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

Illustrations

Tables

Plates

Appendices

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.

Table 1.1The 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).

Table 1.2Sustainable 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).

Table 1.3Purpose 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.

2.

Legislation and Policy

4.

4.1.1Environment 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 4.1.2).
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.

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);
  
• 
  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.

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.

• 
  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;
  
• 
  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.

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).