Grey-headed Flying-fox - Department of the Environment
advertisement
Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter quality solutions sustainable future Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Prepared for: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities © GeoLINK, 2013 PO Box 119 Lennox Head NSW 2478 T 02 6687 7666 PO Box 1446 Coffs Harbour NSW 2450 T 02 6651 7666 info@geolink.net.au UPR 2029-1001 2029-2008 2029-1015 2029-1028 2029-1042 Description Literature Review (Sec1-4) First issue Second issue – Final Draft Final Updated Final Version History Date Issued Issued By 14/09/2012 Anna Lloyd 07/01/2013 Anna Lloyd and Peggy Eby 06/02/2013 Anna Lloyd and Peggy Eby 08/03/2013 Anna Lloyd and Peggy Eby 02/04/2013 Anna Lloyd and Peggy Eby Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Reviewed By Veronica Silver Veronica Silver Veronica Silver Kim Casson Veronica Silver ii Table of Contents 1 Overview 1 1.1 The Grey-headed Flying-fox and the Lower Hunter ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Sustainable Regional Development Program ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 Purpose and Structure of this Study ....................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Legislation and Policy 2.1 4 Federal Legislation and Policy................................................................................................................ 4 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...................................................... 4 2.1.2 Draft National Recovery Plan for the GHFF ....................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Federally Funded Studies .................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.4 Broad Conservation Policies / Strategies ........................................................................................... 6 2.2 State Legislation and Policy ................................................................................................................... 6 2.3 Regional and Catchment-based Policies................................................................................................ 8 2.3.1 Lower Hunter Regional Strategy ........................................................................................................ 8 2.3.2 Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan ........................................................................................ 9 2.3.3 Newcastle-Lake Macquarie Western Corridor Planning Strategy – draft ........................................... 9 2.3.4 The Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Action Plan and PVPs ........................................................... 9 2.3.5 Other State-wide Policies or Agreements .......................................................................................... 9 2.4 Local Government Legislation and Policy ............................................................................................ 10 2.5 Non-government Organisation Policies / Information .......................................................................... 10 2.6 Summary of Legislation and Policies.................................................................................................... 11 3 The Lower Hunter 3.1 12 Description ........................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Traditional Context ........................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Environmental Values ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.4 Growth and Development ................................................................................................................ 12 3.1.5 Future Development......................................................................................................................... 12 4 The Grey-headed Flying-fox 4.1 14 General Ecology ................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.1 Taxonomy ........................................................................................................................................ 14 4.1.2 Conservation Status ......................................................................................................................... 14 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter i 4.1.3 Distribution ....................................................................................................................................... 14 4.1.4 Habitat.............................................................................................................................................. 15 4.1.5 Reproduction and Life Expectancy .................................................................................................. 16 4.1.6 Diet................................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1.7 Environmental Services ................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 GHFF in the Lower Hunter ................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Foraging Behaviour .......................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2 GHFF Observations ......................................................................................................................... 18 4.3 Research / Monitoring Programs .......................................................................................................... 20 4.3.1 Previous Studies .............................................................................................................................. 20 4.3.2 Current Research / Monitoring Programs ....................................................................................... 21 5 Roosting Habitat in the Lower Hunter 5.1 23 Locations .............................................................................................................................................. 23 5.1.1 Existing Information.......................................................................................................................... 23 5.1.2 Camp Verification Surveys ............................................................................................................... 23 5.2 Camp Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 25 5.2.1 Seasonality ...................................................................................................................................... 25 5.2.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 25 5.2.3 Position in the Landscape ................................................................................................................ 27 5.2.4 Flying-fox Species Present .............................................................................................................. 28 5.3 Conservation Importance ..................................................................................................................... 30 5.3.1 Cessnock LGA ................................................................................................................................. 30 5.3.2 Lake Macquarie LGA ....................................................................................................................... 31 5.3.3 Newcastle LGA ................................................................................................................................ 31 5.3.4 Maitland LGA ................................................................................................................................... 31 5.3.5 Port Stephens LGA .......................................................................................................................... 32 6 Foraging Habitat in the Lower Hunter 34 6.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................... 34 6.2 Methods................................................................................................................................................ 34 6.2.1 Flower Scores .................................................................................................................................. 35 6.2.2 Nectar Habitat Scores ...................................................................................................................... 35 6.2.3 Fruit Habitat Score ........................................................................................................................... 36 6.2.4 Habitat Ranks .................................................................................................................................. 36 6.2.5 Additional Considerations ................................................................................................................ 37 6.3 6.3.1 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 37 Diet Plants........................................................................................................................................ 37 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter ii 6.3.2 Vegetation Classification and Map ................................................................................................... 40 6.3.3 Habitat ranks .................................................................................................................................... 41 6.4 Accuracy of GHMV Spatial Layer and Implications for the Assessment .............................................. 41 7 Conservation Threats 45 7.1 Identified Key Threatening Processes .................................................................................................. 45 7.2 Foraging Habitat Loss .......................................................................................................................... 46 7.2.1 Identified Potential Future Development .......................................................................................... 46 7.2.2 LEP Zoning ...................................................................................................................................... 48 7.3 Loss and Disturbance of Roost Sites ................................................................................................... 48 7.3.1 Impact on Existing Camps ............................................................................................................... 48 7.3.2 Potential for Future Camp / Human Conflict .................................................................................... 49 7.4 Electrocution and Entanglement........................................................................................................... 49 7.5 Competition .......................................................................................................................................... 54 7.6 Public Perception ................................................................................................................................. 54 7.7 Climate Change.................................................................................................................................... 55 7.7.1 Food Shortages ............................................................................................................................... 55 7.7.2 Intense Storms and Heat Waves ..................................................................................................... 55 7.8 Other Risks........................................................................................................................................... 55 7.8.1 Low Reproductive Output................................................................................................................. 55 7.8.2 Environmental Management Decisions Outside of the Lower Hunter .............................................. 56 7.8.3 Inadequately Resourced Conservation Programs............................................................................ 56 8 Conservation and Restoration 8.1 57 Current Conservation Status of GHFF Habitat ..................................................................................... 57 8.1.1 Identified Conservation Areas .......................................................................................................... 57 8.1.2 Habitat Conserved Under Environmental Planning Policies ............................................................ 58 8.1.3 Habitat Conserved Under State Legislation ..................................................................................... 61 8.1.4 Summary of Conserved GHFF Habitat ............................................................................................ 61 8.2 Priority Conservation Areas .................................................................................................................. 62 8.2.1 Foraging Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 62 8.2.2 Roosting Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 63 8.3 Habitat Currently Under Restoration .................................................................................................... 63 8.3.1 Australian Government Funded Environmental Programs ............................................................... 65 8.3.2 NSW Government Funded Environmental Programs ...................................................................... 65 8.4 Priority Restoration Areas..................................................................................................................... 66 8.4.1 Roosting Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 66 8.4.2 Foraging Habitat .............................................................................................................................. 68 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter iii 8.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 68 9 Management Actions for the GHFF 9.1 9.1.1 9.2 71 Previously Identified Actions................................................................................................................. 71 Priority Action Statements ................................................................................................................ 71 Recommended Actions for the Lower Hunter ....................................................................................... 76 10 Summary and Conclusions 81 10.1 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 81 10.2 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 82 Illustrations Illustration 3.1 The Lower Hunter................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Illustration 4.1 Foraging Habitat - Lower North East NSW....................................................................... 18 Illustration 4.2 Records of Grey-headed Flying-fox in the Lower Hunter .................................................. 21 Illustration 5.1 Grey-headed Flying-fox Camps in the Lower Hunter ........................................................ 23 Illustration 5.2 Foraging Range of the Grey-headed Flying-fox in the Lower Hunter ................................ 28 Illustration 6.1 Grey-headed Flying-fox Foraging Habitat Value Ranks based on GHMv4 ....................... 42 Illustration 6.2 Bi-Monthly Grey-headed Flying-fox Foraging Habitat Ranks based on GHMv4 ............... 42 Illustration 7.1 LHRS Identified Potential Development ............................................................................ 46 Illustration 8.1 Conserved Grey-headed Flying-fox Habitat in the Lower Hunter ...................................... 59 Illustration 8.2 Foraging Habitat Conservation Priority Areas based on GHMv4 ...................................... 63 Illustration 8.3 Potential Camp and Forage Habitat Restoration Areas in the Lower Hunter .................... 69 Illustration 10.1 Conservation and Rehabilitation Opportunities for the Grey-headed Flying-fox in the Lower Hunter ................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Tables Table 2.1 Referenced Legislation Summary .............................................................................................. 11 Table 4.1 Seasonality of Records of GHFF ............................................................................................... 20 Table 5.1 Vegetation Supporting Lower Hunter GHFF Camps .................................................................. 26 Table 5.2 Landscape Positioning of Lower Hunter GHFF Camps ............................................................. 27 Table 5.3 Status of known GHFF Camps in the Lower Hunter .................................................................. 33 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter iv Table 6.1 The nectar scores of dietary species found in the Lower Hunter Region. Species with weighted productivity * reliability scores ≥0.65 are highlighted in yellow .................................................. 37 Table 6.2 Bi-monthly flowering phenologies of GHFF diet plants found in the Lower Hunter Region. ....... 38 Table 6.3 Fruits in the diet of GHFF that occur in the Lower Hunter region. .............................................. 39 Table 6.4 Features of habitat productive in each bi-month in the Lower Hunter region. Values in parentheses are data for June-July when C. maculata does not flower (at least 3 years in 4). Equivalent reductions occur in the April-May bi-month. ............................................................. 41 Table 6.5 The extent of vegetation types assigned to habitat ranks. ......................................................... 41 Table 7.1 Key Threatening Processes for the GHFF ................................................................................. 45 Table 7.2 GHFF Foraging Habitat Value within LHRS Development Areas............................................... 46 Table 7.3 Potential GHFF Camp Conflict ................................................................................................... 50 Table 8.1 LEP Areas in Zones Outside State-owned Conservation Reserves .......................................... 59 Table 8.2 Conserved Habitat Availability for the GHFF in the Lower Hunter ............................................. 62 Table 9.1 PAS for the GHFF ...................................................................................................................... 71 Table 9.2 Lower Hunter GHFF Conservation Recommended Actions....................................................... 77 Plates Plate 4.1 Grey-headed Flying-Fox and Eucalypt blossom (Eucalyptus microcorys) ................................. 17 Appendices A GHFF Dietary Species B GHFF Camps in the Lower Hunter Valley C Vegetation Types Affected by Proposed LHRS Development D Lower Hunter Foraging Habitat Analysis Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter v Executive Summary This management strategy for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (GHFF; Pteropus poliocephalus) in the Lower Hunter is part of the Australian Government’s Sustainable Regional Development (SRD) program, facilitated under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to protect matters of national environmental significance (MNES) where high demand for growth and development is expected (Section 1). This strategy aims to identify how to improve or maintain habitat and ecological processes critical to GHFFs and how future development and growth can proceed without affecting current and future use of the Lower Hunter by foraging and roosting GHFFs. The GHFF is listed as a threatened species (Section 2) under the federal EPBC Act and the NSW State Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Due to their behavioural ecology and mobility, all GHFFs form one population that encompasses their entire distribution with an array of camps scattered over this range, some large and permanent, others small and temporary (Section 4). These aspects make the GHFF a complex species to manage. The Lower Hunter is a rich and diverse area (Section 3), important to the GHFF for its Spotted Gum forests and other foraging areas (Section 6). It is also an area where the species tends to increase in numbers over warmer months, a period coinciding with the birth and raising of young. As such, the Lower Hunter is an important area for this species. The Lower Hunter supports 20 known camps of the GHFF (Section 5), although it is likely that additional camps occur, particularly within the western parts of the Cessnock Local Government Area (LGA). Seven GHFF camps are identified as critical to the survival (CTS) of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter: Millfield, Martinsville, Morisset, Blackbutt Reserve, Anna Bay, Medowie and Tocal. Six camps were clearly not CTS of the GHFF: Black Hill, Belmont, Glenrock, Hannan Street, Italia Road and Raymond Terrace. Three camps are in remote areas and limited information is available to determine their importance to the GHFF: Bobs Farm, Fullerton Cove and Snapper Island. Four other sites are newly established camps for which patterns of use have not yet been established: East Cessnock, Lorn, Throsby and Blackalls Park. The GHFF readily roosts in urban areas, resulting in conflict with humans. Most of the areas identified for future development in the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS) are further than 300 m from the nearest known GHFF camp (except land planned for residential development south of the East Cessnock camp). Unfortunately, it is not possible to predict where flying-foxes may establish new camps, however we assessed current and potential site attributes for proposed LHRS development sites and identified areas that could potentially meet criteria for a flying-fox camp site (Section 7). Alongside the risk of creating a new conflict site at East Cessnock, there is potential for GHFF camps to establish adjacent to or within many of the targeted areas for future urban expansion. A significant portion of the proposed LHRS development areas also contain high conservation value GHFF foraging habitat (89%; Section 7). Clearing for development outside of LHRS identified areas could further reduce the ability of GHFFs to persist in the Lower Hunter, as the volume of foraging habitat is much greater in these areas than within LHRS identified development sites Opportunities exist in the Lower Hunter to manage the impact of development on GHFFs (Section 8). Areas surrounded by high quality foraging habitat and containing favourable landscape roost site features (e.g. presence of rivers and coastal floodplains), could potentially be rehabilitated where current vegetation cannot support roosting GHFF. Such areas occur in the Cessnock and Maitland LGAs and also within the western portion of Port Stephens LGA. The increased availability of roosting habitat in these areas may relieve pressure on other nearby camps and possibly increase the options available for the management of contentious urban camps such as Lorn. 7,233 ha of cleared land suitable for foraging habitat restoration were identified where the restoration of forested habitat would be consistent with the primary land use aims. Most of the suitable area occurs to the north-west of Hexham Swamp Nature Reserve. Extensive, but fragmented, areas are also scattered throughout the Lake Macquarie LGA with moderate amounts of suitable sites in Port Stephens and Maitland LGA. Opportunities for offsetting the loss of habitat through conservation of existing high quality unprotected GHFF foraging habitat occur within 103,124 ha, occurring across all five Lower Hunter LGAs. A range of recommended management actions are presented in Section 9 to support the maintenance of habitat for the GHFF in the Lower Hunter. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter vi 1 Overview 1.1 The Grey-headed Flying-fox and the Lower Hunter The Grey-headed Flying-fox (GHFF; Pteropus poliocephalus) is listed as a matter of national environmental significance (MNES) under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). There are significant challenges for the conservation and management of this species. This nomadic bat follows temporal and spatial changes in its food supply across eastern Australia. A highly social animal, it roosts in aggregations which, at times, accommodate vast numbers of individuals which operate autonomously, determining individually their movements and camping sites. Strong community opposition to urban GHFF camps competes with the conservation needs of the species. Alongside other aspects of the ecology of the GHFF, these characteristics confound its management, complicating predictions of development impacts and habitat removal and the setting of priorities for habitat conservation. The Lower Hunter is located in central eastern NSW and is diverse in its natural and social environs. Vast coastal rivers and valley floodplains adjoin the Pacific Ocean and accommodate cities and agricultural pursuits. Upland regions to the south contain patches of extensive vegetated lands, supporting agriculture, grazing and timber production. To the north, upland coastal valleys have been more extensively cleared. Conservation areas are increasing through establishment of new reserves and additions to existing reserves. Together with ecotourism opportunities, lands set aside for conservation occur across all parts of the Lower Hunter Valley landscape. Internationally recognised wetlands occur within the Hunter River estuary and its associated swamps, forming significant areas for breeding migratory species, whilst other areas support a diverse range of threatened species and endangered ecological communities (DoP 2006). The Lower Hunter is also an area of expected high growth and development over the next 25 years (DoP 2006). Already the sixth largest urban area in Australia, further growth is expected as people are drawn to the area for lifestyle and work opportunities (DoP 2006). 1.2 Sustainable Regional Development Program This management strategy for the GHFF in the Lower Hunter has been prepared as part of the Australian Government’s Sustainable Regional Development (SRD) program. This program is facilitated under the EPBC Act to protect MNES in selected regions where high demand for growth and development is expected. This four-year program started mid-2011 and is one of the measures under Sustainable Australia – Sustainable Communities: A Population Strategy for Australia (http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/regional-development/index.html). In essence, the Australian Government recognises the need to proactively manage growth and development to ensure sustainability across all sectors – environmental, social and economic. Programs are being funded to support holistic approaches to achieving long-term sustainability in regional areas with current or projected high levels of growth. The Lower Hunter is the first region to benefit from SRD program. Assessments of MNES in the Lower Hunter include this study and another similar study for the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater. Further details about the program can be found on the Australian Government’s Lower Hunter Regional Sustainability Planning and Strategic Assessment webpage (http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/regional-development/lower-hunter/index.html). The GHFF is ideally suited to landscape-based assessments underpinned by fine-scale and locally-based knowledge of habitat uses, and provides an excellent subject for a management strategy under the SRD program. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 1 1.3 Purpose and Structure of this Study The purpose of this study is to: identify habitat critical for the survival of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter; analyse the current status of this habitat within the Lower Hunter and assess the likely impacts of development on the GHFF; identify areas of GHFF habitat that are not adequately protected; identify strategic areas for protection, enhancement or restoration; identify situations for biodiversity offsetting that would benefit the GHFF; and identify other management strategies for the protection of the GHFF and its habitat within the Lower Hunter. Broadly speaking, this strategy aims to identify how to improve or maintain habitat and ecological processes critical to the GHFF, and how development and growth can proceed without affecting the ongoing and future use of the Lower Hunter by foraging and roosting GHFFs. Section 2 provides the legislative context for the management of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter. Section 3 describes the Lower Hunter, while Section 4 describes the GHFF generally and as it occurs in the Lower Hunter. Sections 5 and 6 describe the roosting and foraging (respectively) habitat of the GHFF at a local level and identify environmental features critical to the survival of the GHFF within the Lower Hunter. Knowledge of the foraging and roosting behaviour of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter is identified through synthesis of contemporary and historical knowledge held by all levels of government, non-government groups, research bodies and individuals. Section 7 details the current status of GHFF habitat in the Lower Hunter, and describes the effects of planned and potential development on the foraging and roosting habitat of the GHFF. It identifies which habitats are likely to be impacted and the significance of these areas. Section 8 identifies areas required to support foraging and roosting GHFF, prioritises areas for conservation, and identifies mechanisms that could be employed to achieve protection of important habitat for the GHFF. Mechanisms explored include habitat retention, rehabilitation and enhancement and offsetting with existing high quality habitats. To supplement the conservation strategies, Section 9 details management actions that would support GHFF conservation and future growth needs of the Lower Hunter. An important component of the management of the GHFF is social issues associated with human–flying-fox conflict. This strategy considers the social impacts of future growth and development within the Lower Hunter on the protection and management of GHFF. A landscape (broad) and proactive approach to the management of the GHFF is proposed through this management strategy, as a mechanism to support sound impact assessment, appropriate consideration of cumulative impacts of habitat loss, sound decision-making with regard to regional and site-based planning decisions, and the management and protection of this complex species in the Lower Hunter, given the area’s projected growth and development needs. It is intended to be a living document that is updated as further studies and research contribute to an improved understanding of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter, and more effective management tools for foraging and roosting habitat conservation and conflict resolution. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 2 1.4 Abbreviations Biobanking Biodiversity Banking and Offsets Scheme CCC Cessnock City Council CMA Catchment Management Authority CRA Comprehensive Regional Assessment CTS Critical to survival DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (now OEH) DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change (now OEH) DECCW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (now OEH) DoP Department of Planning EEC Endangered Ecological Community EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 EPI Environmental Planning Instruments GHFF Grey-headed Flying-fox HCRCMA Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority LEP Local Environmental Plan LGA Local Government Area LHRS Lower Hunter Regional Strategy LNE Lower North East LMCC Lake Macquarie City Council MCC Maitland City Council MNES matters of national environmental significance NCC Newcastle City Council NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 OEH The NSW State Office of Environment and Heritage PAS Priority Action Statement PVP Property Vegetation Plan SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy DSEWPaC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities SRD Sustainable Regional Development program TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 VCA Voluntary Conservation Agreement Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 3 2 Legislation and Policy 1 1 1 Relevant to the management of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter is a range of guidelines, policies, planning instruments and laws, existing under many jurisdictions, including local, state and federal government as well as catchment-based management agencies. Each of these is described below and is considered in the conservation and management assessments in this report. 2.1 Federal Legislation and Policy 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The GHFF is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act (refer to Commonwealth Listing Advice on Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox); Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2001). DSEWPaC is responsible for administering the EPBC Act, including functions relating to GHFF across Australia, including the Lower Hunter. Examples of its application include providing advice on the need for referral of actions that may impact the GHFF and / or its habitat, assessing referrals for actions that may impact the GHFF and / or its habitat and coordinating recovery planning for this species (described in Section 2.1.2). There is a bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales in relation to parts of the assessment process, with regard to gaining approvals under the EPBC Act and NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) for actions involving threatened species that are listed under both Acts (http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessments/bilateral/nsw.html). Whilst this agreement does not remove the requirement for dual consent, where a Species Impact Statement is prepared under the TSC Act that considers the matters that the Commonwealth needs to consider, then the Species Impact Statement prepared for NSW State Government can be used as part of the assessments required federally. This streamlines the assessment, but not the approval process under the EPBC Act. A conservation agreement is currently being explored between the States and DSEWPaC in regard to streamlining the approval process associated with problematic flying-fox camps (i.e. those in conflict with humans). If successfully negotiated, this conservation agreement will remove the need for referral of activities that are covered by the conservation agreement to the Federal Minister for the Environment, although any actions outside of the guidelines may still need referral if an impact to the GHFF and / or its habitat is likely. To assist assessment of actions that could affect the GHFF, DSEWPaC have prepared the following guidelines: EPBC Act Administrative Guidelines on Significance - Supplement for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (DEH 2003); Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Bats. EPBC Act Survey Guidelines 6.1 (DEWHA 2010); and Flying-foxes and National Environmental Law (DSEWPaC 2012). DSEWPaC also administers the SRD program under the EPBC Act, for which this management strategy is being prepared. 2.1.2 Draft National Recovery Plan for the GHFF A draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-Fox Pteropus poliocephalus (DECCW 2009a) is being submitted for approval at the time of preparation of this strategy. The recovery plan will: consider conservation requirements throughout the species’ range; address ways to reduce the impact of threatening processes (including the negative impact of artificial structures such as power lines, loose netting and barbed-wire fences); Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 4 set objectives for recovery, identify actions to reverse decline and ensure long-term viability; address conservation requirements with regard to the GHFFs role in seed dispersal and pollination; and improve the comprehensiveness and reliability of information available to guide recovery (in particular to improve knowledge of demographics and population structure). Specific objectives relevant to the five-year duration of the recovery plan are to: identify, protect and enhance key foraging and roosting habitat; substantially reduce deliberate destruction associated with commercial fruit crops; reduce negative public attitudes and conflict with humans; and involve the community in recovery actions, where appropriate. Actions to meet these objectives incorporate principles of sustainable development and promote procedures to minimise significant adverse social and economic impacts, such as the use of environmental incentive schemes and equitable cost-sharing arrangements. In terms of this strategy, consistency with the draft National Recovery Plan (DECCW 2009a) has been sought with regard to the definition of habitat critical to survival for the GHFF and management policies or strategies to improve planning outcomes. This strategy takes the broad principles of the draft National Recovery Plan and refines them for the Lower Hunter. 2.1.2.1 Habitat Critical to Survival DSEWPaC are currently reviewing the definitions of roosting and foraging habitat critical to the survival of GHFF provided in previous drafts of the recovery plan. Expert workshops and extensive consultation have been undertaken by DSEWPaC, in acknowledgement of the complex nature of defining critical habitat for GHFFs. “Migration has been identified as a trait that can compound the detrimental impact of human activities on wildlife and increase extinction risk….Migratory animals are disadvantaged by extensive and complex habitat requirements, tendencies to congregate in restricted areas, and reliance on broad-scale, integrated conservation programs….Migrants are unlikely to be conserved incidentally within general programs of resource management….The problems associated with identifying and conserving critical habitat are further compounded in species with highly irregular migration paths such as Pteropus scapulatus and P. poliocephalus….” (Fleming & Eby 2003) At the time of preparation of this strategy, the current draft National Recovery Plan (DECCW 2009a) identifies foraging habitat critical to the survival of GHFF if it meets one or more of the following criteria: productive during winter and spring, when food bottlenecks have been identified (Parry-Jones & Augee 1991, Eby et al. 1999); known to support populations of >30,000 individuals within an area of 50 km radius (the maximum foraging distance of an adult); productive during the final weeks of gestation, and during the weeks of birth, lactation, and conception (September to May); productive during the final stages of fruit development and ripening in commercial crops affected by GHFF (months vary between regions; Hunter Valley grape picking season occurs February to March); and / or known to support a continuously occupied camp. At the time of preparation of this strategy, the draft National Recovery Plan (DECCW 2009a) identifies roosting habitat critical to the survival of GHFF if it meets one or more of the following criteria: is used as a camp either continuously or seasonally in >50% of years; Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 5 has been used as a camp at least once in 10 years (beginning in 1995, and is known to have contained >10,000 individuals—unless such habitat has been used only as a temporary refuge and the use has been of limited duration (i.e. in the order of days rather than weeks or months); and / or has been used as a camp at least once in 10 years (beginning in 1995) and is known to have contained >2,500 individuals, including reproductive females during the final stages of pregnancy, during lactation, or during the period of conception (i.e. September to May). A draft guideline defining critical habitat for the GHFF is expected to be made public once the Recovery Plan is approved. 2.1.3 Federally Funded Studies The following studies also apply to this strategy: Modelled Distribution of the GHFF with Camps – Map 5 (DSEWPaC undated_a); Known and Historic Campsites of the GHFF (DSEWPaC undated_b); Ranking the Feeding Habitats of Grey-headed Flying-foxes for Conservation Management (Eby & Law 2008); and Lower North East NSW Report (Eby & Law 2008). 2.1.4 Broad Conservation Policies / Strategies The Commonwealth has also produced broad strategies to guide biodiversity conservation and sustainable growth and development across Australia, including the following which may apply to GHFF habitat in the Lower Hunter: National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy (ALGA 1999); Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 (DSEWPaC 2010); and Australian Weeds Strategy (NRMMC 2006). 2.2 State Legislation and Policy The GHFF is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). The TSC Act is administered by the NSW State Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). The provisions of the TSC Act include administration of an independent scientific listing process for species, populations and communities of conservation concern. Through the identification of critical habitat (none has been identified for the GHFF) and provision under the NSW Biodiversity Strategy and BioBanking Scheme to improve degraded habitat, the TSC Act also protects threatened species habitat. It guides species recovery and threat abatement actions, and works alongside the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and the Native Vegetation Act 2003 to integrate threatened species considerations into NSW’s environmental planning framework. All actions must be assessed under the TSC Act to determine if they are likely to result in the harming of a threatened species, population or ecological community, or in damage to their habitat (under s94; refer to DECC Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines: The Assessment of Significance, DECC 2007a). Other pathways exist for the management of the GHFF and / or its habitat within the state planning framework. Not all or any of these options are necessarily available or appropriate in any particular circumstance. Under the TSC Act, alternative options include: A regulation can be made (s113A) that declares that an activity or class of activity does not significantly affect a threatened species or its habitat (this would streamline processing of s91 applications and issuing of s95 certificates). A Property Management Plan (PMP) can be prepared by a landholder and approved by the DirectorGeneral under s113B for the lands containing GHFF habitat. Works undertaken in accordance with an approved PMP do not require a s91 licence or s95 certificate. A Joint Management Agreement between the Director-General and a public authority can be entered into under s121 to manage, control, regulate or restrict an action that is jeopardising the survival of a Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 6 threatened species. Undertaking actions in accordance with the Joint Management Agreement is a defence to the offence of harming a threatened species or its habitat. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) alternative planning agreement options for the management of GHFF and / or its habitat include: A conservation agreement may be entered into by the Minister and a landholder or public authority under s69B that provides for the management of land for the purpose of threatened species or its habitat. Actions undertaken in accordance with a conservation agreement are a defence to the offence of harming a threatened species or its habitat. A general licence may be issued by the Director-General under s120 to harm a threatened species or its habitat; however it can only be issued if the harm or damage is for the welfare of an animal, or if there is a threat to life or property. The National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2002 exempts Aboriginal people from restrictions imposed by the NPW Act on hunting protected animals and gathering certain plants. The NSW government has produced a State Plan (DPC 2011) and the draft NSW Biodiversity Strategy 2010 – 2015 (DECCW 2011), both of which confirm the commitment of the NSW State Government to biodiversity conservation. OEH has produced the following government policies and guidelines to assist with administration of the TSC Act as it relates to the GHFF: Flying-fox Camp Management Policy (DECC 2007b); Netting of Commercial Fruit Trees - Guidelines to Protect Wildlife (OEH 2012d); Nectar Food Trees - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 4 (DEC 2004a); Flying-fox Camps - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 8 (DEC 2004b); Fleshy Fruited Fruit Trees - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 5 (DEC 2004c); Best Practice Guidelines for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (DECC 2008) ; Grey-headed Flying-fox - Profile (OEH, 2012a); Flying-foxes (OEH, 2012b); Grey-headed Flying-fox Vulnerable Species Listing, Final Determination (NSW Scientific Committee, 2001); and Priority Action Statements for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (OEH 2012c). In particular, OEH’s Flying-fox Camp Management Policy is clear that the focus of management of any conflict associated with flying-fox camps and humans should be placed on managing the camp in-situ. The Flying-fox Camp Management Policy states that dispersal will only be supported as a last resort and that such actions need to be carefully planned to avoid animal cruelty issues (as specified in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979) and relocation of flying-foxes to similarly unsuitable sites. Specifically, the Flying-fox Camp Management Policy provides that OEH will: encourage the conservation of flying-fox camps on public and private land, and will protect and manage flying-fox camps on lands administered by OEH; generally not support disturbing a flying-fox camp to force the animals to desert a camp, or to try and relocate a camp; not support disturbing camps under the following circumstances: - from when females are heavily pregnant until such time as the young can fly independently; - when there are adverse climatic conditions; - when daytime temperatures are extremely high; or Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 7 when OEH considers it likely that, due to proximity, flying-foxes disturbed from a camp will join camps in nearby towns, compounding problems at those sites; support camp management options that aim to retain flying-foxes in-situ; require preparation and implementation of a strategic plan to manage a camp in-situ before consideration of any proposal to relocate a camp; assess the level of compliance with the ‘Procedure for developing a flying-fox camp relocation proposal’ when assessing applications for a licence under s91 of the TSC Act; require submission of a report assessing whether an attempt to relocate a flying-fox camp has been successful following all relocation attempts licensed by OEH; require any person wishing to harm flying-foxes or damage their habitat obtain appropriate licences, including for cultural purposes under the TSC and NPW Acts; encourage research into the ecology of flying-foxes and their use of camps, including research into camp selection criteria. Support for national population estimates will continue as a method of monitoring population trends and identifying new camps; support bushland restoration activities that improve the quality, quantity and integrity of habitat in flyingfox camps and maintain camp function; support licensed wildlife carers’ use of best practice to rehabilitate and release flying-foxes that have suffered as a result of extreme weather; coordinate the preparation and implementation of an education and communication strategy in partnership with other agencies or organisations that share responsibility for addressing community needs and concerns; provide access to information on flying-fox camp locations; respond to public complaints about flying-fox camps promptly, courteously, and efficiently; liaise with the relevant authorities to develop joint strategies and actions where flying-fox camps are located near airports; encourage local government to protect flying-fox camps through local environmental planning controls; encourage local government to consider the location of flying-fox camps early in strategic planning processes, particularly when planning for proposed residential areas, schools, and similar infrastructure; encourage local government to prepare plans of management for flying-fox camps on council land and on land under councils’ care and control; encourage consideration of the location of flying-fox camps and the provision of spatial separation between camps and hazard-reduction activities in the planning and implementation of bushfire hazard reduction activities; and encourage consent authorities for native vegetation clearing and approval authorities for property vegetation plans (PVPs) under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, and organisations responsible for infrastructure development under various legislation, to identify and protect camps and provide for their expansion when undertaking strategic and site planning. - This strategy will be consistent with the above policies and state legislation. 2.3 Regional and Catchment-based Policies 2.3.1 Lower Hunter Regional Strategy The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS; DoP 2006) provides a 25-year direction for conservation planning and actions in the Lower Hunter Valley, which incorporates Port Stephens, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Cessnock and Maitland. Its primary purpose is to identify and ensure the availability of land for projected growth and development in a sustainable manner. It is underpinned by the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan described in Section 2.3.2. The SRD program and studies undertaken as part of the program such as this, will inform the current updates to the LHRS. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 8 Since the release of the LHRS in 2006, the Lower Hunter LGAs have produced, or are in the process of producing, new Standard Instrument-based Local Environmental Plans (LEPs; refer to Section 2.4) that were required to be consistent with the LHRS. These LEPs refine the aims of the LHRS at a local level. 2.3.2 Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan Produced by DECCW (now OEH) in 2009, the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan provides a 25-year direction for conservation planning and actions in the Lower Hunter Valley. It states that the “overarching goal for conservation in NSW…is that biodiversity and environmental value of soil, water quality and salinity, must be ‘improved or maintained’” (DECCW 2009b). These values are reflected in the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the provisions for biodiversity certification under the TSC Act. The LHRCP is also currently under review and will be informed by the SRD program and studies undertaken as part of the program, including this one. The Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan states clearly that “impacts to biodiversity, including threatened species, should be first avoided or mitigated” (DECCW 2009b). If avoidance or mitigation cannot be undertaken, offsets could be considered by OEH. Offsets should focus on freehold land that would contribute to the three following priority corridors: Watagan Ranges to Port Stephens; South Wallarah Peninsula; and Werakata National Park. Alternatively, other suitable freehold lands which form sensible additions to formal conservation reserves, or those which protect features under-represented within the formal conservation reserve system, could be considered. 2.3.3 Newcastle-Lake Macquarie Western Corridor Planning Strategy – draft The NSW Department of Planning (DoP) drafted a strategy to guide the implementation of the LHRS within western lands of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle LGAs (DoP 2010), which have been identified as proposed urban and employment lands within the LHRS (DoP 2006). This strategy identifies indicative preferred land uses at a finer scale than that presented in the LHRS. It reaffirms the Watagan to Stockton green corridor and describes memorandums of understanding between major landholders (Coal & Allied Industries and Hunter Development Corporation) and the NSW Government to ensure development does not occur within this corridor and to secure the availability of lands to meet urban and employment development targets. 2.3.4 The Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Action Plan and PVPs Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) were established by the NSW government to work with regional communities to improve the management of the state’s natural landscapes. The area covered by this strategy occurs within the Hunter–Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority (HCRCMA). The Catchment Action Plan for the HCRCMA provides a 10-year plan to coordinate natural-resource work throughout a region, creating partnerships and collaborations with government, industry, community groups, and individuals. The Catchment Action Plan affects GHFF through its management and monitoring of impacts to native vegetation on land zoned for rural purposes, and those outside of the Newcastle LGA. Administered under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NV Act), PVPs are agreements between landholders and the NSW Government (through the CMA) that provide approval to clear or manage vegetation as long as overall there is an ‘improve or maintain’ outcome. Incentive PVPs can provide funding for protection of native vegetation (e.g. weed suppression or riparian vegetation restoration), which would also support the GHFF in the Lower Hunter. 2.3.5 Other State-wide Policies or Agreements There may be Voluntary Conversation Agreements (VCAs) between landholders and the Minister administering the NPW Act. Likewise, Plans of Management and covenants (under the Conveyancing Act 1919) may occur in parts of the Lower Hunter to which this strategy applies. This strategy should be updated as such agreements are made. So far the following have been identified: Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 9 11 wildlife refuges; 12 conservation agreements; and 4 registered property agreements. The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) also contribute to conservation of native vegetation and therefore GHFF habitat conservation: SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands; SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforest; SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection; and SEPP 19 Bushland in Urban Areas (Lake Macquarie only). 2.4 Local Government Legislation and Policy A new standard LEP template was recently released by the DoP, with most councils updating their LEPs into the new standard format. This includes the Lower Hunter LGAs subject to this strategy (except Lake Macquarie). The following LEPs, therefore, apply: Maitland Local Environmental Plan 2011; Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011; Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2011; Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2012; Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004; and Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan – North Wallarah Peninsula 2000. At the time of preparation of this strategy, Lake Macquarie City Council is awaiting adoption of a Standard Instrument based LEP. Lake Macquarie City Council also has a policy to guide the development of planning agreements under the EP&A Act. Planning agreements can be used for voluntary conservation of land as part of the developer’s contribution scheme. This policy covers dedication of lands and contribution of funding for the management of these lands (R. Economos pers. comm.). Tree Preservation Orders and Development Control Plans may also contribute to native vegetation retention, and thereby GHFF conservation. Two local biodiversity management strategies have also been prepared for Lower Hunter: Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan (this plan unites various studies and programs aimed at restoring Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) and protecting threatened species. For more information go to the Cessnock Management Plan page of OEH’s website); and Newcastle Biodiversity Strategy 2006. These locally-focussed biodiversity management strategies identify areas of environmental significance and / or conservation value, and strategies for their sustainable management and protection. The Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan identifies local corridors and ranks areas for priority conservation work. In identifying areas of habitat for the GHFF in the Lower Hunter that are suitable for conservation or as priorities for offsetting projects, quality GHFF habitat that is already similarly identified in local management plans should be prioritised. 2.5 Non-government Organisation Policies / Information There are no non-government organisation policies or guidelines relating to GHFF habitat management and / or conservation. Factsheets are available from the Australasian Bat Society website that provide general Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 10 information about Australia’s flying-foxes and bat diseases; however these are not specifically related to GHFF in the Lower Hunter. 2.6 Summary of Legislation and Policies A list of legislation and policies referenced within this assessment is provided in Table 2.1 below. Table 2.1 Referenced Legislation Summary Legislation Jurisdiction Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 NSW Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Vic Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004 NSW Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan – North Wallarah Peninsula 2000 NSW Maitland Local Environmental Plan 2011 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 SA National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2002 NSW Native Vegetation Act 2003 NSW Nature Conservation Act 1992 Qld Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2012 NSW Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2011 NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 NSW SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands NSW SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforest NSW SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection NSW SEPP 19 Bushland in Urban Areas NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 NSW Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Fed. 11 3 The Lower Hunter 3 2 2 3.1 Description 3.1.1 Location The following LGAs are the subjects of this strategy and are collectively referred to as the ‘Lower Hunter’ in this document (refer to Illustration 3.1): Cessnock; Lake Macquarie; Maitland; Newcastle; and Port Stephens. The Lower Hunter is located 160 km north of Sydney and extends over 4,291 km2 (DoP 2006). 3.1.2 Traditional Context The Lower Hunter is home to the following traditional people: Awabakal, Darkinjung, Wonnarua and Worimi (DoP 2006). 3.1.3 Environmental Values Although rural and semi-rural areas comprise approximately 80% of the Lower Hunter, the region contains a variety of important ecological features, including extensive drinking-water aquifers, areas of rugged forest ranges and significant coastal and estuarine environments (DoP 2006). The area also contains internationally and nationally significant areas of ecological value; for example, the internationally recognised Kooragang Wetlands which are part of the Ramsar-listed Hunter Estuary Wetlands and support many migratory birds protected under JAMBA / CAMBA. Eighty-two threatened fauna species listed on the TSC Act occur or are likely to occur in the Lower Hunter (DECCW 2009b), reflecting the areas significant biodiversity values. 3.1.4 Growth and Development As the sixth-largest urban area in Australia, the Lower Hunter is identified for its potential for additional economic and population growth (DoP 2006). Historically, the economy of the Lower Hunter was based on agriculture, mining and industrial manufacturing. Recently, economic diversification has broadened the nature of economic endeavours and a skilled workforce has become a large component of available employment in the area. Interestingly, whilst a shift in nature of the economy is occurring, the Lower Hunter maintains its traditional, resourced-based industries, with the operation of a range of mining enterprises and related infrastructure significant to the national economy, including the world’s largest coal-exporting port. The area is also agriculturally rich, with the large Hunter River and several other significant rivers meandering through the Lower Hunter Valley, which includes wide floodplains containing rich alluvial soil. These rural areas also include key industries such as mining, wine production and tourism (DoP 2006). 3.1.5 Future Development 3 The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (DoP 2006) identifies further growth in the Lower Hunter area, including 66,000 new jobs, 160,000 new residents and 115,000 new dwellings to “harness the Region’s competitive advantages to maximise economic opportunities of the next 25 years”.The Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 12 4 The Grey-headed Flying-fox 4 3 4 4.1 General Ecology 4.1.1 Taxonomy Order: Suborder: Family: Genus: Species in NSW: 4.1.2 Chiroptera Megachiroptera Pteropodidae Pteropus Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox; refer to Plate 4.1) Conservation Status The GHFF is protected under the following legislation: in NSW under the NPW Act (administered by OEH); in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (administered by Department of Sustainability and Environment); in Queensland under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (administered by Department of Environment and Heritage Protection); and in South Australia under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (administered by SA Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources). Additionally, the GHFF is listed as a species of conservation concern as follows: Vulnerable within NSW under the NSW Government TSC Act (administered by OEH); Vulnerable within Victoria under the Victorian Government Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (administered by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment); Vulnerable across Australia under the Commonwealth EPBC Act (administered by DSEWPaC); and Vulnerable Internationally (IUCN Red List). Identified nationally as a ‘Vulnerable’ species, the GHFF is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future (Duncan et al 1999). The reasons (criteria) that qualify the GHFF for this category include population reduction of over 20% over the last three generations, actual or potential levels of exploitation and effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites (Duncan et al. 1999). Since 1989, further evidence shows a decline in numbers of the GHFF of 30% (Tidemann et al. 1999, Parry-Jones 2000, Eby & Lunney 2006, NSW Scientific Committee 2001). The longterm population decline of the GHFF is considered greater than this. Ratcliffe (1932) hypothesised a 50% reduction in Australian flying-fox numbers had occurred by the late 1920s. The major threats affecting the GHFF have been identified as loss of foraging and roosting habitat, culling associated with orchard management and resource competition with the Black Flying-fox, Pteropus alecto (DECCW 2009a, NSW Scientific Committee 2001). 4.1.3 Distribution GHFFs are endemic to Australia, distributed throughout coastal lowlands and ranges of eastern Australian from Mackay, Queensland in the north (Roberts et al. 2008), through NSW, to Melbourne, Victoria in the south (Menkhorst 1995, Roberts et al. 2012a). Since 2010, the range of the GHFF has extended to Adelaide (DEWNR 2012). In 2010, small camps were also established in other areas that were previously rarely used, such as Orange (Cenwest Environmental Services 2010), Young and Bathurst in western NSW, the Albury / Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 14 Wodonga NSW / Victorian border area and Bendigo in Victoria. The Lower Hunter Valley is therefore close to the centre of the geographical range of the GHFF. The GHFF is a highly mobile, migratory species that relies on food sources which have largely irregular patterns of productivity (Eby & Law 2008, DECCW 2009a). Some individuals migrate whereas others are sedentary (Fleming & Eby 2003, Tidemann & Nelson 2004). The migratory characteristics of individuals vary widely. Continuously occupied camps located in floristically-diverse landscapes or urban areas contain small resident populations. Some members of the migratory population show seasonal fidelity to camps, with regular patterns of occupation, while others are largely nomadic, following more erratic pulses of nectar (Eby 1991 & 1996, Parry-Jones & Augee 2001, Fleming & Eby 2003, Tidemann & Nelson 2004, Roberts et al. 2012b). Reasons for undertaking long-distance movements may include access to additional foraging opportunities, search for mating opportunities, exchange of information about other parts of the range, and / or a combination of these (Tidemann & Nelson 2004). Patterns of movement vary markedly between individuals in terms of distances travelled and time spent at different roosts, within and between regions (Roberts et al. 2012b). Most long-distance movements involve latitudinal (north–south) shifts and cover a significant part of the species’ geographical range, which spans approximately 2,000 km from northern to southern limits (Roberts et al. 2012a), although its range extends to Adelaide along the southern coastal fringe. Studies indicate the species is panmitic (Eby 1991, Webb & Tidemann 1996) and, as such, all GHFF must be regarded as one continuous population. This is a significant factor for the management of this species. 4.1.4 Habitat 4.1.4.1 Roosting Habitat GHFFs are highly colonial, roosting in canopy vegetation in aggregations often referred to as ‘camps’. Typical characteristics of flying-fox roosting habitat (Eby 2002, Eby & Lunney 2002, Hall & Richards 2000, Peacock 2004, Roberts 2005) include: closed canopy (rainforest, mangroves, floodplain or riparian forest dominated by Eucalypts, Corymbia, Casuarina spp. or Melaleuca quinquenervia); continuous canopy area >1 ha (ideally >10 ha in size); within 50 km of the coast or at elevation <65 m; close proximity to waterways (<500 m), commonly rivers or creeks; level topography, <5o incline; canopy height >8 m; and positioned within nightly commuting distance (generally <20 km) of sufficient food resources to support the population of a communal roost. These characteristics alone cannot predict where GHFF choose to camp and additional characteristics such as microhabitat traits, features of the surrounding landscape or simply the logistical location may also be important. Camps occur in vegetation ranging from continuous forest to remnants as small as 1 ha (Eby 2002, West 2002), although camps in vegetation smaller than this also occur (e.g. Lorn – approximately 0.2 ha). Urban roosts can be located in public parks in areas with continuous canopy cover (ARCUE 2009) or even in sites where canopies are relatively separate. In many cases, roosts in park lands do not contain a well developed understorey, often comprising of tall tree specimens with a mown or manicured grassy understorey (e.g. Lorn in Maitland and Burdett Park in Singleton). Landscape features near roosts, such as river and creek systems, may assist flying-foxes to navigate, as may street lighting in urban landscapes (Birt et al. 2000). The locations of camps are generally stable through time, with approximately 250 camps having been recorded within the range of the GHFF (Eby 2008). In NSW, only 5% of these roost sites occur in conservation reserves (NSW Scientific Committee 2001). At any time, the majority of camps are empty, however flying-fox numbers can quickly increase to >20,000. Camps vary in their patterns of occupation from sites occupied infrequently and for short periods, to sites that are occupied on a continuous basis (DECC Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 15 2009a). Eby (2008) notes that camps associated with rainforest fruits and highly diverse flower-producing forests show more consistent patterns than camps associated with less-complex vegetation. Flying-foxes have well-developed spatial memories, enabling individuals to remember the locations of camps (Roberts 2009), even those occupied very infrequently (Eby 2008). There is evidence that the stability of roost locations has diminished in recent years. New camps have been established in several local areas, and various long-established sites have been abandoned to be replaced by new sites in relatively close proximity (Birt et al. 2000, Hall 2002, Smith 2008, Roberts et al. 2011, Eby et al. 2012 and unpublished data). Changes in roosting patterns are often attributed to disturbance of existing sites and altered conditions experienced during food shortages, although other unknown conditions may also contribute. Dispersal actions at long-established camps generally result in both the establishment of a new, replacement site and fragmentation of the local population such that the number of camps in a local area increases (Roberts et al. 2011). Flying-foxes establish new campsites during periods of food shortage, some of which persist once environmental conditions improve (Smith 2008, Eby et al. 2012 and unpublished data). Some of these camps are established in areas outside the previously recognised range of GHFF, such as Adelaide and Canberra. However, the majority occur in previously occupied areas. In these circumstances, an increase in the density of camps provides the opportunity for flying-foxes to reduce their foraging distances and energy requirements and also possibly to reduce competition for resources. 4.1.4.2 Feeding Habitat At night, flying-foxes navigate principally by sight (rather than echolocation as is the case with microbats), with their sense of smell and spatial memory assisting them to locate food. GHFFs forage up to 50 km from camps, although >75% of foraging activity is within a 20 km radius (Eby 1991, Tidemann 1999). The feeding distances of resident animals are shorter than those in the migratory population (Eby 1996). GHFFs have adapted to cleared and highly-altered landscapes, and there is no evidence that habitat responses, particularly avoidance of disturbed areas, influence feeding flights (Eby 1996). The animals utilise feeding trees in urban and cleared habitats, as well as in forested areas, although intact landscapes provide greater densities of many dietary species than cleared land. Recent studies have shown that some urban areas can sustain GHFF populations through street tree plantings and backyard trees (McDonald-Madden et al. 2005). In winter, GHFFs tend to congregate in coastal lowlands in the northern part of their range in south-east Queensland and northern New South Wales (Eby 2002, Roberts 2012b). In spring and summer they move south and west, and by autumn they are highly dispersed, occupying twice the number of camps as winter but in smaller populations (Eby 2003 & 2008). These general patterns are associated with latitudinal trends in the species richness and seasonality of foraging resources for GHFF in native forests (Eby & Law 2008). In particular, native forests in the northern part of the range provide relatively consistent and abundant winter resources, while nectar-producing habitat is rare at higher latitudes during winter and spring. 4.1.5 Reproduction and Life Expectancy Australian flying-foxes are seasonal, synchronous breeders (DECCW 2009a, Eby 2008) and polygamy is common. They are also panmitic, in that there is no geographic or group founded genetic structure. Mating behaviour in Black and Grey-headed Flying-foxes commences in January with conception occurring in April / May (Nelson 1965, Martin et al. 1996). They have a low reproductive rate, with a single pup generally born in October / November (Martin & McIlwee 2002); although births in September can occur (P. Eby unpublished data). In 2012, very young pups were observed in the first week of September (Dowling pers. com.) in the Lower Hunter. Whilst previously reported as being capable of opportunistic breeding (Tidemann 1999), the consensus of contemporary studies describes limited plasticity in the breeding of the GHFF (O’Brien 2011). Newborn flying-foxes are incapable of thermoregulation (Bartholomew et al. 1964). Young cling to their mothers continuously for approximately four to five weeks, after which they are left at the camp at night and suckled during the day. By the time young are three months old, they are capable of short flights and develop the skills for fully-independent foraging forays over the following weeks. GHFFs lactate for approximately six months. Weaning commences in March and continues progressively through May (Welbergen 2008). Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 16 Plate 4.1 Grey-headed Flying-Fox and Eucalypt blossom (Eucalyptus microcorys) Individuals reach reproductive maturity in the second year of life, but typically do not successfully raise young until the third and fourth year (Divljan 2008). However food shortages and other as yet unknown events can cause mass abortion or abandonment of young (P. Eby unpublished data), decreasing reproductive output. Studies show that death of a female often results in the death of two GHFF due to the extended period of dependency of the young (Divljan et al. 2011). GHFFs can hybridise with P. alecto (Black Flying-fox) to produce fertile offspring (DECCW 2009a), although it is unclear whether, or to what extent, this happens in the wild. Flying-foxes can live for over 16 years in the wild, however, average life expectancy is more likely to be under seven years (Divljan et al. 2006). 4.1.6 Diet GHFFs are canopy-feeding frugivores and nectivores; feeding primarily on blossom and fruit in canopy vegetation, and occasionally supplementing this with leaves (Ratcliffe 1931, Parry-Jones & Augee 1991, Eby 1995, Tidemann 1999, Hall & Richards 2000 in DECCW 2009a). The majority of animals feed on nectar and pollen from species of Eucalyptus, Corymbia, Angophora, Lophostemon, Melaleuca and Banksia. They also feed on introduced tree species in urban areas and commercial fruit crops. Over 100 native flora species are included in the diet of GHFF. Of these, 40 species of nectar plants and 43 species of fruit-bearing plants occur within the Lower North East CRA region (Eby & Law 2008). Appendix A shows a diet list for the Lower Hunter. 4.1.7 Environmental Services Flying-foxes disperse the pollen and seeds of more than 100 species of native trees and vines. In doing so, they make a valuable contribution to the reproductive and evolutionary processes of hundreds of forest and woodland communities throughout Australia, and of many commercially valuable hardwood and rainforest trees. Various characteristics of flying-foxes contribute to their role as pollen and seed dispersers, and make their patterns of dispersal unique among Australia’s fruit and blossom feeding animals. Their mobility, territorial feeding behaviour, and colonial habit, result in wide-ranging dissemination of pollen and seeds (Eby 1996, Southerton et al. 2004, Birt 2005a). Their ability to move freely among habitat types allows them to Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 17 transport genetic material, both within continuous tracts of forest and across fragmented, degraded and urban landscapes (Eby 1996, Birt 2005b), thereby protecting ecosystem functions in altered landscapes, and assisting with sustainable forest management. These services provided by flying-foxes are of inestimable ecological and commercial value. 4.2 GHFF in the Lower Hunter 4.2.1 Foraging Behaviour An assessment of available foraging habitat for the GHFF was undertaken by Eby and Law (2008; refer to Illustration 4.1). They found the following for the Lower North East (LNE) region, a broader area that includes the Lower Hunter Valley: 40 species of plants occur which contribute to the GHFF nectar diet (38 Myrtaceae and two Proteaceae; refer to Appendix A for full list); seven of these species are highly productive: - Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata); - Red Bloodwood (C. gummifera); - Pink Bloodwood (C. intermedia); - Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta); - Grey Ironbark (E. siderophloia); - Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis); and - Broad-leaved Paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia). a relatively high proportion of these have regular annual flowering schedules, the highest proportion flower in December / January and the lowest in June / July. However, the frequency with which they flower varies between species, ranging from those that flower well every year (e.g. E. robusta) to those that flower well <30% of years (e.g. C. maculata); 43 species of rainforest trees and lianas that occur in the LNE region occur in the GHFF fruit diet; of the 961 vegetation types described in the LNE, 57% contain nectar resources for GHFF, covering 43% of the LNE and comprising 75% of the extant vegetation. However few areas contain vegetation types containing nectar resources rated as being highly productive and reliable, comprising only 2% of vegetation types which cover 0.7% of the LNE land area. Nectar resources with moderate productivity and reliability scores cover approximately 9% of the land area; and only 8% of vegetation types in the LNE region, covering 3% of the land area contain species providing fruiting resources for the GHFF. A review of foraging habitat for the Lower Hunter utilising the Greater Hunter Vegetation Map (GHMv4; Siversten et al. 2011) has been undertaken. This is discussed further in Section 6. It forms the basis for identifying foraging habitat critical to the survival of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter and setting conservation priorities for foraging habitat. 4.2.2 GHFF Observations Within the OEH Wildlife Atlas, 361 records of the GHFF are located within the Lower Hunter (refer to Table 4.1 and Illustration 4.2). The vast majority of these records are observations and audible detections of, presumably, commuting and / or foraging animals. A very small proportion relates to roost-site observations. The season or bi-month in which records were detected correlates with the foraging habitat modelling undertaken by Eby & Law (2008). There is a spike in the number of detections in summer and early autumn, with low numbers detected at other times, particularly June / July and August / September. Illustration 4.1 Foraging Habitat - Lower North East NSW Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 18 Table 4.1 Seasonality of Records of GHFF Bi-month December / January February / March April / May June / July August / September October / November Grand Total Source: OEH Wildlife Atlas Number of Records 84 108 72 22 23 52 361 4.3 Research / Monitoring Programs 4.3.1 Previous Studies Few previous studies of the GHFF have included the Lower Hunter within their study area. The most commonly encountered comments regarding the use of the Lower Hunter by GHFFs are studies involving radio telemetry (radio-t) and satellite telemetry (satellite-t) methodology. As GHFF are highly mobile, at times animals are tracked into the Lower Hunter Valley. Otherwise, the Lower Hunter is included in broad studies on this species. One such example is the earliest known documented study of GHFFs undertaken by Ratcliff and published in 1931. Ratcliff observed patterns in the seasonality of camp occupation in areas between the Hunter River and Mary River in Queensland. He concluded that long distances are travelled by this species, and hypothesised about a northward trend in movement over winter (Ratcliff 1931). Subsequent studies have demonstrated that GHFF readily shift between camps in northern NSW, the Lower Hunter and further south (Eby 1991). More recent studies utilising satellite-t to follow a GHFF tagged in Melbourne and another tagged from Currie Park (northern NSW), revealed that both animals spent time within the Lower Hunter, covering approximately 1,000 km from their initial point of capture (Tidemann & Nelson 2004). Eby (1991) found that “P. poliocephalus in northern and central NSW appear to function as a single breeding population and should be managed as such”. A broad study has also been undertaken on GHFF foraging habitat in terms of spatial and temporal shifts in availability. Eby and Law (2008) completed an assessment of GHFF feeding habitat along the east coast of Australia, and ranked these to assist with conservation management. This strategy includes an update of this work for the Lower Hunter using the GHMv4 vegetation mapping product (refer to Section 6). Whilst these studies demonstrate that GHFF move very long distances, and that naturally available food opportunities shift seasonally and unpredictably for this species within its range, there are also examples of permanent camps where food resources can support animals throughout the year. A study undertaken at a large camp in Sydney (Gordon) suggests that the introduction of a wide variety of Australian and exotic plants has supported permanent camp occupation (Parry-Jones & Augee 2001). Similar conclusions have been drawn for Melbourne (Williams et. al 2006). It is conceivable that Blackbutt Reserve, the only continuouslyoccupied camp in the Lower Hunter, is likewise supported by a broad and unnaturally diverse range of suitable foraging species for the GHFF. With the predicted growth and development described in the LHRS, similar situations may be established elsewhere in the Lower Hunter. National GHFF surveys conducted between 1998 and 2005 showed that a small number of camps in the Lower Hunter were occupied in April / May, while only Blackbutt Reserve in Newcastle was occupied in July (Eby et al 1999, Eby 2002, 2003, 2004, Birt 2005a). Work qualifying the frugivorous diet of GHFF provides insight into how vegetation in the Lower Hunter provides foraging resources for this species (Eby 1998), whilst others have provided insight into the flowering phenology of Myrtaceous trees in relation to climatic, environmental and disturbance variables (Law et al. 2000). Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 20 Most recently, work published by Roberts et. al. (2012b) showed through improved satellite-t technology (improving detection during migration) that GHFF captured at Fraser Island and other locations in southeastern Queensland frequented camps as far as 1,075 km to the south in Western Sydney. 4.3.2 Current Research / Monitoring Programs Some current research / monitoring programs are likely to offer insight into GHFF movements in the Lower Hunter. A current monitoring study associated with the Royal Botanical Gardens in Sydney involving satellitet may assist with locating unknown camp sites in the Lower Hunter. The study was conducted at a time when a preferred dietary species, Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) flowered profusely in the area and camps associated with this resource contained large populations. Therefore, the study is also likely to generate data on the feeding sites used by study animals using this resource. Preliminary information from this study regarding feeding locations was used to verify vegetation-type mapping (refer to Section 6.4). The National Flying-Fox Monitoring Program is a collaborative work involving DSEWPaC, CSIRO and environmental government agencies from SA, VIC, NSW, ACT and QLD. The program is funded from many sources, including the Intergovernmental Hendra Virus Taskforce and the National Environmental Research Program, which is administered by DSEWPaC. The program focuses on the population numbers and movement of the two EPBC-Act-listed species: the GHFF and the Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus). This program is being coordinated by CSIRO and involves a period of national census counts supplemented by remote sensing. The first counts were held between 14 and 16 of February 2013 and are to be held quarterly for the next four years. More details on the method for census collection and data analysis has been prepared by CSIRO (A monitoring method for the grey-headed flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus; Westcott et al 2011). This work will provide information on periodic use of camps in the Lower Hunter over coming years and trends in any change in population number. Illustration 4.2 Records of Grey-headed Flying-fox in the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 21 5 Roosting Habitat in the Lower Hunter 5 5 5 5.1 Locations 5.1.1 Existing Information Information on camp locations was compiled from databases and records held by ecologists with experience of the Lower Hunter. There are two formally-recognised databases containing information about GHFF camps. The National Camp Database (DSEWPaC undated_b), which is administered by DSEWPaC, contains 269 entries for camps across VIC, NSW, QLD, SA and ACT. The OEH’s GHFF camp database (DECCW 2010a) lists camps that have been used by GHFF or the Black Flying-fox (Pteropus alecto) since 1990. The majority of the camps listed on the OEH database were documented during national GHFF surveys conducted between 1998 and 2005. A further update occurred in 2006/7 (shape file metadata, available through the OEH Spatial Data website). This data is accompanied by a camp-boundary spatial data file (DECCW 20010b). The OEH camp database has recently been updated as a result of a national GHFF camp census held in February 2013 (refer to Section 4.3.2). Both the national and state databases show 12 camp locations within the Lower Hunter and an additional 18 within 50 km of the Lower Hunter. The OEH database provides some data about each camp, including: accuracy of location (1 = very accurate, within 50 m; 2 = within 500 m; 3 = approximate); species of flying-fox observed in the camp (GHFF, Black Flying-fox, Little Red Flying-fox – P. scapulatus); an assessment against criteria for listing as critical to the survival (CTS) of the GHFF as set out in the draft Recovery Plan (DECCW 2010c) under the Commonwealth EPBC Act; occupation pattern (disused, rare, irregular, annual, continuous, unknown; term undefined); and location details (LGA, map sheet, latitude / longitude and MGA easting / northing). 5.1.2 Camp Verification Surveys A review was undertaken of the existing information regarding GHFF camp locations and various individuals, groups and agencies with an interest in flying-foxes provided input. These included wildlife carers, local ecologists, flying-fox enthusiasts, the HCRCMA and the Parks and Wildlife Group of OEH. Work to verify camp locations and characteristics was undertaken for the purposes of this study in October and November 2012 by contacting persons familiar with each site. In cases where the accuracy of location data was poor or the camps were newly-established, site information was verified by field inspection and discussions with landholders. An additional seven camps were added to the 12 pre-existing sites within the Lower Hunter. The location of ten of the previously documented 12 camps was adjusted for improved accuracy (refer to Illustration 5.1 and Appendix B). There was consistent evidence that four of the 19 camps were not occupied during the last ten years, being Belmont, Black Hill, Glenrock and Italia Road. These camps are considered as abandoned, historic sites for the purposes of this strategy. In February, OEH became aware of another GHFF camp located at Blackalls Park, approximately 12 km south of Newcastle (refer to Illustration 5.1). This camp has not been field verified as part of this study and information presented about this camp in this report relies on gratefully accepted early reports provided by OEH and Lake Macquarie City Council through OEH. Illustration 5.1 Grey-headed Flying-fox Camps in the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 23 5.2 Camp Characteristics 5.2.1 Seasonality Flying-foxes occupy the majority of camps in the Lower Hunter on a seasonal basis. Exceptions to this pattern are the camp at Blackbutt Reserve in urban Newcastle, which is occupied continuously, and a recently-established camp at Lorn, which also appears to support a consistent flying-fox presence. In the majority of years, GHFF numbers in the Lower Hunter are highest in the warmer months of spring, summer and autumn, and all but the two continuously-occupied camps are empty in winter. This general trend is also evident when examining the dates of GHFF records from the Lower Hunter (refer to Table 4.1). It is significant that GHFF are consistently present in the Lower Hunter from spring to autumn, as this coincides with birthing and raising of young. Actions that affect maternity camps (camps used by females during late pregnancy, birth and periods when young are dependent) potentially affect the reproductive output of the GHFF population. Twelve camps in the Lower Hunter are known to support breeding females (maternity camps): East Cessnock Blackbutt Reserve Millfield Fullerton Cove Martinsville Medowie Morisset Snapper Island Hannan Street Raymond Terrace Lorn Tocal The presence of breeding females has not been confirmed at Throsby, Anna Bay or Bobs Farm due to access issues. However, each of these camps is occupied during the maternity season in sufficient numbers to make the presence of breeding females highly likely. There is a high degree of variability in the presence and numbers of animals at individual camps, which is typical for the GHFF across its range. In the Lower Hunter, GHFFs are present in large numbers over the cooler months during irregular mass flowering of Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata). Estimates of GHFF numbers in camps within the Lower Hunter Valley suggested that in early April 2012, during a time of Spotted Gum flowering, this area supported at least 250,000 flying-foxes, or approximately half of the currently estimated GHFF population in Australia. This emphasises the importance of the Lower Hunter to the GHFF. There is also evidence that the region provides refuge during periods of food shortage. New camps are known to have formed during the 2010 GHFF food shortage. It is believed that Lorn, Hannan Street, Raymond Terrace, Tocal and possibly East Cessnock formed to provide access to food during this time. 5.2.2 Vegetation Typical vegetation characteristics of flying-fox roosting habitat (Eby 2002, Eby & Lunney 2002, Hall & Richards 2000, Peacock 2004, Roberts 2005) include: closed canopy (rainforest, mangroves, floodplain or riparian forest dominated by Casuarina spp. or Melaleuca quinquenervia); continuous canopy area >1 ha (ideally >10 ha in size); and canopy height >5 m. Whilst most camps in the Lower Hunter comprise of typical vegetation characteristics as described above, there are some exceptions: the canopy height at the East Cessnock camp is atypically low, at approximately 5 m; Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 25 the extent of vegetation at the Hannan Street and Lorn camps is notably small; both contain approximately 0.2 ha of canopy vegetation that is open in structure and whose major components comprise of introduced species; and the Tocal camp site includes Flooded Gum planted in the early 1990s. These plantings were approximately 20 years old when this camp was first used. Table 5.1 Vegetation Supporting Lower Hunter GHFF Camps Camp Black Hill Vegetation Assemblage GHMv4* MU007 Sandpaper Fig /Whalebone Field Observations not verified Canopy Availability > 10 ha E. Cessnock MU115 Eucalyptus parramattensis /Angophora bakeri /Melaleuca nodosa Paperbark Depression shrubby woodland in the Cessnock-Kurri Forest Kurri area < 2 ha Millfield MU007 Sandpaper Fig /Whalebone warm temperate rainforest Hunter Valley Dry Rainforest > 10 ha Belmont MU206 Broad-leaved Paperbark /Swamp Oak /Saw Sedge swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast and Lower North Coast as per GHVM v4 > 10 ha Glenrock MU071 /MU072 Moist shrubby open forest types dominated by Spotted Gum not verified > 10 ha Martinsville MU010 Jackwood /Lilly Pilly /Sassafras riparian warm temperate rainforest of the Central Coast Wet gully forest: Bangalow Palm /Sydney Blue Gum /rainforest midstorey including Acmena smithii > 10 ha as per GHVM v4 > 10 ha Private garden planting Garden planting, introduced trees MU050 and also planted warm temperate rainforest < 0.25 ha < 0.25 ha unverified > 4 ha as per GHVMv4 < 4 ha MU055 Sydney Blue Gum / Lilly Pilly mesic tall open forest of coastal ranges and tablelands escarpment Hannan Street MU000 Non-native vegetation Lorn MU000 Non-native vegetation MU050 Blackbutt /Turpentine /Sydney Blackbutt Blue Gum mesic tall open forest on Reserve ranges of the Central Coast MU200 Swamp Mahogany / Flax-leaved Blackalls Park Paperbark swamp forest on coastal floodplains of the Central Coast MU229 Grey Mangrove low closed Throsby forest Morisset Anna Bay MU128 Smooth-barked Apple /Blackbutt /Old Man Banksia woodland on coastal sands of the Central and Lower North Coast Bobs Farm MU128 Smooth-barked Apple /Blackbutt /Old Man Banksia woodland on coastal sands of the Central and Lower North Coast Fullerton Cove MU206 Broad-leaved Paperbark /Swamp Oak /Saw Sedge swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast and Lower North Coast MU206 Broad-leaved Paperbark /Swamp Oak /Saw Sedge swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast and Lower North as perCoast GHVM v4 MU229 Grey Mangrove low closed forest Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter > 10 ha > 10 ha > 10 ha > 10 ha 26 Camp Italia Road Medowie Vegetation Assemblage GHMv4* MU072 Spotted Gum /Broad-leaved Mahogany /Red Ironbark shrubby open forest MU133 Parramatta Red Gum /Fernleaved Banksia /Melaleuca sieberi swamp woodland of the Tomaree Peninsula Canopy Availability Field Observations Melaleuca decora / Alphitonia excelsa > 10 ha Melaleuca quinquenervia > 10 ha Ray. Terrace MU000 Non-native vegetation Planted vegetation, animals roosting in Casuarina glauca < 0.7 ha Snap. Island MU018 Tuckeroo / Lilly Pilly / Coast Banksia littoral rainforest as per GHVM v4 > 10 ha MU000 Non-native vegetation and MU196 River Oak /White Cedar Grassy MU000, MU196 and some Tocal Riparian Forest of the Dungog Area and additional native planting Liverpool Ranges *Greater Hunter Vegetation Map v 4 (Sommerville 2009; Sivertsen et al. 2011) 5.2.3 ~ 6 ha Position in the Landscape Typical characteristics of flying-fox roosting habitat (Eby 2002, Eby & Lunney 2002, Hall & Richards 2000, Peacock 2004, Roberts 2005) include: within 50 km of the coast or at elevation <65 m; close proximity to waterways (<500 m), commonly rivers or creeks; level topography, <5˚ incline; and positioned within nightly commuting distance (generally <20 km) of sufficient food resources to support the population of a communal roost. GHFF camps in the Lower Hunter conform to these generalised camp characteristics (refer to Table 5.2). Seventeen of the camps occur within the coastal floodplain or areas associated with the coastal floodplain. Table 5.2 Landscape Positioning of Lower Hunter GHFF Camps Camp Elevation /Proximity to coast Proximity to water Topography Black Hill 70 m / 20 km < 50 m / 2nd order Level section of gully East Cessnock 70 m / 37 km < 50 m / 2nd order Level Millfield 230 m / 40 km < 50 m / 3rd order Level section of gully Belmont <10 m / < 1 km < 50 m / swamp Level Glenrock <10 m / 1 km < 50 m / lagoon Level Martinsville 30 m / 23 km < 50 m / 3rd order Level section of gully Morisset 20 m / 17 km < 50 m / 3rd order Level - swampy Hannan Street <10 m / 29 km 190 m / river Level Lorn <10 m / 38 km 260 m / river Level Blackbutt Reserve 100 m / 5 km <200 m / 1st order Level area extending onto slope 6 m / 9 km 10 – 50 m / 5th order Level Blackalls Park Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 27 Camp Elevation /Proximity to coast Proximity to water Topography Throsby <10 m / 2 km < 10 m / 2nd order Level Anna Bay <10 m / 4 km <50 m / swamp Level Bobs Farm 10 m / 3 km <50 m / swamp Level Fullerton Cove <10 m / 5 km <50 m / 2nd order Level Italia Road 20 m / 23 km 100 m / 3rd order Level Medowie <10 m / 8 km <50 m / swamp Level Raymond Terrace 10 m / 14 km <200 m / lagoon Level Snapper Island <10 m / 4 km < 50 m / bay Level Tocal 20 m / 35 km < 50 m / river Level Illustration 5.2 shows the area within 20 km of the known GHFF camps in the Lower Hunter. These areas identify the range of a typical foraging expedition from each camp. It is evident that the camps provide a network to support a broad foraging area across the Lower Hunter. The western section of the Cessnock LGA has not been identified as an area within an average foraging distance from a GHFF camp. It is possible that GHFF foraging activity is supported in this area by an unknown camp occurring within remote parts of the Cessnock LGA or by a camp in an adjacent LGA outside of the Lower Hunter study area. 5.2.4 Flying-fox Species Present The GHFF is the predominant flying-fox species in all camps in the Hunter Valley. There are no records of occupied camps that did not contain this species. However, the Black Flying-fox and the Little Red Flying-fox have also been observed at some camps. The presence of other species within GHFF camps is of interest for reasons including: monitoring of the southerly extension in the range of the Black Flying-fox and changes in population size in local areas; and the potential of the highly nomadic Little Red Flying-fox to increase bat numbers in camps and exacerbate conflict with nearby human residents. Eight GHFF camps in the Lower Hunter are known to comprise only of the GHFF, these being Black Hill, Millfield, Martinsville, Morisset, Bobs Farm, Italia Road, Raymond Terrace and Snapper Island. Early reports of Blackalls Park camp indicate that it contains GHFF only. The presence of other flying-fox species remains unconfirmed at five camps being; East Cessnock, Belmont, Glenrock, Fullerton Cove and Medowie. Six camps are known to contain (or have contained) another flying-fox species. The Little Red Flying-fox has been recorded in Hannan Street and Anna Bay. The Black Flying-fox has been recorded in Lorn, Blackbutt Reserve, Tocal and Throsby. Illustration 5.2 Foraging Range of the Grey-headed Flying-fox in the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 28 5.3 Conservation Importance The conservation importance of camps was assessed using criteria for assessing camps CTS listed in the draft national Recovery Plan (DECCW 2010c) as follows: On the basis of current knowledge, roosting habitat that meets at least one of the following criteria can be explicitly identified as habitat critical to survival, or essential habitat, for Grey-headed Flyingfoxes. Roosting habitat that: 1. is used as a camp either continuously or seasonally in > 50% of years 2. has been used as a camp at least once in 10 years (beginning in 1995) and is known to have contained > 10 000 individuals, unless such habitat has been used only as a temporary refuge, and the use has been of limited duration (i.e. in the order of days rather than weeks or months) 3. has been used as a camp at least once in 10 years (beginning in 1995) and is known to have contained > 2 500 individuals, including reproductive females during the final stages of pregnancy, during lactation, or during the period of conception (i.e. September to May). Source: DECCW 2010c A modified version of the above criteria was used in this study to define camps CTS of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter (refer to Section 2.1.2.1). These criteria were: 1. Used by more than 2,500 animals (continuously or seasonally) in five or more of the last 10 years; and A. at least once in the last 10 years contain more than 10,000 animals; and / or B. at least once in the last 10 years is known to contain breeding females (September–May). 2. Additionally, consideration can be given to newly established camps for which 10 year data is not available. This could include consideration of: A. where a new camp which forms near a previously long-term occupied camp that has been abandoned; and B. where large numbers of animals re-establish a previously abandoned camp in association with a prolific flowering event. Camps CTS of the GHFF support breeding populations and provide access to foraging resources significant to the species. As foraging resources are ephemeral and largely unpredictable in space and time, the development of criteria that identifies camps as critical to the GHFF is complex. The federal government is currently negotiating a conservation agreement with the states in regard to managing flying-fox camps. Reassessment of the camps across the Lower Hunter may be required once agreed criteria for assessing camps CTS are finalised between the federal and state governments. There are four newly-established camps in the Lower Hunter (East Cessnock, Blackalls Park, Lorn and Throsby) for which the pattern of occupation has not yet been established, and therefore it remains unclear whether they meet criteria for camps CTS. Two other camps are unable to be assessed against these criteria as insufficient details are available: Fullerton Cove and Bobs Farm. The conservation importance of each camp is discussed in further detail below. 5.3.1 Cessnock LGA Three camps are known from the Cessnock LGA. Black Hill camp has not been used since c1997, after repeated and regular disturbance. It is possible that GHFF would return to this site in the medium- to long-term. The return of GHFF to a historical camp previously subjected to dispersal / culling has recently been seen in Lorn. Whilst not meeting the criteria for CTS, the Black Hill camp could be utilised in the future, either in response to shifts in food availability, or in response to disturbance from a nearby camp. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 30 East Cessnock is a new camp that established in 2011. As a new camp, an assessment of CTS is complicated by the lack of 10 years of occupation data. However, the camp formed following a food shortage for the GHFF and may therefore be an important refuge site during times of food shortages. The development of any management actions for this camp would need to address the potential of its use as a refuge. The Millfield camp occurs in rugged terrain away from development and human habitation. This camp is CTS of the GHFF and meets criterion 1 and both sub-criteria A and B. It is used regularly on a seasonal basis by large numbers of GHFF and is occupied by breeding females. 5.3.2 Lake Macquarie LGA Five camps are known from the Lake Macquarie LGA, although two have not been occupied in the last 10 years (Belmont and Glenrock) and as such are not CTS of the GHFF. Nonetheless, changes in climate and potential habitat loss may mean that in future these camps will be utilised. Martinsville and Morisset camps are both on private property and are not in conflict with human use or habitation. Both are now used on an irregular seasonal basis although, prior to 2007, Martinsville was occupied annually. Both camps meet both CTS criterion 1 and sub-criteria A and B. Blackalls Park is a newly established camp, reported to OEH in mid February 2013. Its location has potential to cause conflict with surrounding land uses. On 5th March 2013, a site inspection by OEH officers (Richard Bath and Anne Killick) at Blackalls Park camp confirmed approximately 10,000 GHFF using the camp. It is believed the camp has been occupied in large numbers since mid-February, although reports of smaller numbers staying for short periods (approximately 8 weeks) have been reported to occur in 2012 and possibly for the last few years (reports to Lake Macquarie Council from local community). At the time of preparation of this report, however, the exact history of this site remains unclear. It is unclear what the significance of this camp is at this stage. 5.3.3 Newcastle LGA Blackbutt Reserve is the only known camp in the Newcastle LGA. The reserve is Newcastle Council owned and operated. The camp is occupied on a continuous basis, with seasonal shifts in numbers. It meets criterion 1 and both criteria A and B for a camp site CTS of the GHFF. The history of the Throsby camp is yet to be confirmed. It is apparently a new camp and was first documented in 2011. Its pattern of occupation is unknown and there are insufficient data to assess it against criteria for camps CTS of the GHFF. 5.3.4 Maitland LGA Historically, there was at least one camp in the Maitland LGA, located in the area of Lorn, as reported in the Maitland Mercury on 3 February 1844. Since that time, and until recently, there have been no flying-fox camps in the Maitland LGA. The Hannan Street camp established in December 2009 in a socially unfavourable location and has been empty since mid-2010. This camp comprised of the Little Red Flying-fox as well as GHFF. As the camp was established recently and occupied very briefly, it is not possible to determine a pattern of use over the last 10 years for this site. However, it is likely this location was abandoned in favour of the camp 600 m across the Hunter River at Lorn and, as such, the Hannan Street camp is not defined as CTS of the GHFF. Similarly, it is difficult to assess the Lorn camp against the CTS criteria as this camp established at approximately the time that the Hannan Street camp vacated – March 2010. Since establishment, the Lorn camp has been generally occupied on a continuous basis, with GHFF disappearing for only days or weeks at a time. Numbers have been highest during the breeding season and peaked at 20,000 – 30,000 in March 2012. The important aspects of the Lorn camp are its ability to support a large number of animals, its use as a maternity camp and its establishment during the 2010 food shortage and also at a time when two nearby camps became unused – Hannan Street and Paterson (in the Dungog LGA). While the status of this camp is currently in question, it has the potential to meet criteria as a site CTS in the future. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 31 The management of these camps needs to be mindful of the role that the local area plays for the GHFF during times of food shortages and the limited alternative vegetation available for roosting GHFF near Maitland / Lorn. 5.3.5 Port Stephens LGA Eight GHFF camp sites are known from the Port Stevens LGA. The camp at Anna Bay has a long history of use and is currently occupied on a seasonal basis. The regularity of use and the presence of large numbers of animals at this camp in the last 10 years define this camp as CTS of the GHFF, meeting criterion 1 and sub-criterion A. Since 2008, a nearby site at Bob’s Farm has also been used by roosting GHFF. Limited observations of the patterns of use and numbers at this camp have been collected and, at this stage, it is unclear whether this new camp meets CTS criteria. If it is occupied again over the 2012 / 2013 summer, then the camp would have been used 50% of years over the last 10 years. Should this camp be occupied in the near future, an assessment of numbers and presence of breeding females should be undertaken. This information would assist in establishing its significance to the species. Fullerton Cove is another site whose importance for the GHFF is unknown. It is used occasionally and was occupied by >2500 but probably <10000 GHFF during the breeding season (Linda Stevenson pers. comm.). At the time of preparation of this report, both the Fullerton Cove and Bob’s Farm camps were empty. The Italia Road camp has not been occupied for an extended period and, as such, is not currently a site that is CTS of the GHFF, although changes in climate and availability of foraging habitat may mean that this camp is used as a refuge in the future. The Medowie camp is seasonally occupied on an annual basis by GHFF which number over 10,000 individuals at times. Breeding females use the camp during the breeding season. This camp is classified as CTS of the GHFF under criterion 1 and sub-criteria A and B. Local Ecologist Ray Williams reports that this camp comprised appropriately 80,000 individuals in February 2013. The Tocal camp, although new, contains features which classify it as a site CTS under criterion 2, sub-criterion A. The Tocal camp was established in 2010, during the food shortage. It formed at a time when a previously large, long-established and regularly-used camp at Paterson was abandoned. Tocal is located along the same creek line as the Paterson camp and is considered by local ecologists to function as a replacement for that site. The population of the Tocal camp exceeded 150,000 individuals in early April 2012 and the site is used by breeding females every year. The majority of animals in the camp roost along Webbers Creek to the west of the Paterson River. This portion of the camp occurs in Dungog LGA, outside the area defined as the Lower Hunter for this study. However, when the population is large, animals roost along the eastern side of the Paterson River, which lies within the Port Stevens LGA and is, therefore, in the study area. The relationship between Tocal and the Paterson camp provides a basis for considering this site as CTS of GHFF. The Raymond Terrace camp is also a new camp that established in 2010. At the present time, it is not considered as CTS of the GHFF. Again, this camp could function as an important refuge for the GHFF during future food shortages, or as shifts in climate patterns occur. The status of this camp should be reviewed prior to undertaking any management decisions. Little information is available on the status of the Snapper Island camp, although it is believed to be used occasionally by a small number of animals. The status of the site as roosting habitat CTS of the GHFF cannot be assessed at this time. Removal of goats from the island and bush regeneration work is currently underway on this 13 ha island. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 32 Table 5.3 Status of known GHFF Camps in the Lower Hunter Source* na >2,500 incl Females Sept-May na Critical to Survival new ? Field verified, fly out obs not occupied DB na na DB OEH, LMCC ? Lake Macquarie Lake Macquarie Maitland Martinsville Morisset Hannan Street seasonal (warm months) regular <2007> irregular seasonal (spr-sum) irregular, short-term, temporary summer 2009-10 DB, landholder DB, landholder MCC, local ecologists na Est. 10,000 5/3/2013 na Blackalls Park not occupied new, est. in large numbers in Feb 2013 with reports of earlier occupation – as yet unclear Maitland Lorn MCC, local ecologists new ? Newcastle Newcastle Blackbutt Res. Throsby continuous since 2010, potential replacement camp for Paterson camp continuous new, est. 2010 /11, details to be confirmed DB, site ins., fly out obs. NCC, M. Murray new ? ? ? Port Stephens Anna Bay annual, seasonal (winter-spring) DB, landholders ? Port Stephens Bobs Farm new, est. 2008, annual, seasonal new ? ? ?^ Port Stephens Fullerton Cove irregular Local ecologists, landholders DB, local ecologists ? ? ? Port Stephens Italia Road not occupied DB, landholder na na Port Stephens Medowie annual, seasonal DB, local ecologists Port Stephens Raymond Terrace new, est. 2010, appears to be seasonal Local ecologists new Port Stephens Snapper Island occasional DB, local ecologists ? ? ? ? Port Stephens Tocal new, est. 2010, appears to be seasonal, potential replacement for Paterson camp CMA, site ins. new LGA Name Occupation Pattern 2003-2012 Cessnock Black Hill not occupied DB, landholder Cessnock East Cessnock new, est. 2011 /2 – as yet unclear DB, Cessnock Council Cessnock Millfield annual, seasonal (spr-sum) Lake Macquarie Belmont Lake Macquarie Glenrock Lake Macquarie Used >50% of last 10 yrs Max. Popn >10,000 new *Sources; DB = national and state databases (DECCW 2010c; DSEWPaC undated_b); ^ Camp not occupied at time of field work in early Oct 2012. If camp occupied over summer 2012 /13, a visit should be undertaken to see if breeding females are present and assess numbers. If camp occupied this season then present in 50% of last 10 years and CTS. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 33 6 Foraging Habitat in the Lower Hunter 6 6 6 6.1 Background The primary aim of this study is to provide a strategy for conserving the important roles foraging habitats in the Lower Hunter region currently play in the ecology and biology of GHFFs. This region contains a number of species in the blossom diet of GHFFs that produce abundant nectar relatively frequently, and that these plant species play a key role in supporting the seasonal pattern of occupation of the camps in the region, including important periods in the reproductive cycle. We also recognise that the region contains extensive tracts of Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), a species which flowers infrequently, but provides an unusually rich feeding resource supporting large numbers of animals for extended periods of time (Eby 1991, Pook et al.1997). The significance of this phenomenon to the species warrants targeted conservation efforts. The process is therefore designed to identify and flag for conservation priority vegetation communities that: contain high densities of highly productive food plants; are highly productive during key periods in the reproductive cycle of GHFFs (spring to autumn); and / or contain high densities of Spotted Gum. Flying-foxes are nocturnal, cryptic foragers. Recent satellite telemetry studies have confirmed that a large proportion of individuals feed in extensive tracts of native vegetation in relatively remote areas, where they are unlikely to be observed (Roberts 2012b, J. Martin Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney unpublished data). There are insufficient field observations of GHFFs feeding in the Lower Hunter region on which to construct an assessment of the significance of vegetation communities for the species (OEH Wildlife Atlas 2012; note Illustration 4.2 contains GHFF records, however few are noted as foraging observations). The evaluation presented in this report is therefore based on methods developed by Eby & Law (2008) in which the significance of vegetation communities is predicted on the basis of the flowering and fruiting characteristics of the diet plants they contain. 6.2 Methods Native vegetation within the study area was ranked according to the quality of foraging habitat it provides for GHFFs. The methods follow Eby and Law (2008) and are described briefly here. A more detailed description can be found in their report. Eby and Law (2008) developed an index of habitat quality that is primarily a function of the flowering and fruiting characteristics of diet plants, and their patterns of distribution. The procedure for ranking habitat involves five steps: 1. compile a comprehensive list of plant species in the diet of GHFFs; 2. assess and score the flowering or fruiting characteristics of diet plants, including seasonal patterns of phenology; 3. score habitat quality on the basis of the presence and relative densities of scored dietary species as provided in vegetation classifications; 4. incorporate key biological and ecological considerations for GHFFs into habitat scores; and 5. classify habitat scores into ranks. Fruit and blossom diets are assessed independently with the results integrated in the final ranking. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 34 6.2.1 Flower Scores Various characteristics of nectar production are significant to the assessment. High-quality dietary species are those that: 1. provide relatively large volumes of food (Productivity score), 2. are annually reliable in their productivity (Reliability score), and 3. are productive for lengthy periods (Duration score). Five attributes were used to describe these three broad characteristics and data on these attributes were acquired from quantitative field data and expert opinion (see Eby & Law 2008). Data were grouped into three or four scores per attribute, scaled from 0 (score assigned to non-diet plants) to 1 (score assigned to optimum condition). 6.2.1.1 Productivity Productivity is a function of the maximum abundance of resource available to GHFFs from an individual tree, and the spatial synchrony of flowering of the tree species in a local area, defined by a nominal commuting distance between day roost and feeding area. Abundance is considered the most significant variable in the assessment of flowering characteristics and is weighted accordingly. The other variables serve to moderate this productive potential. 6.2.1.2 Reliability Australian trees vary substantially in the frequency with which they flower from year to year and the reliability of a species moderates its productivity through time (over many years). Reliability is a measure of the frequency of substantial flowering events. It is a function of annual frequency of flowering and the proportion of those events that produce significant resources for GHFFs. Dietary species that flower reliably are likely to be of particular importance at times when many other species fail to flower for environmental reasons. Very sparse flowering (flowers present in <10% of canopy area) is unlikely to attract migratory GHFFs (Eby 1991), and is not considered. 6.2.1.3 Weighted productivity x reliability Productivity and reliability describe different features of flowering, each of which is important to this assessment. The two scores were combined to create a single value which could be used to describe the overall characteristics of individual species within vegetation types. Productivity was weighted more highly than reliability in the calculation. Wt p*r = (productivity)0.7 * (reliability)0.3 6.2.1.4 Duration Duration is the length, in months, of a single flowering event. This variable is assessed excluding months of very sparse flowering (<10% of foliage). Species that are productive for > 3 months are assigned the highest score of 1. 6.2.1.5 Bi-monthly flowering schedules The majority of species in the diet of GHFFs have clear seasonal phenologies. The annual flowering schedules of dietary plants were summarised as presence / absence of data at bi-monthly intervals. Months when flowering is sparse (<10% canopy cover) or infrequent (<20% of years) were not included. 6.2.2 Nectar Habitat Scores 6.2.2.1 Definitions of feeding habitats Feeding habitats of GHFFs were defined by the vegetation communities, or Map Units (MUs), described in the Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Project version 4 (GHMv4; Sommerville 2009; Sivertsen et al. 2011). The full map for the project, which encompasses the Greater Hunter region, was clipped to the boundary of the Lower Hunter study area. One hundred and five (105) MUs occur in the study area. Their Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 35 significance as feeding habitat for GHFFs was described from the species richness, relative density and flower scores of the dietary species they contain. The relative densities of dietary species were estimated from information provided in profiles of the MUs (Sommerville 2009; Sivertsen et al. 2011). Habitat scores were calculated by summing the products of estimates of relative densities and nectar scores of each diet plant in the vegetation type. Habitat scores of wt p*r, productivity and reliability were calculated separately for each vegetation type. 6.2.2.2 Calculating habitat scores The frequency–cover abundance method was used to estimate the relative densities of dietary species (Eby and Law 2008). The occurrence of species in MUs is summarised numerically in tables of standard data collected in field samples (Sommerville 2009). Frequency values (f) of canopy species are the proportion of field samples of the MU in which the species was recorded. Cover abundance scores (C/A) are medians from the field samples, scored on a 6 class Braun-Blanquet scale (Poore 1955). Tree species with f <0.3 or C/A scores <2 were excluded from calculations of habitat scores due to their infrequent or sparse occurrence in the MU. Then: 1. the density estimate of each canopy species in a vegetation type was calculated as: d = f * C/A; 2. the relative density of each dietary species was calculated as the density estimate of that species divided by the sum of densities of all canopy species in the MU: Rd = di/Σ(d1-k); 3. the density-weighted nectar score for each dietary species was calculated as: NS = Rd * species nectar score; and 4. finally, the total nectar score for the habitat is the sum of density-weighted nectar scores: Ts = Σ(NS1-k). Nine MUs present in the GHVM are not described in the profiles provided by Sommerville (2009). Information on species present in the canopy of these MUs was acquired from a spreadsheet of data provided by OEH (GreaterHunter_Draft_100812.xls; OEH 2012). The density estimates of dietary species were produced by averaging plants listed as characteristic of the upper stratum (averaging method of Eby & Law 2008). Scores of productivity, reliability, and wt p*r were calculated separately for each MU. Bi-monthly habitat scores were generated by including in calculations only those species that are productive in each bi-month. Dietary species that were not productive in a given bi-month were assigned scores of zero. For each MU, bimonthly habitat scores were produced for productivity, reliability and wt p*r. 6.2.3 Fruit Habitat Score Fruit-bearing vegetation types (usually rainforest) were scored on the basis of the species richness of dietary plants. Types that contained >10 species were assigned the highest score, habitats with 5-9 species were assigned an intermediate score, habitats with <5 species were assigned a low score. 6.2.4 Habitat Ranks A primary aim of this project was to identify habitat necessary to secure into the future forage for GHFFs during key periods in the reproductive cycle (spring to autumn). This consideration introduces a temporal element to the ranking process which we accommodated by conducting separate assessments of habitat quality in each bi-monthly period. Final habitat ranks were assigned to MUs using the highest rank achieved in any bi-monthly interval. This procedure ensured that the critical, short-term role of highly seasonal habitats was captured in the ranking process. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 36 6.2.4.1 Bimonthly Habitat Ranks (Nectar) The weighted productivity * reliability scores of habitats were used to assign ranks to MUs in each bi-monthly period. Habitat scores were classified into four ranks of equal land area, with a value of 1 being assigned to the highest ranking habitat. The procedure for each bi-month was: 1. sort wt p*r habitat scores in descending order; 2. calculate the total area of habitat that has the potential to be productive in the bi-month being considered (the total area of each MU was derived from the digital map layer); 3. using the total productive area as the base, calculate the boundary of quartiles of equal area; and 4. allocate MUs to ranks in descending order of wt p*r scores until bounds for each category as defined by the equal area value were reached. Using this method, the most productive 25% of vegetation productive in each bi-monthly interval is identified as having the highest rank for habitat conservation. The final nectar rank of a vegetation type was taken as the highest bi-monthly rank assigned to it. This ensured that the maximum value of a vegetation type was considered in assessments of conservation significance. 6.2.4.2 Bimonthly Habitat Ranks (Fruit) The reliable nature of fruiting phenologies in dietary plants was considered of particular benefit to GHFFs, providing relatively predictable feeding habitat. A rank of two was subjectively assigned to rainforest habitats containing >5 diet plants, a rank of three was assigned to habitats with <5 diet plants. Some MUs contained rainforest with wet sclerophyll emergents. Both nectar and fruit scores were generated for these communities and the highest rank was taken as the final rank for the MUs. 6.2.5 Additional Considerations The method described above addresses the first two aims of this assessment. It sets high conservation ranks for vegetation that contains high densities of productive food plants, and it takes into consideration variations in productivity that occur through time, targeting vegetation that provides foraging opportunities for GHFFs during key periods in their reproductive cycle (spring to autumn). Additional consideration was given to the third aim, to conserve vegetation that contains high densities of Spotted Gum. Nine MUs were identified as containing Spotted Gum at sufficient frequency and C/A scores to include them in habitat assessments. The relative density of Spotted Gum in each of these MUs was calculated and the rank assigned to MUs containing the species was noted. Where there was a clear discrepancy between the density of the species and the rank assigned to the MU, consideration was given to elevating the conservation rank that was assigned. 6.3 Results 6.3.1 Diet Plants 6.3.1.1 Nectar Diet Twenty-seven (27) species of plants in the nectar diet of GHFF occur in MUs in the Lower Hunter study area (refer to Table 6.1). The list contains 27 species in the Myrtaceae: two Angophora, three Corymbia, 19 Eucalyptus and one each of Melaleuca and Syncarpia. There is also one species of Banksia. Table 6.1 The nectar scores of dietary species found in the Lower Hunter region. Species with weighted productivity * reliability scores ≥0.65 are highlighted in yellow Species Angophora costata A. floribunda Banksia integrifolia PROD 0.37 0.54 0.77 RELIA 0.30 0.30 1.00 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter DURA 0.33 0.33 1.00 WT P*R 0.35 0.45 0.83 37 Species Corymbia eximia C. gummifera C. maculata Eucalyptus acmenoides E. albens E. amplifolia E. botryoides E. camaldulensis E. deanii E. fibrosa E. longifolia E. moluccana E. paniculata E. parramattensis E. pilularis E. piperita E. punctata E. resinifera E. robusta E. saligna E. siderophloia E. tereticornis M. quinquenervia S. glomulifera PROD 0.70 0.91 0.91 0.37 0.70 0.70 0.54 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.54 0.41 0.91 0.54 0.80 0.59 0.54 0.54 1.00 0.70 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.59 RELIA 0.30 0.80 0.30 0.60 0.30 0.15 0.45 0.60 0.80 0.30 0.15 0.8 0.60 0.30 0.45 0.45 0.60 0.15 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.80 0.80 0.60 DURA 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.33 1.00 0.67 0.33 0.67 0.33 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.33 0.33 0.67 1.00 0.33 0.67 0.67 1.00 0.67 WT P*R 0.54 0.88 0.65 0.43 0.54 0.44 0.51 0.67 0.73 0.54 0.37 0.50 0.80 0.45 0.67 0.55 0.56 0.37 1.00 0.73 0.80 0.88 0.88 0.60 6.3.1.2 Nectar scores and bi-monthly flowering schedules The 27 dietary plants in the region vary widely in their productivity scores (range 0.35 - 1.0, median = 0.7) and reliability scores (range = 0.15 – 1.0, median = 0.6). Weighted productivity x reliability scores range from 0.35 (A. costata) to 1.0 (E. robusta). The median value is 0.56. Twelve species (44%) score in the upper quartile of all species in the nectar diet of the animals (wt p*r ≥0.65, Eby & Law 2008). These species are considered as highly productive food plants for the purpose of this assessment. Diet plants in the region are productive in each bi-month, although species richness varies through the year (refer to Table 6.2). Broad seasonal patterns in the number of productive species are in keeping with other regional areas (Eby & Law 2008). The greatest proportion of dietary species flower in Dec /Jan (14 spp, 52%) and species richness reaches low levels from late autumn to early spring (4 spp, 15%). Table 6.2 Bi-monthly flowering phenologies of GHFF diet plants found in the Lower Hunter region. Species Angophora costata A. floribunda Banksia integrifolia Corymbia eximia C. gummifera C. maculata Eucalyptus acmenoides E. albens E. amplifolia E. botryoides D-J F-M A-M J-J A-S X X X O-N X X X X X X X X X X X X X Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 38 Species E. camaldulensis E. deanii E. fibrosa E. longifolia E. moluccana E. paniculata E. parramattensis E. pilularis E. piperita E. punctata E. resinifera E. robusta E. saligna E. siderophloia E. tereticornis M. quinquenervia S. glomulifera D-J X X X F-M A-M J-J A-S O-N X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 6.3.1.3 Fruit Diet The ranges of 38 species of rainforest trees and lianas in the fruit diet of GHFFs fall within the Lower Hunter region (refer to Table 6.3). The regional list comprises members of 27 families and 31 genera. Four genera are represented by more than one species. The most species rich genus is Ficus (6 spp.). Table 6.3 Fruits in the diet of GHFF that occur in the Lower Hunter region. Family GYMNOSPERMAE Podocarpaceae ANGIOSPERMAE Apocynaceae Arecaceae Avicenniaceae Caprifoliaceae Chenopodiaceae Cunoniaceae Ebenaceae Ehretiaceae Elaeocarpaceae Escalloniacae Icacinaceae Meliaceae Monimiaceae Moraceae Species Common name Podocarpus elatus Plum Pine Melodinus australis Archontophoenix cunninghamiana Livistona australis Avicennia marina Sambucus australasica Rhagodia candolleana Schizomeria ovata Diospyros pentamera Ehretia acuminata Elaeocarpus obovatus E. reticulatus Polyosma cunninghamii Pennantia cunninghamii Melia azedarach Hedycarya angustifolia Ficus coronata F. fraseri F. macrophylla F. obliqua F. rubiginosa Southern Melodinus Bangalow Palm Cabbage Palm Grey Mangrove Yellow Elderberry Seaberry Saltbush Crabapple Myrtle Ebony Koda Hard Quandong Blueberry Ash Featherwood Brown Beech White Cedar Native Mulberry Creek Sandpaper Fig Sandpaper Fig Moreton Bay Fig Small-leaved Fig Rusty Fig Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 39 Family Myrtaceae Passifloraceae Pittosporaceae Rhamnaceae Rosaceae Rubiaceae Sapindaceae Sapotaceae Solanaceae Urticaceae Viscaceae Vitidaceae 6.3.2 Species F. superba Maclura cochinchinensis Acmena smithii Syzygium australe S. oleosum Passiflora herbertiana Pittosporum undulatum Alphitonia excelsa Rubus rosifolius Morinda jasminoides Diploglottis australis Planchonella australis Solanum aviculare Dendrocnide excelsa D. photinophylla Notothixos cornifolius Cissus hypoglauca Common name Deciduous Fig Cockspur Thorn Lilly Pilly Brush Cherry Blue Lilly Pilly Native Passionfruit sp. Sweet Pittosporum Red Ash Native Raspberry Morinda Native Tamarind Black Apple Kangaroo Apple Giant Stinging Tree Shining-leaved Stinging Tree Kurrajong Mistletoe Five-leaf Water Vine Vegetation Classification and Map 6.3.2.1 Habitat scores - nectar Of the 105 MUs described in the Lower Hunter by the GHVM, 70 (67%) contain plants in the nectar diet of GHFFs. Forests and woodlands that potentially produce nectar for the animals cover 56% of the region, or approximately 91% of extant vegetation. Scores of total nectar productivity, reliability and wt p*r for each vegetation type are provided in Appendix D. These ‘total’ habitat scores do not take seasonal variations into account and so are of limited assistance in assessing the significance of vegetation types for GHFFs. However, they provide a means of summarising patterns of overall habitat quality within the region. Wt p*r scores are of greatest interest (see Appendix D). Vegetation types having wt p*r scores >0.75 are rare in the Lower Hunter region, making up 2% of vegetation types (n=3) and 0.7% of the area of the region. They primarily comprise small remnants of forest on coastal floodplains dominated by Melaleuca quinquenervia and Eucalyptus robusta. Approximately 8% of the study area supports forests and woodlands with total wt p*r scores >0.50. These vegetation types are primarily found in coastal ranges. Diet plants that feature in these MUs include various species identified as being highly productive, including those above and C. maculata, C. gummifera, E. paniculata, E. pilularis, E. saligna, E. siderophloia and E. tereticornis. 6.3.2.2 Bi-monthly nectar scores When habitat nectar scores are calculated using only the species that flower in each bi-monthly interval, distinctive seasonal patterns become apparent in the extent, distribution and nectar characteristics of productive habitat. These patterns are consistent with the observed seasonal occupancy of camps in the region. A diverse range of MUs in the Lower Hunter region contain species that produce nectar resources for GHFFs from spring to autumn (refer to Table 6.4). A relatively consistent area is productive in each bi-month from October to March, although the dietary species and MUs concerned vary through that time (see Appendix D). A distinct change in habitat characteristics occurs in autumn. The area of productive land in Lower Hunter is notably reduced from April to September, as are indices of productivity. Approximately 48,000 ha of land that provides nectar resources for GHFFs from March to June are associated with Spotted Gum. This species is productive 1 year in 4, or more seldom. In years when Spotted Gum does not flower, feeding opportunities for GHFFs in the Lower Hunter are highly restricted from April to Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 40 July. For example, less than 1% of the region produces food for the species in the June–July bi-month (Table 6.4) and foraging habitat is restricted to coastal foredunes containing Banksia integrifolia and sparsely distributed forested wetlands containing E. robusta. Table 6.4 Features of habitat productive in each bi-month in the Lower Hunter region. Values in parentheses are data for June-July when C. maculata does not flower (at least 3 years in 4). Equivalent reductions occur in the April-May bi-month. Number of MUs Productive area (ha) % regional area Area-weighted index* Dec-Jan Feb-Mar Apr-May Jun-Jul Aug-Sep Oct-Nov 45 172,223 40% 0.079 47 190,296 44% 0.106 22 52,874 12% 0.038 19 (11) 52,695 12% (0.9%) (3,947) 0.037 (0.004) 20 64,708 15% 0.021 42 201,072 47% 0.078 *Area-weighted indices summarise overall levels of habitat quality across the region to allow comparisons to be drawn through time. They are the sum of products of habitat scores and areas of MUs, divided by the area of the region. 6.3.2.3 Habitat scores - fruit Plants in the fruit diet of GHFFs are found in 18 MUs, covering 4.4% of the region. Eleven of the MUs are classified as warm-temperate or dry-rainforest types, five are layered wet-sclerophyll or swamp-forest types that contain a sub-canopy with substantial rainforest elements and two are MUs dominated by Avicennia marina (Grey Mangrove). The species richness of dietary plants identified in vegetation profiles is notably low in all 16 MUs (Sommerville 2009). None contains >6 dietary species and the majority contain <4. 6.3.3 Habitat ranks The highest bi-monthly rank for each of the nectar-producing MUs was taken as the final nectar rank for that type. Fruit-bearing MUs were allocated habitat score of 2 due to the poor diversity and low density of diet species they contain. Rank 2 habitats identify moderate conservation value foraging habitat for the GHFF. Moderate conservation value foraging habitat occurs over 20 % of the Lower Hunter and contributes significantly to the diversity of food available for the GHFF. Rank 1 habitats are considered as having high conservation value and cover 37 % of the Lower Hunter. These areas are the most productive and reliable foraging areas for the GHFF and the reason why GHFF can persist in the Lower Hunter. The data are summarised in Table 6.5 and the approximate distribution of ranked habitat is shown in Illustration 6.1. Bimonthly ranks are shown in Illustration 6.2 and depict the general pattern of increased foraging resources in the warmer months between October and March. A complete set of data describing each MU appears in Appendix D. Table 6.5 The extent of vegetation types assigned to habitat ranks. Conservation High Value Moderate 6.4 Rank 1 2 Area (ha) 159,210 83,053 % region 37% 20% n (MU) 57 23 Accuracy of GHMV Spatial Layer and Implications for the Assessment Vegetation classifications and digital map layers are essential elements in the method used to assess foraging habitat for GHFFs. The classifications provide the template for quantifying the distribution and relative densities of dietary species across the landscape. Maps of ranked habitat allow areas of conservation significance to be identified spatially. This provides the capacity for data to be analysed in relation to a range of parameters relevant to land management and conservation planning, such as political boundaries, tenure, zoning and the outcomes of conservation assessments undertaken under other jurisdictions. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 41 The accuracy of vegetation classifications and maps varies and none are perfect representations of extant vegetation. During the course of this work, issues with the accuracy of the GHVM spatial layer became apparent. The implications for mapping the locations of foraging habitat significant to GHFFs were tested using a sample of fixes from satellite-collared animals known to be feeding on Spotted Gum in the study area during May and June 2012 (J. Martin RBGS unpublished data). MUs associated with feeding fixes were identified from the GHVMv4 map and their vegetation profiles were scrutinised for the presence of Spotted Gum. A total of 38 feeding localities were assessed; 16 (42%) were associated with MUs containing Spotted Gum. Spotted Gum was not mentioned in the vegetation profiles attributed to 58% of localities. This can only be considered a superficial and notably incomplete assessment of the spatial accuracy of the map in the Lower Hunter study area. However, it introduces a level of doubt regarding the accuracy of spatial depictions of ranked habitats (Illustration 6.1 and Illustration 6.2). We recommend a rule-based, rather than spatially-based, approach is taken in interpreting this work. That is, considerations of the conservation significance of a habitat area should be based on a field assessment of the vegetation communities it contains and the habitat ranks assigned to those communities. The limitations this approach imposes on interpreting these results in light of other map-based assessments are acknowledged. However, the apparently low level of mapping accuracy constrains the value of those assessments. The GHVM is in the process of being refined. It is recommended that the assessment of conservation priorities of feeding habitat for GHFFs be revised when accurate (80%+) mapping products become available across the Lower Hunter region. Illustration 6.1 Grey-headed Flying-fox Foraging Habitat Value Ranks based on GHMv4 Illustration 6.2 Bi-Monthly Grey-headed Flying-fox Foraging Habitat Ranks based on GHMv4 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 42 7 Conservation Threats 7 7 7 A range of processes affecting the conservation of the GHFF have been identified. These threats operate at a local, landscape and global scale, and are either natural or anthropogenic in origin. This Section explores the conservation threats to the GHFF in the Lower Hunter. Actions that could be undertaken to improve conservation outcomes for the GHFF are proposed and developed further in Section 9. 7.1 Identified Key Threatening Processes Under the TSC Act and EPBC Act, several key threatening processes for the GHFF have been identified. An assessment of these processes was made with regard to their relevance to the Lower Hunter (refer to Table 7.1). Table 7.1 Key Threatening Processes for the GHFF KTP* Loss of foraging habitat Loss and disturbance of roosting sites Unregulated shooting Level of Operation in the Lower Hunter Past Current Future High. The coastal Moderate, 1,500 ha High, refer to Section floodplains and alluvial vegetation cleared 2004- 7.2.1. ~7,300 ha native landscapes were heavily 2009^, however some vegetation occurs within cleared. This was restoration is also identified development followed by extensive underway. As part of areas^. clearing for urbanisation. LHRS, 32,000 ha have been reserved for conservation^. High. Many camps have Moderate, current camp Unknown. Will be a history of culling. policies discourage strongly influenced by Riparian and alluvial dispersal however changes in policy and vegetation was most unauthorised disturbance legislation. heavily cleared in the at contentious locations past. These areas are occurs. favoured for camps. High. Regular culling in Unknown – reporting of Unknown. Would be orchards and at camps. these events is unlikely. influenced by strength of Reported as recently as regulatory activity. the late 1990s at Black Hill. Electrocution on powerlines and entanglement in netting and barbed-wire fencing Unknown, but likely to have been low. Competition for resources with the Black Flying-fox Non-existent. Moderate. Inappropriate netting in use. No regulation of use of barbed-wire. Low implementation of CCT overhead powerlines or underground power. Not fully understood. Black Flying-foxes occur in some camps across the Lower Hunter. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter No change anticipated. Banning of sale and use of netting harmful to wildlife is recommended. Education about wildlifefriendly fencing is recommended. Threat may increase if Black Flying-fox increases numbers and extent in Lower Hunter. 45 KTP* Level of Operation in the Lower Hunter Current Future High. Reducing as information Unknown. Dependent on about bats and their sound management of management becomes conflict and continued more readily available. community education. As dictated by natural Severe weather events Yes and increasing if shifts in climate patterns. such as storms and heat projected increases in waves affect GHFF. extreme weather events However other factors happen. may have influenced outcomes. Unknown. Unknown#. Unknown. Past Negative public attitudes and conflict with humans Impacts from climate change Disease Source: *OEH 2012, ^DECCW 2009b, #studies required of mass abortion events. 7.2 Foraging Habitat Loss Food availability for the GHFF is reduced wherever clearing of forests occurs. In NSW clearing has been most extensive within the fertile coastal floodplains, with less easily accessible and arable lands in steep and mountainous areas often reserved for timber production and conservation. The Hunter Valley floor is the most heavily cleared area in the Lower Hunter, with 80% of native remnant vegetation now cleared and only 3% protected in formal reserves (DECCW 2009b). Similarly in northern NSW and southern QLD, clearing of the fertile coastal floodplains has impacted upon the availability of winter flowering resources, creating food shortages over winter that affect the entire GHFF population (Eby & Law 2008). These patterns are evident in the Lower Hunter, with observations of GHFF dropping over winter when nectar and native fruit productivity in this region is low (refer to Table 4.1), and a large increase in numbers when mass flowering associated with Spotted Gum occurs. An example of the latter was a peak in numbers of GHFF at Tocal of over 100,000 animals during a recent Spotted Gum flowering event (pers. obs. April 2012). 7.2.1 Identified Potential Future Development It is not possible to predict accurately how much GHFF habitat would be removed or impacted as a result of development associated with the LHRS (refer to Illustration 7.1). Design and assessment processes associated with development proposal approval would likely result in the retention of some of the extant vegetation within the proposed development areas. Complete development of LHRS identified areas could impact up to 7,416 ha of vegetation (based on GHMv4 mapping product). A full list of impacted vegetation types is provided in Appendix C. The foraging habitat value of vegetation occurring in the LRHS identified development areas is provided in Table 7.2. Of the 7,416 ha of vegetation identified for development, 7,047 ha provide foraging habitat for GHFFs, with most (6,588 ha) comprising high conservation value foraging habitat (rank 1). As a significant portion of the proposed development areas contain high conservation value GHFF foraging habitat (89%), strategies are required to reduce the impacts of the loss of this vegetation if there is to be an ‘improve or maintain’ outcome in terms of the GHFF foraging habitat availability in the Lower Hunter. Illustration 7.1 Table 7.2 LHRS Identified Potential Development GHFF Foraging Habitat Value within LHRS Development Areas Across the Lower Hunter Rank area (ha) % region n (MU) Proposed for Development area (ha) % rank available n (MU) 1 159,210 37% 57 6,588 8% 31 2 83,053 20% 23 459 3.1% 10 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 46 All vegetation mapping products carry some degree of spatial error and some accuracy issues have been identified with the GHMv4 mapping product (refer to Section 6.4; see also Kuginis et al. 2012, Sivertsen et al. 2011). Development of measures to reduce the loss of GHFF foraging habitat should be supported by field verification and correction of vegetation types mapped in the GHMv4 product, enabling analysis that would: accurately quantify the loss of foraging habitat (using Appendix D and formulae provided in Section 6); define where this loss will occur; and through comparison of the loss to locally available foraging resources, predict the impacts to the GHFF. The LHRS will also be updated over the next few years and alternative development areas may be identified. As a result of improved mapping products, field verification of the GHMv4 product or revisions of identified development areas arising from a review of the LHRS, the analyses provided in this study would require updating. 7.2.2 LEP Zoning Development outside of LHRS identified areas has potential to impact on habitat availability for the GHFF. There are 276,934 ha of land within the Lower Hunter that, under respective LEPs, have social or economic values as management priorities. Within these areas, 139,247 ha are currently vegetated. A range of controls regulate clearing in these areas, including the Native Vegetation Act 2003 on rural land, and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, in conjunction with the TSC Act and EPBC Act across all land. In some cases Council approval would also be required. However, clearing in these areas and outside of the LHRS process, could negatively impact on the conservation of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter, as the volume of foraging habitat is much greater in these areas than within LHRS identified development sites. Areas within the Lower Hunter that are not zoned for conservation purposes contain 81,504 ha of high conservation value GHFF foraging habitat (rank 1) and 35,184 ha moderate conservation value habitat (rank 2). 7.3 Loss and Disturbance of Roost Sites 7.3.1 Impact on Existing Camps The GHFF can roost in urban areas, resulting in conflict with humans when close to residential or other sensitive development (e.g. schools, hospitals). Residents living within 100 m of a GHFF camp experience significant negative impacts associated with flying-foxes, whilst those located further are more likely to respond positively to a local flying-fox camp (Larsen et. al. 2002). Many camp management policies now recommend a buffer of at least 300 m between flying-fox camps and residential areas (SEQ 2012, Eby pers comm. in Roberts 2006, DSE 2011). Experience from management of conflict associated with urban camps across Australia clearly demonstrates that future development should avoid areas known to be used by roosting flying-foxes. This includes areas that have historically been used by roosting GHFFs, but show no sign of contemporary use. Most of the areas identified for future development in the LHRS are further than 300 m from the nearest known GHFF camp. The only exception is land planned for residential development across Maitland Road, south of the East Cessnock camp. This camp currently occurs approximately 200–250 m from the proposed future urban area, however there is potential for the camp to move or expand south-easterly, until it reaches Maitland Road. At this point, the camp would be approximately 80 m away from the proposed residential area. Careful vegetation management, and the implementation of a supporting buffer between Maitland Road and the start of any residential dwellings, should be considered early during the design and planning of the development of this site. Contemporary urban design of the buffer areas could include areas where management would exclude trees reaching over 3 m in height. Examples include waterways landscaped with sedges and rushes and walkways, bicycle paths, outdoor exercise stations or sports fields. A discussion of the appropriateness of this location for development should be undertaken. Consideration of future management actions potentially required for the East Cessnock camp could be included in these discussions. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 48 A study of the historical locations of flying-fox camps would provide further information about the future risks of conflict between residents and roosting flying-foxes. Sites used historically as camps could be revegetated and appropriately buffered to attract roosting flying-foxes if contemporary surrounding land uses are compatible. Alternatively, if contemporary land use surrounding a historic camp site is now incompatible with a GHFF camp site, landscaping at the site should avoid use of trees over 3 m in height. Future development within these sites should be avoided, or stringent vegetation control measures applied through planning controls such as Development Control Plans. 7.3.2 Potential for Future Camp / Human Conflict It is not possible to predict where flying-fox camps may establish. However, we can assess current and potential site attributes for proposed development sites and identify areas that could potentially satisfy criteria associated with flying-fox camp sites (refer to Section 5.2). Alongside the risk of creating a new conflict site at East Cessnock (refer to Section 7.3.1), there is potential for GHFF camps to establish adjacent to, or within, other areas targeted for future urban expansion. These areas are described in Table 7.3. Buffers such as public open space between vegetated riparian areas and residential yards would provide distance between any new GHFF camps, would contribute to bushfire Asset Protection Zones and provide access and amenity to the new residential / urban areas. Eight GHFF camps occur in developable LEP zones: Millfield, East Cessnock, Hannan Street, Lorn, Tocal, Bobs Farm, Raymond Terrace and Black Hill. Italia Road camp occurs in a developable zone under the Port Stephens LEP 2000; however it is located in a State Forest and therefore not likely to become a conflict site affected by inappropriate future development. 7.4 Electrocution and Entanglement GHFF injury and death can occur from contact with various types of infrastructure occurring in the urban and rural landscape, as well as collision with motor vehicles. Numbers of such events are not routinely captured, although in a banding study between 1988 and 1999, Tidemann (1999) identified the cause of death of recovered GHFFs as follows; 71% were electrocuted on powerlines, 21% died in netting over fruit trees, 5% had gunshot wounds and 3% died as a result of collision with motor vehicles. GHFF also become entangled in barbed-wire fencing (Halpin et al. 1999, van der Ree 1999) and there is a report of an adult male Little Red Flying-fox dying from impact with a turbine at a wind farm (posted on ABS discussion list 12 /12 /12). The low reproductive output of the GHFF (refer to Section 7.8.1) makes the species vulnerable to the loss of individuals, particularly females, from the population. With an increase in the availability of reliable forage within cities (McDonald-Madden 2005) and the occurrence of camps in urban areas, the GHFF population is increasingly exposed to risk of collision, electrocution and entanglement. There are options available to reduce the number of deaths, such as the use of insulated or underground powerlines and the use of wildlifesafe netting and fencing. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 49 Table 7.3 Name Potential GHFF Camp Conflict Purpose Coastal Floodplain Permanent Water <500 m Can Support Vegetation >8 m Foraging Habitat <20 km Risk Cessnock LGA Comments Existing camp within 300 m with potential to move closer. Revegetation of gully or around dams to the north-west and south may require buffer. Camp could establish in drainage lines within Cessnock State Forest, along the eastern boundary or along Black Creek. Revegetation along Congewai Creek (proposed urban) and Quorrobolong Creek (existing urban) may require buffer. Revegetation along Limestone Creek may require buffer. Revegetation along Oaky Creek may require buffer. Revegetation of Black Creek within conservation areas could require a buffer from proposed urban areas. Buffer should be absorbed within the urban area. East Cessnock Residential High Civic Employment Moderate Government Road Residential ? wastewater treatment ponds Moderate Sanctuary Village Conservation and urban association Moderate Bellbird Residential ? large farm dams Low Nulkaba Residential ? dams Low Sweetwater / Huntlee Urban / Conservation ? Black Creek Low Kitchener Residential ? large dam Black Creek Very low - Gingers Lane Residential - - Averys Lane Residential associated ? dams - - Cliftleigh Residential associated ? dams - - Greta Migrant Camp Urban - - Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 50 Name Purpose Coastal Floodplain Permanent Water <500 m Can Support Vegetation >8 m Foraging Habitat <20 km Risk Comments Large site with multiple creeks in proximity to Black Hill camp which was abandoned c1990s. Buffers to suitable GHFF roosting areas should be incorporated. Four kilometres from Lorn, along the Hunter River. Revegetation along the Hunter requires buffer. Cessnock / Maitland / Newcastle LGAs Freight Hub Freight ? dams Low – moderate Maitland LGA Aberglasslyn Residential associated High Gillieston Heights Residential associated ? dam - - Farley Urban associated - - Rutherford Employment - - Rutherford Business Park Employment associated - - Lochinvar Residential ? dams - - Anambah Residential ? dams - - Thornton Residential Low Risk is from Four Mile Creek which is outside development area and unvegetated. Port Stephens LGA Tomago Employment High North Raymond Terrace Residential Moderate Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Revegetation of the bank of the North Channel of the Hunter River could attract GHFF, buffers should be incorporated. Between the Williams River and Grahamstown Dam, revegetation of swamp or tributaries may need buffers. 51 Name Purpose Tanilba Bay Residential Coastal Floodplain Permanent Water <500 m Can Support Vegetation >8 m Foraging Habitat <20 km Risk Low Situated between Tilligerry Creek and Port Stephens, introduction of tall vegetation may require buffers. Frontage to Karuah River, Little Swan Bay and Port Stephens suggests buffers should be considered where riparian areas are being revegetated. Comments Karuah Residential Low Wallalong Urban - - Medowie Residential - - Air Employment Employment - - Anna Bay Residential - - Residential Lowmoderate Newcastle LGA Minmi Minmi Creek and tributaries of Hexam Swamp may require buffers. Newcastle / Lake Macquarie LGAs Link Road South Residential Low Link Road North Residential Low Vegetated riparian areas retained along Brush Creek and tributaries may require buffers. Vegetated riparian areas retained along Maryland Creek and tributaries may require buffers. Lake Macquarie LGA South Morisset Residential Moderate North Morisset Residential Moderate Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Pourmalong Creek currently suitable for roosting GHFF. Appropriate buffers required. Vegetated section of Stockton Creek and its tributaries require buffers. 52 Coastal Floodplain Permanent Water <500 m Can Support Vegetation >8 m Foraging Habitat <20 km Risk Residential Moderate Vegetated and potentially rehabilitated section of Mannering Creek and its swamps require buffers. Middle Camp Urban Moderate Buffer vegetated Middle Camp Gully. Nords Wharf Urban Moderate Lake Macquarie requires buffers. Gwandalan Urban Moderate Cooranbong Residential Low Catherine Hill Bay Urban Low Fennel Residential associated Low West Wallsend Employment Low Pambulong Residential associated - Name Purpose Wyee Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Comments Lake Macquarie and tributaries require buffers. Revegetation along Jigadee Creek and adjacent vegetated drainage lines may require buffers. Retention of riparian vegetation along Marmong Creek requires buffers. Riparian areas along Slatey Creek on the eastern side of the proposed area may require buffers. - 53 7.5 Competition Competition for resources between flying-fox species may be impacting on the GHFF population. In particular, shifts in the range of all but the Little Red Flying-fox have been recorded in the last decade. The cause of these shifts remains unclear, reasons could include accidental movement (e.g. caused by strong winds), human translocation (e.g. rehabilitated or pet flying-foxes), changes in habitat due to climate change or land clearing (Tidemann 1999, Parsons et al. 2010), or a successful natural shift in the distribution of Australian Pteropid bats in response to the highly variable Australian climate (Parsons et al. 2010). The Black Flying-fox experienced a southerly range extension of 750 km in the past 75 years (Eby 2000, Roberts et al. 2012a). In 1999, the GHFF range was thought to have retreated southerly by approximately 750 km (Tidemann 1999), although a systematic evaluation found no evidence of a latitudinal shift in the range of this species (Roberts et al. 2012a). Instead, there is evidence of westward expansion into urban areas. Small camps (generally <1,000) have recently been established in Canberra, Adelaide and Bendigo. It remains unclear how shifts in distribution of the Black Flying-fox will affect the viability of the GHFF population. Expansion of the southern limit of Black Flying-foxes has increased the area of overlap with GHFFs. The increased number of Black Flying-foxes in new areas has been without a commensurate increase in overall numbers of flying-foxes, indicating a negative impact on GHFFs (Roberts et al. 2012a). The Black Flying-fox may displace the GHFF as it is believed that the Black Flying-fox out competes the GHFF and is more of a generalist (Tidemann 1999, BCC 2010). The Lower Hunter is located in the middle of the current GHFF distribution and therefore it is unlikely that GHFF will disappear from this area. Although numbers of Black Flying-fox are increasing in the Lower Hunter (T. Pearson, Macquarie University, unpublished data) and the presence of this species may, with time, reduce the number of GHFF. The level of hybridisation between the three larger Pteropid species (P. alecto, P. conspicillatus and P. poliocephalus) remains unclear. Observations of inter-species mating (Lowe pers. com. in Parsons et al. 2010) and reports of hybrids of P. alecto /poliocephalus (DECCW 2009a) have been made. 7.6 Public Perception The GHFF, along with bats in general, is poorly regarded by the general public. From the time of European settlement, flying-foxes were identified with disease and crop losses (Eby & Lunney 2002). The earliest broad-scale study of the GHFF was undertaken by Francis Ratcliff c1930. It failed to support the notion that orchard losses were either significant, or able to be suitably reduced through culling (Ratcliff 1931), however these findings were largely ignored. GHFFs were exempt from the general protections provided to most native animals in NSW under the NPW Act 1974 and it was not until 1986 that the GHFF was added as a protected species. The changed status to a protected species regulated legal culling of GHFF; however unregulated culling of GHFF individuals occurred in NSW well into the 1990s, including the Lower Hunter (e.g. Black Hill camp). In the Lower Hunter, commercial orchards are not currently a source of conflict between humans and the GHFF (cf 1990s), with urban roost sites and the associated impacts to humans being the contemporary point of contention. Urban roost site conflict results when GHFF unexpectedly establish in new locations where they have not camped for many decades, or when development is permitted too close to existing areas used by roosting GHFF. Many conflict sites are a legacy of poor historical planning decisions. Forward-thinking and pro-active planning and funding decisions would support better management of roosting GHFF sites in the future. Accepted as a species of conservation concern internationally (IUCN) and by the Federal, NSW and Victorian governments, the conservation outcomes for the GHFF are impacted by community apathy, the influence of politics on decision-making and misinformation about the health risks associated with flying-foxes. Improved community education programs are required at all levels to counteract the negativity toward GHFF and ensure that future generations are familiar with the science behind its role in our ecosystems, biology and management. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 54 7.7 Climate Change 7.7.1 Food Shortages Extreme weather events such as floods and droughts can cause food shortages for the GHFF by affecting flowering and fruiting patterns in native plants. Impacts of food shortages are further compounded by the natural irregularity of flowering in key eucalypt species for the GHFF (e.g. in association with La Niña and El Niño events; Tidemann 1999). Whilst patterns of abundance and shortage are natural, the temporal and spatial extents of food shortages seem to be increasing. During food shortages in 2010, new camps were established across eastern Australia, including Albury, Canberra, Bendigo and Adelaide. New camps were also observed in the Lower Hunter: Hannan Street, Lorn, Tocal, Raymond Terrace and possibly Blackalls Park. Whilst some of these camps were temporary, others remain in use. A concurrent study at the Botanic Gardens Sydney confirmed that establishment of these new camps allowed animals affected by the food shortage to reduce their daily energetic requirements by reducing commuting distances between roosts and feeding areas (Eby et al. 2012 and unpublished data). Whilst we cannot control the climate or the flowering phenology of Australia’s Myrtaceous species, the maintenance of productive forested areas containing GHFF dietary plants may be crucial in reducing the effects of climate change on food shortages. Furthermore, a network of appropriate roosting habitat across the coastal floodplains and associated upland areas would increase the capacity for GHFF to adapt to changes in foraging resources that may result from climate change. 7.7.2 Intense Storms and Heat Waves Increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events impact GHFF directly and can result in significant number of animals being removed from the population. Heat waves result in GHFF succumbing to dehydration and hyperthermia when ambient temperatures rise above 40˚C, resulting in mass deaths (Welbergen et al. 2008). Deaths of GHFFs from extreme heat were recorded in 10 of the 11 years between 2002 and 2012 in camps across the range of the animals (Welbergen et al. 2008, P. Eby unpublished data), including approximately 2600 deaths in the Blackbutt Reserve camp in January 2006 (10% of that camp) and 40 deaths in January 2007 (1%). Management of GHFF camps should consider the potential for increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events. There is evidence that complex vegetation structure and proximity to significant water bodies assists flying-foxes in managing heat waves by providing shade and protection from hot, dry winds (J. Welbergen pers com.) and opportunities to reduce body heat by wetting their bodies through direct contact with water. Both hail and strong winds are also known to cause injury and death. For example, a hail storm occurring on 17 November 2012 in Brisbane affected 86 Black and Grey-headed Flying-foxes resulting in injuries such as broken legs and wings, and resulting in dependent young requiring care (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/native-wildlife-downed-by-freak-hailstorms/story-e6freoof1226522293129). In 2003, strong winds brought down roost trees killing approximately 200 adults at the Wingham Brush camp (A. Boardman pers com.). 7.8 Other Risks 7.8.1 Low Reproductive Output Longevity of wild GHFF is unclear; however it appears most animals reach seven years or less, whilst very few flying-foxes may reach 10 to 12 years (Tidemann 2000 in Martin & McIlwee 2002, Divljan et al. 2006, Divljan 2008). Captive animals, however, can live and breed successfully well into their second decade (Martin & McIlwee 2002). The reproductive rate of GHFF is low, with females successfully producing one young per year from the age of three (Divljan 2008). They are seasonal breeders with very little plasticity in their annual cycle. They are Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 55 not capable of opportunistic reproduction or population explosions in response to optimal resources (Martin & McIlwee 2002). Mass abortions and years of high infant mortality have been recorded. It is thought they result from environmental stress (Hall et al. 1991, Collins 1999, Hall & Richards 2000), birth abnormalities or disease. Birth rates can range from 8% of females in camps affected by environmental stress, through to 72-94 % for unaffected camps (Eby 1991). Only approximately 22% of first-time mothers are successful in rearing and weaning young (Divljan 2008). Studies of Black Flying-fox suggest that only one in three females survives to reproduce young herself (Vardon & Tidemann 2000). It is possible that each female GHFF over her entire lifetime only produces one or two other female GHFFs who successfully raise their own young. Pierson & Rainey (1992) suggest that the low reproductive rate and potential for longevity in flying-foxes indicates that flying-fox biology evolved during times when relatively low mortality was experienced. GHFF had no significant predators until the arrival of European settlers. The rapid introduction of habitat clearing, culling and other impacts resulting from development and population growth have resulted in a corresponding impact on population numbers because of the low ability of the GHFF to recover from loss of individuals from the population. 7.8.2 Environmental Management Decisions Outside of the Lower Hunter The high mobility of GHFFs means that management decisions made in other regions (and states) can affect animals in the Lower Hunter. In particular, dispersal of animals from camps in adjacent LGAs such as Singleton and Dungog are likely to result in the establishment of new camps in close proximity, including the Lower Hunter (Roberts et al. 2011). For example, the abandonment of a large camp in Patterson occurred at a similar time as the establishment of the Tocal, Hannan Street and Lorn camps. 7.8.3 Inadequately Resourced Conservation Programs Conservation actions to improve habitat for the GHFF are also complicated by the species’ biology and the nature of funding programs. GHFF require forests for both roosting and foraging therefore habitat restoration projects are long-term investments. The regeneration of eucalypt forests in cleared areas requires at least 15–20 years of growth before they are able to provide habitat for roosting and foraging GHFFs (as shown at Tocal Agricultural Collage). Conservation programs of this duration are rare. No current funding programs in the Lower Hunter provide security of funds for environmental initiatives with such timeframes. A range of short and medium term projects can, however, improve ecosystem health in existing forested areas through weeding and other programs (refer to Section 8.3.1). Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 56 8 Conservation and Restoration 8 8 8 A wide range of programs and statutory processes and documents contribute to protection and improvement of areas of GHFF habitat. This section describes the mechanisms in operation in the Lower Hunter which contribute to the conservation of the GHFF through habitat conservation and restoration. 8.1 Current Conservation Status of GHFF Habitat Land tenure and environmental planning instruments provide a framework for decision-making with regard to a range of community development and native vegetation management decisions. This section focuses specifically on how this framework affects the management of native vegetation and therefore GHFF habitat. Parts of the framework are rigid in their application. Examples include tenure based conservation areas, such as National Parks (managed by OEH), Flora Reserves (managed by Forestry Corporation of NSW) and areas managed by Crown Lands for the purposes of conservation. These areas provide the highest and most secure level of protection from native habitat degradation, and are identified and described in Section 8.1.1. Another layer of habitat protection is available through Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs) such as State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs), Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) and Local Environmental Plans (LEPs). There are various methods by which planning instruments may support the conservation of GHFF habitat. Local Environmental Plans may zone areas for environmental protection where any form of habitat removal is not permissible. Other zones may allow habitat removal, with or without development consent (e.g. rural zones), and are not considered to be contributing to GHFF habitat conservation. Four SEPPs provide protection for forested areas and therefore GHFF habitat; SEPP 14 coastal wetlands, SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforest, SEPP 44 Koalas and SEPP 19 Urban Bushland (LMCC only). These areas provide various strengths of protection and are described further in Section 8.1.2. A final layer of potential conservation of GHFF habitat occurs at a strategic planning level—plans and strategies that identify potential development areas and conservation requirements into the future, usually five to 20 years ahead. Examples include the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy, Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan and the Newcastle–Lake Macquarie Western Corridor Planning Strategy. At a Local Government level, there is the Newcastle Biodiversity Strategy and the Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan. These plans provide little statutory protection; however they form an important tool to support future decisions about where to direct future conservation efforts, and for assessing cumulative impacts of development. These plans are described in Section 8.1.3. 8.1.1 Identified Conservation Areas Within the Lower Hunter, there are 38 Nature Reserves, National Parks, Aboriginal Areas, Regional Parks and State Conservation Areas covering 83, 954 ha (refer to Illustration 8.1a). These areas are managed by the Parks and Wildlife Group of OEH for the primary purpose of conservation. Within the Lower Hunter, there are six Flora Reserves totalling 2,931 ha and an additional 31,266 ha of production timber forest within the nine State Forests (refer to Illustration 8.1a). Lands managed by Forestry Corporation of NSW are managed for multiple uses. Flora Reserves are set aside for conservation and are exempt from logging. State Forests are set aside for timber production, recreational use and conservation. Whilst State Forests are not managed primarily for conservation outcomes, these areas provide a significant contribution to the area of native vegetation available for foraging GHFF. Foraging habitat is removed during logging operations and therefore the status of GHFF foraging habitat within State Forests’ changes the silvicultural practices applied. Timber-harvesting licences preclude the disturbance of GHFF camps and include a 100 m buffer around these areas. Therefore camps in State Forests are considered conserved. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 57 Other types of crown land (apart from National Parks and State Forests) include Crown Reserves which are managed by the Crown Lands Division of the NSW Department of Primary Industries. One example of Crown Reserve that supports the GHFF is Belmont Wetlands State Park, which comprises of 514 ha of coastal lands including areas of swamp-sclerophyll forest. This State Park also once supported a GHFF camp, which has now been unused for an extended time. Crown Reserves cover approximately 1,972 ha across the Lower Hunter (refer to Illustration 8.1a). The Lower Hunter covers an area of 430,289 ha. The conservation lands described above (without State Forests outside of Flora Reserves) form 20 % of the area of the Lower Hunter. Altogether, these areas contain 48,221 ha of high conservation value (rank 1) foraging habitat and 27,391 ha of moderate conservation value (rank 2) foraging habitat (refer to Table 8.2). National Parks, State Forests and Flora Reserves and State Parks host six of the known GHFF camps in the Lower Hunter (refer to Table 8.2): Snapper Island, Italia Road, Medowie, Fullerton Cove, Glenrock and Martinsville, including four in current use. The foraging habitat and camp habitat within tenure based conservation areas are considered ‘highly reserved’ in terms of GHFF habitat. 8.1.2 Habitat Conserved Under Environmental Planning Policies 8.1.2.1 Habitat Conserved Under SEPPs SEPPs that protect forested areas from vegetation removal and therefore protect GHFF habitat in the lower Hunter comprise of: SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands; SEPP 19 Bushland in Urban Areas SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforests; SEPP 44 Koala Habitat; and SEPP 71 Coastal Protection. SEPP 44 Koala Habitat encourages conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for koalas. There is considerable overlap in species of trees used as food trees for Koalas and GHFFs. SEPP 44 requires assessment of Koala habitat and provides mechanisms for enhanced conservation of forest types containing Koala feed trees. Whilst some LGAs have mapped Koala habitat, these sites may be subject to further survey to refine protected areas, therefore it is not possible to include habitat protected under this SEPP within areas that protect GHFF habitat, even though many Koala habitat areas would also support foraging and roosting GHFF. SEPP 71 identifies the need to balance provision of jobs, housing, facilities and transport for a growing coastal population while maintaining the coast's environmental qualities. By ensuring consideration of the environmental values of coastal environs, SEPP 71 contributes to the protection of coastal habitats which include GHFF habitat. In the Lower Hunter, areas covered by SEPP 71 include shores of coastal lakes, estuaries and the Pacific Ocean coastline. However, it is not possible to quantify this and therefore the contribution of this SEPP to GHFF habitat conservation will not be considered further. Littoral rainforests provide suitable foraging and roosting habitat for the GHFF. There is only one area mapped as SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforest within the Lower Hunter, covering an area just over 2 ha and occurring on the eastern shores of Lake Macquarie near Valentine, a suburb of Newcastle (refer to Illustration 8.1c). There are no GHFF camps at this site and the area provides 2 ha of high quality (rank 1) GHFF foraging habitat (high quality). There are 159 SEPP14 Coastal Wetlands within the Lower Hunter, covering 10,640 ha. Three GHFF camps occur wholly or partly within these areas; Anna Bay, Fullerton Cove and Belmont. An analysis of foraging habitat reveals that 866 ha of high quality (rank 1) foraging habitat and 5,627 ha of moderate quality (rank 2) foraging habitat occurs within SEPP 14 areas (refer to Illustration 8.1b). SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 58 comprise of 16 broad vegetation classifications (Keith classifications sourced from GHMv4 vegetation mapping product), some of which do not provide any habitat for the GHFF (e.g. saltmarshes). SEPP 19 provides a requirement for consent to disturb bushland in areas reserved for public open space purposes. As areas of bushland may be subject to further survey and assessment prior to any permitted disturbance it is not possible to include habitat protected under this SEPP within areas that protect GHFF habitat, even though many urban bushlands would also support foraging and roosting GHFF. 8.1.2.2 Habitat Within ‘Environmentally-focused’ LEP Zones Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) identify areas to be managed for their environmental values. Table 8.1 shows the area of the Lower Hunter that is identified for environmentally-focussed management outside of formal conservation areas. A total of 43,306 ha of land across the Lower Hunter is specifically identified for conservation of environmental attributes of that land (refer to Illustration 8.1c). These conservation areas specified under LEPs contain the following six camps: Morisset, Belmont, Blackalls Park, Blackbutt Reserve, Throsby and Anna Bay. As a result of past land-management decisions and general vegetation type occurrence, some of the areas zoned for environmental protection do not contain native vegetation. However, these areas contribute 22,948 ha of high conservation value foraging habitat (rank 1) and 3,380 ha of moderate conservation value foraging habitat (rank 2). Table 8.1 LEP LEP Areas in Zones Outside State-owned Conservation Reserves Excluded Areas# Environmental Focus GHFF Habitat Zones Area (ha) Camps (n) Forage (ha) Lake Macquarie LEP 2004 8 (OEH estate), 11 (lakes and waterways) 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) 22,981 Morisset Belmont Blackalls Park High – 16,122 Moderate – 2,130 Port Stephens LEP 2000 All parts of zones within OEH estate or FNSW Flora Reserves. Also 7(w) and parts of 7(c) covered by Grahamstown lake. 7(a), 7(c), 7(fl),7(f3), E2 6,984 Anna Bay Fullerton Cove High – 3,173 Moderate – 966 Standard Instrument LEP* E1 (OEH estate) RU3 within Flora Reserves. W2 (waterbody) E2, E3 and E4 11,020 Blackbutt Res. Throsby High – 3,653 Moderate – 284 43,306 7 26,328 Totals # excluded areas comprise of water covered land and state-owned conservation areas from Section 8.1.1. *note: Standard Instrument LEPs comprise of: Port Stephens LEP (Kings Hill North Raymond Terrace) 2010 Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011 Maitland Local Environmental Plan 2011. ^ DM refers to Deferred Matter, being land that is excluded from a Standard Instrument LEP under section 59 (3), 68 (5) or 70 (4) of the Act. Illustration 8.1 Conserved Grey-headed Flying-fox Habitat in the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 59 8.1.3 Habitat Conserved Under State Legislation Habitat suitable for use by the grey-headed flying-fox is also protected under the following legislation: Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974; Native Vegetation Conservation Act 2003; Rural Fires Act 1997; and Water Management Act 2000. It is not possible to determine the type, amount or spatial arrangement of the habitat that is protected under these Acts. The most significant of these is the Native Vegetation Act 2003, which should protect remnant vegetation (native vegetation in place since 1990) by requiring an assessment and approval process, demonstrating that any proposed clearing would result in an ‘improve or maintain’ outcome in terms of the sites’ environmental values. Whilst mapping of remnant vegetation exists for Queensland, no such tool is available in NSW and therefore an assessment of the amount of GHFF habitat conserved by the Native Vegetation Act 2003 is not possible. It is also evident that clearing of vegetation occurs despite these acts (e.g. 1500 ha of vegetation was cleared in the Lower Hunter between 2004 and 2009; DECCW 2009b). The Native Vegetation Act 2003 and its Regulation (Native Vegetation Regulation 2005) also provide a vegetation management approval process for the clearing, rehabilitation and replanting of native vegetation on privately-owned rural lands. PVPs form an agreement between the NSW Government and landholders with regard to how vegetation will be managed. Through Incentive PVPs, landholders can receive funding to replant riparian and other sensitive areas, undertake weed control and pest management activities, and other actions to increase or protect the biodiversity value of their land. Clearing PVPs identify the offset areas required to balance any areas proposed for clearing such that an ‘improve or maintain’ environmental outcome is achieved. A total of 217 ha of land are protected through incentive and conservation PVPs in the Lower Hunter (OEH pers. comm. 2012). The Rural Fires Act 1997 incorporates an environmental assessment process into hazard reduction activities, with the aim of ensuring that ecological values are protected when planning for hazard reduction. The Water Management Act 2000 requires licensing to undertake works in riparian areas and protects riparian vegetation. The TSC Act protects threatened species and their habitat. An example includes the listing of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest as an EEC. The removal of vegetation from this EEC would require assessment, and possibly licensing, under the TSC Act prior to vegetation removal. Whilst it is acknowledged that state legislation exists to protect habitat for the GHFF, the extent of their influence, issues with regulation and layers of assessment are likely to exert limited conservation outcomes for the foraging habitat of the GHFF. Policies relating to GHFF camp management as a result of the GHFF being listed on the TSC Act, however, contribute some level of protection to GHFF camps experiencing conflict with humans. Under the Biobanking provisions of the TSC Act, a mechanism exists for the conservation of GHFF habitat through the creation, purchase and retirement of GHFF credits and ecosystem credits for vegetation types that support GHFF forging and roosting. Whilst this new mechanism for offsetting development impact and achieving conservation outcomes has to date experienced relatively little uptake in the Lower Hunter, it could provide an effective mechanism for protecting and funding GHFF habitat as the scheme develops and uptake increases. 8.1.4 Summary of Conserved GHFF Habitat The planning framework provides layers of conservation protection for a wide range of species across the Lower Hunter, including the GHFF. It is difficult to predict the effectiveness of these planning and legislative tools for GHFF habitat conservation. Reasons include lack of information about where the protected resources occur and inclusion of assessment-based decision-making in the planning process, which can affect land management outcomes. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 61 However, it is possible to determine the amount of GHFF habitat available within tenure based and EPI based planning controls. Such an analysis reveals that 13 GHFF camps occur in tenure based or EPI protected areas. These areas together protect 72,037 ha high conservation value and 36,398 ha moderate conservation value GHFF foraging habitat (refer to Table 8.2). Table 8.2 Conserved Habitat Availability for the GHFF in the Lower Hunter Conservation Conservation Examples Type Strength Area / % LH Number of Camps Amount of Foraging Habitat (ha) Tenure based High Flora Reserves, State Forests (camps only), National Parks, Nature Reserves 86,885 ha / 20.2% 6 High - 48,221 Moderate - 27,391 EPI based Moderate SEPP 14, SEPP 46, conservation-focused LEP zones 53,948 ha / 12.5% 7 High – 23,816 Moderate – 9,007 It is considered that the amount of GHFF habitat protected by these areas is not adequate to protect the GHFF in its foraging and roosting activities within the Lower Hunter. The 13 camps protected in the areas described above would not provide access to the entire LGA for foraging activity. Impact or removal of camps outside these areas would likely result in the creation of new camps, or if this was not possible, reduction of access to foraging habitat not adequately serviced by the remaining camp network. Given the fact that food shortages already occur for the GHFF, any restriction in access to food would be detrimental to the GHFF. Likewise, tenure and EPI based areas comprise only 32.7% of the area of the Lower Hunter and contains a total of 108,435 ha of high and moderate value foraging habitat. This represents 45% of the total available foraging habitat for the GHFF (moderate and high value). A reduction in the amount of GHFF foraging habitat corresponding to 32.7% of the region’s area and 45 % of the currently available foraging resources would be detrimental to the ability of the GHFF to maintain activity in the Lower Hunter. This is based on the fact that food shortages occur for this species based on the current foraging area availability. 8.2 Priority Conservation Areas 8.2.1 Foraging Habitat Land conservation actions for GHFF foraging habitat should be directed towards areas of high conservation value (rank 1 habitat). This approach will conserve high quality habitat throughout the year, particularly at key phases of the reproductive cycle, and will additionally conserve habitats that support periods of abundant nectar flow from Spotted Gum. The GHFF is adept at foraging in fragmented landscapes. Whilst disturbed areas may increase the impacts of vehicle collision or netting entanglement, the GHFF is not reliant on corridors or linkages to gain access to food, or to maintain their migratory habits (but see roosting habitat in Section 8.2.2). This offers flexibility in terms of where areas of high quality habitat can be conserved. Actions to conserve rank 1 foraging areas will protect areas with a rich nectar supply which will also benefit a broad range of threatened species, including the Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater. Conservation of forests will also benefit the Giant Barred Frog, Hastings River Mouse, Long-nosed Potoroo, and Koala, as well as providing tree hollows which are critical for a range of species such as large forest owls, cockatoos and lorikeets, gliders and possums, and insectivorous bats. Conservation of rank 1 foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 62 GHFF would also conserve a range of prey for species such as the Large Pied Bat, Powerful Owl and Spotted-tailed Quoll. The GHMv4 mapping product indicates large portions of rank 1 and 2 foraging habitat occur in the Cessnock and Kurri Kurri area, stretching north to Greta and south to Morisset, including forested, undeveloped areas to the west. However, doubts over the spatial veracity of the GHMv4 map mean that site-based assessment must be used to identify and target MUs containing rank 1 and 2 foraging habitat. Once the accuracy of vegetation mapping in the Lower Hunter has been improved, areas already protected under tenure based systems or through EPIs can be removed from areas of rank 1 foraging habitat and the remaining sites used to more precisely target conservation actions for GHFF foraging habitat. This exercise was undertaken using the available GHMv4-based foraging analysis. Priority areas for conservation of foraging habitat are shown in Illustration 8.2 and comprise of 103,124 ha of vegetated lands across the Lower Hunter. These areas would provide suitable offsetting sites for Biobanking or other offsetting schemes. 8.2.2 Roosting Habitat Foraging habitat within the Lower Hunter is most productive in the warmer months, coinciding with the birthing and raising of GHFF young. The Lower Hunter, therefore, supports foraging and breeding GHFFs and is a significant area for the species. Of the 20 camps known from the Lower Hunter, 12 are confirmed as being used by breeding females and an additional four sites remain unclear with regard to usage by breeding GHFF. Whilst it could be stated that camp sites CTS (possibly up to 14 of the 20 known site) of the GHFF or those supporting breeding activity (12 of the 20 known sites) should be prioritised for conservation, the changing natural landscape and changes in climatic conditions mean that future uptake or changes in the usage patterns of camps is likely. Therefore all roost sites are worthy of conservation in terms of maintaining a roost site network across the Lower Hunter for the GHFF. Wherever possible, managing roost site where they occur avoids issues associated with dispersal such as creation of new conflict areas. Effort should be placed into maintaining or improving habitat quality at current camp sites that are not subject to conflict with neighbouring humans. Camp sites in urban areas should be assessed and actions identified to manage current or future conflict (e.g. planning for buffers and planting of suitable roosting habitat away from residences). 8.3 Habitat Currently Under Restoration Habitat restoration occurs across the Lower Hunter through a range of funded and volunteer community and government projects, with various environmental value targets. A range of programs funded by the Australian and NSW State Governments is underway to improve local and, in some cases, regional biodiversity. The funding for these programs is only provided in the short-term (1-5 years), and it is likely that there will be frequent change in the number and location of funded projects. Such projects, although most are not undertaken to specifically support GHFFs, nevertheless assist this species through improvements in forest ecosystem health (e.g. reduction of weeds, restoration of vegetation structure and reintroduction of diversity). Illustration 8.2 Foraging Habitat Conservation Priority Areas based on GHMv4 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 63 8.3.1 Australian Government Funded Environmental Programs Various grant funding programs have supported the following projects in the Lower Hunter which are likely to benefit the GHFF: National Reserve System program; - One NRS project occurs in the Lower Hunter – ‘Hexham Swamp’ – a collection of land parcels acquired by the HCRCMA that contribute 467 ha to Hexham Swamp Nature Reserve near Newcastle; Community Action Grants; - Littoral Rainforest Restoration at Black Neds Bay (LMCC); - Koala Corridor Enhancement – Wanda Wetlands Link (PSC); and - Increasing Biodiversity at Galgabba Point through Understorey Planting (LMCC). 8.3.2 NSW Government Funded Environmental Programs A range of programs and processes is managed by the NSW State and Local Governments for restoration and maintenance of natural habitats and ecosystems which are likely to benefit the GHFF. These programs are funded by the NSW State Government, Local Government, or a combination of both. Programs and funded projects include: Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy (HCCREMS) coordinated; - currently implementing a Regional Roadside Environment Program; - Littoral Rainforest restoration Work at Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie; Local Government and Shire Association has provided funding for; - restoration and rehabilitation of habitat essential for Persoonia & Grey Crowned Babbler along roadsides; Office of Environment and Heritage is funding (or administering funding) under the Environmental Trust for; - Flying-fox Hunter River floodplain habitat restoration – including sites within the Maitland LGA (2011); - Connecting Dudley Bluff through rehabilitation of degraded bushland and possible land transfer to National Park estate (LMCC; 2011); - Black Creek Riparian Vine Project (CCC; 2010); - Controlling African Olives in Maitland to protect native vegetation (2010); - Habitat restoration of the critically endangered Persoonia pauciflora (CCC; 2009); - Improving and protecting water quality in Tilligerry Creek – stage 2 (PSC; 2009); - Enhancing ecosystem resilience in the Williams estuary (PSC; 2009); - Illawong Park littoral rainforest and Themeda grassland restoration (Lake Macquarie Landcare Network Inc; 2009); - Biodiversity improvement at Hunter Wetlands Community Ramsar site (Hunter Wetland Centre Australia; 2009); - Improving and protecting the water quality in Tilligerry Creek (PSC 2007); - Dune and koala habitat restoration at One Mile Beach (PSC; 2007); - Restoration and rehabilitation of Morisset Park estuarine habitat (Morisset Park Landcare; 2007); - Wangi point restoration project (Wangi Point Landcare; 2007); - Newcastle Glenrock to Blackbutt green corridor (Newcastle City Council; 2006); - Protection of rainforest and swamp forest at Soldiers Road reserve (Pelican Blacksmiths Landcare; 2006); - Resources at Kurri and Stanford Methyr (CCS 2004); - Restoring a damaged riparian corridor (LMCC; 2004); - Tenambit Wetlands rehabilitation stage 2 (MCC 2004); Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 65 - Creeks Alive community support project (NCC; 2004); Viney Creek restoration and wetland rehabilitation, Beresfield (NCC; 2004); Restoration and rehabilitation of estuarine habitat at Awaba Bay (AWABA Bay Landcare Group 2004); Revegetation and rehabilitation of Anvil /Black Creek (CCC; 2003); Williams River riparian best management practice demonstration site (HCMT; 2003); Protecting and enhancing threatened communities in Maitland (MCC 203); Coastline vegetation /biodiversity project – Newcastle (NCC; 2003); Rehabilitation and restoration of Seaham Wetlands and Williams River (Seaham Parks, Wetlands and Tidy Towns Committee; 2003); Revegetation of corridors in the Wallis /Fishery Catchment (CCC; 2002); and "From Melaleuca to the Wetlands" rehabilitation project (MCC; 2002). The locations and areas covered by the projects above were not available, and therefore it is not possible to assess the contribution of these projects to GHFF habitat restoration. However the riparian nature of the projects suggests that many are contributing to the maintenance and creation of potential roosting habitat for the GHFF. 8.4 Priority Restoration Areas Current plans and strategies exist for conservation effort prioritisation. This section identifies whether areas identified for high conservation value would meet the requirements of GHFF habitat conservation. Additional areas are identified that could support GHFF habitat restoration. Prioritisation of habitat restoration provides a way to harness the benefits gained from small, and largely uncoordinated, revegetation work so that the sum of the projects contributes to meaningful conservation outcomes. Given the mobility of the GHFF, choosing rehabilitation projects within habitat corridors or linkage areas is not critical. Habitat replacement programs that target GHFF are, however, likely to require high levels of short-term (1-5 years) funding and support (e.g. planting, watering and site preparation) as well as moderate levels of medium-term (5 – 10 years) funding and support (e.g. weeding and watering). A variety of strategic planning and biodiversity management documents exist for the Lower Hunter. These strategies include: Newcastle-Lake Macquarie Western Corridor Planning Strategy (DoP 2010); Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan (OEH 2012e); Newcastle Biodiversity Strategy (NCC 2006); Fauna Key Habitats and Corridors for NE NSW (Scotts 2003); Climate Change Coastal, Dry and Moist Corridors (DECC 2007c); Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Strategy (DECCW 2009b); and Lower Hunter Development Strategy (DoP 2006). 8.4.1 Roosting Habitat The mapped corridors or priority conservation areas, as described in the plans above, generally support known GHFF camps in the Lower Hunter. All camps are identified in corridors except for the following six: Throsby, Blackbutt reserve, Blackalls Park, East Cessnock, Hannan Street and Lorn. These camps are situated in the most urban of locations where GHFF are known to roost in the Lower Hunter. The Throsby and Blackbutt Reserve camps occurs in an area zoned for environmental conservation under the SI LEP and the Blackalls Park camps resides primarily on lands zoned for conservation under the LMCC LEP 2004. The East Cessnock, Hannan Street and Lorn camps are, however, within developable zones and are protected only by the TSC Act and EPBC Act. They also occur in residential situations where conflict with neighbouring residents occurs, or could occur. Hannan Street and Lorn are the only camps that are not identified within Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 66 biodiversity conservation priority areas (DECCW 2009b). East Cessnock camp is within an identified conservation area under the Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan (OEH 2012e). The management of GHFF camps is complicated by the ecology of this species and there is no known successful way to manage flying-fox camps in residential areas that is both satisfactory to humans and ecologically sustainable. Opportunities for improved camp management are likely to rely on the availability of suitable alternative camp habitat as close to existing conflict locations as possible (but in areas which would not cause further conflict). Whilst further research and well-designed and communicated experimentation is needed to resolve issues related to relocating flying-fox camps and managing conflict at urban flying-fox camp sites, significant benefit would be gained from a forward-thinking habitat restoration plan targeted at appropriate areas that could support roosting GHFF. The length of time required to recreate habitat that could potentially be used by roosting GHFF is likely to be 15–20 years, as this is the age of the reforested lands at Tocal where a GHFF camp established in 2010. This timeframe is ideally suited to the SDR program. Areas suitable for revegetation programs aimed at recreating roosting habitat for the GHFF have been shortlisted using the following criteria: occur within 100 m of a riparian zone or waterbody; are at least 300 m from currently developed areas (built-up areas as per 1:250,000 mapping from LPI); occur more than 300 m from proposed urban land (as identified in the LHRS (DoP 2006)); originally supported forest-structured vegetation but is now cleared or extensively degraded; and not within tenure based conservation area (OEH estate and FNSW Flora Reserves and State Forests and Crown Lands reserved for environmental protection purposes). Within the sites shortlisted from the analysis above, the following criteria were used to identify the highest priority roost habitat revegetation sites (refer to Illustration 8.3): have an area greater than 10 ha in size; occur within, or are associated with, the coastal floodplain; are located in close proximity to a roost currently associated with conflict; are located within 10 km of high conservation value foraging habitat; and are located in an area where few roosting options are currently available. A desktop assessment using available spatial layers shows significant areas that are potentially suitable for roost-site rehabilitation occurring in the Cessnock and Maitland LGAs, and also within the western portion of Port Stephens LGA (refer to Illustration 8.3). Rehabilitated sites with a history of usage as a camp may be more likely to be taken up by roosting GHFFs and these areas should be prioritised (if in an amenable location). One such example may be Black Hill camp which was abandoned on the late 1990s, in response to culling and dispersal. However, the development of a 3,266 ha freight hub nearby, as identified in the LHRS (DoP 2006) may make this camp unviable in the long-term if suitable foraging habitat is not replaced well in advance of the development. Field inspection and survey, input from experts in local vegetation regeneration and extensive consultation with the community are vital to any GHFF camp habitat recreation program. Some areas may not be able to support appropriately structured vegetation. For example, revegetation programs in riparian areas are affected by floods, which disturb planted vegetation and / or spread weeds. The benefits of riparian area rehabilitation, however, are ecosystem-wide and would support multiple threatened communities and species. Community acceptance of revegetation projects is vital. It is likely that areas rehabilitated as potential GHFF roosting habitat may need to be supported with community education programs, including liaison with any horse owners to ensure properties containing horse are appropriately managed (e.g. feed and water away from heavily flowering or fruiting trees) and horses are vaccinated against Hendra virus. Roost site rehabilitation projects would require long-term commitment as it may take up to 15–20 years before the habitat is suitable for roosting GHFF (based on the experience at Tocal). Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 67 8.4.2 Foraging Habitat An analysis of area available for habitat rehabilitation within strategic plans was undertaken to see if requirements for the GHFF could be met within these areas. Areas suitable for rehabilitation as GHFF foraging habitat were defined as: comprising of no vegetation (as mapped by GHMv4); within 20 km of an established camp; within lands identified for conservation (e.g. through LEP zoning); being within one of the conservation priority areas described in Section 8.3.1 (strategic plans); and occurring in areas where high conservation value (rank 1) GHFF foraging habitat is likely to have occurred before clearing. A desktop analysis of areas that meet the above criteria (except for the last point) was undertaken (refer to Illustration 8.3). A total area of 10,800 ha was identified as potentially suitable for foraging habitat restoration. After removal of most infrastructure and urban zone areas, 7,233 ha remain for further investigation in terms of foraging-habitat restoration areas. Most of the suitable area occurs to the north-west of Hexham Swamp Nature Reserve. Not all of this area may be suitable for rehabilitation into forested vegetation. Extensive, but fragmented, areas are also scattered throughout the Lake Macquarie LGA with a moderate amount of suitable sites in Port Stephens and Maitland LGAs. Interestingly, little suitable area for foraging habitat replacement was identified in the Cessnock LGA. This is reflective of the low amount of land zoned in the SILEP for this LGA in environmental protection or conservation zones. There are extensive tracts of land not zoned for conservation purposes in the north-eastern portion of this LGA that would support high quality foraging habitat for the GHFF. Land acquisition may be required in this LGA to support GHFF foraging habitat rehabilitation. 8.5 Conclusion We estimated that up to 7,047 ha of GHFF foraging habitat would be removed if all potential development areas identified in the LHRS were developed (refer to Section 7.2.1). This estimate is based on the GHMv4 mapping product whose accuracy and reliability make it unsuitable for application at a site-based level. A targeted vegetation survey should be undertaken across identified development areas and the updated vegetation mapping used to revise this study in light of the amount of GHFF foraging habitat identified for potential removal. Alternatively, a site-based assessment approach could be undertaken to quantify the loss of GHFF foraging habitat as a result of propose development. We proposed the following site-assessment process for ensuring an ‘improve or maintain’ outcome for GHFF foraging habitat loss associated with LHRS development areas: undertake site survey and map vegetation types; determine the foraging habitat rank of each vegetation type (by comparison with Appendix D or by evaluation using the formulae provided in Section 6) and the area that will be impacted; examine ways to avoid removal of rank 1 and rank 2 habitat, preferencing rank 1 habitat; examine ways to mitigate impact to rank 1 and rank 2 habitat, preferencing rank 1 habitat; failing ability to avoid or mitigate impact, offsetting of losses to rank 1 and rank 2 habitat should be undertaken in accordance with national and state offsetting policies and in consideration of: - offset areas are to be within 10 km of the camp nearest to the habitat being removed; - offsets must be like for like in the first instance and if this is not possible, they must be within the same rank classification and productive bi-month period (refer to Appendix D); and - sites are to appropriately conserved (e.g. Biocertification, Biobanking, VCA, PVPs etc.). Habitat rehabilitation offers opportunities to add habitat in appropriate areas, rather than just conserving existing habitat. Replanted areas could function as an offset, however, generally planting schemes are not favoured for offsetting as a suitable outcome (successfully recreated forest community) is not guaranteed (but Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 68 see Tocal) and in the case of the GHFF, a significant lead-time occurs before vegetation matures and flowers to the same extent as mature vegetation. However, offsetting with existing habitat guarantees a net loss of foraging habitat and therefore rehabilitation schemes should be encouraged if not for development offsets, then as part of wider programs genuinely targeted at improving local and regional biodiversity values. Illustration 8.3 Potential Camp and Forage Habitat Restoration Areas in the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 69 9 Management Actions for the GHFF 9 9 9 9.1 Previously Identified Actions 9.1.1 Priority Action Statements Priority Action Statements (PAS) have been identified by OEH and DSEWPaC for the GHFF. Whilst work on some has been started or is well underway, other high priority identified actions are still outstanding (refer to Table 9.1). Table 9.1 PAS for the GHFF Priority Action Progress with reference to the Lower Hunter High Set priorities for protecting foraging habitat critical to the survival of Grey-headed Flying-foxes and generate maps of priority foraging habitat. Mapping of priority foraging habitat was undertaken by Eby & Law (2008) across the entire range of the GHFF. This study uses a different vegetation mapping product to identify foraging habitat and has set rank 1 and rank 2 as priority areas for conservation. On the basis of the quality of the mapping products available for both studies, the foraging habitat maps produced are suitable for use on a landscape level only and site assessments must be used to confirm the locations of high priority vegetation types. Models of suitable resolution for use at site level could be generated using vegetation mapping that has accuracy of at least 80%. High quality mapping products exist for Maitland and Lake Macquarie LGAs as well as parts of Cessnock LGA. High Grey-headed Flying-fox National Recovery Team to undertake an annual review of the national recovery plan's implementation. The Grey-headed Flying-fox National Recovery Team no longer exists. The draft recovery plan has been publicly exhibited and subsequently considered by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. It is now awaiting finalisation by DSEWPaC and approval by the Federal Environment Minister. High Increase the extent and viability of foraging habitat for Grey-headed Flying-foxes that is productive during winter and spring (generally times of food shortage), including habitat restoration / rehabilitation works. There is no national approach to rehabilitation and restoration of GHFF foraging habitat. Winter and spring foraging resources are critically required in the north of the GHFF’s range. The GHFF is generally a warm season visitor to the Lower Hunter. It requires high quality foraging resources during the warmer months to support the energy intensive part of its breeding cycle during this time – pregnancy, birth and lactation. High Develop and promote incentives to reduce killing of flying-foxes in commercial fruit crops. The NSW Government initiated a $5 million netting subsidy program for orchardists in the Sydney Basin and central coast, commencing in July 2011. The program has recently been extended for two years until 30 June 2016. OEH provides information about exclusion netting on its website www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/NettingOfCommercialFruitT rees.htm. OEH is working with stakeholders to deliver the phase-out of the routine issuing of shooting licences as a crop protection measure. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 71 Priority Action Progress with reference to the Lower Hunter High Identify the commercial fruit industries that are impacted by Greyheaded Flying-foxes, to provide an information base for use by the various stakeholders. Work has occurred in this area and information is held by industry. The Lower Hunter is a well-regarded wine making region and has extensive vineyards. The height of cultivated vines is typically too low for use by GHFFs. Fruit is picked in Feb-Mar, coinciding with high numbers of GHFF in the area, but also with high natural food productivity. It is unknown whether the GHFF impacts this industry, however limited discussion may indicate the problem is minor. High Systematically document the levels of flying-fox damage to the horticulture industry within the range of the Grey-headed Flying-fox. A research program was undertaken from 2006-2009 to develop methodologies and trial in the Sydney Basin. However, GHFF damage to horticultural industries in NSW is currently not systematically documented. High Develop methods for rapid estimates of flyingfox damage on commercial crops, allowing the long-term monitoring of industrywide levels and patterns of flying-fox damage. Limited work has been undertaken in this area. High Develop and implement a grower-based program to monitor trends in damage to commercial fruit crops by flying-foxes and use the results to monitor the performance of actions to reduce crop damage. No work has been undertaken in this area. High Provide educational resources to improve public attitudes toward Grey-headed Flyingfoxes. Internet-based education programs for school children exist: All About Bats (http://www.allaboutbats.org.au/15/Flying-fox+Education+Kit) A range of information for adults is now available, including; Australasian Bat Society fact sheets (http://ausbats.org.au/#/bat-fact-packs/4562894228) OEH website (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/flyingfoxes.htm_) QLD Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/index.html) QLD Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/4790_2900.htm) SA Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Plants_Animals/Living_with_wildlife/G rey-headed_flying_foxes) DSEWPaC (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flyingfoxes.html) Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 72 Priority Action Progress with reference to the Lower Hunter High Review and improve methods used to assess population size of Greyheaded Flying-foxes. A monitoring method has been devised (Westcott et al. 2011) for a new monitoring program devised by CSIRO. Following a field trial in November 2012, the program officially commenced on 14-16 February 2013. Counts will be conducted at all known GHFF camps across the species’ national range, four times per year for at least four years, according to the CSIRO methodology. Medium Establish and maintain a range-wide database of Grey-headed Flying-fox camps, including information on location, tenure, zoning and history of use, for distribution to land management / planning authorities, researchers and interested public. Databases are held by OEH and DSEWPaC. These have been updated prior to February 2013 as part of the CSIRO National GHFF census program. Medium Determine characteristics of roosting habitat for Grey-headed Flyingfoxes, exploring the roles of floristic composition, vegetation structure, microclimate and landscape features and assess the status of camps. Studies of roosting habitat characteristics have been undertaken (Roberts 2005). It is apparent that factors other than floristic composition, vegetation structure and microclimate are involved. Food availability should be explored (including devising methods to quantify foraging resources in urban landscapes) as well as historical connection. Medium Describe the species, age structure and demographics of flyingfoxes killed in fruit crops to improve the understanding of the impact by assessing trends in the species, sex, age and reproductive status of animals killed on crops. Divljan et al. (2011) studied death and injury of GHFF shot at an orchard in the Hawkesbury area. They quantified the extent of animals killed and injured and the type injuries sustained and the implications in terms of the nature of the death. They identified trends in species, sex, age and reproductive status. However only one orchard was studied over a short timeframe. All licences issued to cull GHFF should be supported by similar monitoring, until the nature and impact of culling is clearly established. Medium Review and evaluate camp site management activities, summarising outcomes of past experiences at controversial camps. Noise impacts on neighbours of camps to be considered. For use in managing future conflicts with humans at flying-fox camps. Roberts et al. (2011) has described the management of 10 flying-fox camps across Australia, summarising the experiences gained from these camps – many of which were /are controversial. Work is required to assess the physiological impacts of living adjacent to flying-fox camps. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 73 Priority Action Progress with reference to the Lower Hunter Medium Develop guidelines to assist land managers dealing with controversial flying-fox camps. DECCW has produced a camp management policy, clearly outlining that culling is not supported and dispersal is in most cases unfeasible. The guideline sets standards and consistency upon which to base camp management decision-making. Funding is required to assist landholders dealing with controversial camps. Medium Develop materials for public education and provide them to land managers and local community groups working with controversial flying-fox camps, highlighting species status, reasons for being in urban areas, reasons for decline etc. Materials are available on living with flying-foxes; ABS fact sheets OEH factsheets QLD government fact sheets DSEWPaC fact sheets. Decision-makers require more support to make appropriate decisions about managing GHFF related conflict. Medium Monitor public attitudes towards flying-foxes. Some studies have been undertaken (Ballard 2004, Larsen et al. 2002). Triggers should be identified for undertaking further public attitude surveys to avoid public saturation and to use funding for GHFF management and research wisely. In late 2012, an online survey on public knowledge of the Hendra virus and attitude to flying-foxes was undertaken by Dr Hume Field. Medium Assess the impacts on Grey-headed Flyingfoxes of electrocution on powerlines and entanglement in netting and barbed wire and implement strategies to reduce these impacts. No work has been progressed in this area. Road-kill could be included. Medium Investigate the age structure and longevity of Grey-headed Flyingfoxes. A systematic assessment has been made at a single camp in urban Sydney (Divljan 2008). No comparative work has been undertaken at other sites. Medium Complete national recovery plan. In progress. Low Protect and enhance priority foraging habitat for Grey-headed Flyingfoxes, for example through management plans, local environmental plans and development assessments, and through volunteer conservation programs for privately owned land. Some rehabilitation and land management programs would benefit the GHFF, however no targeted programs have been implemented in the Lower Hunter specifically for GHFF foraging habitat protection. This study identifies areas suitable for further investigation in terms of foraging habitat conservation and rehabilitation. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 74 Priority Action Progress with reference to the Lower Hunter Low Improve knowledge of Grey-headed Flying-fox camp locations, targeting regional areas and seasons where information is notably incomplete, such as inland areas during spring and summer. This study reviewed the currently known camp locations, adding eight camps to the 12 documented within national and state databases. Seven of the camps require further monitoring to determine their status as CTS for the GHFF. Remote areas (e.g. western section of Cessnock LGA) may contain more camps and further investigation of these areas is warranted. The causes of abandonment of previously significant camps (e.g. Paterson) should be investigated. Low Protect roosting habitat critical to the survival of Grey-headed Flyingfoxes, for example through management plans, local environmental plans and development assessments, and through volunteer conservation programs for privately owned land. This study identifies camps CTS of the GHFF and those at risk from current and future development. Areas that may be targeted for future potential roosting habitat recreation have been identified. Low Enhance and sustain the vegetation of camps critical to the survival of Grey-headed Flyingfoxes. Some of the camps in the Lower Hunter are actively maintained (e.g. Snapper Island, Blackbutt Reserve and Tocal), however many camp sites receive no maintenance or are experiencing a reduction in size or quality. Few sites are covered by management plans, those including Lorn, Blackbutt Reserve and Snapper Island. Some management plans are focussed on conflict resolution rather than camp habitat improvement. Low Develop methods to monitor landscape scale nectar availability trends, to explain / potentially predict crop damage trends where crop protection is absent, and promote importance of foraging habitat productive in seasons critical to the horticulture industry. No work has been undertaken in this area. Low Assess the impacts Grey-headed Flying-fox camps have on water quality, and publish results in a peerreviewed journal. No work has been undertaken in this area. Low Conduct periodic rangewide assessments of the population size of Grey-headed Flyingfoxes to monitor population trends. A national monitoring program has been defined (Westcott et al. 2011), with field trials of counting techniques in November 2012 followed by the first census held over 14-16 February 2013. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 75 Priority Action Progress with reference to the Lower Hunter Low Investigate the differences in genetic relatedness, sex, age etc. between sedentary and transient Greyheaded Flying-foxes. No work has been undertaken in this area. Low Investigate betweenyear fidelity of Greyheaded Flying-fox individuals to seasonal camps. No work has been undertaken in this area. Low Investigate the genetic structure within Greyheaded Flying-fox camps, including levels of relatedness within and between members of adult groups, occupants of individual trees etc. No work has been undertaken in this area. Low Investigate the patterns of juvenile Grey-headed Flying-fox dispersal and mortality, allowing identification of the specific habitat requirements of juveniles. No work has been undertaken in this area. 9.2 Recommended Actions for the Lower Hunter A range of management actions would support the maintenance of habitat for the GHFF in the Lower Hunter. These include administrative actions, further research, education, conservation and rehabilitation actions and appropriate assessment of cumulative impacts of development on the GHFF. These measures are identified in Table 9.2. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 76 Table 9.2 Lower Hunter GHFF Conservation Recommended Actions ID Category Recommended Action Trigger /Timing A1 Administration Update this study when improved foraging habitat maps and subsequent conservation and restoration priority mapping products are available – refer to C2. C2 complete. A2 Administration Prepare a short paper detailing available funding opportunities for conservation, restoration and recreation of GHFF foraging and roosting habitat. Include pathways for habitat conservation. A3 Administration C1 Conservation C2 Conservation Review the consistency of this study with the draft National Recovery Plan when it is approved and adopted. In particular, ensure habitat critical to survival definitions for roosting and foraging habitat are consistent with the approved plan. Identify areas of important foraging and roosting habitat for the GHFF as priorities for incorporation into future conservation reserves as part of the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan (LHRCP). Create improved foraging habitat maps based on vegetation mapping products that are at least 80% accurate. C3 Conservation Prepare a GHFF roosting habitat rehabilitation and creation strategy for the Lower Hunter to refine and ground-truth suitable roosting habitat recreation areas and mechanisms by which roost site rehabilitation could be undertaken. This is to support greater opportunities for GHFF to identify roosting sites away residential and town centres. Would require implementation 15 years in advance of being needed, or able, to support camps outside urban and residential centres. C4 Conservation Develop a GHFF camp management strategy for East Cessnock camp to inform design of future development so that conflict is not created, and also to enable identification of options for management of this camp should conflict occur. Begin once approval to start development investigations is provided. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Outcomes / KPI Limitations of this study relating to the mapping product accuracy are removed, and foraging habitat maps, as well as identification of suitable conservation and rehabilitation areas, can be interpreted at a site-based resolution. 15-20 years prior to requirement of All available funding and resource offset areas. assistance is utilised to support the conservation strategies outlined in this plan. When draft National Recovery Plan This study is consistent with the is approved. approved National Recovery Plan for this species. Review of the LHRCP and LHRS Availability of vegetation mapping of an accuracy of 80% or greater / ASAP. Habitat critical for the GHFF is incorporated into conservation areas identified as part of the LHRS review. Foraging habitat amount and quality is available at site-based resolution thorough spatial mapping products to support planning decisions. Greater flexibility when designing management strategies for urban camps experiencing conflict. Prior preparation to support future camp establishment outside urban and residential centres. New residential / urban development within 300 m of the existing camp is designed so that a conflict point is not created. 77 ID Category Recommended Action Trigger /Timing Outcomes / KPI C5 Conservation C6 Conservation From development design and approval through to construction. From development design and approval through to construction. New development does not contribute to death of flying-foxes by electrocution. New conflict points are not created. New development contributes to foraging resources for the GHFF without creating conflict camp sites. C7 Conservation Recommend installation of CCT overhead power lines, or underground power lines in new development areas. Include Vegetation Management Plans as part of development projects to ensure that tall canopy free buffers between significant clumps of vegetation and residential areas are maintained for a range of benefits, including asset protection (from fire), but also as buffers from potential roost sites. The role of street plantings in supporting or discouraging flying-foxes can also be considered during this process. If appropriately planned, future development areas can support foraging GHFF and contribute to the conservation of the species. Utilising any output from R1, provide for roosting and foraging habitat recreation, rehabilitation and / or conservation at, and within 10 km of, historical camp sites. If historical camp site is clear of vegetation, site may require 15 years to become established. E1 Education Support school programs staged throughout primary and high school, to ensure the next generation is engaged with the environment and are aware of the health issues relating to bats. At schools where contentious camps occur / ongoing. E2 Education Involvement of schools and universities in habitat restoration, rehabilitation and conservation programs. As opportunities arise. GHFF voluntarily choose to roost in a site that has been planned and prepared for roosting GHFFs. An additional camp site exists in a GHFF friendly environment. More flexibility is created with regard to managing conflict camps if a network of alternative acceptable sites exists. Children receive information about bats that is factual and unbiased. Children are confidently and calmly aware of health risks associated with bats, and are equipped to make correct choices for action when around flyingfoxes. Children and teenagers receive information about bats that is factual and unbiased. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 78 ID Category Recommended Action Trigger /Timing Outcomes / KPI IA1 Impact Assessment Ensure cumulative impacts to GHFF from urban and infrastructure developments are appropriately assessed by identifying and quantifying the amount of high conservation value (Rank 1) and moderate conservation value (Rank 2) habitat to be removed. The LHRCP should identify mechanisms to avoid, mitigate and (if required) offset potential impacts on the GHFF of developments identified in the LHRS. Any proposed direct or indirect offsets, such as transferring areas of habitat into conservation reserves (and improving habitat where appropriate), should be identified in the LHRCP and be cognisant of the Australian Government’s EPBC Act environmental offsets policy and the relevant NSW Government approach to offsets. Review of the LHRCP and LHRS Cumulative impacts to GHFF from urban and infrastructure developments are appropriately assessed and avoided and mitigated where possible. If offsets required, they are appropriately located to enable an ‘improve or maintain’ outcome for the GHFF. R1 Research Prior to any strategic assessment associated with a regional roost habitat rehabilitation strategy. R2 Research Investigate locations of historical GHFF camps in the Lower Hunter, including review of historical newspaper accounts of problematic GHFF camps and bat-shooting events. This information should be used to support identified of suitable sites for roost habitat recreation or rehabilitation as it is clear that GHFF maintain fidelity to roosting areas (e.g. Lorn and Singleton areas).. Investigate the metabolic (energy demand and expenditure) needs of GHFF and relate this to foraging habitat requirements to better define the amount of foraging habitat required by this species. R3 Research Define the fruit industries in the Lower Hunter that could be impacted by the GHFF, and assess whether further investigation is warranted into level of damage by GHFF, methods of control and their impacts on GHFF and development of support programs to promote non-lethal crop protection. Can be undertaken at any time. R4 Research Roost site restoration or creation projects should be designed such that valuable information can be assessed, should uptake of the site occur. Any monitoring should be published as a minimum in the ABS newsletter, but preferably in a publically-accessible journal, and made freely available on the internet where possible. During the planning of a roost-site rehabilitation project, incorporation of monitoring and / or experimentation design occurs to answer questions about GHFF roost site selection (as determined by site characteristics). Roosting areas mutually favourable for GHFFs and humans are created or rehabilitated. Additional flexibility arising from an available network of roosting sites is provided to support management of problematic camps. Linkages between metabolic rates, foraging requirements and phenology may help predict roosting behaviour but will also identify how much foraging habitat the species requires. Determination of the contemporary issues regarding flying-fox damage to crops in the Lower Hunter. If significant issues occur, management of the issues and implementation of conservation strategies for the species should work in unison. Contribution to PAS regarding the determination of characteristics of roosting habitat for GHFF. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Can be undertaken at any time. 79 ID Category Recommended Action Trigger /Timing Outcomes / KPI R5 Research Health During the planning of a foraging site rehabilitation or creation project, incorporation of monitoring requirements to establish when foraging begins, and possibly its frequency. Can be done anytime. Recreated foraging habitat is used by foraging GHFF. H1 H2 Health Should be undertaken soon to capitalise on vaccination release. Transfer of Hendra from flying-fox to horse and horse to human does not occur. H3 Health Foraging habitat restoration or creation programs should contain a monitoring component to identify when foraging GHFF begin use of these sites. Monitoring should occur to demonstrate that use of these sites occurs. Any monitoring should be published as a minimum in the ABS newsletter, but preferably in a publically-accessible journal, and made freely available on the internet where possible. Investigate the potential physical and mental health impacts to humans of living in close proximity to a flying-fox camp. Broaden the understanding of the mental and emotional impacts of living adjacent to flying-fox camps to provide improved information to support camp management plans and residents. Ensure horses on properties within flying-fox distributions are vaccinated as per relevant guidelines. This action should be followed by a campaign to inform landholders with horses about actions to take to minimise risks of transmitting Hendra (e.g. keep feed and water under cover or away from trees and temporarily remove stock from paddocks containing flowering trees). Ensure school programs are provided in Lower Hunter schools that equip children with factual knowledge about bats and health risks. Should occur at an appropriate age, so that the risks and management of these risks are readily understood. Children are equipped with correct information about bat diseases, and can make appropriate choices of action when near flying-foxes. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Comprehensive impacts to health are considered in management plans prepared for problematic flying-fox camps. 80 10 Summary and Conclusions 10 10 10 10.1 Summary The Lower Hunter contains foraging and roosting habitats that play important roles in the ecology and biology of GHFFs. Native forests in the region comprise a number of vegetation types that produce abundant and reliable food over several months, including significant periods in the reproductive cycle of the species. The region also contains extensive tracts of Spotted Gum, a species which flowers infrequently but provides an unusually rich feeding resource, supporting large numbers of animals for extended periods. Camps located within nightly commuting distances of these foraging habitats provide the conditions necessary for day refuge and key behaviours including birth, raising of dependent young and mating. The aim of this study was to develop a strategy to preserve GHFF habitat in the Lower Hunter, a region where an increase in human population and development is anticipated. Conservation priorities for roosting habitat were set using criteria for identifying habitat CTS of GHFFs as modified from the draft recovery plan for the species (DECCW 2009b). Conservation priorities for foraging habitat were set using a system for ranking the productivity and reliability of food production in vegetation types (Eby and Law 2008), using types identified in the Greater Hunter Vegetation Mapping Project version 4 (Sivertsen et al. 2011). The influence of legislation, extant conservation policies / strategies / plans and the current conservation status of habitats were taken into consideration as well as opportunities for habitat restoration. Twenty GHFF camps are known from the Lower Hunter. Seven of these camps meet criteria for roosting habitat CTS of the GHFF and are identified as of high conservation priority. Seven camps are relatively new or poorly documented, and it remains unclear whether they meet CTS criteria. The remaining six do not meet CTS criteria. In reality, all occupied camps are important to the conservation of the GHFF as they facilitate access to foraging resources. Furthermore, issues associated with unwanted social outcomes, poor returns for funds invested and poor environmental outcomes result from inappropriate management actions taken at roost sites. The nectar diet of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter comprises of 27 tree species in the Myrtaceae family, whilst the native fruit diet comprises of 28 species of lianas and rainforest trees. The nectar component of the diet is of most importance to the GHFF in the Lower Hunter. The extent of potential foraging areas ranges from 50,000–65,000 ha between April and September to 170,000–200,000 ha between October and March. The Lower Hunter is therefore an important foraging area for the GHFF over the warmer months, which also coincides with key events such as birth, lactation and raising of young. Fifty-seven (57) of the 105 vegetation types (MUs) identified in the GHMv4 project were ranked as foraging habitat of high conservation priority. High ranking habitat covers approximately 37% of the Lower Hunter project area. Results based on the GHMv4 mapping product can only be interpreted on a landscape scale, due to poor fine-scale accuracy. While a digital map defining the conservation ranks of native vegetation in the project area has been created, identification of high priority areas must rely on site assessments to confirm the MUs under consideration and their ranks (as provided in this report). Similarly, calculation of the influence of other conservation and land management processes on foraging habitat, such as the proposed LHRS development, is limited to broad assessments. A total of 7,047 ha of foraging habitat for the GHFF occur in areas proposed for development under the LHRS. Impacts to GHFF foraging and roosting habitat should be avoided in the first instance and then mitigated if avoidance is not feasible. If mitigation is not possible, offsetting should be used to increase the habitat conserved for the GHFF. Areas suitable for offsetting have been identified (see Illustration 8.2) and are provided as a summary in Illustration 10.1. These areas comprise of 103,124 ha of vegetated lands across the Lower Hunter. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 81 Re-establishment of forests has wider ecosystem benefits, including providing habitat for a broad range of threatened species, increasing the extent of EECs, reducing the operation of a range of Key Threatening Processes such as loss of native vegetation, and, in the future, hollow-bearing trees. Areas suitable for foraging habitat restoration were identified (refer to Illustration 8.2) based on sites clear of vegetation and preferentially within areas already set aside for conservation. Roosting habitat restoration areas were also identified, targeting areas along drainage lines that are cleared and further than 300 m from proposed or existing urban areas. All potential sites for rehabilitation will require further site analysis and as the analysis is tenure blind, is likely to cover extensive areas of private property. Only 7,233 ha of land already zoned for conservation was identified as suitable for foraging habitat restoration, which is inadequate to cover the proposed offset requirements, meaning that areas zoned for rural or otherwise non-conservation-based activities would be required for rehabilitation. As such, significant landholder incentives would be required to entice private landholders to revegetate these areas. A suite of recommended management actions were identified to support the conservation of the GHFF in the Lower Hunter (refer to Table 9.2). 10.2 Conclusion A range of options exists to reduce the impact of development on the GHFF in the Lower Hunter. Opportunities exist to set aside high conservation value habitat for the GHFF, either through incorporation into conservation areas or through other mechanisms (e.g. VCA, PVP, Biocertification or Biobanking). Areas also occur where habitat restoration or re-creation programs could be undertaken. Should impact to GHFF habitat be unavoidable and not able to be mitigated, these options for offsetting the impact of development are available to ensure that development of areas identified through a review of the LHRS can be undertaken without significant impact to the GHFF if sufficient offset is provided. The strategic approach to development undertaken through the LHRS review provides opportunities to comprehensively assess the cumulative impact of development on the habitat of the GHFF. It also can support improved planning and design of future developments so that current roosting habitat sites are appropriately management and consideration of the future role that any new urban environments can play in terms of providing foraging habitat whilst discouraging roosting behaviour is undertaken. More accurate mapping products would be able to support site-based decision-making with regard to the GHFF without field-based site assessments; however, the maps provided in this study should be used at a landscape scale only. Further site assessments can be used in conjunction with reference to Appendix D and Section 6 of this study to determine impacts to GHFF foraging habitat. This can be applied to any development in the Lower Hunter and its use is encouraged beyond the review of the LHRS. Illustration 10.1 Conservation and rehabilitation Opportunities for the Flying-fox in the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 82 Project Team The project team members included: Anna Lloyd Ecologist Dr Peggy Eby Consultant Wildlife Ecologist Veronica Silver Ecologist We would like to acknowledge assistance from many landholders whose property contains or adjoins GHFF camps and who have kindly provided access and information about roosting locations. We also particularly thank Bill Dowling and Ray Williams for assistance with fieldwork and knowledge of local camps as well as Wildlife Carers, Billie Roberts, John Martin and Karen Parry-Jones for assistance with information about camps. Assistance was also gratefully received from the five local councils comprising the Lower Hunter, the Hunter Central Rivers CMA and staff from OEH, Forestry Corporation, Crown Lands Division and DSEWPaC. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 84 References Australian research Centre for Urban Ecology [ARCUE] (2009). Public Environment Report: Proposed relocation of a camp of Grey-headed Flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) from the Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney. Unpublished report prepared for the Botanic Gardens Trust, Sydney. Available online:http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/103590/Public_Environment_Report_F inal.pdf Australian Local Government Association [ALGA] (1999). National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy. Available online: http://alga.asn.au/site/misc/alga/downloads/publications/Bio_diversity_strategy_Executive_summary.pdf Ballard G. (2004). The Human Dimensions of Grey-headed Flying-fox Management: surveys of NSW commercial fruit growers and the public (2003-2004). A report to NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney. Bartholomew, G. A., Leitner, P. & Nelson, J. E. (1964). Body temperature oxygen consumption and heart rate in three species of Australian flying foxes. Physiol. Zool. 37, 179–198. Birt, P (2005). National Population Assessment- Grey-headed Flying-foxes Pteropus poliocephalus. Birt, P. (2005) Mutualistic interactions between the nectar-feeding Little Red Flying fox Pteropus scapulatus (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) and Eucalypts: habitat utilisation and pollination. PhD thesis. University of Queensland, Brisbane. Birt, P., Markus, N., Collins, L., and Hall, L., (2000). Urban Flying-foxes in Nature Australia. Brisbane City Council [BCC] (2010). Flying-foxes – Conservation Action Statement. Accessed online: http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/2010%20Library/2009%20PDF%20and%20Docs/4.Environment%20and %20Waste/4.7%20Wildlife/environment_and_waste_flying_foxes_CAS_2010_d4.pdf Cenwest Environmental Services (2010). Options for managing future occurrences of Grey-headed Flyingfox camps in Orange City, with particular reference to Cook Park & the immediate surrounds. Unpublished report for Orange City Council. Available Online : http://www.orangefruitgrowers.com.au/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/flyingfoxes.pdf Collins, L., (1999). “Impact of periods of foot shortage on the body weight of grey-headed flying-foxes” in Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-Headed Flying-Fox in New South Wales, Ed. G Richards. pp 99-101. Australasian Bat Society Inc. Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC] (2004a). Nectar Food Trees - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 4. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/landholderNotes04NectarFoodTrees.pdf Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC] (2004b). Flying-fox Camps - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 8. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/landholderNotes08FlyingFoxCamps.pdf Department of Environment and Conservation [DEC] (2004c). Fleshy Fruited Fruit Trees - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 5. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/landholderNotes05FleshyFruitedTrees.pdf Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 85 Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC] (2007a). Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines: The assessment of significance. DECC, Sydney. Available Online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/tsaguide07393.pdf Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC] (2007b). Flying-fox Camp Management Policy. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/policiesandguidelines/flyingfoxcamppol.htm Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC] (2007c). Fauna Corridors For Climate Change: Landscape Selection Process: Key Altitudinal, Latitudinal and Coastal Corridors for response to Climate Change: Hunter Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority (HCRCMA). Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC] (2008). Best practice guidelines for the Greyheaded Flying-fox, DECC, Sydney. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/08540tsdsflyingfoxbpg.pdf Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water [DECCW] (2009a). Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water [DECCW] (2009b). Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. Accessed online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/protectedareas/09812LHRCP.pdf Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water [DECCW] (2010). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030. A report prepared by the National Biodiversity Strategy Review Task Group convened under the Natural resource Management Ministerial Council. Available Online: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/strategy-2010-30/pubs/biodiversity-strategy2010.pdf Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water [DECCW] (2011). Draft New South Wales Biodiversity Strategy 2010-2015. Prepared by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW and Industry and Investment NSW for the NSW Government, Sydney. Available Online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biodiversity/strategy/10821DraftBioStrat.pdf Department of Environment and Heritage [DEH] (2003). EPBC Act Administrative Guidelines on Significance –Supplement for the Grey-headed Flying-fox. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/grey-headed-flying-fox.pdf Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts [DEWHA] 2010. Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Bats. EPBC Act Survey Guidelines 6.1. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/threatened-bats.html Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources [DEWNR] (2012). Grey-headed Flying-foxes. Accesses online: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Plants_Animals/Living_with_wildlife/Greyheaded_flying_foxes December 2012. See also http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CD0QFjAB&url= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.environment.sa.gov.au%2Ffiles%2F23925b2b-64d5-4998-9f499e7801079361%2Fdenr-news-110127greyheadedflyingfoxes.pdf&ei=qIbKUMaKOo2jigepuIGQDQ&usg=AFQjCNEoKKQwFTHfiixZOprd9_GnGmB-A&sig2=l_2hg_0geLEcz76UjOLWHA Department of Planning [DoP] (2006). Lower Hunter Regional Strategy. Available online: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/regional/pdf/lowerhunter_regionalstrategy.pdf Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 86 Department of Planning [DoP] (2010). Newcastle-Lake Macquarie Western Corridor Planning Strategy. Available online: http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fKUECrM1OEk%3D&... Department of Premier and Cabinet [DPC] (2011). NSW 2021: A Plan to Make NSW Number One. NSW Government, Sydney. Available online: http://www.2021.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/NSW2021_WEB%20VERSION.pdf Department of Primary Industries [DPI] (2010). Spotted Gum Fact Sheet. Accessed online: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/363806/Corymbia-maculata-variegata-henryi.pdf Department of Sustainability and Environment [DSE] (2011). SOP: Nudging of Grey-headed Flying-fox at Yarra Bend Park. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Available Online: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/15057567/1427560363/name/DSE_GHFF_Nudging_SOP_Final_Novembe r_2011.pdf Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [DSEWPaC] (undated_a). Map 5: The modelled distribution of the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) with camps. Accessed Online: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/ghffmap05.pdf Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [DSEWPaC] (undated_b). Known and historic campsites of grey-headed flying-foxes. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/national-camps-database.pdf Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [DSEWPaC] (2012). Flyingfoxes and National Environmental Law. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flying-foxes.html Divljan, A., Parry-Jones, K. and Wardle, G.M. (2006). Age Determination in the Grey-Headed Flying-fox. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(2): 607–611. Divljan, A (2008). Population ecology of the Grey-headed Flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus: a study on the age-structure and the effects of mortality on a vulnerable species. PhD thesis. University of Sydney. Divljan, A., Parry-Jones, K., Eby, P. (2011). Death and injuries to Grey-headed Flying-foxes Pteropus poliocephalus shot at an orchard near Sydney, NSW. Australian Zoologist, 35: 698-710. Duncan, A., Baker, GB & Montgomery, N. (Eds) (1999). The Action Plan for Australian Bats. Canberra: Environment Australia. Eby, P. (1991). Seasonal movements of Grey-headed Flying-foxes Pteropus poliocephalus (Chiroptera: Pterophodidae), from two maternity camps in northern New South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research, 18: 547-559. Eby, P. (1995). The biology and management of flying-foxes in NSW. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville NSW. Eby, P. (1996). Interactions between the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) and its diet plants – seasonal movements and seed dispersal. PhD Thesis, University of New England Armidale, NSW. Eby, P. (1998). An analysis of diet specialisation in frugivorous Pteropus poliocephalus in Australian subtropical rainforest Australian Journal of Ecology 23:443-456. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 87 Eby, P. (2000). “A case for listing grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus Poliocephalus as threatened in NSW under IUCN criterion A2” in Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-Headed FlyingFox in New South Wales, Ed. G Richards. pp 44-50. Australasian Bat Society Inc. Eby, P. (2002). Using New South Wales planning instruments to improve conservation and management of Grey-headed Flying-fox camps. Pp. 240-250 in Managing the grey-headed flying-fox as a threatened species in NSW, edited by P. Eby and D. Lunney. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman. Eby, P. (2008). Overview of flying-fox biology and ecology In Workshop Proceedings: Ballina 2 July & Newcastle 3 July 2008. pp. 89-103. Compiled by Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, South Sydney. Eby, P. and Law, B (2008). Ranking the feeding habitats of Grey-headed fling foxes for conservation management. An unpublished report for The Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) and The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. October 2008. Main Report available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/GHFFmainreport.pdf Lower North East NSW Report available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/GHFF09LNENSW.pdf Eby, P. and Lunney, D. (2002). Managing the grey-headed flying-fox as a threatened species in NSW, edited by P. Eby and D. Lunney. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman. Eby, P. and Lunney, D. (2006). Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Eby, P., Collins, L., Richards, G. and Parry-Jones, K. 1999. The distribution, abundance and vulnerability to population reduction of a nomadic nectivore, Pteropus poliocephalus during a period of resource concentration. Australian Zoologist 31: 240-253. Eby, P., Martin, J., van der Ree, R., Roberts, B., Divljan, A., Parry-Jones, K. (2012). Famished – the responses of flying-foxes to food shortages in south-east Australia. Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 38: 32. Fleming, T.H. and Eby, P. (2003). Ecology of Bat Migration. Pp. 156-208 in Ecology of Bats, edited by T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton. University of Chicago Press, Chicago USA. Hall, L. and Richards G. (2000). Flying-foxes – fruit and blossom bats of Australia. UNSW Press, Sydney. Hall, L. (2002). Management of flying-fox camps: what have we learnt in the last twenty five years? In Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a threatened Species in NSW. Edited by Peggy Eby and Daniel Lunney. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Sydney. Halpin,K., Young, P.L., Field, H. and Mackenzie, J.S. (1999). Newly discovered viruses of flying foxes, Veterinary Microbiology, 68: 83-87. Kuginis L., Byrne G., Serov P, Williams J.P. (2012). Risk assessment guidelines for groundwater dependent ecosystems, Volume 3 – Identification of high probability groundwater dependent ecosystems on the coastal plains of NSW and their ecological value, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Office of Water, Sydney Larsen, E, Beck, M., Hartnell, E., Creenaune, M. (2002). Neighbours of Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve: community attitudes survey 2001. Pp. 225-239 in Managing the grey-headed flying-fox as a threatened species in NSW, edited by P. Eby and D. Lunney. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 88 Law, B., Mackowski, C., Schoer, L. and Tweedie, T. (2000). Flowering phenology of myrtaceous trees and their relation to climatic, environmental and disturbance variables in northern New South Wales. Austral Ecology 25:160-178. Mcdonald-Madden, E., Schreiber, E.S.G., Forsyth, D.M., Choquenot, D. and Clancy, T.F. (2005). Factors affecting Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus: Pteropodidae) foraging in the Melbourne metropolitan area, Australia. Austral Ecology: 30:600-608. Martin, L., (2000). “Aspects of the reproductive biology of the grey-headed flying-fox that explain documented population declines, and support a threatened status” in Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-Headed Flying-fox in New South Wales, Ed. G Richards. pp 91-96. Australasian Bat Society Inc. Martin, L. and McIlwee, A.P. (2002). The reproductive biology and intrinsic capacity for increase of the Greyheaded Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus (Megachiroptera), and the implications of culling. Pages. 91– 108. In P. Eby, D. Lunney, editors. Managing the grey-headed flying-fox as a threatened species in New South Wales. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, New South Wales, Australia. Martin, L., Kennedy, J.H., Little, L., Luckoff, H.C., O'Brien, G.M., Pow, C.S.T., Towers, P.A., Waldon, A.K. and Wang D.Y. (1996). The reproductive biology of Australian flying-foxes (genus Pteropus). Symposium of the Zoological Society of London. 67:167-184. Menkhorst, P.W. (1995). Mammals of Victoria: distribution, ecology and conservation. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council [NRMMC] (2006). Australian Weeds Strategy – A national strategy for weed management in Australia. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra ACT. Available Online: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/publications/strategies/pubs/weedstrategy.pdf Nelson, J.E. (1965). Behaviour of Australian Pteropodidae (Megachiroptera). Animal Behaviour. 13:544-557. Newcastle City Council [NCC] (2006). Newcastle Biodiversity Strategy. Available online: http://www.newcastle.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/20823/Newcastle_Biodiversity_Strategy.p df New South Wales Department of Primary Industries [DPI] 2012. Hendra Virus. Available Online: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/horses/health/general/hendra-virus NSW Scientific Committee (2001). Final Determination to list the Grey-headed Flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus Temminick 1825, as a Vulnerable Species on Schedule 2 of the TSC Act 1995. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/GreyheadedFlyingFoxVulSpListing.htm O’Brien, G.M. (2011). Phenotypic plasticity of flying-fox reproduction aligns the genome-encoded rhythm to environmental conditions. pp 146-154 in The Biology and Conservation of Australasian Bats, edited by B. Law, P. Eby, D. Lunney and L. Lumsden. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman, NSW. Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH] (2008a). Grey-headed Flying-fox Camps. Metadata for spatial file available online from OEH Data Download website. http://mapdata.environment.nsw.gov.au/DDWA/ Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH] (2008b). Grey-headed Flying-fox Camp Boundaries. Metadata for spatial file available online from OEH Data Download website. http://mapdata.environment.nsw.gov.au/DDWA/ Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 89 Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH] (2012a). Grey-headed Flying-fox – species profile. Last updated 7 September 2012. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10697 Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH] (2012b). Flying-foxes. Last updated 26 October 2012. Available online; http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/flyingfoxes.htm Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH] (2012c). Priority Action Statements for the Grey-headed Flying-fox. Last updated 26 October 2012. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/PasSearchSpecies.aspx Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH] (2012d). Netting of commercial fruit-trees – guidelines to protect wildlife. Last updated 26 October 2012. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/NettingOfCommercialFruitTrees.htm Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH] (2012e). Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan. Last updated 07 September 2012. Available online: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biodiversity/cessnockmgtplan.htm Parry-Jones, K., (2000). “Historical declines since the early 1900s, and current mortality factors and abundance of the grey-headed flying-fox in NSW” in Proceedings of a Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-Headed Flying-Fox in New South Wales, Ed. G Richards. pp 56-65. Australasian Bat Society Inc Parry-Jones, K.A. and Augee, M.L. (1991). Food selection by grey-headed Flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) occupying a summer colony site near Gosford, N.S.W Wildlife Research 18:111-24. Parry-Jones, K.A. and Augee, M.L. (1992). Movements of Grey-headed Flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) to and from a colony site on the central coast of New South Wales. Wildlife Research 19:331-40. Parry-Jones, K. A. and Augee, M. L. (2001). Factors affecting the occupation of a colony site in Sydney, New South Wales by the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus (Pteropodidae). Austral Ecology, 26:47-55. Parsons, J.G., Van Der Wal, J., Robson, S.K.A. and Shilton, L.A. (2010). The implications of sympathy in the spectacled and grey headed flying-fox Pteropus conspicillatus and P. poliocephalus (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Acta Chiropterologica 12(2):301-309. Peacock, L., (2004). The Roost Preference of the Grey-headed Flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus, in New South Wales. Thesis, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, NSW. Pierson, E.D. and Rainey, W.E. (1992). The biology of flying foxes of the genus Pteropus: a review. Pacific Island flying foxes: proceedings of an international conservation conference (DE Wilson and GL Graham, eds.). United States Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report. Vol. 90. No. 23. 1992. Pook, E.W., Gill, A.M. and Moore, P.H.R. 1997. Long term variation of litter fall, canopy leaf area and flowering in a Eucalyptus maculata forest on the south coast of New South Wales. Aust. J. Botany 45: 737-755. Poore, M.E.D. 1955.The use of phytosociological methods in ecological investigations. I. The Braun-Blanquet system. J. Ecol. 43: 226-244. Ratcliffe, F.N. (1931). The flying-fox (Pteropus) in Australia. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Bulletin No. 53: 1-81 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 90 Ratcliffe, F.N. (1932). Notes on the fruit bats (Pteropus spp.) of Australia. Journal of Ecology 1:32-57. Roberts, B. (2005). Habitat characteristics of flying-fox camps in south-east Queensland. Honours thesis. Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland. Roberts, B.J. (2006). Management of Urban Flying-fox Camps: Issues of Relevance to Camps in the Lower Clarence, NSW. Valley Watch Inc., Maclean. Roberts, B. (2009). Ecology and management of flying-foxes in northern NSW. Presented to the Maclean flying-fox working group – November 2009. Roberts, B.J., Catterall, C.C., Eby, P. and Kanowski, J.K. (2012a). Latitudinal range shifts in Australian flyingfoxes: a re-evaluation. Austral Ecology, 37: 12–22. Roberts, B.J., Catterall, C.C., Eby, P., and Kanowski, J.K. (2012b). Long-distance and frequent movements of the flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus: implications for management. PloS ONE, 7(8): e42532. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042532. Roberts, B., Catterall, C.P., Kanowski, J., and Eby, P. (2008). A re-evaluation of the northern distributional limit of the Grey-headed Flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus’ in The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 31. The Australasian Bat Society. Roberts, B.J., Eby, P., Catterall, C.P., Kanowski, J. and Bennett, G. (2011). The outcomes and costs of relocating flying-fox camps: insights from the case of Maclean, Australia. Pp 277-287 in The Biology and Conservation of Australasian Bats, edited by Bradley Law, Peggy Eby, Daniel Lunney and Lindy Lumsden. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman, NSW, Australia. 2011. Available online: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/358440/Roberts-et-al.pdf Roberts, B., Kanowski, J., Catteral, C. (2006). Ecology and management of flying-fox camps in an urban region. Rainforest CRC and Environmental Sciences, Griffith University. Scotts, D., 2003, Key Habitats and Corridors for Forest Fauna: A Landscape Framework for Conservation in North-east New South Wales, NSW NPWS Occasional Paper 32, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney. Sivertsen, D., Roff, A., Somerville, M., Thonell, J., and Denholm, B. 2011. Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping. Geodatabase Guide (Version 4.0), Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, Australia. Somerville, M (2009) Hunter, Central & Lower North Coast Vegetation Classification & Mapping Project Volume 2: Vegetation Community Profiles, report prepared by HCCREMS/Hunter Councils Environment Division for Hunter–Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority, Tocal, NSW. Smith, M., (2008). Managing Bats, The Coffs Harbour Way‟. In Workshop Proceedings: Ballina 2 July & Newcastle 3 July 2008. pp. 84-88. Compiled by Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, South Sydney. South-east Queensland Catchments [SEQ] (2012). Management and restoration of Flying-fox Camps: Guidelines and recommendations. Accessed Online: http://www.seqcatchments.com.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=103793 Southerton, S.G., Birt, P., Porter, J. and Ford, H.A. (2004) Review of gene movement by bats and birds and its potential significance for eucalypt plantation forestry. Australian Forestry 67(1): 44–53. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 91 Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2001). Commonwealth listing advice on Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox). Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/p-poliocephalus.html Tidemann, C. R. (1999). Biology and management of the grey-headed flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus. Acta Chiropterologica, 1(2):151-164. Tidemann, C.R., and Nelson, J.E, (2004). Long-distance movements of the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus). Journal of Zoology, London, 263, pp 141-146. The Zoological Society of London, United Kingdom. Tidemann, C.R., Eby, P., Parry-Jones, K. and Vardon, M. (1999). Grey-headed-Flying-fox. Pages 31-35 in The Action Plan for Australian Bats, edited by A. Duncan, G.B. Baker and N. Montgomery. Environment Australia, Canberra. van der Ree, R. (1999). Barbed Wire Fencing as a Hazard for Wildlife. Research report for The Victorian Naturalist. 116:210-217. Vardon M. J. and Tidemann C. R. (2000). The black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto) in north Australia: juvenile mortality and longevity. Australian Journal of Zoology, 48(1):91-97. Webb, N.J. and Tidemann, C. (1996). Mobility of the Australian flying-foxes, Pteropus spp. (Megachiroptera): evidence from genetic variation. Proceeding of the Royal Society London Series B 263:497-502. West, C. (2002). Contemporary issues in managing flying-fox camps: a publicly-documented conflict from Maclean on the north coast of NSW, in Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a Threatened Species in New South Wales, pp 176-195. eds. P Eby and D Lunney. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman NSW. Welbergen, J.A. (2005). The social organisation of the grey-headed flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus, PhD thesis University of Cambridge Welbergen J.A., Klose S.M., Markus N. and Eby P. (2008) Climate change and the effects of temperature extremes on Australian flying-foxes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275: 419–425. Westcott, M. (2010). e-Research Brief 2010/12 for Queensland Parliament. Available online: http://210.8.42.131/documents/explore/ResearchPublications/ResearchBriefs/2010/eRBR201012.PDF Westcott, D.A., McKeown, A., Murphy, H., Fletcher, C.S. (2011). A monitoring method for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. Available Online: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/310112-monitoringmethodology.pdf Williams, N. S. G., McDonnell, M. J., Phelan, G. K., Keim, L. D. and Van Der Ree, R. (2006). Range expansion due to urbanization: Increased food resources attract Grey-headed Flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) to Melbourne. Austral Ecology 31:190-198. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 92 Copyright and Usage GeoLINK, 2013 This document, including associated illustrations and drawings, was prepared for the exclusive use of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. It is not to be used for any other purpose or by any other person, corporation or organisation without the prior consent of GeoLINK. GeoLINK accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage suffered howsoever arising to any person or corporation who may use or rely on this document for a purpose other than that described above. This document, including associated illustrations and drawings, may not be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form without the prior consent of GeoLINK. This includes extracts of texts or parts of illustrations and drawings. The information provided on illustrations is for illustrative and communication purposes only. Illustrations are typically a compilation of data supplied by others and created by GeoLINK. Illustrations have been prepared in good faith, but their accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. There may be errors or omissions in the information presented. In particular, illustrations cannot be relied upon to determine the locations of infrastructure, property boundaries, zone boundaries, etc. To locate these items accurately, advice needs to be obtained from a surveyor or other suitably-qualified professional. Topographic information presented on the drawings is suitable only for the purpose of the document as stated above. No reliance should be placed upon topographic information contained in this report for any purpose other than that stated above. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 93 Appendix A A GHFF Dietary Species Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Table A.1 Dietary Plants of the GHFF present in GHVMv4 Map Units in the Lower Hunter MU (map) Count Area (ha) Dietary Plants MU004 63 222.0 2 fruit spp common in canopy MU007 154 471.4 4 fruit spp + S. glomulifera as emergent MU009 69 209.2 4 fruit spp MU010 684 2732.3 4 fruit spp +E. saligna emergents MU011 11 23.5 4 fruit spp+E. deanii emergents MU016 14 30.9 6 fruit spp MU020 4 13.1 2 fruit spp MU021 402 976.0 S. glomulifera emergents MU023 35 91.5 3 fruit spp MU027 10 20.2 6 fruit spp MU038 212 725.9 A. costata E. pilularis C. gummifera MU046 73 246.6 E. pilularis MU047 2501 6873.0 S. glomulifera A. floribunda MU048 981 3201.2 MU050 242 832.5 S. glomulifera E. acmenoides E. saligna + Callistemon saligna and 2 fruit spp S. glomulifera E. saligna E. pilularis + 5 fruit spp MU054 115 268.4 A. floribunda E, deanii S. glomulifera MU055 1481 4457.7 E. saligna + 4 fruit spp MU061 502 1503.4 A. costata S. glomulifera E. pilularis MU062 2548 6993.4 S. glomulifera A. floribunda E. deanii MU066 363 816.9 C. maculata E. acmenoides MU067 916 2532.9 E. punctata E. tereticornis MU070 54 154.0 E. paniculata E. tereticornis MU071 858 1994.9 C. maculata E. punctata MU072 7339 19011.5 C. maculata E. fibrosa E. siderophloia MU073 111 145.8 E. punctata A. floribunda MU074 5834 14469.1 C. maculata E. fibrosa E. punctata MU075 1340 3172.6 E. fibrosa C. maculata MU076 288 477.9 E. amplifolia A. floribunda MU078 4 8.1 E. amplifolia MU082 1461 3521.8 C. maculata E. fibrosa E. moluccana E. tereticornis MU083 622 1350.2 C. maculata E. fibrosa MU084 1232 2452.4 C. maculata MU085 280 662.0 E. moluccana MU086 1184 1990.0 E. moluccana C. maculata MU091 95 310.3 E. albens MU101 10150 27975.2 A. costata C. gummifera Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter MU (map) Count Area (ha) Dietary Plants MU102 11 31.0 E. paniculata A. costata MU103 11 24.5 A. costata E. pilularis MU104 11402 28851.6 E. punctata S. glomulifera A. costata MU108 59 124.1 A. costata E. piperita E. pilularis MU109 119 324.5 A. costata S. glomulifera E. piperita C. gummifera MU110 2725 6075.9 S. glomulifera A. costata MU111 15467 33977.9 E. punctata A. costata MU115 3090 7897.2 E. parramattensis MU116 2291 5369.1 C. eximia C. gummifera E. punctata MU117 503 1642.8 E. parramattensis MU118 1876 4125.7 C. gummifera MU121 448 996.5 E. piperita A. costata MU122 7543 15096.9 C. eximia MU123 10 14.5 C. eximia MU124 40 30.2 A. costata MU125 373 829.5 C. gummifera A. costata MU126 354 650.5 A. costata E. botryoides MU128 2941 7511.7 A. costata E. pilularis MU129 654 1588.2 C. gummifera A. costata E. pilularis MU130 645 1644.7 A. costata E. pilularis MU131 467 1383.9 A. costata E. resinifera E. robusta MU133 1085 2499.7 E. parramattensis MU135 65 136.1 B. integrifolia MU163 117 297.0 E. robusta MU195 27 76.1 2 Ficus spp MU197 29 88.4 E. resinifera MU199 16 47.0 M. quinquenervia E. robusta MU200 315 849.0 E. robusta A. floribunda MU201 25 42.7 E. longifolia E. robusta MU203 76 173.8 M. quinquenervia E. robusta MU205 30 135.6 E. robusta + 2 fruit spp MU206 233 540.1 M. quinquenervia E. robusta MU212 4 5.8 M. quinquenervia MU215 103 129.0 E. camaldulensis MU216 154 386.5 M. quinquenervia MU221 11 12.8 M. quinquenervia MU223 42 84.6 M. quinquenervia MU228 1007 2225.2 Grey Mangrove fruit Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter MU (map) Count Area (ha) Dietary Plants MU229 2009 4156.7 Grey Mangrove fruit MU231 136 356.4 E. punctata E. tereticornis M. quinquenervia Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Appendix B B GHFF Camps in the Lower Hunter Valley Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Table B1 Camp Name Camps in the Lower Hunter Mapped vegetation type (GHVMv 4) Vegetation description from site inspection Recent occupation pattern 20022012 L G B R H F Critical to F F F survival F F # # used as camp >50% of last 10 years max pop >10,000 >2,500 incl females sept-may Accuracy of location (1=50m) Disturbance history Current conflict Landowner is now sympathetic, would like to see the animals return and is approachable. Black Hill MU007 Sandpaper Fig /Whalebone not verified not occupied 1 0 0 0 no na na 2 Camp was occupied on an annual seasonal basis (summer) prior to approx 1997. Flying foxes were shot at by orchardists in a regular, organised manner. Mining company set and deployed 'bombs' beneath roosting animals in attempts to deter them. East Cessnock MU115 Eucalyptus parramattensis / Angophora bakeri / Melaleuca nodosa shrubby woodland in the Cessnock-Kurri Kurri area Paperbark depression Forest new camp, seasonality, etc unclear 1 t b c 0 ? new 1 1 1 None None None None - CMA is negotiating with landowner to establish a Voluntary Conservation Agreement over the land as part of their involvement in Hunter Dry Rainforest conservation initiative Millfield MU007 Sandpaper Fig / Whalebone Tree warm temperate rainforest Hunter Valley Dry Rainforest annual, seasonal (spring-summer) 1 0 0 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 1 1 1 1 3 Camp Name Belmont Glenrock Blackalls Park Martinsville Mapped vegetation type (GHVMv 4) MU206 Broadleaved Paperbark / Swamp Oak / Saw Sedge swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast and Lower North Coast MU071 /MU072 Moist shrubby open forest types dominated by Spotted Gum MU200 Swamp Mahogany / Flaxleaved Paperbark Coastal Floodplain Forest of the Central Coast MU010 Jackwood / Lilly Pilly / Sassafras riparian warm temperate rainforest of the Central Coast. Vegetation description from site inspection Recent occupation pattern 20022012 L G B R H F Critical to F F F survival F F # # as per GHVM v4 not occupied 1 u k u k not verified not occupied 1 u k Not verified Occupied in large numbers since mid-February 2013. 10,000 est.confirmed 5/3/2013. Reports of earlier occupation by smaller numbers have not been confirmed. 1 u k wet gully forest: Bangalow Palm / Sydney Blue Gum / rainforest midstorey including Acmena smithii pre2007: annualseasonal (warm months); post2007: irregular seasonal (warm months) 1 0 used as camp >50% of last 10 years max pop >10,000 >2,500 incl females sept-may Accuracy of location (1=50m) 0 no na na u k 0 no na u k new new new 0 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 1 1 1 Disturbance history Current conflict 2 not known None na 2 not known None yes 2 not known Camp new, although some conflict evident. None Landowners sympathetic to flying foxes, protective of the camp. However, neighbours have approached the owner re: moving the camp. Concerns over water quality have been raised. 1 2 Camp Name Mapped vegetation type (GHVMv 4) Vegetation description from site inspection Recent occupation pattern 20022012 Morisset MU055 Sydney Blue Gum / Lilly Pilly mesic tall open forest of coastal ranges and tablelands escarpment as per GHVM v4 irregular, seasonal (springsummer) L G B R H F Critical to F F F survival F F # # 1 0 0 1 used as camp >50% of last 10 years 1 max pop >10,000 1 >2,500 incl females sept-may 1 Accuracy of location (1=50m) 1 Disturbance history Current conflict None None, landowners appreciate the animals as do the neighbours Large numbers of animals occupied trees in a residential garden once in summer 2009 /10, for a short period. Animals were sometimes disturbed with noise, but left this site. A camp existed in Lorn in 1844, however was shot and dispersed. GHFF not present until 2010. Unauthorised disturbance has been reported. OEH grated a s95 certificate for 1 year to trim or remove identified trees. Action not commenced as conditions exclude work during breeding season. Hannan St MU000 Nonnative vegetation private garden planting short-term, temporary summer 2009-10 1 0 1 0 no 1 1 1 Lorn MU000 Nonnative vegetation garden planting, introduced trees established 2010, appears to be continuous 1 1 0 ? no 1 1 1 MU050 and also planted warm temperate rainforest continuous 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 None None as per GHVMv4 established 2010, 1 ? 0 ? new uk uk 1 None None Blackbutt Res Throsby MU050 Blackbutt / Turpentine / Sydney Blue Gum mesic tall open forest on ranges of the Central Coast MU229 Grey Mangrove low closed forest Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter None, not occupied Yes Camp Name Mapped vegetation type (GHVMv 4) Anna Bay MU128 Smoothbarked Apple / Blackbutt / Old Man Banksia woodland on coastal sands of the Central and Lower North Coast Bobs Farm MU128 Smoothbarked Apple / Blackbutt / Old Man Banksia woodland on coastal sands of the Central and Lower North Coast Fullerton Cove Italia Road Medowie MU229 Grey Mangrove low closed forest MU072 Spotted Gum / Broadleaved Mahogany / Red Ironbark shrubby open forest MU133 Parramatta red gum / Fern-leaved banksia / Melaleuca sieberi swamp woodland of the Tomaree Peninsula Recent occupation pattern 20022012 L G B R H F Critical to F F F survival F F # # annual, seasonal (winter-spring) 1 0 1 new camp established 2008; annual, seasonal 1 0 as per GHVM v4 occasional 1 Melaleuca decora / Alphitonia excelsa not occupied Melaleuca quinquenervia annual, seasonal Vegetation description from site inspection MU206 Broadleaved Paperbark / Swamp Oak / Saw Sedge swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast and Lower North Coast MU206 Broadleaved Paperbark / Swamp Oak / Saw Sedge swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast and Lower North Coast used as camp >50% of last 10 years max pop >10,000 >2,500 incl females sept-may Accuracy of location (1=50m) 1 1 1 uk 0 uk new uk u k u k uk uk 1 0 0 0 1 u k u k 1 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Disturbance history Current conflict 2 History of shooting, but not for several years None uk 2 None None uk 1 2 None None 0 0 0 1 unknown None, not occupied 1 1 1 1 None None Camp Name Raymond Terrace Mapped vegetation type (GHVMv 4) Vegetation description from site inspection Recent occupation pattern 20022012 L G B R H F Critical to F F F survival F F # # MU000 Nonnative vegetation planted vegetation, animals roosting in Casuarina glauca new, established 2010, appears to be seasonal 1 0 0 0 used as camp >50% of last 10 years max pop >10,000 >2,500 incl females sept-may Accuracy of location (1=50m) new 0 0 1 MU018 Tuckeroo / Lilly Pilly / Coast as per GHVM Snapper Is occasional 1 0 0 0 0 uk 1 2 Banksia littoral v4 rainforest MU000 Nonnative vegetation and MU196 River MU000, MU196 Oak / White new, established new, and some Tocal Cedar Grassy 2010, appears to 1 1 0 1* establish 1 1 1 additional Riparian Forest of be seasonal ed 2010 native planting the Dungog Area and Liverpool Ranges * There's evidence that this is a replacement for the long-established Paterson camp and would therefore meet the conditions for 'exceptional circumstances' #Uk = unknown, BFF = Black Flying-fox, LRFF = Little red Flying-fox Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Disturbance history Current conflict None None None None None None Appendix C C Vegetation Types Affected by Proposed LHRS Development Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Table C.1 Vegetation Types present in proposed LHRS development areas in GHVMv4 Map Units GHM_Native GHM_v4_veg Native_V_1 Keith_Form Keith_Class MU163 94 Dry sclerophyll forests Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU004 70 Rainforests Northern Warm Temperate Rainforests MU007 41 Angophora costata / Livistona australis / Eucalyptus umbra woodland on Wallarah Peninsular Acmena smithii / Ficus coronata / Melaleuca styphelioides warm temperate rainforest of the Central Coast and lower Hunter Valley Ficus coronata / Streblus brunonianus warm temperate rainforest Rainforests Dry Rainforests MU073 19 Eucalyptus punctata / Angophora floribunda shrubby open forest of the lower Hunter Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU074 962 Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU196 2 Riverine Forests Eastern Riverine Forests MU215 2 Riverine Forests Eastern Riverine Forests MU076 17 Forested wetlands Coastal Floodplain Wetlands MU086 116 Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU038 6 Wet sclerophyll forests MU047 26 Wet sclerophyll forests Northern Hinterland Wet Sclerophyll Forests North Coast Wet Sclerophyll Forests MU050 13 Wet sclerophyll forests North Coast Wet Sclerophyll Forests MU055 1 Wet sclerophyll forests North Coast Wet Sclerophyll Forests MU061 11 Wet sclerophyll forests North Coast Wet Sclerophyll Forests MU072 1532 Corymbia maculata / Eucalyptus fibrosa / Eucalyptus punctata shrub / grass open forest of the Lower Hunter Casuarina cunninghamiana / Melia azedarach Grassy Riparian Forest of the Dungog Area and Liverpool Ranges Eucalyptus camaldulensis / Casuarina cunninghamiana grassy riparian woodland of the Hunter Valley Eucalyptus amplifolia / +-Angophora floribunda grassy woodland on alluvial floodplains of the lower Hunter Eucalyptus crebra / Eucalyptus moluccana / Corymbia maculata shrub / grass open forest of the central and lower Hunter Eucalyptus microcorys / Angophora costata / Eucalyptus pilularis shrub / grass tall open forest of the Central and lower North Coast Syncarpia glomulifera / Angophora floribunda / Allocasuarina torulosa moist shrubby tall open forest of the Central Coast Eucalyptus pilularis / Syncarpia glomulifera / Eucalyptus saligna mesic tall open forest on ranges of the Central Coast Eucalyptus saligna / Acmena smithii mesic tall open forest of coastal ranges and tablelands escarpment Angophora costata / Syncarpia glomulifera / Eucalyptus pilularis open forest on ranges of the Central Coast Corymbia maculata / Eucalyptus umbra / Eucalyptus fibrosa shrubby open forest Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU101 1115 Angophora costata / Corymbia gummifera / Eucalyptus capitellata / Banksia spinulosa heathy open forest of coastal lowlands Dry sclerophyll forests Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forests Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter GHM_Native GHM_v4_veg Native_V_1 Keith_Form Keith_Class MU117 24 Dry sclerophyll forests MU118 332 Dry sclerophyll forests Sydney Sand Flats Dry Sclerophyll Forests Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU120 35 Dry sclerophyll forests Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU131 52 Shrublands Coastal Swamp Forests MU197 11 Shrublands Coastal Floodplain Wetlands MU200 71 Forested wetlands Coastal Swamp Forests MU212 2 Shrublands Coastal Swamp Forests MU229 0 Angophora bakeri / Eucalyptus parramattensis / Persoonia oblongata heathy woodland of the Howes Valley area Eucalyptus haemastoma / Corymbia gummifera / Angophora inopina heathy woodland on lowlands of the Central Coast Angophora costata / Corymbia gummifera / Eucalyptus haemastoma grass / shrub woodland on lowlands of the Central Coast Angophora costata / Eucalyptus resinifera / Eucalyptus robusta / Melaleuca sieberi heathy swamp woodland of coastal lowlands Melaleuca nodosa / Melaleuca linariifolia swamp forest on poorly drained soils of the Central Coast Eucalyptus robusta / Melaleuca linariifolia swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast Melaleuca ericifolia / Baumea juncea swamp shrubland on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast and Lower North Coast Avicennia marina low closed forest Mangrove Swamps Mangrove Swamps MU082 1273 Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU116 14 Dry sclerophyll forests MU071 76 Dry sclerophyll forests Sydney Hinterland Dry Sclerophyll Forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU106 23 Dry sclerophyll forests Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU198 0 Shrublands Coastal Floodplain Wetlands MU199 8 Forested wetlands Coastal Swamp Forests MU219 2 Corymbia maculata / Eucalyptus fibrosa / Eucalyptus crebra / Eucalyptus moluccana shrub /grass open forest of the lower Hunter Corymbia eximia / Corymbia gummifera / Eucalyptus capitellata shrub / grass open forest in the Cessnock-Kurri Kurri area Corymbia maculata / Eucalyptus umbra / Eucalyptus punctata grass / shrub open forest on Coastal Lowlands of the Central Coast Angophora costata / Eucalyptus robusta / Eucalyptus resinifera / Livistona australis open forest on lowlands of the Central Coast Melaleuca nodosa paperbark forest on coastal lowlands of the Central Coast and Lower North Coast Melaleuca quinquenervia / Eucalyptus robusta / Casuarina glauca / Gahnia clarkei swamp forest of the Central Coast and Lower North Coast Typha orientalis rushland Freshwater wetlands Coastal Freshwater Lagoons MU228 4 Saltmarsh / Estuarine Complex Saltmarshes Saltmarshes Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter GHM_Native GHM_v4_veg Native_V_1 Keith_Form Keith_Class MU231 17 Forested wetlands Coastal Floodplain Wetlands MU102 1 Dry sclerophyll forests Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU128 26 Dry sclerophyll forests Coastal Dune Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU129 13 Dry sclerophyll forests Coastal Dune Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU135 2 Dry sclerophyll forests MU179 12 Eucalyptus punctata / Eucalyptus tereticornis / Melaleuca linariifolia shrubby open forest on coastal lowlands of the Northern Sydney Basin and Lower North Coast Eucalyptus paniculata / Eucalyptus umbra / Angophora costata coastal headland low open forest of the Central Coast Angophora costata / Eucalyptus pilularis / Banksia serrata woodland on coastal sands of the Central and Lower North Coast Corymbia gummifera / Angophora costata heathy woodland on coastal sands of the Central and lower North Coast Leptospermum laevigatum / Banksia integrifolia / Ficinia nodosa low open shrubland on coastal foredunes Themeda australis / Westringia fruticosa grassland on coastal headlands Maritime Grasslands South Coast Sands Dry Sclerophyll Forests Maritime Grasslands MU182 59 Shrublands Coastal Headland Heaths MU183 26 Allocasuarina distyla / Melaleuca Nodosa / Banksia spinulosa Coastal Heath of the Central Coast and lower North Coast Melaleuca nodosa / Banksia oblongifolia heath on coastal headlands of Central Coast Shrublands Coastal Headland Heaths MU185 13 Shrublands Wallum Sand Heaths MU186 3 Shrublands Wallum Sand Heaths MU188 0 Shrublands Wallum Sand Heaths MU218 96 Freshwater wetlands Coastal Freshwater Lagoons MU075 119 Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU083 281 Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU084 105 Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU085 197 Banksia aemula / Monotoca scoparia heath on coastal sands of the Central Coast and lower North Coast Banksia oblongifolia / Melaleuca nodosa / Leptospermum polygalifolium / Leptocarpus tenax wet heath on coastal sands of the Central Coast and lower North Coast Leptospermum liversidgei / Callistemon citrinus / Xanthorrhoea fulva wet heath on coastal sands of lower North Coast Paspalum distichum / Eleocharis sphacelata freshwater wetland of the Central Coast and lower Hunter Eucalyptus fibrosa / Corymbia maculata / Melaleuca nodosa shrubby open forest of the Lower Hunter Corymbia maculata / Eucalyptus crebra / Eucalyptus fibrosa shrub / grass open forest of the central and lower Hunter Corymbia maculata / Eucalyptus crebra shrub / grass open forest of the central and lower Hunter Eucalyptus crebra / Allocasuarina luehmannii / Eucalyptus moluccana shrub / grass open forest of the central and lower Hunter Dry sclerophyll forests Hunter-Macleay Dry Sclerophyll Forests Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter GHM_Native GHM_v4_veg Native_V_1 Keith_Form Keith_Class MU115 356 Dry sclerophyll forests MU205 6 Shrublands Sydney Sand Flats Dry Sclerophyll Forests Coastal Swamp Forests MU213 84 Eucalyptus parramattensis / Angophora bakeri / Melaleuca nodosa shrubby woodland in the Cessnock-Kurri Kurri area Melaleuca biconvexa / Eucalyptus robusta / Livistona australis swamp forest of the Central Coast Casuarina glauca / Microlaena stipoides grassy riparian forest of the Hunter Valley Riverine Forests Coastal Swamp Forests MU220 16 Spirodela punctata freshwater wetland Freshwater wetlands Coastal Freshwater Lagoons MU130 13 Angophora costata / Eucalyptus pilularis heathy open forest of the Tomaree Peninsula Dry sclerophyll forests Coastal Dune Dry Sclerophyll Forests MU133 17 Eucalyptus parramattensis / Banksia oblongifolia / Melaleuca sieberi swamp woodland of the Tomaree Peninsula Forested wetlands Coastal Floodplain Wetlands Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Appendix D D Lower Hunter Foraging Habitat Analysis Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter MU 004 MU 007 MU 008 MU 009 Lilly Pilly / Sandpaper Fig marginal warm temperate rainforest of the Central Coast and lower Hunter Valley Sandpaper Fig / Whalebone Tree warm temperate rainforest Lily Pilly / Grey Myrtle / Rasp Fern warm temperate rainforest of Barrington foothills and Central Coast Bangalow Palm / Coachwood /Sassafras gully warm temperate rainforest 4 fruit spp + EUSAL 2 2 EUSAL*2.4*47.4 /(2.1*73.7+2.8*68.4+ 2.1*57.9+2.4*47.4) 0.1 37 0.1 56 0.1 43 242 3 fruit spp + SYGLO 2 2 SYGLO*47.4*2.1 /(47.4*2.1+89.5*3.8+ 89.5*2.6) 0.0 88 0.0 89 0.0 88 209 3 fruit spp 2 0 2 2 0.0 67 0.0 76 0.0 70 2 2 0.0 50 0.0 57 0.0 52 24 3 fruit spp+EUD EA MU 021 MU 023 MU 027 MU 038 Brown Myrtle / Lilly Pilly dry rainforest Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of sheltered sandstone gullies in northern Wollemi NP Whalebone Tree / Red Kamala dry subtropical rainforest of the lower Hunter River Giant Stinging Tree / Sandpaper Fig dry subtropical rainforest at Mt Yengo Tallowwood / Smooth-barked Apple / Forest Oak shrub / grass open forest o-n wt p*r o-n reliability o-n productivity o-n rank a-s wt p*r a-s reliability a-s productivity a-s rank j-j wt p*r j-j reliability j-j productivity j-j rank a-m wt p*r a-m reliability a-m productivity a-m rank f-m wt p*r f-m reliability f-m productivity f-m rank d-j wt p*r d-j reliability d-j productivity Threatened Ecological Communities* EUSAL*50*2.6 /(50*2.6+100*3.1+3. 7*90+2.1*80+2*60+3 *60+2*60) EUDEA**2.3*36.8 /(2.3*36.8+2.2*89.5+ 3.2*84.2+2.3*68.4+3. 3*63.2+2.6*57.9+3.1 *36.8) 0.1 37 0.1 56 0.1 43 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 0.0 67 0.0 76 0.0 70 2 0.0 50 0.0 57 0.0 52 2 0.1 37 0.1 56 0.14 3 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.0 88 0.0 89 0.08 8 2 0.08 8 0.0 89 0.0 88 2 0.0 67 0.0 76 0.07 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 0.0 50 0.0 57 0.05 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 0 32 31 3 fruit spp 2 37 3 fruit spp 2 0 13 2 fruit spp 2 0 976 +SYGLO 1 1 92 3 fruit spp 2 0 20 4 fruit spp 2 0 726 d-j rank tot wt P*R 471 Lilly Pilly / Coachwood gully warm temperate rainforest on sandstone ranges of the Sydney Basin MU 020 tot reliability 0 MU 011 Tuckeroo / Coast Banksia littoral rainforest and coastal low open forest tot productivity 2 2,732 MU 018 nectar formula 2 fruit spp 3 fruit spp +EUSAL MU 016 nectar rank 222 Jackwood / Lilly Pilly riparian rainforest of the Central Coast Weeping Lilly Pilly /Water Gum riparian warm temperate rainforest of the Lower North Coast Black Booyong / Giant Stinging Tree / Rosewood / Moreton Bay Fig lowland subtropical rainforest of the lower North Coast threatened plant species recorded in the MU * 0 150,7 59 MU 010 MU 012 final habitat rank non-native veg diet plants MU NAME MU 000 area (ha) MU NO Table D.1. The habitat characteristics and conservation ranks of MUs found in the Lower Hunter project area. Data are presented for each bi-monthly period as well as total assessments. See Section 6.2 for methods and definitions. A 5 character code is used to identify dietary species in the list of diet plants found in the MUs and the nectar formulae. The code gives the first 2 letters of the genus name followed by the first 3 letters of the species name. Example: Corymbia maculata = COMAC. Note: numerical figures are presented as wrapped text for formatting purposes and should be read as one number spread over two lines. ANCOS EUPIL COGUM 1 0 Syzygium paniculatum; Syzygium paniculatum; 1 SYGLO*46.2*2.5 /(46.2*2.5+96.2*3.9+ 38.5*2.6) 0.1 16 0.1 17 0.1 17 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.1 16 0.1 17 0.11 7 2 0.11 6 0.1 17 Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Lowland Rainforest in the New South Wales North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Littoral Rainforest in the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; 0.1 17 Listed TSC Act,V: Lower Hunter Valley Dry Rainforest in the Sydney Basin and NSW North Coast Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; ANCOS*2.1*59.5 /(2.1*59.5+2.2*88.1+ 2*66.7+3.3*54.8+2.1 *33.3)+EUPIL*3.3*54 .8 /(2.1*59.5+2.2*88.1+ 2*66.7+3.3*54.8+2.1 *33.3)+COGUM*2.1* 33.3 /(2.1*59.5+2.2*88.1+ 2*66.7+3.3*54.8+2.1 *33.3) 0.3 63 0.2 49 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 0.3 22 2 0.2 06 0.1 16 0.1 73 1 0.2 97 0.1 95 0.26 1 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.06 6 0.0 53 0.0 62 EUPIL 1 1 1 1 1 1 ANFLO EUDEA SYGLO 1 1 4,458 EUSAL + 4 fruit spp 2 2 Forest Oak / Smooth-barked Apple / Blackbutt open forest 1,503 ANCOS SYGLO EUPIL 1 1 MU 062 Large-fruited Grey Gum / Mountain Blue Gum /Forest Oak shrubby open forest on ranges of the Sydney Basin 6,993 SYGLO ANFLO EUDEA 1 1 MU 064 Hillgrove Gum shrubby open forest on to lower slopes of sandstone ranges of northern Sydney Basin 626 MU 066 White Mahogany / Spotted Gum / Grey Myrtle shrubby open forest of the central and lower Hunter Valley MU 047 Turpentine / Forest Oak moist shrubby open forest 6,873 SYGLO ANFLO MU 048 White Mahogany / Turpentine moist shrubby open forest 3,201 SYGLO EUACM EUSAL +2 fruit spp MU 050 Blackbutt / Turpentine / Sydney Blue Gum mesic tall open forest of the Central Coast ranges 832 SYGLO EUSAL EUPIL + 5 fruit spp MU 054 Grey Myrtle / Mountain Blue Gum ferny gully forest 268 MU 055 Lilly Pilly / Sydney Blue Gum wet sclerophyll /rainforest of coastal ranges and tablelands escarpment MU 061 817 EUPIL*2.1*76.5 /(2.1*76.5+1.7*35.3) SYGLO*2.3*80 /(2.3*80+2.3*89.5+2. 3*46.7+2*1)+ANFLO *2.3*46.7 /(2.3*80+2.3*89.5+2. 3*46.7+2*1) SYGLO*2*44.4 /(2*44.4+2.6*38.9+2. 5*30.6)+EUACM*2.6 *38.9 /(2*44.4+2.6*38.9+2. 5*30.6)+EUSAL*2.5* 30.6 /(2*44.4+2.6*38.9+2. 5*30.6) SYGLO*2.4*84.4 /(2.4*84.4+2.1*66.2+ 2*61+2.4*53.2+2.5*4 0.3)+EUSAL*2.4*53. 2 /(2*44.4+2.6*38.9+2. 5*30.6)+EUPIL*2.5*4 0.3 /(2*44.4+2.6*38.9+2. 5*30.6) ANFLO*2.4*50 /(2.4*50+2.9*55.6+3. 1*44.4+2.6*44.4+3.5 *33.3)+EUDEA*3.1*4 4.4 /(2.4*50+2.9*55.6+3. 1*44.4+2.6*44.4+3.5 *33.3)+SYGLO*3.5*3 3.3 /(2.4*50+2.9*55.6+3. 1*44.4+2.6*44.4+3.5 *33.3) EUSAL*2.9*58.1 /(2.2*90.7+2.1*60.5+ 2.9*58.1+2.4*55.8+2. 6*41.9+2.4*37.2) ANCOS*2.3*65.8 /(2.3*65.8+2.5*78.9+ 2.1*47.4+3.5*39.5)+ SYGLO*2.1*47.4 /(2.3*65.8+2.5*78.9+ 2.1*47.4+3.5*39.5)+ EUPIL*3.5*39.5(2.3* 65.8+2.5*78.9+2.1*4 7.4+3.5*39.5) SYGLO*2.5*57.7 /(2.5*57.7+2.4*84.6+ 2.2*53.8+2.2*50)+A NFLO*2.2*53.8 /(2.5*57.7+2.4*84.6+ 2.2*53.8+2.2*50)+E UDEA*2.2*50 /(2.5*57.7+2.4*84.6+ 2.2*53.8+2.2*50) 0.5 82 0.3 28 0.4 90 1 0.5 82 0.3 28 0.4 90 0.3 36 0.2 86 0.3 18 2 0.1 17 0.0 65 0.0 98 0.5 40 0.6 57 0.5 70 1 0.3 41 0.4 57 0.3 72 0.4 20 0.3 89 0.4 07 1 0.2 46 0.2 13 0.3 55 0.3 32 0.3 45 1 0.2 48 0.1 43 0.1 63 0.1 48 2 0.3 85 0.2 85 0.3 50 0.3 95 0.3 65 0.4 33 0.3 41 0.5 82 0.3 28 0.49 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.2 01 0.2 30 0.20 9 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.2 32 1 0.2 46 0.2 13 0.23 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.2 24 0.2 38 2 0.1 48 0.1 69 0.15 4 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.1 43 0.1 63 0.1 48 2 0.1 43 0.1 63 0.14 8 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 0.1 89 0.1 06 0.1 59 2 0.1 89 0.1 06 0.15 9 0.0 00 0.3 82 1 0.2 46 0.2 15 0.2 33 2 0.1 34 0.1 53 0.13 9 0.3 78 2 0.1 53 0.2 49 0.1 77 2 0.2 80 0.0 92 0.20 0 1 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.2 19 0.2 21 0.22 0 0.00 0 1 0.1 98 0.2 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.1 74 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.2 80 0.0 92 0.20 0 0.2 80 0.0 92 0.20 0 o-n wt p*r o-n reliability o-n productivity o-n rank a-s wt p*r a-s reliability a-s productivity a-s rank j-j wt p*r j-j reliability j-j productivity j-j rank a-m wt p*r a-m reliability a-m productivity a-m rank f-m wt p*r f-m reliability f-m productivity f-m rank d-j wt p*r d-j reliability d-j productivity d-j rank tot wt P*R tot reliability 1 tot productivity 1 nectar formula nectar rank 247 final habitat rank Blackbutt / Turpentine / Forest Oak shrub / fern Open Forest diet plants area (ha) MU NAME MU NO MU 046 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.21 9 0.2 21 0.2 20 0.19 9 1 0.33 9 0.4 28 0.3 61 0.1 76 0.17 5 1 0.17 4 0.1 76 0.1 75 0.1 06 0.1 07 0.10 7 2 0.10 6 0.1 07 0.1 07 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 0.1 01 0.1 02 0.10 1 1 0.19 7 0.1 79 0.1 91 1 0.1 49 0.1 50 0.14 9 2 0.14 9 0.1 50 0.1 49 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.15 3 0.2 49 0.1 77 0 COMAC EUACM 1 1 COMAC*2.1*65.5 /(2.1*65.5+3*62.1+2. 6*48.3)+EUACM*3*6 2.1 /(2.1*65.5+3*62.1+2. Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 2 2 threatened plant species recorded in the MU * Threatened Ecological Communities* o-n wt p*r o-n reliability o-n productivity o-n rank a-s wt p*r a-s reliability a-s productivity a-s rank j-j wt p*r j-j reliability j-j productivity j-j rank a-m wt p*r a-m reliability a-m productivity a-m rank f-m wt p*r f-m reliability f-m productivity f-m rank d-j wt p*r d-j reliability d-j productivity d-j rank tot wt P*R tot reliability tot productivity nectar formula nectar rank final habitat rank diet plants area (ha) MU NAME MU NO threatened plant species recorded in the MU * Threatened Ecological Communities* Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Lower Hunter Spotted Gum-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (Part) partially subset of; 6*48.3) MU 067 Large-fruited Grey Gum / Grey Box grassy open forest of sandstone ranges of the Sydney Basin 2,533 EUPUN EUTER 1 1 MU 070 Grey Ironbark / Broad-leaved Mahogany / Forest Red Gum open forest 154 EUPAN EUTER 1 1 MU 071 Spotted Gum /Broad-leaved Mahogany /Grey Gum grass /shrub open forest 1,995 COMAC EUPUN 1 1 MU 072 Spotted Gum / Broad-leaved Mahogany / Red ironbark moist shrubby open forest 19,01 1 COMAC EUFIB EUSID 1 1 MU 073 Large-fruited Grey Gum / Rough-barked Apple open forest 146 EUPUN ANFLO 1 1 MU 074 Spotted Gum / Red Ironbark / Large-fruited Grey Gum shrub / grass open forest 14,46 9 COMAC EUFIB EUPUN 1 1 MU 075 Red Ironbark / Spotted Gum / Prickly-leaved paperbark shrubby open forest 3,173 EUFIB COMAC 1 1 MU 076 Cabbage Gum / Roughbarked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial floodplains of the Lower Hunter 478 EUAMP ANFLO EUTER 1 MU 078 Cabbage Gum /Broad-leaved Apple grassy woodland on alluvial floodplains 8 EUAMP 1 MU 082 Spotted Gum /Red Ironbark / Narrow-leaved Ironbark shrub / grass open forest 3,522 COMAC EUFIB EUMOL EUTER 1 EUPUN*2.5*55.2 /(2.5*55.2+2.3*55.2+ 2.4*31)+EUTER*2.4* 31 /(2.5*55.2+2.3*55.2+ 2.4*31) EUPAN*3*76.9 /(3*76.9+3.6*53.8+2. 3*30.8)+EUTER*2.3* 30.8 /(3*76.9+3.6*53.8+2. 3*30.8) COMAC*4.3*85.2 /(4.3*85.2+2.5*55.6+ 2.8*40.7)+EUPUN*2. 8*40.7 /(4.3*85.2+2.5*55.6+ 2.8*40.7) COMAC*2.8*89.7 /(2.8*89.7+2.1*46+2. 5*37.9+2.4*36.8+2.2 *33.3)+EUFIB*2.4*3 6.8 /(2.8*89.7+2.1*46+2. 5*37.9+2.4*36.8+2.2 *33.3)+EUSID*2.2*3 3.3 /(2.8*89.7+2.1*46+2. 5*37.9+2.4*36.8+2.2 *33.3) EUPUN*2.7*76 /(2.7*76+2.3*44+2.2* 36)+ANFLO*2.3*44 /(2.7*76+2.3*44+2.2* 36) COMAC*2.9*93.9 /(2.9*93.9+3.1*74.4+ 2.1*37.8)+EUFIB*3.1 *74.4 /(2.9*93.9+3.1*74.4+ 2.1*37.8)+EUPUN*2. 1*37.8 /(2.9*93.9+3.1*74.4+ 2.1*37.8) 0.4 22 0.4 19 0.4 20 1 0.2 21 0.2 44 0.2 28 0.5 55 0.3 94 0.5 00 1 0.4 24 0.2 80 0.3 74 0.6 41 0.2 88 0.4 90 2 0.1 00 0.1 10 0.1 03 0.7 06 0.2 87 0.5 34 1 0.2 53 0.1 39 0.4 32 0.3 98 0.4 17 1 0.4 32 0.3 98 0.7 79 0.3 41 0.5 98 EUFIB*3.5*90.5 /(3.5*90.5+2.1*42.9) +COMAC*2.1*42.9 /(3.5*90.5+2.1*42.9) 0.7 48 0.3 00 1 AVERAGE(EUAMP ANFLO EUTER) 0.7 20 1 AVERAGE(EUAMP, 0) COMAC*2.9*77.8 /(2.9*77.8+2.2*50+3* 38.9+2.7*38.9+2.5*3 3.3)+EUFIB*2.2*50 /(2.9*77.8+2.2*50+3* 38.9+2.7*38.9+2.5*3 3.3)+EUMOL*3*38.9 /(2.9*77.8+2.2*50+3* 38.9+2.7*38.9+2.5*3 1 0.2 21 0.2 44 0.22 8 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.2 01 0.1 75 0.19 3 1 0.20 1 0.1 75 0.1 93 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.1 31 0.1 14 0.12 6 1 0.55 5 0.3 94 0.5 00 1 0.6 41 0.2 88 0.49 0 1 0.5 41 0.1 77 0.38 7 1 0.5 41 0.1 77 0.38 7 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.2 10 1 0.5 75 0.1 48 0.32 4 1 0.4 53 0.1 48 0.32 4 1 0.4 53 0.1 48 0.32 4 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.25 3 0.1 39 0.2 10 0.4 17 1 0.2 89 0.3 19 0.29 8 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.3 51 0.2 01 0.2 91 0.5 68 1 0.5 45 0.2 34 0.4 23 0.4 17 0.5 92 2 0.1 81 0.1 00 0.3 50 0.0 75 0.2 20 0.0 00 0.6 36 0.4 07 0.5 29 0.1 20 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 2 1 1 0.7 79 0.2 22 0.38 2 2 0.7 48 0.0 66 0.14 5 0.1 52 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 52 0.0 93 0.5 17 1 2 0.4 28 0.1 40 0.30 6 2 0.2 03 0.0 66 0.14 5 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.2 51 0.32 2 0.3 22 2 1 0.27 7 0.1 19 0.2 15 Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora; Callistemon linearifolius; Rutidosis heterogama; 0.00 0 1 0.54 5 0.2 34 0.4 23 Callistemon linearifolius; 0.2 67 0.29 3 1 0.53 8 0.3 17 0.4 40 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.35 0 0.0 75 0.2 20 0.1 19 0.1 04 0.11 4 1 0.23 9 0.1 55 0.2 07 2 0.4 28 0.1 40 0.30 6 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.2 03 0.0 66 0.14 5 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.3 05 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.1 06 0.23 1 0.3 22 0.1 06 0.23 1 2 1 1 1 Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Lower Hunter Spotted Gum-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; COMAC EUFIB MU 084 Spotted Gum / Narrowleaved Ironbark shrub /grass open forest 2,452 COMAC MU 085 Narrow-leaved Ironbark / Bull Oak shrub / grass open forest MU 086 Narrow-leaved Ironbark / Grey Box / Spotted Gum shrub / grass open forest 1,990 EUMOL COMAC MU 091 White Box / Native Olive woodland of Upper Hunter and Northern Wollemi 310 EUALB 662 EUMOL 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 MU 101 Smooth-barked Apple / Red Bloodwood / Brown Stringybark / Wiry Panic heathy open forest 27,97 5 ANCOS COGUM 1 1 MU 102 Grey Ironbark /Broad-leaved Mahogany / Smooth-barked Apple coastal headland low open forest of the Central Coast 31 EUPAN ANCOS 1 1 MU 103 Smooth-barked Apple open forest of coastal lowlands 24 ANCOS EUPIL 2 2 MU 104 Large-fruited Grey Gum / Smooth-barked Apple /Blueleaved Stringybark semimesic shrub / grass open forest on coastal ranges of the Sydney Basin 28,85 2 EUPUN SYGLO ANCOS 2 2 MU 105 MU 106 MU 108 Narrow-leaved Ironbark / Rough-barked Apple shrubby open forest Smooth-barked Apple / Swamp Mahogany /Cabbage Palm open forest Smooth-barked Apple / Broad-leaved Mahogany / Red Bloodwood heathy low open forest on hills at Nelson Bay 0.1 91 0.3 91 0.4 37 0.1 43 0.3 13 2 0.1 22 0.26 6 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.4 37 0.1 43 0.31 3 1 0.4 37 0.1 43 0.31 3 1 0.4 37 0.1 43 0.31 3 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 67 0.1 31 0.0 82 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 0.0 67 0.1 31 0.08 2 EUMOL*2.4*65.4 /(2.8*76.9+2.4*65.4+ 2.4*50)+COMAC*2.4 *50 /(2.8*76.9+2.4*65.4+ 2.4*50) 0.3 54 0.3 28 0.3 19 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.3 54 0.3 28 0.31 9 EUABL*3.1*63.6 /(3.1*63.6+2.8*36.4) 0.4 61 0.1 98 0.3 56 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 ANCOS*2.6*87 /(2.6*87+2.5*72.8+2. 5*52.1+2.5*37.9+2.4 *30.2)+COGUM*2.5* 72.8 /(2.6*87+2.5*72.8+2. 5*52.1+2.5*37.9+2.4 *30.2) 0.3 55 0.3 02 0.3 38 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.2 36 AVERAGE(EUPAN,0 ,ANCOS) 0.6 40 0.4 50 0.5 76 1 0.4 55 0.3 00 0.4 02 0.2 84 0.1 95 0.2 53 2 0.1 41 0.0 79 0.1 18 0.2 72 0.2 74 0.2 72 2 0.1 16 0.1 29 0.5 02 0.3 96 0.4 67 2 0.1 58 0.1 04 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.2 23 0.0 73 0.16 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.2 06 0.25 3 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 2 0.1 41 0.0 79 0.11 8 0.1 20 2 0.1 16 0.1 29 0.1 39 1 0.2 93 0.2 31 1 2 o-n wt p*r 0.3 71 o-n reliability 2 o-n productivity 0.26 6 a-s wt p*r 0.1 22 a-s rank 0.3 71 j-j wt p*r 2 j-j reliability 0.26 6 o-n rank a-s reliability a-s productivity j-j productivity 0.1 22 j-j rank 0.5 32 a-m wt p*r 1 f-m wt p*r 0.1 25 f-m rank 0.0 69 d-j wt p*r 0.1 61 EUMOL*2.1*37 /(3.3*85.2+2.4*48.1+ 2.1*37) ANCOS*2.2*100 /(2.2*100+2.8*88.9+ 3*33.3)+EUPIL*3*33. 3 /(2.2*100+2.8*88.9+ 3*33.3) EUPUN*2*83.9 /(2*83.9+2.3*93.5+2* 64.5+2.1*58.1+2.9*5 1.6)+SYGLO*2*64.5 /(2*83.9+2.3*93.5+2* 64.5+2.1*58.1+2.9*5 1.6)+ANCOS*2.1*58. 1 /(2*83.9+2.3*93.5+2* 64.5+2.1*58.1+2.9*5 1.6) a-m reliability f-m reliability f-m productivity d-j reliability d-j productivity d-j rank tot wt P*R tot reliability tot productivity 0.5 32 0.16 1 0.0 69 0.1 25 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 0.2 23 0.0 73 0.16 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.4 61 0.1 98 0.35 6 0.4 61 0.1 98 0.35 6 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.11 9 0.0 96 0.1 12 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.64 0 0.4 50 0.5 76 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.14 3 0.1 16 0.1 35 0.12 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 98 0.0 99 0.09 8 2 0.15 6 0.1 46 0.1 52 0.27 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.13 3 0.1 08 0.1 25 2 1 2 0 3,493 0 101 124 nectar formula nectar rank 1 a-m productivity 1,350 a-m rank Spotted Gum / Narrowleaved Ironbark / Red Ironbark shrub / grass open forest final habitat rank diet plants area (ha) MU NAME MU NO MU 083 3.3)+EUTER*2.5*33. 3 /(2.9*77.8+2.2*50+3* 38.9+2.7*38.9+2.5*3 3.3) COMAC*2.9*69 /(2.6*69+2.9*69+3*3 7.9+EUFIB*3*37.9 /(2.6*69+2.9*69+3*3 7.9) COMAC*2.8*71.8 /(2.8*71.8+2.3*56.4+ 2.2*41) ANCOS COGUM EUPIP EUPIL 1 1 ANCOS*100*2.8 /(100*2.8+4*60+2.5* 40+2*40+2*40)+CO GUM*3*60 /(100*2.8+4*60+2.5* Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter threatened plant species recorded in the MU * Eucalyptus glaucina; Threatened Ecological Communities* Listed TSC Act,E: Equivalent to the Endangered Ecological Community Central Hunter Grey Box-Ironbark Woodland in the New South Wales North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions (Equivalent) largely equivalent to; Listed TSC Act,E: Equivalent to the Endangered Ecological Community Central Hunter Ironbark-Spotted GumGrey Box Forest in the New South Wales North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions (Equivalent) largely equivalent to; Smooth-barked Apple / Turpentine / Sydney Peppermint heathy woodland on sandstone ranges of the Central Coast 325 ANCOS SYGLO EUPIP COGUM MU 110 Turpentine / Forest Oak / Smooth-barked Apple shrubby open forest on ranges of the Central Coast 6,076 MU 111 Narrow-leaved Stringybark / Large-fruited Grey Gum shrubby open forest of northern Wollemi 33,97 8 MU 115 MU 116 MU 117 MU 118 MU 119 MU 120 MU 121 Parramatta Red Gum / Melaleuca nodosa shrubby woodland in the Cessnock / Kurri Kurri area Yellow Bloodwood / Red Bloodwood / Brown Stringybark shrub / grass open forest in the Cessnock / Kurri Kurri area Narrow-leaved Apple /Parramatta Red Gum / Persoonia oblongata heathy woodland of the Howes Valley area Scribbly Gum / Red Bloodwood heath woodland of coastal lowlands Scribbly Gum / Wallum Banksia / Prickly-leaved Paperbark heathy coastal woodland on coastal lowlands Smooth-barked Apple / Scribbly Gum grass /shrub woodland of Central Coast lowlands Scribbly Gum / Sydney Peppermint / Smooth-barked Apple heathy woodland on residual sands of the Quorrobolong area 7,897 1 1 SYGLO ANCOS 1 1 EUPUN ANCOS 2 2 EUPAR 5,369 COEXI COGUM EUPUN 1,643 EUPAR 4,126 COGUM 1 1 0.5 03 0.5 54 0.2 72 0.2 55 0.2 66 0.2 82 0.2 87 0.2 83 EUPAR*2.6*68.3 /(2.6*68.3+2.9*36.5) 0.3 38 0.1 88 0.2 84 COEXI*3.7*61.9 /(3.7*61.9+2.6*52.4+ 3.2*52.4+2*33.3)+C OGUM*3.2*52.4 /(3.7*61.9+2.6*52.4+ 3.2*52.4+2*33.3)+E UPUN*2*33.3 /(3.7*61.9+2.6*52.4+ 3.2*52.4+2*33.3) 0.5 84 0.4 05 2 2 0.1 26 0.0 96 0.1 16 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.2 01 0.2 21 0.2 07 1 0.3 38 0.1 88 0.2 84 0.5 15 2 0.0 60 0.0 67 0.0 62 2 0.2 16 0.1 20 0.1 81 1 2 2 EUPAR*2*80 /(2*80+2.4*100) 0.2 16 0.1 20 0.1 81 1 1 COGUM*2.3*87.8 /(2.3*87.8+2.6*90.5+ 3.2*55.4+2.3*47.3) 0.2 55 0.2 23 0.2 45 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 AVERAGE(EUPIP,A NCOS,0,EURES) 0.3 77 0.2 25 0.3 16 0.2 85 0.1 50 0.2 29 2 2 o-n wt p*r o-n reliability o-n productivity 0.1 72 0.1 50 0.16 5 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.1 53 0.1 54 0.15 3 1 0.28 0 0.2 57 0.2 72 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.1 74 0.1 76 0.17 5 1 0.27 2 0.2 55 0.2 66 0.2 01 0.2 21 0.20 7 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.08 1 0.0 66 0.0 76 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.3 16 0.2 90 0.30 8 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.2 55 0.2 23 0.24 5 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 2 0.1 36 0.0 38 0.09 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 1 o-n rank a-s wt p*r a-s reliability a-s productivity a-s rank j-j wt p*r j-j reliability j-j productivity j-j rank a-m wt p*r a-m reliability a-m productivity a-m rank f-m wt p*r f-m reliability f-m productivity f-m rank d-j wt p*r d-j reliability d-j productivity d-j rank tot wt P*R tot reliability nectar formula tot productivity 0.5 78 1 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.26 7 0.1 15 0.2 07 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.09 3 0.0 75 0.0 87 1 Threatened Ecological Communities* Eucalyptus parramattensi s subsp. decadens; Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora; Listed TSC Act,E: Equivalent to the Endangered Ecological Community Kurri Sand Swamp Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (Equivalent) largely equivalent to; 0 1,025 0 201 996 nectar rank final habitat rank diet plants area (ha) MU NAME MU NO MU 109 40+2*40+2*40)+EUP IP*2.5*40 /(100*2.8+4*60+2.5* 40+2*40+2*40)+EUP IL*2*40 /(100*2.8+4*60+2.5* 40+2*40+2*40) ANCOS*2.8*95.5 /(2.8*95.5+2.2*90.9+ 2.6*63.6+2.3*63.6)+ SYGLO*2.2*90.9 /(2.8*95.5+2.2*90.9+ 2.6*63.6+2.3*63.6)+ EUPIP*2.6*63.6 /(2.8*95.5+2.2*90.9+ 2.6*63.6+2.3*63.6)+ COGUM*2.3*63.6 /(2.8*95.5+2.2*90.9+ 2.6*63.6+2.3*63.6) SYGLO*2*90.5 /(2*90.5+2*81+2.1*7 6.2*2.4*47.6)+ANCO S*2*81 /(2*90.5+2*81+2.1*7 6.2*2.4*47.6) EUPUN*2.3*72.6 /(2.3*72.6+2.5*74.7+ 2.4*41.1)+ANCOS*2. 4*41.4 /(2.3*72.6+2.5*74.7+ 2.4*41.1) threatened plant species recorded in the MU * EUPIP ANCOS EURES 1 1 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 1 2 Listed TSC Act,E: Equivalent to the Endangered Ecological Community Quorrobolong Scribbly Gum Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (Equivalent) largely equivalent to; COEXI 15 COEXI 30 ANCOS COEXI*2.4*30.2 /(2.4*30.2+74.4*2.3) 0.2 08 0.0 89 0.1 62 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.20 8 0.0 89 0.1 62 1 1 ANCOS*2.2*47.5 /(2.2*47.5+2*65) 0.1 65 0.1 34 0.1 55 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.16 5 0.1 34 0.1 55 0.4 83 0.4 15 0.4 61 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.3 75 0.3 28 0.36 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.10 7 0.0 87 0.1 01 0.4 51 0.3 71 0.4 25 1 0.2 56 0.2 13 0.2 42 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.19 5 0.1 58 0.1 83 0.5 61 0.3 66 0.4 92 1 0.3 54 0.1 99 0.2 98 1 0.3 54 0.1 99 0.29 8 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.20 7 0.1 67 0.1 94 0.7 08 0.5 41 0.6 50 2 0.2 24 0.1 26 0.1 88 1 0.5 88 0.4 45 0.53 8 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 2 0.11 9 0.0 97 0.1 12 0.5 67 0.3 69 0.4 97 1 0.3 66 0.2 06 0.3 08 1 0.3 66 0.2 06 0.30 8 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.20 1 0.1 63 0.1 89 MU 125 Red Bloodwood / Smoothbarked Apple / Old Man Banksia heathy woodland in the Watagans 829 COGUM ANCOS 1 1 MU 126 Coast Tea Tree / Old Man Banksia coastal shrubland 651 ANCOS EUBOT 1 1 MU 128 Smooth-barked Apple / Blackbutt / Old Man Banksia coastal sands woodland 7,512 ANCOS EUPIL 1 1 MU 129 Red Bloodwood / Smoothbarked Apple heath woodland on coastal sands of the lower North 1,588 COGUM ANCOS EUPIL 1 1 MU 130 Smooth-barked Apple / Blackbutt heathy open forest 1,645 ANCOS EUPIL 1 1 MU 131 Smooth-barked Apple / Red Mahogany / Swamp Mahogany / Melaleuca seiberi heathy swamp 1,384 ANCOS EURES EUROB 2,500 EUPAR 136 BAINT MU 133 MU 135 Parramatta Red Gum / Fernleaved Banksia / Melaleuca sieberi swamp woodland of the Tomaree Peninsula Coast Tea Tree / Coast Banksia / Ficinia nodosa low open shrubland on coastal foredunes 1 1 2 2 1 1 MU 139 Bulga Wattle low closed forest on sandstone slopes of the central Hunter 8 EUPAN ANCOS 1 1 MU 163 Smooth-barked Apple / Swamp Mahogany woodland on Wallarah Peninsular 297 EURES EUROB 2 2 MU 179 Kangaroo Grass / Westringia friuticosa grassland on coastal headlands 37 COGUM*2.7*89.1 /(2.7*89.1+2.7*63+3* 58.7)+ANCOS*2.7*6 3 /(2.7*89.1+2.7*63+3* 58.7) ANCOS*2*60 /(2*60+2.7*40)+EUB OT*2.7*40 /(2*60+2.7*40) ANCOS*2.8*92.2 /(2.8*92.2+2.9*70.6) +EUPIL*2.9*70.6 /(2.8*92.2+2.9*70.6) COGUM*2.6*65.1 /(2.6*65.1+2.8*48.8+ 3.4*34.9)+ANCOS*2. 8*48.8 /(2.6*65.1+2.8*48.8+ 3.4*34.9)+EUPIL*3.4 *34.9 /(2.6*65.1+2.8*48.8+ 3.4*34.9) ANCOS*3.2*91.7 /(3.2*91.7+3.3*75)+E UPIL*3.3*75 /(3.2*91.7+3.3*75) ANCOS*2.2*48.6 /(2.2*48.6+2.1*38.9+ 2.5*34.7)+EURES*2. 1*38.9 /(2.2*48.6+2.1*38.9+ 2.5*34.7)+EUROB*2. 5*34.7 /(2.2*48.6+2.1*38.9+ 2.5*34.7) 0.6 20 0.4 76 0.5 60 2 0.1 61 0.0 44 0.1 10 EUPAR /3 0.1 80 0.1 00 0.1 51 2 0.1 80 0.1 00 BAINT*2*36 /(2*36+4*90) 0.1 28 0.1 67 0.1 38 0.0 00 0.2 13 0.1 50 0.1 92 2 0.2 98 0.1 85 0.2 48 2 EUPAN*2*33.3 /(2*33.3+2*33.3+2*3 3.3+2*33.3+2*66.7)+ ANCOS*2*33.3 /(2*33.3+2*33.3+2*3 3.3+2*33.3+2*66.7) EURES*2*57 /(2*57+2*71+2*42+2 *28)+EUROB*2*28 /(2*57+2*71+2*42+2 *28) 0 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 1 0.1 61 0.0 44 0.11 0 0.1 51 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.1 52 0.1 00 0.1 34 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.1 57 0.0 43 0.1 06 0.1 57 0.0 43 0.10 6 2 2 1 2 2 0.3 15 0.3 15 0.31 5 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.1 28 0.1 67 0.13 8 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.1 41 0.1 41 0.14 1 1 2 2 0.3 15 0.3 15 0.31 5 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.1 28 0.1 67 0.13 8 0.1 28 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.1 41 0.1 41 0.14 1 1 o-n wt p*r 1 o-n reliability 1 o-n productivity 0.1 88 o-n rank 0.1 04 a-s wt p*r 0.24 3 a-s reliability 1 a-s productivity 0.00 0 a-s rank 0.0 00 j-j wt p*r 0.0 00 j-j reliability 0.00 0 j-j productivity 0.0 00 j-j rank 0.0 00 a-m wt p*r 0.00 0 a-m reliability 0.0 00 a-m productivity 0.0 00 a-m rank 0.00 0 f-m wt p*r 0.0 00 f-m reliability 0.0 00 f-m productivity 0.0 00 f-m rank 0.0 00 d-j wt p*r 0.0 00 d-j reliability 0.1 88 d-j productivity 0.1 04 d-j rank 0.2 43 tot wt P*R COEXI*2.4*33.3 /(2.4*33.3+2.2*68.5) tot reliability 1 tot productivity 1 nectar formula diet plants area (ha) 15,09 7 nectar rank MU 124 Yellow Bloodwood / Narrowleaved Apple heathy woodland on Hawkesbury Sandstone Dwarf Apple / Scribbly Gum heathy low woodland on sandstone ranges of the Central Coast Scribbly Gum / Red Bloodwood / Old Man Banksia heathy woodland of southern Central Coast final habitat rank MU 123 MU NAME MU NO MU 122 0.14 4 0.1 16 0.1 35 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.1 67 0.13 8 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.21 3 0.1 50 0.1 92 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 2 1 threatened plant species recorded in the MU * Threatened Ecological Communities* Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Equivalent to the Endangered Ecological Community Themeda grassland on seacliffs and coastal headlands in the NSW North o-n wt p*r o-n reliability o-n productivity o-n rank a-s wt p*r a-s reliability a-s productivity a-s rank j-j wt p*r j-j reliability j-j productivity j-j rank a-m wt p*r a-m reliability a-m productivity a-m rank f-m wt p*r f-m reliability f-m productivity f-m rank d-j wt p*r d-j reliability d-j productivity d-j rank tot wt P*R tot reliability tot productivity nectar formula nectar rank final habitat rank diet plants area (ha) MU NAME MU NO threatened plant species recorded in the MU * Threatened Ecological Communities* Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Equivalent) largely equivalent to; MU 182 MU 183 MU 184 MU 185 MU 186 MU 188 MU 194 MU 195 MU 196 MU 197 MU 198 Dwarf Casuarina / Melaleuca nodosa Coastal Heath Melaleuca nodosa / Fernleaved Banksia headland heath of the Central Coast Dwarf causarina / Wallum Banksia heath on coastal headlands of Central Coast Wallum Banksia / Monotoca scoparia heath on coastal sands Fern-leaf Banksia / Melaleuca nodosa / Leptocarpus tenax wallum heath Leptospermum m liversidgei / Crimson Bottlebrush wallum wet heath of lower North Coast Melaleuca decora shrubland of the Central Hunter Valley River Oak / Sandpaper Fig riparian forest of the Upper Hunter River Oak / White Cedar Grassy riparian forest of the Dungog area and Liverpool Ranges Prickly-leaved Paperbark / Flax-leaved Paperbark swamp forest on poorly drained soils of the Central Coast Melaleuca nodosa paperbark woodland /shrubland on undulating areas of coastal lowlands 0 558 0 132 0 7 0 1,259 0 1,663 0 57 0 7 76 2 FICUS 604 EUTER 88 EURES 2 0 1 1 2 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 Urtica incisa; Adiantum aethiopicum; Dichondra repens; Doodia aspera; Adiantum formosum; Nyssanthes diffusa EUTER /2 0.4 57 0.4 00 0.4 39 AVERAGE(EURES,0 ,0) 0.1 81 0.0 50 0.1 23 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.1 81 0.0 50 0.1 23 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 0.1 81 0.0 50 0.12 3 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.4 57 0.4 00 0.43 9 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.45 7 0.4 00 0.4 39 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 Listed TSC Act,E: White Gum Moist Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion ; 0 345 MU 199 Broad-leaved Paperbark / Swamp Mahogany / Swamp Oak / Saw Sedge swamp forest 47 MEQUI EUROB 1 1 MU 200 Swamp Mahogany / Melaleuca lineariifolia swamp forest of coastal lowlands 849 EUROB ANFLO 1 1 MU 201 Paperbarks /Woollybutt swamp forest on the Central Coast 43 EULON EUROB 1 1 MU 203 Swamp Mahogany / Broadleaved Paperbark /Villarsia exalata swamp forest of coastal lowlands 174 MEQUI EUROB 1 1 MEQUI*3.3*84 /(3.3*84+2.9*84+2.3* 72)+EUROB*2.3*72 /(3.3*84+2.9*84+2.3* 72) 0.6 11 0.5 64 0.5 96 EUROB*2.9*80.8 /(2.9*80.8+1.8*32.7) +ANFLO*1.8*32.7 /(2.9*80.8+1.8*32.7) 0.9 08 0.8 59 0.8 91 EULON*3*44.4 /(3*44.4+1.8*33.3)+E UROB*1.8*33.3 /(3*44.4+1.8*33.3) 0.6 83 0.4 14 MEQUI*2.7*100 /(2.7*100+2.6*100)+ EUROB*2.6*100 /(2.7*100+2.6*100) 0.9 57 0.8 98 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.1 09 0.0 60 0.5 66 0.0 00 0.9 38 0.0 00 2 0.3 69 0.3 23 0.35 5 1 0.6 11 0.5 64 0.59 6 2 0.2 41 0.2 41 0.24 1 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 91 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.7 99 0.7 99 0.79 9 1 0.7 99 0.7 99 0.79 9 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.6 83 0.4 14 0.56 6 1 0.3 10 0.3 10 0.31 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.4 66 0.4 08 0.44 8 1 0.9 57 0.8 98 0.93 8 1 0.4 91 0.4 91 0.49 1 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 1 Angophora inopina; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner o-n wt p*r o-n reliability o-n productivity o-n rank a-s wt p*r a-s reliability a-s productivity a-s rank j-j wt p*r j-j reliability j-j productivity j-j rank a-m wt p*r a-m reliability a-m productivity a-m rank f-m wt p*r f-m reliability f-m productivity f-m rank d-j wt p*r d-j reliability d-j productivity d-j rank tot wt P*R tot reliability tot productivity nectar formula nectar rank final habitat rank diet plants area (ha) MU NAME MU NO threatened plant species recorded in the MU * Threatened Ecological Communities* Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; MU 205 Melaleuca biconvexa /Swamp Mahogany /Cabbage Palm swamp forest of the Central Coast MU 206 MU 208 136 EUROB + 2 fruit spp 1 1 Broad-leaved Paperbark / Saw Sedge swamp forest of coastal lowlands 540 MEQUI EUROB 1 1 Melaleuca linariifolia / Carex appressa shrubland of the Hunter Valley 14 0.5 32 0.5 32 0.5 32 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 MEQUI*4.2*98.1 /(4.2*98.1+2.3*35.2) +EUROB*2.3*35.2 /(4.2*98.1+2.3*35.2) 0.9 29 0.8 33 0.8 99 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 1 0.5 32 0.5 32 0.53 2 1 0.5 32 0.5 32 0.53 2 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.7 64 0.6 69 0.73 4 1 0.9 29 0.8 33 0.89 9 2 0.1 64 0.1 64 0.16 4 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 Melaleuca biconvexa; 0 MU 209 Swamp Oak / Sea Rush /Baumea juncea swamp forest on coastal lowlands 288 MU 210 Swamp Oak / Melaleuca styphelioides / Carex appressa swamp forest 504 MU 211 Swamp Oak swamp forest of coastal lowlands of the Central Coast 5 MU 212 MU 213 Melaleuca ericifolia / baumea juncea swamp shrubland Swamp Oak grassy riparian forest of the Central Hunter MU 215 River Red Gum / River Oak riparian woodland of the Hunter Valley 129 EUCAM MU 216 Baloskion pallens / Wallum Bottlebrush wallum sedge heath of the lower North Coast 387 MEQUI MU 218 Water Couch / Spike rush freshwater wetland of the Central Coast and lower Hunter 1,069 MU 219 Typha rushland 2,322 MU 220 Spirodella freshwater wetland 459 6 EUROB*3*52.6 /(3*52.6+2.2*63.2) Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed EPBC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed EPBC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed EPBC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; 0 0 0 MEQUI 1 1 MEQUI*1.8*33.3 /(1.8*33.3+1.6*41.7) 0.4 33 0.3 79 0.4 16 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 EUCAM*3.2*50 /(3.2*50+4.3*30) 0.3 88 0.3 32 0.3 71 0.3 88 0.3 32 0.3 71 MEQUI /2.5 0.3 66 0.3 20 0.3 51 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.4 33 0.3 79 0.41 6 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.3 66 0.3 20 0.35 1 1 0.4 33 0.3 79 0.41 6 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.3 66 0.3 20 0.35 1 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0 1,103 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 1 1 1 Listed TSC Act,E: White Gum Moist Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion (Includes Hunter Valley Endangered River Red Gum population); Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Where it occurs on coastal floodplains this community forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Philydrum lanuginosum / Sporobolus virginicus wetland 13 MU 222 Tall Spike Rush freahwater wetland 14 MU 223 Lepironia articulata sedgeland 85 MU 224 Baumea articulata sedgeland 72 MU 228 Saltmarsh / Estuarine Complex 2,225 AVMAR FRUIT 2 0 MU 229 Grey Mangrove low closed forest Grey Gum / Red Gum / Paperbark shrubby open forest on coastal lowlands of the Northern Sydney Basin and Lower North Coast 4,157 AVMAR FRUIT 2 0 356 EUPUN, EUTER, ANFLO 1 1 21,64 5 uk MU 231 MU 999 non native vegetation MEQUI 1 1 o-n wt p*r o-n reliability o-n productivity o-n rank a-s wt p*r a-s reliability a-s productivity a-s rank j-j wt p*r j-j reliability j-j productivity j-j rank a-m wt p*r a-m reliability a-m productivity a-m rank f-m wt p*r f-m reliability f-m productivity f-m rank d-j wt p*r d-j reliability d-j productivity d-j rank tot wt P*R tot reliability tot productivity nectar formula nectar rank final habitat rank diet plants area (ha) MU NAME MU NO MU 221 MEQUI /2 0.4 57 0.4 00 0.4 39 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.4 57 0.4 00 0.43 9 1 0.4 57 0.4 00 0.43 9 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 MEQUI /3 0.3 05 0.2 67 0.2 93 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 00 1 0.3 05 0.2 67 0.29 3 2 0.3 05 0.2 67 0.29 3 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 AVERAGE(EUPUN, EUTER, ANFLO) 0.6 67 0.5 67 0.6 31 0.3 63 0.3 00 0.3 38 2 0.1 81 0.2 00 0.18 7 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.0 00 0.00 0.3 05 0.2 67 0.29 3 0.30 5 0.2 67 0.2 93 0 MEQUI 1 1 0 1 0 * source of information on threatened plants and communities = OEH (2012) Draft Greater Hunter Vegetation Classification - Version 4 10 August 2012 Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter 1 1 threatened plant species recorded in the MU * Threatened Ecological Communities* Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Forms part of the Endangered Ecological Community Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Part) partially subset of; Listed TSC Act,E: Equivalent to the Endangered Ecological Community Coastal Saltmarsh in the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (Equivalent) largely equivalent to;
