Flying-fox Camp Management Plan Template 2019

Oatley Flying-fox Camp Management Plan 2021

© 2019 State of NSW and Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

With the exception of photographs, the State of NSW and Department of Planning, Industry and Environment are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specific permission is required for the reproduction of photographs.

The Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) has compiled this report in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. DPIE shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs.

All content in this publication is owned by DPIE and is protected by Crown Copyright, unless credited otherwise. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), subject to the exemptions contained in the licence. The legal code for the licence is available at Creative Commons.

DPIE asserts the right to be attributed as author of the original material in the following manner: © State of New South Wales and Department of Planning, Industry and Environment 2019.

Cover photo: Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) roosting in Myles Dunphy Reserve, Oatley. Photo taken by Pearce Thomas (Eco Logical Australia 2020)

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

iii

Contents

Acknowledgements vi

Acronyms and abbreviations vii

1. Objectives of this Plan 1

2. Context 2

2.1 Camp area 2

2.2 History of the camp 2

2.3 Land tenure 2

2.4 Vegetation 2

3. Community engagement 5

3.1 Stakeholders 5

3.2 Engagement methods 6

3.3 Community feedback 6

4. Legislation and policy 7

4.1 State 7

4.2 Commonwealth 8

5. Flying-fox ecology and behaviour 9

5.1 Distribution and habitat 9

5.2 Reproduction 10

5.3 Ecological role 10

5.4 Camp characteristics 11

5.5 Flying-foxes in urban areas 11

5.6 Threats 11

6. Human and animal health 15

7. Camp management 16

7.1 Options 16

7.2 Priorities 16

7.3 Incident Response 23

8. Plan administration 26

8.1 Management structure and responsibilities 26

8.2 Funding commitment 26

8.3 Evaluation and review 26

9. References and additional resources 28

Appendix 1: Summary of other key legislation 33

Local government legislation 33

iv

State legislation 33

State Environmental Planning Policies 34

Appendix 2: Additional human and animal health information 35

Australian bat lyssavirus 35

Hendra virus 35

Menangle virus 36

General health considerations 36

Appendix 3: Dispersal results summary 37

Appendix 4: Example flying-fox rescue protocol 38

Reference documents: 38

Purpose 38

Requirements 38

Human first aid 38

Equipment 38

Work instructions 39

Appendix 5: Phytophthora Dieback 42

Phytopthora Background 42

Potential impacts of Dieback 42

Eradication 43

Management Measures 44

Site specific management techniques 69

Mitigating the impact 71

Appendix 6: Community feedback 74

v

List of tables

Table 1: Stakeholders in the camp and Plan 5

Table 2: Roles and responsibilities for implementing this Plan 26

List of figures

Figure 1: Core flying-fox camp and maximum recorded camp extent 3

Figure 2: Vegetation communities (Total Earth Care 2021) 4

Figure 3: Grey-headed flying-fox indicative species distribution (adapted from DPIE 2019a) 9

Figure 4: Indicative flying-fox reproductive cycle 10

Figure 5: Weeds in camp, Ligustrum sinense (Narrow leaf privet) and Lantana camara (Lantana) are prevalent 13

Figure 6: Recorded spread of Phytophthora in the reserve (ELA 2018) 14

Figure 7: Possible components of an education program 17

Figure 8: Assessment process for flying-fox rescue 39

Oatley Flying-fox Camp Management Plan

vi

Acknowledgements

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (ELA) with support from Lachlan Prentice, Senior Environmental Officer at Georges River Council (GRC). ELA is also grateful for camp monitoring information provided by local resident Geoff Francis.

We acknowledge input by the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, and consultants Ecosure, in developing the template on which this Camp Management Plan was based. Peggy Eby also provided advice which was included in the template.


vii

Acronyms and abbreviations

ABLV Australian bat lyssavirus

BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW)

BFF Black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto)

the Code of Practice

Flying-fox Camp Management Code of Practice 2018 (NSW)

DAWE Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment

DEE Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy

DPIE Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (NSW)

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)

EPA Environment Protection Authority (NSW)

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)

GHFF Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

GRC Georges River Council

LGA Local government area

LGNSW Local Government NSW

MNES Matters of national environmental significance

NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW)

the Plan Camp Management Plan

POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

the Policy Flying-fox Camp Management Policy 2015 (NSW)

SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policies

SIS Species impact statement

SWMS Safe Work Method Statement

TEC Threatened ecological community


1

1. Objectives of this Plan

The objectives of this Camp Management Plan (the Plan) are to:

• Enable stakeholders to use a range of suitable management responses to sustainably conserve the Vulnerable Grey-headed Flying-fox population at Myles Dunphy Reserve, consistent with the NSW Flying-fox Camp Management Policy 2015

• Clearly define roles and responsibilities for camp management

• Identify actions that will be used to:

o Manage public health and safety risks associated with the camp

o Minimise impacts to the community, while conserving flying-foxes and their habitat

o Provide a reasonable level of amenity for the community near the camp

o Ensure camp management does not contribute to loss of biodiversity or increase threats to threatened species or communities, including through the risk of vegetation dieback caused by phytophthora cinnamomi (phytophthora)

o Improve community understanding and appreciation of flying-foxes, including their critical ecological role

• Advise on heat stress protocols

• Review camp monitoring data

• Advise on weed controls, revegetation, infrastructure and reserve access

• Identify contingency measures in the event of sudden, substantially increased numbers of flying-foxes within the camp

• Align with other relevant land use and community planning documentation such as the Myles Dunphy Reserve and Wetland Plan of Management (Hurstville City Council 2013) and the Myles Dunphy Phytophthora Management Plan (Eco Logical Australia 2018)

• Form an appendix to work in accompaniment with future biodiversity studies, strategies and plans of management relevant to this site.

These are consistent with the following objectives of the National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (DAWE 2021):

• Identify, protect and increase native foraging habitat that is critical to the survival of the Grey-headed Flying-fox.

• Identify, protect and increase roosting habitat of Grey-headed Flying-fox camps.

• Determine trends in the Grey-headed Flying-fox population so as to monitor the species’ national distribution, habitat use and conservation status.

• Build community capacity to coexist with flying-foxes and minimise the impacts on urban settlements from new and existing camps while avoiding interventions to move on or relocate entire camps.

• Increase public awareness and understanding of Grey-headed Flying-foxes and the recovery program, and involve the community in the recovery program where appropriate.

• Improve the management of Grey-headed Flying-fox camps in areas where interaction with humans is likely.


2

2. Context

2.1 Camp area

The camp is in Myles Dunphy Reserve, Oatley (the reserve). It is bounded by Mulga Road and residential properties to the North, the former Oatley bowling club site and Oatley railway corridor to the East, residential properties and Gungah Bay to the South, and residential properties to the West. On 15 November 2020, the camp covered approximately 0.40 ha, within 0.70 ha of suitable contiguous camp habitat (Figure 1).

2.2 History of the camp

The camp was first recorded in July 2007 and has been monitored regularly by local resident Geoff Francis, Georges River Council (GRC) staff and others. Monitoring indicates that it is a temporary or informal roosting site for Grey-Headed Flying-Fox (GHFF) (Pteropus poliocephalus) positioned in a gully near the centre of the reserve. There are usually less than 5000 GHFF in the camp and sometimes there are no flying-foxes present. Very low numbers of Black Flying-foxes (Pteropus alecto) (less than 100 at a time) have also been recorded in the camp.

The camp size and position in the reserve fluctuate, but it generally remains close to the water line, leaving vegetated buffers between the camp and adjoining residences (Figure 1). When the camp formed in 2007, there was an open water wetland so the flying-foxes could easily drink and belly-skim to cool down. Woody weeds have since encroached the wetland, reducing the quality of camp habitat.

The camp size peaked in February and March 2009 to about 20,000 GHFF when the whole reserve was occupied, and roosting spilled into adjacent yards. This short-term influx was triggered by flowering Red Bloodwoods (Corymbia gummifera) in the area, which is a favoured food source for flying-foxes. Complaints from residents near the camp at that time predominantly related to faecal drop. Since then complaints have been intermittent with no ongoing regular complaints being received.

Heat stress events have been recorded at the camp, most recently on 4 January 2020 when an estimated 1,000 GHFF (mostly pups) died.

In recent years, planning and management of the reserve has been in accordance with the 2013 Myles Dunphy Reserve Wetland Plan of Management and the 2018 Myles Dunphy Reserve Phytophthora Dieback Environmental Management Plan. A boardwalk was constructed in the reserve in 2018, with an informal bush track extension. The GRC proposes to extend the boardwalk along the informal path to reduce risks to vegetation associated with Phytophthora.

2.3 Land tenure

Myles Dunphy Reserve is managed by GRC and zoned RE1 Public Recreation.

2.4 Vegetation

Vegetation communities in the reserve are mapped in Figure 2. The camp is generally in the Coastal Enriched Sandstone Sheltered Forest and Riverflat Paperbark Swamp Forest (ie Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplain, which is an endangered ecological community listed under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016). Vegetation in Myles Dunphy Reserve has been degraded by inappropriate fire regimes, weed proliferation and vegetation dieback caused by Phytophthora. Priority weeds found in the reserve include Lantana, Bitou Bush / Boneseed, African Olive and Asparagus Fern.


3

Figure 1: Core flying-fox camp and maximum recorded camp extent


4

Figure 2: Vegetation communities (Total Earth Care 2021)


5

3. Community engagement

3.1 Stakeholders

Stakeholders directly or indirectly affected by the flying-fox camp or interested in its management are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Stakeholders in the camp and Plan

Stakeholder Interest/reported impacts

Residents Community comments to GRC indicate that residents are generally not concerned by the presence of the camp and they enjoy living near nature. However, community concern was triggered in 2009 when there was a rapid increase in the camp size to about 20,000 GHFF, including roosting in adjacent yards. Complaints predominantly related to faecal drop. Since then complaints have been intermittent with no ongoing regular complaints being received.

There are community groups associated with the reserve such as Oatley Flora and Fauna Conservation Society and GRC Bushcare.

Camp data has been collected by Geoff Francis, a local resident who has been monitoring the camp since 2007. Monitoring data collected by community volunteers includes fly in/fly out counts.

Further information about community interest in the camp is provided in section 3.3 below based on responses to an online questionnaire in late 2020.

George River Council Local government has responsibilities to the community and environment of the area for which it is responsible in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

GRC is also responsible for administering local laws, plans and policies, and appropriately managing assets (including land) for which it is responsible.

Wildlife carers and conservation organisations

Wildlife carers and conservation organisations have an interest in flying-fox welfare and conservation of flying-foxes and their habitat. The local WIRES representative is a nearby resident.

Researchers/universities/CSIRO Researchers have an interest in flying-fox behaviour, biology and conservation. GRC is not aware of any flying-fox research studies at the camp.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

DPIE is responsible for administering legislation relating to (among other matters) the conservation and management of native plants and animals, including threatened species and ecological communities.


6

3.2 Engagement methods

GRC uses various methods to engage with the community on this issue:

• GRC has installed informational signage in the reserve.

• GRC consults community groups associated with the reserve such as Friends of Oatley, Oatley Flora and Fauna Conservation Society and GRC Bushcare.

• Camp monitoring data from community volunteers is shared with GRC.

• Efforts by community groups and GRC to host fly out counts and spotlighting events have been challenging due to the difficult site access and terrain.

• GRC regularly publishes an environmental newsletter which includes an update on the flying-fox camp.

• GRC provides regular updates about the camp on its website.

• A ‘Your Say’ questionnaire was posted on GRC’s website in December 2020 inviting the community to provide comment for this camp management plan. The intention was to:

o Understand the issues directly and indirectly affecting the community

o Raise awareness within the community about flying-foxes

o Seek ideas about possible future management options

This Plan will be placed on public exhibition for further comment.

3.3 Community feedback

A total of 37 responses were received from the community to an online questionnaire in December 2020. The respondents were a mix of people who live near the camp or in the wider area. Most respondents supported measures consistent with conservation of the flying-foxes.

In response to the question ‘What is your primary concern with the flying-fox camp in Myles Dunphy Reserve?’, 31 respondents said ‘Their conservation and long-term survival’; 5 said ‘Managing their impact on the community’; and one said they have no concern with the flying-foxes but GRC should fix the sewage overflowing in the reserve. Further unedited comments from the community are provided in Appendix 6. Suggestions made by the community for future management have been incorporated in this Plan.


7

4. Legislation and policy

4.1 State

4.1.1 Flying-fox Camp Management Policy 2015

The Flying-fox Camp Management Policy 2015 (the Policy) has been developed to empower land managers, principally local councils, to work with their communities to manage flying-fox camps effectively. It provides the framework within which DPIE will make regulatory decisions. In particular, the Policy strongly encourages local councils and other land managers to prepare Camp Management Plans for sites where the local community is affected.

4.1.2 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

The purpose of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) includes to conserve biodiversity at the bioregional and state scales. Under this Act, a person who harms or attempts to harm an animal of a threatened species, an animal that is part of a threatened ecological community, or a protected animal, is guilty of an offence. The GHFF is listed as Vulnerable under the BC Act.

A biodiversity conservation licence under Part 2 of the BC Act may be required if the proposed action is likely to result in one or more of the following:

• Harm to an animal that is a threatened species, or part of a threatened population;

• The picking of a plant that is a threatened species, or part of a threatened population or ecological community;

• Damage to habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community;

• Damage to a declared area of outstanding biodiversity conservation value.

If DPIE assesses a biodiversity conservation licence application and determines that a significant impact is unlikely, a biodiversity conservation licence will be granted (the appendix to the Policy lists standard conditions for flying-fox management approvals).

DPIE regulates flying-fox camp management through two options provided to land managers:

• Authorisation under the Flying-fox Camp Management Code of Practice for public land managers;

• Licensing for public and private land managers.

The Code of Practice provides a defence under the BC Act for public land managers, as long as camp management actions are carried out in accordance with the Code of Practice.

4.1.3 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act governs animal welfare in NSW. It may be an offence under this Act if there is evidence of unreasonable/unnecessary torment associated with management activities. Adhering to welfare and conservation measures provided in this Plan will ensure compliance with this Act.

4.1.4 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) are to encourage proper management, development and conservation of resources, for the purpose of the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment. It also aims to share responsibility for environmental planning between different levels of government and promote public participation in environmental planning and assessment.

The EP&A Act is administered by DPIE.

Development control plans under the Act should consider flying-fox camps so that planning, design and construction of future developments is appropriate to avoid future conflict.

Development under Part 4 of the Act does not require licensing under the BC Act.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/150070-flyingfoxcamp-policy.pdf

https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2016/63

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/wildlife-management/flying-fox-management/code-of-practice-for-flying-fox-camp-management-actions


8

Where public authorities such as local councils undertake development under Part 5 of the EP&A Act (known as ‘development without consent’ or ‘activity’), assessment and licensing under the BC Act may not be required; however, a full consideration of the development’s potential impacts on threatened species will be required in all cases.

Where flying-fox camps occur on private land, landowners are not eligible to apply for development under Part 5 of the EP&A Act. Private landowners should contact GRC to explore management options for camps that occur on private land.

4.2 Commonwealth

4.2.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999

The Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides protection for the environment, specifically matters of national environmental significance (MNES). A referral to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) is required under the EPBC Act for any action that is likely to significantly impact on an MNES.

MNES under the EPBC Act that relate to flying-foxes include:

• World heritage sites (where those sites contain flying-fox camps or foraging habitat);

• Wetlands of international importance (where those wetlands contain flying-fox camps or foraging habitat);

• Nationally threatened species and ecological communities.

The GHFF is listed as a Vulnerable species under the EPBC Act, meaning it is an MNES. It is also considered to comprise a single national population.

DEE has developed the Referral guideline for management actions in GHFF and SFF1 camps (DoE 2015) (the Guideline) to guide whether referral is required for actions pertaining to the GHFF.

The Guideline defines a nationally important GHFF camp as one that has either:

• Contained ≥10,000 GHFF in more than one year in the last 10 years;

• Been occupied by more than 2500 GHFF permanently or seasonally every year for the last 10 years.

Minor or routine camp management activities that will not have the effect of dispersing or clearing a flying-fox camp are unlikely to have a significant impact on an EPBC Act-listed flying-fox species, regardless of whether or not the camp affected is a nationally important camp. Referral under the EPBC Act is less likely to be required for these activities. Activities that are more likely to be minor or routine camp management are:

• Mowing of grass and similar grounds-keeping actions;

• Application of mulch or removal of leaf litter or other material on the ground;

• Weed removal, minor trimming of understorey vegetation or the planting of vegetation;

• Removal of tree limbs or a small proportion of the whole trees in a camp if they are significantly damaged and pose a health and safety risk, as determined by a qualified and experienced arborist;

• Minor habitat augmentation for the benefit of the roosting animals;

• Installation of signage or similar-scale infrastructure;

• Passive recreation (i.e. Low noise recreation);

• Educational activities, such as study or observation of roosting flying-foxes.

1 Spectacled flying-fox (P. conspicillatus)

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6d4f8ebc-f6a0-49e6-a6b6-82e9c8d55768/files/referral-guideline-flying-fox-camps.pdf


9

5. Flying-fox ecology and behaviour

5.1 Distribution and habitat

The GHFF has historically occupied forests and woodlands in the coastal lowlands, tablelands and slopes of eastern Australia, from Bundaberg in Queensland to Geelong in Victoria, with some isolated camps and rare sightings outside this range. More recently, camps have established in South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and inland areas of central and southern New South Wales and Victoria and sightings have increased in Tasmania. (Australian Government’s National Flying Fox Recovery Plan (DAWE 2021)).

GHFF requires foraging resources and camp sites within rainforests, open forests, closed and open woodlands (including melaleuca swamps and banksia woodlands). This species is also found throughout urban and agricultural areas where food trees exist and will feed in orchards at times, especially when other food is scarce (DPIE 2019a).

Figure 3: Grey-headed flying-fox indicative species distribution (adapted from DPIE 2019a)

All the GHFF in Australia are regarded as one population that moves around freely within its entire national range (Webb and Tidemann 1996; DoE 2015). GHFF may travel up to 100 kilometres in a single night with a foraging radius of up to 50 kilometres from their camp (McConkey et al. 2012). They have been recorded travelling over 500 kilometres over 48 hours when moving from one camp to another (Roberts et al. 2012). GHFF generally show a high level of fidelity to camp sites, returning year after year to the same site, and have been recorded returning to the same branch of a particular tree (SEQ Catchments 2012). This may be one of the reasons flying-foxes continue to return to small urban bushland blocks that may be remnants of historically used larger tracts of vegetation.

The GHFF population has a generally annual southerly movement in spring and summer, with their return to the coastal forests of north-east NSW and south-east Queensland in winter (Ratcliffe 1932; Eby 1991; Parry-Jones & Augee 1992; Roberts et al. 2012). This results in large fluctuations in the number of GHFF in New South Wales, ranging from as few as 20% of the total population in winter up to around 75% of the total population in summer (Eby 2000). They are widespread throughout their range during summer, but in spring and winter are uncommon in the south. In autumn they occupy primarily coastal lowland camps and are uncommon inland and on the south coast of New South Wales (DECCW 2009).


10

5.2 Reproduction

Males initiate contact with females in January with peak conception occurring around March to April/May; this mating season represents the period of peak camp occupancy (Markus 2002). Young (usually a single pup) are born six months later from September to November (Churchill 2008). The birth season becomes progressively earlier, albeit by a few weeks, in more northerly populations (McGuckin & Blackshaw 1991); however, out of season breeding is common, with births occurring later in the year.

As such, the critical reproductive period for GHFF is generally from August (when females are in their final trimester) to the end of peak conception around April. Dependent pups are usually present from September to March (see Figure 4).

The breeding season of GHFF is variable between years and location, and expert assessment is required to accurately determine phases in the breeding cycle and inform appropriate management timing.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

GHFF

BFF

LRFF

Peak conception

Final trimester

Peak birthing

Crèching (young left at roost)

Lactation

Figure 4: Indicative flying-fox reproductive cycle

5.3 Ecological role

Flying-foxes make a substantial contribution to ecosystem health through their ability to move seeds and pollen over long distances (Southerton et al. 2004). GHFF feed on over 100 species of flowering trees and fleshy-fruited trees and lianas (Eby and Law 2008). Due to their role as a pollen and seed disperser, GHFFs contribute to sustaining ecological processes within vegetation communities along the east coast of Australia.

Flying-foxes are considered ‘keystone’ species given their contribution to the health, longevity and diversity among and between vegetation communities. These ecological services ultimately protect the long-term health and biodiversity of Australia’s bushland and wetlands. In turn, native forests act as carbon sinks (Roxburgh et al. 2006), provide habitat for other animals and plants, stabilise river systems and catchments, add value to production of hardwood timber, honey and fruit (e.g. bananas and mangoes; Fujita 1991), and provide recreational and tourism opportunities worth millions of dollars each year (DES 2018).


11

5.4 Camp characteristics

All flying-foxes are nocturnal, typically roosting during the day in communal camps. These camps may range in number from a few to hundreds of thousands, with individual animals frequently moving between camps within their range. Typically, the abundance of resources within a 20 to 50-kilometre radius of a camp site will be a key determinant of the size of a camp (SEQ Catchments 2012). Many flying-fox camps are temporary and seasonal, tightly tied to the flowering of their preferred food trees; however, understanding the availability of feeding resources is difficult because flowering and fruiting are not reliable every year, and can vary between localities (SEQ Catchments 2012). These are important aspects of camp preference and movement between camps and have implications for long-term management strategies.

Little is known about flying-fox camp 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; Eco Logical Australia 2018):

• Closed canopy >5 metres high;

• Dense vegetation with complex structure (upper, mid- and understorey layers);

• Within 500 metres of permanent water source;

• Within 50 kilometres of the coastline or at an elevation <65 metres 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 camp. 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).

5.5 Flying-foxes in urban areas

Flying-foxes appear to be roosting and foraging in urban areas more frequently. There are many possible drivers for this:

• Loss of native habitat and urban expansion;

• Opportunities presented by year-round food availability from native and exotic species found in expanding urban areas;

• Disturbance events such as drought, fires, cyclones;

• Human disturbance at non-urban roosts or culling at orchards;

• Urban effects on local climate;

• Refuge from predation;

• Movement advantages, e.g. ease of manoeuvring in flight due to the open nature of the habitat or ease of navigation due to landmarks and lighting

• Urban migration of various species following the devastating East Coast 2019-20 Summer bushfires.

5.6 Threats

The increasing presence of flying-foxes in urban areas can give the impression that their populations are increasing; however, the GHFF is in decline across its range and in 2001 was listed as Vulnerable by the NSW Government.

At the time of listing, counts of flying-foxes over the previous decade suggested the national population had declined by up to 30%. It was also estimated the population would continue to decrease by at least 20% in the next three generations given the continuation of the current rate of habitat loss, culling and other threats.

The main threat to GHFF in New South Wales is clearing or modification of native vegetation. This removes appropriate roosting and breeding sites and limits the availability of natural food resources, particularly winter–spring feeding habitat in north-eastern NSW. The urbanisation of the coastal plains


12

of south-eastern Queensland and northern NSW has seen the removal of annually reliable winter feeding sites, which is continuing.

There is a wide range of ongoing threats to the survival of GHFF, including:

• Habitat loss and degradation

• Conflict with humans (including culling at orchards)

• Infrastructure-related mortality (e.g. Entanglement in barbed wire fencing and fruit netting, power line electrocution, etc.)

• Exposure to extreme natural events such as cyclones, drought and heatwaves.

GHFFs have limited capacity to respond to these threats and recover from large population losses due to their slow sexual maturation, low reproductive output, long gestation and extended maternal dependence (McIlwee & Martin 2002).

5.6.1 Weed infestation and habitat loss

Flying-foxes will often defoliate and break branches while landing and flying within their roosts. Tree deaths are common in densely populated camps or during prolonged periods of camp occupation. The loss of canopy combined with increased levels of sunlight reaching the lower vegetation strata and increased nutrient loadings has contributed to a proliferation of weeds unless native species are encouraged to regenerate.

A camp will be sustainable if there is sufficient habitat for the GHFF to shift into new roost trees and allow old roosts to recover or revegetate. However, weedy vines growing into the canopy and proliferation of other weeds can result in the loss of existing and potential GHFF habitat, even though the weeds may also offer some relief to GHFF from heat stress (Figure 5). Removal of vines and other weeds is necessary for the long-term sustainability of the habitat but needs to be conducted in a manner that minimises risks to GHFF.

Georges River Council’s Biodiversity Study Volume 2 2021 recorded 26 pest flora species within Myles Dunphy Reserve, with the majority of weed species found in the wetland areas. In particular, infestations of Ligustrum linense (Small-Leaf Privet) Colocasia esculenta (Taro) and Lantana camara (Lantana) surround the GHFF camp.

Careful, staged removal of some of the terrestrial weeds during winter months to prevent a weedy monoculture, as well as attempted eradication of the aquatic weed Taro will contribute to the long-term sustainability of the GHFF camp.

Phytophthora cinnamomi (Phytophthora) has been confirmed within Myles Dunphy Reserve (Figure 6) and there is a risk it may impact the vegetation providing seasonal roost habitat to the GHFF camp. Measures have been identified in the Myles Dunphy Phytophthora Management Plan to mitigate this risk.

5.6.2 Electrocution or entanglement

GHFF can be injured or killed when they become entangled in fruit tree netting. Similarly, flying-foxes can be electrocuted by power lines.

5.6.3 Heat stress

Heat stress occurs when the body absorbs or produces more heat than it can dissipate. Heatwaves over 38oC can harm or kill GHFF. A single heat stress event can kill up to thousands of flying-foxes in a camp. Contributing factors that might increase / decrease the impacts of heat stress include:

• Access to or absence of adequate understorey vegetation – dense understorey vegetation provides a refuge to escape intense heat

• Timing and age of ghffs in the camp – during the birthing season or presence of juveniles in camp (juveniles are most susceptible to heat stress events)

• The numbers of ghff in camp (more bats will lead to competition for cool roost locations and potentially more deaths)


13

• Condition of ghffs in camp – if they are already under stress from other factors (noise, low food resources, disease or a combination of these things), they will be more prone to heat stress events.

There was a heat stress event on 4 January 2020 that resulted in approximately 1000 GHFF, mostly juveniles, perish in Myles Dunphy Reserve.

Figure 5: Weeds in camp, Ligustrum sinense (Narrow leaf privet) and Lantana camara (Lantana) are prevalent


14

Figure 6: Recorded spread of Phytophthora in the reserve (ELA 2018)


15

6. Human and animal health

Flying-foxes, like all animals, carry pathogens that may pose human health risks. Many of these are viruses that cause only minor infections with no clinical signs in flying-foxes themselves, but may cause significant disease in other animals that are exposed. In Australia the most well-defined of these include Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV), Hendra virus and Menangle virus. Specific information on these viruses is provided in Appendix 2.

Only three cases of human infection with ABLV have been recorded since the virus was first identified in 1996. All three cases were in Queensland and all died as a result of ABLV infection after being bitten or scratched by bats. (NSW Health2)

Avoiding handling GHFFs is the most effective way to mitigate risk of disease for anyone who is not a trained wildlife handler or carer.

Outside of an occupational cohort, including wildlife carers and vets, human exposure to these viruses is extremely rare and similarly, transmission rates and incidence of human infection are very low. In addition, Hendra virus infection in humans apparently requires transfer from an infected intermediate equine host and direct transmission from bats to humans has not been reported. Thus, despite the fact that human infection with these agents can be fatal, the probability of infection is extremely low, and the overall public health risk is judged to be low (Qld Health 2016).

A study at several camps before, during and after disturbance (Edson et al. 2015) showed no statistical association between Hendra virus prevalence and flying-fox disturbance; however, the consequences of chronic or ongoing disturbance and harassment and its effect on Hendra virus infection were not within the scope of the study and are therefore unknown.

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, it can be assumed that management actions that 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

• 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 the 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 full risk assessment when determining the appropriate level of management and the associated mitigation measures required.

2 https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/factsheets/Pages/rabies-australian-bat-lyssavirus-infection.aspx


16

7. Camp management

7.1 Options

DPIE recognises that there are three levels of actions that land managers can consider, depending on the circumstances at each camp. These actions are as follows

• Level 1 actions – Routine camp management

o Education and awareness programs

o Property modification without subsidies

o Property modification with subsidies

o Service subsidies

o Routine camp maintenance and operational activities

o Revegetation and land management to create alternative habitat

o Provision of artificial roosting habitat

o Protocols to manage incidents

o Participation in research

o Appropriate land use planning

o Property acquisition

o Do nothing

• Level 2 actions – In situ management

o Buffers with or without vegetation removal

o Noise attenuation fencing

• Level 3 actions – Disturbance or dispersal

o Nudging

o Passive dispersal

o Active dispersal through disturbance

7.2 Priorities

The following priorities have been identified for the Oatley camp in consultation with GRC and community. These are consistent with Level 1 – Routine Camp Management Actions and aim to retain the camp in its current location with minimise disturbance to surrounding neighbours. Ongoing vegetation management will be needed to sustain the camp habitat in the reserve.

• Community engagement and education

• Vegetation management

• Population monitoring

• Fencing, signage and trail management

• Management of injured or dead flying-foxes.

This Plan also sets out how to manage incidents associated with sudden influx of flying-foxes to the

camp.

Level 2 and 3 actions as described above are typically not appropriate for the Oatley camp due to the

historically low volume of GHFF numbers in the camp and low associated community complaints.

Recommended point at which level two actions can be implemented

In the event of the camp experiencing consistent influx in population of more than 5,000 GHFF in fly-

out counts for over 12 months and impacts from the GHFF such as vegetation stripping and faecal drop

are not reduced from Level 1 actions, GRC will consider the application of the following Level 2 action.


17

• Buffers with or without vegetation removal

This buffer will involve potential vegetation pruning on GRC land and potential vegetation

pruning/removal within adjacent private property, provided tree assessment and applications for pruning

or removal are undertaken by persons appropriately qualified in arboriculture, per GRC’s Tree

Management Policy. DPIE approval will be required to advance to level two actions.

7.2.1 Community engagement and education

A comprehensive and targeted flying-fox education and awareness program can provide accurate information to the local community about flying-foxes. Such a program would include managing risk and alleviating concern about health and safety issues associated with flying-foxes, options available to reduce impacts from roosting and foraging flying-foxes, an up-to-date program of works being undertaken at the camp, information about flying-fox numbers and flying-fox behaviour at the camp, and heat stress events when hot weather is forecasted.

Residents should be made aware that faecal drop and noise at night are mainly associated with plants that provide food, independent of camp location. Management of fruit (e.g. bagging, pruning) will greatly assist in mitigating this issue. Approval from GRC through a Tree Removal Permit Application will be required for the removal of any vegetation over 3m in height.

An education program may include components shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Possible components of an education program

A quarterly newsletter is produced by GRC which provide updates on the camp, informative facts, as well as general information about living near GHFF. There remains an opportunity for a page dedicated to flying-foxes on GRC’s website that is regularly updated with relevant information such as upcoming days of high temperature that could trigger a heat stress event.

Volunteers with the GRC Bushcare group and community groups are active in the LGA. They remove weeds and plant trees in the reserve to assist with native flora and fauna conservation.

Actions:


18

• Continue to support Bushcare and community groups through collaborative grant funding and activities.

• Develop a complaints protocol so that staff know to refer complaints about GHFF to the Program Coordinator (see section 8.1 for more information about roles and responsibilities)

• Update GRC’s website and environmental education material/programs to include positive messages about:

o The ecological importance of flying-foxes as pollinators and seed dispersers

o Commonly asked questions on native wildlife, such as: what are the health risks

from ghff, can i get sick from odour or faecal drop, how long will noise last from

bats feeding in trees, how can i clean faecal droppings (this may also help to

manage some queries and complaints)

o What to do if you find an injured or dead ghff

o Ways to reduce conflict between residents and ghff

o The use of bat-friendly fruit tree netting

Performance targets:

• Up-to-date information available to the community via GRC’s websites and brochures.

• Prompt and consistent response to queries and complaints.

7.2.2 Vegetation management

Some weeds within the camp will result in loss of GHFF habitat over time if not controlled. Weed control and associated regeneration of native plants need to be carefully managed so that the camp is not disturbed and areas of protective, dense understorey continue to be available as a refuge for GHFF during heatwaves. Given the primary objective of this plan is to ensure that functional habitat to sustainably conserve the Oatley GHFF camp, tolerance of some sub-canopy weeds will be required in the medium to long term. This is due to the site's condition, land use history and location adjacent to an urban creek.

The reserve currently has a Bushcare officer (the Site Supervisor), five bush regenerators and a small team of regular volunteers implementing an ongoing program of bush restoration to ensure the site continues to provide suitable flying-fox habitat in the long term and support the GHFF during heat stress events. Work in the reserve is performed in accordance with a biodiversity conservation licence under Part 2 of the BC Act.

Human safety when working in the camp

To minimise risks to people working in the camp:

• All personnel must wear protective clothing including long sleeves and pants. Eye protection and a hat are also recommended when working in the camp. People working in the camp must wash their clothes daily and apply appropriate hygiene practices such as washing hands with soap and water or disinfectant before eating/smoking.

• All personnel who may handle flying-foxes must be vaccinated against ABLV with current titre.

• A first aid kit containing an anti-viral antiseptic (e.g. Betadine) must be on-site during works for the unlikely event of personnel being bitten or scratched by a flying-fox.

• The Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) must include details of the nearest hospital or doctor who can provide post-exposure prophylaxis.

Restricting Phytophthora dieback

Phytophthora is a pathogen that kills plants. Any machinery, tools or footwear must be cleaned and disinfected before entering and after leaving the reserve to mitigate the spread of Phytophthora. Refer to Appendix 5 for further details about Phytophthora risks and management.


19

Supervision of vegetation management works

The bush regeneration team must include a person with demonstrated relevant experience to monitor bat stress levels during works. The designated person would have authority to issue stop work if needed i.e. if the bats appear to be stressed and at risk. Signs of stress include:

• If any individual is observed:

o Panting

o Saliva spreading

o Located on or within two metres of the ground

o In flight for more than five minutes or leaving the camp (other than during fly in / fly out)

• If the majority of GHFF show agitated behaviour and take flight

• If dependent young (less than half the size of normal) that can’t fly are moving around in the roost or falling to ground.

The bush regeneration team will be supervised on site at all times by a qualified and experienced bush regenerator (the Bushcare officer aka Site Supervisor). As a minimum the supervisor will have completed the TAFE Certificate 3 in bush regeneration supervision or equivalent and have a minimum of 3 years bush regeneration experience. All team members using herbicides and other pesticides must be qualified to the appropriate ChemCert AQF level accreditation or equivalent in pesticide application. It is preferable that they are vaccinated against ABLV. Non vaccinated workers are not to have any contact with GHFF.

All on-ground works need to be performed in accordance with best practice bush regeneration techniques and a Safe Work Method Statement that includes information about risks and working in a GHFF camp.

Staged weed removal and associated regeneration/revegetation

Vegetation modification, including weed removal, must not alter the conditions of the site such that it becomes unsuitable flying-fox habitat. Weed removal should follow a mosaic pattern, maintaining refuges in the mid- and lower storeys at all times, and sufficient vegetation must be retained to support the maximum extent of GHFF camp. Deadwood and hollows should be retained on-site where possible as habitat.

Any tree lopping, trimming or removal if required should be scheduled when there are no flying-foxes roosting in the camp and undertaken under the supervision of a suitably qualified arborist (minimum qualification of Certificate III in Horticulture (Arboriculture) who is a member of an appropriate professional body such as Arboriculture Australia). Trimming should be in accordance with relevant Australian Standards (e.g. AS4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees), and best practice techniques used to remove vegetation in a way that avoids impacting other fauna and remaining habitat. Vegetation chipping is to be undertaken as far away from roosting flying-foxes as possible (at least 100 metres).

As indicated in Table 1, highest priority is given to treating vines that are threatening the GHFF canopy habitat. The vines should be treated in a staged mosaic pattern, initially targeting tree canopies most threatened by vine growth. Young, developing canopy trees are equally a priority for vine treatment. Vines should be allowed to die in situ. This approach is intended to cause minimal disruption to the camp and the dead vines will provide ongoing refuge from heat in the mid and lower storey.

Work must be scheduled to avoid sensitive periods in the GHFF life cycle. Figure 4 shows that the best time to conduct primary weed control is Autumn and Winter. Maintenance bush regeneration should be done as needed. However, no work is allowed during September and October if young pups are in the camp and the risks to GHFF are greatest. Further information about the timing of works is tabulated below in Tables 1-3.

To further reduce the risk of harm to the flying-foxes:

• Works must not take place in periods of adverse weather including strong winds, sustained heavy rains, extreme heat, cold temperatures or during periods of likely population stress (e.g. food shortages). Wildlife carers must be consulted to determine whether the population appears to be under stress.

• Works must be postponed on days predicted to exceed 35°C, and for one day following a day that reached ≥35°C. If an actual heat stress event has been recorded at the camp or at nearby

http://arboriculture.org.au/


20

camps, a rest period of several weeks must be scheduled to allow affected flying-foxes to fully recover before work can continue in the camp.

In the tables below, ‘core’ refers to the area of camp currently or regularly occupied by flying-foxes.


21

Table 1: High priority bush regeneration actions, Years 1-3

Habitat Action Resources and Timing

Core Remove exotic vines that are threatening existing young and developing canopy trees.

Maintain previously treated zones.

No works during Sep-May (i.e. only in Jun-Aug)

Primary works: approximately 60 person days per year in Autumn/Winter

Secondary/maintenance in accordance with best practice bush regeneration techniques: approximately 30 person days per year during growing season

Potential/Other

Remove exotic vines that are threatening existing young and developing canopy trees.


No works during Sept-Oct


Secondary/maintenance: approximately 10 person days during growing season

Table 2: Medium priority bush regeneration actions, Years 4-6

Habitat Action Resources and Timing

Core Target woody weeds of concern.




Secondary/maintenance: approximately 25 person days per year during growing season

Potential/Other

Target woody weeds of concern




Secondary/maintenance: approximately 15 person days per year during growing season

Table 3: Low priority bush regeneration actions, Years 7+

Action Resources and Timing


Revegetation with local provenance native species from the desired vegetation communities (if required)


Secondary/maintenance in accordance with best practice bush regeneration techniques: approximately 40 person days per year during growing season

Best practice weed control techniques

All weed control must be by hand unless the camp is unoccupied at the time. Mechanical methods of weed control (e.g. brushcutter, chainsaw) are not permitted in the core habitat area if GHFF are present because of the risk that the animals will become stressed. Mechanical methods may be used in areas outside of the core habitat only during the months March to August, subject to stress levels of GHFF in the wider vicinity.


22

Monitor regenerating species and revegetate if needed

Regenerating species must be consistent with species of the vegetation community in which the work is being conducted (see Figure 2), so as to support establishment or retention of GHFF habitat. The degraded nature of the site means that suitable species may not regenerate naturally. Revegetation may be needed to ensure that the structure and composition of these target communities is recreated to support the GHFF camp in the long term. The need for revegetation can be determined by the bush regeneration team monitoring and reporting what species are regenerating and what established trees are declining.

Monitoring and performance

The bush regeneration team will be required to complete a daily record of work performed and any impact on the GHFF. GRC’s Program Manager must be notified immediately of ‘stop work’ actions required due to GHFF stress levels during bush regeneration activities.

Performance targets:

• 50% annual reduction in target area weed cover compared to the previous year (canopy vines in Years 1-3; then woody weeds of concern in Years 4-6)

• Maintenance of a mosaic of refuges in the mid and lower storey by retention of dead weeds in situ, selective live weeds and restoration of (or revegetation with) native species

• Suppression of new outbreaks of weeds in previously treated areas

• No adverse impacts to GHFF.

7.2.3 Population monitoring

Population monitoring is essential to inform ongoing management of the camp and broader flying-fox population. GRC is fortunate to have community volunteers involved in camp monitoring but must ensure that there are ongoing GRC resources available for this if needed. Monitoring data will continue to be shared with the national flying-fox monitoring program and community.

Performance target:

• Camp monitoring data shared with the national program and community.

7.2.4 Signage and trail management

Currently there is an informal trail on the East of the reserve that is primarily used by GRC and the community for access to bush regeneration sites. The trail passes directly underneath the GHFF camp. Directional signage must be installed to advise people to not use this trail due to risks associated with Phytophthora and the GHFF camp. Weeds of dead fall can be placed at trail heads as an additional, temporary deterrent.

Performance target:

• Trail closed and revegetated.

7.2.5 Management of injured or dead flying-foxes

If a sick, dead or injured GHFF is found it must be reported to the GRC, NSW Wildlife Information, Rescue and Education Service (WIRES), or the Sydney Metropolitan Wildlife Services. People who are not trained and vaccinated must not handle sick, dead or injured GHFF.

The need to handle injured or dead GHFF is likely to increase during heatwaves, so suitable staff and volunteers must be identified in advance to minimise risk and ensure a timely response.

Actions:

• GRC, WIRES and community groups to identify staff and volunteers who have been trained in GHFF handling and vaccinated in Lyssavirus. GRC’s Program Manager must have their contact details.

• Prepare brief information for site inductions (e.g. to be included in SWMS) to educate GRC staff/contractors, WIRES volunteers and community group volunteers about safety protocols regarding GHFF when accessing the camp.


23

• Bush regeneration contractors and volunteers working at the subject site should preferably be vaccinated against Lyssavirus.

• Include advice on GRC’s and relevant community groups’ websites about what to do if you find a GHFF.

Performance target:

• No GHFF contact with unvaccinated volunteers or Council staff.

7.3 Incident Response

Events such as extreme hot weather or a sudden influx of flying foxes are hard to predict. Guidance is provided here to assist managing these types of incidents so that harm is minimised or avoided. It is recommended that GRC has a contingency fund available to draw on if needed to support implementation of these types of incidents.

7.3.1 Heat stress management

A heat stress event is difficult to manage at the Oatley camp due to difficult access and lack of water supply. This means that there won’t be enough water to spray over animals unless they are in triage. The information presented here has been adapted from McDonald and Collins (2013) as well as experience in Myles Dunphy Reserve.

Mo and Roache (2020) found the effectiveness of intervention methods for reducing flying-fox mortalities during extreme heat events was mainly anecdotal rather than based on scientific studies. Further research is expected to guide how these events can best be managed. The information presented in this Plan must be updated as further guidance becomes available based on scientific evidence.

Heat stress events are highly charged emotional situations. To ensure a good outcome for the bats and the safety of the volunteers attending these events, some pre-planning needs to be established. A heat stress standard operating procedure (SOP) for the GHFF camp was adopted by GRC in March 2020 and must be updated to align with this CMP.

A maximum of three people (two volunteers/Council staff and the Site Coordinator) would attend the camp during heat stress events.

Preparation

• Prepare a SWMS.

• Contact details for key staff from GRC, local wildlife care organisations and DPIE. Each person’s vaccination and training status and role in a heat stress event (e.g. GRC’s Program Coordinator, Site Coordinator) should be listed. This list should be updated each October, prior to summer.

• Requirements for monitoring weather conditions and when the Program Coordinator and Site Coordinator should assess the camp.

• Triggers for when and how relevant people will be notified of a potential heat stress event.

• All people listed as being potentially involved in a heat stress event should be provided with:

o A list of what they are required to wear (OH&S) and bring for themselves and for the flying-foxes

o A map of the camp showing the nominated meeting / registration point

• Include advice on GRC’s and community groups’ websites about how to get involved in being part of a heat stress response team.

Site organisation during a heat stress event

Site organisation will depend on the position of the camp at the time of the heat stress event and should allow for the safest, quickest access.

Operations area:

The operations area must be located away from triage and is where:


24

• Volunteers sign in/out

• Hand sanitiser is available

• Volunteers personal items are stored (water bottles, sunscreen etc)

Triage area:

Triage is where flying-foxes are removed from the colony for more intensive cooling and rehydration. This should be on the perimeter of the colony in a quiet shady location. Triage should be separate from the operations area and noise kept to a minimum.

Triage needs to be well organised and each carer assigned specific duties. This will ensure animals are adequately hydrated, do not become chilled and animals that have recovered remain stress free while waiting to return to the colony.

Roles during a heat stress event

Noise must be kept to a minimum when working in the camp.

The Site Coordinator:

• Will be responsible for the welfare and organisation of the volunteers once they arrive.

• Should wear a reflective vest so that they are clearly recognisable, this will aid the volunteers in identifying who is in charge.

• Will have a sign in sheet and ensure volunteers complete all details before they enter the camp; and sign out when they leave.

• Will assign specific tasks to be determined by the greatest need as volunteers arrive and sign in.

• Will allocate areas or grids for the spraying teams.

Volunteers:

• Must report to the site coordinator and sign in on arrival.

• Must not deviate from their assigned task without informing the site coordinator.

• Vaccinated volunteers’ primary responsibilities will be triage. All triage personnel attending bats must be vaccinated and have experience in administering all forms of fluid therapy.

• Non-vaccinated volunteers can work in the operations area filling water containers and undertaking administrative work such as documenting animals brought into triage, organising transport for animals that need to be moved out etc

Treating animals in triage

Step 1 - All flying-foxes entering triage need to have their surface temperature reduced and stress kept to an absolute minimum. Place the animals in the shade, in cages with hammocks and drape a damp (not soaking wet) towel over the cage. Animals can also be sprayed with tepid water (to keep spray water tepid, keep filled water containers in the sun). Thermoregulation responses can recover if the surface temperature is reduced gradually. Specific carers should be assigned to monitor the animals closely as they can chill quickly.

Step 2 - Dehydration can be addressed once the animal’s temperature has been reduced. A high percentage of animals will respond to oral fluids.

Step 3 - Most of the animals that are brought into triage should be returned to the colony when the temperature drops late afternoon.

Management of dead animals

Only trained and vaccinated personnel can handle dead flying-foxes and this should be done wearing thick gloves to minimise risk of scratches. Dead animals should be placed in thick plastic bags for disposal at a licenced waste facility at the end of each day. Council may need to bring a ute to transport the bags to the waste facility, depending on numbers of flying-foxes that have died.


25

7.3.2 Influx of flying-foxes impacting on residents

A rapid response community education program targeting likely affected premises is to be implemented to assist with the mitigation of impacts caused by a sudden increase in camp numbers, as has occurred in the past. These influxes often start suddenly and end within a few weeks or months when flowering ceases and abundant food is no longer available in the area. Consultation with each affected household about their specific concerns will be essential to manage these events.

Dispersal is commonly ineffective because flying-foxes return and problems are created elsewhere which become difficult to manage longer term. Further details of issues associated with dispersal are in Appendix 3.

Property modification and management has been shown to give effective targeted relief to affected residences in many of these cases. GRC may decide to assist by providing subsidies, rate reduction or resources. Examples of short-term mitigation measures to be covered as part of the education response are as follows:

• 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. barbecues and tables) that are close to a camp or foraging tree to avoid droppings by flying-foxes.

• Prune or remove roost trees overhanging yards.

• Install double-glazed windows, insulation and use air-conditioners when needed to reduce noise disturbance and smell associated with a nearby camp.

• Use removable covers for swimming pools and ensure working filters and regular chlorine treatment.

• Appropriately manage rainwater tanks, including installing first-flush systems.

• Avoid disturbing flying-foxes during the day as this will increase camp noise and risk of faecal drop nearby.


26

8. Plan administration

8.1 Management structure and responsibilities

Overall responsibility for implementation of this Plan is with GRC.

Table 2: Roles and responsibilities for implementing this Plan

Role Responsibilities/authority

Program Coordinator

(GRC’s Senior Environment Officer or equivalent)

Community engagement

Collate and review monitoring data to inform ongoing plans and management

Communicate with stakeholders and interested parties, including where works are proposed on adjacent property

Submit reports to DPIE/DEE

Site Supervisor (GRC’s Operations Leader Bushcare or equivalent)

Manage vegetation (weed control, revegetation)

Team training, leadership and supervision of bushcare volunteers

Monitor flying-foxes and other fauna

Coordinate site briefings during bushcare

Volunteer Site Coordinator for Heat Stress Events

The Site Coordinator should be an experienced flying-fox carer and familiar with the colony they are about to enter and supervise.

Coordinate all activities during a heat stress event

Community volunteers

Assist with vegetation management and fauna monitoring

Monitor the camp (fly-in/fly-out counts)

Animal rescue and provide care of injured/orphaned wildlife (ABLV-vaccinated and trained in flying-fox rescue)

Monitor flying-fox behaviour

Rescue flying-foxes if required (and no carer/vet on-site)

Determine daily works end point

Participate in management activities

Contractor to GRC

Conduct specified activities on behalf of GRC (e.g. feral animal control, bush regeneration including aquatic weed control)

Adhere to all directions given by GRC’s Project Manager for the contract

8.2 Funding commitment

It is recommended that GRC considers establishing a contingency budget available to support the mitigation of impacts caused by a sudden increase in camp numbers, if required and as has occurred in the past.

Continue funding, supporting and encouraging bush regeneration activities in the reserve.

8.3 Evaluation and review

This Plan will be reviewed every five years. The following will trigger additional reviews of the Plan:

• Completion of a management activity

• Progression to a higher level of management

• Changes to relevant policy/legislation


27

• New management techniques becoming available

• Outcomes of research or internal reports that may influence the plan, including the biodiversity study currently being prepared for the lga or research regarding heat stress events

• Incidents or changes to the camp.


28

9. References and additional resources

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, vol.2, pp.19–32.

Atlas of Living Australia 2015, viewed 1 July 2019, www.ala.org.au.

Australasian Bat Society 2013, viewed 1 July 2019, ausbats.org.au.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2012, Risk factors contributing to chronic disease, cat no. PHE 157, viewed 1 July 2019, www.aihw.gov.au/reports/chronic-disease/risk-factors-contributing-to-chronic-disease/contents/table-of-contents.

Australian Museum 2010, Little Red Flying-fox, viewed 1 July 2019, australianmuseum.net.au/learn/animals/bats/little-red-flying-fox.

Birt P 2000, Summary information on the status of the Grey-headed (Pteropus poliocephalus) and Black (P. alecto) Flying-Fox in New South Wales, pp.78–86 in Proceedings of Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-headed Flying-fox in New South Wales, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW.

Cardno 2020. Draft Plan of Management – Former Oatley Bowling Club Site & Closed Road – 35 River Road, Oatley. Prepared for Georges River Council.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2014, Hendra Virus Disease (HeV): Transmission, updated 17 March 2014, viewed 1 July 2019, www.cdc.gov/vhf/hendra/transmission/index.html.

Churchill S 2008, Australian Bats, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest NSW.

Degeling C, Gilbert GL, Annand E, Taylor M, Walsh MG, Ward MP, Wilson A and Johnson J 2018, Managing the risk of Hendra virus spillover in Australia using ecological approaches: a report on three community juries, PLOS One, vol.13: e0209798.

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF) 2012, Diseases that can spread from animals to humans, updated 28 March 2019, viewed 1 July 2019, www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/animal-health-and-diseases/zoonoses.

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) 2021, National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/grey-headed-flying-fox

Department of Environment and Science (DES) 2018, Importance of flying-foxes, updated 11 July 2018, viewed 1 July 2019, environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/importance.html.

Department of Environment and Science (DES) 2019, Authorised flying-fox roost management, viewed 1 July 2019, environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/roost-management.html.

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (DECC) 2007, Threatened species assessment guidelines: the assessment of significance, Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, Sydney, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/tsaguide07393.pdf.

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (DECC) 2008, Best practice guidelines for the grey-headed flying-fox, Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, Sydney, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/08540tsdsflyingfoxbpg.pdf.

Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) 2019a, Flying-foxes, viewed 1 July 2019, www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flying-fox-law.

Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) 2019b, Species Profile and Threats Database: Pteropus poliocephalus – Grey-headed Flying-fox, viewed 1 July 2019, www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=186.

Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) 2019c, Monitoring Flying-Fox Populations, viewed 1 July 2019, www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flying-fox-monitoring.

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2013, Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/42f84df4-720b-4dcf-b262-48679a3aba58/files/nes-guidelines_1.pdf.

https://www.ala.org.au/

https://ausbats.org.au/

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/chronic-disease/risk-factors-contributing-to-chronic-disease/contents/table-of-contents

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/chronic-disease/risk-factors-contributing-to-chronic-disease/contents/table-of-contents

https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/animals/bats/little-red-flying-fox/

https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/hendra/transmission/index.html

https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/animal-health-and-diseases/zoonoses

https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/animal-industries/animal-health-and-diseases/zoonoses

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/grey-headed-flying-fox

https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/importance.html

https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/flyingfoxes/roost-management.html

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/tsaguide07393.pdf

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/08540tsdsflyingfoxbpg.pdf

https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flying-fox-law

https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=186

https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=186

https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flying-fox-monitoring

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/42f84df4-720b-4dcf-b262-48679a3aba58/files/nes-guidelines_1.pdf

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/42f84df4-720b-4dcf-b262-48679a3aba58/files/nes-guidelines_1.pdf


29

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2015, Referral guideline for management actions in grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox camps, www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6d4f8ebc-f6a0-49e6-a6b6-82e9c8d55768/files/referral-guideline-flying-fox-camps.pdf.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) 2001, Grey-headed flying-fox vulnerable species listing: NSW Scientific Committee final determination, updated 28 May 2019, viewed 12 January 2019, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/GreyheadedFlyingFoxVulSpListing.htm.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) 2019a, Flying-foxes, viewed 1 July 2019, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/native-animals/native-animal-facts/flying-foxes.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) 2019b, Flying-fox Camp Management Plan Template 2019, viewed 1 July 2019, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/flying-fox-camp-management-plan-template-2016.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) 2019c, Grey-headed flying-fox threatened species profile, viewed 1 July 2019, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=10697

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) 2019d, Hendra virus, viewed 12 January 2019, www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/horses/health-and-disease/hendra-virus.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) 2019c, Australian bat lyssavirus and other bat health risks, viewed 1 July 2019, www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/biosecurity/animal/humans/bat-health-risks.

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) 2017, Australian bat lyssavirus – information for the public, July 2017, Primefact 1291 3rd edition, Department of Primary Industries, NSW, www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/461873/Australian-Bat-Lyssavirus.pdf.

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) 2018, Hendra virus, June 2018 Primefact 970 11th edition, Department of Primary Industries, NSW, www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/310492/Hendra-Virus-Primefact-970-1.pdf.

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) 2014, Queensland State Planning Policy July 2014, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, Brisbane, Queensland.

Driessen M, Brereton R and Pauza M 2011, ‘Status and conservation of bats in Tasmania’, pp.324–336 in Law B, Eby P, Lunney D and Lumsden L (eds), The Biology and Conservation of Australasian Bats, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW.

Eby P 1991, Seasonal movements of grey-headed flying-foxes, Pteropus poliocephalus (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) from two maternity roosts in northern New South Wales, Wildlife Research, vol.18, pp.547–59.

Eby P 1995, The Biology and Management of Flying-foxes in NSW: Species Management Report Number 18, Llewellyn L (ed.), National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, NSW.

Eby P 2000, ‘The results of four synchronous assessments of relative distribution and abundance of grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus’, pp.66–77 in Proceedings from Workshop to Assess the Status of the Grey-headed Flying-fox in New South Wales.

Eby P 2006, ‘Site management plan for the grey-headed flying-fox camp at the Sydney Desalination Plant Site’, prepared for Sydney Water Corporation, Sydney.

Eby P and Lunney D 2002, Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a Threatened Species in New South Wales, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW.

Eby P and Roberts B 2016, Little red flying-fox, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, viewed 1 July 2019, www.iucnredlist.org/species/18758/22087637.

Eco Logical Australia 2018, ‘Habitat characteristics of flying-fox camps: Hunter region of NSW’, unpublished report to Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Sydney.

Eco Logical Australia 2018. Phytophthora Dieback Management Plan, Myles Dunphy Reserve, NSW. Prepared for Georges River Council.

Ecosure 2011, ‘Hendra virus risk assessment for the Gold Coast Equine Precinct: residual risk report’, unpublished report to City of Gold Coast.

Ecosure 2014, ‘Cannes Reserve flying-fox management strategy’, prepared for Pittwater Council, Sydney.

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6d4f8ebc-f6a0-49e6-a6b6-82e9c8d55768/files/referral-guideline-flying-fox-camps.pdf

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6d4f8ebc-f6a0-49e6-a6b6-82e9c8d55768/files/referral-guideline-flying-fox-camps.pdf

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/GreyheadedFlyingFoxVulSpListing.htm

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/native-animals/native-animal-facts/flying-foxes

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/flying-fox-camp-management-plan-template-2016

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/flying-fox-camp-management-plan-template-2016

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=10697

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/horses/health-and-disease/hendra-virus

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/biosecurity/animal/humans/bat-health-risks

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/461873/Australian-Bat-Lyssavirus.pdf

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/310492/Hendra-Virus-Primefact-970-1.pdf

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/18758/22087637


30

Ecosure 2014, ‘Outcomes of a new flying-fox management framework: review of management actions 2013–2014’, unpublished data collected in collaboration with Griffith University (Industry Affiliates Program).

Edson D, Field H, McMichael L, Jordan D, Kung N, Mayer D and Smith C 2015, Flying-fox roost disturbance and Hendra virus spillover risk, PLoS ONE, vol.10: e0125881.

Environment Protection Authority (EPA) 2013, Noise Guide for Local Government, Environment Protection Authority, Sydney, www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/noise/20130127nglg.pdf

Field H 2002, ‘The role of Grey-headed Flying-foxes in the ecology of Hendra virus, Menangle virus and Australian bat lyssavirus’, pp.139–141 in Eby P and Lunney D, Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a Threatened Species in New South Wales, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW.

Fujita MS 1991, Flying-fox (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) pollination, seed dispersal, and economic importance: a tabular summary of current knowledge, Resource Publication No. 2, Bat Conservation International.

GeoLINK 2010, Maclean Flying-fox Management Strategy, prepared for Clarence Valley Council on behalf of the Maclean Flying-Fox Working Group.

GeoLINK 2012, Lorn Flying-fox Management Strategy, prepared for Maitland City Council.

Goldspink LK, Edson DW, Vidgen ME, Bingham J, Field HE and Smith GS 2015, Natural Hendra virus infection in flying-foxes – tissue tropism and risk factors, PLOS One, vol.10: e0128835.

Halim S, Polkinghorne B, Bell G, van den Berg D and Sheppeard V 2015, Outbreak-related Hendra virus infection in a NSW pet dog, Public Health Research and Practice, vol.25: e2541547.

Hall L and Richards G 2000, Flying foxes: Fruit and Blossom Bats of Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney.

Henry JP and Stephens-Larson P 1985, ‘Specific effects of stress on disease processes’, pp.161–175 in Moberg GP (ed.), Animal Stress, American Physiological Society.

Hurstville City Council and Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority 2013. Myles Dunphy Reserve and Wetland Plan of Management.

Kirkland PD 2017, Menangle virus: one of the first of the novel viruses from fruit bats, Microbiology Australia, vol.1, pp.22–24.

Ku-ring-gai Council 2013, Ku-ring-gai Flying-fox Reserve Management Plan, Ku-ring-gai Council, Gordon, NSW.

Lunney D, Richards G and Dickman C 2008, Grey-headed flying-fox, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, viewed 1 July 2019, www.iucnredlist.org/species/18751/8554062.

Markus N 2002, Behaviour of the black flying-fox Pteropus alecto: 2. Territoriality and courtship, Acta Chiropterologica, vol.4, pp.153–166.

Markus N and Blackshaw JK 2002, Behaviour of the black flying-fox Pteropus alecto: 1. An ethogram of behaviour, and preliminary characterisation of mother-infant interactions, Acta Chiropterologica, vol.4, pp.137–152.

Markus N and Hall L 2004, Foraging behaviour of the black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto) in the urban landscape of Brisbane, Queensland, Wildlife Research, vol.31, pp.345–355.

McCall BJ, Field H, Smith GA, Storie GJ and Harrower BJ 2005, Defining the risk of human exposure to Australian bat lyssavirus through potential non-bat animal infection, Communicable Diseases Intelligence, vol.29, pp.200–203.

McConkey KR, Prasad S, Corlett RT, Campos-Arceiz A, Brodie JF, Rogers H and Santamaria L 2012, Seed dispersal in changing landscapes, Biological Conservation, vol.146, pp.1–13.

McDonald. S. S. V., and Collins L. 2013. Managing heat stress in flying-foxes colonies.

McGuckin MA and Blackshaw AW 1991, Seasonal changes in testicular size, plasma testosterone concentration and body weight in captive flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus and P. scapulatus), Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, vol.92, pp.339–346.

McIlwee AP and Martin IL 2002, On the intrinsic capacity for increase of Australian flying-foxes, Australian Zoologist, vol.32, pp.76–100.

Milne DJ and Pavey CR 2011, ‘The status and conservation of bats in the Northern Territory’, pp.208–225 in Law B, Eby P, Lunney D and Lumsden L (eds), The Biology and Conservation of Australasian Bats, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW.

https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/-/media/epa/corporate-site/resources/noise/20130127nglg.pdf


https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/18751/8554062


31

Mo, M. and Roache, M. 2020. ‘A review of intervention methods used to reduce flying-fox mortalities in heat stress events’. Australian Mammalogy July 2020.

NSW Health 2012, Flying-foxes and health, viewed 1 July 2019, www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/factsheets/Pages/flying-foxes.aspx.

NSW Health 2015, Rabies and Australian bat lyssavirus infection, viewed 1 July 2019, www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/factsheets/Pages/Rabies-Australian-Bat-Lyssavirus-Infection.aspx.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2011, NSW Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Protected Fauna, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wildlifelicences/110004FaunaRehab.pdf.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2012, NSW Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Flying-foxes, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Animals-and-plants/Wildlife-management/Flying-foxes/flying-foxes-injured-sick-orphaned-code-of-practice-120026.pdf.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2014, Policy and procedural guidelines for the mitigation of commercial crop damage by flying-foxes, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wildlifelicences/140480FlyfoxPol.pdf

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2018, Flying-fox Camp Management Policy 2015, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/150070-flyingfoxcamp-policy.pdf.

Parkland Environmental Planners and Woodlots and Wetlands Pty Ltd 2013. Myles Dunphy Reserve and Wetland Plan of Management. Prepared for Hurstville City Council and Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority.

Parry-Jones KA and Augee ML 1992, Movements of the grey-headed flying-foxes (Pteropus poliocephalus) to and from a colony site on the central coast of New South Wales, Wildlife Research, vol.19, pp.331–340.

Parry-Jones K and Augee M 2001, Factors affecting the occupation of a colony site in Sydney, New South Wales by the grey-headed flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus (Pteropodidae), Austral Ecology, vol.26, pp.47–55.

Pierson ED and Rainey WE 1992, ‘The biology of flying foxes of the genus Pteropus: a review’, pp.1–17 in Wilson DE and Graham GL (eds.), Pacific Island Flying Foxes: Proceedings of an International Conservation Conference, US Department of the Interior – Biological Report no. 90.

Queensland Health 2016, Bats and human health, viewed 1 July 2019, conditions.health.qld.gov.au/HealthCondition/condition/14/33/14/bats-and-human-health.

Ratcliffe F 1932, Notes on the fruit bats (Pteropus spp.) of Australia, Journal of Animal Ecology, vol.1, pp.32–57.

Roberts B 2005, ‘Habitat characteristics of flying-fox camps in south-east Queensland’, BSc. Honours Thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane QLD.

Roberts BJ 2006, Management of urban flying-fox roosts: issues of relevance to roosts in the Lower Clarence, NSW, prepared for Valley Watch Inc, Maclean.

Roberts B and Eby P 2013, Review of past flying-fox dispersal actions between 1990–2013.

Roberts BJ, Catterall CP, Eby P and Kanowski J 2012, Long-distance and frequent movements of the flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus: implications for management, PLoS ONE, vol.7: e42532.

Roberts BJ, Eby P, Catterall CP, Kanowski J and Bennett G 2011, ‘The outcomes and costs of relocating flying-fox camps: insights from the case of Maclean, Australia’, pp.277–287 in Law B, Eby P, Lunney D and Lumsden L (eds.), The Biology and Conservation of Australasian Bats, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW.

Roberts B, Kanowski J and Catterall C 2006, Ecology and management of flying-fox camps in an urbanising region, Rainforest CRC Tropical Forest Landscapes, Issue 5, rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au/issues/ITFL_flyingfox.pdf.

Roxburgh SH, Wood SW, Mackey BG, Woldendorp G and Gibbons P 2006, Assessing the carbon sequestration potential of managed forests: a case study from temperate Australia, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol.43, pp.1149–1159.

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.

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/factsheets/Pages/flying-foxes.aspx

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/factsheets/Pages/Rabies-Australian-Bat-Lyssavirus-Infection.aspx

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wildlifelicences/110004FaunaRehab.pdf

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Animals-and-plants/Wildlife-management/Flying-foxes/flying-foxes-injured-sick-orphaned-code-of-practice-120026.pdf



https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wildlifelicences/140480FlyfoxPol.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/150070-flyingfoxcamp-policy.pdf

http://conditions.health.qld.gov.au/HealthCondition/condition/14/33/14/bats-and-human-health

http://rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au/issues/ITFL_flyingfox.pdf

http://rainforest-crc.jcu.edu.au/issues/ITFL_flyingfox.pdf


32

Shinwari MW, Annand EJ, Driver L, Warrilow D, Harrower B, Allcock RJN, Pukallus D, Harper J, Bingham J, Kung N and Diallo IS 2014, Australian bat lyssavirus infection in two horses, Veterinary Microbiology, vol.173, pp.224–231.

Southerton SG, Birt P, Porter J and Ford HA 2004, Review of gene movement by bats and birds and its potential significance for eucalypt plantation forestry, Australian Forestry, vol.67, pp.45–54.

Stanvic S, McDonald V and Collins L 2013, Managing heat stress in flying-foxes colonies, www.fourthcrossingwildlife.com/HeatStress-StanvicMcDonaldCollins.pdf.

Tait J, Perotto-Baldivieso HL, McKeown A and Westcott DA 2014, Are flying-foxes coming to town? Urbanisation of the spectacled flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) in Australia, PLoS ONE, vol.9: e109810.

Tidemann C, Eby P, Parry-Jones K and Vardon M 1999, ‘Grey-headed flying-fox’, pp.31–35 in Duncan A, Baker GB and Montgomery N (eds), The Action Plan for Australian Bats, Environment Australia, Canberra ACT.

Tolga Bat Hospital Wildlife Friendly Fencing Project, Tolga Bat Hospital partly funded by grants from WWF and Australian Government Caring for Our Country, viewed 1 July 2019, www.wildlifefriendlyfencing.com/WFF/Home.html.

Vardon MJ and Tidemann CR 1999, Flying-foxes (Pteropus alecto and P. scapulatus) in the Darwin region, north Australia: patterns in camp size and structure, Australian Journal of Zoology, vol.47, pp.411–423.

Vardon MJ, Brocklehurst PS, Woinarski JCZ, Cunningham RB, Donnelly CF and Tidemann CR 2001, Seasonal habitat use by flying-foxes, Pteropus alecto and P. scapulatus (Megachiroptera), in monsoonal Australia, Journal of Zoology London, vol.253, pp.523–535.

Webb N and Tidemann C 1995, Hybridisation between black (Pteropus alecto) and grey-headed (P. poliocephalus) flying-foxes (Megachiroptera: Pteropodidae), Australian Mammalogy, vol.18, pp.19–26.

Webb NJ and Tidemann CR 1996, Mobility of Australian flying-foxes, Pteropus spp. (Megachiroptera): evidence from genetic variation, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol.263, pp.497–502.

Welbergen JA, Klose SM, Markus N and Eby P 2008, Climate change and the effects of temperature extremes on Australian flying-foxes, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, vol.275, pp.419–425.

Westcott DA, Dennis AJ, Bradford MG, McKeown A and Harrington GN 2008, ‘Seed dispersal processes in Australia’s Wet Tropics rainforests’, pp.210–223 in Stork N and Turton S (eds.), Living in a Dynamic Tropical Forest Landscape, Blackwells Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts.

Westcott DA, McKeown A, Murphy HT and Fletcher CS 2011, A monitoring method for the grey-headed flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation, Atherton, QLD, www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/310112-monitoring-methodology.pdf.

Zurbuchen A, Landert L, Klaiber J, Muller A, Hein S and Dorn S 2010, Maximum foraging ranges in solitary bees: only few individuals have the capability to cover long-foraging distances, Biological Conservation, vol.142, pp.669–676.

https://www.fourthcrossingwildlife.com/HeatStress-StanvicMcDonaldCollins.pdf

https://www.wildlifefriendlyfencing.com/WFF/Home.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/310112-monitoring-methodology.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/310112-monitoring-methodology.pdf


33

Appendix 1: Summary of other key legislation

Local government legislation Local government is required to prepare planning schemes (including environmental planning instruments and development control plans) consistent with provisions under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

Local environment plans are environmental planning instruments that are legal documents and that relate to a local government area. Other environmental planning instruments, such as state environmental planning policies (SEPPs), may relate to the whole or part of the state. A development control plan provides detailed planning and design guidelines to support the planning controls in a Local Environment Plan, but they are not legal documents.

Planning schemes enable a local government authority to manage growth and change in their local government area (LGA) through land use and administrative definitions, zones, overlays, infrastructure planning provisions, assessment codes and other administrative provisions. A planning scheme identifies the kind of development requiring approval, as well as zoning all areas within the LGA based on the environmental values and development requirements of that land. Planning schemes could potentially include a flying-fox habitat overlay and may designate some habitat as flying-fox conservation areas.

GRC’s Local Environmental Plan 2021 and Development Control Plan 2021 are in draft at the time of preparing this CMP.

State legislation

Rural Fires Act 1997

The objects of this Act are to prevent, mitigate and suppress bushfires, coordinate bush firefighting, while protecting persons from injury or death and property from damage from fire. A permit is generally required from the Rural Fire Service for any fires in the open that are lit during the local Bush Fire Danger Period as determined each year. This may be relevant for fires used to disperse flying-foxes, or for any burning associated with vegetation management.

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

The main object of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) is to set out explicit protection of the environment polices (PEPs) and adopt more innovative approaches to reducing pollution.

The use of smoke as a dispersal mechanism may constitute ‘chemical production’ under Schedule 1, clause 8 of the POEO Act, so this type of dispersal activity may require a licence under Chapter 3 of the Act.

The POEO Act also regulates noise including ‘offensive noise’. The Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2017 (Part 4) provides information on the types of noise that can be ‘offensive’ and for which the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) can issue fines. This may include noise generated as a part of dispersal activities. It is best to discuss the types of noise makers and the sound levels and times these will be generated, along with identified noise receptors, with GRC prior to any dispersal. Detailed advice and guidance on noise regulation can be found in the EPA’s Noise Guide for Local Government (EPA 2013).

Crown Land Management Act 2016

The principles of Crown land management include the observance of environmental protection principles and the conservation of its natural resources, including water, soil, flora, fauna and scenic quality. Any works on land that is held or reserved under the Crown Land Management Act 2016 (including vegetation management and dispersal activities) are an offence under the Act without prior authorisation obtained through DPIE.



34

Local Government Act 1993

The primary purpose of this Act is to provide the legal framework for the system of local government. Most relevant to flying-fox management is that it also provides encouragement for the effective participation of local communities in the affairs of local government and sets out guidance on the use and management of community land which may be applicable to land which requires management of flying-foxes.

State Environmental Planning Policies SEPPs are environmental planning instruments that address specific planning issues within New South Wales. These SEPPs often remove power from local councils in order to control specific types of development or development in specific areas. SEPPs often transfer decision-making from councils to the Planning Minister. While there may be others, some of the SEPPs likely to apply at some flying-fox camps are outlined below.

SEPP (Coastal Management) 2018

The aim of this policy is to promote an integrated and coordinated approach to land use planning in the coastal zone in a manner consistent with the objects of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

Development consent must be obtained before any clearing of native vegetation, earthworks, construction of levees, draining or environmental protection works can occur on a mapped coastal wetland or littoral rainforest.

Camps are unlikely to fall within the bounds of a mapped coastal wetland, but additional restrictions for vegetation management in these areas may be required if they do. It is unlikely that clearing for flying-fox management in mapped littoral rainforest would be considered significant enough to trigger this policy, but this should be confirmed if the site is within a mapped littoral rainforest.

SEPP 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

The aim of this policy is to protect and preserve bushland within urban areas defined in Schedule 1 of the SEPP. Broadly, this covers most LGAs within the Greater Sydney Region. It does not cover:

• Land reserved or dedicated under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

• State forests, flora reserves or timber reserves under the Forestry Act 1916

• Land to which SEPP (Western Sydney Parklands) 2009 applies.

Bushland within the designated LGAs may not be disturbed without the consent of the GRC unless the disturbance is for: bushfire hazard reduction, facilitating recreational use of the bushland in accordance with a plan of management referred to in clause 8 of the policy, or essential infrastructure such as electricity, sewerage, gas or main roads. If the land owned by the proponent is zoned as SEPP 19 bushland, GRC approval would be required under this SEPP.

GRC should be contacted to discuss any potential disturbance associated with camp management.


35

Appendix 2: Additional human and animal health information Flying-fox camps in public places, such as parks, school grounds and residential properties can sometimes raise concerns for community members about possible health risks. Human infections with viruses borne by flying-foxes are very rare. There is no risk of being infected with these viruses as long as people do not come into physical contact with flying-foxes.

Australian bat lyssavirus Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABLV) is a rabies-like virus that may be found in all flying-fox species on mainland Australia. It has also been found in an insectivorous microbat and it is assumed it may be carried by any bat species. The probability of human infection with ABLV is very low with less than 1% of the flying-fox population being affected (DPI 2017) and transmission requiring direct contact with an infected animal that is secreting the virus. In Australia, three people have died from ABLV infection since the virus was identified in 1996 (NSW Health 2015).

Domestic animals are also at risk if exposed to ABLV. In 2013, ABLV infections were identified in two horses (Shinwari et al. 2014). There have been no confirmed cases of ABLV in dogs in Australia; however, transmission is possible (McCall et al. 2005) and consultation with a veterinarian should be sought if exposure is suspected.

Transmission of the virus from bats to humans is through a bite or scratch but may have potential to be transferred if bat saliva directly contacts the eyes, nose, mouth or broken skin. ABLV is unlikely to survive in the environment for more than a few hours, especially in dry environments that are exposed to sunlight (NSW Health 2015).

Transmission of closely related viruses suggests that contact or exposure to bat faeces, urine or blood does not pose a risk of exposure to ABLV, nor does living, playing or walking near bat roosting areas (NSW Health 2015).

The incubation period in humans is assumed similar to rabies and variable between two weeks and several years. Similarly, the disease in humans presents essentially the same clinical picture as classic rabies.

Once clinical signs have developed the infection is invariably fatal; however, infection can easily be prevented by avoiding direct contact with bats (i.e. handling).

Pre-exposure vaccination provides reliable protection from the disease for people who are likely to have direct contact with bats, and it is generally a mandatory workplace health and safety requirement that all persons working with bats receive pre-exposure vaccination and have their level of protection regularly assessed. Like classic rabies, ABLV infection in humans also appears to be effectively treated using post-exposure vaccination and so any person who suspects they have been exposed should seek immediate medical treatment. Post-exposure vaccination is usually ineffective once clinical manifestations of the disease have commenced.

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.

Hendra virus Flying-foxes are the natural host for Hendra virus, which can be transmitted from flying-foxes to horses. Infected horses sometimes amplify the virus and can then transmit it to other horses, humans and on two occasions, dogs (DPI 2018). There is no evidence that the virus can be passed directly from flying-foxes to humans or to dogs (Halim et al. 2015). Clinical studies have shown cats, pigs, ferrets and guinea pigs can carry the infection (DPI 2018).

Although the virus is periodically present in flying-fox populations across Australia, the likelihood of horses becoming infected is low and consequently, human infection is extremely rare. Horses are


36

thought to contract the disease after ingesting forage or water contaminated with urine from an infected flying-fox (CDC 2014).

Humans may contract the disease after close contact with an infected horse. Hendra virus infection in humans presents as a serious and often fatal respiratory and/or neurological disease and there is currently no effective post-exposure treatment or vaccine available for people. The mortality rate in horses is greater than 70% (DPI 2018). Since 1994, more than 100 horses have died (Degeling et al. 2018) and four of the seven infections in humans were fatal (Goldspink et al. 2015).

Previous studies have shown that infections of horses have been associated with foraging flying-foxes rather than camp locations. Therefore, risks are considered similar at any location within the range of flying-fox species and all horse owners should be vigilant. Vaccination of horses can protect horses and subsequently humans from infection (DPI 2018), as can appropriate horse husbandry (e.g. covering food and water troughs, fencing flying-fox foraging trees in paddocks, etc.).

Although all human cases of Hendra virus to date have been contracted from infected horses and direct transmission from bats to humans has not yet been reported, particular care should be taken by select occupational groups that could be uniquely exposed. For example, persons who may be exposed to high levels of Hendra virus via aerosol of heavily contaminated substrate should consider additional personal protective equipment (PPE), e.g. respiratory filters, and potentially dampening down dry dusty substrate.

Menangle virus Menangle virus (also known as bat paramyxovirus no. 2) was first isolated from stillborn piglets from a NSW piggery in 1997. Little is known about the epidemiology of this virus, except that it has been recorded in flying-foxes, pigs and humans (Field 2002; Kirkland 2017). The virus caused reproductive failure in pigs and severe febrile (flu-like) illness in two piggery workers employed at the same Menangle piggery where the virus (Field 2002). The virus is thought to have been transmitted to the pigs from flying-foxes via an oral–faecal matter route (Kirkland 2017). Flying-foxes had been recorded flying over the pig yards prior to the occurrence of disease symptoms. The two infected piggery workers made a full recovery, and this has been the only case of Menangle virus recorded in Australia.

General health considerations Flying-foxes, like all animals, carry bacteria and other microorganisms in their guts, some of which are potentially pathogenic to other species. Direct contact with faecal material should be avoided and general hygiene measures taken to reduce the low risk of gastrointestinal and other diseases.

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.

Public water supplies are regularly monitored for harmful microorganisms and are filtered and disinfected before being distributed. Management plans for community supplies should consider whether any large congregation of animals, including flying-foxes, occurs near the supply or catchment area. Where they do occur, increased frequency of monitoring should be considered to ensure early detection and management of contaminants.


37

Appendix 3: Dispersal results summary Roberts and Eby (2013) summarised 17 known flying-fox dispersals between 1990 and 2013, and made the following conclusions:

• In all cases, dispersed animals did not abandon the local area3.

• In 16 of the 17 cases, dispersals did not reduce the number of flying-foxes in the local area.

• Dispersed animals did not move far (in approx. 63% of cases the animals only moved <600 metres from the original site, contingent on the distribution of available vegetation). In 85% of cases, new camps were established nearby.

• In all cases, it was not possible to predict where replacement camps would form.

• 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.

• Repeat dispersal actions were generally required (all cases except where extensive vegetation removal occurred).

• 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 29 November 2013).

An overview of findings4 is summarised below.

• 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 framework was introduced has increased by 6250%.

• Dispersal methods included fog5, birdfrite, lights, noise, physical deterrents, smoke, extensive vegetation modification, water (including cannons), paintball guns and helicopters.

• The most common dispersal methods were extensive vegetation modification alone and extensive vegetation modification combined with other methods.

• In nine of the 24 roosts dispersed, dispersal actions did not reduce the number of flying-foxes in the LGA.

• In all cases, it was not possible to predict where new roosts would form.

• When flying-foxes were dispersed, they did not move further than six kilometres away.

• As at November 2014 repeat actions had already been required in 18 cases.

• Conflict for the council and community was resolved in 60% of cases, but with many councils stating they feel this resolution is only temporary.

• The financial costs of all dispersal attempts were considerable, regardless of methods used, ranging from $7500 to more than $400,000 (with costs ongoing).

3 Local area is defined as the area within a 20-kilometre radius of the original site = typical feeding area of a flying-fox. 4 This was based on responses to questionnaires sent to councils; some did not respond and some omitted responses to some questions. 5 Fog refers to artificial smoke or vapours generated by smoke/fog machines. Many chemical substances used to generate smoke/fog in these machines are considered toxic.


38

Appendix 4: Example flying-fox rescue protocol

Reference documents: Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2012, NSW Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Flying-foxes, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2011, NSW Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Protected Fauna, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

Purpose These work instructions are intended for licensed and ABLV-vaccinated wildlife rescue personnel on-site during dispersal activities to monitor, capture or provide first aid treatment for sick or injured flying-foxes that may require human intervention for their survival. Flying-fox rescue must only be attempted by personnel trained and experienced in flying-fox rescue and handling.

This work instruction provides rescuers with information regarding capture and first aid until a flying-fox is in the specialist care of a veterinarian or licensed bat carer.

Requirements Wildlife rescue personnel involved in flying-fox rescue must:

• Be trained and experienced in flying-fox rescue and handling

• Be vaccinated against ablv (titre levels checked at least once every two years)

• Be aware of the hazards and risks of coming into contact with bats

• Utilise appropriate ppe and equipment for capture, transport and treatment of flying-foxes

• Undertake a risk assessment before carrying out a rescue – do not endanger yourself or others during a rescue

• Have the contact details for a local veterinarian or bat carer who will accept the sick or injured flying-fox.

Human first aid All bats in Australia should be viewed as potentially infected with ABLV. If bitten or scratched by a bat, immediately wash the wound with soap and water (do not scrub) and continue for at least five minutes, followed by application of an antiseptic with anti-viral action (e.g. Betadine), and immediate medical attention (post-exposure vaccinations may be required). Similarly, medical attention should be immediately sought if exposed to an animal’s saliva or excreta through the eyes, nose or mouth.

Equipment • Lidded plastic carry basket or ‘pet-pack’ with bedding (juveniles) / transport container with hanging

perch, tall enough for bat to hang without hitting its head (in accordance with Section 5.1 of the NSW Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Flying-foxes (OEH 2012))

• Warm water bottle/cold brick

• Wraps /towels

• Teats for small bottle

• Extension pole or broom

• Bat first aid kit – juice drink/glucose powder, syringes, cloths for wounds, Betadine/saline, dummy for flying-fox pups. Flying-foxes are only to be offered liquids under advice from a licensed bat carer.

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/code-of-practice-for-injured-sick-and-orphaned-flying-foxes

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/code-of-practice-for-injured-sick-and-orphaned-flying-foxes

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/code-of-practice-for-injured-sick-and-orphaned-protected-fauna



39

Work instructions

Case assessment

Observe, assess and then determine if/what intervention is required using the decision tree below, adapted from the NSW Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Protected Fauna (OEH 2011).

Figure 8: Assessment process for flying-fox rescue

Personnel should approach stressed flying-foxes cautiously. If flying-foxes panic or fly this will waste energy; retreat and continue to monitor behaviour.

Stressed flying-foxes can be identified by the following clinical signs:

• Dehydration: Eyes dull or depressed in skull, change to skin elasticity, skin stays pinched, animal cold, wing membranes dry, mouth dry.

• Heat stress: wing fanning, shade seeking, clustering/clumping, salivating, panting, roosting at the base of trees, on the ground, falling from tree.

• Obvious injury: bleeding, broken bones.

Rescue instructions

As per Section 4 of the NSW Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Flying-foxes (OEH 2012):

The objective is to rescue a flying-fox while minimising further stress and injury to the animal.

Before a rescue attempt, rescuers must assess the risks to the flying-fox from environmental hazards and from capture.

Rescuers must employ the correct rescue equipment for the condition and location of the flying-fox and be trained in its use.



40

Example scenarios

Bat low in tree:

o Quickly place towel around bat before it can move away

o Grab hold of feet, toes may curl over rescuer’s fingers

o Place in carry basket/transport container.

Bat high in tree:

o Place pole wrapped in towel in front of bat

o Coax bat onto towel

o Once on towel, quickly move away from branches and lower to ground

o Once on ground, cover with towel and place into carry basket/transport container.

A bat caught on barbed wire fence:

o Two people only – one to restrain with towel, while the other untangles

o Put towels on the wire strands under or around to avoid further entanglement

o If the membrane has dried onto wire, syringe or spray water onto wing

o Use pliers or wire cutter if necessary.

Animal first aid

Physical assessment: Keep animal wrapped and head covered, only expose one part at a time. Examine head. Unwrap one wing and extend. Wrap and extend other wing. Check legs. Examine front and back of body.

Dehydration: Offer water/juice (low acid juice only, e.g. apple/mango) orally with syringe (under supervision/advice from licensed wildlife carer only).

Heat stress: Reduce temperature in heat exhausted bats by spraying wings with tepid water.

Hypothermia: May be seen in pups separated from mother – keep head covered and warm core body temperature slowly by placing near (not on) warm water bottle covered by towel.

Bleeding: Clean wounds with room temperature saline or diluted Betadine.

Transport to veterinarian/wildlife carer

See Section 5 of the NSW Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Flying-foxes (OEH 2012) summarised below.

Objective

To transport a flying-fox so as to minimise further stress and injury to the animal.

Standards

The transport container must be tall enough for the flying-fox to hang by its feet without hitting its head on the floor.

The container must be designed, set up and secured to prevent injuries to the flying-fox. The sides of the container must prevent the flying-fox from poking its head or wings out.

The container must be designed to prevent the flying-fox from escaping.

The flying-fox must be allowed to hang by its feet from the top of the container or if it is unable to hang, wrapped in material (e.g. sheet or flannel) and placed in a sling so its feet are higher than its head.

The container must be kept at a temperature which is appropriate for the age and condition of the flying-fox. A range of 25–27°C is appropriate for an adult. A temperature of 28°C is appropriate for an orphan. A cool or warm water bottle may be required.

The container must be ventilated so air can circulate around the flying-fox.

The container must minimise light, noise and vibrations and prevent contact with young children and pets.


41

During transport, a container holding a flying-fox must have a clearly visible warning label that says ‘Warning – live bat’.

A flying-fox must not be transported in the back of an uncovered utility vehicle or a car boot that is separate from the main cabin.

Guidelines

• Flying-fox transport should be the sole purpose of the trip and undertaken in the shortest possible time.

• The wildlife rehabilitation group’s contact details should be written on the transport container in case of an emergency.


42

Appendix 5: Phytophthora Dieback

Phytopthora Background Phytophthora Dieback (Dieback) refers to the plant deaths, vegetation dieback and collapse caused by microscopic soil borne algal-like plant pathogens from the class Oomycete. Six plant pathogens from this group were identified as being present within the Reserve, including Phytophthora (Phyto) cinnamomi, Phyto. cinnamomi, Phyto. parvispora, Phyto. nicotianae and Phytopythium (Ppyth). boreale, Ppyth. chamaehyphon and Ppyth. vixans (ELA 2017). The location and the extent of the infestation has been assessed and mapped (ELA 2017). The infestation appears to have become well established in the Reserve.

Of the four plant pathogens recorded in the Reserve, Phyto. cinnamomi is the most well-known and has had the most significant impact across southern Australia. Since Phyto. cinnamomi was introduced into Australia, possibly from Asia, it has had a significant impact, especially within native vegetation and fauna communities in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and the south-west of Western Australia (Garkaklis et al. 2004; Cahill et al. 2008; Commonwealth of Australia 2014; Dundas et al. 2016). Consequently, this EMP focuses on Phyto. cinnamomi and using it as a surrogate for the management of the other three plant pathogens. It is stressed that the management actions presented in this EMP are applicable to those pathogens that cause Phytophthora Dieback found within the Reserve (ELA 2017).

Infection of native plants by Phyto. cinnamomi has been listed as a Key Threatening Process under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act). Under these Acts, the Statement of Intent. 1: Infection of Native Plants by Phytophthora cinnamomi (DECC 2008) and the Threat abatement plan for disease in natural ecosystems caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi (Commonwealth of Australia 2014), GRC is obligated to take actions to minimise the spread and manage the impact of this virulent plant pathogen.

The purpose of this EMP is to provide GRC with a brief description of Phytophthora Dieback and site-specific management options that aim to:

• Minimise the likelihood of spread from infested areas into un-infested areas of the Reserve and / or into other nearby parkland

• Reduce the impact and level of dieback through the application of a relatively non-toxic and non-polluting chemical treatment.

Throughout this document, we emphasise that the human induced movement of infested soil, plant material and water has in the past, and will continue, if left unchecked, be the most significant and rapid means that Phytophthora Dieback will be spread into un-infested areas. This EMP is to be used as a guide to limit the spread of Dieback whilst undertaking planned construction and bush regeneration works and to continue allowing public access through the provision of hygiene stations at strategic locations.

Potential impacts of Dieback The introduction and spread of the organisms that cause Dieback throughout the Reserve and into other near un-infested vegetation communities, has the potential to impact upon the following:

• Potential loss or irreversible changes to the EPBC act and / or BC Act Threatened Ecological Communities

o Coastal Freshwater Wetland which is part of the BC Act listed Freshwater wetlands on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South-East Corner bioregions

o Riverflat Paperbark Swamp Forest which is part of the BC Act listed Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South-East Corner bioregions, and

o Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (STIF) in the Sydney Bioregion which is listed under both BC and EPBC Acts.


43

• Modification and/or loss of structure and composition of other non-threatened native plant communities, i.e. Coastal Enriched Sandstone Dry Forest which provides seasonal roost habitat to the threatened Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox) and may also support other threatened flora and fauna species

• Loss of floral diversity and structurally important plant species (i.e. Banksia spp., Hakea spp. And other members of the Proteaceae, Dilleniaceae and Epacridaceae plant families). This includes Persoonia levis (Broad-leaf Geebung), Hibbertia spp. (Guinea Flower) and Epacris pulchella (Wallum Heath).

• Potential loss of threatened and non-threatened fauna species habitats (i.e. Food resources, foraging, refuge and nest habitat) through the loss of vegetation structure

• Reduction in habitat connectivity through loss of canopy and midstorey species

• Reduction in forest litter layer that impacts upon soil and litter fungi and invertebrate diversity causing a breakdown in nutrient cycles

• Increased soil erosion and degradation of water quality following loss of vegetation structure.

• Potential loss or irreversible changes to the EPBC Act and / or BC Act Threatened Ecological Communities that contain high densities of susceptible plants that occur within the region.

Eradication In the absence of susceptible plant species, Phyto. cinnamomi will persist in the roots of resistant plant species (Cahill et al. 2008). While under harsh conditions, this pathogen can remain dormant in soils for extended periods as a chlamydospore (Shearer and Tippet 1989; Cahill et al. 2008). Chlamydospores are thick walled resting spore that are resistant to conditions that are generally unfavourable to growth and survival (Cahill et al. 2008).

Consequently, it is important to note that it is very difficult to eradicate this disease, which means limiting the spread of these pathogens is critical (Cahill et al. 2008; Dundas et al. 2016). The eradication process is labour intensive, destructive and requires the use of harsh and potentially polluting chemicals. Strategies to eradicate these pathogens are not discussed in this EMP and be found in Dunstan et al. (2011). This EMP is about managing the existing infestation and limiting its spread.


44

Management Measures

Activity Risk level* Mechanism of spread Control options

Bush walking, bird and fauna watching and bicycle riding

High – as there is likely to be regular movement through the Reserve. Provides access to the rail station.

The risk is heightened by the number of people using the Reserve.

Transfer or movement of infested soil on shoes, bike or pram tyres.

Limit the movement of people into and out of the infested parts of the Reserve during times when soils are wet from rainfall. Alternatively, provide regularly maintained and serviced wash down stations at all entrances to the reserve and strategic points along he disease front.

Provision of information material regarding the pathogen, its impacts and reasons for control measures through letter, signage, web page updates and community forums.

Bush regeneration and weed control activities

Moderate Transfer or movement of infested soil on shoes, tools and other equipment.

As with the bush walking, limit the movement of people in and out of the infested areas when the soil is wet from rainfall. Alternative, provide hygiene facilities, their use as well as the provision of appropriate information regarding Dieback.

Prioritise works; undertaken essential works in dieback free areas first, before moving into infested areas. Rather than working in infested areas, and then moving to Dieback free areas.

Apply hygiene management actions always whilst moving between un-infested and infested areas.

By vigilant of dying plants, as this may mean that previous cryptic infestation has increased in activity.

Acquire plants for bush regeneration works from accredited nurseries only (see section 3.6). By doing this, it will limit the likelihood of introducing other Phytophthora spp. to the reserve or spreading those species that are already present in the Reserve.

Apply mitigation methods to limit the death and collapse of planted and existing plants through the application of Phosphite (see section 4.1).

Construction activities or maintenance works (major or minor works

Very high Transfer or movement of infested soil on shoes / work-

As with the bush walking, limit movements of machines and people into the infested parts of the Reserve when soil is


45

Activity Risk level* Mechanism of spread Control options

includes walking track repairs whilst major works includes the proposed walk bridge over wetland))

boots, tools, machines, and other equipment.

wet from rainfall, provide hygiene facilities and provide appropriate information to bush care staff.

As well as prioritise works to be undertaken in dieback free areas before moving into infested areas.

Apply hygiene actions whilst moving machines and people between un-infested and infested areas. Ensure the hygiene practices are being undertaken (clean on arrive, clean on departure).

Emergency access during fire or sewer

Very high Unmitigated movement of vehicles and people into all parts the reserve associated with the predictable / expected urgency associated with controlling wild fire or pollution / sewer spills.

During an emergency, such as a wildfire, it may be impossibly to manage the movement of people and machines. Understandably, the protection of residential properties and the infrastructure will be given precedence to implementing hygiene.

However, prior to an emergency occur, the Fire Fighting Services, Transport NSW, Sydney Waters and their service and repair contractors, should be provided with information regarding this infestation and the hygiene practices that are in place.

We also encourage that the continually clean vehicles and footwear between jobs and emergencies to limit the likelihood that they’ll spread Dieback.

* the risk is based on the volume of movement (i.e the number of people likely to walk through the reserve) and the and the amount of infested soil likely to picked up and moved from infested parts to un-infested parts of the Reserve


68

Summary of construction and maintenance activities with a high risk of introducing or spreading Dieback:

Activity type Activity at the site Means of Dieback introduction or spread

Construction and development

• digging and movement of soil (i.e.

digging of post holes for walk bridge,

moving soil to expose manholes on

sewer)

• Introducing soil from elsewhere to

assist with the works

• cut and fill of soils

• clearing / movement of topsoils

• movement of site machinery,

equipment, tools and construction

staff

• movement of soil for works from other

locations

• stockpiling of soil and material for

proposed walk bridge construction

works (as was proposed along

Waratah St)

• stockpile infested soil within infested

area, mark soil using appropriate

signage to ensure that it is not moved

elsewhere or outside of the known

infestation

• unplanned soil movement on staff,

machines and tools

• sand or mud stuck to tools, equipment,

vehicles and personnel (contaminated

soil introduced to site)

• inappropriate storage of soil

• altered surface water flows

• soil brought in that is infested with plant

pathogens that cause Dieback

Movement of vehicles and machines

• Moving through site

• Movement of soil,

• Used to cut and fill landscape

(proposed walk bridge)

• Post hole digging

• planned / unplanned soil movement

• off-road access

• Infested soil and tissue stuck to tools,

equipment, vehicles and personnel

(contaminated soil introduced to site)


• access into vegetation

Maintenance • cleaning of site equipment including

general site vehicles and general

equipment

• repair and maintenance of roads and

fences

• biodiversity management (i.e.

surveys and rehabilitation works in

the conservation area)

• As above

Maintenance of utilities and associated infrastructure by contractors

• planned soil movement (from the

Reserve or into the reserve from

elsewhere)

• sand or mud stuck to tyres and

underside of vehicles (contaminated

soil introduced to site)

• As above


69

Activity type Activity at the site Means of Dieback introduction or spread

• sand or mud stuck to personnel’s

boots and clothing (contaminated soil

introduced to site)


Site specific management techniques This section provides site-specific management techniques that can be employed to reduce the likelihood of introduction and spread of Dieback throughout the Reserve. These techniques are also likely to reduce the risk of introducing other pathogens that cause diseases among plants onto the site.

Quarantine – restricted access

The movement of people and vehicles are the primary means of spreading these pathogens. Therefore, restricting access into and out of an infestation area is the most effective means to manage the spread of Phytophthora Dieback. However, due to the ongoing use and enjoyment of the Reserve, the following alternatives have been suggested:

• Restrict access along the walking tracks during wet weather. During wet conditions, infested mud is more likely to adhere to shoes and the tyres of bikes, prams and machines. It is also a time when the pathogen is most active, whilst it grows and produces motile zoospores (sporulation)

• Restrict public access into the eec and ceec vegetation at all times, or at least during wet periods

• Close off critical habitats of the reserve by:

o Limiting access to the reserve to existing access tracks or newly defined tracks by strategic entry points

o Encouraging people, bikes and prams to stay on existing tracks. Personnel should avoid walking through vegetated areas during wet weather

o New tracks should only be created if deemed essential (i.e. For fire suppression or vegetation rehabilitation activities)

• Install signage that explains the reasons for the construction of the fence and gates, for closing the sections of the Reserve and why the hygiene practices are encouraged.

Hygiene – clean on entry, clean on exit / arrive clean leave clean

Preferably all vehicles, machinery, maintenance equipment, bike tyres, walking shoes and work boots should be free of mud, soil and vegetation prior to entering and leaving (arrive clean, leave clean or clean on entry, clean on exit) the Reserve, particularly during wet weather.

If entering any vegetated areas, dry soil and mud should be removed using a stiff brush, and collected in a plastic bag or bucket for disposal in a suitable location (i.e. away from vegetation, on a hard, well-draining surface or in appropriate refuse collection areas). Any remaining wet soil should be removed with a spray bottle containing a sterilising solution (i.e. 70% methylated spirits / water mixture,.0.5 – 1 % beach / water mixture or Phytoclean®).

During wet weather, vehicles that may need to enter the reserve should be equipped with a biosecurity hygiene kit that is adaptable to clean vehicles, footwear, tools and equipment before moving into the un-infested vegetation.

In accordance with the Arrive Clean, Leave Clean: Guidelines to help prevent the spread of invasive plant diseases and weeds threatening our native plants, animals and ecosystems (Commonwealth of Australia 2015), a portable biosecurity hygiene kit should contain the following:

• Plastic tub with a lid (to carry items and to be used as a footbath)

• Stiff brush to clean mud and soil off shoes and tools


70

• Newspaper, butchers paper or other disposable material to cover the foot well of vehicles (replace with clean material regularly)

• Dustpan and brush; possibly also a long-handled broom

• Plastic bag for sweepings and dirty newspaper

• Drum of water or tank of water with sterilising solution that has been prepared to the appropriate dilutions, for example:

o Solution of 70% ethanol / methylated spirits in 30% water

o 20% household bleach (with 1 – 0.5% active ingredient) in 80% water

o Quaternary ammonium disinfectant diluted according to manufacturer’s directions

o Phytoclean™ disinfectant diluted according to manufacturer’s directions

• Spray bottle containing sterilising solution (as above)

• Alcohol wipes or gel for hands and personal items.

For walkers and bike riders, permanent hygiene stations could be established at each entrance to the Reserve and at designated points along the disease front. Permanent hygiene station design options can be viewed in the following links:

https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/pests-diseases/phytophthora-dieback

www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/files/sharedassets/kangaroo_island

Wash-down or brush-down of footwear and tyres should still occur during dry conditions, whilst the likelihood of spreading infested soil is greatly reduced, it remains a risk.

Cleaning vehicles and machinery – construction and maintenance

If the Reserve is being used as a temporary construction site (i.e. as the walk bridge is built) and during any emergency works, the establishment of a vehicle wash down facility is not considered feasible. Where practicable, vehicles, machines and tools should be washed down and cleaned at the depot. If possibly, avoid using streets to wash down machines due to risk of spillage over the road edging and because there are several storm water drains that empty directly into the Reserve.

Vehicles should be brushed/washed down on a hard, well-draining surface away from bushland. If soil and mud are dry, these should be removed with a stiff brush and any remaining / wet soil should be washed off with a hose. All parts of the vehicle should be cleaned, including tyres and the undersides of vehicles. Care should be taken to ensure mud and wash down water does not drain into bushland (Dieback Working Group 2008).

To kill or disinfect the vehicles as they are washed down, bleach (diluted to 0.5 to 1%) or Phytoclean (disinfectant diluted according to manufacturer’s directions) should be added to the solution that is being used.

There may be exceptions to this, for example there may be a need to access the site quickly to protect houses and infrastructure from fire, significant repairs to sewers and to the rail corridor. If this occurs, we encourage that all vehicles are clean before arriving at the Reserve.

If practicable, emergency construction and maintenance staff should also adopt the ‘arrive clean, leave clean’ hygiene protocols for their vehicles, machines and footwear to promote principles of Dieback hygiene management (Commonwealth of Australia 2015).

Location of clean-down points and signage

For walkers and bike riders, major hygiene facilities could be located at entry and exit points to the Reserve. This includes along River Road, Waratah Street, Woronora Parade, Gungah Bay Rd and Myrtle Street.

Additional brush down hand held spray points should be considered at the disease front (interface between infested and un-infested vegetation). These points may need to be moved as the disease front moves.

Vehicles should be cleaned and checked prior to arriving on site. If this is not practicable, a portable wash-down unit will be required. Portable wash-down units should be used on flat and hard surface to allow the solution to run-off safely. The wash-down unit should not be located where the run-off will not enter the Reserve (i.e. there are open storm water drains on Woronora Parade).

https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/pests-diseases/phytophthora-dieback

http://www.naturalresources.sa.gov.au/files/sharedassets/kangaroo_island


71

All staff and contractors are to be provided with hard copies or a link to the “Arrive Clean, Leave Clean” guidelines (Commonwealth of Australia 2015).

Keeping records

Where practicable, records of maintenance, bush regeneration or any other works conducted in the Reserve should be commenced and maintained. This should include movements in and out of the Reserve, what types (machine or the movement of people), site conditions and hygiene measures applied.

Rehabilitation

During any restoration or rehabilitation works, saplings or plants that are to be used should be sourced only from nurseries that are accredited under the Nursery Industry Accreditation Scheme Australia (NIASA). Soils mulches should be obtained only from certified suppliers of bio-secure Dieback-free locations. For example, supplies certified by Nursery & Garden Industry, NSW and ACT Ltd (NGINA). More information is available about NGINA can be found on their website by following this link, http://www.ngina.com.au/#.

All personnel and contractors involved with rehabilitation works should have suitable Dieback awareness training and adhere to the site’s hygiene and access requirements.

Mitigating the impact

Chemical treatment

Once present, Phytophthora Dieback is almost impossible to eradicate. However, the expression of the disease in susceptible plants can be controlled through the application of Phosphite (phosphonate). Phosphite is a relatively cheap, biodegradable, nontoxic (to humans and most other animals) fungicide that protects plants against Phytophthora Dieback (Cahill et al. 2008). Phosphite acts by boosting the plants own natural defences and consequently allowing susceptible plants to survive in infested areas (Cahill et al. 2008). Phosphite can also act to protect susceptible plants on the edge of the advancing dieback front as well as assisting already infected plants to recover (Cahill et al. 2008).

To protect the plant, Phosphite needs to enter a plant's water transport system. There are two mechanisms in which this can be done, injecting phosphite directly into the trees cambium with tree syringes or spraying a dilute Phosphite solution onto the leaves of understorey plants.

In the Reserve, all Banksia shrubs and trees, will require injections, whilst understorey species can be sprayed. Tree injection involves drilling several holes into the bark of the tree. The larger the tree, the more Phosphite injections, will require (i.e. for larger trees (with diameter at breast of height greater than 20 cms) a syringe should be placed every 20cm around the trees base).

There are two approaches used to inculcate susceptible plants with Phosphite. This includes direct trunk injection using tree syringes and foliar spray. Trunk injections are generally used on large shrubs and trees, whilst foliar spray is generally applied to understorey plants. However, further information regarding Phosphite, its use and limitations, can be viewed in CALM (1999), Hardy et al. 2001 and on the Dieback Working Groups webpage, which can be viewed using the following link, https://www.dwg.org.au/treatment.

Injecting a tree with phosphite provides three to five years protection from Phytophthora Dieback. In contrast, spraying with phosphite provides protection for only one to two years. Because it only provides temporary protection, treatment needs to be ongoing and included in bushland management and future action plans.

In some cases, stressed plants treated with phosphite will show signs of leaf burning. Generally, this is a short-term effect and the plant will recover with the change of the seasons. In a small number of cases the plants that are already infected may be killed by the added stress of the phosphite treatment. To reduce the likelihood of any potential leaf burning, the phosphite rates described are chosen from the lower end of the prescribed range. For injecting, the rate is 5%; and for spraying one third of one percent.

http://www.ngina.com.au/

https://www.dwg.org.au/treatment


72

Training and education

To provide information regarding Dieback to those residents and local community groups likely to use the Reserve, community presentations should be considered as an option.

Following, or in addition to the presentation, GRC may provide printed materials, undertake letter drops, install signage at each entrance to the reserve and at each wash-down as well the providing detailed information on their webpage. Any information that is provided to residents should include a brief description of Phytophthora Dieback, how it is spread and the difficulties in managing it once an area has become infested.

Further, all construction, bush regeneration or emergency maintenance staff, before entering the Reserve, must include Dieback awareness training in their site inductions and toolbox meetings. This is necessary to ensure that all personnel and contractors working in the Reserve are aware of how Phytophthora Dieback is spread and how to apply the hygiene protocols, which are to be adhered to at all times.

Keeping records

To assist in determining success of the measures recommended above, records of movements in and out of the Reserve should be collected. These records should include movement types (machine or people), site conditions and hygiene measures applied should be collected. The movements of bush walkers in and out of the Reserve might be difficult to measure. However, other means, such as door knocking and letter drop surveys could be undertaken to determine if local residents are aware of the issues and applying the appropriate hygiene measures.

Further, records of when, where and how the stem injections, Phosphite spraying or both were conducted in the Reserve, should be recorded. This will assist in determining when this process needs to be repeated.

The response and overall health of sprayed plants inside and outside the Myles Dunphy infestation should monitored regularly after the treatment.

Daily checks, inspections and maintenance during any construction works:

Inspections and maintenance

Timing What and where By Who When

Before works commence

Inspection of the construction site to determine the extent and location of works / infested vegetation overlap. The edge of the infested area / works area overlap should clearly have been marked out using high visibility flagging tape and / or para-webbing fence.

Dieback specialists in consultation with Project Manager

At least one week prior to the undertaking the proposed works.

In the case of an emergency, as soon as practicable.

Signage – install signs that communicates sufficient information to ensure make sure all staff and residents are aware of Dieback, how it spread and impact on native habitats

Dieback specialists in consultation with Project Manager

As soon as the flagging or fence are installed

All machines and vehicles to be cleaned of soil and vegetation matter. Due to the open storm water drains at the Reserve and risk of introducing further pathogens, the cleaning of vehicles and equipment should be undertaken at depot.

All contractors, Sydney Water staff, Transport NSW staff, bush regeneration staff Project Manager (PM)

Prior to leaving the depot or if this is not practicable, locate a safe location where it practicable to conduct the wash down without the


73

solution entering the reserve

Prepare hygiene kit and ensure that bleach solution is packed. Spray units, hand held spray bottles and brushes are all present.

Project Manager (PM)

Immediately prior to entering the Reserve

Conduct Phytophthora Dieback toolbox talk to ensure that all staff are aware of how Dieback is spread and how to apply the hygiene practices

Project Manager or on-site construction manager to organise and undertake

Immediately prior to entering the Reserve

Before entering site, check vehicles, where necessary complete hygiene practices by washing down footwear, other small hand-held tools and any other device that could carry infested material

All staff Immediately prior to entering the Reserve

During works If practicable, once inside the infestation, all machines and tools should remain there until the completion of the works.

Site construction foreman

Daily

Inspect the flagging, fencing and signage each day for damage and if found fix to original standard


Prior to daily works being undertaken

Compliance checking

Daily site prestart toolbox to be undertaken and sign by all staff present to verify that is has been carried out and understood by those present.


During daily toolbox meetings / prior to entering the Reserve

Where practicable, record all activities undertaken on site, movements of people and machines and keep a record of the hygiene practices that were implemented during the works.


Daily, or at least weekly


74

Appendix 6: Community feedback The following unedited comments were made by the community via Council’s online ‘Have your say’ forum:

• I have lived in Oatley for 40 years with the flying foxes. As they are primary pollinators if they are lost then we will loose our trees. This is an unique community in Oatley. We value our wildlife and the bush land we have. Please don’t destroy our essential wild life...flying foxes.

• If you manage impact on residents the bats will be seen as an asset not a nuisance.

• I think it would be great for Council to hold bat fly out picnics in former Oatley Bowling Club site.

• Large numbers may bring health issues.

• Harrassing flying foxes is inhumane, it raises stress levels, increasing potential for disease

• I'm concerned that climate change will impact the flying fox population negatively

• Actions of other LGAs affect the size of the Oatley camp so there needs to be a city wide strategy.

• Concern that more flying foxes will die from heat exhaustion.

• We have pride in living with these animals and would like to think that the council does to.

• Try and win over the people who are adversely affected by flying foxes somehow???

• There are other councils who have effectively managed their colonies without moving the bats on.

• Local school programs investigating the issues.

• They are pests.

• I cherish the Oatley flying foxes and watching them fly across the sky each evening.

• I enjoy the local wildlife in Oatley and would hate to see any bat or bird population impacted.

• Public awareness about mesh size limitations for bird/flying fox netting protecting fruit trees.

• Please protect the Flying Foxes and their habitat and food sources.

• Keep up the good work of conserving our nature for future generations.

• Stop trees being removed, grow more trees in suburb & provide a water source at Myles Dunphy Reserve.

• I enjoy watching the FFs fly out at dusk and circle around overhead before venturing further afield.

• Actively encourage native plants and trees to flourish. Stop removal of street trees!!!!

• Shouldn't colonies be broken up to have less impact on immediate area and greater impact for species

• Education is the key, starting with schools and ensuring the children are given the facts.

Flying-fox Camp Management Plan Template 2019

Documents

Transcript of Flying-fox Camp Management Plan Template 2019