DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 Department of Parks and Wildlife Ethics Committee

PROJECT RENEWAL APPLICATION FORM COVER SHEET To fill out this form you must refer to the DPaW Standard Operating Procedures. Answer all sections, indicating when there is no information available. Incomplete forms will result in delays in assessment or rejection of the nomination. 1. Project Title: Monitoring the response of vertebrate fauna to management at AWC Sanctuaries in WA 2. Chief Investigator (CI): CI’s name: Dr James Smith Agency/Company: Australian Wildlife Conservancy Current Position: Senior Ecologist

3. Previous AEC approval number: DPaW AEC: 2013 /37

3. Does this project involve personnel/students from more than one AEC and/or institution?

If yes, an Inter-institutional Agreement will be required. Please arrange this with the AEC No Yes Executive Officer once the project has been approved. Type of study: SELECT TYPE OF STUDY If yes: Name of institution: Name of supervisor/s: 4. Has this proposal, or aspects of this proposal, been submitted to any other AEC? Or, for internal DPaW applications, are investigators from other institutions involved? If yes, please provide details below and attach a copy of the approved application: Name of institution: No Yes Status of the application: Approved Not approved Under consideration Approval number: 5. Names of personnel involved in the project: Chief Investigator: Regulation 17 Licence Previous AEC experience Name Emergency contact Licence No. expiry date (AEC approval number/s) Dr James Smith SC/SF: 10584 1/10/2016 A00015 Yes A06022 Other personnel: Amount of experience with designated fauna Name Role in this project Emergency contact and techniques (length of time in field) Dr Alex James Animal Handler Yes >10 years Dr Michael Smith Animal Handler Yes >10 years Dr Melissa Bruton Animal Handler >10 years Yes Dr Laura Ruykys >10 years

AEC/Renewal Application Form 1 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 Andrew Morton Animal Handler 6 years Hannah Cliff 2 year Rosie Hohnen 3 years Naomi Walters 5 years Yes Noel Riessen 4 years Chantelle Jackson >10 years Nicola Palmer 8 years Bryony Palmer 10 years

6. Source of funds and length of funding: Australian Wildlife Conservancy (a mix of government grants and philanthropic funds). Personnel involved in the project are a mix of permanent full-time staff members, seasonal staff members, and internal researchers. 7. Location of during experiment and/or fieldwork for each site: At AWC Sanctuaries in WA: Mornington Wildlife Sanctuary: -17.511926, 126.109443 Marion Downs Wildlife Sanctuary: -17.056382, 126.738785 Tableland Wildlife Sanctuary: -17.278186, 126.900813 Artesian Range Wildlife Sanctuary: -16.406048, 125.134703 Mt Gibson Wildlife Sanctuary: -29.668599, 117.452715 Karakamia Wildlife Sanctuary: -31.820792, 116.245736 Paruna Wildlife Sanctuary: -31.687879, 116.134376 Faure island Wildlife Sanctuary: -25.843005, 113.886137 8. Source of animals: The source of animals are from the locations provided in Section 7 ie. they are wild vertebrate fauna.

AEC/Renewal Application Form 2 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT 9. Purpose of the proposed project: (this information will be required for the annual report – please select only one option). Options: Education Research: animal biology Research: health and welfare of animals Research: animal management or production (captive) Research: environmental studies Product testing (pre-registration efficacy/toxicity testing)

10. Background/relevance of work: NB: this section must be completed Please indicate in this section what the outcomes have been and what has been achieved during the projects previous approval period in relation to the stated key aims / objectives and what new avenues of exploration are being undertaken since the last project approval. AWC’s Mission is the effective conservation of Australian wildlife and their habitats. To achieve this, AWC establishes sanctuaries to protect wildlife, and then implements practical on-ground conservation programs on those sanctuaries. Management programs include regional fire management, the control of invasive species, and reintroductions of threatened fauna. These management programs are tightly linked to inventory and monitoring programs which are designed to provide feedback on the effectiveness of our management. AWC also carries out strategic research projects that address the key threats to our native wildlife. A full species list of animals used in the previous 3 years is attached (Appendix 1). The outcomes achieved during the previous three years of monitoring data across our sanctuaries (to assess the outcomes of our management) are ongoing. Highlights include: - Annual analyses of the long-term effects of destocking and fire management in the central Kimberley - Inventory surveys of Artesian Range Sanctuary and the establishment of permanent monitoring sites. These monitoring sites provide a large, robust dataset on threatened NW endemics, which informs fire and herbivore management - Establishment of a network of monitoring sites at Mt Gibson, to compare pre- and post-predator fenceline construction and feral animal removal. - Extensive predator monitoring surveys using camera traps across the NW sanctuaries to assess dingo population dynamics and examine dingo-cat interactions - Multiple publications. A list of publications arising from the project is included in the reference section (Section 36). While the key aims and objectives of the project have not changed, over the last three years of the project we have included minor changes - to the focal species being studied, and to some of the monitoring methods. Specifically, these additions are: - The use of Black Trakka ink cards to our survey methods, to better identify camera-surveyed species - The use of a small, portable medical cautery unit to permanently mark thick-skinned for extended monitoring - The addition of Banded Hare Wallabies (Lagostrophus fasciatus) as a species to be monitored. Banded Hare Wallabies were previously monitored under the project '2012/54 Introduction of Banded Hare Wallaby to Faure Island'. This reintroduced population has successfully established. We have now integrated monitoring of this species into the general fauna monitoring program on Faure Island, which is undertaken under AEC 2013-37 - The shift of focus away from intensive monitoring of feral cat and dingo movements, and bird body condition. As such we have removed radio-collaring, camera collaring, and bird banding from the list of activities for this project

AEC/Renewal Application Form 3 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 Two additions to the project renewal are proposed: - Euthanasia of cane toads with stunning and decapitation - Radiotracking of rarely-seen (and difficult to survey) reptiles 11. Key aims/objectives: Please list and indicate if / how these have changed from the original project proposal  The key aims have not changed from the original proposal. They are:  Measure the impacts of land management on fauna populations to inform effective conservation management  Measure population trends of focal species  Improve knowledge of the species inhabitating each AWC sanctuary  Improve understanding of species-habitat preferences and demography 12. Does the project use DPaW’s Standard Operating Procedures: Yes No Select standard operating procedures used: List non-standard operating procedures used: Observation/survey Capture and collection Handling restraint, marking Radio-tracking Taking blood Biopsy Euthanasia Other: REDUCTION Minimise the number of animals used 13. Species and estimated number of individuals to be used: Please provide a taxonomic checklist of species likely to be encountered (including non-targets) and the estimated numbers for each species based on the previous 3 years of project work. (Extend table rows if required – unprotect document) Scientific name (include subspecies) Common name Number anticipated Numbers must be entered in this section

We do not set out to trap a specified number of animals. Instead we monitor populations of animals using survey designs that are replicated sufficiently within and across ecosystems and management treatments to indicate changes in presence, abundance and/or condition over time.

A list of all animals used in the previous 3 years is attached (Appendix 1)

Below, we list the expected number of animals to be used at each sanctuary, against each monitoring program: 1. REGULAR MONITORING OF -Annual surveys are undertaken at 300 Based on the results of SMALL-TO-MEDIUM SIZED permanent, standardised monitoring previous years, we MAMMALS AND REPTILES USING sites across the NW and SW expect to catch TRAPPING SURVEYS sanctuaries, which equates to about around 15 000 12,000 trap nights per sanctuary for individual mammals

AEC/Renewal Application Form 4 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 mammals, reptiles and frogs (pitfalls, (from ~45 species), cages, funnels and Elliotts) 3200 individual -Targeted surveys for focal species reptiles (in ~120 (mostly medium-sized mammals in re- species) and 2000 introduction areas) individual frogs (in ~26 species). 2. REGULAR MONITORING OF • Camera trap and sandplot Up to 40 dingoes, 20 NATIVE AND INTRODUCED surveys cats (softjaw traps), PREDATORS - 40,000 trap-nights/yr across and an unknown all sanctuaries number dingoes, cats • Trapping surveys and varanids on - Trapping at sites using soft-jaw leg- camera traps and hold traps with lures and bait, c. 1000 sandplots trap nights to capture up to 40 dingoes and 20 cats each year, for the purposes of eartagging 3. SPOTLIGHT MONITORING - CAR • Freshwater crocodiles: 30 na (not possible to AND LAND-BASED nights / year predict) • Cats and dingoes: 30 nights per year • Mammals: 60 nights per year • Reptiles: 90 nights per year 4. REGULAR MONITORING OF • Annual bird surveys We count about FOCAL BIRD SPECIES USING • Annual census of riparian birds 25,000 birds using OBSERVATION AND CALL along c. 100 km of waterways passive observation, PLAYBACK SURVEYS • Monitoring of focal birds occasionally augmented with call playback

5. REGULAR MONITORING OF Occasional capture of focal bird species - Gouldian finches, FOCAL BIRD SPECIES CONDITION to assess body condition. In each case, long-tailed finches, we collect data on weight, muscle and double-barred finches: fat scores, feather condition, and a up to 120 individuals small blood sample (c. 50 microlitres) of each species to estimate haematocrit and -Black grasswrens: up haemoglobin levels, stress hormone to 100 individuals concentrations, and levels of natural across multiple sites. immunity. - Incidental captures of other finch and dove species in mixed flocks: up to 60 individuals. 6.MONITORING OF RANGING Using a mix of line-and-spooling and Up to 20 individuals BEHAVIOUR AND SURVIVAL OF radio-tracking, we collect data on of each focal species FOCAL SPECIES movements and survival of focal e.g. northern brown species, which we relate to land bandicoot, black- management actions flanked rock wallaby, echidna, sp. etc. 7.INVENTORY OF BAT SPECIES Harp traps, mist nets and Anabat ~300 individual bats (acoustic) recording from multiple species ( is a work in progress)

AEC/Renewal Application Form 5 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 14. Explain why the specified number of individual animals is required: (e.g. skill acquisition, statistical rigour, voucher specimens, educational) The surveys are designed to provide data on population trends that are statistically rigourous. We use standardised survey techniques that are widely applied across Australia. Trap placement and trapping methodology has been designed to target major habitat stratifications across the sanctuaries. Methodology will be consistent however the number of individuals of each species captured will fluctuate. 15. As this project is a repeat/continuation of an earlier project or similar project (as per question 4 on cover sheet), explain why it is necessary to repeat/continue this project: This monitoring is a continuation of work undertaken in previous years under DEC AEC 41/2007; DEC AEC 42/2007; DEC AEC 43/2007; DEC AEC 2008/33; DEC AEC 2010/35; and DEC AEC 2013/37. Monitoring builds upon similar work undertaken in previous years and provides the necessary data to manage fauna populations. Some of the environmental variables of interest fluctuate over a period of many years, thus requiring repeated surveys over this time frame. Ongoing monitoring is required to assess the status of threatened species, to guide decision-making in regard to on-ground management of fauna and their habitat, and provide assistance to other organisations such as DPaW and universities conducting research and management on species resident at AWC sanctuaries. REPLACEMENT Why are animals needed for this project? 16. Explore the possible alternatives to animal use: The project involves monitoring the presence, abundance and condition of live, wild animals. In many cases, this can only be achieved using trapping techniques. However, wherever possible, without compromising data integrity, groups of animals are surveyed using observational methods instead i.e. camera traps, spotlighting, daytime observations, and audio recordings. 17. Are any of the possible alternatives already being used in this project? Other survey techniques such as observational surveys, camera trapping, and audio recordings are incorporated into monitoring programs where appropriate. 18. Why are other alternatives unsuitable for this project? We use the most the appropriate survey techniques for each taxa, to maximise data integrity and quality whilst minimising interference with animals. The methods we use are standard, well recognised techniques. REFINEMENT Describe the process which will lead to refinement of the proposed procedures 19. Detailed description of procedures to be used, including the methods for collecting, marking and radio-tracking, trapping/survey regime, number of traps used and frequency: Refer to DPaW’s Standard Operating Procedures. Attach any supporting documentation (e.g. reference to previous use of procedures, maps of survey sites, etc.). Method of capture/observation: No. No. Refinements Method & frequency of No. of days (e.g. Method of capture/ No. of times routine monitoring (e.g. traps per Trap placement, new trap observation sites per time/frequency of per site trap design, traps shut during year clearance, ejected PY) session day) Thomas Trap 100 10 4 4 Traps are placed to Traps will be opened at reduce exposure. dusk and closed at dawn Animals are removed (SOP 9.5) from traps by experienced staff members only. Food is

AEC/Renewal Application Form 6 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 provided. Pouch young are taped into the pouch if they have been ejected or are likely to be ejected when the mother is released#. Taping of pouch young where required (e.g. Woylies at Karakamia, Boodies at Faure), bagging and release methods will follow DPaW Animal Ethics SOP 14.1. Large Cage Trap 300 2 or 4 3 1 Traps are placed in the Animals are housed shade, covered with inside for a maximum of thick hessian to cut out 12 hours. Traps are light and food is opened at dusk, checked provided within three hours of dawn then shut for the day. (SOP 9.2) Dry Pit Trap 300 4 or 8 3 1 A polystyrene insert to Animals are housed avoid drowning during inside for a maximum of rainfall events, leaf litter 12 hours. Traps are left to provide insulation, open all day and night, Water is added to soil in and checked at least pits at sites likely to twice (morning and catch frogs. Ant poison evening). In hot placed around pits to weather, pits are shut avoid predation by ants. during the day. (SOP 9.3) Funnel Trap 300 4 or 8 3 1 Funnel traps augment Funnel traps will be set pitfall traps at standard at monitoring sites and monitoring sites, and can checked at least twice be used as an alternative daily (SOP 9.17) in rocky habitats. They are set alongside drift fences that channel the animals’ movements into the funnel. A soaked sponge will be kept in the trap to prevent animals from drying out. A sheet of reflective insulation material is placed over each trap to protect from excess heat. Elliott Trap 300 20 3 up to Leaf litter and food is Animals are housed 2 provided inside. inside for a maximum of 12 hours. The traps are opened at dusk, checked within 3 hours of dawn, and then shut for the day. (SOP 9.1) Harp trap 15 2 3 1 Harp traps will only be No food is provided, as used by individuals traps are cleared trained in proper frequently – at least handling and vaccinated every 2 hours. against bat Lyssavirus Mist net (Bats) 5 2 3 1 Using 1.25” nylon mist Bats are cleared out of nets, 9m long and 3 m the nets immediately, so

AEC/Renewal Application Form 7 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 high, with five ‘shelves’ no food is provided. (small pockets) for Nets will be constantly holding bats safely. If attended and bats there is excessive removed immediately difficulty in untangling upon impact. the animal, the net will be cut away to prevent undue stress following SOP 9.10. Mist nets will only be used by individuals trained in proper handling and vaccinated against bat Lyssavirus. Mist net (Birds) 100 3 1 1 If there is excessive Nets are constantly difficulty in untangling attended and birds the animal, the net will removed upon impact. be cut away to prevent SOP 9.10 undue stress. Birds will be removed from nets by experienced handlers only Acoustic recording 100 1 14 2 Anabats, songmeters, and other acoustic recording devices used to remotely monitor presence/absence of target vocal species Call playback 1 1 1 50 Territorial calls of species The total disturbance playba of interest are played to time at a site will not ck set elicit a response from exceed 30 minutes. up individuals of the same species. Calls are generally played from MP3 devices using loudspeakers. Camera trap ~40 Variabl 14 Variabl All baits are re-assessed Standard methods. 000 e e prior to deployment, to Motion sensitive trap ensure they are suitable automated cameras may nights for the target species and be installed at sites to per conditions. record animal presence year with minimal disturbance and to aid species identification for track transects. The characteristics of camera trap monitoring are similar to the characteristics of SOP 5.2. Each site is trapped for approximately 14 days, usually once per year, but sometimes up to 3x per year for target species Ink cards In Help to distinguish Cards are placed on the conjun species that are hard to ground in the camera ction identify in camera trap trap field of view, to with images detect species foot some structure

AEC/Renewal Application Form 8 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 camera traps Observation 500 na 4 4 Disturbance-free Wildlife observations observations using binoculars. Spotlighting 350 na 4 hrs 1 Animals (except reptiles) Spotlight transects via are not approached, vehicle or on foot are noise is kept to a conducted using minimum and a low adjustable luminosity wattage spotlight set on bright spotlights, for up “dim” is used once the to 4 hours per transect. animal is detected. Animals will not be held in the beam for longer than 2 minutes. Hand or net capture opport Only if the opportunity SOP 9.6, SOP 10.1, SOP unistic for harmless capture 10.2 arises Noosing opport Large reptiles are caught Animals are only held unistic using a nylon slip loop long enough to be that is placed around the grasped and placed into neck of the animal and cloth bags. SOP 9.6 pulled tight. Track surveys 50 1 4 1 Roads, creeks, and other SOP 7.2 bare dirt / sand areas are dragged clean in the afternoon, and checked the following morning for tracks. Scat searches opport SOP 7.2 unistic Hair tubes The animal is not contained in the pvc tube – it may come and go at will. Leghold trap 10 10 5 1 Cats will be trapped Traps will be set at dusk using Victor soft-catch and monitored at four traps (#1.5) with visual hourly intervals between and olfactory lures. dusk and dawn. Dingoes will be captured using Victor soft-catch traps (#3) adhering to the basic principles described in the Department of Agriculture and Food: Wild Dog Management Best Practice Manual (2006). There are some clear deviations from the procedures proposed in the Department of Agriculture and Food: Wild Dog Management Best Practice Manual (2006) given the aim of this project is to release dingoes with minimal harm. Spool and line Small spools (weight Spools are checked and

AEC/Renewal Application Form 9 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 <5% of body mass) are removed within 24 attached to small hours of release to mammals or reptiles ensure neither the using a non-toxic captured animal or other cryoanalate glue. The animals become end of the spool is entangled in the line. anchored at the point of release. Procedures will follow SOP 12.9, and the placement and attachment of the spools will ensure minimal impact to the animal. This technique is used to determine habitat preferences for animals too small to radio-track. Please provide detailed information about the clearance times and procedures adopted to ensure the health and welfare of animals: (e.g. all traps to be cleared within 3 hours of sunrise, leaf litter and insulative material to be placed in the bottom of dry pits to protect animals from the elements and predation) Animals do not spend longer than 12 hours in the traps. All traps set overnight are cleared within three hours of sunrise. Elliott and cage traps are closed during the day. Pitfall and funnel traps are checked again before dusk. Harp and leghold traps are checked and cleared prior to dawn. Mist nets are constantly attended. Food is placed in all Elliott, cage and Thomas traps. Water (either free or in a sponge) is placed in all pit and funnel traps. Insulative material is placed in or on all traps (see above). Disease mitigation follows SOP 16.2 Method of marking: (including ear tags, PIT tags, leg bands, satellite trackers, temporary markers) Requirements Method & frequency of routine monitoring Method of marking (e.g. anesthetisation, trained personnel to implement (e.g. handling time) procedure, equipment) Ear Notching Trained personnel, Mammals are marked by taking a small <2mm equipment biopsy punch from the edge of the ear. This technique is only used when a DNA sample needs to be taken. The ear notch can be used to identify recaptures. SOP 12.2 Passive Implant Transponder Trained personnel, - This technique will be used for species that are equipment difficult to mark by other means (eg. goannas) or to provide population estimates over more than one trapping session using mark-recapture techniques. - PIT tags are injected subcutaneously (or intramuscularly for birds). - Fitting takes less than 5 minutes. SOP 12.1 - Targets include varanids, snakes, medium- sized mammals (e.g. bandicoot & quoll), cat & dingo, large skinks (e.g. Tiliqua & Egernia), echidna, and large agamids (e.g. frill-neck lizard). Radio-tracking, with externally- Up to 10 of each of the species to be attached transmitters monitored using these methods include: yellow-spotted monitor Varanus panoptes, Merten’s water monitor Varanus mertensi, Mitchell’s water monitor Varanus mitchelli, Varanus gouldii, ridge-tailed monitor Varanus acanthurus, black-palmed monitor Varanus glebopalma, Varanus glauerti, spotted tree monitor

AEC/Renewal Application Form 10 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 Varanus scalaris, freckled monitor Varanus tristis, frill-necked lizard Chlamydosaurus kingii, and the blue-tongue skinks Tiliqua scincoides and Tiliqua multifasciata. Line & spool Fine cotton on an easy- Used to track the fine-scale movements of rotate, lightweight spool target species, and to identify nests and shelter sites, to feed back into management actions. Targets include rarely-seen species such as echidna, pebble-mound mouse, large agamids (e.g. chameleon dragon Chelisonia brunnea, frill-necked lizard & Tympanocryptis spp.), large skinks (e.g. egernias & blue-tongues), bandicoots, snakes (e.g. whipsnakes & brownsnakes), and some species of varanids. Attachment method depends on species e.g. glue for mammals, tape for reptiles). The fixing position varies depending on the species. The location and strength of the attachment will ensure minimal risk of tangling and irritation to pouches and sensitive areas. Fur clips Scissors Mammals are temporarily marked by clipping a small amount of fur from the rump. Temporary marking allows identification of individuals that have been captured in the current monitoring session, thus minimising handling time and improving estimates of abundance. SOP 12.9 Scale clips Trained personnel. Sharp, fine In species with numerous, large scales, scissors particularly ventral scales (i.e. snakes), marks will be made by clipping a single (or multiple) scale to allow identification Scute notches Trained personnel; Scute notching is a non-destructive technique equipment (Dremmel drill) where a single (or multiple) scute is notched with a file or grinder (i.e. Dremmel drill) allowing thousands of permanent/semi- permanent combinations. Cautery marking Trained personnel. Medical Cautery marking for thick-skinned reptiles allow cautery kit year-to-year identification of individuals. It is considered relatively painless and causes no long-term effects. Target species include larger species such as varanids, egernias, blue-tongue skinks, elapids, pythons, and large agamids. Marker pens Non-toxic permanent pen Lizards are temporarily marked using a non- toxic paint or dye. Temporary marking allows identification of individuals that have been captured in the current monitoring session, thus minimising handling time and improving estimates of abundance. SOP 12.9 Please provide any other details regarding marking if required: (e.g. type of leg band and ABBBS licence no.) Radio-tracking of reptiles with external transmitters Individuals will be monitored at regular intervals to assess health and location in relation to management interventions. Transmitters will be replaced as they approach the end of their battery life, to ensure continuity of monitoring. The attachment of the transmitters will vary size as follows: Large monitors - e.g. Varanus panoptes, Varanus gouldii, and large Varanus mertensi - will be fitted with a transmitter attached to the side of the tail as per the approved method of Ward-Fear et al. (2016). The tail will be pierced in two places below the main ridge, and the device secured using appropriately-sized cable ties. All other species mentioned above (including small Varanus mertensi) will be fitted with a transmitter glued to the side of the base of the tail as per Thompson et al. (1999) and Guarino (2002). The device will be encapsulated in a denim jacket as per Guarino (2002) and Flesch et al. (2009), to reduce friction and the risk of snagging.

AEC/Renewal Application Form 11 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 All transmitter devices will be <5% of the individual reptile body weight (Bryant et al. 2010), and all attachments will be covered in flexible tape to reduce snagging (Ward-Fear et al. 2016). Reptiles will be caught using standard noosing and/or hand-capture techniques. All reptiles will be transported and housed in suitable conditions: transport will occur in a soft calico or cotton bag (no threads), which is placed within a sturdy box or bucket and kept at a moderate temperature. If extended holding is required (>12 hrs), the reptile will be transferred to a suitably-sized secure crate or nally bin, with access to water and a hide. These methods will supplement our fauna trapping programs in the central and southern Kimberley, and provide key information about the response of large and rare reptile species to our management actions. Other transmitter attachment methods, such as coelomic implantation, are generally required to be undertaken by a veterinarian. The species targeted in this amendment are rarely encountered (hence the need to monitor this way), making it logistically and financially challenging to engage a veterinarian in the remote locations of the AWC sanctuaries, without extensive animal holding periods. The proposed attachment methods maximise the amount of time that any single individual can be monitored, and minimise handling time, when implantation is not a logistically feasible option. Venomous snakes will only be handled and marked by qualified and experienced staff.

Other methods: (e.g. blood sampling, DNA sampling, surgery) Method Requirements Method & frequency of routine monitoring DNA Sampling Trained personnel, Individuals are sampled onces; we only sample equipment, lab from a limited subset of animals: Birds: we use a small blood sample (because avian RBC’s are nucleated) to source DNA Bats: small holepunch of tissue from the tail membrane Other mammals: small piece of tissue (c. 1mm cubed) from either the edge of the ear or the tail tip Reptiles: small piece of tissue from the end of the tail Blood Sampling Trained personnel, Blood samples of less than 50 microlitres are equipment, lab taken from a sample of 20 individuals of 4 focal species, 3 times a year, from 2 locations. The purpose is to assess population health in areas of differing land management, Each blood sample is subjected to several assays that together indicate the condition/health of the bird. Please provide any other details regarding other methods:

20. Method of transport: (Refer to DPaW Standard Operating Procedures) Captured individuals may occasionally be transported to camp and held for up to 24 hrs for assessment, rehydration, or injury care. Where this occurs, they will be transported and held in suitable conditions as per SOP 11.1 and provided care in accordance with SOP 14.2 21. Housing of animals (if applicable): Select Animal Housing Facility Details: 22. Timeline from start to finish for individual animals or groups: (e.g. length of time individuals are handled, number of times captured/observed) Captured animals are handled on site, as soon as they are removed from the trap. Handling takes less than 15 minutes per animal. Animals are marked (either with temporary or permanent markers) to allow us to identify previously caught individuals; most animals are only handled once. Recapture rates are usually around 10%. However, marked animals may be observed as frequently as daily (eg banded birds). Captured individuals may occasionally be held for up to 24 hrs for assessment, rehydration, or injury care. Where this occurs, they will be held in suitable conditions as per SOP 11.1 Transport and

AEC/Renewal Application Form 12 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 temporary holding of wildlife 23. List ANY administered substances, including sedatives, vitamin injections and substances to be used for unforseen/ emergency euthanasia: If the drug / substance you plan to use is not in the drop down list, select “Other” and type the drug. Name of Drug/Poison/Substance Drug/Poison Drug/Poison Drug/Poison Action Route Dose (ml/kg) Dept. Health Poison Permit No. Permit holder Poison Permit expiry date Vet approval letter attached Yes No Yes No Yes No 24. Describe surgical invasive procedures to be carried out on animals (if applicable): This includes PIT tagging, ear tagging, ear notching, blood sampling, injections of any kind. Insertion of PIT tags Sterile PIT tags are injected subcutaneously by an experienced staff member, using a sterile single-use syringe. Prior to insertion, the point of insertion is sterilised. With the animal held firmly, the tag is injected and held in place as the syringe is withdrawn. Animals are held for a few minutes in a calico bag to recover, where required. The PIT tag is tested both before and after insertion to ensure it is functioning.

Tissue sampling (for species identification of problematic reptiles and mammals only) To allow for species identification biopsy samples may be taken. Samples will be as small as possible, generally tail tips for small mammals and reptiles and thin ear clips for larger mammals. Procedures follow DPaW Animal Ethics SOP 8.4 and all equipment will be sterilised with antiseptic wipe prior to clipping. Any instruments to be reused will be soaked in bleach and rinsed with distilled water to avoid DNA contamination.

Taking blood samples for condition assessment Blood sampling of birds to assess condition will only be undertaken by experienced staff. The volume of blood taken is well below 10% of the animal’s blood volume and the procedure is: • Brachial vein identified and the area swabbed with alcohol. • A sterile, single use 26 or 27 gauge needle punctures brachial vein. • A sterile, single using heparinized haematocrit tube used to collect blood sample (10- 50μl). • Single-use cotton-wool ball applied with light pressure to stem bleeding • Procedure takes about 2 minutes whilst the bird is restrained in the hand. 25. Describe pain management plans for surgery (if applicable): NA - no surgery to be performed. 26. Number of animals to be euthanased (per site). Provide information on how death as an end point is determined for planned euthanasia (if applicable): Explain how you will use DPaW’s Standard Operating Procedures to your particular circumstances. Culling of feral cats occurs across the northwestern properties. Culling of feral cats will be performed according to the guidelines for humane killing of feral animals under the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes (8th Edition). Specifically cats will be killed by a single gunshot to the head with a .22 calibre rifle by a licensed, experienced staff member. The front has reached some of the northern (Kimberley) properties associated with this approval. As such, during our annual fauna surveys this year, we will be required to euthanase any cane toads captured, in line with our survey and research programs at Wongalara in the Northern Territory. The euthanased toads will be preserved to assist with maintaining capture rates and reducing the predation of captured wildlife in funnel, pitfall, and Elliott traps during the surveys, and for research into the size distribution of toads in different places, both during and post-colonisation. Only staff who are trained and experienced in the euthanasia and identification of toads will be

AEC/Renewal Application Form 13 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 permitted to undertake these activities. Euthanasia will be performed as recommended by Sharp et al. (2011) and DPaW (2013). Explicitly, the process is: 1. the animal is held by the back legs against a solid surface 2. a large headed hammer is used for stunning 3. correct stun placement and stun force is used 4. the toad is promptly decapitated with a sharp knife or cleaver The proposed changes will reduce the impact of toad predation on captured fauna. The proposed changes will result in the euthanasia of cane toads. This imposition will not be minimised through these changes. 27. Describe how unforseen injuries will be dealt with. If deemed necessary, how will euthanasia be administered and how will death as an end point be determined? A response to this question is compulsory, particularly with regard to emergency euthanasia. Explain how you will use DPaW’s Standard Operating Procedures to your particular circumstances. If, in an unlikely incident, animals die in traps or require euthanasia as a result of disease, injury or abandonment (joeys) they will be euthanized by a veterinarian or an appropriately trained staff member following the recommended procedures of ANZCCART for that taxon. 28. At the conclusion of fieldwork/experiment, how will animals be disposed of? (e.g. specimens must be sent to WA Museum, deep burial, incinerated, translocated, released at site,etc.) If any unplanned death of a taxonomically ambiguous species occurs, the specimen will be preserved as voucher specimens, following SOP 8.1. and offered to the WA Museum. All other animals will be released at the trap site, during surveys. Vouchers and specimens will be euthanised and prepared as per SOP 15.1 and SOP 8.1 29. Describe any refinements or new methods to the procedures that have been included in this proposal to minimise the impact on animals: Procedures established under the Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes (8th Edition), and the DPaW Animal Ethics Standard Operating Procedures detail methodologies for the ethical trapping/monitoring of vertebrates. All these procedures will be employed. In addition: • Where Elliott traps are at risk from disturbance from other animals they will be staked securely to the ground. • Where ants are common around dry pit-traps an insecticide (Coopex®) will be laid around the traps. All AWC staff have experience in animal handling, and have either attended the DPaW Fauna Management Course or been provided with hands-on supervised training by an experienced AWC or DPaW staff member. 30. Describe how any impact on the animals will be monitored, assessed and managed: • Traps will be checked at regular intervals. • Trapping will not occur during extreme whether conditions. • No traps will be in operation at a single site for longer than five consecutive days. Checks of animal health and condition will be undertaken whilst handling animals, and upon immediate release in-situ. • Staff have access to a network of animal carers should they be required. MONITORING How has monitoring of animals and their care been considered in the project design, specifically relating to unforseen incidents? 31. Identify actions to be taken if there are problems identified with monitoring procedures: Monitoring will be modified according to the site and climatic conditions, e.g. if unanticipated heavy rain occurs all traps will be closed and trapping will be abandoned.

AEC/Renewal Application Form 14 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 JUSTIFICATION & RISKS 32. Justification - Weighing the benefits of the project against the potential impact on the animals, particularly if the procedures involve unrelieved pain and distress to the animal; death as the end point; re-use of animals: The benefits of this project include • Gathering information to measure and improve AWC’s management of fire, feral animals, and weeds • Addressing knowledge gaps on the ecology of threatened species • Addressing knowledge gaps on the impact of particular threats on native fauna Impact on animals is extremely low when well-recognised standardised methodologies are employed. All procedures used are well recognised and cause minimal disturbance or distress to the animals. COMPETENCIES AND DECLARATIONS 33. Staff Competency Checklists to be maintained by the CI. They should be available upon request but do not need to be provided to the AEC.

34. Declaration: I/We am/are familiar with, and will comply with, the Animal Welfare Act 2002 and Regulations, Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and any other relevant WA State legislation, and the requirements of the current Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes 8th edition and all relevant DPaW Standard operating Procedures. NOTE: Any person who will be handling animals must sign the declaration. Volunteers under the direct supervision of a signatory do not need to sign the declaration. Name: Signature: Date: Chief Investigator: James Smith 28/06/2016

Animal Handlers/Vet/Other: Dr Alex James 28/06/2016

Dr Michael Smith 28-06-2016

Dr Melissa Bruton 28/06/2016

Dr Laura Ruykys 29/6/2016

Andrew Morton 1/07/16

Hannah Cliff 1/07/2016

Rosie Hohnen 30/06/2016 Naomi Walters

Noel Riessen 29/06/2016

Chantelle Jackson 28/06/2016 AEC/Renewal Application Form 15 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015

Nicola Palmer 29/06/2016

Bryony Palmer 28/06/2016

36. References/sources used to prepare this application: Include written material, electronic sources and verbal information. Include full references, address of web pages and the names and contact details of authorities with whom you had verbal communications. Publications arising from 2013-37 include: Bengsen AJ, Algar D, Ballard G, Buckmaster T, Comer S, Fleming PJS, Friend JA, Johnston M, McGregor H, Moseby K, Zewe F (2015) Feral cat home-range size varies predictably with landscape productivity and population density. Journal of Zoology DOI: 10.1111/jzo.12290. Brook L, Johnson C, McGregor H, Schwarzkopf L, Legge S, Ritchie E (Jul 2014) Spatial interactions between sympatric dingoes and feral cats in the Kimberley: patterns of intraguild avoidance in a landscape of fear. Australian Mammal Society Conference, Melbourne. Clarke JR (2014) The role of fire in the ecology and conservation of the Black Grasswren (Amytornis housei) in the northwest Kimberley, Australia. Honours thesis, Charles Darwin University, Darwin. Cliff H (2014) Karakamia Bird Survey February 2013-March 2014. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Cliff H, Palmer B, Jackson C, Romero D (2014) Western Ringtail Possum Monitoring Trials: Karakamia 2014. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Farnsworth L (2013) Biodiversity surveys of Mt Gibson Sanctuary: Summary of results of baseline fauna and flora surveys undertaken within and outside the proposed predator proof enclosure during September 2011- March 2013. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Farnsworth L (2013) Reintroduction of Greater Stick-nest Rats (Leporillus conditor) to Mt Gibson Sanctuary Progress Report: 30 month post-release. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Farnsworth L (2013) Summary of results of spring bird surveys conducted by BirdLife Australia members and AWC staff at Mt Gibson Sanctuary, Western Australia. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Fisher DO, Johnson CN, Lawes MJ, Fritz SA, McCallum H, Blomberg SP, VanDerWal J, Abbott B, Frank A, Legge S, Letnic M, Thomas CR, Fisher A, Gordon IJ, Kutt A (2013) The current decline of tropical marsupials in Australia: is history repeating? Global Ecology and Biogeography DOI: 10.1111/geb.12088. Fisher DO, Johnson CN, Lawes MJ, Fritz SA, McCallum H, Blomberg SP, VanDerWal J, Abbott B, Frank A, Legge S, Letnic M, Thomas CR, Fisher A, Gordon IJ, Kutt A (2014) Response to commentary by Woinarski (Critical-weight-range marsupials in Northern Australia are declining: a commentary on Fisher et al. (2014) 'The current decline of tropical marsupials in Australia: is history repeating?'. Global Ecology and Biogeography 24: 123-125. Lawes MJ, Fisher DO, Johnson CN, Blomberg SP, Frank ASK, Fritz SA, McCallum H, VanDerWal J, Abbott BN, Legge S, Letnic M, Thomas CR, Thurgate N, Fisher A, Gordon IJ, Kutt A (2015) Correlates of recent declines of rodents in northern and southern Australia: habitat structure is critical. PLoS ONE 10: e0130626. Legge S, Smith J, Tuft K and James A (2013) Measuring the Ecological Health of Artesian Range Wildlife Sanctuary: Monitoring Plan and 2012 Report. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, Western Australia Legge S, Webb T, Smith J, Tuft K, James A (2013) The Ecological Health of Mornington and Marion Downs Wildlife Sanctuaries, 2012 Report. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Legge S, Webb T, Smith J, Tuft K, James A (2014) The Ecological Health of Mornington and Marion Downs Wildlife Sanctuaries, 2012 Report. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Legge S, Garnett S, Maute K, Heathcote J, Murphy S, Woinarski JCZ, Astheimer L (2015) A landscape- scale, applied fire management experiment promotes recovery of a population of the threatened Gouldian Finch, Erythrura gouldiae, in Australia’s tropical savannas. PLoS ONE 10: e0137997.

AEC/Renewal Application Form 16 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 Mather S (2014) Faure Island survey 6-10th October, 2014. BirdLife Western Australia, Perth. Mather S (2016) Faure Island survey 9th-13th October 2015. BirdLife Western Australia, Perth. Maute K, French K, Legge S, Astheimer L, Garnett S (2015) Condition index monitoring supports conservation priorities for the protection of threatened grass-finch populations. Conservation Physiology 3, DOI: 10.1093/conphys/cov025. Maute KL, French K, Legge S, Astheimer L (2013) Seasonal stress physiology and body condition differ among co-occurring tropical finch species. Journal of Comparative Physiology B 183: 1023-1037. McGregor H (2014) Density, movements and hunting of feral cats in relation to fire and grazing in northern Australia. PhD thesis, University of Tasmania. McGregor H, James A, Jones M, Tuft K, Lisle D, Smith J, Legge S, Johnson C (Nov 2015) Interaction of feral cats, fire and grazing. Australian Wildlife Management Society Conference, Perth. McGregor H, Legge S, Jones M, Potts J, Kanowski J, Johnson C (July 2015) Densities of feral cats in northern Australia. Australian Mammal Society, Hobart, Tasmania. McGregor H, Legge S, Jones ME, Johnson CN (2015) Feral cats are better killers in open habitats, revealed by animal-borne video. PLoS ONE 10: e0133915. McGregor HM, Legge S, Jones ME, Johnson CN (2014) Landscape management of fire and grazing regimes alters the fine-scale habitat utilisation by feral cats. PLoS ONE 9: e109097. McGregor HM, Legge S, Jones ME, Johnson CN (2016) Extraterritorial hunting expeditions to intense fire scars by feral cats. Scientific Reports 6: 22559. McGregor HW, Legge S, Jones M, Johnson C (July 2014) Feral cats increase activity on intensely burnt and grazed sites in northern Australia. Australian Mammal Society Conference - Predator Symposium, Melbourne. McGregor HW, Legge S, Potts J, Jones ME, Johnson CN (2015) Density and home range of feral cats in north-western Australia. Wildlife Research DOI: 10.1071/WR14180. McGregor HW, Legge SM, Jones ME, Johnson CN (2016) GPS collars are more efficient when collecting high-frequency data. Australian Mammalogy DOI: 10.1071/AM15034. Milenkaya O (2013) Validating body condition indices as indicators of individual quality: does condition explain intraspecific variation in reproductive success and survival among crimson finches (Neochmia phaeton)? PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic, Blacksburg. Milenkaya O, Catlin DH, Legge S, Walters JR (2015) Body condition indices predict reproductive success but not survival in a sedentary, tropical bird. PLoS ONE 10: e0136582. Palmer B (2014) Black-flanked Rock-wallaby camera monitoring 2013-2014. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Palmer B, Jackson C, Clff H, Romero D (2014) Black-flanked Rock-wallaby Monitoring: Paruna Wildlife Sanctuary 2010-2014. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Palmer B, Jackson C, Cliff H, Kanowski J (2014) Karakamia 2014 mammal trapping survey. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Ruykys L (2015) Progress report on Greater Stick-nest Rats at Mt Gibson Wildlife Sanctuary, 2011-2014. Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth, WA. Smith J, Legge S, James A, Tuft K (Nov 2015) Optimising camera trap deployment design across multiple sites for species inventory surveys. Australian Wildlife Management Society Conference, Perth. Spence-Bailey LM, Barnett GE, Palmer BJ, Lewis F, Farnsworth DC, Legge SM (Jan 2013) Mt Gibson Species Restoration Project: Results of baseline reptile surveys within and outside the proposed 6,000 ha feral proof fenced area at Mt Gibson Sanctuary, south-west Western Australia. 37th Meeting of the Australian Society of Herpetologists, Point Wolstoncroft, NSW. Wayne AF, Maxwell M, Ward C, Vellios C, Ward B, Liddlelow G, Wilson I, Wayne J, Williams M (2013) Importance of getting the numbers right: quantifying the rapid and substantial decline of an abundant marsupial, Bettongia penicillata. Wildlife Research 40: 169-183. Woinarski J, Burbidge A, Comer S, Harley D, Legge S, Lindenmayer D, Partridge T (2014) Fire and biodiversity in Australia. In: Stow A, Maclean N, Holwell GI (eds) Austral ark: the state of wildlife in Australia and New Zealand, pp 537-559, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

AEC/Renewal Application Form 17 DPaW AEC Renewal Application Form last updated 29/12/2015 Woinarski J, Legge S (2013) The impacts of fire on birds in Australia’s tropical savannas. Emu 113: 319- 352.

Other publications: Cane toad Euthanasia Sharp T, Lothian A, Munn A & Saunders G (2011) Methods for the field euthanasia of cane toads. Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1f5dd1fa-8163-428c-9311- 7c0c2ea9422e/files/can001-euthanasia-cane-toads.pdf DPaW (2013) Euthanasing cane toads. Available at: https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/images/documents/plants- animals/animals/canetoads/20120461_Euthanasia_of_cane_toads_v13.pdf

Reptile external transmitters Bryant GL, Eden P, de Tores P & Warren K (2010) Improved procedure for implanting radiotransmitters in the coelomic cavity of snakes. Australian Veterinary Journal 88:443-448. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751- 0813.2010.00633.x Flesch JS, Duncan MG, Pascoe JH & Mulley RC (2009) A simple method of attching GPS tracking devices to free-ranging lace monitors (Varanus varius). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 4:411-414. Guarino F (2002) Spatial ecology of a large carnivorous lizard, Varanus varius (: ). Journal of Zoology 258:449-457. Thompson GG, de Boer M & Pianka ER (1999) Activity areas and daily movements of an arboreal , Varanus tristis (Squamata: Varanidae) during the breeding season. Australian Journal of Ecology 23:117-122. Ward-Fear G, Pearson DJ, Brown GP, Balanggarra Rangers & Shine R (2016) Ecological immunization: in situ training of free-ranging predatory lizards reduces their vulnerability to invasive toxic prey. Biology Letters 12: 20150863. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0863

AEC/Renewal Application Form 18