DA Assessment Flowchart Cooma-Monaro CKPoM_Other Habitat.sdr

Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
F
T
Page A.1
A
Appendix A
D
R
OEH Koala Habitat Study
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Cooma-Monaro LGA
TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE KOALA PLAN OF
MANAGEMENT for NORTH EAST MONARO
KOALA HABITAT STUDY
Koalas at a ‘chew’ tree at Black Ridge, near Bredbo
Chris Allen
Senior Threatened Species Officer
Regional Operations Group
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
1
Project Team
The Project Team that guided the koala habitat study in preparation for the Cooma-Monaro
Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management included representatives from the following
organisations and agencies:
1. Local landholders and other community members, including a representative of the
Numeralla Landcare Group
2. Cooma-Monaro Shire Council
3. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
4. NSW Rural Fire Service
5.
Acknowledgements
Funding to undertake some of the fieldwork underpinning this study, as well as the ensuing
preparation of the Plan, was provided by the NSW Environmental Trust.
Staff from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Cooma Monaro Shire Council and the NSW
Rural Fire Service contributed to the fieldwork, with latter’s Enhanced Bushfire Management Team,
all members of local communities within or near the study area, making an important contribution.
The fieldwork was a co-operative effort with significant input from local volunteers and contractors
including a representative of the Merrimans Local Aboriginal Land Council.
Volunteers also made a substantial contribution both to the background information provided for
this study and to the fieldwork. This came mainly from landholders living within or near to the study
area. In particular the contributions of the owners of Black Ridge (Dierk and Rosemary Von Berens
and Garth and Ros Dixon) and Hammersville Wildlife Trust (James Fitzgerald) are gratefully
acknowledged; they all have made important contributions to koala conservation. Without their
support this project would have achieved more limited outcomes.
Statistical analyses of the data were undertaken by Bernd Grubber, Veronika Vyˇsn´a & Aaron
Adamack of the Institute of Applied Ecology (Canberra University) and Steve Phillips (Biolink Pty Ltd).
The Comprehensive Koala Plans of Management (CKPoM) for Pt Stephens, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey,
Tweed and Gunnedah and associated studies that were undertaken by Biolink Pty Ltd have provided
substantial background information for this study. These have also guided the structure of this
report, the methods used in the field assessments, and some of the data analyses and approaches to
habitat classification and mapping. The contribution of Biolink is particularly acknowledged.
2
Contents
Project Team ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 6
PART 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 10
Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 10
Study area ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Overview and structure of this report .............................................................................................. 10
Conservation and legislative context for the CKPoM ....................................................................... 12
NSW Legislation ............................................................................................................................ 12
Commonwealth Legislation .......................................................................................................... 12
PART 2: KOALA HISTORY IN THE STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 14
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Aboriginal lore, language and legend ............................................................................................... 14
History of the Numeralla, Countengany and Peak View areas ......................................................... 15
Other records from early settlement times ...................................................................................... 16
Information from local residents ...................................................................................................... 16
Early recollections ......................................................................................................................... 16
The Soldier Settlement Program ................................................................................................... 17
Anecdotal evidence of recovery ................................................................................................... 17
Fire Impacts....................................................................................................................................... 18
PART 3: FIELD SAMPLING ...................................................................................................................... 19
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 19
Grid-site selection ......................................................................................................................... 19
Grid-site assessments ................................................................................................................... 19
Transect surveys ........................................................................................................................... 20
DNA analysis.................................................................................................................................. 20
Data analysis ................................................................................................................................. 20
Results ............................................................................................................................................... 20
3
Distribution and activity levels...................................................................................................... 20
Macro-survey results .................................................................................................................... 24
Micro-survey results ..................................................................................................................... 25
DNA Results................................................................................................................................... 25
Bark-chewing ................................................................................................................................ 25
Feral browsers............................................................................................................................... 26
Discussion.......................................................................................................................................... 27
Distribution and Activity levels ..................................................................................................... 27
DNA Results................................................................................................................................... 27
Bark-chewing ................................................................................................................................ 27
Feral browsers............................................................................................................................... 27
PART 4: IDENTIFING PREFERRED TREE SPECIES AND OTHER HABITAT INDICATORS ............................ 28
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Identifying spatial autocorrelation ............................................................................................... 28
Calculating the strike rates for each tree species ......................................................................... 28
Identifying tree species preferences using other statistical analyses .......................................... 29
Non-metric multidimensional scaling ........................................................................................... 29
Boosted regression tree allowing for non-linear responses ......................................................... 29
Results ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Tree species strike rates from active sites .................................................................................... 30
Tree species and size class preferences analyses by Institute of Applied Ecology ....................... 30
Discussion.......................................................................................................................................... 31
Tree species preferences .............................................................................................................. 31
Koalas in a low-fertility landscape ................................................................................................ 32
Size class preference results ......................................................................................................... 33
PART 5: MAPPING CORE AND PREFERRED KOALA HABITAT ................................................................. 34
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Core and Preferred Habitat........................................................................................................... 34
Mapping core and preferred koala habitat for the CKPoM .......................................................... 34
4
Mapping core koala habitat .............................................................................................................. 35
Mapping core koala habitat using activity contours ..................................................................... 35
Activity contours and koala residency .......................................................................................... 37
Mapping core koala habitat by delineating areas of generation persistence .............................. 37
Discussion on methods of mapping core koala habitat ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Mapping preferred koala habitat...................................................................................................... 38
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 38
Preferred habitat mapping derived from vegetation community mapping layers ...................... 38
Preferred habitat mapping derived from significant predictors................................................... 41
Preferred habitat mapping using remote sensing ........................................................................ 42
Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 43
PART 6: THREATENING PROCESSES ...................................................................................................... 44
Conservation status of koalas in the study area ............................................................................... 44
Threatening processes ...................................................................................................................... 45
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 45
Climate change.............................................................................................................................. 45
Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation............................................................................... 45
Factors contributing to loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat in the study area ......... 46
Strategies to minimise threat of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation ........................... 48
Fire ................................................................................................................................................ 48
Vehicle Strike ................................................................................................................................ 49
Predation....................................................................................................................................... 49
Care of sick or injured koalas ........................................................................................................ 50
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX 1: ANECDOTAL INFORMATION FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS ................................................... 54
APPENDIX 2: COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT’S DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT AND
GUIDELINES FOR MAPPING................................................................................................................... 55
APPENDIX 3: EXTRACTS FROM THE NSW KOALA RECOVERY PLAN ..................................................... 56
APPENDIX 4: COMPENSATORY REQUIREMENTS IN TWEED CKPoM................................................. 57
APPENDIX 5: NATIONAL APPROACH TO FIREWOOD COLLECTION AND USE IN AUSTRALIA. ............... 58
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides information about the koala habitat study undertaken to guide the
development of a Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council.
The work was funded in part by the NSW Environment Trust. The Council is the first in Southern
NSW to develop such a plan
The study area is approximately 150,000 ha within the eastern portion of lands administered by the
Council. It extends from the Calabash locality in the north to the Dangelong Nature Reserve in the
south. The central feature of this area is a series of eucalypt timbered ranges that extend along its
north/south axis.
The report has six sections. Sequentially these: a) provide background information to the
Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management processes; b) explore the history of koalas in the study
area; c) describe the fieldwork undertaken and its results; d) provide some statistical analyses of the
data gathered in the fieldwork that attempts to clarify the tree species preferences of koalas; e)
explores options for modelling core and preferred habitat; and, f) assesses the threats to the koalas
and recommends strategies that could be developed through the CKPoM to reduce these threats.
The NSW Environmental Trust-funded project brief included a community outreach component that
committed to community meetings, media releases, written information sent individually to
landholders where surveys were to be undertaken, and support for volunteer participation in the
surveys. These provided opportunities to gather anecdotal information about koalas in the study
area. The historical section of this report is largely derived from this information.
A consistent theme of the shared anecdotal information was that, within living memory, koalas were
rare until the 1970’s. But from that time onwards people became increasingly aware of koalas in a
few localities. A likely explanation for this is that in the early part of the 20th Century koalas were
only surviving in a few relatively remote areas and these were probably the strongholds from which
the population launched a recovery that both the anecdotal information and some aspects of the
fieldwork suggests is evident today.
The first phase of this fieldwork was undertaken between November 2010 and December 2012 and
was undertaken primarily to inform fuel reduction operations planned by the NSW Rural Fire Service
(NSWRFS). The second phase, undertaken between February 2012 and September 2013, aimed to
inform those developing the Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for the Cooma Monaro
Shire Council. This latter part of the study was funded by the NSW Environment Trust.
The survey used the Regularised Grid-based Spot Assessment Technique (RG-bBSAT) as its primary
assessment method. At each grid-site the forest litter within 1m of the trunks of 30 trees was
searched for koala pellets. Intervals between grid-sites were at two scales: across most of the study
area the grid-sites were almost all at 1km intervals (the macro-survey); around the Numeralla village
grid-site intervals were at 500m (the micro-survey).
Overall, in both phases of the survey, 262 grid-sites were assessed. In the macro-survey 186 gridsites (sites at 1km intervals) were surveyed and evidence of koala activity was recorded at 85
6
(45.4%) of these grid-sites. In the micro-survey within and around the Numeralla village, data from
88 grid-sites were used in the analyses. This included 1km-interval sites that were also used in the
macro study (28), and their adjacent 500m-interval sites (60). Evidence of koala activity was
recorded at 67 (77%) of these grid-sites.
Analysis of DNA samples revealed that two genotypes of koalas exist within the study area with
samples from the southern section (including Numeralla) being of a different genotype to those
collected from areas to the north of the Chakola Fire Trail.
Footage obtained from movement sensitive UV cameras in the initial phase of the survey confirmed
that koalas (including female koala with young) were responsible for distinctive bark chewings
observed in several localities.
In regards to feral browsers, 34.5% and 38% of the grid-sites assessed had evidence of deer and
goats respectively. This is significantly higher than the results from similar studies in coastal and
escarpment forests in SENSW.
Analyses identifying the tree species preferred by koalas, which underpin one approach to the
mapping of preferred habitat, were undertaken by the Institute of Applied Ecology, Canberra
University (IAE) and Biolink Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd. Additional approaches to identify the
koala’s tree species preferences to those usually applied in CKPoM koala habitat studies were used.
All the analyses indicated the importance of brittle gum Eucalyptus mannifera and scribbly gum E.
rossii and manna or ribbon gum E. viminalis to koalas. The black cyprus pine Callitris endlicheri was
also important, probably providing a shady thermal refuge.
No statistically significant differences in tree species preferences on the main geological substrates
were identified when the dataset was separated into volcanic and sedimentary geologies.
Analysis ecological and physical variables that were most likely to predict koala occupancy concluded
that lower elevations, areas of higher tree diversity and two eucalypt species (Eucalyptus rossii and
E. viminalis were most likely to yield evidence of koalas.
The extensive evidence of koalas, together with the relatively low proportions of tree species with
koala pellets, indicates a low-density population occurs in the study area. Probably this is because
the animals are sustained by habitat growing predominantly in a low-fertility landscape where
suitable browse is more widely scattered. Koalas utilising this kind of habitat potentially need larger
home range areas and more complex browsing strategies than those depending on trees growing
higher nutrient landscapes.
The concepts of core and preferred koala habitat underpin most habitat studies informing
Comprehensive Koala Plans of Management (CKPoM) in NSW. SEPP 44 legislation defines core koala
habitat as an area of land with a resident population of koalas, evidenced by attributes such as
breeding females (that is, females with young) and recent sightings of and historical records of a
population. Preferred habitat is usually defined by the presence of preferred browse species. In this
study these were identified mainly through the analysis of the pooled dataset derived from 1kminterval grid-sites where koala evidence was located.
7
Although the two kinds of habitat overlap, preferred koala habitat is not the same as core koala
habitat. The former may be unoccupied at the time of assessment because of factors affecting the
expansion or contraction of a population, including human and climatic impacts. Alternatively, some
patches where the habitat appears to be of low-quality may be an important part of one or more
koalas’ home range areas either because of social dynamics or as yet unidentified habitat qualities.
Koala occupation qualifies such patches as core koala habitat.
Two methods for mapping core koala habitat are described in this study: a) delineating activity
contours derived from grid-site activity levels; and b) identifying 2.5 X 2.5 km cells where koala
persistence for three generations (3 X 6 years) can be demonstrated through historical records
analysis.
Three approaches to mapping preferred koala habitat are also described in the study. These are: a)
identifying vegetation communities where preferred tree species are well represented; b) identifying
ecological and physical variables that are most likely to predict koala occupancy; and, c) calibrating
remotely-sensed spectral images of eucalypt foliage with laboratory analysis data of important
nutrient and anti-feeding compounds leaves of leaves from trees that can be identified in the
images.
All these habitat modeling approaches are ongoing and important refinements of the model may
become available during the life of this Plan that could assist planning decisions. The Plan should
therefore retain the capacity to incorporate and respond to these refinements should these become
available.
The major immediate threats to koalas in the study area are probably wildfire, the clearing of
habitat, predation by domestic dogs and vehicle strike. In regards to the former threat the
Commonwealth (2009) states that the loss of habitat is the major threat to the koala in Queensland
and New South Wales, and is the primary factor responsible for declining populations in those states.
There are several strategies that could be included in the CKPoM to reduce the threat of loss,
fragmentation and degradation of koala habitat in the study area. Importantly, where clearing is
unavoidable, it is vital to put in place meaningful conservation offsetting measures to effectively
protect and restore other suitable habitat areas (Commonwealth 2009).
There are also strategies that could be included in the CKPoM to reduce the risk of fire, predation
and vehicle strike.
Climate change is probably the major overarching long-term threat to this population, with many
studies (eg CSIRO 2012) predicting increasing temperatures, increasing unreliability of rainfall and
the potential for more sustained and severe droughts in south eastern Australia. This is likely to
have a range of interacting impacts on this populationb and is also likely to exacerbate other threats.
This report has two Addendums that have been produced by Greenloading & Biolink Pty Ltd, authors
of the CKPoM. These are: a) identifying areas that have been used by koalas throughout the most
recent three or more consecutive generational time spans (6 years) to assist with the mapping of
8
core koala habitat; and; b) the mapping of preferred koala habitat that is based on vegetation
community mapping layers and koalas’ tree species preference analysis.
9
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
Overview
This section describes study area and structure of this report. It then summarises State and
Commonwealth legislation and associated responses that provide guidelines and frameworks within
which koala habitat conservation and threat reduction strategies can be developed and enforced.
Study area
The study area of approximately 150,000 ha extends predominately over a north/south axis for a
distance of approximately 80km, between the southern part of the Tinderries Nature Reserve in the
north to the Dangelong Nature Reserve in the south (Figure 1). It is located in the eastern part of
lands administered by the Cooma-Monaro Local Government Authority (LGA).
The central feature of this area is a series of eucalypt timbered ranges, with cleared or lightly
timbered country and natural grasslands to the east and west. These ranges are formed
predominantly of late Ordovician undifferentiated sediments of low metamorphic grade belonging
to the Adaminaby Group, including shale, sandstone, mudstone, chert and schist. In some areas
volcanic deposits have intruded and overlay the earlier sedimentary deposits, whilst Quaternary
alluvium occurs on the floodplains of the Numeralla River (Office of Environment and Heritage
2012).
Overview and structure of this report
This report provides information on the habitat study undertaken help develop a Comprehensive
Koala Plan of Management for the the Cooma-Monaro Shire Council.
The report has been prepared in response to a project brief from the Shire’s planning staff and
meets requirements of the Director-General of the NSW Department of Environment and Climate
Change in accord with Regulation 12 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 (Koala Habitat
Protection).
The report has the following sections that address the following:
1. provides some background information and introduces the study
2. explores the history of koalas in the study area
3. describes the fieldwork undertaken and its results
4. provides statistical analyses of the data gathered in the fieldwork that clarifies the tree
species and size class preferences of koalas in the study area
5. explores options for modelling core and preferred habitat in the study area
6. assesses the threats to the koalas in the study area and suggests strategies that could be
developed through the CKPoM to reduce these threats
10
Figure 1: The Study Area
11
Conservation and legislative context for the CKPoM
NSW Legislation
In New South Wales the koala is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the Threatened Species Conservation
Act 1995. The State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 (Koala Habitat Protection) was developed
in response and implemented soon after the passing of this Act, its principal aim being to: encourage
the proper conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for
koalas, to ensure permanent free-living populations over their present range and to reverse the
current trend of population decline.
The primary focus of SEPP 44 is for those activities that a Council’s Local Environment Plan requires a
DA. The policy encourages a coordinated and strategic approach to koala habitat management
within local government areas (LGAs) through the preparation of Comprehensive Koala Plans of
Management. These can be prepared for the whole of the LGA or any part of the LGA where
important koala populations and/or koala habitat are under threat (DECC 2008). Rural lands are
mostly exempt from SEPP 44 and the clearing and/or modification of habitat is regulated by the
Native Vegetation Act (2003). Habitat mapping and conservation strategies developed for a CKPoM
can provide useful guidelines for appropriate decisions in regards to the implementation of this Act.
SEPP 44 encourages the conservation of areas of important koala habitat through appropriate landuse planning and management, including zonings and the use of incentives-based voluntary
conservation. They also identify measures to address local threats to koalas and make provision for
koala habitat restoration and rehabilitation (DECC 2008).
Compared with an Individual Koala Plan of Management (IKPoM) a KPoM facilitates a more strategic
and coordinated approach to the management of koalas and their habitat, reduces the resources
required by Council to process individual DAs and facilitates government, non-government and
community involvement in the processes of koala conservation (DECC 2008).
The NSW Koala Recovery Plan was developed and approved in 2008 (DECC 2008). This considers the
conservation requirements of the species across its known range in NSW and identifies actions to be
taken to ensure its long-term viability in nature and the parties who are responsible for undertaking
these actions.
Commonwealth Legislation
In 2012 the Commonwealth listed the Koala as Vulnerable in New South Wales, the Australian
Capital Territory and Queensland under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act (1999) EPBC. In response the Department of Environment developed referral guidelines applying
to any development likely to have a significant impact on koala populations (Commonwealth of
Australia 2015).
Although these guidelines have no direct role in determining the content of a CKPoM in NSW their
consideration is important for the following reasons:
12
1. The Commonwealth (2009) aims to provide cohesion to the local solutions, based on local
studies and local plans … to manage individual koala populations across their extensive
range. The subsequent guidelines developed by the Commonwealth include habitat
definitions that should probably become the norm for koala management plans across the
species range, thereby improving that cohesion.
2. The Guidelines are the outcome of an intensive and more recent consultation with experts
from across the species range and probably better represents the current collective wisdom
of koala ecologists nationally that any state-based initiative.
13
PART 2: KOALA HISTORY IN THE STUDY AREA
Introduction
Koalas history of can be derived from Aboriginal lore and language, information recorded by and
from early settlers, koala history in nearby regions, anecdotal information from long-term residents
and koala records.
The NSW Environmental Trust-funded project brief included a community outreach component that
committed to community meetings, media releases, written information sent individually to
landholders where surveys were to be undertaken and volunteer participation in the surveys. These
initiatives provided opportunities to collect anecdotal information about koalas in the study area to
improve knowledge of their history. This section of the study is largely derived from this information.
Available information about koala distribution and abundance in the study area up until the 1960’s
appears to be very limited. This may simply be because koalas were extremely rare, with other
possible factors being the relative remoteness of the area and the tightly-knit nature of the
agricultural communities that predominated there until recent decades. Some long-term residents
that we encountered in community outreach initiatives indicated that koalas are an intergenerational community secret that you don’t talk about. In part this appeared to be derived from
concerns that government agencies will restrict activities on one’s land if koala presence is
identified. Additionally there are concerns that publicity about koalas may attract unwanted visitors.
Many also hold the view that the fewer people who know of koalas the better they will be
protected; this possibly originating from times when hunting for koala skins was widespread.
Despite this background we felt it important to glean and record what we could, in part with the
hope that: a) it would help us identify areas that were previously important for koalas but are now
unoccupied; and, b) that we could compare what is currently happening with koalas with times past
and thereby improve understanding of the population’s recovery potential.
And indeed, although the outcome is tentative, there is a consistency in community anecdotes that
provide an important perspective on the probable trends in koala distribution and abundance over
the past century.
Aboriginal lore, language and legend
There is little information in regards to the relationship between Aboriginal people and the koala
in the study area. However, more broadly, stories, songs and ceremonies in south eastern
Australia indicate that the koala has a key role as creation ancestor, director of migration for
ancestors, and wise councillor. Several stories link the koala to water, and the agreement reached
with the koala spirit ancestor that the koala would not be hunted for skins after he removed
people’s drinking vessels during a prolonged drought that dried up the rivers (Wesson 2003).
More locally, Alice Williams, Aboriginal Project Officer with the Office of Environment and
Heritage also emphasised the importance of the koala as a spirit ancestor in a video prepared in
cooperation with this project:
14
For the Munaroo and the Wolgalu people, and I’m a traditional owner of the Wolgalu people –
this country is Koala Country and it’s denoted by the natural features in the landscape. They
start up around Bredbo where a big koala will look at you and let you know that you’re coming
into koala country – and the story line for this extends all the way into the Thredbo Valley, up in
the higher Snowy Mountains.
History of the Numeralla, Countengany and Peak View areas
A publication that records the history of the Numeralla, Countengany and Peak View areas
(Numeralla and Community History Group 1996) consists primarily of recollections from more than
100 residents, almost all of whom are descendants from early settlers.
A review of this publication to discern information about the history of koalas and koala habitat in
the 19th and early part of the 20th Century in this part of the study area reveals the following:
1. There are two references describing the Numeralla River at the time of European
occupation, both describing it a series of lagoons, and one describing gently sloping and well
grassed banks. This suggests that eucalypt vegetation in at least some of the riparian areas
of the river may have been sparse to non-existent.
2. Extensive mining occurred in the latter half of the 19th Century, the most substantial being
at Cowra Creek, Fiery Creek, Badja River, to the east of Numeralla and at Kydra Reefs (Figure
2). The largest of these appears to be Cowra Creek, where more than 400 miners lived in
the 1880’s. Impacts on koalas and koala habitat that would have been associated with these
operations would have included: a) the felling of trees for fuel and pit props (note, in the
1930’s the Cowra Creek mine (reopened in the 1920’s) was powered the old wood-powered
Bulli power station and resulted in the clearing for fuel of at least many hundreds of
hectares around the mine; b) the clearing for water race and sluicing areas; c) the killing of
animals for sport, skins and meat (including dogmeat).
3. Hunting for skins is mentioned repeatedly. Usually it was for kangaroo, wallaby and possum
skins. Hunting for koala skins is never mentioned.
4. There are two references to the so-called ‘Pitt St hunters’: folk of reasonably affluent
circumstances who enjoyed “huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’, when based at a “Tourist Resort”
at Numeralla. One of these references states, I regret to state that some of the great “Pitt St
Hunters” were not averse to potting at kookaburras, magpies, parrots, and in fact, anything
that moved. In those days it was an event for the guests to see an occasional koala,
platypus, lyrebird and curlew.
5. Koalas are mentioned on only three occasions: a) the reference in 4) above; b) another
Numeralla resident who states there are still a lot of koalas round here; and c) a Peak View
resident who states, I have seen a native cat –red one with white spots. We’ve always had
native cats and we have always had koala bears. There are still a few about.
6. Clearing by ringbarking is mentioned frequently, particularly in the Jerangle, Peak View,
Countengany and Kybean areas. The recollections imply that least until the 1930’s clearing
was widespread, with a particular focus on the granitic substrate areas to the east of the
study area.
15
In summary the written historical record does not inform us as to koala abundance in the initial
phase of European occupation. Probably the impacts of mining on koalas and koala habitat were
substantial, but localised. Clearing for agriculture by ringbarking and subsequent burning continued
at least into the 1930’s. We do not know the extent that it was koala habitat that was being cleared,
but probably much of those areas that were cleared sustained at least low-densities of koalas.
In the early decades of the 20th Century the anecdotal history suggests that koalas persisted in some
areas, though were becoming increasingly rare.
Other records from early settlement times
Jan Kociumbas (Peak View area) emailed a steering committee member in regards the publication
Cooma Country by Lauri Neal (1976). He records that J. C. Porter recalled "that possums and koala
bears were plentiful even around the house".
Jan states:
The house where the koalas abounded was William Goodwin's Kelvin Grove, aka Tumbledown. This
branch of the family had moved up there around 1890 from Goodwin Vale. Porter's Tumbledown
may or may not have been exactly where Pat Koppman's Tumbledown stands today but it was
almost certainly in that vicinity. ……..we can be reasonably sure William Goodwin Junior's place was
at the northern end, not too far east from the old Macanally Road and the Fiery Creek diggings.
This information indicates that the koalas must therefore have been ‘plentiful’ approximately 3 to 4
km to the south of Peak View and well into the granite country where, as the surveys underpinning
this study indicate, koalas are now at lower densities than in habitat occurring sedimentary areas
further to the west.
Information from local residents
Appendix 1 provides a summary of information gathered from local residents, largely as a result of
the project’s community outreach initiatives.
Early recollections
Only two elderly residents gave recollections of koalas in the early 1900’s, both implying that they
were relatively common:
1. An elderly resident from the Kybean Valley recollected that there were large numbers of
koalas in his childhood (the 1920’s). Again, this is well into granite country, which was largely
cleared for agriculture.
2. An elderly resident from Numeralla recollected her mother talking about the pitiful cries of
the young koalas (like babies crying) when they were hurt.
Apart from those anecdotes there was no other information that could contribute to this study
about the history of koalas in the early years of European settlement.
16
The Soldier Settlement Program
One important community contribution was in regards to the soldier settlement program that
encouraged the clearing by 1st World War veterans and their families of predominantly rugged and
remote country. The clearing of forests and woodlands in the Strikealight locality (towards the north
of the study area) was reported to be a particularly extensive outcome of this program.
Anecdotal evidence of recovery
A consistent theme of the information shared about more recent times was that koalas were rare
until the 1970’s, but then people became increasingly aware of koalas occurring in a few localities.
These included: a) the Hangmans Creek are to the west of Peak View Rd; b) the valley to the west of
Numeralla Mountain; and, c) the western end of the Kydra West Fire Trail (Kybean River gateway).
From that time onwards koalas were more frequently seen in other areas, including around the
township of Numeralla.
From this information we can hypothesise that in the early part of the 20th Century koalas survived in
a few strongholds that were away from agricultural and mining endeavours.
The ecological characteristics of all these identified strongholds are:
1. they occur in relatively undisturbed areas
2. they include drainage networks within rugged terrain with a diversity of aspects.
3. Eucalyptus mannifera, E. rossii and E. viminalis are commonly occurring
The recovery suggested by the community was at best patchy, with koalas continuing to disappear
from some areas. For example, Jan Kociumbas writes in relation to koala evidence from the Peak
View area:
And the koalas? They were certainly still here near my place up to about 10 years ago. Where
and why did they go? I fancy it was something to do with the prolonged drought and the die-back
that started in the very tall trees they used to inhabit.
An important question in evaluating what were the key habitat areas is whether the stands of
Eucalyptus viminalis that probably occurred along some parts of the main river systems before
clearing for agriculture sustained large numbers of koalas. We are not able to confidently answer
this. One view would probably be these areas would have been important for koalas because the
trees were growing in more fertile areas with greater capacity to access soil moisture. But caution is
warranted. Eucalypt patches in these river systems may have been relatively rare, as is suggested in
the Numeralla History document quoted above. Also the more severe frosts that occur in these
lower-slope areas may mean that these are less suitable for koalas in winter and may also impact on
browse quality. Additionally, although these trees may have been growing in higher fertility soils
their foliage may have higher levels of chemical defence compounds to deter browsing.
Furthermore the impact of farming and changed flood regimes in these areas may have
fundamentally changed soil fertility levels in many so they are no longer able to sustain the higher
densities of koalas that may have occurred before European occupation.
17
Fire Impacts
Five major fires have impacted on the study area since 1987. Figure 2 shows their location.
Table 1 provides the date, cause of ignition and area burnt in regards to each of these fires.
Table 1: Name of fire, date of occurrence, cause of ignition and area burnt
Name of Fire
Date
Ha of habitat burnt
Ignition factors
Mt Dowling
1989
6,000
Grass fire
Numeralla Gum Reserve
1994
1,000
Hazard reduction burn
Numeralla Mountain
1997
2,000
Probable ignition from passing vehicle
Tinderries
2010
3,000
Grass fire
Yarrabin
2013
10,500
Electrical fire caused by pump failure
NB: figures for area of habitat burnt are estimates only.
All of these fires were caused by
human induced ignition, either
by accident or deliberately. The
Numeralla Gum Reserve was a
fuel
reduction
burn
that
developed the characteristics of
a severe wildfire (Kremer 1994).
In all other cases the fire started
in patches of grassland and
spread into adjoining woodland
and forest areas.
Many
older
trees,
including
species preferred by koalas,
were severely damaged or killed
in these fires. Although coppicing
from burnt trees has occurred,
there
appears
to
be
little
evidence of seedling regeneration possibly because of the
impact of deer and goats.
Figure 2: Areas impacted by
agriculture clearing, mining, W1
oldier settlement programs and
recent major fires
18
PART 3: FIELD SAMPLING
Introduction
The first phase of the fieldwork that underpins this study was undertaken between November 2010
and December 2012 primarily to inform fuel reduction operations planned by the NSW Rural Fire
Service (NSWRFS). The second phase, undertaken between February 2012 and September 2013,
aimed to inform the development of the Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for the Cooma
Monaro Shire Council. This latter part of the study was funded by the NSW Environment Trust.
Methods
Grid-site selection
The survey used the Regularised Grid-based Spot Assessment Technique (RG-bSAT) as its primary
assessment method (Phillips and Hopkins 2007, Allen et al 2010, Phillips et al submitted). One km
grid intersections (GDA 94 eastings and northings) on Land and Property Information 1:25,000
topographical maps formed the foundation of the grid, thereby ensuring a random selection process
for the locations of the grid-sites that were assessed.
The intervals between grid-sites were at two scales. Across most of the study area the grid-sites
were almost all at 1km intervals (the macro-survey) while around the Numeralla village grid-site
intervals were at 500m (the micro-survey).
In the first phase of the survey (November 2010 to December 2012) the grid-sites for the macrosurvey were initially selected to inform fuel reduction burns planned in three localities and in three
nature reserves and an adjacent VCA property where koalas were previously recorded. In the second
phase of the survey (February 2012 to September 2013) clusters of grid-sites (usually 9) were
selected to: a) improve knowledge of koala distribution and abundance across the whole study area;
b); to gather additional data for some eucalypts to improve capacity to statistically analyse koalas’
tree species preferences; and c) to sample a larger number of grid-sites on underlying volcanic
geologies.
The 500m-interval grid-sites for the micro-survey were initially selected from within a designated
Strategic Fire Asset Zone to the west of Numeralla. Grid-sites were subsequently selected where
they were within, or within 500m of a zone around the township delineated by Cooma-Monaro SC as
an area of interest in regards to sub-division potential.
In both surveys grid-sites were only assessed where permission was granted by land owners.
Grid-site assessments
Grid-sites were located in the field using a GPS navigator. At each site 30 trees >150 mm diameter at
breast height (DBH) were sampled, comprising a centre tree (around which the survey was focused)
and it’s 29 nearest neighbours. Trees were identified to species and the surrounding litter searched
for koala faecal pellets to distance of 1m out from the trunk of each tree. The species and diameter
at breast height (DBH) of each tree and the presence or absence of koala pellets within the search
19
area was recorded. The radius of each site was also recorded (i.e. the distance to the tree furthest
from the centre tree).
Other ecological characteristics including evidence of other fauna and any incidental observations of
koalas were also recorded as part of the field survey program. Fresh faecal pellets with patina or
sheen still present were collected for DNA analysis.
Transect surveys
Transect surveys were also undertaken by teams as they walked from the vehicle to RG-bSAT sites
and then between these sites. The survey involved scanning the ground underneath trees for pellets,
looking for evidence of bark “chewings” and for koalas.
The locations of koala pellet sites and significant chew-tree locations were usually recorded,
although in a few areas the finding of pellets occurred so frequently that not all these were
recorded.
DNA analysis
Fresh pellets (with mucus film still evident) were collected and sent to the University of Sydney for
DNA extraction and analysis.
Data analysis
The data analysis used terms derived from Phillips et al. (2000), Phillips and Callaghan (2000) and
Phillips (2000):
1. A grid-site was designated as ‘active’ if koala pellets were located at the site.
2. The site’s activity level was calculated as the proportion of trees with koala pellets compared
with the number of trees assessed at each site (Phillips et al. 2000, Phillips and Callaghan
2000, Phillips 2000).
The occupancy rate was calculated as the percentage of grid sites that were active compared with
those that were not (Allen et al 2010). This calculation was applied to the whole study area, as well
as localities within the study area.
Results
Distribution and activity levels
In both phases of the survey a total of 262 grid-sites were assessed. Figure 3 shows the locations of
the grid-sites and their activity levels throughout the study area that were assessed in both phases
of the survey. In these and subsequent figures the squares are grid-sites that were assessed in 201012 and the circles were those assessed in 2013-14.
20
Figure 3: Locations of the assessed grid-sites and their activity levels throughout the study area
21
Figure 4 shows the central section of the study area (between the Jerangle Rd, to the north and
Kydra West FT to the south).
Figure 4: Assessed grid-sites and their activity levels in the central part of the study area
22
Figure 5 shows the locations of the assessed grid-sites and their activity levels in the northern
section of the study area (north of the Jerangle Rd).
Figure 5: Results for northern part of the study area
23
Macro-survey results
In the macro-survey, a total of 5580 trees from 186 grid-sites (sites at 1km intervals) were assessed.
Evidence of koala activity was recorded at 85 (45.41%) of these grid-sites. Koala activity levels varied
between 3.33 and 43.30% with the mean activity level (active sites only) of 11.13 ± 8.91% (SD).
Grid-sites were also sub-divided according to whether they occurred on sedimentary or volcanic
substrates as mapped by DLWC (2004a & 2004b) to enable comparison of the proportion active
sites; average activity, number of sites >10.0%AL and proportion of >10% active sites. Analysis
revealed no statistical difference in these results based on geology (S. Phillips pers comm).
A summary of these results is shown in Table 2, below.
Table 2: Summary of results from the macro-survey, and subdivision of results based on geology
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM 1KM-INTERVAL SITES BASED ON GEOLOGY
Sedimentary
Number of sites sampled
Volcanic
All
123
63
186
Number of active sites
60
24
84
Proportion active sites
49%
38%
45%
1800
720
2520
11.3%
10.4%
10 .7%
31
9
40
50.8%
39.1%
47.6%
Number of trees at active sites
Average activity
Number of sites >10.0%AL
Proportion of >10% active sites
Grid-sites were also sub-divided according to whether they occurred to the north or south of the
Bredbo River and described in this report as the northern or central/southern sections of the study
area. Outlying inactive grid-sites to both the north (2) and south (12) were not included in the
calculations below.
These results do show a significant difference between the northern and southern sections of the
study area. Table 3 summarises these results.
Table 3: Summary of results from the northern and southern sections of the study area
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM 1KM-INTERVAL SITES BASED
ON LOCATION
Northern Central
Number of grid-sites assessed
69
105
Number of active grid-sites
21
63
Number of trees at active sites
930
3150
Proportion of active sites
30.43% 60.00%
Average activity level of active sites
8.72% 11.90%
Number of sites >10.0%AL
7
33
Proportion of >10% active sites
9.86% 31.43%
24
Micro-survey results
In the micro-survey within and around the Numeralla village, data from 88 grid-sites were used in
the analyses. This included 1km-interval sites that were also used in the micro study (28), and their
adjacent 500m-interval sites (60). Evidence of koala activity was recorded at 67 (77.01%) of these
grid-sites. Koala activity levels varied between 3.33 and 43.30% with a mean activity level of 11.11%
± 8.91% (SD).
DNA Results
Analysis of DNA samples revealed that two genotypes of koalas exist within the study area with
samples from the southern section (including Numeralla) being of a different genotype to those
collected from the north of the Chakola Fire Trail.
Both populations contained haplotypes that were also found in the koala populations in the
Strzelecki Ranges in south eastern Victoria and those in the greater Sydney area. However, there was
no overlap of haplotypes between the population in the study area and the coastal forest population
to the south east (D. Phalen pers. comm.)
Bark-chewing
Distinctive bark chewings were observed in several localities during the survey, including Mt Dowling
NR and Mt Clifford NR and private properties in the Good Good area (Hammershill), and Black Range
(Black Ridge), Mt Macanally and the Numeralla area. Consistently the bark of one species, E.
mannifera was being targeted.
Footage obtained from movement sensitive UV cameras early in the survey confirmed that koalas
(including female koala with young) were responsible for these chewings. In all these areas koala
pellets were located under some chewed trees and the chewing areas were characterised by at least
several heavily chewed trees that had been repeatedly chewed over at least several years and many
other trees with less extensive chew marks were also observed in some of these areas. At four of
these localities pellets of distinctively large and small sizes indicated that females with young were
using these trees. The UV camera footage showed a female with back-young, and a large male, all
using the same tree.
The koala chewing area locations identified in the survey are shown in Figure 6, below.
A brush-tail possum Trichosurus vulpecula was also observed chewing the bark of a tree to the south
of Numeralla and this species is probably responsible for some chewings at least in the Numeralla
area.
25
Figure 6: Chewing area locations
Feral browsers
In the study 34.5% and 38% of the grid-sites assessed had evidence of deer and goats respectively.
This is significantly higher than the results from similar studies in the SENSW coastal and escarpment
forests where, in both regions less than 10% of the sites had evidence of either species (OEH
unpublished data).
26
Discussion
Distribution and activity levels
Koalas extend throughout the study area, with the area between the Bredbo River to the north and
the northern sections of the Kybean River to the south having higher occupancy rate and levels of
koala activity.
DNA Results
The identification of two genotypes within the population is a significant finding. Further research in
this field may reveal useful information about the history of koalas in the study area, and its genetic
relationships with other populations.
Bark-chewing
Most of the trees selected by koalas for bark-chewing have a small number of chewing incisions. But
some trees are extensively used and repeatedly visited for many years. The extent of these markings
is sometimes quite stunning, extending from the base of the tree to its highest branches.
Bark-chewing activity by koalas was repeatedly reported by the owners of Black Ridge (a Voluntary
Conservation Agreement property in the study area) for many years. Their reports were received
with scepticism within the scientific community, probably because although koalas are known to eat
bark, there was no knowledge of this kind of systematic feeding on the eucalypt bark one species.
The discovery highlights the lack of knowledge about koalas’ feeding ecology and the important
contribution that can be made by local landholders to improving that knowledge.
The link to see the koala-chewing footage is at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5wz7bEaDUM&feature=player_embedded
The reasons why koalas are accessing the E mannifera bark in this way are unknown, but these may
include a dietary supplement of minerals, nutrients and/or moisture.
Usually pellets of varying sizes were found in the areas where intensively chewed trees were found,
suggesting that several koalas, including mothers with young, were using each area. Such use was
recorded by camera at one location where three koalas were filmed using one heavily-chewed tree.
This suggests that heavily chewed trees may be focal points within areas used by resident koalas.
Feral browsers
Feral animals browse on the foliage and bark of most native plants, including all eucalypts. This
means that the eucalypt forest and woodland’s capacity for regeneration through seeding and
lignotuber regrowth and habitat rehabilitation initiatives may be significantly reduced in areas where
large populations of feral browsers occur, such as much of the study area.
27
PART 4: IDENTIFING PREFERRED TREE SPECIES AND OTHER HABITAT
INDICATORS
Introduction
This section of the report describes the methods and analyses used to identify the tree species
preferred by koalas and other indicators of koala habitat in the study area.
Most CKPOM’s in NSW identify the tree species that koalas prefer by pooling the data from active
sites and examining these with statistical tests. The tests used are log-likelihood ratios and
unplanned tests for homogeneity using simultaneous test procedures that isolate the preferred
species (Biolink 2009 and Biolink 2011). The data can be subdivided in soil-type categories to test for
variations that may be substrate-determined.
Addendum B in this report uses this method to select the preferred species that the guided the
selection of GIS vegetation layers that underpin the preferred habitat model used in the draft
CKPoM.
In this section the raw data from the 1km-interval grid-sites on the koala’s tree species preferences
is presented without analysis.
Complementary analyses using other statistical tests of the data to identify the tree species
preferred by koalas were undertaken by the Institute of Applied Ecology, Canberra University (IAE)
(Gruber et al 2014). A summary of these results is provided in this section of the report.
Methods
Identifying spatial autocorrelation
In the analysis undertaken by IAE the data were tested for spatial autocorrelation. This revealed that
although autocorrelation was detected when 500m-interval grid-sites were included in the dataset,
this was not apparent when only the 1km grid-sites were used. The analysis of tree species
preferences and other habitat indicators discussed below were therefore only applied to the 1kminterval grid-sites.
Calculating the strike rates for each tree species
The data for each tree species from the 1km-interval grid-sites were pooled to obtain a proportional
index of use (the proportion of trees in the sample with one or more faecal pellets recorded beneath
them) “P”. Hereafter this referred to as the strike rate.
The more commonly occurring and more frequently used species were also separated into two data
sets, one for those on sedimentary geologies and the other for those on volcanic geologies.
Stratification of sites by geologies was derived field-site data records and confirmed by soil
landscape mapping (DLWC 2004a; 2004b).
28
Identifying tree species preferences using other statistical analyses
Overall strike-rates
Another measure of strike rates, which was called the overall strike-rate was developed by the AEI
(IAE 2013). The overall strike rate differs from the strike rate defined above in that data from all sites
were included, regardless of koala activity.
Bootstrap simulation
The IAE also performed a bootstrap simulation with 100,000 permutations for each tree species (IAE
2013). For each set of simulations, the relative abundance of a tree species across all visited sites
was determined, the total number of trees with koala faecal pellets present, and the number of
trees of the species of interest with faecal pellets present.
For each bootstrap permutation, a random deviate from a binomial distribution, which represented
the number of strikes assuming koalas choose trees at random, was generated. The number of trials
was set to the total number of trees with koala faecal pellets present (all tree species), and the
probability of a success was set to the proportion of all trees that were trees of species X.
The random deviate was then converted to simulated strike rate by dividing the random deviate by
the total number of trees of the species of interest. Finally, the difference between the observed
overall strike rate and the simulated strike rate was determined. After 100,000 permutations were
performed, the middle 95% of the distribution of the differences between the observed and
simulated strike rates was determined. If the middle 95% of the distribution of differences for a tree
species did not include 0, it indicated that koalas were actively avoiding (distribution is below 0) or
selecting for (distribution is above 0) a particular tree species.
Some tree species were on the cusp of being positively or negatively selected with their selection
status varying from one set of bootstrap simulations to another. By using a high number of
replicates, the likelihood of that happening was reduced.
Non-metric multidimensional scaling
A non-metric multidimensional scaling to visualise the difference in terms of tree species between
composition of active and inactive sites using a distance matrix (Bray-Curtis as a distance measure)
between all pairs of sites was also computed was also undertaken by the AEI (Gruber et al 2014).
Boosted regression tree allowing for non-linear responses
Habitat parameters in a boosted regression tree allowing for non-linear responses were tested and
zeroinflated generalised linear models were also applied by the AEI (Gruber et al 2014).
29
Results
Tree species strike rates from active sites
Table 5 shows the strike rates for the more commonly-occurring tree species from the pooled
dataset derived from the active 1km-interval sites, subdivided into those for which there is a
relatively high sample size and those for which the sample size is relatively low.
Table 5: Tree species strike rates
Tree species preferences from all 1km grid-sites
Species
n
active P
No sites Ni(1-Pi) NiPi
Relatively high sample size
E. mannifera
383
60 15.67%
52
323
60
E. rossii
468
62 13.25%
59
406
62
E. viminalis
311
35 11.25%
10
276
35
E macroryncha
329
32 9.73%
35
297
32
E. dives
582
48 8.25%
36
534
48
Relatively low sample size
Callitris endlicheri
32
5 15.63%
24
27
5
E. rubida
113
9 7.96%
14
104
9
E. bridgesiana
88
7 7.95%
17
81
7
E. pauciflora
126
3 2.38%
14
123
3
E. nortoni
15
1 6.67%
1
14
1
Tree species and size class preferences analyses by Institute of Applied Ecology
Overall strike-rates
Callitris endlicheri, E. mannifera, E. viminalis and E.rossii were identified as the most preferred
species. Also E nortoni appeared to be important in the northern parts of the study area where it
occurs.
Bootstrap simulation
Distributions of observed - simulated strike rates assuming that koalas choose trees within the study
area at random revealed that Callitris endlicheri, E. mannifera, E. viminalis and E. rossii were
positively selected by koalas.
Size class preferences of preferred trees
Trees of each individual species were divided into 100 mm DBH intervals (i.e. 100 to 199 mm, 200 to
299 mm, etc.) and the strike rate (i.e. the probability considering active sites only) for each size class
for each species was determined. A weighted linear regression between strike rate and tree size was
performed, with each size class weighted by the number of trees (of the species of interest) in the
size class. The results for the three most preferred eucalypts, E. mannifera, E. rossii and E. viminalis
30
are shown in Table 6 and Figure 7 below and these demonstrate the koalas’ preference for larger
trees in the case of the first two species.
Table 6: Size class preference results the three preferred eucalypts
Tree Species
E. mannifera
E. rossii
E. viminalis
N
857
951
393
Intercept
0.07
0.09
0.12
Slope
0.38
0.35
0.00
R-square
0.03
0.02
0.00
p-value
0.05
0.06
0.87
In this Table the R-square value shows the proportion of the change in strike rate with tree size that
can be attributed to tree size. The closer the R2 value is to 0, the weaker the relationship between
tree DBH and koala strike rate for a particular species while the closer the R2 value is to 1, the more
important the role of tree size in the selection of trees by koalas. The slope of the relationship
informs us about the overall direction of the relationship. A positive slope value indicates that koalas
prefer larger trees than smaller trees of a particular species, whereas negative slope value indicates
the opposite. The absolute value for the slope (i.e. how far the slope value is from zero in any
direction) tells us about the steepness of the relationship. High absolute value for the slope indicates
that there is a large difference in strike rates between size class 1 and size class 2, and size class 2
and size class 3, etc. The p-value provides information about the significance of the observed
relationship - in general, only relationships with p < 0.05 are considered to be significant, but if
regressions are being performed for a large number of trees, a more appropriate significance level is
0.05/N, where N is the number of regressions performed.
Figure 7: Size class results for E. mannifera, E. rossii and E. viminalis, the three most preferred
eucalypts in the study area
Discussion
Tree species preferences
Taken together the range of statistical tests of data from 1km grid-sites consistently suggested the
importance of E. mannifera, E. rossii, and E. viminalis. With the exception of E. mannifera the tree
species preferences results are different to previous and generally accepted categorisations in the
following ways:
31
1.
Although listed in Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008) as a primary
browse species E. viminalis does not function in this way in the study area as its strike rates
are much lower.
2.
E. rossi is not generally regarded as a preferred koala species and is not listed as such in the
NSW Koala Recovery Plan. However, in these results suggest otherwise1.
As a non-eucalypt, the strike rate for Callitris endlicheri appears to be comparatively high. This
species has a localised distribution in the drier south eastern parts of the study area, usually in
association with E. rossii and E. mannifera. Although the sample size is small the results suggest its
importance to koalas where it occurs, possibly because the greater shade this species provides may
enable it to function as a thermal refuge for koalas.
With the possible exception of koalas in some parts of the Shoalhaven Gorge area (Allen 2002) no
other koala population is known to be sustained by the E. mannifera, E. rossii and E viminalis suite of
eucalypts.
Koalas in a low-fertility landscape
A key factor determining the perhaps unexpected outcomes in terms of tree species preferences is
probably that these koalas are sustained by habitat in a low-fertility landscape where suitable
browse is more widely scattered. Animals utilising this kind of habitat potentially need more
complex browsing strategies than those depending on trees growing higher nutrient landscapes.
These strategies were demonstrated in a study in a relatively low-nutrient landscape in SENSW in
coastal forests between the Bermagui and Bega Rivers (Stalenberg et al submitted) that examined
relationships between koala visitation of trees and the chemical composition of their foliage and
that of conspecifics where no evidence was found.
The following browsing strategies were identified:
1. Within tree species of the Symphyomyrtus subgenus, koalas selected trees with lower
concentrations of a single compound, sideroxylonal.
Other studies show this deters
browsing by captive koalas (Moore and Foley 2005), common ringtail possums [Wiggins
2006, Lawler et al 2000], common brushtail possums [Wallis et al 2002, Scrivener et al 2004]
and greater gliders [Youngentob et all 2011). Commonly occurring trees of this sub-genus
that occur in the study area include E. viminalis, E mannifera, E. rubida and E. brigesiana.
2. Within tree species of the Eucalyptus subgenus, koalas selected trees with leaves above a
minimum threshold of available nitrogen (approximately 0.70%) and about 65% Dry Matter
Digestibility (DMD). In regards to what determines the former, tannin and fibre inhibit
nitrogen digestibility (Wallis et al 2012) and so the higher their proportions in the leaves the
less available is the nitrogen. In regards to the latter, DMD, is generally regarded as a proxy
1
Another indication of the importance of E. rossii comes from the local koala carer who has cared for four
koalas in the past two years. The koalas consistently fed on foliage from this species whilst switching between
all other species provided. It was like rice to them, he stated (James Fitzgerald pers. com.).
32
for digestible energy. The preferential selection of trees with higher levels of available
nitrogen and DMD from this subgenus suggests that some trees from that group of species
may be a critical resource for these koalas. Commonly occurring trees of this sub-genus that
occur in the study area include: E. dives, E macroryncha, E. rossii and E. pauciflora.
3. An explanation for the feeding strategy that targets the foliage from a diversity of plant
species is known as the Detoxification Limitation Hypothesis. This predicts that leaf-eating
animals reduce the intake of specific toxins by browsing a diversity of tree species, even
those that contain lower concentrations of nutrients (Freeland and Janzen 1974, and Marsh
et al 2006a).
4. Although caution is warranted in regards to extrapolating koala research results from one
study area to another, a consistent feature of the data from both the SENSW coastal and
Southern Tablelands study areas is that: a) there is no evidence that koalas are using any
species as primary feed trees as defined in DECCW (2008); b) strike rates for all species are
relatively low; and, c) species from the eucalyptus sub-genus appear to provide a significant
dietary component.
Size class preference results
The size class preference results indicate that the study area’s koalas prefer larger E. mannifera and
E. rossii. These trees are generally slow growing, often taking many years to reach this size. This
outcome highlights both the importance of the areas where the larger trees of these species survive,
and that koala habitat rehabilitation through planting may take many years to establish before the
rehabilitated areas may become important to koalas.
33
PART 5: MAPPING CORE AND PREFERRED KOALA HABITAT
Introduction
Core and Preferred Habitat
The concepts of core and preferred koala habitat underpin most habitat studies informing
Comprehensive Koala Plans of Management (CKPoM) in NSW.
SEPP 44 legislation defines core koala habitat as an area of land with a resident population of koalas,
evidenced by attributes such as breeding females (that is, females with young) and recent sightings
of and historical records of a population (Office of Environment and Heritage 2000).
Preferred habitat for CKPoM’s is usually defined through the selection of mapped vegetation
communities in which preferred koala tree species occur.
Although the two kinds of habitat overlap, preferred koala habitat is not the same as core koala
habitat. The former may be unoccupied at the time of assessment because of factors affecting the
expansion or contraction of a population, including human and climatic impacts. Alternatively, some
patches where the habitat appears to be of low-quality may be an important part of one or more
koalas’ home range areas because of social dynamics or as yet unidentified habitat qualities. Koala
occupation qualifies such patches as core koala habitat.
Identifying and conserving both preferred and core habitats are important components of a CKPoM.
Koalas need protection where they are, whatever the apparent quality if the habitat, and higher
quality habitat also needs to be conserved, whether it is occupied or unoccupied. A key task
therefore in developing appropriate planning tools for a koala population is identifying, defining,
mapping and protecting both kinds of koala habitats.
Mapping core and preferred koala habitat for the CKPoM
Two methods for mapping core koala habitat are described in this study: a) delineating activity
contours derived from grid-site activity levels; and b) identifying 2.5 X 2.5 km cells where koala
persistence for three generations (3 X 6 years) can be demonstrated through historical records
analysis. Analysis using this latter approach is provided as an Addendum A to this report
Three approaches to mapping preferred koala habitat are also described in the study. These are
based on the following: a) selected vegetation communities where preferred tree species are well
represented; b) ecological and physical variables that are most likely to predict koala occupancy;
and, c) remotely-sensed spectral images of eucalypt foliage calibrated with data laboratory analysis
of important nutrient and anti-feeding compounds leaves of leaves from trees that can be identified
in the image.
The vegetation model used approach a) and is provided as an Addendum B to this report.
34
Mapping core koala habitat
Mapping core koala habitat using activity contours
Methods
In this study koala activity contours area were derived from the grid-site sites’ activity level data
generated in the fieldwork, this being the proportion of trees with koala pellets at each site
compared with the number of trees assessed. The mapped activity contour value was then derived
using the GIS-based spatial analysis tool that combined regularised splining and contouring to
interpolate koala activity patterns across the landscape, these values being derived from the activity
level value of each grid-point assessed and those of its 12 nearest neighbours (Phillips and Hopkins
2007, Biolink 2009 and Phillips et al submitted).
Results
The derived activity contour mapping for the Numeralla locality and more broadly, the central parts
of the study area, with the contour values, 2%, 3.3% and 10% are shown in Figures 8 & 9.
Figure 8: Activity contours for the Numeralla locality derived from grid-site activity level results
and regularised splining and contouring
35
Figure 9: Activity contours for the central part of the study area derived from grid-site activity level
results and regularised splining and contouring
36
Mapping core koala habitat by delineating areas of generation persistence
A complementary approach to the mapping of core koala habitat, based on the analysis of koala
records, was undertaken by Biolink/Greenloading (2015) as a part of the consultancy to prepare the
draft CKPoM, and is presented as an addendum to this study. A 2.5km x 2.5km (625ha) grid was laid
over the study area and koala records in each grid cell that has occurred over the most recent three
or more consecutive generational time spans (6 years) were identified, and from this analysis areas
used by resident and/or source populations were delineated.
The analysis and mapping is included in this report as Addendum A.
Discussion
Activity contours and koala residency
Activity contours can provide an approximate correlation of the home range areas utilised by koalas
with the higher percentage activity contours capturing the more important areas used by koalas
(Phillips 2009).
Given the extent and concentration of the 500m grid-sites in the area near and adjacent to
Numeralla the mapped activity contours probably provide a reasonably accurate representation of
home range areas, although this could be improved if some more grid-sites were assessed at
locations where landholder permission was not obtained. The activity contours mapped more
broadly could also form the foundation of mapping core koala habitat in parts of the study area, but
would need additional grid-site assessments in specific areas.
The activity values in low density populations are generally lower than those derived from highdensity population areas because grid site activity levels (and strike rates) are lower. A comparative
analysis of the proportion of grid-sites with activity levels above the cut-off contour value (23.3%)
suggests that the commensurate value for low density populations such as occurs in this study area
should be 10% (Phillips reference), and we recommend that this contour value is used for planning
purposes in the CKPoM when core koala habitat is being mapped.
Limitations
Both approaches to the mapping of core koala habitat may have limitations. Mapping using activity
contours only captures the core areas at the time of assessment in the field and these contour
boundaries may fluctuate to some extent over time. Grid-sites can be reassessed on a regular basis
(possibly each koala generation) to enable delineation of those areas where activity contours
continue to overlap, though this is potentially resource intensive.
The method of delineating those areas where koalas have persisted for three generations captures
at least some the areas that are the strongholds of the population. However it is more likely to
capture those areas nearer to human settlements (ie observer bias) and it is possible that a
37
significant extent of more remote country in the study area that has sustained koalas for more than
3 generations is not captured in the mapping using this method. Even areas that are currently
important for koalas, including its use by breeding females, may not be mapped. An example here is
the area to the west of Numeralla (Figure 8) where almost all grid-sites assessed had evidence of
koalas and some of these had relatively high activity levels, but does not appear as a stronghold
using this mapping method.
Mapping preferred koala habitat
Introduction
Three methods used for mapping preferred koala habitat are discussed in this document:
1. selecting vegetation communities in which preferred tree species are well represented
2. identifying ecological and physical variables that are most likely to predict koala occupancy
3. mapping based on the calibration of data from laboratory analysis that quantifies important
nutrient and anti-feeding compounds in eucalypt foliage and a remotely-sensed the spectral
image of foliage in the study area.
Preferred habitat mapping derived from vegetation community mapping layers
Background
The mapping of preferred koala habitat in most CKPoM’s is derived from the tree species preference
analyses described in Section 4. These preferences are usually derived from field studies using the
RG-bSAT method (eg Biolink 2009 and Biolink 2011). In the absence of such data, habitat maps are
sometimes derived from the preferred species listed in DECCW (2008).
In both the above approaches the preferred species are categorized into Primary, Secondary and
Supplementary species using the mathematical models and associated definitions in Phillips (2000).
Preferred koala habitat maps are generally derived by selecting vegetation communities in which the
above categories of species are well represented, with this information usually being obtained from
reports and associated datasets accompanying relevant mapping layers.
The habitat map is then developed by selecting appropriate polygons of existing vegetation mapping
data. The communities are generally categorized as Primary, Secondary (Class A) and Secondary
(Class B) Koala Habitat and Other habitat (See Appendix 3 for more detail) following the guidelines
of Department of Environment and Conservation (2008). The accuracy and detail of these vegetation
mapping layers are a significant determinant to the precision of the habitat map.
Addendum B uses this approach which has adopted in the draft CKPoM.
Habitat mapping based on selected vegetation communities
In a preliminary initiative for this study the survey results were overlaid with the vegetation
communities mapped by Gellie (2005), the most recent vegetation mapping undertaken within the
study area. 71 of the 81 active sites (88%) occurred within four mapped vegetation communities in
which one or more of the preferred koala tree species was well represented. These were Tablelands
38
Dry Shrub/Grass Forest, South East Tablelands Dry Shrub/Tussock Grass Forest, Eastern Tableland
Dry Shrub-Grass Forest and Tablelands Dry Shrub-Grass Forest.
The proportions of active sites, grouped by 0%, 3.3- 6.7%; and >10% activity level categories, that
occurred within in identified mapped vegetation community polygons is shown in the Table 7 below.
Table 7: The proportions of active sites, grouped by 0%, 3.3-6.7%; and >10% activity level
categories, occurring in identified mapped vegetation community polygons
Activity levels
0.0%
Total
sampled
No
%
3.3-6.7%
No
%
10.0%
No
All active
%
No
%
Vegetation types: preferred grouping
Eastern Tablelands Acacia-Herb-Grass Forest
South East Tablelands Dry Shrub-Tussock Grass Forest
Eastern Tableland Dry Shrub-Grass Forest
Tablelands Dry Shrub-Grass Forest
Total Preferred
18
75
20
18
131
7
33
10
10
60
39%
44%
50%
56%
46%
5
20
8
3
36
28%
27%
40%
17%
27%
6
22
2
5
35
33%
29%
10%
28%
27%
11
43
10
8
71
61%
56%
50%
44%
54%
6
9
16
8
7
7
53
4
6
14
7
7
7
45
67%
67%
78%
88%
100%
100%
85%
1
2
3
1
0
0
7
17%
22%
17%
13%
0%
0%
13%
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
17%
11%
6%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2
3
4
1
0
0
10
33%
33%
22%
13%
0%
0%
19%
Vegetation types: non-preferred grouping
Other1
South Eastern Tablelands Dry Shrub-Grass-Herb Forest
Other2
Eastern Tableland Moist Fern-Herb-Grass Forest
Tableland Acacia Moist Herb Forest
Tableland and Escarpment Moist Herb-Fern Grass Forest
Total non-preferred
Based on these results the four communities capturing 88% of the active sites were grouped and
mapped as a single category preferred vegetation type (Figure 9).
Note: the southernmost portion of the study area is not included in this habitat map as vegetation
mapping layer was developed for the Comprehensive Regional Assessment for the Southern Region.
To the south the vegetation mapping for the Eden Region was undertaken using different vegetation
community classifications.
The mapping of preferred habitat derived from vegetation community mapping layers was further
refined by Greenloading/Biolink (2015) and is provided as Addendum B in this report.
39
Figure 9: Preferred vegetation types in the study area
40
Preferred habitat mapping derived from significant predictors
Methods
The Institute of Applied Ecology undertook analysis of variables that potentially predicted koala
occupancy (Gruber et al 2014) with those selected being: a) elevation; b) aspect, c) all potentially
important tree species, d) diversity (measured by the number of tree species recorded at each gridsite); e) tree sizes (the average diameter at breast height of all trees within a grid-site; and, f)
geology (sedimentary or volcanic). The correlations and distributions of predictor values were
examined. All correlations were well below the recommended threshold of 0.7 and therefore no
further pre-selection between predictors was considered.
A stepwise backward selection algorithm based on AIC values was then applied, starting with the
initial model that included all predictors and then based on each predictor’s relative contribution to
the model fit, sequentially removed predictors that did not contribute significantly to the model.
To be able to make spatial predictions the predictor values that were selected using the process
described above were needed for those grid-sites that weren’t assessed. Elevation values for all
sites were derived from a digital elevation model. The other predictor values were extrapolated
linearly between existing sites. For example, if there was high tree diversity at one point and low
tree diversity at a neighbouring point, the diversity values of sites in between the two points were
determined using simple linear extrapolation. A linear extrapolation algorithm was used to calculate
between unevenly spaced sample sites.
The accuracy of the habitat model was tested by counting the number of incidences where the
model correctly predicted an occurrence (or absence) of koalas with the the ratio of correct cases to
all cases indicating the accuracy of the model.
Results
In the IAE analysis (Gruber et al 2014) the most important predictors of koala occurrence were:
1. Elevation, with its negative parameter value indicating that koala occurrence was less
frequent at higher elevations.
2. Diversity of tree species within a plot, which had a positive parameter value indicating that
koala occurrence was more frequently located at sites with higher tree diversity.
3. The tree species (E. viminalis, E. rossii and E. dives) were all positively related to koala
occurrence, although the latter only contributed marginally to the explanation of koala
occurrence (p _ 0.06).
The model was found to significantly contribute to the explanation of koala occurrences, though the
performance was quite low (only 16% of the variation was explained by the model).
The ratio of correct cases to all cases (181 sites) was tested. The model predicted (68+63)/181=72%
of the cases correctly. There was no systematic bias as both types of errors were similarly common
(e.g. predicting koalas are present when they are not (27 cases) and predicting koalas are absent
when koalas are present (23 cases)).
41
Discussion
One of the habitat parameters identified in Gruber et al (2014) is tree species diversity and there
appears to be a relationship between a lack of diversity and disturbance history, particularly in areas
where E. viminalis occurs. In part this is probably because lower slope and riparian areas were
mostly cleared and this eucalypt species appears to function as a pioneer species and re-establish
ahead of other species in woodland/forest regeneration processes. We frequently encountered gridsites where E. viminalis occurred as a single-species stand where activity levels were lower, or nonexistent compared with the grid-sites upslope where diversity was higher.
Preferred habitat mapping using remote sensing
Background
The CSIRO, University of Queensland and the Australian National University are mapping koala
habitat quality across the species’ range using a combination of hyperspectral data and laboratory
analysis of foliage. A substantial part of the CKPoM study area was selected as one of those areas for
assessment, in part because distribution and abundance data derived from the habitat study
provided opportunities for comparison between results in the field and that of the foliar quality
mapping.
Methods
Remote sensing using hyperspectral sensors attached to an aeroplane was undertaken over
previously selected sections of the study area. Imaging spectrometers measured the amount of light
or electromagnetic radiation reflected and absorbed across a range of wavelengths and because
specific wavelengths correspond to specific molecular interactions these sensors identified the
chemical the composition of foliage.
Foliage from trees was also collected in the field with the selection criteria being that the trees were:
a) isolated; b) had minimal defoliation; and, c) had a canopy span of >9m. These criteria enabled the
hyperspectral image of each tree to be identified in image derived from the flyover.
Analysis of the foliage was undertaken to identify levels of the following compounds:
1. total nitrogen
2. available nitrogen (AvailN), which is the percentage of nitrogen available once the influence
of tannins is factored in,
3. levels of formylated phloroglucinol compounds (FPCs), which is a feeding deterrent to
koalas.
These were identified by Moore and Foley (2005) and Moore et al (2005) as indicators of foliage
quality for koalas.
The results of laboratory analysis of eucalypt leaves sampled and airborne hyperspectral data from
each study area were then calibrated and integrated to derive the habitat quality map.
42
Results
Results from this study are not available at the time of writing this report.
Discussion
All these habitat modeling approaches discussed above are ongoing and important refinements of
the koala habitat model may become available that could assist planning decisions during the life of
this Plan. This should therefore retain the capacity to incorporate and respond to these refinements
should these become available.
43
PART 6: THREATENING PROCESSES
While the koala is not yet considered to be threatened with extinction nationally, there is no
doubt that it is declining and the time to act, to ensure that this does not happen, is now.
Protecting and managing koalas today is a complex task. Much of their habitat occurs on private
land where there are many competing land uses and the range of management issues is as varied
and wide as the distribution of the koala. The need for a strategic approach to the management
of koalas has become urgent to maximize the effectiveness of conservation efforts
(Commonwealth 2010).
Conservation status of koalas in the study area
Koala numbers in the study area are difficult to estimate. Allen (2010) tentatively calculated the
population in the study area to be between 80 and 320 koalas, derived from estimates of the known
extent of distribution, total area of occupancy, and probably home range size. The results from this
survey indicate that the extent of distribution is higher, the occupancy rate is at higher end of the
2010 estimate, and that home ranges are probably smaller, at least in the central part of the study
area. Based on these data, the current population estimate would be more likely to be within the
range of 400 to 800 animals.
Evidence gathered in this study suggests that, whilst koala numbers have at times declined in some
areas due to localised impacts, the koala population in the core part of the study area has probably
been in a recovery trajectory since the 1970’s, and perhaps from several decades previous to this.
This recovery could easily be reversed. Population Viability Analyses undertaken by Phillips et al.
(2007) determined that a 2 – 3% increase in the naturally-occurring mortality rate (as a function of
total population size) is sufficient to precipitate decline.
The Commonwealth (2012) also states:
Given the ongoing threats to the and the species’ slow reproductive rate, koalas have a low
recovery potential and, therefore, a precautionary approach is necessary when considering the
longer-term impact of an action on koalas in any given area.
It is primarily for this reason that, despite the positive outcomes of this study, the Koala Plan of
Management should aim to reduce the risk and scale of threatening processes and their potential
impacts on these koalas as much as possible.
Because of the uniqueness of the population and the habitat that sustains it, the strategies to
achieve this need to be locally based: Commonwealth (2009) states the need for ….local solutions,
based on local studies and local plans, to manage individual koala populations across their extensive
range and… there is no one universal solution for managing koalas.
The deeper the understanding that the local community has of the threats and their local solutions
the greater is the potential for the successful long-term conservation of this koala population.
44
Threatening processes
Introduction
The Commonwealth (2010) summarises what the key threats to the koala with the following:
The koala has suffered declines due to the extensive habitat clearing and fragmentation which
started with European settlement. Other threats to koalas have included hunting, disease, fire,
drought and, more recently road deaths and predation by dogs. Despite considerable effort to
conserve koalas, only hunting has been effectively eliminated as a threat. A growing additional
threat is climate change. Not only will climate change have direct impacts on koala habitat, it may
interact with other threats with unpredictable and potentially severe consequences for koalas.
The following part of this study explores a range of threats that could be impacting on koalas in the
study area with the primary aim of sharing with and seeking feedback from the local community,
many of whom may be well-placed to have input into this aspect of the management plan.
Community ownership of this component of the management plan will be essential for its effective
implementation.
Climate change
Climate change is probably the major overarching long-term threat to this population, with many
studies (eg CSIRO 2012) predicting increasing temperatures, increasing unreliability of rainfall and
the potential for more sustained and severe droughts in south eastern Australia. This is likely to
have a range of interacting impacts that could exacerbate other threats discussed below. Perhaps
the greatest of these is the increased frequencies and severity of wildfires, and the potential
associated increase in fuel reduction and back-burning activities.
Climate change is a global issue requiring both global and local responses, and our responsibilities
and capacities to influence the human contribution to changing weather patterns may appear
insignificant. However, the potentially exacerbating effects of climate change on other threats to this
koala population increase the importance of reducing the other threats listed below as much as
possible.
Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation
The Commonwealth (2009) states:
Loss of habitat is the major threat to the koala in Queensland and New South Wales, and is the
primary factor responsible for declining populations in those states. This continuing problem,
which results mainly from clearing or fragmentation of forest and woodland, must be addressed.
Clearing is mainly associated with urban development in coastal regions and agricultural
development (cropping and pastures) in inland regions, resulting in incremental loss and
fragmentation of remaining koala habitat. Habitat loss is the most significant cause of koala
population declines and reductions in long-term population viability. Fragmentation effects due to
45
the linear infrastructure (roads, railways, powerlines) bisecting habitat may also be significant,
even with relatively minor loss of habitat area.
…..a high priority (is) to identify important habitat areas and protect them from clearing, through
planning and legislative tools and other measures such as covenanting. Important habitats may
have different features in different areas. High-quality habitat may include both bushland and
urban areas. In addition, important habitat may include corridors of relatively lower-quality
habitat which enable movement between other higher quality areas.
Degradation of habitat can result from: some logging regimes; thinning of timber during property
development; destruction of undergrowth and mid-storey shelter trees; and other disturbances,
such as regular burning, excessive nutrient input or the introduction of weeds. Degraded habitats
are capable of supporting fewer koalas than undisturbed habitats.
Factors contributing to loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat in the study area
The major factors contributing to the loss, fragmentation and degradation of koala habitat in the
study area in recent decades are discussed below. Primarily because much of the koala population’s
habitat tends to be in areas that are remote from human settlements these are less severe than in
some parts of the koala’s range.
Most impacts are small and may appear to be insignificant in isolation. However the cumulative
effect of many smaller impacts is potentially as severe as a major one, and so each of these need to
be considered carefully and avoided if possible.
Biolink (2009) states the following in this regard:
In the context of sustainable management koalas have relatively simple management needs.
Within currently occupied areas it is fundamentally important that their suite of preferred food
trees be retained. While for most people the loss of an occasional tree here or there may appear
of little consequence, the implications for koalas can be considerable, more so given the low
carrying capacity of the landscape and that individual animals comprising the remaining
populations know exactly where such trees are located within the confines of their individual
home range areas.
Sub-division for rural residential purposes
In the study area sub-division for rural residential purposes has mainly occurred around Numeralla.
Impacts have included: a) the clearing of forest and woodland patches for building envelopes, fire
protection and fencing; b) increased pressures to more frequently burn adjacent areas for fire
protection; and, c) the increase numbers of domestic dogs are usually an outcome of such subdivisions.
There are potentially further sub-divisions that will be proposed considered within and around
Numeralla. Given the proximity of the koala population on all sides of the town how these are
managed will need to be a key focus of the CKPoM.
46
Biolink (2009) states: Planning must also ensure that associated infrastructure needs do not impede
use of the area, nor should it increase the potential for such things as motor vehicles and domestic
dogs to pose undue threats to the longevity of either individual animals in the population, or the
population as a whole.
Firewood collection
The ecological impacts of firewood collection is recognised at both state and commonwealth levels.
Firewood collection is listed as a threatening process in NSW (NSW Scientific Committee 2003). The
Commonwealth has published the National Approach to Firewood Collection and Use in Australia,
some sections of which are provided in Appendix 5. The Approach provides a framework or 'toolkit'
of policy options that government, industry and the community may adopt to address the
detrimental impacts of firewood collection on remnant woodland ecosystems and the habitats of
threatened species and a national framework for each jurisdiction to draw upon in developing
tailored Action Plans.
Mining
Mining operations probably have significantly impacted on koala habitat in several parts of the study
area in the early phase of European occupation. Although most of these operations had ceased by
the 1930’s, the Cowra Goldmine continued operating until the 1990’s. With test drilling now
approved in the Macanally NR it is possible that mining may again become a significant issue that
those responsible for koala conservation will ne3ed to consider.
Clearing for agricultural purposes (including private native forestry)
Extensive clearing of what was koala habitat occurred in the 1980’s on the western edge of Black
Range, resulting in severe infestation by serrated tussock and intervention by Council staff. This is
the only known example where koala habitat was cleared for agricultural purposes to a significant
extent in recent decades. Recently, some Private Native Forestry proposals have been approved in
the eastern part of the study area, primarily aiming to clear regenerating eucalypts (primarily E.
viminalis) to return areas to grazing. Given the resource pressures on the timber industry these
activities may increase, and if so may reduce the potential recovery of koala habitat in this part of
the study area.
Feral browsers (deer and goats)
The data from this study shows that goats and deer occur in large numbers throughout the study
area. They browse on the foliage and bark of most native plants, including all eucalypts. This means
that the eucalypt forest and woodland’s capacity for regeneration through seeding and lignotuber
regrowth –and though habitat rehabilitation initiatives- may be significantly reduced.
Wildfire and associated responses
The impacts of wildfire and associated responses is discussed below.
47
Strategies to minimise threat of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation
In regards to the clearing of habitat, the Commonwealth (2009) states:
Where clearing is unavoidable, it is vital to put in place meaningful conservation offsetting
measures to effectively protect and restore other suitable habitat areas. However, it is imperative
that all other options are explored to avoid and mitigate impacts on koala habitat before any
resort is made to offsets. It is important to consider that there is a significant lag-time before
successfully replanted habitat can support koalas.
The CKPoM strategies to minimise the threat of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation of all
core and preferred koala habitat (hereinafter described as koala habitat) should include:
1. Assessment procedures that have the capacity to identify core and preferred koala habitat
that may be impacted by proposed developments.
2. Protection of koala habitat from rural residential expansion, except in exceptional cases. In
those cases where impacts are unavoidable, the developer should compensate in some way.
Appendix 3 provides an example of compensatory assessment procedures that were
developed for the Tweed LGA CKPoM.
3. The Local Land Services have appropriate koala habitat mapping, assessment procedures
and threat management strategies to advise landholders as to appropriate habitat
conservation and rehabilitation on their land.
4. No approvals for commercial firewood operations in koala habitat.
5. Encouragement of solar passive housing in DA planning processes and raising community
awareness of effectiveness of good passive solar design to reduce dependency on firewood
collection.
6. Feral animal control programs that have a key strategic focus on reducing impacts in koala
habitat rehabilitation areas.
7. Koala habitat rehabilitation programs that are in part funded in part through the
compensatory provisions of the CKPoM.
8. Encouraging the planting of preferred koala browse species in other rehabilitation programs.
Fire
Major impacts in regards fire
Wildfire, and associated human responses is probably the greatest threat facing koalas in the study
area. Section 2 provides information about the 5 major fires that have occurred in the study area in
recent decades. As well as burning and injuring koalas during the fire event, and disrupting the
supply of browse, these fires have degraded habitat by a) killing older browse species; b) introducing
a shrub-layer into an open grassy woodland; c) destroying soil and mulch biota.
The positive relationship that has developed with the NSWRFS, largely as a result of this study, has
enabled changes in fuel reduction planning and implementation to minimise burning in higher koala
48
activity areas (ie within 10% activity contours) and low-intensity burns in surrounding areas. This
policy now has in principle approval of the Cooma-Monaro Bushfire Management Committee to be
implemented across the study area in its Risk Management Plan. However, the resources needed to
properly assess areas proposed for fuel reduction may not be available and where this is the case
decisions may need to be based on modelling of preferred habitat.
CKPoM strategies to reduce the threat of fire
The CKPoM could assist to reduce the threat of fire by:
1. Minimising development approvals that may require the clearing, fragmenting or degrading
of koala habitat. Where the clearing of habitat is approved the agreed compensatory
provisions should apply.
2. Supporting NSWRSF in Risk Management Plan initiatives to exclude fire from within
delineated koala activity contours of more than 10% in Bushfire Management Committee
processes and where resources are not be available to support an appropriate and
equivalent decision-making based on the modelling of preferred habitat.
3. Supporting community education around fire management particularly how it responds to a
wildfire event.
Vehicle Strike
Cooma-Contengany Rd
The Cooma/Countegany Rd passes through important koala areas both to the east and west of
Numeralla. There has been one koala known to have been killed in recent years, and probably
several more that have not been reported. There have also been many reports of koalas crossing this
road. Probably most of these animals are dispersing young, moving away from established home
range areas. These animals may be most vulnerable to vehicle strike.
CKPoM Strategies to reduce the threat of vehicle strike
The CKPoM could respond to this threat by:
1. Commit to the erection of signs at 1km intervals along this road asking drivers to drive
carefully. In this initiative, it would probably best not to focus just on koalas. Signs showing
several species known to occur there may be the most appropriate strategy.
2. Negotiate with RTA to impose an 80km speed limit to the east and west of Numeralla.
Predation
Domestic and farm dogs
Because koalas are widely scattered they are unlikely to be major food source for wild dogs and
foxes. The most vulnerable koalas may be dispersing young animals near human habitation where
domestic dogs are not restrained.
49
Reducing the impacts of predation
Probably the two most effective response to the threat of predation is the continuing support for
wild dog and fox-control programs to develop a community education program in regards to threat
and the management domestic dogs.
Care of sick or injured koalas
Over the period of this study an impressive response to the care of injured and sick koalas has
evolved. Primarily this is the initiative of the president of Wildcare, James Fitzgerald, has built a
koala care facility on his property. Of the six koalas brought into care from within or near the study
area with the period of this study all appeared to be dispersing animals and all were in poor
condition either because of starvation or injuries or both.
CKPoM response to threats to dispersing young
The CKPoM response could include:
1. Encouraging the immediate reporting of koala observations, particularly of animals that
appear to be sick and injured and supporting a communication network that enables
Wildcare cares to receive this information quickly.
2. Supporting the development of specific policy guidelines in regards to the capture and
release for this population.
50
REFERENCES
Allen, C. D. (2002). Distribution surveys, habitat assessment and management recommendations for
the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in the Shoalhaven Gorge region of NSW. Unpublished report to
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Southern Directorate. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
PO Box 656 Merimbula NSW 2548.
Allen C. D. (2004). Overview of Koala Surveys, Research and Monitoring for the Koala (Phascolarctos
cinereus) 2001-4 in SENSW. Unpublished report. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage PO Box
656 Merimbula NSW 2548.
Allen CD, Saxon M and McDougal K (2010). Koala surveys in the coastal forests of the Bermagui–
Mumbulla area: 2007–09 – An interim report. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage PO Box 656
Merimbula NSW 2548.
Allen. C. D. 2010 Estimating koala numbers and assessing population trends in South Eastern NSW.
Report prepared for the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to assist its assessment on the
listing of the Koala as a threatened species under the EPBC Act. NSW Office of Environment and
Heritage.
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. 1998. National Koala
Conservation and Management Strategy. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.
Biolink (2009) Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for Eastern Portion of Kempsey Shire LGA
Volume II – Resource Study July 2009. Biolink Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd PO Box 196 Uki NSW
2484.
Biolink (2011) Tweed Coast Koala Habitat Study Report to Tweed Shire Council January 2011. Biolink
Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd PO Box 196 Uki NSW 2484.
Commonwealth of Australia (2009). National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy 2009–
2014. (Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (now SEWPAC): Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia (2012). EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable koala (combined
populations of Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Department of
Environment, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.
Department of Environment and Climate Change. 2008. Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos
cinereus). NSW Office of Environment and Heritage PO Box 656 Merimbula NSW 2548.
Department of Environment and Climate Change. 2000 State Environmental Planning Policy No 44—
Koala Habitat Protection. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage PO Box 656 Merimbula NSW
2548.
DLWC 2004a Soil Landscapes of the Michaleago. Department of Land and Water Conservation GPO
Box 39 Sydney 2001.
51
DLWC. 2004b Soil Landscapes of the Cooma. Department of Land and Water Conservation GPO Box
39 Sydney 2001.
Freeland WJ, Janzen DH. 1974 Strategies in herbivory by mammals - role of plant secondary
compounds. American Naturalist 108: 269-289.
Gellie NJH (2000) Native Vegetation of the Southern Forests: South-east Highlands, Australian Alps,
South-west Slopes, and SE Corner bioregions. School of Resources, Environment and Society,
Building No 48, Forestry, The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA.
Gruber B, Vyˇsn´a V & Adamack AT (2014). Southern Tablelands Koala Survey 2012-2013. Analysis of
occurrence, activity and tree preference – Report. University of Canberra.
Kremer 1994. Numeralla Gum Reserve Fuel Reduction Burn. State Forests of New South Wales
Hindell. M. A., and Lee. A. K. 1990. Tree preferences of the koala. In ‘Biology of the Koala’. (Eds A. K.
Lee, K. A. Handasyde and G. Sanson.) pp. 117–121. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.
Jurskis, V. and Potter, M. 1997. Koala surveys ecology and conservation at Eden. Research Paper No.
34. State Forests of New South Wales.
Lawler IR, Foley WJ, Eschler BM (2000) Foliar concentration of a single toxin creates habitat
patchiness for a marsupial folivore. Ecology 81: 1327-1338.
Lee, A. K. and Martin, R. 1988. The Koala – A Natural History. University of NSW Press, Sydney, NSW.
Lunney, D., Phillips, S., Callaghan, J. and Coburn, D. 1998. A new approach to determining the
distribution of koalas and conserving their habitat: a case study from Port Stephens Shire on the
central coast of New South Wales. Pacific Conservation Biology 4:186-196.
Marsh KJ, Wallis IR, McLean S, Sorensen JS, Foley WJ (2006b) Conflicting demands on detoxification
pathways influence how common brushtail possums choose their diets. Ecology 87: 2103-2112.
Marsh KJ, Wallis IR, Foley WJ (2005) Detoxification rates constrain feeding in common brushtail
possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). Ecology 86: 2946-2954.
McKenzie, D.I. and Royle, J.A. 2005. Designing occupancy studies: general advice and allocating
survey effort. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:1105–1114. McLean, N. and Handasyde, K. A. 2006.
Sexual maturity, factors affecting the breeding season and breeding in consecutive seasons in
populations of overabundant Victorian koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus). Australian Journal of Zoology
56:385-392.
Mitchell, P. 1990. The home ranges and social activity of koalas - a quantitative analysis. Pp. 177-187
in A. K. Lee, K. A. Handasyde, and G. D. Sanson (Eds) Biology of the Koala Surrey Beatty and Sons,
NSW.
Moore, B. D. and Foley, W. J. 2000. A review of feeding and diet selection in koalas (Phascolarctos
cinereus). Australian Journal of Zoology 48:317–333.
Moore, B. D. and Foley, W. J. 2005. Tree use by koalas in a chemically complex landscape. Nature
435:488-490
52
Moore, B. D., Foley, W. J., Wallis, I. R., Cowling, A. and Handasyde, K. A. 2005. Eucalyptus foliar
chemistry explains selective feeding by koalas. Biology Letters 1(1):64-67
NSW Scientific Committee 2003. Removal of dead wood and dead trees - key threatening process
listing. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/DeadwoodRemovalKtp.htm
Office of Environment and Heritage. 2012. Plan of Management. Northern Monaro Reserves
(Incorporating Dangelong, Wadjan, Kybeyan, Numeralla, Undoo, Coornartha, Mount Clifford and
Good Good Nature Reserves, and Kybeyan and Macanally State Conservation Areas).
Phillips, S. and Callaghan, J. 2000. Tree species preferences of koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in the
Campbelltown area south-west of Sydney, New South Wales. Wildlife Research 27:509-516.
Phillips, S. and Forsman, H. 2003. Assessment of Core Koala Habitat within the Area 13 Urban
Investigation Area. Unpublished report to Hastings Council.
Phillips, S. and Hopkins, M. 2007. The utility of regularized, grid-based SAT (RGB-SAT) sampling for
the purposes of identifying areas being utilized by koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) in the South-east
Forests of NSW – a Pilot Study. Unpublished report to DECC.
Phillips, S., Hopkins, M. and Callaghan, J. 2007. Koala habitat and population assessment for Gold
Coast City LGA. Unpublished report to Gold Coast City Council. Biolink Pty. Ltd.
Phillips, S., Hopkins, M. and Warnken (Submitted), J. Splines in the sand: Modelling metapopulation
structure across the landscape to provide greater planning certainty for an arboreal marsupial (Koala
Phascolarctos cinereus Goldfuss). Submitted to Landscape and Urban Planning.
Scrivener NJ, Johnson CN, Wallis IR, Takasaki M, Foley WJ, et al. (2004) Which trees do wild common
brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) prefer? Problems and solutions in scaling laboratory
findings to diet selection in the field. Evolutionary Ecology Research 6: 77-87.
Wallis IR, Watson ML, Foley WJ (2002) Secondary metabolites in Eucalyptus melliodora: field
distribution and laboratory feeding choices by a generalist herbivore, the common brushtail possum.
Australian Journal of Zoology 50: 507-519.
Wallis IR, Edwards MJ, Windley H, Krockenberger AK, Felton A, et al. (2012) Food for folivores:
nutritional explanations linking diets to population density. Oecologia.
Youngentob KN, Wallis IR, Lindenmayer DB, Wood JT, Pope ML, et al. (2011) Foliage chemistry
influences tree choice and landscape use of a gliding marsupial folivore. Journal of Chemical Ecology
37: 71-84.
53
APPENDIX 1: ANECDOTAL INFORMATION FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS
Contributor 1
XX has lived in Numeralla all her life and is now in her 90’s. She said: I remember my grandmother
telling me about the koalas from around here. How the young ones used to cry when they were hurt.
Also that people from Sydney used to come and shoot them –they used to shoot everything.
Contributor 2
SS has lived all his life in the Kybean area and is now in his 90’s. Because of his wife’s illness he did
not feel able to talk with the author of this report, but did say the following to the local Anglican
Minister:
Koalas started to die out in the Kybean area when I was young and quickly disappeared from the
area. They seemed to get sick and die. There was a strong colony at the ‘Gerlock’ property at
Countenageny. I believe that these koalas had come up over the escarpment from the coastal
forests.
Contributor 3
Contributor 3 was a life-long timber cutter who lived in the area all his life and died in 2010. In 1999
he stated the following to the author: When I was a young man I was told about koalas to the west
of Numeralla Mountain by an old man, not long before he died. He told be where they were and
asked me to look after them. At that time I was not aware of koalas being anywhere else. I have
always kept an eye on that area ever since. Koalas are now much more widespread.
Contributor 4
Contributor 4 grew up in Numeralla. She said: We didn‘t hear about koalas around Numeralla area
until the early 1970’s. Then my father mentioned that he had seen one up in the Hangmans Creek
area. Later we used to go down to the Kydra West Fire Trail where we knew we could find koalas.
My impression is that koalas have spread out from these areas since then.
Contributor 5
Contributor 5 grew up on the eastern edge of the Kybean Nature Reserve. He stated: My family
owned much of the country that subsequently came into the Reserve and I often used to ride there
with my father. It wasn’t until the 1970’s that my father became aware that there were koalas in the
area. In recent times we saw them frequently along the track into our property.
Contributor 6
Contributor 6 lived at the settlement at the Cowra goldmine as a child and now lives in Numeralla.
His father was employed at the mine. As a child he was unaware of koalas. His father first
commented that had seen a koala in the 1960’s.
54
APPENDIX 2: COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT’S DEFINITION OF CRITICAL
HABITAT AND GUIDELINES FOR MAPPING
The Commonwealth (2012) states the following:
While the koala has a very large range, its distribution is discontinuous across its range, partly as
a result of historical land use change. The koala population has been fragmented and the
remaining population fragments are separated from each other to varying degrees. This makes it
difficult to identify particular groups of koalas that may be ‘important’ or necessary for the
species’ long-term survival and recovery. Given this difficulty, with respect to the koala, the
concept of ‘important population’ is much less relevant to significant impact assessment than
‘habitat critical to the survival of the species’.
Generally, koala habitat is considered critical to the survival of the species if it has some
combination of the following characteristics The Commonwealth (2012):

History and/or currency of use by koalas concerns the use of the habitat patch by koalas over
time.

Habitat structure and composition concerns the presence and proportion of important tree
species in the vegetation community: locally preferred fodder species, other fodder species
and/or shelter tree species.

Extent is the area and shape of the habitat patch. For development sites, this means the
total area of the suitable habitat within which the impact (direct and indirect) of your
proposed action is likely to occur, not the area of the impact itself.

Dispersal value is the degree to which the habitat does, or may, provide connectivity to
enable koalas to safely move across the landscape and/or to enter or leave the area of
habitat.

Recovery and persistence value is the additional benefit that the habitat is likely to have for
the species’ long-term persistence and recovery.
To determine if an area is habitat critical to the survival of the species, each of the five
characteristics are weighted equally and scored out of two points, making for a total possible score
of 10 points (see Table 1). For the purposes of significant impact assessment, an area of habitat is
considered to be habitat critical to the survival of the species if it scores six points or more.
This scoring system can also be used to score threatened species habitat quality for the purposes of
the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy.
55
APPENDIX 3: EXTRACTS FROM THE NSW KOALA RECOVERY PLAN
Browse species categories
NSW recovery plan:
Primary food trees exhibit a level of use that is significantly higher than that of other Eucalyptus
spp. while also demonstrating a mode of utilisation by koalas that is independent of density …
Secondary and/or Supplementary food trees … invariably exhibit (on average) a significantly lower
level of use than a primary food tree while also demonstrating evidence of more complex
variables associated with their use, generally by being both density and/or size class dependent …
Note: Supplementary food trees arguably represent a third tier in the koala food resource. In
common with secondary food tree species they exhibit a level of utilisation that is also size
class/density dependent.
Two options for categorising koala habitat are provided in the NSW Koala Recovery Plan. Whereas
Option 1
The terms “Primary”, “Secondary” and “Supplementary” food tree species are based on the
mathematical models and associated definitions of Phillips (2000b) and are consistent with
terminology used in the Recovery Plan for the Koala (DECC 2008) and outlined below.
Primary Habitat – areas of forest and/or woodland wherein primary food tree species comprise the
dominant or co-dominant (i.e. ≥ 50%) overstorey tree species.
Secondary (Class A) Habitat – areas of forest and/or woodland wherein primary food tree species are
present but not dominant or co-dominant and usually (but not always) growing in association with
one or more secondary food tree species.
Secondary (Class B) Habitat – areas of forest and/or woodland wherein primary food tree species are
absent, habitat containing secondary and/or supplementary food tree species only.
Other - areas of forest and/or woodland wherein koala food trees are absent.
Option 1 does not provide the capacity to differentiate between categories of Secondary Habitat,
Option 2 does.
This latter option applies the following categories:
1. Secondary Class A classification where secondary food tree species comprise at least 50% of
the overstorey trees (primary koala food tree species absent).
2. Secondary habitat (class B) consists of areas of forest or woodland where secondary food
tree species comprise at least 30% (but less than 50%) of the overstorey trees
3. Secondary habitat (class C) consists of secondary and supplementary food tree species
where secondary food tree species comprise less than 30% of the overstorey trees. Tertiary
habitat is defined as areas of forest or woodland where primary and secondary koala food
tree species are absent, but which have important supplementary koala habitat values such
as habitat buffers and habitat linking areas.
56
APPENDIX 4: COMPENSATORY REQUIREMENTS IN TWEED CKPoM
The compensatory requirements in the Tweed CKPoM are:
(i) This Part does not apply to lands the subject of a development approval granted prior to
commencement of the Plan which includes an already approved habitat restoration or
vegetation management plan.
(ii) Any loss of vegetation cover arising as a consequence of any development on lands to
which the plan applies must be compensated for as detailed in Part 6.1(v) below.
(iii) For the purposes of this Part a tree is a plant species native to Australia that has a live
woody stem equal to or greater than 2.5cm dbh.
(iv) Where the removal of one or more PKFTs and/or other native vegetation is permitted in
accordance with an Development Application approved in accordance with this Plan,
compensation must be provided by way of the proponent of the development entering a
Voluntary Planning Agreement pursuant to S93F of the Environmental and Planning
Assessment Act 1979 to make a monetary contribution towards Council’s programme of
priority habitat consolidation as detailed in Part 7.2 of the Plan;
(v) The amount of the contribution will be based on the value of the required ‘compensatory
units’ arising from the total number, size and types of trees that will be removed, as follows:
a) Compensation for loss of PKFTs that have a dbh up to and including 25cm dbh will be
at the rate of 100 compensation units for every centimetre (or part thereof)
b) Compensation for loss of PKFTs that have a dbh greater than 25cm dbh but less than
60cm will be at the rate of 150 compensation units for every centimetre (or part thereof)
c) Compensation for loss of PKFTs that have a dbh of greater than 60cm will be at the rate
of 250 compensation units for every centimetre (or part thereof)
d) The loss of other trees that are not preferred koala food trees must be compensated
for at a rate that is no less than half of that applied to preferred koala food trees.
(vi) The value of a compensatory unit as at the date of commencement of the Plan is $1.03 to
be adjusted annually, commencing on a date 12 months from the date of the adoption of this
plan by the CPI increase for the 12 months prior to the review date being the average of the
CPI increase for each of the quarters during the 12 months prior to the review date.
57
APPENDIX 5: NATIONAL APPROACH TO FIREWOOD COLLECTION AND USE IN
AUSTRALIA
http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/regulatory-impact-statement-national-approachfirewood-collection-and-use-australia-5
Introduction
The National Approach to Firewood Collection and Use in Australia (Environment Australia, 2001)
provides a policy framework or 'toolkit' of policy options that government, industry and the
community may adopt to address the detrimental impacts of firewood collection on remnant
woodland ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species. It provides a national framework for
each jurisdiction to draw upon in developing tailored Action Plans appropriate to their
circumstances.
The Problem
There is now a recognised need to address some impacts of Australia's firewood industry, especially
collection of firewood sourced from private land in drier regions where there has already been a
large amount of clearing for agriculture and related biodiversity losses. The loss of woodland birds in
south-eastern Australia has been linked to collection of firewood (Reid, 1999). In some regions, over
85% of Australia's woodland communities have been cleared for traditional agriculture, particularly
the box-ironbark woodlands in the 'wheat-sheep' belt of Victoria and New South Wales.
Coincidentally, revegetation of these areas is considered essential for dryland salinity control and
restoring landscape biodiversity. It could also provide a useful carbon sink and the basis for
sustainable regional firewood industries.
Firewood collection is of concern in these areas because old and dead trees (often with hollows) and
fallen timber are preferred sources of firewood, as these tend to burn well and produce less smoke.
However, these same trees also provide crucial habitat and food, nesting hollows, perching places
and forage substrate for birds and arboreal mammals including some of Australia's most threatened
and dwindling ecological communities and wildlife species, for example birds like the Red-tailed
Black Cockatoo. It is often not appreciated that old standing trees with hollows, and dead wood on
the ground, provide an important source of food and habitat for many species of birds, mammals,
reptiles and invertebrates as well as playing an essential role in maintaining forest and woodland
nutrient cycles. In fact, the deadwood component is at least as important as the living overstorey,
leaf litter and soil components for the conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological
processes.
Most firewood users and many suppliers are unaware of the ecological consequences of firewood
collection. It is often mistakenly seen as just 'cleaning up' the forest or keeping the farm tidy, and a
part of good land management. There is a general perception that deadwood is expendable.
Data on the precise amount of firewood collected each year is variable and scarce, but it has been
estimated that approximately 6 million tonnes of firewood is harvested annually in Australia (FTSUT
58
1989). This amount is close to double Australia's current export of 3.6 million 'bone dry' tonnes of
eucalypt woodchips per year (ABARE, 2000), so can be considered to be of significant scale.
Firewood is collected from both public and private land. The firewood 'industry' involves a number
of groups including commercial, semi-commercial, private and own-use collectors and suppliers,
public suppliers, and consumers. Firewood collection from native forest on public land is recognised
as a legitimate and regulated use. It is estimated that approximately half of the firewood supply in
Australia is collected privately from local forest and woodland occurring on private property,
roadsides and travelling stock routes. Much of this firewood is sourced from remnant vegetation in
inland agricultural areas of the south-eastern states and is transported across state borders. There is
increasing concern about the impacts of firewood collection from privately owned woodlands in
drier regions on populations of fauna including several threatened species (Driscoll et al., 2000; Wall,
2000).
There is a strong case for encouraging a sustainable firewood industry in regional Australia because
it has the potential to deliver a number of benefits in addition to the conservation of biodiversity.
Compared to other fuel options (eg oil, gas, electricity) firewood can be managed as a renewable
resource and provide associated greenhouse and dryland salinity benefits and may create regional
economic and job opportunities. A well-managed industry could provide real market-based
incentives for landholders to retain native forest and woodland, which might otherwise be degraded
or cleared for other uses. It might also promote the establishment of firewood plantations, thus
reducing pressure on native vegetation and wildlife habitat.
From an air quality perspective, in order to reduce particle emissions, it is important to educate the
community to burn only well-seasoned timber and encourage adoption of cleaner, more energy
efficient wood heaters.
The market for firewood in Australia is located mainly in the south-east of Australia, in line with the
location of population and cold climates in this area (Chudeligh and Zoretto, 1999). These cold
climate areas are predominantly in mid-low rainfall zone with high quality woodlands. The two key
factors in determining the economic viability of firewood plantations are distance to markets and
the retail price of wood. In order to be sustainable and viable, new plantations would need to be
established close to larger urban or rural centres where firewood is consumed, for example
Armidale, Bathurst, Canberra, Wagga, Bendigo, Ballarat, Adelaide and Melbourne. Once established,
these plantations could be more economically viable than more distant remnant vegetation from
which much firewood is currently sourced. There are also potential benefits from establishing
multipurpose/ firewood plantations irrigated with municipal sewage effluent in mid-low rainfall
areas including improved timber production rates and reduced nutrient loads in inland rivers.
59
F
T
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
A
Appendix B
D
R
DPI and OEH Requirements for the Plan
for Compliance with SEPP 44
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Table B.1
Summary of DPI and OEH requirements for the Plan for compliance
with SEPP 44, with Relevant Sections of the Plan Identified
Item
How dealt with in Plan
Identification of authors
Authors are identified at the beginning of the report,
together with an outline of their experience
Primary Aims consistent with clause 3 of the SEPP; and
The primary purpose of the Plan is presented in s 1.2
comply with clause 15(a) of SEPP 44 (identification,
protection and management of koala habitat).
Task undertaken and reported in accompanying habitat
area, derived from
study.
a)
SEPP 44,
b)
local sources and
c)
field and community surveys.
T
To identify and list the koala food tree species in the study
koala habitat within the study area is shown on Figure 3.1 of
F
To map koala habitat within the study area
this plan
Measures to reduce the key threats within the Cooma-
the local koala population.
Monaro Shire area are presented in Pt 5
A
To identify and reduce the threatening processes acting on
To identify steps to reverse the current trend of koala
Management measures to ensure the long term survival of
population decline, for example
the Cooma-Monaro koala population are provided in Pt 6 of
to identify and conserve koala habitat,

to implement appropriate planning controls,

to institute a long-term program of monitoring
the Plan
R

and reporting of koalas and koala habitat and
to nominate areas for restoration programs.
D

Background
Background to the project is presented in S 1.3
Physical environment - description of the physical aspects of
Physical aspects of the study area and Gunnedah locality are
the study area (climate, geology, soil types and their nutrient
described in S 1.5.1
status, and topography) as it relates to koala habitat.
Biotic environment - description of the biotic environment
The biotic environment is described in S 1.5.2
of the study area including flora, fauna, feral animals and
ecosystems as it relates to koala habitat.
History - summary of history of land-use, and include a
A history of land use in the Cooma-Monaro Shire area is
current map of land tenure. History of koalas and koala
outlined in s 1.5.1 of the Plan. Current land zoning and
habitat in the study area.
tenure is mapped on Figures 1.2 and 1.3. The history of
koalas and their habitat within the study area is outlined in
s 1.3.1 and detailed in the Habitat Assessment Report
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan of
Management.Docx
Final Draft Report
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Regional status of koalas and koala habitat to identify
Consideration is given to regional linkages in s 4.2.5 & 5.2.2
potential linkages between koala habitat in the study area
& Figure 4.1
and neighbouring areas and the highest priority areas of
koala habitat.
A discussion of the existing planning instruments which are
The legislative framework for koala habitat protection is
applicable to the protection of koala habitat (including
provided in Pt 2.
where copies can be obtained)
Methodology
Survey of the study area for koala habitat, including the
following procedures:
Mapping of the Southern Forests by Gellie (2005) vegetation
associations
mapping used as a basis for the habitat mapping
2. community-based koala survey to provide records of
Results provided in Habitat Assessment Report and
both current and historical koala locations; and
Community Consultation Report
F
3. field survey to determine which plant associations and
Results provided in Habitat Assessment Report
A
tree species contain koalas.
Maps of koala habitat, including
T
1. vegetation survey to produce a vegetation map of plant
1. Potential koala habitat. This will be a map of all plant
A map of koala habitat within the study area is provided in
associations containing greater than 10% of koala food trees
Figure 3.1 of the Plan
R
based on the list of trees generated for the study area.
2. Core koala Habitat.
Core koala habitat within the KMPs of Cooma-Monaro Shire
is shown on Figures 3.2 – 3.6 of the Plan
D
Threatening processes
Identify and describe the threatening processes affecting
Key issues for koalas within the Cooma-Monaro study area
koalas and koala habitat
are listed in s 1.2 and threats are also referred to in s 1.3.1.
Also discussed in the Plan are threats to long-term koala
management across the study area viz: reducing risks of fire
are discussed in s 5.3.
Current LEP zoning of koala habitat areas and the effects of
An outline of the current LEP provisions, which lack specific
activities which may be permissible under these zonings to
reference to koala habitat protection, is presented in
the extent that they facilitate or contribute to threatening
s 2.3.2.ii. Permitted activities that have potential to affect
processes.
adversely koala habitat are also outlined in s 2.3.2.ii
The extent of these problems to address the importance of
The Key Threatening Process of loss of native vegetation is
each in the study area.
discussed in Pt 5 of the Plan and threats to long-term koala
management across the study area through lack of
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan of
Management.Docx
Final Draft Report
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
landscape scale habitat connectivity is discussed in s 5.3.
Management
General management principles and policies for koala
General management principles and policies for koala
management.
management are presented in Pt 5
Planning controls and regulation. The recommendations in s
Activating provisions to the CMSLEP and DCP are discussed
2.4 and 2.5 of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
in s 4.2.6 and s 4.2.7
(DUAP) Circular No B35, should be applied. All areas mapped
as koala habitat should be included in these legislative
provisions.
Promoting koala habitat conservation by landowners is
habitat – proactive measures
discussed in s 5.3.4
Threatening processes addressed by appropriate detailed
Management actions to ameliorate threats are presented in
management actions to negate or ameliorate threats
Pt 5 of the Plan
F
T
Encourage land owners to enhance and protect koala
Koala welfare. Management of sick and injured koalas
A provision for Council to support koala welfare groups is
placed in care for rehabilitation and release. The role that
presented in s 5.3.5
local koala care groups play in koala welfare and
A
conservation should be identified and discussed.
A section of encouraging future research is detailed in s
assist in the long-term management of koalas.
5.3.6.
Public education and information - strategies to educate
A public education strategy is presented in s 5.3.4
R
Research - identify areas requiring further research that will
and inform the public of the management and conservation
of the local koala population
The commitment of Council to facilitating a coordinated and
regional approach - neighbouring lands and include issues on
cooperative approach to koala management including in
all land tenures (including State Forests, NPWS lands, Crown
adjoining lands is provided in s 3.1.1.
D
Coordination. Management recommendations should take a
Lands).
Discussion of regional approaches to habitat connectivity is
provided in s 5.2.2.
Implementation - how the plan is to be implemented
The framework to facilitate implementation of the Plan is
including time-frames and responsibilities
presented in s 1.6
Review
Formation of a steering committee in the control of its
The formation of a koala Management Committee is to
direction (eg. establishing time-frames for implementation)
assist with the implementation of the Plan is described in
and content and assigning responsibilities and resources.
s 3.1.2.
Performance indicators. Detailed performance indicators,
Details of the reporting and review provisions of the Plan’s
with incorporated time-frames to assess the success or
performance, including clearly defined timelines, are
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan of
Management.Docx
Final Draft Report
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
failure to meet the aims of the plan. These indicators will
presented in s 6.2 of the Plan
guide the monitoring program. Appropriate indicators
should include rates of habitat loss and/or creation,
feedback from community groups and achievement of
deadlines.
Monitoring. an ongoing program of monitoring of the koalas
Monitoring requirements for the Plan are provided in s 6.1
and koala habitat, be defined by the performance indicators.
Reporting. Reporting of the status of koalas in the study
Reporting requirements for the Plan are provided in s 6.2
area and the LGA could be done through the annual State Of
the Environment Report.
The Plan was on public exhibition from …….. to ……… A total
obtained through public exhibition of a draft plan. Any
of ……. submissions were received and key comments
comments should be collated and incorporated into the plan
collated. l
D
R
A
F
if appropriate
T
Public Exhibition: The views of the community should be
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan of
Management.Docx
Final Draft Report
24 June 2015
Page intentionally left blank
F
T
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
A
Appendix C
D
R
Undertaking Koala Habitat & Chew-tree
Assessments Using Regularised Gridbased SAT (RG-bSAT) Sampling
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page C.1
PREAMBLE
The autecology of koalas in the Cooma-Monaro LGA and amongst other things is
influenced by the availability of and access to preferentially utilised food tree species.
Additionally and at this stage unique to the Cooma-Monaro LGA is the phenomenon of E.
mannifera bark-chewing by koalas and other arboreal marsupials. The purpose of this
appendix is to assist landholders and the proponents of development to identify a)
important habitat areas that are currently being utilised as part of normal koala ranging,
socialising and feeding patterns, or b) quickly determining whether or not a chew-tree is
being used by koalas or other species.
T
PROCEDURE A – KOALA HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
STEP 1
Table C.1
F
Determine appropriate sampling intensities for the site to be assessed using the following
table:
Sampling Intensity per Unit Area
Initial SAT sampling
intensity
High SAT sampling
intensity
<15ha
300m intervals
150m intervals
15-50ha
500m intervals
250m intervals
>50ha
700m intervals
350m intervals
D
R
A
Area of land being subject of
DA or rezoning application
STEP 2
Overlay the proposed development site with a square grid the dimensions of which
correspond to the “high sampling intensity” specifications in the table above, then use
the resulting grid-cell intersections to identify those points that fall upon areas of land
wherein 30 trees of any species that have a dbh ≥ 100mm could theoretically be sampled
within a radius approximately equal to that of 50% of the sampling intensity being
utilised (e.g. 150m = 75m radius, 250m = 125m etc).
When overlaying the grid, ensure that adjoining areas of land are included to the extent
that an overlap consistent with the relevant Initial SAT sampling intensity interval has
been achieved (i.e. provision is made to sample adjoining areas of habitat and so place
the site into a broader koala management context).
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page C.2
STEP 3
a) Preliminary sampling of the site should be undertaken at intervals commensurate with
the initial sampling intensity specified in Step 1.
b) Sampling is to be undertaken at each sampling point using the Spot Assessment
Technique (SAT) of Phillips and Callaghan (2011).
c) In the event that koala activity is recorded at any of the initial sampling sites, then the
surrounding high sampling intensity sites within the boundary of the land under
assessment (or immediately adjoining areas) must also to be sampled.
T
STEP 4
For 150m sampling intersections, the grid cell size will be 150m x 150m (2.25ha)
For 250m sampling intersections, the grid cell size will be 250m x 250m (6.25ha)
For 350m sampling intersections, the grid cell size will be 350 x 350m (12.25ha)
A



F
In the absence of a suitable spatial modelling technique such as splining, all SAT sites
wherein significant koala activity has been recorded must become the central point of a
grid cell, the size of which must be commensurate with sampling intensity as follows.
R
All areas within a grid cell identified in Step 4 and that have an activity level of 10% or
greater must be regarded as supporting a resident koala population for the purposes of
this plan.
D
The overall process is illustrated below.
Step 1. Nominal study area –
in this example ~ 1500ha comprising cleared areas and
a heterogeneous mix of
vegetation communities.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
T
Page C.3
D
R
A
F
Steps 2 & 3 (above). Study area overlain with a point-based, regularized grid for sampling
purposes, each grid cell intersection point that falls within an area of forest that is
subsequently sampled for koala activity using the Spot Assessment Technique of Phillips &
Callaghan (2011).
Step 4 (above). Once field survey has been completed, areas supporting significant koala activity
(i.e. in this example each of the 25 ha grid cells surrounding LB5_038, 050,061,075 and 112) can
be identified or as in the example above, the associated activity levels can be interpolated using
thin-plate splining techniques and associated contouring to provide a more refined outcome.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page C.4
PROCEDURE B – INDIVIDUAL CHEW-TREE ASSESSMENTS
In addition to koalas, brush-tailed possums also chew bark and such trees can
potentially be misidentified as koala chew trees. Koala chew trees tend to be
clustered within chewing areas that appear to be in areas coinciding with
overlapping home range areas of two or more koalas. Levels of chewing activity
vary and may be influenced by seasons and climate. Given these considerations,
areas where bark-chewing of E. mannifera is observed need to be assessed to
confirm whether koalas or possums are undertaking the activity.
STEP 1
T
Where a potential chew-tree is found outside of any area identified as supporting
significant koala activity then an assessment of chew incisions by a suitably qualified
contractor should be requested.
F
STEP 2
D
R
A
If it appears likely that koalas are responsible, then a 30 tree SAT site assessment must
be undertaken using the chew-tree as a centre tree. If the koala activity level resulting
from the SAT site assessment is ≥ 10%, then the tree is located within an area of
significant koala activity and should be so afforded a minimum 75 m radial buffer
conditional upon further SAT assessments being undertaken in accord with Table C1.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Page intentionally left blank
F
T
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
A
Appendix D
D
R
Development Assessment Flowchart
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
D
R
A
F
T
Page D.1
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
COOMA-MONARO SHIRE COMPREHENSIVE KOALA PLAN OF MANAGEMENT ( CKPoM)
OTHER HABITAT EXTERNAL TO KMPs
D
R
A
F
T
DA ASSESSMENT FLOWCHART
Figure D.1: DA Assessment Flowchart for other habitat external to KMPs (Koala Management Precincts)
COOMA-MONARO SHIRE COMPREHENSIVE KOALA PLAN OF MANAGEMENT (CKPoM)
KMP (KOALA MANAGEMENT PRECINCTS)
AND OTHER HABITAT WITH SIGNIFICANT KOALA ACTIVITY LEVELS
D
R
A
F
T
DA ASSESSMENT FLOWCHART
Figure D.2: DA Assessment Flowchart for KMP (Koala Management Precincts) and other habitat with significant koala activity levels
A
F
T
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Appendix E
D
R
'Koala Credits' - Alternative
Compensatory Habitat Measures
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
'Koala Credits' –
D
R
A
F
T
Alternative Compensatory Habitat Measures
System devised by Alison Martin of Greenloaning Biostudies and
Dr Stephen Phillips of Biolink
June, 2015
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.1
E.1
BACKGROUND TO OFFSETS AND KOALA CREDITS/ADVANCED OFFSETS
E.1.1
Introduction and Purpose
T
The various options for measures to compensate for the removal of Preferred Koala Food
Trees (PKFTs) are provided in s 5.1 of the Plan, a third option being ‘Koala
Credits’/Advanced Offsetting. The purpose of this Appendix is firstly to provide
additional background on the aims and underlying principles of the proposed Koala
Credits Compensatory System (henceforth referred to as ‘Koala Credits’), secondly to
provide step by step instructions to utilise the system and thirdly, to provide a calculator
tool (excel spreadsheet) to determine the level of Koala Credits that can be generated for
any given development scenario. Users who don’t wish to know more about the
underlying principles of the compensatory measures should go straight to s E.2.
A
F
The concept of Koala Credits arose from the suggestion of a local landowner, (who is also
a member of the Committee developing this Plan) in relation to past and ongoing land
management practices in the local area. It was suggested that landowners who have
managed their properties in ways that have protected and enhanced koala habitat,
thereby encouraging the ongoing survival of the local koala populations, should gain
some benefit (‘Koala Credits’) from these positive measures. Consideration of this
suggestion led to the concept of Koala Credits representing a form of ‘advanced
offsetting’ to compensate for the proposed removal of PKFTs as part of a proposed
development. Further explanation of the concept of ‘Advanced Offsets’ and offset
principles in general under NSW and Commonwealth jurisdictions, is provided in s E.1.2.
Offset Principles and Advanced Offsets
R
E.1.2
D
The use of offsets as a tool for biodiversity conservation is a relatively recent
phenomenon in Australia and overseas1 and is increasingly being encouraged, through
government initiatives and policies, as an option to compensate for impacts from
developments.2 Over 30 countries now have the use of offsets mandated within their
Biodiversity offsets, also referred to as biodiversity or
governance regimes.3
1
Bruce A McKenney and Joseph M Kiesecker, ‘Policy Development for Biodiversity
Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks' (2010) 45 Environmental Management 165, 165;
Lausche, Barbara, Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation (2011) IUCN Environmental
Policy and Law Paper No. 81, 206.
2
Jared G Underwood, ‘Combining Landscape-level Conservation Planning and
Biodiversity Offset Programs: A Case Study’ (2011) 47 Environmental Management 121127; ICMM IUCN, Independent Report on Biodiversity Offsets (2012) 12.
3
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, “Biodiversity Offsets and the Mitigation Hierarchy: A
Review of Current Application in the Banking Sector’ (2010), a Study Completed on behalf
of the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme and the UNEP Finance Initiative.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.2
environmental compensation4 or compensatory habitat, have been developed as part of
the mitigation hierarchy now recognised as a standard approach to the amelioration of
impacts on biodiversity. The mitigation hierarchy requires impacts firstly to be avoided
and secondly to be mitigated through appropriate actions to reduce the extent or level of
impacts from a proposed development or activity. The use of offsets is employed for
residual impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated.5 Thus, for example, for a new
subdivision development within the Numeralla KMP, the design would be expected to
incorporate retention of the majority of PKFTs (avoidance of clearing), but a small
number of mature PKFTs (≥ 100mm and < 250mm dbh) may be required to be removed
for access roads. The impact of this removal of PKFTs would then require offsetting,
T
In October 2012, the Australian government introduced a national biodiversity offset
policy: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental
Offsets Policy (Cth) (EOP) to apply to all matters protected under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).6 The EOP has 10
overarching principles to guide offset development, summarised as follows:
F
(1) Offsets must ‘deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the
viability of the…protected [matter]...;’
(2) Offsets to ‘be built around direct offsets but may include other compensatory
measures’;
A
(3) Offsets must ‘be in proportion to the level of statutory protection that applies to the
protected matter’;
(4) Offsets must be of a size and scale to be proportionate to residual impacts on the
protected matter’;
(5) Offsets must ‘effectively account for and manage... risks of... offset not succeeding’;
R
(6) Offsets must ‘be additional to what is already required, [and] determined by law…under
other schemes’ (not excluding suitable state or territory offsets);
(7) Offsets must ‘be efficient, effective, timely, transparent, scientifically robust and
reasonable’;
D
(8) Offsets must ‘have transparent governance arrangements including being able to be
readily measured;
4
Juan David Quintero and Aradhna Mathur, ‘Biodiversity Offsets and Infrastructure’
(2011) 25 Conservation Biology 1121; Middle, Gary and Middle, Isaac, ‘A Review of the
Use of Environmental Offset as a Policy Mechanism in the Environmental Impact
Assessment Process (EIA) in Western Australia’ (2010) 28 Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal 313.
5
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,
(2012), Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental
Offsets Policy (Cth), Australian Government.
6
Ibid.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.3
(9) ‘Government decision-making will be informed by scientifically robust information and
incorporate the precautionary principle;’
(10) ‘Government decision-making will be conducted in a consistent and transparent
manner;
The EOP would apply only if the development was of sufficient impact that a referral to
the Commonwealth was required and the proposed action (development) was
determined to be a ‘controlled action.’
T
Under NSW jurisdiction, offsetting procedures are not yet standardised except for major
(state significant) projects, for which a specific Offsets Policy recently has been
introduced7. For minor projects, offsetting via BioBanking procedures is encouraged, but
is not mandatory. In general however, there are 13 offset principles developed by OEH
to provide a framework for the development of appropriate offsets for non-state
significant projects. These principles, in summary, comprise:
(1) Impacts must be avoided first by using prevention and mitigation measures;
F
(2) All regulatory requirements must be met;
(3) Offsets must never reward ongoing poor performance;
(4) Offsets will complement other government programs;
A
(5) Offsets must be underpinned by sound ecological principles;
(6) Offsets should aim to result in a net improvement in biodiversity over time;
R
(7) Offsets must be enduring – they must offset the impact of the development for the
period that the impact occurs;
(8) Offsets should be agreed prior to the impact occurring (…and should minimise ecological
risks from time-lags….);
D
(9) Offsets must be quantifiable – the impacts and benefits must be reliably estimated;
(10) Offsets must be targeted;
(11) Offsets must be located appropriately;
(12) Offsets must be supplementary (additional to existing protected areas on private land
unless additional management actions are implemented); and
(13) Offsets and their actions must be enforceable through development consent conditions,
licence conditions, conservation agreements or contracts.
In order for the Koala Credits to be acceptable as an offsetting measure, it is therefore
important that key offsetting principles be applied. The overarching concept is that there
7
NSW Government (2014) NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects. State of
NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.4
should be a net gain or at least no net loss in biodiversity as a result of development
(Principle 1 of the EOP; Principle 6 of the NSW framework principles). The development
of offsets also should be measurable and transparent (Principle 7 and 8 of the EOP;
Principle 9 of the NSW framework principles), enforceable (embedded in background to
Principle 2 of the EOP; Principle 13 of the NSW framework principles) and additional to
existing protected areas and/or providing additional management measures and value
(Principle 6 of the EOP; Principle 12 of the NSW framework principles).
E.1.3
Types of Offsets
F
T
The type of offsetting and the means of determining the extent of offsetting required
varies across jurisdictions and can encompass the protection, management and
enhancement of additional habitat or creating new habitat (direct offsets), other
measures such as financial support of research relevant to the biodiversity components
subject to impact or research on habitat restoration (indirect offsets), or a combination
of direct and indirect offsets.8 Enhancing existing habitat generally is preferred over
offset involving reconstruction of ecological communities as the latter involves high risks
and uncertainties for biodiversity outcomes.9
R
A
The development of direct offsets prior to the commencement of a development is
encouraged, the longer the timeframe the offset is established, the greater the likely
value of the offset and the lower the risk associated with the delay in achieving positive
offset outcomes. Such early development offsets are termed ‘advanced offsets.’10 The
concept of the ‘Koala Credits’ is thus based on the principle of advanced offsets, with
landowners who have carried out positive and successful koala habitat management or
restoration actions on their properties in effect having developed advanced offsets.
E.2
APPLICATION OF KOALA CREDITS
E.2.1
Criteria for Koala Credit Areas
D
As outlined in s 5.1.3 of the Plan, Koala Credits is a compensatory option that can be
applied to any lands to which the Plan applies that are subject to a Development
Application (DA) that entails the removal of one or more PKFTs and or chew- trees on the
site. An area submitted for consideration of Koala Credits (the Koala Credits area) must
comply with the following criteria:
8
Department of the Environment (2014b), Koala referral guidelines, offsets and existing
projects, Canberra, ACT.
9
Office of Environment and Heritage, (2014) OEH Principles for the use of Biodiversity
Offsets in NSW http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biodivoffsets/oehoffsetprincip.htm.
10
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,
(2012), Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental
Offsets Policy (Cth), Australian Government.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.5
(1) The subject lands (the site) support Preferred Koala Habitat (refer to List A below for
relevant PKFTs or chew-trees to be considered);
(2) The procedures to identify the occurrence of Preferred Koala Habitat and PKFTS/chewtrees, and to determine the extent of removal of PKFTs comply with the procedures
provided in Appendix C and s 4.2.3.i, cl b (1-3), cl c-d, and the retention of PKFTs and
chew- trees as part of the DA design has been shown to be maximised;
(3) The area proposed to be considered for Koala Credits is not subject to impacts from the
proposed development, and preferably is on the same site. Otherwise, consideration
may be given to a proposed Koala Credits area under the same ownership as the
(development) site and which will be required, as a condition of development consent,
to bmay adjoin or be proximal to the site or be in habitat similar to the site within the
lands to which the Plan applies;
T
(4) The Koala Credits area supports PKFTs and/or chew-trees and has been subject to
positive koala habitat management measures that have demonstrably enhanced and/or
increased the value and/or extent of koala habitat on the land. Further details on
relevant habitat management measures are provided in s E.3, Step 3 (List B)
F
(5) The DA provides comprehensive and transparent documentation of the habitat
enhancement measures previously undertaken that are to be used to generate koala
credits, following the procedures outlined in s E.5; and
A
(6) The extent of koala credits to be generated is to be calculated, following the step by step
assessment system provided in s E.3 and using the assessment tool provided in s E.5.
LIST A – Preferred Koala Food Trees/Chew Tress
R
Preferred Koala Food Trees
Eucalyptus viminalis (Ribbon Gum/Manna Gum);

Eucalyptus cypellocarpa (Mountain Grey Gum); and

Eucalyptus globulus ssp. maidenii (Maiden’s Gum).
D

Additional to the above, the draft Habitat Study further considered Eucalyptus rossii
(Scribbly Gum) and Eucalyptus mannifera (Brittle Gum) to warrant recognition as PKFTs.
Koala Chew-trees

E.2.2
E. mannifera.
Compliance Review and Long Term Protection
Subject to compliance with s E.2.1 cl (1)-(6), the following measures are to apply:
(1) The extent of Koala Credits to be generated is to be reviewed by Council, following the
assessment system provided in s E.3 and using the assessment calculator tool provided
in s E.5.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.6
(2) The areas to be submitted for the purpose of generating Koala Credits will be required,
as a condition of development consent, to be subject to a protection covenant in
perpetuity; and
(3) Habitat subject to the above provisions shall not be available for future generation of
Koala Credits.
E.3
ASSESSMENT OF KOALA CREDITS – STEP-BY STEP PROCESS
STEP 1
T
Development Site Ensure the relevant koala habitat datasets for the (development) site
are available and accurate. The site components (attributes) for which data is required
comprise:
(1) Number of mature PKFTs < 250mm dbh proposed to be removed (a mature tree must be
≥ 100mm dbh); and
F
(2) Number (if any) of large mature PKFTs ≥ 250mm diameter breast height (dbh) proposed
to be removed;
STEP 2
A
Koala Credits Area
Ensure the relevant koala habitat datasets as detailed in Step 1 above are available and
accurate. The Koala Credits area attributes for which data is required comprise:
R
(1) Size of area to be submitted for Koala Credits (area must as a minimum = area otherwise
required under the Habitat-Hectare Replacement Ratio, i.e. 0.03 ha/ PKFT to be
removed);
D
(2) Number of mature PKFTs < 250mm dbh present (if Koala Credits area comprises existing
Preferred Koala Habitat, or if primarily a restoration area, any remnant PKFTs present);
(3) Number (if any) of large mature PKFTs ≥ 250mm diameter breast height (dbh present),
following the same rules as for mature PKFTs < 250mm dbh;
(4) Number of chew-trees present, following the same rules as for cl (2) and (3) above;
(5) Type/types of management actions (treatment/s) undertaken and area or extent of
treatment (refer to List B below). Note that if there has been a number of measures
already or historically implemented on the Koala Credits area, then all of these
treatments should be entered into the calculator; and
(6) Number of years for which the management action/treatment has been undertaken.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.7
LIST B –Types of Management Actions/Treatments Applicable to Determining Koala
Credits and Type of Data to be Recorded for each
Habitat Enhancement Measures

Enhancement Planting - this refers to plantings that have taken place within
existing areas of native vegetation (numbers of trees planted - must comprise at
least 30% PKFTs - and how many years plantings have been in place and subject to
management measures);

Habitat Creation – this refers to areas that did not support existing koala habitat at
the time of planting (an occasional paddock tree may have occurred) (numbers of
trees planted - must comprise at least 30% PKFTs - and how many years plantings
have been in place and subject to management measures).
T
Management Measures
Weed Control (extent in ha subject to effective weed control - area submitted
must represent total area of original weed infestation that has been subject to
treatment);

Fencing – entailing habitat protection leading to encouragement of natural
regeneration of Preferred Koala Habitat, encompassing at least 30% PKFTs (extent
in ha of area enclosed and effectively protected so as to exclude stock and feral
browsing animals such as deer, goats and rabbits); and/or

Demonstrable reduction/management of fire hazard by mechanical means.
A
F

R
STEP 3 – Data Entry – Trees to be Removed from Development Site and Any Existing
Trees within Koala Credits Area
D
Enter the data for both the development site and the Koala Credits area, as described in
Steps 1-2, in the Koala Credits Calculator provided in s E.4. The data is to be entered in
the column labelled ‘Attribute Details,’ with data for the development site entered into
Part A of the calculator and data for any existing attributes of the Koala Credits area
entered into Part C (Part B entries calculate automatically from Part A data).
STEP 4 – Data Entry –Type/s, Extent/s and period of Positive Management Treatment/s
Undertaken within Koala Credits Area
Enter the data for the Koala Credits area, as described in Step 2, cl (5)-(6) and List B, in
the Koala Credits Calculator provided in s E.5. The data is to be entered in the column
labelled ‘Attribute Details,’ in Part D of the calculator.
The ‘Total Koala Credits’ available then will be calculated automatically at the bottom of
the column labelled ‘Total Credits Generated.’
STEP 5 – Koala Credit Outcomes
Check the two totals immediately below the Total Koala Credits, which indicate:
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.8

Firstly, the equivalent number of trees, representing Preferred Koala Habitat
provided by the Koala Credits area; and

Secondly, any excess or shortfall in the total credited trees in comparison with the
required number of trees to be provided under the Habitat-Hectare Replacement
Ratio, as per s 5.1.1 of the Plan (50 trees to be planted/mature PKFT to be
removed, with a minimum of 30% of the plantings comprising PKFTs), i.e. if Koala
Credits did not apply.
T
For example, if a total of 65 Koala Credits was generated, the total equivalent number of
trees would be 65 x 4 = 260. If the development for which these Koala Credits were
generated had required the removal of 5 mature PKFTs, then under the Habitat-Hectare
Replacement Ratio compensatory measures, a total of 250 trees (with at least 30%
comprising PKFTs) would be required to be planted. Thus the equivalent number of trees
(260), exceeds the compensatory number required by 10. Providing the Koala Credit area
complies with all other essential criteria (refer to s E.2), the offset requirement for the
development would be considered to have been met.
E.4
A
F
Alternatively, for the same development scenario, if 50 Koala Credits were generated,
providing a total equivalent number of trees of 50 x 4 = 200, the majority of the offset
requirement would be met but there would be a shortfall of 50 trees and additional
planting of this number would be required.
UNDERLYING METHODOLOGY
R
This section provides the principles and procedures underpinning the Koala Credits
Calculator tool provided in s E.5 for those users wishing to understand how the Calculator
functions. It is not necessary however, to read this section to be able to use the
Calculator, providing s E.3 is followed.
E.4.1
Determining Benefit Ratios
D
The basis of the determination of Koala Credits is, in relation to PKFTs, the comparison of
the attribute values provided by the Koala Credits area (with associated treatments) with
the attribute values proposed to be removed from the development site. In the case of
attributes that relate to the sizes of areas, the attribute values provided by the Koala
Credits area are compared with the area that would be required to be provided for the
same development scenario under the Habitat-Hectare Replacement Ratio. A primary
compensatory mechanism of offsets in general is to provide a higher ratio of offset to
impact area, which is designed to take into account time delays in achieving positive
offset outcomes. Thus, the value of attributes provided by the Koala Credits area should
be substantially greater than the value of the same attributes for the development site,
i.e. there should be a positive benefit ratio for the Koala Credits area attributes.
For example, if 5 mature PKFTs are proposed to be removed from the development, and
the Koala Credits area supports 50 mature PKFTs, the benefit ratio for the Koala Credits
area in comparison with the development site (for this attribute) is:
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.9
50/5 = 10.
Alternatively, if the Koala Credits area comprises 1.2 ha, and the required compensatory
planting area under the Habitat-Hectare Replacement Ratio system is 0.3 ha, the benefit
ratio for the Koala Credits area in comparison with the development site (for this
attribute) is:
1.2/0.3 = 4.
F
T
However, the presence of existing PKFTs (or chew-trees) alone, no matter what the
benefit ratio may be, is not sufficient to enable a potential Koala Credits area to comply
with the definition of an advanced offset. Notwithstanding the existing values, a
proposed Koala Credits area must have been subject to positive koala habitat
management actions (treatments), as described under STEP 2, List B. The same process
for determining benefit ratios therefore is applied to the treatment attributes. For
example, if 5 mature PKFTs are proposed to be removed from the development and the
treatment of the Koala Credits area has comprised planting of 200 trees (with at least
30% comprising PKFTs), the benefit ratio is 200/5 = 40.
1/0.3 = 3.3
A
Similarly, if the treatment of the Koala Credits area has comprised effective weed control
of 1 ha, and the required compensatory planting area under the Habitat-Hectare
Replacement Ratio system is 0.3 ha, the benefit ratio for the Koala Credits area in
comparison with the development site (for this attribute) is:
R
With regard to the time period of treatment, the benefit ratio is determined by
comparing the time period with a starting point for planting under the Habitat-Hectare
Replacement Ratio system, taken to be 1 for the purposes of meaningful calculations
(using 0 as a starting point would invalidate the calculation). For example, if the time
period of a treatment is 5 years, the benefit ratio for this attribute would be 5/1 = 5.
D
As indicated at the beginning of this section, the benefit ratio for the Koala Credits area
generally should be positive, although there may be some exceptions to this general rule.
For example, if the treatment type comprises habitat creation, there may be no mature
PKFTs occurring within the Koala Credits area at the time of planting of PKFTs and there
would, therefore, be a negative or no benefit ratio for the Koala Credits area.
E.4.2
Attribute Value Weighting
Although the characteristics of the Koala Credits area may contribute substantially to the
overall value of the area as an offset site, in order to take into account fully the principle
of ‘additionality’ integral to the offset system (refer to principle 6 of the EOP; Principle 12
of the NSW framework principles), the primary source of koala credits must be the
treatments of the Koala Credits area. A simple weighting system thus has been
developed to take account of the different values arising from the various types of
treatments. Thus a higher weighting has been assigned to planting of PKFTs than to
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page E.10
other management actions, as the provision of PKFTs into the future represents
replacement/development of a critical food resource for koalas.
T
Weighting values also have been assigned to any attributes already present within the
Koala Credits area prior to the management treatment, but with the exception of PKFTs ≥
250 mm dbh, these attributes only have been assigned a weighting value of 1, i.e.no
added value, as Koala Credits have already been generated by the presence of mature
PKFTs/chew-trees (trees > 100mm dbh and < 250mm dbh), with associated benefit ratios.
For example, if 5 mature PKFTs < 250mm dbh are proposed to be removed from the
development site and there are 50 PKFTs already occurring on the Koala Credits area,
providing the Koala Credits area has been subject to one or more of the positive
treatments outlined in List B (part D of calculator), the positive benefit ratio for the Koala
Credits area is 50/5 = 10. The total koala credits then generated, multiplying the benefit
ratio by the weighting value of 1 is: 10 x 1 = 10.
E.4.3
Koala Credits
A
F
For the PKFTs ≥ 250 mm dbh however, a weighting of 2 has been assigned for trees
already present in the Koala Credits area in recognition of the high value of such trees to
koalas and the underlying principle of the CKPoM that the removal of these trees should
be avoided. For example, if one large mature PKFT ≥ 250mm dbh is proposed to be
removed from the development site (e.g. it represents a safety issue) and there are 4
PKFTs ≥ 250 mm dbh already occurring on the Koala Credits area, providing the Koala
Credits area has been subject to one or more of the positive treatments outlined in List B
(part D of calculator), the positive benefit ratio for the Koala Credits area is 4/1 = 4.
Additional koala credits are then generated by the weighting: 4 x 2 = 8.
D
R
The final process in determining the values of Koala Credits generated by the attribute
values of the Koala Credits area, is the multiplication of the benefit ratio by the weighting
value for each attribute. All Koala Credits for an area are then summed to provide the
final Koala Credit score. This score is then multiplied by 4 to provide the equivalent
number of trees to be compared with the total number required to be planted under the
Habitat-Hectare Replacement Ratio system. Thus the total of equivalent trees is
subtracted from the number required to be planted under the Habitat-Hectare
Replacement Ratio system to determine whether sufficient compensation is provided by
the Koala Credits area i.e. the number of equivalent trees is ≥ the number required under
the Habitat-Hectare Replacement Ratio system. If the number of equivalent trees is <
number required under the Habitat-Hectare Replacement Ratio system, then this
indicates some additional planting would be required to provide adequate compensation
for PKFT removal.
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
F
T
Page F.1
A
Appendix F
D
R
Addenda to the CKPoM
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
D
R
A
F
T
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
1411001RP1 - Master - Cooma-Monaro Shire LGA Comprehensive Koala Plan Final Draft Report
of Management.Docx
24 June 2015
Addendum 1
Identifying areas of Preferred Koala Habitat within the Cooma –
F
T
Monaro CKPoM Planning Area.
A
Report to Cooma - Monaro CKPoM Section 355 Koala Committee
D
R
March 2015
Biolink/Greenloaning
PO Box 3196 Uki NSW 2484/93 Whyrallah Road, Lismore NSW.
biolink /greenloaning
Koala Habitat Classification: Cooma – Monaro (part)
Introduction
Ongoing analyses of koala activity data from low nutrient substrates (Phillips and Allen 2014)
has recently established the basis for further partitioning Secondary (Class B) habitat types1
based on differences in the relative abundance of identified Secondary food tree species.
Specifically, vegetation communities wherein secondary food tree species are a dominant or
co-dominant component of the tallest stratum support significantly higher koala activity levels
(and hence have a higher koala carrying capacity) than do vegetation communities with
secondary food tree species at lower densities (Phillips and Allen 2014). This knowledge has
resulted in the need to re-examine the classification process currently detailed in Appendix 3
category - Secondary (Class C) Koala Habitat.
T
of the approved Koala Recovery Plan (DECC 2008) to now recognise a further habitat
F
In proposing the preceding changes it was additionally recognised that in the absence of
quantitative data sets that were well informed in terms of the abundance of key food tree
species, the classification of koala habitat based on strict application of the percentage
A
thresholds currently embodied in Appendix 3 of the approved Recovery Plan would be
difficult to apply. A simpler approach was considered necessary, the end result as detailed
below simply focusing on matters of dominance, while also incorporating knowledge
regarding the influence of underlying soil landscapes on the palatability of preferred koala
R
food tree species and the way they are used by koalas. Much of the information required to
assist this classification process can be found in Vegetation Group/Community/Type
descriptions, particularly when supported by indicator species/fidelity data typically
D
associated with recent vegetation mapping projects.
The revised koala habitat classifications are as follows:
- Primary Koala Habitat – forest and/or woodland communities, groups or types occurring
on soils of medium to high nutrient value whereupon primary2 koala food tree species are
dominant or co-dominant components of the tallest stratum species.
- Secondary (Class A) Koala Habitat – forest and/or woodland communities, groups or
types occurring on soils of medium to high nutrient value whereupon primary food tree
1
As defined in Appendix 3 – approved koala recovery plan (DEC 2008)
A preferentially utilized tree species expressing levels of utilization by koalas that are independent of density and/or size
class.
2
species are sub-dominant components of the tallest stratum species.
- Secondary (Class B) Koala Habitat – forest and/or woodland communities, groups or
types occurring on soils of low to medium nutrient value whereupon primary food tree
species are absent, the tallest stratum instead dominated or co-dominated by secondary3
food tree species only.
- Secondary (Class C) Koala Habitat – forest and/or woodland communities, groups or
types occurring on soils of low to medium nutrient value whereupon primary food tree
species are absent and secondary food tree species are sub-dominant or only occasional
T
components of the tallest stratum species.
Each of the preceding classifications reflects differing koala carrying capacities of the
associated vegetation communities, areas of Primary Koala Habitat capable of sustaining
F
high density populations (i.e. > 0.5 koalas ha-1), whereas Secondary Class C Koala Habitat
can only sustain low density populations (i.e. < 0.1 koalas ha-1). Collectively, these four
major habitat categories function to identify areas of Preferred Koala Habitat for CKPoM
A
purposes.
Other changes
As a component of the abovementioned classification system a habitat code of “Other” has
R
traditionally been applied to communities wherein preferred koala food tree species are
typically absent. However, in some instances it may be necessary to identify some
intermediate habitat categories based on knowledge that preferred koala food tree species
D
and/or other factors mandate use of caution in the classification process. In order to
recognise this possibility, habitat mapping layers might also contain categories of
“Other/Secondary Class A” or other combinations as appropriate, the initial classification
recognising the most commonly occurring form of the habitat from a koala’s perspective, the
second acknowledging that within the former there will be localised areas where
circumstances may change such that – as a consequence – a different classification might
be applicable.
Preferred Koala Food Trees in the Cooma – Monaro CKPoM (approximate) planning area
The Draft Cooma – Monaro LGA Koala Habitat Study (Allen 2014) proposed a suite of 3 tree
species: Brittle Gum E. mannifera, Scribbly Gum E. rossii and Manna Gum E. viminalis as
3
A preferentially utilised tree species expressing levels of utilisation by koalas that are density and/or size-class dependent.
being the most frequently utilised by koalas across the area in their study area. Nominally,
these three species would serve to inform the habitat classification process. However,
analysis and objective interpretation of the data set underpinning this outcome has proved
problematical because of a) the exceptionally low activity levels and associated strike-rates
relating to individual tree species, which in turn lead to b) an inability to examine each of the
species in isolation, specifically with regard to their ability to independently maintain strike
rates in the absence of one or both of the other species. This is particularly the case with E.
rossii, resolution compounded by the fact that use by koalas of all other scribbly gum species
thus far examined has been found to either be significantly influenced by their proximity to
other more preferred food tree species or otherwise by their generally large size providing
more secure roosting opportunities (Phillips et al 2000; Matthews et al 2007). Brittle Gum
T
also appears to be the focus of some otherwise atypical koala behaviour in the form of barkchewing, the reasons for which remain poorly understood at this point in time.
F
It is also evident from the mapping and associated vegetation group descriptions of Gellie
(2005) that other food trees such as Mountain Grey Gum E. cypellocarpa and Maiden’s Gum
E. globulus ssp. maidenii may also occur in eastern parts of the planning area, albeit in
A
localised areas. Thus it is important that knowledge reinforcing the importance of these tree
species to koalas be incorporated into any decision process that relates to the classification
of koala habitat.
R
Table 1 provides a compilation of strike rate data for each of the aforementioned 5 tree
species identified by the draft habitat study, now built upon by the inclusion of additional data
such that the resulting data set is derived from 400 – 500 active field sites from across the
D
range of the koala habitat areas of the Southern Tablelands and escarpment areas of the
South-east forests of NSW to the South Gippsland - Strzelecki Ranges area of Victoria.
The value of this larger data set to the process of habitat classification in this instance is
twofold; firstly, amalgamation of the otherwise disparate data into a single and much larger
data-set enables a coarse meta-analysis process to be undertaken, the immediate outcome
of which is the immediate identification of E. viminalis as amongst a statistically isolated suite
of most preferred food tree species to the notable exclusion of both E. rossii and E.
mannifera. Secondly, each of the three most preferred tree species is known to have a sizeclassed based modes of utilisation by koalas (i.e. larger size-class trees are more preferred
by koalas than area the smaller size-classes); a cursory examination of size-class data
indicates that the variation in the strike rates recorded for each of the three most preferred
tree species in Table 1 is entirely in accord with what would be predicted by a strike-rate/size
class based regression model. This has particular relevance because the mean diameter at
breast height (dbh) of E. viminalis within the planning area trends towards the smaller size
classes; which in part explains the low strike-rates and associated activity levels that have
been recorded.
Considerations relating to the use of E. rossii and E. mannifera by koalas are paradoxical in
many respects. It is clear from the meta-analysis that neither E. rossii nor E. mannifera are
amongst the suite of most preferred species. While the use of E. rossii may be discounted
and/or explained on the basis of other knowledge (i.e. more secure roosting opportunities
and/or higher levels of use when growing close to more preferred food tree species), that of
E. mannifera remains uncertain given the strong association of this species with the
phenomenon of bark chewing by koalas (Allen 2014). To this end it may be that the use of E.
T
mannifera by koalas is entirely independent of the quality of the leaf for browsing purposes.
Regardless and until the issue is resolved, E. mannifera remains a significant component of
the ecology of koalas in the planning area and thus warrants consideration in a planning
F
context.
A
Table 1. Percentage equivalent strike rates (active sites only) associated with low – medium nutrient
substrates for each of 5 key tree species associated with the ecology of koalas in the Cooma-Monaro
LGA (Ecyp = E. cypellocarpa, Eglo = E. globulus ssp. maidenii, Evim = E. viminalis, Eros = E. rossii
and E man = E. mannifera). SEF1 & 2 data sets supplied by Chris Allen.
Ecyp
-
R
Data source/tree spp.
Allen (2014) – 1km
Allen (2014) - 500m
D
Phillips & Allen (2014)
-
36.50
Eglo
-
Evim
11.25
Eros
13.25
Eman
15.67
-
14.63
13.52
13.41
27.70
-
-
20.29
14.08
9.71
31.70
Allen/AKF (1999 – 2003)
16.67
-
SEF 1
SEF 2
13.66
19.89
10.53
Average
21.68
21.12
18.53
13.62
12.93
Habitat Classification Decision Paths
Given the preceding information the following tree species were determined as the most
preferred by koalas for the purposes of classifying koala habitat within the area to which the
CKPoM is envisaged to apply:
Primary4/Secondary Food Trees
Mountain Grey Gum E. cypellocarpa
Maiden’s Gum E. globulus ssp.maidenii
Manna Gum E. viminalis
Additional to the above is a clear need to additionally protect individual chew-trees where
T
they occur across the planning landscape. For purposes of the CKPoM the following chew
tree species warrant recognition:
F
Chew Trees
Brittle Gum E. mannifera
A
Application of the preceding decision pathway results in a total area of approximately 54,200
ha of forest vegetation warranting recognition as Preferred Koala Habitat (Table 2). This
estimate is based on vegetation group mapping of Gellie (2005) in so far as this mapping
relates to the approximate CKPoM planning area, but additionally includes knowledge
R
regarding the presence of E. viminalis in otherwise widespread vegetation groups such as
South-east Tablelands Dry Shrub/Tussock Grass Forest (Chris Allen, pers comm). Based on
reliability data contained in Appendix 5 of Gellie (2005), this mapping layer should be
CI).
D
considered as having a reliability of approximately 50% (Reliability: 45.71% ± 4.65% - 95%
Table 2. Classification of Gellie’s (2005) Vegetation Group mapping in terms of the four categories of
preferred koala habitat potentially occurring within the Cooma-Monaro CKPoM planning area.
GVG
47
53
55
56
4
VG Name
Southern Escarpment
Herb/Grass Moist Forest
Riparian Acacia
Shrub/Grass/Herb Forest
Eastern Tableland
Fern/Herb/Grass Moist Forest
Tableland and Escarpment
Dom Euc
E. maidenii
Sub-dom
E. cypellocarpa
na
na
na
E. viminalis
E. viminalis
Classification
Secondary B
Other
Secondary C/A1
Secondary B
Only applies when growing on high nutrient substrates such as Basalt-derived soils and alluvial
terraces/benches.
68
69
72
73
74
75
76
89
95
119
106
107
109
110
115
125
134
146
147
148
157
na
E. cypellocarpa
Secondary C
na
na
Other
E. cypellocarpa
na
Secondary B
na
na
Other
E. viminalis
na
na
na
Primary/Secondary
2
A
Other
na
na
Other
E. viminalis
na
Secondary B
na
na
T
64
Secondary B
na
Other
na
Other
F
62
na
na
na
na
E. viminalis
Secondary C
na
na
Other
na
na
Other
na
na
Other
na
na
Other
E. mannifera
na
Other/Secondary B
E. mannifera
na
Other/Secondary B
E. rossii, E.
mannifera
na
E. viminalis3
na
Other
na
na
na
na
Other
Other
na
na
Other
na
na
Other
na
na
Other
A
59
E. cypellocarpa
R
58
Moist Herb/Fern Grass Forest
Southern Escarpment
Shrub/Fern/Herb Moist Forest
Tableland and Escarpment
Wet layered Shrub Forest
Eastern Tableland and
Escarpment Shrub/Fern Dry
Forest
Southern Escarpment Edge
Moist Shrub/Fern forest
Southern East Tableland Edge
Shrub/Grass Dry Forest
Northeast Tablelands
Shrub/Herb/Grass Dry Forest
Eastern Tablelands Damp
Heath
Southern Numeralla Dry Shrub
Forest
Eastern Tableland Dry Shrub
Grass Forest
South-eastern Tablelands Dry
Shrub/Grass/Herb Forest
Tablelands Shrub Tussock
Grass Forest
Central Tablelands ShrubGrass Dry Forest
Eastern Tablelands Acacia
Herb-Grass Forest
Tableland Acacia Moist Herb
Forest
Montane/Sub-alpine Sedge
Swamps
Montane Dry Shrub/Tussock
Forest
Central Tableland/ACT
Montane Dry Shrub Forest
Widespread Tablelands Dry
Shrub/Tussock Grass Forest
Tablelands Dry Shrub/Grass
Forest
South east Tablelands Dry
Shrub/Tussock Grass Forest
Montane Wet Heath/Herb
Grassland
Eastern Tablelands Dry Heath
Tableland Dry Herb/Grass
Woodland
Tablelands Moist
Sedge/Herb/Grassland
Tableland Tussock
Grassland/Sedgeland
ACT Monaro Dry Grassland
D
57
Other
Secondary B
Notes
1
Secondary A will occur where the underlying soil landscape is basalt-derived
2
restricted to alluvial benches
3
based on Allen (2014).
References
Allen, C. 2014. Cooma-Monaro LGA Koala Habitat Study. NSW Office of Environment &
Heritage.
Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). 2008. Approved Recovery Plan
for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). Department of Environment and Climate Change,
Sydney, NSW.
D
R
A
F
T
Phillips, S., and Allen, C. 2014. Strzelecki Ranges Koala Survey. Report to NSW Office of
Environment & Heritage.
Addendum 2
Analysing the historical record: changes in the distribution
and occupancy status of koala populations across the
A
F
T
Cooma – Monaro Shire from 1940 – 2014.
Report to Cooma - Monaro CKPoM Section 355 Koala Committee
D
R
March 2015
Biolink/Greenloaning
PO Box 3196 Uki NSW 2484/93 Whyrallah Road, Lismore NSW.
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
Introduction
Analyses of historical fauna records are increasingly being used to inform
management and conservation decisions. The koala is an iconic Australian mammal
and as such has already been the focus of one national survey (Phillips 1990) while
in NSW at least three statewide surveys have also occurred (Gall 1978; Reed and
Lunney 1990; Lunney et al 2009). Partly because of this circumstance, analyses of
historical koala records are increasingly being used to inform planning outcomes at
the Shire/LGA level (Lunney et al. 1998; Phillips et al. 2007; Phillips and Hopkins
2010).
For databases which both invite the public to contribute (e.g. DECCW’s Wildlife Atlas;
T
Atlas of Living Australia) and allow interrogation, relatively large data sets are now
becoming available for examination. However, inconsistency in reporting rates over
time, coupled with issues such as duplication between databases indirectly results in
F
a suite of statistical issues which can make objective interpretation of such data
problematical.
A
The Cooma-Monaro Shire covers a total area of 5,229 km2. This report contributes to
a process initiated by Cooma-Monaro Shire Council to progress towards a
Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM) for an area of approximately
1,484 km2 located in the central eastern part of the Shire. In this addendum we
R
undertake an analysis of historical koala records for both the entire Cooma – Monaro
Shire as well as the smaller inholding that constitutes the approximate area to which
D
the CKPoM is envisaged to apply. The intent of the analyses reported herein is to:
(i)
identify broad changes/trends in the geographic distribution of koalas both
across the Shire and within the CKPoM planning area over time, and
(ii)
determine the extent to which the historical record may be capable of
assisting/informing decisions relating to koala conservation by way of
identifying important source populations.
Methods
A inherent problem associated with historical fauna records is that they are
essentially observer-biased and do not represent the results of a systematic survey
effort. Hence, quantitative range parameters such as the Extent of Occurrence
(EoO), the related Area of Occupancy (AoO) and concepts such as generational
2
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
persistence could potentially miscalculate the full extent of change (positive or
negative) and/or the locations of such things as source populations respectively if
existing bias’ cannot be resolved. It is with these considerations and limitations in
mind that the following methodological approach has been developed:
Koala records were obtained from the NSW Wildlife Atlas and Atlas of Living
Australia databases, augmented by those additionally arising from a communitybased koala survey concurrently being undertaken as a component of the CKPoM
process. Once collated, records were sorted chronologically by koala generation
[determined to approximate six years (Phillips 2000)] dating backwards from 2014.
We then partitioned the resulting data set in order to undertake comparisons pre-
T
1997 and post-1996 (the timeframes 1997 - 2002, 2003 - 2008 and 2009 - 2014
approximating the time intervals for the most recent three koala generations). This
approach is specifically undertaken in order to place results in the context of
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) criteria which place weight on
generations (WCUSSC 1994).
F
the concept of population change over a time period of three (taxon-specific)
A
The range parameters EoO and AoO are two key measures pertaining to the spatial
distribution of a species, the EoO being that area within the outermost limits of the
area within which the species occurs, while the AoO is the actual area (or derived
R
proportion of otherwise available habitat) inside the EoO within which the species can
be found (Gaston 1997). The AoO is typically determined by enumerating the number
of occupied grid-cells and therefore is sensitive to sampling parameters such as
D
study area and grid-cell size.
Extent of Occurrence
The EoO was determined as the total area enclosed by a Minimum Convex Polygon
(MCP) derived by connecting the outer-most koala records over time. Three separate
koala EoOs for the Cooma – Monaro Shire were determined, the first a historical
EoO encompassing all known records of koalas over time, the remaining two
delineating a pre-1997 EoO and the post-1996 EoO respectively, the latter relating to
the three most recent koala generations (i.e. 1997 - 2014).
Area of Occupancy
Although more useful, changes in the AoO over time are more problematical to
quantify. As a general consideration, there is an increase in available records over
3
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
more recent koala generations. This creates the potential for an increase in the
probability of a record being present in any given grid-cell over that time period. The
following procedures were applied in order to minimise the influence of spatial and
chronological bias.
A 2.5km x 2.5km (625 ha) grid overlay constrained by the historical EoO was used to
create a series of uniformly sized grid-cells for sampling purposes. The 625 ha gridcell was considered the minimum necessary to accommodate spatial uncertainty in
the data (use of different mapping datums, observer error etc), while the actual
number of records themselves were considered in a binomial context, the primary
scoring mechanism being whether a koala record was either present or absent within
T
a given grid-cell within a given time period. Fifty percent of the grid-cells were then
randomly selected through each of 10 iterations for each time period examined (in
this case pre-1997 and post-1996 records), with the number of cells within which
koala records were present enumerated and thereafter divided by the total number of
F
grid cells sampled to so provide an estimate of the total area occupied. In order to
deal with the disproportionately greater number of koala records in the post-1996
data set, each sampling iteration for this time period was based on a fixed suite of
A
randomly selected records, the number selected equal to the total number of records
for the preceding time period to which it was being compared. Data arising from the
iterations for each time period of interest was then averaged and tested fro
R
homogeneity of variance before being compared using two-sample t-tests.
Generational persistence assessment
D
We also examined the records for re-occurrence over time. The term “Generational
Persistence Assessment” (GPA) is used to describe this process, examining the data
for records of koalas within localised areas over consecutive generational time spans
and so identifying the presence of known long-term resident and/or source
populations. We considered “localised” to be that area defined by the aforementioned
2.5km grid cell within which the record was located, with generational persistence
inferred by records occurring over the course of three or more consecutive koala
generations. In order to ensure that the locations of these important areas were
effectively located for management purposes, they are described and illustrated
herein in terms of a central core area that identifies the total area/number of cells
within which the series of consecutive records occur, as well as those immediately
adjoining habitat areas/cells required to effectively encapsulate the core area and so
identify it for future management purposes.
4
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
Results
1. Shire-wide analysis
Koala records
Four hundred and eighty (480) individual koala records (or evidence thereof) were
available for the Cooma – Monaro Shire, 464 of which were from the Wildlife Atlas, 5
from the Atlas of Living Australia and 11 from the community-based survey.
Extent of Occurrence
Available koala records indicated an historical EoO over time of approximately 2,957
km2, this being that area captured by a MCP with vertices that intersect the outermost koala records in the dataset for the time period 1940 – 2014 (Figure 1). The
T
records further imply that the EoO for koalas over the time period 1940 - 1996 was at
2,474 km2 only slightly smaller that the historical EoO, while that for the last three
koala generations (1997 - 2014) implied a range contraction of approximately 27%
F
from the west, thereby reducing the contemporary EoO estimate for the last 3
consecutive koala generations to 1,801 km2 (Figure 2). In support of this range
contraction, the most recent koala record from the western parts of the Shire is dated
D
R
A
1986.
Figure 1. Historical Extent of Occurrence of koalas across the Cooma – Monaro Shire 1940 –
2014 based on distribution of 480 koala records (or evidence thereof).
5
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
D
R
A
F
T
biolink /greenloaning
Figure 2. Changes in the Extents of Occurrence of koalas across Cooma – Monaro Shire
from 1940 – 1996 (blue polygon) and from 1997 – 2014 (red polygon).
6
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
Area of Occupancy
The occupancy rate estimated from the 50 records that comprise the subset of
records for the time period 1940 - 1996 was compared to that of 50 randomly
selected records for the time period 1997 - 2014. Randomly sampling 50% of the
Shire over 10 iterations returned the following results:
1940 – 1996
Area of Occupancy estimated at 7.78% ± 1.09% (95% CI) of available habitat
1997 – 2014
T
Area of Occupancy estimated at 5.24% ± 0.57% (95% CI) of available habitat.
Analysis of the data associated with these two outcomes indicated that there has
been a significant reduction of approximately 32% in the extent of habitat being
occupied by koalas across the Cooma – Monaro Shire over the last three koala
Generational persistence
A
= 4.684, 14df, P < 0.001, two-tailed test).
F
generations (1940 - 1996 vs 1997 - 2014: Levene’s Test - F = 3.719, 9df, P = 0.032; t
During the three koala generations from 1978 to 1996, available records indicated
two areas of generational persistence nominally restricted to three core cells of
R
approximately 1,875 ha in the Numeralla area.
The subsequent three-generation subset (years 1997 - 2014) confirms the ongoing
D
but expanded persistence of koalas in the Numeralla locality (core area increased to
approximately 2,500 ha), along with two new localities, the first comprising a core
area of approximately 2,500 ha to the north-east of Chakola, the second a smaller
core area of approximately 625 ha between the localities of Bredbo, Jerangle and
Peak View.
Figure 3 illustrates the known core areas within which generational persistence can
be ascertained over the 6 consecutive koala generations covering the time period
1978 – 2014.
7
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
R
A
F
T
biolink /greenloaning
D
Figure 3. Areas of generational persistence: cross hatching indicates areas of generational
persistence over at least 6 consecutive koala generations 1978 – 2014, single diagonal lines
represent known areas of occupancy for the 3 most recent koala generations 1997 – 2014.
2. The CKPoM planning area
Koala records
The area to which the intended CKPoM is envisaged to apply is an ‘approximate
area’ of 1, 500 km2 known to contain the greater proportion of remaining habitat
along with associated, contemporary koala records. For the purpose of what follows
the approximate area was considered to include not just those koala records that
occurred within the original area identified by Council to assist the CKPoM process
but additionally those outside of this area if they were located within 5 km. Within this
8
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
expanded area four hundred and sixty nine (469) individual koala records (or
evidence thereof) were available for analyses.
Extent of Occurrence
Available koala records indicated an historical EoO of approximately 1,488 km2, this
being that area captured by a MCP with vertices that intersect the outer-most koala
records in the dataset for the time period from the earliest known record in 1950
through to 2014 (Figure 4). The records further imply a northerly range expansion of
koalas within the approximate planning area over the last three consecutive koala
generations, from an estimated EoO of approximately 1,099 km2 over the time period
1950 - 1996 to 1,407 km2 over the time period 1997 – 2014 (Figure 5). This increase
D
R
A
F
T
represents a range expansion of approximately 28%.
Figure 4. Historical Extent of Occurrence of koalas across the CKPoM approximate planning
area over the time period 1950 – 2014 based on distribution of 469 koala records (or
evidence thereof). The approximate planning area initially identified by Council is illustrated by
the underlying grey polygon.
9
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
D
R
A
F
T
biolink /greenloaning
Figure 5. Changes in the Extents of Occurrence of koalas across CKPoM approximate
planning area from 1950 – 1996 (blue MCP) to 1997 – 2014 (red MCP).
The approximate planning area initially identified by Council is illustrated by the underlying
grey polygon.
10
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
Area of Occupancy
The occupancy rate estimated from the 41 records that comprise the subset of
records for approximate planning area over the time period 1950 - 1996 was
compared to that of 41 randomly selected records for the time period 1997 - 2014.
Randomly sampling 50% of the Shire over 10 iterations returned the following results:
1940 – 1996
Mean AoO estimated at 8.73% ± 1.45% (95% CI).
1997 – 2014
T
Mean AoO estimated at 7.18% ± 0.94% (95% CI).
Analysis of the data associated with these two outcomes implies that despite an
apparent downward trend approximating 17% in the extent of habitat being occupied
by koalas over the last three koala generations, the difference is borderline in terms
F
of statistically significance (1950 - 1996 vs 1997 - 2014: Levene’s Test F = 2.3544,
Generational persistence
A
9df, P < 0.109; t = 2.0272, 18df, P < 0.057, two-tailed test).
Generational Persistence Assessment within the approximate planning area is as
Key outcomes
R
described above for the Cooma – Monaro Shire generally (Figure 3 refers).
A data set of 480 koala records for the Cooma – Monaro Shire covering the time
D
period 1940 – 2014 was available for analyses. These records were derived from the
NSW Wildlife Atlas, the Atlas of Living Australia and from responses to the recently
concluded community-based survey.
At Shire level the records attest to a range contraction of approximately 27% in the
parameter Extent of Occurrence, along with a statistically significant reduction of
approximately 32% in the associated Area of Occupancy.
A single area of long-term (i.e. a minimum of 6 consecutive koala generations)
generational persistence was apparent in the Numeralla area. For the three most
recent generations two additional areas of generational persistence were also
apparent near Chakola and in the area between Bredbo, Jerangle and Peak View.
11
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
A sub-set of 469 koala records considered to relate to the approximate area identified
by Council for CKPoM planning purposes were extracted and analysed separately.
Within the approximate area identified for CKPoM planning purposes there was
evidence of a range expansion of approximately 28%, a result arguably moderated
by a downward but not quite statistically significant reduction of approximately 17% in
the habitat occupancy rate.
Conclusions
At Shire level koalas over time have undergone significant reductions in both the
T
geographic range and the extent of habitat being occupied.
It is possible that koalas were reduced to a very small population size occupying relic
habitat in the Numeralla area, and that recovery of the broader population has spread
out from this area. Support for the recovery trend is implied by the expanded EoO
F
and ongoing generational persistence of koalas in the Numeralla area, as well as two
new areas of contemporary generational persistence in the north.
A
The downward trend in the habitat occupancy rate within the approximate planning
area warrants monitoring but is considered to likely be a legacy of one or more
historical fire events; the records (or lack thereof) imply that such events would most
1990s.
R
likely have occurred during the 4th and 3rd koala generations during the mid to late
D
………
12
biolink /greenloaning
Cooma – Monaro Historical Records Analysis
References
Gall, B. 1978. Koala Distribution in New South Wales. p115 in Bergin, T. (Ed.) The
Koala – Proceedings of the Taronga Symposium. Zoological Parks Board of New
South Wales, Sydney.
Gaston, K. J. 1997. The biology of rarity: causes and consequences for rare-common
differences. Chapman and Hall, London.
Lunney, D., Phillips, S., Callaghan, J., and Coburn, D. 1998. A new approach to
determining the distribution of koalas and conserving their habitat: a case study from
Port Stephens Shire on the central coast of New South Wales. Pacific Conservation
Biology 4:186-196.
T
Lunney, D., Crowther, M., Shannon, I. and Bryant, J.V. 2009. Combining a mapbased 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: 262273.
F
Phillips, B. 1990. Koalas, the Little Australians We’d All Hate to Lose. Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Phillips, S. and Hopkins, M. 2010. Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management for
Eastern Portion of Kempsey Shire LGA. Prepared for Kempsey Shire Council. Biolink
Ecological Consultants
A
Phillips, S., Hopkins, M. and Callaghan, J. 2007. Koala habitat and population
assessment for Gold Coast City LGA. Report to Gold Coast City Council. Biolink
Ecological Consultants.
R
Reed, P. and Lunney, D. 1990. Habitat loss: the key problem for the long-term
survival of koalas in New South Wales. pp9-31in Lunney, D., Urquhart, C. A. and
Reed, P. (Eds). Koala Summit – Managing koalas in New South Wales. NSW
National Parks & Wildlife Service, Hurstville NSW.
D
World Conservation Union Species Survival Commission. 1994. IUCN red list
categories. Gland, Switzerland.
13
Page intentionally left blank
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page 1
Addendum 3
D
R
A
F
T
Guidelines for Local Koala Rescuers/Carers
Guidelines for Local Koala Rescuers/Carers
9th June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page 2
Guidelines for Local Koala Rescuers/Carers
1
Introduction
Although the Cooma- Monaro koala population is low density, such that koalas are not observed
frequently by members of the public, or even by landowners with koalas on their property, koalas do
sometimes come into care. This may come about through an individual koala being injured, sick or, in
the case of a juvenile, being abandoned or separated from its mother. This guideline document is
designed to assist community members or people employed in activities within koala habitat who
encounter a koala, firstly to assess whether any action in relation to the koala is required, secondly to
carry out the appropriate action and thirdly, to undertake appropriate emergency care if required (i.e.
if a trained rescuer/carer is not available to assist). The guidelines are also aimed at providing a
convenient resource document for local landowners and carers new to koala care.
A
F
T
As a general rule, koala rescuers and carers should follow the procedures provided in the following
documents (website links included):
 Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Koalas (OEH 2011)
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wildlifelicences/20110677KoalaCode.pdf;
 Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Protected Fauna (OEH 2011)
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wildlifelicences/110004FaunaRehab.pdf;
and
 Guidelines and conditions for Koala Care in New South Wales (Lunney and Matthews1997)
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/wildlifelicences/KoalaRehabilitation1997.pd
f.
Anyone wishing to take part in koala rescues and/or care of koalas should undertake the appropriate
training through one of the local koala/wildlife care groups:
D
R
Native Animal Rescue Group (NARG)
Hotline: 02 4846 1900
PO Box 24
Majors Creek
NSW, 2622
Bill Waterhouse (President): 0411375275
http://www.narg.asn.au/
Wildcare Inc.
Hotline: 02 6299 1966
PO Box 1404
Queanbeyan NSW 2620
Email: [email protected]
http://www.wildcare.com.au/
The following sections of the guidelines aim to facilitate awareness of some of the key
procedures or factors associated with koala rescue and care, with specific reference as may
be relevant to the Cooma-Monaro area and conditions. Any observations of koalas within
the Cooma-Monaro area, whether ultimately assessed as requiring rescue or not, provide
useful data on the local koala population and distribution. Observers are therefore
encouraged to record the original location of the sighting, any specific details regarding the
koala/s observed and habitat details and provide these details to Council/OEH.
Guidelines for Local Koala Rescuers/Carers
9th June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page 3
2
Assessment of Situation and Appropriate Actions
In any situation is which a koala is observed and there seems to be some issue with either the
individual (e.g. injured, sick, heat stressed, cold, juvenile alone) and/or the location of the animal (e.g.
on or beside the road, in a tree about to be cut down), a measured assessment of the specific issue
and whether a rescue operation is appropriate should be undertaken, but only after the situation of
the observer is considered. Thus, as with all fauna rescues, the safety of the rescuer/s is the initial
primary consideration. Once the potential rescuer/s has/have ensured appropriate measures are in
place to minimise risks to both humans and the koala (such as in the case of a koala injured on a road),
the rescuer/s should then assess whether attempting a rescue is the appropriate response.
F
T
That a rescue is essential may seem self-evident in situations such as when a koala appears to be
injured and at risk of further injury from vehicles. However, there also are occasions when attempting
a rescue may not be in the best interests of the animal and a range of factors need to be considered.
This assessment process is referred to in Section 3 of the Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and
Orphaned Koalas (OEH 2011) (henceforth in this guideline referred to as the ‘Koala Code of Practice’),
which then refers to s 4 of the Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned Protected Fauna (OEH
2011) (henceforth referred to as the ‘Protected Fauna Code of Practice’). The decision tree provided
in s 4 of the Protected Fauna Code of Practice is replicated for the convenience of the reader on the
following page of this guideline.
A
It is important to note that if a rescue is deemed warranted, then appropriate rescue procedures
should be followed, as outlined in s 3 of this guideline and detailed in s 4 of the Koala Code of Practice.
If the decision tree seems to indicate relocation would be the appropriate option, this process should
not be undertaken without the approval and supervision of an appropriate authority or koala
specialist, unless the animal is in immediate extreme danger.
Koala Rescue
R
3
D
Ideally, rescues would only be undertaken by at least two trained and experienced koala handlers, as
per s 4 of the Koala Code of Practice. However, this may not always be possible in emergency
situations and/or remote locations when an animal’s life would be at risk. This could be the case for
instance if an injured or sick koala is left to wander off whilst phone range and/or additional
experienced koala handlers’ assistance is sought. Similarly, if an individual seems sick or dazed and is
wandering on a roadway, it would be in immediate danger of being hit by any approaching vehicle.
The appropriate responses of potential rescuers will therefore depend on the situation encountered
and must be assessed in the context of the decision tree provided on the following page, the potential
rescuers’ levels of experience, the location of the subject koala and any other relevant factors (e.g.
weather conditions, distance from a vehicle, available equipment).
These guidelines focus more on emergency rescue situations and some key salient points in this
context, drawn primarily from s 4 of the Koala Code of Practice, are provided below:
i) A canvas bag, blanket or towel is suitable for catching a koala on the ground (hessian
bags not to be used as claws can become entangled);
ii) Covering a koala’s eyes with a towel, blanket or bag will often assist with calming down
the animal;
iii) If a juvenile koala is found, the surrounding area must be searched for the mother. If the
mother is found and is healthy, attempts must be made to reunite it with its young;
Guidelines for Local Koala Rescuers/Carers
9th June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page 4
D
R
A
F
T
The decision tree below is reproduced from the Code of Practice for Injured, Sick and Orphaned
Protected Fauna and should be employed to determine the appropriate action if a koala is
encountered.
Guidelines for Local Koala Rescuers/Carers
9th June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page 5
iv) If the koala is an injured female suspected of having a pouch young (swollen teat
present), the surrounding area must be searched for the young;
v) If conditions are very hot and a koala is on the ground and not taking avoidance action,
offer water and reassess the need for rescue;
vi) If conditions are very cold……….
vii) A healthy, independent koala under immediate threat (e.g. on a road) should be moved
a safe distance from the threat source and placed in a climbable tree;
viii) If a koala is rescued and requires treatment/care, the capture location must be recorded
accurately;
ix) Contact a local veterinary clinic or carer as soon as possible; and
x) Document all details of the subject koala and situation requiring the rescue.
R
A
F
T
Transport
A rescued koala must be transported as rapidly as possible to a veterinary clinic or carer, as may be
appropriate to the condition of the koala and availability of veterinary services at the time. In general
however, for a koala to be in need of rescuing, initial examination by a veterinarian would be most
appropriate. For the safety of the rescuers, as well as for the wellbeing of the animal, a koala should
be contained appropriately within a vehicle. Some key guidelines for transporting koalas are provided
below:
i) A container used for transporting an adult or sub-adult koala ideally should be padded,
secure, contain something for the koala to hold on to (e.g. a rolled up towel) and fresh
eucalyptus leaves;
ii) The container must be ventilated;
iii) The koala should be placed upright in the container;
iv) An orphaned pouch young ideally should be transported in an artificial pouch, secured
within a container (e.g. cage, box or basket), with an artificial heat source potentially
appropriate (e.g. a hot water bottle);
v) Consistent (non-extreme) temperatures are desirable:
o
a range of 20–25 degrees C is appropriate for an adult in most circumstances
o
a range of 28–32 degrees C is appropriate for an unfurred pouch young.
D
Care
A koala that has been rescued, transported and examined for injuries/health issues and requiring ongoing care would need to be placed in the care of an experienced local carer (see contact details for
local wildlife care groups on page 1 of this guideline). In emergency situations, e.g. immediate
transport is not available and assistance is not possible for some hours, severe weather conditions
preclude transport to or from a veterinarian or carer), the following procedures may be considered
as appropriate to the situation:
i) Note all symptoms/signs of injuries and document your observations;
ii) If possible contact a local veterinary clinic and/or carer for immediate advice;
iii) Provide suitable temporary enclosure for adult/sub-adult animals if individual is active (refer
to S 9 of the Koala Code of Practice for further details on housing requirements if required);
iv) Maintain consistent temperature regime (as for transport);
v) Provide a mixture of juvenile and mature, clean, fresh eucalypt leaves (preferably including
known food tree species, such as Ribbon Gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) and water;
vi) Maintain constant temperature and secure temporary ‘pouch’ for pouch young and follow
specialist advice regarding feeding.
Guidelines for Local Koala Rescuers/Carers
9th June 2015
Greenloaning Biostudies Pty Ltd
Page 6
Release of Rescued Koalas
Release procedures would normally be undertaken by the experienced carer and/or experienced
koala handlers as appropriate to the situation. Key factors in the release procedure comprise:
i) Appropriate transport to the release site as per rescue transport;
ii) Prior inspection of the release site (point of rescue) to ensure habitat remains suitable
(e.g. area may have been burnt subsequent to the rescue and a suitable nearby site may
need to be selected);
iii) Release of the animal at the site of rescue (unless cl ii) above applies);
iv) Ensuring weather conditions are appropriate for release, with severe weather conditions
(heat wave, snow, flooding etc) to be avoided);
v) Documentation of release procedures and behaviour of the release animal; and
vi) Arranging monitoring procedures for the individual if possible.
D
R
A
F
T
This guideline will be available on-line and should be viewed as a document subject to further local
input and updates as deemed appropriate by local carers, landowners and community members.
Guidelines for Local Koala Rescuers/Carers
9th June 2015