Download The Action Plan for Threatened Australian Macropods

The Action Plan for
Threatened Australian
Macropods
2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Written and edited by Michael Roache.
The author is grateful to the following individuals for their help and
contributions during the preparation of this action plan:
Liana Joseph for her extensive consultation on the project regarding
prioritisation of threatened species recovery, and her input to some
sections of the text. Katherine Miller of KSR Consulting who contributed
substantially to the section on current issues in macropod conservation.
Simone Albert who assisted with the compilation of recovery outlines.
Lis McLellan, Tony Trujillo and Mina Bassarova for extensive review
and comments on the draft manuscript. Finally, many experts provided
comments on the manuscript and on the recovery outlines:
Andrew Burbidge, Paul de Tores (Department of Environment and
Conservation, WA), Michael Driessen (Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania), Tony Friend
(Department of Environment and Conservation, WA), Matt Hayward
(Australian Wildlife Conservancy), John Kanowski (Australian
Wildlife Conservancy), Janelle Lowry (Department of Environment
and Resource Management, QLD), Nicky Marlow, (Department of
Environment and Conservation, WA), (Department of Environment
and Resource Management, QLD), Manda Page (Australian Wildlife
Conservancy), Barry Nolan (Department of Environment and Resource
Management, QLD), David Pearson (Department of Environment and
Conservation, WA), Jeff Short (Wildlife Research and Management Pty
Ltd), Neil Thomas (Department of Environment and Conservation, WA),
Threatened Species Section (Department of Environment and Resource
Management, QLD), Adrian Wayne (Department of Environment and
Conservation, WA). Distribution maps were prepared using Landsat 7
imagery (Geoscience Australia 2000).
Published in August 2011 by WWF-Australia - World Wide Fund for
Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund)
Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the
title and credit the above-mentioned publisher as the copyright owner.
No photographs from this publication may be reproduced on the
internet without prior authorization from WWF.
© text 2011 WWF All rights reserved
For further information on the WWF Threatened Macropod Program
please see our website:
http://www.wwf.org.au
Or contact:
Macropod Program
WWF-Australia
GPO Box 528
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
Cover image: Brush-tailed rock wallaby (Petrogale penicillata).
© Ben Bishop/WWF-Australia
Designed by Three Blocks Left
For information on all of WWF’s flagship species conservation work,
including threatened macropods, see:
http://www.panda.org/species
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Contents
1. Executive Summary
11
Introduction11
Current Issues in Macropod Conservation
11
Status of Macropods
12
Action Plan Framework
12
Methods12
Results13
Conclusions13
2. Introduction
14
Lack of Resources
16
The Need for More Explicit Recovery Planning
16
3. Current Issues in Threatened Macropod Conservation
18
State of Macropods
18
Socio-Economic Context
18
Human Impacts
18
Conservation Funding
18
How Does Environment Rate as a Priority for Australians?
19
Perceptions of Macropods
19
Regulatory Context
20
Landscape-Scale Issues for Macropods
20
Land Clearing, Fragmentation and Degradation
20
Feral Animals
20
Predator and Competitor Control Strategies
22
Changed fire regimes
23
Climate change
23
Protected Areas
24
Species-Level Issues For Macropods
26
Genetics
26
Translocations and Reintroductions
26
Captive Breeding
26
Monitoring
26
4. Action Plan Framework
28
Action Plan Scope
28
Action Plan Vision
30
Action Plan Goal
30
Action Plan Objectives
30
3
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
4
5. Methods
31
Step 1: Define The Goal
32
Step 2: List Biodiversity Assets
32
Step 3: List Management Projects
32
Step 4: Provide Rationale for the Proposed Activities
33
Step 5: Estimate Cost
33
6. Results
36
7. Discussion
43
8. Conclusion and Recommendations
46
Future Recommendations
47
Regular review
47
Confidence levels
47
More detailed expert input
47
9. References
48
10. Appendices
50
Appendix 1: Acronyms
50
Appendix 2: List of Macropods
52
Appendix 3: Conservation Actions
54
Appendix 4: Yearly Costs
56
Appendix 5: Recovery Outlines
57
Recovery Outline – Bettongia gaimardi57
Recovery Outline – Bettongia lesueur61
Recovery Outline – Bettongia penicillata72
Recovery Outline – Bettongia tropica83
Recovery Outline – Dendrolagus bennettianus93
Recovery Outline – Lagorchestes hirsutus97
Recovery Outline – Lagostrophus fasciatus106
Recovery Outline – Macropus bernardus115
Recovery Outline – Macropus parma119
Recovery Outline – Onychogalea fraenata123
Recovery Outline – Petrogale burbidgei130
Recovery Outline – Petrogale coenensis135
Recovery Outline – Petrogale concinna139
Recovery Outline – Petrogale lateralis144
Recovery Outline – Petrogale penicillata154
Recovery Outline – Petrogale persephone164
Recovery Outline – Petrogale sharmani174
Recovery Outline – Petrogale xanthopus178
Recovery Outline – Potorous gilbertii187
Recovery Outline – Potorous longipes193
Recovery Outline – Setonix brachyurus202
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
list of tables
Table 1:
List of changes in IUCN threat status for Australian macropods between 1996 and 2008.
15
Table 2:
Australian macropods listed as threatened, near threatened or data deficient according
to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010).
29
Table 3:
Summary of the steps undertaken in collecting information for this action plan.
32
Table 4:
Projects with dedicated recovery coordinator salary built in to project cost.
34
Table 5:
List of threatened macropod recovery projects in order of their affordability.
37
Table 6:
Average cost of down-listing by IUCN threat rating.
37
Table 7:
Number of species projects that could be funded under nominal recovery budgets to
achieve down-listing on the IUCN Red List within 10 years if projects are prioritised
based on cost.
39
Table 8:
Cost of all 21 macropod projects by category of management activity (Conservation
Measures Partnership 2011). For explanations of the categories, see Appendix 3.
41
Table 9:
Most costly category of management action by IUCN threat category, and the combined
costs of those actions.
41
Table 10: Most costly category of management action for each species, showing percentage of total
project cost, and the relevant actions contributing to those costs.
42
Table 11:
List of recovery actions for Bettongia gaimardi, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
59
Table 12:
List of recovery actions for Bettongia gaimardi, and their costs.
60
Table 13:
List of recovery actions for Bettongia lesueur, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
64
Table 14: List of recovery actions for Bettongia lesueur, and their costs.
68
Table 15:
List of recovery actions for Bettongia penicillata, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
75
Table 16:
List of recovery actions for Bettongia penicillata, and their costs.
79
Table 17:
List of recovery actions for Bettongia tropica, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
86
Table 18:
List of recovery actions for Bettongia tropica, and their costs.
90
Table 19:
List of recovery actions for Dendrolagus bennettianus, and the rationale for their
contribution to recovery, and effort required.
95
Table 20: List of recovery actions for Dendrolagus bennettianus, and their costs.
Table 21:
List of recovery actions for Lagorchestes hirsutus, and the rationale for their
contribution to recovery, and effort required.
96
100
Table 22: List of recovery actions for Lagorchestes hirsutus, and their costs.
103
Table 23: List of recovery actions for Lagostrophus fasciatus, and the rationale for their
contribution to recovery, and effort required.
109
Table 24: List of recovery actions Lagostrophus fasciatus, and their costs.
112
5
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 25: List of recovery actions for Macropus bernardus, and the rationale for their
contribution to recovery, and effort required.
117
Table 26: List of recovery actions Macropus bernardus, and their costs.
118
Table 27: List of recovery actions for Macropus parma, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
121
Table 28: List of recovery actions for Macropus parma, and their costs.
122
Table 29: List of recovery actions for Onychogalea fraenata, and the rationale for their
contribution to recovery, and effort required.
126
Table 30: List of recovery actions for Onychogalea fraenata, and their costs.
128
Table 31:
132
List of recovery actions for Petrogale burbidgei, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
Table 32: List of recovery actions for Petrogale burbidgei, and their costs.
134
Table 33: List of recovery actions for Petrogale coenensis, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
137
Table 34: List of recovery actions for Petrogale coenensis, and their costs.
138
Table 35: List of recovery actions Petrogale concinna, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
141
Table 36: List of recovery actions for Petrogale concinna, and their costs.
143
Table 37: List of recovery actions Petrogale lateralis, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
147
Table 38: List of recovery actions for Petrogale lateralis, and their costs.
151
Table 39: List of recovery actions for Petrogale penicillata, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
158
Table 40: List of recovery actions for Petrogale penicillata, and their costs.
161
Table 41:
167
List of recovery actions for Petrogale persephone, and the rationale for their
contribution to recovery, effort required, and probability of success
Table 42: List of recovery actions for Petrogale persephone, and their costs.
171
Table 43: List of recovery actions for Petrogale sharmani, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
176
Table 44: List of recovery actions for Petrogale sharmani, and their costs.
177
Table 45: List of recovery actions for Petrogale xanthopus, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
181
Table 46: List of recovery actions for Petrogale xanthopus, and their costs.
184
Table 47: List of recovery actions for Potorous gilbertii, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
189
Table 48: List of recovery actions for Potorous gilbertii, and their costs.
191
Table 49: List of recovery actions for Potorous longipes, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
196
Table 50: List of recovery actions for Potorous longipes, and their costs.
199
Table 51:
205
List of recovery actions for Setonix brachyurus, and the rationale for their contribution
to recovery, and effort required.
Table 52: List of recovery actions for Setonix brachyurus, and their costs.
6
209
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
list of figures
Figure 1:
Number of macropod recovery projects undertaken by spending budgets up to
$300 million over 10 years.
39
Figure 2:
Ranked cost of macropod recovery projects. Colours indicate current threat status
(IUCN 2010).
40
Figure 3:
Known distribution of Bettongia gaimardi from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
57
Figure 4:
Known distribution of Bettongia lesueur from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
61
Figure 5:
Known distribution of Bettongia penicillata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
72
Figure 6:
Known distribution of Bettongia tropica from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
83
Figure 7:
Known distribution of Dendrolagus bennettianus from the 2008 Global Mammal
Assessment.
93
Figure 8:
Known distribution of Lagorchestes hirsutus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
93
Figure 9:
Known distribution of Lagostrophus fasciatus from the 2008 Global Mammal
Assessment.
106
Figure 10: Known distribution of Macropus bernardus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
115
Figure 11: Known distribution of Macropus parma from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
119
Figure 12: Known distribution of Onychogalea fraenata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
123
Figure 13: Known distribution of Petrogale burbidgei from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
130
Figure 14: Known distribution of Petrogale coenensis from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
135
Figure 15: Known distribution of Petrogale concinna from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
139
Figure 16: Known distribution of Petrogale lateralis from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
145
Figure 17: Known distribution of Petrogale penicillata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
154
Figure 18: Known distribution of Petrogale persephone from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
164
Figure 19: Known distribution of Petrogale sharmani from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
174
Figure 20: Known distribution of Petrogale xanthopus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
178
Figure 21: Known distribution of Potorous gilbertii from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
187
Figure 22: Known distribution of Potorous longipes from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
193
Figure 23: Known distribution of Setonix brachyurus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment.
202
7
Vel illum dolore eu
feugiat qui
Dolore magna aliquam erat voluptat.Ut wisi enin ad minim. Quis
nostrud ad nostris pro amat. Sed aliquo ut nisi alter ego qid propter
anno et cetera. Ullam venit cum permissio, alter ego cum frater et patris et
mater inter familias.
Vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilitis ad vero eros et accususam et
lustro odio dignissim qui blandit praeset lupatum auge duis aplore.
Mimimum veniami ex ea con dolor nisi ut aliquip. Consequat Duis autem
vel eum iruire dolor in endrerit, voluptate velit est. Sit amet, consectetuer
adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummi.t, voluptate velit est. Sit amet,
consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummi.
Dolore magna aliquam erat voluptat.Ut wisi enin ad minim. Quis nostrud
ad nostris pro amat. Sed aliquo ut nisi alter ego qid propter anno et cetera.
Ullam venit cum permissio, alter ego cum frater et
Patris et mater inter familias.
The macropods of Australia and New Guinea are among the most
recognisable species in the world, yet despite their importance as
economic and cultural icons, many kangaroo and wallaby species are
threatened with extinction and are not sufficiently managed for recovery.
This action plan represents a clear and quantifiable outline of all those
recovery actions required to achieve down-listing in threat status of 21
species of Australian macropod on the IUCN Red List of Threatened
species by 2021. In order to achieve this plan, $290 million will be needed.
Rather than deciding how to spend a very limited budget on a large set
of problems, this action plan calls for a radical increase in environmental
expenditure, based on a careful analysis of the most effective actions.
In most cases, what needs to be done is clear; what is required is the
commitment and resources to carry out the necessary work.
Bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata). © Fredy Mercay/ANTPhoto.com.au
Australia’s
Threatened
Macropods
Northern bettong (Bettongia tropica). © Bruce Thomson/ ANTPhoto.com.au
© Xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
1.Executive
Summary
Introduction
The macropods1 of Australia and New Guinea are
among the most recognisable species in the world
and they have substantial cultural and economic
significance. The kangaroo is an important symbol
in Australia and for the peoples of New Guinea,
and contributes to national and cultural identities.
Their appeal to domestic and international tourists
contributes towards the generation of considerable
revenue through nature-based tourism. Yet
despite their importance as economic and cultural
icons, many kangaroo and wallaby species are threatened with extinction and are
not sufficiently managed for recovery.
It is clear that globally, the financial and human resources available for
conservation are inadequate for the task of protecting all species. Currently,
only a small fraction of the species that are officially recognised as threatened
with extinction are managed for recovery, both worldwide and in Australia.
Furthermore, investment in species recovery, without reference to long-term
recovery objectives that are quantifiable and time-bound, and directly linked
to down-listing in threat status, will likely fail.
This action plan represents a clear and quantifiable outline of all those recovery
actions required to achieve down-listing in threat status of 21 species of macropod
on the IUCN Red List of Threatened species by 2021.
In order to achieve this plan, $290 million will be needed, perhaps one order of
magnitude more than currently invested in threatened macropod recovery in
Australia. This will require a significantly higher level of political commitment
than at present.
This plan represents a bare minimum for short-term security of each species of
Australian macropod listed as threatened or near threatened. If actions to secure
species in the next few years are not funded now, it may subsequently become more
difficult if not impossible to secure these species over the long term.
For greatest efficiency in the allocation of resources to species conservation, those
responsible for recovery need to make explicit decisions about their objectives.
Recovery decisions are often made not with a strategy for achieving long-term
objectives, but rather for satisfying short-term needs or solving immediate
problems. Moreover, the allocation of ultimately limited resources should also be
undertaken in a considered and objective way across all species, not piecemeal
across various levels of management as is the case for most recovery processes.
Current Issues in Macropod Conservation
This action plan highlights the extraordinarily high proportion of Australian
macropods that are threatened with extinction. The main causes of extinction and
decline in macropods have been identified and include the introduction to Australia
of predators such as the red fox and feral cat and of herbivores such as the rabbit,
sheep and cattle, habitat destruction through land clearing, and changed fire regimes.
Social and economic factors also present significant barriers to threatened species
recovery in Australia.
1 The term ‘macropod’ is used in this document to refer to all members of the super-family Macropodoidea – comprising the three families Potoroidae (potoroos and
bettongs), Hypsiprymnodontidae (the musky rat-kangaroo) and Macropodidae (wallabies, kangaroos and tree-kangaroos).
11
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Status of Macropods
Seven species of Australian macropods have become extinct since European
settlement (Burbidge et al. 2009). Of the 50 species remaining, this action plan lists
two species as critically endangered (CR), five as endangered (EN), two as vulnerable
(VU), one as data deficient (DD), and eleven as near threatened (NT), as per the
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2010). The remaining 29 Australian
macropod species are listed as least concern (LC), and have not been considered in
this document.
The proportion of macropod species listed as threatened (CR + EN + VU) out of the
total number of extant Australian species (50) is 18%. When near threatened and data
deficient species (NT + DD) are included, this proportion rises to 42%.
There have been two significant improvements in the status of macropod species
since the last action plan for marsupials and monotremes was completed in 1996.
Unfortunately, there have been two significant declines in status since 1996. For
example, the woylie, which was hailed as a conservation success in 1996 having
been down-listed from endangered to low risk/conservation dependent, has since
suffered severe population declines for reasons that are still poorly known and is
now listed as critically endangered. Seven of the species listed as threatened in 1996
have experienced no improvement in status, while another species considered low
risk/near threatened in 1996 is now listed as data deficient due to poor knowledge.
Fortunately, no species of macropod has become extinct since the last assessment.
Despite significant improvements in knowledge of ecology and conservation
requirements, and substantial investments in recovery planning and implementation,
very little progress has been made in down-listing threatened Australian macropods
over the last 15 years. This action plan argues that this is likely due to inadequate
recovery funding and poorly framed recovery objectives.
Action Plan Framework
The long-term vision of this action plan is that all species of macropods extant in 2011
are thriving in the wild by 2061. The goal for the next 10 years is that each Australian
macropod listed as threatened or near threatened on the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species will be eligible for down-listing: moving from a category of higher threat
to a category of lower threat according to IUCN criteria (IUCN 2001). Specific and
measureable objectives to achieve this goal within the specified time frame for each
species were developed, directly addressing these criteria. Importantly, given the fate
of the woylie over the last 20 years, it will be critical to ensure that recovery efforts
are not limited to down-listing, but continue long into the future to ensure ultimate
delisting and maintenance of species status as Least Concern.
Methods
The method of defining species recovery projects in this action plan relies on
the articulation of long-term recovery objectives that are specific, measurable,
attainable, realistic and time-bound. It then relies on expert opinion to define the
full set of recovery actions required to achieve those objectives with a high degree
of confidence. The rationale for this approach operates on the assumption that all
of these actions will be essential to achieving the goal of down-listing within 10
years, and that to undertake only a portion of those actions is to invite failure in
achieving the goal.
Where funds and capacity are limited, prioritisation may need to be undertaken
in order to optimise resource allocation among projects, where costs, benefits, and
the likelihood of management success are considered simultaneously. The project
prioritisation protocol (PPP; Joseph et al. 2009) and INFFER (Pannell et al. 2009)
are examples of such prioritisation methods. Prioritisation has not been undertaken
as part of this action plan, due to the relatively small number of species under
consideration, and the high degree of similarity in their conservation requirements.
12
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
The results of this action plan include an explicit and detailed list of the minimum
set of management actions required to meet the project goal for each threatened
species in question. Through this process, we obtain two valuable statements
which can guide macropod conservation in Australia: The first statement is an
estimate of the cost of recovering all of the threatened macropods in Australia to
a specific conservation goal. This statement is a powerful tool for justifying the
funding that is essential to meet this goal. The second statement is a list of the set
of management actions, including their location, frequency, duration, and effort,
that will deliver the recovery goal.
Results
The results of the analysis include a set of 21 fully-costed recovery projects with
specific and measurable objectives that will, if undertaken in full, achieve eligibility
for down-listing on the IUCN Red List within 10 years. It is estimated that the
complete implementation of this action plan will cost approximately $290 million.
With a nominal 10-year budget of $10 million, three projects could be funded in
their entirety. With a budget of $50 million, an additional six species could be
down-listed within the same time frame. When the total cost of the action plan is
categorised according to management actions, we see that the greatest cost is for
control of invasive or problematic species such as foxes and cats, accounting for
more than a third of the total of budget.
Conclusions
The general failure of species recovery processes to achieve down-listing in threat
status for macropods over the last 15 years highlights the importance of immediate
and comprehensive action to secure all species and their habitat. While this action
plan focuses only on macropods, the plan itself is a strong recommendation that
conservation expenditure requirements be made explicit for all threatened species.
Rather than deciding how to spend a very limited budget on a large set of problems,
this action plan calls for a radical increase in environmental expenditure, based on
a careful analysis of the most effective actions.
While the action plan demonstrates that the price of down-listing all macropod
species significantly exceeds the funding available, it also provides guidelines on
the best that can be done even with those limited funds. This can guide swift and
constructive action while more funds are being sought.
This action plan differs from the common approach to species recovery planning in
that it incorporates explicit and measurable objectives to achieve a common goal, as
well as detailed actions to achieve those objectives, including the location, frequency,
duration, effort, and cost of each action.
This action plan, through the recovery outlines, shows what needs to be done to
down-list Australia’s threatened and near threatened macropods on the IUCN Red
List over the next 10 years. In most cases, what needs to be done is clear; what is
required is the commitment and resources to carry out the necessary work.
13
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
2.Introduction
The macropods2 of Australia and New Guinea are
among the most recognisable species in the world
and the have substantial cultural and economic
significance. The kangaroo is an important symbol
in Australia and for the peoples of New Guinea,
and contributes to national and cultural identity.
Their appeal to domestic and international tourists
contributes towards the generation of considerable revenue through naturebased tourism. Yet despite their importance as economic and cultural icons,
many kangaroo and wallaby species are threatened with extinction and are not
sufficiently managed for recovery.
In the recent past, macropods have fared poorly from increased anthropogenic
pressures. Seven of 57 species of macropod in Australia have been lost to
extinction since European settlement (Burbidge et al. 2009). Furthermore, many
species have suffered from significant population and range declines. Currently,
more than half of all macropod species are listed as threatened or near threatened
(39 of 72 recognised species) including 21 species from Australia and 18 species
from New Guinea (IUCN 2010).
Banded hare-wallaby (Lagostrophus fasciatus).
© Jean-Paul Ferrero/Ardea.com
In 1992, IUCN and other non-government organisations, including WWF,
commissioned an action plan that outlined management actions necessary to
recover the Australasian marsupials and monotremes (Kennedy 1992). In 1996,
another action plan was published for the marsupials and monotremes of Australia
(Maxwell et al., 1996). Recommendations from both documents included actions
such as fire management, fox control, translocation, monitoring and research
into distribution and threatening processes. Despite significant work towards
implementing those management actions across a range of threatened macropod
species, we have seen almost no reversal of population declines. Since 1996, only
one species of macropod has obtained an improved threat status based on genuine
changes in populations: the boodie, or burrowing bettong (Bettongia lesueur,
Table 1). There have been two declines in threat status: the woylie or brush-tailed
bettong, and the banded hare wallaby. While the woylie had been down-listed
from Endangered to Conservation Dependent due to a significant improvement in
status between 1990 and 1996, a subsequent and severe decline in their numbers
resulted in listing as Critically Endangered in 2008. Furthermore, there has be no
improvement in threat status for seven of Australia’s most threatened macropods
since 1996 (Table 1), although Gilbert’s potoroo may be down-listed to Endangered
when next assessed.
2 The term ‘macropod’ is used in this document to refer to all members of the super-family Macropodoidea – comprising the three families Potoroidae (potoroos and
bettongs), Hypsiprymnodontidae (the musky rat-kangaroo) and Macropodidae (wallabies, kangaroos and tree-kangaroos).
14
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 1: List of changes in IUCN threat status for Australian macropods between 1996 and 2008.
Species
IUCN Threat Status - 19963
IUCN Threat Status - 2008
Vulnerable
Near Threatened
Low Risk/Near Threatened
Least Concern
Conservation Dependent
Critically Endangered
Vulnerable
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Onychogalea fraenata (Bridled nailtail wallaby)
Endangered
Endangered
Petrogale persephone (Proserpine rock wallaby)
Endangered
Endangered
Critically Endangered
Critically Endangered*
Endangered
Endangered
Vulnerable
Vulnerable
Lower Risk/Near Threatened
Least Concern
Lagorchestes conspicillatus (Spectacled hare wallaby) Lower Risk/Near Threatened
Least Concern
Macropus fuliginosus (Western grey kangaroo)
Lower Risk/Near Threatened
Least Concern
Low Risk/Near Threatened
Least Concern
Petrogale lateralis (Black-footed rock wallaby)
Vulnerable
Near Threatened
Petrogale penicillata (Brush-tailed rock wallaby)
Vulnerable
Near Threatened
Low Risk/Near Threatened
Data Deficient
Improvement in Status
Bettongia lesueur (Boodie)
Macropus eugenii (Tammar wallaby)
Decline in Status
Bettongia penicillata (Woylie)
Lagostrophus fasciatus (Banded hare wallaby)
No Improvement in Threatened Status
Bettongia tropica (Northern bettong)
Lagorchestes hirsutus (Mala)
Potorous gilbertii (Gilbert’s potoroo)
Potorous longipes (Long-footed potoroo)
Setonix brachyurus (Quokka)
Change in Status – Criteria Change
Dendrolagus lumholtzi (Lumholtz’s tree kangaroo)
Macropus irma (Western brush wallaby)
Change in Status – Lack of Knowledge
Petrogale concinna (Nabarlek)
*Gilbert’s potoroo no longer meets the criterion by which it was listed as Critically Endangered, having been established at two sites in addition to the single site where it
occurred in 1996. However the species must still be classified as Critically Endangered until it has not met any criteria in that threat status for a period of at least five years.
During the next assessment of its status, it may be down-listed to Endangered (T. Friend, pers. comm. 2010).
3 Status from ‘The 1996 Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and Monotremes’ (Maxwell et al. 1996).
15
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Several other macropod species have changed in threat status between 1996
and 2008 (Table 1). This is partly because of slight changes to the criteria for
the near threatened category of threat (IUCN, 2010) and partly because some
species’ threat status has changed, e.g. Bettongia lesueur (Boodie) now has
several subpopulations within fenced sanctuaries on the Australian mainland and
Macropus eugenii (Tammar wallaby) has recovered in southwest Australia due to
fox control, while Bettongia penicillata has declined, possibly because of increased
predation by feral cats and foxes. There is so little useful information for the
Nabarlek (Petrogale concinna) that it is now listed as data deficient (Table 1). The
remaining 31 species of Australian macropods have not changed in threat status
since 1996, remaining either as near threatened or least concern.
Thus conservation management of threatened macropods in Australia has not
been sufficient to recover those species most at threat, and in two cases, threat
status has worsened. Such failure to obtain significant conservation outcomes
for threatened macropods has likely resulted from a combination of insufficient
funding and poor allocation of that limited conservation budget, in addition to
the large suite of threats these species face (see Section 3 – Current Issues in
Conservation of Threatened Macropods).
Lack of Resources
It is clear that globally, the financial and human resources available for
conservation are inadequate for the task of protecting all species (James et al.
2001; Balmford et al. 2003). Currently, only a small fraction of the species that
are officially recognised as threatened with extinction are managed for recovery,
both worldwide and in Australia. In the years 1989 to 1991, 54% of United States
funding for threatened species was devoted to conservation of just 1.8% of all
threatened species in that country (Metrick & Weitzman 1996). Similarly, in 2006,
only 22% of New Zealand’s threatened species were actively managed, and many of
these were inadequately managed to ensure persistence (Joseph et al. 2008). There
is limited documentation about the allocation of resources to threatened species
management in Australia. A review of funding for conservation of threatened
birds in Australia over the period 1993-2000 (Garnett et al. 2003) showed that
most of the funds dedicated to the recovery of those species were spent on the
taxa closest to extinction. Without an analysis of costs involved, or the nature of
recovery actions required, such an approach could result in expenditure that is not
strategic, such as all available funds being spent on species that have little chance
of recovery, or on species that are far more costly to recover than less-threatened
species. Furthermore, substantial funds were allocated to Australian populations
of taxa that are not threatened globally. Importantly, the status of most taxa did
not change during that study period, but those that did improve had generally
received more funds than those taxa that declined (Garnett et al. 2003).
The Need for More Explicit Recovery Planning
The lack of specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART)
objectives in many recovery plans for threatened species is a significant barrier
to being able to assess the success or otherwise of those recovery programs.
Furthermore, the recommended actions outlined in published action plans and
recovery plans are also often broad and non-specific.
A general criticism of traditional recovery planning processes (such as those
used in Australia and New Zealand) is that the plans take too long to prepare and
are expensive to produce. Since their inception over a decade ago in Australia,
approximately 500 recovery plans have been published, leaving approximately
1100 threatened species without recovery plans (Watson et al. 2010).
16
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Plan development has been estimated to cost an average of about $20,000 each
(Watson et al. 2010). In addition, recovery plans are not designed to meet a
specific, common goal (Watson et al. 2010). Consequently, they do not provide a
means to compare recovery projects for different species or to select the best set of
actions on which to spend the nations’ budget for threatened species. Despite these
criticisms, recovery plans have been useful instruments to collate information on
species, and bring together people with unpublished knowledge to provide expert
opinion on what conservation measures are required.
As part of the this species action plan, management projects have been designed
to meet the same specific goal for each threatened species and this enables the
systematic comparison of recovery projects for species.
By calculating the estimated cost of achieving this common goal for all of the
threatened species under consideration, the resulting list of management projects
is a useful means of stating which projects cannot be funded given financial
constraints. The consequences of funding decisions can be clearly demonstrated;
for example, what the current resources buy, and how many species can be
managed if funding is increased or withdrawn.
Undertaking this process for Australian macropods has generated an estimate of
the full price of managing these species over the next 10 years. This estimate is
potentially a powerful campaigning tool for acquiring the funding that is essential
for this conservation goal.
Boodie, Burrowing bettong (Bettongia lesueur). © Klein & Hubert/WWF
17
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
3.Current
Issues in
Threatened
Macropod
Conservation
State of Macropods
Seven species of Australian macropods have become
extinct since European settlement (Burbidge et
al. 2009), leaving 50 species that are extant, with
21 of those 50 listed by the IUCN as Threatened,
Near-Threatened, or Data Deficient (IUCN 2010).
In addition, some macropods – particularly larger
species preferring open habitats - have not suffered
from changed land use and conditions since
European settlement, and are widely distributed
and abundant. Others – generally small- to mediumsized, more specialised species – have suffered
significant range contractions and/or population
declines.
Australia has the highest mammal extinction rate
of any country or continent, with half of global
mammal extinctions over the last 100 years being
Australian. The highest proportion of mammal
extinctions have been amongst medium-sized
ground dwelling mammals, predominantly
marsupials and rodents, from the large mouse-like
murids to small wallabies (Burbidge & McKenzie 1989; Short and Smith 1994;
Burbidge et al. 2009).
The following is an outline of the many pressures on macropods and a host of
other threatened species in Australia, ranging from the socio-economic such as
poor funding for conservation initiatives and low public awareness of threatened
species issues, to the physical, such as invasive predators and wildlife disease.
Socio-Economic Context
The fundamental causes of biodiversity loss are ‘deeply embedded in the ethical,
cultural and institutional arrangements that determine the nature of Australian
society’ (Young et al. 1996).
Human Impacts
For Australia’s macropod species, human population trends are having both direct
and indirect impacts. Encroaching land development is a significant threat for
some species, and more broadly, expanding population and its associated footprint
are placing increasing pressure on urban green spaces, farming productivity and
water allocation, leaving less natural resources and management capacity for
conservation efforts.
Conservation Funding
Resourcing for the conservation of Australian species is clearly inadequate with
scarce funds for management activities for the expanding National Reserve
System, lack of funds for full scale implementation of threat abatement plans,
inadequate incentives for private landholders to offset production losses resulting
from conservation activity, recovery plans being funded to a fraction of what
is required, and legislative lists of threatened species and ecological species
continuing to expand at State and Federal levels.
4 Bettongia pusilla, Caloprymnus campestris, Potorous platyops, Lagorchestes asomatus, Lagorchestes leporides, Macropus greyi, Onychogalea lunata
18
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Modelling by Garnett et al. (2008) predicts that an annual expenditure of
$10 million (approximately three times current expenditure) would be required
in order to reduce the number of threatened Australian bird species by
approximately 15%. While the same work has not been conducted for macropods,
we can view this as indicative of the inadequacy of species conservation resources.
Costing provided in this action plan estimates that approximately $290 million is
needed in order to adequately address macropod conservation needs.
With Australia’s size, its status as a megadiverse country with uniquely evolved flora
and fauna, and critical threats, substantial funds are required in order to adequately
manage its natural resources. With its human population being so low, however, there
are resourcing issues on several levels: access to vast and remote areas requiring
management, knowledge of appropriate management techniques, and having the
tax base and philanthropic capacity to adequately fund management action.
How Does Environment Rate as a Priority for Australians
Newspoll, a prominent Australian public opinion polling company, shows that the
environment as an issue in the minds of respondents has progressively decreased
in importance over the term of the former federal government (from 69% of
respondents ranking as ‘very important’ in October 2007 to 57% in February
2010). The top ranking issues continue to be health, education and the economy
(Newspoll 2010).
Perceptions of Macropods
There have been no in depth studies of the public’s understanding of macropod
conservation issues. The perception studies that have been conducted have been
done at the level of ‘kangaroos’ rather than a particular species, which may suggest
that there is little understanding of the range of macropod species and associated
issues. Studies that have been undertaken indicate that perspectives of macropods
can be broadly classed into four categories:
• Significance to Indigenous Australians,
• Animal rights perspectives opposing culling and their use as human food or
pet meat,
• The impact of kangaroos on agricultural productivity,
• Kangaroos as tourism icons.
Macropods are highly significant to Indigenous Australians. Many traditional
management practices, especially the use of fire, are related to land management
for macropods (Bowman et al. 2001). Many macropod species are central to
creation history, are commonly depicted in rock art sites and are important in
traditional ceremonies.
In the broader Australian community, perceptions of macropods are dominated
by commercial harvesting and pest management programs, with strong polarised
views. Five macropod species are currently commercially harvested for meat in
Australia (DEWHA, 2010d), and further culling occurs as a pest control measure
in rural areas.
Many urban Australian residents see macropods as an Australian icon, with
culling programs of large and locally abundant macropod species attracting fierce
community opposition (e.g., see National Kangaroo Protection Coalition 2009).
Rural Australian residents are more likely to view macropods as a pest impacting
agricultural productivity. In Victoria, a study showed that 26% of respondents
considered kangaroos a pest, with a majority considering that some management
was needed (Johnston and Marks 1997 in: Fitzgerald et al. 2007). In Queensland,
many sheep and beef farmers consider them to be a pest, with 16% of all landholder
respondents rating them the pest animal of most concern (Oliver and Walton, 2004
in: Fitzgerald et al. 2007).
19
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Tourism studies show that the kangaroo is seen as an Australian icon, and that
satisfying wildlife experiences are an important factor with many international
visitors (Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre 2009). Satisfying
kangaroo encounters are more likely to be with large species of open habitats –
i.e. not threatened species (Higginbottom et al. 2004).
Regulatory Context
Australia’s central environmental legislative instrument, the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, has recently undergone
a 10 year review. At the time of writing, the government’s response is yet to
be delivered. The review encompasses several recommendations that would
make the Act more strategic, less reactive, and shift biodiversity conservation
more into the mainstream – e.g. an enhanced role for regional planning, and
introducing a systems-based approach to decision-making and a system of national
environmental accounts. The review supports the recent shift in conservation
paradigms towards a landscape focus by recommending bioregional planning with
a flexible approach. It is yet to be seen what the consequences of this review will be
for threatened species recovery in Australia.
At the State level, legislation, political will and enforcement vary greatly from
state to state, thus complicating recovery processes for species which occur across
state boundaries.
Landscape-Scale Issues for Macropods
The key issues impacting Australian macropods at the landscape scale are the
clearing, fragmentation and degradation of habitat; predation; competition; and
changed fire regimes. At least 12 of the macropod species listed as threatened or near
threatened on the Red List are thought to be threatened by predation, at least nine
are thought to be threatened by altered fire regime, seven by grazing competition,
and seven by ongoing habitat loss, not to mention the potential interactions of
these threats (IUCN 2010). These problems are exacerbated and complicated by the
impacts of a changing climate. These issues, along with the role of protected areas –
a key landscape scale conservation strategy – are considered below.
Land Clearing, Fragmentation and Degradation
Past and current land clearing and land use practises have resulted in the removal,
fragmentation and degradation of habitat for many of Australia’s macropods.
Protecting, reconnecting and building the resilience of remaining habitat is a high
priority for most threatened macropods. Projects such as Gondwana Link provide
important ecological linkages across a range of ecosystems. As Murray et al. (2006)
outlined using a brush-tailed rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata case study, it is
important to look at multiple scales for habitat suitability for specialist species
when undertaking connectivity planning. Protected areas are a key mechanism for
reconnecting habitat, and these are considered in more detail at the end of this section.
Feral Animals
The key feral animals negatively impacting on Australian macropods are foxes,
cats, pigs, rabbits and goats.
There is strong evidence that predation by introduced foxes and cats has had a
significant negative impact on small and medium-sized marsupials in Australia
(Burbidge and McKenzie 1989; Short and Smith 1994; Algar and Burrows 2004;
Saunders et al. 2010; Kinnear et al. 2010). Furthermore, foxes and cats are the
main causes of failure of reintroductions of small macropods in Australia (Short
et al. 1992). The degree of threat depends upon local conditions such as presence of
other predators, prey availability, climatic conditions and habitat conditions such
as the presence of a protective understorey or rock pile shelter.
20
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
One of the more complex issues affecting predation is the presence of dingoes.
There is increasing evidence of the role of dingoes as a trophic regulator in
some regions, with negative associations between dingoes and fox abundance
(Newsome et al. 2001; Letnic 2007), and positive associations between dingo
presences and medium-sized marsupials and native rodents (Smith and Quin
1996; Johnson et al. 2007; Southgate et al. 2007; Wallach et al. 2008). For
example, Wallach et al. (2008) found that the yellow-footed rock-wallaby
Petrogale xanthopus co-occurred with the dingo, and that the most common
predator in areas inhabited by the rock-wallaby was the dingo.
Arguments for re-establishing dingoes in the landscape as a trophic regulator
are complicated by lack of knowledge of the effect of dingo-wild dog hybridisation
(Claridge & Hunt 2008), the relatively recent arrival of dingo to mainland Australia
complicating native/non-native classifications (Johnson 2006), and the impact of
dingoes/wild dogs on domestic stock (Fleming et al. 2001). Some ecologists argue
that the dingo, wild dog and their hybrids should be treated equally from
a functional point of view (Daniels & Corbett 2003), while some conservationists
seek to preserve the purity of the dingo subspecies (Australian Dingo Conservation
Association 2008), and many in the agricultural sector argue that the dingo should
be controlled as a pest animal, and this is supported by legislation in some states.
It is also clear that dingo suppression of fox and cat numbers, while probably
significant is some parts of Australia, was insufficient to prevent extinction
and decline of medium-sized mammals in arid Australia.
The main feral competitors impacting macropods are pigs, rabbits and goats. For
pigs, competition for food as well as habitat alteration due to rooting behaviour are
thought to be issues for a number of macropods that rely on fungal fruiting bodies,
such as the northern bettong Bettongia tropica (DERM 2009), or which rely on
pig-impacted swamp or riverine habitat such as the quokka Setonix brachyurus
(DEWHA 2010c).
While not thought to be a limiting factor for most macropod species, rabbits
have significant dietary overlap with some species (Robley et al. 2001). The
national rabbit threat abatement plan identifies rock-wallabies and hare-wallabies
(Petrogale, Lagorchestes and Lagostrophus species) as potentially impacted by
rabbits (DEWHA 2008a). Moreover, rabbits can support large populations of foxes
and cats (Holden and Mutze 2002).
Goats have a competitive effect with some macropods, particularly those confined
to steeper, rocky terrain, such as rock wallabies (Short & Milkovits 1990; Eldridge
1997). The presence of dingoes is one of several factors that limit the distribution
of goats (DEWHA 2008c).
There are limited studies about public attitudes to feral animal control, however
a Queensland study of primary producers in 2004 showed dingoes and wild dogs
were ranked as landholders’ main pest animal by 33% of respondents (highest of
any species), followed by feral pigs (16% said were main pest), then kangaroos and
wallabies (16% said were main pest) (Oliver and Walton 2004 in: Fitzgerald et al.
2007). In another study of Queensland landholders (Finch and Baxter, 2005 in:
Fitzgerald et al. 2007), feral pigs, rabbits, feral cats, wild dogs/dingoes, mice and
foxes were identified by more than 75% of respondents as being ‘significant’ or
‘very significant’ pests. In a Victorian study, feral cats were the most likely to be
considered a pest of the 14 animals listed in the survey (Johnston and Marks 1997
in: Fitzgerald et al. 2007).
From the perspective of macropod conservation, it is highly problematic that
macropods themselves, and a key trophic regulator thought to be of benefit to some
macropods, are considered to be pests by a large proportion of rural Australians.
Further studies are needed in order to assess these attitudes in more detail and
determine triggers for changing attitudes where needed for macropod conservation.
21
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Predator and Competitor Control Strategies
There are a range of control strategies that vary in their cost efficiency depending
upon local ecological conditions and the animal being targeted.
Baiting is the dominant control technique currently utilised for feral predators
in Australia, and is also widely used for rabbits and pigs. The poison usually
utilised is known as 1080, and there are an increasing range of specialist uptake
mechanisms being developed to increase effectiveness and reduce non-target
uptake – for example PIGOUT® (Invasive Animal CRC 2010).
1080 poison naturally occurs in native pea bushes in south-western Western
Australia and in scattered areas in central Australia, which is thought to result
in a higher tolerance of native wildlife for the poison in those areas, greatly
reducing non-target losses. Capitalising on this, the Western Shield program
has rolled out large scale and long term baiting for introduced predators has
significantly contributed to the success of small and medium sized mammal in
situ conservation and re-introductions in the southwest. In other parts of
Australia, effects on non-target species (such as quolls and birds) need to be taken
into account and mitigated via burying the bait or use of dye (DEWHA 2010a).
Other poisons include a toxic formulation based on para-aminopropiophenone,
used in fresh cat meat baits Eradicat® and Curiosity ® (DEWHA 2010b). Cat baiting
has proven more challenging for conservation managers than fox baiting, however
sausage or fresh meat baits are proving successful in certain circumstances, with
effectiveness varying with bioregion, season, and live prey abundance. Sausage
baits have been successful in achieving a 95% reduction in the Gibson Desert, and
the eradication of cats on two West Australian islands (Algar and Burrows 2004).
There is a range of traps utilised for feral animal control, including conventional
cage traps, soft-catch traps and yards that may be created around watering holes to
catch animals as they come in to drink. Trapping is labour intensive – particularly
in remote areas - as traps must be checked at least once a day, and success can be
limited. Cage and soft-catch traps are typically baited with food and used for feral
predators such as cats and foxes. Yard traps are commonly used for feral goats
(DEWHA 2010a).
Shooting is generally not a cost effective animal control technique, however is
often utilised in order to remove any remaining individuals from an area once
other techniques have been employed. Hunting with dogs is the most common
method of controlling pigs in many parts of northern Australia, however
improvements in trap design and technique are making this a more cost
effective mechanism (DPIF 2007).
Biological control has been used with varying success in Australia to reduce the
impact of feral species. The introduction of two viruses has been very successful
in the substantial reduction of rabbit numbers, however the introduction of the
cane toad to control two insect pests of sugar cane was unsuccessful as it did not
control the insect pest and led to the establishment of a new pest in the cane toad
(DEWHA 2010).
Fencing has been used to exclude rabbits and dingoes for over 100 years, and
more recently has been developed to exclude a broader range of predators and
competitors. Pen and field trials have been conducted to look at the cost efficiency
of a range of predator and competitor exclusion fences (Moseby & Read 2005).
Material costs are high, particularly for cat exclusion fencing, making it only a
viable option where the area to be enclosed is relatively small, or for a narrow
peninsula such as Heirisson Prong, Shark Bay. Fencing needs to be regularly
monitored, maintained, and in some cases supplemented by regular baiting
and trapping (Short & Turner 2000).
22
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Offshore islands are valuable for threatened species, providing unique ecosystems,
protection from feral predators and competitors, and opportunities to eradicate
feral species and establish insurance populations of threatened species. Integrated
pest management plans have been successfully implemented on several islands,
but more opportunities exist in order to capitalise on island attributes, given
sufficient resources.
In order for offshore islands to be valuable for macropod conservation however,
one of the fundamental criteria to be considered – particularly in terms of
larger species – is island size. Barrow Island is the smallest Australian island
(23,300 hectares) to have successfully supported a population of large macropods
for the 8-10,000 years since separation from mainland, providing evidence of
minimum viable population and habitat requirements of large macropods for
long term survival (Short and Turner 1991). However, smaller islands have
supported one or more species of smaller macropods for thousands of years, e.g.
Bernier and Dorre Islands in Shark Bay (4,000 to 5,000 ha) protect three species
of threatened macropods.
Islands can also be used for translocation of highly-threatened species, sometimes
termed marooning. The conservation status of one threatened macropod
subspecies, the mala (a subspecies of the rufous hare-wallaby), was improved
from Extinct in the Wild to Vulnerable via introduction to Trimouille Island in
the Montebello Islands off the Pilbara coast (Langford and Burbidge 2001). Other
macropods have been translocated to islands, e.g. black-footed and Proserpine
rock-wallabies.
Changed fire regimes
Fire plays an important role in Australian ecosystems. Much of Australia was
routinely burnt by Indigenous Australians from the late Quaternary period until
European settlement. This burning is thought to have resulted in substantial
changes to the range and demographic structure of many vegetation types, and
was important in creating habitat mosaics that favoured the abundance of some
mammal species (Bowman 1998). Observations suggest that burning was sparse
and biased towards coastal and sub-coastal areas, in line with population density
(Russell-Smith et al. 2002) but was widespread in the spinifex grasslands of the
interior. There is little traditional fire management being conducted today.
Today, burning is undertaken for a range of purposes including for the reduction
of fuel loads to minimise wildfire risk, for regeneration of areas following timber
harvesting, and for biodiversity conservation purposes. The impact of fire
frequency, timing and intensity on some ecological communities has been widely
studied, while for others there is a paucity of information.
After a number of recent and severe wildfires in southern Australia with high
loss of life, fire policy has become increasingly focused on wildfire suppression.
While wildfire suppression is not in itself counter-productive to optimal burning
regimes for biodiversity, in the wake of the human tragedy of Black Saturday in
2009, there is currently little space in fire policy discussions to promote
biodiversity considerations.
The impact of deviation from traditional burning regimes varies amongst
macropods. For the northern bettong Bettongia tropica, for example, fire regime
changes are thought to be responsible for understorey changes resulting in reduced
food availability and weed incursions (Department of Environment and Resource
Management, 2009).
Climate change
The magnitude and rate of changing climate is already resulting in observable
changes, mostly at the species level (Steffen et al. 2009b). The interaction of
23
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
climate change with the existing threats outlined above, along with an array of
responses at different levels, will result in a high level of complexity in ecosystem
management and species recovery work. Specific climate responses of species and
ecosystems are difficult to predict, however past responses provide information
that can be utilised in modelling likely future responses. For example, the bridled
nailtail wallaby Onychogalea fraenata declined severely during a major drought,
with increased predation being the major cause of low juvenile survivorship
(Fisher et al. 2000). With increased drought predicted in bridled nailtail wallaby
habitat, this provides insight to the challenges ahead for this species.
Characteristics of species likely to be climate change winners and losers have been
identified, with more specialised, spatially restricted species with a low range of
physiological tolerance, low genetic variability, low fecundity and poor dispersal
rates posing barriers to timely adaptation. Assessing and managing risk at multiple
levels, coupled with adaptive management, becomes critical under the complexity
of climate change (Steffen et al. 2009a).
Key management strategies are to enhance the resilience of ecosystems in order to
maximise opportunities for adaptive responses, such as migration. Specific actions
to achieve this include enhancing connectivity, protecting key refugia, reducing the
impact of existing threats such as invasive species, and managing for fire (Steffen
et al. 2009b).
Protected Areas
In recent years there has been a significant increase in investment – both public
and private – in protected areas acquisition. Increased government investment has
been utilised for additions to the public estate, as well as funds leveraged by nongovernment organisations such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC) and
Bush Heritage Australia (BHA) with public donations and partnerships. However,
it has been shown (Watson et al. 2011) that there is relatively poor coverage of
protected areas for threatened species, despite this growth in the National
Reserve System.
While funds have become more accessible for parks acquisition, there hasn’t been
a proportional increase in management funds, either for publicly or privately
managed parks, with management funds in most cases being inadequate (Miller
2010). In the absence of adequate funds to manage landscape-scale threats such
as predation, competition and inappropriate fire regimes, large fenced sanctuaries
have played an important role in the short-term conservation of macropods and
other small mammals.
The Australian Wildlife Conservancy/Bush Heritage model has demonstrated
some success with macropod conservation, with the captive woylie subpopulation
managed by AWC at Karakamia currently being the only high density population
of woylies that is not in steep decline (AWC 2009). Management practises are
a mix of landscape-scale threat abatement (for example feral species and fire
management), as well as species specific recovery actions such as reintroductions
and translocations.
24
Tasmanian bettong (Bettongia gaimardi). © Dave Watts/ANTPhoto.com.au
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
25
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Species-Level Issues For Macropods
Genetics
With genetic diversity being one of the pillars of biodiversity and underpinning
the adaptability of a species, it is a critical consideration in any species
recovery program. Integrating genetic assessments into recovery efforts means
understanding patterns of genetic variation within a species; working to maintain
genetic stock in insurance populations especially for high risk populations; and
incorporating genetic considerations into boosting small isolated populations,
establishing new populations, or undertaking captive breeding.
Translocations and Reintroductions
Many of Australia’s macropod species have suffered such significant habitat
fragmentation and destruction, range contraction and population decline, that
translocations or reintroductions are a necessary part of recovery efforts. In
planning such cost-intensive actions, there are many issues that first need to be
considered to maximise probability of success.
Predation by foxes and cats is the main cause of failure of reintroductions of small
macropods in Australia (Short et al. 1992). Any translocation or reintroduction
should therefore incorporate a predator control program unless it is a known
predator free area.
Decisions regarding the choice of individuals to be translocated/reintroduced needs
to take into account genetic studies (Eldridge 1997) and the mating system of the
species in question (Sigg et al. 2005) in order to reduce costs and increase chances
of establishing self-sustaining population.
Use of modelling is critical in determining minimum viable population sizes in
the face of predation and other factors. For example, modelling of bridled nailtail
wallaby Onychogalea fraenata reintroductions showed that even very small
amounts of predation (2-4 individuals per six months) can cause reintroductions of
up to 50 individuals to fail. Furthermore, modelling indicated that for this species
a single reintroduction was preferable to multiple reintroductions of the same total
number of individuals (McCallum et al. 1995).
Captive Breeding
With the focus of the Action Plan being in-situ conservation, captive breeding is
considered here in that context. Developing captive populations is an expensive
undertaking, however it can assist in-situ threatened species conservation efforts
in a number of ways. The study of captive individuals can enhance understanding
of the species’ biology and ecology thereby informing management action in the
wild. Furthermore, securing a captive population can provide insurance against
stochastic events in the wild and disease risk, and help maintain the genetic
diversity of the species. The generation of captive bred individuals can increase
the resilience of small populations and/or establish new populations.
For most macropods, captive breeding has been conducted with some success.
For some, techniques such as cross-fostering are used in order to boost numbers
as cost effectively and quickly as possible (e.g. Zoos SA 2010).
Monitoring
There are significant knowledge gaps pertaining to the taxonomy, demography,
biology, ecology, behaviour, distribution and abundance of many macropod
species, as well as the effectiveness of specific management actions. In some cases
these knowledge gaps are substantial enough to impede management, while in
others the results would not significantly impact management decisions. Assessing
26
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
the costs and benefits of investing in such research questions is essential, and
decision-theory frameworks can be useful in this regard.
Monitoring programs need to take into account appropriate spatial, population
and temporal scales in order to determine and assess the impact of management
strategies; and utilise existing scientific and local knowledge in order to minimise
monitoring costs.
There is a range of monitoring techniques utilised for macropods such as live
trapping, drive fence techniques, radio tracking, scat and hair analysis, and
predator dietary analysis. The choice of monitoring technique needs to be
informed by the specific questions to be answered.
Monjon (Petrogale burbidgei). © Jiri Lochman/Lochman Transparencies
27
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
4.Action Plan
Framework
This action plan outlines the vision, goal,
objectives, and essential activities for the downlisting of threatened and near threatened
Australian macropods. It is the framework that could
effectively guide the implementation of threatened
macropod recovery for the period 2011-2021. The
goal, objectives and activities are structured in a
logical, hierarchical manner, and are as objectively
verifiable as possible to assist in program monitoring
and evaluation.
Action Plan Scope
A project’s scope defines the broad parameters or the subject of the project.
For this action plan, the scope is all Australian macropods listed as threatened
(Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered), Near Threatened, or Data
Deficient on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010) (Table 2).
The IUCN Red List criteria used to define threat status of species are recognised
internationally, and provide quantifiable elements by which we can assess
progress in recovery. By using the IUCN list and not the Australian Government’s
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, we are able to
include species that are listed as near threatened, thus incorporating preventative
action into our suite of recovery projects.
Yellow-footed rock wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus). © Martin Harvey/WWF-Canon
In this action plan, the choice of the taxonomic level of species was made to
ensure that recovery projects are all working towards the same project goal, and
to avoid the complicated arguments around recovery of threatened subspecies of
a species that may not be threatened at the national (or international) level. With
further taxonomic assessment, some macropods, particularly those with distinct
geographic subpopulations, may be subject to reassessment under this action plan.
28
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 2: Australian macropods listed as threatened, near threatened or data deficient according to the IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010).
Scientific Name
Common Name(s)
Threat Status
Bettongia gaimardi
Tasmanian bettong
Near Threatened
Bettongia lesueur
Boodie, burrowing bettong
Near Threatened
Bettongia penicillata
Woylie, brush-tailed bettong
Critically Endangered
Bettongia tropica
Northern bettong
Endangered
Dendrolagus bennettianus
Lagorchestes hirsutus
Lagostrophus fasciatus
Bennett’s tree kangaroo
Mala, rufous hare-wallaby
Munning, banded hare-wallaby
Near Threatened
Vulnerable
Endangered
Macropus bernardus
Macropus parma
Black wallaroo
Parma wallaby
Near Threatened
Near Threatened
Onychogalea fraenata
Bridled nailtail wallaby
Endangered
Petrogale burbidgei
Monjon
Near Threatened
Petrogale coenensis
Cape York rock wallaby
Near Threatened
Petrogale concinna
Nabarlek
Data Deficient
Petrogale lateralis
Black-footed rock wallaby, black-flanked rock wallaby
Near Threatened
Petrogale penicillata
Brush-tailed rock wallaby
Near Threatened
Petrogale persephone
Proserpine rock wallaby
Endangered
Petrogale sharmani
Mount Claro rock wallaby
Near Threatened
Petrogale xanthopus
Yellow-footed rock wallaby
Near Threatened
Potorous gilbertii
Gilbert’s potoroo
Critically Endangered
Potorous longipes
Long-footed potoroo
Endangered
Setonix brachyurusQuokka
Vulnerable
Mala, Rufous hare-wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus). © Martin Harvey/WWF-Canon
29
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan Vision
A project’s vision is the desired state or ultimate condition that the project is
working to achieve. This action plan has a 50-year vision:
By 2061, all species of macropods5 extant in 2011 have multiple6 secure7
subpopulations in the wild8.
Action Plan Goal
A goal is a specific statement detailing the desired impact of a project. The goal
of this action plan was determined based on quantifiable criteria that could be
objectively measured and could be achieved within a 10-year period. For this
reason, down-listing on the IUCN Red List was deemed to be the most suitable
measure of species recovery:
By 2021, all threatened Australian macropods9 will be eligible10 to be moved
from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat according to IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species criteria.
Action Plan Objectives
An objective is a more specific statement than a goal, detailing a desired
accomplishment or outcome of a project. Multiple objectives have been developed for
each species, according to the criteria used to determine each species’ conservation
status during the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment coordinated by the IUCN (IUCN
2010). The objectives thus reflect the actions required to ensure that each species no
longer meets any of the criteria for its current threat category by 2021, and include
targets for population size, geographic range, population trend, and/or number of
secure subpopulations, as well as mitigation of threats, and conservation of known
genetic diversity.
The timeframe of this action plan is ten years, which is a short period of time in
which to achieve significant recovery outcomes. Since a species may only be moved
from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat if none of the criteria
of the higher category have been met for a period of five years or more (IUCN 2001),
some species may only be eligible for down-listing within 10 years. In these cases, the
objective of any future recovery plans should be to ensure that none of the criteria
under the current threat category are close to being met for a period of at least five
years, thus allowing for down-listing after that time.
Objectives for each species can be found within each species recovery outline
in Appendix 5.
5 Those species in the families Macropodidae, Potoroidae and Hypsiprymnodontidae.
6 Minimum of three.
7 A taxon is defined as secure when its numbers and distribution are stable or increasing, and when numbers and distribution are sufficient that there is a 95% probability that the species will survive the stochastic events anticipated over a 50 year timeframe, given that all known and predicted threats are adequately mitigated.
8 A fenced subpopulation may be considered wild for the purposes of this vision if the fenced area contains sufficient natural habitat to support a self-sustaining
subpopulation. In this context, self-sustaining means that the subpopulation persists without the provision of food or water.
9 Those species belonging to the families Macropodidae, Potoroidae and Hypsiprymnodontidae that are listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, or Data Deficient (IUCN 2010).
10 All of the criteria of the higher category are no longer met. This condition may or may not have been achieved for the required period of five years or more by 2021:
“A taxon may be moved from a category of higher threat to a category of lower threat if none of the criteria of the higher category has been met for five years or more”
(IUCN 2001). Where this period has not been met, the population should be stable or increasing until such time it meets the IUCN conditions in full.
30
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
5.Methods
A working group was convened in the early stages
of development of this action plan to determine
the most appropriate framework of recovery goals
and objectives. In doing so, the working group
decided that all species included should be treated
consistently. Recovery plans for different species
may have quite different goals, with some simply
aiming to ensure that the species does not become further threatened, while
others aim to secure several populations across Australia. The reasons for these
differences are varied, making comparison of the recommended projects difficult.
This plan was initially formulated as a prioritisation of management projects
based on the Project Prioritisation Protocol (Joseph et al. 2009). However,
given the relatively small number of species covered by this action plan, their
relative taxonomic similarity and thus similarity in necessary recovery projects,
prioritisation of any factor other than total project cost was deemed to be arbitrary.
At least two government bodies have already incorporated the Project
Prioritisation Protocol into their species recovery planning. The New Zealand
Department of Conservation (DOC; Joseph et al. 2009), and the Tasmanian
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE
2010) have both undertaken this process to determine long term expenditure
and priorities for the management and recovery of threatened species. Whilst
both departments set different goals, they were able to equitably and objectively
quantify the time, effort and cost required to manage threatened species in their
respective jurisdictions. With a given funding over a set period of time, those
departments can now use their budgets to most effectively achieve their goals.
The set of steps (Table 3) undertaken for this action plan is adapted from
the prioritisation protocol (Joseph et al. 2009), with the omission of explicit
prioritisation elements.
The nature of the goal and objectives to be used for the species in this action plan
were discussed at length during several workshops involving experts in strategic
planning and macropod recovery. Once it was decided that the common goal
should be down-listing on the IUCN Red List, and the objectives for recovery of
each species should be based on the IUCN criteria (IUCN 2001), spreadsheets
containing a list of questions (outlined below) were distributed via email to
experts. We endeavoured to ensure that all people with knowledge about the
conservation needs of Australian macropod species were consulted and had an
opportunity to provide information and comment on drafts.
We asked relevant experts to provide information about the requirements
for down-listing each species over the next 10 years. Some difficulties were
encountered in the high degree of variability in content of expert input. However,
these inputs were able to be combined across species to ensure that a consistent
framework was in place to achieve objective and quantifiable recovery according
to the IUCN criteria for threatened species (IUCN 2001).
A draft action plan was then circulated to all experts for review, and comments
received were incorporated before finalisation of this action plan.
31
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 3: Summary of the steps undertaken in collecting information for this action plan.
Step 1: Define goal and objectives.
Step 2: List biodiversity assets: Identify the assets of interest, in this case threatened macropods.
Step 3: List management projects: Identify the set of feasible projects that achieve the goal.
Step 4: Provide rationale for proposed activities: Justify the need for each activity in achieving the goal.
Step 5: Estimate cost: Calculate the costs of each project.
Step 1: Define The Goal
To optimally allocate resources among projects for the management of the
threatened macropods of Australia, it is essential to clearly state the goal of the
conservation program (Possingham et al. 2001; Sanderson 2006). An appropriate
goal may be to maximise the persistence of the greatest number of macropod
species over the next 100 years. Alternatively, the goal may be to maximise the
number of species that have 10% of their original range or greater than 5,000
individuals (which ever is larger) in the next 50 years. The time frame and
population targets are crucial in this regard, and will influence the total cost of
management projects. Therefore, the first step of this project was to properly
formulate the goal of each macropod recovery project.
For the purposes of this Action Plan, the overall goal was to achieve eligibility for
down-listing of all threatened and near threatened Australian macropods on the
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2010) within ten years, while the
objectives for each species addressed the specific criteria by which each species
was listed during the Global Mammal Assessment in 2008 (IUCN 2010) (see
Section 4 – Action Plan Framework).
Step 2: List Biodiversity Assets
The second step listed the biodiversity assets that require conservation attention.
For the purposes of this Action Plan, species were selected on the basis
of their status on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2010).
Australian species belonging to the families Macropodidae, Potoroidae and
Hypsiprymnodontidae listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable,
Near Threatened or Data Deficient were included (see Section 4 – Action Plan
Framework for the rationale behind this decision).
Step 3: List Management Projects
Experts were asked to design an appropriate project for each species. A project is
the minimum set of all necessary actions for meeting the pre-defined goal. Experts
were asked to provide a list of actions that, if undertaken in full, would result in
the achievement of the goal (down-listing within 10 years) with 95% confidence.
Thus for a near threatened species suspected to be facing a range of possible
threats, in a remote area far from human habitation, the project would require
dedicated research to establish the nature and intensity of those threats, but would
unlikely require dedicated community involvement in the recovery process.
Experts were required to clearly describe a precise location, and frequency,
intensity and duration of management, for each action. In many cases, particularly
for species whose distributions are poorly known, locations will need to be
confirmed during future status assessments. For those species requiring the
establishment of additional subpopulations in order to meet the requirements of
down-listing, suitable areas of habitat may need to be identified and secured before
this can occur.
32
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
A caveat: data for the frequency, intensity and duration of each activity have in
most instances been estimated. While attempts were made to base these estimates
on knowledge or experience of similar activities, it was often difficult to make
accurate estimates. These estimates should be discussed in detail by the relevant
recovery teams and other agencies responsible for the implementation of this plan.
Step 4: Provide Rationale for the Proposed Activities
For every action proposed, a rationale for its execution was sought, to ensure that
the action is directly relevant to the goal of down-listing, and the stated objectives
of recovery.
Step 5: Estimate Cost
The fifth step was to estimate the cost of each project. Costs include all future
outlays. Past outlays, such as the cost of building captive breeding facilities that
are now available for use, were not considered. Costs were estimated by experts
by drawing on information of past experiences and future projections. Again,
most costs are rough estimates, and will require detailed assessment by recovery
teams and other agencies to confirm full project costs. The cost of some activities,
such as the implementation of appropriate fire management across large areas, has
been very broadly estimated, such that corrections of one order of magnitude may
be necessary.
Several costs were not incorporated in project budgets. These included car
travel (purchase, fuel and running costs, food and accommodation) and project
management (all aspects of salaries, super, the costs of running an office, including
computers, software, administration, and human resources). Importantly, each
project was assigned a budget for status assessment (distribution, abundance,
genetics), data management, and dedicated monitoring programs. These activities
were considered essential in achieving down-listing within ten years, yet are often
the most poorly neglected activities of existing recovery programs.
Costs have been estimated independently for each species, and do not account for
potential savings where actions in one location will benefit multiple species. The
rationale for this is that projects must be undertaken in full in order to achieve
the recovery goal. If only some activities are conducted for a species, it is unlikely
that the goal will be achieved within the specified time, and the species status may
decline even further as a result.
For those recovery projects with species across multiple States and Territories,
or with highly complex recovery requirements, the cost of a dedicated recovery
program coordinator was incorporated into project costs (Table 4).
33
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 4: Projects with dedicated recovery coordinator salary built in to project cost.
Species
Threat Status
Project Cost ($millions)
Woylie
Critically Endangered
$19 million
Northern bettong Endangered
$22 million
Black-footed rock wallaby
Near Threatened
$27 million
Brush-tailed rock wallaby
Near Threatened
$31 million
Yellow-footed rock wallaby
Near Threatened
$20 million
Long-footed potoroo
Endangered
$20 million
Quokka
Vulnerable
$24 million
Species that would also benefit from recovery coordination
Boodie
Near Threatened
$18 million
Rufous hare-wallaby
Vulnerable
$17 million
Banded hare-wallaby
Endangered
$19 million
A dedicated project manager will most likely be required to coordinate recovery
for the group of macropods that co-occur on the islands off the Western Australian
coast, including the boodie, rufous hare-wallaby, and banded hare-wallaby
(combined project cost approximately $54 million11). These 10 species projects
are the most expensive recovery projects in this action plan, each with a total cost
exceeding $15 million (Table 4).
Where costs have been estimated in the first year, costs for subsequent years were
increased by 3% each year to account for the estimated rise in consumer price
index (CPI) as a proxy for inflation.
Gilbert’s potoroo (Potorous gilbertii). © Jiri Lochman/Lochman Transparencies
Summed costs for each project have been rounded down to the nearest thousand
dollars to avoid the appearance of highly precise estimates of the cost of recovery.
11 It is important to note that costs of each species project do not account for shared costs that will provide savings when undertaking common activities for multiple
species at the same location.
34
Black wallaroo (Macropus bernardus). © Belinda Wright-Oxford Scientific Films/AUSCAPE
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
35
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
6.Results
This Action Plan lists recovery projects for two
species listed as critically endangered (CR), five as
endangered (EN), two as vulnerable (VU), one as
data deficient (DD), and eleven as near threatened
(NT). There are an additional 29 Australian species
listed as least concern (LC) on the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (IUCN 2010). These species are
not included in this plan.
The proportion of threatened macropod species (CR + EN + VU) of the total
number of extant Australian macropods (50) is 18%. When near threatened and
data deficient species (NT + DD) are included, this proportion rises to 42%.
Nabarlek (Petrogale concinna). © Jiri Lochman/Lochman Transparencies
The total budget required to down-list all 21 Australian macropods listed
as threatened, near threatened or data deficient on the IUCN Red List is
approximately $290 million over 10 years (Table 5). Bennett’s tree kangaroo,
listed as near threatened, is the least expensive project at about $2.5 million,
while the brush-tailed rock wallaby, also listed as near threatened, is the most
expensive project at over $31 million (Table 5).
36
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 5: List of threatened macropod recovery projects in order of their affordability.
Order of
Scientific Name
Common Name
Affordability
IUCN
Status
Cost of Down-Listing*
(2011 - 2021)
1
Dendrolagus bennettianus Bennett’s Tree Kangaroo
NT
$
2,557,000
2
Macropus bernardus
Black Wallaroo
NT
$
2,773,000
3
Petrogale sharmani
Mount Claro Rock Wallaby
NT
$
3,753,000
4
Petrogale burbidgei
Monjon
NT
$
3,834,000
5
Petrogale concinna
Nabarlek
DD
$
3,891,000
6
Petrogale coenensis
Cape York Rock Wallaby
NT
$
4,243,000
7
Bettongia gaimardi
Tasmanian Bettong
NT
$
5,845,000
8
Macropus parma
Parma Wallaby
NT
$
9,189,000
9
Petrogale persephone
Proserpine Rock Wallaby
EN
$
10,109,000
10
Onychogalea fraenata
Bridled Nailtail Wallaby
EN
$
11,106,000
11
Potorous gilbertii
Gilbert’s Potoroo
CR
$
14,390,000
12
Lagorchestes hirsutus
Rufous Hare-Wallaby
VU
$
17,270,000
13
Bettongia lesueur
Boodie
NT
$
17,924,000
14
Bettongia penicillata
Woylie
CR
$
18,862,000
15
Lagostrophus fasciatus
Banded Hare-Wallaby
EN
$
19,291,000
16
Potorous longipes
Long-Footed Potoroo
EN
$
19,808,000
17
Petrogale xanthopus
Yellow-Footed Rock Wallaby
NT
$
20,031,000
18
Bettongia tropica
Northern Bettong
EN
$
22,603,000
19
Setonix brachyurus
Quokka
VU
$
23,862,000
20
Petrogale lateralis
Black-Footed Rock Wallaby
NT
$
27,241,000
21
Petrogale penicillata
Brush-Tailed Rock Wallaby
NT
$
31,454,000
TOTAL: $ 290,036,000
*Costs have been rounded down to the nearest $1000.
Table 6: Average cost of down-listing by IUCN threat rating
Threat Category
Average
Project Cost*
All
$13,811,000
Near Threatened
$
Near Threatened and Data Deficient
$ 11,061,000
Vulnerable
$20,566,000
Endangered
$16,583,000
Critically Endangered
$ 16,626,000
11,713,000
*Costs have been rounded down to the nearest $1000.
The average cost of down-listing all 21 species is around $13.8 million per species
over 10 years, while for a threatened species (CR, EN or VU), the average is around
$16.5-20.5 million (Table 6). For near threatened species, this figure drops, with an
average cost of about $11.7 million. This makes logical sense, since for near threatened
species there may be less intensive threats to mitigate, and perhaps more investment
37
Quokka (Setonix brachyurus). © Jurgen Otto/ANTPhoto.com.au
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
38
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
required for research questions than for complex on-ground recovery actions. Despite
this, there remain some significant project costs for several species that are near
threatened, particularly those that are close to qualifying for vulnerable due to low
area of occupancy, low extent of occurrence, or low estimates of total numbers in the
species, and those that occur across many distinct subpopulations. Such conditions
warrant recovery efforts that may incur significant costs, including management
across large areas, securing or restoring habitat, and translocation. Recovery projects
for the black-footed and the brush-tailed rock wallabies are good examples of
expensive projects for near threatened species (Table 5). In the case of the black-footed
rock wallaby, the species includes five taxa with quite different conservation issues.
Further work will be required to ensure recovery efforts are targeted for optimum
outcomes and most efficient use of resources.
If projects are prioritised based on cost, with a nominal 10-year total recovery budget
of, say, $10 million, three projects could be funded in their entirety: Bennett’s tree
kangaroo, black wallaroo, and Mount Claro rock wallaby (Table 5 & Table 7). With
a total macropod recovery budget of $50 million, an additional six species could be
down-listed within the same time frame (Table 7). Figure 1 shows the cumulative
cost of all projects. The change in the gradient of the curve after the first seven
projects reflects the significant costs of the remaining projects, each greater than
$9 million dollars over 10 years. This analysis on the basis of cost alone is limited to
an assessment of that single factor. No account is made here (Table 7 and Figure 1) of
conservation status, nature of threats, or recovery actions required.
Table 7: Number of species projects that could be funded under nominal recovery budgets to achieve
down-listing on the IUCN Red List within 10 years if projects are prioritised based on cost.
Budget (10 years)
Number of macropod projects funded
3
$20 million
5
$50 million
9
$100 million
12
$250 million
19
$300 million
21
Number of Macropod Projects
$10 million
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
Budget
Figure 1: Number of macropod recovery projects undertaken by spending budgets up to $300 million
over 10 years.
39
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Brush-Tailed Rock Wallaby
Black-Footed Rock Wallaby
Quokka
Northen Bettong
Yellow-Footed Potoroo
Long-Footed Potoroo
Banded Hare-Wallaby
Woylie
Species
Boodie
Rufous Hare-Wallaby
Gilbert’s Potoroo
Bridled Nailtail Wallaby
Proserpine Rock Wallaby
Critically
Endangered
Parma Wallaby
Tasmanian Bettong
Endangered
Cape York Rock Wallaby
Vulnerable
Nabarlek
Data Deficient
Monjon
Near Threatened
Mount Claro Rock Wallaby
Black Wallaroo
Bennett’s Tree Kangaroo
$0
$5,000000
$10,000000
$15,000000
$20,000000
$25,000000
$30,000000
$35,000000
Project Cost
Figure 2: R
anked cost of macropod recovery projects. Colours indicate current threat status (IUCN 2010).
There is little discernible pattern of cost of recovery versus threat status (Figure
2). The four least expensive and the two most expensive projects are for near
threatened species, while the critically endangered species fall towards the centre
of the cost distribution. Endangered and vulnerable species all fall above the
$10 million mark, but are not necessarily the most expensive recovery projects.
Thus threat status is not a reasonable predictor of recovery cost for Australian
macropods. Costs are more closely aligned to the nature of the threats affecting
a species, how broad and remote the geographic distribution of the species, the
number of subpopulations requiring management, and whether establishment
of new subpopulations is required.
When the total cost of the action plan is categorised according to management
actions (see Conservation Measures Partnership 2011, and Appendix 3), we see that
the greatest cost is for control of invasive or problematic species, accounting for
almost 37% of the total of $290 million (Table 8). The third highest cost, species
recovery, includes activities such as the construction of fenced sanctuaries and
their ongoing management. Such activities are essential for many of the mediumsized species such as the boodie and the woylie. Fire management falls under
category 2.3, habitat and natural process restoration, and accounts for more than
12% of the total cost of all recovery projects (Table 8). A significant proportion
of the total estimated funds ($82 million, or 28%) contributes to a broad range
of actions including status and genetic assessments, monitoring of species and
threats, data management and research. For many species, particularly those
listed as near threatened or data deficient, research and monitoring are critical
to determine the appropriate management actions for recovery. Furthermore,
status assessments will be required to demonstrate eligibility for down-listing,
and genetic surveys are required to fulfil the objective of maintaining known
genetic diversity in the species.
40
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 8: Cost of all 21 macropod projects by category of management activity (Conservation Measures
Partnership 2011). For explanations of the categories, see Appendix 3.
Category
Management Action
Cost*
Percent of Total
2.2
Invasive Species Control
$ 112,336,000
38.73
8
Research, Monitoring and Management
$ 82,267,000
28.36
3.2
Species Recovery
$ 35,122,000
12.11
2.3
Habitat and Natural Process Restoration
$ 32,271,000
11.13
6.4
Conservation Payments
$
14,341,000
4.94
1.1
Site/Area Protection
$
3,677,000
1.27
3.4
Ex-situ Conservation
$
3,439,000
1.19
3.3
Species Reintroduction
$
2,728,000
0.94
3.1
Species Management
$
2,678,000
0.92
2.1
Site/Area Management
$
964,000
0.33
4.3
Awareness and Communications
$
183,000
0.06
5.2
Policies and Regulations
$
30,000
0.01
$ 290,036,000
100
Total
*Costs have been rounded down to the nearest $1000.
When species are grouped by IUCN threat category, the most costly category of
management action, on average, is Invasive Species Control (Table 9). This is the
case regardless of threat category.
Table 9: Most costly category of management action by IUCN threat category, and the combined costs of
those actions.
Threat Category
Most Costly Category
Combined Cost* Average Cost
of Management Action
per Species*
Near Threatened and Data Deficient Species 2.2 – Invasive Species Control $ 58,508,000 $ 4,875,000
Vulnerable Species
2.2 – Invasive Species Control $ 12,696,000 $ 6,348,000
Endangered Species
2.2 – Invasive Species Control $ 28,282,000 $ 5,656,000
Critically Endangered Species
2.2 – Invasive Species Control $ 12,852,000 $ 6,426,000
*Costs have been rounded down to the nearest $1000.
When we explore the most costly category of action for each species (Table 10), we
see that control and eradication programs for feral and invasive species are the
most costly element for 10 of the 21 species. The establishment and management of
secure enclosures is the most costly element for the boodie, rufous hare-wallaby,
and banded hare-wallaby, which all occur on various islands off the west coast
of Western Australia, as well as within enclosures on the mainland. These are all
relatively small species that have been particularly susceptible to predation by
feral animals such as foxes and cats, and are unlikely to survive outside enclosures
without intense and ongoing feral control programs. For six species, monitoring
of species and threats is the most costly element of their respective recovery
programs. These costs fall between 27 and 38% of project costs, while feral control
programs, where they represent the greatest cost in a recovery program, range
from 35 to 66% of project costs.
41
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 10: Most costly category of management action for each species, showing percentage of total project cost,
and the relevant actions contributing to those costs.
Species
Category
Relevant Actions
Brush-tailed rock wallaby
2.2 Invasive/problematic
66
species control
Feral eradication and
management
Black-footed rock wallaby
2.2 Invasive/problematic
60
species control
Feral eradication and
management
Banded hare-wallaby
3.2 Species Recovery
56
Establishment of secure enclosures, Disease management, Enclosure management
Yellow-footed rock wallaby
2.2 Invasive/problematic
species control
56
Feral eradication and management
Parma wallaby
2.2 Invasive/problematic
species control
50
Feral eradication and management
Long-footed potoroo
2.2 Invasive/problematic
species control
49
Feral eradication and management
Tasmanian bettong
6.4 Conservation Payments 47
Landholder engagement, Incentive payments for grazing management
Rufous hare-wallaby
3.2 Species Recovery
46
Establishment of secure enclosures, Disease management, Enclosure management
Bridled nailtail wallaby
2.2 Invasive/problematic
species control
45
Feral eradication and management
Gilbert’s potoroo
2.2 Invasive/problematic
species control
43
Feral eradication and management
Quokka
2.2 Invasive/problematic
species control
41
Feral eradication and management
Black wallaroo
8.9 Trends/monitoring
41
Establishment of secure enclosures, Disease management, Enclosure management
Boodie
3.2 Species Recovery
40
Forest rehabilitation
Bennett’s tree kangaroo
2.3 Habitat and natural
process management
40
Feral eradication and management
Northern bettong
2.2 Invasive/problematic
38
Monitoring of species, Monitoring
of threats
Woylie
Feral eradication and management
2.2 Invasive/problematic
species control
35
Proserpine rock wallaby
8.9 Trends/monitoring
35
Monitoring of species, Monitoring
of threats
Mount Claro rock wallaby
8.9 Trends/monitoring
30
Monitoring of species, Monitoring
of threats
Monjon
8.9 Trends/monitoring
29
Monitoring of species, Monitoring
of threats
Nabarlek
8.9 Trends/monitoring
29
Monitoring of species, Monitoring
of threats
Cape York rock wallaby
8.9 Trends/monitoring
27
Monitoring of species, Monitoring
of threats
*Percentages have been rounded to the nearest integer.
42
Percentage of Total Project Cost*
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
7.Discussion
The general failure of species recovery processes to
achieve down-listing in threat status for macropods
over the last 15 years highlights the importance of
immediate, comprehensive and fully-funded action to
secure all species and their habitat. Of course downlisting is not the ultimate goal, but a stepping-stone
on the way to listing as Least Concern. For many
species, full recovery to their historical abundance
and distribution will simply not be possible. While this action plan focuses only on
macropods, the plan itself is a strong recommendation that conservation expenditure
requirements be made explicit for all threatened species. Rather than deciding how
to spend a very limited budget on a large set of problems, this action plan calls for a
radical increase in environmental expenditure, based on a careful analysis of the most
effective actions.
The total cost of $290 million over 10 years to undertake all 21 macropod recovery
projects at first glance appears high, particularly given government expenditure
on the national estate and environmental protection. In the 2010-11 financial year,
$310 million was allocated to the national estate and parks, and $867 million was
allocated to environment protection, a total of $1.177 billion (Australian Government
2010). Compare this to $21 billion for defence, or $3.2 billion for recreation and culture
in
the same financial year.
If were we to apply the same process to every species listed as threatened on the
Australian Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
(EPBC) Act, the sum would likely be far higher. This is not outside the realm of
possibility however, and this action plan serves as a strong argument to invest
in more strategic, equitable, comparable and measurable recovery planning
and implementation.
When using the Project Prioritisation Protocol (Joseph et al. 2009) for threatened
species in New Zealand, the Department of Conservation defined their goal as “to
improve the security of the greatest possible number of unique species”. Through
implementing the PPP, it was determined that the full cost for “securing” 680 species
over a period of 50 years was $90 million in the first year, and this dropped off
significantly after the first three years once the initial setup costs were met. This list
included species such as small flowering plants and invertebrates, many of which
have fewer and less costly recovery requirements compared to large vertebrates, and
indicates that macropods may be at the “expensive” end of any list that incorporates
all nationally threatened species in Australia.
It is important to reiterate that the recovery projects listed in this action plan will
not lead to listing as Least Concern, except in the case of the near threatened species.
Full down-listing for species currently listed as critically endangered, endangered
or vulnerable could take decades, and substantial investment of funds and effort,
although critical actions taken early may lead to delisting in the longer term without
significant increased expenditure.
This action plan highlights the financial investment required to successfully down-list
threatened species, yet does not begin to count the cost of recovering the biodiversity
in Australian landscapes from the pressures that humans have applied over the
last two centuries. The state of threatened macropods today, and indeed of most
threatened species and ecosystems in Australia, is a direct result of human influence.
Introduced species, land clearing and degradation, and altered fire patterns have
proven powerful forces in changing the nature of our environment. Many native
43
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
species have not been successful in adapting to this changed environment, resulting in
more than 100 extinctions since European settlement, and at least 1600 native species
being listed as threatened by the Australian Government (DSEWPAC 2011). Climate
change, relatively low and diminishing expenditure on environmental management,
increasing human population pressures, and failures of environmental policies and
regulations will surely contribute to this problem in the future.
The rationale of this action plan is based on the assertion that in order to recover a
species, the full suite of recovery actions prescribed should be undertaken. Experts
have recommended a suite of actions that, if undertaken in full, would likely result
in the achievement of the project goal: eligibility for down-listing within 10 years.
Without substantial use of population models incorporating Bayesian analysis of
recovery actions, followed by intensive monitoring and adaptive management, it will
be difficult to determine the efficacy of only undertaking part of a prescribed recovery
program. To undertake only a portion of these actions is to invite failure.
The recovery planning process across this group of species, including the elicitation of
specific actions for each location, highlights critical gaps in our knowledge, as well as
gaps in management effectiveness. For instance, there are obvious gaps in knowledge
about the status and distribution of many macropod species, as well as knowledge gaps
in the nature and severity of threats, particularly fire.
The data collected are also useful in highlighting management actions which are most
commonly required for the recovery of threatened macropods. Nineteen of the 21
recovery projects include introduced predator control. The two projects for which this
action is unnecessary (Dendrolagus bennettianus and Macropus bernardus) are in
fact the two least expensive projects. The prevalent requirement for fox and cat control
in this action plan indicates that predation by introduced animals requires renewed
investment and research if we are to successfully address this problem, not only for
threatened macropods, but for a very broad range of native animals that face the
same threat.
In an analysis by Taylor and Booth (2008) it was found that for threatened species
recognised as habitat-constrained, only 67% of recovery plans for those species
prescribed new protected areas as a recovery action. For the macropod action
plan, protection of new areas of habitat is only explicit in eight12 of the 21 projects.
However, it is clear from their reasons for listing that for most macropods there are
far more pressing threats that must be dealt with to achieve down-listing within 10
years. Predation, competition and altered fire patterns are key. Furthermore, several
macropods will require the establishment of new subpopulations if they are to meet
the criteria for down-listing. For several species, there are explicit actions to identify
suitable areas of habitat for future expansion or translocation. Greater emphasis on
these actions will be required in the future as climate and habitats change, and as
human developments continue to encroach on wildlife. To be sure, new protected areas
will need to be established to achieve the long-term vision of all macropods thriving
in the wild, but that approach has not been the focus of this action plan. As Taylor and
Booth (2008) conclude, caution should be taken in using threatened species as a basis
for prioritisation of reserve system growth generally, due to the biased and incomplete
nature of species level data. Ecosystem diversity sampling targets as presently used
should remain the main guide for reserve system growth. Suffice to say that more
protected areas will be needed in concert with drastic threat abatement if we are to
ensure a long legacy of healthy habitats and thriving native species.
This action plan outlines complete recovery projects to meet the goal of down-listing
each threatened species. The actions suggested for each recovery project are the
minimum set of actions required to secure the species. None of the actions is obsolete,
therefore if any of the actions are not funded, the species is unlikely to achieve its goal.
For this reason, this action plan does not provide guidance on the relative importance
of individual actions within projects.
12 Tasmanian bettong, Bennett’s tree kangaroo, Parma wallaby, Monjon, Cape York rock wallaby, Proserpine rock wallaby, Mount Claro rock wallaby, and Longfooted potoroo.
44
Bennett’s tree kangaroo (Dendrolagus bennettianus). © Martin Harvey/WWF-Canon
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
45
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Conclusion and
Recommendations
Little progress has been
made over the last 15
years to recover some
of Australia’s most
iconic species. The
status of macropods in
Australia can be seen as
an indicator of systemic
environmental problems
that conspire against
recovery efforts. No less
than dedicated, fully-funded threatened species recovery projects are required to
overcome these problems, and this action plan shows that while the costs are not
insignificant, the necessary actions are clear.
The framework of this action plan provides a systematic, transparent, repeatable
and objective method for articulating recovery projects to achieve the given goal;
in this case, to down-list threatened macropods on the IUCN Red List within 10
years. Clearly stating the steps used to make decisions presents an opportunity
to scrutinise and improve the decision-making process; initiates a forum for the
explicit examination of management principles and limitations, including the
development of unambiguous working objectives; and reveals knowledge gaps and
uncertainty in the system. Consequently, the number of species managed and the
expected overall benefit to threatened macropods may be increased substantially
over business as usual recovery effort.
It is important to reiterate that the costs outlined in this action plan are indicative
only, and may be subject to substantial changes once more detailed analysis
is undertaken by relevant recovery teams. Of course, costs may also decrease
significantly, particularly where several species with the same conservation
requirements occur at the same location.
The results of this action plan suggest that for greatest efficiency in the allocation
of resources to species conservation, governments need to make explicit decisions
about their objectives. As McCarthy et al. (2008) point out, this is at best simply
implied in legislation, and is usually ambiguous in either statutes or policy. As a
result, recovery decisions are often made not with a strategy for achieving longterm goals or objectives, but rather for satisfying short-term needs or solving
immediate problems. Moreover, the allocation of ultimately limited resources
should also be undertaken in a considered and objective way across all species,
not piecemeal across various levels of management as is the case for most
recovery processes.
46
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Future Recommendations
Regular review
Five-yearly reviews have been built in to each recovery project, in light of progress
and new information. It is possible that without any management intervention,
species not currently threatened may become threatened and species that are
threatened will decline further. In order to achieve the vision of this action plan,
all species of macropods must be considered, and protected from extinction.
Confidence levels
Experts could be asked to provide confidence levels when determining actions
for recovery, as well as their likelihood of success. This would allow for improved
sensitivity analyses of recommendations in future iterations of this plan and others
that follow.
More detailed expert input
This is a high-level document that seeks to synthesise the recovery actions for
21 species of Australian macropods. To implement these plans, more detailed
elaboration is required, in concert with the recovery team (where one exists), the
State Government(s) and other agencies that have principal responsibility for
species management, and the latest recovery plans.
While we received many comments on this action plan, there were many experts
who made no contribution. If there are large errors in our estimates, we welcome
any input that will strengthen this document as a blueprint for the conservation
and recovery of threatened Australian macropods.
Long-footed potoroo (Potorous longipes). © Dave Watts/ANTPhoto.com.au
47
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
9.References
Algar, D, and Burrows, ND (2004) Feral cat control research: Western Shield
review – February 2003. Conservation Science Western Australia 5(2):
131-163.
Australian Dingo Conservation Association (2008) Objectives of the Australian Dingo Conservation Association. www.dingoconservation.com, accessed
27 May 2010.
Australian Government (2010) Budget Overview 2010-11. Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra. www.budget.gov.au, accessed March 15 2011.
Australian Wildlife Conservancy (2009) AWC wins Biodiversity Award for
protecting the endangered Woylie. www.australianwildlife.org, accessed
20 June 2010.
Balmford, A, Gaston, KJ, Blyth, S, James, A and Kapos, V (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs,
conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 100: 1046-1050.
Bowman, DMJS (1998) The impact of Aboriginal landscape burning on the Australian biota. New Phytologist 140(3):
385-410.
Bowman, DMJS, Garde, M, and Saulwick, A, (2001) Kunj-ken makka man-wurrk, Fire is for kangaroos: interpreting
Aboriginal accounts of landscape burning in central Arnhem Land. In: Histories of Old Ages, Essays in honour of Rhys
Jones. (ed. O’Connor, S). Pandanus Books, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University,
Canberra.
Burbidge, AA, McKenzie, NL (1989) Patterns in the modern decline of Western Australia’s vertebrate fauna: causes and
conservation implications. Biological Conservation 50, 143–198.
Burbidge, AA, McKenzie, NL, Brennan, KEC, Woinarski, JCZ, Dickman, CR, Baynes, A, Gordon, G, Menkhorst, PW and
Robinson, AC (2009) Conservation status and biogeography of Australia’s terrestrial mammals. Australian Journal of
Zoology 56, 411-422.
Claridge, AW, and Hunt, R (2008) Evaluating the role of the dingo as a trophic regulator: Additional practical suggestions.
Ecological Management and Restoration 9(2): 116-119.
Conservation Measures Partnership (2011) Conservation Actions Taxonomy. http://www.conservationmeasures.org/
initiatives/threats-actions-taxonomies/actions-taxonomy, accessed March 15 2011.
Daniels, MJ and Corbett, L (2003) Redefining introgressed protected mammals: When is a wildcat a wild cat and a dingo
a wild dog? Wildlife Research 30, 213–218.
Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM, Queensland) (2009) National recovery plan for the
northern bettong Bettongia tropica. Report to Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Department of Environment and Resource Management, Brisbane.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008a) Threat abatement plan for competition
and land degradation by rabbits. DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008c) Background to the threat abatement plan
for competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats. DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010a) Feral animals in Australia.
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/ferals, accessed 28 May 2010.
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010b) A bait efficacy trial for the management of
cats on Christmas Island. Technical Report Series 200. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/
cat-bait-christmas-island.html, accessed 1 June 2010.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010c) Setonix brachyurus in Species Profile
and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
www.environment.gov.au/sprat, accessed 1 June 2010.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010d) Background information – Commercial
kangaroo and wallaby harvest quotas. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/publications/kangaroo/
quotas-background.html, accessed 22 June 2010.
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPIF, Queensland) (2007) Feral pig control in the Wet Tropics.
www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosecurity_EnvironmentalPests/IPA-Feral-Pigs-Tropics-PA8.pdf, accessed 1 June 2010.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE, Tasmania) (2010) Prioritisation of threatened
flora and fauna recovery actions for the Tasmanian NRM regions. Nature Conservation Report 10/03. DPIPWE, Hobart.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) (2011) Species Profile and
Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. www.
environment.gov.au/sprat, accessed 15 March 2011.
Eldridge, MDB (compiler) (1997) Rock-Wallaby Conservation: Essential data and management priorities. Proceedings
of the 1994 national rock-wallaby symposium workshops. Australian Mammalogy 19: 325-330.
Fisher, DO, Blomberg, SP, and Hoyle, SD (2000) Mechanisms of drought-induced population decline in an endangered
wallaby. Biological Conservation 102: 107-115.
Fitzgerald, G, Fitzgerald, N and Davidson, C (2007) Public attitudes towards invasive animals and their impacts.
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.
Fleming P, Corbett, L, Harden R and Thomson, P (2001) Managing the Impacts of Dingoes and Other Wild Dogs.
Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, ACT.
Garnett, S, Crowley, G and Balmford, A (2003) The costs and effectiveness of funding the conservation of Australian
threatened birds. Bioscience 53(7): 658-665.
Garnett, ST, McCarthy, MA, and Thompson, CJ (2008) Optimal investment in conservation of species. Journal of Applied
Ecology 45: 1428-1435.
48
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Geoscience Australia (2000) Landsat 7 Picture Mosaic of Australia.
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Higginbottom, K, Northrope, CL, Croft, DB, Hill, B and Fredline, E (2004) The
role of kangaroos in Australian tourism. Australian Mammalogy 26: 23-32.
Holden, C and Mutze, G (2002) Impact of rabbit haemorrhagic disease on
introduced predators in the Flinders Ranges, South Australia. Wildlife Research 29: 615–626.
Invasive Animal CRC (2010) The feral pig. www.invasiveanimals.com,
accessed 1 June 2010.
IUCN (2001) Categories and Criteria (version 3.1). http://www.iucnredlist.org/
static/categories_criteria_3_1, accessed 15 November 2010.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.4.
www.iucnredlist.org, accessed 10 March 2011.
James, A, Gaston, KJ, and Balmford, A (2001) Can we afford to conserve
biodiversity? BioScience 51: 43-52.
Johnson CN (2006) Australia’s Mammal Extinctions: A 50,000 Year History.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Johnson CN, Isaac, JL and Fisher, DO (2007) Rarity of a top predator triggers
continent-wide collapse of mammal prey: dingoes and marsupials in Australia.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 274: 341–346.
Joseph, LN, Maloney, RF, O’Connor, SM, Cromarty, P, Jansen, P, Stephens,
T and Possingham, HP (2008) Improving methods for allocating resources
among threatened species: the case for a new national approach in
New Zealand. Pacific Conservation Biology. 14: 154-158
Joseph, LN, Maloney, RF, and Possingham, HP (2009) Optimal allocation of
resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. Conservation Biology 23: 328-338.
Kinnear, JE, Krebs, CJ, Pentland C, Orell, P, Holme, C and Karvinen, R (2010)
Predator-baiting experiments for the conservation of rock-wallabies in Western
Australia: a 25-year review with recent advances. Wildlife Research 37: 37-57.
Kennedy, M (1992) Australasian marsupials and monotremes: an action plan for
their conservation. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, Gland.
Langford D and Burbidge AA (2001) Translocation of mala from the Tanami
Desert, Northern Territory to Trimouille Island, Western Australia. Australian
Mammalogy 23, 37-46.
Laurance, WF (1997) A distributional survey and habitat model for the
endangered northern bettong Bettongia tropica in Tropical Queensland.
Biological Conservation 82: 47-60.
Letnic M (2007) The impacts of pastoralism on the fauna of arid Australia. In:
Animals of Arid Australia: Out on their Own? (eds. Dickman, CR, Lunney, D and
Burgin, S) pp. 65–75. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney.
Maxwell, S, Burbidge, AA and Morris, K (1996) The 1996 Action Plan for
Australian Marsupials and Monotremes. Wildlife Australia Endangered Species
Program, Canberra.
McCallum, H, Timmers, P and Hoyle, S (1995) Modelling the impact of
predation on reintroductions of bridled nailtail wallabies. Wildlife Research 22:
153-171.
McCarthy, MA, Thompson, CJ, and Garnett, ST (2008) Optimal investment in
conservation of species. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1428-1435.
Metrick, A and Weitzman, ML (1996) Patterns of behavior in endangered
species preservation. Land Economics 7:1-16.
Miller, KL (2010) Future directions for species conservation. KSR Consulting
report for WWF-Australia.
Moseby, KE and Read, JL (2005) The efficacy of feral cat, fox and rabbit
exclusion fence designs for threatened species protection. Biological
Conservation 127: 429-437.
Murray, JV, Low Choy, S, McAlpine, CA, Possingham, HP and Goldizen, AW
(2006) The importance of ecological scale for wildlife conservation in naturally
fragmented environments: A case study of the brush-tailed rock wallaby
(Petrogale penicillata). Biological Conservation 141: 7-22.
National Kangaroo Protection Coalition (2009) Kangaroo culling, Australia’s
Dirty Secret! www.kangaroo-protection-coalition.com, accessed 15 May 2010.
Newsome, AE, Catling, PC, Cooke, BD and Smyth, R (2001) Two ecological
universes separated by the dingo fence in semi-arid Australia: interactions
between landscapes, herbivory and carnivory, with and without dingoes.
The Rangeland Journal 23: 71–98.
Newspoll, 2010. Importance of and best party to handle major issues,
17-02-2010. www.newspoll.com.au, accessed 14 March 2011.
Pannell, DJ, Roberts, AM, Park, G, Curatolo, A, Marsh, S and Alexander,
J (2009) INFFER (Investment Framework For Environmental Resources),
INFFER Working Paper 0901, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Possingham, HP, Andelman, SJ, Noon, BR, Trombulak, S and Pulliam, HR
(2001) Making smart conservation decisions. Pages 225-244 in Soule, ME
and Orians, GH (eds.) Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for the Next
Decade. Island Press, Washington.
Robley, AJ, Short, J and Bradley, S (2001) Dietary overlap between the burrowing bettong (Bettongia lesueur) and the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in semi-arid coastal Western Australia. Wildlife Research 28(4): 341-349.
Russell-Smith, J, Craig, R, Gill, AM, Smith, R and Williams, J (2002)
Australia State of the Environment Second Technical Paper Series
(Biodiversity), Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
www.ea.gov.au/soe/techpapers/index.html, accessed 3 June 2010.
Salafsky, N, Salzer, A, Stattersfiel, C, Hilton-Taylor, R and Neugarten, S (2008)
A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified classifications of
threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22: 897-911.
Sanderson, EW (2006) How many animals do we want to save? The many ways
of setting population target levels for conservation. BioScience 56: 911-922.
Saunders, GR, Gentle, MN and Dickman, CR (2010) The impacts and
management of foxes Vulpes vulpes in Australia. Mammal Review 40: 181-211.
Short, J, Bradshaw, SD, Giles, J, Prince, RIT and Wilson, GR (1992)
Reintroduction of macropods (Marsupialia, Macropodoidea) in Australia –
a review. Biological Conservation 62: 189-204.
Short, J and Milkovits, G (1990) Distribution and status of the brush-tailed
rock-wallaby in South-Eastern Australia. Wildlife Research 17: 169–179.
Short, J, and Smith, A (1994) Mammal Decline and Recovery in Australia.
Journal of Mammalogy 75(2): 288-297.
Short, J, and Turner, B (1991) Distribution and abundance of spectacled
hare-wallabies and euros on Barrow Island, Western Australia. Wildlife
Research 18(4): 421-429.
Short, J, and Turner, B (2000) Reintroduction of the burrowing bettong
Bettongia lesueur (Marsupialia: Potoroidae) to mainland Australia. Biological
Conservation 96: 185-196.
Sigg, DP, Goldizen, AW and Pople, AR (2005) The importance of mating
system in translocation programs: reproductive success of released male
bridled nailtail wallabies. Biological Conservation 123: 289-300.
Smith, AP and Quin, DG (1996) Patterns and causes of extinction and decline
in Australian conilurine rodents. Biological Conservation 77: 243–67.
Southgate, R, Paltridge, R, Masters, P and Carthew, S (2007) Bilby distribution
and fire: a test of alternative models of habitat suitability in the Tanami Desert,
Australia. Ecography 30: 759–76.
Steffen, W, Burbidge, A, Hughes, L, Kitching, R, Lindenmayer, D, Musgrave,
W, Stafford Smith, M and Werner, P (2009a) Australia’s Biodiversity and Climate Change: A strategic assessment of the vulnerability of Australia’s
biodiversity to climate change. Summary for Policy Makers. Report to the
NRM Ministerial Council. Department of Climate Change, Canberra.
Steffen, W, Burbidge, A, Hughes, L, Kitching, R, Lindenmayer, D, Musgrave,
W, Stafford Smith, M and Werner, P (2009b) Australia’s Biodiversity and
Climate Change: A strategic assessment of the vulnerability of Australia’s
biodiversity to climate change. Technical synthesis. Report to the NRM
Ministerial Council. Department of Climate Change, Canberra..
Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (2009) Wildlife Tourism:
Challenges, Opportunities and Managing the Future. www.crctourism.com.au,
accessed 27 May 2010.
Taylor, M and Booth, C (2008) Protected area gaps for threatened Australian
animals identified from recovery plans. WWF-Australia, Sydney.
Wallach, AD, Murray, BR and O’Neill, AJO (2008) Can threatened species
survive where the top predator is absent? Biological Conservation 142: 43-52.
Watson, JEM, Bottrill, MC, Walsh, JC, Joseph, LN and Possingham, HP (2010)
Evaluating threatened species recovery planning in Australia. Prepared on
behalf of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts by
the Spatial Ecology Laboratory, University of Queensland. Pp 158.
Watson, JEM, Evans, MC, Carwardine, J, Fuller, RA Joseph, LN, Segan, DB,
Taylor, MF, Fensham, RJ and Possingham, HP (2011) The capacity of Australia’s protected-area system to represent threatened species. Conservation
Biology, 25:324-332.
Zoos South Australia (2010) Conservation Ark, Conservation Programs,
Brush-tailed rock-wallaby. www.zoosa.com.au, accessed 7 June 2010.
49
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
10. Appendices
Appendix 1: Acronyms
Acronyms and abbreviations used in the text
AWC
Australian Wildlife Conservancy
CPIConsumer Price Index
CR Critically Endangered
CRC
Cooperative Research Centre
DD
Data Deficient
DERM
Department of Environment and Resource Management
(Queensland)
DECCW
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water
(New South Wales)
DOC
Department of Conservation (New Zealand)
DPIF
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (Queensland)
DPIPWE
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment
(Tasmania)
DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
(Australia)
DSEWPAC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population
and Communities (Australia)
50
EN
Endangered
EPBC
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
NT
Near Threatened
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PPP
Project Prioritisation Protocol
VU Vulnerable
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund)
Parma wallaby (Macropus parma). © Dave Watts/ANTPhoto.com.au
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
51
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Appendix 2: List of Macropods
List of all extant described macropods in Australia and New Guinea and surrounding islands.
Threat Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
IUCN
Criteria
IUCN
EPBC
Act
Population
Trend
Geographic Location
State
Country *
Aepyprymnus rufescens
Rufous bettong
LC
Unknown
AUS
QLD, NSW
Bettongia gaimardi
Tasmanian bettong
NT
Stable
AUS
TAS
Bettongia lesueur
Boodie, burrowing
bettong
NT
D2
VU
Increasing
AUS
WA, SA, NSW
Bettongia penicillata
Woylie, brush-tailed
bettong
CR
A4be
B1ab(iii,v)
EN
Declining
AUS
WA, SA
Bettongia tropica
Northern bettong
EN
+2ab(iii,v)
EN
Declining
AUS
QLD
Dendrolagus bennettianus
Bennett's tree kangaroo
NT
Stable
AUS
QLD
Dendrolagus dorianus
Doria's tree kangaroo
VU
A3cd
Declining
PNG
Dendrolagus goodfellowi
Goodfellow's tree kangaroo
EN
A2cd
Declining
PNG
Dendrolagus inustus
Grizzled tree kangaroo
VU
A4cd
Declining
PNG, IND
Dendrolagus lumholtzi
Lumholtz's tree
kangaroo
LC
Stable
AUS
Dendrolagus matschiei
Matschie's tree kangaroo
EN
C2a(ii)
Declining
PNG
Dendrolagus mayri
Wondiwoi
CR
D
Unknown
IND
Dendrolagus mbaiso
Dingiso
CR
A2cd
Declining
IND
Dendrolagus notatus
Ifola
EN
A2cd
A2cd+A3cd+
A4cd; B1ab
Declining
PNG
Dendrolagus pulcherrimus
Golden tree kangaroo
CR
(I,ii,iii,iv,v);C1
Declining
IND
Dendrolagus scottae
Tenkile, Scott's tree
kangaroo
EN
A4cd
Declining
PNG
Dendrolagus spadix
Lowland tree kangaroo
LC
Declining
PNG
Dendrolagus stellarum
Seri's tree kangaroo
VU
A2cd
Declining
PNG
Dendrolagus ursinus
Black tree kangaroo
VU
A2cd
Declining
IND
Dorcopsis atrata
Black dorcopsis
CR
B1ab(i,iii)
Declining
PNG
Dorcopsis hageni
White-striped dorcopsis
LC
Stable
PNG, IND
Dorcopsis luctuosa
Grey dorcopsis
VU
Declining
PNG, IND
Dorcopsis muelleri
Brown dorcopsis
LC
Stable
IND
Dorcopsulus macleayi
Macleay's dorcopsis
LC
Stable
PNG
Dorcopsulus vanheurni
Small dorcopsis
NT
Declining
PNG, IND
Hypsiprymnodon
moschatus
Musky rat-kangaroo
LC
Stable
AUS
QLD
Lagorchestes conspicillatus
Spectacled hare-wallaby
LC
Lagorchestes hirsutus
Mala, rufous hare-wallaby
VU
D2
Lagostrophus fasciatus
Banded hare-wallaby
EN
B1ac(iv)+2ac(iv)
Macropus agilis
Agile wallaby
LC
Macropus antilopinus
Antilopine wallaby
Macropus bernardus
Black wallaroo
Macropus dorsalis
Black-striped wallaby
Macropus eugenii
Macropus fuliginosus
A4cd
QLD
VU
Declining
PNG, AUS
QLD, NT, WA
VU - EN
Declining
AUS
WA
VU
Unknown
AUS
WA
Declining
AUS, PNG,
IND
WA, QLD, NT
LC
Declining
AUS
WA, QLD, NT
NT
Unknown
AUS
NT
LC
Declining
AUS
QLD, NSW
Tammar wallaby
LC
Unknown
AUS
WA, SA
Western grey kangaroo
LC
Increasing
AUS
WA, SA, VIC,
NSW, QLD
Macropus giganteus
Eastern grey kangaroo
LC
Stable
AUS
QLD, NSW,
VIC, TAS
Macropus irma
Western brush wallaby
LC
Stable
AUS
WA
Macropus parma
Parma wallaby
NT
Unknown
AUS
QLD, NSW
52
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Threat Status
Scientific Name
Common Name
IUCN
Criteria
IUCN
EPBC
Act
Population
Trend
Geographic Location
State
Country *
Macropus parryi
Whiptail wallaby
LC
Stable
AUS
QLD, NSW
Macropus robustus
Common wallaroo
LC
Stable
AUS
All except TAS
Macropus rufogriseus
Red-necked wallaby
LC
Stable
AUS
QLD, NSW,
VIC, SA, TAS
Macropus rufus
Red kangaroo
LC
Stable
AUS
All except TAS
Onychogalea fraenata
Bridled nailtail wallaby
EN
Stable
AUS
QLD, NSW
Onychogalea unguifera
Northern nailtail wallaby
LC
Unknown
AUS
QLD, NT, WA
Petrogale assimilis
Allied rock wallaby
LC
Stable
AUS
QLD
Petrogale brachyotis
Short-eared rock wallaby
LC
Unknown
AUS
NT WA
Petrogale burbidgei
Monjon
NT
Unknown
AUS
WA
Petrogale coenensis
Cape York rock wallaby
NT
Unknown
AUS
QLD
Petrogale concinna
Nabarlek
DD
Unknown
AUS
NT, WA
Petrogale godmani
Godman's rock wallaby
LC
Stable
AUS
QLD
Petrogale herberti
Herbert's rock wallaby
LC
Unknown
AUS
QLD
Petrogale inornata
Unadorned rock wallaby
LC
Unknown
AUS
QLD
Petrogale lateralis
Black-footed rock wallaby
NT
Declining
AUS
NT, SA, WA
Petrogale mareeba
Mareeba rock wallaby
LC
Petrogale penicillata
Brush-tailed rock wallaby
NT
Petrogale persephone
Proserpine rock wallaby
EN
Petrogale purpureicollis
Purple-necked rock
wallaby
Petrogale rothschildi
B1ab(iii)
EN
VU
Stable
AUS
QLD
VU
Declining
AUS
QLD, NSW
EN
Declining
AUS
QLD
LC
Unknown
AUS
QLD, NT
Rothschild's rock wallaby
LC
Unknown
AUS
WA
Petrogale sharmani
Mount Claro rock wallaby
NT
Petrogale xanthopus
Yellow-footed rock wallaby
NT
Potorous gilbertii
Gilbert's potoroo
CR
Potorous longipes
Long-footed potoroo
EN
Potorous tridactylus
Long-nosed potoroo
LC
Setonix brachyurus
Quokka
VU
Thylogale billardierii
Tasmanian pademelon
LC
Thylogale browni
New Guinea pademelon
VU
Thylogale brunii
Dusky pademelon
Thylogale calabyi
Calaby's pademelon
Thylogale lanatus
Thylogale stigmatica
B1ab(iii,v)
Stable
AUS
QLD
VU
Unknown
AUS
QLD, NSW, SA
D
CR
Stable
AUS
WA
B1ab(v)
EN
Unknown
AUS
VIC, NSW
VU
Declining
AUS
QLD, NSW,
VIC, TAS
VU
Declining
AUS
WA
Stable
AUS
TAS
A2d
Declining
PNG, IND
VU
A4d
Declining
PNG, IND
EN
B1ab(iii,v)
+2ab(iii,v)
Declining
PNG
Mountain pademelon
EN
B1ab(v)
Declining
PNG
Red-legged pademelon
LC
Declining
AUS, PNG,
IND
QLD, NSW
Thylogale thetis
Red-necked pademelon
LC
Stable
AUS
NSW, QLD
Wallabia bicolor
Swamp wallaby
LC
Increasing
AUS
QLD, NSW,
VIC, SA
B1ab(ii,iii)
*AUS: Australia; PNG: Papua New Guinea; IND: Indonesia
53
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Appendix 3: Conservation Actions
Conservation actions taxonomy (Conservation Measures Partnership 2011, www.conservationmeasures.org;
Salafsky et al. 2008)
1. Land/Water Protection
Actions to identify, establish or expand parks and
other legally protected areas
1.1 Site/Area Protection
Establishing or expanding public or private
parks, reserves, and other protected areas
roughly equivalent to IUCN Categories I-VI
1.2 Resource & Habitat Protection
Establishing protection or easements of some
specific aspect of the resource on public or
private lands outside of IUCN Categories I-VI
2. Land/Water Management
Actions directed at conserving or restoring sites,
habitats and the wider environment
2.1 Site/Area Management
Management of protected areas and other
resource lands for conservation
2.2Invasive/Problematic Species Control
Controlling and/or preventing invasive and/
or other problematic plants, animals, and
pathogens
2.3Habitat & Natural Process Restoration
Enhancing degraded or restoring missing
habitats and ecosystem functions; dealing
with pollution
3. Species Management
Actions directed at managing or restoring species,
focused on the species of concern itself
3.1 Species Management
Managing specific plant and animal
populations of concern
3.2Species Recovery
Manipulating, enhancing or restoring
specific plant and animal populations,
vaccination programs
3.3Species Re-Introduction
Re-introducing species to places where they
formally occurred or benign introductions
3.4Ex-Situ Conservation
Protecting biodiversity out of its native
habitats
54
4. Education & Awareness
Actions directed at people to improve
understanding and skills, and influence behaviour
4.1 Formal Education
Enhancing knowledge and skills of students
in a formal degree program
4.2Training
Enhancing knowledge, skills and information
exchange for practitioners, stakeholders,
and other relevant individuals in structured
settings outside of degree programs
4.3Awareness & Communications
Raising environmental awareness and
providing information through various
media or through civil disobedience
5. Law & Policy
Actions to develop, change, influence, and help
implement formal legislation, regulations, and
voluntary standards
5.1Legislation
Making, implementing, changing,
influencing, or providing input into formal
government sector legislation or polices
at all levels: international, national, state/
provincial, local, tribal
5.2Policies & Regulations
Making, implementing, changing,
influencing, or providing input into policies
and regulations affecting the implementation
of laws at all levels: international, national,
state/provincial, local/community, tribal
5.3Private Sector Standards & Codes
Setting, implementing, changing, influencing,
or providing input into voluntary standards
& professional codes that govern private
sector practice
5.4Compliance & Enforcement
Monitoring and enforcing compliance with
laws, policies & regulations, and standards
& codes at all levels
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
6. Livelihood, Economic & Other Incentives
Actions to use economic and other incentives to
influence behaviour
6.1 Linked Enterprises & Livelihood
Alternatives
Developing enterprises that directly depend
on the maintenance of natural resources or
provide substitute livelihoods as a means of
changing behaviours and attitudes
6.2Substitution
Promoting alternative products and
services that substitute for environmentally
damaging ones
6.3Market Forces
Using market mechanisms to change
behaviours and attitudes
6.4Conservation Payments
Using direct or indirect payments to change
behaviours and attitudes
6.5Non-Monetary Values
Using intangible values to change behaviours
and attitudes
7. External Capacity Building
Actions to build the infrastructure to do better
conservation
7.1 Institutional & Civil Society
Development
Creating or providing non-financial support &
capacity building for non-profits, government
agencies, communities, and for-profits
7.2 Alliance & Partnership Development
Forming and facilitating partnerships,
alliances, and networks of organizations
7.3 Conservation Finance
Raising and providing funds for
conservation work
8. Research Actions (IUCN 2010)
8.1Taxonomy
8.2 Population Numbers and Range
8.3 Biology and Ecology
8.4 Habitat Status
8.5Threats
8.6 Uses and Harvest Levels
8.7
Cultural Relevance
8.8 Conservation Measures
8.9Trends/Monitoring
8.10Other
Woylie, Brush-tailed bettong (Bettongia penicillata). © Martin Harvey/ ANTPhoto.com.au
55
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Appendix 4: Yearly Costs
Yearly costs of recovery for each species in order of affordability
Common
Name
Bennett's tree
kangaroo
IUCN
Threat
Status
Year 1
Year 2
NT
$160,000
$321,950
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
$299,782
$374,339
$354,650
Year 6
$178,125
Year 7
Year 8
Year 9
$229,363
$162,450
$167,324
Year 10
$309,773
Black wallaroo
NT
$265,000
$222,850
$233,786
$326,363
$324,298
$232,682
$301,006
$236,243
$243,330
$388,061
Mount Claro
rock wallaby
NT
$185,000
$322,850
$452,536
$541,676
$544,160
$342,682
$401,006
$267,143
$275,157
$420,841
Monjon
NT
$295,000
$292,850
$555,886
$400,626
$368,008
$277,702
$628,754
$284,005
$292,525
$438,730
Nabarlek
DD
$265,000
$332,850
$347,086
$443,062
$444,498
$356,488
$428,526
$367,589
$378,616
$527,404
Cape York
rock wallaby
NT
$205,000
$467,850
$486,136
$586,284
$559,235
$333,977
$405,341
$343,708
$354,019
$502,069
Tasmanian
pademelon
NT
$565,000
$583,350
$600,851
$673,512
$646,187
$469,506
$591,055
$498,099
$513,041
$705,005
Parma wallaby
NT
$235,000
$833,750
$1,083,013
$923,567
$960,018
$886,490
$1,255,805
$929,868
$957,764
$1,123,926
Proserpine rock
wallaby
EN
$777,000
$826,710
$955,761
$1,049,698
$1,057,979
$1,051,878
$1,189,508
$996,900
$1,010,416
$1,193,721
Bridled nailtail
wallaby
EN
$933,250
$941,358
$1,030,198
$1,147,064
$1,113,149
$1,086,660
$1,155,081
$1,186,603
$1,187,423
$1,326,064
Gilbert's potoroo
CR
$1,210,000
$1,230,850
$1,267,776
$1,472,563
$1,456,866
$1,436,082
$1,567,373
$1,523,539
$1,569,245
$1,655,894
Rufous
hare-wallaby
VU
$867,000
$795,010
$1,906,437
$3,140,498
$3,590,947
$2,296,523
$1,225,402
$1,084,771
$1,096,714
$1,267,045
Boodie
NT
$2,504,000
$2,481,120 $2,864,668
Woylie
CR
$1,678,000 $2,225,040
Banded
hare-wallaby
EN
$625,500
Long-footed
potoroo
EN
Yellow-footed
rock wallaby
NT
$1,334,452
$1,547,066
$1,325,600
$1,510,662
$1,378,588
$1,399,346
$1,578,756
$2,344,523
$1,959,159
$1,891,510
$1,663,005
$1,693,244
$1,713,163
$1,789,892
$1,905,242
$546,265
$1,682,057
$2,956,374
$4,594,338
$3,335,015
$2,417,208
$983,156
$992,051
$1,159,242
$1,348,500
$1,506,255
$1,946,960
$2,262,864
$2,168,121
$1,952,149
$2,082,357
$2,071,035
$2,133,166
$2,337,106
$1,750,000
$1,767,750
$1,769,347
$1,953,555 $2,263,600
$1,845,995
$2,044,662
$2,248,210
$2,017,168
$2,371,687
Northern bettong
EN
$1,970,000
$2,021,400
$2,266,292
$2,469,895
$2,315,244
$2,136,254
$2,271,986
$2,266,352
$2,334,343
$2,551,803
Quokka
VU
$2,135,000
$2,109,850
$2,348,451
$2,419,835 $2,424,300
$2,262,621
$2,506,165
$2,473,862
$2,417,790
$2,764,650
Black-footed
rock wallaby
NT
$2,520,000 $2,353,600
$2,309,108
$2,640,636 $3,070,608
$2,467,660
$2,817,961
$2,724,944
$2,685,551
$3,651,643
Brush-Tailed
rock wallaby
NT
$2,802,000
$2,754,686
$2,944,556
$3,229,911
$3,241,492
$3,217,596
$3,952,502
Black-footed rock wallaby (Petrogale
lateralis). © Dave Watts/ANTPhoto.com.au
TOTALS
56
$2,817,700
$3,017,626
$3,476,805
$23,295,250 $25,001,208 $29,505,335 $32,093,647 $35,171,588 $28,881,649 $29,952,376 $26,981,718 $27,032,477 $32,131,166
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Appendix 5: Recovery Outlines
Recovery Outline - Bettongia gaimardi
1.Family Potoroidae
2.
Scientific name: Bettongia gaimardi (Desmarest, 1822)
3.
Common name: Tasmanian bettong, Eastern Rat-kangaroo, Eastern bettong, Gaimard’s bettong, Gaimard’s Rat-kangaroo
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
isted as Near Threatened because, although it is considered to be common on Tasmania, the recent
L
introduction of the Red Fox has the potential to be a major threat to this species in the future. The
Tasmanian Bettong is thought to have been eliminated from mainland Australia by introduced foxes,
and if fox control measures are not successful on Tasmania, this species could face a significant decline
in the next ten years (but unlikely to be as great as 30%), thus making the species close to qualifying for
Vulnerable under criterion A (Menkhorst 2008).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1
Bettongia gaimardi cuniculus, Tasmania
6.2 Bettongia gaimardi gaimardi, south east Australia, extinct.
7. Range and abundance
Figure 3: Known distribution of Bettongia gaimardi from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
Bettongia gaimardi gaimardi is presumed to be extinct. It was formerly distributed throughout much of the
south-eastern Australian mainland, as far north as south-eastern Queensland, but disappeared around the
1920s (Menkhorst 2008).
B. g. cuniculus is widespread and common in eastern Tasmania from sea level up to 1,000 metres. The
population is presumed to be stable (Menkhorst 2008).
57
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
Found only in open dry sclerophyll forest and
woodland with an open understorey, where its
density is correlated with the abundance
of mycorrhizal fungi (Taylor 1988).
9.Threats
9.1 Potential for fox predation.
9.2 Land clearing, through timber harvesting
and excessive grazing of livestock.
9.3 Use of 1080 poison for wallaby control on
private land.
9.4 Habitat alteration through inappropriate
fire regimes.
10. Information required
10.1 Status assessment of the species, including
distribution, abundance, genetic variation,
population trend, and risks.
10.2 Further research on appropriate fire
regimes for the Tasmanian Bettong.
10.3 Impacts of grazing on bettong habitat
are poorly understood.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Bettongia gaimardi is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the population trend for Bettongia
gaimardi is stable or increasing, and the
threat of foxes establishing in Tasmania has
been eliminated, thus making Bettongia
gaimardi ineligible to qualify as Vulnerable
under IUCN criterion A.
11.3 By 2021, fire regimes required for
maintaining bettong habitat are known
and are being implemented.
11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Bettongia
gaimardi has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Implementation of intensive fox monitoring
and control measures throughout Tasmania
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
identification of important subpopulations,
genetic diversity, and population trend.
13.2 Manage species data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Implement monitoring protocols for species
and predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
13.4 Ongoing Tasmanian fox eradication.
13.5 Investigate optimum fire regimes to
maintain Tasmanian bettong habitat,
including diverse food sources such as
hypogeous fungi.
13.6 Undertake fire management to maintain
open understorey and diverse food sources
including hypogeous fungi.
13.7 Identify subpopulations of Tasmanian
bettong vulnerable to 1080 poisoning and
implement measures to reduce use of poison
in those areas.
13.8 Identify important subpopulations of
Tasmanian bettongs on private land
and engage landholders to implement
habitat management, including grazing
management where applicable.
13.9 Reserve suitable dry sclerophyll habitats
where the Tasmanian bettong occurs.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and Environment, Tasmania.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
16. Staff and financial resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$5.8 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
58
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
19.References
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org.
Accessed 29 June 2010.
Menkhorst, P (2008) Bettongia gaimardi. In:
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/
redlist/details/2783/0. Accessed 29 June 2010.
Taylor, RJ (1988) Ecology and conservation of
the Tasmanian bettong (Bettongia gaimardi).
Report, Australian National Parks and Wildlife
Service: Canberra.
20. Comments received from
20.1 Michael Driessen, Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water and Environment,
Tasmania.
Table 11: List of recovery actions for Bettongia gaimardi, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
All
Status assessment - distribution
and trend. Includes surveys of
known subpopulations, and
identification of subpopulations
of high conservation value.
All
Status assessment of the species genetics
All
Manage data to inform adaptive
management, including 5-year
program review
All
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
5-Yearly
2 Months
5 People
5-Yearly
1 Month
3 People
Good data management is essential to making
it possible to extract the maximum amount of
information from monitoring data.
3-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
Ongoing Tasmanian fox eradication
program
The recent introduction of the Red Fox has the
potential to be a major threat to this species in
the future. The Tasmanian Bettong is thought to
have been eliminated from mainland Australia by
introduced foxes, and if fox control measures are
not successful on Tasmania, this species could
face a significant decline in the next ten years.
NA Currently
implemented
by DPIPWE
NA Currently
implemented
by DPIPWE
NA Currently
implemented
by DPIPWE
All
Investigate optimum fire regimes to
maintain Tasmanian bettong habitat,
including diverse food sources such as
hypogeous fungi.
Research is required to better understand the
dynamics of fire in bettong habitat, and the
impact it has on food availability, including fungi.
Once
3 Years
1 Person
Priority
subpopulations
(as identified
in status
assessment)
Undertake fire management to
maintain open understorey
Bettongs inhabit open, dry, fire-prone forests
with a grassy or heath understorey on poor soils.
Fire management in bettong habitats may be
required to maintain optimum conditions.
Yearly
2 Weeks
50 People
All
Prohibit the use of 1080 poison in
or near areas containing isolated
populations of bettongs.
Bettongs may be subject to poison baits laid out
for native species to deter them from impacting
new forestry sites. Such poisoning represents a
small but ongoing threat.
Once
2 Months
2 People
Priority
subpopulations
(as identified
in status
assessment)
Engage landholders in areas where
grazing could pose a threat to bettong
habitat, and provide incentives to
manage accordingly. Grazing will have
to be assessed as a threat in the first
instance.
With the highest densities occurring on private
land, it is important that property owners
manage remaining vegetation to allow the
continued existence of the bettong.
Yearly
1 Year
2 People
Priority
subpopulations
(as identified
in status
assessment)
Reserve suitable dry sclerophyll
habitat
Little of the bettong's habitat is protected within
reserves. Sufficient habitat will be required to
ensure the ongoing security of the species.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
All
Develop and implement monitoring
protocols for species and predator
activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
A long-term consistent and cohesive approach to
regular monitoring is essential to inform adaptive
management strategies
Yearly
1 Month
4 People
Whilst the species is relatively secure,
information is required to assess those
subpopulations most at risk from a range of
threats, and to ensure that genetic stock is
maintained.
59
60
$10,000
Ongoing Tasmanian fox eradication program
Investigate optimum fire regimes to maintain
Tasmanian bettong habitat, including diverse food
sources such as hypogeous fungi.
Undertake fire management to maintain open
understorey
Ban use of 1080 in Tasmania, except where fox
presence is suspected
Engage landholders in areas where grazing is a
threat to bettong habitat, and provide incentives to
manage accordingly.
Reserve suitable dry sclerophyll habitat
Develop and implement monitoring protocols for
species and predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
All
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
All
**Costs may be significantly defrayed by existing DPIPWE programs.
†Costs already covered by Tasmanian and Australian Governments.
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$100,000
Manage data to inform adaptive management,
including 5-year program review
All
$565,000
$60,000
$0
$240,000
$30,000
$0†
$5,000
$30,000
Status assessment of the species - genetics
All
$90,000
Year 1#
All
Action
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations,
and identification of subpopulations of high
conservation value.
Subpopulation
Table 12: List of recovery actions for Bettongia gaimardi, and their costs
$0
$0
$583,350
$61,800
$125,000
$247,200
$10,300
$103,000
$30,900
$0
$5,150
Year 2
$0
$0
$600,851
$63,654
$128,750
$254,616
$10,609
$106,090
$31,827
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$673,512
$65,564
$132,613
$262,254
$0
$109,273
$0
$0
$5,464
$0
$98,345
Year 4
$646,187
$67,531
$136,591
$270,122
$0
$112,551
$0
$0
$25,628*
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$469,506
$69,556
$0
$278,226
$0
$115,927
$0
$0
$5,796
$0
$0
Year 6
$591,055
$71,643
$0
$286,573
$0
$119,405
$0
$0
$5,970
$0
$107,464
Year 7
$0
$0
$498,099
$73,792
$0
$295,170
$0
$122,987
$0
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$705,005
$78,286
$0
$313,146
$0
$130,477
$0
$0
$26,523*
$39,143
$117,430
Year 10
$5,845,606**
$513,041
$76,006
$0
$304,025
$0
$126,677
$0
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
Year 9
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Bettongia lesueur
1.Family Potoroidae
2.
Scientific name: Bettongia lesueur (Quoy & Gaimardi, 1824)
3.
Common name: Burrowing bettong, boodie, Lesueur’s rat kangaroo
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5.
Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is small and it is known from just six-eight
locations, making it close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion B1. The natural populations of
this species are considered stable and reintroduced populations are increasing, habitat for the species
is considered stable, and although there are major threats potentially from introduced predators, fire,
and disease, this species has genuinely improved in status since the prior assessment. The species
occurs naturally on three islands, and has been introduced to another five localities. There is, however,
uncertainty as to whether two of these reintroduction sites can be counted as “self-sustaining”, and thus
be included in the number of locations used in the assessment. This species is also close to qualifying
as having “extreme fluctuations” in population, which would also qualify it for a threatened category
(Richards et al. 2008).
Listed as Vulnerable under the Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act (1999) (DEWHA 2010).
6.
Infraspecific Taxa
6.1
Bettongia lesueur lesueur – Bernier, Dorre and Faure Islands, Heirisson Prong (Vulnerable, EPBC
Act 1999).
6.2 Bettongia lesueur unnamed subspecies – Barrow and Boodie Islands (Vulnerable EPBC, Act 1999).
6.3 Bettongia lesueur graii - Burrowing Bettong (inland), Boodie (Extinct).
7.
Range and abundance
Figure 4: Known distribution of Bettongia lesueur from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010;
Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
61
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Formerly the most widespread of all potoroids,
the range of the burrowing bettong extended
southeast from near Broome, Western Australia,
through the Northern Territory, South Australia,
western New South Wales to north-western
Victoria. It is now extinct in free-ranging
situations on the mainland, but still occurs on
Bernier, Dorre, Barrow, and Boodie Islands of the
Western Australian coast (Claridge et al. 2007).
It is abundant on Barrow (total 3,400 individuals)
(Short et al. 1993), Bernier (total of 842
individuals), and Dorre (3,292 individuals)
(Reinhold 2010) The populations on Bernier and
Dorre Islands (and presumably Barrow Island
and possibly mainland populations) are known
to undergo extreme fluctuations in response
to rainfall and drought (Short et al. 1997). For
example, the Dorre Island population declined to
critically low levels in 2007 after an extended dry
period (N. Thomas, pers. comm.).
Estimates for the reintroduced island populations
are as follows:
Boodie Island: perhaps as many as 100,
with a high degree of uncertainty (J. Short,
pers. comm.).
Faure Island: more than 900 at last count
(J. Short, pers. comm.).
Dirk Hartog Island: extinct (Burbidge and
Short 2008).
Reintroduced mainland populations include:
Arid Recovery: 500 (Reference required).
Scotia sanctuary: about 300 (M. Hayward, pers.
comm..)
Heirisson Prong: more than 400 at last count
(J. Short, pers. comm.).
8.Habitat
On the mainland, warrens were constructed in
most types of country where the soil was deep
enough. Loams were favoured and in the sandridge deserts burrows were constructed in the
low-lying areas. Burrows were often dug into
slight outcrops of limestone or gypseous rock,
and rises in salt-lake systems were a favoured
habitat. Another favoured site was under boulders
or capping rock. On Barrow Island, warrens are
almost always associated with limestone caprock on slopes and the top of ridges; some are in
the floors of caves. Old, collapsed warrens are
still abundant and obvious in non-sandy soils
throughout much of arid Australia (Burbidge
and Short 2008).
62
9.Threats
9.1 Predation by foxes and feral cats.
9.2 Major fire events.
9.3 Introduction of invasive species.
9.4 Potential for disease introduction to islands.
9.5 Inappropriate recreation activity or
development.
10. Information required
10.1 Review of translocations, including factors
influencing success and failure.
10.2 Investigation of burrowing bettong
management to control excessive population
growth where resources are limited.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Bettongia lesueur is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the number of distinct secure*
subpopulations of Bettongia lesueur is
greater than 10, thus making it ineligible
to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN
criterion B1.
11.3 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of introduced predators,
fire, disease and unpredictable resource
availability for all Bettongia lesueur
subpopulations.
11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of
Bettongia lesueur has been maintained
at known 2011 levels.
* A taxon is defined as secure when its numbers
and distribution are stable or increasing, and
when numbers and distribution are sufficient
that there is a 95% probability that the species
will survive the stochastic events anticipated over
a 50 year timeframe, given that all known and
predicted threats are adequately mitigated.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Translocations to Heirisson Prong, Faure
Island, Roxby Downs, Scotia, Yookamurra
and Lorna Glen.
12.2 Translocations to Dryandra have failed
on three occasions and are unlikely to be
continued (J. Short, pers. comm.).
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
12.3 Management of captive subpopulations
at Dryandra, Scotia, Yookamurra, Roxby
Downs and Lorna Glen.
13.11Maintenance of fence enclosures at Scotia,
Yookamurra, Roxby Downs, Heirisson
Prong and Lorna Glen.
12.4 Studies into the taxonomic identity are long
completed but are yet to be written (J. Short,
pers. comm.).
13.12Survey habitat at potential future
translocation sites to ensure suitability
for burrowing bettongs.
12.5 A recovery plan for the species has been
developed for the 2007-2011 period
(Richards 2007).
13.13Establish fenced sanctuaries for future
translocations. Possible sites include
Mount Gibson (WA) and Lagoon Point
near Shark Bay (WA).
12.6 Dryandra Breeding Facility is in the process
of being closed at the time of writing
due to lack of funding and unsuccessful
introduction attempts that failed in part due
to predation by foxes and cats (N. Thomas,
pers. comm.)
12.7 Systematic monitoring of boodies has
been undertaken by CSIRO (1988 to 1989)
and more recently by DEC (2006 to 2010,
Bernier and Dorre islands only).
12.8 A site at Lagoon point has been fenced with
the potential for future introduction of the
species to establish a new subpopulation
(J. Short, pers. comm.)
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetic diversity, abundance, distribution,
population trend and risks.
13.2 Manage species data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Use of population viability analysis
to compare the viability of ‘wild’
subpopulations.
13.4 Monitor species at all sites throughout
range, including future translocation sites.
13.5 Control or exclude invasive predators on
islands where ‘wild’ subpopulations occur.
13.6 Control or exclude competitors on islands
where ‘wild’ subpopulations occur.
13.7 Implement hygiene and quarantine
protocols for all subpopulations to
control disease.
13.8 Control and manage weeds on Bernier,
Dorre, Boodie, Barrow and Faure Islands.
13.9 Control and manage visitors to Bernier,
Dorre, Boodie and Barrow islands.
13.14Implement threat reduction activities at
proposed translocation sites, including
predator and competitor eradication and
exclusion, fire management
13.15Continue management of secure
subpopulations as potential sources for
future genetically diverse translocations.
13.16Translocate burrowing bettongs from
existing sites to new secure areas to
establish new subpopulations throughout
former range.
13.17Enhance community participation and
education.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC), Western Australia.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC).
15.2 Arid Recovery Project, Roxby Downs.
15.3 Useless Loop Community Biosphere Project
Group, Heirisson Prong.
16. Staff and financial resources required for
recovery to beW carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required. Many staff are
already employed at various sanctuaries.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$17 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
13.10Implement management to avoid
catastrophic wildfires for all subpopulations.
63
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
19.References
Burbidge, AA and Short, JC (2008) Burrowing
Bettong, Bettongia lesueur. In: Van Dyck, S &
Strahan, R (eds), The Mammals of Australia. Reed
New Holland, Sydney, Australia.
Claridge, A, Seebeck, J & Rose, R (2007) Bettongs,
Potoroos and the Musky Rat-Kangaroo. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010) Bettongia lesueur.
In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/
sprat. Accessed 14 November 2010.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
29 June 2010.
Reinhold, L (2010) Shark Bay Marsupial Recovery
Team. Unpublished report to the SBMRT. Department
of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia
Richards, J (2007) Western Barred Bandicoot
Perameles bougainville, Burrowing Bettong Bettongia
lesueur and Banded Hare-Wallaby Lagostrophus
fasciatus Recovery Plan 2007 -2011. Department of
Environment and Conservation, Western Australia.
Richards, J, Morris, K & Burbidge, A (2008) Bettongia
lesueur. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
apps/redlist/details/2784/0. Accessed 29 June 2010.
Short, J and Turner, B (1993). The distribution and
abundance of the burrowing bettong (Marsupialia:
Macropodoidea). Wildlife Research 20, 525-534.
Short, J, Turner, B, Majors, C, and Leone, J (1997).
The fluctuating abundance of endangered mammals
on Bernier and Dorre Islands, Western Australia conservation implications. Australian Mammalogy
20, 53-71.
20. Comments received from
20.1 Jeff Short, Wildlife Research and
Management Pty Ltd.
20.2 Nicky Marlow, DEC WA
20.3 Neil Thomas, DEC WA
20.4 Manda Page, AWC
20.5 Matt Hayward, AWC
Table 13: List of recovery actions for Bettongia lesueur, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
All
Status assessment
- distribution and
abundance. Includes
surveys of known
subpopulations
All
Status assessment genetics
All
Manage species data
to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5
year program review.
Review of translocations,
and success and failure
factors
All
64
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
3 Months
4 People
5-Yearly
3 Months
3 People
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Translocations of wild and captive
subpopulations will be crucial to the
ongoing management of the species.
Ensuring that any future translocations
are undertaken under optimum
conditions is essential for the success of
the operations.
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Bernier and Dorre Islands
6-Monthly
3 Weeks
4 People
Faure Island
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Barrow Island
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Boodie Island
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Heirisson Prong
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Scotia Sanctuary - Stage 1
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
4-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
4-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
3 Weeks
4 People
Faure Island
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Barrow Island
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Boodie Island
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yookamurra Sanctuary
Roxby Downs Arid
Recovery Reserve
Lorna Glen
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator activity,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives
Bernier and Dorre Islands
(habitat condition only)
Heirisson Prong (habitat
condition only)
Scotia Sanctuary - Stage 1
Yookamurra Sanctuary
Roxby Downs Arid Recovery
Reserve
Lorna Glen
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
6 Months
4 People
Bernier Island
Dorre Island
Faure Island
Boodie Island
Barrow Island
Island Predator Removal
Prevent unauthorised
human visitation
to exclude invasive
predators and
competitors, and to
prevent wildfires and
disease incursion.
The influx of unauthorised visitors
to these islands could introduce
feral species or contribute to habitat
degradation through fire and other
stressors.
Predator control
Predation by foxes and cats is regarded
as the primary reason for the decline
of the burrowing bettong on mainland
Australia and the primary threat to the
persistence of reintroduced mainland
Australia. Their potential vulnerability
on their remaining island refuges is
illustrated by the loss of bettongs from
Dirk Hartog Island early this century
and from Boodie Island in 1985. The
former is thought to have been due to
predation by feral cats, and the latter
was due to a rat eradication program
in 1984 that unintentionally eradicated
the bettongs.
65
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Competitor control
The introduction of rabbits, rats and
mice poses a threat to boodies on
islands. Introduced herbivores had
altered the vegetation so that refuge
areas during periods of drought were
no longer available. This habitat
degradation, combined with the impact
of introduced predators and changes in
fire regimes in some areas, was thought
to have increased the risk of local
extinctions of native mammals.
Unknown
6 Months
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Bernier Island
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
1 Week
4 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
4 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Island Competitor Removal
Bernier Island
Dorre Island
Faure Island
Boodie Island
Barrow Island
Implement appropriate
fire management to avoid
catastrophic wildfires
and maintain suitable
bettong habitat.
Scotia Sanctuary
Yookamurra Sanctuary
Roxby Downs Arid Recovery
Reserve
Lorna Glen
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Dorre Island
Faure Island
Boodie Island
Fire management
of enclosures and
sanctuaries to avoid
catastrophic wildfires
and maintain suitable
bettong habitat.
Disease management and
quarantine procedures to
prevent disease incursion
and spread.
Barrow Island
Heirisson Prong
Scotia Sanctuary
Yookamurra Sanctuary
Roxby Downs Arid Recovery
Reserve
Lorna Glen
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
66
Disease management
in enclosures and
sanctuaries, principally
quarantine procedures
Fires have been infrequent in the last
hundred years. Fire may substantially
reduce population size in the short term,
but in the long term, populations are
likely to maintain their ability to recover,
in a fashion similar to recovery from
drought. Fire may play a significant role
in reducing cover and exposing animals
to predation.
The potential for the introduction of
disease by humans within the threatened
Shark Bay marsupial populations was
listed as a threat by Hancock et al.
(2000). In May 2000 symptoms of two
diseases in the wild western barred
bandicoot population on Bernier Island,
and captive populations at Peron
Peninsula, Kanyana, Dryandra Field
Breeding Facility, Monarto Zoo, and the
Arid Recovery Reserve at Roxby Downs
(though no signs have been evident in the
released population) were discovered.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Heirisson Prong
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Scotia Sanctuary
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Yookamurra Sanctuary
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Roxby Downs Arid
Recovery Reserve
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Lorna Glen
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Enclosure fence
inspection.
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Captive subpopulations must be
protected from feral predators. Wellmaintained enclosure fences are the best
means of ensuring this security
Dryandra Captive
Breeding Facility
Heirisson Prong
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Scotia Sanctuary
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Yookamurra Sanctuary
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Weekly
4 Hours
2 People
Weekly
4 Hours
2 People
Weekly
4 Hours
2 People
Once
6 Months
4 People
Once
6 Months
5 People
Once
6 Months
5 People
Once
2 Weeks
4 People
Once
2 Weeks
4 People
Once
2 Weeks
4 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Yearly
2 days
1 Person
Roxby Downs Arid
Recovery Reserve
Lorna Glen
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Enclosure fence repairs
to prevent predator/
competitor ingress and
escape of captive animals.
Artificial feeding/
watering to ensure
effective translocation.
Translocated subpopulations may
require support when first moved to a
new location.
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Establish secure areas
of habitat for future
translocations, including
any necessary fencing
and predator/ competitor
removal.
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Translocation of animals
from captivity/wild
subpopulations.
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Reintroduction Site Site Z (Lagoon Point?)
All
Additional subpopulations need to
be established in order to achieve
eligibility to be down-listed to Near
Threatened. A minimum of ten secure
subpopulations will ensure that the
burrowing bettong no longer meets
the IUCN criteria B1 and B2, as long
as the establishment increases the
2010 area of occupancy and extent of
occurrence of the species. Captive source
subpopulations are essential to increase
wild and translocated subpopulations to
a minimum viable number. The 6000 ha
Stage 3 at Scotia is planned for fencing
in the near future. This will provide an
increased carrying capacity at Scotia.
Similarly, Mount Gibson Sanctuary will
have a 6000 ha fenced and feral free
section within the next 3 years.
Ongoing management
of translocated
subpopulations, including
resource supplementation
as required.
Reintroduction sites may not have
sufficient habitat to ensure consistent
food availability until they are suitably
established.
Enhance public
participation and
education in Burrowing
Bettong recovery efforts.
The community can contribute
substantially to the recovery of this
species, particularly where habitat
restoration is required.
67
68
$20,000
$15,000
$15,000
Heirisson Prong
Scotia Sanctuary - Stage 1
Yookamurra Sanctuary
$0
$0
$0
Reintroduction Site - Mount
Gibson Sanctuary
Reintroduction Site - Lagoon
Point
$15,000
Reintroduction Site - Scotia
Stage 3
Lorna Glen
$15,000
$20,000
Boodie Island
Roxby Downs Arid Recovery
Reserve
$40,000
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
$40,000
$10,000
Barrow Island
All
$0
Faure Island
Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the
species, including trapping, satellite collars and
camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats
All
$5,000
$60,000
Review of translocations, and success and
failure factors
All
$30,000
$60,000
Year 1#
Bernier and Dorre Islands
Status assessment - genetics
Manage species data to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5 year program review.
All
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 14: L ist of recovery actions for Bettongia lesueu, and their costs
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$15,450
$15,450
$15,450
$15,450
$20,600
$20,600
$41,200
$41,200
$61,800
$0
$5,000
$5,150
Year 2
$0
$0
$0
$15,914
$15,914
$15,914
$15,914
$15,914
$15,914
$21,218
$21,218
$42,436
$42,436
$63,654
$0
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$16,931
$16,391
$16,391
$16,391
$16,391
$16,391
$16,391
$21,855
$21,855
$43,709
$43,709
$65,564
$0
$0
$5,464
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$17,439
$16,883
$16,883
$16,883
$16,883
$16,883
$16,883
$22,510
$22,510
$45,020
$45,020
$67,531
$0
$0
$25,628
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$17,962
$17,390
$17,390
$17,389
$17,389
$17,389
$17,389
$23,185
$23,185
$46,371
$46,371
$69,556
$5,000
$0
$5,796
$0
$0
Year 6
$18,501
$17,911
$17,911
$17,911
$17,911
$17,911
$17,911
$23,881
$23,881
$47,762
$47,762
$71,643
$0
$0
$5,970
$0
$71,644
Year 7
$0
$0
$19,056
$18,449
$18,449
$18,448
$18,448
$18,448
$18,448
$24,597
$24,597
$49,195
$49,195
$73,792
$0
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$19,628
$19,002
$19,002
$19,002
$19,002
$19,002
$19,002
$25,335
$25,335
$50,671
$50,671
$76,006
$0
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
Year 9
$20,216
$19,572
$19,572
$19,572
$19,572
$19,572
$19,572
$26,095
$26,095
$52,191
$52,191
$78,286
$0
$0
$26,523
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
$10,300
Barrow Island
Boodie Island
$0
$5,000
$30,000
$30,000
Dorre Island
Faure Island
$30,000
Implement appropriate fire management to avoid
catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable
bettong habitat.
Competitor control
Island Competitor Removal
Bernier Island
$0
$0
Predator control
Island Predator Removal
$0
$5,150
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$0
$0
$0
$10,300
$10,000
$0
$41,200
$61,800
$61,800
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$10,300
$40,000
Barrow Island
Boodie Island
Faure Island
$60,000
$5,000
Reintroduction Site - Lagoon
Point
$60,000
$5,000
Reintroduction Site - Mount
Gibson Sanctuary
Dorre Island
$5,000
Reintroduction Site - Scotia
Stage 3
Bernier Island
$5,000
Lorna Glen
Prevent unauthorised human visitation to exclude
invasive predators and competitors, and to prevent
wildfires and disease incursion.
$5,000
Yookamurra Sanctuary
$5,000
$5,000
Scotia Sanctuary - Stage 1
Roxby Downs Arid Recovery
Reserve
$10,000
$10,000
Boodie Island
Heirisson Prong
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
$20,600
$20,000
Barrow Island
$30,900
$20,600
$30,000
Year 2
$20,000
Year 1#
Faure Island
Action
Bernier and Dorre Islands
Subpopulation
$0
$5,305
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$10,609
$42,436
$63,654
$63,654
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$10,609
$10,609
$21,218
$21,218
$31,827
Year 3
$0
$5,464
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$0
$0
$0
$10,927
$43,709
$65,564
$65,564
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$10,927
$10,927
$21,855
$21,855
$32,782
Year 4
$0
$5,628
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$0
$250,000
$0
$11,255
$45,020
$67,531
$67,531
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$11,255
$11,255
$22,510
$22,510
$33,765
Year 5
$0
$5,796
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$0
$40,000
$0
$11,593
$46,371
$69,556
$69,556
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$11,593
$11,593
$23,185
$23,185
$34,778
Year 6
$0
$5,970
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$120,000
$0
$0
$11,941
$47,762
$71,643
$71,643
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$11,941
$11,941
$23,881
$23,881
$35,822
Year 7
$0
$6,149
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$20,000
$0
$0
$12,299
$49,195
$73,792
$73,792
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$12,299
$12,299
$24,597
$24,597
$36,896
Year 8
$0
$6,334
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$0
$0
$0
$12,668
$50,671
$76,006
$76,006
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$12,668
$12,668
$25,335
$25,335
$38,003
Year 9
$0
$6,524
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$0
$0
$0
$13,048
$52,191
$78,286
$78,286
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$13,048
$13,048
$26,095
$26,095
$39,143
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
69
70
Disease management, principally quarantine
procedures.
$3,000
$3,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Reintroduction Site Lagoon Point
Heirisson Prong
Scotia Sanctuary
Yookamurra Sanctuary
Roxby Downs Arid Recovery
Reserve
Lorna Glen
Roxby Downs Arid
Recovery Reserve
Yookamurra Sanctuary
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
Enclosure fence repairs to prevent predator/
competitor ingress and escape of captive animals.
$20,000
$3,000
Reintroduction Site Lagoon Point
Scotia Sanctuary
$3,000
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Heirisson Prong
$2,000
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Enclosure fence inspection.
$2,000
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
$2,000
$2,000
Roxby Downs Arid
Recovery Reserve
Lorna Glen
$2,000
Yookamurra Sanctuary
$20,600
$20,600
$20,600
$20,600
$3,090
$3,090
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$3,090
$3,090
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$2,000
$2,000
Heirisson Prong
Scotia Sanctuary
$0
$0
Reintroduction Site -Lagoon
Point
$0
$0
$0
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
$0
$10,300
Fire Management of enclosures and sanctuaries to
avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable
bettong habitat.
$10,000
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Lorna Glen
$10,300
$10,000
Roxby Downs Arid
Recovery Reserve
$10,300
$10,300
$10,000
Year 2
$10,000
Year 1#
Scotia Sanctuary
Action
Yookamurra Sanctuary
Subpopulation
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$3,183
$3,183
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$3,183
$3,183
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$0
$31,827
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
Year 3
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$3,278
$3,278
$2,185
$2,185
$2,185
$2,185
$2,185
$2,185
$3,278
$3,278
$2,185
$2,185
$2,185
$2,185
$2,185
$2,185
$32,782
$32,782
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
Year 4
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$3,377
$3,377
$2,251
$2,251
$2,251
$2,251
$2,251
$2,251
$3,377
$3,377
$2,251
$2,251
$2,251
$2,251
$2,251
$2,251
$33,765
$33,765
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
Year 5
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$3,478
$3,478
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$3,478
$3,478
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$2,319
$34,778
$34,778
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
Year 6
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$3,582
$3,582
$2,388
$2,388
$2,388
$2,388
$2,388
$2,388
$3,582
$3,582
$2,388
$2,388
$2,388
$2,388
$2,388
$2,388
$35,822
$35,822
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
Year 7
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$3,690
$3,690
$2,460
$2,460
$2,460
$2,460
$2,460
$2,460
$3,690
$3,690
$2,460
$2,460
$2,460
$2,460
$2,460
$2,460
$36,896
$36,896
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
Year 8
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$3,800
$3,800
$2,534
$2,534
$2,534
$2,534
$2,534
$2,534
$3,800
$3,800
$2,534
$2,534
$2,534
$2,534
$2,534
$2,534
$38,003
$38,003
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
Year 9
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$3,914
$3,914
$2,610
$2,610
$2,610
$2,610
$2,610
$2,610
$3,914
$3,914
$2,610
$2,610
$2,610
$2,610
$2,610
$2,610
$39,143
$39,143
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Enhance public participation and education in
Burrowing Bettong recovery efforts.
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
All
Reintroduction Site Lagoon Point
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
$2,504,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations, including resource
supplementation as required.
$0
$0
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Reintroduction Site Lagoon Point
$0
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Translocation of animals from captivity/wild
subpopulations.
$0
$1,000,000
Reintroduction Site Lagoon Point
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
$500,000
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Establish secure areas of habitat for future
translocations, including any necessary fencing
and predator/ competitor removal.
$3,000
$3,000
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
Reintroduction Site Lagoon Point
$2,000
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Artificial feeding/watering to ensure effective
translocation.
$30,000
$30,000
Reintroduction Site Lagoon Point
Reintroduction Site Mount Gibson Sanctuary
$20,000
Enclosure fence repairs to prevent predator/
competitor ingress and escape of captive animals.
$20,000
Year 1#
Reintroduction Site Scotia Stage 3
Action
Lorna Glen
Subpopulation
$2,481,120
$5,150
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,030,000
$515,000
$3,090
$3,090
$2,060
$30,900
$30,900
$20,600
$20,600
Year 2
$2,864,668
$5,305
$0
$60,000
$60,000
$0
$60,000
$60,000
$0
$1,060,900
$530,450
$3,183
$3,183
$2,122
$31,827
$31,827
$21,218
$21,218
Year 3
$1,334,452
$5,464
$61,800
$20,000
$20,000
$61,800
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,782
$32,782
$21,855
$21,855
Year 4
$5,796
$65,564
$21,218
$21,218
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$34,778
$34,778
$23,185
$23,185
Year 6
$1,547,066 $1,325,600
$5,628
$63,654
$20,600
$20,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,765
$33,765
$22,510
$22,510
Year 5
$1,510,662
$5,970
$67,531
$21,855
$21,855
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35,822
$35,822
$23,881
$23,881
Year 7
$1,378,588
$6,149
$69,556
$22,510
$22,510
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$36,896
$36,896
$24,597
$24,597
Year 8
$1,578,756
$6,524
$73,792
$23,881
$23,881
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$39,143
$39,143
$26,095
$26,095
Year 10
$17,924,257
$1,399,346
$6,334
$71,643
$23,185
$23,185
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$38,003
$38,003
$25,335
$25,335
Year 9
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
71
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Bettongia penicillata
1.Family Potoroidae
2.
Scientific name: Bettongia penicillata (Waterhouse, 1841)
3.
Common name: Brush-tailed bettong, woylie, brush-tailed rat-kangaroo
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Critically Endangered; A4be
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Critically Endangered because of a drastic, ongoing population decline, estimated to be more than
80% within a ten year period, inferred from trap rates over the last eight years and projected to continue for
at least the next two years. There are a number of known threats to the species, however, the recent declines
are mysterious and appear to exhibit density dependence (thus are likely to belong to at least one of the
factors under criterion A4e) (Wayne et al. 2008).
Listed as Endangered under the Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act (1999) (DSEWPAC 2011).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1
Bettongia penicillata ogilby – Western Australia. Critically Endangered, EPBC Act 1999.
6.2 Bettongia penicillata penicillata – south-eastern and possibly central Australia. Extinct
(DEWHA 2010
7.
Range and abundance
Figure 5: Known distribution of Bettongia penicillata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
Formerly widely distributed in southern Australia, mostly south of about 30°S, the woylie was known from
north-eastern New South Wales, across the southern Northern Territory, South Australia and the Nullarbor
to south-western Western Australia, perhaps as far north as Shark Bay. It is likely that it was also present
in the semi-arid north-west of Victoria. One island population, on St Francis Island, Nuyts Archipelago,
existed before being exterminated by settlers and their cats in the 19th century. By the 1970s, the woylie
was extinct over most of its range, surviving only in three small areas in the south-west of Western
Australia – Tutanning, Dryandra and Tone-Perup River (Claridge et al. 2007).
72
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
his species formerly inhabited a wide range of
T
habitats from desert spinifex grasslands to forests.
It is now restricted to forests and open woodlands in
Western Australia and mallee shrublands in South
Australia with clumped low understorey of tussock
grasses or low woody scrub (Maxwell et al. 1996).
In south-western Australia the woylie is mostly
restricted to dry sclerophyll forest and woodland
types – often dominated in the overstorey by Jarrah
(Eucalyptus marginata) in combination with Wandoo
(E. wandoo). These vegetation communities typically
occur on well-drained upland, deep soils and either
have a low xeric scrub or tussock grass understorey
(Claridge et al. 2007).
9.Threats
9.1 Fox and cat predation.
9.2 Habitat destruction and alteration.
9.3 Disease (still under investigation).
9.4 Catastrophic wildfire.
The cause of the dramatic population decline
since 2001 is as yet unknown (Wayne et al. 2008).
10. Information required
10.1 Population survey and monitoring.
10.2 Research into the reasons for the sudden
decline in woylie numbers, particularly in
large wild populations.
10.3 Recommended areas of research:
•
•
The impacts of disease on important
woylie populations and associated
hygiene practices that could be built into
management practices to ensure no further
spread of disease.
Altered baiting regimes to better target the
direct predators of woylies.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Bettongia penicillata is eligible for
listing as Endangered according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
management plans have been developed and
implemented to address those causes.
11.4 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threat of feral predators for key
Bettongia penicillata subpopulations.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Bettongia
penicillata has been maintained at known
2011 levels13.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Woylies have been the subject of more
translocations than any other species in
Australia (see Short 2009 for details).
12.2 Release of woylies to Paruna has not been
successful, and further releases are unlikely.
Paruna is not fenced and is not secure
despite substantial effort (J. Short, pers.
comm.).
12.3 Since 2005 the Woylie Conservation
Research Project has been intensively
investigating the causes of the recent
rapid and substantial declines with a
focus in the Upper Warren region. Lead
by The West Australian Department of
Environment and Conservation (DEC) in
collaboration with Murdoch University,
Perth Zoo, and Australian Wildlife
Conservancy, the project is investigating
the roles of predation, food resources, and
disease (A. Wayne pers. comm.).
12.4 A secure enclosure of 400 ha at Perup was
established and populated with more than
40 woylies in late 2010.
12.5 There are many reintroduction sites with
little or no follow-up information (J. Short,
pers. comm.).
12.6 Eight woylies (trypanosome positive) were
translocated to Native Animal Rescue,
Malaga (WA).
12.7 A group of five woylies was translocated
to the Perth zoo for breeding purposes in
late 2010.
11.2 By 2021, numbers of mature Bettongia
penicillata in the wild are considered
stable or increasing based on an index of
abundance appropriate to the species.
12.8 Woylies were reintroduced to the 430
ha Wadderin Sanctuary in the central
wheatbelt in 2010 (-31.985 118.414). Current
estimate of population (February 2011) is 40
and growing (J. Short, pers. comm.)
11.3 By 2021, the cause of recent declines and
suppression of recovery in Bettongia
penicillata are understood, and
12.9 Possible new translocation sites are being
investigated.
13 Ideally, the genetic diversity of South Australia’s island subpopulations should be increased within the timeframe of this plan.
73
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
12.10In Western Australia, fox and cat baiting
under the Western Shield program is
aimed at improving the conservation status
of many species. Ongoing fox control is
important for the management of woylies.
Reintroduction projects under the same
program also benefit a range of species
including woylies.
12.11 Current research:
•
Investigation into the nature of disease
afflicting woylies is being undertaken by
DEC, Perth Zoo and Murdoch University.
•
Meso-predator release is being undertaken
by DEC Science Division. The project aims
to investigate the relationship between
introduced predators (foxes and cats) and
various native species in 1080 baited and
unbaited sites. Similar research has also
been undertaken by the Arid Recovery
project at Roxby Downs in South Australia.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species –
distribution and abundance.
13.2 Status assessment – genetic diversity.
13.3 Manage species data to inform adaptive
management.
13.10Implement monitoring protocols for
predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
13.11Secure high priority wild subpopulations
(in situ or ex situ as appropriate) by
mitigating known threats under an adaptive
management framework, including intensive
fox and cat control.
13.12Establish captive insurance subpopulation
at Perth Zoo - includes installation of
infrastructure and disease exclusion.
13.13Review of translocations (and success and
failure factors)
13.14Those subpopulations not high priority or
at key monitoring sites are to be left in situ,
and undergo minimum monitoring at least
every five years. All woylies in care or pet
trade in SA to be excluded from recovery
considerations, with no recovery resources
allocated to them.
13.15Characterise recent declines of woylies (e.g.
spatial patterns, gender bias, age bias, etc.).
13.4 Determine role of predation in woylie
decline and suppression of recovery.
13.16Relate characteristics of recent declines to
possible role of other factors, e.g. dieback,
pigs, gastrolobium, resource availability etc.
13.5 Determine role/nature of disease in woylie
decline and suppression of recovery.
13.17Development of protocols on how to best
manage the species in the future.
13.6 Develop and apply disease management
protocol to reduce introduction of disease,
particularly for work with all high priority
and key subpopulations (high importance
for Karakamia, low priority for other
subpopulations).
13.18Once disease factors are better understood,
develop genetically diverse and viable
subpopulations (having a sustainable
carrying capacity of > 3,000 mature
individuals) throughout former range,
including South Australian islands.
13.7 Moratorium/control on movement and
translocation of woylies to reduce spread of
disease to other locations and other species
until such time as the role of disease in
woylie decline and recovery suppression
is established.
13.8 Develop monitoring protocols for key
subpopulations (including high priority
sites), including woylie abundance,
demographics, genetics, health, predators
and disease.
74
13.9 Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, abundance, demographics and
health, and effectiveness of management
intervention.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC), Western Australia.
14.2 Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), South Australia.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC).
15.2 Perth Zoo.
15.3 Zoos South Australia
15.4 Murdoch University.
15.5 Wadderin Committee – Shire of Narembeen.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 Full-time project manager to oversee
the complex recovery project.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
29 June 2010.
Maxwell, S, Burbidge, AA and Morris, K (1996) The
1996 Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and
Monotremes. Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme
Specialist Group, IUCN Species Survival Commission,
Gland, Switzerland.
Short, J (2009) The characteristics and success of
vertebrate translocations within Australia. Report
to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry.
Wayne, A, Friend, T, Burbidge, A, Morris, K & van
Weenen, J (2008) Bettongia penicillata. In: IUCN
(2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/2785/0. Accessed 29 June 2010.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$18 million.
18.Note
20. Comments received
18.1None
20.1 Adrian Wayne, DEC WA.
19.References
Claridge, A, Seebeck, J & Rose, R (2007) Bettongs,
Potoroos and the Musky Rat-Kangaroo. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities (DSEWPAC) (2011)
Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi . In: Species Profile
and Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts,
Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed 29 December 2010 .
20.2 Jeff Short, Wildlife Research and
Management, WA.
20.3 Manda Page, AWC.
20.4 Matt Hayward, AWC.
20.5 David Armstrong, DENR SA.
Table 15: List of recovery actions for Bettongia penicillata, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
NA
Project Coordinator
manages project.
NA
Coordination of disease
investigation, including
operating budget.
Current recovery actions are ad hoc
and opportunistic, and the recovery
program is of sufficient complexity to
warrant a dedicated manager. There is
also be a need for coordination of disease
research.
All
Status assessment of
extant subpopulations
using standard protocol,
including trend, size, risk
and priority. Includes
5-year review.
All
Status assessment of
extant subpopulations genetics.
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species,
to assess those subpopulations most
at risk from a range of threats, and to
ensure that genetic stock is maintained.
There are also many translocated
subpopulations about which very little
is known. One-off trapping efforts may
be required to establish which of these
subpopulations are extant.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Yearly
6 Months
1 Person
Yearly
2 Months
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
75
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
NA
Develop monitoring
protocols for key
subpopulations
(including high priority
sites), including
woylie abundance,
demographics, genetics,
health, predators and
disease.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Once
6 Months
1 Person
Perup
6-Monthly
1 Month
10 People
Kingston
6-Monthly
1 Month
10 People
Dryandra
6-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yookamurra
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Paruna
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
Perup
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Perup Sanctuary
3-Monthly
1 Week
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
Once
3 Months
4 People
Once
1 Month
4 People
Weekly
1 Week
2 People
Weekly
3 Days
1 Person
Once
2 Months
10 People
Once
2 Months
10 People
Once
1 Month
5 People
Once
1 Month
5 People
Tutanning
Batalling
Karakamia
Scotia Stage 1
Scotia Stage 2
Kingston
Dryandra
Tutanning
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, abundance,
demographics and
health, and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Rationale
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives.
Implement monitoring
protocols for predator
activity, and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Batalling
Perth Zoo
Perth Zoo
Translocate woylies to
enclosure.
Perth Zoo
Maintain insurance
subpopulation Includes infrastructure
maintenance and disease
exclusion
Perup Enclosure
Maintain insurance
subpopulation Includes infrastructure
maintenance and disease
exclusion
Tutanning
Batalling
Tutanning
Batalling
76
Establish insurance
subpopulation Includes installation
of infrastructure and
disease exclusion
Capture all woylies and
translocate to secure
location (e.g. Wadderin,
Mooramurra, Mt Gibson,
SA Islands and other
sanctuaries in other
states)
Secondary capture to
pick up any remaining
animals after principle
trapping effort.
Sanctuaries represent some of the
most secure subpopulations of woylies,
and offer natural quarantine areas to
avoid the spread of disease. It is vital
to ensure that disease is not introduced
to these subpopulations. It is important
to secure and maintain the current
genetic stock of the species where
any factors contributing to the recent
declines can be effectively excluded,
until such time that the threats can be
dismissed or mitigated.
These sites are not deemed secure
or suitable in the long term as woylie
habitat. Animals must be secured
immediately and translocated to a
suitable location until such time as we
understand the nature of recent woylie
decline.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Monthly
1 Month
10 People
3-Monthly
1 Month
10 People
3-Monthly
1 Month
10 People
3-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
3-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
Karakamia
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Scotia Stage 1
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Unknown
Unknown
1 Person
Once
1 Month
1 Person
Once
2 Years
3 People
Once
2 Years
5 People
Once
1 Year
2 People
Perup
Kingston
Dryandra
Tutanning
Batalling
Scotia Stage 2
Yookamurra
Paruna
Other Sanctuary 1
Action
Intensive fox and cat
control through ground
baiting and trapping.
Intensive fox and
cat control until
translocation is
undertaken to secure
location.
Ongoing sanctuary
management,
including resource
supplementation, fence
maintenance, disease and
predator exclusion
Rationale
Introduced predators, in particular
the European red fox and feral cat are
considered one of the greatest threats
to the survival of woylie occurrences.
Despite targeted management and
research programs the fox and feral
cat are likely to remain one of the most
dangerous elements threatening
woylie survival.
Sanctuaries represent secure and
disease-free subpopulations of woylies,
and ongoing maintenance needs to be
factored into species management into
the future.
Other Sanctuary 2
NA
Develop disease
management protocol
to reduce introduction
of disease
All
Apply disease
management protocol
to reduce introduction/
spread of disease.
NA
Moratorium/ control
on movement and
translocation of woylies
to reduce spread of
disease to other locations
and other species until
such time as the role of
disease in woylie decline
and recovery suppression
is established
Perup and Perup Sanctuary
Conduct research
to determine role of
predation in woylie
decline and suppression
of recovery
NA
Conduct research to
determine role/nature of
disease in woylie decline
and suppression of
recovery.
NA
Characterise recent
declines of woylies (e.g.
spatial patterns, gender
bias, age bias, etc.)
NA
Relate characteristics
of recent declines to
possible role of other
factors (e.g. dieback, pigs,
gastrolobium, resource
availability etc.)
A range of threats may have contributed
to recent declines, and more information
is required to establish the relative
importance of each.
Once
1 Year
2 People
NA
Manage data and compile
annual report for woylies.
Distribute report.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Once the causes of the recent decline are
better understood, protocols will need to
be developed to avoid future declines
of a similar nature.
Until such time as the impacts of
disease on the decline of woylies is
known, translocations or mixing of
subpopulations could be detrimental
to the health of those subpopulations
involved.
More information about the nature of
woylie decline is required to understand
those demographic or geographic groups
susceptible to decline.
77
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
NA
Review of translocations
(and success and failure
factors)
NA
Development of protocols
on how to best manage
the species in the future
Translocations of wild and captive
subpopulations will be crucial to the
ongoing management of the species.
Ensuring that any future translocations
are undertaken under optimum
conditions is essential for the success of
the operations.
Saint Peter and Wedge Islands
Prepare site for
development of
genetically diverse
and viable (>
3,000 individuals)
subpopulation, including
fence construction as
preliminary holding pen
Saint Peter and Wedge Islands
Translocation of woylies
from genetically diverse
sources.
Saint Peter and Wedge Islands
Secondary translocation
of woylies from
genetically diverse
sources.
Saint Peter and Wedge Islands
Ongoing maintenance
of translocated
subpopulation
Duration
Effort
Once
1 Month
1 Person
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Once
6 Months
4 People
Once
2 Months
5 People
Once
1 Month
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
Low-priority subpopulation 1
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 2
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 3
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 4
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 5
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 6
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 7
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 8
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 9
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 10
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 11
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 20
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 21
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 22
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 23
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 24
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 25
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 26
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 27
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 28
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 29
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 30
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Low-priority subpopulation 12
Low-priority subpopulation 13
Low-priority subpopulation 14
Low-priority subpopulation 15
Low-priority subpopulation 16
Low-priority subpopulation 17
Low-priority subpopulation 18
Low-priority subpopulation 19
78
The South Australian islands represent
a very secure and disease-free, albeit
genetically limited, subpopulation.
The establishment of additional selfsustaining subpopulations that are
secure from the threats of habitat loss,
predation and disease is required to
ensure the species can be down-listed
on the IUCN Red List. The Venus Bay
subpopulation (descended from 67
woylies translocated from the wild in WA
in 1994-95, D. Armstrong pers. comm.)
may be a suitable source, or could
be maintained as a viable insurance
subpopulation in its own right. St Peter
Island is approximately 3400 ha. Wedge
Island is approximately 1800 ha.
Frequency
Minimum monitoring
at 5-yearly intervals.
Includes distribution
and abundance, trend
and risks.
There are many small subpopulations
of woylies that present management
challenges, and that would not add
significantly to the conservation
objectives, from the perspective of
abundance and/or genetic diversity. It
would be extremely resource-intensive
to manage these subpopulations, with
little prospective return. Also there is
the possibility that human intervention
could inadvertently cause more harm.
$0
$0
Translocate woylies to enclosure.
Maintain insurance subpopulation - Includes
infrastructure maintenance and disease exclusion
Perth Zoo
Perth Zoo
$0
Establish insurance subpopulation - Includes
installation of infrastructure and disease
exclusion
$18,000
Batalling
Perth Zoo
$15,000
$15,000
$18,000
Tutanning
Dryandra
Kingston
$6,000
Perup Sanctuary
Implement monitoring protocols for predator
activity, and effectiveness of management
intervention.
$8,000
$18,000
Paruna
Perup
$15,000
Yookamurra
$0
$0
$200,000
$18,540
$15,450
$15,450
$18,540
$6,180
$18,540
$8,240
$15,450
$10,300
$10,300
$10,000
$10,000
Scotia Stage 1
$15,450
$30,900
$20,600
$20,600
$30,900
$30,900
$10,000
$0
$25,000
$149,350
$123,600
Year 2
$15,000
Scotia Stage 2
Karakamia
$30,000
$20,000
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, abundance, demographics and health,
and effectiveness of management intervention.
Tutanning
Batalling
$20,000
Dryandra
$20,000
Develop monitoring protocols for key
subpopulations (including high priority sites),
including woylie abundance, demographics,
genetics, health, predators and disease.
NA
$30,000
$30,000
Status assessment of extant subpopulations genetics.
All
$30,000
$60,000
Status assessment of extant subpopulations using
standard protocol, including trend, size, risk and
priority. Includes 5-year review.
All
Kingston
$145,000
Coordination of disease investigation, including
operating budget.
NA
Perup
$120,000
Year 1#
Project Coordinator manages project.
Action
NA
Subpopulation
Table 16: List of recovery actions for Bettongia penicillata, and their costs
$40,000
$40,000
$60,000
$19,096
$15,914
$15,914
$19,096
$6,365
$19,096
$8,487
$15,914
$10,609
$10,609
$15,914
$31,827
$21,218
$21,218
$31,827
$31,827
$0
$0
$25,750
$153,831
$127,308
Year 3
$41,200
$0
$0
$19,669
$16,391
$16,391
$19,669
$6,556
$19,669
$8,742
$16,391
$10,927
$10,927
$16,391
$32,782
$21,855
$21,855
$32,782
$32,782
$0
$0
$26,523
$158,445
$131,127
Year 4
$42,436
$0
$0
$20,259
$16,883
$16,883
$20,259
$6,753
$20,259
$9,004
$16,883
$11,255
$11,255
$16,883
$33,765
$22,510
$22,510
$33,765
$33,765
$0
$33,765
$67,531
$163,199
$135,061
Year 5
$43,709
$0
$0
$20,867
$17,389
$17,389
$20,867
$6,956
$20,867
$9,274
$17,389
$11,593
$11,593
$17,389
$34,778
$23,185
$23,185
$34,778
$34,778
$25,000
$0
$28,138
$0
$139,113
Year 6
$75,000
$0
$0
$21,493
$17,911
$17,911
$21,493
$7,164
$21,493
$9,552
$17,911
$11,941
$11,941
$17,911
$35,822
$23,881
$23,881
$35,822
$35,822
$0
$0
$28,982
$0
$143,286
Year 7
$46,371
$0
$0
$22,138
$18,448
$18,448
$22,138
$7,379
$22,138
$9,839
$18,448
$12,299
$12,299
$18,448
$36,896
$24,597
$24,597
$36,896
$36,896
$0
$0
$29,851
$0
$147,585
Year 8
$47,762
$0
$0
$22,802
$19,002
$19,002
$22,802
$7,601
$22,802
$10,134
$19,002
$12,668
$12,668
$19,002
$38,003
$25,335
$25,335
$38,003
$38,003
$0
$0
$30,747
$0
$152,012
Year 9
$49,195
$0
$0
$23,486
$19,572
$19,572
$23,486
$7,829
$23,486
$10,438
$19,572
$13,048
$13,048
$19,572
$39,143
$26,095
$26,095
$39,143
$39,143
$0
$39,143
$31,669
$0
$156,573
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
79
80
$0
$0
$0
Moratorium/control on movement and
translocation of woylies to reduce spread of
disease to other locations and other species until
such time as the role of disease in woylie decline
and recovery suppression is established
Conduct research to determine role of predation in
woylie decline and suppression of recovery
Conduct research to determine role/nature of
disease in woylie decline and suppression of
recovery.
Characterise recent declines of woylies (e.g. spatial
patterns, gender bias, age bias, etc.)
NA
Perup and Perup Sanctuary
NA
NA
$5,000
$0
Apply disease management protocol to reduce
introduction/spread of disease.
All
$10,000
Develop disease management protocol to reduce
introduction of disease
NA
$30,000
Other Sanctuary 2
$15,000
$30,000
Other Sanctuary 1
Paruna
$25,000
$15,000
Scotia Stage 2
Ongoing sanctuary management, including
resource supplementation, fence maintenance,
disease and predator exclusion
$15,000
Scotia Stage 1
Yookamurra
$30,000
Karakamia
$50,000
$50,000
Batalling
$150,000
Intensive fox and cat control until translocation is
undertaken to secure location.
$200,000
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,000
Year 1#
Tutanning
Intensive fox and cat control through ground
baiting and trapping.
Secondary capture to pick up any remaining
animals after principle trapping effort.
Capture all woylies and translocate to secure
location (e.g. Wadderin, Mooramurra, Mt Gibson,
SA Islands and other sanctuaries in other states)
Maintain insurance subpopulation - Includes
infrastructure maintenance and disease exclusion
Action
Dryandra
Kingston
Perup
Batalling
Tutanning
Batalling
Tutanning
Perup Enclosure
Subpopulation
$0
$30,000
$0
$5,150
$20,000
$10,300
$30,900
$30,900
$15,450
$25,750
$15,450
$15,450
$30,900
$51,500
$51,500
$154,500
$206,000
$206,000
$0
$0
$125,000
$0
$41,200
Year 2
$30,000
$30,900
$40,000
$5,305
$20,600
$10,609
$31,827
$31,827
$15,914
$26,523
$15,914
$15,914
$31,827
$53,045
$53,045
$159,135
$212,180
$212,180
$60,000
$0
$0
$125,000
$42,436
Year 3
$0
$31,827
$41,200
$0
$21,218
$10,927
$32,782
$32,782
$16,391
$27,318
$16,391
$16,391
$32,782
$0
$54,636
$163,909
$218,545
$218,545
$0
$60,000
$0
$0
$43,709
Year 4
$0
$32,782
$0
$0
$21,855
$11,255
$33,765
$33,765
$16,883
$28,138
$16,883
$16,883
$33,765
$0
$0
$168,826
$225,102
$225,102
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,020
Year 5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
$0
$34,778
$34,778
$17,389
$28,982
$17,389
$17,389
$34,778
$0
$0
$173,891
$231,855
$231,855
$0
$0
$0
$0
$46,371
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23,185
$0
$35,822
$35,822
$17,911
$29,851
$17,911
$17,911
$35,822
$0
$0
$179,108
$238,810
$238,810
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,762
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$23,881
$0
$36,896
$36,896
$18,448
$30,747
$18,448
$18,448
$36,896
$0
$0
$184,481
$245,975
$245,975
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,195
Year 8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$52,191
Year 10
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,597
$0
$38,003
$38,003
$19,002
$31,669
$19,002
$19,002
$38,003
$0
$0
$190,016
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,335
$0
$39,143
$39,143
$19,572
$32,619
$19,572
$19,572
$39,143
$0
$0
$195,716
$253,354 $260,955
$253,354 $260,955
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50,671
Year 9
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
$0
$20,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
$0
Development of protocols on how to best manage
the species in the future
Prepare site for development of genetically diverse
and viable (> 3,000 individuals) subpopulation,
including fence construction as preliminary
holding pen
Translocation of woylies from genetically diverse
sources.
Secondary translocation of woylies from
genetically diverse sources.
Ongoing maintenance of translocated
subpopulation
NA
Saint Peter and Wedge Islands
Saint Peter and Wedge Islands
Saint Peter and Wedge Islands
Saint Peter and Wedge Islands
Low-priority subpopulation 1
Low-priority subpopulation 2
$20,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 14
Low-priority subpopulation 15
Low-priority subpopulation 16
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
Low-priority subpopulation 12
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 13
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 11
$20,600
$0
$0
$20,000
Low-priority subpopulation 10
Low-priority subpopulation 9
$0
$20,600
$0
$0
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 6
Low-priority subpopulation 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
Low-priority subpopulation 5
Low-priority subpopulation 8
$0
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 3
Low-priority subpopulation 4
Minimum monitoring at 5-yearly intervals.
Includes distribution and abundance, trend
and risks.
$0
$0
Review of translocations (and success and failure
factors)
NA
$0
$0
Manage data and compile annual report for
woylies. Distribute report.
$0
NA
Year 2
$0
Year 1#
Relate characteristics of recent declines to
possible role of other factors(e.g. dieback, pigs,
gastrolobium, resource availability etc.)
Action
NA
Subpopulation
$0
$21,218
$0
$0
$0
$21,218
$0
$0
$0
$21,218
$0
$0
$0
$21,218
$0
$0
$25,000
$0
$125,000
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$30,000
Year 3
$21,855
$0
$0
$0
$21,855
$0
$0
$0
$21,855
$0
$0
$0
$21,855
$0
$0
$0
$25,750
$50,000
$0
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 4
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
$26,523
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
$0
Year 5
$0
$0
$23,185
$0
$0
$0
$23,185
$0
$0
$0
$23,185
$0
$0
$0
$23,185
$0
$27,318
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 6
$0
$23,881
$0
$0
$0
$23,881
$0
$0
$0
$23,881
$0
$0
$0
$23,881
$0
$0
$28,138
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$24,597
$0
$0
$0
$24,597
$0
$0
$0
$24,597
$0
$0
$0
$24,597
$0
$0
$0
$28,982
Year 8
$0
$0
$0
$25,335
$0
$0
$0
$25,335
$0
$0
$0
$25,335
$0
$0
$0
$25,335
$29,851
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$0
$0
$26,095
$0
$0
$0
$26,095
$0
$0
$0
$26,095
$0
$0
$0
$26,095
$0
$30,747
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
$0
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
81
82
$0
$0
$0
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
$1,678,000
$0
$20,000
Low-priority subpopulation 29
Low-priority subpopulation 30
YEARLY TOTALS
$0
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 28
$2,225,040
$20,600
$0
$20,600
$0
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 26
$0
$0
$0
$20,600
$0
$0
$0
$20,600
Year 2
Low-priority subpopulation 27
$20,000
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 25
Low-priority subpopulation 24
Low-priority subpopulation 23
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 22
Minimum monitoring at 5-yearly intervals.
Includes distribution and abundance, trend
and risks.
$0
$20,000
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 19
Low-priority subpopulation 20
$0
Low-priority subpopulation 21
$20,000
Year 1#
Low-priority subpopulation 17
Action
Low-priority subpopulation 18
Subpopulation
$0
$0
$2,344,523
$0
$0
$0
$21,218
$0
$0
$0
$21,218
$0
$0
$0
$21,218
Year 3
$1,959,159
$0
$0
$21,855
$0
$0
$0
$21,855
$0
$0
$0
$21,855
$0
$0
$0
Year 4
$23,185
$0
$0
$0
$23,185
$0
$0
$0
$23,185
$0
$0
$0
$23,185
$0
Year 6
$1,891,510 $1,663,005
$0
$22,510
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
$0
$0
$0
$22,510
Year 5
$1,693,244
$0
$0
$0
$23,881
$0
$0
$0
$23,881
$0
$0
$0
$23,881
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$1,713,163
$0
$0
$24,597
$0
$0
$0
$24,597
$0
$0
$0
$24,597
Year 8
$1,905,242
$26,095
$0
$0
$0
$26,095
$0
$0
$0
$26,095
$0
$0
$0
$26,095
$0
Year 10
$18,862,779
$1,789,892
$0
$25,335
$0
$0
$0
$25,335
$0
$0
$0
$25,335
$0
$0
$0
$25,335
Year 9
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Bettongia tropica
1.Family Potoroidae
2.
Scientific name: Bettongia tropica (Wakefield, 1967)
3.
Common name: Northern bettong, tropical bettong
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(iii,v)+2ab(iii,v)
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Endangered in view of its extent of occurrence of less than 5,000 km2 and area of occupancy of
less than 500 km2, all individuals are from less than 6 locations, and because there is a continuing decline
in the extent and quality of habitat, and an inferred continuing decline in number of mature individuals in
all locations due to habitat loss and degradation and changing fire regimes (Burnett & Winter 2008).
Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None
7.
Range and abundance
Figure 6: Known distribution of Bettongia tropica from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010;
Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
The Northern Bettong is endemic to north-eastern Queensland, Australia. There are currently three
localities with extant populations: the western side of the Lamb Range (includes Davies Creek, Emu Creek
and Tinaroo subpopulations), Mt. Carbine Tableland, and the Coane Range (Paluma). One other locality,
Mount Windsor Tableland, may have an extant population. A population in the vicinity of Ravenshoe has
not been seen since the 1920s; presumably, the Northern Bettong has been extirpated from this area and it
is not mapped. A single individual was recorded from the Dawson Valley (near Rockhampton) in 1884; no
Northern Bettongs have been seen in this area since that year (also not mapped) (Dennis 2001; Winter et al.
2008). It has been recorded at elevations between 800 m and 1,200 m above sea level (Winter et al. 2008).
83
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
There are no total population estimates for the
Northern Bettong. Of the three localities with
confirmed extant populations, only the Lamb
Range has a substantial number of individuals
over a broad area (densities of 4 to 7 individuals/
km2). Mount Carbine Tableland and the Coane
Range both have small and restricted populations
occurring at low densities (Dennis 2001; Winter
et al. 2008).
No northern bettongs have been seen at
Mount Windsor Tableland since 2003, despite
considerable effort, and the status of this
population is unknown (Dennis 2001; Winter
et al. 2008).
8.Habitat
The Northern bettong is found in a range of
eucalypt forest types associated with granite
soils, from tall and wet forest dominated by
Eucalyptus grandis and tall forest dominated by
E. resinifera, abutting the rainforest, to medium
height and drier woodlands dominated by
Corymbia citriodora and C. platyphylla (Dennis
2001; Winter et al. 2008). Diet is specialised,
relying on a range of hypogeous fungi, and
the underground parts of grasses, particularly
Cockatoo grass (Alloteropsis semialata), smaller
amounts of the tuberous material from ground
orchids and lilies, and small invertebrates
(Winter et al. 2008).
9.Threats
9.1 Small size of extant subpopulations.
9.2 Fragmented, isolated distribution across
a limited geographic extent.
9.3 Habitat transformation due to lack
of fire and subsequent invasion of
rainforest species.
9.4 Cattle grazing.
9.5 Predation by cats and possibly foxes
(minor threat).
9.6 Possible competition for hypogenous fungi
from feral pigs (minor threat).
9.7 Weeds and the habitat degradation
resulting from the invasion of gamba grass,
grader grass, thatch grass and lantana
(minor threat).
10. Information required
10.1 Surveys to confirm size and distribution
of extant subpopulations.
84
10.2 Conduct studies into the diet of northern
bettongs, habitat partitioning between
rufous and northern bettongs, and food
competition between northern bettongs
and feral pigs.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Bettongia tropica is eligible for
listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN Red
List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of
Bettongia tropica in the form of extent of
occurrence is greater than 5,000 km2, with
subpopulations secure at greater than five
locations within that range.
11.3 By 2021, the geographic range of Bettongia
tropica in the form of area of occupancy is
greater than 500 km2, with subpopulations
secure at greater than five locations within
that range.
11.4 By 2021, numbers of mature Bettongia
tropica in the wild are considered stable or
increasing based on an index of abundance
appropriate to the species.
11.5 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of altered fire regimes,
feral pigs and predators, and to improve
habitat area, extent and quality, for all
Bettongia tropica subpopulations.
11.6 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Bettongia
tropica has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
* A taxon is defined as secure when its numbers
and distribution are stable or increasing, and
when numbers and distribution are sufficient
that there is a 95% probability that the species
will survive the stochastic events anticipated over
a 50 year timeframe, given that all known and
predicted threats are adequately mitigated.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Back on Track prioritisation of recovery and
management actions for threatened species
in Queensland, undertaken by DERM.
12.2 Fire scar mapping of both burnt and longterm unburnt areas is being undertaken
by DERM.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
12.3 Fire manipulation is being undertaken on
plots at Davies Creek for cockatoo grass
(Alloteropsis semialata) fire response and
looking to replicate at other sites for the
northern bettong.
13.4 Review the need and reasons for
translocations.
12.4 DERM is undertaking feral pig control at
some northern bettong sites.
13.7 Feral predator management.
12.5 AWC undertaking a range of on-ground
management actions at Mount ZeroTaravale, including establishing appropriate
fire management programs and control of
rainforest understorey.
12.6 Habitat mapping was undertaken at
Mount Zero-Taravale (Brooke Bateman,
pers. comm.).
12.7 James Cook University is conducting
camera trapping exercises to monitor
northern bettongs and feral predator
activity at a range of sites.
12.8 DERM is currently finalising a habitat map
based on regional ecosystem mapping.
12.9 An experimental fire management program
has been established on Lamb Range which
attempts to look at the complex interplay
between fire, grazing and pigs.
12.10Camera traps in the Mount Windsor and
Mount Carbine Tablelands were successful
in recording northern bettong on the
Mount Windsor Tablelands in 2003 (DERM
unpublished data).
12.11 DERM is currently finalising a community
fox and rabbit survey based on a previous
survey undertaken in 1996.
12.12A trial re-introduction of northern bettongs
was undertaken in 2005 with the release of
15 animals into Tumoulin State Forest. It
was unsuccessful due to factors including
feral predators, stock vitality issues not
apparent until after the release, and
habitat selection.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations
using standard protocols, including
distribution, abundance, genetics, trend,
risk and priority subpopulations.
13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive
management, and compile annual report.
13.5 Fire planning and management.
13.6 Feral pig management.
13.8 Fostering appropriate grazing regimes.
13.9 Protect and manage unreserved habitat.
13.10Identify sites for translocation or
reintroduction based on habitat mapping
and/or on-ground assessment.
13.11Establish and manage secure areas of
habitat for future translocations.
13.12Translocation of bettongs to secure and
managed areas of habitat.
13.13Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations
13.14Incorporate updated habitat knowledge into
plans for habitat continuity under potential
climate change scenarios.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and Resource
Management (DERM) Queensland.
14.2 Australian Wildlife Conservancy
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Terrain Natural Resource Management
(Terrain NRM)
15.2 James Cook University (JCU)
15.3 Wet Tropics Management Authority
(WTMA)
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is
required to manage the complex recovery
program.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$22 million.
18.Notes
18.1None
13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including
fire management, habitat condition,
predation and predator activity, and
species activity.
85
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
19.References
Burnett, S & Winter, J (2008) Bettongia tropica.
In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.
org/apps/redlist/details/2787/0. Accessed 29
June 2010.
Dennis, AJ (2001) Recovery plan for the northern
bettong, Bettongia tropica 2000-2004. Report
to Environment Australia, Canberra. Queensland
Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.
Department of Environment and
Resource Management (2009a) Back on
Track Species Prioritisation Framework.
Department of Environment and Resource
Management, Brisbane.
Department of Environment and Resource
Management (2009b) National Draft Recovery
Plan for the Northern Bettong Bettongia tropica.
Report to Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Department of Environment and Resource
Management, Brisbane.
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and
the Arts (DEWHA) (2010) Bettongia tropica . In:
Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.
gov.au/sprat. Accessed 29 Jul 2010 .
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Downloaded 29 June 2010.
Johnson, CN (1997) Fire and habitat management
for a mycophagous marsupial, the Tasmanian
bettong Bettongia gaimardi. Australian Journal
of Ecology 22, 101-105.
Laurance, WF (1996) A distributional survey
and habitat model for the endangered northern
bettong (Bettongia tropica) in tropical
Queensland. Biological Conservation 82: 47-60.
Vernes, K (2000) Ecology of the northern bettong
in fire prone wet sclerophyll forest. PhD Thesis in
the Department of Zoology and Tropical Ecology,
James Cook University of North Queensland,
Townsville.
Vernes, K and Pope, LC (2001) Stability of
nest range, home range and movement of the
northern bettong (Bettongia tropica) following
moderate-intensity fire in a tropical woodland,
north-eastern Queensland. Wildlife Research 28:
141-150.
Winter, JW, Johnson, PM and Vernes, K (2008)
Northern Bettong, Bettongia tropica. In The
Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, S &
Strahan, R).
20. Comments received
20.1 John Kanowski, AWC.
20.2 Threatened Species Section, DERM QLD.
20.3 Brooke Bateman, James Cook University.
Table 17: List of recovery actions for Bettongia tropica, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Project coordinator
manages project
Current recovery actions are ad hoc and
opportunistic, and the recovery program
is of sufficient complexity to warrant a
dedicated manager.
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
All
Status assessment
- distribution and
abundance. Includes
surveys of known
subpopulations
3-Yearly
3 Months
10 People
All
Status assessment genetics
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
Yearly
2 Months
5 People
Mount Windsor Tableland and
Greater Ravenshoe Area and
other potential habitat
86
Survey to confirm
bettong presence
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained.
There are several unconfirmed sightings,
and areas where bettongs have not
been sighted for many years. It will be
important to confirm the existence of
any subpopulations as yet unknown or
presumed extinct in order to achieve
eligibility for down-listing.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Manage species data
to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5
year program review.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
3-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
Review of translocations,
and success and failure
factors
Translocations of wild and captive
subpopulations will be crucial to the
ongoing management of the species.
Ensuring that any future translocations
are undertaken under optimum
conditions is essential for the success of
the operations.
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
All
Conduct research into
optimal fire management
practices to maintain
bettong habitat, including
food resources
Deviation from the burning regimes
implemented by Traditional Owners
is likely to have caused significant
ecological changes to northern bettong
habitat, resulting in habitat alteration
(especially understorey composition
changes altering the availability of
food resources). Little is known about
the optimum fire regime to maintain
bettong food sources. Any reduction
in the availability of foodstuffs during
dry conditions, when truffle availability
is low, could significantly impact
populations.
Yearly
3 Months
2 People
All
Develop monitoring
protocols for the species,
including trapping,
satellite collars and
camera traps, and to
monitor habitat and
threats
Once
1 Month
1 Person
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
10 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
Translocation Site 1
3-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
Translocation Site 2
3-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
Lamb Range
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
Yearly
3 Weeks
10 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
All
Lamb Range
Coane Range
Mount Carbine Tableland
Mount Windsor Tableland
Coane Range
Mount Carbine Tableland
Mount Windsor Tableland
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator and pig
activity, and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Lamb Range
Coane Range
Mount Carbine Tableland
Mount Windsor Tableland
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives
Implement appropriate
fire management in
bettong habitat, and
assess rainforest
encroachment dynamics
Deviation from the burning regimes
implemented by Traditional Owners
is likely to have caused significant
ecological changes to northern bettong
habitat, resulting in habitat alteration
(especially understorey composition
changes altering the availability of food
resources). It is understood that too
frequent fires promote the encroachment
of rainforest understorey into northern
bettong habitat, making it less suitable
for the species.
87
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Conduct strategic feral
predator control in
bettong habitat
Cats are established within northern
bettong habitat, and may be a significant
predator. The high density Lamb Range
population could be quickly impacted if
red fox establish.
Lamb Range
Coane Range
Mount Carbine Tableland
Mount Windsor Tableland
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Lamb Range
Coane Range
Mount Carbine Tableland
Mount Windsor Tableland
Conduct adaptive
management feral pig
control in bettong habitat
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Lamb Range
Coane Range
Mount Carbine Tableland
Mount Windsor Tableland
Exclude cattle grazing
from bettong habitat,
including landholder
communication and
fencing
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Feral pigs are widespread in the Wet
Tropics. As generalist omnivores,
they consume a wide variety of food
resources, and their rooting behaviour
disturbs the ground layer.
The likely impacts on northern bettongs
from feral pigs include competition for
resources and habitat alteration.
Cattle grazing continues to occur
in habitat on private property, and
inadequate fencing and the presence
of feral cattle means the pressure on
reserved northern bettong habitat
continues. Cattle grazing directly and
indirectly influences fire regimes. The
combined influence of cattle is to reduce
the occurrence of fires that contribute to
traditional burning patterns. This will
cause understorey changes that alter the
availability of food resources.
Lamb Range
Coane Range
Mount Carbine Tableland
Mount Windsor Tableland
Rehabilitate degraded
habitat, including weed
control
Translocation Site 1
Where rainforest understorey has
already encroached into northern
bettong habitat due to altered fire
patterns, intensive habitat rehabilitation
may be required.
Translocation Site 2
All
88
Identify unreserved
northern bettong habitat
and run extension
program to engage
landholders to better
manage or reserve land
Clearing for agriculture has resulted
in a permanent loss of habitat, and
there has also been loss associated
with road construction and electricity
lines. Logging and selective logging has
affected large areas of the Wet Tropics
eucalypt forest, and to a lesser extent
eucalypt woodland, but has largely
ceased for commercial purposes. Most
new clearing is associated with rural
residential activity. Habitat clearing is
likely to have influenced fire regimes by
fragmenting tracts, and in the case of
forestry, altering forest structure. While
most known habitat is now managed for
conservation, the legacy of forestry on
some habitat types will be significant in
certain areas.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
1 Person
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
1 Person
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
1 Person
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
1 Person
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Yearly
2 Weeks
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
3 Weeks
10 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
New subpopulations
Identify sites for
translocation or
reintroduction based on
habitat mapping and/or
on-ground assessment
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Establish secure areas
of habitat for future
translocations, including
any necessary fencing
and predator/pig removal
Translocation of bettongs
to secure and managed
areas of habitat
Rationale
In order to achieve an increase in area
of occupancy and extent of occurrence,
new or previously occupied sites will
need to be identified, secured, and used
as translocation sites.
Ongoing management
of translocated
subpopulations, including
resource supplementation
as required
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Once
6 Months
1 Person
Once
6 Months
4 People
Once
6 Months
4 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
All
Conduct studies to refine
northern bettong dietary
requirements
The dietary requirements of the
northern bettong are likely closely linked
to particular fire regimes and habitat
condition. More research is required to
better inform management decisions.
Once
1 Year
2 People
All
Conduct studies on the
extent of food resource
competition between
northern bettongs and
feral pigs
The impact of pigs on northern bettongs
is poorly known, but may be a significant
threat to the species.
Once
1 Year
2 People
All
Conduct studies
detailing rufous and
northern bettong habitat
partitioning and impacts
of land management
decisions
Competition between the two species
of bettong for resources may favour the
rufous bettong. More information is
required.
Once
1 Year
2 People
All
Incorporate updated
habitat knowledge
into plans for habitat
continuity under
potential climate change
scenarios
Given the fragmented and limited
distribution of the northern bettong,
possible impacts of climate change on
northern bettong habitat could be severe,
and adaptation programs need to be
established early.
3-Yearly
3 Months
3 People
89
90
$0
$0
$50,000
$0
Status assessment - genetics
Survey to confirm bettong presence
Manage species data to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5 year program review.
Review of translocations, and success and failure
factors
Conduct research into optimal fire management
practices to maintain bettong habitat, including
food resources
Develop monitoring protocols for the species,
including trapping, satellite collars and camera
traps, and to monitor habitat and threats
All
Mount Windsor Tableland and
Greater Ravenshoe Area and
other potential habitat
All
All
All
All
$10,000
Coane Range
$10,000
$10,000
Translocation Site 2
$10,000
Translocation Site 1
Mount Windsor Tableland
$10,000
$30,000
Lamb Range
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
$20,000
Translocation Site 2
Mount Carbine Tableland
$20,000
$20,000
Translocation Site 1
Mount Windsor Tableland
$20,000
$20,000
Mount Carbine Tableland
$60,000
Coane Range
$45,000
Lamb Range
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator and pig activity, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
$60,000
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations
All
$30,000
$100,000
Year 1#
Project coordinator manages project
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 18: List of recovery actions for Bettongia tropica, and their costs
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$30,900
$20,600
$20,600
$20,600
$20,600
$20,600
$61,800
$0
$51,500
$0
$0
$46,350
$0
$0
$103,000
Year 2
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$31,827
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$63,654
$0
$53,045
$0
$0
$47,741
$0
$0
$106,090
Year 3
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$32,782
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$65,564
$0
$54,636
$0
$0
$49,173
$0
$65,564
$109,273
Year 4
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$33,765
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$67,531
$0
$56,275
$0
$20,000*
$50,648
$33,765
$0
$112,551
Year 5
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$34,778
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$69,556
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
Year 6
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$35,822
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$71,643
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$71,644
$119,405
Year 7
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$36,896
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$73,792
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
Year 8
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$38,003
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$76,006
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
Year 9
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$39,143
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$78,286
$0
$0
$0
$30,000*
$0
$39,143
$78,287
$130,477
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
$25,000
Mount Carbine Tableland
$10,000
$10,000
Coane Range
Mount Carbine Tableland
$30,000
Mount Carbine Tableland
$30,000
$30,000
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
$30,000
$30,000
Coane Range
Mount Windsor Tableland
$10,000
$50,000
Translocation Site 2
Lamb Range
$10,000
Translocation Site 1
Rehabilitate degraded habitat, including
weed control
$20,000
Lamb Range
$10,000
$40,000
Translocation Site 2
Mount Windsor Tableland
$40,000
Translocation Site 1
Exclude cattle grazing from bettong habitat,
including landholder communication and fencing
$40,000
Mount Carbine Tableland
$40,000
$40,000
Mount Windsor Tableland
$100,000
Coane Range
$25,000
Translocation Site 2
Lamb Range
$25,000
Translocation Site 1
Conduct adaptive management feral pig control
in bettong habitat
$25,000
Coane Range
$25,000
$50,000
Lamb Range
Mount Windsor Tableland
$80,000
Translocation Site 2
Conduct strategic feral predator control in bettong
habitat
$80,000
$80,000
$80,000
Translocation Site 1
Mount Windsor Tableland
Implement appropriate fire management
in bettong habitat, and assess rainforest
encroachment dynamics
$80,000
Mount Carbine Tableland
$154,500
$150,000
Lamb Range
Coane Range
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$51,500
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$20,600
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$103,000
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$51,500
$82,400
$82,400
$82,400
$82,400
$82,400
Year 2
Action
Year 1#
Subpopulation
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$53,045
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$21,218
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$106,090
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$53,045
$84,872
$84,872
$84,872
$84,872
$84,872
$159,135
Year 3
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$54,636
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$21,855
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$109,273
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$54,636
$87,418
$87,418
$87,418
$87,418
$87,418
$163,909
Year 4
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$56,275
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$22,510
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$112,551
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$56,275
$90,041
$90,041
$90,041
$90,041
$90,041
$168,826
Year 5
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$57,964
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$23,185
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$115,927
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$57,964
$92,742
$92,742
$92,742
$92,742
$92,742
$173,891
Year 6
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$59,703
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$23,881
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$119,405
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$59,703
$95,524
$95,524
$95,524
$95,524
$95,524
$179,108
Year 7
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$61,494
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$24,597
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$122,987
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$61,494
$98,390
$98,390
$98,390
$98,390
$98,390
$184,481
Year 8
$195,716
Year 10
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$63,339
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$25,335
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$126,677
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$63,339
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$65,239
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$26,095
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$130,477
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$65,239
$101,342 $104,382
$101,342 $104,382
$101,342 $104,382
$101,342 $104,382
$101,342 $104,382
$190,016
Year 9
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
91
92
$0
$0
$0
Conduct studies detailing rufous and northern
bettong habitat partitioning and impacts of land
management decisions
Incorporate updated habitat knowledge into plans
for habitat continuity under potential climate
change scenarios
All
All
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
$1,970,000
$0
Conduct studies on the extent of food resource
competition between northern bettongs and feral
pigs
All
YEARLY TOTALS
$0
$0
$0
$2,021,400
$0
$0
$30,000
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Conduct studies to refine northern bettong dietary
requirements
Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations, including resource
supplementation as required
Translocation of bettongs to secure and managed
areas of habitat
$0
$0
$25,000
$154,500
Year 2
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
Year 1#
All
Translocation Site 2
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Establish secure areas of habitat for future
translocations, including any necessary fencing
and predator/pig removal
Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction
based on habitat mapping and/or on-ground
assessment
New subpopulations
Translocation Site 1
Identify unreserved northern bettong habitat and
run extension program to engage landholders to
better manage or reserve land
Action
All
Subpopulation
$2,266,292
$15,000
$30,000
$30,900
$30,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$80,000
$60,000
$25,000
$159,135
Year 3
$2,469,895
$15,450
$30,900
$31,827
$31,827
$70,000
$60,000
$60,000
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$163,909
Year 4
$2,315,244
$15,914
$31,827
$0
$32,782
$35,000
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$168,826
Year 5
$2,136,254
$0
$0
$0
$0
$36,050
$30,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$173,891
Year 6
$2,271,986
$0
$0
$0
$0
$37,132
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$179,108
Year 7
$2,266,352
$0
$0
$0
$0
$38,245
$32,782
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$184,481
Year 8
$2,551,803
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,575
$34,778
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$195,716
Year 10
$22,603,568
$2,334,343
$0
$0
$0
$0
$39,393
$33,765
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$190,016
Year 9
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Dendrolagus bennettianus
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Dendrolagus bennettianus (De Vis, 1887)
3.
Common name: Bennett’s tree kangaroo, Dusty tree kangaroo, Tree-climber,
Grey Tree kangaroo, Tree Wallaby.
Indigenous names: Jarabeena, Tcharibeena.
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened because, although the species appears not to be in decline and populations are
not considered to be severely fragmented, its extent of occurrence is less than 5000 km², and the extent
and quality of its habitat are probably declining, thus making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable
under criterion B1 (Winter et al. 2008).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None
7.
Range and abundance
Figure 7: Known distribution of Dendrolagus bennettianus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment
(IUCN 2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
A cryptic species that is now relatively common, although it is thought to be rare in the uplands.
8.Habitat
Closed forest, including lowland vine forests and montane rainforests. Its staple diet is foliage from
a limited number of preferred tree and vine species and some fruit.
9.Threats
9.1 Land clearing and degradation as a result of continued subdivision and development of remaining
tracts of lowland rainforest under freehold tenure.
9.2 Increased exposure to predation by domestic dogs.
93
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
10. Information required
10.1 Extent and quality of habitat.
10.2 Population estimate.
10.3 Research species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Dendrolagus bennettianus
is eligible for listing as Least Concern
according to IUCN Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2020, research, surveys and
monitoring confirm the population trend
of Dendrolagus bennettianus as stable,
and any potential threats are identified,
with management plans developed and
implemented to mitigate those threats.
11.3 By 2021, the geographic range of
Dendrolagus bennettianus in the form
of extent of occurrence has increased
to greater than 5,000 km2, with
subpopulations secure at greater than
five locations within that range.
11.4 By 2020, the genetic diversity of
Dendrolagus bennettianus has been
maintained at known 2010 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1Unknown.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species –
distribution and abundance.
13.2 Status assessment – genetic diversity.
13.3 Develop and implement monitoring
protocols, including fire management,
grazing, habitat condition, predation and
predator activity, and species activity.
13.4 Manage species data to inform adaptive
management.
13.5 Habitat assessment and modelling to
determine current habitat condition and
possibilities for future range expansion.
13.6 Identify areas where current habitat
fragmentation poses a significant threat to
tree kangaroos and develop management
plans for those subpopulations.
13.7 Rehabilitate areas of degraded Dendrolagus
bennettianus habitat.
94
13.8 Survey habitat of Dendrolagus bennettianus
to assess status and extent, and identify
areas of suitable habitat that may be
appropriate for reintroductions or range or
area of occupancy expansion.
13.9 Investigate the need to conduct assisted
migration to achieve the target range
expansion.
13.10Reserve suitable habitats for the species.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and Resource
Management (DERM) Queensland.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Tree Kangaroo and Mammal Group
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$2.5 million.
18.Note
18.1None.
19.References
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2010.2.
http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
29 June 2010.
Winter, J, Burnett, S and Martin, R (2008)
Dendrolagus bennettianus. In: IUCN (2010)
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/2783/0. Accessed 29 June 2010.
20. Comments received
20.1None.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 19: List of recovery actions for Dendrolagus bennettianus, and the rationale for their contribution to
recovery, and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance
All
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
Whilst the species is relatively secure,
information is required to assess those
subpopulations most at risk from a range
of threats, and to ensure that genetic
stock is maintained.
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
All
Status assessment
of the species identify important
subpopulations, and
those subject to specific
threats including habitat
fragmentation.
Little is known about which
subpopulations should be targeted for
intensive management.
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
All
Manage data to inform
adaptive management
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for
species activity,
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
All
Conduct habitat
assessment and
modelling to determine
current habitat condition
and possibilities for
future range expansion.
5-Yearly
6 Months
1 Person
All
Identify areas where
current habitat
fragmentation poses a
significant threat to tree
kangaroos, and develop
management plans for
rehabilitation.
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Conduct forest
rehabilitation for those
subpopulations subject to
habitat fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation may prevent
the species from expanding its current
range, or may hinder its ability to
increase in numbers.
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Reserve suitable habitat
for the species.
Whilst the historical land clearing and
subdivision that led to the loss of some
of the species' habitat is now over for the
most part, the reservation of land for this
species will ensure the future security of
remaining habitat.
Once
Unknown
2 People
All
Conduct research into
species biology, ecology
and conservation
requirements
Very little is known about this species,
and research is required to inform
adaptive conservation measures.
Once
Unknown
2 People
All
Investigate need to
undertake translocations
to increase the species'
extent of occurrence
above 5,000 km2.
Once secure habitat is identified outside
the current species range, it may be
necessary to translocate animals to
create a new subpopulation, thus
bolstering the future security of the
species.
Once
3 Months
1 Person
The extent and quality of the species'
habitat are probably declining. To qualify
for Least Concern, the species range
in the form of extent of occurrence
may need to be expanded, and an
understanding of potential habitat
surrounding extant subpopulations will
be required. Alternatively, habitat extent
and condition may have to be improved
significantly to avoid being listed as
Vulnerable.
95
96
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, habitat condition, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
Conduct habitat assessment and modelling
to determine current habitat condition and
possibilities for future range expansion.
Identify areas where current habitat
fragmentation poses a significant threat to tree
kangaroos, and develop management plans for
rehabilitation.
Conduct forest rehabilitation for those
subpopulations subject to habitat fragmentation
Reserve suitable habitat for the species
Conduct research into species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements
Investigate need to undertake translocations to
increase the species' extent of occurrence above
5,000 km2.
All
All
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
All
All
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$5,000
Manage data to inform adaptive management
All
$160,000
$0
$5,000
All
$30,000
Status assessment of the species - genetics
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations, and those subject to
specific threats including habitat fragmentation.
$60,000
Year 1#
All
Status assessment of the species - distribution and
abundance
Action
All
Subpopulation
$0
$0
$0
$321,950
$0
$30,000
$125,000
$100,000
$10,300
$20,600
$30,900
$5,150
Year 2
Table 20: List of recovery actions for Dendrolagus bennettianus, and their costs
$0
$0
$0
$299,782
$0
$30,900
$128,750
$103,000
$0
$0
$31,827
$5,305
Year 3
$374,339
$0
$31,827
$132,613
$106,090
$0
$0
$32,782
$5,464
$0
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$354,650
$10,000
$0
$136,591
$109,273
$0
$0
$33,765
$25,628*
$5,628
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$178,125
$0
$0
$0
$112,551
$0
$25,000
$229,363
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
$0
$0
$35,822
$5,970
$5,796
$34,778
$0
$0
$71,644
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$162,450
$0
$0
$0
$119,405
$0
$0
$36,896
$6,149
Year 8
$167,324
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
$0
$0
$38,003
$6,333
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$2,557,756
$309,773
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
$0
$0
$39,143
$26,523*
$0
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Lagorchestes hirsutus
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Lagorchestes hirsutus (Gould, 1844)
3.
Common name: Rufous hare-wallaby, mala, ormala, Western hare-wallaby, wurrup
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Vulnerable
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Vulnerable as there is a restricted area of occupancy, which includes less than five locations that
are each easily susceptible to either a large fire event or to elimination by introduced predators (Richards et
al. 2008).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1
Lagorchestes hirsutus hirsutus - (south-west mainland) Extinct (DEWHA 2010c).
6.2 Lagorchestes hirsutus bernieri - (Bernier Island) Vulnerable (DEWHA 2010a).
6.3 Lagorchestes hirsutus dorreae - (Dorre Island) Vulnerable (DEWHA 2010b).
6.4 Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp. (central mainland form) Endangered (DEWHA 2010d).
7.
Range and abundance
L. h. bernieri is restricted to Bernier Island, Western Australia. L. h. dorreae is restricted to Dorre Island,
Western Australia. Whether there are separate subspecies on Bernier and Dorre Islands is a moot point;
Western Australian scientists do not recognise two subspecies for the purposes of listing, L. h. bernieri is
considered to have priority (A. Burbidge pers. comm.).
L. h. hirsutus was formerly distributed throughout low shrublands of the eastern wheatbelt, and the
shrublands of south-west Western Australia (Langford 2000). The subspecies is thought to have become
extinct from the wheatbelt around 1900 (Burbidge 2004), and extinct from the mainland around 1990 (J.
Short, pers. comm.).
An unnamed subspecies of L. hirsutus from the Tanami Desert on the Australian mainland is now limited
to captive colonies and as experimental reintroduction/ translocation programs (Johnson & Burbidge
2008). This undescribed subspecies was once widespread in central Australian deserts. Captive colonies
of this subspecies exist in Dryandra Woodland (south-east of Perth) and at Shark Bay. There is also an
established subpopulation on Trimouille Island (520 hectares), Western Australia as a consequence of a
translocation from the Tanami Desert to that site in 1998 (Langford & Burbidge 2001). The subspecies now
ranges throughout the island (Johnson & Burbidge 2008).
Recent unpublished data estimates the Dorre and Bernier Islands populations at 1827 and 1346
individuals respectively (Reinhold 2010). There were estimated to collectively hold 4,300 - 6,700 animals
prior to 1994 (Short & Turner 1992). Populations on these islands fluctuate with environmental conditions
(Short et al. 1997).
The translocated population on Trimouille Island began as 30 individuals in 1998, and were last estimated
to number more than 120 (although this estimate was made not from trap data, but from tracks and
droppings) (Richards 2005).
97
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Figure 8: Known distribution of Lagorchestes hirsutus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
8.Habitat
The mainland habitat was mainly in spinifex
(Triodia spp.) hummock grasslands of the central
deserts (Northern Territory, Western Australia,
and South Australia). Tanami Desert colonies
formerly associated with saline paleo-drainage
system, sand dunes, and tight fire patterns.
Large areas of spinifex desert appear suitable
provided that exotic predators and rabbits are at
low densities or controlled and fire is properly
managed (Langford 2000).
In south-western Australia, the mala occurred
on sandplains with kwongan (heath) vegetation.
On Bernier and Dorre Islands, it uses this habitat
together with spinifex hummock grasslands. It
shelters by day in a shallow scrape dug under a
spinifex hummock or low shrub and sometimes
in a burrow more than 70 centimetres deep,
especially during the intense heat of summer
(Johnson & Burbidge 2008).
On Bernier and Dorre Islands, sandplain
and sand dune habitats are covered with a
vegetation of heath (with dominant species of
Scaevola crassifolia, Thryptomene baeckeacea,
or Melaleuca cardiophylla), grassland of Triodia
plurinervata, or low scrub (often dominated by
Pileanthus limacis, Diplolaena dampieri, Pimelia
microcephala, Acacia rostellifera, or A. coriacea)
(Short et al. 1997).
98
9.Threats
9.1 Climatic events such as drought, fire and
changes in rainfall.
9.2 Potential threats include predation by
cats and foxes which are implicated in
the extinction in the wild of the mainland
subspecies.
10. Information required
10.1 Exploration of suitable habitat for future
translocations.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Lagorchestes hirsutus is eligible
for listing as Near Threatened according to
IUCN Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of
Lagorchestes hirsutus in the form of area of
occupancy has increased to greater than 20
km2, with subpopulations secure* at greater
than five locations within that range.
11.3 By 2021, numbers of mature Lagorchestes
hirsutus in the wild are considered stable or
increasing based on an index of abundance
appropriate to the species.
11.4 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of introduced predators
and fire for all subpopulations
of Lagorchestes hirsutus.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of
Lagorchestes hirsutus has been maintained
at known 2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Reintroduction of 30 mala from the
Northern Territory to Trimouille Island
in 1998.
12.2 Systematic monitoring of mala has been
undertaken by CSIRO (1988 to 1989 and
1991 to 1992) and more recently by DEC
(2006 to 2010).
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations
using standard protocols, including
distribution, abundance, genetics, trend,
risk and priority subpopulations.
13.2 Implement monitoring protocols, including
fire management, habitat condition,
predation and predator activity, and
species activity.
13.3 Review of translocations, and factors
influencing success or failure.
13.4 Manage data to inform adaptive
management, and compile annual report.
13.5 Invasive predator control.
13.6 Competitor exclusion.
13.7 Disease management.
13.8 Fire management.
13.9 Fence maintenance for captive
subpopulations.
13.10Artificial feeding of captive subpopulations.
13.11Establish additional subpopulations.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 WA Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC).
14.2 NT Department of Natural Resources,
Environment, the Arts and Sport
(NRETAS).
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC).
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$17 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
Burbidge, A. (2004). Lagorchestes hirsutus
hirsutus. Threatened animals of Western
Australia. Page 42. Kensington, Western
Australia: Department of Conservation and Land
Management.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010a) Lagorchestes hirsutus
bernieri. In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT)
Database. Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed 27 October 2010.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010b) Lagorchestes hirsutus
dorreae. In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT)
Database. Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed 27 October 2010.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010c) Lagorchestes hirsutus
hirsutus. In: Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT)
Database. Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed 27 October 2010.
Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts (2010d) Lagorchestes
hirsutus unnamed subsp. In: Species Profile
and Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of
the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts,
Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed 27 October 2010.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 19 October 2010.
Johnson, KA and Burbidge, AA (2008) Rufous
Hare Wallaby, Lagorchestes hirsutus. In The
Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and
Strahan, R).
99
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Langford, D. (2000). Recovery Plan for the Mala
(Lagorchestes hirsutus) 1999-2003. [Online].
NPWSNT. http://www.environment.gov.au/
biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/
mala/index.html. Accessed 27 October 2010
Short, J and Turner, B (1992) The distribution
and abundance of the banded and rufous
hare-wallabies, Lagostrophus fasciatus and
Lagorchestes hirsutus. Biological Conservation
60: 157-166.
Langford, D and Burbidge, AA (2001)
Translocation of mala from the Tanami Desert,
Northern Territory to Trimouille Island, Western
Australia. Australian Mammalogy 23: 37-46.
Short, J, Turner, B, Majors, C, and Leone, J
(1997) The fluctuating abundance of endangered
mammals on Bernier and Dorre Islands, Western
Australia - conservation implications. Australian
Mammalogy 20: 53-71.
Reinhold, L (2010). Shark Bay Marsupial
Recovery Team. Unpublished report to the
SBMRT. Department of Environment and
Conservation, Western Australia
20. Comments received
20.1 Neil Thomas, DEC WA.
Richards, J., Morris, K., Friend, T. & Burbidge,
A. 2008. Lagorchestes hirsutus. In: IUCN (2010)
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/11162/0. Accessed 19 October 2010.
20.2 Jeff Short, Wildlife Research and
Management, WA.
Table 21: List of recovery actions for Lagorchestes hirsutus, and the rationale for their contribution to
recovery, and effort required.
100
Subpopulation
Action
All
Status assessment
- distribution and
abundance. Includes
surveys of known
subpopulations
All
Status assessment genetics
All
Manage species data
to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5
year program review.
All
All
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
3 Months
4 People
5-Yearly
3 Months
3 People
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Review of translocations,
and success and failure
factors
Translocations of wild and captive
subpopulations will be crucial to the
ongoing management of the species.
Ensuring that any future translocations
are undertaken under optimum
conditions is essential for the success
of the operations.
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
Develop/refine
monitoring protocols
for the species, including
trapping, satellite collars
and camera traps, and
to monitor habitat and
threats
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives.
Once
1 Month
1 Person
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Bernier and Dorre Islands
6-Monthly
3 weeks
4 People
Trimouille Island
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
2 days
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
2 days
2 People
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Bernier and Dorre Islands
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Trimouille Island
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Day
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Day
2 People
Yearly
1 Day
2 People
Yearly
1 Day
2 People
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Scotia Sanctuary
Alice Springs Desert Park
Watarrka National Park
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Scotia Sanctuary
Alice Springs Desert Park
Watarrka National Park
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park
Bernier Island
Dorre Island
Trimouille Island
Island Predator Removal
Island Competitor Removal
Action
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator activity,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Trimouille Island
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Predator control
The combination of wildfire and fox
predation was responsible for the final
demise of the wild Tanami Desert
populations of the rufous hare-wallaby.
Feral cats consume a wide variety of
native and introduced mammals, and
have been found to consume bandicoots,
bettongs and hare-wallabies when
available.
Unknown
6 Months
4 People
Competitor control
There is no information available about
interactions between hare-wallabies
and rabbits. Despite these observations,
where possible, rabbits should be
controlled or eradicated to facilitate
recreating past habitats and avoid the
potential for intra-specific competition.
Unknown
6 Months
4 People
Yearly
2 days
4 People
Yearly
2 days
4 People
Yearly
2 days
4 People
Yearly
3 weeks
4 People
Yearly
3 weeks
4 People
Yearly
1 Day
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Day
3 People
Yearly
2 days
5 People
Yearly
1 Day
3 People
Implement appropriate
fire management to avoid
catastrophic wildfires
and maintain suitable
mala habitat.
Peron Captive Breeding Facility
Alice Springs Desert Park
Watarrka National Park
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives.
The influx of unauthorised visitors
to these islands could introduce
feral species or contribute to habitat
degradation through fire and
other stressors.
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Scotia Sanctuary
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
Prevent unauthorised
human visitation
to exclude invasive
predators and
competitors, and to
prevent wildfires and
disease incursion
Bernier Island
Dorre Island
Rationale
Fire Management
of enclosures and
sanctuaries to avoid
catastrophic wildfires
and maintain suitable
mala habitat.
Changes in the mosaic of burnt and unburnt
habitat due to changes in fire regimes have
been implicated in the demise of the rufous
hare-wallaby from the spinifex deserts of
central Australia. The persistence of rufous
hare-wallabies on Bernier and Dorre Islands,
with their very different fire histories,
suggests that a fire mosaic is not important on
islands. The combination of wildfire and fox
predation was responsible for the final demise
of the wild Tanami Desert populations. The
risk of fire on Trimouille Island is low, due to
the lack of Triodia grassland, and separation
of more densely vegetated areas by sand
blows and sparsely vegetated dunes. No
wildfires have occurred on the island since
nuclear testing occurred in the 1950s.
101
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Bernier Island
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Dorre Island
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Daily
1 Hour
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Daily
1 Hour
1 Person
Trimouille Island
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Action
Disease management and
quarantine procedures to
prevent disease incursion
and spread
The extent of the threat of disease
is unknown, however diseases in
native wildlife can contribute to poor
population health and reduced fertility.
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Scotia Sanctuary
Alice Springs Desert Park
Watarrka National Park
Rationale
Disease management
in enclosures and
sanctuaries, principally
quarantine procedures.
Daily
1 Hour
1 Person
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park
Daily
1 Hour
1 Person
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Watarrka National Park
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Daily
1 Hour
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Once
6 Months
5 People
Once
6 Months
5 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Yearly
2 days
1 Person
Scotia Sanctuary
Alice Springs Desert Park
Enclosure fence
inspection
Watarrka National Park
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park
Captive subpopulations must be
protected from feral predators. Wellmaintained enclosure fences are the best
means of ensuring this security.
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Scotia Sanctuary
Alice Springs Desert Park
Scotia Sanctuary
Alice Springs Desert Park
Watarrka National Park
Enclosure fence repairs
to prevent predator/
competitor ingress and
escape of captive animals.
Artificial feeding/
watering to stabilise
captive subpopulation
Some sanctuaries and captive breeding
centres may not have sufficient habitat to
ensure consistent food availability.
Uluru-Kata Tjuta National
Park
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
All
102
Establish secure areas
of habitat for future
translocations, including
any necessary fencing
and predator/ competitor
removal
Translocation of mala
to secure and managed
areas of habitat
Ongoing management
of translocated
subpopulations, including
resource supplementation
as required
Enhance public
participation and
education in Mala
recovery efforts
Additional subpopulations need to be
established in order to meet the recovery
objective of down-listing on the IUCN
Red List. A minimum of ten secure
subpopulations, and a corresponding
increase in area of occupancy, are
required for the Mala to no longer meet
IUCN criterion D2.
$10,000
Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the
species, including trapping, satellite collars and
camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats
All
$20,000
Scotia Sanctuary
$1,000
$10,000
$10,000
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
$2,000
$500
$5,000
Uluru-KataTjuta National
Park
Watarrka National Park
Alice Springs Desert Park
Scotia Sanctuary
$500
$30,000
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Trimouille Island
$10,300
$10,300
$1,030
$2,060
$515
$5,150
$515
$30,900
$30,900
$0
$0
$30,000
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
$0
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$20,600
$10,300
$61,800
$61,800
$0
$5,000
$5,150
$0
$0
Year 2
$0
$10,000
$10,000
Bernier and Dorre Islands
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Uluru-KataTjuta National
Park
Watarrka National Park
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
$10,000
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
$10,000
$60,000
Trimouille Island
Alice Springs Desert Park
$60,000
Bernier and Dorre Islands
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
$0
Review of translocations, and success and failure
factors
All
$5,000
All
$30,000
Status assessment - genetics
Manage species data to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5 year program review.
$60,000
Year 1#
All
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 22: List of recovery actions for Lagorchestes hirsutus, and their costs
$0
$0
$10,609
$10,609
$1,061
$2,122
$530
$5,305
$530
$31,827
$31,827
$0
$31,827
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$21,218
$10,609
$63,654
$63,654
$0
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$10,927
$10,927
$1,093
$2,185
$546
$5,464
$546
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$21,855
$10,927
$65,564
$65,564
$0
$0
$5,464
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$11,255
$11,255
$1,126
$2,251
$563
$5,628
$563
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$22,510
$11,255
$67,531
$67,531
$0
$0
$25,628
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$0
$0
$11,593
$11,593
$1,159
$2,319
$580
$5,796
$580
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$23,185
$11,593
$69,556
$69,556
$0
$0
$5,796
Year 6
$11,941
$11,941
$1,194
$2,388
$597
$5,970
$597
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$23,881
$11,941
$71,643
$71,643
$0
$0
$5,970
$0
$71,644
Year 7
$0
$0
$12,299
$12,299
$1,230
$2,460
$615
$6,149
$615
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$24,597
$12,299
$73,792
$73,792
$0
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$12,668
$12,668
$1,267
$2,534
$633
$6,334
$633
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$25,335
$12,668
$76,006
$76,006
$0
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
Year 9
$13,048
$13,048
$1,305
$2,610
$652
$6,524
$652
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$26,095
$13,048
$78,286
$78,286
$0
$0
$26,523
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
103
104
Action
$10,300
$1,000
$1,000
Watarrka National Park
Uluru-KataTjuta National
Park
$1,000
$1,000
Scotia Sanctuary
Alice Springs Desert Park
$1,000
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Disease management in enclosures and
sanctuaries, principally quarantine procedures.
$5,000
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
$1,030
$1,030
$1,030
$1,030
$1,030
$5,150
$5,150
$10,300
$10,000
$10,000
$10,300
$1,030
$1,030
$1,030
$10,300
$1,030
$25,750
$25,750
$41,200
$30,900
$30,900
$0
$0
$82,400
$61,800
$61,800
Year 2
$10,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$5,000
Disease management and quarantine procedures
to prevent disease incursion and spread
Fire Management of enclosures and sanctuaries to
avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable
mala habitat.
$1,000
$25,000
$25,000
$40,000
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Trimouille Island
Dorre Island
Bernier Island
Uluru-KataTjuta National
Park
Watarrka National Park
Alice Springs Desert Park
Scotia Sanctuary
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Trimouille Island
$30,000
Implement appropriate fire management to avoid
catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable
mala habitat.
$30,000
Dorre Island
$0
$0
$80,000
$60,000
$60,000
Year 1#
Bernier Island
Predator control
Competitor control
Island Predator Removal
Prevent unauthorised human visitation to exclude
invasive predators and competitors, and to prevent
wildfires and disease incursion
Island Competitor Removal
Trimouille Island
Dorre Island
Bernier Island
Subpopulation
$1,061
$1,061
$1,061
$1,061
$1,061
$5,305
$5,305
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$1,061
$1,061
$1,061
$10,609
$1,061
$26,523
$26,523
$42,436
$31,827
$31,827
$0
$0
$84,872
$63,654
$63,654
Year 3
$1,093
$1,093
$1,093
$1,093
$1,093
$5,464
$5,464
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$1,093
$1,093
$1,093
$10,927
$1,093
$27,318
$27,318
$43,709
$32,782
$32,782
$0
$0
$87,418
$65,564
$65,564
Year 4
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$5,628
$5,628
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$11,255
$1,126
$28,138
$28,138
$45,020
$33,765
$33,765
$0
$250,000
$90,041
$67,531
$67,531
Year 5
$1,159
$1,159
$1,159
$1,159
$1,159
$5,796
$5,796
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$1,159
$1,159
$1,159
$11,593
$1,159
$28,982
$28,982
$46,371
$34,778
$34,778
$0
$40,000
$92,742
$69,556
$69,556
Year 6
$1,194
$1,194
$1,194
$1,194
$1,194
$5,970
$5,970
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$1,194
$1,194
$1,194
$11,941
$1,194
$29,851
$29,851
$47,762
$35,822
$35,822
$120,000
$0
$95,524
$71,643
$71,643
Year 7
$1,230
$1,230
$1,230
$1,230
$1,230
$6,149
$6,149
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$1,230
$1,230
$1,230
$12,299
$1,230
$30,747
$30,747
$49,195
$36,896
$36,896
$20,000
$0
$98,390
$73,792
$73,792
Year 8
$1,267
$1,267
$1,267
$1,267
$1,267
$6,334
$6,334
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$1,267
$1,267
$1,267
$12,668
$1,267
$31,669
$31,669
$50,671
$38,003
$38,003
$0
$0
$101,342
$76,006
$76,006
Year 9
$1,305
$1,305
$1,305
$1,305
$1,305
$6,524
$6,524
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$1,305
$1,305
$1,305
$13,048
$1,305
$32,619
$32,619
$52,191
$39,143
$39,143
$0
$0
$104,382
$78,286
$78,286
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Enhance public participation and education in
Mala recovery efforts
Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations, including resource
supplementation as required
Translocation of mala to secure and managed
areas of habitat
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
All
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Establish secure areas of habitat for future
translocations, including any necessary fencing
and predator/ competitor removal
$5,150
$795,010
$867,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,060
$2,060
$2,060
$5,150
$2,060
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$20,600
$10,300
$1,030
$1,030
$1,030
$2,060
$1,030
Year 2
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000
Uluru-KataTjuta National
Park
Translocation Site 1 - Mt
Gibson
$2,000
Watarrka National Park
$2,000
$5,000
Scotia Sanctuary
Alice Springs Desert Park
$2,000
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Artificial feeding/watering to maintain captive
subpopulation
$10,000
Uluru-KataTjuta National
Park
$10,000
$10,000
Watarrka National Park
Alice Springs Desert Park
$20,000
Scotia Sanctuary
Enclosure fence repairs to prevent predator/
competitor ingress and escape of captive animals.
$10,000
$1,000
Uluru-KataTjuta National
Park
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
$1,000
$1,000
Enclosure fence inspection
Alice Springs Desert Park
Watarrka National Park
$2,000
Scotia Sanctuary
Year 1#
$1,000
Action
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Subpopulation
$1,906,437
$5,305
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,060,900
$2,122
$2,122
$2,122
$5,305
$2,122
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$21,218
$10,609
$1,061
$1,061
$1,061
$2,122
$1,061
Year 3
$3,140,498
$5,464
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,092,727
$1,092,727
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$21,855
$10,927
$1,093
$1,093
$1,093
$2,185
$1,093
Year 4
$3,590,947
$5,628
$0
$60,000
$0
$60,000
$1,125,509
$1,125,509
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$22,510
$11,255
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$2,251
$1,126
Year 5
$5,970
$30,900
$30,900
$0
$2,296,523 $1,225,402
$5,796
$61,800
$30,000
$61,800
$0
$0
$1,159,274
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$23,881
$11,941
$1,194
$1,194
$1,194
$2,388
$1,194
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$23,185
$11,593
$1,159
$1,159
$1,159
$2,319
$1,159
Year 6
$6,334
$32,782
$32,782
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$25,335
$12,668
$1,267
$1,267
$1,267
$2,534
$1,267
Year 9
$6,524
$33,765
$33,765
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$26,095
$13,048
$1,305
$1,305
$1,305
$2,610
$1,305
Year 10
$17,270,349
$1,084,771 $1,096,714 $1,267,045
$6,149
$31,827
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$24,597
$12,299
$1,230
$1,230
$1,230
$2,460
$1,230
Year 8
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
105
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Lagostrophus fasciatus
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Lagostrophus fasciatus (Péron & Lesueur,1807)
3.
Common name: Banded hare-wallaby, Munning
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ac(iv)+2ac(iv)
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Endangered in view of its extent of occurrence of less than 5,000 km2 and area of occupancy of
less than 500 km2, with all individuals in fewer than six locations, and extreme fluctuations in the number
of mature individuals due to periods of severe drought. Additional potential threats that are major include:
the accidental introduction of predators (introduced cats and foxes), extensive fire, and disease (Richards
et al. 2008).
Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1
Lagostrophus fasciatus fasciatus - Bernier and Dorre Islands
6.2 Lagostrophus fasciatus albipilis - south-western Western Australia (extinct)
6.3 Lagostrophus fasciatus baudinettei - South Australia (extinct)
7.
Range and abundance
This species is endemic to Australia, where it was formerly present on the mainland from south-western
parts of the country to the lower Murray River region. It is now restricted to the offshore Bernier and
Dorre Islands in Shark Bay, Western Australia (Short & Turner 1992). A small population was recently
reintroduced to Faure Island (Prince and Richards 2008).
Figure 9: Known distribution of Lagostrophus fasciatus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
Recent surveys for this species estimate the number on Bernier Island as 1807 individuals and on Dorre
Is as 2294 individuals (Reinhold 2010). Surveys in 1988/89 indicated a total population of about 7,700
106
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
animals, equally divided between the two islands
(Short and Turner 1992), and 9,700 in 1991/92
(Short et al. 1997). It is a reasonably long lived
species. The population fluctuates with rainfall
(Short et al. 1997). Reintroduction attempts to
Dirk Hartog Island and Peron Peninsula failed
due to cat predation and drought (Prince and
Richards 2008). A small population was recently
reintroduced to Faure Island, and it is showing
signs of success (Prince and Richards 2008).
8.Habitat
On Bernier and Dorre Islands it is commonly
found among dense thickets of Acacia ligulata,
A. coriacea and Alectryon oleifolium scrub on
the sandplains, and Diplolaena dampieri and A.
oleifolium on the dunes. Beneath these it forms
runways in which it shelters during the day
(Richards et al. 2001).
9.Threats
9.1 Accidental introduction of predators
(introduced cats and foxes).
9.2 Altered fire patterns.
9.3Disease.
9.4 Introduced rats and mice are also a
concern, but to a lesser degree than
introduced predators.
9.5 Inappropriate recreation and development.
9.6 Inappropriate management practices.
10. Information required
10.1None.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Lagostrophus fasciatus is eligible
for listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of
Lagostrophus fasciatus in the form
of extent of occurrence has increased
to greater than 5,000 km2, with
subpopulations secure at greater than
10 locations within that range.
11.3 By 2021, the geographic range of
Lagostrophus fasciatus in the form of area
of occupancy has increased to greater than
500 km2.
11.4 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of introduced predators,
fire, disease and resource availability for all
subpopulations of Lagostrophus fasciatus.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of
Lagostrophus fasciatus has been
maintained at known 2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 A recovery plan for the species was
developed for the 2005-2010 period.
12.2 A recovery team for the western barred
bandicoot, burrowing bettong and banded
hare-wallaby was established in late
2004 by CALM (now DEC), to coordinate
conservation actions for these species.
12.3 Systematic monitoring of banded harewallabies has been undertaken by CSIRO
(1988 to 1989 and 1991 to 1992) and more
recently by DEC (2006 to 2010).
12.4 A number of captive and reintroduced
populations have been established for the
banded hare-wallaby in Western Australia.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations
using standard protocols, including
distribution, abundance, genetics, trend,
risk and priority subpopulations.
13.2 Implement monitoring protocols, including
fire management, habitat condition,
predation and predator activity, and species
activity.
13.3 Review of translocations, and factors
influencing success or failure
13.4 Manage data to inform adaptive
management, and compile annual report.
13.5 Invasive predator control and exclusion.
13.6 Competitor and other feral exclusion.
13.7 Disease management.
13.8 Fire management.
13.9 Fence maintenance.
13.10Establishment of new subpopulations.
13.11Artificial feeding of new subpopulations
during establishment.
107
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC) WA.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC).
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$19 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010)
Lagostrophus fasciatus. In: Species Profile and
Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts,
Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed 27 October 2010.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 20103.
http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
28 September 2010.
Prince, RIT and Richards, JD (2008) Banded
Hare Wallaby, Lagostrophus fasciatus. In The
Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and
Strahan, R).
Reinhold, L (2010). Shark Bay Marsupial
Recovery Team. Unpublished report to the
SBMRT. Department of Environment and
Conservation, Western Australia
Richards, J, Morris, K, Burbidge, A & Friend,
T (2008) Lagostrophus fasciatus. In: IUCN 2010.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2010.3
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/11171/0. Accessed 27 September 2010.
108
Richards, J (2007) Western Barred Bandicoot
Perameles bougainville, Burrowing Bettong
Bettongia lesueur and Banded Hare-Wallaby
Lagostrophus fasciatus Recovery Plan 2007
-2011. Department of Environment and
Conservation, Western Australia.
Richards, JD, Short, J, Prince, RIT, Friend, JA,
and Courtenay, JM (2001) Biology of banded and
rufous hare-wallabies (Lagostrophus fasciatus
and Lagorchestes hirsutus) (Diprotodontia:
Macropodidae) on Dorre and Bernier Islands,
Western Australia. Wildlife Research 28: 311-322.
Short, J (2009) The characteristics and success of
vertebrate translocations within Australia. Report
to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry.
Short, J, Bradshaw, SD, Giles, JR, Prince,
RIT, and Wilson, GR (1992) Reintroduction of
macropods (Marsupialia: Macropodoidea) in
Australia - a review. Biological Conservation 62:
189-204.
Short, J and Turner, B (1992) The distribution
and abundance of the banded and rufous
hare-wallabies, Lagostrophus fasciatus and
Lagorchestes hirsutus. Biological Conservation
60: 157–166.
Short, J, Turner, B, Majors, C and Leone, J
(1997) The fluctuating abundance of endangered
mammals on Bernier and Dorre Islands, Western
Australia - conservation implications. Australian
Mammalogy 20: 53-61.
20. Comments received
20.1 Jeff Short, Wildlife Research and
Management, WA.
20.2 Neil Thomas, DEC WA.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 23: List of recovery actions for Lagostrophus fasciatus, and the rationale for their contribution to
recovery, and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
All
Status assessment
- distribution and
abundance. Includes
surveys of known
subpopulations
All
Status assessment genetics
All
Manage species data
to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5
year program review.
All
Review of translocations,
and success and failure
factors
All
Develop/refine
monitoring protocols for
the species, including
trapping, satellite collars
and camera traps, and
to monitor habitat and
threats
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
3 Months
4 People
5-Yearly
3 Months
3 People
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Translocations of wild and captive
subpopulations will be crucial to the
ongoing management of the species.
Ensuring that any future translocations
are undertaken under optimum
conditions is essential for the success
of the operations.
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
Once
1 Month
1 Person
6-Monthly
3 weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
4-monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Bernier and Dorre Islands
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Faure Island
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Day
2 People
Yearly
1 Day
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
2 People
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained.
Bernier and Dorre Islands
Faure Island
Dryandra Field Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator activity,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Dryandra Field Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
Bernier Island
Dorre Island
Faure Island
Prevent unauthorised
human visitation
to exclude invasive
predators and
competitors, and to
prevent wildfires and
disease incursion.
The influx of unauthorised visitors
to these islands could introduce
feral species or contribute to habitat
degradation through fire and other
stressors.
109
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Island Predator Removal
Predator control
The decline of the banded hare-wallaby
from the mainland was likely to be due to
a combination of predation by feral cats
and habitat destruction.
Unknown
6 Months
4 People
Competitor control
The introduction of rabbits, rats
and mice poses a threat to banded
hare-wallabies on islands. Introduced
herbivores had altered the vegetation
so that refuge areas during periods of
drought were no longer available. This
habitat degradation, combined with
the impact of introduced predators and
changes in fire regimes in some areas,
was thought to have increased the risk
of local extinctions of native mammals.
There is no information available
about interactions between banded
hare-wallabies and rabbits. Despite
these observations, where possible,
rabbits should be excluded to facilitate
recreating past habitats, and avoid the
potential for intra-specific competition.
Unknown
6 Months
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Implement appropriate
fire management to avoid
catastrophic wildfires
and maintain suitable
hare-wallaby habitat.
The persistence of banded harewallabies on Bernier and Dorre Islands,
with their very different fire histories,
the infrequent nature of fire in the
region, and the lack of introduced
predators, suggests that a fire mosaic is
not important on islands.
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 days
5 People
Yearly
1 Day
3 People
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Unknown
1 Month
4 People
Daily
1 Hour
1 Person
Daily
1 Hour
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Yearly
2 days
2 People
Weekly
4 Hours
1 Person
Daily
1 Hour
1 Person
Island Competitor Removal
Bernier Island
Dorre Island
Faure Island
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Bernier Island
Dorre Island
Faure Island
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
110
Fire management
of enclosures and
sanctuaries to avoid
catastrophic wildfires
and maintain suitable
hare-wallaby habitat.
Disease management and
quarantine procedures to
prevent disease incursion
and spread
Disease management
in enclosures and
sanctuaries, principally
quarantine procedures.
Enclosure fence
inspection
Enclosure fence repairs
to prevent predator/
competitor ingress and
escape of captive animals.
Artificial feeding/
watering to establish
captive subpopulations
Fire is more of an issue at sites such as
Dryandra Woodland and Scotia Wildlife
Sanctuary, however DEC and AWC have
implemented fire management regimes
in these areas.
The extent of the threat of disease
is unknown, however diseases in
native wildlife can contribute to poor
population health and reduced fertility.
Captive subpopulations must be
protected from feral predators. Wellmaintained enclosure fences are the best
means of ensuring this security.
Some sanctuaries and captive breeding
centres may not have sufficient habitat to
ensure consistent food availability.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Establish secure areas
of habitat for future
translocations, including
any necessary fencing
and predator/ competitor
removal
Additional subpopulations need to
be established in order to achieve
eligibility to be down-listed to Near
Threatened. A minimum of ten secure
subpopulations will ensure that the
banded hare-wallaby no longer meets
the IUCN criteria B1 and B2, as long
as the establishment increases the
2011 area of occupancy and extent of
occurrence of the species. Captive source
subpopulations are essential to increase
wild and translocated subpopulations to
a minimum viable number. The 6000 ha
Stage 3 at Scotia is planned for fencing
in the near future. This will provide an
increased carrying capacity at Scotia.
Similarly, Mount Gibson Sanctuary will
have a 6000 ha fenced and feral free
section within the next 3 years.
Once
6 Months
5 People
Once
6 Months
5 People
Once
6 Months
5 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Yearly
2 days
1 Person
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation of harewallabies to secure and
managed areas of habitat
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
All
Ongoing management
of translocated
subpopulations, including
resource supplementation
as required
Enhance public
participation and
education in banded
hare-wallaby recovery
efforts
111
112
$10,000
Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the
species, including trapping, satellite collars and
camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats
All
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
$500
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
$5,000
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$515
$5,150
$20,600
$20,000
Dryandra Field Breeding
Facility
Faure Island
$0
$30,900
$0
$30,000
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
Bernier and Dorre Islands
$0
$0
$0
$0
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
$10,300
$10,300
$41,200
$61,800
$0
$5,000
$5,150
$0
$0
Year 2
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
$10,000
Dryandra Field Breeding
Facility
$10,000
$40,000
Faure Island
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
$60,000
Bernier and Dorre Islands
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
$0
Review of translocations, and success and failure
factors
All
$5,000
All
$30,000
Status assessment - genetics
Manage species data to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5 year program review.
$60,000
Year 1#
All
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 24: List of recovery actions Lagostrophus fasciatus, and their costs
$0
$0
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$530
$5,305
$21,218
$31,827
$0
$0
$31,827
$10,609
$10,609
$42,436
$63,654
$0
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$546
$5,464
$21,855
$32,782
$0
$32,782
$32,782
$10,927
$10,927
$43,709
$65,564
$0
$0
$5,464
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$563
$5,628
$22,510
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$11,255
$11,255
$45,020
$67,531
$0
$0
$25,628*
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$0
$0
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$580
$5,796
$23,185
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$11,593
$11,593
$46,371
$69,556
$5,000
$0
$5,796
Year 6
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$597
$5,970
$23,881
$35,822
$35,821
$35,822
$35,822
$11,941
$11,941
$47,762
$71,643
$0
$0
$5,970
$0
$71,644
Year 7
$0
$0
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$615
$6,149
$24,597
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$12,299
$12,299
$49,195
$73,792
$0
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$633
$6,334
$25,335
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$12,668
$12,668
$50,671
$76,006
$0
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
Year 9
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$652
$6,524
$26,095
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$13,048
$13,048
$52,191
$78,286
$0
$0
$26,523*
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Faure Island
Dorre Island
Bernier Island
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Enclosure fence repairs to prevent predator/
competitor ingress and escape of captive animals.
Enclosure fence inspection
Disease management in enclosures and
sanctuaries, principally quarantine procedures.
Disease management and quarantine procedures
to prevent disease incursion and spread
Fire Management of enclosures and sanctuaries to
avoid catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable
hare-wallaby habitat.
$10,000
$10,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,300
$10,300
$1,030
$1,030
$1,030
$1,030
$10,300
$10,000
$1,000
$10,300
$10,300
$1,030
$1,030
$0
$0
$0
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$0
$0
$41,200
$61,800
$61,800
Year 2
$10,000
$10,000
$1,000
$1,000
$0
$0
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
$0
$30,000
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Implement appropriate fire management to avoid
catastrophic wildfires and maintain suitable harewallaby habitat.
$30,000
Faure Island
Dorre Island
$0
$30,000
Competitor control
Island Competitor Removal
$0
$40,000
$60,000
$60,000
Year 1#
Bernier Island
Predator control
Prevent unauthorised human visitation to exclude
invasive predators and competitors, and to prevent
wildfires and disease incursion.
Island Predator Removal
Faure Island
Dorre Island
Bernier Island
Subpopulation
$10,609
$10,609
$1,061
$1,061
$1,061
$1,061
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$1,061
$1,061
$0
$0
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$0
$0
$42,436
$63,654
$63,654
Year 3
$10,927
$10,927
$1,093
$1,093
$1,093
$1,093
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$1,093
$1,093
$0
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$0
$0
$43,709
$65,564
$65,564
Year 4
$11,255
$11,255
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$1,126
$1,126
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$0
$250,000
$45,020
$67,531
$67,531
Year 5
$11,593
$11,593
$1,159
$1,159
$1,159
$1,159
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$1,159
$1,159
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$0
$40,000
$46,371
$69,556
$69,556
Year 6
$11,941
$11,941
$1,194
$1,194
$1,194
$1,194
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$1,194
$1,194
$35,821
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$120,000
$0
$47,762
$71,643
$71,643
Year 7
$12,299
$12,299
$1,230
$1,230
$1,230
$1,230
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$1,230
$1,230
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$20,000
$0
$49,195
$73,792
$73,792
Year 8
$12,668
$12,668
$1,267
$1,267
$1,267
$1,267
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$1,267
$1,267
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$0
$0
$50,671
$76,006
$76,006
Year 9
$13,048
$13,048
$1,305
$1,305
$1,305
$1,305
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$1,305
$1,305
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$0
$0
$52,191
$78,286
$78,286
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
113
114
Enhance public participation and education in
Banded hare-wallaby recovery efforts
Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations, including resource
supplementation as required
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
All
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
$0
$5,150
$546,265
$625,500
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,060
$2,060
Year 2
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000
$2,000
Year 1#
$0
Translocation of hare-wallabies to secure and
managed areas of habitat
Establish secure areas of habitat for future
translocations, including any necessary fencing
and predator/ competitor removal
Artificial feeding/watering to maintain captive
subpopulation
Action
$0
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Translocation Site 3 - TBC
Translocation Site 2 - TBC
Translocation Site - Mt Gibson
Peron Captive Breeding
Facility
Dryandra Captive Breeding
Facility
Subpopulation
$1,682,057
$5,305
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,060,900
$2,122
$2,122
Year 3
$5,628
$0
$0
$60,000
$0
$0
$60,000
$1,125,509
$1,125,509
$1,125,509
$2,251
$2,251
Year 5
$2,956,374 $4,594,338
$5,464
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,092,727
$1,092,727
$2,185
$2,185
Year 4
$0
$0
$2,388
$2,388
Year 7
$0
$5,970
$63,654
$30,900
$30,900
$63,654
$0
$3,335,015 $2,417,208
$5,796
$0
$61,800
$30,000
$0
$61,800
$0
$1,159,274 $1,194,052
$1,159,274
$0
$2,319
$2,319
Year 6
$983,156
$6,149
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,460
$2,460
Year 8
$992,051
$6,334
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,534
$2,534
Year 9
$19,291,207
$1,159,242
$6,524
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,610
$2,610
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Macropus bernardus
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Macropus bernardus (Rothschild, 1904)
3.
Common name: Black wallaroo, Bernard’s wallaroo, black kangaroo, northern black wallaroo. Indigenous names: Barrk (male), Djukerre (female)
(local Bininj Kunwok dialects)
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened because this species possibly has a global population of less 10,000 mature
individuals, and although anecdotal information suggests that the population is stable, little is known
about its population trends. There are no known major threats to the species, however, changes to the
fire regime are potentially a serious problem. Should the population be shown to be indeed less than
10,000, even a relatively small downward trend could qualify this species as Vulnerable under criterion
C (Woinarski 2008).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None.
7.
Range and abundance
Figure 10: K nown distribution of Macropus bernardus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
The species is restricted to the sandstone escarpment and plateau of western Arnhem Land, Northern
Territory. Among the steep, rocky escarpments and tops of the deeply dissected plateau, it uses habitats
dominated by spinifex grassland, sandstone heath, eucalypt woodland and patches of rainforest.
Its range is about 30,000 km2, which is unusually small for a mammal of its size (Telfer & Calaby 2008).
Much of its range lies within Kakadu National Park.
There are no estimates of total population numbers; however, neither is there any evidence of a decline in range
or abundance. Its elusive behaviour and habitat of rugged terrain make it a difficult species to survey (Telfer &
Calaby 2008). This species is common within suitable habitat, but its habitat is limited (Telfer & Calaby 2008).
Aboriginal informants have provided information that suggest the population is stable (Woinarski 2008).
115
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
A range of vegetation types from closed forests
and Eucalyptus open forests to heaths and
hummock grasslands, but almost always in
areas characterised by large boulders.
9.Threats
9.1 Recent changes in fire regimes may
have led to alteration of vegetation
structure or floristic composition in
the sandstone massif.
10. Information required
10.1 Estimation of the global population of
this species.
10.2 Monitoring of the abundance of the species
across a range of sites of varying fire history.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Macropus bernardus is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring
confirm the population trend of Macropus
bernardus as stable.
11.3 By 2021, the number of distinct secure*
subpopulations of Macropus bernardus
is greater than 10, and the population is
estimated to number greater than 10,000
mature individuals, thus making it ineligible
to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN criteria
B or C.
11.4 By 2021, research has confirmed the
impacts of altered fire regimes and
predation on Macropus bernardus, and
where those factors present a threat to
Macropus bernardus subpopulations,
management plans have been developed
and are being implemented to mitigate
those threats.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Macropus
bernardus has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1None
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetics, abundance, distribution, trend
and risks. Includes surveys.
13.2 Implement monitoring protocols, including
fire management, habitat condition, and
species activity.
13.3 Assess threat of altered fire regimes to
the species and its preferred habitat,
and undertake fire management where
necessary.
13.4 Assess the need to augment the known
number of subpopulations through
translocation, or the number of mature
individuals through captive breeding.
13.5 Research species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements.
13.6 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Northern Territory Department of Natural
Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport
(NRETAS)
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$2.7 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 28 September 2010.
Woinarski, J (2008) Macropus bernardus. In:
IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.3.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/12620/0 Accessed 28 September 2010.
Telfer, WR, and Calaby, JH, (2008). Black
Wallaroo, Macropus bernardus. In The Mammals
of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and Strahan, R).
20. Comments received
20.1None
116
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 25: List of recovery actions for Macropus bernardus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance
All
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
There is very little known about this
species. Information is required to assess
the distribution and abundance of the
species, which subpopulations are most
at risk from a range of threats, and to
ensure that genetic stock is maintained.
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
All
Status assessment
of the species identify important
subpopulations, and
those subject to specific
threats including fire
Little is known about which
subpopulations should be targeted for
intensive management.
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
All
Manage data to inform
adaptive management
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Develop management
plans for those
subpopulations subject
to threat of altered fire
regimes
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of fire
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
All
Conduct research into
species biology, ecology
and conservation
requirements
Once
Unknown
2 People
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
All
Investigate need to
undertake translocations
or captive breeding to
increase the number of
extant subpopulations
5-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
Changes to vegetation composition
and structure as a result of altered fire
regimes are thought to be the greatest
threat facing black wallaroos.
Very little is known about this species,
and urgent research is required to
inform adaptive conservation measures.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
Once surveys provide a clearer
understanding of the species' status,
it may be necessary to establish new
subpopulations or increase the number
of mature individuals to ensure it does
not meet the criteria to be listed as
threatened on the IUCN Red List.
117
118
$0
$0
$60,000
$30,000
Manage data to inform adaptive management
Develop management plans for those
subpopulations subject to threat of altered fire
regimes
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of fire
Conduct research into species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, and effectiveness of management
intervention.
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Investigate need to undertake translocations or
captive breeding to increase the number of extant
subpopulations
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
All
All
All
All
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$20,000
All
$0
$222,850
$265,000
$30,900
$61,800
$0
$100,000
$25,000
$5,150
$0
$0
$0
Year 2
$0
$0
$5,000
$30,000
Status assessment of the species - genetics
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations, and those subject to
specific threats including fire
$120,000
Status assessment of the species - distribution and
abundance
All
All
Year 1#
Action
Subpopulation
Table 26: List of recovery actions Macropus bernardus, and their costs
$0
$0
$0
$233,786
$0
$31,827
$63,654
$30,000
$103,000
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$326,363
$20,000
$32,782
$65,564
$30,900
$106,090
$0
$5,464
$0
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$324,298
$0
$33,765
$67,531
$31,827
$109,273
$0
$25,628*
$22,510
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$232,682
$0
$34,778
$69,556
$0
$112,551
$10,000
$301,006
$0
$35,822
$71,643
$0
$115,927
$0
$5,970
$5,796
$0
$71,644
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$236,243
$0
$36,896
$73,792
$0
$119,405
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$243,330
$0
$38,003
$76,006
$0
$122,987
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$2,773,618
$388,061
$0
$39,143
$78,286
$0
$126,677
$0
$26,524*
$0
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Macropus parma
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Macropus parma (Waterhouse, 1845)
3.
Common name: Parma wallaby, White-throated Pademelon, White-throated Wallaby.
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened as the species is estimated to number less than 10,000 mature individuals, but
there is no evidence of a continuing decline at present (subpopulation structure is not well known). Almost
qualifies as threatened under criterion C2 (Lunney & McKenzie 2008).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None.
7.
Range and abundance
This species is endemic to Australia, where it occurs in New South Wales (formerly as far south as the
Illawarra). It is present in suitable forests scattered throughout the escarpment, but it is no longer found in
coastal forests. Upper altitudinal sites include the Dorrigo Plateau, Gibraltar Range, and Barrington Tops.
It occurs up to 1,000 m above sea level. Feral populations exist on Kauwau Island, New Zealand (Maynes
2008). It is rare and patchily distributed. There are no recent population estimates. In 1992, the total
number of adults was estimated at between 1,000 and 10,000 individuals. There appears to be no evidence
of a decline. (IUCN 2010)
Figure 11: Known distribution of Macropus parma from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010;
Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
119
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
It is found within wet sclerophyll forest with dense
understorey, but with access to forest with a grassy
understorey. The species is often found in dry
sclerophyll forests and rainforest (Maynes 2008).
9.Threats
9.1 Forest fragmentation combined with
predation from foxes appear to be the
principal reasons for the decline of
the species.
9.2 Grazing and burning regimes that affect
availability of shelter are a disadvantage
to populations.
9.3 Reintroductions of the species have been
unsuccessful due to fox predation.
10. Information required
10.1 Studies to determine optimal
survey methods.
10.2 Detailed survey of populations.
10.3 Review recent survey work by NSW NPWS
and others to establish a predicted modelled
range, as a guide to detailed surveying.
10.4 Define precise habitat requirements and
manage for them. This can be combined
with fine-grained survey to establish
limits of current distribution and interconnectedness of subpopulations.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Macropus parma is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring
confirm the population trend of Macropus
parma as stable.
11.3 By 2021, numbers of mature Macropus
parma in the wild are considered stable or
increasing based on an index of abundance
appropriate to the species.
11.4 By 2021, research has confirmed the
impacts of forest fragmentation and fox
predation on Macropus parma, and where
those factors present a threat to Macropus
parma subpopulations, management
plans have been developed and are being
implemented to mitigate those threats.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Macropus
parma has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
120
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Survey work by NSW NPWS.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetics, abundance, distribution, trend
and risks.
13.2 Identify areas where fox predation, cattle
grazing and altered fire regimes pose
significant threats to the species and
develop management plans for those
subpopulations.
13.3 Conduct adaptive management fox
control program.
13.4 Cattle grazing management.
13.5 Fire management.
13.6 Reserve suitable habitats for the species.
13.7 Conduct research to determine the relative
impacts of fox predation, cattle grazing and
altered fire regimes on the species.
13.8 Implement monitoring protocols, including
fire management, grazing, habitat condition,
predation and predator activity, and species
activity.
13.9 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 NSW Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff are required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds $9 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2010.3.
http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
19 October 2010.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Lunney, D. & McKenzie, N. 2008. Macropus
parma. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.
iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/12627/0.
Accessed 19 October 2010.
20. Comments received
20.1None.
Maynes, G (2008) Parma wallaby, Macropus
parma. In The Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van
Dyck, S and Strahan, R).
Table 27: List of recovery actions for Macropus parma, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
All
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance
All
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
Whilst the species is relatively secure,
information is required to assess those
subpopulations most at risk from a range
of threats, and to ensure that genetic
stock is maintained.
All
Status assessment of
the species - identify
important subpopulations,
and those subject to
specific threats including
fox predation, fire and
grazing
All
Manage data to inform
adaptive management
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Develop management
plans for those
subpopulations subject to
threats of fox predation,
cattle grazing, and
altered fire regimes
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Conduct adaptive
management fox control
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of altered fire
regimes
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of cattle grazing
All
Reserve suitable habitat
for the species
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator activity,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire and
grazing management
and habitat condition,
and effectiveness of
management intervention.
All
Conduct research to
determine the relative
impacts of fox predation,
cattle grazing and altered
fire regimes on the species
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
Little is known about which
subpopulations should be targeted for
intensive management.
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
Once
3 Months
1 Person
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
Once
Unknown
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Once
1 Year
2 People
Fox predation has prevented species
reintroductions, and may have
contributed to the species decline.
Grazing and burning regimes that affect
availability of shelter are a disadvantage
to populations.
Little of the species' habitat is protected
within reserves. Sufficient habitat will be
required to ensure the ongoing security
of the species.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives.
Little is known about the species, and an
assessment of how each threat impacts
on the species is required to inform
optimum adaptive management.
121
122
$60,000
$60,000
Manage data to inform adaptive management
Develop management plans for those
subpopulations subject to threats of fox predation,
cattle grazing, and altered fire regimes
Conduct adaptive management fox control
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of altered fire regimes
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of cattle grazing
Reserve suitable habitat for the species
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
Implement monitoring protocols for fire and
grazing management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Conduct research to determine the relative
impacts of fox predation, cattle grazing and altered
fire regimes on the species
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
All
All
All
All
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$20,000
All
$30,000
$833,750
$235,000
$61,800
$61,800
$0
$50,000
$200,000
$400,000
$25,000
$5,150
$0
$0
$0
Year 2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$30,000
Status assessment of the species - genetics
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations, and those subject to
specific threats including fox predation, fire and
grazing
$60,000
Year 1#
All
Status assessment of the species - distribution and
abundance
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 28: List of recovery actions for Macropus parma, and their costs
$0
$0
$0
$1,083,013
$30,900
$63,654
$63,654
$250,000
$51,500
$206,000
$412,000
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$923,567
$31,827
$65,564
$65,564
$0
$53,045
$212,180
$424,360
$0
$5,464
$0
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$960,018
$32,782
$67,531
$67,531
$0
$54,636
$218,545
$437,091
$0
$25,628*
$22,510
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$0
$71,643
$71,643
$281,377
$57,964
$231,855
$463,710
$0
$886,490 $1,255,805
$0
$69,556
$69,556
$0
$56,275
$225,102
$450,204
$10,000
$5,970
$5,796
$0
$71,644
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$929,868
$0
$73,792
$73,792
$0
$59,703
$238,810
$477,621
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$957,764
$0
$76,006
$76,006
$0
$61,494
$245,975
$491,950
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$9,189,201
$1,123,926
$0
$78,286
$78,286
$0
$63,339
$253,354
$506,708
$0
$26,523*
$0
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Onychogalea fraenata
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Onychogalea fraenata (Gould, 1841)
3.
Common name: Bridled nailtail wallaby, Bridled nail-tailed wallaby,
Bridled Wallaby, Merrin, Flashjack
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(iii)
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Endangered because the extent of occurrence is less than 5,000 km2, all self-sustaining
populations are within three locations, and there is a continuing decline in the quality of habitat due
to introduced weeds (McKnight 2008).
Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None.
7. Range and abundance
The bridled nailtail wallaby is endemic to Australia, where it occurs naturally in Taunton National Park
(Scientific) near Dingo in central Queensland. Two self-sustaining translocated populations also exist: Idalia
National Park (Queensland) and Avocet Nature Refuge (Queensland) (Lundie-Jenkins & Lowry 2005).
It is thought that there are less than 1,100 mature individuals in the wild. The population at Taunton has
been stable (Lundie-Jenkins and Lowry 2005) or increasing (Evans and Gordon 2008) since the mid 1990s
when it was at its lowest point of 450 individuals. The population at Taunton rose following the exclusion
of cattle to about 1,400 in December 1991 (Davidson 1991). Then a severe drought in the early 1990s
reduced the population (Clancy and Porter 1994; Lundie-Jenkins and Lowry 2005; Evans & Gordon 2008).
More recently (2002/2003) another severe drought struck, and populations may periodically fluctuate in
response to rainfall, or the droughts could mark major stochastic events (IUCN 2010)
Figure 12: Known distribution of Onychogalea fraenata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
123
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
Open, edge habitats of eucalypt forest and
brigalow scrub and grasses. Based on the surveys
of the Dingo region, Gordon & Lawrie (1980)
concluded that the species had a preference for
Brigalow areas and the larger alluvial flats, the
more fertile areas of the region. On the northern
portion of Taunton, bridled nailtail wallabies are
found in all four of the major vegetation types
present (Tierney 1985):
•
Open grassy eucalypt woodland dominated
by Poplar Box Eucalyptus populnea.
•
Dense acacia forest dominated by Brigalow
Acacia harpophylla.
•
•
Transitional vegetation intermediate
between the woodland and forest
Areas of very dense Brigalow regrowth.
9.Threats
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Captive breeding.
12.2Translocation.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations
using standard protocols, including
distribution, genetics, trend, and priority
subpopulations.
13.2 Manage species data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including
fire management, habitat condition,
predation and predator activity, and
species activity.
9.1 Introduced predators including foxes, cats
and wild dogs.
13.4 Predator control, including foxes, cats and
wild dogs.
9.2 Invasive weeds, specifically buffel grass.
13.5 Fire management.
9.3 Small population size.
13.6 Buffel grass management, including
investigation of optimal management
techniques.
9.4 Potential risks from severe drought,
extreme fire, and disease.
9.5 Competition for resources, especially with
sheep (minor threat).
9.6 Artificial watering points in South West
NRM region that may extend range of cats
and foxes (minor threat).
10. Information required
10.1 Methods to control buffel grass in
wallaby habitat.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Onychogalea fraenata is eligible
for listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of
Onychogalea fraenata in the form of extent
of occurrence has increased to greater than
5,000 km2, with subpopulations secure* at
greater than five locations within that range.
11.3 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of drought, fire and
introduced predators, and to increase the
area, extent and quality of habitat, for all
Onychogalea fraenata subpopulations.
124
11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of
Onychogalea fraenata has been maintained
at known 2011 levels.
13.7 Provision of emergency fodder during
periods of extended drought.
13.8 Maintenance and genetic management of
captive subpopulations for translocations
and reintroductions.
13.9 Identify sites for translocation or
reintroduction based on habitat mapping
and/or on-ground assessment.
13.10Establish a new translocated population.
13.11Identify sites for range expansion around
existing subpopulations, and conduct
habitat restoration.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and Resource
Management (DERM) Queensland.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC).
15.2 Hugo Spooner, landholder of Avocet Nature
Reserve.
15.3 Australian Animals Care and Education
(Inc.).
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
15.4 Conservation and Wildlife Management
(a division of Sporting Shooters Association
of Australia, Queensland).
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator may
be required to implement this program
of work.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$11 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
Davidson, C (1991) Recovery plan for the bridled
nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata). ANPWS
Endangered Species Program. Unpublished
report to ANPWS.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010) Onychogalea fraenata. In:
Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.
gov.au/sprat. Accessed 27 October 2010.
Evans, M and Gordon, G (2008) Bridled Nailtail
Wallaby, Onychogalea fraenata. In The Mammals
of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R).
Horsup, A and Evans, M (1992) Predation by Feral
Cats, Felis catus, on an endangered marsupial,
the Bridled Nail-tail Wallaby, Onychogalea
fraenata. Australian Mammalogy 16: 85-86.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 19 October 2010.
Lundie-Jenkins, G, and Lowry, J (2005) Recovery
plan for the bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea
fraenata) 2005-2009. Report to the Department
of Environment and Heritage (DEH), Canberra.
Environmental Protection Agency/Queensland
Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.
McKnight, M. 2008. Onychogalea fraenata.
In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org/apps/redlist/details/15330/0. Accessed
19 October 2010.
Tierney, PJ (1985) Habitat and ecology of the
bridled nailtail wallaby with implications for
management. M.Sc. Thesis. Queensland Institute
of Technology.
20. Comments received
20.1 Rhonda Melzer, DERM QLD.
20.2 Matt Hayward, AWC.
20.3 Janelle Lowry, DERM QLD.
Gordon, G & Lawrie, BC (1980). The rediscovery
of the bridled nail-tailed wallaby, Onychogalea
fraenata (Gould) (Marsupialia: Macropodidae)
in Queensland. Australian Wildlife Research 7:
339-345.
125
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 29: List of recovery actions for Onychogalea fraenata, and the rationale for their contribution to
recovery, and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
All
Status assessment
- distribution and
abundance. Includes
surveys of known
subpopulations
All
Status assessment genetics
All
Manage species data
to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5
year program review.
All
Develop/refine
monitoring protocols for
the species, including
trapping, satellite collars
and camera traps, and
to monitor habitat and
threats
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
1 Month
5 People
5-Yearly
3 Months
3 People
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
10 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Taunton National Park
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Idalia National Park
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Taunton National Park
2-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
2-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
2-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
2-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
2-Monthly
1 Week
5 People
5-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
5-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
5-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
5-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
5-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained.
Taunton National Park
Idalia National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Conduct adaptive
management fox and
wild dog control program
including ground baiting
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Taunton National Park
Idalia National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Avocet Nature Refuge
Translocation site 1
Conduct strategic cat
and wild dog shooting
program
Implement fire
management program maintain control lines
Translocation site 2
Taunton National Park
Idalia National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Implement fire
management program patch burns
Avocet Nature Refuge
Idalia National Park
Wild dog predation is thought to be the
principal cause of death to wallabies in
Taunton National Park. Foxes and cats
are likely to be a problem.
Conduct weed control
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Several key habitat associations
including brigalow are fire sensitive. As
such fire management is important in
limiting the extent and intensity of wild
fires to ensure sufficient habitat remains.
Fire may also play a role in promoting
fodder species.
Encroachment of weeds such as buffel
grass can encroach on wallaby habitat,
reducing the preferred fodder species
plants of the wallabies and altering the
fire regimes such that shelter habitat is
lost.
Taunton National Park
Idalia National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
126
Provision of emergency
fodder
During times of drought or low food
availability, there may be a need to
augment food supplies, given the small
size of the population.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
With limited habitat available within
the current sites new sites are required
to increase the size of the overall
population and to provide some capacity
to ride out stochastic events.
Once
2 Weeks
4 People
Translocation of species
to secure areas
Once
2 Months
5 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Taunton National Park
Idalia National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
Scotia Sanctuary
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
and predator activity,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Taunton National Park
Idalia National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
Scotia Sanctuary
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management,
habitat condition,
resource availability,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Conduct research on
buffel grass control
Buffel grass represents a threat to the
food availability of the species, and
further research is required to manage
infestations.
Once
2 Years
1 Person
Maintain enclosure fence
Captive subpopulations must be
protected from feral predators. Wellmaintained enclosure fences are the best
means of ensuring this security.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Kial Property and Scotia
Sanctuary
Ongoing maintenance
and monitoring for
release of captive animals
There is a need for genetically viable
and demographically stable source
subpopulations to ensure future
translocations and reintroductions are
successful. Captive stock may also be
used for specific research to aid future
recovery efforts.
Yearly
2 Months
2 People
NA
Conduct habitat
modelling and surveys
for potential future
translocations or range
expansion
With limited habitat available within
the current sites new sites are required
to increase the size of the overall
population and to provide some capacity
to ride out stochastic events.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
Taunton National Park
Scotia Sanctuary
127
128
$8,000
Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the
species, including trapping, satellite collars and
camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats
All
Idalia National Park
$5,000
$5,000
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Taunton National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
Idalia National Park
$15,000
$15,000
Conduct weed control
$20,600
$5,150
$5,150
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$15,450
$15,450
$20,600
$20,000
$20,000
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Implement fire management program - patch
burns
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Avocet Nature Refuge
$5,150
$20,600
$5,000
$5,150
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$12,360
$12,360
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$30,900
$30,900
$77,250
$87,550
$82,400
$0
$5,150
$0
$0
Year 2
$20,000
Translocation site 2
Taunton National Park
$5,000
Translocation site 1
$10,000
Idalia National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
$10,000
Taunton National Park
Implement fire management program - maintain
control lines
$12,000
$10,000
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
$12,000
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
Taunton National Park
Idalia National Park
Conduct strategic cat and wild dog shooting
program
$30,000
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Avocet Nature Refuge
$30,000
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
$75,000
$85,000
Idalia National Park
Avocet Nature Refuge
$80,000
Taunton National Park
Conduct adaptive management fox and wild dog
control program including ground baiting
$5,000
Manage species data to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5 year program review.
All
$25,000
Status assessment - genetics
All
$30,000
Year 1#
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 30: List of recovery actions for Onychogalea fraenata, and their costs
$0
$0
$5,305
$5,305
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$15,914
$15,914
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$5,305
$5,305
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$12,731
$12,731
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$31,827
$31,827
$79,568
$90,177
$84,872
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$5,464
$5,464
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$16,391
$16,391
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$5,464
$5,464
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$13,113
$13,113
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$32,782
$32,782
$81,955
$92,882
$87,418
$0
$5,464
$0
$32,782
Year 4
$5,628
$5,628
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$16,883
$16,883
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$5,628
$5,628
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$13,506
$13,506
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$33,765
$33,765
$84,413
$95,668
$90,041
$0
$25,628*
$28,138
$0
Year 5
$0
$0
$5,796
$5,796
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$17,389
$17,389
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$5,796
$5,796
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$13,911
$13,911
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$34,778
$34,778
$86,946
$98,538
$92,742
$0
$5,796
Year 6
$5,970
$5,970
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$17,911
$17,911
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$5,970
$5,970
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$14,329
$14,329
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$35,822
$35,822
$89,554
$101,494
$95,524
$0
$5,970
$0
$35,821
Year 7
$0
$0
$6,149
$6,149
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$18,448
$18,448
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$6,149
$6,149
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$14,758
$14,758
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$36,896
$36,896
$92,241
$104,539
$98,390
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$6,334
$6,334
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$19,002
$19,002
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$6,334
$6,334
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$15,201
$15,201
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$38,003
$38,003
$95,008
$107,675
$101,342
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
Year 9
$6,524
$6,524
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$19,572
$19,572
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$6,524
$6,524
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$15,657
$15,657
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$39,143
$39,143
$97,858
$110,906
$104,382
$0
$26,523*
$32,620
$39,143
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Ongoing maintenance and monitoring for release
of captive animals
Conduct habitat modelling and surveys for
potential future translocations or range expansion
NA
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
Maintain enclosure fence
Scotia Sanctuary
Kial Property and Scotia
Sanctuary
$0
$941,358
$933,250
$51,500
$27,038
$25,000
$0
$0
$5,150
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$0
$20,000
$5,150
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$0
$0
$50,000
$26,250
$0
$0
Conduct research on buffel grass control
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
$0
$5,000
$30,000
Taunton National Park
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Scotia Sanctuary
Avocet Nature Refuge
$30,000
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management, habitat condition, resource
availability, and effectiveness of management
intervention.
$30,000
Idalia National Park
$0
Taunton National Park
$0
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
$5,000
$40,000
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Scotia Sanctuary
Avocet Nature Refuge
$40,000
Idalia National Park
Implement monitoring protocols for species
and predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
$40,000
Taunton National Park
$0
$0
Translocation of species to secure areas
$0
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
$0
$0
Translocation site 2 - Bowra
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 2
Translocation site 1 - Scotia
Provision of emergency fodder
$0
Avocet Nature Refuge
$0
Year 1#
Idalia National Park
Action
Taunton National Park
Subpopulation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,030,198
$0
$53,045
$27,849
$25,750
$0
$15,000
$5,305
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$20,600
$20,600
$5,305
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$0
$25,000
Year 3
$1,147,064
$25,000
$54,636
$28,684
$0
$15,450
$15,450
$5,464
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$21,218
$21,218
$5,464
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$35,000
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Year 4
$1,113,149
$0
$56,275
$29,545
$0
$15,914
$15,914
$5,628
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$21,855
$21,855
$5,628
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$0
$0
$5,000
$5,000
$0
$0
$0
Year 5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,086,660
$0
$57,964
$30,431
$0
$16,391
$16,391
$5,796
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$22,510
$22,510
$5,796
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
Year 6
$1,155,081
$0
$59,703
$31,344
$0
$16,883
$16,883
$5,970
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$23,185
$23,185
$5,970
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
$63,339
$33,253
$0
$17,911
$17,911
$6,334
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$24,597
$24,597
$6,334
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$0
$65,239
$34,250
$0
$18,448
$18,448
$6,524
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$25,335
$25,335
$6,524
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$0
$0
$5,628
$5,628
$0
$0
$0
Year 10
$11,106,848
$1,186,603 $1,187,423 $1,326,064
$0
$61,494
$32,284
$0
$17,389
$17,389
$6,149
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$23,881
$23,881
$6,149
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
Year 8
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
129
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Petrogale burbidgei
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Petrogale burbidgei (Kitchener & Sanson, 1978)
3.
Common name: Monjon, Warabi14
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(iii)
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened because it has a relatively small distribution and might be declining. More
research is needed into the distribution, abundance, and potential threats to this species. There is some
evidence that changing fire regimes could pose a threat to this species, however, there is no current
research of its affects on the populations. The species approaches Vulnerable under criterion B, and
could qualify if more evidence on threats is presented (Burbidge et al. 2008).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None.
7. Range and abundance
Figure 13: Known distribution of Petrogale burbidgei from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
This species is found in some of the most remote and rugged areas of the north-west Kimberley of Western
Australia. It is present on a few nearby islands: Bigge, Boongaree, Katers, and possibly Wollaston (based
on a sight record). The only known localities on the mainland are in and around the Prince Regent Nature
Reserve to the Mitchell Plateau (Pearson et al. 2008). There have been detailed surveys of the largest
Kimberley islands during 2008-10 by DEC and other previous surveys by CALM and the WA Museum,
which suggests that monjons probably occur on just these few islands (D. Pearson, pers. comm.).
There is abundant habitat but monjons occupy a small range for reasons that are not readily apparent,
i.e. they only occur in the very high rainfall areas of the north Kimberley (D. Pearson, pers. comm.).
The population is abundant on Bigge Island (ca. 18,000 ha) (Burbidge et al. 2008).
14 The common name Warabi is possibly misplaced, being a mispronunciation of the word ‘wallaby’.
130
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
During the day, Monjon can be found in rugged
sandstone areas, screes and rock piles. At dusk,
Monjon move from their daytime caves and
crevices to forage in neighbouring vegetation
such as low open woodland of eucalypts,
acacias, figs, Terminalia and Owenia or vine
thickets among boulders.
9.Threats
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species –
distribution and abundance.
13.2 Status assessment – genetic diversity.
13.3 Status assessment of the species – identify
important subpopulations, and those
subject to specific threats including fire
and feral cats.
9.2 Predation by feral cats may be affecting
abundance on the mainland.
13.4 Develop a management plan for those
subpopulations subject to threats of altered
fire regimes, feral cat predation, and
possible infrastructure development.
9.3 Changed fire regimes may also be affecting
the species.
13.5 Implement management actions to reduce
the threat of altered fire regimes.
9.1Unknown
10. Information required
10.1 Survey to clarify distribution, abundance,
and habitat requirements, especially on the
mainland.
10.2 Identify populations for regular monitoring.
10.3 Conduct research aimed at understanding
the species biology and threats, especially
the loss of preferred food plants due to
frequent fires.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Petrogale burbidgei is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring
confirm the population trend of Petrogale
burbidgei as stable.
11.3 By 2021, research has investigated the
impacts of changing fire regimes, cattle
grazing and feral cats on Petrogale
burbidgei, and where those present a threat
to Petrogale burbidgei subpopulations,
management plans have been developed
and are being implemented to mitigate
those threats.
11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale
burbidgei has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Kimberley islands survey (DEC 2008-2010)
confirmed the presence of monjons on
Bigge, Katers and Boongaree islands, but
they were not located on any of the other
30 largest islands surveyed (D. Pearson,
pers. comm.).
13.6 Implement management actions to reduce
the threat of feral cat predation if they are
shown to be a threat.
13.7 Reserve suitable habitat for the species.
13.8 Conduct habitat assessment and modelling
to determine current habitat condition and
possibilities for future range expansion.
13.9 Conduct research into species biology,
ecology, conservation requirements and
preferred fire regime.
13.10Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, and effectiveness of management
intervention.
13.11Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
13.12Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 West Australian Department of
Environment and Conservation
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Kimberley Land Council.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$3.8 million.
131
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
18.Note
18.1 The common name Warabi is possibly
misplaced, being a mispronunciation of the
word ‘wallaby’.
Pearson, DJ, Burbidge, AA, Lochman, J and
Start, AN (2008) Monjon, Petrogale burbidgei. In
The Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and
Strahan, R).
20. Comments received
19.References
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 28 September 2010.
20.1 Andrew Burbidge.
20.2 David Pearson, WA DEC.
Burbidge, A., McKenzie, N. & Start, T. 2008.
Petrogale burbidgei. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://
www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/16744/0
Accessed 28 September 2010.
Table 31: List of recovery actions for Petrogale burbidgei, and the rationale for their contribution to
recovery, and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
All
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance
All
Status assessment of
the species – genetic
diversity
All
Status assessment
of the species identify important
subpopulations, and
those subject to specific
threats including fire and
feral cats
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Develop management
plans for those
subpopulations subject
to threats of altered fire
regimes and feral cat
predation
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of fire
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
132
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Changes to vegetation composition
and structure as a result of altered fire
regimes are thought to be the greatest
threat facing monjons.
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of cat predation.
Requires assessment
of actual impact of cats
on population levels,
and new cat control
techniques that will not
impact on other native
species such as golden
bandicoots.
Predation by feral cats may be affecting
abundance on the mainland.
6-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
Reserve suitable habitat
for the species
Large areas of habitat are protected
in Prince Regent Nature Reserve and
Mitchell River National Park. Islands
are subject to native title claim, but may
eventually be jointly managed as nature
reserves.
Once
Unknown
2 People
Whilst the species may be relatively
secure, information is required to assess
those subpopulations most at risk from
a range of threats, and to ensure that
genetic stock is maintained.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Conduct habitat
assessment and
modelling to determine
current habitat condition
and possibilities for
future range expansion.
To qualify for Least Concern, the species
range in the form of extent of occurrence
may need to be expanded, and an
understanding of potential habitat
surrounding extant subpopulations
will be required. There is no need to
include range expansion until we know
population trends and whether range has
declined.
5-Yearly
6 Months
1 Person
All
Conduct research into
species biology, ecology
and conservation
requirements
Very little is known about this species,
and urgent research is required to
inform adaptive conservation measures.
Once
Unknown
2 People
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
All
Investigate need to
undertake translocations
to increase the species'
extent of occurrence
above 20,000 km2.
To qualify for Least Concern, the species
range in the form of extent of occurrence
may need to be expanded, and an
understanding of potential habitat
surrounding extant subpopulations will
be required.
Once
3 Months
1 Person
All
Manage data to inform
adaptive management
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
133
134
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations, and those subject to
specific threats including fire and feral cats
Develop management plans for those
subpopulations subject to threats of altered fire
regimes and feral cat predation
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of fire
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of cat predation
Reserve suitable habitat for the species
Conduct habitat assessment and modelling
to determine current habitat condition and
possibilities for future range expansion.
Conduct research into species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Investigate need to undertake translocations to
increase the species' extent of occurrence above
20,000 km2.
Manage data to inform adaptive management
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
All
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
All
All
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$30,000
Status assessment of the species – genetic
diversity
All
$5,150
$292,850
$295,000
$0
$30,900
$61,800
$0
$30,000
$0
$40,000
$100,000
$25,000
$0
$0
$0
Year 2
$5,000
$0
$30,000
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$150,000
Year 1#
Status assessment of the species - distribution
and abundance
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 32: List of recovery actions for Petrogale burbidgei , and their costs
$0
$0
$0
$0
$555,886
$5,305
$0
$31,827
$63,654
$30,000
$30,900
$250,000
$41,200
$103,000
Year 3
$400,626
$5,464
$20,000
$32,782
$65,564
$30,900
$31,827
$0
$42,436
$106,090
$0
$0
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$368,008
$25,628*
$0
$33,765
$67,531
$31,827
$0
$0
$43,709
$109,273
$0
$22,510
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$0
$0
$0
$628,754
$5,970
$5,796
$277,702
$0
$35,822
$71,643
$0
$0
$281,377
$46,371
$115,927
$0
$0
$0
$71,644
Year 7
$0
$34,778
$69,556
$0
$0
$0
$45,020
$112,551
$10,000
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$284,005
$6,149
$0
$36,896
$73,792
$0
$0
$0
$47,762
$119,405
Year 8
$292,525
$6,333
$0
$38,003
$76,006
$0
$0
$0
$49,195
$122,987
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$3,834,085
$438,730
$26,523*
$0
$39,143
$78,286
$0
$0
$0
$50,671
$126,677
$0
$0
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Petrogale coenensis
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Petrogale coenensis (Eldridge & Close, 1992)
3.
Common name: Cape York Rock Wallaby
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2, and there is a serious
decline in the quality of its habitat in parts of its range due cattle grazing and changes to the fire regime,
thus making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion B1 (Winter et al. 2008).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None
7. Range and abundance
This species is restricted to a small area of the eastern Cape York Peninsula, Australia. It ranges from
Musgrave to the Pascoe River in elevation from sea level to 400 m above sea level.
This species is rare, but recent surveys have found four new populations, and it might be underestimated
(Eldridge et al. 2008).
Figure 14: K nown distribution of Petrogale coenensis from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
8.Habitat
The habitat of this species includes rocky outcrops, rocky gullies, and boulder piles, dry creek beds, usually
within open woodland.
135
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
9.Threats
9.1 The habitat near some populations is
adversely affected by cattle grazing and fire.
9.2 Feral cats may take a few young animals.
10. Information required
10.1 Survey to clarify distribution, abundance
and habitat requirements.
10.2 Identify populations for regular monitoring.
10.3 Conduct research aimed at understanding
biology, ecology, and conservation
requirements.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Petrogale coenensis is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
13.5 Habitat assessment and modelling to
determine current habitat condition and
possibilities for future range expansion.
13.6 Implement monitoring protocols,
including fire management, grazing, habitat
condition, predation and predator activity,
and species activity.
13.7 Research species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements.
13.8 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Queensland Department of Environment
and Resource Management.
11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring
confirm the population trend of Petrogale
coenensis as stable.
15. Other organisations involved
11.3 By 2021, the geographic range of Petrogale
coenensis in the form of extent of
occurrence has increased to greater than
20,000 km2.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
11.4 By 2021, research has confirmed the
impacts of changing fire regimes and cattle
grazing on Petrogale coenensis, and where
those regimes present a threat to Petrogale
coenensis subpopulations, management
plans have been developed and are being
implemented to mitigate those threats.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale
coenensis has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Recent surveys have detected at least four
new populations near the town of Coen and
the species may not be as rare as previously
thought (Eldridge et al. 2008).
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and
risks.
13.2 Identify areas where excessive grazing and
altered fire regimes pose significant threats
to rock wallabies and develop management
plans for those subpopulations.
13.3 Assess threat of feral cats to juvenile
rock wallabies and conduct cat control
where necessary.
136
13.4 Reserve suitable habitats for the species.
15.1None.
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$4.2 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
Eldridge, MDB, Moore, LA and Close, RL (2008)
Cape York Rock Wallaby (Petrogale coenensis). In
The Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and
Strahan, R).
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 19 October 2010.
Winter, J., Burnett, S. & Martin, R. 2008.
Petrogale coenensis. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. http://
www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/16752/0
. Accessed 19 October 2010.
Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R (eds.) (2008)
The Mammals of Australia. New Holland
Publishers, Sydney.
20. Comments received from
20.1None
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 33: List of recovery actions for Petrogale coenensis, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance
All
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
Whilst the species is relatively secure,
information is required to assess those
subpopulations most at risk from a range
of threats, and to ensure that genetic
stock is maintained.
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
All
Status assessment
of the species identify important
subpopulations, and
those subject to specific
threats including grazing,
fire and cats
Little is known about which
subpopulations should be targeted for
intensive management.
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
All
Manage data to inform
adaptive management
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Develop management
plans for those
subpopulations subject to
threats of cattle grazing,
altered fire regimes and
feral cat predation
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of cattle grazing
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of fire
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of cat predation
6-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
All
Reserve suitable habitat
for the species
Little of the rock wallaby's habitat is
protected within reserves. Sufficient
habitat will be required to ensure the
ongoing security of the species.
Once
Unknown
2 People
All
Conduct habitat
assessment and
modelling to determine
current habitat condition
and possibilities for
future range expansion.
To qualify for Least Concern, the species
range in the form of extent of occurrence
may need to be expanded, and an
understanding of potential habitat
surrounding extant subpopulations will
be required.
5-Yearly
6 Months
1 Person
All
Conduct research into
species biology, ecology
and conservation
requirements
Very little is known about this species,
and urgent research is required to
inform adaptive conservation measures.
Once
Unknown
2 People
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator activity,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire and
grazing management
and habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
All
Investigate need to
undertake translocations
to increase the species'
extent of occurrence
above 20,000 km2.
Once
3 Months
1 Person
The woodlands surrounding some
populations are significantly impacted
by cattle grazing and fire. Here, rock
wallaby activity appears limited to areas
on the ridges and among outcrops that
escape serious impact. Consequently
those populations located in smaller
isolated outcrops and ridges may be at
risk from the direct impacts of grazing,
as well as fire regimes altered to favour
pastoral objectives.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
Once secure habitat is identified outside
the current species range, it may be
necessary to translocate animals to
create a new subpopulation, thus
bolstering the future security of the
species.
137
138
$20,000
Manage data to inform adaptive management
Develop management plans for those
subpopulations subject to threats of cattle grazing,
altered fire regimes and feral cat predation
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of cattle grazing
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of fire
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of cat predation
All
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
$467,850
$60,000
$30,000
$0
$205,000
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
Implement monitoring protocols for fire and
grazing management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Investigate need to undertake translocations to
increase the species' extent of occurrence above
20,000 km2.
All
All
All
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$0
$0
Conduct research into species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements
All
$30,900
$61,800
$0
$30,000
$0
All
$125,000
$0
Reserve suitable habitat for the species
Conduct habitat assessment and modelling
to determine current habitat condition and
possibilities for future range expansion.
$40,000
$100,000
$50,000
$25,000
$5,150
$0
$0
$0
Year 2
All
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$30,000
Status assessment of the species - genetics
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations, and those subject to
specific threats including grazing, fire and cats
$60,000
Year 1#
All
Status assessment of the species - distribution and
abundance
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 34: List of recovery actions for Petrogale coenensis, and their costs
$0
$0
$0
$486,136
$0
$31,827
$63,654
$30,000
$30,900
$128,750
$41,200
$103,000
$51,500
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$586,284
$20,000
$32,782
$65,564
$30,900
$31,827
$132,613
$42,436
$106,090
$53,045
$0
$5,464
$0
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$559,235
$0
$33,765
$67,531
$31,827
$0
$136,591
$43,709
$109,273
$54,636
$0
$25,628*
$22,510
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$333,977
$0
$34,778
$69,556
$0
$0
$0
$45,020
$112,551
$56,275
$10,000
$405,341
$0
$35,822
$71,643
$0
$0
$0
$46,371
$115,927
$57,964
$0
$5,970
$5,796
$0
$71,644
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$343,708
$0
$36,896
$73,792
$0
$0
$0
$47,762
$119,405
$59,703
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$354,019
$0
$38,003
$76,006
$0
$0
$0
$49,195
$122,987
$61,494
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$4,243,617
$502,069
$0
$39,143
$78,286
$0
$0
$0
$50,671
$126,677
$63,339
$0
$26,523*
$0
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Petrogale concinna
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Petrogale concinna (Gould, 1842)
3.
Common name: Nabarlek, pygmy rock wallaby, little rock wallaby
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Data Deficient
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Data Deficient in view of the absence of recent information on its distribution, population status,
and threats. Its habitat is presumed to be in decline due to changes in the fire regime, and there appears
to have been localised extinctions over the last 30-40 years in the Northern Territory. However, the
species still has a large extent of occurrence and very little is known about its status throughout most
of its range (Woinarski et al. 2008). There is a possible threat from the introduction of feral cats
(D. Pearson, pers. comm.).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1
Petrogale concinna concinna –Victoria River District, NT
6.2 Petrogale concinna canescens – Top End, NT
6.3 Petrogale concinna monastria – Kimberley Region, WA
The populations in two regions (WA and NT) have traditionally been referred to as separate subspecies,
but these designations remain untested by modern morphometric or genetic analyses (Sanson and
Churchill 2008).
7. Range and abundance
Figure 15: Known distribution of Petrogale concinna from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010;
Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
The Nabarlek occurs in two disjunct locations: the north-western Kimberley in Western Australia and in the
Top End in the Northern Territory, Australia. There is also a type locality of Petrogale concinna concinna
near Timber Creek in the Northern Territory (not shown on map; D. Pearson, pers. comm.).
139
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
The species is very patchily distributed, though
it can be locally abundant. There seem to have
been localised extinctions from the Northern
Territory within the last 30-40 years. In Western
Australia, the species is found on several offshore
islands but is apparently very restricted, and on
the mainland it occurs as scattered populations.
There is no sound evidence of an overall
population decline in Northern Territory over
the last ten years (Woinarski et al. 2008). The
presence of Nabarlek on Augustus, Borda, Hidden
and Long islands was confirmed during the
Kimberley Island survey (DEC 2008-2010) and
rock-wallabies on Darcy Island are probably this
species (D. Pearson, pers. comm.).
8.Habitat
Sandstone and granite hills and escarpments. It
is known to spend its days in caves and crevices.
Being mostly nocturnal the nights are spent
foraging in a variety of habitats from monsoon
rainforests and vine thickets to open woodland
and hummock grass (Sanson & Churchill 2008).
9.Threats
9.1 Largely unknown.
9.2 Habitat change as a result of altered fire.
9.3 Introduced cats probably prey on nabarleks,
but it is unknown whether or not this
constitutes a major threat. All four offshore
islands and Darcy island do not have cats.
10. Information required
10.1 Surveys are needed for a more
accurate picture of its distribution and
population status.
10.2 Examine ecology at one or more
populations.
10.3 Undertake surveys of sites where localised
declines or extinctions are thought to have
occurred (e.g. western Top End, upper Mary
and upper Daly Rivers, Ord and Victoria
River districts).
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Petrogale concinna is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring
confirm the population trend of Petrogale
concinna as stable.
140
11.3 By 2021, research has investigated the
impacts of changing fire regimes and cattle
grazing on Petrogale concinna, and where
those regimes present a threat to Petrogale
concinna subpopulations, management
plans have been developed and are being
implemented to mitigate those threats.
11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale
concinna has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Surveys failed to relocate populations in the
Litchfield National Park area and in parts of
the upper Mary River (Sanson et al. 1985).
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and
risks. Includes surveys.
13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including
fire management, grazing, habitat condition,
predation and predator activity, and species
activity.
13.4 Assess threat of feral cats to juvenile rock
wallabies and conduct cat control where
necessary.
13.5 Research preferred fire regimes for P.
concinna and its habitat, and undertake fire
management where necessary.
13.6 Assess the need to augment the known
number of subpopulations through
translocation.
13.7 Research species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC), Western Australia.
14.2 Department of Natural Resources,
Environment, The Arts and Sport
(NRETAS), Northern Territory.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1None.
17. Action costs
Sanson GD, Nelson JE, and Fell P (1985) Ecology
of Peradorcas concinna in Arnhem Land in the
wet and dry season. Proceedings of the Ecological
Society of Australia 13, 69-72.
Woinarski, J., Burbidge, A., Telfer, W., McKenzie,
N. & Start, T. 2008. Petrogale concinna. In:
IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
apps/redlist/details/16761/0. Accessed
28 September 2010.
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$3.8 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
20. Comments received
19.References
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 28 September 2010.
20.1 David Pearson, WA DEC.
Sanson, GD and Churchill, SK (2008) Nabarlek,
Petrogale concinna. In The Mammals of Australia
(Eds. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R).
Table 35: List of recovery actions Petrogale concinna, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
All
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance
Rationale
There is very little known about this
species. Information is required to assess
the distribution and abundance of the
species, which subpopulations are most
at risk from a range of threats, and to
ensure that genetic stock is maintained.
The disjunct subpopulations may be two
or more distinct subspecies, and this
needs to be clarified.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
All
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
All
Status assessment
of the species identify important
subpopulations, and
those subject to specific
threats including grazing,
fire and cats
All
Manage data to inform
adaptive management
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Develop management
plans for those
subpopulations subject to
threats of cattle grazing,
altered fire regimes and
feral cat predation
Once the nature of threats to the species
is better known, management plans will
be required to address them.
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of cattle grazing
Cattle grazing may impact on the habitat
condition of the species.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of fire
Changes to vegetation composition
and structure as a result of altered fire
regimes are thought to be the greatest
threat facing Nabarleks.
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
141
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
142
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Priority subpopulations (as
identified in status assessment)
Implement management
actions to reduce the
threat of cat predation
Nabarleks occur north of the range of
the introduced red fox but feral cats are
probably a predator, given their ability
to catch the larger allied rock wallaby
(Petrogale assimilis). Feral cats are likely
to be a significant conservation threat
for smaller rock-wallabies such as the
monjon and nabarlek, which are even
smaller than P. assimilis, however there
are currently no data to indicate the level
of threat. All four offshore islands do not
have cats.
6-Monthly
1 Month
5 People
All
Conduct research into
species biology, ecology
and conservation
requirements
Very little is known about this species,
and urgent research is required to
inform adaptive conservation measures.
Once
Unknown
2 People
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator activity,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire and
grazing management
and habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
All
Investigate need to
undertake translocations
to increase the number of
extant subpopulations
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
Once surveys provide a clearer
understanding of the species' status,
it may be necessary to establish new
subpopulations to ensure it does
not meet the criteria to be listed as
threatened on the IUCN Red List.
$332,850
$0
$0
$60,000
$30,000
$0
$265,000
Manage data to inform adaptive management
Develop management plans for those
subpopulations subject to threats of cattle grazing,
altered fire regimes and feral cat predation
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of cattle grazing
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of fire
Implement management actions to reduce the
threat of cat predation
Conduct research into species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
Implement monitoring protocols for fire and
grazing management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Investigate need to undertake translocations to
increase the number of extant subpopulations
All
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
Priority subpopulations
(as identified in status
assessment)
All
All
All
All
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$0
$20,000
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations, and those subject to
specific threats including grazing, fire and cats
All
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$30,000
Status assessment of the species - genetics
All
$30,900
$61,800
$0
$60,000
$100,000
$50,000
$25,000
$5,150
$0
$0
$0
$120,000
Status assessment of the species - distribution and
abundance
All
Year 2
Year 1#
Action
Subpopulation
Table 36: List of recovery actions for Petrogale concinna, and their costs
$0
$0
$0
$347,086
$0
$31,827
$63,654
$30,000
$61,800
$103,000
$51,500
$0
$5,305
Year 3
$443,062
$20,000
$32,782
$65,564
$30,900
$63,654
$106,090
$53,045
$0
$5,464
$0
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$444,498
$0
$33,765
$67,531
$31,827
$65,564
$109,273
$54,636
$0
$25,628*
$22,510
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$356,488
$0
$34,778
$69,556
$0
$67,531
$112,551
$56,275
$10,000
$428,526
$0
$35,822
$71,643
$0
$69,556
$115,927
$57,964
$0
$5,970
$5,796
$0
$71,644
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$367,589
$0
$36,896
$73,792
$0
$71,643
$119,405
$59,703
$0
$6,149
Year 8
$378,616
$0
$38,003
$76,006
$0
$73,792
$122,987
$61,494
$0
$6,333
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$3,891,119
$527,404
$0
$39,143
$78,286
$0
$76,006
$126,677
$63,339
$0
$26,523*
$0
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
143
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Petrogale lateralis
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Petrogale lateralis (Gould, 1842)
3.
Common name: Black-footed rock wallaby, black-flanked rock wallaby, Warru,
Recherche rock wallaby, Pearson Island rock wallaby
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened because, although it has a large extent of occurrence, its distribution is very
patchy, few (if any) populations are considered secure, the total population is not much greater than 10,000
mature individuals, and it is probably decreasing overall, thus making the species close to qualifying
for Vulnerable under criterion C (Burbidge et al. 2008). Many documented extinctions of localised
subpopulations (D. Pearson, pers. comm.).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1
Petrogale lateralis hacketti - Recherche Rock-wallaby, Vulnerable under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA
2010).
6.2 Petrogale lateralis lateralis - Black-flanked Rock-wallaby, Vulnerable under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA
2010).
6.3 Petrogale lateralis pearsoni - Pearson Island Rock-wallaby. Not Listed under EPBC Act 1999
(DEWHA 2010).
6.4 Petrogale lateralis (MacDonnell Ranges race) - Warru, Black-footed Rock-wallaby (MacDonnell
Ranges race), Vulnerable under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6.5 Petrogale lateralis (West Kimberley race) - Black-footed Rock-wallaby (West Kimberley race),
Vulnerable under EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
7. Range and abundance
The Black-footed Rock-wallaby is a widespread and diverse species, found from temperate rocky islands in
the Southern Ocean to spinifex-clad rocky hills in the central deserts and pandanus-lined sandstone gorges
in the tropical north-west of Australia (Eldridge and Pearson 2008).
The global population is probably over 10,000 mature individuals. Historically, the MacDonnell race of
Black-footed rock wallaby began a steep decline sometime after the 1930s such that by the 1960s it was
rare in central Australia (Finlayson 1961) This decline continues today, mainly in the smaller, isolated
populations (Eldridge and Pearson 2008). Populations in 21 of 400 sites have disappeared in last 30 years
(Gibson 2000), and there are fewer than 100 individuals in South Australia (10 in the north-western
population and about 70 in the population further east). The MacDonnell Ranges race, however, remains
widespread and common in the Northern Territory, due to a variety of factors, including: widespread,
contiguous and variable habitat; an absence of rabbits and foxes, as they are found farther south; an
inability of goats to persist; and 1080 baiting programs for dingoes. Likewise the West Kimberley race is
described as “conspicuously abundant at several sites” because it is at the northern edge of fox distribution
and does not suffer much predation (Eldridge and Pearson 2008).
The remaining subspecies of Black-footed rock wallaby have not fared so well or are very limited in
distribution. The Black-footed rock wallaby in south-western Western Australia have declined massively
during the 20th century, and many local populations have gone extinct (Pearson and Kinnear 1997;
Eldridge and Pearson 2008). Barrow Island may hold about 100 individuals, though recent work suggests
this population is much smaller (A. Burbidge pers. comm.). Both P. l. hacketti and P. l. pearsoni are common
within their tiny ranges. Estimates for P. l. pearsoni include approximately 500 individuals on Thistle
Island and 200 on Wedge Island (both are introduced populations).
144
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Figure 16: Known distribution of Petrogale lateralis from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010;
Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
8.Habitat
This species is found in a variety of steep and
rocky habitats. The vegetation in these areas
varies widely from temperate rocky islands to
pandanus lined gorges and spinifex covered
hills in the central deserts (Eldridge and
Pearson 2008).
9.Threats
9.1 Predation from introduced foxes and
feral cats.
9.2 Competition with domestic and introduced
herbivores (primarily sheep and rabbits,
and potentially euros).
9.3 Loss of habitat due to changes in
the fire regimes and the spread of
introduced grasses.
9.4Disease.
The various subspecies of Black-footed rock
wallaby face various threats.
10. Information required
10.1 Some of the island populations should be
sampled genetically – not all have been
sampled and the subpopulation on Barrow
island is suspected to be inbreeding with a
speculated decrease in reproductive rate (D.
Pearson, pers. comm.).
10.2 Conduct research to improve knowledge of
diseases and parasites affecting P. lateralis.
10.3 Conduct research into the predation impact
of feral cats on P. lateralis.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Petrogale lateralis is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the number of distinct secure
subpopulations of Petrogale lateralis is
greater than 10, and the population is
estimated to number greater than 10,000
mature individuals, thus making it ineligible
to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN criteria
B or C.
11.3 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented
to reduce the threats of low resource
availability, introduced predators, fire and
disease for priority Petrogale lateralis
subpopulations.
11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale
lateralis has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
145
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 A number of reintroductions of have been
carried out to date.
12.2 P. l. lateralis has been reintroduced to
Avon Valley National Park (2001), Paruna
Sanctuary (2001), Walyunga National Park
(2002), and Cape Le Grand National Park
(2003) (Davies et al. 2007).
12.3 Further reintroductions and translocations
are planned.
12.4 Predator control in various locations.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and
risks. Identify those subpopulations that
will be the most efficient to manage, and
that capture the full genetic diversity of the
species for future conservation.
13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Refine and implement monitoring protocols,
including species and predator activity,
grazing pressure, predation, and resource
availability.
13.4 Conduct strategic and targeted fox baiting
on-ground, and increase baiting in response
to an increase in predator sightings or
predation incidents and during droughts.
13.5 Undertake aerial baiting in priority areas
(as determined by status assessment), and
those areas that are remote and difficult to
access from the ground.
13.6 Conduct competitor control operations
for goats and rabbits in and around rock
wallaby habitat, and increase during
droughts and prolonged dry periods.
13.7 Conduct competitor control operations
for livestock and camels in and around
rock wallaby habitat, and increase during
droughts and prolonged dry periods.
13.8 Exclude feral predators and competitors
from islands inhabited by rock wallabies.
13.9 Manage development where it impacts
rock wallaby habitat.
13.10Develop and implement fire management
plans for rock wallaby habitat.
13.11Control invasive weeds in and around
rock wallaby habitat.
146
13.12Engage local landholders and traditional
owners in management of P. lateralis habitat
on private and traditional lands.
13.13Review translocation of black-footed rock
wallabies, including feasibility of future
operations.
13.14Translocate individuals or subpopulations
to viable secure habitat if overpopulation
occurs, or if habitat is unmanageable.
13.15Use captive breeding and cross-fostering
to conserve genetic diversity.
13.16 Those subpopulations not high priority or
at key monitoring sites are to be left in situ,
and undergo minimum monitoring at least
every five years.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC) Western Australia.
14.2 Department of Natural Resources,
Environment, the Arts and Sport
(NRETAS), Northern Territory.
14.3 Department of Environment and Heritage
(DEH), South Australia.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$27 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
Burbidge, A, Woinarski, J, Reed, J, van Weenen,
J, Moseby, KE & Morris, K (2008) Petrogale
lateralis. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. http://www.
iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/16751/0.
Accessed 19 October 2010.
Davies, M, Newsome, D, Moncrieff, D and Smith,
A (2007) Conserving the Black-flanked rock
wallaby (Petrogale lateralis lateralis) through
tourism: Development of a habitat ranking
system for translocated animals and the need
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
for on-going management. Conservation Science
Western Australia 6: 1-12.
Australian species. Records of the South
Australian Museum 14: 141-191.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010) Petrogale lateralis. In:
Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.
gov.au/sprat. Accessed 27 October 2010.
Gibson, DF (2000) Distribution and conservation
status of the black-footed rock-wallaby, Petrogale
lateralis (MacDonnell Ranges race), in the
Northern Territory. Australian Mammalogy 21:
213-236.
Department of Environment and Conservation
Western Australia (2009) Black-Flanked RockWallaby (Petrogale lateralis lateralis) DRAFT
Conservation Plan for the Central Wheatbelt
Populations, 2009-2014.
Eldridge, MDB and Pearson, DJ (2008)
Black-footed rock wallaby, Petrogale lateralis.
In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck,
S & Strahan, R).
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 19 October 2010.
Pearson, DJ and Kinnear, JE (1997) A review
of the distribution, status and conservation of
rock wallabies in Western Australia. Australian
Mammalogy 19:137-152.
20. Comments received
20.1 David Pearson, DEC WA.
Finlayson, HH, (1961) On central Australian
mammals. IV: The distribution and status
of central
Table 37: List of recovery actions Petrogale lateralis, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery, and
effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
NT priority subpopulations
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance, including
ground survey and
population monitoring
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
WA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
Status assessment
of the species identify important
subpopulations
representing full genetic
diversity of species for
concerted management
actions
Manage data to inform
adaptive management.
Includes 5 year program
review.
Rationale
While some subpopulations are wellstudied, there are many for which
very little information exists. Surveys,
including genetics, will be essential to
an understanding of exactly which are
the priority subpopulations that require
management to achieve down-listing on
the IUCN Red List.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
5-Yearly
1 Month
2 People
5-Yearly
1 Day
1 Person
5-Yearly
1 Day
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Day
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Day
1 Person
147
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
All
Develop/refine
monitoring protocols for
the species, including
trapping, satellite collars
and camera traps, and
to monitor habitat and
threats
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
Implement monitoring
protocols, including
species activity, predator
activity, grazing pressure,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Continue fox and wild
dog baiting on the ground
WA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
Conduct aerial fox baiting
for priority and difficult
access sites
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
Increase fox baiting in
response to increased
predation or predator
sightings
WA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
148
A long-term consistent and cohesive
approach to regular monitoring
is essential to inform adaptive
management strategies.
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
Rationale
Control goats, donkeys
and camels at priority P.
lateralis subpopulations
The impacts of predation by the
introduced red fox on P. lateralis are
well known and may be responsible
for the local and regional extinction of
populations. The impact of feral cats is
much less understood, although thought
to be significant. Predation by feral
cats of other rock wallaby species has
been noted. No baiting program will be
100% effective at removing all foxes.
Individual or small groups of foxes if
they slip through baiting cordons are
capable of killing a significant number
of rock wallabies in short periods; a
serious threat if populations are already
small. Fox predation is likely to be more
severe on juvenile and the smaller female
rock wallabies.
Grazing may impact on rock wallaby
habitat where there is competition for
food resources. Stock and camels may
have the ability to restrict population
growth of rock wallabies by either
confining their foraging activities close
to refugia or causing them to travel
further to forage. There are no data
available testing the impact of these
species on rock wallabies.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Once
3 Months
1 Person
6-Monthly
1 Month
4 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
2 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
2 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Monthly
1 Week
20 People
Monthly
1 Week
5 People
Monthly
1 Week
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
20 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
5 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
5 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
10 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Possible competition with vertebrate
herbivores is known, with overlaps noted
in the diets of P. lateralis, euros, feral
goats and cattle. While these species
may not exert a constant pressure on
rock wallabies, droughts or dry summer
months could result in strong resource
competition. The more extensive
foraging ranges of goats and euros and
their superior reach to obtain browse
may also favour these species over rock
wallabies. The relative importance of
rabbit grazing in limiting the carrying
capacity of habitat for rock-wallabies is
not known, but it may be considerable
in some areas. High rabbit numbers
support higher predator populations,
particularly of foxes and feral cats.
Some rabbit control around WA
Wheatbelt outcrops may lead to
increases in the potential carrying
capacity for rock wallabies.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Prevent unauthorised
human visitation to
islands to exclude
invasive predators and
competitors, and to
prevent wildfires and
disease incursion.
Island subpopulations not currently
subject to predation may represent some
of the most secure groups of the species.
It is important to maintain this security.
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Develop and implement
fire management plans
for priority P. lateralis
habitat
Research into the most appropriate ways
to manage fire around rock-wallaby
colonies is required.
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Control invasive weeds
in and around P. lateralis
habitat
Little is known about the ingression of
weeds into rock-wallaby habitats and
its long-term effect on rock-wallabies.
Concern has been raised about the
impact of the spread of buffel grass
(Cenchrus ciliaris) into rock-wallaby
habitat (P. lateralis MacDonnell Ranges
race) in SA (and this is also occurring in
the NT and WA).
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
Yearly
1 Year
2 People
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Once
1 Month
1 Person
Control rabbits at
priority P. lateralis
subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
Control stock grazing
at priority P. lateralis
subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority island
subpopulations
WA priority island
subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
All priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
All
Develop contingency
plans for catastrophic
events including wildfires
and drought
Where priority subpopulations could
be wiped out by a natural event,
contingency plans should be put in place
to avoid such disasters.
Engage local landholders
and traditional owners
in management of P.
lateralis habitat on
private and traditional
lands
Some rock wallaby colonies are on or
adjacent to private or traditional lands.
Community involvement is an important
aspect of conservation both in and
outside national parks and reserves.
Review translocation
of P. lateralis, including
feasibility of future
operations
Translocations of wild animals rely on
a suite of factors for their success. Full
understanding of past translocation
efforts, and their contribution to success
or failure, is essential if future attempts
are to be successful.
149
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Translocate individuals
or subpopulations to
viable secure habitat if
overpopulation occurs,
for consolidation
purposes, or if existing
habitat is unmanageable.
The increased likelihood of inbreeding
when rock wallaby populations are
small may result in reduced variability,
the expression of recessive genes
or suppressed reproductive rates.
Translocation of small subpopulations
to larger colonies may be the most viable
means of managing them. Furthermore,
once threats are removed, rock wallaby
numbers may exceed available resources,
and translocation may be the most
effective means of managing numbers.
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
SA subpopulations
Use captive breeding
and cross-fostering
to conserve genetic
diversity.
Captive breeding and cross-fostering
may be the most effective methods of
ensuring genetic diversity is maintained
for the species, especially where some
subspecies are extremely limited in
numbers.
Yearly
1 Year
2 People
All
Conduct research to
improve knowledge of
diseases and parasites
affecting P. lateralis.
Little is known about the parasites and
diseases of rock-wallabies. Fleas and
lice are found on many wild caught P.
lateralis.
Once
3 Years
1 Person
All
Conduct research into the
predation impact of feral
cats on P. lateralis
The impact of feral cats is much less
understood than foxes, although thought
to be significant. Predation by feral cats
of other rock wallaby species has been
noted.
Once
3 Years
1 Person
Minimal monitoring of
those subpopulations that
are not considered high
priority for achieving
the conservation
objectives, and that are
not consolidated through
translocation.
There are many small subpopulations
of P. lateralis that present management
challenges, and that would not add
significantly to the conservation
objectives, from the perspective of
abundance and/or genetic diversity. It
would be extremely resource-intensive
to manage these subpopulations, with
little prospective return. Also there is
the possibility that human intervention
could inadvertently cause more
harm in attempting to manage these
subpopulations.
5-Yearly
2 Months
20 People
Low priority subpopulations
(x 20)
150
Frequency
WA priority subpopulations
Continue fox and wild dog baiting on the ground
$100,000
$100,000
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
$40,000
$30,000
$50,000
$75,000
$60,000
$100,000
$30,000
$5,000
$5,000
$400,000
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Implement monitoring protocols, including
species activity, predator activity, grazing
pressure, and effectiveness of management
intervention.
Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the
species, including trapping, satellite collars and
camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats
Manage data to inform adaptive management.
Includes 5 year program review.
$5,000
$5,000
NT priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
All
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
$5,000
$5,000
$40,000
$60,000
NT priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations representing full
genetic diversity of species for concerted
management actions
$0
$103,000
$103,000
$412,000
$41,200
$30,900
$51,500
$77,250
$61,800
$103,000
$20,000
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
$80,000
$0
Year 2
$100,000
Year 1#
$50,000
Status assessment of the species - genetics
Status assessment of the species - distribution
and abundance, including ground survey and
population monitoring
Action
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
Subpopulation
Table 38: List of recovery actions for Petrogale lateralis, and their costs
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$106,090
$106,090
$424,360
$42,436
$31,827
$53,045
$79,568
$63,654
$106,090
$0
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
Year 3
$109,273
$109,273
$437,091
$43,709
$32,782
$54,636
$81,955
$65,564
$109,273
$0
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$87,418
$65,564
$109,273
Year 4
$112,551
$112,551
$450,204
$45,020
$33,765
$56,275
$84,413
$67,531
$112,551
$0
$25,628*
$25,628*
$25,628*
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$56,275
$45,020
$67,531
$0
$0
$0
Year 5
$115,927
$115,927
$463,710
$46,371
$34,778
$57,964
$86,946
$69,556
$115,927
$10,000
$5,796
$5,796
$119,405
$119,405
$477,621
$47,762
$35,822
$59,703
$89,554
$71,643
$119,405
$0
$5,970
$5,970
$0
$5,970
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$95,524
$71,643
$119,405
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$5,796
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
$122,987
$491,950
$49,195
$36,896
$61,494
$92,241
$73,792
$122,987
$0
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
Year 8
$126,677
$126,677
$506,708
$50,671
$38,003
$63,339
$95,008
$76,006
$126,677
$0
$6,333
$6,333
$6,333
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$130,477
$130,477
$521,909
$52,191
$39,143
$65,239
$97,858
$78,286
$130,477
$0
$26,523*
$26,523*
$26,523*
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$65,238
$52,191
$78,287
$104,382
$78,286
$130,477
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
151
152
Develop contingency plans for catastrophic events
including wildfires and drought
Develop and implement management actions
to mitigate impacts of industrial and mining
development
All priority subpopulations
Priority subpopulations
subject to development
pressures
WA priority subpopulations
Control invasive weeds in and around P. lateralis
habitat
$5,000
$5,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
Develop and implement fire management plans for
priority P. lateralis habitat
$30,000
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
WA priority island
subpopulations
$40,000
Prevent unauthorised human visitation to islands
to exclude invasive predators and competitors, and
to prevent wildfires and disease incursion.
$10,000
$10,000
WA priority subpopulations
Control stock grazing at priority P. lateralis
subpopulations
SA priority island
subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
$10,000
$20,000
WA priority subpopulations
$10,000
NT priority subpopulations
Control rabbits at priority P. lateralis
subpopulations
$30,000
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
$60,000
$30,000
Control goats, donkeys and camels at priority P.
lateralis subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
$0
$80,000
NT priority subpopulations
$0
WA priority subpopulations
Increase fox baiting in response to increased
predation or predator sightings
$0
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
$100,000
$100,000
Year 1#
$100,000
Conduct aerial fox baiting for priority and difficult
access sites
Action
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
Subpopulation
$0
$0
$51,500
$51,500
$51,500
$20,600
$20,600
$20,600
$30,900
$41,200
$10,300
$10,300
$20,600
$10,300
$10,300
$30,900
$30,900
$61,800
$82,400
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$103,000
$103,000
$103,000
Year 2
$0
$0
$53,045
$53,045
$53,045
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$31,827
$42,436
$10,609
$10,609
$21,218
$10,609
$10,609
$31,827
$31,827
$63,654
$84,872
$0
$0
$0
$106,090
$106,090
$106,090
Year 3
$0
$0
$54,636
$54,636
$54,636
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$32,782
$43,709
$10,927
$10,927
$21,855
$10,927
$10,927
$32,782
$32,782
$65,564
$87,418
$0
$0
$0
$109,273
$109,273
$109,273
Year 4
$0
$5,628
$56,275
$56,275
$56,275
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$33,765
$45,020
$11,255
$11,255
$22,510
$11,255
$11,255
$33,765
$33,765
$67,531
$90,041
$54,636
$54,636
$54,636
$112,551
$112,551
$112,551
Year 5
$0
$0
$57,964
$57,964
$57,964
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$34,778
$46,371
$11,593
$11,593
$23,185
$11,593
$11,593
$34,778
$34,778
$69,556
$92,742
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
$115,927
$115,927
Year 6
$0
$0
$59,703
$59,703
$59,703
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$35,822
$47,762
$11,941
$11,941
$23,881
$11,941
$11,941
$35,822
$35,822
$71,643
$95,524
$0
$0
$0
$119,405
$119,405
$119,405
Year 7
$0
$0
$61,494
$61,494
$61,494
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$36,896
$49,195
$12,299
$12,299
$24,597
$12,299
$12,299
$36,896
$36,896
$73,792
$98,390
$59,702
$59,702
$59,702
$122,987
$122,987
$122,987
Year 8
$0
$0
$63,339
$63,339
$63,339
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$38,003
$50,671
$12,668
$12,668
$25,335
$12,668
$12,668
$38,003
$38,003
$76,006
$101,342
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
$126,677
$126,677
Year 9
$0
$0
$65,239
$65,239
$65,239
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$39,143
$52,191
$13,048
$13,048
$26,095
$13,048
$13,048
$39,143
$39,143
$78,286
$104,382
$0
$0
$0
$130,477
$130,477
$130,477
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
$30,000
$2,309,108
$0
$30,000
$2,520,000 $2,353,600
$0
Minimal monitoring of those subpopulations that
are not considered high priority for achieving
the conservation objectives, and that are not
consolidated through translocation.
Low priority subpopulations
(x 20)
YEARLY TOTALS
$0
Conduct research into the predation impact of
feral cats on P. lateralis
All
$0
$84,872
$0
$0
$53,045
$0
$63,654
$63,654
$63,654
Year 3
$0
$0
Conduct research to improve knowledge of
diseases and parasites affecting P. lateralis.
All
$82,400
$0
$51,500
$0
$0
$61,800
$61,800
$61,800
Year 2
$0
$80,000
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$60,000
$60,000
$60,000
Year 1#
Use captive breeding and cross-fostering to
conserve genetic diversity.
Translocate individuals or subpopulations to
viable secure habitat if overpopulation occurs, for
consolidation purposes, or if existing habitat is
unmanageable.
Review translocation of P. lateralis, including
feasibility of future operations
Engage local landholders and traditional owners
in management of P. lateralis habitat on private
and traditional lands
Action
SA subpopulations
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
All
WA priority subpopulations
SA priority subpopulations
NT priority subpopulations
Subpopulation
$200,000
$31,827
$31,827
$90,041
$0
$56,275
$0
$5,628
$67,531
$67,531
$67,531
Year 5
$2,640,636 $3,070,608
$0
$30,900
$30,900
$87,418
$54,636
$0
$0
$0
$65,564
$65,564
$65,564
Year 4
$2,467,660
$0
$0
$0
$92,742
$0
$0
$57,964
$0
$69,556
$69,556
$69,556
Year 6
$2,817,961
$0
$0
$0
$95,524
$59,702
$0
$0
$0
$71,643
$71,643
$71,643
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$101,342
$0
$63,338
$0
$0
$76,006
$76,006
$76,006
Year 9
$231,855
$0
$0
$104,382
$65,238
$0
$65,239
$0
$78,286
$78,286
$78,286
Year 10
$27,241,710
$2,724,944 $2,685,551 $3,651,643
$0
$0
$0
$98,390
$0
$0
$0
$0
$73,792
$73,792
$73,792
Year 8
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
153
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Petrogale penicillata
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Petrogale penicillata (Gray, 1827)
3.
Common name: Brush-tailed rock wallaby, western rock wallaby
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened because this species is in significant decline (but at a rate of less than 30% over
ten years) due to predation by, and competition with, introduced species and by fragmentation that has led
to increasingly isolated populations that are prone to extinction, making the species close to qualifying for
Vulnerable under criterion A (Taggart et al. 2008).
Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1 None. See section 18 below for discussion of ecologically significant units (ESUs).
7. Range and abundance
The brush-tailed rock wallaby is endemic to south-eastern Australia, where it occurs in
south-eastern Queensland, eastern New South Wales, and as a tiny subpopulation in the East Gippsland
of eastern Victoria.
This species is sparsely distributed within abundant suitable habitat (Eldridge and Close 2008). It is
difficult to estimate population sizes because it is nocturnal, and occurs in very rugged terrain. The species
is declining at many localities and the overall population is in decline. The total population size is estimated
to be between 15,000 and 30,000 individuals (DECC 2008). The stronghold for the species is within northeastern New South Wales, containing as much as 80% of the total population – most of which is within
the Macleay River and Clarence River gorges (DECC 2008). An estimated 2% of the population occurs
elsewhere in New South Wales, 17% within Queensland, and less than 1% in Victoria (DECC 2008).
Figure 17: Known distribution of Petrogale penicillata from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery © Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
154
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
Found in structurally complex rocky habitats.
Often these areas are gorges, cliffs, rock outcrops,
or boulder piles. Most of these sites have a
northerly aspect, but this appears not to be as
important as rock complexity that contains a
number of refuges from predators (Murray et
al. 2008). The rocky environments occur within
a variety of vegetated landscapes from dense
rainforest to dry sclerophyll or open woodland
(Eldridge and Close 2008).
Brush-tailed rock wallabies typically shelter
during the day in rock crevices, caves and
overhangs, yet often bask in exposed sunny
spots (Sharman & Maynes 1983). Within their
home range, rock wallabies habitually use the
same refuges, sunning spots, feeding areas
and pathways (Joblin 1983) and these are often
defended vigorously (Bayne 1994).
9.Threats
9.1 Predation by introduced foxes. Foxes prey
on young rock wallabies and probably limit
dispersal as well as recruitment.
9.2 Competition with introduced goats.
9.3 Introduced dogs and cats are also
probably threats.
9.4 Habitat fragmentation and land clearance
between colonies.
9.5 Colony isolation increases the risk
of inbreeding.
9.6 Bioclimatic changes.
9.7Disease.
10. Information required
10.1 There is a lack of data about the threats to
the Brush-tailed rock wallaby.
10.2 More detailed knowledge about the species’
habitat and biology is needed to make
informed decisions on how to address
these threats and thus how best to manage
this species.
10.3 Population monitoring, genetic and floristic
analyses are key elements to this threat
abatement process.
10.4 Detailed studies of the effects of fire on
habitat regeneration are needed.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Petrogale penicillata is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the number of distinct secure
subpopulations of Petrogale penicillata
is greater than 10, and the population is
estimated to number greater than 10,000
mature individuals, thus making it ineligible
to qualify as Vulnerable under IUCN criteria
B or C.
11.3 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented
to reduce the threats of low resource
availability, introduced predators, fire
and disease for key Petrogale penicillata
subpopulations.
11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale
penicillata has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 A program to arrest the continuing decline
of the brush-tailed rock wallaby in NSW was
instigated by the NPWS in 1993.
12.2 Research into the genetics of brushtailed rock wallaby has been undertaken
by a number of researchers. This work
involved genetic surveys, captive breeding
and assisted reproduction strategies,
establishment of protected breeding
colonies and reintroduction trials.
12.3 Historical research into the timetable
and causes of decline in brush-tailed rock
wallaby in NSW extend the historical
range of the species and indicated greater
continuity in its distribution than previously
recorded. It also identified the extent and
relevance of commercially driven hunting to
the early and steep decline of the species.
12.4 Research and studies on the behaviour and
ecology of brush-tailed rock wallaby have
also been undertaken.
12.5 A threat abatement plan (TAP) for predation
of threatened fauna, including the brushtailed rock wallaby, by the red fox was
prepared in 2001.
155
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
12.6 Brush-tailed rock wallabies were used
in a recent cross-fostering study at
Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve (ACT).
The study demonstrated that the removal
of pouch young (bred in captivity) and
cross-fostering can be used to accelerate
breeding and recruitment in the brushtailed rock wallaby.
12.7 For a fuller account of these and other
activities, see DEWHA (2010).
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and
risks. Identify those subpopulations that
will be the most efficient to manage, and
that capture the full genetic diversity of the
species for future conservation.
13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Refine and implement monitoring
protocols, including species and predator
activity, grazing pressure, predation, and
resource availability.
13.4 Conduct strategic and targeted fox baiting
on-ground, and increase baiting in response
to an increase in predator sightings or
predation incidents and during droughts.
13.5 Undertake aerial baiting in priority areas
(as determined by status assessment), and
those areas that are remote and difficult to
access from the ground.
13.6 Conduct competitor control operations
for goats and rabbits in and around rock
wallaby habitat, and increase during
droughts and prolonged dry periods.
13.7 Develop and implement fire management
plans for rock wallaby habitat.
13.8 Investigate the potential impacts of flooding
on resource availability.
13.9 Control invasive weeds in and around rock
wallaby habitat.
13.10Engage local landholders and traditional
owners in management of P. penicillata
habitat on private and traditional lands.
13.11Maintain captive breeding and crossfostering programs to ensure genetic stock
is maintained.
156
13.12Review translocation of brush-tailed rock
wallabies and prepare a strategy, including
feasibility, for future operations.
13.13Identify sites for translocation or
reintroduction based on habitat mapping
and/or on-ground assessment.
13.14Translocate individuals or subpopulations
to viable secure habitat if overpopulation
occurs, or if habitat is unmanageable.
13.15Those subpopulations not high priority or
at key monitoring sites are to be left in situ,
and undergo minimum monitoring at least
every five years.
13.16Conduct research to improve knowledge
of diseases and parasites affecting P.
penicillata.
13.17Conduct research into the predation impact
of feral cats on P. penicillata.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water (DECCW)
New South Wales.
14.2 Department of Environment and Resource
Management (DERM) Queensland.
14.3 Department of Sustainability and
Environment (DSE) Victoria.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1Various.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is
required to oversee this complex
recovery program.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$31 million.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
18.Notes
18.1 Within the Brush-tailed rock-wallaby
species there are three ecologically
significant units (ESUs):
•
Northern ESU (north-eastern NSW and
south-eastern Queensland populations)
•
Central ESU (central NSW population)
•
Southern ESU (Victorian population).
It was estimated (DEC 2005) that 10,000
to 25,000+ individuals remain in Northern
ESU, 1,000 in Central ESU and less than 10 in
Southern ESU. All estimates refer to individuals
remaining in the wild. It is likely that there is
significant variation in genetic stock between
ESUs, and it is likely that they will need to be
managed accordingly.
19.References
Bayne, P (1994) Behaviour of the Brush-tailed
Rock-wallaby, Petrogale penicillata, and
the recognition of individuals. M.Sc. Thesis.
University of New England, Armidale.
Department of Environment and Climate Change
(New South Wales) (2008) Recovery plan for the
brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata).
Department of Environment and Climate Change
New South Wales, Sydney South, Australia.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 19 October 2010.
Joblin, KPW (1983) Behaviour and ecology
of the brush-tailed rock wallaby, Petrogale
penicillata, in the New England Region. M.Sc.
Thesis. Department of Ecosystem Management,
University of New England, Armidale.
Murray, JV, Low Choy, S, McAlpine, CA,
Possingham, HP and Goldizen, AW (2008)
The importance of ecological scale for
wildlife conservation in naturally fragmented
environments: A case study of the brush-tailed
rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata). Biological
Conservation 141: 7-22.
Sharman, GB and Maynes, GM (1983) Rockwallabies. In: Complete Book of Australian
Mammals (Strahan R, ed.). Angus and Robertson,
Sydney.
Taggart, D, Menkhorst, P and Lunney, D (2008)
In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org/apps/redlist/details/16746/0. Accessed 19
October 2010.
20. Comments received
20.1None.
Department of Environment and Conservation
(NSW) (DEC) (2005). Draft Recovery Plan for
the Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby, Petrogale
penicillata. Department of Environment and
Conservation, Sydney.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010) Petrogale penicillata. In:
Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.
gov.au/sprat. Accessed 27 October 2010.
Eldridge, MDB and Close, RL (2008)
Brush-tailed rock wallaby, Petrogale penicillata.
In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck,
S & Strahan, R).
157
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 39: List of recovery actions for Petrogale penicillata, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
All
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Project manager
coordinates project
The brush-tailed rock wallaby occupies
a large biogeographic range and occurs
across a wide array of administrative,
tenure, and land management areas. It is
therefore vital that recovery actions are
coordinated at site, regional, ESU, state
and national levels. Such coordination
will require the continuation of current
staff resources.
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
5-Yearly
1 Month
2 People
5-Yearly
1 Day
1 Person
5-Yearly
1 Day
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Day
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Day
1 Person
5-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
6-Monthly
1 Month
4 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
2 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
2 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance, including
ground survey
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
All
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
158
While some subpopulations are wellstudied, there are many for which
very little information exists. Surveys,
including genetics, will be essential to
an understanding of exactly which are
the priority subpopulations that require
management to achieve down-listing.
Status assessment
of the species identify important
subpopulations
representing full genetic
diversity of species for
concerted management
actions
Manage data to inform
adaptive management.
Includes 5 year program
review.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
Develop/refine
monitoring protocols for
the species, including
trapping, satellite collars
and camera traps, and
to monitor habitat and
threats.
Implement monitoring
protocols, including
species activity, predator
activity, grazing pressure,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
A long-term consistent and cohesive
approach to regular monitoring
is essential to inform adaptive
management strategies.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Continue fox and wild
dog baiting on the ground
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Conduct aerial fox baiting
for priority and difficult
access sites
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Increase fox baiting in
response to increased
predation or predator
sightings
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Control introduced
herbivores
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Develop and implement
fire management plans
for priority P. penicillata
habitat
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Control invasive weeds in
and around P. penicillata
habitat
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
All priority subpopulations
Develop contingency
plans for catastrophic
events including wildfires
and drought
Predation is thought to have a
significant, if not the greatest, impact on
brush-tailed rock wallaby populations,
through loss of young wallabies that
have just left the pouch and of dispersing
young wallabies. Circumstantial and
anecdotal evidence indicates that
brush-tailed rock wallabies are eaten
by introduced foxes and dogs. Foxes are
agile climbers known to access refuge
areas. Wild dogs are less likely to invade
refuge areas but are a threat to brushtailed rock wallabies while they forage.
The level of competition between
rock wallabies and other herbivores
is generally poorly understood.
Competition with native animals has
been speculated as potentially affecting
brush-tailed rock wallaby ecology and
habitat use. Competition between brushtailed rock wallabies and feral goats for
refuge areas may occur in some areas.
While competition with herbivores other
than goats is difficult to demonstrate,
the impact of habitat alteration may be
significant. For example, Pearson (1992)
considered rabbits were a major factor in
altering the habitat of black-footed rockwallabies. The effect of rabbits may be
spasmodic, and may only be significant
during a drought.
Research into the most appropriate
ways to manage fire around rock wallaby
colonies is required. The impact of fire
on brush-tailed rock wallaby populations
is uncertain. brush-tailed rock wallabies
have been variously reported to
disappear, move from, and remain in
their habitat during fire. Fire alters the
structure and floristics of vegetation, and
possibly the suitability of the vegetation
as habitat or food
Little is known about the ingression of
weeds into rock wallaby habitats and
its long-term effect on rock wallabies.
Weed infestation of particularly woody
or shrubby weeds, such as lantana, may
both provide and exclude refuge areas,
depending on the extent and intensity of
the infestation.
Where priority subpopulations could
be wiped out by a natural event,
contingency plans should be put in place
to avoid such disasters.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Monthly
1 Week
20 People
Monthly
1 Week
5 People
Monthly
1 Week
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
20 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
5 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
5 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
159
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
All
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Rationale
Engage local landholders
and traditional owners
in management of P.
penicillata habitat on
private and traditional
lands
Some BTRW colonies are on private
lands, or adjacent to private lands.
Community involvement is an important
aspect of conservation both in and
outside national parks and reserves.
Review translocation of
P. penicillata including
feasibility of future
operations
Translocations of wild animals rely on
a suite of factors for their success. Full
understanding of past translocation
efforts, and their contribution to success
or failure, is essential if future attempts
are to be successful.
Translocate individuals
or subpopulations to
viable secure habitat if
overpopulation occurs,
for consolidation
purposes, or if existing
habitat is unmanageable.
The increased likelihood of inbreeding
when rock wallaby populations are
small may result in reduced variability,
the expression of recessive genes
or suppressed reproductive rates.
Translocation of small subpopulations
to larger colonies may be the most viable
means of managing them. Furthermore,
once threats are removed, rock wallaby
numbers may exceed available resources,
and translocation may be the most
effective means of managing numbers.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Yearly
1 Year
2 People
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Once
1 Month
1 Person
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
All
Use captive breeding
and cross-fostering
to conserve genetic
diversity.
Captive breeding and cross-fostering
may be the most effective methods of
ensuring genetic diversity is maintained
for the species, especially where the
southern ESU is extremely limited in
numbers.
Yearly
1 Year
2 People
All
Conduct research to
improve knowledge of
diseases and parasites
affecting P. penicillata
Little is known about disease in wild
populations of brush-tailed rock wallaby,
although this species is probably
susceptible to the same diseases found in
other macropods.
Once
3 Years
1 Person
All
Conduct research into the
predation impact of feral
cats on P. penicillata
Feral cats are possible rock-wallaby
predators, and declines in other species
of rock wallabies have been attributed to
predation by feral cats.
Once
3 Years
1 Person
Minimal monitoring of
those subpopulations that
are not considered high
priority for achieving
the conservation
objectives, and that are
not consolidated through
translocation.
There are many small subpopulations of
P. penicillata that present management
challenges, and that would not add
significantly to the conservation
objectives, from the perspective of
abundance and/or genetic diversity. It
would be extremely resource-intensive
to manage these subpopulations, with
little prospective return. Also there is
the possibility that human intervention
could inadvertently cause more
harm in attempting to manage these
subpopulations.
5-Yearly
2 Months
20 People
Low priority subpopulations
160
Action
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
All
Implement monitoring protocols, including
species activity, predator activity, grazing
pressure, and effectiveness of management
intervention.
Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the
species, including trapping, satellite collars and
camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats.
$20,000
$60,000
$150,000
$50,000
$0
$0
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$0
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Manage data to inform adaptive management.
Includes 5 year program review.
$0
$2,000
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
$10,000
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations representing full
genetic diversity of species for concerted
management actions
$5,000
$10,000
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$60,000
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Status assessment of the species - genetics
$5,000
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$40,000
Status assessment of the species - distribution and
abundance, including ground survey
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
$100,000
Year 1#
$120,000
Project manager coordinates project
Action
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
All
Subpopulation
Table 40: List of recovery actions for Petrogale penicillata, and their costs
$20,600
$61,800
$154,500
$51,500
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$103,000
Year 2
$21,218
$63,654
$159,135
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$106,090
Year 3
$21,855
$65,564
$163,909
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,464
$43,709
$131,127
$109,273
Year 4
$22,510
$67,531
$168,826
$56,275
$0
$0
$25,000*
$0
$2,251
$11,255
$5,628
$11,255
$67,531
$0
$0
$0
$112,551
Year 5
$23,185
$69,556
$173,891
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
Year 6
$23,881
$71,643
$179,108
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,970
$47,762
$143,286
$119,405
Year 7
$24,597
$73,792
$184,481
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
Year 8
$25,335
$76,006
$190,016
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
Year 9
$26,095
$78,286
$195,716
$0
$0
$0
$28,138*
$0
$0
$0
$6,524
$13,048
$78,287
$6,524
$52,191
$156,573
$130,477
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
161
162
$10,000
$20,000
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$40,000
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Develop and implement fire management plans for
priority P. penicillata habitat
$30,000
$60,000
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$80,000
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Control introduced herbivores
$0
$0
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$0
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Increase fox baiting in response to increased
predation or predator sightings
$100,000
$100,000
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$100,000
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Conduct aerial fox baiting for priority and difficult
access sites
$400,000
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$400,000
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Continue fox and wild dog baiting on the ground
$400,000
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
$15,000
$50,000
Year 1#
$5,000
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Action
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Subpopulation
$10,300
$20,600
$41,200
$30,900
$61,800
$82,400
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$103,000
$103,000
$103,000
$412,000
$412,000
$412,000
$5,150
$15,450
$51,500
Year 2
$10,609
$21,218
$42,436
$31,827
$63,654
$84,872
$0
$0
$0
$106,090
$106,090
$106,090
$424,360
$424,360
$424,360
$5,305
$15,914
$53,045
Year 3
$10,927
$21,855
$43,709
$32,782
$65,564
$87,418
$0
$0
$0
$109,273
$109,273
$109,273
$437,091
$437,091
$437,091
$5,464
$16,391
$54,636
Year 4
$11,255
$22,510
$45,020
$33,765
$67,531
$90,041
$54,636
$54,636
$54,636
$112,551
$112,551
$112,551
$450,204
$450,204
$450,204
$5,628
$16,883
$56,275
Year 5
$11,593
$23,185
$46,371
$34,778
$69,556
$92,742
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
$115,927
$115,927
$463,710
$463,710
$463,710
$5,796
$17,389
$57,964
Year 6
$11,941
$23,881
$47,762
$35,822
$71,643
$95,524
$0
$0
$0
$119,405
$119,405
$119,405
$477,621
$477,621
$477,621
$5,970
$17,911
$59,703
Year 7
$12,299
$24,597
$49,195
$36,896
$73,792
$98,390
$59,702
$59,702
$59,702
$122,987
$122,987
$122,987
$491,950
$491,950
$491,950
$6,149
$18,448
$61,494
Year 8
$12,668
$25,335
$50,671
$38,003
$76,006
$101,342
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
$126,677
$126,677
$506,708
$506,708
$506,708
$6,334
$19,002
$63,339
Year 9
$13,048
$26,095
$52,191
$39,143
$78,286
$104,382
$0
$0
$0
$130,477
$130,477
$130,477
$521,909
$521,909
$521,909
$6,524
$19,572
$65,239
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
$2,817,700
$0
$2,802,000
Minimal monitoring of those subpopulations that
are not considered high priority for achieving
the conservation objectives, and that are not
consolidated through translocation.
Low priority subpopulations
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$0
$0
Conduct research into the predation impact of
feral cats on P. penicillata
All
$0
$0
$0
Conduct research to improve knowledge of
diseases and parasites affecting P. penicillata
$82,400
$0
$51,500
$0
$0
$61,800
$61,800
$61,800
$0
All
$80,000
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$60,000
$60,000
$60,000
$5,000
$10,300
Use captive breeding and cross-fostering to
conserve genetic diversity.
Translocate individuals or subpopulations to
viable secure habitat if overpopulation occurs, for
consolidation purposes, or if existing habitat is
unmanageable.
Review translocation of P. penicillata including
feasibility of future operations
Engage local landholders and traditional owners
in management of P. penicillata habitat on private
and traditional lands
Develop contingency plans for catastrophic events
including wildfires and drought
$10,000
$30,900
$51,500
Year 2
All
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
All
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
All priority subpopulations
Southern ESU priority
subpopulations
$30,000
Control invasive weeds in and around P.
penicillata habitat
Central ESU priority
subpopulations
Year 1#
$50,000
Action
Northern ESU priority
subpopulations
Subpopulation
$2,754,686
$0
$30,000
$30,000
$84,872
$0
$0
$53,045
$0
$63,654
$63,654
$63,654
$0
$10,609
$31,827
$53,045
Year 3
$3,017,626
$0
$30,900
$30,900
$87,418
$54,636
$0
$0
$0
$65,564
$65,564
$65,564
$0
$10,927
$32,782
$54,636
Year 4
$3,476,805
$200,000
$31,827
$31,827
$90,041
$0
$56,275
$0
$5,628
$67,531
$67,531
$67,531
$5,628
$11,255
$33,765
$56,275
Year 5
$2,944,556
$0
$0
$0
$92,742
$0
$0
$57,964
$0
$69,556
$69,556
$69,556
$0
$11,593
$34,778
$57,964
Year 6
$3,229,911
$0
$0
$0
$95,524
$59,702
$0
$0
$0
$71,643
$71,643
$71,643
$0
$11,941
$35,822
$59,703
Year 7
$3,241,492
$0
$0
$0
$98,390
$0
$0
$0
$0
$73,792
$73,792
$73,792
$0
$12,299
$36,896
$61,494
Year 8
$231,855
$0
$0
$104,382
$65,238
$0
$65,239
$0
$78,286
$78,286
$78,286
$0
$13,048
$39,143
$65,239
Year 10
$31,454,873
$3,217,596 $3,952,502
$0
$0
$0
$101,342
$0
$63,338
$0
$0
$76,006
$76,006
$76,006
$0
$12,668
$38,003
$63,339
Year 9
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
163
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Petrogale persephone
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Petrogale persephone (Maynes, 1982)
3.
Common name: Proserpine rock wallaby
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(iii, v)
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Endangered because its extent of occurrence is less than 5,000 km2, its distribution is severely
fragmented, and there is a continuing decline in the extent and or quality of the habitat and the numbers
of mature individuals (due primarily to road kills and domestic dogs) (Burnett & Winter 2008).
Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999.
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1 None described
7. Range and abundance
Figure 18: K nown distribution of Petrogale persephone from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
The Proserpine rock wallaby has the smallest known distribution of any rock-wallaby, and is limited
to near the towns of Proserpine and Airlie Beach, in the Whitsunday Shire of northern Queensland
(Nolan & Johnson 2000).
Today it is restricted to 14,500 hectares of naturally fragmented habitat within the Whitsunday region of
central coastal Queensland (Johnson & Eldridge 2008). Under recovery plan guidelines for this species, 27
captive-bred Proserpine rock wallabies were introduced to nearby Hayman Island between 1998 and 2002,
and monitoring programs have shown that in spite of predation by wedge-tailed eagles, this population is
breeding successfully (Johnson & Eldridge 2008).
The population size of the Proserpine rock wallaby is small, because it occurs in limited habitat within
a small geographical area (DEWHA 2010).
164
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
On the mainland, the Proserpine rock wallaby
lives in rocky outcrops and boulder piles,
usually within semi-deciduous vine thickets, but
sometimes on the outer margins of rainforest
or in areas where the forest has been disturbed.
These habitats provide a high diversity of food
plants, as well as shelter within the dense
understorey and inside the caves and crevices
of the rock piles (Johnson & Eldridge 2008).
The Proserpine rock wallaby is the only species
of rock wallaby to live exclusively in rainforest
(Winkel 1997a). It lives in sites with large boulder
piles and perched boulders creating crevices,
tunnels and overhangs (Winkel 1997b). On the
mainland, it inhabits boulder outcrops in pockets
of semi-deciduous, semi-evergreen or complex
microphyll or notophyll vine forest (Nolan 1997).
In Gloucester Island National Park, the Proserpine
rock wallaby prefers littoral (beachside) habitat.
It uses rocky outcrops and rock piles covered with
dry vine scrub, usually associated with beach
scrub. At higher elevations, its habitat is rocky
outcrops, rock piles and rocky creeks within an
Acacia open forest (Nolan 1997; Nolan & Johnson
2000). On Hayman Island, where the wallaby has
been translocated, it occurs in association with
boulder piles covered with vine thicket or vine
forest (Schaper & Nolan 2000).
9.Threats
9.1 Loss and fragmentation of habitat, often
due to clearing for housing.
9.2 Predation by domestic and feral dogs.
9.3 Road kills from vehicle collisions.
10. Information required
10.1 Map the distribution of hydatidosis and
Toxoplasmosis gondii in the Proserpine
rock wallaby.
10.2 Improved understanding of habitat
requirements of the Proserpine rock
wallaby, including patch size, connectivity
and condition, and provision of guidelines
to reduce habitat fragmentation in Mackay
Whitsunday NRM region.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Petrogale persephone is eligible for
listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN Red
List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Petrogale
persephone in the form of extent of
occurrence has increased to greater than
5,000 km2, with subpopulations secure* at
greater than 5 locations within that range.
11.3 By 2021, numbers of mature Petrogale
persephone in the wild are considered
stable or increasing based on an index of
abundance appropriate to the taxon.
11.4 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of road kills and domestic
dogs, and to improve habitat area, extent
and quality, for all Petrogale persephone
subpopulations.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale
persephone has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
9.4 Increased tourist development and
urbanisation.
12.1 Essential habitat mapping for the species
is complete (DERM 2009).
9.5 Toxoplasmosis, transferred by domestic
and feral cats.
12.2 DERM has produced brochures for the
general public titled ‘Creating habitat for
the Proserpine rock-wallaby!’ and ‘Help save
the Proserpine rock-wallaby!’ which include
guidelines for revegetation and encourage
the creation of habitat linkages.
9.6 Hydatid tapeworm, spread by dogs.
9.7 Consumption of introduced toxic plants.
9.8 Hybridisation with Petrogale inornata
(Unadorned rock wallaby).
9.9 Fire has the potential to destroy entire
subpopulations.
9.10 Climate Change is a possible threat due
to the extremely specific habitat
requirements and limited distribution
(Clancy and Close 1997).
12.3 One translocated/introduced population
has been established on Hayman Island
from captive bred stock with additions
required to this population from captive
bred stock over the next 4 years (B. Nolan
pers. comm.).
12.4 Studies of reproduction and aging of pouch
young have been completed for this species
in captivity (B. Nolan pers. comm.).
165
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
12.5 A draft recovery plan is in place
(DERM 2009).
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations
using standard protocols, including
distribution, abundance, genetics, trend,
risk and priority subpopulations.
13.2 Manage species data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Refine and implement monitoring protocols,
including fire management, habitat
condition, predation and predator activity,
and species activity.
13.4 Update Proserpine rock wallaby habitat
mapping throughout range, including future
translocation sites. Include definition of
important habitat areas for the rock wallaby
in terms of size, linkages and configuration
to guide actions to address habitat
fragmentation.
13.5 Address ongoing land clearing and habitat
fragmentation through protecting known
habitat by establishing reserves on public
land, or conservation covenants and nature
refuges on private land. Use market-based
incentives and focus on rural-residential or
farming areas.
13.14Develop and implement weed control
strategies on Gloucester Island
13.15Implement revegetation of habitat plants
for the Proserpine rock wallaby, including
actions to protect and manage key remnant
coastal and urban vegetation that provide
habitat for the Proserpine rock wallaby.
13.16Revise and implement the Proserpine rock
wallaby Contact Plan to gain landholder
support of recovery actions, and improving
developers’ awareness of and compliance
with recovery actions.
13.17Increase the awareness of rural and urban
landholders in areas with Proserpine rock
wallabies of the importance of controlling
domestic dogs, including the threat of
hydatid parasites.
13.18Maintain appropriate fire management
procedures in and around Proserpine rock
wallaby habitat, including Hayman Island.
13.19Identify sites for translocation or
reintroduction based on habitat mapping
and/or on-ground assessment.
13.20E stablish and manage secure areas of
habitat for future translocations.
13.6 Establish vegetation corridors between the
most isolated patches of habitat.
13.21Translocation of Proserpine rock wallabies
to secure and managed areas of habitat.
13.7 Protect native vegetation along creek lines
to maintain species dispersal routes.
13.22Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations.
13.8 Remove fences in rock wallaby habitat that
may serve as barriers against which they
may be trapped when fleeing dogs
13.9 Control feral cats and wild dogs in and
around Proserpine rock wallaby habitat.
13.10Address growing numbers of domestic cats
and dogs surrounding Proserpine rock
wallaby habitat, including implementation
of the Whitsunday Regional Council dog
registration program
13.11Control wild dogs around Proserpine rock
wallaby sites.
13.12Actions to reduce road mortality, including
installation of roadside reflectors along
roads where Proserpine rock wallabies are
known to frequent.
13.13Weed management in and around
Proserpine rock wallaby habitat. Control
Pink Periwinkle and Guinea Grass within
166
Proserpine rock wallaby habitat and along
roadsides margins.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and Resource
Management (DERM) Queensland.
14.2 Whitsunday Regional Council.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 James Cook University.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 The recovery program is sufficiently
complex to warrant the employment
of a full time recovery coordinator.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$10 million.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
18.Notes
Johnson, PM & Eldridge, MDB (2008) in Van
Dyck, S & Strahan, R (eds.) The Mammals of
Australia. New Holland Publishers, Sydney.
18.1None.
19.References
Burnett, S and Winter, J (2008) Petrogale
persephone. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/16747/0. Accessed 29 June 2010.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org.
Accessed 29 June 2010.
Department of Environment and Resource
Management (2009) National Draft recovery
plan for the Proserpine rock-wallaby Petrogale
persephone. Report to Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts, Canberra. Queensland Department
of Environment and Resource Management,
Brisbane.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010) Petrogale persephone. In:
Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.
gov.au/sprat. Accessed 1 November 2010.
Nolan, B (1997) An update of the Proserpine rockwallaby Petrogale persephone Recovery Plan.
Australian Mammalogy. 19: 309-313.
Nolan, B & Johnson, P (2000) Recovery Plan
for the Proserpine rock-wallaby Petrogale
persephone 2000-2004. Queensland Parks and
Wildlife, Brisbane.
Schaper, D. & B. Nolan (2000). Final report on
phase two of the recovery plan for the Proserpine
Rock-wallaby Petrogale persephone. Brisbane:
Environmental Protection Agency.
Winkel, P (1997a) Proserpine Rock-wallaby: Rare
and endangered. Nature Australia. 26(3):20-21.
Winkel, P (1997b) The ecology and management
of the Proserpine Rock-wallaby, Petrogale
persephone. Report to the Queensland
Department of Environment, Brisbane.
20.Comments received
20.1 Barry Nolan, DERM.
Table 41: List of recovery actions for Petrogale persephone, and the rationale for their contribution to
recovery, and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Project coordinator
manages project
Current recovery actions are ad hoc and
opportunistic, and the recovery program
is of sufficient complexity to warrant a
dedicated manager.
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
All
Status assessment
- distribution and
abundance. Includes
surveys of known
subpopulations
3-Yearly
3 Months
10 People
All
Status assessment genetics
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
All
Status assessment
- most important
subpopulations for
management, and the
threats facing them.
Includes identification of
areas subject to grazing,
weeds or fire.
3-Yearly
1 Month
1 Person
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained.
Little is known about which
subpopulations should be targeted for
intensive management.
167
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Unconfirmed or suspected
subpopulations
Survey to confirm rock
wallaby presence
The species relies on large rock piles
to provide them with protection from
predators and environmental extremes.
Only a few of these critical refuge sites
are known, and surveys are therefore
required to locate and map important
rock piles in remaining habitat areas.
Changes to the regional ecosystem
classification may affect priority sites for
protection, restoration and management
including corridors between areas
of habitat that are important in
maintaining the population.
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
All
Manage species data
to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5
year program review.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
All
Update species habitat
mapping
Mapping is required to ensure that the
complex distribution of this species is
kept up to date.
5-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
All
Review of translocations,
and success and failure
factors
Translocations of wild and captive
subpopulations will be crucial to the
ongoing management of the species.
Ensuring that any future translocations
are undertaken under optimum
conditions is essential for the success
of the operations.
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
All
Develop/refine
monitoring protocols for
the species, including
trapping, satellite collars
and camera traps, and
to monitor habitat and
threats
Once
2 Months
1 Person
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
6 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
Translocation Site 2
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
Location 1
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Location 2
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Gloucester Island
Hayman Island
Translocation Site 1
Location 3
Location 4
Gloucester Island
Hayman Island
168
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator activity,
road interactions,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives.
Implement monitoring
protocols for weed control
and habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Translocation Site 1
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Translocation Site 2
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Hayman Island
Conduct adaptive fire
management to maintain
Proserpine rock wallaby
habitat
To maintain suitable habitat for
the species, ongoing dialogue and
cooperative assistance will have to be
maintained with the island staff. The
current fire management plan will need
to be reviewed by DERM and Hayman
Island Resort.
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
All
Protect habitat by
declaring new reserves or
conservation areas
Little of the rock wallaby's habitat is
protected within reserves. Sufficient
habitat will be required to ensure the
ongoing security of the species.
Once
1 Year
2 People
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Identify unreserved
Proserpine rock wallaby
habitat on private land
and run extension
program to engage
landholders to better
manage or reserve land
With high densities occurring on or
adjacent to private land, it is important
that property owners manage remaining
vegetation to allow the continued
existence of the species. The awareness
of local residents, developers and local
government employees about the issues
facing Proserpine rock wallabies is seen
as an important step in facilitating the
recovery actions for the species, given its
proximity to urban and developing areas.
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Mainland subpopulations
Continue to implement
Rural Feral and Stray Cat
Management Plan
Domestic and feral cats spread
Toxoplasmosis gondii which has been
documented to cause blindness and
death in rock-wallabies.
Yearly
2 Months
1 Person
Mainland subpopulations
Continue to implement
Whitsunday Regional
Council dog registration
program
Yearly
2 Months
1 Person
Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Once
2 Months
1 Person
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Yearly
1 Month
1 Person
Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Mainland subpopulations
Promote fencing and dog
control in and adjacent to
wallaby habitat.
Mainland subpopulations
Restrict dog access in
areas of known PRW
habitat
Mainland subpopulations
Map areas suitable for
1080 use, and develop
wild dog control program
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Implement feral animal
control program
targeting wild dogs
Location 4
Island subpopulations
Prevent entry or
establishment of cats and
dogs to islands where
Proserpine rock wallabies
exist
Gloucester Island
Develop and implement
weed control strategy on
Gloucester Island
Urban areas surrounding
known subpopulations
Replace toxic plants with
native plants in domestic
and government garden
areas
Shute Harbour Rd, Mandalay
Road and Staniland Drive
Spray guinea grass on
road verges
The residential development boom has
led to an increase in domestic dogs
and cats within and adjacent to habitat
areas. This has led to an increase in the
number of dog attacks and fatalities on
rock-wallabies.
Control of feral dogs is presently difficult
due to limitations placed on where
registered poisons (1080) can be utilised.
This is primarily due to the proximity
of large areas of Proserpine rock
wallaby habitat to expanding residential
developments. Feral dogs which
have crossbred with dingoes are also
present in habitat areas and have been
responsible for rock wallaby mortalities.
Hydatids, a type of cyst formed by
tapeworm larvae, may also be contracted
from dogs and has proven fatal for the
Proserpine rock wallaby.
Islands represent predator-free areas for
the species, and the introduction of dogs
and cats could prove disastrous for rock
wallaby populations.
The propagation of introduced toxic
plants poses a serious threat to the
Proserpine rock wallaby which is known
to graze in household gardens, especially
during the drier months. Invasion of
palatable toxic species such as pink
periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus) into
habitat areas on Gloucester Island may
pose a considerable poisoning threat.
169
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Use 1.5m diameter
culverts under new roads
Urban development has also led to
roads being constructed through areas
of Proserpine rock wallaby habitat,
resulting in road kills. The mortality
of rock wallabies usually peaks during
the dry season, from September to
November, as green pick in the bush
becomes less available and animals
wander to roadside verges to feed. Given
increasing residential development and
traffic volume, this could significantly
impact on populations. Most road deaths
occur where road speeds are of 80km/h
or greater and/or where there is feeding
areas in close proximity to roads.
Unknown
1 Day
2 People
Urban subpopulations
Conduct research to
determine home range
for colonies in close
proximity to residential
expansion
Knowledge of the rock wallabies’
movement could aid future management
decisions, including the placement of
new roads and housing developments.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
All
Map the distribution of
Toxoplasmosis gondii
and hydatidosis in the
Proserpine rock wallaby
population
Little is known about the impacts of
these diseases on the Proserpine rock
wallaby, and any resulting mortality.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
All
Study the interactions
between the Proserpine
rock wallaby and the
unadorned rock wallaby
where populations are
adjacent.
Little is known about the level of
competition for resources between these
species. Interbreeding may also be an
ongoing concern.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
New subpopulations
Identify sites for
translocation or
reintroduction based on
habitat mapping and/or
on-ground assessment
Once
6 Months
1 Person
Once
6 Months
4 People
Once
6 Months
4 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
3-Yearly
3 Months
1 Person
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
All
170
Establish secure areas
of habitat for future
translocations, including
any necessary fencing
and predator/weed
removal
Translocation of
Proserpine rock wallabies
to secure and managed
areas of habitat
In order to achieve an increase in area of
occupancy and extent of occurrence, new
or previously occupied sites will need
to be identified, secured, and used as
translocation sites. Hayman Island may
become a suitable source of Proserpine
rock wallabies to be translocated to the
mainland.
Ongoing management
of translocated
subpopulations, including
resource supplementation
as required
Incorporate updated
habitat knowledge
into plans for habitat
continuity under
potential climate change
scenarios
The current recovery plan has identified
future climate change as a potential
threat to the species. The cross-over
of boundaries of various species of
Petrogale in Queensland may be
influenced by climate.
$0
Manage species data to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5 year program review.
Update species habitat mapping
Review of translocations, and success and failure
factors
Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the
species, including trapping, satellite collars and
camera traps, and to monitor habitat and threats
All
All
All
All
$20,600
$20,000
$15,000
$15,000
Hayman Island
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
$15,450
$15,450
$30,900
$15,450
$20,600
$20,600
$30,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$46,350
$0
$0
$0
$103,000
Year 2
$30,000
Gloucester Island
$15,000
$20,000
$20,000
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
$30,000
$10,000
$0
$45,000
Location 1
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, road interactions, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
$0
Survey to confirm rock wallaby presence
Unconfirmed or suspected
subpopulations
$0
All
$30,000
Status assessment - genetics
Status assessment - most important
subpopulations for management, and the threats
facing them. Includes identification of areas
subject to grazing, weeds or fire.
$60,000
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations
All
All
$100,000
Year 1#
Project coordinator manages project
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 42: List of recovery actions for Petrogale persephone, and their costs
$15,914
$15,914
$21,218
$31,827
$15,914
$21,218
$21,218
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,741
$0
$0
$0
$106,090
Year 3
$16,391
$16,391
$21,855
$32,782
$16,391
$21,855
$21,855
$32,782
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,173
$0
$0
$65,564
$109,273
Year 4
$16,883
$16,883
$22,510
$33,765
$16,883
$22,510
$22,510
$33,765
$0
$0
$11,255
$20,000*
$50,648
$0
$33,765
$0
$112,551
Year 5
$17,389
$17,389
$23,185
$34,778
$17,389
$23,185
$23,185
$34,778
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
Year 6
$17,911
$17,911
$23,881
$35,822
$17,911
$23,881
$23,881
$35,822
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$71,644
$119,405
Year 7
$18,448
$18,448
$24,597
$36,896
$18,448
$24,597
$24,597
$36,896
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
Year 8
$19,002
$19,002
$25,335
$38,003
$19,002
$25,335
$25,335
$38,003
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
Year 9
$19,572
$19,572
$26,095
$39,143
$19,572
$26,095
$26,095
$39,143
$0
$0
$13,048
$22,515*
$0
$0
$39,143
$78,287
$130,477
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
171
172
$10,000
$0
Restrict dog access in areas of known Proserpine
rock wallaby habitat
Map areas suitable for 1080 use, and develop wild
dog control program
Mainland subpopulations
Mainland subpopulations
$5,000
Develop and implement weed control strategy on
Gloucester Island
Replace toxic plants with native plants in domestic
and government garden areas
Gloucester Island
Urban areas surrounding
known subpopulations
$5,000
$10,000
Island subpopulations
$40,000
$40,000
Prevent entry or establishment of cats and dogs to
islands where Proserpine rock wallabies exist
Location 4
Location 3
Implement feral animal control program targeting
wild dogs
$2,000
Promote fencing and dog control in and adjacent
to wallaby habitat.
Mainland subpopulations
$50,000
$5,000
Continue to implement Whitsunday Regional
Council dog registration program
Mainland subpopulations
$40,000
$5,000
Continue to implement Rural Feral and Stray Cat
Management Plan
Mainland subpopulations
Location 2
$0
Identify unreserved Proserpine rock wallaby
habitat and run extension program to engage
landholders to better manage or reserve land
All
Location 1
$0
Protect habitat by declaring new reserves or
conservation areas
All
$50,000
Hayman Island
$10,000
Translocation Site 2
Conduct adaptive fire management to maintain
Proserpine rock wallaby habitat
$10,000
Translocation Site 1
$15,000
$10,000
Hayman Island
Gloucester Island
$10,000
$10,000
$40,000
$10,300
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$51,500
$15,000
$0
$2,060
$5,150
$5,150
$10,000
$0
$51,500
$10,300
$10,300
$10,300
$15,450
$10,300
$10,300
Implement monitoring protocols for weed control
and habitat condition, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
$10,000
Location 3
Location 4
$15,450
$10,300
$15,000
Year 2
$10,000
Year 1#
Location 2
Action
Location 1
Subpopulation
$10,300
$41,200
$10,609
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$53,045
$10,000
$0
$2,122
$5,305
$5,305
$120,000
$0
$53,045
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$15,914
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$15,914
Year 3
$10,609
$42,436
$10,927
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$54,636
$0
$0
$2,185
$5,464
$5,464
$123,600
$0
$54,636
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$16,391
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$16,391
Year 4
$10,927
$43,709
$11,255
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$56,275
$0
$11,255
$2,251
$5,628
$5,628
$127,308
$0
$56,275
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$16,883
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$16,883
Year 5
$11,255
$45,020
$11,593
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$57,964
$0
$0
$2,319
$5,796
$5,796
$131,127
$0
$57,964
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$17,389
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$17,389
Year 6
$11,593
$15,000
$11,941
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$59,703
$0
$0
$2,388
$5,970
$5,970
$135,061
$0
$59,703
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$17,911
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$17,911
Year 7
$11,941
$15,450
$12,299
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$61,494
$0
$0
$2,460
$6,149
$6,149
$139,113
$0
$61,494
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$18,448
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$18,448
Year 8
$12,299
$15,914
$12,668
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$63,339
$0
$0
$2,534
$6,334
$6,334
$143,286
$0
$63,339
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$19,002
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$19,002
Year 9
$12,668
$16,391
$13,048
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$65,239
$0
$0
$2,610
$6,524
$6,524
$147,585
$0
$65,239
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$19,572
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$19,572
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
$0
$0
$0
Study the interactions between the Proserpine
rock wallaby and the unadorned rock wallaby
where populations are adjacent. Competition for
resources and interbreeding are the key issues.
Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction
based on habitat mapping and/or on-ground
assessment
Establish secure areas of habitat for future
translocations, including any necessary fencing
and predator/weed removal
All
New subpopulations
Translocation Site 1
Incorporate updated habitat knowledge into plans
for habitat continuity under potential climate
change scenarios
Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations, including resource
supplementation as required
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
All
Translocation Site 2
Translocation Site 1
Translocation Site 2
Translocation Site 1
Translocation of Proserpine rock wallabies to
secure and managed areas of habitat
$0
Map the distribution of Toxoplasmosis gondii
and hydatidosis in the Proserpine rock wallaby
population
All
$0
$826,710
$777,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,000
$30,000
$20,000
$0
$15,450
Year 2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Conduct research to determine home range
for colonies in close proximity to residential
expansion
Urban subpopulations
Translocation Site 2
$0
Use 1.5m diameter culverts under new roads
All
$15,000
Year 1#
Spray guinea grass on road verges
Action
Shute Harbour Rd, Mandalay
Road and Staniland Drive
Subpopulation
$955,761
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$25,750
$30,900
$20,600
$0
$15,914
Year 3
$1,049,698
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$26,523
$31,827
$21,218
$0
$16,391
Year 4
$1,057,979
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,300
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
$16,883
Year 5
$1,051,878
$15,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$80,000
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,389
Year 6
$1,189,508
$15,450
$30,000
$30,000
$50,000
$50,000
$30,000
$20,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$17,911
Year 7
$996,900
$15,914
$30,900
$30,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$18,448
Year 8
$1,010,416
$0
$31,827
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,002
Year 9
$10,109,571
$1,193,721
$0
$32,782
$32,782
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,572
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
173
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Petrogale sharmani
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Petrogale sharmani (Eldridge & Close, 1992)
3.
Common name: Mountain claro rock wallaby, Sharman’s rock wallaby
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
IUCN Red List
Listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2, and there is concern
over threats from introduced herbivores, which may have an effect on the species. However, the species’
habitat and populations are not very fragmented and there is currently no decline in numbers or in quality
or extent of habitat. Almost qualifies as threatened under criterion B1 (Winter et al. 2008).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None.
7. Range and abundance
Figure 19: Known distribution of Petrogale sharmani from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
Endemic to the Seaview and Coane Ranges, west of Ingham in north-eastern Queensland, Australia.
It is common within its restricted range.
8.Habitat
Rocky outcrops, boulder piles, gorges, cliff lines, and rocky slopes.
9.Threats
9.1 Habitat loss due to development.
9.2 Competition from domestic and wild introduced herbivores.
9.3 Increased pastoralism in the western part of its range.
9.4 Vulnerable to possible effects of climate change which may favour more populous species of
rock-wallabies in adjacent regions.
174
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
10. Information required
10.1 Surveys are needed to determine the
distribution and status of the species
across its range.
10.2 Populations should be identified for regular
monitoring programmes.
10.3 Studies are needed to understand the
species biology and ecology, especially to
determine its interaction with introduced
herbivores.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Petrogale sharmani is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, research, surveys and monitoring
confirm the population trend of Petrogale
sharmani as stable.
11.3 By 2021, research has confirmed the
impacts of grazing competition and
increased pastoralism on Petrogale
sharmani, and where competition presents
a threat to P. sharmani subpopulations,
management plans have been developed
and are being implemented to mitigate
those threats.
11.4 By 2021, the geographic range of Petrogale
sharmani in the form of extent of
occurrence is greater than 20,000 km2,
with subpopulations secure* at greater than
10 locations within that range, thus making
it ineligible to qualify as Vulnerable under
IUCN criteria B15.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale
sharmani has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1None.
13. Management actions required
13.4 Research into the species’ ecology and
biology, particularly its interaction with
competitors and predators.
13.5 Reserve suitable habitat for the species.
13.6 Habitat assessment and modelling to
determine current habitat condition and
possibilities for future range expansion.
13.7 Implement management actions once
priority actions and subpopulations have
been identified.
13.8 Identify sites for translocation or
reintroduction based on habitat mapping
and/or on-ground assessment.
13.9 Establish and manage secure areas of
habitat for future translocations.
13.10Translocation of species to secure and
managed areas of habitat.
13.11Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and Resource
Management (DERM), Queensland.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$3.7 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetics, abundance, distribution, trend
and threats.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org.
Accessed 28 September 2010.
13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
Winter, J., Burnett, S. & Martin, R. 2008.
Petrogale sharmani. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/16753/0. Accessed 28 September 2010.
13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including,
grazing, habitat condition, predation and
predator activity, and species activity.
20. Comments received
20.1None.
15 This objective may not be possible, given the current estimated extent of occurrence of ~2000 km 2. One solution would be to establish a secure subpopulation
far outside the species’ current distribution.
175
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 43: List of recovery actions for Petrogale sharmani, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
All
Status assessment
of distribution and
abundance, including
surveys
Whilst the species is relatively secure,
information is required to assess those
subpopulations most at risk from a range
of threats, and to ensure that genetic
stock is maintained.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
3-Yearly
3 Months
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
Once
2 Years
1 Person
All
Status assessment of
genetic diversity
All
Assessment of grazing
competition and altered
fire regimes as threats to
the species.
All
Conduct research into
species biology, ecology
and conservation
requirements.
Very little is known of the species, and
the research is important to better
understand its conservation needs.
Once
2 Years
2 People
All
Habitat modelling to
assess suitability for
range expansion.
To qualify for Least concern, the species
range in the form of extent of occurrence
may need to be expanded, and an
understanding of potential habitat
surrounding extant subpopulations will
be required.
Once
2 Years
1 Person
All
Manage data to inform
adaptive management.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator activity,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
All
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire and
grazing management
and habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
All
Reserve suitable habitat
for the species.
Little of the species' habitat is protected
within reserves. Sufficient habitat will be
required to ensure the ongoing security
of the species.
Once
Unknown
2 People
All
Implement management
actions once
priority actions and
subpopulations have been
identified.
The nature of required management
actions is as yet unknown.
Yearly
Unknown
5 People
New subpopulation
Identify sites for
translocation or
reintroduction based on
habitat mapping and/or
on-ground assessment
Once
6 Months
1 Person
Once
6 Months
4 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Establish secure areas
of habitat for future
translocations, including
any necessary fencing
and predator/weed
removal
Translocation Site 1
Translocation of P.
sharmani to secure and
managed areas of habitat
Ongoing management
of translocated
subpopulations, including
resource supplementation
as required.
176
Rationale
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives
In order to achieve an increase in area of
occupancy and extent of occurrence, new
or previously occupied sites will need
to be identified, secured, and used as
translocation sites.
$0
$322,850
$0
$5,000
$60,000
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$185,000
Habitat modelling to assess suitability for range
expansion.
Manage data to inform adaptive management.
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator activity, and effectiveness of
management intervention.
Implement monitoring protocols for fire and
grazing management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Reserve suitable habitat for the species.
Implement management actions once priority
actions and subpopulations have been identified.
Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction
based on habitat mapping and/or on-ground
assessment
Establish secure areas of habitat for future
translocations, including any necessary fencing
and predator/weed removal
Translocation of P. sharmani to secure and
managed areas of habitat
Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations, including resource
supplementation as required.
All
All
All
All
All
All
New subpopulation
*Includes 5-year program review
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
Translocation Site 1
$0
Conduct research into species biology, ecology and
conservation requirements.
All
$0
$0
$0
$100,000
$125,000
$30,900
$61,800
$5,150
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
All
$30,000
Status assessment of genetic diversity
$0
Year 2
Assessment of grazing competition and altered fire
regimes as threats to the species.
$60,000
Year 1#
All
Status assessment of distribution and abundance,
including surveys
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 44: List of recovery actions for Petrogale sharmani, and their costs
$0
$0
$452,536
$0
$0
$0
$0
$103,000
$128,750
$31,827
$63,654
$5,305
$30,000
$30,000
$60,000
Year 3
$541,676
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$106,090
$132,613
$32,782
$65,564
$5,464
$30,900
$30,900
$61,800
$0
$65,564
Year 4
$544,160
$0
$0
$0
$10,300
$109,273
$136,591
$33,765
$67,531
$25,628*
$31,827
$31,827
$63,654
$33,765
$0
Year 5
$342,682
$0
$0
$120,000
$0
$112,551
$0
$34,778
$69,556
$401,006
$30,000
$50,000
$20,000
$0
$115,927
$0
$35,822
$71,643
$5,970
$5,796
$0
$0
$0
$71,644
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$267,143
$30,900
$0
$0
$0
$119,405
$0
$36,896
$73,792
$6,149
Year 8
$275,157
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
$0
$38,003
$76,006
$6,333
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$3,753,050
$420,841
$32,782
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
$0
$39,143
$78,286
$26,523*
$0
$0
$0
$39,143
$78,287
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
177
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Petrogale xanthopus
1.Family Macropodidae
2.
Scientific name: Petrogale xanthopus (Gray, 1855)
3.
Common name: Yellow-footed rock wallaby, Ring-tailed rock wallaby
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Near Threatened
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Near Threatened because its extent of occurrence is probably not much greater than 20,000 km2
and is highly fragmented, its habitat is declining in much of its range, and its population is likely to be
less than 10,000 mature individuals, making the species close to qualifying for Vulnerable under criterion
B1b(iii) (Copley et al. 2008).
Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1
Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus - Flinders Ranges, Gawler Ranges and Olary Hills, SA; Gap and
Coturaundee Ranges, NSW. Vulnerable on the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6.2 Petrogale xanthopus celeris- Gowan, Grey, Cheviot, Yangang and Macedon Ranges, bounded by
Adavale. Not listed on the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
7. Range and abundance
This species is endemic to Australia, where it has a highly disjunct and patchy distribution in South
Australia, New South Wales and Queensland.
In South Australia, colonies persist in the Gawler Ranges, Flinders Ranges and Olary Hills. At least 24
colonies are known to have become extinct in South Australia. Most of these represent at least half of the
known colonies in the Olary Hills and Gawler Ranges regions (DEH 2008).
Figure 20: K nown distribution of Petrogale xanthopus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
In NSW, colonies have been found at three localities in the Gap Range and seven localities in the
Cotauraundee Range (Lim & Giles 1987). No populations are known to remain outside these areas
178
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
(Maxwell et al. 1996). These colonies are thought
to be the remnants of larger and more widespread
populations (Sharman et al. 1998).
The population of Yellow-footed Rock Wallabies
fluctuates depending on rainfall. There are
estimated to be less than 10,000 mature
individuals in the wild. A large section of the
species range in South Australia has been
surveyed (most years from 1993-2008), indicating
that there are on the order of 6,000 individuals
currently in South Australia. There are less than
100 individuals in New South Wales and the size
of the population in Queensland is unknown
(Copley et al. 2008).
8.Habitat
This species inhabits rocky outcrops in semi-arid
country. The rocky outcrops range from limestone,
sandstone and conglomerates to granites and
is often associated with permanent or semipermanent water sources (Copley et al. 2008).
9.Threats
9.1 Predation from introduced foxes is the
greatest threat
9.2 Predation by feral cats
9.3 Competition with domestic and
introduced herbivores (particularly goats,
rabbits, and sheep)
9.4 Wildfire
9.5 Habitat destruction
10. Information required
10.1 Further research into movements, home
ranges and habitat use.
10.2 Impacts of predation.
10.3 Population ecology of browse species.
10.4 Interaction with other herbivores.
10.5 Water and nutritional requirements.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Petrogale xanthopus is eligible for
listing as Least Concern according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Petrogale
xanthopus in the form of extent of
occurrence remains greater than 20,000
km2, with subpopulations secure at greater
than 10 locations within that range.
11.4 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented
to reduce the threats of low resource
availability, introduced predators, fire
and disease for key Petrogale xanthopus
subpopulations.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Petrogale
xanthopus has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Reintroductions of captive-bred Yellowfooted Rock Wallabies to sites in
Queensland and South Australia (Lapidge
2000, 2005).
12.2 Establishment of a feral animal control
program that targets feral herbivores (goats
and rabbits) and feral predators (cats and
foxes) (Buckaringa Wildlife Sanctuary,
AWC).
12.3 Controlling erosion, restoring native
vegetation and natural springs (Buckaringa
Wildlife Sanctuary, AWC).
12.4 Recovery is a major focus of Operation
Bounceback in the Olary Hills, and the
Flinders and Gawler Ranges (South
Australia). These efforts have resulted in
major population increases in the Olary
Ranges and parts of the Flinders Ranges.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of the species, including
genetics, abundance, distribution, trend and
risks. Calculate the long-term average size of
monitored rock wallaby subpopulations.
13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Implement monitoring protocols, including
grazing pressure, predation, and resource
availability.
13.4 Review translocation of yellow-footed rock
wallabies, including feasibility of future
operations.
13.5 Maintain natural watering points (e.g. desilting, removal of contaminants).
13.6 Identify and maintain artificial watering
points of significance to yellow-footed rock
wallabies outside reserves.
11.3 By 2021, the total population of Petrogale
xanthopus is estimated to number greater
than 10,000 mature individuals.
179
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
13.7 Conduct competitor control operations for
goats and rabbits in and around yellowfooted rock wallaby habitat, and increase
during droughts and prolonged dry periods.
17. Action costs
13.8 Decommission artificial watering points
on reserves that are not required for
yellow-footed rock wallabies but still
support elevated populations of feral
goats and euros.
18.Notes
13.9 Continue fox baiting, and increase baiting
in response to an increase in predator
sightings or predation incidents and
during droughts.
13.10Undertake aerial baiting in priority areas
(as determined by status assessment), and
those areas that are remote and difficult
to access from the ground.
13.11Develop and implement fire management
plans for priority yellow-footed rock
wallaby habitat.
13.12Develop contingency plans for catastrophic
events such as wildfires or major droughts.
13.13Engage local landholders in management
of yellow-footed rock wallaby habitat on
private land.
13.14Review mark-recapture sites.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and Heritage
(DEH), South Australia.
14.2 Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water (DECCW),
New South Wales.
14.3 Department of Environment and Resource
Management (DERM), Queensland.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is
required to manage this complex
recovery program.
180
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$20 million.
18.1None.
19.References
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org.
Accessed 19 October 2010.
Copley, P, Ellis, M & van Weenen, J (2008)
Petrogale xanthopus. In: IUCN (2010) IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/16750/0. Accessed 19 October 2010.
Department of Environment and Heritage
(2008) Recovery Plan for the Yellow-Footed
Rock-Wallaby - Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus
(6th Draft). Department of Environment and
Heritage, Adelaide.
Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts (2010) Petrogale
xanthopus xanthopus. In: Species Profile and
Threats (SPRAT) Database. Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts,
Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Accessed 26 October 2010.
Eldridge, MDB (2008) Yellow-footed rock
wallaby, Petrogale xanthopus. In The Mammals
of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck, S & Strahan, R).
Lapidge, SJ (2000) Dietary adaptation of
reintroduced yellow-footed rock-wallabies,
Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus (Marsupialia:
Macropodidae), in the northern Flinders Ranges,
South Australia. Wildlife Research 27: 195–201.
Lapidge, SJ (2005) Reintroduction increased
vitamin E and condition in captive-bred
yellow-footed rock wallabies Petrogale
xanthopus. Oryx 39: 56-64.
20. Comments received
20.1None.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 45: List of recovery actions for Petrogale xanthopus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Project manager
coordinates project
Current recovery actions are ad hoc and
opportunistic, and the recovery program
is of sufficient complexity to warrant a
dedicated manager.
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance, including
ground survey and
population monitoring
Whilst the species is relatively secure,
information is required to assess those
subpopulations most at risk from a range
of threats, and to ensure that genetic
stock is maintained.
3-Yearly
3 Months
5 People
3-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Annual helicopter
surveys
The habitat occupied is extremely remote
and rugged, and helicopter surveys are
the most efficient means of assessing
population trends.
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
5-Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
5-Yearly
1 Month
2 People
5-Yearly
1 Day
1 Person
5-Yearly
1 Day
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Day
1 Person
3-Monthly
1 Day
1 Person
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
20 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
20 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
5 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
5 People
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Status assessment
of the species identify important
subpopulations, and those
subject to specific threats
including competition,
drought and fire
Manage data to inform
adaptive management.
Includes 5 year program
review.
Whilst the species is relatively secure,
information is required to assess those
subpopulations most at risk from a range
of threats, and to ensure that genetic
stock is maintained.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Continue fox baiting on
the ground
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Conduct aerial fox baiting
for priority and difficult
access sites
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
Increase fox baiting in
response to increased
predation or predator
sightings
Due to their size, adult (6-8 kg), and
particularly juvenile (>1 kg) Yellowfooted rock wallabies, are vulnerable
to Fox (3-8 kg) predation. Foxes target
juvenile Yellow-footed rock wallabies,
and are the rock wallabies' main
predator in the northern Flinders
Ranges.
181
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Action
Control goats at
priority rock wallaby
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Increase competitor
control during droughts
and prolonged dry
periods
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Control rabbits at
priority rock wallaby
subpopulations
Rationale
There is competition between goats
and Yellow-footed rock wallabies for
food, water and shelter. The diets of the
two species overlap considerably. It is
highly likely that competition for food
resources during periods of scarcity has
a significant impact on rock-wallaby
numbers. There is also a dietary overlap
between Yellow-footed rock wallabies
and rabbits. Sheep are probably not
major competitors for food. However,
there is likely to be some affect of sheep
grazing on the flats near ranges, which
are important foraging areas for Yellowfooted rock wallabies.
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Maintain natural
watering points on public
land
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
Identify and maintain
artificial watering points
on private and public
land that are significant
for rock wallaby
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Decommission artificial
watering points that are
not required for rock
wallabies yet still support
elevated numbers of goats
and/or euros
Develop and implement
fire management plans
for priority yellow-footed
rock wallaby habitat
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
182
Develop contingency
plans for catastrophic
events including wildfires
and drought
Yellow-footed rock wallabies are more
sensitive to the influence of drought
than larger macropod species, probably
because the rock wallabies' smaller home
range and degree of site fidelity limit
their ability to locate scarce food and
water sources during droughts.
There is competition between Goats
and Yellow-footed Rock-wallabies for
food, water and shelter. The diets of the
two species overlap considerably. It is
highly likely that competition for food
resources during periods of scarcity has
a significant impact on rock-wallaby
numbers. There is also a dietary overlap
between Yellow-footed Rock-wallabies
and Rabbits. Sheep are probably not
major competitors for food. However,
there is likely to be some affect of sheep
grazing on the flats near ranges, which
are important foraging areas for Yellowfooted Rock-wallabies.
Most populations of Yellow-footed rock
wallabies are at risk from wildfires, but
fire has been identified as a particular
threat to two populations. In the
southern Flinders Ranges, higher fuel
loads mean that the animals at Mt
Remarkable and nearby Telowie Gorge
are potentially at risk. A severe wildfire
in the region could impact heavily on the
isolated Gawler Ranges colonies.
Frequency
Duration
Effort
6-Monthly
1 Month
10 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Unknown
1 Month
10 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
2 People
Unknown
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Month
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Month
1 Person
Yearly
1 Week
1 Person
Yearly
1 Week
1 Person
Once
2 Months
2 People
Once
1 Month
1 Person
Once
1 Month
1 Person
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
5 People
Once
2 Weeks
1 Person
Once
1 Week
1 Person
Once
1 Week
1 Person
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Engage local landholders
in management of yellowfooted rock wallaby
habitat on private land
Yellow-footed rock wallaby habitat
extends onto private land, and
management is required there to ensure
consistent recovery results with efforts
on public land.
Yearly
1 Year
2 People
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
6-Monthly
1 Month
4 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
2 People
Queensland subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Implement monitoring
protocols, including
grazing pressure,
predation, water points
and resource availability
A long-term consistent and cohesive
approach to regular monitoring
is essential to inform adaptive
management strategies.
6-Monthly
1 Month
2 People
All
Review translocation
of yellow-footed rock
wallabies, including
feasibility of future
operations
Translocations of wild and captive
subpopulations will be crucial to the
ongoing management of the species.
Ensuring that any future translocations
are undertaken under optimum
conditions is essential for the success of
the operations.
Once
1 Month
1 Person
All
Review current markrecapture sites
Ensure that the most appropriate sites
are used for mark-recapture studies.
Once
1 Month
1 Person
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
183
184
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
$0
$0
$100,000
South Australian
subpopulations
Conduct aerial fox baiting for priority and difficult
access sites
$100,000
Queensland subpopulations
$100,000
New South Wales
subpopulations
$0
$0
$0
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$400,000
Continue fox baiting on the ground
Manage data to inform adaptive management.
Includes 5 year program review.
Status assessment of the species - identify
important subpopulations, and those subject to
specific threats including competition, drought
and fire
$20,000
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
$20,000
New South Wales
subpopulations
Status assessment of the species - genetics
$30,000
$0
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
$0
New South Wales
subpopulations
Annual helicopter surveys
$150,000
South Australian
subpopulations
$30,000
$60,000
$100,000
Year 1#
$30,000
Status assessment of the species - distribution
and abundance, including ground survey and
population monitoring
Project manager coordinates project
Action
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
All
Subpopulation
Table 46: List of recovery actions for Petrogale xanthopus, and their costs
$0
$0
$103,000
$103,000
$103,000
$412,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$51,500
$0
$0
$0
$103,000
Year 2
$0
$0
$106,090
$106,090
$106,090
$424,360
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$53,045
$0
$0
$0
$106,090
Year 3
$0
$0
$109,273
$109,273
$109,273
$437,091
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$54,636
$32,782
$32,782
$65,564
$109,273
Year 4
$0
$0
$112,551
$112,551
$112,551
$450,204
$0
$0
$25,628*
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$22,510
$22,510
$33,765
$0
$0
$56,275
$0
$0
$0
$112,551
Year 5
$0
$0
$115,927
$115,927
$115,927
$463,710
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$57,964
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
Year 6
$0
$0
$119,405
$119,405
$119,405
$477,621
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$59,703
$35,822
$35,822
$71,644
$119,405
Year 7
$0
$0
$122,987
$122,987
$122,987
$491,950
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$61,494
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
Year 8
$0
$0
$126,677
$126,677
$126,677
$506,708
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$63,339
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
Year 9
$0
$0
$130,477
$130,477
$130,477
$521,909
$0
$0
$26,523*
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$26,095
$26,095
$39,144
$0
$0
$65,239
$39,144
$39,144
$78,287
$130,477
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
$0
$0
$0
Decommission artificial watering points that are
not required for rock wallabies yet still support
elevated numbers of goats and/or euros
South Australian
subpopulations
$0
$0
$0
Identify and maintain artificial watering points on
private and public land that are significant for rock
wallaby subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
$5,000
$5,000
New South Wales
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
$5,000
Maintain natural watering points on public land
$10,000
$10,000
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$30,000
$30,000
$80,000
$0
$0
$0
Year 1#
Queensland subpopulations
Control rabbits at priority rock wallaby
subpopulations
Increase competitor control during droughts and
prolonged dry periods
Control goats at priority rock wallaby
subpopulations
Increase fox baiting in response to increased
predation or predator sightings
Action
South Australian
subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Subpopulation
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$10,300
$10,300
$30,900
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,900
$30,900
$82,400
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
Year 2
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$10,609
$10,609
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$31,827
$31,827
$84,872
Year 3
$0
$0
$0
$10,300
$10,300
$20,600
$10,300
$10,300
$20,600
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$10,927
$10,927
$32,782
$0
$0
$0
$32,782
$32,782
$87,418
Year 4
$10,609
$10,609
$21,218
$10,609
$10,609
$21,218
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$11,255
$11,255
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$90,041
$54,636
$54,636
$54,636
Year 5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$11,593
$11,593
$34,778
$0
$0
$0
$34,778
$34,778
$92,742
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$11,941
$11,941
$35,822
$0
$0
$0
$35,822
$35,822
$95,524
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$12,299
$12,299
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$98,390
$59,702
$59,702
$59,702
Year 8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$12,668
$12,668
$38,003
$0
$0
$0
$38,003
$38,003
$101,342
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$13,048
$13,048
$39,143
$0
$0
$0
$39,143
$39,143
$104,382
$0
$0
$0
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
185
186
Review current mark-recapture sites
All
$1,769,347
*Includes 5-year program review
$0
$21,218
$21,218
$1,750,000 $1,767,750
$0
$20,600
$20,600
$53,045
$31,827
$63,654
$159,135
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
$60,000
$100,000
Year 3
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
$20,000
$51,500
$30,900
$61,800
$154,500
$0
$0
$0
$20,600
$20,600
$60,000
Year 2
$0
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
Review translocation of yellow-footed rock
wallabies, including feasibility of future operations
All
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
$50,000
Implement monitoring protocols, including
grazing pressure, predation, water points and
resource availability
South Australian
subpopulations
$60,000
$150,000
$0
$0
$0
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
Year 1#
$30,000
Engage local landholders in management of
yellow-footed rock wallaby habitat on private land
Develop contingency plans for catastrophic events
including wildfires and drought
Develop and implement fire management plans for
priority yellow-footed rock wallaby habitat
Action
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Queensland subpopulations
New South Wales
subpopulations
South Australian
subpopulations
Subpopulation
$0
$0
$22,510
$22,510
$56,275
$33,765
$67,531
$168,826
$0
$0
$0
$63,654
$63,654
$106,090
Year 5
$1,953,555 $2,263,600
$0
$0
$21,855
$21,855
$54,636
$32,782
$65,564
$163,909
$0
$0
$0
$61,800
$61,800
$103,000
Year 4
$0
$0
$23,881
$23,881
$59,703
$35,822
$71,643
$179,108
$0
$0
$0
$67,531
$67,531
$112,551
Year 7
$1,845,995 $2,044,662
$0
$0
$23,185
$23,185
$57,964
$34,778
$69,556
$173,891
$0
$0
$0
$65,564
$65,564
$109,273
Year 6
$0
$0
$25,335
$25,335
$63,339
$38,003
$76,006
$190,016
$0
$0
$0
$71,643
$71,643
$119,405
Year 9
$0
$0
$26,095
$26,095
$65,239
$39,143
$78,286
$195,716
$0
$0
$0
$73,792
$73,792
$122,987
Year 10
$20,031,973
$2,248,210 $2,017,168 $2,371,687
$0
$0
$24,597
$24,597
$61,494
$36,896
$73,792
$184,481
$0
$0
$0
$69,556
$69,556
$115,927
Year 8
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Potorous gilbertii
1.Family Potoroidae
2.
Scientific name: Potorous gilbertii (Gould , 1841)
3.
Common name: Gilbert’s potoroo, Ngilgyte (Indigenous name)
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Critically Endangered
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Critically Endangered because there are currently less than 50 mature individuals. The
population of the species appears to be stable, but it is known only from a tiny area, which it appears
to fully occupy (Friend & Burbidge 2008).
Listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None
7. Range and abundance
Gilbert’s Potoroo is endemic to south-western, Western Australia and is known to occur in the wild at
one very small site on the Mount Gardner headland in Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve (TSSC 2004). The
species was thought to be extinct from the early 1900s, until it was rediscovered in 1994 on the Mount
Gardner headland (Sinclair et al. 1996; Friend 2008). It is also known from a captive population in Two
Peoples Bay Nature Reserve and a translocated population on Bald Island Nature Reserve, about 50 km east
of Albany (Friend, T, Pers. comm.).
There are an estimated 30–40 individuals in the Mount Gardner (wild) population (Friend 2008). Eleven
Gilbert’s potoroos were released onto Bald Island in two separate releases between 2005–2007 (WA DEC
2009). There are indications that these animals are breeding and that the island can sustain a population of
this species (Friend 2008); by mid 2010 the population of Gilbert’s Potoroo on Bald Island had reached an
estimated 35 individuals (Friend, T, Pers. comm.).
Figure 21: Known distribution of Potorous gilbertii from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010;
Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
187
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
This species is found in Melaleuca striata
heath with a dense layer of sedges underneath
(Friend 2008). It apparently avoids areas where
dieback disease caused by the root pathogen
Phytophthora cinnamomi has modified the
structure and floristic assemblage of heathlands
(Courtenay & Friend 2004).
9.Threats
9.1 Fire is the critical threat (present
and future).
9.2 Predation by feral cats and foxes.
9.3 Altering vegetation structure and
eliminating plants that provide food are
direct threats to this species.
9.4 Low recruitment of young. Between
60–80% of Gilbert’s Potoroo pouch-young
do not attain maturity (Friend 2008) and
there is concern that the reasons for low
recruitment of young to the adult population
are not known (TSSC 2004).
10. Information required
10.1None.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Potorous gilbertii is eligible for
listing as Endangered according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, there are more than three secure,
geographically distinct subpopulations of
Potorous gilbertii, with population trend
increasing for each subpopulation.
11.3 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of introduced predators,
fire and dieback for all Potorous gilbertii
subpopulations.
11.4 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Potorous
gilbertii has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 A new introduction of individuals to Bald
Island by the Department of Environment
and Conservation (Western Australia).
12.2 Cat predation research in Two Peoples
Bay Nature.
12.3 Extensive research is ongoing on biology
and ecology.
188
12.4 Surveys have not found any new
populations.
12.5 Aerial and/or ground baiting began in 1988
in the western parts of Two Peoples Bay NR
and was extended to most tracks within the
reserve in subsequent years to control foxes
and is ongoing.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations
using standard protocols, including
distribution, abundance, genetics, trend,
risk and priority subpopulations.
13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive
management.
13.3 Implement monitoring protocols,
including fire management, habitat
condition, predation and predator
activity, and species activity.
13.4 Fire exclusion.
13.5 Introduced predator control.
13.6 Dieback control.
13.7 Prevention of clearing around
Two People’s Bay.
13.8 Captive breeding for translocation.
13.9 Establishment of secure area for
establishment of additional subpopulation
through translocation. Includes predator
exclusion and habitat management.
13.10Translocation of captive bred animals
to new location.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC) Western Australia.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
16. Staff and other resources required
for recovery to be carried out
16.1 No dedicated staff required.
17.
Action costs
17.1Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$14 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
19.References
Courtenay, J & Friend, T (2004) Gilbert’s Potoroo
(Potorous gilbertii) Recovery Plan July 2003June 2008. Wanneroo, Western Australia:
Threatened Species Unit, Department of
Conservation and Land Management.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010) Potorous gilbertii. In:
Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.
gov.au/sprat. Accessed 26 October 2010 .
Friend, JA (2008) Gilbert’s Potoroo, Potorous
gilbertii. In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van
Dyck, S & Strahan, R).
Friend, T & Burbidge, A (2008) Potorous gilbertii.
In: IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org/apps/redlist/details/18107/0. Accessed 19
June 2010
Sinclair, EA, Danks, A & Wayne, AF (1996)
Rediscovery of Gilbert’s potoroo, Potorous
tridactylus, in Western Australia . Australian
Mammalogy 19: 69-72.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee
(TSSC) (2004). Commonwealth Listing Advice
on Potorous gilbertii (Gilbert’s Potoroo).
Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/
biodiversity/threatened/species/gilberts-potoroo.
html. Accessed October 10, 2010.
Western Australia Department of Environment
and Conservation (WA DEC) (2009). Vital
Government funding for critically endangered
species. Western Australia: Department of
Environment and Conservation. Available
from: http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/
view/5441/1560/. Accessed Oct 10 2010.
20.Comments received
20.1 Tony Friend, DEC.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2010.3.
http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
19 October 2010.
Table 47: List of recovery actions for Potorous gilbertii, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
All
Status assessment of the
species - distribution and
abundance.
All
Status assessment of the
species - genetics
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained.
All
Manage data to inform
adaptive management.
Includes 5 year program
review.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
Aerial baiting to control
foxes
Gilbert’s Potoroo is within the Critical
Weight Range (35 g-5.5 kg) of mammals
thought to be most susceptible to decline.
It is in the prey size range of both foxes
and cats, both of which are known to
occur in the Two Peoples Bay area. Aerial
baiting is required to supplement ground
baiting due to the inaccessible nature of
some habitat.
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Ground baiting to control
foxes
Ground baiting and
trapping to control
feral cats
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Monthly
1 Week
10 People
Monthly
1 Week
4 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
4 People
6-Monthly
1 Month
2 People
189
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Yearly
2 Weeks
20 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
10 People
Conduct fire management
to reduce threat of
wildfires
The only known wild subpopulation of
Gilbert’s Potoroo exists in dense, long
unburnt vegetation that is potentially
highly vulnerable to wildfire. Fire
exclusion is thus an extremely high
priority in the protection of the wild
subpopulation. Fire also has a high
probability of significantly impacting the
other subpopulations, and management
is crucial to avoid devastating losses.
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Week
4 People
Plant dieback disease is considered to be
a threat to the continued survival of the
potoroo by altering vegetation structure
or eliminating species that are hosts to
the mycorrhizal fungi on which they
feed.
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
4-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
4-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
4-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
4-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Implement monitoring
protocols for predator
activity, and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
4-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
4-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
4-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Yearly
1 Week
2 People
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Bald Island
Translocation Site
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Bald Island
Implement dieback
hygiene protocols
Translocation Site
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Bald Island
Translocation Site
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Translocation Site
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Bald Island
Translocation Site
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives.
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire and
dieback management,
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Captive subpopulation
Artificial feeding
The captive subpopulation may not have
sufficient habitat to ensure consistent
food availability.
Weekly
1 Week
2 People
Captive subpopulation
Assisted reproduction
and captive husbandry
Wild populations will need to be
augmented with additional individuals.
3-Monthly
1 Month
3 People
Once
6 Months
4 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Once
2 Weeks
5 People
Weekly
1 Week
2 People
Construct fenced
sanctuary
Exclude predators and
maintain fence
Translocation Site
Translocate
individuals from other
subpopulations
Ongoing management
of translocated
subpopulation, including
resource supplementation
190
In order to down-list the species, the
area of occupancy for the species will
need to be greater than 10 km2, and
the extent of occurrence greater than
100 km2. Further, the more distinct
subpopulations the species has, the
greater its chances of being down-listed.
Translocation Site
Waychinicup NP
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Translocation Site
Bald Island
Waychinicup NP
Implement monitoring protocols for predator
activity, and effectiveness of management
intervention.
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity and effectiveness of management
intervention.
$2,000
$25,000
$30,000
$8,000
$45,000
$18,000
$2,060
$25,750
$30,900
$8,240
$46,350
$18,540
$25,750
$10,300
$10,000
$25,000
Translocation Site
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
$15,450
$20,600
$12,360
$61,800
$123,600
$10,300
$15,000
$41,200
$154,500
$10,000
Implement dieback hygiene protocols
Waychinicup NP
Bald Island
$12,000
$20,000
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
$60,000
Translocation Site
Conduct fire management to reduce threat of
wildfires
$120,000
Bald Island
Waychinicup NP
$40,000
$77,250
$51,500
$75,000
$92,700
$103,000
$103,000
$5,150
$0
$10,300
Year 2
$50,000
$150,000
Ground baiting and trapping to control feral cats
Ground baiting to control foxes
$90,000
$100,000
$100,000
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Waychinicup NP
Aerial baiting to control foxes
$5,000
All
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
$15,000
Status assessment of the species - genetics
Manage data to inform adaptive management.
Includes 5 year program review.
All
$10,000
Year 1#
Status assessment of the species - distribution and
abundance.
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 48: List of recovery actions for Potorous gilbertii, and their costs
$2,122
$26,523
$31,827
$8,487
$47,741
$19,096
$26,523
$10,609
$10,609
$15,914
$21,218
$12,731
$63,654
$127,308
$159,135
$42,436
$53,045
$79,568
$95,481
$106,090
$106,090
$5,305
$0
$10,609
Year 3
$2,185
$27,318
$32,782
$8,742
$49,173
$19,669
$27,318
$10,927
$10,927
$60,000
$60,000
$13,113
$65,564
$131,127
$163,909
$43,709
$54,636
$81,955
$98,345
$109,273
$109,273
$5,464
$0
$10,927
Year 4
$2,251
$28,138
$33,765
$9,004
$50,648
$20,259
$28,138
$11,255
$11,255
$16,883
$22,510
$13,506
$67,531
$135,061
$168,826
$45,020
$56,275
$84,413
$101,296
$112,551
$112,551
$25,628*
$16,883
$11,255
Year 5
$2,319
$28,982
$34,778
$9,274
$52,167
$20,867
$28,982
$11,593
$11,593
$17,389
$23,185
$13,911
$69,556
$139,113
$173,891
$46,371
$57,964
$86,946
$104,335
$115,927
$115,927
$5,796
$0
$11,593
Year 6
$2,388
$29,851
$35,822
$9,552
$53,732
$21,493
$29,851
$11,941
$11,941
$65,000
$65,000
$14,329
$71,643
$143,286
$179,108
$47,762
$59,703
$89,554
$107,465
$119,405
$119,405
$5,970
$0
$11,941
Year 7
$2,460
$30,747
$36,896
$9,839
$55,344
$22,138
$30,747
$12,299
$12,299
$18,448
$24,597
$14,758
$73,792
$147,585
$184,481
$49,195
$61,494
$92,241
$110,689
$122,987
$122,987
$6,149
$0
$12,299
Year 8
$2,534
$31,669
$38,003
$10,134
$57,005
$22,802
$31,669
$12,668
$12,668
$19,002
$25,335
$15,201
$76,006
$152,012
$190,016
$50,671
$63,339
$95,008
$114,009
$126,677
$126,677
$6,333
$0
$12,668
Year 9
$2,610
$32,619
$39,143
$10,438
$58,715
$23,486
$32,619
$13,048
$13,048
$19,572
$26,095
$15,657
$78,286
$156,573
$195,716
$52,191
$65,239
$97,858
$117,430
$130,477
$130,477
$26,523*
$19,572
$13,048
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
191
192
$0
$1,267,776
$1,210,000 $1,230,850
*Includes 5-year program review
$0
$0
$0
$63,654
$26,523
$5,305
$31,827
$26,523
$31,827
Year 3
$0
$0
Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulation, including resource
supplementation
$0
$0
$0
$0
Exclude predators and maintain fence
$0
$61,800
$25,750
$5,150
$30,900
$25,750
$30,900
Year 2
$0
$60,000
$25,000
$5,000
$30,000
$25,000
$30,000
Year 1#
Translocate individuals from other subpopulations
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
Translocation Site
Assisted reproduction and captive husbandry
Captive subpopulation
Construct fenced sanctuary
Artificial feeding
Implement monitoring protocols for fire and
dieback management, habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Action
Captive subpopulation
Translocation Site
Bald Island
Waychinicup NP
Two Peoples Bay - Mt Gardner
Subpopulation
$1,472,563
$0
$0
$5,000
$80,000
$65,564
$27,318
$5,464
$32,782
$27,318
$32,782
Year 4
$1,456,866
$10,000
$40,000
$25,000
$0
$67,531
$28,138
$5,628
$33,765
$28,138
$33,765
Year 5
$1,436,082
$25,000
$0
$25,750
$0
$69,556
$28,982
$5,796
$34,778
$28,982
$34,778
Year 6
$1,567,373
$25,750
$0
$26,523
$0
$71,643
$29,851
$5,970
$35,822
$29,851
$35,822
Year 7
$27,318
$0
$28,138
$0
$76,006
$31,669
$6,334
$38,003
$31,669
$38,003
Year 9
$28,138
$0
$28,982
$0
$78,286
$32,619
$6,524
$39,143
$32,619
$39,143
Year 10
$14,390,188
$1,523,539 $1,569,245 $1,655,894
$26,523
$0
$27,318
$0
$73,792
$30,747
$6,149
$36,896
$30,747
$36,896
Year 8
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Potorous longipes
1.Family Potoroidae
2.
Scientific name: Potorous longipes (Seebeck & Johnston, 1980)
3.
Common name: Long-footed potoroo
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Endangered; B1ab(v)
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Endangered (IUCN Red List) because its extent of occurrence is less than 5,000 km2, its
distribution is severely fragmented, and there is probably a continuing decline in the number of mature
individuals due to introduced predators and competition for its specialized food resources from introduced
pigs (McKnight 2008).
Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act 1999.
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None.
7. Range and abundance
This species is endemic to Australia, where it is known from three disjunct, fragmented populations:
•
the catchments of the Brodribb, Bemm, Rodger and Yalmy Rivers in East Gippsland;
•
the headwaters of the Buffalo, Buckland and Wonnangatta Rivers in north-eastern Victoria;
•
the South East Forests National Park and Yambulla State Forest in far south-eastern NSW.
Altitudes range from 100 metres in East Gippsland to 1100 metres in the Barry Mountains. The Long-footed
Potoroo is only known only through death as no live specimens have ever been caught. The most recent
National Recovery Plan refrains from estimating the population size of the species due these factors, but
states that it is unlikely to be more than a few thousand individuals, and it might only be a few hundred
(NSW NPWS 2002).
Figure 22: K
nown distribution of Potorous longipes from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN 2010;
Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
193
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
The species occurs in a variety of forest types
ranging from montane wet sclerophyll forests at
over 1,000 metres altitude, to lowland sclerophyll
forest at 100 metres altitude. It is apparently
confined to sites with a high soil moisture content
throughout the year. The primary requirements of
Long-footed potoroos are a diverse and abundant
supply of hypogeal fungal sporocarps throughout
the year and dense cover to provide shelter and
protection from predators (Menkhorst and
Seebeck 2008).
9.Threats
9.1 Predation from foxes, dingoes, and
feral dogs.
9.2 Introduced pigs might be competitors for
this species’ specialised food requirements.
9.3 Inappropriate fire regimes might also affect
the fungi on which this species depends.
9.4 Logging activities appear to be detrimental
to the species.
9.5 Chance events. Because the Long-footed
Potoroo has a very restricted distribution
(especially in NSW), and a small population
size, it is threatened by chance breeding
failure (for example, caused by the death
of too many adults of a particular sex) and
localised disasters such as severe fires and
disease, which could exterminate colonies
(NSW NPWS 2002).
10. Information required
10.1 Further research is required into logging
for confirmation of it’s level of threat.
10.2 Establish the distribution and abundance
of the species (perhaps with new survey
techniques).
10.3 Research the effects of habitat disturbance
from timber harvesting and fire.
10.4 Research the biology of hypogeous fungi
that the species depends on for food.
11. Recovery objectives
194
11.3 By 2021, numbers of mature Potorous
longipes in the wild are considered stable or
increasing based on an index of abundance
appropriate to the taxon.
11.4 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of predation, altered fire
regimes, feral pigs, and to improve habitat
area, extent and quality, for all Potorous
longipes subpopulations.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Potorous
longipes has been maintained at known
2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Protection of suitable habitat for the species.
12.2 Control of predators through the use of
1080 baiting.
12.3 Control of introduced pigs and cats
through trapping.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations
using standard protocols, including
distribution, abundance, genetics, trend,
risk and priority subpopulations.
13.2 Manage data to inform adaptive
management, and compile annual report.
Includes creation of a spatial database
identifying the mosaic of key micro-habitats
for the species across its known range, and
future population modelling.
13.3 Refine and implement monitoring protocols,
including fire management, habitat
condition, predation and predator activity,
and species activity. Includes developing a
protocol specifying trigger points to initiate
dog or cat control measures.
13.4 Conduct strategic feral predator control to
manage fox and feral dog predation over the
entire known range of the species.
13.5 Conduct opportunistic feral cat control until
an effective broad-scale control technique is
available.
11.1 By 2021, Potorous longipes is eligible for
listing as Vulnerable according to IUCN
Red List criteria.
13.6 Develop and implement fire management
plans for priority long-footed potoroo
habitat.
11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Potorous
longipes in the form of extent of occurrence
has increased to greater than 5,000 km2,
with subpopulations secure* at greater than
5 locations within that range.
13.7 Conduct targeted feral pig control where
they compete for food resources with longfooted potoroos.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
13.8 Implement Long-footed Potoroo Core
Protected Areas for East Gippsland and
Great Dividing Range regions.
13.9 Ensure that potoroo management actions
are incorporated into plans for parks or
reserves where they or their habitat occur.
13.10Establish additional protected areas where
Long-footed Potoroos have been detected in
State forest or other public land outside the
Core Protected Area.
13.11Identify unreserved long-footed potoroo
habitat on private land and run extension
programs to engage landholders to better
manage or reserve land. Provide incentives.
13.12Identify sites for translocation or
reintroduction based on habitat mapping
and/or on-ground assessment.
13.13Establish and manage secure areas of
habitat for future translocations.
13.14Translocation of potoroos to secure and
managed areas of habitat.
13.15Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations, including resource
supplementation as required.
13.16Conduct research into optimal fire
management practices to maintain potoroo
habitat, including food resources.
13.17Conduct studies on the extent of food
resource competition between long-footed
potoroos and feral pigs.
13.18Avoid establishing new captive
subpopulation, unless case is developed
following rigorous assessment of
conservation and animal welfare risks and
benefits.
13.19Develop and distribute community
awareness materials to appropriate targets.
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is
required to undertake this program.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$19 million.
18.Notes
18.1None
19.References
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 20 October 2010.
McKnight, M. 2008. Potorous longipes. In: IUCN
(2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/
redlist/details/18102/0. Accessed 20 October
2010.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010) Potorous longipes. In:
Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.
gov.au/sprat. Accessed 26 October 2010 .
Menkhorst, PW and Seebeck, JH (2008) Longfooted potoroo, Potorous longipes. In The
Mammals of Australia. (Eds. Van Dyck, S and
Strahan, R).
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002)
Approved Recovery Plan for the Long-footed
Potoroo (Potorous longipes). NSW National Parks
and Wildlife Service, Hurstville NSW.
20. Comments received
20.1None.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 NSW Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water (DECCW).
14.2 Victorian Department of Sustainability
and Environment (DSE).
15. Other organisations involved
15.1None.
195
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Table 49: List of recovery actions for Potorous longipes, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Project coordinator
manages project
Current recovery actions are ad hoc and
opportunistic, and the recovery program
is of sufficient complexity to warrant a
dedicated manager.
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
All
Status assessment
- distribution and
abundance. Includes
surveys of known
subpopulations
3-Yearly
3 Months
10 People
All
Status assessment genetics
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained. Surveys
are required to confirm the presence of
potoroos at a range of locations.
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
All
Manage species data
to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5
year program review.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
3-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
Sites of unverified reports of
potoroo presence
Surveys to confirm
potoroo presence
The confirmation of potoroo presence
is essential to informing all other
management actions.
Yearly
3 Months
3 People
All
Refine monitoring
protocols for the species,
including trapping,
satellite collars and
camera traps, and to
monitor habitat and
threats.
It will be critical to improve our ability to
detect this species in the wild if we are to
improve our management of the species
and its habitat.
Once
6 Months
2 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Yearly
3 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Yearly
2 Weeks
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
2-Monthly
2 Weeks
10 People
2-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
2-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
2-Monthly
2 Weeks
5 People
2-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
2-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
3-Monthly
1 Week
2 People
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator and pig
activity, and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
New subpopulation
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
New subpopulation
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving the
species objectives
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Conduct strategic feral
predator control to
manage fox and feral
dog predation over the
entire known range of
the species
New subpopulation
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
New subpopulation
196
Conduct opportunistic
feral cat control until
an effective broad-scale
control technique is
available.
Predation, particularly by canids and
possibly feral cats, is suspected to
be an important factor limiting the
distribution and abundance of the longfooted potoroo. The red fox, the dingo
and feral dog are recognised predators of
the long-footed potoroo. Approximately
26 percent of the 300 records of the longfooted potoroo are from remains in canid
scats and it is assumed that most of these
are the result of predation rather than
scavenging.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Develop and implement
fire management plans
for priority long-footed
potoroo habitat
The entire distribution of the longfooted potoroo is in forest vulnerable
to periodic wildfires. Fires of such
magnitude and intensity clearly have the
potential to cause local extinctions in
sub-populations. Fuel reduction burning
reduces cover, increases risk of exposure
to predators, may cause direct mortality
and probably disrupts food availability
and social structure.
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Yearly
1 Month
10 People
Location 1
6-Monthly
3 Weeks
3 People
Location 2
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
New subpopulation
Conduct targeted feral
pig control where
they compete for food
resources with longfooted potoroos.
Feral pigs are known to compete with
other mycophagous species, and it is
predicted that pigs may have some
impact on the food resources of longfooted potoroos.
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
3 People
East Gippsland and Great
Dividing Range regions
Implement long-footed
potoroo Core Protected
Areas for East Gippsland
and Great Dividing Range
regions.
A network of protected areas of primary
habitat has been identified, comprising
in excess of 40,000 ha of conservation
reserves and State forest Special
Protected Zones. This Core Protected
Area will replace the current SMA-based
approach and will consist of existing
conservation reserves, existing and
proposed SPZs and proposed new and
expanded conservation reserves.
Once
1 Year
2 People
All
Ensure that potoroo
management actions are
incorporated into plans
for parks or reserves
where they or their
habitat occur.
Ensure that park and reserve
management plans recognise and
protect areas of habitat identified in Core
Protected Areas. New roads and facilities
should not be constructed close to Longfooted Potoroo detection sites.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
All
Establish additional
protected areas where
Long-footed Potoroos
have been detected in
State forest or other
public land outside the
Core Protected Area.
The localised habitat disturbance that
accompanies intensive timber harvesting
has the potential to harm resident
animals at least until dense cover is
re-established. Timber harvesting and
road construction increase access for
predators such as foxes. Accordingly,
areas of important habitat that are not
protected and are subject to future
timber harvesting should be protected.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
All
Identify unreserved longfooted potoroo habitat on
private land.
There may be important habitat on
private land that is subject to a range of
unsustainable management regimes.
Landholder engagement is required
to better manage these areas for longfooted potoroos.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
Subject to identification of
suitable areas
Run extension programs
to engage landholders to
better manage or reserve
land. Provide incentives.
Once critical potoroo habitat has been
identified, there may be significant
overlap with private land, in which
case landholder engagement will be
essential to the appropriate management
of that land.
Yearly
1 Year
2 People
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
New subpopulation
197
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
New subpopulations
Identify sites for
translocation or
reintroduction based on
habitat mapping and/or
on-ground assessment
New subpopulations
Establish and manage
secure areas of habitat for
future translocations
New subpopulations
Translocation of potoroos
to secure and managed
areas of habitat.
New subpopulations
Ongoing management
of translocated
subpopulations, including
resource supplementation
as required.
NA
Conduct research into
optimal fire management
practices to maintain
potoroo habitat, including
food resources
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Once
6 Months
1 Person
Once
6 Months
4 People
Once
3 Weeks
5 People
Monthly
1 Day
2 People
Fuel reduction burning may reduce the
risk of extensive high intensity wildfire
impacting on large areas of Long-footed
Potoroo habitat. The impacts of fire on
the species and the optimum fire mosaic
in potoroo habitat remain unclear.
The impacts of habitat disturbance on
hypogeous fungi also remain unclear.
Once
1 Year
2 People
NA
Conduct studies on the
extent of food resource
competition between
long-footed potoroos and
feral pigs
It is uncertain how much pig activity
interferes with potoroo food resources,
and this needs to be understood in order
to better manage pig populations.
Once
1 Year
1 Person
NA
Avoid establishing new
captive subpopulation,
unless case is
developed following
rigorous assessment
of conservation and
animal welfare risks and
benefits.
The small captive population from
Healesville Sanctuary was diagnosed
with avian tuberculosis, but this has
not been detected in the wild. The net
consequence of the small population,
restricted distribution, limited
ecological information and the range of
threatening processes in operation is
that a conservative approach to species
management is strongly justified.
Once
1 Hour
1 Person
Develop and distribute
community awareness
materials to appropriate
targets
Liaison with deer hunting associations
(and especially hunters who use hounds)
will be increased to improve their
understanding of the importance of the
baiting program for the Great Dividing
Range population and to try to develop
mechanisms to minimise the risks of
baiting to hunters’ dogs.
Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
NA
198
Rationale
In order to achieve an increase in area of
occupancy and extent of occurrence, new
or previously occupied sites will need
to be identified, secured, and used as
translocation sites.
$60,000
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations
Status assessment - genetics
Manage species data to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5 year program review.
Surveys to confirm potoroo presence
Refine monitoring protocols for the species,
including trapping, satellite collars and camera
traps, and to monitor habitat and threats.
All
All
All
Sites of unverified reports of
potoroo presence
All
New subpopulation
Location 5
Location 4
$0
$90,000
$80,000
$75,000
$75,000
Location 3
Location 2
$0
$90,000
Conduct strategic feral predator control to manage
fox and feral dog predation over the entire known
range of the species
$12,500
$15,000
Location 1
New subpopulation
Location 5
Location 4
$10,000
$10,000
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Location 2
Location 3
$15,000
$0
$30,000
$15,000
$20,000
Location 1
New subpopulation
Location 5
Location 4
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator and pig activity, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
Location 2
Location 3
$30,900
$30,000
$20,000
Location 1
$0
$92,700
$82,400
$77,250
$77,250
$92,700
$0
$15,450
$12,875
$10,300
$10,300
$15,450
$0
$30,900
$15,450
$20,600
$20,600
$0
$46,350
$0
$0
$0
$103,000
Year 2
$0
$45,000
$0
$30,000
$100,000
Year 1#
Project coordinator manages project
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 50: List of recovery actions for Potorous longipes, and their costs
$84,872
$95,481
$84,872
$79,568
$79,568
$95,481
$0
$15,914
$13,261
$10,609
$10,609
$15,914
$0
$31,827
$15,914
$21,218
$21,218
$31,827
$0
$47,741
$0
$0
$0
$106,090
Year 3
$87,418
$98,345
$87,418
$81,955
$81,955
$98,345
$16,391
$16,391
$13,659
$10,927
$10,927
$16,391
$16,391
$32,782
$16,391
$21,855
$21,855
$32,782
$0
$49,173
$0
$0
$65,564
$109,273
Year 4
$90,041
$101,296
$90,041
$84,413
$84,413
$101,296
$16,883
$16,883
$14,069
$11,255
$11,255
$16,883
$16,883
$33,765
$16,883
$22,510
$22,510
$33,765
$0
$50,648
$20,000*
$33,765
$0
$112,551
Year 5
$92,742
$104,335
$92,742
$86,946
$86,946
$104,335
$17,389
$17,389
$14,491
$11,593
$11,593
$17,389
$17,389
$34,778
$17,389
$23,185
$23,185
$34,778
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
Year 6
$95,524
$107,465
$95,524
$89,554
$89,554
$107,465
$17,911
$17,911
$14,926
$11,941
$11,941
$17,911
$17,911
$35,822
$17,911
$23,881
$23,881
$35,822
$0
$0
$0
$0
$71,644
$119,405
Year 7
$98,390
$110,689
$98,390
$92,241
$92,241
$110,689
$18,448
$18,448
$15,373
$12,299
$12,299
$18,448
$18,448
$36,896
$18,448
$24,597
$24,597
$36,896
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
Year 8
$101,342
$114,009
$101,342
$95,008
$95,008
$114,009
$19,002
$19,002
$15,835
$12,668
$12,668
$19,002
$19,002
$38,003
$19,002
$25,335
$25,335
$38,003
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
Year 9
$104,382
$117,430
$104,382
$97,858
$97,858
$117,430
$19,572
$19,572
$16,310
$13,048
$13,048
$19,572
$19,572
$39,143
$19,572
$26,095
$26,095
$39,143
$0
$0
$22,515*
$39,143
$78,287
$130,477
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
199
200
$0
$0
$0
Ensure that potoroo management actions are
incorporated into plans for parks or reserves
where they or their habitat occur.
Establish additional protected areas where Longfooted Potoroos have been detected in State forest
or other public land outside the Core Protected
Area.
Identify unreserved long-footed potoroo habitat
on private land.
Run extension programs to engage landholders to
better manage or reserve land. Provide incentives.
All
All
All
Subject to identification of
suitable areas
$0
$0
Implement Long-footed Potoroo Core Protected
Areas for East Gippsland and Great Dividing
Range regions.
$0
$40,000
$40,000
$40,000
East Gippsland and Great
Dividing Range regions
New subpopulation
Location 5
Location 4
Location 3
$40,000
Location 2
Conduct targeted feral pig control where they
compete for food resources with long-footed
potoroos.
$40,000
$0
$40,000
Location 1
New subpopulation
Location 5
$40,000
$40,000
Location 3
Location 4
$40,000
Location 2
$0
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$40,000
Develop and implement fire management plans for
priority long-footed potoroo habitat
Conduct opportunistic feral cat control until
an effective broad-scale control technique is
available.
Location 1
New subpopulation
Location 5
Location 4
Location 3
$25,750
$25,000
$25,000
Location 1
Location 2
$0
$0
$125,000
$0
$0
$0
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$0
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$41,200
$0
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
Year 2
Action
Year 1#
Subpopulation
$0
$50,000
$128,750
$0
$0
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$42,436
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
Year 3
$250,000
$0
$132,613
$0
$0
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$43,709
$27,319
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
Year 4
$257,500
$0
$136,591
$0
$0
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$45,020
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
Year 5
$265,225
$0
$0
$0
$0
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$46,371
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
Year 6
$273,182
$0
$0
$0
$0
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$47,762
$29,852
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
Year 7
$281,377
$0
$0
$0
$0
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$49,195
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
Year 8
$289,819
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$50,671
$31,670
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
Year 9
$298,513
$0
$0
$0
$0
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$52,191
$32,620
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Translocation of potoroos to secure and managed
areas of habitat.
Ongoing management of translocated
subpopulations, including resource
supplementation as required.
Conduct research into optimal fire management
practices to maintain potoroo habitat, including
food resources
Conduct studies on the extent of food resource
competition between long-footed potoroos and
feral pigs
Avoid establishing new captive subpopulation,
unless case is developed following rigorous
assessment of conservation and animal welfare
risks and benefits.
Develop and distribute community awareness
materials to appropriate targets
New subpopulations
New subpopulations
NA
NA
NA
NA
*Includes 5-year program review
$1,030
$0
$0
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$25,000
Year 2
$1,348,500 $1,506,255
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
$0
Establish and manage secure areas of habitat for
future translocations
New subpopulations
$1,000
$0
Year 1#
Identify sites for translocation or reintroduction
based on habitat mapping and/or on-ground
assessment
Action
New subpopulations
Subpopulation
$0
$0
$1,093
$0
$30,900
$63,654
$60,000
$50,000
Year 4
$1,946,960 $2,262,864
$1,061
$0
$30,000
$61,800
$0
$0
$120,000
$25,000
Year 3
$2,168,121
$1,126
$0
$31,827
$0
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
Year 5
$0
$0
$0
$1,952,149
$1,159
$0
$0
$0
$30,900
Year 6
$2,082,357
$1,194
$0
$0
$0
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$1,267
$0
$0
$0
$33,765
$0
$0
$0
Year 9
$1,305
$0
$0
$0
$34,778
$0
$0
$0
Year 10
$19,808,512
$2,071,035 $2,133,166 $2,337,106
$1,230
$0
$0
$0
$32,782
Year 8
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
201
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Recovery Outline - Setonix brachyurus
1.Family Potoroidae
2.
Scientific name: Setonix brachyurus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1830)
3.
Common name: Quokka, short-tailed wallaby
4.
Conservation status (IUCN): Vulnerable; B1ab(ii,iii)
5. Reasons for listing
Listed as Vulnerable because the extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2, the range is severely
fragmented, and there is a continuing decline in extent of occurrence and area of occupancy. The species
might also meet Criterion C1 for Vulnerable. There may be < 10,000 mature individuals and the continuing
decline may be > 10% over three generations (i.e., 12 years). The continuing decline, however, has to be
estimated, not inferred or projected, requiring quantitative evidence, and evidence for a 10% decline over
the next 12 years is not currently available (de Tores et al. 2008).
Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 1999 (DEWHA 2010).
6. Infraspecific Taxa
6.1None.
7. Range and abundance
The quokka is endemic to the south-west of Western Australia, including Rottnest and Bald Islands. It is
also found in several sites on the south-west Western Australian mainland, ranging just south of Perth to
the Hunter River. There are recently confirmed records of occurrence at the Muddy Lakes from the Swan
Coastal Plain, south of Bunbury (Sinclair and Hyder, 2009). In 2007 the range was estimated at 25,190 km².
This species is sparsely scattered within abundant suitable habitat (de Tores 2008).
Figure 23: K
nown distribution of Setonix brachyurus from the 2008 Global Mammal Assessment (IUCN
2010; Landsat imagery ©Commonwealth of Australia - Geoscience Australia).
202
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
8.Habitat
The main habitat for mainland populations of
the Quokka is dense streamside vegetation
(Hayward et al. 2005a) but the species is also
found in a variety of habitats. On Rottnest
Island it lives in thickets (Acacia, Melaleuca and
sedges) and scrub habitat. On the mainland,
many populations are found close to water such
as creeks and swamps. In the northern Jarrah
forest they are associated with the presence of the
tea-tree Taxandria linearifolia bordering swamps
and watercourses and the presence of a complex
structural mosaic, largely determined by fire
history (de Tores 2008).
9.Threats
9.1 Habitat clearing.
9.2 introduction of foxes and feral cats has led
to a past decline of mainland populations.
9.3 Feral pigs are causing habitat degradation
and excluding quokkas from swampy areas.
9.4 Prescribed burning and clearing are a
problem in much of the forested habitats.
9.5 Recreational activities such as camping
and walking tracks increase exposure
to predators.
9.6 Road kills.
9.7 Predator avoidance strategy: the quokka is
able to expel its pouch young if pursued by
foxes, cats or dogs. This survival mechanism
can negatively affect population growth
over the long term if this strategy is used
repeatedly.
9.8 Proximity to residential and mining areas.
9.9 Poor recruitment and limited genetic pool.
10. Information required
10.1 Further work is needed to define
subpopulation size and movements
between habitat areas.
10.2 Taxonomic study to determine the genetics
of all populations.
10.3 Verify unconfirmed reports of quokka
presence, and determine conservation
significance of existing and any additionally
confirmed geographic outlier populations.
11. Recovery objectives
11.1 By 2021, Setonix brachyurus is eligible
for listing as Near Threatened according
to IUCN Red List criteria.
11.2 By 2021, the geographic range of Setonix
brachyurus in the form of extent of
occurrence has increased to greater than
20,000 km2, with subpopulations secure at
greater than 10 locations within that range.
11.3 By 2021, quantitative evidence confirms
that a 10% decline in population size over
the next 12 years is unlikely, thus making
Setonix brachyurus ineligible to qualify as
Vulnerable under IUCN criterion C1.
11.4 By 2021, management plans have been
developed and are being implemented to
reduce the threats of altered fire regimes
and feral predators, and to improve habitat
area, extent and quality, for all Setonix
brachyurus subpopulations.
11.5 By 2021, the genetic diversity of Setonix
brachyurus has been maintained at
known 2011 levels.
12. Actions completed or underway
12.1 Research into subpopulation size and
structure, diet, and habitat use has been
completed for the northern Jarrah forest.
12.2 Rapid surveys of southern forest
subpopulations has been conducted.
12.3 Feral pig surveys have been conducted in
many locations.
12.4 Fox control programs are ongoing under
the Western Shield program.
12.5 Several wildlife parks and sanctuaries in
Western Australia have captive populations
of quokkas, some of which are part of
re-introduction programs.
13. Management actions required
13.1 Status assessment of extant subpopulations
using standard protocols, including
distribution, abundance, genetics, trend,
risk and priority subpopulations. Also
identify areas of high conservation value
for the quokka.
13.2 Establish key monitoring sites. Develop/
refine monitoring protocols, including fire
management, habitat condition, predation
and predator activity, and species activity.
Implement at each site where appropriate.
203
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
13.3 Review of translocations, and factors
influencing success or failure.
13.4 Manage data to inform adaptive
management, and compile annual report.
Consolidate existing database and other
records of quokka occurrence.
13.5 Maintain existing introduced predator
baiting programs, including those on private
property, and implement new baiting
programs at sites where the risks from
predation are thought to have increased
as a result of wildfire.
13.6 Implement an adaptive fire management
strategy in the northern jarrah forest
to maintain the existing preferred habitat
mosaic and to establish and maintain
additional areas supporting the
preferred habitat.
13.7 Examine the effect of different fire regimes
on the population abundances of quokkas
for DEC’s southwest, Warren and South
Coast regions and determine the post-fire
seral stage(s) and/or mosaic preferred
by quokkas.
13.8 Examine the effectiveness of different fox
and cat baiting regimes in an adaptive
management framework.
13.9 Assess the effect of disturbance from pigs
and the conservation outcomes of different
methods of pig control.
13.10Implement pig control programs in an
adaptive management framework, with
priority given to high conservation value
areas for the quokka, and by the potential
for the control actions proposed to eradicate
localised pig populations and/or to provide
a quantifiable reduction in damage caused
by pigs to quokka populations and/or
quokka habitat.
13.11Examine the effect of timber harvesting
and associated operational activities in
close proximity to quokka populations
and investigate ways to eliminate and/or
mitigate any identified detrimental impacts.
13.12Investigate the health of quokkas on the
mainland, Rottnest and Bald Island and
establish ongoing health monitoring and
disease screening programs.
13.13Investigate the diet of mainland quokkas
in terms of dietary intake and resource
availability.
204
13.14Restrict quokka captive breeding programs
until further information is available on the
genetic structure of mainland and island
populations.
13.15Prevent translocation where this results in,
or has the potential to result in, mixing of
populations from different sources. Strict
monitoring/auditing of the location and
fate of all quokkas from Rottnest Island is
recommended to ensure none are released
into the wild.
13.16Assess the effects of dieback on quokka
subpopulations and distribution.
13.17Commence habitat modelling studies to
address climate change issues and identify
the role of translocation in this process.
14.Organisations responsible for
conservation of species
14.1 Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC) Western Australia.
15. Other organisations involved
15.1 Rottnest Island Authority (RIA).
16. Staff and other resources required for
recovery to be carried out
16.1 A dedicated recovery coordinator is
required to coordinate the complex
recovery program.
17. Action costs
17.1 Total cost over 10 years exceeds
A$18 million.
18.Notes
18.1None.
19.References
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts (2010) Setonix brachyurus. In:
Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, Canberra. http://www.environment.
gov.au/sprat. Accessed 26 October 2010 .
de Tores, PJ (2008) Quokka, Setonix brachyurus.
In The Mammals of Australia (Eds. Van Dyck,
S & Strahan, R).
de Tores, P, Burbidge, A, Morris, K & Friend, T
(2008) Setonix brachyurus. In: IUCN (2010)
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version
2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/
details/20165/0. Accessed 20 October 2010.
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
de Tores, PJ and Williams, RJ (2010) Quokka
Setonix brachyurus draft Recovery Plan (2010
-2019). Prepared for the Commonwealth of
Australia Department of Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts and the Western Australian
Department of Environment and Conservation.
Hayward, MW, de Tores, PJ & Banks, PB
(2005) Habitat use of the Quokka, Setonix
bracyhurus (Macropodidae: Marsupialia), in the
Northern Jarrah Forest of Australia. Journal of
Mammalogy 86(4): 683-688.
IUCN (2010) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2010.3. http://www.iucnredlist.
org. Accessed 20 October 2010.
Sinclair, EA & Hyder, BM (2009) Surviving
Quokka (Setonix brachyurus) population on
the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia.
Australian Mammalogy 31: 67-69.
20. Comments received
20.1 Paul de Tores, DEC WA
Hayward, MW, de Tores, PJ, Dillon, MJ and
Fox, BJ (2003). Local population structure of
a naturally occurring metapopulation of the
Quokka (Setonix brachyurus Macropodidae:
Marsupialia). Biological Conservation 110:
343-355.
Table 51: List of recovery actions for Setonix brachyurus, and the rationale for their contribution to recovery,
and effort required.
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Project Coordinator
manages project
Current recovery actions are ad hoc and
opportunistic, and the recovery program
is of sufficient complexity to warrant a
dedicated manager.
Yearly
1 Year
1 Person
All
Status assessment
- distribution and
abundance. Includes
surveys of known
subpopulations,
and identification of
subpopulations of high
conservation value.
3-Yearly
3 Months
10 People
All
Status assessment genetic population
structure.
5-Yearly
2 Months
3 People
Once
3 Months
1 Person
6-Monthly
1 Week
1 Person
More information is required to better
understand the status of the species, to
assess those subpopulations most at risk
from a range of threats, and to ensure
that genetic stock is maintained.
All
Consolidate existing
databases.
Database records, miscellaneous records
and anecdotal undocumented records
of quokka occurrence are currently
dispersed across a range of locations
and are held by a range of custodians.
Consolidation of existing records will
provide a single point of reference for
land use planners and conservation staff.
All
Manage species data
to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5
year program review.
Good data management is essential
to making it possible to extract the
maximum amount of information from
monitoring data.
205
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
All
Verify unconfirmed
reports of quokka
sightings.
All
Determine conservation
significance of newly
confirmed populations
through surveys and
genetic assessment.
Surveys are required to confirm
the presence of quokkas at a range
of locations. Any subpopulations
discovered will need to be assessed
according to their overall significance,
both in terms of numbers, genetic
diversity, and local habitat and threats. If
verified as accurate, new populations are
potentially of high conservation value.
Yearly
2 Weeks
1 Person
Yearly
1 Month
1 Person
All
Develop/refine
monitoring protocols for
the species, including
trapping, satellite collars
and camera traps, health
screening, and to monitor
habitat and threats.
Once
2 Months
1 Person
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Location 9
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Location 10
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Rottnest Island
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
Yearly
1 Week
3 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Location 1
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Location 2
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Location 3
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
Implement monitoring
protocols for species
activity, predator and pig
activity, and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Bald Island
Rottnest Island
Health and disease
screening.
Rotating mainland location
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Location 8
206
Implement monitoring
protocols for fire
management and
habitat condition,
and effectiveness
of management
intervention.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives. A monitoring
program of key populations in the four
IBRA regions in which quokkas occur
is required to provide clear and robust
evidence of population size and trends
in changes to population size.
Disease has not been demonstrated
as an important factor in the decline
of the quokka, however, it has been
implicated as responsible for the deaths
of individuals. Potential disease threats
include Salmonella infection and
Toxoplasmosis. Salmonella infections
are believed to be common on Rottnest
Island. Toxoplasmosis has been observed
to occur in populations of quokka and
there have been observations of quokkas
dying in large numbers from inexplicable
causes prior to the 1940s. Quokkas may
also be susceptible to infection with the
canary pox virus, which is the basis for
the equine influenza vaccine.
Monitoring is essential to ensure
adaptive management and achieving
the species objectives.
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Location 9
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Location 10
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Location 1
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Location 2
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Location 10
3-Monthly
2 Weeks
4 People
Location 1
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Location 2
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Conduct strategic feral
predator control in
quokka habitat.
Location 7
Location 8
Location 9
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Conduct strategic feral
pig control in quokka
habitat.
Location 7
Location 8
Location 9
Rationale
The fox appears to the most significant
factor to have contributed to the decline
in quokka numbers on the mainland.
Although Hayward et al. (2003) found
quokkas had not responded to fox
control in the northern jarrah forest,
the presence of fox baiting was found
to be an important predictor of quokka
presence within the northern jarrah
forest.
Pigs have the potential to indirectly
affect quokkas through destruction
of habitat. This not only removes food
resources from the habitat, but also
creates pathways which facilitate access
for other feral animals, such as foxes.
There are anecdotal reports of quokkas
being absent where pigs are present. The
effect of pigs on quokka abundance and
distribution has not been quantified.
Location 10
6-Monthly
2 Weeks
2 People
Location 1
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Yearly
1 Month
5 People
Once
1 Year
2 People
Once
1 Year
2 People
Once
1 Year
2 People
Once
1 Year
1 Person
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
Location 7
Conduct active adaptive
fire management
to maintain habitat
condition.
Location 8
Location 9
Location 10
South-West DEC region
Warren DEC region
South Coast DEC region
Investigate effects of
fire on quokka habitat,
and optimum regimes to
maintain that habitat.
Study Location P
Study Location Q
Study Location R
Investigate effect of
timber harvesting on
quokka habitat.
Within the northern jarrah forest, longunburnt areas have been identified as
important for the persistence of quokkas,
as is the presence of recently burnt areas
(i.e. burnt within the previous 10 years).
However, the upper limit to the long
unburnt component of the habitat mosaic
is unknown, as is the configuration of
the mosaic, i.e. the area required for
each component of the mosaic. The
relationship(s) between fire and quokkas'
preferred habitat elsewhere is known
anecdotally only. Wildfire suppression
activities also have the potential to lead
to the loss of quokka habitat.
Of the 711 known and mapped location
records, 405 (approximately 57%) are
within state forest or timber reserves
within the RFA boundary, and 226
records (approximately 32%) are within
conservation estate. Of the remaining
80 records, 49 are location records
from roads, usually road kill records)
within or bounding state forest.
Therefore a total of 61% of known and
mapped mainland location records fro
the quokka are potentially subject to
disturbance from harvesting operations.
207
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Subpopulation
Action
Rationale
Frequency
Duration
Effort
Once
1 Year
1 Person
Conduct research into
quokka dietary analysis
in concert with vegetation
mapping and/or habitat
modelling to inform
management actions.
Dietary studies are recommended to
provide information on the preferred
habitat of the quokka. Dietary analyses,
when combined with vegetation
mapping, study of micro-habitat use,
habitat manipulation and introduced
predator control, can determine whether
these management actions result in
provision of an otherwise unavailable
and preferred food resource.
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Maintain captive quokkas
for future translocations.
Translocation of mainland quokkas to
other mainland locations supporting
naturally occurring populations may be
warranted to augment these populations.
However, this is not recommended until
such time as genetic or other evidence
can demonstrate clear conservation
benefits from such translocations.
Weekly
1 Day
2 People
Translocations of wild and captive
subpopulations will be crucial to the
ongoing management of the species.
Ensuring that any future translocations
are undertaken under optimum
conditions is essential for the success of
the operations.
Once
2 Months
1 Person
Once
1 Month
5 People
Once
1 Month
5 People
Once
1 Month
5 People
Once
1 Year
1 Person
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Conduct research into
the effects of dieback
on quokka habitat, and
the potential for future
dieback spread to impact
quokka habitat.
Any fauna species which is dependent
upon a complex forest structure and
inhabits the forests of south-west
Western Australia is potentially
threatened by dieback. Understorey
species such as Banksia spp. and
Persoonia spp., which are highly
susceptible to Phytophthora. cinnamomi,
form an important part of the structure
of jarrah forests. The loss of such forest
structure as a consequence of dieback
has the potential to increase the risk of
predation and result in the loss of food
resources for mammals such as quokka.
Once
3 Months
1 Person
Undertake genetic and
demographic modelling
to complement habitat
modelling, and to
inform climate change
adaptation
The potential effects on the distribution
of the quokka as a result of climate
change run to the extreme of a complete
loss of range by the year 2070, with
changes in precipitation shown to be the
most important variable influencing the
modelled historical distribution.
Once
1 Year
2 People
Study Location S
Study Location T
Study Location U
Sanctuary Location Y
Sanctuary Location Z
All
Translocation Site A
Translocation Site B
Translocation Site C
Translocation modelling,
and evaluation of
translocation successes
and failures.
Translocate quokkas to
secure sites to optimise
genetic management,
based on genetic survey
information.
Study Location V
Study Location W
Study Location X
All
208
$0
$0
Status assessment - genetic population structure.
Consolidate existing databases.
Manage species data to inform adaptive
management. Includes 5 year program review.
Verify unconfirmed reports of quokka sightings.
Determine conservation significance of newly
confirmed populations through surveys and
genetic assessment.
Develop/refine monitoring protocols for the
species, including trapping, satellite collars and
camera traps, health screening, and to monitor
habitat and threats.
All
All
All
All
All
All
$50,000
$50,000
$30,000
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$20,000
Location 8
Location 10
Rottnest Island
$25,000
Location 9
Location 7
$30,000
$60,000
Location 2
Location 6
$60,000
$45,000
$0
$20,000
Location 1
Implement monitoring protocols for species
activity, predator and pig activity, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
$90,000
Status assessment - distribution and abundance.
Includes surveys of known subpopulations,
and identification of subpopulations of high
conservation value.
All
$30,000
$100,000
Year 1#
Project Coordinator manages project
Action
All
Subpopulation
Table 52: List of recovery actions for Setonix brachyurus, and their costs
$20,600
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$30,900
$30,900
$51,500
$51,500
$61,800
$61,800
$0
$0
$46,350
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$103,000
Year 2
$21,218
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$31,827
$31,827
$53,045
$53,045
$63,654
$63,654
$0
$0
$47,741
$0
$0
$0
$0
$106,090
Year 3
$21,855
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$32,782
$32,782
$54,636
$54,636
$65,564
$65,564
$0
$0
$49,173
$0
$0
$0
$98,345
$109,273
Year 4
$22,510
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$33,765
$33,765
$56,275
$56,275
$67,531
$67,531
$0
$0
$50,648
$20,000*
$0
$33,765
$0
$112,551
Year 5
$23,185
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$34,778
$34,778
$57,964
$57,964
$69,556
$69,556
$0
$0
$10,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$115,927
Year 6
$23,881
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$35,822
$35,822
$59,703
$59,703
$71,643
$71,643
$0
$0
$10,300
$0
$0
$0
$107,464
$119,405
Year 7
$24,597
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$36,896
$36,896
$61,494
$61,494
$73,792
$73,792
$0
$0
$10,609
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,987
Year 8
$25,335
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$38,003
$38,003
$63,339
$63,339
$76,006
$76,006
$0
$0
$10,927
$0
$0
$0
$0
$126,677
Year 9
$26,095
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$39,143
$39,143
$65,239
$65,239
$78,286
$78,286
$0
$0
$11,255
$22,515*
$0
$39,143
$117,430
$130,477
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
209
210
$15,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
Location 10
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
$30,000
Location 7
Location 8
Location 9
Location 10
$30,000
$15,000
Location 9
Location 6
$15,000
Conduct strategic feral predator control in
quokka habitat.
$15,000
Location 8
$15,000
$20,000
Location 7
Location 6
Implement monitoring protocols for fire
management and habitat condition, and
effectiveness of management intervention.
$20,600
$20,000
$20,000
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
$20,600
$20,600
$20,000
$20,000
Location 1
Location 2
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$30,900
$15,450
$15,450
$15,450
$15,450
$15,450
$20,600
$20,600
$25,750
$25,000
Rotating mainland location
$25,750
$25,750
$25,000
$25,000
Bald Island
Rottnest Island
Health and disease screening.
Year 2
Action
Year 1#
Subpopulation
$0
$0
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$31,827
$15,914
$15,914
$15,914
$15,914
$15,914
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$21,218
$26,523
Year 3
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$32,782
$16,391
$16,391
$16,391
$16,391
$16,391
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$21,855
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
Year 4
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$33,765
$16,883
$16,883
$16,883
$16,883
$16,883
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$22,510
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
Year 5
$0
$0
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$34,778
$17,389
$17,389
$17,389
$17,389
$17,389
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$23,185
$28,982
Year 6
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$35,822
$17,911
$17,911
$17,911
$17,911
$17,911
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$23,881
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
Year 7
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$36,896
$18,448
$18,448
$18,448
$18,448
$18,448
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$24,597
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
Year 8
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$38,003
$19,002
$19,002
$19,002
$19,002
$19,002
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$25,335
$31,669
$0
$0
Year 9
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$39,143
$19,572
$19,572
$19,572
$19,572
$19,572
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$26,095
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
$10,300
Conduct active adaptive fire management to
maintain habitat condition.
$0
$0
$0
$0
Study Location U
Study Location T
$0
$0
Conduct research into quokka dietary analysis in
concert with vegetation mapping and/or habitat
modelling to inform management actions.
Study Location S
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
Study Location R
Study Location Q
$0
$0
South Coast DEC region
Investigate effect of timber harvesting on quokka
habitat.
$0
$0
Study Location P
Warren DEC region
Investigate effects of fire on quokka habitat, and
optimum regimes to maintain that habitat.
$25,750
$25,000
$25,000
Location 9
Location 10
South-West DEC region
$25,750
$25,750
$25,000
$25,000
Location 7
Location 8
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$25,750
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$5,150
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
Location 4
Location 5
Location 6
$25,000
$25,000
Location 2
Location 3
$5,000
$25,000
$5,000
Location 9
Location 1
$5,000
Location 8
Location 10
$5,000
Location 7
$5,000
$5,000
Location 5
Location 6
$10,000
$10,000
Location 3
Location 4
Conduct strategic feral pig control in quokka
habitat.
$10,300
$10,300
$10,000
$10,000
Location 1
Location 2
$10,300
Year 2
Action
Year 1#
Subpopulation
$10,000
$10,000
$40,000
$0
$0
$0
$40,000
$40,000
$0
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$26,523
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$5,305
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
$10,609
Year 3
$0
$0
$0
$10,000
$10,000
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$27,318
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$5,464
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
$10,927
Year 4
$0
$0
$0
$10,300
$10,300
$51,500
$0
$0
$0
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$28,138
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$5,628
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
$11,255
Year 5
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$28,982
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$5,796
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
$11,593
Year 6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$29,851
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$5,970
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
$11,941
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$30,747
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$6,149
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
$12,299
Year 8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$31,669
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$6,334
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
$12,668
Year 9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$32,619
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$6,524
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
$13,048
Year 10
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
211
212
Undertake genetic and demographic modelling
to complement habitat modelling, and to inform
climate change adaptation
All
$1,818,001
*Includes 5-year program review
$10,000
$10,000
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$45,000
$42,436
$42,436
Year 3
$1,635,000 $1,594,850
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$41,200
$41,200
Year 2
$50,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40,000
$40,000
Year 1#
$0
#Note that an index of 3% has been applied to each successive year of funding to account for CPI
GRAND TOTAL
YEARLY TOTALS
Study Location X
Conduct research into the effects of dieback
on quokka habitat, and the potential for future
dieback spread to impact quokka habitat.
Translocate quokkas to secure sites to optimise
genetic management, based on genetic survey
information.
Translocation modelling, and evaluation of
translocation successes and failures.
Maintain captive quokkas for future
translocations.
Action
Study Location W
Study Location V
Translocation Site C
Translocation Site B
Translocation Site A
All
Sanctuary Location Z
Sanctuary Location Y
Subpopulation
$1,873,472
$20,000
$10,300
$10,300
$30,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43,709
$43,709
Year 4
$1,861,545
$0
$10,609
$10,609
$31,827
$0
$0
$0
$0
$45,020
$45,020
Year 5
$1,682,984
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50,000
$0
$46,371
$46,371
Year 6
$1,909,139
$0
$0
$0
$0
$60,000
$0
$0
$0
$47,762
$47,762
Year 7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$50,671
$50,671
Year 9
$30,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$52,191
$52,191
Year 10
$18,130,585
$1,858,925 $1,784,405 $2,112,264
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$65,000
$0
$0
$49,195
$49,195
Year 8
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Proserpine rock wallaby (Petrogale persephone). © Rod Williams/AUSCAPE
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
213
Australia’s Threatened Macropods
Action Plan for Threatened Macropods 2011-2021
Species Recovery
The general failure of species recovery
processes to achieve down-listing in threat
status of macropods over the last 15 years
highlights the importance of immediate
and comprehensive action to secure all
macropod species and their habitats.
$290 Million
over 10 Years
This is the estimated cost of downlisting Australia’s 21 threatened
and near-threatened species of
macropods on the IUCN Red List
of Threatened Species by 2021.
Invasive Species
Control
Record of
Extinction
The prevalent requirement for fox and cat control
in this action plan indicates that predation by
introduced animals requires renewed investment
and research if we are to successfully address this
problem, not only for threatened macropods, but
for a very broad range of native animals that face
the same threats.
Seven of 57 species of
Australian macropod have
become extinct since European
settlement. Of the 50 species
remaining, 42% are listed as
threatened or near threatened
with extinction.
WWF-Australia National Office
Why we are here
To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and
to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.
wwf.org.au
Tel: 61 2 9281 5515
Freecall: 1800 032 551
Fax: 61 2 9281 1060
Email: [email protected]
© NASA
©1986 Panda symbol WWF ® WWF is a registered trademark
Level 13, 235 Jones Street,
Ultimo NSW 2007
GPO Box 528
Sydney NSW 2001