Invitation to Comment on EPBC Act Nomination to List As a Key Threatening Process

Invitation to comment on EPBC Act nomination to list as a key threatening process:

‘Biodiversity decline and habitat degradation in the arid and semi-arid Australian rangelands due to the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points’

and associated threat abatement plan decision.

You are invited to provide your views about

1) whether the process: ‘Biodiversity decline and habitat degradation in the arid and semi-arid Australian rangelands due to the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points’ is eligible for inclusion in the list of key threatening processes and your reasons supporting those views; and

2) the feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency of having and implementing a threat abatement plan to abate the process.

The views of experts, stakeholders and the general public are welcome. Responses can be provided by any interested person.

Anyone may nominate a native species, ecological community or threatening process for listing under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) undertakes assessments of key threatening processes to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the list of key threatening processes and provides its advice to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment.

Your comment on this threatening process will assist the Committee with its assessment of whether the threatening process is eligible for inclusion in the EPBC Act list of key threatening process. The Department also requests your views on the feasibility, effectiveness of efficiency of having and implementing a threat abatement plan to abate the process. If listed, you views will assist the Minister in deciding whether to have a threat abatement plan.

General background information about key threatening processes is at page 3 and general background information about threat abatement plans is at page 4. Draft information for your consideration of the eligibility of this threatening process for listing starts at page 6 and information associated with a threat abatement plan for this process is at page 18.

To assist the Committee’s assessment, the Committee has identified a series of additional specific questions on which it also seeks your particular guidance at page 19.

Responses to are to be provided in writing either by email to: [email protected] or by mail to:

The Director Terrestrial Species Conservation Section Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division Department of the Environment PO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601

Responses are required to be submitted by 28 February 2014.

Contents of this information package Page Information about consultation and your comments 3

General background information about key threatening processes 3

General background information about threat abatement plans 4

Frequently asked questions 4

Draft information about the key threatening process: ‘Biodiversity decline and habitat degradation in the arid and semi-arid Australian rangelands due to the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points’ and its eligibility for listing 6

Draft information about an associated threat abatement plan for this process 18

Collective list of questions – your views 19

Referenced cited 20

Information about consultation and your comments

In order to determine if a species, ecological community or threatening process is eligible for listing under the EPBC Act, a rigorous scientific assessment of its status is undertaken. These assessments are undertaken by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) to determine if an item is eligible for listing against a set of criteria. These are set out in the guidelines for nominating and assessing threatened species and ecological communities, and threatening processes and are available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nominations.html.

Responses to this consultation can be provided electronically or in hard copy to the contact addresses provided on Page 1. Responses will be provided in full to the Committee and then to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment.

In providing comments, please provide references to published data where possible. Should the Committee use the information you provide in formulating its advice, the information will be attributed to you and referenced as ‘personal communication’ unless you provide references or otherwise attribute this information. The final advice by the Committee will be published on the department’s website following the decision by the Minister.

Information provided through consultation may be subject to freedom of information legislation and court processes. It is also important to note that under the EPBC Act, the deliberations and recommendations of the Committee are confidential until the Minister has made a final decision on the nomination, unless otherwise determined by the Minister.

General background information about key threatening processes

A key threatening process is defined as a process that threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community. Listing key threatening processes under the EPBC Act provides official recognition that a process is a key threat to biodiversity at the national level. This system of identification and recognition of key threats raises awareness of how threats to biodiversity are operating across Australia and assists with prioritisation of threat abatement activities.

A process may be listed as a key threatening process if it could:  cause a native species or ecological community to become eligible for inclusion in a threatened list (other than the conservation dependent category); or  cause an already listed threatened species or threatened ecological community to become more endangered; or  adversely affect two or more listed threatened species or threatened ecological communities.

Key threatening process and associated threat abatement plans provide an opportunity to deal with biodiversity decline at a landscape and multi-species level.

The listing process for key threatening processes Public nominations to list key threatening processes under the EPBC Act are received annually by the department. Any person or organisation may nominate a threatening process for listing. The nominations are considered by an independent scientific committee, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee). As part of the assessment process, the Committee consults with the public and stakeholders to obtain information and specific details on the process, as well as advice on what threat abatement actions might be appropriate. Information provided through the consultation process is considered by the Committee in its assessment. The Committee provides its advice on the assessment (together with comments received) to the Minister regarding the

3 eligibility of the key threatening process for listing and what threat abatement actions might be appropriate. The Minister decides to add, or not to add, the threatening process to the list of key threatening process under the EPBC Act.

More information about key threatening processes is available on the department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ktp.html.

General background information about threat abatement plans

Within 90 days of listing a key threatening process, the Minister decides whether a threat abatement plan should be made or adopted. In making this decision the Minister considers whether implementing a threat abatement plan would be the most feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process. Not all key threatening processes have threat abatement plans.

Threat abatement plans establish a national framework to guide and coordinate Australia's response to EPBC Act listed key threatening processes by identifying the research, management, and any other actions necessary to reduce the impact of the listed key threatening process on native species and ecological communities. Implementing the plan should assist the long term survival in the wild of affected native species or ecological communities. Threat abatement plans may have accompanying background documents which provide information on the biology, distribution, impacts and current management practices relevant to the key threats.

The Minister invites comment on the proposed threat abatement plan before making or adopting a threat abatement plan. Threat abatement plans are reviewed at least every five years.

There are currently 14 approved threat abatement plans being implemented across Australia. More information about threat abatement plans is available on the department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/tap.html.

Frequently asked questions about key threatening processes and threat abatement plans:

1. Will listing a key threatening process interfere with state, regional or property management?  Listing a key threatening process does not regulate or prevent actions undertaken by the states, territories or individual property managers  Key threatening processes do not trigger the EPBC Act (key threatening processes are not matters of National Environmental Significance under the EPBC Act).

2. What are the consequences of listing a key threatening process?  If the threatening process is listed, the Minister must ensure a threat abatement plan is in force for the key threatening process if he thinks that a plan is a feasible, effective and efficient way of abating the process.

3. What are the consequences of a threat abatement plan?  Commonwealth agencies must comply with threat abatement plans and the Commonwealth must implement them in Commonwealth areas. Threat abatement plans are also relevant to various other matters under the EPBC Act and the Minister cannot make decisions under the EPBC Act that are inconsistent with a threat abatement plan.

4. What will the Australian Government do to abate the threat if listing the process does not trigger the EPBC Act and no threat abatement plan is prepared?  The listing of a key threatening process helps inform managers of the threat that the process can pose to biodiversity and assists with identifying additional planning, guidance and research and helps identify priorities among these.

 Should the threatening process be listed as a key threatening process and there is a decision not to have a threat abatement plan, it will be because a threat abatement plan is not considered to be the most effective and efficient way to abate the process.

Biodiversity decline and habitat degradation in the arid and semi-arid Australian rangelands due to the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points

Artificial watering points are any watering points that are not naturally occurring and are accessible to wildlife in the landscape. These can include but are not limited to bores, bore drains, wells, piped reticulation systems, troughs walk-in dams and storage tanks. Artificial watering points have been mostly provided for domestic livestock to drink, particularly cattle and sheep. Artificial supplies of water have now been provided over vast areas of arid and semi-arid Australia through the tapping of various forms of underground water, the pooling of surface run-off water in tanks and dams, and reticulation of water by pumping (Landsberg et al., 1997). Biodiversity decline and habitat degradation due to the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points are unlikely to pose a direct threat to native species and ecological communities, but can be the cause of an increase and/or focal concentration of:  Grazers: - domestic livestock (increasing and concentrating grazing and trampling pressure relative to locations without artificial watering points), - feral animal grazing (increasing and concentrating grazing and trampling pressure relative to locations without artificial watering points) - native grazers (increasing the impacts of grazing relative to natural incidence relative to locations without artificial watering points).  Predators: - native predators (increasing the incidence of predation relative to locations without artificial watering points), - feral predators (increasing the incidence of predation relative to locations without artificial watering points).  Supporting or providing for the increased spread of invasive species and associated impacts: - providing for the establishment of satellite populations and staging points for invasion (e.g. cane toads) relative to locations without artificial watering points.  Competition / replacement: - by native or non-native species.

The area for which this process is assessed is the arid and semi-arid Australian rangelands. There is no single definition of rangelands and the Australian rangelands have no clearly defined boundaries. They are based around climatic conditions and the boundaries therefore change as conditions change. They typically include the low rainfall and variable climate arid and semi-arid areas of Australia, and some seasonally high rainfall areas north of the Tropic of Capricorn and cover approximately 80 per cent of Australia’s land area (DEWHA, 2010). The arid and semi-arid rangelands are defined by the presence of desert vegetation and land forms as well as by low rainfall. They are bound by median annual rainfalls of about 250 mm in the south but up to 800 mm in the north and about 500 mm in the east (Williams and Calaby, 1985; CSIRO, 2011).

Increasing incidence and concentration of grazing by the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points History of proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points Bastin (2008) provides an overview of the change in availability of water in the rangelands from the pre-1900s to the present.

Grazing leases were established over most of eastern Australia by the mid-1800s but were focused on permanent and semi-permanent waters of major waterways, thus most grazing pressure was based on associated riparian habitats (Landsberg et al., 1997). High stocking rates and drought in South Australia during 1864–1869 killed much of the saltbush in South Australia

6 and led to loss of 7–15 cm of top soil, as recorded by the 1867 Commission (Landsberg et al., 1997).

The development of machinery that enabled excavation of dams, followed by the discovery of artesian water in the 1880s, provided for the development of artificial watering points (Landsberg et al., 1997) and the expansion of pastoral land into more arid areas. By the 1880s, the arid and semi-arid lands of New South Wales and Queensland were considered to be under pastoral settlement as well as much of South Australia. This was further extended by 1900, including into much of the Northern Territory and Western Australia (Noble, 1998).

In the 1880s, artificial watering points were widely spread, but stocking rates around these were much greater than would currently be considered sustainable. In New South Wales, stock peaked at 19 million in the 1890s followed by a crash to 3.5 million in the drought of 1901–02. The New South Wales Royal Commission of 1901 (Landsberg et al., 1997) recorded land degradation as extensive.

By the 1950s, artificial water sources in the form of troughs, dams and bores had increased in number (Landsberg et al., 1997; James et al., 1999) following favourable environmental and economic conditions. The severe 1959–65 drought saw drought relief bores drilled under a subsidy scheme. From the late 1970s, the national Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign led to more fencing to form smaller, more manageable paddocks with some additional water supplies (Bastin and ACRIS, 2008). Property sizes were reduced and smaller flocks placed less stress on more numerous individual watering points (Landsberg et al., 1997).

A comparison of watering points between about the time of the Second World War and the 1990s showed, that for a test area examined in the Gascoyne-Murchison of Western Australia, the area of land within 6 km of water increased from 66 per cent to 90 per cent. A general increase in watering point density was found for all but one land type. The increase was most pronounced on highly productive and fragile systems (Watson et al., 2006).

Today, artificial water sources are found at high densities throughout Australia’s grazing rangelands, with an average distance between points of less than 10 km (James et al., 1999). Since the 1940s there has been a further increase in stocking rates (Griffin and Friedel, 1985 cited in Southgate, 1990).

The drilling of bores following the discovery in 1878 of the Great Artesian Basin has enabled large areas of outback Australia to be opened up for grazing, as in most of these regions this provides the only reliable year round source of water. There are currently about 3 400 artesian bores and over 10 000 subartesian bores, which access the aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin. Although many of the free-flowing artesian bores have been capped and piped, a number remain, with water flowing out under pressure into open drains, many of which are tens of kilometres long. There were about 22 000 kilometres of open bore drains originally dug in Queensland and 9 000 kilometres in New South Wales (Centre for International Economics, 2003).

Grazing pressure exerted by domestic livestock (sheep and cattle), kangaroos and feral herbivores (goats, donkeys, camels, rabbits etc) is a major driver of change in the rangelands (Bastin, 2011). More recently, stock density has continued to increase in many northern pastoral bioregions, presumed to be driven by continuing strong demand, up to 2009, for live-export cattle into south- east Asia. In contrast, regional livestock densities declined between 2004 and 2008 relative to preceding years in much of the south eastern, southern and south western rangelands (Bastin, 2011).

Grazing impact and watering points Artificial watering points provide a focus for grazing, and the changes in vegetation in response to these watering points is reviewed by James et al. (1999). The widespread practice in northern Australia of spreading water points is used to help reduce grazing pressure on some country by encouraging cattle to use all the country more evenly. In practice, the number of cattle grazed

7 usually increases, resulting in greater total grazing pressure (TSSC, 2012). The widespread occurrence of artificial watering points have provided for virtually all areas to be subject to significant levels of grazing, resulting in declining areas of refugia for grazing-sensitive species (Fisher et al., 2004).

As grazing pressure increases around artificial watering points, landscape function declines considerably, with a loss in vegetation cover, an increase in erosion, and a decrease in nutrient cycling (Howes and McAlpine, 2008). Changes to ecological variables and grazing pressures have been directly attributed to proximity to watering points. Variables include degree of defoliation, soil compaction, soil cover (Andrew, 1988). Landsberg et al. (1999) documented major changes in biodiversity at different distances from artificial watering points which included between 15–38 per cent of species decreasing in response to the presence of artificial watering points, while others increased or did not demonstrate any response. Most of the species that decreased were native species, such as forbs, grasses and shrubs (Landsberg et al., 1999) and ground-dwelling and granivorous birds. Artificial watering points have been identified as the key driver of grazing impacts on biodiversity in the rangelands (Landsberg et al., 1999).

Density of artificial watering points is considered a surrogate indicator for grazing pressure by Fisher et al. (2007). Distance from stock water points has been shown to be a useful indicator for pressure on biodiversity in drier rangelands. A decrease over time in the total area of water-remote land is likely to be an indicator of negative impact on grazing-sensitive biota (Bastin and ACRIS, 2008).

In a study of artificial watering points where domestic grazing had been excluded for more than 30 years, Montague-Drake (2004) found that where artificial watering points are closely spaced and abundant, native grazers do not display water point related grazing, implying that any impacts in vegetation and ground-dwelling vertebrates around open artificial watering points are due to historical sheep-grazing.

The exact nature of the relationships between distance from water, grazing pressure and impacts on biodiversity depends on a large number of factors, including the age of water points, types of stock, stocking history, seasonal conditions, the distributions of different soil and land types within paddocks, and the sensitivity of different biota (Bastin and ACRIS, 2008).

Grazing - Cattle and Sheep The area of the rangelands has had a relatively light evolutionary history of grazing by large herbivores (Landsberg et al., 2003). The transformation of the rangelands to a higher grazing pressure through the introduction of sheep and cattle and the artificial watering points to sustain and increase productivity, has been underway for around 150 years (Landsberg et al., 2003). In the late 1800s average sheep numbers in the rangelands of New South Wales were nearly twice what they are today (Caughley, 1976 cited in OEH, 2011).

The number of artificial watering points has been increasing since European settlement and the rate of establishment has intensified in the last few decades (James et al., 1999). ‘In the arid and semi-arid rangelands the geographical distribution of cattle and sheep and hence the impact of their grazing activity, is mostly determined by the placement of artificial watering points’ (James et al., 1999).

Relationship to watering points: Watering points are a focus for cattle activity in arid environments but habit use by cattle is also influenced by dispersion of critical forage and shade resources of woodland (Frank et al., 2012). Areas more than 15 km from a water source are considered to be outside the normal grazing range for cattle, and cattle will generally move within a 4-10 km radius of a water source (Landsberg et al., 1999). The main grazing impact occurs within a 10 km radius (Landsberg et al., 1999). Areas more than 9 km from a water source are considered to be outside the normal grazing range for sheep. The foraging range of sheep can be as little as 3 km from

8 water in hot conditions (Landsberg et al., 1999) and the main grazing impact occurs within a 5 km radius (Landsberg et al., 1999).

Grazing - Goats Competition and land degradation by feral goats are listed as a key threatening process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Similarly to other grazing animals, unmanaged goats can affect native flora and fauna by 1) grazing on native vegetation, thereby preventing regeneration; 2) by overgrazing, which causes soil erosion; 3) by competing for food and shelter; 4) by introducing weeds through seeds carried in their dung; and 5) by fouling waterholes (EA, 1999). Rangeland goats, both managed and unmanaged, are found across approximately 2 million square kilometres of Australia; in all states, the Australian Capital Territory and some offshore islands, including a few islands of the Northern Territory (EA, 1999). The greatest numbers of rangeland goats are found in the arid and semi-arid pastoral regions of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia, but the greatest densities occur in areas of higher rainfall (EA, 1999). Rangeland goats are absent from the mainland of the Northern Territory, but they are found on a few offshore islands. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several pockets of unmanaged goats north and northeast of Alice Springs were eradicated. No known populations currently occur in the southern region of the territory. The estimated feral goat population in Australia has grown from 1.4 million in 1997 to 4.1 million in 2008. In 2010, there were an estimated 3.3 million feral goats in the rangelands. An increasing proportion of the feral goat population occurs in New South Wales, comprising 70 per cent in 2010. In 2011, there were an estimated 2.95 million feral goats in New South Wales (Bastin, 2012). Relationship to watering points: The distribution of unmanaged goats is limited by several factors, including the availability of water during dry times (EA, 1999). Thus artificial watering points are likely to provide for further extension of the range of unmanaged goats than would occur without artificial watering points. In the rangelands of New South Wales, feral goat distribution is closely linked to artificial watering points such as tanks and bores and surveys have indicated that goat activity was rare more than 4 km from water (Russell et al., 2011).

Grazing - Camels Feral camels are recognised as causing broad landscape damage including damage to vegetation through foraging behaviour and trampling, suppression of recruitment of some plant species, selective browsing on rare and threatened flora, damage to wetlands through fouling trampling and sedimentation, competition with native animals for food and shelter and loss of sequestered carbon in vegetation (NRMMC, 2010). Edwards et al. (2008) provides detail of the environmental impact of camels, including a list of species affected. Feral camels feed on more than 80 per cent of available plant species and have serious impacts on vegetation at densities of greater than two animals km2 (Dörges and Heucke, 1996 cited in Pavey, 2006).

The widespread establishment of feral camel populations can be attributed to the wholesale abandonment of domestic camels during the 1920s and 1930s (NRMMC, 2010).

Feral camels are present in up to 50 per cent of Australia’s rangelands ecosystems, which includes most of the arid regions of Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory and parts of Queensland (NRMMC, 2010). At 2010, it was estimated that there were over 1 million feral camels in the rangelands and that the population is doubling every 8–10 years (NRMMC, 2010). The magnitude of the negative impacts of feral camels will undoubtedly increase if the population is allowed to continue to increase (Edwards et al., 2010).

Relationship to watering points: Feral camels need access to sources of water, which are more likely to be widely dispersed in arid areas. Camels are observed to drink at intervals of two to eight days in summer if water is available, but may go up to several months without drinking in winter in central Australia (NRMMC, 2010). Most of central Australia reported below average rainfall during 2002–2006, and at the start of 2007 conditions were very dry in most parts of the region (Edwards et al., 2008). There are reports of influxes of as many as tens of thousands of apparently starving

9 and thirsty camels into pastoral leases and settlements in the ‘western deserts’ over the summer of 2006-2007 that caused damage to infrastructure and the depletion of stock water reserves (Edwards et al., 2008). It is likely that these artificial watering points provide refuge for camels during long periods of drought, providing for sustained (albeit depleted) populations.

Grazing - Rabbits Competition and land degradation by feral rabbits are listed as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act (DEWHA, 2008b). The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) poses a threat to a large number of native species for example, by grazing on native vegetation and thus preventing regeneration, and by competing with native fauna for food and shelter. They also have indirect and secondary effects, such as supporting populations of introduced cats and foxes, denuding vegetation and thereby exposing fauna species to increased predation, and digging and browsing leading to a loss of vegetation cover and consequent slope instability and soil erosion (DEWHA, 2008b).

Feral species such as unmanaged goats and rabbits may not normally be considered in determining total stocking rates on an area, but their numbers, combined with domestic livestock numbers, may exceed safe stocking rates. The impacts of feral species will be most pronounced during drought, when animals compete for declining food and water resources. Studies in the Broken Hill district by Tatnell and March (1991 cited in DEWHA, 2008a) showed that rabbits were responsible for 5–50 per cent of the total grazing pressure. Mutze (1991 cited in DEWHA, 2008a) estimated that the grazing pressure due to rabbits was seven times the average stocking rate for his study site in South Australia. Studies indicate that rabbits alone are capable of preventing the regeneration of a range of native trees and shrubs (DEWHA, 2008a).

Rabbits were released on the Australian mainland in the mid to late 1800s (DEWHA, 2008b). They were widely distributed throughout Australia by 1935 and had reached their distribution limits as early as 1910 (Southgate, 1990). Rabbits are now widely distributed in Tasmania, many offshore islands, and across the Australian mainland except for the most northerly regions (DEWHA, 2008b). This includes much of the rangelands. Rabbits increased to plague proportions prior to the release of the myxoma virus in 1950 (DEWHA, 2008a).

Relationship to watering points: While rabbit populations can survive only if there is access to free water, succulent vegetation, shaded warrens or warrens in calcareous soils (Southgate, 1990) rabbits, however, do not exhibit water point focused impacts (James et al., 1999).

Grazing - Kangaroos Kangaroos–predominantly four species (red Macropus rufus, eastern grey Macropus giganteus, western grey Macropus fuliginosus, and wallaroo/euro Macropus robustus)–are grazers that contribute to the total grazing pressure in the rangelands and therefore contribute to overgrazing. Within sheep rangelands, the provision of permanent artificial watering points mean that kangaroos are now more likely to be limited by food than by water and this has had a profound effect on their distribution as well as their abundance, with increases in numbers and/or distribution from pre- colonial times in red, eastern grey, western grey and wallaroo (OEH, 2011). Relationship to watering points: James et al. (1999) suggest that kangaroos will regularly travel 20 km to water. Montague-Drake (2004) found that in Sturt National Park, where pastoral grazing has been ceased for more than 30 years, all species of kangaroo used artificial watering points to drink, but kangaroos did not exhibit grazing patterns related to water points, demonstrating no concentration of grazing impacts around watering points. Instead, the study revealed that the distribution of most kangaroos was related to their preference for areas proximate to major drainage channels, which offer green herbage and shade.

Increasing the abundance and spread of predators by the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points

Predators – general Predators include introduced species as well as native species. These may or may not directly rely on water but provide a focal point for prey items, thereby potentially increasing prey availability and therefore, at least locally, increase predator numbers.

Reliable sources of water and food associated with artificial water points may increase survival rates of predators (both native and introduced) and an increase in artificial water availability across arid areas may also enable introduced species, including predators, to expand their range into previously water-remote areas (James et al., 1999; Davies et al., 2010).

Predators are known to be major users of artificial water points in arid environments (Brawata and Neeman, 2011).

Foxes Predation by the red fox Vulpes vulpes and the feral cat Felis catus has been identified as a primary cause of dramatic declines in native fauna in many ecosystems and are well documented (DEWHA, 2008c). Predation by feral cats and predation by the European red fox are listed as key threatening processes under the EPBC Act.

Foxes were introduced to the mainland by settlers during the 19th century (DEWHA, 2008d) and now occur widely across the Australian mainland except for the far north, and more recently has spread to Tasmania (DEWHA, 2008d). Foxes have been observed to have some extreme dispersal distances, one recorded in a straight-line of 300 km (DEWHA, 2008d). Relationship to watering points: Foxes, do need to drink regularly in hot weather and populations are probably greater and more widely distributed than would be possible without artificial watering points (James et al., 1999).

Strategies that restrict the access of predators to water may reduce their abundance, distribution and impact on native prey species, both in the long-term and by decreasing predation around artificial water (Brawata and Neeman, 2011).

Feral cats Feral cats may occupy a home range of 10 square kilometres, or larger if food is scarce (DEWHA, 2008c). While cats are known to have been brought into Australia by settlers in the 18th century, and deliberately released during the 19th century to control rabbits and mice, cats may have arrived with much earlier visitors to the continent (DEWHA, 2008c). The widespread distribution of feral cats through the rangelands is thought to have preceded foxes and rabbits, and had occurred prior to the 1900s (Southgate, 1990). Cats derive most of their water needs from live prey (James et al., 1999) and the distribution of feral cats does not appear to be limited by artificial watering points. However, cats do occur at higher concentrations around watering points and therefore watering points increase the threat posed by cats. Feral cats were more likely to be found closer to water where 1080 baiting was conducted and dingoes (and non-target foxes) were controlled (Brawata and Neeman, 2011).

Dingos Dingoes were found by Brawata and Neeman (2011) more likely to be near water than further away and may therefore be advantaged by the increase in number and distribution of artificial watering points.

Relationship to watering points: Dingos need to drink regularly in hot weather and populations are probably greater and more widely distributed than would be possible without artificial watering points (James et al., 1999). Predation on macropods by dingoes is often focussed around water resources (Shepherd, 1981 cited in Brawata and Neeman, 2011). Carcasses of cattle and sheep

11 around watering points during drought help maintain populations of dingos and foxes (James et al., 1999).

Toads Cane toads (Bufo marinus) provide numerous threats to native species as outlined in DSEWPaC (2011). These include the direct threat from toads as carnivores of native species (e.g., ground- nesting species such as rainbow bee-eaters Merops ornatus), but pose the additional threat of poisoning native predators due to toxicity of cane toads (e.g., northern quolls Dasyurus hallucatus) (DSEWPaC, 2011). Shine (2010) provides an overview, and the variability, of these impacts among native fauna.

Cane toads were introduced to Australia in 1935 and have spread rapidly throughout Australia ever since, including into areas that were thought to be marginal cane toad habitat (DSEWPaC, 2011) including arid landscapes.

Relationship to watering points: The availability of water is a critical factor in the distribution of cane toads, as desiccation is a factor for their survival and dispersal in arid environments (Tingley et al., 2013). This potential constraint in the rangelands has been removed in many places by artificial watering points (Tingley et al., 2013). These watering points are serving as important breeding sites and dry-season refuges for toads and may allow for toads to establish satellite populations that subsequently coalesce during the wet season (Tingley et al., 2013). Tingley et al. (2013) demonstrate that artificial watering points will facilitate the spread of cane toads through the Kimberley-Pilbara corridor and in the absence of these, toads will be unable to colonise the Pilbara. Tingley et al. (2013) also show that a high density of artificial watering points can allow a population of toads to spread through a landscape that would otherwise be unsuitable.

A biodiversity assessment of species in a pilot region in the rangelands (Gascoyne–Murchison of WA) found that feral animals and grazing pressure are largely responsible for declines in vertebrate species in the region, while for flora, grazing pressure, feral animals as well as exotic weeds and changes in fire regimes are driving these trends (Watson et al., 2006; Legge et al., 2011).

Examples of competition / replacement The provision of additional available water by artificial watering points has made conditions more suitable and provided for expansion in range and increase in numbers of species that would not otherwise occur in these areas or in these numbers. These species may out-compete more arid species for breeding habitat (e.g., princess parrots) and food resources. More water dependent species may also partially or completely replace more arid zone species, for example, hybridisation and genetic introgression of the black-eared minor (Manorina melanotis) by the yellow-throated minor (Manorina flavigula).

In northern Australia, competition between cane toads with native species for food and shelter sites is also likely and expected to be highest near permanent water bodies during the dry season (DSEWPaC, 2011).

Biodiversity decline and habitat degradation in the arid and semi-arid Australian rangelands due to the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points is not currently listed as a threatening process by any state or territory government.

Consideration of eligibility for listing as a key threatening process Section 188(4) of the EPBC Act states:

A threatening process is eligible to be treated as a key threatening process if: a) it could cause a native species or an ecological community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent; or b) it could cause a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community to become eligible to be listed in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment; or c) it adversely affects 2 or more listed threatened species (other than conservation dependent species) or 2 or more listed threatened ecological communities.

a) Cause listing of a species or ecological community

Could the threatening process cause a native species or an ecological community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent?

Evidence: The impacts of invasive cane toad invasions on some species, at least initially after invasion, has been well documented (Shine, 2010). Cane toads could cause native species to become eligible for listing as threatened soon after invasion, particularly in areas where species are endemic, or in areas where the species retains high population numbers relative to the rest of their range. Species that are endemic to, or have the last strongholds of populations in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, where cane toads have not yet, but are predicted to invade, are likely candidates in meeting this criterion.

Varanus bushi (Bush’s varanid) Tingley et al. (2013) demonstrate that artificial watering points will facilitate the spread of cane toads through the Kimberley-Pilbara corridor and enable the colonisation of the Pilbara.

Varanids are particularly susceptible to lethal toxin ingestion by cane toads. While no native species is known to have become extinct as a result of cane toads, populations of varanids show dramatic declines after cane toad invasions, at least initially. Examples include V. mertensi at Manton Dam south of Darwin with dramatic change in site occupancy including local site extinctions; 77–92 per cent decline for V. panoptes in the Adelaide River floodplain in the Northern Territory (Griffiths and MacKay, 2007; Ujvari and Madsen, 2009; Shine, 2010). Varanus panoptes and V. mertensi are listed as vulnerable in the Northern Territory primarily as a result of population declines (estimated at >30 per cent) attributed to cane toad invasion.

Varanus bushi (Bush’s varanid) is restricted to the Pilbara region in Western Australia where it is associated with mulga woodland and is at least partially arboreal (Aplin et al., 2006). There is no information available on the estimated population size of this species. Like other varanids, it is highly susceptible to population declines as a result of ingestion of cane toads. Having a more limited distribution than either V. mertensi and V. panoptes, the relative impact to V. bushi of invasion of cane toads following invasion into the Pilbara is likely to be more significant than to a more widely distributed species. Varanus bushi is highly likely to suffer population declines as a result of future invasion of the cane toad into this area which is predicted to be facilitated by the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points, and could cause this species to become eligible for listing as vulnerable.

Acanthophis wellsi (Pilbara death adder) Like varanids, snakes are very susceptible to lethal toxin ingestion by cane toads and snake populations have shown dramatic declines after cane toad invasions, at least initially. . Snakes capable of ingesting toads are more susceptible (Phillips et al., 2003; Phillips and Shine, 2004; Phillips and Shine, 2005; Phillips and Shine, 2006a, b). Individuals of the Acanthophis hawkei (plains death adder) have been known to die in large numbers when cane toads arrive in an area (Hagman et al., 2008, 2009; Phillips et al., 2010). Like other death adders, Acanthophis wellsi (Pilbara death adder), is susceptible to cane toads. Like Bush’s varanid, the Pilbara death adder is restricted to the Pilbara region with populations in widely scattered localities throughout the Pilbara (Aplin and Donnellin, 1999). Significant decline in numbers of individuals of the Pilbara death adder are likely should colonisation of the Pilbara by cane toads occur, facilitated by artificial watering points. Given the species’ limited range to the Pilbara, the relative impact of invasion by cane toads to this region could cause this species to become eligible for listing as vulnerable.

Demansia rufescens (rufous whipsnake) The diet of eastern Australian whipsnakes is lizards, especially skinks and the genus Demansia, like other Australian elapids, feed mainly or exclusively on vertebrate prey (Shine, 1980). Morphological, behavioural and ecological similarities among whipsnakes are interpreted to be adaptations to chase and capture fast moving diurnal prey items, especially lizards (Shine, 1980). Demansia rufescens (rufous whipsnake), like the Pilbara death adder and Bush’s varanid, is limited to the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Atlas of Living Australia, 2013). This species, if it is able to consume cane toads, may be similarly susceptible to cane toad invasion into the Pilbara and could cause this species to become eligible for listing as vulnerable.

Amytornis modestus subspecies (thick billed grasswrens) Amytornis modestus (thick-billed grasswren) is currently listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Amytornis modestus has six subspecies: Amytornis modestus modestus, A. m. inexpectatus, A. m. raglessi, A. m. curnamona, A. m. indulkanna, A. m. obscurior. Of these, thick billed grasswrens inhabit chenopod shrublands, particularly those dominated by saltbush Atriplex spp. and bluebush Maireana spp. and forage on the ground for berries, seeds and insects (Garnett, 2011).

Amytornis m. inexpectatus and A. m. obscurior occurred as endemic subspecies in New South Wales. Both A. m. inexpectatus and A. m. obscurior have suffered significant declines that have been attributed to heavy grazing of their shrubland habitat by domestic stock in the 1880s (corresponding with extreme stock numbers relative to numbers of dams), and subsequent droughts in the 1890s (McAllen, 1987 cited in Garnett et al., 2011). Neither subspecies is listed separately from A. modestus under the EPBC Act, but Garnett (2011) provide information indicating that A. m. inexpectatus could be listed under the EPBC Act as extinct and A. m. obscuriour could be listed as critically endangered

Amytornis m. inexpectatus (thick-billed grasswren, central New South Wales) could be listed under the EPBC Act as extinct and was last recorded in 1886. Its habitat was scrubs and clumps of a shrub-like tree resembling the Barilla Atriplex cinerea (McAllan 1987 cited in Garnett et al., 2011). The extinction has been attributed to destruction of habitat by livestock (Garnett et al., 2011).

Amytornis m. obscuriour (thick-billed grasswren, north-west New South Wales) could be listed as critically endangered based on Criterion 4: the estimated total number of mature individuals of less than 50; a population of up to 10 birds were seen in 2008–2010 (Black, 2011 cited in Garnett, 2011). The identified threats are overgrazing by sheep, cattle, feral goats, and rabbit in combination with drought, and infrequent recruitment of food plants.

Amytornis m. modestus (thick-billed grasswren, MacDonnell Ranges) was last recorded in the Northern Territory in 1936 and could be listed under the EPBC Act as extinct (Garnett et al., 2011) with the most likely reason identified as overgrazing by cattle and rabbits in combination with drought, having once been abundant on near watercourses or on alluvial planes – areas most heavily grazed pre 1936 (Garnett et al., 2011).

Amytornis m. raglessi (thick-billed grasswren, Flinders Ranges) could be listed under the EPBC Act as vulnerable under Criterion 2, with an extent of occurrence less than 20 000 km2 and area of extent less than 2 000 km2, less than 10 locations with plausible future threat, suspected continuing decline in distribution, habitat quality, and number of locations. The identified threats are overgrazing by sheep, cattle, feral goats, and rabbit in combination with drought, and infrequent recruitment of food plants.

b) Cause the uplisting of a species or ecological community

Could the threatening process cause a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community to become eligible to be listed in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment?

Evidence: Liasis olivaceus barroni (Pilbara olive python) Liasis olivaceus barroni (Pilbara olive python) is currently listed under the EPBC Act as vulnerable. The species is restricted to the Pilbara region in Western Australia.

Snakes are very susceptible to lethal toxin ingestion by cane toads. While no native species is known to have become extinct as a result of cane toads, populations of snakes show dramatic declines after cane toad invasions, at least initially. Snakes with larger heads (such as the Pilbara olive python), and capable of ingesting toads are more susceptible (Phillips et al., 2003; Phillips and Shine, 2004; Phillips and Shine, 2005; Phillips and Shine, 2006a,b).

Tingley et al. (2013) demonstrate that artificial watering points will facilitate the spread of cane toads through the Kimberley-Pilbara corridor and enable the colonisation of the Pilbara.

There is no information available on the estimated population size of the Pilbara olive python. Like many other pythons, it is highly susceptible to population declines as a result of ingestion of cane toads. The relative impact to the Pilbara olive python of invasion of cane toads following invasion into the Pilbara is likely to be more significant, having a distribution limited to this region, than to a more widely distributed species. The Pilbara olive python is highly likely to suffer population declines as a result of future invasion of the cane toad into this area which is predicted to be facilitated by the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points, and could cause this species to become eligible for uplisting from vulnerable to endangered.

Amytornis barbatus barbatus (grey grasswren) Amytornis barbatus barbatus (grey grasswren) is currently listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Grey grasswren feed on seeds and insects in Atriplex nummularia (old man saltbush) and Halosarcia spp (samphire) and nest in lignum and swamp canegrass.

When listed as vulnerable in 2005, the species was listed based on Criterion 2; with a restricted and precarious (extreme fluctuations and highly fragmented) geographic distribution. The process is likely to cause this species to become eligible for listing in the endangered category, which represents a high degree of endangerment.

Garnett et al. (2011) identify the grey grasswren as having:  extent of occurrence less than 5 000 km2  area of occupancy less than 500 km2  fewer than five locations  plausible future threat  inferred continuing decline in extent, habitat quality and number of individuals These make the species eligible for listing as endangered based on Criterion 2.

The current threat to the grey grasswren (Bulloo) is loss and degradation of habitat through grazing and trampling by livestock (cattle) and feral animals, such as rabbits, pigs, goats and horses

(TSSC, 2008). This threat is identified (Garnett et al., 2011) as being to nesting habitat (e.g., lignum and swamp canegrass) which is expected to be around natural watering points, but is also likely to include feeding habitat areas of saltbush and samphire. While natural watering for cattle is provided by the Bulloo River and associated wetlands, the river is frequently dry, but the area is provided with artificial watering from the Great Artesian Basin, with bore drilling having begun in the region in the 1890s (e.g., Thargomindah) (Heritage Australia, 2013).

Additional threats linked to the proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points of predation by feral carnivores and water extraction from the Bulloo River are also noted to be significant potential threats.

c) Adverse affect on listed threatened species or ecological communities

Does the threatening process adversely affect 2 or more listed threatened species (other than conservation dependent species) or 2 or more listed threatened ecological communities?

Evidence: Acanthophis hawkei (plains death adder) Acanthophis hawkei (plains death adder) is currently listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points adversely affects the plains death adder by providing for the survival and spread of cane toads.

The introduced cane toad presents the greatest threat to the plains death adder. The plains death adder is an ambush forager and has a specialised foraging tactic of luring prey by waving the tip of its tail. Native frogs make up a large proportion of the species’ diet (Webb et al., 2005). The cane toad responds more strongly to this lure than native prey species and cane toads are more likely to elicit luring from plains death adders than native prey (Hagman et al., 2008). The species does not appear to have the ability to discriminate between cane toads and native frogs (Hagman et al., 2008; 2009). The toxins in cane toads’ skin typically cause death in the plains death adder. Individuals have been known to die in large numbers when cane toads arrive in an area (Hagman et al., 2008, 2009; Phillips et al., 2010).

Cane toads are spreading across northern Australia at a rate of approximately 40–100 km per year (Phillips et al., 2007, Urban et al., 2008), and it is predicted that by 2030 cane toads will have encompassed almost all of the plains death adder’s range (Phillips et al., 2003). The Committee considers that the plains death adder is likely to undergo a substantial reduction in numbers as a result of the cane toad’s range expansion (TSSC, 2012).

The proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points is further identified as potentially adversely affecting the plains death adder (TSSC, 2012) due to the increase in total grazing pressure, which reduces groundcover and areas that could act as refugia for this species.

Dasyurus hallucatus (northern quoll) Dasyurus hallucatus (northern quoll) is currently listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. While not the only threat to the northern quoll, death by ingestion of cane toad toxin is considered the most immediate threat to northern quolls in the Northern Territory and Western Australia (Hill and Ward, 2010). The threat of cane toads is predicted to be supported, particularly into the Kimberley and Pilbara, by artificial watering points (Tingley et al., 2013).

In Queensland, some populations of northern quolls have persisted following colonisation by cane toads, individuals appear to either avoid eating can toads or have adapted mechanisms to cope with the toxin. Northern quolls occur across the Top End of the Northern Territory including offshore islands, but populations are currently declining as cane toads spread. In Western Australia the northern quoll has been recorded from many areas in the Kimberley and several areas in the Pilbara and offshore islands (Hill and Ward, 2010).

Other threats to the northern quoll are thought to include inappropriate grazing regimes and fox predation, which may be assisted by the proliferation and placement of artificial watering points.

Macrotis lagotis (greater bilby) Macrotis lagotis (greater bilby) is currently listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Predation by the introduced European red fox, feral cat and dingo/wild dog is considered to be a major threat to the greater bilby (Pavey, 2006). The national recovery plan for the greater bilby (Pavey, 2006) notes that the impacts of predation may be increased by pastoral activity, mining and other development though provision of access to water, as well as increasing the opportunity for movement and scavenging by predators.

The proliferation, placement and management of artificial watering points adversely affect the greater bilby by increasing total grazing pressure. Pavey (2006) notes the degradation of this species’ habitat by introduced herbivores that have been exacerbated by the provision of water- points that increase the grazing range of livestock. Pavey (2006) notes that in the Northern Territory, the camel population is doubling in size approximately every eight years (Edwards et al. 2004; cited in Pavey, 2006). The environmental impacts of camels in arid Australia are not well understood, but their large size (up to 1 000 kg), consumption of a range of plant species, and preference for dune systems, indicates that the species may impact significantly on bilby habitat (Pavey, 2006). Feral camels feed on more than 80 per cent of available plant species and they have serious impacts on vegetation at densities of greater than two animals per km2 (Dörges and Heucke, 1996; cited in Pavey, 2006). Populations already occur at this density and above over much of the species’ range in the Northern Territory (Pavey, 2006).

Manorina melanotis (black-eared minor) The provision of additional available water by artificial watering points has made conditions more suitable and provided an expanded range for the native Manorina flavigula (yellow-throated minor). This expansion is impacting on the EPBC Act endangered Manorina melanotis (black-eared minor), which is suffering hybridisation and genetic introgression by the yellow-throated minor as well as loss of preferred habitat as a result of increased grazing pressures (NSW Scientific Committee, 2008, Garnett et al., 2011).

Polytelis alexandrae (princess parrot) Records in some regions of Polytelis alexandrae (princess parrot) have become less frequent since the 1950s. The princess parrot is currently listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Its numbers may be as low as 1 000 mature individuals in poor years (Garnett et al., 2012). Garnett et al. (2012) note that increased availability of water in areas grazed by domestic stock may have allowed other, more water-dependent parrots to expand into the arid zone and compete with princess parrots.

Notomys fuscus (dusky hopping mouse) Notomys fuscus (dusky hopping mouse) listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It is an arid zone native mouse that eats seed, green plants and some insects and small lizards. The species does not need to drink water (Dickman, 1993). The habitat of the dusky hopping mouse shows evidence of historical overgrazing, including sheet erosion, scalding and the presence of vegetation known to flourish in overgrazed areas (Moseby et al., 1999). Predation by the feral cat and the fox may also pose a significant threat (NSW Scientific Committee, 2003).

Pseudomys australis (plains rat) Pseudomys australis (plains rat) is an arid zone species listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Historically, this species occupied a wider variety of habitats including sand ridges and dense grasslands (Brandle et al., 1999).The plains rat has had a significant reduction in total distribution since European colonisation and this species has not been recorded east of Lake Eyre since 1975 (Brandle et al., 1999). It is likely to be susceptible to habitat degradation (Pavey and Cole, 2012) and trampling and over grazing by rabbits and cattle is of particular concern. Foxes and feral cats may also threaten populations by increasing the speed of declines during the bust phase of population cycles (Pavey and Cole, 2012) and may have contributed to its contraction in range.

Brandle et al, (1999) note that most core habitat occurs in areas well away from areas of stock concentration such as watering points and floodplains, however, the current pastoral practice of piping water across previously unwatered country may alter this balance.

Considerations for a Threat Abatement Plan

A number of the threats identified as being amplified by the proliferation and placement of artificial watering points are already identified as key threatening processes: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl

These are:  Competition and land degradation by rabbits  Competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats  Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity (this key threatening process includes all potential invasive species  Predation by European red fox  Predation by feral cats  The biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads (Bufo marinus).

Some of these threats have threat abatement plans to guide and coordinate Australia's response to the impacts, or national action plans that focus on addressing the negative impacts. These are available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/tap-approved.html and are:

 Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits  Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Degradation by Unmanaged Goats  Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by European Red Fox  Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats  Threat Abatement Plan for the Biological Effects, Including Lethal Toxic Ingestion, Caused by Cane Toads (Bufo marinus).  National Action Plan for Feral Camels

Efforts to cap artesian bores are being undertaken across the rangelands, providing more control over the placement and management of artificial watering points (e.g., Watson et al., 2006). For example, the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative (GABSI) (1999-2014) has accelerated work on the repair of uncontrolled artesian bores and the replacement of open earthen bore drains with piped reticulation systems through the Great Artesian Basin. Up to 30 June 2012 work funded under the GABSI had achieved the capping of 600 bores and removal of over 18,000 km of open bore drains. Whilst GABSI has the primary aim of restoring water pressure within the Basin, further environmental benefits of replacing open bore drains with pipes have been to reduce the potential for the spread of woody weeds and the removal of easily accessible open water sources which previously benefited feral animal populations.

Actions for a threat abatement plan could include: - identify further research into how artificial watering points can be closed or fenced so that the water is not freely available e.g., Russell et al. (2011). - further research into total grazing pressure. - further research into grazing pressures on palatable/non-palatable species and whether distance to water is impacting. - how to humanely close a water point for both native and invasive species that might be reliant on that source.

Collective list of questions – your views

1. What are your views on whether the threatening process is eligible for inclusion in the list of key threatening processes, and what are the reasons supporting those views?

2. Is the information used to identify this process as a key threatening process accurate?

3. Can you provide any additional data or information relevant to the claim that this process is having an adverse effect on species/ecological communities?

4. Can you suggest any other EPBC listed species or ecological communities that may be adversely affected by this process? And can you provide the relevant data to support this suggestion?

5. Can you suggest any other species or ecological communities that may become eligible for listing under the EPBC Act as a result of this process? And can you provide the relevant data to support this suggestion?

6. Can you suggest any other EPBC listed species or ecological communities that may become eligible for listing at a higher level of endangerment as a result of this process? And can you provide the relevant data to support this suggestion?

7. Can you provide additional data or information relevant to this assessment?

8. Have you been involved in developing this nomination?

9. Please provide advice on the feasibility, effectiveness or efficiency of having and implementing a threat abatement plan to abate the process.

10. Please provide any advice on actions that could be included in a Threat Abatement Plan that might reduce the impact of artificial watering points on biodiversity decline and grazing pressure.

References cited Aplin KP and Donnellan SC (1999). An extended description of the Pilbara Death Adder, Acanthopsis wellsi Hoser (Serpentes: Elapidae), with notes on the Desert Death Adder, A. pyrrhus Boulenger, and identification of a possible hybrid zone. Records of the Western Australian Museum 19: 277–298.

Aplin KP, Fitch AJ and King DJ (2006). A new species of Varanus Merrem (Squamata: Varanidae) from the Pilbara region of Western Australia, with observations on sexual dimorphism in closely related species. Zootaxa 1313: 1-38.

Atlas of Living Australia (2013). Available at: http://bie.ala.org.au/species/Rufous+Whipsnake Downloaded 26 September 2013.

Bastin G and ACRIS (2008). Rangelands 2008 — Taking the Pulse. Published on behalf of the ACRIS Management Committee by the National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/acris/pubs/rangelands08- pulse-section-3.pdf. Downloaded 3 October 2013.

Bastin G (2011). ACRIS Livestock Density Update 2003-2008 Updated information to that provided in Rangelands 2008 – Taking the pulse. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/acris/pubs/acris-livestock-update.pdf. Downloaded 3 October 2013.

Bastin G (2012). ACRIS total grazing pressure update. Trends in the abundance and distribution of feral goats in the rangelands. Update report for the Australian Collaborative Rangeland Information System (ACRIS). Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/acris/pubs/acris-grazing-pressure- update.pdf Downloaded 25 September 2013.

Bowland AE and Heywood M (2005). The Impact of Cattle Activity on the Northern Territory Acacia peuce Waddy-wood population. Parks and Wildlife Service, Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. Report November 14, 2005.

Brandle R, Moseby KE and Adams M (1999). The distribution, habitat requirements and conservation status of the plains rat, Pseudomys australis (Rodentia: Muridae). Wildlife Research. 26:463-477.

Centre of International Economics and Resource Policy and Management (2008). Farm costs, benefits and risks from bore capping and piping in the GAB. Consultants report prepared for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia.

Crowley GM and Garnett ST (2001). Growth, seed production and effect of defoliation in an early flowering perennial grass, Alloteropsis semialata (Poaceae), on Cape York Peninsula. Australian Journal of Botany. 49:735-743.

CSIRO (2011). Sustainability in Australia's arid lands. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Available at: http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Water/Rural-and- regional-water/arid-land-sustainability.aspx. Downloaded 6 September 2013.

Davies KF, Melbourne BA, James CD, and Cunningham RB (2010). Using traits of species to understand responses to land use change: birds and livestock grazing in the Australian arid zone. Biological Conservation 143: 78–85.

DEWHA (2008a). Background document for the threat abatement plan for competition and land degradation by rabbits, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Available at

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-rabbit- background.pdf. Downloaded 30 August 2013.

DEWHA (2008b). Threat abatement plan for competition and land degradation by rabbits, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-rabbit- report.pdf. Downloaded 30 August 2013.

DEWHA (2008c) Background document for the threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-cat- background.pdf. Downloaded 30 August 2013.

DEWHA (2008d). Background document for the threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-fox- background.pdf. Downloaded 30 August 2103.

DSEWPaC (2011). (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities). Threat abatement plan for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pubs/tap-cane- toads.pdf. Downloaded on 29 August 2013.

Dickman CR (1993). The biology and management of native rodents of the arid zone in NSW. Species Management Report No. 12. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services, Hurstville, NSW.

Dostine P (1998). Gouldian Finch recovery Plan Erythrura gouldiae. Gouldian Finch Recovery Team and Parks & Wildlife Commission NT, Darwin.

Edwards GP, Zeng B, Saalfeld WK, Vaarzon-Morel P and McGregor M (Eds). 2008. Managing the impacts of feral camels in Australia: a new way of doing business. DKCRC Report 47. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs. Available at http://www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au/publications/contractresearch.html. Downloaded on 29 August 2013.

Edwards GP, Zeng B, Saalfeld WK, and Vaarzon-Morel P (2010). Evaluation of the impacts of feral camels. The Rangeland Journal 32(1): 43–54.

Fisher A, Hunt L, Kutt A, Mazzer T (2007). Biodiversity monitoring in the rangelands: A way forward. Managing biodiversity for the rangelands. Summary report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Environment and Water Resources by the Desert Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/pubs/rangelands-way-forward.pdf. Downloaded 2 October 2013.

Frank, ASK, Dickman, CR, and Wardle, GM (2012). Habitat use and behaviour of cattle in a heterogeneous desert environment in central Australia. The Rangeland Journal 34: 319–328.

Franklin, DC, Whitehead, PJ, Pardon, G, Matthews, J, McMahon P and McIntyre, D (2005). Geographic patterns and correlates of the decline of granivorous birds in northern Australia. Wildlife Research. 32:399-408.

Fraser FJ (2001). The impacts of fire and grazing on the Partridge Pigeon: the ecological requirements of a declining tropical granivore. Ph.D. Thesis. Australian National University, Canberra.

Garnett ST and Crowley GM (2002). Recovery Plan for the Golden-shouldered Parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius 2003-2007. Brisbane: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/p- chrysopterygius/index.htm Downloaded 24 September 2013.

Garnett ST, Szabo JK and Dutson G (2011). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee (2009). Great Artesian Basin Strategic Management Plan - Progress & Achievements to 2008 Available at: http://www.gabcc.org.au/tools/getFile.aspx?tbl=tblContentItem&id=365. Downloaded 2 October 2013.

Griffiths AD and McKay JL (2007). Cane toads reduce the abundance and site occupancy of Merten’s water monitor (Varanus mertensi). Wildlife Research 34: 609–615.

Hagman M, Phillips BL and Shine R (2008). Tails of enticement: caudal luring by an ambush- foraging snake (Acanthophis praelongus, Elapidae). Functional Ecology 22:1134–1139.

Hagman M, Phillips BL and Shine R (2009). Fatal attraction: adaptations to prey on native frogs imperil snakes after invasion of toxic prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 276: 2813–2818.

Heritage Australia (2013). Thargomindah. Available at: http://www.heritageaustralia.com.au/search.php?state=QLD®ion=86&view=1183. Downloaded 10 September 2013.

Hill B and Ward S (2010). National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus). Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/8744fe3f-3a94-431f- 906c-975719d42f4f/files/northern-quoll.pdf.

Howles AL and McAlpine CA (2008). The impact of artificial watering points on rangeland biodiversity: A review. DKCRC Working Paper 15, The WaterSmart™ Literature Reviews, Desert Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs.

James CD, Landsberg J, and Morton SR (1999). Provision of watering points in the Australian arid zone: a review of effects on biota. Journal of Arid Environments 41: 87–121.

Legge S, Kennedy M, Lloyd R, Murphy S, Fisher A (2011). Rapid recovery of mammal fauna in the central Kimberley, northern Australia, following the removal of introduced herbivores. Austral Ecology 36: 791-799.

Moseby KE, Brandle R and Adams M (1999). Distribution, habitat and conservation status of the rare dusky hopping-mouse, Notomys fuscus (Rodentia: Muridae). Wildlife Research. 26:479– 494.

Nano C, Harris M and Pavey CR (2007). National recovery plan for threatened Acacias and Ricinocarpos gloria-medii in central Australia. Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, Alice Springs.

Noble JC (1998). The delicate and noxious scrub: CSIRO studies on native tree and shrub proliferation in the semi-arid woodlands of Eastern Australia. CSIRO Publishing.

NRMMC (2010). National Feral Camel Action Plan: A national strategy for the management of feral camels in Australia. Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council.

NSW Scientific Committee (2003). Dusky Hopping-mouse - endangered species listing - final determination. [Online]. Available from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/DuskyHoppingmouseEndSpListing.htm Downloaded 24 September 2013.

NSW Scientific Committee (2008). Black-eared Minor Manorina melanotis. Review of current information in NSW. May 2008. Unpublished report arising from the Review of the Schedules of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville.

OEH (2011). New South Wales Commercial Kangaroo Harvest Management Plan 2012–2016. Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW), Sydney. Available at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/kmp/110975NSWKHMP.pdf. Downloaded 30 August 2013.

Pavey C (2006). National Recovery Plan for the Greater Bilby Macrotis lagotis. Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts.

Pavey C and Cole J (2012). Threatened species of the Northern Territory. Plains mouse Pseudomys australis. Northern Territory Government Department of Land Resource Management. Available at: http://lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/10821/plains_mouse_EN_FINAL.pdf Downloaded 24 September 2013.

Phillips B, Brown GP and Shine R, (2003). Assessing the potential impact of cane toads (Bufo marinus) on Australian snakes. Conservation Biology 17:1738–1747.

Phillips B and Shine R (2004). Adapting to an invasive species: toxic cane toads induce morphological change in Australian snakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 101:17150–17155.

Phillips B and Shine R (2005). The morphology, and hence impact, of an invasive species (the cane toad, Bufo marinus) changes with time since colonization. Animal Conservation 8:407– 413.

Phillips BL and Shine R (2006). Allometry and selection in a novel predator-prey system: Australian snakes and the invading cane toad. Oikos 112:122–130.

Phillips BL and Shine R (2006). An invasive species induces rapid adaptive change in a native predator: cane toads and black snakes in Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273:1545–1550.

Phillips BL, Greenlees MJ, Brown GP and Shine R (2010). Predator behaviour and morphology mediates the impact of an invasive species: cane toads and death adders in Australia. Animal Conservation 13: 53–59.

Russell BG, Letnic M and Fleming PJS (2011). Managing feral goat impacts by manipulating their access to water in the rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 33:143–152.

Shine R (1980). Ecology of Eastern Australian Whipsnakes of the Genus Demansia. Journal of Herpetology 14(4): 381–389.

Shine R (2010). The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Quarterly Review of Biology 85(3): 253–291.

Southgate RI (1990). Distribution and abundance of the Greater Bilby Macrotis lagotis Reid (Marsupialia: Peramelidae). Pp 293-302 in Bandicoots and Bilbies. Edd by Seebeck, JH, Brown, PR, Wallis RL and Kemper CM. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.

SKM (2012). Sinclair Knight Merz Browse Bilby Review – Consolidated information relating to the occurrence of the bilby (Macrotis lagotis) in the vicinity of the Browse LNG Precinct and broadly on the Dampier Peninsula. Available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/EIA/EPAReports/Documents/1444/Appendix_7/1444- BROWSE1.PDF Downloaded on 28 August 2013.

Tidemann SC (1996). Causes of the decline of the Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae. Biological Conservation International. 6: 49–61.

Tingley R, Phillips BL, Letnic M, Brown GP, Shine R, Baird SJE (2013). Identifying optimal barriers to halt the invasion of cane toads Rhinella marina in arid Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 129–137.

TSSC (2008). Approved conservation advice for Amytornis barbatus barbatus (grey grasswren (Balloo)). Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee). Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/67065- conservation-advice.pdf Downloaded on 16 September 2013.

TSSC (2012). Acanthophis hawkei (plains death adder) Listing Advice - Advice to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendment to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/83821-listing-advice.pdf Downloaded on 28 August 2013.

Ujvari B and Madsen T (2009). Increased mortality of naive varanid lizards after the invasion of non-native cane toads (Bufo marinus). Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 4 (2): 248- 251.

Ward S, Woinarski J, Griffiths T, McKay L (2006). Threatened species of the Northern Territory – Mertens Water Monitor Varanus mertieni. Northern Territory Government Department of Land and Resource Management. Available at: http://lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/10881/varanus_mertensi_vu.pdf. Downloaded 2 September 2013.

Ward S, Woinarski J, Griffiths T, McKay L (2012). Threatened species of the Northern Territory – Yellow-spotted monitor, northern sand goanna, floodplain monitor Varanus panoptes. Northern Territory Government Department of Land and Resource Management. Available at: http://lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/10882/Varanus_panoptes_VU_FINAL.pd. Downloaded 2 September 2013/

Watson I, Richardson J, Thomas P, Shepard D (2006). Case study of status and change in the rangelands of the Gascoyne–Murchison region. Report to the Australian Collaborative Rangeland Information System (ACRIS) Management Committee. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/acris/pubs/wa.pdf. Downloaded 2 October 2013.

Webb JK, Shine R and Christian KA (2005). Does intraspecific niche partitioning in a native predator influence its response to an invasion by a toxic prey species? Austral Ecology 30: 201–209.

Williams OB and Calaby JH (1985). The hot deserts of Australia. Pp 269–312 in Evenari M et al. (eds) ‘Hot deserts and arid shrublands’. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.

Woinarski JCZ, Legge S, Fitzsimons JA, Traill BJ, Burbidge AA, Fisher A, Firth RSC, Gordon IJ, Griffiths AD, Johnson CN, McKenzie NL, Palmer C, Radford I, Rankmore B, Ritchie EG, Ward S, and Ziembicki M (2011). The disappearing mammal fauna of northern Australia: context, cause, and response. Conservation Letters 4: 192–201.