this document has been scanned from hard-copy archives for research … · 2011-05-17 · this...

This document has been scanned from hard-copy archives for research and study purposes. Please note not all information may be current. We have tried, in preparing this copy, to make the content accessible to the widest possible audience but in some cases we recognise that the automatic text recognition maybe inadequate and we apologise in advance for any inconvenience this may cause.

FOREST RESOURCES SERIES NO. 19

FAUNA SURVEY, WINGHAM MANAGEMENTAREA, PORT MACQUARIE REGION

PART 1. MAMMALS

BY

ALAN YORK

\

\

FORESTRY COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

-----------------------------

FAUNA SURVEY, WINGHAM MANAGEMENT AREA,PORT MACQUARIE REGION

PART 1. MAMMALS

by

ALAN YORK

FOREST ECOLOGY SECTIONWOOD TECHNOLOGY AND FOREST RESEARCH DIVISION

FORESTRY COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALESSYDNEY

1992

Forest Resources Series No. 19March 1992

The Author:

AIan York, BSc.(Hons.) PhD., Wildlife Ecologist, Forest Ecology Section,Wood Technology and Forest Research Division, Forestry Commission of New South Wales.

Published by:

Forestry Commission of New South Wales,

Wood Technology and Forest Research Division,

27 Oratava Avenue, West Pennant Hills, 2125

P.O. Box lOO, Beecroft 2119

Australia.

Copyright © 1992 by Forestry Commission of New South Wales

ODC 156.2:149 (944)ISSN 1033-1220ISBN 07305 5663 8

-i-Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area,

Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

INTRODUCTION 1

1. The Wingham Management Area 1

(a) Location 1

(b) Physical environment 3

(c) Vegetation communities 3

(d) Fire 5

(e) Timber harvesting : 5

SURVEY METHODOLOGy 7

1. Overall Sampling Strategy 7

(a) General survey 7

(b) Plot-based survey 7

(i) Stratification 1:Jy Broad Forest Type : 8

(ii) Stratification by Altitude 8

(iii) Stratification 1:Jy Management History 8

(iv) Plot selection 9

(v) Special considerations 9

(vi) Plot establishment 10

(vii) Plot design................................................ ............................................................ 12

(c) Specialized survey 12

(d) Other considerations 12

(e) Data presentation and analysis 12

2. Mammal Survey Methodology 14

(a) General survey 14

(i) Literature review 14

(ii) Opportunistic sightings 14

(iii) Road survey.......................................................................................................... 14

(iv) Predator scat analysis 15

(b) Plot-based survey 15

(i) Large arboreal marsupials................................................................................... 15

(ii) Small arboreal mammals 15

(iii) Small terrestrial mammals 16

(iv) Large terrestrial mammals................................................................................... 16

Forest Resources Series No. 19 Forestry Commission of New South Wales

Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area,Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals -ii-

(c) Specialized survey ; 16

(i) Unlogged Rainforest : 16

(ii) Rocky habitats 17

(iii) Pseudornys oralis habitats 17

(iv) Grassy habitats 17

(d) Survey limitations 18

(e) Data analysis 18

RESULTS 20

1. General Survey......................................................................................................................... 20

(a) literature review.................................................. .......................................................... 20

(b) Opportunistic sightings 21

(c) Road survey 21

(d) Predator scat analysis 22

2. Plot-based Survey 24

(a) Large arboreal marsupials............................................................................................. 24

(i) Population density ofGreater Gliders 26

(ii) Population density of Common Ringtail Posswns 28

(iii) Population density of Common Brushtail Posswns........................................... 30

(iv) Distribution ofMountain Brushtail Posswns 31

(v) Distribution ofKoalas................................................. ......................................... 31

(vi) Distribution ofYellow-bellied Gliders 31

(vii) Distribution ofSugar Gliders 32

(b) Small arboreal mammals 32

(c) Small terrestrial mammals 33

(i) Plot-based survey 33

(ii) Specialized survey................................................................................................ 33

(d) Large terrestrial mammals 34

(i) Plots-based survey 34

(ii) Specialized survey................................................................................................ 36

DISCUSSION 37

1. Background Iriformation............................................... ............................................................ 37

2. Large ArborealMarsupials 37

(a) Greater Gliders 38

(b) Common Ringtail Posswns............................................................................................. 39

(c) Common Brushtail Posswns 39

Forestry Conunission of New South Wales Forest Resources Series No. 19

-iii-Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area,


(d) Mountain Brushtail Possums 40

(e) Koala 40

(f) Yellow-bellied Gliders................................................................................................... 42

3. Small Arboreal Mammals 42

(a) Brush-tailed Phaseogale 43

(b) Eastern Pygmy Possum 43

(e) Sugar Glider 43

(d) Other small arboreal mamrnals 44

4. Small Terrestrial Mammals 45

5. Large Terrestrial Mammals 46

6. Other Native Mammals 47

7. Introduced Speeies 48

8. Fire Management 48

9. Conservation Issues 50

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 51

REFERENCES 51

FIGURES

Figure 1. Locality map showing Wingham Mangement Area and surrounding National Parks,..... 2

Major Reserves and State Forest areas.

Figure 2. Location of fauna survey plots...................................................................................... 13

TABLES

Table 1. State Forests within the Wingham Mangement Area 3

Table 2. The definition of Broad Forest Types within the Management Area 4

Table 3. State Forest areas by Broad Forest Types 4

Table 4. Allocation of study plots within the Management Area 10

Table 5. General infonnation for fauna survey plots................................................................... 11

Table 6. Arboreal mammal species recorded during road transect survey 22

Table 7. Analysis ofpredator seats and hair samples........................... 23


Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area,Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals -iv-

Table 8. Relative species richness of all large arboreal marsupials on study plots differing 24in Broad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude.

Table 9. Relative species richness oflarge arboreal marsupials on study plots differing in......... 25

Broad Forest Type and Mangement History.

Table 10. Relative population density of Greater Gliders on study plots differing in Broad.......... 26Forest Type, Management History and Altitude.

Table 11. Relative population density of Greater Gliders on study plots differing in Broad.......... 27Forest Type and Mangement History.

Table 12. Relative population density of Common Ringtail Possums on study plots differing...... 28in Broad Forest Type, Martgement History and Altitude.

Table 13. Relative population density of Common Ringtail Possums on study plots differing...... 29in Broad Forest Type and Mangement History.

Table 14. Relative population density of Common Brushtail Possums on study plots differing.....30in Broad Forest Type, Mangement History and Altitude.

Table 15. Relative population density of Common Brushtail Possums on study plots differing.... 31in Broad Forest Type and Mangement History.

Table 16. Relative population density of the Brown Antechinus on study plots differing 32in Broad Forest Type, Mangement History and Altitude.

Table 17. Plot-based records of large terrestrial mammals 35

APPENDICESAppendix 1.

Appendix 2.

Appendix 3.

Floristic communities as derived from numerical classification......................... 56of survey data.

List ofknown mammal fauna for the region 57

Detail of road survey transects 59

Foresl.1)' Commission of New South Wales Forest Resources Series No. 19

~~-_. ~~-~~~-----------------------=---------------..,

INTRODUCTION

-1-Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area.

Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Manunals

This report constitutes the first of a four part series (Forest Resources Series No. 19-22) which detailthe results of a substantial fauna survey undertaken within the Wingham Management Area in theTaree Forestry District of New South Wales. The other three fauna reports are entitled: Fauna Survey,Wingham Management Area, Port Macquarie Region. Part 2. Birds, Part 3. Reptiles and Amphibians,and Part 4. Bats. The vegetation of the Management Area has been surveyed and results are presentedin Forest Resources Series No. 18 (Binns and Chapman, 1992).

This report covers all mammal groups in the Management Area, excluding the bats, which are coveredin Part 4 of the Series. The Survey Methodology section within this document provides backgroundinformation pertinent to all fauna reports, however where specialised techniques and approaches wereused for particular components of the survey, they are described in the relevant report.

The results from these surveys were used in the preparation of the Wingham Management AreaEnvironmental Impact Statement (Truyard Pty. Ltd., 1992), and these flora and fauna reports alsofunction as reference material for that E.I.S. The information collected during the fauna surveys formspart ofthe Forestry Commission's wildlife management database and, in conjunction with similardatabases maintained by the Australian Museum, the National Parks and Wildlife Service ofNewSouth Wales and other authorities, provides a state-wide inventory of forest fauna. In association withongoing research programs, these data facilitate the evaluation of species' significance, thedevelopment of conservation strategies and an assessment of the impact of management operations.

1. The Wingham Management Area

Much of the following section is derived from the Wingham Management Plan (Forestry Commissionof New South Wales, 1990) and serves only as a brief introduction to the Fauna Survey Reports. TheManagement Plan should be consulted for more detailed information where required. Similarly, asmany of these issues are dealt with in substantial detail in the Wingham Management AreaEnvironmental Impact Statement (Truyard Pty. Ltd., 1992), only material directly relevant to theinterpretation of the fauna survey is presented here.

(a) Location

The Wingham Management Area is located to the northwest of Wingham in the hinterland of the MidNorth Coast of New South Wales. The Area comprises parts of the catchments of the Manning andHastings Rivers. It lies south of the Oxley Highway and north of the Manning River, and is boundedon the west by parts of the Nowendoc, Cooplacurripa, Mummel and Upper Rowley Rivers which flowsouth into the Manning River. The general locality and surrounding National Park and Forestry areasare shown in Figure 1.

Within the administrative boundaries of the Management Area, there is a total of 64,202 hectares ofCrown-timber land, of which State Forests make up 58,253 ha. (91%) and other Crown-timber landsmake up 5,949 ha. (9%). State Forests within the Management Area are listed in Table 1 and detailsof the location of State Forests and other Crown-timber lands are contained within the Plan ofManagement (Forestry Commission of New South Wales, 1990). For the remainder of this report, andfor the others in the series, "Wingham Management Area" refers only to the areas of State Forest andother Crown-timber lands within the larger administrative unit


Fauna SUIVey, Wingham Management Area,Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals -2-

Annidale.'

Walcha

•Gloucester

Pacific Ocean

N

t9,-- -=29km

Oxley Wild Rivers N. P.

1:2§ Wingham M. A.

~ Other State ForestsI.!.-!J.~.:;1;: Werrikimbe N. P... ..

Seaview N. R.

JasparN.R.

WeelahN.R.

WokoN.P.

Boorganna N. R.

·u·:~: New EnglandN. P.....

Figure 1. Locality map showing Wingham Mangement Area and surrounding National Parks,major Reserves and other State Forest areas.

Forestry Commission of New South Wales Forest Resources Series No. 19

-3-

Table 1. State Forests within the Wingham Management Area.

Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area,Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals

State Forest Name

Bulga (part)Cockspur·DingoDoyles River (part)Enfield (part)Knorrit

TOTAL

State Forest Number

285902779911337767

Mapped Area (ha.)

22,8181,5508,904

14,5155.9374,529

58,253

Enfield, Doyles River, Bulga, Dingo and Knorrit State Forests are contiguous on a major ridge systemrunning southeast from the edge of the New England tablelands. The major ridge falls generallysoutheast from Yarrowitch (1,200 m. asl.) to the coastal plain near Mount George (130 m. as!.). Aneastern spur of the main ridge links to the Bulga Plateau and fonns the watershed between theHastings and Manning River systems. Cockspur State Forest is located at the end of a separate ridgesystem separated from the other State Forests by settlement and clearing along Rowleys River.

(b) Physical environment

The geology of the area is primarily sedimentary or metamorphic derivatives of sedimentary rocks,mainly ofLower Devonian origin. The soils that have developed on this parent material areprincipally yellow podzolics with a loam to clay-loam structureless topsoil over a light to medium claysubsoil of prismatic or blocky structure. Because of the high rainfall, these soils have beensignificantly leached and are oflow to moderate fertility. In some areas, red and yellow earths havedeveloped on Upper Carboniferous-Lower Pennian sediments. They are gradational soils with a :finesandy loam to clay loam, and a weakly crumbly topsoil, grading into a sandy clay to light clay,prismatic subsoil. These soils are porous and of low fertility. Some areas of Bulga and Enfield StateForests are characterised by Krasnozems overlying weathered Tertiary basalt flows. They aregenerally friable clay soils with a strong pedal development, and in general have been heavilyweathered and leached.

The Management Area is within the southern end of the subtropical belt having mild winters withoccasional frosts and snow, and humid hot summers with high rainfall. Precipitation usually occurs inall months of the year but there is a marlced maximum in late summer and early autumn with a drierwinter and spring. Rainfall records from the region indicate mean annual rainfall of betweenapproximately 1,000-1,700 mm. Daily temperatures range from very wann to hot in the summermonths (approx 15-25°) to cool to very cold in the winter months (approx 7-13°). Altitude, rather thandistance from the coast, is a moderating factor with regard to maximum temperatures.

(c) Vegetation communities

Virtually all (99%) of the Management Area is forested, with the forests representing a mosaic of treespecies associations. These associations or "Forest Types" are defined by G.M. Baur (ForestryCommission of New South Wales, 1989) and have been mapped at a scale of 1:25,000 from aerialphotographs and field investigations. A detailed sUlvey of the vegetation (including understoreycomponents) in the Management Area has been undertaken and is reported in Binns and Chapman(1992).

In the Wingham Management Area, these forest associations fall into four recognisable broadcategories: Rainforest, Moist forest, Dry forest, and New England forest.

Forest Resources Series No. 19 ForeslIy Commission ofNew South Wales


Table 2. The definition of Broad Forest Types within the Management Area.

Broad Forest Type

New England forestMoist forestDry forestRainforest

*Forest Types

122, 138, 152b, 152c, 16336, 46, 47a, 47b, 48, 53, 152a, 168,21837, 47c, 60, 62, 64, 651,2,3,12,23,24,25,26

* suffix denotes site quality: a =high, b =moderate, c =low(Forestry Commission of New South Wales, 1989)

The composition of these "Broad Forest Types" is shown in Table 2 and the distribution within theManagement Area in Table 3. The distribution ofForest Types across the Area is related primarily toan interaction between individual species' requirements and changes in aspect, altitude, available soilmoisture, soil fertility and soil depth.

Rainforest represents 18.3% of the Forest Types (by area), New England forest 14.6%, Moist forest42.9%, and Dry forest 23.2%. For the remainder of this report, and for the other fauna reports in thisseries, the forests of the Management Area are defmed as either Rainforest, Moist forest, Dry forest orNew England forest within this definition of Broad Forest Type.

Table 3. State Forest areas by Broad Forest Types (hectares). Adapted from Appendix 5,Wingham Management Plan (Forestry Commission of New South Wales, 1990).

Broad Forest Bulga Cockspur Dingo Doyles River Enfield Knorrit TotalType SF SF SF SF SF SF (%)

Rainforest 3,163 199 793 3,947 1,920 655 10,677(18.3)

New England 1,264 386 710 2,991 2,945 183 8,479forest (14.6)

Moist forest 10,816 576 4,286 6,662 1,066 1,580 24,986(42.9)

Dry forest 7,216 360 3,037 863 2 2,056 13,534(23.2)

Non-forest 359 29 78 51 4 56 577Types (1.0)

TOTAL 22,818 1,550 8,904 14,514 5,937 4,530 58,253(lOO)


(d) Fire

-5-Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area,


Fires within the Management Area are a consequence of natural events, prescribed burning operations,arson, and escapes from adjacent agricultural land. In the short-term, regular fire in someenvironments maintains a more open, grassy vegetation understorey which in turn favourscontinuation ofa regular fire regime and perpetuation of the eucalypt forest. It is likely that theabsence of fire in some other environments would favour the regeneration of a mesophytic shrubcomponent in the short-term, and the development of moister Forest Types in the long-term.

Fuel reduction burning has become a widespread, routine operation within the Forest Types with axeric shrubby or grassy understorey (Forestry Commission of New South Wales, 1990). Increasedaccessibility to remote parts of the Management Area since the 1950's and an associated active fuelmanagement strategy has contributed to a reduction in the risk and severity of wildfires. Current fuelmanagement practices fall into two broad categories. ,Firstly, post-harvest burning, which is designedto reduce accumulated logging slash, to assist in seed bed preparation and to afford some degree offireprotection to the regenerating stand. Secondly, strategic ground burning at regular intervals, with theobjective of providing corridors to contain the spread of wildfires. Scheduled burning operations arecarried out in such a manner so as to protect areas of rainforest, sclerophyll Forest Types with anadvanced understorey of rainforest canopy species, and other areas susceptible to damage by fire.

Fire has had both positive and negative influences on patterns of forest growth and regenerationthroughout parts of the Management Area. Because of the relatively high rainfall and elevation, firestend to bum at low intensity and are more easily controlled. The Rainforest areas form a mosaic withMoist and Dry forest, providing a barrier to the extensive spread of wildfires under normal conditions.Natural communities have particular responses to fire, and within the Management Area, post-fireregeneration of vegetation and associated animal habitats is generally rapid. Since June 1990however, rainfall has been below average every month except for September 1990 and June 1991. Inthe twelve months to the end ofNovember 1991, only 49% of the mean annual rainfall was received(Boot Hill Forestry Camp). It is likely that these conditions have influenced the recovery ofvegetation communities from past fires (hazard reduction and wildfire) and therefore may also exert acontrolling influence on population sizes of small mammals, reptiles and amphibians in particular.Part of the Area was most recently burnt in March-April 1991, and fire history was a consideration inthe design of the fauna survey (see Survey Methodology section).

(e) Timber harvesting

Most of the commercial Rainforest Types in the Area have been subjected to logging operations sincethe 1920s. Currently about 95% of the sub-tropical and warm temperate rainforest patches have beenlogged and are now in various stages of recovery dependent on the time since harvesting and theintensity of the original operation. The dedication of part of the Wauchope Management Area as partof Werrikimbe National Park in 1982 meant that logging of rainforest which had previously ceased inthe Wingham Management Area recommenced in order to meet existing timber contracts. Rainforestharvesting was subsequently not completed until 1989/90, and only a few small isolated pockets ofsubstantially unlogged rainforest remain.

Harvesting of hardwood forests also began in the early 1900's, however about one-third of theaccessible and productive hardwood types remain substantially unlogged. Harvesting operationsvaried in intensity but were selective, generally only sound, straight, mature stems were taken. From1946, silvicultural treatment followed harvesting in Bulga State Forest. This involved culling byfelling or ringbarking unmerchantable trees in conjunction with retention ofseed trees, and thethinning of regrowth. Treatment was extended into the Blackbutt Types of Bulga and Dingo StateForests in 1954. In the mid-1950's silvicultural culling of unmerchantable trees in harvestedBlackbutt Types became more extensive, as did experimentation to determine the best methods ofregenerating the Moist Hardwood Types. This involved various combinations ofpost-logging burningof the understorey, understorey/overstorey removal and sowing of preferred species. A total of6,356hectares has been silviculturally treated by overstorey removal; 5,736 hectares prior to 1977 and 620hectares since 1977 [see the Wingham Management Plan (Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales,1990) for details].

Forest Resources Series No. 19 Foreslry Commission: of New South Wales

--- --- ----------

Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area.Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals -6-

As a consequence of this long and varied history of timber harvesting and silvicultural treatment, thereis an inevitable mosaic of varying logging intensities at the local scale, and larger scale structural andfloristic differences between logged areas.

On a broad scale, the management history has resulted in three general categories of logged forest:

1. Hardwood stands harvested prior to 1977 but with no culling of remnant overstorey. Theseforests are dominated by various densities of overmature trees with regeneration mostly 11-35years old.

2. Previously harvested hardwood stands with the remnant overstorey culled now carrying standsof regeneration that are substantially even-aged.

3. Areas harvested after 1977 to full economic utilisation limits but with sufficient overstoreyremoved to generally promote adequate natural regeneration.

In the context of fauna habitat, forests in categories 2 and 3 are essentially similar, and were treated assuch in the survey design process (see Survey Methodology section).


SURVEY METHODOLOGY



This fauna sUlVey was undertaken with the primary objective to provide data for effective,scientifically-based forest management. Rather than provide a simple "inventory" of species withinthe Management Area, the sUlVey was designed to provide a basis for long-tenn monitoring of speciesand communities, particularly in response to forest management practices. In addition, data obtainedfrom this sUlVey will be used to identify specific requirements for fauna conselVation and to pin-pointhabitats requiring further investigation.

The objectives of the sUlVey were as follows:

1. To compile an inventory of selected faunal groups. These faunal groups were detennined to bethose most affected by forestry management practices, and those considered to be "of specialinterest" because of conselVation status and representations made by other interested parties.

2. To characterize the fauna particularly in relation to vegetation communities.

3. To evaluate the conselVation significance of the fauna and their habitats in the study area in alocal and regional context.

4. To assess the impact of past forestry practices on the faunal communities in order to provideguidelines for future management of the Area.

This section details the overall sampling strategy used for all faunal groups (section 1), and thespecific implementation of this strategy for the mammal sUlVey (section 2).

1. Overall Sampling Strategy

There were three basic strategies employed during this sUlVey. Firstly, a broad area assessment(tenned "general sUlVey") which aimed to identify general trends of species distributions and locateareas which required "specialized sUlVey". Secondly, site-specific sUlVey (tenned "plot-basedsUlVey") was utilised to obtain quantitative data on the richness and relative abundance of specieswithin areas differing with respect to Broad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude. Thirdly,"specialized sUlVey" techniques were used in habitats recognised as potentially important to certainfaunal groups, particularly species considered to be high conselVation significance or "ofspecialconcern". These strategies fonn a composite approach to fauna assessment which is currently beingemployed by the Forestry Commission of New South Wales in sUlVeys for Environmental ImpactStatement purposes on the north coast ofNew South Wales (Shields et. al., 1991; York et al., 1991).

(a) General survey

This component of the sUlVey involved a study of the distribution of species over the entireManagement Area. Data for the general sUlVey were generated principally from opportunisticsightings while driving to and from study sites, and while conducting the different phases of the faunasUlVey. Specific road transects (vehicle and foot traverse) were used to sample certain faunal groups.This infonnation was supplemented by discussion with local Forestry staff and nearby landholders, byrecords from the literature and from museum specimens. Special effort was made to record rare orcryptic species, and to validate records.

(b) Plot-based survey

The specific purpose of the plot-based sUlVey was to adequately sample the range of vegetation,habitat and management history within the Management Area. The number of study sites required toachieve this aim was detennined primarily by the environmental heterogeneity of the Area, which inturn was influenced by the number of Broad Forest Types, the geology and soils of the area, the rangeof altitude, the nature of the topography, and the management history. These factors were taken into


Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area,Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals -8-

consideration and a stratification process developed. While a geographic (spatial) stratification wasalso recognised as essential, in practice this was achieved through stratification on other factors.

(i) Stratification by Broad Forest Type

For the purposes of this fauna survey, vegetation communities were grouped into 4 "Broad ForestTypes" (see Introduction section). These were Rainforest, Moist forest, Dry forest and New Englandforest This methodology is consistent with that used by the Forestry Commission ofNew SouthWales for major fauna survey for Environmental Impact Statement purposes (see Shields et. al., 1991;Yorlc et al., 1991), and represents a division based on general habitat type, although speciescomposition is an integral component of forest typing. This strategy is appropriate due to the mobilityofmost faunal groups, and their generally coarse response to physical habitat variation. Responses tohabitat heterogeneity are detected and compensated for by the design of survey plots (see part (vii).The use of "specialized survey" supplements this approach for groups with more specific requirements(see (c) below).

(ii) Stratification by Altitude

Within the Management Area altitude exerts a control on habitat primarily through influences onprecipitation and temperature regimes. Two altitudinal classes were selected: 0-500 m. (low) and>500 m. (high) as!. This also allowed a spatial stratification of study plots to be achieved, therebytaking into account geographic variability in Broad Forest Types.

(iii) Stratification by Management History

There is an inevitable mosaic oflogging intensities at a small scale within particular logged areas. Asan intention of the fauna survey is an investigation of broad logging impacts, the most practical optionis to accept local variations as part of the larger scale and not sample specifically for the total range ofintensities.

During the stratification process, three meaningful categories based on Management History wererecognised:

1. Logged and silviculturally treated. This included areas that were logged prior to 1977 andwere treated to remove overstorey, or logged since 1977.

2. Logged and not silviculturally treated. These were areas logged prior to 1977 and not treatedto remove overstorey.

3. Principally unlogged.

Within the logged categories, areas harvested within the last seven years were not sampled. Thisstrategy allows the impact oflogging to be more accurately determined by avoiding short-tennimpacts and concentrate on medium to longer tenn effects. The Forestry Commission of New SouthWales is currently undertaking specific research programs to investigate time-related changes afterlogging.

In order to reduce the variability due to time since logging within the above categories, narrow ageclasses were selected. Plots were allocated to logged areas that were treated between 7 to 13 years agoand between 25 to 35 years ago to maximise the experimental benefit of a limited number of plots.Approximate time periods of 10 and 30 years post-logging were chosen to allow comparability withother research programs in the Wingham Management Area (see Binns, 1990). For the purpose of plotselection, two classes ofManagement History were considered: logged and unlogged.

Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales Forest Resources Series No. 19



(iv) Plot selection

The first stage ofplot selection involved the preparation of a base map at 1:25,000 showing the fourBroad Forest Types. Overlays were then prepared showing the three categories recognise ofManagement History, and the two Altitude classes. The number of combinations of each strata thendetermines the number of "categories" in which sampling is to be conducted. Within thisManagement Area, certain combinations do not exist (eg. New England Hardwood Types do not occurat low Altitudes). The following twelve categories were identified:

1. Rainforest, logged, high altitude2. Rainforest, logged, low altitude3. Moist forest, logged, high altitude4. Moist forest, logged, low altitude5. Moist forest, unlogged, high altitude6. Moist forest, unlogged, low altitude

7. Dry forest, logged, high altitude8. Dry forest, logged, low altitude9. Dry forest, unlogged, high altitude

10. Dry forest, unlogged, low altitude11. New England, logged, high altitude12. New England, unlogged, high altitude

In order to sample the range of physical environments within each extensive habitat/environmentalstrata, and to provide an estimate of natural and "treatment" variability for statistical purposes, it isnecessary to replicate within categories. In keeping with existing fauna sOlvey strategies (York et QI.,1991), the requirement for four replicates per category was adopted.

The location of the "categories" in the whole Management Area capable of fulfilling plot requirementswere designated and numbered. A standard 1 km grid was applied to the category maps. A list ofrandom numbers was used to determine intersection points and fulfil the tally required in eachcategory. Where there was insufficient mapped area of the nominated category at the intersectionpoint it was allowable to locate the plot on the map within adjacent 1 km grid squares providing theBroad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude were similar. Six replicates of each categorywere initially identified and randomly located in this way to ensure a high level of objectivity.

In extensive fauna survey such as this, "representativeness" and accessibility are important constraints.to physical plot location. Plots were established in the field by selecting a large area of the habitattype occurring in the randomly selected map unit. The map unit was dropped from consideration if itdid not contain a sufficient area of the required habitat type in an accessible location. Similarly, wetweather access and safety considerations placed constraints on plot suitability. This ensured that theplots could be sampled without edge effects and with maximum efficiency. From the six possibleplots initially selected, four were chosen within each category which met the stated requirements. Inthree instances there were insufficient suitable plots in a category, and the selection processed wasrecommenced until four replicates could be satisfactorily located (resulting in the establishment ofplots DUL7, MOH7 and MUL7).

(v) Special considerations

There is currently less than 150 hectares ofunlogged Rainforest within the Management Area.Because much of this occurs in narrow, fragmented strips or in steep and inaccessible terrain,sufficient replicate plots could not be located. This was compensated for by specialized surveys inappropriate areas. Similarly, there were insufficient areas of the "low Altitude, logged Rainforest"category in which to establish four replicate plots. Existing areas are narrow and fragmented,:tloristically more depauperate, and more heavily logged due to their accessibility. Only one plot couldbe established in this category.

Unlogged compartments scheduled for harvesting in the short to medium term were assessed to ensurethat categories were adequately covered by the plot-based survey. It was not an intention of thissurvey to assess the short-term impact of fire on faunal communities. Due to the extent of recent firesin the Management Area however, it was necessary to place some plots in recently burnt forest. Thiswas avoided where it was possible to do so without compromising the objectivity of the survey design.

Forest Resources Series No. 19 Forestry Conunission of New South Wales


(vi) Plot establishment

-10-

Using this strategy, 45 permanent study "plots" were established within the Management Area,sampling Rainforest, Moist Hardwood, Dry Hardwood and New England forest. Plots wereestablished within logged and unlogged areas, and at high and low Altitude within each Broad ForestType (where available). Four replicates of each habitat "category" were established (except for lowAltitude Rainforest).

Plots were allocated a 4-component code (Table 4) which defined their Broad Forest Type(R=Rainforest, M=Moist forest, D=Dry forest, N=New England forest), Management History(L=logged, U=unlogged), Altitude (H=High, L=Low), and replicate number (1-7). Site specificinformation for each plot is presented in Table 5, and locations shown in Figure 2.

Table 4. Allocation of study plots within the Management Area.

Broad ForestType

Rainforest

Moist forest

Dry forest

New England

Altitude

HighLow

HighLow

HighLowHigh

Logged Plots

RLHl, RLH3, RLH4, RLH5RLLl

MLH3, MLH4, MLH5, MLH6MLLl, MLL3, MLL5, MLL6

DLH3, DLH4, DLHS, DLH6DLLl, DLL3, DLL4, DLL5

NLH2, NLH3, NLH4, NLH6

Unlogged Plots

Specialized survey used.

MUHl, MUH2, MUHS, MUH7MUL2, MUL3, MUL5, MUL7

DUHl, DUH4, DUH5, DUH6DULl, DUL3, DUL5, DUL7

NUHl, NUH2, NUH5, NUH6

Key for Table 5. General Information for Survey Plots.

U - Substantially unlogged NBL -logged (1) before 1977, no treatment

(2) before 1977, silviculturally treated(3) after 1977, high intensity logging

PJotCodes:

Altitude:

Management~:

First letter - Broad Forest TypeSecond letter - Management HistoryThird letter - AltitudeLast digit - Replicate number

H - >500m as!.L - <500m as!.

Last fire; ***

***

****A

Last known recorded fire.Fire history uncertain, however nofire in last ten years.Long history of burning, last frrefive-ten years ago.Long history of burning, last frreprobably within last two years.Burnt in March 1991No record of frre on Rainforest plots.

vegetation: ###

Baur's Forest Types (Forestry Commission of New South Wales, 1989)Floristic Communities as reported by Binns and Chapman (1992).Overstorey Code (see Appendix 1)Forest Understorey Code: Rainforest: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Wet Sclerophyll: 7, 8

Dry Sclerophyll: 9




TableS. General infonnation for fauna survey plots.

Plot Cpt. Standard Grid Broad Forest Forest Floristic Harvesting Altitude Year ofCode No. Reference Type Type# Community ## History (m.as!.) Last Fire*

DLH3 47 264-963 Dry Hardwood 37a 11/9 1957-67 (2) 650 [H] 1951DLH4 109 309-078 Dry Hardwood 62a 6/9 1977-87 (3) 620 [H] **DLHS 81 160-850 Dry Hardwood 62a 6/9 1957-67 (2) 545 [H] 1989DLH6 29 260-989 Dry Hardwood 37a 11{7 1957-67 (2) 700 [H] **DLLl 82 171-851 Dry Hardwood 60 6/9 1957-67 (1) 420 [L] 1991"DLL3 9 146-972 Dry Hardwood 62b 9/9 1957-67 (1) 445 [L] 1966DLIA 73 193-788 Dry Hardwood 62b 6/9 1977-87 (1) 290 [L] 1991"DLLS 102 235-879 Dry Hardwood 62b 6/9 1957-67 (2) 500 [L] 1990DUHl 117 158-000 Dry Hardwood 37a 6/9 Unlogged 680 [H] **DUH4 157 174-017 Dry Hardwood 62a 6/9 Unlogged 650 [H] 1980DUHS 183 131-048 Dry Hardwood 62b 6/9 Unlogged 620 [H] ****DUH6 183 133-040 Dry Hardwood 62a 6/9 Unlogged 610 [H] ****DULl 145 151-930 Dry Hardwood 60 6/9 Unlogged 330 [L] 1980DUL3 149 132-911 Dry Hardwood 62b 9/9 Unlogged 285 [L] 1989DULS 81 150-856 Dry Hardwood 62b 6/9 Unlogged 310 [L] 1982DUL7 149 140-916 Dry Hardwood 62a 9/9 Unlogged 350 [L] 1980MLH3 88 258-069 Moist Hardwood 47b 7{7 1957-67 (2) 640 [H] 1958MLH4 105 211-901 Moist Hardwood 47a 7/8 1957-67 (2) 600 [H] 1966MLH5 120 192-132 Moist Hardwood 47a 7{l 1980-81 (3) 670 [H] **MLH6 106 207-900 Moist Hardwood 47b 11{7 1957-67 (2) 565 [H] 1970MLLl 115 180-878 Moist Hardwood 47b 5/9 1957-67 (1) 415 [L] **MLL3 116 150-990 Moist Hardwood 53 5/4 1957-67 (2) 480 [L] **MLLS 98 219-879 Moist Hardwood 47b 6/4 1977-87 (1) 230 [L] 1980MLL6 103 212-888 Moist Hardwood 47b 5/4 1957-67 (2) 455 [L] 1963MUHl 274 117-215 Moist Hardwood 46 9/9 Unlogged 655 [H] 1983MUH2 212 205-134 Moist Hardwood 47b 5{l Unlogged 760 [H] **MUH5 233 158-199 Moist Hardwood 46 12/7 Unlogged 665 [H] **MUH7 246 203-230 Moist Hardwood 47a 5{l Unlogged 800 [H] **MUL2 146 150-930 Moist Hardwood 47b 6/8 Unlogged 440 [L] 1991"MUL3 244 250-199 Moist Hardwood 53 7/9 Unlogged 470 [L] 1986MULS 157 172-027 Moist Hardwood 53 11/9 Unlogged 455 [L] 1980MUL7 170 184-104 Moist Hardwood 60 7{l Unlogged 475 [L] **NLH2 160 181-041 New England 163b 1'}J9 1983-84 (3) 830 [H] 1984NLH3 28 241-990 New England 163b 1'}J9 1960-61 (1) 785 [H] **NLH4 85 165-878 New England 163b 12/8 1957-67 (2) 700 [H] 1957NLH6 224 159-163 New England 163a 12/7 1977-87 (3) 950 [H] 1984NUHl 228 143-171 New England 163b 1'}J9 Unlogged 635 [H] ***NUH2 280 098-251 New England 163a 12/9 Unlogged 790 [H] ***NUH5 266 129-251 New England 163a 12/7 Unlogged 845 [H] ***NUH6 230 160-180 New England 163a 1'}J9 Unlogged 875 [H] 1984RLHl 266 121-250 Rainforest 2{3 3/4 late 1940's 790 [H] NBRLH3 247 185-245 Rainforest 12c 2/4 late 1940's 850 [H] NBRLH4 52 210-971 Rainforest 1{3 2/4 1955-57 790 [H] NBRLH5 141 180-959 Rainforest 1{3 3/4 1984-85 800 [H] NBRLLl 72 179-821 Rainforest 23/26 3/4 1925-30 470 [L] NB

For plot details see text and key on opposite page.


Fauna Survey. Wingham Management Area,Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals

(vii) Plot design

-12-

At the nominated plot marlcer, a vegetation sUlvey plot was established (see Binns and Chapman,1992). A 500 m transect was then established which bisected the plot on which the vegetation wasquantitatively assessed, and a fauna count station ("point") established at each 100 m marlc along thistransect (see York et al., 1991). This design enables a homogeneous area of vegetation and habitat tobe sampled, and also takes into account small-scale habitat variability.

(c) Specialized survey

Where a particular vegetation community or habitat was identified because of a likelihood of beingaffected by some management practice, because it was spatially restricted, or because ofparticularconservation interest for a faunal group(s), a "specialized survey" was undertaken. In addition,surveys for fauna considered to be "of special interest" were undertaken by appropriate specialists.Details of these survey locations and techniques are provided in the Methodology section of eachfauna report.

(d) Other considerations

In a submission to the Forestry Commission of New South Wales (16th May, 1991), the NationalParks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales raised a number of issues that it considered should beaddressed in the Wingham Management Area Environmental Impact Statement. Although thesubmission is extensive and issues raised often generalised in nature, the comments were taken intoaccount during the planning and implementation of the fauna survey and are considered in detail in theEnvironmental Impact Statement (Truyard Ply. Ltd., 1992).

Unless otherwise stated, the Revised (Interim) Schedule 12 published on the 4th March, 1992 wasused in conjunction with information obtained from the published literature and survey results in orderto assess the conservation "significance" of fauna within the Management Area.

(e) Data presentation and analysis

For the four fauna reports, the following general fonnat was followed:

Introduction: A review of the relevant literature review and background material. A comment on thesubmission from the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales.

Methodology: A description of techniques used and estimate of survey effectiveness.

Results: A description of the survey results, including:

Faunallists. A list of all fauna expected and observed from the study area, referenced toindicate sources of data. Identification of species ofparticular conservation significance. Theresults of the general survey are presented in tabular fonn, and by Broad Forest Type andManagement History where appropriate.

For plot-based data, a tabulation of faunal groups by Broad Forest Type and ManagementHistory (and other stratification where appropriate).

For plot-based data, a quantitative consideration of whether faunal abundance differs betweenBroad Forest Types, Altitude classes and Management treatments. These conclusions aresupported by statistical analysis where appropriate.

For specialized survey data, a discussion of the habitat requirements of species, and aconsideration of their patterns of distribution.


"rl

~§~ '":::~~~I!l •(t' ~::o;l S'nOQ

OQ ::>'gO ~

"1:':::S ~-cl::° n

:::§~ ..~}

I~I

--"0

)0

- ¥."t\

'-

~

(D------

...

"'~~~~

r-l .n.. (. -,j- !"(\\. _, I

~', ( • ••0 10,\ . .L ·_0

-I"~ -' '" I

--...-;';' ~~ I

~i !.... I

7 ir !KEtlOALL

.- r1~rj~liU1Etn

1 _./ I AREAlIJE·,i;';;c .... gn --.

Fe III

~.A)""US

Road Transects

Specialized Survey Sites @

~.'

,....

~K ~ ~

·:JfJ/.~S

.·I~UC~G;J:

t1':' '.:' GL ".1 -:: ,;,..

:=

.''-...

I

/--',/

'"

,-,,-,l!--

'~,

~.......

""J ' '"'--1 .• '-".....Q.~ ~, ..... , \ ...

,NflfLO 5T~T,

'NAL::1A "WNDLcMA:i~GEr1E!lT ~REA

'-,/

l(~

~\ L0~~"*~"

I ~.\ ',_ IGLDUCESrER t.' "\)1 :- ~OUnIG'Or91

MANAGEr"IENT '; '~~"

AR " c::-- 1-.::::':"'\;----------~tl~,0(,.....->-~- ..---·· .. - - ' ~::.:

I , ,-- I----1---- ~

10--

dO

JO

\()

f~g

~,'"g'o....ftng9-

t

frtn;,~

~ Roads .nd Tr.cks

I E(;ENO Figure 2. Location of General Fauna Plots, Specialized SurveySites & Road Transects.

WIN(;IIAMMANA(;El\-tENT AREA

IOKM.

"oCIWTH

iTIWY,\RO PTY. LT\)

DIVIRO:'oo\II::NTAI. PLA!\I'OERS1'110't: 111lI ~lJ 17J~

JA~. 1'i92

I::I~. tORt.SI R" (Wt:R" r10!'S:\~IV HIRt.S1 RY ('O\I~II~SI()'"

JI . >SOOm asl.L - <S(Xhn asl.

L ·loUedU - Substantially

ulllor~ed

A11itll.Ikrl~~~_~.~

LQggingHillim'.:

Plot Codes: First letter' Broad "orest Ty~Second Ic:ller· Logging his10lYThird letter' Altitude classLast digit - Replicate number

Plot Location: •~tMn .. ,,;tmtOI :\re.. Onundury

Riven and Cn:..."s

ShUt "'or~)t Anuod .. r)'

,

""-,--...


Discussion: A consideration of the results of the survey, including:

A discussion of habitat availability and condition within the study area, in light of the knownrequirements of particular species.

Identification of fauna! habitats of particular conservation significance, including the locationof such Forest Types and habitats which could be considered worthy of reservation,

An assessment of the significance of the fauna of the study area in regional and local context

A consideration of the likely impacts on the fauna by the proposed forestry operations (bothpositive and negative) and a discussion of possible options to ameliorate the likely impacts.

2. Mammal Survey Methodology

The field-based mammal survey was carried out principally by Ray Williams and Brian Wilson fromECOTONE Ecological Consultants, with some support from Forestry Commission of New SouthWales personnel. Surveys for the Hastings River Mouse were carried out by Bill Chapman and PatMurphy from Wauchope Research (Forestry Commission of New South Wales). Surveys wereconducted during the period 5th August - 24th October 1991, and data were provided to the ForestryCommission for analysis and interpretation.

Survey methodology followed York. et al. (1991) and involved three complementary approaches. Theoverall strategy is described in the previous section of this report and teclmiques specific to mammalsurvey are considered below.

(a) General survey

In order to determine the distribution and abundance of mammalian fauna within the WinghamManagement Area in general terms, a broad scale survey was conducted. Four approaches were usedto obtain data of this nature: literature review, opportunistic sightings, road survey, and predator scatanalysis. Results from these procedures are presented in tabular form and discussed.

(i) literature review

Relevant reports held by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales (Armidale, PortMacquarie and Newcastle Regional offices), the Forestry Commission of New South Wales,University libraries and private individuals were utilised to prepare a list of species known (orexpected) from the region. This information was supplemented by discussion with local ForestryCommission of New South Wales staff and by searches of records held by the Australian Museum.

(ii) Opportunistic sightings

A substantial amount of information was accumulated from opportunistic sightings made whiledriving to and from study sites, and while conducting the other (bird, reptile and amphibian) phases ofthe fauna survey.

(iii) Road survey

In order to survey arboreal mammals across the broad range of habitats within the Management Area,twenty-five 5 km road transects were determined from appropriate maps. The transects were located(as far as possible) in areas of homogeneous habitat, and were spatially arranged so as to begeographically comprehensive. Field reconnaissance indicated that 21 of these transects were feasible(access and safety considerations), and these were then "spotlighted" from a vehicle travelling 5 kmper hour, using two observers and l00W spotlights. Surveys began when it was completely dark. andended no later than one-half hour before sunrise. Road survey locations are shown on Figure 2.

-Forestry Commission of New South Wales Forest Resources Series No. 19



At the beginning and end ofeach 5 km unit, a walk spotlight was conducted over the 100 m precedingthe start of the transect, and over the 100 m past the fInish of the transect. This was to assist in thedetection of small arboreal marsupials, which are often over-looked in road transeets. Also at thebeginning and end ofeach 5 km unit, directly before the walk spot-light, taped calls from the Masked,Sooty and Powerful Owls were played for fIve minutes each (total of 15 minutes from a standardtape). A ten minute waiting period for responses followed the taped calls. While this was primarily toelicit responses from nocturnal birds (see Part 2 in this report series) this technique often evokes aresponse from arboreal marsupials in the immediate vicinity.

Information recorded for each species observed included an accurate road location, right angledistance from the road, and the species and approximate size (D.B.H.) of the tree in which the animalwas observed. Notes recorded on foraging, reproductive condition, sex and age were recorded wherepossible.

(iv) Predator scat analysis

Predator scats were collected opportunistically during all phases of the mammal survey. Predator seatscontains hairs, bones, feathers and scales which can be identifIed by a skilled observer and are useful,in particular, to detect cryptic species. The material was analysed by Ms. Barbara Triggs, a recognisedauthority in this fIeld.

(b) Plot-based survey

For the quantitative phase of the study, the Area was stratified according to Broad Forest Type,Altitude ~dManagement History. The location of study plots is shown in Figure 2, and has beenpreviously described.

(i) Large arboreal marsupials

Each 500 m transect was surveyed on foot on two separate occasions, with observations being madeduring the period from the onset of darkness (half - 1 hour after sunset) to one halfhour before sunrise.An initial ten minute listening period to detect any mammals which were calling or moving about onthe site was conducted at the beginning of the transect. Calls of the Sooty Owl, Masked Owl andPowerful Owl were played from a standardized tape through a IOW speaker for 15 minutes, followedby another 10 minutes of waiting for responses. While primarily used to detect the presence of owls(see Part 2 in this report series), this technique often elicits a response from arboreal marsupials.

The transect was then surveyed for a minimum of 45 minutes with two observers using lOOWspotlights. All animals seen within a 20 m band either side of the transect were counted for thepurpose of population density analysis. All animals seen were recorded to detennine species richnessinfonnation and to provide additional explanatory data. Data for each species recorded included treespecies, an estimate of tree size (D.B.H.), and a perpendicular distance approximation from thetransect line to the animal.

(ii) Small arboreal mammals

In order to detect small arboreal mammals not always adequately detected by spotlighting and toquantify their use of the tree resource, 25 tree-mounted traps were installed in each study plot At eachof the fIve "points" within the plot, fIve 33 x 10 x 9 cm aluminium ("Elliot") box traps were attachedto brackets mounted approximately two metres above ground on trees representative of that ForestType. Each trap was placed inside a small plastic bag to exclude moisture, and baited with candiedhoney (see Smith and Phillips, 1984). The tree trunk adjacent to the trap was sprayed with a honey/water mixture as an attractant. Traps were checked daily, and re-baited as required. Animals capturedwere identified, weighed and sexed, given a temporary marking to distinguish them if subsequentlyrecaptured, and then released. Traps were operated for four successive nights during fIne weather,providing data for 4,500 trap nights in total.



(iii) Small terrestrial mammals

-16-

In keeping with the specific aims of this investigation, survey of small terrestrial mammals wasdirected specifically towards species of special interest (eg. the Hastings River Mouse Pseudomysoralis and other uncommon species) where distribution and habitats for these species are not welldocumented for New South Wales. Surveys were also conducted in selected habitats considered to berestricted or having potentially high conservation status.

The methodology for surveying these species involved the use ofplot-based pitfall traps (concurrentwith surveys for reptiles and amphibians) and use ofElliot traps at eight specialized survey sites. Thetechniques for specialized survey are described in (c) below. On each of the 45 plots, one pitfall trap(10 litre plastic bucket) was installed in an appropriate location within ten metres of each of the fivemarlced "points". Traps were buried with their lips flush to the ground surface and had a cover fittedto exclude rain, debris and non-target animals. Traps were partially filled with one litre of a 10%Formalin solution and left undisturbed for a period of 14 days.

(iv) Large terrestrial mammals

In this report, "large terrestrial mammals" is a broad term which basically covers most of the mammalgroups not otherwise discussed. Primarily it deals with the monotremes, large dasyurids (Quolls),bandicoots, wombats, macropods (kangaroos and wallabies) and larger introduced mammals. Thepresence on, or recent use of, the study plots by large terrestrial mammals was detected firstly throughdirect observation, secondly by systematic searches for evidence such as tracks, diggings, burrows andscats (30 minutes in the vicinity of each of the five "points"), and thirdly by the use of cage traps.Specialized surveys were also conducted for particular fauna that were considered to be "of specialinterest".

A minimum of two 82 x 25 x 23 cm (or similar size) wire cage traps were placed along animalrunways in each study plot The traps were positioned in such a way so as to maximise the likelihoodof capturing animals. Additional cage traps were used at, or nearby, the fauna transects at thediscretion of the consultant, in suitable habitat in or adjacent to the transect, in such a position whichmaximised likely capture success. The total number of additional traps did not exceed eight (ie. amaximum of ten per plot) and were used to increase the chances of fauna observations in the habitattype sampled by the transect. Traps were baited with pet food (to detect carnivorous marsupials) and apeanut-butter!bread mixture (to detect possums, bandicoots and small macropods). Traps werechecked daily, and re-baited as required. Animals captured were identified, weighed and sexed, givena temporary marldng to distinguish them if subsequently recaptured, and then released. Traps wereoperated for four successive nights during fine weather, providing data for 752 trap nights in total.

(c) Specialized survey

In order to sample habitats not feasibly surveyed by the plot-based procedure, surveys were conductedwithin two patches ofunlogged Rainforest, two rocky areas, and three moist grassy areas. Cage trapsand a line ofElliot traps were employed at each of these locations. In addition, general searches werecarried out to record signs of the presence or activity of mammals. Three additional survey locationswere specifically sampled for the Hastings River Mouse Pseudomys oralis. The locations of all thesespecialized survey points are shown on Figure 2 and described below.

(i) Unlogged Rainforest

Two remnant patches of unlogged Rainforest were selected for survey:

Plot XRF1 - Located in the northern end of Compartment 118, at the head of Murray's Creek,accessed from Homewoods Road (Map ref: 417500E 650800N Kerriki East 1:25000mapsheet). Three cages (baited with a combination of peanut butter/rolled oats and cat food)and 25 Elliot traps (baited with peanut butter/rolled oats) were placed in this habitat and leftopen for four nights.




Plot XRF2 - Located within a Rainforest patch within the boundaries of the Dingo Forest ParkReserve, on the eastern side of Knodingbul Road. A line of 25 Elliot traps and three cage trapswas established and operated over four nights.

(ii) Rocky habitats

, Plot XRK.l - A rocky outcrop located in unlogged Dry forest in Compartment 157, midwaybetween plots DUH4 and MUL5. The plot was located 30 m on the eastern side of the trackleading to MUL5 (Map ref: 417500E 650220N Kokomerican East 1:25000 mapsheet). Thesite contained a small rocky bluff and was upslope from an area of unlogged Moist forest inthe gully below. TIlis site was chosen because it represented an unusual combination ofmicrohabitat elements. Twenty-five Elliot traps and three cage traps were operated over fourconsecutive nights.

Plot XRK2 - A similar rocky outcrop located on Murray's Creek Road 0.5 km fromKnodingbul Road. A line of 25 Elliot traps and two cage traps were placed adjacent toMurray's Creek road and left open for four consecutive nights.

(Ui) Pseudomys oralis habitats

Trapping for small terrestrial mammals (in particular the Hastings River Mouse Pseudomys oralis)was carried out at three locations which were regarded as potentially good habitat for P. oralis basedon previous experience and known habitat preferences (see King, 1984; Dickman and McKechnie,1985; Read, 1988, 1989).

Twenty-five 33 x 10 x 9 cm aluminium ("Elliot") box traps were placed along transect lines at eachsite and baited with a peanut butter/rolled oats mixture. Traps were checked daily, and re-baited asrequired. Animals captured were identified, weighed, sexed and measured, given a temporary markingto distinguish them if subsequently recaptured, and then released. Traps were operated for foursuccessive nights (15th-18th October, 1991) during fme weather, providing data for 300 trap nights intotal.

Sites 1 (SSI) and 2 (SS2) were respectively located adjacent to Blue Knob Forest Road (Map ref:426900E 650790N) and Frenchs Creek Forest Road (Map ref: 423800E 650780N Kokomerican1:25000 mapsheet) in Bulga State Forest Both sites were extremely dry at the time of the survey and,although located in gullies, there was no pennanent water. Site 3 (SS3) was located to the west ofGrassy Ridge Road (Map ref: 411800E 652160N Ralfes Peak. 1:25000 mapsheet) near an unnamedfire trail in Enfield State Forest. Pennanent water was available at Site 3.

(iv) Grassy habitats

A number of grassy sites were chosen as representative of this habitat, and because they werepotentially environments in which to detect a number of uncommon, small terrestrial animals(including Pseudomys oralis).

Plot SS4 - An area ofblady/tussock grass near plot MUL7. A line of 25 Elliot traps wereplaced in this habitat and left open for three consecutive nights.

Plot SS5 - An area of thick blady grass opposite the start of plot MUHS. A line of 25 Elliottraps were placed in this habitat and left open for three consecutive nights.

Plot SS6 - An area of swampy grassland at Maxwell's Flat. The trap line was placed on theopposite side of Doyles River from the camping area (25 traps x 2 nights) and ran throughareas ofgrass tussocks, sedges, reeds and bracken.



(d) Survey limitations

-18-

f

All fauna! groups exhibit seasonal and diurnal patterns of abundance and activity which influence their"detection" in surveys. This study was conducted over an extensive time period (5th August to 24thOctober, 1991) which was selected to coincide with periods of highest activity and/or easiest detectionofmost faunal groups. The extensive drought in the region however meant that population sizes of anumber of groups were low, hence assessment of their abundance was made more difficult Inaddition, population sizes of the Brown Antechinus Antechinus stuartii could be expected to be at theirlowest (seasonally) during the survey period.

Despite these limitations it is considered that the results of this survey represent an effective andsignificant sample of the fauna present. Data from the plot-based survey are expressed as relativeindices of species richness and abundance. It is important to realise that these values do not representtotal. richness or abundance, but a measure (achieved by equivalent search effort) by whichcomparisons can be made. Because Broad Forest Types have been accurately mapped across the studyarea, it is then possible to extrapolate the "plot-based" survey results to similar habitats within theManagement Area. Realistic conclusions can therefore be drawn concerning the distribution of faunaand the future ~mplications of forestry management practices.

(e) Data analysis

Results from the "general survey" and "specialized survey" are presented in tabular fonn anddiscussed. For the plot-based component, data are first presented in tabular fonn, partitioned by BroadForest Type, Management History and Altitude. Mean or total values (as appropriate) are presentedfor each replicate plot. Statistical procedures were then utilized to quantitatively examine theinfluences ofBroad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude on mammal species within theWingham Management Area. -- -

The influence of these factors in detennining the observed variation in selected variables wasexamined firstly by the use of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedure. This technique is usedhere to test the hypothesis that measured variation in the dependent variables (relative species richnessand population density) is not influenced by the different categories of each independent variable(Broad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude). In the calculations, the overall variation(variance) in the dependent variable is assumed to be the sum of variation within the independentvariables, interactions between these variables, and variation due to random fluctuations in the system(error). ANOVA compares the variance in the dependent variable (attributed to each independentvariable) with the error tenn to produce an F ratio, a statistic with a known probability distribution.The significance (P) value represents the probability ofobtaining this result due to chance factorsalone (ie. random variability in the system).

In this study, any result with a P value ofless than 0.05 (5%) was deemed not to have occurred bychance and to reflect a n:ill. (significant) result. That is, the dependent variable (Broad Forest Type,Management History or Altitude) md. have a significant effect on the dependent variable (relativespecies richness or population density). Unless statistically significant interaction (P <0.05) wasshown to exist between the variables, the interaction tenn was added to the error tenn in the analysis.Appropriate test statistics and their probability values are noted in the text.

In order to better understand the nature of the observed variation, data were then compared across thedifferent Broad Forest Type and Management History categories using One-way Analysis of Varianceprocedures (ie. without Altitude being considered as a source of variation). With small sample sizesthere was a risk that certain conditions required by this parametric procedure could not be verified, inparticular, the homogeneity ofvariances (all variances equivalent). Therefore a non-parametricanalysis (the Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA) was utilised for verification. In every case bothprocedures produced comparable results.




Where the ANOVA suggested that a significant difference between categories did exist (P <0.05), amultiple range test (Scheffe's procedure) was implemented to identify which group means weresignificantly different Mean values are presented in ranked order in tables as appropriate.

Data from the detailed (plot-based) component of the survey were analysed using the SPSSXstatistical package (SPSSX Inc., 1988) on a VAX Iln85 mainframe computer. Details of theanalytical procedures used can be found in Steel and Torrie (1981) and zar (1984).


r----------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--- - --


RESULTS

1. General Survey

-20-

A general list of mammalian fauna known from the Wingham Management Area and surroundingregion was compiled through literature review, opportunistic sightings, road survey, and predator scatanalysis. These results are summarised in Appendix 2 and described below.

(a) literature review

The Management Area forms the southern part of an extensive and continuous tract of forestedcountry containing a diversity of habitat types. This largely uninterrupted area of forested landincludes Doyles River State Forest (part), Werrikimbe National Pm and Mount Boss State Forest tothe north, and Enfield (part) and Riamukka State Forests to the west. Smaller areas of reservedforested land in the vicinity include Woko National Park, and Seaview, Jasper, Weelah, andBoorganna Nature Reserves (see Figure 1).

Limited fauna surveys have been conducted within some of these areas, usually resulting in theproduction of "checklists" rather than specific habitat/locality based infonnation. A list of 16 nativemammal species have been compiled from limited field survey and expected occurrences for WokoNational Pm. For Werrikimbe National Park, a similar approach produced a list of 33 species, whilean extensive analysis of Dingo Canis jamiliaris dingo scats (Harden and Robertshaw, 1985) provideda list of 30 mammal species. Checklists for Boorganna and Mt Seaview Nature Reserves report 14and 12 native mammal species respectively. Data from all these sources has been incorporated into alist of mammal fauna known to occur in the Management Area and surrounding region (see Appendix2). Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of those lists which are compiled extensivelyfrom expected rather than known distributions.

No comprehensive fauna surveys have previously been conducted in the Management Area. A fourday survey of part of Doyles River State Forest (Causeway Road and The Cells areas) detected 16species ofnative mammal, including three bat species (Hines, 1991). A similar survey in ChichesterState Forest (70 km to the south) recorded 18 mammal species, including five bats and one introducedspecies (feral cat). There is no infonnation available on habitat preferences or relative abundance ofspecies for either of these surveys. A three-day survey of parts of Enfield State Forest reported bySmith (1991) recorded eleven native mammal species. Most animals were common, widelydistributed species, however a Long-nosed Potoroo Potorous tridaetylus and a Spotted-tail QuollDasyurus maeulatus were recorded, and there was an unconfinned sighting of a Parma WallabyMaeropus parma. A preliminary survey of arboreal mammals in the Daisy Patch Flora Reserve in partofEnfield State Forest to the west of the Management Area was carried out by staff of the CSIRODivision of Wildlife and Ecology in 1990 (Cayton, 1992). Four common species were detected: theGreater Glider Petauroides volans, Sugar Glider Petaurus brevieeps, Common Brushtail PossumTriehosurus vulpeeula and Mountain Brushtail Possum Triehosurus eaninus.

A similar preliminary survey was conducted by a team from the National Parks and Wildlife Serviceof New South Wales (Scotts, 1992) in parts of Enfield State forest. Only presence/absence of specieswas recorded and this survey reported primarily common species: the Brown Antechinus Anteehinusstuartii, Long-nosed BandicootPerameles nasuta, Common Wombat Vombatus ursinus, GreaterGlider, Sugar Glider, Common Brushtail Possum, Eastern Grey Kangaroo Maeropus giganteus,Swamp Wallaby Wallabia bieolor and Red-necked Wallaby Macropus rujogriseus. The ParmaWallaby was recorded in Moist forest environments. Incidental sightings of arboreal marsupials madeduring nocturnal bird surveys in parts of Enfield, Doyles River, Bulga, Dingo and Knorrit StateForests (S. Debus, pers. comm.) involved the Common Brushtail Possum, Mountain Brushtail Possum,Greater Glider, Sugar Glider, Long-nosed Potoroo, Ringtail Possum Pseudoeheirus peregrinus,Yellow-bellied Glider Petaurus australis, Long-nosed Bandicoot and Koala Phaseolarctos cinereus.



PortMacquarie Region Part 1. Mammals

There have been a number of reported sightings of the Platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus within theManagement Area and surrounding river catchments. Grant (1991) reports Platypus from thefollowing areas: Upsalls Creek in Kerewong State Forest, Mount Boss State Forest, Tea Kettle Creeknear the Ellenborough River (Hastings River Catchment), Rowleys River in Bulga State Forest andadjacent se~i-cleared grazing land, within Knorrit State Forest and also in deep pools in adjacentsemi-cleared grazing land, and Little Manning River in Woko National Park (Manning RiverCatchment). Sightings have also been recorded for Bulga Creek (near Elands Road) and generally inthe Doyles River (1. Simmons, pers. comm.), and in the Ellenborough River upstream of the Falls tothe Pole Dump Road crossing (A. Unicomb, pers. comm.).

(b) Opportunistic sightings

A substantial amount of infonnation was accumulated from incidental sightings made during surveysfor mammal and other faunal groups. Echidnas Tachyglossus aculeatus were observed on PadmansRoad and Knodingbul Road, and Spotted-tail Quolls on Dingo Tops Road and at the Dingo Topspicnic area. An Eastern Grey Kangaroo was recorded near plot MUL5 and Eastern WallaroosMacropus robustus on the Rocks Creek Fire Trail and near the intersection ofMurrays Road and BigMurrays Road. There were numerous sightings of the Red-necked Wallaby, Swamp Wallaby, PannaWallaby and Red-necked Pademelon Thylogale thetis throughout the Management Area. There wasan unconfinned sighting of a Long-nosed Potoroo in long blady grass between plots DURS andDUH6.

The Long-nosed Bandicoot was commonly seen or heard calling during night spot-lighting, and therewere seven recorded sightings of the Northern Brown Bandicoot Isodon macourus. Greater Gliders,Brushtail and Ringtail Possums were observed whilst driving at night, and Yellow-bellied Gliderswere heard calling at Boot Hill Camp and Maxwell's Flat There were incidental sightings of theSugar Glider, Mountain Brushtail Possum and Koala, and a Dingo was heard calling in the vicinity ofplot DLL3 (G. Oancy, pers. comm.) and plot MUL5 (R. Williams, pers. comm.). A number of feralcats were observed during the course of the sUIveys. A Platypus was observed entering a burrowadjacent to a pool in Little Run Creek at the intersection of Creek Road and Compartment 86 ForestRoad (G. Oancy,pers. comm.).

(c) Road survey

Seven arboreal mammal species were detected during vehicle spotlighting transects: the GreaterGlider, the Common Brushtail Possum, the Mountain Brushtail Possum, the Common RingtailPossum, the Koala, the Sugar Glider, and the Yellow-bellied Glider. The Greater Glider was by farthe most common observation (285 sightings), representing 77% of animals recorded. CommonBrushtail, Ringtail and Mountain Brushtail Possums were less abundant (28, 24 and 20 sightingsrespectively), and there were five records of Yellow-bellied Gliders calling in moist gullies adjacent toroad transects. There were seven sightings of Koala and one of a Sugar Glider. A total of 105 km ofroad was traversed (21 x 5 km transects) with an overall average rate of 3.5 animals per kilometre.The results of the survey are summarised in Table 6 and road transect details are provided in Appendix3. Road transect data such as this provide a general index of distribution and abundance only, and arenot suitable for direct estimates of species richness and population densities. Plot-based survey resultsshould be referred to for quantitative comparisons of species richness and abundance.


------- -

Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area.Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals -22-

Table 6. Arboreal mammal species recorded during road transect sUlvey.

Arboreal Marsupial Species - Numbers of Individuals

Transect Greater Common Common Mountain Koala YeIlow- Sugar TotalGlider Brushtail Ringtail Brushtail bellied Glider Species

Possum Possum Possum Glider #

1 59 12 42 1 3 33 46 1 1 34 18 2 26 6 2 27 3 7 6 38 10 2 6 2 1 1 69 14 5 1 1 4

10 9 2 211 19 2 1 314 13 9 215 1 1 216 9 1 1 317 6 118 2 1 1 319 2 5 1 2 1 1 621 2 122 10 1 2 2 423 8 124 2 5 225 5 4 2

TOTAL 285 28 24 20 7 6 1 7

(Full details of road transect locations and survey results are provided in Appendix 3.)

(d) Predator scat analysis

Inspection of the 24 predator seats and hair samples collected opportunistically during the mammalsurvey suggested that 11 were from dogs or Dingo, three from QuoIls, and ten from unidentifiedsources. Analysis of the material contained in the seats revealed the likely presence of material from13 mammal species: the Swamp Wallaby, Red-necked Pademelon, Fawn-footed Melomys Melomyscervinipes, Brown Antechinus, Spotted-tailed QuoIl, Bush Rat Rattus juscipes, Common BrushtailPossum, domestic Cattle Bos taurus, a species of Bandicoot, Common Ringtail Possum, Sugar Glideror Squirrel Glider Petaurus noifolcensis, Swamp Rat Rattus lutreolus, and Rabbit Oryctolaguscuniculus (see Table 7).


*There are three levels of certainty for the identifIcation of mammal species in the scats. Accuracy is influenced by the amount of, or quality of, the hairs in thesample, and the level of difficulty in separating some related species. IdentifIcations perfonned by Barbara Triggs.

Table 7. Analysis ofpredator scats and hair samples.

~annnalSpeciesIdentified*

Probable

61.~....

rCi2

~.

~....10

61~~Q

;.lI>

g'g,~:ECi2

~

t

ScatNo.

12345a5b678910llallb121314a14b15

161718

192021

Location

NLH2DLH4Dingo Tops Forest ParlcKoala Rd (west)MLL5

Potoroo Rd adjacent to MLL5Potoroo Rd adjacent to MLL5Potoroo Rd adjacent to MLL5Bridge near MUH1NLH2Not recordedNot recordedPotoroo Rd adjacent to MLL5Eagle Hawk Trail near NillI1Sonny's Rd adjacent to MLHSSonny's Rd adjacent to MLHSKnodingbul Rd.adjacent to NLH4DULlDLL5Knodingbul Rd.adjacent to RLH3DLH6NillI2NillI2

ProbableSource

?Dog??Spotted-tailed QuoIl?Dog?hair onlyDogDog?DogSpotted-tailed QuoIlDogDogDog?Dog?Dog

?DogHair only

??Spotted-tailed QuoIl

DefInite

Swamp WallabyRed-necked PademelonMelomys sp. Antechinus sp.Spotted-tailed QuoIlRattussp.Swamp WallabyBrushtail PossumBrushtail Possum, Bandicoot sp.Rattussp.

Rattussp.Swamp WallabyBrushtail PossumRingtail PossumRattussp.Ringtail PossumSugar/Squirrel GliderRattussp.

Ringtail PossumRed-necked PademelonRed-necked Pademelon

Bandicoot sp., RabbitRingtail PossumRingtail Possum

Fawn-footed Melomys

Bush rat

Bush RatCowBush Rat

Bush Rat

Swamp Rat

Possible

Brown Antechinus

~I

'!1a'§~ po

~Ci2

~ ~.g (l)

lll~ai' =e:;I:l erJ8tg' aif.... J',l• (l)

~~~ ....~t


2. Plot-based Survey

(a) Large arboreal marsupials

-24-

Seven arboreal marsupial species were detected during spotlighting transects: the Greater Glider, theCommon Brushtail Possum, the Mountain Brushtail Possum, the Common Ringtail Possum, theKoala, the Sugar Glider, and the Yellow-bellied Glider. All of these animals were detected on one ormore of the 45 study plots, however the majority of Yellow-bellied Gliders were detected from callsemanating from adjacent moist gullies.

When only those animals observed on plots are considered, an average (median) of two species perplot was recorded. Overall, no animals were recorded on seven plots, one species on fourteen plots,two species on 15 plots, three species on six plots, and four species on three plots (DLLl, DUH4 andNLH2). The distribution of species richness across the study plots is shown in Table 8. It is importantto note that these numbers do not represent the total species richness of plots, but a relative index(achieved by equivalent search effort at each) by which comparisons can be made.

Relative species richness of all large arboreal marsupials on study plots differing inBroad Forest Type, Management History and'ATIi'fiifre*:

Broad Forest Types

Rainforest Moist forest Dry forest New England

History Logged Logged Unlogged Logged Unlogged Logged Unlogged

Altitude Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High High High

~0 1 0 3 3 3 4 1 1 0 4 1

~ - 3 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 4 2 3c..> - 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2;.::::l

fr - 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1~

Mean - 1.5 0.5 1.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.0 2.0 1.8

Mean 1.2 0.8 2.3 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.8

* Values represent the number of species observed on a transect 500 ID long and 40 ID wide (20 ID each side oftransect line) over two periods of observation. Replicate sites were not available within low-altitudeRainforest.

The influence of Broad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude on species richness wasinvestigated by the use of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures. The results suggest thatoverall, relative species richness of large arboreal marsupials is not influenced by Broad Forest Type(F=O.346 d.f.=3,39 P=0.792), Management History (F=1.243 d.f.=1,39 P=0.272) or Altitude (F=0.255dJ.=1,39 P=0.616). In order to better understand the nature of the observed variation, the data wereanalysed without Altitude as a source of variance. This increases the effective sample size andpotentially allows for clearer patterns to emerge.

When these strata (combinations of Broad Forest Type and Management History) are considered(One-way ANOVA) there is no difference between strata (F=1.774 d.f.=6,38 P=O.131). The




assumptions behind the test are met (variances are not significantly different - Bartlett-Box Test,F=1.22 P=0.292), however a non-parametric procedure was used for verification. Similar results wereachieved with mean ranks shown as not significantly different (Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA,X2:11.3 n=45 P=0.080). The relative species richness of study plots is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Relative species richness oflarge arboreal marsupials on study plots differing inBroad Forest Type and Management History.

Broad Forest Strata

Logged Logged Unlogged Unlogged Logged Logged UnloggedMoist Rainforest Dry New New Dry Moist

England England

Mean * 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.3

MeanRank # 12.4 18.2 21.8 24.4 25.5 27.3 31.6

*

#

Lines indicate group means not significantly different at the 0.05 level (Multiple Range Test - Scheffe'sProcedure).Kruskal-Wallis One-way Analysis of Variance.

On average, the highest species richness was recorded in unlogged Moist forest, and the lo.west inlogged Moist forest. Although these mean values are not significantly different, it is apparent that ingeneral terms logged Moist forest supports considerably lower numbers of species of arborealmarsupials than unlogged Moist forest The converse situation exists for Dry forest types, with loggedplots having (on average) slightly more species than unlogged plots. The difference between loggedand unlogged New England types is negligible. Logged Rainforest supports low numbers of largearboreal marsupial species.

These results do not take into account the response of individUal species to characteristics of thehabitat. The following analyses address this issue.



(i) Population density ofGreater Gliders

A total of 83 sightings of Greater Gliders were made during spotlighting along transects, 53 recordedwithin 20 metres of the transect and 30 outside this range. The distribution of this species across therange of plots was patchy with 24 plots recording no animals. The average (mean) number ofindividuals observed on each plot (over two visits) within 20 m of the transect was used to generatethe relative population density (see Table lO). These data represent a population density "index" bywhich comparisons can be made. As these indeces also represent the number of animals observed in 2hectares ofhabitat (500 m x 40 m), reliable estimates of numbers of animals per hectare can beobtained by halving the mean values shown. Plots NUH2 and NUHS recorded the highest number ofindividuals, with six and nine, and two and eight animals observed respectively on the two transectwalks. On average therefore, unlogged New England forest supported 2.05 Greater Gliders perhectare (4.1/2).

Table 10. Relative population density of Greater Gliders on study plots differing in Broad ForestType, Management History and Altitude*.

Broad Forest Types




00 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.0Q)

0.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.5 2.0 7.5tU -C,)

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0..... -"l:lQ) - 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 2.5 2.0~

Mean - 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.9 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.0 1.8 4.1

Mean 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.5 1.8 4.1

* Values represent the mean number of animals observed on a transect 500 m long and 40 m wide (20 meach side of transect line) over two periods of observation. Replicate sites were not available within lowaltitude Rainforest.

The influence of Broad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude on population density wasinvestigated by the use of ANOYA procedures. The results suggest that overall, relative populationdensity of Greater Gliders is influenced by Broad Forest Type (F=5.672 d.f.=3,39 P=0.OOO3) andManagement History (F=6.474 d.f.=1,39 P=0.015), but not by Altitude (F=2.790 d.f.=1,39 P=0.103).In order to better understand the nature of the observed variation, the data were analysed withoutAltitude as a source of variance. This increases the effective sample size and potentially allows forclearer patterns to emerge.

When these strata (combinations of Broad Forest Type and Management History) are considered(One-way ANOYA) there is a significant difference between strata (F=6.96 d.f.=6,38 P<O.ool). Theassumptions behind the test are not met (variances are significantly different - Bartlett-Box Test,F=3.84 P=O.OOI), suggesting that a non-parametric procedure may be more informative. Similarresults were achieved however with mean ranks shown as significantly different (Kruskal-Wallis Oneway ANOYA, X2:18.5 n=45 P=0.005). The relative population density of Greater Gliders on studyplots is shown in Table 11.



PortMacquarie Region Part 1. Manunals

Table 11. Relative population density of Greater Gliders on study plots differing in Broad ForestType and Management History.

Broad Forest Strata

Logged Logged Unlogged Logged Unlogged Logged UnloggedRainforest Moist Dry Dry Moist New New

England England

Mean * 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.8 4.1

MeanRank # 15.3 16.6 18.3 19.5 29.4 32.0 40.0

*

#


On average, the highest population density recorded was in unlogged New England forest, and thiswas significantly higher than all other strata. Logging significantly reduces the population density ofGreater Gliders in this Forest Type, but not for Dry forest Although not statistically significant,logged Moist forests have, on average, lower population densities than unlogged Moist forests.Logged Rainforest supports low numbers of Greater Gliders.



------

(ii) Population density ojComrnon Ringtail Possums

A total of 21 sightings of Common Ringtail Possums were made during spotlighting along transects,15 recorded within 20 metres of the transect and six outside this range. The distribution of this speciesacross the range ofplots was patchy with 37 plots recording no animals. The average (mean) numberof individuals observed on each plot (over two visits) within 20 m of the transect was used to generatethe relative population density (see Table 12). Plot RLH3 recorded the highest number of individuals,with three and two animals observed respectively on the two transect walks.

Table 12. Relative population density of Common Ringtail Possums on study plots differing inBroad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude*.

Broad Forest Types




fI:l 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Q)

ii - 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0u:.::::l - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

~ - 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mean - 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

Mean 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0


The influence of Broad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude on the population density ofRingtail Possums was investigated by the use of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures. Theresults suggest that overall, relative population density is influenced by Broad Forest Type (F=8.268d.f.=3,39 P<O.OOl), but not Management History (F=0.045 d.f.=1,39 P=0.834) or Altitude (F=0.814d.f.=1,39 P=0.372). In order to better understand the nature of the observed variation, the data wereanalysed without Altitude as a source ofvariance. This increases the effective sample size andpotentially allows for clearer patterns to emerge.

When these strata (combinations of Broad Forest Type and Management History) are considered(One-way ANOVA) there is a significant difference between strata (F=4.861 d.f.=6,39 P<O.OOl). Theassumptions behind the test are not met (variances are significantly different - Bartlett-Box Test,F=7.06 P<O.OOl), suggesting that a non-parametric procedure may be more informative. Similarresults were achieved however with mean ranks shown as significantly different (Kruskal-Wallis Oneway ANOVA, X2::13.9 n=45 P=0.030). The mean population density of Ringtail Possums on studyplots is shown in Table 13.




Table 13. Relative population density of Common Ringtail Possums on study plots differing inBroad Forest Type and Management History.

Broad Forest Strata

Unlogged Unlogged Logged Logged Logged Unlogged LoggedNew Dry Moist Dry New Moist RainforestEngland England

Mean * 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0--

MeanRank # 19.0 19.0 19.0 21.6 24.3 26.9 34.0

*#


On average, the highest population density was recorded in logged Rainforest, and this wassignificantly higher than all other strata. There was no difference between population densitiesrecorded for all other Forest Types.



(iii) Population density ofCommon Brushtail Possums

A total of 36 sightings of Common Brushtail Possums were made during spotlighting along transects,29 recorded within 20 metres ofthe transect and seven outside this range. The distribution of thisspecies across the range of plots was patchy with 30 plots recording no animals. The average numberof individuals observed on each plot (over two visits) within 20 m of the transect was used to generatethe relative population density (see Table 14). Plot MUH1 recorded the highest number ofindividuals, with four and two animals observed on the two transect walks.

Table 14. Relative population density of Common Brushtail Possums on study plots differing inBroad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude*.

Broad Forest Types




<I:l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0~ - 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0«Sc.,)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5:::l -fr - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0p::;

Mean - 0.0 0.0 0.0 004 0.8 0.9 004 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1

Mean 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1


The influence of Broad Forest Type, Management History and Altitude on population density wasinvestigated by the use of ANOVA procedures. The results suggest that overall, relative populationdensity of Common Brushtail Possums is not influenced by Broad Forest Type (F=1.148 d.f.=3,39P=0.342), Management History (F=1.090 d.f.=1,39 P=0.303), or by Altitude (F=O.697 d.f.=1,39P=00409). In order to better understand the nature of the observed variation, the data were analysedwithout Altitude as a source ofvariance. This increases the effective sample size and potentiallyallows for clearer patterns to emerge.

When these strata (combinations of Broad Forest Type and Management History) are considered(One-way ANOVA) there is no significant difference between strata (F=1.53 d.f.=6,38 P=O.194).The assumptions behind the test are not met (variances are significantly different - Bartlett-Box Test,F=2046 P=O.044), suggesting that a non-parametric procedure may be more informative. Results ofthe Kruskal-Wallis One-way ANOVA show mean ranks to be just significantly different (x2::12.9n=45 P=O.045). The relative population density of Common Brushtail Possums on study plots isshown in Table 15.



Port Macquari~Region Part 1. Mammals

Table IS. Relative population density of Common Brushtail Possums on study plots differing inBroad Forest Type and Management History.

Broad Forest Strata

Logged Logged Logged Unlogged Unlogged Unlogged LoggedMoist Rainforest New New Moist Dry Dry

England England

Mean * 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6

MeanRank # 15.5 15.5 20.1 20.1 24.6 29.1 30.4

*#


On average, the highest population density recorded was in logged and unlogged Dry forests, howeverthe highest single recorded density was on an unlogged Moist forest plot, MUHl. Logging reducesthe population density of Common Brushtail Possums in Moist forest, but not for other Broad ForestTypes. New England forest supports low numbers of Common Brushtail Possums, while no animalswere recorded from either Rainforest or logged Moist forest.

(iv) Distribution ofMountain Brushtail Possums

Mountain Brushtail Possums were seen on six plots during night transect surveys. Possums wererecorded on plots in logged Rainforest (RLH5, one animal), unlogged New England forest (NUH2,one animal), logged Moist forest (MLL5, one animal), unlogged Dry forest (DUH4, one animal), andlogged Dry forest (DLL1, one animal, DLU, two animals).

Numbers of animals seen were insufficient to comment quantitatively on habitat preferences andlogging impacts, however animals were recorded in all Broad Forest Types and both logged andunlogged forests.

(v) Distribution ofKoalas

Koalas were recorded from four plots during night transect surveys. Animals were observed withinunlogged Dry forest (DUH4, one animal), unlogged Moist forest (MUL2, MUL5, one animal each),and logged New England forest (NLH2, one animal). Numbers of animals recorded were insufficientto comment quantitatively on habitat preferences and logging impacts, however the low number ofsightings suggests that the Koala is an uncommon species in this Management Area. These results andthose from the vehicle-based survey are considered more fully in the Discussion section.

(vi) Distribution ofYellow-bellied Gliders

Yellow-bellied Gliders were recorded from the genera1.locality of ten plots during night transectsurveys, and one animal observed within the boundaries of an unlogged New England forest plot(NUH2). Animals were heard calling generally in moister vegetation communities in gullies andalong creeklines within logged Dry forest (DLH3, DLH4), unlogged Dry forest (DUH4, DUH6),logged Moist forest (MLH3), unlogged Moist forest (MUH1, MUH5, MUL7), logged New Englandforest (NLH2), unlogged New England forest (NUH2), and logged Rainforest (RLH3).



Numbers of animals recorded were insufficient to comment quantitatively on habitat preferences andlogging impacts, however animals were recorded in all Broad Forest Types, both logged andunlogged. Calls from Yellow-bellied Gliders were often elicited in response to the playing of recordedowl calls and observations suggested that moister gullies (within all Forest Types) were the favouredhabitat of this species.

(vii) Distribution ofSugar Gliders

Sugar Gliders were recorded from ten plots during night transect surveys, with two records from directobservation and nine from animals calling. Animals were found in logged Dry forest (DLLl [call],DLL3 [obs.], DLL5 [call], unlogged Dry forest (DUL7 [call], DUH6 [call], logged Moist forest(MLH3 [call], MLH4 [call]), unlogged Moist forest (MUHS [call], MUH7 [call]), and logged NewEngland forest (NLH2 [call and obs.]). Numbers of animals seen were insufficient to commentquantitatively on habitat preferences and logging impacts, however animals were recorded in all BroadForest Types except Rainforest, and both logged and unlogged Dry and Moist forests, and logged NewEngland forest.

(b) Small arboreal mammals

A total of 19 individuals from five mammal species were caught in tree-mounted Elliot traps.Individual species were Brown Antechinus (ten individuals), Bush Rat (one individual), Fawn-footedMelomys (six individuals), Common Brushtail Possum (one juvenile), and Feathertail GliderAcrobates pygmaeus (one individual). Overall capture rates were extremely low (0.5%) given thesubstantial trapping effort expended (4,500 trap nights).

The distribution of the Brown Antechinus across the range ofplots was patchy with 39 plots recordingno animals. The number of individuals trapped on each plot (over four nights) was used to generatethe relative population density (see Table 16). All individuals trapped were females (as expected forthis time of year), with most having pouched young or evidence of approaching litters.

Table 16. Relative population density of the Brown Antechinus on study plots differing in BroadForest Type, Management History and Altitude*.

Broad Forest Types




r'-l 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q)

~ - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0t,)....1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0fr - 0 0

~ - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean - 0.3 1.3 0 0.3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* Values represent the total number of animals captured using tree-mounted Elliot traps (lOO trap nights ateach location). Replicate sites were not available within low-altitude Rainforest.




The Brown Antechinus was only recorded from six plots during surveys. Animals were trapped inlogged Rainforest (RLH4, one animal, RLLl, one animal), logged Moist forest (MLL5, five animals),unlogged Moist forest (MUH2, one animal, MUH7, one animal, MUL5, one animal).

The Bush Rat was trapped only once in logged Moist forest (MLL5). This species is not normallytrapped on trees except where there is a dense vegetation understorey adjacent to the trap site (as wasthe case on this plot).

Six Fawn-footed Melomys were trapped in logged Rainforest (RLHl, RLH4, RLH5), logged Moistforest (MLH3, MLH6) and unlogged Moist forest (MUL5).

One female Feathertail Glider (with young) was trapped in logged Rainforest (RLLl).

Numbers of animals seen of all small mammal species were insufficient to comment quantitatively onhabitat preferences and logging impacts, however all individuals were trapped in Rainforest and Moistforest, both logged and unlogged.

(c) Small terrestrial mammals

Efforts to locate small terrestrial mammals were concentrated on species considered to be of highconservation significance. This involved the use ofpitfall traps as part of the "plot-based" survey, andspecialized survey techniques (see Methodology section 2c).

(i) Plot-based survey

One female Brown Antechinus (with pouched young) was captured using plot-based pitfall traps. Thisanimal was trapped in logged Moist forest (MLL6), a habitat (but not plot) where this species had beencaught by other techniques. No other mammal species were caught using this technique.

(ii) Specialized survey

A number of locations were investigated primarily to detect the Hastings River Mouse Pseudomysoralis, and secondarily to survey unique habitats not covered in the "plot-based" survey.

1. Unlogged Rainforest Patch - Study Site XRFl - no small mammals were captured in100 trap nights at this site.

2. Unlogged Rainforest Patch - Study Site XRF2 - one female Brown Antechinus (withpouched young) was caught in 100 trap night at this site.

3. Rock OuterQP Patch - Study Site XRKl - three Bush Rats (adult males) and one BrownAntechinus (adult female) were caught in 100 trap nights at this site.

4. Rock Outcrop Patch - Study Site XRK2 - one Bush Rat (adult female) was caught in100 trap nights at this site.

5. Site SS1 - five Bush Rats (two adult males, three adult females) and three BrownAntechinus (females with pouched young) were caught in 100 trap nights at this site.

6. Site SS2 - one Bush Rat (adult female) was caught in 100 trap nights at this site.

7. Site SS3 - two Bush Rats (adult males) were caught in 100 trap nights at this site.

Forest Resources Series No. 19 Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales

,-------- -------------------------


8. Site SS4 - two Bush Rats (adult females) and one Brown Antechinus (female withpouched young) were caught in 75 trap nights at this site.

9. Site SS5 - one Brown Antechinus (female with pouched young) was caught in 75 trapnights at this site.

10. Site SS6 - three Bush Rats (two adult females, one adult male) and two House MiceMus musculus were caught in 50 trap nights at this site.

(d) Large terrestrial mammals

The presence on, or recent use of, the study plots by large terrestrial mammals was detected firstlythrough direct observation, secondly by systematic searches for evidence (tracks, diggings, burrowsand scats), and thirdly by the use of cage traps.

(i) Plot-based survey

Sixteen species of mammals were observed or detected on study plots in this manner, of which tenwere native "large terrestrial" species, and one was the feral cat Felis cattus. Eight mammal specieswere caught in cage traps: Common Brushtail Possum (17), Mountain Brushtail Possum (1), NorthernBrown Bandicoot (10), Long-nosed Bandicoot (4), Long-nosed Potoroo (1), Parma Wallaby (1),Spotted-tailed Quoll (2), and Feral Cat (1). Echidna diggings were present on one plot in logged Dryforest (DLIA) and Koala droppings were present on plots in logged Dry forest (DLL3, DLL5),unlogged Dry forest (DULl), unlogged Moist forest (MUL2), and unlogged New England forest(NUH1). The Eastern Grey Kangaroo, Parma Wallaby, Red-necked Wallaby, Red-necked Pademelonand Swamp Wallaby were observed or detected from droppings. The Brown Antechinus and a speciesofRattus (probably juscipes) were identified from droppings on plots in logged Rainforest. The dataare presented in Table 17 in the form of evidence or captures across categories based on Broad ForestType and Management History. This enables a qualitative assessment ofhabitat usage for somespecies.

Bandicoot diggings were common throughout the study area, but the two species were difficult toseparate by this means. The Northern Brown Bandicoot was trapped on plots in unlogged Moist forest(MUH5), logged (DLL5) and unlogged Dry forest (DUH4, DUL3, DUL7), and logged New Englandforest (NLH2, NLH3, NLH6). The Long-nosed Bandicoot was trapped on plots in logged Rainforest(RLH3), logged Moist forest (MLH5), unlogged Dry forest (DUH4), and logged New England forest(NLH2). The Northern Brown Bandicoot would appear to show a preference for drier, grassywoodlands; and while the Long-nosed Bandicoot shows a preference for Moist forest environments,there is obviously considerable overlap in habitat requirements.

Evidence of the Red-necked Wallaby was found on plots across all Broad Forest Types andManagement treatments, and this species was observed to be common in grassy/woodland areas. TheSwamp Wallaby and Red-necked Pademelon were similarly common across the Management Area,and showed a preference for the moister Forest Types, utilising moist gullies in drier forest areas. TheParma Wallaby was observed on numerous occasions across the study area, but showed a preferencefor moister habitats.




Table 17. Plot-based records of large terrestrial mammals.

Broad Forest Strata

Scientific Name Common Name Rainforest Moist Dry Newforest forest England

L L U L U L U

Taehyglossus aeuleatus Echidna 10

Dasyurus maeulatus Spotted-tailed QuoIl 10 C2Anteehinus stuartii Brown Marsupial Mouse 20

Isoodon maerourus Northern Brown Bandicoot * * */Cl */C2 */C3 */C3 *Perameles nasuta Long-nosed Bandicoot 20/Cl 75/Cl 65 50 lOO/Cl 50/Cl 50

Phaseolaretos einereus Koala 10 25 10 25

Triehosurus eaninus Mountain Brushtail Possum */Cl * Cl *Triehosurus vulpeeula Common Brushtail Possum 20 10 C3 C2 25/C4

Potorous tridaetylus Long-nosed Potoroo Cl

Maero[Jus giganteus Eastern Grey Kangaroo 12 12Maeropus parma Panna Wallaby 6O/Cl 90 40 25 40 10 10Maeropus rufogriseus Red-necked Wallaby 20 10 50 65 90 10 10Thylogale thetis Red-necked Pademelon 80 50 40 40 90 10Wallabia hieolor Swamp Wallaby 100 100 75 75 90 40 50

Rattusfuseipes Southern Bush Rat 40

Felis eatus Feral Cat Cl

Management History: L - Logged U - Unlogged C# - number ofcage trap captures

* Unable to confinn species (ie. Bandicoots and Brushtail Possums)

Data represent percentage ofplots within a particular Broad Forest Type and Management History whereevidence occurred (to nearest 5%), and numbers of individuals caught in cage traps where applicable.



(ii) Specialized survey

-36-

The Hastings River Mouse was not trapped at any of the specialized survey locations. Sites SS1, SS2and SS3 had been chosen especially because ofknown habitat preferences of the species (see King1984), but habitats were also suitable at some other trapping locations. Red-necked Pademelons,Swamp Wallabies and Parma Wallabies were detected from droppings at a number of sites, as werespecies of Bmshtail Possum and Bandicoot.

1. Unlogged Rainforest Patch - Study Site XR.Fl - no mammals were trapped in cage trapsat this site. There was evidence ofbandicoots (diggings), Bmshtail Possums(droppings) and Red-necked Pademelons (droppings).

2. Unlogged Rainforest Patch - Study Site XR.F2 - no mammals were trapped in cage trapsat this site. There was evidence ofbandicoots (diggings), Swamp Wallabies(droppings) and Panna Wallabies (droppings).

3. Rock Qutcrcw Patch - Study Site XRKl - no mammals were trapped in cage traps at thissite. There was evidence of bandicoots (diggings), Swamp Wallabies (droppings) andPanna Wallabies (droppings).

4. Rock Qutcrcw Patch - Study Site XRK2 - no mammals were trapped in cage traps at thissite. There was evidence of Swamp Wallabies (droppings).

5. Sites SS1. SS2 & SS3 - no surveys for large terrestrial mammals were conducted atthese sites (Hastings River Mouse sites only).

6. Site SS4 - no mammals were trapped in cage traps at this site. There was evidence ofbandicoots (diggings) and Swamp Wallabies (droppings).

7. Site SS5 - no mammals were trapped in cage traps at this site. There was little evidenceof mammal usage of this site.

8. Site SS6 - no mammals were trapped in cage traps at this site. There was evidence ofRed-necked Pademelons (droppings).


DISCUSSION



The primary objective of this fauna sUlvey was to provide data for effective, scientifically-based forestmanagement. A survey strategy was utilised which not only provides an inventory of species, but alsoproduces a basis for long-tenn monitoring of species and communities. The results obtained pennit a Idescription of the distribution and abundance of species within the Management Area, an indication oftheir habitat utilisation, and a quantitative assessment of their responses to forest management prac-tices.

1. Background Information

A review of a number of limited surveys of the region indicate that it has a rich mammal fauna with35 native and nine introduced mammal species recorded. None of these studies sought to establishrelative abundance of species in habitats, but primarily contributed to the production of "checklists".These data however provide a useful background against which to assess the mammalian fauna of theWingham Management Area.

Of the native mammal fauna listed for the region, 26 species (74%) were recorded in this survey.Species listed but not detected were: Brush-tailed Phascogale, Yellow-footed Antechinus, DuskyAntechinus, Common Planigale, Squirrel Glider, Eastern Pygmy Possum, Red-legged Pademelon,New Holland Mouse and Hastings River Mouse. These species are discussed in the relevant sectionsbelow. Ofthe nine introduced mammal species recorded in the region, six were detected in thissurvey.

2. Large Arboreal Marsupials

From the results of the road sUlveys and opportunistic sightings, a number of species are considered tobe common and widespread in the Management Area. These are the Greater Glider, CommonBrushtail Possum, Common Ringtail Possum, and Mountain Brushtail Possum. Less common speciesare the Koala, Yellow-bellied Glider and Sugar Glider. All species that could be expected in the Areawere recorded in this study.

The Squirrel Glider Petaurus norjolcensis has been reported from Werrikimbe National Park, and isprobably at the limit of its distribution in this area (Suckling, 1983). It is currently considered asendangered in New South Wales (listed under Part 2 ''vulnerable and rare" National Paries andWildlife Act (Interim) Schedule 12), primarily because of loss of habitat in part of its range throughthe clearing of woodland areas for agriculture. It was not recorded in this extensive survey, nor inother surveys in forests in the region (see Appendix 2). Given that the Squirrel Glider spends much ofits foraging time in the upper canopy (Davey, 1984), it is difficult both to detect and differentiate fromits close relative the Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps. At this stage it is considered that this species isabsent from the Management Area, however in future surveys for monitoring purposes it should betreated as a "possible" member of the forest fauna.

The results of the plot-based analysis suggest that the number of arboreal marsupial species is notsignificantly different on plots differing in Broad Forest Type, Altitude and Management History.General trends are apparent however, with the highest species richness recorded in unlogged Moistforest, and the lowest in logged Moist forest. Logged Dry forest supported, on average, more speciesthan unlogged Dry forest, with the results for logged and unlogged New England forest being broadly ~

tsimilar. Logged Rainforest supports low numbers of arboreal marsupials. While these results suggestthat patterns of overall species richness are broadly similar across the Management Area, closeinspection of the data reveals that individual species are exhibiting Specific responses to habitat andpast management practices.



(a) Greater Gliders

-38-

Greater Gliders were recorded on 20 of the 21 road transects, with often large numbers being obseIVed(see Appendix 3). They were most common in New England forest and only absent from transect 15through predominantly logged Moist forest.

The results of the plot-based sUIVey suggest that New England Forest Types are the favoured habitatof this species, followed by Moist and then Dry Forest Types. Mean Glider densities of 2.05, 0.70 and0.25 animals per hectare respectively, were recorded on unlogged plots in these habitats. Rainforestsupported the lowest population densities of Greater Gliders due to the lack of a Eucalyptus resource(on average, 0.05 animals per hectare -logged plots). Populations were high on some individual plots(NUH2, NUHS), suggesting that high productivity sites can support large populations of this species.Plot NUH2 and NUH5 both lie within high site quality New England blackbutt Eucalyptuscampanulata forest (Type 163a) with a wet sclerophyll understorey (Binns and Chapman, 1992). PlotNUH5 lies on a ridge with adjacent Rainforest patches, and a high diversity of tree species in theimmediate vicinity. The structural complexity of the forest has previously been reported as animportant determinant of the distribution and abundance of this species (Davey, 1984).

Past logging practices have significantly reduced the population density of Greater Gliders in NewEngland forest, and substantially reduced their numbers in Moist forest. Mean Glider densities of 0.90and 0.15 animals per hectare respectively, were recorded on logged plots in these habitats. Animalswere recorded however on all logged plots in New England forest, except NLH4. This plot lies inmoderate site quality New England blackbutt forest (Type 163b), which was intensively loggedbetween 1957 and 1967 with the silvicultural culling of unmerchantable trees (see Table 5). Removalof the shelter resource, tree hollows, may be a major factor here, although Gliders were obseIVed onall the other logged plots that have been intensively logged (NLH2, NLH6). These two plots are inforest logged between 1983-4 and 1977-87 respectively, without silvicultural treatment. In addition, itis worth noting that the Powerful Owl Ninox strenua can locally decimate the populations of theGreater Glider (Kavanagh, 1988) therefore results from individual plots should be interpreted withsome caution in this case.

A reduction in the availability of tree hollows for fauna is a well documented detrimental effect ofintensive forestry activities (McIlroy, 1978; Tyndale-Biscoe and Calaby, 1975; Loyn et al., 1980;Calder et al., 1983; Lindenmayer et al., 1990). Results from road transects 1,2, and 3 however wouldindicate that large numbe'rs of Greater Gliders do occur in logged New England forest (see Appendix3). For example, a 5 km transect along Pablo Road in Enfield State Forest (Compartments 308-312)recorded 59 Greater Gliders in logged New England blackbutt forest Animals were also obseIVedusing dead and partially dead eucalypts as den trees on one logged plot (NLH6) and three unloggedplots (NUHl, NUH2, NUHS). Relative population densitieS recorded on three of the four logged plots(NLH2, NLH3 and NLH6) were equal to or greater than that recorded on two unlogged plots in thesame Broad Forest Type (see Table 10). These results would suggest that site quality is moreimportant than Management History in determining population density of Greater Gliders, and that theretention of "habitat" and unmerchantable trees in current and future operations will successfullymaintain populations of Greater Gliders in regenerating New England blackbutt forest Site qualityand its effect on foliar nutrient levels has been proposed as a major determinant of the distribution andabundance of arboreal marsupials in the eucalypt forests of south eastern Australia (Braithwaite et al.,1983; Kavanagh and Lambert, 1990).

Dry forest types are less favoured by Greater Gliders, particularly at lower altitudes where no animalswere recorded on unlogged Dry forest plots. The only low Altitude logged plot where Gliders wererecorded (DLLl) was in a regenerating forest dominated by tallowwood Eucalyptus microcorys andwhite mahogany E. acemenoides with a dry sclerophyll understorey, which was logged in 1957-1967without silvicultural treatment. In logged high Altitude Dry forest, Gliders were recorded in the sameForest Type (plot DLH410gged 1977-87) and coastal blackbutt forest with a wet sc1erophyllunderstorey (plot DLH610gged 1957-67). These results support those in New England forest bysuggesting that site quality is the most important determinant of population density for Greater Glidersin Dry forest, provided that management practices have not seriously depleted the shelter resource(tree hollows).




The population density of Greater Gliders in Moist forest environments is lower (but not significantly)in logged forest compared with unlogged forest. The highest densities were found on unlogged plotMUH2 in Moist forest dominated by brush box Lophostemon confertus with a wet sclerophyllunderstorey. Variability within unlogged Moist forest however was high, with a floristically similarplot (MUH7) recording a lower relative population density (a mean of 0.75 animals per hectarecompared with 1.75). A similar site in~ forest (MLH3 -logged 1957-67 with silviculturaltreatment) also recorded a relative population density of 0.75 animals per ha. These results suggestthat Moist forest environments within the Wingham Management Area are not the preferred habitat ofGreater Gliders, and their population density within this Broad Forest Type is dependent on sitespecific factors rather than logging history.

The Greater Glider has been recorded in every National Park and Nature Reserve in the region exceptWoko National Park. (see Appendix 2) and has a secure status in New South Wales. While intensivelogging of areas with high soil and foliar nutrient levels will have localised impacts on Gliderpopulations, retention of hollow-bearing trees and the proposed conservation strategy (fruyard Pty.Ltd., 1992) should ensure the continued survival of populations throughout the Management Area.

(b) Common Ringtail Possums

This species was observed on eight of the 21 road transects (38%) indicating that it is widelydistributed within the Management Area. It was recorded from five predator scats, but observationssuggest that numbers are moderate within areas of its preferred habitat.

The results of the plot-based survey suggest that Rainforest is the favoured habitat of this species,followed by unlogged Moist and then logged Dry forest. The numbers of animals recorded in NewEngland and Dry forest are too low to assess logging impacts, and no clear patterns are evident.

In Moist forest the species was only recorded on unlogged plots (MUL5, MUL7 and MUH2). Of theeight logged plots, six were logged between 1957 and 1967, one between 1980 and 1981, and onebetween 1977 and 1987. There would appear to be adequate time for suitable regeneration of theunderstorey, and none of the plots have experienced fires in the last ten years. While the Forest Typeson logged and unlogged plots are fundamentally the same, regenerating logged plots may not havedeveloped specific habitat characteristics suitable for the Ringtail Possum.

During road transect 9 on Sonny Road, five Ringtail Possums were detected in logged Moist foresthabitats (see Appendix 3). Similarly, Ringtails were observed in these habitats on other transectswhich specifically sampled logged Moist forest (transects 11 and 15). The availability of nest sites isconsidered a major factor limiting distribution and abundance of this species (McKay, 1983) and it canoccupy a variety of vegetation types provided the shrub component forms dense tangled foliage. TheRingtail Possum has been shown to be quite abundant in tea-tree shrub and regenerating areas(fyndale-Biscoe and Calaby, 1975), and as it is able to build its own nest (drey), it is not dependent ontree hollows. Personal observation suggests that the increased light conditions on road verges in Moistforest lead to dense (localised) understorey development, which may in turn create suitable habitat forRingtail Possums.

The Ringtail Possum has been recorded in every National Park and Nature Reserve in the region (seeAppendix 2) and has a secure status in New South Wales. The conservation strategy proposed for theWingham Management Area (fruyard Pty. Ltd., 1992) protects the habitat of the Common RingtailPossum through the preservation ofRainforest remnants, and the development of an extensive networkof filter strips, wildlife corridors and conservation zones. These measures should ensure the continuedsurvival of populations throughout the Management Area.

(c) CommonBrushtailPossums

This species was observed on nine of the 21 road transects (43%) indicating that it is widelydistributed within the Management Area. It was recorded from three predator scats, and caught incage traps on plots in unlogged Moist, unlogged and logged Dry forest. Females with young were



observed and trapped on a number of occasions, and observations suggest that numbers of CommonBrushtail Possums are moderate within areas of its preferred habitat.

The results of the plot-based survey suggest that Dry forest is the favoured habitat of this species,followed by unlogged Moist and then New England forest. Although no significant differences weredetected between logged and unlogged plots, it is apparent that past logging practices have reduced thepopulation density of Common Brushtail Possums in Moist forest, but had no effect in Dry and NewEngland forest. The high relative population density recorded on unlogged Moist forest plot MUH1(see Table 14), would appear to be a result of the dominance of the forest red gum Eucalyptustereticornis in the overstorey and the dry sc1erophyll understorey (Binns and Chapman, 1992). Thishas produced a habitat more like that of Dry forest, and favoured by the Common Brushtail Possum.No animals were recorded on plots in Rainforest and logged Moist forest.

As was the case with the Common Ringtail Possum, while the Moist Forest Types on logged andunlogged plots are fundamentally the same, regenerating logged plots may not have developed specifichabitat characteristics suitable for the Brushtail Possum. Brushtail Possums were not observed onroad transects which sampled logged Moist forest only, however Mountain Brushtails were observedin this environment on transects 9 and 15.

The Common Brushtail Possum has been recorded in every National Park and Nature Reserve in theregion (see Appendix 2) and has a secure status in New South Wales. Both the Common BrushW1Possum and the Common Ringtail Possum are adaptable animals and not dependent on mature forest.The Brushtail Possum will use hollow logs or rock crevices if no tree hollows are available (How,1983). Given their preference for Dry forest environments, and the negligible impact of logging onpopulation densities in these forests, the Common Brushtail Possum is considered to be adequatelyconserved within the Management Area.

(d) Mountain Brushtail Possums

This species was observed on nine of the 21 road transects (43%) indicating that it is widelydistributed within the Management Area. It was recorded from plots in all Broad Forest Types exceptNew England, and caught in cage traps on plots in logged Rainforest and logged Dry forest. In wasrecorded from New England Forest Types on road transect number 3.

Individuals of this species were observed on road transects which passed through logged areas ofRainforest, Moist forest and Dry forest. Observations suggest that its preferred habitat is Rainforestand logged forest with a dense understorey component, although it was also observed in unlogged Dryforest (plot DULl).

The Mountain Brushtail Possum has been recorded in every National Park and Nature Reserve in theregion except Woko National Park (see Appendix 2) and has a secure status in New South Wales. TheMountain Brushtail Possum is adaptable and not dependent on mature forest It has been suggested(Davey, 1984) that the maintainance ofMountain Brushtail populations requires managementstrategies which maintain or enhance plant species richness and structural complexity in theunderstorey. Given that the species was observed in both logged and unlogged areas of all BroadForest Types, existing management strategies would appear to be adequate in order to conserve theMountain Brushtail Possum within the Management Area.

(e) Koala

Koalas were recorded on four of the 21 road transects (19%), with seven animals observed. Four ofthese were recorded on a single 5 km transect along Knodingbul Road through logged and unloggedMoist and New England forest (transect 25). Four animals were recorded from plot-based survey inunlogged Dry, unlogged Moist, and logged New England forest, and detected from droppings inlogged and unlogged Dry forest, and unlogged Moist and New England forest These results suggestthat the Koala is a widespread but uncommon species within the Management Area. Given thegenerally low soil nutrient status within the Management Area (Forestry Commission of New South




Wales, 1990), this result is in line with the findings of Colk, et al. (1990) who suggest that Koalasprefer forests which grow on fertile soils.

Koalas were observed resting or feeding in four tree species: blue gum (55%), coastal blackbutt (18%),white mahogany (18%), and New England blackbutt (9%). From the low numbers it is difficult todetermine specific habitat preferences however the limited data suggest that the Sydney blue gum(Eucalyptus saligna) is a preferred food tree in this area. Sydney blue gum has a ubiquitousdistribution in the Management Area. Best development is found in Forest Types 46 (Sydney bluegum), 47 (tallowwood-Sydney blue gum), and 168 (silvertop stringybark-Sydney blue gum). It is notuncommon to find it as a composite species, particularly on sites where available soil moisture is notlimiting: in the Blackbutt Types 36 (moist) and 37 (dry), Moist Hardwood Types such as FloodedGum Type 48 and Brushbox Type 53, the "Semi-moist" and Dry Hardwood Types 60 and 62respectively, and even the New England Blackbutt Type 163. These Forest Types represent broadspecies associations with a very high floristic (tree) species diversity (see Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales, 1989).

This association of tree species would appear to explain the relatively large numbers of Koalasobserved along road transect 25 in Dingo State Forest (four adult animals, including one female withyoung). This transect either traverses or is in close proximity to all of the above Forest Types exceptFlooded Gum. Although growing on poor soils here, the Moist forests along this part of KnodingbulRoad contain, mostly as dominants, a number of known preferred (and alternate) food trees for Koalain the area (Sydney blue gum Eucalyptus saligna, coastal blackbutt E. pilularis, New Englandblackbutt E. andrewsii ssp. campanulata, grey gum E. punctata, narrowleaved white mahoganyE. acmenioides, tallowwood E. microcorys and forest red gum E. tereticornis), representing a richfood resource.

This road transect traversed logged and unlogged sections of Moist Hardwood and New EnglandForest Types. Koala were also observed in New England blackbutt (E. andrewsii ssp. campanulata)and coastal blackbutt (E. pilularis) along this transect While the past logging treatments in thissection of forest were intensive, it would seem that they have been sufficiently separated, bothspatially and chronologically, to allow the continued survival of Koalas. The animals are currentlyutilising both logged and unlogged patches of forest in this area.

A Koala was observed in a white mahogany Eucalyptus acmenioides on plot MUL5 in Compartment157 in Bulga State Forest. This plot lies in Forest Type 53 which, in this area, forms a mosaic of treespecies: brush box, Sydney blue gum, flooded gum, white mahogany, tallowwood and turpentine inassociation with coastal blackbutt As this area is scheduled for harvesting operations in the future, itis recommended that standard Forestry Commission prescriptions are followed concerning the prelogging detection and management of Koala in this area. Given that this area of forest is substantiallysurrounded by logged forest, it may be pertinent to delay harvesting until sufficient regeneration hastaken place to provide adequate Koala habitat in adjoining areas.

There are currently 14,187 hectares ofmoderate-high site quality Type 47 (47a and b) in the WinghamManagement Area, of which 3,873 ha. (27%) is unlogged. While there are currently only 585 ha. ofthis Type (unlogged) directly reserved, there are 2,647 ha., 3,000 ha. and 60 ha. permanentlyconserved within Werrikimbe National Pm, Woko National Park and Mt Seaview Nature Reserverespectively (Truyard Pty. Ltd., 1992). Similarly, there is 1,797 ha. of Forest Type 60 in theManagement Area, 463 ha. (25%) of which is unlogged, with 245 ha. of this currently reserved fromlogging. There is 573 ha. of this Forest Type permanently reserved within Werrikimbe National Pm.Koalas have been reported from Woko and Werrikimbe National PaIks, Mt. Seaview Nature Reserveand Doyles River State Forest (see Appendix 2) and adjacent areas of privately owned land.

The Koala Phascolarctos cinereus is currently considered to be endangered in New South Wales andis listed in Part 2 ''vulnerable and rare" of the (Interim) Schedule 12 of the National PaIks and WildlifeAct. This survey detected Koalas in logged and unlogged areas of Dry, Moist and New Englandforest Koalas were recorded on a recently burnt plot (MUL2 - burnt March 1991) and an intensivelylogged plot (NLH2 -logged 1984). These results suggest that past management practices have notprecluded the persistence of the Koala in the Management Area. The wide distribution ofpreferred


Fauna Survey. Wingham Management Area,Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals -42-

food tree species and the reservation of land as fIlter strips, wildlife corridors and conservation zoneswithin the Management Area (see Truyard Pty. Ltd., 1992) should undoubtedly assure the continuedsurvival of the Koala in these forests.

(f) Yellow-bellied Gliders

Yellow-bellied Gliders were recorded on five of the 21 road transects (24%), generally in moist gullieswithin all Forest Types. They were recorded from the general locality of ten plots during night foottransect surveys, and observed once within an unlogged New England forest plot. This plot (NUH2)lies within high site quality New England blackbutt forest, with silvertop stringybark Eucalyptuslaevopinea and other eucalypt species, and has a dry sclerophyll understorey. The animal wasobserved in a Sydney blue gum, while another was heard calling in the distance.

The Yellow-bellied Glider Petaurus australis is currently considered to be endangered in New SouthWales and is listed in Part 2 "vulnerable and rare" of the (Interim) Schedule 12 of the National Parksand Wildlife Act. The Glider has a disjunct distribution in eastern Australia. Isolated populationsoccur in northeast Queensland, western Victoria, and southeastern South Australia, but more or lesscontinuous populations occur in eucalypt forests along the east coast from southern Queensland tocentral Victoria. In areas where it is found it has a patchy distribution which is thought to be inresponse to local availability of a variety of suitable flowering trees with overlapping blossomingperiods (Russell, 1983a) and suitable sap feeding trees (Goldingay, 1991).

Yellow-bellied Gliders have been reported from Werrikimbe National Park, Mt Seaview NatureReserve and Doyles River State Forest (see Appendix 2) and adjacent areas of privately owned land.Within the Wingham Management Area, moist gullies appear to be the preferred habitat of thisspecies, and animals were observed or recorded within both logged and unlogged areas. It wouldappear that past management practices have not precluded the persistence of the Yellow-bellied Gliderin the Management Area, however given its current conservation status, it is recommended that specialmeasures are taken to ensure its continued survival.

In this survey, animals were heard calling generally in moister vegetation communities in gullies andalong creeklines in unlogged forest in the vicinity ofplots DUH4 (Compartment 157), DUH6(Compartment 183), MUHl (Compartment 274), MUH5 (Compartment 233), MUL7 (Compartment170) and NUH2 (Compartment 280). Where areas are scheduled for harvesting operations in thefuture, it is recommended that standard Forestry Commission prescriptions are followed concerningthe pre-Iogging detection and management of Gliders in this area, with special attention being paid tothe identification of feed and den trees. The Glider has been reported to have a large home range: 4263 ha. inVictoria (Henry and Craig, 1984), 30-55 ha. in southern New South Wales (Goldingay,1989), and is dependent on tree hollows for den sites. In the Eden region, den hollows of this speciesare located in large, live trees (Recher et al., 1980).

The implications of forestry management practices for the Yellow-bellied Glider have recently beendiscussed (Goldingay and Kavanagh, 1991). While obviously affected by logging operations, theseGliders tend to be concentrated in the moister sites within the forests studied here. The extensivenetwork ofmoist gully systems within the Management Area and the proposed reservation of land asfilter strips, wildlife corridors and conservation zones (see Truyard Pty. Ltd., 1992) shouldundoubtedly ameliorate impacts of future management practices on this species.

3. Small Arboreal Mammals

Five species of small mammal which are at least partly arboreal were recorded in this survey.Numbers of individuals were extremely low, reflecting the impact of extended drought on breedingpatterns. Spatial patterns were also affected with more animals (than expected) tending to be found inmoist areas. These patterns were evident in similar surveys being conducted concurrently in otherforest areas within the State, and are supported by the low numbers of small mammals caught duringground-based trapping at Specialized Survey Sites and detected from predator scats. All species that




could be expected in the Area were recorded on this study except for the Brush-tailed Phascogale(Tuan) and Eastern Pygmy Possum. These two species are likely residents but extremely difficult 10detect

(a) Brush-tailed Phascogale

The Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoataja is currently considered to be endangered in NewSouth Wales and is listed in Part 2 ''vulnerable and rare" of the (Interim) Schedule 12 of the NationalParies and Wildlife Act It is largely arboreal and has a preferred habitat of dry sclerophyll forest withlittle ground cover (Cuttle, 1983). It is regarded as common within its range, but clearing offoresthabitat (primarily for agriculture) has resulted in a restricted distribution in some areas. There is littledata are available on the effects of forestry operations on Phascogales. The Brush-tailed Phascogalehas been recorded from Werrikimbe National Park and Doyles River State Forest (see Appendix 2).Given the widespread extent of Dry forest in the Management Area, particularly with reduced groundcover, and the quantities of this habitat which are to be reserved (Truyard Pty. Ltd., 1992), thereappears to be ample provision for this species' conservation in local and regional terms.

(b) Eastern Pygmy Possum

The Eastern Pygmy Possum is found from rainforest through sclerophyll forest to tree heath. Theyconstruct nests ofleaves and shredded bade, usually in tree hollows but sometimes as independentstructures. A study of their habitat requirements in south-eastern New South Wales suggested thatthey preferred areas with high floristic diversity, rich in species from the families Myrtaceae andPapillionaceae, with a well developed understorey (Davey, 1984). Little data are available on theeffects of forestry operations on Pygmy Possums, however there are not dependent on mature forestfor nesting sites (Turner, 1983). The only report of this species in the region is from a National Parksand Wildlife Service "checklist" of species from Werrikimbe National Park, however it is expectedthat the Pygmy Possum occurs in low numbers in State Forests, National Parks and Reservesthroughout the region. While its status in these areas is currently unknown, the maintenance of aneffective system of filter strips, wildlife corridors and reserves within the Management Area shouldcontribute substantially to its conservation on a local scale. Regionally, it should be adequatelyprotected within the existing National Park and Reserve system.

(c) Sugar Glider

A single Sugar Glider was recorded on one of the 21 road transects, however vehicle-basedspotlighting tends 10 underestimate numbers of this species. Sugar Gliders were recorded from tenplots during the night foot transect surveys. The low numbers of animals registered means that it isnot possible 10 assess habitat preferences and logging impacts, however animals were recorded in allBroad Forest Types except Rainforest, and in logged and unlogged forest. The species would appearto be uncommon within the Management Area.

Smith (1982), Braithwaite et al. (1983), Davey (1984) and Suckling (1984) have reported that SugarGliders preferred habitats containing species ofAcacia, a genus often well represented in disturbedareas. Regrowth forest provides suitable foraging habitat for Sugar Gliders but the species is usuallyabsent from these areas due to lack of suitable tree hollows for nesting (Suckling and Macfarlane,1983). Lunney (1987) found Sugar Gliders were able to utilize retained trees of all sizes within loggedareas, however their presence in these logged areas was probably dependent on the occurrence ofsuitable hollows in adjacent unlogged gullies. Sugar Gliders have been reported from WerrikimbeNational Pade, Boorganna Nature Reserve and Enfield, Doyles River and Chichester State Forests, andfrom privately owned land in the region. Vigorous regeneration ofAcacia species after logging hasbeen reported in the Management Area (Binns and Chapman, 1992) suggesting that one major foodsource should not be limiting here. The mosaic of Forest Types which typifies the Wingham

. Management Area, combined with current prescriptions retaining "habitat trees" in logged areas, andthe proposed strategy of filter strips, wildlife corridors, and conservation areas, should ensure itscontinued survival in these forests.



(d) Other small arboreal mammals

-44-

Of the five species of small mammal (which are at least partly arboreal) recorded in this survey,numbers of the Brown Antechinus, Bush Rat, Fawn-footed Melomys and Feathertail Glider were toolow to allow quantitative investigation of their habitat preferences and the impact of past managementpractices.

In this sUlvey the Brown Antechinus Antechinus stuartii was trapped in both logged and unloggedforest, and most females were carrying young as expected for this time of year. All captures weremade in the Rainforest plots or Moist forest plots with a dense vine thicket understorey. It wasinteresting to note the absence of this species from Dry forest, a likely consequence of the extremelydry conditions which prevailed in the year preceding the survey. The extremely low trapping success(twenty-two captures for 4,500 trap nights, ie. 0.5%) is considered to be a consequence of the extendeddrought and removal of ground cover by recent fires. The presence and abundance of small groundmammals has previously been shown to be related to structural changes in the vegetation understoreyafter fire (Christensen and Kimber, 1975; Fox and McKay, 1981). In addition, population numbers ofthe Brown Antechinus are at their lowest at this time of year because of the "die-off' of adult malesafter breeding. The Brown Antechinus is considered to be common and secure in New South Walesand has been reported from all State Forests, National Parks and Reserves in the region (Appendix 2).The results of this survey would suggest that Rainforest and Moist forest environments are providing a"refuge" for this species during extremely dry conditions, and therefore the protection ofrepresentative samples of these habitats through the designation of filter strips and wildlife corridorsshould ensure the continuing survival of populations within the Management Area.

The Bush Rat Rattus juscipes is primarily a terrestrial species which occasionally climbs trees in areasof forest with a dense understorey vegetation. The Bush Rat is expected to be common in mosthabitats in the Management Area provided sufficient ground cover is available. There is currently noevidence to suggest that logging has long-term effects on this species, although Lunney et al. (1987)demonstrated that numbers ofR.juscipes may be severely reduced for at least 15 years after logging,their numbers may, in fact, be higher after logging in Dry forest environments (Recher et al., 1980),probably in response to the development of dense ground cover during early stages of regeneration.The species is permanently conserved within National Parks and Reserves in the region(see Appendix 2) and is considered to be locally and regionally secure.

The Fawn-footed Melomys Melomys cervinipes was trapped on plots in logged Rainforest, and loggedand unlogged Moist forest In New South Wales, this species generally favours closed and wetsclerophyll forest habitats, particularly where there are vine thickets (Redhead, 1983). It has beenreported from all State Forests, National Parks and Reserves in the region except Mt Seaview NatureReserve (see Appendix 2). The protection of representative samples of Rainforest and Moist foresthabitats in the Management Area through the designation of filter strips and wildlife corridors shouldensure that the species is not detrimentally affected by future logging operations.

The Feathertail Glider Acrobates pygbaeus is widely distributed in the tall eucalypt forests along theeast coast of Australia (Russell, 1983b), but because of its small size and weight, it is difficult to detectin spotlight surveys and effectively trap in conventional box traps. The only Feathertail Glider trappedin this survey was a female with young caught on a logged Rainforest plot (RLL1). The species hasbeen recorded from Woko and WerrikimbeNational Parks and is considered to be adequatelyconserved on a regional basis. The species is thought to feed predominantly on eucalypt pollen(Turner, 1982; Davey, 1984) and has been shown to exhibit seasonal shifts in habitat utilisation,primarily in response to the availability of pollen from myrtaceous shrubs and trees (Davey, 1984).The continued conservation of this species within the Wingham Management Area requiresmanagement strategies which ensure the maintenance of this seasonal resource. It is considered thatthe mosaic nature of Broad Forest Types within the Management Area, combined with the proposedstrategy of filter strips, wildlife corridors, and conservation areas (Truyard Pty. Ltd., 1992) adequatelysatisfies this requirement


4. Small Terrestrial Mammals



In keeping with the aims and objectives of the survey, investigations for small terrestrial mammalsconcentrated on a species of high conselVation significance (the Hastings River Mouse), and areas ofrestricted or unusual habitat

The Hastings River Mouse Psuedomys oralis is currently considered to be endangered in New SouthWales and is listed in Part 2 "vulnerable and rare" of the (Interim) Schedule 12 of the National Padesand Wildlife Act. The species was not trapped in this sUlVey, however given the low populationnumbers of other small mammal species (see above), it is likely that such small populations couldhave been missed in this sulVey. The preferred habitat of this species is now well defined (see King,1984; Read, 1991) and given that the species is known from Werrikimbe National Park to the north,and State Forests to the south, it is reasonable to expect that it may occur here, provided suitablehabitats exist. There has recently been an extensive sUlVey (>2,000 trap nights) by the ForestryCommission of New South Wales in suitable habitats within Riamukka and Enfield State Forests tothe west of the Management Area, however no Pseudomys oralis have been caught. Nevertheless, asextensive drought made it hard to identify possible sites for the species during this sUlVey, it wouldseem appropriate to resurvey during more favourable conditions in the future.

Specialized sUlVeys in areas of restricted habitat confirmed the current low population sizes of smallterrestrial mammals. Low numbers of the Brown Antechinus and Bush Rat were trapped at a numberof rocky and grassy sites, and two introduced House Mice were trapped near the camping area atMaxwell's Flat. Trapping success rates were very low in most habitats: Rainforest sites 0-1%, rockysites 1-5% and grassy sites 1-4%. Moister sites chosen as possible Hastings River Mouse habitatreturned higher capture rates, principally due to repeated captures of the Bush Rat Rattus juscipes :swampy grassland site 20%, and sites SSI-3 1-14%. These results confirm the previous conclusionthat during extended drought periods, moist habitats probably act as important refuges for manyspecies.

A number of small terrestrial mammal species have been reported in the surrounding region (seeAppendix 2) but were not detected in this sUlVey. The Swamp Rat Rattus lutreolus should be presentin swampy and surrounding moist areas, and have been previously caught in habitats similar to thosesampled in this sUlVey (R. Williams pers. comm.). They are known from scats collected inWerrikimbe National Park (Harden and Robertshaw, 1985) and were as identified as "probable" in adog/dingo scat collected from Knodingbul Road adjacent to plot NLH4 (see Table 7) in this sUlVey.The preselVation of riparian environments within filter strips and wildlife corridors should protect thepreferred habitat of this species within the Management Area.

The Dusky Antechinus Antechinus swainsonii should also occur in moist, well vegetated gullies withinthe Management Area. The species has been recorded from Werrikimbe National Park and isadequately conselVed in National Parks and ReselVes throughout its known range. Of the plotssampled in this sUlVey, only the Rainforest areas appeared to satisfy its known habitat requirements.The permanent protection that is proposed for these environments (see Truyard Pty. Ltd.) shouldensure the conselVation of this habitat within the Management Area.

The Yellow-footed Antechinus Antechinusjlavipes is recorded on a "checklist" from WerrikimbeNational Park. This species has a widespread distribution in New South Wales and a secure status inconselVation reselVes. It is currently presumed not to occur in the Management Area.

Similarly, the Common Planigale Planigale maculata and New Holland Mouse Pseudomysnovaehollandiae have been reported from the region. The Planigale is listed on a checklist fromBoorganna Nature ReselVe and would be toward the southern end of its known distribution in thisregion. It is currently presumed not to occur in the Management Area. The New Holland MousePseudomys novaehollandiae has been recorded from Woko National Park. It has a preference forhabitats which have a heath-like shrub layer occurring on sandy soils (Kemper, 1983) and therefore isunlikely to occur within the Management Area.



Although not recorded during this survey, the Common Dunnart Sminthopsis murina may occur in thedrier grassy woodland areas, usually associated with sandy soil (R. Williams pers. comm.). It has notbeen reported from the region, however it is a difficult species to trap. The Dunnart is adapted to amid-successional complex of vegetation and therefore benefits from periodic burning of its habitat(Fox, 1983). Although few areas of suitable habitat exist within the Management Area (seeIntroduction section), existing fuel management strategies in Dry forest environments should ensurethat a range of understorey successional stages persist in these localities.

5. Large Terrestrial Mammals

Fourteen species of large terrestrial mammal have been reported from the region, and all but theCommon Wombat and Red-legged Pademelon were recorded in this survey. It is likely that theshallow soils which typify most of the Management Area make this marginal habitat for the Wombat,however the species has been reported from an area of deeper basaltic soils 10 the west in Enfield StateForest (J. Simmons pers. comm. and Scotts, 1992). The Wombat has also been reported fromWerrikimbe National Parlc and Mt. Seaview Nature Reserve, and is considered to be adequatelyconserved within the region.

The Red-legged Pademelon Thylogale stigmatica is currently considered to be endangered in NewSouth Wales and is listed in Part 2 ''vulnerable and rare" of the (Interim) Schedule 12 of the NationalParks and Wildlife Act. The species has been reported from Werrikimbe National PaIk and fromEnfield State Forest within the Management Area (Smith, 1991). The Red-legged Pademelon was notrecorded in this survey, however it is difficult to differentiate from the Red-necked PademelonThylogale thetis in areas of dense undergrowth. The preferred habitat of the Red-legged Pademelonwould appear 10 be rainforest, however it is also found in wet sclerophyll forest (Johnson, 1983). Theimpact oflogging on this species is unknown, however in Tasmania, Pademelons initially feed inyoung regrowth (after logging) and use adjacent forest for shelter. As the undergrowth develops overtime, regrowth areas also become suitable habitat for shelter (Green, 1982). The preservation ofrainforest environments, filter strips and wildlife corridors should protect the favoured habitat of thisspecies, however ongoing surveys will be required to clarify the status of this species within theManagement Area.

During the fauna survey, macropods were recorded during spotlight surveys, night and day-time traveland the general road survey for arboreal marsupials. Small to medium sized macropods wereubiquitous and abundant throughout the study area. The two large species to be expected in the area,the Eastern Grey Kangaroo and the Wallaroo, were recorded, but not commonly. They are most likelyconfined to the drier grassland/woodland areas, although the habitat of the Wallaroo usually includesareas with steep escarpments, rocky hills and stony rises (poole, 1983). The Eastern Grey Kangaroohas been reported from Werrikimbe National Park and areas of privately owned land in the region, andis considered to be adequately conserved. The Wallaroo has been reported from Woko andWerrikimbe National Parks, and is similarly considered to be adequately conserved in the region.

The Red-necked Wallaby and the Red-necked Pademelon were frequently sighted during the survey,with the fonner species common in forests with open grassy understorey, and the latter most commonin Moist forest and Rainforest. The Red-necked Wallaby is common in eastern New South Wales andhas been reported from all National PaIks and Reserves in the region. The Red-necked Pademelon issimilarly common in rainforest and dense eucalypt forests within its range and has been reported fromWoko and Werrikimbe National Parks, Boorganna Nature Reserve, and Doyles River, Enfield andChichester State Forests (see Appendix 2). Both species are considered to have a secure status locallyand regionally are not likely to be adversely affected by forestry operations.

The Swamp Wallaby was commonly observed in most habitats during the survey, particularly in areasadjacent to moist gully environments. This species is widespread in eastern Australia utilising areaswith thick undergrowth in forest, woodland and heath environments. It has been reported from allNational Parks and Reserves, and all State Forests in the region (see Appendix 2). It is considered tobe adequately conserved at a local and regional level. and the preservation of riparian environmentsand filter strips should protect the favoured habitat of this species within the Management Area.




The Panna Wallaby Macropus parma was once thought to be extinct in New South Wales (Ride,1957), and although it is now known to have a comparatively wide distribution, it is regarded as rarebecause it is infrequently sighted and there is very little infonnation on the density and stability ofknown populations (Maynes, 1983). It is currently considered to be endangered in New South Walesand is listed in Part 2 "vulnemble and mre" of the (Interim) Schedule 12 of the National Parks andWildlife Act The Panna Wallaby, recorded commonly during the study, occurs in logged forests andplantations as well as undisturbed sites throughout its range in northeastern New South Wales.Optimum habitat appears to be wet sclerophyll forest with a thick, shrubby understorey associatedwith grassy patches (Maynes, 1977; Read and Fox, 1991) and in this survey it was detected mostfrequently in Moist forest (both logged and unlogged) and Rainforest. A knowledge of its habitatrequirements suggests that initial disturbance by logging activity may displace some individuals,however regenerating forest should provide suitable habitat in the medium to longer tenn. It wouldappear that the mosaic of Broad Forest Types found within the Wingham Management Area providesexcellent habitat for this species and there is no evidence to suggest that past management strategieshave been detrimental to its conservation at a local level. It has been reported from Woko andWerrikimbe National Parks, and Doyles River and Enfield State Forests, and therefore would appearto be also secure at a regional level. The apparently common status of the Panna Wallaby in theregion provides a good opportunity for ongoing research into specific details'ofhabitat utilisation forthis species.

The Long-nosed Potoroo Potorous tridactylus, although often locally common, has a limiteddistribution within its range. It is currently considered to be endangered ("mre and vulnemble") inNew South Wales (Interim) Schedule 12 National Parks and Wildlife Act. The Long-nosed Potoroofeeds predominantly on fungi, insects and berries and favours areas with a dense undergrowth.Although only trapped at one site (OUHS) this species could occur throughout the Management Areawhere suitable cover occurs (long gmss, ferns and bmcken). Smith (1991) recorded the species fromsimilar habitat within Enfield State Forest within the Wingham Management Area. The are alsorecords for this species from Werrikimbe National Park and Chichester State Forest (see Appendix 2).The effects of past management pmctices on the Long-footed Potoroo (in this Management Area) areunknown, however in Tasmania, populations have been shown to recover after logging as a denseunderstorey develops (Gowland, 1977; Green, 1982). Both the Panna Wallaby and the Long-nosedPotoroo were detected in heavily logged sc1erophyll forest during this study. Although utilisinglogged habitats, the status of the Long-nosed Potoroo is currently uncertain within the ManagementArea. It is recommended that future surveys for monitoring purposes attempt to clarify its distributionand habitat usage. In particular, the area adjacent to plot DUHS in Compartment 183 (where anindividual was trapped) should receive particular attention as it is scheduled for future loggingopemtions.

6. Other Native Mammals

The five other native mammal species occurring in the area have no known requirements for unloggedhabitat. The Echidna is expected to occur in low numbers throughout the study area and has a widedistribution in New South Wales. Their presence will be influenced by the occurrence of their food(ants and termites) mther than characteristics of the vegetation. They have been found in all ages offorest regrowth (Loyn et al., 1980; Macfarlane, 1988).

The Northern Brown Bandicoot is approaching the southern limit of its distribution at Wingham and iscommon and secure throughout its range. In this survey it was recorded in unlogged Moist forest,logged and unlogged Dry forest, and logged New England forest It has been reported from Woko andWerrikimbe National Parks, and Enfield State Forest (see Appendix 2). The Long-nosed Bandicoot issimilarly secure within logged and unlogged components of its distribution. In this survey it wasdetected in all Broad Forest Types, both logged and unlogged, and it has been reported fromWerrikimbe National Park, Boorganna Nature Reserve and Enfield State Forest. Both Bandicootswere found to be common throughout the forests of the Wingham Management Area. The Longnosed Bandicoot showed a preference for the Moist forest and the Northern Brown Bandicootpreferred the dried grassy woodlands, although there was some overlap with both species being foundat a number of sites.



The Spotted-tailed (Tiger) Quoll Dasyurus maculatus is uncommon over most of its range and iscurrently considered to be endangered ("rare and vulnerable") in New South Wales (Interim) Schedule12 National Parks and Wildlife Act. It is the largest marsupial carnivore on the mainland of Australia,and in some areas populations have declined significantly following the arrival ofEuropeans (Lunneyand Leary. 1988). It is currently regarded as threatened because of the continued clearing of itsfavoured habitats. and because of predation by and competition from the introduced feral cat and fox(Edgar. 1983). The fact that Strahan (1989) considered its status in New South Wales to be "secure"highlights the need for more detailed distributional data for this species. In this survey. two Quollswere caught on a plot in unlogged New England forest (NUH2). both being adult females withevidence of approaching litters. There was ample evidence (scats) that the Quolls were also utilisingother Broad Forest Types. both logged and unlogged. This species has been recorded fromWerrikimbe National Park. and Boorganna Nature Reserve. and is expected to occur in small numbersthroughout the Management Area. Although utilising logged habitats. the status of the Spotted-tailedQuoll is currently uncertain within the Management Area. It is recommended that future surveys formonitoring purposes attempt to clarify its distribution and habitat usage.

The Platypus is known from streams within the Management Area and in nearby localities. It has beenreported from Werrikimbe National Park and Boorganna Nature Reserve. Given that ForestryCommission management prescriptions provide for the protection of riparian environments. thespecies is not expected to be placed at risk due to current management practices (Grant. 1991).

7. Introduced Species

The rabbit was detected in one predator scat and observed in the open grassy area surrounding theBoot Hill Forestry Camp. This species is known to occur in Werrikimbe National Park. and iswidespread in cleared agricultural land in the region. Within the Management Area it probably occursin some areas adjacent to cleared private property. however the impact of this introduced species onnative mammals is not known to be significant in forested areas.

Introduced carnivores may be deleterious to populations of small macropods and other marsupials. andto reptiles and amphibians. Only one feral dog was observed during this survey (on Grassy RidgeRoad) however a number of Dingo/dog scats were collected. Dingos were heard howling on a numberof occasions and it is uncertain how widespread feral dogs may be within the Management Area.Analysis of Dingo/dog scats revealed the prey to be principally Pademelons. Swamp Wallabies.Brushtail and Ringtail Possums. and as these are all common species in the region the impact onmammal populations is currently considered to be slight.

Foxes were not sighted during the survey. but scats were noted along some of the roadways. Foxeshave been reported from Werrikimbe National Park and Mt. Seaview Nature Reserve and privatelyowned land in the region. Feral cats were frequently observed during the survey. and one individualwas caught in a cage trap in logged New England forest (plot NLH4). Cats should be considered apotential threat to native species. but given the proximity of farmland areas and the high rate of publicusage of the forest, it is difficult to envisage how the accidental and deliberate release of cats into theforest can be avoided. Feral cats have also been reported from Werrikimbe National Park. and it mustbe assumed that they are widespread in the region. The present impact of these predators on the nativefauna is unknown.

There was no evidence offeral Pigs found during the study. and feral Goats would appear to berestricted to steep. stony areas near Rowleys Rock.

8. Fire Management

In order to reduce the degree of fire hazard associated with the build-up of a large volume of fuel.prescribed burning within the Manage~ent Area is currently carried out under mild weatherconditions. primarily in Dry Hardwood Types. Burning is conducted both in strategic areas (eg. alongselected roadsides or major ridgelines). and across broad areas. in such a manner so as to protect areas




of rainforest, sclerophyll forest types with an advanced understorey of rainforest canopy species, andother areas susceptible to damage by fire (Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales, 1990).

Research into the short and medium-tenn effects of fire is currently being conducted by the ForestryCommission of New South Wales and other government agencies, therefore it was not an intention ofthis survey to investigate the effects of fire upon faunal communities. Plots were established in forestareas with a broad range of fire histories (last burnt 0-40 years ago) in order to sample the full range ofvariation available, and therefore some comments can reliably be made concerning fire effects. Therewere no clear patterns in fauna! richness or abundance that could be directly related to fire history,however it was difficult to separate the effects of fire and drought on understorey habitats in recentlyburnt areas. It is unlikely that low intensity fires (prescribed burns) will have an impact on arborealmammals, and this was continned at plot MUHl which was recently burnt yet had high relativepopulation densities ofGreater Gliders and Brushtail Possums, with Yellow-bellied Gliders in anearby gully. Koalas were observed in recently burnt forest (plot MUL2 - burnt 1991), forest burntwithin the last twelve years (plots DUH4 - 1980, MUL5 - 1980, NLH2 - 1984), but not on plots inforest with longer times since last fire. Sugar Gliders were recorded in plots with a wide range oftimes since last fire (0-33 years), including areas of forest with a history of frequent burning.

Macropods that require dense undergrowth for shelter would be disadvantaged by frequent fire,however this study showed that the preferred habitat of the Swamp Wallaby, Panna Wallabies, Rednecked Pademelon and Long-nosed Potoroo was moist gullies, areas which are seldom affected byprescribed burns. Understorey vegetation regenerating after fire would increase the food resourceavailable to most of these species, and additionally for the larger Grey Kangaroo and Wallaroo.

Broad scale prescribed burning is most likely to impact upon small mammal communities in Dryforest where they require some form ofunderstorey vegetation for shelter. The dependence of smallmammal communities on the complexity of structure of shrubs, litter and ground cover is well known(see Dickman, 1991; Catling, 1991 and references therein). Different species have been shown torequire vegetatio~ at different stages of regeneration after fire (eg. Christensen and Kimber, 1975; Foxand McKay, 1981). Ideally, to maximise faunal diversity, management should aim to produce amosaic pattern of burn within areas subject to prescribed burning, with different areas being burnt atdiffering frequencies and some areas not being burnt at all. While the existing fire managementstrategy would seem to address this goal within the Wingham Management Area, it is difficult toincorporate the incidence of arson and the effects of extended dry weather conditions into any longtenn plan. Analysis ofexisting understorey communities suggested that regular low intensity fire hadnot substantially altered the understorey floristic composition (Binns and Chapman, 1992). It wouldseem reasonable to assume therefore that regenerating environments have the potential to provide thenecessary "natural" habitats required to support the full community of small mammals expected. Theresults of this survey suggest that under the current conditions of extended dry weather, it appears thatmoist environments, in which the effects of fire and drought are reduced, are functioning as valuablerefuges for a number of small mammal species.

Catling (1991) has expressed concern that frequent low-intensity prescribed burning operations conducted in Autumn have the potential to vastly simplify understorey vegetation structure in the longtenn. While this may advantage certain species (e.g. Brush-tailed Phascogale, Common Wombat,Red-necked Wallaby, Eastern Grey Kangaroo, Hastings River Mouse and Dingo), it potentially coulddisadvantage others (e.g. Spotted-tailed Quoil, Dusky Antachinus, Bandicoots, small Possums andGliders and small Wallabies). The issues raised by Catling are beyond the scope of this study, however, results from other studies suggest that, where feasible, consideration should be given to reducingthe frequency of broad-scale burning in Dry forest environments within the Wingham ManagementArea. It may be feasible to institute a more varied regime of firing in selected areas so as to increasethe diversity of habitats available (Christensen and Maisey, 1987) and, therefore, maximise theirfauna! conservation value.



9. Conservation Issues

-50-

This survey has fully considered the issues raised by the National Parks and Wildlife Service ofNewSouth Wales concerning the fauna component of the Environmental Impact Statement which has beenprepared for the Wingham Management Area (fruyard Pty. Ltd., 1992). In particular, the surveydesign has enabled the relative size and extent of animal populations to be assessed, and their habitatpreferences established. The plot-based component of the survey design has allowed an assessmentof the impact on fauna from the proposed activities, and the development of appropriate mitigationmeasures. Those species dependent on utilising unlogged forests have been identified, and theoccurrence of rare and endangered species has been investigated. No mammal species listed as"threatened" on the revised (Interim) Schedule 12 (National Parks and Wildlife Act) were recordedduring the survey, and none are expected to occur within the Management Area. Five species listed as"vulnerable and rare" were recorded during the survey (Tiger Quoll Dasyurus maculatus, KoalaPhascolarctos cinereus, Panna Wallaby Macropus parma, Yellow-bellied Glider Petaurus australis,and Long-nosed Potoroo Potorous tridactylus). A further four species may occur in the Area (SquirrelGlider Petaurus norfolcensis, Hastings River Mouse Pseudomys oralis, Red-legged PademelonThylogale stigmatica, and Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoata!a). It is not expected that anyof these animals will be seriously affected by future management operations, however the need forongoing survey/monitoring was identified. Options to ameliorate the impacts of managementpractices, and the contribution of these forests to fauna conservation on a local and regional scale areaddressed in detail in the Environmental Impact Statement (fruyard Pty. Ltd., 1992).

An important issue here is the overall conservation status of the Wingham Management Area and itsrelationship to reserves in the region. While the diversity of the State Forest areas is high, all speciesrecorded here are known from Werrikimbe National Park to the north-west, and most in the othersmaller reserves nearby. Given the "peninsular" nature of the Management Area, it is not functioningas a corridor between large forested areas, but more as a buffer between Werrikimbe and thedeveloped land to the south. The complex interspersion of rainforest patches with Moist and DryForest Types provides refuge environments for fauna during wildfires and extended drought periods.Wingham Management Area makes an important contribution to regional fauna conservation in thelong tenn because of its high habitat diversity, and will continue to do so through active managementof the forest environments.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



The author would like to thank Jim Simmons (District Forester Taree) and Andrew Ingles (RegionalPlanning Forester Port Macquarie) for their untiring involvement in the planning and implementationof this project. Similarly, the District staff and field crews must be congratulated for their efforts inthe establishment of survey plots and logistic support Thanks to: Mm Edwards, John Cooper, BarrySpicer, Howard Cooper, Vince Miller, Bill Abdoo, Clyde Mills and Neville SketchIey.

The author would also like to acknowledge the assistance of staff from the Port Macquarie and TareeForestry offices, Spencer Bruskin (Regional Research Forester Wauchope), and Pamela Sum(Research Division), in the development of the survey design and production of documentation.Thanks also to Tom Thornton (port Macquarie) and Traecey Brassil (Research Division) for thepreparation of survey locality maps for the final reports. Ray Williams, Jim Simmons and AndrewIngles are thanked for their helpful comments on the draft manuscript, and Joy Gardner, RhondaProudford and Ruth Watson for the preparation of the final documents.

REFERENCES

Binns, D. (1990). Vegetation dynamics ofEucalyptus microcorys - Eucalyptus saligna WetSclerophyll forest in response to logging. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. University ofNewEngland.

Binns, D. and Chapman, W. S. (1992). Flora survey, Wingham Management Area, Port Macquarieregion. Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales Forest Resources Series No. 19.

Braithwaite, L. W., Dudzinski, M. L. and Turner, J. (1983). Studies on the arboreal marsupial faunaof eucalypt forests being harvested for woodpulp at Eden, New South Wales. n. Relationshipbetween the fauna density, richness and diversity, and measured variables of the habitat Aust.Wildl. Res. 10: 231-247.

Calder, T. G., Golding, B. G. and Manderson, A D. (1983). Management for arboreal species in theWombat State Forest. Monash University Graduate School ofEnvironmental Sciences.Environmental Report No. 16.

Catling, P. C. (1991) Eclogical effects of prescribed burning practices on the mammals ofsoutheastern Australia. In Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna. Lunney, D. ed.pp. 353-363. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman.

Christensen, P. and Kimber, P. C. (1975). Effect of prescribed burning on the flora and fauna ofsouth-west Australian forests. Proc. Ecol. Soc. Aust. 9: 85-106.

Christensen, P. and Maisey, K. (1987). The use of fire as a management tool in fauna conservationreserves. In Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. Saunders,D. A., Arnold, G. W., Burbidge, A A and Hopkins, A J. M. eds. Surrey Beatty and Sons:Sydney. .

Cork, S. J., Margules, C. R. and Braithwaite, L. W. (1990). Implications of Koala nutrition and theecology of other arboreal marsupials in south-eastern New South Wales for the conservationand management of Koalas. In Koala Summit. Managing Koalas in New South Wales.Lunney, D., Urquart, C. and Reed. P. eds. pp. 48-57. National Parlcs and Wildlife Service ofNew South Wales.

Cuttle, P. (1983). Brush-tailed Phascogale. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of AustralianMammals. Strahan, R. ed. pp. 34-35. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Davey, S. M. (1984). Habitat preferences of arboreal marsupials within a coastal forest in southernNew South Wales. In Possums and Gliders. Smith, AP. and Hume lD. eds.pp. 509-516. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.



Dickman. C. R. (1991). Use of trees by ground-dwelling mammals: implications for management.In Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna. Lunney, D. ed. pp. 125-136. Royal ZoologicalSociety of New South Wales, Mosman.

Dickman, C. R. and McKechnie, C. A. (1985). A survey of the mammals of Mount Royal andBarrington Tops, New South Wales. Aust.2ool. 21: 531-543.

Edgar, R. (1983). Spotted-tailed Quoll. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of AustralianMammals. Strahan, R. ed. p. 18. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales (1989). Forest types in New South Wales. ForestryCommission ofNew South Wales Research Note No. 17.

Forestry Commission of New South Wales (1990). Management Plan for Wingham ManagementArea.

Fox, B. J. (1983). Common Dunnart. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of AustralianMammals. Strahan, R. ed. pp. 52-53. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Fox, B. J. and McKay, G. M. (1981). Small mammal responses to pyric successional changes ineucalypt forest. Aust. J. Ecol. 6: 29-41.

Goldingay, R. L. (1989). The behavioural ecology of the Gliding Marsupial, Petaurus australis.Ph.D. Thesis. University ofWollongong, New South Wales.

Goldingay, R. L. (1991). An evaluation of hypotheses to explain the pattern of sap feeding by theYellow-bellied Gilder, Petaurus australis. Aust. J. Ecol. 16: 491-500.

Goldingay, R. L. and Kavanagh, R. P. (1991). The Yellow-bellied Glider: a review ofits ecology andmanagement considerations. In Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna. Lunney, D. ed. pp.365-375. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman.

Gowland, P. N. (1977). Vertebrate fauna of the Buckland Training Area, Tasmania. CSIRO DivisionofLand Use Research Technical Memorandum 77/12.

Grant, T. R. (1991). The biology and management of the Platypus Ornithorhynchus anatinus in NewSouth Wales. National Parks and Wildlife Service ofNew South Wales Species ManagementReport Number 5.

Green, R. H. (1982). The activity and movement of fauna in Compartment 2, Maggs Mountain,Tasmania, in the first five years of forest regeneration. Rec. Queen Vie. Mus. 75: 1-31.

Henry, S. R. and Craig, S. A. (1984). Diet, ranging behaviour and social organisation of the Yellowbellied Glider (petaurus australis Shaw) in Victoria. In Possums and Gliders. Smith, A. P.and Hume, I. D. eds. pp. 331-341. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

How, R. A. (1983). Common Brushtail Possum. In The Australian Museum Complete Book ofAustralian Mammals. Strahan, R. ed. pp. 147-148. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Johnson, P. M. (1983). Red-legged Pademelon. In The Australian Museum Complete Book ofAustralian Mammals. Strahan, R. ed. p. 225. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Kavanagh, R. P. (1988). The impact of predation by the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) on apopulation of the Greater Glider (Petauroides volans). Aust. J. Ecol. 13: 445-450.

Kavanagh, R. P. and Lambert, M. J. (1990). Food selection by the Greater Glider (Petauroides volans:is foliar nitrogen a detenninant of habitat quality? Aust. Wildl. Res. 17: 285-299.




Kemper, C. (1983). New Holland Mouse. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of AustralianMammals. Strahan, R. ed. p.409. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

King, G. C. (1984). Habitat utilized by Pseudomys oralis Thomas (Rodentia:Muridae). Aust.Mammalogy 7: 139-147.

Lindenmayer, D. B., Cunningham, R. B., Tanton, M. T. and Smith, A. P. (1990). The conservation ofarboreal marsupials in the montane ash forests of the central highlands of Victoria, SoutheastAustralia. 11. The loss of trees with hollows and its implications for the conservation ofLeadbeaters' Possum Gymnobelideus leadbeateri McCoy (Marsupialia : Petauridae). Bioi.Conserv.564: 133-145.

Loyn, R. H., Macfarlane, M. A., Chesterfield, E. A. and Harris, J. A. (1980). Forest utilisation and theflora and fauna in Boola Boola Sate Forest in south-eastern Victoria. Forestry Commission ofVictoria Bulletin No. 28: 1-80.

Lunney, D. (1987). Effects oflogging, fire and drought on possums and gliders in the coastal forestsnear Bega, New South Wales. Aust. Wildl. Res. 14: 263-274.

Lunney, D., Cullis, B. and Eby, P. (1987). Effects oflogging and fire on small mammals in MumbullaState Forest, near Bega, New South Wales. Aust. Wildl. Res. 14: 163-171.

Lunney, D. and Leary, T. (1987). The impact on native mammals of land-use changes and exoticspecies in the Bega District (New South Wales) since settlement. Aust. J. Ecol. 13: 67-92.

Macfarlane, M. A. (1988). Mammal populations in Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forests ofvarious ages in the central highlands of Victoria. Aust. For. 51: 14-27.

Maynes, G. M. (1977). Distribution and aspects of the biology of the Parma Wallaby, Macropusparma, in New South Wales. Aust. J. Wildl. Res. 4: 109-205.

Maynes, G. M. (1983). Parma Wallaby Macropus parma. In The Australian Museum Complete Bookof Australian Mammals. Strahan, R. ed. pp. 230-231. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Mcllroy, J. C. (1978). Effects offorestry practices on wildlife in Australia. Aust. For. 41: 78-96.

McKay, G. M. (1983). Common Ringtail Possum. In The Australian Museum Complete Book ofAustralian Mammals. Strahan, R. ed. pp. 126-127. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Poole, W. E. Common Wallaroo. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of AustralianMammals. R. Strahan ed. pp. 250-251. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Read, D .G. (1992). Prescriptions for the identification of habitats of the Hastings River Mouse,Pseudomys oralis. Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales Technical Paper No. 58.(In Press).

Read, D. G. and Fox, B. J. (1991). Assessing the habitat of the Parma Wallaby, Macropus parma(Marsupialia:Macropodidae). Wild/. Res. 18: 469-478.

Recher, H. F., Rohan-Jones, W. and Smith, P. (1980). Effects of the Eden woodchip industry onterrestrial vertebrates with recommendations for management. Forestry Commission ofNewSouth Wales Research Note No. 42.

Redhead, T. D. (1983). Fawn-footed Melomys. In The Australian Museum Complete Book ofAustralian Mammals. Strahan, R. ed. pp. 374-375. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Ride, W. D. L. (1957). Protemnodon parma (Waterhouse) and the classification of related wallabies(protemnodon, Thylogale, and Setonix). Proceedings ofthe Zoological Society London128: 327-346.


Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area,Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals . -54-

Russell, R. (1983a). Yellow-bellied Glider. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of AustralianMammals. Strahan, R. ed. pp. 136-137. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Russell, R. (1983b). Feathertail Glider. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of AustralianMammals. Strahan, R. ed. pp. 170-1. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Shields, J. M. York, A. and Binns, D. (1991). Flora and fauna survey, Mt Royal Mangement Area,Newcastle Region. Forest Resources Series No. 16.

Smith, A. (1982). Diet and feeding strategies of the marsupial Sugar Glider in temperate Australia.J. Animal. Ecol. 51: 149-166.

Smith, A. (1991). An evaluation of impact mitigation measures for protection of old growth faunavalues in the Wingham Management Area. Austeco Pty. Ltd. October 1991.

Smith, A. and Phillips, K. (1984). A systematic technique for census of Sugar Gliders and other smallarboreal mammals. Aust. Wildl. Res. 11: 83-87.

SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSSX User's Guide. McGraw Hill, Chicago.

Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. (1981). Principles and procedures of statistics. A biometricalapproach. McGraw-Hill.

Strahan, R. (1989). Representation of survival status. In The Conservation of Threatened Species andTheir Habitats. Hicks, M. and Eiser, P. eds. pp. 109-115. Australian Committee for IUCN.Occasional Paper No. 2.

Suckling, G. C. (1983). The Squirrel Glider. In The Australian Museum Complete Book ofAustralian Mammals. Strahan, R. ed. p. 140. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Suckling, G. C. (1984). Population ecology of the Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps in a system offragmented habitats. Aust. Wildl. Res. 11: 49-75.

Suckling, G. C. and Macfarlane, M.A. (1983). Introduction of the Sugar Glider Petaurus brevicepsinto re-established forest on the Tower Hill State Game Reserve, Victoria. Aust. Wildl. Res.10: 249-258.

Truyard Pty. Ltd. (1992). Environmental Impact Statement, Forestry Operations in the WinghamManagement Area.

Turner, B. (1983). Eastern Pygmy Possum. In The Australian Museum Complete Book of AustralianMammals. Strahan, R. ed. p.160. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Turner, V. (1982). Marsupials as pollinators in Australia. In Pollination and Evolution. Annstrong,J.R., Powell, J.M. and Richards, AJ. eds. pp. 55-66. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.

Tyndale-Biscoe, C. H. and Calaby, J. H. (1975). Eucalypt forest as refuge for wildlife. Aust. For.38: 117-133.

Zar, lH. (1984). Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall.


Unpublished Reports and Data Sources



Oayton, M. (1992). Species list from limited sUlVey within Riamukka and Enfield State Forests,Walcha District. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology (unpubl. rep.).

Dodkin, M. 1. (1980). Woko National Park proposal. National Parks and Wildlife SelVice of NewSouth Wales, Taree.

Griffith, S.J . (1989). Rainforest vegetation within and about Woko National Park and Camel's HumpNature ReselVe. National Parks and Wildlife SelVice ofNew South Wales, Taiee(unpubl. rep.).

Harden, R. and Robertshaw, J. (1985). Food items collected in scats collected from WerrikimbeNational Park. National Parks and Wildlife SelVice of New South Wales, Annidale District(unpubl. rep.).

Hines, H. (1991). Fauna sUlVeys results. Report submitted to the Forestry Commission of New SouthWales in fulfillment of conditions ofResearch Pennit Nos. 3645 and 3646.

Read, D. G. (1988). SUlVeys for the Hastings River Mouse (Pseudomys oralis) in the Marengo,Hyland and Mount Royal State Forests. Report submitted in fulfullment of conditions ofResearch Pennit No. 2874.

Read, D. G. (1989). Captures of the Hastings River Mouse (Pseudomys oralis) in the Mount RoyalState Forest. Report submitted in fulfullment of conditions of Research Pennit No. 3617 and3197.

Scotts, D. (1992). Fauna list - Enfield State Forest. National Parks and Wildlife SelVice ofNewSouth Wales, Grafton (unpubl. rep.).

York, A., Binns, D. and Shields, J. (1991). Flora and fauna assessment in New South Wales StateForests. SUlVey guidelines: procedures for sampling flora and fauna for EnvironmentalImpact Statements. Version 1.1. Forestry Commission of New South Wales.



Appendix 1. Floristic communities as derived from numerical classification of sUlvey data (seeBinns and Chapman, 1992).

OverstoreyCode

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Community Name(Major Overstorey Species)

Dry Rainforest (Backhousia sciadophora)

Wann temperate/Subtropical Rainforest(Sloanea woollsii - Ceratopetalum apetalum Doryphora sassafras)

Subtropical Rainforest (Argyrodendron actinophyllum)

Mixed Forest (Backhousia myrtifolia)

Wet Sclerophyll Forest (Lophostemon confertus)(Lophostemon confertus - E. microcorys - E. saligna)

E. microcorys - E. acmenoides group

E. saligna group

Wet Sclerophyll Forest (Eucalyptus grandis)

Dry Coastal Hardwood group (Eucalyptus tereticornis)

Eucalyptus resinijera group

Eucalyptus pilularis group

Eucalyptus campanulata group(Eucalyptus campanulata)

(Eucalyptus campanulata - E. laevopinea)

Eucalyptus obliqua group

Fauna SurveyPlot Code

RLH3, ~H4

RLHS, RLL1, RLH1

Mum, MOO7MLL1, MLL3, MLL6

DULl, DUL5DUH1, DUH4, DUHSDUH6, DLH4, DLHSDLL1, DLL4, DLL5MLL5, MUL2

MLH3, MLH4, MLHSMUL3, MUL7

DLL3, DUL3, DUL7MUH1

DLH3, DLH6, MLH6MUL5

NLH3, NLH4, NUH1NUHS, NUH6

NLm, NLH6, NUmMUH5


Appendix 2.

Scientific Name

-57-

List ofknown mammal fauna for the region.

Common Name

Fauna Survey, Wingham Management Area.Port Macquarie Region Part 1. Mammals

Information Source123456789

ORNITHORHYNCHIDAEOrnithorhyneus anatinus

TACHYGLOSSIDAETaehyglossus aculeatus

Platypus

Echidna

++

++

+

+

PETAURlDAE: Ringtails and Larger GlidersPetaurus australis Yellow-bellied GliderPetaurus brevieeps Sugar GliderPetaurus norjoleensis Squirrel GliderPetauroides volans Greater GliderPseudoeheirus peregrinus Ring-tailed Possum

DASYURIDAE : Carnivorous marsupialsDasyurus maeulatus Spotted-tailed QuollPhaseogale tapoataja Brush-tailed PhascogaleAnteehinusjlavipes Yellow-footed AntechinusAnteehinus stuartii Brown AntechinusAnteehinus swainsonii Dusky AntechinusPlanigale maeulata Common Planigale

PERAMELIDAE : BandicootsIsoodon macrourusPerameles nasuta

PHASCOLARCTIDAE : KoalaPhaseolaretos cinereus

VOMBATIDAE : WombatVombatus ursinus

PHALANGERIDAE : BrushtailsTriehosurus eaninusTriehosurus vulpeeula

Northern Brown BandicootLong-nosed Bandicoot

Koala

Common Wombat

Mountain Brushtail PossumCommon Brushtail Possum

++ +++ ++

+++++++++++++

+

++ + +++++ +++

++ ++ ++

+ + ++

+ ++ ++++ ++++++ ++ +++

++++ ++ +++

+++ ++ +++++++ ++ ++

BURRAMYIDAE : Pygmy Possums and Feathertail GlidersAerobates pygmaeus Feathertail GliderCereartetus nanus Eastern Pygmy Possum

POTOROIDAE : Potoroos and Rat-KangaroosPotorous tridaetylus Long-nosed Potoroo

MACROPODIDAE: Kangaroos and Wallabies

+++

+ +

++

+++

Maeropus giganteusMaeropus robustusMaeropus parmaMaeropus rufogriseusThylogale stigmatieaThylogale thetisWallabia bieolor

Forest Resources Series No. 19

Eastern Grey KangarooWallarooPanna WallabyRed-necked WallabyRed-legged PademelonRed-necked PademelonSwamp Wallaby

+ ++++ ++++ + + +++++ + +++

+ +++++ + + +++++ ++ +++

Forestry Commission ofNew South Wales


Appendix 2. (cont).

Scientific Name Common Name Infonnation Source123456789

MURIDAE : Mice and RatsMelomys cervinipes Fawn-footed Melomys +++++ +++Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland Mouse +Pseudomys oralis Hastings River Mouse +Rattus juscipes Southern Bush Rat +++++++++Rattus lutreolus Swamp Rat + ++Rattus rattus Black Rat + +Mus musculus House Mouse + +

LEPORIDAE : Hares and RabbitsOryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit ++ ++

CANIDAE: DogsCanisjamiliaris dingo Dingo/Feral Dog ++ + ++Vulpes vulpes Fox + + +

FELIDAE: CatsFelis catus Feral Cat + + ++

EQUIDAE : HorsesEquus caballus Brumby/Wild Horse +

SUIDAE : PigsSus scrofa Feral Pig +

BOVIDAE : Cattle and GoatsBos taurus Feral Cattle + + ++Capra hircus Feral Goat +

Infonnation Source:

1. Woko National Park - Griffith (1989) and Dodkin (1980)2. Werrikimbe National Park - National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales Checklist.3. Boorganna Nature Reserve - National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales Checklist

dated 28 October-5 November, 19764. Chichester State Forest - Hines (1991)5. Doyles River State Forest - Hines (1991)6. Mt. Seaview Nature Reserve - National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales Checklist7. Wingham Management Area - Smith (1991)8. Werrikimbe National Park - Harden and Robertshaw (1985)9. Identified from this survey




Appendix 3. Details of road survey transects.

Transect Location Species Observed Nos. Broad Forest Types

1 Compartments 308-312 Greater Glider 59 NLHPablo Road

2 . Myrtle Scmb Rd Greater Glider 42 NLH, MLH, RLHHighway to Lyle Rd. Mountain Bmshtail Possum 3

Common Ringtail Possum 1

3 Lyle/Myrtle Scmb Rd Greater Glider 46 NLH,NUH- Private Property Mountain Brushtail Possum 1north 5 km Common Bmshtail Possum 1

4 Grassy Ridge Rd - Greater Glider 18 NUH,NLHKnob above Cells Common Brushtail Possum 2Creek north

6 Old Highway/ferrimiah Greater Glider 6 DLH, MLH, NLHLink/ferrimiah/Goanna Common Brushtail Possum 2/DebRoads

7 North Causeway Rd Common Ringtail Possum 7 RLHto DebRd Mountain Brushtail Possum 6

Greater Glider 3

8 Tirrill Creek Rd - Greater Glider 10 RLH(Loop Road to Common Ringtail Possum 6Grebers Rd) Mountain Brushtail Possum 2

Koala 1Yellow-bellied Glider 1

9 Sonnys Rd from Greater Glider 14 MLHBlue Mountain Creek Common Ringtail Possum 5RdILoopRd Mountain Brushtail Possum 1

Sugar Glider 1

10 Frenchs Creek Rd - Greater Glider 9 DLH,MLHfrom Knodingbul Rd Mountain Brushtail Possum 2

11 Blue Knob/fhroughcut Greater Glider 19 MLH/Lewis Rds Common Ringtail Possum 2

Koala 1

14 Homewoods west Greater Glider 13 DUHCommon Bmshtail Possum 9

15 Potoroo Rd - Dingo Mountain Brushtail Possum 1 MLLTops Rd to Rusty Rd Common Ringtail Possum 1

16 Circle Rd / Betts Greater Glider 9 MLH, NLH, DLHRidge Common Ringtail Possum 1

Yellow-bellied Glider 1



Appendix 3. (cont).

Transect Location Species Observed Nos. Broad Forest Types

17 Betts/Circle!Rowleys/ Greater Glider 6 DLHCorriesRds

18 Dingo Tops Rd - Greater Glider 2 MLH,NLH,Hardway Creek Rd/ Common Brushtail Possum 1 someDLHBoot Hill Yellow-bellied Glider 1

19 Murrays Creek Rd/ Common Brushtail Possum 5 DLLBig Murrays/Little Greater Glider 2Wild Cattle Creek Rd Mountain Brushtail Possum 2

Common Ringtail Possum 1Koala 1Yellow-bellied Glider 1

21 Compartment 86 Rd Greater Glider 2 MLL,MLH

22 Blue Mountain Creek Greater Glider 10 MLH,DLHRd from Knodingbul Mountain Brushtail Possum 2southern junction Yellow-bellied Glider 2

Common Ringtail Possum 1

23 Homewoods Rd/ Greater Glider 8 DLH, MUH,'DUH157 Trail

24 Western Boundary Rd Common Brushtail Possum 5 DLL,DLHGreater Glider 2

25 Knodingbul Rd - Greater Glider 5 MLH, NLH. NUH,north from Potoroo Rd Koala 4 MUH

For defInition of Broad Forest Types, refer to Survey Methodology section, part 1b.


this document has been scanned from hard-copy archives for research … · 2011-05-17 · this...

Documents