Table 19.5Priority Conservation Areas

19.5.1Foraging 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 19.5.2). 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 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 Table 19.7 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.
19.5.2Roosting 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.

Habitat restoration occurs across the Lower Hunter through a range of funded and volunteer community and government projects, with various environmental value targets.

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).
  

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);
  
• 
  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.

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).

• 
  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).
  

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 biodiversity conservation priority areas (DECCW 2009b). East Cessnock camp is within an identified conservation area under the Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan (OEH 2012e).

• 
  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 Table 19.10):

• 
  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 Table 19.10).

19.8.2Foraging 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 19.7.1 (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 Table 19.10). 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.

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 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 ); 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 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.

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

21.

21.1.1Priority 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 21.2).
Table 21.2PAS 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/NettingOfCommercialFruitTrees.htm. OEH is working with stakeholders to deliver the phase-out of the routine issuing of shooting licences as a crop protection measure.
High	Identify the commercial fruit industries that are impacted by Grey-headed 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 flying-fox damage on commercial crops, allowing the long-term monitoring of industry-wide 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 Flying-foxes.	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/Grey-headed_flying_foxes) DSEWPaC (http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flying-foxes.html)
High	Review and improve methods used to assess population size of Grey-headed 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 Flying-foxes, 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 flying-foxes 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.
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 Flying-foxes 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 Flying-foxes.	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 Flying-foxes, 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.
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 Flying-foxes, 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 Flying-foxes.	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 peer-reviewed journal.	No work has been undertaken in this area.
Low	Conduct periodic range-wide assessments of the population size of Grey-headed Flying-foxes 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.
Low	Investigate the differences in genetic relatedness, sex, age etc. between sedentary and transient Grey-headed Flying-foxes.	No work has been undertaken in this area.
Low	Investigate between-year fidelity of Grey-headed Flying-fox individuals to seasonal camps.	No work has been undertaken in this area.
Low	Investigate the genetic structure within Grey-headed 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.

Table 21.3Recommended Actions for the Lower Hunter

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

23.

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.