HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

Inquiry into controlling the spread of Cane Toads

SUBMISSION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

February 2019

Contents

a) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 b) National coordination...... 4 Cane Toads: Impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance ...... 5 c) Roles of the Department of the Environment and Energy ...... 6 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...... 6 Funding ...... 10 National Park Management...... 10 Information ...... 11 d) Inquiry Terms of Reference ...... 11 The effectiveness of control measures to limit the spread of cane toads in Australia...... 11 Additional support for cane toad population control measures...... 13 e) Table 1: Species and sub-species threatened by the cane toads ...... 17 f) Table 2: Ecological Community threatened by the cane toads ...... 17 g) Table 3: Species to which cane toads are a perceived threat ...... 17 h) Figure 1: The indicative distribution of the cane toad (Rhinella marina) ...... 18

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of the Environment and Energy welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy Inquiry into controlling the spread of cane toads (Rhinella marina, formerly Bufo marinus).

Many vertebrate animals introduced to Australia since colonisation have become pests. The Australian Pest Animal Strategy identifies pest animals as a significant social, economic, and environmental burden for Australia, negatively impacting on Australia’s agriculture, biodiversity, natural and built environment, public health and productivity.

Within Australia, the combined efforts of local, state, territory and Commonwealth governments, together with the actions of landholders, communities, traditional owners, the private sector and non-government organisations, deliver biodiversity protection and conservation. This includes working together to control invasive plants and animals, including cane toads.

The Department works closely with other Australian Government departments, particularly the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, on biosecurity activities that include abating the threats posed by feral animals. The Commonwealth also works with state and territory governments to develop strategies, undertake research and fund key management activities.

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Act) provides for the identification and listing of key threatening processes. The impacts of some feral animals, including cane toads, have been listed as key threatening processes and threat abatement plans have been developed. The Threat abatement plan for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads was made in 2011.

The National Landcare Program is a key part of the Australian Government’s commitment to natural resource management. Around $1 billion is being invested in Phase Two, building on the $1 billion invested from July 2014 to June 2018. Introduced feral animals and weeds are part of work in the program’s partnership with state and local governments, industry, communities and individuals.

The Australian Government directed at least $11 million dollars to development of a broad-scale means to control cane toads between 1986 and 2011 and approximately $1.3 million to community action to remove cane toads from the landscape manually between 1986 and 2009.

National Environmental Science Program funding of $145 million from 2015 to 2021 supports six themed research hubs along with projects to address emerging environmental research needs. The Threatened Species Recovery Hub project Protecting threatened quolls and other biodiversity on Kimberley islands from cane toads is analysing the mechanisms and risk factors associated with cane toad invasion of Kimberley islands.

3

National coordination The Government has international obligations to protect and conserve biodiversity under various conventions and treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Government provides for the protection of environmental matters related to threatened species and ecological communities through the operation of the Act and delivers non-statutory measures such as programs that invest in recovery, restoration, monitoring, and science for the protection and conservation of biodiversity.

In 2018, the Australian Government appointed a Chief Environmental Biosecurity Officer to enhance understanding and oversight of environmental biosecurity risks, perform a national policy, engagement and leadership role, ensure that Australia’s environmental and community biosecurity risks are better defined and prioritised, and improve the maturity of Australia’s environmental biosecurity preparedness, surveillance and response capacity.

As biodiversity conservation and protection is a shared responsibility, the Australian Government works in collaboration with the states and territories, as well as the range of other government and non-government land and sea managers, to provide protection for, and conservation of, threatened species and ecological communities, and importantly the ecosystems on which they depend.

States and territories are responsible for regulating invasive species, including cane toads. Regulations provide varying levels of requirement for control depending on their level of threat and ability of landholders to undertake effective control measures.

All responsible landholders, managers and lessees contribute to biodiversity conservation through their management of lands and waters across Australia. Other groups and sectors that invest considerable time, effort and money to invasive species management for biodiversity protection include Indigenous groups, community groups, environmental non-government organisations, businesses including the agricultural sector, and researchers. In combination, these groups have considerable Indigenous, ecological, local knowledge, and technical expertise and play a critical role in on-ground implementation and raising community awareness. Most successes are the product of effective partnerships between governments and non-government groups.

The Australian Government provides national coordination through overarching strategies and through species specific or site-specific plans. These strategies and plans allow state, territory and local government, local groups, non-government organisations and landholders to understand how their contribution fits into a broader picture and to provide best practice guidance on how to undertake appropriate management actions.

Australian Pest Animal Strategy

The Australian Pest Animal Strategy (2017-2027) is a strategy of the national Environment and Invasives Committee, which is part of the framework established under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity. The strategy provides national guidance on best practice vertebrate pest

4 animal management. It re-affirms agreed national pest animal management principles, and sets national goals and priorities that will help improve Australia’s overall ability to prevent and respond to new pest animal incursions and manage the negative impacts of established pest animals. This provides the broad policy foundation to guide and inform the actions of stakeholders, including landholders, industry, communities and government, rather than prescribing detailed on-ground actions and activities. Cane toads are captured under this strategy.

Cane Toads: Impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance

Threatened Species

Cane toads have a known impact on seven threatened species, one threatened sub-species, (Table 1) and one ecological community (Table 2). They are a perceived threat to a further seven species or sub-species, because either the cane toad has not reached their habitat or the impact is unknown1 (Table 3).

The State of the Environment 2016 (Cresswell and Murphy 2017) report notes that that:

Poisoning by the invasive cane toad (Rhinella marina) is a major threat to 4 species of threatened mammal. The cane toad has had a significant impact on populations of the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) in northern Australia (Woinarski et al. 2014). Scientists have also recorded marked declines during the past 5 years in many iconic, and culturally and ecologically significant reptile species across northern Australia because of poisoning by cane toads (Shine & Wiens 2010, Fukada et al. 2016). For example, 35 years of surveys of the Australian freshwater crocodile in the Daly River in the Northern Territory reveals that the density of crocodiles decreased by nearly 70 per cent between 1997 and 2013 following invasion by the cane toad between 1999 and 2003 (Fukada et al. 2016).

Impact on Native Species

In his submission to the Committee Professor Rick Shine2 states that the impact of cane toads on native wildlife has often been exaggerated; the impact is devastating but is limited to a small group of species (apex predators) and to a relatively short timescale. This research supports the Australian Government’s position to target threatened species most adversely impacted by cane toads.

1 Species Profile and Threats Database www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl 2 www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment_and_Energy/Canetoads/Submissi ons accessed 4 February

5

Ecological Communities

Cane toads are a known threat to the ecological community the community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin.

Wetlands of International Importance

Cane toads are a documented threat to the ecological character of a number of Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (a matter protected under the Act). Ecological character is related to critical components, processes and services provided by the wetlands. These include supporting fish and waterbird populations, diversity of species, rare and threatened native species, critical life stages and food webs.

The following Ramsar sites are within the current distribution of cane toads and identified in their Ramsar Information Sheets3 as a threat: • Great Sandy Strait, Queensland • Kakadu, Cobourg Peninsula, Northern Territory • Lakes Argyle and Kununurra (potential), Ord River Floodplain (potential), Western Australia Monitoring and control activities for cane toads have been undertaken in a number of sites, including Kakadu and Great Sandy Strait.

Heritage places

Cane toads are present in a number of Australian World and National Heritage places and potentially impacting the listed values of these areas:  Kakadu National Park  Wet tropics  Gondwana Rainforests of Australia  West Kimberley Heritage places of concern for future cane toad invasion include the Ningaloo and Shark Bay World Heritage Areas.

Roles of the Department of the Environment and Energy Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is the Government’s primary environmental legislation. The Act provides a legal framework to identify, protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places. These are defined in the Act as matters of national environmental significance. In addition, the Act

3 www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/wetlands/alphablist.pl

6 allows the Commonwealth to regulate actions on Commonwealth land or carried out by a Commonwealth agency.

Key Threatening Processes

Key threatening processes under the Act are defined as processes that threaten, or may threaten, the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community and could cause a native species or ecological community to become eligible for listing as a threatened species (other than conservation dependent) or to become eligible for listing in a higher category of endangerment or adversely affect two or more listed threatened species or ecological communities.

Threat abatement plans

Threat abatement plans made under the Act provide a mechanism, at a national scale, to guide threat abatement. They provide guidance on the research, management, and any other actions necessary to reduce the impact of a listed key threatening process on listed threatened species and ecological communities. Implementing plans should assist the long-term survival in the wild of affected native species or ecological communities.

Beyond the pure legislative requirements of the Act, the formal identification of key threatening processes and the making of threat abatement plans play an important role in raising public awareness about key threats to biodiversity and specifically in the actions required to abate these key threats.

Under the Act, the Australian Government must implement threat abatement plans to the extent they apply in areas under Australian Government control and responsibility; and seek the cooperation of the affected jurisdictions in situations where a threat abatement plan applies outside Australian Government areas in states or territories, with a view to jointly implementing the threat abatement plan.

The successful implementation of threat abatement plans depends on a high level of cooperation between landholders, community groups, local government, state and territory conservation and pest management agencies, and the Australian Government and its relevant agencies. Success depends on all participants assessing what is required to abate the impacts and allocating adequate resources through available funding channels, programs, etc. to achieve effective on-ground control, improve the effectiveness and humaneness of control programs, and measure and assess outcomes. Various programs in natural resource management, at national, state and regional levels, can make significant contributions to implementing the plans.

7

In 2005, the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads (Bufo marinus4) was listed as a key threatening process under the Act. The advice of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, which informed the Ministerial decision to list the cane toad, is available at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/key-threatening-processes/biological-effects- cane-toads5.

The Minister made the Threat abatement plan for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads in 2011. It is available at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/threat-abatement-plan- biological-effects-including-lethal-toxic-ingestion-caused-cane-toads6. The plan aims to:

● identify native species and ecosystems at risk due to cane toads ● reduce the impact of cane toads on native species and ecosystems ● communicate information about cane toads and their impacts.

Recovery plans and conservation advices

When a native species is listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, a Conservation Advice must be developed to assist its recovery. A Conservation Advice provides guidance on immediate recovery and threat abatement activities that can be undertaken to ensure the conservation of a newly listed species.

Where needed, the Minister may prepare a more comprehensive Recovery Plan to guide recovery of the species. Recovery plans are generally prepared where the listed species has complex management needs due to its ecology, the nature of threats affecting it, or the number of stakeholders affected by or involved in implementing the necessary recovery actions. Recovery plans set out the research and management actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, listed threatened species or ecological communities.

Conservation Advices and Recovery Plans list cane toads where they are known to pose a threat to the native species. The advice or plan may provide specific advice where the threat abatement action is specific to that species or provide more general advice where the Threat Abatement Plan provides the appropriate guidance. The cane toad threat abatement plan notes that the listed threatened species the Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) has been impacted by cane toads as have a number of species of reptiles, including blue tongue lizards, goannas, especially larger species, and snakes such Northern Death Adder and the King Brown Snake (Shine 2009).

4 (Bufo marinus, now revised to Rhinella marina) 5 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/key-threatening-processes/biological-effects-cane- toads accessed 21 January 2019 6 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/threat-abatement-plan- biological-effects-including-lethal-toxic-ingestion-caused-cane-toads accessed 21 January 2019

8

There are several vegetation-based ecological communities listed as threatened under the EPBC Act that fall within the current geographic range of the cane toad. As noted in particular listing and conservation advices, cane toads currently impact some ecological communities, such as the Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia. Others, such as the Monsoon Vine Thickets on the coastal sand dunes of the Dampier Peninsula, may be impacted in the future as cane toads continue to spread. Impacts are mostly associated with the decline of frogs, invertebrates, mammals and reptiles within ecological communities, potentially including characteristic or functionally important fauna.

The National recovery plan for the "Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions" ecological community (2010) 7 notes that the cane toad has been recorded in eight of nine semi-evergreen vine thicket sites surveyed in the central-eastern Brigalow Belt of Queensland. Cane toads are considered responsible for an abrupt decline in observations of the northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus.

The Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan 2010 8notes that cane toads are a key threatening process at the State and federal levels. The plan lists a number of threatened species in the Region that are likely to be potentially adversely affected by cane toads including: the Giant Barred Frog (Mixophyes iterates), Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea), Green-thighed Frog (Litoria brevipalmata), Pale-headed Snake (Hoplocephalus bitorquatus), Stephens’ Banded Snake (Hoplocephalus stephensii), Common Planigale (Planigale maculate) and Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus).

The Border Ranges Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan 20109 notes that impacts from cane toad are likely through predation on arthropods, competition for shelter and food, toxic effects on the eggs and tadpoles of native frogs and other aquatic organisms, and toxic effects to native predators following ingestion of cane toad.

Cane toads have been recorded within rainforest in the eastern section of the Border Ranges National Park in New South Wales at altitudes of up to 1130 m. Management actions recommended to control and eliminate this population before further intrusions into the national park occurred included monitoring:  for cane toads in the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area to undertake immediate control or eradication where detected and  of indicator species such as Spotted-tailed Quoll and native frogs for cane toad impacts.

7 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/national-recovery-plan-semi-evergreen-vine-thickets-brigalow- belt-north-and-south-and accessed 4 February 2019 8 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/northern-rivers-regional-biodiversity-management-plan accessed 4 February 2019 9 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/border-ranges-rainforest-biodiversity-management-plan accessed 4 February 2019

9

Funding

Australian Government funding through the National Landcare Program and the National Environmental Science Program targets the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities where cane toads are causing problems. Reducing the impact of cane toads can be identified through conservation advices and recovery plans for these species and communities.

Between 1986 and 2011 the Australian Government directed at least $11 million to tackle the threat from cane toads and, between 2986 and 2009, approximately $1.3 million to community action to remove cane toads from the landscape.

Phase two of the National Landcare Program will include a range of measures to support natural resource management and sustainable agriculture, and to protect Australia’s biodiversity. The Government aims to work in partnership with governments, industry, communities and individuals to conserve Australia’s water, soil, plants, animals and ecosystems, as well as support the productive and sustainable use of these valuable resources.

The National Environmental Science Program is a long-term commitment by the Australian Government to applied environment and climate science, supporting world-class collaborative and practical research that informs decision-making and on-ground action. Indigenous research partnerships are a highly valued program activity. Funding of $145 million from 2015 to 2021 supports six themed research hubs along with projects to address emerging environmental research needs. Funding agreements require that all funding is met with equal or greater value cash or in-kind co-contributions. National Park Management

Parks Australia is responsible for Australia’s six Commonwealth National Parks. Dealing with the impacts of feral animals is part of the on-going management program in these parks. Kakadu National Park is the only Park affected by cane toads, which were found there on 12 March 2001.

Staff of the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist undertook an ecological risk assessment to predict the likely extent of impacts of cane toads in Kakadu National Park and identify key vulnerable habitats and species. The results were published A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park (van Dam RA, Walden DJ and Begg GW 2002).

Cane toads are poisonous throughout most of their life cycle and current information suggests that they will have an initial impact on animals such as snakes, goannas and quolls, who will try to eat them. Evidence from other areas affected by cane toads suggest numbers may stabilise after an initial period. No effective control measures are available. Cane toads in the park are likely to be one of the most pressing management problems facing Kakadu in the future.10

10 https://www.environment.gov.au/topics/national-parks/kakadu-national-park/management-and- conservation/conserving-kakadu accessed 31 January 2019

10

Some management responses to Cane toads in Kakadu are discussed under the effectiveness of control measures to limit the spread of cane toads in Australia. Information

The Department’s Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN) provides environmental and spatial information products, advice, analysis and tools to strengthen the environmental information evidence-base accessible to the Department and stakeholders. ERIN provides data and information that inform the management of cane toads. These data include maps of occurrence of the cane toad and threatened species and ecological communities affected or potentially affected by cane toads. An example is Figure 1 showing the indicative distribution of the cane toad.

Inquiry Terms of Reference

The Committee will inquire into and report on the Department of the Environment and Energy's annual report 2017-18, with particular reference to:

The effectiveness of control measures to limit the spread of cane toads in Australia. Cane toads11 have a life span of about five years, eat a wide variety of prey, breed twice a year, have a far greater fecundity than native anurans, take between 6-18 months to reach sexual maturity and develop rapidly particularly in warmer waters. They are considered to be an extreme generalist with a tolerance for a broad range of environmental and climatic conditions and able to potentially occupy many habitats.

All stages of the cane toad's life cycle: eggs, tadpoles, toadlets and adult toads, are poisonous. Cane toads have venom-secreting poison glands (known as parotoid glands) or swellings on each shoulder that release poison when cane toads are threatened. If ingested, this venom can cause rapid heartbeat, excessive salivation, convulsions and paralysis and can result in death for many native animals.

Between 1986 and 2011, the Australian Government directed at least $11 million dollars to development of a broad-scale means to control cane toads, without success12.

In 2000, CSIRO obtained government funds to renew the search for a biocontrol agent. In a 2008 review of the federally funded project, “The Development of a cane toad Biological Control”

11 www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/key-threatening-processes/biological-effects-cane-toads accessed 2 February 2019 12 www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive-species/feral-animals-australia/cane-toads accessed 2 February 2019

11

Professor M. F. Shannon and Dr P. Bayliss13 noted that federal funds were allocated for the period 1983-1989 to undertake initial studies in the Northern Territory and Queensland on ecology and diseases. Further funds were allocated for the period 1990-93, which included research teams based in South America (Venezuela and Brazil) searching for potential pathogens. The focus of this second phase was on finding a natural biological control agent. Several ranaviruses were isolated in South America and additional funds were allocated for the 1994-1996 period to import them into Australia for testing. Although highly lethal, they were not species-specific (i.e. they were ubiquitous with a broad host range) and hence the research was discontinued. Shannon and Bayliss concluded that biological control was unlikely to work and recommended that funding for the CSIRO cane toad Biocontrol Program should be discontinued in its current form.

Community action to remove cane toads from the landscape manually received funding of approximately $1.3 million between 1986 and 2009. However, there is no evidence that these endeavours prevented the continued spread of the pest or significantly limited its impact on Australia’s biodiversity. Community action, while satisfying to local communities, does not have the capacity to make any significant changes to the rate of spread of cane toads or to the densities of cane toads beyond specific local areas. However, where community action is focused on cane toad management to protect assets at a local scale it could help maintain priority biodiversity assets14.

Targeted funding

National Environmental Research Program In 2011-14 the $145 million National Environmental Research Program funded research, through the Northern Australia Hub, to:  study the effectiveness of using taste aversion training to aid the conservation of Quolls by training them not to eat cane toads; and  assess the effectiveness of taste-aversion training for floodplain monitors in response to cane toad invasion of the Kimberley. At the time Webb et al (2015)15 thought that research into the effectiveness of taste aversion was promising and suggested one deployment of toad-aversion baits could protect Northern Quolls from cane toads. Quoll populations at risk from toad invasion in the central Kimberley were identified and a project implemented to evaluate whether free ranging quolls would consume ‘toad-aversion’ baits that induce aversions to live toads. Encouragingly, 50% of wild quolls at Sir John Gorge, Mornington

13 www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive-species/publications/review-csiro-biological-control-cane- toad-program accessed 2 February 2019 14 www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/threat-abatement-plan-biological- effects-including-lethal-toxic-ingestion-caused-cane-toads accessed 2 February 2019 15 www.nespnorthern.edu.au/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/4.1.35_can_we_mitigate_cane_toad_impacts_on_northern_quolls_- _final_report.pdf accessed 8 February 2018

12

Wildlife Sanctuary (central Kimberley) consumed toad-aversion sausages. However, further work at Kakadu National Park, discussed below in ‘Toad-Smart Quolls Project, has indicated otherwise.

The Goanna research was a collaborative project between the University of Sydney, the Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife and the Balanggarra people – Traditional Owners of the north eastern Kimberley. Early results showed that the Goannas that ate the small, less toxic toads were highly unlikely to eat another one in the subsequent trials. The researchers did not determine whether this would translate into an aversion to larger toads. National Environmental Science Program The National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery Hub has a PhD project entitled Protecting threatened quolls and other biodiversity on Kimberley islands from cane toads. This project is analysing the mechanisms and risk factors associated with cane toad invasion of Australian islands, including developing a general model of cane toad invasion for Australian islands to forecast cane toad invasion for Kimberley islands. The University of Queensland is leading the project. The project receives $18,000 in NESP funding and runs from 2017-2019. Expected outputs of this project will support Kimberley land managers to manage the risk from cane toads to Kimberley islands.

Additional support for cane toad population control measures.

Researchers including Professor Rick Shine, Head of the Shine Lab, University of Sydney, and Professor Lin Schwarzkopf, Head of the Vertebrate Ecology Lab at James Cook University, continue to undertake research in relation to control of and management of cane toads. A number of promising avenues have been pursued over the years but also without success.

In their review of the Review of the CSIRO Biological Control of cane toad Program to April 2008 Shannon and Bayliss16 compared a number of control methods and listed issues that would need to be considered for each. Most of the methods considered would control cane toads at the local level only. In addition, the issues that would need to be considered in selecting particular control methods included long research and development times and long approval times that may be prohibitive.

The timescales required for the development and approval of new technologies, such as gene- editing technology or the development of a genetically modified virus, are such that cane toads may have reached the full extent of their likely range regardless of the investment made.

In June 2005, National Cane Toad Taskforce reported to the Vertebrate Pests Committee on A Review of the Impact and Control of cane toads in Australia with Recommendations for Future

16 www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive-species/publications/review-csiro-biological-control-cane- toad-program accessed 7 February 2019

13

Research and Management Approaches17. The report suggested that the highest priority management action is to try to keep cane toads out of areas where they will not reach either:  naturally (i.e. many islands or areas such as south-west Western Australia where climatic barriers exist to movement from the north and east), or  by natural movement for a long time i.e. detecting hitch hiker toads well ahead of the front. To achieve the outcome the report recommends monitoring for the presence of vanguard colonising cane toads so that animals can be removed prior to a population establishing. Biosecurity protocols are also required to prevent transport of cane toads to islands in cargo, including in particular in soil and building products. Education of travellers can prevent long-distance hitch-hiking cane toads from establishing in new environments. Flushing of animals in floodwaters or direct swimming to closer islands is also responsible for some colonisation events. This suggests that involvement of the community in the detection of toads outside their present range is essential. Education and awareness campaigns and following up on reports of cane toad observations may also be useful.

Kakadu Threatened Species Projects

The Threatened Species Commissioner’s 2015 report to the Minister noted an extra $2 million, provided to boost the recovery of threatened species in the Commonwealth national park estate, is contributing to 10 threatened species projects18. Four projects in Kakadu National Park aim to reduce threats and support threatened species recovery, including: creating a wildlife refuge on Gardangarl (Field Island) for species struggling on the mainland; and reintroducing ‘toad smart’ northern quolls into Kakadu’s south.

The Gardangarl (Field Island) project involves practical action to improve the long-term viability of Kakadu’s threatened wildlife through the management of an island refuge for species struggling on the mainland, including small mammals and goannas. Cane toads will be eradicated from the island, and rangers will target weeds, feral animals, marine debris and bushfire to create a safe haven for threatened species.

The Year 2 Project Update indicated that cane toad monitoring in 2016 discovered many toadlets and a few adults in and around freshwater creeks and swamps. While toads die off once the island’s freshwater seasonally dries up, cane toad control measures have now been implemented, using solar-powered cane toad traps19.

17www.pestsmart.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CaneToadReport2.pdf accessed 5 February 2019 18 www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tsc-report-dec2015 accessed 2 February 2019 19 www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1b5bf3ab-c0bb-4839-b36e-efe20e8075bc/files/factsheet- kakadu-national-park-project2-year2.pdf accessed 8 February 2019

14

Toad-Smart Quolls Project

The Year 2 Project Update indicates that, in February 2016, 64 juvenile northern quolls underwent cane toad aversion training.

During April and May 2016 twenty-two toad-trained quolls were released, with seven untrained quolls as controls. Initial survivorship suggested the training was successful, with few trained quolls succumbing to toads. At the end of the 3-week tracking period, three trained quolls were surviving at the site. Where evidence of mortality was found, six were thought to have succumbed to dingo predation and seven to toads.

In May 2017 nine trained quolls were released. Of these, two females survived. Of the remainder found deceased, five are believed to have succumbed to toads, one to dingo predation and one to other causes.

Based on these results, the Kakadu trial to reintroduce toad-smart northern quolls will not proceed with any further releases until the method is refined.20

Manual removal from the environment

In his 2007 review of community on-ground cane toad control in the Kimberley Professor Tony Peacock noted that there was no evidence that physical removal of cane toads had slowed the invasion of toads towards Western Australia. Prof Peacock concluded that cane toads moved west at the same pace after community on-ground control began as before it, although the biomass of toads at the front had been diminished. In providing the review report to the Standing Committee on the Environment and energy Prof Peacock21 noted that, at the time he wrote the report, he hedged a bit on whether physically picking up toads had any impact on spread, recommending to the Minister that current efforts at that time be allowed to play out. However Prof Peacock now believes that subsequent information shows that widespread physical removal of toads is pretty useless in most situations.

The Australian Government notes that the community action of manual removal of cane toads may assist in maintaining priority biodiversity assets at a local scale. For example, the removal of cane toads from islands will help maintain the biodiversity of those islands.

20 www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1b5bf3ab-c0bb-4839-b36e-efe20e8075bc/files/factsheet- kakadu-national-park-project3-year2.pdf accessed 31 January 2019 21 www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment_and_Energy/Canetoads/Submissi ons accessed 4 February 2019

15

REFERENCES Cresswell ID and Murphy HT (2017) Australia State of the Environment 2016: biodiversity. Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Energy. Available at: soe.environment.gov.au. Accessed October 2018.

Invasive Plants and Animals Committee (2016) Australian Pest Animal Strategy 2017 to 2027, Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra

Shine (2009) The ecological impacts of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia, The Quarterly Review of Biology, September 2010, Vol. 85, no. 3. van Dam RA, Walden DJ and Begg GW 2002. A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park. Scientist Report 164, Supervising Scientist, Scientist Report 164, Supervising Scientist, Darwin NT

Webb, J., Legge, S., Tuft, K., Cremona, T., Austin, C. (2015). Can we mitigate cane toad impacts on northern quolls? Darwin: Charles Darwin University.

16

Attachment A

Table 1: Species and sub-species threatened by the cane toads Scientific Name Common name Chlamydogobius micropterus Elizabeth Springs Goby Chlamydogobius squamigenus Edgbaston Goby Scaturiginichthys vermeilipinnis Redfin Blue Eye Taudactylus pleione Kroombit Tinker Frog Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll Dasyurus maculatus gracilis Spotted-tailed Quoll (North Queensland) Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Phascogale pirata Northern Brush-tailed Phascogale

Table 2: Ecological Community threatened by the cane toads The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin.

Table 3: Species to which cane toads are a perceived threat (i.e. not threatening yet)

Scientific Name Common name Dasyurus maculatus maculatus Spotted-tail Quoll (south-eastern mainland population) Denisonia maculata Ornamental Snake Egernia obiri Arnhem Land Ergernia Litoria aurea Green and Gold Bell Frog Litoria lorica Armoured Mistfrog Litoria olongburensis Wallum Sedge Frog Mesodontrachia fitzoryana Fitzroy Land Snail

All information on this page access from the Species Profile and Threats Database www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl

17

Attachment B

Figure 1: The indicative distribution of the cane toad (Rhinella marina)

Please refer to separate pdf document.

18