Lower Hunter Koala Study
Final
Funded by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities through the Sustainable
Regional Development Program
June 2013
Lower Hunter Koala Study
DOCUMENT TRACKING
ITEM
D E TA I L
Project Name
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Project Number
12SYDNRM-003
Robert Mezzatesta
Project Manager
PO Box 20529 World Square, NSW 2002
(02) 8536 8650
Prepared by
Sophie Powrie, Daniel McKenzie, Andrea Sabella, Mark Walton, Steve Ward
Approved by
SW
Status
FINAL
Version Number
1
Last saved on
8 February 2016
Koala photo from 2004 Port Stephens Community Monitoring Survey; Expert Koala
Cover photos
Workshop Feb 2013, Newcastle; Map of Data Audit Results Point Koala Records @
February 2013, ELA
This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2013. Lower Hunter Koala Study. Prepared for
Dept Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’.
Creative Commons
This report is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Paul Keighley and
Alistair Cockburn, SEWPaC. We gratefully acknowledge the input of the expert workshop participants;
Anthony Marchment (PSC), Dan Lunney (OEH), David Paull (PSC), Geoff Bartlett (HKPS), Indrie Miller
(OEH), Lucas Grenadier (OEH), Mark Roselle (PSC), Paul Keighley (SEWPaC), Ray Williams (Ecotone)
and Robbie Economos (LMCC).
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
Australian Government or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth
does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage
that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
i
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1
1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1
Context ......................................................................................................................................... 3
1.2
Study Brief .................................................................................................................................... 3
2
Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1
Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2
Existing knowledge of Koala populations and habitat in the Lower Hunter ................................. 5
2.3
Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................................................. 6
2.4
Koala Habitat modelling ................................................................................................................ 6
3
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1
Koala Ecology ............................................................................................................................. 14
3.2
Historical Distribution in the Lower Hunter ................................................................................. 15
3.3
Present Population Distribution .................................................................................................. 15
3.4
Tree species ............................................................................................................................... 17
3.5
Habitat modelling ........................................................................................................................ 17
3.5.1
Model Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 26
4
Discussion................................................................................................................................. 27
4.1
What is the current population number of koalas in the Lower Hunter region? ......................... 27
4.2
What is the rate of change in this population and has this rate changed? What are the major
and minor causes behind this? ................................................................................................... 27
4.3
What criteria should be used to identify high priority habitat areas? .......................................... 27
4.4
What is the current extent and quality of koala habitat in the region? ....................................... 28
4.5
What are the local key threatening processes and recommended conservation measures for
koalas to assist with decision making for the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and Regional
Conservation Plan? .................................................................................................................... 29
5
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 32
6
References ................................................................................................................................ 34
Appendix A............................................................................................................................................. 39
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
ii
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Abbreviations
ABBREVIATION
DESCRIPTION
CKPoM
Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management
ERIN
Environmental Resource Information Network
GDE
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem
GHM
Greater Hunter Mapping (version 4 by NSW Office of Environment and Heritage)
GIS
Geographical Information System
HKPS
Hunter Koala Preservation Society
LGA
Local Government Area
LH
Lower Hunter
LM
Lake Macquarie
NATF
Native Animal Trust Fund
OEH
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
PSC
Port Stephens Council
SEWPaC
Dept Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
iii
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Executive Summary
This study was commissioned by the Department of Sustainability Environment, Water, Population and
Communities (SEWPaC) to contribute to regional sustainability planning that will lead into a strategic
assessment of future development in the Lower Hunter region under the Commonwealth Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The study area included the Local
Government Areas (LGAs) of Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle, and Port Stephens.
This study utilises existing data available in the public domain to inform specific key information gaps
regarding conservation planning needs of the koala in the Lower Hunter. The koala is listed as a
vulnerable species in NSW under the EPBC Act and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995 (TSC Act).
The koala population at Port Stephens is a high profile one, and considerable research work has been
undertaken within the LGA, but nevertheless, there remain information gaps for this area. The level of
knowledge of the koala within the other LGA’s in the study area is poor, with much less information
available for this study.
Due to these data limitations, it is not possible to provide a reliable population estimate of the koala for
the Lower Hunter region. Within Port Stephens, where more data is available, the koala population is
estimated to be between 350 and 500 individuals (Phillips et al. 1996). A number of koala sightings
have been recorded in the Cessnock and Lake Macquarie LGAs, but population size(s) are unknown.
It is similarly not possible to reliably estimate rate of change of koala populations within the region.
However anecdotal observations from Port Stephens LGA suggest that changes in koala numbers are
not uniform, with some areas decreasing and one population at Boat Harbour/One Mile reported to be
increasing.
The current extent and quality of habitat across the Lower Hunter was modelled as part of this study,
based on input from an expert workshop and a GIS modelling process. The resulting outputs were
converted to low, moderate, high and very high koala habitat rankings. The greatest areas of very high
and high ranked habitat were mapped in Port Stephens, Cessnock, and Lake Macquarie LGA’s. The
Newcastle and Maitland LGA’s contained very little priority habitat and may therefore act as a barrier to
koala movements in between population(s) in the Port Stephens LGA and Cessnock / Lake Macquarie
LGA’s.
A range of key threatening processes for the koala within the Lower Hunter study area were identified
including (but not limited to): loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat both at a fine and large
scale; barriers to habitat connectivity (including natural and manmade structures); road fatalities;
predation by dogs; disease (Chlamydia and other diseases); fire (including both control burns and
natural fire); climate change; and groundwater abstraction (where it impacts on koala habitat).
Conserving patches of greater than 100 ha with koala feed and roosting tree species; and seeking to
incorporate connectivity between patches for koalas; were considered to be high priority conservation
areas for koalas.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
1
Lower Hunter Koala Study
As a result of this study, it is recommended that:

Outcomes of this study should be incorporated into regional and local conservation planning in
the Lower Hunter.

Ongoing refinement of the model should be carried out as more specific or relevant information
becomes available. This may include review by an expert working group, refinement of criteria
weightings and the inclusion of newer or more targeted data sets as they become available
(particularly updated regional vegetation classification).

Testing of modelled habitat value should be undertaken prior to its adoption into local and
regional planning to support long-term conservation of koala populations in the Lower Hunter.
For example, population genetic analysis, field based koala pellet surveys and community
surveys could be conducted.

High priority conservation areas outlined in this study that are located outside of existing
protected areas (such as National Parks) should be considered for long-term protection.

Regional and local conservation planning should consider protecting existing connectivity and
enhancing connectivity of koala habitat patches that are within 100m of another patch.

Regional and local conservation planning should consider management of threats to koalas,
including dogs, barriers to movement (road/rail), fire, disease and climate change.

Ideally, monitoring of outcomes for koala populations should be undertaken. It is noted that this
would require substantial resources due to the cryptic nature of the koala. However, given the
recognisable nature of the koala and the public interest in this species, engagement with the
community and key stakeholders may provide a qualitative form of monitoring through some (or
all) of the region, though it is noted that this would not provide quantitative data on population
size or change, which would require more formalised scientific formal studies.

Koala research findings, and potential application of mitigation measures, should feed back into
koala recovery planning processes as part of an adaptive management framework. Such a
framework should include community, stakeholder and expert engagement.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
2
Lower Hunter Koala Study
1
Introduction
1.1
CO NT E XT
The Lower Hunter Koala Study was commissioned by the Department of Sustainability Environment,
Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) under the Sustainable Regional Development
program (the program). The program facilitates regional sustainability planning that will lead to a
strategic assessment of future urban development and associated infrastructure in the Lower Hunter
region. This study is designed to address a key information gap for the strategic assessment.
1.2
ST UDY B RI EF
This study is designed to collate existing knowledge of koala populations, habitat areas and
conservation requirements across the study area in order to inform conservation planning for the
Koala in the Lower Hunter. The Lower Hunter study area is made up of the Newcastle, Lake
Macquarie, Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens Local Government Areas (Figure 1). It is
acknowledged that this study is one part of effective, long term koala conservation that will require a
combination of good land use planning, active species management and mitigation actions. This, in
turn, will need a collective effort from multiple stakeholders, guided by the Koala Recovery planning
framework.
Figure 1: Lower Hunter study area
The driver for this study is the regional sustainability planning process and accordingly it poses a
series of structured questions:
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
3
Lower Hunter Koala Study
•
What is the current population number of koalas in the Lower Hunter region?
•
What is the rate of change in this population and has this rate changed? What are the
major and minor causes behind this?
•
What is the current extent and quality of koala habitat in the region?
•
What criteria should be used to identify high priority habitat areas?
•
What are the local key threatening processes and recommended conservation measures
for koalas to assist with decision making for the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and
Regional Conservation Plan?
The parameters of this study were to make use of existing data available in the public domain to inform
the conservation planning needs of koala in the Lower Hunter and identify priority research areas that
could be considered for future funding. Therefore, this study does not include any new field surveys for
the Koala.
The intention of the project is to collate all of the known available records and koala knowledge in the
region to inform predictive habitat mapping, population estimates and trends and prioritise areas for
conservation consideration. The study methods use predictive, spatial modelling informed by point
records and known koala habitat requirements in combination with local expert knowledge. Point
records are largely sourced from the NSW Wildlife Atlas and are therefore assumed to be a combination
of systematic survey as well as opportunistic or ad hoc observations.
The results of the predictive habitat maps and koala population information may be used to inform
conservation land planning decisions at a regional scale. This regional scale perspective can assist
strategic planners in prioritising areas for further research where more refined information is required
and can assist in protecting high priority koala habitat areas.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
4
Lower Hunter Koala Study
2
Methods
2.1
O V E RV I EW
This study applied a systematic approach to building a knowledge base on Lower Hunter koalas to
inform the planning recommendations. The process comprised the following steps;
Step 1
Review existing available literature, spatial data audit including contextual landscape
information
Stakeholder and expert consultation to draw on local knowledge and more broadly on
species expertise and conservation planning experience
Step 2
Stakeholder and expert knowledge of historical variations in koala numbers and trends in
rate of decline and habitat dynamics form an essential information source for this study in
light of the paucity of population studies across the whole study area
Develop key criteria to define and map all koala habitat in the Lower Hunter
Step 3
Develop criteria to identify high priority habitat areas
Step 4
Data analysis and spatial modelling undertaken in a geographic information system (GIS)
Step 5
Analysis of results
Step 6
Report key recommendations regarding conservation and threats to Koala to support
regional planning and management in the Lower Hunter region
Step 7
Peer review by independent expert (Dr Tim Curran, Department of Ecology, Faculty of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, Lincoln University, NZ)
2.2
E XI ST I NG KNO W L ED G E O F KO AL A P O PU L AT I O N S AN D H AB I T AT IN
T HE L O W E R H UNT E R
In order to collate and build on existing knowledge of koala in the Lower Hunter, this study included a
broad literature and data search of library resources, planning reports, council studies, carer group
records and academic studies. The literature and data search had two specific goals;
1. to obtain as much information as possible on known records and habitat for koalas in the study
area; and
2. to draw on research findings from other areas that may be applied to inform the study methods
or recommendations.
SEWPaC had previously conducted a wide literature search on general koala ecology and requirements
as part of the EPBC koala referral policy development.
The literature search included over 210 documents ranging from scientific research papers to koala
plans of management and policy documents. A synopsis of key findings that are relevant to this study
is included in this report.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
5
Lower Hunter Koala Study
There is a substantial information base on koalas in the Port Stephens area that has contributed to this
study. In addition, there are local area studies in parts of Cessnock and Lake Macquarie local
government areas, as well as a number of development related studies across the study area.
However, the geographically disparate nature of this data is a key challenge for this study addressing
regional koala protection.
2.3
ST AK E HO L DE R CO N SU LT AT IO N
As part of this study a wide group of local, regional, state and federal stakeholders were informed of the
study process and invited to contribute through provision of species information, spatial data or
information on related planning initiatives. An initial letter of introduction from SEWPaC was distributed
to an agreed list of stakeholders by email and follow up phone calls made to interview key stakeholders.
Following is summary of initial responses from the stakeholder groups.
State Government Agencies:


Department of Planning nominated a watching brief on project outcomes.
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage participated through the provision of data, koala
expertise and regional planning expertise.
Local Government:



Newcastle, Maitland and Cessnock Councils chose to take a watching brief and be
informed of study outcomes.
Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie Council were able to provide expertise and data to
inform this study.
Hunter Councils Environment Division was able to provide data through SEWPaC’s
Environmental Resource Information Network (ERIN).
Non-government koala organisations:


Wildlife carer groups were represented by the Hunter Koala Preservation Society (HKPS)
and the Native Animal Trust Fund (NATF) and both provided community data and
expertise.
The Australian Koala Foundation provided information regarding Koalas in the Medowie
area (Port Stephens LGA).
Following the initial stakeholder consultation, 17 koala and local experts were invited to attend a
workshop to discuss the koala habitat conservation requirements in the study area, of whom 13 were
able to participate. The workshop was held 19th February 2013 in Newcastle, NSW. The outcomes of
the workshop have been used to guide the mapping methods and conservation recommendations.
2.4
KO AL A H AB IT AT M O DE LL I NG
The Study identified criteria for priority koala habitat across the Lower Hunter by applying a systematic,
expert-driven spatial model using the best available data using geographic information system tools.
These criteria were discussed at the expert workshop and the expert-driven model was nominated as
the best representation of environmental data with varying sources of uncertainty.
The discussion and definition of the criteria for the model was informed by previous koala modelling
methods that have been applied in the Lower Hunter (see Table 1); other model research results; and
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
6
Lower Hunter Koala Study
most importantly, on the outcomes of the expert discussions at the workshop regarding local habitat
requirements and data limitations to predict koala habitat in the study area.
Table 1: Key predictors of Koala Habitat in models derived from broad-scale environmentally stratified
surveys (Cork et al. 2000b).
Details of survey and analysis
Study
Location
Key predictors of koala habitat
Data
Analysis
NSW National
Parks and
Northeast NSW
Wildlife Service
(79,000 km2)
932 presences
Generalised
additive modelling
(1994)
Kavanagh et al.
Northeast NSW
40 presences, 251
(1995)
(15,000 km2)
absences
Canonical
correspondence
analysis
Cork et al.
Northeast NSW
31 presences, 515
Generalised linear
(1997)
(26,000 km2)
absences
modelling
Gentle topography, high proportion of
adjacent areas cleared, low probability of
dry sclerophyll on site, low to moderate
moisture index, deep soil, moderate
rainfall
(1500-2500mm),
moderate
disturbance low ruggedness, south or
north latitude within study area
Low elevation, wet sclerophyll forest with
dense understory, greater probability of
occurrence in previously logged than
unlogged forest, easterly longitude, few
hollow trees
Model 1: low foliar phenolics, increasing
probability of occurrence with years since
fire
Model 2: low (<1000mm ) or high
(>1500mm) rainfall, increasing probability
of occurrence with years since fire,
intermediate to high ratio of eucalypts to
other tree species, increasing probability
of occurrence with increasing annual
daily mean temperature of 10-180 C
Within Port Stephens, the most important determinant of the probability of koala presence, averaged
across the landscape, is the distribution of primary/ secondary habitat, with anthropogenic factors such
as road density and dog ownership of secondary importance (Rhodes et al. 2006). This study has
found the predicted probability of koala presence increased with amount of primary /secondary habitat;
and the predicted probability of koala presence decreased as road density increased (Rhodes et al.
2006). Therefore, this study has mapped potential candidate habitat areas based on ecological
suitability and then constrained that footprint by measures of patch distance and road density (grid
based).
Expert discussions to drive the model definition at the workshop included the identification of
appropriate data types for the model and relevant data sources; as well as a definition of methods and
the criteria for specific use of the data within the context of the Lower Hunter. A summary of the
following inputs and criteria for the model includes:







Feed trees (preferred / supplementary)
Soil landscape (high soil fertility)
Vegetation types
Proximity to water
Large patch sizes not intersected by major infrastructure
Recorded koala sightings
Linear barriers defined as major roads and railway corridors.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
7
Lower Hunter Koala Study
The model is based on numerous vegetation map inputs, with the Greater Hunter Vegetation Mapping
(version 4) as the base where more detailed vegetation mapping data was not available. There are a
number of variations in vegetation classification across each of the (five) vegetation mapping products
used. However, a rudimentary study area wide map of proportional abundance (limited to a high
moderate or low rating) of preferred primary, secondary and supplementary tree species within a
vegetation classification unit was able to be compiled from the various inputs based on supporting
information available for each of the mapping products used.
Figure 2 shows the conceptual pathway recommended as an outcome of the workshop.
explanation of each model variable is provided in Table 2.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
A brief
8
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Koala Habitat Value
Patch size
Vegetation type
Soil Types
GHM v4 modified (Base
Infrastructure
Proximity to water
layer)
Composite vegetation
Driscoll v5)
50m buffer to creeks (3rd
Port Stephens
Lake Macquarie (Bell &
Fertile soil selection
order +) + intersect with
Major roads
Major rail
preferred vegetation
map 2011
types
Yengo (DECC 2008b)
Cessnock Kurri Kurri
Literature & previous
(Bell & Driscoll)
studies
Documented preferred
Point Records (prior to
tree species
1985, post 1986)
94 soil types intersect
with point records
Output
Derived input
Raw input
Assign
presence
(or
Analysis / Treatment
proportional abundance)
rating to vegetation type
Figure 2: Spatial model pathway to map potential koala habitat in the Lower Hunter
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
9
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Table 2: Model Inputs
Preferred Tree Species
Description
Primary & Secondary feed tree species
Supplementary tree species used for shelter (temperature/weather), roosting, dispersal
List of species distilled from
Sources
-
-
Previous studies (published reports)
Expert knowledge
Analysis of GIS intersect of koala records and vegetation types (GHM v4)
Selection of vegetation types known to have preferred koala tree species (of all
categories)
Usage
The proportional abundance of specific tree species in a vegetation community type
was assigned to map polygon (where available), however, these statistics are usually
an average representation of composite species and on-ground composition will vary
among stands.
Most koala habitat models are based on reports of the tree species that koalas use for
food and shelter. The general consensus of these models is that koalas use few
eucalypt species intensively at any given site but often use other eucalypts and some
non-eucalypts less intensively (Cork et al. 2000b).
Rationale
Tree species that are known to be preferred by koalas for food occur in the study area
(Matthews et al. 2007, Phillips et al. 2000, Curtin & Lunney 1995). However, koalas do
not feed equally on all “food” tree species. Individual tree selection, or palatability, is
thought to be context-dependent and influenced by nutrient foliar levels and leaf
moisture content (Moore et al. 2010, Moore and Foley 2005).
In addition, koalas are known to use a variety of other tree species for shelter and
roosting (Ellis et al. 1995, Matthews et al. 2007). Recent studies indicate feed tree
selection may be mediated by temperature and time of day (Ellis et al 2009, Crowther
2012).
Point Records of Koala
Description
Compiled koala records
-
Sources
NSW Wildlife Atlas including
o
1986/87 statewide survey (Reed et al 1989)
o
Yengo community survey 1995 (Curtin & Lunney 1995)
o
NSW public survey 2006 (Lunney et al 2009)
o
State Forest records
-
Lake Macquarie Council records
-
Port Stephens Council records
-
Carer Records including
o
Hunter Koala Preservation Society &
o
Native Animal Trust Fund
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
10
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Data accuracy –
Usage
-
1000 m accuracy is adequate due to movement potential of Koalas
-
10,000 m accuracy is inadequate
Date of Records -
0 = no record;
-
1 = prior to 1985;
-
2 = 1986 to current
Known occurrence indicates habitat use at a point in time and provides a geographic
coordinate for habitat (or movements), irrespective of quality. The records inform
general distribution irrespective of tenure; however, they do not reflect distribution limits.
The dataset is considered opportunistic rather than systematic across the whole study
area; however, the perceived geographic bias in the dataset is untested.
Rationale
Records may be intersected with model variables to determine candidate areas of
suitable habitat. This approach does not map koala abundance or site occupancy (Cork
et al 2000). Expert knowledge is applied in addition to point records to determine koala
habitat patterns in the Lower Hunter.
Workshop discussions recommended one date filter (1985) be applied to capture all
records from the 1986/87 statewide koala survey. SEWPaC are currently consulting on
3 draft date categories (pre 1990, 1990-2000 and post 2000). These 3 categories could
unnecessarily exclude point records from analysis and were not recommended for the
LH Study by the workshop.
Vegetation Map
Description
Native, extant vegetation distribution (1:25,000)
-
Whole Study area base layer = GHM v4
-
Fine scale mapping
Sources
Usage
Rationale
o
Lake Macquarie (Bell & Driscoll v5)
o
Port Stephens (composite map 2011)
o
Cessnock

Yengo and Parr (DECC 2008b)

Kurri Kurri (Bell & Driscoll 2010)
Select vegetation types known to contain preferred koala tree species, and analyse
percentage cover as a function of high, medium or low of preferred tree species where
data permits and assign primary, secondary or supplementary attribution.
Vegetation maps are used in conjunction with other environmental variables to identify
suitable habitat in large study areas that require predictive modelling approaches rather
than systematic field surveys.
Vegetation type has been established as a major predictor in identifying suitable koala
habitat in previous studies (Phillips et al. 1996, Matthews et al. 2007, Moore et al.
2010)
Soil Types
Description
Soil Landscape Maps
-
Soil Landscapes of the Gosford-Lake Macquarie 1:100,000 Sheets (Murphy
1993)
-
Soil Landscapes of the Newcastle 1:100,000 Sheet (Matthei 1995)
Sources
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
11
Lower Hunter Koala Study
-
Soil Landscapes of the Port Stephens 1:100,000 Sheet (Murphy 1995)
Select fertile soil types based on:
-
Intersect of koala point records (94 candidate soil types)
-
Published tree preferences on identified soil types
Usage
Rationale
o
Aeolian And Swamp soil landscapes of Quaternary origin
o
soil landscapes derived from Nerong and Paterson Volcanics
o
alluvial deposits of Quaternary and Permian origin (Phillips & Callaghan
1996)
The use of feed trees by Koalas is directly related to foliar nutrient levels which are a
function of soil fertility (Moore et al. 2010, Moore and Foley 2005, Phillips & Callaghan
1996).
Proximity to Water
Description
Distance to water dependent vegetation
-
Land and Property Information (Topographical) Drainage Maps
-
Bureau of Meteorology NSW Groundwater Atlas
Sources
Usage
Rationale
Buffer creek lines (3rd order steams and above) with 50m buffer. Include candidate
habitat areas where buffer intersects preferred vegetation types.
Feed tree species selection research indicates moisture content influences koala tree
selection (Moore et al. 2010). Leaf moisture content cannot be generated for this study,
however, leaf moisture is assumed to be proportionally greater where reliable surface or
groundwater source is nearby.
In addition, riparian koala habitat is considered high affinity, high density capacity
habitat (Ellis et al. 2010). Access to freshwater resources for drinking, especially as
drought refuge is important for long term koala conservation in variable climatic
conditions.
Infrastructure
Description
Presence of major infrastructure or density of minor infrastructure
-
GHM v4 major roads layer
-
Land and Property Information Infrastructure Maps
-
Major barrier roads (speed limit) & rail split remnant vegetation into 2 patches
Sources
Usage
-
o
F3 Freeway
o
Richardson Road,
o
Lemon Tree Passage Road,
o
Nelsons Bay Road,
o
Port Stephens Drive,
o
Gan Gan Road
o
Rail corridors – north/south & east/west
Other roads and infrastructure barriers that may reduce koala habitat quality
have been incorporated into the vegetation patch size indicator.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
12
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Rationale
Major roads and railway deemed to be barriers between patches even though individual
koalas will cross them (at risk of death/injury).
Patch Size
Description
Area of native, extant vegetation in remnant patches greater than 100m apart
Sources
Vegetation extent and infrastructure data as above
Usage
Patch size and context e.g. road density and other barriers used to inform habitat
categorisation.
Rationale
The expert workshop noted that koalas can cross greater distances than 100m;
however, this increases vulnerability during crossing.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
13
Lower Hunter Koala Study
3
Results
3.1
KO AL A E C O LO G Y
Koalas are largely solitary animals, however they are not territorial and individual home ranges may
overlap (SEWPaC 2012). The size of koala home ranges varies throughout the species distribution,
likely due to quality, structure and connectivity of habitat. The expert workshop found that a home
range of 10ha is expected to be suitable for supporting a few individuals in high quality habitat in the
Port Stephens area; however, one individual koala was known to live within a 2 ha home range within
Port Stephens after being forced out of its original home range due to fire. Koala populations in Yengo
National Park in the Cessnock local government area are reported to have an estimated 80ha home
range due to low quality habitat (Curtin and Lunney 1995). A dominant male’s home range usually
overlaps with those of several females, to which he maintains access during the breeding season (Cork
et al. 2000a & b).
The physiology of the Koala reflects its low nutrient diet and the need to conserve energy. Their rate of
metabolism and therefore their energy and nutrient requirements are half that of the average mammal
(Cork et al. 2000a & b). Koalas may spend up to 20 hours a day resting and sleeping, being most active
around early morning, dusk and during the night, in order to conserve water and energy (Van Dyck and
Strahan 2008; Kavanagh and Stanton 2012). This need to conserve energy may make Koalas more
vulnerable to disturbances that reduce the ability of food or increase foraging effort (Cork et al. 2000b).
Koalas weigh 4–14 kg and can live for 15+ years in the wild based on unpublished results from tagged
koalas at Campbelltown (Robert Close pers. comm). The koala’s oestrous cycle is 27–30 days, and
pregnancy generally lasts between 34 and 36 days (Cork et al. 2000a). Females give birth to a single
infant weighing about 0.5 g and 2 cm long in the warmer months of, on average, 2 out of each 3 years
(Cork et al. 2000a). Young koalas are weaned by 12 months but may remain associated with the
mother for another 11 months.
Tree use and diet choice by koalas have previously been linked, with varying degrees of support, to tree
size and species (Moore et al. 2010). More specifically, this relates to concentrations of nitrogen,
phosphorous, potassium, fibre, volatile terpenes, soluble sugars, and moisture within leaves (Moore et
al. 2010). Koalas have also been found to visit trees less frequently that contain high foliar
concentrations of deterrent plant secondary metabolites known as formulated phloroglucinol
compounds (Moore and Foley 2005). There can be variation in the palatability of browse within the
same species, and this combined with the spatial context with regards to surrounding trees affects koala
tree selection choices (Moore et al. 2010).
Koalas may also change diet and select different tree species throughout the year to reflect increased
energy requirements in winter and increased water requirements in summer (Ellis et al. 1995). Although
suitable feed trees are often thought to be the primary factor in koala distribution, the presence of large
shady trees used for diurnal shelter may also be important in some areas or during extremes of
temperature (Ellis et al. 1995, Ward 2002). Several non-food trees in the Port Stephens LGA are used
during the day (including Angophora costata, Eucalyptus signata and Corymbia. gummifera) and
selected taller trees were used more intensively during summer suggesting their use as shelter
(Matthews et al. 2007).
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
14
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Koalas feed disproportionately on a small number of tree species in relation to the total number of
eucalyptus species across the koala’s distribution. These species vary according to location and
between different koala populations. The use of feed trees by Koalas in the Port Stephens LGA is
directly related to soil fertility. The main geomorphological units preferred by Koalas are Aeolian and
Swamp soil landscapes of Quaternary origin. These soil landscapes derive from Nerong and Paterson
Volcanics and Transferral and alluvial deposits of Quaternary and Permian origin (Phillips and
Callaghan 1996).
3.2
HI ST O RI C AL DI ST RI B UT IO N IN T H E LO W E R HU NT ER
Koalas were previously widespread in eastern Australia and an intensive hunting industry developed
following an increase in population density in some regions during the late 1800s. However by 1910 the
industry had collapsed due to a shortage of Koalas (Meltzer et al. 2000).
The landscape of the Lower Hunter has been dramatically altered over the past 200 years. This has
resulted in considerable loss and fragmentation of koala habitat and the inevitable reduction in
abundance and distribution of koalas (Knott et al. 1998; Kavanagh et al. 2007; Crowther et al. 2009).
An estimated 75% reduction in Koala habitat has occurred within Port Stephens LGA since European
settlement of the area (Knott et al. 1998). As early as 1900 Koalas are thought to have disappeared
from several areas in the Lower Hunter Region such as; Maitland, Morpeth, Bolwarra, Phoenix Park,
Woodville, Wallalong, Miller’s Forest, Nelson’s Plains and Hinton (Knott et al. 1998). These areas are
now extensively cleared for agriculture and expanding urbanisation.
Estimates suggest that as much as 80% of the secondary Koala habitat categories and between 4060% of the remaining areas of primary habitat within the Port Stephens LGA are no longer utilised by
koalas (Phillips et al. 1996). Historical estimates of population size suggest well below 1000 individuals
distributed over the entire Port Stephens study area and likely between 350-500 animals in total, though
it is noted that this population estimate was noted as being “speculative but considered” (Phillips et al.
1996).
Lunney et al. (2007) undertook population viability analysis for a 7,000 ha study area within Tomago
Sandbeds in the Port Stephens LGA, of which approximately 4,000 ha was considered to be koala
habitat, bounded by Grahamstown Lake to the north, Fullerton Cove to the south, Siddons Swamp to
the west and Majors Flat to the east. This study assumed a starting population of 800 individuals based
on extrapolations from intense searches undertaken to rescue live and record dead koalas after fires
from 1994 – 1998.
3.3
PR E S E NT P O P UL AT I O N D I ST RI BUT IO N
Port Stephens LGA has a significant Koala population (PSC 2002); however, the Hunter Koala
Preservation Society noted at the expert workshop that in some areas the numbers are declining. An
indication of recorded koala sightings can be seen in Figure 3, below.
Koalas generally prefer vegetation on fertile soils and within the Hunter-Central Rivers CMA this is true
at higher elevations, whereas at low elevations koalas occupy less fertile soils. This dichotomy reflects
the nature of the extensively cleared landscape of the Hunter Valley, with development dominating the
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
15
Lower Hunter Koala Study
valley floors. Significant areas of preferred koala food trees only remain at higher elevations or on sandy
and less agriculturally productive soils at lower elevations (Crowther, McAlpine et al. 2009).
Anecdotal Evidence
Anecdotal reports from long term residents, carers (including data from the Native Animal Trust Fund
(NATF)) and ecologists can provide an insight into population trends and local population responses.
Anecdotal reports can be a valuable information source in the absence of systematic data on population
trends. In some cases the anecdotal reports can trigger research projects with a data collection
component.
Anecdotal observations were discussed in the workshop and the following comments were made:

Ray & Anne Williams used to frequently record koala sightings in their back yard in the
Medowie area. They have noticed a decline in the frequency of their observations and now
don’t find any.

Geoff Bartlett noted that Raymond Terrace used to have high koala activity, but this is no longer
the case.

Audrey Kooseman and local volunteers conducted koala searches at Tomarree Sandbeds
following bushfires and found no animals or evidence of koala activity. This suggests the
former population was depleted, relocated or eradicated.

It is noted that other anecdotal observations may be available, but was outside of the scope of
this project
Figure 3: Recorded koala sightings (source: NSW Wildlife Atlas; Lake Macquarie & Port Stephens Council
Records; NATF & HKPS carer records)
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
16
Lower Hunter Koala Study
3.4
T RE E S P E CI E S
A list of potential koala tree species was generated from a literature review (Callaghan et al. 1994,
Australian Koala Foundation 1996, Phillips et al. 2000, Port Stephens Council 2002, Biolink 2006,
DECC 2008), and presented to the expert workshop for ranking as to primary, secondary, and
supplementary koala tree species (see Appendix A for results and definition of koala tree species
terminology).
There are some instances where the group withheld input due to lack of data and supporting
knowledge. It was proposed to use the highest category of tree usage where more than one level is
attributed. It is noted that this approach is conservative and may possibly over predict koala habitat.
Some specific considerations included:

Eucalyptus camfieldii has been used in the Tomago sand mined area that has been opened up
by road construction. The workshop noted koalas are probably opportunistic to new habitats
depending on drivers for dispersal.

Feed trees in close proximity to threats (e.g. wild dogs or major roads) may not constitute
preferred habitat. However, there may be options to mitigate the impact by incorporating
management measures such exclusion fencing for major roads combined with facilities such as
underpasses and/or overpasses.
Whilst recent literature emphasises the role of supplementary tree species for other habitat needs other
than food, it is not known if there has been any systematic research whether koalas can survive in
areas without supplementary (roost) trees. The expert group concluded that koalas would adapt usage
of trees for shelter to the species available to them to complement preferred feed tree species. The use
of Callitris pine and ironbark species as shelter trees was noted by the expert group.
The workshop discussions also noted:

Most of the available information was from the eastern Port Stephens area; whilst there were
knowledge limitations across Cessnock, Maitland, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas.

Koalas in urban areas can use different species (i.e. planted species like E. nicholii) than those
in native woodland areas. This study focuses on existing mapped areas of native vegetation.

E. parramattensis is an important species. Although Tomago Sands area is highly cleared
(mining / fire), E. parramattensis is still used by Koalas in the area and will eventually regrow to
provide important rehabilitated habitat. E. parramattensis potentially occurs in large areas of
Lake Macquarie City Council area, but only a small area is known within the Morisset area. E.
Parramattensis subsp decadens is also a co-dominant canopy species in the Kurri Sand
Swamp Woodland EEC, which occurs near Kurri Kurri in the Cessnock LGA.
3.5
H AB IT AT M O DELL IN G
The conceptual model pathway recommended by the workshop and literature review was used to
source and prepare a number of relevant spatial data sets and compile the expert driven model
identifying koala habitat across the landscape of the Lower Hunter. The spatial modelling was carried
out using GIS analysis as an expert driven model which combined all the spatial datasets into a single
dataset depicting relative value for koala habitat across the landscape of the Lower Hunter.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
17
Lower Hunter Koala Study
The components of the spatial data model or multi-criteria analysis are presented below in Table 3. The
process included the development of appropriate scoring and weighting for each recommended data
variable identified through the workshop process. The multi-criteria analysis process of combining
specific, agreed data sets is a recognised technique, identified as suitable for complex decisions which
involve the comparison of decision elements which can be difficult to quantify; and ranks and prioritises
values using decision analysis tools to summarise comparisons of the items importance (Saaty 1980;
Crossman et al. 2009; Mendoza and Macoun 1999).
The ranking and weightings associated with each data set were derived based on discussions of the
relative importance for each of the data sources with relevant experts and through the literature review.
This process was based on a Delphi technique (Linstone & Turoff 1975) to rank and prioritise the
variables. The rationale for each variable criterion is defined in Table 2.
The analysis was then carried out using GIS to combine all the spatial datasets into a single dataset.
The base score derived for each data set was normalised (between 0 and 100) in order for data set
scores to be measured with the same numerical scale and eliminate any numerical bias in the
calculation (Zeiler 1999).
All scores for each dataset were spatially maintained as separate attributes within the derived dataset.
An interim weighting was applied to the two data sets representing feed trees preferred by koalas,
depending on whether they were representing vegetation types containing primary or secondary feed
tree species.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
18
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Table 3: Data preparation, scores and weighting
Base Data
Derived Layer Name
Description
Values
Vegetation
Primary Feed Trees [allveg_prim]
Selection of vegetation types known to
have primary preferred koala tree
species with the proportional abundance
of the specific tree species within the
vegetation type identified as either Nil,
low, moderate or high
0, 20, 50, 100
Weighting
x3
0 = outside of any
vegetation classification
containing identified
primary feed trees.
20 (60) = vegetation types
An initial multiplier of x3 (score depicted
in brackets in values column prior to
application of the additional model
weighting) was applied to these data to
distinguish from secondary feed or
supplementary tree species
with a low proportion of
primary feed trees
50 (150) = vegetation types
with a moderate proportion
of primary feed trees
100 (300) = vegetation
types with a high
proportion of primary feed
trees
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
19
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Base Data
Derived Layer Name
Description
Values
Vegetation
Secondary Feed Trees [allveg_sec]
Selection of vegetation types known to
have secondary preferred koala tree
species with the proportional abundance
of the specific tree species within the
vegetation type identified as either Nil,
low, moderate or high
0, 20, 50, 100
An initial multiplier of x2 (score depicted
in brackets in values column prior to
application of the additional model
weighting) was applied to these data to
distinguish from primary feed or
supplementary tree species
Weighting
x2
0 = outside of any
vegetation classification
containing identified
secondary feed trees.
20 (40) = vegetation types
with a low proportion of
secondary feed trees
50 (100) = vegetation types
with a moderate proportion
of secondary feed trees
100 (200) = vegetation
types with a high
proportion of secondary
feed trees
Vegetation
Supplementary Trees [allveg_supp]
Selection of vegetation types known to
have supplementary tree species
supporting shelter and roosting for koala
with the proportional abundance of the
specific tree species within the
vegetation type identified as either Nil,
low, moderate or high
0, 20, 50, 100
x1
0 = outside of any
vegetation classification
containing identified
supplementary trees.
20 = vegetation types with
a low proportion of
supplementary trees
50 = vegetation types with
a moderate proportion of
supplementary trees
100 = vegetation types with
a high proportion of
supplementary trees
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
20
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Base Data
Derived Layer Name
Description
Values
Soil / Landscape
Soil Fertility [soilfert]
Identification of areas with high soil fertility
0 or 100.
Weighting
x2
0 = outside of identified
fertile soils.
100 = within identified
fertile soils
Extant
Vegetation
Vegetation proximity to Water [veg_waterprox]
Extant vegetation within 50m of 3rd order or
0 or 100
higher drainage lines
0 = outside identified buffer
x2
100 = within identified
buffer
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
21
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Base Data
Derived Layer Name
Description
Values
Koala Records
Buffered Koala Sightings [koala]
100m buffer around known recorded
0, 75 or 100.
sightings of Koala.
0 = not within 100m of a
Weighting
x1
known record.
NB. Not a comprehensive data set, based on
75 = within 100m of a
areas where sightings have been recorded
known record dated 1985
only.
or earlier
100 = within 100m of a
known record dated 1986
or later
Infrastructure –
1:25,000
Distance to Infrastructure [dist_road]
300m buffer around identified and mapped
Score from 0 to 100.
major barriers to Koala movement.
0 = within 300m of
x3
identified infrastructure,
100 = 300m or greater
from identified
infrastructure
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
22
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Base Data
Derived Layer Name
Description
Values
Vegetation and
disturbance
Patch Size [patch]
The size of a patch of vegetation. A patch is
Score from 0 to 100.
defined as an area of consolidated
0 = smallest patch size to
vegetation that is separated from other
patches by more than 100m by mapped
infrastructure to represent consolidated koala
Weighting
x3
100 = patch at least 100ha
in size
habitat.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
23
Lower Hunter Koala Study
The final part of the analysis combined all the scores from each derived layer and applied the
weightings identified in Table 3 to calculate the koala habitat value index.
The values for each data set are added and multiplied by the assigned weighting (as defined in Table 3
above) to calculate a habitat value score using the following equation:
Koala
Habitat
Value
=
{(allveg_prim*3) + (allveg_sec*2) + (allveg_supp) + (soilfert*2) +
(veg_waterprox*2) + (koala) + (dist_road*3) + (Patch*3)}
The final score (from 0 – 2400) was then normalised to provide a habitat value index from 0-100.
The calculated index was then converted into four relative koala habitat value classes based on a
quartile classification of the resultant data. The quartile classification is a grouping of the resultant data
values into an even distribution of four equal groups, each group comprising of a quarter of the data.
The data distribution can be seen in the graph below. The identified quartile break points defining the
four classes were at 19, 33 and 48.
Koala Habitat Value Index
The four classes across the Lower Hunter study area to determine koala habitat value can be defined
as:

Lower koala habitat value (0 - 19) – Areas that have little or no identified mapped values for
koala habitat within the landscape. The majority of these areas are highly disturbed,
fragmented or urbanised.

Moderate koala habitat value (20 - 33) – Areas that have some mapped koala habitat values
within the landscape. In most cases the values within this category will provide supporting
habitat for koala in the area.

High koala habitat value (34 - 48) – Areas with priority koala habitat values. These areas will
include a large proportion of the criteria for koala habitat and provide an important resource for
koalas in the area.

Very High koala habitat value (49 - 100) – An accumulation of priority values for koala habitat.
These areas contain the majority of or even all values identified as criteria meeting priority koala
habitat within the Lower Hunter area.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
24
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Koala Habitat Value Classes
Koala Habitat Value Index
Weighted Data Variables
Figure 4 summarises the analysis based on the criteria defined above.
Figure 4: Derivation of koala habitat value model
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
25
Lower Hunter Koala Study
3.5.1 Model Limitations
This study reports on the initial version of the model based on the outcomes of the expert workshop
carried out as part of this study. It is expected that following further expert working group review there
may be small refinements to both the data available for use in the model as well as weighting of criteria.
The process has been specifically developed so that it may be re-run as future refinements are
identified. Specific known limitations that may be refined in the future include:




The assessment and model is landscape based; therefore the resolution of the information
is restricted to approximately 1:25,000
The habitat model is based on a desktop analysis of the data available at the time of
analysis and the majority of more detailed information was available for the eastern Port
Stephens area, with distinct knowledge limitations (particularly for koala record sightings) in
the Cessnock, Maitland, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas.
Potential data uncertainties may arise from input sources; for example, specific areas of
vegetation type can be misclassified or over/under estimated within discrete datasets;
different scales, accuracy and currency can also affect spatial accuracy and uncertainty
when combined.
The model may, in some areas show an overestimation of priority koala habitat due to
some of the contributing data sets. These include some areas of the soil landscape
mapping which has been identified as “areas of high soil fertility”, such as soils derived
from Aeolian and swamp landscapes around the Stockton Bight dune area, where there is
in fact more subtle variations that are primarily linked with particular vegetation species (Dr
Tim Curran, pers com. 2013).
The availability of additional information or of more detailed data following this process, such as
additional specific field survey information may modify or refine the outcomes of the model. It is also
understood that regional vegetation mapping is currently being undertaken that could be included in an
update or refinement to the model.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
26
Lower Hunter Koala Study
4
Discussion
4.1
W H AT I S T HE C UR R E NT PO P UL AT IO N NU M BER O F KO AL AS IN T HE
LO W E R HU NT E R RE G IO N?
It is difficult to estimate the koala population size within the Lower Hunter region. As stated in TSSC
(2012) “Estimates of koala population size at regional and national levels remain highly divergent and
contested. For many regions, there have been no surveys or published population estimates”. The
situation for the Lower Hunter region is similar, with no koala population estimates available for the
Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, and Newcastle LGA’s.
Some population estimates have been derived for the Port Stephens LGA, however, with Phillips et al.
(1996) concluding that historical estimates of population size suggest well below 1000 individuals
distributed over the entire Port Stephens LGA area and likely between 350-500 animals in total. Later
population viability analysis modelling by Lunney et al. (2007) utilised a starting population within their
study area of 7,000 ha of the Tomago sandbeds of 800 individuals.
The Cessnock and Lake Macquarie LGAs both have a number of reported koala sightings as well as
areas classed as both ‘high’ and ‘very high’ koala habitat value from the koala habitat modelling results
from this study. Due to the areas of potential habitat present there may be koalas present, which even
if occurring at low density could potentially be a population of approximately the same order as within
Port Stephens. However, as no density estimates area available it is not possible to provide a koala
population estimate within the Lower Hunter outside of the Port Stephens LGA.
In conclusion, due to a paucity of data, it is not possible to provide a reliable population estimate of the
koala within the Lower Hunter region.
4.2
W H AT I S T HE R AT E O F C H AN G E I N T HI S PO P UL AT IO N AN D H AS T HI S
R AT E C H AN G ED ? W H AT AR E T H E M AJ O R AN D M IN O R C AU S E S
BE HI ND T HI S?
As a reliable population estimate is not currently available, it is similarly not possible to provide a
reliable estimate of change in the Lower Hunter koala population. Nevertheless, given there has been
an estimated 75% reduction in Koala habitat within Port Stephens LGA since European settlement
(Knott et al. 1998), it is reasonable to predict that the Lower Hunter region has experienced a long-term
decline in koala population due in part to habitat clearing.
However, changes in koala numbers are not uniform within the Lower Hunter study area. This study
found apparent decreases in Medowie, Anna Bay, Raymond Terrace, and Tilligerry Peninsula; but the
Boat Harbour/One Mile population was reported at one point in time to be increasing. This indicates
that the response and change of koala populations across the study area and over particular time
periods may not be uniform.
4.3
W H AT C RIT E RI A S H O ULD B E U S E D T O I D E NT IFY H IG H P RIO RIT Y
H AB IT AT AR E AS ?
The study recommends that high priority conservation areas for the Koala within the Lower Hunter
region have the following parameters (this may be updated to include further expert input):
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
27
Lower Hunter Koala Study

Vegetation patches greater than 100 ha with feed and roosting tree species.

Major roads and railways are deemed to be barriers between patches even though individual
koalas will cross them (at risk of death/injury).

Vegetated remnant areas more than 300m apart will be considered separate patches. (It was
noted that connectivity for koalas will be enhanced the lower the separation between patches
and the better the ecological linkages from the perspective of koala movement patterns).

Recommended habitat buffer width of 50 m in urban areas
These criteria were incorporated into the koala habitat modelling, along with other attributes identified
from the workshop. The above, in particular conserving patches of greater than 100 ha with koala feed
and roosting tree species; and seeking to incorporate connectivity between patches for koalas; can also
be considered a priority for koala conservation within the Lower Hunter study area. Other areas of
habitat will also exist, and may be able to support viable koala populations, particularly where
supporting (or connected) patches greater than 100 ha with koala feed and roosting tree species.
4.4
W H AT I S T HE C UR R E NT E XT E NT AN D Q U ALIT Y O F KO AL A H AB I T AT
IN T H E R EG IO N ?
The current extent and quality of habitat was modelled as part of this study based on the criteria
summarised in section 4.3, above. The resultant habitat was identified in Figure 4 and high priority
conservation areas for the Koala can be seen in Figure 5 and summarised in Table 4, below. These
areas are primarily associated with consolidated vegetated patches of suitable habitat.
Table 4: Area of High and Very High priority koala habitat modelled in the Lower Hunter
Area (ha) identified within
% identified within
existing conservation
existing formal
reserves
conservation reserves
High
18,525
23
79,827
Very High
4,886
22
22,604
23,411
23
102,431
Priority Koala Habitat
Classes
Total
priority
modelled
koala habitat
Total modelled
area (ha)
The model shows that while there are a number of areas supporting priority koala habitat reserved for
conservation within the Lower Hunter; the majority of the lands (more than 75%) are not currently
formally reserved for conservation.
There is a concentration of priority habitat area within the Port Stephens LGA, in the north east of the
region, particularly to the north of Medowie as well as in the vicinity of Stockton Bight which are either
currently reserved for conservation or within identified high conservation land green corridors. Some of
this area (particularly around Stockton Bight) corresponds well with previous koala habitat mapping
(Phillips 1996). Other smaller pockets of priority habitat also exist in the north western part of the Port
Stephens LGA which fall outside of any existing conservation reserves or corridors.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
28
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Areas of priority habitat occupy large tracts of land across the south of the region, located within the
Watagan National Park and associated high conservation value green corridors along the Watagan
Range. However, there are also large areas of priority habitat identified within the State Forests of the
Wollombi Valley and a number of pockets of priority habitat around Kurri Kurri and Branxton within the
Cessnock LGA; as well as within lands around Lake Macquarie; all falling outside of existing
conservation reserves.
Essentially, existing development throughout the Maitland and Newcastle LGA’s provides a definite
separation of habitat across the study area potentially forming two different habitat regions. Essentially
two thirds of the priority habitat occurs in the south of the study area, while the remaining third is
concentrated within the Port Stephens LGA.
Figure 5: High and Very High value priority koala habitat
It is important to note that the areas identified in this modelling process may be refined with the
inclusion of more detailed data, such as updated regional vegetation mapping that is currently being
finalised, or the refinement of model parameters through further expert discussion, such as criteria
weighting.
4.5
W H AT AR E T H E LO C AL K EY T HR E AT E NI N G PRO C E S SE S AN D
RE CO M M END ED CO N S ER V AT IO N M E AS U R E S FO R KO AL AS T O AS S I ST
W IT H D E CI S IO N M AK ING FO R T H E L O W ER H UNT E R R EG IO N AL
ST R AT E G Y AN D R E G IO N AL CO N SE R V AT I O N PL AN ?
Koalas are subject to different threats and pressures across their distribution. In the Lower Hunter, the
main threats discussed by the workshop were loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat both at a
fine and large scale; barriers to habitat connectivity (including natural and manmade structures); road
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
29
Lower Hunter Koala Study
fatalities; predation by dogs; disease (Chlamydia and other diseases); fire (including both control burns
and natural fire) and climate change.
Modification of habitat in the Lower Hunter can largely be attributed to the high development pressure
and piecemeal planning that has resulted in isolated fragments of habitat remaining amongst urban
areas. The current State Environmental Planning Policy 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44)
planning system is difficult to apply to areas of low population density or small development sites as
‘core’ koala habitat can be difficult to confirm. The workshop discussion agreed that the current
rezoning process is ineffective in considering long-term koala conservation as the majority of habitat
analysis should be done prior to rezoning. The cumulative impacts of progressive clearing were also
noted as a process that is currently not adequately addressed and thereby impacting on overall koala
conservation.
Barriers to habitat connectivity include roads, rail, urban centres, wide water courses and open areas.
In the Port Stephens area, the specific major road barriers are Richardson Road, Lemon Tree Passage
Road, Nelsons Bay Road, Port Stephens Drive and Gan Gan Road (expert working group - workshop).
In Lake Macquarie, the F3 Freeway is considered to divide western and eastern koala populations,
however it is likely that some koalas cross under the freeway at creek crossings (expert working group workshop).
Road fatalities and dog predation are two major threats associated with urban areas. The real scale of
the threat from dog attacks is likely underestimated as many dog attacks would not result in the koala
being found and recorded. Road fatality data is often recorded by local carer groups (expert working
group - workshop).
Diseases, and in particular Chlamydia, are known to significantly impact koala populations (Jackson et
al. 1999). Chlamydia can cause infertility in koalas and can contribute to population decline.
Fire, especially at a high frequency and intensity can cause mortality and adversely impact habitat
availability for koalas (Lunney et al. 2007, workshop). However, control burns which are considered to
be at a lower intensity are also thought to have a negative effect on koala populations due to the high
frequency of these burns in areas that are already highly fragmented (Lunney et al. 2007),
Climate change is predicted to affect koala habitat condition and cause more severe weather conditions
which may impact koala survival rates (Adams-Hosking et al. 2012). Climate change is predicted to
affect koala habitat by altering the structure and chemical composition of koala food trees, changing the
composition of plant communities, changing the range of important habitat species, changing sea levels
and further fragmenting habitat stands. Its influence on weather may negatively affect koalas, including
increased frequency and intensity of drought and wildfire and changes in average temperature, rainfall
and humidity levels (Adams-Hosking et al. 2012). In the Port Stephens area, much of the favoured
koala habitat occurs below 20 m elevation. These habitat types are likely to have significant range
restrictions due to fresh and salt water inundation (expert working group - workshop).
Groundwater abstraction may also be a threatening process as E. parramattensis and E. robusta occur
in groundwater dependent ecosystems (Williams et al. 2012), particularly as these species are primary
koala food trees and they often occur on waterlogged soils, so changes to the watertable could affect
these tree species, for example at the Tomago Sandbeds, and thus could potentially negatively affect
koala habitat.
In relation to the identified threats to the koala in the Lower Hunter, the long-term conservation of koalas
is reliant on understanding habitat requirements and population dynamics and incorporating this
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
30
Lower Hunter Koala Study
knowledge into urban planning (expert working group - workshop). The modelling derived from this
project should be incorporated into both local and regional planning to support long-term conservation
of koala populations in the Lower Hunter.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
31
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Conclusions and Recommendations
5
The koala is a cryptic animal, especially when occurring at low densities. Due to its readily recognisable
appearance and high level of public interest, community sightings are often used as one method to
investigate koala distribution. Available koala sightings for the Lower Hunter study area were compiled
as part of this study. The majority of sightings were within the Port Stephens Local Government Area
(LGA) where a substantial human population live in close proximity to areas of koala habitat. This is
consistent with the high level of research and public interest in this region. Sightings were also present
elsewhere within the Lower Hunter study area, such as the western portion of the Cessnock LGA. It is
important to note that fewer records from outside of the Port Stephens LGA may be due to less
research on koalas in these regions. Notwithstanding this, it is expected that the koala numbers are
greatest in Port Stephens compared with other areas of the Lower Hunter region.
This study found differences in changes in koala populations within the study area, with apparent
decreases in Medowie, Anna Bay, Raymond Terrace, and Tilligerry Peninsula; but Boat Harbour/One
Mile population was reported to be increasing. This indicates that the response and change of koala
populations across the study area is not uniform. It is also important to note that due to low recorded
numbers of Koalas outside of the Port Stephens area and lack of empirical evidence, the study was not
able to estimate population size (and density) outside of Port Stephens.
As a result of this study, it is recommended that:

Outcomes of this study should be incorporated into regional and local conservation planning in
the Lower Hunter.

Ongoing refinement of the model should be carried out as more specific or relevant information
becomes available. This includes:

o
Review and refinement of criteria weightings through any scheduled Lower Hunter
expert working groups
o
Inclusion of newer or more targeted data sets as they become available (ie refined
regional vegetation classification)
Testing of modelled habitat value should be undertaken prior to its adoption into local and
regional planning to support long-term conservation of koala populations in the Lower Hunter.
There are a variety of research methodologies which could be utilised, but might include:
o
Genetic analysis and testing to seek to determine if different koala metapopulations
exist within the Lower Hunter study region between Port Stephens and the Lake
Macquarie / Cessnock LGA’s, as suggested by the apparent break in ecological
connectivity through the Newcastle and Maitland LGA’s. Should this be confirmed then
it would have implications for the management of the koala in the region, as there
would be two (or more) separate metapopulations for management
o
Field based koala faecal pellet survey to seek to determine whether koalas are present,
and their comparative use of different tree species and habitat types, and
o
Community survey (via postal survey and/or other methods) to seek to capture public
koala sighting records.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
32
Lower Hunter Koala Study

High priority conservation areas outlined in section 4.3 that are located outside of existing
protected areas (such as National Parks) should be considered for long-term protection.

Regional and local conservation planning should consider protecting existing connectivity and
enhancing connectivity of Koala habitat patches that are within 100m of another patch.

Regional and local conservation planning should consider management of threats to koalas,
including dogs, barriers to movement (road/rail), fire, disease and climate change.

Ideally, monitoring of outcomes for koala populations should be undertaken. It is noted that this
would require substantial resources due to the cryptic nature of the koala. However, given the
recognisable nature of the koala and the public interest in this species, engagement with the
community and key stakeholders may provide a qualitative form of monitoring through some (or
all) of the region, though it is noted that this would not provide quantitative data on population
size or change, which would require more formalised scientific studies.

Koala research findings, and potential application of mitigation measures, should feed back into
koala recovery planning processes as part of an adaptive management framework. Such a
framework should include community, stakeholder and expert engagement.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
33
Lower Hunter Koala Study
6
References
Adams-Hosking, C., McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J. R., Grantham, H. S. and Moss, P. T. (2012). "Modelling
changes in the distribution of the critical food resources of a specialist folivore in response to climate
change." Journal of Conservation Biogeography Diversity and Distributions: 1-14.
Allendorf, F. and Leary, R. F. (1986). Heterozygosity and Fitness in Natural Populations of Animals.
Conservation Biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. M. E. Soulé. Sunderland, Massachusetts.,
Sinauer Associates: 57-76.
Australian Koala Foundation (1996). The Koala Habitat Atlas. Project No 6: Port Stephens Local
Government Area. Report prepared for Port Stephens Council by Steve Phillips, John Callaghan and
Valerie Thompson. Vegetation Mapping by Robert Payne. Australian Koala Foundation Brisbane, Qld.
Bell S. and Driscoll C. (2007) "Vegetation of the Cessnock-Kurri region, Cessnock LGS, New South
Wales: Survey, Classification and Mapping. Report to Climate Change and Environment Protection
Group DECC, Newcastle.
Bell S. and Driscoll C. (2012) "Native Vegetation Community Equivalents NOV 2012" extract of
Vegetation Mapping of Lake Macquarie LGA Stages 1 to 3 & 5. Draft report to Lake Macquarie Council
Biolink (2006). Medowie structure plan; Ecological Review and Advice. Draft report. Report prepared for
Port Stephens Council.
Callaghan, J., Leathley, S. and Lunney, D.(1994) Port Stephens Koala Management Plan. Draft for
public discussion. 27 September 1994. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and Port Stephens
Council.
Cork, S. J., E. M. Cawsey, A. O. Nicholls, M. Yialeloglou, and M.P. Austin (1997). Improving prediction
and assessment of diet and habitat quality for koalas. Investigation of relationships between koala
abundance and the nutritional composition of foliage in northern NSW. Report to the Australian Koala
Foundation, Brisbane, Queensland.
Cork, S. J., Clark, T. W. and Mazur N. (2000a). "Introduction: an Interdisciplinary Effort for Koala
Conservation." Conservation Biology 14(3): 606-609.
Cork, S. J., Hume, I. D. and Forley, W. J. (2000b). "Improving Habitat Models and Their Utility in Koala
Conservation." Conservation Biology 14(3): 660-668.
Critescu, R. (2011). "Fauna recolonisation of mine rehabilitation through the example of arboreal
marupials, with particular focus on the Koala Phascolarctos cinereus." The University of New South
Wales. PhD Thesis.
Critescu, R., Cahill, V., Sherwin, W. B., Handasyde, K., Carlyon, K. Whisson, D., Herbert, C. A.,
Carlsson, B. L., Wilton, A. N. and Cooper D. W. (2009). "Inbreeding and testicular abnormalities in a
bottlenecked population of koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus)." Wildlife Research 36: 299-308.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
34
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Crossman N.D., Bryan B. A. and King D. 13-17th July 2009. Integration of landscape scale and site
scale metrics for prioritising investments in natural capital. 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress,
Cairns, Australia
Crowther (2012) Climate-mediated habitat selection in koalas in a fragmented rural landscape.
Presentation to Ecological Society of Australia 2012 Annual Conference, Albert Park, Melbourne.
Crowther, M. S., McAlpine, C. A., Cunney, D., Shannon, I. and Bryant, J. V. (2009). "Using broad-scale,
community survey data to compare species conservation strategies across regions: A case study of the
Koala in a set of adjacent 'catchments'." Ecological Management & Restoration 10(1): 88-96.
Curtin A and Lunney D (1995) Rare and Endangered Fauna Survey of Yengo National Park and Parr
State Recreation Area, The Koala Phascolarctus cinereus. Final report to the Central Coast District of
the National Parks and Wildlife Service 9 June 1995
DECC (2008). Recovery plan for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). Sydney.
DECC (2008b) The Native Vegetation of Yengo and Parr Reserves and Surrounds. Department of
Environment and Climate Change, NSW, Hurstville.
DEWHA (2009). National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy. N. R. M. M. Council.
Canberra, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA).
ELA (2011) Composite Vegetation Map for Port Stephens Local Government Area. Map and metadata
produced for Port Stephens Council.
Ellis, W., Melzer, A. and Bercovitch, F. B. (2009). "Spatiotemporal dynamics of habitat use by koalas:
the checkerboard model." Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 1181-1188.
Ellis, W., Melzer, A., Carrick, F. N. and Hasegawa, M. (2002). "Tree use, diet and home range of the
koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) at Blair Athol, central Queensland." Wildlife Research 29: 303-311.
Ellis, W., Melzer, A., Clifton, I. D. and Carrick F. N. (2010). "Climate Change and the Koala." Australian
Zoologist 35(2): 369-377.
Ellis, W., Melzer, A., Green, B., Newgrain, K., Hindell, M. A. and Carrick F. N. (1995). "Seasonal
Variation in Water Flux, Field Metabolic Rate and Food Consumption of Free Ranging Koalas
(Phascolarctos cinereus)." Australian Journal of Zoology 43: 59-68.
Hanger, J. and Loader, J. (2009). "Infectious Disease in Koalas: implications for conservation." Koala
Conservation Conference.
Harold A. Linstone, Murray Turoff (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Reading,
Mass.: Adison-Wesley
Houlden, B. A., Costello, B. H., Sharkey, D., Fowler, E. V., Melzer, A., Ellis, W., Carrick, F., Baverstock,
P. R. and Elphinstone, M. S. (1999). "Phylogeographic differentiation in the mitochondrial control region
in the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus (Goldfuss 1817)." Molecular Ecology 8: 999-1011.
Jackson, M., White, N., Giffard, P. and Timms, P. (1999). "Epizootiology of Chlamydia infections in two
free-range koala populations." Veterinary Microbiology 65: 255-264.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
35
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Kavanagh, R. P., S. Debus, T. Tweedie, and R. Webster (1995). Distribution of nocturnal forest birds
and mammals in north-eastern New South Wales: relationships with environmental variables and
management history. Wildlife Research 22: 359–377
Kavanagh, R. P. and M. A. Stanton (2012). "Koalas use young Eucalyptus plantations in an agricultural
landscape on the Liverpool Plains, New South Wales." Ecological Management & Restoration 13(3): 19.
Kavanagh, R. P., Stanton, M. A.and Brassil, E. T. (2007). "Koalas continue to occupy their previous
home ranges after selective logging in Callitris-Eucalyptus forest." Wildlife Research 34: 94-107.
Knott, T., Lunney, D., Coburn, D. and Callaghan, J. (1998). "An ecological history of Koala habitat in
Port Stephens Shire and the Lower Hunter on the Central Coast of New South Wales, 1801-1998."
Pacific Conservation Biology 4: 354.
Kollipara, A., George, C., Hanger, J., Loader, J., Polkinghorne, A., Beagley, K. and Timms, P. (2012).
"Vaccination of healthy and diseased Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) with a Chlamydia pecorum multisubunit vaccine: evaluation of immunity to pathology." Vaccine 30(10): 1875-1885.
Krebs, C. J. (2001). Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. San Francisco,
CA, Benjamin Cummings.
Lee, K., Seddon, J., Corley, S., Ellis, W., Johnston, S., de Villiers, D. L., Preece, H. and Carrick, F. N.
(2008). "Genetic variation and structuring in the threatened koala populations of Southeast
Queensland." Conservation Genetics.
Linstone, H. A. and Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading,
Mass: Adison-Wesley.
Lindenmayer, D. B. and G. Luck (2005). "Synthesis: thresholds in conservation and management."
Biological Conservation 124: 351-354.
Lunney D, Crowther M, Shannon I and Bryant J (2009) "Combining a map-based public survey with an
estimation of site occupancy to determine the recent and changing distribution of the koala in New
South Wales". Wildlife Research, 36, 262-273.
Lunney, D., Gresser, S., O'Neill, L. E., Matthews, A. and Rhodes, J. (2007). "The impact of fire and
dogs on Koalas at Port Stephens, New South Wales, using population viability analysis." Pacific
Conservation Biology 13: 189-201.
Lunney, D., Matthews, A., Moon, C. and Ferrier, S. (1999). "Incoporating habitat mapping into practical
koala conservation on private lands." Conservation Biology 14(3): 669-680.
McAlpine, C. A., Bowen, M. E., Callaghan, J. G., Lunney, D., Rhodes, J. R., Mitchell, D. L., Pullar, D. V.
and Possingham, H. D. (2006). "Testing alternative models for the conservation of koalas in fragmented
rural-urban landscapes." Austral Ecology 31: 529-544.
McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J. R., Bowen, M. E., Lunney, D., Callaghan, J. G., Mitchell, D. L. and
Possingham, H. P. (2008). "Can multiscale models of species' distribution be generalised from region to
region? A case study of the koala." Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 558-567.
Matthei, L.E. (1995). ‘Soil Landscapes of the Newcastle 1:100 000 Sheet Report’, Department of Land
and Water Conservation, Sydney.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
36
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Matthews, A., Lunney, D., Gresser, S. and Maitz, W. (2007). "Tree use by Koalas (Phascolarctos
cinereus) after fire in remnant coastal forest." Wildlife Research 34: 84-93.
Melzer, A., Carrick, F., Menkhost, P., Lunney, D. and St. John, B. (2000). "Overview, Critical
Assessment, and Conservation Implications of Koala Distribution and Abundance." Conservation
Biology 14(3): 619-628.
Mendoza G.A., and Macoun P. (1999) Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessment
of Criteria and Indicators, Centre for International Forestry Research, Jakarta Indonesia
Mitchell, D. (2008). Richmond Valley Koala Habitat Atlas, Australian Koala Foundation.
Moore, B. D. and W. J. Foley (2005). "Tree use by koalas in a chemically complex landscape." Nature
435: 488-490.
Moore, B. D., Lawler, I. R., Wallis, I. R., Beale, C. M. and Foley, W. J. (2010). "Palatability mapping: a
koala's eye view of spatial variation." Ecology 91(11): 3165-3176.
Murphy C.L. (1993). ‘Soil Landscapes of the Gosford-Lake Macquarie 1:100 000 Sheet Report’,
Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney.
Murphy, C.L (1995) “Soil Landscapes of the Port Stephens 1:100 000 Sheet” Report. Department of
Land and Water Conservation, Sydney.
New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. (1994). Fauna of north-east NSW forests. North
East Forests biodiversity study report 3. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney
OEH (2011) Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geodatabase Guide Version 3.1 2011. Note
spatial data rereleased as version 4 was published with this version of the geodatabase guide.
Phillips, S., Callaghan, J. and Thompson, V. (2000). "The tree species preferences of koalas
(Phascolarctos cinereus) inhabiting forest and woodland communities on Quaternary deposits in the
Port Stephens area, NSW." Wildlife Research 27: 1-10.
Phillips, S., J. Callaghan, et al. (1996). The Koala Habitat Atlas Project No 6: Port Stephens Local
Government Area.
Port Stephens Council (2002). Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management
(CKPoM) – June 2002. Prepared by Port Stephens Council with the Australian Koala Foundation.
Reed, P.R., Lunney, D., Walker, P. (1989) A 1986-87 Survey of the Koala Phascolarctos cinereus in
NSW and and Ecological Interpretation of its Distribution. Report to National Parks and Wildlife Service
& Division of Wildlife Ecology CSIRO
Reinke KJ and Jones SD (2009) Visualising Uncertainity in Environmental Data. Innovations in remote
sensing and photogrammetry, Lecture notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. 1st Edn Springer,
Berlin.
Rhodes, J. R., Callaghan, J., McAlpine, C. A., de Jong, C., Bowen, M. E., Mitchell, D. L., Lunney, D.
and Possingham, H. P. (2008). "Regional variation in habitat-occupancy thresholds: a warning for
conservation planning." Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 549-557.
Rhodes, J. R., McAlpine, C. A., Lunney, D. and Possingham, H. P. (2005). "A spatially explicit habitat
selection model incorporating home range behaviour." Ecology 86(5): 1199-1205.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
37
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Rhodes, J. R., Wiegland, T., McAlpine, C. A., Callaghan, J., Lunney, D., Bowen, M. and Possingham,
H. (2006). "Modeling Species' Distributions to Improve Conservation in Semiurban Landscapes: Koala
Case Study." Conservation Biology 20(2): 449-459.
Saaty TL, (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, NY, McGraw Hill
SEWPaC (2012) Interim koala referral advice for proponents. SEWPaC, Canberra.
Sherwin, W. B., Timms, P., Wilcken, J. and Houlden, B. (2000). "Analysis and Conservation Implications
of Koala Genetics." Conservation Biology 14(3): 639-649.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2012). Listing advice for Phascolarctos cinereus
(Koala). [Online]. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/197-listing-advice.pdf
Todd, C., Forsyth, D. M. and Choquenot, D. (2008). "Modelling the effects of fertility control on koalaforest dynamics." Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 568-578.
Van Dyck, S. and R. Strahan, Eds. (2008). The Mammals of Australia. Sydney, Reed New Holland.
Ward, S (2002) Koalas and the Community: a study of low density populations in southern Sydney. PhD
Thesis. University of Western Sydney.
Williams J.P, Kuginis L., Serov P., Byrne G. (2012). Risk assessment guidelines for groundwater
dependent ecosystems – Volume 2 – Worked examples for seven pilot coastal aquifers in NSW. NSW
Department of Primary Industries, Office of Water, Sydney.
Zeiler M (1999) Modelling our world. The ESRI Guide to Geodatabase Design. ESRI Press. California.
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
38
Lower Hunter Koala Study
Appendix A
Primary/Secondary and supplementary food tree species for Koala – discussion from workshop
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
SUPPLEMENTARY
Allocasuarina littoralis
Black She-oak
x
Allocasuarina torulosa
Forest Oak
x
Angophora costata
Smooth-barked Apple
x
Banksia serrata
Saw Toothed Banksia
x
Corymbia maculata
Spotted Gum
Casuarina glauca
(with Parsonsia sp.)
Swamp Shea-oak
x
C. gummifera
Red Bloodwood
x*
E. agglomerata
Blue-leaved Stringybark
E. amplifolia
Cabbage gum
E. botryoides
Bangalay
E. camfieldii
Heart-leaved Stringybark
E. capitellata
Brown Stringybark
E. carnea
Thick-leaved Mahogany
x
E. crebra
Narrow-leaved Red
Ironbark
x
E. dwyeri
Narrow leafed Red Gum
E. eugenioides
Thin-leaved Stringybark
E. fibrosa
Red Ironbark
E. glaucina
Slaty red gum
E. globoidea
White Stringybark
E. grandis
Flooded Gum
E. racemosa or E.
signata
Scribbly Gum
E. largeana
Craven Grey Box
AREA
x*
x*
GB
x*
x
x
GB
x
x
x
GB
x
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
39
Lower Hunter Koala Study
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
E. longifolia
Woollybutt
E. microcorys
Tallowwood
GB
E. moluccana
Grey box
x*
E. nicholii
Small-leaved Peppermint
E. oblonga
Narrow-leaved
Stringybark
GB
E. paniculata
Grey Ironbark
x
E. parramattensis
subsp. decadens
Parramatta red gum also
referred to as Drooping
red gum
E. pilularis
Blackbutt
E. piperita
Sydney Peppermint
E. propinqua
Small-fruited Grey Gum
E. punctata
Grey Gum
E. resinifera
Red mahogany
E. robusta
Swamp mahogany
SUPPLEMENTARY
AREA
Unsure
for PS
Unsure
for PS
GB (urban
plantings)
x
GB
x
x
x*+
Unsure
in PS
x*
x
GB
E. saligna
Sydney Blue Gum
E. scias
Large fruited red
mahogany
E. siderophloia
Grey Ironbark
E. sparsifolia
Narrow-leaved
Stringybark
E. tereticornis
Forest red gum
Unsure
in PS
x
x
Unsure
in PS
Unsure
in PS
x
GB
E. umbra
Broad-leaved White
Mahogany
x*
Eucalyptus
acmenoides
White mahogany
x*
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
40
Lower Hunter Koala Study
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
PRIMARY
SECONDARY
Melaleuca nodosa
Prickly-leaved paperbark
x
Melaleuca
styphelioides
Prickly Paperbark
x
M. linearifolia
Paperbark
M. quinquenervia
Broad-leaved Paperbark
Syncarpia glomulifera
Turpentine
GB
SUPPLEMENTARY
AREA
x
x
* Needs more work
+ Locally preferred in the Port Stephens LGA
x Dan Lunney, David Paull, Ray Williams, Anthony Marchment, Mark Roselle
GB Geoff Bartlet
Primary = preferred feed tree;
Secondary = occasional feed tree (seasonal), less frequent;
Supplementary = other use, occasionally used
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A PTY LTD
41
Lower Hunter Koala Study
HEAD OFFICE
SYDNEY
ST GEORGES BASIN
Suite 4, Level 1
2-4 Merton Street
Sutherland NSW 2232
T 02 8536 8600
F 02 9542 5622
Level 6
299 Sussex Street
Sydney NSW 2000
T 02 8536 8650
F 02 9264 0717
8/128 Island Point Road
St Georges Basin NSW 2540
T 02 4443 5555
F 02 4443 6655
CANBERRA
NEWCASTLE
NAROOMA
Level 2
11 London Circuit
Canberra ACT 2601
T 02 6103 0145
F 02 6103 0148
Suites 28 & 29, Level 7
19 Bolton Street
Newcastle NSW 2300
T 02 4910 0125
F 02 4910 0126
5/20 Canty Street
Narooma NSW 2546
T 02 4476 1151
F 02 4476 1161
COFFS HARBOUR
35 Orlando Street
Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450
T 02 6651 5484
F 02 6651 6890
ARMIDALE
MUDGEE
92 Taylor Street
Armidale NSW 2350
T 02 8081 2681
F 02 6772 1279
Unit 1, Level 1
79 Market Street
Mudgee NSW 2850
T 02 4302 1230
F 02 6372 9230
PERTH
Suite 1 & 2
49 Ord Street
West Perth WA 6005
T 08 9227 1070
F 08 9322 1358
WOLLONGONG
Suite 204, Level 2
62 Moore Street
Austinmer NSW 2515
T 02 4201 2200
F 02 4268 4361
GOSFORD
Suite 5, Baker One
1-5 Baker Street
Gosford NSW 2250
T 02 4302 1220
F 02 4322 2897
DARWIN
© ECO LOGICAL AUSTR ALI A
16/56 Marina Boulevard
Cullen Bay NT 0820
T 08 8989 5601
PTY LTD
BRISBANE
PO Box 1422
Fortitude Valley QLD 4006
T 0400 494 366
42