Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox

17.12.1Low 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 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.
17.12.2Environmental 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.

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 19.7.1).

Conservation and Restoration

18.To not delete these three lines (this is hidden text)

19.

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 19.1.1.

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 Table 19.3a). These areas are managed by the Parks and Wildlife Group of OEH for the primary purpose of conservation.

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.

Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) identify areas to be managed for their environmental values. Table 19.2 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 Table 19.3c).

*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.
  

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 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.

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 19.4).
Table 19.4Conserved Habitat Availability for the GHFF in the Lower Hunter

Conservation Type	Conservation Strength	Examples	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.