in the Adelaide Hills: breeding, longevity and habitat. South Australian Naturalist 76(3/4), 28-29. Kovac M (2002b) The effect of food availability on litter size of the Southern Brown Bandicoot, Isoodon obesulus obesulu. Honours Thesis, Flinders University. LeDuff MK, Stratman BK (2009) An assessment of the conservation status of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) in the South East of South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, Mount Gambier, SA.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 39

Lobert B (1985) The ecology of the Southern Brown Bandicoot in south-eastern Australian heathland. M.Sc. thesis, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Lobert B (1990) Home range and activity period of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) in a Victorian heathland. In 'Bandicoots and Bilbies'. (Eds JH Seebeck, PR Brown, RL Wallis and CM Kemper) pp. 319-325. (Surrey Beatty & Sons: Sydney). Lobert B, Lee AK (1990) Reproduction and life history of Isoodon obesulus in Victorian heathland. In 'Bandicoots and Bilbies'. (Eds JH Seebeck, PR Brown, RL Wallis and CM Kemper) pp. 311-318. (Surrey Beatty & Sons: Sydney) Long K (2009) Burrowing bandicoots – an adaptation to life in a fire-prone environment? Australian Mammalogy 31(1), 57 - 59. Lunney D, Leary T (1988) The impact on native mammals of land-use changes and exotic species in the Bega district, New South Wales. Australian Journal of Ecology 13, 67-92. Lunney D, Matthews A, Triggs B (2003) Long-term changes in the mammal fauna of logged, coastal forests near Bega, New South Wales, detected by an analysis of dog and fox scats. Australian Mammalogy 23, 101-114. Lyne AG, Mort PA (1981) A comparison of skull morphology in the marsupial bandicoot genus Isoodon: its taxonomic implications and notes on a new species, Isoodon arnhemensis. Australian Mammalogy 4, 107-133. McIntyre S, Hobbs R (1999) A framework for conceptualizing human effects on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 13, 1282-1292. Menkhorst PW, Seebeck JH (1990) Distribution and conservation status of bandicoots in Victoria. In 'Bandicoots and Bilbies'. (Eds JH Seebeck, PR Brown, RL Wallis and CM Kemper) pp. 51-60. (Surrey Beatty & Sons: Sydney). Menkhorst PW, Seebeck JH (1995) Southern Brown Bandicoot. In 'Mammals of Victoria: Distribution, Ecology and Conservation'. (Ed. PW Menkhorst) pp. 70-72. (Oxford University Press: Oxford). Moloney DJ (1982) A comparison of the behaviour and ecology of the Tasmanian bandicoots, Perameles gunnii (Gray 1838) and Isoodon obesulus (Shaw and Nodder 1797). Honours thesis, University of Tasmania. Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation (2008) 'Recovery of the Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus obesulus in the Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve and surrounding districts. A report on the public meeting, 14 November 2006.' Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation Ltd, Hastings, Victoria. Morris KE, Orell P, Brazell R (1995) The effect of fox control on native mammals in the jarrah forest, Western Australia. In '10th Australian Vertebrate Pest Control Conference'. Hobart, Tasmania pp. 177-181. (Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries). Morton SR (1990) The impact of European settlement on the vertebrate animals of arid Australia: a conceptual model. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16, 201- 213. Morton SR (1999) Conservation and environmental management in Australia: three big problems and ten tantalising prospects. Australian Biologist 12, 109-117. Murray AJ, Poore RN, Dexter N (2006) 'Project Deliverance : the response of 'critical-weight- range' mammals to effective fox control in mesic forest habitats in far East Gippsland, Victoria'. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Newsome AE, Catling PC (1979) Habitat preferences of small mammals inhabiting heathlands of warm temperate coastal, montane and alpine regions of southeastern Australia. In 'Heathlands and Related Shrublands of the World'. (Ed. RL Specht) pp. 301-316. (Elsevier Publishing Company: Amsterdam).

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 40

Nicholls DG, Coates T (2008) 'Buried bait survey – an evaluation of a new technique to detect bandicoots.' Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Foundation, and Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne, Hastings and Cranbourne. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2001) 'Threat Abatement Plan – Predation by the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes).'. NSW NPWS, Hurstville. NSW NPWS (1999) 'NSW Biodiversity Strategy.' NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, NSW. NSW NPWS (2001) 'Southern Brown Bandicoot - 'A Recovery Package'.' CD Rom. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Threatened Species Unit, Southern Directorate, Queanbeyan, NSW. NSW NPWS (2003a) 'Fire Management Manual.' (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Conservation). http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/PDFs/fire_manual.pdf. Accessed: Jun 10th 2004 NSW NPWS (2003b) 'Pest Animal Management 2003.' (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service website, 11 September 2003). http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/PDFs/Summary_of_pest_animal_management_2003.pd f. 11 September 2003 NSW NPWS (2004) 'Southern brown bandicoot - endangered species listing.' (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service). http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Southern+brown+bandicoot+endange red+species+listing. 31 May 2004 Olsen P (1998) 'Australia's Pest Animals. New Solutions to Old Problems.' (Bureau of Resource Sciences and Kangaroo Press: Canberra). Opie AM (1980) Habitat selection and the diet of Isoodon obesulus. Australian Mammal Society Bulletin 6, 56. Paull D (1995) The distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus) in South Australia. Wildlife Research 22, 585-600. Paull D (2003) Habitat fragmentation and the Southern Brown Bandicoot at multiple scales. PhD thesis, Australian Defence Force Academy, University of New South Wales. Paull DJ (1993) The distribution, ecology and conservation of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus) in South Australia. Master of Arts thesis, University of Adelaide. Paull DJ (1999) 'A survey of the distribution and abundance of the Southern Brown Bandicoot in the south east of South Australia.' Working Paper 1999/1. School of Geography and Oceanography, University College, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra. Paull DJ (2004) Habitat fragmentation and the Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus at Multiple Spatial Scales. PhD Thesis thesis, University of New South Wales. Pope L, Storch D, Adams M, Moritz C, Gordon G (2001) A phylogeny for the genus Isoodon and a range extension for I. obesulus peninsulae based on mtDBA control region and morphology. Australian Journal of Zoology 49, 411-434. Possingham HP, Gepp B (1996) Assessment of fire regime options for the southern brown bandicoot Isoodon obesulus in South Australia using population viability analysis. In 'Fire and Biodiversity. The Effects and Effectiveness of Fire Management. Proceedings of the Conference held 8-9 October 1994, Footscray, Melbourne' pp. 149-153. (Department of Environment, Sport and Territories: Canberra). Quin DG (1985) Observations on the diet of the southern brown bandicoot, Isoodon obesulus (Marsupialia: Peramelidae), in southern Tasmania. Australian Mammalogy 11, 15-25. Recher HF, Rohan-Jones W, Smith PL (1980) 'Effects of the Eden woodchip industry on terrestrial vertebrates with recommendations for management.' Research Note No. 42. Forestry Commission of NSW, Sydney. Reed DH (2004) Extinction risk in fragmented habitats. Animal Conservation 7, 181-191.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 41

Rees M (1997) Habitat suitability mapping for the southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus) in south-western Victoria. BSc (Hons) thesis, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra. Rees M, Paull D (2000) Distribution of the southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) in the Portland region of south-western Victoria. Wildlife Research 27, 539-545. Reese N (2000) A study of Isoodon obesulus obesulus and the effects of pest species in Melville Gully, Belair National Park. Honours thesis, Flinders University. Reese N (2001) Reproduction, growth, activity and diet of southern brown bandicoots, Isoodon obesulus. South Australian Naturalist 75(3/4), 8-11. Regel R, Lehmeyer T, Heath D, Carr S, Sanderson K, Lane M (1996) Small Mammal Survey in Belair National Park. South Australian Naturalist 70(3/4), 25-30. Richards BN, Bridges RG, Curtin RA, Nix HA, Shepherd KR, Turner J (1990) Biological Conservation of the South-East Forests. In 'Report of the Joint Scientific Committee to the Hon. Alan Griffiths, M.P. (Minister for Resources Commonwealth of Australia) and the Hon. Ian Causley M.L.A. (Minister for Natural Resources State of New South Wales)'. (Australian Government Publishing Service: Canberra) Richardson D (1999) Habitat preference and geographic range of the southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus) in Belair National Park, South Australia. Honours Thesis, Flinders University. Richardson D (2003) Habitat preference of southern brown bandicoots in Belair National Park. South Australian Naturalist 77(1/2), 37-38. Robley A, Gormley A, Albert R, Bowd M, Smith A, Scroggie M (2009) Monitoring and Evaluation of Glenelg Ark – 2005 to 2008. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 183. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. Robley A, Wright J (2003) 'Adaptive Experimental Management of Foxes. Annual Report for Year 2 July 2002-June 2003.' Parks Victoria Technical Series No. 2. Parks Victoria, Melbourne. Sanderson KJ, Kraehenbuehl J (2006) Southern Brown Bandicoots Isoodon obesulus obesulus in Belair National Park. Australian Mammalogy 28, 147-152. Scarman L, Brown S, Farrugia F, Marker E, Lane M (1998) Target specificity of foxoff baits at Belair National Park. Australian Mammalogy 20, 431-432. Scroggie MP (2008) 'An evaluation of occupancy methods for monitoring of Southern Brown Bandicoots in Gippsland, Victoria. Unpublished report to the Department of Sustainability and Environment.' Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria. Short J, Turner B (1994) A test of the vegetation mosaic hypothesis: a hypothesis to explain the decline and extinction of Australian mammals. Conservation Biology 8, 439-449. Sivertsen DP (1995) Habitat loss - its nature and effects (including case studies from New South Wales). In 'Conserving Biodiversity: Threats and Solutions'. (Eds RA Bradstock, TD Auld, DA Keith, RT Kingsford, D Lunney and DP Sivertsen) pp. 29-42. (Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service: Chipping Norton). Stodart E (1977) Breeding and behaviour of Australian bandicoots. In 'The Biology of '. (Eds B Stonehouse and D Gilmore) pp. 179-191. (University Park Press: Baltimore). Stoddart DM, Braithwaite RW (1979) A strategy for utilization of regenerating heathland habitat by the brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus; Marsupialia, Peramelidae). Journal of Animal Ecology 48, 165-179. Thompson M, Medlin G, West N (1989) Short-term effects of fuel reduction burning on populations of small terrestrial mammals. Australian Journal of Wildlife Research 16, 117-130.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 42

Todd CR, Jenkins S, Bearlin AR (2002) Lessons about extinction and translocation: models for eastern barred bandicoots (Perameles gunnii) at Woodlands Historic Park, Victoria, Australia. Biological Conservation 106, 211-223. Van Dyck S, Strahan R Eds) (2008) 'The Mammals of Australia. Third edition.' (Reed New Holland: Sydney). Visser R (2004) 'The Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) in Sydney North Region. A review of potential habitat surveys and strategic trapping methods 2003-04.' Department of Environment and Conservation, Parks and Wildlife Division, Hurstville. Wallis RL, Brunner H, Seebeck JH (1996) Diet of Red Foxes and Cats: their impact on fauna living in parks near Melbourne. Victorian Naturalist 113, 300-305. Westerman M, Krajewski C (2000) Molecular relationships of the Australian bandicoot genera Isoodon and Perameles (Marsupialia: Peramelina). Australian Mammalogy 22, 1-8. Wildlife Australia (1996) 'The 1996 Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and Monotremes.' (Wildlife Australia, Endangered Species Program: Canberra). Williams J, Read C, Norton T, Dovers S, Burgman M, Proctor W, Anderson H (2001) 'Biodiversity, Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report).' CSIRO Publishing on behalf of Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Willoughby N, Oppermann A, Inns RW (2001) 'Biodiversity Plan for Kangaroo Island, South Australia.' Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia. Wilson BA (1996) Fire effects on vertebrate fauna and implications for management. In 'Fire and Biodiversity. The Effects and Effectiveness of Fire Management. Proceedings of the Conference held 8-9 October 1994, Footscray, Melbourne' pp. 131-147. (Department of Environment, Sport and Territories: Canberra). Wilson BA, Friend GR (1999) Responses of Australian mammals to disturbance: a review. Australian Mammalogy 21, 87-105. Wilson R (2004) Habitat use and demography of the endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) in northern Sydney. M.Sc. thesis, The University of New South Wales. Zenger KR, Eldridge MDB, Johnston PG (2003) A rapid PCR-RFLP diagnostic test for distinguishing sympatric bandicoot species (Marsupialia: Peramelidae) in southeastern Australia. Conservation Genetics 4, 655–657. Zenger KR, Eldridge MDB, Johnston PG (2005) Phylogenetics, population structure and genetic diversity of the endangered southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) in south- eastern Australia. Conservation Genetics 6, 193-204.

Southern Brown Bandicoot — National Recovery Plan 43