Flying-fox Dispersal Strategy - Kearneys Spring, Oakey ... · of right’ authority to manage...

.

ecology / vegetation / wildlife / aquatic ecology / GIS

Flying-fox Dispersal Strategy - Kearneys Spring, Oakey Creek and Highfields May 2014 TOOWOOMBA REGIONAL COUNCIL

TRC flying-fox dispersal strategy ecosure.com.au | i

Acknowledgements

Ecosure would like to acknowledge the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection for the supply of historical flying-fox data, and the authors of Eco Logical’s report to TRC which has been used as a supplement to this strategy.

TRC flying-fox dispersal strategy ecosure.com.au | ii

Acronyms and abbreviations

ABLV Australian bat lyssavirus

BFF Black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto)

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DoE Federal Department of the Environment

EHP Qld Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

FFRMP Flying-fox roost management permit

GHFF Grey-headed flying-fox (P. poliocephalus)

HeV Hendra virus

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Resources

LGA Local government area

LRFF Little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus)

LSA Toowoomba Live Steamers Association

NCA Qld Nature Conservation Act 1992

NRM Department of Natural Resources and Mines

SITIA Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts

TRC Toowoomba Regional Council

UFFMA Urban flying-fox management area

VMA Qld Vegetation Management Act 1999

TRC flying-fox dispersal strategy ecosure.com.au | iii

Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ i

Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................................ii

List of figures ........................................................................................................................ v

List of tables ..........................................................................................................................vi

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Legislative framework ............................................................................................. 3

1.2.1 State ................................................................................................................ 3

1.2.2 Federal ............................................................................................................ 3

1.2.3 International agreements ................................................................................. 4

1.2.4 Approval progress summary ............................................................................ 4

1.3 Flying-fox ecology ................................................................................................... 5

1.3.1 Distribution and habitat requirements ............................................................... 5

1.3.2 Foraging, roosting and movement patterns ...................................................... 5

1.3.3 Reproduction ................................................................................................... 6

1.3.4 Ecological role ................................................................................................. 6

2 Roost detail .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Kearneys Spring, Toowoomba ................................................................................ 7

2.1.1 Location ........................................................................................................... 7

2.1.2 Historical flying-fox records .............................................................................. 9

2.1.3 Source of conflict ............................................................................................. 9

2.2 Oakey Creek, Oakey ............................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 Location ........................................................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Historical flying-fox records ............................................................................ 11

2.2.3 Source of conflict ........................................................................................... 11

2.3 Woolmer Road, Highfields .................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Location ......................................................................................................... 12

2.3.2 Historical flying-fox records ............................................................................ 12

2.3.3 Source of conflict ........................................................................................... 12

3 Dispersal strategy ........................................................................................................ 14

TRC flying-fox dispersal strategy ecosure.com.au | iv

3.1 Dispersal ............................................................................................................... 14

3.1.1 Seasonal timing of dispersal program ............................................................ 14

3.1.2 Daily timing of dispersal actions ..................................................................... 14

3.1.3 Methods and dispersal tools .......................................................................... 15

3.1.4 Approach ....................................................................................................... 18

3.1.5 Roles and responsibilities .............................................................................. 22

3.1.6 Stakeholders .................................................................................................. 23

3.1.7 Community consultation ................................................................................. 23

3.2 Vegetation management ....................................................................................... 24

3.2.1 Timing ............................................................................................................ 24

3.2.2 Methods ......................................................................................................... 24

3.2.3 Known roosts ................................................................................................. 26

3.2.4 Potential habitat ............................................................................................. 27

3.3 Animal welfare and conservation .......................................................................... 32

3.4 Human safety ........................................................................................................ 33

4 Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 34

4.1 Methods ................................................................................................................ 34

4.2 Sites and timeframes ............................................................................................ 35

4.3 Program evaluation ............................................................................................... 36

4.3.1 Dispersal success indicators .......................................................................... 37

4.3.2 Dispersal program stop triggers ..................................................................... 37

4.3.3 Criteria to determine splinter roost management ............................................ 37

4.4 Timing overview .................................................................................................... 38

References and further information ..................................................................................... 41

Appendix 1 TRC UFFMA .................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 2 Kearneys Spring UFFMA search results ........................................................... 44

Appendix 3 Oakey Creek UFFMA search results ................................................................ 45

Appendix 4 Highfields UFFMA search results ..................................................................... 46

Appendix 5 Roost monitoring data ...................................................................................... 47

Appendix 6 Summary of previous dispersal attempts (source Roberts and Eby 2013) ........ 50

TRC flying-fox dispersal strategy ecosure.com.au | vi

List of tables

Table 1 Approval required and progress to disperse flying-foxes from each of the three roosts planned for management. ........................................................................................... 4

Table 2 Assessment of management methods. Examples in green are known to be effective and should form the basis of the dispersal tool kit. .............................................................. 15

Table 3 Roles, responsibilities, authority and communication lines between the dispersal team. ................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 4 Guidelines for flying-fox monitoring immediately prior to and during dispersal and action if required ................................................................................................................. 36

TRC flying-fox dispersal strategy ecosure.com.au | v

List of figures

Figure 1 All known roosts within TRC and nearby roosts in adjoining local government areas ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2 Indicative flying-fox breeding cycles ........................................................................ 6

Figure 3 Kearneys Spring roost location and surrounds ........................................................ 8

Figure 4 Historical flying-fox records for Kearneys Spring roost, including previous records from the Japanese Gardens site ........................................................................................... 9

Figure 5 Oakey Creek roost location and surrounds............................................................ 10

Figure 6 Historical flying-fox records for Oakey Creek roost ................................................ 11

Figure 7 Highfields roost location ........................................................................................ 13

Figure 8 Dispersal approach – Kearneys Spring roost and nearby previous known locations ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 9 Dispersal approach – Oakey Creek roost .............................................................. 20

Figure 10 Dispersal approach - Highfields roost .................................................................. 21

Figure 11 Dispersal team structure ..................................................................................... 22

Figure 12 All known roosts within TRC and nearby roosts in adjoining local government areas ................................................................................................................................... 29



Figure 15 Decision tool to guide progression through each stage of the dispersal strategy . 39

Figure 16 Proposed timing of each stage of the dispersal strategy ...................................... 40

TRC flying-fox dispersal strategy ecosure.com.au | 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Toowoomba Regional Council (TRC) engaged Ecosure to develop a strategy and federal government application to disperse two roosts within the region: Kearneys Spring, Toowoomba; and Oakey Creek, Oakey.

This came as a result of the following Council resolution on the 18th September 2013:

1. That Council begin permit applications to both the Federal and State Governments for habitat modification and moving on of the flying-foxes located at both Kearneys Spring and the site behind the Oakey Motel immediately.

2. That permission be also sought to move the flying-foxes on from further sites within the Toowoomba City boundary1 should they relocate within said boundary.

3. That Council then take the necessary action, according to the conditions of the permits provided by both levels of government, to move the flying-foxes on from the sites and modify said habitats to deter their return, in a timely manner.

Ecosure assessed Kearneys Spring and Oakey Creek roosts on the 21st November 2013 to develop this management strategy. This strategy, supported by a previous assessment by TRC (Eco Logical 2013), provides the main source of information for the associated referral to the federal Department of the Environment (DoE).

Council has resolved to disperse a third roost within TRC at Woolmer Road, Highfields. This dispersal action was referred under the EPBC Act and approved as not a controlled action if undertaken in a particular manner (EPBC 2013/7001). TRC has since requested an amendment to the particular manner, and as such this strategy has been revised to include detail as requested by the DoE.

TRC has been issued with a damage mitigation permit (DMP) by the state Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) to disperse the Highfields roost.

Figure 1 shows the location of the three roosts TRC proposes to manage in a regional context, along with other known roosts in the area.

This strategy is focused on the three species of flying-foxes found within TRC:

• black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto) (BFF)

• grey headed flying-fox (P. poliocephalus) (GHFF)

• little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus) (LRFF).

LRFF is transient to TRC and has not been recorded breeding within the region. This is important with respect to timing management activities.

1 former Toowoomba City Council area only– does not include whole of TRC.

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(ToowoombaRegionalCouncil

Boundary St,Toowoomba

GoondiwindiRegionalCouncil

Lockyer ValleyRegionalCouncil

SomersetRegionalCouncil

South BurnettRegionalCouncil

SouthernDowns Regional

Council

WesternDowns Regional

Council

WoolmerRd/Jackson Cls,

Highfields

The PalmsNP, Cooyar

Withcott (Rifle Range)

Oakey Creek,Oakey

Redwood Park,Toowoomba

Kearney's Spring,Toowoomba

280,000

280,000

300,000

300,000

320,000

320,000

340,000

340,000

360,000

360,000

380,000

380,000

400,000

400,000

420,000

420,000

440,000

440,000

6,860

,000

6,860

,000

6,880

,000

6,880

,000

6,900

,000

6,900

,000

6,920

,000

6,920

,000

6,940

,000

6,940

,000

6,960

,000

6,960

,000

6,980

,000

6,980

,000

7,000

,000

7,000

,000

7,020

,000

7,020

,000

7,040

,000

7,040

,000

7,060

,000

7,060

,000

A4ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.

Figure 1: All known roosts withinTRC and nearby roosts inadjoining local government areas

Toowoomba Regional CouncilFlying-fox dispersal strategySouth East Queensland

Document

REV BY CHK DESCRIPTION DATE

Approved GIS Team Leader

Job Number: GW111GW111_MP_001_AllKnownRoosts_V1

R0 MD JB ISSUED TO CLIENT 17/12/2013

0 10 205Kilometres

.

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

Projection: Transverse MercatorDatum: GDA 1994

Units: Metre

Scale: 1:900,000 when printed at A417/12/2013BN

Data Sources:- © State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resourcesand Mines) 2013. Updated data available athttp://dds.information.qld.gov.au/dds/.- © Copyright Commonwealth of Australia (GeoscienceAustralia) 2012 The Commonwealth gives no warrantyregarding the accuracy, completeness, currency or suitabilityfor any particular purpose- © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2013- Image Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom,Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GISUser Community

Toowoomba RegionalCouncil LGA boundaryLGA boundary

Flying-fox roosts!(

TRC roost proposedfor management

!( Roost located in TRC

!(Nearby roost located insurrounding LGA

!( !(

QLD

NSW

BRISBANETOOWOOMBA

Location


1.2 Legislative framework

1.2.1 State

As native species, all flying-foxes and their roosting habitat are protected in Queensland under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA).

Approval by the EHP is required to drive away (or attempt to drive away) or destroy a flying-fox roost.

With the recent addition of section 41A to the NCA, local government has been given an ‘as of right’ authority to manage flying-fox roosts within defined Urban Flying-fox Management Areas (UFFMAs)2. TRC UFFMA is shown in Appendix 1. This legislation change allows local government to:

a) destroy a flying-fox roost

b) drive away, or attempt to drive away, a flying-fox from a flying-fox roost

c) disturb a flying-fox in a flying-fox roost.

Such management must be done in compliance with the Code of Practice – Ecologically sustainable management of flying-fox roosts, developed under section 174A of the NCA. This includes notifying EHP 48 hours prior to flying-fox roost management. The Flying-fox Roost Management Guideline has also been developed to provide local government with additional information that may assist decision making and management of flying-fox roosts.

Local government is required to apply for a FFRMP to manage flying-fox roosts outside the UFFMA. Such a permit is valid for a period of six months, which may be extended with and EHP-approved regional flying-fox plan.

Anyone other than local government is required to apply for a flying-fox roost management permit (FFRMP) issued by EHP to destroy a flying-fox roost or attempt to disperse a roost. However all landholders can now conduct low impact activities (as defined under section 41B of the NCA (i.e. mowing) without approval provided it is done in accordance with the Code of Practice – Low impact activities affecting flying-fox roosts.

The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 provides for animal welfare. Measures detailed in Section 3.4 will ensure compliance with this legislation.

NB: Habitat modification may require additional approval under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) and other legislation.

1.2.2 Federal

The GHFF is listed as nationally vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

2 As identified by EHP UFFMA mapping


A referral to the federal DoE may be required under the EPBC Act for any action that has the potential to significantly impact on a matter of national environmental significance.

Roosting habitat considered critical to survival of the GHFF is outlined in the draft national GHFF recovery plan (2009), including habitat that meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. Is used as a camp either continuously or seasonally in > 50% of years; or

2. Has been used as a camp at least once in 10 years (beginning 1995) and is known to have contained > 10 000 individuals, unless such habitat has been used only as a temporary refuge, and the use has been of limited duration (i.e. in the order of days rather than weeks or months); or

3. Has been used as a camp at least once in 10 years (beginning in 1995) and is known to have contained > 2 500 individuals, including reproductive females during the final stages of pregnancy, during lactation, or during the period of conception (i.e. September to May).

Under Section 88 of the EPBC Act, the Minister will make an initial decision on the referral within 20 business days. If no additional information is required and the actions detailed in this strategy are approved, it is anticipated that management activities will be approved by February 2014.

1.2.3 International agreements

All flying-fox species are listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) as species that may become threatened with extinction unless international trade is not closely controlled.

The GHFF is listed as Vulnerable on International Union for Conservation of Nature and Resources (IUCN) Red List because of continuing population decline, estimated at more than 30% over the last three generations (IUCN 2012).

1.2.4 Approval progress summary

Table 1 summarises current and outstanding approval required for the dispersal of flying-foxes from each of the three roosts.

Table 1 Approval required and progress to disperse flying-foxes from each of the three roosts planned for management. NB. Habitat modification may require additional approval.

Roost International Federal State Status

Kearneys Spring, Toowoomba

Approval not required.

Meets criteria for critical roost habitat: approval required.

Located within TRC UFFMA so approval not required (see Appendix 2).

Pending federal approval only.

Oakey Creek, Oakey


Meets criteria for critical roost habitat: approval required.

Located within TRC UFFMA so approval not required (see Appendix 3).

Pending federal approval only.

Woolmer Road/Jackson Close, Highfields


Approved as not a controlled action if undertaken in a particular manner (EPBC 2013/7001).

DMP approved prior to introduction of new management framework (see Appendix 4).

Approved.


1.3 Flying-fox ecology

1.3.1 Distribution and habitat requirements

The GHFF is found throughout eastern Australia, from Rockhampton in Central Queensland to Melbourne, Victoria, generally within 200 kilometres of the coast (EHP 2011). This species occasionally ranges into South Australia and has been observed in Tasmania (SEWPAC 2012). The GHFF forages and roosts in rainforest, open forests, closed and open woodlands and is also found throughout urban and agricultural areas where food trees exists (DEC 2005; EHP 2011).

The BFF occurs throughout coastal areas from Shark Bay in Western Australia, across northern Australia and into New South Wales (EHP 2011; Churchill 2008). Their roosts are most commonly located in mangroves, rainforest and other coastal forests.

The overall numbers of GHFFs has decreased significantly in the past three generations (Section 1.2.3). Nevertheless, the distributions of both the grey-headed and black flying-fox appear to be progressing southward. The range of the GHFF has contracted in the north (southern Queensland) and expanded southwards into Victoria (DSE, 2011), and the BFF has extended its southern range by more than 600 km since 1990 (DEH, 2008).

LRFFs are widely distributed throughout Northern and Eastern Australia. The LRFF has the most nomadic distribution, strongly influenced by preference for nectar food resources (predominantly Eucalyptus species) (Churchill, 2008). LRFF are also known to exploit agricultural food resources including orchards (EHP, 2011).

LRFFs often move sub-continental distances in search of sporadic food supplies, sometimes in groups of hundreds of thousands. In the course of their large scale wanderings LRFFs temporarily co-roost with existing regional BFF and GHFF congregations.

1.3.2 Foraging, roosting and movement patterns

All flying-foxes are nocturnal, resting during the day in communal camps or roosts. These roosts may range in size from a few individuals to hundreds of thousands, fluctuating in response to local food availability. Roosts are generally located in gullies, close to a water source, in vegetation with a dense canopy or closed understorey and within 20 kilometres of a regular food source. Flying-foxes forage on fruits of rainforest trees and vines, as well as nectar and pollen of native trees (especially Eucalyptus, Melaleuca and Banksia species). They also feed on fruit crops and gardens, at times causing severe crop damage (DEC 2005). All species are nocturnal and may travel up to 100 kilometres in one night, with a foraging radius of up to 50km (McConkey et al, 2012).

Flying-foxes appear to be more frequently roosting and foraging in urban areas because of habitat clearing, human encroachment and drought, combined with the opportunities presented by year-round food availability from native and exotic species found in expanding urban areas. Despite evidence of population decline in some species, these human-influenced dynamics have lead to increased interactions between humans and flying-foxes,


which can lead to conflict. It should be stressed that a long term solution to any amenity issues or human exposure to disease carried by flying-foxes resides in gaining a better understanding of flying-fox ecology and applying that understanding to well-thought-out urban planning and development.

1.3.3 Reproduction

Figure 2 summarises the indicative breeding cycles for flying-foxes in the TRC area based on recent assessments. Note, these timeframes may vary considerably in response to climatic variables and local conditions.

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

GHFF

BFF

LRFF

Final trimester/birthing

Birthing

Peak conception

Creching (young left at roost)

Figure 2 Indicative flying-fox breeding cycles

1.3.4 Ecological role

Flying-foxes play a critical ecological role in the long term persistence of Australian tropical and sub-tropical forests through long-distance seed and pollen dispersal (Roberts et al 2006; McConkey et al 2011; Wescott et al 2008). Flying-foxes are highly mobile, capable of travelling over 100 kilometres in a single night to foraging on the nectar pollen and fruit of more than 100 native trees. In this regard, flying-foxes are considered a ‘keystone species’ assisting forest regeneration over broad scales which is important in the context of a continually fragmenting landscape. In this regard flying-foxes are considered a ‘keystone’ species’ as they are one of the few animal groups that can disperse seed and cross pollinate plants over distances of more than a few kilometres.


2 Roost detail

2.1 Kearneys Spring, Toowoomba

2.1.1 Location

The Kearneys Spring roost is located within a council-managed park (Kearneys Spring Historical Park) on Spring St, Toowoomba (Figure 3).

Prior to 2010, the roost was located in the Japanese Gardens adjoining the University of Southern Queensland. Flying-foxes were dispersed from this location, with some animals moving across the road to a cafe at The Springs Garden World before relocating to the current site.

394,400

394,400

394,600

394,600

394,800

394,800

395,000

395,000

395,200

395,200

395,400

395,400

395,600

395,600

395,800

395,800

396,000

396,000

6,946

,200

6,946

,200

6,946

,400

6,946

,400

6,946

,600

6,946

,600

6,946

,800

6,946

,800

6,947

,000

6,947

,000

Data Sources:- © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2013Image Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

A4ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.

Figure 3: Kearney's SpringRoost Location and surrounds

REV BY CHK DESCRIPTION DATE


Toowoomba Regional Council

Toowoomba, QLD

0 50 10025Metres

.

Flying-fox dispersal strategyCoordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56


Units: Metre

Scale: 1:6,500 when printed at A4Job Number: GW111GW111_MP_002_KearneysSpring_Location


Document:

17/12/2013BN

Roost extent Nov 2013

Spring St

Ruthv

enSt

Kearn

eySt

West

St

Kearney's SpringHistorical Park

The SpringsGarden World

Cafe

JapaneseGardens


2.1.2 Historical flying-fox records

A summary of historical flying-fox data is provided in Figure 4. Additional data collected by Ecosure after the initial development of this plan is provided in Appendix 5.

2.1.3 Source of conflict

This reserve is used by the Toowoomba Live Steamers Association (LSA), with a miniature passenger steam train line running through the park. Other facilities (i.e. BBQ facilities and seating) are also located within the park. The LSA has reported a reduction in park visitors with reduced amenity value and fear of disease associated with the flying-fox roost, resulting in a reported 35% reduction in revenue (LSA staff 2013, pers. comm. 21 Nov).

2.2 Oakey Creek, Oakey

2.2.1 Location

Oakey roost is located along Oakey Creek, on state-owned land and three private properties: two residences and one business (Kelly’s Motel) (Figure 5). During periods when the roost expands, due to seasonal influx of LRFF, it can spill over to two additional private residential properties.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Sep

Nov Ap

r

Mar Ap

r

Jul

Jan

Apr

Oct

Jan

Apr

Jul

Nov

Dec Jan

Feb

Apr

May Ju

l

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Nu

mb

er

of

FF

Little red f lying-fox

Black f lying-fox

Grey-headed f lying-fox

Average total

Max. GHFF 1100

Max. BFF 3000

Max. total FF 4400

Average total FF 1895

Max. LRFF2000

Figure 4 Historical flying-fox records for Kearneys Spring roost, including previous records from the Japanese Gardens site. Data to October 2013 provided by EHP, November 2013 from Ecosure site assessment.

373,400

373,400

373,600

373,600

373,800

373,800

6,964

,600

6,964

,600

6,964

,800

6,964

,800

A4ECOSURE does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information displayed in this map and any person using it does so at their own risk. ECOSURE shall bear no responsibility or liability for any errors, faults, defects, or omissions in the information.REV BY CHK DESCRIPTION DATE



Oakey, QLD

0 20 4010Metres

.



Units: Metre

Scale: 1:2,000 when printed at A4Job Number: GW111GW111_MP_003_OakeyCreek_Location


Document:

17/12/2013BN

Roost extent Nov 2013

Campbell St

Data Sources:- © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2013Image Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Figure 5: Oakey Creek RoostLocation and surrounds

McDonald St

Oakey Creek



A summary of historical flying-fox data is provided in Figure 6. Additional data collected by Ecosure after the initial development of this plan is provided in Appendix 5.


Both the motel and residents have reported negative impacts. These include:

• amenity – smell, noise, mess

• damage to vegetation (particularly when the transient LRFF are present)

• loss of income at Kelly’s Motel with rooms nearest the roost not always able to be rented, and assumed reduction in return guests

• fear of health risk, particularly expressed by a resident with water tanks adjacent to the roost.

There are also horses in a paddock immediately opposite the roost which may be at increased risk of Hendra virus (HeV) if not vaccinated (refer to Section 3.5).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Oct

Nov Ja

n

Apr Ju

l

Nov

Dec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep Oct

Nov

2011 2012 2013

Num

ber o

f FF

Little red flying-fox

Black flying-fox

Grey-headed flying-fox

Average total

Max. GHF 3000

Max. BFF 1500

Max. total FF 5000

Average total FF 1322

Max. LRFF 4000

Figure 6 Historical flying-fox records for Oakey Creek roost. Data to October 2013 provided by EHP, November 2013 from Ecosure site assessment


2.3 Woolmer Road, Highfields

2.3.1 Location

Highfields roost is located in a gully between Jackson Close and Woolmer Road, Highfields (Figure 7). The majority of the known roost habitat occurs on state land, with the edges on freehold residential.


The Highfields roost comprises mainly GHFF and BFF, with occasional influxes of LRFF. It has been a permanent roost since monitoring began in 2013, ranging in size from 90 to 7500 individuals. EHP and Ecosure monitoring data is provided in Appendix 5.


Complaints from neighbouring residences include flying-foxes in the trees overhanging a backyard, noise and smell associated with the roost (Eco Logical, 2013). Some residents have reported sleep deprivation and severe physiological impacts associated with noise and proximity to the roost.

Woolmer Rd

Jackson Cl

KratzkeRd

393,000

393,000

393,200

393,200

393,400

393,400

393,600

393,600

393,800

393,800

394,000

394,000

394,200

394,200

394,400

394,400

394,600

394,600

394,800

394,800

395,000

395,000

395,200

395,200

395,400

395,400

395,600

395,600

6,961

,800

6,961

,800

6,962

,000

6,962

,000

6,962

,200

6,962

,200

6,962

,400

6,962

,400

6,962

,600

6,962

,600

6,962

,800

6,962

,800

6,963

,000

6,963

,000

Data Sources:- © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2013- Image Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community


Approved Project Manager


Toowoomba, QLD

0 100 20050Metres

.



Units: Metre

Scale: 1:10,000 when printed at A4Job Number: GW111GW111_MP_008_HighfieldsLocation


Document:

15/05/2014JB

Roost extent February 2014 Figure : Highfields roostlocation and surrounds

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

7

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text


3 Dispersal strategy

All management activities will be done in compliance with the Queensland Code of Practice – Ecologically sustainable management of flying-fox roosts, and with consideration to the Flying-fox Roost Management Guideline.

Any approval conditions set by DoE will also be strictly adhered to.

3.1 Dispersal

3.1.1 Seasonal timing of dispersal program

Figure 2 provides indicative timeframes of FF breeding cycles in the TRC area. However, dispersal timing will avoid critical times in the breeding cycle based on individual assessments by a person highly knowledgeable in flying-fox biology, ecology and behaviour, rather than through confinement to pre-determined times of the year.

GHFF and BFF roost in TRC in all months of the year. LRFF are generally only present between October and March (Section 2). Therefore, provided that LRFF continue to move away from TRC to birth and rear young, active dispersal outside of the critical GHFF/BFF breeding season will be suitable. However, should LRFF be recorded birthing and rearing young in any of the conflict roosts, active dispersal may need to be rescheduled or alternatives investigated (i.e. vegetation management in accordance with Section 3.4).

3.1.2 Daily timing of dispersal actions

Dispersal teams should be in position prior to flying-foxes returning to the roost (i.e. approximately 3.30am), and active dispersal will continue no longer than three hours. Flying-foxes may also be disturbed each evening prior to fly-out with thirty minute bursts of noise beginning no earlier than 30 minutes prior to sunset for a maximum of two hours in total.

Triggers to cease dispersal before these daily and seasonal thresholds are detailed in Section 4.

A timing overview is provided in Section 4.4.


3.1.3 Methods and dispersal tools

Table 2 outlines a range of management methods and dispersal tools that are available, and their suitability for TRC. Methods below should be read with referral to general animal welfare considerations (Section 3.4).

Table 2 Assessment of management methods. Examples in green are known to be effective and should form the basis of the dispersal tool kit.

Type Examples Level of historic success Advantages Disadvantages Suitable for use in TRC

Aural Stock whips, starter pistols, distress callers, heavy music, air horns, banging metal objects, gas cannons, megaphones.

High (but requires ongoing effort).

Cost effective tools that are easily varied.

Costly operational costs (human resources). Risk of damaging flying-fox hearing – certain tools should not be used in close proximity to flying-foxes (i.e. BirdFrite).

Visual

Lighting - hand-held spotlights, light towers, strobe lights.

Moderate (but requires ongoing effort).

Cost effective tools that are easily varied. Most effective in combination with audio tools.

Costly operational costs (human resources). Flying-foxes quickly habituate.

Laser pointers. Moderate (but requires ongoing effort).

Cost effective tools. Most effective in combination with audio tools.

Risk of damaging flying-fox vision – laser power should be low range and should not be pointed at flying-foxes (but rather habitat). Care required where aircraft are operating nearby – see requirements of Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

General - dancing men, kites, balloons, plastic bags/reflective objects hung from branches.

Moderate – localised only (i.e. single tree or less).

Can remain in place for periods of time without human operation so no operational costs.

Installing to cover large enough areas can be logistically difficult and resource intensive. Flying-foxes may habituate quickly to some visual deterrents.

*

Physical Water - hoses3, sprinklers (including canopy-mounted).

Unknown (but likely to be moderate-high).

Can be automated so minimal operational costs (water only).

Initial installation costly. Potential welfare implications associated with use of hoses.

*

3 Hoses should not be directed at flying-foxes for obvious welfare reasons, but can be used to deter flying-foxes from landing in a tree or re-establishing a roost.

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/139/139c23.pdf



Trip wires. Low (flying-foxes have been known to utilise trip wires as heavy duty roosting space).

Alternative wires to those used in the unsuccessful trial referenced may improve efficiency.

Risk of wildlife entanglement - requires proper installation, monitoring and maintenance to avoid.

*

Netting. Unknown (never trialled due to prohibitive cost and logistical issues).

Effective (physical exclusion). Risk of wildlife entanglement - requires proper installation, monitoring and maintenance to avoid. Costly installation and maintenance. Reduced amenity. Logistically difficult to install in large areas. Reduced habitat value for other fauna.

X

Habitat modification. High. Effective. Reduced maintenance dispersal requirements and associated resource and welfare implications. Can be substituted for active dispersal/harassment techniques as a more passive method of dispersal i.e. vegetation management while flying-foxes are absent to a point that it is no longer attractive to roosting flying-foxes so that they voluntarily abandon the site.

Initially resource intensive. Reduced habitat value for other fauna. Potential for reduced amenity.

Culling. Low (but ongoing effort required).

Not appropriate or permitted under current legislation.

Ineffective due to transient nature of flying-foxes. Welfare implications for target individuals (often inhumane death) and dependent young. Conservation implications with potential to impact flying-foxes at a population/species level.

X



Would require euthanasia of injured (and potentially orphaned) animals. Increased disease risk with higher likelihood of humans coming in contact with dead, injured or orphaned flying-foxes.

Oflactory D-Ter (manufactured by Heiniger), python excrement and the odour of paradichlorobenzene (found in toilet deoderiser blocks).

Moderate – localised only (i.e. single tree or less).

Can remain in place for periods of time without human operation so no operational costs.

Difficult and resource intensive to apply in large areas. Regular maintenance required.

X

Smoke Smoke machine or fires contained in pits/drums.

High (but ongoing). Effective. Requires careful use4 and monitoring to avoid welfare impacts. Heavily affected by weather conditions (rain, wind). Potential risk of bush fire. Potentially unsuitable during fire bans.

General

Fogging. High (but not appropriate). Not appropriate Use of oils (i.e. white oil) has potential for serious health impacts to flying-foxes.

X

Aircraft i.e. helicopters. Unknown (but not appropriate).

Not appropriate Significant potential for strike resulting in human or wildlife injury/death.

X

Paint ball guns. Unknown (but not appropriate).

Not appropriate Significant potential for wildlife injury/ death. X

Fireworks. Unknown (but not appropriate).

Not appropriate Significant potential for human or wildlife injury/death.

X

4 Care should be taken when using smoke to ensure: fire must be extinguished should flying-foxes land in the area to avoid health impacts associated with smoke inhalation, and; materials that may produce harmful smoke or fumes when burnt are removed/not used (i.e. paint on drums, wood from toxic plants, petrol, etc.). *May be suitable in some situations and/or if available resources allow.


Dispersal tools should be numerous and varied and used at unexpected locations to avoid flying-foxes habituating to dispersal.

The more varied the tools and randomised use of each, the more effective dispersal will be, with flying-foxes less likely to habituate. Each dispersal team member should have at least one visual and one aural tool that can be used at different locations on different days (and preferentially swapped regularly for alternate tools). It is recommended there be at least two smoke drums per site. Exact location of drums and positioning of personnel will need to be determined on a daily basis in response to flying-fox movement and behaviour as well as prevailing weather (esp. wind) conditions.

3.1.4 Approach

Dispersal activities will preferentially occur concurrently at the three roosts. This will minimise the likelihood of flying-foxes moving between these three roosts on a daily basis which will be ineffective and prolong periods of stress for flying-foxes. The anticipated number of people5 required at each dispersal site is shown in Figures 8-10. The Japanese Gardens and The Springs Garden World Cafe are unsuitable alternate roosts, so given prior flying-fox occupation these sites should also have personnel present during dispersal activities. Landholders should be consulted prior to dispersal.

At least one of the dispersal team will also be positioned in similar high conflict habitat outside the current extent of the Highfields roost (Figure 10). This will enable early identification of flying-foxes attempting to roost at this location, and allow early intervention in these locations.

At least two teams should be on stand-by to allow dispersal of splinter colonies from other unsuitable locations (as identified by TRC based on criteria in Section 4.3).

Dispersal activities need to be adaptive and the number of people required may change on a daily basis.

5 Based on assumption that smoke drums will be placed in key areas.

394,400

394,400

394,600

394,600

394,800

394,800

395,000

395,000

395,200

395,200

395,400

395,400

395,600

395,600

395,800

395,800

396,000

396,000

6,946

,200

6,946

,200

6,946

,400

6,946

,400

6,946

,600

6,946

,600

6,946

,800

6,946

,800

6,947

,000

6,947

,000

Data Sources:- © Ecosure Pty Ltd, 2013- Image Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,swisstopo, and the GIS User Community




Toowoomba, QLD

0 50 10025Metres

.



Units: Metre

Scale: 1:6,500 when printed at A4Job Number: GW111GW111_MP_004_KearneysSpringRoost_R1


Document:

19/12/2013BN

Roost extent Nov 2013 Dispersal personnel*

Spring St

Ruthv

enSt

Kearn

eySt

Figure : Dispersal approach -Kearney’s Spring roost andnearby previous known locations

West

St

JapaneseGardens

Wuth St

The SpringsGarden World

Cafe

Kearney's SpringHistorical Park

* Council and contractors need to complete their ownrisk assessment to determine ABLV vaccinationrequirements for personnel


AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

AJackson

Typewritten Text

8

373,350

373,350

373,400

373,400

373,450

373,450

373,500

373,500

373,550

373,550

373,600

373,600

373,650

373,650

373,700

373,700

6,964

,600

6,964

,600

6,964

,650

6,964

,650

6,964

,700

6,964

,700

6,964

,750

6,964

,750

6,964

,800

6,964

,800




Oakey, QLD

0 10 205Metres

.



Units: Metre

Scale: 1:1,500 when printed at A4Job Number: GW111GW111_MP_005_OakeyCreekRoost_R1


Document:

19/12/2013BN

Roost extent Nov 2013 Dispersal personnel*

Figure : Dispersal approach -Oakey Creek roost

Campbell St

Oakey Creek

McDonald St




AJackson

Typewritten Text

9

Woolmer RdJackson Cl

393,600

393,600

393,800

393,800

394,000

394,000

394,200

394,200

394,400

394,400

394,600

394,600

394,800

394,800

395,000

395,000

6,962

,000

6,962

,000

6,962

,200

6,962

,200

6,962

,400

6,962

,400

6,962

,600

6,962

,600

6,962

,800

6,962

,800



Approved Project Manager


Toowoomba, QLD

0 50 10025Metres

.



Units: Metre

Scale: 1:6,000 when printed at A4Job Number: GW111GW111_MP_007_HighfieldsRoost


Document:

15/05/2014JB

Roost extent February 2014 Dispersal personnel*

Figure 10: Dispersal approach -Highfields roost



3.1.5 Roles and responsibilities

Figure 11 outlines the team structure and communication lines for dispersal at all three roosts. Roles and responsibilities of each staff member are shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Roles, responsibilities, authority and communication lines between the dispersal team.

Role Who Responsibilities/authority Communication lines

Program Coordinator

TRC Inform and consult with the community and interested parties

Stakeholder consultation Landholder liaison (including access

permission, etc.) Pre- and post-dispersal monitoring of all

roosts within TRC Surrounding roost monitoring during dispersal Evaluate program Determine management actions Submit reports to EHP/DoE

Reports to: Council Direct reports: Project Manager

Project Manager Contractor Coordinate field teams Collect and collate data Liaise with EHP and DoE Liaise with wildlife carers/veterinarians (for

orphaned/injured wildlife only)

Reports to: Program Coordinator Direct reports: Team supervisors and team members

Figure 11 Dispersal team structure. Council and contractors need to complete their own risk assessment to determine ABLV vaccination requirements for personnel


Role Who Responsibilities/authority Communication lines

Supervisor (vaccinated)

Contractor Coordinate daily site briefings Coordinate daily activities Monitor flying-fox behaviour Rescue flying-foxes if required (and no

carer/vet on site) Determine daily dispersal end point Participate in dispersal

Reports to: Project Manager / Program Coordinator Direct reports: Team members

Team member Contractor Attend daily site briefings Participate in dispersal

Reports to: Direct reports:

Team member Contractor/TRC staff

Attend daily site briefings Participate in dispersal

Reports to: Direct reports:

3.1.6 Stakeholders

Stakeholders that should be informed and consulted with prior to the dispersal include:

• EHP

• DoE

• local police

• airports within TRC

• landholders

• surrounding local government areas (LGAs)

• wildlife carers and veterinary staff (as required)

• Queensland Health (as required)

• general community (as required).

3.1.7 Community consultation

The community will be informed of planned dispersal activities. Communication is planned to include:

• methods

• timeframes

• desired/acceptable outcomes

• program evaluation process (i.e. criteria for further dispersal)

• contingency planning

• communicate appropriate procedures to follow in the event an injured, orphaned or dead flying-fox is located

• precautions to consider during dispersal (i.e. stabling horses, etc.)

• contact information for the Program Coordinator.

TRC will encourage the community to report unusual flying-fox behaviour or activity. TRC staff


fielding phone calls need to clearly identify whether flying-foxes were likely to have been roosting or foraging (i.e. by time of day/night), so that reports of foraging activity are not mistakenly investigated by TRC as possible new roosts.

3.2 Vegetation management

Vegetation management may be a suitable tool to support active dispersal efforts or to prevent re-establishment of successfully dispersed colonies. Vegetation management may also be a stand-alone option to achieve passive dispersal of a colony if active dispersal should be avoided due to animal welfare reasons (e.g. if visibly pregnant or dependent young are present).

3.2.1 Timing

Vegetation management will preferentially be scheduled when the roost is naturally unoccupied, in the evening after flying-foxes have left the roost to forage or following dispersal. Where works are required while flying-foxes are present, Section 3.4 outlines measures to ensure potential impacts to flying-fox welfare are minimised.

A timing overview is provided in Section 4.4.

3.2.2 Methods

Vegetation may be thinned/selectively removed to make it unattractive to roosting flying-foxes. This may be done over the entire roost area (with the intent of preventing flying-foxes roosting on site), or in certain areas of the roost to increase buffers between flying-foxes and conflict areas.

Where dispersal from a roost is required, vegetation management can be used as a passive form of dispersal to gradually encourage flying-foxes to effectively self-disperse.

Generally, a significant proportion of vegetation needs to be removed in order to achieve self-dispersal of flying-foxes from a roost or to prevent roost re-establishment. For example, flying-foxes abandoned a roost in Bundall once 70% of the canopy/mid-storey and 90% of the understorey had been removed (Ecosure unpublished). Ongoing maintenance of the site is required to prevent vegetation structure returning to levels favourable for colonisation by flying-foxes.

Habitat modification should be carried out in a staged manner to allow for the least amount of vegetation to be removed that is required to render the site unfavourable as a flying-fox roost.

Vegetation management may not be suitable at all sites. The conservation value of the site needs to be considered. Consultation with landholders and the community is also required to determine on a case-by-case basis if vegetation management is a suitable option, either for the entire site or certain areas within the site (i.e. to create buffers). Cost arrangements need to be agreed upon prior to vegetation management on private property. Additional legislative approvals may be required for vegetation management.


3.2.2.1 Kearneys Spring roost

The Kearneys Spring roost is characterised by a complete lack of understorey, very limited mid-storey, and flying-foxes’ use of almost every tree in the park. This means thatvegetation removal at this site would need to be significant (potentially complete) to deter flying-foxes from roosting at this site. This would be costly and greatly reduce the amenity value of the site. Given the reason indicated during discussions with TRC and LSA for dispersal is to restore the perceived amenity value of the park for the general community, significant vegetation management is considered counterproductive.

However, if required, vegetation will be removed in a staged manner in order to minimise the amount of vegetation that needs to be removed. Unless all vegetation is removed, some level of maintenance dispersal will almost certainly be required at this site. Although partial vegetation management is unlikely to be a completely successful dispersal tool at this site, it is likely to reduce the number of flying-foxes in the roost and might therefore, render maintenance dispersal less intensive.

Vegetation management at other unsuitable locations will be considered if flying-foxes attempt to establish splinter colonies at these locations.

3.2.2.2 Oakey Creek roost

Conservation value of some trees (e.g. mature trees) and amenity value need to be considered when planning vegetation works at this site. Creek bank stability also needs to be considered.

Vegetation management at this roost may be used:

• as a form of passive dispersal (i.e. to encourage flying-foxes to gradually find alternative roosts as habitat becomes unsuitable)

• to complement dispersal (i.e. concurrent to dispersal), or

• to reduce the likelihood of the roost re-establishing (i.e. either during days where flying-foxes have been dispersed, or at some stage after dispersal).

LRFF are most impacting residents at this site, and were primarily roosting in casuarinas between residents. This area could be selectively thinned (including weed removal) to reduce available habitat and increase the buffer between flying-foxes and residents. The other two trees that were predominantly used during the site assessment are a large eucalypt and mature casuarina at the motel.

Removal of the casuarina could increase the buffer between the flying-fox roost and the motel. It has been indicated, however, that the eucalypt would be preferred to be retained. This tree could be trimmed to limit available roost space and make it less attractive to flying-foxes. Alternatively (or as a subsequent stage) all vegetation within the roost area could be removed or thinned to further reduce available habitat and increase buffers from impacted landholders.

Conflict at this site occurs primarily when the flying-fox colony spills into vegetation on private properties. Therefore landholder consent and cost sharing arrangements will need to be negotiated prior to vegetation management on private land.


Where removal of a specific tree (s) is to be avoided, landholders may trial deterrents to avoid ongoing dispersal (i.e. canopy-mounted sprinkler systems).

3.2.2.3 Highfields roost

While not mapped at a state or Commonwealth level, the Highfields roost habitat is of significant local conservation and amenity value. It consists of vine scrub and Eucalypts, with a weedy under-midstorey. As such, vegetation management will initially be restricted to weed removal only. If this does not sufficiently modify the habitat to be unsuitable for roosting flying-foxes, native understorey or roost trees will be selectively trimmed or removed in a staged manner.

The majority of the roost is on state land, however the edges are freehold residential. Vegetation management will be focused within the current roost extent (Figure 7), and within a 50 metre buffer from residential boundaries elsewhere in the same gully. The roost has been known to move up and down the gully over time. While it is preferred by Council that flying-foxes abandon the area, having the roost relocate further up the gully (towards the north-west) where buffers to residents are significantly greater may be an acceptable outcome. The decision on whether to cease or continue dispersal and/or vegetation management based on this outcome will need to be reactive and made in consultation with relevant residents and landholders. Alternative roost sites

3.2.3 Known roosts

Figure 1 shows all known roosts within TRC and immediate surrounds. Within TRC, the following are suitable for retention as flying-fox roosts and provide alternative habitat for dispersed individuals:

• The Palms NP

• Withcott (Rifle Range)6

• Boundary St

• Redwood Park.

The Palms National Park (12ha) has been known to support the highest number of each species in TRC (28,500 October 2011; EHP data), as well as the highest total number of flying-foxes (30,630 March 2010; EHP data).

These four known roosts combined are considered of sufficient size to support the maximum number of flying-foxes historically recorded within TRC (28500 GHFF at the Palms NP roost, October 2011; 30,000 LRFF at the Palms NP roost, March 2010; 4277 BFF at the Palms NP roost, April 2004; EHP data).

These will also retain a network of roosts within TRC to allow flying-foxes to move in response to food availability, and to prevent damage to the vegetation at any one site.

6 The Rifle Range roost is not within Withcott but this name has been retained for consistency with historical data.


3.2.4 Potential habitat

An analysis was carried out to delineate potential flying-fox habitat using habitat preference criteria identified by Roberts (2006) and SEQ Catchments (2012). The predictive criteria identifying areas of highest likelihood of flying-fox roost occurrence are summarised as being:

• elevation of less than 60m

• proximity within 500m of a waterway (or dam) or located within a wetland boundary

• occur within a continuous vegetated patch size of at least one hectare

• occur within either: (1) tall emergent trees (canopy at least 5m) with upper, mid and understorey layers a thick understory; or (2) tall trees that are either regularly inundated with water (i.e. mangroves) or are located on swampy ground.

• level topography (<5% incline).

These criteria were expanded to include local vegetation types, within which flying-fox roosts are currently or were historically located within the study area.

As TRC is situated entirely above 60m altitude, this criterion was excluded from the model. Additionally, due to existing local data held showing current flying-fox camps in TRC being located on areas with inclines of up to 25%, the criteria relating to topography was modified to include areas with inclines of up to 25%.

Department of Natural Resources and Mines (NRM) remnant vegetation and EHP mature regrowth vegetation was merged and clipped to the Toowoomba LGA boundary. DNRM’s 25m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) was used to extract areas with a slope of <25% and the vegetation data was clipped to these areas.

A 500m buffer was created around DNRM Ordered Drainage and lacustrine and riverine data extracted from Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (SITIA) wetlands (v3). This buffer layer was then merged with palustrine data from SITIA wetlands (v3). The above vegetation layer was clipped to this waterway and wetland layer, then vegetation communities suitable for flying-fox roosts were selected. Vegetation was selected based on Regional Ecosystem (RE) descriptions’ correlation with the above vegetation criteria and/or where the current or historical presence of a flying-fox roost has been recorded. Where appropriate, non-conforming vegetation descriptions were removed.

Vegetation parcels of less than one hectare in size, and not adjoining other selected vegetation were then removed.

The resultant layer contains only vegetation parcels preferred by flying-foxes for roosts which are within 500 metres of a watercourse or located within a wetland boundary, occurring in areas of less than 25% incline, and of a size greater than one hectare.

Potential conflict was then assigned using TRC building footprints: vegetation located within 100m of a building footprint was assigned high potential conflict; vegetation located 100m – 300m from a building footprint was assigned low-moderate potential conflict and vegetation found more than 300m from a building footprint was assigned as low potential conflict.


TRC data containing council-owned land was intersected with the vegetation layer to allow potential habitat located on council land to be identified.

Potential flying-fox roost habitat according to potential conflict in TRC is mapped in Figure 12-14. Please note this is indicative only.

Flying-fox Dispersal Strategy - Kearneys Spring, Oakey ... · of right’ authority to manage...

Documents

Transcript of Flying-fox Dispersal Strategy - Kearneys Spring, Oakey ... · of right’ authority to manage...