Threatened Species Nomination Form for amending the list of threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) for the 2013–2014 Assessment Period (Assessment periods run from 1 October to 30 September)

The purpose of this form is to provide a nomination to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee for assessment of a non EPBC Act listed species for inclusion on the list of threatened species or to nominate a species for reassessment for consideration for listing in another category of threat.

For a non-EPBC Act listed species to be eligible for listing as a threatened species it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for listing . For a species already listed as threatened under the EPBC Act to be eligible for listing in a higher or lower category of threat it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for a particular indicative threshold. For example, for a species listed as endangered to be found eligible for listing as critically endangered, it must meet the critically endangered indicative thresholds for at least one of the listing criteria.

If there is insufficient information to enable details to be provided because of a lack of scientific data or analysis please include any information that is available or provide a statement next to the relevant question identifying that the data or analysis is not available. Please provide references in your nomination to support information provided.

If you are nominating a species for delisting (removal from the list) please complete the nomination form to delist a species.

Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A . If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).

Eligibility for Listing

1. NAME OF NOMINATED SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis

Common name(s): Hooded Plover (eastern) 2. NOMINATED CATEGORY Note: if unsure about which category the species should be nominated for, refer to the indicative threshold criteria at Attachment B. Vulnerable 3. CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE SPECIES IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. Criterion 1 A1 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A2 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A3 (specify at least one of the following) b) c) d) e); AND/OR A4 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e)

Criterion 2 A1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c); AND/OR A2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

Criterion 3 A1; AND/OR A2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c)

Criterion 4

Criterion 5

For conservation dependent Criterion 1 nominations only: Criterion 2 4. CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY What category is the species currently listed in under the EPBC Act? (If you are nominating the species for delisting, please complete the nomination form for delisting ). Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent 5. 2013–2014 CONSERVATION THEME: There is no conservation theme for the 2013–2014 Assessment Period – 6. CONSERVATION STATUS What is the species’ current conservation status under State/Territory Government legislation? Does the species have specific protection under other legislation or intergovernmental arrangements? The current conservation status of the Hooded Plover (eastern) Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis under Australian and State/Territory Government legislation is as follows:

New South Wales: Listed as Critically Endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 as Thinornis rubricollis.

Victoria: Listed as Threatened under the DSE Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria 2007 supplementing the Flora and Fauna Guarantee (FFG) Act 1988 as Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis.

South Australia: Listed as Vulnerable under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (Schedule 8) as Thinornis rubricollis.

Western Australia: Listed as Priority 4 species (P4) defined as Rare, Near Threatened and other species in need of monitoring in the Department of Environment and Conservation's Threatened and Priority Fauna Rankings as Charadrius rubricollis .

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012.2:Listed as Vulnerable C1 as Thinornis rubricollis.

The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010 (Garnett et al. 2011) lists the Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis as Vulnerable C1, and Hooded Plover (western) Thinornis rubricollis tregellasi as Vulnerable C2a (ii) and Hooded Plover (eastern) Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis as Vulnerable C1+2a(ii).

Nominator's Details Note: Your details are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice regarding the nomination is sought from such parties. 7. TITLE (e.g. Mr/Mrs/Dr/Professor/etc.) Dr 8. FULL NAME Grainne Maguire 9. ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE) BirdLife Australia 10. CONTACT DETAILS Email: Postal address: Suite 2/05, 60 Leicester St, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia [email protected] u Phone: 03 9347 0757 Fax: 03 9347 9323

Important notes for completing this form • Please complete the form as comprehensively as possible – it is important for the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to have as much information as possible, and the best case on which to judge a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act criteria for listing. • Reference all information and facts, both in the text and in a reference list at the end of the form. • The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as personal communication, with their approval, in support of your nomination. Please provide the name of the experts, their qualifications and contact details (including employment in a state agency, if relevant) in the reference list at the end of the form. • Keep in mind the relevance of your answers to the listing criteria ( Attachment B; Part B1 ). • If the species is considered to be affected by climate change , please refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2). • Identify any confidential material and explain the sensitivity. • Note that the nomination and the information in it (but excluding any information specifically requested by you to remain confidential) will be made available to the public and experts for comment. However, your details as nominator will not be released , and will remain confidential. • Figures, tables and maps can be included at the end of the form or prepared as separate electronic or hardcopy documents (referred to as appendices or attachments in your nomination). • Cross-reference relevant areas of the nomination form where needed. • Nominations that do not meet the EPBC Regulations will not proceed – see Division 7.2 of the EPBC Regulations 2000 (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html ). As noted under sub-regulation 7.04(3), if information is not available for a particular question please state this in your answer.

Species Information 11. TAXONOMY Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy (e.g. naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order) and whether or not it is conventionally accepted. At the species level, the Hooded Plover was recently moved from the genus Charadrius to the genus Thinornis (Christian et al. 1992). It is, therefore, the only species of the genus Thinornis that is occurs in Australia (Christidis & Boles 1994). There has also been some dispute over which specific name, rubricollis or the historical cucullatus, should be used (McAllan & Christidis 1998; Olson 1998). (SOURCE of this SPRAT http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66726#names)

Subspecific variation among resident Australian shorebirds is poorly reviewed in comparison to other Australian bird taxa. Charadriiformes were not included in the landmark zoological cataloguing work of Schodde and Mason (1997 and 1999) which constitute the only ever consolidated reviews of bird subspecies in Australia. However this does not indicate that subspecific variation in shorebirds does not exist, just that it has not been well investigated. Significant geographically based morphological and ecological character differences in a number of resident Australian shorebird species are well known, and polytypism within the Charadriiformes is routinely recognised.

BirdLife Australia defines 18 Australian polytypic shorebird species. Two (allopatric) subspecies of Hooded Plover have been described; an eastern subspecies - Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis (J. F. Gmelin, 1789 in Olson 1998) and a western subspecific taxon - Thinornis rubricollis tregellasi (Mathews, 1912). The two subspecies were first split on the basis of size and plumage differences.

BirdLife International recognises these two Hooded Plover subspecies (BirdLife International (2013) Species factsheet: Thinornis rubricollis. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 20/03/2013. Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2013) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 20/03/2013) as does the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (BirdLife International 2012. Thinornis rubricollis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. . Downloaded on 21 March 2013) and BirdLife Australia (Garnett et al. 2011).

Contemporary studies have confirmed that plumage and morphological differences exist between the eastern and western populations of the Hooded Plover (Marchant & Higgins 1993), and there also appear to be differences in the ecology and habitat of the two forms (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

There is no evidence of demographic exchange between the two populations despite several hundred birds having been colour marked and extensive survey effort in both the eastern and western ranges of the species. The populations are separated by a long expanse of fundamentally unsuitable habitat (the Nullabour Plain, some 700 km) which exceeds the known gap crossing ability of the species. Although many Charadriiformes are highly mobile, Hooded Plovers have been shown to be very highly (and unusually for shorebirds) sedentary. Weston et al. (2009) used observations of colour marked birds collected over 13 years (3776 individual recorded movements) to show that the mean distance individual birds moved over their lifetime was <50km, with only few movements in excess of 100km recorded. This indicates that long term geographic isolation of the eastern and western populations is highly likely. Given that geographic isolation in Australian birds in known to drive subspecific taxonomic variation (Schodde and Mason 1999; Black 2011; Black et al. 2010; Ford 1987; Christidis et al 2010) as it does in other large, environmentally diverse continents (Winkler 2010), there is little doubt that Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis and Thinornis rubricollis tregellasi are distinct subspecies.

Bennett (2010) examined the morphometric and genetic differences (microsatellite analysis at two polymorphic loci) of allopatric populations in Western and mainland eastern Australia. Morphological and genetic variation was found between the eastern and western populations (all eight morphological characters differed significantly and preliminary genetic analyses showed two distinct populations present) suggesting that these populations are isolated and should be considered as independent Evolutionary Significant Units.

12. DESCRIPTION Provide a description of the species, including size and/or weight, social structure and dispersion (e.g. solitary/ clumped/flocks), and give a brief description of its ecological role (e.g. is it a ‘keystone’ or ‘foundation’ species, or does it play a role in ecological processes such as seed dispersal or pollination). Note: Information on the species’ geographic distribution should be included at Q.21–25, not here. The Hooded Plover is a small black, white and grey shorebird with red eye (orbital) ring and tip of beak. It is distinguished from any other shorebird in Australia by its white nape (collar). Adult birds measure 19-23cm in size, weighing between 90-100g . Wingspan has been measured between 34-44cm (Marchant and Higgins 1993). There are no differences in plumage or size between the sexes, nor are there seasonal or breeding plumage variations in the species. Juvenile birds differ in appearance to the adults. These variations include head, collar and breast-patches being a pale dull grey-brown with mottling, the chin and throat being whitish with washed grey feathers and the orbital ring being pale orange rather than red.

Hooded Plovers typically form flocks in the non-breeding months (winter) and work undertaken by Weston et al. (2009) on this species has shown that these flocking sites are non-random and that there are particular flocking sites used by the birds each season. During the breeding season (August to March), Hooded Plovers pair off and occupy breeding territories of approximately 1km of beach which are vigorously defended (Weston et al. 2009). They are socially monogamous and both sexes exhibit high levels of parental care (Weston 2000; Weston and Elgar 2005a, 2005b, 2007). There are only two known cases of polygyny, where two females have bred with one male and raised young cooperatively (Maguire and Ehmke pers. comm.).

Hooded Plovers are an apex predator in high-energy beach ecosystems and belong to a unique suite of birds that exclusively rely on ocean beaches for breeding and survival. There are only five beach-nesting shorebird species in Australia (Hooded Plover, Beach Stone-curlew, Pied Oystercatcher, Sooty Oystercatcher, Red-capped Plover), and of these species, Hooded Plovers have the narrowest habitat range. They are a flagship species used by conservation programs across their Eastern range to inform land managers, coastal planners and policy makers of the biodiversity values of ocean beaches. Hooded Plovers are an indicator species for healthy coasts whereby their presence reflects healthy physical habitat features and their successful breeding indicates a beach where predators and recreational impacts are in check (Maguire 2008).

13. BIOLOGY Provide information on the species' biology, including its life cycle, generation length, reproductive and feeding characteristics and behaviours. Note: Information on the species’ geographic distribution should be included at Q.21–25, and not here. Example headings are provided below

Generation Length (defined as (Longevity + Age at sexual maturity) ÷ 2) Adults have high survivorship with an annual survival rate of 90.7% based on resightings of colour banded birds (Weston 2003) and are relatively long-lived (estimated to live on average between 10-15 years based on resightings of colour banded birds over time; oldest bird ABBBS data record 18 years). Of the birds that have been banded on Kangaroo Island 63 were aged at >5yrs when last recorded. Of these 63 birds eight (13%) were known to be 10 years or more in age (Dennis and Ball in review). Weston (pers. comm. unpublished data) has calculated an average lifespan as less than 11 years based on a long-term database of banded birds. Baird and Dann (2003) calculated sexual maturity at 1.7 years, based on the observations of two known age birds and their first breeding attempts. Observations of Kangaroo Island birds suggest that sexual maturity may be earlier. Five birds of known age were paired (copulations observed) aged <12months. Eleven birds were later recorded breeding at <18months (Dennis and Ball in review). Weston (2000) reported the proportion of 62 banded juveniles that bred in their first, second, third and fourth years as 17%, 38.7%, 41.7% and 44.4% respectively. Generation length caluclation: (18x1.7)/2 = 9.85 years

Movement Weston et al. (2009) examined the movements of colour-banded hooded plovers in Victoria by analysing sightings of colour-banded birds (4897 sightings; 194 birds tracked for up to 9 years). Most movements were relatively short (5050 ± 305 m), with 61.4% <1 km and 95.3% <20 km; they lacked directional or sexual bias. The maximum movement recorded was 330.8 km. The extent of coastline used by individual birds was 47.8 ± 58.0 km.

Of the 194 colour-banded birds resighted as part of the Victorian study, 96.2% of the observations were less than 100m inland of the coastline; the furthest inland hooded plovers were observed was 1500m inland at Lake Victoria, an inland brackish lake on the Bellarine Peninsula. Movements indicated the species can cross areas of unsuitable habitat (e.g. the rocky coasts around Wilsons Promontory) and water (e.g. 3km stretch of water across the mouth of Port Phillip Bay and 10km across Westernport Bay), however the scale of these movements is in the order of 3-16km. There have been only several larger scale movements across largely unoccupied areas such as between Anglesea and Apollo Bay (~65 km). Regional differences in average distances moved by adults were apparent. South Gippsland (Cape Liptrap to, and including, Wilsons Promontory) and Bellarine regions had high movement rates during the non- breeding season, compared with the Bass Coast and Mornington Peninsula. There was a lot of variance in adult movement rates during the non-breeding season in the Mornington Peninsula and Bass Coast regions. Regional variation may occur in the movements of adult hooded plovers and this would have implications for the effect of coastal development on the species. For example, in the Otway region, movement rates were slightly lower than in other regions, so degradation of a series of ‘stepping stone’ beaches may be more deleterious to dispersal than in areas with higher movement rates and a more continuous habitat. Fragmentation of the breeding population might occur where habitat is rendered unsuitable for > ~50 km. This is being further supported by recent banding program findings, suggesting there are barriers to dispersal for the species (Maguire, Weston and Johnson pers. comm.).

Breeding adults are relatively sedentary in comparison with non-breeding adults and immatures, with the latter two categories of bird displaying similar movement rates. The movement rates of immatures were considerably more variable than those of adults. This is in line with most studies and theory around dispersal whereby young birds will move greater distances than adults (Paradis et al. 1998).

Overall, for adults, movement rates (mean distance per day) were higher during the non-breeding season than during the breeding season. The frequency of pair cohesion (i.e. when the distance between partners was zero on a given day) was similar during the breeding (69.6%) and non-breeding seasons (67.7%). Non-breeding adults generally remained close to their partners (non-breeding, 456.3 ± 163.9 m; breeding, 148.2 ± 45.3 m). Largest flock sizes were recorded during the non-breeding period, and flocking was not uniformly distributed along the coast but appeared to be concentrated in particular locations. Despite comprehensive surveying effort, there are areas of coastline that are apparently unoccupied during the non-breeding season. Substantial gaps were apparent along the coast in places such as Venus Bay, the western half of Waratah Bay (west of Shallow Inlet) and parts of the Mornington Peninsula. All of these areas supported breeding hooded plovers, and thus are broadly suitable habitat. This indicates that there may be unique habitat features of these flocking sites that support non-breeding flocks.

Breeding territories (kernel analysis) were 36.7 ± 5.7 ha and overlapped from year to year in all cases (23 pairwise comparisons; 47.9 ± 7.1% overlap). The breeding territory is a critical unit of management for conservation efforts. The birds studied here spent little time off their territories, lending strength to the contention that the territories defined here are the core spatial unit of most ecological relevance for breeding Hooded Plovers. The high fidelity and constancy of territories confirms they warrant ongoing management investment, although the species relies on a matrix of breeding and non-breeding sites. The latter appear to occur in specific parts of the coast and warrant enhanced protection and more research attention.

A key finding of this study and of strong relevance to this report, was that birds spend time in multiple coastal parks, and in areas managed by different agencies, which suggests that some management would usefully be implemented at a scale above that of individual coastal parks.

Long-term studies on the Kangaroo Island population in South Australian show some variations in movement patterns to those in Victoria, however data analyses differed between the studies (See Dennis & Masters 2006, Dennis & Ball in review). Records over the study period (1986 - 2006) showed mean distance of movement of 34.4km. Of 317 birds banded, there were only 3 records of birds moving between the island and the South Australian mainland. These longer distance movements were by sub-adults (n=2) and unpaired adults (n=1).

As with the Victorian population, Kangaroo Island plovers exhibit flocking behaviour outside of the breeding season. Over the course of Dennis and Ball's (in review) study flocks of <10 of mixed age were recorded. These flocks also appear to exhibit some level of site specifity in these flocking sites.

Breeding pairs on Kangaroo Island show site fidelity over consecutive breeding seasons. Movements are limited to much shorter distances (<5km), though breeding birds are rarely recorded away from their breeding territories (Dennis and Ball in review).

Reproduction The breeding season extends from August to March, but can include July and April dependent on climatic and tidal conditions (Weston 2000; Baird and Dann 2003; Maguire unpublished). Hooded Plovers generally lay between one and three eggs in a simple scrape of sand, their nest, on the beach above the high tide mark or dune, preferring open areas with sparse to no vegetation for nest placement to have a broad view of potential threats around them in order to minimise predator ambush. They also appear to place nests by dead objects such as driftwood, seaweed or beachcast debris in order to minimise depredation risk (Cribbin 2012).

Once laying of the clutch is complete, laying one egg every 48 hours, the birds incubate for 28 days and use passive nest defence and heavy camouflage of the eggs to reduce the chances of a predator finding the nest. Their nest defense strategy is to leave the nest when a predator approaches and stay distant from the eggs until the predator leaves and it is safe to return. Both sexes share incubation duties and nest attendance rates are as high as 90% in undisturbed conditions (Weston and Elgar 2005b, 2007).

After hatching it takes 35 days until the chicks can fly. During this period, they are active on the beach needing to find their own food, being warned into hiding by calls from their parents. The chicks will run to cover and crouch until the perceived threat is gone and the parents call them out from hiding. The chicks require brooding in their first two weeks as they are unable to thermoregulate. They feed mostly at the water's edge and along the wrack line amongst beach cast seaweed. They commonly run from danger toward the dune and they commonly crouch by or under shelter such as rocks, vegetation or beach debris.

Once a chick reaches 35 days and its wings are strong enough for flight, it is less likely to go into hiding and will more commonly fly from danger. Fledglings can either be evicted from the territory once they are capable of flying, often if there is still time in the season for additional nesting attempts. In other cases, more commonly later in the season, the fledglings can remain on territory as a family unit for months.

Within one breeding season a pair can potentially have up to seven nesting attempts, allowing them multiple opportunities to produce young in such dynamic environments. However the majority of pairs have an average of 1.8 nesting attempts per season. In some circumstances, a pair starts to display nesting behaviour (courtship and making nest scrapes) but then they cease this behaviour and this has been linked with changes in climatic or tidal conditions. This can continue throughout the entire season with the pair never successfully nesting. This occurs for roughly 4% of pairs in a given season and it is thought to be linked with conditions however the cues for laying are not understood (Maguire unpublished). Pairs are capable of successfully rearing two broods in a season, although examples of this are rare due to the poor breeding success encountered by these birds under current conditions.

The nesting habitat (beaches) and timing of the breeding season (warmer months of the year) coupled with strong egg and chick camouflage and passive nest defense strategies, make this species highly vulnerable to threats from human use of their habitat. Recreational use of beaches by people, their dogs, horse and vehicles have direct impacts in terms of crushing eggs and chicks (due to high overlap of habitat use in space and time) and indirect impacts in terms of lethal levels of disturbance (frequent use or prolonged use of beach sites). In addition, modification and degradation of habitat through development, access points, erosion control and weed infestations greatly limit availability of nest sites and further increase the degree of overlap between human use and egg/chick locations (i.e. lack of dune habitat forces birds to nest on the beach where the birds have less space to avoid human impacts). Furthermore, human introductions of mammalian predators (foxes, dogs, cats, rats) and indirect (litter) and direct feeding of avian predators such as gulls, ravens and magpies, has intensified predator pressure on the eggs and chicks of this species (Weston 2003; Maguire 2008).

Egg and chick survival are very low (in the order of 20-23%) so that an egg only has a 2.5% chance of progressing to adulthood (Weston 2003).

Feeding Hooded Plovers forage in sand at all levels of wave-wash during low and mid-tide or among seaweed at high tide when inhabiting ocean beaches (Marchant and Higgins 1993). On rocks they forage in wave-wash or spray zones, rarely utilising shallow rock pools. The species appears to avoid elevated rocky areas, boulder fields above lower litorial zone and lower litorial zones covered in algae.

In coastal lagoons and saltlakes in South Australia the species forages mostly on dry substrates and occasionally damp substrates during the summer. As the seasons change, the speces will forage more in damp and shallowly inundated areas.

Feeding is both diurnal and nocturnal, and typically a run-stop-peck manner. This is typical of Charadrius plovers. Gleaning and probing behaviours have also been recorded (Marchant and Higgins 1993). The diet of the Hooded Plover comprises of a range of invertebrates (polychaetes, crustaceans, molluscs, insects) as well as some plant material including seeds and turions (over wintering bud of aquatic plants) (Marchant and Higgins 1993).

Weston (2007) studied the foraging behaviour and diet of Hooded Plovers in the non-breeding season in 3 different habitats, a salt lake (Lake Gore in WA), a brackish near-coastal lake (Lake Victoria) and on Victorian beaches. He found that birds foraging on beaches probed more, had more successes and foraged slower than birds on salt lakes in WA. Foraging at the brackish lake was slowest of all. The diet of coastal birds was dominated by crustaceans and insects whereas birds on salt lakes primarily, and almost exclusively, consumed Coxiella spp., an endemic gastropod (snail). This study described two additional prey items previously not detected in the species diet, including moths and ants.

14. HABITAT Describe the species’ habitats and what role they play in the species' life cycle. Include whether or not the species is associated with, or if it relies on, a listed threatened ecological community or listed threatened species? Note: Information on the species’ geographic distribution should be included at Q.21–25, and not here. Broadly, the Hooded Plover (eastern) inhabits surf beaches and where available, coastal saltlakes. They preferentially select ocean beaches, particularly wide beaches with wide wave-wash zone backed by dunes with large amounts of beach-washed seaweed (Weston 2003), and creek mouths or inlet entrances. Occasionally the species is seen on tidal bays and estuaries or on rock platforms or small beaches in lines of cliffs where the beach is backed by dune or foredune humps. In SA they have also been recorded on ephemeral hypersaline lagoons and lakes within 3km of the coast (Ewers et al. 2011; Dennis and Ball in review).

These habitat types are strongly associated with the key prey items of the species and the location of other dietary items. The presence of seaweed which is influenced by the tide and ocean currents appears to be a key requirement, with decaying seaweed providing a substrate upon which the Hooded Plovers forage for invertebrates, as well as potentially providing a direct food source for the species (Weston 2003).

Hooded Plovers (eastern) use beach habitats for feeding, roosting, breeding and dispersing. They use these habitats year round, where some pairs can remain on territory across all months of the year while others will occupy their beach territories for the breeding months (August-March) and then disperse to flocking sites in winter which are typically on beaches, estuaries or coastal/near coastal saltlakes (Weston et al. 2009). For non-breeding birds without territories (floaters), there are particular sites which attract small flocks during breeding months and while occasional floaters will be detected moving through occupied sites, territorial pairs are highly aggressive and when nesting will actively defend (chase off and fight with) their territory from floaters (Weston et al. 2009). A breeding territory will typically consist of a stretch of beach over which the birds will forage, including on intertidal rock platforms, river mouths or outlets, and on the beach at all levels but predominantly at the water's edge and along the wrack line. The territory also contains suitable nesting habitat which can include dune blowouts, foredune and dune, dune faces, the edge of estuaries and anywhere on the beach above the high tide mark.

Whilst general habitat requirements are reported, Weston (2003) noted that a lack of a habitat model was hampering the determination of conservation priorities for the species. Rising sea levels, inappropriate coastal armouring and erosion control, and invasive dune plants are thought to limit suitable habitat and to present a barrier to species recovery.

Recent habitat modelling (Ehmke et al. in prep) exploring presence/absence data was developed by selecting key ecological and landscape variables from the sub- and super-tidal zones of coasts. Using 58 sites across the Victorian coast, 28 where Hooded Plovers are present and 30 where they are absent, a series of variables were measured. Survey areas were defined by the sighting of a Hooded Plover and included an area within a 500m radius of the sighting. Randomly generated points were used at sites where birds were absent and these were vetted by two experts. Variables were derived from aerial imagery and lidar data. Nine independent variables were identified as likely to influence habitat suitability in terms of nesting habitat availability and food availability. The results of this habitat modelling identified proportion of reef habitat, proportion of foredune habitat, presence of dune habitat and proportion of rock habitat as having statistically significant implications for Hooded Plover presence. Rugosity of the beach is also believed to be important (though was not found to be statistically significant) (Ehmke et al. in prep).

Therefore these obligate beach birds select habitats which are influenced by processes above the beach, and below the high tide mark. Beaches are transitional zones between terrestrial and marine environments, and their form and ecology is heavily influenced by landward and seaward processes (McLachlan and Brown 2006). These processes play an important role in both shaping the habitat of Hooded Plovers and providing the resources necessary for this species to survive.

This habitat modelling work has revealed a key habitat issue and that is that sandy shore alone does not represent habitat for this species and we could grossly overestimate habitat availability if we were to consider all ocean beach sandy shore as habitat. Some earlier distributional models of the species over-estimate occurrence, largely due to the inaccuracy of the data set on which they were based (e.g. State government databases such as Atlas of Victorian Wildlife are based on data which have not been vetted/moderated) and which previously viewed all high-energy ocean beach as potential habitat. We now have data to support that the species has a more limited habitat range.

Nesting microhabitat: Hooded Plovers are selective of open areas on the upper beach above the high-tide mark, on the foredune and in the primary dune system for nesting. They appear to select against heavily vegetated areas of the dune for nesting, and to prefer nesting close to dead objects (e.g. stick, seaweed). They also prefer to place dune nests nearer the foredune, that is more towards the seaward side than landward side of the dunes (Mead 2012; Cribbin 2012). Dune blowouts are ideal nesting habitat and form a major part of the breeding habitat of Hooded Plovers in Wilsons Promontory National Park for example (Weston 2003).

Transfer Information (for up-listing or down-listing of species) Note: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories please complete questions 15, 16 and 17. If the nomination is for a new listing please proceed to question 18. If the nomination is to delist the species, please use the delisting form . 15. REASON FOR THE NOMINATION FOR CATEGORY CHANGE Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. What is the reason for the nomination:

Genuine change of status New Knowledge Mistake Other

Taxonomic change – ‘split’ newly described ‘lumped’ no longer valid

16. INITIAL LISTING Describe the reasons for the species’ initial listing and if available the criteria under which it was formerly considered eligible N/A 17. CHANGES IN SITUATION With regard to the listing criteria, how have circumstances changed since the species was listed that now makes it eligible for listing in another category? N/A

Population Size 18. NUMBERS a. What is the total number of mature individuals? How was this figure derived? b. Identify important populations necessary for the species’ long-term survival and recovery. Hooded Plover (eastern) is estimated at 3000 mature individuals after a review of recent available count data (Garnett et al. 2011). The current state break down of Hooded Plover counts is: 42 in NSW; 550 in Victoria; 636-800 in South Australia; and 1200 in Tasmania.

Population size estimates above are based on population counts since the 1980s and in more recent years (from 2006 onward), intensive monitoring and adaptive management of breeding pairs (NSW NPWS Shorebird Recovery Program in NSW; BirdLife Australia's Beach-nesting Birds Program in Victoria and South Australia). NSW NPWS yearly surveys and intensive pair monitoring since 2001 reveal 42 adults in the current NSW population (Jodie Dunn and Amy Harris, pers. comm.). Ewers et al. (2011) report 550 adults in Victoria from a comprehensive coverage of suitable habitat along the Victorian coast in the November 2010 biennial count (see monitoring section below for detailed information about the methodology of this count and the consistent routes of known length surveyed over time). Numbers in South Australia are based on the 636 adults recorded during the November 2010 biennial count where survey coverage was incomplete (12% of ocean beach was not surveyed, i.e. 161km) and the upper limit is an extrapolation for the coast that has not been surveyed taking into account the number of birds recorded in these stretches in previous counts, and for historically unsurveyed sections of coast, the territorial dispersion of the species and the average density of a pair per kilometre of suitable habitat. Tasmanian numbers are based on estimates from Woehler unpublished data and survey counts carried out once every five years.

If both western and eastern forms of the species are considered, then the entire worldwide population of Hooded Plovers (found only in Australia) is estimated at 5500 individuals (3000 in the eastern subspecies and 2500 in the western subspecies) (Garnett et al. 2011).

The BirdLife International Important Bird Area (IBA) programme was developed to identify areas that: • Hold significant numbers of one or more globally threatened bird species • Are one of a set of sites that together hold a suite of restricted-range species or biome-restricted species • Have exceptionally large numbers of migratory or congregatory species There are 13 identified IBA's in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania for the Hooded Plover (eastern). These sites are believed to be important to the long term conservation of the species and are Coffin Bay, SA: 18 breeding pairs, The Coorong, SA: 50-82 individuals, Kangaroo Island, SA: 15-200 individuals, Discovery Bay to Picaninnie Ponds, SA/VIC: 15- 51 individuals, Yambuk, VIC: 45-76 individuals, Port Fairy to Warrnambool, VIC: 15 breeding pairs, Phillip Island, VIC: 21-42 individuals, Corner Inlet, VIC: 22-35 indivduals, Eastern Flinders Island, TAS: 171 individuals, King Island, TAS: 60 breeding pairs, St Helens, TAS: 14-46 individuals, North-west Tasmania: 250-376 individuals and Marion Bay, TAS: 30- 105 individuals.

Based on density of birds and density of known breeding sites as revealed from BirdLife Australia's biennial population counts across all suitable ocean beach habitat in SA, Vic and NSW, Ewers et al. (2011) highlights important stretches of coast for the Hooded Plover on the eastern mainland as: Far West Victoria (Warrnambool to Portland), Mornington Peninsula, Bass Coast, Kangaroo Island, and Yorke Peninsula.

Hooded Plover (eastern) occurs as dispersed pairs that occupy distinct territories - due to this social structure it becomes difficult to prioritise geographic areas without further understanding the exchange of individuals across the range, the impact of edge effects and current levels of genetic diversity across this range. A review of movements of colour banded birds (Weston et al. 2009) reveals that there may be dispersal barriers along coasts where long stretches of unsuitable habitat are encountered by dispersing birds and this limits the exchange of individuals between geographically separated areas. This may mean that populations are managed on the basis of this separation, which would give rise to the following: Booderee National Park Jervis Bay NSW to Kioloa NSW, Wallaga Lake NSW to Gippsland lakes VIC, Wilsons Prom to Surf Coast, Otways to South Australia. Banding of birds in South Australia was limited to Kangaroo Island historically, where only 3 of 317 birds banded left the island and were sighted on the Fleurieu Peninsula (Dennis and Ball in review). This may indicate that exchange between areas of South Australia is limited and that further separation of populations across the South Australian range will be identified in future. There is limited data for Tasmania currently available and no banding of birds has occurred in Tasmania, nor have there been any reports of movements of banded birds between Tasmania and the mainland.

19. POPULATION TREND a. What is the population trend (PAST to CURRENT ) for the entire species? Is the population trended increasing or decreasing, or is the population static? If possible, include a percentage change in population size over a 10 year or 3 generation period, whichever is the longer (for example, “ this species has shown an 80% decline over 23 years, which is equal to 3 generations”). Please ensure you provide relevant data sources. b. Is this trend likely to continue, or are there any data which indicate that there may be FUTURE changes in population size? Provide relevant data sources. c. Does the species undergo extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals? a. Garnett et al. (2011) list a wide range of population declines for Hooded Plover across the south-eastern range of the species. Weston (1993) estimated a decline of 13% between 1980 - 1992 across Victoria, a further 12% decline between 2000-2008 (Birds Australia 2008). Looking at a longer term trend across Victoria between 1980 - 2008 this decline is at 33%, with the population estimate declining from 600 to 400 individuals. This time period (1980 - 2008) equates to 3 generations of the species.

At more localised scales, between 1981 - 1997 the population on Phillip Island was estimated to have declined by 58% (Baird and Dan 2003). Estimates across Tasmania between 1982 - 2006 indicate a 20% decline in the population (Bryant 2002). Kangaroo Island is believed to have declined by 25% in the 1985-2004 period (Dennis and Masters 2006), and NSW populations have been calcualted at around a 55% decline (Birds Australia 2008). Garnett et al. (2011) estimate the overall population decline for the Hooded Plover in the south-east is 10-20% over 3 generations.

Ewers et al. (2011) present the most recent report on the biennial count from 2010 where 2134km of coastline across the subspecies range in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales were surveyed within a short time frame in November (peak breeding season when the birds are sedentary and on territory). Ewers et al. (2011) identified a number of locations that showed declines in Hooded Plover numbers in comparison to the previous November 2008 survey. There appeared to be significantly fewer Hooded Plovers between the NSW border to Point Hicks , and in The Coorong. Slight increases were reported In other locations, namely between Warrnambool and Yambuk, and between Wilsons Promontory and Waratah Bay. Direct comparisons in the number of birds recorded between biennial counts is inappropriate as the survey effort between years has varied. This variation in effort raises the question of whether differences in the data are from real changes in bird numbers, changes to survey effort, or a combination of both. Ewers et al (2011) controlled for these discrepancies in their analysis of the count data. Their results showed that of the locations where Hooded Plover numbers were declining (Queenscliff to Lorne -11%, South East SA -4%, Discovery Bay -15%, NSW border to point Hicks -41% and The Coorong -44%) all areas but Queenscliff to Lorne had an increased survey coverage of suitable habitat in 2010 compared to 2008. Subsequently these changes in counts were conservatively attributed to actual declining trends in the population. At the other end of the specrum, theWarnambool to Yambuk survey area had an increase of 69% in the number of Hooded Plovers recorded, but an increase of 44% of the area covered, and Wilsons Prom to Waratah Bay had an increase of 24% in the number of Hooded Plovers recorded over the same survey area. The overall mean for changes in the count numbers for the entire population was a 9% decline. In other words, while a slight increase in numbers was evident in one part of the coast, the severe declines elsewhere resulted in an overall declining Eastern mainland population by 9% in the space of two years.

Biennial counts have been occurring for Hooded Plovers since 1980 in varying effort across Victoria and South Australia. Glover (2008) reviewed this survey effort and highlighted the inadequacies of this data set for making real comparisons over time of population trends. Only seven sites in Victoria had sufficient data from 1980 to 2005 for trend analysis: five were found to have significant declines in the populations and 2 significant increases (see attached figure). The magnitude of these changes range from around 40 birds recorded per site in 1980 declining to around 3 birds per site in 2005, whilst the increases are from 0-1 birds in 1980 up to 10 birds recorded in 2005. The magnitude of decline across all these data significantly outweighs the magnitude of increase, leading to the conclusion that the overall trend for the Victorian population is that of decline.

Data is not available for trends in population numbers in Tasmania over time. Eric Woehler has indicated that there has been improved survey coverage over time and that in some areas, a consistent data set is now building. However this will not be analysed in the near future (pers. comm).

Population census data for NSW from 2003 to 2012 reveals stable population numbers over time (approximately 1 generation length), and data prior to this is unable to be directly compared due to incomplete surveying. While numbers appear stable across present counts, during this time there has been a loss of occupancy where the length of unoccupied coastline between the northernmost subpopulation of NSW birds and the southernmost subpopulation within NSW has increased from 70km to 94km in 10 years (Jodie Dunn and Amy Harris, NSW NPWS, pers. comm.). b. The trend for a declining population is likely to continue in the future as the threats facing this species and inhibiting successful recruitment are intensifying with a growing human population, expansion of coastal development and increased degradation of habitat (weed invasions, intensifying storm surges and tidal inundation of habitat). Increased recreational pressure on beaches has occurred in the past 7 years (Maguire unpublished data from threat surveys at 100 beaches in Victoria over time) and is predicted to increase into the future. Domestic pet ownership is also increasing nationally and greater pressure placed on public spaces for dog access in particular. Compliance with dog regulations on coasts is poor and 82% of 2,847 dogs on Victorian beaches are off leash despite being in breach of the regulations in place (1994–2008; Weston & Maguire, 2008 cited in Williams et al. 2009). Vehicle access of habitat in South Australia and Tasmania is currently broadly unrestricted. There are increases in coastal access arising from coastal strip development, formalising and adding access points and the addition of sealed roads and highways, such as 'Peninsula Link' estimated to bring an additional 250,000 vehicles a year to the Mornington Peninsula (a high priority area for the species). Overall, the number of beach sites with no or limited access are rapidly declining. c. The population does not undergo extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals.

20. PROBABILITY OF EXTINCTION IN THE WILD Has the probability of the species’ extinction in the wild over a particular timeframe been quantified? If so, identify and explain the quantitative measures or models used to generate this probability. There has not been a Population Viability Analysis (PVA) carried out. However most of the key life history parameters and population size data is becoming available, so that in the next few years, an accurate PVA can be carried out.

Weston (2003) in a simplistic model reported that adults were not long lived enough to replace themselves at current rates. Furthermore, if we review the last 5 years of breeding success data for 52% of the Victorian population, we can see that in 5 years there is an output of 207 fledglings (for 286 birds) (Maguire unpublished). Fledglings have a 55% chance of survival (Weston 2000), reducing this number of recruits to the population to 113.85 in 5 years. This amounts to 22.7 recruits per year. If we account for a population of 550 birds (Ewers et al. 2011) and a 9.85 generation length, then it is predicted that 431 recruits are added over 9.85 years to the entire Victorian population. This is assuming no further loss of habitat and that all 550 birds are paired and breeding, which are two unlikely assumptions in the face of continuing habitat degradation and loss of occupancy rates. This conservative figure would predict a loss of 22% of the Victorian population in 1 generation length.

Geographic Distribution 21. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION Describe the species' known or estimated current and past global distribution (include a map if available). Does the species exist within a threatened ecological community listed under the EPBC Act? The Hooded Plover is found only within Australia. The western subspecies is only found in Western Australia and the eastern subspecies in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales. See attached map which shows previous distribution and current distribution. The species does not exist within a threatened ecological community listed under the EPBC Act.

22. EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE within Australia NOTE: The distribution of the species within Australia is assessed in two ways, the EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE and the AREA OF OCCUPANCY. The two concepts are closely related, and often confused. Therefore, before you answer this question, please see the definitions and explanatory material in Attachment A . 2 a. What is the CURRENT extent of occurrence (in km )? Explain how it was calculated and provide relevant data sources. b. Has the extent of occurrence changed over time ( PAST to CURRENT )? If so, provide evidence. c. Is the extent of occurrence expected to decline in FUTURE ? If so, provide evidence. d. Does the species’ extent of occurrence undergo extreme fluctuations? If so, provide evidence. a. Extent of occurrence is 7,900 sq-km. This is calculated by Garnett et al. (2011) through review of all current databases for the species across NSW, Vic, Tas and SA, including BirdLife Australia's Atlas. b. The extent of occurrence is stable when considering a comparison with Garnett and Crowley 2000. However, historically the species was recorded in southern QLD (1858-1913 records) and northern NSW (1859-1990 records), which reveals that the extent of occurrence has declined in the order of 980km (Cameron and Weston 1999). There is however some controversy of the extent of range contraction, where McCallan (2001) believes the northern limit of the species range was near Sydney which would be a range retraction of ~160km. However one argument presented by McCallan is that it is unlikely the birds were found in Port Stephens NSW as they were not found on the beaches south near Newcastle where beaches appear 'suitable'. The habitat modelling of Ehmke et al. (in prep) reveal that assessment of suitable habitat is not as simple as being ocean beach sandy shore and instead the habitat range is much more limited than meets the eye. There are currently gaps of uninhabited coast in the species range related to the occurrence of unsuitable habitat, and where this occurs at the edge of the species range, this may explain greater vulnerability to loss of occupancy from these sites and why the Northernmost fragmented subpopulations were some of the first to be lost. c. There is no direct evidence to suggest the extent of occurrence is expected to decline in future. However with loss of numbers and reduced occupancy over time, it is likely the edges of the range will be first impacted, as this was the historical pattern. d. There are no extreme fluctations over time in the extent of occurrence largely due to the species being sedentary (non-migratory), socially monogamous and occurring in distinct territories dispersed across a broad coastline.

23. AREA OF OCCUPANCY NOTE: The distribution of the species within Australia is assessed in two ways, the EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE and the AREA OF OCCUPANCY. The two concepts are closely related, and often confused. Therefore, before you answer this question, please see the definitions and explanatory material in Attachment A . 2 a. What is the CURRENT area of occupancy (in km )? Explain how it was calculated and provide relevant data sources. b. Has the area of occupancy changed over time ( PAST to CURRENT )? If so, provide evidence. c. Is the area of occupancy expected to decline in FUTURE ? If so, provide evidence. d. Does the species’ area of occupancy undergo extreme fluctuations? If so, provide evidence. a. Area of occupancy 3,600 sq-km. This is calculated by Garnett et al. (2011) through review of all current databases for the species across NSW, Vic, Tas and SA, including BirdLife Australia's Atlas. b. Garnett et al. (2011) report a decreasing trend in area of occupancy with a high reliability of this data. Section 19 on population trends discusses loss of birds from stretches of coast which are closely linked with loss of occupancy. For example in NSW in the last 10 years, the length of unoccupied coastline between the northernmost subpopulation of NSW birds and the southernmost subpopulation within NSW has increased from 70km to 94km (Jodie Dunn and Amy Harris, NSW NPWS, pers. comm.). The major declines in The Coorong, the NSW border to Point Hicks and Discovery Bay reported by Ewers et al. (2011) are where reduction in occupancy have occurred - loss of birds from long stretches of beaches and no recruits to reoccupy unfilled territories. c. Yes the area of occupancy is expected to further decline as habitat degradation continues and as population numbers decline and the range of the species becomes further fragmented. Research has revealed habitat suitability features for the eastern population and there is a high dependency on areas of beach and dune which remain free of tidal inundation and have no to very sparse vegetation (Cribbin 2012; Mead 2012; Ehmke et al. in prep). These habitat features are critical for nesting and weed infestations (Marram grass, sea wheat grass, sea spurge and pyp grass as the primary examples) of the dune and often the upper beach result in these habitats becoming too densely vegetated for nesting and therefore unsuitable from that point on. Furthermore, weed infestations steepen and alter dune morphology (Cousens et al. 2012) so that the dune face becomes too steep for the birds to access nesting sites as their flightless chicks need a traversible path from the nesting site to the beach where they will spend the next five weeks feeding before they can fly. Development of the coast and beach access points results in infrastructure and alteration of habitat that can result in paths opening directly onto nesting sites or to the likelihood of a nesting site coinciding with an access point due to the erosion works occurring either side of access points and weed infestations in the dune, that is, often access points are fenced and the dunes either side brush matted or planted with vegetation to limit erosion from people straying from the path. This then means that the barest and widest section of the beach and dune is the access point itself. When birds nest near or at the base of access paths they are subject to high levels of disturbance and probabilities of egg and chick crushing. d. No there are not extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy for the subspecies (eastern) as these are highly sedentary, coastal, non-migratory and habitat conditions are not highly variable from year to year. Instead habitat changes at a slower rate and once it has become extremely degraded (e.g. weed invasions, no dune retreat and high tides reaching the base of the dune), the site drops out of the system as suitable but then this does not fluctuate unless there is human intervention to modify and rehabilitate the habitat.

24. PRECARIOUSNESS a. Is the species' geographic distribution severely fragmented, or known to exist at a limited number of locations? b. Is the area, extent and/or quality of the species' habitat in continuing decline (observed / inferred / projected)? c. Is the number of locations or subpopulations in continuing decline (observed / inferred / projected)? d. Are there extreme fluctuations in the number of locations or subpopulations of this species? Please ensure that you provide evidence and appropriate references. a. No not severely fragmented, however there are 2 considerable gaps in distribution where stretches of >65km and >80km of unsuitable coastline occur (Great Ocean Road, 90 mile beach) that potentially limit dispersal and fragment subpopulations (Weston et al. 2009). There is also a gap of 94km between the northernmost and southernmost NSW range which has increased over time from ~70km. Weston et al. (2009) report that gaps over 65km could well represent barriers to effective dispersal. b. Quality of habitat is severely impacted by coastal weed invasions in dune systems (Marram grass, Sea Spurge, Sea Wheat grass) which limits the birds to nesting on the beach itself - here there is a coastal squeeze effect where nests on beaches are subject to rising sea levels and storm surges intensified by climate change, and by recreational pressures confined to a more narrow zone of impact. Coastal weeds such as Marram Grass furthermore impact dune geomorphology by steepening dune faces (Cousens et al. 2012). When these mobilised dune faces are hit by waves, the dune face is eroded and becomes steep and inhabitable. In addition to coastal weeds, development in the primary dune system results in loss of dune habitat, the loss of the resilience of the ecosystem to rising sea levels whereby dunes can no longer naturally retreat but instead coastal armouring (rock barriers, sea walls, groins) and mobilisation of the dunes is carried out to protect infrastructure. Habitat is subject to further decline as weeds contiune to invade dune systems and go largely unmanaged. Quality of habitat is also impacted by vehicle access whereby vehicles compact the sand and crush the invertebrate fauna within the substrate, deplenishing food sources for the species (Schlachler et al. 2008).See threats section below to further explain how 'quality' of habitat can also refer to the exposure of the birds to disturbance and direct impacts from human recreation on beaches. This impacts the quality of this habitat fornesting despite the habitat still being occupied and optimal for adult survival, i.e. sites become sinks and the birds occupying these sites cannot be counted in effective population size, i.e. they will not breed successfully in a lifetime without intervention. c. The number of locations is in continuing decline, for example localised extinctions have occurred through time in NSW, The Coorong, Discovery Bay and East Gippsland. See population trends section above. d. No. 25. PROTECTED AREAS Is the species protected within the reserve system (e.g. national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, or other conservation estates, private land covenants, etc.)? If so, which populations? Which reserves are actively managed for this species? Give details. + indicates where there is active protection of nesting sites carried out within these parks. This is primarily carried out by volunteers and BirdLife Australia, with the exception of those marked with ^ where protective works are carried out by State government agencies.

In Victoria, the species occurs in the following National Parks [49% of the Victorian population]: Port Campbell National Park 5 pairs Bay of Islands Coastal Park+ 9 pairs Discovery Bay Coastal Park 16 pairs Point Nepean National Park+ 5 pairs Mornington Peninsula National Park*+^ 30 pairs Cape Liptrap Coastal Park+^ 17 pairs Wilsons Promontory National Park 12 pairs Cape Conran Coastal Park 5 pairs Croajingolong National Park 15 pairs Great Otway National Park*+ 12 pairs Eagle Rock Marine Sanctuary + 1 pair Gippsland Lakes Coastal Park 8 pairs * in the Mornington Peninsula and the Great Otway National Parks dogs are permitted as an exception to the rule and so the species is not receiving the protection that usually is a standard regulation with this tenure, hence are subject to a high impact threat despite being within a protected area.

In South Australia, the species occurs in the following National Parks: Innes National Park Carpenter Rocks Conservation Park Canunda National Park* Beachport Conservation Park Little Dip Conservation Park Coorong National Park Newland Head Conservation Park+ 2 pairs Vivonne Bay Conservation Park Flinders Chase National Park Port Lincoln National Park* Coffin Bay National Park* Lake Newland Conservation Park Venus Bay Conservation Park * these parks have permitted vehicle access and so the birds within these parks are subject to high impact threats despite being within a protected area.

In NSW, the species occurs in: Nadgee Nature Reserve Ben Boyd National Park+^ Bournda National Park+^ Mimosa Rocks National Park+^ Eurobodalla National Park+^ Narrawalle Creek Nature Reserve+^ Booderee National Park (Federal land) Meroo National Park +^ Conjola National Park + ^

In Tasmania, the species occurs in: Mt William NP Freycinet NP +^ Maria Island MP Tasman NP South Bruny NP + Southwest NP Arthur-Pieman Conservation Area Southport Lagoon Conservation Area Bay of Fires Conservation Area St Helens Point Conservation Area +^ Scamander Conservation Area Waterhouse Conservation Area

While a proportion of the population occurs within the above reserve systems and can benefit from holistic park management approaches such as dog prohibition, vehicle prohibition and fox control, multiple use parks (managed for nature conservation plus recreation) are often not compatible with effective Hooded Plover management. In parks with moderate to high rates of recreation, the mitigation of threats which impact the breeding success of the birds (the main factor driving species declines) often require on-ground actions at the scale of the nesting site (see section 28). Furthermore, exceptions to the rules of no dog or vehicle access in a number of parks with high density populations of Hooded Plovers mean that the overarching benefits of being in a protected area are not attained.

Threats

26. KNOWN THREATS Identify any KNOWN threats to the species, and state clearly whether these are past, current or future threats.

NB – CLIMATE CHANGE AS A THREAT. If climate change is an important threat to the nominated species it is important that you provide referenced information on exactly how climate change might significantly increase the nominated species’ vulnerability to extinction. For guidance refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2). Current threats have been well documented and a comprehensive review of each threat and the way these impact Hooded Plovers, primarily at the breeding stage by causing failure of recruitment, can be found in Maguire (2008). Below these threats are summarised and the exhaustive reference list is reduced to a few key references. Threats appear in order of relative impact, however it should be noted that mitigation of one threat type needs to take into that another threat type may then become prevalent at that site and need to be addressed. These threat types are often closely linked and act in combination with one another.

Human based threats: High threat, widespread, ongoing Coastal development results in habitat loss or modification of habitat. Coastal infrastructure in the primary dune limits available nesting habitat. Formalising access increases use of habitat by recreationists. Lack of access when new developments occur close to the dune leads to creation of informal access points by residents, trampling habitat (and nests and chicks in situ) and then leading to erosion control measures which further reduce habitat availability. Domestic animals (cats and/or dogs) associated with residential developments can increase the predation pressures on the subspecies, increased activity/ use of beaches impacts on the nesting cycles of the subspecies through disturbing incubating adults leading to egg exposure, and through direct destruction of nests and/or eggs. Furthermore, to protect coastal assets placed within the primary dune system, armouring of the coast is carried out by placing rocks on the beach, dune matting, brush matting, sea walls - all of which destroy nesting habitat.

High threat, widespread, ongoing Use of beaches by recreationists peaks and overlaps with the breeding period (warmer months of spring and summer). Eggs are well camouflaged and placed on upper beach or dunes in bare sand making them very susceptible to being stepped on by walkers. Chicks are also well camouflaged and will crouch down when threats are near - this can be anywhere on the beach including below the high tide mark and into the dune. Chicks are easily crushed in their first few weeks of age by human feet.

Disturbance of incubating birds results in the birds coming off the nest and distancing themselves from the eggs to give the impression that they are not nesting (ie. to fool a potential predator). For frequent mobile recreationists (i.e. walkers) or static recreationists (sunbaking, fishing) who spend prolonged periods of time in the one location, disturbance can reach lethal levels (Weston et al. 2011). Eggs can be exposed to temperatures where the embryo inside dies and on hot days where birds encounter disturbance, the time frame for this lethal impact can be within half an hour or less (Weston and Elgar 2007; Maguire 2008). When the adult is disturbed away from the nest and the birds are being vigilant of the people nearby, this leaves the eggs more vulnerable to avian predators which the birds would naturally chase off or distract in undisturbed environments. At the chick stage, disturbance results in the chicks crouching on the spot so as to hide from the potential threat, or running to cover nearest the dunes to hide. The parents will distract and 'lead' away the person/people, and will wait until the environment is clear of danger before calling the chicks out of hiding. For frequent or prolonged disturbances, this can become lethal to chicks in terms of thermal exposure (in their first two weeks when they require brooding) and leading to starvation and dehydration (Weston and Elgar 2005a). Predators also take the opportunity to ambush chicks when the parents are preoccupied with other threats present.

Weston et al. (2012a) in a review of Flight Initiation Distances (FID) for 250 Australian birds found that the Hooded Plover had the highest positive residual value in a linear regression of FID on mean body mass – in other words, the Hooded Plover showed the highest response to a human approach of any species in its size class, thus appears to be one of Australia's most sensitive species to human disturbance.

High threat, widespread, ongoing Dogs off lead use more of the beach and dune than an average person accessing a beach (Schneider et al. unpublished data using data loggers placed on dog collars on beaches) where they are more likely to crush eggs and chicks as well as depredate eggs and chicks they encounter. Weston and Elgar (2007) reveal that when an off-leash dog approaches a nesting area that the birds react from more than double the distance and spend longer periods away from the nest, compared to a walker or walker with an on-leash dog. This is further confirmed by Glover et al. (2011) in their work on Flight Initiation Distances of Shorebirds where repeated standardised approaches were made using a walker and a walker with a dog. This difference in response by the birds to the presence of an off leash dog is thought to relate to the greater speed and the irregularity of direction that unleashed dogs take; they are more likely to explore and to move onto the upper beach (Burger 1986), while walkers more commonly choose to move linearly along the hard sand (and a leashed dog moves predictably alongside of them). When a beach receives numerous visitors and numerous off- leash dogs, then the impacts quickly become cumulative and lethal.

High threat, widespread in South Australia and Tasmania, localised in Victoria and NSW, ongoing Vehicle use of coastal environments has the potential to be devastating to the breeding success of beach-nesting birds, to the survival of adults and to the physical environment. Vehicles on beaches include: 4-wheel drives (4WDs), trail bikes, quad bikes, kite cars, horse drawn carts and sulkies, as well as management or research vehicles. Direct impacts include collisions with birds and vehicles. In the Coorong, South Australia, 81 % of experimentally deployed nests on beaches were crushed by 4WDs within the length of a typical month long incubation period (Buick and Paton 1989). In western Victoria, illegally driven vehicles (trail bikes) crushed 18 % of Hooded Plover nests (Weston and Morrow 2000). Buick and Paton (1989) also report that Hooded Plover chicks shelter in wheel ruts and this probably accounts for the high rate of chick crushing by vehicles on the Coorong (30 % of chick mortalities). Stephens (2004) found that Hooded Plovers occurred in higher densities on beaches in south-east South Australia and on Kangaroo Island where vehicle use is low, and Dennis and Masters (2006) reported the greatest declines in the number of Hooded Plover breeding pairs on Kangaroo Island’s beaches where vehicles have unregulated access. In addition to directly impacting breeding success of beach-nesters, vehicles can significantly impact invertebrate fauna as well as the physical environment. Schlacher et al. (2008) in Queensland revealed that driving on beaches reduced both the diversity and abundance of the invertebrate (macrobenthic) fauna, thus reducing food availability for resident as well as migratory shorebirds. Off-road vehicles can be highly destructive to the environment (Palmer and Leatherman 1979; Godfrey and Godfrey 1980), by causing severe sediment disruption and erosion (Anders and Leatherman 1987; Priskin 2003; Schlacher and Thompson 2008) and destruction of dune vegetation (Luckenbach and Bury 1983; Rickard et al. 1994).

High threat, localised, ongoing Horses ridden on beaches and dunes can have major impacts on the breeding success of beach-nesting birds. While most equestrian use of beaches occurs on the wet sand, during high tide periods, horse riders are forced to ride above the high-tide mark. Horses can crush nests if ridden above the high-tide mark or in the dunes (horses ridden along the base of the foredune have been observed to crush Hooded Plover nests in western Victoria (Maguire pers. obsv.)); they can crush chicks, particularly if ridden swiftly along the beach, as chicks cannot move as quickly out of their path, and; they could potentially collide with and injure or kill adults. Excessive disturbance by horse riders can also contribute to nest failure through exposure of eggs and chicks to thermal extremes, predators and energetic stress. Horses, being large, hoofed animals, also have an impact on the physical environment. If ridden in the dunes, they contribute to heavy erosion, and when ridden on the soft sand of the beach, leave craters that make chick navigation across the beach difficult. On horse beaches between Warrnambool and Narrawong VIC, only 7% of eggs have fledged chicks successfully (7 chicks from 96 eggs, 12 pairs) – this is almost half that of horse-free beaches in this same section of coast (13 chicks from 99 eggs, 9 pairs; Maguire unpublished).

Low threat, localised, ongoing Recreational activities that are air-based such as hang-gliding impact the birds via disturbance where the birds reaction to a glider overhead is similar to their reaction to an aerial (avian) predator (Ehmke pers comm.).

High threat, variable extent (e.g. foxes primarily confined to mainland, cats more prevalent on SA coast than Victorian coast, native dogs ), ongoing Introduced predators are a direct threat to Hooded Plovers. Foxes, cats and dogs will prey on adults, chicks and eggs, and rats will predate on chicks and eggs. In a study by Mead (2012) in Victoria using motion-triggered remote nest surveillance cameras, foxes accounted for 26% of 38 nests with eggs that were depredated (of 64 nests that were monitored by cameras). Dogs (domestic and off lead) have been observed preying on eggs of the Hooded Plover and while records of chick fates are rare (as observers are rarely present when the chicks die), there is one record of a 4.5 week old chick that was a less than a week from flying age being mauled and killed by an off leash labrador (Maguire pers. comm.).

Moderate to high threat, variable extent (superabudance is an issue predominantly on developed coastlines and where there is poor litter management), ongoing Superabundant native predators such as ravens, magpies and gulls, pose a major predatory threat to the eggs and chicks of Hooded Plovers. Gull populations have undoubtedly increased since European settlement (Blakers et al. 1984). Raven (Forest Ravens Corvus tasmanicus, Australian Ravens C. coronoides, Little Ravens C. mellori) populations are thought to have increased since European settlement (Blakers et al. 1984; Schulz and Bamford 1987; Schulz 1992). Increases in food resources, such as coastal tips and urban rubbish bins, may sustain artificially high populations, and ravens are attracted to the dunes when coastal shrubs are fruiting (Weston and Morrow 2000). Mead (2012) used motion triggered remote nest surveillance cameras at 64 nests and identified ravens and magpies as major Hooded Plover egg predators, accounting for 24% and 16% of nest failures, respectively. Silver Gulls predated 19% of experimentally deployed nests of quail eggs along beaches in Western Victoria (Stojanovic 2008). Silver Gulls have also been observed attacking and predating a two-day old Hooded Plover chick (Burke et al. 2004).

High threat, widespread but variable in intensity, ongoing Weeds , such as Sea Spurge, Sea Wheat Grass, Marram Grass and Pyp grass have been identified as key species that change the structure of beach and fore-dune habitats (Cousens et al. 2012). These structural changes in turn alter the resources available (foraging, nesting etc) to the Hooded Plovers, leading to either direct impacts (increased predation, mortality or abandonment of beaches) to more indirect impacts such as reduced breeding success in sub-optimal habitat. For example, Mead (2012) found that of the 18% of nests across Victoria lost to tide, most of these were in far west Victoria and this is in line with Cousens et al. (in review) reporting that the most extensive Marram grass infestations occur in Victoria. The increase in gap size between areas of breeding habitat can lead to increasing fagmentation or isolation within the overall population (Weston et al. 2009). This has potential to reduce and weaken the genetic diversity of the subspecies.

High threat, localised, ongoing Human induced habitat modification. The activities that fit under this heading are quite varied and can range form onground management to prevent dune erosion, beach grooming, beach replenishment, the removal of driftwood from beaches and the harvesting of kelp (seaweed) from beaches. These activities alter the habitat of the species directly by removing foraging substrates (e.g. seaweed harvesting, beach grooming), nesting habitat (erosion control measures such as brush matting of dune blowouts) or shelter (driftwood collection, beach grooming) and thus reduce areas of potential occupancy. There are also impacts to the breeding success of birds when these activities result in considerable disturbance to the birds (e.g. presence of kelp harvesters on beaches for prolonged periods of time) or direct crushing or burial of nests (e.g. beach grooming).

Moderate threat, localised, ongoing Litter: For Hooded Plovers the risks include entanglement of adults and chicks in fishing line or fibres from commercial fishing nets that wash ashore, and the subsequent injury or death resulting for this entanglement. Poor management of litter adjacent to beaches, such as in caravan parks or rubbish tips, can result in superabundant native predator populations (e.g. silver gulls, ravens, magpies). Litter on beaches such as bait bags, etc, can also further attract predators to foraging along the beach and increase the likelihood of opportunistically encountering Hooded Plover eggs and chicks.

High threat, highly localised, ongoing where management is not being addressed Stock on beaches in areas of South Australia and Tasmania have direct impacts on nesting birds resulting in the trampling or burying of nests, disturbance of incubation and erosion of dune and beach habitats. Much of Kangaroo Island’s northern coastline is accessible to sheep, and feral goats are frequently recorded grazing on fore-dune vegetation and on beaches on the western coastline in Flinders Chase National Park (Dennis and Masters 2006). On King Island, cattle can access much of the coastline where they forage on kelp. Stock are no longer considered a threatening process in Victoria and New South Wales as they have been actively managed via permanent dune fencing (Baird and Dann 2003; Weston 2003) and temporary electric fencing around nests (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2006).

High threat, catastrophic event Oil spills have the potential to impact upon Hooded Plovers by both directly oiling birds, removing foraging substrates and resources and disturbing the ecosystem processes that are necessary for these beach systems to function (Weston 2003). The loss of these processes will have on flow effects to Hooded Plovers.

There are also natural threats to the breeding success of Hooded Plovers and these include: - High tides have been recorded washing out eggs (16% of 64 nests monitored by remote camera across Victoria, Mead 2012) and drowning chicks. - Storms and extreme weather result in washing out or burying eggs, egg and chick exposure. - Avian predators such as raptors, and ravens, magpies and gulls in locations where they are at pre-European settlement abundances. Avian predators can depredate eggs and chicks, and larger raptors and ravens can prey upon adult birds. There have been 3 records of Nankeen Kestrels preying upon Hooded Plover chicks (Weston 1998; Duivenvoorden 2007). Habitat modification makes the Hooded Plover more susceptible to natural predation as cover (e.g. driftwood) is removed (Duivenvoorden 2007). - Reptilian predators (monitors, goannas, snakes) are also known to depredate Hooded Plover eggs or chicks in their eastern range. There is no evidence to suggest that natural rates of reptilian predation have increased; for example on Kangaroo Island, goanna numbers have remained stable over time (Dennis and Masters 2006).

There is considerable variation in the occurrence and intensity of threats across sites in the species eastern mainland range where we have detailed threat records over time (Maguire unpublished). For example, on the Victorian coast the prevalence of given threats varies, often regionally but also along a stretch of beach. On the coast between Warrnambool and Portland, unregulated horse and illegal vehicle access are the predominant threats as well as weed infestations which intensify the coastal 'squeeze' and the impacts of these recreational pressures. In the Mornington Peninsula National Park, high intensities of beach use by people and off leash dogs are the prevalent threats, but this varies across the park due to variation in ease of access and dog regulations. This has dramatic impacts on the resultant breeding success of pairs, for example, 40% of Hooded Plover pairs in dog free areas of Mornington Peninsula National Park produce chicks successfully, compared to just 16% of pairs in dog access areas in the park (Maguire unpublished). The consideration (and collection) of threat data is fundamental to investigating the effectiveness of management investment at improving Hooded Plover breeding success.

Currently an analysis of 5 years of detailed threat data is being carried out by BirdLife Australia and Deakin University (Maguire, Ehmke and Weston) and a Multi-dimensional Scaling analysis of threats by sites across the Victorian coast has revealed distinct differences between sites. These can often be regionally clumped, whereby sites in Warrnambool to Portland are the most distinct of any on the Victorian coast, while other sites within regions can be radically different from one another and more similar to sites elsewhere on the coast that have similar access and proximity to major towns/cities, e.g. Portsea and Point Lonsdale are highly similiar. The results of this analysis will assist with prioritisation of threat mitigation and consistency of approach to sites of a particular threat profile.

27. POTENTIAL THREATS Identify any POTENTIAL threats to the species. Coastal armouring to protect infrastructure has the potential to radically alter beaches and habitat availability for Hooded Plovers in their eastern range. Natural dune mobility and sand replenishment processes will be impacted and this will have implications for the amount of habitat available. Already there is reduction in area of occupancy related to small scale changes to habitat via erosion works such as brush matting of dunes and also to infrastructure protection from rising sea levels, such as placement of boulders along the base of the dune to protect shacks on South Australian beaches (Maguire 2008).

Sea level rise. This is a potential threat, though the extent and outcomes are unknown and limited modelling of the potential areas of impact is available. Sharples (2006) developed indicative mapping of areas of the Tasmanian coast that were vulnerable to sea level rise and climate change. Approximately 34% of Tasmania's coast line was classified as "Open coast Sandy Shores" and found to be potentially vulnerable to erosion and recession with sea level rise (Sharples 2006). Whilst this is not a direct measure of the impacts of climate and sea level changes on Hooded Plovers, it is indicative of the potential changes to habitat modification that this species may encounter in the future.

Coastal planning (strip development of the coast) and increased beach access will continue to intensify threats to the breeding success of Hooded Plovers and to reducing habitat availability. While the threatened status of Hooded Plovers under State Legislation in Victoria, NSW and South Australia should trigger consideration of the impacts to this species by coastal planners, the species' habitat and breeding requirements have the potential to be overlooked and impacts underestimated due to the dispersed nature of the population.

28. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed. Chapter 3 of ‘A practical guide for managing beach-nesting birds in Australia’ (Maguire 2008) covers in depth the management options available for Hooded Plover threat mitigation and step-by-step implementation guidelines. There are major reviews of the benefits and pitfalls of each technique and decision making trees to assist with choices of management based on site morphology, threat types and visitor base. These best-practise guidelines are being implemented across Victoria and South Australia by land managers, State and Local government agencies, trained volunteers and BirdLife Australia staff. These are regularly reviewed by BirdLife Australia and adapted to respond to emerging threats or new research findings. The effectiveness of management investment is explored via research and some key study outcomes are detailed further below. Much of the investment in on-ground conservation, education and research has occurred in more recent years.

The most active recovery programs for the Hooded Plover (eastern) are: BirdLife Australia’s beach-nesting birds program operating across the entire Victorian extent and most of South Australia; NSW NPWS Threatened Shorebird Recovery Program operating across the entire extent of the NSW population; Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Fleurieu Peninsula Hooded Plover program (in conjunction with BirdLife Australia) covering the Fleurieu Peninsula extent of the species; BirdLife Tasmania’s Hooded Plover monitoring program and Kids on the Coast education program. Below is a broad overview of the current and ongoing work being carried out.

Since 2006, BirdLife Australia, previously Birds Australia, has run a ‘Promoting coexistence between recreationists and beach-nesting birds’ (BNB) program. This began as a case study approach to improving the breeding success of the Hooded Plover in Victoria by selecting 80 sites across the coast to monitor during the breeding season months (August to March) and to actively manage threats at these sites through targeted on-ground actions. This was set up in an experimental framework where there were control sites representing sites where human threats were considered absent or low. At these control sites, the breeding success of birds was monitored only. There were then sites with moderate to heavy human-based threats that were monitored and a selection of these were actively managed to mitigate threats impacting breeding. This ‘management’ was typically signage to warn beach users of the presence of actively nesting birds and to request people alter their behaviour when near nesting areas, and often this was coupled with temporary fencing around the nest site. In the scientific literature these are often referred to as ‘Temporary Beach Closures (TBC)’, however this name can be misleading to beach users and has ceased being used on signage as the beach is not ‘closed’ but instead the area is fenced as a protected refuge for the birds. New signage uses terms such as ‘Threatened Bird Nesting Area’, ‘Threatened Wildlife Refuge’ or similar.

At each site monitoring is carried out by BirdLife staff, trained volunteers and trained land managers (training involved workshops and intensive on-site training by BirdLife staff coupled with strict monitoring protocols; see Maguire 2008). Data collected includes breeding data (stage of nesting, laying/hatching/failure/fledging dates, number of eggs/chicks, evidence of nest failure), banding data (presence/identity of leg bands/flags) and site based threat data (a rapid assessment on each visit of the human and predator threats present, and an assessment of tracks/prints of people/predators/vehicles/horses to indicate general site use).

Results from the first three years of this project revealed that approximately 45% of fledglings came from remote and relatively undisturbed sites (control sites where fencing/signing of nests is not needed), and that 50% of fledglings came from highly disturbed sites that were managed compared to less than 5% from highly disturbed sites that were unmanaged (Maguire unpublished). This radical dichotomy of breeding success on human impact sites related to management investment provides strong evidence of the effectiveness of managing threats to the species at the scale of the nesting site. Here a tenfold increase in success is evident from a simple and cheap implementation of temporary signage and fencing around the nest site to minimise human and dog impacts. Szabo et al. (2012) report that management investment for the Hooded Plover (eastern) over the past has effectively reduced the rate of decline in the species where it was predicted that the species would currently meet IUCN Red List Endangered criteria but instead they are still considered Vulnerable. Based on the Victorian population recruitment rates, if management investment ceased and there were consequently 50% fewer fledglings each year, then the projected decline would increase twofold.

The project now has expanded to monitor 150 sites across Victoria and South Australia on a weekly (sometimes daily basis) throughout the 8 months of the breeding season. BirdLife Australia since 2009 has run a national recovery program for Hooded Plovers and this includes primary responsibility for education, on-ground management and monitoring across Victoria and South Australia, and technical advice and research, education materials, and managing the data portal for breeding and banded bird records that extends to include Western Australia and NSW. In each of the latter states there are independent programs operating for Hooded Plover conservation, and these work closely with BirdLife Australia to look for unified outcomes and approaches to Hooded Plover recovery. The WA program has distinctively different priorities and approaches due to the different habitat, threats and biology of the western subspecies, however, where there are opportunities for synergy the WA Hooded Plover committee work closely with BirdLife Australia. BirdLife Australia also manage a national network for beach-nesting bird conservation which includes national newsletters, a website, Facebook site and a national workshop each May/June.

In NSW, the State government runs a Threatened Shorebird Recovery Program that employs 3 shorebird recovery officers who coordinate the monitoring of the 21 breeding pairs, volunteer management and on-ground managements for Hooded Plover recovery. This program is jointly funded by the NSW State Government and Federal Government and has been in existence since 1999, with more intensive data collection and volunteer involvement since 2001. This program is closely linked with the NSW Fox threat abatement program, and implements a similar range of on-ground managements as in Victoria and SA including temporarily signing and fencing nests, fox control, public education, wardening of chick sites, tackling off leash dog issues, and working with local councils to ensure more consistency in planning and policy across multi-tenure stretches of coast. In addition, the NSW recovery team also lethally control ravens and silver gulls that threaten nesting sites, cage nests to protect eggs from predators, and raise nests on sandbags to avoid tidal inundation. This project is ongoing.

The Tasmanian monitoring program is run by BirdLife Tasmania and is an independent program with funding primarily from NRMs and local government. BirdLife Tasmania has extensive survey mapping (GPS and non-GPS) and raw breeding population data for more than 230 beaches in Tasmania spanning varying time periods from 1982 to 2012/13 that will be used in future to update the estimate for the total Tasmanian population, and to also derive estimates for rates and timing of decreases for each beach, and for various management areas specific to Councils, National Parks etc to assist the local/regional land managers. This project is ongoing.

There are 13 Friends of the Hooded Plover groups across Victoria and South Australia coordinated by BirdLife Australia who follow consistent guidelines for monitoring and on-ground management (Maguire 2008) and who collect consistent data and enter this on an online data portal (http://portal.myhoodie.com.au/) where the data can be viewed by all registered volunteers and land managers. This national data portal was created in September 2012 to replace paper data sheets and there have been over 3000 observations entered in 5 months. This portal assists with real time adaptive on-ground management where volunteers and land managers can visit the portal, check for management ‘alerts’ and put in place protective measures in response to new nests being reported. It is an effective communication tool that has greatly reduced resource investment required by volunteer coordinators and land managers.

The BNB program has seen the implementation of 50 km of dune fencing around important blowouts across the Victorian coast, 849 nest sites protected over 7 seasons, 260 permanent beach signs erected at access points across Victoria and South Australia and NSW, and 150km of coast monitored per annum for predators and info fed into fox control programs.

BirdLife Australia has coordinated three biennial counts (2008, 2010, 2012) across South Australia, Victoria and NSW where fixed routes have been followed, coverage of all ocean beach habitat has exceeded 80% and the data undergoes strict vetting and analysis, in order to make direct comparisons between areas over time accounting for differences in coverage. During each count, rapid threat assessments are made at the point of each sighting providing an overview of the threats across the species eastern mainland range (see attachment). BirdLife Australia will continue to be the responsible agency for these counts and to manage the centralised online database for Hooded Plover breeding records.

There has been considerable investment in public education with BirdLife Australia running hundreds of workshops, school incursions and events (such as dogs breakfasts and hooded plover craft activities) each year, and educating in the order of 15,000 people through these activities per year. 650 volunteers and land managers have been effectively trained to monitor and manage Hooded Plovers across Vic, SA and NSW and BirdLife Australia provide on call advice throughout the breeding season. Over 60 awareness products and signage templates have been developed and there is strong consistency in conservation messaging and signage guidelines across the eastern mainland range. BirdLife Australia in the past 4 years has administered a competitive grants scheme to devolve $50,000 for on-ground and education activity to improve Hooded Plover conservation, as well as devolved $109,000 to Friends groups to fund major on-ground works as well as to establish these groups with the equipment they need, such as binoculars, GPS units, telescopes and nest protection kits.

NSW NPWS and the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM also run dedicated public education programs for improving awareness of Hooded Plovers and improving compliance with on-ground measures. There is ongoing investment in these programs. BirdLife Tasmania run a Kids on the Coast program aimed at children of primary school age.

Research findings regarding effective management strategies for Hooded Plovers: Weston et al. (2011) in their comparison of static versus mobile human impacts revealed that static humans caused substantial disruption to incubation that almost always exceeded 60 min. The probability of plovers returning to nests within 60 min was higher in the treatment that mimicked mobile (e.g., walking) humans (85.7%) than in the treatment that mimicked static (e.g., sunbathing) humans. They concluded that ‘temporary beach closures’ (that is, temporarily signed and fenced nesting areas) that minimise static human activity are likely to effectively reduce incubation disruptions.

Further research by Weston et al. (2012b) found that 93.7% of beach visitors complied with temporary beach closures, resulting in a reduction in egg-crushing rates within. Human compliance was highest for females and when the density of beach-users was higher (particularly in the middle of the day between 12pm and 2pm).

Maguire et al. (2011a) explored the effectiveness of providing artificial shelter on beaches for improving chick survival. They found that a simple wooden tepee design offered a 9° C thermal benefit on average, was least conspicuous to humans, had no approaches by avian predators in 157 passes, and was the lightest to carry in the field and easiest to stack for transportation. When trialled on Hooded Plover territories with broods, there were high rates of shelter use by chicks across years (33-41% of broods). Of 10 broods with access to only natural shelter, 10.0% fledged, while of 11 broods with access to an artificial shelter, 81.8% fledged successfully. Fledging success data from additional broods in the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 breeding season, revealed that 22.4% that did not have access to artificial shelter survived to fledge, while 65.2% that had access to artificial shelters survived to fledge.

Social research findings that improve understanding of the threats facing Hooded Plovers: Use and attitudes toward beaches Beaches are the most popular recreational destinations in Australia yet how they are visited and valued by Australians is poorly known. Maguire et al. (2011b) surveyed 385 people (13.8% of 2800 coastal residents) from south-eastern Australia to examine their use of beaches and the features that are important in their choice and enjoyment of a beach destination. Most respondents (90.3%) nominated beaches as one of their top three most valued natural recreational environments. Thirty-four recreational activities occurred at the beach (8.6 ± 0.3 [mean ± SE] activities per respondent), mostly walking (91.4%) and swimming (78.9%). There appears to be a distinct dichotomy in use of ‘local’ versus ‘non-local’ beaches, where local beaches are visited more frequently, throughout more of the year, outside working hours and by smaller groups of people, compared with ‘non-local’ beaches.

Overall, respondents valued clean, uncrowded beaches with opportunities to view wildlife (n = 338) but also desired facilities (e.g. toilets, shade, life savers, food outlets; n = 331). Difficult access and intrusive recreation activities (e.g. vehicles on beaches) detracted from people’s enjoyment. Coastal planners and managers not only face the challenge of increasing visitation to beaches but also the need to manage for somewhat conflicting values among beach-goers.

Awareness, perceptions and acceptance of Hooded Plover conservation efforts Social support is critical to threatened species recovery efforts (Metrick & Weitzman 1996; Weston et al. 2003). Perceptions of the public with respect to threatened species and their management are important to foster social and political support for conservation programs (Cvetkovich & Winter 2003), and they play a role in determining appropriate behaviour among people which promotes coexistence between threatened species and humans (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith 1999; McCleery et al. 2006; Meadow et al. 2005; Weston & Elgar 2007).

Maguire et al. (in review) surveyed 579 recreationists regarding management of the threatened Hooded Plover. Overall, awareness of the Hooded Plover (93.7%, n = 579) and support for conservation of the species (4.48 ± 0.04 where 5 is ‘strongly agree’) was high. Furthermore when recreationists were asked whether they found on-ground managements inconvenient, there were very low levels of inconvenience reported (average ± SE factor scores, 4.49 ± 0.03, where 5 is ‘convenient’). When recreationists were asked to rate the effectiveness of a range of management options, education and awareness strategies were perceived as less effective than regulations; and exclusion and regulations were considered less desirable than on-ground protective measures. There were differences in the rating of inconvenience of different managements related to frequency of beach use and pet ownership and it is concluded that conservation and education strategies for beach-nesting birds need to be tailored to beach users to accommodate these differences.

Barriers to dog leashing on beaches: Leashing of dogs can significantly improve conservation outcomes for Hooded Plovers, but few dogs are leashed on beaches and currently, compliance with dog regulations is the exception rather than the rule. Williams et al. (2009) surveyed a total of 385 dog owners across Victoria to explore their sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches (86 face to face interviews and 299 postal questionnaires).

Approximately 28% of participants indicated some level of disagreement that they felt obliged to leash their dog on beaches. An additional 17% indicated a neutral position on this statement, 22% reported weak agreement with the statement, whereas 33% strongly agreed. It is likely that some participants feel an obligation to leash their dog on beaches but do not actually put this into practice.

Most dog owners see no conflict between off leash dog exercise and wildlife conservation. When both are considered, they rate their dog’s need for off leash exercise as of higher concern than wildlife protection. In general, respondents considered their own dog to be much less of a threat to wildlife and humans than they considered dogs in general.

When asked about a series of bird-dog interactions, the percentage of people who considered the interaction to have a “lasting negative impact” decreased considerably with the type of interaction. Most participants (84%) believed that when a “dog chases a bird but does not catch it” there would be a lasting negative impact for the bird. Smaller percentages of participants believed this would be true if a “dog barks at a bird” (63%) or if a “dog is within 50 metres of a bird” (51%). Only 18% of respondents agreed there would be lasting negative impacts for a bird if the dog was “within 200 metres of the bird.” Even the least proximate interaction has lasting negative impacts on shorebirds (Page, Warriner, Warriner, & Halbeisen, 1977; Rodgers & Smith, 1997; Yalden & Yalden, 1990), yet only 18% of participants were conscious of this.

Williams et al. (2009) recommend ways to overcome poor leashing rates on beaches. There is a need for greater innovation in communication to overcome emotional resistance to recognising the threat one’s own dog poses. A key to this may be pointing out the threat posed by behaviours that most people would consider to be acceptable and typical of well-behaved dogs, such as a dog merely running along the upper beach without visibly responding to birds. Similarly, building on social norm approaches, communication should provide examples of “good dog owners” who leash their dog on beaches or choose alternative locations for unleashed dog exercise. Wherever possible, communication should be designed to appeal to the value dog owners place on unleashed recreation for dogs. The benefits of unleashed recreation should be acknowledged, and alternative locations for recreation should be provided and promoted.

Research on management of depreciative behaviour suggests that direct contact with relevant agency personnel is a very effective means of influencing behaviour (Knopf & Andereck, 2004). Strengthening controls, particularly by providing effective enforcement, is also likely to be effective in encouraging leashing of dogs on beaches.

To conclude, there is overwhelming support for conservation of this species, shown by over 60,000 hours per annum of volunteer effort and close to 1000 volunteers on the eastern mainland.

Surveys and Monitoring 29. DISTINCTIVENESS Give details of the distinctiveness of the species.

Is this species taxonomically distinct? Taxonomic distinctiveness is a measure of how unique a species is relative to other species.

How distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified? Taxonomically distinct: There are only two species within the genus Thinornis worldwide. In Australia, the Hooded Plover is the only member of the genus Thinornis. The only other Thinornis in the world is the critically endangered, New Zealand Shore Plover (Thinornis novaeseelandiae). The New Zealand Shore Plover was once widespread throughout New Zealand, but from the 1880s, became restricted to the Chatham Islands. Unlike other shorebirds, this starling-sized shore plover nests under thick vegetation or in crevices under piles of boulders, and even in mutton bird burrows, which makes them more vulnerable to mammalian predators that can easily approach unseen. Their disappearance from the mainland is thought to be due to introduced predators, such as cats, rats and mustelids. After the introduction of predators to several of the Chatham Islands, only two populations remain: 130 birds confined to the predator-free, Rangatira Island and 21 birds on the Western Reef of the Chatham island chain. The species is one of the rarest birds in the world. Historically, NZ shore plovers occupied a wide range of coastal habitats including sandy beaches, rocky coast, river mouths, and sand and mud flats of estuaries, but on Rangatira and the Western Reef there are only rocky shores available for nesting, with salt meadow and tussockland also occupied on Rangatira. Present day threats include introduced predators, fires, disease and human disturbance (and even egg crushing by seals).

Distinct appearance: The Hooded Plover is distinguished from other small shorebirds by its white nape (collar) that is present from chick stage to adulthood. Similar species include: - the Red-capped Plover (endemic to Australia, often breeds on beaches), however this a smaller species, there is no black hood. Female and juveniles can be confused with juvenile Hooded Plovers but no white nape present. - the Double-banded Plover (a migratory species from New Zealand present in Australia in winter months), no black hood, can be confused with juvenile Hooded Plovers but has no white nape. - in flight, the black and white barring of the wing and tail can be confused with the pattern of the Hooded Plover; however this would only be a fleeting glance that could result in this confusion and there are distinct differences in the pattern of this barring and additional differences between head and back plumage.

The eastern and western form of Hooded Plovers are distinguished by: - the amount of black on the mantle - in the western form this extends halfway down the back and over the coverts - habitat type - eastern range strictly coastal on high-energy surf beaches and estuaries, in western range, typically inland and on salt lakes, with occasional occurrence on high-energy surf beaches - breeding season - ephemeral, based on availability of water in the western range; seasonal in spring and summer in the eastern range.

30. DETECTABILITY Provide information on how easy the species is to detect and the ease of which it has been/can be surveyed. • If possible, provide information on when and how surveys should be conducted, for example: - Recommended methods - Season, time of day, weather conditions - Length, intensity and pattern of search effort - Limitations and whether or not the method is accepted by experts - Survey-effort guide - Methods for detecting the species. Hooded Plovers are detected with relative ease during the breeding season and experienced observers cannot confuse this species with any other in Australia. Within the breeding season, generally Hooded Plovers can be sighted reliably in their territories as they are highly sedentary at this time of year (Weston et al. 2009). Surveys are therefore censuses, and rather than being indices of population size are actually closer to being real population estimates.

Population counts: Frequency of surveying depends on the rate that the population is estimated to change in abundance. If a species is long-lived and adult survival is high, such as the Hooded Plover which can live up to 18 years (possibly more) and where annual adult mortality is less than 10% (Weston 2000), then changes to population size are likely to occur slowly. It would therefore be more efficient to space the survey counts in years rather than months. In this case, yearly or biennial counts should always be carried out at the same time of year to avoid seasonal biases.

For the long-running Hooded Plover biennial counts, November was chosen as the best time for this survey as at this time of year the birds are generally sedentary on their established breeding territories, and by November most pairs have initiated a nesting attempt. This should not only keep the probability of recounting individuals low but if the location of each sighting is recorded, this can inform us of the location of breeding territories along the coast.

For the purposes of surveying the entire Eastern mainland coastline, the coast is divided into ‘zones’, each headed by a regional organiser to ease the workload of a single coordinator and to provide local advice to volunteers. Within each zone, smaller sections of coast (transects) are allocated to volunteers and the regional organiser ensures there is no overlap in the count area transects. Recent analysis of population count data collected since 1980 has revealed that consistency of areas monitored is crucial to comparing densities over time, and that if sections are missed, or the transect start and end points altered from survey to survey, then it makes it very hard to compare the data (Glover 2008). For the purposes of consistency, specific datasheets are used by count participants when carrying out the survey so that all of the required information is collected in a consistent way, and data is not easily misplaced (BirdLife Australia). Surveying multiple sections of coast needs to take place within as short a period as possible to minimise the likelihood of double-counting individual birds and for this reason a single weekend is nominated for the count.

Population counts where substantially different extents of potentially suitable habitat are covered are not directly comparable. The extent of potentially suitable habitat covered in biennial counts has varied substantially over time - for instance there was a 21% difference in survey coverage between the 2008 and 2010 biennial counts. Where survey coverage varies between sampling periods, population measures should be adjusted to compensate for the sampling bias or at least interpreted in the context of the variance in sampling. Because of this it is critical to accurately record spatial survey coverage. Having this information at hand allows a number of statistical options to be explored, the simplest of which is to calculate trends in the density individuals.

Annual or seasonal surveys If the species is long-lived, but threats to adult survival are high (for example, predators or vehicle collisions impact the adult population, or habitat has been severely modified by tides or weeds) then more frequent surveys may be necessary, such as annual, biannual, seasonal or monthly counts. Seasonal or monthly counts would be useful for revealing when declines or peaks occur in the population, and how these relate to seasonal variation, particularly as Weston et al. (2009) revealed that Hooded Plovers are particular about flocking sites and so surveying during the breeding season and non-breeding season may reveal fluctuations in numbers related to movement to flocking sites. It may be necessary to begin with a finer resolution of monitoring (e.g. monthly) and then evaluate the rate of change, to assess whether this surveying frequency is appropriate.

When Hooded Plovers have been marked with colour bands, flags or engraved leg flags, it can be useful to survey at least on a biannual basis, once during the breeding season to establish the identity of birds at their breeding sites, and once during the non-breeding season to establish the identity of birds within flocks and determine if there are visiting birds from other regions. If time and resources permit, establishing quarterly surveys would be beneficial: - November (peak of breeding season) to document location of breeding sites and pair identities - February (toward the end of the breeding season) to count the ratio of juveniles to adults, although identifying these juveniles is important to determine where they have originated from; if they are not individually identifiable, comparing the number of known fledglings from a region against the number of juveniles sighted can still be informative. - May (middle of the non-breeding season) to determine which pairs have remained on their breeding territories, to identify flocking sites, and to determine the identity of birds using the site over winter (how far have birds travelled to use the site during winter?) - August (beginning of the breeding season) to establish how many pairs are on their breeding territories and determine whether nesting has begun.

Nest monitoring program: Hooded Plover ‘presence’ alone is not a good indicator of the ‘health’ of a particular stretch of coast. While presence can indicate that there is at least food availability and suitable physical habitat to sustain Hooded Plovers at that site, BirdLife Australia data reveals that the birds can continue to be present on sites where they have had no breeding success for at least six to nine years at least. This indicates that while the physical habitat is assessed as suitable for breeding by the birds, this can be adversely impacted by recreational use and predators so that the birds have repeated unsuccessful nesting attempts over time. These sites are sinks and these pairs should not be counted as part of the effective (breeding) population size.

Estimates of Hooded Plover population size over time are also not a reliable indicator of the health of the Hooded Plover population because long-lived species with high adult survival are likely to have stable population numbers for a considerable length of time as threats are not impacting adult numbers. Instead if threats are impacting another part of the life cycle such as recruitment into the population, i.e. breeding success, then it is likely that by the time a population decline is detected, it will decline steeply and the problem may be too advanced to remedy. This is because the adult population has been ageing over the course of the monitoring program, but once these adults start to die off due to old age, the numbers plummet because there have been too few young added to the population over time.

Beach-nesting birds experience threats to their breeding success rather than adult survival, thus, it is essential to monitor breeding success as an indicator of population health. This can be a more difficult task than conducting a population census, but the data can serve multiple purposes, enabling: - Assessment of the health of the local population - Assessment of the health of each site - Determining the dominant threats - Guiding management priorities and investment - Allowing real time, adaptive management - Documenting compliance, improvements and changes over time

Thus the best indicator for assessing the health of the coast and/or the health of the Hooded Plover population is to monitor the breeding output/‘success’ of pairs. However, in order to interpret this information and to recognise which factors influence breeding success, this monitoring needs to be coupled with monitoring of the threats at each site.

BirdLife Australia has established a monitoring program which involves trained volunteers and land managers regularly visiting breeding pairs over the course of the breeding season, and collecting data on: - The breeding status of pairs on territories: tracking this from a pair being on territory, courting/mating, making nest scrapes, laying eggs, incubating, hatching, raising chicks, to fledging chicks (i.e. chicks reaching flying age, 5 weeks old). - Nest failure: when eggs or chicks are lost, dates of loss and any indication of the cause of failure are documented (e.g. fox tracks at the nest; egg shells with beak marks; tide mark over the nest; etc). Remote sensor cameras have been used in recent years at nests with eggs to more accurately assign cause of failure. - Threats on the breeding territory: when visiting the pairs, a quick assessment of threats is conducted to determine the presence of threat types (e.g. observations of predators or evidence that these predators have been present such as tracks or scats; beach users and the type of recreational activity they are partaking in) and the intensity of these threats (so recording actual numbers of threats seen). Because an observer will only be present for a short duration on the site and not observe the full range of threats the site might receive, we also record the density of tracks on the beach as an indicator of the level of use the beach receives (e.g. an observer might visit and see no-one on the beach, but the density of human prints in the sand reveals that this site has had a high visitation recently, indicating that this site does get used by high numbers of visitors). - Compliance with regulations and nest protection signage: when recording the above checklist of threats, an observer differentiates between dogs on and off the lead, and between people and human and dog tracks inside and outside fenced nesting areas.

The most common misconceptions that exist about monitoring nesting success of beach-nesting birds revolve around risk to the birds, for example: “We don’t want to disturb the birds as they suffer enough disturbance”, “It is too risky to the birds and will result in more nest failures” and “Approaching the nest will lead predators to the nest”. There are definite risks associated with monitoring threatened birds, which is why there are strict protocols for actively searching for nests and for monitoring nests and chicks. BirdLife Australia’s protocols are based on the extensive research into the mechanisms of disturbance to Hooded Plovers (Weston and Elgar 2005a, 2007; Maguire 2008). BirdLife Australia has used these protocols over seven consecutive breeding seasons and there is no evidence to suggest that monitored nests had an increased risk of failure nor did the risk of predation differ between frequently visited and managed nests versus infrequently visited and unmanaged nests.

Training of monitors is critical to minimising risks to the birds and best practise monitoring and management guidelines have been developed to minimise these risks (Maguire 2008), as well as a website and guide booklet on detecting and monitoring the birds (www.myhoodie.com.au/).

31. SURVEYS Provide information on survey effort to date, and any ongoing/proposed monitoring programs. Biennial counts across Victoria and South Australia have been carried out since 1980, and since 2008 efforts to survey the entire range of the species across South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have been coordinated by BirdLife Australia (see Ewers et al. 2011). In Tasmania, population counts are carried out on a 5 year cycle since 1980, and since 2000 these have been greatly improved in coverage and consistency of data collection (Woehler unpublished). In New South Wales, the entire population is monitored during the breeding season by Shorebird Recovery officers and volunteers since 2006 to present (see NSW NPWS reports). In Victoria, 60% of the breeding population is monitored during the breeding season by BirdLife Australia and volunteers. In South Australia, 18% of the breeding population is monitored during the breeding season by BirdLife Australia, Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM and Kangaroo Island Shorebird volunteers. All data is collected consistently and entered in a centralised database (http://portal.myhoodie.com.au/). This monitoring program has been coordinated by BirdLife Australia from 2006 to present (via Federal and State government funding) and will be ongoing. A funded coordinator however may not be present into the long-term and hence the scale of the monitoring program, training of participants (and hence reliability of data) and analysis of data is not guaranteed in future.

Conservation Dependent Considerations Note: Only complete this section if nominating for consideration under the conservation dependent category, or if nominating a fish (or harvested marine species) with a management plan. Answer either Q.32 OR Q.33, whichever is more appropriate. 32. CONSERVATION PROGRAM (if species is a fish or harvested marine species, see Q.33 first) a) Give details of the conservation program for which this species is a focus. b) Provide details of how the species would become vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered should the program cease.

33. FISH MANAGEMENT PLANS a) Give details of the plan of management that focuses on the fish. b) Provide details of how the plan provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of and support the recovery of the species, so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised. c) Explain the effect on the fish if the plan of management ceased

34. MANAGEMENT PLAN’S LEGISLATIVE BASIS Is the plan of management (or some component/s of it) in force under Commonwealth or State/Territory law? If so, provide details.

Indigenous Values 35. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Is the species known to have cultural significance for Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available. Unknown.

Reviewers and Further Information 36. REVIEWER(S) Has this nomination been peer-reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include their names, current professional positions and contact details. Dr Mike Weston, Lecturer Deakin University [email protected] Glenn Ehmke, Senior Analyst, BirdLife Australia [email protected] Amy Harris, NSW NPWS Threatened Shorebird Recovery Coordinator, [email protected] Jodie Dunn, NSW NPWS Threatened Shorebird Recovery Coordinator, [email protected] Stephen Garnett, Professor of Tropical Knowledge, Charles Darwin University, [email protected]

37. FURTHER INFORMATION Identify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.). Weston 2003 Managing the Hooded Plover on the Parks Victoria Estate Maguire 2008 A practical guide to managing beach-nesting birds in Australia (available online: Maguire et al. 2013 Managing the Hooded Plover on the Parks Victoria Estate Action Statement for the Hooded Plover 1992 (Victoria) Revised Action Statement for the Hooded Plover (awaiting approval) Recovery Plan for the Hooded Plover (South Australia) (awaiting approval) Recovery Plan for the Hooded Plover (New South Wales) 1999 Fleurieu Peninsula site report: threats and management recommendations (Maguire and Stephens 2011)

38. REFERENCE LIST Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination. Anders, F. J. and Leatherman, S. P. (1987). Disturbance of beach sediment by off-road vehicles. Environment, Geology and Water Sciences 9: 183–189. Baird, B. and Dann, P. (2003). The breeding biology of Hooded Plovers, Thinornis rubricollis, on Phillip Island, Victoria. Emu 103: 323-328. Bennett, E. M. (2010). An Assessment of the Morphological and Genetic Variation within and between Mainland Populations of Hooded Plovers (Thinornis rubricollis). Honours Thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Birds Australia (2008). November 2008 biennial Hooded Plover count. Unpublished report, Birds Australia, Melbourne. BirdLife International (2013) Species factsheet: Thinornis rubricollis. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 20/03/2013. Black, A. (2011). Western Australia, home of the Grass-Wren (Amytornis textilis). Amytornis 3: 1-12. Black, A., Joseph, L., Pedler, L. and Carpenter, G. A. (2010). A taxonomic framework for interpreting evolution within the Amytornis textilis-modestus complex of grasswrens. Emu 110: 358-363. Blakers, M., Davies, S. J. J. F. and Reilly, P. N. (1984). The atlas of Australian birds. University of Melbourne Press, Melbourne. Bryant, S. (2002). Conservation assessment of beach nesting and migratory shorebirds in Tasmania. Report to Bird Australia and Natural Heritage Trust. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart. Buick, A. M. and Paton, D. C. (1989). Impact of off-road vehicles on the nesting success of Hooded Plovers Charadrius rubricollis in the Coorong Region of South Australia. Emu 89: 159-72. Burger, J. (1986). The effects of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13: 123–130. Burke, P. Burke, A. J. and Weston, M. A. (2004). Silver Gull preys on Hooded Plover chick. Wader Study Group Bulletin 103: 76-77. Cameron, D. and Weston, M.A (1999). The Hooded Plover: first confirmed record in Queensland, the longest movement yet recorded, and a discussion of the range contraction in Eastern Australia. Australian Bird Watcher 18: 8- 18. Christian, P.D., L. Christidis and R. Schodde (1992). Biochemical systematics of the Australian Dotterels and Plovers (Charadriiformes: Charadriidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 40: 225--233. Christidis, L. and W.E. Boles (1994). The Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia and its Territories. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union Monograph 2. Melbourne, Victoria: Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union. Christidis, L, Rheindt, F. E., Boles, W. E. & Norman, J. A. (2010). Plumage patterns are good indicators of taxonomic diversity but not of phylogenetic affinities in Australian grasswrens Amytornis (Aves: Maluridae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 5: 868-877. Cousens, R., Kennedy, D, Maguire, G. and Williams, K. (2012). Just how bad are coastal weeds? Assessing the geo-eco- psycho-socio-economic impacts. Report to Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Cribbin, A. C. M. (2012). An assessment of the efficacy of using conditioned aversion of foxes to the eggs of beach- nesting birds; a broad scale test. Honours Thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Cvetkovich, G. and Winter, P.L. (2003). Trust and social representations of the management of Threatened and Endangered species. Environment and Behavior 35: 286-307. Dennis, T. E., and Ball. D. M. (In review). Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis maturation, mobility, longevity and pair fidelity among individually marked birds on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist. Dennis, T. E. and Masters, P. (2006). Long-term trends in the Hooded Plover thinornis rubricollis population on Kangaroo island, South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist 34: 258 -266. Duivenvoorden, A. (2007). The Design and Effectiveness of Artificial Chick Shelters: Improving the Reproductive Success of the Hooded Plover (Thinornis rubricollis). Honours Thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Ehmke, G. C., Maguire, G. S., Bird, T., Ierodiaconou, D. and Weston, M. A. (In prep). An obligate high energy sandy- shore bird selects breeding habitat based on sub and super tidal habitat elements. Ewers, G., Esbert, N., Hardie, M., Ekanayake, K., Cullen, M. And Maguire, G. (2011). Report on the 2010 Biennial Hooded Plover Count. Unpublished report, Birds Australia, Melbourne. Ford, J. (1987). Hybrid zones in Australian birds. Emu 87: 158-178. Garnett, S. T. and Crowley, G. (2000). The action plan for Australian birds. Environment Australia, Canberra. Garnett, S., Szabo, J. K., and Dutson, G. (2011). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010, Birds Australia. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood. Glover, H. (2008). Population Trends of Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis Along the Victorian Coast, Australia. Deakin University, Melbourne. Glover, H.K., Weston, M.A, Maguire, G.S., Miller, K.K. and Christie, B.A. (2011). Towards ecologically meaningful and socially acceptable buffers: Response of shorebirds in Victoria, Australia, to human disturbance. Landscape and Urban Planning 103: 326-334. Godfrey, P. J. and Godfrey, M. (1980). Ecological effects of off-road vehicles on Cape Cod. Oceanus 23: 56–67. Knopf, R. C. and Andereck, K. L. (2004). Managing depreciative behavior in natural settings. In M. J. Manfredo, J. J., Vaske., B. L. Bruyere., D. R. Field and P. Brown (Eds.). Society and natural resources: A summary of knowledge (pp. 305–314). Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. Luckenbach, R.A. and Bury, B. R. (1983). Effects of off-road vehicles on the biota of the Algodones Dunes, Imperial County, California. Journal of Applied Ecology 20: 265–286. Maguire, G. S. (2008). A practical guide to managing beach-nesting birds in Australia. Birds Australia, Melbourne, Australia. Maguire, G.S, Rimmer, J.M and Weston, M.A (In review). Inconvenience, awareness, pet ownership and frequency of habitat usage influence stakeholder perceptions of threatened species and their management among beach visitors. Society and Animals. Maguire, G.S., Duivenvoorden, A.K., Weston, M.A. and Adams, R. (2011a). Provision of artificial shelter on beaches is associated with improved shorebird fledging success. Bird Conservation International 21: 172-185. Maguire, G.S., Miller, K.K., Weston, M.A. and Young, K. (2011b). Being beside the seaside: Beach use and preferences among coastal residents of south-eastern Australia. Ocean & Coastal Management 54: 781-788. Marchant, S., & P.J. Higgins (Eds) (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 2: Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Mathews, G.M. (1912). The Birds of Australia. Volume 3. London: Witherby and Company. McAllan, I.A.W. (2001). Comments on northern reports of the Hooded Plover. Australian Bird Watcher 19: 121-126. McAllan, I.A.W. & L. Christidis (1998). Neotype of the Hooded Plover Charadrius rubricollis Gmelin, 1789. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists Club 118: 59-61. McCleery, R.A., Ditton, R.B., Sell, J. and Lopez, R.R. (2006). Understanding and Improving Attitudinal Research in Wildlife Sciences. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 537-541. McKenzie-Mohr, D. and Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia. McLachlan, A. and Brown, A. (2006). The ecology of sandy shores. Academic Press, Burlington, MA. Mead, R. (2012). Nest success and fate of the hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis). Honours Thesis. Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Meadow, R., Reading, R.P., Phillips, M., Mehringer, M. and Miller B.J. (2005). The influence of persuasive arguments on public attitudes toward a proposed Wolf restoration in the Southern Rockies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 154-163. Metrick, A. & Weitzman, M.L. (1996). Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Economics 72: 1– 16. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2006). South Coast Shorebird Recovery Newsletter Sharing the Shoreline 2005/06 Season. 10 pp. Olson, S.L. (1998). Lectotypification of Caradrius ribrubicollis Gmelin, 1789. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 118: 256-259. Palmer, J. F. and Leatherman, S. P. (1979). Off-road vehicle usage on federally managed coastal parklands, UM/NPSCRU Report No. 46. Paradis, E., Ballie, S. R., Sutherland, W. J., and Gregory, R. D. (1998). Patterns of natal and breeding dispersal in birds. Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 518–536. Priskin, J. (2003). Physical impacts of four-wheel drive related tourism and recreation in a semi-arid, natural environment. Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 127–155. Rickard, C.A., McLachlan, A. and Kerley, G. I. H. (1994). The effects of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on dune vegetation in South Africa. Ocean and Coastal Management 23: 225–247. Schlacher, T. A. and Thompson, L. M. C. (2008). Physical impacts caused by off-road vehicles (ORVs) to sandy beaches: spatial quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier island. Journal of Coastal Research 24: 234-242. Schlacher, T. A., Richardson, D. and McLean, I. (2008). Impacts of off-road vehicles (ORVs) on Macrobenthic Assemblages on Sandy Beaches. Environmental Management 41: 878-892. Schodde, R. and Mason, I.J. (1997). Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae). Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Vol 37.2 W.W.K. Houston and A. Wells (eds.) CSIRO. Publishing, Melbourne. Schodde, R and Mason, I.J (1999). The directory of Australian birds : passerines CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Vic. Schulz, M. (1992). Hooded Plover - Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement No. 9. Schulz, M. and Bamford, M. (1987). The Hooded Plover - An RAOU conservation statement. RAOU Report 35. Sharples, C. (2006). Indicative Mapping of Tasmanian Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise: Explanatory Report (Second Edition); Consultant Report to Department of Primary Industries & Water, Tasmania, 173 pp., plus accompanying electronic (GIS) maps. Stephens, E. (2004). Life’s a beach: habitat preference and disturbance impacts on the Hooded Plover, a globally threatened shorebird, University of Adelaide. Stojanovic, D. (2008). Conditioned taste aversion reduces fox predation on the eggs of experimental Hooded Plover nests. Masters Thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney. Szabo, J.K., Butchart, S.H.M., Possingham, H.P., and Garnett S.T (2012). Adapting global biodiversity indicators to the national scale: A Red List Index for Australian birds. Biological Conservation 148: 61-68. Weston, M.A. (1993). Twelve years of counting the Hooded Plover in Victoria, Australia. Stilt. 23: 15-19. Weston, M. A. (1998). Nankeen Kestrel Takes Hooded Plover Chick. Australian Bird Watcher. March 1998: 266-267. Weston, M.A. (2000). The effect of human disturbance on the breeding biology of Hooded Plovers. Ph.D. Thesis. Victoria: University of Melbourne Weston, M.A. (2003). Managing the Hooded Plover in Victoria: a Review of Existing Information. Parks Victoria Technical Series 4. Melbourne: Parks Victoria. Weston, M. A. (2007). The foraging and diet of non-breeding Hooded Plovers Thinornis rubricollis in relation to habitat type. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 90: 89-95. Weston, M.A. & M.A. Elgar (2005a). Disturbance to brood-rearing Hooded Plover Thinornis rubicollis: responses and consequences. Bird Conservation International. 15: 193-209. Weston, M.A. & M.A. Elgar (2005b). Parental care in Hooded Plovers (Thinornis rubicollis). Emu. 105: 283-292. Weston, M. A. and Elgar, M. A. (2007). Responses of incubating hooded plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research 23: 569-576. Weston, M. A. and Morrow, F. (2000). Managing the Hooded Plover in western Victoria. Threatened Bird Network report to Parks Victoria, Melbourne. Weston, M.A., Fendley, M., Jewell, R., Satchell, M. & Tzaros, C. (2003). Volunteers in bird conservation: Insights from the Australian Threatened Bird Network. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: 205–211. Weston, M. A., Ehmke, G. C., and Maguire G. S. (2009). Manage one beach or two? Movements and space-use of the threatened hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis) in south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 36: 289-298. Weston, M. A., Ehmke, G. C., and Maguire G. S. (2011). Nest Return Times in Response to Static Versus Mobile Human Disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(1): 252–255. Weston, M.A., McLeod, E.M., Blumstein, D.T. and Guay, P-J. (2012a). A review of flight-initiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian birds. Emu 112: 269–286. Weston, M.A., Dodge, F., Bunce, A., Nimmo, D.G. and Miller, K.K. (2012b). Do temporary beach closures assist in the conservation of breeding shorebirds on recreational beaches? Pacific Conservation Biology 18: 47-55. Williams, K.J.H., Weston, M.A., Henry, S. and Maguire, G.S. (2009). Birds and beaches, dogs and leashes: Dog owners sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 89-1013. Winker, K. (2010). [Review of] Handbook of the birds of the world, Vol. 15: Weavers to New World Warblers. Loon 82: 190-191. 39. APPENDIX Please place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can provide them as an attachment. Attachments have been sent separate to this document. Zipped folder: Ewers et al. 2011 plus supporting maps Extent of occurrence map for western and eastern Hooded Plover Glover 2008: figure of biennial count population trends Signature page for declaration

40. DECLARATION I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct.

Signed: attached (having difficulty inserting signature image here)

Date: 28/3/13

* If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature

Prior to lodging your nomination In order for received nominations to be eligible for consideration by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee for inclusion on the Finalised Priority Assessment List, nominations must contain all information required by Division 7.2 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (the Regulations) http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2000B00190 .

To assist nominators in identifying information that is required to be included in the nomination, a checklist has been provided for reference. You are not required to complete the checklist and submit it with your nomination. Checking against the Regulations will be done by the department. The checklist is provided as a tool to so that you may ensure that the nomination contains the required information and can be considered for assessment.

If the required information is not available to be provided in the nomination because of a lack of scientific data or analysis it is a requirement of the Regulations that the nomination includes an explicitly statement that the data are not available for that question.

Please check that your nomination contains the required information listed in the checklist prior to submission

How to lodge your nomination Completed nominations may be lodged either: 1. by email to: [email protected] , or 2. by mail to: The Director Species Listing Section Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

* If submitting by mail, please include an electronic copy on memory stick or CD.

Where did you find out about nominating items? The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised as widely as possible.

Please tick DSEWPAC website Australian newspaper word of mouth Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one…………………………………………………………………. web search Other…………………………………………………………………………………..

: Attachment A Further information on completing this form

1. NAME OF NOMINATED SPECIES/SUBSPECIES You may nominate a native species or subspecies for listing under the EPBC Act. If the taxon you wish to nominate is not a species or subspecies (e.g. a family, race, variation or hybrid) please contact the Director of the Species Listing Section, on (02) 6274 2238 for further guidance. For the purposes of this form, subspecies are hereafter referred to as ‘species’. You may wish to search the current list of threatened species in the department’s Species Profile and Threats Database, found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl You can also find a full list of fauna and flora that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora

You will find a list of unsuccessful nominations that have been assessed here: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/unsuccessful-species.html

2. NOMINATED CATEGORY Please specify the EPBC Act listing category for which you are nominating the species: • Extinct • Extinct in the Wild • Critically Endangered • Endangered • Vulnerable • Conservation Dependent. For more information about these categories, see Attachment B , or Section 179 of the EPBC Act.

4. CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY < back to Q4 > Please specify the EPBC Act listing category in which the species is listed: • Extinct • Extinct in the Wild • Critically Endangered • Endangered • Vulnerable • Conservation Dependent. For more information about these categories, see Attachment B , or, you can also find a full list of fauna and flora that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora

6. CONSERVATION STATUS • For example, is it listed on an annex or appendix under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Fauna and Flora (CITES), or the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS )?

11. TAXONOMY • What are the currently accepted scientific and common name(s) for the species (include Indigenous names, where known)? Note any other scientific names that have been used recently. Note the species’ authority and the taxonomic group to which the species belongs (Family name is sufficient for plants; both Order and Family name are required for invertebrates). - If the species' taxonomy is NOT conventionally accepted, then please provide: - a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature; OR - evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species, and a written statement signed by a person who is a taxonomist and has relevant expertise (has worked with, or is a published author on, the class of species nominated), that the species is considered to be a new species. • Is the species known to hybridise with other species? Describe any cross-breeding with other species in the wild, indicating how frequently and where this occurs. 13. BIOLOGY • Life Cycle : Provide detail on the age at sexual maturity, average life expectancy, natural mortality rates, and generation length - "Generation length " is defined as the average age of parents of the current cohort (i.e. newborn individuals in the population). Generation length therefore reflects the turnover rate of breeding individuals in a population. Generation length is greater than the age at first breeding and less than the age of the oldest breeding individual, except in species that breed only once. Where generation length varies under threat, the more natural, i.e. pre-disturbance, generation length should be used. It is often calculated as =(longevity + age at maturity)/2. Provide details of the methods used to calculate the generation length. • Reproduction : Provide detail on the reproductive requirements of this species. - Flora : When does the species flower and set fruit? What conditions are needed for this? What is the pollinating and seed dispersal mechanisms? If the species is capable of vegetative reproduction, include a description of how this occurs, the conditions needed and when. Does the species require a disturbance regime (e.g. fire, cleared ground) in order to reproduce? - Fauna : provide an overview of the species' breeding system and breeding success, including: when it breeds; what conditions are needed for breeding; whether there are any breeding behaviours that may make it vulnerable to a threatening process? • For fauna: - Feeding : Summarise the species’ feeding behaviours, diet, and the timing/seasonality associated with these. Include any behaviour that may make the species vulnerable to a threatening process. - Movement: provide information on daily and seasonal movement patterns.

14. HABITAT • Provide information on aspect, topography, substrate, climate, forest type, associated species, sympatric species and anything else that is relevant to the species’ habitat. • Explain how habitats are used (e.g. breeding, feeding, roosting, dispersing, basking, etc.) • Does the species use refuge habitat (e.g. in times of fire, drought or flood)? Describe this habitat.

15. REASONS FOR THE NOMINATION TO TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CATEGORY

Please specify the reason for the nomination to transfer to another category.

• Genuine. The change in category is the result of a genuine status change that has taken place since the previous assessment. For example, the change is due to an increase in the rate of decline, a decrease in population or range size or habitat, or declines in these for the first time (owing to increasing/new threats).

• Knowledge. The change in category is the result of new knowledge, e.g. owing to new or newly synthesized information about the status of the taxon (e.g. better estimates for population size, range size or rate of decline).

• Taxonomy. The new category is different from the previous owing to a taxonomic change adopted during the period since the previous assessment. Such changes include: • newly split (the taxon is newly elevated to species level) • newly described (the taxon is newly described as a species) • newly lumped (the taxon is recognized following lumping of two previously recognized taxa) • no longer valid/recognised (either the taxon is no longer valid e.g. because it is now considered to be a hybrid or variant, form or subspecies of another species, or the Red List Guidelines 11 previously recognized taxon differs from a currently recognized one as a result of a split or lump).

• Mistake . The previous category was applied in error.

• Other. The change in category is the result of other reasons not easily covered by the above, and/or requires further explanation. Examples include change in assessor’s attitude to risk and uncertainty (as defined in section 3.2.3) and changes in this guidelines document.

16. INITIAL LISTING Information on the reasons for the initial listing may be available in the original listing and or conservation advice for the species. You can also find a full list of fauna and flora that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act and advices associated with them here: • http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna • http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora

If there is insufficient information to provide details as to the reasons for the original listing please state this.

18. NUMBERS • Describe how population estimates were derived and how reliable they are. Are there other useful measures of population size, and if so what are they? • Important populations = key breeding populations, populations near the edge of the species’ range, or populations needed to maintain genetic diversity. • Does the species occur in a number of smaller populations of the species within the total population and if so, the degree of geographic separation between the smaller populations within the total population? For each population give the locality, numbers and trends in numbers and tenure of land (include extinct populations). Can these be considered to be subpopulations? Explain. • "Subpopulations " are defined as geographically or otherwise distinct groups in the population between which there is little or no genetic exchange. • Are there any biological, geographic, human-induced or other barriers enforcing separation?

19. TREND Note: For EPBC Act purposes the relevant period for decline is 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is the longer. Consequently, please try to ensure that you give as clear an indication as possible of the likely trends over either or both of the previous 10 years/3 generations and the next 10 years/3 generations into the future. (See 13. Biology for generation length). • "Extreme fluctuations " can be said to occur when the species’ population varies widely, rapidly and frequently, typically with a variation greater than one order of magnitude (i.e. a tenfold increase or decrease).

21. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION • If the species occurs only within the Australian jurisdiction: - Describe the species’ current distribution within Australia (including its external territories if relevant). - Provide a map, if available, indicating latitude, longitude, map datum and location names. • If the species also occurs outside of the Australian jurisdiction: - Include information on the species' geographic distribution within and outside Australia. - What percentage of the global population occurs in Australia, and what is its significance? - Is the Australian population distinct, geographically isolated, or does part or all of the population migrate into/out of Australia’s jurisdiction? - Explain the relationship between the Australian population and the global population. - Do global threats affect the Australian population? • Give locations of other populations, e.g. captive/propagated populations, populations recently re- introduced to the wild, and sites for proposed population re-introductions. Note if these sites have been identified in recovery plans. Provide latitude, longitude, map datum and location name, where available, in an attached table. - For fauna species only – give details of the species’ home ranges/territories. Describe any relevant daily and seasonal pattern of movement for the species, or other irregular patterns of movement, including relevant arrival/departure dates if migratory. • Does the species occur within an EPBC Act listed ecological community? You will find a list of EPBC Act listed ecological communities here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl

22 & 23. EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE AND AREA OF OCCUPANCY • Extent of Occurrence and Area of Occupancy are easily confused, but essentially, the latter is a subset of the former. Therefore, the area of occupancy should never be larger than the extent of occurrence. Please read the following before answering questions 14 and 15. • EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE is defined as the area contained within the shortest continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a species , excluding cases of vagrancy (see Figure 1 below ). This measure may exclude discontinuities or disjunctions within the overall distributions of species (e.g. large areas of obviously unsuitable habitat, see 'area of occupancy' below) . Extent of occurrence can often be measured by a minimum convex polygon (the smallest polygon in which no internal angle exceeds 180 degrees and which contains all the sites of occurrence). • AREA OF OCCUPANCY is defined as the area within its 'extent of occurrence' (see above) which is occupied by a species , excluding cases of vagrancy. The measure reflects the fact that a species will not usually occur throughout the area of its extent of occurrence, which may contain unsuitable or unoccupied habitats. In some cases (e.g. irreplaceable colonial nesting sites, crucial feeding sites for migratory species ) the area of occupancy is the smallest area essential at any stage to the survival of existing populations of a species . The size of the area of occupancy will be a function of the scale at which it is measured, and should be at a scale approp riate to relevant biological aspects of the species, the nature of threats and the available data. To avoid inconsistencies and bias in assessments caused by estimating area of occupancy at different scales, it may be necessary to standardize estimates by applying a scale-correction factor. It is difficult to give strict guidance on how standardization should be done because different species have different scale -area relationships. • "Extreme fluctuations " can be said to occur when the species’ extent of occ urrence or area of occupancy vary widely, rapidly and frequently, typically with a variation greater than one order of magnitude (i.e. a tenfold increase or decrease).

Figure 1. Two examples of the distinction between extent of occurrence and area of occupancy.

(A) is the spatial distribution of known, inferred or projected sites of present occurrence.

(B) shows one possible boundary to the extent of occurrence, which is the measured area within this boundary.

(C) shows one measure of area of occ upancy which can be achieved by the sum of the occupied grid squares.

24. PRECARIOUSNESS If considered precarious: • Describe the cause of fragmentation (e.g. biological, geographic, human-induced or other barriers) - "Severely fragmented " refers to the situation in which increased extinction risk to the species results from most individuals being found in small and relatively isolated subpopulations (in certain circumstances this may be inferred from habitat information). These small subpopulations may go extinct, with a reduced probability of recolonisation. • Specify which aspects of the species' habitat are affected. • ‘Extreme fluctuations’ can be said to occur when the number of locations or subpopulations of the species vary widely, rapidly and frequently, typically with a variation greater than one order of magnitude (i.e. a tenfold increase or decrease).

26 & 27. THREATS For each threat, describe: a. whether the threats are actual or potential ; b. how and where it impacts on this species; c. what its effect has been so far (indicate whether it is known or suspected; present supporting information/research; does it only affect certain populations); d. what is its expected effect in the future (is there supporting research/information; is the threat only suspected; does it only affect certain populations); e. what is the relative importance or magnitude of the threat to the species.

If subject to natural catastrophic events, i.e. events with a low predictability that are likely to severely affect the species, identify the type of event, explain its likely impact and indicate the likelihood of it occurring (e.g. a drought/cyclone in the area every 100 years). Identify and explain any additional biological characteristics particular to the species that are threatening to its survival (e.g. low genetic diversity).

28. THREAT ABATEMENT • Describe how threats are or could be abated. • Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date. • Describe any mitigation measures or approaches that have been developed specifically for the species at identified locations. Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date. • For species nominated as extinct in the wild, provide details of the locations in which the species occurs in captivity and the level of human intervention required to sustain the species.

31. SURVEYS • Provide an overview of the survey effort for this species to date, and the likelihood of the species’ current known distribution and/or population size being its actual distribution and/or population size. Where available, include references that document survey results and methodology. Provide latitude, longitude, map datum, location name, land tenure, number of individuals and date of survey where available. Include any other relevant comments regarding the species’ location. • For species nominated as extinct or extinct in the wild, please provide details of the most recent known collection, or authenticated sighting of the species, and whether additional populations are likely to exist and the basis for this assertion. Provide latitude, longitude, map datum and location name, where available.

32 CONSERVATION PROGRAM Note that according to the EPBC Act a fish includes all species of bony fish, sharks, rays, crustaceans, molluscs and other marine organisms, but does not include marine mammals or marine reptiles.

A species that has a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered, may be eligible for listing as conservation dependent.

Please provide information such as: Details of the program, its publication and/or availability for viewing • Who implements the program? • What is the length of the program, date of termination, or is it perpetual? • Is it a single program or a combination of programs and/or actions, and if so, provide details. • Does the program manage the entire range of the species, or part? • If part, to what extent does this prevent the entire species from being eligible for listing as as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered. • What is the estimated probability of decline to vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered for the species if the program ceases. • Does the program address all known threats to the species that would otherwise cause the species to become vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered?

Note: If eligible as conservation dependent based on a specific conservation program (Section 179 (6)(a)), the species cannot also be found to be eligible as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

33 FISH MANAGEMENT PLANS • Provide details of the management plan, its publication and/or availability for viewing. • Who implements the management plan? • What is the length of the management plan, date of termination, or is it perpetual? • Is it a single management plan or a combination of plans, and if so, provide details. • Does the management plan manage the entire range of the species, or part? • Provide details of the management actions that stop the species’ decline, and support its recovery so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised? Note that only legislated actions (in force under law) can be considered in this criterion. • What is the projected recovery under the plan (population numbers, percentage of virgin biomass) and in what timeframe? • Is there an estimation of likelihood of recovery under the plan within the timeframe provided (e.g., % chance of recovery to the identified level)?

Note: If a fish is found eligible as conservation dependent based on a management plan (Section 179 (6)(b)), the species is not necessarily ineligible as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

34 MANAGEMENT PLAN LEGISLATIVE BASIS • Is the plan in its entirety legislated? - If yes, provide details of the legislation. - if no, are specific actions within it legislated? Note, only these actions can be considered in meeting this criterion. Provide specific details of the legislated actions and explain to what extent the plan is not in force under law. To what extent do these management actions provide for the entire species?

40. DECLARATION In signing this nomination form, you agree to grant the Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to use, reproduce, publish, communicate and distribute information described in the nomination form (i.e. information you have provided that is not referenced to other sources), but excluding any information specifically requested by you to remain confidential, in the Department’s websites and publications and to promote those web sites and publications in any medium. As nominator however your details are automatically subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice regarding information in the nomination is sought. If you subsequently agree to be cited as the author of specific, cited information, you will be acknowledged in all publications and websites in which that information appears, in a manner consistent with the Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (latest edition).

Attachment B : Guidelines for Assessing the Conservation Status of Native Species according to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) and EPBC Regulations 2000

Threatened Species Scientific Committee

Assessments of the conservation status of native species under the EPBC Act are made against statutory criteria which are established under the EPBC Regulations 2000 . The Threatened Species Scientific Committee has developed indicative thresholds to help the application of these criteria to the nomination process, and which may be used by the Committee to assess whether a species is eligible for listing (see Part B1 below). It should be noted that the Committee does not apply these thresholds strictly, but has regard to them when making judgments about species in terms of their biological contexts, and on a case-by-case basis.

More detailed information on all categories for threatened species can be found in Section 179 of the EPBC Act , and the statutory criteria can be found in Division 7.1 of the EPBC Regulations 2000 . These are available at: www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html .

For questions regarding nominations, please contact: The Director Species Listing Section Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone (02) 6274 2238 Fax (02) 6274 2214

Part B1 Statutory listing criteria and indicative thresholds Part B2 Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species

PART B1 : Indicative thresholds that may be used by the Committee to determine the eligibility of species for listing under the EPBC Act When assessing a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act listing criteria (as established under the EPBC Regulations 2000 ), the Committee exercises its judgement to give practical meaning to the subjective terms of the criteria. The Committee does this by considering the information provided to it via the nomination form in the context of the species’ biology and relevant ecological factors, and having regard to the degree of complexity and uncertainty associated with that context and the information provided. The Committee is also informed, but not bound, by indicative thresholds, which have been adapted from “IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1, 2001”. When considering whether to use these thresholds, the Committee judges whether they are appropriate to the species in question. For example, a relatively long-lived species with slow reproduction and relative population stability (such as most mammals) might be more impacted by, for example, a 30% decline in numbers than might a relatively short-lived species with fast reproduction and naturally fluctuating populations (such as most insects). This consideration of biological attributes is placed in the context of matters such as the relative population size so as to judge whether, for the species in question, a decline is substantial, severe or very severe, for the purposes of the criteria for listing. When considering thresholds for assessing commercially harvested marine fish, the Committee refers to the “Commonwealth Government Harvest Strategy Policy”. This policy allows that declines of up to 60% (from pre-fishing biomass levels) are acceptable for commercially harvested fish species where depletion is a managed outcome. Variations in the extent of acceptable decline depend on the biology of the individual species. The Committee is informed, but not bound, by a series of biological reference trigger points (commonly referred to as B LIM and B TARG ) provided in the policy for management intervention for species that decline below 60% of their pre-fishing biomass. These interventions include listing assessments.

Table 1: Criteria for listing as CRITICALLY ENDANGERED, ENDANGERED OR VULNERABLE and indicative thresholds Critically Endangered Vulnerable Endangered Criterion Matters considered Indicative Thresholds Very severe Severe Substantial A1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased, based on (and specifying) any of the following: a) direct observation ≥90% ≥70% ≥50% b) an index of abundance appropriate to the species c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat d) actual or potential levels of exploitation 1 e) the effects of introduced species, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites. Reduction in A2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction over the last 10 years or three numbers generations, whichever is the longer , where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not ≥80% ≥50% ≥30% be understood OR may not be reversible , based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1. Based on any of A3. A population size reduction, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three A1 – A4 generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) ≥80% ≥50% ≥30% to (e) under A1. A4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size reduction over any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or its causes may not have ≥80% ≥50% ≥30% ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1. Very restricted Restricted Limited 2 2 2 A1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than: 100 km 5,000 km 20,000 km 2 2 2 2 A2. Area of occupancy estimated to be less than: 10 km 500 km 2,000 km AND Precarious a) Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location geographic b) Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following: i. extent of occurrence distribution Geographic Geographic Geographic ii. area of occupancy distribution distribution distribution iii. area, extent and/or quality of habitat considered to considered to considered to Based on either iv. number of locations or subpopulations be precarious* be precarious* be precarious* A1 or A2; v. number of mature individuals for the species’ for the species’ for the species’ AND c) Extreme fluctuations in any of the following: survival survival survival at least two of i. extent of occurrence (a) – (c) ii. area of occupancy iii. number of locations or subpopulations iv. number of mature individuals

Criterion Matters considered Indicative Thresholds Very low Low Limited Estimated total number of mature individuals AND either of (A1) or (A2) is true <250 <2,500 <10,000 Very high High Substantial 25% in 3 years 20% in 5 years 10% in 10 years 3 or 1 generation or 2 generations or 3 generations A1. Rate of continued decline (up to 100 (up to 100 (up to 100 Precarious years), years), years), geographic whichever is whichever is whichever is distribution longer longer longer OR Fewer than A2. Continued decline and geographic distribution is precarious (based on at least two of a – c): a) Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location. 10,000 mature b) Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following: individuals; i. extent of occurrence Geographic Geographic Geographic AND ii. area of occupancy distribution distribution distribution either A1 or A2 iii. area, extent and/or quality of habitat considered to considered to considered to iv. number of locations or subpopulations be precarious* be precarious* be precarious* v. number of mature individuals. for the species’ for the species’ for the species’ c) Extreme fluctuations in any of the following: survival survival survival i. extent of occurrence ii. area of occupancy iii. number of locations or subpopulations iv. number of mature individuals

4 Extremely low Very low Low Number of mature individuals Small population size < 50 < 250 < 1,000 Immediate Medium-term Near future future future 10 years or 5 20 years or five three Based on a quantitative analysis which shows the species is likely to become extinct in the wild within: generations, generations, Probability of whichever is the whichever is the 100 years extinction in (Note: probability must be at least 50% for critically endangered, 20% for endangered, 10% for vulnerable) longer (up to a longer (up to a the wild maximum of maximum of 100 years) 100 years)

* Precariousness is judged on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the degree of threat operating on the species

Table 2: Criteria for listing as CONSERVATION DEPENDENT

Criterion Matters considered The species is the focus of a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species becoming vulnerable, endangered or critically 1 endangered. The species is a species of fish; and • The species is the focus of a plan of management that provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, 2 the species so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised; and • The plan of management is in force under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; and • Cessation of the plan of management would adversely affect the conservation status of the species.

PART B2: Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species Anthropogenic climate change is occurring at an unprecedented rate and is likely to place greater climate stresses on species than has occurred for many thousands of years. All species will be affected by climate change to a greater or lesser degree. Species will respond to these stresses in a range of ways: they may remain in areas where they are able to tolerate or adapt to conditions; move to more suitable habitats where possible; or die out. These guidelines are to assist you in determining whether the important threat posed by climate change has had, is having, or will be an important threat to the nominated species’ and will increase the species’ vulnerability to extinction in the immediate to medium term future (i.e. 10 to 50 years). A species’ vulnerability to climate change will depend on a combination of biological traits and microhabitat use and behaviour, as well as its degree of exposure to climate change.

If climate change is an important threat to the nominated species it is important that you provide referenced information on exactly how climate change might significantly increase the nominated species’ vulnerability to extinction. Please cite the climate change references that you use to argue for significant climate change impact the nominated species over the immediate to medium term time frame (i.e. 10 to 50 years). A species’ sensitivity to change is reflected in its life history characteristics and can be assessed from information provided in the nomination form.

References: Hobday AJ, Okey TA, Poloczanska ES, Kunz TJ, and Ricardson AJ (eds) (2006). Impacts of climate change on Australian marine life. Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra, Australia. http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/pdf/Hobday%20et%20al%202006.pdf Steffen W, Burbidge A, Hughes L, Kitching R, Lindenmayer D, Musgrave W, Stafford Smith M & Werner P (2009). Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change. CSIRO Publishing. Steffen W, Burbidge A, Hughes L, Kitching R, Lindenmayer D, Musgrave W, Stafford Smith M & Werner P 2009. Australia's Biodiversity and Climate Change, Technical Synthesis. Technical synthesis of a report to the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. Department of Climate Change. Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/biodiversity/biodiversity-climatechange.aspx (only available online)

REGULATIONS CHECKLIST FOR THREATENED SPECIES NOMINATED FOR LISTING UNDER THE EPBC ACT

Name of nominated species : Date of receipt: Nominee/s:

Administrative Information that must be included in the nomination

Yes/No Nomination R7.03 - Notices inviting nominations for an assessment period question no. (2a) Is the nomination made in writing or electronically. n/a

(2b) Is the nomination is of a length, size and form that can be: (i) understood by the public; and n/a (ii) published on the Internet. n/a

(3a) Does the nomination include the name of each person making the Q 8 nomination ( nominee )?

(3b) If applicable, is the name of the organisation the each nominee represents Q.9 included?

(3c) For each nominee are the following details provided? (i) postal address; and Q.10 (ii) telephone number; and Q.10 (iii) email address, if applicable. Q.10

(3d) If the Minister has determined a conservation theme as a priority theme for the assessment period, is a statement indicating how the nomination Q.5 fits within the conservation theme included?

R7.04 - Nominations of native species Scientific Information that MUST be included in the nomination When checking whether the Regulations below have been satisfied, please use the following: YR – Information provided has been referenced NR – Information provided has not been referenced ST – No information provided, statement has been supplied indicating what is not available NO – No information provided

For species nominations, information must be provided as per Regulation 7.04, and must include the source of the information and when the information became available (R7.03(3)(e)&(h)).

If information is not available for each of the Regulations below, because of lack of scientific data or analysis, nomination-form-species Hooded Plover (eastern) Page 43 of 45 the nomination must include a statement identifying the data or analysis that is not available (R7.04(3)).

Note: the regulation number is at the front of the question, these are not Nomination necessarily in numerical order, the questions are in order of how they appear on YR/NR/ST/ question no. the nomination form to make checking easier. NO or N/A (1a) Is the Scientific name of the species provided, if any Q.1

(1b) Have any common names by which the species is know to the nominator Q.1 been provided?

(2c) Has a statement setting out the following been included? (i) the category in subsection 178 (1) of the Act under which the nominee Q.3 considers the species should be listed; and (ii) the reasons why the species should be listed under that category, by Q.3 reference to the criteria in regulation 7.01.

(1c) If the species is not conventionally accepted, then: Q.11 (i) has a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature been provided? (ii) If information provided in the above question is not available, then: Q.11 (A) has evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species been provided; and (B) has a written statement, signed by a person who is a taxonomist and Q.11 has relevant expertise, that the person thinks the species is a new species been provided? NOTE: A person has relevant expertise if the person has worked with, or is a published author on, the class or species nominated (R7.04(4)).

(1g) Has information on the species’ life cycle, been provided including: (i) age at sexual maturity; and Q.13 (ii) life expectancy; and Q.13 (iii) natural mortality rates. Q.13

(1h) If the nomination is for a fauna species has the following information been included? (i) feeding behaviour and food preferences; and Q.13 (ii) daily and seasonal movement patterns. Q.13

(1i) If the nomination is for a for flora species has information on pollination and Q.13 seed dispersal been provided?

(1e) (v) estimated generation length, and the method used to estimate the Q.13 generation length.

(1f) Has information on the habitat requirements for the species been provided? Q.14

(1e) Has the following information about the population been provided: (i) the number of mature individuals; Q.18 (ii) whether there are smaller populations of the species within the total Q.18 population and, if so, the degree of geographic separation between the smaller populations within the total population; (iii) any biological, geographic, human -induced or other barriers enforcing Q.18 nomination-form-species Hooded Plover (eastern) Page 44 of 45 separation; (iv) whether the population trend is increasing or decreasing, or whether the Q.19 population is static;

(1d) Has information on the species’ known or estimated current and past Q.21 distribution, been included, including a map, if available.

(2a) Has a description of past, current and future threats to the survival of the species been provided, including: (i) whether the threats are actual or potential; and Q.26 & 27 (ii) how and where the species is affected by the threats; and Q.26 & 27 (iii) how the threats are being, or could be, abated. Q.28

Does the nomination meet the Regs? Yes No Does the nomination need more information? Yes No Comments:

Officer:

Date:

nomination-form-species Hooded Plover (eastern) Page 45 of 45