{"id":"F2024L00006","name":"Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan— Dasyornis brachypterus) Instrument 2023","slug":"environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-recovery-plan-dasyornis-brachypterus-instrument","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":105049,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2024L00006-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"Acronyms","sectionType":"part","heading":"Acronyms","content":"# Acronyms\n\n| AOO | Area of occupancy |\n| -------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| CFA | Country Fire Authority |\n| DCCEEW | Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water(Australian Government) |\n| DES | Department of Environment and Science (Queensland Government) |\n| DELWP | Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning(Victorian Government) |\n| DPE | Department of Planning and Environment(New South Wales Government) |\n| EOO | Extent of occurrence |\n| EPBC Act | Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 (Commonwealth) |\n| IUCN | International Union for Conservation of Nature |\n| NESP | National Environmental Science Program |\n| NGO | Non-government organisation |\n| NP | National park |\n| NR | Nature reserve |\n| NRM | Natural resource management |\n| OEH | Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales |\n| RFS | Rural Fire Service |\n| RSPCA | Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals |\n| TO | Traditional Owners |\n| TSSC | Threatened Species Scientific Committee |","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"1. Summary","sectionType":"part","heading":"1. Summary","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)1. Summary\n\nEastern Bristlebird (Dasyornis brachypterus)\n\nFamily: Dasyornithidae","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"Current status of taxon:","sectionType":"section","heading":"Current status of taxon:","content":"##### Current status of taxon:\n\n • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth): Endangered\n • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales): Endangered\n • Nature Conservation (Animals) Regulation 2020 (Queensland): Endangered\n • Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria): Critically Endangered\n • IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Endangered","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"1.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Distribution and habitat","content":"## 1.1 Distribution and habitat\n\nThe historical distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird has contracted to three geographically separate areas of south-eastern Australia: south-eastern Queensland/ north-eastern NSW (hereafter northern population), central NSW (Illawarra and Jervis Bay region, hereafter central population) and the coastal regions of the southern NSW/eastern Victorian border (hereafter southern population).\n\nThe current northern population occurs in habitat characterised by open forest with a dense tussocky grass understorey and sparse mid-storey near rainforest ecotone. Northern populations sometimes occur in other vegetation types such as heathland with stunted shrubs, or swampland with dense ferns and sedge tussocks.\n\nIn contrast, habitats occupied by Eastern Bristlebirds in the central and southern populations are characterised by dense, low vegetation including heath and open woodland with a heathy understorey. All habitat occupied by the Eastern Bristlebird before and after the 2019–2020 wildfires is critical to its survival.\n\nDue to the large geographic distribution and distinct habitat requirements between the northern and central/southern populations, they have typically been grouped into two groups by species experts. For the purposes of this recovery plan, central/ southern populations have been grouped together in some sections for consistency with other conservation planning documents (e.g., NESP 2018; Garnett & Baker 2021).","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"1.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Recovery Plan vision, objectives,","content":"## 1.2 Recovery Plan vision, objectives,\n\nand strategies:","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"1.2.1 Long-term vision","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.2.1 Long-term vision","content":"### 1.2.1 Long-term vision\n\nEastern Bristlebird populations are genetically diverse and self-sustaining, and the species is resilient to impacts of climate change. Eastern Bristlebird recovery has been informed by comprehensive knowledge of Eastern Bristlebird ecology and best practice methods for conserving the species and its habitat. Eastern Bristlebird\n\nhabitat is protected, and Traditional Owners and the broader community are engaged\n\nin habitat management.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strat","sectionType":"division","heading":"1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strategies","content":"### 1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strategies\n\n| Objective 1 | By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population viability is improved in the northern, central and southern populations, compared to baselines (see section 1.3).Strategy 1: Population enhancement and augmentation. |\n| ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Objective 2 | By 2032, levels of priority threats on the Eastern Bristlebird are reduced, compared to baselines.Strategy 2: Threat management. |\n| Objective 3 | By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird habitat extent and condition are maintained or improved, compared to baselines.Strategy 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation. |\n| Objective 4 | By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population assessments are enhanced by addressing data and knowledge gaps and viable Eastern Bristlebird population sizes and trends are determined.Strategy 4: Biology and ecology knowledge enhancement. |\n| Objective 5 | By 2032, targeted stakeholder engagement has:• increased collaboration with private landholders to expand or strengthen involvement in Eastern Bristlebird conservation e.g., areas available for surveys, potential release sites, and active habitat management;• increased engagement of Traditional Owners in Eastern Bristlebird recovery decision-making processes; and• extended community/volunteer involvement in Eastern Bristlebird surveys.Strategy 5: Stakeholder engagement and participation. |\n| Objective 6 | By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird:• recovery priorities are incorporated within relevant policies, management plans, regulations, codes of practice and planning tools;• recovery actions are implemented and reviewed across tenures and jurisdictions;• recovery planning and implementation is underpinned by an adaptive-management framework; and• data and meta data are available (within permissibility requirements) from a centralised repository.Strategy 6: Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress. |","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"1.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Criteria for success","content":"## 1.3 Criteria for success\n\nThis Recovery Plan will be deemed successful if, within 10 years of the date of its adoption, the objectives have been achieved. Specific performance criteria are outlined in Section 6.\n\nThe evaluation of Recovery Plan objectives and performance criteria rely on measurable indicators. Recovery management processes should identify appropriate indicators and collect baseline data to facilitate measurement of progress\n\ntowards objectives.","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"1.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Recovery team","content":"## 1.4 Recovery team\n\nRecovery teams provide advice and assist in coordinating actions described in recovery plans. They include representatives from organisations with a direct interest in the recovery of the species, including those involved in funding and those participating in actions that support the recovery of the species. The National Eastern Bristlebird Recovery Team has the responsibility of providing advice, coordinating and directing the implementation of the recovery actions outlined in this Recovery Plan. The membership of the Recovery Team includes individuals from relevant government agencies, non-government organisations, Traditional Owners, industry groups and expertise from independent researchers and community groups.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"2. Introduction","sectionType":"part","heading":"2. Introduction","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)2. Introduction\n\nThe Recovery Plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across its range and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the species’ long-term viability in the wild, and the parties that will undertake those actions.\n\nThe Recovery Plan replaces the National Recovery Plan for Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus (OEH 2012) that was adopted under the EPBC Act in 2014\\. The previous Eastern Bristlebird recovery plan was reviewed in January 2021 by an expert panel that included representatives from the New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Queensland Department of Environment and\n\nScience, Victoria Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Parks Australia, BirdLife Australia, the Australian National University, the University of Wollongong and others.\n\nThe review noted:\n\n • The National Recovery Plan for Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus had provided a strong basis for research, engagement and policy initiatives since 2012. All Eastern Bristlebird populations continued to be vulnerable to a range of threats, but active management (targeted weed control, feral predator animal control and prescribed burns) had aided the recovery of the species.\n • Since the adoption of the plan, the Australian Government, states and territories have invested more than $2,835,000 into the conservation of Eastern Bristlebird, including the restoration of important habitats. Governments, NGOs, university researchers and private groups continued to work collaboratively to identify and manage key bristlebird habitat proactively and reactively. Population-specific studies had provided information on each population’s optimal habitat needs, though the southern population is less well understood than the northern\n\nand central populations. Positively, information on conservation genetics had been gathered for some populations, and robust monitoring programs had established excellent baseline data for most populations, and trend data informed management.","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"2.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Conservation status","content":"## 2.1 Conservation status\n\nThe Eastern Bristlebird was listed as a threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) in 2000. The species is also listed under state legislation (Table 2).\n\n![Decorative horizontal line](image.016.png) \n\nTABLE 1: National and state conservation status of the Eastern Bristlebird.\n\n![Decorative horizontal line](image.017.png)\n\n| Legislation | Conservation Status |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- |\n| Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(Commonwealth) | Endangered |\n| Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales) | Endangered |\n| Nature Conservation (Animals) Regulation 2020 (Queensland) | Endangered |\n| Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria) | Critically Endangered |","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"2.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Taxonomy","content":"## 2.2 Taxonomy\n\nConventionally accepted as Dasyornis brachypterus (Latham 1802).\n\nBased on morphological evidence, Schodde and Mason (1999) proposed the northern population should be recognised as a distinct subspecies. Although the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020 (Charley et al. 2021; Bain et al. 2021) notes the split proposed by Schodde and Mason (1999), separation into subspecies is not supported by one analysis of genetic data (Roberts et al. 2011) and the species is not listed at the subspecies level under state or Commonwealth legislation.","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"2.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Species description","content":"## 2.3 Species description\n\nThe Eastern Bristlebird is a small, well-camouflaged, ground-dwelling bird. It is dark cinnamon-brown above, with pale colouring around the eyes and base of the bill, an off-white chin and throat, and a rufous-brown panel on each wing (Higgins & Peter 2002). It is greyish-brown below, with an off-white centre to the belly. It has red to red-brown irises, an off-white to pinkish-white gape, and pinkish-brown legs and feet (Higgins & Peter 2002).\n\nBody length is between 18 and 21 centimetres with the broad tail accounting for about half the bird’s length (Higgins & Peter 2002). Adults weigh approximately 42 g (range 35 to 50 g) (Baker 1998; Bramwell 1990; Higgins & Peter 2002). The wings are small (23 to 24 cm wingspan), and the legs are long and strong. The sexes are alike, but females are slightly smaller than males (Bain 2007). Juveniles are similar to the adults, but can be identified, if viewed at close range, by their pale brown or brown irises, and pale yellow gape (Higgins & Peter 2002).\n\nThe species spends most of its time in low, dense vegetation, rarely appearing in the open or flying (Higgins & Peter 2002). Due to its small wings the Eastern Bristlebird flies weakly, but sturdy feet and legs help it move through dense habitat. While its plumage provides excellent camouflage, other adaptations to its habitat include a low forehead profile with bristles near the eyes. The rictal bristles which project from the beak are modified contour feathers that are thought to play a part in prey\n\ncapture. The bristles may also provide protection for the bird’s eyes as it consumes its struggling prey (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2013). Another theory is that the bristles may function as sensors, providing tactile feedback, like the whiskers on a dog or cat to facilitate obstacle avoidance (Lederer 1972).","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"2.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Species distribution","content":"## 2.4 Species distribution\n\nThe Eastern Bristlebird is endemic to Australia and is currently distributed as three populations across three geographically separate areas of south-eastern Australia (Map 1):\n\n • Northern population: Main Range NP (Qld), Lamington NP (Qld), Mt Barney NP (Qld), Border Ranges NP (NSW), private land.\n • Central population (NSW/ACT): Barren Grounds NR, Budderoo NP, Bellawongarah,\n\nWoronora Plateau (Cataract Dam), Bherwerre Peninsula (Jervis Bay NP, Booderee NP, Australian Department of Defence land, private land), Beecroft Peninsula (Australian Department of Defence land, Crown land, private land), Morton NP, Red Rocks NR.\n\n • Southern population: Nadgee NR (NSW) and Croajingolong NP (Vic).\n\nDue to the large geographic distribution and distinct habitat requirements between the northern and central/southern populations, the species has typically been split into these two groups by species experts. For the purposes of this recovery plan, central/southern populations have been grouped together in some sections for consistency with other conservation planning documents (e.g., Garnett & Baker 2021).","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"Northern population","sectionType":"section","heading":"Northern population","content":"###### Northern population\n\nThe northern population has undergone a dramatic population decline and range contraction (e.g., Holmes 1989, 1998; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys 2000b, 2003, 2005a, 2008). Historically the distribution of the northern population extended much further south, to the Dorrigo Plateau and possibly to Wootton near the Myall Lakes (Chisholm 1958; Holmes 1982, 1989). Eastern Bristlebirds are presumed to be locally extinct from Conondale Ranges, Razorback Mountains, Mt Burrell, Big Scrub, Mt Richmond and the Dorrigo Plateau; in none of these areas have there been confirmed records for over a decade despite searching.\n\nNorthern Eastern Bristlebirds are now confined to the mountain ranges of south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales. In Queensland, they are currently known from one site near Mt Gipps on the Queensland/New South Wales border and possibly one at Mt Barney (DES 2018), though a long-term (minimum three-years) expanded survey program is needed to confirm current distribution (L Gould pers. comm. 2021). In New South Wales, they occur at several sites near Kyogle in the Border Ranges (NESP 2019). Fires in 2019–2020, initially thought to have burnt out some subpopulations, appear to have missed all with the exception of the possible\n\nMt Barney subpopulation (D Charley unpublished cited in Charley et al. 2021).\n\nThe extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO) for the northern population are estimated at 140 km² (100–200 km²) and 20 km² (range 16–24 km²), respectively (Charley et al. 2021). Both the EOO and AOO have stable trends\n\n(high reliability). The population is not considered to be highly fragmented (Charley et al. 2021).","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"Central and southern populations","sectionType":"section","heading":"Central and southern populations","content":"###### Central and southern populations\n\nToday, central Eastern Bristlebirds occur in central coastal New South Wales at Barren Grounds Nature Reserve, Budderoo National Park, the Jervis Bay area, near Cataract Dam and at Red Rock Nature Reserve (Baker 1997, 1998; Bramwell 2008; OEH 2012; BirdLife International 2021; Bain et al. 2021). Subpopulations on Beecroft Peninsula, and Cataract on the Woronora Plateau, were reintroduced for conservation purposes (Baker et al. 2012). In the central populations, there are historical records\n\nof the species at several locations between Sydney and Ulladulla where the species is thought to now be extinct.\n\nThe southern population occurs in Victoria at Howe Flat in Croajingolong National Park and in southern New South Wales at Nadgee Nature Reserve. Southern Eastern Bristlebirds have also undergone a significant population decline and range contraction in Victoria. Surveys in the late 1990s failed to locate the species at nine confirmed former sites and two unconfirmed sites in Victoria (Baker 1998; Clarke &\n\nBramwell 1998). There are historical records at scattered sites from the NSW border to near Lake Tyers (White 1915; Clarke & Bramwell 1998), unconfirmed reports from Wilsons Promontory and Tarwin Lower-Walkerville (Cooper 1975; Emison et al. 1987; Mitchell 1995), and subfossil deposits indicating that the distribution once extended west at least as far as Nelson in far south-western Victoria (Blakers et al. 1984;\n\nBaird 1992).\n\nCurrent EOO and AOO for the central and southern populations are estimated at 8,150 km² (range 8,000–8,300 km²) and 200 km² (range 180–250 km²), respectively (Bain et al. 2021). These populations are not severely fragmented (Bain et al. 2021).","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"MAP 1: Modelled distribution of the East","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"MAP 1: Modelled distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird.","content":"#### ![Decorative horizontal line](image.021.png) \n![Map of species distribution in New South Wales](image.022.jpeg) \nMAP 1: Modelled distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird.\n\nSource: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data [Species of National Environmental](http://www.environment.gov.au/science/erin/databases-maps/snes)\n\n[Significance](http://www.environment.gov.au/science/erin/databases-maps/snes) database.\n\nCaveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\nSpecies distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive\n\ndatabase of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental\n\nmodelling techniques and documented scientific research.","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"2.5","sectionType":"part","heading":"Population trends","content":"![Decorative horizontal line](image.020.png)\n\n#### ![Decorative horizontal line](image.021.png) \n![Map of species distribution in New South Wales](image.022.jpeg) \nMAP 1: Modelled distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird.\n\nSource: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data [Species of National Environmental](http://www.environment.gov.au/science/erin/databases-maps/snes)\n\n[Significance](http://www.environment.gov.au/science/erin/databases-maps/snes) database.\n\nCaveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.\n\nSpecies distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive\n\ndatabase of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental\n\nmodelling techniques and documented scientific research.\n\n## 2.5 Population trends\n\n###### Northern population\n\nIn 2020, 43 northern Eastern Bristlebirds were known to be alive in the wild, with another two sites having recent possible sightings, suggesting in total 45–46 birds were present (D Charley unpublished, cited in Charley et al. 2021). Of these, four were confirmed in Queensland and 39 confirmed in NSW. There were a further\n\n19 individuals in captivity.\n\nNumbers have been stable or slightly increasing in the last decade, despite ongoing declines in Queensland suggesting ongoing southward contraction in distribution: in 2014, 11 birds were recorded, suggesting 13–30 birds present; in 2016, 18 birds\n\nwere recorded (suggesting 20 to 30 birds present; NESP 2019); and in 2018, 25 birds","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"2.6","sectionType":"part","heading":"Cultural and community significance","content":"## 2.6 Cultural and community significance\n\nEastern Bristlebird populations and their habitat occur across areas of cultural significance to numerous Traditional Owner groups. The landscape, and the plants, animals and physical features within the landscape, are all an integral part of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The small areas occupied by the Eastern Bristlebird are part of a larger landscape which is recognised for its significance and connectivity to people and places beyond the scope of this recovery plan.","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"Central population","sectionType":"section","heading":"Central population","content":"###### Central population\n\nWithin the central population, the Eastern Bristlebird is of high cultural significance for the Dharawal and Dhurga people from southern Botany Bay to Wreck Bay.\n\n“For the Dharawal and Dhurga the Eastern Bristlebird indicates extreme weather can be on its way, such as fire. We have always known the Eastern Bristlebirds make their nests in the old native sedge and lomandra gardens where our people once gathered seasonal plant seeds for food, such as bush rice from the lomandra species and other local grass seeds and also hard seed local fruits” (R Mason pers. comm. cited in OEH 2012).\n\nJervis Bay has been a focus of human activity for at least 7,000 years and has an Aboriginal cultural heritage that is remarkable for its diversity; richness and significance to Aboriginal people (DAWE 2021b). Occupation of the area by Aboriginal people in traditional and recent times and continuing use today for food gathering, educational and ceremonial activities has given the area high Aboriginal social value. Many of the traditional storylines linking different elements of the landscape are still recounted and spiritual ties to the land are maintained through stories, on-going use and the passing on of knowledge through the generations.","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"Southern population","sectionType":"section","heading":"Southern population","content":"###### Southern population\n\nIn Victoria, habitat for the extant Eastern Bristlebird population and potential reintroduction sites are known to be of cultural significance and interest to Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities.\n\nAdditionally, Nadgee NR is highly culturally significant, with numerous stone arrangements, burials and middens (G Moore pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012). The abundance of artefacts and middens within the Croajingolong Biosphere Reserve (including Nadgee NR) indicates a history of occupation by fairly large populations\n\nof Indigenous communities, who were probably concentrated around the inlets, estuaries and wetlands (UNESCO 2016).\n\n“The Eastern Bristlebird was well known by Aboriginal people on the Far South Coast of NSW in the past. This bird was the skin of a local group. When European settlers moved into the area and cleared the land for farming, both the bird and the people disappeared from\n\nthe area” (G Moore pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012).\n\nThis statement of significance is not intended to be comprehensive, applicable to,\n\nor speak for, all Indigenous Australians and it is acknowledged that Indigenous groups and individuals are the custodians of this knowledge.","sortOrder":23},{"sectionNumber":"2.7","sectionType":"part","heading":"Relevant biology and ecology","content":"Through their cultural traditions, the South Coast (Yuin) Aboriginal people of the Dharawal-Dhurga language group and the Jerrinja community identify the Jervis Bay area as their Traditional Country. Booderee National Park and Booderee Botanic\n\nGardens have been jointly managed by the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council and the Australian Government since 1995 in accordance with the EPBC Act.\n\n###### Southern population\n\nIn Victoria, habitat for the extant Eastern Bristlebird population and potential reintroduction sites are known to be of cultural significance and interest to Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities.\n\nAdditionally, Nadgee NR is highly culturally significant, with numerous stone arrangements, burials and middens (G Moore pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012). The abundance of artefacts and middens within the Croajingolong Biosphere Reserve (including Nadgee NR) indicates a history of occupation by fairly large populations\n\nof Indigenous communities, who were probably concentrated around the inlets, estuaries and wetlands (UNESCO 2016).\n\n“The Eastern Bristlebird was well known by Aboriginal people on the Far South Coast of NSW in the past. This bird was the skin of a local group. When European settlers moved into the area and cleared the land for farming, both the bird and the people disappeared from\n\nthe area” (G Moore pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012).\n\nThis statement of significance is not intended to be comprehensive, applicable to,\n\nor speak for, all Indigenous Australians and it is acknowledged that Indigenous groups and individuals are the custodians of this knowledge.\n\n## 2.7 Relevant biology and ecology\n\n### 2.7.1 Habitat requirements\n\nThe habitat of the Eastern Bristlebird is defined by a similar structure of low, dense, ground or understorey vegetation (Lamb et al. 1993; Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Chapman 1999; Baker 2000), within a broad range of vegetation types with a variety of species compositions, including grassland, sedgeland, heathland, swampland, scrubland, grassy sclerophyll forest and woodland, and rainforest (e.g., Smith\n\n1977, 1987; Holmes 1989, 1998; Baker 1997, 2000; Chapman 1999; Miles 2004; Bramwell 2008; Baker 2009; Baker et al. 2012; Stone et al. 2018). Eastern Bristlebird habitat primarily occurs as coastal, subcoastal and coastal escarpment scrubland/ grassland/sedgeland and as open grassy forest on inland ranges (Blakers et al. 1984; Holmes 1989).\n\nEastern Bristlebirds inhabit fire-prone habitats and the relationship between the species and fire has been well studied (e.g., Holmes 1989, 1998; Lamb et al. 1993; Baker 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003; Bramwell et al. 1992; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Bain & McPhee 2005; Bain et al. 2008; Lindenmayer et al. 2009;\n\nStone et al. 2018). The response of Eastern Bristlebird populations to fire is highly variable and strongly context-dependent (Bradstock et al. 2005; Bain et al. 2008), but they are particularly vulnerable to large-scale, intense fires (e.g., Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Baker 2000). The extent, intensity and frequency of fires are all important in determining habitat suitability.","sortOrder":24},{"sectionNumber":"2.7.1 Habitat requirements","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.7.1 Habitat requirements","content":"### 2.7.1 Habitat requirements\n\nThe habitat of the Eastern Bristlebird is defined by a similar structure of low, dense, ground or understorey vegetation (Lamb et al. 1993; Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Chapman 1999; Baker 2000), within a broad range of vegetation types with a variety of species compositions, including grassland, sedgeland, heathland, swampland, scrubland, grassy sclerophyll forest and woodland, and rainforest (e.g., Smith\n\n1977, 1987; Holmes 1989, 1998; Baker 1997, 2000; Chapman 1999; Miles 2004; Bramwell 2008; Baker 2009; Baker et al. 2012; Stone et al. 2018). Eastern Bristlebird habitat primarily occurs as coastal, subcoastal and coastal escarpment scrubland/ grassland/sedgeland and as open grassy forest on inland ranges (Blakers et al. 1984; Holmes 1989).\n\nEastern Bristlebirds inhabit fire-prone habitats and the relationship between the species and fire has been well studied (e.g., Holmes 1989, 1998; Lamb et al. 1993; Baker 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003; Bramwell et al. 1992; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Bain & McPhee 2005; Bain et al. 2008; Lindenmayer et al. 2009;\n\nStone et al. 2018). The response of Eastern Bristlebird populations to fire is highly variable and strongly context-dependent (Bradstock et al. 2005; Bain et al. 2008), but they are particularly vulnerable to large-scale, intense fires (e.g., Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Baker 2000). The extent, intensity and frequency of fires are all important in determining habitat suitability.","sortOrder":25},{"sectionNumber":"2.7.2 Diet and foraging ecology","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.7.2 Diet and foraging ecology","content":"### 2.7.2 Diet and foraging ecology\n\nThe Eastern Bristlebird feeds mainly on invertebrates (ants, beetles, flies, cockroaches, true bugs (hemipterans), cicadas, grasshoppers, crickets, mantids and caterpillars, but also earthworms and spiders), seeds and small fruits of grasses and other plants including Acacia, Carex, Exocarpos and, possibly, Lycium ferocissimum (African Box-thorn), but may also take fungi and occasionally nectar from Banksia ericifolia, food scraps and tadpoles (Gould 1865; Lea & Gray 1935; Barker & Vestjens 1990; Holmes 1998; Chapman 1999; Gibson 1999; Gibson & Baker 2004).\n\nEastern Bristlebirds forage mostly on the ground, where they toss aside leaf litter with their bill, peck food items from the surface and probe into soil, but they do not use their feet to scratch the ground. They occasionally glean food items from foliage or branches, or capture insects in flight (Blakers et al. 1984; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Baker 1998; Holmes 1998; Chapman 1999; Gibson & Baker 2004).","sortOrder":28},{"sectionNumber":"2.7.3 Breeding ecology","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.7.3 Breeding ecology","content":"### 2.7.3 Breeding ecology\n\nEastern Bristlebirds breed from August to February (Campbell 1900; Chaffer 1954; Morris et al. 1981; Higgins & Peter 2002). Females build a small, globular nest that has a side entrance and is made from grass, bark, sedges or reeds, and sometimes leaves (McNamara 1946; Chaffer 1954; Holmes 1989, Higgins & Peter 2002; Booth 2009). The nest is generally constructed at 10 to 45 cm above the ground in low dense vegetation, in grass tussocks, sedges, ferns and shrubs (Campbell 1900; McNamara 1946; Holmes 1989; Chapman 1999; Baker 2000; Higgins & Peter 2002). Occasionally, nests are built in lower branches of shrubs (Holmes 1998).\n\nBirds in the northern population nest in large living grass tussocks, in clearings not shaded by trees (J. Young unpublished data). In north-eastern NSW in the 2009 breeding season, most nests were located in Poa sp. tussocks, even where other tussock grass species were present (J. Young unpublished data). In previous\n\nstudies nesting has been observed most frequently in Sorghum leiocladum, and less often in Poa sieberiana, P. labillardierei and Cenchrus purpurascens (Holmes 1989; Chapman 1999). Birds in the central population nest in grasses, in sedges such as Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus, Gahnia spp. and Lepidosperma laterale, and in the rush Leptocarpus tenax (McNamara 1946; Chaffer 1954; Baker 2000; Higgins & Peter 2002). There are no nest data for Howe Flat or Nadgee NR (L Evans & M Bramwell pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012).\n\nEastern Bristlebirds usually lay one clutch, consisting of one to two eggs\n\n(Campbell 1900; Chaffer 1954; Holmes 1989; Higgins & Peter 2002). The eggs are creamy-white and speckled with brownish or greyish spots, darker at the blunt end (McNamara 1946; Chaffer 1954; Booth 2009). The eggs are incubated by the female (Booth 2009), for a period of at least three weeks (Chaffer 1954). The nestlings are fed by both parents (Chapman 1999) during the nestling period of at least 16 days (Chapman 1999; Higgins & Peter 2002). It is thought that pairs probably rear only one brood per season, and that usually only one young is fledged per successful breeding attempt (Chaffer 1954; Holmes 1989, 1998; Baker 1998).\n\nField studies in south east Queensland have identified that birds can re-clutch following the failure of a first nesting attempt, and in captivity re-laying has occurred in four cases after an average of 17 days since egg removal (Booth 2009). Breeding failure is common. Nest and/or chick desertion is known to occur after human","sortOrder":29},{"sectionNumber":"2.7.4 Movement patterns","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.7.4 Movement patterns","content":"### 2.7.4 Movement patterns\n\nThe Eastern Bristlebird is a sedentary (McNamara 1946; Gibson 1977; Blakers et al. 1984; Holmes 1989; Lamb et al. 1993; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994) or resident (Morris et al. 1981; Cooper 1991) species that undertakes some local movements (Baker 1998; Baker & Clarke 1999) and can recolonise some areas after being displaced by fire (Bramwell & Baker 1990; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Jordan 1984; Pyke et al. 1995). The birds are only capable of making weak, low, short-range flights (Chaffer 1954; Holmes 1989; Bramwell & Baker 1990; Lamb et al. 1993; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Baker 1998; Chapman 1999), which suggests that dispersal is likely to be mostly through ground movements (Higgins & Peter 2002) and, consequently, that they have a limited ability to disperse (Clarke & Bramwell 1998).\n\nStudies of radio-tagged birds indicate that Eastern Bristlebirds are capable of travelling a total distance of at least 1.5 km during the course of a day (Baker & Clarke 1999). In 2009, Eastern Bristlebirds were recorded two to four kilometres from Howe Flat in heathland where they had previously not been detected, requiring a 2 km movement through coastal forest vegetation (M Bramwell pers. comm. 2010 cited","sortOrder":30},{"sectionNumber":"2.8","sectionType":"part","heading":"Key Biodiversity Areas","content":"## 2.8 Key Biodiversity Areas\n\nThe Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) programme aims to identify, map, monitor and conserve the critical sites for global biodiversity across the planet. This process is guided by a Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, the KBA Standard (IUCN 2016). It establishes a consultative, science-based process for\n\nthe identification of globally important sites for biodiversity worldwide. Sites qualify as KBAs of global importance if they meet one or more of 11 criteria in five categories: threatened biodiversity; geographically restricted biodiversity; ecological integrity; biological processes; and, irreplaceability. The KBAs programme is the successor\n\nand extension of BirdLife Australia’s Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs). Critically, the KBA Standard provides consistency to assist governments meeting their conservation obligations under various international treaties. For more information on KBAs visit – [http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home](http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home)\n\nThe global KBA partnership currently recognises five Key Biodiversity Areas as important for Eastern Bristlebird conservation and to support the long-term persistence of the species. KBAs are also undergoing a regular revision to ensure changes in IUCN red list status, taxonomic changes, local population trends as well as increased knowledge of the species are reflected accurately in the KBA network. As such, over time, additional KBAs may be recognised for their importance for Eastern Bristlebirds or new KBAs may be declared for this and other taxa. Detailed KBA Factsheets, including boundary maps, population estimates of trigger species and scientific references are available from the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas (Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership 2020). They include:\n\n • [Conondale Range](http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/site/factsheet/24812) (QLD): centred approximately 125 km north-north-east of Brisbane in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. It comprises a series of protected areas and forest reserves that support either Black-breasted Button-quail or Eastern Bristlebird. National Parks include: Amamoor, Conondale, Glastonbury and Maleny; and King Conservation Park; and Forest Reserves: Conondale, Elgin, Glastonbury, Imbil 1 & 2, Jimna, Kandanga, Kenilworth, Oakview, Wrattens, Yabba 1 & 2; and\n\nState Forests: Amamoor, Brooyar 1 & 2, Conondale, Diaper, Elgin Vale, Gallangowan,","sortOrder":31},{"sectionNumber":"2.9","sectionType":"part","heading":"Habitat critical to survival","content":"## 2.9 Habitat critical to survival\n\nHabitat critical to the survival or important habitats of a species or ecological community refers to areas that are necessary:\n\n • for activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal;\n • for the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators);\n • to maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development; or\n • for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or\n\necological community.\n\nSuch habitat may be, but is not limited to: habitat identified in a recovery plan for\n\nthe species or ecological community as habitat critical for that species or ecological community; and/or habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the Minister under the EPBC Act.\n\nHabitat critical to the survival of the Eastern Bristlebird includes:","sortOrder":32},{"sectionNumber":"Breeding and foraging habitat","sectionType":"section","heading":"Breeding and foraging habitat","content":"###### Breeding and foraging habitat\n\n • Northern population: within the known or likely range and in habitat that occurs in open forest with dense tussocky grass understorey and sparse mid-storey near rainforest ecotone. The northern fire regime is between 3–6 years and of variable intensity depending on the habitat condition.\n • Central and southern populations: within the known or likely range and in habitat that includes low vegetation including heath and open woodland with a heathy understorey. Birds reach maximum densities of 3–4 birds per 10 ha in habitat that has not been burnt for at least 15 years.","sortOrder":33},{"sectionNumber":"Habitat for the long-term maintenance of","sectionType":"section","heading":"Habitat for the long-term maintenance of the species","content":"###### Habitat for the long-term maintenance of the species\n\n • All Key Biodiversity Areas with Eastern Bristlebird as a Trigger species.\n\nAdditionally, all suitable habitat occupied by the Eastern Bristlebird before and after the 2019–2020 wildfires is considered habitat critical to survival. It is also important to consider and maintain connectivity, buffer zones, and refugia habitat – especially in the context of wildfire – for the species. Potential or planned release sites are\n\nalso considered habitat critical to the survival of Eastern Bristlebirds and should be afforded the same level of protection and conservation management as known sites. Sympathetic management of areas adjoining Eastern Bristlebird habitats is important. Habitat connectivity is important for maintaining or enhancing species genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary potential.\n\nHabitat critical to the survival of Eastern Bristlebird occurs across a wide range of land tenures, including freehold land and reserves, defence land (e.g., Beecroft), publicly owned forests and state reserves, and national parks (e.g., Booderee NP). It is essential that the locations where the species regularly occurs is given the highest protection and conservation measures target these productive habitats.\n\nNo Critical Habitat as defined under section 207A of the EPBC Act has been identified\n\nor included in the Register of Critical Habitat","sortOrder":34},{"sectionNumber":"2.9.1 Key considerations for decision ma","sectionType":"division","heading":"2.9.1 Key considerations for decision makers","content":"### 2.9.1 Key considerations for decision makers\n\nHabitat critical to the survival of Eastern Bristlebirds occurs across a range of land tenures should not be destroyed or modified. Actions that have indirect impacts on habitat critical to the survival (e.g., native vegetation removal) should be avoided. Actions that compromise adult and juvenile survival should also be avoided.\n\nWhen considering developments in any part of the Eastern Bristlebird’s range, including in areas where the species ‘may occur’, surveys for occupancy that consider detectability and are undertaken at the appropriate times of the year remain an important tool in establishing the areas of importance to the Eastern Bristlebird. In addition, it is important to note that the Eastern Bristlebird may opportunistically use areas depending on the occurrence of suitable habitat following fire. Areas that may be important habitat over time might not have birds in any given year. This pattern\n\nof habitat use means that recent survey data and historical records and presence of suitable habitat need to be considered when assessing the relative importance of a site or region for the Eastern Bristlebird.\n\nActions that remove habitat critical to the survival will interfere with the recovery of Eastern Bristlebird and reduce the area of occupancy of the species. If removal of habitat critical to the survival cannot be avoided or mitigated, then an offset should be provided.","sortOrder":35},{"sectionNumber":"3. Threats","sectionType":"part","heading":"3. Threats","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)3. Threats","sortOrder":36},{"sectionNumber":"3.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Historical causes of decline","content":"## 3.1 Historical causes of decline\n\nHabitat loss, due to urbanisation, agriculture and inappropriate fire regimes, is recognised as the main process that has reduced the distribution and abundance of the Eastern Bristlebird in the last 150 years. This resulted in a dramatic reduction in the distribution of the species and the local extinction of Eastern Bristlebird populations (Baker 1997).","sortOrder":37},{"sectionNumber":"3.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Current threats","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)3. Threats\n\n## 3.1 Historical causes of decline\n\nHabitat loss, due to urbanisation, agriculture and inappropriate fire regimes, is recognised as the main process that has reduced the distribution and abundance of the Eastern Bristlebird in the last 150 years. This resulted in a dramatic reduction in the distribution of the species and the local extinction of Eastern Bristlebird populations (Baker 1997).\n\n## 3.2 Current threats\n\n### 3.2.1 Threat assessment and prioritisation\n\nThe approach to assessing current threats was taken from the Conservation Standards (CMP 2020), an internationally adopted set of principles and practices for conservation project design, management, and monitoring developed by\n\nthe Conservation Measures Partnership. An assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility (see Appendix 1 for detailed criteria) was undertaken for each threat and then used to determine overall threat ratings, based on an algorithm in Miradi Share 2.0 (Miradi 2020). Threat rankings are based on overall threat ratings.\n\nThreats were considered in the context of the current management regimes. Threat impacts have been assessed assuming that existing management measures continue to be applied appropriately. If management regimes change then the threat rating and ranking may also change.\n\nThreats may act differently in different parts of the species’ range and at different times of year, but the precautionary principle dictates that the threat rating is determined by the population for which the threat impact is greatest. Population-wide threats are generally considered to present a higher threat to species recovery.","sortOrder":38},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.1 Threat assessment and prioritisati","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.1 Threat assessment and prioritisation","content":"### 3.2.1 Threat assessment and prioritisation\n\nThe approach to assessing current threats was taken from the Conservation Standards (CMP 2020), an internationally adopted set of principles and practices for conservation project design, management, and monitoring developed by\n\nthe Conservation Measures Partnership. An assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility (see Appendix 1 for detailed criteria) was undertaken for each threat and then used to determine overall threat ratings, based on an algorithm in Miradi Share 2.0 (Miradi 2020). Threat rankings are based on overall threat ratings.\n\nThreats were considered in the context of the current management regimes. Threat impacts have been assessed assuming that existing management measures continue to be applied appropriately. If management regimes change then the threat rating and ranking may also change.\n\nThreats may act differently in different parts of the species’ range and at different times of year, but the precautionary principle dictates that the threat rating is determined by the population for which the threat impact is greatest. Population-wide threats are generally considered to present a higher threat to species recovery.","sortOrder":39},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.2 Summary of current threats","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.2 Summary of current threats","content":"### 3.2.2 Summary of current threats\n\nCurrent threats to the Eastern Bristlebird are summarised in Table 2 and are outlined below in priority order (3.2.3–3.2.15).\n\nThe ratings of four current threats vary among populations (see Table 2 and Appendix 2). Seven key threatening processes listed under the EPBC Act are associated with current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird:\n\n • Dieback caused by plant pathogens (Phytophthora cinnamomi).\n • Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases\n • Predation by European red fox.\n • Predation by feral cats.\n • Predation, habitat degradation, competition, and disease transmission by\n\nferal pigs.\n\n • Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity.\n • Land clearance.\n\nIn addition, some current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird are reflected in state-listed key threatening processes.","sortOrder":40},{"sectionNumber":"TABLE 2: Current threats to the Eastern ","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"TABLE 2: Current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird, ranked according to an overall threat rating derived from an assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility.","content":"#### TABLE 2: Current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird, ranked according to an overall threat rating derived from an assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility.\n\n![Decorative horizontal line](image.021.png) \n\n```html\n

Threat

Scope

Severity

Irreversibility

Overall rating

Inappropriate fire regimes

Wildfire

Very High

Very High

High

Very High

Management*

Very High

High

Medium

High

Climate change

Very High

Medium

High

Medium

Lack of genetic diversity*

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Dieback and invasive weeds*

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Drought

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Predation by foxes*

High

High

Low

Medium

Predation by cats*

Medium

Medium

High

Medium

Disease (wild populations)

Medium

High

Medium

Medium

Clearing of habitat

Low

Very High

High

Low

Disease (captive populations)

Low

High

Medium

Low

Pigs *

Low

Medium

Medium

Low

Overabundant herbivores

Low

Low

Medium

Low

Human disturbance

Low

Low

Low

Low

\n```\n\n\\* Threat rating varies among populations (see Appendix 2 for detail)","sortOrder":41},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.3 Inappropriate fire regimes","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.3 Inappropriate fire regimes","content":"![Decorative horizontal line](image.020.png)\n\n#### TABLE 2: Current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird, ranked according to an overall threat rating derived from an assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility.\n\n![Decorative horizontal line](image.021.png) \n\n```html\n

Threat

Scope

Severity

Irreversibility

Overall rating

Inappropriate fire regimes

Wildfire

Very High

Very High

High

Very High

Management*

Very High

High

Medium

High

Climate change

Very High

Medium

High

Medium

Lack of genetic diversity*

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Dieback and invasive weeds*

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Drought

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Predation by foxes*

High

High

Low

Medium

Predation by cats*

Medium

Medium

High

Medium

Disease (wild populations)

Medium

High

Medium

Medium

Clearing of habitat

Low

Very High

High

Low

Disease (captive populations)

Low

High

Medium

Low

Pigs *

Low

Medium

Medium

Low

Overabundant herbivores

Low

Low

Medium

Low

Human disturbance

Low

Low

Low

Low

\n```\n\n\\* Threat rating varies among populations (see Appendix 2 for detail)\n\n### 3.2.3 Inappropriate fire regimes\n\n###### 3.2.3.1 Wildfire\n\nA fire regime includes scale, intensity, frequency, seasonality, and patchiness, whether arising from wildfire (this section) or management (section 3.2.3.2). Inappropriate fire regimes (too frequent or infrequent) arising from wildfire or management, and interactions between the two, are a threat to all Eastern Bristlebird populations.\n\nThe Eastern Bristlebird is a cover-dependent and fire-sensitive species (Baker 2000). Ground dwelling and weak fliers, Eastern Bristlebirds are vulnerable to fire. In particular larger and more intense fires which travel quickly may be difficult for birds to escape. Inappropriate fire regimes arising from wildfire may threaten Eastern Bristlebird population viability through direct and indirect impacts and synergisms with other threats, which could ultimately result in localised extinctions (as is thought to have occurred historically, Baker 2003 in Bain et al. 2008).\n\nFires that are too infrequent are a major threat to the northern population. Infrequent fires lead to recruitment and/or growth of shrubs and trees resulting in higher canopy cover that has a negative influence on grass cover, reducing habitat quality and ultimately converting suitable habitat to unsuitable habitat. Too frequent or extensive fires are a threat to the central and southern populations, where Eastern Bristlebird density generally increases with time since fire (OEH 2012, DPIE 2018).\n\nAlthough Eastern Bristlebirds may be able to avoid fire by moving to unburnt areas and returning when conditions are suitable, the immediate threat of fire may be exacerbated if there is a lack of connecting habitat to enable birds to seek refugia. Therefore, buffer zones, connecting habitat, and unburnt refugia are important for species persistence during and after fire (Bain et al. 2008, Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Lindenmayer et al. 2009). Rainforest gullies adjacent to grassland are likely to be important for local persistence within the northern population during and after fire.","sortOrder":42},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.3.1 Wildfire","sectionType":"section","heading":"3.2.3.1 Wildfire","content":"###### 3.2.3.1 Wildfire\n\nA fire regime includes scale, intensity, frequency, seasonality, and patchiness, whether arising from wildfire (this section) or management (section 3.2.3.2). Inappropriate fire regimes (too frequent or infrequent) arising from wildfire or management, and interactions between the two, are a threat to all Eastern Bristlebird populations.\n\nThe Eastern Bristlebird is a cover-dependent and fire-sensitive species (Baker 2000). Ground dwelling and weak fliers, Eastern Bristlebirds are vulnerable to fire. In particular larger and more intense fires which travel quickly may be difficult for birds to escape. Inappropriate fire regimes arising from wildfire may threaten Eastern Bristlebird population viability through direct and indirect impacts and synergisms with other threats, which could ultimately result in localised extinctions (as is thought to have occurred historically, Baker 2003 in Bain et al. 2008).\n\nFires that are too infrequent are a major threat to the northern population. Infrequent fires lead to recruitment and/or growth of shrubs and trees resulting in higher canopy cover that has a negative influence on grass cover, reducing habitat quality and ultimately converting suitable habitat to unsuitable habitat. Too frequent or extensive fires are a threat to the central and southern populations, where Eastern Bristlebird density generally increases with time since fire (OEH 2012, DPIE 2018).\n\nAlthough Eastern Bristlebirds may be able to avoid fire by moving to unburnt areas and returning when conditions are suitable, the immediate threat of fire may be exacerbated if there is a lack of connecting habitat to enable birds to seek refugia. Therefore, buffer zones, connecting habitat, and unburnt refugia are important for species persistence during and after fire (Bain et al. 2008, Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Lindenmayer et al. 2009). Rainforest gullies adjacent to grassland are likely to be important for local persistence within the northern population during and after fire.","sortOrder":43},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.3.2 Management","sectionType":"section","heading":"3.2.3.2 Management","content":"###### 3.2.3.2 Management\n\nInappropriate fire management regimes, including fire exclusion, threaten Eastern Bristlebirds by causing direct and indirect mortality, reducing population size, exacerbating habitat fragmentation, reducing habitat availability, reducing population size and increasing vulnerability to stochastic events and other\n\nthreatening processes (e.g. predators, loss of genetic diversity). Although specific fire regimes have previously been suggested (OEH 2012), appropriate fire regimes are site and context dependent (Bain et al. 2008). Therefore, site-specific management at the local population scale is essential. However, given Eastern Bristlebirds may have difficulty escaping fire, avoiding encircling burns is essential.\n\nFire management considerations include fire scale, intensity, frequency, and seasonality (OEH 2012). In determining appropriate fire management regimes, it is important to consider those regimes on which Eastern Bristlebirds and their habitat depend (Olsen & Weston 2005). For example, within Heathland, fire management planning in and around Eastern Bristlebird habitat needs to collectively consider fire extent, severity, timing, interconnectivity of ground and mid-canopy fuel, and the delivery of fire into the landscape (e.g. backing fire, spot ignition, line ignition). It is also important to consider the extent of planned burns, as smaller, staggered burns that create a mosaic of vegetation age classes in and around key habitat are valuable. Further, fire management should consider synergistic effects of other threats to the Eastern Bristlebird and adopt an adaptive rather than prescriptive approach.\n\nAppropriate fire management regimes need to be incorporated within fire management plans and considered in conjunction with factors such as protection of human life and property and recovery of threatened species and ecological communities. Generally, effective fire management to conserve Eastern Bristlebird\n\npopulations include: mosaic, low-intensity and/or burns with small footprints, ignited along one fire front, a suitable site-specific fire interval, strategic breaks and buffers and timing with respect to breeding season and environmental conditions such as drought (though this can vary between sites).\n\nAs with mitigation of wildfire, fire management regimes need to protect buffer zones, connecting habitat and unburnt refugia and, because the response to fire is site and context dependent, fine scale site-specific management is required (Bain et al. 2008). Refugia sites also need to be sufficiently large to support a population that is resilient to demographic stochasticity while burnt habitat recovers and provides opportunities for the population to expand.","sortOrder":44},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.4 Climate change","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.4 Climate change","content":"### 3.2.4 Climate change\n\nAustralia’s climate has warmed by about 1.4 °C since 1910, leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events (BOM & CSIRO 2020). Warming has occurred across Australia in all months, with both day and night-time temperatures increasing. Winter rainfall in southern Australia is projected to decline, while most of the country is likely to experience more extreme daily rainfall (BOM & CSIRO 2020). Heatwaves are also lasting longer, reaching more extreme maximum temperatures, and occurring more frequently over many regions of Australia, including south-eastern Australia (Perkins-Kirkpatrick et al. 2016; Evans et al. 2017; Herold et al. 2018; BOM & CSIRO 2020). Heatwaves also exacerbate drought, which in turn can also increase bushfire risk (BOM & CSIRO 2020). Birds are also vulnerable to extreme heatwaves that overwhelm their physiological limits (McKechnie et al. 2012).","sortOrder":45},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.5 Lack of genetic diversity","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.5 Lack of genetic diversity","content":"### 3.2.5 Lack of genetic diversity\n\nGenetic diversity is important for the viability of populations and the evolutionary potential of species. Habitat fragmentation and isolation of natural populations can reduce effective population size (Love Stowell et al. 2017), leading to loss of genetic diversity and inbreeding. Populations that are restricted to small, isolated habitat patches can fall into an ‘extinction vortex’, where low genetic diversity and susceptibility to extreme events (e.g., fires, disease and drought) limit population recovery. In such cases, habitat protection or restoration may not be sufficient for population increase.\n\nGenetic assessment of the Eastern Bristlebird by Roberts et al. (2011) showed there was insufficient phylogenetic distinctiveness between populations to support classification of the northern population as a subspecies. Both the northern and southern populations were less genetically diverse then the central population, consistent\n\nwith their smaller population sizes (Weeks et al. 2016). Using a limited dataset of six microsatellites, Roberts et al. (2011) found broad-scale genetic subdivision by region. They cautioned against mixing genetics across regions to preserve genetic\n\nintegrity of the local populations. However, it has been suggested that this study was underpowered and management recommendations were not based on gene flow between units and time of divergence (P. Sunnucks pers. comm. cited in NESP 2018). Both these factors highly affect the likely response of a population to genetic rescue. The genetic distinctiveness of the northern population is likely due to random genetic drift following historically recent fragmentation and small population size, rather than a reflection of longer-term evolutionary adaptation (Sunnucks 2013). Because of this, it is unlikely that cross-breeding between the phylogenetically similar southern and northern populations would cause outbreeding depression.\n\nMore recently, a genetic assessment of Eastern Bristlebirds from Howe Flat, Victoria (southern population, 15 samples), compared with samples from the northern captive population (15 samples), Budderoo National Park (central population, 24 samples),","sortOrder":46},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.6 Dieback and invasive weeds","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.6 Dieback and invasive weeds","content":"### 3.2.6 Dieback and invasive weeds\n\nDieback, caused by pathogens e.g., Phytophthora cinnamomi and invasive weeds may modify Eastern Bristlebird habitat, reduce habitat quality, and limit the availability of suitable habitat (DES 2018; DPIE 2018). Therefore, hygiene measures and control of dieback and invasive weeds are important to maintain Eastern Bristlebird habitat availability and suitability. Hygiene measures will also help prevent the spread of other plant diseases such as Myrtle Rust (Austropuccinia psidii). In addition, Bell Miner associated dieback (BMAD) is present within northern Eastern Bristlebird habitat (DES 2018).\n\nThe current threat of dieback and invasive weeds was assessed as higher for\n\nthe northern Eastern Bristlebird population, compared to central and southern populations (Appendix 2). However, the potential threat of dieback in the central and southern populations is very high because the majority of plant diversity and structure where these populations occur is in the Proteaceae family which is especially susceptible to P. cinnamomi (M Antos pers. comm. 2021).\n\nInvasive weeds that negatively impact northern population habitat include Lantana (Lantana camara), Crofton Weed (Ageratina adenophora), Mist Flower (A. riparia), Christmas Wattle (Acacia sp.), and Foxtail (Cenchrus purpurascens) (OEH 2012;\n\nDES 2018). For southern populations, most habitat is relatively weed free with the","sortOrder":47},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.7 Drought","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.7 Drought","content":"### 3.2.7 Drought\n\nWhile droughts are a natural phenomenon in Australia, climate change modelling suggests droughts are likely to be longer and more intense (BOM & CSIRO 2020). Drought episodes may have contributed to Eastern Bristlebird population declines due to resultant loss, modification and/or degradation of habitat (Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Stewart et al. 2004) and reduced food availability (e.g., reduction in invertebrates suitable for feeding nestlings; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994).\n\nNorthern Eastern Bristlebirds have been observed moving into gullies during long hot summers (Stone et al. 2019), highlighting the need for alternative habitat and refugia during temperature extremes. Northern bristlebirds are closely associated with the rainforest margin; all territories are found within 400 m of a dense rainforest edge.\n\nThese margins provide increased humidity for tall, thick tussock grasses and have better quality invertebrate resources for foraging (Stone et al. 2018). An increase in the frequency and duration of drought could have a negative impact on the condition of this ecotone, which will affect the reproductive potential of bristlebirds. Any suppression of reproductive capacity or compromised survivorship in the already small northern population could lead to rapid extinction.\n\nThe Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020 (Charley et al. 2021; Bain et al. 2021) considered an increased frequency or length of droughts in an assessment of threats to the Eastern Bristlebird. Drought impacts may interact with other threats, including climate change, fire, and invasive weeds. For example, the 2019–2020 wildfires were exacerbated by drought (Ward et al. 2020).\n\nDrought conditions may also impede the implementation of on-ground management actions. For example, chemical weed control is rendered ineffective during drought and over-dry conditions prevent prescribed burning due to associated risks (K Roche pers. comm. 2021)","sortOrder":48},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.8 Predation by foxes","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.8 Predation by foxes","content":"### 3.2.8 Predation by foxes\n\nBecause Eastern Bristlebird are ground-dwelling and nest close to the ground, the species is at risk of predation by foxes, particularly when wildfires reduce the amount of vegetation and increase Eastern Bristlebird exposure (Lindenmayer et al. 2009).\n\nIn addition, Eastern Bristlebird calling behaviour may make them susceptible to predation (OEH 2012).\n\nThe threat of predation by foxes varies across the distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird. Although not quantified, the threat of predation by foxes was assessed as higher for the central Eastern Bristlebird population, compared to northern and\n\nsouthern populations (Appendix 2). The effects of predation are less significant for the northern population because the thick grassy habitat reduces foraging opportunities for invasive predators. Nonetheless, any natural predation (by native predators) or the occasional predation by invasive pest predators could have a significant impact\n\non northern populations of Eastern Bristlebird, due to the very small number of wild individuals remaining. Eastern Bristlebirds at Nadgee NR (southern population) recovered rapidly after fire in the absence of pest predator baiting programs, likely because the area has a healthy Dingo (Canis familiaris) population.\n\nPredation by European red fox is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EBPC Act, and a threat abatement plan has been prepared (DEWHA 2008a, 2008b).","sortOrder":49},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.9 Predation by feral cats","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.9 Predation by feral cats","content":"### 3.2.9 Predation by feral cats\n\nIn addition to foxes, feral cats predate on Eastern Bristlebirds (Meek 2003; Woinarski et al. 2017), although predation risk varies across the species spatial range. As with the threat of predation by foxes, the threat of predation by cats has not been quantified but was assessed as higher for the northern Eastern Bristlebird population, compared to central and southern populations that occur in dense heath vegetation that is relatively impenetrable to cats and foxes (Appendix 2). The threat of cats is also amplified by bushfires as they take advantage of recently burnt areas (McGregor et\n\nal. 2016), as they prefer to hunt in open habitats and have higher hunting success in such habitats (McGregor et al. 2015). Studies are required to assess the overall impact of predation by cats and foxes, and the effectiveness of their control, on the Eastern Bristlebird.\n\nPredation by feral cats is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EBPC Act, and a threat abatement plan has been prepared (DE 2015a, 2015b).","sortOrder":50},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.10 Disease in captive populations","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.10 Disease in captive populations","content":"### 3.2.10 Disease in captive populations\n\nCaptive Eastern Bristlebirds may be at increased risk of infection with pathogens and parasites, due to low genetic diversity and the potential for stress during capture. Susceptibility to infection appears high in captive Eastern Bristlebirds and there is apparent fragility of birds during transfer to captivity (Selwood et al. 2021).\n\nEastern Bristlebirds in captive breeding programs have been subject to mortality from parasitic infections with Atoxoplasma, likely obtained in the wild prior to capture (D Bain pers. comm. 2021), and aspergillosis infections are a risk. Six of 15 birds rescued from Howe Flat, Victoria, during the 2019–2020 fires died due to aspergillosis (a non-contagious stress-induced respiratory illness) during their initial days in captivity (Selwood et al. 2021). An effective treatment regimen was established for surviving birds, and it is now recommended that Eastern Bristlebirds translocated\n\nto captivity are treated prophylactically through food to prevent disease from aspergillosis (Selwood et al. 2021). It is also recommended that the species be housed on sandy soil substrates to reduce possibility of aspergillosis transfer ex-situ (M Lynch pers. comm. 2021).","sortOrder":51},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.11 Disease in wild populations","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.11 Disease in wild populations","content":"### 3.2.11 Disease in wild populations\n\nInfection prevalence and parasite/pathogen burden and associated adverse effects in wild populations are unknown but may have the potential to impact on Eastern Bristlebird recovery. An improved understanding of disease in wild populations is needed to inform any translocation actions and reintroduction of Eastern Bristlebird into the wild. Captive birds have succumbed to parasite infections which were likely obtained in the wild prior to capture.\n\nDisease threats may not be uniform across all wild Eastern Bristlebird populations. Small and/or fragmented populations like those of northern and southern Eastern Bristlebird populations may be at higher risk of adverse effects from disease, in part due to an increased susceptibility to disease that may be associated with lower genetic diversity.\n\nStudies are needed to determine prevalence and impacts of both asymptomatic\n\ninfections and infections with clinical signs of disease in all wild populations.","sortOrder":52},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.12 Clearing of habitat","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.12 Clearing of habitat","content":"### 3.2.12 Clearing of habitat\n\nWhere habitat is not protected, contemporary clearing for agriculture, forestry, fuel breaks, utility easements, and residential development may continue to threaten the Eastern Bristlebird. Clearing results in the loss of Eastern Bristlebird habitat and may fragment populations, increasing their vulnerability to negative impacts of other threats. Increased fragmentation interacts with other threats and makes the Eastern Bristlebird more susceptible to local extinction. For example, fragmentation\n\nmay reduce the capacity of Eastern Bristlebirds to escape fire, improve feral predator access to Eastern Bristlebird habitat, increase the risk of vehicle strike, and facilitate human disturbance (TSSC 2001b).\n\nWhile habitat on conservation reserves may be managed for Eastern Bristlebirds, recovery of habitat is difficult in some areas due to current land-zoning for urban development. Protection and management of habitat on private land, particularly for the northern population and at Jervis Bay, is extremely important. At Jervis Bay, the cumulative impact of residential developments remains a key threat to some local populations. Possible solutions include prioritising land supporting Eastern Bristlebird habitat for re-zoning to a category that conserves biodiversity values; and incorporating appropriate vegetation buffers, within the land zoned for urban development, at zoning boundaries adjacent to Eastern Bristlebird habitat.","sortOrder":53},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.13 Feral pigs","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.13 Feral pigs","content":"### 3.2.13 Feral pigs\n\nFeral pigs (Sus scrofa) are potential predators of Eastern Bristlebird eggs and chicks and may disturb breeding birds, damage habitat, facilitate weed invasion, spread plant diseases (including Phytophthora cinnamomi), and create tracks that provide access by predators (Stewart 1998b). The threat of pigs is relevant to the northern population (QLD) only.\n\nPredation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs has been listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EBPC Act, and a threat abatement plan has been prepared (DEE 2017).","sortOrder":54},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.14 Overabundant non-native herbivore","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.14 Overabundant non-native herbivores","content":"### 3.2.14 Overabundant non-native herbivores\n\nGrazing by non-native herbivores may degrade Eastern Bristlebird habitat, reduce habitat connectivity, and destroy nests. For example, appropriate management of cattle grazing has been critical for survival of northern population on private land (L Gould pers. comm. 2021).\n\nDeer are an emerging threat to the southern population (DAWE 2021), as they alter vegetation structural complexity, and create tracks that allow greater access into Eastern Bristlebird habitat by foxes and cats and may facilitate the spread of weeds and P. cinnamomi along tracks.","sortOrder":55},{"sectionNumber":"3.2.15 Human disturbance","sectionType":"division","heading":"3.2.15 Human disturbance","content":"### 3.2.15 Human disturbance\n\nHuman disturbance may result in habitat damage, disturbance of Eastern Bristlebird\n\nbreeding, abandonment of nests, and mortality from vehicle strike (DES 2019).\n\nThe use of call playback by birdwatchers may interfere with breeding behaviour during the breeding season.\n\n![Image of tire tracks across woodland](image.033.jpeg) \n\nHuman disturbance within the central population © Copyright, Chris Grounds","sortOrder":56},{"sectionNumber":"4. Populations under particular pressure","sectionType":"part","heading":"4. Populations under particular pressure","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)4. Populations under particular pressure\n\nAll areas where the Eastern Bristlebird is known or is likely to occur require protective measures. The actions described in this Recovery Plan are intended\n\nto provide ongoing protection for the Eastern Bristlebird throughout their range. Due to their small size and reduced genetic diversity, northern and southern\n\nEastern Bristlebird populations are likely to be under particular pressure from some current threats. Notably, the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020 (Charley et al. 2021) recognises the northern Eastern Bristlebird as Critically Endangered and the southern Eastern Bristlebird (NSW/ACT, VIC) as Near Threatened, based on IUCN Red List categories (IUCN 2001). Further, because some threats are higher in one population than another (Appendix 2) some Recovery Plan actions are population specific\n\n(see section 6 for details).","sortOrder":57},{"sectionNumber":"5. Vision, objectives and strategies","sectionType":"part","heading":"5. Vision, objectives and strategies","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)5. Vision, objectives and strategies","sortOrder":58},{"sectionNumber":"5.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Long-term vision","content":"## 5.1 Long-term vision\n\nEastern Bristlebird populations are genetically diverse and self-sustaining, and the species is resilient to impacts of climate change. Eastern Bristlebird recovery has been informed by comprehensive knowledge of Eastern Bristlebird ecology and best practice methods for conserving the species and its habitat. Eastern Bristlebird\n\nhabitat is protected, and Traditional Owners and the broader community are engaged\n\nin habitat management.","sortOrder":59},{"sectionNumber":"5.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Recovery Plan objectives and strategies","content":"## 5.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strategies\n\n| Objective 1 | By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population viability is improved in the northern, central and southern populations, compared to baselines (see section 1.3).Strategy 1: Population enhancement and augmentation. |\n| ----------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Objective 2 | By 2032, levels of priority threats on the Eastern Bristlebird are reduced, compared to baselines.Strategy 2: Threat management. |\n| Objective 3 | By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird habitat extent and condition are maintained or improved, compared to baselines.Strategy 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation. |\n| Objective 4 | By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population assessments are enhanced by addressing data and knowledge gaps and viable Eastern Bristlebird population sizes and trends are determined.Strategy 4: Biology and ecology knowledge enhancement. |","sortOrder":60},{"sectionNumber":"6. Actions to achieve the specific objec","sectionType":"part","heading":"6. Actions to achieve the specific objectives","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)6. Actions to achieve the specific objectives\n\nActions identified for the recovery of the Eastern Bristlebird are described below with a timeframe of 10-years.\n\nWhere an action is relevant to one or two, rather than all three populations, the relevant population(s) is indicated in text as follows: N northern population, C central population, and S southern population. Responsible Agencies are in bold text with potential supporting partners not in bold.\n\nPriorities assigned to actions should be interpreted as follows:\n\n| Priority 1: | Taking prompt action is necessary in order to mitigate the key threats to the Eastern Bristlebird and also provide valuable information to help identify long-term population trends |\n| ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |\n| Priority 2: | Action would provide a more informed basis for the long-term management and recovery of the Eastern Bristlebird. |\n| Priority 3: | Action is desirable, but not critical to the recovery of the Eastern Bristlebird or assessment of trends in that recovery. |","sortOrder":61},{"sectionNumber":"STRATEGY 3: Habitat protection, enhancem","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"STRATEGY 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation","content":"#### ![Decorative horizontal line](image.037.png) \nSTRATEGY 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation\n\n| Action | Description | Priority | Performance Criteria | Responsible Agencies and potential partners | Indicative Cost |\n| ------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------- |\n| 3.1 | Undertake evidence-based ecological burns. | 1 | Area of suitable habitat within Eastern Bristlebird distribution has increased:• Evidence-based ecological burns improve the extent and/or quality of suitable habitat.• Baseline mapping of fire history/ extent of suitable habitat is available.• Fire management strategies and site-specific plans are audited toidentify the extent to which ecological burns are evidence-based and effective (i.e., improve the extent and/ or quality of suitable habitat).• Traditional Owners are engaged in ecological burning strategies where relevant.• Appropriate habitat management burns are conducted (where relevant to site condition and context) inpreviously occupied territories. | Australian GovernmentState governmentsPublic land managersTraditional OwnersPrivate landownersAcademic/research institutionsEmergency services NGOs | $200,000 pa |\n| 3.2 | Refine Eastern Bristlebird habitat mapping. N, S | 1 | Knowledge of Eastern Bristlebird distribution has increased:• Fine scale, accurate vegetation mapping is developed and accessible. | State governmentsAcademic institutionsRegional NRM organisationNGOs | $100,000 |\n| 3.3 | Monitorpost-fire habitat extent, quality, connectivity, and refugia. | 2 | Habitat extent, quality and connectivity within Eastern Bristlebird distribution has increased:• Post-fire habitat assessments are undertaken and incorporated in Eastern Bristlebird recovery planning and on-ground management actions. | Australian GovernmentState governmentsPublic land managersTraditional OwnersPrivate landownersAcademic/research institutionsNGOs | $150,000 pa |","sortOrder":62},{"sectionNumber":"STRATEGY 6: Coordinate, review and repor","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"STRATEGY 6: Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress","content":"#### ![Decorative horizontal line](image.042.png) \nSTRATEGY 6: Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress\n\n| Action | Description | Priority | Performance Criteria | Responsible Agencies and potential partners | Indicative Cost |\n| ------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------ |\n| 6.1 | Establish an Eastern BristlebirdRecovery Team. | 1 | An Eastern Bristlebird Recovery Team is established within the first 6-months and is aligned with best-practice governance guidelines.Implementation of the Recovery Plan is supported by a national, collaborative approach.Recovery effort is coordinated across tenures and jurisdictions as appropriate. | Australian GovernmentState governmentsNGOsTraditional OwnersAcademic/ research institutionsZoos and wildlife sanctuaries | $50,000 pa |\n| 6.2 | Incorporate emergency measures should interventions not succeed, or if species population trends decline unabated. | 1 | Key emergency response trigger points or thresholds have been identifiedand incorporated in relevant plans and procedures.Emergency response governance and protocols have been established. | Australian GovernmentState governmentsAcademic/ research institutionsRecovery TeamNGOsRegional NRM organisation | $10,000 pa |\n| 6.3 | Incorporate Eastern Bristlebird conservation priorities into policies, management plans, regulations, codes of practice andplanning tools. | 2 | Number of site management plans containing measurable indicators has increased:• Eastern Bristlebird conservation priorities are incorporated into policies, management plans, regulations, codes of practice and planning tools. | Australian GovernmentState governmentsLocal governments | Core government business |","sortOrder":63},{"sectionNumber":"7. Duration and cost of the recovery pro","sectionType":"part","heading":"7. Duration and cost of the recovery process","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)7. Duration and cost of the recovery process\n\nIt is anticipated that the recovery process will not be achieved prior to the scheduled five-year review of the Recovery Plan. The cost of implementing this plan should be incorporated into the core business expenditure of the affected organisations, and through additional funds obtained for the explicit purpose of implementing this Recovery Plan. It is expected that Commonwealth and state agencies will use this plan to prioritise actions to protect the species and enhance its recovery, and that projects will be undertaken according to agency priorities and available resources.\n\nAll actions are considered important steps towards ensuring the long-term survival of\n\nthe species.\n\n![Decorative horizontal line](image.043.png)","sortOrder":64},{"sectionNumber":"TABLE 3: Summary of recovery actions and","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"TABLE 3: Summary of recovery actions and estimated costs in for the first five years of implementation (these estimated costs do not take into account inflation over time)","content":"#### TABLE 3: Summary of recovery actions and estimated costs in for the first five years of implementation (these estimated costs do not take into account inflation over time)\n\n![Decorative horizontal line](image.021.png) \n\n```html\n

Action

Cost

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Total

Strategy 1

$600,000

$600,000

$600,000

$600,000

$600,000

$3,000,000

Strategy 2

$955,000

$955,000

$955,000

$925,000

$955,000

$4,745,000

Strategy 3

$600,000

$500,000

$500,000

$500,000

$500,000

$2,600,000

Strategy 4

$900,000

$625,000

$625,000

$625,000

$625,000

$3,400,000

Strategy 5

$160,000

$160,000

$160,000

$160,000

$160,000

$800,000

Strategy 6

$130,000

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$530,000

TOTAL

$3,345,000

$2,940,000

$2,940,000

$2,940,000

$2,940,000

$15,075,000

\n```\n\nNote: Costing were determined during the consultation public period","sortOrder":65},{"sectionNumber":"8. Effects on other native species and b","sectionType":"part","heading":"8. Effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)8. Effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits\n\nMeasures to mitigate threats to the Eastern Bristlebird and protect their habitat will benefit other threatened plant and animal species and ecological communities within the species’ range. Key Biodiversity Areas triggered by Eastern Bristlebirds\n\nfor instance list a total of 10 other species as Triggers. These include: Black-breasted Buttonquail (Turnix melanogaster), Green Catbird (Ailuroedus crassirostris), Regent Bowerbird (Sericulus chrysocephalus), Logrunner (Orthonyx temminckii), Albert’s Lyrebird (Menura alberti), Rufous Scrub-bird (Atrichornis rufescens), Paradise Riflebird (Ptiloris paradiseuss), Pale-yellow Robin (Tregellasia capito), Pilotbird (Pycnoptilus floccosus) and Rockwarbler (Origma solitaria). The habitat of the northern population is shared with Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus), Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), Long-nosed Potoroo (Potorous tridactylus), Hastings River Mouse (Pseudomys oralis), Greater Glider (Petauroides volans),\n\nYellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) and other threatened species.\n\nThreatened Ecological Communities listed under the EPBC Act that overlap with Eastern Bristlebird distribution include Lowland Rainforests of Subtropical Australia, Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia and, to a limited extent in Queensland, White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland. There are also a number of Ecological Communities listed at the state level that will benefit from increased efforts to protect and conserve Eastern Bristlebird habitat. Many mammals, invertebrates and plants will also receive benefits as a result of measures put in place to protect and rejuvenate Eastern Bristlebird habitat.","sortOrder":66},{"sectionNumber":"9. Social and","sectionType":"part","heading":"9. Social and","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)9. Social and\n\neconomic considerations\n\nThe major social and economic impacts of this Recovery Plan will be on those who require approval to remove or modify Eastern Bristlebird habitat and are prevented from doing so or are required to modify their proposal by a consent authority. This may include increased costs due to the assessment processes, requirement to provide offset funding, to secure or rehabilitate habitat, or for other threat-mitigation work.\n\nA network of community volunteers participates in Recovery Plan actions, for example surveys. Involvement can provide social benefits with community members and engaged groups having a sense of achievement, inclusion, community spirit\n\nand pride whilst gaining enjoyment and appreciation of their surrounding natural environment. Additional social benefits include encouraging passive recreation, appreciation of natural aesthetic values and increased awareness and appreciation of the cultural values of Traditional Owners.\n\nCats are a threat to the Eastern Bristlebird. There may be social and economic costs associated with local government companion animal restrictions where they are implemented, particularly where there is a significant interface between urban centres and Eastern Bristlebird habitat.\n\nEastern Bristlebird Recovery Plan actions may conflict with other interests such as tourism and the use of recreational vehicles.","sortOrder":67},{"sectionNumber":"10. Affected interests","sectionType":"part","heading":"10. Affected interests","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)10. Affected interests\n\nOrganisations and individuals likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this plan include: Government agencies (Commonwealth, state and territory, local); private landholders; Traditional Owners (including ranger programmes); researchers; zoos and wildlife sanctuaries; bird-watching groups; conservation groups; wildlife interest groups; 4WD groups; environmental consulting companies; tourism operators; industry and commercial bodies; and, proponents of development in the vicinity of Eastern Bristlebird habitat.\n\nThis list should not be considered exhaustive. Other interest groups may be included in the future or need to be considered when specialised tasks are required. Table 4 lists some of the interest groups, how they could contribute to the success of the Recovery Plan, and the potential impacts/benefits that may emerge from the Recovery Plan’s implementation.\n\n![Decorative horizontal line](image.016.png) \n\nTABLE 4: Eastern Bristlebird interest groups, their contribution to Eastern Bristlebird recovery, and potential impacts/benefits arising from the Recovery Plan.\n\n![Decorative horizontal line](image.021.png) \n\n| Interest Group | Contribution | Impacts/Benefits |\n| --------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| Australian Government | Responsible for development, coordination, and evaluation of the plan.Responsible for implementation of the plan in Commonwealth areas.Subject to available resources, providing financial support for implementation of the plan. | Informed decision making regarding the EPBC Act referral and assessment process.Greater ability to deliver on domestic and international obligations regarding biodiversity conservation.Increased knowledge of the Eastern Bristlebird and its habitats – increased exchange of information between decision makers and the community. |\n| Australian Government Department of Defence – AustralianDefence Force | Contributing to the development and implementation of the plan | Manage on-site management plans that impact Eastern Bristlebird recovery. |","sortOrder":68},{"sectionNumber":"11. Consultation","sectionType":"part","heading":"11. Consultation","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)11. Consultation\n\nThe National Recovery Plan for Eastern Bristlebird (Dasyornis brachypterus) has been developed through extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. The consultation process brought together key species experts and conservation managers, from a range of organisations, to categorize ongoing threats to the Eastern Bristlebird, and identify knowledge gaps and potential management options.\n\nConsultation included representatives from government agencies, non-government organisations, researchers, Traditional Owners and local community groups. The first phase of consultation, and the development of a first draft, was managed by BirdLife Australia. During the second phase of the drafting process, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Commonwealth) continued to work closely with key stakeholders to finalise the recovery plan.\n\nNotice of the draft plan was made available for public comment for three months between 3 September 2021 and 17 December 2021. Any comments received that were relevant to the survival of the species were considered by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee as part of its assessment process.","sortOrder":69},{"sectionNumber":"12. Organisations and persons involved i","sectionType":"part","heading":"12. Organisations and persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)12. Organisations and persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan\n\nThis plan should be reviewed no later than five years from when it was endorsed and made publicly available. The review will determine the performance of the plan and assess:\n\n • whether the plan continues unchanged, is varied to remove completed actions, or\n\nvaried to include new conservation priorities; or\n\n • whether a recovery plan is no longer necessary for the species as either conservation advice will suffice, or the species are removed from the threatened species list.\n\nAs part of this review, the listing status of the species will be assessed against the\n\nEPBC Act species listing criteria.\n\nThe review will be coordinated by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Commonwealth) in association with relevant Australian and state government agencies and key stakeholder groups such as non-governmental organisations, local community groups and scientific research organisations.\n\nKey stakeholders who may be involved in the review of the performance of the Recovery Plan, include organisations likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this plan and are expected to include:","sortOrder":70},{"sectionNumber":"Australian Government","sectionType":"section","heading":"Australian Government","content":"##### Australian Government\n\n • Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.\n • Parks Australia.\n • Department of Defence – Australian Defence Force.","sortOrder":71},{"sectionNumber":"State/territory governments","sectionType":"section","heading":"State/territory governments","content":"##### State/territory governments\n\n • New South Wales – Department of Planning and Environment, National Parks and Wildlife Service.\n • Queensland – Department of Environment and Science.\n • Victoria – Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; Parks Victoria.\n • Regional natural resource management organisations (NSW and Vic).\n • Local governments","sortOrder":72},{"sectionNumber":"Other","sectionType":"section","heading":"Other","content":"##### Other\n\n • BirdLife Australia.\n • Emergency services (e.g., CFA).\n • Traditional owners.\n • Industry.\n • Local communities.\n • Local conservation groups.\n • Northern Eastern Bristlebird Working Group.\n • Private landholders.\n • Regional natural resource management organisations (Qld).\n • RSPCA.\n • Sydney Water.\n • Universities and other research organisations.\n • Wildlife health practitioners.\n • Zoos and Aquarium Association.","sortOrder":73},{"sectionNumber":"13. References","sectionType":"part","heading":"13. References","content":"# ![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)![Decorative vertical line](image.015.png)13. References\n\nBain D (2007) Two potential sexing techniques for the Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus. Australian Zoologist 34, 1, 92–96.\n\nBain DW, Baker JR, French KO & Whelan RJ (2008) Post-fire recovery of eastern bristlebirds (Dasyornis brachypterus) is context-dependent. Wildlife Research 35 1, 44–49.\n\nBain D, Clarke RH, Oliver D, Bramwell MD, MacGregor C, Lindenmayer DB, Maple D, Dexter N, Ehmke G, Burbidge AH, Menkhorst PW & Garnett ST (2021) Southern Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus brachypterus. In The Action Plan for\n\nAustralian Birds 2020. (Eds ST Garnett and GB Baker) pp. 584–587. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.\n\nBain D & McPhee N (2005) Resurveys of the Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus in central-eastern New South Wales 1999–2001: their relationship with fire and observer competence. Corella 29, 1–6.\n\nBaker J (1997) The decline, response to fire, status, and management of the Eastern Bristlebird. Pacific Conservation Biology 3, 3, 235–243.\n\nBaker J (1998) Ecotones and fire and the conservation of the endangered Eastern Bristlebird. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Wollongong.\n\nBaker J (2000) The Eastern Bristlebird: cover-dependent and fire-sensitive.\n\nEmu-Austral Ornithology 100, 4 286–298.\n\nBaker J (2001) Population density and home range estimates for the eastern bristlebird at Jervis Bay, south-eastern Australia. Corella 25, 3, 62–67.\n\nBaker J (2003) Fire-sensitive birds and adaptive management. In ‘Bushfires: Managing the Risks. Proceedings of the 2002 NCC Bushfire Conference’. pp. 59–65. Nature Conservation Council of NSW: Sydney.\n\nBaker J (2009) Assessment of Eastern Bristlebird habitat: Refining understanding of appropriate habitats for reintroductions. Ecological Management & Restoration 10, S136 – S139.\n\nBaker J, Bain D, Clarke J & French K (2012) Translocation of the Eastern Bristlebird 2: applying principles to two case studies. Ecological Management and Restoration 13, 159–65.","sortOrder":74},{"sectionNumber":"Appendix 1: Threat assessment criteria","sectionType":"part","heading":"Appendix 1: Threat assessment criteria","content":"# ![](image.015.png)![](image.015.png)Appendix 1: Threat assessment criteria\n\nThe approach to assessing current threats was taken from the Conservation Standards, an internationally adopted set of principles and practices for conservation project design, management, and monitoring developed by the Conservation Measures Partnership.\n\nThe following assessment criteria were used to assess current threats, where the\n\n‘target’ is the Eastern Bristlebird.\n\nScope – Defined spatially as the proportion of the target that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within ten years given the continuation of current circumstances and trends. For species, measured as the proportion of the target’s population.\n\n • Very High: The threat is likely to be pervasive in its scope, affecting the target across all or most (71–100%) of its occurrence/population.\n • High: The threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, affecting the target across much (31–70%) of its occurrence/population.\n • Medium: The threat is likely to be restricted in its scope, affecting the target across some (11–30%) of its occurrence/population.\n • Low: The threat is likely to be very narrow in its scope, affecting the target across a small proportion (1–10%) of its occurrence/population.\n\nSeverity – Within the scope, the level of damage to the target from the threat that can reasonably be expected if current circumstances and trends persist. For species,\n\nusually measured as the degree of reduction of the target population within the scope.\n\n • Very High: The threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the target or reduce its population by 71–100% within 3 years or 3 generations.\n • High: The threat is likely to seriously degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 31–70% within 10 years or 3 generations.\n • Medium: The threat is likely to moderately degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 11–30% within ten years or three generations.\n • Low: The threat is likely to only slightly degrade/reduce the target or reduce its population by 1–10% within ten years or three generations.","sortOrder":75},{"sectionNumber":"Appendix 2: Spatial distribution of curr","sectionType":"part","heading":"Appendix 2: Spatial distribution of current threats","content":"# ![](image.015.png)![](image.015.png)Appendix 2: Spatial distribution of current threats\n\nCurrent threats (as of 2020/21) to the Eastern Bristlebird, ranked according to an overall threat rating derived from an assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility (see Appendix 1 for detailed criteria).\n\n| Threat | Scope | Severity | Irreversibility | Overall rating |\n| -------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------------- | -------------- |\n| Inappropriate fire regimes arising from wildfire | Very High | Very High | High | Very High |\n| Inappropriate fire regimes arising from management | Very High | High | Medium | High |\n| Climate change | Very High | Medium | High | Medium |\n| Lack of genetic diversity | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |\n| Dieback and invasive weeds | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |\n| Northern population | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |\n| Central population | Low | Low | Low | Low |\n| Southern population | Low | Low | Low | Low |\n| Drought | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |\n| Predation by foxes | High | High | Low | Medium |\n| Northern population | Low | Low | Low | Low |\n| Central population | High | High | Low | Medium |\n| Southern population | Low | Low | Low | Low |\n| Predation by feral cats | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |\n| Northern population | Medium | Medium | High | Medium |\n| Central population | Medium | Low | Low | Low |\n| Southern population | Medium | Low | Medium | Low |\n| Disease (wild populations) | Medium | High | Medium | Medium |\n| Disease (captive populations) | Low | High | Medium | Low |\n| Clearing of habitat | Low | Very High | High | Low |\n| Feral pigs Northern population | Low | Medium | Medium | Low |\n| Overabundant herbivores | Low | Low | Medium | Low |\n| Human disturbance | Low | Low | Low | Low |","sortOrder":76}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":8,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"This Recovery Plan replaces the prior national recovery plan (section 2) and updates scope to respond to post‑2019–20 wildfire conditions, explicitly designates pre‑ and post‑fire occupied habitat as critical to survival (section 2.9), sets new ten‑year objectives to 2032 (section 1.2), introduces emergency response triggers and governance (section 6.2), and provides a detailed five‑year indicative budget and prioritised actions for multi‑jurisdictional implementation (Table 3; sections 6 and 7)."},"complexity_factors":["Multi-jurisdictional implementation: coordinated action required across Commonwealth, NSW, Qld and Vic agencies plus local governments and Defence (sections 1.4, 12).","Population-specific management: northern, central and southern populations face different principal threats and require tailored actions (sections 1.1, 4, Appendix 2).","Fire-regime technicality: site- and context-dependent prescribed-burning and wildfire mitigation with fine-scale planning and refugia requirements (section 3.2.3).","Interacting threats: climate change, disease, dieback, invasive species and predators act synergistically, increasing management uncertainty (sections 3.2.4–3.2.11).","Genetic trade-offs and uncertainty: genetic diversity limits, contested mixing/rescue strategies and underpowered studies complicate translocation decisions (section 3.2.5).","Funding and costing allocations: explicit indicative five-year costing and recurring annual items require budgetary commitment and prioritisation (Table 3; section 7).","Stakeholder coordination and governance: establishment of a national Recovery Team, adaptive governance and emergency-trigger planning create procedural complexity (sections 1.4, 6.1–6.2).","Monitoring and performance metrics: reliance on measurable indicators, baseline data and adaptive management to evaluate success within 10 years (sections 1.3, 6).","Diverse land tenures and operational constraints: habitat occurs on private, defence, reserve and national park lands requiring different legal/operational approaches (sections 2.4, 2.9).","Regulatory and compliance implications for third parties: requirements for surveys, avoidance, mitigation and offsets may affect developers and landholders (sections 2.9.1, 9)."],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument is a ten-year Recovery Plan for the Eastern Bristlebird (Dasyornis brachypterus). It sets measurable objectives to improve population viability, reduces priority threats, protects and restores habitat, and coordinates actions across Commonwealth, state, Traditional Owner and private land tenures. It names responsible agencies, assigns priority actions and indicative costs (five‑year summary totalling $15,075,000), and makes pre- and post‑2019–20 fire habitat ‘critical’ for survival. Affected parties include governments, landholders, developers, and conservation groups."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"kimi_summary":{"_metrics":{"completionTokens":600},"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The plan remains focused on species recovery and conservation as originally intended. While it updates and expands on the 2012 plan with new scientific knowledge and post-2019–2020 bushfire data, it does not fundamentally alter the scope beyond the original purpose of Eastern Bristlebird conservation."},"complexity_factors":["Multiple overlapping jurisdictions (Commonwealth, NSW, Queensland, Victoria)","Three geographically distinct populations with different ecological needs and threat profiles","Extensive cross-referencing to other legislation (EPBC Act, state conservation laws)","Detailed threat assessment matrix with population-specific ratings","Numerous defined acronyms and technical terms (EOO, AOO, KBA, etc.)","Conditional management recommendations (fire regimes vary by site and context)","Integration of Traditional Owner knowledge and cultural considerations","Appendices with detailed assessment criteria and spatial threat distribution"],"plain_english_summary":"This 10-year recovery plan aims to prevent extinction of the endangered Eastern Bristlebird across three remnant populations—northern (critically low, ~45 birds), central and southern—by 2032. It targets major threats (wildfire regimes, climate change, predators, habitat loss and low genetics) through tailored ecological burning, habitat protection and restoration, captive breeding and augmentation, predator control, research, and engagement with Traditional Owners and landholders. Implementation by agencies, zoos and communities is budgeted at about $15 million over five years."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-recovery-plan-dasyornis-brachypterus-instrument","history":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-recovery-plan-dasyornis-brachypterus-instrument/history","analysis":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-recovery-plan-dasyornis-brachypterus-instrument/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-recovery-plan-dasyornis-brachypterus-instrument/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-recovery-plan-dasyornis-brachypterus-instrument/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-recovery-plan-dasyornis-brachypterus-instrument/documents"}}