Draft Recovery Plan
Plains-wanderer
(Pedionomus
torquatus) Recovery Plan
Draft for Public Comment
October 2002
© NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2002
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced without prior written
permission from NPWS.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
43 Bridge Street
(PO Box 1967)
Hurstville NSW 2220
Tel: 02 95856444
www.npws.nsw.gov.au
For further information contact:
Threatened Species Unit, Western Directorate.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 2111
Dubbo NSW 2830
Tel (02) 6883 5330
Email [email protected]
Cover illustration: David Baker-Gabb
This Plan should be cited as follows:
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002). Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus
torquatus) Draft Recovery Plan.
ISBN 07313 6416 3
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Recovery Planning
Program
Plains-wanderer
(Pedionomus torquatus)
Draft Recovery Plan
Prepared in accordance with the New South Wales
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995
October 2002
Acknowledgments
Many landholders have generously permitted surveys and studies of Plainswanderers on their properties over the past decade. David Baker-Gabb, Phil Maher
and Rick Webster undertook much of the field work which underpins this Recovery
Plan, supported by Birds Australia. Damon Oliver, Matt Cameron and Matt White
of NSW NPWS provided assistance in the preparation of the Recovery Plan.
This Recovery Plan was compiled by David Baker-Gabb, Convenor of the Recovery
Team. Revision of the draft Recovery Plan was assisted by Recovery Team
members: Matt Cameron, Martin Driver, Jim Hermiston, Ross McDonnell, Phil
Maher, Michael Mullins, John Nevinson, Damon Oliver, Roger Oxley, David
Parker, Mark Rowe, Mark Sheahan, Bruce Simpson and Rick Webster.
ii
Executive Summary
Introduction
Legislative context
The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) is NSW’s most
comprehensive attempt at establishing a legislative framework to protect and
encourage the recovery of threatened species, populations and communities. Under
the TSC Act, the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife has certain
responsibilities including the preparation of Recovery Plans for threatened species,
populations and ecological communities. This draft Recovery Plan has been
prepared in accordance with the provisions of the TSC Act.
Preparation of Plan
This draft Recovery Plan has been prepared with the assistance of a Recovery
Team, a non-statutory group of interested people with relevant expertise,
established to discuss and resolve issues relating to the Plan. Components within
the Plan do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions of all the
individuals or agencies represented on the Recovery Team. The information in this
draft Recovery Plan was accurate to the best of the NPWS’s knowledge on the date
it was approved.
Current Species Status
The Plains-wanderer has been listed as an endangered species on Schedule 1 of the
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
Recovery Objectives
The long-term objective of the NSW Plains-wanderer Recovery Plan is to improve
the conservation status of the species from ‘Endangered’ to ‘Vulnerable’ within the
next 10 years. This would be achieved by:
1. Establishing an effective Recovery Team to administer and organise the recovery
effort.
2. Maintaining the extent and enhancing the quality of Plains-wanderer habitat.
3. Locating and protecting Plains-wanderer habitat in areas not yet surveyed.
4. Securing a key area(s) of native grassland biodiversity through the purchase of
one or more large reserves of at least 20,000 ha, and containing not less than
5,000 ha of habitat suitable for Plains-wanderers.
iii
5. Halving the decline in Plains-wanderers in NSW due to overgrazing during
droughts, and increasing numbers in 10,000 ha of habitat by enhanced
management.
6. Assessing the relative impact of different management regimes and controlling
threatening processes.
Recovery Criteria
1. Progress towards meeting Recovery Plan objectives and actions is achieved
efficiently with high levels of community and Government stakeholder support
and involvement.
2. Integration of this Recovery Plan into a Regional Vegetation Plan which helps
bring a halt to inappropriate development of important native grasslands, and yet
does not impede well-planned, integrated development that falls outside
important areas.
3. ‘Core Areas’ and other sites with important Plains-wanderer habitat defined,
mapped, included in Regional Vegetation Plans and protected by 2002. These
areas to be protected through their incorporation into the Western Riverina
Regional Vegetation Management Plan and through the development and
implementation of an appropriate DLWC policy relating to the consent process
under the NVC Act and EP&A Act.
4. Establishment of a well-managed system of private reserves and refuge areas
which, although small in size, have a major impact by halving the declines in the
Plains-wanderer population during droughts, and contributes to increasing
population numbers in the Riverina during average seasons through enhanced
management.
5. A prime area(s) of native grassland initially supporting at least 400 breeding
Plains-wanderers and other threatened flora and fauna to be added to the
National Reserve System by 2001. With enhanced management the number of
Plains-wanderers on the reserve(s) increases to 1,000 by 2005.
6. Targets are refined, management regimes modified, threatening processes
reduced and Plains-wanderer numbers increase following implementation of new
management actions derived from benchmarking and monitoring programs.
Recovery Actions
1.1. Establish landholder, Government and community stakeholder representation
on the Recovery Team.
iv
1.2. Employ a part-time Recovery Team Convenor to organise meetings, minutes
and annual reviews of progress, to oversee surveys and monitoring, and to facilitate
Recovery Team members fulfilling their agreed responsibilities.
2.1. Employ a half-time Wildlife Extension Officer to liaise with and provide
information to landholders, Government agencies and other relevant Recovery
Teams, and to undertake population monitoring.
2.2. Integrate all information on Plains-wanderer habitat and requirements into the
Western Riverina Regional Vegetation Management Plan, and ensure that such
habitat is provided with a 2 km buffer (necessary to protect against the impacts of
fox predation) from areas approved for cultivation.
2.3. Establish a register of areas of Plains-wanderer habitat lost to or degraded by
cultivation, and areas included in reserves, and provide an annual report on changes.
2.4. Develop and provide management guidelines, in consultation with landholders,
for broadacre properties, and conservation areas covered by Voluntary
Conservation Agreements or Property Agreements.
2.5. Provide information and maps to ensure that agency representatives, including
plague locust authorities, and landholders are aware of the location and relative
importance of Plains-wanderer habitat under their control.
3.1. Conduct ground surveys in potential Plains-wanderer habitat areas that were
not mapped in the NPWS/WRRVC Plains-wanderer habitat mapping project 19982001.
4.1. Determine the importance of all Plains-wanderer habitat outside ‘Core Areas’.
4.2. Submit the map of ‘Core Areas’ as part of this Recovery Plan to the Western
Riverina Regional Vegetation Committee (WRRVC) for their inclusion in the
Western Riverina Regional Vegetation Management Plan.
5.1. Encourage and facilitate Whole Farm Plans with relatively small (eg 5% of
property) areas fenced and lightly grazed under Voluntary Conservation
Agreements, Property Agreements or other voluntary arrangements.
5.2. Negotiate fenced, lightly grazed areas with appropriate Fox controls under
Property Agreements as a trade-off where landholders wish to undertake
developments that will potentially impact Plains-wanderers in lesser conservation
value areas. Ensure that such trade-offs mesh with the Regional Vegetation Plan,
important habitat is conserved, and a net benefit to the long-term conservation of
Plains-wanderers is achieved.
v
6.1. Collate scientific data documenting that the Riverine Plain is poorly represented
in the National Reserve System and that a once-only opportunity exists to purchase
one of several high conservation value properties, or parts thereof, which could
soon be lost to fragmentation by cultivation.
7.1. Establish benchmark numbers and undertake monitoring of Plains-wanderers
at a range of sites with different management regimes including: broad acre grazing
properties, stud grazing properties, large reserves, small areas under Voluntary
Conservation Agreements, and areas fragmented by cultivation.
7.2. Involve stakeholders and provide regular feed-back to land managers on
improvements to management regimes.
Biodiversity Benefits
The Plains-wanderer has become a ‘flagship’ species in the effort to conserve
‘Riverine Plain’ native grasslands in NSW and Victoria. These native grasslands are
listed as a threatened plant community under the Victorian Flora and Fauna
Guarantee Act 1988. Plains-wanderers commonly occur in the same areas as
threatened plants, and lowland native grasslands contain a large number of
threatened plants (Briggs and Leigh 1988). The second Atlas of Australian Birds
indicates that a number of other grassland species have undergone national declines
of 30-50% in the last 20 years, with greatest declines in south-eastern Australia.
These species include the: Brown Songlark (Cinclorhamphus cruralis), Richard's
Pipit (Anthus novaeseelandiae), Singing Bushlark (Miafra javanica), Banded
Lapwing (Vanellus tricolor), Ground Cuckoo-shrike (Coracina maxima),
Australian Bustard (Ardeotis australis), Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae),
Spotted Harrier (Circus assimilis) and Black Falcon (Falco subniger) (Barrett et
al..2002). Plains-wanderers and other declining grassland birds can only be
conserved if their habitat remains intact. Hence this Recovery Plan must also aim to
conserve an adequate and representative component of the grasslands of the
Riverine Plains.
Social and Economic Consequences
The main impact of the implementation of this Recovery Plan will be the restriction
of some clearing and development of Plains-wanderer habitat. Plains-wanderer
habitat generally occupies less than 5% of individual Riverina properties. These
areas require a 2 km buffer. Developments within this buffer that lead to increased
numbers of foxes will negatively impact upon the Plains-wanderer. The buffer is
not a development exclusion zone, unless that Plains-wanderer habitat is in one of
seven ‘Core Areas’ covering 14.9% of the NPWS Plains-wanderer mapping region.
Outside ‘Core Areas’, inappropriate developments that may potentially impact
Plains-wanderers which are on or near to Plains-wanderer habitat will still cause
impacts which need to be taken into account during any ‘trade-offs’ and areas set
aside for conservation.
vi
Inappropriate developments are defined hereafter as developments which directly
remove Plains-wanderer habitat or otherwise negatively impact upon the Plainswanderer and its habitat. For example, irrigated cereal cropping is known to
increase fox numbers which can elevate the predation pressure on Plains-wanderers
because of increased mice numbers attracted to such developments. Grazing
practices and works associated with agricultural infrastructure are not considered to
be inappropriate developments.
A socio-economic analysis by Hassall & Associates (2002) found that the Net
Present Value (NPV) of this five-year Recovery Plan was $-13.8M. The majority of
the costs were attributed to the purchase and running costs of Oolambeyan National
Park ($-7.6M). The other main costs were lost opportunity costs to landholders
restricted from developing land within the ‘Core Areas’ ($-6.5M). This assumes
that 1% (3,385 ha) of the Core Areas could potentially be developed for irrigated
agriculture if no clearing restrictions were applied. If the area of this potential
irrigable land drops to 2,400 ha then the indicative Recovery Plan benefits outweigh
the costs associated with the lost irrigation production.
The challenge before the Western Riverina Vegetation Committee and other
authorities is to develop negotiated regional plans which ensure that high quality
grasslands are not left isolated by cultivation, and at the same time to minimise
negative economic impacts on landholders. Restrictions on clearing will have no
economic impact on current, widespread traditional grazing activities, but may limit
the aspirations of those landholders who wish to convert to cropping or introduced
pastures. This Plan supports the concept of incentives and stewardship payments to
reduce the economic impacts on landholders who are managing some of their land
for the conservation of the Plains-wanderer.
Some of the benefits of native grasslands include their: low use of some inputs such
as fertilisers, enhanced response to summer rain, improved animal health, reduced
need for supplementary feeding, production of finer wool, reduced drought risk,
reduced fire risk, enhanced land and water protection, improved human health
through reduced use of chemicals and reduced stress, opportunities for new farming
enterprises such as seed collection and native plant harvesting, and enhanced
opportunities for recreation, tourism and personal satisfaction.
Some of the costs of retaining native grasslands include: lower output, lack of winter
feed, under-employed resources, research and marketing needs to establish new
enterprises, and the costs of operating recreation and tourism ventures.
vii
BRIAN GILLIGAN
Director-General
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ...................................................................... ii
Executive Summary.................................................................. iii
Table of Contents....................................................................... 8
1
Current Conservation Status............................................. 1
2
Description ........................................................................... 1
2.1
3
Distribution .......................................................................... 2
3.1
3.2
4
Significant Habitat ..............................................................8
Relevant Legislation............................................................ 9
6.1
6.2.
6.3
7
Life Cycle............................................................................4
Behaviour............................................................................5
Disturbance Regimes..........................................................5
Population Structure ...........................................................6
Habitat .................................................................................. 7
5.1
6
Current and historical distribution ......................................2
Tenure .................................................................................3
Ecology.................................................................................. 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5
Taxonomic Significance .....................................................2
NSW Legislation ................................................................9
Commonwealth legislation ...............................................10
Critical habitat...................................................................11
Management Issues........................................................... 11
7.1
7.2
Threats and reasons for decline ........................................11
Social and economic consequences ..................................13
7.2.1
7.2.2
viii
Socio-economic analysis.................................................. 13
Social and Practical Considerations ................................ 15
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.3
8
Biodiversity benefits.........................................................17
Previous Actions Undertaken.......................................... 17
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
9
Commercial and Social benefits ...................................... 16
Community Involvement................................................ 16
Review of species distribution and status........................17
Ecological research and surveys ......................................18
Plains-wanderer habitat mapping......................................18
Plains-wanderer ‘Core Areas’...........................................18
Management and Action Plans ........................................19
Current Ex-situ programmes............................................19
Species ability to Recover................................................. 19
10 Recovery objectives and performance criteria............. 20
10.1
10.2
Objectives of the Recovery Plan.......................................20
Recovery performance criteria..........................................21
11 Recovery Actions............................................................... 21
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
Recovery Team................................................................21
Maintain and Enhance Habitat..........................................23
Undertake Surveys............................................................25
Regional Targets ...............................................................27
Reserves and Refuge Areas ..............................................28
Purchase a Reserve ...........................................................30
Benchmarking, Monitoring and Feedback........................32
Awareness, Involvement and Incentives..........................34
12 Implementation.................................................................. 37
13 Alternative Management Strategies ............................... 38
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
Captive breeding and reintroduction.................................38
Widespread control of predators.......................................38
Additional surveys ............................................................38
No regional plans or reserves............................................38
14 Preparation details ............................................................ 39
2
14.1
14.2
14.3
Date of last amendment....................................................39
Recovery Plan preparation................................................39
Review date ......................................................................40
References.................................................................................41
Figure 1. Map of Plains-wanderer habitat and Core Areas
on the NSW Riverine Plain .....................................................46
Appendix 1 – Calculating the Plains-wanderer population
size .........................................................................................47
Appendix 2 – Submission form for Draft Recovery Plan...49
3
1
Current Conservation Status
The Plains-wanderer has been listed as an endangered species on Schedule 1 of the
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) as it is:
• in a demonstrable state of decline which is likely to result in extinction;
• significantly prone to future threats which are likely to result in extinction; and
• very rare in terms of abundance and distribution.
Plains-wanderers are eaten by Foxes (Baker-Gabb 1995) and predation by the
European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is listed on Schedule 3 of the TSC Act as a key
threatening process.
The Plains-wanderer is also listed on the schedules of Acts administered by other
authorities outside NSW:
Act
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999
Victoria Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988:
Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992:
Listing
Vulnerable
Threatened
Vulnerable
The Plains-wanderer is likely to change status to nationally endangered under the
EPBC Act 1999 following a review of the status of all Australian birds (Garnett and
Crowley 2000). The Plains-wanderer is on the BirdLife International world list of
globally threatened birds. BirdLife International used IUCN criteria to classify the
Plains-wanderer as endangered (Stattersfield and Capper 2000).
2
•
•
•
•
Description
Scientific nomenclature:
Family:
Common name:
Other names:
Pedionomus torquatus (Gould 1840)
Pedionomidae
Plains-wanderer
Collared Plains-wanderer, Turkey Quail
The Plains-wanderer is a small quail-like bird standing about 10 cm tall and
weighing 40-95 g ( Marchant and Higgins 1993). Both sexes have straw-yellow legs
and bills, and their plumage is mainly fawn with fine black rosettes. The larger
female is easily distinguished by her prominent white-spotted black collar above a
rich rufous breast patch.
The Plains-wanderer could be confused with other small ground-dwelling birds that
occur in native grasslands such as Stubble Quail (Coturnix pectoralis) or Little
1
Button-quail (Turnix velox). The Plains-wanderer has a finer bill, much longer legs
and lankier appearance than button-quail or quail.
2.1
Taxonomic Significance
The Plains-wanderer is of great taxonomic and scientific interest being the sole
member of a family of birds found only in eastern Australia. The morphology of
the Plains-wanderer does not vary across its range (Marchant and Higgins 1993).
For over a century this unusual bird was thought to be distantly related to buttonquail (Turnix spp), but it is now classified as a shorebird most closely related to
seedsnipe (Thinocorus spp), which are South American inland shorebirds (Olsen
and Steadman 1981, Sibley et al. 1988).
3
Distribution
3.1
Current and historical distribution
The Plains-wanderer has declined greatly since European settlement. Areas where
the species was formerly common and is now so reduced in numbers that it is
effectively extinct include eastern NSW, south-western Victoria, and south-eastern
South Australia. Its current stronghold is the Riverina of south-western NSW.
Areas of secondary importance include north-central Victoria and central-western
Queensland (Baker-Gabb 1998).
Most records of Plains-wanderers in NSW over the past 20 years come from a
13,000 km2 area of the Riverina bounded by Hay and Narrandera on the
Murrumbidgee River in the north, the Cobb Highway in the west, the Billabong
Creek in the south, and Urana in the east (Baker-Gabb 1990a, Maher 1997). Even
within its Riverina stronghold, the Plains-wanderer has a very patchy distribution.
Surveys in the 1990s across 5,000km2 of the Riverina covering 37 properties found
only 5% of the total area comprised suitable habitat. The amount of high quality
habitat in the Riverina drops to 1-2% during very wet or dry years when grasslands
become too dense or are grazed too bare for Plains-wanderers (Maher 1997).
Recent Aerial Photo Interpretation (API) mapping for NSW NPWS and the
Western Riverina Regional Vegetation Committee (WRRVC) has confirmed the
patchy distribution of the Plains-wanderer's habitat (Roberts and Roberts 2001).
API mapping in the northern and central Riverina found that only 2.3 % of 2.28
million ha was primary habitat suitable for Plains-wanderers all year round. Such
areas can be rendered temporarily unsuitable by overgrazing during droughts. This
could be offset by a further 4.3 % of the 2.28 million ha which is comprised of
denser, secondary habitat that may be periodically occupied by Plains-wanderers.
2
Within the 2.28 million ha surveyed and mapped on the Riverine Plain, the
Recovery Team has identified seven ‘Core Areas’ (Figure 1). Core Areas are critical
for the survival of the Plains-wanderer in NSW as they are areas where
developments that remove or impact on Plains-wanderer habitat will be prohibited.
These are also areas where conservation efforts must be concentrated. The Plainswanderer Recovery Team established criteria for the identification of Core Areas.
The principal objective was to secure approximately 80% of the existing population
within Core Areas. As well, Core Areas were to be located across the mapping area
in order to reduce the impact of catastrophic events such as bushfires. Ideally, Core
Areas would be large enough to support approximately 50 pairs of birds. Core
Areas were mapped by identifying all primary habitat more than 2 km from existing
irrigation developments and more than 200 m from patches of woodland. Patches
of primary habitat within 1 km of another patch were then aggregated. If only
aggregations capable of supporting 50 pairs of birds were considered, then around
60% of the population was contained within Core Areas and a poor geographic
spread of Core Areas was obtained. Accordingly, the Recovery Team determined
that aggregations of primary habitat capable of supporting around 30 pairs of Plainswanderers would be accepted as Core Areas. The seven Core Areas identified
support around 72% of the population and are distributed across the mapping area.
The seven ‘Core Areas’ cover 340,278 ha or 14.9% of the mapping area.
The main reason for the decline in the numbers and distribution of Plains-wanderers
in all eastern States has been the conversion of native grasslands to dense
introduced pasture or croplands (Bennett 1983). If native grasslands are not
overgrazed or cultivated then Plains-wanderers are largely sedentary (Baker-Gabb et
al. 1990).
Within NSW, the Plains-wanderer only occurs in good numbers in the Riverina in
the NSW NPWS Western Directorate. The bird was formerly fairly common until
about 1920 on the Slopes and Tablelands, and there are two earlier records of birds
near Sydney. The following Local Government Areas have recent records of
Plains-wanderer: Central Darling, Carrathool, Hay, Windouran, Conargo, Jerilderie,
Murrumbidgee, and Urana.
No populations or individual Plains-wanderers occur in NSW as the result of
translocations.
3.2
Tenure
During three separate surveys, fewer than ten Plains-wanderers were found in
Willandra National Park. This National Park is about 170 km north of the species’
stronghold and is largely unsuitable for Plains-wanderers. A similarly small number
of Plains-wanderers have been recorded on Morundah Station which is
3
Commonwealth land owned by the Royal Australian Navy. Morundah Station has
some high quality native grasslands (Benson et al. 1997) which lie within the Plainswanderer’s stronghold. An equally small number of Plains-wanderers have been
recorded from Travelling Stock Reserves such as the one between Deniliquin and
Hay. Travelling Stock Reserves are managed by the Rural Lands Protection Board.
Some of those in the Riverina with Plains-wanderers were in the past used for
agistment rather than travelling stock and were overgrazed to the detriment of the
birds and other native fauna and flora. Recently, management of Travelling Stock
Reserves has improved. Several important areas for threatened grassland plants
occur on road reserves and Travelling Stock Reserves (Benson et al. 1997).
Over 95% of the more than 1,200 records of Plains-wanderers in the Riverina over
the past 17 years (Maher 1997) have come from properties which are privately
owned. With cultivation of native grasslands on some properties there will be
‘trade-offs’ which include appropriate covenants or Property Agreements. These
agreements conform to the IUCN definition of reserves, even though they are not
on public land.
4
Ecology
4.1
Life Cycle
Population turnover is moderate, and at least some birds are year-round residents in
sparse native grasslands provided they are not forced out by overgrazing, fires or
cultivation (Baker-Gabb et al. 1990). Breeding has been recorded in most months
of the year but generally takes place in spring, with second and even third clutches
laid in summer if sufficient rain falls. The normally solitary birds form pairs in late
winter and may then be found 1-3 m apart. The larger, more colourful female
dominates their courtship and the species can be serially polyandrous (females may
have more than one mate in a single season) (Marchant and Higgins 1993).
Neighbouring pairs live 250-400 m apart. Four eggs (range 2-5) are usually laid in a
hollow in the ground that has been scratched out by the female and lined with grass.
The male does most of the incubation which lasts for 23 days. The male does all of
the chick rearing leaving the female free to pair with another male (Baker-Gabb et
al. 1990).
The young are able to walk a few hours after hatching, are independent when about
two months old, and capable of breeding in their first year (Crome and Rushton
1975, Ridley 1986). After the breeding season, the number of independent young
seen in the Riverina outnumbers adults by 3:2 (Baker-Gabb et al. 1990). Breeding
success can be low if heavy rains fall in spring. It is not known how long Plainswanderers live in the wild, but they have lived for at least eight years in captivity.
4
4.2
Behaviour
Plains-wanderers feed on a wide range of seeds, insects and spiders. Insects
comprise about 40% of the diet, except in spring, when the proportion of insects in
the diet is slightly higher (Baker-Gabb 1988). Ants and beetles up to 15 mm long
constitute the major insect foods that are eaten throughout the year. Sucking bugs
and caterpillars, the next most important insect foods, are taken mainly in spring
and autumn. Grasses, saltbushes and other plants provide seeds that comprise
nearly 60% of the annual diet. In summer, grass seeds make up the main part of the
seed intake. In autumn, the predominance shifts to seeds of saltbushes and other
herbs. Native plants provide the majority of the seeds, while introduced plant
species make only a minor contribution to the Plains-wanderer’s diet (Baker-Gabb
1988). Seeds and arthropods appear to be taken according to their relative
availability and there are no known ‘key’ food species.
Foraging takes place during the day and at dusk. Birds peck up seeds and
arthropods from the ground, and occasionally by gleaning ripe seeds from
inflorescences. Arthropods may be exposed by the birds hammering on compacted
soil with their bills.
Sparse native grasslands allow Plains-wanderers to forage for fallen seeds and
ground-dwelling insects with ease and observe distant predators, while at the same
time having sufficient cover to avoid detection by predators (Keartland 1901, BakerGabb 1988). Where the grass is sparse enough to see a Richard’s Pipit easily,
Plains-wanderers are extremely cryptic. They rarely fly and so sparse vegetation is
essential if Plains-wanderers are to see distant ground predators and move quickly
and stealthily away. Plains-wanderers shun dense grass where foraging is difficult
and they cannot run from predators. They avoid bare or overgrazed areas where
they are more easily detected and vulnerable to predators (Baker-Gabb et al. 1990).
Within sparse native grasslands that are not overgrazed, Plains-wanderers occupy
home ranges averaging 12 ha, which overlap extensively (55%) with that of their
mate, but not with other Plains-wanderers (Baker-Gabb et al. 1990). This means
that in the Riverina, the ecological requirements of Plains-wanderers are about 18 ha
of suitable habitat per pair in average seasons. Home range size varies from year to
year depending on seasonal conditions.
4.3
Disturbance Regimes
Widespread cultivation of lowland native grassland habitat for cropping and dense
introduced pastures has been the single biggest factor in the near extinction of
Plains-wanderer populations that once thrived in coastal and sub-coastal regions
(Bennett 1983, Baker-Gabb 1990a). In the Riverina, there are land use changes
5
currently under way whereby some native pastures are being cultivated and irrigated
for growing rice and other crops. Plains-wanderers will be extirpated by these
inappropriate developments because their habitat is directly or indirectly impacted.
Pasture improvement practices such as the application of fertilisers and oversowing
with introduced pasture species can lead to denser grasslands and the vigorous
growth of environmental weeds. This can temporarily or permanently eliminate
Plains-wanderers from an area, depending on the degree and permanency of the
change in the structure of the grassland. Wet winters may also promote the growth
of dense pastures and weeds, which are unsuitable for Plains-wanderers. Heavy
rains in spring can lead to widespread breeding failures.
Overstocking led to removal of saltbush and widespread soil erosion in the late
1880s and 1940s. Stocking rates in the 1980s were 50-75% lower than those at the
turn of the century (Maher 1997). The reduction in stocking levels and improved
management by landholders led to a recovery of many native grasslands which
provide habitat for the Plains-wanderer. In the last ten years there has been a
further reduction in stocking rates. Under this scenario, overgrazing impacts are
likely to be less during droughts than they were a decade ago. Stocking rates may
increase to 1980s levels if seasonal conditions and wool prices improve.
Overgrazing and fires eliminate Plains-wanderers from paddocks until seasonal
conditions improve and the vegetation cover returns. Widespread overgrazing such
as occurs during a prolonged dry spell or a drought, can eliminate most of the
Plains-wanderers from a region. Populations then recover when good conditions
return. Some birds find refuge on a small number of relatively lightly grazed stud
merino properties during droughts. Surveys over 15 years indicate that the numbers
of birds encountered on the Riverine Plain can vary by a factor of ten (one bird per
2.2 - 20 km travelled), depending on seasonal conditions, stocking rates and the time
of the year when the survey was conducted (Maher and Baker-Gabb 1993).
The introduced Red Fox eats Plains-wanderers and predation was thought to be a
major problem (Llewellyn 1975), but no evidence could be found for this on
extensive sheep grazing properties in the Riverina where Foxes were being culled
routinely (Harrington et al. 1988). On the other hand, when Fox numbers increase
in and around irrigated crops as a result of large increases in numbers of House
Mice (Boonstra and Redhead 1994, Twigg and Kay 1995), Foxes pose a much
greater threat to the species (see section 7.1).
4.4
Population Structure
An accurate total estimate of Plains-wanderer numbers is difficult to obtain for the
whole of eastern Australia. Nevertheless, recent surveys (Webster 1996a, 1996b,
6
2000, Maher 1997) show that previous estimates (Baker-Gabb et al. 1990), though
possibly accurate when they were made a decade ago, are now too optimistic.
Habitat destruction has continued apace, and there are now fewer than 500 Plainswanderers in north-central Victoria, and no viable populations in south-western
Victoria and south-eastern South Australia (Maher and Baker-Gabb 1993, Webster
1996a, 1996b). These areas probably contained the greatest numbers of Plainswanderers at the time of European settlement. While there have been no surveys
for Plains-wanderers in south-west and central Queensland in the past decade, past
and recent records are insufficient for optimism. Past records indicate that inland
Queensland is now second to the Riverina in importance for the conservation of the
Plains-wanderer.
Recent intensive ground surveys (Maher 1997) indicated that earlier estimates by
Baker-Gabb et al. (1990) of 5,500 Plains-wanderers in the Riverina represented the
maximum number after several years of ideal conditions. However, detailed API
mapping (Roberts and Roberts 2001) indicates that previous estimates of the
amount of suitable habitat, and hence numbers of birds, were too high. Current
estimates for the number of Plains-wanderers in the Riverina are around 3,100 birds.
In very dry years, when many birds disperse or perish, the number in the Riverina
could drop to less than 1,000 mature individuals. One thousand animals is often
considered to be a Minimum Viable Population which is defined as the smallest
population unlikely to go extinct simply because of normal, random fluctuations of
nature, genetic phenomena, changes in the environment, and other similar variables
(Shaffer 1981). Australia-wide the number of birds must be revised down to a
maximum of about 5,500 after several good seasons, and less than 2,000 in years of
widespread drought. The potential impact of these population declines have been
subjected to a Population Viability Analyses (PVA) which is reported on in section
7.1.
In the 17 years between 1981 and 1997, Plains-wanderers appeared to fail to breed
in the spring and summer of two drought years (1982 and 1994) and bred with little
success in three wet years (1990-92) (Maher 1997). Provided their habitat remains
intact, Plains-wanderer populations can recover well from such setbacks and at the
end of average breeding seasons the number of juvenile birds consistently
outnumbered adults by 3:2 (Baker-Gabb et al. 1990). The number of adult male
birds outnumbers females by 2:1 (Harrington et al. 1988) which fits with a serially
polyandrous mating system, but limits the effective population size and hence the
rate of recovery of populations.
5
Habitat
The native grasslands of the Riverina are the consequence of grazing by domestic
stock and rabbits over the past 150 years (Moore 1953a, 1953b). The original plant
7
communities were open shrublands dominated by boree (Acacia pendula), old man
saltbush (Atriplex nummularia) and bladder saltbush (Atriplex vesicaria), with
grasses in between. Plains-wanderers were commonly found in this saltbush habitat
in the 1800s (North 1913), indicating some flexibility in their habitat selection.
Plains-wanderers obtain all of their annual life cycle needs from sparse, lowland
native grasslands. They do not require regular access to water, seeming to gain all
they need from their food and by pecking up drops of dew and rain that accumulate
on leaf tips (Baker-Gabb 1988). Sparse native grasslands favoured by Plainswanderers typically occur on hard, red-brown soils. The most frequently recorded
of 75 species of plants from such areas include: ringed wallaby grass or white top
(Austrodanthonia caespitosa), pale beauty heads (Calocephalus sonderi),
windmill grass (Chloris truncata), slender bluebush (Maireana pentagona),
speargrass (Austrostipa ‘variablis’ complex), and barley grass (Hordeum
leporinum) (Baker-Gabb 1990b). No plants occurred exclusively in areas with
sparse rather than dense grass, but fairy grass (Sporobolus caroli) and chariot
wheels (Maireana cheelii) occurred significantly more often in sparse grasslands
(Baker-Gabb 1987). Areas of highest quality Plains-wanderer habitat often have
lichens on some areas of bare ground, and numerous perennial plants such as
yellow buttons (Chrysocephalum apiculatum). Benson et al. (1997) undertook
detailed botanical surveys of selected sites in the Riverina, including some where
Plains-wanderers had been recorded, and concluded that further work was required
linking botanical data to Plains-wanderer habitat.
5.1
Significant Habitat
Of 37 Riverina properties surveyed by Maher (1997), 21 were classified as having
native grasslands of high conservation value for Plains-wanderers, 12 were of
medium conservation value, and five were of lesser conservation value. Only 2.3%
of 2.28 million ha assessed using aerial photo interpretation was considered primary
habitat for Plains-wanderers, with 72.5 % of this primary habitat included in seven
‘Core Areas’ (Roberts and Roberts 2001).
In the Riverina, Plains-wanderers live in sparse native grasslands containing about
50% bare ground and 10% fallen litter, with the remaining 40% made up of herbs
and grasses. Grass tussocks are spaced 10-20 cm apart. Most of the vegetation is
below 5 cm high, but some vegetation up to a maximum of 30 cm is important for
concealment. The species of plants occurring in the sparse grasslands occupied by
Plains-wanderers are very similar to those in the much larger areas of dense native
grass that Plains-wanderers avoid (Baker-Gabb 1987). This indicates that grassland
structure is more important than species composition for Plains-wanderers.
8
This Recovery Plan incorporates the "no net loss" (McCuskey et al. 1994) principle
with respect to the carrying capacity of Plains-wanderers by native grasslands. "No
net loss" of carrying capacity occurs where, over a specified period of time, losses
of Plains-wanderer habitat, as measured by a combined quality-quantity measure
(birds per hectare) are balanced by commensurate gains. A higher carrying capacity
can be achieved by managing public reserves and habitat on private land specifically
for Plains-wanderers, rather than for standard grazing objectives. This principle has
been incorporated into the DLWC interim policy on Plains-wanderers.
6
Relevant Legislation
6.1
NSW Legislation
The Plains-wanderer is listed as an Endangered species under Schedule 1 of the
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). The TSC Act covers the
listing of species, the preparation, revision and implementation of Recovery Plans,
critical habitat, licences to harm threatened species, species impact statements and
joint management agreements. Also listed under key threatening processes in
Schedule 3 of the TSC Act is predation of native wildlife such as the Plainswanderer by the introduced Fox. NPWS has prepared a draft Threat Abatement
Plan for Fox predation which rates the Plains-wanderer as a high priority.
The Plains-wanderer is also covered by the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974
which deals with threatened species and Voluntary Conservation Agreements.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) has relevant
sections for the Plains-wanderer concerning: significant effects on threatened
species or their habitats, preparation of regional and local environmental plans,
consideration of critical habitat and environmental impact, and activities for which
an Environmental Impact Statement is required. The TSC Act amendments to the
environmental assessment provisions of the EP&A Act require that consent and
determining authorities consider relevant Recovery Plans when making a decision
under the EP&A Act.
The Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NVC Act) provides for the
conservation and management of native vegetation, including native grasslands.
The NVC Act has three main functions:
• The requirement for development consent for clearing of native vegetation
(unless exempt) in accordance with the EP&A Act.
• The development of Regional Vegetation Management Plans. The Western
Riverina Regional Vegetation Committee is currently preparing such a plan.
Matters relating to threatened species such as the Plains-wanderer, and their
habitats, must be considered when preparing a Regional Vegetation Management
9
Plan. Moreover, a Regional Vegetation Management Plan must be consistent
with a Recovery Plan.
• The provision for Property Agreements with landholders to protect areas of
native vegetation, including the ability to access the Native Vegetation
Management Fund to carry out specified works in accordance with the
agreement.
The NVC Act, in its transitional arrangements, also provided for the Regional
Grassland Management Plans prepared under SEPP 46 to be in force until January
1, 2000, or until a Regional Vegetation Management Plan is in force.
The Rural Lands Protection Act 1989 provides for the management of Travelling
Stock Reserves and Stock Routes by Rural Lands Protection Boards. Section 81(1)
(h) provides for the protection and conservation of flora and fauna. Part 9 of the
Act also gives Boards powers to deal with noxious animals, including Foxes.
From time to time other NSW Acts may be relevant to the conservation of the
Plains-wanderer such as the Rural Fires Act 1997, and Acts covering Weeds,
Crown Lands, Western Lands (eg Hillston, Mossgiel, Ivanhoe), and Local
Governments. The latter Act provides for State of the Environment reporting by
Councils, the preparation of management plans for Council-owned land, and for
differential rating at Councils’ discretion.
6.2.
Commonwealth legislation
The Plains-wanderer is listed as nationally Vulnerable under the Commonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This Act
protects the Plains-wanderer on all lands including Commonwealth areas such as
Morundah Station in the Riverina which is owned and operated by the Royal
Australian Navy. The Plains-wanderer is likely to be upgraded to Endangered under
the Commonwealth EPBC Act (Garnett and Crowley 2000).
In 1979 the Plains-wanderer was listed on Appendix II of CITES, the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. A proposal
to delete the Plains-wanderer from this list has been recently put to IUCN because
the Plains-wanderer is protected by legislation which prohibits the live export of
native birds, the species has not been traded internationally in the past ten years, it is
rarely kept by aviculturalists, there are no indications of domestic sale, very small
numbers are likely to be held illegally at any one time, and there is no evidence of
illegal trade.
10
6.3
Critical habitat
No area used by the Plains-wanderer has been declared critical habitat as defined in
the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
7
Management Issues
7.1
Threats and reasons for decline
Cultivation of native grasslands and their conversion to dense introduced pastures
or croplands has already brought about the near extinction of the Plains-wanderer in
eastern NSW, south-western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia (Bennett
1983, Baker-Gabb 1998), and is currently a threat throughout the species’ range.
After more than 150 years of extensive grazing, the last ten years have seen an
increase in the amount of native pasture being converted to croplands in the
Riverina of NSW, and more clearing is planned. Further widespread clearing of
native grasslands will lead to a deterioration in the status of the Plains-wanderer in
NSW, and a loss of associated biodiversity.
Cultivation and conversion of native grasslands to croplands can have additional
unintended local and regional negative impacts on any Plains-wanderer habitat that
remains intact. Cultivation that proceeds without a regional plan can lead to
excessive habitat fragmentation and isolation of Plains-wanderer populations.
Drifting fertilisers from croplands can lead to denser growth of local native
grasslands rendering them unsuitable for Plains-wanderers. Increased salinity from
cultivation and irrigation of croplands will have a negative impact on native
grasslands.
Foxes eat Plains-wanderers but their density and hence impact on the birds was
thought to be low on broad acre sheep grazing properties (Harrington et al. 1988).
However, grain crops increase House Mouse (Mus domesticus) populations which
in turn support denser populations of Foxes and aerial predators such as Black
Falcons and Spotted Harriers which will take more ground-dwelling birds.
A potential threat about which little is known is the use of pesticides, such as
fenitrothion, which are periodically sprayed from the air onto plague locusts over a
large portion of the Plains-wanderer’s range (Symmons 1985, Baker-Gabb 1993,
Story and Cox 2001). The concentrations of fenitrothion used could kill birds if
they came into contact with the spray (Pearce 1971). Funding for the research
necessary to establish whether or not fenitrothion has a major impact on non-target
species in Australian grasslands has recently been obtained (APLC in litt).
11
Plains-wanderers co-exist with light to moderate grazing (Baker-Gabb et al. 1990,
Deiz and Foreman 1996). Overgrazing eliminates Plains-wanderers from paddocks
until seasonal conditions improve and the vegetation cover returns. Widespread
overgrazing such as occurs during a prolonged dry spell or drought can temporarily
eliminate most of the Plains-wanderers from a whole region. When this occurs,
populations recover to previous levels slowly. Populations of Plains-wanderers that
are protected from overgrazing during droughts do not decline (Baker-Gabb et al.
1990). An absence of grazing or low stocking densities, following widespread rains
and prolific grass growth, also has deleterious impacts on Plains-wanderer
populations.
Population Viability Analysis (PVA) can be used to show the susceptibility of
species to declining numbers, but it is not without its limitations (Lacey et al. 1995)
and should be used only as a guide to managers. A PVA of the Riverina population
of the Plains-wanderer indicated that losses of up to 20% of their suitable habitat
will reduce the number of birds, but will not of itself bring about the Plainswanderer’s extinction in NSW. Losses greater than 20% of suitable habitat
markedly increase the probability of extinction of the Plains-wanderer. Note also
that since the PVA was conducted, latest estimates of the numbers of Plainswanderers in the Riverina are significantly lower than the population estimate of
Baker-Gabb et al. (1990) which was used in the PVA.
Many threats are compounded by another threat. For example, when the PVA
modelled clearing of 20% of suitable habitat for cereal crops which led to an
increase in House Mouse and Fox densities, and Foxes were modelled to eat an
extra 200 Plains-wanderers per year (only 4% of the modelled population), then
there was a much higher probability of extinction for the Plains-wanderer in NSW.
This result indicated that Fox control is a wise precautionary management strategy,
and that any actions that led to increased numbers of Foxes should be a serious
management concern. Actions to reduce the impact of Foxes from cropping
country should also be implemented. Wherever possible, crops should not be
established within 2 km of high conservation areas for Plains-wanderers because the
home ranges of Foxes in farmland are about 3-7 km 2, and most young Foxes
disperse 2 km or less (Coman et al. 1991).
The PVA indicated that the greatest area of concern for managers should be the fate
of Plains-wanderers during droughts when overgrazing displaces up to 80% of birds
which either disperse elsewhere or die. If more than half of these displaced birds
die, then the Plains-wanderer is in serious trouble, and is likely to go extinct in
NSW. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to gather direct information on the mortality
rates of cryptic birds which do not return to their place of origin once a drought is
over and grass cover has regrown. Indirect information can be obtained from
monitoring programs. The PVA results and application of the precautionary
12
principle suggest that both a network of refuge areas from overgrazing and reserves
on private land, and a large public reserve, are necessary for the long-term survival
of the Plains-wanderer in NSW.
7.2
Social and economic consequences
7.2.1
Socio-economic analysis
A socio-economic analysis of Actions 11.2, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6 and 11.8 of this
Recovery Plan (those that are likely to have the greatest socio-economic impacts)
was conducted by Hassall &Associates (2002).
Direct Costs
Hassall & Associates (2002) found that there are direct costs associated with
government implementation of this Plan, including the purchase and operating costs
of Oolambeyan National Park and costs associated with monitoring, fox baiting and
educational strategies. The Net Present Value (NPV) calculated for the direct costs
to government for the five year period of this Recovery Plan was $-7.61M. This
assumes that all costs associated with the purchase and management of
Oolambeyan National Park are attributed to the conservation of Plains-wanderers.
Opportunity costs of conserving native grasslands and restricting irrigation
The economic aspects of conserving Plains-wanderer habitat are important because
farms are primarily about providing a livelihood and an economic return.
Restrictions on clearing will have no economic impact on current, widespread
traditional grazing activities, but may limit the aspirations of some landholders who
wish to convert to cropping or introduced pastures. Some landholders wish to
make such changes because of the collapse of traditional markets for wool, and the
perceived need to diversify into cultivation or irrigation. Moreover, landholders
who have managed their properties soundly may now feel disadvantaged by recent
legislation compared to people who cleared before 1995.
Hassall & Associates (2002) found that the major opportunity cost component of
this Recovery Plan is the opportunity cost associated with the restriction of clearing
and development within Plains-wanderer ‘Core Areas’. The opportunity costs
calculated by Hassall & Associates (2002) were based on the assumption that 1% of
the ‘Core Areas’ (3,385 ha) could potentially be developed for irrigation if no
clearing restrictions were applied. The NPV analysis assumed a period of 5 years
and used a discount rate of 7.0%.
13
The calculated NPV of the opportunity costs to landholders over five years was $6.48M for 3,385 ha of development
There may be some opportunity costs associated with restrictions upon potential
irrigation developments within important areas of primary Plains-wanderer habitat
outside of ‘Core Areas’. These were not able to be calculated in the study by
Hassall & Associates (2002).
Total Net Present Value
Hassall & Associates (2002) calculated that the total NPV of this Recovery Plan is in
the order of $-13.8M. The two major cost components are the Oolambeyan
National Park purchase and upkeep and the opportunity costs associated with any
potential irrigation development.
In this five-year period the majority of the costs are associated with the purchase
and upkeep of Oolambeyan National Park ($-7.61M).
If effective fox control can be demonstrated at a regional level in the five-year
timeframe of this Recovery Plan, then the 2 km buffer on habitat within Core Areas
may be reviewed. This would reduce the total NPV of this Plan.
Willingness to pay
There have not been any studies of the community’s willingness to pay (WTP) for
the improvement of the conservation status of the Plains-wanderer from endangered
to vulnerable. Therefore, Hassall & Associates (2002) applied the benefit transfer
method to provide some indicative estimates of potential community values for the
Recovery Plan strategies. An estimate of the WTP for moving a species from
‘endangered’ to the less threatened state of ‘vulnerable’ is $11.39 per household per
endangered species protected. However, this figure should be used as an indication
of value only.
Comparison of Benefits and Costs
From an economic efficiency perspective, native vegetation conservation is
desirable provided the incremental economic benefits of vegetation conservation
exceed the economic costs (Hassall & Associates 2002). However, it should be
recognised that economic efficiency is only one element of the public decision
making process that has called for the recovery of a threatened species. The
analysis by Hassall & Associates (2002) indicates that the total NPV over five years
is much less than the WTP. However, this does not necessarily mean that the
Recovery Plan benefits outweigh the costs associated with lost irrigation
14
production, because WTP is an indicative value of the public’s willingness to pay
for a threatened species to be elevated from endangered to vulnerable over a time
period that is much greater than the timeframe of this Plan. The costs of this Plan
are also sensitive to the level of potential irrigation development within the ‘Core
Areas’. Hassall & Associates (2002) indicate that if the area of potential irrigable
land drops to below 2,400 ha then the indicative Recovery Plan benefits outweigh
the costs associated with lost irrigation production.
7.2.2
Social and Practical Considerations
Crosthwaite (1997) gathered information on the values, attitudes and preferences of
landowners with regard to native grasslands in the south of the Riverine Plain and
assessed their capacity to respond to change. He found that native grasslands
sometimes persist on farms at least partly due to chance and history and so there is
no certainty that they will remain, particularly as even where landholders are
sympathetic to nature conservation objectives, practical matters often take
precedence.
Stocking at the very light rates needed to protect the few areas of highest quality
native grasslands has high opportunity costs (Crosthwaite 1997), but these costs are
not so high for native pastures where Plains-wanderers co-exist with sheep at
moderate stocking rates. If high crop yields and prices are obtained, then there are
very high returns to landholders from cropping areas of native grassland and undersowing to pasture in the third year of cropping. However, this is a gamble as crop
failure and reduced prices in just one or two years can reduce returns to below that
of native grassland (Crosthwaite 1997). In the Riverina where rainfall is low and
variable, this risk is removed by making a large capital investment in either deep
bores to tap ground water or transporting water in channels for irrigation. The longterm sustainability of groundwater resources, and irrigation impacts on salinity
levels, have yet to be established for the Riverina, but must be viewed with concern
given the evidence from other parts of the Murray-Darling Basin.
Some of the costs of retaining native grasslands include: lower economic returns, a
decrease in pasture production over winter, under-employed resources, research
and marketing needs to establish new enterprises, and the costs of operating
recreation and tourism ventures (Crosthwaite 1997). There needs to be scope for
the whole of the community to help pay landholders for conservation services
through funding and grant schemes, but also at a more local level through
differential rating and other means (Binning and Young 1999). Consideration
should be given to incentives and stewardship payment for landholders who are
managing their lands for the conservation of Plains-wanderers.
15
7.2.3
Commercial and Social benefits
The economic benefits of Plains-wanderer habitat conservation comprise both use
and non-use values. Use values involve people physically using or experiencing the
native vegetation and the attributes it provides and deriving value from this use.
These use values comprise both direct use and indirect use values (BDA Group
and Gillespie Economics 2001).
Direct use values could include: the low use of some inputs such as fertilisers,
enhanced response to summer rain, a more resilient pasture source, decreased wind
erosion, habitat for animals to help control pests, improved animal health, reduced
need for supplementary feeding, enhanced land and water protection, opportunities
for new farming enterprises such as seed collection and native plant harvesting,
enhanced opportunities for recreation, tourism, personal satisfaction and
biodiversity conservation.
Direct use values may accrue to the landholder and/or some members of the wider
community. For instance, the salinity use values from vegetation may accrue to the
landholder undertaking the plantings/management action as well as neighbouring or
downstream landholders (BDA Group and Gillespie Economics 2001). Persons
visiting Oolambeyan National Park derive value from its existence. Birdwatchers
from around the world have travelled to the region to see the Plains-wanderer. A
few landholders have allowed birdwatchers to be guided around their properties at
night to observe the elusive Plains-wanderer which is on every serious
birdwatcher’s ‘must see’ list. These international and Australian birdwatchers
generally stay in local accommodation and contribute to the regional economy.
Indirect use values include functional benefits derived from a reliance on natural
ecosystems for life-support functions, through the provision of clean air, water and
other resources. These values mainly accrue to the wider community (BDA Group
and Gillespie Economics 2001).
7.2.4
Community Involvement
The community, particularly Birds Australia and its members, has undertaken most
of the work to conserve the Plains-wanderer over the past two decades. This has
included raising the funds from private sources and from the Federal Government
to pay for studies of the biology of the Plains-wanderer, detailed surveys in three
States, and publications for scientific and community audiences. Subsequently the
NSW NPWS has commissioned a management report, management guidelines for
distribution to landholders, and a Recovery Plan from Birds Australia. Hence the
community has played a pivotal role in gathering and presenting the information in
16
this Recovery Plan. NPWS and the Western Riverina Regional Vegetation
Committee have also undertaken detailed mapping of Plains-wanderer habitat with
the co-operation of many Riverina landholders.
Many landholders have been generous in allowing surveys to be conducted on their
properties and have expressed an interest in the management requirements of the
Plains-wanderer. The publications of Birds Australia, NSW NPWS and Greening
Australia will assist landholders in this regard.
While community groups such Birds Australia and Greening Australia will help
implement the Recovery Plan, landholders and particularly the Western Riverina
Regional Vegetation Committee with its strong landholder participation will be
foremost among members of the community in its implementation. The latter
groups will need to permit surveys, and to devise and implement whole farm and
regional vegetation management plans.
7.3
Biodiversity benefits
Temperate lowland grasslands are among the most threatened ecosystems in
Australia (Kirkpatrick et al. 1995). Plains-wanderers can only be conserved in the
wild if most of their habitat remains intact. They commonly occur in areas, which
also support threatened grassland communities and populations of threatened
plants. As such, the Plains-wanderer has become a ‘flagship’ species in the effort to
conserve native grasslands in NSW and Victoria. Moreover, the second Atlas of
Australian Birds indicates that a number of other grassland species have undergone
national declines of 30-50% in the last 20 years, with greatest declines in southeastern Australia. These species include the: Brown Songlark, Richard's Pipit,
Singing Bushlark, Banded Lapwing, Ground Cuckoo-shrike, Australian Bustard,
Emu, Spotted Harrier and Black Falcon (Barrett et al. 2002). This Recovery Plan
must aim to conserve an adequate and representative component of the native
grassland communities of the Riverine Plain.
8
Previous Actions Undertaken
8.1
Review of species distribution and status
Bird watchers have published information about the decline of the Plains-wanderer
for decades (Keartland 1901, D’Ombrain 1926, Hyett 1935, Wheeler 1974,
Llewellyn 1975, Bennett 1983, Blakers et al. 1984). The review of the distribution,
status and biology of the Plains-wanderer by Bennett (1983) highlighted the need
for further work with a management focus.
17
8.2
Ecological research and surveys
The behaviour and ecology of the Plains-wanderer in the Riverina was the subject
of an intensive three year study by Birds Australia and WWF aimed at identifying
the habitat and management requirements of the species (Baker-Gabb 1987, 1988,
1990a, Baker-Gabb et al. 1990, Harrington et al. 1988).
Detailed surveys for Plains-wanderers and their habitat have been undertaken in
NSW, Victoria and South Australia (Beardsell 1991, Maher and Baker-Gabb 1993,
Webster 1996a, 1996b, Maher 1997). In north-central Victoria, one significant 1,400
ha grassland was purchased with Commonwealth assistance, and another 330 ha of
crown land was added to a neighbouring reserve.
8.3
Plains-wanderer habitat mapping
Extensive Plains-wanderer surveys and associated habitat mapping were undertaken
over a period of 20 years across 37 properties in the Riverina by Maher (1997). It
was found that only 5% of the total area comprised suitable habitat. Furthermore,
the amount of high quality habitat in the Riverina drops to 1-2% during very wet or
dry years when grasslands become too dense or are grazed too bare for Plainswanderers (Maher 1997).
To ensure that all Plains-wanderer habitat within the Riverina was identified on all
properties, NSW NPWS and the Western Riverina Regional Vegetation Committee
undertook a large-scale Plains-wanderer habitat mapping project which employed
aerial photographic interpretation (API) and ground-truthing methodologies.
Between 1998 and 2001, nine 1:100,000 mapsheets (2.28 million ha) were mapped
to identify Plains-wanderer primary and secondary habitat, as well as all other
vegetation associations including woodlands, shrublands, wetlands and other native
grasslands (Roberts and Roberts 2001).
Results from the Plains-wanderer habitat mapping project showed that only 2.3% of
the 2.28 million ha was primary habitat suitable for the species all year round. A
further 4.3% of the total area is comprised of secondary habitat that may be
periodically occupied by Plains-wanderers.
8.4
Plains-wanderer ‘Core Areas’
To ensure the future survival of the Plains-wanderer large areas of primary habitat
needed to be identified from the mapping project described above and protected
with a 2km buffer from irrigation developments. Within these ‘Core Areas’, which
incorporate the primary habitat plus the 2 km buffer, there is to be no irrigated
cropping or other inappropriate developments that may impact the Plains-wanderer.
18
‘Core Areas’ are where Plains-wanderer conservation efforts must be concentrated.
From the mapping data, NPWS have identified seven ‘Core Areas’, each of which
are capable of supporting around 30 pairs of Plains-wanderers (Figure 1). The seven
‘Core Areas’ cover 340,278 ha or 14.9% of the mapping region and comprise
approximately 72% of the total Plains-wanderer primary habitat in the Riverina.
Information currently available to NPWS suggests that approximately 60 properties
may include lands identified as ‘Core Areas’.
8.5
Management and Action Plans
Management actions to recover the Plains-wanderer have been described for NSW
and nationally (Baker-Gabb 1990b, 1993) and updated when required (Baker-Gabb
1998). Information on the management of some of these areas for threatened plants
has been compiled by Deiz and Foreman (1996).
8.6
Current Ex-situ programmes
There are currently no Plains-wanderers known to be held in captivity. Plainswanderers have in the past proved fairly easy to maintain and breed in captivity
using established avicultural techniques (Crome and Rushton 1975, Ridley 1986,
Baker-Gabb 1987). These programs have provided information on captive
husbandry, incubation period, chick growth rates, plumage development, moult,
habitat preferences and behaviour.
9
Species ability to Recover
Studies of the biology of the Plains-wanderer and assessments of population
numbers over 17 years indicate that Plains-wanderers can recover from depletions
caused by local overgrazing. Widespread overgrazing which occurs during
droughts eliminates most Plains-wanderers from whole regions and then they have
been much slower to repopulate suitable areas after good rains and recovery of the
native grasslands. The NSW population of Plains-wanderers may be reduced by
about 80% by overgrazing during a drought (Baker-Gabb 1998).
Cultivation eliminates Plains-wanderers from native grasslands. In a few cases
where native grasslands have been ploughed and sown to dense introduced
pastures, and then left for many years, they have eventually reverted to native
pastures. These areas may then become sub-optimal habitat for Plains-wanderers.
In most cases, cultivation has led to the permanent loss of Plains-wanderers from an
area.
19
10
Recovery objectives and performance criteria
The objectives, criteria and actions of this Recovery Plan build on NSW NPWS
Species Management Report Number 3 and Birds Australia Conservation Statement
Number 1 (Baker-Gabb 1990b, 1998), and conform with and extend Flora and
Fauna Guarantee Action Statement Number 66, currently being implemented in
Victoria (Baker-Gabb 1995). They are based on a thorough review of the biological
and ecological information at the time of writing. Knowledge of the Plainswanderers’ distribution in parts of the Riverina and in other range States is deficient.
Also, there is a need to improve our understanding of the long-term impact of
drought-induced population fluctuations, the effect of fragmentation of the Plainswanderer’s habitat, the distribution and abundance of all remaining areas of habitat
and optimum farm management regimes. The adequacy of the relevant actions in
this Plan will be re-assessed as new information becomes available.
10.1
Objectives of the Recovery Plan
The long-term objective of the NSW Plains-wanderer Recovery Plan is:
1. To achieve an improvement in the conservation status of the species, from
‘Endangered’ to ‘Vulnerable’ within 10 years by:
1.1. halting loss of important habitat and population declines,
1.2. halving population fluctuations and declines during droughts, and
1.3. increasing numbers through improved management of 10,000 ha of
habitat in new reserves and refuge areas.
Downlisting the Plains-wanderer from endangered to vulnerable in NSW requires
an understanding of the species’ current classification and an appreciation of the
dimensions of the recovery task to be undertaken. Using IUCN criteria, Collar et al.
(1994) classified the Plains-wanderer as nationally vulnerable because there are
fewer than 10,000 mature individuals, there is a continuing decline in extent of area
and quality of habitat due to cultivation and overgrazing, and there are extreme
fluctuations in the number of mature individuals due to overgrazing during
droughts. In NSW, the Plains-wanderer is classified as endangered because they are
subject to the same threats listed above, plus they face the additional problems of
having no reserves or managed refuge areas, and the numbers of mature Plainswanderers in NSW currently fluctuate by about 80% between 3,100 after several
years of good conditions and less than 1,000 during droughts (Baker-Gabb 1998).
For the Plains-wanderer to be downlisted to vulnerable in NSW, the described
threats must be addressed, and numbers must not decline below 2,500 mature
individuals during droughts, which occur on average about every six years.
Achieving objectives 1.1-1.3 would see the Plains-wanderer downlisted in NSW to
20
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category of
vulnerable.
10.2
Recovery performance criteria
Recovery criteria are:
1. To establish an effective Recovery Team to administer and organise the
recovery effort.
2. To maintain the extent and enhance the quality of Plains-wanderer habitat.
3. To locate and protect Plains-wanderer habitat in areas not yet surveyed
4. To secure a key area(s) of native grassland biodiversity through the purchase of
one or more large reserve(s) of at least 20,000 ha, and containing not less than
5,000 ha of habitat suitable for Plains-wanderers.
5. To halve declines in Plains-wanderers in NSW due to overgrazing during
droughts, and to increase the number of birds on 10,000 ha of managed habitat.
6. To establish benchmark population numbers and monitor the relative impact of
different management regimes on them.
7. To control threatening processes.
11
Recovery Actions
11.1
Recovery Team
1.
•
2.
•
3.
Specific Conservation Objectives
To establish an effective Recovery Team to organise and administer the
recovery effort.
Performance Criteria
Progress towards meeting Recovery Plan objectives and actions is achieved
efficiently with high levels of community and Government stakeholder support
and involvement.
Tasks Required to Achieve the Action
21
•
Establish landholder, Government and community stakeholder representation
on the Recovery Team.
•
Appoint a part-time Recovery Team Convenor to organise meetings, minutes
and annual reviews of progress, to oversee surveys and monitoring, and to
ensure that Recovery Team members fulfil their agreed responsibilities.
4.
Outcomes
• Efficient and well coordinated implementation of tasks by Recovery Team
members, Government agencies, landholders and community groups.
• Enhanced biodiversity conservation because of synergy in planning and
implementation of tasks.
5.
Responsibilities for Implementation
•
NSW NPWS will establish the Recovery Team, invite representatives from other
stakeholder groups, and supervise contracts.
•
Stakeholders are likely to include representatives from: NSW NPWS, NSW
Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC), Rural Lands Protection
Board (RLPB), Local Government Councils, Western Riverina Regional
Vegetation Committee, landholders, Landcare groups, Birds Australia, Greening
Australia, environmental consultants, naturalists and others.
6.
Implementation Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
Establish the Recovery Team and appoint members in early 1999.
•
Appoint or let a contract for the role of Convenor in early 1999.
7.
Funding Schedule for Individual Tasks
• $2,000 per annum for NPWS to host four Recovery Team meetings per year and
other meetings as necessary, commencing early 1999.
•
22
$20,000 per year for Recovery Team Convenor’s salary for one day per week
and all travel, accommodation and administration costs, commencing early
1999.
11.2
1.
Maintain and Enhance Habitat
Specific Conservation Objectives
•
To maintain the Plains-wanderer’s current distribution and all large, important
areas of habitat.
•
To enhance land managers’ abilities to identify and manage Plains-wanderer
habitat effectively.
2.
Performance Criteria
•
Stakeholder support for the DLWC policy on the management of Plainswanderer habitat and assessments of clearing applications.
•
A halt to indiscriminate clearing of important native grasslands, with wellplanned, integrated development outside of ‘Core Areas’ and at least 2 km from
other important areas of Plains-wanderer habitat.
•
Effective, informed management of Plains-wanderer habitat on reserves, refuge
areas and broadacre properties.
•
Integration of this Recovery Plan into the Western Riverina Regional Vegetation
Management Plan.
3.
Tasks Required to Achieve the Action
•
Provide input into and support for the DLWC policy on the management of
Plains-wanderer habitat, and the assessment of clearing applications.
•
Establish a register of areas of Plains-wanderer habitat lost to or degraded by
cultivation, and areas included in reserves, and provide an annual report on
changes.
•
Employ a half-time Wildlife Extension Officer whose main tasks are liaison,
provision of information and population monitoring.
•
Provide information on native grasslands that enables landholders and agency
personnel to identify, classify, and map areas of Plains-wanderer habitat of
different quality.
•
Provide management guidelines in consultation with landholders for broadacre
properties, and conservation areas covered by Voluntary Conservation
23
Agreements or Property Agreements and stewardship payments through
Catchment Management Boards.
•
Integrate all information on Plains-wanderer habitat and requirements into the
Western Riverina Regional Vegetation Plan.
•
Provide information and maps to ensure that agency representatives, including
plague locust authorities, and landholders are aware of the location and relative
importance of Plains-wanderer habitat under their control.
4.
Outcomes
• Long-term maintenance of the Plains-wanderer’s current distribution and all
important areas of habitat.
• Long-term biodiversity conservation in native grasslands.
5.
Responsibilities for Implementation
•
The Recovery Team will have input into the DLWC policy on the management
of Plains-wanderer habitat.
•
DLWC will provide annually updated information and NPWS will maintain a
register of habitat lost to or degraded by nearby cultivation, and areas placed in
reserves, and report on the changes annually.
•
The Recovery Team will liaise with the Western Riverina Regional Vegetation
Committee (WRRVC) and ensure that this Recovery Plan is integrated with the
Regional Vegetation Plan.
•
The Wildlife Extension Officer will provide advice to landholders concerning
their responsibilities, the whereabouts of Plains-wanderer habitat, and
management information.
6.
Implementation Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
Appoint a half-time Wildlife Extension Officer in 1999.
•
Integrate this Recovery Plan with the Western Riverina Regional Vegetation
Management Plan in 2002.
24
•
Wildlife Extension Officer to distribute upon request to landholders whose
properties have been surveyed, a map of their important Plains-wanderer habitat
and information on the Plains-wanderer.
7.
Funding Schedule for Individual Tasks
• $2,000 of contracted Wildlife Extension Officer’s time to provide property maps
with Plains-wanderer habitat to landholders, along with the existing Plainswanderer Conservation Statement and the NPWS management guidelines,
commencing mid 2001.
•
$2,000 for the Recovery Team to integrate the Recovery Plan with the Western
Riverina Regional Vegetation Management Plan. The Western Riverina
Regional Vegetation Management Plan is costed outside this Recovery Plan,
and is currently on exhibition.
•
$10,000 for DLWC, NPWS and WRRVC to develop and print guidelines for the
identification and classification of native grasslands for assessors of clearing
applications, and to assist landholders who are aiming to maintain suitable
grassland structure for Plains-wanderers through grazing.
•
Note that the half-time Wildlife Extension Officer consultancy covers salary,
travel and operating costs, commencing early 1999. This consultancy has been
allocated across several tasks such as the first one listed on the funding schedule
above.
11.3
1.
•
2.
•
3.
Undertake Surveys
Specific Conservation Objectives
To locate and protect Plains-wanderer habitat across the species' distribution in
the Riverina.
Performance Criteria
All important areas of Plains-wanderer habitat located and mapped by 2002.
These areas to be protected through their inclusion within ‘Core Areas’, to be
incorporated into Western Riverina Regional Vegetation Management Plan, and
through the development and implementation of an appropriate DLWC policy
relating to the consent process under the NVC Act and the EP&A Act.
Tasks Required to Achieve the Action
25
•
Maintain and update the NPWS/WRRVC Plains-wanderer habitat mapping data
from 1998-2001.
•
Provide information and maps to landholders to ensure that they are aware of
the location and relative importance of Plains-wanderer habitat under their
control.
•
Conduct further ground-truthing within the nine 1:100,000 mapsheets that were
mapped by NPWS/WRRVC in areas that have not been previously groundtruthed.
•
Conduct surveys and mapping in areas that have not been covered by the
NPWS/WRRVC API mapping project, particularly to the east, west and north
of the Gunbar 1: 100,000 map sheet.
•
Integrate the results of these surveys with previous mapping and any surveys
conducted for the WRRVC.
4.
•
•
5.
Outcomes
All important areas of Plains-wanderer habitat located and mapped by 2002.
These areas to be protected through their inclusion within ‘Core Areas’, to be
incorporated into Western Riverina Regional Vegetation Management Plan, and
through the development and implementation of an appropriate DLWC policy
relating to the consent process under the NVC Act and the EP&A Act.
Landowners who might have been concerned about equity issues are aware that
all properties have now been surveyed and landholders are in possession of
information to assist their management.
Responsibilities for Implementation
•
WRRVC to let contract for ground surveys to improve the accuracy of areas
that were not ground-truthed on Gunbar and Moggumbill 1:100 000 mapsheets
during the NPWS/WRRVC API mapping project.
•
DLWC to endeavour to produce Plains-wanderer potential habitat derivative
maps, based on DLWC native vegetation mapsheets that occur outside of the
nine (Plains-wanderer habitat) NPWS/WRRVC mapsheets.
•
NPWS to maintain and update the maps, and undertake additional mapping if
DLWC mapping does not cover all relevant areas.
26
•
Wildlife Extension Officer to distribute to landholders whose properties have
been surveyed, a map of native vegetation on their properties, upon request, and
information on the Plains-wanderer.
6.
Implementation Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
Incorporate additional ground-truthing results into NPWS/WRRVC mapping in
October 2001.
•
Information and maps to be distributed to landholders in 2002.
•
DLWC vegetation mapping information to be available by mid 2002.
7.
•
•
Funding Schedule for Individual Tasks
$30,000 for WRRVC to let contracts for ground-truthing surveys in 2001.
$2,000 costs and $3,000 of Wildlife Extension Officer’s contracted time to send
out maps and information to landholders in mid 2001.
11.4
1.
•
2.
Regional Targets
Specific Conservation Objectives
To use the NPWS/WRRVC API mapping information to define ‘Core Areas’
where conservation efforts will be focussed, and no inappropriate developments
will occur. Other areas will be identified where developments will have the least
conservation impact.
Performance Criteria
•
No inappropriate developments to occur in ‘Core Areas’, where inappropriate
developments are those that directly remove Plains-wanderer habitat or
otherwise negatively impact on the Plains-wanderer and its habitat (e.g.
developments that lead to elevated fox numbers).
•
Sufficient number and dispersion of ‘Core Areas’ established so that all Plainswanderer habitat could not be eliminated in a single catastrophe such as a major
wildfire.
3.
•
Tasks Required to Achieve the Action
Submit the map of ‘Core Areas’ included in this Recovery Plan to the WRRVC
for inclusion in the Western Riverina Regional Vegetation Management Plan.
27
•
Determine priority areas for management incentives, monitoring and predator
control.
4.
Outcomes
•
All critical areas of Plains-wanderer habitat included in ‘Core Areas’ with
biodiversity conservation, monitoring and management targets set.
•
Areas of Plains-wanderer habitat outside ‘Core Areas’ mapped with biodiversity
conservation, monitoring and management targets set.
5.
Responsibilities for Implementation
•
The Recovery Team will define and map ‘Core Areas’ and will put in priority
order all other regions for conservation, management and monitoring of Plainswanderers.
•
The WRRVC will be requested to include the ‘Core Areas’ in the Western
Riverina Regional Vegetation Management Plan.
6.
•
Implementation Schedule for Individual Tasks
Regional conservation targets to be set in 2002.
7.
Funding Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
$2,000 to assist landholder input into Recovery Team deliberations.
•
Most of the setting of priority conservation and development areas will be
undertaken within agency operating budgets and without additional impost on
Recovery Team or Regional Vegetation Committee budgets.
11.5
1.
28
Reserves and Refuge Areas
Specific Conservation Objectives
•
To halve the declines in Plains-wanderers in NSW due to overgrazing during
droughts, and to increase the number of birds on 10,000 ha of managed habitat,
about half of which is on private land.
•
To establish reserves on private land under appropriate covenants or ‘in
perpetuity’ Property Agreements as ‘trade-offs’ for development in other areas,
and thereby contribute to increasing Plains-wanderer numbers.
2.
•
3.
Performance Criteria
Establishment of a well-managed system of private reserves and refuge areas
which, although small in size, has a major impact in buffering the Plainswanderer population from the effects of cultivation and overgrazing by halving
declines during droughts, and contributes to increasing population numbers in
the Riverina during average seasons.
Tasks Required to Achieve the Action
•
Encourage, and facilitate Whole Farm Plans with relatively small (eg 5% of
property) areas fenced and lightly grazed under Voluntary Conservation
Agreements, Property Agreements or other voluntary arrangements.
•
Negotiate fenced, lightly grazed areas under appropriate covenants as a trade-off
where landholders wish to develop lesser conservation value areas, so long as
such trade-offs mesh with the Western Riverina Regional Vegetation
Management Plan, important habitat is conserved, Fox numbers are controlled
and a net benefit to the Plains-wanderer is achieved.
•
Provide landholders with species information, a photographic guide, and
information on available incentives so that they can best manage their native
grassland refuge areas with Plains-wanderers.
4.
Outcomes
• A strategically placed, well managed system of private reserves and refuge areas
which helps buffer the Plains-wanderer population from the effects of
overgrazing during droughts and from excessive Fox predation.
• The network of reserves and refuge areas also provides Plains-wanderers with
enhanced breeding opportunities with minimal disturbance, and acts as a source
of colonists for surrounding districts once good seasonal conditions return.
29
•
Refuge areas and reserves buffer many other species from the impacts of
overgrazing during droughts and help maintain biodiversity.
5.
Responsibilities for Implementation
•
DLWC and NPWS to negotiate appropriate covenants and Property
Agreements with landholders who wish to cultivate native grasslands.
•
Wildlife Extension Officer to encourage, facilitate and apply to the Natural
Heritage Trust and other sources for funds to assist the establishment of
Voluntary Conservation Agreements and Property Agreements.
•
Wildlife Extension Officer to provide information to landholders.
6.
Implementation Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
Negotiation of covenants and Property Agreements on properties to be
cultivated to commence in early 1999.
•
Facilitation of covenants and Property Agreements to commence in mid 1999.
•
Sending out information to landholders to commence in mid 1999.
7.
Funding Schedule for Individual Tasks
• $11,000 of Wildlife Extension Officer’s contracted time in 1999, rising to $14,000
per year during 2000-03 to facilitate the establishment of reserves and refuge
areas, covenants and Property Agreements.
•
Negotiations with landholders to be funded within agency operating budgets.
•
$3,000 of Wildlife Extension Officer’s contracted time rising to $4,000 per year
during 2000-03 to compile and send out information to landholders and
managers.
11.6
1.
30
Purchase a Reserve
Specific Conservation Objectives
•
2.
•
3.
To secure a key area(s) of native grassland biodiversity through the purchase of
one or more reserves totalling 20,000 ha, and containing at least 5,000 ha of
Plains-wanderer habitat.
Performance Criteria
A prime area or areas of native grassland which initially supports at least 400
breeding Plains-wanderers and other threatened flora and fauna has been added
to the National Reserve System by 2001. With enhanced management the
number of Plains-wanderers on the reserve(s) increases to 1,000 by 2005.
Tasks Required to Achieve the Action
•
Scientific evidence to be collated showing that the Riverine Plain is poorly
represented in the National Reserve System and that a once-only opportunity
exists to purchase one of several high conservation value properties, or parts
thereof, which could soon be lost to fragmentation by cultivation. When similar
opportunities were not taken up in south-western Victoria and south-eastern
South Australia, populations of the Plains-wanderer and several species of
threatened grassland plant became extinct there.
•
Senior members of the NSW and Federal Governments and agencies to receive
written information and personal briefings which encourage them to support the
purchase of a reserve.
•
Negotiations to be undertaken with interested landholders.
•
New management regimes are implemented which have the achievable target of
doubling the new reserves’ carrying capacity for Plains-wanderers and
increasing numbers of other threatened species.
4.
Outcomes
• Long-term biodiversity conservation of native grasslands is achieved through
better management of a significant addition to the National Reserve System.
• Enhanced ecotourism benefits flow to the region.
5.
•
Responsibilities for Implementation
NPWS will prepare the information concerning the need to purchase a reserve in
the Riverina.
31
•
State and Federal authorities will need to approve and negotiate the purchase.
•
NPWS will undertake reserve management with advice from the Recovery
Team and the Wildlife Extension Officer.
6.
Implementation Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
Reserve purchase background information prepared in 1999.
•
Negotiations with interested landholders to take place in 1999, with purchase
taking place in 2001.
7.
Funding Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
Funding for reserve purchase to come from the NSW Government and the
Federal National Reserve System budget.
•
Management costs for the new reserve(s) borne by NPWS operating budgets.
11.7
1.
•
2.
Benchmarking, Monitoring and Feedback
Specific Conservation Objectives
To improve baseline information, and to assess the relative impact of different
management regimes and threatening processes.
Performance Criteria
•
Data on Plains-wanderer numbers and distribution, and hence conservation
targets are refined.
•
Management regimes are modified, threatening processes are reduced and
Plains-wanderer numbers increase following implementation of new advice
from monitoring programs.
3.
Tasks Required to Achieve the Action
•
Use published data on Plains-wanderer density, and new information from
NPWS/WRRVC API habitat mapping project and ground surveys to derive
refined benchmark information on Plains-wanderer populations.
•
Undertake surveys of Plains-wanderer numbers and breeding success at a range
of sites with different management regimes including: extensive grazing
properties, stud grazing properties, large reserves, small areas under Voluntary
32
Conservation Agreements, Fox control programs (with control sites), and areas
fragmented by cultivation.
•
Establish ten monitoring grids.
•
Review the impact of Fox control measures on Plains-wanderers and assess the
continuing need for 2 km buffers on Plains-wanderer habitat after five year's
data have been collected and analysed.
•
Test and monitor the impact of locust spraying operations on the Plainswanderer in 2002.
•
Provide regular feed-back to land managers on improvements to management
regimes.
4.
Outcomes
• More precise information on the conservation status of the Plains-wanderer.
• A dynamic management review process leading to widespread adoption of the
best practical management regimes and a reduction in the impact of threatening
processes so that Plains-wanderer numbers on managed areas have increased by
2000 birds.
• Landholders are well informed and management of native grassland biodiversity
is enhanced.
5.
Responsibilities for Implementation
•
Convenor to use published data, together with API and ground survey
information to derive improved benchmark information on the numbers and
dispersion of Plains-wanderers in the Riverina.
•
Convenor to produce monitoring protocols and to establish ten monitoring grids
with assistance from the Wildlife Extension Officer.
•
APLC and Wollongong University to test and monitor of the impact of locust
spraying on Plains-wanderers in 2002-2004 (Costs external to this Recovery
Plan).
•
Wildlife Extension Officer and NPWS staff to undertake routine monitoring of
sites.
33
•
Wildlife Extension Officer to produce a modest newsletter advising landholders
and managers about optimum management regimes and other developments.
6.
Implementation Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
Benchmarking to commence in 1999-2000.
•
Monitoring and provision of feed-back to commence in 2002.
7.
Funding Schedule for Individual Tasks
• Convenor to undertake benchmark calculations at no extra cost.
• $18,000 to establish ten monitoring grids.
• $3,000 of Wildlife Extension Officer’s contracted time (or NPWS staff) in 2001
rising to $7,000 per year in 2002-05 for monitoring sites and providing feed-back
to landholders.
11.8
1.
Awareness, Involvement and Incentives
Specific Conservation Objective
•
To ensure that the Recovery Plan involves the community, incorporates equity
issues, and can be readily understood.
•
To inform, encourage and reward landholders who conserve Plains-wanderer
habitat.
2.
Performance Criteria
•
Stakeholders, and particularly landholders, are aware of, and involved in, the
recovery program.
•
A register of areas under management for conservation is kept, and reserved
areas are growing at a greater rate than areas being developed.
•
Coordinated management and predator control is being undertaken by the
community with assistance from agencies.
3.
34
Tasks Required to Achieve the Action
•
The Wildlife Extension Officer will be assisted and advised in their work in the
community by the Recovery Team.
•
Regular extension activities and media communication will take place.
•
A list of incentives available to landholders will be produced.
•
Landholders will be assisted with predator control that achieves both
conservation and production goals.
4.
Outcomes
•
Increased levels of community involvement in the recovery program leading to
enhanced conservation of the Plains-wanderer and other threatened species.
•
Dissipation of community anxiety about the potential impact of threatened
species legislation on their decision making and livelihoods.
5.
Responsibilities for Implementation
•
A public relations sub-committee of the Recovery Team will assist and advise
the Wildlife Extension Officer in their work.
•
The Wildlife Extension Officer will meet and discuss Plains-wanderer issues
with individual landholders, organise field days and spotlighting tours for
landholders and their families, and produce a newsletter and media information.
•
DLWC, NPWS and Greening Australia will produce and advertise a combined
list of incentives available to landholders.
•
RLPB will assist landholders with predator control that enhances both Plainswanderer conservation and lambing success.
6.
Implementation Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
Wildlife extension activities will begin in mid-1999 and be ongoing.
•
Incentives available to landholders will be advertised in 1999.
•
Regional predator control programs will commence in 2001 and be ongoing.
35
7.
Funding Schedule for Individual Tasks
•
$3,000 costs and $4,000 of Wildlife Extension Officer’s time to organise field
days and tours for landholders and their families.
•
$1,000 per year for production and postage of newsletter and $3,000 per year of
the Wildlife Extension Officer’s contracted time.
• $4,000 of Wildlife Extension Officer’s contracted time in 1999 rising to $7,000
per year in 2000-03 for liaison with landholders.
•
36
DLWC, NPWS and RLPB costs to be met from within own operating budgets.
12
Implementation
The following table allocates responsibility for the implementation of recovery
actions specified in this plan for the period 2000-05.
Table 3:
Section
Implementation schedule
Description
Priority Responsibility
Cost estimate ($000's per year)
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Total
Recovery Program
13.2.1
Recovery Team
1
NPWS
2
2
2
2
2
10
Convenor
1
NPWS/
Consultant
20
20
20
20
20
100
Provide maps
2
Wildlife EO
2
2
Integrate plans
1
Rec. Team
2
2
2
WRRVC,
.
DLWC, NPWS
5
5
API mapping
1
API Consultant
Ground surveys
1
30
30
Produce farm maps
1
WRRVC
NPWS
NPWS
2
2
Provide maps
1
Wildlife EO
5
5
1
Rec. Team
2
Facilitate VCAs
1
Wildlife EO
11
14
14
14
14
67
Provide information
1
Wildlife EO
3
4
4
4
4
19
1
NPWS/NRS
Monitoring grids
1
Monitor sites
1
Convenor
Wildlife EO
Wildlife EO
Newsletter
1
1
Maintain habitat
13.2.2
Develop guidelines .
Undertake surveys
13.2.3
197
197
Regional targets
13.2.4
Landholder input
2
Reserves and refuge areas
13.2.5
Purchase reserve
13.2.6
Purchase property
?
?
8
7
15
3
7
7
7
7
31
Wildlife EO
4
4
4
4
4
20
Wildlife EO
4
7
7
7
7
32
254
111
58
58
58
539
Monitoring and feedback
13.2.7
Awareness and involvement
13.2.8
Liaison
Total land purchase ($000's)
Total operating ($000's)
?
?
37
13
Alternative Management Strategies
13.1
Captive breeding and reintroduction
Captive breeding has been undertaken successfully in the past (Crome and Rushton
1975, Ridley 1986) and some important biological information was provided by this
work. However, remaining key questions such as the location of some important
habitat, and the long-term impact of fragmentation caused by cultivation, cannot be
answered with studies of captive birds. Moreover, with up to 5,000 birds in NSW
there is currently no need for a reintroduction program.
13.2
Widespread control of predators
Control of introduced predators such as Foxes throughout the Riverina was thought
to be important for the conservation of Plains-wanderers (D’Ombrain 1926,
Llewellyn 1975), but Harrington et al. (1988) could find no evidence to support the
need for this management strategy where extensive grazing was the main land use
and some Fox culling by landowners already took place. In areas with cropping,
Fox populations may be much higher when supported by large numbers of House
Mice. In this situation the need for Fox control increases markedly, but it is still not
as important as appropriate habitat management. If land is well managed and not
cleared for crops then Fox numbers are likely to remain within tolerable limits
without special control operations.
13.3
Additional surveys
Another management strategy would be to undertake no further surveys for Plainswanderers in the Riverina because several of the best regions have been surveyed
already (Maher 1997). This alternative management strategy ignores the fact that
there is still a considerable amount of survey work to be done to complete the task,
and until the whole of the Riverina has been adequately surveyed, wildlife managers
will not know the full extent of the resource. Moreover, there will be equity
concerns from landowners who feel that their property has been unfairly singled out
for surveying if their neighbours’ has not, and landholders need to be able to plan
their future farm enterprises with all of the information in hand rather than having
developments stalled or halted while they wait for surveys to be undertaken in
appropriate seasons.
13.4
No regional plans or reserves
An ad hoc approach to the development of the Riverina’s native grasslands is not
an acceptable management strategy because it will lead to violations of the
Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and the Native Vegetation
38
Conservation Act 1997, among others. Continuing cultivation of native grasslands
in the Riverina means that both a regional vegetation management plan and
reservation of key areas of Plains-wanderer habitat are required now as critical
components of the preferred management strategy if the species is to survive in
NSW in the long term. A strong regional plan with landowner participation is a
more effective long-term conservation tool than a disjointed approach wherein
every last small area containing Plains-wanderers must be saved from cultivation,
even if left completely isolated. Regional plans and whole farm plans may see the
loss of some lesser priority areas for Plains-wanderers, in order to bring about a
negotiated long-term conservation agreements with landowners. Support for
negotiated regional and whole farm plans is likely to come from landholders who
are keen to expand their croplands. The native grasslands of the Riverine Plain are
poorly represented in the national reserve system (Thackway and Cresswell 1995).
14
Preparation details
This Recovery Plan was prepared by David Baker-Gabb of Elanus Pty Ltd in
consultation with the Plains-wanderer Recovery Team. Members of the Recovery
Team are listed in the Acknowledgements section.
14.1
Date of last amendment
October 2002
14.2
Recovery Plan preparation
This draft Recovery Plan will be placed on public exhibition and submissions
invited from the public. To make your submission as effective as possible, please:
•
•
•
refer to the section or action of the Plan you wish to address;
briefly explain the reasons for your comments, providing source information
or examples where possible; and
provide your name and address to enable receipt of your submission to be
acknowledged.
Submissions may be made as letters or other documents, or on the NPWS form ‘
Submission: Draft Recovery Plan’ in Appendix 1 of the Plan, or on the NPWS
website.
The NPWS will consider all submissions to this Recovery Plan received during the
exhibition period and must provide a summary of those submissions to the NSW
Minister for the Environment prior to final approval of the Plan. Submissions on
this draft Plan may contain information that is defined as 'personal information'
39
under the NSW Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, which
identifies the person providing the submission. Following adoption of the Recovery
Plan by the Minister copies of all submissions, including personal details, will be
available for public inspection. If any person wishing to prepare a submission does
not want their personal details to become public, the submission needs to be clearly
marked that personal details are to remain confidential. All submissions are stored
in the NPWS record system.”
14.3
2007
40
Review date
References
Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1987. The Conservation and Management of the Plains-wanderer
Pedionomus torquatus. World Wildlife Fund Report No. 49, 140 pp.
Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1988. The diet and foraging behaviour of the Plains-wanderer
Pedionomus torquatus. Emu: 115-118.
Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1990a. An annotated list of records of Plains-wanderers
Pedionomus torquatus, 1980-1989. Australian Bird Watcher 13: 249-252.
Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1990b. The biology and management of the Plains-wanderer
Pedionomus torquatus in NSW. NSW NPWS Species Management Report No. 3.
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.
Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1993. Managing grasslands to maintain biodiversity and conserve
the Plains-wanderer. RAOU Conservation Statement No. 8. Wingspan 10. 8 pp.
Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1995. Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus. Flora and Fauna
Guarantee Action Statement No. 66. 7 pp.
Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1998. Native grasslands and the Plains-wanderer. Birds Australia
Conservation Statement No. 1. Wingspan 8(1): 8 pp.
Baker-Gabb, DJ., Benshemesh, J. and Maher, PN. 1990. A revision of the
distribution, status and management of the Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus.
Emu 90:161-168.
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R. and Poulter, R. (2002). The
Atlas of Australian Birds (1998-2001). Environment Australia Natural Heritage
Trust Fund, Canberra.
BDA Economics and Gillespie Economics (2001). Valuing Environmental
Services at the Farm Level. Report for the NSW DLWC, Sydney.
Beardsell, C. 1990. Sites of faunal significance in the western region of Melbourne.
Unpublished Report to DCNR, Melbourne. 261 pp.
Bennett, S. 1983. A review of the distribution, status and biology of the Plainswanderer Pedionomus torquatus Gould Emu: 1-11.
Benson, JS., Ashby, EM. and Porteners, MF. 1997. The native grasslands of the
Riverine Plain, New South Wales. Cunninghamia 5: 1-48.
41
Binning, C. and Young, M. 1999. Conservation Hindered: The impact of local
government rates and State land taxes on the conservation of native vegetation.
National R&D Program of Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of
Remnant Vegetation, Research Report 3/99. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Blakers, M., Davies, SJJF. and Reilly, PN. 1984. The Atlas of Australian Birds.
Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Boonstra, R. and Redhead, TD. 1994. Population dynamics of an outbreak
population of House Mice Mus domesticus in the irrigated rice-growing area of
Australia. Wildlife Research 21: 583-598.
Briggs, JS. and Leigh, JH. 1988. Rare or Threatened Australian Plants. ANPWS,
Canberra.
Collar, NJ., Crosby, MJ. and Stattersfield, AJ. 1994. Birds to Watch 2. BirdLife
International, Cambridge.
Coman, BJ, Robinson, J and Beaumont, C. 1991. Home range, dispersal and
density of Red Foxes Vulpes vulpes in central Victoria. Wildlife. Research 18: 215223.
Crome, FHH. and Rushton, DK. 1975. Development of plumage in the Plainswanderer. Emu 75: 181-184.
Crosthwaite, J. 1997. Economic Benefits of Native Grassland on Farms.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
DCE 1992. Draft Conservation Program for Native Grasslands and Grassy
Woodlands in Victoria. DCE, Victoria.
Deiz, S. and Foreman, P. 1996. Practical guidelines for the management of native
grasslands on the Riverine Plain of south-east Australia. DNRE, Bendigo.
D’Ombrain, EA. 1926. The vanishing Plain-Wanderer. Emu 26: 59.
Garnett, ST. and Crowley, GM. 2000. The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
Harrington, GN., Maher, PN. and Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1988. The biology of the
Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus on the Riverine Plain of New South Wales
during and after drought. Corella 12: 7-13.
42
Hassall and Associates (2002). Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus) SocioEconomic Assessment of the Draft Recovery Plan. Hassall and Associates Pty Ltd,
Sydney.
Hyett, J. 1935. The Plain-Wanderer. Lowan 1: 15.
Keartland, GA. 1901. Notes on the Plain-Wanderer. Victorian Naturalist 17: 167168.
Kirkpatrick, J.B., McDougall, K, and Hyde, M. 1995 Australia’s most threatened
ecosystems: the southeastern lowland native grasslands. World Wide Fund for
Nature, Australia. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd.
Lacey, RC, Hughes, KA and Miller PS. 1995. VORTEX: a computer simulation of
the extinction process. Version 7 User’s Manual. IUCN/SSC Conservation
Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley, MN, USA
Llewellyn, LC. 1975. Recent observations of the Plains-wanderer with a review of
its past and present status. Emu 75: 137-142.
McCluskey, SA, Conger, AW and Hillstead, HO.
1994.
Design and
implementation of wetland mitigation: case studies in Ohio and South Carolina.
Water, Air and Soil Pollution 77: 513-532.
Maher, PN. 1997. A Survey of Plains-wanderers Pedionomus torquatus and native
grasslands on the Riverine Plain, New South Wales. Unpublished Report to Birds
Australia, Melbourne. 62 pp, 15 maps.
Maher, PN. and Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1993. Surveys and conservation of the Plainswanderer in northern Victoria. ARI Technical Report No. 132. DCNR, Melbourne.
Marchant, S. and Higgins, PJ. 1993. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and
Antarctic Birds. Volume II, Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press,
Melbourne.
Moore, CWE. 1953a. The vegetation of the south-eastern Riverina, New South
Wales. I. The climax communities. Australian Journal of Botany 1: 485-547.
Moore, CWE. 1953b The vegetation of the south-eastern Riverina, New South
Wales. I. The disclimax communities. Australian Journal of Botany 1: 548-567.
North, AJ. 1913. Nests and Eggs of Birds found Breeding in Australia and
Tasmania. Australian Museum, Sydney.
43
Olson, SL. and Steadman, DW. 1981. The relationships of the Pedionomidae
(Aves: Charadriiformes). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 337: 1-25.
Pearce, PA. 1971. Side effects of forest spraying in New Brunswick. Transactions
36th North American Wildlife Conference pp 163-170.
Ridley, E. 1986. Plains-wanderer Project Report 1985. Bird Keeping in Australia
29: 115-118.
Roberts, I and Roberts, J. 2001. Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus) Habitat
Mapping including Woody Vegetation and other Landscape Features. Riverina
Plains, NSW. Unpublished report to NSW NPWS.
Shaffer, ML, 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation.
BioScience 31: 131-134.
Sibley, GC., Ahlquist, JE. and Monroe, JR. 1988. A classification of the living
birds of the world based on DNA-DNA hybridisation studies. Auk 105: 409-423.
Stattersfield, AJ and Capper, DR. 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. Lynx
Editions and BirdLife International, Barcleona and Cambridge.
Story, P and Cox, M. 2001. Review of the effects of organophosphorus and
carbamate insecticides on vertebrates. Are their management implications for locust
control in Australia? Wildlife Research 28: 179-193.
Symmons, P. 1985. Locusts, the plague of ‘84. Australian Natural History 21:
327-330.
Thackway, R., and Cresswell, ID.
1995.
Regionalisation for Australia. ANCA, Canberra.
An Interim Biogeographic
Twigg, LE. and Kay, BJ. 1995. The ecology of House Mice Mus domesticus in and
around irrigated summer crops in western New South Wales. Wildlife Research 22:
717-731.
Webster, R. 1996a. Survey and conservation of the Plains-wanderer Pedionomus
torquatus on the Western Plains of Victoria. Unpublished report to RAOU,
Melbourne. 14 pp, 11 maps.
44
Webster, R. 1996b. Survey and conservation of the Plains-wanderer Pedionomus
torquatus in south-east South Australia.
Unpublished Report to RAOU,
Melbourne. 18 pp, 13 maps.
Webster, R. 2000. Assessment of Plains-wanderer sites in the Birchip District.
Unpublished Report to Birchip Landcare Group. 11 pp, 1 map.
Wheeler, WR. 1974. Victorian records of the Plains-wanderer. Geelong Naturalist
11: 2-35.
45
1:100 K mapsheets
Secondary habitat
Primary habitat
Irrigation 2km buffer
Irrigation
Core Areas
N
W
E
S
1
CARRATHOOL
Copyright NSW National Parks and Wil dli fe Servic e August 2002
This map i snot guar anteed to be free from err or oromission
The NSW National Parks andW ildlife Service and i ts employees
disclaim l iabil ity for anyact done on thei nformation in the
map and any consequences of s uch acts or omissi ons
HAY
3
2
4
5
7
6
WANGANELLA
CONARGO
URANA
DENILIQUIN
0
10
20
30
40
50 Kilometre
Figure 1. Map of Plains-wanderer habitat and Core Areas
on the NSW Riverine Plain
46
Appendix 1 – Calculating the Plains-wanderer population size
Introduction
All data presented below on Plains-wanderer home range size were published in the scientific
literature following a full-time study in 1984-87 (Baker-Gabb et al. 1990, Baker-Gabb 1998), when
790 birds were encountered and 420 were banded during 5,330 km of surveys on 310 nights. Work
was primarily conducted on The Ranch and Boonoke Station in the NSW Riverina.
Home range information was derived from three sources: radio-tracking, recaptures of banded birds,
and encounter rates during nocturnal surveys. Of these, radio-tracking was by far the most accurate,
but the other sources provided useful comparisons.
1. Radio-tracking
Three adult and one juvenile male and three adult female Plains-wanderers fitted with radiotransmitters were tracked simultaneously from four tracking towers over two weeks for an average of
eight days per bird. Home ranges averaged 12 ha (range = 7-21 ha). Each bird's home range
overlapped extensively (x = 55%, range = 35-75%) with that of one other bird of the opposite sex.
Hence if Plains-wanderers range over 12 ha on average, but share about half of this area with a mate,
then the population density estimate is about 18 ha per pair or 9 ha of suitable grassland per bird.
This is illustrated below:
6 ha
6 ha
6 ha
6 + 6 + 6 = 18 ha per pair
Shared area
2.
Recaptures
The distances between capture and recapture sites were measured and plotted on maps. These
provided a measure of the spread of the distance of locations that forms the home range. A home
range estimate could not be derived from the recapture data that was comparable to the more detailed
radio-telemetry data, but the recapture and radio-telemetry data could be compared directly in terms
of recapture distances. The mean and frequency distribution of the distances between locations for
the radio-tracking and recapture data were similar. This indicates that home range estimates from the
two weeks of radio-tracking data describe annual home range. Information from 64 recaptures of
Plains-wanderers over four years indicated that they maintained the same home range, and stayed, on
average, within 115m (range = 10 - 350m) of their capture site.
3.
Encounter rates
Assuming that all birds that were present within a 10m width in front of the vehicle were located
during surveys at night, an encounter rate of about one bird per 8ha was estimated. Encounter rates
can vary, with substantially fewer birds located during droughts.
47
Conclusions from published data
The measurement of 9ha of sparse Riverina grassland per Plains-wanderer or 18 ha1 per pair of birds,
as derived from the radio-tracking data, is supported by the recapture data and the nocturnal survey
encounter rates. These home range data are some of the most comprehensive for any wide-ranging
threatened species in Australia. Nevertheless, more data are being collected in a series of 1 x 0.5 km
monitoring grids on several grazing properties as part of the Recovery Plan actions.
Calculation of Plains-wanderer population size
Between 1998 and 2001, NPWS conducted a mapping project to identify Plains-wanderer habitat and
other vegetation communities across 2.28 million hectares. This process involved aerial
photographic interpretation and associated ground-truthing at a number of locations across the
mapping area. Landholder support and participation was paramount to the success of this project.
The mapping identified 52,783 ha of primary habitat or 2.3% of the mapping area. There were seven
categories of mapped primary habitat. As well, primary habitat on ‘Boonoke’ Station that was
mapped by Maher (1997) but was not able to be mapped during the NPWS mapping project
constitutes an additional category. Most of the categories of primary habitat had the carrying capacity
of 1 pair of birds per 18 ha1. However, there were several categories of primary habitat that were not
pure primary habitat. Instead, they contained composites of primary and secondary. Therefore, the
carrying capacity of these categories was reduced according to the proportion of primary habitat
present.
To determine the Plains-wanderer population size, the following calculations were made for each of
the categories of primary habitat:
Primary Habitat
categories
“1”
“1c”
“1/2”
“1/3”
“2/1”
“2c/1c”
“2”
‘Boonoke’ habitat
Total population size
area (ha)
carrying capacity
pairs of birds
11262
230
4227
1786
12175
222
17157
5724
1 pair per 18 ha
1 pair per 18 ha
1 pair per 18 ha
1 pair per 18 ha
1 pair per 60 ha
1 pair per 60 ha
1 pair per 240 ha
1 pair per 18 ha
626
13
235
99
203
4
71
318
1569 pairs or 3138 birds
References
Baker-Gabb, DJ. 1998. Native grasslands and the Plains-wanderer. Birds Australia Conservation
Statement No. 1. Wingspan 8(1): 8 pp.
Baker-Gabb, DJ., Benshemesh, J. and Maher, PN. 1990. A revision of the distribution, status and
management of the Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus. Emu 90:161-168.
Maher, PN. 1997. A Survey of Plains-wanderers Pedionomus torquatus and native grasslands on
the Riverine Plain, New South Wales. Unpublished Report to Birds Australia, Melbourne. 62 pp, 15
maps.
1
Earlier estimates of the Plains-wanderer population size by the Plains-wanderer Recovery Team
were incorrectly based on the carrying capacity of 1 pair of birds per 12 ha. This error was a result of
incorrectly interpreting the findings published in Baker-Gabb et al. (1990).
48
Appendix 2 – Submission form for Draft Recovery Plan
SUBMISSION
DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN
Name Individual/Organisation:
Postal Address:
Postcode:
Contact Number(s):
Date:
Draft Recovery Plan:
The NPWS will consider all written submissions received during the period of public exhibition and
must provide a summary report of those submissions to the Minister for the Environment prior to final
approval of this Recovery Plan.
Please note, that for the purposes of the NSW Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
any comments on this draft Plan of management, including your personal details, will be a matter of
public record and will be stored in NPWS’s records system. Following approval of the Plan by the
Minister, copies of all submissions, unless marked “confidential”, will be available, by arrangement,
for inspection at the NPWS Office responsible for the preparation of the Recovery Plan .
Should you not wish to have your personal details disclosed to members of the public once the Plan
of management has been adopted, please indicate below whether you wish your personal details to
remain confidential to NPWS and not available for public access. Further information on the Privacy
and Personal Information Protection act 1998 may be obtained from any office of the NPWS or
available from the website: www.npws.nsw.gov.au
p
Yes, please keep my personal details confidential to NPWS
Submissions should be received no later than 20 December 2002. Submissions should be addressed to:
The Director-General
NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
49
Western Directorate
Threatened Species Unit
PO Box 2111 Dubbo NSW 2830.
SUBMISSION:
50
51
43 Bridge Street
Hurstville 2220
(02) 9585 6444
52