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

 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