2014-06-17 Infrastructure and Services Committee Agenda

INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                     17 JUNE 2014


1.    Queensland State Government Flying Fox Management

In response to conflicts with flying foxes, the Queensland State Government introduced Codes of
Practice for managing flying fox roosts. The codes allow for low impact and ecologically
sustainable management of flying fox roosts. The Code of Practice for low impact activities
affecting flying-fox roosts, allows for weeding, mulching, mowing and minor trimming of roost
trees up to 10% of the total canopy. Flying foxes prefer to roost where there is protective foliage
and this measure can discourage flying foxes from roosting in areas where there is less
protective cover. The Code of Practice for ecologically sustainable management of flying-fox
roosts allows for the dispersal of flying foxes or the destruction of a flying fox roost. State
Government has also mapped Urban Flying Fox Management Areas (UFFMAs). Local
Government may undertake flying fox roost management in a UFFMA without a Flying Fox Roost
Management Permit. However, any actions on State Land (Wallace Park) or with Nationally listed
species, such as the Grey Headed Flying Fox, still requires consultation and approval by State
and Federal authorities.

2.    Options for Local Government Flying Fox Management

State Government encourages local councils to develop a Local Government Area Flying Fox
Management Plan. In 2013, and in response to neighbour conflicts with flying foxes, Sunshine
Coast Council developed a Draft Regional Flying-Fox Management Plan, which, at the time, also
covered the Noosa area. The management plan has not been finalised. The draft considered a
range of management options for flying fox camps including buffer zones, incentives for
residents, education, and, as a last resort, dispersal. Essentially, there are three options with
managing flying foxes:

      a.    Option 1 Monitoring and education
      Council takes a position of not interfering with the natural movements and behaviour of
      flying foxes. Actions include monitoring flying fox camps and educating residents on flying
      fox ecology and behaviour when complaints are made. In particular residents often express
      concerns about infection from bats and education can alleviate these concerns. Another
      concern is the strong smell emanating from camps. This smell is actually from the male
      scent glands during mating season and is short term.
      A monitoring and responsive education approach usually does not resolve issues for some
      residents living in proximity to a flying fox camp.
      Budget: In house wages budget.

      b.    Option 2A & 2B Non-dispersal mitigation
      Mitigation actions help residents to live with flying fox colonies. The following are examples
      of mitigation actions:
      Education: An active campaign, such as letterbox drops, to educate residents most
      impacted by the flying foxes. Messaging on flying fox nomadic behaviour, risk of infection
      and biology would help alleviate resident concerns.
      Noise management: To mitigate noise, wider buffers can be created for residents in
      proximity to the roost (i.e. Lewis Street and Sunrise Avenue on western side of Wallace
      Park), through trimming of branches or widening of fire trails. Noise monitors can be used
      to test the effectiveness of this approach. State Codes of Practice need to be observed.
      Dead or dying flying foxes: On occasion dead or dying bats occur in residential areas.
      Council can offer a collection service for dead bats by suitably qualified staff or refer sick or
      dying bats to vaccinated wildlife carers.
     Odour management: Odour management techniques could be employed at peak times to
     mask the smell of the male bat scent. This would be experimental, but odour management

                                                                                       Page 74 of 86