Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1994 - 1998

REGENT HONEYEATER

RECOVERY PLAN i 1994 1998

prepared by Peter Menkhorst ! REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998

prepared by

Peter Menkhorst

Flora and Fauna Branch Department of Natural Resources and Environment

in conjunction with the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Team

January 1997 © Crown (State of Victoria) 1997

Published by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment 240 Victoria Parade, East Melbourne 3002

This publication is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for private study, research, criuci;m or review allowed under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, photocopying or other, without the prior permission of the copyright holder.

Citation Menkhorst, P.W. (1997) Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1994 - 1998. Department of Natural Resources and Environment: Melbourne.

Cover illustration by Alexis Beckett

Designed and produced by the Flora and Fauna Branch Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Printed on recycled paper to help conserve our natural environment CONTENTS

. :•

Acknowledgments ...... •...... iv

Summary ...... v

INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Description ...... 1 Distribution...... 1 Abundance ...... 1 Habitat ...... 2 Life History ...... 3 Conservation Status ...... 3 Existing Conservation Measures ...... 4 Wider Conservation lssues ...... 5

RECOVERY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA ...... 6 Broad Long-term Objectives ...... 6 Specific Objectives ...... 6 Assessment Criteria ...... 7

RECOVERY ACTIONS .. , ...... 8 Organisational Arrangements ...... 8 Active Management ...... 9 Monitoring ...... 11 Research ...... 12 Extension ...... 14 Captive Management ...... 1 5 Review of Progress ...... 1 5

Bibliography ...... 16

Appendix: Implementation Schedule...... 18 iv REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This plan has evolved over several years following input from numerous individuals and groups. In particular it has benefited from discussions with David Baker-Gabb, Mike Clarke, Eileen Collins, Ian Davidson, Peter Davie, Hugh Ford, Don Franklin, Kris French, Gary King, Andrew Ley, Kim Lowe, Alan Morris, Damon Oliver, Doug Robinson, Natasha Schedvin, Barry Trail, Rick Webster and Beth Williams. All members of the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Team have also helped the plan to evolve through their enthusiastic contributions to team discussions. Many of the recovery actions were first proposed by the steering committee established to supervise the 1988-89 survey by Rick Webster and the present author. As well as these two people, this committee comprised Bill Emison, Joe Forshaw, Kim Lowe, Don Franklin, Rod Kavanagh, Alan Morris and Joy Sloan. REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998 v

SUMMARY

Current Species Status

The Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza phyrygia) is classified as endangered under the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, under Queensland's Nature ConservationAct 1992, and under Schedule I, Part 1 of the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. In Victoria the species has been listed as a threatened taxon in Schedule 2 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Under the criteria ofBirdLifeInternational, the Regent Honeyeater also ranks as endangered because its population is between 250 and 2500 and it has undergone a major contraction in range.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors

Regent Honeyeaters occur mainly in box-ironbark open-forests on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range. At times significant numbers also occur in coastal forests in NSW and, Jess frequently, in eastern Victoria. Particularly when breeding, Regent Honeyeaters require access to nectar and a few species of Eucalyptus seem to be vital in providing reliable and fairly predictable nectar flows. Lack of access to these dependable nectar flowsat critical times, due to clearanceof the most fertile stands, the poor health of many remnants, and competition fornectar fromother honeyeaters, may be major causes of the decline of this species.

Recovery Objectives

Short-term • Within the species' range, retain and enhance stands of native open-forest or woodland which contain any of the 'key' treespecies. • Identify and enhance areas and forest types which could be refuges during droughts or other periods when the 'key' species fail to support populations at the regularlyused sites. • Facilitate targeted research into aspects of foraging ecology, social organisation, movement patterns and genetic diversity.

Long-term • Ensure that the species persists. • Achieve an improvement in the conservation status fromendangered to vulnerable within 10 years by: (a) ensuring that the existing important habitat areas remain available and, wherever possible, are enhancedand enlarged, and (b) improving habitat at strategic sites throughout the species' former range. vi. REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998

Recovery Criteria

The following criteria will be used to assess the success of the recovery plan: + Population numbers and patterns of usage at existing sites should at least remain at current levels, and preferablyincrease. + Within 10 years, reporting rates away from currently important sites should increase to 50% of those achieved at the regularly-used sites.

Actions Needed

1 Project management Appoint and manage a recovery team and full-time coordinator. 2 Habitat management Survey, map and improve the protection and management of known important habitat patches. Re-assess the management of all public land containing the 'key' tree species, and where practicable enhance their habitat value for the Regent Honeyeater. 3 Population monitoring Initiate a population monitoring program to elucidate distribution patterns, seasonal occurrence and breeding patterns. 4 Ecological research Initiate innovative research into movement patterns and habitat use in relation to landscape features, flowering phenology and nectar availability. 5 Extension Conduct a public education program about the species and its requirements, aimed particularly at developing habitat management partnerships with landowners within the range of the species. 6 Captive management Establi.sh a small captive colony and develop and document captive husbandry techniques.

Estimated Cost of Recovery

The following table shows the total cost (TC) and Endangered Species Program (ESP) funds required, in $1000s, for Actions 1 to 6 listed above. Other agencies contributing are: + Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria • National Parks and WildlifeService, NSW + State Forests of NSW + Taronga Zoo.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Year TC ESP TC ESP TC ESP TC ESP TC ESP TC ESP TC ESP 1994 362 31.5 10.0 - 6.0 5.0 24.0 - 6.5 6.5 10.0 - 92.7 43.0 1995 37.5 32.8 74.0 25.0 6.0 5.0 24.0 - 5.0 5.0 15.0 - 161.5 67.8 1996 38.7 34.0 98.0 31.0 5.0 4.0 101.7 47.7 5.0 5.0 10.0 - 258.4 121.7 1997 40.4 35.7 35.0 - 4.0 3.0 902 602 5.0 5.0 10.0 - 184.6 103.9 1998 42.7 38.0 9.0 - 4.0 3.0 76.7 47.7 5.0 5.0 10.0 - 147.4 93.7 Total 195.5 1720 226.0 46.0 25.0 20.0 316.6 55.6 26.5 26.5 55.0 - 844.6 430.1

Biodiversity Benefits

Because of its high profile in recent years, the Regent Honeyeater has become a 'flagship species' for conservation issues in the box-ironbark forest region of Victoria and New South Wales (e.g. Garnett 1992b). Progress towards achieving the major conservation objectives will be entirely compatible with REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998 vii

the aims of the Conservation Plan for the Box-Ironbark Ecosystem (NRE in prep.). Several other threatened or uncommon species will also benefit from the actions detailed in this plan, including the Brush-tailed Phascogale, Squirrel Glider, Bush Stone-curlew, Swift Parrotand Painted Honeyeater. REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998

INTRODUCTION

Description

The Regent Honeyeater, Xanthomyza phrygia Shaw 1794, is a medium-sized honeyeater (Family Meliphagidae) inhabiting drier open-forests and woodlands in south-eastern Australia. Adults weigh 41 to 46 g. Plumage is predominantly black, with bright yellow edges to the tail and wing feathers. Body feathers, except forthe head and neck, are broadly edged in pale yellow or white (Longmore 1991). The overall visual impression is of a blackish bird boldly embroidered with yellow and white, with brilliant yellow flashes in wings and tail. A large patch of bare, buff-coloured, warty skin surrounds each eye.

Distribution

The Regent Honeyeater was once distributed within about 300 km of the eastern Australian coast from approximately 100 km north of Brisbane to Adelaide; however, it is no longer found in South Australia (Franklin and Menkhorst 1988) or western Victoria (Franklin et al. 1989). Within this reduced distribution, population dispersal is also extremely patchy, and little information is available on movement patterns of this highly mobile species. Regent Honeyeaters inhabit mainly dry open-forest and woodland in areas of low to moderate relief on the inland (western) slopes of the Great Dividing Range. They occur frequently in broad valleys extending into the ranges. Coastal areas of NSW, particularly the central and southern coasts, and East Gippsland in Victoria are also visited. Although patterns of seasonal movement are poorly understood, a degree of regularity is evident at some sites where the occurrence of Regent Honeyeaters is well-known (Franklin et al. 1989). However, it is almost certain that the currently-available data under-represent the importance of some regions or habitats.

Abundance

Density measurements are extremely difficult to obtain, and probably of little meaning, for a highly mobile species thinly spread over large areas of eastern Australia. During a survey conducted between 1988 and 1990, 299 sightings were recorded from 51 separate localities. It is estimated that no more than 102 individuals were observed during 1988-89 and no more than 145 during 1989-90 (Webster and Menkhorst 1992). Most sightings involved small numbers of birds - 30% of observations were of one individual and 31 % of two; 88% of observations were of four or less. Flocks of IO or more Regent Honeyeaters were found on eight occasions (2.7%), and the largest aggregations were of 23 birds at both Austins Crossing in NSW and Reef Hills Park in Victoria (Webster and Menkhorst 1992). During May 1994 the largest aggregation reported since the early 1900s (about 152 birds) was found at Howes Valley, NSW. At the same time there were 47 at Warrumbungle National Park, giving a total 2 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994-1998

known population of about 200 birds. However, this cannot be regarded as a reliable population estimate because of the vast area of potential habitat which could not be simultaneously surveyed.

Habitat

Most records of the Regent Honeyeater have come from box-ironbark eucalypt associations; it seems to prefer wetter, more fertile sites within these associations, such as along creek flats, broad river valleysand lower slopes. A large proportion of these forest types has been cleared for agriculture, leaving only patches of natural vegetation in a predominantly agricultural landscape. These remnants are often on the least fertile sitesand have been heavily harvested fortimber in the past. In Victoria, stands of immature, even-aged and slow-growing box-ironbark forests totalling some 250 000 ha, mostly on l�s fertile soils, are all that remain of roughly one million hectares that were present at the time of European occupation (Muir et al. 1995). There are no examples of uncut, old-growth box-ironbark woodland remaining. A similar, though less critical, situation exists in NSW. The other major environment regularly utilised by Regent Honeyeaters is wet lowland coastal forests dominated by Swamp Mahogany Eucalyptus robusta or Spotted Gum E. maculata. Such forests are being increasingly fragmented by development along the NSW coast. Two recent studies highlighted the specialised dietary preferences of the Regent Honeyeater (Franklin et al. 1989, Webster and Menkhorst 1992). The species eats insects and nectar and in those studies was surprisingly consistent in preferring nectar from four eucalypt species: Mugga Ironbark E. sideroxylon, White Box E. albens, Yellow Box E. melliodora and Yellow Gum E. leucoxylon. Note that the most highly preferred ironbark species is E. sideroxylon, which occurs through NSW and north-east Victoria, and not E. tricarpa, the form occurring across central Victoria and Gippsland, and recently elevated to species level (Hill and Johnson 1991). The red gums E. blakelyi and E. camaldulensis, and species of mistletoe (family Loranthaceae), are also important nectar sources in some areas. Regent Honeyeaters sometimes take nectar from shrubs, such as grevilleas and banksias in gardens, though it is unclear how important these nectar sources are in the wild. In NSW Regent Honeyeaters also regularly take nectar from Needle-leaf Mistletoe Amyema cambagei growing on River Sheoke Casuarina cunninghamiana (Webster and Menkhorst 1992) and from Swamp Mahogany on the Central Coast (Franklin et al. 1989, Table 5; A. Morris pers comm.). These vegetation communities may be very significant habitats in some years. In a major survey in NSW and Victoria, one or more of Mugga Ironbark, Yellow Box or White Box were present at 75% of sites where Regent Honeyeaters were found (Webster & Menkhorst 1992). White Box, Yellow Box and Yellow Gum grow on fertile soils on gently sloping foothills and plains and have all sufferedextensively through clearing for agriculture. Mugga Ironbark has perhaps suffered less because it also grows on less fertile sites such as ridges and hilltops. Stands of these species growing on high quality sites where nectar production is copious and relatively predictable appear to be critical to the survival of the Regent Honeyeater. These stands include small, isolated patches growing in agricultural areas, as well as patches in extensive state forests or conservation reserves. However, at times Regent Honeyeaters also occur at sites where nectar is not available and will utilise other sugary plant or insect exudates, including honeydew and lerps (Davidson 1992, pers. obs.). Indeed, the large aggregation at Howes Valley was feeding mainly on insects and lerps forseveral months during 1994 (D. Oliver unpublished data). The Regent Honeyeater's preference for large emergent trees has been demonstrated by comparing vegetation parameters in quadrats centred on occupied trees with control quadrats located 100 m to the north of the occupied tree (Webster and Menkhorst 1992). This suggests that past silvicultural treatment of many box-ironbark woodlands, intended to produce dense pole stands which are still immature, may have removed much favourable habitat, especially in Victoria. Tree decline in agricultural and pastoral land has also depleted the quality of remnant stands. REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998 3

Life History

Little is known about the life history of the Regent Honeyeater. Movements appear to be more regular than previously thought, with seasonal patterns of abundance and breeding related to regional patterns in flowering of key eucalypt species (Franklin et al. 1989, Ley 1990). A major concern is the current Jack of understanding of movement patterns or the whereabouts of birds when they are absent from the known regular sites. Nests are constructed of strips of eucalypt bark, dried grass and other plant material. They are placed in an upright fork 4 to 25 m above ground, and 2-3 eggs are laid. In Victoria nesting occurs mainly between November and January, but breeding has been recorded in all months between July and February. In the Bundarra district of NSW breeding occurs between mid August and late December (Ley and Williams 1994). The limited data on nesting behaviour suggest that re-nesting after failure or completion of a breeding attempt is not common, at least at the same site (Webster and Menkhorst unpublished, Davis and Recher 1993, Ley and Williams 1994). Thus, the reproductive potential of the species may not be high compared to many other honeyeaters which regularly undenake successive breeding attempts. At times the Regent Honeyeater' s apparent reliance on eucalypt nectar from a few key species predisposes it to competition for nectar from othernectarivorous birds and the Honey Bee; apiarists also consider these eucalypts to be good nectar producers. Increased competition from other nectarivores resulting from habitat fragmentation, and a reduction in the number of high-quality sites, both caused by clearance of vegetation for agriculture, has been postulated as a major factor in the decline of this species (Franklin et al. 1989, Franklin and Robinson 1989, Davis and Recher 1993, Ford et al. 1993). Insects are also a necessary dietary component, especially during breeding, and are gleaned fromfoliage and bark, and also taken in flight. The·insect exudates honeydew and lerp arc also eaten (Davidson 1992, D. Oliver unpublished data), but their relative imponance is not clear at this time.

Con se rvatio n Stat us

Reasons for Status The Regent Honeyeater is the only member of the genus Xanthomyza, and its morphology does not vary across its range (Shodde et al. 1992). Schodde and McKean (1976) considered that it is most closely related to the highland Papuan honeyeaters of the genus Melidectes. On the grounds of this phylogenetic distinctness alone, the Regent Honeyeater warrants high priority for conservation action. Recent surveys clearly indicate that the range of the Regent Honeyeater has contracted significantly. It no longer occurs in South Australia (Franklin and Menkhorst 1988), and it is now a rare and sporadic visitor to the Bendigo area of central Victoria (Franklin et al. 1987), where it was once common (Ryan 1951, 1981), and to Gippsland, where it was once a regular spring and summer visitor (J. Galbraith pers. comm.). The most recent survey (Webster and Menkhorst 1992) highlighted the extreme patchiness of the population. In NSW and the ACT, 77% of records were from four localities: Warrumbungle National Park, Austins Crossing, Capertee Valley and Canberra. In Victoria, 82% of records were from three localities: Chiltern Park, KillawarraState Forest and Reef Hills Park. Furthermore, most observations were of small numbers of individuals (88% were of four birds or Jess). Much larger aggregations were reported in the historical literature, e.g. Ramsay ( I 866) 'in immense numbers', White (1909) 'in thousands'. The major arguments for concern about the status of the Regent Honeyeater can be summarised as follows: • specialised habitat requirements; • significantreductions in extent of habitat; • demonstrable reduction in habitat quality throughout its range; • apparent reliance on a small number of favoured sites; • clear reduction in range in recent decades (probably on-going in central Victoria); 4 REGENT HONEYEATEA RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998

• low population level (based on the 1988-1990 survey (Webster and Menkhorst 1992) between 500 and 1500 is considered a reasonable estimate); • low population densities throughout its range; • no obvious, straightforward or quick solutions to the postulated causes of the population decline: only Jong-term changes to land management, on both public and private land, will lead to a significant improvement (e.g. Ley and Williams 1992).

Current Status The Regent Honeyeater is considered to be endangered (Garnett 1992a, CNR 1995, ANZECC 1991). It is classified as endangered under the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 and under Queensland's Nature Conservation Act 1992. In Victoria the species has been listed as a threatened taxon in Schedule 2 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, and in New South Wales it is classified as threatened under Schedule I of the ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act 1996.

Existing Conservation Measures

Concerns about the conservation status of the Regent Honeyeater were first raised in the late 1970s (Peters 1979). Between 1983 and 1987 an intensive questionnaire and literature survey was conducted to collate informationon all past and current sightingsof the species. The results provided the first details of the ecology of the Regent Honeyeater (Franklin et al. 1989). They also indicated a clearcontraction of its range in South Australia and western Victoria (Franklin et al. 1987, Franklin and Menkhorst 1988) and a reduction in the frequency and size of aggregations. Based partly on the results of this work, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service funded a two-year field survey of the species in Victoria and New South Wales. This survey, which was conducted by the Wildlife Branch of the former Victorian Department of Conservation and Environment, drew heavily on reports of Regent Honeyeaters from bird-watchers throughout south-eastern Australia. The study finished in April 1990 and recommendations based on the results of that study and the previous studies were formulated by the steering committee, and subsequently revised following extensive consultation within the former DCE and the New South Wales Forestry Commission (Webster and Menkhorst 1992). These recommendations, which include the exclusion of timber harvesting, mining and grazing from areas identified as regularly used sites, formed the basis of a 'Guideline' in NRE's WildlifeManual and for the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement for the species (DCE 1991, Menkhorst 1993). They are now being implemented at important sites in north-eastern New South Wales by State Forests of NSW and will form the basis of the management guidelines and prescriptions for this species in the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service's Threatened Species Management Manual. In May 1990 staff from what is now NRE's North East Region located up to 30 Regent Honeyeaters on freehold land near Lurg. Aggregations of birds were also present at this site in the four subsequent winters. Local landholders were informed of the significance of their land and its remnant eucalypts and the need for protection. The local Landcare group then targeted this area for the establishment of corridors of the 'key' tree species linking existing remnant stands. More recently, detailed mapping of remnant habitat at Lurg has been undertaken by local NRE staff. This information has been used to analyse preferences by Regent Honeyeaters for remnants of differing size and shape (Mann and Davidson 1993). In 1991 and 1992, areas of freehold land west of the Yarrambat Golf Course which were regularly visited by Regent Honeyeaters were acquired by Melbourne Water Corporation to be added to the Plenty Gorge Park. Near Bundarra, in north-eastern NSW, the Northern NSW group of the RAOU is using funds fromthe Save the Bush program to undertake public education and revegetation works in strategicTravelling Stock Reserves and freehold land (Ley and Williams 1992). They are also mapping remnant box-ironbark woodland and liaising with landholders to improve the management of these remnants. Breeding Regent Honeyeaters in the Bundarra district have been studied by the Northern NSW group of the RAOU (Ley 1990, Ley and Williams 1994) and by researchers from the University of New England (Davis and Recher 1993, Ford et al. 1993, D. Oliver unpublished data). REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998 5

Wider Con se rvatio n Issues

Progress towards achieving the major conservation objectives will be entirely compatible with the aims of the Conservation Program for the Box-Ironbark Ecosystem in Victoria (NRE in prep.). It will also complement several other Government programs, including the Native Vegetation Retention planning controls, Greening Australia, Tree Victoria, Landcare, Salinity Management and Land for Wildlife. Several other threatened or uncommon species will also benefit from the actions detailed in this plan, including the Brush-tailed Phascogale, Squirrel Glider, Bush Stone-curlew, Swift Parrot, Grey-crowned Babbler and Painted Honeyeater. If, as it is believed, a large number of bird species in eucalypt woodlands are undergoing a prolonged decline (Recher and Lim 1990, Robinson 1993), this plan will also benefit those species. 6 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994-1998

RECOVERY OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA

The actions proposed in this recovery plan conform with and extend those of DCE (1991), Webster and Menkhorst (1992), Garnett (1992a), Ley and Williams (1992), Menkhorst (1993), Robinson (1995) and NRE (in prep.). They are based on a thorough review of the biological and ecological infonnation available at the time of writing. However, it is emphasised that our knowledge of the habitat requirements of the Regent Honeyeater, and of seasonal or drought-induced movements, is rudimentry and that the adequacy of these actions will need to be reassessed as new information becomes available.

Broad Long-Term Objectives

1 To ensure that the species persists. 2 To achieve an improvement in the conservation status from endangered to vulnerable within l O years by: (a) ensuring that the current important habitat areas remain available and, wherever possible, are enhanced and enlarged, and (b) improving habitat at strategic sites throughout the species' former range.

Specific Objectives

Wherever practicable, retain and enhance stands of native open-forest or woodland within the range of the Regent Honeyeater which contain any of the 'key' tree species (Mugga Ironbark, White Box, Yellow Box, Yellow Gum, Swamp Mahogany and River Sheoke). These include remnant stands on agricultural land, streamside and roadside reserves, travelling stock routes and stands in state forest and conservation reserves. 2 Identify districts in which the Regent Honeyeater occurs regularly, and map all remnants of open forest and woodland which contain any of the 'key' tree species. Ensure that the management of all such remnants is directed toward retaining the 'key' tree species and at increasing the number of mature trees of these 'key' species. 3 Identify areas and foresttypes which could be refugia during droughts or other periods when the 'key' species fail to support populations at the regularly used sites. Influence management of any such areas to ensure that the habitat quality for the Regent Honeyeater is retained. 4 Facilitate targeted research into aspects of foraging ecology, social organisation, movement patterns and genetic diversity to provide key knowledge and predictive power about the relationships between the species and its environment, to alJow the development of more sophisticated, closely-targeted recovery actions. REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994-1998 7

Assessment Criteria

The following criteria will be used to assess the success of the recovery plan: Population numbers and patterns of usage at existing sites at least remain at current levels and preferably increase. Reporting rates away from currently important sites increase to 50% of those achieved at the regularly used sites. 8 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998

RECOVERY ACTIONS

A coordinated program of habitat protection and enhancement across the entire range of the species will be the cornerstone of the recovery effort. This program will be refined as the results of monitoring and ecological research become available.

1. Organisational Arrangements

1.1 Establish a recovery team to guide, evaluate and review progress, and implement recommendations which flow from the research outlined below. The recovery team will, within two years of being established, re-evaluate the adequacy of the actions proposed in this recovery plan. The recovery team will include representatives of: • ANCA Endangered Species Program • NRE Flora and Fauna Branch • NRE North East Region + NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service • State Forests of NSW + NSW Field Ornithologists Club + RAOU + RAOU Northern NSW Group + RAOU Southern NSW and ACT Group + Zoological Parks Board of New South Wales + La Trobe University School of Zoology • University of New England Department of Zoology • World Wide Fund for Nature

Government agencies will meet the costs associated with the attendance of their representatives at recovery team meetings. If representatives of other organisations face considerable expense to attend a meeting, the reimbursement of their fares and other valid costs from the recovery effort budget will be considered.

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NAE 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 10000 NPWS 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 5000 SF 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 5000 ESP 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 7500 TOTAL 5500 5500 5500 5500 5500 27500 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998 9

1.2 Appoint a full-time Coordinator to help with all aspects of implementation of this plan, including liaison with government agencies, Landcare groups, bird study organisations and other non government organisations. The Coordinator will have a particularly important role in implementing tasks 1.3, 2.1, 2.8, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 5. Included in the costings is $6000 per annum for travel and expenses. The position reports directly to the recovery team through its chairman.

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1:997 1998 TOTAL NRE 700 700 700 700 700 3 500 ESP 30 000 31 300 32 500 34 200 36 500 164 500 TOTAL 30700 32000 33 200 34900 37200 168 000

1.3 In the vicinity of known regularly used sites, establish voluntary 'operations groups' to assist with local monitoring, survey and extension. Operations groups are independent bodies, but comprise an integral component of the recovery effort.Their activities reflect the priorities of the recovery plan and are coordinated by the Recovery Team through the Regent Honeyeater Coordinator. Operations groups can include any interested people who are willing to help implement any of the tasks identified in this plan. They will have a particularly important role in tasks 2.1, 2.6, 2.8, 3 and 5.

2. Active Management

Known Regent Honeyeater Sites

2.1 Survey and map all stands of the 'key' tree species (as defined in Specific Objective I) on Crown Land and freehold land within the 11 strongholdsof the Regent Honeyeater broadly identified by -�Webster .and Menkhorst (1992) (Chiltern Park, Killawarra State Forest, Reef Hills Park, the Lurg � .. . . . district and the Eildon district in Victoria; Capertee Valley, Munghorn Gap, ·warrumbungle National Park, Bundarra district and Gosford area in NSW; and the Canberra areain the ACT). If further strongholds are identified, consider similar treannent for them.

Organisation 1994 19,95 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE 10 000 5 000 nil nil nil 15 000 ESP nil 15 000 25 000 nil nil 40 000 :TOTAL 10000 20·000 25 000 nil nil 55 000

2.2 Use all available administrative avenues to protect and enhance these stands, including Native Vegetation Retention planning controls (Victoria), State Environment Planning Policy 46 (NSW), and voluntary measures such as conservation agreements and covenants, and the Land for Wildlife scheme (Victoria only). Encourage and assist the seeking of external funds to protect and enhance these stands. In this context, protection and enhancement of eucalypt stands means managing them to: • ensure they are not cleared, • reduce theincidence of dieback, • ensure regeneration is taking place, + maintain the diversity and vigour of the understorey, and • where necessary, thin regrowth to maintain crown vigour and encourage the growth of larger crowns.

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOifAL NRE nil 15000 3000 nil nil 18000 NPWS nil 2000 2000 nil nil 4000 SF nil 3000 3000 nil nil 6000 TOTAL nil 20000 8000 nil nil 2&000 10 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994-1998

2.3 In Victoria and NSW, planning officers from NRE and NPWS, respectively, will ensure that consideration by local or State government officers of applications to clear native vegetation takes account of Regent Honeyeater habitat requirements. This will include strict controls on removal of any large trees of the 'key' species.

Organisaton 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE nil 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 NPWS nil 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 TOTAL nil 2000 2000 2000 200@ 8000

Throughout the Range of the Regent Honeyeater

2.4 Regional forest planners from NRE and State Forests of NSW will re-assess the management of all timber-harvesting areas within the historical range of the Regent Honeyeater which contains the 'key' tree species to ensure the maintenance of an adequate number (as defined for NSW by NPWS and for Victoria by NRE) of mature trees of the 'key' species. The current interim prescriptions used by State Forests of New South Wales are to retain at least 8 to IO mature trees per hectare of the 'key' species where those species are present, and to retain all trees in a 100-metre radius around any known nest. In Victoria, the needs of the Regent Honeyeater will be a major component of prescriptions for fauna built into Forest Management Plans for the following Forest Management Areas: North East, Mid Murray, Benalla-Mansfield and Bendigo.

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE nil nil 3000 1000 1000 5000 SF nil nil 3000 nil nil 3000 nil TOTAL nil 6000 1000 IOQO 8000

2.5 For all forest types or areas identified as refugia under Specific Objective 3, develop forest management prescriptions (in Victoria as a component of Forest Management Plans) which will ensure the continuing availability of refugia which supply habitat of adequate quality to support a significant proportion of the population. (Note that it is unlikely that freehold land would qualify as a refuge because of the lack of long-term security for vegetation on private land.)

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE nil nil 3000 nil nil 3000 NPWS nil nil 3000 nil nil 3000 SF nil nil 3000 nil nil 3000 TOTAL n-il nil 9000 nil nil 9000

2.6 In areas within the Regent Honeyeater's distribution where the locally indigenous eucalypts include one or more of the 'key' tree species, all road reserves and travelling stock routes should be assessed for their strategic value and suitability for creating corridors of eucalypt woodland of locally indigenous species of trees and shrubs. This may necessitate the exclusion of grazing stock from areas so designated. Where appropriate, land managers or licensees could be assisted with costs of trees or fencing materials, or a discount on the licence fee.Liaison with shires and interest groups, including Austroads, should be established to encourage the protection and enhancement of preferred vegetation. Shires should be encouraged to develop roadside management plans so that important sites and appropriate management practices can be readily identified to relevant parties, including utility corporations (electricity, communications, gas, water, roads). REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1 994 - 1 998 11

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE nil 5 000 5 000 5 000 nil 15 000 NPWS nil 5 000 5 000 5 000 nil 15 000 TOTAL nil 10 000 10 000 10 000 nil 30 000

2. 7 Use tree-planting programs established by the Federal and State Governments to create habitat on cleared land within the Regent Honeyeater's range and to join remnant stands into larger, more viable units. Staffof land management agencies should provide advice to land managers about the location of important sites to be revegetated with locally indigenous trees and shrubs, and about requirements for fencing. In particular, it is vital to plant the locally indigenous form of ironbark, and to include a shrub layer in all plantings, to avoid creating further habitat for the competing Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala. In assessing applications for funds for remnant protection and revegetation works, priority should be given to projects which will benefit the RegentHoneyeater.

Oroanisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE nil 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 NPWS nil 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 TOTAL nil 2000 2000 2000 2000 8000

2.8 Appoint part-time Regent Honeyeater Project Officers to work with the local communities at sites where significant habitat occurs, mainly on freehold land and where such habitat is threatened by current landuse practices. Initially, project officers will be appointed to the Lurg and Chiltern Killawarra areas of Victoria and at Capertee Valley, NSW. Inform all Landcare groups within the range of the Regent Honeyeater about the species, its conservation status and habitat requirements. The groups should be given advice and encouragement to protect and plant the most appropriate tree and shrub species for the Regent Honeyeater.

Qroanisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE nil 6 000 16 000 nil nil 22 000 NPWS nil nil 10 000 16 000 nil 26 000 ESP nil 10 000 6 000 nil nil 16 000 TOTAL nil 16 000 32 000 16 000 nil 64 000

2.9 In Victoria, wildlifeplanning staff will liaise closely with local NRE policy and planning officers to ensur.e that consideration of applications for mining titles, and rehabilitation of mined areas, takes account of Regent Honeyeater habitat requirements. Again, clear conditions which ensure retention of large trees of the 'key' species are vital.

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE nil 2000 2000 2000 2000 8000 SF nil 2000 2000 2000 2000 8000 TOTAL nil 4000 4000 4000 4000 16000

3. Monitoring

Population Monitoring

To help identify important habitat areas, including refuge areas (see specific objective 3), and thus focus management priorities, a coordinated, three-level program of population monitoring is necessary: 1 Collate locality records to more clearly define the broad distribution and movement patterns and to refine the knowledge of important habitat patches. 12 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994-1998

2 Monitor population numbers at regularly used sites to help understand patterns of habitat usage and population fluctuations. 3 Monitor breeding attempts to help understand population status and habitat requirements.

For a thinly distributed and highly mobile species such as the Regent Honeyeater the co-operation of volunteer bird observers and local staffof the relevant government agencies is vital if a successfulresearch or monitoring program is to be achieved. Monitoring protocols will be established and reviewed by the recovery team, and data collection and storage will be organised by the Coordinator.

3.1 Enlist the help of bird observers and ornithologists throughout eastern Australia to advise the coordinator of all sightings of the Regent Honeyeater. Develop a standard reporting form for all such records and a database fortheir storage and manipulation. The Coordinator will report on new sightings and their frequency at particular sites to each meeting of the recovery team.

1994 1995 1996 Organisation 1997 1998 TOTAL ESP 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 5000

3.2 Establish a system for monthly monitoring of eucalypt flowering and the population numbers of nectarivorous birds at the important sites, including Chiltern Park, Killawarra State Forest, Reef Hills Park, Lurg district, Eildon district and the Plenty Gorge area in Victoria; Capertee Valley, MunghornGap, WarrumbungleNational park, Bundarra district and Gosford area in NSW; and the Canberra area in the ACT.

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL ESP 4000 4000 3000 2000 2000 15 000

Reproduction

3.3 Continue to opportunistically monitor breeding attempts to assess levels of recruitment to the population. Careful liaison will be required with those undertaking population monitoring to ensure that appropriate data is collected from each nesting attempt.

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL NRE 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 5000

4. Research

Movement Studies 4.1 Determine the patterns of movement by colour-banding and radio-tracking individuals. This will allow the mapping of local and large-scale movements to identify further important habitat patches and foraging resources that need management attention. Colour-banding individuals would also indicate whether or not individual Regent Honeyeaters return regularly to certain sites. To supplement radio-tracking, examine DNA variability in blood or feather samples obtained from Regent Honeyeaters captured forother purposes at sites throughout their range. Before these samples can be analysed, extra funds will need to be found.

1994 Organisation 1995 '1996 1997 1998 TOTAL ESP nil nil 30 000 30 000 29 000 89 000 13 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998

Ecological Requirements

4.2 Conduct further investigations on the abundance and dispersion of the Regent Honeyeater in relation to flowering patterns and nectar productivity of the 'key' tree species of different age and size classes in a range of situations, including large and small patches, on ridges, slopes and gullies, and in the presence and absence of grazing of stock. Use the results of this research to refineprescriptions for habitat protection on both public and private land. Costs: Funding has been obtained by H. Ford and H. Recher from Murray-Darling Basin Commission and University of New England.

Ot:gani�tion' 1994 '1995 1996 199.7 1998 XOTAL :MDBC 24 000 24 000 24 000 nil nil 72 000

4.3 Investigate the flowering patterns and nectar productivity of a range of eucalypt species and communities in coastal and foothill forests on the eastern and southern slopes of the Great Dividing Range, and their significance for populations of nectarivorous birds, particularly during droughts on the westernslopes. Use the results of this research to refinemanagement prescriptions for protecting habitat on both public and private land. Costs - to be found.

Organisation 1Q94 , 1995 '1991i !997 ·;i'OTAE ? nil nil 30 000 30 000 29 000 89 000

4.4 Investigate the feasibility of creating a model to predict Regent Honeyeater movements by collating all available data on climatic parameters, flowering timesof eucalypts, nectar production rates and honeyeater movements.

.Organisation 1'994. 1996 1998 '!0TAL ESP nil nil nil 12 500 nil 12 500

Social Ecology

4.5 Investigate further the theory that interspecific and intraspecific aggression may influence the accessibility of nectar, breeding success and use of optimum habitat, and therefore the survival of individual Regent Honeyeaters. This might be conducted concurrently (and share sites) with the research into flowering phenology and nectar production. The Recovery Team should monitor the results of current research into the effects of honeybees on honeyeater populations and, if warranted, recommend re-assessment of apiary licences at critical Regent Honeyeater sites.

Organisation 1'994 1995 ,1996 199T ESP nil nil 22 700 22 700 22 700 68 100 14 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994-1998

5. Extension

In the context of this project, extension includes liaison with the managers of public and private land, operations groups, bird watchers and the general public. Liaison with land managers will be undertaken at several different levels; by agency extension officers, the Coordinator and by operations groups. Where appropriate this liaison should involve the development of informal partnerships with the land managers, such as those under the Victorian Land for Wildlife scheme. As in all such projects, it is important to keep all participants informed of progress and interesting developments, and to provide information to interested members of the public. The recovery team has decided not to pursue the formation of a 'Friends' group. Rather, it is envisaged that the network of operations groups and representatives of bird clubs, supervised by the Coordinator and · ·- regularly informedby the newsletter, will perform a similar function. The extension component of the recovery effort will necessarily involve all participants including government agencies, researchers, interest groups, funding bodies and the public. Responsibility for publicity lies principally with the participating government agencies and non-government organisations, but will be coordinated by the Coordinator. It is essential that government agencies effectively communicate and coordinate in the implementation of this plan, and effectivelycommunicate with researchers and client groups. Equally importantly, interest groups and the public must be kept informed of the problems facing the Regent Honeyeater, actions being taken under this plan, and progress and achievements. Interest groups and interested individuals should have the opportunity to participate in the recovery effort where practicable, and workshops or field days may be appropriate to train potential contributors.

5.1 The general community will be made aware of the recovery effort and its achievements through all · ...,_ .. forms of mass media and local regional media. Opportunities forpublicity in local newspapers and on radio or television should always be grasped. Articles in wildlife or environmental magazines and journals are also a valuable means of increasing support and awareness among the committed public.

5.2 Interest groups and part1c1pants will be kept informed of developments via a twice-yearly newsletter compiled by the Coordinator.

5.3 On a local level, numerous government and community groups will need to be kept informed of significant habitat patches and their appropriate management. These groups include shire planners, fire fighting organisations, utility providers and landholders. This level of extension must be carried out by regional staff ofthe State Governmentland management agencies, reinforced, where appropriate by the operations groups or other non-government organisations.

5.4 Potential funding agencies need to be kept informed of progress and should receive the biannual newsletter. Applications for funding for habitat restoration works will be prepared by operations groups with guidance and coordination from the Coordinator.

The costs of actions 5.1 to 5.4 will be:

Organisation 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL ESP 6500 5000 5000 5000 5000 26 500 REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994-1998 15

6. Captive Management

Although the recovery effort is predicated on the effective management of the wild population, there are significant advantages in having a small captive group at this early stage in the recovery effort. These include a longer lead time in which to develop techniques of captive husbandry and intensive manipulation, to be deployed should the wild population continue to decline; opportunities to collect detailed breeding observations and data which are difficult to obtain in the wild; and opportunities to trial research techniques such as the attachment of radio transmitters, colour-marking methods etc. Note that no need for release of captive-bred Regent Honeyeaters has been identified during the life of this plan. Taronga Zoo, Sydney, which has considerable experience and expertise in the captive management of honeyeaters, has indicated a willingness to undertake this component of the recovery effort. Taronga has committed funds to the establishment of the captive colony, and a draft captivemanagement plan has been produced.

6.1 Establish a small captive colony of Regent Honeyeaters and manipulate the breeding behaviour of the birds so that captive husbandry techniques can be perfectedand documented.

6.2 Prepare a detailed captive management manual for use, should the decline of the wild population continue.

The costs of actions 6.1 and 6.2 are as follows:

Organisation 1994 ·1995 1996 1999 1998 TOTAL TZ 10 000 15 000 10 000 10 000 10 000 SS 000

j 1. Review of Progress

The Recovery Team will conduct an annual review to assess progress towards the implementation of the recovery plan and the success in achieving the objectives. The review will be conducted by the Recovery Team, with one or two people outside the team asked to provide constructive and critical input. It should take place around the middle of the year, when field studies andmanagement actions are less -intensive. At 0 the review, people responsible for each component of this plan will present a progress report. The review should ensure that successes and failures in implementation are identified, and a process to overcome any failures is agreed to and documented. Thus, the review will be a starting point for detailed planning of actions for the following year. ..-, 1 6 REGENT HONEYEATEA RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anonymous 1994. The captive management component of the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan. Bird Department, Taronga Zoo: Sydney. ANZECC 1991. ANZECC List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna, April 1991. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service: Canberra. CNR 1995. Threatened Fauna in Victoria - 1995. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources: Melbourne. Davidson, LR. 1992. Regent Honeyeaters feeding on mealybug honeydew. Australian Bird Watcher 14: 193-194. Davis, W.E. and Recher, H.F. 1993. Notes on the breeding biology ofthe Regent Honeyeater. Corella 17: 1�. DCE 1991. Regent Honeyeater Management in Victoria. Procedural Document 02-20-0642-1, Department ofConservation and Environment: Melbourne. Ford, H., Davis, W. E., Debus, S., Ley, A., Recher, H. and Williams, B. 1993. Foraging and aggressive behaviour of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia in northern New South Wales. Emu 93: 277-281. Franklin, D. C. and Menkhorst, P.W. 1988. A History of the Regent Honeyeater in South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist 30: 141-145. Franklin, D. C. and Robinson, J.L. 1989. Territorial behaviour of a Regent Honeyeater at feeding sites. Australian Bird Watcher 13: 129-132. Franklin, D., Menkhorst, P. and Robinson, J. 1987. Field surveys ofthe Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia in Victoria. AustralianBird Watcher 12: 91-95. Franklin, D.C., Menkhorst, P.W. and Robinson, J.L. 1989. Ecology of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia. Emu 89: 140-154. Garnett, S. 1992a. The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service: Canberra. Garnett, S. 1992b. Rare birds and sustainable development. Wildlife Australia 29(1): 4-5. Hill, K.D. and Johnson, L.A.S. 1991. Systematic studies in the eucalypts -3. New taxa and combinations in Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae). Telopea 4: 223-269. Ley, A.J. 1990. Notes on the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia. Australian Bird Watcher 13: 171- 173. Ley, A. and Williams, M.B. 1992. The conservation status ofthe Regent Honeyeater near Armidale, New South Wales. Australian Bird Watcher 14: 277-281. Ley, A.J. and Williams, M.B. 1994. Breeding behaviour and morphology of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia. Australian Bird Watcher 15: 366-376. Longmore, W. 1991. Honeyeaters and their Allies of Australia. Angus & Robertson: Sydney. Mann, S. and Davidson, I. 1993. The Molyullah to Glenrowan District Regent Honeyeater Project, preliminary report. Department ofConservation and Natural Resources:Benalla. Menkhorst, P. 1993. Action Statement Number 41, Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia. Department ofConservation and Natural Resources: Melbourne. Muir, A.M., Edwards, S.A. and Dickens, J.M. 1995. Description and conservation status of the vegetation ofthe box-ironbark ecosystem in Victoria. Floraand Fauna Technical Report Number 136, Departmentof Conservation and Natural Resources: Melbourne. REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994-1998 17

NRE in prep. Conservation Program for the Box-Ironbark Ecosystem in Victoria. Department of Natural Resources and Environment: Melbo�rne. Peters, D.E. 1979. Some evidence for a decline in population status of the Regent Honeyeater. Australian Bird Watcher 8: 117-123. Ramsay, E.P. 1866. The oology of Australia. Transactions of the Philosophical Society of Australia 1: 309-329. Recher, H.F. and Lim, L. 1990. A review of current ideas of the extinction, conservation and management of Australia's terrestrial vertebrate fauna. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16: 287-301. Robinson, D. 1993. Toolern Vale vale: The decline of our native birds. Wingspan 9: 1-3, 20--21. Robinson, D. 1995. Research plan for threatened birds in grassy woodlands. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series number 133. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources: Melbourne. Ryan, J.V. 1951. Honeyeaters in the Bendigo district Victoria. Emu 51: 175-176. Ryan, J.V. 1981. The Regent Honeyeater - some early notes. Bird Observer 597: 85. Schodde, R. and McKean, J.L. 1976. The relations of some monotypic genera of Australian oscines. Pp. 530-541 in Proceedings of the XVI International Ornithological Congress. Ed. by H.J. Frith and J.H. Calaby. AustralianAca demy of Science: Canberra. Schodde, R., Mason, I.J. and Christidis, L. 1992. Regional age and sexual differentiation in the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia. Corella 16: 23-28. Webster, R. and Menkhorst, P. 1992. The Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza phrygia): population status and ecology in Victoria and New South Wales. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series Number 126.Department of Conservation and Environment: Melbourne. White, H.L. 1909. Warty-facedHoneyeaters and Friarbirds. Emu 9: 93-94. 1 8 REGENT HONEYEA TEA RECOVERY PLAN 1994- 1998

APPENDIX Implementation Schedule

Budgetary requirements, funding sources and responsible parties for each of the recovery actions ($'000s). a: NRE contribution (total $112 500); b: NSW NPWS contribution (total $61 000); c: State Forests of NSW contribution (total $25 000); d: Endangered Species Program contribution (total $430 100); e: Taronga Zoo contribution (total $55 000).

$ YEAR TASK DESCRIPTION PRIORITY FEASIBILITY RESPONSIB'Y SOURCE 94 95 96 97 98 TOTAL

ORGANISATION

1.1 Recovery Team 100% NRE a 2 2 2 2 2 10 b 5 c 1 5 d 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 7.5 ZT.5

1.2 Coordinator 100% NRE a 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.5 d :I) 31.3 32.5 342 36.5 164.5 168

2 ACTIVE MANAGEMENT 2.1 Survey & mapping 100% NRE, NPWS a 10 5 15 d 15 25 40 55

2.2 Protection of 80% NRE, NPWS, SF a 15 3 18 critical sites b 2 2 4 c 3 3 6 28

2.3 Vegetation 80% NRE,NPWS a 4 clearance controls b 4 8

2.4 Protection of 2 60% NRE,SF a 3 5 mature trees c 3 3 8 ..

REGENT HONEYEATER RECOVERY PLAN 1994 - 1998 19

$ YEAR TASK DESCRIPTION PRIORITY FEASIBILITY RESP ONSIB'Y SOURCE 94 95 96 97 98 TOTAL

2.5 Identity and 2 80"/o NRE,NPWS,SF a 3 3 manage retugia b 3 3 c 3 3 9

2.6 Rehabilitate 2 60% NRE,NPWS a 5 5 5 15 corridors b 5 5 5 15

2.7 Enlist tree planting 2 100% NRE,NPWS a 4 schemes b 4 8

2.8 Liaise with 2 100% NRE,NPWS a 6 16 22 Landcare groups b 10 16 23 d 10 6 16 64

2.9 Mining practices 2 80"/o NAE.SF a 2 2 2 2 8 c 2 2 2 2 8 16

3 MONITORING

3.1 Sightings database 100% NAE d 5

3.2 Monitor honeyeaters 80"/o NAE d 4 4 3 2 2 15 and flowers

3.3 Reproduction 80"/o NAE, ops. grps a 5 25 4 RESEARCH 4.1 Movement studies 60% NAE.university d 25 25 25 75

4.2 Ecological 80"/o UNE MDBC grant 24 24 24 72 requirements

4.3 Flower and nectar 2 80"/o to be detemiined ? 3'.) 3'.) 29 � phenology

4.4 Ecological model 2 80% NAE, university d 12.5 125

4.5 Social ecology 80"/o NAE, university d 227 227 227 68.1 316.6 5 EXTENSION

5.1 Publicity, 100% NRE,NPWS,SF d 6.5 5 5 5 5 26.5 newsletter, networking

6 CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

6.1 Establish colony, 100% Taronga Zoo e 10 15 10 10 10 55 prepare manual TOTALS 927 161.5 258.4 184.6 147.4 844.6 !REGENT HONEYEATERI

!RECOVERY PLANI

11994 - 1998/

prepared by Peter Menkhorst