Original source · versioned page text
2015-10-13 Planning & Organisation Agenda Attachment 1 to Item 6 Draft Flying Fox Management Plan
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
Plans and drawings
This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).
Log in to see the plans as drawn Attachment 1 to Item 6
Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda
13/10/2015
Wallace Park flying-fox roost
Management options report
FINAL DRAFT
September 2015
Noosa Council
ecology / vegetation / wildlife / aquatic ecology / GIS
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 38 sections
Section 2
draft
Executive summary
Noosa Council engaged Ecosure to develop a management options report for a flying-fox
roost at Wallace Park, Noosaville.
The roost was first recorded in 2013, and has been used consistently by grey-headed
(Pteropus poliocephalus) and/or black flying-foxes (P. alecto), with seasonal influxes of the
little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus). The roost generally fluctuates from several hundred to
31,000 individuals, however peaked at almost 468,000 with a large influx of little red flying-
foxes in February 2014 .
Council has received a number of complaints from residents and businesses in relation to the
roost, reporting primarily amenity and financial impacts, and to some extent fear of disease.
In addition to Council and nearby landholders, there are a number of other stakeholders with
a keen interest in the park and flying-fox roost. These stakeholders have also been consulted
and will be considered in future management.
The roost is considered to be of national importance for the threatened grey-headed flying-fox
in accordance with Commonwealth policy. There are also a range of other ecological values
of the site, and associated relevant legislation.
To inform and assist the community Council has developed a flying-fox fact sheet, consulted
with neighbouring residents and businesses, and created buffers through selective vegetation
trimming/removal.
Ecosure assessed a range of management options for this site, including:
• Education
• General mitigation measures for private land managers such as managing flying-fox
attractants, modifying properties and creating buffers/barriers
• Creating buffers between private properties and roosting flying-foxes
• ‘Nudging’ flying-foxes away from high conflict areas using low intensity disturbance
• Using planning instruments to avoid future land use conflict
• Dispersal.
There are a range of potential risks that are greatly increased with active dispersal (compared
with managing a roost in-situ). These include:
· impacts on animal welfare and flying-fox conservation
· increased aircraft strike risk associated with changed flying-fox movement patterns
· splintering the roost into other locations that are equally or more problematic
· shifting the issue to another area
Wallace Park flying-fox roost – management options ecosure.com.au | i
Section 3
draft
· impact on habitat value
· effects on the flying-fox population, including disease status and associated public
health risk
· impacts to nearby residents associated with ongoing dispersal attempts
· excessive initial and/or ongoing resource and financial investment
· negative public perception and backlash
· unsuccessful management requiring multiple attempts, which may exacerbate all of
the above.
In addition to risks detailed above, dispersal activities at this location are likely to:
• disrupt residents (including potential health impacts associated with smoke, which is
a key dispersal tool)
• stress noise-phobic pets
• increase flying-fox vocalising during the day
• result in trampling damage to the understorey.
The potential cost of dispersal from Wallace Park is compounded by difficulties accessing the
site given that it is often waterlogged. Further there a number of ecological and legislative
constraints associated with this site as detailed within.
In summary, dispersals are costly, require ongoing commitment and maintenance, are often
not entirely successful, and rarely result in desirable outcomes for all stakeholders.
Ecosure preliminarily assessed the risk associated with the roost in its current location, and
the site-specific risks associated with dispersing the roost. It was found that all risks (and
amenity impacts) associated with the roost can be managed to an acceptably low level through
in-situ management. However, despite careful planning and controls, many risks associated
with dispersal remain at high and extreme.
Given the above we recommend against dispersal, and suggest management options in the
table below to reduce community impacts.
Wallace Park flying-fox roost – management options ecosure.com.au | ii
Section 4
draft
Mitigation type Recommendation Responsible
General Consider all options in Section 5.1.2, and low impact activities outlined in the COP (see Section 3.3). Land owners
Education Continue consulting with residents and providing educational material. This roost would be ideal for educational signage (and a Council
potential viewing area), and information could also be distributed from the library.
Consider educational signage at the bowls club explaining there are no known risks of lyssavirus/Hendra virus from contacting Bowls club
flying-fox excrement, and continue general hygiene practices (including ongoing provision of hand sanitising gel) for low risk
bacteria (i.e. salmonella).
Buffers Create buffers through selective tree trimming/removal and deterrents. It is recommended that buffers of up to 10m from property Council
boundaries be established through selective trimming/removal, with the aim of retaining mature trees. Deterrents listed in Section
4.1.3 could then be used to create an additional 15m buffer from high conflict areas. Proposed buffer areas are shown on Figure 5.
A detailed plan should be developed prior to works to manage risks of management detailed in Section 5.2. Additional
considerations include:
approvals may be required for management that may impact on values detailed in Section 3.1
offset planting for all native species removed should be considered as per best practice guidelines
connectivity for other fauna should be retained between contiguous habitat.
Council should liaise with the hospital to determine if a buffer is required on the south-western edge of the maximum roost extent. If Noosa Hospital
it is required, works could potentially be done by the hospital under Council’s as-of-right authority.
General The bowls club, in partnership with Council, may consider assessing the feasibility of a trial to reduce fly-out impacts using Bowls club and Council
deterrents (i.e. wires/netting/flagging etc.) to potentially redirect some fly-over. Grant funding may be available from various
sources, including through the State initiative ‘Get Playing Spaces and Places – funding to improve facilities’. More information for
this grant can be found at http://www.qld.gov.au/recreation/sports/funding/getinthegame/getplaying/.
If found to be successful, it may provide a useful management option for other residents that are being severely impacted by faecal
drop.
Subsidies/funding Investigate grant opportunities that may be available to residents and businesses around the roost to assist with general mitigation Council and land owners
assistance measures (i.e. seat covers and alternatives to shade cloth awnings for outdoor furniture).
Aircraft strike Ensure the hospital and private airstrip are aware of large influxes of flying-foxes, and any management that may alter flying-fox Council
management behaviour/movements, so that pilots can respond to increased strike risk.
Dawn and dusk flights should be avoided wherever possible, and if required by the hospital, helicopters should be diverted and Noosa Hospital and
patient transfer done by ambulance. private airstrip
Planning instruments Consider adequate buffers and other planning provisions for new developments neighbouring Wallace Park. Council
to avoid future
impacts
Alternative habitat Encourage re-establishment of the Goat Island roost through limiting disturbance around the island where possible. Council
Wallace Park flying-fox roost – management options ecosure.com.au | i
Section 5
draft Acknowledgements Ecosure would like to thank Noosa Council for assistance in project planning and background, including providing historical data. We also appreciate historical data provided by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, and knowledge shared by members of the Noosa Parks Association, Ringtail Creek Flying-fox Sanctuary and Flying-fox Rescue and Release Noosa Inc. We also gratefully acknowledge initial feedback from a number of residents and businesses. Wallace Park flying-fox roost – management options ecosure.com.au | i
Section 6
draft
Acronyms and abbreviations
ABLV Australian Bat Lyssavirus
BFF Black flying-fox
CPM Act Queensland Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995
COP Code of practice
Council Noosa Council
DoE Department of the Environment (Commonwealth)
DSDIP Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
EHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
EP Act Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994
EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
EVNT Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened
GHFF Grey-headed flying-fox
HeV Hendra virus
LGA Local government area
LRFF Little red flying-fox
MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance
MSES Matters of State Environmental Significance
NC Act Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992
NICA Noosa Integrated Catchment Association
NSW New South Wales
QLD Queensland
SEQ South-east Queensland
SFF Spectacled flying-fox (P. conspicillatus)
SPP Queensland State Planning Policy 2/10 Koala Conservation in South East
Queensland
SPRP South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory
Provisions
VM Act Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999
Wallace Park flying-fox roost – management options ecosure.com.au | ii
Section 7
draft
Contents
Executive summary................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ i
Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................................ii
List of figures ........................................................................................................................ v
List of tables .......................................................................................................................... v
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Wallace Park roost description ....................................................................................... 2
2.1 Site location and description ................................................................................... 2
2.2 Historical flying-fox use ........................................................................................... 4
2.3 Community impacts ................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Previous management activities.............................................................................. 7
3 Legislative framework .................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Ecological values .................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Local ....................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Queensland ............................................................................................................ 9
3.4 Commonwealth ..................................................................................................... 10
4 Available management options .................................................................................... 12
4.1 Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 12
4.1.1 Education....................................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 General mitigation measures ......................................................................... 14
4.1.3 Buffers ........................................................................................................... 15
4.1.4 Nudging ......................................................................................................... 16
4.1.5 Using planning instruments to avoid future land use conflict .......................... 16
4.1.6 Aircraft strike management ............................................................................ 16
4.2 Dispersal............................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1 Passive dispersal with vegetation removal ..................................................... 18
4.2.2 Active dispersal without vegetation removal ................................................... 18
4.2.3 Dispersal costs and likelihood of success ...................................................... 20
5 Preliminary risk assessment......................................................................................... 21
5.1 Risk associated with the roost in its current location ............................................. 21
Wallace Park flying-fox roost – management options ecosure.com.au | iii
Section 8
draft
5.2 Risk of management ............................................................................................. 22
6 Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 23
References and further reading ........................................................................................... 26
Appendix 1 Ecosure flying-fox risk matrix ............................................................................ 29
Wallace Park flying-fox roost – management options ecosure.com.au | iv
Section 9
draft List of figures Figure 1 Site location and values .......................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Historical flying-fox data.. ........................................................................................ 5 Figure 3 Comparison of nearby roosts that are anecdotally correlated. ................................. 6 Figure 4 Roost management options – indicative cost and risk. .......................................... 20 Figure 5 Recommended management areas ...................................................................... 25 List of tables Table 1 Ecological values summary ...................................................................................... 8 Table 2 Risks associated with the roost unmanaged, and residual risk with controls implemented. ...................................................................................................................... 21 Table 3 Recommended management options ..................................................................... 23 Wallace Park flying-fox roost – management options ecosure.com.au | v
Section 10
draft
1 Introduction
Noosa Council1 engaged Ecosure to develop a management options report for a flying-fox
roost at Wallace Park, Noosaville2.
This roost was first recorded in 2013, and all three flying-fox species found in South East
Queensland have been known to use the roost. Grey-headed (Pteropus poliocephalus)
(GHFF) and/or black flying-foxes (P. alecto) (BFF) have occupied the roost during every
monitoring event since it was first recorded, with seasonal influxes of the little red flying-fox
(P. scapulatus) (LRFF). The roost generally fluctuates from several hundred to 31,000
individuals. However, an influx of an estimated 465,000 LRFF in February 2014 saw numbers
peak at almost 468,000.
Council has received a number of complaints from residents and businesses surrounding the
park in relation to the roost, reporting primarily amenity and financial impacts, and to some
extent fear of disease.
In addition to Council, there are a number of stakeholders with a keen interest in the site and
flying-fox roost. These stakeholders include:
• surrounding residents
• surrounding businesses, including the bowling club, resort and hospital
• Noosa Parks Association (NPA), including the NPA Botany Group and Bird
Observers Group
• Noosa Integrated Catchment Association (NICA)
• Wallace Park Bushland Care Association
• Flying-fox Rescue and Release Noosa Inc.
• Ringtail Creek Flying-fox Sanctuary.
Ecosure assessed the site on 26th August 2015. This assessment focused on identifying the
roost extent at the time, traversing the site, and initial consultation with a small number of
residents and some of the above stakeholders. An additional visit on 17th September provided
further detail on roost size (i.e. number of flying-fox) and species composition.
1
Herein referred to as ‘Council’
2
Herein referred to as the ‘site’
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 1
Section 11
draft 2 Wallace Park roost description 2.1 Site location and description Wallace Park is located approximately 1.2 km to the west of the township of Noosaville on the Sunshine Coast (see Figure 1). The site is a mix of Council-managed reserve and free-hold land (including Noosa Leisure Centre and Library), and is surrounded by residential properties, a bowls club and resort to the north, and Noosa Hospital to the south-west. The current and historical flying-fox roost extents and other ecological values, which are discussed in detail in Sections 2.2 and 3, are also shown on Figure 1. Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 2
Section 12
504,400 504,600 504,800 505,000 505,200
Goat
7,080,600
7,080,600
Island
QLD
Location
!BRISBANE
7,080,400
7,080,400
NSW
Hilton
Ter
7,080,200
7,080,200
7,080,000
7,080,000
Wallace
Park
Noosa
Library
Noosa
7,079,800
7,079,800
Leisure
d
iR
Centre
nd
mu
Hospital
Eu
Helipad
Noosa
Hospital
Go
od
ch
ap
7,079,600
7,079,600
St
504,400 504,600 504,800 505,000 505,200
Roost extent as at Remnant vegetation
Figure 1: Site location and values August 2015 12.1.2
Approximate maximum 12.1.3/12.1.1
Noosa Council known roost extent
12.2.7
Flying-fox management options report Cadastral boundaries
12.9-10.4
Job number: PR1165 GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
°
0 25 50 100
Revision: 1 Projection: Transverse Mercator
Author: MED Metres
Datum: GDA 1994
Date: 28/09/2015 Units: Meter
Data Sources: © State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines), 2015; © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2015; © Copyright Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) 2012 The Commonwealth gives no warranty regarding the accuracy, PR1165_Fig1_WallacePark
completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose; Aerial image: Nearmap, 2015 A4
ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.
Section 13
draft 2.2 Historical flying-fox use The approximate flying-fox roost extent during the August 2015 site assessment, along with the approximate maximum extent, as determined by previous EHP/Council surveys and by resident accounts are shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 shows a collation of available data for the site. Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 4
Section 14
draft Figure 2 Historical flying-fox data. Data sources: Noosa Council, EHP and Ecosure. Note the break in the graph showing an influx of LRFF February 2014 and 2015. Flying-fox management advice ecosure.com.au | 5
Section 15
draft
Figure 3 shows a comparison of data from Wallace Park and two nearby roosts that flying-
foxes reportedly move between. These data are combined GHFF and BFF records, and where
more than one count was conducted in a single month, data was averaged for ease of
comparison. LRFF counts that have been excluded from the graph are highly sporadic, and
no correlation was evident. It should be noted that LRFF have never been recorded on Goat
Island. While there are several considerable gaps in the data, it is evident that flying-foxes use
Weyba Road less commonly, and were absent from Goat Island during 2014 monitoring. This
suggests that Wallace Park is now the preferred roost site in the area.
60000
Weyba Rd Wallace Park Goat Island
Number of black and grey-headed flying-foxes
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
May
May
Apr
August
August
August
November
November
November
December
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
March
October
October
October
October
October
October
June
September
July
February
February
January
July
January
July
January
July
July
January
July
July
February
January
July
January
Month
2003
2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 3 Comparison of nearby roosts that are anecdotally correlated. The dotted line represents a large gap in available data
for Goat Island. Data sources: Noosa Council, EHP and Ecosure.
2.3 Community impacts
Noise, smell and faecal drop were the primary causes of concern reported to Ecosure during
initial consultation.
Residents reported a lack of sleep and associated impacts on their well-being, as well as a
loss of amenity (especially in outdoor areas). Residents are most impacted during periods of
large influxes, and seasonally when flying-foxes are reported to shift to the eastern side of the
park (assumedly in response to prevailing weather conditions).
Feacal drop from fly-in and fly-out and the associated financial burdens of cleaning and
replacing outdoor furnishings, were also a concern for both residents and the nearby bowling
club.
There was also one concerned resident unwilling to use an installed rainwater tank with fear
Flying-fox management advice ecosure.com.au | 6
Section 16
draft of disease, and others concerned about faecal drop into swimming pools. The bowls club is significantly impacted by faecal mess from transiting animals, estimating that one hour per day is required to clean outdoor areas, as well as staining and/or permanent damage to shade sails that require replacement. Faecal mess on the bowling greens also raises concern for patrons, with fear of hygiene/disease risk associated with potential transfer to bowling balls. There is also potential for the roost to impact on the nearby Noosa Hospital, particularly during periods of large influxes. Vegetation surrounding the hospital is less favoured by roosting flying-foxes; however, during large influxes they have been known to spill over into this area. Most importantly for the hospital is the potential strike risk to emergency helicopters. See Sections 4.1.6 and 5. 2.4 Previous management activities Council has developed a flying-fox fact sheet (linked in References and Further Reading) and has had ongoing discussions with neighbouring residents and businesses. Council has also selectively removed and trimmed trees at the western edge of the site to make less attractive habitat to roosting flying-foxes immediately adjacent to residents. Although this has been helpful, further vegetation management is likely to be required. Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 7
Section 17
draft
3 Legislative framework
3.1 Ecological values
A summary of legislated ecological values of the site are found in Table 1; however, additional
permits/approvals may be required for management that may impact on these values.
Legislation specific to general flying-fox management is discussed in further detail in the
remainder of Section 3.
Table 1 Ecological values summary
Source Value
Commonwealth
EPBC Protected 25 species listed as threatened and 13 migratory species under the EPBC Act may occur within
Matters Report 0.2 km of the project area. One threatened ecological community listed as critically endangered
(0.2km search) under the EPBC Act may occur within 0.2 km of the project area
Other EPBC matters The roost has contained >10,000 GHFF in two months in 2014, so meets the first criteria for a
nationally important roost. Therefore any management activity will need to be in accordance with
the Referral guideline for management actions in GHFF and SFF camps, and some activities
may require referral to the Department of the Environment.
State
Essential habitat The park contains mapped Essential habitat
Koala mapping The site contains medium and low value bushland habitat under the Queensland State Planning
Policy 2/10 Koala Conservation in South East Queensland (SPP).
The site is outside the South-east Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory
Provisions (SPRP) assessable development area.
Regional Ecosystem The vegetation being used by the roost is mapped as 12.9-10.4 (Eucalyptus racemosa subsp.
mapping racemose woodland on sedimentary rocks) which is listed as Least Concern under the
Vegetation Management Act 1999
Regrowth There is no regrowth vegetation mapped within the study site
South East The park contains areas of mapped state habitat for EVNT taxa and is mapped as having
Queensland (SEQ) regional biodiversity significance. The park is located within both state and regional corridors
Biodiversity Planning
Assessment (BPA)
Wildlife Online 133 species listed under the NC Act have been recorded within 1 km of the study site. This
database (1 km includes two species listed as vulnerable, one near threatened and 17 special least concern
search) species listed under the NC Act
NC Act high priority The site is mapped as Category B remnant vegetation under the protected plants flora survey
vegetation trigger area (i.e. this is considered to be a high risk area). This means that before any vegetation
can be removed, the area will require a flora survey and may need a clearing permit.
Referable wetland Not mapped as a referable under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act).
Coastal area Not mapped as a coastal management area under the Coastal Protection and Management Act
1995 (CPM Act) but a section of the park is mapped as a coastal hazard area- medium storm
tide inundation area
Other Matters of The site is mapped as wildlife habitat and as having regulated vegetation.
State Environmental
Significance (MSES)
Local
Planning Scheme The site is mapped as Environmental Protection under the Council Biodiversity overlay and is
located within the 100y flood inundation zone. The park contains records of six glossy-black
cockatoo sightings
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 8
Section 18
draft
3.2 Local
Local government agencies are required to prepare planning schemes consistent with
Queensland Planning Provisions under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.
Planning schemes enable an LGA to manage growth and change in their local government
area through land use and administrative definitions, zones, overlays, infrastructure planning
provisions, assessment codes and other administrative matters. A planning scheme identifies
the kind of development requiring approval, as well as areas that constrain the use of land due
to its environmental value.
In relation to bushland reserve management, Council is exempt under the Noosa Plan for
works such as vegetation maintenance. There are no provisions in the Noosa Plan for flying
fox separation buffers between developments and flying fox colonies. Private landholders are
able to trim native vegetation on their land, but may be restricted when it comes to removing
vegetation. Landholders can contact Council to enquire about vegetation protection on their
property.
3.3 Queensland
As native species, all flying-foxes and their habitat are protected under the Nature
Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act). The NC Act is administered by the Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP).
Local government has an ‘as-of-right’ authority in defined urban areas to do the following,
provided that activities are in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Ecologically
Sustainable Management of Flying-fox Roosts (2013a):
• destroy a flying-fox roost
• drive away, or attempt to drive away, a flying-fox from a flying-fox roost, and
• disturb a flying-fox in a flying-fox roost.
Another Code of Practice (COP) (for Low Impact Activities Affecting Flying-fox Roosts’ (EHP
2013b)) describes how a land owner/manager may undertake low impact activities at a flying-
fox roost. Relevant low impact activities include mulching, mowing or weeding under or near
roost trees, and/or minor trimming of roost trees. These activities must not be directed at
destroying a flying-fox roost, driving away, or attempting to drive away, a flying-fox from a
flying-fox roost, or disturbing a flying-fox in a flying-fox roost.
The low impact COP outlines the following restrictions for activities undertaken by private
landowners:
• No roost tree may be trimmed when there are flying-foxes in that part of the tree
being trimmed, or when flying-foxes are near to the tree and likely to be harmed as
a result of the trimming.
• Any trimming of roost trees must be limited to 10% of the total canopy occupied by
the roost (not 10% of the whole tree’s canopy).
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 9
Section 19
draft
• Low impact activities must immediately cease, and EHP be immediately notified, if a
flying-fox appears to have been killed or injured.
• Where low impact activities are required to be undertaken during the day time,
works must immediately cease and EHP be immediately notified if 30% or more of
the adult flying-foxes leave the roost for five minutes or more.
It is important to note that neither COP provides exemptions to other legislation and provisions
that are likely to be relevant to flying-fox management activities, such as the Queensland
Vegetation Management Act 1999, Fisheries Act 1994, the Commonwealth Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and various state and local
planning provisions. They also do not provide exemptions for all vegetation under the NC Act.
3.4 Commonwealth
The GHFF is listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act, meaning it is considered to
be a matter of national environmental significance (MNES).
A referral to the Australian Department of the Environment (DoE) may be required under the
EPBC Act for any action that has the potential to significantly impact on a MNES.
The Referral guideline for management actions in GHFF and SFF3 camps (DoE 2015) defines
a nationally important GHFF camp as those that have either:
· contained ≥ 10,000 GHFF in more than one year in the last 10 years, or
· have been occupied by more than 2,500 GHFF permanently or seasonally every year
for the last 10 years.
As detailed in Table 1, the Wallace Park roost meets the first criteria and is considered a
nationally important camp. As such, provided that management follows the below mitigation
standards as outlined in the referral guideline, referral to the DoE will not be required for
activities recommended in Section 6.
Mitigation standards
• The action must not occur if the camp contains females that are in the late stages of
pregnancy or have dependent young that cannot fly on their own.
• The action must not occur during or immediately after climatic extremes (heat stress
event4, cyclone event5), or during a period of significant food stress6.
• Disturbance must be carried out using non-lethal means, such as acoustic, visual
and/or physical5 disturbance or use of smoke.
3
Spectacled flying-fox (P. conspicillatus)
4
A ‘heat stress event’ is defined for the purposes of this document as a day on which the maximum temperature does (or is
predicted to) meet or exceed 38°C.
5
A cyclone event is defined as a cyclone that is identified by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/
index.shtml).
6
Food stress events may be apparent if large numbers of low body weight animals are being reported by wildlife carers in the
region.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 10
Section 20
draft
• Disturbance activities must be limited to a maximum of 2.5 hours in any 12 hour
period, preferably at or before sunrise or at sunset.
• Trees are not felled, lopped or have large branches removed when flying-foxes are in
or near to a tree and likely to be harmed.
• The action must be supervised by a person with knowledge and experience relevant
to the management of flying-foxes and their habitat, who can identify dependent
young and is aware of climatic extremes and food stress events. This person must
make an assessment of the relevant conditions and advise the proponent whether
the activity can go ahead consistent with these standards.
• The action must not involve the clearing of all vegetation supporting a nationally-
important flying-fox camp. Sufficient vegetation must be retained to support the
maximum number of flying-foxes ever recorded in the camp of interest.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 11
Section 21
draft 4 Available management options Options for management involve either mitigation or dispersal, or both. Mitigation aims to reduce amenity impacts to residents while flying-foxes remain at the roost, whereas dispersal aims to non-lethally disperse the population from the site to more suitable location(s). 4.1 Mitigation 4.1.1 Education Engaging and educating people is key to ensuring the community understands the ecological importance of flying-foxes, the actual health risks, and options available to reduce impacts associated with roosting and foraging flying-foxes. Collecting and providing information should always be the first response to community concerns, and should be a key component of any approach. Residents should be made aware that faecal drop and noise at night are mainly associated with foraging flying-foxes. There are a number of things that landholders can do to reduce these impacts (see Section 4.1.2). Residents should also be provided with disease risk information, some of which is included below. Australian Bat Lyssavirus Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABLV) is a rabies-like virus found in the four common species of flying-fox. Advice from Queensland Health is that the risk of becoming infected with ABLV is very low (Queensland Health 2015). Transmission of the virus from bats to humans is thought to be by a bite or scratch, but may have potential to be transferred if bat saliva directly contacts the eyes, nose or mouth. ABLV is unlikely to survive in the environment for more than a few hours, especially in dry environments that are exposed to sunlight (Queensland Health 2015). Transmission of closely related viruses suggests that contact or exposure to bat faeces, urine or blood do not pose a risk of exposure to ABLV, nor do living, playing or walking near bat roosting areas (Queensland Health 2015). The disease in humans can easily be prevented by avoiding direct contact with bats. Pre and post-exposure vaccinations are also available that will prevent the disease. Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 12
Section 22
draft
If a person is bitten or scratched by a bat they should:
• wash the wound with soap and water for at least five minutes (do not scrub)
• contact your doctor immediately to arrange for post-exposure vaccinations.
If bat saliva gets into a mucous membrane or open wound, flush thoroughly with water and
seek immediate medical advice.
Hendra Virus
Flying-foxes are the natural host for Hendra Virus (HeV), which can be transmitted from flying-
foxes to horses. Infected horses sometimes amplify the virus and can then transmit it to other
horses, humans and on two occasions dogs. There is no evidence that the virus can be passed
directly from flying-foxes to humans (or dogs) (Queensland Health 2015). Although the virus
is periodically present in flying-fox populations across Australia, the likelihood of horses
becoming infected is low and consequently human infection is extremely rare. Horses are
thought to contract the disease after ingesting forage or water contaminated with flying-fox
urine, saliva or birthing fluids. Humans contract the disease after close contact with an infected
horse. HeV infection in humans is a serious and often fatal disease and there is currently no
effective post-exposure treatment or vaccine available for people. The mortality rate of
unvaccinated infected horses is approximately 75% (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
({DAFF} 2013a). Vaccination of horses can protect horses and subsequently humans from
infection (DAFF 2013a).
Water supply contamination
Contamination of water supplies by any animal excreta (birds, amphibians and mammals such
as flying-foxes) poses a health risk to humans. Household tanks should be designed to
minimise potential contamination, such as using first flush diverters to divert contaminants
before they enter water tanks. Trimming vegetation overhanging the catchment area (e.g. the
roof of a house) will also reduce wildlife activity and associated potential contamination. Tanks
should also be appropriately maintained and flushed, and catchment areas regularly cleaned
to remove potential contaminants.
Pool contamination
The World Health Organisation guidelines for safe recreational water environments (i.e.
recreational swimming pools) considers contamination of pool water from animal faeces a low
risk to the public (WHO 2006). The only pathogenic bacteria potentially linked directly to animal
faeces found in swimming pools is Leptospira spp. (cause of Leptospirosis). Flying-fox are
known to carry this bacteria and shed it in their urine (Cox et al, 2005). According to the
guidelines outbreak of Leptospirosis from swimming pools is extremely rare and can be
prevented by maintaining adequate disinfectant concentrations (e.g. chlorine). Escherichia coli
contamination of pools could potentially lead to infections in people but known outbreaks of
disease caused by E. coli in swimming pools (as opposed to still natural pools) have been
linked to people shedding the bacteria in the pool rather than through contamination from
animal faeces (WHO 2006). Further, chemical treatment and filtration of pool water should
prevent infections. There is no evidence to suggest that there is any risk from Lyssavirus or
Hendra virus from flying-foxes defecating or urinating in pools. Lyssavirus is transmitted
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 13
Section 23
draft
through infected saliva or bodily fluids (not urine or faeces) and it does not survive outside of
an infected animal for more than a few hours (NSW Health, nd). Hendra virus also has a short
life outside of the host and infection is only known through infected horses (Queensland
Government, 2014).
WHO (2006) Guidelines for safe recreational water environments Volume 2: swimming pools
and similar environments. World Health Organisation. URL:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/bathing/srwe2full.pdf.
4.1.2 General mitigation measures
Residents and land managers should consider the following measures to minimise impacts
from roosting and foraging flying-foxes:
· manage foraging trees (i.e. plants that produce fruit/nectar-exuding flowers) within
properties through pruning/covering (with bags or wildlife friendly netting)/early
removal of fruit/tree replacement to reduce attracting flying-foxes to your property
· cover vehicles, structures and clothes lines where faecal contamination is an issue,
or remove washing from the line before dawn/dusk
· move or cover eating areas (i.e. BBQs and tables) within close proximity to a roost or
foraging tree to avoid contamination by flying-foxes
· install double-glazed windows, insulation and use air-conditioners when needed to
reduce noise disturbance and smell associated with a nearby roost
· vaccinate horses against HeV, follow husbandry and property management
guidelines in the Hendra virus information pack for horse owners (DAFF 2013b)
· include suitable buffers and other provisions (i.e. covered car parks) in planning of
new developments
· avoid disturbing flying-foxes during the day which will increase roost noise
· turn off lighting at night (i.e. floodlights around the bowling club) which may assist
flying-fox navigation and increase fly-over impacts
· consider removable covers for swimming pools and ensure working filter and regular
chlorine treatment (see Section 4.1.1)
· create visual/sound/smell barriers with fencing or hedges. To avoid attracting flying-
foxes, species selected for hedging should not produce edible fruit or nectar-exuding
flowers, should grow in dense formation between two and five metres (Roberts 2006)
(or be maintained at less than 5 m). Potentially suitable native species include Hovea
acutifolia, Westringia fruticosa, Pultenaea villosa, Dodonaea viscosa and Jacksonia
scoparia.
While there has been no trial to our knowledge, Council may consider a feasibility study on
wires/netting/flagging/other deterrents with the aim of somewhat directing or reducing fly-
over.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 14
Section 24
draft
Opportunities for funding assistance could be investigated for these type of management
activities through environment and other local/state grants.
4.1.3 Buffers
A buffer of 300 m from a flying-fox roost is considered ideal, however smell and noise impacts
are reduced with a buffer of 50 m (SEQ Catchments 2012).
Buffers can be created through vegetation removal, installation of permanent/semi-permanent
deterrents, ‘nudging’ flying-foxes from conflict areas using low intensity disturbance, or by
using a combination of these methods.
Buffers through habitat modification
Removing vegetation in high conflict areas can alter the habitat so it is no longer suitable for
roosting animals. The amount of vegetation removal needed varies between sites and
particular roosts; it may be as little as removing a weedy understorey to alter the microclimate,
selectively trimming roost trees, or in some instances can require the removal of more than
90% of the canopy.
Any vegetation removal should be done using a staged approach, with the aim of removing
as little native vegetation as possible. This is of particular importance at this site given its high
ecological value. Thorough site assessment will inform whether vegetation management is
suitable (i.e. can impacts to other wildlife and/or the community be avoided).
Loss of under and midstorey vegetation may increase flying-fox mortality during heat stress
events (which are common in summer). Aside from obvious welfare and conservation impacts
associated with increased mortality, flying-fox mortality will also impact surrounding residents
(i.e. smell) which should be considered when planning habitat modification.
Buffers with deterrents
Permanent/semi-permanent deterrents may be installed to deter flying-foxes from a
designated buffer area. Many deterrents have been trialled in the past with limited success,
however several options are worthy of further investigation:
· Canopy-mounted water sprinklers – this method has been highly effective in
deterring flying-foxes from certain roost trees during dispersal (Ecosure personal
experience), and is the most likely to be successful. This option would be logistically
difficult (installation and water sourcing) and may be cost prohibitive, however is
considered worthy of a trial.
· Python excrement – bagged snake excrement hung in trees has previously had
localised effects. Logistical issues associated with sourcing and regularly applying
large amounts of snake excrement would need to be overcome. The smell of large
amounts may also impact nearby residents. There is also the potential for flying-
foxes to habituate to this deterrent.
· Visual deterrents – visual deterrents, such as plastic bags, fluoro vests and balloons
(Ecosure personal experience) in roost trees have been shown to have localised
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 15
Section 25
draft
effects (i.e. with flying-foxes avoiding roosting within 1-10 m). The type and
placement of visual deterrents would need to be varied regularly to avoid habituation.
· Noise emitters on timers – noise needs to be random, varied and unexpected to
avoid flying-foxes habituating. As such, these emitters would need to be portable, on
varying timers, and a diverse array of noises would be required. It is likely to require
some level of additional disturbance to maintain its effectiveness, and ways to avoid
disturbing flying-foxes from desirable areas would need to be identified. This is also
likely to be disruptive to nearby residents.
4.1.4 Nudging
Noise and other low intensity disturbance restricted to certain areas of the roost can be used
to ‘nudge’ flying-foxes away from high conflict areas. This technique aims to make high conflict
areas (i.e. buffers) less attractive for roosting flying-foxes, while allowing them to remain in
other areas of the roost.
Nudging should not generally be conducted early in the morning as this will most likely lead to
inadvertent dispersal of flying-foxes from the entire roost. It should rather be conducted during
the daytime to encourage flying-foxes to move a small distance (i.e. 10 m) rather than leaving
the roost. Daytime disturbance such as this is not permitted in the COP, and would require
approval from EHP. Disturbance during the day should also be limited in frequency (i.e. twice
per day or less, with regular rest days of no disturbance) to avoid welfare impacts. As with
dispersal, it is also critical to avoid periods when dependent young are present (as identified
by a suitably experienced person).
4.1.5 Using planning instruments to avoid future land use conflict
To avoid future land use conflict, planning instruments may be able to be used to ensure
adequate distances are maintained between the roost and future residential developments.
The inclusion of a flying-fox overlay and supporting code in Noosa Plan may help alleviate
future land use conflict. Future development could then be designed where possible to provide
a buffer around existing roosts.
4.1.6 Aircraft strike management
The Queensland State Planning Policy 1/02 (Department of State Development, Infrastructure
and Planning {DSDIP} 2014) defines the distance where flying-foxes may create a safety
hazard for strategic airports as 13 km. This aligns with the National Airports Safeguarding
Framework Guideline C – Produced by the Federal Department of Infrastructure and
Transport.
Council should liaise closely with managers of any airport or airstrip within this proximity,
particularly private airstrip to the south-west, regarding flying-fox activity and management that
may affect flying-fox movement patterns in the short or long-term.
Council has consulted hospital managers on this strike risk for emergency helicopters, and it
is regarded as low and manageable given there are very few flights at dawn/dusk (fly-in/fly-
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 16
Section 26
draft
out), and if required the helicopter can divert and an ambulance used for patient transfer. Pilots
should be aware of large influxes, or if flying-foxes are roosting in close proximity to the flight
path, as disturbance causing flying-foxes to take flight will pose a risk at any time of the day.
4.2 Dispersal
There are a range of potential risks that are greatly increased with active dispersal (compared
with in-situ management as above). These include:
· impact on animal welfare and flying-fox conservation
· increased aircraft strike risk associated with changed flying-fox movement patterns
· splintering the roost into other locations that are equally or more problematic
· shifting the issue to another area
· impact on habitat value
· effects on the flying-fox population, including disease status and associated public
health risk
· impacts to nearby residents associated with ongoing dispersal attempts
· excessive initial and/or ongoing resource and financial investment
· negative public perception and backlash
· unsuccessful management requiring multiple attempts, which may exacerbate all of
the above.
Successful dispersals generally require either:
1. substantial vegetation removal/modification that is likely to incur significant long-term
ecological impacts on the roost area, and/or
2. sustained disturbance at the site and intensive monitoring, with subsequent
additional and ideally simultaneous dispersal of splinter roosts that may form at
undesirable locations.
Both of the above dispersal approaches are costly, require ongoing commitment and
maintenance, are often not entirely successful, and rarely result in desirable outcomes for all
stakeholders. For example, Roberts and Eby (2013) summarised 17 known flying-fox
dispersals between 1990 and 2013, and made the following conclusions:
1. In all cases, dispersed animals did not abandon the local area 7.
2. In 16 of the 17 cases, dispersals did not reduce the number of flying-foxes in a local
area.
3. Dispersed animals did not move far (in approx. 63% of cases the animals only moved
<600m from the original site, contingent on the distribution of available vegetation). In
85% of cases, new camps were established nearby.
7
Local area is defined as the area within a 20 km radius of the original site = typical feeding area of a flying-fox.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 17
Section 27
draft
4. In all cases, it was not possible to predict where replacement camps would form.
5. Conflict was often not resolved. In 71% of cases conflict was still being reported
either at the original site or within the local area years after the initial dispersal
actions.
6. Repeat dispersal actions were generally required (all cases except extensive
vegetation removal).
7. The financial costs of all dispersal attempts were high ranging from tens of thousands
of dollars for vegetation removal to hundreds of thousands for active dispersals (e.g.
using noise, smoke etc).
Flying-fox roosts are in a constant state of flux, with individual animals at the roost changing
on a regular basis as they move around the landscape. For example, the Wallace Park
historical counts peak at 467,412, however it may actually be used by a million or more animals
at different times. This is one of the most significant challenges of a dispersal, in that it takes
an extensive amount of time to ‘educate’ all animals that have used the roost over time. Flying-
foxes will also attempt to recolonise a roost even after they have been dispersed. The ongoing
effort required means that dispersals are inevitably expensive (generally hundreds of
thousands of dollars), and the uncertainty makes budgeting and outcomes impossible to
accurately predict.
The potential cost of dispersal from Wallace Park is compounded by difficulties accessing the
site given that it is often waterlogged. Further there a number of ecological and legislative
constraints associated with this site as detailed in Section 3.
4.2.1 Passive dispersal with vegetation removal
Removing vegetation can be used to passively disperse a roost, by gradually making the
habitat unattractive so that flying-foxes abandon the site. This method is less stressful to flying-
foxes, and greatly reduces the risk of splinter colonies forming in other locations (as flying-
foxes are more likely to move to other known sites within their roost network when not being
forced to move immediately, as in active dispersal). However it usually involves removing an
extensive amount of canopy vegetation, and is therefore not appropriate for sites with high
ecological and amenity value such as Wallace Park roost.
4.2.2 Active dispersal without vegetation removal
A range of tools can be used to actively disperse flying-foxes, including noise (i.e. stock whips,
whistles, recorded noise), visual deterrents (i.e. lights, laser pointers) and olfactory (i.e.
smoke).
Dispersal personnel position themselves under the roost prior to flying-foxes returning to the
roost from nightly foraging, which varies seasonally but may be as early as 0300. In
accordance with the EPBC guideline (see Section 3.4), dispersal should continue for no more
than 2.5 hours each morning. It is anticipated that at least six personnel would be required at
Wallace Park, with additional stand-by staff that may need to disperse from other inappropriate
splinter locations.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 18
Section 28
draft
Initial dispersal generally spans several weeks, with maintenance dispersal required as flying-
foxes attempt to re-establish the roost. Some level of maintenance dispersal is usually
required for at least several years, and often indefinitely without habitat modification.
In addition to risks detailed above, dispersal activities at this location are likely to:
• disrupt residents (including potential health impacts associated with smoke, which is
a key dispersal tool)
• stress noise-phobic pets
• increase flying-fox vocalising during the day
• result in trampling damage to the understorey.
As detailed above, additional risk management and welfare impact mitigation strategies are
required for active dispersal, and if this is the desired strategy a detailed site-specific dispersal
plan will be required.
Where this last-resort option is required, Ecosure advocates a gentle approach aimed at
irritating (rather than stressing) flying-foxes so fewer return to the roost each day. An
aggressive approach to dispersal (i.e. using excessively loud noise, not allowing flying-foxes
to settle in any area of the known roost) forces flying-foxes to find an alternative roost on the
morning of dispersal, which is much more likely to stress the animals, and cause them to
splinter to other undesirable locations.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 19
Section 29
draft
4.2.3 Dispersal costs and likelihood of success
Figure 4 Roost management options – indicative cost and risk (Ecosure 2013).
Management costs are highly variable, and are impossible to predict for management options
where the outcomes are unpredictable (i.e. dispersal). Risks also vary with the management
approach, with the highest level of risk associated with dispersal (see our indicative diagram
below). Dispersal often requires upward of a $100,000 investment, with the most costly
dispersal known to be in excess of $3M and ongoing (i.e. Melbourne Botanic Gardens). See
Attachment 1 for a summary of costs of previous dispersals as reviewed by Roberts and Eby
(2013) is attached.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 20
Section 30
draft
5 Preliminary risk assessment
5.1 Risk associated with the roost in its current location
Table 2 Risks associated with the roost unmanaged, and residual risk with controls implemented.
Sensitive site Distance Risk Risk score (refer Mitigation Residual risk
(based on to Appendix 1) measures score
maximum
extent) and
direction
Residential Immediately Disease transfer 14* See Sections 1
properties adjacent W and 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 6
S; 30 m N
General hygiene 4 See Sections 2
issues 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.13
and 6
Financial loss 17 See Sections 13
(including time 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.13
cleaning) and 6
Noise/smell/well- 17 See Sections 12
being impacts 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.13
and 6
Business – 35-40 m N Disease transfer 14* See Sections 5
bowling club and 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 6
resort
General hygiene 4 See Sections 5
issues 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.13
and 6
Financial loss 17 See Sections 13
(including time 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.13
cleaning) and 6
Financial loss from 10 See Sections 9
reduced patronage 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.13
and 6
Hospital – 10 m SW (but Disease transfer 10* See Sections 1
general >100 m from (hospital enclosed) 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 6
regular roost
area) Amenity/well-being 14 See Sections 5
for patients 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.13
and 6
Hospital – Flying-fox strike 22 See Section 4.1.6 15
helicopter and 6.
Private airstrip 2.4 km SW Flying-fox strike 22 See Section 4.1.6 15
and 6.
Classification Action required
20-25 = EXTREME Unacceptable risk. Do not proceed. Controls required to reduce risk.
16-19 = HIGH Unacceptable risk. Do not proceed. Controls required to reduce risk.
7-15 = MODERATE Acceptable with adequate controls in place.
1-6 = LOW Low risk.
*N.B. This risk level assumes direct contact with a flying-fox resulting in a bite or scratch. There is no known disease risk from
living near a roost.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 21
Section 31
draft
5.2 Risk of management
Management Risk Risk score Mitigation measures Residual
option (refer to risk score
Appendix 1)
Education Nil N/A N/A N/A
General mitigation Cost which may not mitigate 17 See Sections 4 and 6 for most suitable 9
measures impacts. mitigation measures, and potential for
grants etc.
In-situ Moderate cost which may be 17 Detailed plan developed prior to works 8
management insufficient to mitigate commencing.
community impacts.
Impact to animal welfare. 17 Ensure management is not done near 3
roosting flying-foxes during the pupping
season, and flying-foxes are monitored
for signs of stress during significant
works (i.e. tree removal). Develop a
detailed works plan prior to
commencing.
Inadvertent dispersal 8 Ensure management is not done near 3
roosting flying-foxes during the pupping
season, and flying-foxes are monitored
for signs of stress during significant
works (i.e. tree removal). Develop a
detailed works plan prior to
commencing.
Dispersal Impact to animal welfare and 21 18
flying-fox conservation.
Increased aircraft strike risk 24 19
associated with changed
flying-fox movement patterns.
Splintering the roost into other 21 21
locations that are equally or
more problematic.
Shifting the issue to another 21 21
area.
Increasing disease status and 22 Appropriate planning for a dispersal 18
associated public health risk. can reduce risks (detailed dispersal
strategy required), however despite
Impacts to nearby residents 16 careful planning risks remain at 16
associated with ongoing moderate-high.
dispersal attempts.
Excessive initial and/or 23 23
ongoing resource and
financial investment.
Negative public perception 17 17
and backlash.
Impact on habitat value (with 23 23
significant vegetation
management).
Classification Action required
20-25 = EXTREME Unacceptable risk. Do not proceed. Controls required to reduce risk.
16-19 = HIGH Unacceptable risk. Do not proceed. Controls required to reduce risk.
7-15 = MODERATE Acceptable with adequate controls in place.
1-6 = LOW Low risk.
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 22
Section 32
draft
6 Recommendations
As shown in Section 5, risks associated with the roost can be managed to an acceptably low level through in-situ management. Amenity impacts
can be similarly managed with the provision of buffers and other mitigation measures.
Dispersal is not recommended for these reasons, and the associated risks detailed in Section 4.2.
Recommendations to reduce impacts associated with the roost in its current location are provided in Table 3.
Table 3 Recommended management options
Mitigation type Recommendation Responsible
General Consider all options in Section 5.1.2, and low impact activities outlined in the COP (see Section 3.3). Land owners
Education Continue consulting with residents and providing educational material. This roost would be ideal for educational Council
signage (and a potential viewing area), and information could also be distributed from the library.
Consider educational signage at the bowls club explaining there are no known risks of lyssavirus/Hendra virus from Bowls club
contacting flying-fox excrement, and continue general hygiene practices (including ongoing provision of hand sanitising
gel) for low risk bacteria (i.e. salmonella).
Buffers Create buffers through selective tree trimming/removal and deterrents. It is recommended that buffers of up to 10m Council
from property boundaries be established through selective trimming/removal, with the aim of retaining mature trees.
Deterrents listed in Section 4.1.3 could then be used to create an additional 15m buffer from high conflict areas.
Proposed buffer areas are shown on Figure 5.
A detailed plan should be developed prior to works to manage risks of management detailed in Section 5.2. Additional
considerations include:
approvals may be required for management that may impact on values detailed in Section 3.1
offset planting for all native species removed should be considered as per best practice guidelines
connectivity for other fauna should be retained between contiguous habitat.
Council should liaise with the hospital to determine if a buffer is required on the south-western edge of the maximum Noosa Hospital
roost extent. If it is required, works could potentially be done by the hospital under Council’s as-of-right authority.
Flying-fox management advice ecosure.com.au | 23
Section 33
draft
Mitigation type Recommendation Responsible
General The bowls club, in partnership with Council, may consider assessing the feasibility of a trial to reduce fly-out impacts Bowls club and Council
using deterrents (i.e. wires/netting/flagging etc.) to potentially redirect some fly-over. Grant funding may be available
from various sources, including through the State initiative ‘Get Playing Spaces and Places – funding to improve
facilities’. More information for this grant can be found at
http://www.qld.gov.au/recreation/sports/funding/getinthegame/getplaying/.
If found to be successful, it may provide a useful management option for other residents that are being severely
impacted by faecal drop.
Subsidies/funding Investigate grant opportunities that may be available to residents and businesses around the roost to assist with Council and land owners
assistance general mitigation measures (i.e. seat covers and alternatives to shade cloth awnings for outdoor furniture).
Aircraft strike Ensure the hospital and private airstrip are aware of large influxes of flying-foxes, and any management that may alter Council
management flying-fox behaviour/movements, so that pilots can respond to increased strike risk.
Dawn and dusk flights should be avoided wherever possible, and if required by the hospital, helicopters should be Noosa Hospital and private
diverted and patient transfer done by ambulance. airstrip
Planning instruments Consider adequate buffers and other planning provisions for new developments neighbouring Wallace Park. Council
to avoid future
impacts
Alternative habitat Encourage re-establishment of the Goat Island roost through limiting disturbance around the island where possible. Council
Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 24
Section 34
504,600 504,800 505,000
Hilton
Ter
7,080,200
7,080,200
Lak ev
iew D
r
7,080,000
7,080,000
e Ave
Sunris
Wallace
Park
Ridge
S t
Noosa
St
Library
Lewis
25m
Noosa
7,079,800
7,079,800
Leisure
Centre
Rd
n di
mu
Hospital
Eu
Helipad
M c Ke n
Noosa na Ct
Hospital
Go
Herita
dco
ha
ge
pS
Dr
t
7,079,600
7,079,600
Priority management area Management only if required
Buffer with selective vegetation Buffer with selective vegetation
removal/trimming removal/trimming
Additional buffer with deterrents Additional buffer with deterrents
504,600 504,800 505,000
Figure 5: Recommended management areas Hospital property Roost extent as at
Cadastral boundaries August 2015
Noosa Council Approximate maximum
Flying-fox management options report known roost extent
Job number: PR1165 GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
°
0 25 50 100
Revision: 1 Projection: Transverse Mercator
Author: MED Metres
Datum: GDA 1994
Date: 28/09/2015 Units: Meter
Data Sources: © State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines), 2015; © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2015; © Copyright Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia) 2012 The Commonwealth gives no warranty regarding the accuracy, PR1165_Fig2_VegMgt
completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose; Aerial image: Nearmap, 2015 A4
ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.
Section 35
draft References and further reading Atlas of Living Australia website at http://www.ala.org.au. Accessed 16/03/2015. Australasian Bat Society www.abs.ausbats.org.au. Biosecurity Qld, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2015, Zoonotic Diseases http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/animal-health-and-diseases/zoonoses. Accessed 01/09/2015. Birt P, McCoy M & Palmer C 2008, Little Red Flying-fox in The mammals of Australia (eds S. Van Dyke and R. Strahan), pp 446-447, Reed New Holland Sydney. Churchill, S. 2008, Australian Bats, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW. Cox, TE, Smythe, LD, Leung, LK 2005, Flying foxes as carriers of pathogenic Leptospira species. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 41(4), 753-7 DAFF 2013a, What is Hendra virus? Available: http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/animal- industries/animal-health-and-diseases/a-z-list/hendra-virus/general-information/what-is- hendra-virus Accessed 01/09/2015. DAFF 2013b, Hendra virus: information for horse owners, handlers, competitors and event organisers. Available: http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/57218/hendra- virus-info-pack-horse-owners.pdf Accessed 01/09/2015. DECC 2008, Best practice guidelines for the grey headed flying-fox. DECC NSW, Sydney, Australia. DECCW 2009, Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. DSEWPaC 2012, Pteropus poliocephalus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available from:http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 01/09/2015. DoE 2013, Matters of National Environmental Signficance Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia. DOE 2015 Referral guideline for management actions in GHFF and SFF camps, Australian Government, Canberra. DOE 2015, Species Profile and Threats - Grey-headed flying-fox http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=186 Accessed 01/09/2015. Eby P. 1991, Seasonal movements of grey-headed flying-foxes, Pteropus poliocephalus (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) from two maternity roosts in northern New South Wales. Wildl. Res. 18, 547–59. Ecosure 2013, Flying-fox information kit, developed for Local Government Association of Queensland for elected members, West Burleigh. Ecosure unpublished, Hendra Virus Risk Assessment for the Gold Coast Equine Precinct: Residual Risk Report, report to City of Gold Coast. EHP 2013a, Code of Practice - Ecologically sustainable management of flying-fox roosts, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland. http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/roost-management.html. Accessed 01/09/2015. EHP 2013b, Code of Practice - Low impact activities affecting flying-fox roosts, Department Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 26
Section 36
draft of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland. http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/roost-management.html. Accessed 01/09/2015. EHP 2013c, Flying-fox roost management guideline, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland. http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/roost-management.html. Accessed 01/09/2015. EHP 2013d, Living with Wildlife - Flying-foxes, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/index.html Accessed 01/09/2015. Freeman, A. 2003, Monitoring Report on the Annual Spectacled Flying-fox Census 2003. Atherton, Queensland: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Garnett, S.T., Whybird O.A. & Spencer H.G., 1999, Conservation status of the Spectacled Flying-fox Pteropus conspicillatus. Australian Zoologist. 31:38-54. GeoLINK 2012, Lorn Flying-fox management strategy, Report prepared for Maitland City Council. Hall, L. and Richards, G. 2000, Flying foxes: fruit and blossom bats of Australia. UNSW Press, Sydney. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species – Grey-headed flying-fox http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18751/0 Accessed 01/09/2015. Lunney, D., Richards, G. and Dickman, C. 2008, Pteropus poliocephalus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Accessed 12/08/2015. McIlwee, A.P. & I.L. Martin 2002, On the intrinsic capacity for increase of Australian flying- foxes. Australian Zoologist. 32(1). Noosa Council nd, Flying-fox fact sheet, Noosa Council, Noosa. Available: http://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/documents/40217326/40227890/fact_sheet_flying_fox.pdf Accessed 18/08/2015. NSW Department of Primary Industries 2015, Hendra virus and domestic animals, Available http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/livestock/horses/health/general/hendra-virus/domestic- animals-qanda Accessed 15/09/2015. NSW health nd, Rabies and Other Lyssavirus Infections. NSW Health. URL: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/controlguideline/Pages/rabies.aspx Queensland Health 2015, Australian bat lyssavirus factsheet. Available: http://access.health.qld.gov.au/hid/InfectionsandParasites/ViralInfections/australianBatLyssa virus_fs.asp Accessed 01/09/2015. Queensland Health 2015, Bats and Human Health http://access.health.qld.gov.au/hid/InfectionsandParasites/ViralInfections/batsAndHumanHe alth_is.asp Accessed 01/09/2015. Queensland Government 2014, Hendra Virus Infection Prevention Advice. Biosecurity Queensland, Australian Veterinary Association, Queensland Health, Workplace Health & Safety Queensland (October 2014), Queensland URL: https://www.health.qld.gov.au/ph/documents/cdb/hev-inf-prev-adv.pdf Roberts, B, Kanowski, J and Catterall, C. 2006, Ecology and Management of flying-fox Roosts in an Urbanising Region, Rainforest CRC Tropical Forest Landscapes, Issue 5. Roberts, B. and Eby, P. 2013, Review of past flying-fox dispersal actions between 1990-2013, Unknown publisher. Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 27
Section 37
draft Roberts, B. 2005, Habitat characteristics of flying-fox roosts in south-east Queensland. BSc. (Hons.) Thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane. Roberts, B.J. 2006, Management of Urban Flying-fox Roosts: Issues of Relevance to Roosts in the Lower Clarence, NSW. Valley Watch Inc., Maclean. SEQ Catchments 2012, Management and Restoration of flying-fox Roosts: Guidelines and Recommendations, SEQ Catchments Ltd funded by the Australian Government’s Caring for Our Country. Tolga Bat Hospital and partners, Wildlife-friendly fencing (and netting) – project funded by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Available at http://www.wildlifefriendlyfencing.com/WFF/Netting.html Accessed 15/09/2015. Vardon, MJ & Tidemann, CR 1999, Flying-foxes (Pteropus alecto and P. scapulatus) in the Darwin region, north Australia: patterns in camp size and structure, Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 47, pp. 411 – 423. Vardon, MJ, Brocklehurst, PS, Woinarski, JCZ, Cunningham, RB, Donnelly, CF and Tidemann, C. R. 2001, Seasonal habitat use by flying-foxes, Pteropus alecto and P. Scapulatus (Megachiroptera), in monsoonal Australia, Journal of Zoology London: 253. Webb N.J. and Tidemann C.R. 1996, Mobility of Australian flying-foxes, Pteropus spp. (Megachiroptera): evidence from genetic variation. Proceeding of the Royal Society London Series B 263, 497–502. Westcott DA, Dennis AJ, Bradford MG, McKeown A, Harrington GN. 2008, Seed dispersal processes in Australia’s Wet Tropics rainforests. In: Stork N and Turton S, Living in a dynamic tropical forest landscape. Blackwells Publishing, Malden. Pp. 210-223. Westcott, DA, McKeown, A, Murphy, HT and Fletcher, C.S 2011, A monitoring method for the grey-headed flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus, CSIRO, Queensland Whybird, O., Clague, S. and Clague, C. 2000, Spectacled Flying Fox – the need and justification for listing. Report to the Endangered Species Monitoring Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland. Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 28
Section 38
draft Appendix 1 Ecosure flying-fox risk matrix Flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 29
Section 39
draft
Revision History
Revision No. Revision date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
00 18/09/2015 Wallace Park Jessica Bracks, Grant Brearley, Senior Wildlife
flying-fox roost – Senior Wildlife Ecologist
management Biologist
options report
DRAFT
01 28/09/2015 Wallace Park Jess Bracks, Senior Jessica Bracks, Senior Wildlife
flying-fox roost – Wildlife Biologist Biologist
management (Incorporating client
options report comments)
FINAL DRAFT
Distribution List
Copy # Date Type Issued to Name
1 28/09/2015 Electronic Noosa Council Peter Milne
2 28/09/2015 Electronic Ecosure Administration
Citation: Ecosure (2015), Wallace Park flying-fox roost management options, FINAL DRAFT report to Noosa Council, Publication
Location – Brisbane.
Report compiled by Ecosure Pty Ltd
ABN: 63 106 067 976
[email protected] www.ecosure.com.au
PR1165-RE.Management options report.FINAL DRAFT
Adelaide Brisbane Gold Coast
PO Box 145 PO Box 675 PO Box 404
Pooraka SA 5095 Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 West Burleigh QLD 4219
P 1300 112 021 P 07 3606 1030 P 07 5508 2046
M 0407 295 766 F 07 5508 2544
Rockhampton Sydney
PO Box 235 PO Box 880
Rockhampton QLD 4700 Surry Hills NSW 2010
P 07 4994 1000 P 02 9437 6919
F 07 4994 1012
© Ecosure Proprietary Limited 2015
Commercial in confidence. The information contained in this document produced by Ecosure Pty Ltd is solely for
the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Ecosure Pty
Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All
rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this documents, reproduced,
electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Ecosure Pty Ltd.