This Threat Abatement Plan (the plan) sets out a national, non‑statutory framework for managing the impacts of four exotic rodent species on Australian offshore islands under 100 000 hectares: ship (black) rats (Rattus rattus), Norway (brown) rats (R. norvegicus), Pacific rats (R. exulans), and house mice (Mus musculus) (Summary 1.1; Background 2.2). The plan was prepared after the Australian Government listed exotic rodents on islands as a key threatening process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) in 2006 and is accompanied by a 2008 Background Document (Summary 1.1; References).

Mechanically, the plan does the following (see especially Pt 3, Actions 3.1-3.4):

Defines a three‑part operational goal and objectives: (1) eradicate exotic rodents from high‑priority islands; (2) mitigate impacts through sustained control where eradication is not feasible; and (3) prevent invasion of rodent‑free islands (3.1-3.2).
Prescribes an ordered suite of actions grouped by purpose: information and prioritisation (3.3.1), eradication planning and delivery (3.3.2), sustained control best practice (3.3.3), invasion prevention and contingency planning (3.3.4), outreach and stakeholder engagement (3.3.5), and research priorities (3.4).
Establishes priorities and indicative timeframes for actions (very high, high, medium; short/medium/long/ongoing) and attaches performance indicators to key actions (3.3.1-3.3.5).
Assigns facilitation and convening responsibility to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, including targeted investment through programs such as Caring for our Country and coordination via committees such as the Environmental Biosecurity Committee (4.1).
Includes implementation mechanics: state/territory databases and surveys (Action 1.1-1.2), feasibility templates and expert networks (1.3-1.5), priority eradication projects (2.1), bait registration processes (2.2), training and capacity building (2.3; 3.3.3), and contingency/quarantine measures for rodent‑free islands (4.1; 3.3.4).

meta-content-style-type: text/css meta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8 meta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2 title: _

?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>

View image in the official source

THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN

to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares

2009

Contents

1 Summary

2 Background

2.1 Threat abatement plans

2.2 Exotic rodents on Australian islands

2.3 Impacts on biodiversity

2.4 Managing the threat

3.3.1 Actions to set priorities and plan strategic options

3.3.2 Actions to achieve eradication

3.3.3 Actions to achieve sustained control

3.3.4 Actions to prevent invasion or reinvasion

3.3.5 Actions to achieve outreach and public education

3.4 Research and information needs

4 Implementation

4.1 Implementing the plan

4.2 Duration and cost

4.3 Evaluating progress

5 References

Appendix A Threatened species affected by exotic rodents on islands

1 Summary

1.1 Rationale for a threat abatement plan

Human dispersal and colonisation over the last few millennia has spread four species of Eurasian rodents to many of the world’s islands. These rodents are: ship, or black, rats (Rattus rattus); Norway, or brown, rats (R. norvegicus); Pacific rats (R. exulans); and house mice (Mus musculus). Together with other exotic pests, they are a major threat to native biodiversity on islands. Australian islands have been no exception, especially since European colonisation. Exotic rodents, particularly ship rats and perhaps mice, have been a key (and often the critical) cause of extinction, extirpation (local population loss) and decline of many native species, adverse changes to island ecosystems, as well as economic damage to island peoples’ livelihoods and potentially to their health. The presence of rodents on islands also precludes many positive options to restore island values, and their presence on mainland Australia and elsewhere presents an ongoing risk to biodiversity. For Australian islands not currently invaded there is also a high risk.

Managing the threat from exotic rodents to island biodiversity therefore requires in situ management, by eradication or sustained control on invaded islands, reduction of the risk that rodent-free islands will be invaded, and/or timely reaction to invasions when quarantine is breached.

In 2006 the Australian Government listed exotic rodents on islands as a key threatening process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and initiated the development of a threat abatement plan (hereafter the plan) for rats and mice on islands less than 100 000 ha in area. This plan and its background document (Commonwealth of Australia 2008) provide a national framework to guide and coordinate Australia’s management of exotic rodents on islands to remove, mitigate and prevent their impacts on native species (Appendix A) and ecological communities.

1.2 Objectives of the plan

The plan contains three objectives, and a series of actions that will be required to achieve them. Knowledge gaps and other constraints and uncertainties and the need for stakeholder commitment and capacity building are identified in each strategic objective. The objectives are to:

eradicate exotic rodents from high-priority islands
mitigate the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity values on high-priority islands where they cannot be eradicated, and
prevent the invasion of islands currently free of exotic rodents.

1.3 Actions under the Threat Abatement Plan

The threat to biodiversity from exotic rodents on islands is clear but manageable. Generic actions and those required to achieve the objectives are noted in this plan. Each action is prioritised and presented with an assessment of the current ‘state of play’ and with ways to measure progress.

1.4 Outcomes of the actions

As the plan objectives are achieved the condition and trend of native species and communities on islands currently with exotic rodents will improve, and those on islands without rodents will not decline due to rodent impacts. Removal of exotic rodents will also open options for both natural recolonisation and active restoration of island ecosystems. Economic damage to residents’ resources, the nuisance and unwanted effects, and potential risks to health caused by exotic rodents will be removed or abated.

In addition to these main outcomes, science-based and traditional knowledge (both indigenous and that of current island residents) will be used, where available, to inform feasibility and operational planning. This knowledge will be improved as the results of management are monitored, e.g. by adaptive management or learn-by-doing approaches, leading to better-informed decisions and actions in the future. Implementation of the plan will also increase community awareness and engagement, and coordination across all tiers of government. This will result in Australians being better informed about the threat from exotic rodents and better motivated to continue the implementation.

2 Background

2.1 Threat abatement plans

The Australian Government develops threat abatement plans and facilitates their implementation under the EPBC Act. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has a role to assess the potential for and promotion of the partnerships between government agencies and other stakeholders that are required to conduct the actions identified in the plans.

A threat abatement plan for exotic rodents on islands can be more focused than plans for other invasive species because the sites for action are clearly identified, the control tools are available, the impacts of the rodents are mostly on biodiversity rather than on production values, and in many cases the pest can be eradicated. Nevertheless, each island has unique circumstances, not the least being the presence of people on many candidate islands. Therefore, like other plans, this plan also advocates the social and economic aspects of management.

Australia has seven islands, all with exotic rodents, larger than 100 000 ha, the upper cut-off size for this plan. However, eradication on islands this size is currently impractical so, although they are excluded from this plan, that should not preclude sustained control at priority sites on these larger islands if that strategy is justified by local needs.

2.2 Exotic rodents on Australian islands

The four exotic rodent species in this threat abatement plan have variously invaded over 80% of the world’s major island archipelagos, and have been responsible for many of the extinctions and ecosystem changes that have occurred on these important fragments and refuges for biodiversity. Exotic rodents continue to invade islands, but since the 1980s, when techniques to eradicate them were developed in New Zealand, the rate at which they have been eradicated has exceeded the rate of invasion of new islands. To date, invasive rodents have been eradicated from 350 islands in 21 countries around the world.

Australia has over 8300 islands under 100 000 ha, of which at least 133 are now known to have one or more species of exotic rodents. House mice, ship rats and the two together are by far the most common rodents on Australian islands. Exotic rodents have been eradicated from 39 islands, almost all from Western Australia.

About 31% of these 133 islands are connected to or are within easy swimming distance (for a ship rat) of the mainland. Thus, eradication will be difficult on this subset of islands unless backed by effective ‘border’ control and quarantine measures.

About 57% of the islands are entirely or substantially managed under various reserved tenures, about 34% are privately owned or leased, and about 9% are owned by indigenous people. Many islands that are important for biodiversity have permanent residents. Thus governments, private citizens and indigenous groups have generic and island-specific interests in this plan. Islands themselves are often iconic sites and many harbour iconic species, so wider stakeholders include groups with a conservation focus, to private companies promoting ecotourism, as well as the wider Australian public – and for some islands the international community.

2.3 Impacts on biodiversity

The contribution of islands to Australia’s biodiversity assets is out of proportion to their area. This is due to continental islands often representing less-disturbed examples of mainland ecosystems and offering refuges for species threatened on the mainland. In addition, oceanic islands have high degrees of endemism and are thus unique evolutionary units in their own right. Both types of islands are key places for breeding marine birds, turtles and seals.

Seven lines of evidence prove that exotic rodents have and continue to adversely affect native biodiversity on Australian islands, prevent some restoration options and are a potential threat to island ecosystems currently free of exotic rodents. Exotic rodents:

eat native species and compete for food
carry diseases that may affect native animals
drive some species endemic to the island to extinction
extirpate some species from particular islands
continue to threaten native species on many islands
change ecosystems by more complex indirect effects by causing changes in species that ‘engineer’ the ecosystem – such as seabirds
act as the primary prey for other exotic predators such as feral cats or foxes, which then threaten native species.

Of the two common rodents on Australian islands, ship rats are the most obvious threat judging by their known impacts to biodiversity on both Australian and other islands. For example, five birds endemic to Lord Howe Island had survived decades with mice but became extinct after the rats arrived in 1918. The effect of mice has been more subtle as they have not had such catastrophic effects on avian species. However, recent evidence from Gough Island (a British island in the Atlantic Ocean) shows that under some circumstances mice can kill large naïve prey such as albatross chicks. Mice are efficient predators of invertebrates (particularly spiders) but their impacts on these prey species at population levels remains unknown.

Exotic rodents are also social and economic pest on islands inhabited by people. For example, the palm seed horticultural industry on Lord Howe Island would benefit by over $5 million over 30 years if ship rats could be eradicated.

2.4 Managing the threat

The options to manage exotic rodents on Australian islands are to eradicate them, to reduce them to some lower density over all or part of the island by sustained control, or to do nothing when neither of the above is possible or when there is no need. Unlike some threats to biodiversity in Australia, the threat from exotic rodents on islands can in large part be removed at a realistic cost to provide clear and permanent benefits.

Managing invasion pathways and new incursions is also required for the islands undergoing eradication or control programs, as well as for islands without exotic rodents. The optimal way to reduce invasion risks – by pre-border, on-ship, or post-border actions – will depend very much on the particular risks, costs and consequences for each island.

The tools to achieve eradication are well-tested elsewhere in the world and in Western Australia. The tools to achieve sustained control are available but their optimal application needs to be refined for each case. The tools to limit, detect and manage invasions include the need for new policies to encourage or enforce quarantine practices and better methods to detect and intercept invasive rodents.

Australian agencies have eradicated exotic rodents from 39 islands and are currently planning to do so from four more: Macquarie, Lord Howe, Montague and Mutton Bird islands.

3 Threat abatement

3.1 Goal

The goal of this Threat Abatement Plan is to eliminate, or reduce to an acceptable level, the current and potential impacts of exotic rodents on offshore Australian islands, in order to maximise the chances of the long-term survival in nature of affected native species and ecological communities.

Successful eradication of exotic rodents on islands will also open opportunities for the natural return of some extirpated native species such as seabirds, for active restoration programs, or for the possibility of using some islands as biodiversity arks for species threatened on the mainland.

3.2 Objectives

The plan has three objectives, each of which requires different emphases for supporting information, research and stakeholder involvement and thus for actions.

The objectives are to:

eradicate exotic rodents from high-priority islands
mitigate the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity values on high-priority islands where they cannot be eradicated, and
prevent the invasion of islands currently free of exotic rodents.

3.3 Actions

The following actions are proposed under the plan. They are in part sequential although different jurisdictions will be at different points along the process, and so the judgement about their relative priorities may vary between jurisdictions.

The first set of actions aims to provide better information on the conservation status of islands as these are affected by exotic rodents. The next two sets of actions prescribe alternative strategies (eradication or sustained control) that can be used to manage islands with exotic rodents. The fourth set of actions prescribes how to stop the problem getting worse and how to defend islands from which exotic rodents have been eradicated. The next set of actions introduces the social and cultural needs of islanders and other stakeholders to ensure they support actions to control rodents, benefit from them, and participate in ongoing management such as quarantine and surveillance. Finally, the actions identify the priority needs for research and information.

Priorities are ranked very high, high or medium within each set of actions and indicate when each should start. The timeframes give an initial indication on how long each action might take to achieve. Generally, a short timeframe indicates a 1 – 3 year action, a medium timeframe up to 5 years, a long timeframe indicates an ongoing effort but with a definite end point, and an ongoing timeframe has no endpoint but requires investment in perpetuity. Clearly decisions around the priority score and timeframe are interactive, the sets of actions are interdependent, and the final sequence, duration and length of actions will depend on budgets.

3.3.1 Actions to set priorities and plan strategic options

This group of actions covers the preliminary information needs and actions required to establish a basis for implementing the plan. The key questions the actions aim to answer are:

Which islands, whose rodent status is unknown, might be of concern if they were present? These islands should be surveyed and brought into the following selection process should they be discovered to have exotic rodents.

Which islands known to have exotic rodents are candidates for the preferred option of eradication and which, by implication, would require sustained control?

Which islands that are candidates for eradication should be treated first, and where should sustained control be started?

Therefore, two parallel processes need to be followed to answer these questions. The first process (actions 1.1 and 1.2) is a prioritisation system to select islands for survey where information is lacking, or to confirm information on islands where the status (presence or species) of exotic rodents is unclear.

The second process aims to identify whether eradication is feasible on each island and then prioritise those islands for action (actions 1.3 to 1.5). Past success on similar islands and species or analyses of the island-specific rules and constraints can be used to judge this. For these islands a second prioritisation process is required. Generally, precedence should be given to those where there is a clear current threat to native species or communities and where substantial benefits to the island’s biodiversity would be expected if the rodents were eradicated. This rule tends to favour remote islands because of the vulnerability of their biota and their higher levels of endemism. However, cases can be made for eradication on in-shore islands by some jurisdictions either to act as arks for mainland biota or as demonstration or capacity-building sites.

1 - Actions to set priorities and plan strategic options	Priority and timeframe
1.1 Complete state/territory databases	High priority, completed in 2008
1.2 Survey high-priority islands (see Background Document for options to rank islands) with no current information on exotic rodents for the presence/absence of rodents	Medium priority, timeframe depends on State needs
1.3 Formulate and circulate best-practice rules and examples to determine whether eradication is feasible	High priority, short term
1.4 Identify islands known to have exotic rodents where eradication is feasible, and by implication, where sustained control is the only option	Very high priority, short term
1.5 Develop a network of Australian and overseas technical experts	Medium priority, medium term

Current state of actions

The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has contracted the collation of data on the presence of vertebrate species (including exotic rodents) on Australian islands. However, significant uncertainties remain in the databases. Rodents may be present on some islands despite surveys but not found, or found but not noted in the literature. Rodents are known to be present on some islands but the species remains unclear. Many islands, some with high biodiversity values, have not been surveyed for exotic rodents.

Setting national or regional priorities would be improved with more complete information on the presence/absence of particular exotic rodent species; and feasibility or operational planning for any island would require information on both the exotic rodents and non-target species.

Action 1.4 might be completed at a national level using current data (e.g. see Table 2.3 in the Background document). The outcomes of this would give state and territory agencies a clear guide in their process to prioritise and set timetables for eradication or sustained control among the islands in their jurisdictions (see actions under 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 below).

Performance indicators

The current island databases are updated periodically, and any islands with high-priority conservation values such as threatened species or unique communities, but with uncertain rodent status, are checked.
Templates of best practice feasibility studies and operational plans on rodent eradication are circulated to key state and territory agencies and used to develop capacity and the network of experts.
A national list of the highest priority islands for eradication is developed.

3.3.2 Actions to achieve eradication

This group of actions flows from state and territory commitment to use the national list produced in action 1.4 to progress eradication as an option to manage exotic rodents on islands in each jurisdiction.

The direction of the recommended action to start the planning process for islands other than the four noted below will depend on success on the two large islands (Macquarie and Lord Howe). If rodents are eradicated from these two islands then other remote, large islands with significant biodiversity values at risk (e.g. Norfolk, Christmas, the Cocos group) might be considered. If the rodents are not eradicated from Macquarie or Lord Howe then further research to identify the causes of failure and its solution would be required before attempting other large islands. The initial priorities might switch to achieving success on smaller islands, perhaps with a single species of exotic rodents as the priority. Whenever possible in undertaking research on, or control of, exotic rodents on islands the disease status of the species (and, where appropriate, co-occurring native mammals) should be assessed. Such assessment will help refine the evaluation of risks and the prioritisation of control for island occurrences of exotic rodents.

The final actions in this section are to ensure the benefits of successful eradication of exotic rodents are measured, known to stakeholders and celebrated, successes are defended against re-invasion by rodents (expanded in section 3.4.4), and removal of exotic rodents is seen as an opportunity to manage other threats present on the island. The benefits of removing rodents will be island-specific. These might extend from the re-categorisation of a listed threatened species to a safer category to the contingent opportunities to return extirpated species to the island.

2 - Actions to achieve eradication	Priority and timeframe
2.1 Eradicate rodents from Lord Howe, Macquarie, Montague and Mutton Bird islands	Very high priority, short to medium term
2.2 Consider Australian registration for an aerial bait with anticoagulant for use on island eradications	Medium priority, medium term
2.3. Enhance skills to plan and conduct eradication operations in Australia	High priority, ongoing
2.4 Eradicate exotic rodents on other islands where high-priority conservation benefits will accrue	High priority, long term
2.5 Measure benefits of eradication	High priority, ongoing as projects are conducted
2.6 Eradicate or control other pests on islands from which rodents are to be eradicated	High priority, ongoing as projects are conducted

Current state of actions

Effective baiting protocols are available and the planning and operational skills can be acquired or developed. Therefore, the current plans to eradicate exotic rodents from two large islands (Macquarie and Lord Howe), and two small islands (Mutton Bird and Montague, in NSW) will act as new examples for others to follow. Success in eradicating rodents from the large islands would lead the world and give confidence that other large Australian islands could be attempted with a high likelihood of success.

The use of brodifacoum baits sown from the air is now permitted in Australia under ‘minor use’ permits. Bait manufacturers intend to use the data collected from Macquarie Island to consider the costs and benefits of registering the bait under the Agriculture and Veterinary Code Regulations 1995.

An outcome of these projects will be to strengthen and widen (past the current expertise in Western Australia) the capacity of Australian agencies to plan, conduct and monitor the eradication of exotic rodents. Developing institutional capacity is important as the program of management of exotic rodents on islands is likely to exceed the working life of those staff currently involved.

Performance indicators

Exotic rodents eradicated from Macquarie, Lord Howe, Mutton Bird and Montague islands, or causes of failure identified.
A bait with an anticoagulant toxin is registered for use for eradication of exotic rodents on islands.
The first tranche of islands identified as high priority for eradication are introduced into state and territory planning processes.
All eradication plans identify and monitor pre- and post-eradication indicator native species expected to benefit from eradication of exotic rodents, and indicator native species that may be at risk from the control methods.
All eradication plans consider the costs, benefits and risks of including other invasive species present on the island within the planning process.

3.3.3 Actions to achieve sustained control

Sustained control is second best after eradication, but is required to protect biodiversity values on islands where eradication is not feasible or as a holding strategy to protect critically threatened species until an eradication campaign can be mounted. The time frame is either ‘ongoing’ or ‘until eradication is proposed and achieved’ for each island under this objective.

The key actions required are first to identify what control tools are available for use on Australian islands and to develop best practice for their application for sustained control. Second, there is a need to enhance the capacity of island residents and agencies to deliver sustained control and to monitor outcomes so that actions can be adapted as required.

3 – Actions to achieve sustained control	Priority and timeframe
3.1 Review rodent control tools registered for use in Australia	Medium priority, short term
3.2 Promote trials to develop and test best-practice sequential use of rodent control tools on islands	High priority, medium term
3.3 Train island residents or rangers as primary deliverers of sustained control on their islands	High priority, ongoing

Current state of actions

Rodents are controlled as commensal and agricultural pests and for biodiversity protection on populated islands such as Lord Howe and Norfolk. However, the islanders and island managers who conduct these operations usually do not use current best practice.

Performance indicators

A users’ manual is produced to identify the technical options and their best use for purpose to sustain control of exotic rodents on islands.

3.3.4 Actions to prevent invasion or reinvasion

There is a need to apply appropriate management to reduce the risks of invasion or reinvasion of islands by exotic rodents and to detect and deal with any failures of this management. The problem is that in the absence of data on these risks, costs and consequences it is unclear how to intervene in an optimal way.

The actions in this objective aim to develop appropriate procedures that can be applied and monitored in ways to clarify best-practice border management and responses to incursions on islands with different risk and consequence profiles.

4 – Actions to prevent invasion or re-invasion	Priority and timeframe
4.1 Develop generic contingency plans for reaction to any new rodent invasions	High priority, short term
4.2 Apply quarantine systems on rodent-free islands and where eradication is achieved	High priority, ongoing
4.3 Develop island-specific contingency capabilities for islands at high risk of invasion	High priority, short term
4.4 Reduce risk of rodents gaining access to key vessels at key ports	Medium priority, medium term
4.5 Identify and reduce the frequency of rodent infestation on key Australian vessels, i.e. those regularly berthing on priority islands	Medium priority, medium term
4.6 Survey rodent species and prevalence on foreign boats that present risks to Australian islands	Medium priority, short term
4.7 Develop and test on-island prophylactic (e.g. permanent bait stations at high-risk sites) and reactive (e.g. surveillance and prompt control after any detection of rodents) strategies to detect and deal with incursions	High priority, short term and ongoing
4.8 Develop fast response capabilities to react to shipwrecks on priority islands	High priority, short term
4.9 Actively involve island residents and ship owners in the management of incursion risks	High priority, long term

Current state of actions

There are overseas and Australian models for these border management actions, but all are work in progress. For example, Lord Howe and Christmas islands have quarantine strategies that include rodents (which would become critical if the extant rodents were eradicated).

The managers of Barrow Island (free of exotic rodents) are developing a formal detection and search protocol for invasive species to reduce risks and improve responses as a consequence of the planned influx of shipping and aircraft to service the new oil and gas facilities being established on the island.

The use of genetic tools to identify individual animals, their parentage, discrete populations, as well as the more usual use as a mark-recapture method to assess population size allows managers to quantify some aspects of invasion risk to direct and optimise management options.

Performance indicators

Contingency quarantine and response plans for all islands are in place as part of feasibility studies or quarantine plans for high priority rodent-free islands.
Infestation rates on key Australian and foreign vessels are measured.

3.3.5 Actions to achieve outreach and public education

These actions aim to ensure the plan’s actions and outcomes are understood and actively supported by island residents, traditional owners and other interested parties. This support is important during feasibility planning for eradication to address potential concerns about the risks involved with control methods such as aerial poisoning, which by its nature is conducted by agencies or contractors. However, it is even more important to involve island residents and other parties in the ongoing management of reinvasion risks, quarantine and sustained control, which by its nature requires the active participation of the wider public.

5 – Actions to achieve outreach and public education	Priority and timeframe
5.1 Promote stakeholder input and involvement as the Threat Abatement Plan is implemented	High priority, short term
5.2 Actively consult with traditional owners of islands	High priority, short term and ongoing
5.3 Promote the conservation benefits of successful eradications to the wider Australian public	Medium priority, medium term
5.4 Identify boat owners who visit key islands, and develop an education package to ensure their vessels are free of rodents	High priority, long term

Current state of actions

Stakeholder interest in this plan is high for some conservation groups and from the residents of some islands. However, there has been no formal consultation with traditional owner organisations or boat owners about the Threat Abatement Plan. The lack of input from traditional owners will have to be remedied particularly at the level of detailed consultation with the actual owners of any islands intended for actions.

Performance indicators

The Plan is widely accepted as an action resource by stakeholders
The Plan will be used as the basis for ongoing consultation with appropriate representatives of traditional owner groups, and direct consultations with particular traditional owners of islands mooted for actions
A resource kit ‘keeping your boat free of rodents’ for boat owners is developed and made available.

3.4 Research and information needs

Research on the management of exotic rodents on islands is being conducted in many countries and Australian researchers and managers need to access these results. However, within Australia five key gaps are identified:

The possibility that the presence of ship rats reduces the chance to eradicate mice needs to be tested and the causes identified. This is not just an Australian problem so researchers need to liaise with overseas colleagues to develop dual-species or one-at-a-time strategies for managing mice in the presence of ship rats.
Best-practice use of toxic baits (and other control methods) and adequate monitoring protocols for sustained control options need to be formulated and tested.
The humaneness of control methods remains an issue and ongoing research is required to improve the animal welfare costs of rodent control.
Information on the risks of invasion by exotic rodents on islands of different types needs to be gathered to develop a risk profile for key islands. Best-practice surveillance and intervention (by prophylactic measures such as permanent bait station around wharfs, or reactive measures such as surveillance and prompt response to a detection) need to be developed, applied where appropriate, and tested over the long term.
The consequence of exotic (or native) predators switching to native prey from exotic rodents as primary prey may be an issue on islands. The precautionary approach is to remove exotic predators at the same time as the exotic rodents, but if this is not possible predicting and testing the consequences is desirable before rodents are removed.

6 – Actions for research and information needs	Priority and timeframe
6.1 Determine why mice appear to be more difficult to eradicate in the presence of rats	Very high priority, short term
6.2 Develop best-practice guidelines for sustained control of rodents on islands	High priority, short term
6.3 Improve the humaneness of eradication tools	High priority, long term
6.4 Develop and test risk-based methods to detect and manage incursions by rodents	High priority, short term
6.5 Predict and test the consequences of prey switching	Medium priority, medium term

Current state of actions

All of these research actions are being addressed either in Australia or elsewhere. The issue of sympatric mice and ship rats is a particular problem on Australian islands.

Performance indicators

Australian research on the mouse-rat issue is developed and integrated with research being conducted in New Zealand and the USA.

4 Implementation

4.1 Implementing the plan

The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts will work with other Australian Government departments, appropriate state/territory government representatives, and other individuals or groups with expertise, to facilitate the implementation of this plan. The Department will support the implementation of the Plan through targetted investment from programs such as Caring for our Country and appropriate management through committees such as the Environmental Biosecurity Committee.

Many islands with rodents, including some potentially high priority ones such as Lord Howe, Norfolk and Christmas islands, are also inhabited by people. Involving these primary stakeholders is essential across all objectives, but for the eradication objective the particular need is at the planning level of decision making. The participation and support of island residents, where present, is a key factor in any eradication feasibility plan and their approval and support is more readily given if they are involved throughout the planning phases. The level of residents’ involvement in the actual eradication operation (rather than the planning) depends on how the control is done. For example, large-scale aerial baiting requires technical skills beyond those available to island residents, and often beyond those within government agencies. Elsewhere in the world these skills are usually contracted to experts.

In contrast, ongoing actions under the sustained control and quarantine objectives will require active involvement of island residents or permanent ranger staff of governments in both planning and delivery of the control.

Indigenous people have an interest in many islands and own and live on many. Thus they are key stakeholders both during planning and as actions are developed on each island.

4.2 Duration and cost

This plan provides a framework that will guide stakeholders in determining and undertaking targeted priority actions. The level of investment in many of the actions will be determined by the level of resources that stakeholders commit to management of the problems caused by exotic rodents on islands, and therefore the cost of implementing the plan cannot be quantified at this time. There may be budgetary or other constraints on achieving the objectives set out in this plan, and as knowledge changes the actions proposed in the plan may be modified over the life of the plan.

The plan has both finite (eradication of exotic rodents) and ongoing (sustained control and quarantine) objectives. The costs for eradication can be estimated for each island where this strategy is possible and then funds allocated as different islands are proposed, with deadlines identified by jurisdictions according to their respective capacities and priorities. Annual costs for the eradication actions will vary depending on the size and location of islands from millions of dollars for large remote islands to a few thousands of dollars on small accessible islands – and the budgets of funding agencies will need flexibility to meet such circumstances.

Costs for sustained control and ongoing routine quarantine would need to be maintained within base-line budgets, although perhaps at a declining level as eradications succeed and efficiencies improve.

Tasmania and New South Wales have committed to two large eradication projects (Macquarie and Lord Howe islands respectively) and other jurisdictions might begin or recommence by selecting smaller islands where benefits would be clear and on which to develop planning and operational expertise. This proportion of the costs should fall as success removes islands from the list.

Traditionally, most funding for island eradications has come directly from relevant government agencies. However, increasingly around the world funding is being made available for one-off projects, such as eradication, from non-government and private donors and from industries paying to mitigate adverse effects of their actions. Eradication of rats to increase nesting success of seabirds has been funded from levies on commercial fisheries responsible for deaths of the adult birds, and industrial users of islands have offered to remit some of the conservation loss they cause by funding conservation projects.

4.3 Evaluating progress

Under the EPBC Act (s.279 [2]) a threat abatement plan must be reviewed by the Minister at intervals of not longer that five years.

The number of islands where exotic rodents are eradicated or effectively controlled and the trend in islands invaded will form short- and long-term proximal measures of the success of the plan. However, the real benefit of the plan will be measured by monitoring and evaluating improvements in the biodiversity condition of the islands, including improved conservation status for key island endemic species.

5 References

Commonwealth of Australia (2009). Background document for the threat abatement plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 ha. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

Garnett ST and Crowley GM (2000). The action plan for Australian birds. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Appendix A Threatened species listed under the EPBC Act or in state/territory legislation (as noted in the tables) that are affected or potentially affected by exotic rodents on islands under 100 000 ha

Table A1. Listed Australian species that are reported to be threatened by exotic rodents.

Species	Island	Only found or nests on the island(s)	Status
Christmas Island Pipistrelle (Bat) (Pipistrellus murrayi)	Christmas	Yes	Critically endangered
Lord Howe flax snail (Placostylus bivaricosus)	Lord Howe	Yes	Endangered
Christmas Island thrush (Turdus poliocephalus erythropleurus)	Christmas	Yes	Endangered
Norfolk Island Green parrot (Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae cookii)	Norfolk	Yes	Endangered
Christmas Island Shrew (Crocidura attenuata trichura)	Christmas	Yes	Endangered
Emerald dove (Chalcophaps indica natalis)	Christmas	Yes	Endangered
Cockroach (Panesthia lata)	Lord Howe	Yes	Endangered (NSW)
Lord Howe Island Gecko (Christinus guentheri)	Lord Howe, Norfolk	Yes	Vulnerable
Lord Howe Island Skink (Oligosoma lichenigera)	Lord Howe	Yes	Vulnerable
Christmas Island Gecko (Lepidodactylus listeri)	Christmas	Yes	Vulnerable
Blind snake (Typhlops exocoeti)	Christmas	Yes	Vulnerable
Golden whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis xanthoprocta)	Norfolk	Yes	Vulnerable
Scarlet robin (Petroica m. multicolor)	Norfolk	Yes	Vulnerable
Southern fairy prion (Pachyptila turtur subantactica)	Macquarie	No	Vulnerable
Grey ternlet (Procelsterna cerulean)	Lord Howe	No	Vulnerable (NSW)
Little shearwater (Puffinus assimilis)	Lord Howe	No	Vulnerable (NSW)
Masked booby (Sula dactylatra)	Lord Howe	No	Vulnerable (NSW)
Providence petrel (Pterodroma solandri)	Lord Howe, Phillip	Yes	Vulnerable (NSW)
Sooty tern (Sterna fuscata)	Lord Howe, Norfolk	No	Vulnerable (NSW)
Black-winged petrel (Pterodroma nigripennis)	Lord Howe	No	Vulnerable (NSW)
White-headed petrel (Pterodroma lessonii)	Macquarie	No	Vulnerable (Tas)
Wilson’s storm petrel (Oceanites o. oceanicus)	Macquarie	No	Vulnerable (Tas)

Table A2. Listed Australian endemic and native species that are not specifically reported to be threatened by exotic rodents present on the island but may benefit indirectly from their removal

Species	Island	Only found or nests on the island(s)	Status
Christmas Island Goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus natalis)	Christmas	Yes	Endangered
Norfolk Island Boobook (Ninox novaeseelandiae undulata)	Norfolk	Yes	Endangered
Southern giant petrel (Macronectes giganteus)	Macquarie	No	Endangered
Northern giant petrel (Macronectes halli)	Macquarie	No	Vulnerable
Lord Howe Woodhen (Gallirallus sylvestris)	Lord Howe	Yes	Vulnerable
Lord Howe Island Currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis)	Lord Howe	Yes	Vulnerable
Christmas Island Frigate bird (Fregata andrewsi)	Christmas	No	Vulnerable
Christmas Island Hawk owl (Ninox natalis)	Christmas	Yes	Vulnerable
Black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris)	Macquarie	No	Vulnerable
Grey-headed albatross (Thalassarche chrysostoma)	Macquarie	No	Vulnerable
Wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans)	Macquarie	No	Vulnerable
Light-mantled albatross (Phoebetria palpebrata)	Macquarie	No	Vulnerable

Table A3. Listed Australian species that occur on rodent-free islands but that are likely to be threatened (to various extents) if exotic rodents invade and establish

Species	Island	Only found or nests on the island(s)	Status
Phasmid (Dryococelus australis)	Islets off Lord Howe	Yes	Critically endangered
Round Island petrel (Pterodroma arminjoniata)	N. Keeling	No	Critically endangered
Herald petrel (Pterodroma heraldica)	Raine (Coral Sea)	No	Critically endangered
Buff-banded rail (Gallirallus philippensis andrewsi)	North Keeling	Yes	Endangered
Gould’s petrel (Pterodroma l. leucoptera)	Cabbage Tree	Yes	Endangered
Antarctic tern (Sterna vittata vittata/ bethunei)	Heard, Stacks off Macquarie	No	Endangered
Bramble Cay melomys (Melomys rubicola)	Bramble Cay	Yes	Endangered
Western barred bandicoot (Perameles b. bougainville)	Bernier, Dorre, Faure	Yes	Endangered
Kermadec petrel (Pterodroma n. neglecta)	Islets off Lord Howe	No	Vulnerable
Blue petrel (Halobaena caerulea)	Stacks off Macquarie	No	Vulnerable
Flesh-footed shearwater (Puffinus carneipes)	Islets off Lord Howe	No	Vulnerable
Burrowing bettong (Bettongia lesueur)	Boodie	Yes	Vulnerable
White-bellied storm petrel (Fregetta g. grallaria)	Islets off Lord Howe	No	Vulnerable
Golden bandicoot (Isoodon auratus barrowensis)	Barrow	Yes	Vulnerable
Spectacled hare wallaby (Lagorchestes c. conspicullatus)	Barrow	Yes	Vulnerable
Barrow Island euro (Macropus robustus isabellinus)	Barrow	Yes	Vulnerable
Rufous hare wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus bernieri)	Bernier	Yes	Vulnerable
Rufous hare wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus dorreae)	Dorre	Yes	Vulnerable
Worm lizard (Aprasia r. rostrata)	Hermite	Yes	Vulnerable
Airlie Island ctenotus (Ctenotus angusticeps)	Airlie	Yes	Vulnerable
Lancelin skink (Ctenotus lancelini)	Lancelin	Yes	Vulnerable
Spiny-scale skink (Egernia stokesii aethiops)	Baudin	Yes	Vulnerable
Lesser noddy (Anous tenuirostris melanops)	Pelsaert, Wooded, Morlay	Yes	Vulnerable
Cape Barren goose (Cereopsis novaehollandiae grisea)	Recherche Archipelago	No	Vulnerable
Recherche rock wallaby (Petrogale lateralis hacketti)	Mondrian, Wilson, Westall	Yes	Vulnerable
Pearson rock wallaby (Petrogale lateralis pearsonii)	Pearson, Thistle, Wedge	Yes	Vulnerable
Imperial shag (Leucocarbo atriceps nivalis)	Heard	Yes	Vulnerable
Fairy wren (Malurus leucopterus edouardi)	Barrow	Yes	Vulnerable
Fairy wren (Malarus l. leucopterus)	Dirk Hartog	Yes	Vulnerable
Soft-plumage petrel (Pterodroma mollis deceptornis)	Maatsuyker	No	Vulnerable
Shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta)	Albatross, Mewstone, Pedra Blanca	No	Vulnerable

meta-content-style-type: text/css meta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8 meta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2 title: _

?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>

THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN

to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares

2009

Contents

1 Summary

2 Background

2.1 Threat abatement plans

2.2 Exotic rodents on Australian islands

2.3 Impacts on biodiversity

2.4 Managing the threat

3.3.1 Actions to set priorities and plan strategic options

The plan is structured around a small set of operational concepts that determine what actions are proposed and why. Those concepts are stated and discussed across the Background and Threat Abatement sections (2.1-2.4; 3.1-3.4).

Primary concepts

Key threatening process designation: the plan flows from the 2006 listing under the EPBC Act and is intended as the statutory instrument for coordinating abatement actions under that listing (Summary 1.1; Background 2.1). The plan itself is a policy plan rather than standalone legislation; it functions through coordination, investment and advice (4.1).
Feasibility and prioritisation: the plan distinguishes islands where eradication is feasible from those requiring sustained control, and establishes a two‑track prioritisation process: (a) survey and data compilation to confirm rodent presence/absence (Actions 1.1-1.2); and (b) feasibility studies and best‑practice templates to decide whether eradication is practicable and should be prioritised (1.3-1.5; 3.3.1).
Eradication vs sustained control: eradication is the preferred outcome where feasible because it offers permanent removal of the threat and enables ecological recovery; sustained control is the alternative where eradication is impractical or as an interim measure (2.4; 3.3.2-3.3.3). The plan frames eradication as a finite, project‑based activity and sustained control as ongoing maintenance with recurrent costs (4.2).
Prevention, quarantine and contingency: preventing invasion or reinvasion is an explicit objective (3.2, 3.3.4) and covers pre‑border, on‑ship and post‑border measures tailored to island risk profiles, including vessel surveys, prophylactic baiting at wharves, and rapid response to shipwrecks (3.3.4).
Stakeholder engagement and social licence: the plan emphasises early and ongoing consultation with island residents, traditional owners and users, particularly because many islands are inhabited and aerial eradication operations may be contentious (3.3.5; 4.1).
Evidence, adaptive management and research: the plan identifies specific research gaps (3.4) , notably why mice are harder to eradicate in the presence of rats, humane methods, best‑practice sustained control and risk‑based detection systems , and links research actions to operational priorities and monitoring (3.4).

Operational concepts and constraints

Site specificity: the plan notes that each island has unique constraints and that actions must be island‑specific, informed by ecology, ownership, residency and logistic realities (2.1; 3.3.1).
Scale cut‑off: the plan covers offshore islands under 100 000 ha and excludes the handful of Australian islands larger than that size , the document explains the exclusion is due to current impracticality of eradication on very large islands (Background 2.1).
Capacity and institutional continuity: implementation is expected to require building skills beyond current concentrations of expertise (notably in Western Australia), and institutional capacity must be sustained over years or decades for sustained control and quarantine (3.3.2; 4.1).
Performance indicators: for most action groups the plan sets concrete performance indicators (e.g. updated databases, eradication of named islands, registered bait, contingency plans) but these are presented as targets for jurisdictions rather than enforceable obligations (3.3.1-3.3.5).

The plan therefore combines ecological principles (eradicate where possible, control where not) with standard programme mechanics (prioritisation, feasibility templates, training, monitoring, and research), and frames biosecurity and community engagement as integral to sustaining gains after eradication (3.3.4-3.3.5; 3.4).

The document explicitly identifies multiple categories of actors affected by the plan and indicates the roles and interests of each. Who pays, who decides and who implements are recurring motifs (2.2; 4.1-4.2).

Primary decision and coordination roles

Australian Government departmental actors: the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is the principal facilitator and coordinator for implementation, data collation and support (4.1; 3.3.1 performance indicators). The Department is to work with other federal departments and committees such as the Environmental Biosecurity Committee (4.1).
State and territory governments: states and territories are treated as the primary implementing jurisdictions for island actions within their boundaries. The plan expects jurisdictions to adopt national priorities into state planning, to conduct feasibility studies and to mount eradication or sustained control projects (3.3.2; 3.3.3; 4.1).

On‑island stakeholders

Island residents and rangers: residents are singled out as primary stakeholders whose approval and participation are essential, particularly where islands are inhabited. For sustained control and quarantine activities, island residents and permanent rangers are expected to be principal deliverers (3.3.5; 3.3.3; 4.1).
Indigenous people and traditional owners: the plan explicitly requires active consultation with traditional owners and recognises that many islands are owned or occupied by Indigenous groups with decision‑making roles in planning and implementation (2.2; 3.3.5).
Private owners and leaseholders: about 34% of islands with rodents are private or leased, and the plan recognises governments, private citizens and indigenous groups have shared and sometimes conflicting interests (2.2).

External and supporting actors

Technical experts and contracted operators: eradication operations, especially large‑scale aerial baiting, are expected to require external technical contractors and a network of Australian and overseas experts (3.3.1; 3.3.2).
Research institutions: universities and research agencies are implicated in specified research needs (3.4).
Funders and industry: the plan contemplates funding through government programs (e.g. Caring for our Country), non‑government donors, and industry levies where industry use of islands contributes to biodiversity loss (4.1-4.2).
Boat and vessel owners/operators: owners of vessels that visit islands are targeted for education and quarantine measures; the plan proposes measuring infestation rates on key Australian and foreign vessels (3.3.4; 3.3.5).

Who pays

Funding is not centrally guaranteed in the plan; it is explicitly dependent on the resources that jurisdictions and partners commit (4.2). The Department will provide targeted investment where possible through existing programs (4.1). The plan envisages a mix of funding sources, including state budgets, federal program funds, private donors and industry levies (4.2).

Who decides versus who implements

Strategic choices (which islands are national eradication priorities) are to be made through the prioritisation processes described (Actions 1.3-1.5; 3.3.1) and by jurisdictions adopting the national list into their planning (3.3.2).
Implementation decisions at the operational level , methods, contractor selection, on‑ground execution , are expected to be made by state/territory agencies in consultation with island stakeholders, using the plan’s templates and best practice guidance (3.3.1; 3.3.2; 4.1).

Practical effects on behaviour

Agencies will need to collect and maintain database information and to conduct feasibility studies (Actions 1.1-1.4).
Island residents and boat owners will be expected to participate in quarantine and maintenance activities, and to accept outreach and education programs (3.3.4-3.3.5).
Manufacturers and regulators may engage in bait registration processes and in data provision for approvals (2.2).

In short, the plan affects federal and state agencies, island communities including Indigenous owners, researchers and private stakeholders. It creates expectations and coordination duties rather than direct legal compulsion; funding, implementation and operational decisions are to be determined through inter‑jurisdictional processes and local stakeholder agreements (4.1-4.2; 3.3.1-3.3.5).

The plan is a policy instrument and not presented as a statute that confers new legal rights or creates statutory duties in the text provided. Nevertheless, it sets out expectations, recommended duties, and decision points for participating parties. Below are concrete duties and entitlements that the plan prescribes or implies, with references to the relevant actions.

Duties expected of the Australian Government and the Department

Facilitation and coordination: the Department must work with federal, state/territory and other expert groups to facilitate implementation, collate islands data, and provide targeted funding via programs such as Caring for our Country (4.1; 3.3.1 current state).
Review: under the EPBC Act s.279(2) the Minister must review the plan at intervals not longer than five years (4.3). That duty is statutory as cited in the plan.

Duties expected of state and territory governments

Database completion and surveys: jurisdictions are expected to complete databases on vertebrate presence and to survey high‑priority islands where information is lacking (Action 1.1-1.2; 3.3.1).
Feasibility studies and prioritisation: states/territories should use best‑practice templates to assess eradication feasibility and to adopt national priority lists into their planning (1.3-1.5; 2.4; 3.3.2).
Operational implementation: states/territories are expected to plan and conduct eradication or sustained control projects, engage contractors, train staff and islanders, and monitor outcomes (2.1-2.6; 3.3.3).

Duties expected of island residents, traditional owners and private owners

Participation and consultation: the plan requires active consultation with traditional owners and involvement of island residents at the planning stage, and for many sustained control tasks expects islanders or rangers to be primary deliverers (3.3.5; 3.3.3; 4.1).
Compliance with quarantine protocols: where quarantine or prophylactic measures are established, island residents and vessel owners are expected to comply with systems designed to prevent reinvasion (3.3.4-3.3.5).

Rights and entitlements

Decision involvement and consultation: island residents and traditional owners are identified as stakeholders entitled to be consulted and to participate in planning decisions (3.3.5; 4.1).
Access to information and capacity building: the plan contemplates circulation of best‑practice templates, training and a users’ manual for sustained control (1.3; 3.3.3 performance indicator).
Potential economic benefits: the plan notes that eradication can deliver economic benefits (e.g. horticultural benefits on Lord Howe Island) and opportunities for industries and donors to fund projects (Background 2.3; 4.2). These are presented as outcomes rather than legal entitlements.

What is not imposed

The plan does not, within the provided text, create new criminal offences, compulsory acquisitions or statutory land‑use controls. It operates via coordination, funding, advice and the use of existing regulatory paths where necessary (for example, registration of an aerial bait under Agriculture and Veterinary Code Regulations 1995 is proposed) (3.3.2; 2.4).

Duties relating to monitoring and reporting

Eradication plans are expected to identify indicator native species for pre‑ and post‑monitoring, and to report benefits and risks (2.5 performance indicators; 4.3). The plan links outcomes to measuring trends in islands invaded and in biodiversity condition.

In sum, the plan establishes expected duties for governments and stakeholders to compile data, prioritise islands, plan and conduct eradication or control, develop quarantine and rapid‑response capability, and engage communities. These are framed as cooperative obligations and performance targets rather than new statutory duties in the plan text itself (3.3; 4.1-4.3).

The plan as presented is a strategic policy instrument and contains no express criminal penalties, fines or enforcement provisions within its own text. Its enforcement and compliance mechanisms are therefore indirect and rely on existing statutory frameworks, program funding, intergovernmental coordination and stakeholder participation. The plan references the EPBC Act for review requirements and signals interactions with other regulatory instruments where necessary. The following points set out the enforcement architecture implied or referenced in the plan.

Absence of direct penalties in the plan

No provisions in the plan text create new offences or administrative penalties. The plan sets priorities, actions and performance indicators but does not itself prescribe sanctions for non‑compliance by jurisdictions, landholders or vessel operators (whole document; especially Actions sections 3.3.1-3.3.5).

Statutory hooks and oversight

Review duty: the plan states that under the EPBC Act s.279(2) the Minister must review threat abatement plans at intervals not longer than five years (4.3). This statutory requirement provides a legal oversight mechanism for periodic evaluation but does not itself impose penalties.
Regulatory interfaces: some actions envisage using existing regulatory mechanisms, for example seeking Australian registration for an aerial bait under the Agriculture and Veterinary Code Regulations 1995 (Action 2.2). Such registration processes and pesticide controls involve statutory regulation and compliance obligations under other laws, including potential enforcement for non‑compliant use, but those statutory regimes are separate from this plan (3.3.2).

Enforcement through funding and planning processes

Conditional funding and incorporation into jurisdictional plans provide an implementation‑level enforcement lever: jurisdictions that do not take up the plan’s priorities may simply not receive targeted federal investment or may not be able to justify projects to donors. The plan anticipates targeted investment from Caring for our Country and support via intergovernmental committees; these funding pathways can be used to incentivise compliance (4.1; 4.2).
Performance indicators: the plan sets measurable indicators (e.g. eradication of named islands, contingency plans in place), which function as benchmarks for funding and accountability even though they are not enforced by penalties within the plan (3.3.1-3.3.5).

Operational enforcement and incident response

Quarantine and contingency: the plan calls for quarantine systems, contingency reaction plans and surveillance capabilities (3.3.4). Implementation of quarantine measures will engage statutory biosecurity and customs regimes at pre‑border, border and post‑border stages where relevant. Those regimes have their own enforcement provisions but are not detailed in this plan.
Vessel inspections and infestion measurement: actions include surveying infestation on Australian and foreign vessels (3.3.4). Enforcement against foreign vessels would rely on maritime and biosecurity law rather than this plan.

Practical enforcement risk and limits noted in the plan

Capacity limits: the plan explicitly recognises institutional and funding constraints that may limit implementation and therefore the effective enforcement of its objectives (4.2).
Social constraints: the plan recognises that eradication methods such as aerial baiting require consent and acceptance from island residents; if social licence is withheld, the practical ability to implement may be constrained regardless of the plan’s priorities (3.3.5; 4.1).

In short, the plan relies on non‑penal enforcement mechanisms: statutory review under EPBC Act s.279(2), integration with existing regulatory regimes (pesticide registration, biosecurity law), conditional funding and intergovernmental coordination, and social licence. It does not itself establish new penalties or enforcement processes in the text provided (4.1-4.3).

The plan situates itself within existing law and regulatory processes rather than replacing or duplicating them. The document references the EPBC Act as the originating legal mechanism for development of threat abatement plans and identifies areas where other legislative instruments or regulatory processes intersect with plan actions.

Key legislative and regulatory references in the plan

EPBC Act: the plan was developed under the framework of the EPBC Act following the 2006 listing of exotic rodents on islands as a key threatening process (Summary 1.1; Background 2.1). The plan cites EPBC Act s.279(2) as requiring Ministerial review of threat abatement plans at intervals not longer than five years (4.3). The plan therefore functions as an implementation instrument under the EPBC listing with statutory review obligations.
Pesticide and veterinary regulations: Action 2.2 proposes consideration of Australian registration for an aerial anticoagulant bait under the Agriculture and Veterinary Code Regulations 1995. The plan reports that brodifacoum baiting is currently permitted under ‘minor use’ permits and that bait manufacturers intend to use Macquarie Island data to seek registration (3.3.2). This links eradication methods to chemical registration and agricultural/veterinary regulatory regimes which have their own approval, labeling and use conditions.
State and territory tenure and planning regimes: the plan acknowledges that islands are held under different tenures (about 57% under reserved tenures, ~34% private, ~9% indigenous , Background 2.2) and that state/territory agencies will lead many implementation decisions. Landholder rights, leasehold terms and reserve management legislation will therefore interact with implementation choices, particularly where works (e.g. aerial baiting) are proposed on reserved lands or private property (2.2; 3.3.5).
Biosecurity and quarantine law: while the plan does not specify primary biosecurity statutes, it identifies prevention and quarantine as central actions (3.3.4) and calls for pre‑border, on‑ship and post‑border responses. These actions intersect with Commonwealth and state biosecurity, customs and maritime regulatory frameworks that govern vessel inspections, import controls and responses to incursions.
Environmental approvals and impact frameworks: eradication activities, particularly those using aerial pesticide application or affecting listed species, will trigger existing environmental assessment and approvals processes that are not detailed here. The plan requires eradication plans to identify non‑target risks and monitor indicator native species, which suggests interaction with environmental impact assessment requirements and threatened species protections (2.5; 3.3.2 performance indicators).
Funding programs and committees: the plan envisages targeted investment via Caring for our Country and management through the Environmental Biosecurity Committee (4.1). These programs and committees operate within statutory or programmatic frameworks that condition funding and policy decisions.

Practical interaction dynamics

Regulatory approvals for methods: obtaining a registered bait for aerial use will require manufacturers and agencies to comply with agricultural/veterinary registration standards and to present evidence , the plan anticipates this by proposing Action 2.2 (3.3.2).
Jurisdictional responsibilities: because islands fall under state and territory jurisdictions and a variety of tenures, the plan requires cooperative implementation and the incorporation of national priorities into jurisdictional planning; this creates a practical interface with state/territory laws on land management, conservation reserves and leases (3.3.2; 4.1).
Biosecurity enforcement: quarantine and vessel measures envisaged in the plan will operate through existing biosecurity law, so the plan’s prevention measures are contingent on those statutory enforcement powers (3.3.4).

Areas the plan leaves to existing law

The plan does not displace existing rights, nor does it purport to create new legal powers to compel landholders or residents to accept eradication methods. These matters will be resolved within existing legal frameworks and through consultation and agreements at jurisdictional and local levels (3.3.5; 4.1).

Overall, the plan is an operational overlay that expects and requires engagement with the EPBC Act review process, agricultural/veterinary chemical registration regimes, state land tenure and environmental approvals, and biosecurity and quarantine legislation. Implementation depends on those statutory systems for approvals, enforcement and funding pathways (Summary; 3.3.2; 3.3.4; 4.1-4.3).

The document provided is the Threat Abatement Plan published in 2009, with an associated Background Document from 2008 (References). The plan’s own text documents the genesis and immediate history relevant to its development; it does not record subsequent amendments within the supplied text. The following are the factual points on amendment and review that the source provides.

Origins and preparatory work

Listing and initiation: exotic rodents on islands were listed as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act in 2006; the Department initiated development of the plan thereafter and produced a Background Document in 2008 (Summary 1.1; References).
Publication date: the plan document is dated 2009 (cover and references).

Review and statutory review frequency

Statutory review interval: the plan notes the statutory requirement under the EPBC Act s.279(2) that a threat abatement plan must be reviewed by the Minister at intervals of not longer than five years (4.3). This provides an explicit legal cadence for review and potential amendment by the Minister under the EPBC framework.

No amendment record within source

The plan text does not contain a history of amendments, nor does it indicate that amendments had been made prior to publication. It does not include a change log, version history or redlined material. The only temporal references concern planned timeframes for actions (short, medium, long, ongoing) and the legislative review requirement (3.3; 4.3).

Implications for future amendment

Mechanisms for change: the plan envisages that as knowledge changes the actions proposed may be modified over the life of the plan (4.2). That suggests the plan anticipates iterative amendment or updating via the Ministerial review process and through ongoing stakeholder engagement and research outcomes (3.4; 4.2).
Triggers for substantial change: the plan explicitly ties potential substantive changes to outcomes of major eradication projects (e.g. success or failure on Macquarie and Lord Howe islands). For example, success on those islands might shift priorities toward other large islands; failure would prompt research into causes before attempting other large eradications (3.3.2 current state).

Practical considerations

Implementation affects amendment: the plan notes actions that will produce evidence (e.g. benefits of eradication, monitoring results) that will feed into future decisions and presumably future plan iterations (2.5; 3.3.2 performance indicators).
No proxy amendment authority: the plan does not assign amendment authority to any body other than through the EPBC Act review framework and the Minister (4.3).

In summary, the source material records the plan’s development timeline (listing 2006, Background Document 2008, plan 2009) and establishes a statutory five‑year review cycle under EPBC Act s.279(2). The plan anticipates modification over its life based on emerging knowledge and project outcomes but contains no record of subsequent amendments in the text provided (Summary; References; 4.3).

The plan as provided contains no record of litigation. The document does not cite any judicial decisions, administrative appeals or legal challenges relating to the plan’s formulation, implementation, or specific actions. The following points reflect what the source explicitly states.

Absence of case citations

The plan’s References and text do not list or mention any court or tribunal decisions, nor does it identify legal actions brought by stakeholders, landowners, traditional owners or industry in relation to the plan or its antecedent listing as a key threatening process (whole document).

No documented disputes in the source

The plan acknowledges stakeholder concerns and the need for social licence, particularly in relation to aerial baiting and operations on inhabited islands (3.3.5; 4.1). However, the plan does not report any legal disputes arising from these issues within the text provided.

Implications for users

Because the plan contains no litigation record, practitioners seeking precedent or legal argument about how courts have treated similar threat abatement plans, aerial baiting approvals, or conflicts between eradication programmes and landholder rights will need to consult external sources and case law beyond this document.
The plan does indicate legal interfaces (EPBC Act s.279(2), Agriculture and Veterinary Code Regulations 1995 registration processes) that may give rise to administrative decisions subject to review in other forums; however, no such litigation examples are provided here (3.3.2; 4.3).

If litigation history is a research requirement, the plan itself does not provide it; researchers will need to search case law and administrative decisions arising from subsequent projects (for example, those referenced in the plan such as Macquarie and Lord Howe) using external legal databases. Within the text supplied, there are no named cases, appeals, or tribunal matters to report.

The plan is detailed and operationally focused, but it also contains a number of implementation, legal and practical pitfalls and frictions that stakeholders should be aware of. These are drawn from statements in the plan about uncertainties, dependencies and constraints.

Funding uncertainty and cost variability (4.2)

The plan explicitly states that the level of investment will be determined by the resources stakeholders commit and that costs cannot be quantified at this time (4.2). Eradication costs vary widely: "millions of dollars for large remote islands to a few thousands of dollars on small accessible islands" (4.2). Practical consequence: no guaranteed funding stream is embedded in the plan; project viability depends on securing appropriations or alternative funding (government, donor, industry levies).

Reliance on intergovernmental and voluntary cooperation (3.3.1; 4.1)

The plan depends on state/territory agencies adopting national priorities and on island residents accepting proposed methods. If a jurisdiction declines to act or if island residents withhold consent, eradication or quarantine measures may be blocked or deferred. The plan is not a standalone compulsory instrument; it is an exhortation plus coordination mechanism.

Data gaps and imperfect detection (3.3.1 current state)

The plan notes "significant uncertainties" in databases, including islands where rodents may be present but undetected, or species identity is unclear. This raises risks in prioritisation and feasibility planning; false negatives may leave at‑risk biodiversity unprotected, while false positives could misallocate resources.

Reinvasion risk and connected islands (Background 2.2; 3.3.4)

Around 31% of islands with known rodent presence are in close proximity to the mainland or other islands, making eradication harder without effective 'border' control. Without robust quarantine and vessel controls, eradicated islands face a material risk of reinvasion.

Human factors and social licence (3.3.5; 4.1)

Aerial baiting and other eradication techniques require acceptance from island communities. The plan recognises that technical operations are often contracted and beyond local capacity, but social concerns about methods (including animal welfare) may impede operations. The plan’s call for outreach and consultation is necessary but not sufficient guarantee of consent.

Regulatory and approval bottlenecks (3.3.2)

Use of aerial anticoagulant baits requires registration or permits; currently brodifacoum use is permitted under 'minor use' permits but a full registration is proposed. Delays in registration or restrictive conditions could impede eradication work. Approval processes under agricultural/veterinary or environmental laws will affect timetables.

Non‑target species risk and monitoring burden (2.5; 3.3.2 performance indicators)

Eradication plans must identify and monitor non‑target native species that might be harmed by control methods. Monitoring imposes additional planning, technical, and funding burdens, and negative outcomes could have legal and reputational consequences.

Technical uncertainty: multi‑species interactions (3.4)

The plan highlights research gaps, notably why mice are harder to eradicate when ship rats are present and the potential for prey switching by predators when rodents are removed. These scientific uncertainties can cause operational failure if not addressed.

Capacity and skill concentration (3.3.2 current state)

Operational expertise is concentrated in Western Australia; scaling eradication nationally requires developing new capacity and institutional continuity because programmes may span careers and political cycles.

Enforcement gap: plan lacks direct sanctions (Penalties and enforcement)

Because the plan does not create statutory penalties, compliance depends on funding and voluntary uptake. This may produce asymmetry where some islands receive attention while others do not, potentially creating expectations that cannot be enforced.

Opportunity cost and prioritisation trade‑offs (3.3.1; 3.3.2)

Prioritisation favours remote islands with high endemism but also recognises arguments for in‑shore islands as arks or demonstration sites. These choices imply opportunity costs: funds allocated to one island are not available for others.

Long‑term obligations for sustained control (3.3.3; 4.2)

Sustained control is an ongoing commitment. Agencies and island communities must budget for recurrent effort; otherwise temporary gains may be lost.

Humaneness and ethical scrutiny (3.4)

The plan identifies animal welfare as a research priority. Public and stakeholder scrutiny of humaneness risks creating delays or constraints on control methods.

Each 'gotcha' arises directly from the plan text. Practical risk mitigation requires filling data gaps (Actions 1.1-1.2), investing in capacity (2.3), confirming regulatory approvals (2.2), securing funding and social licence (3.3.5; 4.2), and incorporating contingency and quarantine plans (3.3.4).

Compliance here means aligning planning and operational choices with the plan’s expectations and performance indicators while recognising the plan does not itself impose statutory obligations beyond the EPBC s.279(2) review duty. The following is a structured, source‑grounded checklist for the main actors named in the plan: Australian Government departments, state/territory agencies, island managers/owners, and researchers.

For Australian Government / Departmental actors (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts)

Maintain and update national island vertebrate databases (Action 1.1). Performance indicator: databases updated periodically and islands with uncertain rodent status are checked (3.3.1).
Facilitate technical networks and circulate best‑practice feasibility templates (Actions 1.3-1.5). Ensure templates are used by jurisdictions for feasibility and operational planning (3.3.1).
Provide targeted investment through programs such as Caring for our Country where priorities align; coordinate via the Environmental Biosecurity Committee (4.1).
Ensure the Minister conducts reviews of the plan at intervals not exceeding five years per EPBC Act s.279(2) (4.3).

For state and territory governments

Adopt the national prioritisation outputs into state planning (Action 1.4; performance indicator in 3.3.2). Use the national list to sequence eradication and sustained control projects.
Complete surveys for islands with uncertain rodent status and produce feasibility studies using circulated best‑practice templates (Actions 1.1-1.3).
For islands judged feasible for eradication, prepare full operational plans identifying target and non‑target species, monitoring protocols, contingency and quarantine measures, and budgets. Include pre‑ and post‑eradication indicator species (2.5 performance indicators; 3.3.2).
Build capacity: establish training programmes and expertise spread beyond current regional centres (Action 2.3; 3.3.3).
Where sustained control is the chosen strategy, adopt best‑practice guidance and train island residents or rangers as primary deliverers (3.3.3).

For island managers, residents and traditional owners

Participate in consultation and planning (Action 5.1-5.2). The plan anticipates active consultation with traditional owners and stakeholder involvement (3.3.5).
Engage in quarantine practices and surveillance: implement island‑specific contingency plans, install prophylactic bait stations where identified, and participate in rapid response exercises (3.3.4).
For islands with sustained control obligations, accept training and maintain operations per a users’ manual or training materials developed as per the plan (3.3.3 performance indicators).

For operational project leads (eradication contractors, agencies)

Ensure methods used are supported by best available evidence and are compliant with relevant pesticide and environmental approvals. If using aerial anticoagulant baits, track registration status under agricultural/veterinary regulations (Action 2.2; 3.3.2).
Prepare and implement robust monitoring plans for both conservation benefit indicators and potential non‑target impacts. These must be included in eradication plans (3.3.2 performance indicators).
Include simultaneous management of other pests where appropriate, as the plan recommends removal/control of other invasive species present on islands slated for rodent eradication (Action 2.6).

For researchers and technical experts

Prioritise research gaps identified in the plan: mouse-rat eradication interactions (6.1), best‑practice guidelines for sustained control (6.2), humane methods (6.3), risk‑based detection and intervention methods (6.4), and consequences of prey switching (6.5) (3.4).
Integrate research outcomes with operational planning and with international research efforts (performance indicator in 3.4).

Monitoring, reporting and evaluation

Use the plan’s suggested performance indicators as the basis for reporting to funding bodies and intergovernmental committees (3.3.1-3.3.5).
Track the number of islands where rodents are eradicated or controlled, invasion trends, and improvements in biodiversity condition (4.3). Ensure data gathered feeds into five‑year Ministerial reviews.

Practical compliance tips

Begin with data: many priorities hinge on accurate presence/absence and species identification. Investing early in surveys reduces later operational risk (Actions 1.1-1.2).
Secure social licence early: consult traditional owners and island residents at the feasibility stage, particularly where aerial operations are proposed (3.3.5; 4.1).
Plan funding pathways: identify and secure mixed funding streams (state appropriations, federal programs, philanthropy, industry levies) before scheduling expensive field operations (4.2).
Design quarantine and contingency early: ensure eradicated islands have clear and resourced quarantine plans to prevent reinvasion (3.3.4).

What compliance does not require

The plan does not require parties to enact new laws; compliance is about implementing the plan’s actions within existing legal and regulatory frameworks, securing approvals where needed, and reporting progress for the statutory review cycle (4.1; 4.3).

In essence, compliance is operational: build data, run feasibility studies with stakeholder consent, secure funding and required regulatory approvals, implement eradication or sustained control with robust monitoring, and put in place quarantine and contingency arrangements to sustain gains. The plan supplies a roadmap and performance indicators; implementation and legal compliance will hinge on integrating the plan with statutory approvals and funding mechanisms identified in the plan (3.3; 4.1-4.3).

Deep Dive

What it does

Current sections

Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares 2009

meta-content-style-type: text/css meta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8 meta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2 title: _

1 Summary

1.1 Rationale for a threat abatement plan

1.2 Objectives of the plan

1.3 Actions under the Threat Abatement Plan

1.4 Outcomes of the actions

2 Background

2.1 Threat abatement plans

2.2 Exotic rodents on Australian islands

2.3 Impacts on biodiversity

2.4 Managing the threat

3 Threat abatement

3.1 Goal

3.2 Objectives

3.3 Actions

3.3.1 Actions to set priorities and plan strategic options

Current state of actions

Performance indicators

3.3.2 Actions to achieve eradication

Current state of actions

Performance indicators

3.3.3 Actions to achieve sustained control

Current state of actions

Performance indicators

3.3.4 Actions to prevent invasion or reinvasion

Current state of actions

Performance indicators

3.3.5 Actions to achieve outreach and public education

Current state of actions

Performance indicators

3.4 Research and information needs

Current state of actions

Performance indicators

4 Implementation

4.1 Implementing the plan

4.2 Duration and cost

4.3 Evaluating progress

5 References

Source text: opening excerpt

meta-content-style-type: text/css meta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8 meta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2 title: _

Main concepts

Who it affects

Key duties and rights

Penalties and enforcement

How it interacts with other laws

Amendment history

Litigation history

Gotchas

How to comply

1 Summary

1.1 Rationale for a threat abatement plan

1.2 Objectives of the plan

1.3 Actions under the Threat Abatement Plan

1.4 Outcomes of the actions

2 Background

2.1 Threat abatement plans

2.2 Exotic rodents on Australian islands

2.3 Impacts on biodiversity

2.4 Managing the threat

3 Threat abatement

3.1 Goal

3.2 Objectives

3.3 Actions

3.3.1 Actions to set priorities and plan strategic options