Biolink Ecological Consultants East Coomera Koala Population … › documents › ma › planning... · 2019-06-23 · P a g e 23 | 95 23 Biolink Ecological Consultants East Coomera

Biolink Ecological Consultants East Coomera Koala Population Study 2017

P a g e 20 | 95

20

The extent of the grid cells that recorded significant koala activity levels

consistent with established koala home range use and breeding activity (i.e. >

23% in higher habitat quality areas and > 10% in lower quality upland areas)

appears to have increased in the north-eastern section of the study area in

2017 compared to the results from 2006-07.

Note: Some private property owners for Lots that still support reasonably

substantial areas of bushland habitat elected to decline approval for access to

undertake the koala surveys in 2017. These sites are reasonably evident as

areas of forest cover without corresponding koala activity cells in Figure 2.

3.2 Koala sightings A total of 37 different adult koalas were observed during the East Coomera

field surveys including 14 males (37.8%) and 23 females (62.2%). All but four

of these were recorded within either our radial search sites or transect search

areas. Seven adult koalas were observed within the 106 x 25 m radial

searches at SAT sites (covering 20.78 ha) and 30 adult koalas were observed

within the 72 x strip transect searches (covering 63.16 ha), which included

four of the SAT koala sightings (see Table 4 and Appendix 3). Transect

search locations are depicted in Figure 4. Full koala sighting details are

provided in Appendix 4.

Seven of the 23 adult females (30.4%) that were sighted had a dependent

young that was obvious when examined through binoculars. Two of the adult

males (14.3%) and six of the adult females (26.1%) showed obvious signs of

disease (i.e. cystitis and/or conjunctivitis). These koalas tended to be in the

southern and eastern sections of the study area. All other observed koalas

appeared to be in good to average body condition with no obvious signs of

illness. Sighting locations are illustrated on Figure 6.

748th Council Meeting 8 December 2017 City Planning Committee Meeting 5 December 2017

ADOPTED REPORT 493

P a g e 23 | 95

23 Biolink Ecological Consultants East Coomera Koala Population Study 2017

3.3 Koala density and size estimation

Separate koala density estimates were derived for both the SAT-based radial

koala search results (7 koalas sighted from 106 radial searches) and the strip

transect search results (30 koalas sighted from 72 strip transects) as detailed

below.

Density estimate 1: SAT-based radial searches

A density estimate of 0.34 ± 0.05 (SE) koalas per hectare (ha-1) was derived

from the 106 SAT-based radial surveys.

Density estimate 2: Transect searches

A density estimate of 0.47 ± 0.06 (SE) koalas ha-1 was derived from the 72

strip transect surveys.

Density estimate 3: Combined SAT-Transect density estimate

The Shapiro-Wilk test results for the two koala survey datasets indicated that

neither was normally distributed (radial searches W = 0.2047, P < 0.001;

transect searches W = 0.4491, P < 0.001). A Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-

sample test indicated that the two survey datasets do not follow the same

distribution (K-S D = 0.2306, P = 0.017). Both datasets were subsequently

standardized and transformed prior to running a Levene’s test, which

indicated that the variance of the two datasets was significantly different (F =

16.057, 177df, P < 0.001). A corresponding t-test for unequal variances

indicated that the two samples were significantly different (t = -2.4801, 140df,

P = 0.014).

A combined SAT-transect density estimate, although not statistically

supported in this case, would produce a density estimate of 0.41 ± 0.05 (SD)

koalas ha-1.


ADOPTED REPORT 496

P a g e 24 | 95


Population size estimate The koala density estimate derived from the SAT-based radial searches is

directly comparable to that derived using the same survey methodology in

2006-07 of 0.23 ± 0.03 (SE) koalas ha-1. Transect searches were not

undertaken for the East Coomera study area in 2006-07 and in 2017 the

results from the transect searches were heavily influenced by two survey sites

in the most densely populated section in the far east of the East Coomera

study area, which both resulted in four koala sightings. If these two sites were

removed from the dataset the transect-based density estimate would fall to

0.36 ± 0.057 (SE) koalas ha-1. The narrowest confidence intervals (error

margins) were produced by the SAT-based radial search results, which are

arguably more reliable given the prolonged search effort applied at SAT sites

for faecal pellet surveys and tree health assessments.

In 2006-07, the koala density estimate was extrapolated across 2,217 koala

habitat hectares to derive an overall population estimate of 510 ± 129 (SE)

koalas. The equivalent analysis for 2017 involved extrapolating the koala

density estimate of 0.34 ± 0.05 (SE) derived from the SAT-based radial

searches across an estimated current total area of 1,467 habitat ha remaining

in the East Coomera study area to derive a current koala population

estimate for the East Coomera study area of 499 ± 74 (SE) koalas.

For comparison purposes, an equivalent estimate was derived by digitising

forested areas from Google earth imagery captured in May 2016, which

identified a total of 1,437 ha of potential koala habitat across the East

Coomera study area, illustrated in Figure 5. The subsequent koala population

estimate derived from this approach was 489 ± 72 (SE) koalas.

Note: The koala density estimates derived from the 2017 surveys represent

average estimates for the East Coomera study area. When considered at the

scale of individual SAT survey sites (n = 106), koala density estimates ranged

from 0 to 10.2 koalas ha-1 and from individual transect survey sites (n = 72),

from 0 to 8 koalas ha-1.


ADOPTED REPORT 497

P a g e 25 | 95


Figure 5. Digitised forest areas (potential koala habitat) using Google earth imagery captured

in May 2016 for the East Coomera study area.

Despite a reduction in available koala habitat hectares by approximately 34%

and relocation of 180 koalas from development sites through the City of Gold

Coast’s East Coomera Koala Conservation and Translocation Program, the

koala population size appears to be very similar now to that in 2007, albeit

with koalas now occurring at higher average densities within a reduced area

of available habitat.

3.4 Koala Meta-population Model The koala meta-population model produced from the 2017 SAT surveys

delineates locations of current significant koala activity across the East

Coomera study area, supporting resident koalas with established home

ranges and breeding activity (Figure 6). The vast majority of koalas that were

observed during the surveys were located within the modelled areas of

significant activity.


ADOPTED REPORT 498

P a g e 26 | 95


When compared to the model derived from the baseline surveys in 2006,

there are many areas of similarity confirming that koalas are still resident in

the majority of previously occupied locations, where suitable habitat remains.

Some clear points of difference in 2017 include:

I. A substantial reduction and fragmentation of bushland habitat

and associated evidence of established resident koalas within

central and western sections of the study area where urban

development has been focused.

II. An apparent increase in areas supporting established resident

koalas in the north-eastern section of the study area beyond

the extent of intensive urban development.

III. The 2017 model depicts some areas of expected significant

koala activity that coincide with properties where permission

to undertake the survey work was declined. The modelling

has captured these areas due to survey results from adjoining

areas. Field surveys would be necessary at these specific

locations to verify and refine the modelling at site-scale.

IV. It is evident that the majority of areas that support remaining

koala habitat and resident koalas within the urban footprint will

be lost as development of the new Coomera Town Centre

proceeds. Remaining habitat patches within the urban area

are highly fragmented and the resident koalas in these areas

will be at increased risk without active management.

V. Koalas persist within habitat patches and adjoining residential

areas in the far eastern section of the urban footprint away

from the emerging Town Centre and have some prospects for

future survival with ongoing community support and

connectivity with the rural landscape.


ADOPTED REPORT 499


P a g e 28 | 95

28

3.5 Vegetation condition and sapling health Data pertaining to the assessment of tree health for 2,615 trees across 106

survey sites is presented in Appendix 5.

Surveyed trees Overall, 243 trees were assessed as falling into the highest health category

(3) having > 70% expected healthy foliage cover, while 1,909 trees were

assigned to category (2) with 30-70% expected healthy foliage, and 463 trees

were assigned to the lowest health category (1) as having < 30% expected

healthy foliage (see Figures 7 and 8).

With respect to the proportion of trees assigned to each condition score at

each SAT site, all sites except for four (P323, P333, P359, P403) were

assessed as having > 50% of trees in the middle health category (i.e. 30-70%

estimated proportion of expected healthy foliage present). Three sites (P323,

P333 and P344) recorded > 40% of surveyed trees falling into the lower

health category, while 11 sites (P016, P188, P303, P323, P325, P333, P338,

P344, P359, P397, P403) were assessed as having > 20% of trees in the

lowest health category (see Appendix 5). These sites tended to be located in

the northeast, southeast and northwest sections of the study area.

Preferred Koala Food Trees Preferred Koala Food Trees (PKFTs) (i.e. forest red gum E. tereticornis,

Tallowwood E. microcorys, small-fruited grey gum E. propinqua, swamp

mahogany E. robusta, and red mahogany E. resinifera) were present at 73.6%

(n = 78) of the 106 sites and represented ≥ 20% of surveyed trees at 31.1% of

sites. A total of 380 PKFTs were assessed with 74.21% of these assigned to

the middle health category (2), displaying 30-70% expected healthy foliage

cover (see Table 5).

Nine sites (8.49%) contained more than one PKFT species (P095, P130,

P161, P176, P191, P209, P341, P376, P399). Forest red gum was the most

abundant PKFT present (n = 303), occurring within 57 sites and the sole

PKFT present at 54 sites. The second most abundant PKFT was small-fruited


ADOPTED REPORT 501

P a g e 31 | 95


recorded mean FPC readings above 80%, predominantly in north-eastern

sections beyond urban areas. The remaining mean FPC readings for 15 sites

that fell below 40% corresponded mainly to locations that were within or

adjoining urban areas or partially cleared rural lands.

Note: The surveys did not identify any overt signs of over-browsing by koalas

at this stage, although there were some possible early signs on the Coleman

Road peninsula area. The absence of PKFT saplings from around half of the

survey sites and a general low proportional representation raises some

potential concerns that may warrant a management response in conjunction

with ongoing habitat restoration programs and future monitoring.


ADOPTED REPORT 504


P a g e 32 | 95

32

Figure 7. Health condition scores for non-sapling trees surveyed within SAT sites. Rating 1 = < 30% expected healthy foliage present, Rating 2 = 30-70% expected

healthy foliage present, Rating 3 = > 70% expected healthy foliage present (continued in Figure 7).


ADOPTED REPORT 505

P a g e 33 | 95


Figure 8. Health condition scores for non-sapling trees surveyed within SAT sites. Rating 1 = < 30% expected healthy foliage present, Rating 2 = 30-70% expected

healthy foliage present, Rating 3 = > 70% expected healthy foliage present (continued from Figure 7).


ADOPTED REPORT 506

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

P a g e 49 | 95


It is very clear that the urban sub-population in the emerging Coomera Town

Centre section of the urban area is at significant risk and is unlikely to be

viable over the longer term. In peripheral sections of the Urban Footprint that

adjoin rural areas, koala populations may continue to persist by recruiting

dispersing-aged koalas from the potential future source population in the rural

landscape.

The model outcomes suggest that the future of the remaining urban koala

population in peripheral areas to the east of the emerging Coomera Town

Centre (such as in the Coomera Waters and Coleman peninsula areas) would

be unlikely to be significantly altered by the rescue and relocation or

translocation of between 40 to 80 koalas from remaining habitat patches that

will be impacted by pending development activities. These koalas would likely

be lost from the remaining urban sub-population without intervention. The

potential relocation of some of these koalas could potentially enhance

prospects for establishing a stable source population in rural areas to the

north of the Urban Footprint, although the currently available habitat area is

already predominantly occupied and could only support a preliminary estimate

of approximately 25-30% of the koalas that are expected to be displaced over

the immediate to short term. Additional recipient sites would need to be

identified in the Gold Coast hinterland to accommodate the remaining koalas.

4.0 Discussion

Despite a reduction in available koala habitat and relocation of 180 koalas

from development sites through the City of Gold Coast’s East Coomera Koala

Conservation and Translocation Program over the past decade, the koala

population at East Coomera appears to be very similar in size in 2017 to that

in 2007, with koalas now occurring at higher average densities across the

reduced area of remaining habitat.

The reasons for the similarity in koala population estimates from the baseline

surveys in 2006 to the current surveys in 2017 are likely to reflect a

combination of factors. In particular, these factors are considered to include i)

expansion in significant use of suitable habitat beyond the extent of the Urban


ADOPTED REPORT 522

P a g e 50 | 95


Footprint in the northeast of the study area, and ii) increased average koala

densities within available habitat across the study area. This increase in koala

density is likely to be an artifact of the habitat clearing process for the new

Coomera Town Centre and the associated effect of condensing remaining

koalas into smaller and more isolated areas of remaining habitat.

The baseline survey report in 2007 estimated a maximum carrying capacity at

that time of 674 koalas (Biolink 2007b). Given that approximately 750 ha

(34%) of available koala habitat has been cleared since 2007, the estimated

carrying capacity would equate to approximately 441 koalas in 2017 and is

only marginally higher than the current lower range koala population estimate

of 425 koalas (i.e. 499 minus 74 SE). Hence, the current East Coomera koala

population is likely to be close to maximum carrying capacity and may have

already exceeded this estimated threshold in some smaller and more isolated

habitat patches. If the City of Gold Coast had not undertaken the koala

relocation program between late 2009 and early 2014, and had some of these

koalas survived clearing operations to be displaced into adjoining areas of

koala habitat, the koala population is likely to have exceeded the carrying

capacity well before the current time, with a likely corresponding increased

incidence of clinical signs of disease and decline in habitat health.

The increased average koala activity levels and densities within remaining

habitat areas pose some concerns. This will need to be monitored to confirm

that the habitat is coping with increased browsing pressures and that the

incidence of clinical disease does not increase within the koala population due

to added social pressures and interaction between koalas. The 2017 surveys

did not detect any marked increase in the expected incidence of overt clinical

disease amongst the sighted koalas and no overt signs of significant over-

browsing by koalas was detected at this stage.

The meta-population model identified an apparent increase in areas

supporting established resident koalas and breeding activity in the north-

eastern section of the study area beyond the extent of intensive urban

development within the urban footprint. This lends support to the case for


ADOPTED REPORT 523

P a g e 51 | 95


considering this area as the preferred ‘core’ location for re-establishing a

sustainable koala population within the rural landscape.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The results from this study indicate that the establishment and protection of a

sustainable koala population within the rural landscape at East Coomera is

still possible, despite major impacts on the habitat and the population over the

past decade. A program to establish a sustainable koala population would

require a concerted and well-planned effort targeting the entire population with

coordinated actions aimed to maximize outcomes and efficiencies. This would

require a multifaceted strategy to direct and coordinate the blend of essential

actions. An ongoing monitoring program would be necessary in order to

regularly evaluate the efficacy of specific measures and to respond decisively

to any adverse or unexpected events.

The window for assertive action towards establishing a sustainable source

population of koalas in the study area is rapidly narrowing as habitat clearing

continues for the new Coomera Town Centre and adjoining residential and

commercial areas and threats continue to increase, particularly within the

urban landscape.

The urban landscape is rapidly being converted from a predominance of large

and well-connected habitat patches that were characteristic of the area 10

years ago, to increasingly fragmented, isolated and smaller habitat patches,

embedded within a high-risk, intensive urban matrix. The chances for

dispersing young koalas or displaced koalas to safely negotiate and traverse

the high-risk urban environment to locate suitable habitat and to establish new

home range areas are now extremely remote.


ADOPTED REPORT 524

P a g e 52 | 95


6.1 TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE KOALA POPULATION

6.1.1 The concept The development of the new Coomera Town Centre will ultimately remove the

majority of the koala habitat within the Urban Footprint at East Coomera. The

Population Viability Analysis modelling that was undertaken as a component

of the koala population study in 2006-07 indicated that the koala population

appeared likely to be sustainable at that time without the impost of further

habitat loss, increased threats and elevated mortality associated with

intensive urban development.

The concept of re-establishing a sustainable koala population at East

Coomera would involve re-creating a large area of connected habitat outside

the Urban Footprint and ensuring this area is protected and set aside for the

primary purpose of conservation for koalas and biodiversity. The area would

need to be of adequate size to ultimately support greater than the Minimum

Viable Population (MVP) of koalas necessary to maintain genetic diversity and

would need to include sufficient established habitat to support an initial core

population. Ideally, this area would also accommodate at least some

additional koalas that will be displaced as development proceeds within the

Urban Footprint. Ensuring the area is able to support greater than the

minimum viable number of koalas would be of vital importance to allow scope

for population expansion over time and to cope with potential future stochastic

events such as wildfire or drought conditions. The aim would be to offset the

ultimate displacement of the original stable population, not by conventional

site-by-site offsetting, but by protecting, restoring and managing sufficient

connected habitat to provide a new secure ‘core’ area capable of sustaining

the bulk of the population into the future.

6.1.2 Benefits The East Coomera koala population remains the largest population within the

City of Gold Coast east of the M1. The protection and management of this

population would make an important contribution to biodiversity conservation

within southeast Queensland and would help to maintain and support overall


ADOPTED REPORT 525

P a g e 53 | 95


genetic diversity within the broader koala population across the City. An

ongoing East Coomera koala population would provide a wonderful legacy for

Gold Coast City residents and could provide an important resource for nature-

based tourism and a potential planning model for conservation of koala

populations that adjoin high-density residential areas. The population could

also provide an ongoing educational resource and a potential source for

recruiting young koalas in the future should it be feasible or necessary to re-

establish koala populations in other parts of the City.

In the face of widespread koala population declines in southeast Queensland,

the loss of the East Coomera koala population would be a sad outcome.

However, conversely the successful re-establishment of a sustainable koala

population would be a great achievement for the City and a fitting response to

the threats posed by urbanisation throughout much of the area that historically

supported this significant koala population.

6.1.3 Expected outcomes if no specific action is taken Without a well-designed and multi-layered conservation program aimed to

secure a new core area with capacity to sustain a minimum viable population,

the East Coomera koala population will likely be lost over the ensuing several

decades. This would constitute the loss of a significant opportunity to

demonstrate what could still potentially be achieved for the future of the koala

population by exploring beyond immediate constraints and finding solutions to

make the concept of securing a sustainable koala population a reality.

6.1.4 What will be needed to support a sustainable koala population The original koala population study for East Coomera recommended a target

of 1,500 ha of consolidated koala habitat to sustain at least the estimated

MVP of 170 koalas (Biolink 2007b). This area was considered necessary

based on the overall density estimate of 0.23 koalas ha-1 derived from the

2006 surveys and to allow for a 50% habitat occupancy rate to accommodate

population contraction and expansion associated with future stochastic events

such as wildfires and droughts. Whilst this still holds valid as the ultimate


ADOPTED REPORT 526

P a g e 54 | 95


target, an area of 1,150 ha could be considered an immediate target value to

accomodate an average density of 0.30 koalas ha-1 and 50% occupancy.

The level of threats associated with roads, dogs, disease and bushfires within

a future koala conservation area would need to be carefully monitored and

managed to ensure that koala mortality rates are maintained at adequately

low levels ideally below 2% as was factored into the original baseline 2007

PVA modelling.

The configuration and design of the koala conservation area could be guided

by recent advances in understanding of landscape ecology requirements for

koala populations. For example, the work of McAlpine et al. (2006) confirmed

the importance of size of forest habitat patches, the spatial configuration and

quality of habitat, and habitat connectivity for the occurrence and persistence

of koala populations. McAlpine et al. (2005, 2007) established that koala

populations were less likely to occur in areas of fragmented habitat where

habitat patches were less than around 50 to 100 ha in size. Rhodes et al.

(2008) found that koala habitat-occupancy values were best described by

threshold models, rather than by linear relationships, whereby minimum

requirements for native forest cover of around 60% were identified for the

Noosa area in order to support and sustain koala populations. Rhodes et al.

(2006, 2014) reported that the probability of koala presence increased with the

amount of primary and secondary quality koala habitat and decreased in

areas supporting high proportions of marginal koala habitat as well as when

the density of roads increased. From the perspective of landscape genetics,

the work of Dudaniec et al. (2013) found that koala gene flow is correlated

with foliage projective cover (FPC) until it falls below approximately 30% (as

commonly occurs with significant habitat clearing and disturbance effects),

with only highways and freeways further explaining genetic distance beyond

the effect of FPC.

These research findings and others collectively confirm the importance of

ensuring that any future koala conservation area for East Coomera is based

on a suitably large area of koala habitat that is centered in one consolidated


ADOPTED REPORT 527

P a g e 55 | 95


location where gaps between habitat patches can be largely replaced by

restored forest areas.

6.1.5 Challenges posed by the two adjoining landscapes The challenges associated with establishing and retaining a sustainable koala

population at East Coomera extend beyond the need to ensure the protection

and restoration of a suitably large and consolidated area of koala habitat. In

addition it will be vital to minimize the impacts associated with threatening

processes and to reduce koala mortality rates. This will involve the need for

risk mitigation measures at the interface between the urban and rural

landscapes, where the home ranges of some animals may extend over the

notional line where the two sub-populations meet, and across which sub-adult

koalas may disperse in either direction. Both the urban and rural landscapes

present their own compliment of threats and opportunities that need to be

identified, considered and addressed.

The following sections propose the basis for developing a comprehensive

planning framework to establish and maintain a sustainable koala population

at East Coomera into the future.

6.2 URBAN KOALAS 6.2.1 Management during future clearing activities

As approved future clearing activities progress within the East Coomera urban

area, remaining resident koalas will be increasingly likely to be displaced into

the surrounding urban landscape, where they will be at grave risk due to road

strike, dog attack and disease.

A. Spotting koalas during clearing

It is vitally important to ensure that koalas are not missed during pre-

clearing surveys and clearing activities on future development sites.

Koalas are generally cryptic in dense vegetation and even the most

experienced ecologists and koala spotters will inevitably miss seeing

some koalas during survey events. Hence, the following

recommendations are aimed to minimize the chances that koalas will


ADOPTED REPORT 528

P a g e 56 | 95


be missed and either lost or displaced during remaining approved

clearing activities for the Coomera Town Centre.

6.2.1-A Recommendations:

a) City of Gold Coast require appointed koala spotters to be accredited

and highly experienced with extensive previous koala spotting work

and familiarity with the recorded distribution of koalas in the East

Coomera area.

b) City of Gold Coast require any koala sighting to be reported to the

City as soon as practicable following the sighting.

B. Assessing dispersal risks

An assessment should be undertaken of the likelihood that koalas at

each given future development site will be displaced and if considered

likely, the capacity of adjoining habitat to support additional koalas

should be evaluated. Koala densities are expected to be lower than the

current average density of 0.34 koalas ha-1 and estimated carrying

capacity of 0.3 koalas ha-1 at some future development sites where the

habitat is already highly fragmented and patch sizes are relatively

small. However, in these situations the likelihood of resident koalas

being displaced and dispersing from the location and the risks as they

venture into the urban landscape will be high.

6.2.1-B Recommendations:

a) City of Gold Coast require proponents to evaluate and report on the

likelihood of any resident koalas being displaced and dispersing

from future development sites into the existing urban landscape.

b) Where the likelihood of displacement and dispersal into the urban

landscape is assessed as high, the City of Gold Coast should

investigate options for the resident koalas to be recruited into an

approved research program involving relocation or translocation.


ADOPTED REPORT 529

P a g e 57 | 95


C. Koala relocation or translocation

The need to consider this option arises largely from the time period

since the completion of the translocation component of the City of Gold

Coast’s East Coomera Koala Conservation Project in 2014. Since that

time some future development sites within the Urban Footprint from

which koalas were translocated have not progressed to an operation

works vegetation clearing stage, allowing koalas to repopulate.

The current survey outcomes suggest that up to approximately 80

koalas are still likely to reside within future development sites in the

Urban Footprint at East Coomera. The koalas within the majority of

these sites are likely to be at serious risk at the habitat clearing stage

and are generally likely to be displaced into adjoining residential or

commercial areas. The PVA included models that allowed for potential

relocation of some koalas from future development sites inside the

Urban Footprint and re-establishment into the adjoining rural

population. The models factored in an estimated 80% rate for

successful re-establishment of relocated koalas on the basis of current

knowledge and best practice methodologies.

The remainder of the urban koala population resides in areas of

comparatively lower risk in locations such as Finnegan Reserve and

Coomera Waters Estate, where habitat areas and linkages are

protected and managed for conservation purposes. These locations

warrant special management attention to support ongoing koala

occupancy and do not require consideration for koala relocation. The

PVA models for the urban sub-population indicates that it is in decline

and is likely to continue on this trajectory, regardless of the possible

relocation of koalas at high risk to areas outside the urban landscape -

noting that these koalas would likely be lost to the urban population in

either case. However, locations such as Finnegan Reserve and

Coomera Waters are expected to receive a rescue effect with some

young koalas recruiting into these sites from the rural sub-population

via existing habitat connections. Any measures that ultimately reduce


ADOPTED REPORT 530

P a g e 58 | 95


mortality and disease within the remaining urban sub-population would

improve prospects for ongoing survival. Monitoring and active

management will be necessary to support long-term persistence of the

urban sub-population given the relatively small size and pending further

reduction as development proceeds, comparatively high risks

associated with the urban environment, and overall decline trend. It

should be noted that sensitive development designs adopted for the

Coomera Waters Estate appear to have enabled the local koala

population to continue to occupy protected habitat patches,

streetscapes and parkland areas across much of the estate.

It would be regrettable not to relocate the koalas from high risk sites

within pending development areas prior to approved clearing activities,

and to thus afford these koalas strong prospects for survival and

potential future contributions to conservation of the rural sub-

population. The protection and restoration of a substantial,

consolidated area of koala habitat beyond the Urban Footprint is of

foremost importance as the essential basis to re-establish and support

a sustainable koala population over the medium term. Whilst the areas

proposed for consideration by this report would not currently support all

koalas at high risk at future development sites within the urban

landscape, there is scope to support some additional koalas – subject

to outcomes from a recommended further specific investigation to

identify optimal numbers and placement options.

The role of koala rescue and welfare (primarily provided by Wildcare

Australia and Currumbin Wildlife Hospital within Gold Coast City) also

needs to be acknowledged in regards to koala relocation within the

East Coomera population, given that koalas sometimes need to moved

away from imminent danger (within permitted distances) in response to

koala rescues and following hospital treatment.


ADOPTED REPORT 531

P a g e 59 | 95


6.2.1-C Recommendations:

a) City of Gold Coast identify potential land holdings that would be

available and suitable as recipient sites for relocated koalas within

the East Coomera rural landscape and beyond.

b) City of Gold Coast initiate a specific investigation to i) assess the

current requirements for koala relocation or translocation programs,

ii) evaluate the potential for coordinating a further relocation or

translocation program, iii) prioritise future development sites where

this would be required and confirm approximate numbers of koalas

at each site, and iv) identify and assess potential recipient sites.

c) City of Gold Coast identify future development conditioning and

communication requirements in conjunction with any future koala

relocation or translocation program to protect koalas from harm.

d) City of Gold Coast partner with Wildcare Australia and Currumbin

Wildlife Hospital to develop and refine protocols to help guide where

koalas should be released at East Coomera following rescue or

rehabilitation to support koala population and habitat management.

6.2.2 Threat mitigation

The urban koala sub-population will require actions to mitigate threats

associated particularly with road strike, domestic dog attack, and disease. A

range of suitable measures are outlined within the City of Gold Coast’s Koala

Conservation Plan for East Coomera (KCPEC) and Koala Conservation Plan

for the City (KCP) - additional recommendations in relation to risks associated

with pending habitat clearing are listed below.

A. Vehicle strike

Ongoing traffic management measures for the urban koala population

are already contained in the KCPEC and KCP, however increased local

threats during approved future clearing operations warrant further

specific consideration.


ADOPTED REPORT 532

P a g e 60 | 95



a) City of Gold Coast identify sections of road where risks of koala

vehicle strike are likely to increase markedly as a result of future

habitat clearing operations.

b) City of Gold Coast install mobile electronic road signage in areas

identified through recommendation a) above, in order to increase

community awareness of possible koala crossings during clearing

activities in the immediate area.

B. Domestic dog attack

Further to the dog management measures for the urban koala

population that are already contained in the KCPEC and KCP, the

following additional recommendations are proposed.


a) In the case of any new development sites that adjoin or contain

protected habitat areas, City of Gold Coast consider applying a

prohibition on domestic dog ownership with respect to residential

Lots that border the protected habitat areas.

b) In the case of established developments that adjoin or contain

protected habitat areas, City of Gold Coast consider developing a

targeted community awareness and education program to further

encourage responsible dog ownership.

C. Disease management

Disease poses an ongoing threat to koalas in urban landscapes where

resident koalas are likely to face added nutritional and social stress

associated with limited available habitat and safe dispersal

opportunities, and in some cases elevated koala densities.


ADOPTED REPORT 533

P a g e 61 | 95



a) City of Gold Coast continue to partner with Wildcare Australia and

support their activities to rescue koalas in distress and increase

community awareness in the East Coomera area and across the

City of Gold Coast.

b) City of Gold Coast continue to support ongoing koala disease and

trauma management services provided by Currumbin Wildlife

Hospital and if possible, allow more koalas to be treated locally and

improve prospects for survival where longer-term care is required.

c) City of Gold Coast continue to support and partner in future koala

research programs that seek to improve disease management and

koala survival.

6.2.3 Ongoing management

It is clear that the urban koala population will require ongoing monitoring and

an adaptive management approach into the future. The PVA modelling

indicates that although the urban sub-population at East Coomera will

continue on a decline trend over the coming decades, it is not inconceivable

for the component of the sub-population to the east of the new Town Centre to

be stabilised with active management prior to effective local extinction.

6.2.3 Recommendations:

a) Ongoing regular monitoring and an adaptive management approach

will be vital in order to respond quickly and effectively to future

challenges as they arise, such as increased bushfire risks,

vegetation dieback, or increased disease incidence or severity.

b) City of Gold Coast should install one-way koala exclusion fencing

around the periphery of Finnegan Reserve and associated

connections to the rural landscape in order to prevent young koalas

dispersing out of the reserve into the high-risk urban landscape.

This measure would also reduce risks from roaming domestic dogs

and prevent the reserve from acting as an ‘attractive sink’ for any

young koalas that recruit in from the adjoining rural sub-population.


ADOPTED REPORT 534

P a g e 62 | 95


c) City of Gold Coast investigate and monitor koala movement and

use of the Celestial Way underpass structure that connects

Finnegan Reserve with the rural landscape to the northeast.

Measures to improve safe koala usage and connectivity values

should be identified and implemented.

6.3 RURAL KOALAS Future prospects for an East Coomera koala population will depend upon

establishing a suitably large and contiguous area of koala habitat to support a

sustainable (source) population of koalas within the rural landscape.

6.3.1 Habitat protection and restoration

The Biolink (2007b) report recommended the need to protect and manage an

area of approximately 1,500 ha of koala habitat in order to sustain the

estimated MVP of approximately 170 koalas. Based on the findings of the

current study, we suggest an immediate target area of around 1,150 ha in

order to support a MVP at estimated Carrying Capacity, with allowance for

50% habitat occupancy at any given time and scope for moderate population

expansion. Whilst the previous recommended target area of 1,500 ha (Biolink

2007b) would afford greater certainty and provides an ultimate target, the

lesser immediate area of 1,150 ha may be more achievable over the shorter

term. As outlined in section 6.1.4, the source area for the population should

ideally be focused on a main consolidated area of habitat, supported by well-

connected habitat patches where risks are effectively managed to avoid

situations whereby dispersing-aged koalas could be drawn into patches of

suitable habitat that pose high risks (such as within the urban landscape) and

hence function as ‘attractive sink’ areas for koalas.

A. Priorities for habitat protection

The largest remaining areas of preferred koala habitat outside the Urban

Footprint at East Coomera are located to the east of Kerkin Road. The

2017 field surveys confirmed the presence of significant koala activity

within the remaining habitat in this area, with the evidence suggesting that

a substantial proportion of the available habitat is currently utilised by


ADOPTED REPORT 535

P a g e 63 | 95


members of an established breeding population. Hence, remaining koala

habitat within this area constitutes the highest overall priority for immediate

protection and management for koala conservation purposes. At fine-scale

resolution the highest priority should be assigned to properties that adjoin

or are in close proximity (i.e. within around 100 m) of existing protected

habitat areas, particularly where the existing protected areas support

preferred koala food tree species and form part of connected patches of

habitat in excess of 100 ha in overall size.

6.3.1A Recommendations:

a) Recommended priority areas for consideration for koala habitat

protection, consolidation and restoration are illustrated in figure 21.

Highest priority should be assigned to Area 1, followed by Area 2 and

Area 3, and then Area 4. At a minimum, sections of Areas 5, 6 and 7

would also be necessary to satisfy the immediate area requirement of

1,150 ha. All seven areas combined would form a consolidated extent

of approximately 1,565 ha and would provide a sound basis for

establishing a sustainable koala population.


ADOPTED REPORT 536

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

P a g e 65 | 95


representation of PKFTs to assess whether site treatment or

supplementary plantings with PKFTs would be appropriate.

If the area to the east of Kerkin Road were to be secured and managed to

create a consolidated koala habitat area, the next highest priority for

protection and restoration would involve the closest portions of land to the

immediate west of Kerkin Road North that form part of Areas C, D and E

on Figure 13. The recommended target would be to add an additional

minimum area of 150 ha from the adjoining lands to form an overall koala

habitat area of at least 1,150 ha. In order for the overall area to function

effectively as a connected population, whilst ensuring that threats and

associated koala mortality rates are maintained at low levels throughout

the koala conservation area, it would be vital to also adopt measures to

mitigate risks of vehicle-strike on Kerkin Road North. In the event that

adjoining land to the north of Pimpama River (Area E on Figure 13) could

form part of a consolidated koala conservation area, it is highly probable

that dispersing koalas would readily swim across the river given its narrow

width of approximately 20 m in this section. Notwithstanding, it would be

helpful to investigate the possibility of providing a small number of bridging

structures to provide dry access for koala movement across the river.

It is not essential for all areas of protected and restored habitat to

constitute preferred koala habitat. The East Coomera koala population is

naturally distributed across a range of Regional Ecosystem types of

varying habitat quality. The objective should always be to restore areas to

the ecosystems that are best suited to each given location. Emphasis can

be placed on forest community types that naturally support preferred koala

food trees wherever this is appropriate. Koala carrying capacity and

associated koala density will vary in response to factors such as the

abundance, size, and nutritional quality of the preferred food resources, as

well as factors such as the locations where koala breeding populations are

established. Whilst forest communities where preferred koala food trees

are naturally more-abundant and nutritional values are high will be capable

of supporting higher densities of koalas and typically provide a focus for


ADOPTED REPORT 538

P a g e 66 | 95


breeding activity, koalas are also able to occupy home ranges within areas

of less-optimal habitat at comparatively lower densities and can move with

greater safety through forest communities even when preferred food and

shelter resources are absent.

6.3.2 Threat mitigation

As clearly demonstrated by the PVA modelling, the establishment and

maintenance of a sustainable koala population at East Coomera will only be

achieved through a comprehensive multi-pronged strategy that combines

protecting, restoring and managing a suitably large and consolidated area of

habitat together with effective measures to reduce risks to koalas and lower

mortality rates. This includes fostering a healthy population with optimal

breeding output, opportunities for population growth and safe dispersal of sub-

adults, and healthy recovery following stochastic environmental events.

A. Vehicle strike

It would be crucial to ensure that any future consolidated koala

conservation area is kept as free as possible from sealed roads and

regular vehicle traffic. The threat associated with Kerkin Road North

would need to be carefully managed irrespective of whether the road

bisected a future koala conservation area or bordered the conservation

area on one side. Koalas should ideally be prevented from accessing

the road surface by exclusion fencing in conjunction with suitable

crossing structures for koalas and other fauna species.


a) City of Gold Coast ensure that further new sealed roads are not

established within any future consolidated koala conservation area

other than as required for essential management purposes

including bushfire management.

b) City of Gold Coast ensure that measures to minimise risks to koalas

associated with Kerkin Road North are identified and implemented,

with the specific design of suitable measures dependent upon future

goals for the rural koala population at East Coomera.


ADOPTED REPORT 539

P a g e 67 | 95


B. Wild dogs

The City of Gold Coast undertakes wild dog and fox monitoring and

management programs within the reserves at East Coomera. Ongoing

wild dog management at East Coomera has potentially assisted in

allowing the koala population to expand within the rural landscape over

the last decade. This effort will need to be continued and expanded to

encompass any additional protected and restored habitat areas that

form components of an overall koala conservation area within the rural

landscape. This effort should continue to extend into connected

patches of habitat within the Urban Footprint that support koalas such

as Finnegan Reserve and linkages between the rural landscape and

Condor Reserve in Coomera Waters estate.


a) City of Gold Coast continue wild dog and fox monitoring and

management programs focused on the reserves at East Coomera

and expand this effort into any additional protected and restored

areas that form part of a future koala conservation area.

b) City of Gold Coast liaise with landowners in the rural landscape at

East Coomera extending outward from existing reserves with a view

to forming ongoing cooperative partnerships for wild dog and fox

management to eventually encompass the entire area supporting

the future koala source population.

C. Disease

The prevalence of koala disease and incidence of clinical illness is

expected to be lower within the rural landscape than within urban areas

where inflated koala densities and associated social and nutritional

stresses are more likely to be heightened. Nevertheless, disease levels

should be monitored and managed within the rural landscape in

conjunction with regular assessment of breeding rates. The impacts of

koala Chlamydial disease would be expected to diminish over time if a

large and consolidated area of habitat can be protected and restored

outside the Urban Footprint. The PVA modelling has predicted the


ADOPTED REPORT 540

P a g e 68 | 95


positive effects on the koala population should the current average

annual breeding rate of approximately 53% increase by 5% to around

58%. The recommendations for disease management in 6.2.2-C also

apply to the rural landscape, with the following additions.


a) City of Gold Coast implement an annual koala monitoring program

for the rural landscape with particular focus on assessing breeding

rates, obvious clinical signs of disease, and the extent of koala

occupancy.

b) City of Gold Coast evaluate the potential for increasing breeding

rates via a targeted Chlamydia vaccine program for the rural

landscape if considered necessary, based on outcomes from koala

monitoring over five years and progress towards establishing a

large, consolidated koala conservation area in the rural landscape.

c) Individual koalas that are rescued for veterinary assessment from

the East Coomera koala population should be routinely vaccinated

against Chlamydial disease when this becomes possible.

D. Bushfire

The PVA modelling has illustrated the important role of bushfire

management for the future of the East Coomera koala population. This

applies to each individual reserve and bushland patch, as well as to the

notional large, consolidated koala conservation area and source

population within the rural landscape. The aim should be to ensure that

the overall impact of wildfire events as a result of the combination of

frequency and severity does not increase and ideally reduces over time

through ongoing dedicated management.

6.3.2-D Recommendations:

a) City of Gold Coast continue to work with the rural bushfire brigades

and the State rural fire authority to minimise the risks of widespread

and intense wildfire events.


ADOPTED REPORT 541

P a g e 69 | 95


b) Bushfire planning requirements should be incorporated into the

management planning process for a potential future consolidated

koala conservation area within the rural landscape including the

need for fire trails, fire breaks, bushfire assets and regular hazard

reduction programs.

6.3.3 Ongoing management

A strategic planning framework and a detailed management plan would be

essential to guide establishment and ongoing management of a consolidated

koala conservation area within the rural landscape at East Coomera.

6.3.3 Recommendations:

a) City of Gold Coast prepare a strategic plan to evaluate and guide

further investigation and potential establishment of a consolidated

koala conservation area within the rural landscape.

b) Subject to outcomes from the above action, the City of Gold Coast

amend and update the relevant Koala Conservation Plans to

incorporate relevant planning and management actions.

6.4 URBAN-RURAL INTERFACE AREAS

A. Inter-Regional Transport Corridor (IRTC) Optimal designs and positioning for fauna connectivity structures

across the future IRTC route should be guided by the extent of

established and planned urban development on the immediate

Coomera Town Centre side of the route. The location and extent of

planned future habitat protection and restoration programs for the rural

landscape side of the IRTC should also be taken into consideration.

Specific fauna connectivity structures should only be provided in

locations that link through to protected and comparatively safe habitat

areas on the Coomera Town Centre side of the IRTC. Otherwise, the

structures could facilitate fauna movement into small and fragmented

habitat patches and linear corridors within the urban landscape where

risks are high.


ADOPTED REPORT 542

P a g e 70 | 95


6.4A Recommendations:

a) City of Gold Coast liaise with the Department of Transport and Main

Roads (DTMR) to request fauna specific connectivity structures to

be factored into the engineering designs for the planned future

IRTC at an early stage – with reference to recommended general

locations illustrated in Figure 22.

b) City of Gold Coast seek further advice on the types of connectivity

structures likely to be most effective for koalas and other fauna

following consultation with DTMR regarding possible options for

consideration.

Figure 22. Recommended general locations for specific fauna crossing structures in

conjunction with the planned IRTC. Green highlighted sections are suggested for

consideration regardless of the extent of potential future koala habitat restoration within the

rural landscape. The pink highlighted location should only be considered if areas to the

immediate south and north are planned for habitat restoration programs.


ADOPTED REPORT 543

P a g e 71 | 95


B. Urban-Rural interface

The urban-rural interface should be carefully managed to allow for

some interaction between the urban and rural koala sub-populations,

whilst endeavoring to ensure that the urban landscape does not

operate as an attractive sink area for young koalas dispersing in from

the future rural source population.

6.4B Recommendations:

a) City of Gold Coast liaise with land owners in the urban-rural

interface area to investigate possibilities for installing one-way koala

exclusion fencing in key strategic locations to minimise chances of

dispersing-aged koalas entering residential areas from the rural

landscape.

b) City of Gold Coast seek to focus potential future koala dispersal

between the urban and rural landscapes to vegetated corridors that

connect to conservation areas such as Finnegan Reserve and to

constrain koalas to the reserve system where risks are

comparatively low. This would require the installation of one-way

koala exclusion fencing along linkages and reserve boundaries.

c) The above approach would not be necessary in the case of

Coomera Waters estate where parkland and streetscape plantings

and retained habitat patches facilitate koala movement within the

estate and into adjoining retained and restored habitat at the rural

interface.


ADOPTED REPORT 544

P a g e 72 | 95


6.5 MONITORING The East Coomera koala population should ideally be monitored annually at

this point in order to support an adaptive management approach and to fine-

tune management actions. Periodic follow-up PVA should be undertaken to

help evaluate management outcomes and guide future programs.

6.5 Recommendations:

a) City of Gold Coast develop a targeted koala monitoring program for

the East Coomera population specifically designed to assess key

information for strategic planning purposes and to guide immediate

management.

b) City of Gold Coast develop a more-intensive monitoring program for

implementation each five years over the next decade in order to i)

gauge changes in the distribution, density, occupancy level and

estimated size of the koala population, ii) identify and assess any

changes in health, mortality and breeding rates, iii) establish the

level of use of initial restored habitat areas, and iv) identify any

changes in habitat health using the tree health assessment data

collected for the 2017 surveys as a current baseline.

c) City of Gold Coast undertake follow-up PVA in 2027 to further guide

ongoing koala conservation actions.


ADOPTED REPORT 545

P a g e 73 | 95


7.0 References

Biolink. 2005. An ecological overview of koalas and their habitat on the Innes

Peninsula, Port Macquarie NSW. Unpublished report.

Biolink. 2007a. Koala Habitat and Population Assessment for Gold Coast City LGA.

Final report prepared for Gold Coast City Council. Biolink Ecological Consultants.

Uki. NSW.

Biolink. 2007b. Conserving koalas in the Coomera-Pimpama Koala Habitat Area: a

view to the future. Final report prepared for Gold Coast City Council. Biolink

Ecological Consultants. Uki. NSW.

Dudaniec, R., Rhodes, J., Worthington Wilmer, J., Lyons, M., Lee, K., McAlpine, C.

and Carrick, F. 2013. Using multilevel models to identify drivers of landscape-genetic

structure among management areas. Molecular Ecology 22: 3752-3765.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation

Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016 Queensland Government -

Environmental Protection Agency.

Kimura, M. and Crow, J.F. 1963. The measurement of effective population number.

Evolution 17:279-88.

Lacy, R.C. and Pollak, J.P. 2014. Vortex: A Stochastic Simulation of the Extinction

Process. Version 10.0. Chicago Zoological Society, Brookfield, Illinois, USA.

Lacy, R.C., Miller, P.S. and Traylor-Holzer, K. 2015. Vortex 10 User’s Manual. 19

January 2015 update. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, and

Chicago Zoological Society, Apple Valley, Minnesota, USA.

Lehmkuhl, J.F. 1984. Determining size and dispersion of minimum viable populations

for land management planning and species conservation. Environmental

Management 8:167-76.


ADOPTED REPORT 546

P a g e 74 | 95


Lunney, D., O’Neill, L., Matthews, A. and Sherwin, W.B. 2002. Modelling mammalian

extinction and forecasting recovery: koalas at Iluka (NSW, Australia). Biological

Conservation 106:101-113.

McAlpine, C.A., Callaghan, J.G., Lunney, D., Bowen, M.E., Rhodes, J.R.,

Mitchell, D.L. and Possingham, H.P. 2005. Conserving south-east

Queensland koalas: how much habitat is enough? Pages 11-17 (part II) in G.

L. Siepen and D. Jones, editors. Proceedings of the 2005 south east

Queensland biodiversity conference. University of Queensland, Gatton

Campus.

McAlpine, C.A., Rhodes, J.R., Callaghan, J., Bowen, M., Lunney, D., Mitchell,

D., Pullar, D. and Possingham, H.P. 2006. The importance of forest area and

configuration relative to local habitat factors for conserving forest mammals: A

case study of koalas in Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 132:

153-165.

McAlpine, C.A., Rhodes, J.R., Peterson, A., Possingham, H.P., Callaghan, J.,

Curran, T., Mitchell, D. and Lunney, D. 2007. Planning Guidelines for Koala

Conservation and Recovery-a guide to best planning practice. Australian

Koala Foundation and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:124088.

Penn, A. M., Sherwin, W. B., Gordon, G., Lunney, D., Melzer, A. and Lacy, R. C.

2000. Demographic forecasting in koala conservation. Conservation Biology

14(3):629-638.

Phillips, S. 2002. An Assessment of koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) populations of

the Kings Forest area in a regional context. Report to NSW Department of

Environment & Conservation.

Phillips, S. and Callaghan, J. 2011. The Spot Assessment Technique: a tool for

determining localised levels of habitat use by Koalas. Australian Zoologist 35(3): 774-

80.


ADOPTED REPORT 547

P a g e 75 | 95


Preacher, K.J. 2001. Calculations for chi-square test: An Interactive

calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and independence.

Computer software available at http://quantpsy.org.

Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. 2002. EK News Vol 1 December

2002. EPA/QPWS.

Rhodes, J. R., Wiegand, T., McAlpine, C.A., Callaghan, J., Lunney, D.,

Bowen, M. and Possingham, H.P. 2006. Modeling species distributions to

improve conservation in semiurban landscapes: koala case study.

Conservation Biology 20: 449-459.

Rhodes, J.R., Callaghan, J., McAlpine, C., de Jong, C., Bowen, M., Mitchell,

D., Lunney, D. and Possingham, H.P. 2008. Regional variation in habitat-

occupancy thresholds: a warning for conservation planning. Journal of Applied

Ecology 45(2): 549-557.

Rhodes, J., Lunney, D., Callaghan, J. and McAlpine, C. 2014. A Few Large

Roads or Many Small Ones? How to Accommodate Growth in Vehicle

Numbers to Minimise Impacts on Wildlife. PLOS ONE 9(3): 1-10.


ADOPTED REPORT 548

P a g e 92 | 95


Appendix 6. Baseline 2017 (+3% M) - PVA modelling parameters for East Coomera Koala Population

Study 2017.

PVA Parameter Value

Scenario settings

Number of iterations 1000

Number of years 50

Extinction definition Only 1sex remains

Number of populations 1

Species description

Number of types of catastrophe 1

Reproductive system

Type Polygyny

Age at first offspring for females 2

Age at first offspring for males 4

Maximum age of reproduction 10

Maximum number progeny per year 1

Sex ratio at birth (in % males) 48.8

Reproductive rates

% adult females breeding 100

EV in % breeding 20

Distribution of broods/ years

0 47

1 53

Specify distribution of number of offspring Normal

Mortality rates

Mortality of females aged 0-1 (%) 16 ± 5 (SD)

Mortality of females aged 1-2 (%) 18 ± 7 (SD)

Mortality of females after age 2 (%) 14 ± 3 (SD)

Mortality of males aged 1-2 (%) 18 ± 7 (SD)

Mortality of males aged 2-3 (%) 15 ± 3.5 (SD)

Mortality of males aged 3-4 (%) 24 ± 7.5 (SD)

Mortality of males after age 4 (%) 28 ± 5.5 (SD)

Catastrophes

Label Fire

Frequency (%) 5

Reproduction severity 0.75 (= 25% decline in reproduction)

Survival severity 0.75 (= 25% mortality)

Mate monopolization

% males in breeding pool 18

Initial population size

Distribution Stable age distribution

Initial population size 499

Carrying capacity (K) 445 ± 74 (SD in K due to EV)

Future change in K No

Harvest population

First year of harvest na

Last year of harvest na

Interval between harvests (years) na

% of population harvested na


ADOPTED REPORT 565

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

P a g e 95 | 95



ADOPTED REPORT 568

ITEM 7 CITY PLANNING CITY PLAN SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FIRST MAJOR UPDATE PD98/1132/27/02(P1) 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY 1.1 I recommend that this report be considered in Closed Session pursuant to section

275 (1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the reason that the matter involves

(h) other business for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the

interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage.

1.2 I recommend that the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those

parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a summary of the public consultation undertaken for the first major updates to City Plan. Public consultation was undertaken from 4 October 2017 to 15 November 2017. The following items were included in the public consultation:

(a) City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B (b) Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6) (c) Major Amendment 1 to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan

This report also provides an overview of the nature of submissions received in relation to City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B and Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6). A separate report addressing submissions for Major Amendment 1 to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan, will be brought to a future City Planning Committee.

The number of submissions received are as follows:

Package Number of submissions

City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B 73

Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6) 16

Major Amendment 1 to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan 21

Total 110

Most submissions related to multiple topics. In relation to City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B, the items which attracted the most submissions were:

Item Number of submissions

Flood overlay 23

Alignment of residential density and lot size in the Low density residential zone

15


ADOPTED REPORT 569

ITEM 7 (Continued) CITY PLAN SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FIRST MAJOR UPDATE PD98/1132/27/02(P1)

Gold Coast Cultural Precinct 13

Remove reference to Wave Break Island for the Integrated Resort Development at the Broadwater

10

With regards to Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6), the item which attracted the most submissions was the updated draft Land Development Guidelines (LDG). It is anticipated that City officers will seek endorsement of submission responses and updated package for Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6) in January 2018. At this time, City officers will also seek endorsement to commence with these updates in March 2018. City officers will continue to review the submissions in relation to City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B. It is anticipated City officers will present recommended changes to the update packages, will be presented to City Plan Committee for consideration in February 2018. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of public consultation undertaken on the first major updates to City Plan, provide an overview of the submission analysis process and outline the next steps. 4 PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS Council resolved on 5 September 2017 (G17.0905.026) to undertake public consultation on the first major updates to City Plan consistent with the endorsed Community Engagement and Communications Plan. Council resolved on 5 September 2017 (G G17.0905.027) to undertake public consultation on the Major update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6) consistent with the endorsed Engagement and Communications Plan. Council resolved on 13 September 2017 (G17.0915.028) to undertake public consultation on the draft LGIP amendment 1 occurs in accordance with the Engagement and Communications Plan and City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B. 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Public consultation summary The endorsed Community Engagement and Communications Plan outlined a number of strategies to create awareness across the City, including: notice in local newspaper; online/digital advertising; radio advertising; social media advertising; and Planning & Development Alerts. This was supported with information to educate the community on the draft updates and how to make a submission, including: website; fact sheets; notification in water and sewer rates notice; letters to landowners, who don’t receive a water and sewer rates notice; community information events; industry briefing; and an update hotline. During the consultation period, the GC Have Your Say website received 7,500 visits. With 4,556 of those being referred from Facebook.


ADOPTED REPORT 570

ITEM 7 (Continued) CITY PLAN SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FIRST MAJOR UPDATE PD98/1132/27/02(P1) A notification was included in 69,465 water and sewer rates notices (properties covered by proposed flood overlay map) and an additional 3,195 landowners were notified in writing (properties covered by the proposed flood overlay map, which don’t receive a water and sewer rates notice). There were 2,336 document downloads from the website, the most downloaded documents being:

Top three major update items

1 City Plan Major Update 1 – Item 1 (Small lot housing review) 180

2 City Plan Major Update 1B – Item 7 (Alignment of residential density and lot size in the Low density residential zone)

118

3 City Plan Major Update 1 – Item 3 (Flood overlay) 105

Top three fact sheet downloads

1 Burleigh Heads character 262

2 Tugun Village character 118

3 Major Update overview 105

An industry briefing event was held on 3 October 2017, with approximately 130 attendees. Six community information events were held across the City, a total of 137 people attended these sessions. A total of 40 calls were received through the dedicated update hotline number. 5.2 Submission analysis City officers have acknowledged and registered all of the submissions received.





Total 110

A separate report addressing submissions for Major Amendment 1 to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan, will be brought to a future City Planning Committee. Most submissions related to multiple topics. The submissions have been broken down into categories based on subject matter (points of submission). The following table provides a breakdown of the number of submissions received in relation to each item for Major Update 1 and 1B:


ADOPTED REPORT 571



Small lot housing review 9

Party House land use controls 9

Flood overlay 23

Burleigh Heads Village character 9

Tugun Village character 5

Transport definitions 6

Gold Coast Cultural Precinct 13

Building over or near Council infrastructure 5

Social, community and public supporting uses 4

Covered car parking setbacks in Medium and High density residential zones

6

Remove reference to Wave Break Island for the Integrated Resort Development at the Broadwater

10

Hours of operation for accepted commercial uses in District centres 4

Categories of development and assessment for lease, access easement, community title and volumetric subdivisions

3

Emerging community zone setback/site cover provisions 4

Categories of development and assessment for Utility installations affected by overlays

5

The Biggera Waters Centre and Surrounding Land Study 6

Alignment of residential density and lot size in the Low density residential zone

15

Not related to updates in consultation package 9

The following table provides a breakdown of the number of submissions received in relation to each item for Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6):


Bushfire management plans 1

Landscape work 1

Land development guidelines 11

Environmental management plans 3

Geotechnical stability assessment 0


ADOPTED REPORT 572

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

ITEM 7 (Continued) CITY PLAN SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FIRST MAJOR UPDATE PD98/1132/27/02(P1) 10 STATUTORY MATTERS This update package was commenced under the (now repealed) Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) and related Statutory Guideline 01/16 ‘Making and amending local planning instruments’ (MALPI). Under s267 of the Planning Act 2016, the repealed SPA and MALPI process continues to apply to the amendments. The flowchart below outlines the relevant MALPI steps for a major update and the progress of City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B.

Similarly, the flowchart below outlines the relevant MALPI steps for a major update and the progress of Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6).

City officers will now continue to analyse submissions and seek endorsement of draft responses, prior to seeking endorsement from the Minister to commence a new version of City Plan. 11 COUNCIL POLICIES Not applicable. 12 DELEGATIONS Not applicable. 13 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION Not applicable.


ADOPTED REPORT 575

ITEM 7 (Continued) CITY PLAN SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FIRST MAJOR UPDATE PD98/1132/27/02(P1) 14 STAKEHOLDER IMPACTS All submitters have been advised of the receipt of their submission through an acknowledgement email or letter. This correspondence also included a unique response ID which will be used in all future correspondence to the submitter. It is anticipated that all submitters will be advised about how their submission was dealt with in early 2018. Submission responses will be presented for Council consideration in early 2018. 15 TIMING The following timeframes are proposed:

Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6)

December 2017

City officers finalise review of submissions and collate responses.

City officers draft recommended changes to proposed Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6) package.

January 2018

Council consideration of submission responses and updated Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6) package for commencement.

Advise submitters about how their submission was dealt with.

March 2018 Commencement of Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6) package.

City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B

December 2017 – January 2018

City officers finalise review of submissions and collate responses.

City officers draft recommended changes to proposed City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B packages.

February – March 2018

Council consideration of changes to update packages and submission responses to City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B packages.

Advise submitters about how their submission was dealt with.

Send documentation to State to seek endorsement to adopt.

Mid 2018 Commencement of City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B packages.

16 CONCLUSION This report has provided an update and summary on the submissions received during public consultation of the first major updates to City Plan. The items included in the public consultation were:


ADOPTED REPORT 576

ITEM 7 (Continued) CITY PLAN SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON FIRST MAJOR UPDATE PD98/1132/27/02(P1) City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B, Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6), and Major Amendment 1 to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan. Most submissions related to multiple update packages:





Total 110

This report provided an overview of the nature of submissions received in relation to City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B and Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6). A separate report addressing submissions for Major Amendment 1 to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan, will be brought to City Planning Committee. It is anticipated that City officers will seek endorsement of submission responses and updated package for Major Update to City Plan Policies (Schedule 6) in January 2018. At this time, City officers will also seek endorsement to commence with these updates in March 2018. In relation to City Plan Major Update 1 and 1B, City officers will continue to analyse submissions and prepare draft responses. It is anticipated City officers will present recommended changes to update packages and seek endorsement of submission responses in February 2018. 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows: 1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts

deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That the contents of this report be noted.

Author: Authorised by:

Katherine Berlin Dyan Currie Senior Planner Director Planning and Environment 28 November 2017


ADOPTED REPORT 577


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CP17.1205.007 moved Cr Gates seconded Cr Baildon 1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed

by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That the contents of this report be noted.

CARRIED


ADOPTED REPORT 578

34281

Typewritten Text

Attachment A, B, C, D & E - REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

ITEM 8 (Continued) NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES INVESTIGATION PD113/1275/15 9 RISK MANAGEMENT This activity supports the mitigation of the following Directorate Risk:

CO00510 – City Plan delivers inadequate and/or ineffective strategic development policy (e.g. poor planning, built form, growth, social and environmental outcomes – including flood impacts).

10 STATUTORY MATTERS The Neighbourhood Centres Investigation recommendations for future City Plan major updates presently have no statutory effect in assessment of development applications. After proposed City Plan updates are endorsed by Council, they are required to follow the statutory amendment process before being included in City Plan. 11 COUNCIL POLICIES Not applicable.

12 DELEGATIONS Not applicable. 13 COORDINATION & CONSULTATION Title of the Stakeholder Consulted

Directorate or Organisation Is the Stakeholder Satisfied With Content of Report and Recommendations (Yes/No) (comment as appropriate)

Executive Coordinator, Feasibility & Partnerships Major Projects

Economic Development & Major Projects

Endorsed

Executive Coordinator, Planning Assessment

City Development, City Planning

Endorsed

Coordinator, City Plan

City Planning Endorsed

Principal Urban Designer

Office of the CEO Endorsed

Senior community safety officer, Safe & Liveable Communities

Community Services Endorsed

Coordinator, Policy & Program Development

Environmental Health & City Law Services, Community Services

Endorsed


ADOPTED REPORT 587

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

ITEM 8 (Continued) NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES INVESTIGATION PD113/1275/15 3 That the recommended changes to City Plan outlined in this report are endorsed

to be included as part of City Plan Major Update 3, including any consequential updates.

4 That the further investigations outlined in the report be progressed and reported back to Council.


Wing Chiu Dyan Currie Senior Regional Planner Director Planning & Environment 22 November 2017


ADOPTED REPORT 589

ITEM 8 (Continued) NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES INVESTIGATION PD113/1275/15

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CP17.1205.008 moved Cr Gates seconded Cr Baildon 1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed

by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 That the contents of this report and attachments be noted.

3 That the recommended changes to City Plan outlined in this report are endorsed to be included as part of City Plan Major Update 3, including any consequential updates.

4 That the further investigations outlined in the report be progressed and reported back to Council.

CARRIED


ADOPTED REPORT 590

ITEM 9 CITY PLANNING FLOOD FREE LAND TLPI PD113/1303(P1) Refer 11 page attachments 1 BASIS FOR CONFIDENTIALITY 1.1 I recommend that this report be considered in Closed Session pursuant to section

275 (1) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the reason that the matter involves

(h) other business for which a public discussion would be likely to prejudice the

interests of the local government or someone else, or enable a person to gain a financial advantage.

1.2 I recommend that the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those

parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report seeks Council’s endorsement of the proposed Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Residential Risk Reduction) 2017 (TLPI No.5 2017). The proposed TLPI No.5 2017 has been prepared further to a Council resolution G17.1017.013 endorsing a new flood policy to ensure residential development is not exposed to:

a flood inundation depth greater than 0.6 metres; and a flood water velocity greater than 0.8 metres per second.

In addition, the proposed TLPI No.5 2017 will also require Reconfiguring a Lot applications for residential, commercial and industrial uses to provide a sufficient area of land at or above the Designated Flood Level (DFL). The purpose of the proposed TLPI No.5 2017 is to prevent the potential loss of the city’s flood resilience and enable the sustainable mitigation of flood hazard on flood affected land. As such, the TLPI No.5 2017 will amend the operation of the Flood overlay code provided in City Plan by including new overall outcomes and assessment benchmarks to be applied during development assessment. It is envisaged that the TLPI No.5 2017 will have a life span of 2 years from the following proposed commencement date of 8 December 2017. Section 9(4) of the Planning Act 2016 allows Council, with the Minister’s agreement, to make the TLPI take effect from the day Council resolved to give the TLPI and the request for an earlier effective day to the Minister for approval. Council is requested to endorse the proposed TLPI No.5 2017 included in Attachment A which will allow Council to write to the Minister seeking its approval. Further to the Minister’s approval, Council will be required to adopt the draft TLPI No.5 2017. 3 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to:

(a) seek Council’s endorsement of Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Residential Risk Reduction) 2017 provided in Attachment A of this report; and


ADOPTED REPORT 725

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

ITEM 9 (Continued) FLOOD FREE LAND TLPI PD113/1303(P1) The proposed TLPI No.5 2017 is provided in Attachment A and it is recommended that Council endorse the adoption of the TLPI and sending it to the Minister for approval

It is also recommended that the TLPI No.5 2017 has a commencement date of 8 December 2017. 17 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council resolves as follows:

1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 To prepare a Temporary Local Planning Instrument to implement minimum flood free land.

3 To endorse the proposed Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Risk Reduction) 2017, in the form of Attachment 1.

4 That the commencement date of Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Risk Reduction) 2017 be 8 December 2017.

5 That Council writes to the Minister to request approval of the Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Residential Risk Reduction) 2017 and consideration of a 8 December 2017 commencement date.

6 That Council provide the Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Residential Risk Reduction) 2017 and relevant supporting material in the form of Attachment B in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules.

7 Further to the Minister’s response, a report will be brought back to Council seeking adoption of the Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Residential Risk Reduction) 2017.


Pradesh Ramiah Dyan Currie Supervising Planner Director Planning and Environment 29 November 2017


ADOPTED REPORT 730

34281

Typewritten Text

REDACTED

ITEM 9 (Continued) FLOOD FREE LAND TLPI PD113/1303(P1)

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION CP17.1205.009 moved Cr PJ Young seconded Cr O’Neill

1 That the report/attachment be deemed non-confidential except for those parts deemed by the Chief Executive Officer to remain confidential in accordance with sections 171 (3) and 200 (5) of the Local Government Act 2009.

2 To prepare a Temporary Local Planning Instrument to implement minimum flood free land.

3 To endorse the proposed Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Risk Reduction) 2017, in the form of Attachment 1.

4 That the commencement date of Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Risk Reduction) 2017 be 8 December 2017.

5 That Council writes to the Minister to request approval of the Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Residential Risk Reduction) 2017 and consideration of 8 December 2017 commencement date.

6 That Council provide the Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Residential Risk Reduction) 2017 and relevant supporting material in the form of Attachment B in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules.

7 Further to the Minister’s response, a report will be brought back to Council seeking adoption of the Temporary Local Planning Instrument No.5 (Flood Free Land and Residential Risk Reduction) 2017.

CARRIED There being no further business the meeting was declared closed at 9.59am.


ADOPTED REPORT 731

These Pages

Numbered 1 to 743

Constitute The Report Of The Meeting

Of The City Planning Committee

Held Tuesday, 5 December 2017

Biolink Ecological Consultants East Coomera Koala Population … › documents › ma › planning... · 2019-06-23 · P a g e 23 | 95 23 Biolink Ecological Consultants East Coomera

Documents