2015-10-13 Planning & Organisation Agenda Attachment 1 to Item 6 Draft Flying Fox Management Plan

 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