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

Table 12.6 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.

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.

• 
  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.

Table 12.6Foraging Range of the Grey-headed Flying-fox in the Lower Hunter

The conservation importance of camps was assessed using criteria for assessing camps CTS listed in the draft national Recovery Plan (DECCW 2010c) as follows:

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).
   
4. 
   
   

1. 
   Used by more than 2,500 animals (continuously or seasonally) in five or more of the last 10 years; and
   

1. 
   at least once in the last 10 years contain more than 10,000 animals; and / or
   
2. 
   at least once in the last 10 years is known to contain breeding females (September–May).
   

1. 
   where a new camp which forms near a previously long-term occupied camp that has been abandoned; and
   
2. 
   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.

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.

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.
13.1.2Lake 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.

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.

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.

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.