Blackwell Publishing Asia
The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan: An integrated approach to recovery planning
By Dianne Brown and Lynn Baker
ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 10 NO S1 APRIL 2009
Dianne Brown and Lynn Baker work in the Biodiversity Conservation Section, North East Branch, Department of Environment and Climate Change New South Wales (Locked Bag 914 Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia; Email:
Summary The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan targeted significant species for the Lord Howe Island Group and formed the recovery plan for 30 threatened species and one endangered ecological community. The plan addressed threats and management actions relevant to the Lord Howe Island Group’s overall biodiversity, with a particular focus on rare and significant species and communities. The Biodiversity Management Plan approach enabled holistic and cost-effective planning for the management of biodiversity on Lord Howe Island. We describe the approach, as applied to Lord Howe Island, including the utilization of expert and community knowledge, species research data and GIS innovations.
Key words: biodiversity, conservation planning, geographic information systems, Lord Howe Island, recovery, threatened species.
Introduction
R
ecovery planning processes defined under legislation in Australia (e.g. the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); the New South Wales Threa- tened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act)) and internationally (e.g. the US Endangered Species Act 1973), provide a means for conserving biodiversity by coordinating recovery actions for listed threatened species. The purposes of a recovery plan are to identify threatening processes affecting or potentially affecting the target species, identify and prioritize options and locations for management of those threats and to coordinate the implementation of agreed conservation actions among parties with an interest in conservation of the species.The recovery planning process for any given species confronts many challenges.
These include, lack of available information on which to develop an effective con- servation plan, potential conflicts between conservation goals adopted for different species, lack of available resources for implementation and the difficulties of forg- ing agreements between stakeholders with diverging interests. Consequently, progress in the adoption and implementation of recovery plans has been slow relative to the number of threatened species listed, the
rate of new listings and, more importantly, the increasing risks faced by many listed species (Tear et al. 1995; Wilcove et al.
1998; ANAO 2007). The development of multispecies recovery plans is one of several approaches aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the recovery planning process. Other approaches include threat abatement planning, species action statements and the prioritization of re- covery actions. Typically, the multispecies recovery plans that have been produced deal with groups of related species that may not co-occur or that face diverse threats or they may not address all of the threatened species or all threats that require management at the same locations.
In this paper, we describe an expanded, multispecies recovery planning approach, the Biodiversity Management Plan, that seeks to integrate the management of all threatened species and threatening pro- cesses within a biogeographically defined management zone. We describe an applica- tion of this approach to the Lord Howe Island Group (LHIG), a biologically diverse World Heritage Area that contains numer- ous threatened species.
S t u d y a r e a
The LHIG, known for its spectacular beauty, is located in the south-west Pacific Ocean, approximately 760 km north-east of Sydney. The main island is approximately
11 km long, 2.8 km wide at its widest point and is roughly crescent shaped, enclosing a coral reef lagoon on the south-western side. The total area of the island is 1455 ha (Hutton 1991). Most of the island (87%) has retained its original vegetation (Hunter 2002), with almost 75% of Lord Howe Island and the surrounding islands pro- tected within a Permanent Park Preserve (similar to a National Park). The settlement area is restricted to the central lowlands where clearing has occurred for housing and farmland.
The LHIG supports an extraordinary array of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and landscapes, a diverse flora and fauna and a large number of endemic species and communities (Pickard 1983). For example, 47% of the vascular plant species are endemic and 50% of the pre-European species of land birds were endemic species or subspecies. The LHIG is exceptional for seabirds as well, reputed to have more sea- bird species breeding and often in higher numbers than anywhere else in Australia (Hutton 1998).
More than 1600 terrestrial invertebrate species have been recorded in the LHIG and are characterized by relatively high species richness and high endemism with up to 60% of species in some groups being endemic (Cassis et al. 2003).
The LHIG has suffered significant species loss due to the impacts of human activities
and exotic species introductions. Nine species of endemic land bird and one species of seabird have disappeared from Lord Howe Island (Hutton 1991), while two species of plants are presumed to be extinct. The only two native reptile species, the Lord Howe Island Skink (Cyclodina lichenigera) and the Lord Howe Island Gecko (Christinus guentheri ), are greatly reduced in numbers on the main island and are now threatened. Several invertebrate species, including two threatened species, the Lord Howe Island Wood-feeding Cock- roach (Panesthia lata) and the Lord Howe Island Phasmid (Dryococelus australis), are locally extinct on the main island and are now confined to offshore islands.
Threatening processes on the LHIG vary in both their severity and geographical extent. The main threats to biodiversity include the introduction of new pests and diseases; weed invasion; habitat clearing and modification; trampling, browsing and grazing by domestic stock; climate change;
and the impacts of a range of introduced fauna species. Many of these threatening processes affect several species. Some of these threats are ubiquitous, such as pre- dation by the Ship Rat (Rattus rattus) on the main island, whereas others may be location specific, such as invasion by the introduced weed Climbing Asparagus (Asparagus plumosus), predominantly a localized, but significant, problem. Some threats have a low level of impact, for exam- ple, there are occasional attacks on seabirds by domestic dogs but this threat is subject to stringent dog management policies.
Many introduced species have had sig- nificant impacts on the biodiversity of the LHIG. Five species of mammal, two species of reptile and one species of frog have been introduced and established wild popula- tions on the LHIG since settlement. Two of the introduced mammals, the House Cat (Felis catus) and the Pig (Sus scrofa) have been eradicated, and the Goat (Capra hircus) has been reduced to a few wild non- reproductive animals. Evaluation and prior- itization of threats, and their incorporation into the planning process, is discussed below.
T h e b i o d i v e r s i t y
m a n a g e m e n t p l a n a p p r o a c h Several reviews compare the effectiveness of multispecies versus single species and landscape recovery planning (e.g. Jewell 2000; Clark et al. 2002; Moore & Wooller 2003; EcoLogical 2007). The reviews identify limitations in all three types of recovery planning and discuss a number of options for improving their effectiveness, including the use of spatial mapping, prioritization processes and threat-based approaches.
Biodiversity management planning seeks to address some of the limitations in alternative approaches by using a threat- based approach, considering landscape/
multispecies requirements as well as some targeted single-species actions, prioritizing threats and actions and incorporating spatial mapping and site prioritization. We briefly describe the approach as developed for the LHIG.
The Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan
The LHIG was considered highly suitable for the development of a landscape, multi- species, threat-based biodiversity manage- ment plan, given its relatively small size, limited habitats and geographical isolation (DECC 2007a). The objectives of the plan were to provide guidance for integrated, cost-effective management of biodiversity.
To achieve this, the Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan (LHI BMP) incorporated the recovery requirements for multiple threatened entities (species and communities) as well as priority, non- threatened biota. The plan constitutes the recovery plan for 30 threatened species, which are restricted to the LHIG or are species for which the LHIG represents a significant part of their range or breeding habitat. Approximately 239 native and endemic flora species, 34 vertebrate fauna species and 31 vegetation communities will benefit from the recovery actions of the plan (Table 1). Actions will also protect the habitats of a wide range of native and endemic invertebrate fauna.
The LHI BMP integrates decision-making with research, risk assessment and per- formance evaluation within the framework of adaptive management (see Possingham 2001 and Burgman 2005 for more informa- tion on structured decision-making and environmental risk analysis). The approach was based on a combination of expert and community knowledge, existing information Table 1. Taxonomic richness of flora and fauna (excluding domestic animals) on the LHIG
Group Native (non-endemic) species (presumed extinct in brackets)
Endemic native species (presumed extinct in brackets)
Non-native species*
Vagrants/
irregular visitors
Threatened species (TSC and EPBC Acts)
Total natives
Land birds 13 4 (9) 18 83 4 17 (9)
Seabirds 11 (2) 0 5 37 14 11 (2)
Mammals 1 (1) 3 6† 0 1 (1)
Reptiles 2 0 2 3† 2 2
Amphibians 0 0 1 0 0
Freshwater Fish 3 0 0 0 0 3
Invertebrates 970 638 (11) 85 – 4 1608 (11)
Total fauna 1000 (2) 642 129 24
Flora 126 113 271‡ 9
Total flora 126 113 271 9
*Residents or regular visitors that have established since settlement; †marine species; ‡naturalized flora (weeds). TSC Act, NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; EPBC Act, Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
and geographic information systems (GIS)- based biodiversity forecasting.
Development of the LHI BMP required an overview of the LHIG’s biodiversity, threats and management priorities. The LHI BMP synthesized existing scientific research, biodiversity management docu- ments and management practices to enable prioritization of management actions aimed at cost-effective biodiversity outcomes. The hierarchical approach used, allowed for landscape-scale management where threats affect large numbers of species, while still providing specific actions to manage individual species where warranted.
O v e r v i e w o f b i o d i v e r s i t y Reviews of natural history (e.g. Etheridge 1899; Recher & Clark 1974; Hutton 1991) and a detailed vegetation survey and mapping study (Pickard 1983) provide valuable overviews of the biota of Lord Howe Island. Several existing plans of management, recovery plans, weed and vegetation management plans and inven- tory reports informed the conservation planning process. Additional information relevant to conservation management has been produced by a broad range of species research projects. Some examples of these are provided below. Lord Howe Island carries high levels of endemicity across all taxonomic groups, and a high level of invertebrate species richness (Table 1). It also supports large numbers of introduced species, particularly flora, with over 53% of recorded species being naturalized exotics (Table 1).
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d
p r i o r i t i z a t i o n o f s p e c i e s a n d t h r e a t s
Priority species for the LHIG included those listed as threatened either on the TSC Act or EPBC Act, those endemic to the LHIG and those for which the LHIG was the only Australian location. Prioritization was based on species conservation status, i.e. the highest priority was assigned to taxa listed as critically endangered, followed by endangered and vulnerable. Cost-benefit considerations were not explicitly con- sidered in the prioritization process.
Threats, and the priority species affected by each threat, were systematically identified
using existing information, expert know- ledge and community consultation. The geographical distribution of priority species and their associated threats were used to identify areas of particular conservation significance where threats are causing the most harm to biodiversity.
Biodiversity forecasting – integrating data and developing management priorities
Biodiversity forecasting, a GIS decision support tool (DEC 2004, 2006; DECC 2007b), evaluates potential consequences for biodiversity of spatially explicit scenarios of land use or threat management within a region of interest. It can be applied to biodiversity at the community level, to individual species of particular con- servation concern, or to a combination of these entities. Biodiversity forecasting involves three main interacting com- ponents (Ferrier 2005): (i) prediction of future vegetation (or habitat) condition across the landscape as a function of current condition, relevant threats and existing or proposed land management;
(ii) prediction of the level or likelihood of persistence for each biodiversity entity (species or community), as a function of the spatial distribution and configuration of future vegetation (or habitat) condition for that entity (from component (i)); and (iii) aggregation of predicted persistence levels for individual entities into an overall estimate of persistence for biodiversity as a whole. Outcomes can be reported both in relation to individual entities of biodiversity and in terms of an aggregate biodiversity outcome.
H a b i t a t m a p s
Biodiversity forecasting informed the planning process for the LHI BMP by assisting with the identification of priority areas and taxa for management actions based on predicted biodiversity outcomes (see DECC 2007b for detailed methods).
For the LHIG, the extent and condition of individual species and vegetation types were modelled using available spatial data, coupled with data and expert knowledge on threats and ecological processes.
Suitable habitats of each threatened and priority species and selected invertebrate groups were mapped and divided into condition classes where applicable. For taxa with insufficient spatially explicit data, habitat models (maps) showing the spatial configuration of habitat were derived by experts. Biological interactions, such as population dynamics were not modelled.
Figure 1 shows an example of a habitat model for the Lord Howe Island Skink.
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f m a j o r t h r e a t s
Data layers showing the spatial occurrence of each threat were generated using available spatial data and expert knowledge (Table 2). For example, weed density map- ping was available for several prominent species such as Cherry Guava (Psidium cattleianum) (Fig. 2). Spatial layers for other threats were derived by delineating areas that were most likely to be susce- ptible to the threat based on available pre- dictions and expert knowledge (e.g. climate change impacts on low-lying areas and cloud forest). This approach was limited to threats whose spatial distribution could be mapped or estimated. Threats that could not be spatially represented, for example, long-line fishing, were assessed outside the biodiversity forecasting process. Spatial representation of threats allowed for identification of areas exposed to multiple threats, or conversely, identification of areas that were subject to fewer threats. The predicted impact of each threat was ranked by experts who estimated the degree that each threat reduced habitat quantity and quality for each species, species group or vegetation community. Predicted impacts varied considerably between threats.
For example, weed invasion posed serious problems for Lagunaria Swamp Forest, while predation by the Lord Howe Island Woodhen (Gallirallus sylvestris) was expected to have minor impacts on Providence Petrel (Pterodorma solandri) chicks.
Developing and prioritizing management actions
Recovery actions and sites selected for management were initially developed and
prioritized using a combination of existing information (e.g. Recher & Clark 1974;
Hutton 1991, 2003; NPWS 2001, 2002;
Hunter 2002) and expert and community opinion. Eighteen broad actions were identified; they covered quarantine, vege- tation management, pest management, human impacts and research and monitoring (Table 3). Priority areas identified through biodiversity forecasting were those areas where biodiversity values were high, where the habitats in those areas were
vulnerable to threats and where manag- ement action was considered likely to be effective in ameliorating the threat.
Although comprehensive species, threat and management information is seldom available, biodiversity forecasting helps identify spatially explicit priorities for each action based on the best available information. Figure 3 provides an example of a biodiversity forecasting output of high priority areas for revegetation in Sallywood Swamp Forest.
A p p l i c a t i o n o f s p e c i e s - b a s e d r e s e a r c h t o c o n s e r v a t i o n p l a n n i n g Research and current knowledge on threa- tening processes provided an essential basis for development of management actions and priorities for species con- servation in the LHI BMP. The following species-based programmes illustrate how research was applied.
Habitat protection and rehabilitation for the Flesh-footed Shearwater (Ardenna carnipes)
The Flesh-footed Shearwater is widely distributed throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act with the LHIG being the only New South Wales breeding locality.
Significant threats include ingestion of floating plastic while foraging, bycatch of long-line fishing and encroachment of development into the breeding habitat.
Research into the decline in distribu- tion and abundance of the Flesh-footed Shearwater (Priddel et al. 2006) identified and mapped areas of habitat that were significant for the successful breeding of this seabird. This mapping identified significant habitat, which was zoned for protection in both the LHI BMP and the Regional Environment Plan. The research also helped to define on-ground actions, including targeted revegetation and fencing of habitat.
Captive breeding and monitoring of the Lord Howe Placostylus (Placostylus bivaricosus bivaricosus)
The Lord Howe Placostylus is a land snail endemic to Lord Howe Island. It is listed under the EPBC Act as critically end- angered and on the TSC Act as endangered.
Three subspecies were previously known to occur on the island; however, P. bivaricosus bivaricosus is the only extant subspecies. Much of its high-quality habitat is within the settlement area of the island. Introduced rodents prey on the young snails. A preliminary, captive breeding trial on the Lord Howe Placo- stylus, described in the LHI BMP and species Figure 1. Example of a species habitat model for the Lord Howe Island Skink.
recovery plan (NPWS 2001) found that it requires very high humidity for successful breeding. In addition, investigations into preferred food sources have identified leaf
litter of particular plant species favoured as food by the Placostylus (Hutton 2005a).
Research on the closely related species in New Caledonia, suggests that artificial food
sources may improve success of captive breeding for the Lord Howe Placostylus, although this is yet to be tested. A targeted field survey conducted during the summer of 2006–2007 (Hutton 2007) indicated that the Placostylus is more active on warm, wet nights. Surveying conducted under these conditions is therefore more likely to detect the Placostylus and will improve the accuracy of population estimates.
Rehabilitation and monitoring of threatened plants
Surveys and conservation assessments of restricted flora (Hutton 2003, 2005b; Auld
& Hutton 2004) provided valuable infor- mation to identify locations of significant flora habitats and threatening processes.
This work led to the listing of several species as threatened under the TSC Act and EPBC Act. The LHI BMP highlighted the habitat of Lord Howe Morning Glory (Calystegia affinis) (endangered on the TSC Act and critically endangered on the EPBC Act) as a priority for weed control and monitoring. As a result, plots were established to obtain baseline population data and assess the impact of the weed control works on the plant population. Sub- sequently, a comprehensive monitoring Table 2. Spatial threat models used in the LHI BMP
Threats associated with weed invasion Threats associated with fauna
Distribution of weed invasion (general) Predation by the Ship Rat
Bitou Bush distribution Competition and predation from the feral Pigeon
Bridal Creeper distribution Competition and predation from Blackbird and Songthrush
Cherry Guava distribution Competition and predation from Buff-banded Rail
Climbing Asparagus distribution Competition and predation from introduced Bleating Tree Frog
Crofton Weed distribution Competition and predation by introduced House Mouse
Ground Asparagus distribution Predation by domestic Dogs
Lantana distribution Competition and predation by domestic Chicken
Madeira Vine distribution Competition and predation by other introduced species
Norfolk Island Pine distribution Competition and predation by introduced ants
Ochna distribution Competition and predation by introduced beetles
Pittosporum distribution Competition and predation by introduced snails
Tiger Lily distribution Competition and predation by introduced spiders
Areas susceptible to invasion by exotic grasses Competition and predation by introduced invertebrates – general Areas at risk from use of herbicide Competition and predation from the Masked Owl
Miscellaneous threats Competition and predation from introduced Skink
Current Phytophthora distribution Predation from Australian Kestrel
Potential distribution of Phytophthora Threats from human impacts
Vegetation dieback Habitat clearing and modification
Areas at threat from landslip Trampling, browsing and grazing
Potential distribution of introduced pests, weeds and disease Areas most at risk from humans impacts Areas most at risk from climate change Areas most at risk from illegal collection
Threat of groundwater pollution Collecting (plants and seabird eggs) and other traditional activities
Table 3. Major recovery actions in the Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan
Action Description
1 Prevent the introduction of exotic fauna, flora and pathogens to the LHIG 2 Retain native vegetation
3 Control the impacts of introduced pathogens on native species
4 Eradicate (where feasible) and control existing weeds to reduce their impact on the biodiversity of the LHIG
5 Undertake revegetation/rehabilitation works in high conservation priority areas 6 Eradicate (where feasible and where there is a biodiversity benefit) or control introduced
fauna and reduce their impact on biodiversity 7 Reduce impacts of groundwater pollution
8 Enhance positive interactions and reduce negative interactions between humans and wildlife
9 Reduce the impact of commercial, cultural and illegal collecting 10 Reduce impacts of human access
11 Monitor consequences of climate change and develop contingency plans for ‘at risk’
species
12 Prepare nominations for species, populations, ecological communities or critical habitat listing under State and Commonwealth legislation as required.
13 Promote recovery of individual threatened flora taxa
14 Improve knowledge and management of threatened and significant fauna species through research and monitoring.
15 Protect and enhance threatened fauna habitat through habitat rehabilitation 16 Reduce impacts of fishing and marine debris on threatened seabirds 17 Investigate the appropriateness of reintroduction of locally extinct taxa
18 Coordinate implementation of the LHI BMP and regularly evaluate the biodiversity benefits of implementation
and rehabilitation programme for all threatened flora was established as a colla- borative project between the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) and the Lord Howe Island Board (LHIB).
Ongoing population monitoring, weed control and rehabilitation works have been initiated for all threatened flora species in areas where this was considered to have a recovery benefit to the threatened species.
Planning for rodent eradication
There are two rodents in the LHIG; both introduced and problematic. The House Mouse (Mus musculus) is likely to impact on some plant and invertebrate life (DECC 2007a). One of the most significant and ongoing threats to the biodiversity of the LHIG is predation by the Ship Rat, listed as a key threatening process on both the TSC
Act and the EPBC Act. On Lord Howe Island, the Ship Rat has been implicated in the decline and extinction of five species of birds; while two species of threatened seabirds and the critically endangered Lord Howe Island Phasmid are now restricted to breeding on the rat-free island, Balls Pyramid. In addition, other species, such as the two threatened native lizard species, the endangered Lord Howe Island Wood- feeding Cockroach and the Darkling Beetle (Promethis sterrha) are scarce on the main island of Lord Howe, where the Ship Rat occurs, but more abundant on islands where the Ship Rat is absent.
Other invertebrate species impacted by the Ship Rat include the threatened Lord Howe Island Placostylus, and the large land snail Gudeoconcha sophiae. The Ship Rat was implicated in the extinc- tion of two large land snails that lived in the southern mountains of Lord Howe Island and 10 beetle species are thought to have become extinct since the intro- duction of the Ship Rat (Cassis et al.
2003).
In addition to impacts on fauna, the Ship Rat is known to damage the vegetative parts of several species of plants on Lord Howe Island. It depletes seed yields of the commercially harvested Kentia Palm (Howea forsteriana) (Pickard 1983) as well as other endemic island palm species (Auld, pers. comm.).
Past programmes to control the Ship Rat have had limited success as they only targeted specific sites and required a signi- ficant, ongoing commitment of resources.
Eradication of all rodents from Lord Howe Island was identified as a priority in the LHI BMP, but requires extensive background research and planning. Research provided key information to support the design of a programme for rodent eradication.
For example, the Lord Howe Currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis) and Lord Howe Woodhen were identified as non- target species at risk from toxins used for rodent eradication. Other studies examin- ing rodent predation on seeds of Mountain Palms (Lepidorrhachis moorei and Hedy- scepe canterburyana) will improve under- standing of the impacts of rodents on the flora of Lord Howe Island (Auld et al., unpublished data).
Figure 2. Example of threat data layer – distribution high and low-density occurrences of the introduced weed Cherry Guava.
Planning for rodent eradication includes feasibility studies (Saunders & Brown 2001), cost benefit analyses (Parkes et al.
2004), preliminary research into non-target impacts (Wilkinson, pers. comm.) and comprehensive community consultation.
Rodent eradication on LHI is both techni- cally and socially challenging, and meticu- lous planning is required to achieve a successful outcome. The LHI BMP includes an assessment of potential impacts of an eradication programme, appropriate mitigation measures and additional research on non-target species. These provide the background and justification
for approvals required from both State and Commonwealth agencies to undertake the programme.
Discussion
Legislative changes are encouraging moves towards multispecies, regional/landscape- level planning for conservation of threa- tened species (e.g. NSW Threatened Species Legislation Amendment Act 2004 and EPBC Act). This is partly because conservation agencies from a number of jurisdictions have failed to develop and implement single-species recovery plans at a rate that
keeps pace with an ever increasing number of threatened species listings (Tear et al.
1995; ANAO 2007). Although resources for planning and implementation of recovery programmes are limited, multispecies approaches to recovery planning, such as the LHI BMP, overcome the limited scope and efficiency associated with preparation of many single-species plans. The broader scope of multispecies plans allows resources to be sought and prioritized across a wider range of goals and programmes than is possible for single-species plans. This minimizes potential conflicts that may arise between plans that address species individually.
By focusing on management of threaten- ing processes, a multispecies plan provides benefits to a broad range of biodiversity, including species that may not currently be threatened.
Incorporation of biodiversity forecast- ing into the planning process allows for the processing and synthesizing of information to identify specific priority areas for management. These priorities are based on predicted benefits to biodiversity that may not otherwise be identified across a range of species and issues.
In addition to biodiversity forecasting, a biodiversity management planning approach differs from other multispecies recovery plans, which traditionally have addressed groups of taxonomically related species that may not necessarily share similar threats or occur in the same land- scapes. These plans are typically a collation of single-species plans across multiple locations (e.g. Keith 1997; Doran 1999;
Potts 1999; Queensland Herbarium 2007).
The biodiversity management planning model described here provides for inte- grated actions to address common threat- ening processes across a group of species within the same region.
Despite its obvious advantages, the multi- species biodiversity planning approach involves some trade-offs. Biodiversity man- agement plans may not incorporate the autecological detail required to fully assess the viability of alternative management strategies for reducing extinction risks to populations of individual species. Similarly, threat abatement plans or habitat-based plans where threats are similar (e.g. English Figure 3. Priority areas for revegetation at Sallywood Swamp Forest sites
1999; Environment Australia 2001) enable recovery actions to be developed to address the common threats but often lack actions targeted at conservation of individual species. Biodiversity management plans provide a framework for recovery actions that will benefit overall biodiversity while still incorporating some species-specific work to be undertaken where required and where resources allow.
We believe that the biodiversity manage- ment planning approach would be useful for other regions where threatening pro- cesses affect a wide range of species. The isolation of the LHIG offered significant advantages to regulate inputs as well as providing distinctive boundaries within which to frame management priorities and actions during preparation of the LHI BMP. The definition of workable planning regions will be an important step in apply- ing the approach elsewhere. Another important challenge for future biodiversity management plans is to deal effectively with the complexities associated with threats that vary over time, as well as the potential interactions between different threats. The existing LHI BMP does not take these issues into account. Neverthe- less, the current shortcomings of the bio- diversity management planning approach, are outweighed by its strengths as a practical and efficient alternative to single-species recovery planning, while still allowing for species-specific recovery actions.
Acknowledgements
Tony Auld, David Priddel (DECC) and the numerous researchers whose work has contributed to research on Lord Howe Island and the plan. Terry Wilson, Nick Rigby, Hank Bower, Sue Bower and members of the Lord Howe Island Board and Lord Howe Island Board staff. Simon Ferrier, Michael Drielsma, Glenn Manion, Kelly Mantle and Jill Smith for the deve- lopment and application of the Biodiversity Forecasting Toolkit and modelling. Donella Andersen for useful comments on the draft.
Ian Hutton and Dean Hiscox for infor- mation and on-ground work on the flora and fauna of Lord Howe Island. David Keith and two anonymous referees made con- structive comments on this paper.
References
ANAO (2007) The Conservation and Protection of National Threatened Species and Ecological Communities. Department of the Environment and Water Resources. Audit Report No. 31, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra, ACT.
Auld T. D. and Hutton I. (2004) Conservation issues for the vascular flora of the Lord Howe Island Group. Cunninghamia 8, 490 –500.
Burgman M. A. (2005) Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Cassis G., Meades L., Harris R. et al. (2003) Lord Howe Island Terrestrial Invertebrate Biodiver- sity and Conservation. Report to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service by the Australian Museum Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research. Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW.
Clark J. A., Hoekstra J. M., Boersma P. D. and Kareiva P. (2002) Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans: Key Findings and Recommendations of the SCB Recovery Plan Project. Conservation Biology 16, 1510–
1519.
DEC (2004) Nandewar WRA Landscape Conserva- tion. Report for the Resource and Conserva- tion Assessment Council (RACAC). NSW Western Regional Assessment, coordinated by NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Report no. NAND01, Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Coffs Harbour.
DEC (2006) Decision support tools for biodiversity conservation: Biodiversity Forecasting Toolkit.
Prepared for the Comprehensive Coastal Assessment, NSW Department of Planning.
DECC (2007a) Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Man- agement Plan, main report. Biodiversity Con- servation Section, Department of Environment and Climate Change, Coffs Harbour, NSW.
DECC (2007b) Lord Howe Island Biodiversity Management Plan, Appendix 4. Biodiversity Con- servation Section, Department of Environment and Climate Change, Coffs Harbour, NSW.
Doran N. (1999) Burrowing Crayfish (Engaeus) Recovery Plan 2001–2005. Threatened Species Unit, Department of Primary Industry, Water and the Environment, Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, Tas.
EcoLogical Australia (2007) Implementation Review of Eleven Threatened Species Recovery Plans in North-east New South Wales. Final Report.
Report for the Department of Environment and Climate Change, Coffs Harbour, NSW.
English V. (1999) Shrubland Association on South- ern Swan Coastal Plan Ironstone (Busselton Area) Southern Ironstone Association Interim Recovery Plan 1999–2002. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Wan- neroo, WA.
Environment Australia (2001) National Recovery Plan for Albatrosses and Giant Petrels. Wildlife Scientific Advice, Natural Heritage Division, Environment Australia, Canberra, ACT.
Etheridge R. (1899) The General Zoology of Lord Howe Island. Memoirs of the Australian Museum 2, 3–42.
Ferrier S. (2005) An integrated approach to addressing terrestrial biodiversity in NRM investment planning and evaluation across
state, catchment and property scales. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney, NSW.
Hunter J. (2002) Vegetation and Habitat of Signifi- cance within the Settlement Area of Lord Howe Island. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Coffs Harbour, NSW.
Hutton I. (1991) Birds of Lord Howe Island, Past and Present. Lithocraft, South Melbourne, Vic.
Hutton I. (1998) The Australian Geographic Book of Lord Howe Island. Australian Geographic, Terrey Hills, NSW.
Hutton I. (2003) Management for Birds on Lord Howe Island. Report to the Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney, NSW.
Hutton I. (2005a) Diet of Placostylus in Captivity.
Internal report to the Lord Howe Island Board, Lord Howe Island, NSW.
Hutton I. (2005b) Rare Plant Surveys 2, Lord Howe Island. Report to NSW Scientific Committee.
Hutton I. (2007) Surveys for Placostylus bivaricosus Lord Howe Island December 2006 to May 2007.
Internal report to Department of Environment and Climate Change, Coffs Harbour, NSW.
Jewell S. D. (2000) Multi-species recovery plans.
Endangered Species Bulletin, May 2000.
Keith D. A. (1997) National recovery plan for Tas- manian Forest Epacrids 1999–2004. Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart, Tas.
Moore S. A. and Wooller S. (2003) Review of Land- scape, Multi- and Single-Species Recovery Planning for Threatened Species. World Wild- life Fund for Nature, Australia.
NPWS (2001) Lord Howe Island Placostylus Placo- stylus bivaricosus (Gaskoin, 1855) Recovery Plan. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, NSW.
NPWS (2002) Recovery Plan for the Lord Howe Woodhen Gallirallus sylvestris. NSW NPWS, Hurstville.
Parkes J., Ruscoe W., Fisher P. and Thomas B.
(2004) Benefits, Constraints, Risks and Costs of Rodent Control Options on Lord Howe Island. Report to the Lord Howe Island Board, Landcare Research, New Zealand.
Pickard J. (1983) Vegetation of Lord Howe Island.
Cunninghamia 1, 133–266.
Possingham H. (2001) The business of biodiversity:
applying decision theory principles to nature conservation. Tela 9, 1–44.
Potts W. C. (1999) National Recovery Plan for Threatened Tasmanian Lowland Euphrasia Species 1997–2001. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tas.
Priddel D., Carlisle N., Fullagar P., Hutton I. and O’Neill L. (2006) Decline in the distribution and abundance of Flesh-footed Shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes) on Lord Howe Island, Aus- tralia. Biological Conservation 128, 412–424.
Queensland Herbarium (2007) National Multi- species Recovery Plan for the cycads, Cycas megacarpa, Cycas ophiolitica, Macrozamia cranei, Macrozamia lomandroides, Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi and Macrozamia platyrhachis.
Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane, Qld.
Recher H. F. and Clark S. S. (1974) Environmental Survey of Lord Howe Island. Report to the Lord Howe Island Board, NSW Government Printer, Sydney, NSW.
Saunders A. and Brown D. (2001) An Assessment of the Feasibility of Eradicating Rodents
from the Lord Howe Island Group. Report to the Lord Howe Island Board, Endangered Species Recovery Council, New Zealand.
Tear T. H., Scott J. H., Hayward P. H. and Griffith B. (1995) Recovery plans and the
Endangered Species Act: are criticisms supported by data? Conservation Biology 9, 182–195.
Wilcove D. S., Rothstein D., Dubow J., Phillips A.
and Losos E. (1998) Quantifying threats to
imperilled species in the United States:
assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, over- exploitation and disease. Bioscience 48, 607–
615.
