This instrument is a national Recovery Plan that sets a clear objective, timeline (to 2030), priority actions, monitoring requirements and five‑year review arrangements to halt and reverse declines of the Australian Fairy Tern. It assigns roles to the Commonwealth, state/territory agencies, a Recovery Team and community partners and includes estimated five‑year costs and risk‑based priorities. It affects government agencies, land managers, Indigenous groups, NGOs, developers and coastal users because it guides approvals, on‑ground management and monitoring, and may require changes to coastal works and predator/habitat controls.
This instrument is a National Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis). It sets a non‑statutory framework of objectives, priorities, management strategies and recommended actions designed to reverse the species’ decline across its Australian range. Mechanically the document does the following.
Declares a long‑term vision and an explicitly timed objective: “By 2030, sustain a positive population trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals of the Australian Fairy Tern in both the eastern and western populations” (see "Recovery plan objective"). The long‑term vision states the species should no longer meet the EPBC Act threatened listing criteria (see "Long‑term vision").
Identifies the current conservation status across jurisdictions, including that the species is listed as Vulnerable under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (see "Conservation status" and opening summary).
Defines core strategies and sets out a list of actions and priorities (Priority 1-3). The main strategies are to manage and protect breeding populations at landscape scale; develop monitoring techniques; reduce threats at breeding/non‑breeding/foraging sites; undertake research and monitoring; engage community stakeholders; and coordinate reporting (see "Strategies to achieve objectives").
Provides measurable criteria for success tied to a 2020 population baseline and specified knowledge and participation outcomes ("Criteria for success").
Assigns institutional responsibilities: a national Recovery Team is to provide advice, coordinate and direct implementation and is to include representatives from Commonwealth, state agencies, NGOs, researchers and community groups (see "Recovery team").
Current sections
Direct links to the current provisions in Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis)) Instrument 2022.
49
Summary
Summary
Summary
Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis)
Family: Laridae
Current status of taxon:
Current status of taxon:
Current status of taxon:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth): Vulnerable
• Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Tas): Vulnerable
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic): Critically Endangered
• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA): Endangered
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA): Vulnerable
Distribution and habitat:
Distribution and habitat:
Distribution and habitat:
Australian Fairy Terns occur along the southern Australian coast from south of the Dampier archipelago Western Australia east to Botany Bay, New South Wales including Tasmania. The Great Australian Bight forms a gap in distribution between western and eastern subpopulations (Higgins and Davies 1996), and there are now substantial gaps amongst breeding colonies in eastern Australia, especially around the Victorian
coastline (Garnett et al. 2011). Australian Fairy Terns use a variety of habitats including offshore, estuarine, lacustrine (lake) islands, wetlands, beaches and sand spits
(TSSC 2011).
Recovery plan vision, objective, and str
Recovery plan vision, objective, and strategies:
Summary
Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis)
Family: Laridae
Current status of taxon:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth): Vulnerable
• Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Tas): Vulnerable
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic): Critically Endangered
• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA): Endangered
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA): Vulnerable
Distribution and habitat:
Australian Fairy Terns occur along the southern Australian coast from south of the Dampier archipelago Western Australia east to Botany Bay, New South Wales including Tasmania. The Great Australian Bight forms a gap in distribution between western and eastern subpopulations (Higgins and Davies 1996), and there are now substantial gaps amongst breeding colonies in eastern Australia, especially around the Victorian
coastline (Garnett et al. 2011). Australian Fairy Terns use a variety of habitats including offshore, estuarine, lacustrine (lake) islands, wetlands, beaches and sand spits
(TSSC 2011).
Recovery plan vision, objective, and strategies:
Long-term vision
The Australian Fairy Tern population has increased in size to such an extent that the species no longer qualifies for listing as threatened under any of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 listing criteria.
Recovery plan objective:
By 2030, sustain a positive population trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals of the Australian Fairy Tern in both the eastern and western populations. This will be achieved by implementing the actions set out in this
Recovery Plan that minimise threats while protecting the species’ habitat throughout its range, adequately monitoring the species, generating new knowledge to guide recovery and increasing public awareness.
Long-term vision
Long-term vision
Long-term vision
The Australian Fairy Tern population has increased in size to such an extent that the species no longer qualifies for listing as threatened under any of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 listing criteria.
Recovery plan objective:
Recovery plan objective:
Recovery plan objective:
By 2030, sustain a positive population trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals of the Australian Fairy Tern in both the eastern and western populations. This will be achieved by implementing the actions set out in this
Recovery Plan that minimise threats while protecting the species’ habitat throughout its range, adequately monitoring the species, generating new knowledge to guide recovery and increasing public awareness.
Strategies to achieve objectives
Strategies to achieve objectives
Strategies to achieve objectives
Manage and protect known Australian Fairy Tern breeding populations at the landscape scale
Develop and apply techniques to measure changes in population trend(s) in order to measure the efficacy of recovery actions
Reduce, or eliminate threats at breeding, non-breeding and foraging sites
Undertake research and monitoring to improve understanding of breeding,
non-breeding and foraging ecology in order to better target management actions and habitat restoration
Engage community stakeholders in Australian Fairy Tern conservation
Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress
Criteria for success:
Criteria for success:
Criteria for success:
This recovery plan will be deemed successful if, by 2030, all of the following have been achieved:
• The Australian Fairy Tern population has increased from 2020 baseline counts, as a result of recovery actions.
• Understanding of the species’ ecology has increased, in particular knowledge of population size, breeding biology, movement patterns, food availability and foraging efficiency relative to colony success, habitat use including the interaction between marine and terrestrial habitat features, post-breeding dispersal and survival rates.
• There is increased participation by key Australian stakeholders and the public in recovery efforts and monitoring.
Recovery team:
Recovery team:
Recovery team:
Recovery 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 Australian Fairy Tern 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 national Recovery Team includes individuals from relevant government agencies, non-government organisations and expertise from independent researchers and community groups.
Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
This document constitutes the National Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern.
The plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across its range and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the long-term viability of the species, and the parties that will undertake those actions. The Recovery Plan is the first national plan to be developed for the Australian Fairy Tern.
The Australian Fairy Tern was listed as Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) on 3 March 2011. At the time of listing there were fewer than 9,000 mature individuals remaining and the total
population had undergone a substantial decrease of approximately 24 per cent over the past three generations, or 33 years (TSSC 2011). This decrease was expected to continue at a substantial rate over the next three generations, as there was no evidence that the threats affecting this species were abating (TSSC 2011). In 2020, the population was estimated to be 7,450 (range 6,800 – 8,100) mature individuals and was undergoing a continuing decrease, particularly in eastern Australia (Greenwell et al. 2021). There has been no change in the population trajectory since 2011 and the species continues to meet the Vulnerable category (Greenwell et al. 2021).
The accompanying Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) pages provide background information on the biology, population status and threats to the Australian Fairy Tern. The SPRAT pages are available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/sprat.pl.
1.1
Conservation status
1.1 Conservation status
The Australian Fairy Tern is listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and under State legislation (Table 1) in all parts of its range, except New South Wales. This species was included in the Vulnerable category under the EPBC Act in 2011 due to decreases in the number of mature individuals over much of its breeding range. Predation by introduced species, disturbance and inappropriate water level management are thought to have contributed most to this decrease.
1.2
Taxonomy
1.2 Taxonomy
The Australian Fairy Tern is conventionally accepted as Sternula nereis nereis (AFD 2019). It has been suggested that there are two subspecies on mainland Australia,
S. n. nereis in the south-east and S. n. hornii in the south-west, although key authorities only recognise S. n. nereis in Australia (Baling and Brunton 2005; Christidis and Boles 2008; Garnett et al. 2011; AFD 2019). Genetic differences were detected between Australian Fairy Terns in Western Australia and south-eastern Australia, however, these were not sufficient to merit treatment as separate subspecies (Dunlop 2018). The highest genetic diversity was found in the largest population in Western Australia (Baling and Brunton 2005), suggesting that this region was the source for the smaller breeding groups found in south-eastern Australia.
The distribution of the Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis) is limited to Australasia, comprising Australia, New Zealand and New Caledonia (Hansen 2006; Dunlop 2018).
Three subspecies have been identified based on phenotypic, genotypic and geographic differences. The New Zealand Fairy Tern (S. n. davise) is listed as Nationally Critical under the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Hitchmough et al. 2005; Hansen 2006).
The New Caledonian Fairy Tern (S. n. exsul) has approximately 200–400 breeding pairs (Barre et al. 2011), and has recently been recorded in the Swain Reefs, southern Great Barrier Reef, and islands in the Coral Sea Territory, suggesting regular movements of over 1,200 km (Carter and Mustoe 2007; Garnett et al. 2011). The low genetic diversity in the satellite populations in New Zealand and New Caledonia probably reflect the small number of founders (Dunlop 2018).
1.3
Species description
1.3 Species description
A small piscivorous (fish-eating) bird, the Australian Fairy Tern is approximately 22–27 cm in length, 70 g in mass and has a wingspan of 44–53 cm (Higgins and Davies 1996). The Australian Fairy Tern is bulky and round bodied (Simpson and Day 2004).
The species is very similar to Little Tern (S. albifrons) which in breeding plumage can be distinguished from the Australian Fairy Tern by the yellow, black tipped bill and black line through the eye reaching the bill. Little Terns are overall slimmer than
Australian Fairy Terns with darker upperparts and outer primaries (Slater et al. 2009; Menkhorst et al. 2017).
The breeding plumage of both sexes is pale grey-white, with a black crown, nape, ear coverts and patch in front of the eyes (square to round in shape). The forehead is white and the bill is orange-yellow (Higgins and Davies 1996). Legs are dull yellow and the iris is dark brown (Lindsey 1986).
1.4
Species distribution in Australia
1.4 Species distribution in Australia
The Australian Fairy Tern occurs in coastal southern Australia from the Montebello Islands of the Pilbara, Western Australia east to Botany Bay, New South Wales including Tasmania (Figure 1). The Great Australian Bight forms a gap in distribution between western and eastern populations (Higgins and Davies 1996). There are now a reduced number of nesting colonies in eastern Australia, especially around the Victorian coastline. The species has been recorded in Queensland but is considered to be a vagrant, an occasional visitor or more likely, New Caledonian Fairy Tern individuals.
In Tasmania, Australian Fairy Terns have suffered dramatic population declines.
Both Little and Australian Fairy Tern often nest together and some colonies are well documented. Eight colonies are known to be present in the Glamorgan-Spring Bay and Sorell Municipalities in south-east Tasmania (Blakney 2018). There are four known Key Biodiversity Areas in Tasmania based in part on their value to Australian Fairy Terns, primarily through supporting their breeding locations: Orford, Marion Bay, St Helens and Eastern Flinders Island (Bass Strait). In 2020, the Orford Bird Sanctuary had one of the best breeding seasons in many years with at least 40 adults and 27 chicks recorded between January and February (E. McDonald and P. Geard pers. comm). Maintaining, and if possible, increasing the number and size of these colonies in Tasmania will be crucial to recovering this species in south-east Australia.
Within Western Australia, there appear to be two subpopulations (Dunlop 2018). One is sedentary and based along the Pilbara and upper Gascoyne coasts from Exmouth Gulf to the Dampier Archipelago, including Barrow Island and the Montebello and Lowendal Archipelagos. These Australian Fairy Terns nest from late July to late September (Johnstone and Storr 1998, Dunlop 2018). A second, migratory subpopulation disperses south along the coastline from Shark Bay (Burbidge and Fuller 2000) to breed between the Houtman Abrolhos Islands to the Recherche Archipelago between September
and May, with active breeding flocks appearing at various locations between October and February (Johnstone and Storr 1998). At present it is not clear what controls the recruitment of individuals to these over-lapping subpopulations (Dunlop 2018). It is also currently not known at what scale local breeding groups (which probably establish colonies at a number of sites) represent conservation management units within the migratory subpopulation (Dunlop 2018).
Biologically Important Areas for this species occur in Australian Marine Parks, particularly in the South-west and North-west Marine Parks Networks. Under statutory management plans, Australian Marine Parks are managed for the protection and conservation of biodiversity and other natural, cultural and heritage values of marine parks, including protected species. More information about Australian Marine Parks can be found here.
1.5
Population trends
1.5 Population trends
The population of Australian Fairy Terns is about 7,450 (range 6,800–8,100) mature individuals (Greenwell et al. 2021). The largest population of 5,000–6,000 in Western Australia is believed to be stable but there is no reliable historical data. In eastern Australia there have been rapid decreases. State based estimates include 900–1,150 in South Australia (DENR 2012; Cooper 2015; Stephens and Lamanna 2019; D. Paton unpublished), 100–120 pairs in Tasmania (2019/20, E.J. Woehler pers. comm. 2020), 100–150 in Victoria (Adams et al. 2019) and fewer than 50 in New South Wales (South Coast Shorebird Recovery Program 2017; Greenwell et al. 2021).
In South Australia, a survey of 1500 km of coastline in 2011/12 found a minimum of 944 birds at 19 sites (DENR 2012). Numbers in the South Lagoon of the Coorong, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland Ramsar site (the Coorong) have decreased from 1,330 individuals in 1985 to 150–300 in 2000–2007, an 82 per cent decline (Paton and
Rogers 2009). Only 357 individuals were counted during the annual census of waterbirds in the Coorong in January 2018. This result is less than in January 2015 and 2016 and
is only a little over half of the birds that were using the Coorong in the early 2000s (Paton and Paton 2018). Australian Fairy Tern numbers have continued to decrease in the Coorong over the last five years from 300–350 adult birds to 315 individuals in
January 2019 (Paton et al. 2019). Elsewhere in South Australia, the species disappeared from the Fleurieu Peninsula in the late 1970s and around Kangaroo Island in the early 1990s, however, small numbers are now breeding again around Kangaroo Island
(D. Paton, pers. comm. 2020). Breeding populations in Gulf St Vincent, Spencer Gulf and near Beachport are very small with low breeding success (Garnett et al. 2011).
One island in particular in Gulf St Vincent just 20 km north of Adelaide, Bird Island, has been monitored since 2001, and more intensively since 2015 with weekly visits over the 2018–19 and 2019–20 seasons (Stephens and Lamanna 2019). Bird Island had between 10 and 35 breeding pairs in early 2000s, approximately 60–80 pairs between 2015–2018 and over the 2018–19 season 50–60 pairs (Stephens and Lamanna 2019).
In Victoria, the number of breeding pairs at French Island in Western Port Ramsar site decreased from a peak of 108 in 1993 to an average of 21 for the decade 1996–2005 (Garnett et al. 2001). Historically, colonies of over 50 breeding pairs were observed within Western Port and Port Phillip Bay Ramsar sites but numbers began to decrease in the late 1980s (Adams et al. 2019). There are currently few records documenting successful breeding attempts over the last decade within the two bays and it is thought that breeding success is poor (Adams et al. 2019). Approximately 54 adults comprising three colonies were observed within Western Port and Port Phillip Bay Ramsar sites during the 2016–17 breeding season. Only one breeding colony of 30–40 adults was observed during the 2017–18 breeding season while no breeding colonies were detected during the 2018–19 breeding season (Adams et al. 2019). In Victoria, no successful breeding has occurred in Western Port and Port Phillip Bay Ramsar sites in either the 2017–18 or 2018–19 breeding season (Adams et al. 2019). Gippsland Lakes Ramsar site continues to host breeding Australian Fairy Terns. From 2015–2018,
114 Australian Fairy Terns chicks fledged across the Gippsland Lakes Ramsar site. This was a noteworthy increase in recruitment post sand island rehabilitation. Prior to this, numbers of fledglings of both Australian Fairy and Little Tern species for many years had been recorded in single figures only (DELWP, unpublished). In 2018–19,
an estimated 25 Australian Fairy Terns chicks fledged from only one breeding site. The 2019/20 season did not produce any fledglings despite multiple nesting attempts (Sullivan et al, unpublished report).
1.6
Ecology
In New Zealand, subspecies davisae declined to three pairs in 1983 but due to intensive conservation efforts increased to 25–30 birds and 8–10 pairs over four sites in 1998 (Hansen 2006). In 2006 the population had increased to 30–40 individuals and
10 pairs (Parrish and Honnor 1997, Taylor 2000). By 2011, this had increased again to 40–45 individuals and 10 pairs (P-J. Pridham in litt. 2011). As of 2019, the current breeding population is six pairs.
In New Caledonia, subspecies exsul numbers 200–400 pairs, but was formerly much more abundant (Barre et al. 2012; BirdLife International 2019). One small population in the Southern Lagoon of New Caledonia may be increasing (Baling et al. 2009).
1.6 Ecology
Social behaviour
As with all other terns (Cabot and Nisbet 2013), Australian Fairy Terns are gregarious, gathering together at roost sites both during and outside the breeding season (Dunlop 2018). In Western Australia, night roosts are generally located on open shoreline features such as sandspits, away from vegetation cover and predators (Dunlop 2018). Some are only occupied during the arrival period whilst others are occupied for most of the breeding season. These roosts may contain birds at a range
of ages with the composition changing as the season progresses (Dunlop 2018). Night roosts may include pre- and post-breeding experienced adults, individuals entering their first breeding season, non-breeding individuals in their first summer, and fledglings (Dunlop 2018; J.N. Dunlop pers. obs.).
The social behaviour associated with colony site selection and establishment has not been investigated in Australian Fairy Terns, probably because it is hard to predict when and where it will occur (Dunlop 2018). In other terns that do not have inter-annual
nest-site fidelity, courting flocks of reproductively advanced, nuptial plumaged birds commonly occur adjacent to potential colony sites (e.g. Crested Tern - Dunlop 1987, Little Terns - Cramp et al. 1985, Sooty Tern - Ashmole 1963, and J.N. Dunlop pers. obs.). In Western Australia, ‘clubs’ are social roosts that are occupied by birds in breeding condition, have nuptial plumage, are courting and are ready to breed. Here pair bonds form or reform and these clubs are usually in close proximity to the breeding site.
These areas are critical to the social ecology of the species. Terns in these pre-breeding flocks are typically engaged in bouts of aerial courtship ‘social flights’ and ground displays or parades at diurnal club sites (Cabot and Nisbet 2013). Pairs form or re-form in these flocks and paired courtship displays frequently follow bouts of group behaviour.
In Western Australia, the timing of colony formation and egg-laying is likely dictated by food availability, with colonies forming close to areas of high food abundance (Dunlop 1987). Colonies may occur at the same general location for a series of seasons and then shift (Dunlop 2018). Some observations indicate that a ‘neighbourhood’ of
breeding terns return to the breeding site used in the previous year during the ‘clubbing’ phase but may then move in a coordinated way to a fresh location (Dunlop 1987, Sooty Tern - J.N. Dunlop pers. obs.). This behavioural pattern may assist in maintaining pair bonds together with providing the opportunity to synchronise timely breeding with neighbours of similar age/experience or quality. Younger, less experienced terns tend
to lag in their reproductive cycle, lay later outside the peak foraging window and, as a consequence, have reduced breeding success compared to more experienced pairs (Dunlop 2018).
Social behaviour
Social behaviour
Social behaviour
As with all other terns (Cabot and Nisbet 2013), Australian Fairy Terns are gregarious, gathering together at roost sites both during and outside the breeding season (Dunlop 2018). In Western Australia, night roosts are generally located on open shoreline features such as sandspits, away from vegetation cover and predators (Dunlop 2018). Some are only occupied during the arrival period whilst others are occupied for most of the breeding season. These roosts may contain birds at a range
of ages with the composition changing as the season progresses (Dunlop 2018). Night roosts may include pre- and post-breeding experienced adults, individuals entering their first breeding season, non-breeding individuals in their first summer, and fledglings (Dunlop 2018; J.N. Dunlop pers. obs.).
The social behaviour associated with colony site selection and establishment has not been investigated in Australian Fairy Terns, probably because it is hard to predict when and where it will occur (Dunlop 2018). In other terns that do not have inter-annual
nest-site fidelity, courting flocks of reproductively advanced, nuptial plumaged birds commonly occur adjacent to potential colony sites (e.g. Crested Tern - Dunlop 1987, Little Terns - Cramp et al. 1985, Sooty Tern - Ashmole 1963, and J.N. Dunlop pers. obs.). In Western Australia, ‘clubs’ are social roosts that are occupied by birds in breeding condition, have nuptial plumage, are courting and are ready to breed. Here pair bonds form or reform and these clubs are usually in close proximity to the breeding site.
These areas are critical to the social ecology of the species. Terns in these pre-breeding flocks are typically engaged in bouts of aerial courtship ‘social flights’ and ground displays or parades at diurnal club sites (Cabot and Nisbet 2013). Pairs form or re-form in these flocks and paired courtship displays frequently follow bouts of group behaviour.
In Western Australia, the timing of colony formation and egg-laying is likely dictated by food availability, with colonies forming close to areas of high food abundance (Dunlop 1987). Colonies may occur at the same general location for a series of seasons and then shift (Dunlop 2018). Some observations indicate that a ‘neighbourhood’ of
breeding terns return to the breeding site used in the previous year during the ‘clubbing’ phase but may then move in a coordinated way to a fresh location (Dunlop 1987, Sooty Tern - J.N. Dunlop pers. obs.). This behavioural pattern may assist in maintaining pair bonds together with providing the opportunity to synchronise timely breeding with neighbours of similar age/experience or quality. Younger, less experienced terns tend
to lag in their reproductive cycle, lay later outside the peak foraging window and, as a consequence, have reduced breeding success compared to more experienced pairs (Dunlop 2018).
Breeding
Breeding
Breeding
In Australia, the subspecies breeds between June and March in colonies of various sizes (generally between 2–400 pairs but up to 700 pairs in Western Australia (Dunlop et
al. 2015; Dunlop 2018). Colonies can be located on coral shingle on coastal islands, or coral cays, on sandy islands and beaches inside estuaries, and open sandy beaches, laying 1–2 eggs (rarely 3) in a nest scrape (Higgins and Davies 1996). They nest in clear view of the water and on sites where the substrate is either sandy or on shell-grit and the vegetation sparse. In Western Port Ramsar site, Victoria, birds use seagrass covered beaches to nest on Rams Island.
Incubation duties are shared but females probably spend more time at the nest whilst males actively provision females before and after laying, as is the case with Little Terns (Cramp 1985; Cabot and Nisbet 2013). Incubation lasts for approximately 18–22 days (Lindsey 1986; Higgins and Davies 1996). Chicks may be guarded by one parent for the first day or two. However, it is not unusual for chicks to be left alone whilst the adults undertake foraging bouts (C. N. Greenwell. pers. comm. 2020). Chicks fledge at about 20 days. Nesting birds are sensitive to disturbance and can become extremely agitated when disturbed by humans or other animals. Females often crouch on the ground; however both sexes have been known to attack intruders (Higgins and Davies 1996; Lindsey 1986).
There is a high natural rate of breeding failure as breeding sites can become inundated during extreme weather events, such as high tides and storm surges or be smothered by wind-blown sand. Colonies tend to occupy areas rather than fixed sites, and nest sites can be abandoned after one or more years, even if they have been successful (Saunders and de Rebeira 1985).
Interbreeding has been recorded between Fairy Terns and the Little Tern in South Australia (Cox and Close 1977), Victoria (Norman et al. 1996), NSW (Ross et al. 1999) and Tasmania (E.J. Woehler pers. obs).
Feeding
Feeding
Feeding
Australian Fairy Terns hover and then dive into shallow waters in order to catch small baitfish; however they may scavenge from shoals of feeding predatory fish (Higgins and Davies 1996; Dunlop 2018). Australian Fairy Terns feed almost entirely on fish in near-shore waters adjacent to nesting colonies and around island archipelagos (Higgins and Davis 1996). Fish species consumed include Australian
Anchovies (Engraulis australis), Pilchards (Sardinops neopilchardus), Striped Trumpeter (Latris lineata) and Blue Sprats (Spratelloides robustus) (Taylor and Roe 2007; E. Stephens pers. comm 2020). Fairy Terns have been observed opportunistically feeding on small squids during twilight hours (C. N. Greenwell pers. obs).
1.7
Habitat critical to the survival of the Australian Fairy Tern
1.7 Habitat critical to the survival of the Australian Fairy Tern
As noted above, the habitat, or biophysical environment, of the Australian Fairy Tern varies across its range, so it is not possible to generate one detailed description or definition of habitat critical to survival. The habitat critical to the survival of the Australian Fairy Tern may be more usefully defined at a bioregional scale that takes into account the local combination of plants, animals, geology, landforms, and climate that are relevant to a geographical unit. However, any categorisation of habitat critical to survival must acknowledge that it exists as a mosaic of coastal habitats and the adverse effects of extant threats.
In general, Australian Fairy Terns utilise a variety of habitats including offshore, estuarine or lacustrine (lake) islands, coastal wetlands, beaches and sand spits.
The species migrates within southern and mid-west Western Australia and possibly Tasmania, where they are seen less frequently during the winter months. The Tasmanian and Victorian populations may form a single subpopulation. The species is more sedentary in the north of Western Australia (Hill et al. 1988; Dunlop 2018). Australian Fairy Terns nest above the high water mark often in clear view of the water and on sites where the substrate is sandy and the vegetation low and sparse. Nests typically consist of a shallow scrape in the sand which is often lined with small shells and vegetation.
Birds will utilise seagrass covered beaches for nesting in Victoria.
As a guide, habitat critical to the survival of the Australian Fairy Tern can be considered to comprise:
• suitable habitat where the species is known or likely to breed or forage as shown in the indicative distribution map (Figure 1)
• any suitable habitat outside the above area that may be periodically occupied by non-breeding Australian Fairy Terns.
Habitat critical to the survival of the Australian Fairy Tern is centred on beaches and offshore islands (for nesting) and near-shore waters (for foraging) and occurs across a wide range of land tenures, including on Indigenous Protected Areas, freehold land, state reserves, and national parks. It is essential that the locations where the species regularly occurs are given the highest protection, as they are likely to be productive habitats
with high resource availability. Conservation measures should target these productive habitats. Sympathetic management of buffer areas adjoining nesting and foraging habitats is also important.
Threats
Threats
Threats
2.1
Historical causes of decline
2.1 Historical causes of decline
The Australian Fairy Tern population has been in decreasing for at least the last 30 years (Garnett et al. 2011). The decrease is most prominent in the eastern population and is associated with the loss of key nesting habitats and disturbance from an increasing human population.
2.2
Current threatening processes
2.2 Current threatening processes
The main threat to the Australian Fairy Tern is the disturbance of breeding sites by human activities (including bikes, dogs, horses, drones and vehicles) and predation by introduced species and native birds (TSSC 2011; Garnett et al. 2011; Dunlop 2018). Disturbance of breeding birds may cause direct loss of eggs and chicks or the abandonment of nesting sites resulting in egg-predation or chilling, or overheating of eggs, leading to egg death (Higgins and Davies 1996). Predators of the Australian Fairy Tern include Foxes (Vulpes vulpes), Dogs (Canis familiaris), Cats (Felis catus),
Black Rats (Rattus rattus), Silver Gulls (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae), Pacific Gulls (Larus pacificus), raptors and ravens (Corvus spp.) (Saunders and de Rebeira 1985; Hill et al. 1988; TSSC 2011; Greenwell et al. 2019). Proximity to roads is also another threat for chicks that are fledging or practising flights. The species is also adversely impacted by extreme weather events such as heavy rainstorms and storm surges that reduce breeding success. It is the species’ nesting habitat preferences that make the Australian Fairy Tern so susceptible to disturbance, predation and extreme weather events.
Any threats in or around the breeding sites can be detrimental to the colony. Threats include overgrown vegetation, weed encroachment, land development, extreme weather events, extreme salinities, unsuitable sand management and water management in waters surrounding breeding sites (Higgins and Davies 1996; TSSC 2011; E. Stephens pers comm. 2020).
Furthermore, increased salinity in waters adjacent to breeding colonies (the Coorong, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland Ramsar site, South Australia) can cause changes to local populations of prey fish abundance and distribution. Nest flooding or an increased exposure to predators can occur due to a rise or decrease in water levels, respectively (TSSC 2011).
2.2.1 Habitat degradation and loss of br
2.2.1 Habitat degradation and loss of breeding habitat
2.2.1 Habitat degradation and loss of breeding habitat
Australian Fairy Terns do not necessarily retain the same nest site from one breeding attempt to the next (Dunlop 2018). However, colonies may establish in the same general locations in consecutive years or re-use certain places intermittently (Dunlop 2018).
Shoreline sites may be subject to rapid change due to sand erosion or accretion, tidal cycles and sea-levels, beach-wrack movement and deliberate modification. Locations that have been used in the past may be lost, become less attractive to the terns or become subject to increased disturbance or predation (Dunlop 2018). The shifting of nesting sites may be a strategy to reduce predation risks (J.N. Dunlop pers. comm. 2020).
Colony sites that are attractive to breeding pairs may develop naturally or result from coastal development activity including the clearing or loss of dune vegetation, the dumping of dredge spoil or beach-engineering (Dunlop 2018). Clearing of near
coastal areas for development (industrial or residential) can render the area attractive to breeding terns, leading to their rapid colonisation of the site earmarked for development/works. This can lead to conflict between the primary intended use of the land and its occupation by a threatened species. In Western Australia for example, this occurred on a reclaimed seabed area of the Fremantle Harbour, leading to the creation of the Rous Head Fairy Tern Sanctuary by Fremantle Ports and this is now one of the most successful breeding locations for the species. Some sites, which are well above the coastal strand, may become vegetated with native dune vegetation or covered by introduced weeds, making them unusable.
Intervention may be necessary to increase the probability that one or more secure sites will be used, or alternatively, to prevent breeding Australian Fairy Terns being attracted to inappropriate locations (Dunlop 2018). Potential breeding sites that result from development footprints or coastal engineering may put nesting terns at risk of breeding failure and increased adult mortality (Dunlop 2018).
In the absence of sufficient protected breeding sites in the local coastal system, steps may have to be taken to enhance the attractiveness of either naturally developing or artificial habitats (Dunlop 2018). This could involve reducing the vegetation cover, contouring the surface to produce low berms or adding shell or limestone pebble material to otherwise visually uniform substrates (Dunlop 2018). Local shell material to enhance preferred nesting sites has been sourced from Pacific Gull feeding stations, and in one case, from the coarse screenings from a marine lime-sand operation. In the absence of cover for the chicks at the margins of a planned nesting area, simple shading ‘chick-shelters’ can be placed to increase fledging success (Dunlop 2018). These can often be constructed from local rocks or driftwood or purpose built.
In coastal systems where human use pressures now prevent Australian Fairy Terns from breeding successfully, there is growing interest in establishing secure artificial sites (Dunlop 2018). These may be dredge-spoil islands in strategic locations or even floating islands and nesting platforms landscaped to provide breeding habitat. In the absence of legal protections however, even these sites may not be secure from human disturbance.
2.2.2 Disturbance
2.2.2 Disturbance
2.2.2 Disturbance
The presence of people, and/or their dogs, within 80–100 metres of an Australian Fairy Tern breeding colony will elicit an anti-predator response (BirdLife Australia 2018).
The nest-tending adults will take to the air to avoid disclosing the location of their eggs and/or young, and will then engage in noisy corporate dives on intruders. Direct physical contact is avoided but the terns will accurately defecate on interlopers or foreign objects within the nesting area.
Ongoing disturbance events during the colony establishment or early-laying period will often lead to the abandonment of the site (a predator avoidance response).
Although, relaying a clutch of eggs may occur elsewhere in the coastal system if eggs are lost early in the season, protracted disturbance later in the nesting cycle may cause unattended eggs or chicks to chill or overheat or starve, leading to egg loss and chick death, or clutches may be buried in moving sand or attract predators.
Commensal predators such as gulls, ravens or dogs may follow people (or their rubbish) to colonies and then prey on Australian Fairy Tern eggs or chicks. Gulls and ravens in particular have been known to opportunistically plunder exposed nests during periods of human disturbance.
A number of successful strategies have been employed to try and protect beach nesting birds (including Hooded Plover, Little and Australian Fairy Terns) from human disturbance. These are chick shelters, community education, signage (combined with boundary delineation) and volunteer wardens. However, education does not work on its own without an holistic strategic approach combining education, on-ground cues (e.g. signs/fences), compliance patrols and reviews of effectiveness/staged responses.
2.2.3 Invasive species
2.2.3 Invasive species
2.2.3 Invasive species
Most Australian seabirds breed on islands to avoid mammalian predators.
However, Australian Fairy Terns also breed at sites along the coastline presumably because they are accessible to near-shore concentrations of small fishes (Dunlop 2018). The breeding strategy adopted by the species (including the regular shifts in nesting areas) is probably, in part, an adaptation to avoid targeting by land-based predators (Dunlop 2018).
At mainland sites, the major mammalian predators of Australian Fairy Tern nests are foxes, cats, rats and dogs (Dunlop 2018; Greenwell et al. 2019; Stephens and Lamanna 2019). Baiting programs for foxes, cats and rats can be carried out on the island nature reserves and at remote coastal locations but are generally not an option in public spaces, such as coastal recreation areas, due to the risks to non-target species including pet animals. Soft-jaw traps baited with scent lures (urine or faeces) can be an effective,
low risk method, for the targeted removal of foxes and cats in peri-urban and rural areas. These traps are designed for live capture and are not in themselves likely to harm the predator or other non-target animals (e.g. domestic dogs). The use of scent lures rather than food baits reduces their attractiveness to other species. Another method for problem foxes or cats around colonies is engaging a trained shooter. Baiting programs, trapping, engaging a trained shooter and other controls methods are subject to relevant approvals from the relevant state or territory agencies.
Some colonies in Tasmania are threatened with the establishment and expansion of Sea Spurge (Euphorbia paralias), a coastal plant from the Mediterranean. The plant is tolerant of salt water and establishes coastal meadows that alienate and fragment coastal breeding sites for Australian Fairy Terns (E.J. Woehler unpubl. data).
2.2.4 Native wildlife
2.2.4 Native wildlife
2.2.4 Native wildlife
Raptors, such as Whistling Kites (Milvus sphenurus), Silver Gulls and Australian Ravens are the principal avian predators of eggs and chicks on mainland Australia (Dunlop 2018; Stephens and Lamanna 2019). During the surveillance of potential breeding sites it is useful to detect evidence of predator activity either from direct observation or from tracks (including prepared sand-pads) or using motion-detector cameras (Dunlop 2018). Any anti-predator interventions need to be timely if they are going to be effective.
Land managers need to be aware that the presence of people around colonies, including staff and conservation volunteers/wardens, may attract predators (that are also scavengers) to a colony area or provide opportunities for them to locate and plunder the nests (Dunlop 2018). Signs, fence-posts and other structures erected to protect colonies may become observation posts for gulls, ravens or birds of prey, increasing the risk of predation (spikes in the top of fence posts can prevent this). Rubbish bins or fish-cleaning stations near beaches with Australian Fairy Tern colonies can attract gulls, ravens and rats, and should be relocated.
2.2.5 Climate variability and change
2.2.5 Climate variability and change
2.2.5 Climate variability and change
Rising sea-levels caused by global warming (thermal expansion and ice-melt) are already forcing changes in shorelines. Coastal engineering works such as sea-walls, groynes, boat harbours, canal developments and reclamation projects also change the pattern of sedimentation and erosion, potentially removing breeding and foraging habitat/resources (i.e. fish species) for Australian Fairy Terns (Dunlop 2018). One result of these changes is that some breeding sites on beaches or sand banks become
exposed to tidal flooding (e.g. Peel-Yalgorup System Ramsar wetland) or storm surges (Dunlop 2018). Other sites on accreting shorelines may become vegetated making them unsuitable nesting habitats. Pre-breeding aggregation sites have been abandoned due to the erosion of sand bars (e.g. Penguin Island, Rockingham, WA) and previously secure islands have been connected to the mainland by new sand banks allowing access to domestic dogs and invasive predators such as foxes and Black Rats (e.g. Tern Island in Safety Bay, WA) (Dunlop 2018).
2.2.6 Water management and increased sal
2.2.6 Water management and increased salinity
2.2.6 Water management and increased salinity
High water levels in the south-west Western Australian estuaries in recent years have generally reduced the availability of roosting and breeding sites (Dunlop 2018).
The consequence of this is the overfilling of the estuaries including the inundation of roosting and nesting sites on banks and sand-spits, and the loss of connection with the marine food-chain which provides the preferred prey species. This removes roosting, breeding and foraging habitat for Australian Fairy Terns leading to their disappearance from some systems (e.g. Wilson Inlet, WA) (Dunlop 2018). In other locations, the drying climate has reduced run-off into some estuaries, leaving entrance blocking sandbars closed throughout the year.
In the Coorong, South Australia, water management (establishment of excessively high salinities) led to a collapse in the numbers of prey fish for 3–4 years at the end of the Millennium Drought in the southern Coorong, and a subsequent abandonment of traditional breeding sites (small islands in the southern Coorong) by Australian Fairy
Terns (Garnett et al. 2011; D Paton pers. comm. 2020). Compounding the loss of foraging habitats, was the lack of secure islands free from predators but close to areas that still support reasonable abundances of small fish (Paton and Rogers 2009). When typical salinities returned at the end of the drought and had allowed the fish to return, the birds also returned to breed on islands in the southern Coorong.
2.2.7 Pollution
2.2.7 Pollution
2.2.7 Pollution
Australian Fairy Terns locate colonies close to prey resources (generally small schooling fishes) and can often be seen foraging within visual distance of nesting areas (Dunlop 2018). The ‘baitfish’ often concentrate around estuary mouths where there is enhanced marine productivity from the nutrient plume, or at temperature, salinity or tidal fronts that concentrate plankton (Dunlop 2018). Such areas are also potentially areas of compromised water quality from urban and rural drainage, acid sulphate soils,
canal estates, boat harbours, coastal heavy industries and ports (Dunlop 2018). As such, these areas may be foci for the bio-accumulation of heavy metals and pesticides and the concentration of floating debris.
At present there are no data on the contaminant burden in Australian Fairy Terns from different parts of their breeding range (Dunlop 2018). Little Penguins have a similar diet and foraging habitats to Fairy Terns and these show elevated levels of various contaminants around southwestern Australia, including Mercury in Cockburn Sound and Selenium in the Albany waterways (Dunlop et al. 2013). At the remote Abrolhos Islands, the binders in fabricated plastics (phthalates) were present in the preen gland secretions of 49 per cent of the Australian Fairy Terns sampled (Dunlop 2018). Phthalates are potent pseudo-oestrogens capable of interfering with sexual development and reproduction.
2.2.8 Hybridisation
2.2.8 Hybridisation
2.2.8 Hybridisation
Hybridisation has been recorded between Australian Fairy Terns and Little Terns in South Australia (Cox and Close 1977), Victoria (Norman et al. 1996), New South Wales (Ross et al. 1999) and Tasmania (E.J. Woehler unpubl. obs.). Further interbreeding may diminish the genetic distinctiveness of both species (Ross et al. 1999).
Interbreeding between Little and Australian Fairy Terns is particularly problematic in New South Wales where Little Terns are listed as Endangered under state legislation. Appropriate management interventions are required to discourage hybridisation, predominantly in New South Wales.
2.3
Threat prioritisation
2.3 Threat prioritisation
Each of the threats outlined above has been assessed at expert workshops to determine the risk posed to the Australian Fairy Tern population using a risk matrix. This, in
turn, determines the priority for actions outlined below. The risk matrix considers the likelihood of an incident occurring and the consequences of that incident. Threats may act differently in different parts of the species range and at different times of year,
but the precautionary principle dictates that the threat category is determined by the subpopulation at highest risk. Population-wide threats are generally considered to present a higher risk.
The risk matrix uses a qualitative assessment drawing on peer reviewed literature and expert opinion. In some cases the consequences of activities are unknown. In these cases, the precautionary principle has been applied. Levels of risk and the associated priority for action are defined as follows:
• Very High – immediate mitigation action required
• High – mitigation action and an adaptive management plan required, the precautionary principle should be applied
• Moderate – obtain additional information and develop mitigation action if required
• Low – monitor the threat occurrence and reassess threat level if likelihood or consequences change
• Almost certain – expected to occur every year
• Likely – expected to occur at least once every five years
• Possible – might occur at some time
• Unlikely – such events are known to have occurred on a worldwide basis but only a few times
• Rare or Unknown – may occur only in exceptional circumstances; OR it is currently unknown how often the incident will occur
Categories for consequences are defined
Categories for consequences are defined as follows:
Categories for consequences are defined as follows:
• Not significant – no long\-term effect on individuals or populations
• Minor – individuals are adversely affected but no effect at population level
• Moderate – population recovery stalls or reduces
• Major – population decreases
• Catastrophic – population extinction
The eastern population that occurs in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania has recorded significant decreases over the last 20 years (Garnett et al. 2011; Greenwell et al. 2021). The eastern population may be as low as 1,300–1,600 mature individuals. Conservation efforts should focus on the eastern population to facilitate an increasing population trend over the life of this Recovery Plan.
3.1
Local conservation strategies
3.1 Local conservation strategies
Dunlop (2018) outlines a number of practical solutions for protecting colonies from human encroachment, predators and innovative ways to boost breeding success.
One approach to improving Australian Fairy Tern breeding performance within local coastal populations is to encourage the terns to select secure or manageable nesting sites. This can be done using social facilitation techniques that involve the deployment of decoys (models of incubating terns) in configurations that mimic the early stages of colony formation and playbacks of colony noises (Dunlop 2018). The effectiveness of the decoy colonies can also be augmented with continuous playback of contact (flock) or advertising calls, although this may not be necessary in all situations.
Decoy colonies have been used successfully on tern species that nest close together and do not retain nest sites between breeding attempts (e.g. Dunlop 1987). Social facilitation methods have been used effectively on Crested, Caspian, Sooty and Least Terns, and will probably be effective for Australian Fairy Terns (Dunlop 2018). The basic preconditions for attracting terns to a preferred location are an appropriate nesting habitat type, overflying terns in breeding condition and sufficient prey resources within the economic foraging range (Dunlop 2018).
Recovery plan vision, objectives, and st
Recovery plan vision, objectives, and strategies
Recovery plan vision, objectives, and strategies
Recovery plan objective
Recovery plan objective
Recovery plan objective
By 2030, sustain a positive population trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals of the Australian Fairy Tern in both the eastern and western populations. This will be achieved by implementing the actions set out in this
Recovery Plan that minimise threats while protecting the species’ habitat throughout its range, adequately monitoring the species, generating new knowledge to guide recovery and increasing public awareness.
Actions to achieve the specific objectiv
Actions to achieve the specific objectives
Actions to achieve the specific objectives
Actions identified for the recovery of the Australian Fairy Tern are described below.
It should be noted that some of the objectives are long-term and may not be achieved before the scheduled five-year review of this recovery plan. Priorities assigned to actions should be interpreted as follows:
Priority 1: Taking prompt action is necessary in order to mitigate the key threats to the Australian Fairy Tern and also provide valuable information to help identify long-term population trends.
Priority 2: Action would provide a more informed basis for the long-term management and recovery of the Australian Fairy Tern.
Priority 3: Action is desirable, but not critical to the recovery of Australian Fairy Tern or assessment of trends in that recovery.
Duration and cost of the recovery proces
Duration and cost of the recovery process
Duration and cost of the recovery process
It is anticipated that the recovery process will not be achieved before the scheduled five year review of the Recovery Plan. The cost of implementation of 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. In order to maximise the conservation outcomes and cost effectiveness of this plan, it is intended that the recovery actions proposed complement, where possible, those of
other protected matters. The indicative cost of recovery plans actions was derived from expert elicitation and public comments received in 2020.
TABLE 4 Summary of recovery actions and estimated costs for the first five years of implementation (these estimated costs do not take into account inflation over time)
Effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits
Effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits
Reducing anthropogenic impacts to coastal and marine habitats, supporting work to reduce disturbance and the adverse impacts of invasive species, will likely benefit
other listed threatened and migratory species, such as Hooded Plover, Little Tern and migratory shorebirds such as the Critically Endangered Eastern Curlew and Curlew Sandpiper. Implementation of the Recovery Plan will also have positive outcomes for other marine and coastal species and listed ecological communities through improving habitat quality.
The major economic impact of this Recovery Plan will be on those who require approval to remove or modify Australian Fairy Tern habitat and are prevented from doing so, or are required to modify their proposal by a consent authority. As habitats important habitats are identified, there is potential for developments to be restricted under the EPBC Act development assessment and approval process. This may include increased costs due to the assessment processes, requirement to provide offsets to secure or rehabilitate habitat, or for other threat mitigation work. Further information on the EPBC Act environmental assessment arrangements can be accessed here: http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/environment-assessments.
Localised, short-term, impacts may occur in areas where nest protection measures are implemented around breeding birds. Temporary fencing to delineate a safe distance from a nesting colony may be required to protect vulnerable eggs and chicks from human disturbance and off-leash dogs. Such structures may restrict access to small areas of beach and cause a minor inconvenience to beach visitors during the Australian Fairy Tern breeding season.
A large network of community volunteers across Australia actively participate in BirdLife Australia coordinated annual surveys for migratory shorebirds and beach nesting birds. Involvement can provide social benefits with community members and engaged groups having a sense of achievement, inclusion, community spirit and pride whilst gaining enjoyment and appreciation of their surrounding natural environment. The community education components of the program also promote community ownership, provide community support and encourage active involvement in protecting local natural resources. In Western Australia, a network of over 300 land managers and citizen scientists regularly contribute information on the movement of banded birds and breeding activities.
In addition, there is the potential for economic gains through ecotourism ventures, nature tours and holiday accommodation operators in areas where the Australian Fairy Tern can reliably be seen. Additional social benefits include encouraging passive recreation, appreciation of natural aesthetic values and increased awareness and appreciation of Indigenous cultural values.
Affected interests
Affected interests
Affected interests
Organisations likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this Plan include: government agencies (Commonwealth, state and territory, local), particularly those involved with coastal environments and conservation programs; Indigenous land and sea management groups (including ranger programmes); researchers; bird watching groups; conservation groups; wildlife interest groups; 4WD and fishing groups; environmental consulting companies; tourism operators; industry and commercial bodies; and, proponents of coastal development in the vicinity of important habitat.
However, this list should not be considered exhaustive, as there may be other interest groups that may like to be included in the future or need to be considered when specialised tasks are required.
The following table lists some of the interest groups, how they could contribute to the success of the plan and the potential benefits/impacts that may emerge from the Plan’s implementation:
The Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern 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 different organisations, to categorize ongoing threats to the Australian Fairy Tern, and identify knowledge gaps and potential management options. Consultation included
representatives from government agencies, non-government organisations, researchers and local community groups. During the drafting process the Department of Agriculture, Water the Environment (Cwlth) continued to work closely with key stakeholders.
Notice of the draft plan was made available for public comment for four months between 20 December 2019 and 17 April 2020. 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.
Organisations/persons involved in evalua
Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan
Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan
This 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 will be coordinated by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, in association with the Recovery Team, relevant Australian and state government agencies and key stakeholder groups such as non-governmental organisations, local community groups and scientific research organisations.
Key stakeholders who may be involved in the review of the performance of the National Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern, include organisations likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this plan and are expected to include:
Australian Government
Australian Government
Australian Government
• Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment
State/territory governments
State/territory governments
State/territory governments
• Department of Planning and Environment (NSW)
• Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Vic)
• Department of Environment and Water (SA)
• Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tas)
• Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (WA)
• Natural resource management bodies in coastal regions
• Local government in coastal regions
Non-government organisations
Non-government organisations
Non-government organisations
• BirdLife Australia
• Conservation Council of Western Australia (WA Fairy Tern Conservation Network)
• Australasian Seabird Group
• Local conservation groups
• Local communities
• Indigenous communities
• Universities and other research organisations
• Industry
• Recreational sports and associations
• Recreational fishers and associations
• Recreational boaters
Adams, A.L., Monks, S., Silcocks, A., and Maguire, G.S. (2019) Monitoring and rehabilitation of Fairy Tern nesting sites in Western Port and Port Phillip Bay. Unpublished report for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning by BirdLife Australia.
Ashmole, N.P. (1963) The biology of the wideawake or sooty tern Sterna fuscata on Ascension Island. Ibis 103b: 297-364.
Baling, M. (2008) Conservation of the fairy tern (Sternula nereis spp.) via subspecies level management. Auckland, New Zealand: Pacific Invasive Initiative (IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group), The University of Auckland. Available from: www.fairytern.org.nz/html/documents/baling2008.pdf.
Baling M., Jefferies, D., Barre, N, and Brunton, D.H. (2009) A survey of Fairy Tern (Sterna nereis) breeding colonies in the Southern Lagoon, New Caledonia. Emu 109: 57-61.
Baling, M. and Brunton, D. (2005) Conservation genetics of the New Zealand Fairy Tern. Unpublished report to the New Zealand Department of Conservation. 32pp
Barré, N., Baling , M., Baillion, N., Le Bouteiller, A.U.B.E.R.T., Bachy, P., Chartendrault,
V. and Spaggiari, J. (2012) Survey of fairy tern Sterna nereis exsul in New Caledonia. Marine Ornithology 40: 31-38.
BirdLife Australia (2018) Monitoring Guidelines for Fairy Terns – Bird Island, South Australia. BirdLife Australia, Melbourne.
Burbidge, A.A. and Fuller, P.J. (2000) The breeding seabirds of Shark Bay, Western Australia. CALMScience 3: 109-124.
Cabot, D. and Nisbet, I. (2013) Terns. The New Naturalist Library. Collins: London.
Carter, M. and Mustoe, S. (2007) Another Form of Fairy Tern Sterna nereis breeding in Australian Territory. Australian Journal of Field Ornithology 24: 167-179.
Source text: opening excerpt
Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.
Summary Summary
Summary
Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis)
Family: Laridae
Current status of taxon: Current status of taxon:
Current status of taxon:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth): Vulnerable
• Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Tas): Vulnerable
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic): Critically Endangered
• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA): Endangered
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA): Vulnerable
Distribution and habitat: Distribution and habitat:
Distribution and habitat:
Australian Fairy Terns occur along the southern Australian coast from south of the Dampier archipelago Western Australia east to Botany Bay, New South Wales including Tasmania. The Great Australian Bight forms a gap in distribution between western and eastern subpopulations (Higgins and Davies 1996), and there are now substantial gaps amongst breeding colonies in eastern Australia, especially around the Victorian
coastline (Garnett et al. 2011). Australian Fairy Terns use a variety of habitats including offshore, estuarine, lacustrine (lake) islands, wetlands, beaches and sand spits
(TSSC 2011).
Recovery plan vision, objective, and str Recovery plan vision, objective, and strategies:
Summary
Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis)
Family: Laridae
Current status of taxon:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth): Vulnerable
• Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Tas): Vulnerable
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic): Critically Endangered
• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA): Endangered
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA): Vulnerable
Distribution and habitat:
Australian Fairy Terns occur along the southern Australian coast from south of the Dampier archipelago Western Australia east to Botany Bay, New South Wales including Tasmania. The Great Australian Bight forms a gap in distribution between western and eastern subpopulations (Higgins and Davies 1996), and there are now substantial gaps amongst breeding colonies in eastern Australia, especially around the Victorian
coastline (Garnett et al. 2011). Australian Fairy Terns use a variety of habitats including offshore, estuarine, lacustrine (lake) islands, wetlands, beaches and sand spits
(TSSC 2011).
Publishes a five‑year implementation timetable and a five‑year review requirement: the Plan “should be reviewed no later than five years from when it was endorsed” (see "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan" and "Duration and cost of the recovery process").
Presents a quantitative, indicative budget for the first five years: the table labelled TABLE 4 sums to $7,950,000 across six numbered strategies for years 1-5 (see "TABLE 4 Summary of recovery actions and estimated costs for the first five years" and the total at the foot of that table).
Sets out a risk‑assessment approach including a qualitative risk matrix used to prioritise threats (see "Risk prioritisation" and the two matrices presented).
Identifies specific management techniques and constraints, for example social facilitation (decoys, playback), nest protection measures (fencing, signage, volunteer wardens), predator control options (baiting, soft‑jaw traps, trained shooters) and notes that such control methods are “subject to relevant approvals from the relevant state or territory agencies” (see "Local conservation strategies", "Disturbance", "Invasive species").
The Plan expressly recommends that Commonwealth and state agencies use it to prioritise actions and that costs be absorbed into core agency budgets or additional funds be sought, rather than creating a separate financing vehicle (see "Duration and cost of the recovery process"). It also flags the EPBC Act assessment and approval pathway as a legal mechanism that can restrict or modify development proposals affecting Fairy Tern habitat (see "Social and economic considerations").
The instrument sets expectations, priorities and technical guidance. It does not itself amend legislation nor does it include statutory sanctioning clauses; it expects existing statutory frameworks (notably the EPBC Act and state threatened species legislation) to give effect to many of its recommendations.
Main concepts
The Plan uses several operational concepts. Below I set out the key definitions and how the document applies them.
Recovery objective and baseline. The Plan uses a 2020 baseline population estimate (7,450 mature individuals, range 6,800-8,100) and sets a timebound objective to sustain a positive population trend against that baseline by 2030 (see "Introduction", "1.5 Population trends", "Recovery plan objective"). The use of a baseline makes success measurable but anchors outcomes to monitoring quality and baseline accuracy.
Populations and subpopulations. The Plan distinguishes eastern and western populations, and notes the eastern population is substantially smaller and declining (possibly 1,300-1,600 mature individuals) while the largest concentration is 5,000-6,000 in Western Australia (see "1.5 Population trends", "Populations under particular pressure"). Management priorities are geographically differentiated because threats act differently across range.
Habitat critical to survival. The Plan treats habitat critical to survival as a mosaic of coastal features defined at a bioregional scale rather than by a single map‑based polygon: nesting beaches and offshore islands for reproduction; near‑shore waters for foraging; and associated buffer areas (see "1.7 Habitat critical to the survival of the Australian Fairy Tern"). It explicitly lists suitable breeding and foraging habitats and notes multiple land tenures.
Threat taxonomy and risk matrix. Threats are categorised (disturbance, invasive species, native wildlife predation, habitat degradation, climate variability, water management and salinity, pollution, hybridisation). A qualitative risk matrix combines likelihood and consequence to rank priorities (Very High, High, Moderate, Low) and drives the assignment of Priority 1-3 actions (see "Risk prioritisation" and the two tabular matrices).
Intervention toolbox. The Plan describes both soft (signage, education, wardens, fencing, social facilitation using decoys and playbacks, chick shelters) and harder interventions (baiting, trapping, use of trained shooters), and makes specific procedural caveats that predator control methods require approvals from state/territory agencies (see "Local conservation strategies", "Invasive species", "Disturbance").
Monitoring, research and adaptive management. The Plan emphasises monitoring techniques to detect population trends and measure efficacy of actions, along with research priorities (breeding biology, movement patterns, food availability, foraging ecology) and a requirement to coordinate, review and report recovery progress (see "Strategies to achieve objectives", "Criteria for success").
Institutional arrangements. Recovery teams are advisory and coordinating bodies made up of government, NGOs, researchers and community representatives; responsibility for implementing actions is expected to reside with Commonwealth and state agencies in conjunction with community groups (see "Recovery team", "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan").
Funding and cost estimates. The Plan supplies indicative five‑year costs for each strategy and an aggregated total of $7,950,000 for the first five years, with the explicit caveat costs exclude inflation and are derived from expert elicitation and public comments (see "TABLE 4" and "Duration and cost of the recovery process").
These concepts structure how the Plan converts conservation priorities into specific techniques, institutional workflows and budgetary expectations. The Plan’s reliance on qualitative expert judgment (risk matrices, prioritisation) and on community engagement as both delivery mechanism and monitoring source are recurring themes. The document ties biological success criteria to monitoring outputs and assigns responsibility for coordination to a named Recovery Team, while leaving statutory effect to existing legislation such as the EPBC Act.
Who it affects
The Plan identifies a broad list of affected parties and specifies how they may be implicated by recommended actions and by the interaction with statutory approvals processes.
Government agencies. Commonwealth, state and local government bodies are the primary actors expected to implement and to fund actions. Specifically the Plan names the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and state departments , NSW Department of Planning and Environment; Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; South Australia Department of Environment and Water; Tasmania Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment; Western Australia Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions , as stakeholders and potential implementers (see "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan" and "Australian Government"/"State/territory governments").
Recovery Team members and scientists. A national Recovery Team comprising government representatives, NGOs, independent researchers and community groups is tasked with coordinating implementation and reviewing progress (see "Recovery team"). Researchers and universities are also named as contributors to monitoring, research and review.
Indigenous groups and land managers. The Plan lists Indigenous land and sea management groups, including ranger programmes and Indigenous communities, among affected parties with potential implementation roles (see "Affected interests").
Landowners and developers. The Plan explicitly anticipates economic effects on proponents of projects that might remove or modify Fairy Tern habitat: “developments may be restricted under the EPBC Act development assessment and approval process” and proponents may incur increased assessment costs, requirement for offsets or mitigation works (see "Social and economic considerations"). It names freehold land, reserves and national parks as the tenures over which habitat occurs (see "1.7 Habitat critical to the survival of the Australian Fairy Tern").
Local communities, volunteers and citizen scientists. A large volunteer network coordinated by BirdLife Australia contributes to monitoring and nest protection; the Plan recognises social benefits from participation and expects volunteers to be mobilised for wardening, monitoring and local management (see "Social and economic considerations", "Recovery team").
Industry and commercial interests. The Plan lists industry, tourism operators, environmental consultants, recreational fishing and boating groups, 4WD and fishing groups among interested parties that may be affected by access restrictions, beach fencing or predator control operations (see "Affected interests").
Conservation NGOs and birdwatching groups. BirdLife Australia and other NGOs are named as stakeholders with coordination, monitoring and education roles (see "Non‑government organisations").
Legal and regulatory actors. While the Plan itself is not legislative, it anticipates interaction with the EPBC Act and state threatened species legislation; this means compliance officers, planning authorities and courts will be engaged where statutory assessment or approvals are triggered (see "Social and economic considerations" and the status table at the head of the document).
Who pays. The Plan states the cost of implementation “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” (see "Duration and cost of the recovery process"). This places primary funding expectation on government agencies, with additional funds to be sought , implying an opportunity cost to agency budgets and dependence on future budget allocations and grants.
Who decides. Decision‑making is shared. The Recovery Team is the coordinating body (advisory and directive in implementation), but statutory decisions about approvals, control methods and development impacts remain with the relevant Commonwealth or state agencies and consent authorities, particularly under the EPBC Act and state laws noted in the Plan (see "Recovery team", "Social and economic considerations", and "Invasive species" where approvals are required for control methods).
Behavioural effects. The Plan anticipates tangible behavioural changes: developers will need to consider habitat designation earlier, agencies will prioritise monitoring and predator control, local communities will be mobilised for wardening and monitoring, and land managers may alter sand and water‑management practices around breeding sites. The Plan also signals potential access restrictions (temporary fencing and signage) to reduce disturbance during breeding seasons (see "Disturbance", "Social and economic considerations").
Concentrated impacts will fall on proponents of coastal development, local councils managing beaches, and any commercial activity that alters identified habitat; diffuse costs are distributed across government budgets and volunteers. The Plan’s stated expectation that agencies “use this plan to prioritise actions” indicates implementation will be uneven and jurisdictionally mediated, dependent on agency priorities and resources.
Key duties and rights
The Recovery Plan sets expectations, recommended actions and institutional responsibilities rather than creating new statutory duties itself. It operates as a policy instrument designed to guide the exercise of statutory powers under existing environmental laws and to coordinate multi‑party activity. The following are the Plan’s operative duties, obligations and rights as presented.
Advisory and coordinating obligation of the Recovery Team. The Plan designates a national Recovery Team with responsibility “of providing advice, coordinating and directing the implementation of the recovery actions outlined in this recovery plan” (see "Recovery team"). This places an organisational duty to coordinate but not, in the text, a legal duty enforceable in court.
Agency expectations. The Plan states it “is expected that Commonwealth and state agencies will use this plan to prioritise actions to protect the species’ and enhance its recovery” (see "Duration and cost of the recovery process"). That is an expectation that agencies integrate the Plan into operational planning and resource allocation; the Plan does not itself create statutory obligations but anticipates that statutory regimes will be used to effect actions.
Duties in relation to approvals and control methods. The Plan flags that certain interventions are legally contingent: predator control methods (baiting, trapping, shooting) are “subject to relevant approvals from the relevant state or territory agencies” (see "Invasive species"). This introduces an external legal duty , compliance with state/territory permitting regimes , before particular actions may proceed.
Monitoring and review obligations. The Plan requires monitoring, reporting and a five‑year review. It states the Plan “should be reviewed no later than five years from when it was endorsed and made publicly available” and that review will be coordinated by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment in association with the Recovery Team and stakeholders (see "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan"). Those are administrative obligations on the coordinating Commonwealth department and partners.
Rights and protections implied via EPBC Act. The Plan recognises that as habitat is identified, “there is potential for developments to be restricted under the EPBC Act development assessment and approval process” and that proponents may be required to provide offsets or mitigation (see "Social and economic considerations"). Those rights and restrictions flow from the EPBC Act and related state laws rather than from the Plan; the Plan functions as guidance that may influence decision‑makers exercising statutory powers.
Community involvement duties. The Plan invites engagement of community stakeholders and relies on NGOs and volunteers for monitoring and wardening, implying ongoing obligations for community engagement and reporting by land managers and agencies (see "Strategies to achieve objectives", "Social and economic considerations"). The Plan identifies potential roles for local community groups, Indigenous rangers, BirdLife Australia and others.
Technical practice recommendations (operational duties). The Plan sets out recommended practice for protecting colonies: maintain 80-100 metre distances from colonies to avoid disturbance; use signage, fencing and volunteer wardens; consider decoys and playbacks to attract terns to secure sites; deploy chick shelters where shading is needed; and relocate rubbish bins/fish cleaning stations away from colonies to reduce attraction of gulls and rats (see "Disturbance", "Local conservation strategies", "Invasive species", "Native wildlife"). These are presented as recommended management duties rather than statutory obligations, but they are concrete operational expectations for land managers and agencies.
What the Plan does not do. The Plan does not contain express enforcement provisions or civil/criminal penalties. It does not itself authorise compulsory land acquisition, nor does it purport to override statutory planning instruments. Rights and duties that have legal effect derive from EPBC Act and state laws; the Plan seeks to inform and guide those legal processes and the exercise of discretionary powers by agencies.
Penalties and enforcement
The Recovery Plan does not itself create offences or monetary penalties. It is a policy and technical guidance document that relies on existing statutory and regulatory frameworks for enforceable measures. The Plan’s enforcement and penalty landscape is therefore indirect and mediated through other laws and administrative processes referenced in the text.
No penalties inside the Plan. Nowhere in the document are statutory fines, criminal offences or administrative penalty mechanisms prescribed. The Plan’s instruments are strategies, recommended actions and coordination tasks (see throughout, notably "Actions to achieve the specific objectives", "Strategies to achieve objectives").
Enforcement via EPBC Act and state laws. The Plan explicitly anticipates that identification of important habitat may result in development restrictions under the EPBC Act assessment and approval process and that proponents may need to provide offsets or otherwise modify proposals (see "Social and economic considerations"). Those statutory processes include legal sanctions and compliance mechanisms under the EPBC Act when actions trigger the Act’s referral and approval provisions. Similarly, state threatened species legislation listed at the head of the Plan (for example, Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Tas), Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic), National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA), Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA)) contain their own compliance and enforcement measures, but the Plan itself does not restate those sanctions.
Administrative enforcement points. The Plan foresees administrative controls such as temporary fencing, signage and compliance patrols to manage disturbance at breeding sites (see "Disturbance"). Those measures are implemented and enforced by land managers and local authorities; enforcement mechanisms would be the relevant local or state regulatory regimes for public space management, dog control, trespass or protected area rules.
Approvals for management techniques. The Plan states predator control techniques will be “subject to relevant approvals from the relevant state or territory agencies” (see "Invasive species"). That language indicates that performing certain recommended actions without required permits may expose actors to legal risk under state animal welfare, agricultural, or conservation statutes and their attendant enforcement regimes.
Compliance risk and implementation. The Plan relies heavily on multi‑party coordination, volunteers, and the prioritisation of actions within agency budgets. Enforcement of the Plan’s prescriptions therefore depends on administrative will and capacity rather than on new legal penalties. The Plan’s five‑year review and reporting requirement creates an administrative accountability mechanism intended to assess performance, but it does not provide a direct penal sanction for non‑performance (see "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan").
Indirect economic consequences. The Plan notes that development proponents may face increased assessment costs or be required to provide offsets if works affect habitat (see "Social and economic considerations"). These are regulatory costs and can operate as de facto economic penalties for non‑compliance with environmental protection rules mediated by the EPBC Act or state approvals systems, not penalties created by the Plan.
In short, enforcement is exercised through existing statutory instruments and administrative practice. The Plan provides the policy basis and technical guidance that may be referenced in statutory determinations and compliance action, but penalties and enforcement are implemented through external legal regimes rather than through the Plan itself.
How it interacts with other laws
The Recovery Plan explicitly situates itself within the pre‑existing legal framework and identifies multiple points of interaction with Commonwealth and state law. The Plan is a strategic guidance instrument intended to inform the exercise of statutory powers rather than to impose new legal rules.
EPBC Act. The species is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act (see opening summary and "1.1 Conservation status"). The Plan anticipates that identification of important habitat and implementation of recovery actions will influence EPBC Act referral, assessment and approval processes. It explicitly warns that “developments may be restricted under the EPBC Act development assessment and approval process” and that proponents may face assessment costs and a requirement to provide offsets (see "Social and economic considerations"). The Plan therefore acts as a substantive input into EPBC decisions but does not substitute for legal requirements under that Act.
State threatened species laws. The Plan lists the species’ status under a range of state laws: Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (Tas) , Vulnerable; Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Vic) , Critically Endangered; National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) , Endangered; Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA) , Vulnerable (see opening summary). Those listings operate in parallel with the Plan and may carry statutory duties, permitting regimes and enforcement powers that the Plan can influence by providing evidence, habitat definitions and recommended management.
Marine parks and marine management. The Plan notes that Biologically Important Areas for this species occur in Australian Marine Parks and that statutory management plans for marine parks are applicable to protected species and biodiversity values (see "1.4 Species distribution in Australia"). Where marine parks’ statutory management plans apply, recovery actions and foraging habitat protections will interact with marine park rules and zoning.
Local government and public space law. Recommended on‑ground measures , temporary fencing, signage, volunteer wardens, restrictions on vehicle or dog access , will be implemented by local government or land managers and therefore interact with local by‑laws, dog control regulations and reserve management rules (see "Disturbance", "Social and economic considerations"). Local authorisations may be required for works on beaches and reserve lands.
Biosecurity, animal welfare and pest control law. The Plan recommends predator control measures (baiting, trapping, shooter engagement) but qualifies that such methods are “subject to relevant approvals from the relevant state or territory agencies” (see "Invasive species"). This ties actions to statutory requirements in pest control, animal welfare and environmental protection, and indicates that compliance with those laws is a precondition to some recovery actions.
Planning and coastal engineering law. The Plan acknowledges that coastal engineering works, reclamation and development can create or destroy potential nesting habitat and that colonies can be attracted to development footprints, creating conflict between development projects and conservation aims (see "2.2.1 Habitat degradation and loss of breeding habitat"). This creates an interface with planning law and coastal development approvals.
Environmental assessment and offsets. The Plan foresees the use of offsets or habitat rehabilitation as mitigation tools required by assessment processes under the EPBC Act or state laws (see "Social and economic considerations"). Where offsets are required, the Plan provides the biological rationale and may be used to define offset needs.
Research and privacy/statutory reporting. Monitoring actions and banding, trapping or disturbance surveys may require permits under state conservation laws and may engage data sharing and research approval frameworks. The Plan notes monitoring and research are core objectives (see "Strategies to achieve objectives"), but compliance with permit regimes is required for fieldwork.
Operationally, the Plan functions as evidence and policy guidance used by statutory decision‑makers. It does not alter statutory text but can shape the exercise of discretion under other laws. Practitioners should therefore treat the Plan as authoritative technical guidance likely to be referred to in EPBC Act referrals and in state decision‑making about habitat, approvals, permits and offsets.
Amendment history
The document itself does not present a history of formal amendments. The text includes provenance details and temporal markers that are useful for understanding its genesis and review cadence.
Listing provenance. The Plan records that the Australian Fairy Tern was listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act on 3 March 2011 (see "Introduction"). That listing is the statutory backdrop to the Recovery Plan.
Development and consultation timeline. The Plan was drafted through consultation with species experts and stakeholders. The draft plan was made available for public comment for four months between 20 December 2019 and 17 April 2020 and comments were considered by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee as part of the assessment process (see "Consultation"). The Plan states it is the first national plan developed for the Australian Fairy Tern (see "Introduction").
Baseline and data dates. The Plan uses a 2020 population estimate as the baseline for the 2030 objective: 7,450 mature individuals (range 6,800-8,100) cited from Greenwell et al. 2021 (see "Introduction", "1.5 Population trends"). The Plan references work and data spanning decades (population declines over 30 years; regional surveys in 2011/12; various unpublished field reports dated to 2019/20), and it draws on the SPRAT database for background.
Review cycle. The Plan mandates a performance review no later than five years after endorsement, to be coordinated by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment with the Recovery Team and stakeholders (see "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan"). This provides a scheduled opportunity for amendment, reassessment and adjustment of priorities and actions.
Cost‑estimate caveats. The Plan’s indicative five‑year cost estimates are explicitly caveated as derived from expert elicitation and public comment in 2020 and that they do not account for inflation (see "TABLE 4" caption and "Duration and cost of the recovery process"). Any financial amendment or budget reallocation would presumably be effected administratively through agencies rather than by formal revision of the Plan itself, unless the five‑year review results in a revised Plan document.
Absence of recorded prior amendments. The Plan text does not list prior formal amendments, repeal or replacement history. It is presented as a fresh national plan rather than as an amendment to a pre‑existing recovery plan.
Future amendment path. The Plan indicates the five‑year review will determine performance and implicitly can lead to revision. The Plan does not prescribe a formal amendment procedure beyond administrative review and stakeholder coordination.
For practitioners, the practical takeaway is that while the Plan itself has no statutory amendment regime, it is expected to be a living instrument reviewed after five years and to inform repeatable administrative decisions under other statutes. Any changes to its content will likely be made through the review process and subsequent public release of a revised plan.
Litigation history
The Recovery Plan contains no internal record of litigation and does not cite any court decisions, judicial reviews or legal actions related to the Australian Fairy Tern or to the Plan itself. The document's bibliography and references list technical literature, surveys and unpublished reports (see "References") but no case law. Specific points to note.
No cases named. The Plan does not name or rely upon judicial authority, administrative law decisions, or litigation outcomes. It is a conservation document based on scientific literature and expert workshops.
Potential for future litigation. The Plan acknowledges that implementation of its recommendations may affect development approvals, which in turn can give rise to legal disputes under the EPBC Act or planning laws where proponents challenge conditions, refusals, or offsets. However, the Plan does not document any such litigation.
Administrative review channels. Because the Plan references the EPBC Act and other statutory regimes, disputes about the exercise of statutory powers informed by the Plan would be handled through usual administrative and judicial review channels under the relevant laws. The Plan itself is not an enforceable regulation and would therefore typically be an evidentiary or persuasive document in any litigation rather than the source of legal obligations.
Evidence base for litigation. The Plan contains population estimates, habitat definitions and risk matrices that would likely be relied upon as scientific evidence in any contested statutory decision or litigation about approvals and offsets. Practitioners should be aware that courts and review tribunals frequently treat government recovery plans as material to the reasonableness of agency decisions, so the document’s scientific statements and recommended protections could be important in litigation even though the Plan is not itself a statutory instrument.
In summary, there is no litigation history recorded in the document and no cases cited. The Plan’s influence on litigation will be indirect, via its use as evidentiary support in decision‑making under the EPBC Act and state environmental laws.
Gotchas
The Plan contains several technical and operational features that can create unexpected legal, financial or implementation issues if not carefully understood. Practitioners should watch for the following concrete risks and traps that are grounded in the Plan text.
Non‑statutory form but practical effect. The Plan is advisory and does not itself create statutory obligations. Nevertheless it is intended to inform statutory decision‑makers (notably under the EPBC Act) and will therefore carry weight in approvals and offset conditions. Parties assuming the Plan is merely aspirational risk underestimating its consequential regulatory impact (see "Social and economic considerations" and "Duration and cost of the recovery process").
Baseline dependence and monitoring uncertainty. Success is measured against a 2020 baseline (7,450 mature individuals). The Plan recognises monitoring gaps and the need for improved techniques. If monitoring is incomplete, the baseline and subsequent trend data may be contested, affecting measurements of compliance and success (see "Recovery plan objective", "Strategies to achieve objectives", "Criteria for success").
Cost estimates are indicative and exclude inflation. TABLE 4 provides five‑year costings totalling $7,950,000, but those figures explicitly “do not take into account inflation over time” and derive from expert elicitation. Budget planners relying on these numbers without adjustment for inflation or contingency risk shortfalls (see "TABLE 4", "Duration and cost of the recovery process").
Jurisdictional variability in implementation. The Plan expects Commonwealth and state agencies to prioritise actions, but it does not harmonise statutory processes across jurisdictions. That means an action recommended in the Plan may be feasible in one state but blocked or differently prioritised in another, producing a patchwork of protection (see "Recovery team", "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan").
Attracting terns to development footprints. The Plan warns that cleared or developed coastal areas can attract terns, leading to potential conflict between conservation aims and planned development (see "2.2.1 Habitat degradation and loss of breeding habitat"). Creating artificial secure sites without statutory protections may result in temporary local gains that complicate future land uses and liabilities.
Predator control legal constraints. Several control measures (baiting, engaging shooters) are effective but are “subject to relevant approvals from the relevant state or territory agencies” (see "Invasive species"). Failure to obtain permits exposes implementers to statutory offence risk and potential community backlash.
Human disturbance thresholds. The Plan indicates that presence of people or dogs within 80-100 metres of a breeding colony elicits disturbance responses and can cause abandonment (see "Disturbance"). Local managers who underestimate the spatial extent of disturbance risk legal challenge or non‑compliance with protective measures.
Reliance on volunteers and NGO networks. A substantial portion of monitoring and wardening is expected to be carried out by volunteers coordinated by NGOs (see "Social and economic considerations"). Volunteer dependence raises continuity and professional liability issues; it also creates variability in data quality and the reliability of on‑ground protection.
Hybridisation and species interaction complexities. Management actions must account for hybridisation with the Little Tern and interactions with native predators and seabirds. Measures to reduce predation or to alter habitat may have knock‑on ecological effects that are not fully quantified in the Plan (see "2.2.8 Hybridisation", "2.2.4 Native wildlife").
Opportunity costs and competing priorities. The Plan expects agencies to integrate recovery actions into core business expenditure, implying opportunity costs and potential for underfunding where agencies face competing statutory obligations (see "Duration and cost of the recovery process"). The Plan itself does not create a dedicated funding stream.
Risk assessment subjectivity. The threat ranking uses a qualitative expert‑opinion risk matrix. Where the Plan is used to justify regulatory conditions, affected parties might challenge the underlying probability or consequence assessments given their qualitative and precautionary character (see "Risk prioritisation" and the matrices).
These are specific operational traps that arise directly from the Plan’s content and mode of delivery. They point to the importance of clear monitoring protocols, cross‑jurisdictional coordination, early engagement with statutory approvals processes and realistic budgeting.
How to comply
For developers, land managers, agencies and other stakeholders required to take action or to avoid affecting Australian Fairy Tern habitat, the Plan points to a set of concrete steps. Compliance is principally about aligning project design and operational practice with the Plan’s objectives and with statutory requirements under the EPBC Act and state laws.
Early assessment and referral under EPBC Act and state laws
Check whether a proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on the species or its habitat and, if so, initiate EPBC Act referral processes. The Plan anticipates developments affecting habitat may require assessment, approval and offsets (see "Social and economic considerations"). Use the SPRAT profile and the Plan’s habitat descriptions to identify likely impact zones (see "Introduction", "1.7 Habitat critical to the survival of the Australian Fairy Tern").
Consult the Recovery Team and relevant agencies
Engage the national Recovery Team, the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and the relevant state conservation agency early to obtain guidance and to align proposals with recovery priorities (see "Recovery team", "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan").
Apply the Plan’s management prescriptions in project design
Avoid creating or attracting nesting habitat on or adjacent to development footprints. If new nesting habitat is likely to be created by engineering works, plan for legal protections or design to minimise attractiveness to terns (see "2.2.1 Habitat degradation and loss of breeding habitat").
During breeding season enforce spatial buffers. The Plan notes that presence of people and dogs within 80-100 metres elicits disturbance responses; integrate appropriate buffer zones, signage and fencing into construction and operational plans (see "Disturbance").
Secure permits for on‑ground interventions
Predator control, collection, banding and certain monitoring activities require relevant state or territory approvals. Before baiting, trapping or using shooters, obtain approvals and follow animal welfare and pest control regulations (see "Invasive species" and the related caveat that such methods are subject to approvals).
Implement best‑practice mitigation and monitoring
Use the Plan’s recommended toolbox: temporary fencing, boundary delineation, signage, volunteer wardens and compliance patrols; chick shelters where required; relocate attractants such as rubbish bins and fish‑cleaning stations (see "Disturbance", "Local conservation strategies", "Native wildlife", "Invasive species").
Where restoring or creating nesting habitat, follow guidelines for substrate (shell, sand), sparse vegetation and site contouring identified in the Plan. Consider social facilitation methods (decoys, playback) only when prey resources and regional conditions match preconditions set out in the Plan (see "Local conservation strategies").
Prepare monitoring and reporting plans
Design monitoring protocols that measure breeding success, population trend against the 2020 baseline, prey availability and foraging ecology. The Plan stresses improving techniques to measure changes in population trend and to evaluate action efficacy (see "Strategies to achieve objectives", "Criteria for success").
Record and submit monitoring data to the coordinating agencies and recovery team to support five‑year review and to provide evidence for any statutory assessments.
Budget and secure funding realistically
Use the Plan’s TABLE 4 indicative costs as a guide but adjust for inflation and local operating costs. The Plan cautions the table does not account for inflation and that costs are estimates from 2020 (see "TABLE 4" and "Duration and cost of the recovery process"). Plan for multi‑year funding and contingencies.
Community engagement and volunteers
If relying on community volunteers for wardening or monitoring, put in place supervision, training, safety procedures and data quality controls. The Plan identifies a substantial volunteer role coordinated by BirdLife Australia and local groups (see "Social and economic considerations").
Integrate with coastal management and water policy
Where water management and salinity affect prey availability and breeding habitat (for example the Coorong), engage with water managers to align inflows and salinity regimes with species needs. The Plan identifies water management and increased salinity as a likely driver of local declines and a management priority (see "2.2.6 Water management and increased salinity").
Document approvals, evidence and adaptive changes
Keep a documented trail of approvals, impact assessments, monitoring outputs and adaptive management decisions to demonstrate compliance and to provide defensible evidence in statutory assessments or disputes. The Plan’s emphasis on adaptive management and reporting implies that evidence of learning and adjustment will be material in future administrative decisions and reviews (see "Strategies to achieve objectives" and "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan").
In practical terms, compliance is a two‑track process: (1) satisfy statutory approval and permitting regimes (EPBC Act, state conservation and pest control laws, local by‑laws), and (2) implement the Plan’s technical recommendations for minimising disturbance, mitigating predation and monitoring outcomes. Early, documented engagement with the Recovery Team and relevant agencies reduces regulatory risk and clarifies funding and implementation responsibilities.
The Australian Fairy Tern population has increased in size to such an extent that the species no longer qualifies for listing as threatened under any of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 listing criteria.
Recovery plan objective:
By 2030, sustain a positive population trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals of the Australian Fairy Tern in both the eastern and western populations. This will be achieved by implementing the actions set out in this
Recovery Plan that minimise threats while protecting the species’ habitat throughout its range, adequately monitoring the species, generating new knowledge to guide recovery and increasing public awareness.
Long-term vision Long-term vision
Long-term vision
The Australian Fairy Tern population has increased in size to such an extent that the species no longer qualifies for listing as threatened under any of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 listing criteria.
Recovery plan objective: Recovery plan objective:
Recovery plan objective:
By 2030, sustain a positive population trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals of the Australian Fairy Tern in both the eastern and western populations. This will be achieved by implementing the actions set out in this
Recovery Plan that minimise threats while protecting the species’ habitat throughout its range, adequately monitoring the species, generating new knowledge to guide recovery and increasing public awareness.
Strategies to achieve objectives Strategies to achieve objectives
Strategies to achieve objectives
Manage and protect known Australian Fairy Tern breeding populations at the landscape scale
Develop and apply techniques to measure changes in population trend(s) in order to measure the efficacy of recovery actions
Reduce, or eliminate threats at breeding, non-breeding and foraging sites
Undertake research and monitoring to improve understanding of breeding,
non-breeding and foraging ecology in order to better target management actions and habitat restoration
Engage community stakeholders in Australian Fairy Tern conservation
Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress
Criteria for success: Criteria for success:
Criteria for success:
This recovery plan will be deemed successful if, by 2030, all of the following have been achieved:
• The Australian Fairy Tern population has increased from 2020 baseline counts, as a result of recovery actions.
• Understanding of the species’ ecology has increased, in particular knowledge of population size, breeding biology, movement patterns, food availability and foraging efficiency relative to colony success, habitat use including the interaction between marine and terrestrial habitat features, post-breeding dispersal and survival rates.
• There is increased participation by key Australian stakeholders and the public in recovery efforts and monitoring.
Recovery team: Recovery team:
Recovery team:
Recovery 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 Australian Fairy Tern 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 national Recovery Team includes individuals from relevant government agencies, non-government organisations and expertise from independent researchers and community groups.
Introduction Introduction
Introduction
This document constitutes the National Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern.
The plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across its range and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the long-term viability of the species, and the parties that will undertake those actions. The Recovery Plan is the first national plan to be developed for the Australian Fairy Tern.
The Australian Fairy Tern was listed as Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) on 3 March 2011. At the time of listing there were fewer than 9,000 mature individuals remaining and the total
population had undergone a substantial decrease of approximately 24 per cent over the past three generations, or 33 years (TSSC 2011). This decrease was expected to continue at a substantial rate over the next three generations, as there was no evidence that the threats affecting this species were abating (TSSC 2011). In 2020, the population was estimated to be 7,450 (range 6,800 – 8,100) mature individuals and was undergoing a continuing decrease, particularly in eastern Australia (Greenwell et al. 2021). There has been no change in the population trajectory since 2011 and the species continues to meet the Vulnerable category (Greenwell et al. 2021).
The accompanying Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) pages provide background information on the biology, population status and threats to the Australian Fairy Tern. The SPRAT pages are available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/sprat.pl.
1.1 Conservation status
1.1 Conservation status
The Australian Fairy Tern is listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and under State legislation (Table 1) in all parts of its range, except New South Wales. This species was included in the Vulnerable category under the EPBC Act in 2011 due to decreases in the number of mature individuals over much of its breeding range. Predation by introduced species, disturbance and inappropriate water level management are thought to have contributed most to this decrease.
1.2 Taxonomy
1.2 Taxonomy
The Australian Fairy Tern is conventionally accepted as Sternula nereis nereis (AFD 2019). It has been suggested that there are two subspecies on mainland Australia,
S. n. nereis in the south-east and S. n. hornii in the south-west, although key authorities only recognise S. n. nereis in Australia (Baling and Brunton 2005; Christidis and Boles 2008; Garnett et al. 2011; AFD 2019). Genetic differences were detected between Australian Fairy Terns in Western Australia and south-eastern Australia, however, these were not sufficient to merit treatment as separate subspecies (Dunlop 2018). The highest genetic diversity was found in the largest population in Western Australia (Baling and Brunton 2005), suggesting that this region was the source for the smaller breeding groups found in south-eastern Australia.
The distribution of the Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis) is limited to Australasia, comprising Australia, New Zealand and New Caledonia (Hansen 2006; Dunlop 2018).
Three subspecies have been identified based on phenotypic, genotypic and geographic differences. The New Zealand Fairy Tern (S. n. davise) is listed as Nationally Critical under the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Hitchmough et al. 2005; Hansen 2006).
The New Caledonian Fairy Tern (S. n. exsul) has approximately 200–400 breeding pairs (Barre et al. 2011), and has recently been recorded in the Swain Reefs, southern Great Barrier Reef, and islands in the Coral Sea Territory, suggesting regular movements of over 1,200 km (Carter and Mustoe 2007; Garnett et al. 2011). The low genetic diversity in the satellite populations in New Zealand and New Caledonia probably reflect the small number of founders (Dunlop 2018).
1.3 Species description
1.3 Species description
A small piscivorous (fish-eating) bird, the Australian Fairy Tern is approximately 22–27 cm in length, 70 g in mass and has a wingspan of 44–53 cm (Higgins and Davies 1996). The Australian Fairy Tern is bulky and round bodied (Simpson and Day 2004).
The species is very similar to Little Tern (S. albifrons) which in breeding plumage can be distinguished from the Australian Fairy Tern by the yellow, black tipped bill and black line through the eye reaching the bill. Little Terns are overall slimmer than
Australian Fairy Terns with darker upperparts and outer primaries (Slater et al. 2009; Menkhorst et al. 2017).
The breeding plumage of both sexes is pale grey-white, with a black crown, nape, ear coverts and patch in front of the eyes (square to round in shape). The forehead is white and the bill is orange-yellow (Higgins and Davies 1996). Legs are dull yellow and the iris is dark brown (Lindsey 1986).
1.4 Species distribution in Australia
1.4 Species distribution in Australia
The Australian Fairy Tern occurs in coastal southern Australia from the Montebello Islands of the Pilbara, Western Australia east to Botany Bay, New South Wales including Tasmania (Figure 1). The Great Australian Bight forms a gap in distribution between western and eastern populations (Higgins and Davies 1996). There are now a reduced number of nesting colonies in eastern Australia, especially around the Victorian coastline. The species has been recorded in Queensland but is considered to be a vagrant, an occasional visitor or more likely, New Caledonian Fairy Tern individuals.
In Tasmania, Australian Fairy Terns have suffered dramatic population declines.
Both Little and Australian Fairy Tern often nest together and some colonies are well documented. Eight colonies are known to be present in the Glamorgan-Spring Bay and Sorell Municipalities in south-east Tasmania (Blakney 2018). There are four known Key Biodiversity Areas in Tasmania based in part on their value to Australian Fairy Terns, primarily through supporting their breeding locations: Orford, Marion Bay, St Helens and Eastern Flinders Island (Bass Strait). In 2020, the Orford Bird Sanctuary had one of the best breeding seasons in many years with at least 40 adults and 27 chicks recorded between January and February (E. McDonald and P. Geard pers. comm). Maintaining, and if possible, increasing the number and size of these colonies in Tasmania will be crucial to recovering this species in south-east Australia.
Within Western Australia, there appear to be two subpopulations (Dunlop 2018). One is sedentary and based along the Pilbara and upper Gascoyne coasts from Exmouth Gulf to the Dampier Archipelago, including Barrow Island and the Montebello and Lowendal Archipelagos. These Australian Fairy Terns nest from late July to late September (Johnstone and Storr 1998, Dunlop 2018). A second, migratory subpopulation disperses south along the coastline from Shark Bay (Burbidge and Fuller 2000) to breed between the Houtman Abrolhos Islands to the Recherche Archipelago between September
and May, with active breeding flocks appearing at various locations between October and February (Johnstone and Storr 1998). At present it is not clear what controls the recruitment of individuals to these over-lapping subpopulations (Dunlop 2018). It is also currently not known at what scale local breeding groups (which probably establish colonies at a number of sites) represent conservation management units within the migratory subpopulation (Dunlop 2018).
Biologically Important Areas for this species occur in Australian Marine Parks, particularly in the South-west and North-west Marine Parks Networks. Under statutory management plans, Australian Marine Parks are managed for the protection and conservation of biodiversity and other natural, cultural and heritage values of marine parks, including protected species. More information about Australian Marine Parks can be found here.
1.5 Population trends
1.5 Population trends
The population of Australian Fairy Terns is about 7,450 (range 6,800–8,100) mature individuals (Greenwell et al. 2021). The largest population of 5,000–6,000 in Western Australia is believed to be stable but there is no reliable historical data. In eastern Australia there have been rapid decreases. State based estimates include 900–1,150 in South Australia (DENR 2012; Cooper 2015; Stephens and Lamanna 2019; D. Paton unpublished), 100–120 pairs in Tasmania (2019/20, E.J. Woehler pers. comm. 2020), 100–150 in Victoria (Adams et al. 2019) and fewer than 50 in New South Wales (South Coast Shorebird Recovery Program 2017; Greenwell et al. 2021).
In South Australia, a survey of 1500 km of coastline in 2011/12 found a minimum of 944 birds at 19 sites (DENR 2012). Numbers in the South Lagoon of the Coorong, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland Ramsar site (the Coorong) have decreased from 1,330 individuals in 1985 to 150–300 in 2000–2007, an 82 per cent decline (Paton and
Rogers 2009). Only 357 individuals were counted during the annual census of waterbirds in the Coorong in January 2018. This result is less than in January 2015 and 2016 and
is only a little over half of the birds that were using the Coorong in the early 2000s (Paton and Paton 2018). Australian Fairy Tern numbers have continued to decrease in the Coorong over the last five years from 300–350 adult birds to 315 individuals in
January 2019 (Paton et al. 2019). Elsewhere in South Australia, the specie
This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.