Flying-foxes in the Coolum Beach Area Management Options Report April 2016
Sunshine Coast Council
ecology / vegetation / wildlife / aquatic ecology / GIS
Executive summary
There are three species of colonial flying-foxes known to occur within the Sunshine Coast Council area: the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), black flying-fox (P. alecto), and little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus). There are currently three known roost sites in Coolum, which include Palmer Coolum (then Coolum Hyatt), Cassia Wildlife Corridor and Elizabeth Street (Tradewinds Avenue). All three flying-fox species have been known to roost at the latter two sites, which has led to community concern and complaints for a number of years.
Council is committed to addressing community concerns regarding flying-foxes roosting in urban areas, as well as conserving these important native species and complying with environmental legislation. To assist with this and provide a flying-fox management framework, Council has developed an adaptive Regional Flying-fox Management Plan.
The Cassia Wildlife Corridor roost site is a narrow strip of Council-managed vegetation with high potential for community/flying-fox conflict, for which all management options are to be considered. Due to the roost’s extremely close proximity to a large number of residents, and the inability to manage it in-situ, Council endorsed a non-lethal dispersal program in 2013. Flying foxes have not returned to this site, however an additional roost established nearby at Elizabeth Street Drain in 2014.
The Elizabeth Street Drain roost established in September 2014, two months after dispersal activities were completed at the nearby Cassia Wildlife Corridor. This roost site is in close proximity to residences and is causing concern amongst some of these residents. Two non- lethal dispersal attempts were undertaken in May and July 2015; however, flying-foxes have since returned.
Potential management options for the Elizabeth Street roost have been identified as part of this paper, which include:
Option A – Vegetation buffer to reduce noise and smell impacts on nearby residents 1. Apply a 5 m vegetation buffer at the perimeter of the roost 2. Apply a 10 m vegetation buffer at the perimeter of the roost 3. Apply a 15 m vegetation buffer at the perimeter of the roost 4. Apply a staged approach combining parts of option A1-A3 Option B – Canopy-mounted sprinklers to maintain a 15 m buffer 1. Apply canopy-mounted sprinklers accompanied by selective roost tree removal 2. Apply canopy-mounted sprinklers without any roost tree removal
Option C – Active dispersal
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | i
Option D – Community education, property modification and subsidies (i.e. no interference with roosting flying-foxes).
A combination of Option A4 (selective vegetation trimming) and Option B2 (canopy- sprinklers) is recommended to create unsuitable buffer zones between residential buildings. Buffers can be of varying distances depending on property type and flying-fox habitat utilisation. Planted buffers could be considered along the Council boundary. Recommended management zones and type are shown in the body of the report.
Option C (dispersal) is not recommended for the Elizabeth Street roost site given the cost, risk, potential impacts to the community and flying-foxes and uncertain outcomes.
Option D (education, property modification, subsidies) is recommended for all stages of flying-fox management because it targets options and programs that do not interfere with flying-foxes.
Throughout the management process, community consultation should continue and risk should be monitored on an ongoing basis. A full review of management after one flying-fox season should assess the effectiveness of (i) risk mitigation, (ii) management measures in achieving designated buffer zones, and (iii) buffers in providing residents with a reasonable level of amenity most of the time. Recommendations for future management (if required) should be made based on this assessment.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | ii
Acronyms and abbreviations
ABLV Australian Bat Lyssavirus BFF Black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto) Council Sunshine Coast Council EHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (Queensland) EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 GHFF Grey-headed flying-fox (P. poliocephalus) HeV Hendra virus LGA Local government area LRFF Little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus) NC Act Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 RFFMP Sunshine Coast Council Regional Flying-fox Management Plan
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | iii
Contents
Executive summary ...... i
Acronyms and abbreviations ...... iii
List of figures ...... v
List of tables ...... v
1 Purpose ...... 1
2 Introduction ...... 1
2.1 The issue ...... 1 2.2 Background to the issue at these sites ...... 4
2.2.1 Cassia Wildlife Corridor roost ...... 4 2.2.2 Elizabeth Street Drain roost ...... 6 2.2.3 Palmer Coolum (then Coolum Hyatt) ...... 7
2.3 Previous management decisions ...... 9
2.3.1 Cassia Wildlife Corridor roost ...... 9 2.3.2 Elizabeth Street Drain roost ...... 9
3 Consideration of management issues ...... 10
3.1 Flying-fox management plan ...... 10 3.2 Human and animal health ...... 10
3.2.1 Disease risk and flying-fox management ...... 11
3.3 Aircraft strike management ...... 11
4 Options analysis...... 12
4.1 Option A – Vegetation buffer ...... 12
4.1.1 Options A1 – A3 ...... 13 4.1.2 Option A4 – Staged approach combining options A1-A3 ...... 14
4.2 Option B – Canopy-mounted sprinklers ...... 14
4.2.1 Option B1 – Canopy-mounted sprinklers with roost tree removal ...... 14 4.2.2 Option B2 – Canopy-mounted sprinklers without roost tree removal ...... 15
4.3 Option C – Dispersal ...... 15
4.3.1 Passive dispersal ...... 16 4.3.2 Active dispersal through disturbance ...... 16
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | iv
4.3.3 Alternative locations ...... 17
4.4 Option D – No interference with roosting flying-foxes ...... 20
4.4.1 Community education and awareness program ...... 20 4.4.2 Property modification ...... 21 4.4.3 Subsidies ...... 22
5 Cost-benefit analysis ...... 27
6 Recommendations ...... 28
References and further reading ...... 31
Appendix 1 Flying-foxes and human/animal health ...... 34
Appendix 3 Dispersal results summary ...... 36
Appendix 2 Vegetation management done at Elizabeth Street roost ...... 38
List of figures
Figure 1 Known roost sites in Coolum ...... 3
Figure 2 Cassia Wildlife Corridor roost ...... 5
Figure 3 Elizabeth Street roost and land tenure ...... 8
Figure 4 SCC potential habitat map ...... 19
Figure 5 Recommended management areas ...... 30
List of tables
Table 1 SWOT analysis of management options ...... 23
Table 2 Cost-benefit analysis of management options ...... 27
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | v
1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide Sunshine Coast Council (Council) with an assessment of management options to reduce human-wildlife conflict issues associated with flying-fox roosts at Coolum Beach. It focuses on the two known roost sites on Council- managed land within Coolum; Cassia Avenue Wildlife Corridor and Elizabeth Street Drain roost (Tradewinds Avenue).
2 Introduction
2.1 The issue
Flying-foxes roosting in the Coolum area have led to community concern and complaints for a number of years.
There are currently three known roost sites in Coolum (Figure 1):
• Palmer Coolum (then Coolum Hyatt) (first data record July 2010) (occupied)
• Cassia Wildlife Corridor (first data record November 2011) (unoccupied since 2014)
• Elizabeth Street (Tradewinds Avenue) (first data record September 2014).(occupied since 2014)
There are three species of colonial flying-foxes known to occur within the Sunshine Coast Council area: the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) (GHFF), black flying-fox (P. alecto) (BFF), and little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus) (LRFF). All three species have been recorded at the Cassia Wildlife Corridor and Elizabeth Street Drain roosts. LRFF have not been confirmed at the Palmer Coolum, however as this site is on private property, detailed counts have not been undertaken. It is assumed that LRFF would have used the site at some stage given their tendency to join established GHFF/BFF roosts.
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 nationally vulnerable to extinction, affording it additional protection under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Flying-foxes appear to be more frequently roosting in urban areas due to habitat clearing elsewhere, human encroachment and drought. Urban plantings have created opportunities of year-round food availability, increasing the foraging activities of flying foxes in these areas. It is believed that urban areas allow for easier navigation, protection from predators and a generally more predictable environment (summarised by Tait et al. 2014).
In urban settings the noise, smell and excrement originating from these roosts can cause significant concern for nearby community members. Recent cases of Hendra virus (HeV) and isolated cases of Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABLV) have increased community concern
Coolum Beach flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 1
about potential health risks.
Council is committed to addressing community concerns regarding flying-foxes roosting in urban areas, as well as conserving these important native species and complying with environmental legislation. To assist with this and provide a flying-fox management framework, Council has developed an adaptive Regional Flying-fox Management Plan (RFFMP) (Section 3.1).
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 2 508,000 510,000
QLD
Coolum
! BRISBANE
Elizabeth St Drain Tradewinds Avenue 7,066,000 COOLUM BEACH 7,066,000
!(
Cassia Wildlife Corridor COOLUM BEACH !( 7,064,000 7,064,000
Palmer Coolum Roost YAROOMBA !(
508,000 510,000
Figure 1: Known roost sites in Coolum !( Flying fox roost Sunshine Coast Council Flying-foxes in the Coolum Beach area Management options report
Job number: PR1430 GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 0 100 200 400 Revision: 0 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: GDA 1994 Author: MED ° Metres Date: 11/02/2016 Units: Meter
Data Sources: Sunshine Coast Council; © Copyright Commonwealth of Australia (Geosciences Australia) 2012 The Commonwealth gives no warranty regarding the accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose; Image Sources: PR1430_MP_Fig1_RoostSites Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community 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.
2.2 Background to the issue at these sites
The Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) began flying-fox roost monitoring in Coolum in 2010. Between that time and 2013, there were two known roost sites in the area: the Palmer Coolum (then Coolum Hyatt) (first recorded by EHP in July 2010) and the Cassia Wildlife Corridor (first recorded by EHP in November 2011).
2.2.1 Cassia Wildlife Corridor roost
The Cassia Wildlife Corridor roost site is a narrow strip of Council-managed vegetation between Cassia and Santa Monica Avenues, Coolum (Figure 2). This roost is classed as a Category 3 as guided by the RFFMP. A Category 3 roost is defined as a roost on Council- managed land with high potential for community/flying-fox conflict, for which all management options (including non-lethal dispersal) are to be considered.
Roost vegetation at this location is immediately adjacent to houses, meaning there are no natural buffers between permanently occupied dwellings and the roost. The width of the habitat is also very narrow, as little as 40-50 m along much of the corridor, and a drainage line down the centre of the vegetation further reduces roosting space.
These site features meant that the maximum buffer at this site would have been approximately 5 m from the edge of occupied dwellings, which would have been insufficient to mitigate impacts to residents in this instance.
Given the length of the corridor, there were also a large number of residents potentially impacted (approximately 26 immediately adjacent to the main roost area, and a further 12 adjacent to contiguous potential roost habitat).
This roost was mainly occupied by GHFF and BFF, although a small number of LRFF were occasionally recorded. Numbers fluctuated but were generally between approximately 800 and 2,700 (SCC 2016).
Due to the roost’s extremely close proximity to a large number of residents, and the inability to manage it in-situ, Council endorsed a non-lethal dispersal program in 2013 (see Section 2.3.1). Flying foxes have not returned to this site, however an additional roost established nearby in September 2014 at Elizabeth Street Drain (Figure 2), also a Council-managed reserve. It should be noted that flying-fox have been observed taking refuge back at Cassia Wildlife Corridor when disturbances have occurred at Elizabeth Street Drain. This highlights a potential for Cassia Wildlife Corridor to become a roost site again if dispersal activities are implemented at Elizabeth Street Drain.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 4 508,400 508,500 508,600 7,065,400 7,065,400 7,065,300 7,065,300 7,065,200 7,065,200 7,065,100 7,065,100
508,400 508,500 508,600
Figure 2: Cassia Wildlife Corridor roost Previous roost extent (April 2014) Sunshine Coast Council Flying-foxes in the Coolum Beach area Management options report
Job number: PR1430 GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 0 10 20 40 Revision: 0 Projection: Transverse Mercator Author: MED Datum: GDA 1994 ° Metres Date: 11/02/2016 Units: Meter
Data Sources: © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2016; Aerial image: Nearmap, 2015 PR1430_MP_Fig2_CassiaWLC 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. A4
2.2.2 Elizabeth Street Drain roost
The Elizabeth Street Drain roost established in September 2014, two months after dispersal activities were completed at the nearby Cassia Wildlife Corridor. This roost site is classed as a Category 3 roost, and is in close proximity to residences of Tradewinds Avenue, Russell Street and to a lesser extent Seaspray Avenue, where it causing concern amongst some of these residents.
The roost is generally less than 1,000 individuals (generally 15-30% GHFF and the remainder BFF). Small numbers of LRFF have been recorded in the past, however in January 2016 a large influx of almost 10,000 LRFF occupied the roost. These large numbers of LRFF have not been recorded at any sites in Coolum since monitoring began in 2010. The LRFF species is an occasional and seasonal visitor, generally staying less than three months in any one year. Often they will only visit in large numbers every several years associated with a major flowering event. However, drought conditions may be contributing to an increase in LRFF in coastal areas. While impacts from LRFF influxes are generally short- lived, it has resulted in a significant increase in the number of complaints.
There have been a total of 39 complaints since September 2014 regarding the Elizabeth Street Drain flying-fox roost, with 28 individual complainants from 27 properties. Three of the 39 complaints were regarding dispersal activities and outcomes. Three positive reports have also been received, requesting that the roost be left alone because they enjoy the flying- foxes and see them as somewhat of a tourist attraction in the area.
Complaints relate to the smell, noise, faecal drop, concerns about devaluation of property, loss of income (through ‘Airbnb’; pers. comm. with a local resident) and health concerns such as sleep deprivation. Residents are most impacted during periods of large influxes when flying-foxes are in much larger numbers (and expand into areas closer to residents).
The main roost area is approximately 95 x 70 m. All adjacent residents currently have between 10 – 40 m of buffer from roosting flying-foxes, and are separated by mown yards, undesirable roost vegetation, leased Council buildings, the drainage area or other properties/roads (see Figure 3). These buffers are likely to be less effective when numbers exceed approximately 1,000 at this site.
Figure 3 shows the properties which immediately surround the Elizabeth Street roost. These are described below.
North-west of the Elizabeth Street Drain roost, the Clayden Potters is on Council-leased land and is non-residential. Therefore it has no permanent occupants and visitation can be avoided if people are concerned (e.g. during large influxes). There are also members who enjoy the flying-foxes at this location.
The next several properties to the north-west have some suitable roost habitat adjacent to their houses (and in one or two cases, also in their backyards).
Houses to the south-west are buffered by Tradewinds Avenue (at least 17 m). Some minor vegetation trimming could increase this buffer.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 6
Residents to the south of the roost are generally buffered by at least 10 m of undesirable roost vegetation (low canopy height) where flying-foxes have not been recorded roosting. This situation may change if the trees are allowed to grow taller. Consideration is therefore needed to prevent future roosting in designated buffer zones if the roost is to remain in-situ.
Houses to the north currently have a buffer of at least 40 m provided by the drain and vegetation. Occasionally, flying-foxes take temporary refuge in this vegetation (e.g. if the roost is disturbed) but have only been recorded there for very short periods (i.e. no more than an hour). While it is suitable habitat, it is a very narrow strip permanently separated from the main roost area by the drain. The mid-storey also consists of largely weed species. Therefore, if flying-foxes use it for extended periods in the future, weed removal and minor vegetation trimming is likely to be a sufficient deterrent. Canopy sprinklers may be used if required.
To the north-east there is a Council-leased property (SES building) and state land (Fire and Rescue). Directly to the east there is a Council-leased community centre. Given these buildings have no permanent occupants, impacts are likely to be minimal, and no complaints have been received. The community centre does have a children’s play area at the back of the property. The sand pit is covered by shade cloth and play equipment is stored in the shed when not in use. While it is in close proximity to the roost, flying-foxes have not been recorded roosting over the property. Furthermore, given that it is directly east of the roost and there is very limited vegetation available between the site and coastline, very few flying- foxes fly out towards or return to the roost from this direction. As such, faecal drop appears to be limited. It is recommended that procedures remain as they are, with toys being stored until in use. The centre should develop a protocol to check the area (and clean if required) prior to children arriving. Children should be taught appropriate behaviour around flying- foxes (e.g. not to touch flying-foxes if they see one close to the ground) or otherwise supervised. The centre may consider installing additional cover over the remainder of the outdoor area if faecal drop is considered an issue. However, as discussed in Appendix 1, flying-fox droppings are no more hazardous than any other animal, such as cats, dogs, rats or possums etc.
There are several residents along Russell Street with potentially suitable habitat adjacent to their boundaries and in close proximity to their houses. While there is potential for flying- foxes to roost in this area, only a small number of BFF have been recorded in this area and do not appear to impact these residents.
The approximate more common roost extent is shown on Figure 3.
2.2.3 Palmer Coolum (then Coolum Hyatt)
The Palmer Coolum roost is located on private land, and is considered a Category 6 roost. Council can not undertake roost management at Category 6 roosts; however, will provide support through community education and advice on the government agency responsible for management if required.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 7 508,500 508,600 508,700 7,065,900 7,065,900 7,065,800 7,065,800
SES Fire and Rescue
Clayden Potters Community Centre 7,065,700 7,065,700 7,065,600 7,065,600 7,065,500 7,065,500
508,500 508,600 508,700
Normal roost extent Tenure of properties Figure 3: Elizabeth Street roost (December 2015) surrouding reserve Sunshine Coast Council Elizabeth Street Drain Council owned-leased Reserve Flying-foxes in the Coolum Beach area State-managed Management options report Residential
Job number: PR1430 GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 0 10 20 40 Revision: 1 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: GDA 1994 Author: MED ° Metres Date: 15/03/2016 Units: Meter
Data Sources: © State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines), 2014; Sunshine Coast Council; © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2016; Aerial image: Nearmap, 2015 PR1430_MP_Fig3_ElizabethSt_R1 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. A4
2.3 Previous management decisions
In the Coolum area, Council has facilitated four community meetings, with the most recent in April 2015 regarding dispersal at the Elizabeth Street Drain site.
Council has sent 4-5 letters/year regarding planned management actions at each of the Council-managed sites in Coolum, and regularly responds to individual complaints. Council also provides educational information, including what landholders can do to reduce the impacts of roosting and foraging flying-foxes.
On-ground management completed to date at each of the Council-managed sites is summarised below.
2.3.1 Cassia Wildlife Corridor roost
Council has funded monitoring at the Cassia Wildlife Corridor on a monthly basis since November 2013.
Given that buffers were not possible at this location (Section 2.2.1), two non-lethal dispersals were undertaken in May and July 2014 following the issue of State and Commonwealth Government permits. With the exception of a small population of BFF occurring in August 2014, the site has been vacant since July 2014. The dispersal program involved intensive daily monitoring, including fly-out counts from the Palmer Coolum until October 2014.
Some weed removal occurred in around the drain to deter the roost from re-establishing.
2.3.2 Elizabeth Street Drain roost
Council has monitored the Elizabeth Street Drain roost since it was first identified in September 2014. This included funding weekly monitoring from September 2014, and monthly monitoring from August 2015.
Two non-lethal dispersal attempts were undertaken in May (25th – 29th) and July (1st – 4th) 2015. These resulted in the roost being vacated for one month (returning 30th June 2015) and one week (returning 9th July 2015) respectively.
Council contributed funds and resources to researching local flying-fox movements by radio- collaring 10 BFF prior to the recent dispersal. Ongoing GPS data is used to better understand the SCC population, and assist management decisions.
Some selective roost tree removal was undertaken in March 2015 to reduce roost trees on Council property which were overhanging neighbouring private residences (see Appendix 2).
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 9
3 Consideration of management issues
3.1 Flying-fox management plan
SCC has developed a RFFMP (SCC 2016) to provide a range of options for managing flying- fox roosts on Council controlled land.
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;
• to 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; and
• identify and where possible prevent future residential/flying-fox land use conflict issues.
SCC has the responsibility for land use planning, management of public land and care of community wellbeing. While SCC is only directly responsible for the management of flying- fox colonies 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 provides a roost categorisation method 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 Act1), flying-fox ecology and other further information.
3.2 Human and animal health
Flying-foxes, like all animals, carry pathogens that may pose human health risks. Many of these are viruses cause only asymptomatic infections in flying-foxes themselves but may
1 None of these three roosts have been recorded with >2,500 GHFF each year or with 10,000 GHFF at any time, and therefore do not meet criteria for a nationally important GHFF roost (as per the Federal Referral Guideline for Management Actions in Grey-headed Flying-fox and Spectacled Flying- fox Camps (DoE 2015)).
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 10
cause significant disease in other animals that are exposed. In Australia, the most well- defined of these are Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABLV) and Hendra virus (HeV).
These diseases are both easily preventable. Further information is provided in Appendix 1.
3.2.1 Disease risk and flying-fox management
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.
• resulting in abortions and/or dropped young if inappropriate 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 flying-foxes.
The potential to increase disease risk should be carefully considered as part of a risk assessment when determining the appropriate level of management and the associated mitigation measures required.
3.3 Aircraft strike management
The Queensland State Planning Policy 1/02 (Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning 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.
Risk of flying-fox/aircraft strike needs to be carefully considered when determining appropriate management actions, with risk potentially changing as a direct result of management or as a result of altered flying-fox movement patterns.
Three private aircraft reported flying-fox strikes around Sunshine Coast Airport during the periods of roost dispersal at Coolum in 2014. All strikes occurred in the evening, and are more likely associated with flying-foxes foraging near the airport, however changed movement patterns associated with dispersal may have contributed.
Increased risk of flying-fox strike associated with the large influx of LRFF and fly-out direction from the Elizabeth Street Drain roost in early 2016 triggered additional mitigation measures at the airport. These included issuing NOTAMs (Notice to Airmen) to all pilots using the airspace, and additional safety personnel to monitor flying-fox behaviour and movements around the aerodrome.
Council should continue to consult internally with managers of Sunshine Coast Airport, and any other airstrip nearby, regarding flying-fox activity and management that may affect flying- fox movement patterns in the short or long-term.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 11
4 Options analysis
The following were identified as potential management options for the Elizabeth Street roost:
Option A – Vegetation buffer to reduce noise and smell impacts on nearby residents 1. Apply a 5 m vegetation buffer at the perimeter of the roost 2. Apply a 10 m vegetation buffer at the perimeter of the roost 3. Apply a 15 m vegetation buffer at the perimeter of the roost 4. Apply a staged approach combining parts of option A1-A3 Option B – Canopy-mounted sprinklers to maintain a 15 m buffer 1. Apply canopy-mounted sprinklers accompanied by selective roost tree removal 2. Apply canopy-mounted sprinklers without any roost tree removal
Option C – Active dispersal
Option D – No interference with roosting flying-foxes.
It should be noted that option A and option B are unlikely to be uniformly effective in all locations at all times. For example, if flying-foxes require the use of a particular area at times of the day/year, they may tolerate undesirable conditions created by management actions (e.g. deterrents and/or vegetation management). Also LRFF are less selective in their habitat preferences, and are most likely of the three species to continue using sparse vegetation during their temporary visits to the Coolum area (of generally less than three months duration).
4.1 Option A – Vegetation buffer
Vegetation may be selectively removed/trimmed to make habitat within a designated buffer area unsuitable or less attractive to roosting flying-foxes.
The amount of removal required to be effective varies between sites and particular roosts; it may be as little as removing a weedy under-storey (to alter the microclimate, reduce protection from predators and increase potential for disturbance) or as much as complete removal of the canopy (based on Ecosure’s experience 2010 - 2015).
Ecological values and amenity values provided by the vegetation need to be carefully considered prior to substantial vegetation removal. This includes the potential to make flying- foxes more visually obvious in the roost which may be undesirable for some nearby residents. Loss of under and mid-storey may also exacerbate heat stress events.
While a detailed assessment was not undertaken, the roost habitat is non-remnant vegetation with a canopy dominated by Melaleuca, Casuarina and Eucalypt spp. The under-
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 12
storey is heavily weed infested with a mix of exotic species and native saplings in the mid- storey.
Vegetation trimming/removal should always aim to retain known habitat features (e.g. hollows, nests). No obvious habitat features were identified within a 15 m buffer during site assessment, however an ecological investigation (e.g. flora and fauna assessment) is recommended prior to the removal of any vegetation from the site.
4.1.1 Options A1 – A3
Removal of all weeds in the buffer zone, with selective canopy trimming, to deter flying-foxes from the buffer area (avoiding the need for native tree removal). Potentially suitable buffers for this site are 5, 10 or 15 m from surrounding properties. These may be created through selectively trimming and/or removing vegetation. In some areas there is quite an extensive weedy under- and mid-storey.
A 5 m buffer could likely be created with canopy trimming only (i.e. no removal of mature native trees).
A 5 m buffer will prevent flying-foxes from overhanging residential properties, and as such will reduce some faecal drop. However, as the majority of faecal drop near a roost occurs during fly-out and fly-in, it will not mitigate the issue. It will also reduce the likelihood of interactions between flying-foxes and human/pets associated with fallen young or sick adults. It may provide an improved feeling of amenity, however smell and noise reduction is likely to be negligible. Conversely, this will result in the least amount of vegetation removal and may therefore be preferable.
A 10 – 15 m buffer, which is the maximum considered possible at this site, will provide the same benefits as above. However it is anticipated that to achieve a 10 m or 15 m buffer, there will be some areas where select canopy trees would need to be removed.
Sufficient habitat should remain after any buffer creation to ensure that the roosting flying- foxes are not forced into less desirable locations (e.g. in vegetation along the Elizabeth St Drain).
The following risks need to be considered when considering this vegetation management option
• potential to open the habitat so that flying-foxes are more readily seen, which could be undesirable for some of the community
• loss of under and mid-storey may exacerbate heat stress events where there is insufficient alternative cover available for shelter during extreme weather events
• where there is other flora/fauna dependent on these vegetation layers.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 13
4.1.2 Option A4 – Staged approach combining options A1-A3
Vegetation removal is ideally done in a staged manner, with the aim of removing as little native vegetation as possible. For example, beginning with weed removal (to alter the microclimate and vegetation structure), and then targeting the vegetation most likely to sufficiently modify the roost with the least possible impact to the habitat.
This staged approach may also be applied to buffer distances. For example a 5 m buffer may be initially created, followed by evaluating its effect in mitigating impacts to determine whether a larger buffer is required.
The benefit of a staged approach is that the least amount of vegetation will be removed to achieve a positive outcome. It will, however, be a more lengthy, time consuming and costly process than immediately managing select roost trees within a pre-determined buffer zone.
4.2 Option B – Canopy-mounted sprinklers
Council recently installed canopy-mounted sprinklers in a 15 m wide buffer zone at the Emerald Woods roost in Mooloolaba. To date they have been highly effective at discouraging flying-foxes from roosting in the buffer zone, however the following should be noted:
• The trial at Emerald Woods is ongoing and the long-term effectiveness is still unknown.
• The Emerald Woods roost site is much larger than the Elizabeth Street roost, and therefore flying-foxes have a larger area of alternative habitat. As such, sprinklers may be less effective at the Elizabeth Street roost site.
• Large influxes of LRFF will often displace GHFF and BFF to less desirable locations within the roost, and therefore during these influxes (as seen early in 2016) sprinklers may be less effective.
• Weather conditions (e.g. temperature, wind direction, seasonal changes) influence the most desirable locations within a roost, and sprinklers may be less effective at some times of the year (and may attract flying-foxes on very hot days). Design and frequency/duration of use must also be considerate of animal welfare and other features of the site. For example, misting may increase humidity and exacerbate flying-fox heat stress events; excessive use may alter the environment and impact on other fauna/flora etc.
While the long-term and site-specific effect is still unknown, canopy sprinklers are likely to deter flying-foxes from small areas when alternative desirable habitat is available.
4.2.1 Option B1 – Canopy-mounted sprinklers with roost tree removal
Canopy-mounted sprinklers may be used in combination with selective roost tree removal/trimming to make habitat less desirable while limiting the amount of vegetation that needs to be removed.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 14
Roost tree removal/trimming may also be required to allow canopy sprinklers to be effective (e.g. removing vegetation that restricts the reach of water from the sprinklers or is required to installed sprinklers).
4.2.2 Option B2 – Canopy-mounted sprinklers without roost tree removal
In some situations canopy-mounted sprinklers can be installed and effectively operated without the need for any vegetation removal. This is generally desirable, particularly where vegetation is native and provides other ecological/amenity values.
It is likely that more sprinklers will be required when vegetation is not trimmed/removed, and therefore costs and potential impacts to the habitat through microclimate change need to be considered. Access may also be more difficult and increase installation costs.
At the Elizabeth Street Drain site, some vegetation trimming will likely be required in certain areas (for example in the stand of Melaleucas on Tradewinds Ave next to Clayden Potters) to allow sprinklers to work effectively.
4.3 Option C – Dispersal
Dispersal aims to encourage a roost to move to another location, through either disturbance or habitat modification.
There is a range of potential risks that are greatly increased with 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 capacity and financial investment
• negative public perception and backlash
• unsuccessful management requiring multiple attempts, which may exacerbate all of the above.
Flying-foxes generally move within six km of a roost site in response to dispersal, and often within 600 m (see Appendix 3). Further, they will often continue to return to the original preferred site meaning that management is ongoing (or habitat modification is required to deter them from returning). The risk of shifting the problem a short distance was demonstrated by the Cassia Wildlife Corridor dispersal, which assumedly led to the creation of the Elizabeth Street roost.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 15
Despite these risks, where serious impacts cannot be managed any other way, dispersal may be required. Dispersal can broadly be categorised as ‘passive’ or ‘active’ as detailed below.
4.3.1 Passive dispersal
Removing vegetation in a staged manner can be used to passively disperse a roost, by gradually making the habitat unattractive so that flying-foxes will disperse of their own accord over time (rather than being more forcefully moved with noise, smoke, etc.). This 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 rather than being forced to find immediate alternative refuge, as often occurs with active dispersal).
Generally, a significant proportion of vegetation needs to be removed in order to achieve dispersal of flying-foxes from a roost or to prevent roost re-establishment. For example, flying-foxes abandoned a roost in Bundall, Queensland once 70% of the canopy/mid-storey and 90% of the understorey had been removed (Ecosure 2011). Ongoing maintenance of the site is required to prevent vegetation structure returning to levels favourable for colonisation by flying-foxes.
This option may be preferable in situations where the vegetation is of relatively low ecological and amenity value, and alternative known permanent roosts are located nearby with capacity to absorb the additional flying-foxes. While the likelihood of splinter colonies forming is lower than with active dispersal, if they do form following vegetation modification there will no longer be an option to encourage flying-foxes back to the original site. This must be carefully considered before any habitat modification that cannot be reversed in the short- term.
4.3.2 Active dispersal through disturbance
Dispersal is more effective when a wide range of tools are used on a randomised schedule with animals less likely to habituate (Ecosure pers. obs. 1997 – 2015). Each dispersal team member should have at least one visual and one aural tool that can be used at different locations on different days (and preferentially swapped regularly for alternate tools). It is also recommended there be at least two smoke drums/machines per dispersal site. Exact location of these and positioning of personnel will need to be determined on a daily basis in response to flying-fox movement and behaviour, as well as prevailing weather conditions (especially wind).
Active dispersal will be disruptive for nearby residents given the timing and nature of activities, and this needs to be considered during planning and community consultation.
This method does not explicitly use habitat modification as a means to disperse the roost, however if dispersal is successful, habitat modification should be considered. This will reduce the likelihood of flying-foxes attempting to re-establish the roost and the need for follow-up dispersal as a result. Ecological and aesthetic values will need to be considered for the site, with options for modifying habitat the same as those detailed for buffers above.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 16
If further dispersal is considered at the Elizabeth Street Drain roost, a maintenance dispersal team will also be required at the Cassia Wildlife Corridor to reduce the likelihood of them re- establishing this favoured roost site. This will increase resources and costs associated with dispersal.
Note that the presence of all three species found in southern Qld (GHFF, BFF, LRFF) limits potential dispersal windows. GHFF and BFF generally have dependent young or are heavily pregnant between August and March/April. During this time dispersal should not occur to ensure dependent young are not impacted. LRFF generally visit the Sunshine Coast area in summer/early spring, when dispersal is not possible. Although LRFF rarely birth or rear young in the Sunshine Coast LGA, should they be present when GHFF and BFF can be dispersed (April/May – July), LRFF they will likely be either heavily pregnant and/or with dependent young.
4.3.3 Alternative locations
Little is known about flying-fox roost preferences; however, research indicates that apart from being in close proximity to food sources, flying-foxes choose to roost in vegetation with at least some of the following general characteristics (SEQ Catchments 2012):
• closed canopy >5 m high
• dense vegetation with complex structure (upper, mid- and understorey layers)
• within 500 m of permanent water source
• within 50 km of the coastline or at an elevation < 65 m above sea level
• level topography (<5° incline)
• greater than one hectare to accommodate and sustain large numbers of flying-foxes.
Optimal vegetation available for flying-foxes must allow movement between preferred areas of the roost. Specifically, it is recommended that the size of a patch be approximately three times the area occupied by flying-foxes at any one time (SEQ Catchments 2012).
Council has mapped potential habitat based on these characteristics, along with potential for community conflict based on proximity to buildings. Figure 4 shows likely suitable flying-fox, and the level of conflict that can be expected should a roost establish in any of these areas.
As shown by Council habitat mapping, there is a large amount of potential roost habitat in the surrounding area with high potential for conflict. Ground-truthing as part of this report identified the next most likely location for a roost to establish, based on ideal habitat characteristics, is along the creek adjacent to residents of Park Crescent and Cinnamon Ave. Given the length of this vegetation and the very close proximity of residents to roost habitat, this location is expected to impact a greater number of residents than both Cassia Wildlife Corridor and the Elizabeth St roost, and be more difficult and costly to manage. Given flying-foxes high level of site fidelity and attempts to recolonise previously known locations, the establishment of a fourth site (in addition to known locations in Coolum) would further exacerbate the situation. Alternatively, flying-foxes may join other roosts in the region and exacerbate impacts at those locations (e.g. Tepequar Drive, Maroochydore).
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 17
Our lack of understanding about exact flying-fox roost requirements means that attempts to relocate GHFF and BFF roosts to a designated location which flying-foxes have not used in the past (even those that meet the above characteristics and appear suitable) have not been successful. This includes attempts where many thousands of dollars were spent on planting suitable trees, spreading vegetation from the original roost in attempt to transfer scent, playing flying-fox vocalisations, and even having captive flying-foxes in enclosures at the desired site. This is an important consideration when assessing dispersal, and is further discussed in Sections 4.3 and 6.
In summary, while we can predict potential habitat, we currently know too little about flying- fox roost characteristics to designate a specific low conflict site and relocate a roost to that location. Therefore it is most effective to work with roost sites that flying-foxes have been known to use in the past. In Coolum, this is Cassia Wildlife Corridor (unsuitable as buffers not possible), Elizabeth Street and Palmer Coolum.
Suitable habitat across the LGA should be designated as flying-fox reserves to assist managing this issue into the future. Land-use planning instruments may be able to be used to ensure adequate distances are maintained between future residential developments and existing or historical flying-fox camps. While this management option will not assist the resolution of existing land use conflict, it may prevent issues for future residents.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 18 Figure 4 Flying-fox Suitable Habitat Coolum Beach
Disclaimer While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, neither the Sunshine Coast Regional Council nor the State of 1:36,000 Queensland makes any representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability (including 0 750 1,500 3,000 Meters without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs Printed on A3 paper that may occur as a result of the product being inaccurate or Sunshine Coast Council incomplete in any way or for any reason. Locked Bag 72 ± Date: March 30, 2015 Author : Environmental Operations © Crown & Council Copyright Reserved. Sunshine Coast Mail Centre QLD 4560
4.4 Option D – No interference with roosting flying-foxes
Management options that do not involve interference with roosting flying-foxes (or their habitat) include the following:
• Community education and awareness program
• Property modification
• Subsidies/incentives
• Appropriate land use planning.
These options should also be considered in combination with any roost management as part of a holistic management program.
4.4.1 Community education and awareness program
A key aim of the RFFMP Plan is to protect the three species of flying-foxes found in the SC LGA while reducing human/flying-fox conflict.
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 from roosting and foraging flying-foxes. Collecting and providing information should always be the first response to community concerns in an attempt to alleviate issues without the need to actively manage flying-foxes or their habitat. Where it is determined that management is required, education should similarly be a key component of any approach.
Residents should also be made aware that faecal drop and noise at night is mainly associated with foraging attractants, independent of roost location. Staged removal of foraging tree species (such as fruit trees and palms) from residential yards, or management of fruit (i.e. bagging, pruning) will greatly assist mitigating this issue. An education program may include:
• Interpretive signage (see below)
• Media releases
• School based educational packages.
• Educational materials.
• Community information days.
• Direct consultation with the local community around flying-fox roosts
• Social media
• Council's webpage
• Shows / Festivals / Stalls.
Public access is limited at this site, with an interface between the roost and public thoroughfare being mainly along Tradewinds Ave. As such, if signage is installed it is recommended near the right bend of Tradewinds Ave immediately next to the main roost
Coolum Beach flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 20
area. Signage should also be able to be removed should the roost be abandoned at some stage in the future.
Council will work within its internal branches on all aspects of flying-fox education, management and conservation: including educating staff, future town planning (such as development considerate of flying-fox roost and foraging habitat) and assisting with managing parks and landscaping (i.e. area-appropriate species planted).
It should be stressed that a long-term solution to the issue resides with better understanding flying-fox ecology and applying that understanding to careful urban planning and development.
4.4.2 Property modification
Residents and land managers should consider the following actions on properties adjacent or near to the roost to minimise impacts from roosting and foraging flying-foxes (Note that approval may be required for some activities, refer to Section 3.1 for further information):
· 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). Vegetation that produces fragrant flowers can assist masking roost odour where this is of concern. This option may also be considered by Council at the edge of the reserve boundary.
· 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, or tree replacement.
· 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 (e.g. 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.
· Include suitable buffers and other provisions (e.g. covered car parks) in planning of new developments.
· Consider removable covers for swimming pools and ensure the filter is working and regularly treat with chlorine (see Appendix 1).
· Appropriately manage rain water tanks, including installing first-flush systems.
· Avoid disturbing flying-foxes during the day as this will increase roost noise.
The cost would be borne by the person or organisation who modifies the property, however opportunities for funding assistance (e.g. environment grants) may be available for management activities that reduce the need to actively manage a roost.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 21
4.4.3 Subsidies
Fully funding or providing subsidies to property owners for property modifications may be considered to manage the impacts of the flying-foxes.
This management option involves providing property owners with a subsidy to help manage impacts on the property and lifestyle of residents. The types of services that could be subsidised include clothes washing, cleaning outside areas and property, car washing or power bills.
Alternatively, SCC may wish to provide access to resources to assist (e.g. free hire of high- pressure water cleaners).
The level and type of subsidy would need to be agreed between SCC and the landholder. Critical thresholds for when such subsidies may apply would also need to be determined, such as distance to a roost and flying-fox numbers at a roost.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 22
An analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) for each general management option is provided in Table 1.
Table 1 SWOT analysis of management options
Option A1 - 5m vegetation buffer
Strengths Weaknesses
Will reduce risk of negative interactions between flying-foxes and humans/pets. Unlikely to achieve a reduction in smell and noise impacts for all residents. Limited vegetation removal required. Vegetation removal not favoured by the general community. Vegetation removal not reversible in the short-term. Annual maintenance required.
Opportunities Threats
Offset vegetation removed in areas with higher ecological value. Risk to fauna and flora within the 5 m buffer. Buffer distances can be varied around the roost depending on land use which will limit May increase visibility into the roost which may be unfavourable to some of the impacts/costs. community.
Option A2 - 10 m vegetation buffer
Strengths Weaknesses
Will reduce risk of negative interactions between flying-foxes and humans/pets. Vegetation removal not favoured by the general community. Some value in mitigating amenity impacts. Vegetation removal not reversible in the short-term. Separation between roosting flying-foxes and disturbance from human activity may reduce Annual maintenance required. overall noise and smell from the roost.
Opportunities Threats
Offset vegetation removed in areas with higher ecological value. Risk to fauna and flora within the 10 m buffer. Buffer distances can be varied around the roost depending on land use which will limit impacts/costs.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 23
Option A3 - 15 m vegetation buffer
Strengths Weaknesses
Will reduce risk of negative interactions between flying-foxes and humans/pets. Vegetation removal not favoured by the general community. Best possible buffer distance to mitigate impacts with in-situ management at this location. Vegetation removal not reversible in the short-term. Separation between roosting flying-foxes and disturbance from human activity may reduce May increase visibility into the roost which may be unfavourable to some of the overall noise and smell from the roost. community. Annual maintenance required.
Opportunities Threats
Offset vegetation removed in areas with higher ecological value. Risk to fauna and flora within the 15 m buffer. Buffer distances can be varied around the roost depending on land use which will limit Risk of limiting flying-fox habitat and causing them to spill-over into adjacent areas impacts/costs. (e.g. across the drain which would impact more residents). May increase visibility into the roost which may be unfavourable to some of the community.
Option B - Canopy-mounted sprinklers
Strengths Weaknesses
Likely to provide a buffer with minimal vegetation removal. Unknown long-term effectiveness. Cost-effective in comparison with dispersal. May require some vegetation removal to install. Less likely to impact ecological and amenity values. Ongoing water and electricity requirements. Generally preferred than vegetation removal. Cherry picker / elevated work platform required or installation contractor who can Can be reversed in the short-term if required. climb trees. Consistent with objective to conserve flying-foxes and their habitat within SCC area. Potential for equipment to be vandalised. Can be moved to other locations if required.
Opportunities Threats
Ability to further test effectiveness of canopy sprinklers. If used at inappropriate times may lead to inadvertent dispersal and associated May assist in managing FF heat stress events. risks. If installed correctly may be retained and used to deter roost re-colonisation if Potential to alter microclimate and impact ecology of the site. dispersal is to be considered. If used incorrectly can exacerbate heat stress events.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 24
Residents can operate sprinklers providing them with a level of control. Landholders may contribute with supply of water and electricity.
Option C - Dispersal
Strengths Weaknesses
Most effective at mitigating amenity impacts at this location if successful. Unknown impacts at other locations. Favoured option for many affected residents. Risks difficult to predict and control. Budgeting difficult with so many unknowns. Very costly, intensive and ongoing effort required to prevent re-colonisation Significant habitat modification often required to prevent re-colonisation. Limited window of opportunity for dispersal around FF breeding season. Dispersal activities are disruptive to residents and pets (i.e. noise and smoke from 0300). Will likely require multiple attempts. Not favoured by many community sectors. Often fails resulting in wasted funds.
Opportunities Threats
Potential to: impact animal welfare and flying-fox conservation increase aircraft strike risk associated with changed flying-fox movement patterns splinter the roost into other locations that are equally or more problematic shift the issue to another area impact on habitat value (e.g. through vegetation modification required to prevent re-colonisation) effect the flying-fox population, including disease status and associated public health risk impact to nearby residents associated with ongoing dispersal attempts excessive initial and/or ongoing capacity and financial investment negative public perception and backlash may exacerbate impacts at other known roost sites (e.g. Tepequar roost).
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 25
Option D - No interference (i.e. education, property modification, etc. with no active roost management)
Strengths (advantages) Weaknesses (limitations/disadvantages)
Minimal cost. Affected residents are unlikely to consider this sufficient action. Promotes flying-fox conservation. Preferred option by some sectors of the community. Supports a more sustainable management option in some cases.
Opportunities Threats
Property modification may increase the value of private properties. Residents may consider illegal management/disturbance which would likely Grants may be available for management activities that prevent the need to interfere impact on flying-fox welfare. with the roost.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 26
5 Cost-benefit analysis
Table 2 Cost-benefit analysis of management options.
Option Estimated cost to Council (excluding Council staff time)
Initial Maintenance (p.a.) Anticipated overall benefit
A1 – 5 m vegetation buffer $4,000 + cost of offset $1,000 + cost of Will reduce risk. Limited value in planting if required maintaining offsets if mitigating amenity impacts. required
A2 – 10 m vegetation buffer $8,000 + cost of offset $2,000 + cost of Will reduce risk and some planting if required maintaining offsets if amenity impacts. required
A3 – 15 m vegetation buffer $15,000 + cost of offset $3,000 + cost of Will reduce risk and some planting if required maintaining offsets if amenity impacts. Best required vegetation buffer option at this site for affected residents.
A4 – Combined A1-A3 $5,000 - $10,000 with $1,500 Targeted according to land use targeted management (5- to provide maximum benefit in 15m buffers depending on most cost-effective way and with land use). If staged, up to least possible impact. $15,000.
B1 – Canopy sprinklers with $1,500 per sprinkler + $300 per sprinkler + $1,000 Provide buffers with minimal selective roost tree removal elevated work platform vegetation management vegetation removal. hire/provision by Council $5,000 vegetation management
B2 – Canopy sprinklers without $1,200 per sprinkler + $300 per sprinkler Provide buffers with no roost tree removal elevated work platform vegetation removal but more hire/provision by Council sprinklers likely without any roost tree trimming.
C – Dispersal $50,000 $30,000 Very uncertain outcomes, unlikely to be successful without significant habitat modification.
D1 – Education only Nil (Council time only). Nil (Council time only). Unlikely to be considered sufficient by affected residents.
D2 – Private property modification Nil to Council (variable cost Nil to Council (variable cost Will partially mitigate issues. to landholder). to landholder). Should be done in conjunction with other management.
D3 – Subsidies/incentives TBD Up to $1,000 per affected Will partially mitigate issues. resident. Should be done in conjunction with other management.
Legend
Low cost (<$7,500) and low risk/impacts of management
Medium cost ($7,500-$15,000) and medium risk/impacts of management
High cost (>$15,000) and high risk/impacts of management
Coolum Beach flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 27
6 Recommendations
Management - Elizabeth St Drain and the Coolum area
A combination of Option A4 (selective vegetation trimming) and Option B2 (canopy- sprinklers) is recommended to create unsuitable buffer zones between residential buildings. Buffers can be of varying distances depending on property type and flying-fox habitat utilisation. Recommended distances between properties and roosting flying-foxes appropriate for this site are:
• Residential buildings – up to 15 m from houses and/or up to 5 m from boundaries
• Community centre – prevent roost vegetation overhanging the boundary
• SES building – buffer not considered necessary
• Clayden potters – up to 5 m from edge of building and prevent overhanging outdoor seating area.
Note that Council will require a Flying-fox Roost Management Permit from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection for the use of sprinklers.
Planted buffers could be considered (as per Section 4.4.2) along the Council boundary.
Recommended management zones and type are shown in Figure 5.
Significant permanent infrastructure, such as noise attenuation fencing, are not recommended at this stage given the small patch size, and the likelihood it will not be sustainable for a large roost in the long-term.
Option C (dispersal) is not recommended given the cost, risk, potential impacts to the community and flying-foxes and uncertain outcomes.
Option D (no roost management - education, property modification, subsidies) is recommended for all stages of flying-fox management because it targets options and programs that do not interfere with flying-foxes.
Consultation
Community education and consultation should continue as follows:
• Ensure an open and transparent decision-making process by making this report publically available, and directly communicating with affected residents.
• Keep affected residents up-to-date with timeframes for decision-making and management implementation.
• Directly communicate with surrounding residents and landholders of intended management activities, including end-points or stop work triggers.
• Consult with affected residents to allow management actions to be evaluated, and inform whether further management is likely required (where appropriate).
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 28
• Continue to educate the community on measures they can implement to reduce impacts of flying-foxes.
• Consult with the community centre near the Elizabeth Street Drain roost to ensure suitable measures are taken around the outdoor play area.
• Consult internally to determine whether subsidies/incentives are appropriate, and communicate this to potentially impacted residents.
• If management is likely to alter flying-fox movement patterns (e.g. dispersal), Council will internally consult with managers of Sunshine Coast Airport to ensure potential strike risk is managed.
• Continue to publish results of monthly monitoring on Council’s website.
Program evaluation
Risk should be monitored on an ongoing basis and any incidents reported to Council. A full independent review of management after one flying-fox season should assess the effectiveness of:
• risk mitigation
• management measures in achieving designated buffer zones
• buffers in providing residents with a reasonable level of amenity most of the time.
Recommendations for future management (if required) should be made based on this assessment.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 29 508,500 508,600 508,700 7,065,900 7,065,900 7,065,800 7,065,800 7,065,700 7,065,700 7,065,600 7,065,600 7,065,500 7,065,500
508,500 508,600 508,700
Normal roost extent (December Management area - 15 m buffer Figure 5: Elizabeth Street roost 2015) from property boundaries management recommendations Elizabeth Street Drain Reserve Management area - 5 m buffer from property boundaries Sunshine Coast Council Consider planted buffer (5m) Reactive management zone Flying-foxes in the Coolum Beach area Trim vegetation overhanging Community Centre Management options report Reactive management zone - 5m buffer
Job number: PR1430 GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 0 10 20 40 Revision: 3 Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: GDA 1994 Author: MED ° Metres Date: 18/04/2016 Units: Meter
Data Sources: © State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines), 2016; Sunshine Coast Council; © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2016; Aerial image: Nearmap, 2015 PR1430_MP_Fig5_ElizabethSt_Mgt_R3 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. A4
References and further reading
Aich, P, Potter, AA and Griebel, PJ, 2009, Modern approaches to understanding stress and disease susceptibility: A review with special emphasis on respiratory disease, International Journal of General Medicine 2: 19-32.
AIHW 2012, Risk factors contributing to chronic disease, Cat No. PHE 157, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737421546.
Atlas of Living Australia website at http://www.ala.org.au. 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. 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 roosts, 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 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. 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.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 31
Ecosure unpublished, Hendra Virus Risk Assessment for the Gold Coast Equine Precinct: Residual Risk Report, report to City of Gold Coast.
Edson, D, Field, H, McMichael, L, Jordan, D, Kung, N, Mayer, D & Smith, C, 2015, ‘Flying- fox Roost Disturbance and Hendra Virus Spillover Risk’, PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 5, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4446312/pdf/pone.0125881.pdf.
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. EHP 2013b, Code of Practice - Low impact activities affecting flying-fox roosts, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland. http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/roost-management.html 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. EHP 2013d, Living with Wildlife - Flying-foxes, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/index.html 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.
Henry, JP & Stephens-Larson, P, 1985, ‘Specific effects of stress on disease processes’ in Moberg, GP (ed.), Animal Stress, American Physiological Society, pp.161-175.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species – Grey-headed flying-fox http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18751/0 Lunney, D., Richards, G. and Dickman, C. 2008, Pteropus poliocephalus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.
NSW health nd, Rabies and Other Lyssavirus Infections. NSW Health. URL: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/controlguideline/Pages/rabies.aspx 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 Queensland Health 2015, Australian bat lyssavirus factsheet. Available: http://access.health.qld.gov.au/hid/InfectionsandParasites/ViralInfections/australianBatLyssa virus_fs.asp .
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 32
Queensland Health 2015, Bats and Human Health http://access.health.qld.gov.au/hid/InfectionsandParasites/ViralInfections/batsAndHumanHe alth_is.asp 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. 2005, Habitat characteristics of flying-fox roosts in south-east Queensland. BSc. (Hons.) Thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane. Roberts, B. and Eby, P. 2013, Review of past flying-fox dispersal actions between 1990- 2013, Unknown publisher. 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. SCC 2015 Regional Flying-fox Management Plan, Sunshine Coast Council, Sunshine Coast. SCC 2016 Flying-fox roost monitoring data, Sunshine Coast Council, unpublished database.
Tait, J, Perotto-Baldivieso, HL, McKeown, A, Westcott, DA 2014, ‘Are Flying-Foxes Coming to Town? Urbanisation of the Spectacled Flying-Fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) in Australia’, PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 10, e109810. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109810.
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 Vardon, MJ & Tidemann, CR 1999, Flying-foxes (Pteropus alecto and P. scapulatus) in the Darwin region, north Australia: patterns in roost 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 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.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.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 33
Appendix 1 Flying-foxes and human/animal health
Council has actively sought advice from Queensland Health to quantify the degree of risk of becoming infected with ABLV; Queensland Health has advised that this risk is very low. It is estimated that in Australia less than one per cent of free-living bats carry ABLV (Queensland Health 2015). The virus can be transmitted from bats to humans when infected bat saliva enters the human body, usually by a bite or scratch, but also by getting bat saliva in the eyes, nose or mount (mucous membrane exposure) or onto a pre-existing break in the skin (Queensland Health 2015). It is unlikely the virus can survive outside the bat for greater than a few hours (Queensland Health 2013). Three people have died from ABLV infections in Australia since 1996 (Queensland Health 2015).
Queensland Health strongly recommends that any flying-fox, dead or alive, should not be touched. Preventative and post exposure vaccination is available to high risk individuals including vets and wildlife carers.
Queensland Health advises that flying-foxes are the natural host for Hendra Virus, which can be fatal to humans. The virus can spread from flying-foxes to horses, horses to horses and, rarely, from horses to humans. It is thought that horses contract Hendra virus infection from eating contaminated matter, particularly by flying-fox urine. Spread to other horses is possible wherever horses have close contact with body fluids of an infected horse. There is no evidence of human to human transmission.
Queensland Health has also advised that a range of health conditions may be contracted through ingestion of the urine and faecal matter of a range of domestic and native animals, including flying-foxes.
Appropriate protocols and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) are required for people working in and around flying-fox roosts, and will be dependent on the type of activity.
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.
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 are 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
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 34
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 ABLV or HeV from flying-foxes defecating or urinating in pools.
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.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 35
Appendix 3 Dispersal results summary
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 area2. 2. In 16 of the 17 cases, dispersals did not reduce the number of flying-foxes in the local area. 3. Dispersed animals did not move far (in approx. 63% of cases the animals only moved <600 m from the original site, contingent on the distribution of available vegetation). In 85% of cases, new camps were established nearby. 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 where extensive vegetation removal occurred). 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.).
Ecosure, in collaboration with a Griffith University Industry Affiliates Program student, researched outcomes of management in Queensland between November 2013 and November 2014 (the first year since the current Queensland state flying-fox management framework was adopted on 29th November 2013). An overview of findings3 is summarised below.
1. There were attempts to disperse 25 separate roosts in Queensland (compared with nine roosts between 1990 and June 2013 analysed in Roberts and Eby (2013)). Compared with the historical average (less than 0.4 roosts/year) the number of roosts dispersed in the year since the Code was introduced has increased by 6,250%. 2. Dispersal methods included fog4, birdfrite, lights, noise, physical deterrents, smoke, extensive vegetation modification, water (including cannons), paintball guns and helicopters. 3. The most common dispersal methods were extensive vegetation modification alone and extensive vegetation modification combined with other methods. 4. In nine of the 24 roosts dispersed, dispersal actions did not reduce the number of flying-foxes in the LGA. 5. In all cases it was not possible to predict where new roosts would form.
2 Local area is defined as the area within a 20 km radius of the original site = typical feeding area of a flying-fox. 3 This was based on responses to questionnaires sent to councils: some did not respond and some omitted responses to some questions 4 Fog refers to artificial smoke or vapours generated by smoke/fog machines. Many chemical substances used to generate smoke/fog in these machines is considered toxic.
Coolum Beach flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 36
6. When flying-foxes were dispersed, they did not move further than 6 km away. 7. As at November 2014 repeat actions had already been required in 18 cases. 8. Conflict for the council and community was resolved in 60% of cases, but with many councils stating that they feel this resolution is only temporary. 9. The financial costs of all dispersal attempts, regardless of methods used were considerable ranging from $7,500 to more than $400,000 (with costs ongoing).
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 37
Appendix 2 Vegetation management done at Elizabeth Street roost
Coolum Beach flying-fox roosts – management options ecosure.com.au | 38
Coolum Beach flying-fox roost management options ecosure.com.au | 39
Revision History Revision Revision Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by No. date 00 12/02/2016 Draft Coolum FF Jessica Bracks, Principal Julie Whelan, Senior Ecologist options report Wildlife Biologist Jess Bracks, Principal Wildlife Biologist 01 22/03/2016 Final Coolum FF Grant Brearley, Senior Jessica Bracks, Principal options report Ecologist (incorporating Wildlife Biologist client comments) 02 08/04/2016 Final Coolum FF Grant Brearley, Senior Jessica Bracks, Principal options report Rev 1 Ecologist Wildlife Biologist (incorporating client comments) 03 12/04/2016 Final Coolum FF Jessica Bracks, Principal Jessica Bracks, Principal options report Rev 2 Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biologist (incorporating client comments) 04 18/04/2016 Final Coolum FF Grant Brearley, Senior Jessica Bracks, Principal options report Rev 3 Ecologist Wildlife Biologist 05 20/04/2016 Final Coolum FF Jessica Bracks, Principal Wildlife Biologist (incorporating options report Rev 4 client comments) 06 26/04/2016 Final Coolum FF Jessica Bracks, Principal Wildlife Biologist (incorporating options report Rev 5 client comments)
Distribution List
Copy # Date Type Issued to Name 1 26/04/2016 Electronic Sunshine Coast Council Raeleen Draper 2 26/04/2016 Electronic Sunshine Coast Council Jacqueline Nolen 3 26/04/2016 Electronic Ecosure Administration
Citation: Ecosure (2016), Coolum Beach Options Paper, final report to Sunshine Coast Council, Publication Location – Brisbane.
Report compiled by Ecosure Pty Ltd ABN: 63 106 067 976 [email protected] www.ecosure.com.au
PR1430-DE Coolum Beach Options Paper.FINAL R5
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 2016 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.