This instrument is a ten-year Recovery Plan for the Eastern Bristlebird (Dasyornis brachypterus). It sets measurable objectives to improve population viability, reduces priority threats, protects and restores habitat, and coordinates actions across Commonwealth, state, Traditional Owner and private land tenures. It names responsible agencies, assigns priority actions and indicative costs (five‑year summary totalling $15,075,000), and makes pre- and post‑2019–20 fire habitat ‘critical’ for survival. Affected parties include governments, landholders, developers, and conservation groups.
This instrument is a ten-year National Recovery Plan for the Eastern Bristlebird (Dasyornis brachypterus). Mechanically, it replaces the earlier National Recovery Plan (OEH 2012) adopted under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) in 2014 (see Introduction, section 2). The plan sets out: a long‑term vision (section 1.2.1); six measurable objectives with associated strategies (section 1.2.2 and 5.2); a menu of priority actions, responsible agencies and indicative costs for a 10‑year implementation period (Part 6, Strategy and Action tables); performance criteria and monitoring expectations (section 1.3; Strategy tables); governance arrangements including the establishment of a Recovery Team (section 1.4; Action 6.1); and an evaluation and five‑year review mechanism (section 12). It also identifies habitat considered "critical to the survival" of the species and sets decision considerations for developments that may affect that habitat (section 2.9 and 2.9.1).
The plan does not itself create statutory prohibitions or criminal penalties. It is a policy and management document intended to inform and coordinate public and private recovery effort, and to guide decision‑makers under existing statutory regimes such as the EPBC Act and state listing instruments (see section 2.1 and references throughout). It names specific lead and supporting bodies for actions (Commonwealth, state governments, public land managers, Traditional Owners, private landowners, NGOs, research institutions; see Strategy tables in Part 6 and section 10). The plan includes explicit cost estimates and an indicative budget schedule for the first five years (Table 3, section 7), totalling $15,075,000 across strategies in the five‑year window and itemised per strategy and year.
Official rationale is stated repeatedly: to improve population viability, reduce priority threats, maintain or improve habitat extent and condition, fill knowledge gaps, increase stakeholder engagement and coordinate recovery across tenures and jurisdictions (Objective 1-6, section 5.2). The plan operationalises that rationale through priority actions (Priority 1-3), technical prescriptions (for example evidence‑based ecological burns, monitoring of post‑fire habitat, hygiene to prevent dieback) and governance outputs (Recovery Team, emergency triggers and repository of data). The plan also acknowledges tradeoffs and constraints: it identifies where threats and management needs vary among the three recognised population groups (northern, central and southern), lists likely social and economic impacts on proponents and landholders (section 9), and flags that actions are "subject to available resources" and are expected to be incorporated into agency core business where feasible (section 7).
Current sections
Direct links to the current provisions in Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan— Dasyornis brachypterus) Instrument 2023.
72
Acronyms
Acronyms
Acronyms
AOO
Area of occupancy
CFA
Country Fire Authority
DCCEEW
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water(Australian Government)
DES
Department of Environment and Science (Queensland Government)
DELWP
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning(Victorian Government)
DPE
Department of Planning and Environment(New South Wales Government)
EOO
Extent of occurrence
EPBC Act
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 (Commonwealth)
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
NESP
National Environmental Science Program
NGO
Non-government organisation
NP
National park
NR
Nature reserve
NRM
Natural resource management
OEH
Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales
RFS
Rural Fire Service
RSPCA
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth): Endangered
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales): Endangered
• Nature Conservation (Animals) Regulation 2020 (Queensland): Endangered
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria): Critically Endangered
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Endangered
1.1
Distribution and habitat
1.1 Distribution and habitat
The historical distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird has contracted to three geographically separate areas of south-eastern Australia: south-eastern Queensland/ north-eastern NSW (hereafter northern population), central NSW (Illawarra and Jervis Bay region, hereafter central population) and the coastal regions of the southern NSW/eastern Victorian border (hereafter southern population).
The current northern population occurs in habitat characterised by open forest with a dense tussocky grass understorey and sparse mid-storey near rainforest ecotone. Northern populations sometimes occur in other vegetation types such as heathland with stunted shrubs, or swampland with dense ferns and sedge tussocks.
In contrast, habitats occupied by Eastern Bristlebirds in the central and southern populations are characterised by dense, low vegetation including heath and open woodland with a heathy understorey. All habitat occupied by the Eastern Bristlebird before and after the 2019–2020 wildfires is critical to its survival.
Due to the large geographic distribution and distinct habitat requirements between the northern and central/southern populations, they have typically been grouped into two groups by species experts. For the purposes of this recovery plan, central/ southern populations have been grouped together in some sections for consistency with other conservation planning documents (e.g., NESP 2018; Garnett & Baker 2021).
1.2
Recovery Plan vision, objectives,
1.2 Recovery Plan vision, objectives,
and strategies:
1.2.1 Long-term vision
1.2.1 Long-term vision
1.2.1 Long-term vision
Eastern Bristlebird populations are genetically diverse and self-sustaining, and the species is resilient to impacts of climate change. Eastern Bristlebird recovery has been informed by comprehensive knowledge of Eastern Bristlebird ecology and best practice methods for conserving the species and its habitat. Eastern Bristlebird
habitat is protected, and Traditional Owners and the broader community are engaged
in habitat management.
1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strat
1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strategies
1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strategies
Objective 1
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population viability is improved in the northern, central and southern populations, compared to baselines (see section 1.3).Strategy 1: Population enhancement and augmentation.
Objective 2
By 2032, levels of priority threats on the Eastern Bristlebird are reduced, compared to baselines.Strategy 2: Threat management.
Objective 3
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird habitat extent and condition are maintained or improved, compared to baselines.Strategy 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation.
Objective 4
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population assessments are enhanced by addressing data and knowledge gaps and viable Eastern Bristlebird population sizes and trends are determined.Strategy 4: Biology and ecology knowledge enhancement.
Objective 5
By 2032, targeted stakeholder engagement has:• increased collaboration with private landholders to expand or strengthen involvement in Eastern Bristlebird conservation e.g., areas available for surveys, potential release sites, and active habitat management;• increased engagement of Traditional Owners in Eastern Bristlebird recovery decision-making processes; and• extended community/volunteer involvement in Eastern Bristlebird surveys.Strategy 5: Stakeholder engagement and participation.
Objective 6
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird:• recovery priorities are incorporated within relevant policies, management plans, regulations, codes of practice and planning tools;• recovery actions are implemented and reviewed across tenures and jurisdictions;• recovery planning and implementation is underpinned by an adaptive-management framework; and• data and meta data are available (within permissibility requirements) from a centralised repository.Strategy 6: Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress.
1.3
Criteria for success
1.3 Criteria for success
This Recovery Plan will be deemed successful if, within 10 years of the date of its adoption, the objectives have been achieved. Specific performance criteria are outlined in Section 6.
The evaluation of Recovery Plan objectives and performance criteria rely on measurable indicators. Recovery management processes should identify appropriate indicators and collect baseline data to facilitate measurement of progress
towards objectives.
1.4
Recovery team
1.4 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 Eastern Bristlebird Recovery Team has the responsibility of providing advice, coordinating and directing the implementation of the recovery actions outlined in this Recovery Plan. The membership of the Recovery Team includes individuals from relevant government agencies, non-government organisations, Traditional Owners, industry groups and expertise from independent researchers and community groups.
The Recovery Plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across its range and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the species’ long-term viability in the wild, and the parties that will undertake those actions.
The Recovery Plan replaces the National Recovery Plan for Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus (OEH 2012) that was adopted under the EPBC Act in 2014. The previous Eastern Bristlebird recovery plan was reviewed in January 2021 by an expert panel that included representatives from the New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Queensland Department of Environment and
Science, Victoria Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Parks Australia, BirdLife Australia, the Australian National University, the University of Wollongong and others.
The review noted:
• The National Recovery Plan for Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus had provided a strong basis for research, engagement and policy initiatives since 2012. All Eastern Bristlebird populations continued to be vulnerable to a range of threats, but active management (targeted weed control, feral predator animal control and prescribed burns) had aided the recovery of the species.
• Since the adoption of the plan, the Australian Government, states and territories have invested more than $2,835,000 into the conservation of Eastern Bristlebird, including the restoration of important habitats. Governments, NGOs, university researchers and private groups continued to work collaboratively to identify and manage key bristlebird habitat proactively and reactively. Population-specific studies had provided information on each population’s optimal habitat needs, though the southern population is less well understood than the northern
and central populations. Positively, information on conservation genetics had been gathered for some populations, and robust monitoring programs had established excellent baseline data for most populations, and trend data informed management.
2.1
Conservation status
2.1 Conservation status
The Eastern Bristlebird was listed as a threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) in 2000. The species is also listed under state legislation (Table 2).
Conventionally accepted as Dasyornis brachypterus (Latham 1802).
Based on morphological evidence, Schodde and Mason (1999) proposed the northern population should be recognised as a distinct subspecies. Although the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020 (Charley et al. 2021; Bain et al. 2021) notes the split proposed by Schodde and Mason (1999), separation into subspecies is not supported by one analysis of genetic data (Roberts et al. 2011) and the species is not listed at the subspecies level under state or Commonwealth legislation.
2.3
Species description
2.3 Species description
The Eastern Bristlebird is a small, well-camouflaged, ground-dwelling bird. It is dark cinnamon-brown above, with pale colouring around the eyes and base of the bill, an off-white chin and throat, and a rufous-brown panel on each wing (Higgins & Peter 2002). It is greyish-brown below, with an off-white centre to the belly. It has red to red-brown irises, an off-white to pinkish-white gape, and pinkish-brown legs and feet (Higgins & Peter 2002).
Body length is between 18 and 21 centimetres with the broad tail accounting for about half the bird’s length (Higgins & Peter 2002). Adults weigh approximately 42 g (range 35 to 50 g) (Baker 1998; Bramwell 1990; Higgins & Peter 2002). The wings are small (23 to 24 cm wingspan), and the legs are long and strong. The sexes are alike, but females are slightly smaller than males (Bain 2007). Juveniles are similar to the adults, but can be identified, if viewed at close range, by their pale brown or brown irises, and pale yellow gape (Higgins & Peter 2002).
The species spends most of its time in low, dense vegetation, rarely appearing in the open or flying (Higgins & Peter 2002). Due to its small wings the Eastern Bristlebird flies weakly, but sturdy feet and legs help it move through dense habitat. While its plumage provides excellent camouflage, other adaptations to its habitat include a low forehead profile with bristles near the eyes. The rictal bristles which project from the beak are modified contour feathers that are thought to play a part in prey
capture. The bristles may also provide protection for the bird’s eyes as it consumes its struggling prey (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2013). Another theory is that the bristles may function as sensors, providing tactile feedback, like the whiskers on a dog or cat to facilitate obstacle avoidance (Lederer 1972).
2.4
Species distribution
2.4 Species distribution
The Eastern Bristlebird is endemic to Australia and is currently distributed as three populations across three geographically separate areas of south-eastern Australia (Map 1):
• Northern population: Main Range NP (Qld), Lamington NP (Qld), Mt Barney NP (Qld), Border Ranges NP (NSW), private land.
• Central population (NSW/ACT): Barren Grounds NR, Budderoo NP, Bellawongarah,
Woronora Plateau (Cataract Dam), Bherwerre Peninsula (Jervis Bay NP, Booderee NP, Australian Department of Defence land, private land), Beecroft Peninsula (Australian Department of Defence land, Crown land, private land), Morton NP, Red Rocks NR.
• Southern population: Nadgee NR (NSW) and Croajingolong NP (Vic).
Due to the large geographic distribution and distinct habitat requirements between the northern and central/southern populations, the species has typically been split into these two groups by species experts. For the purposes of this recovery plan, central/southern populations have been grouped together in some sections for consistency with other conservation planning documents (e.g., Garnett & Baker 2021).
Northern population
Northern population
Northern population
The northern population has undergone a dramatic population decline and range contraction (e.g., Holmes 1989, 1998; Sandpiper Ecological Surveys 2000b, 2003, 2005a, 2008). Historically the distribution of the northern population extended much further south, to the Dorrigo Plateau and possibly to Wootton near the Myall Lakes (Chisholm 1958; Holmes 1982, 1989). Eastern Bristlebirds are presumed to be locally extinct from Conondale Ranges, Razorback Mountains, Mt Burrell, Big Scrub, Mt Richmond and the Dorrigo Plateau; in none of these areas have there been confirmed records for over a decade despite searching.
Northern Eastern Bristlebirds are now confined to the mountain ranges of south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales. In Queensland, they are currently known from one site near Mt Gipps on the Queensland/New South Wales border and possibly one at Mt Barney (DES 2018), though a long-term (minimum three-years) expanded survey program is needed to confirm current distribution (L Gould pers. comm. 2021). In New South Wales, they occur at several sites near Kyogle in the Border Ranges (NESP 2019). Fires in 2019–2020, initially thought to have burnt out some subpopulations, appear to have missed all with the exception of the possible
Mt Barney subpopulation (D Charley unpublished cited in Charley et al. 2021).
The extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO) for the northern population are estimated at 140 km² (100–200 km²) and 20 km² (range 16–24 km²), respectively (Charley et al. 2021). Both the EOO and AOO have stable trends
(high reliability). The population is not considered to be highly fragmented (Charley et al. 2021).
Central and southern populations
Central and southern populations
Central and southern populations
Today, central Eastern Bristlebirds occur in central coastal New South Wales at Barren Grounds Nature Reserve, Budderoo National Park, the Jervis Bay area, near Cataract Dam and at Red Rock Nature Reserve (Baker 1997, 1998; Bramwell 2008; OEH 2012; BirdLife International 2021; Bain et al. 2021). Subpopulations on Beecroft Peninsula, and Cataract on the Woronora Plateau, were reintroduced for conservation purposes (Baker et al. 2012). In the central populations, there are historical records
of the species at several locations between Sydney and Ulladulla where the species is thought to now be extinct.
The southern population occurs in Victoria at Howe Flat in Croajingolong National Park and in southern New South Wales at Nadgee Nature Reserve. Southern Eastern Bristlebirds have also undergone a significant population decline and range contraction in Victoria. Surveys in the late 1990s failed to locate the species at nine confirmed former sites and two unconfirmed sites in Victoria (Baker 1998; Clarke &
Bramwell 1998). There are historical records at scattered sites from the NSW border to near Lake Tyers (White 1915; Clarke & Bramwell 1998), unconfirmed reports from Wilsons Promontory and Tarwin Lower-Walkerville (Cooper 1975; Emison et al. 1987; Mitchell 1995), and subfossil deposits indicating that the distribution once extended west at least as far as Nelson in far south-western Victoria (Blakers et al. 1984;
Baird 1992).
Current EOO and AOO for the central and southern populations are estimated at 8,150 km² (range 8,000–8,300 km²) and 200 km² (range 180–250 km²), respectively (Bain et al. 2021). These populations are not severely fragmented (Bain et al. 2021).
MAP 1: Modelled distribution of the East
MAP 1: Modelled distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird.
Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.
Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive
database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental
modelling techniques and documented scientific research.
Caveat: The information presented in this map has been provided by a range of groups and agencies. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and completeness, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken by the Commonwealth for errors or omissions, and the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to, or as a consequence of, anything contained herein.
Species distribution mapping: The species distribution mapping categories are indicative only and aim to capture (a) the habitat or geographic feature that represents to recent observed locations of the species (known to occur) or habitat occurring in close proximity to these locations (likely to occur); and (b) the broad environmental envelope or geographic region that encompasses all areas that could provide habitat for the species (may occur). These presence categories are created using an extensive
database of species observations records, national and regional-scale environmental data, environmental
modelling techniques and documented scientific research.
2.5 Population trends
Northern population
In 2020, 43 northern Eastern Bristlebirds were known to be alive in the wild, with another two sites having recent possible sightings, suggesting in total 45–46 birds were present (D Charley unpublished, cited in Charley et al. 2021). Of these, four were confirmed in Queensland and 39 confirmed in NSW. There were a further
19 individuals in captivity.
Numbers have been stable or slightly increasing in the last decade, despite ongoing declines in Queensland suggesting ongoing southward contraction in distribution: in 2014, 11 birds were recorded, suggesting 13–30 birds present; in 2016, 18 birds
were recorded (suggesting 20 to 30 birds present; NESP 2019); and in 2018, 25 birds
2.6
Cultural and community significance
2.6 Cultural and community significance
Eastern Bristlebird populations and their habitat occur across areas of cultural significance to numerous Traditional Owner groups. The landscape, and the plants, animals and physical features within the landscape, are all an integral part of Aboriginal cultural heritage. The small areas occupied by the Eastern Bristlebird are part of a larger landscape which is recognised for its significance and connectivity to people and places beyond the scope of this recovery plan.
Central population
Central population
Central population
Within the central population, the Eastern Bristlebird is of high cultural significance for the Dharawal and Dhurga people from southern Botany Bay to Wreck Bay.
“For the Dharawal and Dhurga the Eastern Bristlebird indicates extreme weather can be on its way, such as fire. We have always known the Eastern Bristlebirds make their nests in the old native sedge and lomandra gardens where our people once gathered seasonal plant seeds for food, such as bush rice from the lomandra species and other local grass seeds and also hard seed local fruits” (R Mason pers. comm. cited in OEH 2012).
Jervis Bay has been a focus of human activity for at least 7,000 years and has an Aboriginal cultural heritage that is remarkable for its diversity; richness and significance to Aboriginal people (DAWE 2021b). Occupation of the area by Aboriginal people in traditional and recent times and continuing use today for food gathering, educational and ceremonial activities has given the area high Aboriginal social value. Many of the traditional storylines linking different elements of the landscape are still recounted and spiritual ties to the land are maintained through stories, on-going use and the passing on of knowledge through the generations.
Southern population
Southern population
Southern population
In Victoria, habitat for the extant Eastern Bristlebird population and potential reintroduction sites are known to be of cultural significance and interest to Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities.
Additionally, Nadgee NR is highly culturally significant, with numerous stone arrangements, burials and middens (G Moore pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012). The abundance of artefacts and middens within the Croajingolong Biosphere Reserve (including Nadgee NR) indicates a history of occupation by fairly large populations
of Indigenous communities, who were probably concentrated around the inlets, estuaries and wetlands (UNESCO 2016).
“The Eastern Bristlebird was well known by Aboriginal people on the Far South Coast of NSW in the past. This bird was the skin of a local group. When European settlers moved into the area and cleared the land for farming, both the bird and the people disappeared from
the area” (G Moore pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012).
This statement of significance is not intended to be comprehensive, applicable to,
or speak for, all Indigenous Australians and it is acknowledged that Indigenous groups and individuals are the custodians of this knowledge.
2.7
Relevant biology and ecology
Through their cultural traditions, the South Coast (Yuin) Aboriginal people of the Dharawal-Dhurga language group and the Jerrinja community identify the Jervis Bay area as their Traditional Country. Booderee National Park and Booderee Botanic
Gardens have been jointly managed by the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council and the Australian Government since 1995 in accordance with the EPBC Act.
Southern population
In Victoria, habitat for the extant Eastern Bristlebird population and potential reintroduction sites are known to be of cultural significance and interest to Traditional Owners and Aboriginal communities.
Additionally, Nadgee NR is highly culturally significant, with numerous stone arrangements, burials and middens (G Moore pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012). The abundance of artefacts and middens within the Croajingolong Biosphere Reserve (including Nadgee NR) indicates a history of occupation by fairly large populations
of Indigenous communities, who were probably concentrated around the inlets, estuaries and wetlands (UNESCO 2016).
“The Eastern Bristlebird was well known by Aboriginal people on the Far South Coast of NSW in the past. This bird was the skin of a local group. When European settlers moved into the area and cleared the land for farming, both the bird and the people disappeared from
the area” (G Moore pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012).
This statement of significance is not intended to be comprehensive, applicable to,
or speak for, all Indigenous Australians and it is acknowledged that Indigenous groups and individuals are the custodians of this knowledge.
2.7 Relevant biology and ecology
2.7.1 Habitat requirements
The habitat of the Eastern Bristlebird is defined by a similar structure of low, dense, ground or understorey vegetation (Lamb et al. 1993; Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Chapman 1999; Baker 2000), within a broad range of vegetation types with a variety of species compositions, including grassland, sedgeland, heathland, swampland, scrubland, grassy sclerophyll forest and woodland, and rainforest (e.g., Smith
1977, 1987; Holmes 1989, 1998; Baker 1997, 2000; Chapman 1999; Miles 2004; Bramwell 2008; Baker 2009; Baker et al. 2012; Stone et al. 2018). Eastern Bristlebird habitat primarily occurs as coastal, subcoastal and coastal escarpment scrubland/ grassland/sedgeland and as open grassy forest on inland ranges (Blakers et al. 1984; Holmes 1989).
Eastern Bristlebirds inhabit fire-prone habitats and the relationship between the species and fire has been well studied (e.g., Holmes 1989, 1998; Lamb et al. 1993; Baker 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003; Bramwell et al. 1992; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Bain & McPhee 2005; Bain et al. 2008; Lindenmayer et al. 2009;
Stone et al. 2018). The response of Eastern Bristlebird populations to fire is highly variable and strongly context-dependent (Bradstock et al. 2005; Bain et al. 2008), but they are particularly vulnerable to large-scale, intense fires (e.g., Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Baker 2000). The extent, intensity and frequency of fires are all important in determining habitat suitability.
2.7.1 Habitat requirements
2.7.1 Habitat requirements
2.7.1 Habitat requirements
The habitat of the Eastern Bristlebird is defined by a similar structure of low, dense, ground or understorey vegetation (Lamb et al. 1993; Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Chapman 1999; Baker 2000), within a broad range of vegetation types with a variety of species compositions, including grassland, sedgeland, heathland, swampland, scrubland, grassy sclerophyll forest and woodland, and rainforest (e.g., Smith
1977, 1987; Holmes 1989, 1998; Baker 1997, 2000; Chapman 1999; Miles 2004; Bramwell 2008; Baker 2009; Baker et al. 2012; Stone et al. 2018). Eastern Bristlebird habitat primarily occurs as coastal, subcoastal and coastal escarpment scrubland/ grassland/sedgeland and as open grassy forest on inland ranges (Blakers et al. 1984; Holmes 1989).
Eastern Bristlebirds inhabit fire-prone habitats and the relationship between the species and fire has been well studied (e.g., Holmes 1989, 1998; Lamb et al. 1993; Baker 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003; Bramwell et al. 1992; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Bain & McPhee 2005; Bain et al. 2008; Lindenmayer et al. 2009;
Stone et al. 2018). The response of Eastern Bristlebird populations to fire is highly variable and strongly context-dependent (Bradstock et al. 2005; Bain et al. 2008), but they are particularly vulnerable to large-scale, intense fires (e.g., Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Baker 2000). The extent, intensity and frequency of fires are all important in determining habitat suitability.
2.7.2 Diet and foraging ecology
2.7.2 Diet and foraging ecology
2.7.2 Diet and foraging ecology
The Eastern Bristlebird feeds mainly on invertebrates (ants, beetles, flies, cockroaches, true bugs (hemipterans), cicadas, grasshoppers, crickets, mantids and caterpillars, but also earthworms and spiders), seeds and small fruits of grasses and other plants including Acacia, Carex, Exocarpos and, possibly, Lycium ferocissimum (African Box-thorn), but may also take fungi and occasionally nectar from Banksia ericifolia, food scraps and tadpoles (Gould 1865; Lea & Gray 1935; Barker & Vestjens 1990; Holmes 1998; Chapman 1999; Gibson 1999; Gibson & Baker 2004).
Eastern Bristlebirds forage mostly on the ground, where they toss aside leaf litter with their bill, peck food items from the surface and probe into soil, but they do not use their feet to scratch the ground. They occasionally glean food items from foliage or branches, or capture insects in flight (Blakers et al. 1984; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Baker 1998; Holmes 1998; Chapman 1999; Gibson & Baker 2004).
2.7.3 Breeding ecology
2.7.3 Breeding ecology
2.7.3 Breeding ecology
Eastern Bristlebirds breed from August to February (Campbell 1900; Chaffer 1954; Morris et al. 1981; Higgins & Peter 2002). Females build a small, globular nest that has a side entrance and is made from grass, bark, sedges or reeds, and sometimes leaves (McNamara 1946; Chaffer 1954; Holmes 1989, Higgins & Peter 2002; Booth 2009). The nest is generally constructed at 10 to 45 cm above the ground in low dense vegetation, in grass tussocks, sedges, ferns and shrubs (Campbell 1900; McNamara 1946; Holmes 1989; Chapman 1999; Baker 2000; Higgins & Peter 2002). Occasionally, nests are built in lower branches of shrubs (Holmes 1998).
Birds in the northern population nest in large living grass tussocks, in clearings not shaded by trees (J. Young unpublished data). In north-eastern NSW in the 2009 breeding season, most nests were located in Poa sp. tussocks, even where other tussock grass species were present (J. Young unpublished data). In previous
studies nesting has been observed most frequently in Sorghum leiocladum, and less often in Poa sieberiana, P. labillardierei and Cenchrus purpurascens (Holmes 1989; Chapman 1999). Birds in the central population nest in grasses, in sedges such as Gymnoschoenus sphaerocephalus, Gahnia spp. and Lepidosperma laterale, and in the rush Leptocarpus tenax (McNamara 1946; Chaffer 1954; Baker 2000; Higgins & Peter 2002). There are no nest data for Howe Flat or Nadgee NR (L Evans & M Bramwell pers. comm. 2010 cited in OEH 2012).
Eastern Bristlebirds usually lay one clutch, consisting of one to two eggs
(Campbell 1900; Chaffer 1954; Holmes 1989; Higgins & Peter 2002). The eggs are creamy-white and speckled with brownish or greyish spots, darker at the blunt end (McNamara 1946; Chaffer 1954; Booth 2009). The eggs are incubated by the female (Booth 2009), for a period of at least three weeks (Chaffer 1954). The nestlings are fed by both parents (Chapman 1999) during the nestling period of at least 16 days (Chapman 1999; Higgins & Peter 2002). It is thought that pairs probably rear only one brood per season, and that usually only one young is fledged per successful breeding attempt (Chaffer 1954; Holmes 1989, 1998; Baker 1998).
Field studies in south east Queensland have identified that birds can re-clutch following the failure of a first nesting attempt, and in captivity re-laying has occurred in four cases after an average of 17 days since egg removal (Booth 2009). Breeding failure is common. Nest and/or chick desertion is known to occur after human
2.7.4 Movement patterns
2.7.4 Movement patterns
2.7.4 Movement patterns
The Eastern Bristlebird is a sedentary (McNamara 1946; Gibson 1977; Blakers et al. 1984; Holmes 1989; Lamb et al. 1993; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994) or resident (Morris et al. 1981; Cooper 1991) species that undertakes some local movements (Baker 1998; Baker & Clarke 1999) and can recolonise some areas after being displaced by fire (Bramwell & Baker 1990; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Jordan 1984; Pyke et al. 1995). The birds are only capable of making weak, low, short-range flights (Chaffer 1954; Holmes 1989; Bramwell & Baker 1990; Lamb et al. 1993; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Baker 1998; Chapman 1999), which suggests that dispersal is likely to be mostly through ground movements (Higgins & Peter 2002) and, consequently, that they have a limited ability to disperse (Clarke & Bramwell 1998).
Studies of radio-tagged birds indicate that Eastern Bristlebirds are capable of travelling a total distance of at least 1.5 km during the course of a day (Baker & Clarke 1999). In 2009, Eastern Bristlebirds were recorded two to four kilometres from Howe Flat in heathland where they had previously not been detected, requiring a 2 km movement through coastal forest vegetation (M Bramwell pers. comm. 2010 cited
2.8
Key Biodiversity Areas
2.8 Key Biodiversity Areas
The Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) programme aims to identify, map, monitor and conserve the critical sites for global biodiversity across the planet. This process is guided by a Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, the KBA Standard (IUCN 2016). It establishes a consultative, science-based process for
the identification of globally important sites for biodiversity worldwide. Sites qualify as KBAs of global importance if they meet one or more of 11 criteria in five categories: threatened biodiversity; geographically restricted biodiversity; ecological integrity; biological processes; and, irreplaceability. The KBAs programme is the successor
and extension of BirdLife Australia’s Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs). Critically, the KBA Standard provides consistency to assist governments meeting their conservation obligations under various international treaties. For more information on KBAs visit – http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home
The global KBA partnership currently recognises five Key Biodiversity Areas as important for Eastern Bristlebird conservation and to support the long-term persistence of the species. KBAs are also undergoing a regular revision to ensure changes in IUCN red list status, taxonomic changes, local population trends as well as increased knowledge of the species are reflected accurately in the KBA network. As such, over time, additional KBAs may be recognised for their importance for Eastern Bristlebirds or new KBAs may be declared for this and other taxa. Detailed KBA Factsheets, including boundary maps, population estimates of trigger species and scientific references are available from the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas (Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership 2020). They include:
• [Conondale Range](http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/site/factsheet/24812) (QLD): centred approximately 125 km north-north-east of Brisbane in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. It comprises a series of protected areas and forest reserves that support either Black-breasted Button-quail or Eastern Bristlebird. National Parks include: Amamoor, Conondale, Glastonbury and Maleny; and King Conservation Park; and Forest Reserves: Conondale, Elgin, Glastonbury, Imbil 1 & 2, Jimna, Kandanga, Kenilworth, Oakview, Wrattens, Yabba 1 & 2; and
Habitat critical to the survival or important habitats of a species or ecological community refers to areas that are necessary:
• for activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal;
• for the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators);
• to maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development; or
• for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or
ecological community.
Such habitat may be, but is not limited to: habitat identified in a recovery plan for
the species or ecological community as habitat critical for that species or ecological community; and/or habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the Minister under the EPBC Act.
Habitat critical to the survival of the Eastern Bristlebird includes:
Breeding and foraging habitat
Breeding and foraging habitat
Breeding and foraging habitat
• Northern population: within the known or likely range and in habitat that occurs in open forest with dense tussocky grass understorey and sparse mid-storey near rainforest ecotone. The northern fire regime is between 3–6 years and of variable intensity depending on the habitat condition.
• Central and southern populations: within the known or likely range and in habitat that includes low vegetation including heath and open woodland with a heathy understorey. Birds reach maximum densities of 3–4 birds per 10 ha in habitat that has not been burnt for at least 15 years.
Habitat for the long-term maintenance of
Habitat for the long-term maintenance of the species
Habitat for the long-term maintenance of the species
• All Key Biodiversity Areas with Eastern Bristlebird as a Trigger species.
Additionally, all suitable habitat occupied by the Eastern Bristlebird before and after the 2019–2020 wildfires is considered habitat critical to survival. It is also important to consider and maintain connectivity, buffer zones, and refugia habitat – especially in the context of wildfire – for the species. Potential or planned release sites are
also considered habitat critical to the survival of Eastern Bristlebirds and should be afforded the same level of protection and conservation management as known sites. Sympathetic management of areas adjoining Eastern Bristlebird habitats is important. Habitat connectivity is important for maintaining or enhancing species genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary potential.
Habitat critical to the survival of Eastern Bristlebird occurs across a wide range of land tenures, including freehold land and reserves, defence land (e.g., Beecroft), publicly owned forests and state reserves, and national parks (e.g., Booderee NP). It is essential that the locations where the species regularly occurs is given the highest protection and conservation measures target these productive habitats.
No Critical Habitat as defined under section 207A of the EPBC Act has been identified
or included in the Register of Critical Habitat
2.9.1 Key considerations for decision ma
2.9.1 Key considerations for decision makers
2.9.1 Key considerations for decision makers
Habitat critical to the survival of Eastern Bristlebirds occurs across a range of land tenures should not be destroyed or modified. Actions that have indirect impacts on habitat critical to the survival (e.g., native vegetation removal) should be avoided. Actions that compromise adult and juvenile survival should also be avoided.
When considering developments in any part of the Eastern Bristlebird’s range, including in areas where the species ‘may occur’, surveys for occupancy that consider detectability and are undertaken at the appropriate times of the year remain an important tool in establishing the areas of importance to the Eastern Bristlebird. In addition, it is important to note that the Eastern Bristlebird may opportunistically use areas depending on the occurrence of suitable habitat following fire. Areas that may be important habitat over time might not have birds in any given year. This pattern
of habitat use means that recent survey data and historical records and presence of suitable habitat need to be considered when assessing the relative importance of a site or region for the Eastern Bristlebird.
Actions that remove habitat critical to the survival will interfere with the recovery of Eastern Bristlebird and reduce the area of occupancy of the species. If removal of habitat critical to the survival cannot be avoided or mitigated, then an offset should be provided.
Habitat loss, due to urbanisation, agriculture and inappropriate fire regimes, is recognised as the main process that has reduced the distribution and abundance of the Eastern Bristlebird in the last 150 years. This resulted in a dramatic reduction in the distribution of the species and the local extinction of Eastern Bristlebird populations (Baker 1997).
Habitat loss, due to urbanisation, agriculture and inappropriate fire regimes, is recognised as the main process that has reduced the distribution and abundance of the Eastern Bristlebird in the last 150 years. This resulted in a dramatic reduction in the distribution of the species and the local extinction of Eastern Bristlebird populations (Baker 1997).
3.2 Current threats
3.2.1 Threat assessment and prioritisation
The approach to assessing current threats was taken from the Conservation Standards (CMP 2020), an internationally adopted set of principles and practices for conservation project design, management, and monitoring developed by
the Conservation Measures Partnership. An assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility (see Appendix 1 for detailed criteria) was undertaken for each threat and then used to determine overall threat ratings, based on an algorithm in Miradi Share 2.0 (Miradi 2020). Threat rankings are based on overall threat ratings.
Threats were considered in the context of the current management regimes. Threat impacts have been assessed assuming that existing management measures continue to be applied appropriately. If management regimes change then the threat rating and ranking may also change.
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 rating is determined by the population for which the threat impact is greatest. Population-wide threats are generally considered to present a higher threat to species recovery.
3.2.1 Threat assessment and prioritisati
3.2.1 Threat assessment and prioritisation
3.2.1 Threat assessment and prioritisation
The approach to assessing current threats was taken from the Conservation Standards (CMP 2020), an internationally adopted set of principles and practices for conservation project design, management, and monitoring developed by
the Conservation Measures Partnership. An assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility (see Appendix 1 for detailed criteria) was undertaken for each threat and then used to determine overall threat ratings, based on an algorithm in Miradi Share 2.0 (Miradi 2020). Threat rankings are based on overall threat ratings.
Threats were considered in the context of the current management regimes. Threat impacts have been assessed assuming that existing management measures continue to be applied appropriately. If management regimes change then the threat rating and ranking may also change.
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 rating is determined by the population for which the threat impact is greatest. Population-wide threats are generally considered to present a higher threat to species recovery.
3.2.2 Summary of current threats
3.2.2 Summary of current threats
3.2.2 Summary of current threats
Current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird are summarised in Table 2 and are outlined below in priority order (3.2.3–3.2.15).
The ratings of four current threats vary among populations (see Table 2 and Appendix 2). Seven key threatening processes listed under the EPBC Act are associated with current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird:
• Dieback caused by plant pathogens (Phytophthora cinnamomi).
• Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases
• Predation by European red fox.
• Predation by feral cats.
• Predation, habitat degradation, competition, and disease transmission by
feral pigs.
• Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity.
• Land clearance.
In addition, some current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird are reflected in state-listed key threatening processes.
TABLE 2: Current threats to the Eastern
TABLE 2: Current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird, ranked according to an overall threat rating derived from an assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility.
TABLE 2: Current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird, ranked according to an overall threat rating derived from an assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility.
TABLE 2: Current threats to the Eastern Bristlebird, ranked according to an overall threat rating derived from an assessment of scope, severity, and irreversibility.
* Threat rating varies among populations (see Appendix 2 for detail)
3.2.3 Inappropriate fire regimes
3.2.3.1 Wildfire
A fire regime includes scale, intensity, frequency, seasonality, and patchiness, whether arising from wildfire (this section) or management (section 3.2.3.2). Inappropriate fire regimes (too frequent or infrequent) arising from wildfire or management, and interactions between the two, are a threat to all Eastern Bristlebird populations.
The Eastern Bristlebird is a cover-dependent and fire-sensitive species (Baker 2000). Ground dwelling and weak fliers, Eastern Bristlebirds are vulnerable to fire. In particular larger and more intense fires which travel quickly may be difficult for birds to escape. Inappropriate fire regimes arising from wildfire may threaten Eastern Bristlebird population viability through direct and indirect impacts and synergisms with other threats, which could ultimately result in localised extinctions (as is thought to have occurred historically, Baker 2003 in Bain et al. 2008).
Fires that are too infrequent are a major threat to the northern population. Infrequent fires lead to recruitment and/or growth of shrubs and trees resulting in higher canopy cover that has a negative influence on grass cover, reducing habitat quality and ultimately converting suitable habitat to unsuitable habitat. Too frequent or extensive fires are a threat to the central and southern populations, where Eastern Bristlebird density generally increases with time since fire (OEH 2012, DPIE 2018).
Although Eastern Bristlebirds may be able to avoid fire by moving to unburnt areas and returning when conditions are suitable, the immediate threat of fire may be exacerbated if there is a lack of connecting habitat to enable birds to seek refugia. Therefore, buffer zones, connecting habitat, and unburnt refugia are important for species persistence during and after fire (Bain et al. 2008, Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Lindenmayer et al. 2009). Rainforest gullies adjacent to grassland are likely to be important for local persistence within the northern population during and after fire.
3.2.3.1 Wildfire
3.2.3.1 Wildfire
3.2.3.1 Wildfire
A fire regime includes scale, intensity, frequency, seasonality, and patchiness, whether arising from wildfire (this section) or management (section 3.2.3.2). Inappropriate fire regimes (too frequent or infrequent) arising from wildfire or management, and interactions between the two, are a threat to all Eastern Bristlebird populations.
The Eastern Bristlebird is a cover-dependent and fire-sensitive species (Baker 2000). Ground dwelling and weak fliers, Eastern Bristlebirds are vulnerable to fire. In particular larger and more intense fires which travel quickly may be difficult for birds to escape. Inappropriate fire regimes arising from wildfire may threaten Eastern Bristlebird population viability through direct and indirect impacts and synergisms with other threats, which could ultimately result in localised extinctions (as is thought to have occurred historically, Baker 2003 in Bain et al. 2008).
Fires that are too infrequent are a major threat to the northern population. Infrequent fires lead to recruitment and/or growth of shrubs and trees resulting in higher canopy cover that has a negative influence on grass cover, reducing habitat quality and ultimately converting suitable habitat to unsuitable habitat. Too frequent or extensive fires are a threat to the central and southern populations, where Eastern Bristlebird density generally increases with time since fire (OEH 2012, DPIE 2018).
Although Eastern Bristlebirds may be able to avoid fire by moving to unburnt areas and returning when conditions are suitable, the immediate threat of fire may be exacerbated if there is a lack of connecting habitat to enable birds to seek refugia. Therefore, buffer zones, connecting habitat, and unburnt refugia are important for species persistence during and after fire (Bain et al. 2008, Hartley & Kikkawa 1994; Lindenmayer et al. 2009). Rainforest gullies adjacent to grassland are likely to be important for local persistence within the northern population during and after fire.
3.2.3.2 Management
3.2.3.2 Management
3.2.3.2 Management
Inappropriate fire management regimes, including fire exclusion, threaten Eastern Bristlebirds by causing direct and indirect mortality, reducing population size, exacerbating habitat fragmentation, reducing habitat availability, reducing population size and increasing vulnerability to stochastic events and other
threatening processes (e.g. predators, loss of genetic diversity). Although specific fire regimes have previously been suggested (OEH 2012), appropriate fire regimes are site and context dependent (Bain et al. 2008). Therefore, site-specific management at the local population scale is essential. However, given Eastern Bristlebirds may have difficulty escaping fire, avoiding encircling burns is essential.
Fire management considerations include fire scale, intensity, frequency, and seasonality (OEH 2012). In determining appropriate fire management regimes, it is important to consider those regimes on which Eastern Bristlebirds and their habitat depend (Olsen & Weston 2005). For example, within Heathland, fire management planning in and around Eastern Bristlebird habitat needs to collectively consider fire extent, severity, timing, interconnectivity of ground and mid-canopy fuel, and the delivery of fire into the landscape (e.g. backing fire, spot ignition, line ignition). It is also important to consider the extent of planned burns, as smaller, staggered burns that create a mosaic of vegetation age classes in and around key habitat are valuable. Further, fire management should consider synergistic effects of other threats to the Eastern Bristlebird and adopt an adaptive rather than prescriptive approach.
Appropriate fire management regimes need to be incorporated within fire management plans and considered in conjunction with factors such as protection of human life and property and recovery of threatened species and ecological communities. Generally, effective fire management to conserve Eastern Bristlebird
populations include: mosaic, low-intensity and/or burns with small footprints, ignited along one fire front, a suitable site-specific fire interval, strategic breaks and buffers and timing with respect to breeding season and environmental conditions such as drought (though this can vary between sites).
As with mitigation of wildfire, fire management regimes need to protect buffer zones, connecting habitat and unburnt refugia and, because the response to fire is site and context dependent, fine scale site-specific management is required (Bain et al. 2008). Refugia sites also need to be sufficiently large to support a population that is resilient to demographic stochasticity while burnt habitat recovers and provides opportunities for the population to expand.
3.2.4 Climate change
3.2.4 Climate change
3.2.4 Climate change
Australia’s climate has warmed by about 1.4 °C since 1910, leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events (BOM & CSIRO 2020). Warming has occurred across Australia in all months, with both day and night-time temperatures increasing. Winter rainfall in southern Australia is projected to decline, while most of the country is likely to experience more extreme daily rainfall (BOM & CSIRO 2020). Heatwaves are also lasting longer, reaching more extreme maximum temperatures, and occurring more frequently over many regions of Australia, including south-eastern Australia (Perkins-Kirkpatrick et al. 2016; Evans et al. 2017; Herold et al. 2018; BOM & CSIRO 2020). Heatwaves also exacerbate drought, which in turn can also increase bushfire risk (BOM & CSIRO 2020). Birds are also vulnerable to extreme heatwaves that overwhelm their physiological limits (McKechnie et al. 2012).
3.2.5 Lack of genetic diversity
3.2.5 Lack of genetic diversity
3.2.5 Lack of genetic diversity
Genetic diversity is important for the viability of populations and the evolutionary potential of species. Habitat fragmentation and isolation of natural populations can reduce effective population size (Love Stowell et al. 2017), leading to loss of genetic diversity and inbreeding. Populations that are restricted to small, isolated habitat patches can fall into an ‘extinction vortex’, where low genetic diversity and susceptibility to extreme events (e.g., fires, disease and drought) limit population recovery. In such cases, habitat protection or restoration may not be sufficient for population increase.
Genetic assessment of the Eastern Bristlebird by Roberts et al. (2011) showed there was insufficient phylogenetic distinctiveness between populations to support classification of the northern population as a subspecies. Both the northern and southern populations were less genetically diverse then the central population, consistent
with their smaller population sizes (Weeks et al. 2016). Using a limited dataset of six microsatellites, Roberts et al. (2011) found broad-scale genetic subdivision by region. They cautioned against mixing genetics across regions to preserve genetic
integrity of the local populations. However, it has been suggested that this study was underpowered and management recommendations were not based on gene flow between units and time of divergence (P. Sunnucks pers. comm. cited in NESP 2018). Both these factors highly affect the likely response of a population to genetic rescue. The genetic distinctiveness of the northern population is likely due to random genetic drift following historically recent fragmentation and small population size, rather than a reflection of longer-term evolutionary adaptation (Sunnucks 2013). Because of this, it is unlikely that cross-breeding between the phylogenetically similar southern and northern populations would cause outbreeding depression.
More recently, a genetic assessment of Eastern Bristlebirds from Howe Flat, Victoria (southern population, 15 samples), compared with samples from the northern captive population (15 samples), Budderoo National Park (central population, 24 samples),
3.2.6 Dieback and invasive weeds
3.2.6 Dieback and invasive weeds
3.2.6 Dieback and invasive weeds
Dieback, caused by pathogens e.g., Phytophthora cinnamomi and invasive weeds may modify Eastern Bristlebird habitat, reduce habitat quality, and limit the availability of suitable habitat (DES 2018; DPIE 2018). Therefore, hygiene measures and control of dieback and invasive weeds are important to maintain Eastern Bristlebird habitat availability and suitability. Hygiene measures will also help prevent the spread of other plant diseases such as Myrtle Rust (Austropuccinia psidii). In addition, Bell Miner associated dieback (BMAD) is present within northern Eastern Bristlebird habitat (DES 2018).
The current threat of dieback and invasive weeds was assessed as higher for
the northern Eastern Bristlebird population, compared to central and southern populations (Appendix 2). However, the potential threat of dieback in the central and southern populations is very high because the majority of plant diversity and structure where these populations occur is in the Proteaceae family which is especially susceptible to P. cinnamomi (M Antos pers. comm. 2021).
Invasive weeds that negatively impact northern population habitat include Lantana (Lantana camara), Crofton Weed (Ageratina adenophora), Mist Flower (A. riparia), Christmas Wattle (Acacia sp.), and Foxtail (Cenchrus purpurascens) (OEH 2012;
DES 2018). For southern populations, most habitat is relatively weed free with the
3.2.7 Drought
3.2.7 Drought
3.2.7 Drought
While droughts are a natural phenomenon in Australia, climate change modelling suggests droughts are likely to be longer and more intense (BOM & CSIRO 2020). Drought episodes may have contributed to Eastern Bristlebird population declines due to resultant loss, modification and/or degradation of habitat (Clarke & Bramwell 1998; Stewart et al. 2004) and reduced food availability (e.g., reduction in invertebrates suitable for feeding nestlings; Hartley & Kikkawa 1994).
Northern Eastern Bristlebirds have been observed moving into gullies during long hot summers (Stone et al. 2019), highlighting the need for alternative habitat and refugia during temperature extremes. Northern bristlebirds are closely associated with the rainforest margin; all territories are found within 400 m of a dense rainforest edge.
These margins provide increased humidity for tall, thick tussock grasses and have better quality invertebrate resources for foraging (Stone et al. 2018). An increase in the frequency and duration of drought could have a negative impact on the condition of this ecotone, which will affect the reproductive potential of bristlebirds. Any suppression of reproductive capacity or compromised survivorship in the already small northern population could lead to rapid extinction.
The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020 (Charley et al. 2021; Bain et al. 2021) considered an increased frequency or length of droughts in an assessment of threats to the Eastern Bristlebird. Drought impacts may interact with other threats, including climate change, fire, and invasive weeds. For example, the 2019–2020 wildfires were exacerbated by drought (Ward et al. 2020).
Drought conditions may also impede the implementation of on-ground management actions. For example, chemical weed control is rendered ineffective during drought and over-dry conditions prevent prescribed burning due to associated risks (K Roche pers. comm. 2021)
3.2.8 Predation by foxes
3.2.8 Predation by foxes
3.2.8 Predation by foxes
Because Eastern Bristlebird are ground-dwelling and nest close to the ground, the species is at risk of predation by foxes, particularly when wildfires reduce the amount of vegetation and increase Eastern Bristlebird exposure (Lindenmayer et al. 2009).
In addition, Eastern Bristlebird calling behaviour may make them susceptible to predation (OEH 2012).
The threat of predation by foxes varies across the distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird. Although not quantified, the threat of predation by foxes was assessed as higher for the central Eastern Bristlebird population, compared to northern and
southern populations (Appendix 2). The effects of predation are less significant for the northern population because the thick grassy habitat reduces foraging opportunities for invasive predators. Nonetheless, any natural predation (by native predators) or the occasional predation by invasive pest predators could have a significant impact
on northern populations of Eastern Bristlebird, due to the very small number of wild individuals remaining. Eastern Bristlebirds at Nadgee NR (southern population) recovered rapidly after fire in the absence of pest predator baiting programs, likely because the area has a healthy Dingo (Canis familiaris) population.
Predation by European red fox is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EBPC Act, and a threat abatement plan has been prepared (DEWHA 2008a, 2008b).
3.2.9 Predation by feral cats
3.2.9 Predation by feral cats
3.2.9 Predation by feral cats
In addition to foxes, feral cats predate on Eastern Bristlebirds (Meek 2003; Woinarski et al. 2017), although predation risk varies across the species spatial range. As with the threat of predation by foxes, the threat of predation by cats has not been quantified but was assessed as higher for the northern Eastern Bristlebird population, compared to central and southern populations that occur in dense heath vegetation that is relatively impenetrable to cats and foxes (Appendix 2). The threat of cats is also amplified by bushfires as they take advantage of recently burnt areas (McGregor et
al. 2016), as they prefer to hunt in open habitats and have higher hunting success in such habitats (McGregor et al. 2015). Studies are required to assess the overall impact of predation by cats and foxes, and the effectiveness of their control, on the Eastern Bristlebird.
Predation by feral cats is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EBPC Act, and a threat abatement plan has been prepared (DE 2015a, 2015b).
3.2.10 Disease in captive populations
3.2.10 Disease in captive populations
3.2.10 Disease in captive populations
Captive Eastern Bristlebirds may be at increased risk of infection with pathogens and parasites, due to low genetic diversity and the potential for stress during capture. Susceptibility to infection appears high in captive Eastern Bristlebirds and there is apparent fragility of birds during transfer to captivity (Selwood et al. 2021).
Eastern Bristlebirds in captive breeding programs have been subject to mortality from parasitic infections with Atoxoplasma, likely obtained in the wild prior to capture (D Bain pers. comm. 2021), and aspergillosis infections are a risk. Six of 15 birds rescued from Howe Flat, Victoria, during the 2019–2020 fires died due to aspergillosis (a non-contagious stress-induced respiratory illness) during their initial days in captivity (Selwood et al. 2021). An effective treatment regimen was established for surviving birds, and it is now recommended that Eastern Bristlebirds translocated
to captivity are treated prophylactically through food to prevent disease from aspergillosis (Selwood et al. 2021). It is also recommended that the species be housed on sandy soil substrates to reduce possibility of aspergillosis transfer ex-situ (M Lynch pers. comm. 2021).
3.2.11 Disease in wild populations
3.2.11 Disease in wild populations
3.2.11 Disease in wild populations
Infection prevalence and parasite/pathogen burden and associated adverse effects in wild populations are unknown but may have the potential to impact on Eastern Bristlebird recovery. An improved understanding of disease in wild populations is needed to inform any translocation actions and reintroduction of Eastern Bristlebird into the wild. Captive birds have succumbed to parasite infections which were likely obtained in the wild prior to capture.
Disease threats may not be uniform across all wild Eastern Bristlebird populations. Small and/or fragmented populations like those of northern and southern Eastern Bristlebird populations may be at higher risk of adverse effects from disease, in part due to an increased susceptibility to disease that may be associated with lower genetic diversity.
Studies are needed to determine prevalence and impacts of both asymptomatic
infections and infections with clinical signs of disease in all wild populations.
3.2.12 Clearing of habitat
3.2.12 Clearing of habitat
3.2.12 Clearing of habitat
Where habitat is not protected, contemporary clearing for agriculture, forestry, fuel breaks, utility easements, and residential development may continue to threaten the Eastern Bristlebird. Clearing results in the loss of Eastern Bristlebird habitat and may fragment populations, increasing their vulnerability to negative impacts of other threats. Increased fragmentation interacts with other threats and makes the Eastern Bristlebird more susceptible to local extinction. For example, fragmentation
may reduce the capacity of Eastern Bristlebirds to escape fire, improve feral predator access to Eastern Bristlebird habitat, increase the risk of vehicle strike, and facilitate human disturbance (TSSC 2001b).
While habitat on conservation reserves may be managed for Eastern Bristlebirds, recovery of habitat is difficult in some areas due to current land-zoning for urban development. Protection and management of habitat on private land, particularly for the northern population and at Jervis Bay, is extremely important. At Jervis Bay, the cumulative impact of residential developments remains a key threat to some local populations. Possible solutions include prioritising land supporting Eastern Bristlebird habitat for re-zoning to a category that conserves biodiversity values; and incorporating appropriate vegetation buffers, within the land zoned for urban development, at zoning boundaries adjacent to Eastern Bristlebird habitat.
3.2.13 Feral pigs
3.2.13 Feral pigs
3.2.13 Feral pigs
Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are potential predators of Eastern Bristlebird eggs and chicks and may disturb breeding birds, damage habitat, facilitate weed invasion, spread plant diseases (including Phytophthora cinnamomi), and create tracks that provide access by predators (Stewart 1998b). The threat of pigs is relevant to the northern population (QLD) only.
Predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs has been listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EBPC Act, and a threat abatement plan has been prepared (DEE 2017).
3.2.14 Overabundant non-native herbivore
3.2.14 Overabundant non-native herbivores
3.2.14 Overabundant non-native herbivores
Grazing by non-native herbivores may degrade Eastern Bristlebird habitat, reduce habitat connectivity, and destroy nests. For example, appropriate management of cattle grazing has been critical for survival of northern population on private land (L Gould pers. comm. 2021).
Deer are an emerging threat to the southern population (DAWE 2021), as they alter vegetation structural complexity, and create tracks that allow greater access into Eastern Bristlebird habitat by foxes and cats and may facilitate the spread of weeds and P. cinnamomi along tracks.
3.2.15 Human disturbance
3.2.15 Human disturbance
3.2.15 Human disturbance
Human disturbance may result in habitat damage, disturbance of Eastern Bristlebird
breeding, abandonment of nests, and mortality from vehicle strike (DES 2019).
The use of call playback by birdwatchers may interfere with breeding behaviour during the breeding season.
All areas where the Eastern Bristlebird is known or is likely to occur require protective measures. The actions described in this Recovery Plan are intended
to provide ongoing protection for the Eastern Bristlebird throughout their range. Due to their small size and reduced genetic diversity, northern and southern
Eastern Bristlebird populations are likely to be under particular pressure from some current threats. Notably, the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020 (Charley et al. 2021) recognises the northern Eastern Bristlebird as Critically Endangered and the southern Eastern Bristlebird (NSW/ACT, VIC) as Near Threatened, based on IUCN Red List categories (IUCN 2001). Further, because some threats are higher in one population than another (Appendix 2) some Recovery Plan actions are population specific
Eastern Bristlebird populations are genetically diverse and self-sustaining, and the species is resilient to impacts of climate change. Eastern Bristlebird recovery has been informed by comprehensive knowledge of Eastern Bristlebird ecology and best practice methods for conserving the species and its habitat. Eastern Bristlebird
habitat is protected, and Traditional Owners and the broader community are engaged
in habitat management.
5.2
Recovery Plan objectives and strategies
5.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strategies
Objective 1
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population viability is improved in the northern, central and southern populations, compared to baselines (see section 1.3).Strategy 1: Population enhancement and augmentation.
Objective 2
By 2032, levels of priority threats on the Eastern Bristlebird are reduced, compared to baselines.Strategy 2: Threat management.
Objective 3
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird habitat extent and condition are maintained or improved, compared to baselines.Strategy 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation.
Objective 4
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population assessments are enhanced by addressing data and knowledge gaps and viable Eastern Bristlebird population sizes and trends are determined.Strategy 4: Biology and ecology knowledge enhancement.
Actions identified for the recovery of the Eastern Bristlebird are described below with a timeframe of 10-years.
Where an action is relevant to one or two, rather than all three populations, the relevant population(s) is indicated in text as follows: N northern population, C central population, and S southern population. Responsible Agencies are in bold text with potential supporting partners not in bold.
Priorities assigned to actions should be interpreted as follows:
Priority 1:
Taking prompt action is necessary in order to mitigate the key threats to the Eastern Bristlebird and also provide valuable information to help identify long-term population trends
Priority 2:
Action would provide a more informed basis for the long-term management and recovery of the Eastern Bristlebird.
Priority 3:
Action is desirable, but not critical to the recovery of the Eastern Bristlebird or assessment of trends in that recovery.
STRATEGY 3: Habitat protection, enhancem
STRATEGY 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation
STRATEGY 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation
Action
Description
Priority
Performance Criteria
Responsible Agencies and potential partners
Indicative Cost
3.1
Undertake evidence-based ecological burns.
1
Area of suitable habitat within Eastern Bristlebird distribution has increased:• Evidence-based ecological burns improve the extent and/or quality of suitable habitat.• Baseline mapping of fire history/ extent of suitable habitat is available.• Fire management strategies and site-specific plans are audited toidentify the extent to which ecological burns are evidence-based and effective (i.e., improve the extent and/ or quality of suitable habitat).• Traditional Owners are engaged in ecological burning strategies where relevant.• Appropriate habitat management burns are conducted (where relevant to site condition and context) inpreviously occupied territories.
Australian GovernmentState governmentsPublic land managersTraditional OwnersPrivate landownersAcademic/research institutionsEmergency services NGOs
$200,000 pa
3.2
Refine Eastern Bristlebird habitat mapping. N, S
1
Knowledge of Eastern Bristlebird distribution has increased:• Fine scale, accurate vegetation mapping is developed and accessible.
State governmentsAcademic institutionsRegional NRM organisationNGOs
$100,000
3.3
Monitorpost-fire habitat extent, quality, connectivity, and refugia.
2
Habitat extent, quality and connectivity within Eastern Bristlebird distribution has increased:• Post-fire habitat assessments are undertaken and incorporated in Eastern Bristlebird recovery planning and on-ground management actions.
Australian GovernmentState governmentsPublic land managersTraditional OwnersPrivate landownersAcademic/research institutionsNGOs
$150,000 pa
STRATEGY 6: Coordinate, review and repor
STRATEGY 6: Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress
STRATEGY 6: Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress
Action
Description
Priority
Performance Criteria
Responsible Agencies and potential partners
Indicative Cost
6.1
Establish an Eastern BristlebirdRecovery Team.
1
An Eastern Bristlebird Recovery Team is established within the first 6-months and is aligned with best-practice governance guidelines.Implementation of the Recovery Plan is supported by a national, collaborative approach.Recovery effort is coordinated across tenures and jurisdictions as appropriate.
Australian GovernmentState governmentsNGOsTraditional OwnersAcademic/ research institutionsZoos and wildlife sanctuaries
$50,000 pa
6.2
Incorporate emergency measures should interventions not succeed, or if species population trends decline unabated.
1
Key emergency response trigger points or thresholds have been identifiedand incorporated in relevant plans and procedures.Emergency response governance and protocols have been established.
Australian GovernmentState governmentsAcademic/ research institutionsRecovery TeamNGOsRegional NRM organisation
$10,000 pa
6.3
Incorporate Eastern Bristlebird conservation priorities into policies, management plans, regulations, codes of practice andplanning tools.
2
Number of site management plans containing measurable indicators has increased:• Eastern Bristlebird conservation priorities are incorporated into policies, management plans, regulations, codes of practice and planning tools.
Australian GovernmentState governmentsLocal governments
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 implementing this plan should be incorporated into the core business expenditure of the affected organisations, and through additional funds obtained for the explicit purpose of implementing this Recovery Plan. It is expected that Commonwealth and state agencies will use this plan to prioritise actions to protect the species and enhance its recovery, and that projects will be undertaken according to agency priorities and available resources.
All actions are considered important steps towards ensuring the long-term survival of
Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.
Acronyms Acronyms
Acronyms
AOO
Area of occupancy
CFA
Country Fire Authority
DCCEEW
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water(Australian Government)
DES
Department of Environment and Science (Queensland Government)
DELWP
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning(Victorian Government)
DPE
Department of Planning and Environment(New South Wales Government)
EOO
Extent of occurrence
EPBC Act
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 (Commonwealth)
IUCN
International Union for Conservation of Nature
NESP
National Environmental Science Program
NGO
Non-government organisation
NP
National park
NR
Nature reserve
NRM
Natural resource management
OEH
Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales
RFS
Rural Fire Service
RSPCA
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
TO
Traditional Owners
TSSC
Threatened Species Scientific Committee
1. Summary 1. Summary
1. Summary
Eastern Bristlebird (Dasyornis brachypterus)
Family: Dasyornithidae
Current status of taxon: Current status of taxon:
Current status of taxon:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth): Endangered
• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales): Endangered
• Nature Conservation (Animals) Regulation 2020 (Queensland): Endangered
• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria): Critically Endangered
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Endangered
1.1 Distribution and habitat
Practical outcomes the plan aims to change are: who makes and coordinates recovery decisions (Recovery Team and lead agencies, section 1.4 and Action 6.1); which areas are treated as habitat critical to survival for planning purposes (section 2.9); what management actions are prioritised (e.g. fire regime management, threat abatement, translocations and captive breeding actions in Strategy 1-4); and resource allocation over the next five to ten years (Table 3). The plan instructs consent authorities to avoid destruction or modification of habitat critical to survival and to require offsets if removal cannot be avoided (section 2.9.1), thereby seeking to influence planning outcomes even though the legal enforcement mechanisms remain those of the EPBC Act and state instruments.
Main concepts
The plan deploys a set of technical and governance concepts that structure both threat assessment and management. Key concepts, as the plan frames them, are:
Populations and spatial units. The species is treated as three geographically separated populations: northern, central and southern (section 1.1; 2.4). The plan uses these units to vary threat ratings and actions where necessary; some actions are population‑specific and labelled N, C or S in Part 6.
Extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO). The plan records numerical estimates for EOO and AOO for each population and flags trends and reliability (section 2.4 and 2.5). Those metrics underpin risk characterisations and planning for connectivity and refugia.
Habitat critical to survival. The plan defines habitat critical to survival in the terms used for recovery planning, including functions such as foraging, breeding, dispersal, maintenance of genetic diversity and reintroduction sites, and explicitly includes "all suitable habitat occupied by the Eastern Bristlebird before and after the 2019-2020 wildfires" (section 2.9). It notes no Critical Habitat under s 207A of the EPBC Act has been identified or listed (section 2.9).
Threat assessment framework. Threats are ranked by scope, severity and irreversibility using the Conservation Standards (CMP 2020). Appendix 1 sets out numeric bandings for these components, and Appendix 2 applies them across threats and populations, producing overall ratings such as "Very High" for inappropriate fire regimes arising from wildfire (Appendix 1; Appendix 2; Table 2 in section 3.2.2).
Fire regime as a multi‑dimensional management concept. The plan treats a fire regime as scale, intensity, frequency, seasonality and patchiness (section 3.2.3). It differentiates wildfire risk from management‑created fire regimes and prescribes "evidence‑based ecological burns" and mosaic burning where appropriate (Actions 3.1 and 3.3; section 3.2.3).
Conservation actions and prioritisation. Actions are assigned Priority 1-3: Priority 1 is immediate and essential; Priority 2 for informative actions; Priority 3 desirable but not critical (section 6). Each action entry lists performance criteria, responsible and supporting agencies, and indicative costs.
Governance and adaptive management. The plan requires establishment of a Recovery Team to coordinate actions and supports an adaptive management approach with measurable indicators and centralised data (sections 1.4; 5.2; Action 6.1 and 6.3). It also requires the identification of emergency response triggers and protocols (Action 6.2).
Interactions with statutory instruments and abatement plans. The plan cross‑references Key Threatening Processes and existing threat abatement plans under the EPBC Act (e.g. foxes and feral cats), and anticipates that recovery priorities be incorporated into planning instruments and management codes (section 3.2.2; Action 6.3).
These concepts are the operational vocabulary the plan uses to convert scientific assessment into concrete management workplans. The formal threat scoring system (Appendix 1) converts qualitative concerns into calibrated policy priorities, which then flow into dollared actions and responsibilities in Part 6. That structure creates a chain from ecological observation to budget line item, and therefore also creates decision points where scientific uncertainty, monitoring lags, jurisdictional friction and funding availability can affect outcomes.
Who it affects
The plan explicitly lists affected parties and identifies who is expected to act or to be consulted. Primary responsible actors are the Australian Government (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water), state governments (New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria), public land managers including Parks Australia, and the Department of Defence where species occur on defence land (sections 6, 10 and 12). The plan further names Traditional Owners, private landholders, regional NRM organisations, NGOs (for example BirdLife Australia), research institutions and zoos and wildlife sanctuaries as contributors or partners for actions (section 1.4; Part 6 action tables; section 12).
Who pays. Indicative costs are attached to individual actions and to strategies. Table 3 (section 7) provides a five‑year cost schedule with a total of $15,075,000 across strategies in the first five years, and the plan itemises annual spends per strategy and year. The plan expresses an expectation that implementation "should be incorporated into the core business expenditure of the affected organisations, and through additional funds obtained for the explicit purpose of implementing this Recovery Plan" (section 7). Specific line items also indicate partner cost contributions are anticipated, for example, $200,000 pa for evidence‑based ecological burns (Action 3.1). The plan does not mandate a funding source; instead it anticipates a mix of Commonwealth, state and partner resourcing, and flags that some actions are "core government business" (Action 6.3, section 7).
Who decides. Decision‑making is distributed. The plan establishes a Recovery Team to coordinate implementation and provide advice (section 1.4; Action 6.1). However, operational decisions , for example on fire management, on approvals that might affect habitat critical to survival, and on site‑level recovery implementation , remain with the relevant land manager or consent authority (section 2.9.1 and Part 6 action attribution). The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is tasked with coordinating review and evaluation (section 12).
Who bears immediate costs or constraints. The social and economic section (section 9) identifies those most likely to bear costs: proponents seeking approval to remove or modify Eastern Bristlebird habitat (who may face additional assessment costs, offset requirements or rehabilitation obligations), private landholders whose land contains critical habitat, and local governments where companion animal restrictions or other management measures may be applied. The plan also notes potential conflicts with recreation, tourism and 4WD usage near habitat (section 9).
Who benefits. The stated beneficiaries are the Eastern Bristlebird populations across their range and other threatened species that share habitat (section 8). The plan lists additional threatened taxa expected to receive co‑benefits when habitat is conserved or improved, and notes cultural benefits to Traditional Owners and community volunteer involvement (sections 8 and 2.6).
Geographic coverage and tenure. Habitat critical to survival occurs across multiple tenures: reserves, freehold, defence land, publicly owned forests and national parks (section 2.9). This means affected parties include both public authorities and private landholders. The plan therefore requires cross‑tenure coordination and, by implication, negotiation of obligations where regulatory regimes differ.
Key duties and rights
This document is a recovery plan; as framed in the text it prescribes responsibilities for named agencies and sets out desirable outcomes and measurable performance criteria. It does not itself create new statutory powers or civil or criminal penalties. The key duties and rights it records or implies are:
Duties recorded in the plan
Lead agencies are assigned implementation responsibilities for individual actions (see the Action tables in Part 6; e.g. Action 3.1 lists Australian Government, state governments, public land managers, Traditional Owners, private landowners and research institutions as responsible or potential partners). Those assignments operate as administrative obligations for those agencies to incorporate recovery actions into business programs, subject to resourcing and agency priorities (sections 6 and 7).
The plan requires establishment of an Eastern Bristlebird Recovery Team within the first six months to coordinate implementation and advise on governance (Action 6.1). The Recovery Team is tasked with coordination, review and reporting (sections 1.4 and 6).
The plan instructs decision makers to avoid destruction or modification of habitat identified as critical to survival and to avoid indirect impacts such as native vegetation removal that would compromise adult and juvenile survival. If habitat loss cannot be avoided or mitigated, an offset should be provided (section 2.9.1).
Actions to reduce threats and enhance habitat are assigned priorities and performance criteria; responsible agencies are expected to measure and report progress against those criteria (section 6; performance criteria columns).
Rights and participatory entitlements
Traditional Owners and local communities are explicitly recognised as participants in recovery actions and decision‑making processes and are listed as partners in many actions (section 1.4; Action tables). The plan states Traditional Owners should be engaged in ecological burning strategies where relevant (Action 3.1).
Data and metadata are to be made available in a centralised repository "within permissibility requirements", which implies stakeholder access to monitoring data subject to confidentiality and data‑sharing rules (section 5.2 strategy outcomes and Action 6.3).
What the plan does not do legally
The plan does not itself list Critical Habitat under s 207A of the EPBC Act; it explicitly says no such listing has occurred (section 2.9).
The plan does not set penalties or enforcement instruments. It anticipates that recovery priorities will be incorporated into "policies, management plans, regulations, codes of practice and planning tools" (Action 6.3), but the legal effect of those incorporations depends on the separate statutory instruments and the actions of consent authorities.
Operational duty versus legal compulsion
The plan expects agencies to incorporate actions into core business and to obtain additional funds where required (section 7). That is an administrative commitment rather than a statutory duty. For proponents and landholders, statutory duties will arise through existing approval processes under the EPBC Act and state regulatory regimes where habitat occurs, not directly from the plan text; however the plan sets out the conservation standards and expectations that consent authorities are to consider (section 2.9.1).
Monitoring and review duties
The plan sets an evaluation framework: performance criteria, measurable indicators and a scheduled review no later than five years after endorsement to determine whether the plan is to continue, be varied, or replaced (section 1.3; section 12). The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is to coordinate this review with states and stakeholders (section 12).
In short, the plan maps duties across a complex network of administrative actors, allocates responsibilities for monitoring and adaptive management, and establishes expectations for consent authorities and land managers to avoid or offset habitat damage. The legal rights and formal duties that lead to penalties remain those created by separate statutory instruments; this plan provides the evidence base and administrative direction for those instruments to act on.
Penalties and enforcement
The recovery plan itself does not create new criminal sanctions, civil penalties or enforcement powers. It is framed as a policy and management instrument that guides conservation action and informs statutory decision‑makers rather than as primary legislation. The plan explicitly notes that no Critical Habitat under s 207A of the EPBC Act has been identified or included on the Register of Critical Habitat (section 2.9). That point is material because registration under s 207A would carry statutory consequences under the EPBC Act; the plan does not effect that registration.
Enforcement mechanisms relevant to outcomes in the plan come from other instruments the plan references:
The species is listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act (section 2.1). Accordingly, actions that are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance , which can include listed threatened species and critical habitat depending on context , may trigger EPBC Act referral and assessment requirements. The plan does not itself determine EPBC Act referrals, but it is intended to inform decision‑making under that Act (section 2).
The plan identifies Key Threatening Processes and references existing threat abatement plans prepared under the EPBC Act for species such as the European red fox and feral cats (sections 3.2.8 and 3.2.9). Those abatement plans exist within the statutory regime and contain their own operational and enforcement elements; the recovery plan cross‑references them as relevant management frameworks.
Practical compliance consequences the plan expects
The plan directs that habitat critical to survival "should not be destroyed or modified" and that actions with indirect impacts should be avoided; where removal "cannot be avoided or mitigated, then an offset should be provided" (section 2.9.1). Those are planning expectations that will feed into consent authority requirements under statutory instruments. The plan does not prescribe the offset methodology or enforceable conditions; those are matters for regulatory agencies and approval decisions.
The social and economic section (section 9) anticipates increased costs to proponents: assessment processes, offsets, rehabilitation obligations and threat‑mitigation requirements. Those are enforcement and compliance outcomes to the extent regulators impose them under law.
Enforcement capacity and limits
Because the plan relies on multiple jurisdictions and land tenures, actual enforcement and compliance will vary by site. The plan assigns coordination duties to the Recovery Team and expects agencies to incorporate the plan into policies and management plans (Action 6.3) so enforcement becomes practicable through statutory instruments. But the plan highlights resource constraints: actions are "subject to available resources" and many are to be funded as core business or through additional funds (section 7). Resourcing uncertainty is therefore an implementation risk for enforcement outcomes.
In summary, the plan is an authoritative policy instrument that is intended to shape how statutory decision‑makers exercise their existing enforcement powers under the EPBC Act and state laws, but it does not itself create penalties or direct enforcement mechanisms. Those remain in the statute and regulatory decisions referred to in the plan.
How it interacts with other laws
The plan is explicitly designed to operate alongside and inform existing statutory frameworks rather than supplant them. It repeatedly cross‑references the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and relevant state legislation and instruments (section 2.1; Table 1). The main interaction points are:
Species listing and EPBC decision‑making. The Eastern Bristlebird is listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act (section 2.1). The recovery plan is a policy instrument intended to inform Commonwealth decision‑making (for example, referral and assessment processes) and to underpin international reporting obligations. The plan also notes that the Threatened Species Scientific Committee considered public comments on the draft plan during its assessment process (section 11).
Threat abatement plans and Key Threatening Processes. The plan identifies seven Key Threatening Processes under the EPBC Act that are associated with current threats to the species (section 3.2.2). It specifically references existing threat abatement plans for the European red fox and feral cats (sections 3.2.8 and 3.2.9). Those statutory abatement plans contain separate statutory and implementation trajectories and may be invoked by regulators and land managers in recovery actions.
State statutory instruments and listings. The plan records the species' listing status under state laws (New South Wales Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, Queensland Nature Conservation Regulation 2020, Victoria Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988; section 2.1). It envisages that state planning tools, land‑use zoning, and species protection mechanisms will be the vehicles for implementing many recovery actions and that recovery priorities should be incorporated into state policies, management plans and codes of practice (Action 6.3).
Planning approvals and consent authorities. Section 2.9.1 instructs decision‑makers considering developments in the species' range to use recent survey data, historical records and habitat condition to assess importance, and to avoid destroying critical habitat. If habitat removal cannot be avoided, an offset is required. That direction feeds into the statutory discretion of consent authorities under the EPBC Act and state planning laws, but the plan itself does not define the legal thresholds for approvals. It provides both the evidentiary basis and the performance expectations for statutory assessment.
Defence and Commonwealth land management. The plan recognises Eastern Bristlebird occurrences on Australian Defence land and identifies Department of Defence as a partner (sections 2.4; 12). Management on Commonwealth lands such as Booderee National Park is to be coordinated with Parks Australia and the Department (section 12). Interactions here are with the EPBC Act and Commonwealth land management responsibilities.
Biosecurity and plant disease controls. The plan highlights dieback (Phytophthora cinnamomi) and hygiene measures to prevent spread, connecting recovery actions to biosecurity and plant disease regulation and operational rules used by land managers and agencies (section 3.2.6).
Translocation and captive management. The plan discusses captive breeding, translocation risks, disease management in captivity and release site considerations (sections 3.2.10-3.2.11; Strategy 1). These activities interact with animal welfare law, quarantine rules and species translocation protocols, but the plan itself does not set statutory authorization processes. It does, however, require adherence to appropriate veterinary and sub‑sampling protocols and risk management for disease.
Overall, the plan functions as a cross‑jurisdictional technical statement that informs statutory decision‑making under the EPBC Act and state laws. It sets policy expectations (avoidance of critical habitat destruction; offsets where unavoidable; incorporation of recovery priorities into planning tools) that will be operationalised through existing legal instruments and consent processes. Because implementation depends on incorporation into regulatory frameworks and on intergovernmental collaboration, the plan’s effectiveness depends on agencies putting the plan’s priorities into statutory practice.
Amendment history
The document provided contains its own internal lineage and consultation record rather than a legislative amendment history. Key historical points recorded in the plan are:
Predecessor recovery plan. The current Recovery Plan replaces the National Recovery Plan for the Eastern Bristlebird (OEH 2012) that was adopted under the EPBC Act in 2014 (section 2). The replacement indicates an administrative update and re‑prioritisation rather than a statutory amendment to the EPBC Act itself.
Review and drafting process. The previous plan was reviewed in January 2021 by an expert panel comprising representatives from state environment departments, Parks Australia, BirdLife Australia, universities and others (section 2). That review found the earlier plan provided a strong basis for research and management and summarised recent investments and outcomes.
Public consultation. The plan was placed on public notice for comment for three months between 3 September 2021 and 17 December 2021 (section 11). The plan states that comments relevant to the species’ survival were considered by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee as part of its assessment process.
Scientific and data updates. The plan incorporates updated population estimates, impact assessments from the 2019-2020 wildfires and recent genetic and monitoring studies (sections 2.5, 3.2.5 and elsewhere). For example, it records population estimates for the northern population in 2020 and trends for central and southern populations including post‑fire declines at Nadgee and Barren Grounds/Budderoo (section 2.5).
Costing and scheduling. Cost estimates accompanying the recovery actions were "determined during the consultation public period" (section 7 and Table 3). Those cost tables represent a planning estimate rather than an appropriation or financial instrument and are subject to agency budgeting processes.
Future review. The plan requires review no later than five years from endorsement and publication to evaluate performance, decide whether the plan should continue or be replaced, and reassess listing status against EPBC Act criteria (section 12). The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water is to coordinate that review with state and stakeholder groups.
There is no record in the text of statutory amendments to the EPBC Act tied to this plan, nor of subsequent formal amendments to the plan itself. The plan’s update history is administrative and scientific: replacing the earlier plan, incorporating new data and consultation outcomes, and establishing a timetable for future review. Any formal change to legal status, for example listing of Critical Habitat under s 207A or regulatory amendments arising from the plan, would occur through separate statutory processes and would therefore appear in the legal instruments’ amendment histories rather than in this plan.
Litigation history
The recovery plan text does not record any litigation challenging the plan itself or its implementation. The document records consultation with the Threatened Species Scientific Committee and public submissions, but it contains no references to court decisions or administrative appeals relating to the plan (section 11). The plan also does not cite any judicial interpretations of the EPBC Act or state statutes.
What the plan does record in relation to decision processes is administrative: public consultation, expert review (January 2021 panel), and the role of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee in considering submissions (section 11). Because the plan is an administrative policy instrument, challenges that could arise in practice would typically take the form of judicial review proceedings attacking particular regulatory approvals (for example approvals that allowed habitat clearing) or claims about the adequacy of administrative procedures and environmental assessment. The plan does not recount any such cases.
Users of the plan who are concerned about legal exposure should note that:
The plan is intended to inform statutory decision‑making under the EPBC Act and state laws (sections 2.1 and 2.9.1). Legal challenges in the future are more likely to target specific approval decisions that reference or fail to have regard to the recovery plan rather than the plan text itself.
Threat abatement plans and listings referenced in the recovery plan are statutory instruments under which enforcement can occur; the plan references those items (sections 3.2.8, 3.2.9, 3.2.13).
The plan anticipates that recovery priorities will be incorporated into policies, management plans and planning tools (Action 6.3). If agencies adopt the plan into regulatory instruments inconsistently or without proper procedure, that could generate legal questions tied to administrative law requirements; the plan itself does not document litigation outcomes.
In short, the plan contains no litigation history. It is an administrative instrument that will intersect with statutory processes and therefore has potential to be referenced in future litigation about specific approvals or management decisions, but the plan does not provide case law or litigation records.
Gotchas
This recovery plan contains several practical and legal implementation issues that practitioners and affected stakeholders should note explicitly, and each is grounded in the plan text.
Non‑statutory instrument with statutory implications. The plan is a recovery plan adopted under administrative processes; it does not itself create statutory obligations or penalties (section 2.9). Yet it is intended to inform regulatory decisions under the EPBC Act and state laws (sections 2.1 and 2.9.1). Practitioners should not treat the plan as an alternative source of statutory authority; instead it is an evidentiary and policy input to statutory decision making.
Habitat critical to survival is defined but not registered. The plan treats all suitable habitat occupied before and after the 2019-2020 fires as habitat critical to survival and requires avoidance of destruction, but it also states explicitly that no Critical Habitat under s 207A has been registered (section 2.9). That creates a gap: the plan’s strong protection language has no automatic statutory effect unless decision‑makers incorporate it into statutory instruments or list areas under s 207A.
Distributional uncertainty and detectability. The plan repeatedly emphasises that the Eastern Bristlebird may opportunistically use areas depending on post‑fire habitat suitability and that absence in a given year does not prove a site lacks long‑term importance (section 2.9.1). It therefore requires surveys that "consider detectability" and appropriate timing. For proponents, this raises the risk of delayed approvals or additional survey obligations and of retrospective assessments when new detections occur.
Funding versus expectations. Table 3 and section 7 provide indicative costs and an expectation that actions will be incorporated into "core government business" or funded through additional sources (section 7; Table 3). This creates a material risk: if agencies do not allocate funds as envisioned, actions such as evidence‑based burns, monitoring and invasive species control may be underfunded, reducing plan effectiveness.
Cross‑jurisdictional coordination and responsibility gaps. Responsibilities are dispersed among Commonwealth, state, local and private actors and include Defence and Traditional Owners (sections 6 and 12). The plan’s success depends on intergovernmental cooperation and on agencies converting assigned responsibilities into funded operational plans. Coordination failures or differing priorities between jurisdictions could result in inconsistent fire management, monitoring, or predator control.
Fire management is context dependent and technically demanding. The plan makes clear that appropriate regimes differ by population and site and that inappropriate regimes can be damaging (section 3.2.3). Implementing "evidence‑based ecological burns" and mosaic burning requires skilled planning, on‑the‑ground capability and coordination with life and property protection imperatives. Adverse weather, drought or resource constraints can render planned burns infeasible and increase wildfire risk; the plan recognises those tradeoffs (section 3.2.3.2).
Genetic management and translocation risks. The plan summarises conflicting genetic evidence and counsels caution about mixing populations while also noting that cross‑breeding is unlikely to cause outbreeding depression in some circumstances (section 3.2.5). That means any translocation or genetic rescue efforts require careful case‑by‑case genetic assessment and expert agreement, and the plan does not supply a single prescriptive rule.
Disease risks in captive and wild populations. The plan documents mortality in captive birds from aspergillosis and other infections and recommends prophylactic regimes and housing substrates for captive birds (sections 3.2.10-3.2.11). Translocation and emergency rescue operations therefore carry veterinary and quarantine burdens, and inadequate disease control can produce high mortality during captive transfers.
Offsets are mentioned but methods are not prescribed. The plan says an offset "should be provided" where habitat removal cannot be avoided (section 2.9.1). It does not specify offset calculation methods, timing, or security mechanisms, leaving those to statutory consent authorities. That opens disputes over offset equivalence and timing between proponents and regulators.
Socio‑economic frictions. The plan foresees increased assessment costs for developers and possible companion animal restrictions affecting local communities (section 9). It also signals potential conflicts with tourism and recreational 4WD use. These are areas likely to produce political and stakeholder friction if management measures are imposed without negotiated mitigation.
Monitoring and data accessibility constraints. The plan requires a centralised data repository "within permissibility requirements" (section 5.2), but it does not set out data sharing protocols or privacy rules. Researchers and NGOs may encounter constraints in accessing up‑to‑date datasets, and proponents could face uncertainty over what evidence regulators will accept.
Emergency triggers and escalation rules. Action 6.2 requires incorporation of emergency measures and identification of response trigger points, but until those triggers and protocols are agreed and published, stakeholders may be uncertain how rapid responses , such as large‑scale translocations or immediate predator control , would be authorised and funded.
These "gotchas" are not arguments against the plan; they are implementation risks the plan itself identifies or implies. They highlight where procedural clarity, funding commitments, standardised offset methods, and interjurisdictional governance will determine whether the plan’s technical prescriptions translate into on‑ground protection.
How to comply
The plan establishes practical steps that land managers, proponents, local governments, Traditional Owners and agencies should follow to align their activities with recovery objectives. Compliance in the context of this plan means aligning statutory approvals and management actions with the plan’s expectations and delivering the specified actions where parties are named as responsible. Key compliance steps, grounded in the plan, are:
Pre‑development and survey obligations
When considering development in any part of the species’ range, undertake occupancy surveys that "consider detectability and are undertaken at the appropriate times of year" and factor in historical records and post‑fire habitat changes (section 2.9.1). Ensure survey methodology and timing are defensible and documented in assessment reports.
Avoidance first
Where a site contains habitat identified as critical to survival (as defined in section 2.9), avoid destruction or modification wherever possible. If removal cannot be avoided, be prepared to propose and fund an offset and to demonstrate that no feasible avoidance or mitigation options remained (section 2.9.1).
Engagement and governance
Contact and involve the Eastern Bristlebird Recovery Team once established and relevant state agency contacts (Action 6.1). Recovery coordination is multi‑party; developers and land managers should consult early with the Recovery Team, state agencies and Traditional Owners to align actions with agreed local management plans (Action 6.3).
Fire management practice
Implement fire regimes that are site‑specific and evidence‑based. For planning burns, provide scientific rationale on scale, intensity, frequency and seasonality and demonstrate how planned burns will protect refugia and connectivity. Where appropriate, engage Traditional Owners in ecological burning strategies (Action 3.1; section 3.2.3).
Biosecurity and hygiene
Adopt hygiene measures to prevent spreading Phytophthora cinnamomi and other pathogens when operating in or near habitat (section 3.2.6). For translocations or captive operations, follow the prophylactic and housing guidance the plan records, including veterinary screening to manage aspergillosis risk (sections 3.2.10 and 3.2.11).
Predator and weed management
Where responsible, implement targeted predator control (foxes, cats) consistent with threat abatement plans referred to in the document (sections 3.2.8, 3.2.9) and control invasive weeds identified as affecting particular populations (section 3.2.6). Document monitoring to show effectiveness of controls against the plan’s performance criteria.
Monitoring and reporting
Collect and report data aligned with the plan’s performance criteria and indicators. Contribute monitoring data and metadata to the centralised repository "within permissibility requirements" to support coordinated evaluation (section 1.3 and Action 6.3). Demonstrate how monitoring links to measurable indicators of population viability and habitat condition.
Emergency planning
Identify and incorporate trigger points for emergency response (Action 6.2). Agencies and landholders should agree in advance on governance, funding pathways and operational protocols for emergency interventions such as rapid translocations, captive rescues or intensive predator suppression.
Funding and cost accounting
Prepare budgets consistent with the plan’s indicative costs and seek Commonwealth or state funding where appropriate for Priority 1 actions. Agencies should incorporate recovery actions into core business plans or seek project funding as the plan contemplates (section 7 and Table 3). Proponents may need to budget for additional assessment, mitigation, offsetting and rehabilitation costs (section 9).
Conservation planning integration
Where possible, incorporate the plan’s recovery priorities into local and regional planning instruments, management plans and codes of practice (Action 6.3). Environmental consultants preparing impact statements should reference the Recovery Plan, explain how proposed works avoid critical habitat, and identify how residual impacts will be offset or mitigated consistent with the plan’s expectations.
Checklist for a proponent or land manager preparing an approval or management plan:
Has a detectability‑sensitive survey been completed at the right time of year? (section 2.9.1)
Does the proposal avoid habitat defined as critical to survival? If not, is an offset proposed and justified? (section 2.9.1)
Has fire management been planned to protect refugia, create mosaics, and avoid encircling burns? (section 3.2.3)
Have biosecurity and disease mitigation measures been specified for site works and any translocation? (sections 3.2.6, 3.2.10)
Have Traditional Owners, the Recovery Team and relevant agencies been engaged at an early stage? (Actions 3.1 and 6.1)
Is monitoring designed to meet the plan’s performance criteria and will data be contributed to the central repository? (section 1.3; Action 6.3)
Are funding provisions in place for mitigation, ongoing monitoring and potential emergency responses? (section 7; Action 6.2)
In short, compliance under the Recovery Plan is operational: produce defensible surveys, avoid critical habitat, evidence adherence to recommended fire and biosecurity regimes, contribute to coordinated monitoring, engage the Recovery Team and Traditional Owners, and budget for mitigation and offsets consistent with the plan’s priorities. Because many compliance outcomes will be enforced through EPBC Act and state approval processes, integrating the plan’s requirements into statutory submissions and management plans is the practical route to conforming with both the plan and the legal framework that gives practical effect to its objectives.
The historical distribution of the Eastern Bristlebird has contracted to three geographically separate areas of south-eastern Australia: south-eastern Queensland/ north-eastern NSW (hereafter northern population), central NSW (Illawarra and Jervis Bay region, hereafter central population) and the coastal regions of the southern NSW/eastern Victorian border (hereafter southern population).
The current northern population occurs in habitat characterised by open forest with a dense tussocky grass understorey and sparse mid-storey near rainforest ecotone. Northern populations sometimes occur in other vegetation types such as heathland with stunted shrubs, or swampland with dense ferns and sedge tussocks.
In contrast, habitats occupied by Eastern Bristlebirds in the central and southern populations are characterised by dense, low vegetation including heath and open woodland with a heathy understorey. All habitat occupied by the Eastern Bristlebird before and after the 2019–2020 wildfires is critical to its survival.
Due to the large geographic distribution and distinct habitat requirements between the northern and central/southern populations, they have typically been grouped into two groups by species experts. For the purposes of this recovery plan, central/ southern populations have been grouped together in some sections for consistency with other conservation planning documents (e.g., NESP 2018; Garnett & Baker 2021).
1.2 Recovery Plan vision, objectives,
1.2 Recovery Plan vision, objectives,
and strategies:
1.2.1 Long-term vision 1.2.1 Long-term vision
1.2.1 Long-term vision
Eastern Bristlebird populations are genetically diverse and self-sustaining, and the species is resilient to impacts of climate change. Eastern Bristlebird recovery has been informed by comprehensive knowledge of Eastern Bristlebird ecology and best practice methods for conserving the species and its habitat. Eastern Bristlebird
habitat is protected, and Traditional Owners and the broader community are engaged
in habitat management.
1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strat 1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strategies
1.2.2 Recovery Plan objectives and strategies
Objective 1
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population viability is improved in the northern, central and southern populations, compared to baselines (see section 1.3).Strategy 1: Population enhancement and augmentation.
Objective 2
By 2032, levels of priority threats on the Eastern Bristlebird are reduced, compared to baselines.Strategy 2: Threat management.
Objective 3
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird habitat extent and condition are maintained or improved, compared to baselines.Strategy 3: Habitat protection, enhancement, and augmentation.
Objective 4
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird population assessments are enhanced by addressing data and knowledge gaps and viable Eastern Bristlebird population sizes and trends are determined.Strategy 4: Biology and ecology knowledge enhancement.
Objective 5
By 2032, targeted stakeholder engagement has:• increased collaboration with private landholders to expand or strengthen involvement in Eastern Bristlebird conservation e.g., areas available for surveys, potential release sites, and active habitat management;• increased engagement of Traditional Owners in Eastern Bristlebird recovery decision-making processes; and• extended community/volunteer involvement in Eastern Bristlebird surveys.Strategy 5: Stakeholder engagement and participation.
Objective 6
By 2032, Eastern Bristlebird:• recovery priorities are incorporated within relevant policies, management plans, regulations, codes of practice and planning tools;• recovery actions are implemented and reviewed across tenures and jurisdictions;• recovery planning and implementation is underpinned by an adaptive-management framework; and• data and meta data are available (within permissibility requirements) from a centralised repository.Strategy 6: Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress.
1.3 Criteria for success
1.3 Criteria for success
This Recovery Plan will be deemed successful if, within 10 years of the date of its adoption, the objectives have been achieved. Specific performance criteria are outlined in Section 6.
The evaluation of Recovery Plan objectives and performance criteria rely on measurable indicators. Recovery management processes should identify appropriate indicators and collect baseline data to facilitate measurement of progress
towards objectives.
1.4 Recovery team
1.4 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 Eastern Bristlebird Recovery Team has the responsibility of providing advice, coordinating and directing the implementation of the recovery actions outlined in this Recovery Plan. The membership of the Recovery Team includes individuals from relevant government agencies, non-government organisations, Traditional Owners, industry groups and expertise from independent researchers and community groups.
2. Introduction 2. Introduction
2. Introduction
The Recovery Plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across its range and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the species’ long-term viability in the wild, and the parties that will undertake those actions.
The Recovery Plan replaces the National Recovery Plan for Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus (OEH 2012) that was adopted under the EPBC Act in 2014. The previous Eastern Bristlebird recovery plan was reviewed in January 2021 by an expert panel that included representatives from the New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Queensland Department of Environment and
Science, Victoria Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Parks Australia, BirdLife Australia, the Australian National University, the University of Wollongong and others.
The review noted:
• The National Recovery Plan for Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus had provided a strong basis for research, engagement and policy initiatives since 2012. All Eastern Bristlebird populations continued to be vulnerable to a range of threats, but active management (targeted weed control, feral predator animal control and prescribed burns) had aided the recovery of the species.
• Since the adoption of the plan, the Australian Government, states and territories have invested more than $2,835,000 into the conservation of Eastern Bristlebird, including the restoration of important habitats. Governments, NGOs, university researchers and private groups continued to work collaboratively to identify and manage key bristlebird habitat proactively and reactively. Population-specific studies had provided information on each population’s optimal habitat needs, though the southern population is less well understood than the northern
and central populations. Positively, information on conservation genetics had been gathered for some populations, and robust monitoring programs had established excellent baseline data for most populations, and trend data informed management.
2.1 Conservation status
2.1 Conservation status
The Eastern Bristlebird was listed as a threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) in 2000. The species is also listed under state legislation (Table 2).
TABLE 1: National and state conservation status of the Eastern Bristlebird.
Legislation
Conservation Status
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(Commonwealth)
Endangered
Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales)
Conventionally accepted as Dasyornis brachypterus (Latham 1802).
Based on morphological evidence, Schodde and Mason (1999) proposed the northern population should be recognised as a distinct subspecies. Although the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020 (Charley et al. 2021; Bain et al. 2021) notes the split proposed by Schodde and Mason (1999), separation into subspecies is not supported by one analysis of genetic data (Roberts et al. 2011) and the species is not listed at the subspecies level under state or Commonwealth legislation.
2.3 Species description
2.3 Species description
The Eastern Bristlebird is a small, well-camouflaged, ground-dwelling bird. It is dark cinnamon-brown above, with pale colouring around the eyes and base of the bill, an off-white chin and throat, and a rufous-brown panel on each wing (Higgins & Peter 2002). It is greyish-brown below, with an off-white centre to the belly. It has red to red-brown irises, an off-white to pinkish-white gape, and pinkish-brown legs and feet (Higgins & Peter 2002).
Body length is between 18 and 21 centimetres with the broad tail accounting for about half the bird’s length (Higgins & Peter 2002). Adults weigh approximately 42 g (range 35 to 50 g) (Baker 1998; Bramwell 1990; Higgins & Peter 2002). The wings are small (23 to 24 cm wingspan), and the legs are long and strong. The sexes are alike, but females are slightly smaller than males (Bain 2007). Juveniles are similar to the adults, but can be identified, if viewed at close range, by their pale brown or brown irises, and pale yellow gape (Higgins & Peter 2002).
The species spends most of its time in low, dense vegetation, rarely appearing in the open or flying (Higgins & Peter 2002). Due to its small wings the Eastern Bristlebird flies weakly, but sturdy feet and legs help it move through dense habitat. While its plumage provides excellent camouflage, other adaptations to its habitat include a low forehead profile with bristles near the eyes. The rictal bristles which project from the beak are modified contour feathers that are thought to play a part in prey
capture. The bristles may also provide protection for the bird’s eyes as it consumes its struggling prey (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2013). Another theory is that the bristles may function as sensors, providing tactile feedback, like the whiskers on a dog or cat to facilitate obstacle avoidance (Lederer 1972).
2.4 Species distribution
2.4 Species distribution
The Eastern Bristlebird is endemic to Australia and is currently distributed as three populations across three geographically separate areas of south-eastern Australia (Map 1):
• Northern population: Main Range NP (Qld), Lamington NP (Qld), Mt Barney NP (Qld), Border Ranges NP (NSW), private land.
This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.