Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Botaurus poiciloptilus) Instrument 2023
In ForceCTH
Jurisdiction
Commonwealth
Collection
legislative instrument
Plain English Summary
6/10 complexity
This instrument adopts and brings into force the National Recovery Plan for the Australasian Bittern under the EPBC Act the day after registration. The plan sets a 2032 objective to increase mature individuals, lists threat‑reduction, habitat protection, research, monitoring and stakeholder coordination actions, and anticipates costs to be met through agency budgets and additional funding while potentially affecting land managers via EPBC assessments and habitat protections.
This instrument, made jointly by the Commonwealth and several states under subsection 269A(3) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), registers the "National Recovery Plan for the Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), Commonwealth of Australia 2022" as a recovery plan. The instrument names the responsible ministers (Tanya Plibersek for the Commonwealth, and ministers for Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland), and states that the recovery plan comes into force the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation (Instrument, 5 February 2023; made under s 269A(3) EPBC Act).
Mechanically, the registered recovery plan:
Declares a long-term vision: increase Australasian Bittern numbers so the species no longer meets EPBC Act threatened criteria (Recovery Plan, "Long-term vision").
Sets a time-bound objective: demonstrate by 2032 an increasing trend from a 2020 baseline in the number of mature individuals recorded in annual surveys at key locations, and ensure habitat critical to survival is protected and managed to meet ecological requirements ("Recovery plan objective").
Prescribes five broad strategies: threat mitigation; habitat enhancement/protection; research and monitoring; stakeholder participation; and coordination, review and reporting ("Strategies to achieve objectives").
Specifies success criteria to be met by 2032, including relative abundance increases, more occupied sites, use of research to improve management, and increased stakeholder participation ("Criteria for success").
Assigns priorities to actions (Priority 1-3), requires coordination by a national Recovery Team, and mandates a review no later than five years after endorsement ("Recovery team"; "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan"; review provision).
Current sections
Direct links to the current provisions in Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Botaurus poiciloptilus) Instrument 2023.
49
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Subsection 269A(3)
Summary
Summary
Summary
Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus)
Family: Ardeidae
Current status of taxon:
Current status of taxon:
Current status of taxon:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth): Endangered
• Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006 (Queensland): Endangered
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales): Endangered
• Nature Conservation Act 2014 (Australian Capital Territory): Endangered
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria): Critically Endangered
• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia): Vulnerable
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (Western Australia): Endangered
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Endangered
Distribution and habitat:
Distribution and habitat:
Distribution and habitat:
In addition to Australia, the Australasian Bittern occurs in New Zealand and New Caledonia. In Australia, Australasian Bitterns can be divided into two subpopulations, the south eastern and south western subpopulations. The species occurs discontinuously along the east coast from south east Queensland to south east South Australia and Tasmania, extending into the Murray–Darling Basin. In Western Australia, it is presently confined to widely separated parts of the south western and south eastern coast and a small number of wetlands farther inland. Breeding of both subpopulations occurs at both coastal and inland sites. The Australasian Bittern preferred habitat comprises wetlands with dense vegetation from 0.5–3.5 metres in height, where it forages in still, shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep water. It favours permanent and seasonal freshwater habitats, particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and reeds, as well as rice crops.
Recovery plan vision, objective, and str
Recovery plan vision, objective, and strategies:
Recovery plan vision, objective, and strategies:
Long-term vision
The Australasian Bittern 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:
The objective of this recovery plan is to demonstrate, by 2032, an increasing trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals being recorded in annual surveys at key locations, and to ensure that habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern is protected and managed to meet the ecological requirements of the species.
Strategies to achieve objectives
1 Implement management actions that mitigate or reduce threats to Australasian Bittern and their habitat
2 Enhance the quality, extent and protection of suitable habitat for the Australasian Bittern
3 Undertake research and monitoring to improve knowledge of the biology, ecology and population trends of Australasian Bittern
4 Increase stakeholder participation in Australasian Bittern conservation and management
5 Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress
Criteria for success:
This recovery plan will be deemed successful if, by 2032, all the following have been achieved:
• The relative abundance of Australasian Bittern has increased from 2020 baseline counts as a result of recovery actions
• The number of occupied sites supporting Australasian Bittern has increased from 2020 baseline counts, and the quality of the sites has improved, as measured against a range of environmental health indicators
• Research and monitoring of movement patterns and habitat use have increased understanding of the species ecology and information has been used to improve management actions for the species
• There is increased participation by key stakeholders and the public in recovery efforts and monitoring
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 Australasian Bittern 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.
Long-term vision
Long-term vision
Long-term vision
The Australasian Bittern 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:
The objective of this recovery plan is to demonstrate, by 2032, an increasing trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals being recorded in annual surveys at key locations, and to ensure that habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern is protected and managed to meet the ecological requirements of the species.
Strategies to achieve objectives
Strategies to achieve objectives
Strategies to achieve objectives
1 Implement management actions that mitigate or reduce threats to Australasian Bittern and their habitat
2 Enhance the quality, extent and protection of suitable habitat for the Australasian Bittern
3 Undertake research and monitoring to improve knowledge of the biology, ecology and population trends of Australasian Bittern
4 Increase stakeholder participation in Australasian Bittern conservation and management
5 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 2032, all the following have been achieved:
• The relative abundance of Australasian Bittern has increased from 2020 baseline counts as a result of recovery actions
• The number of occupied sites supporting Australasian Bittern has increased from 2020 baseline counts, and the quality of the sites has improved, as measured against a range of environmental health indicators
• Research and monitoring of movement patterns and habitat use have increased understanding of the species ecology and information has been used to improve management actions for the species
• There is increased participation by key 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 Australasian Bittern 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 Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus)’. The plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across the part of its range lying within Australia and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the species’ long-term viability in nature, and the parties that will undertake those actions.
Principal threats to the Australasian Bittern include the loss and degradation of wetland habitats through altered water regimes (e.g. drainage and diversion, infilling, water regulation), clearing for urban and agricultural development and climate change. Other potential threats to the species may include reduced water quality, predation by introduced foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and cats (Felis catus), overgrazing by livestock, and inappropriate fire regimes.
Accompanying Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) pages provide background information on the biology, population status and threats to the ‘species’. SPRAT pages are available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl.
1.1
Conservation status
1.1 Conservation status
The Australasian Bittern is a listed threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The species is also listed as threatened under State Legislation (Table 1).
The species was included in the Endangered category of the EPBC Act in 2011 as the estimated total number of mature individuals of the species was low and evidence suggested that the number would continue to decline at a high rate. The species was also suspected to have undergone a severe reduction in population numbers as a result of the reduction in the species’ area of occupancy and the loss of habitat and breeding grounds (TSSC 2011). There has been no change in the population trajectory since 2011 and the species continues to meet the Endangered category (Herring et al. 2021).
1.2
Taxonomy
1.2 Taxonomy
Conventionally accepted as Botaurus poiciloptilus (Wagler, 1827). No subspecies have been described. The species is commonly known as the Australasian Bittern. It is also known as the Boomer, Bullhead, Bunyip, Black-backed or Brown Bittern.
1.3
Species description and habitat
1.3 Species description and habitat
Australasian Bitterns are large, stocky, thick–necked, heron–like birds. The species grows to a length of 66–76 cm and has a wingspan of 1,050–1,180 mm. The average male weighs approximately 1,400 g and the average female weighs approximately 900 g (Marchant and Higgins 1990). The upper-parts of the body are brown and dark brown to black, mottled and buff, in complex patterns that aid the bird’s concealment in swamp vegetation. The under-parts of the body are streaked and scalloped, brown and buff. The species has a prominent black–brown stripe running down the side of the neck, the eyebrow is pale, and the chin and upper throat are white. The bill is straight, pointed and straw yellow to buff in colour with a dark grey ridge. The legs and feet are pale green to olive and the eyes are orange–brown or yellow (Marchant and Higgins 1990; Pizzey and Knight 1997). Darker and paler variants of the plumage have been observed in adults. Juveniles are generally paler than adults and have heavier buff flecking on the back (Marchant and Higgins 1990; Pizzey and Knight 1997).
Australasian Bitterns occur mainly in freshwater wetlands in the temperate southeast and southwest of Australia and, exceptionally, in estuaries or tidal wetlands (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Australasian Bitterns’ preferred habitat comprises wetlands with dense vegetation, especially where there is a mosaic of cover, from 0.5–3.5 metres in height, where they forage in still, shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep water. They favour permanent and seasonal freshwater habitats, particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and/or reeds (e.g. Phragmites, Cyperus, Eleocharis, Juncus, Typha, Baumea, Bolboschoenus) or cutting grass (Gahnia) growing over a muddy or peaty substrate, as well as rice crops (Marchant and Higgins 1990). In south-western Australia the species also occurs in wetlands where thickets of wetland shrubs (e.g. Melaleuca, Agonis spp.) provide patches of tall cover within sedge-dominated habitat. In the Murray–Darling Basin, Australasian Bitterns occur in floodplain swamps that may include lignum (Duma florulenta) shrubs within sedge or reed beds as well as in commercial rice-fields (NSW Riverina). Despite occurring in a range of wetland types, breeding is known to occur in a much smaller sub-set of locations.
1.4
Species distribution in Australia
1.4 Species distribution in Australia
In Australia, the Australasian Bittern occurs from south-east Queensland to south-east South Australia as far as the Adelaide Region, southern Eyre Peninsula, Tasmania and in the southwest of Western Australia (Jaensch et al. 1988; Marchant and Higgins 1990; Garnett et al. 2011; Figure 1). Vagrants have also been recorded from northern Australia, including one record from Argyle Downs in the extreme north east of Western Australia (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Due to geographical isolation over 1,500 km of mainland without suitable habitat, the population can be divided into two subpopulations, the south-eastern and south-western subpopulations. The Australasian Bittern also occurs in New Zealand and New Caledonia (Marchant and Higgins 1990).
In Queensland, the species occurs as far north as Yeppoon and west to Wyandra. In the south-east there is habitat remaining on Fraser Island, the Fraser Coast, North Stradbroke Island, Redlands and out into the Lockyer Valley. Key areas in Queensland where the species has been reliably seen in the past include the flood plains south of Byfield State Forest, Garnett's Lagoon, Bribie Island and Lake Clarendon.
In New South Wales, it occurs along the coast and is also frequently recorded in the Murray–Darling Basin, notably in floodplain wetlands of the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir Rivers.
In Victoria, it is recorded mostly in the southern coastal areas and in the Murray River region of central northern Victoria. The Barmah-Millewa Ramsar wetland complex is considered Australia’s most important site, with up to 73 booming males (Herring et al. 2019a).
In Tasmania, the species was formerly more widespread, however it is now absent from some major wetlands that have dried out (Marchant and Higgins 1990; Garnett and Crowley 2000). It occurs most commonly in the coastal regions in the north east, the east coast and on the islands of Bass Strait. Egg Islands has been identified as a Key Biodiversity Area for Australasian Bittern. The species also commonly occurs in the upper Derwent River estuary and Lakes Crescent and Sorell in central Tasmania (R. Gaffney pers. comm. 2018). Contemporary, distribution and population data from Tasmania is required to inform future management and recovery actions.
In South Australia, it primarily occurs in the south-east, ranging north to the
Murray River corridor and the Adelaide region, and west to the southern Eyre Peninsula and Kangaroo Island.
In Western Australia, the Australasian Bittern was formerly widespread in the south-west, ranging north to Moora, east to near Cape Arid, and inland possibly as far as the Toolibin Lake area (Jaensch et al. 1988). However, following extensive loss of habitat throughout the 1900s (e.g. due to drainage, salinization and ongoing urban development) the species is rarely recorded on the Swan coastal plain between Lancelin and Busselton. The species is however recorded more regularly in the southern coastal region from Augusta to the east of Albany and inland to some wetlands in the Jarrah forest belt (Lake Muir district), with small, isolated populations in swamps near Esperance eastwards to near Cape Arid (Jaensch et al. 1988; DBCA 2018).
1.5
Population trends
1.5 Population trends
The estimated number of mature individuals is <2,000 globally with approximately 1,300 (range 750–1,800) in Australia (Herring et al. 2019a). This estimate includes combining mid-range figures for the Riverina rice field population estimate (500–1000, 750; Herring et al. 2019a) and the remaining Australian population estimate (247–796, 522; Garnett et al. 2011), with New Zealand (580–725, 626; Heather and Robertson 2000) and New Caledonia (0–50, 25; Martínez- Vilalta et al. 2019a).
Herring et al. (2019a) demonstrated that the rice fields of the Riverina support the largest known population of Australasian Bittern. Occupancy modelling from 2013–2017 in the Riverina region of New South Wales produced estimates of 368–409 for “early permanent water” rice crops in the Murrumbidgee and Coleambally Irrigation Areas (Herring et al. 2019a). Conservative estimates for “delayed permanent water” crops and for the unsurveyed Murray Irrigation Area suggest the Riverina’s rice fields support 500–1000 mature Australasian Bitterns in most years, representing about 59 per cent of the national population (Herring et al. 2019a).
Previous estimates in The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010 (Garnett et al. 2011), which did not account for the Riverina population, suggested there were less than 1,000 mature Australasian Bitterns within the Australian population, and that the population was likely still decreasing. Based on two years of surveys at all wetlands where Australasian Bitterns had been reported between 1998 and 2008, BirdLife Australia estimated the number of adult birds in 2009–2010 to be 3–16 in Queensland, 82–162 in New South Wales, 86–248 in Victoria, 12–100 in Tasmania, 26–116 in South Australia and 38–154 in Western Australia – a national total of 247–796 (Birds Australia 2010; Garnett et al. 2011). The Western Australian population is now considered to comprise fewer than 100 individuals (Pickering 2012; DBCA 2018), while Tasmania is now thought to support 20–80 birds (E. Znidersic, unpublished).
Based on the published data, decreases in this species have been occurring for several decades. The reporting rate in national Atlas surveys has decreased from being recorded in 260 10-minute grid squares in 1977–1981, to 142 squares in 1998–2003, and 61 in 2003–2008 (Birds Australia 2010; Garnett et al. 2011). The reporting rate declined by >90 per cent in Tasmania and Western Australia, and by 63 per cent in the Riverina. The long-term rate of decline is estimated to be 20–30 per cent over two generations (11 years).
The area of occupancy of the Australasian Bittern in Australia is thought to have declined by 70 per cent between 1977 and 2008. These declines are considered to have led to a comparable decline in the size of the adult population.
Population estimates are largely based on skewed citizen science records and there is a degree of uncertainty of population trends across the range of the Australasian Bittern. Further complicating the matter is the level of mis-identification inherent in Australasian Bittern records. Immature Nankeen Night Herons (Nycticorax caledonicus) and Australian Little Bittern (Ixobrychus dubius) can be mistaken for Australasian Bittern by inexperienced observers.
1.6
Ecology
1.6 Ecology
The knowledge base on Australasian Bittern is relatively weak and based on a small number of localised studies or observations, consistent with the secretive nature of the species and difficulty for researchers in accessing its preferred dense, swampy
habitats. Concerted programs of observation by BirdLife Australia and some government agencies in the past two decades have improved knowledge of occurrence and numbers (Herring et al. 2016, 2019)
The Australasian Bittern occurs solitarily, in pairs or dispersed aggregations of up to 34 birds (M. Herring, pers. comm. 2019). It is likely to be sedentary in permanent habitats, but regular post-breeding dispersal of between 400–600 km from inland rice fields to coastal wetlands has been recorded in south-eastern Australia (Herring et al. 2016; Bitterns in Rice Project, 2019).
The Australasian Bittern breeds from October to February in solitary pairs, or polygamously with up to three nesting females per booming male (Bitterns in Rice Project 2016). The species nests in densely vegetated freshwater wetlands, building its nests within dense cover over shallow water placed about 30 cm above the water level (Marchant and Higgins 1990). In rushland, it may avoid breeding in the densest areas (Marchant and Higgins 1990), and in reedbeds may prefer smaller patches, rather than continuous stands (M. Herring, pers. comm. 2019). If population densities are high, it may resort to more open wetlands for nesting, such as in stunted Acacia swamps (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Clutch size is usually four or five, but ranges from three to six (Serventy and Whittell 1976; Marchant and Higgins 1990).
The Australasian Bittern appears to be capable of moving between habitats as suitability changes. It can occur in high densities in temporary or infrequently filled wetlands during exceptionally wet years, and will also use ephemeral wetlands when moving from areas that are drying out (Garnett et al. 2011). Monitoring data provides evidence of seasonal movements and that they respond to favourable conditions at key wetlands. Analysis of data collected at regularly monitored wetlands in the Melbourne area (monthly surveys) shows an influx of birds during the non-breeding season between April and October, with a peak numbers in August (Kingsford et al. 2014). Between 2015–2018, satellite tracking demonstrated that birds move between the Murray Darling Basin and coastal South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, so the winter influx around Melbourne is likely to be of birds which breed in the Riverina region (Bitterns in Rice 2019). The mobility of Australasian Bitterns makes the species hard to census as there is a risk of double counting birds recorded at different wetlands.
Based on occupancy modelling of the rice fields in southern New South Wales, and in the absence of similar work in other locations, rice fields are now known to support about 39 per cent of the total global population and 59 per cent of the Australian population (Herring et al. 2019a). These agricultural wetlands are typically flooded from October-April, with Australasian Bitterns commencing nesting in December and January when there is sufficient cover and prey. Rice height is a maximum of around 1.1 m, with water depths usually 15–25 cm. The most important prey for Australasian Bitterns in rice fields is tadpoles, frogs, fish and dragonfly larvae. In “early permanent water” crops, ponding is consistent from October-April, and potential fledging of all chicks prior to harvest is the norm, however a contraction of the ponding period – “delayed permanent water” – shorter season varieties and mid-season drainage are agronomic trends likely to reduce opportunities for successful breeding.
1.7
Habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern
1.7 Habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern
As noted above, the habitat, or biophysical environment, of the Australasian Bittern 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 Australasian Bittern may be more usefully defined at a bioregional scale that considers the combination of plants, animals, water depth, geology, landforms, and climate that is relevant to a geographical unit.
In general, Australasian Bitterns occur mainly in freshwater wetlands in the temperate southeast and southwest of Australia and, exceptionally, in estuaries or tidal wetlands (Marchant and Higgins 1990; Figure 1). Australasian Bitterns’ preferred habitat comprises wetlands with dense vegetation, especially where there is a mosaic of cover, from 0.5–3.5 metres in height, where they forage in still, shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep water. They favour freshwater habitats with permanent or seasonal water, particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and/or reeds (e.g. Phragmites, Cyperus, Eleocharis, Juncus, Typha, Baumea, Bolboschoenus) or cutting grass (Gahnia) growing over a muddy or peaty substrate (Marchant and Higgins 1990). In south-western Australia the species also occurs in wetlands where thickets of wetland shrubs (e.g. Melaleuca, Agonis spp.) provide patches of tall cover within sedge-dominated habitat. In the Murray–Darling Basin, Australasian Bitterns occur in floodplain swamps that may include lignum (Duma florulenta) shrubs within sedge or reed beds as well as in commercial rice-fields (NSW Riverina). Despite occurring in a range of wetland types, breeding is only known to occur at a smaller number of locations.
Threats
Threats
Threats
2.1
Historical causes of decline
2.1 Historical causes of decline
It is thought that the Australasian Bittern has been in decline for at least the past 30 years and declines since 2000 have been more pronounced (Garnett et al. 2011).
The decline has been detected across both the eastern and western subpopulations and is associated with the loss of key breeding habitats (Garnett et al. 2011; DBCA 2018; Herring et al. 2019a).
2.2
Current threatening processes
2.2 Current threatening processes
The main identified threats to the Australasian Bittern are the reduction in extent and quality of habitat due to the diversion of water away from wetlands (primarily for irrigation as well as groundwater extraction), the drainage of swamps, climate variability and change, the loss or alteration of wetland habitats due to urban and agricultural development, peat mining, predation by introduced animals such as foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and cats (Felis catus), reduced water quality as a result of increasing salinity, siltation and pollution, and overgrazing by livestock and detrimental fire regimes (Jaensch and Vervest 1988; Marchant and Higgins 1990; Kingsford and Thomas 1995; Garnett and Crowley 2000; Kingsford 2000; Jaensch 2004; Pickering 2013; DBCA 2018; Herring et al. 2019a).
2.2.1 Reduced wetland availability due t
2.2.1 Reduced wetland availability due to changed water regimes
2.2.1 Reduced wetland availability due to changed water regimes
The major threat to the Australasian Bittern in Australia is the reduction in extent and quality of habitat, due to the diversion of water away from wetlands (primarily for irrigation as well as groundwater extraction), peat mining and the drainage of swamps (Marchant and Higgins 1990; Kingsford and Thomas 1995; Garnett and Crowley 2000; Kingsford 2000; Jaensch 2004; Garnett et al. 2011; DBCA 2018). Over the past 100 years, many suitable wetland sites in both eastern and south western Australia have been lost because of the alteration of habitat (Kingsford 2000; Garnett et al. 2011). Across the range of the species, proposals to expand or create new irrigation schemes (dams) need to be mindful of the potential impacts to Australasian Bittern and its habitats, particularly during extended drought conditions.
2.2.2 Habitat loss and/or alteration
2.2.2 Habitat loss and/or alteration
2.2.2 Habitat loss and/or alteration
Loss of wetlands
Over the past 150 years, many wetlands suitable for Australasian Bittern in both eastern and south western Australia have been destroyed, especially due to drainage (Kingsford 2000; Garnett et al. 2011). While occurring throughout the range of occurrence of the Australasian Bittern, this impact would have been especially severe in the formerly extensive swampy landscape of the south-east of South Australia (drained mainly from 1949–1972) and in and near each of the major cities of southern Australia.
Ongoing loss of swampy wetlands suitable for or known to have supported Australasian Bittern, with replacement by urban development and infrastructure, has continued in more recent decades notably in the rapid expansion of the suburbs of Perth, Melbourne and the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, Queensland.
As well as outright loss of wetlands, wetland vegetation has been altered in some parts of the species range. In New South Wales, much of the Gwydir Ramsar wetlands have been cleared and converted from grazing to cropped agriculture, leaving only very small areas of habitat suitable for bitterns (R. Jaensch, pers. comm., 2005). One of the drivers for this trend has been spread of Lippia (Phyla canescens), a mat-forming weed that thrives under conditions of reduced inundation, reducing suitable natural fodder for livestock and forcing landholders to control it by ploughing and cropping. An additional risk for natural wetlands is geomorphic change – natural erosion and sedimentation processes that can isolate wetlands (i.e. Macquarie Marshes Ramsar site, New South Wales). This is primarily a land and water management issue that is exacerbated by river regulation, catchment land use (erosion) and water quality (turbidity).
Because of its comparatively specialised habitat requirements (i.e. densely vegetated wetlands), the species is much more sensitive to habitat loss than many other wetland birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Although many sites occupied by Australasian Bitterns are now protected, the species continues to be threatened by ongoing wetland loss and changes to vegetation cover. The encroachment by River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and subsequent loss of the open Moira Grass Plains from areas like the Barmah-Millewa Ramsar wetlands has the potential to reduce foraging opportunities for Australasian Bitterns. The coastal zone in Australia is still subject to intense and escalating pressure from housing, semi–rural and other developments and the swampy vegetation in some wetlands has declined as wetlands become deeper sumps for increased stormwater from paved and other hard surfaces in expanding urban areas (Jaensch 2004).
Loss of wetlands
Loss of wetlands
Loss of wetlands
Over the past 150 years, many wetlands suitable for Australasian Bittern in both eastern and south western Australia have been destroyed, especially due to drainage (Kingsford 2000; Garnett et al. 2011). While occurring throughout the range of occurrence of the Australasian Bittern, this impact would have been especially severe in the formerly extensive swampy landscape of the south-east of South Australia (drained mainly from 1949–1972) and in and near each of the major cities of southern Australia.
Ongoing loss of swampy wetlands suitable for or known to have supported Australasian Bittern, with replacement by urban development and infrastructure, has continued in more recent decades notably in the rapid expansion of the suburbs of Perth, Melbourne and the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, Queensland.
As well as outright loss of wetlands, wetland vegetation has been altered in some parts of the species range. In New South Wales, much of the Gwydir Ramsar wetlands have been cleared and converted from grazing to cropped agriculture, leaving only very small areas of habitat suitable for bitterns (R. Jaensch, pers. comm., 2005). One of the drivers for this trend has been spread of Lippia (Phyla canescens), a mat-forming weed that thrives under conditions of reduced inundation, reducing suitable natural fodder for livestock and forcing landholders to control it by ploughing and cropping. An additional risk for natural wetlands is geomorphic change – natural erosion and sedimentation processes that can isolate wetlands (i.e. Macquarie Marshes Ramsar site, New South Wales). This is primarily a land and water management issue that is exacerbated by river regulation, catchment land use (erosion) and water quality (turbidity).
Because of its comparatively specialised habitat requirements (i.e. densely vegetated wetlands), the species is much more sensitive to habitat loss than many other wetland birds (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Although many sites occupied by Australasian Bitterns are now protected, the species continues to be threatened by ongoing wetland loss and changes to vegetation cover. The encroachment by River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and subsequent loss of the open Moira Grass Plains from areas like the Barmah-Millewa Ramsar wetlands has the potential to reduce foraging opportunities for Australasian Bitterns. The coastal zone in Australia is still subject to intense and escalating pressure from housing, semi–rural and other developments and the swampy vegetation in some wetlands has declined as wetlands become deeper sumps for increased stormwater from paved and other hard surfaces in expanding urban areas (Jaensch 2004).
Fire
Fire
Fire
Intense and frequent bushfires or prescribed burning in wetlands reduces the density and cover of vegetation that forms the core habitat of the Australasian Bittern. Wetlands in southwest Australia have lost vegetation habitat due to summer fires when wetlands are dry (DBCA 2018). Many wetlands that support Australasian Bittern have deep peat beds. Severe fires can burn these peat beds and convert wetlands from shallow wetlands suitable for Australasian Bittern to deep wetlands with only minimal fringing vegetation which do not support Australasian Bittern. The combination of a period of dry phases followed by fire resulted in the loss of an estimated 60–70 per cent of the reed beds in the Macquarie Marshes Ramsar site, New South Wales (Oct-Nov 2019). While the Marshes would not have been providing habitat for Australasian Bitterns at the time, given that the wetlands were dry, this fire event is likely to have detrimental effect on the rigour and extent of the reed beds in this system.
Individual wetlands may require different fire regimes depending on vegetation type and location. In Western Australia, without occasional fire, rush or sedge dominated wetlands may become too dense for the movement of Australasian Bittern (A. Clarke, pers. comm. cited in DBCA 2018). In Victoria, the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Area are working closely with Traditional Owners and other landholders to conduct traditional burning across wetland areas of the Tyrendarra Indigenous Protected Area. Wetland areas are being burnt using traditional patch burning techniques to enhance habitat for the Australasian Bittern, encourage the regeneration of native plant species and support cultural practices.
Livestock overgrazing
Livestock overgrazing
Livestock overgrazing
The Australasian Bittern is sensitive to habitat damage as it has relatively specialised habitat requirements, preferring wetlands with dense vegetation. Livestock can trample nests, and through grazing damage the available foraging and shelter habitat, reducing access to food and exposing Australasian Bitterns to predators.
2.2.3 Climate variability and change
2.2.3 Climate variability and change
2.2.3 Climate variability and change
In Western Australia the majority of the range of the Australasian Bittern is within an area which has experienced reduced rainfall over the past few decades. The Western Australian Australasian Bittern Recovery Plan identifies climate change (i.e. changes in precipitation and evaporation rates) as one of the primary threatening process to Australasian Bittern populations (Pickering 2013, DBCA 2018). A drying climate reduces the peak water level and peak area of wetting in wetlands, which effectively reduces the quality and quantity of breeding wetlands and drought refuges available. Seasonal wetlands are also experiencing reduced inundation periods, increasing the risk of wildfire at these sites.
In the Murray–Darling Basin a major concern is an increased frequency and intensity of droughts which is likely to exacerbate the already extreme fluctuations in wetland habitat availability combined with seasonal shifts in rainfall. In dry periods there is also less water available for rice farming, which supports around 59 per cent of the national population, and greater pressure on rice farmers to use water-saving agronomy or switch to alternative crops like cotton (Herring et al. 2019a).
2.2.4 Reduced water quality
2.2.4 Reduced water quality
2.2.4 Reduced water quality
Reduced water quality due to increased salinity, acidification, siltation and pollution is having an ongoing impact on the species’ habitat. In the wheatbelt of inland south western Australia, historical clearing of extensive natural woodlands for crops and sheep farming has led to rising water tables which has increased salt levels on and near the land surface, including in wetlands and waterways. Salinisation of wetlands can alter the vegetation and faunal characteristics at a site, resulting in wetlands that no longer meet the ecological requirements of Australasian Bittern. Salinisation has impacted hundreds of inland and south-eastern coastal swamps and has excluded the Australasian Bittern from former inland locations (Jaensch 2004). For example, Yarnup Swamp in the Muir–Unicup wetlands has not been used by the Australasian Bittern since the mid-1980s because of its high salinity. Since Cobertup East Swamp in the Muir-Unicup wetlands became acidified in 2005, Australasian Bittern has no longer been recorded at this swamp (Pickering 2013).
Siltation in waterways occurs due to reduced vegetation cover in catchments resulting from human landuse. At the mouth of the Snowy River, Victoria, siltation has caused the back flow of saline water which has destroyed the species’ reed-bed habitat in Lake Corringle in Victoria. Consequently, the Australasian Bittern is no longer found at this location (Birds Australia 2009).
In the Murray–Darling Basin salinity is a major problem causing extensive degradation in some areas (Kingsford 2000). Elevated salinity could also negatively affect Australasian Bittern prey sources, such as invertebrates.
The regulation of river flows has the potential to reduce water quality by excessively raising or lowering water temperatures, reducing dissolved oxygen levels and increasing nutrient and contaminant loads (Kingsford 2000). These changes can result from altered flows caused by water diversion, impoundment or sustained dry periods reducing run-off. Water quality can also be impacted by urban and agricultural run-off, which can lead to phytoplankton blooms, reduced oxygen levels and increased salinity.
Pollution in wetlands is likely to cause a decline in many of the prey species of the Australasian Bittern, such as eels, freshwater crayfish and frogs which in turn may have a negative effect on bittern populations and their health (Marchant and Higgins 1990).
2.2.5 Invasive species
2.2.5 Invasive species
2.2.4 Reduced water quality
Reduced water quality due to increased salinity, acidification, siltation and pollution is having an ongoing impact on the species’ habitat. In the wheatbelt of inland south western Australia, historical clearing of extensive natural woodlands for crops and sheep farming has led to rising water tables which has increased salt levels on and near the land surface, including in wetlands and waterways. Salinisation of wetlands can alter the vegetation and faunal characteristics at a site, resulting in wetlands that no longer meet the ecological requirements of Australasian Bittern. Salinisation has impacted hundreds of inland and south-eastern coastal swamps and has excluded the Australasian Bittern from former inland locations (Jaensch 2004). For example, Yarnup Swamp in the Muir–Unicup wetlands has not been used by the Australasian Bittern since the mid-1980s because of its high salinity. Since Cobertup East Swamp in the Muir-Unicup wetlands became acidified in 2005, Australasian Bittern has no longer been recorded at this swamp (Pickering 2013).
Siltation in waterways occurs due to reduced vegetation cover in catchments resulting from human landuse. At the mouth of the Snowy River, Victoria, siltation has caused the back flow of saline water which has destroyed the species’ reed-bed habitat in Lake Corringle in Victoria. Consequently, the Australasian Bittern is no longer found at this location (Birds Australia 2009).
In the Murray–Darling Basin salinity is a major problem causing extensive degradation in some areas (Kingsford 2000). Elevated salinity could also negatively affect Australasian Bittern prey sources, such as invertebrates.
The regulation of river flows has the potential to reduce water quality by excessively raising or lowering water temperatures, reducing dissolved oxygen levels and increasing nutrient and contaminant loads (Kingsford 2000). These changes can result from altered flows caused by water diversion, impoundment or sustained dry periods reducing run-off. Water quality can also be impacted by urban and agricultural run-off, which can lead to phytoplankton blooms, reduced oxygen levels and increased salinity.
Pollution in wetlands is likely to cause a decline in many of the prey species of the Australasian Bittern, such as eels, freshwater crayfish and frogs which in turn may have a negative effect on bittern populations and their health (Marchant and Higgins 1990).
2.2.5 Invasive species
Invasive herbivores
Invasive herbivores such as pigs, horses, goats and deer degrade wetlands important for Australian Bittern by digging up wetlands edges and removing vegetation cover. Hard hooved species trample wetland vegetation and have to potential to damage nests (DBCA 2018).
Predation
The Australasian Bittern is subject to the predation of eggs and juveniles by foxes (Vulpes vulpes), cats (Felis catus), rats and pigs (Garnett and Crowley 2000; DBCA 2018). Foxes are known to be predators of ground-nesting birds across the range of the Australasian Bittern (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001), so could be a potential threat
Invasive herbivores
Invasive herbivores
Invasive herbivores
Invasive herbivores such as pigs, horses, goats and deer degrade wetlands important for Australian Bittern by digging up wetlands edges and removing vegetation cover. Hard hooved species trample wetland vegetation and have to potential to damage nests (DBCA 2018).
Predation
Predation
Predation
The Australasian Bittern is subject to the predation of eggs and juveniles by foxes (Vulpes vulpes), cats (Felis catus), rats and pigs (Garnett and Crowley 2000; DBCA 2018). Foxes are known to be predators of ground-nesting birds across the range of the Australasian Bittern (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 2001), so could be a potential threat
2.2.6 Loss of genetic diversity
2.2.6 Loss of genetic diversity
2.2.6 Loss of genetic diversity
The estimated number of mature individuals is 1,300 in Australia (Herring et al. 2019a). In Western Australia, the population is estimated to be between 50–100 individuals (DBCA 2018)). A small population is more susceptible to demographic and genetic stochastic events, which can impact the long term survival of the population. Research is required to understand the genetic structure of Australasian Bittern and may be used to identify important populations and appropriate management units.
2.2.7 Threat prioritisation
2.2.7 Threat prioritisation
2.2.7 Threat prioritisation
Each of the threats outlined above has been assessed to determine the risk posed to the Australasian Bittern population (Table 3) using a risk matrix (Table 2). This in turn determines the priority for actions outlined below. The threats were considered in the context of the current management regimes. The impact of that threat has been assessed assuming that existing management measures continue to be applied appropriately. If management regimes change then the level of risk associated with threats may also change. 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 population 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 actions described in this Recovery Plan are designed to provide ongoing protection for Australasian Bitterns throughout their Australian range. The meta-population structure of the species is largely unknown. Australasian Bitterns persist as at least two isolated, subpopulations in eastern and south western Australia. In recent decades, numbers in the previous strong-holds in the Murray–Darling Basin have declined, perhaps permanently due to pressure on water resources and thus now only rare inundation of floodplains. The Western Australian subpopulation has become more restricted with few records away from the south and south-east coasts and Lake Muir wetlands, which is part of the Muir-Byenup System Ramsar wetland (Pickering 2013). There have been few confirmed records from the Swan Coastal Plain since 1992 and surveys in 2007 and 2008 found that half the wetlands that supported the species in 1980 now retained no suitable habitat (Pickering and Gole 2008; Pickering 2013; DBCA 2018). Breeding in South Australia is confirmed from the Bool Lagoon, and the coast from Adelaide to Victorian border. There are few recent Queensland records (Barrett et al. 2003).
All subpopulations covered by this plan have restricted distributions and small population sizes, which present significant challenges for their recovery and exert strong pressures on their survival in the wild. Given these challenges, all subpopulations of Australasian Bittern covered by this plan require strong protective measures.
In Western Australia, the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions have approved a state recovery plan for Australasian Bittern (DBCA 2018). The population is estimated to be between 50–100 individuals. Actions relating to the Western Australian subpopulation should consider both the national and state recovery plans in parallel when implementing research and management actions.
Recovery plan vision, objectives and str
Recovery plan vision, objectives and strategies
Recovery plan vision, objectives and strategies
Recovery plan objective
Recovery plan objective
Recovery plan objective
The objective of this recovery plan is to demonstrate, by 2032, an increasing trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals being recorded in annual surveys at key locations, and to ensure that habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern is protected and managed to meet the ecological requirements of the species.
Actions to achieve the specific objectiv
Actions to achieve the specific objectives
Actions to achieve the specific objectives
Actions identified for the recovery of Australasian Bittern are described below. It should be noted that some of the objectives are long-term and may not be achieved prior to the scheduled five-year review of the 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 Australasian Bittern 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 Australasian Bittern.
Priority 3: Action is desirable, but not critical to the recovery of Australasian Bittern or assessment of trends in that recovery.
It is anticipated that the recovery process will not be achieved prior to 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. All actions are considered important steps towards ensuring the long-term survival of the species. The indicative cost of recovery plans actions was derived from expert elicitation and public comments received in 2020.
Effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits
Effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits
The Recovery Plan focuses on the management, protection, restoration and creation of freshwater and coastal wetlands, the principal breeding habitat for Australasian Bittern. Australia has a diverse waterbird fauna adapted to these wetlands, many of which are unpredictable in their availability and habitats (Kingsford and Norman 2002). Many waterbird species exploit the high productivity of those wetlands that dry out after being inundated temporarily (Taylor 2003). Consequently, appropriate management of these wetlands will benefit many plant and animal species, as well as associated ecological communities.
The wide distribution and unpredictable nature of freshwater and coastal wetlands makes it difficult to identify population trends of species within them.
Other threatened species occur in these habitats, such as the Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis), which can have conflicting habitat requirements for targeted management (Herring and Silcocks, 2014; Herring et al. 2019a). The Australasian Bittern, an unusually attractive and enigmatic resident waterbird, may be of value as a flagship species to highlight the importance of conserving these habitats.
Wetlands are a vital element of national and global ecosystems and economies. At the most fundamental level, wetlands are a key part of the water cycle, playing critical roles in maintaining the general health of Australia’s rivers, estuaries and coastal waters. Wetlands protect our shoreline from wave action, mitigate the impacts of floods, absorb pollutants and provide habitats for animals and plants, including several species that are threatened. Wetlands are also critical to maintaining and improving our quality of life. They provide tangible benefits to the Australian economy, such as employment opportunities. Wetlands purify our water and are a focal point for recreational activities. They form nurseries for fish and other freshwater and marine life and, as such are of critical importance to Australia’s commercial and recreational fishing industries. In some areas, wetlands support grazing, forestry and cropping activities.
As habitats critical to the survival of the species are broadly 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, requirements to provide offset funding to secure or rehabilitate habitat, or for other threat mitigation work.
Limits on further development of wetland habitat may impact on some landowners, other land managers and developers. These restrictions may not significantly impact on agricultural or irrigation industries since many of the suitable areas have already been developed and the remaining critical habitats are generally located in protected conservation areas and remote locations. These areas are, therefore, relatively less attractive for further development.
A large network of community volunteers across Australia actively participate in BirdLife Australia’s coordinated annual surveys for migratory shorebirds and wetland 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. 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 and individuals likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this plan include: government agencies (Commonwealth, state and territory, local), particularly those involved with wetland environments and conservation programs; private landholders; 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 agricultural 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:
Consultation
Consultation
Consultation
The National Recovery Plan for the Australasian Bittern 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 organizations, to categorize ongoing threats to the Australasian Bittern, 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 Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Cwlth) continued to work closely with key stakeholders.
Notice of the draft plan was made available for public comment for a minimum of three 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 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 assess:
• whether the plan continues unchanged, is varied to remove completed actions, or varied to include new conservation priorities; or
• whether a recovery plan is no longer necessary for the species as either conservation advice will suffice, or the species are removed from the threatened species list.
As part of this review, the listing status of the species will be assessed against the EPBC Act species listing criteria.
The review will be coordinated by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in association with relevant Australian and state government agencies and key stakeholder groups such as non-governmental organisations, local community groups and scientific research organisations.
Key stakeholders who may be involved in the review of the performance of the National Recovery Plan for the Australasian Bittern, 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 Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
State/territory governments
State/territory governments
State/territory governments
• Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate (ACT)
• Department of Planning and Environment (NSW)
• Department of Environment and Science (Qld)
• Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Vic)
• Department of Environment and Water (SA)
• Department of Natural Resources 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
• Local conservation groups
• Local communities
• Private landholders
• Indigenous communities
• Universities and other research organisations
• Industry
• Recreational sports and associations
• Recreational fishers and associations
• Recreational boaters
References
References
References
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R. and Poulter, R. (2003) The New Atlas of Australian Birds. Melbourne, Victoria: Birds Australia.
Belcher, C., Borrell, A., Davidson, I. and Webster, R. (2017) Australasian Bittern Surveys in the Murray Valley and Barmah National Parks 2016–2017. Unpublished Report by New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.
Birds Australia (2009). Important Bird Areas online database. Available on the Internet at: http://www.birdata.com.au/ibas
Birds Australia (2009). Personal communication by letter, 26 March 2009. Carlton, Victoria.
Birds Australia (2010). Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus National Population Estimates for Spring – Summer 2009–10. In possession of Birds Australia, Carlton.
Garnett, S. and Crowley, G. (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia. Canberra.
Garnett, S.T., Szabo, J.K. and Dutson, G. (2011) The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing. Melbourne.
Source text: opening excerpt
Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Subsection 269A(3)
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Botaurus poiciloptilus) Instrument 2023
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Botaurus poiciloptilus) Instrument 2023
We, Tanya Plibersek, Minister for the Environment and Water (Commonwealth); Reece Whitby, Minister for Environment (State of Western Australia); David Speirs, Minister for Environment and Water (State of South Australia); Lily D’Ambrosio, Minister for Energy, Environment and Climate Change (State of Victoria); and Meaghan Scanlon, Minister for the Environment and the Great Barrier Reef (State of Queensland) under subsection 269A(3) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), jointly make a recovery plan titled:
National Recovery Plan for the Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), Commonwealth of Australia 2022
The recovery plan will come into force on the day after the plan is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Dated this 5th day of February 2023
Tanya Plibersek
Tanya Plibersek
Minister for the Environment and Water (Commonwealth)
Summary Summary
Summary
Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus)
Family: Ardeidae
Current status of taxon: Current status of taxon:
Current status of taxon:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth): Endangered
• Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006 (Queensland): Endangered
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales): Endangered
• Nature Conservation Act 2014 (Australian Capital Territory): Endangered
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria): Critically Endangered
• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia): Vulnerable
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (Western Australia): Endangered
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Endangered
Distribution and habitat: Distribution and habitat:
Distribution and habitat:
In addition to Australia, the Australasian Bittern occurs in New Zealand and New Caledonia. In Australia, Australasian Bitterns can be divided into two subpopulations, the south eastern and south western subpopulations. The species occurs discontinuously along the east coast from south east Queensland to south east South Australia and Tasmania, extending into the Murray–Darling Basin. In Western Australia, it is presently confined to widely separated parts of the south western and south eastern coast and a small number of wetlands farther inland. Breeding of both subpopulations occurs at both coastal and inland sites. The Australasian Bittern preferred habitat comprises wetlands with dense vegetation from 0.5–3.5 metres in height, where it forages in still, shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep water. It favours permanent and seasonal freshwater habitats, particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and reeds, as well as rice crops.
The instrument itself does not create criminal offences or administrative penalties. The recovery plan functions as an operational policy document that guides conservation management, monitoring, funding priorities and stakeholder coordination. The plan also flags that implementation can affect regulatory outcomes under the EPBC Act development assessment and approval process and may generate requirements for proponents (e.g. assessments, offsets) where habitat critical to survival is implicated ("Social and economic considerations"). The plan anticipates incorporating costs into agencies' core business budgets and seeks additional funds for explicit recovery actions ("Duration and cost of the recovery process"; Table 4 referenced).
In short, the instrument adopts and activates a national recovery plan under s 269A(3) EPBC Act; the plan sets goals, strategies and performance criteria to be implemented by an array of government and non-government actors over a defined period to increase Australasian Bittern populations and protect habitat.
Main concepts
The recovery plan introduces and operationalises several central concepts that determine how obligations, actions and assessments are framed.
Recovery plan as instrument under EPBC Act: The recovery plan is made under subsection 269A(3) EPBC Act. The instrument registers the plan and establishes it as the formal national recovery blueprint for the species (Instrument; s 269A(3) cited). The plan is therefore part of the EPBC Act regulatory ecosystem even though the text of the plan is largely managerial and advisory rather than punitive.
Habitat critical to survival: The plan repeatedly uses the notion of "habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern" but explicitly acknowledges that a single, detailed national definition is difficult because habitat requirements vary across bioregions. The plan therefore recommends defining habitat critical to survival at a bioregional scale, considering plants, animals, water depth, geology, landforms and climate relevant to each unit ("Habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern"). That builds in geographic heterogeneity but creates legal and practical ambiguity about which particular areas are legally protected or will trigger developer obligations under the EPBC Act until bioregional definitions are established.
Baseline, target and monitoring concepts: The plan uses 2020 baseline counts as the comparator for its success metrics and aims to show an increasing trend in mature individuals by 2032 ("Recovery plan objective"; "Criteria for success"). It mandates annual surveys at key locations and increased research and monitoring to reduce knowledge gaps (Strategy 3, Actions). The plan also acknowledges detection difficulties due to the species’ secretive behaviour, risks of double counting and misidentification in citizen science data, and limits to existing data ("Population trends"; "Ecology"). Those data limitations affect the statistical power and reliability of trend detection.
Prioritisation and risk matrix: Threats are assessed using a qualitative risk matrix that combines likelihood and consequences to determine priority levels from Very High to Low. The plan explains categories for likelihood and consequences and uses these to prioritise actions (e.g. Priority 1 actions where immediate mitigation is required) ("Threat prioritisation"; Table 2; Table 3). That creates a triage system for finite resources.
Jurisdictional cooperation and recovery team: The plan is a product of inter-jurisdictional cooperation, made by Commonwealth and state ministers and administered with a national Recovery Team comprising government agencies, NGOs, researchers and community groups. The Recovery Team provides advice and coordinates implementation ("Recovery team"; instrument list of ministers). That distributes decision-making and implementation responsibility across many parties, with the Commonwealth Department coordinating reviews.
Socio-economic framing: The plan explicitly recognises social and economic trade-offs. It states that protecting habitat critical to survival may restrict development under EPBC Act assessment processes and may impose costs on proponents (assessment costs, offsets, mitigation) but also notes many critical habitats are in protected or remote locations and that agricultural industries may be less affected ("Social and economic considerations"). The plan also presents wetlands as public goods with broader biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits ("Effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits").
Costing and financing: The plan contains a summary table of recovery actions and estimated costs for the first five years (Table 4 referenced) and says those costs were derived by expert elicitation and public comments in 2020. It expects Commonwealth and state agencies to include implementation in core budgets and to seek additional funds for specific actions ("Duration and cost of the recovery process"). That assigns primary payment responsibility to public agencies but leaves room for project-specific external funding.
These concepts shape how the plan will interact with development assessments, funding decisions, on-ground land management and monitoring regimes. The plan uses adaptive management language but relies on improved data and inter-agency coordination to implement bioregional habitat definitions and to operationalise the EPBC Act interface.
Who it affects
The recovery plan identifies a wide and varied set of affected parties and specifies roles and likely impacts.
Government agencies: Commonwealth and state environmental agencies are principal implementers and coordinators. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Commonwealth) is named as the coordinating agency for reviews and for working with stakeholders ("Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan"; "Australian Government"). State agencies are expected to implement actions in parallel with state recovery plans where they exist, notably Western Australia which has a state recovery plan referenced ("Populations under particular pressure"; WA recovery plan DBCA 2018).
Private landholders and developers: Landholders with wetlands or adjacent land identified as habitat critical to survival, and developers proposing projects within or affecting those areas, are likely to face project-level impacts. The plan explicitly flags that identifying habitat critical to survival may trigger EPBC Act development assessment and approval requirements and may require proponents to provide offsets or mitigation measures ("Social and economic considerations"). The plan suggests limits on development could affect landowners and developers, and that some costs of compliance may arise from assessments, offsets and mitigation.
Agriculture (notably rice farmers): The Riverina rice fields in the Murray-Darling Basin are identified as supporting a large share of the national population (the plan states around 500-1000 mature birds in Riverina rice fields, representing approximately 59 per cent of the Australian population; "Population trends"; "Ecology"). Rice growers therefore stand as both contributors to bittern habitat and potential parties affected by water allocations and recommended agronomic practices. The plan notes agronomic trends such as delayed permanent water, shorter season varieties and mid-season drainage are likely to reduce breeding opportunities ("Ecology"). Water availability and farmer choices will materially affect outcomes.
Local communities and volunteers: BirdLife Australia, local conservation groups and volunteer surveyors are significant data providers and participant groups. The plan recognises citizen-science surveys and community involvement in monitoring and recovery actions ("Social and economic considerations"; "Consultation"). That creates opportunities and reliance on community effort for monitoring and some on-ground actions.
Indigenous communities and Indigenous land and sea management groups: The plan lists Indigenous land and sea management groups as stakeholders and recognises traditional burning practices being used in some regions to manage wetlands (e.g. Victoria, Glenelg Hopkins CMA; "Fire"). Indigenous involvement is expected in management actions, including cultural burning and patch burning techniques.
Non-government organisations and researchers: NGOs such as BirdLife Australia and universities are explicitly named as contributors to monitoring, research and stakeholder engagement ("Non-government organisations"; "References"). The plan expects research organisations to undertake studies to address knowledge gaps.
Industry and recreational groups: Recreation (4WD, fishing, boating), tourism operators, fishing industries and environmental consulting firms are named as potentially affected or involved stakeholders ("Affected interests").
Who pays and who decides: The plan indicates primary payment responsibility sits with Commonwealth and state agencies (core business budgets) with additional funds sought as required ("Duration and cost of the recovery process"; Table 4). Decision-making is distributed: the Recovery Team advises and coordinates, state agencies implement regionally, and the Commonwealth Department coordinates review and national reporting ("Recovery team"; "Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan").
Concentrated vs diffuse impacts: The plan highlights a concentration of the Australian population in Riverina rice fields, producing a concentration of biological importance and therefore concentrated regulatory and management attention on that agricultural sub-sector. By contrast, many costs of monitoring and some habitat protections are diffuse across public agencies, NGOs and volunteers.
In short, the plan affects public agencies (implementers and payers), rice farmers (major habitat providers), private landowners and developers potentially subject to EPBC constraints, and community volunteers, researchers and Indigenous groups involved in delivery and monitoring.
Key duties and rights
The recovery plan itself is descriptive and prescriptive rather than a statute of duties and rights. Nevertheless, it creates operational obligations and procedural expectations for government agencies, proponents and stakeholders. The text outlines roles, recommended actions, priorities and review mechanisms that create de facto duties for participating parties and legal consequences through the EPBC Act interface.
Commonwealth and state agency duties: The plan expects Commonwealth and state agencies to "use this plan to prioritise actions to protect the species and enhance its recovery" and to incorporate implementation into their core business expenditure ("Duration and cost of the recovery process"). The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is assigned responsibility for coordinating the five-year review and assessing listing status against the EPBC Act species listing criteria ("Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan"). Those are operational duties: agencies must prioritise actions, budget for them where feasible, and coordinate reviews.
Recovery Team duties and powers: The national Australasian Bittern Recovery Team is tasked with providing advice, coordinating and directing implementation of recovery actions ("Recovery team"). The plan describes membership including representatives from government agencies, NGOs, researchers and community groups. The Recovery Team's role is advisory and coordinative; the plan does not confer statutory decision-making powers beyond that advisory and coordination remit.
Proponent and landholder obligations via EPBC Act: The plan explicitly identifies that "there is potential for developments to be restricted under the EPBC Act development assessment and approval process" and that this "may include increased costs due to the assessment processes, requirements to provide offset funding to secure or rehabilitate habitat, or for other threat mitigation work" ("Social and economic considerations"). That means statutory duties to obtain EPBC approvals and to comply with conditions or offsets may flow to proponents where habitat critical to survival is affected, but the plan itself does not create those statutory duties; they flow from the EPBC Act and its application in particular projects.
Monitoring and reporting obligations: The plan mandates annual surveys at key locations and increased monitoring and research to improve understanding of ecology and population trends ("Recovery plan objective"; "Strategies to achieve objectives"; "Criteria for success"). Agencies, Recovery Team members and participating researchers undertake practical monitoring duties as part of the plan's implementation. The plan also requires reporting and review processes, including a five-year review to determine whether the plan should continue unchanged, be varied, or be replaced ("Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan").
Stakeholders' rights to consultation and participation: The plan documents extensive consultation undertaken in drafting, including public comment between 20 December 2019 and 17 April 2020 ("Consultation"). It invites stakeholder participation in implementation and review, and identifies expected stakeholder groups that may be involved in the review. While this does not create enforceable rights, it establishes an expectation of ongoing stakeholder engagement.
Absence of direct penalties in the plan: The recovery plan text does not specify criminal or civil penalties for non‑compliance with the plan. Enforcement mechanisms therefore arise from other legislation, primarily the EPBC Act and relevant state legislation, rather than from the plan itself. The instrument simply registers the plan under s 269A(3) EPBC Act.
In practical terms, the plan creates managerial duties for agencies, procedural expectations for proponents and landholders via the EPBC Act interface, monitoring and reporting obligations for implementers and participatory expectations for stakeholders. The legal force of many of these duties depends on EPBC Act processes and state law rather than on the plan alone.
Penalties and enforcement
The registered recovery plan does not itself prescribe criminal penalties, fines or administrative sanctions. The instrument is an exercise under subsection 269A(3) EPBC Act to register a recovery plan; the recovery plan functions as a policy and management document. There are two key points to extract regarding enforcement from the plan text.
Relying on the EPBC Act enforcement framework: The plan explicitly anticipates that "there is potential for developments to be restricted under the EPBC Act development assessment and approval process" where habitat critical to survival is implicated ("Social and economic considerations"). In practice, statutory penalties and enforcement powers relevant to projects that adversely affect listed threatened species are located in the EPBC Act and its associated regulations, not within the body of the recovery plan. The plan therefore operates within and alongside the EPBC Act enforcement regime; specific liabilities for harming habitat or undertaking prohibited actions will be governed by the Act and any conditions attached to approvals.
No standalone penalty regime in the plan: The plan contains no schedule of fines, infringement notices, or sanctions for failing to implement recommended actions. Implementation is framed as a set of actions that agencies and stakeholders should take, prioritised by urgency (Priority 1-3). Where agencies choose not to implement actions, the plan does not prescribe legal consequences; accountability is predominantly administrative, political and reputational.
Enforcement via approvals and offsets: The plan signals that identification of habitat critical to survival can affect project approvals and may require proponents to provide offsets or undertake mitigation work ("Social and economic considerations"). Those requirements, when imposed as conditions of EPBC approvals, are legally enforceable and breach of conditions can give rise to administrative penalties or prosecution under the EPBC Act. The plan thus influences enforcement indirectly by informing decision-makers’ assessment and conditioning practices; it provides the factual and policy basis for conditioning approvals.
Monitoring and review as accountability mechanisms: The plan mandates monitoring, research and a five-year review, which creates opportunities for oversight and for adjusting priorities and funding. Poor implementation can be recorded in review outcomes and in inter-agency reporting, which produces administrative pressure for enforcement or corrective action but not necessarily formal penalties.
Practical enforcement risks and implementation gaps: The plan acknowledges significant data gaps, detection challenges, and uncertainties in defining habitat critical to survival at a national scale ("Population trends"; "Habitat critical to the survival"). Those uncertainties complicate enforcement because determining whether a specific action harms habitat critical to survival requires ecological definition at the bioregional scale and reliable monitoring data. Where definitions or data are weak, there is a risk of disputes over whether a proposal triggers EPBC obligations and of enforcement gaps persisting.
In summary, the recovery plan itself does not create penalties. Enforcement and sanctions are exercised through the EPBC Act and state laws, and the plan plays an evidentiary and policy role in shaping how those statutory powers are applied. The plan’s effectiveness as an enforcement lever depends on bioregional habitat definitions, monitoring quality, and the willingness and resources of agencies to condition and enforce approvals under the EPBC Act.
How it interacts with other laws
The recovery plan is explicitly an instrument under the EPBC Act and therefore interacts with existing federal and state environmental law frameworks in a number of ways.
EPBC Act interface: The instrument is made under subsection 269A(3) EPBC Act; registering a recovery plan places that plan within the EPBC Act household of documents intended to guide recovery of threatened species. The plan repeatedly references the EPBC Act listing status (Australasian Bittern listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act) and frames success metrics in terms of not meeting EPBC listing criteria in future ("Conservation status"; "Long-term vision"). The plan anticipates that identification of habitat critical to survival may trigger EPBC Act development assessments and approvals and possibly offset or mitigation requirements for proponents ("Social and economic considerations"). Thus, the plan will inform EPBC decision-making, particularly impact assessment and conditions, but the statutory powers and penalties remain those of the EPBC Act.
State and territory threatened species legislation: The plan acknowledges that Australasian Bittern is listed under multiple state instruments with varying categories (e.g. Endangered in Queensland, NSW, ACT and WA; Critically Endangered in Victoria; Vulnerable in South Australia) ("Current status of taxon"). It expressly recognises state recovery plans, for example Western Australia’s recovery plan (DBCA 2018), and recommends that actions relating to the Western Australian subpopulation should consider both national and state recovery plans in parallel ("Populations under particular pressure"; DBCA 2018). This creates a need for coordination to reconcile potentially different state-level obligations, definitions of habitat, conservation measures and enforcement mechanisms.
Development, water and land‑use law: The plan highlights threats driven by altered water regimes, drainage, irrigation diversion and hydrological changes ("Threats"; 2.2.1 and 2.2.3). Those drivers arise from water allocation, irrigation infrastructure decisions, and land-use approvals under other regimes (state water law, planning law). The plan’s recommendations will intersect with state and local government planning approvals, water allocation decisions and agricultural regulation where habitat-critical wetlands are affected. It implies coordination between environmental regulators and water/land-use decision-makers to achieve recovery objectives.
Native title and Indigenous land management: The plan refers to Traditional Owners and Indigenous burning practices in at least one region and lists Indigenous land and sea management groups among stakeholders ("Fire"; "Affected interests"). Where habitat critical to survival occurs on lands subject to native title or in partnership with Indigenous land managers, recovery actions will interact with native title rights, Indigenous Protected Areas and relevant land-management agreements. The plan expects engagement with Indigenous groups as part of implementation.
Biosecurity, invasive species and animal welfare laws: Threats such as invasive herbivores and predators (pigs, foxes, cats) are identified ("Invasive species"; "Predation"). Addressing these threats will interact with biosecurity and pest control regimes at state level, and with laws and policies governing pest management, animal control and, potentially, animal welfare obligations in pest control activities.
Agricultural regulation and water policy: The plan identifies rice field agronomy and water management as critical to breeding success in Riverina rice crops ("Ecology"; "Population trends"). Changes to agronomic practices and water allocation for rice farming are governed by agricultural policy, water entitlements and irrigation management frameworks that sit outside the EPBC Act. Recovery objectives therefore require coordination with agriculture and water policy instruments.
Administrative law and decision-making: The plan will feed into administrative decisions under the EPBC Act and state laws. Where the plan influences conditions on approvals, it will become a factual and policy input that can be subject to administrative review, merits review or judicial review if decisions based on the plan are challenged. The plan does not itself specify review rights, but its use in permitting decisions means it can be decisive in administrative outcomes.
In short, the recovery plan is an EPBC instrument that works through and alongside state threatened species laws, water and land-use regulatory regimes, pest and biosecurity programmes, Indigenous land-management frameworks and administrative decision-making processes. Its influence depends on coordination across these legal domains and on the capacity of agencies to integrate bioregional habitat definitions and monitoring into statutory decision-making.
Amendment history
The instrument in the provided text is dated 5 February 2023 and registers the "National Recovery Plan for the Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus), Commonwealth of Australia 2022" under subsection 269A(3) of the EPBC Act (Instrument, 5 February 2023). The recovery plan document itself identifies past listing actions and prior conservation documents and references, including the species’ inclusion in the Endangered category under the EPBC Act in 2011 ("Conservation status"), the Western Australian recovery plan (DBCA 2018) and The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010 (Garnett et al. 2011; Garnett and Crowley 2000). The plan also summarises that the 2020 baseline was used for trend comparisons.
There are no amendment entries, repeal provisions, or prior versions of this specific national recovery plan set out in the supplied text beyond those historical references. The recovery plan contains a formal mechanism for review: it "should be reviewed no later than five years from when it was endorsed and made publicly available" and the review will assess whether the plan continues unchanged, is varied to remove completed actions, is varied to include new priorities, or whether a recovery plan is no longer necessary and conservation advice suffices or the species be delisted ("Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan"). The plan also provides that the review will include assessment of listing status against the EPBC Act species listing criteria.
Key points on amendment mechanics in the plan:
Five-year review trigger: The plan must be reviewed within five years. That review can result in amendments, continuation, replacement by conservation advice, or cessation if the species no longer requires a recovery plan.
Coordination for reviews: The Commonwealth Department will coordinate the review in association with state agencies and key stakeholder groups.
Variable action completion: The plan anticipates that some actions are long-term and may not be complete by the first five-year review, in which case the plan can be varied to remove completed actions and add new priorities.
No further procedural detail is provided about how amendments are to be formally registered or how variations would be made under the EPBC Act beyond the initial registration under s 269A(3). The instrument does not list a mechanism for minor administrative updates or emergency amendments, nor does it set out a schedule for interim reporting between reviews aside from annual monitoring expectations. The absence of explicit amendment mechanics in the text supplied means that standard EPBC Act procedures for varying registered recovery plans would apply, but the plan itself relies on the coordinating Commonwealth Department and inter-jurisdictional cooperation to effect changes.
Litigation history
The supplied instrument and recovery plan text does not record any litigation history concerning the Australasian Bittern, the recovery plan itself, or related administrative decisions. There are no cases, judicial decisions, merits review outcomes, or disputes mentioned in the text.
What the plan does show, however, that could give rise to future litigation or administrative review:
Regulatory decisions under the EPBC Act: The plan will be used in development assessments and approval decisions where habitat critical to survival is implicated ("Social and economic considerations"). Decisions to refuse approval, to impose conditions, or to require offsets could be the subject of merits or judicial review if affected parties challenge those decisions.
Habitat definitions and scope: The plan acknowledges the need to define habitat critical to survival at the bioregional scale. Ambiguity in those definitions could prompt legal disputes about whether particular land or activities fall within protected habitat, potentially leading to administrative challenges.
Water allocation and agronomic practices: As Riverina rice fields host a large share of the population and as water allocation choices or agronomic trends may affect breeding success, conflicts between environmental regulators and agricultural water users could give rise to litigation or administrative challenges.
Implementation failures or discretionary decisions: If agencies fail to implement Priority 1 actions or to fund actions that stakeholders consider necessary, disputes might arise seeking judicial review of administrative inaction or alleging failure to follow statutory obligations under the EPBC Act.
Because none of these disputes are recorded in the supplied document, there is no litigation history to recount. The document’s silence on litigation indicates either that the recovery plan is newly registered and has not yet been the subject of litigation, or that the plan’s use as an advisory instrument has not led to published legal challenges within the record provided.
Gotchas
Several implementation and legal "gotchas" arise directly from the language and structure of the recovery plan as presented in the instrument.
Habitat critical to survival is not nationally defined: The plan expressly notes it is not possible to generate one detailed national definition of habitat critical to survival because the species’ habitat varies across its range, and suggests defining habitat at a bioregional scale ("Habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern"). That necessary flexibility creates legal uncertainty. Until bioregional definitions are prepared and adopted by decision-makers, proponents and landowners will face uncertainty about whether particular sites are within habitat critical to survival and so whether EPBC approvals or offsets are required. That uncertainty can increase transaction costs, delay projects and produce disputes.
Heavy reliance on imperfect monitoring data: The plan relies on a 2020 baseline and annual surveys to detect trend changes by 2032 ("Recovery plan objective"; "Population trends"). It also acknowledges substantial uncertainty in population estimates, detection difficulty due to secretive behaviour, misidentification issues in citizen science data and risks of double counting moving birds ("Population trends"; "Ecology"). These data limitations reduce the statistical power to detect trends and may make it difficult to demonstrate compliance with the plan’s success criteria. If decision-makers rely on noisy data to condition approvals, that could generate contested outcomes.
Concentration of population in a managed agricultural system: Around 59 per cent of the Australian population is estimated to use Riverina rice fields in many years ("Population trends"; Herring et al. 2019a as cited). That concentration means that changes in rice-farming practices, water allocation or market forces could rapidly affect the national status of the species. Rice farmers face incentives to adopt water-saving agronomy (e.g. mid-season drainage, shorter season varieties) that the plan says would reduce breeding success ("Ecology"). The plan does not specify binding mechanisms to influence farmer decisions, creating a mismatch between ecological dependence and regulatory levers.
Implementation funding expectations mismatch: The plan anticipates that recovery actions will be incorporated into the core business expenditure of agencies and that additional funds will be sought ("Duration and cost of the recovery process"; Table 4 referenced). Where agency budgets are constrained, there is a risk actions will be deprioritised despite being labelled Priority 1. The plan’s effectiveness therefore depends on political and budgetary choices that are not guaranteed by the plan text.
Coordination costs and jurisdictional differences: The instrument is jointly made by a collection of ministers and the plan expects close cooperation with state plans (e.g. WA recovery plan). Different state listing categories, management regimes and funding priorities can create inconsistent approaches and create friction or gaps in implementation across the species’ range ("Current status of taxon"). Coordinating across jurisdictions is administratively complex and can delay action.
Potential for regulatory surprise for developers: The plan warns that identifying habitat critical to survival could restrict development and impose offset requirements ("Social and economic considerations"). Developers and landowners who rely on preexisting planning assessments may be surprised if a bioregional habitat definition is adopted after a development proposal is advanced, potentially triggering further approvals or mitigation obligations.
Limited enforcement teeth in the plan itself: Because the recovery plan does not create offences or penalties, enforcement depends on the EPBC Act and state law. If statutory enforcement is not applied consistently, the recovery plan may lack leverage to drive on-ground change beyond advisory influence and funding prioritisation.
Trade-offs with other species and management goals: The plan notes that other threatened species, such as the Australian Painted Snipe, may have conflicting habitat requirements ("Effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits"). Management actions that favour Australasian Bittern (for example, maintaining particular water regimes) could impose opportunity costs where other species or economic uses require different management.
In sum, the principal gotchas are definitional uncertainty about habitat critical to survival, reliance on imperfect monitoring data, concentration of the population in agricultural wetlands subject to economic pressures, funding and coordination shortfalls, and the plan’s reliance on other statutory frameworks for legal enforcement.
How to comply
For practitioners advising proponents, landholders, agencies or NGOs, the recovery plan suggests a set of concrete compliance‑oriented steps. The plan is prescriptive as to priorities and actions, and it indicates processes that will influence EPBC decisions. The following steps are grounded in the recovery plan’s text.
Determine whether a site may contain habitat critical to survival:
Use the plan’s habitat descriptions as an initial screening tool: wetlands with dense vegetation 0.5-3.5 m high, shallow still water up to 0.3 m deep, sedge, rush or reed dominated systems, rice fields and certain floodplain swamps are typical bittern habitat ("Species description and habitat"; "Habitat critical to the survival").
Refer to SPRAT (Species Profile and Threats Database) pages as the plan recommends for background species information ("Introduction").
Contact the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for clarification, recognising the plan’s recommendation that habitat be defined at a bioregional scale, which may be in active development.
Pre-empt EPBC Act obligations:
If a proposal could affect habitat described in the plan, anticipate EPBC development assessment requirements and potential offset/mitigation conditions ("Social and economic considerations").
Integrate recovery plan considerations early into environmental impact assessment documentation, including potential impacts on breeding in rice-fields or wetland hydrology.
Commission robust ecological surveys:
The plan stresses the need for accurate monitoring and notes detection challenges and misidentification risks ("Population trends"; "Ecology"). Use appropriately timed surveys (annual surveys at key locations are specified) and experienced observers to reduce false positives and double counting.
Consider coordinated survey methods consistent with the plan’s recommended baselines and methodologies to ensure comparability with national monitoring.
Engage with Recovery Team and stakeholders:
The Recovery Team coordinates implementation and provides advice ("Recovery team"). Early engagement with it, with state agencies and with BirdLife Australia may streamline approvals and align mitigation and monitoring plans with national priorities.
Include Indigenous groups where relevant, especially if Indigenous burning or cultural land management practices may be part of mitigation (the plan references traditional patch burning as used in Victoria).
Adopt recommended management practices:
For land managers and rice farmers: consider agronomic approaches that maintain ponding regimes during critical breeding months, avoid mid-season drainage where feasible and adopt practices consistent with the plan’s recommendations for breeding habitat in rice crops ("Ecology").
For protected area managers: implement targeted fire regimes, pest control (foxes, cats, pigs), and water regime management prioritised as Priority 1 actions where listed in the plan’s action tables.
Budget and funding planning:
Agencies should budget for Priority 1 actions in core business expenditure where practicable and seek additional targeted funding for recovery actions, as the plan expects ("Duration and cost of the recovery process"; Table 4).
Project proponents should include potential offset and mitigation costs in feasibility assessments given the plan’s likely influence on EPBC conditioning.
Monitor, report and adapt:
Implement annual monitoring at key sites and keep records aligned to the 2020 baseline so trend analysis towards the 2032 objective is possible ("Recovery plan objective"; "Criteria for success").
Prepare for the five-year review by documenting actions taken, outcomes, and evidence supporting trend claims to feed into the Commonwealth-coordinated review ("Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan").
Manage legal risk:
For developers: obtain early legal and technical advice on EPBC implications and on whether proposed works intersect habitat critical to survival.
For agencies: ensure transparent decision-making records that explain how the recovery plan informed conditions or refusals to reduce administrative-review risk.
Address data weaknesses:
Fund targeted research to fill genetic, movement and demographic knowledge gaps the plan identifies (e.g. genetic structure, movement corridors, detection probability estimates) so that future assessments and conditional approvals rest on stronger evidence ("Ecology"; "Loss of genetic diversity"; "Strategies to achieve objectives").
Prepare for inter-jurisdictional coordination:
Especially where projects cross state boundaries or where the Riverina rice population is implicated, coordinate with state recovery plans (e.g. WA) and with water allocation authorities to reconcile recovery actions with other legal regimes ("Populations under particular pressure"; reference to state plans).
Following these steps aligns practical project design and agency activity with the plan’s prescriptions. Compliance in a legal sense will ultimately depend on EPBC Act application in particular cases, the emergence of bioregional habitat definitions, and the extent to which agencies integrate the plan into statutory decision-making and budget priorities.
Subdivision Recovery plan vision, objective, and strRecovery plan vision, objective, and strategies:
Recovery plan vision, objective, and str Recovery plan vision, objective, and strategies:
Recovery plan vision, objective, and strategies:
Long-term vision
The Australasian Bittern 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:
The objective of this recovery plan is to demonstrate, by 2032, an increasing trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals being recorded in annual surveys at key locations, and to ensure that habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern is protected and managed to meet the ecological requirements of the species.
Strategies to achieve objectives
1 Implement management actions that mitigate or reduce threats to Australasian Bittern and their habitat
2 Enhance the quality, extent and protection of suitable habitat for the Australasian Bittern
3 Undertake research and monitoring to improve knowledge of the biology, ecology and population trends of Australasian Bittern
4 Increase stakeholder participation in Australasian Bittern conservation and management
5 Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress
Criteria for success:
This recovery plan will be deemed successful if, by 2032, all the following have been achieved:
• The relative abundance of Australasian Bittern has increased from 2020 baseline counts as a result of recovery actions
• The number of occupied sites supporting Australasian Bittern has increased from 2020 baseline counts, and the quality of the sites has improved, as measured against a range of environmental health indicators
• Research and monitoring of movement patterns and habitat use have increased understanding of the species ecology and information has been used to improve management actions for the species
• There is increased participation by key stakeholders and the public in recovery efforts and monitoring
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 Australasian Bittern 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.
Long-term vision Long-term vision
Long-term vision
The Australasian Bittern 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:
The objective of this recovery plan is to demonstrate, by 2032, an increasing trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals being recorded in annual surveys at key locations, and to ensure that habitat critical to the survival of the Australasian Bittern is protected and managed to meet the ecological requirements of the species.
Strategies to achieve objectives Strategies to achieve objectives
Strategies to achieve objectives
1 Implement management actions that mitigate or reduce threats to Australasian Bittern and their habitat
2 Enhance the quality, extent and protection of suitable habitat for the Australasian Bittern
3 Undertake research and monitoring to improve knowledge of the biology, ecology and population trends of Australasian Bittern
4 Increase stakeholder participation in Australasian Bittern conservation and management
5 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 2032, all the following have been achieved:
• The relative abundance of Australasian Bittern has increased from 2020 baseline counts as a result of recovery actions
• The number of occupied sites supporting Australasian Bittern has increased from 2020 baseline counts, and the quality of the sites has improved, as measured against a range of environmental health indicators
• Research and monitoring of movement patterns and habitat use have increased understanding of the species ecology and information has been used to improve management actions for the species
• There is increased participation by key 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 Australasian Bittern 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 Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus)’. The plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across the part of its range lying within Australia and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the species’ long-term viability in nature, and the parties that will undertake those actions.
Principal threats to the Australasian Bittern include the loss and degradation of wetland habitats through altered water regimes (e.g. drainage and diversion, infilling, water regulation), clearing for urban and agricultural development and climate change. Other potential threats to the species may include reduced water quality, predation by introduced foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and cats (Felis catus), overgrazing by livestock, and inappropriate fire regimes.
Accompanying Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) pages provide background information on the biology, population status and threats to the ‘species’. SPRAT pages are available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl.
1.1 Conservation status
1.1 Conservation status
The Australasian Bittern is a listed threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The species is also listed as threatened under State Legislation (Table 1).
The species was included in the Endangered category of the EPBC Act in 2011 as the estimated total number of mature individuals of the species was low and evidence suggested that the number would continue to decline at a high rate. The species was also suspected to have undergone a severe reduction in population numbers as a result of the reduction in the species’ area of occupancy and the loss of habitat and breeding grounds (TSSC 2011). There has been no change in the population trajectory since 2011 and the species continues to meet the Endangered category (Herring et al. 2021).
1.2 Taxonomy
1.2 Taxonomy
Conventionally accepted as Botaurus poiciloptilus (Wagler, 1827). No subspecies have been described. The species is commonly known as the Australasian Bittern. It is also known as the Boomer, Bullhead, Bunyip, Black-backed or Brown Bittern.
1.3 Species description and habitat
1.3 Species description and habitat
Australasian Bitterns are large, stocky, thick–necked, heron–like birds. The species grows to a length of 66–76 cm and has a wingspan of 1,050–1,180 mm. The average male weighs approximately 1,400 g and the average female weighs approximately 900 g (Marchant and Higgins 1990). The upper-parts of the body are brown and dark brown to black, mottled and buff, in complex patterns that aid the bird’s concealment in swamp vegetation. The under-parts of the body are streaked and scalloped, brown and buff. The species has a prominent black–brown stripe running down the side of the neck, the eyebrow is pale, and the chin and upper throat are white. The bill is straight, pointed and straw yellow to buff in colour with a dark grey ridge. The legs and feet are pale green to olive and the eyes are orange–brown or yellow (Marchant and Higgins 1990; Pizzey and Knight 1997). Darker and paler variants of the plumage have been observed in adults. Juveniles are generally paler than adults and have heavier buff flecking on the back (Marchant and Higgins 1990; Pizzey and Knight 1997).
Australasian Bitterns occur mainly in freshwater wetlands in the temperate southeast and southwest of Australia and, exceptionally, in estuaries or tidal wetlands (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Australasian Bitterns’ preferred habitat comprises wetlands with dense vegetation, especially where there is a mosaic of cover, from 0.5–3.5 metres in height, where they forage in still, shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep water. They favour permanent and seasonal freshwater habitats, particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and/or reeds (e.g. Phragmites, Cyperus, Eleocharis, Juncus, Typha, Baumea, Bolboschoenus) or cutting grass (Gahnia) growing over a muddy or peaty substrate, as well as rice crops (Marchant and Higgins 1990). In south-western Australia the species also occurs in wetlands where thickets of wetland shrubs (e.g. Melaleuca, Agonis spp.) provide patches of tall cover within sedge-dominated habitat. In the Murray–Darling Basin, Australasian Bitterns occur in floodplain swamps that may include lignum (Duma florulenta) shrubs within sedge or reed beds as well as in commercial rice-fields (NSW Riverina). Despite occurring in a range of wetland types, breeding is known to occur in a much smaller sub-set of locations.
1.4 Species distribution in Australia
1.4 Species distribution in Australia
In Australia, the Australasian Bittern occurs from south-east Queensland to south-east South Australia as far as the Adelaide Region, southern Eyre Peninsula, Tasmania and in the southwest of Western Australia (Jaensch et al. 1988; Marchant and Higgins 1990; Garnett et al. 2011; Figure 1). Vagrants have also been recorded from northern Australia, including one record from Argyle Downs in the extreme north east of Western Australia (Marchant and Higgins 1990). Due to geographical isolation over 1,500 km of mainland without suitable habitat, the population can be divided into two subpopulations, the south-eastern and south-western subpopulations. The Australasian Bittern also occurs in New Zealand and New Caledonia (Marchant and Higgins 1990).
In Queensland, the species occurs as far north as Yeppoon and west to Wyandra. In the south-east there is habitat remaining on Fraser Island, the Fraser Coast, North Stradbroke Island, Redlands and out into the Lockyer Valley. Key areas in Queensland where the species has been reliably seen in the past include the flood plains south of Byfield State Forest, Garnett's Lagoon, Bribie Island and Lake Clarendon.
In New South Wales, it occurs along the coast and is also frequently recorded in the Murray–Darling Basin, notably in floodplain wetlands of the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir Rivers.
In Victoria, it is recorded mostly in the southern coastal areas and in the Murray River region of central northern Victoria. The Barmah-Millewa Ramsar wetland complex is considered Australia’s most important site, with up to 73 booming males (Herring et al. 2019a).
In Tasmania, the species was formerly more widespread, however it is now absent from some major wetlands that have dried out (Marchant and Higgins 1990; Garnett and Crowley 2000). It occurs most commonly in the coastal regions in the north east, the east coast and on the islands of Bass Strait. Egg Islands has been identified as a Key Biodiversity Area for Australasian Bittern. The species also commonly occurs in the upper Derwent River estu
This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.