The Action Plan for Threatened Australian Macropods 2011-2021 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Written and edited by Michael Roache. The author is grateful to the following individuals for their help and contributions during the preparation of this action plan: Liana Joseph for her extensive consultation on the project regarding prioritisation of threatened species recovery, and her input to some sections of the text. Katherine Miller of KSR Consulting who contributed substantially to the section on current issues in macropod conservation. Simone Albert who assisted with the compilation of recovery outlines. Lis McLellan, Tony Trujillo and Mina Bassarova for extensive review and comments on the draft manuscript. Finally, many experts provided comments on the manuscript and on the recovery outlines: Andrew Burbidge, Paul de Tores (Department of Environment and Conservation, WA), Michael Driessen (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania), Tony Friend (Department of Environment and Conservation, WA), Matt Hayward (Australian Wildlife Conservancy), John Kanowski (Australian Wildlife Conservancy), Janelle Lowry (Department of Environment and Resource Management, QLD), Nicky Marlow, (Department of Environment and Conservation, WA), (Department of Environment and Resource Management, QLD), Manda Page (Australian Wildlife Conservancy), Barry Nolan (Department of Environment and Resource Management, QLD), David Pearson (Department of Environment and Conservation, WA), Jeff Short (Wildlife Research and Management Pty Ltd), Neil Thomas (Department of Environment and Conservation, WA), Threatened Species Section (Department of Environment and Resource Management, QLD), Adrian Wayne (Department of Environment and Conservation, WA). Distribution maps were prepared using Landsat 7 imagery (Geoscience Australia 2000).

Published in August 2011 by WWF-Australia - World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund)

Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner. No photographs from this publication may be reproduced on the internet without prior authorization from WWF. © text 2011 WWF All rights reserved

For further information on the WWF Threatened Macropod Program please see our website: http://www.wwf.org.au Or contact: Macropod Program WWF-Australia GPO Box 528 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia

Cover image: Brush-tailed rock wallaby (Petrogale penicillata). © Ben Bishop/WWF-Australia

Designed by Three Blocks Left

For information on all of WWF’s flagship species conservation work, including threatened macropods, see: http://www.panda.org/species Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Contents

1. Executive Summary 11 Introduction 11 Current Issues in Macropod Conservation 11 Status of Macropods 12 Action Plan Framework 12 Methods 12 Results 13 Conclusions 13 2. Introduction 14 Lack of Resources 16 The Need for More Explicit Recovery Planning 16 3. Current Issues in Threatened Macropod Conservation 18 State of Macropods 18 Socio-Economic Context 18 Human Impacts 18 Conservation Funding 18 How Does Environment Rate as a Priority for Australians? 19 Perceptions of Macropods 19 Regulatory Context 20 Landscape-Scale Issues for Macropods 20 Land Clearing, Fragmentation and Degradation 20 Feral Animals 20 Predator and Competitor Control Strategies 22 Changed fire regimes 23 Climate change 23 Protected Areas 24 Species-Level Issues For Macropods 26 Genetics 26 Translocations and Reintroductions 26 Captive Breeding 26 Monitoring 26 4. Action Plan Framework 28 Action Plan Scope 28 Action Plan Vision 30 Action Plan Goal 30 Action Plan Objectives 30

3 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

5. Methods 31 Step 1: Define The Goal 32 Step 2: List Biodiversity Assets 32 Step 3: List Management Projects 32 Step 4: Provide Rationale for the Proposed Activities 33 Step 5: Estimate Cost 33 6. Results 36 7. Discussion 43 8. Conclusion and Recommendations 46 Future Recommendations 47 Regular review 47 Confidence levels 47 More detailed expert input 47 9. References 48 10. Appendices 50 Appendix 1: Acronyms 50 Appendix 2: List of Macropods 52 Appendix 3: Conservation Actions 54 Appendix 4: Yearly Costs 56 Appendix 5: Recovery Outlines 57 Recovery Outline – Bettongia gaimardi 57 Recovery Outline – Bettongia lesueur 61 Recovery Outline – Bettongia penicillata 72 Recovery Outline – Bettongia tropica 83 Recovery Outline – Dendrolagus bennettianus 93 Recovery Outline – Lagorchestes hirsutus 97 Recovery Outline – Lagostrophus fasciatus 106 Recovery Outline – Macropus bernardus 115 Recovery Outline – Macropus parma 119 Recovery Outline – Onychogalea fraenata 123 Recovery Outline – Petrogale burbidgei 130 Recovery Outline – Petrogale coenensis 135 Recovery Outline – Petrogale concinna 139 Recovery Outline – Petrogale lateralis 144 Recovery Outline – Petrogale penicillata 154 Recovery Outline – Petrogale persephone 164 Recovery Outline – Petrogale sharmani 174 Recovery Outline – Petrogale xanthopus 178 Recovery Outline – Potorous gilbertii 187 Recovery Outline – Potorous longipes 193 Recovery Outline – Setonix brachyurus 202

4 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 list of tables

Table 1: List of changes in IUCN threat status for Australian macropods between 1996 and 2008. 15 Table 2: Australian macropods listed as threatened, near threatened or data deficient according 29 to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010). Table 3: Summary of the steps undertaken in collecting information for this action plan. 32 Table 4: Projects with dedicated recovery coordinator salary built in to project cost. 34 Table 5: List of threatened macropod recovery projects in order of their affordability. 37 Table 6: Average cost of down-listing by IUCN threat rating. 37 Table 7: Number of species projects that could be funded under nominal recovery budgets to 39 achieve down-listing on the IUCN Red List within 10 years if projects are prioritised based on cost. Table 8: Cost of all 21 macropod projects by category of management activity (Conservation 41 Measures Partnership 2011). For explanations of the categories, see Appendix 3. Table 9: Most costly category of management action by IUCN threat category, and the combined 41 costs of those actions. Table 10: Most costly category of management action for each species, showing percentage of total 42 project cost, and the relevant actions contributing to those costs. Table 11: List of recovery actions for Bettongia gaimardi, and the rationale for their contribution 59 to recovery, and effort required. Table 12: List of recovery actions for Bettongia gaimardi, and their costs. 60 Table 13: List of recovery actions for Bettongia lesueur, and the rationale for their contribution 64 to recovery, and effort required. Table 14: List of recovery actions for Bettongia lesueur, and their costs. 68 Table 15: List of recovery actions for Bettongia penicillata, and the rationale for their contribution 75 to recovery, and effort required. Table 16: List of recovery actions for Bettongia penicillata, and their costs. 79 Table 17: List of recovery actions for Bettongia tropica, and the rationale for their contribution 86 to recovery, and effort required. Table 18: List of recovery actions for Bettongia tropica, and their costs. 90 Table 19: List of recovery actions for Dendrolagus bennettianus, and the rationale for their 95 contribution to recovery, and effort required. Table 20: List of recovery actions for Dendrolagus bennettianus, and their costs. 96 Table 21: List of recovery actions for Lagorchestes hirsutus, and the rationale for their 100 contribution to recovery, and effort required. Table 22: List of recovery actions for Lagorchestes hirsutus, and their costs. 103 Table 23: List of recovery actions for Lagostrophus fasciatus, and the rationale for their 109 contribution to recovery, and effort required. Table 24: List of recovery actions Lagostrophus fasciatus, and their costs. 112

5 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 25: List of recovery actions for Macropus bernardus, and the rationale for their 117 contribution to recovery, and effort required. Table 26: List of recovery actions Macropus bernardus, and their costs. 118 Table 27: List of recovery actions for Macropus parma, and the rationale for their contribution 121 to recovery, and effort required. Table 28: List of recovery actions for Macropus parma, and their costs. 122 Table 29: List of recovery actions for Onychogalea fraenata, and the rationale for their 126 contribution to recovery, and effort required. Table 30: List of recovery actions for Onychogalea fraenata, and their costs. 128 Table 31: List of recovery actions for Petrogale burbidgei, and the rationale for their contribution 132 to recovery, and effort required. Table 32: List of recovery actions for Petrogale burbidgei, and their costs. 134 Table 33: List of recovery actions for Petrogale coenensis, and the rationale for their contribution 137 to recovery, and effort required. Table 34: List of recovery actions for Petrogale coenensis, and their costs. 138 Table 35: List of recovery actions Petrogale concinna, and the rationale for their contribution 141 to recovery, and effort required. Table 36: List of recovery actions for Petrogale concinna, and their costs. 143 Table 37: List of recovery actions Petrogale lateralis, and the rationale for their contribution 147 to recovery, and effort required. Table 38: List of recovery actions for Petrogale lateralis, and their costs. 151 Table 39: List of recovery actions for Petrogale penicillata, and the rationale for their contribution 158 to recovery, and effort required. Table 40: List of recovery actions for Petrogale penicillata, and their costs. 161 Table 41: List of recovery actions for Petrogale persephone, and the rationale for their 167 contribution to recovery, effort required, and probability of success Table 42: List of recovery actions for Petrogale persephone, and their costs. 171 Table 43: List of recovery actions for Petrogale sharmani, and the rationale for their contribution 176 to recovery, and effort required. Table 44: List of recovery actions for Petrogale sharmani, and their costs. 177 Table 45: List of recovery actions for Petrogale xanthopus, and the rationale for their contribution 181 to recovery, and effort required. Table 46: List of recovery actions for Petrogale xanthopus, and their costs. 184 Table 47: List of recovery actions for Potorous gilbertii, and the rationale for their contribution 189 to recovery, and effort required. Table 48: List of recovery actions for Potorous gilbertii, and their costs. 191 Table 49: List of recovery actions for Potorous longipes, and the rationale for their contribution 196 to recovery, and effort required. Table 50: List of recovery actions for Potorous longipes, and their costs. 199 Table 51: List of recovery actions for Setonix brachyurus, and the rationale for their contribution 205 to recovery, and effort required. Table 52: List of recovery actions for Setonix brachyurus, and their costs. 209

6 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 list of figures

Figure 1: Number of macropod recovery projects undertaken by spending budgets up to 39 $300 million over 10 years.

Figure 2: Ranked cost of macropod recovery projects. Colours indicate current threat status 40 (IUCN 2010).

Figure 3: Known distribution of Bettongia gaimardi from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 57

Figure 4: Known distribution of Bettongia lesueur from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 61

Figure 5: Known distribution of Bettongia penicillata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 72

Figure 6: Known distribution of Bettongia tropica from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 83

Figure 7: Known distribution of Dendrolagus bennettianus from the 2008 Global Mammal 93 Assessment.

Figure 8: Known distribution of Lagorchestes hirsutus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 93

Figure 9: Known distribution of Lagostrophus fasciatus from the 2008 Global Mammal 106 Assessment.

Figure 10: Known distribution of Macropus bernardus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 115

Figure 11: Known distribution of Macropus parma from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 119

Figure 12: Known distribution of Onychogalea fraenata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 123

Figure 13: Known distribution of Petrogale burbidgei from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 130

Figure 14: Known distribution of Petrogale coenensis from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 135

Figure 15: Known distribution of Petrogale concinna from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 139

Figure 16: Known distribution of Petrogale lateralis from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 145

Figure 17: Known distribution of Petrogale penicillata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 154

Figure 18: Known distribution of Petrogale persephone from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 164

Figure 19: Known distribution of Petrogale sharmani from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 174

Figure 20: Known distribution of Petrogale xanthopus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 178

Figure 21: Known distribution of Potorous gilbertii from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 187

Figure 22: Known distribution of Potorous longipes from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 193

Figure 23: Known distribution of Setonix brachyurus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment. 202

7 Vel illum dolore eu feugiat qui Dolore magna aliquam erat voluptat.Ut wisi enin ad minim. Quis nostrud ad nostris pro amat. Sed aliquo ut nisi alter ego qid propter anno et cetera. Ullam venit cum permissio, alter ego cum frater et patris et mater inter familias. Vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilitis ad vero eros et accususam et lustro odio dignissim qui blandit praeset lupatum auge duis aplore. Mimimum veniami ex ea con dolor nisi ut aliquip. Consequat Duis autem vel eum iruire dolor in endrerit, voluptate velit est. Sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummi.t, voluptate velit est. Sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummi. Dolore magna aliquam erat voluptat.Ut wisi enin ad minim. Quis nostrud ad nostris pro amat. Sed aliquo ut nisi alter ego qid propter anno et cetera. Ullam venit cum permissio, alter ego cum frater et Patris et mater inter familias. Bridled nailtail walla Australia’s b Threatened y (Onych o Macropods Mercay/ © Fredy fraenata). galea The macropods of Australia and New Guinea are among the most recognisable species in the world, yet despite their importance as economic and cultural icons, many kangaroo and wallaby species are threatened with extinction and are not sufficiently managed for recovery. This action plan represents a clear and quantifiable outline of all those recovery actions required to achieve down-listing in threat status of 21 species of Australian macropod on the IUCN Red List of Threatened ANT species by 2021. In order to achieve this plan, $290 million will be needed. Photo.co Rather than deciding how to spend a very limited budget on a large set of problems, this action plan calls for a radical increase in environmental m expenditure, based on a careful analysis of the most effective actions. .au In most cases, what needs to be done is clear; what is required is the commitment and resources to carry out the necessary work.

© Xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

b orthern N (Bett ettong ngia tr ngia o pica). o T Bruce © ANT son/ m ho Photo.co .au m Introduction The macropods1 of Australia and New Guinea are 1. Executive among the most recognisable species in the world and they have substantial cultural and economic significance. The kangaroo is an important symbol in Australia and for the peoples of New Guinea, Summary and contributes to national and cultural identities. Their appeal to domestic and international tourists contributes towards the generation of considerable revenue through nature-based tourism. Yet despite their importance as economic and cultural icons, many kangaroo and wallaby species are threatened with extinction and are not sufficiently managed for recovery. It is clear that globally, the financial and human resources available for conservation are inadequate for the task of protecting all species. Currently, only a small fraction of the species that are officially recognised as threatened with extinction are managed for recovery, both worldwide and in Australia. Furthermore, investment in species recovery, without reference to long-term recovery objectives that are quantifiable and time-bound, and directly linked to down-listing in threat status, will likely fail. This action plan represents a clear and quantifiable outline of all those recovery actions required to achieve down-listing in threat status of 21 species of macropod on the IUCN Red List of Threatened species by 2021. In order to achieve this plan, $290 million will be needed, perhaps one order of magnitude more than currently invested in threatened macropod recovery in Australia. This will require a significantly higher level of political commitment than at present. This plan represents a bare minimum for short-term security of each species of Australian macropod listed as threatened or near threatened. If actions to secure species in the next few years are not funded now, it may subsequently become more difficult if not impossible to secure these species over the long term. For greatest efficiency in the allocation of resources to species conservation, those responsible for recovery need to make explicit decisions about their objectives. Recovery decisions are often made not with a strategy for achieving long-term objectives, but rather for satisfying short-term needs or solving immediate problems. Moreover, the allocation of ultimately limited resources should also be undertaken in a considered and objective way across all species, not piecemeal across various levels of management as is the case for most recovery processes. Current Issues in Macropod Conservation This action plan highlights the extraordinarily high proportion of Australian macropods that are threatened with extinction. The main causes of extinction and decline in macropods have been identified and include the introduction to Australia of predators such as the red fox and feral cat and of herbivores such as the rabbit, sheep and cattle, habitat destruction through land clearing, and changed fire regimes. Social and economic factors also present significant barriers to threatened species recovery in Australia.

1 The term ‘macropod’ is used in this document to refer to all members of the super-family Macropodoidea – comprising the three families Potoroidae (potoroos and bettongs), Hypsiprymnodontidae (the musky rat-kangaroo) and Macropodidae (wallabies, kangaroos and tree-kangaroos).

11 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Status of Macropods Seven species of Australian macropods have become extinct since European settlement (Burbidge et al. 2009). Of the 50 species remaining, this action plan lists two species as critically endangered (CR), five as endangered (EN), two as vulnerable (VU), one as data deficient (DD), and eleven as near threatened (NT), as per the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2010). The remaining 29 Australian macropod species are listed as least concern (LC), and have not been considered in this document. The proportion of macropod species listed as threatened (CR + EN + VU) out of the total number of extant Australian species (50) is 18%. When near threatened and data deficient species (NT + DD) are included, this proportion rises to 42%. There have been two significant improvements in the status of macropod species since the last action plan for marsupials and monotremes was completed in 1996. Unfortunately, there have been two significant declines in status since 1996. For example, the woylie, which was hailed as a conservation success in 1996 having been down-listed from endangered to low risk/conservation dependent, has since suffered severe population declines for reasons that are still poorly known and is now listed as critically endangered. Seven of the species listed as threatened in 1996 have experienced no improvement in status, while another species considered low risk/near threatened in 1996 is now listed as data deficient due to poor knowledge. Fortunately, no species of macropod has become extinct since the last assessment. Despite significant improvements in knowledge of ecology and conservation requirements, and substantial investments in recovery planning and implementation, very little progress has been made in down-listing threatened Australian macropods over the last 15 years. This action plan argues that this is likely due to inadequate recovery funding and poorly framed recovery objectives. Action Plan Framework The long-term vision of this action plan is that all species of macropods extant in 2011 are thriving in the wild by 2061. The goal for the next 10 years is that each Australian macropod listed as threatened or near threatened on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species will be eligible for down-listing: moving from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat according to IUCN criteria (IUCN 2001). Specific and measureable objectives to achieve this goal within the specified time frame for each species were developed, directly addressing these criteria. Importantly, given the fate of the woylie over the last 20 years, it will be critical to ensure that recovery efforts are not limited to down-listing, but continue long into the future to ensure ultimate delisting and maintenance of species status as Least Concern. Methods The method of defining species recovery projects in this action plan relies on the articulation of long-term recovery objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound. It then relies on expert opinion to define the full set of recovery actions required to achieve those objectives with a high degree of confidence. The rationale for this approach operates on the assumption that all of these actions will be essential to achieving the goal of down-listing within 10 years, and that to undertake only a portion of those actions is to invite failure in achieving the goal. Where funds and capacity are limited, prioritisation may need to be undertaken in order to optimise resource allocation among projects, where costs, benefits, and the likelihood of management success are considered simultaneously. The project prioritisation protocol (PPP; Joseph et al. 2009) and INFFER (Pannell et al. 2009) are examples of such prioritisation methods. Prioritisation has not been undertaken as part of this action plan, due to the relatively small number of species under consideration, and the high degree of similarity in their conservation requirements.

12 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

The results of this action plan include an explicit and detailed list of the minimum set of management actions required to meet the project goal for each threatened species in question. Through this process, we obtain two valuable statements which can guide macropod conservation in Australia: The first statement is an estimate of the cost of recovering all of the threatened macropods in Australia to a specific conservation goal. This statement is a powerful tool for justifying the funding that is essential to meet this goal. The second statement is a list of the set of management actions, including their location, frequency, duration, and effort, that will deliver the recovery goal. Results The results of the analysis include a set of 21 fully-costed recovery projects with specific and measurable objectives that will, if undertaken in full, achieve eligibility for down-listing on the IUCN Red List within 10 years. It is estimated that the complete implementation of this action plan will cost approximately $290 million. With a nominal 10-year budget of $10 million, three projects could be funded in their entirety. With a budget of $50 million, an additional six species could be down-listed within the same time frame. When the total cost of the action plan is categorised according to management actions, we see that the greatest cost is for control of invasive or problematic species such as foxes and cats, accounting for more than a third of the total of budget. Conclusions The general failure of species recovery processes to achieve down-listing in threat status for macropods over the last 15 years highlights the importance of immediate and comprehensive action to secure all species and their habitat. While this action plan focuses only on macropods, the plan itself is a strong recommendation that conservation expenditure requirements be made explicit for all threatened species. Rather than deciding how to spend a very limited budget on a large set of problems, this action plan calls for a radical increase in environmental expenditure, based on a careful analysis of the most effective actions. While the action plan demonstrates that the price of down-listing all macropod species significantly exceeds the funding available, it also provides guidelines on the best that can be done even with those limited funds. This can guide swift and constructive action while more funds are being sought. This action plan differs from the common approach to species recovery planning in that it incorporates explicit and measurable objectives to achieve a common goal, as well as detailed actions to achieve those objectives, including the location, frequency, duration, effort, and cost of each action. This action plan, through the recovery outlines, shows what needs to be done to down-list Australia’s threatened and near threatened macropods on the IUCN Red List over the next 10 years. In most cases, what needs to be done is clear; what is required is the commitment and resources to carry out the necessary work.

13 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

The macropods2 of Australia and New Guinea are among the most recognisable species in the world 2. Introduction and the have substantial cultural and economic significance. The kangaroo is an important symbol in Australia and for the peoples of New Guinea, and contributes to national and cultural identity. Their appeal to domestic and international tourists contributes towards the generation of considerable revenue through nature- based tourism. Yet despite their importance as economic and cultural icons, many kangaroo and wallaby species are threatened with extinction and are not sufficiently managed for recovery. In the recent past, macropods have fared poorly from increased anthropogenic pressures. Seven of 57 species of macropod in Australia have been lost to extinction since European settlement (Burbidge et al. 2009). Furthermore, many species have suffered from significant population and range declines. Currently, more than half of all macropod species are listed as threatened or near threatened (39 of 72 recognised species) including 21 species from Australia and 18 species from New Guinea (IUCN 2010). In 1992, IUCN and other non-government organisations, including WWF, commissioned an action plan that outlined management actions necessary to recover the Australasian marsupials and monotremes (Kennedy 1992). In 1996, another action plan was published for the marsupials and monotremes of Australia (Maxwell et al., 1996). Recommendations from both documents included actions such as fire management, fox control, translocation, monitoring and research into distribution and threatening processes. Despite significant work towards implementing those management actions across a range of threatened macropod species, we have seen almost no reversal of population declines. Since 1996, only one species of macropod has obtained an improved threat status based on genuine changes in populations: the boodie, or burrowing bettong (Bettongia lesueur, Table 1). There have been two declines in threat status: the woylie or brush-tailed bettong, and the banded hare wallaby. While the woylie had been down-listed from Endangered to Conservation Dependent due to a significant improvement in status between 1990 and 1996, a subsequent and severe decline in their numbers resulted in listing as Critically Endangered in 2008. Furthermore, there has be no improvement in threat status for seven of Australia’s most threatened macropods since 1996 (Table 1), although Gilbert’s potoroo may be down-listed to Endangered when next assessed. m rdea.co A phus fasciatus). fasciatus). phus o str o ag ( L y b © Jean-Paul Ferrero/ Banded hare-walla Banded

2 The term ‘macropod’ is used in this document to refer to all members of the super-family Macropodoidea – comprising the three families Potoroidae (potoroos and bettongs), Hypsiprymnodontidae (the musky rat-kangaroo) and Macropodidae (wallabies, kangaroos and tree-kangaroos).

14 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 1: List of changes in IUCN threat status for Australian macropods between 1996 and 2008.

Species IUCN Threat Status - 19963 IUCN Threat Status - 2008 Improvement in Status Bettongia lesueur (Boodie) Vulnerable Near Threatened Macropus eugenii (Tammar wallaby) Low Risk/Near Threatened Least Concern

Decline in Status Bettongia penicillata (Woylie) Conservation Dependent Critically Endangered Lagostrophus fasciatus (Banded hare wallaby) Vulnerable Endangered

No Improvement in Threatened Status Bettongia tropica (Northern bettong) Endangered Endangered Lagorchestes hirsutus (Mala) Vulnerable Vulnerable Onychogalea fraenata (Bridled nailtail wallaby) Endangered Endangered Petrogale persephone (Proserpine rock wallaby) Endangered Endangered Potorous gilbertii (Gilbert’s potoroo) Critically Endangered Critically Endangered*

Potorous longipes (Long-footed potoroo) Endangered Endangered Setonix brachyurus (Quokka) Vulnerable Vulnerable

Change in Status – Criteria Change Dendrolagus lumholtzi (Lumholtz’s tree kangaroo) Lower Risk/Near Threatened Least Concern Lagorchestes conspicillatus (Spectacled hare wallaby) Lower Risk/Near Threatened Least Concern Macropus fuliginosus (Western grey kangaroo) Lower Risk/Near Threatened Least Concern Macropus irma (Western brush wallaby) Low Risk/Near Threatened Least Concern Petrogale lateralis (Black-footed rock wallaby) Vulnerable Near Threatened Petrogale penicillata (Brush-tailed rock wallaby) Vulnerable Near Threatened

Change in Status – Lack of Knowledge

Petrogale concinna (Nabarlek) Low Risk/Near Threatened Data Deficient

*Gilbert’s potoroo no longer meets the criterion by which it was listed as Critically Endangered, having been established at two sites in addition to the single site where it occurred in 1996. However the species must still be classified as Critically Endangered until it has not met any criteria in that threat status for a period of at least five years. During the next assessment of its status, it may be down-listed to Endangered (T. Friend, pers. comm. 2010).

3 Status from ‘The 1996 Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and Monotremes’ (Maxwell et al. 1996).

15 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Several other macropod species have changed in threat status between 1996 and 2008 (Table 1). This is partly because of slight changes to the criteria for the near threatened category of threat (IUCN, 2010) and partly because some species’ threat status has changed, e.g. Bettongia lesueur (Boodie) now has several subpopulations within fenced sanctuaries on the Australian mainland and Macropus eugenii (Tammar wallaby) has recovered in southwest Australia due to fox control, while Bettongia penicillata has declined, possibly because of increased predation by feral cats and foxes. There is so little useful information for the Nabarlek (Petrogale concinna) that it is now listed as data deficient (Table 1). The remaining 31 species of Australian macropods have not changed in threat status since 1996, remaining either as near threatened or least concern. Thus conservation management of threatened macropods in Australia has not been sufficient to recover those species most at threat, and in two cases, threat status has worsened. Such failure to obtain significant conservation outcomes for threatened macropods has likely resulted from a combination of insufficient funding and poor allocation of that limited conservation budget, in addition to the large suite of threats these species face (see Section 3 – Current Issues in Conservation of Threatened Macropods). Lack of Resources It is clear that globally, the financial and human resources available for conservation are inadequate for the task of protecting all species (James et al. 2001; Balmford et al. 2003). Currently, only a small fraction of the species that are officially recognised as threatened with extinction are managed for recovery, both worldwide and in Australia. In the years 1989 to 1991, 54% of United States funding for threatened species was devoted to conservation of just 1.8% of all threatened species in that country (Metrick & Weitzman 1996). Similarly, in 2006, only 22% of New Zealand’s threatened species were actively managed, and many of these were inadequately managed to ensure persistence (Joseph et al. 2008). There is limited documentation about the allocation of resources to threatened species management in Australia. A review of funding for conservation of threatened birds in Australia over the period 1993-2000 (Garnett et al. 2003) showed that most of the funds dedicated to the recovery of those species were spent on the taxa closest to extinction. Without an analysis of costs involved, or the nature of recovery actions required, such an approach could result in expenditure that is not strategic, such as all available funds being spent on species that have little chance of recovery, or on species that are far more costly to recover than less-threatened species. Furthermore, substantial funds were allocated to Australian populations of taxa that are not threatened globally. Importantly, the status of most taxa did not change during that study period, but those that did improve had generally received more funds than those taxa that declined (Garnett et al. 2003).

The Need for More Explicit Recovery Planning The lack of specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) objectives in many recovery plans for threatened species is a significant barrier to being able to assess the success or otherwise of those recovery programs. Furthermore, the recommended actions outlined in published action plans and recovery plans are also often broad and non-specific. A general criticism of traditional recovery planning processes (such as those used in Australia and New Zealand) is that the plans take too long to prepare and are expensive to produce. Since their inception over a decade ago in Australia, approximately 500 recovery plans have been published, leaving approximately 1100 threatened species without recovery plans (Watson et al. 2010).

16 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Plan development has been estimated to cost an average of about $20,000 each (Watson et al. 2010). In addition, recovery plans are not designed to meet a specific, common goal (Watson et al. 2010). Consequently, they do not provide a means to compare recovery projects for different species or to select the best set of actions on which to spend the nations’ budget for threatened species. Despite these criticisms, recovery plans have been useful instruments to collate information on species, and bring together people with unpublished knowledge to provide expert opinion on what conservation measures are required. As part of the this species action plan, management projects have been designed to meet the same specific goal for each threatened species and this enables the systematic comparison of recovery projects for species. By calculating the estimated cost of achieving this common goal for all of the threatened species under consideration, the resulting list of management projects is a useful means of stating which projects cannot be funded given financial constraints. The consequences of funding decisions can be clearly demonstrated; for example, what the current resources buy, and how many species can be managed if funding is increased or withdrawn. Undertaking this process for Australian macropods has generated an estimate of the full price of managing these species over the next 10 years. This estimate is potentially a powerful campaigning tool for acquiring the funding that is essential for this conservation goal. Boodie, Burrowing b Burrowing Boodie, ettong (Bett ettong o ngia lesueur) . © Klein & H . © Klein u b ert/ WW F

17 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

State of Macropods Seven species of Australian macropods have become 3. Current extinct since European settlement (Burbidge et al. 2009), leaving 50 species that are extant, with 21 of those 50 listed by the IUCN as Threatened, Issues in Near-Threatened, or Data Deficient (IUCN 2010). In addition, some macropods – particularly larger species preferring open habitats - have not suffered from changed land use and conditions since Threatened European settlement, and are widely distributed and abundant. Others – generally small- to medium- sized, more specialised species – have suffered significant range contractions and/or population Macropod declines. Australia has the highest mammal extinction rate of any country or continent, with half of global Conservation mammal extinctions over the last 100 years being Australian. The highest proportion of mammal extinctions have been amongst medium-sized ground dwelling mammals, predominantly marsupials and rodents, from the large mouse-like murids to small wallabies (Burbidge & McKenzie 1989; Short and Smith 1994; Burbidge et al. 2009). The following is an outline of the many pressures on macropods and a host of other threatened species in Australia, ranging from the socio-economic such as poor funding for conservation initiatives and low public awareness of threatened species issues, to the physical, such as invasive predators and wildlife disease.

Socio-Economic Context The fundamental causes of biodiversity loss are ‘deeply embedded in the ethical, cultural and institutional arrangements that determine the nature of Australian society’ (Young et al. 1996).

Human Impacts

For Australia’s macropod species, human population trends are having both direct and indirect impacts. Encroaching land development is a significant threat for some species, and more broadly, expanding population and its associated footprint are placing increasing pressure on urban green spaces, farming productivity and water allocation, leaving less natural resources and management capacity for conservation efforts.

Conservation Funding Resourcing for the conservation of Australian species is clearly inadequate with scarce funds for management activities for the expanding National Reserve System, lack of funds for full scale implementation of threat abatement plans, inadequate incentives for private landholders to offset production losses resulting from conservation activity, recovery plans being funded to a fraction of what is required, and legislative lists of threatened species and ecological species continuing to expand at State and Federal levels.

4 Bettongia pusilla, Caloprymnus campestris, Potorous platyops, Lagorchestes asomatus, Lagorchestes leporides, Macropus greyi, Onychogalea lunata

18 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Modelling by Garnett et al. (2008) predicts that an annual expenditure of $10 million (approximately three times current expenditure) would be required in order to reduce the number of threatened Australian bird species by approximately 15%. While the same work has not been conducted for macropods, we can view this as indicative of the inadequacy of species conservation resources. Costing provided in this action plan estimates that approximately $290 million is needed in order to adequately address macropod conservation needs. With Australia’s size, its status as a megadiverse country with uniquely evolved flora and fauna, and critical threats, substantial funds are required in order to adequately manage its natural resources. With its human population being so low, however, there are resourcing issues on several levels: access to vast and remote areas requiring management, knowledge of appropriate management techniques, and having the tax base and philanthropic capacity to adequately fund management action.

How Does Environment Rate as a Priority for Australians Newspoll, a prominent Australian public opinion polling company, shows that the environment as an issue in the minds of respondents has progressively decreased in importance over the term of the former federal government (from 69% of respondents ranking as ‘very important’ in October 2007 to 57% in February 2010). The top ranking issues continue to be health, education and the economy (Newspoll 2010).

Perceptions of Macropods There have been no in depth studies of the public’s understanding of macropod conservation issues. The perception studies that have been conducted have been done at the level of ‘kangaroos’ rather than a particular species, which may suggest that there is little understanding of the range of macropod species and associated issues. Studies that have been undertaken indicate that perspectives of macropods can be broadly classed into four categories: • Significance to Indigenous Australians, • Animal rights perspectives opposing culling and their use as human food or pet meat, • The impact of kangaroos on agricultural productivity, • Kangaroos as tourism icons. Macropods are highly significant to Indigenous Australians. Many traditional management practices, especially the use of fire, are related to land management for macropods (Bowman et al. 2001). Many macropod species are central to creation history, are commonly depicted in rock art sites and are important in traditional ceremonies. In the broader Australian community, perceptions of macropods are dominated by commercial harvesting and pest management programs, with strong polarised views. Five macropod species are currently commercially harvested for meat in Australia (DEWHA, 2010d), and further culling occurs as a pest control measure in rural areas. Many urban Australian residents see macropods as an Australian icon, with culling programs of large and locally abundant macropod species attracting fierce community opposition (e.g., see National Kangaroo Protection Coalition 2009). Rural Australian residents are more likely to view macropods as a pest impacting agricultural productivity. In Victoria, a study showed that 26% of respondents considered kangaroos a pest, with a majority considering that some management was needed (Johnston and Marks 1997 in: Fitzgerald et al. 2007). In Queensland, many sheep and beef farmers consider them to be a pest, with 16% of all landholder respondents rating them the pest animal of most concern (Oliver and Walton, 2004 in: Fitzgerald et al. 2007).

19 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Tourism studies show that the kangaroo is seen as an Australian icon, and that satisfying wildlife experiences are an important factor with many international visitors (Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre 2009). Satisfying kangaroo encounters are more likely to be with large species of open habitats – i.e. not threatened species (Higginbottom et al. 2004).

Regulatory Context Australia’s central environmental legislative instrument, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, has recently undergone a 10 year review. At the time of writing, the government’s response is yet to be delivered. The review encompasses several recommendations that would make the Act more strategic, less reactive, and shift biodiversity conservation more into the mainstream – e.g. an enhanced role for regional planning, and introducing a systems-based approach to decision-making and a system of national environmental accounts. The review supports the recent shift in conservation paradigms towards a landscape focus by recommending bioregional planning with a flexible approach. It is yet to be seen what the consequences of this review will be for threatened species recovery in Australia. At the State level, legislation, political will and enforcement vary greatly from state to state, thus complicating recovery processes for species which occur across state boundaries.

Landscape-Scale Issues for Macropods The key issues impacting Australian macropods at the landscape scale are the clearing, fragmentation and degradation of habitat; predation; competition; and changed fire regimes. At least 12 of the macropod species listed as threatened or near threatened on the Red List are thought to be threatened by predation, at least nine are thought to be threatened by altered fire regime, seven by grazing competition, and seven by ongoing habitat loss, not to mention the potential interactions of these threats (IUCN 2010). These problems are exacerbated and complicated by the impacts of a changing climate. These issues, along with the role of protected areas – a key landscape scale conservation strategy – are considered below.

Land Clearing, Fragmentation and Degradation Past and current land clearing and land use practises have resulted in the removal, fragmentation and degradation of habitat for many of Australia’s macropods. Protecting, reconnecting and building the resilience of remaining habitat is a high priority for most threatened macropods. Projects such as Gondwana Link provide important ecological linkages across a range of ecosystems. As Murray et al. (2006) outlined using a brush-tailed rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata case study, it is important to look at multiple scales for habitat suitability for specialist species when undertaking connectivity planning. Protected areas are a key mechanism for reconnecting habitat, and these are considered in more detail at the end of this section.

Feral Animals The key feral animals negatively impacting on Australian macropods are foxes, cats, pigs, rabbits and goats. There is strong evidence that predation by introduced foxes and cats has had a significant negative impact on small and medium-sized marsupials in Australia (Burbidge and McKenzie 1989; Short and Smith 1994; Algar and Burrows 2004; Saunders et al. 2010; Kinnear et al. 2010). Furthermore, foxes and cats are the main causes of failure of reintroductions of small macropods in Australia (Short et al. 1992). The degree of threat depends upon local conditions such as presence of other predators, prey availability, climatic conditions and habitat conditions such as the presence of a protective understorey or rock pile shelter.

20 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

One of the more complex issues affecting predation is the presence of dingoes. There is increasing evidence of the role of dingoes as a trophic regulator in some regions, with negative associations between dingoes and fox abundance (Newsome et al. 2001; Letnic 2007), and positive associations between dingo presences and medium-sized marsupials and native rodents (Smith and Quin 1996; Johnson et al. 2007; Southgate et al. 2007; Wallach et al. 2008). For example, Wallach et al. (2008) found that the yellow-footed rock-wallaby Petrogale xanthopus co-occurred with the dingo, and that the most common predator in areas inhabited by the rock-wallaby was the dingo. Arguments for re-establishing dingoes in the landscape as a trophic regulator are complicated by lack of knowledge of the effect of dingo-wild dog hybridisation (Claridge & Hunt 2008), the relatively recent arrival of dingo to mainland Australia complicating native/non-native classifications (Johnson 2006), and the impact of dingoes/wild dogs on domestic stock (Fleming et al. 2001). Some ecologists argue that the dingo, wild dog and their hybrids should be treated equally from a functional point of view (Daniels & Corbett 2003), while some conservationists seek to preserve the purity of the dingo subspecies (Australian Dingo Conservation Association 2008), and many in the agricultural sector argue that the dingo should be controlled as a pest animal, and this is supported by legislation in some states. It is also clear that dingo suppression of fox and cat numbers, while probably significant is some parts of Australia, was insufficient to prevent extinction and decline of medium-sized mammals in arid Australia. The main feral competitors impacting macropods are pigs, rabbits and goats. For pigs, competition for food as well as habitat alteration due to rooting behaviour are thought to be issues for a number of macropods that rely on fungal fruiting bodies, such as the northern bettong Bettongia tropica (DERM 2009), or which rely on pig-impacted swamp or riverine habitat such as the quokka Setonix brachyurus (DEWHA 2010c). While not thought to be a limiting factor for most macropod species, rabbits have significant dietary overlap with some species (Robley et al. 2001). The national rabbit threat abatement plan identifies rock-wallabies and hare-wallabies (Petrogale, Lagorchestes and Lagostrophus species) as potentially impacted by rabbits (DEWHA 2008a). Moreover, rabbits can support large populations of foxes and cats (Holden and Mutze 2002). Goats have a competitive effect with some macropods, particularly those confined to steeper, rocky terrain, such as rock wallabies (Short & Milkovits 1990; Eldridge 1997). The presence of dingoes is one of several factors that limit the distribution of goats (DEWHA 2008c). There are limited studies about public attitudes to feral animal control, however a Queensland study of primary producers in 2004 showed dingoes and wild dogs were ranked as landholders’ main pest animal by 33% of respondents (highest of any species), followed by feral pigs (16% said were main pest), then kangaroos and wallabies (16% said were main pest) (Oliver and Walton 2004 in: Fitzgerald et al. 2007). In another study of Queensland landholders (Finch and Baxter, 2005 in: Fitzgerald et al. 2007), feral pigs, rabbits, feral cats, wild dogs/dingoes, mice and foxes were identified by more than 75% of respondents as being ‘significant’ or ‘very significant’ pests. In a Victorian study, feral cats were the most likely to be considered a pest of the 14 animals listed in the survey (Johnston and Marks 1997 in: Fitzgerald et al. 2007). From the perspective of macropod conservation, it is highly problematic that macropods themselves, and a key trophic regulator thought to be of benefit to some macropods, are considered to be pests by a large proportion of rural Australians. Further studies are needed in order to assess these attitudes in more detail and determine triggers for changing attitudes where needed for macropod conservation.

21 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Predator and Competitor Control Strategies There are a range of control strategies that vary in their cost efficiency depending upon local ecological conditions and the animal being targeted. Baiting is the dominant control technique currently utilised for feral predators in Australia, and is also widely used for rabbits and pigs. The poison usually utilised is known as 1080, and there are an increasing range of specialist uptake mechanisms being developed to increase effectiveness and reduce non-target uptake – for example PIGOUT® (Invasive Animal CRC 2010). 1080 poison naturally occurs in native pea bushes in south-western Western Australia and in scattered areas in central Australia, which is thought to result in a higher tolerance of native wildlife for the poison in those areas, greatly reducing non-target losses. Capitalising on this, the Western Shield program has rolled out large scale and long term baiting for introduced predators has significantly contributed to the success of small and medium sized mammal in situ conservation and re-introductions in the southwest. In other parts of Australia, effects on non-target species (such as quolls and birds) need to be taken into account and mitigated via burying the bait or use of dye (DEWHA 2010a). Other poisons include a toxic formulation based on para-aminopropiophenone, used in fresh cat meat baits Eradicat® and Curiosity® (DEWHA 2010b). Cat baiting has proven more challenging for conservation managers than fox baiting, however sausage or fresh meat baits are proving successful in certain circumstances, with effectiveness varying with bioregion, season, and live prey abundance. Sausage baits have been successful in achieving a 95% reduction in the Gibson Desert, and the eradication of cats on two West Australian islands (Algar and Burrows 2004). There is a range of traps utilised for feral animal control, including conventional cage traps, soft-catch traps and yards that may be created around watering holes to catch animals as they come in to drink. Trapping is labour intensive – particularly in remote areas - as traps must be checked at least once a day, and success can be limited. Cage and soft-catch traps are typically baited with food and used for feral predators such as cats and foxes. Yard traps are commonly used for feral goats (DEWHA 2010a). Shooting is generally not a cost effective animal control technique, however is often utilised in order to remove any remaining individuals from an area once other techniques have been employed. Hunting with dogs is the most common method of controlling pigs in many parts of northern Australia, however improvements in trap design and technique are making this a more cost effective mechanism (DPIF 2007). Biological control has been used with varying success in Australia to reduce the impact of feral species. The introduction of two viruses has been very successful in the substantial reduction of rabbit numbers, however the introduction of the cane toad to control two insect pests of sugar cane was unsuccessful as it did not control the insect pest and led to the establishment of a new pest in the cane toad (DEWHA 2010). Fencing has been used to exclude rabbits and dingoes for over 100 years, and more recently has been developed to exclude a broader range of predators and competitors. Pen and field trials have been conducted to look at the cost efficiency of a range of predator and competitor exclusion fences (Moseby & Read 2005). Material costs are high, particularly for cat exclusion fencing, making it only a viable option where the area to be enclosed is relatively small, or for a narrow peninsula such as Heirisson Prong, Shark Bay. Fencing needs to be regularly monitored, maintained, and in some cases supplemented by regular baiting and trapping (Short & Turner 2000).

22 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Offshore islands are valuable for threatened species, providing unique ecosystems, protection from feral predators and competitors, and opportunities to eradicate feral species and establish insurance populations of threatened species. Integrated pest management plans have been successfully implemented on several islands, but more opportunities exist in order to capitalise on island attributes, given sufficient resources. In order for offshore islands to be valuable for macropod conservation however, one of the fundamental criteria to be considered – particularly in terms of larger species – is island size. Barrow Island is the smallest Australian island (23,300 hectares) to have successfully supported a population of large macropods for the 8-10,000 years since separation from mainland, providing evidence of minimum viable population and habitat requirements of large macropods for long term survival (Short and Turner 1991). However, smaller islands have supported one or more species of smaller macropods for thousands of years, e.g. Bernier and Dorre Islands in Shark Bay (4,000 to 5,000 ha) protect three species of threatened macropods. Islands can also be used for translocation of highly-threatened species, sometimes termed marooning. The conservation status of one threatened macropod subspecies, the mala (a subspecies of the rufous hare-wallaby), was improved from Extinct in the Wild to Vulnerable via introduction to Trimouille Island in the Montebello Islands off the Pilbara coast (Langford and Burbidge 2001). Other macropods have been translocated to islands, e.g. black-footed and Proserpine rock-wallabies.

Changed fire regimes Fire plays an important role in Australian ecosystems. Much of Australia was routinely burnt by Indigenous Australians from the late Quaternary period until European settlement. This burning is thought to have resulted in substantial changes to the range and demographic structure of many vegetation types, and was important in creating habitat mosaics that favoured the abundance of some mammal species (Bowman 1998). Observations suggest that burning was sparse and biased towards coastal and sub-coastal areas, in line with population density (Russell-Smith et al. 2002) but was widespread in the spinifex grasslands of the interior. There is little traditional fire management being conducted today. Today, burning is undertaken for a range of purposes including for the reduction of fuel loads to minimise wildfire risk, for regeneration of areas following timber harvesting, and for biodiversity conservation purposes. The impact of fire frequency, timing and intensity on some ecological communities has been widely studied, while for others there is a paucity of information.

After a number of recent and severe wildfires in southern Australia with high loss of life, fire policy has become increasingly focused on wildfire suppression. While wildfire suppression is not in itself counter-productive to optimal burning regimes for biodiversity, in the wake of the human tragedy of Black Saturday in 2009, there is currently little space in fire policy discussions to promote biodiversity considerations. The impact of deviation from traditional burning regimes varies amongst macropods. For the northern bettong Bettongia tropica, for example, fire regime changes are thought to be responsible for understorey changes resulting in reduced food availability and weed incursions (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2009).

Climate change The magnitude and rate of changing climate is already resulting in observable changes, mostly at the species level (Steffen et al. 2009b). The interaction of

23 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

climate change with the existing threats outlined above, along with an array of responses at different levels, will result in a high level of complexity in ecosystem management and species recovery work. Specific climate responses of species and ecosystems are difficult to predict, however past responses provide information that can be utilised in modelling likely future responses. For example, the bridled nailtail wallaby Onychogalea fraenata declined severely during a major drought, with increased predation being the major cause of low juvenile survivorship (Fisher et al. 2000). With increased drought predicted in bridled nailtail wallaby habitat, this provides insight to the challenges ahead for this species. Characteristics of species likely to be climate change winners and losers have been identified, with more specialised, spatially restricted species with a low range of physiological tolerance, low genetic variability, low fecundity and poor dispersal rates posing barriers to timely adaptation. Assessing and managing risk at multiple levels, coupled with adaptive management, becomes critical under the complexity of climate change (Steffen et al. 2009a). Key management strategies are to enhance the resilience of ecosystems in order to maximise opportunities for adaptive responses, such as migration. Specific actions to achieve this include enhancing connectivity, protecting key refugia, reducing the impact of existing threats such as invasive species, and managing for fire (Steffen et al. 2009b).

Protected Areas In recent years there has been a significant increase in investment – both public and private – in protected areas acquisition. Increased government investment has been utilised for additions to the public estate, as well as funds leveraged by non- government organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC) and Bush Heritage Australia (BHA) with public donations and partnerships. However, it has been shown (Watson et al. 2011) that there is relatively poor coverage of protected areas for threatened species, despite this growth in the National Reserve System. While funds have become more accessible for parks acquisition, there hasn’t been a proportional increase in management funds, either for publicly or privately managed parks, with management funds in most cases being inadequate (Miller 2010). In the absence of adequate funds to manage landscape-scale threats such as predation, competition and inappropriate fire regimes, large fenced sanctuaries have played an important role in the short-term conservation of macropods and other small mammals. The Australian Wildlife Conservancy/Bush Heritage model has demonstrated some success with macropod conservation, with the captive woylie subpopulation managed by AWC at Karakamia currently being the only high density population of woylies that is not in steep decline (AWC 2009). Management practises are a mix of landscape-scale threat abatement (for example feral species and fire management), as well as species specific recovery actions such as reintroductions and translocations.

24 T as m

Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 b anian ettong (Bett ettong o ngia gaimardi) . © D ave W ave atts/ ANT Photo.co m .au

25 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Species-Level Issues For Macropods Genetics With genetic diversity being one of the pillars of biodiversity and underpinning the adaptability of a species, it is a critical consideration in any species recovery program. Integrating genetic assessments into recovery efforts means understanding patterns of genetic variation within a species; working to maintain genetic stock in insurance populations especially for high risk populations; and incorporating genetic considerations into boosting small isolated populations, establishing new populations, or undertaking captive breeding.

Translocations and Reintroductions Many of Australia’s macropod species have suffered such significant habitat fragmentation and destruction, range contraction and population decline, that translocations or reintroductions are a necessary part of recovery efforts. In planning such cost-intensive actions, there are many issues that first need to be considered to maximise probability of success. Predation by foxes and cats is the main cause of failure of reintroductions of small macropods in Australia (Short et al. 1992). Any translocation or reintroduction should therefore incorporate a predator control program unless it is a known predator free area. Decisions regarding the choice of individuals to be translocated/reintroduced needs to take into account genetic studies (Eldridge 1997) and the mating system of the species in question (Sigg et al. 2005) in order to reduce costs and increase chances of establishing self-sustaining population. Use of modelling is critical in determining minimum viable population sizes in the face of predation and other factors. For example, modelling of bridled nailtail wallaby Onychogalea fraenata reintroductions showed that even very small amounts of predation (2-4 individuals per six months) can cause reintroductions of up to 50 individuals to fail. Furthermore, modelling indicated that for this species a single reintroduction was preferable to multiple reintroductions of the same total number of individuals (McCallum et al. 1995).

Captive Breeding With the focus of the Action Plan being in-situ conservation, captive breeding is considered here in that context. Developing captive populations is an expensive undertaking, however it can assist in-situ threatened species conservation efforts in a number of ways. The study of captive individuals can enhance understanding of the species’ biology and ecology thereby informing management action in the wild. Furthermore, securing a captive population can provide insurance against stochastic events in the wild and disease risk, and help maintain the genetic diversity of the species. The generation of captive bred individuals can increase the resilience of small populations and/or establish new populations. For most macropods, captive breeding has been conducted with some success. For some, techniques such as cross-fostering are used in order to boost numbers as cost effectively and quickly as possible (e.g. Zoos SA 2010).

Monitoring There are significant knowledge gaps pertaining to the taxonomy, demography, biology, ecology, behaviour, distribution and abundance of many macropod species, as well as the effectiveness of specific management actions. In some cases these knowledge gaps are substantial enough to impede management, while in others the results would not significantly impact management decisions. Assessing

26 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

the costs and benefits of investing in such research questions is essential, and decision-theory frameworks can be useful in this regard. Monitoring programs need to take into account appropriate spatial, population and temporal scales in order to determine and assess the impact of management strategies; and utilise existing scientific and local knowledge in order to minimise monitoring costs. There is a range of monitoring techniques utilised for macropods such as live trapping, drive fence techniques, radio tracking, scat and hair analysis, and predator dietary analysis. The choice of monitoring technique needs to be informed by the specific questions to be answered. Mon j on ( P etr o gale b ur b idgei). © Jiri L och m an/ L och m an T rans p arencies

27 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

This action plan outlines the vision, goal, objectives, and essential activities for the down- 4. Action Plan listing of threatened and near threatened Australian macropods. It is the framework that could effectively guide the implementation of threatened macropod recovery for the period 2011-2021. The Framework goal, objectives and activities are structured in a logical, hierarchical manner, and are as objectively verifiable as possible to assist in program monitoring and evaluation. Action Plan Scope A project’s scope defines the broad parameters or the subject of the project. For this action plan, the scope is all Australian macropods listed as threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered), Near Threatened, or Data Deficient on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010) (Table 2). The IUCN Red List criteria used to define threat status of species are recognised internationally, and provide quantifiable elements by which we can assess progress in recovery. By using the IUCN list and not the Australian Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, we are able to include species that are listed as near threatened, thus incorporating preventative action into our suite of recovery projects. In this action plan, the choice of the taxonomic level of species was made to ensure that recovery projects are all working towards the same project goal, and to avoid the complicated arguments around recovery of threatened subspecies of a species that may not be threatened at the national (or international) level. With further taxonomic assessment, some macropods, particularly those with distinct geographic subpopulations, may be subject to reassessment under this action plan. anon C WW F- arvey/ © Martin H Martin © pus). o gale xanthgale o etr P y ( b k walla ooted roc f ellow- Y

28 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 2: Australian macropods listed as threatened, near threatened or data deficient according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010).

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Threat Status

Bettongia gaimardi Tasmanian bettong Near Threatened Bettongia lesueur Boodie, burrowing bettong Near Threatened Bettongia penicillata Woylie, brush-tailed bettong Critically Endangered Bettongia tropica Northern bettong Endangered Dendrolagus bennettianus Bennett’s tree kangaroo Near Threatened Lagorchestes hirsutus Mala, rufous hare-wallaby Vulnerable Lagostrophus fasciatus Munning, banded hare-wallaby Endangered Macropus bernardus Black wallaroo Near Threatened Macropus parma Parma wallaby Near Threatened Onychogalea fraenata Bridled nailtail wallaby Endangered Petrogale burbidgei Monjon Near Threatened Petrogale coenensis Cape York rock wallaby Near Threatened Petrogale concinna Nabarlek Data Deficient Petrogale lateralis Black-footed rock wallaby, black-flanked rock wallaby Near Threatened Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed rock wallaby Near Threatened Petrogale persephone Proserpine rock wallaby Endangered Petrogale sharmani Mount Claro rock wallaby Near Threatened Petrogale xanthopus Yellow-footed rock wallaby Near Threatened Potorous gilbertii Gilbert’s potoroo Critically Endangered Potorous longipes Long-footed potoroo Endangered Setonix brachyurus Quokka Vulnerable Mala, R Mala, u f ous hare-walla ous b y ( L ag o rchestes hirsutus) . © Martin H . © Martin arvey/ WW F- C anon

29 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Action Plan Vision A project’s vision is the desired state or ultimate condition that the project is working to achieve. This action plan has a 50-year vision:

By 2061, all species of macropods5 extant in 2011 have multiple6 secure7 subpopulations in the wild8.

Action Plan Goal A goal is a specific statement detailing the desired impact of a project. The goal of this action plan was determined based on quantifiable criteria that could be objectively measured and could be achieved within a 10-year period. For this reason, down-listing on the IUCN Red List was deemed to be the most suitable measure of species recovery:

By 2021, all threatened Australian macropods9 will be eligible10 to be moved from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat according to IUCN Red List of Threatened Species criteria.

Action Plan Objectives An objective is a more specific statement than a goal, detailing a desired accomplishment or outcome of a project. Multiple objectives have been developed for each species, according to the criteria used to determine each species’ conservation status during the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment coordinated by the IUCN (IUCN 2010). The objectives thus reflect the actions required to ensure that each species no longer meets any of the criteria for its current threat category by 2021, and include targets for population size, geographic range, population trend, and/or number of secure subpopulations, as well as mitigation of threats, and conservation of known genetic diversity. The timeframe of this action plan is ten years, which is a short period of time in which to achieve significant recovery outcomes. Since a species may only be moved from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat if none of the criteria of the higher category have been met for a period of five years or more (IUCN 2001), some species may only be eligible for down-listing within 10 years. In these cases, the objective of any future recovery plans should be to ensure that none of the criteria under the current threat category are close to being met for a period of at least five years, thus allowing for down-listing after that time. Objectives for each species can be found within each species recovery outline in Appendix 5.

5 Those species in the families Macropodidae, Potoroidae and Hypsiprymnodontidae. 6 Minimum of three. 7 A taxon is defined as secure when its numbers and distribution are stable or increasing, and when numbers and distribution are sufficient that there is a 95% prob- ability that the species will survive the stochastic events anticipated over a 50 year timeframe, given that all known and predicted threats are adequately mitigated. 8 A fenced subpopulation may be considered wild for the purposes of this vision if the fenced area contains sufficient natural habitat to support a self-sustaining subpopulation. In this context, self-sustaining means that the subpopulation persists without the provision of food or water. 9 Those species belonging to the families Macropodidae, Potoroidae and Hypsiprymnodontidae that are listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as Criti- cally Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, or Data Deficient (IUCN 2010). 10 All of the criteria of the higher category are no longer met. This condition may or may not have been achieved for the required period of five years or more by 2021: “A taxon may be moved from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat if none of the criteria of the higher category has been met for five years or more” (IUCN 2001). Where this period has not been met, the population should be stable or increasing until such time it meets the IUCN conditions in full.

30 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

A working group was convened in the early stages of development of this action plan to determine 5. Methods the most appropriate framework of recovery goals and objectives. In doing so, the working group decided that all species included should be treated consistently. Recovery plans for different species may have quite different goals, with some simply aiming to ensure that the species does not become further threatened, while others aim to secure several populations across Australia. The reasons for these differences are varied, making comparison of the recommended projects difficult. This plan was initially formulated as a prioritisation of management projects based on the Project Prioritisation Protocol (Joseph et al. 2009). However, given the relatively small number of species covered by this action plan, their relative taxonomic similarity and thus similarity in necessary recovery projects, prioritisation of any factor other than total project cost was deemed to be arbitrary. At least two government bodies have already incorporated the Project Prioritisation Protocol into their species recovery planning. The New Zealand Department of Conservation (DOC; Joseph et al. 2009), and the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE 2010) have both undertaken this process to determine long term expenditure and priorities for the management and recovery of threatened species. Whilst both departments set different goals, they were able to equitably and objectively quantify the time, effort and cost required to manage threatened species in their respective jurisdictions. With a given funding over a set period of time, those departments can now use their budgets to most effectively achieve their goals. The set of steps (Table 3) undertaken for this action plan is adapted from the prioritisation protocol (Joseph et al. 2009), with the omission of explicit prioritisation elements. The nature of the goal and objectives to be used for the species in this action plan were discussed at length during several workshops involving experts in strategic planning and macropod recovery. Once it was decided that the common goal should be down-listing on the IUCN Red List, and the objectives for recovery of each species should be based on the IUCN criteria (IUCN 2001), spreadsheets containing a list of questions (outlined below) were distributed via email to experts. We endeavoured to ensure that all people with knowledge about the conservation needs of Australian macropod species were consulted and had an opportunity to provide information and comment on drafts. We asked relevant experts to provide information about the requirements for down-listing each species over the next 10 years. Some difficulties were encountered in the high degree of variability in content of expert input. However, these inputs were able to be combined across species to ensure that a consistent framework was in place to achieve objective and quantifiable recovery according to the IUCN criteria for threatened species (IUCN 2001). A draft action plan was then circulated to all experts for review, and comments received were incorporated before finalisation of this action plan.

31 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 3: Summary of the steps undertaken in collecting information for this action plan.

Step 1: Define goal and objectives. Step 2: List biodiversity assets: Identify the assets of interest, in this case threatened macropods. Step 3: List management projects: Identify the set of feasible projects that achieve the goal. Step 4: Provide rationale for proposed activities: Justify the need for each activity in achieving the goal. Step 5: Estimate cost: Calculate the costs of each project.

Step 1: Define The Goal To optimally allocate resources among projects for the management of the threatened macropods of Australia, it is essential to clearly state the goal of the conservation program (Possingham et al. 2001; Sanderson 2006). An appropriate goal may be to maximise the persistence of the greatest number of macropod species over the next 100 years. Alternatively, the goal may be to maximise the number of species that have 10% of their original range or greater than 5,000 individuals (which ever is larger) in the next 50 years. The time frame and population targets are crucial in this regard, and will influence the total cost of management projects. Therefore, the first step of this project was to properly formulate the goal of each macropod recovery project. For the purposes of this Action Plan, the overall goal was to achieve eligibility for down-listing of all threatened and near threatened Australian macropods on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010) within ten years, while the objectives for each species addressed the specific criteria by which each species was listed during the Global Mammal Assessment in 2008 (IUCN 2010) (see Section 4 – Action Plan Framework).

Step 2: List Biodiversity Assets The second step listed the biodiversity assets that require conservation attention. For the purposes of this Action Plan, species were selected on the basis of their status on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2010). Australian species belonging to the families Macropodidae, Potoroidae and Hypsiprymnodontidae listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened or Data Deficient were included (see Section 4 – Action Plan Framework for the rationale behind this decision). Step 3: List Management Projects Experts were asked to design an appropriate project for each species. A project is the minimum set of all necessary actions for meeting the pre-defined goal. Experts were asked to provide a list of actions that, if undertaken in full, would result in the achievement of the goal (down-listing within 10 years) with 95% confidence. Thus for a near threatened species suspected to be facing a range of possible threats, in a remote area far from human habitation, the project would require dedicated research to establish the nature and intensity of those threats, but would unlikely require dedicated community involvement in the recovery process. Experts were required to clearly describe a precise location, and frequency, intensity and duration of management, for each action. In many cases, particularly for species whose distributions are poorly known, locations will need to be confirmed during future status assessments. For those species requiring the establishment of additional subpopulations in order to meet the requirements of down-listing, suitable areas of habitat may need to be identified and secured before this can occur.

32 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

A caveat: data for the frequency, intensity and duration of each activity have in most instances been estimated. While attempts were made to base these estimates on knowledge or experience of similar activities, it was often difficult to make accurate estimates. These estimates should be discussed in detail by the relevant recovery teams and other agencies responsible for the implementation of this plan. Step 4: Provide Rationale for the Proposed Activities For every action proposed, a rationale for its execution was sought, to ensure that the action is directly relevant to the goal of down-listing, and the stated objectives of recovery.

Step 5: Estimate Cost The fifth step was to estimate the cost of each project. Costs include all future outlays. Past outlays, such as the cost of building captive breeding facilities that are now available for use, were not considered. Costs were estimated by experts by drawing on information of past experiences and future projections. Again, most costs are rough estimates, and will require detailed assessment by recovery teams and other agencies to confirm full project costs. The cost of some activities, such as the implementation of appropriate fire management across large areas, has been very broadly estimated, such that corrections of one order of magnitude may be necessary. Several costs were not incorporated in project budgets. These included car travel (purchase, fuel and running costs, food and accommodation) and project management (all aspects of salaries, super, the costs of running an office, including computers, software, administration, and human resources). Importantly, each project was assigned a budget for status assessment (distribution, abundance, genetics), data management, and dedicated monitoring programs. These activities were considered essential in achieving down-listing within ten years, yet are often the most poorly neglected activities of existing recovery programs. Costs have been estimated independently for each species, and do not account for potential savings where actions in one location will benefit multiple species. The rationale for this is that projects must be undertaken in full in order to achieve the recovery goal. If only some activities are conducted for a species, it is unlikely that the goal will be achieved within the specified time, and the species status may decline even further as a result. For those recovery projects with species across multiple States and Territories, or with highly complex recovery requirements, the cost of a dedicated recovery program coordinator was incorporated into project costs (Table 4).

33 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 4: Projects with dedicated recovery coordinator salary built in to project cost.

Species Threat Status Project Cost ($millions)

Woylie Critically Endangered $19 million Northern bettong Endangered $22 million Black-footed rock wallaby Near Threatened $27 million Brush-tailed rock wallaby Near Threatened $31 million Yellow-footed rock wallaby Near Threatened $20 million Long-footed potoroo Endangered $20 million Quokka Vulnerable $24 million

Species that would also benefit from recovery coordination

Boodie Near Threatened $18 million Rufous hare-wallaby Vulnerable $17 million Banded hare-wallaby Endangered $19 million

A dedicated project manager will most likely be required to coordinate recovery for the group of macropods that co-occur on the islands off the Western Australian coast, including the boodie, rufous hare-wallaby, and banded hare-wallaby (combined project cost approximately $54 million11). These 10 species projects are the most expensive recovery projects in this action plan, each with a total cost exceeding $15 million (Table 4). Where costs have been estimated in the first year, costs for subsequent years were increased by 3% each year to account for the estimated rise in consumer price index (CPI) as a proxy for inflation. Summed costs for each project have been rounded down to the nearest thousand dollars to avoid the appearance of highly precise estimates of the cost of recovery. arencies p rans an T an m och L an/ m och © Jiri L Jiri © ertii). b us gil us r o o t Po otoroo ( ert’s p b il G

11 It is important to note that costs of each species project do not account for shared costs that will provide savings when undertaking common activities for multiple species at the same location.

34 k Blac

Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 wallaroo ( M acr o pus b ernardus) . © Belinda W . © Belinda right- Oxf ord S ord cienti f ic Fil ic m s/ AUSCA P E

35 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

This Action Plan lists recovery projects for two species listed as critically endangered (CR), five as 6. Results endangered (EN), two as vulnerable (VU), one as data deficient (DD), and eleven as near threatened (NT). There are an additional 29 Australian species listed as least concern (LC) on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2010). These species are not included in this plan. The proportion of threatened macropod species (CR + EN + VU) of the total number of extant Australian macropods (50) is 18%. When near threatened and data deficient species (NT + DD) are included, this proportion rises to 42%. The total budget required to down-list all 21 Australian macropods listed as threatened, near threatened or data deficient on the IUCN Red List is approximately $290 million over 10 years (Table 5). Bennett’s tree kangaroo, listed as near threatened, is the least expensive project at about $2.5 million, while the brush-tailed rock wallaby, also listed as near threatened, is the most expensive project at over $31 million (Table 5). arencies p rans an T an m och L an/ m och . © Jiri L Jiri © . ncinna) gale c o gale etr o P ( arle k b a N

36 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 5: List of threatened macropod recovery projects in order of their affordability.

Order of Scientific Name Common Name IUCN Cost of Down-Listing* Affordability Status (2011 - 2021)

1 Dendrolagus bennettianus Bennett’s Tree Kangaroo NT $ 2,557,000 2 Macropus bernardus Black Wallaroo NT $ 2,773,000 3 Petrogale sharmani Mount Claro Rock Wallaby NT $ 3,753,000 4 Petrogale burbidgei Monjon NT $ 3,834,000 5 Petrogale concinna Nabarlek DD $ 3,891,000 6 Petrogale coenensis Cape York Rock Wallaby NT $ 4,243,000 7 Bettongia gaimardi Tasmanian Bettong NT $ 5,845,000 8 Macropus parma Parma Wallaby NT $ 9,189,000 9 Petrogale persephone Proserpine Rock Wallaby EN $ 10,109,000 10 Onychogalea fraenata Bridled Nailtail Wallaby EN $ 11,106,000 11 Potorous gilbertii Gilbert’s Potoroo CR $ 14,390,000 12 Lagorchestes hirsutus Rufous Hare-Wallaby VU $ 17,270,000 13 Bettongia lesueur Boodie NT $ 17,924,000 14 Bettongia penicillata Woylie CR $ 18,862,000 15 Lagostrophus fasciatus Banded Hare-Wallaby EN $ 19,291,000 16 Potorous longipes Long-Footed Potoroo EN $ 19,808,000 17 Petrogale xanthopus Yellow-Footed Rock Wallaby NT $ 20,031,000 18 Bettongia tropica Northern Bettong EN $ 22,603,000 19 Setonix brachyurus Quokka VU $ 23,862,000 20 Petrogale lateralis Black-Footed Rock Wallaby NT $ 27,241,000 21 Petrogale penicillata Brush-Tailed Rock Wallaby NT $ 31,454,000

TOTAL: $ 290,036,000

*Costs have been rounded down to the nearest $1000.

Table 6: Average cost of down-listing by IUCN threat rating

Threat Category Average Project Cost*

All $ 13,811,000 Near Threatened $ 11,713,000 Near Threatened and Data Deficient $ 11,061,000 Vulnerable $ 20,566,000 Endangered $ 16,583,000 Critically Endangered $ 16,626,000

*Costs have been rounded down to the nearest $1000.

The average cost of down-listing all 21 species is around $13.8 million per species over 10 years, while for a threatened species (CR, EN or VU), the average is around $16.5-20.5 million (Table 6). For near threatened species, this figure drops, with an average cost of about $11.7 million. This makes logical sense, since for near threatened species there may be less intensive threats to mitigate, and perhaps more investment

37 .au m Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 Photo.co tto/ ANT . © Jurgen O rachyurus) nix b nix o S et ( a a kk Quo

38 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

required for research questions than for complex on-ground recovery actions. Despite this, there remain some significant project costs for several species that are near threatened, particularly those that are close to qualifying for vulnerable due to low area of occupancy, low extent of occurrence, or low estimates of total numbers in the species, and those that occur across many distinct subpopulations. Such conditions warrant recovery efforts that may incur significant costs, including management across large areas, securing or restoring habitat, and translocation. Recovery projects for the black-footed and the brush-tailed rock wallabies are good examples of expensive projects for near threatened species (Table 5). In the case of the black-footed rock wallaby, the species includes five taxa with quite different conservation issues. Further work will be required to ensure recovery efforts are targeted for optimum outcomes and most efficient use of resources. If projects are prioritised based on cost, with a nominal 10-year total recovery budget of, say, $10 million, three projects could be funded in their entirety: Bennett’s tree kangaroo, black wallaroo, and Mount Claro rock wallaby (Table 5 & Table 7). With a total macropod recovery budget of $50 million, an additional six species could be down-listed within the same time frame (Table 7). Figure 1 shows the cumulative cost of all projects. The change in the gradient of the curve after the first seven projects reflects the significant costs of the remaining projects, each greater than $9 million dollars over 10 years. This analysis on the basis of cost alone is limited to an assessment of that single factor. No account is made here (Table 7 and Figure 1) of conservation status, nature of threats, or recovery actions required.

Table 7: Number of species projects that could be funded under nominal recovery budgets to achieve down-listing on the IUCN Red List within 10 years if projects are prioritised based on cost.

Budget (10 years) Number of macropod projects funded

$10 million 3 $20 million 5 $50 million 9 $100 million 12 $250 million 19 $300 million 21

21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5

Number of Macropod Projects 4 3 2 1 0 $0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 Budget

Figure 1: Number of macropod recovery projects undertaken by spending budgets up to $300 million over 10 years. 39 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Brush-Tailed Rock Wallaby Black-Footed Rock Wallaby Quokka Northen Bettong Yellow-Footed Potoroo Long-Footed Potoroo Banded Hare-Wallaby Woylie Boodie Rufous Hare-Wallaby Gilbert’s Potoroo

Species Bridled Nailtail Wallaby Proserpine Rock Wallaby Parma Wallaby Critically Endangered Tasmanian Bettong Endangered Cape York Rock Wallaby Vulnerable Nabarlek Monjon Data Deficient Mount Claro Rock Wallaby Near Threatened Black Wallaroo Bennett’s Tree Kangaroo

$0 $5,000000 $10,000000 $15,000000 $20,000000 $25,000000 $30,000000 $35,000000

Project Cost

Figure 2: Ranked cost of macropod recovery projects. Colours indicate current threat status (IUCN 2010).

There is little discernible pattern of cost of recovery versus threat status (Figure 2). The four least expensive and the two most expensive projects are for near threatened species, while the critically endangered species fall towards the centre of the cost distribution. Endangered and vulnerable species all fall above the $10 million mark, but are not necessarily the most expensive recovery projects. Thus threat status is not a reasonable predictor of recovery cost for Australian macropods. Costs are more closely aligned to the nature of the threats affecting a species, how broad and remote the geographic distribution of the species, the number of subpopulations requiring management, and whether establishment of new subpopulations is required. When the total cost of the action plan is categorised according to management actions (see Conservation Measures Partnership 2011, and Appendix 3), we see that the greatest cost is for control of invasive or problematic species, accounting for almost 37% of the total of $290 million (Table 8). The third highest cost, species recovery, includes activities such as the construction of fenced sanctuaries and their ongoing management. Such activities are essential for many of the medium- sized species such as the boodie and the woylie. Fire management falls under category 2.3, habitat and natural process restoration, and accounts for more than 12% of the total cost of all recovery projects (Table 8). A significant proportion of the total estimated funds ($82 million, or 28%) contributes to a broad range of actions including status and genetic assessments, monitoring of species and threats, data management and research. For many species, particularly those listed as near threatened or data deficient, research and monitoring are critical to determine the appropriate management actions for recovery. Furthermore, status assessments will be required to demonstrate eligibility for down-listing, and genetic surveys are required to fulfil the objective of maintaining known genetic diversity in the species.

40 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 8: Cost of all 21 macropod projects by category of management activity (Conservation Measures Partnership 2011). For explanations of the categories, see Appendix 3.

Category Management Action Cost* Percent of Total

2.2 Invasive Species Control $ 112,336,000 38.73 8 Research, Monitoring and Management $ 82,267,000 28.36 3.2 Species Recovery $ 35,122,000 12.11 2.3 Habitat and Natural Process Restoration $ 32,271,000 11.13 6.4 Conservation Payments $ 14,341,000 4.94 1.1 Site/Area Protection $ 3,677,000 1.27 3.4 Ex-situ Conservation $ 3,439,000 1.19 3.3 Species Reintroduction $ 2,728,000 0.94 3.1 Species Management $ 2,678,000 0.92 2.1 Site/Area Management $ 964,000 0.33 4.3 Awareness and Communications $ 183,000 0.06 5.2 Policies and Regulations $ 30,000 0.01

Total $ 290,036,000 100

*Costs have been rounded down to the nearest $1000.

When species are grouped by IUCN threat category, the most costly category of management action, on average, is Invasive Species Control (Table 9). This is the case regardless of threat category.

Table 9: Most costly category of management action by IUCN threat category, and the combined costs of those actions.

Threat Category Most Costly Category Combined Cost* Average Cost of Management Action per Species*

Near Threatened and Data Deficient Species 2.2 – Invasive Species Control $ 58,508,000 $ 4,875,000 Vulnerable Species 2.2 – Invasive Species Control $ 12,696,000 $ 6,348,000 Endangered Species 2.2 – Invasive Species Control $ 28,282,000 $ 5,656,000 Critically Endangered Species 2.2 – Invasive Species Control $ 12,852,000 $ 6,426,000

*Costs have been rounded down to the nearest $1000.

When we explore the most costly category of action for each species (Table 10), we see that control and eradication programs for feral and invasive species are the most costly element for 10 of the 21 species. The establishment and management of secure enclosures is the most costly element for the boodie, rufous hare-wallaby, and banded hare-wallaby, which all occur on various islands off the west coast of Western Australia, as well as within enclosures on the mainland. These are all relatively small species that have been particularly susceptible to predation by feral animals such as foxes and cats, and are unlikely to survive outside enclosures without intense and ongoing feral control programs. For six species, monitoring of species and threats is the most costly element of their respective recovery programs. These costs fall between 27 and 38% of project costs, while feral control programs, where they represent the greatest cost in a recovery program, range from 35 to 66% of project costs.

41 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 10: Most costly category of management action for each species, showing percentage of total project cost, and the relevant actions contributing to those costs.

Species Category Percentage of Relevant Actions Total Project Cost*

Brush-tailed rock wallaby 2.2 Invasive/problematic 66 Feral eradication and species control management Black-footed rock wallaby 2.2 Invasive/problematic 60 Feral eradication and species control management Banded hare-wallaby 3.2 Species Recovery 56 Establishment of secure enclosures, Disease management, Enclosure management Yellow-footed rock wallaby 2.2 Invasive/problematic 56 Feral eradication and management species control Parma wallaby 2.2 Invasive/problematic 50 Feral eradication and management species control Long-footed potoroo 2.2 Invasive/problematic 49 Feral eradication and management species control Tasmanian bettong 6.4 Conservation Payments 47 Landholder engagement, Incentive payments for grazing management Rufous hare-wallaby 3.2 Species Recovery 46 Establishment of secure enclosures, Disease management, Enclosure management Bridled nailtail wallaby 2.2 Invasive/problematic 45 Feral eradication and management species control Gilbert’s potoroo 2.2 Invasive/problematic 43 Feral eradication and management species control Quokka 2.2 Invasive/problematic 41 Feral eradication and management species control Black wallaroo 8.9 Trends/monitoring 41 Establishment of secure enclosures, Disease management, Enclosure management Boodie 3.2 Species Recovery 40 Forest rehabilitation Bennett’s tree kangaroo 2.3 Habitat and natural 40 Feral eradication and management process management Northern bettong 2.2 Invasive/problematic 38 Monitoring of species, Monitoring of threats Woylie 2.2 Invasive/problematic 35 Feral eradication and management species control Proserpine rock wallaby 8.9 Trends/monitoring 35 Monitoring of species, Monitoring of threats Mount Claro rock wallaby 8.9 Trends/monitoring 30 Monitoring of species, Monitoring of threats Monjon 8.9 Trends/monitoring 29 Monitoring of species, Monitoring of threats Nabarlek 8.9 Trends/monitoring 29 Monitoring of species, Monitoring of threats Cape York rock wallaby 8.9 Trends/monitoring 27 Monitoring of species, Monitoring of threats

*Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer.

42 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

The general failure of species recovery processes to achieve down-listing in threat status for macropods 7. Discussion over the last 15 years highlights the importance of immediate, comprehensive and fully-funded action to secure all species and their habitat. Of course down- listing is not the ultimate goal, but a stepping-stone on the way to listing as Least Concern. For many species, full recovery to their historical abundance and distribution will simply not be possible. While this action plan focuses only on macropods, the plan itself is a strong recommendation that conservation expenditure requirements be made explicit for all threatened species. Rather than deciding how to spend a very limited budget on a large set of problems, this action plan calls for a radical increase in environmental expenditure, based on a careful analysis of the most effective actions. The total cost of $290 million over 10 years to undertake all 21 macropod recovery projects at first glance appears high, particularly given government expenditure on the national estate and environmental protection. In the 2010-11 financial year, $310 million was allocated to the national estate and parks, and $867 million was allocated to environment protection, a total of $1.177 billion (Australian Government 2010). Compare this to $21 billion for defence, or $3.2 billion for recreation and culture in the same financial year. If were we to apply the same process to every species listed as threatened on the Australian Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, the sum would likely be far higher. This is not outside the realm of possibility however, and this action plan serves as a strong argument to invest in more strategic, equitable, comparable and measurable recovery planning and implementation. When using the Project Prioritisation Protocol (Joseph et al. 2009) for threatened species in New Zealand, the Department of Conservation defined their goal as “to improve the security of the greatest possible number of unique species”. Through implementing the PPP, it was determined that the full cost for “securing” 680 species over a period of 50 years was $90 million in the first year, and this dropped off significantly after the first three years once the initial setup costs were met. This list included species such as small flowering plants and invertebrates, many of which have fewer and less costly recovery requirements compared to large vertebrates, and indicates that macropods may be at the “expensive” end of any list that incorporates all nationally threatened species in Australia. It is important to reiterate that the recovery projects listed in this action plan will not lead to listing as Least Concern, except in the case of the near threatened species. Full down-listing for species currently listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable could take decades, and substantial investment of funds and effort, although critical actions taken early may lead to delisting in the longer term without significant increased expenditure. This action plan highlights the financial investment required to successfully down-list threatened species, yet does not begin to count the cost of recovering the biodiversity in Australian landscapes from the pressures that humans have applied over the last two centuries. The state of threatened macropods today, and indeed of most threatened species and ecosystems in Australia, is a direct result of human influence. Introduced species, land clearing and degradation, and altered fire patterns have proven powerful forces in changing the nature of our environment. Many native

43 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

species have not been successful in adapting to this changed environment, resulting in more than 100 extinctions since European settlement, and at least 1600 native species being listed as threatened by the Australian Government (DSEWPAC 2011). Climate change, relatively low and diminishing expenditure on environmental management, increasing human population pressures, and failures of environmental policies and regulations will surely contribute to this problem in the future. The rationale of this action plan is based on the assertion that in order to recover a species, the full suite of recovery actions prescribed should be undertaken. Experts have recommended a suite of actions that, if undertaken in full, would likely result in the achievement of the project goal: eligibility for down-listing within 10 years. Without substantial use of population models incorporating Bayesian analysis of recovery actions, followed by intensive monitoring and adaptive management, it will be difficult to determine the efficacy of only undertaking part of a prescribed recovery program. To undertake only a portion of these actions is to invite failure. The recovery planning process across this group of species, including the elicitation of specific actions for each location, highlights critical gaps in our knowledge, as well as gaps in management effectiveness. For instance, there are obvious gaps in knowledge about the status and distribution of many macropod species, as well as knowledge gaps in the nature and severity of threats, particularly fire. The data collected are also useful in highlighting management actions which are most commonly required for the recovery of threatened macropods. Nineteen of the 21 recovery projects include introduced predator control. The two projects for which this action is unnecessary (Dendrolagus bennettianus and Macropus bernardus) are in fact the two least expensive projects. The prevalent requirement for fox and cat control in this action plan indicates that predation by introduced animals requires renewed investment and research if we are to successfully address this problem, not only for threatened macropods, but for a very broad range of native animals that face the same threat. In an analysis by Taylor and Booth (2008) it was found that for threatened species recognised as habitat-constrained, only 67% of recovery plans for those species prescribed new protected areas as a recovery action. For the macropod action plan, protection of new areas of habitat is only explicit in eight12 of the 21 projects. However, it is clear from their reasons for listing that for most macropods there are far more pressing threats that must be dealt with to achieve down-listing within 10 years. Predation, competition and altered fire patterns are key. Furthermore, several macropods will require the establishment of new subpopulations if they are to meet the criteria for down-listing. For several species, there are explicit actions to identify suitable areas of habitat for future expansion or translocation. Greater emphasis on these actions will be required in the future as climate and habitats change, and as human developments continue to encroach on wildlife. To be sure, new protected areas will need to be established to achieve the long-term vision of all macropods thriving in the wild, but that approach has not been the focus of this action plan. As Taylor and Booth (2008) conclude, caution should be taken in using threatened species as a basis for prioritisation of reserve system growth generally, due to the biased and incomplete nature of species level data. Ecosystem diversity sampling targets as presently used should remain the main guide for reserve system growth. Suffice to say that more protected areas will be needed in concert with drastic threat abatement if we are to ensure a long legacy of healthy habitats and thriving native species. This action plan outlines complete recovery projects to meet the goal of down-listing each threatened species. The actions suggested for each recovery project are the minimum set of actions required to secure the species. None of the actions is obsolete, therefore if any of the actions are not funded, the species is unlikely to achieve its goal. For this reason, this action plan does not provide guidance on the relative importance of individual actions within projects.

12 Tasmanian bettong, Bennett’s tree kangaroo, Parma wallaby, Monjon, Cape York rock wallaby, Proserpine rock wallaby, Mount Claro rock wallaby, and Long- footed potoroo.

44 Bennett’s tree k tree Bennett’s

Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 angaroo ( angaroo D endr o lagus b ennettianus) . © Martin H . © Martin arvey/ WW F- C anon

45 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Little progress has been made over the last 15 8. Conclusion and years to recover some of Australia’s most iconic species. The status of macropods in Recommendations Australia can be seen as an indicator of systemic environmental problems that conspire against recovery efforts. No less than dedicated, fully-funded threatened species recovery projects are required to overcome these problems, and this action plan shows that while the costs are not insignificant, the necessary actions are clear. The framework of this action plan provides a systematic, transparent, repeatable and objective method for articulating recovery projects to achieve the given goal; in this case, to down-list threatened macropods on the IUCN Red List within 10 years. Clearly stating the steps used to make decisions presents an opportunity to scrutinise and improve the decision-making process; initiates a forum for the explicit examination of management principles and limitations, including the development of unambiguous working objectives; and reveals knowledge gaps and uncertainty in the system. Consequently, the number of species managed and the expected overall benefit to threatened macropods may be increased substantially over business as usual recovery effort. It is important to reiterate that the costs outlined in this action plan are indicative only, and may be subject to substantial changes once more detailed analysis is undertaken by relevant recovery teams. Of course, costs may also decrease significantly, particularly where several species with the same conservation requirements occur at the same location. The results of this action plan suggest that for greatest efficiency in the allocation of resources to species conservation, governments need to make explicit decisions about their objectives. As McCarthy et al. (2008) point out, this is at best simply implied in legislation, and is usually ambiguous in either statutes or policy. As a result, recovery decisions are often made not with a strategy for achieving long- term goals or objectives, but rather for satisfying short-term needs or solving immediate problems. Moreover, the allocation of ultimately limited resources should also be undertaken in a considered and objective way across all species, not piecemeal across various levels of management as is the case for most recovery processes.

46 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Future Recommendations Regular review Five-yearly reviews have been built in to each recovery project, in light of progress and new information. It is possible that without any management intervention, species not currently threatened may become threatened and species that are threatened will decline further. In order to achieve the vision of this action plan, all species of macropods must be considered, and protected from extinction.

Confidence levels Experts could be asked to provide confidence levels when determining actions for recovery, as well as their likelihood of success. This would allow for improved sensitivity analyses of recommendations in future iterations of this plan and others that follow.

More detailed expert input This is a high-level document that seeks to synthesise the recovery actions for 21 species of Australian macropods. To implement these plans, more detailed elaboration is required, in concert with the recovery team (where one exists), the State Government(s) and other agencies that have principal responsibility for species management, and the latest recovery plans. While we received many comments on this action plan, there were many experts who made no contribution. If there are large errors in our estimates, we welcome any input that will strengthen this document as a blueprint for the conservation and recovery of threatened Australian macropods. L ong- f ooted p ooted otoroo ( otoroo Po t o r o us l o ngipes). © D ave W ave atts/ ANT Photo.co m .au

47 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Algar, D, and Burrows, ND (2004) Feral cat control research: Western Shield review – February 2003. Conservation Science Western Australia 5(2): 131-163. 9. References Australian Dingo Conservation Association (2008) Objectives of the Austra- lian Dingo Conservation Association. www.dingoconservation.com, accessed 27 May 2010. Australian Government (2010) Budget Overview 2010-11. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. www.budget.gov.au, accessed March 15 2011. Australian Wildlife Conservancy (2009) AWC wins Biodiversity Award for protecting the endangered Woylie. www.australianwildlife.org, accessed 20 June 2010. Balmford, A, Gaston, KJ, Blyth, S, James, A and Kapos, V (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100: 1046-1050. Bowman, DMJS (1998) The impact of Aboriginal landscape burning on the Australian biota. New Phytologist 140(3): 385-410. Bowman, DMJS, Garde, M, and Saulwick, A, (2001) Kunj-ken makka man-wurrk, Fire is for kangaroos: interpreting Aboriginal accounts of landscape burning in central Arnhem Land. In: Histories of Old Ages, Essays in honour of Rhys Jones. (ed. O’Connor, S). Pandanus Books, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. 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. Burbidge, AA, McKenzie, NL, Brennan, KEC, Woinarski, JCZ, Dickman, CR, Baynes, A, Gordon, G, Menkhorst, PW and Robinson, AC (2009) Conservation status and biogeography of Australia’s terrestrial mammals. Australian Journal of Zoology 56, 411-422. Claridge, AW, and Hunt, R (2008) Evaluating the role of the dingo as a trophic regulator: Additional practical suggestions. Ecological Management and Restoration 9(2): 116-119. Conservation Measures Partnership (2011) Conservation Actions Taxonomy. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/ initiatives/threats-actions-taxonomies/actions-taxonomy, accessed March 15 2011. Daniels, MJ and Corbett, L (2003) Redefining introgressed protected mammals: When is a wildcat a wild cat and a dingo a wild dog? Wildlife Research 30, 213–218. Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM, Queensland) (2009) National recovery plan for the northern bettong Bettongia tropica. Report to Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008a) Threat abatement plan for competition and land degradation by rabbits. DEWHA, Canberra. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008c) Background to the threat abatement plan for competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats. DEWHA, Canberra. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010a) Feral animals in Australia. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/ferals, accessed 28 May 2010. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010b) A bait efficacy trial for the management of cats on Christmas Island. Technical Report Series 200. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/ cat-bait-christmas-island.html, accessed 1 June 2010. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010c) Setonix brachyurus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. www.environment.gov.au/sprat, accessed 1 June 2010. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010d) Background information – Commercial kangaroo and wallaby harvest quotas. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/publications/kangaroo/ quotas-background.html, accessed 22 June 2010. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPIF, Queensland) (2007) Feral pig control in the Wet Tropics. www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Feral-Pigs-Tropics-PA8.pdf, accessed 1 June 2010. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE, Tasmania) (2010) Prioritisation of threatened flora and fauna recovery actions for the Tasmanian NRM regions. Nature Conservation Report 10/03. DPIPWE, Hobart. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) (2011) Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. www. environment.gov.au/sprat, accessed 15 March 2011. Eldridge, MDB (compiler) (1997) Rock-Wallaby Conservation: Essential data and management priorities. Proceedings of the 1994 national rock-wallaby symposium workshops. Australian Mammalogy 19: 325-330. Fisher, DO, Blomberg, SP, and Hoyle, SD (2000) Mechanisms of drought-induced population decline in an endangered wallaby. Biological Conservation 102: 107-115. Fitzgerald, G, Fitzgerald, N and Davidson, C (2007) Public attitudes towards invasive animals and their impacts. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra. Fleming P, Corbett, L, Harden R and Thomson, P (2001) Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, ACT. Garnett, S, Crowley, G and Balmford, A (2003) The costs and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian threatened birds. Bioscience 53(7): 658-665. Garnett, ST, McCarthy, MA, and Thompson, CJ (2008) Optimal investment in conservation of species. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1428-1435.

48 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Geoscience Australia (2000) Landsat 7 Picture Mosaic of Australia. Pannell, DJ, Roberts, AM, Park, G, Curatolo, A, Marsh, S and Alexander, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. J (2009) INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental Resources), INFFER Working Paper 0901, University of Western Australia, Perth. Higginbottom, K, Northrope, CL, Croft, DB, Hill, B and Fredline, E (2004) The role of kangaroos in Australian tourism. Australian Mammalogy 26: 23-32. Possingham, HP, Andelman, SJ, Noon, BR, Trombulak, S and Pulliam, HR (2001) Making smart conservation decisions. Pages 225-244 in Soule, ME Holden, C and Mutze, G (2002) Impact of rabbit haemorrhagic disease on and Orians, GH (eds.) Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for the Next introduced predators in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia. Wildlife Re- Decade. Island Press, Washington. search 29: 615–626. Robley, AJ, Short, J and Bradley, S (2001) Dietary overlap between the burrow- Invasive Animal CRC (2010) The feral pig. www.invasiveanimals.com, ing bettong (Bettongia lesueur) and the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cunicu- accessed 1 June 2010. lus) in semi-arid coastal Western Australia. Wildlife Research 28(4): 341-349. IUCN (2001) Categories and Criteria (version 3.1). http://www.iucnredlist.org/ Russell-Smith, J, Craig, R, Gill, AM, Smith, R and Williams, J (2002) static/categories_criteria_3_1, accessed 15 November 2010. Australia State of the Environment Second Technical Paper Series IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4. (Biodiversity), Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. www.iucnredlist.org, accessed 10 March 2011. www.ea.gov.au/soe/techpapers/index.html, accessed 3 June 2010. James, A, Gaston, KJ, and Balmford, A (2001) Can we afford to conserve Salafsky, N, Salzer, A, Stattersfiel, C, Hilton-Taylor, R and Neugarten, S (2008) biodiversity? BioScience 51: 43-52. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of Johnson CN (2006) Australia’s Mammal Extinctions: A 50,000 Year History. threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22: 897-911. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Sanderson, EW (2006) How many animals do we want to save? The many ways Johnson CN, Isaac, JL and Fisher, DO (2007) Rarity of a top predator triggers of setting population target levels for conservation. BioScience 56: 911-922. continent-wide collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia. Saunders, GR, Gentle, MN and Dickman, CR (2010) The impacts and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 274: 341–346. management of foxes Vulpes vulpes in Australia. Mammal Review 40: 181-211. Joseph, LN, Maloney, RF, O’Connor, SM, Cromarty, P, Jansen, P, Stephens, Short, J, Bradshaw, SD, Giles, J, Prince, RIT and Wilson, GR (1992) T and Possingham, HP (2008) Improving methods for allocating resources Reintroduction of macropods (Marsupialia, Macropodoidea) in Australia – among threatened species: the case for a new national approach in a review. Biological Conservation 62: 189-204. New Zealand. Pacific Conservation Biology. 14: 154-158 Short, J and Milkovits, G (1990) Distribution and status of the brush-tailed Joseph, LN, Maloney, RF, and Possingham, HP (2009) Optimal allocation of rock-wallaby in South-Eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 17: 169–179. resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conser- Short, J, and Smith, A (1994) Mammal Decline and Recovery in Australia. vation Biology 23: 328-338. Journal of Mammalogy 75(2): 288-297. Kinnear, JE, Krebs, CJ, Pentland C, Orell, P, Holme, C and Karvinen, R (2010) Short, J, and Turner, B (1991) Distribution and abundance of spectacled Predator-baiting experiments for the conservation of rock-wallabies in Western hare-wallabies and euros on Barrow Island, Western Australia. Wildlife Australia: a 25-year review with recent advances. Wildlife Research 37: 37-57. Research 18(4): 421-429. Kennedy, M (1992) Australasian marsupials and monotremes: an action plan for Short, J, and Turner, B (2000) Reintroduction of the burrowing bettong their conservation. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Bettongia lesueur (Marsupialia: Potoroidae) to mainland Australia. Biological Resources, Gland. Conservation 96: 185-196. Langford D and Burbidge AA (2001) Translocation of mala from the Tanami Sigg, DP, Goldizen, AW and Pople, AR (2005) The importance of mating Desert, Northern Territory to Trimouille Island, Western Australia. Australian system in translocation programs: reproductive success of released male Mammalogy 23, 37-46. bridled nailtail wallabies. Biological Conservation 123: 289-300. Laurance, WF (1997) A distributional survey and habitat model for the Smith, AP and Quin, DG (1996) Patterns and causes of extinction and decline endangered northern bettong Bettongia tropica in Tropical Queensland. in Australian conilurine rodents. Biological Conservation 77: 243–67. Biological Conservation 82: 47-60. Southgate, R, Paltridge, R, Masters, P and Carthew, S (2007) Bilby distribution Letnic M (2007) The impacts of pastoralism on the fauna of arid Australia. In: and fire: a test of alternative models of habitat suitability in the Tanami Desert, Animals of Arid Australia: Out on their Own? (eds. Dickman, CR, Lunney, D and Australia. Ecography 30: 759–76. Burgin, S) pp. 65–75. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney. Steffen, W, Burbidge, A, Hughes, L, Kitching, R, Lindenmayer, D, Musgrave, Maxwell, S, Burbidge, AA and Morris, K (1996) The 1996 Action Plan for W, Stafford Smith, M and Werner, P (2009a) Australia’s Biodiversity and Cli- Australian Marsupials and Monotremes. Wildlife Australia Endangered Species mate Change: A strategic assessment of the vulnerability of Australia’s Program, Canberra. biodiversity to climate change. Summary for Policy Makers. Report to the McCallum, H, Timmers, P and Hoyle, S (1995) Modelling the impact of NRM Ministerial Council. Department of Climate Change, Canberra. predation on reintroductions of bridled nailtail wallabies. Wildlife Research 22: Steffen, W, Burbidge, A, Hughes, L, Kitching, R, Lindenmayer, D, Musgrave, 153-171. W, Stafford Smith, M and Werner, P (2009b) Australia’s Biodiversity and McCarthy, MA, Thompson, CJ, and Garnett, ST (2008) Optimal investment in Climate Change: A strategic assessment of the vulnerability of Australia’s conservation of species. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1428-1435. biodiversity to climate change. Technical synthesis. Report to the NRM Metrick, A and Weitzman, ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered Ministerial Council. Department of Climate Change, Canberra.. species preservation. Land Economics 7:1-16. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (2009) Wildlife Tourism: Miller, KL (2010) Future directions for species conservation. KSR Consulting Challenges, Opportunities and Managing the Future. www.crctourism.com.au, report for WWF-Australia. accessed 27 May 2010. Moseby, KE and Read, JL (2005) The efficacy of feral cat, fox and rabbit Taylor, M and Booth, C (2008) Protected area gaps for threatened Australian exclusion fence designs for threatened species protection. Biological animals identified from recovery plans. WWF-Australia, Sydney. Conservation 127: 429-437. Wallach, AD, Murray, BR and O’Neill, AJO (2008) Can threatened species Murray, JV, Low Choy, S, McAlpine, CA, Possingham, HP and Goldizen, AW survive where the top predator is absent? Biological Conservation 142: 43-52. (2006) The importance of ecological scale for wildlife conservation in naturally Watson, JEM, Bottrill, MC, Walsh, JC, Joseph, LN and Possingham, HP (2010) fragmented environments: A case study of the brush-tailed rock wallaby Evaluating threatened species recovery planning in Australia. Prepared on (Petrogale penicillata). Biological Conservation 141: 7-22. behalf of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts by National Kangaroo Protection Coalition (2009) Kangaroo culling, Australia’s the Spatial Ecology Laboratory, University of Queensland. Pp 158. Dirty Secret! www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com, accessed 15 May 2010. Watson, JEM, Evans, MC, Carwardine, J, Fuller, RA Joseph, LN, Segan, DB, Newsome, AE, Catling, PC, Cooke, BD and Smyth, R (2001) Two ecological Taylor, MF, Fensham, RJ and Possingham, HP (2011) The capacity of Aus- universes separated by the dingo fence in semi-arid Australia: interactions tralia’s protected-area system to represent threatened species. Conservation between landscapes, herbivory and carnivory, with and without dingoes. Biology, 25:324-332. The Rangeland Journal 23: 71–98. Zoos South Australia (2010) Conservation Ark, Conservation Programs, Newspoll, 2010. Importance of and best party to handle major issues, Brush-tailed rock-wallaby. www.zoosa.com.au, accessed 7 June 2010. 17-02-2010. www.newspoll.com.au, accessed 14 March 2011.

49 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

10. Appendices

Appendix 1: Acronyms Acronyms and abbreviations used in the text AWC Australian Wildlife Conservancy CPI Consumer Price Index CR Critically Endangered CRC Cooperative Research Centre DD Data Deficient DERM Department of Environment and Resource Management (Queensland) DECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (New South Wales) DOC Department of Conservation (New Zealand) DPIF Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland) DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmania) DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Australia) DSEWPAC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Australia) EN Endangered EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature NT Near Threatened OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PPP Project Prioritisation Protocol VU Vulnerable WWF World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund)

50 Par m

Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 a wallab y ( M acr o pus parma) . © D ave W ave atts/ ANT Photo.co m .au

51 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Appendix 2: List of Macropods List of all extant described macropods in Australia and New Guinea and surrounding islands.

Threat Status Geographic Location Population Scientific Name Common Name IUCN EPBC IUCN Trend Country* State Criteria Act Aepyprymnus rufescens Rufous bettong LC Unknown AUS QLD, NSW Bettongia gaimardi Tasmanian bettong NT Stable AUS TAS Bettongia lesueur Boodie, burrowing NT D2 VU Increasing AUS WA, SA, NSW bettong Bettongia penicillata Woylie, brush-tailed CR A4be EN Declining AUS WA, SA bettong B1ab(iii,v) Bettongia tropica Northern bettong EN +2ab(iii,v) EN Declining AUS QLD Dendrolagus bennettianus Bennett's tree kangaroo NT Stable AUS QLD Dendrolagus dorianus Doria's tree kangaroo VU A3cd Declining PNG Dendrolagus goodfellowi Goodfellow's tree kan- EN A2cd Declining PNG garoo Dendrolagus inustus Grizzled tree kangaroo VU A4cd Declining PNG, IND Dendrolagus lumholtzi Lumholtz's tree LC Stable AUS QLD kangaroo Dendrolagus matschiei Matschie's tree kangaroo EN C2a(ii) Declining PNG Dendrolagus mayri Wondiwoi CR D Unknown IND Dendrolagus mbaiso Dingiso CR A2cd Declining IND Dendrolagus notatus Ifola EN A2cd Declining PNG A2cd+A3cd+ A4cd; B1ab Dendrolagus pulcherrimus Golden tree kangaroo CR (I,ii,iii,iv,v);C1 Declining IND Dendrolagus scottae Tenkile, Scott's tree EN A4cd Declining PNG kangaroo Dendrolagus spadix Lowland tree kangaroo LC Declining PNG Dendrolagus stellarum Seri's tree kangaroo VU A2cd Declining PNG Dendrolagus ursinus Black tree kangaroo VU A2cd Declining IND Dorcopsis atrata Black dorcopsis CR B1ab(i,iii) Declining PNG Dorcopsis hageni White-striped dorcopsis LC Stable PNG, IND Dorcopsis luctuosa Grey dorcopsis VU A4cd Declining PNG, IND Dorcopsis muelleri Brown dorcopsis LC Stable IND Dorcopsulus macleayi Macleay's dorcopsis LC Stable PNG Dorcopsulus vanheurni Small dorcopsis NT Declining PNG, IND Hypsiprymnodon Musky rat-kangaroo LC Stable AUS QLD moschatus Lagorchestes conspicillatus Spectacled hare-wallaby LC VU Declining PNG, AUS QLD, NT, WA Lagorchestes hirsutus Mala, rufous hare-wallaby VU D2 VU - EN Declining AUS WA Lagostrophus fasciatus Banded hare-wallaby EN B1ac(iv)+2ac(iv) VU Unknown AUS WA Macropus agilis Agile wallaby LC Declining AUS, PNG, WA, QLD, NT IND Macropus antilopinus Antilopine wallaby LC Declining AUS WA, QLD, NT Macropus bernardus Black wallaroo NT Unknown AUS NT Macropus dorsalis Black-striped wallaby LC Declining AUS QLD, NSW Macropus eugenii Tammar wallaby LC Unknown AUS WA, SA Macropus fuliginosus Western grey kangaroo LC Increasing AUS WA, SA, VIC, NSW, QLD Macropus giganteus Eastern grey kangaroo LC Stable AUS QLD, NSW, VIC, TAS Macropus irma Western brush wallaby LC Stable AUS WA Macropus parma Parma wallaby NT Unknown AUS QLD, NSW

52 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Threat Status Geographic Location Population Scientific Name Common Name IUCN EPBC IUCN Trend Country* State Criteria Act Macropus parryi Whiptail wallaby LC Stable AUS QLD, NSW Macropus robustus Common wallaroo LC Stable AUS All except TAS Macropus rufogriseus Red-necked wallaby LC Stable AUS QLD, NSW, VIC, SA, TAS Macropus rufus Red kangaroo LC Stable AUS All except TAS Onychogalea fraenata Bridled nailtail wallaby EN B1ab(iii) EN Stable AUS QLD, NSW Onychogalea unguifera Northern nailtail wallaby LC Unknown AUS QLD, NT, WA Petrogale assimilis Allied rock wallaby LC Stable AUS QLD Petrogale brachyotis Short-eared rock wallaby LC Unknown AUS NT WA Petrogale burbidgei Monjon NT Unknown AUS WA Petrogale coenensis Cape York rock wallaby NT Unknown AUS QLD Petrogale concinna Nabarlek DD Unknown AUS NT, WA Petrogale godmani Godman's rock wallaby LC Stable AUS QLD Petrogale herberti Herbert's rock wallaby LC Unknown AUS QLD Petrogale inornata Unadorned rock wallaby LC Unknown AUS QLD Petrogale lateralis Black-footed rock wallaby NT VU Declining AUS NT, SA, WA Petrogale mareeba Mareeba rock wallaby LC Stable AUS QLD Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed rock wallaby NT VU Declining AUS QLD, NSW Petrogale persephone Proserpine rock wallaby EN B1ab(iii,v) EN Declining AUS QLD Petrogale purpureicollis Purple-necked rock LC Unknown AUS QLD, NT wallaby Petrogale rothschildi Rothschild's rock wallaby LC Unknown AUS WA Petrogale sharmani Mount Claro rock wallaby NT Stable AUS QLD Petrogale xanthopus Yellow-footed rock wal- NT VU Unknown AUS QLD, NSW, SA laby Potorous gilbertii Gilbert's potoroo CR D CR Stable AUS WA Potorous longipes Long-footed potoroo EN B1ab(v) EN Unknown AUS VIC, NSW Potorous tridactylus Long-nosed potoroo LC VU Declining AUS QLD, NSW, VIC, TAS Setonix brachyurus Quokka VU B1ab(ii,iii) VU Declining AUS WA Thylogale billardierii Tasmanian pademelon LC Stable AUS TAS Thylogale browni New Guinea pademelon VU A2d Declining PNG, IND Thylogale brunii Dusky pademelon VU A4d Declining PNG, IND Thylogale calabyi Calaby's pademelon EN B1ab(iii,v) Declining PNG +2ab(iii,v) Thylogale lanatus Mountain pademelon EN B1ab(v) Declining PNG Thylogale stigmatica Red-legged pademelon LC Declining AUS, PNG, QLD, NSW IND Thylogale thetis Red-necked pademelon LC Stable AUS NSW, QLD Wallabia bicolor Swamp wallaby LC Increasing AUS QLD, NSW, VIC, SA

*AUS: Australia; PNG: Papua New Guinea; IND: Indonesia

53 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Appendix 3: Conservation Actions Conservation actions taxonomy (Conservation Measures Partnership 2011, www.conservationmeasures.org; Salafsky et al. 2008) 1. Land/Water Protection 4. Education & Awareness Actions to identify, establish or expand parks and Actions directed at people to improve other legally protected areas understanding and skills, and influence behaviour 1.1 Site/Area Protection 4.1 Formal Education Establishing or expanding public or private Enhancing knowledge and skills of students parks, reserves, and other protected areas in a formal degree program roughly equivalent to IUCN Categories I-VI 4.2 Training 1.2 Resource & Habitat Protection Enhancing knowledge, skills and information Establishing protection or easements of some exchange for practitioners, stakeholders, specific aspect of the resource on public or and other relevant individuals in structured private lands outside of IUCN Categories I-VI settings outside of degree programs 4.3 Awareness & Communications Raising environmental awareness and 2. Land/Water Management providing information through various Actions directed at conserving or restoring sites, media or through civil disobedience habitats and the wider environment 2.1 Site/Area Management Management of protected areas and other 5. Law & Policy resource lands for conservation Actions to develop, change, influence, and help implement formal legislation, regulations, and 2.2 Invasive/Problematic Species Control voluntary standards Controlling and/or preventing invasive and/ or other problematic plants, animals, and 5.1 Legislation pathogens Making, implementing, changing, influencing, or providing input into formal 2.3 Habitat & Natural Process Restoration government sector legislation or polices Enhancing degraded or restoring missing at all levels: international, national, state/ habitats and ecosystem functions; dealing provincial, local, tribal with pollution 5.2 Policies & Regulations Making, implementing, changing, 3. Species Management influencing, or providing input into policies Actions directed at managing or restoring species, and regulations affecting the implementation focused on the species of concern itself of laws at all levels: international, national, state/provincial, local/community, tribal 3.1 Species Management Managing specific plant and animal 5.3 Private Sector Standards & Codes populations of concern Setting, implementing, changing, influencing, or providing input into voluntary standards 3.2 Species Recovery & professional codes that govern private Manipulating, enhancing or restoring sector practice specific plant and animal populations, vaccination programs 5.4 Compliance & Enforcement Monitoring and enforcing compliance with 3.3 Species Re-Introduction laws, policies & regulations, and standards Re-introducing species to places where they & codes at all levels formally occurred or benign introductions 3.4 Ex-Situ Conservation Protecting biodiversity out of its native habitats

54 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

6. Livelihood, Economic & Other Incentives 7. External Capacity Building Actions to use economic and other incentives to Actions to build the infrastructure to do better influence behaviour conservation 6.1 Linked Enterprises & Livelihood 7.1 Institutional & Civil Society Alternatives Development Developing enterprises that directly depend Creating or providing non-financial support & on the maintenance of natural resources or capacity building for non-profits, government provide substitute livelihoods as a means of agencies, communities, and for-profits changing behaviours and attitudes 7.2 Alliance & Partnership Development 6.2 Substitution Forming and facilitating partnerships, Promoting alternative products and alliances, and networks of organizations services that substitute for environmentally 7.3 Conservation Finance damaging ones Raising and providing funds for 6.3 Market Forces conservation work Using market mechanisms to change behaviours and attitudes 8. Research Actions (IUCN 2010) 6.4 Conservation Payments Using direct or indirect payments to change 8.1 Taxonomy behaviours and attitudes 8.2 Population Numbers and Range 6.5 Non-Monetary Values 8.3 Biology and Ecology Using intangible values to change behaviours and attitudes 8.4 Habitat Status 8.5 Threats 8.6 Uses and Harvest Levels 8.7 Cultural Relevance 8.8 Conservation Measures 8.9 Trends/Monitoring 8.10 Other W oylie, Brush-tailed b Brush-tailed oylie, (Bett ettong o ngia penicillata) . © Martin H . © Martin arvey/ ANT arvey/ Photo.co m .au

55 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Appendix 4: Yearly Costs Yearly costs of recovery for each species in order of affordability

IUCN Common Threat Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Name Status

Bennett's tree NT $160,000 $321,950 $299,782 $374,339 $354,650 $178,125 $229,363 $162,450 $167,324 $309,773 kangaroo

Black wallaroo NT $265,000 $222,850 $233,786 $326,363 $324,298 $232,682 $301,006 $236,243 $243,330 $388,061

Mount Claro NT $185,000 $322,850 $452,536 $541,676 $544,160 $342,682 $401,006 $267,143 $275,157 $420,841 rock wallaby

Monjon NT $295,000 $292,850 $555,886 $400,626 $368,008 $277,702 $628,754 $284,005 $292,525 $438,730

Nabarlek DD $265,000 $332,850 $347,086 $443,062 $444,498 $356,488 $428,526 $367,589 $378,616 $527,404

Cape York NT $205,000 $467,850 $486,136 $586,284 $559,235 $333,977 $405,341 $343,708 $354,019 $502,069 rock wallaby

Tasmanian NT $565,000 $583,350 $600,851 $673,512 $646,187 $469,506 $591,055 $498,099 $513,041 $705,005 pademelon

Parma wallaby NT $235,000 $833,750 $1,083,013 $923,567 $960,018 $886,490 $1,255,805 $929,868 $957,764 $1,123,926

Proserpine rock EN $777,000 $826,710 $955,761 $1,049,698 $1,057,979 $1,051,878 $1,189,508 $996,900 $1,010,416 $1,193,721 wallaby

Bridled nailtail EN $933,250 $941,358 $1,030,198 $1,147,064 $1,113,149 $1,086,660 $1,155,081 $1,186,603 $1,187,423 $1,326,064 wallaby

Gilbert's potoroo CR $1,210,000 $1,230,850 $1,267,776 $1,472,563 $1,456,866 $1,436,082 $1,567,373 $1,523,539 $1,569,245 $1,655,894

Rufous VU $867,000 $795,010 $1,906,437 $3,140,498 $3,590,947 $2,296,523 $1,225,402 $1,084,771 $1,096,714 $1,267,045 hare-wallaby

Boodie NT $2,504,000 $2,481,120 $2,864,668 $1,334,452 $1,547,066 $1,325,600 $1,510,662 $1,378,588 $1,399,346 $1,578,756

Woylie CR $1,678,000 $2,225,040 $2,344,523 $1,959,159 $1,891,510 $1,663,005 $1,693,244 $1,713,163 $1,789,892 $1,905,242

Banded EN $625,500 $546,265 $1,682,057 $2,956,374 $4,594,338 $3,335,015 $2,417,208 $983,156 $992,051 $1,159,242 hare-wallaby

Long-footed EN $1,348,500 $1,506,255 $1,946,960 $2,262,864 $2,168,121 $1,952,149 $2,082,357 $2,071,035 $2,133,166 $2,337,106 potoroo

Yellow-footed NT $1,750,000 $1,767,750 $1,769,347 $1,953,555 $2,263,600 $1,845,995 $2,044,662 $2,248,210 $2,017,168 $2,371,687 rock wallaby

Northern bettong EN $1,970,000 $2,021,400 $2,266,292 $2,469,895 $2,315,244 $2,136,254 $2,271,986 $2,266,352 $2,334,343 $2,551,803

Quokka VU $2,135,000 $2,109,850 $2,348,451 $2,419,835 $2,424,300 $2,262,621 $2,506,165 $2,473,862 $2,417,790 $2,764,650

Black-footed NT $2,520,000 $2,353,600 $2,309,108 $2,640,636 $3,070,608 $2,467,660 $2,817,961 $2,724,944 $2,685,551 $3,651,643 rock wallaby

Brush-Tailed NT $2,802,000 $2,817,700 $2,754,686 $3,017,626 $3,476,805 $2,944,556 $3,229,911 $3,241,492 $3,217,596 $3,952,502 rock wallaby

TOTALS $23,295,250 $25,001,208 $29,505,335 $32,093,647 $35,171,588 $28,881,649 $29,952,376 $26,981,718 $27,032,477 $32,131,166 .au m gale o etr P y ( Photo.co b ANT k walla atts/ ave W . © D ooted roc f k - Blac lateralis)

56 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Appendix 5: Recovery Outlines

Recovery Outline - Bettongia gaimardi

1. Family Potoroidae 2. Scientific name: Bettongia gaimardi (Desmarest, 1822) 3. Common name: Tasmanian bettong, Eastern Rat-kangaroo, Eastern bettong, Gaimard’s bettong, Gaimard’s Rat-kangaroo 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Near Threatened because, although it is considered to be common on Tasmania, the recent introduction of the Red Fox has the potential to be a major threat to this species in the future. The Tasmanian Bettong is thought to have been eliminated from mainland Australia by introduced foxes, and if fox control measures are not successful on Tasmania, this species could face a significant decline in the next ten years (but unlikely to be as great as 30%), thus making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion A (Menkhorst 2008).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 Bettongia gaimardi cuniculus, Tasmania 6.2 Bettongia gaimardi gaimardi, south east Australia, extinct.

7. Range and abundance

Figure 3: Known distribution of Bettongia gaimardi from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). Bettongia gaimardi gaimardi is presumed to be extinct. It was formerly distributed throughout much of the south-eastern Australian mainland, as far north as south-eastern Queensland, but disappeared around the 1920s (Menkhorst 2008). B. g. cuniculus is widespread and common in eastern Tasmania from sea level up to 1,000 metres. The population is presumed to be stable (Menkhorst 2008).

57 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 13. Management actions required Found only in open dry sclerophyll forest and 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including woodland with an open understorey, where its identification of important subpopulations, density is correlated with the abundance genetic diversity, and population trend. of mycorrhizal fungi (Taylor 1988). 13.2 Manage species data to inform adaptive 9. Threats management. 9.1 Potential for fox predation. 13.3 Implement monitoring protocols for species and predator activity, and effectiveness of 9.2 Land clearing, through timber harvesting management intervention. and excessive grazing of livestock. 13.4 Ongoing Tasmanian fox eradication. 9.3 Use of 1080 poison for wallaby control on private land. 13.5 Investigate optimum fire regimes to maintain Tasmanian bettong habitat, 9.4 Habitat alteration through inappropriate including diverse food sources such as fire regimes. hypogeous fungi. 10. Information required 13.6 Undertake fire management to maintain open understorey and diverse food sources 10.1 Status assessment of the species, including including hypogeous fungi. distribution, abundance, genetic variation, population trend, and risks. 13.7 Identify subpopulations of Tasmanian bettong vulnerable to 1080 poisoning and 10.2 Further research on appropriate fire implement measures to reduce use of poison regimes for the Tasmanian Bettong. in those areas. 10.3 Impacts of grazing on bettong habitat 13.8 Identify important subpopulations of are poorly understood. Tasmanian bettongs on private land 11. Recovery objectives and engage landholders to implement habitat management, including grazing 11.1 By 2021, Bettongia gaimardi is eligible for management where applicable. listing as Least Concern according to IUCN Red List criteria. 13.9 Reserve suitable dry sclerophyll habitats where the Tasmanian bettong occurs. 11.2 By 2021, the population trend for Bettongia gaimardi is stable or increasing, and the 14. Organisations responsible for threat of foxes establishing in Tasmania has conservation of species been eliminated, thus making Bettongia 14.1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks, gaimardi ineligible to qualify as Vulnerable Water and Environment, Tasmania. under IUCN criterion A. 11.3 By 2021, fire regimes required for 15. Other organisations involved maintaining bettong habitat are known 15.1 None. and are being implemented. 16. Staff and financial resources required for 11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Bettongia recovery to be carried out gaimardi has been maintained at known 2011 levels. 16.1 No dedicated staff required.

12. Actions completed or underway 17. Action costs 12.1 Implementation of intensive fox monitoring 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds and control measures throughout Tasmania A$5.8 million.

18. Notes 18.1 None.

58 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

19. References Taylor, RJ (1988) Ecology and conservation of the Tasmanian bettong (Bettongia gaimardi). IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Report, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Service: Canberra. Accessed 29 June 2010. Menkhorst, P (2008) Bettongia gaimardi. In: 20. Comments received from IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 20.1 Michael Driessen, Department of Primary Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/ Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, redlist/details/2783/0. Accessed 29 June 2010. Tasmania.

Table 11: List of recovery actions for Bettongia gaimardi, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment - distribution and trend. Includes surveys of Whilst the species is relatively secure, All known subpopulations, and information is required to assess those 5-Yearly 2 Months 5 People identification of subpopulations subpopulations most at risk from a range of of high conservation value. threats, and to ensure that genetic stock is Status assessment of the species - maintained. All 5-Yearly 1 Month 3 People genetics

Manage data to inform adaptive Good data management is essential to making All management, including 5-year it possible to extract the maximum amount of 3-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person program review information from monitoring data.

The recent introduction of the Red Fox has the potential to be a major threat to this species in NA - NA - NA - the future. The Tasmanian Bettong is thought to Ongoing Tasmanian fox eradication Currently Currently Currently All have been eliminated from mainland Australia by program implemented implemented implemented introduced foxes, and if fox control measures are by DPIPWE by DPIPWE by DPIPWE not successful on Tasmania, this species could face a significant decline in the next ten years.

Investigate optimum fire regimes to Research is required to better understand the maintain Tasmanian bettong habitat, All dynamics of fire in bettong habitat, and the Once 3 Years 1 Person including diverse food sources such as impact it has on food availability, including fungi. hypogeous fungi.

Priority Bettongs inhabit open, dry, fire-prone forests subpopulations Undertake fire management to with a grassy or heath understorey on poor soils. (as identified Yearly 2 Weeks 50 People maintain open understorey Fire management in bettong habitats may be in status required to maintain optimum conditions. assessment)

Bettongs may be subject to poison baits laid out Prohibit the use of 1080 poison in for native species to deter them from impacting All or near areas containing isolated Once 2 Months 2 People new forestry sites. Such poisoning represents a populations of bettongs. small but ongoing threat.

Engage landholders in areas where Priority grazing could pose a threat to bettong With the highest densities occurring on private subpopulations habitat, and provide incentives to land, it is important that property owners (as identified Yearly 1 Year 2 People manage accordingly. Grazing will have manage remaining vegetation to allow the in status to be assessed as a threat in the first continued existence of the bettong. assessment) instance.

Priority subpopulations Little of the bettong's habitat is protected within Reserve suitable dry sclerophyll (as identified reserves. Sufficient habitat will be required to Once 1 Year 1 Person habitat in status ensure the ongoing security of the species. assessment)

Develop and implement monitoring A long-term consistent and cohesive approach to protocols for species and predator All regular monitoring is essential to inform adaptive Yearly 1 Month 4 People activity, and effectiveness of management strategies management intervention.

59 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * ** $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,143 $78,286 $705,005 Year 10 $117,430 $26,523 $313,146 $130,477 $5,845,606 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $513,041 $76,006 Year 9 $126,677 $304,025 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $73,792 $498,099 $295,170 $122,987 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $71,643 $591,055 Year 7 $119,405 $107,464 $286,573 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $69,556 Year 6 $469,506 $115,927 $278,226 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $33,765 $646,187 $112,551 $136,591 $25,628 Year 5 $270,122 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $673,512 $65,564 $98,345 Year 4 $132,613 $109,273 $262,254 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $31,827 $10,609 $63,654 $600,851 $128,750 $254,616 Year 3 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $10,300 $61,800 $583,350 $30,900 $247,200 $125,000 $103,000 Year 2 $0 # $0† $5,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $565,000 $60,000 $90,000 Year 1 $100,000 $240,000 , and, their costs Action overnments. ustralian G Reserve suitable dry sclerophyll habitat Develop and implement monitoring protocols for species and predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Undertake fire management to maintain open understorey Ban use of 1080 in Tasmania, except where fox presence is suspected Engage landholders in areas where grazing is a threat to bettong habitat, and provide incentives to accordingly. manage Investigate optimum fire regimes to maintain Tasmanian bettong habitat, including diverse food sources such as hypogeous fungi. Ongoing Tasmanian fox eradication program Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations, and identification of subpopulations of high conservation value. Status assessment of the species - genetics Manage data to inform adaptive management, including 5-year program review asmanian and A List recovery of actions Bettongia for gaimardi Subpopulation osts already covered by T Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All GRAND TOTAL Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All TOTALS YEARLY All All All C #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review † Table 12: Table **Costs may be significantly defrayed by existing DPIPWE programs.

60 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Bettongia lesueur

1. Family Potoroidae 2. Scientific name: Bettongia lesueur (Quoy & Gaimardi, 1824) 3. Common name: Burrowing bettong, boodie, Lesueur’s rat kangaroo 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is small and it is known from just six-eight locations, making it close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion B1. The natural populations of this species are considered stable and reintroduced populations are increasing, habitat for the species is considered stable, and although there are major threats potentially from introduced predators, fire, and disease, this species has genuinely improved in status since the prior assessment. The species occurs naturally on three islands, and has been introduced to another five localities. There is, however, uncertainty as to whether two of these reintroduction sites can be counted as “self-sustaining”, and thus be included in the number of locations used in the assessment. This species is also close to qualifying as having “extreme fluctuations” in population, which would also qualify it for a threatened category (Richards et al. 2008). Listed as Vulnerable under the Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (DEWHA 2010). 6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 Bettongia lesueur lesueur – Bernier, Dorre and Faure Islands, Heirisson Prong (Vulnerable, EPBC Act 1999). 6.2 Bettongia lesueur unnamed subspecies – Barrow and Boodie Islands (Vulnerable EPBC, Act 1999). 6.3 Bettongia lesueur graii - Burrowing Bettong (inland), Boodie (Extinct). 7. Range and abundance

Figure 4: Known distribution of Bettongia lesueur from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

61 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Formerly the most widespread of all potoroids, 9. Threats the range of the burrowing bettong extended 9.1 Predation by foxes and feral cats. southeast from near Broome, Western Australia, through the Northern Territory, South Australia, 9.2 Major fire events. western New South Wales to north-western 9.3 Introduction of invasive species. Victoria. It is now extinct in free-ranging situations on the mainland, but still occurs on 9.4 Potential for disease introduction to islands. Bernier, Dorre, Barrow, and Boodie Islands of the 9.5 Inappropriate recreation activity or Western Australian coast (Claridge et al. 2007). development. It is abundant on Barrow (total 3,400 individuals) (Short et al. 1993), Bernier (total of 842 10. Information required individuals), and Dorre (3,292 individuals) 10.1 Review of translocations, including factors (Reinhold 2010) The populations on Bernier and influencing success and failure. Dorre Islands (and presumably Barrow Island and possibly mainland populations) are known 10.2 Investigation of burrowing bettong to undergo extreme fluctuations in response management to control excessive population to rainfall and drought (Short et al. 1997). For growth where resources are limited. example, the Dorre Island population declined to 11. Recovery objectives critically low levels in 2007 after an extended dry period (N. Thomas, pers. comm.). 11.1 By 2021, Bettongia lesueur is eligible for listing as Least Concern according to IUCN Estimates for the reintroduced island populations Red List criteria. are as follows: 11.2 By 2021, the number of distinct secure* Boodie Island: perhaps as many as 100, subpopulations of Bettongia lesueur is with a high degree of uncertainty (J. Short, greater than 10, thus making it ineligible pers. comm.). to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN Faure Island: more than 900 at last count criterion B1. (J. Short, pers. comm.). 11.3 By 2021, management plans have been Dirk Hartog Island: extinct (Burbidge and developed and are being implemented to Short 2008). reduce the threats of introduced predators, fire, disease and unpredictable resource Reintroduced mainland populations include: availability for all Bettongia lesueur Arid Recovery: 500 (Reference required). subpopulations. Scotia sanctuary: about 300 (M. Hayward, pers. 11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of comm..) Bettongia lesueur has been maintained at known 2011 levels. Heirisson Prong: more than 400 at last count (J. Short, pers. comm.). * A taxon is defined as secure when its numbers and distribution are stable or increasing, and 8. Habitat when numbers and distribution are sufficient On the mainland, warrens were constructed in that there is a 95% probability that the species most types of country where the soil was deep will survive the stochastic events anticipated over enough. Loams were favoured and in the sand- a 50 year timeframe, given that all known and ridge deserts burrows were constructed in the predicted threats are adequately mitigated. low-lying areas. Burrows were often dug into slight outcrops of limestone or gypseous rock, 12. Actions completed or underway and rises in salt-lake systems were a favoured 12.1 Translocations to Heirisson Prong, Faure habitat. Another favoured site was under boulders Island, Roxby Downs, Scotia, Yookamurra or capping rock. On Barrow Island, warrens are and Lorna Glen. almost always associated with limestone cap- rock on slopes and the top of ridges; some are in 12.2 Translocations to Dryandra have failed the floors of caves. Old, collapsed warrens are on three occasions and are unlikely to be still abundant and obvious in non-sandy soils continued (J. Short, pers. comm.). throughout much of arid Australia (Burbidge and Short 2008).

62 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

12.3 Management of captive subpopulations 13.11 Maintenance of fence enclosures at Scotia, at Dryandra, Scotia, Yookamurra, Roxby Yookamurra, Roxby Downs, Heirisson Downs and Lorna Glen. Prong and Lorna Glen. 12.4 Studies into the taxonomic identity are long 13.12 Survey habitat at potential future completed but are yet to be written (J. Short, translocation sites to ensure suitability pers. comm.). for burrowing bettongs. 12.5 A recovery plan for the species has been 13.13 Establish fenced sanctuaries for future developed for the 2007-2011 period translocations. Possible sites include (Richards 2007). Mount Gibson (WA) and Lagoon Point near Shark Bay (WA). 12.6 Dryandra Breeding Facility is in the process of being closed at the time of writing 13.14 Implement threat reduction activities at due to lack of funding and unsuccessful proposed translocation sites, including introduction attempts that failed in part due predator and competitor eradication and to predation by foxes and cats (N. Thomas, exclusion, fire management pers. comm.) 13.15 Continue management of secure 12.7 Systematic monitoring of boodies has subpopulations as potential sources for been undertaken by CSIRO (1988 to 1989) future genetically diverse translocations. and more recently by DEC (2006 to 2010, 13.16 Translocate burrowing bettongs from Bernier and Dorre islands only). existing sites to new secure areas to 12.8 A site at Lagoon point has been fenced with establish new subpopulations throughout the potential for future introduction of the former range. species to establish a new subpopulation 13.17 Enhance community participation and (J. Short, pers. comm.) education. 13. Management actions required 14. Organisations responsible for 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including conservation of species genetic diversity, abundance, distribution, 14.1 Department of Environment and population trend and risks. Conservation (DEC), Western Australia. 13.2 Manage species data to inform adaptive management. 15. Other organisations involved 13.3 Use of population viability analysis 15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC). to compare the viability of ‘wild’ 15.2 Arid Recovery Project, Roxby Downs. subpopulations. 15.3 Useless Loop Community Biosphere Project 13.4 Monitor species at all sites throughout Group, Heirisson Prong. range, including future translocation sites. 16. Staff and financial resources required for 13.5 Control or exclude invasive predators on recovery to beW carried out islands where ‘wild’ subpopulations occur. 16.1 No dedicated staff required. Many staff are 13.6 Control or exclude competitors on islands already employed at various sanctuaries. where ‘wild’ subpopulations occur. 13.7 Implement hygiene and quarantine 17. Action costs protocols for all subpopulations to 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds control disease. A$17 million. 13.8 Control and manage weeds on Bernier, 18. Notes Dorre, Boodie, Barrow and Faure Islands. 18.1 None. 13.9 Control and manage visitors to Bernier, Dorre, Boodie and Barrow islands. 13.10 Implement management to avoid catastrophic wildfires for all subpopulations.

63 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

19. References fasciatus Recovery Plan 2007 -2011. Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia. Burbidge, AA and Short, JC (2008) Burrowing Bettong, Bettongia lesueur. In: Van Dyck, S & Richards, J, Morris, K & Burbidge, A (2008) Bettongia Strahan, R (eds), The Mammals of Australia. Reed lesueur. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened New Holland, Sydney, Australia. Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/ apps/redlist/details/2784/0. Accessed 29 June 2010. Claridge, A, Seebeck, J & Rose, R (2007) Bettongs, Potoroos and the Musky Rat-Kangaroo. CSIRO Short, J and Turner, B (1993). The distribution and Publishing, Collingwood. abundance of the burrowing bettong (Marsupialia: Macropodoidea). Wildlife Research 20, 525-534. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010) Bettongia lesueur. Short, J, Turner, B, Majors, C, and Leone, J (1997). In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. The fluctuating abundance of endangered mammals Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and on Bernier and Dorre Islands, Western Australia - the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/ conservation implications. Australian Mammalogy sprat. Accessed 14 November 2010. 20, 53-71.

IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 20. Comments received from Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 29 June 2010. 20.1 Jeff Short, Wildlife Research and Management Pty Ltd. Reinhold, L (2010) Shark Bay Marsupial Recovery Team. Unpublished report to the SBMRT. Department 20.2 Nicky Marlow, DEC WA of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia 20.3 Neil Thomas, DEC WA Richards, J (2007) Western Barred Bandicoot 20.4 Manda Page, AWC Perameles bougainville, Burrowing Bettong Bettongia lesueur and Banded Hare-Wallaby Lagostrophus 20.5 Matt Hayward, AWC

Table 13: List of recovery actions for Bettongia lesueur, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment - distribution and More information is required to better All abundance. Includes understand the status of the species, to 3-Yearly 3 Months 4 People surveys of known assess those subpopulations most at risk subpopulations from a range of threats, and to ensure Status assessment - that genetic stock is maintained. All 5-Yearly 3 Months 3 People genetics Manage species data Good data management is essential to inform adaptive to making it possible to extract the All Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person management. Includes 5 maximum amount of information from year program review. monitoring data. Translocations of wild and captive subpopulations will be crucial to the Review of translocations, ongoing management of the species. All and success and failure Ensuring that any future translocations Once 2 Weeks 1 Person factors are undertaken under optimum conditions is essential for the success of the operations.

64 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Bernier and Dorre Islands 6-Monthly 3 Weeks 4 People Faure Island 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Barrow Island 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Boodie Island 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People Heirisson Prong 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People

Scotia Sanctuary - Stage 1 Implement monitoring 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Yookamurra Sanctuary protocols for species 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People activity, predator activity, Roxby Downs Arid and effectiveness 4-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Recovery Reserve of management Lorna Glen intervention. 4-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Reintroduction Site - 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Monitoring is essential to ensure 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) adaptive management and achieving Bernier and Dorre Islands the species objectives Yearly 3 Weeks 4 People (habitat condition only) Faure Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People Barrow Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People Boodie Island Yearly 1 Week 2 People Heirisson Prong (habitat Yearly 1 Week 2 People condition only) Implement monitoring Scotia Sanctuary - Stage 1 protocols for fire Yearly 1 Week 4 People management and Yookamurra Sanctuary habitat condition, Yearly 1 Week 2 People Roxby Downs Arid Recovery and effectiveness Yearly 1 Week 2 People Reserve of management intervention. Lorna Glen Yearly 1 Week 2 People Reintroduction Site - Yearly 1 Week 4 People Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Yearly 1 Week 4 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Yearly 1 Week 4 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) Bernier Island Prevent unauthorised Monthly 1 Week 2 People human visitation The influx of unauthorised visitors Dorre Island Monthly 1 Week 2 People to exclude invasive to these islands could introduce Faure Island predators and feral species or contribute to habitat Monthly 1 Week 2 People competitors, and to degradation through fire and other Boodie Island Monthly 1 Day 2 People prevent wildfires and stressors. Barrow Island disease incursion. Monthly 1 Month 4 People Predation by foxes and cats is regarded as the primary reason for the decline of the burrowing bettong on mainland Australia and the primary threat to the persistence of reintroduced mainland Australia. Their potential vulnerability on their remaining island refuges is Island Predator Removal Predator control illustrated by the loss of bettongs from Unknown 6 Months 4 People Dirk Hartog Island early this century and from Boodie Island in 1985. The former is thought to have been due to predation by feral cats, and the latter was due to a rat eradication program in 1984 that unintentionally eradicated the bettongs.

65 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

The introduction of rabbits, rats and mice poses a threat to boodies on islands. Introduced herbivores had altered the vegetation so that refuge areas during periods of drought were Island Competitor Removal Competitor control no longer available. This habitat Unknown 6 Months 4 People degradation, combined with the impact of introduced predators and changes in fire regimes in some areas, was thought to have increased the risk of local extinctions of native mammals. Bernier Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People Implement appropriate Dorre Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People fire management to avoid Faure Island catastrophic wildfires Yearly 1 Week 4 People and maintain suitable Boodie Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People bettong habitat. Barrow Island Fires have been infrequent in the last Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Scotia Sanctuary hundred years. Fire may substantially Yearly 1 Week 4 People reduce population size in the short term, Yookamurra Sanctuary but in the long term, populations are Yearly 1 Week 4 People Roxby Downs Arid Recovery likely to maintain their ability to recover, Yearly 1 Week 4 People Reserve Fire management in a fashion similar to recovery from of enclosures and drought. Fire may play a significant role Lorna Glen Yearly 1 Week 4 People sanctuaries to avoid in reducing cover and exposing animals Reintroduction Site - catastrophic wildfires to predation. Yearly 1 Week 4 People Scotia Stage 3 and maintain suitable bettong habitat. Reintroduction Site - Yearly 1 Week 4 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Yearly 1 Week 4 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) Bernier Island Unknown 1 Month 4 People Dorre Island Disease management and Unknown 1 Month 4 People quarantine procedures to Faure Island Unknown 1 Month 4 People prevent disease incursion Boodie Island and spread. Unknown 1 Week 4 People The potential for the introduction of Barrow Island disease by humans within the threatened Unknown 2 Weeks 4 People Shark Bay marsupial populations was Heirisson Prong Monthly 1 Day 2 People listed as a threat by Hancock et al. Scotia Sanctuary (2000). In May 2000 symptoms of two Monthly 1 Day 2 People diseases in the wild western barred Yookamurra Sanctuary Monthly 1 Day 2 People bandicoot population on Bernier Island, Roxby Downs Arid Recovery and captive populations at Peron Monthly 1 Day 2 People Reserve Disease management Peninsula, Kanyana, Dryandra Field Breeding Facility, Monarto Zoo, and the Lorna Glen in enclosures and Monthly 1 Day 2 People sanctuaries, principally Arid Recovery Reserve at Roxby Downs Reintroduction Site - (though no signs have been evident in the quarantine procedures Monthly 1 Day 2 People Scotia Stage 3 released population) were discovered. Reintroduction Site - Monthly 1 Day 2 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Monthly 1 Day 2 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?)

66 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Heirisson Prong Monthly 1 Day 2 People Scotia Sanctuary Monthly 1 Week 2 People Yookamurra Sanctuary Monthly 1 Week 2 People Roxby Downs Arid Monthly 1 Week 2 People Recovery Reserve Lorna Glen Enclosure fence Monthly 1 Week 2 People inspection. Reintroduction Site - Monthly 1 Week 2 People Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Monthly 1 Week 2 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Monthly 1 Week 2 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) Captive subpopulations must be Dryandra Captive protected from feral predators. Well- Yearly 2 days 2 People Breeding Facility maintained enclosure fences are the best means of ensuring this security Heirisson Prong Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People Scotia Sanctuary Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People Yookamurra Sanctuary Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People Roxby Downs Arid Enclosure fence repairs Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People Recovery Reserve to prevent predator/ competitor ingress and Lorna Glen Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People escape of captive animals. Reintroduction Site - Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) Reintroduction Site - Weekly 4 Hours 2 People Scotia Stage 3 Artificial feeding/ Translocated subpopulations may Reintroduction Site - watering to ensure require support when first moved to a Weekly 4 Hours 2 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary effective translocation. new location. Reintroduction Site - Weekly 4 Hours 2 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) Reintroduction Site - Establish secure areas Additional subpopulations need to Once 6 Months 4 People Scotia Stage 3 of habitat for future be established in order to achieve Reintroduction Site - translocations, including eligibility to be down-listed to Near Once 6 Months 5 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary any necessary fencing Threatened. A minimum of ten secure and predator/ competitor subpopulations will ensure that the Reintroduction Site - removal. burrowing bettong no longer meets Once 6 Months 5 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) the IUCN criteria B1 and B2, as long as the establishment increases the Reintroduction Site - 2010 area of occupancy and extent of Once 2 Weeks 4 People Scotia Stage 3 occurrence of the species. Captive source subpopulations are essential to increase wild and translocated subpopulations to Translocation of animals Reintroduction Site - a minimum viable number. The 6000 ha from captivity/wild Once 2 Weeks 4 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary Stage 3 at Scotia is planned for fencing subpopulations. in the near future. This will provide an increased carrying capacity at Scotia. Reintroduction Site - Similarly, Mount Gibson Sanctuary will Once 2 Weeks 4 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) have a 6000 ha fenced and feral free section within the next 3 years.

Reintroduction Site - Monthly 1 Day 2 People Scotia Stage 3 Ongoing management Reintroduction sites may not have of translocated Reintroduction Site - sufficient habitat to ensure consistent subpopulations, including Monthly 1 Day 2 People Mount Gibson Sanctuary food availability until they are suitably resource supplementation established. Reintroduction Site - as required. Monthly 1 Day 2 People Site Z (Lagoon Point?) Enhance public The community can contribute participation and substantially to the recovery of this All Yearly 2 days 1 Person education in Burrowing species, particularly where habitat Bettong recovery efforts. restoration is required.

67 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $52,191 $52,191 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $39,143 $20,216 $78,287 $26,523 $26,095 $26,095 $78,286 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $50,671 $50,671 $19,628 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $25,335 $25,335 $76,006 Year 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $49,195 $49,195 $73,792 $19,056 $18,449 $18,449 $24,597 $24,597 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $18,501 $47,762 $47,762 $71,643 $71,644 $23,881 $23,881 Year 7 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $5,000 $17,962 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $17,390 $17,390 $46,371 $46,371 $23,185 $23,185 $69,556 Year 6 $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $17,439 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $25,628 $45,020 $45,020 Year 5 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $16,931 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $21,855 $21,855 $43,709 $43,709 $65,564 $65,564 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $21,218 $21,218 $63,654 $42,436 $42,436 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,000 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $61,800 $41,200 $41,200 $20,600 $20,600 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1

, and, their costs Action Review of translocations, and success and failure factors Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations Status assessment - genetics Manage species data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. List recovery of actions Bettongia for lesueu Subpopulation Scotia Sanctuary - Stage 1 Sanctuary Yookamurra Roxby Downs Arid Recovery Reserve Lorna Glen Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Mount Sanctuary Gibson Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point Heirisson Prong Boodie Island Boodie All All Island Barrow All All All Island Faure Bernier and Dorre Islands Table 14: Table

68 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $52,191 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $78,286 $78,286 $26,095 $26,095 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $50,671 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $25,335 $25,335 $76,006 $76,006 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $49,195 $73,792 $73,792 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $24,597 $24,597 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $20,000 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $47,762 $71,643 $71,643 $23,881 $23,881 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $46,371 $23,185 $23,185 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $69,556 $69,556 Year 6 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $45,020 Year 5 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $43,709 $65,564 $65,564 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $63,654 $63,654 $42,436 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $10,300 $61,800 $10,300 $61,800 $10,300 $41,200 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1 Action Predator control Prevent unauthorised human visitation to exclude invasive predators and competitors, and to prevent wildfires and disease incursion. Competitor control Implement appropriate fire management to avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable bettong habitat. Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Subpopulation Boodie Island Boodie Faure Island Faure Island Barrow Dorre Island Dorre Island Predator Removal Barrow Island Barrow Bernier Island Island Competitor Removal Bernier Island Dorre Island Dorre Faure Island Faure Boodie Island Boodie Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point Reintroduction Site - Mount Sanctuary Gibson Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Lorna Glen Roxby Downs Arid Recovery Reserve Boodie Island Boodie Bernier and Dorre Islands Island Barrow Sanctuary Yookamurra Faure Island Faure Heirisson Prong Scotia Sanctuary - Stage 1

69 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $3,914 $3,914 $3,914 $3,914 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $2,610 $39,143 $39,143 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 Year 10 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $2,534 $3,800 $3,800 $3,800 $3,800 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $3,690 $3,690 $3,690 $3,690 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $2,460 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $36,896 $36,896 Year 8 $3,582 $3,582 $3,582 $3,582 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $2,388 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $2,319 $3,478 $3,478 $3,478 $3,478 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $34,778 $34,778 Year 6 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $2,251 $3,377 $3,377 $3,377 $3,377 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 Year 5 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $2,185 $3,278 $3,278 $3,278 $3,278 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 Year 4 $0 $3,183 $3,183 $3,183 $3,183 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $3,090 $3,090 $3,090 $3,090 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 # $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Year 1 Action Fire Management of enclosures and sanctuaries to avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable bettong habitat. Enclosure fence repairs to prevent predator/ competitor ingress and escape of captive animals. Enclosure fence inspection. Disease management, principally quarantine quarantine principally management, Disease procedures.

Subpopulation Scotia Sanctuary Scotia Roxby Downs Arid Recovery Reserve Yookamurra Sanctuary Yookamurra Scotia Sanctuary Scotia Heirisson Prong Yookamurra Sanctuary Yookamurra Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point Roxby Downs Arid Recovery Reserve Reintroduction Site - Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Lorna Glen Roxby Downs Arid Recovery Reserve Yookamurra Sanctuary Yookamurra Scotia Sanctuary Scotia Heirisson Prong Lorna Glen Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Lorna Glen Roxby Downs Arid Recovery Reserve Reintroduction Site - Mount Gibson Sanctuary Sanctuary Yookamurra Reintroduction Site -Lagoon Point Sanctuary Scotia Heirisson Prong

70 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,524 $39,143 $39,143 $73,792 $23,881 $23,881 $26,095 $26,095 Year 10 $1,578,756 $17,924,257 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,334 $71,643 $23,185 $23,185 $25,335 $25,335 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $1,399,346 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $22,510 $22,510 $24,597 $24,597 $69,556 $36,896 $36,896 Year 8 $1,378,588 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $67,531 $21,855 $21,855 $23,881 $23,881 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $1,510,662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $21,218 $21,218 $23,185 $23,185 $34,778 $34,778 $65,564 Year 6 $1,325,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,628 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $63,654 $20,600 $20,600 Year 5 $1,547,066 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $61,800 $61,800 Year 4 $20,000 $20,000 $1,334,452 $0 $0 $0 $3,183 $3,183 $2,122 $5,305 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 3 $530,450 $2,864,668 $1,060,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $3,090 $3,090 $2,060 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 $515,000 $2,481,120 Year 2 $1,030,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $3,000 $3,000 $5,000 $2,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 Year 1 $500,000 $2,504,000 $1,000,000 Action Establish secure areas of habitat for future translocations, including any necessary fencing and predator/ competitor removal. Enclosure fence repairs to prevent predator/ competitor ingress and escape of captive animals. Artificial feeding/watering to ensure effective translocation. Ongoing management of translocated subpopulations, including resource supplementation as required. Translocation of animals from captivity/wild subpopulations. Enhance public participation and education in Burrowing Bettong recovery efforts.

Subpopulation YEARLY TOTALS YEARLY Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point Reintroduction Site - Mount Gibson Sanctuary Lorna Glen Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 GRAND TOTAL Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Scotia Stage 3 Reintroduction Site - Mount Gibson Sanctuary Reintroduction Site - Lagoon Point All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

71 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Bettongia penicillata

1. Family Potoroidae 2. Scientific name: Bettongia penicillata (Waterhouse, 1841) 3. Common name: Brush-tailed bettong, woylie, brush-tailed rat-kangaroo 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Critically Endangered; A4be

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Critically Endangered because of a drastic, ongoing population decline, estimated to be more than 80% within a ten year period, inferred from trap rates over the last eight years and projected to continue for at least the next two years. There are a number of known threats to the species, however, the recent declines are mysterious and appear to exhibit density dependence (thus are likely to belong to at least one of the factors under criterion A4e) (Wayne et al. 2008). Listed as Endangered under the Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (DSEWPAC 2011).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 Bettongia penicillata ogilby – Western Australia. Critically Endangered, EPBC Act 1999. 6.2 Bettongia penicillata penicillata – south-eastern and possibly central Australia. Extinct (DEWHA 2010 7. Range and abundance

Figure 5: Known distribution of Bettongia penicillata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). Formerly widely distributed in southern Australia, mostly south of about 30°S, the woylie was known from north-eastern New South Wales, across the southern Northern Territory, South Australia and the Nullarbor to south-western Western Australia, perhaps as far north as Shark Bay. It is likely that it was also present in the semi-arid north-west of Victoria. One island population, on St Francis Island, Nuyts Archipelago, existed before being exterminated by settlers and their cats in the 19th century. By the 1970s, the woylie was extinct over most of its range, surviving only in three small areas in the south-west of Western Australia – Tutanning, Dryandra and Tone-Perup River (Claridge et al. 2007).

72 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat management plans have been developed and implemented to address those causes. This species formerly inhabited a wide range of habitats from desert spinifex grasslands to forests. 11.4 By 2021, management plans have been It is now restricted to forests and open woodlands in developed and are being implemented to Western Australia and mallee shrublands in South reduce the threat of feral predators for key Australia with clumped low understorey of tussock Bettongia penicillata subpopulations. grasses or low woody scrub (Maxwell et al. 1996). 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Bettongia In south-western Australia the woylie is mostly penicillata has been maintained at known restricted to dry sclerophyll forest and woodland 2011 levels13. types – often dominated in the overstorey by Jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) in combination with Wandoo 12. Actions completed or underway (E. wandoo). These vegetation communities typically 12.1 Woylies have been the subject of more occur on well-drained upland, deep soils and either translocations than any other species in have a low xeric scrub or tussock grass understorey Australia (see Short 2009 for details). (Claridge et al. 2007). 12.2 Release of woylies to Paruna has not been 9. Threats successful, and further releases are unlikely. Paruna is not fenced and is not secure 9.1 Fox and cat predation. despite substantial effort (J. Short, pers. 9.2 Habitat destruction and alteration. comm.). 9.3 Disease (still under investigation). 12.3 Since 2005 the Woylie Conservation Research Project has been intensively 9.4 Catastrophic wildfire. investigating the causes of the recent The cause of the dramatic population decline rapid and substantial declines with a since 2001 is as yet unknown (Wayne et al. 2008). focus in the Upper Warren region. Lead by The West Australian Department of 10. Information required Environment and Conservation (DEC) in 10.1 Population survey and monitoring. collaboration with Murdoch University, Perth Zoo, and Australian Wildlife 10.2 Research into the reasons for the sudden Conservancy, the project is investigating decline in woylie numbers, particularly in the roles of predation, food resources, and large wild populations. disease (A. Wayne pers. comm.). 10.3 Recommended areas of research: 12.4 A secure enclosure of 400 ha at Perup was • The impacts of disease on important established and populated with more than woylie populations and associated 40 woylies in late 2010. hygiene practices that could be built into 12.5 There are many reintroduction sites with management practices to ensure no further little or no follow-up information (J. Short, spread of disease. pers. comm.). • Altered baiting regimes to better target the 12.6 Eight woylies (trypanosome positive) were direct predators of woylies. translocated to Native Animal Rescue, Malaga (WA). 11. Recovery objectives 12.7 A group of five woylies was translocated 11.1 By 2021, Bettongia penicillata is eligible for to the Perth zoo for breeding purposes in listing as Endangered according to IUCN late 2010. Red List criteria. 12.8 Woylies were reintroduced to the 430 11.2 By 2021, numbers of mature Bettongia ha Wadderin Sanctuary in the central penicillata in the wild are considered wheatbelt in 2010 (-31.985 118.414). Current stable or increasing based on an index of estimate of population (February 2011) is 40 abundance appropriate to the species. and growing (J. Short, pers. comm.) 11.3 By 2021, the cause of recent declines and 12.9 Possible new translocation sites are being suppression of recovery in Bettongia investigated. penicillata are understood, and

13 Ideally, the genetic diversity of South Australia’s island subpopulations should be increased within the timeframe of this plan.

73 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

12.10 In Western Australia, fox and cat baiting 13.9 Implement monitoring protocols for species under the Western Shield program is activity, abundance, demographics and aimed at improving the conservation status health, and effectiveness of management of many species. Ongoing fox control is intervention. important for the management of woylies. 13.10 Implement monitoring protocols for Reintroduction projects under the same predator activity, and effectiveness of program also benefit a range of species management intervention. including woylies. 13.11 Secure high priority wild subpopulations 12.11 Current research: (in situ or ex situ as appropriate) by • Investigation into the nature of disease mitigating known threats under an adaptive afflicting woylies is being undertaken by management framework, including intensive DEC, Perth Zoo and Murdoch University. fox and cat control. • Meso-predator release is being undertaken 13.12 Establish captive insurance subpopulation by DEC Science Division. The project aims at Perth Zoo - includes installation of to investigate the relationship between infrastructure and disease exclusion. introduced predators (foxes and cats) and 13.13 Review of translocations (and success and various native species in 1080 baited and failure factors) unbaited sites. Similar research has also been undertaken by the Arid Recovery 13.14 Those subpopulations not high priority or project at Roxby Downs in South Australia. at key monitoring sites are to be left in situ, and undergo minimum monitoring at least 13. Management actions required every five years. All woylies in care or pet 13.1 Status assessment of the species – trade in SA to be excluded from recovery distribution and abundance. considerations, with no recovery resources allocated to them. 13.2 Status assessment – genetic diversity. 13.15 Characterise recent declines of woylies (e.g. 13.3 Manage species data to inform adaptive spatial patterns, gender bias, age bias, etc.). management. 13.16 Relate characteristics of recent declines to 13.4 Determine role of predation in woylie possible role of other factors, e.g. dieback, decline and suppression of recovery. pigs, gastrolobium, resource availability etc. 13.5 Determine role/nature of disease in woylie 13.17 Development of protocols on how to best decline and suppression of recovery. manage the species in the future. 13.6 Develop and apply disease management 13.18 Once disease factors are better understood, protocol to reduce introduction of disease, develop genetically diverse and viable particularly for work with all high priority subpopulations (having a sustainable and key subpopulations (high importance carrying capacity of > 3,000 mature for Karakamia, low priority for other individuals) throughout former range, subpopulations). including South Australian islands. 13.7 Moratorium/control on movement and 14. Organisations responsible for translocation of woylies to reduce spread of conservation of species disease to other locations and other species until such time as the role of disease in 14.1 Department of Environment and woylie decline and recovery suppression Conservation (DEC), Western Australia. is established. 14.2 Department of Environment and Natural 13.8 Develop monitoring protocols for key Resources (DENR), South Australia. subpopulations (including high priority sites), including woylie abundance, demographics, genetics, health, predators and disease.

74 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

15. Other organisations involved IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC). 29 June 2010. 15.2 Perth Zoo. Maxwell, S, Burbidge, AA and Morris, K (1996) The 15.3 Zoos South Australia 1996 Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and Monotremes. Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme 15.4 Murdoch University. Specialist Group, IUCN Species Survival Commission, 15.5 Wadderin Committee – Shire of Narembeen. Gland, Switzerland.

16. Staff and other resources required for Short, J (2009) The characteristics and success of recovery to be carried out vertebrate translocations within Australia. Report to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and 16.1 Full-time project manager to oversee Forestry. the complex recovery project. Wayne, A, Friend, T, Burbidge, A, Morris, K & van 17. Action costs Weenen, J (2008) Bettongia penicillata. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ A$18 million. details/2785/0. Accessed 29 June 2010. 18. Note 20. Comments received 18.1 None 20.1 Adrian Wayne, DEC WA. 19. References 20.2 Jeff Short, Wildlife Research and Claridge, A, Seebeck, J & Rose, R (2007) Bettongs, Management, WA. Potoroos and the Musky Rat-Kangaroo. CSIRO 20.3 Manda Page, AWC. Publishing, Collingwood. 20.4 Matt Hayward, AWC. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) (2011) 20.5 David Armstrong, DENR SA. Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi . In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 29 December 2010 .

Table 15: List of recovery actions for Bettongia penicillata, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Project Coordinator Current recovery actions are ad hoc NA Yearly 1 Year 1 Person manages project. and opportunistic, and the recovery program is of sufficient complexity to Coordination of disease warrant a dedicated manager. There is NA investigation, including also be a need for coordination of disease Yearly 6 Months 1 Person operating budget. research. Status assessment of More information is required to better extant subpopulations understand the status of the species, using standard protocol, to assess those subpopulations most All Yearly 2 Months 5 People including trend, size, risk at risk from a range of threats, and to and priority. Includes ensure that genetic stock is maintained. 5-year review. There are also many translocated subpopulations about which very little Status assessment of is known. One-off trapping efforts may All extant subpopulations - be required to establish which of these 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People genetics. subpopulations are extant.

75 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Develop monitoring protocols for key subpopulations (including high priority NA sites), including Once 6 Months 1 Person woylie abundance, demographics, genetics, health, predators and disease. Perup 6-Monthly 1 Month 10 People Kingston 6-Monthly 1 Month 10 People Dryandra 6-Monthly 1 Month 5 People Implement monitoring Tutanning protocols for species 6-Monthly 1 Month 5 People Monitoring is essential to ensure Batalling activity, abundance, 6-Monthly 1 Month 5 People demographics and adaptive management and achieving Karakamia health, and effectiveness the species objectives. 6-Monthly 1 Month 5 People Scotia Stage 1 of management 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People intervention. Scotia Stage 2 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Yookamurra 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Paruna 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Perup 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People

Perup Sanctuary Implement monitoring 3-Monthly 1 Week 3 People Kingston protocols for predator 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People activity, and effectiveness Dryandra of management 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Tutanning intervention. 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Batalling 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Establish insurance subpopulation - Perth Zoo Includes installation Once 3 Months 4 People of infrastructure and Sanctuaries represent some of the disease exclusion most secure subpopulations of woylies, Translocate woylies to and offer natural quarantine areas to Perth Zoo Once 1 Month 4 People enclosure. avoid the spread of disease. It is vital to ensure that disease is not introduced Maintain insurance to these subpopulations. It is important subpopulation - to secure and maintain the current Perth Zoo Includes infrastructure genetic stock of the species where Weekly 1 Week 2 People maintenance and disease any factors contributing to the recent exclusion declines can be effectively excluded, Maintain insurance until such time that the threats can be subpopulation - dismissed or mitigated. Perup Enclosure Includes infrastructure Weekly 3 Days 1 Person maintenance and disease exclusion Capture all woylies and Tutanning translocate to secure Once 2 Months 10 People location (e.g. Wadderin, These sites are not deemed secure Mooramurra, Mt Gibson, or suitable in the long term as woylie SA Islands and other habitat. Animals must be secured Batalling sanctuaries in other immediately and translocated to a Once 2 Months 10 People states) suitable location until such time as we Tutanning Secondary capture to understand the nature of recent woylie Once 1 Month 5 People pick up any remaining decline. Batalling animals after principle Once 1 Month 5 People trapping effort.

76 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Perup 3-Monthly 1 Month 10 People Intensive fox and cat Kingston control through ground 3-Monthly 1 Month 10 People baiting and trapping. Introduced predators, in particular Dryandra the European red fox and feral cat are 3-Monthly 1 Month 10 People considered one of the greatest threats to the survival of woylie occurrences. Tutanning 3-Monthly 1 Month 5 People Intensive fox and Despite targeted management and cat control until research programs the fox and feral translocation is cat are likely to remain one of the most undertaken to secure dangerous elements threatening Batalling location. woylie survival. 3-Monthly 1 Month 5 People

Karakamia Weekly 1 Day 2 People Scotia Stage 1 Weekly 1 Day 2 People Ongoing sanctuary Sanctuaries represent secure and Scotia Stage 2 management, Weekly 1 Day 2 People disease-free subpopulations of woylies, including resource Yookamurra and ongoing maintenance needs to be Weekly 1 Day 2 People supplementation, fence factored into species management into Paruna maintenance, disease and Weekly 1 Day 2 People the future. predator exclusion Other Sanctuary 1 Weekly 1 Day 2 People Other Sanctuary 2 Weekly 1 Day 2 People Develop disease management protocol NA Once 3 Months 1 Person to reduce introduction Once the causes of the recent decline are of disease better understood, protocols will need to Apply disease be developed to avoid future declines management protocol of a similar nature. All Unknown Unknown 1 Person to reduce introduction/ spread of disease. Moratorium/ control on movement and translocation of woylies Until such time as the impacts of to reduce spread of disease on the decline of woylies is disease to other locations known, translocations or mixing of NA Once 1 Month 1 Person and other species until subpopulations could be detrimental such time as the role of to the health of those subpopulations disease in woylie decline involved. and recovery suppression is established Conduct research to determine role of Perup and Perup Sanctuary predation in woylie Once 2 Years 3 People decline and suppression of recovery Conduct research to More information about the nature of determine role/nature of woylie decline is required to understand NA disease in woylie decline those demographic or geographic groups Once 2 Years 5 People and suppression of susceptible to decline. recovery. Characterise recent declines of woylies (e.g. NA Once 1 Year 2 People spatial patterns, gender bias, age bias, etc.) Relate characteristics of recent declines to A range of threats may have contributed possible role of other to recent declines, and more information NA Once 1 Year 2 People factors (e.g. dieback, pigs, is required to establish the relative gastrolobium, resource importance of each. availability etc.) Good data management is essential Manage data and compile to making it possible to extract the NA annual report for woylies. 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 1 Person maximum amount of information from Distribute report. monitoring data.

77 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Review of translocations Translocations of wild and captive NA (and success and failure subpopulations will be crucial to the Once 1 Month 1 Person factors) ongoing management of the species. Ensuring that any future translocations Development of protocols are undertaken under optimum NA on how to best manage conditions is essential for the success of Once 3 Months 1 Person the species in the future the operations. Prepare site for development of The South Australian islands represent genetically diverse a very secure and disease-free, albeit and viable (> Saint Peter and Wedge Islands genetically limited, subpopulation. Once 6 Months 4 People 3,000 individuals) The establishment of additional self- subpopulation, including sustaining subpopulations that are fence construction as secure from the threats of habitat loss, preliminary holding pen predation and disease is required to Translocation of woylies ensure the species can be down-listed Saint Peter and Wedge Islands from genetically diverse on the IUCN Red List. The Venus Bay Once 2 Months 5 People sources. subpopulation (descended from 67 woylies translocated from the wild in WA Secondary translocation in 1994-95, D. Armstrong pers. comm.) of woylies from Saint Peter and Wedge Islands may be a suitable source, or could Once 1 Month 5 People genetically diverse be maintained as a viable insurance sources. subpopulation in its own right. St Peter Ongoing maintenance Island is approximately 3400 ha. Wedge Saint Peter and Wedge Islands of translocated Island is approximately 1800 ha. 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People subpopulation Low-priority subpopulation 1 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 2 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 3 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 4 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 5 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 6 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 7 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 8 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 9 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 10 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 11 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People

Low-priority subpopulation 12 There are many small subpopulations 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 13 of woylies that present management 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People challenges, and that would not add Low-priority subpopulation 14 Minimum monitoring significantly to the conservation 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 15 at 5-yearly intervals. objectives, from the perspective of 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Includes distribution abundance and/or genetic diversity. It Low-priority subpopulation 16 and abundance, trend would be extremely resource-intensive 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 17 and risks. to manage these subpopulations, with 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People little prospective return. Also there is Low-priority subpopulation 18 the possibility that human intervention 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 19 could inadvertently cause more harm. 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 20 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 21 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 22 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 23 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 24 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 25 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 26 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 27 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 28 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 29 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Low-priority subpopulation 30 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People

78 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,829 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $49,195 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $31,669 $10,438 $13,048 $13,048 $26,095 $26,095 $23,486 $23,486 $23,486 Year 10 $156,573 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,601 $10,134 $47,762 $30,747 $12,668 $12,668 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $25,335 $25,335 $22,802 $22,802 $22,802 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $152,012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,379 $9,839 $46,371 $29,851 $22,138 $22,138 $22,138 $12,299 $12,299 $24,597 $24,597 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $147,585 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,164 $9,552 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $11,941 $11,941 $21,493 $21,493 $21,493 $23,881 $23,881 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $28,982 $75,000 Year 7 $143,286 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,274 $6,956 $11,593 $11,593 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $23,185 $23,185 $28,138 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $43,709 Year 6 $20,867 $20,867 $20,867 $139,113 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $6,753 $9,004 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $20,259 $20,259 $20,259 $42,436 $163,199 $135,061 Year 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,742 $6,556 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $10,927 $10,927 $21,855 $21,855 $19,669 $19,669 $19,669 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $26,523 $41,200 $131,127 Year 4 $158,445 $0 $0 $6,365 $8,487 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $25,750 $19,096 $19,096 $19,096 $10,609 $10,609 $40,000 $40,000 $60,000 $153,831 $127,308 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $6,180 $8,240 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $18,540 $18,540 $18,540 $10,300 $10,300 $10,000 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 $25,000 $149,350 $123,600 $200,000 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 # $6,000 $8,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 $145,000 Year 1 $120,000 , and, their costs Action Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, abundance, demographics and health, and effectiveness of management intervention. Status assessment extant of subpopulations - genetics. Develop monitoring protocols key for subpopulations (including high priority sites), including woylie abundance, demographics, genetics, health, predators and disease. Coordination of disease investigation, including operating budget. Status assessment extant of subpopulations using standard protocol, including trend, size, risk and priority. Includes 5-year review. Translocate woylies enclosure. to Implement monitoring protocols predator for activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Establish insurance subpopulation - Includes installation of infrastructure and disease exclusion Maintain insurance subpopulation - Includes infrastructure maintenance and disease exclusion Project Coordinator manages project. List recovery of actions Bettongia for penicillata Subpopulation Perup Batalling All NA Kingston Tutanning Karakamia Scotia Stage 1 Dryandra NA All Scotia Stage 2 Perth Zoo Perup Perup Sanctuary Kingston Dryandra Tutanning Batalling Perth Zoo Yookamurra Paruna Perth Zoo NA 16: Table

79 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,191 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $32,619 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $25,335 Year 10 $195,716 $260,955 $260,955 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,671 $31,669 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $24,597 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $190,016 $253,354 $253,354 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,747 $49,195 $23,881 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $184,481 $245,975 $245,975 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $47,762 $23,185 $29,851 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $179,108 $238,810 $238,810 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $46,371 $22,510 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 Year 6 $28,982 $173,891 $231,855 $231,855 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,255 $21,855 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $32,782 $28,138 $45,020 Year 5 $225,102 $225,102 $168,826 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $27,318 $21,218 $10,927 $31,827 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $43,709 $54,636 $41,200 Year 4 $60,000 $218,545 $218,545 $163,909 $0 $0 $5,305 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $26,523 $53,045 $53,045 $42,436 $30,900 $20,600 $30,000 $40,000 $60,000 $159,135 $212,180 $212,180 Year 3 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $25,750 $51,500 $51,500 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $10,300 $41,200 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,000 $20,000 $154,500 $125,000 $206,000 $206,000 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $25,000 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $150,000 Year 1 $200,000 $200,000 Action Capture all woylies and translocate to secure location Wadderin, (e.g. Mooramurra, Gibson, Mt SA Islands and other sanctuaries in other states) Conduct research to determine role of predation in woylie decline and suppression of recovery Conduct research to determine role/nature of disease in woylie decline and suppression of recovery. Characterise recent declines of woylies spatial (e.g. patterns, gender bias, age bias, etc.) Maintain insurance subpopulation - Includes infrastructure maintenance and disease exclusion Secondary capture to pick up any remaining animals after principle trapping effort. Ongoing sanctuary management, including resource supplementation, fence maintenance, disease and predator exclusion Develop disease management protocol to reduce introduction of disease Moratorium/control movement on and translocation of woylies to reduce spread of disease to other locations and other species until such time as the role of disease in woylie decline and recovery suppression is established Intensive fox and cat control through ground trapping. and baiting Intensive fox and cat control until translocation is undertaken to secure location. Apply disease management protocol to reduce introduction/spread of disease. Subpopulation Tutanning Batalling Perup and Perup Sanctuary NA NA Tutanning Perup Enclosure Batalling Karakamia Scotia Stage 1 Scotia Stage 2 Yookamurra Paruna Other Sanctuary 1 Other Sanctuary 2 Kingston NA NA Perup Batalling Tutanning Dryandra All

80 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,747 $22,510 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $29,851 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 Year 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $28,982 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,138 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 Year 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,318 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 Year 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $26,523 $20,000 Year 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $25,750 Year 4 $50,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $25,000 $50,000 $30,000 Year 3 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $200,000 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Year 1

Action Manage data and compile annual report for woylies. Distribute report. Relate characteristics of recent declines to possible role of other factors(e.g. dieback, pigs, etc.) availability resource gastrolobium, Review of translocations success (and and failure factors) Development of protocols on how to best manage the species in the future Translocation woylies of from genetically diverse sources. Secondary translocation of woylies from genetically diverse sources. Ongoing maintenance of translocated translocated of maintenance Ongoing subpopulation intervals. 5-yearly at monitoring Minimum Includes distribution and abundance, trend and risks. Prepare site for development of genetically diverse and viable 3,000 (> individuals) subpopulation, including fence construction as preliminary holding pen Subpopulation NA NA NA NA Saint Peter and Wedge Islands Saint Peter and Wedge Islands Saint Peter and Wedge Islands Low-priority subpopulation 1 Saint Peter and Wedge Islands Low-priority subpopulation 2 Low-priority subpopulation 3 Low-priority subpopulation 4 Low-priority subpopulation 5 Low-priority subpopulation 6 Low-priority subpopulation 7 Low-priority subpopulation 8 Low-priority subpopulation 9 Low-priority subpopulation 10 Low-priority subpopulation 11 Low-priority subpopulation 12 Low-priority subpopulation 13 Low-priority subpopulation 14 Low-priority subpopulation 15 Low-priority subpopulation 16

81 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 Year 10 $1,905,242 $18,862,779 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 Year 9 $1,789,892 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $1,713,163 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 Year 7 $1,693,244 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 Year 6 $1,663,005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 Year 5 $1,891,510 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 Year 4 $1,959,159 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 Year 3 $2,344,523 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $2,225,040 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Year 1 $1,678,000

Action Minimum monitoring at 5-yearly intervals. intervals. 5-yearly at monitoring Minimum Includes distribution and abundance, trend and risks. Subpopulation YEARLY TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL Low-priority subpopulation 17 Low-priority subpopulation 18 Low-priority subpopulation 19 Low-priority subpopulation 20 Low-priority subpopulation 21 Low-priority subpopulation 22 Low-priority subpopulation 23 Low-priority subpopulation 24 Low-priority subpopulation 25 Low-priority subpopulation 26 Low-priority subpopulation 27 Low-priority subpopulation 28 Low-priority subpopulation 29 Low-priority subpopulation 30 #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

82 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Bettongia tropica

1. Family Potoroidae 2. Scientific name: Bettongia tropica (Wakefield, 1967) 3. Common name: Northern bettong, tropical bettong 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v)

5. Reasons for listing

Listed as Endangered in view of its extent of occurrence of less than 5,000 km2 and area of occupancy of less than 500 km2, all individuals are from less than 6 locations, and because there is a continuing decline in the extent and quality of habitat, and an inferred continuing decline in number of mature individuals in all locations due to habitat loss and degradation and changing fire regimes (Burnett & Winter 2008). Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None 7. Range and abundance

Figure 6: Known distribution of Bettongia tropica from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). The Northern Bettong is endemic to north-eastern Queensland, Australia. There are currently three localities with extant populations: the western side of the Lamb Range (includes Davies Creek, Emu Creek and Tinaroo subpopulations), Mt. Carbine Tableland, and the Coane Range (Paluma). One other locality, Mount Windsor Tableland, may have an extant population. A population in the vicinity of Ravenshoe has not been seen since the 1920s; presumably, the Northern Bettong has been extirpated from this area and it is not mapped. A single individual was recorded from the Dawson Valley (near Rockhampton) in 1884; no Northern Bettongs have been seen in this area since that year (also not mapped) (Dennis 2001; Winter et al. 2008). It has been recorded at elevations between 800 m and 1,200 m above sea level (Winter et al. 2008).

83 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

There are no total population estimates for the 10.2 Conduct studies into the diet of northern Northern Bettong. Of the three localities with bettongs, habitat partitioning between confirmed extant populations, only the Lamb rufous and northern bettongs, and food Range has a substantial number of individuals competition between northern bettongs over a broad area (densities of 4 to 7 individuals/ and feral pigs. km2). Mount Carbine Tableland and the Coane Range both have small and restricted populations 11. Recovery objectives occurring at low densities (Dennis 2001; Winter 11.1 By 2021, Bettongia tropica is eligible for et al. 2008). listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN Red No northern bettongs have been seen at List criteria. Mount Windsor Tableland since 2003, despite 11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of considerable effort, and the status of this Bettongia tropica in the form of extent of population is unknown (Dennis 2001; Winter occurrence is greater than 5,000 km2, with et al. 2008). subpopulations secure at greater than five locations within that range. 8. Habitat 11.3 By 2021, the geographic range of Bettongia The Northern bettong is found in a range of tropica in the form of area of occupancy is eucalypt forest types associated with granite greater than 500 km2, with subpopulations soils, from tall and wet forest dominated by secure at greater than five locations within Eucalyptus grandis and tall forest dominated by that range. E. resinifera, abutting the rainforest, to medium height and drier woodlands dominated by 11.4 By 2021, numbers of mature Bettongia Corymbia citriodora and C. platyphylla (Dennis tropica in the wild are considered stable or 2001; Winter et al. 2008). Diet is specialised, increasing based on an index of abundance relying on a range of hypogeous fungi, and appropriate to the species. the underground parts of grasses, particularly 11.5 By 2021, management plans have been Cockatoo grass (Alloteropsis semialata), smaller developed and are being implemented to amounts of the tuberous material from ground reduce the threats of altered fire regimes, orchids and lilies, and small invertebrates feral pigs and predators, and to improve (Winter et al. 2008). habitat area, extent and quality, for all 9. Threats Bettongia tropica subpopulations. 9.1 Small size of extant subpopulations. 11.6 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Bettongia tropica has been maintained at known 9.2 Fragmented, isolated distribution across 2011 levels. a limited geographic extent. * A taxon is defined as secure when its numbers 9.3 Habitat transformation due to lack and distribution are stable or increasing, and of fire and subsequent invasion of when numbers and distribution are sufficient rainforest species. that there is a 95% probability that the species 9.4 Cattle grazing. will survive the stochastic events anticipated over a 50 year timeframe, given that all known and 9.5 Predation by cats and possibly foxes predicted threats are adequately mitigated. (minor threat). 12. Actions completed or underway 9.6 Possible competition for hypogenous fungi from feral pigs (minor threat). 12.1 Back on Track prioritisation of recovery and management actions for threatened species 9.7 Weeds and the habitat degradation in Queensland, undertaken by DERM. resulting from the invasion of gamba grass, grader grass, thatch grass and lantana 12.2 Fire scar mapping of both burnt and long- (minor threat). term unburnt areas is being undertaken by DERM. 10. Information required 10.1 Surveys to confirm size and distribution of extant subpopulations.

84 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

12.3 Fire manipulation is being undertaken on 13.4 Review the need and reasons for plots at Davies Creek for cockatoo grass translocations. (Alloteropsis semialata) fire response and 13.5 Fire planning and management. looking to replicate at other sites for the northern bettong. 13.6 Feral pig management. 12.4 DERM is undertaking feral pig control at 13.7 Feral predator management. some northern bettong sites. 13.8 Fostering appropriate grazing regimes. 12.5 AWC undertaking a range of on-ground 13.9 Protect and manage unreserved habitat. management actions at Mount Zero- Taravale, including establishing appropriate 13.10 Identify sites for translocation or fire management programs and control of reintroduction based on habitat mapping rainforest understorey. and/or on-ground assessment. 12.6 Habitat mapping was undertaken at 13.11 Establish and manage secure areas of Mount Zero-Taravale (Brooke Bateman, habitat for future translocations. pers. comm.). 13.12 Translocation of bettongs to secure and 12.7 James Cook University is conducting managed areas of habitat. camera trapping exercises to monitor 13.13 Ongoing management of translocated northern bettongs and feral predator subpopulations activity at a range of sites. 13.14 Incorporate updated habitat knowledge into 12.8 DERM is currently finalising a habitat map plans for habitat continuity under potential based on regional ecosystem mapping. climate change scenarios. 12.9 An experimental fire management program has been established on Lamb Range which 14. Organisations responsible for attempts to look at the complex interplay conservation of species between fire, grazing and pigs. 14.1 Department of Environment and Resource 12.10 Camera traps in the Mount Windsor and Management (DERM) Queensland. Mount Carbine Tablelands were successful 14.2 Australian Wildlife Conservancy in recording northern bettong on the Mount Windsor Tablelands in 2003 (DERM 15. Other organisations involved unpublished data). 15.1 Terrain Natural Resource Management 12.11 DERM is currently finalising a community (Terrain NRM) fox and rabbit survey based on a previous 15.2 James Cook University (JCU) survey undertaken in 1996. 15.3 Wet Tropics Management Authority 12.12 A trial re-introduction of northern bettongs (WTMA) was undertaken in 2005 with the release of 15 animals into Tumoulin State Forest. It 16. Staff and other resources required for was unsuccessful due to factors including recovery to be carried out feral predators, stock vitality issues not apparent until after the release, and 16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is habitat selection. required to manage the complex recovery program. 13. Management actions required 17. Action costs 13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations using standard protocols, including 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds distribution, abundance, genetics, trend, A$22 million. risk and priority subpopulations. 18. Notes 13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive 18.1 None management, and compile annual report. 13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including fire management, habitat condition, predation and predator activity, and species activity.

85 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

19. References Johnson, CN (1997) Fire and habitat management for a mycophagous marsupial, the Tasmanian Burnett, S & Winter, J (2008) Bettongia tropica. bettong Bettongia gaimardi. Australian Journal In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened of Ecology 22, 101-105. Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist. org/apps/redlist/details/2787/0. Accessed 29 Laurance, WF (1996) A distributional survey June 2010. and habitat model for the endangered northern bettong (Bettongia tropica) in tropical Dennis, AJ (2001) Recovery plan for the northern Queensland. Biological Conservation 82: 47-60. bettong, Bettongia tropica 2000-2004. Report to Environment Australia, Canberra. Queensland Vernes, K (2000) Ecology of the northern bettong Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane. in fire prone wet sclerophyll forest. PhD Thesis in the Department of Zoology and Tropical Ecology, Department of Environment and James Cook University of North Queensland, Resource Management (2009a) Back on Townsville. Track Species Prioritisation Framework. Department of Environment and Resource Vernes, K and Pope, LC (2001) Stability of Management, Brisbane. nest range, home range and movement of the northern bettong (Bettongia tropica) following Department of Environment and Resource moderate-intensity fire in a tropical woodland, Management (2009b) National Draft Recovery north-eastern Queensland. Wildlife Research 28: Plan for the Northern Bettong Bettongia tropica. 141-150. Report to Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Winter, JW, Johnson, PM and Vernes, K (2008) Department of Environment and Resource Northern Bettong, Bettongia tropica. In The Management, Brisbane. Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R). Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010) Bettongia tropica . In: 20. Comments received Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage 20.1 John Kanowski, AWC. and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment. 20.2 Threatened Species Section, DERM QLD. gov.au/sprat. Accessed 29 Jul 2010 . 20.3 Brooke Bateman, James Cook University. IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist. org. Downloaded 29 June 2010.

Table 17: List of recovery actions for Bettongia tropica, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Current recovery actions are ad hoc and Project coordinator opportunistic, and the recovery program All Yearly 1 Year 1 Person manages project is of sufficient complexity to warrant a dedicated manager. Status assessment - distribution and More information is required to better All abundance. Includes understand the status of the species, to 3-Yearly 3 Months 10 People surveys of known assess those subpopulations most at risk subpopulations from a range of threats, and to ensure Status assessment - that genetic stock is maintained. All 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People genetics There are several unconfirmed sightings, and areas where bettongs have not Mount Windsor Tableland and been sighted for many years. It will be Survey to confirm Greater Ravenshoe Area and important to confirm the existence of Yearly 2 Months 5 People bettong presence other potential habitat any subpopulations as yet unknown or presumed extinct in order to achieve eligibility for down-listing.

86 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Manage species data Good data management is essential to inform adaptive to making it possible to extract the All 3-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person management. Includes 5 maximum amount of information from year program review. monitoring data. Translocations of wild and captive subpopulations will be crucial to the Review of translocations, ongoing management of the species. All and success and failure Ensuring that any future translocations Once 2 Weeks 1 Person factors are undertaken under optimum conditions is essential for the success of the operations. Deviation from the burning regimes implemented by Traditional Owners is likely to have caused significant ecological changes to northern bettong habitat, resulting in habitat alteration Conduct research into (especially understorey composition optimal fire management changes altering the availability of All practices to maintain Yearly 3 Months 2 People food resources). Little is known about bettong habitat, including the optimum fire regime to maintain food resources bettong food sources. Any reduction in the availability of foodstuffs during dry conditions, when truffle availability is low, could significantly impact populations. Develop monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, All satellite collars and Once 1 Month 1 Person camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats

Lamb Range 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 10 People Implement monitoring protocols for species activity, predator and pig Monitoring is essential to ensure Coane Range 3-Monthly 1 Week 5 People activity, and effectiveness adaptive management and achieving Mount Carbine Tableland of management the species objectives 3-Monthly 1 Week 5 People intervention. Mount Windsor Tableland 3-Monthly 1 Week 5 People Translocation Site 1 3-Monthly 1 Week 5 People Translocation Site 2 3-Monthly 1 Week 5 People Lamb Range Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Implement monitoring Coane Range protocols for fire Yearly 1 Week 3 People Mount Carbine Tableland management and Yearly 1 Week 3 People habitat condition, Mount Windsor Tableland and effectiveness Yearly 1 Week 3 People Translocation Site 1 of management Yearly 1 Week 3 People intervention. Translocation Site 2 Yearly 1 Week 3 People

Lamb Range Deviation from the burning regimes Yearly 3 Weeks 10 People implemented by Traditional Owners Coane Range is likely to have caused significant Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People ecological changes to northern bettong Implement appropriate habitat, resulting in habitat alteration Mount Carbine Tableland fire management in Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People (especially understorey composition bettong habitat, and changes altering the availability of food Mount Windsor Tableland assess rainforest Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People resources). It is understood that too encroachment dynamics frequent fires promote the encroachment Translocation Site 1 of rainforest understorey into northern Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People bettong habitat, making it less suitable Translocation Site 2 for the species. Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People

87 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Lamb Range 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People

Coane Range Cats are established within northern 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Mount Carbine Tableland Conduct strategic feral bettong habitat, and may be a significant 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People predator control in predator. The high density Lamb Range Mount Windsor Tableland bettong habitat population could be quickly impacted if 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Translocation Site 1 red fox establish. 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Translocation Site 2 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Lamb Range Feral pigs are widespread in the Wet 6-Monthly 1 Month 2 People Tropics. As generalist omnivores, Coane Range 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 1 Person they consume a wide variety of food Mount Carbine Tableland Conduct adaptive resources, and their rooting behaviour 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 1 Person management feral pig disturbs the ground layer. Mount Windsor Tableland control in bettong habitat 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 1 Person The likely impacts on northern bettongs Translocation Site 1 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 1 Person from feral pigs include competition for Translocation Site 2 resources and habitat alteration. 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 1 Person

Lamb Range Cattle grazing continues to occur Yearly 2 Weeks 2 People in habitat on private property, and Coane Range inadequate fencing and the presence Yearly 1 Week 2 People of feral cattle means the pressure on Exclude cattle grazing reserved northern bettong habitat Mount Carbine Tableland from bettong habitat, Yearly 1 Week 2 People continues. Cattle grazing directly and including landholder indirectly influences fire regimes. The Mount Windsor Tableland communication and Yearly 1 Week 2 People combined influence of cattle is to reduce fencing the occurrence of fires that contribute to Translocation Site 1 traditional burning patterns. This will Yearly 1 Week 2 People cause understorey changes that alter the Translocation Site 2 availability of food resources. Yearly 1 Week 2 People

Lamb Range Yearly 3 Weeks 10 People

Coane Range Where rainforest understorey has Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Mount Carbine Tableland Rehabilitate degraded already encroached into northern Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People habitat, including weed bettong habitat due to altered fire Mount Windsor Tableland control patterns, intensive habitat rehabilitation Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Translocation Site 1 may be required. Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Translocation Site 2 Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Clearing for agriculture has resulted in a permanent loss of habitat, and there has also been loss associated with road construction and electricity lines. Logging and selective logging has affected large areas of the Wet Tropics Identify unreserved eucalypt forest, and to a lesser extent northern bettong habitat eucalypt woodland, but has largely and run extension ceased for commercial purposes. Most All Yearly 1 Year 1 Person program to engage new clearing is associated with rural landholders to better residential activity. Habitat clearing is manage or reserve land likely to have influenced fire regimes by fragmenting tracts, and in the case of forestry, altering forest structure. While most known habitat is now managed for conservation, the legacy of forestry on some habitat types will be significant in certain areas.

88 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Identify sites for translocation or New subpopulations reintroduction based on Once 6 Months 1 Person habitat mapping and/or on-ground assessment

Establish secure areas Translocation Site 1 Once 6 Months 4 People of habitat for future translocations, including In order to achieve an increase in area any necessary fencing of occupancy and extent of occurrence, Translocation Site 2 Once 6 Months 4 People and predator/pig removal new or previously occupied sites will need to be identified, secured, and used Translocation Site 1 Translocation of bettongs as translocation sites. Once 3 Weeks 5 People to secure and managed Translocation Site 2 areas of habitat Once 3 Weeks 5 People

Ongoing management Translocation Site 1 Monthly 1 Day 2 People of translocated subpopulations, including resource supplementation Translocation Site 2 Monthly 1 Day 2 People as required

The dietary requirements of the Conduct studies to refine northern bettong are likely closely linked All northern bettong dietary to particular fire regimes and habitat Once 1 Year 2 People requirements condition. More research is required to better inform management decisions. Conduct studies on the extent of food resource The impact of pigs on northern bettongs All competition between is poorly known, but may be a significant Once 1 Year 2 People northern bettongs and threat to the species. feral pigs Conduct studies detailing rufous and Competition between the two species northern bettong habitat of bettong for resources may favour the All Once 1 Year 2 People partitioning and impacts rufous bettong. More information is of land management required. decisions Incorporate updated Given the fragmented and limited habitat knowledge distribution of the northern bettong, into plans for habitat possible impacts of climate change on All 3-Yearly 3 Months 3 People continuity under northern bettong habitat could be severe, potential climate change and adaptation programs need to be scenarios established early.

89 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $78,286 Year 10 $30,000 $130,477 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $126,677 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,792 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $36,896 $122,987 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $71,643 $71,644 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $35,822 Year 7 $119,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $34,778 $69,556 Year 6 $115,927 * $0 $0 $0 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $56,275 $50,648 $112,551 Year 5 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,173 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $54,636 Year 4 $109,273 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,741 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $63,654 $53,045 Year 3 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,500 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $61,800 $46,350 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $103,000 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 # $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $45,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1 $100,000 , and, their costs Action Review of translocations, and success and failure factors Project coordinator manages project Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Conduct research into optimal fire management practices to maintain bettong habitat, including resources food Develop monitoring protocols the for species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Status assessment - genetics Survey to confirm bettong presence Manage species data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator and pig activity, and effectiveness management of intervention. List recovery of actions Bettongia for tropica

Subpopulation All All All Lamb Range Translocation Site 2 Range Coane Mount Carbine Tableland Mount Windsor Tableland Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 Translocation Site 1 Mount Windsor Tableland Mount Carbine Tableland All All Range Coane All Mount Windsor Tableland and Greater Ravenshoe Area and other potential habitat All Lamb Range Table 18:

90 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $65,239 $65,239 $26,095 Year 10 $195,716 $130,477 $104,382 $104,382 $104,382 $104,382 $104,382 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $25,335 $63,339 $63,339 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $101,342 $101,342 $101,342 $101,342 $101,342 $126,677 $190,016 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $61,494 $61,494 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $24,597 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $98,390 $98,390 $98,390 $98,390 $98,390 $122,987 $184,481 Year 8 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $59,703 $59,703 $23,881 $95,524 $95,524 $95,524 $95,524 $95,524 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $179,108 $119,405 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $23,185 $57,964 $57,964 $92,742 $92,742 $92,742 $92,742 $92,742 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 Year 6 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $115,927 $173,891 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $56,275 $56,275 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $90,041 $90,041 $90,041 $90,041 $90,041 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $112,551 Year 5 $168,826 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $21,855 $87,418 $87,418 $87,418 $87,418 $87,418 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $54,636 $54,636 Year 4 $109,273 $163,909 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $53,045 $53,045 $84,872 $84,872 $84,872 $84,872 $84,872 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $159,135 Year 3 $106,090 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $51,500 $51,500 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 $82,400 $82,400 $82,400 $82,400 $82,400 $154,500 $103,000 Year 2 # $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $150,000 Year 1 $100,000

Action Exclude cattle grazing from bettong habitat, including landholder communication and fencing weed control weed Rehabilitate degraded habitat, including Conduct adaptive management feral pig control in bettong habitat Implement appropriate fire management in bettong habitat, and assess rainforest encroachment dynamics Conduct strategic feral predator control in bettong habitat Subpopulation Coane Range Coane Lamb Range Mount Carbine Tableland Translocation Site 2 Mount Windsor Tableland Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 1 Mount Windsor Tableland Translocation Site 2 Mount Carbine Tableland Range Coane Mount Carbine Tableland Mount Windsor Tableland Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 Lamb Range Coane Range Coane Mount Carbine Tableland Mount Windsor Tableland Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 Lamb Range Range Coane Lamb Range Range Coane Mount Carbine Tableland Mount Windsor Tableland Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 Lamb Range

91 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34,778 $40,575 Year 10 $195,716 $2,551,803 $22,603,568 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $33,765 $39,393 Year 9 $190,016 $2,334,343 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,782 $38,245 $184,481 Year 8 $2,266,352 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $37,132 $31,827 Year 7 $179,108 $2,271,986 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Year 6 $36,050 $30,900 $173,891 $2,136,254 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,914 $31,827 $32,782 $35,000 $30,000 Year 5 $168,826 $2,315,244 $0 $0 $0 $31,827 $31,827 $15,450 $30,900 Year 4 $70,000 $50,000 $60,000 $60,000 $163,909 $2,469,895 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $30,900 $30,900 $25,000 $30,000 $60,000 $159,135 $80,000 Year 3 $2,266,292 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $154,500 $2,021,400 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $150,000 Year 1 $1,970,000 Action Identify unreserved northern bettong habitat and run extension program to engage landholders to better manage or reserve land Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction based on habitat mapping on-ground and/or assessment Establish secure areas of habitat for future translocations, including any necessary fencing and predator/pig removal Translocation of bettongs to secure and managed areas of habitat Ongoing management of translocated subpopulations, including resource supplementation as required Conduct studies detailing rufous and northern bettong habitat partitioning and impacts of land management decisions Conduct studies to refine northern bettong dietary requirements Conduct studies on the extent of food resource competition between northern bettongs and feral pigs Incorporate updated habitat knowledge into plans for habitat continuity under potential climate scenarios change Subpopulation YEARLY TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL All New subpopulations Translocation Site 2 Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 Translocation Site 1 All Translocation Site 2 All All All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

92 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Dendrolagus bennettianus

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Dendrolagus bennettianus (De Vis, 1887) 3. Common name: Bennett’s tree kangaroo, Dusty tree kangaroo, Tree-climber, Grey Tree kangaroo, Tree Wallaby. Indigenous names: Jarabeena, Tcharibeena. 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Near Threatened because, although the species appears not to be in decline and populations are not considered to be severely fragmented, its extent of occurrence is less than 5000 km², and the extent and quality of its habitat are probably declining, thus making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion B1 (Winter et al. 2008).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None 7. Range and abundance

Figure 7: Known distribution of Dendrolagus bennettianus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). A cryptic species that is now relatively common, although it is thought to be rare in the uplands.

8. Habitat Closed forest, including lowland vine forests and montane rainforests. Its staple diet is foliage from a limited number of preferred tree and vine species and some fruit.

9. Threats 9.1 Land clearing and degradation as a result of continued subdivision and development of remaining tracts of lowland rainforest under freehold tenure. 9.2 Increased exposure to predation by domestic dogs.

93 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

10. Information required 13.8 Survey habitat of Dendrolagus bennettianus to assess status and extent, and identify 10.1 Extent and quality of habitat. areas of suitable habitat that may be 10.2 Population estimate. appropriate for reintroductions or range or area of occupancy expansion. 10.3 Research species biology, ecology and conservation requirements. 13.9 Investigate the need to conduct assisted migration to achieve the target range 11. Recovery objectives expansion. 11.1 By 2021, Dendrolagus bennettianus 13.10 Reserve suitable habitats for the species. is eligible for listing as Least Concern according to IUCN Red List criteria. 14. Organisations responsible for conservation of species 11.2 By 2020, research, surveys and monitoring confirm the population trend 14.1 Department of Environment and Resource of Dendrolagus bennettianus as stable, Management (DERM) Queensland. and any potential threats are identified, with management plans developed and 15. Other organisations involved implemented to mitigate those threats. 15.1 Tree Kangaroo and Mammal Group 11.3 By 2021, the geographic range of 16. Staff and other resources required for Dendrolagus bennettianus in the form recovery to be carried out of extent of occurrence has increased to greater than 5,000 km2, with 16.1 No dedicated staff required. subpopulations secure at greater than five locations within that range. 17. Action costs 11.4 By 2020, the genetic diversity of 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds Dendrolagus bennettianus has been A$2.5 million. maintained at known 2010 levels. 18. Note 12. Actions completed or underway 18.1 None. 12.1 Unknown. 19. References 13. Management actions required IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of 13.1 Status assessment of the species – Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. distribution and abundance. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 29 June 2010. 13.2 Status assessment – genetic diversity. Winter, J, Burnett, S and Martin, R (2008) 13.3 Develop and implement monitoring Dendrolagus bennettianus. In: IUCN (2010) protocols, including fire management, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version grazing, habitat condition, predation and 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ predator activity, and species activity. details/2783/0. Accessed 29 June 2010. 13.4 Manage species data to inform adaptive 20. Comments received management. 20.1 None. 13.5 Habitat assessment and modelling to determine current habitat condition and possibilities for future range expansion. 13.6 Identify areas where current habitat fragmentation poses a significant threat to tree kangaroos and develop management plans for those subpopulations. 13.7 Rehabilitate areas of degraded Dendrolagus bennettianus habitat.

94 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 19: List of recovery actions for Dendrolagus bennettianus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment of the Whilst the species is relatively secure, All species - distribution and information is required to assess those 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People abundance subpopulations most at risk from a range Status assessment of the of threats, and to ensure that genetic All 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People species - genetics stock is maintained. Status assessment of the species - identify important Little is known about which All subpopulations, and subpopulations should be targeted for 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person those subject to specific intensive management. threats including habitat fragmentation. Good data management is essential Manage data to inform to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person adaptive management maximum amount of information from monitoring data. Implement monitoring protocols for species activity, Monitoring is essential to ensure All habitat condition, adaptive management and achieving the 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People and effectiveness species objectives. of management intervention. Conduct habitat assessment and The extent and quality of the species' modelling to determine All habitat are probably declining. To qualify 5-Yearly 6 Months 1 Person current habitat condition for Least Concern, the species range and possibilities for in the form of extent of occurrence future range expansion. may need to be expanded, and an Identify areas where understanding of potential habitat current habitat surrounding extant subpopulations will fragmentation poses a be required. Alternatively, habitat extent All significant threat to tree and condition may have to be improved Once 3 Months 1 Person kangaroos, and develop significantly to avoid being listed as management plans for Vulnerable. rehabilitation. Conduct forest Habitat fragmentation may prevent Priority subpopulations (as rehabilitation for those the species from expanding its current Once 3 Months 1 Person identified in status assessment) subpopulations subject to range, or may hinder its ability to habitat fragmentation increase in numbers. Whilst the historical land clearing and subdivision that led to the loss of some Priority subpopulations (as Reserve suitable habitat of the species' habitat is now over for the Once Unknown 2 People identified in status assessment) for the species. most part, the reservation of land for this species will ensure the future security of remaining habitat. Conduct research into Very little is known about this species, species biology, ecology All and research is required to inform Once Unknown 2 People and conservation adaptive conservation measures. requirements Once secure habitat is identified outside Investigate need to the current species range, it may be undertake translocations necessary to translocate animals to All to increase the species' Once 3 Months 1 Person create a new subpopulation, thus extent of occurrence bolstering the future security of the above 5,000 km2. species.

95 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $309,773 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 Year 10 $26,523 $126,677 $2,557,756 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $167,324 $38,003 Year 9 $122,987 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $162,450 $36,896 $119,405 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $71,644 $35,822 $229,363 $115,927 Year 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $178,125 $34,778 Year 6 $112,551 $25,000 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,628 $33,765 $33,765 $10,000 $354,650 $136,591 $25,628 Year 5 $109,273 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $31,827 $32,782 $374,339 $65,564 Year 4 $132,613 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $31,827 $299,782 $30,900 $128,750 Year 3 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $321,950 $10,300 $30,900 $20,600 $30,000 $125,000 $100,000 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $160,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 Year 1 , and, their costs Action . 2 Investigate need to undertake translocations to increase the species' extent of occurrence above km5,000 Reserve suitable habitat for the species Conduct research into species biology, ecology and conservation requirements Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, habitat condition, and effectiveness of management intervention. Identify areas where current habitat fragmentation poses a significant threat to tree kangaroos, and develop management plans for rehabilitation. Conduct forest rehabilitation for those subpopulations subject habitat to fragmentation Conduct habitat assessment and modelling to determine current habitat condition and possibilities for future range expansion. Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance Status assessment of the species - genetics Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations, and those subject to specific threats including habitat fragmentation. Manage data to inform adaptive management List recovery of actions Dendrolagus for bennettianus Subpopulation All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All All All All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review 20: Table

96 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Lagorchestes hirsutus

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Lagorchestes hirsutus (Gould, 1844) 3. Common name: Rufous hare-wallaby, mala, ormala, Western hare-wallaby, wurrup 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Vulnerable

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Vulnerable as there is a restricted area of occupancy, which includes less than five locations that are each easily susceptible to either a large fire event or to elimination by introduced predators (Richards et al. 2008).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 Lagorchestes hirsutus hirsutus - (south-west mainland) Extinct (DEWHA 2010c). 6.2 Lagorchestes hirsutus bernieri - (Bernier Island) Vulnerable (DEWHA 2010a). 6.3 Lagorchestes hirsutus dorreae - (Dorre Island) Vulnerable (DEWHA 2010b). 6.4 Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp. (central mainland form) Endangered (DEWHA 2010d). 7. Range and abundance L. h. bernieri is restricted to Bernier Island, Western Australia. L. h. dorreae is restricted to Dorre Island, Western Australia. Whether there are separate subspecies on Bernier and Dorre Islands is a moot point; Western Australian scientists do not recognise two subspecies for the purposes of listing, L. h. bernieri is considered to have priority (A. Burbidge pers. comm.). L. h. hirsutus was formerly distributed throughout low shrublands of the eastern wheatbelt, and the shrublands of south-west Western Australia (Langford 2000). The subspecies is thought to have become extinct from the wheatbelt around 1900 (Burbidge 2004), and extinct from the mainland around 1990 (J. Short, pers. comm.). An unnamed subspecies of L. hirsutus from the Tanami Desert on the Australian mainland is now limited to captive colonies and as experimental reintroduction/ translocation programs (Johnson & Burbidge 2008). This undescribed subspecies was once widespread in central Australian deserts. Captive colonies of this subspecies exist in Dryandra Woodland (south-east of Perth) and at Shark Bay. There is also an established subpopulation on Trimouille Island (520 hectares), Western Australia as a consequence of a translocation from the Tanami Desert to that site in 1998 (Langford & Burbidge 2001). The subspecies now ranges throughout the island (Johnson & Burbidge 2008). Recent unpublished data estimates the Dorre and Bernier Islands populations at 1827 and 1346 individuals respectively (Reinhold 2010). There were estimated to collectively hold 4,300 - 6,700 animals prior to 1994 (Short & Turner 1992). Populations on these islands fluctuate with environmental conditions (Short et al. 1997). The translocated population on Trimouille Island began as 30 individuals in 1998, and were last estimated to number more than 120 (although this estimate was made not from trap data, but from tracks and droppings) (Richards 2005).

97 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Figure 8: Known distribution of Lagorchestes hirsutus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

8. Habitat 9. Threats The mainland habitat was mainly in spinifex 9.1 Climatic events such as drought, fire and (Triodia spp.) hummock grasslands of the central changes in rainfall. deserts (Northern Territory, Western Australia, 9.2 Potential threats include predation by and South Australia). Tanami Desert colonies cats and foxes which are implicated in formerly associated with saline paleo-drainage the extinction in the wild of the mainland system, sand dunes, and tight fire patterns. subspecies. Large areas of spinifex desert appear suitable provided that exotic predators and rabbits are at 10. Information required low densities or controlled and fire is properly managed (Langford 2000). 10.1 Exploration of suitable habitat for future translocations. In south-western Australia, the mala occurred on sandplains with kwongan (heath) vegetation. 11. Recovery objectives On Bernier and Dorre Islands, it uses this habitat 11.1 By 2021, Lagorchestes hirsutus is eligible together with spinifex hummock grasslands. It for listing as Near Threatened according to shelters by day in a shallow scrape dug under a IUCN Red List criteria. spinifex hummock or low shrub and sometimes in a burrow more than 70 centimetres deep, 11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of especially during the intense heat of summer Lagorchestes hirsutus in the form of area of (Johnson & Burbidge 2008). occupancy has increased to greater than 20 km2, with subpopulations secure* at greater On Bernier and Dorre Islands, sandplain than five locations within that range. and sand dune habitats are covered with a vegetation of heath (with dominant species of 11.3 By 2021, numbers of mature Lagorchestes Scaevola crassifolia, Thryptomene baeckeacea, hirsutus in the wild are considered stable or or Melaleuca cardiophylla), grassland of Triodia increasing based on an index of abundance plurinervata, or low scrub (often dominated by appropriate to the species. Pileanthus limacis, Diplolaena dampieri, Pimelia 11.4 By 2021, management plans have been microcephala, Acacia rostellifera, or A. coriacea) developed and are being implemented to (Short et al. 1997). reduce the threats of introduced predators and fire for all subpopulations of Lagorchestes hirsutus.

98 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of 16. Staff and other resources required for Lagorchestes hirsutus has been maintained recovery to be carried out at known 2011 levels. 16.1 No dedicated staff required. 12. Actions completed or underway 17. Action costs 12.1 Reintroduction of 30 mala from the 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds Northern Territory to Trimouille Island A$17 million. in 1998. 12.2 Systematic monitoring of mala has been 18. Notes undertaken by CSIRO (1988 to 1989 and 18.1 None. 1991 to 1992) and more recently by DEC (2006 to 2010). 19. References

13. Management actions required Burbidge, A. (2004). Lagorchestes hirsutus hirsutus. Threatened animals of Western 13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations Australia. Page 42. Kensington, Western using standard protocols, including Australia: Department of Conservation and Land distribution, abundance, genetics, trend, Management. risk and priority subpopulations. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage 13.2 Implement monitoring protocols, including and the Arts (2010a) Lagorchestes hirsutus fire management, habitat condition, bernieri. In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) predation and predator activity, and Database. Department of the Environment, species activity. Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. 13.3 Review of translocations, and factors http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. influencing success or failure. Accessed 27 October 2010. 13.4 Manage data to inform adaptive Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage management, and compile annual report. and the Arts (2010b) Lagorchestes hirsutus dorreae. In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) 13.5 Invasive predator control. Database. Department of the Environment, 13.6 Competitor exclusion. Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. 13.7 Disease management. Accessed 27 October 2010. 13.8 Fire management. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage 13.9 Fence maintenance for captive and the Arts (2010c) Lagorchestes hirsutus subpopulations. hirsutus. In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the Environment, 13.10 Artificial feeding of captive subpopulations. Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. 13.11 Establish additional subpopulations. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 27 October 2010. 14. Organisations responsible for Department of the Environment, Water, conservation of species Heritage and the Arts (2010d) Lagorchestes 14.1 WA Department of Environment and hirsutus unnamed subsp. In: Species Profile Conservation (DEC). and Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 14.2 NT Department of Natural Resources, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Environment, the Arts and Sport Accessed 27 October 2010. (NRETAS). IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened 15. Other organisations involved Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. 15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC). org. Accessed 19 October 2010. Johnson, KA and Burbidge, AA (2008) Rufous Hare Wallaby, Lagorchestes hirsutus. In The Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and Strahan, R).

99 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Langford, D. (2000). Recovery Plan for the Mala Short, J and Turner, B (1992) The distribution (Lagorchestes hirsutus) 1999-2003. [Online]. and abundance of the banded and rufous NPWSNT. http://www.environment.gov.au/ hare-wallabies, Lagostrophus fasciatus and biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/ Lagorchestes hirsutus. Biological Conservation mala/index.html. Accessed 27 October 2010 60: 157-166. Langford, D and Burbidge, AA (2001) Short, J, Turner, B, Majors, C, and Leone, J Translocation of mala from the Tanami Desert, (1997) The fluctuating abundance of endangered Northern Territory to Trimouille Island, Western mammals on Bernier and Dorre Islands, Western Australia. Australian Mammalogy 23: 37-46. Australia - conservation implications. Australian Mammalogy 20: 53-71. Reinhold, L (2010). Shark Bay Marsupial Recovery Team. Unpublished report to the 20. Comments received SBMRT. Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia 20.1 Neil Thomas, DEC WA. Richards, J., Morris, K., Friend, T. & Burbidge, 20.2 Jeff Short, Wildlife Research and A. 2008. Lagorchestes hirsutus. In: IUCN (2010) Management, WA. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ details/11162/0. Accessed 19 October 2010.

Table 21: List of recovery actions for Lagorchestes hirsutus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment - distribution and More information is required to better All abundance. Includes understand the status of the species, to 3-Yearly 3 Months 4 People surveys of known assess those subpopulations most at risk subpopulations from a range of threats, and to ensure Status assessment - that genetic stock is maintained. All 5-Yearly 3 Months 3 People genetics Manage species data Good data management is essential to inform adaptive to making it possible to extract the All Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person management. Includes 5 maximum amount of information from year program review. monitoring data. Translocations of wild and captive subpopulations will be crucial to the Review of translocations, ongoing management of the species. All and success and failure Ensuring that any future translocations Once 2 Weeks 1 Person factors are undertaken under optimum conditions is essential for the success of the operations. Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including Monitoring is essential to ensure All trapping, satellite collars adaptive management and achieving Once 1 Month 1 Person and camera traps, and the species objectives. to monitor habitat and threats

100 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Bernier and Dorre Islands 6-Monthly 3 weeks 4 People Trimouille Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People Peron Captive Breeding 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People Facility Implement monitoring Scotia Sanctuary 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People protocols for species Monitoring is essential to ensure Alice Springs Desert Park activity, predator activity, 3-Monthly 2 days 2 People adaptive management and achieving the and effectiveness Watarrka National Park species objectives. 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People of management Uluru-Kata Tjuta National intervention. 3-Monthly 2 days 2 People Park Translocation Site 1 - Mt 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Gibson Translocation Site 2 - TBC 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Bernier and Dorre Islands Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Trimouille Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People Peron Captive Breeding Yearly 1 Day 2 People Facility Implement monitoring Scotia Sanctuary protocols for fire Yearly 1 Week 2 People management and Monitoring is essential to ensure Alice Springs Desert Park Yearly 1 Day 2 People habitat condition, adaptive management and achieving Watarrka National Park and effectiveness the species objectives. Yearly 1 Day 2 People of management Uluru-Kata Tjuta National intervention. Yearly 1 Day 2 People Park Translocation Site 1 - Mt Yearly 1 Week 4 People Gibson Translocation Site 2 - TBC Yearly 1 Week 4 People

Bernier Island Prevent unauthorised Monthly 1 Week 2 People human visitation The influx of unauthorised visitors to exclude invasive to these islands could introduce Dorre Island predators and feral species or contribute to habitat Monthly 1 Week 2 People competitors, and to degradation through fire and prevent wildfires and other stressors. Trimouille Island disease incursion Monthly 1 Week 2 People

The combination of wildfire and fox predation was responsible for the final demise of the wild Tanami Desert populations of the rufous hare-wallaby. Island Predator Removal Predator control Feral cats consume a wide variety of Unknown 6 Months 4 People native and introduced mammals, and have been found to consume bandicoots, bettongs and hare-wallabies when available. There is no information available about interactions between hare-wallabies and rabbits. Despite these observations, Island Competitor Removal Competitor control where possible, rabbits should be Unknown 6 Months 4 People controlled or eradicated to facilitate recreating past habitats and avoid the potential for intra-specific competition.

Bernier Island Changes in the mosaic of burnt and unburnt Yearly 2 days 4 People Dorre Island Implement appropriate habitat due to changes in fire regimes have Yearly 2 days 4 People fire management to avoid been implicated in the demise of the rufous Trimouille Island Yearly 2 days 4 People catastrophic wildfires hare-wallaby from the spinifex deserts of Translocation Site 1 - Mt and maintain suitable central Australia. The persistence of rufous Yearly 3 weeks 4 People Gibson mala habitat. hare-wallabies on Bernier and Dorre Islands, with their very different fire histories, Translocation Site 2 - TBC suggests that a fire mosaic is not important on Yearly 3 weeks 4 People Peron Captive Breeding Facility islands. The combination of wildfire and fox Yearly 1 Day 3 People predation was responsible for the final demise Fire Management Scotia Sanctuary of the wild Tanami Desert populations. The Yearly 1 Week 4 People of enclosures and risk of fire on Trimouille Island is low, due to sanctuaries to avoid Alice Springs Desert Park the lack of Triodia grassland, and separation Yearly 1 Day 3 People catastrophic wildfires of more densely vegetated areas by sand and maintain suitable Watarrka National Park blows and sparsely vegetated dunes. No Yearly 2 days 5 People mala habitat. wildfires have occurred on the island since Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park nuclear testing occurred in the 1950s. Yearly 1 Day 3 People

101 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Bernier Island Unknown 1 Month 4 People Dorre Island Unknown 1 Month 4 People Disease management and Trimouille Island quarantine procedures to Unknown 1 Month 4 People prevent disease incursion Translocation Site 1 - Mt and spread Unknown 1 Month 4 People Gibson Translocation Site 2 - TBC The extent of the threat of disease Unknown 1 Month 4 People is unknown, however diseases in Peron Captive Breeding native wildlife can contribute to poor Daily 1 Hour 1 Person Facility population health and reduced fertility. Scotia Sanctuary Disease management Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person in enclosures and Alice Springs Desert Park Daily 1 Hour 1 Person sanctuaries, principally Watarrka National Park quarantine procedures. Daily 1 Hour 1 Person Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Daily 1 Hour 1 Person Park Peron Captive Breeding Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Facility Scotia Sanctuary Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Enclosure fence Alice Springs Desert Park Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person inspection Watarrka National Park Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Park Captive subpopulations must be Dryandra Captive Breeding protected from feral predators. Well- Yearly 2 days 2 People Facility maintained enclosure fences are the best means of ensuring this security. Peron Captive Breeding Yearly 2 days 2 People Facility Enclosure fence repairs Scotia Sanctuary to prevent predator/ Yearly 2 days 2 People competitor ingress and Alice Springs Desert Park escape of captive animals. Yearly 2 days 2 People Watarrka National Park Yearly 2 days 2 People Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Yearly 2 days 2 People Park Peron Captive Breeding Daily 1 Hour 1 Person Facility Scotia Sanctuary Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Artificial feeding/ Some sanctuaries and captive breeding Alice Springs Desert Park watering to stabilise centres may not have sufficient habitat to Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person captive subpopulation ensure consistent food availability. Watarrka National Park Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Park

Translocation Site 1 - Mt Establish secure areas Once 6 Months 5 People Gibson of habitat for future translocations, including any necessary fencing Translocation Site 2 - TBC and predator/ competitor Once 6 Months 5 People removal Additional subpopulations need to be Translocation Site 1 - Mt Translocation of mala established in order to meet the recovery Once 3 Weeks 5 People Gibson to secure and managed objective of down-listing on the IUCN Translocation Site 2 - TBC areas of habitat Red List. A minimum of ten secure Once 3 Weeks 5 People subpopulations, and a corresponding Translocation Site 1 - Mt Ongoing management increase in area of occupancy, are Monthly 1 Day 2 People Gibson of translocated required for the Mala to no longer meet subpopulations, including IUCN criterion D2. resource supplementation Translocation Site 2 - TBC Monthly 1 Day 2 People as required

Enhance public participation and All Yearly 2 days 1 Person education in Mala recovery efforts

102 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $652 $652 $1,305 $2,610 $6,524 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 $26,523 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $26,095 $78,286 $78,286 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $633 $633 $1,267 $6,333 $2,534 $6,334 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $25,335 $76,006 $76,006 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $615 $615 $6,149 $6,149 $1,230 $2,460 $73,792 $73,792 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $24,597 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $597 $597 $1,194 $5,970 $5,970 $2,388 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $71,643 $71,643 $71,644 $23,881 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $580 $580 $1,159 $2,319 $5,796 $5,796 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $23,185 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $69,556 $69,556 Year 6 $0 $0 $0 $563 $563 $1,126 $2,251 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $25,628 Year 5 $0 $0 $0 $546 $546 $2,185 $1,093 $5,464 $5,464 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $65,564 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $530 $530 $1,061 $2,122 $5,305 $5,305 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $63,654 $63,654 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $515 $515 $5,150 $5,150 $1,030 $2,060 $5,000 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $61,800 $61,800 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 # $500 $500 $1,000 $5,000 $5,000 $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1 , and, their costs Action Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations Status assessment - genetics Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Manage species data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Review of translocations, and success and failure factors Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Subpopulation All All All Bernier and Dorre Islands Trimouille Island Peron Captive Breeding Facility All All Scotia Sanctuary Scotia Alice Springs Desert Park Watarrka National Park Uluru-KataTjuta National Park Translocation Site 1 - Mt Gibson Translocation Site - TBC 2 Bernier and Dorre Islands Trimouille Island Peron Captive Breeding Facility Alice Springs Desert Park Scotia Sanctuary Scotia Uluru-KataTjuta National Park Translocation Site 1 - Mt Gibson Watarrka National Park Translocation Site - TBC 2 Table 22: Table List recovery of actions Lagorchestes for hirsutus

103 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $6,524 $6,524 $52,191 $32,619 $32,619 $39,143 $39,143 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $78,286 $78,286 Year 10 $104,382 $0 $0 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $6,334 $6,334 $50,671 $31,669 $31,669 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $76,006 $76,006 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $101,342 $0 $6,149 $6,149 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $30,747 $30,747 $49,195 $73,792 $73,792 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $36,896 $36,896 $98,390 $20,000 Year 8 $0 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $5,970 $5,970 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $47,762 $71,643 $71,643 $29,851 $29,851 $95,524 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $120,000 $0 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $5,796 $5,796 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $46,371 $92,742 $34,778 $34,778 $69,556 $69,556 $28,982 $28,982 $40,000 Year 6 $0 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $5,628 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $28,138 $28,138 $90,041 $45,020 Year 5 $250,000 $0 $0 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $5,464 $5,464 $27,318 $27,318 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $87,418 $32,782 $32,782 $43,709 $65,564 $65,564 Year 4 $0 $0 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $5,305 $5,305 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $26,523 $26,523 $63,654 $63,654 $84,872 $42,436 Year 3 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $25,750 $25,750 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $61,800 $61,800 $41,200 $30,900 $30,900 Year 2 $82,400 $0 $0 # $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 $60,000 $40,000 $80,000 Year 1

Action Prevent unauthorised human visitation to exclude invasive predators and competitors, and to prevent wildfires and disease incursion Predator control mala habitat. mala Competitor control Implement appropriate fire management to avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable Fire Management of enclosures and sanctuaries to avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable habitat. mala Disease management and quarantine procedures to prevent disease incursion and spread Disease management in enclosures and sanctuaries, principally quarantine procedures. Subpopulation Bernier Island Dorre Island Dorre Trimouille Island Island Predator Removal Dorre Island Dorre Trimouille Island Translocation Site 1 - Mt Gibson Island Competitor Removal Bernier Island Translocation Site - TBC 2 Peron Captive Breeding Facility Sanctuary Scotia Alice Springs Desert Park Watarrka National Park Uluru-KataTjuta National Park Bernier Island Island Dorre Peron Captive Breeding Facility Sanctuary Scotia Alice Springs Desert Park Watarrka National Park Uluru-KataTjuta National Park Trimouille Island Translocation Site - TBC 2 Translocation Site 1 - Mt Gibson

104 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $2,610 $6,524 $33,765 $33,765 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $26,095 Year 10 $1,267,045 $17,270,349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $2,534 $6,334 $32,782 $32,782 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $25,335 Year 9 $1,096,714 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $2,460 $31,827 $31,827 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $24,597 Year 8 $1,084,771 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $5,970 $2,388 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $23,881 $30,900 $30,900 Year 7 $1,225,402 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $2,319 $5,796 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $23,185 $61,800 $61,800 $30,000 Year 6 $1,159,274 $2,296,523 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $2,251 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $22,510 $60,000 $60,000 Year 5 $1,125,509 $1,125,509 $3,590,947 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,185 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $5,464 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $21,855 Year 4 $1,092,727 $1,092,727 $3,140,498 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $2,122 $5,305 $5,305 $21,218 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 Year 3 $1,906,437 $1,060,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $2,060 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $20,600 Year 2 $795,010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 $5,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 Year 1 $867,000 Action Translocation of mala to secure and managed areas of habitat Enclosure fence repairs to prevent predator/ competitor ingress and escape of captive animals. Enclosure fence inspection Ongoing management of translocated subpopulations, including resource supplementation as required Artificial feeding/watering to maintain captive subpopulation Enhance public participation and education in Mala recovery efforts Establish secure areas of habitat for future translocations, including any necessary fencing and predator/ competitor removal Subpopulation Translocation Site 1 - Mt Gibson Alice Springs Desert Park Watarrka National Park Uluru-KataTjuta National Park Peron Captive Breeding Facility Sanctuary Scotia Scotia Sanctuary Scotia Peron Captive Breeding Facility TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL Translocation Site - TBC 2 Alice Springs Desert Park Watarrka National Park Translocation Site 1 - Mt Gibson Uluru-KataTjuta National Park Peron Captive Breeding Facility Translocation Site - TBC 2 Alice Springs Desert Park Scotia Sanctuary Scotia Watarrka National Park All Uluru-KataTjuta National Park Translocation Site - TBC 2 Translocation Site 1 - Mt Gibson #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

105 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Lagostrophus fasciatus

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Lagostrophus fasciatus (Péron & Lesueur,1807) 3. Common name: Banded hare-wallaby, Munning 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ac(iv)+2ac(iv)

5. Reasons for listing

Listed as Endangered in view of its extent of occurrence of less than 5,000 km2 and area of occupancy of less than 500 km2, with all individuals in fewer than six locations, and extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals due to periods of severe drought. Additional potential threats that are major include: the accidental introduction of predators (introduced cats and foxes), extensive fire, and disease (Richards et al. 2008). Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 Lagostrophus fasciatus fasciatus - Bernier and Dorre Islands 6.2 Lagostrophus fasciatus albipilis - south-western Western Australia (extinct) 6.3 Lagostrophus fasciatus baudinettei - South Australia (extinct) 7. Range and abundance This species is endemic to Australia, where it was formerly present on the mainland from south-western parts of the country to the lower Murray River region. It is now restricted to the offshore Bernier and Dorre Islands in Shark Bay, Western Australia (Short & Turner 1992). A small population was recently reintroduced to Faure Island (Prince and Richards 2008).

Figure 9: Known distribution of Lagostrophus fasciatus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). Recent surveys for this species estimate the number on Bernier Island as 1807 individuals and on Dorre Is as 2294 individuals (Reinhold 2010). Surveys in 1988/89 indicated a total population of about 7,700

106 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

animals, equally divided between the two islands 11.4 By 2021, management plans have been (Short and Turner 1992), and 9,700 in 1991/92 developed and are being implemented to (Short et al. 1997). It is a reasonably long lived reduce the threats of introduced predators, species. The population fluctuates with rainfall fire, disease and resource availability for all (Short et al. 1997). Reintroduction attempts to subpopulations of Lagostrophus fasciatus. Dirk Hartog Island and Peron Peninsula failed 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of due to cat predation and drought (Prince and Lagostrophus fasciatus has been Richards 2008). A small population was recently maintained at known 2011 levels. reintroduced to Faure Island, and it is showing signs of success (Prince and Richards 2008). 12. Actions completed or underway 8. Habitat 12.1 A recovery plan for the species was developed for the 2005-2010 period. On Bernier and Dorre Islands it is commonly found among dense thickets of Acacia ligulata, 12.2 A recovery team for the western barred A. coriacea and Alectryon oleifolium scrub on bandicoot, burrowing bettong and banded the sandplains, and Diplolaena dampieri and A. hare-wallaby was established in late oleifolium on the dunes. Beneath these it forms 2004 by CALM (now DEC), to coordinate runways in which it shelters during the day conservation actions for these species. (Richards et al. 2001). 12.3 Systematic monitoring of banded hare- 9. Threats wallabies has been undertaken by CSIRO (1988 to 1989 and 1991 to 1992) and more 9.1 Accidental introduction of predators recently by DEC (2006 to 2010). (introduced cats and foxes). 12.4 A number of captive and reintroduced 9.2 Altered fire patterns. populations have been established for the 9.3 Disease. banded hare-wallaby in Western Australia. 9.4 Introduced rats and mice are also a 13. Management actions required concern, but to a lesser degree than 13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations introduced predators. using standard protocols, including 9.5 Inappropriate recreation and development. distribution, abundance, genetics, trend, risk and priority subpopulations. 9.6 Inappropriate management practices. 13.2 Implement monitoring protocols, including 10. Information required fire management, habitat condition, 10.1 None. predation and predator activity, and species activity. 11. Recovery objectives 13.3 Review of translocations, and factors 11.1 By 2021, Lagostrophus fasciatus is eligible influencing success or failure for listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN 13.4 Manage data to inform adaptive Red List criteria. management, and compile annual report. 11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of 13.5 Invasive predator control and exclusion. Lagostrophus fasciatus in the form of extent of occurrence has increased 13.6 Competitor and other feral exclusion. to greater than 5,000 km2, with 13.7 Disease management. subpopulations secure at greater than 10 locations within that range. 13.8 Fire management. 11.3 By 2021, the geographic range of 13.9 Fence maintenance. Lagostrophus fasciatus in the form of area 13.10 Establishment of new subpopulations. of occupancy has increased to greater than 500 km2. 13.11 Artificial feeding of new subpopulations during establishment.

107 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

14. Organisations responsible for Richards, J (2007) Western Barred Bandicoot conservation of species Perameles bougainville, Burrowing Bettong Bettongia lesueur and Banded Hare-Wallaby 14.1 Department of Environment and Lagostrophus fasciatus Recovery Plan 2007 Conservation (DEC) WA. -2011. Department of Environment and 15. Other organisations involved Conservation, Western Australia. 15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC). Richards, JD, Short, J, Prince, RIT, Friend, JA, and Courtenay, JM (2001) Biology of banded and 16. Staff and other resources required for rufous hare-wallabies (Lagostrophus fasciatus recovery to be carried out and Lagorchestes hirsutus) (Diprotodontia: Macropodidae) on Dorre and Bernier Islands, 16.1 No dedicated staff required. Western Australia. Wildlife Research 28: 311-322. 17. Action costs Short, J (2009) The characteristics and success of 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds vertebrate translocations within Australia. Report A$19 million. to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 18. Notes Short, J, Bradshaw, SD, Giles, JR, Prince, 18.1 None. RIT, and Wilson, GR (1992) Reintroduction of macropods (Marsupialia: Macropodoidea) in 19. References Australia - a review. Biological Conservation 62: Department of the Environment, Water, 189-204. Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010) Short, J and Turner, B (1992) The distribution Lagostrophus fasciatus. In: Species Profile and and abundance of the banded and rufous Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the hare-wallabies, Lagostrophus fasciatus and Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Lagorchestes hirsutus. Biological Conservation Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. 60: 157–166. Accessed 27 October 2010. Short, J, Turner, B, Majors, C and Leone, J IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of (1997) The fluctuating abundance of endangered Threatened Species. Version 20103. mammals on Bernier and Dorre Islands, Western http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed Australia - conservation implications. Australian 28 September 2010. Mammalogy 20: 53-61. Prince, RIT and Richards, JD (2008) Banded 20. Comments received Hare Wallaby, Lagostrophus fasciatus. In The Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and 20.1 Jeff Short, Wildlife Research and Strahan, R). Management, WA. Reinhold, L (2010). Shark Bay Marsupial 20.2 Neil Thomas, DEC WA. Recovery Team. Unpublished report to the SBMRT. Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia Richards, J, Morris, K, Burbidge, A & Friend, T (2008) Lagostrophus fasciatus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ details/11171/0. Accessed 27 September 2010.

108 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 23: List of recovery actions for Lagostrophus fasciatus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment - distribution and More information is required to better All abundance. Includes understand the status of the species, to 3-Yearly 3 Months 4 People surveys of known assess those subpopulations most at risk subpopulations from a range of threats, and to ensure Status assessment - that genetic stock is maintained. All 5-Yearly 3 Months 3 People genetics Manage species data Good data management is essential to inform adaptive to making it possible to extract the All Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person management. Includes 5 maximum amount of information from year program review. monitoring data. Translocations of wild and captive subpopulations will be crucial to the Review of translocations, ongoing management of the species. All and success and failure Ensuring that any future translocations Once 2 Weeks 1 Person factors are undertaken under optimum conditions is essential for the success of the operations. Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including All trapping, satellite collars Once 1 Month 1 Person and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Bernier and Dorre Islands 6-Monthly 3 weeks 4 People Faure Island 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Dryandra Field Breeding Implement monitoring 4-monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Facility protocols for species activity, predator activity, Peron Captive Breeding and effectiveness 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People Facility of management Monitoring is essential to ensure Translocation Site - Mt Gibson intervention. adaptive management and achieving the 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People species objectives. Translocation Site 2 - TBC 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Translocation Site 3 - TBC 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Bernier and Dorre Islands Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Faure Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People Implement monitoring Dryandra Field Breeding protocols for fire Yearly 1 Day 2 People Facility management and Peron Captive Breeding habitat condition, Yearly 1 Day 2 People Facility and effectiveness of management Translocation Site - Mt Gibson Yearly 1 Week 4 People intervention. Translocation Site 2 - TBC Yearly 1 Week 4 People Translocation Site 3 - TBC Yearly 1 Week 4 People

Bernier Island Prevent unauthorised Monthly 1 Week 2 People human visitation The influx of unauthorised visitors to exclude invasive to these islands could introduce Dorre Island predators and feral species or contribute to habitat Monthly 1 Week 2 People competitors, and to degradation through fire and other prevent wildfires and stressors. Faure Island disease incursion. Monthly 1 Week 2 People

109 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

The decline of the banded hare-wallaby from the mainland was likely to be due to Island Predator Removal Predator control Unknown 6 Months 4 People a combination of predation by feral cats and habitat destruction. The introduction of rabbits, rats and mice poses a threat to banded hare-wallabies on islands. Introduced herbivores had altered the vegetation so that refuge areas during periods of drought were no longer available. This habitat degradation, combined with the impact of introduced predators and changes in fire regimes in some areas, Island Competitor Removal Competitor control Unknown 6 Months 4 People was thought to have increased the risk of local extinctions of native mammals. There is no information available about interactions between banded hare-wallabies and rabbits. Despite these observations, where possible, rabbits should be excluded to facilitate recreating past habitats, and avoid the potential for intra-specific competition. Bernier Island Yearly 1 Week 4 People The persistence of banded hare- Dorre Island Implement appropriate wallabies on Bernier and Dorre Islands, Yearly 1 Week 4 People Faure Island fire management to avoid with their very different fire histories, Yearly 1 Week 4 People catastrophic wildfires the infrequent nature of fire in the Translocation Site - Mt Gibson and maintain suitable region, and the lack of introduced Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Translocation Site 2 - TBC hare-wallaby habitat. predators, suggests that a fire mosaic is Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People not important on islands. Translocation Site 3 - TBC Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People Fire management Dryandra Captive Breeding Fire is more of an issue at sites such as of enclosures and Yearly 2 days 5 People Facility Dryandra Woodland and Scotia Wildlife sanctuaries to avoid Sanctuary, however DEC and AWC have catastrophic wildfires Peron Captive Breeding implemented fire management regimes and maintain suitable Yearly 1 Day 3 People Facility in these areas. hare-wallaby habitat. Bernier Island Disease management and Unknown 1 Month 4 People quarantine procedures to Dorre Island Unknown 1 Month 4 People prevent disease incursion The extent of the threat of disease Faure Island and spread Unknown 1 Month 4 People is unknown, however diseases in Dryandra Captive Breeding native wildlife can contribute to poor Disease management Daily 1 Hour 1 Person Facility in enclosures and population health and reduced fertility. Peron Captive Breeding sanctuaries, principally Daily 1 Hour 1 Person Facility quarantine procedures. Dryandra Captive Breeding Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Facility Enclosure fence Peron Captive Breeding inspection Captive subpopulations must be Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Facility protected from feral predators. Well- maintained enclosure fences are the best Dryandra Captive Breeding Enclosure fence repairs means of ensuring this security. Yearly 2 days 2 People Facility to prevent predator/ Peron Captive Breeding competitor ingress and Yearly 2 days 2 People Facility escape of captive animals. Dryandra Captive Breeding Weekly 4 Hours 1 Person Facility Artificial feeding/ Some sanctuaries and captive breeding watering to establish centres may not have sufficient habitat to Peron Captive Breeding captive subpopulations ensure consistent food availability. Daily 1 Hour 1 Person Facility

110 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Translocation Site - Mt Gibson Establish secure areas Additional subpopulations need to Once 6 Months 5 People of habitat for future be established in order to achieve translocations, including eligibility to be down-listed to Near Translocation Site 2 - TBC Once 6 Months 5 People any necessary fencing Threatened. A minimum of ten secure and predator/ competitor subpopulations will ensure that the Translocation Site 3 - TBC Once 6 Months 5 People removal banded hare-wallaby no longer meets the IUCN criteria B1 and B2, as long Translocation Site - Mt Gibson as the establishment increases the Once 3 Weeks 5 People Translocation of hare- 2011 area of occupancy and extent of Translocation Site 2 - TBC wallabies to secure and occurrence of the species. Captive source Once 3 Weeks 5 People managed areas of habitat subpopulations are essential to increase Translocation Site 3 - TBC wild and translocated subpopulations to Once 3 Weeks 5 People a minimum viable number. The 6000 ha Stage 3 at Scotia is planned for fencing Translocation Site - Mt Gibson Monthly 1 Day 2 People Ongoing management in the near future. This will provide an of translocated increased carrying capacity at Scotia. Translocation Site 2 - TBC subpopulations, including Similarly, Mount Gibson Sanctuary will Monthly 1 Day 2 People resource supplementation have a 6000 ha fenced and feral free Translocation Site 3 - TBC as required section within the next 3 years. Monthly 1 Day 2 People

Enhance public participation and All education in banded Yearly 2 days 1 Person hare-wallaby recovery efforts

111 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $652 $6,524 $52,191 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $26,095 $78,286 $26,523 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $633 $6,333 $6,334 $50,671 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $25,335 $76,006 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $615 $6,149 $6,149 $49,195 $73,792 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $24,597 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $597 $5,970 $5,970 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $47,762 $71,643 $71,644 $35,821 $23,881 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $0 $0 $0 $580 $5,796 $5,796 $5,000 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $46,371 $23,185 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $69,556 Year 6 * $0 $0 $0 $563 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $45,020 $25,628 Year 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $546 $5,464 $5,464 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $43,709 $65,564 $65,564 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $530 $5,305 $5,305 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $63,654 $42,436 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $515 $5,150 $5,150 $5,000 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $61,800 $41,200 $30,900 Year 2 $20,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $500 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 $40,000 $60,000 Year 1 , and, their costs Action Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations Review of translocations, and success and failure factors Status assessment - genetics Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Manage species data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Subpopulation All All All All Bernier and Dorre Islands Island Faure Dryandra Field Breeding Facility All Peron Captive Breeding Facility Translocation Site Gibson - Mt Translocation Site - TBC 2 Translocation Site 3 - TBC Peron Captive Breeding Facility Bernier and Dorre Islands Island Faure Dryandra Field Breeding Facility Translocation Site Gibson - Mt Translocation Site - TBC 2 Translocation Site 3 - TBC Table 24: ListTable recovery of actions Lagostrophus fasciatus

112 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $1,305 $52,191 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $78,286 $78,286 Year 10 $0 $0 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $1,267 $50,671 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $76,006 $76,006 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $0 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $1,230 $49,195 $73,792 $73,792 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $20,000 Year 8 $0 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $1,194 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $47,762 $71,643 $71,643 $35,821 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $120,000 $0 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $1,159 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $46,371 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $69,556 $69,556 $40,000 Year 6 $0 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $1,126 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $45,020 Year 5 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $1,093 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $43,709 $65,564 $65,564 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $1,061 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $63,654 $63,654 $42,436 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $61,800 $61,800 $41,200 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 Year 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1 Action Prevent unauthorised human visitation to exclude invasive predators and competitors, and to prevent wildfires and disease incursion. Predator control Competitor control Implement appropriate fire management to avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable hare- wallaby habitat. Fire Management of enclosures and sanctuaries to avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable hare-wallaby habitat. Disease management and quarantine procedures to prevent disease incursion and spread Disease management in enclosures and sanctuaries, principally quarantine procedures. Enclosure fence inspection Enclosure fence repairs to prevent predator/ competitor ingress and escape of captive animals. Subpopulation Bernier Island Dorre Island Dorre Island Faure Island Predator Removal Island Competitor Removal Bernier Island Island Dorre Island Faure Translocation Site Gibson - Mt Translocation Site - TBC 2 Translocation Site 3 - TBC Dryandra Captive Breeding Facility Peron Captive Breeding Facility Bernier Island Island Dorre Faure Island Faure Dryandra Captive Breeding Facility Peron Captive Breeding Facility Dryandra Captive Breeding Facility Peron Captive Breeding Facility Dryandra Captive Breeding Facility Peron Captive Breeding Facility

113 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,610 $2,610 $6,524 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 Year 10 $1,159,242 $19,291,207 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,534 $2,534 $6,334 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 Year 9 $992,051 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $2,460 $2,460 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $983,156 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $2,388 $2,388 $63,654 $63,654 $30,900 $30,900 Year 7 $1,194,052 $2,417,208 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,319 $2,319 $5,796 $61,800 $61,800 $30,000 Year 6 $1,159,274 $1,159,274 $3,335,015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,251 $2,251 $5,628 $60,000 $60,000 Year 5 $1,125,509 $1,125,509 $1,125,509 $4,594,338 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,185 $2,185 $5,464 Year 4 $2,956,374 $1,092,727 $1,092,727 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,122 $2,122 $5,305 Year 3 $1,682,057 $1,060,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $2,060 $2,060 Year 2 $546,265 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $2,000 $2,000 Year 1 $625,500 Action Establish secure areas of habitat for future translocations, including any necessary fencing and predator/ competitor removal Artificial feeding/watering to maintain captive subpopulation Translocation of hare-wallabies to secure and managed areas of habitat Ongoing management of translocated subpopulations, including resource supplementation as required Enhance public participation and education in Banded hare-wallaby recovery efforts Subpopulation Translocation Site Gibson - Mt Translocation Site - TBC 2 Peron Captive Breeding Facility Dryandra Captive Breeding Facility TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL Translocation Site 3 - TBC Translocation Site Gibson - Mt Translocation Site - TBC 2 Translocation Site 3 - TBC Translocation Site Gibson - Mt Translocation Site - TBC 2 Translocation Site 3 - TBC All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

114 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Macropus bernardus

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Macropus bernardus (Rothschild, 1904) 3. Common name: Black wallaroo, Bernard’s wallaroo, black kangaroo, northern black wallaroo. Indigenous names: Barrk (male), Djukerre (female) (local Bininj Kunwok dialects) 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Near Threatened because this species possibly has a global population of less 10,000 mature individuals, and although anecdotal information suggests that the population is stable, little is known about its population trends. There are no known major threats to the species, however, changes to the fire regime are potentially a serious problem. Should the population be shown to be indeed less than 10,000, even a relatively small downward trend could qualify this species as Vulnerable under criterion C (Woinarski 2008).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None. 7. Range and abundance

Figure 10: Known distribution of Macropus bernardus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). The species is restricted to the sandstone escarpment and plateau of western Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Among the steep, rocky escarpments and tops of the deeply dissected plateau, it uses habitats dominated by spinifex grassland, sandstone heath, eucalypt woodland and patches of rainforest.

Its range is about 30,000 km2, which is unusually small for a mammal of its size (Telfer & Calaby 2008). Much of its range lies within Kakadu National Park. There are no estimates of total population numbers; however, neither is there any evidence of a decline in range or abundance. Its elusive behaviour and habitat of rugged terrain make it a difficult species to survey (Telfer & Calaby 2008). This species is common within suitable habitat, but its habitat is limited (Telfer & Calaby 2008). Aboriginal informants have provided information that suggest the population is stable (Woinarski 2008).

115 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 13.2 Implement monitoring protocols, including fire management, habitat condition, and A range of vegetation types from closed forests species activity. and Eucalyptus open forests to heaths and hummock grasslands, but almost always in 13.3 Assess threat of altered fire regimes to areas characterised by large boulders. the species and its preferred habitat, and undertake fire management where 9. Threats necessary. 9.1 Recent changes in fire regimes may 13.4 Assess the need to augment the known have led to alteration of vegetation number of subpopulations through structure or floristic composition in translocation, or the number of mature the sandstone massif. individuals through captive breeding. 10. Information required 13.5 Research species biology, ecology and conservation requirements. 10.1 Estimation of the global population of this species. 13.6 Manage data to inform adaptive management. 10.2 Monitoring of the abundance of the species across a range of sites of varying fire history. 14. Organisations responsible for conservation of species 11. Recovery objectives 14.1 Northern Territory Department of Natural 11.1 By 2021, Macropus bernardus is eligible for Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport listing as Least Concern according to IUCN (NRETAS) Red List criteria. 11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring 15. Other organisations involved confirm the population trend of Macropus 15.1 None. bernardus as stable. 16. Staff and other resources required for 11.3 By 2021, the number of distinct secure* recovery to be carried out subpopulations of Macropus bernardus is greater than 10, and the population is 16.1 No dedicated staff required. estimated to number greater than 10,000 mature individuals, thus making it ineligible 17. Action costs to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN criteria 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds B or C. A$2.7 million. 11.4 By 2021, research has confirmed the 18. Notes impacts of altered fire regimes and predation on Macropus bernardus, and 18.1 None. where those factors present a threat to Macropus bernardus subpopulations, 19. References management plans have been developed IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened and are being implemented to mitigate Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. those threats. org. Accessed 28 September 2010. 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Macropus Woinarski, J (2008) Macropus bernardus. In: bernardus has been maintained at known IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2011 levels. Version 2010.3.

12. Actions completed or underway http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ details/12620/0 Accessed 28 September 2010. 12.1 None Telfer, WR, and Calaby, JH, (2008). Black 13. Management actions required Wallaroo, Macropus bernardus. In The Mammals 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and Strahan, R). genetics, abundance, distribution, trend 20. Comments received and risks. Includes surveys. 20.1 None

116 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 25: List of recovery actions for Macropus bernardus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment of the There is very little known about this All species - distribution and species. Information is required to assess 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People abundance the distribution and abundance of the species, which subpopulations are most Status assessment of the All at risk from a range of threats, and to 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People species - genetics ensure that genetic stock is maintained. Status assessment of the species - Little is known about which identify important All subpopulations should be targeted for 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person subpopulations, and intensive management. those subject to specific threats including fire Good data management is essential Manage data to inform to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person adaptive management maximum amount of information from monitoring data. Develop management plans for those Priority subpopulations (as subpopulations subject Once 3 Months 1 Person identified in status assessment) Changes to vegetation composition to threat of altered fire and structure as a result of altered fire regimes regimes are thought to be the greatest Implement management threat facing black wallaroos. Priority subpopulations (as actions to reduce the Yearly 1 Month 10 People identified in status assessment) threat of fire Conduct research into Very little is known about this species, species biology, ecology All and urgent research is required to Once Unknown 2 People and conservation inform adaptive conservation measures. requirements Implement monitoring protocols for species All activity, and effectiveness 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People of management intervention. Monitoring is essential to ensure Implement monitoring adaptive management and achieving the protocols for fire species objectives. management and All habitat condition, Yearly 1 Month 5 People and effectiveness of management intervention. Once surveys provide a clearer Investigate need to understanding of the species' status, undertake translocations it may be necessary to establish new All or captive breeding to subpopulations or increase the number 5-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person increase the number of of mature individuals to ensure it does extant subpopulations not meet the criteria to be listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List.

117 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 $78,286 $26,524 $126,677 $388,061 Year 10 $2,773,618 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $122,987 $243,330 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $73,792 $36,896 $119,405 $236,243 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $71,643 $71,644 $35,822 $115,927 Year 7 $301,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $34,778 $69,556 $10,000 $112,551 Year 6 $232,682 * $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $31,827 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $25,628 Year 5 $109,273 $324,298 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $30,900 $20,000 $326,363 Year 4 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $31,827 $63,654 $30,000 $233,786 Year 3 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $61,800 $30,900 Year 2 $25,000 $222,850 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 Year 1 $265,000 $120,000 , and, their costs Action Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance Develop management plans for those subpopulations subject to threat of altered fire regimes Status assessment of the species - genetics Implement management actions to reduce the threat of fire Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations, and those subject to specific threats including fire Manage data to inform adaptive management Conduct research into species biology, ecology and conservation requirements Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Investigate need to undertake translocations or captive breeding to increase the number of extant subpopulations Subpopulation All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All All All All All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review Table 26: ListTable recovery of actions Macropus bernardus

118 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Macropus parma

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Macropus parma (Waterhouse, 1845) 3. Common name: Parma wallaby, White-throated Pademelon, White-throated Wallaby. 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Near Threatened as the species is estimated to number less than 10,000 mature individuals, but there is no evidence of a continuing decline at present (subpopulation structure is not well known). Almost qualifies as threatened under criterion C2 (Lunney & McKenzie 2008).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None. 7. Range and abundance This species is endemic to Australia, where it occurs in New South Wales (formerly as far south as the Illawarra). It is present in suitable forests scattered throughout the escarpment, but it is no longer found in coastal forests. Upper altitudinal sites include the Dorrigo Plateau, Gibraltar Range, and Barrington Tops. It occurs up to 1,000 m above sea level. Feral populations exist on Kauwau Island, New Zealand (Maynes 2008). It is rare and patchily distributed. There are no recent population estimates. In 1992, the total number of adults was estimated at between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals. There appears to be no evidence of a decline. (IUCN 2010)

Figure 11: Known distribution of Macropus parma from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

119 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 12. Actions completed or underway It is found within wet sclerophyll forest with dense 12.1 Survey work by NSW NPWS. understorey, but with access to forest with a grassy understorey. The species is often found in dry 13. Management actions required sclerophyll forests and rainforest (Maynes 2008). 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including genetics, abundance, distribution, trend 9. Threats and risks. 9.1 Forest fragmentation combined with 13.2 Identify areas where fox predation, cattle predation from foxes appear to be the grazing and altered fire regimes pose principal reasons for the decline of significant threats to the species and the species. develop management plans for those 9.2 Grazing and burning regimes that affect subpopulations. availability of shelter are a disadvantage 13.3 Conduct adaptive management fox to populations. control program. 9.3 Reintroductions of the species have been 13.4 Cattle grazing management. unsuccessful due to fox predation. 13.5 Fire management. 10. Information required 13.6 Reserve suitable habitats for the species. 10.1 Studies to determine optimal survey methods. 13.7 Conduct research to determine the relative impacts of fox predation, cattle grazing and 10.2 Detailed survey of populations. altered fire regimes on the species. 10.3 Review recent survey work by NSW NPWS 13.8 Implement monitoring protocols, including and others to establish a predicted modelled fire management, grazing, habitat condition, range, as a guide to detailed surveying. predation and predator activity, and species 10.4 Define precise habitat requirements and activity. manage for them. This can be combined 13.9 Manage data to inform adaptive with fine-grained survey to establish management. limits of current distribution and inter- connectedness of subpopulations. 14. Organisations responsible for conservation of species 11. Recovery objectives 14.1 NSW Department of Environment, 11.1 By 2021, Macropus parma is eligible for Climate Change and Water. listing as Least Concern according to IUCN Red List criteria. 15. Other organisations involved 11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring 15.1 None. confirm the population trend of Macropus parma as stable. 16. Staff and other resources required for recovery to be carried out 11.3 By 2021, numbers of mature Macropus parma in the wild are considered stable or 16.1 No dedicated staff are required. increasing based on an index of abundance 17. Action costs appropriate to the species. 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds $9 million. 11.4 By 2021, research has confirmed the impacts of forest fragmentation and fox 18. Notes predation on Macropus parma, and where those factors present a threat to Macropus 18.1 None. parma subpopulations, management 19. References plans have been developed and are being implemented to mitigate those threats. IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Macropus http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed parma has been maintained at known 19 October 2010. 2011 levels.

120 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Lunney, D. & McKenzie, N. 2008. Macropus 20. Comments received parma. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of 20.1 None. Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www. iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/12627/0. Accessed 19 October 2010. Maynes, G (2008) Parma wallaby, Macropus parma. In The Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and Strahan, R).

Table 27: List of recovery actions for Macropus parma, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment of the Whilst the species is relatively secure, All species - distribution and information is required to assess those 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People abundance subpopulations most at risk from a range Status assessment of the of threats, and to ensure that genetic All 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People species - genetics stock is maintained. Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations, Little is known about which All and those subject to subpopulations should be targeted for 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person specific threats including intensive management. fox predation, fire and grazing Good data management is essential Manage data to inform to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person adaptive management maximum amount of information from monitoring data. Develop management plans for those Priority subpopulations (as subpopulations subject to Once 3 Months 1 Person identified in status assessment) threats of fox predation, cattle grazing, and altered fire regimes Fox predation has prevented species Priority subpopulations (as Conduct adaptive reintroductions, and may have 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People identified in status assessment) management fox control contributed to the species decline. Grazing and burning regimes that affect Implement management availability of shelter are a disadvantage Priority subpopulations (as actions to reduce the to populations. Yearly 1 Month 10 People identified in status assessment) threat of altered fire regimes Implement management Priority subpopulations (as actions to reduce the 6-Monthly 1 Month 5 People identified in status assessment) threat of cattle grazing Little of the species' habitat is protected Reserve suitable habitat within reserves. Sufficient habitat will be All Once Unknown 2 People for the species required to ensure the ongoing security of the species. Implement monitoring protocols for species activity, predator activity, All 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People and effectiveness of management intervention. Monitoring is essential to ensure adaptive management and achieving Implement monitoring the species objectives. protocols for fire and grazing management All Yearly 1 Month 5 People and habitat condition, and effectiveness of management intervention. Conduct research to Little is known about the species, and an determine the relative assessment of how each threat impacts All impacts of fox predation, Once 1 Year 2 People on the species is required to inform cattle grazing and altered optimum adaptive management. fire regimes on the species

121 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,143 $78,287 $63,339 $78,286 $78,286 $26,523 Year 10 $253,354 $506,708 $1,123,926 $9,189,201 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $61,494 $76,006 $76,006 Year 9 $957,764 $491,950 $245,975 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $73,792 $73,792 $59,703 $477,621 $238,810 $929,868 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $71,643 $71,643 $57,964 $71,644 Year 7 $281,377 $463,710 $231,855 $1,255,805 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $56,275 $69,556 $69,556 $10,000 $225,102 Year 6 $886,490 $450,204 * $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $67,531 $33,765 $22,510 $32,782 $54,636 $25,628 Year 5 $437,091 $218,545 $960,018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $31,827 $65,564 $65,564 $65,564 $53,045 $212,180 $923,567 Year 4 $424,360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $51,500 $63,654 $63,654 $30,900 Year 3 $412,000 $250,000 $206,000 $1,083,013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $61,800 $61,800 Year 2 $25,000 $50,000 $30,000 $833,750 $200,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1 $235,000 Action Implement management actions to reduce the threat of cattle grazing Implement management actions to reduce the threat of altered fire regimes Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance Develop management plans for those subpopulations subject threats to predation, fox of cattle grazing, and altered fire regimes Reserve suitable habitat for the species Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Implement monitoring protocols for fire and grazing management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Conduct research to determine the relative impacts of fox predation, cattle grazing and altered fire regimes on the species Conduct adaptive management fox control Status assessment of the species - genetics Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations, and those subject to specific threats including fox predation, fire and grazing Manage data to inform adaptive management Subpopulation Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL All All All All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review List 28: Table recovery of actionsMacropus for parma and, their costs

122 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Onychogalea fraenata

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Onychogalea fraenata (Gould, 1841) 3. Common name: Bridled nailtail wallaby, Bridled nail-tailed wallaby, Bridled Wallaby, Merrin, Flashjack 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(iii)

5. Reasons for listing

Listed as Endangered because the extent of occurrence is less than 5,000 km2, all self-sustaining populations are within three locations, and there is a continuing decline in the quality of habitat due to introduced weeds (McKnight 2008). Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None.

7. Range and abundance The bridled nailtail wallaby is endemic to Australia, where it occurs naturally in Taunton National Park (Scientific) near Dingo in central Queensland. Two self-sustaining translocated populations also exist: Idalia National Park (Queensland) and Avocet Nature Refuge (Queensland) (Lundie-Jenkins & Lowry 2005). It is thought that there are less than 1,100 mature individuals in the wild. The population at Taunton has been stable (Lundie-Jenkins and Lowry 2005) or increasing (Evans and Gordon 2008) since the mid 1990s when it was at its lowest point of 450 individuals. The population at Taunton rose following the exclusion of cattle to about 1,400 in December 1991 (Davidson 1991). Then a severe drought in the early 1990s reduced the population (Clancy and Porter 1994; Lundie-Jenkins and Lowry 2005; Evans & Gordon 2008). More recently (2002/2003) another severe drought struck, and populations may periodically fluctuate in response to rainfall, or the droughts could mark major stochastic events (IUCN 2010)

Figure 12: Known distribution of Onychogalea fraenata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

123 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Onychogalea fraenata has been maintained Open, edge habitats of eucalypt forest and at known 2011 levels. brigalow scrub and grasses. Based on the surveys of the Dingo region, Gordon & Lawrie (1980) 12. Actions completed or underway concluded that the species had a preference for Brigalow areas and the larger alluvial flats, the 12.1 Captive breeding. more fertile areas of the region. On the northern 12.2 Translocation. portion of Taunton, bridled nailtail wallabies are found in all four of the major vegetation types 13. Management actions required present (Tierney 1985): 13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations • Open grassy eucalypt woodland dominated using standard protocols, including by Poplar Box Eucalyptus populnea. distribution, genetics, trend, and priority subpopulations. • Dense acacia forest dominated by Brigalow Acacia harpophylla. 13.2 Manage species data to inform adaptive management. • Transitional vegetation intermediate between the woodland and forest 13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including fire management, habitat condition, • Areas of very dense Brigalow regrowth. predation and predator activity, and 9. Threats species activity. 9.1 Introduced predators including foxes, cats 13.4 Predator control, including foxes, cats and and wild dogs. wild dogs. 9.2 Invasive weeds, specifically buffel grass. 13.5 Fire management. 9.3 Small population size. 13.6 Buffel grass management, including investigation of optimal management 9.4 Potential risks from severe drought, techniques. extreme fire, and disease. 13.7 Provision of emergency fodder during 9.5 Competition for resources, especially with periods of extended drought. sheep (minor threat). 13.8 Maintenance and genetic management of 9.6 Artificial watering points in South West captive subpopulations for translocations NRM region that may extend range of cats and reintroductions. and foxes (minor threat). 13.9 Identify sites for translocation or 10. Information required reintroduction based on habitat mapping and/or on-ground assessment. 10.1 Methods to control buffel grass in wallaby habitat. 13.10 Establish a new translocated population.

11. Recovery objectives 13.11 Identify sites for range expansion around existing subpopulations, and conduct 11.1 By 2021, Onychogalea fraenata is eligible habitat restoration. for listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN Red List criteria. 14. Organisations responsible for conservation of species 11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Onychogalea fraenata in the form of extent 14.1 Department of Environment and Resource of occurrence has increased to greater than Management (DERM) Queensland. 5,000 km2, with subpopulations secure* at greater than five locations within that range. 15. Other organisations involved 11.3 By 2021, management plans have been 15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC). developed and are being implemented to 15.2 Hugo Spooner, landholder of Avocet Nature reduce the threats of drought, fire and Reserve. introduced predators, and to increase the area, extent and quality of habitat, for all 15.3 Australian Animals Care and Education Onychogalea fraenata subpopulations. (Inc.).

124 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

15.4 Conservation and Wildlife Management Horsup, A and Evans, M (1992) Predation by Feral (a division of Sporting Shooters Association Cats, Felis catus, on an endangered marsupial, of Australia, Queensland). the Bridled Nail-tail Wallaby, Onychogalea fraenata. Australian Mammalogy 16: 85-86. 16. Staff and other resources required for recovery to be carried out IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. 16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator may org. Accessed 19 October 2010. be required to implement this program of work. Lundie-Jenkins, G, and Lowry, J (2005) Recovery plan for the bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea 17. Action costs fraenata) 2005-2009. Report to the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH), Canberra. 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds Environmental Protection Agency/Queensland A$11 million. Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane. 18. Notes McKnight, M. 2008. Onychogalea fraenata. 18.1 None. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. 19. References org/apps/redlist/details/15330/0. Accessed 19 October 2010. Davidson, C (1991) Recovery plan for the bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata). ANPWS Tierney, PJ (1985) Habitat and ecology of the Endangered Species Program. Unpublished bridled nailtail wallaby with implications for report to ANPWS. management. M.Sc. Thesis. Queensland Institute of Technology. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2010) Onychogalea fraenata. In: 20. Comments received Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage 20.1 Rhonda Melzer, DERM QLD. and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment. 20.2 Matt Hayward, AWC. gov.au/sprat. Accessed 27 October 2010. 20.3 Janelle Lowry, DERM QLD. Evans, M and Gordon, G (2008) Bridled Nailtail Wallaby, Onychogalea fraenata. In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R). Gordon, G & Lawrie, BC (1980). The rediscovery of the bridled nail-tailed wallaby, Onychogalea fraenata (Gould) (Marsupialia: Macropodidae) in Queensland. Australian Wildlife Research 7: 339-345.

125 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 29: List of recovery actions for Onychogalea fraenata, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment - distribution and More information is required to better All abundance. Includes understand the status of the species, to 3-Yearly 1 Month 5 People surveys of known assess those subpopulations most at risk subpopulations from a range of threats, and to ensure Status assessment - that genetic stock is maintained. All 5-Yearly 3 Months 3 People genetics Manage species data Good data management is essential to inform adaptive to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People management. Includes 5 maximum amount of information from year program review. monitoring data. Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including Monitoring is essential to ensure All trapping, satellite collars adaptive management and achieving the Once 2 Weeks 1 Person and camera traps, and species objectives. to monitor habitat and threats Taunton National Park 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Idalia National Park Conduct adaptive 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People management fox and Avocet Nature Refuge 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 10 People wild dog control program Translocation site 1 - Scotia including ground baiting 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Wild dog predation is thought to be the Translocation site 2 - Bowra principal cause of death to wallabies in 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Taunton National Park Taunton National Park. Foxes and cats Monthly 1 Day 2 People are likely to be a problem. Idalia National Park Monthly 1 Day 2 People Conduct strategic cat Avocet Nature Refuge and wild dog shooting Monthly 1 Day 2 People program Translocation site 1 - Scotia Monthly 1 Day 2 People Translocation site 2 - Bowra Monthly 1 Day 2 People Taunton National Park Yearly 1 Week 2 People Idalia National Park Yearly 1 Week 2 People Implement fire Avocet Nature Refuge management program - Yearly 1 Week 2 People maintain control lines Several key habitat associations Translocation site 1 including brigalow are fire sensitive. As Yearly 1 Week 2 People Translocation site 2 such fire management is important in Yearly 1 Week 2 People limiting the extent and intensity of wild Taunton National Park fires to ensure sufficient habitat remains. Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Idalia National Park Fire may also play a role in promoting Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Implement fire fodder species. Avocet Nature Refuge management program - Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People patch burns Translocation site 1 - Scotia Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Translocation site 2 - Bowra Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Taunton National Park 2-Monthly 1 Week 5 People Encroachment of weeds such as buffel Avocet Nature Refuge grass can encroach on wallaby habitat, 2-Monthly 1 Week 5 People reducing the preferred fodder species Idalia National Park Conduct weed control 2-Monthly 1 Week 5 People plants of the wallabies and altering the Translocation site 1 - Scotia fire regimes such that shelter habitat is 2-Monthly 1 Week 5 People lost. Translocation site 2 - Bowra 2-Monthly 1 Week 5 People Taunton National Park 5-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person Idalia National Park During times of drought or low food 5-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person Provision of emergency availability, there may be a need to Avocet Nature Refuge 5-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person fodder augment food supplies, given the small Translocation site 1 - Scotia size of the population. 5-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person Translocation site 2 - Bowra 5-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person

126 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Translocation site 1 - Scotia With limited habitat available within Once 2 Weeks 4 People the current sites new sites are required Translocation of species to increase the size of the overall to secure areas Translocation site 2 - Bowra population and to provide some capacity Once 2 Months 5 People to ride out stochastic events. Taunton National Park 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Idalia National Park Implement monitoring 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People protocols for species Avocet Nature Refuge and predator activity, 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Scotia Sanctuary and effectiveness 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People of management Translocation site 1 - Scotia intervention. 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Translocation site 2 - Bowra Monitoring is essential to ensure 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People adaptive management and achieving the Taunton National Park Implement monitoring species objectives. Yearly 1 Week 2 People Idalia National Park protocols for fire Yearly 1 Week 2 People management, Avocet Nature Refuge habitat condition, Yearly 1 Week 2 People Scotia Sanctuary resource availability, Yearly 1 Week 2 People and effectiveness Translocation site 1 - Scotia of management Yearly 1 Week 2 People Translocation site 2 - Bowra intervention. Yearly 1 Week 2 People Buffel grass represents a threat to the Conduct research on food availability of the species, and Taunton National Park Once 2 Years 1 Person buffel grass control further research is required to manage infestations. Captive subpopulations must be protected from feral predators. Well- Scotia Sanctuary Maintain enclosure fence 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People maintained enclosure fences are the best means of ensuring this security. There is a need for genetically viable and demographically stable source Ongoing maintenance subpopulations to ensure future Kial Property and Scotia and monitoring for translocations and reintroductions are Yearly 2 Months 2 People Sanctuary release of captive animals successful. Captive stock may also be used for specific research to aid future recovery efforts. Conduct habitat With limited habitat available within modelling and surveys the current sites new sites are required NA for potential future to increase the size of the overall Once 1 Year 1 Person translocations or range population and to provide some capacity expansion to ride out stochastic events.

127 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $19,572 $19,572 $15,657 $15,657 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $97,858 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $32,620 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $110,906 $26,523* Year 10 $104,382 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $15,201 $15,201 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $19,002 $19,002 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $38,003 $38,003 $95,008 Year 9 $107,675 $101,342 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $14,758 $14,758 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $92,241 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $18,448 $18,448 $36,896 $36,896 $98,390 $104,539 Year 8 $0 $0 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $17,911 $17,911 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $35,821 $14,329 $14,329 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $95,524 $35,822 $35,822 $89,554 Year 7 $101,494 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $13,911 $13,911 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $17,389 $17,389 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $92,742 $34,778 $34,778 $86,946 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $98,538 Year 6 * $0 $0 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $16,883 $16,883 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $13,506 $28,138 $13,506 $84,413 $90,041 $95,668 $25,628 Year 5 $0 $0 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $13,113 $13,113 $16,391 $16,391 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $81,955 $87,418 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $92,882 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $12,731 $12,731 $15,914 $15,914 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $90,177 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $79,568 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $84,872 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $77,250 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $87,550 $15,450 $15,450 $12,360 $12,360 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $30,900 $30,900 Year 2 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $82,400 # $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $8,000 $15,000 $15,000 $12,000 $12,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $75,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $85,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $80,000 Year 1 Action Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Conduct adaptive management fox and wild dog control program including ground baiting Conduct strategic cat and wild dog shooting program Status assessment - genetics Manage species data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Implement fire management program - maintain control lines Implement fire management program - patch burns Conduct weed control Subpopulation All All NationalTaunton Park Avocet Nature Refuge Translocation site 1 - Scotia Translocation site - Bowra 2 NationalTaunton Park Idalia National Park All Idalia National Park Avocet Nature Refuge All Taunton NationalTaunton Park Translocation site - Bowra 2 Translocation site 1 - Scotia Idalia National Park NationalTaunton Park Idalia National Park Avocet Nature Refuge Translocation site 2 Avocet Nature Refuge Translocation site 1 Translocation site 1 - Scotia Translocation site - Bowra 2 Taunton NationalTaunton Park Avocet Nature Refuge Translocation site - Bowra 2 Idalia National Park Translocation site 1 - Scotia List 30: Table recovery of actions Onychogalea for fraenata and, their costs

128 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,524 $6,524 $5,628 $5,628 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $25,335 $25,335 $18,448 $18,448 $65,239 $34,250 Year 10 $1,326,064 $11,106,848 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,911 $17,911 $6,334 $6,334 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $24,597 $24,597 $33,253 $63,339 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $1,187,423 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $6,149 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $17,389 $17,389 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $61,494 $23,881 $23,881 $32,284 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 Year 8 $1,186,603 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $5,970 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $23,185 $23,185 $31,344 $16,883 $59,703 $16,883 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $1,155,081 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $5,796 $16,391 $16,391 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $57,964 $22,510 $22,510 $30,431 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 Year 6 $1,086,660 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,628 $5,628 $5,000 $5,000 $15,914 $15,914 $21,855 $21,855 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $56,275 $29,545 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 Year 5 $1,113,149 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $5,464 $21,218 $21,218 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $15,450 $15,450 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $54,636 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $28,684 $35,000 $25,000 Year 4 $1,147,064 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $5,305 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $25,750 $27,849 $53,045 $15,000 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $20,600 $20,600 $25,000 Year 3 $1,030,198 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $51,500 $27,038 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 Year 2 $25,000 $20,000 $941,358 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $26,250 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Year 1 $933,250 Action Implement monitoring protocols for fire management, habitat condition, resource availability, and effectiveness of management intervention. Provision emergency fodder of Conduct habitat modelling and surveys for potential future translocations or range expansion Translocation of species to secure areas Conduct research on buffel grass control Maintain enclosure fence Ongoing maintenance and monitoring for release of captive animals Implement monitoring protocols species for and predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Subpopulation Translocation site 1 - Scotia Taunton NationalTaunton Park Idalia National Park Avocet Nature Refuge Sanctuary Scotia Translocation site - Bowra 2 Taunton NationalTaunton Park TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL Idalia National Park Avocet Nature Refuge Translocation site 1 - Scotia NA Translocation site - Bowra 2 Translocation site - Bowra 2 Translocation site 1 - Scotia Taunton NationalTaunton Park Sanctuary Scotia Kial Property and Scotia Sanctuary Translocation site - Bowra 2 Translocation site 1 - Scotia Taunton NationalTaunton Park Idalia National Park Avocet Nature Refuge Sanctuary Scotia #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

129 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Petrogale burbidgei

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Petrogale burbidgei (Kitchener & Sanson, 1978)

3. Common name: Monjon, Warabi14 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(iii)

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Near Threatened because it has a relatively small distribution and might be declining. More research is needed into the distribution, abundance, and potential threats to this species. There is some evidence that changing fire regimes could pose a threat to this species, however, there is no current research of its affects on the populations. The species approaches Vulnerable under criterion B, and could qualify if more evidence on threats is presented (Burbidge et al. 2008).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None.

7. Range and abundance

Figure 13: Known distribution of Petrogale burbidgei from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). This species is found in some of the most remote and rugged areas of the north-west Kimberley of Western Australia. It is present on a few nearby islands: Bigge, Boongaree, Katers, and possibly Wollaston (based on a sight record). The only known localities on the mainland are in and around the Prince Regent Nature Reserve to the Mitchell Plateau (Pearson et al. 2008). There have been detailed surveys of the largest Kimberley islands during 2008-10 by DEC and other previous surveys by CALM and the WA Museum, which suggests that monjons probably occur on just these few islands (D. Pearson, pers. comm.). There is abundant habitat but monjons occupy a small range for reasons that are not readily apparent, i.e. they only occur in the very high rainfall areas of the north Kimberley (D. Pearson, pers. comm.). The population is abundant on Bigge Island (ca. 18,000 ha) (Burbidge et al. 2008).

14 The common name Warabi is possibly misplaced, being a mispronunciation of the word ‘wallaby’.

130 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 13. Management actions required During the day, Monjon can be found in rugged 13.1 Status assessment of the species – sandstone areas, screes and rock piles. At dusk, distribution and abundance. Monjon move from their daytime caves and 13.2 Status assessment – genetic diversity. crevices to forage in neighbouring vegetation such as low open woodland of eucalypts, 13.3 Status assessment of the species – identify acacias, figs, Terminalia and Owenia or vine important subpopulations, and those thickets among boulders. subject to specific threats including fire and feral cats. 9. Threats 13.4 Develop a management plan for those 9.1 Unknown subpopulations subject to threats of altered 9.2 Predation by feral cats may be affecting fire regimes, feral cat predation, and abundance on the mainland. possible infrastructure development. 9.3 Changed fire regimes may also be affecting 13.5 Implement management actions to reduce the species. the threat of altered fire regimes. 13.6 Implement management actions to reduce 10. Information required the threat of feral cat predation if they are 10.1 Survey to clarify distribution, abundance, shown to be a threat. and habitat requirements, especially on the 13.7 Reserve suitable habitat for the species. mainland. 13.8 Conduct habitat assessment and modelling 10.2 Identify populations for regular monitoring. to determine current habitat condition and 10.3 Conduct research aimed at understanding possibilities for future range expansion. the species biology and threats, especially 13.9 Conduct research into species biology, the loss of preferred food plants due to ecology, conservation requirements and frequent fires. preferred fire regime. 11. Recovery objectives 13.10 Implement monitoring protocols for species 11.1 By 2021, Petrogale burbidgei is eligible for activity, and effectiveness of management listing as Least Concern according to IUCN intervention. Red List criteria. 13.11 Implement monitoring protocols for fire 11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring management and habitat condition, and confirm the population trend of Petrogale effectiveness of management intervention. burbidgei as stable. 13.12 Manage data to inform adaptive 11.3 By 2021, research has investigated the management. impacts of changing fire regimes, cattle 14. Organisations responsible for grazing and feral cats on Petrogale conservation of species burbidgei, and where those present a threat to Petrogale burbidgei subpopulations, 14.1 West Australian Department of management plans have been developed Environment and Conservation and are being implemented to mitigate those threats. 15. Other organisations involved 11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale 15.1 Kimberley Land Council. burbidgei has been maintained at known 16. Staff and other resources required for 2011 levels. recovery to be carried out 12. Actions completed or underway 16.1 No dedicated staff required. 12.1 Kimberley islands survey (DEC 2008-2010) 17. Action costs confirmed the presence of monjons on Bigge, Katers and Boongaree islands, but 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds they were not located on any of the other A$3.8 million. 30 largest islands surveyed (D. Pearson, pers. comm.).

131 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

18. Note Pearson, DJ, Burbidge, AA, Lochman, J and Start, AN (2008) Monjon, Petrogale burbidgei. In 18.1 The common name Warabi is possibly The Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and misplaced, being a mispronunciation of the Strahan, R). word ‘wallaby’. 20. Comments received 19. References 20.1 Andrew Burbidge. IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist. 20.2 David Pearson, WA DEC. org. Accessed 28 September 2010. Burbidge, A., McKenzie, N. & Start, T. 2008. Petrogale burbidgei. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http:// www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/16744/0 Accessed 28 September 2010.

Table 31: List of recovery actions for Petrogale burbidgei, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment of the All species - distribution and 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People abundance Status assessment of All the species – genetic Whilst the species may be relatively 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People diversity secure, information is required to assess those subpopulations most at risk from Status assessment a range of threats, and to ensure that of the species - genetic stock is maintained. identify important All subpopulations, and 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person those subject to specific threats including fire and feral cats Develop management plans for those Priority subpopulations (as subpopulations subject Once 3 Months 1 Person identified in status assessment) to threats of altered fire regimes and feral cat predation Changes to vegetation composition Implement management Priority subpopulations (as and structure as a result of altered fire actions to reduce the Yearly 1 Month 10 People identified in status assessment) regimes are thought to be the greatest threat of fire threat facing monjons. Implement management actions to reduce the threat of cat predation. Requires assessment of actual impact of cats Priority subpopulations (as Predation by feral cats may be affecting on population levels, 6-Monthly 1 Month 5 People identified in status assessment) abundance on the mainland. and new cat control techniques that will not impact on other native species such as golden bandicoots. Large areas of habitat are protected in Prince Regent Nature Reserve and Priority subpopulations (as Reserve suitable habitat Mitchell River National Park. Islands Once Unknown 2 People identified in status assessment) for the species are subject to native title claim, but may eventually be jointly managed as nature reserves.

132 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

To qualify for Least Concern, the species range in the form of extent of occurrence Conduct habitat may need to be expanded, and an assessment and understanding of potential habitat modelling to determine All surrounding extant subpopulations 5-Yearly 6 Months 1 Person current habitat condition will be required. There is no need to and possibilities for include range expansion until we know future range expansion. population trends and whether range has declined. Conduct research into Very little is known about this species, species biology, ecology All and urgent research is required to Once Unknown 2 People and conservation inform adaptive conservation measures. requirements Implement monitoring protocols for species Monitoring is essential to ensure Priority subpopulations (as activity, and effectiveness adaptive management and achieving the 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People identified in status assessment) of management species objectives. intervention. Implement monitoring protocols for fire Priority subpopulations (as management Yearly 1 Month 5 People identified in status assessment) and effectiveness of management intervention. To qualify for Least Concern, the species Investigate need to range in the form of extent of occurrence undertake translocations may need to be expanded, and an All to increase the species' Once 3 Months 1 Person understanding of potential habitat extent of occurrence surrounding extant subpopulations will above 20,000 km2. be required. Good data management is essential Manage data to inform to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person adaptive management maximum amount of information from monitoring data.

133 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,671 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 $78,286 $26,523 $126,677 Year 10 $438,730 $3,834,085 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $49,195 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $122,987 $292,525 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $47,762 $73,792 $36,896 $119,405 Year 8 $284,005 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $46,371 $71,643 $71,644 $35,822 $115,927 Year 7 $281,377 $628,754 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $34,778 $69,556 $10,000 $45,020 $112,551 $277,702 Year 6 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $31,827 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $43,709 $25,628 Year 5 $109,273 $368,008 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $31,827 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $42,436 $30,900 $20,000 Year 4 $400,626 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $31,827 $63,654 $41,200 $30,900 $30,000 $555,886 Year 3 $103,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $61,800 $30,900 Year 2 $25,000 $30,000 $40,000 $292,850 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 Year 1 $150,000 $295,000 Action 2. Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance Manage data to inform adaptive management Status assessment of the species – genetic diversity Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations, and those subject to specific threats including fire and feral cats Develop management plans for those subpopulations subject to threats of altered fire regimes and feral cat predation Implement management actions to reduce the threat of fire Implement management actions to reduce the threat of cat predation Conduct research into species biology, ecology and conservation requirements Reserve suitable habitat for the species Conduct habitat assessment and modelling to determine current habitat condition and possibilities for future range expansion. Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Investigate need to undertake translocations to increase the species' extent of occurrence above 20,000 km Subpopulation All TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL All All All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review Table 32: ListTable recovery of actions Petrogale for burbidgei and , their costs

134 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Petrogale coenensis

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Petrogale coenensis (Eldridge & Close, 1992) 3. Common name: Cape York Rock Wallaby 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing

Listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2, and there is a serious decline in the quality of its habitat in parts of its range due cattle grazing and changes to the fire regime, thus making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion B1 (Winter et al. 2008).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None

7. Range and abundance This species is restricted to a small area of the eastern Cape York Peninsula, Australia. It ranges from Musgrave to the Pascoe River in elevation from sea level to 400 m above sea level. This species is rare, but recent surveys have found four new populations, and it might be underestimated (Eldridge et al. 2008).

Figure 14: Known distribution of Petrogale coenensis from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

8. Habitat The habitat of this species includes rocky outcrops, rocky gullies, and boulder piles, dry creek beds, usually within open woodland.

135 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

9. Threats 13.4 Reserve suitable habitats for the species. 9.1 The habitat near some populations is 13.5 Habitat assessment and modelling to adversely affected by cattle grazing and fire. determine current habitat condition and possibilities for future range expansion. 9.2 Feral cats may take a few young animals. 13.6 Implement monitoring protocols, 10. Information required including fire management, grazing, habitat 10.1 Survey to clarify distribution, abundance condition, predation and predator activity, and habitat requirements. and species activity. 10.2 Identify populations for regular monitoring. 13.7 Research species biology, ecology and conservation requirements. 10.3 Conduct research aimed at understanding biology, ecology, and conservation 13.8 Manage data to inform adaptive requirements. management.

11. Recovery objectives 14. Organisations responsible for conservation of species 11.1 By 2021, Petrogale coenensis is eligible for listing as Least Concern according to IUCN 14.1 Queensland Department of Environment Red List criteria. and Resource Management. 11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring 15. Other organisations involved confirm the population trend of Petrogale 15.1 None. coenensis as stable. 11.3 By 2021, the geographic range of Petrogale 16. Staff and other resources required for coenensis in the form of extent of recovery to be carried out occurrence has increased to greater than 16.1 No dedicated staff required. 20,000 km2. 17. Action costs 11.4 By 2021, research has confirmed the impacts of changing fire regimes and cattle 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds grazing on Petrogale coenensis, and where A$4.2 million. those regimes present a threat to Petrogale coenensis subpopulations, management 18. Notes plans have been developed and are being 18.1 None. implemented to mitigate those threats. 19. References 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale coenensis has been maintained at known Eldridge, MDB, Moore, LA and Close, RL (2008) 2011 levels. Cape York Rock Wallaby (Petrogale coenensis). In The Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and 12. Actions completed or underway Strahan, R). 12.1 Recent surveys have detected at least four IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened new populations near the town of Coen and Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. the species may not be as rare as previously org. Accessed 19 October 2010. thought (Eldridge et al. 2008). Winter, J., Burnett, S. & Martin, R. 2008. 13. Management actions required Petrogale coenensis. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http:// 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/16752/0 genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and . Accessed 19 October 2010. risks. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R (eds.) (2008) 13.2 Identify areas where excessive grazing and The Mammals of Australia. New Holland altered fire regimes pose significant threats Publishers, Sydney. to rock wallabies and develop management plans for those subpopulations. 20. Comments received from 13.3 Assess threat of feral cats to juvenile 20.1 None rock wallabies and conduct cat control where necessary.

136 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 33: List of recovery actions for Petrogale coenensis, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment of the Whilst the species is relatively secure, All species - distribution and information is required to assess those 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People abundance subpopulations most at risk from a range Status assessment of the of threats, and to ensure that genetic All 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People species - genetics stock is maintained. Status assessment of the species - identify important Little is known about which All subpopulations, and subpopulations should be targeted for 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person those subject to specific intensive management. threats including grazing, fire and cats Good data management is essential Manage data to inform to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person adaptive management maximum amount of information from monitoring data. Develop management plans for those Priority subpopulations (as subpopulations subject to Once 3 Months 1 Person identified in status assessment) threats of cattle grazing, The woodlands surrounding some altered fire regimes and populations are significantly impacted feral cat predation by cattle grazing and fire. Here, rock wallaby activity appears limited to areas Implement management Priority subpopulations (as on the ridges and among outcrops that actions to reduce the 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People identified in status assessment) escape serious impact. Consequently threat of cattle grazing those populations located in smaller Implement management isolated outcrops and ridges may be at Priority subpopulations (as actions to reduce the risk from the direct impacts of grazing, Yearly 1 Month 10 People identified in status assessment) threat of fire as well as fire regimes altered to favour pastoral objectives. Implement management Priority subpopulations (as actions to reduce the 6-Monthly 1 Month 5 People identified in status assessment) threat of cat predation Little of the rock wallaby's habitat is Reserve suitable habitat protected within reserves. Sufficient All Once Unknown 2 People for the species habitat will be required to ensure the ongoing security of the species. Conduct habitat To qualify for Least Concern, the species assessment and range in the form of extent of occurrence modelling to determine may need to be expanded, and an All 5-Yearly 6 Months 1 Person current habitat condition understanding of potential habitat and possibilities for surrounding extant subpopulations will future range expansion. be required. Conduct research into Very little is known about this species, species biology, ecology All and urgent research is required to Once Unknown 2 People and conservation inform adaptive conservation measures. requirements Implement monitoring protocols for species activity, predator activity, All 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People and effectiveness of management intervention. Monitoring is essential to ensure Implement monitoring adaptive management and achieving the protocols for fire and species objectives. grazing management All and habitat condition, Yearly 1 Month 5 People and effectiveness of management intervention. Once secure habitat is identified outside Investigate need to the current species range, it may be undertake translocations necessary to translocate animals to All to increase the species' Once 3 Months 1 Person create a new subpopulation, thus extent of occurrence bolstering the future security of the above 20,000 km2. species.

137 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,671 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 $63,339 $78,286 $26,523 $126,677 Year 10 $502,069 $4,243,617 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $49,195 $61,494 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $354,019 $122,987 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $47,762 $73,792 $59,703 $36,896 $119,405 $343,708 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $46,371 $71,643 $57,964 $71,644 $35,822 $115,927 Year 7 $405,341 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $56,275 $34,778 $69,556 $10,000 $45,020 $112,551 $333,977 Year 6 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $31,827 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $43,709 $54,636 $136,591 $25,628 Year 5 $559,235 $109,273 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $31,827 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $53,045 $42,436 $30,900 $20,000 $132,613 Year 4 $586,284 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $31,827 $51,500 $63,654 $41,200 $30,900 $30,000 $128,750 $486,136 Year 3 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $61,800 $30,900 Year 2 $25,000 $50,000 $30,000 $40,000 $467,850 $125,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1 $205,000 s, and their costs Action . 2 Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance Develop management plans for those subpopulations subject to threats of cattle grazing, altered fire regimes and feral cat predation Implement management actions to reduce the threat of cattle grazing Status assessment of the species - genetics Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations, and those subject to specific threats including grazing, fire and cats Implement management actions to reduce the threat of fire Manage data to inform adaptive management Implement management actions to reduce the threat of cat predation Reserve suitable habitat for the species Conduct habitat assessment and modelling to determine current habitat condition and possibilities for future range expansion. Conduct research into species biology, ecology and conservation requirements Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Implement monitoring protocols for fire and grazing management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Investigate need to undertake translocations to increase the species' extent of occurrence above 20,000 km Subpopulation All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All All All All All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review List 34: Table recovery of actions Petrogale for coenensi

138 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Petrogale concinna

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Petrogale concinna (Gould, 1842) 3. Common name: Nabarlek, pygmy rock wallaby, little rock wallaby 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Data Deficient

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Data Deficient in view of the absence of recent information on its distribution, population status, and threats. Its habitat is presumed to be in decline due to changes in the fire regime, and there appears to have been localised extinctions over the last 30-40 years in the Northern Territory. However, the species still has a large extent of occurrence and very little is known about its status throughout most of its range (Woinarski et al. 2008). There is a possible threat from the introduction of feral cats (D. Pearson, pers. comm.).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 Petrogale concinna concinna –Victoria River District, NT 6.2 Petrogale concinna canescens – Top End, NT 6.3 Petrogale concinna monastria – Kimberley Region, WA The populations in two regions (WA and NT) have traditionally been referred to as separate subspecies, but these designations remain untested by modern morphometric or genetic analyses (Sanson and Churchill 2008).

7. Range and abundance

Figure 15: Known distribution of Petrogale concinna from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). The Nabarlek occurs in two disjunct locations: the north-western Kimberley in Western Australia and in the Top End in the Northern Territory, Australia. There is also a type locality of Petrogale concinna concinna near Timber Creek in the Northern Territory (not shown on map; D. Pearson, pers. comm.).

139 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

The species is very patchily distributed, though 11.3 By 2021, research has investigated the it can be locally abundant. There seem to have impacts of changing fire regimes and cattle been localised extinctions from the Northern grazing on Petrogale concinna, and where Territory within the last 30-40 years. In Western those regimes present a threat to Petrogale Australia, the species is found on several offshore concinna subpopulations, management islands but is apparently very restricted, and on plans have been developed and are being the mainland it occurs as scattered populations. implemented to mitigate those threats. There is no sound evidence of an overall 11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale population decline in Northern Territory over concinna has been maintained at known the last ten years (Woinarski et al. 2008). The 2011 levels. presence of Nabarlek on Augustus, Borda, Hidden and Long islands was confirmed during the 12. Actions completed or underway Kimberley Island survey (DEC 2008-2010) and rock-wallabies on Darcy Island are probably this 12.1 Surveys failed to relocate populations in the species (D. Pearson, pers. comm.). Litchfield National Park area and in parts of the upper Mary River (Sanson et al. 1985). 8. Habitat 13. Management actions required Sandstone and granite hills and escarpments. It is known to spend its days in caves and crevices. 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including Being mostly nocturnal the nights are spent genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and foraging in a variety of habitats from monsoon risks. Includes surveys. rainforests and vine thickets to open woodland 13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive and hummock grass (Sanson & Churchill 2008). management.

9. Threats 13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including fire management, grazing, habitat condition, 9.1 Largely unknown. predation and predator activity, and species 9.2 Habitat change as a result of altered fire. activity. 9.3 Introduced cats probably prey on nabarleks, 13.4 Assess threat of feral cats to juvenile rock but it is unknown whether or not this wallabies and conduct cat control where constitutes a major threat. All four offshore necessary. islands and Darcy island do not have cats. 13.5 Research preferred fire regimes for P. 10. Information required concinna and its habitat, and undertake fire management where necessary. 10.1 Surveys are needed for a more accurate picture of its distribution and 13.6 Assess the need to augment the known population status. number of subpopulations through translocation. 10.2 Examine ecology at one or more populations. 13.7 Research species biology, ecology and conservation requirements. 10.3 Undertake surveys of sites where localised declines or extinctions are thought to have 14. Organisations responsible for occurred (e.g. western Top End, upper Mary conservation of species and upper Daly Rivers, Ord and Victoria 14.1 Department of Environment and River districts). Conservation (DEC), Western Australia. 11. Recovery objectives 14.2 Department of Natural Resources, 11.1 By 2021, Petrogale concinna is eligible for Environment, The Arts and Sport listing as Least Concern according to IUCN (NRETAS), Northern Territory. Red List criteria. 15. Other organisations involved 11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring 15.1 None. confirm the population trend of Petrogale concinna as stable.

140 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

16. Staff and other resources required for Sanson GD, Nelson JE, and Fell P (1985) Ecology recovery to be carried out of Peradorcas concinna in Arnhem Land in the wet and dry season. Proceedings of the Ecological 16.1 None. Society of Australia 13, 69-72. 17. Action costs Woinarski, J., Burbidge, A., Telfer, W., McKenzie, 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds N. & Start, T. 2008. Petrogale concinna. In: A$3.8 million. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/ 18. Notes apps/redlist/details/16761/0. Accessed 28 September 2010. 18.1 None. 20. Comments received 19. References 20.1 David Pearson, WA DEC. IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. org. Accessed 28 September 2010. Sanson, GD and Churchill, SK (2008) Nabarlek, Petrogale concinna. In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R).

Table 35: List of recovery actions Petrogale concinna, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment of the All species - distribution and 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People abundance There is very little known about this species. Information is required to assess Status assessment of the All the distribution and abundance of the 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People species - genetics species, which subpopulations are most Status assessment at risk from a range of threats, and to of the species - ensure that genetic stock is maintained. identify important The disjunct subpopulations may be two All subpopulations, and or more distinct subspecies, and this 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person those subject to specific needs to be clarified. threats including grazing, fire and cats Good data management is essential Manage data to inform to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person adaptive management maximum amount of information from monitoring data. Develop management plans for those Once the nature of threats to the species Priority subpopulations (as subpopulations subject to is better known, management plans will Once 3 Months 1 Person identified in status assessment) threats of cattle grazing, be required to address them. altered fire regimes and feral cat predation Implement management Priority subpopulations (as Cattle grazing may impact on the habitat actions to reduce the 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People identified in status assessment) condition of the species. threat of cattle grazing Changes to vegetation composition Implement management Priority subpopulations (as and structure as a result of altered fire actions to reduce the Yearly 1 Month 10 People identified in status assessment) regimes are thought to be the greatest threat of fire threat facing Nabarleks.

141 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Nabarleks occur north of the range of the introduced red fox but feral cats are probably a predator, given their ability to catch the larger allied rock wallaby (Petrogale assimilis). Feral cats are likely Implement management Priority subpopulations (as to be a significant conservation threat actions to reduce the 6-Monthly 1 Month 5 People identified in status assessment) for smaller rock-wallabies such as the threat of cat predation monjon and nabarlek, which are even smaller than P. assimilis, however there are currently no data to indicate the level of threat. All four offshore islands do not have cats. Conduct research into Very little is known about this species, species biology, ecology All and urgent research is required to Once Unknown 2 People and conservation inform adaptive conservation measures. requirements Implement monitoring protocols for species activity, predator activity, All 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People and effectiveness of management intervention. Monitoring is essential to ensure Implement monitoring adaptive management and achieving the protocols for fire and species objectives. grazing management All and habitat condition, Yearly 1 Month 5 People and effectiveness of management intervention. Once surveys provide a clearer Investigate need to understanding of the species' status, undertake translocations it may be necessary to establish new All Once 3 Months 1 Person to increase the number of subpopulations to ensure it does extant subpopulations not meet the criteria to be listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List.

142 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 $63,339 $78,286 $76,006 $26,523 $126,677 $527,404 Year 10 $3,891,119 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $73,792 $61,494 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $378,616 $122,987 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $71,643 $73,792 $59,703 $36,896 $119,405 $367,589 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $71,643 $57,964 $71,644 $69,556 $35,822 $115,927 Year 7 $428,526 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $67,531 $56,275 $34,778 $69,556 $10,000 $112,551 Year 6 $356,488 * $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $31,827 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $65,564 $54,636 $25,628 Year 5 $109,273 $444,498 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $63,654 $53,045 $30,900 $20,000 Year 4 $443,062 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $31,827 $51,500 $63,654 $61,800 $30,000 $347,086 Year 3 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $61,800 $30,900 Year 2 $25,000 $50,000 $60,000 $332,850 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 Year 1 $265,000 $120,000 and their costs Action Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance Develop management plans for those subpopulations subject to threats of cattle grazing, altered fire regimes and feral cat predation Status assessment of the species - genetics Implement management actions to reduce the threat of cattle grazing Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations, and those subject to specific threats including grazing, fire and cats Manage data to inform adaptive management Implement management actions to reduce the threat of fire Conduct research into species biology, ecology and conservation requirements Implement management actions to reduce the threat of cat predation Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Implement monitoring protocols for fire and grazing management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Investigate need to undertake translocations to increase the number extant of subpopulations Subpopulation All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All Priority subpopulations identified(as in status assessment) All All All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review List 36: Table recovery of actions Petrogale for concinna,

143 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Petrogale lateralis

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Petrogale lateralis (Gould, 1842) 3. Common name: Black-footed rock wallaby, black-flanked rock wallaby, Warru, Recherche rock wallaby, Pearson Island rock wallaby 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Near Threatened because, although it has a large extent of occurrence, its distribution is very patchy, few (if any) populations are considered secure, the total population is not much greater than 10,000 mature individuals, and it is probably decreasing overall, thus making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion C (Burbidge et al. 2008). Many documented extinctions of localised subpopulations (D. Pearson, pers. comm.).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 Petrogale lateralis hacketti - Recherche Rock-wallaby, Vulnerable under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010). 6.2 Petrogale lateralis lateralis - Black-flanked Rock-wallaby, Vulnerable under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010). 6.3 Petrogale lateralis pearsoni - Pearson Island Rock-wallaby. Not Listed under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010). 6.4 Petrogale lateralis (MacDonnell Ranges race) - Warru, Black-footed Rock-wallaby (MacDonnell Ranges race), Vulnerable under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010). 6.5 Petrogale lateralis (West Kimberley race) - Black-footed Rock-wallaby (West Kimberley race), Vulnerable under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

7. Range and abundance The Black-footed Rock-wallaby is a widespread and diverse species, found from temperate rocky islands in the Southern Ocean to spinifex-clad rocky hills in the central deserts and pandanus-lined sandstone gorges in the tropical north-west of Australia (Eldridge and Pearson 2008). The global population is probably over 10,000 mature individuals. Historically, the MacDonnell race of Black-footed rock wallaby began a steep decline sometime after the 1930s such that by the 1960s it was rare in central Australia (Finlayson 1961) This decline continues today, mainly in the smaller, isolated populations (Eldridge and Pearson 2008). Populations in 21 of 400 sites have disappeared in last 30 years (Gibson 2000), and there are fewer than 100 individuals in South Australia (10 in the north-western population and about 70 in the population further east). The MacDonnell Ranges race, however, remains widespread and common in the Northern Territory, due to a variety of factors, including: widespread, contiguous and variable habitat; an absence of rabbits and foxes, as they are found farther south; an inability of goats to persist; and 1080 baiting programs for dingoes. Likewise the West Kimberley race is described as “conspicuously abundant at several sites” because it is at the northern edge of fox distribution and does not suffer much predation (Eldridge and Pearson 2008). The remaining subspecies of Black-footed rock wallaby have not fared so well or are very limited in distribution. The Black-footed rock wallaby in south-western Western Australia have declined massively during the 20th century, and many local populations have gone extinct (Pearson and Kinnear 1997; Eldridge and Pearson 2008). Barrow Island may hold about 100 individuals, though recent work suggests this population is much smaller (A. Burbidge pers. comm.). Both P. l. hacketti and P. l. pearsoni are common within their tiny ranges. Estimates for P. l. pearsoni include approximately 500 individuals on Thistle Island and 200 on Wedge Island (both are introduced populations).

144 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Figure 16: Known distribution of Petrogale lateralis from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

8. Habitat 10.2 Conduct research to improve knowledge of diseases and parasites affecting P. lateralis. This species is found in a variety of steep and rocky habitats. The vegetation in these areas 10.3 Conduct research into the predation impact varies widely from temperate rocky islands to of feral cats on P. lateralis. pandanus lined gorges and spinifex covered hills in the central deserts (Eldridge and 11. Recovery objectives Pearson 2008). 11.1 By 2021, Petrogale lateralis is eligible for listing as Least Concern according to IUCN 9. Threats Red List criteria. 9.1 Predation from introduced foxes and 11.2 By 2021, the number of distinct secure feral cats. subpopulations of Petrogale lateralis is 9.2 Competition with domestic and introduced greater than 10, and the population is herbivores (primarily sheep and rabbits, estimated to number greater than 10,000 and potentially euros). mature individuals, thus making it ineligible to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN criteria 9.3 Loss of habitat due to changes in B or C. the fire regimes and the spread of introduced grasses. 11.3 By 2021, management plans have been developed and are being implemented 9.4 Disease. to reduce the threats of low resource The various subspecies of Black-footed rock availability, introduced predators, fire and wallaby face various threats. disease for priority Petrogale lateralis subpopulations. 10. Information required 11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale 10.1 Some of the island populations should be lateralis has been maintained at known sampled genetically – not all have been 2011 levels. sampled and the subpopulation on Barrow island is suspected to be inbreeding with a speculated decrease in reproductive rate (D. Pearson, pers. comm.).

145 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

12. Actions completed or underway 13.12 Engage local landholders and traditional owners in management of P. lateralis habitat 12.1 A number of reintroductions of have been on private and traditional lands. carried out to date. 13.13 Review translocation of black-footed rock 12.2 P. l. lateralis has been reintroduced to wallabies, including feasibility of future Avon Valley National Park (2001), Paruna operations. Sanctuary (2001), Walyunga National Park (2002), and Cape Le Grand National Park 13.14 Translocate individuals or subpopulations (2003) (Davies et al. 2007). to viable secure habitat if overpopulation occurs, or if habitat is unmanageable. 12.3 Further reintroductions and translocations are planned. 13.15 Use captive breeding and cross-fostering to conserve genetic diversity. 12.4 Predator control in various locations. 13.16 Those subpopulations not high priority or 13. Management actions required at key monitoring sites are to be left in situ, 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including and undergo minimum monitoring at least genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and every five years. risks. Identify those subpopulations that 14. Organisations responsible for will be the most efficient to manage, and conservation of species that capture the full genetic diversity of the species for future conservation. 14.1 Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) Western Australia. 13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive management. 14.2 Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport 13.3 Refine and implement monitoring protocols, (NRETAS), Northern Territory. including species and predator activity, grazing pressure, predation, and resource 14.3 Department of Environment and Heritage availability. (DEH), South Australia.

13.4 Conduct strategic and targeted fox baiting 15. Other organisations involved on-ground, and increase baiting in response to an increase in predator sightings or 15.1 None. predation incidents and during droughts. 16. Staff and other resources required for 13.5 Undertake aerial baiting in priority areas recovery to be carried out (as determined by status assessment), and 16.1 No dedicated staff required. those areas that are remote and difficult to access from the ground. 17. Action costs 13.6 Conduct competitor control operations 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds for goats and rabbits in and around rock A$27 million. wallaby habitat, and increase during droughts and prolonged dry periods. 18. Notes 13.7 Conduct competitor control operations 18.1 None. for livestock and camels in and around rock wallaby habitat, and increase during 19. References droughts and prolonged dry periods. Burbidge, A, Woinarski, J, Reed, J, van Weenen, 13.8 Exclude feral predators and competitors J, Moseby, KE & Morris, K (2008) Petrogale from islands inhabited by rock wallabies. lateralis. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. http://www. 13.9 Manage development where it impacts iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/16751/0. rock wallaby habitat. Accessed 19 October 2010. 13.10 Develop and implement fire management Davies, M, Newsome, D, Moncrieff, D and Smith, plans for rock wallaby habitat. A (2007) Conserving the Black-flanked rock 13.11 Control invasive weeds in and around wallaby (Petrogale lateralis lateralis) through rock wallaby habitat. tourism: Development of a habitat ranking system for translocated animals and the need

146 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

for on-going management. Conservation Science Australian species. Records of the South Western Australia 6: 1-12. Australian Museum 14: 141-191. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage Gibson, DF (2000) Distribution and conservation and the Arts (2010) Petrogale lateralis. In: status of the black-footed rock-wallaby, Petrogale Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. lateralis (MacDonnell Ranges race), in the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage Northern Territory. Australian Mammalogy 21: and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment. 213-236. gov.au/sprat. Accessed 27 October 2010. IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Department of Environment and Conservation Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. Western Australia (2009) Black-Flanked Rock- org. Accessed 19 October 2010. Wallaby (Petrogale lateralis lateralis) DRAFT Pearson, DJ and Kinnear, JE (1997) A review Conservation Plan for the Central Wheatbelt of the distribution, status and conservation of Populations, 2009-2014. rock wallabies in Western Australia. Australian Eldridge, MDB and Pearson, DJ (2008) Mammalogy 19:137-152. Black-footed rock wallaby, Petrogale lateralis. In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, 20. Comments received S & Strahan, R). 20.1 David Pearson, DEC WA. Finlayson, HH, (1961) On central Australian mammals. IV: The distribution and status of central

Table 37: List of recovery actions Petrogale lateralis, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

NT priority subpopulations Status assessment of the 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People species - distribution and SA priority subpopulations abundance, including 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People ground survey and WA priority subpopulations population monitoring 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People While some subpopulations are well- NT priority subpopulations 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People studied, there are many for which Status assessment of the SA priority subpopulations very little information exists. Surveys, 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People species - genetics including genetics, will be essential to WA priority subpopulations 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People an understanding of exactly which are Status assessment the priority subpopulations that require NT priority subpopulations of the species - management to achieve down-listing on 5-Yearly 1 Month 2 People identify important the IUCN Red List. subpopulations SA priority subpopulations 5-Yearly 1 Day 1 Person representing full genetic diversity of species for WA priority subpopulations concerted management 5-Yearly 1 Day 1 Person actions NT priority subpopulations Manage data to inform Good data management is essential 3-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person adaptive management. to making it possible to extract the SA priority subpopulations 3-Monthly 1 Day 1 Person Includes 5 year program maximum amount of information from WA priority subpopulations review. monitoring data. 3-Monthly 1 Day 1 Person

147 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including All trapping, satellite collars Once 3 Months 1 Person and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Implement monitoring NT priority subpopulations 6-Monthly 1 Month 4 People protocols, including A long-term consistent and cohesive species activity, predator approach to regular monitoring SA priority subpopulations activity, grazing pressure, 6-Monthly 1 Month 2 People is essential to inform adaptive and effectiveness management strategies. of management WA priority subpopulations 6-Monthly 1 Month 2 People intervention.

Implement monitoring NT priority subpopulations Yearly 1 Month 10 People protocols for fire management and SA priority subpopulations habitat condition, Yearly 1 Month 10 People and effectiveness of management WA priority subpopulations Yearly 1 Month 10 People intervention. NT priority subpopulations The impacts of predation by the Monthly 1 Week 20 People Continue fox and wild introduced red fox on P. lateralis are SA priority subpopulations Monthly 1 Week 5 People dog baiting on the ground well known and may be responsible WA priority subpopulations for the local and regional extinction of Monthly 1 Week 5 People populations. The impact of feral cats is NT priority subpopulations 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Conduct aerial fox baiting much less understood, although thought SA priority subpopulations for priority and difficult to be significant. Predation by feral 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People access sites WA priority subpopulations cats of other rock wallaby species has 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People been noted. No baiting program will be 100% effective at removing all foxes. NT priority subpopulations Individual or small groups of foxes if Unknown 2 Weeks 20 People they slip through baiting cordons are Increase fox baiting in capable of killing a significant number response to increased SA priority subpopulations of rock wallabies in short periods; a Unknown 2 Weeks 5 People predation or predator serious threat if populations are already sightings small. Fox predation is likely to be more WA priority subpopulations severe on juvenile and the smaller female Unknown 2 Weeks 5 People rock wallabies. Grazing may impact on rock wallaby NT priority subpopulations habitat where there is competition for 6-Monthly 1 Month 10 People food resources. Stock and camels may have the ability to restrict population Control goats, donkeys growth of rock wallabies by either SA priority subpopulations and camels at priority P. 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People confining their foraging activities close lateralis subpopulations to refugia or causing them to travel further to forage. There are no data WA priority subpopulations available testing the impact of these 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People species on rock wallabies.

148 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

NT priority subpopulations Possible competition with vertebrate 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People Control rabbits at herbivores is known, with overlaps noted SA priority subpopulations priority P. lateralis 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People in the diets of P. lateralis, euros, feral subpopulations WA priority subpopulations goats and cattle. While these species 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People may not exert a constant pressure on rock wallabies, droughts or dry summer months could result in strong resource NT priority subpopulations competition. The more extensive 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People foraging ranges of goats and euros and their superior reach to obtain browse may also favour these species over rock wallabies. The relative importance of Control stock grazing rabbit grazing in limiting the carrying SA priority subpopulations at priority P. lateralis capacity of habitat for rock-wallabies is 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations not known, but it may be considerable in some areas. High rabbit numbers support higher predator populations, particularly of foxes and feral cats. Some rabbit control around WA WA priority subpopulations Wheatbelt outcrops may lead to 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People increases in the potential carrying capacity for rock wallabies. Prevent unauthorised SA priority island human visitation to 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations Island subpopulations not currently islands to exclude subject to predation may represent some invasive predators and of the most secure groups of the species. competitors, and to WA priority island It is important to maintain this security. prevent wildfires and 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations disease incursion. NT priority subpopulations Develop and implement Yearly 1 Month 10 People Research into the most appropriate ways fire management plans SA priority subpopulations to manage fire around rock-wallaby Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People for priority P. lateralis colonies is required. WA priority subpopulations habitat Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Little is known about the ingression of NT priority subpopulations weeds into rock-wallaby habitats and Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People its long-term effect on rock-wallabies. Control invasive weeds Concern has been raised about the SA priority subpopulations in and around P. lateralis impact of the spread of buffel grass Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People habitat (Cenchrus ciliaris) into rock-wallaby habitat (P. lateralis MacDonnell Ranges WA priority subpopulations race) in SA (and this is also occurring in Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People the NT and WA). Develop contingency Where priority subpopulations could plans for catastrophic be wiped out by a natural event, All priority subpopulations Once 2 Weeks 1 Person events including wildfires contingency plans should be put in place and drought to avoid such disasters. Engage local landholders NT priority subpopulations Some rock wallaby colonies are on or Yearly 1 Year 2 People and traditional owners adjacent to private or traditional lands. in management of P. SA priority subpopulations Community involvement is an important Yearly 1 Year 1 Person lateralis habitat on aspect of conservation both in and private and traditional outside national parks and reserves. WA priority subpopulations lands Yearly 1 Year 1 Person Translocations of wild animals rely on Review translocation a suite of factors for their success. Full of P. lateralis, including understanding of past translocation All Once 1 Month 1 Person feasibility of future efforts, and their contribution to success operations or failure, is essential if future attempts are to be successful.

149 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

The increased likelihood of inbreeding NT priority subpopulations when rock wallaby populations are 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People small may result in reduced variability, Translocate individuals the expression of recessive genes or subpopulations to or suppressed reproductive rates. viable secure habitat if Translocation of small subpopulations SA priority subpopulations overpopulation occurs, 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People to larger colonies may be the most viable for consolidation means of managing them. Furthermore, purposes, or if existing once threats are removed, rock wallaby habitat is unmanageable. numbers may exceed available resources, WA priority subpopulations 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People and translocation may be the most effective means of managing numbers. Captive breeding and cross-fostering Use captive breeding may be the most effective methods of and cross-fostering ensuring genetic diversity is maintained SA subpopulations Yearly 1 Year 2 People to conserve genetic for the species, especially where some diversity. subspecies are extremely limited in numbers. Conduct research to Little is known about the parasites and improve knowledge of diseases of rock-wallabies. Fleas and All Once 3 Years 1 Person diseases and parasites lice are found on many wild caught P. affecting P. lateralis. lateralis. The impact of feral cats is much less Conduct research into the understood than foxes, although thought All predation impact of feral to be significant. Predation by feral cats Once 3 Years 1 Person cats on P. lateralis of other rock wallaby species has been noted. There are many small subpopulations of P. lateralis that present management challenges, and that would not add Minimal monitoring of significantly to the conservation those subpopulations that objectives, from the perspective of are not considered high abundance and/or genetic diversity. It Low priority subpopulations priority for achieving would be extremely resource-intensive 5-Yearly 2 Months 20 People (x 20) the conservation to manage these subpopulations, with objectives, and that are little prospective return. Also there is not consolidated through the possibility that human intervention translocation. could inadvertently cause more harm in attempting to manage these subpopulations.

150 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * * * $0 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $52,191 $52,191 $39,143 $97,858 $78,287 $65,239 $78,286 $78,286 $65,238 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $130,477 $130,477 $130,477 $130,477 $521,909 Year 10 $104,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $6,333 $6,333 $50,671 $63,339 $76,006 $38,003 $95,008 Year 9 $126,677 $126,677 $126,677 $506,708 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $49,195 $73,792 $61,494 $92,241 $36,896 $122,987 $122,987 $122,987 $491,950 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $47,762 $71,643 $71,643 $59,703 $95,524 $35,822 $89,554 Year 7 $477,621 $119,405 $119,405 $119,405 $119,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $46,371 $57,964 $34,778 $69,556 $86,946 $10,000 $115,927 $115,927 $115,927 $463,710 Year 6 * * * $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $67,531 $67,531 $33,765 $56,275 $56,275 $84,413 $45,020 $45,020 $112,551 $112,551 $112,551 $25,628 $25,628 $25,628 Year 5 $450,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $81,955 $87,418 $32,782 $43,709 $65,564 $65,564 $54,636 $437,091 $109,273 $109,273 $109,273 $109,273 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $31,827 $79,568 $63,654 $53,045 $42,436 Year 3 $106,090 $106,090 $106,090 $424,360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $77,250 $51,500 $61,800 $41,200 $30,900 Year 2 $20,000 $103,000 $103,000 $103,000 $412,000 # $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $75,000 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $40,000 $80,000 Year 1 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000 , and, their costs Action Continue fox and wild dog baiting on the ground Implement monitoring protocols, including species activity, predator activity, grazing pressure, and effectiveness of management intervention. Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance, including ground survey and population monitoring Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Status assessment of the species - genetics Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations representing full genetic diversity of species for concerted management actions Manage data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Subpopulation SA priority subpopulations priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations NT priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations priorityWA subpopulations All WA priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations List 38: Table recovery of actions Petrogale for lateralis

151 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,191 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $65,239 $65,239 $65,239 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $78,286 $130,477 $130,477 $130,477 Year 10 $104,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,671 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $63,339 $63,339 $63,339 $76,006 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $101,342 $126,677 $126,677 $126,677 $0 $0 $49,195 $73,792 $61,494 $61,494 $61,494 $12,299 $12,299 $59,702 $12,299 $59,702 $12,299 $59,702 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $98,390 $122,987 $122,987 $122,987 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $47,762 $71,643 $59,703 $59,703 $59,703 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $95,524 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $119,405 $119,405 $119,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $46,371 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $57,964 $57,964 $57,964 $92,742 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $69,556 $115,927 $115,927 $115,927 Year 6 $0 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $56,275 $56,275 $56,275 $90,041 $54,636 $54,636 $54,636 $45,020 $112,551 $112,551 $112,551 Year 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $87,418 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $65,564 $43,709 $54,636 $54,636 $54,636 $109,273 $109,273 $109,273 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $63,654 $53,045 $53,045 $53,045 $84,872 $42,436 Year 3 $106,090 $106,090 $106,090 $0 $0 $51,500 $51,500 $51,500 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $61,800 $41,200 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 Year 2 $82,400 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $103,000 $103,000 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 $40,000 $80,000 Year 1 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Action Control goats, donkeys and camels at priority P. lateralis subpopulations Control rabbits at priority lateralis P. subpopulations Develop contingency plans for catastrophic events including wildfires and drought Control stock grazing at priority lateralis P. subpopulations Develop and implement management actions to mitigate impacts of industrial and mining development Increase fox baiting in response to increased predation or predator sightings Conduct aerial fox baiting for priority and difficult sites access Develop and implement fire management plans for priority lateralis P. habitat Prevent unauthorised human visitation to islands to exclude invasive predators and competitors, and to prevent wildfires and disease incursion. Control invasive weeds in and lateralis around P. habitat Subpopulation NT priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations All priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations NT priority subpopulations Priority subpopulations subject development to pressures SA priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations NT priority subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations SA priority island subpopulations priorityWA island subpopulations SA priority subpopulations SA priority subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations NT priority subpopulations

152 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,239 $78,286 $78,286 $78,286 $65,238 $231,855 Year 10 $104,382 $3,651,643 $27,241,710 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,338 $76,006 $76,006 $76,006 Year 9 $101,342 $2,685,551 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,792 $73,792 $73,792 $98,390 Year 8 $2,724,944 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,643 $71,643 $71,643 $59,702 $95,524 Year 7 $2,817,961 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,964 $92,742 $69,556 $69,556 $69,556 Year 6 $2,467,660 $0 $0 $5,628 $67,531 $67,531 $67,531 $31,827 $31,827 $56,275 $90,041 Year 5 $200,000 $3,070,608 $0 $0 $0 $0 $87,418 $65,564 $65,564 $65,564 $54,636 $30,900 $30,900 Year 4 $2,640,636 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,654 $63,654 $63,654 $53,045 $84,872 $30,000 $30,000 Year 3 $2,309,108 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,500 $61,800 $61,800 $61,800 Year 2 $82,400 $2,353,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $80,000 Year 1 $2,520,000 Action Engage local landholders and traditional owners in management lateralis of P. habitat on private lands traditional and Review translocation lateralis, of P. including feasibility of future operations Translocate individuals or subpopulations to viable secure habitat if overpopulation occurs, for consolidation purposes, or if existing habitat is unmanageable. Use captive breeding and cross-fostering to conserve genetic diversity. Conduct research to improve knowledge of diseases and parasites affecting lateralis. P. Conduct research into the predation impact of feral lateralis cats on P. Minimal monitoring those of subpopulations that are not considered high priority for achieving the conservation objectives, and that are not consolidated through translocation. Subpopulation NT priority subpopulations TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL SA priority subpopulations priorityWA subpopulations All NT priority subpopulations WA priorityWA subpopulations SA subpopulations All SA priority subpopulations All Low priority subpopulations (x 20) #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

153 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Petrogale penicillata

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Petrogale penicillata (Gray, 1827) 3. Common name: Brush-tailed rock wallaby, western rock wallaby 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Near Threatened because this species is in significant decline (but at a rate of less than 30% over ten years) due to predation by, and competition with, introduced species and by fragmentation that has led to increasingly isolated populations that are prone to extinction, making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion A (Taggart et al. 2008). Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None. See section 18 below for discussion of ecologically significant units (ESUs).

7. Range and abundance The brush-tailed rock wallaby is endemic to south-eastern Australia, where it occurs in south-eastern Queensland, eastern New South Wales, and as a tiny subpopulation in the East Gippsland of eastern Victoria. This species is sparsely distributed within abundant suitable habitat (Eldridge and Close 2008). It is difficult to estimate population sizes because it is nocturnal, and occurs in very rugged terrain. The species is declining at many localities and the overall population is in decline. The total population size is estimated to be between 15,000 and 30,000 individuals (DECC 2008). The stronghold for the species is within north- eastern New South Wales, containing as much as 80% of the total population – most of which is within the Macleay River and Clarence River gorges (DECC 2008). An estimated 2% of the population occurs elsewhere in New South Wales, 17% within Queensland, and less than 1% in Victoria (DECC 2008).

Figure 17: Known distribution of Petrogale penicillata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery © Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

154 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 11. Recovery objectives Found in structurally complex rocky habitats. 11.1 By 2021, Petrogale penicillata is eligible for Often these areas are gorges, cliffs, rock outcrops, listing as Least Concern according to IUCN or boulder piles. Most of these sites have a Red List criteria. northerly aspect, but this appears not to be as 11.2 By 2021, the number of distinct secure important as rock complexity that contains a subpopulations of Petrogale penicillata number of refuges from predators (Murray et is greater than 10, and the population is al. 2008). The rocky environments occur within estimated to number greater than 10,000 a variety of vegetated landscapes from dense mature individuals, thus making it ineligible rainforest to dry sclerophyll or open woodland to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN criteria (Eldridge and Close 2008). B or C. Brush-tailed rock wallabies typically shelter 11.3 By 2021, management plans have been during the day in rock crevices, caves and developed and are being implemented overhangs, yet often bask in exposed sunny to reduce the threats of low resource spots (Sharman & Maynes 1983). Within their availability, introduced predators, fire home range, rock wallabies habitually use the and disease for key Petrogale penicillata same refuges, sunning spots, feeding areas subpopulations. and pathways (Joblin 1983) and these are often defended vigorously (Bayne 1994). 11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale penicillata has been maintained at known 9. Threats 2011 levels. 9.1 Predation by introduced foxes. Foxes prey 12. Actions completed or underway on young rock wallabies and probably limit dispersal as well as recruitment. 12.1 A program to arrest the continuing decline of the brush-tailed rock wallaby in NSW was 9.2 Competition with introduced goats. instigated by the NPWS in 1993. 9.3 Introduced dogs and cats are also 12.2 Research into the genetics of brush- probably threats. tailed rock wallaby has been undertaken 9.4 Habitat fragmentation and land clearance by a number of researchers. This work between colonies. involved genetic surveys, captive breeding and assisted reproduction strategies, 9.5 Colony isolation increases the risk establishment of protected breeding of inbreeding. colonies and reintroduction trials. 9.6 Bioclimatic changes. 12.3 Historical research into the timetable 9.7 Disease. and causes of decline in brush-tailed rock wallaby in NSW extend the historical 10. Information required range of the species and indicated greater 10.1 There is a lack of data about the threats to continuity in its distribution than previously the Brush-tailed rock wallaby. recorded. It also identified the extent and relevance of commercially driven hunting to 10.2 More detailed knowledge about the species’ the early and steep decline of the species. habitat and biology is needed to make informed decisions on how to address 12.4 Research and studies on the behaviour and these threats and thus how best to manage ecology of brush-tailed rock wallaby have this species. also been undertaken. 10.3 Population monitoring, genetic and floristic 12.5 A threat abatement plan (TAP) for predation analyses are key elements to this threat of threatened fauna, including the brush- abatement process. tailed rock wallaby, by the red fox was prepared in 2001. 10.4 Detailed studies of the effects of fire on habitat regeneration are needed.

155 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

12.6 Brush-tailed rock wallabies were used 13.12 Review translocation of brush-tailed rock in a recent cross-fostering study at wallabies and prepare a strategy, including Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve (ACT). feasibility, for future operations. The study demonstrated that the removal 13.13 Identify sites for translocation or of pouch young (bred in captivity) and reintroduction based on habitat mapping cross-fostering can be used to accelerate and/or on-ground assessment. breeding and recruitment in the brush- tailed rock wallaby. 13.14 Translocate individuals or subpopulations to viable secure habitat if overpopulation 12.7 For a fuller account of these and other occurs, or if habitat is unmanageable. activities, see DEWHA (2010). 13.15 Those subpopulations not high priority or 13. Management actions required at key monitoring sites are to be left in situ, 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including and undergo minimum monitoring at least genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and every five years. risks. Identify those subpopulations that 13.16 Conduct research to improve knowledge will be the most efficient to manage, and of diseases and parasites affecting P. that capture the full genetic diversity of the penicillata. species for future conservation. 13.17 Conduct research into the predation impact 13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive of feral cats on P. penicillata. management. 14. Organisations responsible for 13.3 Refine and implement monitoring conservation of species protocols, including species and predator activity, grazing pressure, predation, and 14.1 Department of Environment, resource availability. Climate Change and Water (DECCW) New South Wales. 13.4 Conduct strategic and targeted fox baiting on-ground, and increase baiting in response 14.2 Department of Environment and Resource to an increase in predator sightings or Management (DERM) Queensland. predation incidents and during droughts. 14.3 Department of Sustainability and 13.5 Undertake aerial baiting in priority areas Environment (DSE) Victoria. (as determined by status assessment), and those areas that are remote and difficult to 15. Other organisations involved access from the ground. 15.1 Various. 13.6 Conduct competitor control operations 16. Staff and other resources required for for goats and rabbits in and around rock recovery to be carried out wallaby habitat, and increase during droughts and prolonged dry periods. 16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is required to oversee this complex 13.7 Develop and implement fire management recovery program. plans for rock wallaby habitat.

13.8 Investigate the potential impacts of flooding 17. Action costs on resource availability. 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds 13.9 Control invasive weeds in and around rock A$31 million. wallaby habitat. 13.10 Engage local landholders and traditional owners in management of P. penicillata habitat on private and traditional lands. 13.11 Maintain captive breeding and cross- fostering programs to ensure genetic stock is maintained.

156 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

18. Notes IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. 18.1 Within the Brush-tailed rock-wallaby org. Accessed 19 October 2010. species there are three ecologically significant units (ESUs): Joblin, KPW (1983) Behaviour and ecology of the brush-tailed rock wallaby, Petrogale • Northern ESU (north-eastern NSW and penicillata, in the New England Region. M.Sc. south-eastern Queensland populations) Thesis. Department of Ecosystem Management, • Central ESU (central NSW population) University of New England, Armidale. • Southern ESU (Victorian population). Murray, JV, Low Choy, S, McAlpine, CA, Possingham, HP and Goldizen, AW (2008) It was estimated (DEC 2005) that 10,000 The importance of ecological scale for to 25,000+ individuals remain in Northern wildlife conservation in naturally fragmented ESU, 1,000 in Central ESU and less than 10 in environments: A case study of the brush-tailed Southern ESU. All estimates refer to individuals rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata). Biological remaining in the wild. It is likely that there is Conservation 141: 7-22. significant variation in genetic stock between ESUs, and it is likely that they will need to be Sharman, GB and Maynes, GM (1983) Rock- managed accordingly. wallabies. In: Complete Book of Australian Mammals (Strahan R, ed.). Angus and Robertson, 19. References Sydney. Bayne, P (1994) Behaviour of the Brush-tailed Taggart, D, Menkhorst, P and Lunney, D (2008) Rock-wallaby, Petrogale penicillata, and In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened the recognition of individuals. M.Sc. Thesis. Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. University of New England, Armidale. org/apps/redlist/details/16746/0. Accessed 19 Department of Environment and Climate Change October 2010. (New South Wales) (2008) Recovery plan for the 20. Comments received brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata). Department of Environment and Climate Change 20.1 None. New South Wales, Sydney South, Australia. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (DEC) (2005). Draft Recovery Plan for the Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby, Petrogale penicillata. Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2010) Petrogale penicillata. In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment. gov.au/sprat. Accessed 27 October 2010. Eldridge, MDB and Close, RL (2008) Brush-tailed rock wallaby, Petrogale penicillata. In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R).

157 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 39: List of recovery actions for Petrogale penicillata, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

The brush-tailed rock wallaby occupies a large biogeographic range and occurs across a wide array of administrative, tenure, and land management areas. It is Project manager All therefore vital that recovery actions are Yearly 1 Year 1 Person coordinates project coordinated at site, regional, ESU, state and national levels. Such coordination will require the continuation of current staff resources. Northern ESU priority 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People subpopulations Status assessment of the Central ESU priority species - distribution and 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations abundance, including ground survey Southern ESU priority 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations Northern ESU priority 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People subpopulations While some subpopulations are well- studied, there are many for which Central ESU priority Status assessment of the very little information exists. Surveys, 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People subpopulations species - genetics including genetics, will be essential to an understanding of exactly which are Southern ESU priority the priority subpopulations that require 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People subpopulations management to achieve down-listing. Northern ESU priority Status assessment 5-Yearly 1 Month 2 People subpopulations of the species - identify important Central ESU priority subpopulations 5-Yearly 1 Day 1 Person subpopulations representing full genetic diversity of species for Southern ESU priority concerted management 5-Yearly 1 Day 1 Person subpopulations actions Northern ESU priority 3-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person subpopulations Manage data to inform Good data management is essential Central ESU priority adaptive management. to making it possible to extract the 3-Monthly 1 Day 1 Person subpopulations Includes 5 year program maximum amount of information from review. monitoring data. Southern ESU priority 3-Monthly 1 Day 1 Person subpopulations Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including All trapping, satellite collars 5-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats. Northern ESU priority Implement monitoring 6-Monthly 1 Month 4 People subpopulations protocols, including A long-term consistent and cohesive species activity, predator Central ESU priority approach to regular monitoring activity, grazing pressure, 6-Monthly 1 Month 2 People subpopulations is essential to inform adaptive and effectiveness management strategies. Southern ESU priority of management 6-Monthly 1 Month 2 People subpopulations intervention. Northern ESU priority Implement monitoring Yearly 1 Month 10 People subpopulations protocols for fire management and Central ESU priority habitat condition, Yearly 1 Month 10 People subpopulations and effectiveness Southern ESU priority of management Yearly 1 Month 10 People subpopulations intervention.

158 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Northern ESU priority Monthly 1 Week 20 People subpopulations Central ESU priority Continue fox and wild Monthly 1 Week 5 People subpopulations dog baiting on the ground Predation is thought to have a Southern ESU priority significant, if not the greatest, impact on Monthly 1 Week 5 People subpopulations brush-tailed rock wallaby populations, Northern ESU priority through loss of young wallabies that 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People subpopulations have just left the pouch and of dispersing Conduct aerial fox baiting young wallabies. Circumstantial and Central ESU priority for priority and difficult anecdotal evidence indicates that 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations access sites brush-tailed rock wallabies are eaten Southern ESU priority by introduced foxes and dogs. Foxes are 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations agile climbers known to access refuge areas. Wild dogs are less likely to invade Northern ESU priority refuge areas but are a threat to brush- Unknown 2 Weeks 20 People subpopulations Increase fox baiting in tailed rock wallabies while they forage. Central ESU priority response to increased Unknown 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations predation or predator sightings Southern ESU priority Unknown 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations The level of competition between rock wallabies and other herbivores Northern ESU priority is generally poorly understood. 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations Competition with native animals has been speculated as potentially affecting brush-tailed rock wallaby ecology and habitat use. Competition between brush- tailed rock wallabies and feral goats for Central ESU priority Control introduced refuge areas may occur in some areas. 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations herbivores While competition with herbivores other than goats is difficult to demonstrate, the impact of habitat alteration may be significant. For example, Pearson (1992) considered rabbits were a major factor in Southern ESU priority altering the habitat of black-footed rock- 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations wallabies. The effect of rabbits may be spasmodic, and may only be significant during a drought. Research into the most appropriate Northern ESU priority ways to manage fire around rock wallaby Yearly 1 Month 10 People subpopulations colonies is required. The impact of fire on brush-tailed rock wallaby populations Develop and implement is uncertain. brush-tailed rock wallabies Central ESU priority fire management plans have been variously reported to Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations for priority P. penicillata disappear, move from, and remain in habitat their habitat during fire. Fire alters the Southern ESU priority structure and floristics of vegetation, and Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations possibly the suitability of the vegetation as habitat or food

Northern ESU priority Little is known about the ingression of Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations weeds into rock wallaby habitats and its long-term effect on rock wallabies. Control invasive weeds in Central ESU priority Weed infestation of particularly woody and around P. penicillata Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations or shrubby weeds, such as lantana, may habitat both provide and exclude refuge areas, Southern ESU priority depending on the extent and intensity of Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations the infestation. Develop contingency Where priority subpopulations could plans for catastrophic be wiped out by a natural event, All priority subpopulations Once 2 Weeks 1 Person events including wildfires contingency plans should be put in place and drought to avoid such disasters.

159 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Northern ESU priority Engage local landholders Yearly 1 Year 2 People subpopulations Some BTRW colonies are on private and traditional owners lands, or adjacent to private lands. Central ESU priority in management of P. Community involvement is an important Yearly 1 Year 1 Person subpopulations penicillata habitat on aspect of conservation both in and private and traditional Southern ESU priority outside national parks and reserves. lands Yearly 1 Year 1 Person subpopulations Translocations of wild animals rely on Review translocation of a suite of factors for their success. Full P. penicillata including understanding of past translocation All Once 1 Month 1 Person feasibility of future efforts, and their contribution to success operations or failure, is essential if future attempts are to be successful. The increased likelihood of inbreeding Northern ESU priority when rock wallaby populations are 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations small may result in reduced variability, Translocate individuals the expression of recessive genes or subpopulations to or suppressed reproductive rates. viable secure habitat if Central ESU priority Translocation of small subpopulations overpopulation occurs, 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations to larger colonies may be the most viable for consolidation means of managing them. Furthermore, purposes, or if existing once threats are removed, rock wallaby habitat is unmanageable. Southern ESU priority numbers may exceed available resources, 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations and translocation may be the most effective means of managing numbers. Captive breeding and cross-fostering Use captive breeding may be the most effective methods of and cross-fostering ensuring genetic diversity is maintained All Yearly 1 Year 2 People to conserve genetic for the species, especially where the diversity. southern ESU is extremely limited in numbers. Little is known about disease in wild Conduct research to populations of brush-tailed rock wallaby, improve knowledge of All although this species is probably Once 3 Years 1 Person diseases and parasites susceptible to the same diseases found in affecting P. penicillata other macropods. Feral cats are possible rock-wallaby Conduct research into the predators, and declines in other species All predation impact of feral Once 3 Years 1 Person of rock wallabies have been attributed to cats on P. penicillata predation by feral cats. There are many small subpopulations of P. penicillata that present management challenges, and that would not add Minimal monitoring of significantly to the conservation those subpopulations that objectives, from the perspective of are not considered high abundance and/or genetic diversity. It priority for achieving Low priority subpopulations would be extremely resource-intensive 5-Yearly 2 Months 20 People the conservation to manage these subpopulations, with objectives, and that are little prospective return. Also there is not consolidated through the possibility that human intervention translocation. could inadvertently cause more harm in attempting to manage these subpopulations.

160 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,524 $6,524 $52,191 $78,287 $13,048 $26,095 $78,286 $195,716 $28,138 $156,573 $130,477 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,335 $76,006 Year 9 $126,677 $190,016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,792 $24,597 $122,987 $184,481 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $47,762 $71,643 $23,881 Year 7 $179,108 $119,405 $143,286 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,185 $69,556 $115,927 $173,891 Year 6 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,251 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $67,531 $22,510 $56,275 $112,551 Year 5 $25,000 $168,826 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $21,855 $43,709 $65,564 $131,127 $109,273 Year 4 $163,909 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,218 $63,654 $159,135 Year 3 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,500 $61,800 $20,600 Year 2 $154,500 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $2,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1 $150,000 $120,000 $100,000 , and, their costs Action Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance, including ground survey Project manager coordinates project Status assessment of the species - genetics Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats. Implement monitoring protocols, including species activity, predator activity, grazing pressure, and effectiveness of management intervention. Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations representing full genetic diversity of species for concerted management actions Manage data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Subpopulation Northern ESU priority subpopulations All Central ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations All Northern ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations List 40: Table recovery of actions Petrogale for penicillata

161 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $6,524 $52,191 $19,572 $39,143 $13,048 $65,239 $26,095 $78,286 $130,477 $130,477 $130,477 $521,909 $521,909 $521,909 Year 10 $104,382 $0 $0 $0 $6,334 $50,671 $12,668 $19,002 $25,335 $63,339 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $101,342 $126,677 $126,677 $126,677 $506,708 $506,708 $506,708 $6,149 $49,195 $73,792 $61,494 $12,299 $59,702 $59,702 $59,702 $24,597 $18,448 $36,896 $98,390 $122,987 $122,987 $122,987 $491,950 $491,950 $491,950 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $17,911 $11,941 $47,762 $71,643 $59,703 $23,881 $95,524 $35,822 Year 7 $477,621 $477,621 $477,621 $119,405 $119,405 $119,405 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $11,593 $17,389 $46,371 $23,185 $57,964 $92,742 $34,778 $69,556 $115,927 $115,927 $115,927 $463,710 $463,710 $463,710 Year 6 $5,628 $11,255 $67,531 $33,765 $22,510 $56,275 $16,883 $90,041 $54,636 $54,636 $54,636 $45,020 $112,551 $112,551 $112,551 Year 5 $450,204 $450,204 $450,204 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $16,391 $10,927 $21,855 $87,418 $32,782 $43,709 $65,564 $54,636 $437,091 $437,091 $437,091 $109,273 $109,273 $109,273 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $15,914 $21,218 $31,827 $10,609 $63,654 $53,045 $84,872 $42,436 Year 3 $106,090 $106,090 $106,090 $424,360 $424,360 $424,360 $5,150 $15,450 $51,500 $10,300 $61,800 $41,200 $30,900 $20,600 Year 2 $82,400 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $103,000 $103,000 $103,000 $412,000 $412,000 $412,000 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $15,000 $10,000 $50,000 $30,000 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 Year 1 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 Action Control introduced herbivores Develop and implement fire management plans for priority penicillata P. habitat Continue fox and wild dog baiting on the ground Conduct aerial fox baiting for priority and difficult sites access Increase fox baiting in response to increased predation or predator sightings Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Subpopulation Northern ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations

162 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,143 $13,048 $65,239 $65,239 $78,286 $78,286 $78,286 $65,238 $231,855 Year 10 $104,382 $3,952,502 $31,454,873 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,668 $63,339 $63,338 $76,006 $76,006 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $101,342 $3,217,596 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,792 $73,792 $73,792 $61,494 $12,299 $36,896 $98,390 Year 8 $3,241,492 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,941 $71,643 $71,643 $71,643 $59,703 $59,702 $95,524 $35,822 Year 7 $3,229,911 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,593 $57,964 $57,964 $92,742 $34,778 $69,556 $69,556 $69,556 Year 6 $2,944,556 $0 $0 $5,628 $5,628 $11,255 $67,531 $67,531 $67,531 $31,827 $31,827 $33,765 $56,275 $56,275 $90,041 Year 5 $200,000 $3,476,805 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,927 $87,418 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $65,564 $54,636 $54,636 $30,900 $30,900 Year 4 $3,017,626 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,827 $10,609 $63,654 $63,654 $63,654 $53,045 $53,045 $84,872 $30,000 $30,000 Year 3 $2,754,686 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,500 $51,500 $10,300 $61,800 $61,800 $61,800 $30,900 Year 2 $82,400 $2,817,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $50,000 $30,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $80,000 Year 1 $2,802,000 Action Develop contingency plans for catastrophic events including wildfires and drought Engage local landholders and traditional owners in management penicillata of P. habitat on private lands traditional and Review translocation penicillata of P. including feasibility of future operations Control invasive weeds in and around P. penicillata habitat Translocate individuals or subpopulations to viable secure habitat if overpopulation occurs, for consolidation purposes, or if existing habitat is unmanageable. Use captive breeding and cross-fostering to conserve genetic diversity. Conduct research to improve knowledge of diseases and parasites affecting penicillata P. Conduct research into the predation impact of feral penicillata cats on P. Minimal monitoring those of subpopulations that are not considered high priority for achieving the conservation objectives, and that are not consolidated through translocation. Subpopulation Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations All priority subpopulations Northern ESU priority subpopulations Central ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations All Northern ESU priority subpopulations TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL Northern ESU priority subpopulations Southern ESU priority subpopulations All All Central ESU priority subpopulations All Low priority subpopulations #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

163 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Petrogale persephone

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Petrogale persephone (Maynes, 1982) 3. Common name: Proserpine rock wallaby 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(iii, v)

5. Reasons for listing

Listed as Endangered because its extent of occurrence is less than 5,000 km2, its distribution is severely fragmented, and there is a continuing decline in the extent and or quality of the habitat and the numbers of mature individuals (due primarily to road kills and domestic dogs) (Burnett & Winter 2008). Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999.

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None described

7. Range and abundance

Figure 18: Known distribution of Petrogale persephone from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). The Proserpine rock wallaby has the smallest known distribution of any rock-wallaby, and is limited to near the towns of Proserpine and Airlie Beach, in the Whitsunday Shire of northern Queensland (Nolan & Johnson 2000). Today it is restricted to 14,500 hectares of naturally fragmented habitat within the Whitsunday region of central coastal Queensland (Johnson & Eldridge 2008). Under recovery plan guidelines for this species, 27 captive-bred Proserpine rock wallabies were introduced to nearby Hayman Island between 1998 and 2002, and monitoring programs have shown that in spite of predation by wedge-tailed eagles, this population is breeding successfully (Johnson & Eldridge 2008). The population size of the Proserpine rock wallaby is small, because it occurs in limited habitat within a small geographical area (DEWHA 2010).

164 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 10. Information required On the mainland, the Proserpine rock wallaby 10.1 Map the distribution of hydatidosis and lives in rocky outcrops and boulder piles, Toxoplasmosis gondii in the Proserpine usually within semi-deciduous vine thickets, but rock wallaby. sometimes on the outer margins of rainforest 10.2 Improved understanding of habitat or in areas where the forest has been disturbed. requirements of the Proserpine rock These habitats provide a high diversity of food wallaby, including patch size, connectivity plants, as well as shelter within the dense and condition, and provision of guidelines understorey and inside the caves and crevices to reduce habitat fragmentation in Mackay of the rock piles (Johnson & Eldridge 2008). Whitsunday NRM region. The Proserpine rock wallaby is the only species of rock wallaby to live exclusively in rainforest 11. Recovery objectives (Winkel 1997a). It lives in sites with large boulder 11.1 By 2021, Petrogale persephone is eligible for piles and perched boulders creating crevices, listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN Red tunnels and overhangs (Winkel 1997b). On the List criteria. mainland, it inhabits boulder outcrops in pockets of semi-deciduous, semi-evergreen or complex 11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Petrogale microphyll or notophyll vine forest (Nolan 1997). persephone in the form of extent of occurrence has increased to greater than In Gloucester Island National Park, the Proserpine 5,000 km2, with subpopulations secure* at rock wallaby prefers littoral (beachside) habitat. greater than 5 locations within that range. It uses rocky outcrops and rock piles covered with dry vine scrub, usually associated with beach 11.3 By 2021, numbers of mature Petrogale scrub. At higher elevations, its habitat is rocky persephone in the wild are considered outcrops, rock piles and rocky creeks within an stable or increasing based on an index of Acacia open forest (Nolan 1997; Nolan & Johnson abundance appropriate to the taxon. 2000). On Hayman Island, where the wallaby has 11.4 By 2021, management plans have been been translocated, it occurs in association with developed and are being implemented to boulder piles covered with vine thicket or vine reduce the threats of road kills and domestic forest (Schaper & Nolan 2000). dogs, and to improve habitat area, extent and quality, for all Petrogale persephone 9. Threats subpopulations. 9.1 Loss and fragmentation of habitat, often 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale due to clearing for housing. persephone has been maintained at known 9.2 Predation by domestic and feral dogs. 2011 levels.

9.3 Road kills from vehicle collisions. 12. Actions completed or underway 9.4 Increased tourist development and 12.1 Essential habitat mapping for the species urbanisation. is complete (DERM 2009). 9.5 Toxoplasmosis, transferred by domestic 12.2 DERM has produced brochures for the and feral cats. general public titled ‘Creating habitat for 9.6 Hydatid tapeworm, spread by dogs. the Proserpine rock-wallaby!’ and ‘Help save the Proserpine rock-wallaby!’ which include 9.7 Consumption of introduced toxic plants. guidelines for revegetation and encourage 9.8 Hybridisation with Petrogale inornata the creation of habitat linkages. (Unadorned rock wallaby). 12.3 One translocated/introduced population 9.9 Fire has the potential to destroy entire has been established on Hayman Island subpopulations. from captive bred stock with additions required to this population from captive 9.10 Climate Change is a possible threat due bred stock over the next 4 years (B. Nolan to the extremely specific habitat pers. comm.). requirements and limited distribution (Clancy and Close 1997). 12.4 Studies of reproduction and aging of pouch young have been completed for this species in captivity (B. Nolan pers. comm.).

165 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

12.5 A draft recovery plan is in place Proserpine rock wallaby habitat and along (DERM 2009). roadsides margins.

13. Management actions required 13.14 Develop and implement weed control strategies on Gloucester Island 13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations using standard protocols, including 13.15 Implement revegetation of habitat plants distribution, abundance, genetics, trend, for the Proserpine rock wallaby, including risk and priority subpopulations. actions to protect and manage key remnant coastal and urban vegetation that provide 13.2 Manage species data to inform adaptive habitat for the Proserpine rock wallaby. management. 13.16 Revise and implement the Proserpine rock 13.3 Refine and implement monitoring protocols, wallaby Contact Plan to gain landholder including fire management, habitat support of recovery actions, and improving condition, predation and predator activity, developers’ awareness of and compliance and species activity. with recovery actions. 13.4 Update Proserpine rock wallaby habitat 13.17 Increase the awareness of rural and urban mapping throughout range, including future landholders in areas with Proserpine rock translocation sites. Include definition of wallabies of the importance of controlling important habitat areas for the rock wallaby domestic dogs, including the threat of in terms of size, linkages and configuration hydatid parasites. to guide actions to address habitat fragmentation. 13.18 Maintain appropriate fire management procedures in and around Proserpine rock 13.5 Address ongoing land clearing and habitat wallaby habitat, including Hayman Island. fragmentation through protecting known habitat by establishing reserves on public 13.19 Identify sites for translocation or land, or conservation covenants and nature reintroduction based on habitat mapping refuges on private land. Use market-based and/or on-ground assessment. incentives and focus on rural-residential or 13.20 Establish and manage secure areas of farming areas. habitat for future translocations. 13.6 Establish vegetation corridors between the 13.21 Translocation of Proserpine rock wallabies most isolated patches of habitat. to secure and managed areas of habitat. 13.7 Protect native vegetation along creek lines 13.22 Ongoing management of translocated to maintain species dispersal routes. subpopulations. 13.8 Remove fences in rock wallaby habitat that 14. Organisations responsible for may serve as barriers against which they conservation of species may be trapped when fleeing dogs 14.1 Department of Environment and Resource 13.9 Control feral cats and wild dogs in and Management (DERM) Queensland. around Proserpine rock wallaby habitat. 14.2 Whitsunday Regional Council. 13.10 Address growing numbers of domestic cats and dogs surrounding Proserpine rock 15. Other organisations involved wallaby habitat, including implementation of the Whitsunday Regional Council dog 15.1 James Cook University. registration program 16. Staff and other resources required for 13.11 Control wild dogs around Proserpine rock recovery to be carried out wallaby sites. 16.1 The recovery program is sufficiently 13.12 Actions to reduce road mortality, including complex to warrant the employment installation of roadside reflectors along of a full time recovery coordinator. roads where Proserpine rock wallabies are known to frequent. 17. Action costs 13.13 Weed management in and around 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds Proserpine rock wallaby habitat. Control A$10 million. Pink Periwinkle and Guinea Grass within

166 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

18. Notes Johnson, PM & Eldridge, MDB (2008) in Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R (eds.) The Mammals of 18.1 None. Australia. New Holland Publishers, Sydney. 19. References Nolan, B (1997) An update of the Proserpine rock- Burnett, S and Winter, J (2008) Petrogale wallaby Petrogale persephone Recovery Plan. persephone. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List Australian Mammalogy. 19: 309-313. of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. Nolan, B & Johnson, P (2000) Recovery Plan http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ for the Proserpine rock-wallaby Petrogale details/16747/0. Accessed 29 June 2010. persephone 2000-2004. Queensland Parks and IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Wildlife, Brisbane. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Schaper, D. & B. Nolan (2000). Final report on Accessed 29 June 2010. phase two of the recovery plan for the Proserpine Department of Environment and Resource Rock-wallaby Petrogale persephone. Brisbane: Management (2009) National Draft recovery Environmental Protection Agency. plan for the Proserpine rock-wallaby Petrogale Winkel, P (1997a) Proserpine Rock-wallaby: Rare persephone. Report to Department of the and endangered. Nature Australia. 26(3):20-21. Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Queensland Department Winkel, P (1997b) The ecology and management of Environment and Resource Management, of the Proserpine Rock-wallaby, Petrogale Brisbane. persephone. Report to the Queensland Department of Environment, Brisbane. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2010) Petrogale persephone. In: 20. Comments received Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. 20.1 Barry Nolan, DERM. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment. gov.au/sprat. Accessed 1 November 2010.

Table 41: List of recovery actions for Petrogale persephone, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Current recovery actions are ad hoc and Project coordinator opportunistic, and the recovery program All Yearly 1 Year 1 Person manages project is of sufficient complexity to warrant a dedicated manager. Status assessment - distribution and More information is required to better All abundance. Includes understand the status of the species, to 3-Yearly 3 Months 10 People surveys of known assess those subpopulations most at risk subpopulations from a range of threats, and to ensure Status assessment - that genetic stock is maintained. All 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People genetics Status assessment - most important subpopulations for Little is known about which management, and the All subpopulations should be targeted for 3-Yearly 1 Month 1 Person threats facing them. intensive management. Includes identification of areas subject to grazing, weeds or fire.

167 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

The species relies on large rock piles to provide them with protection from predators and environmental extremes. Only a few of these critical refuge sites are known, and surveys are therefore required to locate and map important Unconfirmed or suspected Survey to confirm rock rock piles in remaining habitat areas. Yearly 1 Month 5 People subpopulations wallaby presence Changes to the regional ecosystem classification may affect priority sites for protection, restoration and management including corridors between areas of habitat that are important in maintaining the population. Manage species data Good data management is essential to inform adaptive to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person management. Includes 5 maximum amount of information from year program review. monitoring data. Mapping is required to ensure that the Update species habitat All complex distribution of this species is 5-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person mapping kept up to date. Translocations of wild and captive subpopulations will be crucial to the Review of translocations, ongoing management of the species. All and success and failure Ensuring that any future translocations Once 2 Weeks 1 Person factors are undertaken under optimum conditions is essential for the success of the operations. Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including All trapping, satellite collars Once 2 Months 1 Person and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Location 1 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People Location 2 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People Implement monitoring Location 3 protocols for species 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People Location 4 activity, predator activity, 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People road interactions, Gloucester Island 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People and effectiveness Monitoring is essential to ensure Hayman Island of management adaptive management and achieving 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 6 People intervention. the species objectives. Translocation Site 1 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People Translocation Site 2 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People Location 1 Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People Location 2 Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People Location 3 Implement monitoring Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People protocols for weed control Location 4 and habitat condition, Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People Gloucester Island and effectiveness Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People of management Hayman Island intervention. Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People Translocation Site 1 Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People Translocation Site 2 Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People To maintain suitable habitat for the species, ongoing dialogue and Conduct adaptive fire cooperative assistance will have to be management to maintain Hayman Island maintained with the island staff. The Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People Proserpine rock wallaby current fire management plan will need habitat to be reviewed by DERM and Hayman Island Resort. Little of the rock wallaby's habitat is Protect habitat by protected within reserves. Sufficient All declaring new reserves or Once 1 Year 2 People habitat will be required to ensure the conservation areas ongoing security of the species.

168 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

With high densities occurring on or adjacent to private land, it is important Identify unreserved that property owners manage remaining Proserpine rock wallaby vegetation to allow the continued habitat on private land existence of the species. The awareness All and run extension of local residents, developers and local Yearly 1 Year 1 Person program to engage government employees about the issues landholders to better facing Proserpine rock wallabies is seen manage or reserve land as an important step in facilitating the recovery actions for the species, given its proximity to urban and developing areas. Domestic and feral cats spread Continue to implement Toxoplasmosis gondii which has been Mainland subpopulations Rural Feral and Stray Cat Yearly 2 Months 1 Person documented to cause blindness and Management Plan death in rock-wallabies. Continue to implement Whitsunday Regional Mainland subpopulations Yearly 2 Months 1 Person Council dog registration The residential development boom has program led to an increase in domestic dogs Promote fencing and dog and cats within and adjacent to habitat Mainland subpopulations control in and adjacent to areas. This has led to an increase in the Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person wallaby habitat. number of dog attacks and fatalities on rock-wallabies. Restrict dog access in Mainland subpopulations areas of known PRW Once 3 Months 1 Person habitat Map areas suitable for Control of feral dogs is presently difficult Mainland subpopulations 1080 use, and develop due to limitations placed on where Once 2 Months 1 Person wild dog control program registered poisons (1080) can be utilised. This is primarily due to the proximity Location 1 of large areas of Proserpine rock 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People wallaby habitat to expanding residential developments. Feral dogs which Location 2 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Implement feral animal have crossbred with dingoes are also control program present in habitat areas and have been responsible for rock wallaby mortalities. Location 3 targeting wild dogs 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Hydatids, a type of cyst formed by tapeworm larvae, may also be contracted Location 4 from dogs and has proven fatal for the 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Proserpine rock wallaby. Prevent entry or Islands represent predator-free areas for establishment of cats and the species, and the introduction of dogs Island subpopulations dogs to islands where 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 1 Person and cats could prove disastrous for rock Proserpine rock wallabies wallaby populations. exist Develop and implement The propagation of introduced toxic Gloucester Island weed control strategy on Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People plants poses a serious threat to the Gloucester Island Proserpine rock wallaby which is known Replace toxic plants with to graze in household gardens, especially Urban areas surrounding native plants in domestic during the drier months. Invasion of Yearly 1 Month 1 Person known subpopulations and government garden palatable toxic species such as pink areas periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus) into habitat areas on Gloucester Island may Shute Harbour Rd, Mandalay Spray guinea grass on pose a considerable poisoning threat. Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person Road and Staniland Drive road verges

169 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Urban development has also led to roads being constructed through areas of Proserpine rock wallaby habitat, resulting in road kills. The mortality of rock wallabies usually peaks during the dry season, from September to November, as green pick in the bush Use 1.5m diameter All becomes less available and animals Unknown 1 Day 2 People culverts under new roads wander to roadside verges to feed. Given increasing residential development and traffic volume, this could significantly impact on populations. Most road deaths occur where road speeds are of 80km/h or greater and/or where there is feeding areas in close proximity to roads. Conduct research to Knowledge of the rock wallabies’ determine home range movement could aid future management Urban subpopulations for colonies in close Once 1 Year 1 Person decisions, including the placement of proximity to residential new roads and housing developments. expansion Map the distribution of Toxoplasmosis gondii Little is known about the impacts of All and hydatidosis in the these diseases on the Proserpine rock Once 1 Year 1 Person Proserpine rock wallaby wallaby, and any resulting mortality. population Study the interactions between the Proserpine Little is known about the level of rock wallaby and the competition for resources between these All Once 1 Year 1 Person unadorned rock wallaby species. Interbreeding may also be an where populations are ongoing concern. adjacent. Identify sites for translocation or New subpopulations reintroduction based on Once 6 Months 1 Person habitat mapping and/or on-ground assessment

Establish secure areas Translocation Site 1 of habitat for future Once 6 Months 4 People In order to achieve an increase in area of translocations, including occupancy and extent of occurrence, new any necessary fencing or previously occupied sites will need and predator/weed Translocation Site 2 to be identified, secured, and used as Once 6 Months 4 People removal translocation sites. Hayman Island may become a suitable source of Proserpine Translocation of Translocation Site 1 rock wallabies to be translocated to the Once 3 Weeks 5 People Proserpine rock wallabies mainland. to secure and managed Translocation Site 2 areas of habitat Once 3 Weeks 5 People

Translocation Site 1 Ongoing management Monthly 1 Day 2 People of translocated subpopulations, including Translocation Site 2 resource supplementation Monthly 1 Day 2 People as required Incorporate updated The current recovery plan has identified habitat knowledge future climate change as a potential into plans for habitat threat to the species. The cross-over All 3-Yearly 3 Months 1 Person continuity under of boundaries of various species of potential climate change Petrogale in Queensland may be scenarios influenced by climate.

170 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $78,287 $13,048 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $22,515 $130,477 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $126,677 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $36,896 $36,896 $122,987 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $71,644 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $119,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $34,778 $34,778 $115,927 Year 6 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,255 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $50,648 $112,551 Year 5 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $49,173 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $65,564 $109,273 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,741 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 Year 3 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $46,350 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 Year 2 $20,600 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $45,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 Year 1 $100,000 , and, their costs Action Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations Project coordinator manages project Update species habitat mapping Status assessment - genetics Review of translocations, and success and failure factors Status assessment - most important subpopulations management, for and the threats facing them. Includes identification of areas subject to grazing, weeds or fire. Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats Survey to confirm rock wallaby presence Manage species data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, road interactions, and effectiveness management of intervention. Subpopulation All All All All All All All Unconfirmed or suspected subpopulations All 2 Location Location 1 Location Location 3 Location Location 4 Location Island Hayman Gloucester Island Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 Table 42: ListTable recovery of actions Petrogale for persephone

171 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $2,610 $6,524 $6,524 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $16,391 $19,572 $19,572 $12,668 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $65,239 $65,239 $147,585 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $2,534 $6,334 $6,334 $15,914 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $12,299 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $19,002 $19,002 $63,339 $63,339 Year 9 $143,286 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $6,149 $2,460 $11,941 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $61,494 $61,494 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $15,450 $18,448 $18,448 $139,113 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $17,911 $5,970 $17,911 $2,388 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,593 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $59,703 $59,703 $15,000 Year 7 $135,061 $0 $0 $0 $2,319 $5,796 $5,796 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,255 $17,389 $17,389 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $57,964 $57,964 $131,127 $45,020 Year 6 $0 $0 $2,251 $5,628 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $10,927 $56,275 $16,883 $56,275 $16,883 $43,709 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 Year 5 $127,308 $0 $0 $0 $2,185 $5,464 $5,464 $16,391 $16,391 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,609 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $54,636 $54,636 $42,436 Year 4 $123,600 $0 $0 $2,122 $5,305 $5,305 $15,914 $15,914 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,300 $53,045 $53,045 $41,200 $10,000 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 Year 3 $120,000 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $2,060 $15,450 $15,450 $51,500 $51,500 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 Year 2 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $2,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Year 1 Action Implement monitoring protocols weed for control and habitat condition, and effectiveness of management intervention. Prevent entry or establishment of cats and dogs to islands where Proserpine rock wallabies exist Develop and implement weed control strategy on Gloucester Island Protect habitat by declaring new reserves or conservation areas Replace toxic plants with native plants in domestic and government garden areas Implement feral animal control program targeting wild dogs Map areas suitable for 1080 use, and develop wild dog control program Identify unreserved Proserpine rock wallaby habitat and run extension program to engage landholders to better manage or reserve land Promote fencing and dog control in and adjacent to wallaby habitat. Restrict dog access in areas of known Proserpine rock wallaby habitat Conduct adaptive fire management to maintain Proserpine rock wallaby habitat Continue to implement Whitsunday Regional Regional Whitsunday implement to Continue Council dog registration program Continue to implement Rural Feral and Stray Cat PlanManagement Subpopulation Location 1 Location Location 2 Location Location 3 Location Location 4 Location Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location Island subpopulations Gloucester Island Gloucester Island Hayman Island Hayman Translocation Site 1 All Urban areas surrounding surrounding areas Urban known subpopulations Location 1 Location Mainland subpopulations Translocation Site 2 All Mainland subpopulations Mainland subpopulations Hayman Island Hayman Mainland subpopulations Mainland subpopulations

172 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,572 $32,782 $32,782 Year 10 $1,193,721 $10,109,571 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,827 $31,827 $19,002 Year 9 $1,010,416 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,914 $18,448 $30,900 $30,900 Year 8 $996,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,911 $15,450 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 Year 7 $1,189,508 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,389 $15,000 $60,000 $80,000 Year 6 $1,051,878 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,883 $10,300 $50,000 Year 5 $1,057,979 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,391 $21,218 $31,827 $26,523 $10,000 Year 4 $1,049,698 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,914 $25,750 $30,900 $20,600 $955,761 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,450 $826,710 Year 2 $25,000 $30,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $15,000 $777,000 Year 1 Action Spray guinea grass on road verges Use 1.5m diameter culverts under new roads Study the interactions between the Proserpine rock wallaby and the unadorned rock wallaby where populations are adjacent. Competition for resources and interbreeding are the key issues. Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction based on habitat mapping on-ground and/or assessment Conduct research to determine home range for colonies in close proximity to residential expansion Map the distribution Toxoplasmosis of gondii and hydatidosis in the Proserpine rock wallaby population Establish secure areas of habitat for future translocations, including any necessary fencing removal predator/weed and Translocation of Proserpine rock wallabies to secure and managed areas of habitat Ongoing management of translocated subpopulations, including resource supplementation as required Incorporate updated habitat knowledge into plans for habitat continuity under potential climate scenarios change Subpopulation Shute Harbour Rd, Mandalay Road and Staniland Drive TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL All All New subpopulations Urban subpopulations All Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 Translocation Site 1 Translocation Site 2 All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

173 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Petrogale sharmani

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Petrogale sharmani (Eldridge & Close, 1992) 3. Common name: Mountain claro rock wallaby, Sharman’s rock wallaby 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing IUCN Red List

Listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2, and there is concern over threats from introduced herbivores, which may have an effect on the species. However, the species’ habitat and populations are not very fragmented and there is currently no decline in numbers or in quality or extent of habitat. Almost qualifies as threatened under criterion B1 (Winter et al. 2008).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None.

7. Range and abundance

Figure 19: Known distribution of Petrogale sharmani from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). Endemic to the Seaview and Coane Ranges, west of Ingham in north-eastern Queensland, Australia. It is common within its restricted range.

8. Habitat Rocky outcrops, boulder piles, gorges, cliff lines, and rocky slopes.

9. Threats 9.1 Habitat loss due to development. 9.2 Competition from domestic and wild introduced herbivores. 9.3 Increased pastoralism in the western part of its range. 9.4 Vulnerable to possible effects of climate change which may favour more populous species of rock-wallabies in adjacent regions.

174 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

10. Information required 13.4 Research into the species’ ecology and biology, particularly its interaction with 10.1 Surveys are needed to determine the competitors and predators. distribution and status of the species across its range. 13.5 Reserve suitable habitat for the species. 10.2 Populations should be identified for regular 13.6 Habitat assessment and modelling to monitoring programmes. determine current habitat condition and possibilities for future range expansion. 10.3 Studies are needed to understand the species biology and ecology, especially to 13.7 Implement management actions once determine its interaction with introduced priority actions and subpopulations have herbivores. been identified.

11. Recovery objectives 13.8 Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction based on habitat mapping 11.1 By 2021, Petrogale sharmani is eligible for and/or on-ground assessment. listing as Least Concern according to IUCN Red List criteria. 13.9 Establish and manage secure areas of habitat for future translocations. 11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring confirm the population trend of Petrogale 13.10 Translocation of species to secure and sharmani as stable. managed areas of habitat. 11.3 By 2021, research has confirmed the 13.11 Ongoing management of translocated impacts of grazing competition and subpopulations. increased pastoralism on Petrogale 14. Organisations responsible for sharmani, and where competition presents conservation of species a threat to P. sharmani subpopulations, management plans have been developed 14.1 Department of Environment and Resource and are being implemented to mitigate Management (DERM), Queensland. those threats. 15. Other organisations involved 11.4 By 2021, the geographic range of Petrogale sharmani in the form of extent of 15.1 None. occurrence is greater than 20,000 km2, 16. Staff and other resources required for with subpopulations secure* at greater than recovery to be carried out 10 locations within that range, thus making it ineligible to qualify as Vulnerable under 16.1 No dedicated staff required. IUCN criteria B15. 17. Action costs 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale sharmani has been maintained at known 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds 2011 levels. A$3.7 million.

12. Actions completed or underway 18. Notes 12.1 None. 18.1 None.

13. Management actions required 19. References 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. genetics, abundance, distribution, trend Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org. and threats. Accessed 28 September 2010. 13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive Winter, J., Burnett, S. & Martin, R. 2008. management. Petrogale sharmani. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3 13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including, http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ grazing, habitat condition, predation and details/16753/0. Accessed 28 September 2010. predator activity, and species activity. 20. Comments received 20.1 None.

15 This objective may not be possible, given the current estimated extent of occurrence of ~2000 km2. One solution would be to establish a secure subpopulation far outside the species’ current distribution.

175 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 43: List of recovery actions for Petrogale sharmani, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment of distribution and All 3-Yearly 3 Months 3 People abundance, including surveys Whilst the species is relatively secure, information is required to assess those Status assessment of All subpopulations most at risk from a range 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People genetic diversity of threats, and to ensure that genetic Assessment of grazing stock is maintained. competition and altered All Once 2 Years 1 Person fire regimes as threats to the species. Conduct research into Very little is known of the species, and species biology, ecology All the research is important to better Once 2 Years 2 People and conservation understand its conservation needs. requirements. To qualify for Least concern, the species range in the form of extent of occurrence Habitat modelling to may need to be expanded, and an All assess suitability for Once 2 Years 1 Person understanding of potential habitat range expansion. surrounding extant subpopulations will be required. Good data management is essential Manage data to inform to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person adaptive management. maximum amount of information from monitoring data. Implement monitoring protocols for species activity, predator activity, All 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People and effectiveness of management intervention. Monitoring is essential to ensure Implement monitoring adaptive management and achieving the protocols for fire and species objectives grazing management All and habitat condition, Yearly 1 Month 5 People and effectiveness of management intervention. Little of the species' habitat is protected Reserve suitable habitat within reserves. Sufficient habitat will be All Once Unknown 2 People for the species. required to ensure the ongoing security of the species. Implement management actions once The nature of required management All priority actions and Yearly Unknown 5 People actions is as yet unknown. subpopulations have been identified. Identify sites for translocation or New subpopulation reintroduction based on Once 6 Months 1 Person habitat mapping and/or on-ground assessment Establish secure areas of habitat for future translocations, including In order to achieve an increase in area of Once 6 Months 4 People any necessary fencing occupancy and extent of occurrence, new and predator/weed or previously occupied sites will need removal to be identified, secured, and used as Translocation of P. translocation sites. Translocation Site 1 sharmani to secure and Once 3 Weeks 5 People managed areas of habitat Ongoing management of translocated subpopulations, including Monthly 1 Day 2 People resource supplementation as required.

176 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,143 $39,143 $32,782 $78,287 $78,286 $26,523 $126,677 Year 10 $420,841 $3,753,050 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,333 $31,827 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $275,157 $122,987 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $73,792 $36,896 $30,900 $119,405 $267,143 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $71,643 $71,644 $35,822 $50,000 $30,000 $115,927 $20,000 Year 7 $401,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $34,778 $69,556 $112,551 Year 6 $342,682 $120,000 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $31,827 $31,827 $33,765 $33,765 $63,654 $10,300 $136,591 $25,628 Year 5 $109,273 $544,160 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $61,800 $10,000 $30,900 $30,900 $132,613 $541,676 Year 4 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $31,827 $63,654 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 $128,750 $452,536 Year 3 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $61,800 $30,900 Year 2 $125,000 $322,850 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 $60,000 Year 1 $185,000 , and, their costs Action Status assessment distribution of and abundance, surveys including Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Implement monitoring protocols for fire and grazing management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Reserve suitable habitat for the species. Status assessment of genetic diversity Implement management actions once priority actions and subpopulations have been identified. Assessment of grazing competition and altered fire regimes as threats to the species. Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction based on habitat mapping on-ground and/or assessment Conduct research into species biology, ecology and conservation requirements. Establish secure areas of habitat for future translocations, including any necessary fencing removal predator/weed and Translocation sharmani of P. to secure and managed areas of habitat Habitat modelling to assess suitability for range expansion. Ongoing management of translocated subpopulations, including resource supplementation as required. Manage data to inform adaptive management. Subpopulation All All TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL All All All All All New subpopulation All Translocation Site 1 All All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review Table 44: ListTable recovery of actions Petrogale for sharmani

177 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Petrogale xanthopus

1. Family Macropodidae 2. Scientific name: Petrogale xanthopus (Gray, 1855) 3. Common name: Yellow-footed rock wallaby, Ring-tailed rock wallaby 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened

5. Reasons for listing

Listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is probably not much greater than 20,000 km2 and is highly fragmented, its habitat is declining in much of its range, and its population is likely to be less than 10,000 mature individuals, making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion B1b(iii) (Copley et al. 2008). Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus - Flinders Ranges, Gawler Ranges and Olary Hills, SA; Gap and Coturaundee Ranges, NSW. Vulnerable on the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010). 6.2 Petrogale xanthopus celeris- Gowan, Grey, Cheviot, Yangang and Macedon Ranges, bounded by Adavale. Not listed on the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

7. Range and abundance This species is endemic to Australia, where it has a highly disjunct and patchy distribution in South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. In South Australia, colonies persist in the Gawler Ranges, Flinders Ranges and Olary Hills. At least 24 colonies are known to have become extinct in South Australia. Most of these represent at least half of the known colonies in the Olary Hills and Gawler Ranges regions (DEH 2008).

Figure 20: Known distribution of Petrogale xanthopus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia). In NSW, colonies have been found at three localities in the Gap Range and seven localities in the Cotauraundee Range (Lim & Giles 1987). No populations are known to remain outside these areas

178 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

(Maxwell et al. 1996). These colonies are thought 11.4 By 2021, management plans have been to be the remnants of larger and more widespread developed and are being implemented populations (Sharman et al. 1998). to reduce the threats of low resource availability, introduced predators, fire The population of Yellow-footed Rock Wallabies and disease for key Petrogale xanthopus fluctuates depending on rainfall. There are subpopulations. estimated to be less than 10,000 mature individuals in the wild. A large section of the 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale species range in South Australia has been xanthopus has been maintained at known surveyed (most years from 1993-2008), indicating 2011 levels. that there are on the order of 6,000 individuals currently in South Australia. There are less than 12. Actions completed or underway 100 individuals in New South Wales and the size 12.1 Reintroductions of captive-bred Yellow- of the population in Queensland is unknown footed Rock Wallabies to sites in (Copley et al. 2008). Queensland and South Australia (Lapidge 2000, 2005). 8. Habitat 12.2 Establishment of a feral animal control This species inhabits rocky outcrops in semi-arid program that targets feral herbivores (goats country. The rocky outcrops range from limestone, and rabbits) and feral predators (cats and sandstone and conglomerates to granites and foxes) (Buckaringa Wildlife Sanctuary, is often associated with permanent or semi- AWC). permanent water sources (Copley et al. 2008). 12.3 Controlling erosion, restoring native 9. Threats vegetation and natural springs (Buckaringa 9.1 Predation from introduced foxes is the Wildlife Sanctuary, AWC). greatest threat 12.4 Recovery is a major focus of Operation 9.2 Predation by feral cats Bounceback in the Olary Hills, and the Flinders and Gawler Ranges (South 9.3 Competition with domestic and Australia). These efforts have resulted in introduced herbivores (particularly goats, major population increases in the Olary rabbits, and sheep) Ranges and parts of the Flinders Ranges. 9.4 Wildfire 13. Management actions required 9.5 Habitat destruction 13.1 Status assessment of the species, including 10. Information required genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and risks. Calculate the long-term average size of 10.1 Further research into movements, home monitored rock wallaby subpopulations. ranges and habitat use. 13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive 10.2 Impacts of predation. management. 10.3 Population ecology of browse species. 13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including 10.4 Interaction with other herbivores. grazing pressure, predation, and resource availability. 10.5 Water and nutritional requirements. 13.4 Review translocation of yellow-footed rock 11. Recovery objectives wallabies, including feasibility of future operations. 11.1 By 2021, Petrogale xanthopus is eligible for listing as Least Concern according to IUCN 13.5 Maintain natural watering points (e.g. de- Red List criteria. silting, removal of contaminants). 11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Petrogale 13.6 Identify and maintain artificial watering xanthopus in the form of extent of points of significance to yellow-footed rock occurrence remains greater than 20,000 wallabies outside reserves. km2, with subpopulations secure at greater than 10 locations within that range. 11.3 By 2021, the total population of Petrogale xanthopus is estimated to number greater than 10,000 mature individuals.

179 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

13.7 Conduct competitor control operations for 17. Action costs goats and rabbits in and around yellow- 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds footed rock wallaby habitat, and increase A$20 million. during droughts and prolonged dry periods. 13.8 Decommission artificial watering points 18. Notes on reserves that are not required for 18.1 None. yellow-footed rock wallabies but still support elevated populations of feral 19. References goats and euros. IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 13.9 Continue fox baiting, and increase baiting Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org. in response to an increase in predator Accessed 19 October 2010. sightings or predation incidents and Copley, P, Ellis, M & van Weenen, J (2008) during droughts. Petrogale xanthopus. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN 13.10 Undertake aerial baiting in priority areas Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. (as determined by status assessment), and http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ those areas that are remote and difficult details/16750/0. Accessed 19 October 2010. to access from the ground. Department of Environment and Heritage 13.11 Develop and implement fire management (2008) Recovery Plan for the Yellow-Footed plans for priority yellow-footed rock Rock-Wallaby - Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus wallaby habitat. (6th Draft). Department of Environment and Heritage, Adelaide. 13.12 Develop contingency plans for catastrophic events such as wildfires or major droughts. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2010) Petrogale 13.13 Engage local landholders in management xanthopus xanthopus. In: Species Profile and of yellow-footed rock wallaby habitat on Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the private land. Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 13.14 Review mark-recapture sites. Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 26 October 2010. 14. Organisations responsible for conservation of species Eldridge, MDB (2008) Yellow-footed rock wallaby, Petrogale xanthopus. In The Mammals 14.1 Department of Environment and Heritage of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R). (DEH), South Australia. Lapidge, SJ (2000) Dietary adaptation of 14.2 Department of Environment, reintroduced yellow-footed rock-wallabies, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus (Marsupialia: New South Wales. Macropodidae), in the northern Flinders Ranges, 14.3 Department of Environment and Resource South Australia. Wildlife Research 27: 195–201. Management (DERM), Queensland. Lapidge, SJ (2005) Reintroduction increased vitamin E and condition in captive-bred 15. Other organisations involved yellow-footed rock wallabies Petrogale 15.1 None. xanthopus. Oryx 39: 56-64.

16. Staff and other resources required for 20. Comments received recovery to be carried out 20.1 None. 16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is required to manage this complex recovery program.

180 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 45: List of recovery actions for Petrogale xanthopus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Current recovery actions are ad hoc and Project manager opportunistic, and the recovery program All Yearly 1 Year 1 Person coordinates project is of sufficient complexity to warrant a dedicated manager. South Australian Status assessment of the Whilst the species is relatively secure, 3-Yearly 3 Months 5 People subpopulations species - distribution and information is required to assess those New South Wales abundance, including subpopulations most at risk from a range 3-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations ground survey and of threats, and to ensure that genetic population monitoring stock is maintained. Queensland subpopulations 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People South Australian Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People subpopulations The habitat occupied is extremely remote Annual helicopter and rugged, and helicopter surveys are New South Wales surveys the most efficient means of assessing Yearly 1 Week 3 People subpopulations population trends. Queensland subpopulations Yearly 1 Week 3 People South Australian 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People subpopulations Status assessment of the New South Wales species - genetics 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People subpopulations Whilst the species is relatively secure, Queensland subpopulations information is required to assess those 5-Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People South Australian Status assessment subpopulations most at risk from a range 5-Yearly 1 Month 2 People subpopulations of the species - of threats, and to ensure that genetic identify important stock is maintained. New South Wales subpopulations, and those 5-Yearly 1 Day 1 Person subpopulations subject to specific threats including competition, Queensland subpopulations 5-Yearly 1 Day 1 Person drought and fire South Australian 3-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person subpopulations Manage data to inform Good data management is essential adaptive management. to making it possible to extract the New South Wales Includes 5 year program maximum amount of information from 3-Monthly 1 Day 1 Person subpopulations review. monitoring data. Queensland subpopulations 3-Monthly 1 Day 1 Person South Australian 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 20 People subpopulations Continue fox baiting on New South Wales the ground 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations Queensland subpopulations 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People Due to their size, adult (6-8 kg), and South Australian particularly juvenile (>1 kg) Yellow- 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People subpopulations footed rock wallabies, are vulnerable Conduct aerial fox baiting to Fox (3-8 kg) predation. Foxes target New South Wales for priority and difficult juvenile Yellow-footed rock wallabies, 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations access sites and are the rock wallabies' main Queensland subpopulations predator in the northern Flinders 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People Ranges. South Australian Unknown 2 Weeks 20 People subpopulations Increase fox baiting in response to increased New South Wales predation or predator Unknown 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations sightings Queensland subpopulations Unknown 2 Weeks 5 People

181 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

South Australian 6-Monthly 1 Month 10 People subpopulations Control goats at There is competition between goats New South Wales priority rock wallaby and Yellow-footed rock wallabies for 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People subpopulations subpopulations food, water and shelter. The diets of the Queensland subpopulations two species overlap considerably. It is 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People highly likely that competition for food South Australian resources during periods of scarcity has Unknown 1 Month 10 People subpopulations Increase competitor a significant impact on rock-wallaby control during droughts New South Wales numbers. There is also a dietary overlap and prolonged dry Unknown 2 Weeks 2 People subpopulations between Yellow-footed rock wallabies periods and rabbits. Sheep are probably not Queensland subpopulations Unknown 2 Weeks 2 People major competitors for food. However, South Australian there is likely to be some affect of sheep 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations grazing on the flats near ranges, which Control rabbits at are important foraging areas for Yellow- New South Wales priority rock wallaby footed rock wallabies. 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations subpopulations Queensland subpopulations 6-Monthly 1 Week 2 People South Australian Yearly 1 Month 2 People subpopulations Maintain natural New South Wales watering points on public Yellow-footed rock wallabies are more Yearly 1 Week 2 People subpopulations land sensitive to the influence of drought Queensland subpopulations than larger macropod species, probably Yearly 1 Week 2 People because the rock wallabies' smaller home South Australian Identify and maintain range and degree of site fidelity limit Yearly 1 Month 1 Person subpopulations artificial watering points their ability to locate scarce food and on private and public New South Wales water sources during droughts. land that are significant Yearly 1 Week 1 Person subpopulations for rock wallaby Queensland subpopulations subpopulations Yearly 1 Week 1 Person South Australian There is competition between Goats Once 2 Months 2 People subpopulations and Yellow-footed Rock-wallabies for food, water and shelter. The diets of the New South Wales two species overlap considerably. It is Once 1 Month 1 Person subpopulations highly likely that competition for food Decommission artificial resources during periods of scarcity has watering points that are a significant impact on rock-wallaby not required for rock numbers. There is also a dietary overlap wallabies yet still support between Yellow-footed Rock-wallabies elevated numbers of goats and Rabbits. Sheep are probably not Queensland subpopulations and/or euros Once 1 Month 1 Person major competitors for food. However, there is likely to be some affect of sheep grazing on the flats near ranges, which are important foraging areas for Yellow- footed Rock-wallabies. South Australian Yearly 1 Month 10 People subpopulations Develop and implement Most populations of Yellow-footed rock fire management plans New South Wales wallabies are at risk from wildfires, but for priority yellow-footed Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People subpopulations fire has been identified as a particular rock wallaby habitat threat to two populations. In the Queensland subpopulations southern Flinders Ranges, higher fuel Yearly 2 Weeks 5 People South Australian loads mean that the animals at Mt Once 2 Weeks 1 Person subpopulations Develop contingency Remarkable and nearby Telowie Gorge plans for catastrophic are potentially at risk. A severe wildfire New South Wales events including wildfires in the region could impact heavily on the Once 1 Week 1 Person subpopulations and drought isolated Gawler Ranges colonies. Queensland subpopulations Once 1 Week 1 Person

182 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

South Australian Yellow-footed rock wallaby habitat Yearly 1 Year 2 People subpopulations Engage local landholders extends onto private land, and in management of yellow- New South Wales management is required there to ensure footed rock wallaby Yearly 1 Year 1 Person subpopulations consistent recovery results with efforts habitat on private land on public land. Queensland subpopulations Yearly 1 Year 1 Person South Australian Implement monitoring 6-Monthly 1 Month 4 People subpopulations A long-term consistent and cohesive protocols, including approach to regular monitoring New South Wales grazing pressure, is essential to inform adaptive 6-Monthly 1 Month 2 People subpopulations predation, water points management strategies. and resource availability Queensland subpopulations 6-Monthly 1 Month 2 People Translocations of wild and captive Review translocation subpopulations will be crucial to the of yellow-footed rock ongoing management of the species. All wallabies, including Ensuring that any future translocations Once 1 Month 1 Person feasibility of future are undertaken under optimum operations conditions is essential for the success of the operations. Review current mark- Ensure that the most appropriate sites All Once 1 Month 1 Person recapture sites are used for mark-recapture studies.

183 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $39,144 $39,144 $39,144 $78,287 $65,239 $26,095 $26,095 $26,523 $130,477 $130,477 $130,477 $130,477 $521,909 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $63,339 Year 9 $126,677 $126,677 $126,677 $126,677 $506,708 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,494 $122,987 $122,987 $122,987 $122,987 $491,950 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,644 $59,703 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $477,621 $119,405 $119,405 $119,405 $119,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,964 $115,927 $115,927 $115,927 $115,927 $463,710 Year 6 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $56,275 $112,551 $112,551 $112,551 $112,551 $25,628 Year 5 $450,204 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,782 $32,782 $65,564 $54,636 $437,091 $109,273 $109,273 $109,273 $109,273 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $53,045 Year 3 $106,090 $106,090 $106,090 $106,090 $424,360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,500 Year 2 $103,000 $103,000 $103,000 $103,000 $412,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 Year 1 $150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000 , and, their costs Action Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance, including ground survey and population monitoring Project manager coordinates project Status assessment of the species - genetics Continue fox baiting on the ground Conduct aerial fox baiting for priority and difficult sites access Annual helicopter surveys Status assessment of the species - identify important subpopulations, and those subject to specific threats including competition, drought and fire Manage data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Subpopulation South Australian Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations All New South Wales subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations Queensland subpopulations Queensland subpopulations Australian South subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations Queensland subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations List 46: Table recovery of actions Petrogale for xanthopus

184 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $13,048 $13,048 Year 10 $104,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $12,668 $12,668 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $101,342 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $12,299 $12,299 $59,702 $59,702 $59,702 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $98,390 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $11,941 $11,941 $95,524 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $11,593 $11,593 $92,742 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 Year 6 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $21,218 $21,218 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $90,041 $54,636 $54,636 $54,636 Year 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $10,927 $10,927 $87,418 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $20,600 $20,600 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $84,872 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $10,300 $10,300 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 Year 2 $82,400 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $80,000 Year 1 Action Identify and maintain artificial watering points on private and public land that are significant for rock wallaby subpopulations Decommission artificial watering points that are not required for rock wallabies yet still support elevated numbers of goats euros and/or Control rabbits at priority rock wallaby subpopulations Control goats at priority rock wallaby subpopulations Increase competitor control during droughts and prolonged dry periods Maintain natural watering points on public land Increase fox baiting in response to increased predation or predator sightings Subpopulation South Australian Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations Queensland subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations Australian South subpopulations Queensland subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations

185 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,143 $73,792 $73,792 $65,239 $26,095 $26,095 $78,286 $195,716 $122,987 Year 10 $2,371,687 $20,031,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,643 $71,643 $25,335 $25,335 $63,339 $76,006 $38,003 Year 9 $119,405 $190,016 $2,017,168 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $73,792 $61,494 $24,597 $24,597 $69,556 $69,556 $36,896 $115,927 $184,481 Year 8 $2,248,210 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $67,531 $71,643 $59,703 $23,881 $23,881 $35,822 $112,551 Year 7 $179,108 $2,044,662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,185 $23,185 $57,964 $34,778 $69,556 $65,564 $65,564 $173,891 $109,273 Year 6 $1,845,995 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $56,275 $63,654 $63,654 Year 5 $168,826 $106,090 $2,263,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $65,564 $54,636 $61,800 $61,800 Year 4 $163,909 $103,000 $1,953,555 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $63,654 $53,045 $60,000 $60,000 $159,135 Year 3 $100,000 $1,769,347 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,500 $61,800 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 Year 2 $60,000 $154,500 $1,767,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $50,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 Year 1 $150,000 $1,750,000 Action Develop and implement fire management plans for priority yellow-footed rock wallaby habitat Develop contingency plans for catastrophic events including wildfires and drought Review translocation of yellow-footed rock wallabies, including feasibility of future operations Implement monitoring protocols, including grazing pressure, predation, water points and resource availability Review current mark-recapture sites Engage local landholders in management of yellow-footed rock wallaby habitat on private land Subpopulation New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL New South Wales subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations Queensland subpopulations All New South Wales subpopulations New South Wales subpopulations Queensland subpopulations Australian South subpopulations All Queensland subpopulations South Australian Australian South subpopulations #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

186 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Potorous gilbertii

1. Family Potoroidae 2. Scientific name: Potorous gilbertii (Gould , 1841) 3. Common name: Gilbert’s potoroo, Ngilgyte (Indigenous name) 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Critically Endangered

5. Reasons for listing Listed as Critically Endangered because there are currently less than 50 mature individuals. The population of the species appears to be stable, but it is known only from a tiny area, which it appears to fully occupy (Friend & Burbidge 2008). Listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None

7. Range and abundance Gilbert’s Potoroo is endemic to south-western, Western Australia and is known to occur in the wild at one very small site on the Mount Gardner headland in Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve (TSSC 2004). The species was thought to be extinct from the early 1900s, until it was rediscovered in 1994 on the Mount Gardner headland (Sinclair et al. 1996; Friend 2008). It is also known from a captive population in Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve and a translocated population on Bald Island Nature Reserve, about 50 km east of Albany (Friend, T, Pers. comm.). There are an estimated 30–40 individuals in the Mount Gardner (wild) population (Friend 2008). Eleven Gilbert’s potoroos were released onto Bald Island in two separate releases between 2005–2007 (WA DEC 2009). There are indications that these animals are breeding and that the island can sustain a population of this species (Friend 2008); by mid 2010 the population of Gilbert’s Potoroo on Bald Island had reached an estimated 35 individuals (Friend, T, Pers. comm.).

Figure 21: Known distribution of Potorous gilbertii from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

187 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 12.4 Surveys have not found any new populations. This species is found in Melaleuca striata heath with a dense layer of sedges underneath 12.5 Aerial and/or ground baiting began in 1988 (Friend 2008). It apparently avoids areas where in the western parts of Two Peoples Bay NR dieback disease caused by the root pathogen and was extended to most tracks within the Phytophthora cinnamomi has modified the reserve in subsequent years to control foxes structure and floristic assemblage of heathlands and is ongoing. (Courtenay & Friend 2004). 13. Management actions required 9. Threats 13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations 9.1 Fire is the critical threat (present using standard protocols, including and future). distribution, abundance, genetics, trend, risk and priority subpopulations. 9.2 Predation by feral cats and foxes. 13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive 9.3 Altering vegetation structure and management. eliminating plants that provide food are direct threats to this species. 13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including fire management, habitat 9.4 Low recruitment of young. Between condition, predation and predator 60–80% of Gilbert’s Potoroo pouch-young activity, and species activity. do not attain maturity (Friend 2008) and there is concern that the reasons for low 13.4 Fire exclusion. recruitment of young to the adult population 13.5 Introduced predator control. are not known (TSSC 2004). 13.6 Dieback control. 10. Information required 13.7 Prevention of clearing around 10.1 None. Two People’s Bay. 11. Recovery objectives 13.8 Captive breeding for translocation. 11.1 By 2021, Potorous gilbertii is eligible for 13.9 Establishment of secure area for listing as Endangered according to IUCN establishment of additional subpopulation Red List criteria. through translocation. Includes predator exclusion and habitat management. 11.2 By 2021, there are more than three secure, geographically distinct subpopulations of 13.10 Translocation of captive bred animals Potorous gilbertii, with population trend to new location. increasing for each subpopulation. 14. Organisations responsible for 11.3 By 2021, management plans have been conservation of species developed and are being implemented to reduce the threats of introduced predators, 14.1 Department of Environment and fire and dieback for all Potorous gilbertii Conservation (DEC) Western Australia. subpopulations. 15. Other organisations involved 11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Potorous 15.1 None. gilbertii has been maintained at known 2011 levels. 16. Staff and other resources required for recovery to be carried out 12. Actions completed or underway 16.1 No dedicated staff required. 12.1 A new introduction of individuals to Bald Island by the Department of Environment 17. Action costs and Conservation (Western Australia). 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds 12.2 Cat predation research in Two Peoples A$14 million. Bay Nature. 18. Notes 12.3 Extensive research is ongoing on biology and ecology. 18.1 None.

188 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

19. References Sinclair, EA, Danks, A & Wayne, AF (1996) Rediscovery of Gilbert’s potoroo, Potorous Courtenay, J & Friend, T (2004) Gilbert’s Potoroo tridactylus, in Western Australia . Australian (Potorous gilbertii) Recovery Plan July 2003- Mammalogy 19: 69-72. June 2008. Wanneroo, Western Australia: Threatened Species Unit, Department of Threatened Species Scientific Committee Conservation and Land Management. (TSSC) (2004). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Potorous gilbertii (Gilbert’s Potoroo). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/ and the Arts (2010) Potorous gilbertii. In: biodiversity/threatened/species/gilberts-potoroo. Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. html. Accessed October 10, 2010. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment. Western Australia Department of Environment gov.au/sprat. Accessed 26 October 2010 . and Conservation (WA DEC) (2009). Vital Government funding for critically endangered Friend, JA (2008) Gilbert’s Potoroo, Potorous species. Western Australia: Department of gilbertii. In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Environment and Conservation. Available Dyck, S & Strahan, R). from: http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/ Friend, T & Burbidge, A (2008) Potorous gilbertii. view/5441/1560/. Accessed Oct 10 2010. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. 20. Comments received org/apps/redlist/details/18107/0. Accessed 19 20.1 Tony Friend, DEC. June 2010 IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 19 October 2010.

Table 47: List of recovery actions for Potorous gilbertii, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Status assessment of the More information is required to better All species - distribution and understand the status of the species, to Yearly 1 Month 5 People abundance. assess those subpopulations most at risk Status assessment of the from a range of threats, and to ensure All 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People species - genetics that genetic stock is maintained. Manage data to inform Good data management is essential adaptive management. to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person Includes 5 year program maximum amount of information from review. monitoring data.

Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner Aerial baiting to control Gilbert’s Potoroo is within the Critical 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Weight Range (35 g-5.5 kg) of mammals Waychinicup NP foxes 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People thought to be most susceptible to decline. Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner Ground baiting to control It is in the prey size range of both foxes Monthly 1 Week 10 People and cats, both of which are known to Waychinicup NP foxes Monthly 1 Week 4 People occur in the Two Peoples Bay area. Aerial Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner Ground baiting and baiting is required to supplement ground 6-Monthly 1 Month 4 People trapping to control baiting due to the inaccessible nature of Waychinicup NP feral cats some habitat. 6-Monthly 1 Month 2 People

189 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner The only known wild subpopulation of Yearly 2 Weeks 20 People Gilbert’s Potoroo exists in dense, long Waychinicup NP Yearly 2 Weeks 10 People unburnt vegetation that is potentially Bald Island highly vulnerable to wildfire. Fire Yearly 1 Month 5 People Conduct fire management exclusion is thus an extremely high to reduce threat of priority in the protection of the wild wildfires subpopulation. Fire also has a high Translocation Site probability of significantly impacting the Yearly 1 Week 4 People other subpopulations, and management is crucial to avoid devastating losses. Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner Plant dieback disease is considered to be Yearly 1 Month 10 People a threat to the continued survival of the Waychinicup NP Yearly 1 Month 5 People Implement dieback potoroo by altering vegetation structure Bald Island hygiene protocols or eliminating species that are hosts to Yearly 1 Week 2 People the mycorrhizal fungi on which they Translocation Site feed. Yearly 1 Week 2 People

Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner Implement monitoring 4-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Waychinicup NP protocols for species 4-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People activity and effectiveness Bald Island of management 4-Monthly 1 Week 2 People Translocation Site intervention. 4-Monthly 1 Week 2 People Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner Implement monitoring 4-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People protocols for predator Waychinicup NP 4-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People activity, and effectiveness Monitoring is essential to ensure of management adaptive management and achieving the Translocation Site 4-Monthly 1 Week 2 People intervention. species objectives. Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner Implement monitoring Yearly 2 Weeks 4 People protocols for fire and Waychinicup NP Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People dieback management, Bald Island habitat condition, Yearly 1 Week 2 People and effectiveness Translocation Site of management Yearly 1 Week 2 People intervention. The captive subpopulation may not have Captive subpopulation Artificial feeding sufficient habitat to ensure consistent Weekly 1 Week 2 People food availability. Assisted reproduction Wild populations will need to be Captive subpopulation 3-Monthly 1 Month 3 People and captive husbandry augmented with additional individuals. Construct fenced Once 6 Months 4 People sanctuary Exclude predators and In order to down-list the species, the 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People maintain fence area of occupancy for the species will 2 Translocate need to be greater than 10 km , and Translocation Site individuals from other the extent of occurrence greater than Once 2 Weeks 5 People 2 subpopulations 100 km . Further, the more distinct subpopulations the species has, the Ongoing management greater its chances of being down-listed. of translocated Weekly 1 Week 2 People subpopulation, including resource supplementation

190 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $2,610 $52,191 $19,572 $58,715 $15,657 $19,572 $32,619 $32,619 $39,143 $97,858 $10,438 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $65,239 $26,095 $78,286 $23,486 $195,716 $117,430 $26,523 $156,573 $130,477 $130,477 Year 10 $0 $2,534 $6,333 $10,134 $15,201 $50,671 $31,669 $31,669 $12,668 $12,668 $57,005 $12,668 $19,002 $25,335 $63,339 $76,006 $22,802 $38,003 $95,008 Year 9 $152,012 $190,016 $126,677 $126,677 $114,009 $0 $6,149 $9,839 $2,460 $30,747 $14,758 $30,747 $49,195 $73,792 $61,494 $22,138 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $92,241 $24,597 $18,448 $55,344 $36,896 $147,585 $110,689 $122,987 $122,987 $184,481 Year 8 $0 $5,970 $9,552 $2,388 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $47,762 $71,643 $29,851 $29,851 $53,732 $21,493 $59,703 $14,329 $35,822 $89,554 $65,000 $65,000 Year 7 $179,108 $119,405 $119,405 $107,465 $143,286 $0 $2,319 $5,796 $9,274 $13,911 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $17,389 $52,167 $46,371 $23,185 $57,964 $34,778 $69,556 $20,867 $86,946 $28,982 $28,982 $139,113 $115,927 $115,927 $173,891 $104,335 Year 6 * $2,251 $9,004 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $67,531 $33,765 $22,510 $56,275 $16,883 $16,883 $13,506 $28,138 $28,138 $84,413 $20,259 $50,648 $45,020 $112,551 $112,551 $25,628 $135,061 $101,296 Year 5 $168,826 $0 $2,185 $8,742 $5,464 $13,113 $27,318 $27,318 $49,173 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $81,955 $19,669 $32,782 $43,709 $65,564 $54,636 $98,345 $131,127 $60,000 $60,000 $109,273 $109,273 Year 4 $163,909 $0 $2,122 $5,305 $8,487 $47,741 $12,731 $15,914 $21,218 $31,827 $19,096 $95,481 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $26,523 $79,568 $26,523 $63,654 $53,045 $42,436 $159,135 $127,308 Year 3 $106,090 $106,090 $0 $5,150 $8,240 $2,060 $77,250 $25,750 $25,750 $15,450 $51,500 $18,540 $12,360 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $61,800 $41,200 $92,700 $46,350 $30,900 $20,600 Year 2 $154,500 $123,600 $103,000 $103,000 # $5,000 $2,000 $8,000 $15,000 $12,000 $15,000 $18,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $75,000 $25,000 $25,000 $45,000 $50,000 $30,000 $20,000 $60,000 $40,000 $90,000 Year 1 $150,000 $120,000 $100,000 $100,000 , and, their costs Action Implement diebackImplement hygiene protocols Conduct fire management to reduce threat of wildfires Implement monitoring protocols predator for activity, and effectiveness of management intervention. Implement monitoring protocols species for activity and effectiveness of management intervention. Ground baiting and trapping to control feral cats Ground baiting to control foxes Status assessment of the species - distribution and abundance. Aerial baiting to control foxes Status assessment of the species - genetics Manage data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Subpopulation Two Peoples BayTwo Gardner - Mt Bald Island Waychinicup NP Waychinicup Translocation Site Waychinicup NP Waychinicup Bald Island Translocation Site Translocation Site Bald Island NP Waychinicup Waychinicup NP Waychinicup Peoples BayTwo Gardner - Mt Peoples BayTwo Gardner - Mt Two Peoples BayTwo Gardner - Mt Translocation Site Waychinicup NP Waychinicup Waychinicup NP Waychinicup Peoples BayTwo Gardner - Mt Waychinicup NP Waychinicup Peoples BayTwo Gardner - Mt All Peoples BayTwo Gardner - Mt All All List 48: Table recovery of actions Potorous gilbertii for

191 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $6,524 $32,619 $32,619 $39,143 $39,143 $28,138 $78,286 $28,982 Year 10 $1,655,894 $14,390,188 $0 $0 $6,334 $27,318 $31,669 $31,669 $28,138 $76,006 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $1,569,245 $0 $0 $6,149 $27,318 $30,747 $30,747 $73,792 $26,523 $36,896 $36,896 Year 8 $1,523,539 $0 $0 $5,970 $71,643 $29,851 $29,851 $25,750 $26,523 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $1,567,373 $0 $0 $5,796 $25,750 $34,778 $34,778 $69,556 $28,982 $28,982 $25,000 Year 6 $1,436,082 $0 $5,628 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $28,138 $28,138 $10,000 $25,000 $40,000 Year 5 $1,456,866 $0 $0 $5,464 $5,000 $27,318 $27,318 $32,782 $32,782 $65,564 $80,000 Year 4 $1,472,563 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $31,827 $31,827 $26,523 $26,523 $63,654 Year 3 $1,267,776 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $25,750 $25,750 $61,800 $30,900 $30,900 Year 2 $1,230,850 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $25,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 Year 1 $1,210,000 Action Implement monitoring protocols for fire and dieback management, habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Artificialfeeding Assisted reproduction and captive husbandry Construct fenced sanctuary Exclude predators and maintain fence Translocate individuals from other subpopulations Ongoing management of translocated subpopulation, including resource supplementation Subpopulation Two Peoples BayTwo Gardner - Mt TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL Waychinicup NP Waychinicup Captive subpopulation Bald Island Translocation Site Captive subpopulation Translocation Site #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

192 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Potorous longipes

1. Family Potoroidae 2. Scientific name: Potorous longipes (Seebeck & Johnston, 1980) 3. Common name: Long-footed potoroo 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(v)

5. Reasons for listing

Listed as Endangered (IUCN Red List) because its extent of occurrence is less than 5,000 km2, its distribution is severely fragmented, and there is probably a continuing decline in the number of mature individuals due to introduced predators and competition for its specialized food resources from introduced pigs (McKnight 2008). Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999.

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None.

7. Range and abundance This species is endemic to Australia, where it is known from three disjunct, fragmented populations: • the catchments of the Brodribb, Bemm, Rodger and Yalmy Rivers in East Gippsland; • the headwaters of the Buffalo, Buckland and Wonnangatta Rivers in north-eastern Victoria; • the South East Forests National Park and Yambulla State Forest in far south-eastern NSW. Altitudes range from 100 metres in East Gippsland to 1100 metres in the Barry Mountains. The Long-footed Potoroo is only known only through death as no live specimens have ever been caught. The most recent National Recovery Plan refrains from estimating the population size of the species due these factors, but states that it is unlikely to be more than a few thousand individuals, and it might only be a few hundred (NSW NPWS 2002).

Figure 22: Known distribution of Potorous longipes from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

193 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 11.3 By 2021, numbers of mature Potorous longipes in the wild are considered stable or The species occurs in a variety of forest types increasing based on an index of abundance ranging from montane wet sclerophyll forests at appropriate to the taxon. over 1,000 metres altitude, to lowland sclerophyll forest at 100 metres altitude. It is apparently 11.4 By 2021, management plans have been confined to sites with a high soil moisture content developed and are being implemented to throughout the year. The primary requirements of reduce the threats of predation, altered fire Long-footed potoroos are a diverse and abundant regimes, feral pigs, and to improve habitat supply of hypogeal fungal sporocarps throughout area, extent and quality, for all Potorous the year and dense cover to provide shelter and longipes subpopulations. protection from predators (Menkhorst and 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Potorous Seebeck 2008). longipes has been maintained at known 9. Threats 2011 levels.

9.1 Predation from foxes, dingoes, and 12. Actions completed or underway feral dogs. 12.1 Protection of suitable habitat for the species. 9.2 Introduced pigs might be competitors for 12.2 Control of predators through the use of this species’ specialised food requirements. 1080 baiting. 9.3 Inappropriate fire regimes might also affect 12.3 Control of introduced pigs and cats the fungi on which this species depends. through trapping. 9.4 Logging activities appear to be detrimental to the species. 13. Management actions required 9.5 Chance events. Because the Long-footed 13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations Potoroo has a very restricted distribution using standard protocols, including (especially in NSW), and a small population distribution, abundance, genetics, trend, size, it is threatened by chance breeding risk and priority subpopulations. failure (for example, caused by the death 13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive of too many adults of a particular sex) and management, and compile annual report. localised disasters such as severe fires and Includes creation of a spatial database disease, which could exterminate colonies identifying the mosaic of key micro-habitats (NSW NPWS 2002). for the species across its known range, and future population modelling. 10. Information required 13.3 Refine and implement monitoring protocols, 10.1 Further research is required into logging including fire management, habitat for confirmation of it’s level of threat. condition, predation and predator activity, 10.2 Establish the distribution and abundance and species activity. Includes developing a of the species (perhaps with new survey protocol specifying trigger points to initiate techniques). dog or cat control measures. 10.3 Research the effects of habitat disturbance 13.4 Conduct strategic feral predator control to from timber harvesting and fire. manage fox and feral dog predation over the entire known range of the species. 10.4 Research the biology of hypogeous fungi that the species depends on for food. 13.5 Conduct opportunistic feral cat control until an effective broad-scale control technique is 11. Recovery objectives available. 11.1 By 2021, Potorous longipes is eligible for 13.6 Develop and implement fire management listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN plans for priority long-footed potoroo Red List criteria. habitat. 11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Potorous 13.7 Conduct targeted feral pig control where longipes in the form of extent of occurrence they compete for food resources with long- 2 has increased to greater than 5,000 km , footed potoroos. with subpopulations secure* at greater than 5 locations within that range.

194 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

13.8 Implement Long-footed Potoroo Core 16. Staff and other resources required for Protected Areas for East Gippsland and recovery to be carried out Great Dividing Range regions. 16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is 13.9 Ensure that potoroo management actions required to undertake this program. are incorporated into plans for parks or reserves where they or their habitat occur. 17. Action costs 13.10 Establish additional protected areas where 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds Long-footed Potoroos have been detected in A$19 million. State forest or other public land outside the 18. Notes Core Protected Area. 18.1 None 13.11 Identify unreserved long-footed potoroo habitat on private land and run extension 19. References programs to engage landholders to better manage or reserve land. Provide incentives. IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. 13.12 Identify sites for translocation or org. Accessed 20 October 2010. reintroduction based on habitat mapping and/or on-ground assessment. McKnight, M. 2008. Potorous longipes. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 13.13 Establish and manage secure areas of Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/ habitat for future translocations. redlist/details/18102/0. Accessed 20 October 13.14 Translocation of potoroos to secure and 2010. managed areas of habitat. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage 13.15 Ongoing management of translocated and the Arts (2010) Potorous longipes. In: subpopulations, including resource Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. supplementation as required. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment. 13.16 Conduct research into optimal fire gov.au/sprat. Accessed 26 October 2010 . management practices to maintain potoroo habitat, including food resources. Menkhorst, PW and Seebeck, JH (2008) Long- footed potoroo, Potorous longipes. In The 13.17 Conduct studies on the extent of food Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and resource competition between long-footed Strahan, R). potoroos and feral pigs. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) 13.18 Avoid establishing new captive Approved Recovery Plan for the Long-footed subpopulation, unless case is developed Potoroo (Potorous longipes). NSW National Parks following rigorous assessment of and Wildlife Service, Hurstville NSW. conservation and animal welfare risks and benefits. 20. Comments received 13.19 Develop and distribute community 20.1 None. awareness materials to appropriate targets.

14. Organisations responsible for conservation of species 14.1 NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). 14.2 Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE).

15. Other organisations involved 15.1 None.

195 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Table 49: List of recovery actions for Potorous longipes, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Current recovery actions are ad hoc and Project coordinator opportunistic, and the recovery program All Yearly 1 Year 1 Person manages project is of sufficient complexity to warrant a dedicated manager.

Status assessment More information is required to better - distribution and understand the status of the species, to All abundance. Includes assess those subpopulations most at risk 3-Yearly 3 Months 10 People surveys of known from a range of threats, and to ensure subpopulations that genetic stock is maintained. Surveys Status assessment - are required to confirm the presence of All 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People genetics potoroos at a range of locations. Manage species data Good data management is essential to inform adaptive to making it possible to extract the All 3-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person management. Includes 5 maximum amount of information from year program review. monitoring data. The confirmation of potoroo presence Sites of unverified reports of Surveys to confirm is essential to informing all other Yearly 3 Months 3 People potoroo presence potoroo presence management actions. Refine monitoring protocols for the species, It will be critical to improve our ability to including trapping, detect this species in the wild if we are to All satellite collars and Once 6 Months 2 People improve our management of the species camera traps, and to and its habitat. monitor habitat and threats. Location 1 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People Location 2 Implement monitoring 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People protocols for species Location 3 activity, predator and pig 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Location 4 activity, and effectiveness 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People of management Location 5 intervention. 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People New subpopulation Monitoring is essential to ensure 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People adaptive management and achieving the Location 1 species objectives Yearly 3 Weeks 4 People Implement monitoring Location 2 protocols for fire Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People Location 3 management and Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People habitat condition, Location 4 and effectiveness Yearly 2 Weeks 3 People Location 5 of management Yearly 1 Week 3 People intervention. New subpopulation Yearly 1 Week 3 People Location 1 2-Monthly 2 Weeks 10 People Location 2 Conduct strategic feral 2-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People predator control to Predation, particularly by canids and Location 3 manage fox and feral 2-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People possibly feral cats, is suspected to dog predation over the Location 4 be an important factor limiting the 2-Monthly 2 Weeks 5 People entire known range of distribution and abundance of the long- Location 5 the species 2-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People footed potoroo. The red fox, the dingo New subpopulation and feral dog are recognised predators of 2-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 1 the long-footed potoroo. Approximately 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People 26 percent of the 300 records of the long- Location 2 Conduct opportunistic footed potoroo are from remains in canid 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People Location 3 feral cat control until scats and it is assumed that most of these 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People an effective broad-scale are the result of predation rather than Location 4 control technique is scavenging. 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People Location 5 available. 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People New subpopulation 3-Monthly 1 Week 2 People

196 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Location 1 The entire distribution of the long- Yearly 1 Month 10 People footed potoroo is in forest vulnerable Location 2 Yearly 1 Month 10 People to periodic wildfires. Fires of such Location 3 Develop and implement magnitude and intensity clearly have the Yearly 1 Month 10 People fire management plans potential to cause local extinctions in Location 4 Yearly 1 Month 10 People for priority long-footed sub-populations. Fuel reduction burning Location 5 potoroo habitat reduces cover, increases risk of exposure Yearly 1 Month 10 People to predators, may cause direct mortality New subpopulation and probably disrupts food availability Yearly 1 Month 10 People and social structure. Location 1 6-Monthly 3 Weeks 3 People

Location 2 Conduct targeted feral Feral pigs are known to compete with 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Location 3 pig control where other mycophagous species, and it is 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People they compete for food predicted that pigs may have some Location 4 resources with long- impact on the food resources of long- 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People Location 5 footed potoroos. footed potoroos. 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People New subpopulation 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 3 People A network of protected areas of primary habitat has been identified, comprising in excess of 40,000 ha of conservation Implement long-footed reserves and State forest Special potoroo Core Protected East Gippsland and Great Protected Zones. This Core Protected Areas for East Gippsland Once 1 Year 2 People Dividing Range regions Area will replace the current SMA-based and Great Dividing Range approach and will consist of existing regions. conservation reserves, existing and proposed SPZs and proposed new and expanded conservation reserves. Ensure that potoroo Ensure that park and reserve management actions are management plans recognise and incorporated into plans protect areas of habitat identified in Core All Once 1 Year 1 Person for parks or reserves Protected Areas. New roads and facilities where they or their should not be constructed close to Long- habitat occur. footed Potoroo detection sites. The localised habitat disturbance that accompanies intensive timber harvesting Establish additional has the potential to harm resident protected areas where animals at least until dense cover is Long-footed Potoroos re-established. Timber harvesting and All have been detected in Once 1 Year 1 Person road construction increase access for State forest or other predators such as foxes. Accordingly, public land outside the areas of important habitat that are not Core Protected Area. protected and are subject to future timber harvesting should be protected. There may be important habitat on private land that is subject to a range of Identify unreserved long- unsustainable management regimes. All footed potoroo habitat on Once 1 Year 1 Person Landholder engagement is required private land. to better manage these areas for long- footed potoroos. Once critical potoroo habitat has been Run extension programs identified, there may be significant Subject to identification of to engage landholders to overlap with private land, in which Yearly 1 Year 2 People suitable areas better manage or reserve case landholder engagement will be land. Provide incentives. essential to the appropriate management of that land.

197 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Identify sites for translocation or New subpopulations reintroduction based on Once 6 Months 1 Person habitat mapping and/or on-ground assessment Establish and manage New subpopulations secure areas of habitat for In order to achieve an increase in area of Once 6 Months 4 People future translocations occupancy and extent of occurrence, new or previously occupied sites will need Translocation of potoroos to be identified, secured, and used as New subpopulations to secure and managed translocation sites. Once 3 Weeks 5 People areas of habitat. Ongoing management of translocated New subpopulations subpopulations, including Monthly 1 Day 2 People resource supplementation as required. Fuel reduction burning may reduce the risk of extensive high intensity wildfire Conduct research into impacting on large areas of Long-footed optimal fire management Potoroo habitat. The impacts of fire on NA practices to maintain Once 1 Year 2 People the species and the optimum fire mosaic potoroo habitat, including in potoroo habitat remain unclear. food resources The impacts of habitat disturbance on hypogeous fungi also remain unclear. Conduct studies on the It is uncertain how much pig activity extent of food resource interferes with potoroo food resources, NA competition between Once 1 Year 1 Person and this needs to be understood in order long-footed potoroos and to better manage pig populations. feral pigs The small captive population from Avoid establishing new Healesville Sanctuary was diagnosed captive subpopulation, with avian tuberculosis, but this has unless case is not been detected in the wild. The net developed following consequence of the small population, NA Once 1 Hour 1 Person rigorous assessment restricted distribution, limited of conservation and ecological information and the range of animal welfare risks and threatening processes in operation is benefits. that a conservative approach to species management is strongly justified. Liaison with deer hunting associations (and especially hunters who use hounds) Develop and distribute will be increased to improve their community awareness understanding of the importance of the NA Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person materials to appropriate baiting program for the Great Dividing targets Range population and to try to develop mechanisms to minimise the risks of baiting to hunters’ dogs.

198 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $16,310 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $97,858 $97,858 $78,287 $13,048 $13,048 $26,095 $26,095 $22,515 $117,430 $117,430 $130,477 Year 10 $104,382 $104,382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,835 $12,668 $12,668 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $25,335 $25,335 $38,003 $38,003 $95,008 $95,008 Year 9 $101,342 $101,342 $126,677 $114,009 $114,009 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,373 $12,299 $12,299 $92,241 $92,241 $24,597 $24,597 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $36,896 $36,896 $98,390 $98,390 $110,689 $110,689 $122,987 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $11,941 $11,941 $71,644 $14,926 $23,881 $23,881 $95,524 $95,524 $35,822 $35,822 $89,554 $89,554 Year 7 $119,405 $107,465 $107,465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,593 $11,593 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $14,491 $23,185 $23,185 $92,742 $92,742 $34,778 $34,778 $86,946 $86,946 $115,927 $104,335 $104,335 Year 6 * $0 $0 $11,255 $11,255 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $84,413 $84,413 $14,069 $90,041 $90,041 $50,648 $112,551 $101,296 Year 5 $101,296 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $49,173 $10,927 $10,927 $81,955 $81,955 $21,855 $21,855 $87,418 $87,418 $13,659 $32,782 $32,782 $65,564 $98,345 $98,345 $109,273 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,741 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $13,261 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $95,481 $95,481 $10,609 $10,609 $79,568 $79,568 $84,872 $84,872 Year 3 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,875 $77,250 $77,250 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $10,300 $10,300 $92,700 $92,700 $46,350 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 Year 2 $82,400 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $12,500 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $75,000 $75,000 $45,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 $90,000 $90,000 $80,000 Year 1 $100,000 , and, their costs Action Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations Refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats. Project coordinator manages project Surveys to confirm potoroo presence Status assessment - genetics Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator and pig activity, and effectiveness management of intervention. Manage species data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Conduct strategic feral predator control to manage fox and feral dog predation over the entire known range of the species Subpopulation All All All Sites of unverified reports of potoroo presence Location 2 Location All 1 Location Location 3 Location All Location 4 Location New subpopulation Location 5 Location New subpopulation Location 1 Location Location 2 Location Location 3 Location Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location Location 5 Location Location 4 Location 5 Location New subpopulation Location 1 Location List 50: Table recovery of actions Potorous longipes for

199 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $52,191 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,620 $298,513 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,670 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $50,671 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 Year 9 $289,819 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $49,195 $281,377 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $47,762 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,852 Year 7 $273,182 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $46,371 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 Year 6 $265,225 $0 $0 $0 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $45,020 $136,591 Year 5 $257,500 $0 $0 $0 $27,319 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $43,709 $132,613 Year 4 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $42,436 $50,000 $128,750 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 $41,200 Year 2 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Year 1 Action Conduct opportunistic feral cat control until an effective broad-scale control technique is available. Develop and implement fire management plans for priority long-footed potoroo habitat Conduct targeted feral pig control where they compete food for resources with long-footed potoroos. Implement Long-footedImplement Core Potoroo Protected Areas for East Gippsland and Great Dividing Range regions. Ensure that potoroo management actions are incorporated into plans for parks or reserves where they or their habitat occur. Establish additional protected areas where Long- footed Potoroos have been detected in State forest or other public land outside the Core Protected Area. Identify unreserved long-footed potoroo habitat on private land. Run extension programs to engage landholders to better manage or reserve land. Provide incentives. Subpopulation Location 1 Location Location 2 Location Location 3 Location Location 4 Location Location 5 Location New subpopulation Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5 Location New subpopulation Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5 Location New subpopulation East Gippsland and Great Dividing Range regions All All All Subject to identification of areas suitable

200 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,305 $34,778 Year 10 $2,337,106 $19,808,512 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,267 $33,765 Year 9 $2,133,166 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,230 $32,782 Year 8 $2,071,035 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,194 $31,827 Year 7 $2,082,357 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,159 $30,900 Year 6 $1,952,149 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,126 $31,827 $30,000 Year 5 $2,168,121 $0 $0 $0 $1,093 $63,654 $30,900 $50,000 $60,000 Year 4 $2,262,864 $0 $0 $0 $1,061 $61,800 $25,000 $30,000 Year 3 $120,000 $1,946,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,030 Year 2 $25,000 $60,000 $1,506,255 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $1,000 Year 1 $1,348,500 Action Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction based on habitat mapping on-ground and/or assessment Establish and manage secure areas of habitat for future translocations Translocation of potoroos to secure and managed areas of habitat. Ongoing management of translocated subpopulations, including resource supplementation as required. Conduct studies on the extent of food resource competition between long-footed potoroos and feral pigs Conduct research into optimal fire management practices to maintain potoroo habitat, including resources food Avoid establishingAvoid new captive subpopulation, unless case is developed following rigorous assessment of conservation and animal welfare risks and benefits. Develop and distribute community awareness materials to appropriate targets Subpopulation New subpopulations TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL New subpopulations New subpopulations New subpopulations NA NA NA NA #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

201 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Recovery Outline - Setonix brachyurus

1. Family Potoroidae 2. Scientific name: Setonix brachyurus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1830) 3. Common name: Quokka, short-tailed wallaby 4. Conservation status (IUCN): Vulnerable; B1ab(ii,iii)

5. Reasons for listing

Listed as Vulnerable because the extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2, the range is severely fragmented, and there is a continuing decline in extent of occurrence and area of occupancy. The species might also meet Criterion C1 for Vulnerable. There may be < 10,000 mature individuals and the continuing decline may be > 10% over three generations (i.e., 12 years). The continuing decline, however, has to be estimated, not inferred or projected, requiring quantitative evidence, and evidence for a 10% decline over the next 12 years is not currently available (de Tores et al. 2008). Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).

6. Infraspecific Taxa 6.1 None.

7. Range and abundance The quokka is endemic to the south-west of Western Australia, including Rottnest and Bald Islands. It is also found in several sites on the south-west Western Australian mainland, ranging just south of Perth to the Hunter River. There are recently confirmed records of occurrence at the Muddy Lakes from the Swan Coastal Plain, south of Bunbury (Sinclair and Hyder, 2009). In 2007 the range was estimated at 25,190 km². This species is sparsely scattered within abundant suitable habitat (de Tores 2008).

Figure 23: Known distribution of Setonix brachyurus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).

202 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

8. Habitat 11. Recovery objectives The main habitat for mainland populations of 11.1 By 2021, Setonix brachyurus is eligible the Quokka is dense streamside vegetation for listing as Near Threatened according (Hayward et al. 2005a) but the species is also to IUCN Red List criteria. found in a variety of habitats. On Rottnest 11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Setonix Island it lives in thickets (Acacia, Melaleuca and brachyurus in the form of extent of sedges) and scrub habitat. On the mainland, occurrence has increased to greater than many populations are found close to water such 20,000 km2, with subpopulations secure at as creeks and swamps. In the northern Jarrah greater than 10 locations within that range. forest they are associated with the presence of the tea-tree Taxandria linearifolia bordering swamps 11.3 By 2021, quantitative evidence confirms and watercourses and the presence of a complex that a 10% decline in population size over structural mosaic, largely determined by fire the next 12 years is unlikely, thus making history (de Tores 2008). Setonix brachyurus ineligible to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN criterion C1. 9. Threats 11.4 By 2021, management plans have been 9.1 Habitat clearing. developed and are being implemented to 9.2 introduction of foxes and feral cats has led reduce the threats of altered fire regimes to a past decline of mainland populations. and feral predators, and to improve habitat area, extent and quality, for all Setonix 9.3 Feral pigs are causing habitat degradation brachyurus subpopulations. and excluding quokkas from swampy areas. 11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Setonix 9.4 Prescribed burning and clearing are a brachyurus has been maintained at problem in much of the forested habitats. known 2011 levels. 9.5 Recreational activities such as camping 12. Actions completed or underway and walking tracks increase exposure to predators. 12.1 Research into subpopulation size and structure, diet, and habitat use has been 9.6 Road kills. completed for the northern Jarrah forest. 9.7 Predator avoidance strategy: the quokka is 12.2 Rapid surveys of southern forest able to expel its pouch young if pursued by subpopulations has been conducted. foxes, cats or dogs. This survival mechanism can negatively affect population growth 12.3 Feral pig surveys have been conducted in over the long term if this strategy is used many locations. repeatedly. 12.4 Fox control programs are ongoing under 9.8 Proximity to residential and mining areas. the Western Shield program. 9.9 Poor recruitment and limited genetic pool. 12.5 Several wildlife parks and sanctuaries in Western Australia have captive populations 10. Information required of quokkas, some of which are part of 10.1 Further work is needed to define re-introduction programs. subpopulation size and movements 13. Management actions required between habitat areas. 13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations 10.2 Taxonomic study to determine the genetics using standard protocols, including of all populations. distribution, abundance, genetics, trend, 10.3 Verify unconfirmed reports of quokka risk and priority subpopulations. Also presence, and determine conservation identify areas of high conservation value significance of existing and any additionally for the quokka. confirmed geographic outlier populations. 13.2 Establish key monitoring sites. Develop/ refine monitoring protocols, including fire management, habitat condition, predation and predator activity, and species activity. Implement at each site where appropriate.

203 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

13.3 Review of translocations, and factors 13.14 Restrict quokka captive breeding programs influencing success or failure. until further information is available on the genetic structure of mainland and island 13.4 Manage data to inform adaptive populations. management, and compile annual report. Consolidate existing database and other 13.15 Prevent translocation where this results in, records of quokka occurrence. or has the potential to result in, mixing of populations from different sources. Strict 13.5 Maintain existing introduced predator monitoring/auditing of the location and baiting programs, including those on private fate of all quokkas from Rottnest Island is property, and implement new baiting recommended to ensure none are released programs at sites where the risks from into the wild. predation are thought to have increased as a result of wildfire. 13.16 Assess the effects of dieback on quokka subpopulations and distribution. 13.6 Implement an adaptive fire management strategy in the northern jarrah forest 13.17 Commence habitat modelling studies to to maintain the existing preferred habitat address climate change issues and identify mosaic and to establish and maintain the role of translocation in this process. additional areas supporting the preferred habitat. 14. Organisations responsible for conservation of species 13.7 Examine the effect of different fire regimes on the population abundances of quokkas 14.1 Department of Environment and for DEC’s southwest, Warren and South Conservation (DEC) Western Australia. Coast regions and determine the post-fire 15. Other organisations involved seral stage(s) and/or mosaic preferred by quokkas. 15.1 Rottnest Island Authority (RIA).

13.8 Examine the effectiveness of different fox 16. Staff and other resources required for and cat baiting regimes in an adaptive recovery to be carried out management framework. 16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is 13.9 Assess the effect of disturbance from pigs required to coordinate the complex and the conservation outcomes of different recovery program. methods of pig control. 17. Action costs 13.10 Implement pig control programs in an adaptive management framework, with 17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds priority given to high conservation value A$18 million. areas for the quokka, and by the potential for the control actions proposed to eradicate 18. Notes localised pig populations and/or to provide 18.1 None. a quantifiable reduction in damage caused by pigs to quokka populations and/or 19. References quokka habitat. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage 13.11 Examine the effect of timber harvesting and the Arts (2010) Setonix brachyurus. In: and associated operational activities in Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database. close proximity to quokka populations Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and investigate ways to eliminate and/or and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment. mitigate any identified detrimental impacts. gov.au/sprat. Accessed 26 October 2010 . 13.12 Investigate the health of quokkas on the de Tores, PJ (2008) Quokka, Setonix brachyurus. mainland, Rottnest and Bald Island and In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, establish ongoing health monitoring and S & Strahan, R). disease screening programs. de Tores, P, Burbidge, A, Morris, K & Friend, T 13.13 Investigate the diet of mainland quokkas (2008) Setonix brachyurus. In: IUCN (2010) in terms of dietary intake and resource IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version availability. 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/ details/20165/0. Accessed 20 October 2010.

204 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

de Tores, PJ and Williams, RJ (2010) Quokka IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Setonix brachyurus draft Recovery Plan (2010 Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist. -2019). Prepared for the Commonwealth of org. Accessed 20 October 2010. Australia Department of Environment, Water, Sinclair, EA & Hyder, BM (2009) Surviving Heritage and the Arts and the Western Australian Quokka (Setonix brachyurus) population on Department of Environment and Conservation. the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia. Hayward, MW, de Tores, PJ & Banks, PB Australian Mammalogy 31: 67-69. (2005) Habitat use of the Quokka, Setonix bracyhurus (Macropodidae: Marsupialia), in the 20. Comments received Northern Jarrah Forest of Australia. Journal of 20.1 Paul de Tores, DEC WA Mammalogy 86(4): 683-688. Hayward, MW, de Tores, PJ, Dillon, MJ and Fox, BJ (2003). Local population structure of a naturally occurring metapopulation of the Quokka (Setonix brachyurus Macropodidae: Marsupialia). Biological Conservation 110: 343-355.

Table 51: List of recovery actions for Setonix brachyurus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and effort required.

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Current recovery actions are ad hoc and Project Coordinator opportunistic, and the recovery program All Yearly 1 Year 1 Person manages project is of sufficient complexity to warrant a dedicated manager. Status assessment - distribution and abundance. Includes surveys of known All More information is required to better 3-Yearly 3 Months 10 People subpopulations, understand the status of the species, to and identification of assess those subpopulations most at risk subpopulations of high from a range of threats, and to ensure conservation value. that genetic stock is maintained. Status assessment - All genetic population 5-Yearly 2 Months 3 People structure. Database records, miscellaneous records and anecdotal undocumented records of quokka occurrence are currently Consolidate existing dispersed across a range of locations All Once 3 Months 1 Person databases. and are held by a range of custodians. Consolidation of existing records will provide a single point of reference for land use planners and conservation staff. Manage species data Good data management is essential to inform adaptive to making it possible to extract the All 6-Monthly 1 Week 1 Person management. Includes 5 maximum amount of information from year program review. monitoring data.

205 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Verify unconfirmed Surveys are required to confirm All reports of quokka the presence of quokkas at a range Yearly 2 Weeks 1 Person sightings. of locations. Any subpopulations discovered will need to be assessed Determine conservation according to their overall significance, significance of newly both in terms of numbers, genetic All confirmed populations diversity, and local habitat and threats. If Yearly 1 Month 1 Person through surveys and verified as accurate, new populations are genetic assessment. potentially of high conservation value. Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including All trapping, satellite collars Once 2 Months 1 Person and camera traps, health screening, and to monitor habitat and threats.

Location 1 Monitoring is essential to ensure 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 2 adaptive management and achieving 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People the species objectives. A monitoring Location 3 program of key populations in the four 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 4 IBRA regions in which quokkas occur 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Implement monitoring is required to provide clear and robust Location 5 protocols for species evidence of population size and trends 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People activity, predator and pig Location 6 in changes to population size. 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People activity, and effectiveness Location 7 of management 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People intervention. Location 8 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 9 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 10 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Rottnest Island 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Bald Island Disease has not been demonstrated Yearly 1 Week 3 People as an important factor in the decline Rottnest Island Yearly 1 Week 3 People of the quokka, however, it has been implicated as responsible for the deaths of individuals. Potential disease threats include Salmonella infection and Toxoplasmosis. Salmonella infections Health and disease are believed to be common on Rottnest screening. Island. Toxoplasmosis has been observed Rotating mainland location to occur in populations of quokka and 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People there have been observations of quokkas dying in large numbers from inexplicable causes prior to the 1940s. Quokkas may also be susceptible to infection with the canary pox virus, which is the basis for the equine influenza vaccine. Location 1 Yearly 1 Month 5 People Location 2 Yearly 1 Month 5 People Location 3 Yearly 1 Month 5 People Implement monitoring Location 4 protocols for fire Yearly 1 Month 5 People Location 5 management and Monitoring is essential to ensure Yearly 1 Month 5 People habitat condition, adaptive management and achieving Location 6 and effectiveness the species objectives. Yearly 1 Month 5 People Location 7 of management Yearly 1 Month 5 People intervention. Location 8 Yearly 1 Month 5 People Location 9 Yearly 1 Month 5 People Location 10 Yearly 1 Month 5 People

206 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Location 1 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 2 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People The fox appears to the most significant Location 3 factor to have contributed to the decline 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 4 in quokka numbers on the mainland. 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Although Hayward et al. (2003) found Conduct strategic feral Location 5 quokkas had not responded to fox 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People predator control in control in the northern jarrah forest, Location 6 quokka habitat. 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People the presence of fox baiting was found Location 7 to be an important predictor of quokka 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 8 presence within the northern jarrah 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People forest. Location 9 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 10 3-Monthly 2 Weeks 4 People Location 1 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Location 2 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Pigs have the potential to indirectly Location 3 affect quokkas through destruction 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Location 4 of habitat. This not only removes food 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People resources from the habitat, but also Conduct strategic feral Location 5 creates pathways which facilitate access 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People pig control in quokka for other feral animals, such as foxes. Location 6 habitat. 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People There are anecdotal reports of quokkas Location 7 being absent where pigs are present. The 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Location 8 effect of pigs on quokka abundance and 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People distribution has not been quantified. Location 9 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Location 10 6-Monthly 2 Weeks 2 People Location 1 Yearly 1 Month 5 People Location 2 Yearly 1 Month 5 People Within the northern jarrah forest, long- Location 3 unburnt areas have been identified as Yearly 1 Month 5 People important for the persistence of quokkas, Location 4 Yearly 1 Month 5 People Conduct active adaptive as is the presence of recently burnt areas Location 5 fire management (i.e. burnt within the previous 10 years). Yearly 1 Month 5 People However, the upper limit to the long Location 6 to maintain habitat Yearly 1 Month 5 People condition. unburnt component of the habitat mosaic Location 7 is unknown, as is the configuration of Yearly 1 Month 5 People the mosaic, i.e. the area required for Location 8 Yearly 1 Month 5 People each component of the mosaic. The Location 9 relationship(s) between fire and quokkas' Yearly 1 Month 5 People preferred habitat elsewhere is known Location 10 Yearly 1 Month 5 People anecdotally only. Wildfire suppression South-West DEC region Investigate effects of activities also have the potential to lead Once 1 Year 2 People fire on quokka habitat, Warren DEC region to the loss of quokka habitat. Once 1 Year 2 People and optimum regimes to South Coast DEC region maintain that habitat. Once 1 Year 2 People Study Location P Of the 711 known and mapped location Once 1 Year 1 Person records, 405 (approximately 57%) are Study Location Q Once 3 Months 1 Person within state forest or timber reserves within the RFA boundary, and 226 records (approximately 32%) are within Investigate effect of conservation estate. Of the remaining timber harvesting on 80 records, 49 are location records quokka habitat. from roads, usually road kill records) Study Location R Once 3 Months 1 Person within or bounding state forest. Therefore a total of 61% of known and mapped mainland location records fro the quokka are potentially subject to disturbance from harvesting operations.

207 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021

Subpopulation Action Rationale Frequency Duration Effort

Study Location S Dietary studies are recommended to Once 1 Year 1 Person provide information on the preferred Study Location T Once 3 Months 1 Person Conduct research into habitat of the quokka. Dietary analyses, quokka dietary analysis when combined with vegetation in concert with vegetation mapping, study of micro-habitat use, mapping and/or habitat habitat manipulation and introduced Study Location U modelling to inform predator control, can determine whether Once 3 Months 1 Person management actions. these management actions result in provision of an otherwise unavailable and preferred food resource. Sanctuary Location Y Translocation of mainland quokkas to Weekly 1 Day 2 People other mainland locations supporting naturally occurring populations may be Maintain captive quokkas warranted to augment these populations. Sanctuary Location Z for future translocations. However, this is not recommended until Weekly 1 Day 2 People such time as genetic or other evidence can demonstrate clear conservation benefits from such translocations. Translocation modelling, and evaluation of All Translocations of wild and captive Once 2 Months 1 Person translocation successes subpopulations will be crucial to the and failures. ongoing management of the species. Translocation Site A Translocate quokkas to Ensuring that any future translocations Once 1 Month 5 People secure sites to optimise are undertaken under optimum Translocation Site B Once 1 Month 5 People genetic management, conditions is essential for the success of based on genetic survey the operations. Translocation Site C Once 1 Month 5 People information. Study Location V Any fauna species which is dependent Once 1 Year 1 Person upon a complex forest structure and Study Location W Once 3 Months 1 Person inhabits the forests of south-west Western Australia is potentially Conduct research into threatened by dieback. Understorey the effects of dieback species such as Banksia spp. and on quokka habitat, and Persoonia spp., which are highly the potential for future susceptible to Phytophthora. cinnamomi, Study Location X dieback spread to impact form an important part of the structure Once 3 Months 1 Person quokka habitat. of jarrah forests. The loss of such forest structure as a consequence of dieback has the potential to increase the risk of predation and result in the loss of food resources for mammals such as quokka. The potential effects on the distribution Undertake genetic and of the quokka as a result of climate demographic modelling change run to the extreme of a complete to complement habitat All loss of range by the year 2070, with Once 1 Year 2 People modelling, and to changes in precipitation shown to be the inform climate change most important variable influencing the adaptation modelled historical distribution.

208 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 * $0 $0 $0 $11,255 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $65,239 $65,239 $26,095 $78,286 $78,286 $22,515 $117,430 $130,477 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,927 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $25,335 $63,339 $63,339 $76,006 $76,006 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $126,677 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $73,792 $73,792 $61,494 $61,494 $24,597 $10,609 $36,896 $36,896 $122,987 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,643 $71,643 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $59,703 $59,703 $23,881 $10,300 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $119,405 $107,464 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,185 $57,964 $57,964 $34,778 $34,778 $69,556 $69,556 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $10,000 $115,927 Year 6 * $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,531 $67,531 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $56,275 $56,275 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $50,648 $112,551 Year 5 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $49,173 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $65,564 $65,564 $54,636 $54,636 $98,345 $109,273 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,741 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $63,654 $63,654 $53,045 $53,045 Year 3 $106,090 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $51,500 $51,500 $61,800 $61,800 $46,350 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 Year 2 $103,000 $0 $0 $0 # $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $45,000 $50,000 $50,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 $60,000 $90,000 Year 1 $100,000 , and, their costs Action Determine conservation significance of newly confirmed populations through surveys and genetic assessment. Status assessment distribution - and abundance. Includes surveys known of subpopulations, and identification of subpopulations of high conservation value. Project Coordinator manages project Verify unconfirmed reports of quokka sightings. Manage species data to inform adaptive management. Includes 5 year program review. Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the species, including trapping, satellite collars and camera traps, health screening, and to monitor habitat and threats. Status assessment - genetic population structure. Consolidate existing databases. Implement monitoring protocols species for activity, predator and pig activity, and effectiveness management of intervention. Subpopulation Location 5 Location 6 Location 7 Location Location 8 Location All 4 Location 9 Location All All All All All 10 Location All All 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location Rottnest Island Table 52: ListTable recovery of actions Setonix for brachyurus

209 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $19,572 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $39,143 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 $26,095 Year 10 $0 $0 $31,669 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $19,002 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $25,335 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 $38,003 Year 9 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $24,597 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $18,448 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 $36,896 Year 8 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $17,911 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $23,881 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 $35,822 Year 7 $0 $0 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $17,389 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $23,185 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $34,778 $28,982 Year 6 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $33,765 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $22,510 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $16,883 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 Year 5 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $16,391 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $21,855 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 $32,782 Year 4 $0 $0 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $15,914 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $21,218 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $31,827 $26,523 Year 3 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $15,450 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $30,900 $20,600 $20,600 Year 2 $20,600 $20,600 $20,600 # $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Year 1

Action Health and disease and screening. Health Implement monitoring protocols for fire management and habitat condition, and effectiveness management of intervention. Conduct strategic feral predator control in quokka habitat. quokka Subpopulation Bald Island Rottnest Island Rotating mainland location Location 1 Location Location 2 Location Location 3 Location Location 4 Location Location 5 Location Location 6 Location Location 7 Location Location 8 Location Location 9 Location Location 10 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5 Location 6 Location 7 Location 8 Location 9 Location 10 Location Location 1 Location

210 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $6,524 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $32,619 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 $13,048 Year 10 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $6,334 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $31,669 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 $12,668 Year 9 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $6,149 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $30,747 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 $12,299 Year 8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $5,970 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $11,941 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 $29,851 Year 7 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $5,796 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $11,593 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 $28,982 Year 6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $5,628 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $11,255 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $28,138 $51,500 $28,138 $28,138 $10,300 $10,300 Year 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $5,464 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $27,318 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,927 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 Year 4 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $5,305 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $10,609 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $26,523 $10,000 $10,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Year 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $5,150 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $25,750 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 $10,300 Year 2 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Year 1 Action Conduct active adaptive fire management to condition. habitat maintain Conduct strategic feral pig control in quokka habitat. Investigate effects of fire on quokka habitat, and optimum regimes to maintain that habitat. Investigate effect of timber harvesting on quokka habitat. Conduct research into quokka dietary analysis in concert with vegetation mapping habitat and/or modelling to inform management actions. Subpopulation Location 1 Location Location 10 Location 2 Location Location 1 Location Location 9 Location 3 Location Location 2 Location 8 Location 4 Location Location 3 Location 7 Location 5 Location Location 4 Location 6 Location 6 Location Location 5 Location 7 Location Location 8 Location Location 9 Location Location 10 Location Warren DEC region South-West DEC region South Coast DEC region Study Location P Study Location Q Study Location R Study Location S Study Location U Study Location T

211 Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $52,191 $52,191 $30,000 Year 10 $2,112,264 $18,130,585 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,671 $50,671 Year 9 $1,784,405 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,195 $49,195 $65,000 Year 8 $1,858,925 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $47,762 $47,762 Year 7 $60,000 $1,909,139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $46,371 $46,371 $50,000 Year 6 $1,682,984 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,827 $10,609 $10,609 $45,020 $45,020 Year 5 $1,861,545 $0 $0 $0 $0 $43,709 $43,709 $10,300 $10,300 $30,900 $20,000 Year 4 $1,873,472 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $42,436 $42,436 $45,000 $50,000 $30,000 Year 3 $1,818,001 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $41,200 $41,200 Year 2 $1,594,850 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 # $40,000 $40,000 Year 1 $1,635,000 Action Maintain captive quokkas for future translocations. Translocation modelling, and evaluation of translocation successes and failures. Translocate quokkas to secure sites to optimise genetic management, based on genetic survey information. Conduct research into the effects of dieback on quokka habitat, and the potential for future dieback spread impact to quokka habitat. Undertake genetic and demographic modelling to complement habitat modelling, and to inform adaptation change climate Subpopulation Sanctuary Location Y TOTALS YEARLY GRAND TOTAL Sanctuary Location Z All Translocation Site A Translocation Site B Translocation Site C Study Location V Study Location W Study Location X All #Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI *Includes 5-year program review

212 Proser Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021 p ine roc ine k walla b y ( P etr o gale perseph o ne) . © R od W od illia m s/ AUSCA P E

213 A Actionu Planstralia’s for Threatened Macropods T h2011-2021reatened Macropods

Species Recovery The general failure of species recovery processes to achieve down-listing in threat status of macropods over the last 15 years highlights the importance of immediate and comprehensive action to secure all macropod species and their habitats. $290 Million over 10 Years This is the estimated cost of down- listing Australia’s 21 threatened and near-threatened species of macropods on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species by 2021.

Invasive Species Record of Control Extinction The prevalent requirement for fox and cat control Seven of 57 species of in this action plan indicates that predation by Australian macropod have introduced animals requires renewed investment become extinct since European and research if we are to successfully address this settlement. Of the 50 species problem, not only for threatened macropods, but remaining, 42% are listed as for a very broad range of native animals that face threatened or near threatened the same threats. with extinction.

WWF-Australia National Office Why we are here Level 13, 235 Jones Street, Tel: 61 2 9281 5515 To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and Ultimo NSW 2007 Freecall: 1800 032 551 to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature. GPO Box 528 Fax: 61 2 9281 1060 wwf.org.au Sydney NSW 2001 Email: [email protected]

©1986 Panda symbol WWF ® WWF is a registered trademark © NASA