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.