Lower Hunter Koala Study - final · This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2013. Lower Hunter Koala Study. Prepared for Dept Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population

Lower Hunter Koala Study

Final

Funded by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities through the SustainableRegional Development ProgramJune 2013

L o wer H u n t er K o a l a S t u d y

© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D i

DOCUMENT TRACKING

ITEM DETAIL

Project Name Lower Hunter Koala Study

Project Number 12SYDNRM-003

Project ManagerRobert MezzatestaPO Box 20529 World Square, NSW 2002(02) 8536 8650

Prepared by Sophie Powrie, Daniel McKenzie, Andrea Sabella, Mark Walton, Steve Ward

Approved by SW

Status FINAL

Version Number 1

Last saved on 19 June 2013

Cover photosKoala photo from 2004 Port Stephens Community Monitoring Survey; Expert KoalaWorkshop Feb 2013, Newcastle; Map of Data Audit Results Point Koala Records @February 2013, ELA

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2013. Lower Hunter Koala Study. Prepared forDept Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’.

Creative Commons

This report is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Paul Keighley andAlistair Cockburn, SEWPaC. We gratefully acknowledge the input of the expert workshop participants;Anthony Marchment (PSC), Dan Lunney (OEH), David Paull (PSC), Geoff Bartlett (HKPS), Indrie Miller(OEH), Lucas Grenadier (OEH), Mark Roselle (PSC), Paul Keighley (SEWPaC), Ray Williams (Ecotone)and Robbie Economos (LMCC).

DisclaimerThe views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of theAustralian Government or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealthdoes not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damagethat may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D ii

ContentsExecutive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1

1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Context ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Study Brief .................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Overview....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Existing knowledge of Koala populations and habitat in the Lower Hunter ................................. 5

2.3 Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................................................. 6

2.4 Koala Habitat modelling................................................................................................................ 6

3 Results....................................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Koala Ecology............................................................................................................................. 14

3.2 Historical Distribution in the Lower Hunter ................................................................................. 15

3.3 Present Population Distribution .................................................................................................. 15

3.4 Tree species ............................................................................................................................... 17

3.5 Habitat modelling........................................................................................................................ 17

3.5.1 Model Limitations........................................................................................................................ 26

4 Discussion................................................................................................................................. 27

4.1 What is the current population number of koalas in the Lower Hunter region? ......................... 27

4.2 What is the rate of change in this population and has this rate changed? What are the majorand minor causes behind this?................................................................................................... 27

4.3 What criteria should be used to identify high priority habitat areas?.......................................... 27

4.4 What is the current extent and quality of koala habitat in the region? ....................................... 28

4.5 What are the local key threatening processes and recommended conservation measures forkoalas to assist with decision making for the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy and RegionalConservation Plan? .................................................................................................................... 29

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 32

6 References ................................................................................................................................ 34

Appendix A............................................................................................................................................. 39


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D iii

AbbreviationsABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

CKPoM Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management

ERIN Environmental Resource Information Network

GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem

GHM Greater Hunter Mapping (version 4 by NSW Office of Environment and Heritage)

GIS Geographical Information System

HKPS Hunter Koala Preservation Society

LGA Local Government Area

LH Lower Hunter

LM Lake Macquarie

NATF Native Animal Trust Fund

OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

PSC Port Stephens Council

SEWPaC Dept Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D 1

Executive SummaryThis study was commissioned by the Department of Sustainability Environment, Water, Population andCommunities (SEWPaC) to contribute to regional sustainability planning that will lead into a strategicassessment of future development in the Lower Hunter region under the Commonwealth EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The study area included the LocalGovernment Areas (LGAs) of Cessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Newcastle, and Port Stephens.This study utilises existing data available in the public domain to inform specific key information gapsregarding conservation planning needs of the koala in the Lower Hunter. The koala is listed as avulnerable species in NSW under the EPBC Act and the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act1995 (TSC Act).

The koala population at Port Stephens is a high profile one, and considerable research work has beenundertaken within the LGA, but nevertheless, there remain information gaps for this area. The level ofknowledge of the koala within the other LGA’s in the study area is poor, with much less informationavailable for this study.

Due to these data limitations, it is not possible to provide a reliable population estimate of the koala forthe Lower Hunter region. Within Port Stephens, where more data is available, the koala population isestimated to be between 350 and 500 individuals (Phillips et al. 1996). A number of koala sightingshave been recorded in the Cessnock and Lake Macquarie LGAs, but population size(s) are unknown.

It is similarly not possible to reliably estimate rate of change of koala populations within the region.However anecdotal observations from Port Stephens LGA suggest that changes in koala numbers arenot uniform, with some areas decreasing and one population at Boat Harbour/One Mile reported to beincreasing.

The current extent and quality of habitat across the Lower Hunter was modelled as part of this study,based on input from an expert workshop and a GIS modelling process. The resulting outputs wereconverted to low, moderate, high and very high koala habitat rankings. The greatest areas of very highand high ranked habitat were mapped in Port Stephens, Cessnock, and Lake Macquarie LGA’s. TheNewcastle and Maitland LGA’s contained very little priority habitat and may therefore act as a barrier tokoala movements in between population(s) in the Port Stephens LGA and Cessnock / Lake MacquarieLGA’s.

A range of key threatening processes for the koala within the Lower Hunter study area were identifiedincluding (but not limited to): loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat both at a fine and largescale; barriers to habitat connectivity (including natural and manmade structures); road fatalities;predation by dogs; disease (Chlamydia and other diseases); fire (including both control burns andnatural fire); climate change; and groundwater abstraction (where it impacts on koala habitat).

Conserving patches of greater than 100 ha with koala feed and roosting tree species; and seeking toincorporate connectivity between patches for koalas; were considered to be high priority conservationareas for koalas.



As a result of this study, it is recommended that:

Outcomes of this study should be incorporated into regional and local conservation planning inthe Lower Hunter.

Ongoing refinement of the model should be carried out as more specific or relevant informationbecomes available. This may include review by an expert working group, refinement of criteriaweightings and the inclusion of newer or more targeted data sets as they become available(particularly updated regional vegetation classification).

Testing of modelled habitat value should be undertaken prior to its adoption into local andregional planning to support long-term conservation of koala populations in the Lower Hunter.For example, population genetic analysis, field based koala pellet surveys and communitysurveys could be conducted.

High priority conservation areas outlined in this study that are located outside of existingprotected areas (such as National Parks) should be considered for long-term protection.

Regional and local conservation planning should consider protecting existing connectivity andenhancing connectivity of koala habitat patches that are within 100m of another patch.

Regional and local conservation planning should consider management of threats to koalas,including dogs, barriers to movement (road/rail), fire, disease and climate change.

Ideally, monitoring of outcomes for koala populations should be undertaken. It is noted that thiswould require substantial resources due to the cryptic nature of the koala. However, given therecognisable nature of the koala and the public interest in this species, engagement with thecommunity and key stakeholders may provide a qualitative form of monitoring through some (orall) of the region, though it is noted that this would not provide quantitative data on populationsize or change, which would require more formalised scientific formal studies.

Koala research findings, and potential application of mitigation measures, should feed back intokoala recovery planning processes as part of an adaptive management framework. Such aframework should include community, stakeholder and expert engagement.



1 Introduction1.1 CONTEXT

The Lower Hunter Koala Study was commissioned by the Department of Sustainability Environment,Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) under the Sustainable Regional Developmentprogram (the program). The program facilitates regional sustainability planning that will lead to astrategic assessment of future urban development and associated infrastructure in the Lower Hunterregion. This study is designed to address a key information gap for the strategic assessment.

1.2 STUDY BRIEF

This study is designed to collate existing knowledge of koala populations, habitat areas andconservation requirements across the study area in order to inform conservation planning for theKoala in the Lower Hunter. The Lower Hunter study area is made up of the Newcastle, LakeMacquarie, Cessnock, Maitland and Port Stephens Local Government Areas (Figure 1). It isacknowledged that this study is one part of effective, long term koala conservation that will require acombination of good land use planning, active species management and mitigation actions. This, inturn, will need a collective effort from multiple stakeholders, guided by the Koala Recovery planningframework.

Figure 1: Lower Hunter study area

The driver for this study is the regional sustainability planning process and accordingly it poses aseries of structured questions:



• What is the current population number of koalas in the Lower Hunter region?

• What is the rate of change in this population and has this rate changed? What are themajor and minor causes behind this?

• What is the current extent and quality of koala habitat in the region?

• What criteria should be used to identify high priority habitat areas?

• What are the local key threatening processes and recommended conservation measuresfor koalas to assist with decision making for the Lower Hunter Regional Strategy andRegional Conservation Plan?

The parameters of this study were to make use of existing data available in the public domain to informthe conservation planning needs of koala in the Lower Hunter and identify priority research areas thatcould be considered for future funding. Therefore, this study does not include any new field surveys forthe Koala.

The intention of the project is to collate all of the known available records and koala knowledge in theregion to inform predictive habitat mapping, population estimates and trends and prioritise areas forconservation consideration. The study methods use predictive, spatial modelling informed by pointrecords and known koala habitat requirements in combination with local expert knowledge. Pointrecords are largely sourced from the NSW Wildlife Atlas and are therefore assumed to be a combinationof systematic survey as well as opportunistic or ad hoc observations.

The results of the predictive habitat maps and koala population information may be used to informconservation land planning decisions at a regional scale. This regional scale perspective can assiststrategic planners in prioritising areas for further research where more refined information is requiredand can assist in protecting high priority koala habitat areas.



2 Methods2.1 OVERVIEW

This study applied a systematic approach to building a knowledge base on Lower Hunter koalas toinform the planning recommendations. The process comprised the following steps;

Step 1Review existing available literature, spatial data audit including contextual landscapeinformation

Step 2

Stakeholder and expert consultation to draw on local knowledge and more broadly onspecies expertise and conservation planning experience

Stakeholder and expert knowledge of historical variations in koala numbers and trends inrate of decline and habitat dynamics form an essential information source for this study inlight of the paucity of population studies across the whole study area

Step 3Develop key criteria to define and map all koala habitat in the Lower Hunter

Develop criteria to identify high priority habitat areas

Step 4 Data analysis and spatial modelling undertaken in a geographic information system (GIS)

Step 5 Analysis of results

Step 6Report key recommendations regarding conservation and threats to Koala to supportregional planning and management in the Lower Hunter region

Step 7Peer review by independent expert (Dr Tim Curran, Department of Ecology, Faculty ofAgriculture and Life Sciences, Lincoln University, NZ)

2.2 EXISTING KNOWLEDGE OF KOALA POPULATIONS AND HABITAT INTHE LOWER HUNTER

In order to collate and build on existing knowledge of koala in the Lower Hunter, this study included abroad literature and data search of library resources, planning reports, council studies, carer grouprecords and academic studies. The literature and data search had two specific goals;

1. to obtain as much information as possible on known records and habitat for koalas in the studyarea; and

2. to draw on research findings from other areas that may be applied to inform the study methodsor recommendations.

SEWPaC had previously conducted a wide literature search on general koala ecology and requirementsas part of the EPBC koala referral policy development.

The literature search included over 210 documents ranging from scientific research papers to koalaplans of management and policy documents. A synopsis of key findings that are relevant to this studyis included in this report.



There is a substantial information base on koalas in the Port Stephens area that has contributed to thisstudy. In addition, there are local area studies in parts of Cessnock and Lake Macquarie localgovernment areas, as well as a number of development related studies across the study area.However, the geographically disparate nature of this data is a key challenge for this study addressingregional koala protection.

2.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

As part of this study a wide group of local, regional, state and federal stakeholders were informed of thestudy process and invited to contribute through provision of species information, spatial data orinformation on related planning initiatives. An initial letter of introduction from SEWPaC was distributedto an agreed list of stakeholders by email and follow up phone calls made to interview key stakeholders.

Following is summary of initial responses from the stakeholder groups.

State Government Agencies:

Department of Planning nominated a watching brief on project outcomes. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage participated through the provision of data, koala

expertise and regional planning expertise.

Local Government:

Newcastle, Maitland and Cessnock Councils chose to take a watching brief and beinformed of study outcomes.

Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie Council were able to provide expertise and data toinform this study.

Hunter Councils Environment Division was able to provide data through SEWPaC’sEnvironmental Resource Information Network (ERIN).

Non-government koala organisations:

Wildlife carer groups were represented by the Hunter Koala Preservation Society (HKPS)and the Native Animal Trust Fund (NATF) and both provided community data andexpertise.

The Australian Koala Foundation provided information regarding Koalas in the Medowiearea (Port Stephens LGA).

Following the initial stakeholder consultation, 17 koala and local experts were invited to attend aworkshop to discuss the koala habitat conservation requirements in the study area, of whom 13 wereable to participate. The workshop was held 19th February 2013 in Newcastle, NSW. The outcomes ofthe workshop have been used to guide the mapping methods and conservation recommendations.

2.4 KOALA HABITAT MODELLING

The Study identified criteria for priority koala habitat across the Lower Hunter by applying a systematic,expert-driven spatial model using the best available data using geographic information system tools.These criteria were discussed at the expert workshop and the expert-driven model was nominated asthe best representation of environmental data with varying sources of uncertainty.

The discussion and definition of the criteria for the model was informed by previous koala modellingmethods that have been applied in the Lower Hunter (see Table 1); other model research results; and



most importantly, on the outcomes of the expert discussions at the workshop regarding local habitatrequirements and data limitations to predict koala habitat in the study area.

Table 1: Key predictors of Koala Habitat in models derived from broad-scale environmentally stratifiedsurveys (Cork et al. 2000b).

Study LocationDetails of survey and analysis

Key predictors of koala habitatData Analysis

NSW National

Parks and

Wildlife Service

(1994)

Northeast NSW

(79,000 km2)932 presences

Generalised

additive modelling

Gentle topography, high proportion ofadjacent areas cleared, low probability ofdry sclerophyll on site, low to moderatemoisture index, deep soil, moderaterainfall (1500-2500mm), moderatedisturbance low ruggedness, south ornorth latitude within study area

Kavanagh et al.

(1995)

Northeast NSW

(15,000 km2)

40 presences, 251

absences

Canonical

correspondence

analysis

Low elevation, wet sclerophyll forest withdense understory, greater probability ofoccurrence in previously logged thanunlogged forest, easterly longitude, fewhollow trees

Cork et al.

(1997)

Northeast NSW

(26,000 km2)

31 presences, 515

absences

Generalised linear

modelling

Model 1: low foliar phenolics, increasingprobability of occurrence with years sincefireModel 2: low (<1000mm ) or high(>1500mm) rainfall, increasing probabilityof occurrence with years since fire,intermediate to high ratio of eucalypts toother tree species, increasing probabilityof occurrence with increasing annualdaily mean temperature of 10-180 C

Within Port Stephens, the most important determinant of the probability of koala presence, averagedacross the landscape, is the distribution of primary/ secondary habitat, with anthropogenic factors suchas road density and dog ownership of secondary importance (Rhodes et al. 2006). This study hasfound the predicted probability of koala presence increased with amount of primary /secondary habitat;and the predicted probability of koala presence decreased as road density increased (Rhodes et al.2006). Therefore, this study has mapped potential candidate habitat areas based on ecologicalsuitability and then constrained that footprint by measures of patch distance and road density (gridbased).

Expert discussions to drive the model definition at the workshop included the identification ofappropriate data types for the model and relevant data sources; as well as a definition of methods andthe criteria for specific use of the data within the context of the Lower Hunter. A summary of thefollowing inputs and criteria for the model includes:

Feed trees (preferred / supplementary) Soil landscape (high soil fertility) Vegetation types Proximity to water Large patch sizes not intersected by major infrastructure Recorded koala sightings Linear barriers defined as major roads and railway corridors.



The model is based on numerous vegetation map inputs, with the Greater Hunter Vegetation Mapping(version 4) as the base where more detailed vegetation mapping data was not available. There are anumber of variations in vegetation classification across each of the (five) vegetation mapping productsused. However, a rudimentary study area wide map of proportional abundance (limited to a highmoderate or low rating) of preferred primary, secondary and supplementary tree species within avegetation classification unit was able to be compiled from the various inputs based on supportinginformation available for each of the mapping products used.

Figure 2 shows the conceptual pathway recommended as an outcome of the workshop. A briefexplanation of each model variable is provided in Table 2.



Figure 2: Spatial model pathway to map potential koala habitat in the Lower Hunter

Koala Habitat Value

Vegetation type

GHM v4 modified (Base

layer)

Soil Types Proximity to water

Documented preferred

tree species

Point Records (prior to

1985, post 1986)

Lake Macquarie (Bell &

Driscoll v5)

Port Stephens

Composite vegetation

map 2011

Yengo (DECC 2008b)Cessnock Kurri Kurri

(Bell & Driscoll)

Fertile soil selection

Literature & previous

studies

Assign presence (or

proportional abundance)

rating to vegetation type

94 soil types intersect

with point records

50m buffer to creeks (3rd

order +) + intersect with

preferred vegetation

types

Infrastructure

Major roads Major rail

Patch size

Output

Analysis / Treatment

Derived input

Raw input



Table 2: Model Inputs

Preferred Tree Species

DescriptionPrimary & Secondary feed tree species

Supplementary tree species used for shelter (temperature/weather), roosting, dispersal

Sources

List of species distilled from

- Previous studies (published reports)- Expert knowledge- Analysis of GIS intersect of koala records and vegetation types (GHM v4)

Usage

Selection of vegetation types known to have preferred koala tree species (of allcategories)

The proportional abundance of specific tree species in a vegetation community typewas assigned to map polygon (where available), however, these statistics are usuallyan average representation of composite species and on-ground composition will varyamong stands.

Rationale

Most koala habitat models are based on reports of the tree species that koalas use forfood and shelter. The general consensus of these models is that koalas use feweucalypt species intensively at any given site but often use other eucalypts and somenon-eucalypts less intensively (Cork et al. 2000b).

Tree species that are known to be preferred by koalas for food occur in the study area(Matthews et al. 2007, Phillips et al. 2000, Curtin & Lunney 1995). However, koalas donot feed equally on all “food” tree species. Individual tree selection, or palatability, isthought to be context-dependent and influenced by nutrient foliar levels and leafmoisture content (Moore et al. 2010, Moore and Foley 2005).

In addition, koalas are known to use a variety of other tree species for shelter androosting (Ellis et al. 1995, Matthews et al. 2007). Recent studies indicate feed treeselection may be mediated by temperature and time of day (Ellis et al 2009, Crowther2012).

Point Records of Koala

Description Compiled koala records

Sources

- NSW Wildlife Atlas including

o 1986/87 statewide survey (Reed et al 1989)

o Yengo community survey 1995 (Curtin & Lunney 1995)

o NSW public survey 2006 (Lunney et al 2009)

o State Forest records

- Lake Macquarie Council records

- Port Stephens Council records

- Carer Records including

o Hunter Koala Preservation Society &

o Native Animal Trust Fund



Usage

Data accuracy –

- 1000 m accuracy is adequate due to movement potential of Koalas

- 10,000 m accuracy is inadequate

Date of Records -

- 0 = no record;

- 1 = prior to 1985;

- 2 = 1986 to current

Rationale

Known occurrence indicates habitat use at a point in time and provides a geographiccoordinate for habitat (or movements), irrespective of quality. The records informgeneral distribution irrespective of tenure; however, they do not reflect distribution limits.The dataset is considered opportunistic rather than systematic across the whole studyarea; however, the perceived geographic bias in the dataset is untested.

Records may be intersected with model variables to determine candidate areas ofsuitable habitat. This approach does not map koala abundance or site occupancy (Corket al 2000). Expert knowledge is applied in addition to point records to determine koalahabitat patterns in the Lower Hunter.

Workshop discussions recommended one date filter (1985) be applied to capture allrecords from the 1986/87 statewide koala survey. SEWPaC are currently consulting on3 draft date categories (pre 1990, 1990-2000 and post 2000). These 3 categories couldunnecessarily exclude point records from analysis and were not recommended for theLH Study by the workshop.

Vegetation Map

Description Native, extant vegetation distribution (1:25,000)

Sources

- Whole Study area base layer = GHM v4

- Fine scale mapping

o Lake Macquarie (Bell & Driscoll v5)

o Port Stephens (composite map 2011)

o Cessnock

Yengo and Parr (DECC 2008b)

Kurri Kurri (Bell & Driscoll 2010)

UsageSelect vegetation types known to contain preferred koala tree species, and analysepercentage cover as a function of high, medium or low of preferred tree species wheredata permits and assign primary, secondary or supplementary attribution.

Rationale

Vegetation maps are used in conjunction with other environmental variables to identifysuitable habitat in large study areas that require predictive modelling approaches ratherthan systematic field surveys.

Vegetation type has been established as a major predictor in identifying suitable koalahabitat in previous studies (Phillips et al. 1996, Matthews et al. 2007, Moore et al.2010)

Soil Types

Description Soil Landscape Maps

Sources- Soil Landscapes of the Gosford-Lake Macquarie 1:100,000 Sheets (Murphy

1993)

- Soil Landscapes of the Newcastle 1:100,000 Sheet (Matthei 1995)



- Soil Landscapes of the Port Stephens 1:100,000 Sheet (Murphy 1995)

Usage

Select fertile soil types based on:

- Intersect of koala point records (94 candidate soil types)

- Published tree preferences on identified soil types

o Aeolian And Swamp soil landscapes of Quaternary origin

o soil landscapes derived from Nerong and Paterson Volcanics

o alluvial deposits of Quaternary and Permian origin (Phillips & Callaghan1996)

RationaleThe use of feed trees by Koalas is directly related to foliar nutrient levels which are afunction of soil fertility (Moore et al. 2010, Moore and Foley 2005, Phillips & Callaghan1996).

Proximity to Water

Description Distance to water dependent vegetation

Sources- Land and Property Information (Topographical) Drainage Maps

- Bureau of Meteorology NSW Groundwater Atlas

Usage Buffer creek lines (3rd order steams and above) with 50m buffer. Include candidatehabitat areas where buffer intersects preferred vegetation types.

Rationale

Feed tree species selection research indicates moisture content influences koala treeselection (Moore et al. 2010). Leaf moisture content cannot be generated for this study,however, leaf moisture is assumed to be proportionally greater where reliable surface orgroundwater source is nearby.

In addition, riparian koala habitat is considered high affinity, high density capacityhabitat (Ellis et al. 2010). Access to freshwater resources for drinking, especially asdrought refuge is important for long term koala conservation in variable climaticconditions.

Infrastructure

Description Presence of major infrastructure or density of minor infrastructure

Sources- GHM v4 major roads layer

- Land and Property Information Infrastructure Maps

Usage

- Major barrier roads (speed limit) & rail split remnant vegetation into 2 patches

o F3 Freeway

o Richardson Road,

o Lemon Tree Passage Road,

o Nelsons Bay Road,

o Port Stephens Drive,

o Gan Gan Road

o Rail corridors – north/south & east/west

- Other roads and infrastructure barriers that may reduce koala habitat qualityhave been incorporated into the vegetation patch size indicator.



RationaleMajor roads and railway deemed to be barriers between patches even though individualkoalas will cross them (at risk of death/injury).

Patch Size

Description Area of native, extant vegetation in remnant patches greater than 100m apart

Sources Vegetation extent and infrastructure data as above

Usage Patch size and context e.g. road density and other barriers used to inform habitatcategorisation.

Rationale The expert workshop noted that koalas can cross greater distances than 100m;however, this increases vulnerability during crossing.



3 Results3.1 KOALA ECOLOGY

Koalas are largely solitary animals, however they are not territorial and individual home ranges mayoverlap (SEWPaC 2012). The size of koala home ranges varies throughout the species distribution,likely due to quality, structure and connectivity of habitat. The expert workshop found that a homerange of 10ha is expected to be suitable for supporting a few individuals in high quality habitat in thePort Stephens area; however, one individual koala was known to live within a 2 ha home range withinPort Stephens after being forced out of its original home range due to fire. Koala populations in YengoNational Park in the Cessnock local government area are reported to have an estimated 80ha homerange due to low quality habitat (Curtin and Lunney 1995). A dominant male’s home range usuallyoverlaps with those of several females, to which he maintains access during the breeding season (Corket al. 2000a & b).

The physiology of the Koala reflects its low nutrient diet and the need to conserve energy. Their rate ofmetabolism and therefore their energy and nutrient requirements are half that of the average mammal(Cork et al. 2000a & b). Koalas may spend up to 20 hours a day resting and sleeping, being most activearound early morning, dusk and during the night, in order to conserve water and energy (Van Dyck andStrahan 2008; Kavanagh and Stanton 2012). This need to conserve energy may make Koalas morevulnerable to disturbances that reduce the ability of food or increase foraging effort (Cork et al. 2000b).

Koalas weigh 4–14 kg and can live for 15+ years in the wild based on unpublished results from taggedkoalas at Campbelltown (Robert Close pers. comm). The koala’s oestrous cycle is 27–30 days, andpregnancy generally lasts between 34 and 36 days (Cork et al. 2000a). Females give birth to a singleinfant weighing about 0.5 g and 2 cm long in the warmer months of, on average, 2 out of each 3 years(Cork et al. 2000a). Young koalas are weaned by 12 months but may remain associated with themother for another 11 months.

Tree use and diet choice by koalas have previously been linked, with varying degrees of support, to treesize and species (Moore et al. 2010). More specifically, this relates to concentrations of nitrogen,phosphorous, potassium, fibre, volatile terpenes, soluble sugars, and moisture within leaves (Moore etal. 2010). Koalas have also been found to visit trees less frequently that contain high foliarconcentrations of deterrent plant secondary metabolites known as formulated phloroglucinolcompounds (Moore and Foley 2005). There can be variation in the palatability of browse within thesame species, and this combined with the spatial context with regards to surrounding trees affects koalatree selection choices (Moore et al. 2010).

Koalas may also change diet and select different tree species throughout the year to reflect increasedenergy requirements in winter and increased water requirements in summer (Ellis et al. 1995). Althoughsuitable feed trees are often thought to be the primary factor in koala distribution, the presence of largeshady trees used for diurnal shelter may also be important in some areas or during extremes oftemperature (Ellis et al. 1995, Ward 2002). Several non-food trees in the Port Stephens LGA are usedduring the day (including Angophora costata, Eucalyptus signata and Corymbia. gummifera) andselected taller trees were used more intensively during summer suggesting their use as shelter(Matthews et al. 2007).



Koalas feed disproportionately on a small number of tree species in relation to the total number ofeucalyptus species across the koala’s distribution. These species vary according to location andbetween different koala populations. The use of feed trees by Koalas in the Port Stephens LGA isdirectly related to soil fertility. The main geomorphological units preferred by Koalas are Aeolian andSwamp soil landscapes of Quaternary origin. These soil landscapes derive from Nerong and PatersonVolcanics and Transferral and alluvial deposits of Quaternary and Permian origin (Phillips andCallaghan 1996).

3.2 HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE LOWER HUNTER

Koalas were previously widespread in eastern Australia and an intensive hunting industry developedfollowing an increase in population density in some regions during the late 1800s. However by 1910 theindustry had collapsed due to a shortage of Koalas (Meltzer et al. 2000).

The landscape of the Lower Hunter has been dramatically altered over the past 200 years. This hasresulted in considerable loss and fragmentation of koala habitat and the inevitable reduction inabundance and distribution of koalas (Knott et al. 1998; Kavanagh et al. 2007; Crowther et al. 2009).

An estimated 75% reduction in Koala habitat has occurred within Port Stephens LGA since Europeansettlement of the area (Knott et al. 1998). As early as 1900 Koalas are thought to have disappearedfrom several areas in the Lower Hunter Region such as; Maitland, Morpeth, Bolwarra, Phoenix Park,Woodville, Wallalong, Miller’s Forest, Nelson’s Plains and Hinton (Knott et al. 1998). These areas arenow extensively cleared for agriculture and expanding urbanisation.

Estimates suggest that as much as 80% of the secondary Koala habitat categories and between 40-60% of the remaining areas of primary habitat within the Port Stephens LGA are no longer utilised bykoalas (Phillips et al. 1996). Historical estimates of population size suggest well below 1000 individualsdistributed over the entire Port Stephens study area and likely between 350-500 animals in total, thoughit is noted that this population estimate was noted as being “speculative but considered” (Phillips et al.1996).

Lunney et al. (2007) undertook population viability analysis for a 7,000 ha study area within TomagoSandbeds in the Port Stephens LGA, of which approximately 4,000 ha was considered to be koalahabitat, bounded by Grahamstown Lake to the north, Fullerton Cove to the south, Siddons Swamp tothe west and Majors Flat to the east. This study assumed a starting population of 800 individuals basedon extrapolations from intense searches undertaken to rescue live and record dead koalas after firesfrom 1994 – 1998.

3.3 PRESENT POPULATION DISTRIBUTION

Port Stephens LGA has a significant Koala population (PSC 2002); however, the Hunter KoalaPreservation Society noted at the expert workshop that in some areas the numbers are declining. Anindication of recorded koala sightings can be seen in Figure 3, below.

Koalas generally prefer vegetation on fertile soils and within the Hunter-Central Rivers CMA this is trueat higher elevations, whereas at low elevations koalas occupy less fertile soils. This dichotomy reflectsthe nature of the extensively cleared landscape of the Hunter Valley, with development dominating the



valley floors. Significant areas of preferred koala food trees only remain at higher elevations or on sandyand less agriculturally productive soils at lower elevations (Crowther, McAlpine et al. 2009).

Anecdotal Evidence

Anecdotal reports from long term residents, carers (including data from the Native Animal Trust Fund(NATF)) and ecologists can provide an insight into population trends and local population responses.Anecdotal reports can be a valuable information source in the absence of systematic data on populationtrends. In some cases the anecdotal reports can trigger research projects with a data collectioncomponent.

Anecdotal observations were discussed in the workshop and the following comments were made:

Ray & Anne Williams used to frequently record koala sightings in their back yard in theMedowie area. They have noticed a decline in the frequency of their observations and nowdon’t find any.

Geoff Bartlett noted that Raymond Terrace used to have high koala activity, but this is no longerthe case.

Audrey Kooseman and local volunteers conducted koala searches at Tomarree Sandbedsfollowing bushfires and found no animals or evidence of koala activity. This suggests theformer population was depleted, relocated or eradicated.

It is noted that other anecdotal observations may be available, but was outside of the scope ofthis project

Figure 3: Recorded koala sightings (source: NSW Wildlife Atlas; Lake Macquarie & Port Stephens CouncilRecords; NATF & HKPS carer records)



3.4 TREE SPECIES

A list of potential koala tree species was generated from a literature review (Callaghan et al. 1994,Australian Koala Foundation 1996, Phillips et al. 2000, Port Stephens Council 2002, Biolink 2006,DECC 2008), and presented to the expert workshop for ranking as to primary, secondary, andsupplementary koala tree species (see Appendix A for results and definition of koala tree speciesterminology).

There are some instances where the group withheld input due to lack of data and supportingknowledge. It was proposed to use the highest category of tree usage where more than one level isattributed. It is noted that this approach is conservative and may possibly over predict koala habitat.Some specific considerations included:

Eucalyptus camfieldii has been used in the Tomago sand mined area that has been opened upby road construction. The workshop noted koalas are probably opportunistic to new habitatsdepending on drivers for dispersal.

Feed trees in close proximity to threats (e.g. wild dogs or major roads) may not constitutepreferred habitat. However, there may be options to mitigate the impact by incorporatingmanagement measures such exclusion fencing for major roads combined with facilities such asunderpasses and/or overpasses.

Whilst recent literature emphasises the role of supplementary tree species for other habitat needs otherthan food, it is not known if there has been any systematic research whether koalas can survive inareas without supplementary (roost) trees. The expert group concluded that koalas would adapt usageof trees for shelter to the species available to them to complement preferred feed tree species. The useof Callitris pine and ironbark species as shelter trees was noted by the expert group.

The workshop discussions also noted:

Most of the available information was from the eastern Port Stephens area; whilst there wereknowledge limitations across Cessnock, Maitland, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas.

Koalas in urban areas can use different species (i.e. planted species like E. nicholii) than thosein native woodland areas. This study focuses on existing mapped areas of native vegetation.

E. parramattensis is an important species. Although Tomago Sands area is highly cleared(mining / fire), E. parramattensis is still used by Koalas in the area and will eventually regrow toprovide important rehabilitated habitat. E. parramattensis potentially occurs in large areas ofLake Macquarie City Council area, but only a small area is known within the Morisset area. E.Parramattensis subsp decadens is also a co-dominant canopy species in the Kurri SandSwamp Woodland EEC, which occurs near Kurri Kurri in the Cessnock LGA.

3.5 HABITAT MODELLING

The conceptual model pathway recommended by the workshop and literature review was used tosource and prepare a number of relevant spatial data sets and compile the expert driven modelidentifying koala habitat across the landscape of the Lower Hunter. The spatial modelling was carriedout using GIS analysis as an expert driven model which combined all the spatial datasets into a singledataset depicting relative value for koala habitat across the landscape of the Lower Hunter.



The components of the spatial data model or multi-criteria analysis are presented below in Table 3. Theprocess included the development of appropriate scoring and weighting for each recommended datavariable identified through the workshop process. The multi-criteria analysis process of combiningspecific, agreed data sets is a recognised technique, identified as suitable for complex decisions whichinvolve the comparison of decision elements which can be difficult to quantify; and ranks and prioritisesvalues using decision analysis tools to summarise comparisons of the items importance (Saaty 1980;Crossman et al. 2009; Mendoza and Macoun 1999).

The ranking and weightings associated with each data set were derived based on discussions of therelative importance for each of the data sources with relevant experts and through the literature review.This process was based on a Delphi technique (Linstone & Turoff 1975) to rank and prioritise thevariables. The rationale for each variable criterion is defined in Table 2.

The analysis was then carried out using GIS to combine all the spatial datasets into a single dataset.The base score derived for each data set was normalised (between 0 and 100) in order for data setscores to be measured with the same numerical scale and eliminate any numerical bias in thecalculation (Zeiler 1999).

All scores for each dataset were spatially maintained as separate attributes within the derived dataset.An interim weighting was applied to the two data sets representing feed trees preferred by koalas,depending on whether they were representing vegetation types containing primary or secondary feedtree species.



Table 3: Data preparation, scores and weighting

Base Data Derived Layer Name Description Values Weighting

Vegetation Primary Feed Trees [allveg_prim] Selection of vegetation types known tohave primary preferred koala treespecies with the proportional abundanceof the specific tree species within thevegetation type identified as either Nil,low, moderate or high

An initial multiplier of x3 (score depictedin brackets in values column prior toapplication of the additional modelweighting) was applied to these data todistinguish from secondary feed orsupplementary tree species

0, 20, 50, 100

0 = outside of anyvegetation classificationcontaining identifiedprimary feed trees.

20 (60) = vegetation typeswith a low proportion ofprimary feed trees

50 (150) = vegetation typeswith a moderate proportionof primary feed trees

100 (300) = vegetationtypes with a highproportion of primary feedtrees

x3




Vegetation Secondary Feed Trees [allveg_sec] Selection of vegetation types known tohave secondary preferred koala treespecies with the proportional abundanceof the specific tree species within thevegetation type identified as either Nil,low, moderate or high

An initial multiplier of x2 (score depictedin brackets in values column prior toapplication of the additional modelweighting) was applied to these data todistinguish from primary feed orsupplementary tree species

0, 20, 50, 100

0 = outside of anyvegetation classificationcontaining identifiedsecondary feed trees.

20 (40) = vegetation typeswith a low proportion ofsecondary feed trees

50 (100) = vegetation typeswith a moderate proportionof secondary feed trees

100 (200) = vegetationtypes with a highproportion of secondaryfeed trees

x2

Vegetation Supplementary Trees [allveg_supp] Selection of vegetation types known tohave supplementary tree speciessupporting shelter and roosting for koalawith the proportional abundance of thespecific tree species within thevegetation type identified as either Nil,low, moderate or high

0, 20, 50, 100

0 = outside of anyvegetation classificationcontaining identifiedsupplementary trees.

20 = vegetation types witha low proportion ofsupplementary trees

50 = vegetation types witha moderate proportion ofsupplementary trees

100 = vegetation types witha high proportion ofsupplementary trees

x1




Soil / Landscape Soil Fertility [soilfert] Identification of areas with high soil fertility 0 or 100.

0 = outside of identifiedfertile soils.

100 = within identifiedfertile soils

x2

ExtantVegetation

Vegetation proximity to Water [veg_waterprox] Extant vegetation within 50m of 3rd order orhigher drainage lines

0 or 100

0 = outside identified buffer

100 = within identifiedbuffer

x2




Koala Records Buffered Koala Sightings [koala] 100m buffer around known recordedsightings of Koala.

NB. Not a comprehensive data set, based onareas where sightings have been recordedonly.

0, 75 or 100.

0 = not within 100m of aknown record.

75 = within 100m of aknown record dated 1985or earlier

100 = within 100m of aknown record dated 1986or later

x1

Infrastructure –1:25,000

Distance to Infrastructure [dist_road] 300m buffer around identified and mappedmajor barriers to Koala movement.

Score from 0 to 100.

0 = within 300m ofidentified infrastructure,

100 = 300m or greaterfrom identifiedinfrastructure

x3




Vegetation anddisturbance

Patch Size [patch] The size of a patch of vegetation. A patch isdefined as an area of consolidatedvegetation that is separated from otherpatches by more than 100m by mappedinfrastructure to represent consolidated koalahabitat.

Score from 0 to 100.

0 = smallest patch size to

100 = patch at least 100hain size

x3



The final part of the analysis combined all the scores from each derived layer and applied theweightings identified in Table 3 to calculate the koala habitat value index.

The values for each data set are added and multiplied by the assigned weighting (as defined in Table 3above) to calculate a habitat value score using the following equation:

KoalaHabitatValue

= {(allveg_prim*3) + (allveg_sec*2) + (allveg_supp) + (soilfert*2) +(veg_waterprox*2) + (koala) + (dist_road*3) + (Patch*3)}

The final score (from 0 – 2400) was then normalised to provide a habitat value index from 0-100.

The calculated index was then converted into four relative koala habitat value classes based on aquartile classification of the resultant data. The quartile classification is a grouping of the resultant datavalues into an even distribution of four equal groups, each group comprising of a quarter of the data.The data distribution can be seen in the graph below. The identified quartile break points defining thefour classes were at 19, 33 and 48.

Koala Habitat Value Index

The four classes across the Lower Hunter study area to determine koala habitat value can be definedas:

Lower koala habitat value (0 - 19) – Areas that have little or no identified mapped values forkoala habitat within the landscape. The majority of these areas are highly disturbed,fragmented or urbanised.

Moderate koala habitat value (20 - 33) – Areas that have some mapped koala habitat valueswithin the landscape. In most cases the values within this category will provide supportinghabitat for koala in the area.

High koala habitat value (34 - 48) – Areas with priority koala habitat values. These areas willinclude a large proportion of the criteria for koala habitat and provide an important resource forkoalas in the area.

Very High koala habitat value (49 - 100) – An accumulation of priority values for koala habitat.These areas contain the majority of or even all values identified as criteria meeting priority koalahabitat within the Lower Hunter area.



Figure 4 summarises the analysis based on the criteria defined above.

Figure 4: Derivation of koala habitat value model

Wei

ghte

d D

ata

Varia

bles

Koal

a H

abita

tVal

ue In

dex

Koal

a H

abita

t Val

ue C

lass

es



3.5.1 Model LimitationsThis study reports on the initial version of the model based on the outcomes of the expert workshopcarried out as part of this study. It is expected that following further expert working group review theremay be small refinements to both the data available for use in the model as well as weighting of criteria.The process has been specifically developed so that it may be re-run as future refinements areidentified. Specific known limitations that may be refined in the future include:

The assessment and model is landscape based; therefore the resolution of the informationis restricted to approximately 1:25,000

The habitat model is based on a desktop analysis of the data available at the time ofanalysis and the majority of more detailed information was available for the eastern PortStephens area, with distinct knowledge limitations (particularly for koala record sightings) inthe Cessnock, Maitland, Newcastle and Lake Macquarie areas.

Potential data uncertainties may arise from input sources; for example, specific areas ofvegetation type can be misclassified or over/under estimated within discrete datasets;different scales, accuracy and currency can also affect spatial accuracy and uncertaintywhen combined.

The model may, in some areas show an overestimation of priority koala habitat due tosome of the contributing data sets. These include some areas of the soil landscapemapping which has been identified as “areas of high soil fertility”, such as soils derivedfrom Aeolian and swamp landscapes around the Stockton Bight dune area, where there isin fact more subtle variations that are primarily linked with particular vegetation species (DrTim Curran, pers com. 2013).

The availability of additional information or of more detailed data following this process, such asadditional specific field survey information may modify or refine the outcomes of the model. It is alsounderstood that regional vegetation mapping is currently being undertaken that could be included in anupdate or refinement to the model.



4 Discussion4.1 WHAT IS THE CURRENT POPULATION NUMBER OF KOALAS IN THE

LOWER HUNTER REGION?

It is difficult to estimate the koala population size within the Lower Hunter region. As stated in TSSC(2012) “Estimates of koala population size at regional and national levels remain highly divergent andcontested. For many regions, there have been no surveys or published population estimates”. Thesituation for the Lower Hunter region is similar, with no koala population estimates available for theCessnock, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, and Newcastle LGA’s.

Some population estimates have been derived for the Port Stephens LGA, however, with Phillips et al.(1996) concluding that historical estimates of population size suggest well below 1000 individualsdistributed over the entire Port Stephens LGA area and likely between 350-500 animals in total. Laterpopulation viability analysis modelling by Lunney et al. (2007) utilised a starting population within theirstudy area of 7,000 ha of the Tomago sandbeds of 800 individuals.

The Cessnock and Lake Macquarie LGAs both have a number of reported koala sightings as well asareas classed as both ‘high’ and ‘very high’ koala habitat value from the koala habitat modelling resultsfrom this study. Due to the areas of potential habitat present there may be koalas present, which evenif occurring at low density could potentially be a population of approximately the same order as withinPort Stephens. However, as no density estimates area available it is not possible to provide a koalapopulation estimate within the Lower Hunter outside of the Port Stephens LGA.

In conclusion, due to a paucity of data, it is not possible to provide a reliable population estimate of thekoala within the Lower Hunter region.

4.2 WHAT IS THE RATE OF CHANGE IN THIS POPUL ATION AND HAS THISRATE CHANGED? WHAT ARE THE MAJOR AND MINOR CAUSESBEHIND THIS?

As a reliable population estimate is not currently available, it is similarly not possible to provide areliable estimate of change in the Lower Hunter koala population. Nevertheless, given there has beenan estimated 75% reduction in Koala habitat within Port Stephens LGA since European settlement(Knott et al. 1998), it is reasonable to predict that the Lower Hunter region has experienced a long-termdecline in koala population due in part to habitat clearing.

However, changes in koala numbers are not uniform within the Lower Hunter study area. This studyfound apparent decreases in Medowie, Anna Bay, Raymond Terrace, and Tilligerry Peninsula; but theBoat Harbour/One Mile population was reported at one point in time to be increasing. This indicatesthat the response and change of koala populations across the study area and over particular timeperiods may not be uniform.

4.3 WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED TO IDENTIFY HIGH PRIORITYHABITAT AREAS?

The study recommends that high priority conservation areas for the Koala within the Lower Hunterregion have the following parameters (this may be updated to include further expert input):



Vegetation patches greater than 100 ha with feed and roosting tree species.

Major roads and railways are deemed to be barriers between patches even though individualkoalas will cross them (at risk of death/injury).

Vegetated remnant areas more than 300m apart will be considered separate patches. (It wasnoted that connectivity for koalas will be enhanced the lower the separation between patchesand the better the ecological linkages from the perspective of koala movement patterns).

Recommended habitat buffer width of 50 m in urban areas

These criteria were incorporated into the koala habitat modelling, along with other attributes identifiedfrom the workshop. The above, in particular conserving patches of greater than 100 ha with koala feedand roosting tree species; and seeking to incorporate connectivity between patches for koalas; can alsobe considered a priority for koala conservation within the Lower Hunter study area. Other areas ofhabitat will also exist, and may be able to support viable koala populations, particularly wheresupporting (or connected) patches greater than 100 ha with koala feed and roosting tree species.

4.4 WHAT IS THE CURRENT EXTENT AND QUALITY OF KOALA HABITATIN THE REGION?

The current extent and quality of habitat was modelled as part of this study based on the criteriasummarised in section 4.3, above. The resultant habitat was identified in Figure 4 and high priorityconservation areas for the Koala can be seen in Figure 5 and summarised in Table 4, below. Theseareas are primarily associated with consolidated vegetated patches of suitable habitat.

Table 4: Area of High and Very High priority koala habitat modelled in the Lower Hunter

Priority Koala HabitatClasses

Area (ha) identified withinexisting conservation

reserves

% identified withinexisting formal

conservation reserves

Total modelledarea (ha)

High 18,525 23 79,827

Very High 4,886 22 22,604

Total priority modelledkoala habitat

23,411 23 102,431

The model shows that while there are a number of areas supporting priority koala habitat reserved forconservation within the Lower Hunter; the majority of the lands (more than 75%) are not currentlyformally reserved for conservation.

There is a concentration of priority habitat area within the Port Stephens LGA, in the north east of theregion, particularly to the north of Medowie as well as in the vicinity of Stockton Bight which are eithercurrently reserved for conservation or within identified high conservation land green corridors. Some ofthis area (particularly around Stockton Bight) corresponds well with previous koala habitat mapping(Phillips 1996). Other smaller pockets of priority habitat also exist in the north western part of the PortStephens LGA which fall outside of any existing conservation reserves or corridors.



Areas of priority habitat occupy large tracts of land across the south of the region, located within theWatagan National Park and associated high conservation value green corridors along the WataganRange. However, there are also large areas of priority habitat identified within the State Forests of theWollombi Valley and a number of pockets of priority habitat around Kurri Kurri and Branxton within theCessnock LGA; as well as within lands around Lake Macquarie; all falling outside of existingconservation reserves.

Essentially, existing development throughout the Maitland and Newcastle LGA’s provides a definiteseparation of habitat across the study area potentially forming two different habitat regions. Essentiallytwo thirds of the priority habitat occurs in the south of the study area, while the remaining third isconcentrated within the Port Stephens LGA.

Figure 5: High and Very High value priority koala habitat

It is important to note that the areas identified in this modelling process may be refined with theinclusion of more detailed data, such as updated regional vegetation mapping that is currently beingfinalised, or the refinement of model parameters through further expert discussion, such as criteriaweighting.

4.5 WHAT ARE THE LOCAL KEY THREATENING PROCESSES ANDRECOMMENDED CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR KOALAS TO ASSISTWITH DECISION MAKING FOR THE LOWER HUNTER REGIONALSTRATEGY AND REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLAN?

Koalas are subject to different threats and pressures across their distribution. In the Lower Hunter, themain threats discussed by the workshop were loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat both at afine and large scale; barriers to habitat connectivity (including natural and manmade structures); road



fatalities; predation by dogs; disease (Chlamydia and other diseases); fire (including both control burnsand natural fire) and climate change.

Modification of habitat in the Lower Hunter can largely be attributed to the high development pressureand piecemeal planning that has resulted in isolated fragments of habitat remaining amongst urbanareas. The current State Environmental Planning Policy 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44)planning system is difficult to apply to areas of low population density or small development sites as‘core’ koala habitat can be difficult to confirm. The workshop discussion agreed that the currentrezoning process is ineffective in considering long-term koala conservation as the majority of habitatanalysis should be done prior to rezoning. The cumulative impacts of progressive clearing were alsonoted as a process that is currently not adequately addressed and thereby impacting on overall koalaconservation.

Barriers to habitat connectivity include roads, rail, urban centres, wide water courses and open areas.In the Port Stephens area, the specific major road barriers are Richardson Road, Lemon Tree PassageRoad, Nelsons Bay Road, Port Stephens Drive and Gan Gan Road (expert working group - workshop).In Lake Macquarie, the F3 Freeway is considered to divide western and eastern koala populations,however it is likely that some koalas cross under the freeway at creek crossings (expert working group -workshop).

Road fatalities and dog predation are two major threats associated with urban areas. The real scale ofthe threat from dog attacks is likely underestimated as many dog attacks would not result in the koalabeing found and recorded. Road fatality data is often recorded by local carer groups (expert workinggroup - workshop).

Diseases, and in particular Chlamydia, are known to significantly impact koala populations (Jackson etal. 1999). Chlamydia can cause infertility in koalas and can contribute to population decline.

Fire, especially at a high frequency and intensity can cause mortality and adversely impact habitatavailability for koalas (Lunney et al. 2007, workshop). However, control burns which are considered tobe at a lower intensity are also thought to have a negative effect on koala populations due to the highfrequency of these burns in areas that are already highly fragmented (Lunney et al. 2007),

Climate change is predicted to affect koala habitat condition and cause more severe weather conditionswhich may impact koala survival rates (Adams-Hosking et al. 2012). Climate change is predicted toaffect koala habitat by altering the structure and chemical composition of koala food trees, changing thecomposition of plant communities, changing the range of important habitat species, changing sea levelsand further fragmenting habitat stands. Its influence on weather may negatively affect koalas, includingincreased frequency and intensity of drought and wildfire and changes in average temperature, rainfalland humidity levels (Adams-Hosking et al. 2012). In the Port Stephens area, much of the favouredkoala habitat occurs below 20 m elevation. These habitat types are likely to have significant rangerestrictions due to fresh and salt water inundation (expert working group - workshop).

Groundwater abstraction may also be a threatening process as E. parramattensis and E. robusta occurin groundwater dependent ecosystems (Williams et al. 2012), particularly as these species are primarykoala food trees and they often occur on waterlogged soils, so changes to the watertable could affectthese tree species, for example at the Tomago Sandbeds, and thus could potentially negatively affectkoala habitat.

In relation to the identified threats to the koala in the Lower Hunter, the long-term conservation of koalasis reliant on understanding habitat requirements and population dynamics and incorporating this



knowledge into urban planning (expert working group - workshop). The modelling derived from thisproject should be incorporated into both local and regional planning to support long-term conservationof koala populations in the Lower Hunter.



5 Conclusions and RecommendationsThe koala is a cryptic animal, especially when occurring at low densities. Due to its readily recognisableappearance and high level of public interest, community sightings are often used as one method toinvestigate koala distribution. Available koala sightings for the Lower Hunter study area were compiledas part of this study. The majority of sightings were within the Port Stephens Local Government Area(LGA) where a substantial human population live in close proximity to areas of koala habitat. This isconsistent with the high level of research and public interest in this region. Sightings were also presentelsewhere within the Lower Hunter study area, such as the western portion of the Cessnock LGA. It isimportant to note that fewer records from outside of the Port Stephens LGA may be due to lessresearch on koalas in these regions. Notwithstanding this, it is expected that the koala numbers aregreatest in Port Stephens compared with other areas of the Lower Hunter region.

This study found differences in changes in koala populations within the study area, with apparentdecreases in Medowie, Anna Bay, Raymond Terrace, and Tilligerry Peninsula; but Boat Harbour/OneMile population was reported to be increasing. This indicates that the response and change of koalapopulations across the study area is not uniform. It is also important to note that due to low recordednumbers of Koalas outside of the Port Stephens area and lack of empirical evidence, the study was notable to estimate population size (and density) outside of Port Stephens.

As a result of this study, it is recommended that:

Outcomes of this study should be incorporated into regional and local conservation planning inthe Lower Hunter.

Ongoing refinement of the model should be carried out as more specific or relevant informationbecomes available. This includes:

o Review and refinement of criteria weightings through any scheduled Lower Hunterexpert working groups

o Inclusion of newer or more targeted data sets as they become available (ie refinedregional vegetation classification)

Testing of modelled habitat value should be undertaken prior to its adoption into local andregional planning to support long-term conservation of koala populations in the Lower Hunter.There are a variety of research methodologies which could be utilised, but might include:

o Genetic analysis and testing to seek to determine if different koala metapopulationsexist within the Lower Hunter study region between Port Stephens and the LakeMacquarie / Cessnock LGA’s, as suggested by the apparent break in ecologicalconnectivity through the Newcastle and Maitland LGA’s. Should this be confirmed thenit would have implications for the management of the koala in the region, as therewould be two (or more) separate metapopulations for management

o Field based koala faecal pellet survey to seek to determine whether koalas are present,and their comparative use of different tree species and habitat types, and

o Community survey (via postal survey and/or other methods) to seek to capture publickoala sighting records.



High priority conservation areas outlined in section 4.3 that are located outside of existingprotected areas (such as National Parks) should be considered for long-term protection.

Regional and local conservation planning should consider protecting existing connectivity andenhancing connectivity of Koala habitat patches that are within 100m of another patch.

Regional and local conservation planning should consider management of threats to koalas,including dogs, barriers to movement (road/rail), fire, disease and climate change.

Ideally, monitoring of outcomes for koala populations should be undertaken. It is noted that thiswould require substantial resources due to the cryptic nature of the koala. However, given therecognisable nature of the koala and the public interest in this species, engagement with thecommunity and key stakeholders may provide a qualitative form of monitoring through some (orall) of the region, though it is noted that this would not provide quantitative data on populationsize or change, which would require more formalised scientific studies.

Koala research findings, and potential application of mitigation measures, should feed back intokoala recovery planning processes as part of an adaptive management framework. Such aframework should include community, stakeholder and expert engagement.



6 References

Adams-Hosking, C., McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J. R., Grantham, H. S. and Moss, P. T. (2012). "Modellingchanges in the distribution of the critical food resources of a specialist folivore in response to climatechange." Journal of Conservation Biogeography Diversity and Distributions: 1-14.

Allendorf, F. and Leary, R. F. (1986). Heterozygosity and Fitness in Natural Populations of Animals.Conservation Biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. M. E. Soulé. Sunderland, Massachusetts.,Sinauer Associates: 57-76.

Australian Koala Foundation (1996). The Koala Habitat Atlas. Project No 6: Port Stephens LocalGovernment Area. Report prepared for Port Stephens Council by Steve Phillips, John Callaghan andValerie Thompson. Vegetation Mapping by Robert Payne. Australian Koala Foundation Brisbane, Qld.

Bell S. and Driscoll C. (2007) "Vegetation of the Cessnock-Kurri region, Cessnock LGS, New SouthWales: Survey, Classification and Mapping. Report to Climate Change and Environment ProtectionGroup DECC, Newcastle.

Bell S. and Driscoll C. (2012) "Native Vegetation Community Equivalents NOV 2012" extract ofVegetation Mapping of Lake Macquarie LGA Stages 1 to 3 & 5. Draft report to Lake Macquarie Council

Biolink (2006). Medowie structure plan; Ecological Review and Advice. Draft report. Report prepared forPort Stephens Council.

Callaghan, J., Leathley, S. and Lunney, D.(1994) Port Stephens Koala Management Plan. Draft forpublic discussion. 27 September 1994. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and Port StephensCouncil.

Cork, S. J., E. M. Cawsey, A. O. Nicholls, M. Yialeloglou, and M.P. Austin (1997). Improving predictionand assessment of diet and habitat quality for koalas. Investigation of relationships between koalaabundance and the nutritional composition of foliage in northern NSW. Report to the Australian KoalaFoundation, Brisbane, Queensland.

Cork, S. J., Clark, T. W. and Mazur N. (2000a). "Introduction: an Interdisciplinary Effort for KoalaConservation." Conservation Biology 14(3): 606-609.

Cork, S. J., Hume, I. D. and Forley, W. J. (2000b). "Improving Habitat Models and Their Utility in KoalaConservation." Conservation Biology 14(3): 660-668.

Critescu, R. (2011). "Fauna recolonisation of mine rehabilitation through the example of arborealmarupials, with particular focus on the Koala Phascolarctos cinereus." The University of New SouthWales. PhD Thesis.

Critescu, R., Cahill, V., Sherwin, W. B., Handasyde, K., Carlyon, K. Whisson, D., Herbert, C. A.,Carlsson, B. L., Wilton, A. N. and Cooper D. W. (2009). "Inbreeding and testicular abnormalities in abottlenecked population of koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus)." Wildlife Research 36: 299-308.



Crossman N.D., Bryan B. A. and King D. 13-17th July 2009. Integration of landscape scale and sitescale metrics for prioritising investments in natural capital. 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress,Cairns, Australia

Crowther (2012) Climate-mediated habitat selection in koalas in a fragmented rural landscape.Presentation to Ecological Society of Australia 2012 Annual Conference, Albert Park, Melbourne.

Crowther, M. S., McAlpine, C. A., Cunney, D., Shannon, I. and Bryant, J. V. (2009). "Using broad-scale,community survey data to compare species conservation strategies across regions: A case study of theKoala in a set of adjacent 'catchments'." Ecological Management & Restoration 10(1): 88-96.

Curtin A and Lunney D (1995) Rare and Endangered Fauna Survey of Yengo National Park and ParrState Recreation Area, The Koala Phascolarctus cinereus. Final report to the Central Coast District ofthe National Parks and Wildlife Service 9 June 1995

DECC (2008). Recovery plan for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). Sydney.

DECC (2008b) The Native Vegetation of Yengo and Parr Reserves and Surrounds. Department ofEnvironment and Climate Change, NSW, Hurstville.

DEWHA (2009). National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy. N. R. M. M. Council.Canberra, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA).

ELA (2011) Composite Vegetation Map for Port Stephens Local Government Area. Map and metadataproduced for Port Stephens Council.

Ellis, W., Melzer, A. and Bercovitch, F. B. (2009). "Spatiotemporal dynamics of habitat use by koalas:the checkerboard model." Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 1181-1188.

Ellis, W., Melzer, A., Carrick, F. N. and Hasegawa, M. (2002). "Tree use, diet and home range of thekoala (Phascolarctos cinereus) at Blair Athol, central Queensland." Wildlife Research 29: 303-311.

Ellis, W., Melzer, A., Clifton, I. D. and Carrick F. N. (2010). "Climate Change and the Koala." AustralianZoologist 35(2): 369-377.

Ellis, W., Melzer, A., Green, B., Newgrain, K., Hindell, M. A. and Carrick F. N. (1995). "SeasonalVariation in Water Flux, Field Metabolic Rate and Food Consumption of Free Ranging Koalas(Phascolarctos cinereus)." Australian Journal of Zoology 43: 59-68.

Hanger, J. and Loader, J. (2009). "Infectious Disease in Koalas: implications for conservation." KoalaConservation Conference.

Harold A. Linstone, Murray Turoff (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Reading,Mass.: Adison-Wesley

Houlden, B. A., Costello, B. H., Sharkey, D., Fowler, E. V., Melzer, A., Ellis, W., Carrick, F., Baverstock,P. R. and Elphinstone, M. S. (1999). "Phylogeographic differentiation in the mitochondrial control regionin the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus (Goldfuss 1817)." Molecular Ecology 8: 999-1011.

Jackson, M., White, N., Giffard, P. and Timms, P. (1999). "Epizootiology of Chlamydia infections in twofree-range koala populations." Veterinary Microbiology 65: 255-264.



Kavanagh, R. P., S. Debus, T. Tweedie, and R. Webster (1995). Distribution of nocturnal forest birdsand mammals in north-eastern New South Wales: relationships with environmental variables andmanagement history. Wildlife Research 22: 359–377

Kavanagh, R. P. and M. A. Stanton (2012). "Koalas use young Eucalyptus plantations in an agriculturallandscape on the Liverpool Plains, New South Wales." Ecological Management & Restoration 13(3): 1-9.

Kavanagh, R. P., Stanton, M. A.and Brassil, E. T. (2007). "Koalas continue to occupy their previoushome ranges after selective logging in Callitris-Eucalyptus forest." Wildlife Research 34: 94-107.

Knott, T., Lunney, D., Coburn, D. and Callaghan, J. (1998). "An ecological history of Koala habitat inPort Stephens Shire and the Lower Hunter on the Central Coast of New South Wales, 1801-1998."Pacific Conservation Biology 4: 354.

Kollipara, A., George, C., Hanger, J., Loader, J., Polkinghorne, A., Beagley, K. and Timms, P. (2012)."Vaccination of healthy and diseased Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) with a Chlamydia pecorum multi-subunit vaccine: evaluation of immunity to pathology." Vaccine 30(10): 1875-1885.

Krebs, C. J. (2001). Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and abundance. San Francisco,CA, Benjamin Cummings.

Lee, K., Seddon, J., Corley, S., Ellis, W., Johnston, S., de Villiers, D. L., Preece, H. and Carrick, F. N.(2008). "Genetic variation and structuring in the threatened koala populations of SoutheastQueensland." Conservation Genetics.

Linstone, H. A. and Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading,Mass: Adison-Wesley.

Lindenmayer, D. B. and G. Luck (2005). "Synthesis: thresholds in conservation and management."Biological Conservation 124: 351-354.

Lunney D, Crowther M, Shannon I and Bryant J (2009) "Combining a map-based public survey with anestimation of site occupancy to determine the recent and changing distribution of the koala in NewSouth Wales". Wildlife Research, 36, 262-273.

Lunney, D., Gresser, S., O'Neill, L. E., Matthews, A. and Rhodes, J. (2007). "The impact of fire anddogs on Koalas at Port Stephens, New South Wales, using population viability analysis." PacificConservation Biology 13: 189-201.

Lunney, D., Matthews, A., Moon, C. and Ferrier, S. (1999). "Incoporating habitat mapping into practicalkoala conservation on private lands." Conservation Biology 14(3): 669-680.

McAlpine, C. A., Bowen, M. E., Callaghan, J. G., Lunney, D., Rhodes, J. R., Mitchell, D. L., Pullar, D. V.and Possingham, H. D. (2006). "Testing alternative models for the conservation of koalas in fragmentedrural-urban landscapes." Austral Ecology 31: 529-544.

McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J. R., Bowen, M. E., Lunney, D., Callaghan, J. G., Mitchell, D. L. andPossingham, H. P. (2008). "Can multiscale models of species' distribution be generalised from region toregion? A case study of the koala." Journal of Applied Ecology 25: 558-567.

Matthei, L.E. (1995). ‘Soil Landscapes of the Newcastle 1:100 000 Sheet Report’, Department of Landand Water Conservation, Sydney.



Matthews, A., Lunney, D., Gresser, S. and Maitz, W. (2007). "Tree use by Koalas (Phascolarctoscinereus) after fire in remnant coastal forest." Wildlife Research 34: 84-93.

Melzer, A., Carrick, F., Menkhost, P., Lunney, D. and St. John, B. (2000). "Overview, CriticalAssessment, and Conservation Implications of Koala Distribution and Abundance." ConservationBiology 14(3): 619-628.

Mendoza G.A., and Macoun P. (1999) Guidelines for Applying Multi-Criteria Analysis to the Assessmentof Criteria and Indicators, Centre for International Forestry Research, Jakarta Indonesia

Mitchell, D. (2008). Richmond Valley Koala Habitat Atlas, Australian Koala Foundation.

Moore, B. D. and W. J. Foley (2005). "Tree use by koalas in a chemically complex landscape." Nature435: 488-490.

Moore, B. D., Lawler, I. R., Wallis, I. R., Beale, C. M. and Foley, W. J. (2010). "Palatability mapping: akoala's eye view of spatial variation." Ecology 91(11): 3165-3176.

Murphy C.L. (1993). ‘Soil Landscapes of the Gosford-Lake Macquarie 1:100 000 Sheet Report’,Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney.

Murphy, C.L (1995) “Soil Landscapes of the Port Stephens 1:100 000 Sheet” Report. Department ofLand and Water Conservation, Sydney.

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. (1994). Fauna of north-east NSW forests. NorthEast Forests biodiversity study report 3. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney

OEH (2011) Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geodatabase Guide Version 3.1 2011. Notespatial data rereleased as version 4 was published with this version of the geodatabase guide.

Phillips, S., Callaghan, J. and Thompson, V. (2000). "The tree species preferences of koalas(Phascolarctos cinereus) inhabiting forest and woodland communities on Quaternary deposits in thePort Stephens area, NSW." Wildlife Research 27: 1-10.

Phillips, S., J. Callaghan, et al. (1996). The Koala Habitat Atlas Project No 6: Port Stephens LocalGovernment Area.

Port Stephens Council (2002). Port Stephens Council Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management(CKPoM) – June 2002. Prepared by Port Stephens Council with the Australian Koala Foundation.

Reed, P.R., Lunney, D., Walker, P. (1989) A 1986-87 Survey of the Koala Phascolarctos cinereus inNSW and and Ecological Interpretation of its Distribution. Report to National Parks and Wildlife Service& Division of Wildlife Ecology CSIRO

Reinke KJ and Jones SD (2009) Visualising Uncertainity in Environmental Data. Innovations in remotesensing and photogrammetry, Lecture notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. 1st Edn Springer,Berlin.

Rhodes, J. R., Callaghan, J., McAlpine, C. A., de Jong, C., Bowen, M. E., Mitchell, D. L., Lunney, D.and Possingham, H. P. (2008). "Regional variation in habitat-occupancy thresholds: a warning forconservation planning." Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 549-557.

Rhodes, J. R., McAlpine, C. A., Lunney, D. and Possingham, H. P. (2005). "A spatially explicit habitatselection model incorporating home range behaviour." Ecology 86(5): 1199-1205.



Rhodes, J. R., Wiegland, T., McAlpine, C. A., Callaghan, J., Lunney, D., Bowen, M. and Possingham,H. (2006). "Modeling Species' Distributions to Improve Conservation in Semiurban Landscapes: KoalaCase Study." Conservation Biology 20(2): 449-459.

Saaty TL, (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, NY, McGraw Hill

SEWPaC (2012) Interim koala referral advice for proponents. SEWPaC, Canberra.

Sherwin, W. B., Timms, P., Wilcken, J. and Houlden, B. (2000). "Analysis and Conservation Implicationsof Koala Genetics." Conservation Biology 14(3): 639-649.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) (2012). Listing advice for Phascolarctos cinereus(Koala). [Online]. Available from:http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/197-listing-advice.pdf

Todd, C., Forsyth, D. M. and Choquenot, D. (2008). "Modelling the effects of fertility control on koala-forest dynamics." Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 568-578.

Van Dyck, S. and R. Strahan, Eds. (2008). The Mammals of Australia. Sydney, Reed New Holland.

Ward, S (2002) Koalas and the Community: a study of low density populations in southern Sydney. PhDThesis. University of Western Sydney.

Williams J.P, Kuginis L., Serov P., Byrne G. (2012). Risk assessment guidelines for groundwaterdependent ecosystems – Volume 2 – Worked examples for seven pilot coastal aquifers in NSW. NSWDepartment of Primary Industries, Office of Water, Sydney.

Zeiler M (1999) Modelling our world. The ESRI Guide to Geodatabase Design. ESRI Press. California.



Appendix APrimary/Secondary and supplementary food tree species for Koala – discussion from workshop

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME PRIMARY SECONDARY SUPPLEMENTARY AREA

Allocasuarina littoralis Black She-oak x

Allocasuarina torulosa Forest Oak x

Angophora costata Smooth-barked Apple x

Banksia serrata Saw Toothed Banksia x

Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum x*

Casuarina glauca(with Parsonsia sp.) Swamp Shea-oak x

C. gummifera Red Bloodwood x*

E. agglomerata Blue-leaved Stringybark

E. amplifolia Cabbage gum x*

E. botryoides Bangalay GB x*

E. camfieldii Heart-leaved Stringybark x

E. capitellata Brown Stringybark

E. carnea Thick-leaved Mahogany x

E. crebra Narrow-leaved RedIronbark

x

E. dwyeri Narrow leafed Red Gum

E. eugenioides Thin-leaved Stringybark x

E. fibrosa Red Ironbark GB x

E. glaucina Slaty red gum

E. globoidea White Stringybark x

E. grandis Flooded Gum

E. racemosa or E.signata Scribbly Gum GB

x

x

E. largeana Craven Grey Box




E. longifolia WoollybuttUnsurefor PS

E. microcorys Tallowwood GB Unsurefor PS

E. moluccana Grey box x*

E. nicholii Small-leaved Peppermint GB (urbanplantings)

E. oblonga Narrow-leavedStringybark

GB

E. paniculata Grey Ironbark x

E. parramattensissubsp. decadens

Parramatta red gum alsoreferred to as Droopingred gum

x

GB

E. pilularis Blackbutt x

E. piperita Sydney Peppermint x

E. propinqua Small-fruited Grey Gum x*+

E. punctata Grey Gum Unsurein PS

E. resinifera Red mahogany x*

E. robusta Swamp mahoganyx

GB

E. saligna Sydney Blue GumUnsurein PS

E. scias Large fruited redmahogany x

E. siderophloia Grey Ironbark xUnsurein PS

E. sparsifolia Narrow-leavedStringybark

Unsurein PS

E. tereticornis Forest red gumx

GB

E. umbra Broad-leaved WhiteMahogany

x*

Eucalyptusacmenoides White mahogany x*




Melaleuca nodosa Prickly-leaved paperbark x

Melaleucastyphelioides Prickly Paperbark x

M. linearifolia Paperbark

M. quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark GB x

Syncarpia glomulifera Turpentine x

* Needs more work+ Locally preferred in the Port Stephens LGAx Dan Lunney, David Paull, Ray Williams, Anthony Marchment, Mark RoselleGB Geoff Bartlet

Primary = preferred feed tree;

Secondary = occasional feed tree (seasonal), less frequent;

Supplementary = other use, occasionally used



HEAD OFFICESuite 4, Level 12-4 Merton StreetSutherland NSW 2232T 02 8536 8600F 02 9542 5622

SYDNEYLevel 6299 Sussex StreetSydney NSW 2000T 02 8536 8650F 02 9264 0717

ST GEORGES BASIN8/128 Island Point RoadSt Georges Basin NSW 2540T 02 4443 5555F 02 4443 6655

CANBERRALevel 211 London CircuitCanberra ACT 2601T 02 6103 0145F 02 6103 0148

NEWCASTLESuites 28 & 29, Level 719 Bolton StreetNewcastle NSW 2300T 02 4910 0125F 02 4910 0126

NAROOMA5/20 Canty StreetNarooma NSW 2546T 02 4476 1151F 02 4476 1161

COFFS HARBOUR35 Orlando StreetCoffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450T 02 6651 5484F 02 6651 6890

ARMIDALE92 Taylor StreetArmidale NSW 2350T 02 8081 2681F 02 6772 1279

MUDGEEUnit 1, Level 179 Market StreetMudgee NSW 2850T 02 4302 1230F 02 6372 9230

PERTHSuite 1 & 249 Ord StreetWest Perth WA 6005T 08 9227 1070F 08 9322 1358

WOLLONGONGSuite 204, Level 262 Moore StreetAustinmer NSW 2515T 02 4201 2200F 02 4268 4361

GOSFORDSuite 5, Baker One1-5 Baker StreetGosford NSW 2250T 02 4302 1220F 02 4322 2897

DARWIN16/56 Marina BoulevardCullen Bay NT 0820T 08 8989 5601

BRISBANEPO Box 1422Fortitude Valley QLD 4006T 0400 494 366

Documents

Lower Hunter Koala Study - final · This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2013. Lower Hunter Koala Study. Prepared for Dept Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population