FOI 170701
Document 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
To: James Tregurtha, Assistant Secretary, South-Eastern Australia Environment Assessments
Branch (for decision)
Approval Decision Brief (recommendation report) – East Gippsland Shire Council Poplar
Removal Program – Grey-headed Flying-fox (
Pteropus poliocephalus) Summer Camp,
Bairnsdale, Victoria (EPBC 2009/5017).
Timing: As soon as practicable. The statutory timeframe for a final decision was
31 March 2014.
Recommendations:
1. Consider the proposed decision and the recommendation report at Attachment A.
Considered / please discuss
2. Consider the responses to the invitation for comment on the proposed decision at
Attachment B1
.
Considered / please discuss
3. Approve, for each controlling provision, the action as summarised in the table below.
Approved / Not approved
4. Agree to attach the conditions of approval as set out in Attachment C.
Agreed / Not agreed
5. Sign the notice of your decision at Attachment C.
Signed / Not signed
6. If you agree to 3 and 4, accept the reasoning in the Departmental briefing package as the
reasons for your decision.
Accepted / Please discuss
7. Sign the letters at Attachment D advising the person proposing to take the action and other
relevant parties of your decision.
Signed / Not signed
Summary of recommendations on each controlling provision:
Controlling Provisions
Recommendation
for the action
Approve
Refuse to
Approve
Listed threatened species and communities (ss 18, 18A)
Approve with
conditions
James Tregurtha, Assistant Secretary, South-Eastern
Date:
Australia Environment Assessments Branch:
Comments:
Key Points:
Background
1. On 10 March 2014, as recommended in the Proposed Approval Decision Brief
(Attachment A), you wrote to the proponent seeking comments on your proposed decision.
2. On 25 March 2014 and 8 April 2014, the proponent provided comment on the proposed
approval conditions (Attachment B1).
3. The Department recommends a number of changes to the proposed conditions reflecting
the proponent’s comments. A track-changed version of the decision notice, highlighting all
changes made from the proposed conditions is provided for your reference at
Attachment B2.
4. The matters for consideration and factors to be taken into account for your decision remain
as set out in the Proposed Approval Decision Brief (Attachment A).
Issues / Sensitivities
5. The proponent was generally satisfied with the proposed conditions and requested minor
amendments to conditions 2, 3, 5 and 6 and clarification of several conditions. Proposed
amendments are discussed below and are incorporated in the recommended final approval
conditions (Attachment C).
6. Proposed condition 2 required the proponent to implement the Bairnsdale Grey-headed
Flying-fox (
Pteropus poliocephalus) Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan (the
Management Plan) prior to commencing the action. The proponent has requested that the
condition be amended to allow the Management Plan to be finalised post approval. The
Department recommends accepting the proposed change because the proponent will not be
able to commence the action until the final plan is approved. The Department has amended
the condition to clarify that prior to the removal of habitat the Management Plan be
submitted to the Department for approval and the action may not commence until this
approval is given.
7. Proposed condtion 3(b) required the proponent to notify all neighbouring Councils of the
proposal prior to the removal of habitat. The proponent requested that condition 3(b) be
amended to include only the Wellington Shire Council as the distance between the other
Shire Councils and the proposal are significant. The Department recommends accepting the
proposed change as it is likely that the Grey-headed Flying-fox would relocate within the
East Gippsland Shire Council or within close proximity to the Bairnsdale site, thus excluding
the other neighbouring Councils. The condition has been amended to include only the
neighbouring Wellington Shire Council.
8. The proponent requested minor administrative changes to clarify conditions 3(c) and (d).
The Department has amended condition 3(c) for consistency and provided a definition of the
‘Bairnsdale region’ and amended condition 3(d) to specify a timeframe in which monies
must be spent. These changes are administrative and clarify the intent of the original
conditions.
Page
2 of
4
9. The proponent requested condition 5 be amended to remove the restriction of an
emergency dispersal not being able to be undertaken between August to September and
October to March as they believe it limits their ability to respond to an emergency event. The
Department recommends not accepting this request as these times correlate to a
particularly vulnerable time of the Grey-headed Flying-foxes breeding cycle. The
Department considers that these measures are necessary to reduce potential impacts to the
Grey-headed Flying-fox during the critical breeding season and to reduce the likelihood of
significant stress, aborted foetuses, dropped young and the desertion of young. It is
understood that an emergency response may need to be undertaken quickly to dissuade
permanent settlement and the proponent is not limited by the condition in seeking the
Minister’s advice should a situation arise that involves emergency prcedures for exceptional
circumstances.
10. Proposed condition 6 required the proponent to submit a report to the Minister within one
month of the completion of Stage One of the proposed action. The proponent requested
clarification of timeframes for completing this reporting requirement. The proponent also
sought clarification regarding the ‘status’ of the Grey-headed Flying-fox at condition 6(d).The
Department has amended condition 6 to one month prior to the commencement of Stage
Two to give the proponent sufficient time to prepare the report and ensure that the key data
relating to the proposed action is captured. The Department has amended condition 6(d) to
clarify that status refers to the health, condition and location of the Grey-headed Flying-fox.
11. For the reasons discussed above, the Department considers that the amendments to the
proposed conditions are appropriate and reasonable and do not affect the acceptability of
potential impacts or the enforceability of the final conditions. The Department recommends
that you accept the final conditions at Attachment C.
Consultation:
12. The outcome of the consultation is as follows and responses to your proposed decision are
at Attachment B.
Comment
Designated
The proponent has been provided with a copy of the revised recommended
Proponent
approval conditions and has indicated acceptance of these conditions
(Attachment B1).
Monitoring &
Comments were sought at the proposed approval decision stage. Comments
Audit Section have been incorporated in the proposed and final conditions.
Page
3 of
4
s22
s22
Director
Victoria Section
Victoria Section
South-Eastern Australia Environment
Assessments Branch
Ph: 02 6274 s22
April 2014
ATTACHMENTS
A: Copy of Proposed Approval Decision Brief, including the Recommendation report
B1: Proponent’s responses to invitation for comment on proposed decision
B2: Department’s response to invitation for comment on proposed decision
C: Notice of decision
FOR SIGNATURE
D: Letters to proponent and relevant State Minister FOR SIGNATURE
Page
4 of
4
FOI 170701
Document 2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
To: James Tregurtha, Assistant Secretary, South-Eastern Australia Environment Assessments
Branch, (for decision)
Proposed Approval Decision Brief (recommendation report) – East Gippsland Shire Council
Poplar Removal Program – Grey-headed Flying-fox (
Pteropus poliocephalus) Summer Camp,
Bairnsdale, Victoria (EPBC 2009/5017).
Timing: 31 March 2014 - Statutory timeframe.
Recommendations:
1. Note that no conservation advice exists for species likely to be impacted by this proposal.
Noted / please discuss
2. Consider the recommendation report at Attachment A.
Considered / please discuss
3. Consider the finalised preliminary documentation at Attachment B.
Considered / please discuss
4. Agree that the recommended decision on page one of the recommendation report
(Attachment A), and summarised in the table below, reflects your proposed decision.
Agreed / Not agreed
5. Sign the letters at Attachment G to consult the proponent on your proposed decision and
inform relevant Ministers on your proposed decision.
Signed / Not signed
6. Agree to not publish the proposed decision at Attachment F on the internet for public
comment.
Agreed / Not agreed
Summary of recommendations on each controlling provision:
Controlling Provisions
Recommendation
for the action
Approve
Refuse to
Approve
Listed threatened species and communities (ss 18, 18A)
Approve with
conditions
James Tregurtha, Assistant Secretary, South-Eastern
Australia Environment Assessments Branch
Date:
Comments:
Key Points:
Background:
1. The proposed action involves the removal of approximately 0.5 hectares (ha) of White
Poplar (
Populus alba) trees along the Mitchell River, adjacent to the northern side of the
town of Bairnsdale, Victoria (Attachment B2, Figure 3). The East Gippsland Shire Council
(the proponent) has been undertaking a poplar removal program since 2003 along the
Mitchell River to enhance the environment. The poplars are targeted for removal as they are
an environmental weed, in a state of senescence and pose a public safety threat in the near
future due to dead branches and severe lean angles. The poplar trees to be removed are
used by Grey-headed Flying-fox (
Pteropus poliocephalus) as a ‘summer camp’ roost
habitat.
2. On 25 August 2009, the proposed action was determined to be a controlled action (due to
likely significant impacts on listed threatened species and communities, specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox, (sections 18 and 18A), to be assessed by preliminary
documentation. The preliminary documentation is provided at Attachment B.
Issues/ Sensitivities:
3. The proposed action will impact on listed threatened species as it involves the clearance of
approximately 0.5 ha of poplar trees that represent habitat for the vulnerable Grey-headed
Flying-fox.
4. While the removal of habitat will be timed to occur between 1 April and 31 July, to avoid the
breeding season, and only during the species’ absence the proposal is still likely to result in
a number of direct and indirect impacts on the species as it will be forced to find an
alternative summer roost.
5. The Department considers that, given the measures proposed to avoid and mitigate the
risks of impact to the species within the referral and preliminary documentation
(Attachments B1 and B2), in conjunction with the conditions proposed (as described at
Attachment A), significant risks to listed threatened species and communities from the
proposed action would not be unacceptable.
6. The Department understands that the proponent has not been subject to any proceedings
under Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the
conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
7. Your obligations as a decision maker are addressed, along with discussions on potential
impacts on matters of national environmental significance, in the recommendation report
(Attachment A).
8. The proposal has received local media attention, following the controlled action decision,
and remains locally contentious. The nature and timing of any final approval decision may
also attract public scrutiny. Public submissions were received against the removal of habitat
for the Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Page
2 of
4
Public submissions on assessment documents
9. The department recommends not to publish the proposed decision (Attachment F) on the
internet for public comment. Public comment on the proposed decision is not considered
necessary due to the extensive public consultation already undertaken for the proposed
action and that further public consultation at this stage is not likely to raise additional matters
to be addressed.
Number
12
For
0
Against
12
Not specified
00
Consultation:
10. The Approvals and Monitoring South (AMS) Section of the Compliance and Enforcement
Branch was consulted on the proposed approval decision and AMS made a number of
comments relating to the proposed conditions (Attachment C). The comments primarily
related to consistency and clarification of conditions and these comments have been
incorporated in the proposed approval conditions. The Department has also made minor
amendments to standard conditions 8 and 9, in accordance with this advice.
11. The Department recommends consulting only with the proponent on the proposed
conditions. Given the relatively small scale and localised nature of the proposal, and the
lack of a significant number of public comments on the assessment to date, the Department
does not recommend notifying other parties of the proposed decision and does not
recommend publishing the proposed decision on the internet for public comment.
12. The Department does not consider that any Commonwealth Ministers hold administrative
responsibilities relevant to the action, to the extent that their comment would be required,
and as such does not recommend consulting with any Commonwealth Ministers. The
Victorian Minister for Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure, the Hon Matthew Guy
MP, will be informed of the proposed decision as a matter of courtesy.
s22
s22
Director
Victoria Section
Victoria Section
South-Eastern Australia Environment
Assessments Branch
Ph: 02 6274 s22
March 2014
Page
3 of
4
ATTACHMENTS
A: Recommendation report
B: Finalised Preliminary Documentation
B1: Referral information
B2: Draft Management Plan
C: Approvals and Monitoring advice
D: Draft Recovery Plan
E: Public submissions
F: Draft Approval Decision Notice
G: Letters to proponent and Minister Guy FOR SIGNATURE
H. Referral decision brief (for reference)
Page
4 of
4
FOI 170701
Document 3
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
East Gippsland Shire Council Poplar Removal Program –
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) Summer Camp, Bairnsdale, Victoria
(EPBC 2009/5017)
Recommendation
1. That the proposed action, to remove 0.5 hectares of poplar trees as part of the East
Gippsland Shire Council poplar removal program, which provide a ‘summer camp’ roost site
for Grey-headed Flying-foxes (
Pteropus poliocephalus), in Bairnsdale, Victoria be approved
subject to the conditions specified below.
Conditions
Relevant
paragraph in
The following measures must be taken to ensure the protection of
listed
report
threatened species and communities (sections 18 & 18A), specifically
the
Grey-headed Flying-fox:
1. The person taking the action must not remove or adversely impact
75
more than 0.5 hectares of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
2. The person taking the action must implement and comply with the
39 - 49, 64 - 68,
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic
69
Management Action Plan.
3. The person taking the action must ensure that:
70, 71
a) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost
Site a
Hotline with a dedicated contact phone number and
email address is set up to respond to public enquiries;
b) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost
Site neighbouring Councils are notified of the proposal and
provided with contact details to respond to enquiries;
c) Undertake revegetation of long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox
habitat within the Bairnsdale area, in accordance with expert
advice on
Grey-headed Flying-fox ecology, subject to
negotiation with and approval by, the
Department. If a long-
term
Grey-headed Flying-fox camp is not established within
the Bairnsdale area then revegetation or improvement of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox habitat within the Bairnsdale region must
be undertaken; and
d) At least $5,000 is spent on community education resources
relating to
Grey-headed Flying-fox, including, but not limited
to, educational signage at a site of
Grey-headed Flying-fox
habitat.
Page 1 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
4. If, following the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site,
54 – 57, 59
the person taking the action proposes to undertake a separate
dispersal then a management plan must be submitted for the
Minister’s approval. The management plan must be approved by the
Minister prior to the commencement of
dispersal activities. At a
minimum, the plan must address:
a) Proposed methodology for
dispersal;
b) Potential direct, indirect, cumulative and facilitative impacts to
Grey-headed Flying-fox from the proposed
dispersal activity;
c) The presence of pregnant
Grey-headed Flying-fox;
d) The presence of
dependant young;
e) A commitment that the
dispersal will not be undertaken on a
Hot Day or on or within two days of a
Heat Stress Event;
f) Proposed avoidance and mitigation measures addressing
potential impacts to
Grey-headed Flying-fox, which must at a
minimum include,
stop work triggers; and
g) Monitoring and reporting protocols.
Condition 4 does not apply to an
emergency dispersal.
5. The person taking the action may undertake an
emergency dispersal.
58, 60, 61
Unless negotiated with the
Minister and approved
, an
emergency
dispersal must be undertaken in accordance with the following
requirements:
a) A
suitably qualified ecologist must be engaged to advise of
best practice
dispersal methodology;
b) During
emergency dispersal a
suitably qualified ecologist
must be present to oversee best practice
dispersal methodology, undertake
behavioural monitoring and
document the outcomes of the process;
c) During
emergency dispersal the person taking the action
must comply with all recommendations and guidance from a
suitably qualified ecologist;
d)
Emergency dispersal must
not be undertaken between 1
August and 30 September;
e) For the period 1 October to 31 March in any given year,
emergency dispersal activities must not be undertaken if
flightless dependant young are present (as determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist);
f)
Emergency dispersal must be undertaken 1.5 hours pre-dawn
and finish one hour post-dawn to ensure
Grey-headed Flying-
fox have time to settle elsewhere before the heat of the day;
g)
Emergency dispersal must not be undertaken during a
Hot
Day or on or within two days of a
Heat Stress Event;
h) Once
Grey-headed Flying-fox have not returned to the site of
emergency dispersal for more than five consecutive days and
while absent from the site of
emergency dispersal, the person
taking the action must implement
passive measures; and
i) Within five days of the completion of
emergency dispersal,
the person taking the action must submit a report to the
Minister detailing the
dispersal methodology implemented and
the outcome achieved.
Page 2 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
6. Within one month from the completion of Stage One of the
removal of
68, 69
habitat (as detailed in the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost
Site Strategic Management Action Plan) and on the same date every
subsequent year in which
removal of habitat or
emergency
dispersal occurs, the person taking the action must submit a report to
the
Minister that addresses the following:
a) Details of the activities undertaken that year relating to
removal
of habitat or
emergency dispersal;
b) Details of the associated outcomes of these activities;
c) The data collected (in accordance with these conditions of
approval and the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost
Site Strategic Management Action Plan);
d) The status of
Grey-headed Flying-fox colonies in the
Bairnsdale region;
e) Details of how information gained has been incorporated into
the future management of
Grey-headed Flying-fox (adaptive
management), including, but not limited to, the future
removal
of habitat or
dispersal activities associated with the action;
f) Details of any activities planned to occur in the following year;
g) Written and signed confirmation by a
suitably qualified
ecologist verifying the accuracy of the data, information,
analysis and conclusions contained within the report; and
h) Raw data must be made available to the
Department upon
request.
7. Five days prior to the
commencement of the action, the person taking
the action must advise the
Department verbally and in writing of the
actual date of
commencement.
8. The person taking the action must maintain accurate records
substantiating all activities associated with or relevant to the conditions
of approval, including measures taken to implement the management
plans required by this approval, and make them available upon request
to the
Department. Such records may be subject to audit by the
Department or an independent auditor in accordance with section 458
of the EPBC Act, or used to verify compliance with the conditions of
approval. Summaries of audits will be posted on the
Department’s website. The results of audits may also be publicised through the
general media.
9. Within three months of every 12 month anniversary of the
commencement of the action, the person taking the action must
publish a report on their website addressing compliance with each of
the conditions of this approval, including implementation of any
management plans as specified in the conditions. Documentary
evidence providing proof of the date of publication and non-compliance
with any of the conditions of this approval must be provided to the
Department at the same time as the compliance report is published.
Non-compliance with any of the conditions of this approval must be
reported to the
Department within 48 hours of the non-compliance
occurring.
10. Upon the direction of the
Minister, the person taking the action must
ensure that an independent audit of compliance with the conditions of
approval is conducted and a report submitted to the
Minister. The
independent auditor must be approved by the
Minister prior to the
commencement of the audit. Audit criteria must be agreed to by the
Minister and the audit report must address the criteria to the
satisfaction of the
Minister.
Page 3 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
11. If the person taking the action wishes to carry out any activity otherwise
than in accordance with the management plans as specified in the
conditions
, the person taking the action must submit to the
Department for the
Minister’s written approval a revised version of that
management plan. The varied activity shall not commence until the
Minister has approved the varied management plan in writing. The
Minister will not approve a varied management plan unless the revised
management plan would result in an equivalent or improved
environmental outcome over time. If the
Minister approves the revised
management plan, that management plan must be implemented in
place of the management plan originally approved.
12. If the
Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better
protection of
listed threatened species and communities to do so,
the
Minister may request that the person taking the action make
specified revisions to the management plans specified in the conditions
and submit the revised management plans for the
Minister’s written
approval. The person taking the action must comply with any such
request. The revised approved management plan must be
implemented. Unless the
Minister has approved the revised
management plan, then the person taking the action must continue to
implement the management plan originally approved,
as specified in
the conditions.
13. If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the person
taking the action has not
substantially commenced the action, then
the person taking the action must not
substantially commence the
action without the written agreement of the
Minister.
14. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
Minister, the person
taking the action must publish all management plans referred to in
these conditions of approval on their website. Each management plan
must be published on the website within one month of being approved.
Definitions:
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan means
the document titled
Mitchell River Revegetation Program, Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying Fox
Roost Site, DRAFT Strategic Management and Action Plan, East Gippsland Shire Council,
November, 2013.
Behavioural monitoring means the monitoring by a
suitably qualified ecologist of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox behaviour to identify behaviour outside of normal patterns of behaviour and
changes in those patterns. As a guide, behaviour outside of normal patterns may include
Grey-
headed Flying-fox exhibiting sickness, malnutrition, abnormal flight, disorientation, injury,
aggression towards a person undertaking an activity evidence of abandoned young, evidence of
aborted young or, at worst case, death.
Commencement means any preparatory works associated with the
removal of habitat from
the
Mitchell River Roost Site, such as the tagging of trees, introduction of machinery or
clearing of vegetation, excluding fences and signage.
Department means the Australian Government Department administering the
Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Dependant young means:
Newborn – totally dependent and carried by mother;
Flightless dependant young – dependent on mother, but no longer carried large
distances, unable to move easily around the camp; and
Flying dependant young – dependent on mother, but able to move around the
camp, can fly short distances.
Page 4 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Dispersal means any action, including, but not limited to, active physical harassment, taken to
remove
Grey-headed Flying-fox from a site of habitation.
Emergency dispersal means a
dispersal response to be undertaken if
Grey-headed Flying-
fox relocate to an area where:
a) Public health is at immediate risk (this includes, but is not limited to, within 100
metres of a hospital or educational institution);
b) There is potential for the spread of disease through vectors
(this includes, but is
not be limited to, within 100 metres of a racecourse or horse stud property); and
c) Anything else, as agreed with the
Department.
Grey-headed Flying-fox means the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as
vulnerable under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat means any patch of land, including non-native vegetation,
which may be used by the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as vulnerable
under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, to forage, breed,
shelter or disperse, as determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist.
Flightless dependant young means
Grey-headed Flying-fox that are dependent on their
mother, but no longer carried large distances and that are unable to move easily around the
camp.
Heat Stress Event means a hot weather event lasting one day or more that is extremely
stressful and harmful to animals, defined as when temperatures exceed 35°C before 31
December or 38°C over consecutive days from 1 January.
Hot Day means a day when the ambient temperature is predicted to reach 30°C before 10am
AEST, or reach greater than 35°C over the day.
Hotline means a point of contact, where members of the public can contact the person taking
the action to report any injured
Grey-headed Flying-fox, the establishment of a new camp of
Grey-headed Flying-fox and to discuss general concerns regarding
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Listed threatened species and communities means a matter listed under sections 18
and 18A of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Mitchell River Roost Site means the 0.5 hectare area defined at Appendix A as
Grey-headed
Flying-fox habitat along the Mitchell River, Bairnsdale, within which
removal of habitat is to
occur.
Minister means the Minister administering the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 and includes a delegate of the Minister.
Passive measure means actions that do not involve active physical harassment of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which allow for ongoing maintenance of a successful dispersal area and
that act as a deterrent against the animals re-establishing at the site, including, but not limited
to, the trimming of branches and removal of limbs. It does not include the permanent
removal
of habitat critical to the survival of
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Removal of habitat means the cutting down, felling, thinning, logging, removing, killing,
destroying, poisoning, ring-barking, uprooting or burning of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat.
Stop work triggers means site or animal conditions that indicate that the activity should cease.
Page 5 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Substantially commence means
the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
Suitably qualified ecologist means a practising ecologist with tertiary qualifications from a
recognised institute and demonstrated expertise in scientific methodology, animal or
conservation biology in relation to the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Background
Description of the project and location
2. The proposed action involves the removal of approximately 0.5 hectares (ha) of White
Poplar (
Populus alba) trees and dense vegetation along the Mitchell River, Bairnsdale,
Victoria. The proposed action is located approximately one kilometre downstream from the
Lind Bridge and adjacent to the northern side of the town (see Attachment B2, Figure 3).
The proponent, the East Gippsland Shire Council (EGSC), has been undertaking a poplar
removal program since 2003 along the Mitchell River to enhance the environment. The
poplars are targeted for removal as they are an environmental weed, in a state of
senescence and pose a public safety threat in the near future due to dead branches and
severe lean angles.
3. The poplar trees to be removed are used by an important population of Grey-headed Flying-
fox (
Pteropus poliocephalus) as a ‘summer camp’ roost habitat. The trees represent critical
habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (GHFF).
4. The removal of the poplar trees is proposed to be undertaken between 1 April and 31 July in
three stages over a three year period, commencing in 2014.
5. The removal of trees is proposed to be by staged removal and revegetation of the area,
which the proponent has been deemed the preferable option for the long term management
of the site and to manage potential impacts to the GHFF. The proponent deemed no action
as an inappropriate course of action due to the poplars continued impact on the Mitchell
River environment, concern expressed by residents regarding the impact of GHFF on
resident’s wellbeing, and the senescing state of the current roost site. The proponent states
that the poplars to be removed currently pose a public safety threat in the near future due to
dead branches and severe lean angles. The proponent deemed one-off removal of the trees
as not being appropriate as it does not allow an adaptive response to managing the
potential impacts to the GHFF from removal of their habitat nor prior indication of alternative
roosting locations for the GHFF and how these might be managed.
6. The tree removal program has been successfully ongoing for a number of years and is in
accordance with the
East Gippsland Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2008-2013.
Controlling provisions, assessment approach and public consultation
7. The proposal was referred on 28 July 2009 and determined a controlled action on 25 August
2009 due to likely significant impacts on listed threatened species and communities
(sections 18 and 18A), in particular the GHFF. On 25 August 2009 it was also determined
that the project would be assessed by preliminary documentation (preliminary
documentation) that was considered appropriate given the scale of the proposed action and
limited impacts on protected matters.
Page 6 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
8. The Department received ten public submissions (plus one ministerial) at the referral stage.
All issues raised by the public were generally common across the submissions and were not
directly opposed to the action; however, considered the action a controlled action likely to
have a significant impact on
GHFF. No comments were received from State or
Commonwealth Ministers at the referral stage.
9. On 4 August 2011, the proponent submitted draft preliminary documentation, in the form of
a draft management plan, addressing potential impacts to the GHFF. On initial review, the
Department noted deficiencies in the information and determined that the information
provided was inadequate and did not meet the preliminary documentation requirements.
Following Departmental comments on the adequacy of the documentation the proponent
submitted further draft management plans, on 14 October 2011, 17 April 2012, 5 July 2012
and 20 November 2012.
10. On 13 December 2012 the Department determined that the draft preliminary documentation
received on 20 November 2012 satisfied the initial preliminary documentation requirements.
The draft preliminary documentation was exhibited for public comment for 20 business days
between 14 January and 12 February 2013, and in accordance with subdivision 16.2.1 of
the EPBC Regulations.
11. On 20 May 2013, the Department was advised by the proponent that 12 public submissions
(Attachment E) were received during the publication period. No submissions were received
from State or Commonwealth Ministers. Of the 12 public submissions received none were
supportive of the proposed action. The issues raised in these submissions related to:
o Opposition to the removal of the GHFF’s habitat;
o The threat to wildlife in urban locations and the communities perception of them as a
problem wherever they are;
o The potential use of private residences closest to the GHFF camp, including their
removal;
o The potential to increase knowledge and awareness of the GHFF in the community
and the utilisation of GHFF as a tourism and educational feature;
o The risk of the GHFF not being able to find suitable alternative habitat;
o Management of the GHFF camp to reduce the impacts to local residents whilst
enhancing the habitat for GHFF;
o The value of invasive species providing habitat to native wildlife and the risk that the
GHFF will move to equally unpopular roosting trees elsewhere;
o Whether or not all residents of Bairnsdale have been canvassed in relation to
attitudes to the GHFF;
o That the options have not been costed; and
o The Response Plan perpetuates the harassment of GHFF and does not consider
GHFF welfare.
Page 7 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
12. The proponent revised the draft preliminary documentation following the public comment
period to address issues raised in the public consultation. This resulted in changes to the
preliminary documentation in relation to:
o Updating the Response Plan to further consider the welfare of the GHFF during
dispersals;
o Amending the date that works will be undertaken to avoid a particularly vulnerable
part of the GHFF breeding cycle; and
o Including comments relating to the explanation of how the preliminary documentation
documentation has addressed the concerns of the public.
13. On 12 December 2013, the proponent provided the final preliminary documentation
(Attachment B1 and B2) to the Department, which included a summary of public comments
and how they have been addressed within the revised preliminary documentation
documentation. The final preliminary documentation also addressed further comment that
the Department had provided in relation to the management plan.
14. Consistent with the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations
2000, the final preliminary documentation was subsequently published, for information only,
for a further 20 business days from 6 January to 3 February 2014.
State Assessment and Approval
15. There is no state assessment relevant to this proposal.
Assessment
Mandatory Considerations – section 136(1)(a) Part 3 controlling provisions
16. The proposal was determined a controlled action under the following controlling provision of
the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):
Listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A).
This controlling provision is discussed below.
Listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A)
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) – Vulnerable
Description
17. The GHFF is one of the largest bats in the world with a
weight of 600–1000 grams and a head-body length of
230–289 millimetres. It is distinguishable from other flying-
foxes by the collar of orange/brown fully encircling its neck
and thick leg fur extending to the ankle.
18. The GHFF is highly mobile and the national population is
fluid, moving up and down the east coast in search of
food. There are no separate or distinct populations of
GHFFs, with constant genetic exchange and movement
between camps throughout the entire geographic range of
the species. This indicates that there is one single
interbreeding population.
Page 8 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
19. The GHFF requires foraging resources and roosting sites. It is a canopy-feeding frugivore
and nectarivore, which utilises vegetation communities including rainforests, open forests,
closed and open woodlands, Melaleuca swamps and Banksia woodlands. It also feeds in
introduced tree species in urban areas and in commercial fruit crops. The primary food
source is blossom from Eucalyptus and related genera but in some areas it also utilises a
wide range of rainforest fruits. The GHFF roosts in aggregations of various sizes on
exposed branches, commonly of emergent trees. Roost sites are typically located near
water, such as lakes, rivers or the coast. Male GHFF are very territorial and have high site
fidelity, often returning to the same roosting branch every year.
20. The mating season starts in early autumn, after which time larger camps begin to break up,
reforming in late spring/early summer as food resources become more abundant. GHFF
typically give birth to one pup in late September to early October following a six month
gestation period. The young are completely dependent during this time, clinging to their
mothers for the first few weeks, and then congregating in crèches when their mothers are off
feeding. The pups begin to fly independently at approximately 12 weeks, but continue to be
dependent on their mothers for food until at least 16 weeks of age. Lactation usually begins
in October and continues for three to four months or sometimes longer. See Table 1 below.
Table 1: Reproductive cycle of GHFF.
Flying–fox breeding cycle
Month
Time in breeding
Variations
April
Mating
First female conceptions
recorded
May
Mating/ early stages of
Most adult females do
pregnancy
conceive but are prone
June
Early stages of pregnancy
to abortions and
July
Early stages of pregnancy
premature births in
response to
August
Mid stages of pregnancy
environmental stress
September
Mid to late stages of pregnancy
Starting to give birth
October
Birthing and
Dependant young in colony
November
Birthing and
Lactation period from
Dependant young in colony
October to April
December
Birthing and Dependant young
Vast majority of births
in colony
occur from October to
December
January
Dependant young in colony
Males increasingly
sexually active from
January on and
establishing territories
February
Dependant young in colony
Increasing frequency of
copulation
March
Dependant young in colony
Page 9 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
21. Key threats to the GHFF include: the loss and fragmentation of habitat, which results in a
decrease in food sources and roosting sites; conflict between the habitat and foraging needs
of GHFF and land owners, in both urban and peri-urban areas, is a widespread and ongoing
issue; direct shooting of GHFF, as a result of destruction of commercial fruit crops in New
South Wales and Queensland; competition with other flying-foxes including the Black Flying-
fox and Little Red Flying-fox may be a threat due to the reduction of available habitat and
food resources; electrocution; and pathogens, including Australia Bat Lyssavirus, Hendra
virus and the Nipah virus.
Proposed action area
22. GHFF have been recorded at the Mitchell River roost site since 1995, with annual
occupation recorded since 2002. The GHFF are generally present at the site between
December and May each year and generally absent from July to November (exceptions
were in 2003, when they overwintered at the site, and 2005, when the bats were not
present). The number of GHFF using the site has varied between seasons (see Table 2)
with numbers recorded from a few hundred to tens of thousands of bats, e.g. over 34,000
(recorded in May of 2006), approximately 20,000 (recorded in February 2010) and 26,000
(recorded in May 2011). The local Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DEPI) has
been involved in monitoring the colony over this period. A heat stress event was
experienced in 2009 leading to the loss of GHFF. It is difficult to attribute the variation of
occupation to any one event; however, it is believed that the availability of resources may be
a contributing factor.
23. The Department considers that the population of GHFF at Bairnsdale is an ‘important
population’, consistent with the Significant Impact Guidelines (EPBC Act Policy Statement
1.1 Significant Impact Guidelines Matters of National Environmental Significance, May 2006)
as this population is likely to provide an important source for breeding and dispersal.
24. The ‘summer camp’ located at the proposed action area is used as a maternity roost and
used during the nursery phase of the life cycle. In 2003 the colony remained on site
throughout the year with pups being born on site. Both males and females have been
recorded at the camp site. During the nursery phase it appears that the males rejoin the
females. It is highly likely that the males attempt to court females with pair bonds being
formed at this site.
Table 2: Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site.
Page 10 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Impact
25. There are a range of potential direct and indirect impacts to GHFF associated with the
proposed action. These impacts relate to increased levels of stress that can be difficult to
attribute or detect and also relate to problems associated with where they go after they have
been dispersed. The following potential impacts have been identified as a result of the
proposed action and are discussed further below.
Reduction of habitat
26. The proposed action will involve the removal of approximately 145 poplar trees (0.5
hectares) adjacent to the Mitchell River which have been identified as being utilised by the
GHFF as a ‘summer camp’ and represents habitat critical to the survival of this species, as
defined in the Draft National Recovery Plan (July 2009). The Draft National Recovery Plan
(July 2009) also identifies the loss of roosting habitat as a threat to GHFF.
27. The Department’s Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) states that the impact of
the loss of long-term sites, or the degradation of small remnants to the point that they are no
longer used, is not known. DEPI have recognised that this stand of poplars are likely to be
dead within five years time, hence the camp is not viable in the longer term; however, it is
possible that the GHFF may continue to use the dead trees as a camp, should the trees
remain.
Fragmentation
28. The proponent has proposed a staged removal of the poplars over a three year period
allowing the GHFF to relocate and present enhanced opportunities to manage the relocation
to other suitable habitat. The Department notes that partial or whole removal of camp habitat
may lead to the GHFF colony dispersing and fragmenting into two or more groups if suitable
habitat is not available. Knowledge of the movement patterns of GHFF and the factors
influencing the establishment and persistence of camps is currently limited.
Behavioural changes, including disruption to the breeding cycle
29. The proposed action risks disrupting the breeding cycle of an important population of GHFF.
The camp site has been identified as a maternity/nursery roost where young are reared by
their mothers. The removal of roosting trees is likely to place stress on returning lactating
females and young. Other factors such as lack of suitable roost habitat to deal with high risk
weather events (high temperatures) may also result in young and adult fatalities. The
disruption of the breeding cycle could result in a limited feeding season or no breeding
taking place causing impacts on population levels in future years.
30. GHFF are particularly vulnerable to stress, including heat stress during the day, and mass
deaths have been attributed to heat wave events. GHFF seek shelter in dense foliage during
the heat of the day, and disturbing them may result in heat stress and death. GHFF are also
particularly vulnerable during the third trimester of pregnancy, with mass abortions,
premature births and dropped young (which is fatal) observed in GHFF in the wild in
response to significant stress. Disturbing females with dependant young may result in them
seeking refuge elsewhere, temporarily or permanently abandoning their pup in the process.
Increased stress as a result of the dispersal may also lead to malnutrition (which is quite
difficult to monitor), sleep deprivation due to dispersal measures or death. GHFF may also
suffer injury from the dispersal through disorientation due to sudden disturbances. This may
increase collisions that can lead to injury or death.
Page 11 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
31. It is widely reported and accepted that females abort and abandon young due to stress. The
potential for on-going dispersal of the GHFF, following the removal of their habitat, increases
the risk of GHFF experiencing significant stress. If the GHFF move to an inappropriate
location, following the removal of their habitat, it is likely that this will be within the breeding
season for the species, i.e. when they return in the last trimester of pregnancy and are at
high risk of aborting foetuses. Aborted foetuses are very small and are quite difficult to
detect amongst ground litter.
32. Any follow on dispersals may also cause female GHFF that are carrying dependant young to
drop them through stress-induced responses such as panicked flight. The result of this is
often fatal. It is also possible that stress associated with follow up dispersal may cause
mothers to desert young that are too large for them to carry but not yet fully independent.
Dispersals may also result in the disruption to the mating cycle due to males being unable to
establish territories and successfully mate due to on-going dispersal within the camp.
Overcrowding and increased competition
33. Removal of habitat may increase the use of the remaining poplars and other tree species
within the immediate site. This may impact on the GHFF by reducing the number of selected
defendable sites and result in competition due to the reduction of available habitat and food
resources placing further pressure on the species. Removal of habitat has the potential to
impact on surrounding colonies. GHFF attempting to settle in existing camps may increase
overall stress levels due to territorial disputes, increased competition for resources leading
to reduced reproductive output, and fragmentation, if the sites are unable to provide
sufficient roosting habitat or have insufficient foraging habitat in the vicinity.
Inappropriate Site Occupation
34. This may include selection of alternative habitat that is deemed unsuitable for longer term
occupation by the GHFF, due to distance from foraging resources, distance from water or
human conflict. Habitat may be deemed unsuitable for occupation due to the potential for
conflict with humans. This may be due to:
o an increased risk or perceived increased risk of disease (e.g. such as the
transference of Hendra virus from horses if habitat is close to horses or from
Australian Bat Lyssavirus from bites and scratches);
o concern for health and safety (e.g. local residents have cited health problems
associated with proximity to the GHFF camp);
o a decrease in amenity (e.g. increased noise, odour and damage to roosting and
foraging trees); or
o increased community intolerance.
Conflict may result in an increased risk to the GHFF from human intervention that is not
managed or foul play, such as the recent poisoning of trees at the current campsite.
35. If sites are deemed unacceptable (e.g. a hospital, playground or racetrack) and GHFF are
further dispersed from these sites without ongoing management the species is vulnerable to
all of the above potential impacts in addition to a cumulative impact of the action of dispersal
being undertaken continuously. This would expose the GHFF to a number of stressors that,
if not monitored or managed, may seriously impact GHFF.
Page 12 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Unexpected response
36. Unknown and irreversible impacts may occur due to the unpredictable nature of the species.
The Department notes that the proponent has taken best endeavours to develop measures
to address these potential impacts as far as practicable (see discussion below).
Avoidance and mitigation measures
37. As discussed above, there are a number of potential direct, indirect, facilitative and
cumulative impacts to GHFF that could occur as a result of the proposed action. A number
of these impacts are difficult to measure and quantify; however, the proponent has proposed
a number of measures to reduce these impacts to an acceptable level. The Department
considers that while many of these measures represent appropriate avoidance and
management of the potential impacts with a high likelihood of effectiveness the Department
also considers it necessary to recommend conditions of approval to manage the residual
impacts to a level of acceptability.
38. The complete set of avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting proposed by the
proponent is included in the Mitchell River Revegetation Program, Bairnsdale Grey-headed
Flying-fox Roost Site, DRAFT Strategic Management and Action Plan (the Management
Plan) at Attachment B2. The Department recommends an approval condition (condition 2)
that requires the proponent to implement the Management Plan. Key mitigation and
avoidance measures are discussed below.
Timing of proposed action
39. The proponent has committed to ensuring that the Poplar trees can only be removed after
confirmation from DEPI (as the monitoring body) that GHFF are absent from the area.
Provided that GHFF are absent, works can be undertaken at any time of the year except
between the period from 1 August to 30 September, which corresponds with a particularly
vulnerable part of the GHFF breeding cycle, when pregnant females in their third trimester
can spontaneously abort their pregnancy under relatively low stress conditions. While the
GHFF are not normally present at the site during this time the possibility that they may
return during this period cannot be discounted.
40. Therefore, works will be timed to occur between 1 April and 31 July, to avoid the breeding
season. The period May to July is outside of the critical stages of the breeding season and
considered by experts as a ‘safe time’ to relocate GHFF. If the GHFF return to the camp
during this time the Department considers that the timing of the action will avoid stress
during particularly vulnerable parts of the breeding cycle for pregnant and lactating females.
Stop Work Triggers at Mitchell River Roost site
41. To mitigate stress levels on potentially pregnant and lactating GHFF and their pups at the
Mitchell River roost site the adoption of stop work triggers have been proposed by the
proponent. DEPI will be consulted and approval sought prior to commencement of any
scheduled works on the Mitchell River site to ensure that GHFF are not present. If, at any
stage during the works, the GHFF return to the site or its vicinity (including the surrounding
vegetation), all works must cease and cannot recommence until all GHFF depart. Twice
daily checks will be undertaken and recorded by the Project Manager and staff to ensure
that works do not commence if the GHFF are present or surrounding the site. The
Department considers that these measures are likely to be effective in reducing the risk to
GHFF becoming stressed from the proposed action during a particularly vulnerable part of
the breeding cycle for pregnant and lactating females.
Page 13 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Staged removal of habitat
42. The proponent has proposed a staged removal of trees that is intended to encourage the
GHFF to find suitable habitat at another location and reduce a sudden change in conditions
at the site. The staged removal of trees is also intended to assist in the adaptive
management of the colony by indicating what potential roost sites the GHFF may move to
following the removal of their habitat.
43. The proponent has prepared a Revegetation Plan, included in the Management Plan, which
outlines the protocols and management of the habitat removal and revegetation of the site.
The removal will be undertaken in three stages with stages two and three reliant on the
outcomes of stage one. The number of trees removed at each stage will be different;
however, the percentage of habitat removed at each stage is approximately equal based
upon the observed distribution of the GHFF at the site in previous years. Therefore, each
stage of removal will represent a similar area of habitat being removed (see Table 3).
Table 3: Proposed removal and revegetation stages.
44. The Management Plan states that the removal of poplars at stages one and two will allow
the GHFF to occupy the roost site within the remaining trees, with established revegetation
areas surrounding the site providing some additional habitat with appropriate microclimatic
requirements. The Management Plan states that the remaining area and surrounding
vegetation is considered likely to support the population short term until a more suitable site
is selected and that it will be sufficient to accommodate the population at high levels. The
Department notes that a risk of overcrowding (see above) exists if the expected movement
to a more suitable habitat is not undertaken; however, the Department also notes that
overcrowding is a natural phenomenon, largely dependent on the number of individuals that
choose to roost at Bairnsdale in any given year.
45. The Management Plan states that after each stage of poplar removal DEPI Wildlife
Management Officers and a representative of the proponent will be on site each day for one
week after the GHFF return and then twice per week for four weeks to observe the reaction
of the GHFF in relation to the removed habitat. Records will be maintained at each visit
noting observations of the GHFF behaviour and their reactions to the removal of their
habitat. The Department considers that this monitoring will be sufficient to document the
behavioural response of the GHFF to the removal of habitat.
Page 14 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
46. If, after stage one, the GHFF are believed to be showing distress, as determined by a
qualified DEPI officer, an immediate response will be initiated by DEPI to reduce stress
levels. This may include the installation of temporary signage to encourage reduced noise
levels and disturbance, temporary closure of the walking path under the colony and/or
continued monitoring. DEPI will then review the continuation of stage two having regard to
the response of the GHFF to stage one works.
47. Following stage one, an assessment will be made by DEPI on the continuation of the
program. If DEPI considers that the response of GHFF following stage one is negligible to
the long term wellbeing of the GHFF then stage two will proceed. If DEPI considers that the
effect on the GHFF will negatively impact their long term wellbeing then DEPI will advise the
proponent that stage two cannot proceed as proposed. Likewise, any isolated negative
effect (i.e. increased death and injury, abandonment of dependents etc.) will prompt
mitigation and adoption of an alternative strategy to be undertaken in consultation with DEPI
and the Department.
48. If the program proceeds, DEPI will continue to monitor the GHFF after stage two to inform
decisions relating to the commencement of stage three. The Department considers that this
method of monitoring will ensure that an informed judgement is made regarding the long
term wellbeing of the GHFF and continuation of the program. Any movement of the GHFF
further afield from the immediate site is expected to be captured by this monitoring and the
local community. Newly recorded locations will be assessed as to the suitability of longer
term roosting when it is determined where they have moved to.
49. The Department recommends a condition (condition 2) that requires the proponent to
implement the Management Plan, which will ensure that the action is undertaken consistent
with the staged approach described above. The Department has requested that the
proponent add a clause to the Management Plan, prior to finalisation of the Management
Plan, to state that if DEPI are unavailable to fulfil the roles as described in the Management
Plan that a suitably qualified ecologist will undertake the monitoring and reporting roles
described above. This will ensure that the proponent remains responsible for the monitoring
and reporting actions discussed.
Alternative available habitat
50. The proponent has identified alternative local roosting sites that may provide habitat for the
GHFF. While it is not fully understood what specifically attracts the GHFF to a particular
roost site some characteristics, such as a closed, continuous canopy within 50 km of the
coast, within close proximity to waterways and within nightly commuting distance of
generally less than 20 km of sufficient food resources, are typical. The GHFF have been
recorded occupying sites within East Gippsland and at nearby West Gippsland. There is a
risk that if a large number of the GHFF relocate to a GHFF camp that is already occupied
that significant pressure could be placed on the foraging resources at that site, which in turn
could impact the existing population.
51. The proponent’s preferred location for the GHFF to relocate to is either further along or
across the Mitchell River in existing native vegetation; however, the proponent does
recognise the associated difficulties and poor level of success of previous relocation
projects. Predicting where GHFF could potentially relocate is not possible due to the
unknown response from the GHFF and a lack of information concerning their site selection.
Therefore, it is not possible to identify with certainty suitable alternative roost sites for the
GHFF; however, the Department recognises that the region has vast areas of potentially
suitable habitat that may provide an alternative camp for the GHFF.
Page 15 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
52. The Management Plan states that it is possible that colonies will establish camps at new
sites during and after the habitat removal and that without tagging it will be impossible to
distinguish which new camps are formed as a result of the disturbance to Mitchell River
camp and which are new colonies whose establishment is not related to the habitat removal
at Mitchell River. Given this uncertainty, the proponent has stated that they are willing to
accept the responsibility for the management of any and all colonies that establish within a
five year period following Stage three of the revegetation program.
53. The Department considers that the expiry date of the approval captures the responsibility of
the proponent within this time frame. In the event that, following the removal of habitat, the
GHFF move to a location that requires a dispersal or emergency dispersal within the
Bairnsdale region the Council has a responsibility to contact the Department prior to future
dispersals. This gives the Department the opportunity to review the proposed dispersals
arising from the removal of habitat and assess the potential impacts. Proposed conditions to
control the undertaking of dispersals and emergency dispersals are discussed below.
Ongoing dispersal of GHFF
54. The proponent has proposed possible on-going and follow up dispersal of the GHFF if it is
required. There is a risk that the GHFF will move to an undesirable location following the
removal of their habitat. Examples of undesirable locations may include habitat near to a
hospital, school or race course where the concerns for public safety will be heightened
(emergency dispersals). In addition, the GHFF may move to a location that is not suitable for
long term occupation. The proponent has prepared a Response Plan, which addresses how
locations will be assessed for suitability and how the ongoing dispersal will be managed.
55. The Response Plan proposes management techniques used in previously approved GHFF
projects, including the Relocation of the Grey-headed Flying-Fox colony from the Royal
Botanic Gardens, Sydney (EPBC 2008/4646) and the Management of the Grey-headed
Flying-fox
Campsite
Boundary
and
Buffer,
Yarra
Bend,
Melbourne,
Victoria
(EPBC 2011/5958). While these projects involved the relocation and nudging of the GHFF,
as opposed to habitat removal and ongoing dispersal, the Department acknowledges that
these approved plans are an appropriate reference for management protocols.
56. While the Department acknowledges that the draft Response Plan partly addresses
potential impacts to GHFF from ongoing dispersal following the removal of habitat it does
not mitigate against the risk of dropped young and the desertion of young from October to
February when mothers may be carrying young and a dispersal event may trigger
abandonment. It also does not account for how the GHFF may react to stress that may
result in injury or death from attempted dispersals and has not provided sufficient detail in
relation to what methods of disturbance are to be used for follow up dispersals. Nor does it
address the fact that an inappropriate site includes any physical contact with humans being
imminent, which is difficult to define and may include the whole township of Bairnsdale being
deemed unsuitable habitat for GHFF.
57. Therefore, the Department considers that the information in the draft Response Plan does
not take account of key potential impacts to GHFF from ongoing dispersals nor does it
contain sufficient information for the Department to appropriately assess the likely impacts to
the GHFF due to the lack of information regarding site specific details. As a result the
Department has proposed the following conditions to ensure that the proponent adapts the
Response Plan, or adopts a new plan, according to the individual circumstances of the new
dispersal site and addresses residual concerns before it is approved for use by the Minister.
The Response Plan will be removed from the Management Plan, prior to finalisation.
Page 16 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Emergency dispersal
58. The Department has proposed a condition (condition 5) that enables the proponent to
undertake an emergency dispersal should GHFF locate to an area compromising human
health (i.e. hospital, school) and public safety (race course, horse stud), or anything else, as
agreed with the Department. If an emergency response is required, the Department has
recommended a condition (condition 5) that requires the proponent to address key concerns
relating to GHFF welfare, unless negotiated and approved by the Minister. The Department
considers that these measures are necessary to reduce potential impacts to the GHFF
during the critical breeding season and to reduce the likelihood of significant stress, aborted
foetuses, dropped young and the desertion of young. It is understood that an emergency
response may need to be undertaken quickly in order for the GHFF not to settle and thus
negotiation and approval by the Minister has been included to ensure that human health is
considered alongside the management of an emergency dispersal.
Other dispersals
59. The Department understands that there may be situations where the proponent wishes to
disperse a colony that would not be covered by the emergency dispersal protocols outlined
above. This may occur as a result of landholder complaints, or for other public interest
reasons. The Department recommends a condition (condition 4) that requires the proponent
to prepare and submit a dispersal plan prior to the commencement of dispersal activities.
This will ensure that the proponent provides a tailored plan for any further dispersal of GHFF
that addresses the key concerns of the Department and is commensurate with the risks of
that individual dispersal. This will ensure that dispersal can only be undertaken in the “safe
window” and will avoid the critical breeding season. This will also reduce impacts to GHFF
by minimising aborted foetuses, dropped young and the desertion of young. The
Department considers that this approach will avoid, mitigate and minimise potential impacts
to the GHFF, including the disruption of the breeding cycle of GHFF, to an acceptable level.
Modification of vegetation
60. The proponent had proposed in the Response Plan that, following dispersal from an
inappropriate, site modification of vegetation be undertaken to prevent the GHFF re-
occupying that unsuitable site in following years. This may include pruning horizontal
branches, which are large enough for roosting, or removing shrubs or ground storey to
reduce the humidity of the site and increase access for sunlight, thus changing the
microclimate of the potential habitat.
61. The Department considers that any vegetation utilised by the GHFF may constitute critical
habitat for the species. Unless further information is provided it is difficult to determine
whether or not the habitat represents critical habitat. Even if unoccupied, uncertainty
regarding the potential impacts of habitat removal on the GHFF exists. The information
provided in the Response Plan does not take account of potential impacts to GHFF from the
removal of critical habitat when returning to the roost, which may include the potential
impacts discussed above in relation to the removal of the poplars, including impacting the
breeding cycle and significant stress. The Department considers that by conditioning that
passive measures may only be undertaken following an emergency dispersal it is unlikely
that GHFF would have settled long enough for the habitat to be determined critical habitat.
In addition, the Department has proposed a condition (condition 5(h)) that passive measures
can only be undertaken when GHFF have not returned to the site of emergency dispersal for
more than five consecutive days and are not present during the passive measures.
Behavioural changes
62. The Management Plan states that heat stress that may occur as a result of the removal of
habitat will be managed in accordance with existing DEPI protocols. Should the
GHFF relocate to an area deemed inappropriate for the GHFF that might not have sufficient
foliage or be more exposed to heat these protocols will apply. DEPI’s key action during heat
events is aimed at minimising disturbance to GHFF but also includes being on alert when
the temperature reaches over 35 degrees Celsius and when there are consecutive days of
hot weather, the use of signage to deter people from disturbing the site and monitoring for
deaths following days of heat.
Page 17 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
63. The Department considers that this is appropriate for avoidance of additional stress on the
GHFF during hot days or heat stress events. Other behavioural responses, such as
abortion, abandonment of young, injury and malnutrition, caused by increased stress as a
result of dispersal are addressed by the timing of the action and stop work triggers,
discussed above, and adaptive management, as discussed below. The Department
considers that these are adequate measures to address potential behavioural changes
during and following the removal of habitat.
Monitoring, reporting and management
64. The proponent has proposed a monitoring and adaptive management program that involves
monitoring the movement, population, stress levels and reproductive cycle of the GHFF to
determine the impact of the removal of habitat in order for adaptive management. Various
measures have been proposed in the Management Plan that will be undertaken during and
after the removal of the GHFF habitat.
65. Methods to be used include assessing the welfare of GHFF in the region to determine
impacts from the removal of habitat, monitoring the suitability of roosting habitat and
monitoring stress levels as a result of the removal of habitat by observing GHFF behaviour,
including the abortion of foetuses, abandoned young, and injured or dead GHFF, collating
information on new locations of GHFF, levels of conflict with humans and any recorded
reporting or monitoring undertaken to measure key performance indicators.
66. The Management Plan states that reporting will be undertaken by both the proponent and
DEPI at the Mitchell River site during occupation. Regular counts will be undertaken on a
fortnightly basis during occupation with behavioural changes recorded at each alternative
visit immediately after each stage of vegetation removal. Regular population counts will be
recorded by DEPI and maintained for future reference. An annual report will be submitted to
the Department until the Wildlife Management Officers from DEPI decide that the colony has
settled and established fidelity to the new long term site.
67. This monitoring and reporting will determine any detrimental impacts to GHFF and assist in
influencing future activities. The success of mitigating any negative impacts on the GHFF
from the removal of their habitat at the Mitchell River roost site will be determined by the use
of key performance indicators. Key performance indicators will include the continuation of
the GHFF reproductive cycle, maintaining the GHFF as one population, maintaining or
reducing the foraging distance of the GHFF, limiting the GHFF behavioural changes and
implementation of any follow up dispersals that result in the GHFF establishing fidelity to
another site that can cater to their ecological requirements with limited impacts to their
wellbeing.
68. The Department considers that this monitoring and reporting is adequate to capture most
activities and outcomes of the proposed action on GHFF; however, has proposed a
condition (condition 6) to ensure that other key matters of interest to the Department are
included in the annual report. Other key matters of interest to the Department include annual
reporting of activities undertaken, the outcomes of these activities, the data collected from
the activities, the status of GHFF colonies in the Bairnsdale region, adaptive management
and future activities planned.
Adaptive Management
69. The Management Plan states that indications of behavioural, physiological or reproductive
cycle changes will prompt an adaptive management approach to the removal of habitat in
consultation with DEPI, the Department and the local community. Adaptive management
strategies will be developed to reduce potential impacts to GHFF in accordance with the risk
to the GHFF and monitoring results. The Department considers that, given the
unpredictability of GHFF and the high risk of unexpected responses, an adaptive
management response is acceptable for the management of potential impacts to GHFF.
The Department has proposed a condition (condition 6) that the management plan be
updated accordingly for currency and to incorporate lessons learned from the staged
removal of habitat. The condition states that this information must be submitted to the
Minister in an annual report.
Page 18 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Compensatory measures
70. The Department considers that there is a risk of residual impacts to the GHFF as a result of
the proposed action and therefore recommends a condition (condition 3) that requires the
proponent to:
nominate a contact for public enquires;
notify neighbouring Councils about the habitat removal of habitat;
undertake revegetation of GHFF habitat in accordance with expert advice; and
provide community education with the provision of resources such as interpretative
signage at GHFF habitat to the value of $5,000.
71. The Department considers that this is appropriate compensation given the level of
management that the proponent has already committed to in the Management Plan. In
addition, this compensation may assist DEPI in resourcing funds for the continued
management of GHFF as a consequence of the removal of habitat.
Conclusion
72. With the proposed mitigation measures as well as the recommended conditions of approval,
the Department considers that impacts to the GHFF are at an acceptable level. The
Department considers that the impacts to the GHFF have been adequately compensated for
and adequately minimised. On this basis, the Department considers that the mitigation and
avoidance measures contained in the Plan, and implementation of the recommended
proposed conditions will ensure that
the proposed action does not result in
unacceptable impacts to listed threatened species and ecological communities, in
particular the GHFF.
Other listed threatened species and ecological communities
73. The Department considers that the removal of 0.5 hectares of poplar trees along the Mitchell
River is unlikely to impact on any other listed threatened species or ecological community.
This is because the site does not constitute potential habitat and is unlikely to support
populations of any other listed threatened species.
Considerations for Approval and Conditions
Recommended Proposed Conditions
74. This section includes a summary of the recommended proposed conditions and reasons
why the Department believes they are necessary for the protection of matters of national
environmental significance. The complete list of recommended proposed conditions is
provided in the table at the start of this document. The Department is confident that the
recommended proposed conditions are reasonable and appropriate having regards to the
nature and scale of potential impacts. The Department therefore considers that the
proposed action will not result in unacceptable impacts to threatened species and ecological
communities as long as it is undertaken in accordance with the recommended proposed
conditions.
75. Proposed condition 1 and 2 limit the person taking the action to undertaking the proposed
action in the 0.5 hectare area identified in the assessment documentation and in the manner
described in the assessment documentation. These conditions reflect commitments made
by the proponent and will ensure that the proposed action is undertaken in the manner
described.
76. Proposed condition 3 is recommended to ensure that the person taking the action makes
appropriate effort in providing communication to the public and neighbouring councils in
regard to the proposed action and that adequate compensation is provided for the provision
of long-term education and revegetation of GHFF habitat in the Bairnsdale area.
Compensation is deemed appropriate to compensate for the risk of unavoidable impacts to
the GHFF.
Page 19 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
77. Condition 4 is recommended to ensure that, if ongoing dispersal is required, and the
dispersal is not an emergency dispersal, that the person taking the action must provide a
plan to the Minister for approval prior to undertaking that dispersal and the plan must
address key concerns to the satisfaction of the Minister.
78. Condition 5 is recommended in the scenario that the GHFF move to an area that is
considered a human health and safety risk and to ensure that, unless negotiated with the
Minister, that the key concerns of the Department are addressed in undertaking that
emergency dispersal.
79. Condition 6 is recommended to ensure that the person taking the action provides adequate
reporting to the Minister that addresses key concerns that are not addressed in the
Management Plan or in the standard conditions. This proposed condition includes a
mechanism for incorporating currency and adaptive management into the future
management of the GHFF.
80. Conditions 7 to 14 are standard conditions recommended for the majority of proposals
assessed and approved under the EPBC Act. They include reporting and publishing
protocols as well as specifying requirements for independent audits. These conditions also
specify the steps necessary to review or vary plans or programs which are a requirement of
this approval.
Mandatory considerations – section 136(1)(b) Economic and social matters
81. The proponent has addressed economic and social matters within the Management Plan
(Attachment B2). The public submissions also raised a number of social and economic
issues. These are discussed below.
Concerns of Public Safety
82. The current condition of the poplar trees has been considered to be a safety risk to
recreational users of the walking path that passes near to the trees along the Mitchell River.
Unsafe trees and branches were identified in an independent arboricultural report
undertaken in 2010, and reviewed in 2011, to inspect and highlight trees of safety concern
to the public (see Attachment B2, Appendix 4).
83. On 30 June 2011, the proponent sought approval from the Department to undertake urgent
arboricultural works within the stand of poplar trees representing critical habitat for the
GHFF. The works consisted of the removal of 11 trees, dead wooding of 22 trees and some
removal of ivy. The Department noted the proponent’s advice that the trees and dead wood
presented a safety risk to users of the Mitchell River walking track and that the proposed
works were urgently required to assure the safety of the community, which utilise the track.
84. While the Department considered that the works are a component of the broader tree
removal program referred to the Department it was considered that, given the number of
trees proposed to be removed, the current absence of GHFF from the site and the
requirement to assure public safety, the action was unlikely to significantly impact the GHFF
colony and did not represent a significant breach of national environmental law, as long as
the action was undertaken in the manner described.
85. The proponent undertook these works to ensure the immediate safety of track users but
notes that the condition of the poplars are an ongoing concern and will require subsequent
management to provide a safe environment for the community.
Page 20 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Health risks and concerns
86. The proponent has cited the risk of disease from the GHFF as a common concern of the
resident’s of Bairnsdale. In particular, the diseases Australian Bat Lyssavirus, Hendra virus
and Nipah virus have been mentioned as diseases potentially fatal to other animals, who
may also act as vectors to humans, and humans. While the risk of exposure to these
diseases is considered limited, public concern remains high especially when considered in
relation to the increased opportunity for human/domestic animal contact and possible
disease transmission. The Department notes that there may be the possibility, or perception
of, increased exposure of the disease to humans as a result of the colony dispersing to sites
near to human habitation. In particular, Hendra virus has become more prominent in the
national press recently resulting in stronger community concerns. Negative public perception
of the GHFF has intensified with the discovery of three zoonotic viruses that are potentially
fatal to humans: Hendra virus, Australian Bat Lyssavirus (ABLV) and Menangle virus.
87. The Management Plan states that no animal is to be handled at any point during the
dispersal by persons other than the authorised officers from DEPI. In addition, all personnel
involved in dispersal actions will be required to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
during dispersal actions. The Management Plan states that the Project Manager is
responsible for the safety and wellbeing of all personnel and will be First Aid Level 2
qualified and have first aid requirements on site at all times.
88. The Management Plan states that the Australian Bat Lyssavirus is a rabies-like virus that
has been identified in five species of bats. It states that infection of humans is extremely rare
(only three fatal cases have been documented in Australia to date, with less than 1% of wild
GHFF carrying the virus). Effective pre-exposure and post-exposure protection from ABL is
available through a vaccine that can be administered by medical practitioners.
89. The Nipah virus is closely related to the Hendra virus and also occurs naturally in some
species of bats; however, has not occurred in Australia to date. It was first identified in 1999
in Asia and has caused disease in animals (mostly pigs) and in humans through contact with
infectious animals.
90. Outbreaks of Hendra virus in Queensland and New South Wales in 2011 raised concerns
about the proximity of flying-foxes to urban and peri-urban areas. Flying-foxes are natural
'hosts' of Hendra virus, meaning that they carry the virus but it has little effect on them.
There is no evidence to suggest they can directly transfer the virus to humans. It is believed
that the virus may be transmitted from flying-foxes to horses via exposure to urine or birthing
fluids although this has not been confirmed. On rare occasions, humans have contracted the
virus through close contact with infected horses. The disease risk to the general bat
population and to humans remains an active area of research.
91. The Department acknowledges that Hendra virus and Menangle virus is common in GHFF;
however, there is no evidence that the infections can be transmitted directly to humans. The
disease can only be transferred to humans through a vector such as a horse or pig. The
Department considers that while there is a risk that the proposed removal of habitat and
ongoing dispersal may lead to increased human/flying-fox interface an increase in the
contraction of these two diseases to humans is low. The Department considers that the
inclusion of health provisions within the Management Plan and increased community
awareness of these diseases will further reduce these risks.
Social impacts
92. The Management Plan prepared by the proponent states that the GHFF campsite currently
impacts on local residents, especially those living to the north-west of the roost site, along
Riverine Street, Bairnsdale. The proponent states that many local residents find the
campsite difficult to tolerate close to their properties and have cited health problems
associated with the presence of the camp. It is stated that the main concerns relate to the
odour and noise levels of the GHFF and the general detraction from the amenity of the area.
Page 21 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
93. Increased noise levels occur during dawn and dusk when the GHFF return to camp to roost,
and mothers locate their young in the camp or exit the camp to forage. The GHFF
communicate through vocalisation, which includes defending their selected territories. This
pattern often clashes with the rest patterns of humans with noise levels increasing in the
early dawn hours.
94. The odour associated with a GHFF camp is not largely caused by faeces or urine but the
scent secreted by the GHFF during the breeding season as males mark their territories and,
to a lesser extent, by females scenting to locate young in the camp, from October through to
March. It is stated that residents find the odour of the GHFF offensive and that the smell is
so overwhelming that their ability to use outside areas is restricted and impacts on their
personal lives.
95. The Management Plan also states that partial defoliation of trees by the GHFF results in a
negative visual impact to the site. Defoliation is a natural process at GHFF camps and
should be considered alongside the important role that the GHFF plays in pollinating and
seed dispersal of native flora that assists in the evolution and regeneration of forests that
provide for many life forms and natural processes.
96. There are also concerns to humans if the GHFF relocate to people’s backyards, public
areas and/or commercial fruit crops, and the problem is shifted from the current camp site to
other areas. If the GHFF relocate to a site such as a member of the public’s backyard, the
proponent has proposed a number of measures to manage this particular social impact,
including a public awareness campaign and ongoing dispersal activities. It should be noted
that there may be unpredictable social impacts related to the movement of GHFF that have
not been accounted for. This is planned to be addressed through an adaptive management
approach to the GHFF management.
Community consultation
97. The Management Plan states that consultation has been undertaken by both the proponent
and DEPI to engage local residents regarding the issues of managing the GHFF campsite
and the necessity to provide a carefully planned approach to continue the poplar removal
program and revegetation efforts. The proponent states that they will develop an
engagement plan for the implementation of the Management Plan with reference to the
EGSC Community Engagement Policy (see Attachment B2, Appendix 8). This will require
the provision of information, such as fact sheets, website information, displays and ongoing
consultation with the community
.
98. The proponent considers that the promotion of a positive image for the GHFF within the
local region is of high importance when managing the GHFF longer term. The proponent will
actively promote DEPI’s theme of ‘Living with Wildlife’ in relation to the management of the
GHFF within the East Gippsland Shire. This will include on site signage should the GHFF
permanently relocate to an acceptable area under the proponent’s management.
Revegetation
99. Revegetation of the Mitchell River corridor has been an ongoing project with collaboration of
the East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority, Bairnsdale Urban Landcare Group,
Advance TAFE and other educational institutions. The program has been nominated for
State Landcare Awards in 2009.
100. Revegetation of the entire corridor has resulted in the Mitchell River roost site being one
of the final sites to be revegetated as part of this ongoing project. The proponent has stated
that continuation of the revegetation program protects investment of funding and significant
volunteer inputs into provision of biodiversity values along the corridor. As the roost site
vegetation is almost completely populated with invasive species the reinfestation of
revegetated areas through both seed and vegetative spread remains a possibility.
Revegetation efforts continue along the Mitchell River riparian corridor in line with the
Mitchell River Environs Local Structure and Development Plan 1998.
Page 22 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Economic matters
101. The Management Plan states that the value of properties has reduced due to the close
proximity of the GHFF roost and the loss of amenity.
102. If the GHFF relocate to a commercial fruit crop, the impact this could have to the financial
return of the fruit crop could be detrimental, especially if the entire crop is destroyed. The
economic impact of the GHFF on fruit growers in other areas of Australia varies between
seasons from minimal or no impact to significant loss. The proponent has not fully
addressed this concern; however, as the GHFF have caused damage to commercial fruit
crops since the time of European settlement it would be questionable whether the removal
of habitat or ongoing dispersal would actually lead to an increase to the risk of impacts to
commercial fruit crops, when the impact is already present due to GHFF natural behaviour
to search for food resources during their daily migratory pattern. It should also be noted that
increased numbers of GHFF in localities including commercial crop regions in Victoria may
be a result of adverse weather conditions in Queensland.
103. In some areas of Australia GHFF roost sites and dusk exit flights are increasingly being
recognised as attractions for eco-tourism, e.g. camps in Port Macquarie, Brisbane and Yarra
Bend in Melbourne. The Management Plan states that with careful management the
Bairnsdale GHFF colony may provide an opportunity to develop into an eco-attraction that
would benefit not only the relationships between humans and the GHFF but local tourism.
Factors to be taken into account – section 136(2)(a) Principles of ecologically sustainable
development
104. The principles of ESD, as defined in Part 1, section 3A of the EPBC Act, are:
(a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term
economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations;
(b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific
certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent
environmental degradation;
(c) the principle of inter-generational equity – that the present generation should ensure that
the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for
the benefit of future generations;
(d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental
consideration in decision-making;
(e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.
105. In formulating this recommendation, the Department has taken into account the principles
of ecologically sustainable development. In particular:
(a) This report and the assessment documentation provided contain information on the long-
term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations that
are relevant to the decision and are presented for your consideration.
(b) Any lack of certainty related to the potential impacts of the projects is addressed by
conditions that restrict environmental impacts, impose strict monitoring and adopt
environmental standards which, if not achieved, require the application of response
mechanisms in a timely manner to avoid adverse impacts.
(c) The proposed conditions will ensure protection of EPBC listed species and communities.
Those conditions allow for the project to be delivered and operated in a sustainable way
to protect the environment for future generations and preserve EPBC listed species and
communities in perpetuity.
Page 23 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
(d) The Department has considered the importance of conserving biological diversity and
ecological integrity for this project and the advice provided within this document reflects
that consideration.
(e) The Department’s advice includes reference to and consideration of a range of
information on the social and economic costs, benefits and impacts of the project.
Factors to be taken into account – section 136(2)(bc) – preliminary documentation
106. In accordance with section 136(2)(bc)(i), the finalised preliminary documentation relating
to the action, given to the Minister under section 95B(3) is at Attachment B1 and B2 of the
proposed decision briefing package.
107. In accordance with section 136(2)(bc)(ii), this document forms the recommendation report
relating to the action given to the Minister in accordance with section 95C.
Person’s environmental history – section 136(4)
108. The information provided in the referral documentation advises that no legal proceedings
have been taken against the proponent under a Commonwealth State or Territory law for
the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources. The Department is likewise unaware of any such proceedings.
109. Subject to consultation with the proponent on the proposed approval conditions the
Department has no reason to consider that they would be unwilling or unable to undertake
this proposal in accordance with the recommended decision and conditions.
110. The Department is not aware of any proceedings against the East Gippsland Shire
Council or its executive officers under Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the
protection of the environment. The Department is not aware of any reason that the East
Gippsland Shire Council would not be able to comply with the recommended proposed
conditions.
Requirements for decision about listed threatened species and communities - section 139
(1)
111.
Section 139(1) of the EPBC Act states that in deciding whether or not to approve for the
purposes of subsection of section 18 or section 18A the taking of an action, and what
conditions to attach to such an approval, you must not act inconsistently with:
a) Australian obligations under:
i.
the Biodiversity Convention; or
ii.
the Apia Convention; or
iii.
CITES: or
b) a recovery plan or threat abatement plan.
The Biodiversity Convention
112.
The Biodiversity Convention is available at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/1993/32.html
113.
The objectives of the Biodiversity Convention, to be pursued in accordance with its
relevant provisions, are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its
components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of
genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate
transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to
technologies, and by appropriate funding.
Page 24 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
114.
The proposed approval decision is not considered to be inconsistent with the Biodiversity
Convention, which promotes environmental impact assessment (such as this process) to
avoid and minimise adverse impacts on biological diversity. The ultimate aim is conservation
of listed threatened species and communities in the wild.
115.
This has been considered in, and is consistent with, the recommended approval which
requires species specific mitigation, management and compensation measures for listed
threatened species and communities.
Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (APIA Convention)
116.
The APIA Convention is available at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/1990/41.html
117.
The APIA Convention was suspended with effect from 13 September 2006. While this
Convention has been suspended, Australia’s obligations under the Convention have been
taken into consideration. The proposed action is considered to be not inconsistent with the
Convention which has the general aims of conservation of biodiversity.
118.
The APIA Convention encourages the creation of protected areas which, together with
existing protected areas, will safeguard representative samples of the natural ecosystems
occurring therein (particular attention being given to endangered species), as well as
superlative scenery, striking geological formations, and regions and objects of aesthetic
interest or historic, cultural or scientific value. The proposed approval requires the proponent
to secure, protect and improve large areas of primary value habitat to compensate for
residual impacts to listed threatened species and communities.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
119.
CITES is available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/1976/29.html
120.
The proposed action has no implications for CITES as it does not involve international
trade.
Conclusion
121.
The Department considers that likely impacts on listed threatened species and
communities and in relation to water resource dependent listed threatened species will be
avoided and mitigated by the proponent to a reasonable degree under the proposed
conditions, and that residual impacts will be appropriately compensated for. Approving the
proposed action subject to the proposed conditions would therefore not be inconsistent with
the Biodiversity Convention, CITES or the Apia Convention.
Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans
122.
The action is considered to have, or likely to have, a significant impact on the following
listed threatened species and communities:
Grey-headed Flying-fox (
Pteropus poliocephalus).
123.
The Recovery Plans relevant to the proposed action is as follows, and is provided at
Attachment D:
DECCW 2009, Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox
Pteropus poliocephalus. Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby and by the Department of
Environment, Climate Change and Water, NSW for the Australian Government
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
124.
There are no Threat Abatement Plans relevant to this action.
Page 25 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Conclusion
125.
The Department has considered all relevant Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement
Plans and is of the view that approval of this action would not be inconsistent with the above
obligations.
Requirements for decision about listed threatened species and communities - section
139 (1)
126.
Section 139(2) of the EPBC Act requires that if you are considering whether to approve,
for the purposes of a subsection of section 18 or section 18 A, the taking of an action; and
the action has or will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a particular listed
threatened species or a particular listed threatened ecological community; you must, in
deciding whether to so approve the taking of the action, have regard to any approved
conservation advice for the species or community.
Conservation Advice
127.
No approved conservation advice is available for the GHFF, as the only species likely to
be significantly impacted by the action. As such, in approving this action you would not be
acting inconsistently with any conservation advice.
128.
Listing advice does exist for the GHFF and includes justification against the following
criteria; a decline in numbers, geographic distribution, population size and the decline in
numbers or distribution and probability of extinction in the wild.
Conclusion
129.
The Department considers that approving the proposed action in the manner
recommended will not be inconsistent with any conservation advice or listing advice.
Bioregional plans
130.
In accordance with section 176(5) the Minister is required to have regard to a relevant
bioregional plan in making any decision under the EPBC Act to which the plan is relevant.
131.
Marine bioregional plans have been developed for the Commonwealth marine area to
support the decision-making process for marine-based industries under the EPBC Act. As
part of this process, new Commonwealth marine reserves have been identified by the
department for the conservation of marine ecosystems and biodiversity of Australia’s
oceans. These reserves are intended to meet Australia’s commitments to establish a
National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.
132.
Five marine regions have been identified as part of the bioregional planning process,
including Southwest, North-west, North, East (Temperate East and Coral Sea) and South-
east Marine Regions.
Conclusion
133.
The Department does not consider there to be any relevant bioregional plan for the
purposes of the Minister’s decision-making.
Minister not to consider other matters
134.
In deciding whether or not to approve the taking of an action, and what conditions to
attach to an approval, you must not consider any matters that you are not required or
permitted, by Subdivision B, Division 1, Part 9 of the EPBC Act, to consider.
Page 26 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
Any other information the Minister has on the relevant impacts of the action; and
135.
All information on the relevant impacts of the action is available in this Recommendation
Report (including in the Attachments).
Other
Time frame for approval
136.
It is recommended that the approval be valid until 1 July 2022. This allows for the
undertaking of the proposed action (approximately three years) and a buffer of five years of
monitoring and adaptive management. After this time it is considered reasonable that further
dispersals may need to be considered independently of this approval.
Consultation
137.
The department has consulted with the Department’s Compliance and Enforcement
Branch, the Species Information and Policy Section and New South Wales and Queensland
1 Sections in the preparation of the Recommendation Report.
Considerations in deciding on condition – section 134
138.
In accordance with section 134(1), the Minister may attach a condition to the approval of
the action if he or she is satisfied that the condition is necessary or convenient for:
(a) protecting a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has effect
(whether or not the protection is protection from the action); or
(b) repairing or mitigating damage to a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which
the approval has effect (whether or not the damage has been, will be or is likely to be
caused by the action).
139.
As detailed in the assessment section above, all recommended conditions attached to
the proposed approval are necessary or convenient to protect, repair and/or mitigate
impacts on a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which this proposed approval has
effect.
140.
In accordance with section 134(4), in deciding whether to attach a condition to an
approval the Minister must consider:
a. any relevant conditions that have been imposed, or the Minister considers are likely
to be imposed, under a law of a State or self-governing Territory or another law of
the Commonwealth on the taking of the action;
As detailed in the State Assessment and Approval section above, the Department
has considered all state requirements. The Department considers that the
recommended proposed conditions are not inconsistent with state requirements.
aa. information provided by the person proposing to take the action or by the designated
proponent of the action;
The information provided by the person proposing to take the action has been
considered. Documentation provided by the person taking the action is at
Attachment B1 and B2 of the proposed decision briefing package.
b. the desirability of ensuring as far as practicable that the condition is a cost effective
means for the Commonwealth and a person taking the action to achieve the object of
the condition.
Page 27 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
The Department considers that the conditions proposed (as discussed above) are a
cost effective means of achieving acceptable impacts on protect matters.
141.
In preparing this report and recommending whether to attach a condition to an approval,
the Department has considered:
a. No other conditions have been imposed or are likely to be imposed under a law of a
state or self-governing Territory or another law of Commonwealth;
The information provided by the person proposing to take the action has been
considered. Documentation provided by the person taking the action is at
Attachment B1 and B2.
b. the desirability of ensuring as far as practicable that the condition is a cost effective
means for the Commonwealth and a person taking the action to achieve the object of
the condition.
The department considers that the conditions proposed (as discussed above) are a
cost effective means of achieving acceptable impacts on protect matters.
Conclusion
142.
The proposed action is likely to impact on an EPBC Act listed threatened species. The
Department considers that the likely impacts of the proposed action on protected matters
will be acceptable, provided that the action is undertaken in accordance with the
recommended conditions and consistent with the mitigation and avoidance measures
proposed by the proponent. Having considered all matters required to be considered under
the EPBC Act, the Department recommends that the proposed action be approved, subject
to the recommended conditions.
Material used to prepare Recommendation Report
143.
Relevant documents considered by the Department in the formulation of this
recommendation report include:
(a) Referral documentation and attachments (Attachment B1);
(b) Mitchell River Revegetation Program, Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying Fox Roost Site,
DRAFT Strategic Management and Action Plan, East Gippsland Shire Council,
November, 2013 (Attachment B2); and
(c) Commonwealth/state policies and guidelines including:
-
Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2003,
EPBC Administrative
Guidelines on Significance: Supplement for the Grey-headed Flying-fox, What
you need to know about the Grey-headed Flying-fox for the 2003–2004 fruit
season.
-
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2009,
Significant
Impact Guidelines 1.1 Matters of National Environmental Significance,
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
-
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2010,
Survey
guidelines for Australia’s threatened bats: Guidelines for detecting bats listed as
threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999.
Page 28 of 29
EPBC 2009/5017
Attachment A
-
Department of the Environment website, including information on diseases in
Australian flying-foxes, http://www.environment.gov.au/node/16394.
-
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,
2012,
Flying-foxes and national environmental law Information Sheet.
-
The Department’s Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT).
-
NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, 2009,
Draft
National
Recovery
Plan
for
the
Grey-headed
Flying-fox
(Pteropus
poliocephalus). Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby and by the Department of
Environment, Climate Change and Water, NSW for the Australian Government
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
Page 29 of 29
FOI 170701
Document 4
Conditions attached to the approval
The following measures must be taken to ensure the protection of
listed threatened species
and communities (sections 18 & 18A), specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Grey-headed
Flying-fox):
1. The person taking the action must not remove or adversely impact more than 0.5 hectares
of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
2. Prior to the
removal of habitat the person taking the action must submit the
Bairnsdale
Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan to the
Department for approval. The person taking the action must implement and comply with the
approved
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan.
If possible, can a condition be added into that will allow EGSC to complete the
necessary changes to the Management Action Plan after the decision date, for
approval at a later date.
Response – Yes, amended as above.
3. The person taking the action must ensure that:
a) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site a
Hotline with a
dedicated contact phone number and email address is set up to respond to public
enquiries;
Council already has in place a 24hr contact service as part of its regular operations.
Is a separate line a requirement or will advertising the main Shire numbers suffice
given that a 24 hr service already is in operation?
Response – Yes, the existing line will suffice as long as this is clearly advertised and
an email address is also provided for contact.
b) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site neighbouring
Councils are notified of the proposal and provided with contact details to respond to
enquiries;
This involves notifying five Councils, 4 of which are located a great distance from the
Roost Site – Council needs to understand the rationale for such notifications.
Response – the rationale was to alert neighbouring Councils as to the increased risk
of GHFF moving into their areas following the removal of habitat. A letter to notify the
Councils will suffice with contact details to allow queries to be answered. If EGSC
would like to suggest the most relevant Councils to notify and why we may be able to
amend this condition.
EGSC would like to suggest that Wellington Shire is the only local council adjacent to
this Shire that would be impacted by our action. We have an existing MOU with
Wellington Shire which enables a co-operative relationship between neighbouring
Shires. The distance between other Shires (Toowong and Alpine) and EGSC in the
State of Victoria are significant and their location not likely to be suitable for GHFF
populations. Other shires are interstate with some likely to already have GHFF present,
and are also subject to different State legislation.
c) Undertake revegetation of long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the
Bairnsdale region, in accordance with expert advice on
Grey-headed Flying-fox ecology, subject to negotiation with and approval by, the
Department. If a long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox camp is not established within the
Bairnsdale region then
revegetation or improvement of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the
Bairnsdale region must be undertaken; and
Can we please define Bairnsdale ‘area’ and Bairnsdale ‘region’.
Page 2 of 9
Response – Yes. This has been amended for consistency and defined below. If
you have a suggested definition please provide.
Can some clarification be requested in the condition about where revegetation
will occur (ie: Council’s own land or any tenure). Who wil determine which site is
suitable for revegetation and improvement, DEPI and/or DE? What is the role of
DE in negotiation and approval?
Response – The condition has been worded so that, depending on where the
GHFF relocate to, revegetation works will be chosen at the site most likely to
benefit the colony; however, if the GHFF leave the region altogether revegetation
or improvement works can benefit the GHFF in the long-term. Whether this land
is Council’s or any tenure is a matter for the EGSC. It is expected that expert
advice will be sought to ensure that the site of revegetation will be of benefit to
the GHFF. Who provides that advice is a matter for the EGSC but will need to be
justified to the Department prior to approval. The Department’s role is primarily in
determining that the revegetation proposed is appropriate and will be of benefit to
GHFF in the long-term.
d) At least $5,000 is spent on community education resources relating to
Grey-headed
Flying-fox, including, but not limited to, educational signage at a site of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox habitat.
Is this expenditure required over the period of the action – or some other
timeframe?
Response – Yes, this expenditure is required over the period of staged
vegetation removal to increase community awareness of the GHFF.
4. If, following the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site, the person taking the
action proposes to undertake a separate
dispersal then a management plan must be
submitted for the
Minister’s approval. The management plan must be approved by the
Minister prior to the commencement of
dispersal activities. At a minimum, the plan must
address:
a) Proposed methodology for
dispersal;
b) Potential direct, indirect, cumulative and facilitative impacts to
Grey-headed Flying-
fox from the proposed
dispersal activity;
c) The presence of pregnant
Grey-headed Flying-fox;
d) The presence of
dependant young;
e) A commitment that the
dispersal will not be undertaken on a
Hot Day or on or within
two days of a
Heat Stress Event;
f) Proposed avoidance and mitigation measures addressing potential impacts to
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which must at a minimum include,
stop work triggers; and
g) Monitoring and reporting protocols.
Condition 4 does not apply to an
emergency dispersal.
What are the parameters and requirements around the decision for undertaking a
dispersal? Will this information be required to be incorporated into the Management
Plan, given the absence of this information with the removal of the Response Plan
from the Management Plan? Are the conditions within the Response Plan sufficient
to make this decision?
Response – The EGSC can make a decision regarding dispersal according to their
own requirements; however, the Department will need to consider the individual
circumstances of the proposed dispersal and the potential impacts to the GHFF in
considering the dispersal plan.
The dispersal plan will not need to be incorporated into the Management Plan, which
will be a stand alone document. The Response Plan will form the basis of the
dispersal plan but will need to be adapted to the individual circumstances and
address the above criteria. The EGSC may choose to use the information in the
Response Plan in making a decision as to whether or not a dispersal is desired.
Page 3 of 9
Time constraints on approval? Can a pro-forma management plan be developed in
the time prior to any dispersal occurring (ie. prior to September) for approval by the
Department as to the information and data required to report sufficiently for a faster
turn-around of approval once compiled?
Response – The Response Plan is a good basis for a dispersal plan but will need to
address some outstanding matters that have not been addressed, such as the
methodology for the dispersal. The key requirements of the dispersal plan are
captured above in condition 4 and should form the basis of information provided in
the dispersal plan.
5. The person taking the action may undertake an
emergency dispersal. Unless
otherwise
negotiated with the
Minister and approved
, an
emergency dispersal must be undertaken
in accordance with the following requirements:
A
suitably qualified ecologist must be engaged to advise of best practice
dispersal
methodology;
During
emergency dispersal a
suitably qualified ecologist must be present to
oversee best practice
dispersal methodology, undertake
behavioural monitoring and
document the outcomes of the process;
During
emergency dispersal the person taking the action must comply with all
recommendations and guidance from a
suitably qualified ecologist;
Emergency dispersal must
not be undertaken between 1 August and
30 September;
For the period 1 October to 31 March in any given year,
emergency dispersal
activities must not be undertaken if
flightless dependant young are present (as
determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist);
Emergency dispersal must be undertaken 1.5 hours pre-dawn and finish one hour
post-dawn to ensure
Grey-headed Flying-fox have time to settle elsewhere before the
heat of the day;
Emergency dispersal must not be undertaken during a
Hot Day or on or within two
days of a
Heat Stress Event;
Once
Grey-headed Flying-fox have not returned to the site of
emergency dispersal
for more than five consecutive days and while absent from the site of
emergency
dispersal, the person taking the action must implement
passive measures; and
Within five days of the completion of
emergency dispersal, the person taking the
action must submit a report to the
Minister detailing the
dispersal methodology
implemented and the outcome achieved.
An emergency dispersal situation may arise during the period of August to September,
and is likely between October and March. The restriction on undertaking dispersal during
these periods limits the ability of EGSC to respond to an emergency event. Given
dispersals are to be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist, their expertise will be
able to determine the method for the least impact to GHFF.
Response – As these times correlate to a particularly vulnerable time of the GHFF’s
breeding cycle the Department considers that these measures are necessary to reduce
potential impacts to the GHFF during the critical breeding season and to reduce the
likelihood of significant stress, aborted foetuses, dropped young and the desertion of
young. It is understood that an emergency response may need to be undertaken quickly
in order for the GHFF not to settle and thus negotiation and approval by the Minister has
been included to ensure that human health is considered alongside the management of
potential impacts to GHFF.
6. One month prior to the commencement of Stage Two of the
removal of habitat (as detailed
in the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan) and on the same date every subsequent year in which
removal of habitat or
Page 4 of 9
emergency dispersal occurs, the person taking the action must submit a report to the
Minister that addresses the following:
This was not clearly interpreted; I have attempted to re-write to make the condition
clearer.
“A report must be submitted to the Minister one month after the completion of Stage One of the
removal of habitat (as detailed in the Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site
Strategic Management Action Plan). A report will need to be submitted on the same date of
each subsequent year where removal of habitat or emergency dispersal occurs. The report
must address the following points.”
a) Details of the activities undertaken that year relating to
removal of habitat or
emergency dispersal;
b) Details of the associated outcomes of these activities;
c) The data collected (in accordance with these conditions of approval and the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan);
d) Information about the health and condition of
Grey-headed Flying-fox colonies in
the
Bairnsdale region;
Please define what information is required regarding ‘status’
Response – Amended. The condition is intended to encapsulate an overview of the
species in the region to indicate changes.
e) Details of how information gained has been incorporated into the future management
of
Grey-headed Flying-fox (adaptive management), including, but not limited to, the
future
removal of habitat or
dispersal activities associated with the action;
Is this specifically for the Mitchell River site as relates to the project or how ESGC will
manage other GHFF sites on their managed land, or is it broader?
Response – This is intended to relate to actions at the Mitchell River Site and future
dispersals that are associated with the removal of habitat but may also include other
actions that are a consequence of the removal of habitat that are not specifically
mentioned, such as ongoing management of roost sites.
f) Details of any activities planned to occur in the following year;
g) Written and signed confirmation by a
suitably qualified ecologist verifying the
accuracy of the data, information, analysis and conclusions contained within the
report; and
h) Raw data must be made available to the
Department upon request.
It is anticipated that the works for Stage One (and each other Stage) will be completed
prior to the GHFF arriving on site, but dispersals may be required after the completion of
these works given uncertainty of the reaction of GHFF to the action? We would consider
that the definition of removal of habitat is purely removal of Poplars, which would only
occur when GHFF are absent from the area, resulting in no information pertaining to
GHFF to put into the report for Stage One. Perhaps the completion of Stage One report
can be considered to be at a later date. If this was as GHFF depart the area, works will
be commencing again which leaves little time to inform future management actions for
Stages 2 and 3. This needs to be considered.
Response – The completion of Stage One of the removal of habitat includes all the
management actions following that first stage of removal, such as revegetation,
determining the GHFF response, improving site amenity and increasing community
knowledge (as described in the Management Plan, p. 41). Information will not be able to
be finalised until these activities are concluded. If you would like to suggest a date other
than one month following Stage One we would be happy to consider (e.g. one month
prior to the commencement of Stage Two?).
If this relates to condition 6(c) the data collected and 6(h) the raw data it is expected that
this information would be available at the end of Stage One.
The period of stop work between 1st August to 30th September severely restricts the
capacity of the revegetation component to be completed before the GHFF arrive back on
Page 5 of 9
site (ie. they are typically absent during this period). The revegetation method proposed
contains no machinery, and is purely persons onsite. Would there be capacity to
potentially undertake works during this period with limitations (ie no machinery)? Given
that we have Stop Work Triggers in place already to identify presence of GHFF at all
times whilst workers are onsite, the risk of impact to GHFF is very limited. If we require
more time to undertake the revegetation, could this be up to the discretion of D of E to
approve on an as needs basis?
Response – This relates to the timing of works at 10.3.2 of Management Plan and will be
considered when approving the Management Plan. Given the stop work condition and
the absence of machinery the Department would consider allowing works during this
period on a needs basis.
7. Five days prior to the
commencement of the action, the person taking the action must
advise the
Department verbally and in writing of the actual date of
commencement.
8. The person taking the action must maintain accurate records substantiating all activities
associated with or relevant to the conditions of approval, including measures taken to
implement the management plans required by this approval, and make them available upon
request to the
Department. Such records may be subject to audit by the
Department or an
independent auditor in accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act, or used to verify
compliance with the conditions of approval. Summaries of audits will be posted on the
Department’s website. The results of audits may also be publicised through the general
media.
9. Within three months of every 12 month anniversary of the
commencement of the action,
the person taking the action must publish a report on their website addressing compliance
with each of the conditions of this approval, including implementation of any management
plans as specified in the conditions. Documentary evidence providing proof of the date of
publication and non-compliance with any of the conditions of this approval must be provided
to the
Department at the same time as the compliance report is published.
Non-compliance
with any of the conditions of this approval must be reported to the
Department within 48
hours of the non-compliance occurring.
10. Upon the direction of the
Minister, the person taking the action must ensure that an
independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is conducted and a report
submitted to the
Minister. The independent auditor must be approved by the
Minister prior
to the commencement of the audit. Audit criteria must be agreed to by the
Minister and the
audit report must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the
Minister.
11. If the person taking the action wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in accordance
with the management plans as specified in the conditions
, the person taking the action must
submit to the
Department for the
Minister’s written approval a revised version of that
management plan. The varied activity shall not commence until the
Minister has approved
the varied management plan in writing. The
Minister will not approve a varied management
plan unless the revised management plan would result in an equivalent or improved
environmental outcome over time. If the
Minister approves the revised management plan,
that management plan must be implemented in place of the management plan originally
approved.
12. If the
Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better protection of
listed
threatened species and communities to do so, the
Minister may request that the person
taking the action make specified revisions to the management plans specified in the
conditions
and submit the revised management plans for the
Minister’s written approval.
The person taking the action must comply with any such request. The revised approved
management plan must be implemented. Unless the
Minister has approved the revised
management plan, then the person taking the action must continue to implement the
management plan originally approved,
as specified in the conditions.
Page 6 of 9
13. If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the person taking the action has
not
substantially commenced the action, then the person taking the action must not
substantially commence the action without the written agreement of the
Minister.
14. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
Minister, the person taking the action must
publish all management plans referred to in these conditions of approval on their website.
Each management plan must be published on the website within one month of being
approved.
Definitions
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan means
the document titled
Mitchell River Revegetation Program, Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying Fox
Roost Site, Strategic Management and Action Plan, East Gippsland Shire Council, 2013.
Bairnsdale Region means the administrative district of the city of Bairnsdale
.
Behavioural monitoring means the monitoring by a
suitably qualified ecologist of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox behaviour to identify behaviour outside of normal patterns of behaviour and
changes in those patterns. As a guide, behaviour outside of normal patterns may include
Grey-
headed Flying-fox exhibiting sickness, malnutrition, abnormal flight, disorientation, injury,
aggression towards a person undertaking an activity evidence of abandoned young, evidence of
aborted young or, at worst case, death.
Commencement means any preparatory works associated with the
removal of habitat from
the
Mitchell River Roost Site, such as the tagging of trees, introduction of machinery or
clearing of vegetation, excluding fences and signage.
Department means the Australian Government Department administering the
Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Dependant young means:
Newborn – totally dependent and carried by mother;
Flightless dependant young – dependent on mother, but no longer carried large
distances, unable to move easily around the camp; and
Flying dependant young – dependent on mother, but able to move around the
camp, can fly short distances.
Dispersal means any action, including, but not limited to, active physical harassment, taken to
remove
Grey-headed Flying-fox from a site of habitation.
Emergency dispersal means a
dispersal response to be undertaken if
Grey-headed Flying-
fox relocate to an area where:
a) Public health is at immediate risk (this includes, but is not limited to, within 100
metres of a hospital or educational institution);
b) There is potential for the spread of disease through vectors
(this includes, but is
not be limited to, within 100 metres of a racecourse or horse stud property); and
c) Anything else, as agreed with the
Department.
Grey-headed Flying-fox means the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as
vulnerable under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat means any patch of land, including non-native vegetation,
which may be used by the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as vulnerable
Page 7 of 9
under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, to forage, breed,
shelter or disperse, as determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist.
Flightless dependant young means
Grey-headed Flying-fox that are dependent on their
mother, but no longer carried large distances and that are unable to move easily around the
camp.
Heat Stress Event means a hot weather event lasting one day or more that is extremely
stressful and harmful to animals, defined as when temperatures exceed 35°C before 31
December or 38°C over consecutive days from 1 January.
Hot Day means a day when the ambient temperature is predicted to reach 30°C before 10am
AEST, or reach greater than 35°C over the day.
Hotline means a point of contact, where members of the public can contact the person taking
the action to report any injured
Grey-headed Flying-fox, the establishment of a new camp of
Grey-headed Flying-fox and to discuss general concerns regarding
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Listed threatened species and communities means a matter listed under sections 18
and 18A of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Mitchell River Roost Site means the 0.5 hectare area defined at Appendix A as
Grey-headed
Flying-fox habitat along the Mitchell River, Bairnsdale, within which
removal of habitat is to
occur.
Minister means the Minister administering the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 and includes a delegate of the Minister.
Passive measure means actions that do not involve active physical harassment of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which allow for ongoing maintenance of a successful dispersal area and
that act as a deterrent against the animals re-establishing at the site, including, but not limited
to, the trimming of branches and removal of limbs. It does not include the permanent
removal
of habitat critical to the survival of
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Removal of habitat means the cutting down, felling, thinning, logging, removing, killing,
destroying, poisoning, ring-barking, uprooting or burning of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat.
Stop work triggers means site or animal conditions that indicate that the activity should cease.
Substantially commence means
the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
Suitably qualified ecologist means a practising ecologist with tertiary qualifications from a
recognised institute and demonstrated expertise in scientific methodology, animal or
conservation biology in relation to the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Appendix A
Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9
FOI 170701
Document 5
Conditions attached to the approval
The following measures must be taken to ensure the protection of
listed threatened species
and communities (sections 18 & 18A), specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Grey-headed
Flying-fox):
1. The person taking the action must not remove or adversely impact more than 0.5 hectares
of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
2. The person taking the action must implement and comply with the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed
Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan.
If possible, can a condition be added into that will allow EGSC to complete the
necessary changes to the Management Action Plan after the decision date, for
approval at a later date.
3. The person taking the action must ensure that:
a) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site a
Hotline with a
dedicated contact phone number and email address is set up to respond to public
enquiries;
Council already has in place a 24hr contact service as part of its regular operations.
Is a separate line a requirement or will advertising the main Shire numbers suffice
given that a 24 hr service already is in operation?
b) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site neighbouring
Councils are notified of the proposal and provided with contact details to respond to
enquiries;
This involves notifying five Councils, 4 of which are located a great distance from the
Roost Site – Council needs to understand the rationale for such notifications.
c) Undertake revegetation of long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the
Bairnsdale area, in accordance with expert advice on
Grey-headed Flying-fox ecology, subject to negotiation with and approval by, the
Department. If a long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox camp is not established within the Bairnsdale area then
revegetation or improvement of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the
Bairnsdale region must be undertaken; and
Can we please define Bairnsdale ‘area’ and Bairnsdale ‘region’.
Can some clarification be requested in the condition about where revegetation
wil occur (ie: Council’s own land or any tenure). Who wil determine which site is
suitable for revegetation and improvement, DEPI and/or DE? What is the role of
DE in negotiation and approval?
d) At least $5,000 is spent on community education resources relating to
Grey-headed
Flying-fox, including, but not limited to, educational signage at a site of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox habitat.
Is this expenditure required over the period of the action – or some other
timeframe?
4. If, following the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site, the person taking the
action proposes to undertake a separate
dispersal then a management plan must be
submitted for the
Minister’s approval. The management plan must be approved by the
Minister prior to the commencement of
dispersal activities. At a minimum, the plan must
address:
a) Proposed methodology for
dispersal;
b) Potential direct, indirect, cumulative and facilitative impacts to
Grey-headed Flying-
fox from the proposed
dispersal activity;
c) The presence of pregnant
Grey-headed Flying-fox;
d) The presence of
dependant young;
Page 2 of 7
e) A commitment that the
dispersal will not be undertaken on a
Hot Day or on or within
two days of a
Heat Stress Event;
f) Proposed avoidance and mitigation measures addressing potential impacts to
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which must at a minimum include,
stop work triggers; and
g) Monitoring and reporting protocols.
Condition 4 does not apply to an
emergency dispersal.
What are the parameters and requirements around the decision for undertaking a
dispersal? Will this information be required to be incorporated into the Management
Plan, given the absence of this information with the removal of the Response Plan
from the Management Plan? Are the conditions within the Response Plan sufficient
to make this decision?
Time constraints on approval? Can a pro-forma management plan be developed in
the time prior to any dispersal occurring (ie. prior to September) for approval by the
Department as to the information and data required to report sufficiently for a faster
turn-around of approval once compiled?
5. The person taking the action may undertake an
emergency dispersal. Unless
otherwise
negotiated with the
Minister and approved
, an
emergency dispersal must be undertaken
in accordance with the following requirements:
A
suitably qualified ecologist must be engaged to advise of best practice
dispersal
methodology;
During
emergency dispersal a
suitably qualified ecologist must be present to
oversee best practice
dispersal methodology, undertake
behavioural monitoring and
document the outcomes of the process;
During
emergency dispersal the person taking the action must comply with all
recommendations and guidance from a
suitably qualified ecologist;
Emergency dispersal must
not be undertaken between 1 August and
30 September;
For the period 1 October to 31 March in any given year,
emergency dispersal
activities must not be undertaken if
flightless dependant young are present (as
determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist);
Emergency dispersal must be undertaken 1.5 hours pre-dawn and finish one hour
post-dawn to ensure
Grey-headed Flying-fox have time to settle elsewhere before the
heat of the day;
Emergency dispersal must not be undertaken during a
Hot Day or on or within two
days of a
Heat Stress Event;
Once
Grey-headed Flying-fox have not returned to the site of
emergency dispersal
for more than five consecutive days and while absent from the site of
emergency
dispersal, the person taking the action must implement
passive measures; and
Within five days of the completion of
emergency dispersal, the person taking the
action must submit a report to the
Minister detailing the
dispersal methodology
implemented and the outcome achieved.
An emergency dispersal situation may arise during the period of August to September,
and is likely between October and March. The restriction on undertaking dispersal during
these periods limits the ability of EGSC to respond to an emergency event. Given
dispersals are to be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist, their expertise will be
able to determine the method for the least impact to GHFF.
6. Within one month from the completion of Stage One of the
removal of habitat (as detailed
in the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan) and on the same date every subsequent year in which
removal of habitat or
Page 3 of 7
emergency dispersal occurs, the person taking the action must submit a report to the
Minister that addresses the following:
This was not clearly interpreted; I have attempted to re-write to make the condition
clearer.
“A report must be submitted to the Minister one month after the completion of Stage One of the
removal of habitat (as detailed in the Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site
Strategic Management Action Plan). A report will need to be submitted on the same date of
each subsequent year where removal of habitat or emergency dispersal occurs. The report
must address the following points.”
a) Details of the activities undertaken that year relating to
removal of habitat or
emergency dispersal;
b) Details of the associated outcomes of these activities;
c) The data collected (in accordance with these conditions of approval and the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan);
d) The status of
Grey-headed Flying-fox colonies in the Bairnsdale region;
Please define what information is required regarding ‘status’
e) Details of how information gained has been incorporated into the future management
of
Grey-headed Flying-fox (adaptive management), including, but not limited to, the
future
removal of habitat or
dispersal activities associated with the action;
Is this specifically for the Mitchell River site as relates to the project or how ESGC will
manage other GHFF sites on their managed land, or is it broader? f) Details of any activities planned to occur in the following year;
g) Written and signed confirmation by a
suitably qualified ecologist verifying the
accuracy of the data, information, analysis and conclusions contained within the
report; and
h) Raw data must be made available to the
Department upon request.
It is anticipated that the works for Stage One (and each other Stage) will be completed
prior to the GHFF arriving on site, but dispersals may be required after the completion of
these works given uncertainty of the reaction of GHFF to the action? We would consider
that the definition of removal of habitat is purely removal of Poplars, which would only
occur when GHFF are absent from the area, resulting in no information pertaining to
GHFF to put into the report for Stage One. Perhaps the completion of Stage One report
can be considered to be at a later date. If this was as GHFF depart the area, works will
be commencing again which leaves little time to inform future management actions for
Stages 2 and 3. This needs to be considered.
The period of stop work between 1st August to 30th September severely restricts the
capacity of the revegetation component to be completed before the GHFF arrive back on
site (ie. they are typically absent during this period). The revegetation method proposed
contains no machinery, and is purely persons onsite. Would there be capacity to
potentially undertake works during this period with limitations (ie no machinery)? Given
that we have Stop Work Triggers in place already to identify presence of GHFF at all
times whilst workers are onsite, the risk of impact to GHFF is very limited. If we require
more time to undertake the revegetation, could this be up to the discretion of D of E to
approve on an as needs basis?
Is there potential to determine the exact content of the required report to be pre-
approved by D of E, to ensure that the expectations of both D of E and EGSC are met
prior to reporting requirements to ensure appropriate data collection.
7. Five days prior to the
commencement of the action, the person taking the action must
advise the
Department verbally and in writing of the actual date of
commencement.
Page 4 of 7
8. The person taking the action must maintain accurate records substantiating all activities
associated with or relevant to the conditions of approval, including measures taken to
implement the management plans required by this approval, and make them available upon
request to the
Department. Such records may be subject to audit by the
Department or an
independent auditor in accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act, or used to verify
compliance with the conditions of approval. Summaries of audits will be posted on the
Department’s website. The results of audits may also be publicised through the general
media.
9. Within three months of every 12 month anniversary of the
commencement of the action,
the person taking the action must publish a report on their website addressing compliance
with each of the conditions of this approval, including implementation of any management
plans as specified in the conditions. Documentary evidence providing proof of the date of
publication and non-compliance with any of the conditions of this approval must be provided
to the
Department at the same time as the compliance report is published.
Non-compliance
with any of the conditions of this approval must be reported to the
Department within 48
hours of the non-compliance occurring.
10. Upon the direction of the
Minister, the person taking the action must ensure that an
independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is conducted and a report
submitted to the
Minister. The independent auditor must be approved by the
Minister prior
to the commencement of the audit. Audit criteria must be agreed to by the
Minister and the
audit report must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the
Minister.
11. If the person taking the action wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in accordance
with the management plans as specified in the conditions
, the person taking the action must
submit to the
Department for the
Minister’s written approval a revised version of that
management plan. The varied activity shall not commence until the
Minister has approved
the varied management plan in writing. The
Minister will not approve a varied management
plan unless the revised management plan would result in an equivalent or improved
environmental outcome over time. If the
Minister approves the revised management plan,
that management plan must be implemented in place of the management plan originally
approved.
12. If the
Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better protection of
listed
threatened species and communities to do so, the
Minister may request that the person
taking the action make specified revisions to the management plans specified in the
conditions
and submit the revised management plans for the
Minister’s written approval.
The person taking the action must comply with any such request. The revised approved
management plan must be implemented. Unless the
Minister has approved the revised
management plan, then the person taking the action must continue to implement the
management plan originally approved,
as specified in the conditions.
13. If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the person taking the action has
not
substantially commenced the action, then the person taking the action must not
substantially commence the action without the written agreement of the
Minister.
14. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
Minister, the person taking the action must
publish all management plans referred to in these conditions of approval on their website.
Each management plan must be published on the website within one month of being
approved.
Definitions
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan means
the document titled
Mitchell River Revegetation Program, Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying Fox
Roost Site, DRAFT Strategic Management and Action Plan, East Gippsland Shire Council,
November, 2013.
Page 5 of 7
Behavioural monitoring means the monitoring by a
suitably qualified ecologist of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox behaviour to identify behaviour outside of normal patterns of behaviour and
changes in those patterns. As a guide, behaviour outside of normal patterns may include
Grey-
headed Flying-fox exhibiting sickness, malnutrition, abnormal flight, disorientation, injury,
aggression towards a person undertaking an activity evidence of abandoned young, evidence of
aborted young or, at worst case, death.
Commencement means any preparatory works associated with the
removal of habitat from
the
Mitchell River Roost Site, such as the tagging of trees, introduction of machinery or
clearing of vegetation, excluding fences and signage.
Department means the Australian Government Department administering the
Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Dependant young means:
Newborn – totally dependent and carried by mother;
Flightless dependant young – dependent on mother, but no longer carried large
distances, unable to move easily around the camp; and
Flying dependant young – dependent on mother, but able to move around the
camp, can fly short distances.
Dispersal means any action, including, but not limited to, active physical harassment, taken to
remove
Grey-headed Flying-fox from a site of habitation.
Emergency dispersal means a
dispersal response to be undertaken if
Grey-headed Flying-
fox relocate to an area where:
a) Public health is at immediate risk (this includes, but is not limited to, within 100
metres of a hospital or educational institution);
b) There is potential for the spread of disease through vectors
(this includes, but is
not be limited to, within 100 metres of a racecourse or horse stud property); and
c) Anything else, as agreed with the
Department.
Grey-headed Flying-fox means the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as
vulnerable under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat means any patch of land, including non-native vegetation,
which may be used by the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as vulnerable
under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, to forage, breed,
shelter or disperse, as determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist.
Flightless dependant young means
Grey-headed Flying-fox that are dependent on their
mother, but no longer carried large distances and that are unable to move easily around the
camp.
Heat Stress Event means a hot weather event lasting one day or more that is extremely
stressful and harmful to animals, defined as when temperatures exceed 35°C before 31
December or 38°C over consecutive days from 1 January.
Hot Day means a day when the ambient temperature is predicted to reach 30°C before 10am
AEST, or reach greater than 35°C over the day.
Hotline means a point of contact, where members of the public can contact the person taking
the action to report any injured
Grey-headed Flying-fox, the establishment of a new camp of
Grey-headed Flying-fox and to discuss general concerns regarding
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Page 6 of 7
Listed threatened species and communities means a matter listed under sections 18
and 18A of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Mitchell River Roost Site means the 0.5 hectare area defined at Appendix A as
Grey-headed
Flying-fox habitat along the Mitchell River, Bairnsdale, within which
removal of habitat is to
occur.
Minister means the Minister administering the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 and includes a delegate of the Minister.
Passive measure means actions that do not involve active physical harassment of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which allow for ongoing maintenance of a successful dispersal area and
that act as a deterrent against the animals re-establishing at the site, including, but not limited
to, the trimming of branches and removal of limbs. It does not include the permanent
removal
of habitat critical to the survival of
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Removal of habitat means the cutting down, felling, thinning, logging, removing, killing,
destroying, poisoning, ring-barking, uprooting or burning of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat.
Stop work triggers means site or animal conditions that indicate that the activity should cease.
Substantially commence means
the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
Suitably qualified ecologist means a practising ecologist with tertiary qualifications from a
recognised institute and demonstrated expertise in scientific methodology, animal or
conservation biology in relation to the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Appendix A
Page 7 of 7
FOI 170701
Document 6
Conditions attached to the approval
The following measures must be taken to ensure the protection of
listed threatened species
and communities (sections 18 & 18A), specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Grey-headed
Flying-fox):
1. The person taking the action must not remove or adversely impact more than 0.5 hectares
of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
2. Prior to the
removal of habitat the person taking the action must submit the
Bairnsdale
Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan to the
Department for approval. The person taking the action must implement and comply with the
approved
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan.
If possible, can a condition be added into that will allow EGSC to complete the
necessary changes to the Management Action Plan after the decision date, for
approval at a later date.
Response – Yes, amended as above.
3. The person taking the action must ensure that:
a) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site a
Hotline with a
dedicated contact phone number and email address is set up to respond to public
enquiries;
Council already has in place a 24hr contact service as part of its regular operations.
Is a separate line a requirement or will advertising the main Shire numbers suffice
given that a 24 hr service already is in operation?
Response – Yes, the existing line will suffice as long as this is clearly advertised and
an email address is also provided for contact.
b) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site neighbouring
Councils are notified of the proposal and provided with contact details to respond to
enquiries;
This involves notifying five Councils, 4 of which are located a great distance from the
Roost Site – Council needs to understand the rationale for such notifications.
Response – the rationale was to alert neighbouring Councils as to the increased risk
of GHFF moving into their areas following the removal of habitat. A letter to notify the
Councils will suffice with contact details to allow queries to be answered. If EGSC
would like to suggest the most relevant Councils to notify and why we may be able to
amend this condition.
c) Undertake revegetation of long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the
Bairnsdale region, in accordance with expert advice on
Grey-headed Flying-fox ecology, subject to negotiation with and approval by, the
Department. If a long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox camp is not established within the
Bairnsdale region then
revegetation or improvement of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the
Bairnsdale region must be undertaken; and
Can we please define Bairnsdale ‘area’ and Bairnsdale ‘region’.
Response – Yes. This has been amended for consistency and defined below. If
you have a suggested definition please provide.
Can some clarification be requested in the condition about where revegetation
wil occur (ie: Council’s own land or any tenure). Who wil determine which site is
suitable for revegetation and improvement, DEPI and/or DE? What is the role of
DE in negotiation and approval?
Page 2 of 9
Response – The condition has been worded so that, depending on where the
GHFF relocate to, revegetation works will be chosen at the site most likely to
benefit the colony; however, if the GHFF leave the region altogether revegetation
or improvement works can benefit the GHFF in the long-term. Whether this land
is Council’s or any tenure is a matter for the EGSC. It is expected that expert
advice will be sought to ensure that the site of revegetation will be of benefit to
the GHFF. Who provides that advice is a matter for the EGSC but will need to be
justified to the Department prior to approval. The Department’s role is primarily in
determining that the revegetation proposed is appropriate and will be of benefit to
GHFF in the long-term.
d) At least $5,000 is spent on community education resources relating to
Grey-headed
Flying-fox, including, but not limited to, educational signage at a site of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox habitat.
Is this expenditure required over the period of the action – or some other
timeframe?
Response – Yes, this expenditure is required over the period of staged
vegetation removal to increase community awareness of the GHFF.
4. If, following the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site, the person taking the
action proposes to undertake a separate
dispersal then a management plan must be
submitted for the
Minister’s approval. The management plan must be approved by the
Minister prior to the commencement of
dispersal activities. At a minimum, the plan must
address:
a) Proposed methodology for
dispersal;
b) Potential direct, indirect, cumulative and facilitative impacts to
Grey-headed Flying-
fox from the proposed
dispersal activity;
c) The presence of pregnant
Grey-headed Flying-fox;
d) The presence of
dependant young;
e) A commitment that the
dispersal will not be undertaken on a
Hot Day or on or within
two days of a
Heat Stress Event;
f) Proposed avoidance and mitigation measures addressing potential impacts to
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which must at a minimum include,
stop work triggers; and
g) Monitoring and reporting protocols.
Condition 4 does not apply to an
emergency dispersal.
What are the parameters and requirements around the decision for undertaking a
dispersal? Will this information be required to be incorporated into the Management
Plan, given the absence of this information with the removal of the Response Plan
from the Management Plan? Are the conditions within the Response Plan sufficient
to make this decision?
Response – The EGSC can make a decision regarding dispersal according to their
own requirements; however, the Department will need to consider the individual
circumstances of the proposed dispersal and the potential impacts to the GHFF in
considering the dispersal plan.
The dispersal plan will not need to be incorporated into the Management Plan, which
will be a stand alone document. The Response Plan will form the basis of the
dispersal plan but will need to be adapted to the individual circumstances and
address the above criteria. The EGSC may choose to use the information in the
Response Plan in making a decision as to whether or not a dispersal is desired.
Time constraints on approval? Can a pro-forma management plan be developed in
the time prior to any dispersal occurring (ie. prior to September) for approval by the
Department as to the information and data required to report sufficiently for a faster
turn-around of approval once compiled?
Response – The Response Plan is a good basis for a dispersal plan but will need to
address some outstanding matters that have not been addressed, such as the
methodology for the dispersal. The key requirements of the dispersal plan are
Page 3 of 9
captured above in condition 4 and should form the basis of information provided in
the dispersal plan.
5. The person taking the action may undertake an
emergency dispersal. Unless
otherwise
negotiated with the
Minister and approved
, an
emergency dispersal must be undertaken
in accordance with the following requirements:
A
suitably qualified ecologist must be engaged to advise of best practice
dispersal
methodology;
During
emergency dispersal a
suitably qualified ecologist must be present to
oversee best practice
dispersal methodology, undertake
behavioural monitoring and
document the outcomes of the process;
During
emergency dispersal the person taking the action must comply with all
recommendations and guidance from a
suitably qualified ecologist;
Emergency dispersal must
not be undertaken between 1 August and
30 September;
For the period 1 October to 31 March in any given year,
emergency dispersal
activities must not be undertaken if
flightless dependant young are present (as
determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist);
Emergency dispersal must be undertaken 1.5 hours pre-dawn and finish one hour
post-dawn to ensure
Grey-headed Flying-fox have time to settle elsewhere before the
heat of the day;
Emergency dispersal must not be undertaken during a
Hot Day or on or within two
days of a
Heat Stress Event;
Once
Grey-headed Flying-fox have not returned to the site of
emergency dispersal
for more than five consecutive days and while absent from the site of
emergency
dispersal, the person taking the action must implement
passive measures; and
Within five days of the completion of
emergency dispersal, the person taking the
action must submit a report to the
Minister detailing the
dispersal methodology
implemented and the outcome achieved.
An emergency dispersal situation may arise during the period of August to September,
and is likely between October and March. The restriction on undertaking dispersal during
these periods limits the ability of EGSC to respond to an emergency event. Given
dispersals are to be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist, their expertise will be
able to determine the method for the least impact to GHFF.
Response – As these times correlate to a particularly vulnerable time of the GHFF’s
breeding cycle the Department considers that these measures are necessary to reduce
potential impacts to the GHFF during the critical breeding season and to reduce the
likelihood of significant stress, aborted foetuses, dropped young and the desertion of
young. It is understood that an emergency response may need to be undertaken quickly
in order for the GHFF not to settle and thus negotiation and approval by the Minister has
been included to ensure that human health is considered alongside the management of
potential impacts to GHFF.
6. One month prior to the commencement of Stage Two of the
removal of habitat (as detailed
in the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan) and on the same date every subsequent year in which
removal of habitat or
emergency dispersal occurs, the person taking the action must submit a report to the
Minister that addresses the following:
This was not clearly interpreted; I have attempted to re-write to make the condition
clearer.
“A report must be submitted to the Minister one month after the completion of Stage One of the
removal of habitat (as detailed in the Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site
Page 4 of 9
Strategic Management Action Plan). A report will need to be submitted on the same date of
each subsequent year where removal of habitat or emergency dispersal occurs. The report
must address the following points.”
a) Details of the activities undertaken that year relating to
removal of habitat or
emergency dispersal;
b) Details of the associated outcomes of these activities;
c) The data collected (in accordance with these conditions of approval and the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan);
d) Information about the health and condition of
Grey-headed Flying-fox colonies in
the
Bairnsdale region;
Please define what information is required regarding ‘status’
Response – Amended. The condition is intended to encapsulate an overview of the
species in the region to indicate changes.
e) Details of how information gained has been incorporated into the future management
of
Grey-headed Flying-fox (adaptive management), including, but not limited to, the
future
removal of habitat or
dispersal activities associated with the action;
Is this specifically for the Mitchell River site as relates to the project or how ESGC will
manage other GHFF sites on their managed land, or is it broader?
Response – This is intended to relate to actions at the Mitchell River Site and future
dispersals that are associated with the removal of habitat but may also include other
actions that are a consequence of the removal of habitat that are not specifically
mentioned, such as ongoing management of roost sites.
f) Details of any activities planned to occur in the following year;
g) Written and signed confirmation by a
suitably qualified ecologist verifying the
accuracy of the data, information, analysis and conclusions contained within the
report; and
h) Raw data must be made available to the
Department upon request.
It is anticipated that the works for Stage One (and each other Stage) will be completed
prior to the GHFF arriving on site, but dispersals may be required after the completion of
these works given uncertainty of the reaction of GHFF to the action? We would consider
that the definition of removal of habitat is purely removal of Poplars, which would only
occur when GHFF are absent from the area, resulting in no information pertaining to
GHFF to put into the report for Stage One. Perhaps the completion of Stage One report
can be considered to be at a later date. If this was as GHFF depart the area, works will
be commencing again which leaves little time to inform future management actions for
Stages 2 and 3. This needs to be considered.
Response – The completion of Stage One of the removal of habitat includes all the
management actions following that first stage of removal, such as revegetation,
determining the GHFF response, improving site amenity and increasing community
knowledge (as described in the Management Plan, p. 41). Information will not be able to
be finalised until these activities are concluded. If you would like to suggest a date other
than one month following Stage One we would be happy to consider (e.g. one month
prior to the commencement of Stage Two?).
If this relates to condition 6(c) the data collected and 6(h) the raw data it is expected that
this information would be available at the end of Stage One.
The period of stop work between 1st August to 30th September severely restricts the
capacity of the revegetation component to be completed before the GHFF arrive back on
site (ie. they are typically absent during this period). The revegetation method proposed
contains no machinery, and is purely persons onsite. Would there be capacity to
potentially undertake works during this period with limitations (ie no machinery)? Given
that we have Stop Work Triggers in place already to identify presence of GHFF at all
times whilst workers are onsite, the risk of impact to GHFF is very limited. If we require
more time to undertake the revegetation, could this be up to the discretion of D of E to
approve on an as needs basis?
Page 5 of 9
Response – This relates to the timing of works at 10.3.2 of Management Plan and will be
considered when approving the Management Plan. Given the stop work condition and
the absence of machinery the Department would consider allowing works during this
period on a needs basis.
Is there potential to determine the exact content of the required report to be pre-
approved by D of E, to ensure that the expectations of both D of E and EGSC are met
prior to reporting requirements to ensure appropriate data collection.
Response: This will be dependent on what the outcome of the removal of habitat is. The
condition identifies the key requirements of information to cover a broad range of
outcomes. Given that the outcome of the removal of habitat is not known there is a risk
that being too prescriptive may subsequently miss relevant data. A suitably qualified
ecologist should be able to advise what data collection will capture the key requirements
and provide relevant information.
7. Five days prior to the
commencement of the action, the person taking the action must
advise the
Department verbally and in writing of the actual date of
commencement.
8. The person taking the action must maintain accurate records substantiating all activities
associated with or relevant to the conditions of approval, including measures taken to
implement the management plans required by this approval, and make them available upon
request to the
Department. Such records may be subject to audit by the
Department or an
independent auditor in accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act, or used to verify
compliance with the conditions of approval. Summaries of audits will be posted on the
Department’s website. The results of audits may also be publicised through the general
media.
9. Within three months of every 12 month anniversary of the
commencement of the action,
the person taking the action must publish a report on their website addressing compliance
with each of the conditions of this approval, including implementation of any management
plans as specified in the conditions. Documentary evidence providing proof of the date of
publication and non-compliance with any of the conditions of this approval must be provided
to the
Department at the same time as the compliance report is published.
Non-compliance
with any of the conditions of this approval must be reported to the
Department within 48
hours of the non-compliance occurring.
10. Upon the direction of the
Minister, the person taking the action must ensure that an
independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is conducted and a report
submitted to the
Minister. The independent auditor must be approved by the
Minister prior
to the commencement of the audit. Audit criteria must be agreed to by the
Minister and the
audit report must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the
Minister.
11. If the person taking the action wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in accordance
with the management plans as specified in the conditions
, the person taking the action must
submit to the
Department for the
Minister’s written approval a revised version of that
management plan. The varied activity shall not commence until the
Minister has approved
the varied management plan in writing. The
Minister will not approve a varied management
plan unless the revised management plan would result in an equivalent or improved
environmental outcome over time. If the
Minister approves the revised management plan,
that management plan must be implemented in place of the management plan originally
approved.
12. If the
Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better protection of
listed
threatened species and communities to do so, the
Minister may request that the person
taking the action make specified revisions to the management plans specified in the
conditions
and submit the revised management plans for the
Minister’s written approval.
The person taking the action must comply with any such request. The revised approved
management plan must be implemented. Unless the
Minister has approved the revised
management plan, then the person taking the action must continue to implement the
management plan originally approved,
as specified in the conditions.
Page 6 of 9
13. If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the person taking the action has
not
substantially commenced the action, then the person taking the action must not
substantially commence the action without the written agreement of the
Minister.
14. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
Minister, the person taking the action must
publish all management plans referred to in these conditions of approval on their website.
Each management plan must be published on the website within one month of being
approved.
Definitions
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan means
the document titled
Mitchell River Revegetation Program, Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying Fox
Roost Site, Strategic Management and Action Plan, East Gippsland Shire Council, November,
2013.
Bairnsdale Region means the administrative district of the city of Bairnsdale
.
Behavioural monitoring means the monitoring by a
suitably qualified ecologist of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox behaviour to identify behaviour outside of normal patterns of behaviour and
changes in those patterns. As a guide, behaviour outside of normal patterns may include
Grey-
headed Flying-fox exhibiting sickness, malnutrition, abnormal flight, disorientation, injury,
aggression towards a person undertaking an activity evidence of abandoned young, evidence of
aborted young or, at worst case, death.
Commencement means any preparatory works associated with the
removal of habitat from
the
Mitchell River Roost Site, such as the tagging of trees, introduction of machinery or
clearing of vegetation, excluding fences and signage.
Department means the Australian Government Department administering the
Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Dependant young means:
Newborn – totally dependent and carried by mother;
Flightless dependant young – dependent on mother, but no longer carried large
distances, unable to move easily around the camp; and
Flying dependant young – dependent on mother, but able to move around the
camp, can fly short distances.
Dispersal means any action, including, but not limited to, active physical harassment, taken to
remove
Grey-headed Flying-fox from a site of habitation.
Emergency dispersal means a
dispersal response to be undertaken if
Grey-headed Flying-
fox relocate to an area where:
a) Public health is at immediate risk (this includes, but is not limited to, within 100
metres of a hospital or educational institution);
b) There is potential for the spread of disease through vectors
(this includes, but is
not be limited to, within 100 metres of a racecourse or horse stud property); and
c) Anything else, as agreed with the
Department.
Grey-headed Flying-fox means the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as
vulnerable under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Page 7 of 9
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat means any patch of land, including non-native vegetation,
which may be used by the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as vulnerable
under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, to forage, breed,
shelter or disperse, as determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist.
Flightless dependant young means
Grey-headed Flying-fox that are dependent on their
mother, but no longer carried large distances and that are unable to move easily around the
camp.
Heat Stress Event means a hot weather event lasting one day or more that is extremely
stressful and harmful to animals, defined as when temperatures exceed 35°C before 31
December or 38°C over consecutive days from 1 January.
Hot Day means a day when the ambient temperature is predicted to reach 30°C before 10am
AEST, or reach greater than 35°C over the day.
Hotline means a point of contact, where members of the public can contact the person taking
the action to report any injured
Grey-headed Flying-fox, the establishment of a new camp of
Grey-headed Flying-fox and to discuss general concerns regarding
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Listed threatened species and communities means a matter listed under sections 18
and 18A of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Mitchell River Roost Site means the 0.5 hectare area defined at Appendix A as
Grey-headed
Flying-fox habitat along the Mitchell River, Bairnsdale, within which
removal of habitat is to
occur.
Minister means the Minister administering the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 and includes a delegate of the Minister.
Passive measure means actions that do not involve active physical harassment of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which allow for ongoing maintenance of a successful dispersal area and
that act as a deterrent against the animals re-establishing at the site, including, but not limited
to, the trimming of branches and removal of limbs. It does not include the permanent
removal
of habitat critical to the survival of
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Removal of habitat means the cutting down, felling, thinning, logging, removing, killing,
destroying, poisoning, ring-barking, uprooting or burning of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat.
Stop work triggers means site or animal conditions that indicate that the activity should cease.
Substantially commence means
the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
Suitably qualified ecologist means a practising ecologist with tertiary qualifications from a
recognised institute and demonstrated expertise in scientific methodology, animal or
conservation biology in relation to the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Appendix A
Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9
FOI 170701
Document 7
Approval
East Gippsland Shire Council Poplar Removal Program – Grey-headed Flying-fox (
Pteropus
poliocephalus) Summer Camp, Bairnsdale, Victoria (EPBC 2009/5017).
This decision is made under sections 130(1) and 133 of the
Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Proposed action
person to whom the
East Gippsland Shire Council
approval is granted
proponent’s ABN
81 957 967 765
proposed action
To remove 0.5 hectares of poplar trees as part of the East
Gippsland Shire Council poplar removal program which provide a
‘summer camp’ roost site for Grey-headed Flying-foxes (
Pteropus
poliocephalus) in Bairnsdale, Victoria [see EPBC Act referral
2009/5017].
Approval decision
Controlling Provision
Decision
Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 & 18A)
Approved.
conditions of approval
This approval is subject to the conditions specified below.
expiry date of approval
This approval has effect until 1 July 2022.
Decision-maker
name and position
James Tregurtha
Assistant Secretary
South-Eastern Australia Environment Assessments Branch
signature
date of decision
Conditions attached to the approval
The following measures must be taken to ensure the protection of
listed threatened species
and communities (sections 18 & 18A), specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Grey-headed
Flying-fox):
1. The person taking the action must not remove or adversely impact more than 0.5 hectares
of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
2. Prior to the
removal of habitat the person taking the action must submit the
Bairnsdale
Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan to the
Department for approval. The person taking the action must implement and comply with the
approved
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan.
3. The person taking the action must ensure that:
a) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site a
Hotline with a
dedicated contact phone number and email address is set up to respond to public
enquiries;
b) Prior to the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site the Wellington
Shire Council is notified of the proposal and provided with contact details to respond
to enquiries;
c) Undertake revegetation of long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the
Bairnsdale region, in accordance with expert advice on
Grey-headed Flying-fox ecology, subject to negotiation with and approval by, the
Department. If a long-term
Grey-headed Flying-fox camp is not established within the
Bairnsdale region then
revegetation or improvement of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the
Bairnsdale region must be undertaken; and
d) At least $5,000 is spent on community education resources relating to
Grey-headed
Flying-fox, including, but not limited to, educational signage at a site of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox habitat within twelve months of the completion of Stage Three
(as detailed in the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic
Management Action Plan).
4. If, following the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site, the person taking the
action proposes to undertake a separate
dispersal then a management plan must be
submitted for the
Minister’s approval. The management plan must be approved by the
Minister prior to the commencement of
dispersal activities. At a minimum, the plan must
address:
a) Proposed methodology for
dispersal;
b) Potential direct, indirect, cumulative and facilitative impacts to
Grey-headed Flying-
fox from the proposed
dispersal activity;
c) The presence of pregnant
Grey-headed Flying-fox;
d) The presence of
dependant young;
e) A commitment that the
dispersal will not be undertaken on a
Hot Day or on or within
two days of a
Heat Stress Event;
f) Proposed avoidance and mitigation measures addressing potential impacts to
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which must at a minimum include,
stop work triggers; and
g) Monitoring and reporting protocols.
Condition 4 does not apply to an
emergency dispersal.
Page 2 of 6
5. The person taking the action may undertake an
emergency dispersal. Unless otherwise
negotiated with the
Minister and approved
, an
emergency dispersal must be undertaken
in accordance with the following requirements:
A
suitably qualified ecologist must be engaged to advise of best practice
dispersal
methodology;
During
emergency dispersal a
suitably qualified ecologist must be present to
oversee best practice
dispersal methodology, undertake
behavioural monitoring and
document the outcomes of the process;
During
emergency dispersal the person taking the action must comply with all
recommendations and guidance from a
suitably qualified ecologist;
Emergency dispersal must
not be undertaken between 1 August and
30 September;
For the period 1 October to 31 March in any given year,
emergency dispersal
activities must not be undertaken if
flightless dependant young are present (as
determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist);
Emergency dispersal must be undertaken 1.5 hours pre-dawn and finish one hour
post-dawn to ensure
Grey-headed Flying-fox have time to settle elsewhere before the
heat of the day;
Emergency dispersal must not be undertaken during a
Hot Day or on or within two
days of a
Heat Stress Event;
Once
Grey-headed Flying-fox have not returned to the site of
emergency dispersal
for more than five consecutive days and while absent from the site of
emergency
dispersal, the person taking the action must implement
passive measures; and
Within five days of the completion of
emergency dispersal, the person taking the
action must submit a report to the
Minister detailing the
dispersal methodology
implemented and the outcome achieved.
6. One month prior to the commencement of Stage Two (as detailed in the
Bairnsdale Grey-
headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan) and on the same date
every subsequent year in which
removal of habitat or
emergency dispersal occurs, the
person taking the action must submit a report to the
Minister that addresses the following:
a) Details of the activities undertaken that year relating to
removal of habitat or
emergency dispersal;
b) Details of the associated outcomes of these activities;
c) The data collected (in accordance with these conditions of approval and the
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action
Plan);
d) Information about the health, condition and location of
Grey-headed Flying-fox
colonies in the
Bairnsdale region;
e) Details of how information gained has been incorporated into the future management
of
Grey-headed Flying-fox (adaptive management), including, but not limited to, the
future
removal of habitat or
dispersal activities associated with the action;
f) Details of any activities planned to occur in the following year;
g) Written and signed confirmation by a
suitably qualified ecologist verifying the
accuracy of the data, information, analysis and conclusions contained within the
report; and
h) Raw data must be made available to the
Department upon request.
7. Five days prior to the
commencement of the action, the person taking the action must
advise the
Department verbally and in writing of the actual date of
commencement.
Page 3 of 6
8. The person taking the action must maintain accurate records substantiating all activities
associated with or relevant to the conditions of approval, including measures taken to
implement the management plans required by this approval, and make them available upon
request to the
Department. Such records may be subject to audit by the
Department or an
independent auditor in accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act, or used to verify
compliance with the conditions of approval. Summaries of audits will be posted on the
Department’s website. The results of audits may also be publicised through the general
media.
9. Within three months of every 12 month anniversary of the
commencement of the action,
the person taking the action must publish a report on their website addressing compliance
with each of the conditions of this approval, including implementation of any management
plans as specified in the conditions. Documentary evidence providing proof of the date of
publication and non-compliance with any of the conditions of this approval must be provided
to the
Department at the same time as the compliance report is published.
Non-compliance
with any of the conditions of this approval must be reported to the
Department within 48
hours of the non-compliance occurring.
10. Upon the direction of the
Minister, the person taking the action must ensure that an
independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is conducted and a report
submitted to the
Minister. The independent auditor must be approved by the
Minister prior
to the commencement of the audit. Audit criteria must be agreed to by the
Minister and the
audit report must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the
Minister.
11. If the person taking the action wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in accordance
with the management plans as specified in the conditions
, the person taking the action must
submit to the
Department for the
Minister’s written approval a revised version of that
management plan. The varied activity shall not commence until the
Minister has approved
the varied management plan in writing. The
Minister will not approve a varied management
plan unless the revised management plan would result in an equivalent or improved
environmental outcome over time. If the
Minister approves the revised management plan,
that management plan must be implemented in place of the management plan originally
approved.
12. If the
Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better protection of
listed
threatened species and communities to do so, the
Minister may request that the person
taking the action make specified revisions to the management plans specified in the
conditions
and submit the revised management plans for the
Minister’s written approval.
The person taking the action must comply with any such request. The revised approved
management plan must be implemented. Unless the
Minister has approved the revised
management plan, then the person taking the action must continue to implement the
management plan originally approved,
as specified in the conditions.
13. If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the person taking the action has
not
substantially commenced the action, then the person taking the action must not
substantially commence the action without the written agreement of the
Minister.
14. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
Minister, the person taking the action must
publish all management plans referred to in these conditions of approval on their website.
Each management plan must be published on the website within one month of being
approved.
Definitions
Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying-fox Roost Site Strategic Management Action Plan means
the document titled
Mitchell River Revegetation Program, Bairnsdale Grey-headed Flying Fox
Roost Site, Strategic Management and Action Plan, East Gippsland Shire Council, 2014.
Bairnsdale Region means the administrative district of the city of Bairnsdale.
Page 4 of 6
Behavioural monitoring means the monitoring by a
suitably qualified ecologist of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox behaviour to identify behaviour outside of normal patterns of behaviour and
changes in those patterns. As a guide, behaviour outside of normal patterns may include
Grey-
headed Flying-fox exhibiting sickness, malnutrition, abnormal flight, disorientation, injury,
aggression towards a person undertaking an activity evidence of abandoned young, evidence of
aborted young or, at worst case, death.
Commencement means any preparatory works associated with the
removal of habitat from
the
Mitchell River Roost Site, such as the tagging of trees, introduction of machinery or
clearing of vegetation, excluding fences and signage.
Department means the Australian Government Department administering the
Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Dependant young means:
Newborn – totally dependent and carried by mother;
Flightless dependant young – dependent on mother, but no longer carried large
distances, unable to move easily around the camp; and
Flying dependant young – dependent on mother, but able to move around the
camp, can fly short distances.
Dispersal means any action, including, but not limited to, active physical harassment, taken to
remove
Grey-headed Flying-fox from a site of habitation.
Emergency dispersal means a
dispersal response to be undertaken if
Grey-headed Flying-
fox relocate to an area where:
a) Public health is at immediate risk (this includes, but is not limited to, within 100
metres of a hospital or educational institution);
b) There is potential for the spread of disease through vectors
(this includes, but is
not be limited to, within 100 metres of a racecourse or horse stud property); and
c) Anything else, as agreed with the
Department.
Grey-headed Flying-fox means the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as
vulnerable under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat means any patch of land, including non-native vegetation,
which may be used by the native flying-fox species
Pteropus poliocephalus listed as vulnerable
under the
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, to forage, breed,
shelter or disperse, as determined by a
suitably qualified ecologist.
Flightless dependant young means
Grey-headed Flying-fox that are dependent on their
mother, but no longer carried large distances and that are unable to move easily around the
camp.
Heat Stress Event means a hot weather event lasting one day or more that is extremely
stressful and harmful to animals, defined as when temperatures exceed 35°C before 31
December or 38°C over consecutive days from 1 January.
Hot Day means a day when the ambient temperature is predicted to reach 30°C before 10am
AEST, or reach greater than 35°C over the day.
Hotline means a point of contact, where members of the public can contact the person taking
the action to report any injured
Grey-headed Flying-fox, the establishment of a new camp of
Grey-headed Flying-fox and to discuss general concerns regarding
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Page 5 of 6
Listed threatened species and communities means a matter listed under sections 18
and 18A of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, specifically the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Mitchell River Roost Site means the 0.5 hectare area defined at Appendix A as
Grey-headed
Flying-fox habitat along the Mitchell River, Bairnsdale, within which
removal of habitat is to
occur.
Minister means the Minister administering the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 and includes a delegate of the Minister.
Passive measure means actions that do not involve active physical harassment of
Grey-
headed Flying-fox, which allow for ongoing maintenance of a successful dispersal area and
that act as a deterrent against the animals re-establishing at the site, including, but not limited
to, the trimming of branches and removal of limbs. It does not include the permanent
removal
of habitat critical to the survival of
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Removal of habitat means the cutting down, felling, thinning, logging, removing, killing,
destroying, poisoning, ring-barking, uprooting or burning of
Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat.
Stop work triggers means site or animal conditions that indicate that the activity should cease.
Substantially commence means
the
removal of habitat at the
Mitchell River Roost Site.
Suitably qualified ecologist means a practising ecologist with tertiary qualifications from a
recognised institute and demonstrated expertise in scientific methodology, animal or
conservation biology in relation to the
Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Appendix A
Page 6 of 6
FOI 170701
Document 8
EPBC Ref: 2009/5017
The Hon Matthew Guy MLC
Minister for Planning
Level 20
1 Spring Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3001
Dear Minister
Decision on approval
East Gippsland Shire Council Poplar Removal Program – Grey-headed Flying-fox
(Pteropus poliocephalus) Summer Camp, Bairnsdale, Victoria (EPBC 2009/5017)
I am writing to you in relation to a proposal by the East Gippsland Shire Council to remove 0.5
hectares of poplar trees as part of the East Gippsland Shire Council’s poplar removal program,
which provide a ‘summer camp’ roost site for Grey-headed Flying-foxes in Bairnsdale, Victoria.
I have considered the proposal in accordance with Part 9 of the
Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and have decided to grant an approval to the
East Gippsland Shire Council. A notice of my decision is attached for your information.
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the project manager,
s22
, by email to s22
@environment.gov.au, or telephone
02 6274 s22 and quote the EPBC reference number shown at the beginning of this letter.
Yours sincerely
James Tregurtha
Assistant Secretary
South-Eastern Australia Environment Assessments Branch
April 2014
GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone 02 6274 1111 Facsimile 02 6274 1666
www.environment.gov.au
FOI 170701
Document 9
EPBC Ref: 2009/5017
Ms Kate Nelson
Director Planning & Community
East Gippsland Shire Council
P.O. BOX 1618
BAIRNSDALE VIC 3875
Dear Ms Nelson
Decision on approval
East Gippsland Shire Council Poplar Removal Program – Grey-headed Flying-fox
(Pteropus poliocephalus) Summer Camp, Bairnsdale, Victoria (EPBC 2009/5017)
I am writing to you in relation to a proposal to remove 0.5 hectares of poplar trees as part of the
East Gippsland Shire Council’s poplar removal program, which provide a ‘summer camp’ roost
site for Grey-headed Flying-foxes in Bairnsdale, Victoria.
I have considered the proposal in accordance with Part 9 of the
Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and have decided to grant an approval to the
East Gippsland Shire Council. The details of my decision are attached. The proposal must be
undertaken in accordance with the conditions specified in the approval.
I would appreciate your assistance by informing me when you start the action and also who will
be the contact person responsible for the administration of the approval decision.
Please note any plans required as conditions of approval will be regarded as public documents
unless you provide sufficient justification to warrant commercial-in-confidence status.
You should also note that this EPBC Act approval does not affect obligations to comply with any
other laws of the Commonwealth, state or territory that are applicable to the action. Neither does
this approval confer any right, title or interest that may be required to access land or waters to
take the action.
The Department has an active audit program for proposals that have been referred or approved
under the EPBC Act. The audit program aims to ensure that proposals are implemented as
planned and that there is a high degree of compliance with any associated conditions. Please
note that your project may be selected for audit by the Department at any time and all related
records and documents may be subject to scrutiny. Information about the Department’s
compliance monitoring and auditing program is enclosed.
The Department has recently published an
Environmental Impact Assessment Client Service
Charter (the Charter) which outlines the department’s commitments when undertaking
environmental impact assessments under the EPBC Act. A copy of the Charter can be found at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/index.html. Should you have any feedback on
the environmental impact assessment process, please send them through to
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx .
GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone 02 6274 1111 Facsimile 02 6274 1666
www.environment.gov.au
If you have any questions about this decision, please contact the project manager,
s22
, by email to s22
@environment.gov.au, or telephone 02 6274
s22
and quote the EPBC reference number shown at the beginning of this letter.
Yours sincerely
James Tregurtha
Assistant Secretary
South-Eastern Australia Enviornment Assessments Branch
April 2014
cc. s22
, Roadside Pest Plant Officer, East Gippsland Shire Council
2
