development proposal and environmental ...dpipwe.tas.gov.au/documents/stdp tasmanian devil...the...
TRANSCRIPT
1
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISEASE-FREE POPULATION OF TASMANIAN
DEVILS (Sarcophilus harrisii) ON MARIA ISLAND NATIONAL PARK
2
Contents THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISEASE-FREE POPULATION OF TASMANIAN DEVILS (Sarcophilus
harrisii) ON MARIA ISLAND NATIONAL PARK ...................................................................................... 1
1/. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 4
2/. Proposal ......................................................................................................................................... 6
3/. Background and Context ............................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Maria Island National Park ........................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD) ........................................................................................ 7
3.3 DFTD Management Strategy ..................................................................................................... 8
4/. Translocation Project Proposal ...................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Offshore Islands Strategy .......................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Introduction to Maria Island ................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Program maintenance and monitoring ................................................................................... 10
5/. Future Management .................................................................................................................... 13
6/. Reporting and Governance.......................................................................................................... 13
6.1 Information and Reporting ..................................................................................................... 13
6.2 Governance ............................................................................................................................. 13
6.3 Management Context ............................................................................................................. 14
7/. Operations ................................................................................................................................... 21
7.1 Infrastructure and plant .................................................................................................... 21
7.2 PWS Staff Resources ............................................................................................................... 21
8/. Appendices and attachments ...................................................................................................... 23
9/. References .................................................................................................................................. 24
3
This Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) was prepared
by the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program to meet the requirements for a Reserve Activity
Assessment (RAA) Level 4. This assessment is required by the Tasmanian Parks and
Wildlife Service Environmental Impact Assessment Policy and by the Maria Island National
Park and Ile Des Phoques Nature Reserve Management Plan, 1998.
A comprehensive translocation proposal and risk assessment of matters of national
environmental significance relating to this activity was referred to the Commonwealth
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC)
for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The decision around this referral was that the proposed translocation is not a controlled
action and therefore requires no further assessment under the EPBC Act before it can
proceed.
Details can be found on the SEWPAC website
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/index.html
The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program (STDP) is responsible for the implementation of the
recovery program for Tasmanian devil. Copies of all STDP strategies, business plans and
publications as well as attachments to this DPEMP are also available on the STDP website
www.tasiedevil.com.au
4
1/. Executive Summary The purpose of the proposed translocation is to establish a free-living and DFTD-free population of Tasmanian devils that requires the minimum level of management for its persistence as part of the insurance meta-population for this threatened species. An Insurance Population is required to insure against the possibility of extinction of devils in the wild, and to provide for the release of healthy devils to the wild at an appropriate time. The objective of establishing a population of Tasmanian devils on Maria Island is to retain genetic diversity of the Tasmanian devil and to secure a disease free insurance population which can sustain regular removals (harvest) for reintroduction sometime in the future. The Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) is threatened with extinction due to the emergence of a contagious Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD). Consequently, devils are listed as Endangered at State, Commonwealth and International levels. The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program (STDP) has a funding commitment for $5 million per annum during 2008-2013 from State and Commonwealth Governments. The Program has developed a number of long term (30-50 year) strategies for the conservation of the species. The STDP Business Plan 2010-2013, the Draft Recovery Plan for the Tasmanian Devil and the Strategic Framework for an Insurance Meta-population all identify the establishment and maintenance of an insurance meta-population as a key strategy in the recovery of the species. The utilisation of islands as sites for DFTD-free populations of free-living Tasmanian devils is integral to this. The STDP proposes to translocate DFTD-free Tasmanian devils from both wild and captive populations onto Maria Island, a National Park located off the east coast of Tasmania. The proposal seeks to begin translocating devils to Maria Island in 2012. The selection of individuals for translocation will be guided by the Zoo and Aquaria Association (ZAA) Annual Report and Recommendations for the insurance population. The capture, handling, transportation and release of devils for the proposed translocation would follow standard operating procedures for the STDP. Initially up to 50 devils will be translocated to the island – a negligible fraction of the current extant population on mainland Tasmania. Devils will be screened for behavioural and genetic suitability and will undergo comprehensive health checks to minimise the risk of introducing novel pathogens or parasites to Maria Island. The proposal aims to select and establish a genetically diverse population that represents the typical age and sex structure found amongst free-living devils prior to the emergence of Devil Facial Tumour Disease. Food supplementation may occur on initial release to ease the transition into the new environment. Devils will be monitored post-release to measure project success and will include assessment of individual body condition, reproductive success and survival. Ongoing monitoring will continue to measure the welfare of the devils and their impacts on key prey and listed species. Maria Island is regarded as a suitable habitat for devils. The island has a number of species that have been introduced from the Tasmanian mainland from the 1960s to the 1990s – including three macropod species that are now hyper-abundant and the subject of an annual population control.
5
To ensure there is not a loss of genetic diversity over time, genetically suitable devils will be added to the population at regular intervals to overcome the genetic shortcomings often associated with island populations. Accordingly, devils will be removed from the island and redistributed across the insurance population where appropriate. The number and frequency of such supplementations will be based on annual assessments of the insurance meta-population by the population managers. While Maria Island has been subject to considerable modification since European settlement, the island contains significant natural values including several listed species. The impact on the island‟s convict and industrial heritage buildings will require careful consideration. The potential impacts on these values have been addressed through the Reserve Activity Assessment process including a range of management plans to avoid, mitigate and/or offset potential impacts caused by the introduction of devils. Tasmanian devils are primarily generalist, scavenging carnivores. They will also supplement their diet through active predation. Thus, there is a risk that devils will have an impact upon naive prey species living on Maria Island, including nesting seabirds and waders. Listed threatened species currently found on Maria Island (such as forty spotted pardalotes Pardalotus quadragintus and swift parrots Lathamus discolor) are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the proposed translocation. This proposal has been developed within the framework outlined in the Policy and Procedures for the Translocation of Native Animals and Plants for Conservation Purposes (DPIPWE 2011).
6
2/. Proposal
It is proposed to translocate up to fifty Tasmanian devils (Sacrophilus harrisii) to Maria Island
National Park effectively establishing a semi-wild, permanent population of the species as
part of the wider threatened species management strategy for the Tasmanian devil.
The objective of establishing a population of Tasmanian devils on Maria Island is to retain
genetic diversity of the Tasmanian devil and to secure a disease free insurance population
which can sustain regular removals (harvest) for reintroduction sometime in the future.
This proposal has been developed within the framework outlined in the Policy and
Procedures for the Translocation of Native Animals and Plants for Conservation Purposes
(DPIPWE 2011).
The purpose of the proposed translocation is to establish a wild, free-living and DFTD-free
population of Tasmanian devils that requires the minimum level of management for its
persistence as part of the insurance meta-population for this threatened species. The STDP
seeks to begin translocating devils to Maria Island in 2012 pending all relevant approvals.
This document sets the context of the proposal describing the reserve itself, and its initial
creation as a sanctuary for introduced animals. This document also provides an explanation
of the proposal and the objective of establishing an insurance population of Tasmanian
devils as part of an overall conservation program. This document describes existing values
upon which there may be impact, what those impacts are and gives an indication of
likelihood and consequence (risk analysis). It also sets out existing and proposed monitoring
for any possible impacts assisting evidence-based management and also identifies possible
mitigation measures should unacceptable impacts be determined to occur subsequent to
monitoring. See attachment 1 for full proposal.
3/. Background and Context
3.1 Maria Island National Park
Maria Island National Park (the Park) was originally declared a Sanctuary under the Animals
and Birds Protection Act 1928 in 1971. The island was proclaimed a National Park in June
1972 under the then National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970. The purpose of reservation for
national park is „the protection and maintenance of the natural and cultural values of the area
of land, while providing for ecologically sustainable recreation consistent with conserving
those values‟. The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) is the managing authority
for the Park.
Maria Island National Park is currently managed by PWS under the National Parks and
Reserves Management Act 2002 and is subject to a statutory management plan, the Maria
Island National Park and Ile Des Phoques Nature Reserve Management Plan, 1998. Most
recently the Darlington Probation Station was included in the National Heritage List on 1
August 2007 and was inscribed on the World Heritage List on 31 July 2010 as one of 11
sites that make up the World Heritage Australian Convict Sites.
Maria Island is a visitor destination for the east coast of Tasmania. Surveys indicate that
visitors appreciate the unspoiled natural environment, peace and quiet, scenery, wildlife,
7
historic features of the Park, and its remote location. Access to the island is by commercial
or private boat or by fixed-wing aircraft.
The island offers both overnight and day-use recreation for walking, cycling, camping as well
as commercial operator guided walks with access to up-market accommodation and dining
for those guests. The Park is a popular destination for school groups as it provides for
outdoor education with a range of ideal opportunities for learning focussed on the natural
environmental and the island‟s human heritage.
3.2 Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD)
The iconic Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) is threatened with extinction due to the
emergence of a contagious cancer known as the Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD).
Tasmanian devils are listed as Endangered at State, Commonwealth and International
levels. Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD) is a
lethal, infectious cancer that only affects
Tasmanian devils. Devils with DFTD develop
tumours and lesions around the face and neck.
Secondary cancers or metastasises often spread
throughout the body. Affected devils usually die
within three to eight months of the lesions
appearing. The disease is spread through biting
and close contact and can spread to all devils in
an area through social contact.
Figure 1 Photo by Christo Baars 1996. Figue2 - DFTD distribution 2011 (STDP)
In infected areas, nearly all animals over two years old, and some younger animals, contract
the disease and die. The disease has resulted in local devil population declines of up to
95%, ten years after emergence of symptoms.
The disease was first detected in 1996 at Waterhouse in north-east Tasmania (figure1) and
has been spreading steadily across the state.
8
DFTD now occurs in approximately 75% of Tasmania, in all land tenure and habitat types.
The rate of spread has been estimated at around 7–10 km/year (McCallum et al. 2007;
DPIPWE unpubl. data). Earlier, preliminary modelling suggested that DFTD would reach the
north-west of the State in 3–10 years (McCallum et al. 2007).
Ongoing disease front monitoring has demonstrated that the disease is continuing to move
westwards and in December 2011 was confirmed in a devil at Zeehan close to the west
coast (Fig 2). Modelling and observations from the field indicate that the disease persists
even at low population density, and as a result has the potential to ultimately drive the
species to extinction (McCallum 2008).
3.3 DFTD Management Strategy
In 2008 the Tasmanian and Australian Governments committed $25 million over the period
2008 to 2013 to support the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program (STDP).
The vision of the program is an enduring and ecologically functional population of
Tasmanian devils living wild in Tasmania.
The Save the Tasmanian Devil Strategic Plan identifies three key objectives for the Save the
Tasmanian Devil Program:
To maintain the genetic diversity of the Tasmanian devil population.
To maintain the Tasmanian devil population in the wild.
To manage the ecological impacts of a reduced Tasmanian devil population
across its natural range (DPIPWE, 2007).
While this phase of the Program will conclude in 2013, the effort needed to save the
Tasmanian devil will require maintenance in the longer term. This Program is aimed at
providing the initial investment in infrastructure and knowledge that can then be used as the
foundation for the long term conservation effort needed to secure this species. The STDP
Steering Committee has endorsed the proposal to undertake a translocation of Tasmanian
devils to Maria Island and in doing so has recognised the need for resources to implement
this recovery action as well as an ongoing requirement related to the management of this
population.
The STDP Business Plan 2010-2013, the Draft Recovery Plan for the Tasmanian devil
and the Strategic Framework for an Insurance Meta-population (CBSG, 2008) all identify the
establishment and maintenance of an insurance meta-population as a key strategy in the
recovery of the species (DPIPWE, 2010).
The primary threat to Tasmanian devils is the spread of DFTD on mainland Tasmania; and
the disease has now spread across a large extent of the range of the species having been
detected in population across 70% of the State. Modelling has predicted DFTD is likely to
occur across the entire range in the next 3 to 10 years (McCallum et al. 2007). Disease front
surveys conducted by DPIPWE indicate continued westerly movement of the disease. The
Tasmanian devil population has declined rapidly in a very short period. In 1992 the species
was described as Common (Strahan 1992) and Stable (IUCN 1992), and was not listed as
threatened at State or National level. It was first listed nationally in 2006 as Vulnerable, and
in 2009 up-listed to Endangered due to the continued population decline (TSSC 2009). The
Tasmanian devil was listed as Endangered in Tasmania in 2008. If this trend continues, the
9
species may become Critically Endangered – a trigger to initiate ex-situ conservation
management for a species according to the IUCN Technical Guidelines on the management
of Ex-situ populations for Conservation (IUCN 2002).
Tasmanian devil populations appear to have experienced considerable fluctuations in the
past (Guiler 1970). Such fluctuations may have been the result of density-dependant disease
within populations, which results in population decline and then disease extinction
(Bradshaw and Brook 2005). However, results from recent research indicate that the
transmission of DFTD is more consistent with frequency dependence and therefore
increases the chances of the disease directly leading to the extinction of its host (McCallum
et al. 2009).
There is the possibility that the disease could lead to local extinctions followed by extinction
in the wild within 25-35 years (DPIPWE 2010b). In December 2011 a DTFD positive
Tasmanian disease was found at Zeehan, this indicates the disease has spread further than
anticipated as recently as November of 2011.
There are currently no effective disease management techniques for the wild population of
Tasmanian devils, therefore preventing transmission between healthy and diseased
population remains the only effective management tool at this point in time.
4/. Translocation Project Proposal
4.1 Offshore Islands Strategy
The 2008 Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for Tasmanian devils (PHVA)
identified the establishment of an insurance population as a key priority in the conservation
of Tasmanian devils (CSBG 2008). In addition, it was recommended that a range of
alternative options for holding animals should be trialled, including the establishment of
DFTD-free managed populations on islands.
Establishing a healthy population of Tasmanian devils on a large offshore island will break
the transmission cycle of the disease and thus remove the population from the primary
threatening process. The translocated population will be managed as part of the insurance
population and may provide a source of animals for re-introduction to mainland Tasmania.
The translocated population further provides the opportunity to maintain wild attributes and
behaviours. This is considered an essential component of the strategic framework for an
insurance meta-population for Tasmanian devils. (CBSG/DPIPWE/ARAZPA 2009)
In order to effectively retain the genetic diversity of Tasmanian devil in DFTD free
populations, founder animals must be collected and retained for multiple generations. This
conservation strategy requires an effective population of 500 animals which must be
maintained for up to 50 years. A range of managed populations must be utilised to ensure
sustainable and cost effective solutions are developed. Island populations which can be
maintained under a minimal management regime may prove to be one of the most secure
and cost effective solutions.
The IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions (IUCN 1998) states that conservation
introductions should only occur outside a species historic range once there is no remaining
area left within its historic range. This translocation proposal is considered appropriate and
within the guidelines given that the inevitable expansion of DFTD across Tasmania means
10
that there is effectively no suitable habitat left within its range that will remain DFTD free in
the foreseeable future (P. Seddon pers. com.).
The Tasmanian Devil Population and Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA) identified Maria
Island as likely to be successful translocation sites from a devil perspective and based on
maximising population size and minimal management (CBSG 2008). Additional islands will
be considered for translocations over the coming years.
4.2 Introduction to Maria Island
There has been considerable work conducted to evaluate the best candidate islands (with
regard to their suitability for devils). Maria Island has been identified as a suitable option for
translocation of devils for the following reasons:
The Tasmanian Government is the sole land manager for the entire island and
maintains a permanent presence on the island. Maria Island is a National Park
managed by DPIPWE.
Maria Island is a large enough to suit a tertiary predator with genetic supplementation
over time. It has appropriate habitat and a large suite of devil prey species.
Up to fifty Tasmanian devils will be selected and screened prior to introduction for suitable
behavioural traits and genetic suitability for introduction to the island. They will undergo
comprehensive health checks to minimise the risk of introducing novel pathogens or
parasites to Maria Island as well as any weeds, pests or other diseases.
In a method known as “soft-release” food supplementation may occur on initial release to
ease the transition into the new environment. It is not proposed to feed the island population
in the longer term and it is fully expected that animals will behave as they would in any wild
population by hunting and scavenging on their own in competition with other devils and
potentially feral cats and any other top order predators on the island.
4.3 Program maintenance and monitoring
Tasmanian devils are primarily generalist, scavenging carnivores. They will also supplement
their diet through active predation of native and introduced species. Some of these native
and introduced species are likely already targeted by feral cats on the island (who may also
be targeted by devils). A risk assessment undertaken by Menna Jones and Hamish
McCallum in 2007 listed threatened species currently found on Maria Island concluding that
they are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the proposed translocation. Where impacts
are identified as unlikely but not impossible, monitoring and amelioration methods such as
fencing of rookeries are recommended. Please refer to attachments 1&2. A reduction in the
number of Tasmanian devils (to reduce pressure) is also a viable management option due to
their ease of capture and tolerance of translocation.
11
4.3.1 Existing monitoring
Existing monitoring that occurs on Maria Island (external to the translocation proposal)
includes:
Macropod population abundance and animal health monitoring - conducted by PWS.
Swift Parrot Monitoring- conducted by DPIPWE Threatened Species Section
Forty Spotted Pardalote Monitoring - conducted by Dr Sally Bryant (Tasmanian Land
Conservancy in conjunction with DPIPWE Threatened Species Section and Parks and
Wildlife Service).
Shorebirds – conducted by Birds Tasmania / Birds Australia
Wedge-tail eagle / White Bellied Sea Eagle counts conducted voluntarily by Nick
Mooney.
All of the abovementioned monitoring programs provide additional information to the devil
translocation, however are independent of the STDP.
4.3.2 Potential Impact Monitoring
Penguin and Short-tailed shearwater - surveys (using standard DPIPWE methodology) at all known major colonies throughout the national park. Surveys were conducted in November 2010 and 2011 (Thalmann and Wise 2010).
Cape Barren Goose and Native Hen - 2011 and continuing post-devil release- surveys in the Darlington area providing a baseline index for future monitoring.
4.3.3 Devil Population Monitoring
Maria Island is not large enough to support a genetically self-sustaining population of devils.
Therefore, devils will need to be added to the population at regular intervals to overcome the
genetic shortcomings of small closed populations (e.g., inbreeding depression, genetic drift).
Accordingly, other devils will need to be removed from the island and redistributed into the
insurance population where appropriate. The number and frequency of such
supplementations will be based on analysis of population and habitat viability.
As part of the devil translocation comprehensive monitoring programs will be established to
measure:
Health and welfare of the translocated population (active trapping and vet inspection)
Population growth rates and reproductive success (through trapping,
Capture/Mark/Recapture)
Distribution of Tasmanian devils throughout various habitats (remote cameras,
possibly collars)
Diet of the translocated population (though mechanisms such as scat analysis)
This will be conducted by DPIPWE staff including wildlife biologists and research
collaborators. Ongoing monitoring will continue throughout the program to measure the
welfare of the devils and their impacts on key prey and listed species.
In addition to the species specific surveys outlined above, an island wide multi-species
remote camera survey was established in May 2011. Four full surveys (representing
summer, autumn, winter and spring) have now been completed. The results of this
preliminary study will direct the timing and frequency of future repeat camera surveys and
provide baseline data for the monitoring of multiple mammal species using site occupancy
methodology.
12
A number of trapping surveys were conducted during the investigative phase of the proposal
development. The data from these surveys also provides baseline information to compare
with future monitoring if surveys are repeated.
Outside of the activities being undertaken by DPIPWE and the STDP, a research project
headed by Professor Chris Johnson from the University of Tasmania (the STDP is a
collaborator) will undertake additional monitoring of meso-predators (such as feral cats and
the devils themselves) and potential prey species on Maria Island. The project will provide
close monitoring of devil prey species (using passive monitoring techniques such as hair
snares and remote cameras) and will assist in determining what effects the release of devil
onto the island is having on other species on the island.
4.3.4 Visitor safety (campground, walkers, staff)
Any Tasmanian devils that are selected as founders for the proposed translocation will be
assessed according to temperament and likelihood of interaction with people. Any animals
deemed likely to possess traits that are liable to increase the chances of interactions with
humans will not be selected for translocation. If problems do occur with individual devils they
may be trapped and held in the captive facilities on Maria Island prior to removal to other
parts of the insurance population program.
4.3.5 Heritage Impacts
The proposed translocation of Tasmanian devils to Maria Island is highly unlikely to
significantly impact on the heritage values of the Darlington Probation Station. Any
construction associated with the translocation will not be adjacent to, nor within important
sight lines of the buildings nor other structures within the property. Although there is potential
for Tasmanian devils to build dens or occupy existing wombat burrows under buildings and
other structures on the island, the translocation is highly unlikely to damage those structures.
In the unlikely event that Tasmanian devils do build dens under the important buildings and
structures that could damage the fabric of the property mitigation measures could be
implemented. Mitigation would be trapping and relocation of devils to elsewhere on (or off)
the island or securing building foundations against burrowing animals.
4.3.6 Integration with Existing Macropod Management Program
While it is anticipated that macropods will be a significant component of devil prey, the
proposed translocation is not intended to influence existing methodology for macropod
management on the Island. Preliminary surveys of macropod numbers (used as a basis for
population control measures) would be expected to continue as normal. The existing
methodology for macropod surveys is considered suitable to reflect changes that may occur
as a result of the presence of devils (in terms of macropod health and population indexes for
macropod species). Existing agreements between Resource Management and Conservation
(RMC) and PWS may be revised to include the provision of assistance to conduct the
spotlighting transects, and data analysis from the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program staff.
Decisions around whether macropod populations require control will continue to be based on
the data derived and considered through existing evidence-based management frameworks
from monitoring surveys rather than any need to provide food for devils.
The only possible change to the Macropod Management Program is that if surveys indicate
that population control of macropod species is warranted – the resulting carcasses could be
13
frozen or strategically located (rather than buried) to benefit the translocated devil
population.
5/. Future Management
The proposal to translocate Tasmanian devils to Maria Island National Park is considered to be a permanent action. Given the endangered status of the species – establishment of a free-living, breeding insurance population (with wild traits preserved) will be important for the long-term conservation of Tasmanian devils in the presence of the ongoing threat of DFTD.
At this point complete removal of Tasmanian devils from the island is not being considered. It is expected that devils will remain on Maria Island for the long term. However, should monitoring indicate that devils are responsible for unacceptable adverse impacts to listed species or to the Maria Island ecology or values, then devil numbers may be reduced (through trapping and removal) and animals relocated to other aspects of the conservation effort.
6/. Reporting and Governance
6.1 Information and Reporting
The General Managers of PWS, RMC and BPI receive briefings on all the activities of the
STDP in the STDP Steering Committee quarterly meetings. All data collected in monitoring
and management activities will be entered on the Natural Values Atlas and any reports and
scientific publications including data analysis will be publically available through the STDP
website www.tassiedevil.com.au.
A Maria Island National Park devil management group consisting of nominated PWS
representatives and section heads within Wildlife Management Branch of RMC will be
established to ensure effective communication and coordination of activities including
release, monitoring and trapping activities. This group should meet on a monthly basis post
release for the first six months and twice yearly after that.
6.2 Governance
The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program is currently delivered across two Divisions within
DPIPWE; Resource Management and Conservation (RMC) and Biosecurity and Product
Integrity (BPI). The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program business plan outlines the
Program‟s vision, objectives and milestones. These plans can be viewed at
www.tassiedevil.com.au. The implementation of the STDP business plan is managed
through a number of service level agreements between the Division or Branch and the STDP
Program Management Unit. These agreements outline the purpose, goal, objectives and
period of agreement. Also included is a description of the budget, services, and reporting
arrangements. The STDP is currently in the process of identifying the core cost for the
Program beyond the current funding commitment (June 2013). Ongoing management of this
component of the Program will be included in that process.
14
6.3 Management Context
Maria Island National Park and Ill des Phoques Nature Reserve Management Plan 1998
The following table contains responses addressing relevant sections of the Maria Island
National Park and Ill des Phoques Nature Reserve Management Plan 1998 in relation to the
proposal to establish a permanent, disease-free population of Tasmanian devils on Maria
Island.
Section Text:
Part A) Management
Context, P.14, 6
Fauna.
The island was initially reserved as a Sanctuary in 1971 for the primary
purpose of providing a refuge for endangered species.
RESPONSE 1
The proposal to translocate Tasmanian devils to Maria Island is consistent with the above purpose
based on the following supporting information:
Tasmanian devils are listed as endangered on a State, Federal and International level. The proposed
conservation introduction of Tasmanian devils to Maria Island is specifically aimed at providing a
disease free refuge for the species.
Unacceptable impacts to other listed species on Maria Island are considered unlikely as a result of the
translocation, therefore maintaining the current status of the island as a refuge for endangered
species.
(See Attachment: Maria Island Environmental Risk Assessment Jones and McCallum)
15
P. 16, 6.4 –
Introduced Land
Species
Introduction of species not indigenous to the Park is viewed now as out of
keeping with the concept of a national park and has been discontinued.
(Pre-DFTD context).
RESPONSE 2
The practice of introducing non-indigenous fauna to Maria Island was discontinued prior to the
emergence of Devil Facial Tumour Disease (DFTD). The predicted extinction of Tasmanian devils
(Australia‟s largest carnivorous marsupial) due to DFTD is a real possibility without management
intervention. Whilst introductions have been discontinued, the existing management plan still allows
for the possibility of translocations of non-indigenous fauna to Maria Island under strict conditions.
Offshore and virtual island populations of Tasmanian devils are considered an essential component of
the Insurance Population for the species. Maria Island is ranked as a highly suitable island for this
purpose.
Translocations for conservation purposes are frequently used internationally to reduce the impacts of
threatening processes on endangered species. The IUCN have provided guidelines to ensure such
management actions are well thought out prior to embarking on an introduction (IUCN 1998). The
proposal to translocate devils to Maria Island has been guided by these international guidelines.
STDP argues that due to the previous herbivore introductions, the (altered) Maria Island ecosystem
now displays symptoms relating to trophic cascade effects (i.e. flow on ecological effects through the
food chain) often attributed to the absence (or removal) of a major carnivore/predator. As such, these
effects are having an overall negative effect on some existing park values.
These symptoms as they relate to Maria Island include :
Proliferation of herbivore species such as wombats, Forester Kangaroos, Bennett‟s
Wallabies, Pademelons and possibly Brush-tail Possums.
Subsequent overgrazing of palatable native and introduced plant species with other related
effects such as erosion and weed proliferation on bare/disturbed soils.
Widespread distribution of feral cats in the national park.
There is little doubt that areas cleared for grazing purposes prior to the gazetting of the National Park
have assisted herbivore species to reach unnaturally high levels in the absence of a terrestrial
predator. These areas are all on the western side of the island.
Currently, a management program is required on Maria Island to reduce populations of Forester
Kangaroos, Bennett‟s Wallabies and Pademelons in order to reduce starvation (through overgrazing)
and disease (through poor nutrition caused by overgrazing) within those populations. While this is not
the reason for the translocation it is possible that the presence of devils could assist in restoring some
balance to the ecosystem in the long term, through predation on young, sick or injured herbivore
species for example. Refer to McCallum and Ingram (2011).
The STDP does not consider the provision of supplementary food from macropod culling activities to
be an essential or necessary prerequisite for the success of devils on the island.
16
Part B – Values and
Significance, Goals
and Objectives. P.
45, 13.5 Threats to
Park and Reserve
values and Character
There are a number of factors which detract from or have the potential to
diminish Park values and character. These include:
- Introduced plants, animals and diseases which invade the
ecosystem and degrade or weaken the natural environment; ..”
These are factors which must be effectively dealt with if Park values and
character are to be sustained in perpetuity.
RESPONSE 3
Regarding disease/pathogen/weed introduction:
Devils selected for translocation would be subject to screening and health checks to prevent
the introduction of novel diseases and pathogens to Maria Island.
Information collected from population control of fauna on Maria Island will be used alongside
a survey of faecal samples already collected from trapped mammalian species to determine
incidence and prevalence of parasitic and bacterial pathogens present in existing Maria Island
fauna.
Researchers apply “Keeping it Clean” principles prior to fieldwork on the island.
Devils selected for translocation will be inspected for weed seeds prior to release.
Regarding the impacts of introduced animals:
Tasmanian devils will prey opportunistically on a variety of species native to Maria Island;
however they are likely to predominantly target a few key species (probably macropods,
possums and wombats). There is therefore likely to be direct impact to individuals of some
species through predation. There is evidence that the presence of devils led to a significant
reduction in the breeding success of Cape Barren Geese populations on Badger Island
following an illegal introduction of devils there. Badger Island has significantly less biodiversity
that Maria Island, which may have contributed to greater predation pressure on certain
species. Devils reached unnaturally high numbers on Badger Island due to favourable
macropod control regime on the island (i.e. regular weekly macropod culls). When this
favourable management changed to annual culls, the reduction of food in the presence of an
elevated devil population would have also contributed to further predatory pressure on
species such as Cape Barren Geese.
Some park values are already diminished due previous introductions of herbivorous species,
in the absence of a terrestrial predator/carnivore on Maria Island other than raptors. Please
refer to STDP response 2 (above) for comments regarding the existing diminished park
values resulting from currently over-populated herbivore species and related trophic cascade
effects. As discussed in response 2, there is potential for Tasmanian devils to positively
influence the Maria Island ecosystem as identified in the 6.4 – Introduced Land Species,
Response above.
There is no other evidence (or studies) to suggest that devils are responsible for local
extinctions of populations of native species on the Tasmanian mainland. Tasmanian devils
have co-evolved (and co-exist) on mainland Tasmania with most if not all known species
found on Maria Island.
Other values:
The high visibility of some fauna species is no doubt one of the attractions of Maria Island to
visitors. The presence of Tasmanian devils could affect the visibility of some prey species due
to a fear response. It is worth noting however that in Narawntapu National Park, some devil
prey species (such as wombats and pademelons) appear to feed in the open away from cover
during the day and around dawn and dusk, possibly to avoid ambush from devils. This
contributes to good wildlife viewing opportunities at that site.
17
Section 14.2 Park and Reserve Management Goals – pp 46 – 47.
To sustain the environmental and heritage character of MINP, the
goals of management are to ensure, as far as practicable, the Park will
be characterised by:
- Maximum indigenous biodiversity
- Viable populations of all indigenous species;
- Unfettered ecological processes
RESPONSE 4
With regard to maximum indigenous biodiversity:
Whilst Tasmanian devils may affect density of some populations and may influence distribution of
some species – it is not anticipated that local extinctions will result from the translocation (based on
evidence of co-existence on mainland Tasmania). Importantly, it is not anticipated that the
translocation would impact negatively on threatened species populations.
It is likely that some indigenous fauna populations from Maria Island have already been compromised
to some extent by the effects of previous herbivore (and feral animal) introductions and the resultant
overgrazing, as well as previous land use. Despite this, it appears that most species reported during
the 1960s still appear to persist on the island. There is some doubt over the presence of the Green
and Gold Frog, and there have been no sightings of the Casuarina skink and few sightings of the
Copperhead snake in recent surveys.
With regard to viable populations of all indigenous species:
As previously mentioned, local extinctions of indigenous fauna are not expected due to the presence
of a Tasmanian devil population, based on their ability to co-exist on mainland Tasmania. Therefore it
is expected that viable populations of indigenous species will not be compromised by the
translocation. Discussion around particular species can be viewed in appendix 3 of the translocation
proposal.
With regard to unfettered ecological processes:
As previously discussed – some ecological processes on the island are believed to be in a state of
compromise due to cascading effects related to predator absence. It is hoped that the proposed
translocation of Tasmanian devils could assist in the restoration of ecological processes through
better maintenance of trophic imbalance by their predation on herbivore species. There remain a
number of unknown elements to the proposal, regarding diet and habitat use of the introduced devils.
The inclusion of extensive multi species monitoring and dietary analysis will greatly inform this aspect
of the introduction. It may also be prudent to ensure some degree of monitoring of changes to
vegetation structure and diversity which may be currently impacted by the overpopulation of various
herbivore species.
18
Section 15.1 & 15.2 – Park and Reserve Management Objectives pp. 47-48
Principle Objectives:
- Conserve and maintain, in perpetuity, the marine and
terrestrial biophysical processes and biodiversity of the Park
and the Reserve, including indigenous species, communities,
ecosystems, and genetic diversity.
Associated Objectives
- Develop public understanding of the values and goals for
management of Maria Island National Park...
- Rehabilitate and restore damaged and degraded areas of the
Park.
- Encourage and facilitate research and study within the Park
and the Reserve which increases knowledge and
understanding of their values, contributes to their
preservation, or assists management of the Park and its use
for tourism and recreation.
- Manage introduced wildlife in the Park, giving higher priority to
native species conservation, Park protection and the benefit of
visitors.
Response 5
Responses 1-4 are also applicable to this section.
The preliminary fauna survey work that forms the basis for the translocation proposal has
provided up to date information which will benefit park management knowledge and decision
making. Ongoing multi-species monitoring work will continue to keep this information current. All
fauna species location information will be entered into the Natural Values Atlas.
The large-scale, multi-institutional research project headed by Professor Chris Johnson from the
University of Tasmania discussed in the Potential Impact Monitoring Section will undertake
significant additional monitoring of predators and prey species on Maria Island.
An effective communication plan will be applied to the proposed translocation – this will ensure
that public understanding of the goals of the project, and how they relate to the park and its
values will be well understood.
Tasmanian devils would become an introduced species to the National Park, and would require
ongoing management (in the form of genetic supplementation and possible supplementary
feeding as discussed in the translocation proposal.) This introduction is not intended to be an
isolated event without ongoing management and monitoring.
The proposed release is likely to lead to great interest from other research institutions and interest
in undertaking research on the island has already increased. The STDP Scientific Advisory
Committee (SAC) is well placed to identify possible research projects on Maria Island which
would greatly inform our understanding of the ecological role played by of Tasmania devils.
19
Part C Management Strategies P. 61. 19.2 Animal
Conservation
The objectives for animal conservation in the park are to conserve and
protect rare, threatened and endangered animal species and to
conserve, protect, and minimise harmful impacts on indigenous
animals and habitats.
Response 6
The proposed Tasmanian devil translocation is not expected to compromise the protection of
existing rare, threatened or endangered animal species on Maria Island.
Whilst it is understood that this section of the management plan refers to existing rare, threatened
or endangered animal species – the translocation would play an important role in the protection of
the endangered Tasmanian devil, an iconic and essential species in the Tasmanian ecosystem.
In approving the translocation proposal, there is an acceptance that Tasmanian devils will prey on
existing fauna in the national park, and therefore the translocation will have direct impacts on
some individuals from a range of indigenous and introduced native/feral species. This impact is
not expected to compromise the overall protection and conservation (i.e. leading to local
extinction) of those species on Maria Island, based on their ability to co-exist on mainland
Tasmania. As previously discussed – there is potential for some benefits to be derived for other
populations due to the presence of devils.
P. 64- 65. 19.5
Introduced Animals –
Objectives, Policies
and Actions
Policies – New introductions of animals will not be permitted without
an approved comprehensive scientific assessment.
COMMENT – objectives relate only to existing introduced animals, not new
introductions.
COMMENT – objectives relate only to existing introduced animals, not new introductions.
Response 7
The development of the translocation proposal has involved an approved, comprehensive scientific
assessment. This work is ongoing pending a decision regarding the proposal, to ensure further rigour.
P. 64- 65. 19.5
Introduced Animals –
Objectives, Policies
and Actions.
Introduced animals will not be fed and if necessary, sick dying,
or overpopulations of macropods will be culled.
COMMENT – objectives relate only to existing introduced animals, not new
introductions.
Response 8
We interpreted this section of the management plan to refer to existing introduced animals on Maria
Island. This has been confirmed by the PWS. The translocation proposal discusses a number of
scenarios where devils may require supplementary feeding, including:
During the release phase of the project to ease the transition of translocated animals into the
wild
As a mitigation strategy to draw animals away from breeding areas during key times. This
would need approval, and would be used if deemed necessary based on monitoring results.
During recovery periods after major chance events such as extensive wildfire. This would
probably be in conjunction with a population reduction of Tasmanian devils on Maria Island
(and subsequent relocation to other aspects of the conservation program) which reflects the
severity of the event.
During periods of captivity in the existing devil pens on the island. This would apply where
animals have been hospitalized, or where „problem‟ animals have been temporarily removed
from the park by management for movement to other parts of the insurance population.
20
P. 64- 65. 19.5
Introduced Animals –
Objectives, Policies
and Actions.
Animal management and control measures, including fencing, culling,
biological control, removal or relocation will be adopted if studies
show them to be warranted and practicable.
COMMENT – objectives relate only to existing introduced animals, not new
introductions.
Response 9
Management responses to unexpected events would revolve around Tasmanian devil population
reduction on Maria Island. Examples of unexpected events include:
Exponential breeding rates of devils
Unacceptable impacts to any species – particularly listed species.
Please refer to attached risk assessments and Appendix 3 - Natural Values (Fauna)
Summary.
19.6 pp. 65 –
Phythophora
Protection
The objectives of Phytophthora protection are to:
Prevent the introductions of PC to the Park and the Reserve;
Policies:
All practicable steps will be taken to prevent the introduction
or spread of Phytophthora.
Visitors will be encouraged to wash equipment, boots and
bicycles prior to coming to the Park, and required to wash all
boots and equipment before visiting the Reserve.
Actions:
Establish, disseminate and strictly enforce guidelines for the
entry into the Park of all vehicles and machinery. Include
types of permitted vehicles, entry permit procedures, weather
and seasonal controls on entry, hygiene standards, route and
manoeuvring controls and any other necessary controls.
Response 10
The program has already adopted the NRM South “Keeping it Clean” Protocols. Boots of researchers
are sprayed with F10 (a veterinary disinfectant) after cleaning prior to arriving on the island. Other
equipment is checked and cleaned. Tents used during monitoring are dedicated to the project.
A vehicle has been taken to the island for dedicated use in the project. Tasmanian devil traps will be
dedicated to the project and left permanently on the island. In the case where a trap needs to be
brought from the mainland Tasmania, it will be thoroughly cleaned with F10.
It is felt that there is larger risk of phytophthora spread by the visiting public and restoration of the
cleaning bay near the jetty is recommended.
Due to the nature of the threatening process to Tasmanian devils, DFTD, STDP staff are highly
experienced and trained to adhere to rigorous biosecurity practices across all aspects of the Program.
21
“Tasmanian Reserve
Management Code of
Practice, 2003 “pp. 20
- 4.2 – Flora and
Fauna Values
Movement of indigenous Tasmanian fauna species. Only under exceptional circumstances, and where specified in a Species Recovery Plan, will indigenous Tasmanian fauna species be deliberately transferred between reserves or islands, or introduced on to them from other sources. In all cases, an environmental impact statement will be prepared before the
species is released into the new environment.
Response 11
The preceding information and associated appendices extensively describe the current circumstances
and processes which have led to this action being considered by the STDP. A Maria Island
Environmental Risk Assessment, Translocation Proposal and Risk Assessment in Relation to Matters
of National Environmental Significance have all been prepared and are available to view with this
DPEMP. See list of associated documents below.
7/. Operations
7.1 Infrastructure and plant.
There is expected to be an increase in the demand for accommodation on the island
- particularly once the devil monitoring phase begins. Early planning for various visits
to the island will need to be coordinated with Maria Island Field Centre.
The STDP has a dedicated Polaris Vehicle for use in the various monitoring
programs. Planning could minimise the need for the use of PWS vehicles. Use of
PWS vehicles has been kept to a minimum thus far. There will be a resultant
increase in vehicle use during monitoring trips
Ideally – devil traps could be deactivated and left in situ to minimize the need to use
PWS vehicles to establish trapping surveys after initial establishment. This
conditioning of traps (i.e. minimizing human scent) also benefits effective trapping of
devils.
There may be the need to establish freezing facilities on the island to store carcasses
that result from macropod culls. This may require upgrades to existing facilities.
These activities would be addressed in a separate RAA should it be deemed
necessary.
7.2 PWS Staff Resources
When on the Island, STDP currently assist PWS staff in a number of ways – such as
tree removal over roads and tracks during monitoring work, and the reporting of
information relevant to park management planning, talking to the public and other
works as required whilst present on the island.
Currently, whilst PWS staff are always welcome to participate in monitoring trips
existing work load demands on PWS staff (and staff shortages) have meant that they
have thus far had limited ability to participate in extended field work. This is expected
to continue to be the case in the future and monitoring programs will not be
developed in a way that adds additional demands or expectations on PWS staff.
On the island PWS staff will be the key interface in educating the public about the
translocation and related conservation issues (i.e. answering questions directed to
them from the public).
22
PWS staff may be asked to trap, house (in existing facilities) and feed problem devils
if the need arises. This is not anticipated to be a frequent occurrence.
Increased media interest in Maria Island will need to be managed jointly through
corporate communications DPIPWE and PWS communications unit to ensure
minimal impost on PWS Staff.
PWS currently assist with the occasional boat trip for bird monitoring on Ile du Nord
and eagle counts. This is not expected to increase.
PWS staff may have to construct temporary exclusion from buildings if devils choose
to den under them and if damage occurs. Devil related impacts are highly unlikely to
approach the existing levels of pressure currently exerted by wombats.
PWS staff may participate in training around trapping and handling of devils. This
could be conducted onsite during monitoring trips –but would need to be planned for
in PWS works programs.
23
8/. Appendices and attachments Due to the size of the documents listed below the following appendices are available on the PWS
website http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/
Appendix 1 :Maria Island Translocation Proposal for EPBC Referral.pdf (67pages)
Appendix 2 :Risk Assessment Methodology_Maria Island_31August.pdf (93 pages)
Appendix 3 :Maria Island Environmental Risk Assessment Jones and McCallum.pdf
(36 Pages)
Appendix 4: (a) and (b) Natural Values (Fauna) Summary (24 & 33 pages)
24
9/. References
1. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) (2011a) Policy
and Procedures: Translocation of Native Animals and Plants for Conservation Purposes.
Policy and Conservation Assessment Branch, Resource Management and Conservation
Division. RMC/Policy/Translocation/01/2011.
2. McCallum, H., Tompkins, D.M., Jones, M., Lachish, S., Marvenek, S., Lazenby, B., Hocking, G.,
Wiersma, J. And Hawkins, C.E. (2007) Distribution and Impacts of Devil Facial Tumour
Disease. EcoHealth 4, 318-325
3. McCallum, H (2008) Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease: lessons for conservation biology.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.23 No.11
4. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) 2007 Save the
Tasmanian Devil Program: Strategic Plan. Accessed at
http://www.tassiedevil.com.au/tasdevil.nsf/file/82C18864F5819337CA2576CB0011569B/$fi
le/STDP%20Strategic%20Plan%202007.pdf
5. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) 2010. Save the
Tasmanian Devil Program - Business Plan 2010-2013 accessed at:
http://www.tassiedevil.com.au/tasdevil.nsf/file/82C18864F5819337CA2576CB0011569B/$fi
le/STDP_Business_Plan_2010-13_(Nov_2010).pdf
6. CBSG, DPIPWE and ARAZPA (2009) Strategic Framework for an Insurance Metapopulation.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart. Available at
www.tassiedevil.com.au Accessed September 2010.
7. Strahan, R., ed (1992) The Mammals of Australia. Reed Books, Chatswood, NSW.
8. IUCN (1992) Australasian Marsupials and Monotremes: An action plan for their conservation.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
9. TSSC (2009) Advice to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from the
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendment to the list of
Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act1999 (EPBC Act). Available at http://
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/299-listingadvice.pdf
Accessed September 2009.
10. IUCN (2002) IUCN Technical Guidelines on the management of ex-situ populations for
conservation. Available at:
http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/SSCwebsite/Policy_statements/IUCN_Technical_
Guidelines_on_the_Management_of_Ex_situ_populations_for_Conservation.pdf. Accessed
January 2011.
11. Guiler E.R. (1970) Tasmanian devils and agriculture. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture
41:134-137.
12. Bradshaw, C.J.A., Brook, B.W. (2005) Disease and the Devil: density-dependant
epidemiological processes explain historical population fluctuations in the Tasmanian devil.
Ecography, 28:181-190.
13. McCallum H., M. Jones, C. Hawkins, R. Hamede, S. Lachish, D. Sinn, N. Beeton and B. Lazenby
(2009). Transmission dynamics of Tasmanian devil Facial Tumour Disease may lead to
disease induced extinction. Ecology, 90(12) pp3379-3392. Ecological Society of America.
25
14. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) (2010b)
Recovery Plan for the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii). Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart.
15. CBSG (2008) Tasmanian devil PHVA final report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist
Group. Apple Valley, Minnesota USA. Available at www.tassiedevil.com.au Accessed
September 2010.
16. IUCN (1998) Guidelines for Re-introductions. Prepared by the IUCN/SSC Re-introduction
Specialist Group. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 10pp.
17. Jones, M.E and McCallum, H (2007) Environmental Risk Assessment - Impact of the
introduction of Tasmanian devils to Maria Island on the natural values of the island. DPIPWE
Internal Document.
18. Thalmann, S., and Wise, P., (2010) Maria Island Fauna Survey: November 2010.
Establishment of baseline seabird monitoring. Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and Environment. Internal Report. Hobart Tasmania
19. McCallum, H. & Ingram, J. (in preparation). The Index-Removal Model: population estimates
following a macropod control program.