KULUIN FLYING-FOX ROOSTS OPTIONS PAPER - September 2020 SUNSHINE COAST COUNCIL
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
KULUIN FLYING-FOX ROOSTS
OPTIONS PAPER
September 2020
SUNSHINE COAST COUNCIL
Executive summary
Sunshine Coast Council manages flying-fox roosts on Council land, guided by Council’s
Regional Flying-fox Management Plan. The Regional Flying-fox Management Plan is
endorsed by both State and Commonwealth government and includes a suite of options
available to address public concerns about flying-fox roosts in urban areas. Independent
consultants are engaged by Council to develop options papers that include an evaluation of
possible management actions and recommendations relevant to each unique site.
In spring 2018, flying-foxes were first recorded in McArthur Park and the adjacent Tallow Wood
Drive Environmental Park in Kuluin, and have since seasonally occupied this site. Concerns
were raised by the community in winter 2019 when numbers increased substantially from 400
to 1,500 flying-foxes. Flying-foxes were first observed at Neighbourhood Park in June 2020.
These two locations are in areas of known high potential conflict due to the close proximity to
residents, and with the McArthur Park roost, a school.
Three species of flying-foxes occur within the Sunshine Coast Council area: grey headed
flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), black flying-fox (P. alecto), and little red flying-fox
(P. scapulatus). All species are protected under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act
1992. Only the grey-headed and black flying-fox have been recorded at the Kuluin roosts. Of
particular note, the grey-headed flying-fox is also listed as nationally vulnerable to extinction
under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Therefore, Council must comply with extra management precautions and restrictions which
are imposed under this Act to ensure the survival of a threatened native animal.
Between 2019 and 2020, flying-foxes experienced significant population impacts across the
east coast of Australia due to a range of extreme weather events. A prolonged drought
period caused a mass food shortage from Coffs Harbour to Gladstone, in which thousands of
flying-foxes perished from starvation. Following this, bushfires across the country resulted in
the loss of large areas of native forest that provides foraging habitat for flying-fox populations.
The Sunshine Coast is now an important refuge area that may be attracting flying-foxes
seeking shelter and food resources. The arrival of flying-foxes in urban areas, especially when
roosts establish unexpectedly, can be a source of significant conflict for the community.
This paper analyses a range of site-specific management options for Council to address
community concerns at the Kuluin roost sites, with consideration given to roost management,
built environment management and education. Therefore, the following options were
assessed.
Option A: Roost Management
1. Vegetation management to create a buffer, aimed at reducing amenity impacts on
nearby residents, could be achieved by:
1.1 trimming encroaching vegetation over property boundaries.
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | i
1.2 applying a 5-10 m vegetation buffer at the perimeter of the roost by removing
understorey vegetation.
1.3 applying a 5-10 m vegetation buffer at the perimeter of the roost by removing
roost trees.
2. Alternatively, canopy-mounted sprinklers may be used to deter flying-foxes from a
buffer. This could be achieved by:
2.1 applying canopy-mounted sprinklers without any roost tree trimming/removal.
2.2 applying canopy-mounted sprinklers accompanied by selective roost tree
trimming/removal.
3. Non-lethal dispersal using either:
3.1 disturbance without vegetation removal.
3.2 removal of all roosting vegetation.
Option B: Built Environment Management
1. Installation of an acoustic fence.
2. Odour neutralising trial.
3. Facilitating property improvement or impact reduction infrastructure through provision
of a private property subsidy grant trial.
Option C: Education
1. Install static interpretive signage.
2. General education.
Recommended approach
A cost-benefit analysis determined that the recommended approach include a combination of
roost management, built environment management and education mitigation methods which
are as follows:
Option A Roost Management
• flying-fox exclusion buffer trimming of vegetation overhanging property boundaries on
the:
– eastern boundary of the McArthur Park roost
– western side of the Neighbourhood Park roost
• flying-fox exclusion buffer by removing understorey weed vegetation
– 5 m on the eastern side of McArthur Park roost
– 10 m on the western side of Neighbourhood Park roost
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | ii
• installation of canopy-mounted sprinklers with selective tree trimming/removal to
enable sprinklers to function effectively
– three at McArthur Park
– four at Neighbourhood Park.
Option B Built Environment Management
• acoustic fence is recommended for consideration at Neighbourhood Park with
residents’ support
• odour neutralising trial is recommended for all Kuluin residents and any other
residents in the Sunshine Coast experiencing odour impacts near flying-fox camps
• subsidy grant program should be trialled in Kuluin.
Option C Education
• interpretive signage should be installed at both sites in Kuluin
• general education is recommended for Kuluin residents and school students.
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | iii
Acronyms and abbreviations
ABLV Australian Bat Lyssavirus
BFF Black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto)
Council Sunshine Coast Council
COP Code of Practice
CMS Canopy-mounted sprinkler
DAWE Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment
(Commonwealth)
DES Department of Environment and Science (Queensland)
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(Commonwealth)
EVNT Endangered, vulnerable, near threatened
GHFF Grey-headed flying-fox (P. poliocephalus)
HeV Hendra virus
LGA Local government area
LRFF Little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus)
NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland)
NFFMP National flying-fox monitoring grogram
NSW New South Wales
Planning Scheme Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014
RE Regional ecosystem
RFFMP Sunshine Coast Council Regional Flying-fox Management Plan
SCC Sunshine Coast Council
SEQ South East Queensland
UFFMA Urban flying-fox management area
VM Act Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Queensland)
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | iv
Contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................................ i
Acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................................iv
List of figures ........................................................................................................................vi
List of tables ..........................................................................................................................vi
1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 1
2 Scope ............................................................................................................................ 1
3 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
3.1 The issue ................................................................................................................ 1
3.2 Background to the issue.......................................................................................... 2
3.2.1 McArthur Park roost ......................................................................................... 2
3.2.2 Kuluin Neighbourhood Park ............................................................................. 5
3.3 Regional context ..................................................................................................... 7
3.4 Previous management decisions ............................................................................. 9
4 Consideration of management issues ........................................................................... 10
4.1 SCC regional flying-fox management plan ............................................................ 10
4.2 Legislation............................................................................................................. 10
4.3 Human and animal health ....................................................................................... 11
4.3.1 Australian Bat Lyssavirus ............................................................................... 12
4.3.2 Hendra virus .................................................................................................. 12
4.3.3 Water quality .................................................................................................. 13
4.3.4 Health and flying-fox management ................................................................. 13
4.4 Damage to vegetation and exclusion of other fauna ............................................... 14
5 Options analysis .......................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Option A: Roost Management ............................................................................... 15
5.1.1 Flying-fox exclusion buffers............................................................................ 15
5.1.1.1 Vegetation management................................................................................ 15
5.1.1.2 Canopy-mounted sprinklers ........................................................................... 17
5.1.2 Non-lethal dispersal ....................................................................................... 19
5.2 Option B: Built Environment Management .............................................................. 20
5.2.1 Installation of an acoustic fence ..................................................................... 20
5.2.2 Odour neutralising trial ................................................................................... 21
5.2.3 Subsidy grant trial .......................................................................................... 21
5.3 Option C: Education .............................................................................................. 22
5.3.1 General education.......................................................................................... 22
5.3.2 Install static interpretive signage .................................................................... 23
6 Cost benefit analysis of options.................................................................................... 24
7 Recommended approach............................................................................................. 32
8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 36
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | v
References ......................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix 1 Legislation and policy framework ................................................................ 40 Appendix 2 UFFMA....................................................................................................... 44 List of figures Figure 1 McArthur roost flying-fox numbers 2018-2020 (Source: SCC 2020) ......................... 3 Figure 2 McArthur Park maximum roost extent ..................................................................... 4 Figure 3 Neighbourhood Park roost flying-fox numbers 2020 (Source: SCC 2020) ............... 5 Figure 4 Kuluin Neighbourhood Park maximum roost extent ................................................. 6 Figure 5 Regional roost context ............................................................................................ 8 Figure 6 Tree trimming was undertaken by Council in May and June 2020 ......................... 15 Figure 7 The roost understorey where Singapore daisy has been removed ........................ 17 Figure 8 Indicative scaled distances to achieve shielding for bats approximately 6 m elevated, to a typical window height (Air Noise Environment, 2019). Image is indicative only with further investigation required. .............................................................................................. 20 Figure 9 Example of Little Aussie Battler signage at NSW flying-fox roost (Tisdell 2019) ..... 23 Figure 10 McArthur Park roost management options .......................................................... 34 Figure 11 Neighbourhood Park roost management options ................................................ 35 List of tables Table 1 Cost benefit analysis McArthur Park ....................................................................... 24 Table 2 Cost benefit analysis for Neighbourhood Park ........................................................ 28 PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | vi
1 Purpose The purpose of this options paper is to provide Sunshine Coast Council (Council) with an assessment of management options to reduce human-wildlife conflict issues associated with flying-fox roosts in Kuluin. 2 Scope This options paper originally applied to the flying-fox roost comprising McArthur Park and the adjacent Tallow Wood Drive Environment Park in Kuluin. During the development of this options paper, flying-foxes moved to the Kuluin Neighbourhood Park, approximately 500 m to the east of McArthur Park roost and it was deemed necessary to include Neighbourhood Park in the analysis. As such a site assessment has not yet been undertaken at Neighbourhood Park; analyses provided for this location are conceptual at this stage and based on desktop review only, with ground truthing still required. 3 Introduction 3.1 The issue In spring 2018, flying-foxes arrived in McArthur Park and the adjacent Tallow Wood Drive Environmental Park (the roost) (Figure 1). This area was considered high potential conflict in the Maroochydore (Aragorn) Options Paper (SCC 2018). Council has undertaken minimal intervention and in-situ management options, such as creating buffers, developing educational materials, and modifying the built environment, in line with the Regional Flying-fox Management Plan (RFFMP). However, due to the rising concerns of adjacent residents and considerable community resistance against further vegetation management, it was decided an options paper was required, and that all management options including non-lethal dispersal be considered. In January 2017, following five unsuccessful non-lethal dispersals, Council endorsed the action that non-lethal dispersal be removed as an option but would remain in the RFFMP and only considered in extreme situations when all other options had failed and ongoing dispersal costs could be justified due to very high numbers. Therefore, non-lethal dispersal is included in this options paper. It should be noted, that hastily applied management options may also lead to inadvertent or unintentional dispersal of flying-foxes which can have flow-on effects for other parts of the community. Indiscreet management options may shift or splinter the roost into other locations that are equally or more problematic. Flying-foxes appear to be roosting more frequently in urban areas, partly due to habitat clearing, unprecedented bushfires, human encroachment and drought. Between 2018 and 2020, flying-foxes experienced a range of extreme weather events including bushfires, heat events and drought. The prolonged drought during this period (BOM 2020) caused a mass PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 1
food shortage from Coffs Harbour to Gladstone, in which thousands of flying-foxes perished from starvation (DES 2019, ABC News 2019). Flying-foxes are known to establish additional roosts closer to foraging resources when food is scarce (DEE 2017), which is possibly the reason the Kuluin roost established. Seasonal shortfalls of foraging resources are most notable during winter, when flowering species are restricted to coastal floodplains, coastal dunes and inland slopes of northern New South Wales (NSW) and South East Queensland (SEQ) (Eby and Law 2008, Eby et al. 2019). These reduced wintering resources puts additional pressure on the foraging habitat in the Sunshine Coast local government area (LGA), which may also be contributing to the emergence of new flying-fox roosts in the region. There are three species of flying-foxes known to occur within the Sunshine Coast area: the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) (GHFF), black flying-fox (P. alecto) (BFF), and little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus) (LRFF). The GHFF and BFF have been recorded at the McArthur Park roost. Flying-foxes are a critical element of ecological biodiversity and are protected in Queensland under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act). The GHFF is listed as vulnerable to extinction, affording it additional protection under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Council is committed to addressing community concern regarding flying-foxes roosting in urban areas, as well as conserving these important native species and complying with environmental legislation. To achieve a balanced outcome for flying-foxes and impacted residents Council has developed a RFFMP which has been endorsed by both State and Commonwealth governments. 3.2 Background to the issue The RFFMP aims to address public concerns about flying-fox roosts in urban areas. The approach is guided by a roost categorisation method, which determines the management options to be considered at each known roost site. 3.2.1 McArthur Park roost The roost category for McArthur Park is Category 2 with 30 - 40 primary impacted residents. A Category 2 roost has a moderate potential for community/flying-fox conflict. Council has received 11 complaints since 2018, mainly regarding flying-fox odour, noise and faecal drop. Flying-foxes arrived at McArthur Park in August 2018, with the highest numbers recorded on 1 July 2020 (Figure 1). On 20 July 2020, flying-foxes vacated the roost. This may have been a natural movement or associated with illegal disturbance and/or vegetation damage from strong winds on 15 July (see Section 3.4). The roost (Figure 2) is split between the southern and northern sides of Tallow Wood Drive. Lot 670CG4651 to the south is zoned open space in the Sunshine Coast Planning PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 2
Scheme 2014 (the Planning Scheme) and contains native vegetation. Kuluin
Environmental Park (Lot 729CG3783) on the northern side of Tallow Wood Drive comprises
the northern extent of the roost and is adjacent to Kuluin State School. The Environmental
Park is zoned Environmental Management and Conservation Zone subject to Biodiversity,
Waterways and Wetlands overlay under the Planning Scheme. A stream order 3 runs through
the roost in this area which contains ‘of concern’ regional ecosystem 12.3.2 with remnant
vegetation consisting of Eucalyptus grandis, E. microcorys, Lophostemon confertus tall open
forest with vine forest understorey (wet sclerophyll) (DES 2020a).
McArthur Park roost
3500
3000
Number of flying-foxes
2500
2000
1500
GHFF
1000
BFF
500
0
Date
Figure 1 McArthur roost flying-fox numbers 2018-2020 (Source: SCC 2020)
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 3Figure 2: McArthur Park maximum roost extent Maximum roost extent (July 2020)
Sunshine Coast Council Waterway
Kuluin flying-fox roost options paper Property boundary
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Job number: PR5635 Projection: Tranverse Mercator
Date: 17/08/2020 Datum: GDA 1994
Units: Meter
Data Sources: © State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines and Energy), 2020; © Ecosure 2020
ECOSURE does not warrant the accuacy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsitiblity or liability for any errors, faults, defects,
or omissions in the information3.2.2 Kuluin Neighbourhood Park
Flying-foxes have been reported by residents to have occupied Kuluin Neighbourhood Park
(Lot 2RP810566 and Lot 661CG807562) since June 2020. The land is zoned open space and
contains skate and exercise park areas. There are no regional ecosystems identified on the
site however Native Vegetation is recorded under the planning scheme. Council has received
nine complaints regarding the flying-foxes at this site, which is approximately 500 m to the
east of McArthur Park. During a flying-fox monitoring event in August 2020, 1750 flying-foxes
were recorded at Kuluin Neighbourhood Park (Figure 3) (Ecosure monitoring 5 August 2020).
The maximum known camp extent is illustrated in Figure 4.
Neighbourhood Park
2000
1800
1600
Flying-fox numbers
1400
1200
1000
800 BFF
600 GHFF
400
200
0
05-Aug-20
20-Aug-20
02-Sep-20
15-Jul-20
20-Jul-20
Date
Figure 3 Neighbourhood Park roost flying-fox numbers 2020 (Source: SCC 2020)
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 5Figure 4: Kuluin Neighbourhood Park Maximum roost extent July 2020
Sunshine Coast Council Waterway
Kuluin flying-fox roost options paper Property boundary
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Job number: PR5635 Projection: Tranverse Mercator
Date: 29/09/2020 Datum: GDA 1994
Units: Meter
Data Sources: © State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines and Energy), 2020; © Ecosure 2020
ECOSURE does not warrant the accuacy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsitiblity or liability for any errors, faults, defects,
or omissions in the information3.3 Regional context
There are five established roosts and two newly emerging sites within five kilometres of the
Kuluin roosts. The extreme environmental conditions of the past 12 months are likely
contributing to an increased pressure on foraging resources within the LGA. The five
established roosts are recognised by either the National Flying-fox Monitoring Program
(NFFMP) or Council and include:
• Maroochydore, Eudlo Creek (Roost ID:157)
• Maroochydore, Stella Maris CS (Roost ID: 390) (Aragorn roost and its spill over area)
• Eudlo Creek Conservation Area
• Mooloolaba, Goonawarra Drive (Roost ID: 395)
• Goat Island.
The four newly emerging sites have been identified by Council and include:
• Kuluin
- MacArthur Park
- Neighbourhood Park
• Alex Forest Conservation Area
• Buderim Pines Drive.
These established roosts and emerging sites are illustrated in Figure 5, along with identified
potential flying-fox habitat.
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 7Flying-fox roost Potential flying-fox habitat (SCC 2018) 5
Figure 5: Regional roost context 1 (low likelihood) 6
Newly emerging site
Road 2 7
Sunshine Coast Council 3 8
Kuluin flying-fox roost options paper 4 9 (high likelihood)
*note potential conflict is not shown but many of these locations would create significant conflict.
GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56
Job number: PR5635 Projection: Tranverse Mercator
Date: 15/09/2020 Datum: GDA 1994
Units: Meter
Data Sources: © State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines and Energy), 2020; © Ecosure 2020
ECOSURE does not warrant the accuacy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsitiblity or liability for any errors, faults, defects,
or omissions in the information3.4 Previous management decisions To date, Council has been performing a range of reactive interventions at McArthur Park and in-situ management options in line with the RFFMP. A community meeting was held 14 August 2019 to discuss early intervention actions for reducing impacts for residents. Temporary signage was installed, and a tree assessment was undertaken to determine the costs for removing vegetation overhanging residential properties. Weed management of Singapore daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata) was undertaken for three days between December 2019 and May 2020 in an attempt to make the site less desirable for flying-foxes. Despite these interventions flying-foxes returned to the site after leaving for two months and numbers continued to rise (Figure 1). Council was informed on 19 June 2020, during an onsite meeting with the local divisional Councillor, that noise disturbance by some residents had been continuing with bats observed to be unsettled and moving between McArthur Park and Kuluin Environmental Park. Two illegal dispersals have been investigated by Maroochydore police and details forwarded to Queensland Department of Environment and Science (DES). For welfare reasons, night works were undertaken so that flying-foxes would not be present at the roost. Night works were undertaken on 18 May 2020 and 1 June 2020 to reduce vegetation encroachment over private property and create a buffer for adjacent residents. This was performed under Council’s as of right authority with appropriate notification given to the DES. During the May works significant community complaint was received in opposition to the removal of trees. In response to repeated illegal dispersals from nearby residents, an onsite meeting was held with DES on 25 June 2020; DES staff providing Council with a letter to distribute to residents informing them not to disturb the roost. As another option to assist and appease impacted residents, Council has offered for residents to participate in an odour neutralising trial which has been taken up by three residents. Strong winds on 15 July 2020 resulted in several tree failures on the edge of the roost along Tallow Wood Drive. The fallen trees presented a potential hazard to pedestrians and again any tree works had to be undertaken at night when the roost was empty as required under State and Commonwealth legislation. Night works scheduled on 17 July removed approximately 1-2% of the roost footprint (Lomas 2020 pers. comm. 21 July 2020). Illegal disturbance to the roost and/or changes to vegetation structure caused by the storm damage and subsequent tree trimming may have contributed to the flying-foxes vacating the roost on 20 July. PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 9
4 Consideration of management issues
4.1 SCC regional flying-fox management plan
Council’s RFFMP (SCC 2016) provides a range of options for managing flying-fox roosts on
Council controlled land. The RFFMP provides a roost categorisation decision support tool to
guide which management options are to be considered at a roost, and also provides detailed
information on legislative requirements (specifically pursuant to the NC Act and EPBC Act;
see Appendix 1), flying-fox ecology and other further information.
The objectives of the RFFMP are to:
• address and manage the concerns of residents experiencing lifestyle impacts
associated with living in close proximity to large or problematic flying-fox roosts on
Council-managed land
• develop flying-fox management strategies consistent with legislative obligations
• increase community understanding and appreciation of the essential ecological role
of flying-foxes and the need for conservation efforts
• develop information management strategies to ensure community access to accurate
and up to date information relating to perceived health risks
• increase our understanding of flying-fox behaviour through monitoring and research
and ensure management practices align with the most recent knowledge
• develop achievable flying-fox conservation strategies to protect the three species
found in the Sunshine Coast LGA
• identify and where possible prevent future residential/flying-fox land use conflict
issues.
While Council is only directly responsible for the management of flying-fox roosts on Council-
managed land, it is well placed to assist the community through education and information
dissemination relating to flying-fox issues across the broader region.
The RFFMP has been endorsed by the State government, and is approved by the
Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWE) (formerly the
Department of the Environment and Energy) as a Conservation Agreement.
4.2 Legislation
All native wildlife, including flying-foxes are protected under the NC Act. Approval is required
to disturb flying-foxes or their roosting habitat.
The GHFF is listed nationally as vulnerable to extinction, which places further constraints on
the management actions permitted under the EPBC Act. Approval by DAWE is required under
the EPBC Act for any action that is likely to significantly impact on this species.
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 10Referral guidelines for management actions in grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox roosts
have been released as an EPBC Act Policy Statement (DoE 2015). These guidelines define
a nationally important GHFF roost as one that has either:
- contained ≥ 10,000 GHFF in more than one year in the last 10 years, or
- been occupied by more than 2,500 GHFF permanently or seasonally every year for
the last 10 years.
McArthur Park and Neighbourhood Park Kuluin flying-fox roosts do not meet either criteria,
therefore can not be currently considered nationally important roosts.
The Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld) (VM Act) and the Planning Act 2016 (Qld) are
the main Acts that regulate clearing in Queensland, but other Acts may also apply, including
the NC Act and EPBC Act. Under the NC Act, you may need a clearing permit before clearing
protected native plants. Clearing vegetation is specifically prohibited under the Planning
Regulation unless:
• It is exempt from needing approval (see Schedule 21 of PA) e.g. clearing certain
vegetation from an ‘urban purpose’ in an ‘urban area’ on freehold land, residential
clearing (e.g. for building a single dwelling) on freehold land, clearing Category X
vegetation on freehold land (see VM Act s20AO).
• It is approved under a development permit for a relevant purpose (see s 49(3) PA
and s22A VM Act).
• It is under an accepted development code.
• and if other necessary approvals are obtained (e.g. under the NC Act or EPBC Act)
EDO 2019).
A vegetation clearing permit is required to carry out operational work that is clearing of native
vegetation on freehold, indigenous and State land made.
Further details of legislation and policies related to flying-foxes is provided in Appendix 1.
4.3 Human and animal health
Noise, odour, faecal drop and other aspects of living near a flying-fox roost can contribute to
anxiety, sleep deprivation, and impact people’s mental health and wellbeing. Secondary
impacts are difficult to quantify and will vary with peoples’ situation and tolerances.
Recent research has found that there is also no correlation between proximity to a flying-fox
roost and the level of perceived impact by residents. Impacts experienced have been
attributed mainly to a person’s own tolerances, background and social values (Lentini et al.
2020). Council continues to provide support and work with affected community members to
mitigate impacts causing concern.
Flying-foxes, like all animals, can also carry pathogens that pose human health risks. Many of
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 11these do not produce symptoms in flying-foxes but have the potential to cause significant
disease in people or other animals. In Australia, diseases of concern are Australian bat
lyssavirus (ABLV) and Hendra virus (HeV). Council and Queensland Health provide up to
date information to residents regarding actions that can be taken by individuals to prevent risk
of disease transfer, which has been well received by the community.
Except for people whose occupations (such as wildlife carers and veterinarians) include close
contact with bats or potentially infected domestic animals, human exposure is extremely rare.
These diseases are easily prevented through vaccination, safe flying-fox handling (by trained
and vaccinated personnel only) and appropriate horse husbandry. Therefore, despite the fact
that human infection with these agents can be fatal if untreated, the probability of infection is
extremely low, and the overall public health risk is also judged to be low (Qld Health 2017).
Transmission of closely related viruses suggests that contact or exposure to bat faeces, urine
or blood does not pose a risk of exposure to these viruses, nor does living, playing or walking
near bat roosting areas (NSW Health 2013).
Wildlife disease surveillance in Australia is coordinated by Wildlife Health Australia, who have
advised that there is no evidence of the virus responsible for COVID-19 or similar viruses in
Australian wildlife, including Australian flying-foxes (WHA 2020).
4.3.1 Australian Bat Lyssavirus
Less than 1% of the flying-fox population is infected with ABLV (Field 2005), and transmission
is through a bite or scratch from an infected bat. Effective pre- and post-exposure vaccinations
are available.
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 their doctor immediately to arrange for post-exposure vaccinations.
If bat saliva contacts the eyes, nose, mouth or an open wound, flush thoroughly with water
and seek immediate medical advice.
While there has been only one recorded case of ABLV in a domestic dog (Wright 2013), as a
precaution people should prevent their dogs and cats from contacting bats. This may include
keeping pets inside at night, particularly when flying-foxes are foraging on flowering or fruiting
trees nearby and keeping dogs on a lead when walking near a flying-fox roost (RSPCA 2016).
If a pet owner is concerned or suspects their pet has come into contact with a flying fox,
consultation with a veterinarian should be sought immediately and post-exposure treatment is
available.
4.3.2 Hendra virus
Flying-foxes are the natural host for HeV, which can be transmitted from flying-foxes to horses.
There is no evidence that the virus can be passed directly from flying-foxes to humans or to
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 12dogs (AVA 2015). Infected horses sometimes amplify the virus and can then transmit it to
other horses, humans and on two occasions, dogs (DPI 2014). There are no horse paddocks
near the McArthur Park area and no nearby areas for horse agistment or riding, therefore it is
not considered further as a potential conflict issue.
4.3.3 Water quality
Contamination of water supplies by any animal excreta (birds, amphibians and mammals such
as flying-foxes) poses health risks to humans. There is no known risk of contracting bat-related
viruses from contact with faecal drop or urine (Qld Health 2017).
Household water tanks can be designed to minimise potential contamination, such as using
first flush diverters to divert contaminants before they enter water tanks. Tanks should be
appropriately maintained and flushed, and catchment areas regularly cleaned of potential
contaminants. Trimming vegetation overhanging the catchment area for the tank (e.g. flying-
fox foraging vegetation overhanging the roof of a house) will also reduce wildlife activity and
associated potential contamination. Pool maintenance practices (e.g. filtration, chlorination,
skimming, vacuuming) should remove general contamination associated with all wildlife
droppings.
Tanks in urban areas are not for domestic drinking water supply and these areas are supplied
with reticulated town water. Public water supplies are regularly monitored for harmful bacteria
and are filtered and disinfected before being distributed.
4.3.4 Health and flying-fox management
The effects of stress are linked to increased susceptibility and expression of disease in both
humans (AIHW 2012) and animals (Henry & Stephens-Larson 1985; Aich et al. 2009),
including reduced immunity to disease. Therefore management actions which may cause
stress (e.g. dispersal), particularly over a prolonged period or at times where other stressors
are increased (e.g. food shortages, habitat fragmentation, etc.), are likely to increase the
susceptibility and prevalence of disease within the flying-fox population, and consequently the
risk of transfer to humans.
Furthermore, management actions or natural environmental changes may increase disease
risk by:
• forcing flying-foxes into closer proximity to one another, increasing the probability of
disease transfer between individuals and within the population
• an increase in the rate of abortions and/or dropped young if inappropriate
management methods are used during critical periods of the breeding cycle. This will
increase the likelihood of direct interaction between flying-foxes and the public, and
potential for disease exposure
• adoption of inhumane methods with potential to cause injury which would increase
the likelihood of the community coming into contact with injured/dying or deceased
flying-foxes.
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 13The potential to increase disease risk should be carefully considered as part of a full risk assessment when determining the appropriate level of management and the associated mitigation measures required. For further information concerning human health risks and flying-foxes go to the Queensland Health (https://www.health.qld.gov.au/) and Biosecurity Queensland (https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/biosecurity) websites. 4.4 Damage to vegetation and exclusion of other fauna Large numbers of roosting flying-foxes can damage vegetation. Most native vegetation is resilient and generally recovers well (e.g. casuarina and eucalypts) and flying-foxes naturally move within a roost site allowing vegetation to recover. Council regularly monitors the health of trees in roost areas where there is risk of tree or limb failure that could impact humans and infrastructure. Qualified arborists are used to undertake tree risk assessments when required. There is also some concern that roosting flying-foxes deter other wildlife (e.g. birds and possums). This may be a short-lived effect of large numbers of roosting flying-foxes, however, Ecosure observations are that other species commonly utilise occupied roost trees, and if some individuals are deterred it is likely only on a very limited scale (e.g. the core roost area). Nest boxes in surrounding areas may be considered to provide alternative possum and hollow- nesting bird habitat if displacement is of concern. Damage to vegetation, and potentially the temporary displacement of wildlife from vegetation flying-foxes are roosting in, should also be considered in the context of the critical ecological services flying-foxes provide and the associated benefits to other species. PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 14
5 Options analysis
5.1 Option A: Roost Management
5.1.1 Flying-fox exclusion buffers
5.1.1.1 Vegetation management
Vegetation management can be utilised to create flying-fox exclusion buffers aimed to help
reduce noise and smell impacts on nearby residents. Buffers aim to separate roosting
flying-foxes from adjacent residents by altering the habitat sufficiently so that it is no longer
attractive for roosting flying-foxes. Buffers have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing
impacts and complaints at numerous roosts in the LGA.
Vegetation management options for consideration include:
• trimming vegetation overhanging property boundaries
• applying a 5-10 m buffer by removing understorey vegetation
• applying a 5-10 m buffer by removing roost trees.
Due to the size of the vegetation patches at McArthur Park and Neighbourhood Park, and the
proximity of residences to property boundaries, the width of the allowable buffer is constrained
to 10 m (i.e. larger patches of vegetation may allow for larger buffers of up to 25 m for example,
which is not suitable for this site and would equate to near complete removal of vegetation).
Trimming vegetation overhanging property boundaries
Trimming vegetation overhanging property boundaries was undertaken at McArthur Park in
May and June 2020 (Figure 6) but seems to have had limited effect on improving amenity,
with reports of residents continuing to disturb the flying-foxes and further complaints about
noise and faecal drop.
Figure 6 Tree trimming was undertaken by Council in May and June 2020
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 15For this option, an ongoing maintenance program will be required where the roost canopy continues to grow over properties at McArthur Park. The need for trimming vegetation overhanging property boundaries at Neighbourhood Park is minimal due to a small existing buffer, however one property at the end of Ku Ring Gai Court will require some initial works. Trimming of overhanging vegetation is recommended at Neighbourhood Park if supported by the resident. Apply a 5-10 m buffer by removing understorey vegetation Where there is a high infestation of weeds or a dense mid/understorey (particularly below a low canopy), weed and understorey management can sufficiently alter the habitat, so it is unfavourable for roosting flying-foxes. Singapore daisy was removed by Council from part of the roost on the western side of the creek along Tallow Wood Drive (Figure 7). The risk of removing under and mid-storey vegetation is that it can exacerbate the effects of heat stress events on flying-foxes, as it reduces the amount of available refuge that provides shading. However, at this site there is sufficient suitable habitat available outside the buffer area for flying-foxes to roost and retreat into during a heat stress event. The removal of any native vegetation in Tallow Wood Environmental Park would require an environmental assessment (fauna and flora survey) and approval under the VM Act (NB. other vegetation in McArthur Park and Neighbourhood Park is mapped as Category X and not regulated by the VM Act, however approvals may be required under the NC Act, see Appendix 1). If any threatened species are found, this will also trigger the requirement for a Species Management Plan. However if only understory weeds are removed, then this can occur as a general maintenance program and does not require any further impact assessment or permits. Given the relatively low canopies and dense vegetation at the Kuluin sites, vegetation removal/thinning in the under and midstoreys could assist deterring roosting flying-foxes from buffer areas. While weed density is not high enough where weed removal is likely to be sufficient to completely deter flying-foxes from the buffer, it will assist and should be considered in combination with other options, as discussed below. PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 16
Figure 7 The roost understorey where Singapore daisy has been removed
Applying a 5-10 m buffer by removing roost trees
Recent canopy vegetation trimming works over property boundaries received significant
community opposition. As is the case for under and midstorey vegetation, the removal of
native trees is subject to legislation and would be subject to both the Council and State offset
policy. It would also have undesirable effects on the ecology and amenity values of the sites.
Removing vegetation also tends to increase visibility into the roost and may reduce
noise/odour shielding that a vegetative screen can provide. This can often negate intended
benefits of a buffer, especially when the housing is built close to the property boundary as is at
McArthur Park. While vegetation removal may shift the footprint, it’s use alone will increase
visibility into the roost and may increase impacts by removing the screening vegetation.
Therefore, a 5-10 m vegetation buffer through removal of roost trees, is not recommended at
Kuluin roosts.
5.1.1.2 Canopy-mounted sprinklers
Installing canopy-mounted sprinklers (CMS) can be used to deter flying-foxes from a buffer.
CMS can be installed either:
• without any roost tree trimming/removal or
• accompanied by selective roost tree trimming/removal.
Council has installed CMS in buffer zones at the Emerald Woods roost in Mooloolaba the
Elizabeth Street drain roost in Coolum, the Buderim Pines roost in Buderim and alongside Mary
Cairncross Scenic Reserve in Maleny.
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 17Clear guidelines on sprinkler use will need to be established with residents. To date they have been successful at other locations at discouraging flying-foxes from roosting in the buffer zone and enabling residents to have more control over flying-foxes near their properties as residents are given the controls to turn the sprinklers on and off. A NSW council found that short 20 second bursts of water is all that is required to deter flying-foxes from the buffer area. This also helps reduce water use when supplies are scarce (Reynolds 2020). CMS can be installed and effectively operated without the need for any vegetation removal, however at the Kuluin roosts, tree removal/trimming will be required in order for the sprinklers to be effective (e.g. removing dense vegetation that restricts the extent of water spray). Vegetation in Neighbourhood Park and on the southern side of Tallow Wood Drive in McArthur Park roost is not mapped as of concern under the regulated vegetation mapping and therefore not subject to assessment. The placement of the sprinklers is intended to sit at the junction of Council land and property boundaries so residents adjacent to the roost can access the sprinklers. Poles, if used over trees, will be designed to withstand high wind and should be highly visible to flying-foxes to avoid collisions. Water pressure must be firm so it is sufficient to deter flying-foxes, however must not risk injuring flying-foxes (or other fauna) or knocking an animal from the tree. Water misting should be minimised as this is unlikely to deter flying-foxes and could exacerbate heat stress event effects. Flying-fox heat stroke generally occurs when the temperature reaches 42°C, however can occur at lower temperatures in more humid conditions (Bishop 2015). Given that humidity is most likely to be increased with water in the environment, sprinklers may need to be turned off in higher temperatures (e.g. >30°C) to avoid exacerbating heat stress (N.B. A NSW government-funded trial through Western Sydney University is planned in summer 2020 to determine if sprinklers increase humidity and potential heat stress impacts; results should be considered for sprinkler usage). Sprinklers should release a jet of air prior to water, as an additional deterrent and to cue animals to move prior to water being released. The intention of the sprinklers is to make the buffer unattractive, and effectively ‘train’ individuals to stay out of the buffer area. Sprinklers will operate on a random schedule, and in a staggered manner (i.e. not all sprinklers operating at the same time, to avoid excessive disturbance). Each activation will be for approximately 20 seconds per sprinkler. It is anticipated each sprinkler will be activated up to five times per hour between 0630 and 1600 avoiding critical fly-in or fly-out periods. Sprinkler settings will need to be changed regularly to avoid flying-foxes habituating, and to account for seasonal changes (e.g. not in the heat of the day during summer when they may be an attractant). Individual sprinklers may also need to be temporarily turned off depending on location of creching young, or if it appears likely that animals will be displaced to undesirable locations. Infrastructure should be designed to accommodate additional sprinklers if possible, should they be required in the future. Sprinklers should be designed and attached in a way that allows for future maintenance, replacement, and sprinkler head adjustments. Selective vegetation removal will be necessary due to the dense vegetation both in order to PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 18
provide access for the installation as well as allow sprinklers to function effectively at a radius
of 10 m. Alternative or innovative designs for the sprinkler installation may include using flag
poles instead of attaching sprinklers to trees, and locating the poles on the border of Council
and private property. This could help limit the amount of vegetation removal required.
At McArthur Park, it is recommended to install three CMS along the western property boundary,
spaced approximately 15 m apart (see Figure 10).
At Neighbourhood Park it is recommended to install four CMS along property boundaries of
Protea Place and for two properties at the end of Ku Ring Gai Close (Figure 10).
5.1.2 Non-lethal dispersal
In January 2017, Council endorsed that non-lethal dispersal be removed as an option but
would remain in the RFFMP and only considered in extreme situations when all other options
had failed (OM17/2 SCC 2017).
Dispersing flying foxes can be achieved in two ways:
• actively disturbing the roost without removing vegetation
• passively by removal of all roosting habitat.
Dispersal via disturbance has been shown to reduce complaints and improve amenity in the
short term, however, roosts are usually recolonised, and the conflict remains (Roberts & Eby
2013; Ecosure 2014; Currey et al. 2018). Data from these studies show that in 95% of cases,
dispersal did not reduce the number of flying-foxes from the local area. In 85% of dispersals,
new camps established nearby and in 63% of dispersals, the animals moved within 600 m of
the original site and the conflict was often not resolved (Roberts & Eby 2013).
Driving flying-foxes away from an established roost is challenging and resource intensive.
There are a range of risks associated with roost dispersal. These include:
• shifting or splintering the roost into other locations that are equally or more
problematic
• impacts on animal welfare and flying-fox conservation
• impacts on the flying-fox population including disease status and associated public
health risk
• impacts to the community associated with ongoing dispersal attempts
• increased aircraft strike risk associated with changed flying-fox movement patterns
• high initial and/or ongoing resource requirement and financial investment
• negative public perception form community members opposed to dispersal.
Dispersing flying-foxes is unpredictable and there is no guarantee that flying-foxes will be
successfully relocated or where they will relocate to. Roost suitability mapping of the area
has identified numerous potential conflict sites in the area, and there is no preferred low
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 19conflict location in the area (refer Figure 5).
After numerous unsuccessful dispersals on the Sunshine Coast, and the Council resolution to
only include dispersal in extreme situations when all other options had failed, active dispersal
is not recommended for Kuluin.
Sufficient removal of vegetation to cause the roost to be abandoned would require the
additional cost of replacing substrate or water sensitive urban design to mitigate the potential
for flooding or erosion in this part of McArthur roost. Vegetation removal in the Environment
Park would also not be appropriate or in line with Council policy, and removal on the McArthur
Park side alone would likely increase impacts at the school. Based on the significant
community concern regarding vegetation trimming, it is unlikely this option would be
acceptable to the community.
For these reasons it is not recommended to attempt passive dispersal through removal of all
roosting vegetation at Kuluin.
5.2 Option B: Built Environment Management
5.2.1 Installation of an acoustic fence
Noise attenuation fencing aims to reduce noise and potentially odour where the roost is close
to residents. Although expensive to install, this option could reduce the need for habitat
modification / sprinklers. However due to the proximity of properties to the McArthur roost, any
fence installed along property boundaries may need to be very tall, as indicated in Figure 7,
Figure 8 Indicative scaled distances to achieve shielding for bats approximately 6 m elevated, to a typical window
height (Air Noise Environment, 2019). Image is indicative only with further investigation required.
which is likely to be unacceptable to residents. Furthermore, the fence could get covered in
faecal drop and require ongoing maintenance to clean. The machinery required to install a
high fence may also require a cleared buffer up to 3 m wide to enable access. For these
reasons, this option is not recommended at McArthur Park. However, an acoustic fence is likely
to have improved functionality at Neighbourhood Park and is recommended for consideration at
this site.
PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 205.2.2 Odour neutralising trial Flying-foxes communicate with one another using pheromones, which results in the characteristic musky smell around flying-fox roosts. Odour may be more intense during the breeding and rearing season as female flying-foxes use scent to find their pups after foraging, and males regularly mark their territories. Likewise, odour is stronger after rain as males re- mark branches in their territories. While there are no known direct human health impacts associated with this smell, it is a common cause of conflict with local communities. In research by Currey et. al. (2018) in which 43 government agencies were surveyed, odour consistently ranked as one of the most concerning for communities living with flying-foxes. An odour-neutralising trial, making use of indoor broad-spectrum deodoriser gels (such as ‘Hostogel’, produced by Future Environment Services) commonly used in hospitals, is currently underway by Ecosure (funded by Eurobodalla Shire Council and NSW state government). These are inexpensive, only require replacement every few months, and may be sufficient to mitigate odour impacts in houses affected by flying-fox roosts. Three residents at McArthur Park roost have taken up offers to participate in the trial which is recommended to be rolled out to Kuluin residents and other locations where odour is an issue for residents in order to learn more about the efficacy of the odour neutralising gel pots. An outdoor odour-neutralising trial is also planned for early 2021 to reduce odour impacts in residential yards. If successful, it is recommended for consideration at both McArthur Park and Neighbourhood Park in the future. 5.2.3 Subsidy grant trial Council has so far implemented 13 of the 14 options available in the RFFMP to reduce impacts of flying-foxes on residents. Residents in Coolum and Mooloolaba have submitted requests to Council to explore the final option of a subsidy grant program, to facilitate property improvement or impact reduction infrastructure on private properties. Government initiatives that provide financial assistance commonly assess residents’ eligibility based on property distance from a camp and deliver subsidies as partial or full reimbursements for purchases. A study undertaken by the NSW state government found managers who design programs that best meet community needs have an increased probability of alleviating human-wildlife conflicts (Mo et al. 2020). Focusing existing funds towards manipulating the built environment reduces the need for modification and removal of vegetation thus helping achieve the Environment and Liveability Strategy Biodiversity Policy position 2.1 f) habitat extent and condition (composition, structure, and function) is maintained. Furthermore, in a study by Pearson (unpublished 2018), it was found using infrastructure such as double-glazing windows significantly reduced the external noise level measured inside a house adjacent to a roost. Council is currently investigating a subsidy grant trial where a one-off would be provided to eligible residents, supported by ongoing roost management, education, research and monitoring. Property modification works would need to be undertaken by a licensed PR5635 Kuluin flying-fox roosts options report - final ecosure.com.au | 21
You can also read
