Original source · versioned page text
2019-03-12 P&E Agenda - Item 5 - Attachment 2 - Koala Infrastructure & Feasibility Report
Very large file: it may take a few minutes
The original of this document is very large (31.9 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Attachment 2 to Item 5
Planning and Environment Committee Agenda
12 March 2019
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report
CLIENT:
Noosa Council
STATUS:
Final
REPORT NUMBER:
1700860 a
ISSUE DATE:
March 2017
O2 ECOLOGY PTY LTD | Suite 6, 8 Grebe St Peregian Beach QLD 4573| ABN 98 153 475 382 | www.o2ecology.com.au
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Very large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of sections 2 to 61 (of 153)
Section 2
Important Note This report and all its components (including images, audio, video, and text) are copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of O2 Ecology. This report has been prepared for the sole use of the Noosa Council (herein, ‘the client’), for a specific site (herein ‘the site’, the specific purpose specified in Section 1 of this report (herein ‘the purpose’). This report is strictly limited for use by the client, to the purpose and site and may not be used for any other purposes. Third parties, excluding regulatory agencies assessing an application in relation to the purpose, may not rely on this report. O2 Ecology waives all liability to any third party loss, damage, liability or claim arising out of or incidental to a third party publishing, using or relying on the facts, content, opinions or subject matter contained in this report. O2 Ecology waives all responsibility for loss or damage where the accuracy and effectiveness of information provided by the Client or other third parties was inaccurate or not up to date and was relied upon, wholly or in part in reporting. Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page i Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 3
O2 Ecology Pty Ltd t/as O2 Ecology ABN 98 153 475 382
Originating Office – Sunshine Coast
Suite 6, 8 Grebe St Peregian Beach Qld
PO Box 199, Peregian Beach Qld 4573
T 61 7 5448 3288 | F 61 7 5302 6680 | [email protected]
Version Register
Version Status Author Reviewer Change from Authorised for Release
Previous Version
Signature Date
- Draft M. Ng P. Fox n/a
S. Chudleigh
A Final M. Ng P. Fox Address client review received
S. Chudleigh 6/3/2017
Add information received from USC
and community groups 17.03.2017
Transmission Register
Controlled copies of this document are issued to the persons/companies listed below. Any copy of this report
held by persons not listed in this register is deemed uncontrolled. Updated versions of this report if issued
will be released to all parties listed below via the email address listed.
Name Email Address
Peter Milne [email protected]
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page ii
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 4
Executive Summary
Conservation planning for koalas and the habitat they depend upon are important considerations for
improving planning and management practises to ensure long term conservation of koalas. Noosa Council
(Council) has adopted a Koala Conservation Plan, requiring Council to undertake a koala infrastructure audit
to assess the condition and effectiveness of current infrastructure and inform recommendations for potential
new infrastructure. O2 Ecology has partnered with the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) to provide
Council with a thorough understanding of koala infrastructure within the Noosa Council Local Government
Area (LGA) and recommendations for future infrastructure.
This project completes a field audit of existing koala infrastructure and identifies areas for additional koala
infrastructure. A review of available literature and geospatial analysis support recommendations for
potential measures to reduce koala-vehicle collisions and allow permeability to koala movement across
roads.
Koala habitat areas are mapped at both a State (South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning
Regulatory Provisions (SPRP)) and local level (Noosa Shire Koala Conservation Plan 2016). The project focuses
on road infrastructure within mapped Koala Habitat Areas.
Literature Review
A review of available literature was conducted to understand measures used to mitigate wildlife vehicle-
strike and the barrier effect of roads, their efficacy and application to koala conservation.
Examples of applications to other wildlife were used where no koala-specific information has been published.
Mitigation measures used to reduce the effects of roads and road mortality on wildlife populations fall into
two broad categories following the Noosa Shire Koala Conservation Plan 2016 (Noosa Council 2016):
• hard infrastructure – structures that generally involve the modification of animal behaviour such as
exclusion and guiding fences, bridges, underpasses, culverts and koala ladders
• soft infrastructure – measures that generally involve the modification of motorist behaviour such as
speed limit reductions, signs, road markings and improved street lighting
Modifying animal behaviour may help to address vulnerability to road-kill and barrier effects by preventing
fauna from accessing the road surface and allowing safe passage across roads. Commonly used methods
include wildlife exclusion fencing and wildlife crossing structures (culvert, underpass, overpass, rope bridges).
Some other methods, which are considered ineffective or impractical, include wildlife warning reflectors and
repellents (chemical, visual, acoustic and electric shock).
Wildlife exclusion fencing and wildlife crossing structures are currently the most effective measures available.
They are also most effective when implemented together. Exclusion fences prevent wildlife from crossing
the road surface, minimising road-kill but also preventing wildlife from accessing resources on the opposite
side of the road. Wildlife crossing structures allow safe fauna passage across the road but fauna is unlikely to
find and use the passage unless fencing funnels fauna to the crossing infrastructure. Providing ample and
appropriate crossing structures while preventing access to the road surface will allow wildlife movement and
minimise roadkill. Provisions should also be made to allow escape from the road surface should an animal
wander into a fenced area of road, structures such as one-way gates can be integrated into fences to provide
escape routes.
Slowing traffic speed and increased driver awareness may assist in mitigating the effect of roads by reducing
the potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. Measures aimed at modifying and assisting driver behaviour to
travel at slower speeds and actively look for wildlife to avoid potential collisions can include speed reduction
measures, speed limit enforcement, lighting, signs, road reserve management and road threshold
treatments. These measures are commonly employed as they do not involve construction of large or complex
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page iii
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 5
structures, are relatively inexpensive and often complement other management objectives. Development of
effective low-cost mitigation methods would allow wider application and promote safer motorist behaviour.
For example, signs are the most commonly used and widespread form of road mitigation and are likely to
continue to be the most commonly implemented mitigation measure of wildlife–vehicle collisions due to
their relatively low cost. Evidence of the effectiveness of wildlife warning signs is inconsistent but improving
the design of wildlife warning signs to increase the likelihood of driver response may aid in reducing the
incidence of wildlife–vehicle collisions.
Other important considerations include:
• Design of road networks to minimise impacts to wildlife at a network scale;
• Applying scientific methods at the planning stage to determine the most effective solutions for
conservation within social and financial constraints;
• Thought must be given to the management of koalas not only long-term through the planning and
implementation of road mitigation measures but also during construction and operation of those
measures;
• While there is little evidence supporting the prey-trap hypothesis, the potential relevance of this
situation should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and measures to reduce the risk of predation should
be considered during the design and operation of crossing structures; and
• The installation of mitigation measures must be followed by systematic monitoring to assist in their
management, evaluate their use and effectiveness, provide authorities with recommendations relating
to the design and placement of crossing structures and ensure that the costs equal the ecological benefit
to encourage continued implementation of such measures. A Before-After-Control-Impact BACI design
(van der Grift et al. 2013) including measurements of road mortality, movement rate and population size
recorded at both the structure site and at control sites before and repeated for adequate monitoring
periods after the structures are installed is recommended.
Audits of Existing Koala Infrastructure
Both hard and soft infrastructure are currently installed for koala protection around Noosa Council, including:
• koala exclusion fencing and associated passageways;
• climbing structures;
• signage;
• lighting; and
• speed limits.
Most existing koala exclusion fencing on Council roads is in poor condition and does not appear to be
maintained with an appropriate frequency to ensure function. It is recommended that all existing koala
exclusion fencing is cleared of vegetation, mended and maintained to prevent koalas from entering the road
side. Current fencing could potentially be extended where there are gaps between two sections of fencing.
Most signage is in good condition. However, some signs are obstructed by vegetation, not ideally positioned
or display a design that is difficult to read or recognise. It is recommended that measures be taken to rectify
these issues.
Most street lighting is provided along roads within built-up areas, particularly at intersections and
roundabouts. Rural roads have limited lighting. Additional lighting may be beneficial at extreme pinch point
crossings or unfenced areas where multiple hits have been recorded.
In very high risk or pinch point areas where there are multiple koala-collision records and hard infrastructure
is not feasible, practical changes to speed limits may increase driver and koala safety. In some cases, it may
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page iv
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 6
be beneficial to extend lower speed zones to ensure that deceleration from or accelerating to higher speed
zones occur outside the hotspot area.
Recommendations for Additional Infrastructure and Cost Estimates
The audit and gap analysis identified potential for additional hard and soft infrastructure within 10 regions
and soft infrastructure within 11 of regions. The general approach is to:
• prevent koala access to the road surface and provide a passage way under the road where possible
• provide escape routes in areas where there are koala records or where there is potential for koalas to
become trapped on the road
• slow traffic and inform motorists of koala activity in areas where koalas must cross the road surface
Detailed tables listing defects, gap analysis and recommendations are provided. A summary of estimated
costs associated with the recommendations for each region is also provided.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page v
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 7
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
1.1. Project Overview 1
1.2. Project Area 2
1.3. Project Objectives 2
2. Methods 3
2.1. Literature Review 3
2.2. Geospatial Analysis 3
2.2.1. Connectivity and Indicative Linkages 3
2.2.2. Density of Koala Records 4
2.2.3. Overall Combined Risk 4
2.2.4. Hotspot Areas for Audit, Gap Analysis and Collaboration 4
2.3. Field Assessment 5
2.3.1. Field Survey Constraints 6
2.3.2. Coordinate System and Map Datum 6
3. Literature Review 7
3.1. Hard Infrastructure – Modifying Animal Behaviour 8
3.1.1. Wildlife Exclusion Fencing 8
3.1.2. Underpasses 11
3.1.3. Overpasses 12
3.1.4. Canopy Bridges 13
3.1.5. Wildlife Warning Reflectors 14
3.2. Soft Infrastructure – Modifying Motorist Behaviour 14
3.2.1. Wildlife and Speed Signs 14
3.3. Other considerations 15
3.3.1. Road design 16
3.3.2. Optimisation 17
3.3.3. Monitoring and Maintenance 17
3.3.4. Managing Koalas 18
3.3.5. Predator-prey interactions 18
3.3.6. Further investigation – proving effectiveness 18
4. Results 20
4.1. Audits of Existing Koala Infrastructure 20
4.1.1. Koala Exclusion Fencing and Associated Structures 20
4.1.2. Koala Climbing Structures 21
4.1.3. Koala and Wildlife Signage 22
4.1.4. Lighting 22
4.1.5. Speed limits 23
4.2. Proposed New Infrastructure 26
4.2.1. Koala Exclusion Fencing and Retrofitting Underpasses 26
4.2.2. Koala Climbing Structures 26
4.2.3. Koala and Wildlife Signage 27
4.2.4. Speed Limits 27
4.3. Detailed Recommendations 27
4.3.1. Hotspots for Hard and Soft Infrastructure 30
4.3.2. Hotspots for Soft Infrastructure 39
4.3.3. Cost Estimates 43
5. Works Cited 45
6. List of Abbreviations 51
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page vi
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 8
Figures Figure 1 Locality A Figure 2 Noosa Koala Habitat Mapping A Figure 3 Koala habitat value and surrounds (2km buffer into neighbouring shires) A Figure 4 Core koala habitat A Figure 5 Koala habitat connectivity and indicative regional and local links A Figure 6 Collated records and collisions A Figure 7 Combined density analysis of sightings and records of koala vehicle strike A Figure 8 Total road risk (combination of connectivity & density of sightings/HBC) A Figure 9 Hotspot areas A Figure 10 Existing hard koala infrastructure A Figure 11 Existing koala/wildlife signage A Figure 12 Overall proposed koala exclusion fencing and retrofitting of passageways A Figure 13 Overall proposed koala climbing structures A Figure 14 Hotspot assessments – hard and soft infrastructure A Figure 15 Hotspot assessments – soft measures only A Tables Table 1 Impact of traffic calming on road-kill (Jaarsma et al. 2006) 17 Table 2 Walter Hay Drive - Audit A (existing fence) (Figure 14a) 30 Table 3 Walter Hay Drive - South Extension (Figure 14b) 31 Table 4 Walter Hay Drive - North Extension 1 (Figure 14c) 31 Table 5 Walter Hay Drive - North Extension 2 (Figure 14d) 32 Table 6 Eenie Creek Road – Walter Hay Drive Underpass to Monks Bridge (Figure 14e) 33 Table 7 Eenie Creek Road - Audit B (existing fence) (Figure 14f) 34 Table 8 Eenie Creek Road - Audit C (existing fence) (Figure 14g) 35 Table 9 Weyba Road (Figure 14h) 36 Table 10 Cooroy Noosa Road (Figure 14i) 37 Table 11 McKinnon Drive (Figure 14j) 38 Table 12 Lake MacDonald Drive (near Lake Macdonald Bridge) (Figure 15a) 39 Table 13 Noosa Drive (southern end) and Grant Street (Figure 15b) 39 Table 14 Noosa Heads (Parks Road and Noosa Drive – northern end) Figure 15c) 40 Table 15 Solway Drive, Bryan St, Heathland Drive, and Edwards Street (Figure 15d) 40 Table 16 Cooyar St, Laguna and Noosa Springs Drive (Figure 15e) 41 Table 17 Cootharaba (Lake Flat Rd, Cootharaba Rd, Junction Rd) (Figure 15f) 41 Table 18 Pomona (Pioneer Rd) (Figure 15g) 41 Table 19 Cooran (Traveston Road and Coles Creek Rd) (Figure 15h) 42 Table 20 Cooroy Belli Creek Rd/Ceylon Road (Figure 15i) 42 Table 21 Wust/Beddington Road (Figure 15j) 42 Table 22 Neusavale Road/Sister Tree Creek Road (Figure 15k) 42 Table 23 Estimated rates 43 Table 24 Summarised cost estimates for each region 44 Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page vii Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 9
Plates Plate 1 Examples – one-way escape gates 10 Plate 2 Example defects – fencing 24 Plate 3 Examples – climbing structures 25 Plate 4 Examples – koala and wildlife sign designs 25 Appendices Appendix A Figures A Appendix B Detailed GIS Methods B Appendix C Field Survey Form D Appendix D Photos E Appendix E Cost Estimation – New Infrastructure F Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page viii Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 10
1. Introduction
Conservation planning for koalas and the habitat they depend upon are important considerations for
improving planning and management practises to ensure long term conservation of koalas. Noosa Council
(Council) has adopted a Koala Conservation Plan, requiring Council to undertake a koala infrastructure audit
to assess the condition and effectiveness of current infrastructure and inform recommendations for potential
new infrastructure. O2 Ecology has partnered with the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) to provide
Council with a thorough understanding of koala infrastructure within the Noosa Council Local Government
Area (LGA) and recommendations for future infrastructure.
The iconic koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) inhabits a range of Eucalyptus dominated communities (Martin &
Handasyde 1999). Formerly common throughout the Eucalyptus dominated forests and woodlands from
north Queensland to the south-eastern corner of mainland South Australia, its range has now contracted
significantly due to loss of large areas of habitat (Curtis & Dennis 2012). Often considered as the stronghold
for wild populations of koala, Southeast Queensland is also the fastest growing area in the State (Australian
Bureau of Statistics 2015). The importance of koala conservation is recognised within Commonwealth and
State Government legislation and policy, the koala is listed as Vulnerable under the Commonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Queensland Nature
Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act).
Causes of koala mortality are diverse and key threats to the species are habitat loss and fragmentation,
urbanisation, dog attacks, vehicle collisions, disease, bushfire and climate change (Dique et al. 2003; Rhodes
et al. 2011; Lunney et al. 2010; DECC NSW 2008; Seabrook et al. 2011; Adams-Hosking et al. 2012; Lunney et
al. 2007; RHODES et al. 2006; Narayan et al. 2013). McAlpine et al. (2006) highlighted that conservation and
restoration of viable koala populations require more than habitat protection and restoration.
Recommendations included:
• minimising new urban developments and roads within landscapes occupied by koalas or where koalas
are known to have occurred in the recent past;
• controlling domestic dogs in areas where koalas occur and adjacent to koala habitat, especially at night
when koalas are most active;
• reducing traffic speeds on minor roads, especially at night when koalas are most active; and
• implementing measures to minimise the risk of vehicle collisions on major roads, whilst also facilitating
effective koala movement.
This project focusses on the vulnerability of koalas to road-kill (Dique et al. 2003; Preece 2007; Lassau et al.
2008) and the barrier effects of roads (Lee et al. 2010).
1.1. Project Overview
This project completes a field audit of existing koala infrastructure and identifies areas for additional koala
infrastructure. A review of available literature and geospatial analysis support recommendations for
potential measures to reducing koala-vehicle collisions and allowing permeability to koala movement across
roads.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 1
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 11
1.2. Project Area
The study area is bound by the Noosa Council Local Government Area boundary (Figure 1 in Appendix A).
Koala habitat areas are mapped at both a State (South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning
Regulatory Provisions (SPRP)) and local level (Noosa Shire Koala Conservation Plan 2016). The project focuses
on road infrastructure within mapped Koala Habitat Areas.
1.3. Project Objectives
Key deliverables of this study include:
• Review of available literature regarding the effectiveness of koala infrastructure
• Geospatial analysis and mapping
o Review of Council and State road infrastructure map for koala infrastructure
o Identify roads in mapped koala habitat areas
o Verify koala ‘hotspots’
• Field assessment
o Audit of current koala infrastructure
o Determine koala presence at time of audit
o Record any evidence of other fauna/feral species present near koala infrastructure
• Report
o Current condition of infrastructure
o Infrastructure gaps at potential key crossing points
o Infrastructure that can be retrofitted to TMR standard
o Upgrade/renewal options and estimated costs
o Cost of maintenance of existing and proposed infrastructure
o Other potential innovations
o Current benefits of existing and proposed koala infrastructure to other fauna species
o Likely effectiveness of mitigating risk to Noosa’s koala populations by implementing a koala
infrastructure plan
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 2
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 12
2. Methods
2.1. Literature Review
A review of available literature was conducted to understand measures used to mitigate wildlife vehicle-
strike and the barrier effect of roads, their efficacy and application to koala conservation.
Examples of applications to other wildlife were used where no koala-specific information has been published.
2.2. Geospatial Analysis
Geospatial analysis of koala habitat areas identified hotspots for koala-vehicle collisions and target areas for
the infrastructure audit and gap analysis.
South East Queensland Catchments (SEQC) and the University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) undertook field
surveys using a koala scat detection dog to assess MSES koala habitat mapping and create a new koala habitat
map for Noosa Shire Council in 2015 (Figure 2). This mapping was used as a basis for this project.
Roads with a high risk of koala mortality due to collision with vehicles have been identified as areas of:
• high habitat connectivity or known koala corridors; with
• high density of near-road koala sightings and/or koala-vehicle collision records
Koala sightings are more likely to be recorded in highly populated areas where koala habitat is highly
fragmented. In these areas, a greater number of records is likely to reflect the number of observers rather
than indicate a large koala population. It is therefore important not to overlook potential high risk rural areas
where koala sightings and/or collisions may go unrecorded. To overcome this, habitat connectivity and
indicative linkages were modelled and combined with a density analysis of koala records (sightings and
collisions).
2.2.1. Connectivity and Indicative Linkages
Connectivity analysis intersected with roads assists in identifying potential koala crossing areas and
complements koala records.
Existing koala habitat mapping for Noosa Council (Noosa Council 2016) was combined with koala mapping
for adjoining shires (Gympie Regional Council (GRC) and Sunshine Coast Council (SCC)) to include up to 2 km
of habitat outside the Noosa Council boundary. This ensured connectivity areas along shire boundaries were
included in the final model for identifying high risk areas.
Koala habitat mapping was rated as high and medium koala habitat value to identify high quality core habitat
areas. High koala habitat included all identified habitat other than mapped Matters of State Environmental
Significance (MSES) that did not correlate with Noosa’s mapping (Noosa Council 2016), and was categorised
as medium (Figure 3). Detailed methods are contained in Appendix B.
Core habitat and/or corridors (>100m in width) were extracted and incorporated with smaller patches of
habitat (Figure 4) to create a connectivity model using focal statistical techniques. It is important to delineate
and prioritise areas where high connectivity or core koala habitat exists on both sides of a road over areas
with isolated patches of habitat on only one side of the road.
Connectivity analysis identifies both:
• Indicative regional links where core habitat exists along both sides of a long stretch of road and koalas
may be crossing anywhere within this stretch; and
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 3
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 13
• Indicative local links where high connectivity of smaller or narrower patches of koala habitat exist along
both sides of a short section of road and koalas may be crossing within these small sections or pinch
points. This occurs more frequently in highly fragmented koala habitat or along riparian corridors.
Figure 5 shows the connectivity analysis and indicative regional and local links across roads.
2.2.2. Density of Koala Records
Many koala records are reported in more populated areas such as Noosa Heads where koala habitat is highly
fragmented and koalas must move further distances between small patches of habitat.
Density and date of records may also indicate:
• possible blind spots on the road;
• possible wall barriers (such as gabion or concrete barriers);
• koalas entering the road via gaps/damage in existing koala exclusion fencing;
• speed and lighting;
• lack of koala infrastructure; and
• habitat availability (old records may indicate where there once was habitat).
Koala record data obtained from SEQC included Koala Tracker, Wildnet and USC records. More recent USC
records have also been incorporated into this project.
Koala records were weighted by record date, with more emphasis placed on areas with recent records than
those where koalas have not been recorded for many years.
Figure 6 shows koala records while Figure 7 shows a density analysis applying higher weightings to more
recent records.
2.2.3. Overall Combined Risk
Connectivity and density models were combined to produce an overall risk map for the project area. Sections
of road that are high risk for koala-vehicle collisions are identified in Figure 8 and symbolised per the road
hierarchy. Road sections symbolised purple represents both high connectivity and koala sightings and/or
recorded koala mortalities on major roads. Road sections symbolised blue represent local roads with high
connectivity.
All roads identified by the model correlate to roads previously identified by:
• local fauna care/citizen science organisations (including Queensland Koala Rescue, Koala Crusaders,
Koala Tracker and Noosa Koala Sightings facebook group)
• DEHP fauna hospital records (to road precision only)
• Noosa Koala Conservation Plan (Noosa Council 2016)
2.2.4. Hotspot Areas for Audit, Gap Analysis and Collaboration
The modelling discussed above identified all high risk sections of all roads within the Noosa Council area.
Hotspots can easily be identified for auditing, gap analysis, recommendations and collaborations, depending
on existing koala infrastructure, ownership and hierarchy.
Figure 9 shows all identified hotspots areas for:
• auditing and condition assessment for existing koala infrastructure on Council roads (purple)
• priority areas for field investigations and recommendations - high risk sections on major Council roads
that can be used for future capital works programs (red)
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 4
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 14
• collaboration with the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR), GRC or SCC - high risk sections
on State controlled roads or potential corridors that cross Council boundaries (blue)
• potential soft measures on local roads in high connectivity areas (green)
Preference was to apply higher ratings to roads identified for upgrades as part of capital works programs,
however, this data was not available and, instead, Council roads with high traffic volumes and high koalas
risk were identified.
Major council roads were prioritised by existing infrastructure and potential for hard infrastructure (see
Section 3 for definition). Areas with potential for soft infrastructure (see Section 3 for definition) were given
a lower priority. The potential for mitigation measures using hard or soft infrastructure was defined by:
• Road Type
o Major and connector roads – hard infrastructure where suitable (i.e. where high risk identified
above falls upon roads with higher speeds/sealed roads which often are associated with koala
collisions)
o Local roads – soft measures where applicable (lower speeds/less chance of koala collision)
• Type of Risk
o High connectivity and high density records may indicate koala corridors with high vehicle traffic
and unsafe corridor crossings and/or poor visibility and may require hard infrastructure (e.g.
retrofitting existing culverts, bridges, koala fencing etc.)
o High connectivity roads only (with no koala records) may require soft infrastructure such as road
signage/speed restrictions as preventative measures
2.3. Field Assessment
The field assessment aimed to:
• map and audit existing infrastructure to provide an overview of the condition of infrastructure and
inform recommendations; and
• investigate the high-risk hotspot areas on major Council roads identified for gap analysis to inform
recommendations for additional koala infrastructure
High priority hotspots were assessed for location and general condition of existing infrastructure and the
potential for retrofitting existing or installing new infrastructure.
The following features were extracted from existing mapping, consultation and google street view to identify
target features for auditing and potential retrofitting:
• Road network and State controlled Roads
• SC infrastructure (consultation, street view, GIS layer)
• Bridges (existing GIS layer)
• Culverts (>1200mm diameter) (existing GIS layer)
• Koala fencing (street view and consultation with council and DTMR). Fencing locations for DTMR roads
have not been mapped by DTMR and locations are vague due to recent Cooroy to Curra Upgrades.
• Climbing structures etc. (street view and consultation)
• Existing wildlife/koala signage (some in existing GIS layer, streetview and field capture)
• Speed restrictions (existing GIS layer)
• Tenure
• Nature Refuges and Protected Area Estates
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 5
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 15
• Pathways • Aerial photography Features were identified and imported into a Differential GPS unit to ensure efficient data capture. Field maps were created to assist with general overviews whilst in the field. An iPhone application called solocator was used to quickly and efficiently capture approximate locations of existing signage along priority roads. Maya, the koala scat detection dog, surveyed selected sites for the presence of koala scats following the University of the Sunshine Coast scat detection dog protocols. 2.3.1. Field Survey Constraints The rapid field assessment allowed a short period to be spent at each of the sites. Notes, measurements and photos were taken to assist pre-defined electronic data capture fields. Accessibility was limited in areas such as high speed roads where there was no safe area to stop a vehicle. The use of the koala scat detection dog indicated where scats were present at selected surveyed sites at the time of survey. The absence of scats at any field site does not necessarily indicate an absence of koalas in that area. The data collected does not indicate koala home ranges, population or movements. 2.3.2. Coordinate System and Map Datum Positional data was captured using a differential GPS (Magellan mobilemapper) with 1-2 m accuracy and data entry through dropdown menus created specifically for the field survey. Information presented uses the MGA94 datum in zone 56. Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 6 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 16
3. Literature Review
Roads and traffic decrease the amount and quality of available habitat, enhance mortality due to vehicle
collisions, act as a barrier preventing access to resources and divide animal populations into smaller and more
vulnerable fractions (Jaeger et al. 2005). The effect of roads on fauna populations depend on
• the species’ road avoidance behaviour (i.e., noise avoidance, road surface avoidance, and car avoidance);
• population sensitivity effects of roads;
• road size; and
• traffic volume (Jaeger et al. 2005).
Koalas are largely solitary and occupy reasonably well defined home ranges, however, both male and female
home ranges can overlap (White 1999; Mitchell 1990; Ellis et al. 2002). Movements between trees are usually
made along the ground and, particularly in fragmented peri-urban areas, this includes movements across
roads (Rhodes et al. 2014). Friends of the Koala data showed that during 2011-12, only 10 of 52 koalas hit by
vehicles in the broader Northern Rivers area of New South Wales survived (Goldingay & Dobner 2014). Dique
et al. (2003) found that a disproportionate number of male koalas of approximately 2-4 years of age were hit
by vehicles during the koala speed zone trial on the Koala Coast. Males generally have larger home ranges
and move greater distances than females, particularly during the breeding season, with the result that males
tend to cross roads more frequently than females (Rhodes et al. 2014).
The effects of roads on wildlife are a widespread ecological problem (Bissonette 2002) and mitigating these
effects represent a significant investment by authorities. The ecological and conservation benefits must
therefore be considered when planning such infrastructure, rather than making decisions solely based on
engineering or planning expediency (Dexter et al. 2016) to avoid over-capitalising on ineffective measures.
Long-term monitoring and credible research on the value of such structures must also exist to provide
support for these decisions (Clevenger & Waltho 2005; Thorne et al. 2009; Taylor & Goldingay 2010; van der
Ree et al. 2011).
Mitigation measures used to reduce the effects of roads and road mortality on wildlife populations fall into
two broad categories (Glista et al. 2009):
• modification of animal behaviour – address vulnerability to road-kill and barrier effects
• modification of motorist behaviour – address vulnerability to road-kill
These can be categorised into soft or hard infrastructure, following the Noosa Shire Koala Conservation Plan
2016 (Noosa Council 2016):
• hard infrastructure – structures that generally involve the modification of animal behaviour such as
exclusion and guiding fences, bridges, underpasses, culverts and koala ladders
• soft infrastructure – measures that generally involve the modification of motorist behaviour such as
speed limit reductions, signs, road markings and improved street lighting
Numerous strategies with varying degrees of success are regularly used to mitigate the effects of roads on
wildlife, including speed reduction measures, fencing, road crossings, culverts under roads, overpasses,
lighting, signs, road threshold treatments and wildlife reflectors (Rhodes et al. 2014). Glista et al. (2009) found
that the frequency at which road mortality mitigation measures are implemented does not correlate with
their perceived effectiveness and that the most promising measures are often used the least. Dictation by
economic factors, evaluation of mitigation success based on opinion rather than research and inferior
mitigation design are a poor use of resources and may lead to further ecological problems (Glista et al. 2009).
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 7
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 17
Here we provide a review of available literature to understand measures used to mitigate wildlife vehicle-
strike and the barrier effect of roads, their efficacy and application to koala conservation. Knowledge of
koala’s willingness to use various kinds of road crossing-structures is relatively scant (AMBS 2012) and where
no koala-specific information has been published, examples of applications to other wildlife are discussed.
Design considerations are also included where information is available.
3.1. Hard Infrastructure – Modifying Animal Behaviour
Modifying animal behaviour may help to address vulnerability to road-kill and barrier effects by preventing
fauna from accessing the road surface and allowing safe passage across roads. Commonly used methods
include wildlife exclusion fencing and wildlife crossing structures (culvert, underpass, overpass, rope bridges).
Some other methods include wildlife warning reflectors and repellents (chemical, visual, acoustic and electric
shock (Mason 1998)), the latter of which will not be discussed further as they are considered impractical for
application to this project and may negatively affect other fauna.
Wildlife exclusion fencing and wildlife crossing structures are most effective when implemented together.
Exclusion fences prevent wildlife from crossing the road surface, minimising road-kill but also preventing
wildlife from accessing resources on the opposite side of the road. Wildlife crossing structures allow safe
fauna passage across the road but fauna is unlikely to find and use the passage unless fencing funnels fauna
to the crossing infrastructure. Providing ample and appropriate crossing structures while preventing access
to the road surface will allow wildlife movement and minimise roadkill (Clevenger et al. 2003; Glista et al.
2009).
3.1.1. Wildlife Exclusion Fencing
Fencing roads has been shown to reduce mortality, increase population persistence and facilitate movement
and gene flow when combined with wildlife crossings (Polak et al. 2014). The Koala-sensitive Design Guideline
(Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2012) suggests three design options for koala exclusion
fencing to be used only in four identified situations where the fencing will prevent koalas from entering an
area that poses a direct threat to their safety. One of the identified situations is fencing to safeguard koalas
from high speed/high volume roads or train lines by funnelling koalas to safe crossing structures (fauna
underpasses or overpasses).
Efficacy
Wildlife exclusion fencing is an effective way to prevent wildlife from crossing the road surface, thereby
improving road safety for humans and protecting wildlife by minimising the risk of vehicle-wildlife collisions
in areas where exclusion fencing is installed and maintained. There is a large body of literature concluding
that fences are essential for reducing road-kill and that combining fencing with easily accessed safe passages
under and over the road improves the facilitation of safe road crossing by fauna. Some examples include:
• Bond and Jones (2008) studied the effect of fencing associated with the Compton Road upgrade south of
Brisbane in 2004. Monitoring of road-kill was undertaken for four months before construction and
following the completion of construction. The surveys detected 13 large animals killed on the road during
the four months pre-construction and two large animals killed on the road during the four months post-
construction. These post-construction animals were a wood duck that flew onto the road and a red-
necked wallaby that passed through a large hole deliberately cut in the fence. Three additional large
animals were killed on the road during the 29 month post-construction monitoring period, at least one
of which used a deliberately cut hole in the fence. The exclusion fencing was effective in preventing road-
kill, except following human-related breaches in the fence (Bond & Jones 2008).
• Cunnington et al. (2014) studied the effect of pre-existing drainage culverts on the mitigation of anuran
road mortality in Canada. The study suggests that fencing is much more effective at reducing road
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 8
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 18
mortality in anurans, a group of species vulnerable to road mortality, than provision of fauna crossing
infrastructure. The authors concluded that the priority for mitigation of road mortality should be
installation of fencing or other structures that exclude fauna from the road surface.
• Koala-specific studies have found installation of floppy-top fencing along major roads in New South Wales
to reduce koala road-kill (Taylor & Goldingay 2003; Lassau et al. 2008; Hayes & Goldingay 2009).
• Dexter et al. (2016) examined whether retrofitting existing road structures at six sites facilitated safe
passage for koalas across roads. During the 17 month monitoring period, a single sub-adult male was
confirmed to have approached a study road on 38 occasions and cross the road on 19 of these occasions.
His road crossings occurred before and during construction of the koala overpass and fauna-exclusion
fences. No road crossings were detected after completion of the koala overpass and fauna-exclusion
fences.
• Ascensão et al. (2013) applied a simulation model to the stone marten to assess the relative performance
of fencing and passage construction to mitigate the impacts of wildlife–vehicle collisions under different
rates of road mortality. The study predicts that fences are more effective than passages at mitigating the
effects of road mortality on abundance and, under most circumstances, are more effective than passages
at reducing genetic differentiation. The authors suggest the ability of fencing to eliminate road mortality
increases genetic diversity, thereby slowing differentiation across the road, and argue that partial fencing
of roads alone may often be the best and most cost-effective management option for road mitigation.
Design considerations
• Smaller species may pass through fences (Bond & Jones 2008) and when designing for multi-species
applications, barriers built into the base of fences may improve its ability to guide small mammals and
herpetofauna (Taylor & Goldingay 2003).
• Fencing has limited application to stretches of road where driveways occur regularly (Goldingay &
Dobner 2014).
• Fencing in the absence of crossing structures can act as a barrier to natural movements and contribute
to habitat fragmentation. Where movement across roads is required to enable population processes to
continue (Lee et al. 2010), fences must be complemented by crossing structures. Fencing should extend
far enough to either side of a crossing structure to promote guidance to the structure (Glista et al. 2009).
• Where choices must be made due to limited mitigation funds and road mortality has a stronger impact
than the movement barrier effect on both population persistence and genetic diversity of a species, the
priority for mitigation of road mortality should be installation of fencing or other structures that exclude
fauna from the road surface (Cunnington et al. 2014).
• Escape routes, such as one-way gates, and refuge poles should be supplied to allow exit from the road
should a koala venture into a fenced area. Examples of gates that have been designed for other species
are shown in Plate 1.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 9
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 19
Plate 1 Examples – one-way escape gates
Top left: Large turnstile
Top right: Badger or wombat gate
Above: Pitfall
Left: Badger gate design
Source: Noosa Council
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 10
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 20
3.1.2. Underpasses
Both pipe and box culverts are installed where roads cross drainage lines to allow water to flow under the
road. Pipe culverts have curved surfaces and often have a wet base whereas box culverts have flat surfaces
and often remain dry between runoff events. Both types of culvert have been used as wildlife crossings for
various small to medium sized terrestrial species and are one of the more economical wildlife crossing
structures (Glista et al. 2009). New culverts can be designed and installed with fauna crossing as well as flood
conveyance in mind and existing culverts may be modified to encourage use by fauna to cross roads.
Wildlife underpasses are large, open passages often associated with roads crossing waterways or other
roads. Underpasses can use the natural landscape to allow passage for larger terrestrial fauna and species
associated with riparian vegetation (Glista et al. 2009). The construction of an underpass is expensive and
the use of this type of crossing is likely to be used only when a bridge is deemed necessary.
Efficacy
The installation of culverts and underpasses has lead efforts to mitigate the road-kill and barrier-effect of
roads and traffic. There is much support for the use of underpasses with exclusion fencing to facilitate safe
road crossing for a range of fauna species, especially when they are positioned on migration paths, are large
enough to accommodate the target species and where human noise and activity are minimised (Taylor &
Goldingay 2003). Some examples include:
• Clevenger et al. (2001) investigated culvert use by small and medium-sized mammals along roads in Banff
National Park, Canada. A variety of mammals were recorded using the culverts. Traffic volume, noise
levels and road width were the most significant factors affecting culvert use.
• Mata et al. (2008) evaluated the utility of different types of crossing structures along a motorway in
north-western Spain and found crossing structure type and width to be the most important factors in
their selection for use by vertebrates. Larger-bodied animals favoured more open passages, while small
mammals and herpetofauna favoured culvert-type structures.
• Culvert crossings designed for amphibians and reptiles have been installed in numerous locations across
North America, Europe and Australia (Cunnington et al. 2014). Several studies have shown that
amphibians and reptiles use culverts (Rodriguez et al. 1996; Yanes et al. 1995; Lesbarrères et al. 2004;
Mazerolle & Desrochers 2005).
• Veenbaas and Brandjes (1999) reported mammals using 100% and amphibians using 77% of monitored
wildlife passages along waterways under highways in the Netherlands during the 1997-98 survey. For
mammals, underpasses with the largest diameters were used most frequently and passages with
extended banks were used by more species.
• Bond and Jones (2008) studied the effect of crossing structures associated with the Compton Road
upgrade south of Brisbane in 2004, confirming underpass use by a wide range of small and medium-sized
mammal species.
• Dexter et al. (2016) examined whether retrofitting existing road structures at six sites facilitated safe
passage for koalas across roads. The study found that road crossing events were restricted to a relatively
small subset of individual koalas, with crossing events being generally uncommon among the resident
tagged populations. Of that subset, structure use varied but the study highlights the importance of these
individuals in relation to population connectivity and of appropriately placed crossing infrastructure
and/or fauna fencing. Relatively low rates of structure use by koalas do not necessarily equate to poor
connectivity or conservation outcomes, as a relatively low rate of dispersal success is sufficient to
maintain the population viability of local subpopulations (Taylor & Goldingay 2009; Dexter et al. 2016).
• Where suitable structures are available, koalas will willingly incorporate structures into movement
patterns (Dexter et al. 2016; RTA 2009; AMBS 2012).
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 11
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 21
Design considerations
• Several factors affect the ability of a crossing structure to facilitate wildlife movements (Glista et al. 2009)
o Location is vital, especially for smaller, less mobile species
▪ crossing structures should be placed in areas of suitable habitat
▪ passages implemented near continual disturbance (e.g., excessive human presence) are
less frequently used by several wildlife species
o Dimensions of structures are also important in designing passageways for vertebrates
▪ size and shape may determine crossing success
▪ relative openness may be more important than overall size
• Sediment and debris may be deposited during flow events and culverts must be maintained to allow free
passage for water and fauna.
• Thought must be given to flow conveyance when retrofitting existing culverts. Each culvert must be
checked to ensure that retrofitting will not significantly impact design flows prior to any retrofitting
exercise.
• When considering multi-species applications, culverts and exclusion fencing facilitate safe passage across
a road for a range of wildlife species but are not effective for frogs (Taylor & Goldingay 2003). Cunnington
et al. (2014) found that culverts alone do not reduce anuran mortality as anurans do not detect the
presence of the culvert and will continue across the road surface. However, installation of anuran-proof
fencing along both sides of the road reduced anuran mortality.
• Vegetation at the culvert entrance is important for encouraging use by small mammals and in providing
protection from predators (Taylor & Goldingay 2003; Clevenger et al. 2001). In the Australian context,
vegetation cover at passage entrances appears to make passages more attractive to native prey species
and less attractive to feral predators (Finegan 1997; Hunt et al. 1987).
• The inclusion of a natural substrate within a crossing structure can provide continuity of habitat and may
encourage animals to pass (Glista et al. 2009).
• Road-related factors have the greatest influence on mammal passage at culverts, whereas structural and
landscape attributes of culverts are lesser predictors of culvert use (Clevenger et al. 2001; Yanes et al.
1995; Rodriguez et al. 1996).
• It is important to have at least one culvert or passage within an individual's home range to ensure cross-
road connectivity and gene flow (Gerlach & Musolf 2000), it is therefore important to understand the
average home range size of target species to inform the frequency of crossing infrastructure (Clevenger
et al. 2001).
• Use of the relatively large underpasses could be enhanced for smaller species by the inclusion of small
mammal-specific features including hollow logs and pipes along the open floor of the underpass and
raised shelves could be incorporated into existing culverts and underpasses to encourage increased use
by small species (Bond & Jones 2008).
• Bliss-Ketchum et al. (2016) studied the effect of ecological light pollution on animal usage of a bridge
under-road passage structure. The study suggested that artificial light within the underpass was a barrier
to use by some species but not for others. Manipulation of spectra may facilitate use by fauna and
artificial light could be used to influence movement (Bliss-Ketchum et al. 2016).
3.1.3. Overpasses
Overpasses for wildlife are a ‘green’ bridge used in areas where an underpass is not feasible and designed
primarily for fauna that are unlikely to use a culvert crossing. Overpasses can maintain the connectivity of
horizontal ecological flows across the landscape, are open, quieter than underpasses and culverts, maintain
ambient conditions (rainfall, temperature and light) and can serve as both passageways for wildlife and
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 12
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 22
intermediate habitats for smaller animals (Glista et al. 2009). These constructions are the most expensive
fauna crossing option and are unlikely to be adopted if other options are available.
Efficacy
The application of wildlife land-bridges is less common than wildlife underpasses. In 2008, van der Ree et al.
(2008) estimated the total number of wildlife crossing structures within Australia that had been formally
evaluated and reported on was approximately 100. Of those, only three were land-bridge overpasses. Some
examples include:
• Bond and Jones (2008) studied the effect of crossing structures associated with the Compton Road
upgrade south of Brisbane in 2004, confirming continuous use of the overpass by three species of
macropod (red-necked wallaby, Macropus rufogriseus; swamp wallaby, Wallabia bicolor; and eastern
grey kangaroo, Macropus giganteus) with brown hare (Lepus capensis) becoming increasingly common
in summer 2006. The study concluded that rapid followed by continued use of the structure may have
been attributed to fresh vegetative growth providing a valuable foraging resource for local herbivorous
species.
• Hayes (2006) monitored fauna use of two overpasses (cut and cover tunnel) and two dedicated fauna
underpasses (3 x 3 m concrete box culvert) associated with the Pacific Highway, Yelgun to Cudgera Creek
and Woodburn to Ferry Park Rest Area, north-eastern New South Wales. More large animals (macropods,
canids, large lizards) were found using the overpasses than the underpasses.
• A koala-specific overpass was built as part of the DTMR Koala Retrofit Works Program over Mount Cotton
Road, south-east of Brisbane. At the conclusion of the monitoring period (December 2010 to February
2013), there had been no evidence of koalas using the overpass (Jones et al. 2013). However, it is widely
acknowledged that most structures require a period of acclimatisation before animals will use them
(Jones et al. 2013) and while koalas may have begun to use the overpass, monitoring has not continued
to prove use of the structure (Davis 2017).
Design considerations
Bond and Jones (2008) advocate intentional planting of appropriate vegetation as a means of facilitating
habituation by herbivorous species to wildlife overpasses.
3.1.4. Canopy Bridges
Canopy bridges are inexpensive connections constructed at canopy height to encourage arboreal fauna to
cross roads and other canopy gaps. These connections may be applied where koalas cross roads in areas
impractical for underpasses or overpasses construction (Preece 2007; Goldingay & Dobner 2014). Rope-
bridges are an example of canopy bridge that has been tested for use by koalas.
Efficacy
Koalas are highly mobile on the ground but can traverse between trees using connecting branches or may
make short jumps between closely spaced trees where habitat allows (Goldingay & Taylor 2016). It follows
that koalas may use canopy bridges to move between trees or cross large canopy-gaps associated with roads.
However, no koalas were detected on rope-bridges installed and monitored on the Pacific Highway in New
South Wales in areas where koalas occurred (Goldingay et al. 2013), potentially reflecting unsuitable rope-
bridge design, absence of koalas during monitoring or preferred use of available underpasses (Goldingay &
Taylor 2016). Field testing of four different rope bridge designs suggested that rope-bridges are unsuited to
the behaviour and ecology of the koala (Goldingay & Taylor 2016). The study concluded that wildlife
underpasses and overpasses that facilitate walking along the ground appear to be more suited to enable safe
road-crossing by koalas (Goldingay & Taylor 2016).
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 13
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 23
3.1.5. Wildlife Warning Reflectors Wildlife warning reflectors, manufactured and distributed under the brands Swareflex (Austria) and Strieter- Lite (USA), were designed to scare ungulates from roadways at night by reflecting light from the headlights of approaching vehicles into the eyes of animals on the roadside. These reflectors have been popular in Europe and North America and there has been interest in investigating their application in Australia (Ramp & Croft 2006). The ability of wildlife warning reflectors to elicit a response relies on the extent of the visual field of the target fauna species (Ramp & Croft 2006). An understanding of the colour spectrum visible to the species is required to ensure that the reflected light can be seen. Efficacy Two studies in the early 1990s reported positive results from trials on the Proserpine rock wallaby in Queensland and along State Highway 18 in New South Wales (Ramp & Croft 2006). However, the Brieger et al. (2016) systematic literature review (53 references) and re-analyses of the original animal-vehicle collision data indicated that light-reflecting devices did not significantly reduce the number of animal-vehicle collisions. Ramp and Croft (2006) examined under controlled captive conditions the behavioural responses of two representative species of macropodids to light from headlights with and without the addition of wildlife warning reflectors. The study investigated whether the reflected light evoked a sufficient alerting or evading behavioural response in the macropodids that would result in fewer collisions with vehicles and failed to record such a response. 3.2. Soft Infrastructure – Modifying Motorist Behaviour High-speed traffic is considered a major cause of wildlife–vehicle collisions (Glista et al. 2009). Slowing traffic speed and increased driver awareness may assist in mitigating the effect of roads by reducing the potential for vehicle-wildlife collisions. Measures aimed at modifying driver behaviour to travel at slower speeds and actively look for wildlife to avoid potential collisions, and increasing visibility of roadside or on-road fauna can include speed reduction measures, speed limit enforcement, lighting, signs, road reserve management and road threshold treatments. These measures are commonly employed as they do not involve construction of large or complex structures, are relatively inexpensive and often complement other management objectives. Development of effective low-cost mitigation methods would allow wider application and promote safer motorist behaviour. 3.2.1. Wildlife and Speed Signs Wildlife warning signs are aimed at improving safety by reducing the incidence of wildlife–vehicle collisions and injuries and fatalities to wildlife and drivers. Signs are the most commonly used and widespread form of road mitigation and are likely to continue to be the most commonly implemented mitigation measure of wildlife–vehicle collisions due to their relatively low cost (Huijser et al. 2009; Bond & Jones 2013). The most commonly used wildlife warning sign in Australia is a black animal silhouette on a reflective yellow diamond (Bond & Jones 2013). In Queensland, hazardous wildlife signs are used to warn road users of the unexpected presence of wild animals on the road. The signs are only for animals large enough to potentially cause human injury and/or vehicle damage, there are no symbolic warning signs for small animals as it is believed that ‘the efficacy of warning signs to protect small animals that may wander onto the road is at least doubtful’ (Department of Transport and Main Roads 2014). Efficacy A roadside traffic sign does not control the actions of a driver but aims to influence driver behaviour to precipitate a desired response (Burbridge et al. 2010). Evidence of the effectiveness of wildlife warning signs Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 14 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 24
is inconsistent and most often, sign effectiveness has not been evaluated (Ahmed Al-Kaisy 2006). Some
examples include:
• Bruinderink and Hazebroek (1996) reviewed European, North-American and Japanese literature on
ungulate traffic collisions to better understand the threat posed by collisions to biodiversity and road
safety. They found that a driver's response to game-crossing signs is insufficient to affect the crossings
to-kill ratio. For example, stuffed mule deer placed in the road easement failed to evoke reaction from a
high proportion of drivers in the U.S. and Aberg (1981) found only about 40% of the drivers noticed game-
crossing signs.
• The Koala Speed Zone Trial on the Koala Coast in south-east Queensland assessed the effect of
differential speed signs on the number of koalas hit by vehicles from 1995 to 1999 (Dique et al. 2003).
The study found no significant reduction in vehicle speed during the trial period from August to
December.
• Burbridge et al. (2010) assessed the deployment of 16 vehicle activated speed signs deployed at 11 sites
in Queensland. There was a shift downwards in average speed, 85th percentile speed and frequency of
speed non-compliance on approach to the sign sites, indicating a learned change in driver behaviour in
response to the presence of the sign at a given location. A further downward shift in speed was observed
downstream of the signs where tubes were installed, suggesting that the activating signs do influence
driver behaviour. Most speed reductions occurred within a month after activation but this reduction
remained stable within the following months - signs active for 12 months still showed the same reduction
as yielded shortly after activation.
• The trial of vehicle activated signs as part of the DTMR Koala Retrofit Works Program had mixed results
with newly installed signs being effective for a period after installation, with decreasing effect as further
time passed (Gawne 2017).
Design considerations
Improving the design of wildlife warning signs to increase the likelihood of driver response may aid in
reducing the incidence of wildlife–vehicle collisions (Bond & Jones 2013).
• Research to refine a sign design with the best likelihood of response is required. The addition of sign
elements such as seasonal and distance specifications, road-kill counts and other features deemed
important to eliciting a response by drivers to wildlife warning signs should be investigated and field
tested (Bond & Jones 2013).
• Driver habituation to wildlife warning signs may be greater in urban and peri-urban areas where people
repeatedly use the same roads than along highways or more remote areas. Use of a variety of sign
designs, both spatially and temporally, may be valuable, however, research into this possible effect is
needed (Bond & Jones 2013).
3.3. Other considerations
Wildlife-crossing structures should be designed to allow safe passage for animals, promote habitat
connectivity, be accessible and encourage natural movements (Glista et al. 2009). The design of effective
wildlife-crossing structures requires accommodation of high priority species while maintaining an economic
and structurally sound building plan. Glista et al. (2009) provide some general recommendations regarding
wildlife collision reduction:
• Pre-construction planning is generally more economical than retrofitting existing roads and potentially
could be considered during environmental impact assessments.
• Connectivity of habitat and permeability of road systems are important factors.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 15
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 25
• Financial considerations may dictate non-structural approaches to collision reduction but structural
methods are probably more effective (and more expensive).
• The efficiency of road mortality mitigation approaches should be determined via a post-implementation
monitoring program.
3.3.1. Road design
Increases to human population and urbanisation leads to increased road density and traffic volumes, it is
critical to plan for these changes while limiting their impacts to biodiversity (McKinney 2002; Sushinsky et al.
2013).
Clevenger et al. (2003) examined the spatial patterns and factors influencing small terrestrial vertebrate
road-kill aggregations along roads varying in traffic volume, configuration and adjacent landscape attributes
in the Bow River Valley, Alberta, Canada between 1997 and 2000. The study found that road-kills tended to
occur close to vegetative cover, far from wildlife passages or culverts and were less likely to occur on raised
sections of road. Where possible, road reserves should be maintained to minimise habitat or resources that
may attraction of wildlife to roadsides (Rhodes et al. 2014). We note that while this is applicable to grazing
wildlife, road reserves often provide important corridors for koala movement due to vegetation clearing
elsewhere.
The literature suggests that vehicle speed and traffic volume are probably the most important factors
explaining wildlife collisions (Clevenger et al. 2003). Where vehicle speed and/or road density are high, road
traffic has been shown to have a severe local effect (Jones 2000). Dique et al. (2003) observed that the risk
of collision between a vehicle and a koala is greatest when high volumes of traffic moving at high speeds
travel through areas of relatively high koala population density. Preece (2007) found that road segments with
roundabouts in Brisbane had significantly less koala mortality than expected compared with secondary roads.
Roundabouts or other traffic-slowing devices could be considered for key locations where koala movements
occur over roads (Goldingay & Dobner 2014) and it is impractical to implement other hard infrastructure
measures. Effective mitigation at such locations requires insight into the effects of road and traffic
characteristics on both wildlife movements and traffic mortality (van Langevelde et al. 2009).
The two key ways in which growth in vehicle numbers can be accommodated result in different spatial
distributions of traffic and therefore contribute to wildlife mortality rates via two different processes (Rhodes
et al. 2014). Firstly, existing roads can be upgraded to carry higher volumes of traffic, effectively increasing
traffic volume while road density remains constant. This leads to higher mortality rates as the probability
that an animal crossing a road is hit by a vehicle increases. Secondly, the number of roads can be increased,
effectively increasing the road density while traffic volume remains constant. This leads to higher mortality
rates as the probability that an animal moving around the landscape will cross a road increases. Using a
spatially-explicit simulation model to quantify the relative impact of changes in road density and/or traffic
volume on mortality rates for a koala, Rhodes et al. (2014) showed that the effect of road density on mortality
is commonly higher than the effect of traffic volume. The opposite was only true when road density was very
low and traffic volume very high. Therefore, under most circumstances, it is preferable to accommodate a
greater number of vehicles by increasing the capacity of existing roads, rather than building new roads. It is
only in cases where the existing road network is characterised by very few high capacity roads that increases
in network capacity by building new roads is likely to have the least impact on koala mortality.
If new roads are necessary, alignments should avoid locations close to existing habitat and complementary
strategies such as traffic calming in key habitat areas and redirecting traffic to surrounding roads during
crucial periods should be considered (Rhodes et al. 2014). Jaarsma et al. (2006) developed a model for the
probability of successful road crossing by mammals to compare alternative network solutions and evaluate
traffic calming measures on wildlife-vehicle collisions. The results presented in Table 1 show that the highest
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 16
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 26
level of traffic calming involving road closure during peak periods of fauna movement, was the most successful at road-kill reduction. Table 1 Impact of traffic calming on road-kill (Jaarsma et al. 2006) Traffic calming measure Impact to road-kill compared to base situation Mainly legal measures, including a rigid enforcement of the Slight improvement in the traversability, but this is still present speed limit of 80 km/hr worse than in the present situation Implementation of a traffic-calmed area with a legal speed Reduces road-kill by about one third limit of 60 km/hr and a few speed bumps Implementation of a traffic-calmed area with more Reduces road-kill by more than 50% measures to reduce speed and a narrowed pavement Implementation of a traffic-calmed area with limited Reduces road-kill to about 10% of the current level access: access for local residents only between 7 pm and 7 am (assumes nocturnal wildlife movements are critical) Mitigation measures are often applied to major roads and minor roads are left unmitigated. van Langevelde et al. (2009) argue that the success of mitigation measures increases considerably when minor roads are included in the planning and that the effects of minor and major roads should be mitigated together. The authors propose an integrated strategy that considers regional networks of both major and minor roads so that positive effects of mitigation efforts at one location will not be undone by unintended effects elsewhere. Surveys of koala populations need to be completed in the early stage of planning at a scale providing sufficient detail to enable strategic placement of mitigation measures, especially crossing devices, to maximise the likelihood of use by koalas. 3.3.2. Optimisation Decision science is a rational and transparent way of determining the best action given multiple objectives that can be applied to find the ‘optimal’ decisions for conservation efforts within social and financial constraints (Polak et al. 2014). A variety of tools and approaches have been developed to assist managers and policy makers (Possingham et al. 2001; McDonald-Madden et al. 2008; Wilson et al. 2009). Polak et al. (2014) applied the method to a koala population living in habitat patches separated by roads on the Koala Coast to find the best solution to mitigating the impacts of the roads for a range of possible costs. The study illustrated the trade-off between potential biodiversity benefits and economic cost by exhaustively exploring all possible combinations of three mitigation actions (fencing without wildlife passage, fencing with wildlife passage and no action) over the study area. The study shows that the best solution for the case study depends on the available budget. This systematic approach can assist decision-makers to make informed decisions about where and how to invest funds for cost-effective conservation investment (Polak et al. 2014). It should be noted that the study did not account for genetics and this may be an area for improvement. 3.3.3. Monitoring and Maintenance Investment in mitigation measures must be supported by ongoing monitoring and maintenance plans to ensure that the infrastructure can continue functioning as intended. As an example, Bond and Jones (2008) found that fencing was effective until openings were created in the fence. Koalas have been observed climbing over fences where vegetation was allowed to grow adjacent to the fence and squeezing through very small gaps under fences. Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 17 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 27
3.3.4. Managing Koalas Thought must be given to the management of koalas not only long-term through the planning and implementation of road mitigation measures but also during construction and operation of those measures. AMBS (2012) provides recommendations for koala management that can be incorporated into construction and operational management plans. 3.3.5. Predator-prey interactions The prey-trap hypothesis theorises that predators exploit the predictability of prey movement afforded by crossing structures. The hypothesis predicts that predation events occur closer to a highway after the construction of fences and crossing structures and that prey species' use of crossings increases the probability that predators will attack prey (Ford & Clevenger 2010). However, Little et al. (2002) conclude that evidence for the existence of prey-traps is scant, largely anecdotal and tends to indicate infrequent opportunism rather than the establishment of patterns of recurring predation. More recent studies, such as Ford & Clevenger (2010) and Dupuis-Desormeaux et al. (2015), found no support for the prey-trap hypothesis at their study sites. The Handbook of Road Ecology (Mata et al. 2015) suggests the potential relevance of this situation should be assessed on a case-by-case basis because: 1. Wildlife crossing structures will be less effective for prey if their use is adversely influenced by predator- prey interactions; 2. The outcome of predator-prey interactions at wildlife crossing structures may depend on the degree of co-evolution between them; 3. Our knowledge of specific interactions between predators and prey at crossing structures is scarce, and research is urgently needed; and 4. Roads and crossing structures should be designed to minimise potentially deleterious predator-prey interactions. The increased road safety and wildlife connectivity benefits provided by wildlife crossing structures for a wide range of species are positive, with little evidence for predators using crossing structures in a systematic way to increase hunting effectiveness (Mata et al. 2015). However, measures to reduce the risk of predation should be considered during the design and operation of crossing structures. 3.3.6. Further investigation – proving effectiveness New designs of road-crossing structures for wildlife are typically based on some learning from a previous project. They are rarely tested for suitability before they are permanently installed as part of a new road project (Goldingay & Taylor 2016). However, knowledge of the use of structures is available for only a relatively small number of species. Thus, ongoing monitoring and analysis is critical to gather a sound knowledge of the most appropriate structures, structure density and location in a landscape to enable design of effective mitigation measures. Ree et al. (2007) reviewed 123 studies in the refereed scientific literature, conference proceedings and consultant reports and found all but two found an effect at the level of the individual animal. Those two studies demonstrated a positive effect for the population. The effectiveness of mitigation measures at reducing the risk of population extinction remains unclear. A clear distinction must be made between “use” and “effectiveness” of a wildlife crossing structure: the use of a structure may be broadly defined as the rate of detections of individuals or species, while effectiveness relates to a specific question or the goal of mitigation (Ree et al. 2007). A large amount of effort has conclusively shown that crossing structures are used by many species of wildlife, however, the long-term success of mitigation measures depends on their effectiveness. Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 18 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 28
The installation of mitigation measures must be followed by systematic monitoring to assist in their management, evaluate their use and effectiveness, provide authorities with recommendations relating to the design and placement of crossing structures and ensure that the costs equal the ecological benefit to encourage continued implementation of such measures (Teixeira et al. 2013; Dexter et al. 2016). Given the cost of installing wildlife crossing structures, standard practice for monitoring their effectiveness should follow a Before-After-Control-Impact BACI design (van der Grift et al. 2013) including measurements of road mortality, movement rate and population size recorded at both the structure site and at control sites before and repeated for adequate monitoring periods after the structures are installed (Cunnington et al. 2014). Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 19 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 29
4. Results
Twenty-one regions were identified as hotspots for protection of koalas from road-related impacts.
4.1. Audits of Existing Koala Infrastructure
Both hard and soft infrastructure are currently installed for koala protection within Noosa Shire Council,
including:
• koala exclusion fencing and associated passageways;
• climbing structures;
• signage;
• lighting; and
• speed limits.
General descriptions of and recommendations for existing infrastructure are listed below. Detailed accounts
for each hotspot are in Section 4.3.
4.1.1. Koala Exclusion Fencing and Associated Structures
Existing koala exclusion fencing and associated structures (Figure 10) includes a combination of:
• mesh fence with colorbond strip;
• acoustic fence with colorbond strip; and
• floppy top koala fence.
Koala exclusion fencing and associated structures are currently installed on:
• Council roads
o Section of Walter Hay Drive (mesh with colorbond strip) and associated retrofitted culvert with
koala post and rail
o Section of Eenie Creek Road between Monks Bridge and Noosa Springs Drive (combination of
acoustic and floppy to fencing) and associated passageways under Monks Bridge, a large culvert
under Eenie Creek Road and Noosa Springs Drive Overpass
o Section of Eenie Creek Road between Giraween Sports Complex and Ben Lexan Drive
(combination of acoustic and mesh fencing with colorbond strip) and associated passageways
under Girraween Bridge and Koala footbridge
• DTMR roads (provided by DTMR)
o Bruce Highway upgrade (DTMR) (mesh fence with colorbond strip and acoustic fence).
▪ Koala exclusion fencing on the Bruce Highway between Skyring Creek at Federal and
Coles Creek Road (northern boundary of Noosa Council)
▪ Section B-K full length along eastern side (southbound lanes). Limited to fauna crossing
on northbound lanes.
▪ Section A through State forest is fenced along both sides (north of Mary River Road)
o Short exclusion fences on Cooroy Noosa Road around culverts only (mesh fence with colorbond
strip)
o Fauna underpass approximately 750m south of Coles Creek Road
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 20
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 30
General condition
Most existing koala exclusion fencing on Council roads is in poor condition and does not appear to be
maintained at an appropriate frequency to ensure function.
Defects include:
• Vegetation regrowth and branches within 3 metres of the existing koala fence
• Mature koala habitat trees flush with the existing fence
• Weeds/vines growing over existing fence
• Holes in the fence due to vandalism
• Gaps under the existing fence
• Colorbond sheet has come away from posts on retrofitted acoustic fence
• Gates have no colorbond sheet and/or there are gaps between the gates/fence
• No returns or the fencing is not long enough
• No escape routes are provided from existing fenced areas e.g. climbing poles or ramps
• No refuge poles or dry ledges in culverts associated with fencing
• Entrances to culverts or underpasses are overgrown with weeds
• No access track along the fence to allow easy maintenance
Some examples of the defects are shown in Plate 2.
Recommendations
It is recommended that all existing koala exclusion fencing is cleared of vegetation, mended and maintained
to prevent koalas from entering the road side. Current fencing could potentially be extended where there
are gaps between two sections of fencing. Recommendations include:
• clear/mulch regrowth vegetation within 3 metres of the fence where the loss of vegetation is not
greater than the benefit of a clear fence line.
• collar existing mature trees that are flush again fence
• spray weeds/vines that are climbing over the fence
• mend damaged fences that are leaning over or sections that have cuts or holes)
• fill up gaps underneath fences
• reattach where colorbond strips have come away from fence
• ensure gates are exclusion fencing (attach colorbond sheet or fix gaps in gates)
• extend returns if koala habitat or extend fencing where appropriate or possible to do so
• ensure fencing has escape routes (such as climbing poles or ramps) to allow escape should an animal
venture onto the road surface in a fenced area
• Ensure entrances to culverts or bridges associated with existing koala exclusion fencing are kept free of
weeds and have refuge poles
• Create an access track where possible for regular maintenance
4.1.2. Koala Climbing Structures
Existing koala climbing structures (Figure 10 and Plate 3) have been installed at:
• Edwards Street (lattice structures)
• Grant Street (climbing poles)
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 21
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 31
• Leslie Drive (climbing poles)
General Condition
All existing climbing structures are in moderate condition.
Recommendations
Continue to ensure climbing structures are in functional condition.
4.1.3. Koala and Wildlife Signage
Existing koala and wildlife signage (Figure 11) include a range of sign designs (Plate 4), including:
• Koala symbol (several types)
• ‘We live here too’ (koala and kangaroo symbol)
• Koalas next X metres
• Wildlife next X metres
• Give way to wildlife
A koala or wildlife rescue number is attached below some signs, providing contact details for Queensland
Koala Rescue or Wilvos.
General Condition
Most signage is in good condition. Defects include:
• signs obstructed by vegetation
• signs alert traffic travelling in only one direction and are not in an ideal position
• some sign designs are difficult to read or recognise and do not give motorists a quick and clear
understanding of the purpose of the sign
• some signs do not have a koala/wildlife rescue contact number attached
Recommendations
Recommendations include:
• ensure signage is visible to motorists and is appropriately placed to provide motorists with warning, trim
vegetation and/or relocate signs where necessary
• consider using a sign design, or range of designs for different applications, that provide motorists with a
quick and clear understanding of the purpose of the sign
o appropriate sized for hazard and speed zone
o high visibility
o signs that can be activated during times of peak koala activity e.g. vehicle activated signs
o the new upgrades to school zones signage, including high visibility and vehicle activated signs,
could be applied to koala crossing zones
4.1.4. Lighting
Most street lighting is provided along roads within built-up areas, particularly at intersections and
roundabouts. Rural roads have limited lighting.
Recommendations
Additional lighting may be beneficial at extreme pinch point crossings or unfenced areas where multiple hits
have been recorded.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 22
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 32
4.1.5. Speed limits
Many of the identified hotspot areas are within 80-100km/hr speed zones, including:
• Walter Hay Drive;
• Eenie Creek Road;
• McKinnon Drive;
• Cooroy Noosa Road;
• Lake MacDonald Drive;
• Traveston Road and Coles Creek Road;
• Junction Road, Lake Flat Road and Cootharaba Roads;
• Cooroy Belli Creek Road;
• Neusavale Road; and
• Pioneer Road.
Most other identified hotspot areas are within 40-60km/hr speed zones.
Recommendations
In very high risk or pinch point areas where there are multiple koala-collision records and hard infrastructure
is not feasible, practical changes to speed limits may increase driver and koala safety. In some cases, it may
be beneficial to extend lower speed zones to ensure that deceleration from or accelerating to higher speed
zones occur outside the hotspot area.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 23
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 33
Plate 2 Example defects – fencing Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 24 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 34
Plate 3 Examples – climbing structures Plate 4 Examples – koala and wildlife sign designs Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 25 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 35
4.2. Proposed New Infrastructure
General descriptions of and recommendations for new infrastructure are listed below. The recommendations
were informed by findings of the literature review and the results of the field audit. The general approach is
to:
• prevent koala access to the road surface and provide a passage way under the road where possible
• provide escape routes in areas where there are koala records or where there is potential for koalas to
become trapped on the road
• slow traffic and inform motorists of koala activity in areas where koalas must cross the road surface
Detailed accounts for each hotspot are in Section 4.3.
4.2.1. Koala Exclusion Fencing and Retrofitting Underpasses
Figure 12 highlights five regions where additional mitigation measures such as exclusion fencing and
retrofitting of underpasses are recommended.
It is recommended that koala exclusion fencing is extended, existing fencing is upgraded and associated
existing structures are retrofitted where appropriate on:
• Walter Hay Drive (south and north of existing fencing)
• Eenie Creek Road (east and west of existing fencing)
• Weyba Road
It is recommended that new koala exclusion fencing (in collaboration with DTMR) and associated culverts be
retrofitted on:
• Cooroy Noosa Road
• McKinnon Drive
4.2.2. Koala Climbing Structures
Figure 13 highlights potential barriers to koala movement with no escape routes including
• long concrete barrier walls (typically found on long bridges)
• high acoustic/timber fencing
• rock revetment/gabion walls.
Existing Concrete Barriers
Existing long concrete barriers could potentially trap a koala if it were to make its way onto a bridge,
particularly in areas where there are potential koala crossing points close by. Bridges of interest include:
• Monks Bridge
• Girraween Bridge
• Eenie Creek Bridge
Both Monks and Girraween Bridges have existing koala exclusion fences that abut to the bridge, however
there are gaps in the fencing where public pathways cross the fence line. If a koala were to enter onto the
bridge, there are currently no escape routes. There have been multiple koala strikes recorded close to Monks
Bridge and Eenie Creek Bridge entrances.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 26
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 36
It is recommended that, where practical and safe, existing barriers be retrofitted with appropriate koala exit
points such as climbing structures or one-way hatches and refuge poles be installed in median strips.
Acoustic Barriers or Fencing
Existing walls that are not climbable and have no existing climbing poles or trees flush with the fence may
present a barrier to koalas trapped on the road side of the barrier. It is recommended that sections of walls
(including existing exclusion fencing) located on Eenie Creek Road (north side) be investigated further to
ensure that there are no large sections without exit structures. Walls that may be considered for retrofitting
with additional climbing poles or trees planting include:
• Wall on Eenie Creek Road near roundabout at Monks Bridge (west)
• Wall on north side of Eenie Creek Road near Walter Hay Roundabout
Rock Revetment/Gabion Walls
Existing gabion walls and revetment walls can present a barrier to koala movement. Two notable sections of
road include:
• Revetment/gabion wall on Eenie Creek Road under Noosa Springs Drive overpass
• Rock revetment and concrete lattice on Noosa Drive
It is recommended that climbing structures be retrofitted to these walls where koalas may currently get
trapped.
4.2.3. Koala and Wildlife Signage
It is recommended that high visibility signage is installed in appropriate locations facing both traffic directions
on priority roads and any appropriate existing koala/wildlife signage is retrofitted with high visibility reflective
frames.
Locations where additional vehicle activated signage could be installed and activated during periods of peak
koala activity include:
• Weyba Road (between the RACV Noosa Resort roundabout and Weyba Bridge)
• Eenie Creek Road near Monks Bridge (east side)
4.2.4. Speed Limits
Three potential areas for speed reductions include:
• Weyba Road (from the RACV Noosa Resort roundabout) to West side of Weyba Bridge (reduce to
50km/hr)
• McKinnon Drive (move 80km/hr sign to extend the 60km/hr speed zone to ensure that deceleration
from or accelerating to 80km/hr occurs outside the hotspot area)
• Cooroy Noosa Road (move 80km/hr sign to extend the 60km/hr speed zone to ensure that deceleration
from or accelerating to 80km/hr occurs outside the hotspot area). A major pedestrian crossing between
a residential estate and a bus stop may help to justify this action.
4.3. Detailed Recommendations
Field assessments were broken into 21 regions. The audit and gap analysis identified potential for additional
hard and soft infrastructure within 10 of the regions. Figure 14 shows existing infrastructure and potential
areas for additional infrastructure. The 10 regions include:
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 27
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 37
• Walter Hay Drive
o Audit A – existing (Map 14a)
o Extension South (Map 14b)
o Extension North 1 (Map 14c)
o Extension North 2 (Map 14d)
• Eenie Creek Road
o Audit B – existing (including Links Drive) (Map 14e)
o Audit C - existing (Map 14f)
o Monks Bridge – west (Map 14g)
• Weyba Road and Leslie Drive (Map 14h)
• Cooroy Noosa Road/Beckmans Road (Map 14i)
• McKinnon Drive (Map 14j)
Detailed tables listing defects, gap analysis and recommendations are contained in Section 4.3.1. Photos
referred to within the tables are contained in Appendix D.
The audit and gap analysis identified potential for additional soft infrastructure within 11 of the regions.
Figure 15 shows existing infrastructure and potential areas for additional infrastructure. The 11 regions
include:
• Lake McDonald Drive (Map 15a)
• Noosa Drive and Grant Street (Map 15b)
• Noosa Heads (Park Road, Noosa Drive – northern end) (Map 15c)
• Solway Drive, Bryant Street, Heathland Drive and Edwards Street (Map 15d)
• Cooyar, Laguana and Noosa Springs Drive (Map 15e)
• Cootharaba (Lake Flat, Junction, and Cootharaba Roads) (Map 15f)
• Pomona (Pioneer Road) (Map 15g)
• Cooran (Coles Creek Road and Traveston Road) (Map 15h)
• Ridgewood (Cooroy Belli Creek Road/Old Ceylon Road) (Map 15i)
• Wust Road (Map 15j)
• Neusavale Rd/Sister Tree Creek Road (Map 15k)
Detailed tables listing defects, gap analysis and recommendations are contained in Section 4.3.2. Photos
referred to within the tables are contained in Appendix D.
A summary of estimated costs associated with the recommendations for each region is contained in Section
4.3.3.
Potential hard and soft mitigation measures have only been identified for major Council roads. Local roads
that have been identified as areas with very high connectivity and potential to be a high risk koala strike area
should be investigated further. Of interest are local roads that form part of a major tourist route and local
roads where speeding is an issue. Viewland Drive and Weyba Esplanade (Figure 8d) were identified in the
modelling and confirmed by local koala organisations as a high risk area due to high connectivity and
numerous koala sightings. The road is a tourist route that is located within Noosa National Park and leads to
Laguna Lookout. The speed limit along this road is 40km/hr, however, a high proportion of speeding motorists
have been observed. Weyba Esplanade has several koala signs and a reduced speed limit, however motorists
residents have complained about speeding motorists. It is recommended that koala signage is installed along
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 28
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 38
Viewland Drive and speed limiting devices are investigated along both these roads, particularly through the protected area estate where other fauna may frequently cross the road. Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 29 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 39
4.3.1. Hotspots for Hard and Soft Infrastructure
Table 2 Walter Hay Drive - Audit A (existing fence) (Figure 14a)
Koala Type Location/description Dimensions Condition/gaps Koala/fauna Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure evidence
Existing Hard Fencing Mesh with colorbond Approximately Poor condition. Defects include; Searches at • clear/mulch regrowth within 3 metres of the Photos Koala hit at south end of fencing. Also
strip 960m either side • Regrowth and branches within 3 metres of passageways (see fence 1 – mature hits to the north near Eenie Creek Bridge.
existing koala fence below) • collar existing mature trees flush again fence trees flush Recommend extend fencing to the south
• Mature koala habitat trees flush with • spray weeds/ vines climbing over the fence and north if feasible.
2- fence cut
existing fence • fix damaged fences (leaning over, cuts, holes)
• 3 – fence gap
• Weeds/vines growing over existing fence fill up gaps underneath fences
• Fence has been cut or damaged in several • extend returns or extend fencing to the south 4- fence return
places due to vandalism/vehicle and north (nth)
strike/vines/branches etc. • ensure fencing has escape routes (such as 5-fence return
• Gaps under existing fence climbing poles or ramps) (sth)
• No returns south end and/or fencing not • Create an access track where possible for
long enough regular and easy on-going maintenance
• No escape routes from existing fencing i.e.
climbing poles or ramps
• No access track for continued maintenance
Passageways Culvert 1: Hollet Road Box culvert: • Good condition, but no refuge poles or high None either side • Retrofit box culvert with ledge on one side for Photos Koalas vulnerable to predatory attack in
(both culverts abut (under Walter Hay Approx 3x3 dry ledges in associated culverts particularly of culvert. Lots of predatory reasons 6-7 Koala post long culvert with no high ledge. Council
to existing koala Drive). Small gravel road metres. 24m for predatory reasons wild dog poo. and rail to confirm if room to install ledge in road
exclusion fencing) runs through culvert. long. Fence ends underpass and current status of road as
8-9 Road closed
(not mapped in GIS layer) only 16metres road closed sign and locked gate.
sign
north of culvert
Culvert 2: 275m south of Box Culvert: • To DTMR standards however perhaps Yes several koala • Increase height of refuge poles inside culvert Photos
Hollet Road (not mapped Approx 3x3m, increase height of refuge poles inside scats eastern side • Spray entrances for weeds on eastern side and 10-12
in GIS layer) 18m long. culvert near post and rail. regularly maintain
natural surface, • Good condition apart from entrance east None on western
no water. side is overgrown with weeds/grass side
Retrofitted with
Koala post and
rail to DTMR
standards
Existing Barriers No - - - - - -
Existing soft Signage None on Walter Hay - - - - - Install high visibility signage at beginning
Drive and end of Walter Hay Drive (See
sections – extension sth and nth 2)
Speed 80-100km/hr - - - - -
Lighting No - - - - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately • Good visibility where koala fencing is close • Increase road side slashing strip and regularly Photos
visibility vegetated. to road verge. maintain particularly in breeding season 13
• Some sections 1-2m is slashed
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 30
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 40
Table 3 Walter Hay Drive - South Extension (Figure 14b)
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Proposed Hard Fencing Extend koala exclusion fencing to • 2 restricted access • None found close to • Extend existing mesh fence with colorbond strip 750-800 Photos Recent koala vehicle strike on this section
the south tracks to RSPCA and access track to metres south on both sides with long returns at end of close to where existing exclusion fencing
1-2 access tracks
Nature Refuge RSPCA (search west koala habitat. Include escape routes and access ends.
• Council (RSPCA) west side only). maintenance track. Locate fence as close as possible to
Good gums closer to the roadside. Better
side and Weyba road verge for better visibility
habitat on eastern side.
Nature Refuge east • Install 2 koala exclusion gates at the 2 restricted access
side tracks
Passageways No existing structures (only culverts - - - - Retrofitted culvert with koala post and rail
to the north associated with existing 660m North
koala exclusion fencing)
Existing Barriers No - - - - -
Proposed soft Signage None on Walter Hay Drive - - • Install high visibility koala signage northbound Also install one southbound at northern end
of Walter Hay Drive
Speed 80-100km/hr - - - - -
Lighting No - - - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated - - • Increase road side slashing strip and regularly maintain
visibility particularly in breeding season
Table 4 Walter Hay Drive - North Extension 1 (Figure 14c)
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Proposed Hard Fencing Extend koala exclusion fencing to • 3 restricted access - • Extend existing mesh fence with colorbond strip 900m Photos Several koala mortalities close to Eenie Creek
the north and abut to Eenie Creek tracks (powerline north on both sides to Eenie Creek Bridge. Include escape Bridge south entrance
1-powerline
Bridge easement both sides, routes and access maintenance track. Locate fence as
access Council to confirm location of access to
service track for close as possible to road verge for better visibility
2-service track to private property.
accessing under Eenie • Install 3 koala exclusion gates at the 3 restricted access
tracks under bridge
Creek Road Bridge.
Council to confirm 3- Council to
location of access to confirm location
private property. of access to
• Road reserve and private property.
private
Passageways • Underneath Eenie Creek - • No koala scats found • Eenie Creek Road may require refuge poles 4-6 under Eenie
Bridge (south). Good either side of Eenie Creek Bridge (sth)
Passageway, light and open. Creek Bridge (sth)
Good height underneath, 15m
width, 40m from pylon to
creek edge
• Large Box culvert on Hollet
Road 290m south already
abuts to existing koala
exclusion fencing. Not mapped
in GIS layer.
Existing Barriers Yes – Concrete barriers on Eenie - - • Provide lattice structures on barrier walls ensuring 7- Eenie Creek -
Creek Bridge enough room for bicycles Bridge concrete
barriers
Proposed soft Signage None on Walter Hay Drive - - Also koala signage at both ends of road
Speed 80-100km/hr - - - - -
Lighting No - - - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated - - • Increase road side slashing strip where possible and
visibility regularly maintain particularly in breeding season
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 31
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 41
Table 5 Walter Hay Drive - North Extension 2 (Figure 14d)
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Proposed Hard Fencing Extend koala exclusion fencing to • Pathway from Walter - • West side Option 1: Extend existing mesh fence with Photos • 3 recorded koala mortalities close
the north (several options) Hay Drive underpass colorbond strip 90m north to end of council reserve and roundabout near Walter Hay Drive
1- access tracks to
(outside Noosa Civic high koala habitat (note short existing non-koala Underpass
under bridge
Centre) along Eenie exclusion fence bridge entrance) • Council to confirm there is enough
• West side Option 2: Extend existing mesh fence with 2-exist short non-
Creek Road to Monks room for fencing between road and
colorbond strip 850m north to Noosa Civic Shopping koala exclusion
Bridge powerline on eastern side, otherwise
Centre Access fence on bridge
• Service track for under end fence earlier and install long return
• East side Option 1: Extend existing mesh fence with entrance (west
Eenie Creek Bridge
colorbond strip 460m north to end of Council reserve side only)
(nth)
• Service track for • East side Option 2: Extend existing mesh fence with 3-powerline runs
powerline easement colorbond strip 1400m north to Eenie Creek Road to along road
• Council either side deter koalas from entering roundabout. Will require 2
after bridge, private koala exclusion gates (powerline access, service track for
and Noosa NP bridge)
Ensure escape routes and access maintenance track installed on
any new fencing. Locate fence as close as possible to road verge
for better visibility
Passageways • Underneath Eenie Creek - • No koala scats found • Refuge poles under Eenie Creek Bridge 4-6 under Eenie Exclude Walter Hay Drive underpass due to
Bridge (north). Good either side of Eenie Creek Bridge (nth) safety and public access issues. Minimal
Passageway, light and open. Creek Bridge (nth) 7-9 – Walter Hay connectivity west side of underpass to justify.
Good height underneath, 15m • No koala scats found Drive underpass
width, 130m from pylon to either side of Walter
creek edge Hay Drive underpass
• Walter Hay Drive Underpass • No koala scats found
(unsuitable). Box culvert for north side of Eenie
bike and pedestrian access. Creek Road near
Retrofitting with ledge may easement and in
create safety issues for bikes reserve
and minimal connectivity to
justify. Koala habitat not
visible from west side
Existing Barriers • Concrete barriers on Eenie - - • Provide lattice structures on barrier walls, ensure enough 10 – wall Eenie Several hits near roundabout
Creek Bridge room for bicycles Creek Rd
• wall on north side of Eenie • Install additional climbing poles on Eenie Creek wall west 11 – no culvert
Creek Road where there are section only where the wall is unclimbable. (weedy easement)
no trees or climbing poles
installed. West section only
Proposed soft Signage None on Walter Hay Drive - - • Install high visibility koala signage southbound
Speed 60-80km/hr - - - - -
Lighting Yes from Eenie Creek Bridge to - - - - -
Walter Hay Pass Roundabout
Road verge Predominately vegetated including - - • Increase road side slashing strip where possible and 12-Median strips
visibility vegetated median strips regularly maintain particularly in breeding season
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 32
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 42
Table 6 Eenie Creek Road – Walter Hay Drive Underpass to Monks Bridge (Figure 14e)
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Proposed Hard Fencing • Upgrade existing fence to • Pathway from Walter • No koala scats found • Option 1: Upgrade existing fence to koala exclusion Photos • 3 recorded koala mortalities close
koala exclusion fencing on Hay Drive underpass in vegetation strip fencing (with escape poles) and install a new koala roundabout near Walter Hay Drive
1-exist short non-
Monks Bridge entrance (west (outside Noosa Civic between Eenie exclusion fence on Monks Bridge entrance to deter koalas Underpass
koala exclusion
side) or extend koala exclusion Centre) along Eenie Creek Road and bike from entering onto bridge. • Dual carriageway with bike lane.
fence on bridge
fencing from Walter Hay Drive Creek Road to dog path • Option 2 (low priority): Extend koala exclusion fencing • Lower priority for fence. Little habitat
entrance (sth side
to Monks Bridge. exercise area on 1700m east along Eenie Creek Road (south side only and north of Eenie Creek Road.
only)
Weyba esplanade via south of existing pathway) with return at end of Noosa
under Monks Bridge NP to divert koalas under Monks Bridge and deter koalas 2-eenie Creek
• Noosa NP south side entering Eenie Creek Road (dual carriageway), Monks Road southside
of Eenie Creek Road. Bridge and roundabout. Gap where public pathway goes
Private (residential under Monks Bridge. More investigation required.
estates) north side of
Eenie Creek Road
Ensure escape routes and access maintenance track installed on
however restricted/no
any new fencing. Locate fence as close as possible to road verge
access from Eenie
for better visibility
Creek Road into
estates.
Passageways • Underneath Monks Bridge - • No koala scats found • No refuge poles required under Monks Bridge. Plenty of 3-5 under Monks • Potential to establish a local koala
(west). Good Passageway, under Monks bridge melaleuca trees and natural habitat underneath. Bridge (west) corridor from Weyba Noosa NP to
light and open (natural habitat • No koala scats found • Spray for Singapore Daisy under Monks bridge Weyba Bridge via Monks Bridge through
along creek line, pathway and either side of Walter plantings and ensuring dogs on leash in
local road (Lake Weyba Drive) Hay Drive underpass exercise area
all occur under bridge). Good • No koala scats found • Exclude Walter Hay Drive underpass
height underneath, 14m north side of Eenie due to safety and public access issues.
width, 70m from pylon to Creek Road near Minimal connectivity west side of
creek edge easement and in underpass
• Walter Hay Drive Underpass reserve
(unsuitable due to potential
public safety issues).
Existing Barriers • Koala climbing poles installed - - • Provide lattice structures on barrier walls ensuring 6 – wall with Several sightings near roundabout at Monks
on wall barrier Eenie Creek enough room for bicycles climbing pols Bridge
Road (nth side on sections) • Provide escape poles on existing fence that abuts to Eenie Creek Rd
• Climbing poles and flaps Monks Bridge 7-8 – wall with
installed on wall outside • Install additional climbing poles on Eenie Creek wall near climbing poles and
retirement village along Monks Bridge roundabout flaps outside
pathway near Monks Bridge retirement village
• Concrete barriers on Monks
9- concrete
Bridge
barriers Monks
• Existing fence on Monks Bridge
Bridge
• Non-koala exclusion wall near 10-wall barrier
roundabout at Monks Bridge with no climbing
on north side of Eenie Creek poles near
Road with no trees or climbing roundabout
poles installed.
Proposed soft Signage None on Walter Hay Drive - - • Install high visibility koala signage eastbound and
westbound
Speed 60-80km/hr - - - - -
Lighting Near roundabouts only - - - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated on south - - • Increase road side slashing strip where possible and
visibility side. regularly maintain particularly in breeding season
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 33
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 43
Table 7 Eenie Creek Road - Audit B (existing fence) (Figure 14f)
Koala Type Location/description Dimensions Condition/gaps Koala/fauna Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure evidence
Existing Hard Fencing Combination of floppy approx. 2km in Poor condition. Defects include; Yes in narrow • clear/mulch regrowth within 3 metres of Photos 5 recorded koala mortalities near
koala exclusion fencing total of koala • Regrowth and branches within 3 metres strip of the fence 1-19 Monks Bridge (east) within 300m of
and acoustic walls exclusion of existing koala fence vegetation • collar existing mature trees flush again existing koala exclusion fencing. Large
retrofitted with fencing • Mature koala habitat trees flush with between Eenie fence gap between fencing and Monks
colorbond sheeting existing fence Creek Road and • spray weeds/ vines climbing over the fence Bridge. Recommend extend fencing
(refer to Map x for • Weeds/vines growing over existing fence pathway close to • fix damaged fences (leaning over, cuts, on south of road back closer to Monks
locations) where existing holes) Bridge (east). A gap for public
• Fence has been cut or damaged in several
koala exclusion • reattach colorbond sheeting pathway unavoidable but will reduce
places due to vandalism/vehicle
fence stops • fill up gaps underneath fences risk.
strike/vines/branches etc.
• Colorbond sheeting come away in • extend returns or extend fencing 315m
sections westwards on south side of Eenie Creek 1 recorded koala mortality west of
• Gaps under existing fence Road back closer to Monks Bridge (between Noosa Springs Drive overpass
• No returns south end and/or fencing not road and pathway). Leave gap at pathway
long enough similar to fencing further up Eenie Creek Rd
• Existing gate on koala exclusion fencing • upgrade existing fence near Monks Bridge
has no colorbond sheeting and has a large to be koala exclusion fencing
gap. • Retrofit existing gate with colorbond sheet
• Section of fencing too short and fix gap
• No escape routes from existing fencing • Increase height of existing koala exclusion
i.e. climbing poles or ramps fencing in section (1.5m high)
• No access track for continued • ensure fencing has escape routes (such as
maintenance climbing poles or ramps)
• Create an access track where possible for
regular and easy on-going maintenance
Passageways Monks Bridge (east) Good height • Good natural passageway under bridge, Yes koala scats • Install some refuge poles under bridge Photos
(both culverts underneath, light and habitat visible either side. In found both sides • Fix gap between fence and bridge abutment 20- good passageway
abut to existing 230m from good condition. under Monk • Spray weeds at entrance under bridge under Monks Bridge
koala exclusion creek edge to • Dry but no refuge poles. bridge and in • Trim back any vegetation overhangs 21-
fencing) bridge pylon • Slight gap between fence and bridge Weyba Bushland • Collar any existing trees to prevent koalas mangroves/waterlogged
11 metre width • Weedy entrance Reserve entering onto bridge towards Ck
Large open • Some vegetation overhangs on bridge
22- tree flush with
area, drier • Some mall melaleuca trees right beside
bridge
towards the bridge that a small koala could potentially
climb onto bridge 23-veg overhangs on
east, mangroves
bridge
towards creek
Culvert 1: Box Culvert: • Water can run through. No dry Not on south • Retrofit culvert with high and dry ledge Photos
2.1m x 2.1m, passageway at times and risk of predators side. Search • Spray entrances for weeds and regularly 24-large box culvert to
33m length, • Some weeds eastern entrance restricted north maintain retrofit
natural surface, • No refuge poles at northern entrance entrance area • Melaleuca trees on south entrance. Install
25-pipe culverts
water runs due to dogs in refuge poles north side
unsuitable to retrofit
through at vicinity.
times. Pipe However, scats
culverts too found 80m east
short for of culvert in
retrofitting. narrow
vegetation strip
between Eenie
Creek Road and
Noosa Springs
Drive
Noosa Springs Drive • No escape routes from predators. Refuge • Install refuge poles Photos
Overpass (road overpass poles 26-floppy fence abuts
with pedestrian path) • Floppy koala exclusion fencing straight as overpass
abuts to overpass (unavoidable)
27-overpass
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 34
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 44
Koala Type Location/description Dimensions Condition/gaps Koala/fauna Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure evidence
Existing Barriers Monks Bridge concrete - No escape routes if koala enters onto Monks - Install lattice or other climbing device if enough -
barriers bridge or under Noosa Springs Drive Overpass room
Wall under Noosa No escape routes if koala enters onto Monks Install climbing devices on wall 28 – gabion walls under
Springs Drive overpass bridge or under Noosa Springs Drive Overpass Noosa Springs Drive
Overpass
Existing soft Signage One westbound before - - - Upgrade existing signage with high visibility - Install high visibility signage at
Monks Bridge signage and install koala signage eastbound just beginning and end of Walter Hay
after Monks Bridge Drive (See sections – extension sth
and nth 2)
Speed 80km/hr - - - - -
Lighting No - - - Potential for car activated solar lighting near -
entrance to Monks bridge (and where there will
be an avoidable gap in fencing). Pinch point
crossing area.
Road verge Predominately • Good visibility where koala fencing is Regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding
visibility vegetated. close to road verge. season
• Some sections 1-2m is slashed
Table 8 Eenie Creek Road - Audit C (existing fence) (Figure 14g)
Koala Type Location/description Dimensions Condition/gaps Koala/fauna Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure evidence
Existing Hard Fencing Combination of approx. 900m of Poor condition. Defects include; • clear/mulch regrowth within 3 metres of the Photos 1 recorded koala mortality west of
retrofitted acoustic walls koala exclusion • Regrowth and branches within 3 metres of fence 1 – acoustic Langura/Eenie Creek Road roundabout
with colorbond sheets as fencing from existing koala fence • collar existing mature trees flush again fence one side, mesh
well as mesh fencing Langura Street • Mature koala habitat trees flush with • spray weeds/ vines climbing over the with colorbond
with colorbond fence to Ben Lexan existing fence fence/gates other side
from Langura/Eenie Drive • Weeds/vines growing over existing fence & • fix damaged fences (leaning over, cuts, holes) 2-fencing abuts
Creek Road roundabout 2 gaps in fencing gates • fill up gaps underneath fences to Girraween
through to Ben Lexan •
for public • Fence has been cut or damaged in several ensure fencing has escape routes (such as bridge
Drive (refer to Map x for footpaths climbing poles or ramps)
places due to vandalism/vehicle 3-gap in
locations) • Create an access track where possible for
strike/vines/branches etc. fencing near
• Gaps under existing fence regular and easy on-going maintenance
school
• No returns north end, returns on south end
4-gap in
• No escape routes from existing fencing i.e.
fencing near
climbing poles or ramps
Girraween
• No access track for continued maintenance
bridge
Gaps in fencing due to public footpath
• eastern side of Girraween bridge (south
side of Eenie Creek Rd)
• near Primary School where pedestrian
footpath from school comes out onto Ben
Lexan Drive (Eenie Creek Road North side)
Passageways Girraween Bridge (eco- Natural koala • Good natural passageway under bridge No Koala scats Photos
(both culverts abut bridge) abuts to existing habitat found either east 5-koala
to existing koala exclusion fencing underneath. of Girraween exclusion gate
exclusion fencing) Good Bridge on south
6-koala
passageway side.
exclusion gate
needs spraying
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 35
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 45
Koala Type Location/description Dimensions Condition/gaps Koala/fauna Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure evidence
Koala Footbridge abuts Timber • No refuge poles however minimal koala No Koala scats Photos
to existing exclusion footbridge habitat and connectivity in area and no found either side 7-timber
fencing. Connects koala scats found. Suggest more monitoring of footbridge footbridge
primary school to aquatic in area.
8-exclusion
centre
fencing abuts
to footbridge
9-small access
track helps
maintains
fence
Culverts west of Langura • No escape routes from predators. Refuge • Install refuge poles Photos
Street – unsuitable for poles 10-13
retrofitting as too small
and entrances too wet
and swampy
Existing Barriers Girraween concrete - No escape routes if koala enters onto Girraween - Install lattice or other climbing device if enough Photo -
barriers Bridge room 14 – concrete
barriers
Existing soft Signage 1 koala sign eastbound - • Qld Koala rescue numbers hard to read (too - • Upgrade 2 existing signs with high visibility -
before Langura St/Eenie small) signage and install koala signage westbound
Creek Road roundabout • No signage for motorists entering Eenie on Eenie Creek Road (just west of Ben Lexan
and one sign on Creek Road from Ben Lexan Drive Drive)
Heathland Drive • Increase size/or easier to remember for Qld
Westbound Koala rescue numbers etc.
• Locate signage where motorists can pull over
Speed 60km/hr (reduces to - - - - -
40km/hr in school zone
Eastern end)
Lighting No - - - - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately low • Good visibility where koala fencing is close -
visibility scrubs along roadside to road verge and low scrubs along
roadverge.
Table 9 Weyba Road (Figure 14h)
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Proposed Hard Fencing • Upgrade and install koala • Pedestrian footpath • Retrofit existing chain wire fence (approx. 250m) on Photos • 3 recorded koala mortalities on Weyba
exclusion fencing either side from cricket ground south side of bridge with sheeting to deter koalas from Bridge
1 - exist fence near
of Weyba Bridge entrance to over bridge to council entering Weyba Bridge. • 2 recorded koala mortalities outside
Weyba bridge
deter koalas from entering reserve other side. • Install approx. 180m of koala exclusion fencing on RACV roundabout on Weyba Rd
(east side) and
Weyba Bridge. • Council both sides of entrances to north side of Weyba bridge East side section of possible
Weyba Road (east of
koala exclusion
Weyba Bridge) and
Ensure escape routes are installed on any new fencing or fencing
Council reserve/CP on
west side of Weyba existing fencing on bridge. Locate fence as close as possible to 2-potential gap in
Bridge road verge for better visibility fencing due to
pathway access
3 - exist fence near
Weyba bridge
(west side) and
section of possible
koala exclusion
fencing
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 36
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 46
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Passageways • Underneath Weyba Bridge). - • Yes koala scats both • Inaccessible under Weyba Bridge with dog. More 4-5 under Weyba Potential to enhance local corridor between
Not ideal passageway. Habitat side of Weyba monitoring/ field investigation. Plant if possible some bridge Weyba footbridge area and Noosa NP via
not highly visible either side. Bridge (eastern habitat trees under Weyba Bridge and/or install refuge under Monks Bridge. Plant trees and ensure
6-7 – Weyba
Steep and only small amount side). No koala scats poles. dogs kept on leash in dog exercise area
footbridge
of room around bridge found at cricket • Install refuge poles on Weyba Footbridge and signage on
footings. ground. bridge for dog owners to keep dogs on a leash.
• Weyba Footbridge (timber) • Yes koala scats
and koalas have been sighted found both side of
on the bridge Weyba footbridge
Existing Barriers • Weyba Bridge - - • Provide refuge poles on Weyba bridge 8 – climbing poles
• Gabion walls retrofitted with on gabion walls
climbing poles on Leslie Drive
are in good condition
Proposed soft Signage Koala signage on Weyba Bridge, - - • Install high visibility koala signage westbound before
Leslie Drive and multiple along Weyba bridge at potential pinch point crossing area
Weyba Esplanade (see map for where unavoidable fencing gap may be.
locations) • Install high visibility koala signage eastbound before
entering Weyba bridge
• Upgrade existing signage on Leslie Drive and move
existing signage (southbound) back closer to RACV
roundabout.
Speed 60km/hr (40km/hr advisory on - - • Reduce speed limit to 50km/hr in breeding season from - -
Leslie Drive near roundabout) roundabout to across Weyba Bridge
• Potential for traffic calming along Weyba Esplanade and
Weyba Road between Weyba Bridge and the roundabout
Lighting Lighting only near RACV roundabout - - • Potential for car activated solar lighting near fencing gap - -
into reserve or perhaps trailer with speed limit and
lighting during breeding season. Pinch point crossing.
Road verge Predominately vegetated along - - • Ensure small section of roadside is kept mown
visibility Weyba Road from RACV particularly during breeding season
roundabout to Weyba Bridge and
also start of Leslie Drive adjacent
council reserve
Table 10 Cooroy Noosa Road (Figure 14i)
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Proposed Hard Fencing Option to install koala exclusion • Large road reserve and - • Install 250m of koala exclusion fencing either side of Photos 4 recorded koala mortalities in this vicinity of
fencing from Carrama Street to council reserve North Cooroy Noosa Road where koalas may be travelling Cooroy Noosa Road
1-2 Section of
Grittith Avenue where koalas may side of Cooroy Noosa between council reserve and Tewantin NP.
Cooroy Noosa Rd
be travelling between council Road and NP south • Collaborate with DTMR regarding other measures on
reserve and Tewantin NP. Koalas side. Can install long Cooroy Noosa Road where it becomes State controlled
can be diverted under large box returns or investigate
culvert at Wooroi Creek. However extending fencing
only 100m extension from culvert. further north in
Too short DTMR standards collaboration with
DTMR.
• Existing pathway nth
side, section of
pathway sth side from
bus stop to refuge
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 37
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 47
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
crossing. Small bush
track into NP east of
Carrama Street (none
will impact on fence)
Passageways • Large Box culvert (3060h x - • No koala scats found • Retrofit large box culvert at Wooroi Creek with high dry 3- Large box
3000w, 19.7m length) on either side of large ledge culvert Wooroi Ck
Cooroy Noosa Road at Wooroi culvert at Wooroi Ck 4-pipe culverts
Ck. Open and light, Water • No koala scats in unsuitable)
stains to suggest water to Tewantin NP near
5-pipe culvert
0.5m high sometimes Beckmans Rd.
unsuitable
• 2 other pipe culverts (1200 & Recent fire in NP)
1350 diameter) in vicinity but
too small in height to retrofit
Existing Barriers No - - - - -
Proposed soft Signage One on Beckmans Road heading - - • Install koala signage on Cooroy Noosa Road both
southbound. None on Cooroy westbound and eastbound
Noosa Road
Speed 60-80km/hr (60km/hr near - - • Move 80km/hr back further west so traffic eastbound - -
Beckmans road then increases to 80 slows down earlier. There is also a pedestrian refuge
westbound on Cooroy Noosa Road. island between bus stop and residential estate that may
give more justification to reduce speed limit in this area.
Lighting Only near Beckmans Road and Aged - - - - No pinch point crossing
Care facility
Road verge Predominately vegetated on south - - • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding
visibility side of Cooroy Noosa Road and both season
sides where proposed exclusion
fencing will go.
Table 11 McKinnon Drive (Figure 14j)
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Proposed Hard Fencing Option to install koala exclusion • Conservation park - • Install 150m of koala exclusion fencing either side of Photos No recorded koala mortalities on this section
fencing from Noosa Links Estate to west side and NP east McKinnon Drive where koalas may be travelling between of council road but many recorded on
1-2 Section of
State controlled section. side. Can install long CP and NP. Long return sth end behind Noosa Links McKinnon Drive that is state controlled
McKinnon Drive
Collaborate with DTMR regarding return sth end near Estate. Locate fence as close as possible to Road verge
outside of pathway. Need to collaborate with DTMR 3-informal access
extending fencing further north. Noosa Links Estate or
regarding extending fence further north to make it viable Possible koala exclusion fencing but need to
investigate extending
• Potentially koala exclusion gate for informal access track collaborate with DTMR about extending
fencing further north
Koalas may be travelling between unless it can be accessed from somewhere else further north to make it justifiable. Suggest
in collaboration with
Great Sandy NP and Harry Springs • Ensure fencing maintained. Too swampy for access track. collaborating with DTMR on possible
DTMR.
CP. Koalas can be diverted under Maintain short section by foot. measures to reduce koala mortality
• Existing pathway east
large box culvert. • Collaborate with DTMR regarding other measures on
side and footbridge to
the sth (wont impact) McKinnon Drive where it becomes State controlled
• 1 informal access track
to utilities near nth
culvert
Passageways • Large Box culvert on - • Yes koala scats • Retrofit large box culvert with high dry ledge 4-7 – nth culvert
McKinnon Drive. Open and found either side of potentially retrofit
light, Water stains to suggest large culvert. 8- sth culvert
water to 0.5m high Numerous under unsuitable
sometimes. 2150 (h) x 3050 melaleuca tree on
(w) 13.5m length east side of culvert
• Culvert to the south not very in cool area
suitable to retrofit. And suggesting koala
visits often.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 38
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 48
Koala Location/type Description/Condition Access/ tenure Koala fauna/evidence Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
cannot extend fencing very far
south
Existing Barriers No - - - - -
Proposed soft Signage No signage apart from one koala - - • Install high visibility koala signage on northbound and
sign at the northern end of southbound on this section of road (collaborate with
McKinnon Drive DTMR on southbound location)
Speed 60-80km/hr (increases to 80km/hr - - • Move 80km/hr back further north on McKinnon Drive so 9 – move 60km/hr -
when just west of large box culvert) motorists slow down earlier. back
Lighting Only near Noosa Links estate - - - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated on both - - • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding
visibility sides. season
4.3.2. Hotspots for Soft Infrastructure
Table 12 Lake MacDonald Drive (near Lake Macdonald Bridge) (Figure 15a)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage ‘We live here too’ wildlife signage in • No specific koala signage • Retain existing signage and add high visibility reflective frame if koala sightings Photos Lake MacDonald Bridge is a good passageway
vicinity in both directions on road. Perhaps add wildlife/koala rescue numbers below existing wildlife however not feasible to install koala exclusion
1-Lake
signage. fencing as traffic volume only medium, no
MacDonald
Bridge recorded strikes on sightings on or near road,
private access south of bridge, bridge often
2-3 Under
floods.
bridge
Speed 80km/hr (70km/hr advisory speed around - - -
bend)
Lighting No - - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated. • Roadside slashed in • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding season
visibility some section approx. 2-
3m from road verge
Table 13 Noosa Drive (southern end) and Grant Street (Figure 15b)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • There is a ‘We live here too’ sign • Koala signage • Install high visibility koala signage southbound on Noosa Drive just after the Photo of • Climbing poles installed on Gabion walls
along Noosa Drive southbound near southbound on Noosa Junction. climbing poles along Grant St. In good condition.
Lunar Crescent Drive. • Retrofit existing signage on Noosa Drive and Grant Street with high reflective
• Koala signage northbound on Noosa frames and koala/wildlife rescue no’s
Drive near the Junction roundabout
• Koala signage in both directions on
Grant St
Speed 60km/hr - - - Reduce to 50km/hr closer to RACV roundabout
during breeding season
Lighting In sections (intersections and - - - No pinch point crossing
roundabouts)
Road verge Predominately vegetated in sections • Heathlands Drive slashed • Ensure regular roadside slashing on Heathlands Drive particularly in breeding
visibility in some sections season
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 39
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 49
Table 14 Noosa Heads (Parks Road and Noosa Drive – northern end) Figure 15c)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • No existing koala or wildlife signage • No signage on Parks • Install high visibility koala signage on Neusavale Road (southbound), Sister Photos of Potential barriers on Noosa Drive (concrete lattice
on Parks Road Road Tree Creek Road (northbound), Park Road, Gap Road (eastbound) and concrete and gabion walls). Install climbing devices if
• ‘We live here too’ signage on Noosa Viewland Drive lattice and considered barriers.
Drive gabion walls
1-2
Speed • Parks Road – 40km/hr - - -
• Noosa Drive – 40-60km/hr
Lighting Yes - - -
Road verge Highly vegetated • Roadside barriers and -
visibility footpaths don’t allow for
roadside slashing
Table 15 Solway Drive, Bryan St, Heathland Drive, and Edwards Street (Figure 15d)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Photos Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • No existing koala or wildlife signage • No signage in vicinity • Install high visibility koala signage on Solway Drive eastbound, Bryan Street Photo of • Lattice structures spaced <50m apart over a
on Solway Drive. northbound, Heathland Drive eastbound with koala/wildlife rescue contact lattice stretch of 300m on Edwards Street are in
• There is a ‘We live here too’ sign no’s structures good condition.
towards the north end of Bryan St. • Retrofit existing koala signage on Edwards Street and Heathlands Drive with • Koalas scats found in Ferris Park (not many
• There are 3 existing koala signs on high visibility frames habitat trees but maybe moving in from
Edwards Street in both directions (2 Noosa NP)
signs north end are koala symbol
only, sign south end has koala
rescue no’s)
• There is a koala sign on Heathland
Drive with Koala rescue no’s
Speed • Solway Drive and Bryant Street – - - -
50km/hr
• Edwards Street and Heathland Drive
– 60km/hr
Lighting In sections, at intersections and - - - No pinch point crossing
roundabouts
Road verge • Solway Drive, Bryant Street and • Heathlands Drive slashed • Ensure regular roadside slashing on Heathlands Drive particularly in breeding
visibility Edwards Street - Pathways, in some sections season
scattered trees and housing
• Heathlands Drive - Predominately
vegetated in sections
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 40
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 50
Table 16 Cooyar St, Laguna and Noosa Springs Drive (Figure 15e)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • Koala signage Langura Street and • Install high visibility koala signage both directions on Cooyar Street and
Cooyar Street southbound with northbound on Langura St
koala rescue no’s • Retrofit existing signage with high reflective frames
• ‘We live here too southbound on
Noosa Springs Drive
• ‘Koala signage’ northbound on
Noosa Springs Drive
Speed Cooyar and Langura Street - 60km/hr - -
Lighting In sections (intersections and - - No pinch point crossing
roundabouts)
Road verge Predominately vegetated in sections. • Mowed strips along all
visibility roads
Table 17 Cootharaba (Lake Flat Rd, Cootharaba Rd, Junction Rd) (Figure 15f)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • ‘We live here too’ wildlife signage • No existing wildlife or • Install high visibility koala signage on Junction Rd, Lake Flat Road and
on Junction Road and Kidneys Road koala signage Cootharaba Road with ‘Next 1km’ in high connectivity sections of road. Retain
off Lake Flat Rd existing ‘We live here too on Junction Rd’ signage
• Collaborate with DTMR regarding high visibility koala signage and potential
koala exclusion fencing on DTMR roads such as McKinnon Drive and Louis
Bazzo Drive
Speed Predominately 80km/hr - -
Lighting No - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated. • Roadside slashed in • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding season
visibility some sections
Table 18 Pomona (Pioneer Rd) (Figure 15g)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • 1 ‘We live here too’ sign with Wilvos • No existing wildlife or • Install high visibility koala signage on Pioneer Road northbound
number on Pioneer Road koala signage • Collaborate with DTMR to install high visibility koala signage on
northbound (kangaroo symbol o Reserve Street southbound just after Rifle St
only). No other signage in vicinity o Pomona Connection Road northbound
Speed Predominately 80km/hr - -
Lighting No - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated. • Roadside slashed in • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding season
visibility some sections
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 41
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 51
Table 19 Cooran (Traveston Road and Coles Creek Rd) (Figure 15h)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • No existing signage on either road • No existing wildlife or • Install high visibility koala signage both eastbound and westbound on both
koala signage Traveston and Coles Creek Rd
Speed Predominately 80km/hr - -
Lighting No - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated. • Roadside slashed in • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding season
visibility some sections
Table 20 Cooroy Belli Creek Rd/Ceylon Road (Figure 15i)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • Koala signage on Cooroy Belli Creek • Koala signage in • Retain existing signage (3 signs) and retrofit with high visibility reflective
Road with Wilvo’s rescue number appropriate location on frame. Collaborate with SCC on existing signage on Ceylon Rd.
either side of West Cooroy State Cooroy Belli Creek Road • Install high visibility koala signage just before intersection of Cooroy Belli Creek
Forest in both directions at SF. Road and Old Ceylon Road westbound (for traffic travelling west along Cooroy
• ‘We live here too’ signage on north • koala signage Belli Creek Road and traffic travelling southbound on Old Ceylon Rd)
end of Old Ceylon Road and
southern end of Ceylon Road (both
with Wilvo’s rescue no’s)
Speed Predominately 80km/hr - -
Lighting No - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated. • Roadside slashed in • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding season
visibility some sections
Table 21 Wust/Beddington Road (Figure 15j)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • Existing signage on Lenehans Lane • None existing on Wust • Install high visibility koala signage on Wust and Beddington Roads (collaborate
both directions or Beddington Rds (in with SCC precise location) with wildlife/koala rescue contact no’s
NSC) unless already • Retrofit existing signage on Lenehans Lane with high visibility frame and
located SCC. Collaborate wildlife/koala rescue contact numbers underneath
with SCC.
Speed Advisory 40km/hr around bend - -
Lighting No - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated • Roadside slashed in • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding season
visibility some sections
Table 22 Neusavale Road/Sister Tree Creek Road (Figure 15k)
Koala Type Location/description Condition/gaps Recommendations Comments
Infrastructure
Existing soft Signage • No existing koala or wildlife signage • No signage in vicinity • Install high visibility koala signage on Neusavale Road (southbound), Sister
in vicinity Tree Creek Road (northbound) and Gap Road (eastbound)
Speed Advisory 30km/hr on windy range (sister - -
Tree Creek Rd) and 80km/hr on
Neusavale Rd
Lighting No - - No pinch point crossing
Road verge Predominately vegetated • Roadside slashed in • Ensure regular roadside slashing particularly in breeding season
visibility some sections
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 42
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 52
4.3.3. Cost Estimates
Estimated rates were gathered from suppliers and Noosa Council, as indicated in Table 23.
Table 23 Estimated rates
Item Rate Assumptions/Source
New Koala exclusion fencing $170/m Estimated supply and install from Bryan O’Conner asset planning coordinator,
capital works NC
Double Gate set $975ea Supply and install estimate. Gunter Keil, Fencescape
Road Sign $300ea Craig Eldridge design coordinator road design NC
Standard signs:
- remove existing sign: $50
- supply and install <750mm sign: $150
- supply and install >750mm sign: $300
Signage is likely to be similar to new school zone signage – high visibility and
vehicle activated solar signs
To follow Noosa Design Principles
Culvert retrofit for fauna crossing Supply and install estimate. David Sullivan, Netting.com.au
Fauna Crossing (hardwood post) $440/m
Fauna Crossing (treated pine) $390/m
Fauna Shelf (treated pine sleeper) $180/m
Refuge Pole $970ea
Koala Refuge Post $2490ea Supply and install estimate. Dean Addicott, Fencepac
Steel sleeve will prevent koalas from climbing in to the road corridor from the
outside
Lattice on concrete barrier $1950ea Supply and install estimate assuming 2400mm wide x 3000mm high. Dean
Addicott, Fencepac
Craig Eldridge design coordinator road design NC indicates that these are
possible solutions. Allowance must be available for cyclists.
Cost estimates associated with recommendations for each of the regions are provided in Appendix E and
summarised in Table 24. Note that:
• Culvert retrofit assumes both shelf and beam plus a refuge pole at either end
• Maintenance costs were not obtained - Michael Lyons from Council indicated that his group could
formulate a management plan and provide a cost estimate
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 43
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 53
Table 24 Summarised cost estimates for each region
Location Total Cost
14a Walter Hay Drive - Audit A (existing fence) $ 20,590.00
14b Walter Hay Drive - South Extension $ 273,950.00
14c Walter Hay Drive - North Extension 1 $ 313,965.00
14d Walter Hay Drive - North Extension 2 Op1 $ 194,230.00
14d Walter Hay Drive - North Extension 2 Op2 $ 774,180.00
14e Eenie Ck Rd - Walter Hay Drive Underpass to Monks Bridge Op1 $ 5,040.00
14e Eenie Ck Rd - Walter Hay Drive Underpass to Monks Bridge Op2 $ 583,040.00
14f Eenie Creek Road - Audit B (existing fence) $ 127,490.00
14g Eenie Creek Road - Audit C (existing fence) $ 5,640.00
14h Weyba Road $ 64,890.00
14i Cooroy Noosa Road $ 93,870.00
14j McKinnon Drive Op1 $ 60,065.00
14j McKinnon Drive Op2 $ 185,865.00
15a Lake MacDonald Drive (near Lake Macdonald Bridge) $ 600.00
15b Noosa Drive (southern end) and Grant St $ 900.00
15c Noosa Heads (Parks Rd and Noosa Drive – northern end) $ 900.00
15d Solway Drive, Bryan St, Heathland Drive, and Edwards St $ 1,500.00
15e Cooyar St, Laguna and Noosa Springs Drive $ 900.00
15f Cootharaba (Lake Flat Rd, Cootharaba Rd, Junction Rd) $ 900.00
15g Pomona (Pioneer Rd) $ 300.00
15h Cooran (Traveston Rd and Coles Ck Rd) $ 1,200.00
15i Cooroy Belli Ck Rd/ Ceylon Road $ 1,800.00
15j Wust/Beddington Rd $ 1,800.00
15k Neusavale Road/ Sister Tree Ck Rd $ 900.00
$ 2,455,180*
* Total estimate includes only the most expensive option where there is more than one option
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 44
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 54
5. Works Cited
Aberg, L., 1981. The human factor in game-vehicle accidents: a study of driver’s information acquisition,
Uppsala, Finland.
Adams-Hosking, C. et al., 2012. Modelling changes in the distribution of the critical food resources of a
specialist folivore in response to climate change. Diversity and Distributions, 18(9), pp.847–860.
Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00881.x.
Ahmed Al-Kaisy, 2006. Static Warning Signs for Occasional Hazards: A Synthesis of Research and Practice,
Bozeman, Montana.
AMBS, 2012. Investigation of the Impact of Roads on Koalas. Report prepared for the NSW Roads and
Maritime Services by Australian Museum Business Services, Sydney.
Ascensão, F. et al., 2013. Wildlife–vehicle collision mitigation: Is partial fencing the answer? An agent-based
model approach. Ecological Modelling, 257, pp.36–43. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304380013001294.
Bissonette, J.A., 2002. Scaling roads and Wildlife: the Cinderella Principle. Zeitschrift für Jagdwissenschaft
2000 supplement, 48, pp.208–214. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6669x4gx.
Bliss-Ketchum, L.L. et al., 2016. The effect of artificial light on wildlife use of a passage structure. Biological
Conservation, 199, pp.25–28. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320716301628.
Bond, A. & Jones, D., 2013. Wildlife Warning Signs: Public Assessment of Components, Placement and Designs
to Optimise Driver Response. Animals, 3(4), pp.1142–1161. Available at: http://www.mdpi.com/2076-
2615/3/4/1142/.
Bond, A.R. & Jones, D.N., 2008. Temporal trends in use of fauna-friendly underpasses and overpasses. Wildlife
Research, 35(2), p.103. Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR07027.
Brieger, F. et al., 2016. Effectiveness of light-reflecting devices: A systematic reanalysis of animal-vehicle
collision data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 97, pp.242–260. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0001457516303293.
Bruinderink, G.W.T.A.G. & Hazebroek, E., 1996. Ungulate Traffic Collisions in Europe. Conservation Biology,
10(4), pp.1059–1067. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041059.x.
Burbridge, P., Eveleigh, M. & Van Eysden, P., 2010. Queensland Elçeriences with Vehicle Activated Signs. In
Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference. Canberra, Australian Capital
Tenitory.
Clevenger, A.P., Chruszcz, B. & Gunson, K., 2001. Drainage Culverts as Habitat Linkages and Factors Affecting
Passage by Mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38(6), pp.1340–1349. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/827303.
Clevenger, A.P., Chruszcz, B. & Gunson, K.E., 2003. Spatial patterns and factors influencing small vertebrate
fauna road-kill aggregations. Biological Conservation, 109, pp.15–26.
Clevenger, A.P. & Waltho, N., 2005. Performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing structures
facilitating movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation, 121(3), pp.453–464. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320704002319.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 45
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 55
Cunnington, G.M. et al., 2014. Culverts alone do not reduce road mortality in anurans. Écoscience, 21(1),
pp.69–78. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2980/21-1-3673.
Davis, J., 2017. Personal Communication, Brisbane, Queensland.
DECC NSW, 2008. Koala Recovery Plan, Sydney, Australia: Department of Environment and Climate Change
(NSW).
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2012. Koala-sensitive Design Guideline. A guide to
koala-sensitive design measures for planning and development activities, State of Queensland
(Department of Environment and Heritage Protection).
Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2014. Part 2 Traffic Control Devices for General Use. In Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Queensland Government.
Dexter, C.E. et al., 2016. Using complementary remote detection methods for retrofitted eco-passages: a
case study for monitoring individual koalas in south-east Queensland. Wildlife Research, 43(5), p.369.
Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR15153.
Dique, D.S. et al., 2003. Koala mortality on roads in south-east Queensland: the koala speed-zone trial.
Wildlife Research, 30, pp.419–426.
Dupuis-Desormeaux, M. et al., 2015. Testing the Prey-Trap Hypothesis at Two Wildlife Conservancies in Kenya
S. S. Romanach, ed. PLOS ONE, 10(10), p.e0139537. Available at:
http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139537.
Ellis, W.A.H. et al., 2002. Tree use, diet and home range of the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) at Blair Athol,
central Queensland. Wildlife Research, 29(3), p.303. Available at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR00111.
Finegan, A., 1997. Fauna Use of Eleven Underpasses Beneath the F3 Freeway Between Calga and West
Wallsend, New South Wales. University of Newcastle.
Ford, A.T. & Clevenger, A.P., 2010. Validity of the Prey-Trap Hypothesis for Carnivore-Ungulate Interactions
at Wildlife-Crossing Structures. Conservation Biology, 24(6), pp.1679–1685. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01564.x.
Gawne, R., 2017. Personal Communication.
Gerlach, G. & Musolf, K., 2000. Fragmentation of Landscape as a Cause for Genetic Subdivision in Bank Voles.
Conservation Biology, 14(4), pp.1066–1074. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1523-
1739.2000.98519.x.
Glista, D.J., DeVault, T.L. & DeWoody, J.A., 2009. A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife
mortality on roadways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(1), pp.1–7. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0169204608001886.
Goldingay, R.L. & Dobner, B., 2014. Home range areas of koalas in an urban area of north-east New South
Wales. Australian Mammalogy, 36(1), p.74. Available at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AM12049.
Goldingay, R.L., Rohweder, D. & Taylor, B.D., 2013. Will arboreal mammals use rope-bridges across a highway
in eastern Australia? Australian Mammalogy, 35(1), p.30. Available at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AM12006.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 46
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 56
Goldingay, R.L. & Taylor, B.D., 2016. Targeted field testing of wildlife road-crossing structures: koalas and
canopy rope-bridges. Australian Mammalogy. Available at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AM16014.
van der Grift, E.A. et al., 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of road mitigation measures. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 22(2), pp.425–448. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10531-012-0421-0.
Hayes, I.F., 2006. Effectiveness of fauna road-kill mitigation structures in north-eastern New South Wales.
Unpublished Third Year Undergraduate Report. Southern Cross University, Lismore.
Hayes, I.F. & Goldingay, R.L., 2009. Use of fauna road-crossing structures in north-eastern New South Wales.
Australian Mammalogy, 31(2), p.89. Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AM09007.
Huijser, M.P. et al., 2009. Cost–benefit analyses of mitigation measures aimed at reducing collisions with
large ungulates in the United States and Canada; a decision support tool. Ecology and Society, 14(2),
p.15. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art15/.
Hunt, A., Dickens, H.J. & Whelan, R.J., 1987. Movement of mammals through tunnels under railway lines.
Australian Zoologist, 24, pp.89–93.
Jaarsma, C.F., van Langevelde, F. & Botma, H., 2006. Flattened fauna and mitigation: Traffic victims related
to road, traffic, vehicle, and species characteristics. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 11(4), pp.264–276. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1361920906000289.
Jaeger, J.A.G. et al., 2005. Predicting when animal populations are at risk from roads: an interactive model of
road avoidance behavior. Ecological Modelling, 185(2–4), pp.329–348. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304380005000050.
Jones, D. et al., 2013. Koala Retrofit Works Program Evaluation Monitoring for Koala-Specific Overpass
Structure Final Report. Report to Department of Transport and Main Roads., Brisbane, Queensland:
Applied Road Ecology Group, Environmental Futures Centre, Griffith University.
Jones, M.E., 2000. Road upgrade, road mortality and remedial measures: impacts on a population of eastern
quolls and Tasmanian devils. Wildlife Research, 27(3), p.289. Available at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/abstractHTML.cfm?J=WR&V=27&I=3&F=WR98069abs.XML.
van Langevelde, F., van Dooremalen, C. & Jaarsma, C.F., 2009. Traffic mortality and the role of minor roads.
Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), pp.660–667. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030147970700343X.
Lassau, S.A. et al., 2008. Home ranges and mortality of a roadside koala Phascolarctos cinereus population at
Bonville, New South Wales. In D. Lunney, A. Munn, & W. Meikle, eds. Too Close for Comfort: Contentious
Issues in Human–Wildlife Encounters. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney, pp. 127–
136.
Lee, K.E. et al., 2010. Genetic variation and structuring in the threatened koala populations of Southeast
Queensland. Conservation Genetics, 11(6), pp.2091–2103. Available at:
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10592-009-9987-9.
Lesbarrères, D., Lode, T. & Merila, J., 2004. What type of amphibian tunnel could reduce road kills? Oryx, 38,
pp.220–223.
Little, S.J., Harcourt, R.G. & Clevenger, A.P., 2002. Do wildlife passages act as prey-traps? Biological
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 47
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 57
Conservation, 107, pp.135–145.
Lunney, D. et al., 2007. The impact of fire and dogs on Koalas at Port Stephens, New South Wales, using
population viability analysis. Pacific Conservation Biology, 13(3), p.189. Available at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=PC070189.
Lunney, D. et al., 2010. The koalas of Campbelltown, south-western Sydney: does their natural history foretell
of an unnatural future? In The Natural History of Sydney. P.O. Box 20, Mosman NSW 2088, Australia:
Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, pp. 339–370. Available at:
http://publications.rzsnsw.org.au/doi/10.7882/FS.2010.029.
Mason, J.R., 1998. Mammal Repellents: Options And Considerations For Development. Paper 13. In
Proceedings of the Eighteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference. Available at:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc18/13.
Mata, C. et al., 2008. Are motorway wildlife passages worth building? Vertebrate use of road-crossing
structures on a Spanish motorway. Journal of Environmental Management, 88(3), pp.407–415.
Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301479707000989.
Mata, C. et al., 2015. Predator-Prey Interactions at Wildlife Crossing Structures. In Handbook of Road Ecology.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 190–197. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/9781118568170.ch23.
Mazerolle, M.J. & Desrochers, A., 2005. Landscape resistance to frog movements. Canadian Journal of
Zoology, 83, pp.455–464.
McAlpine, C.A. et al., 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(2), pp.153–165. Available at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320706001455.
McDonald-Madden, E., Baxter, P.W.J. & Possingham, H.P., 2008. Making robust decisions for conservation
with restricted money and knowledge. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(6), pp.1630–1638. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01553.x.
McKinney, M.L., 2002. Urbanization, Biodiversity, and Conservation. BioScience, 52(10), p.883. Available at:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-lookup/doi/10.1641/0006-
3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2.
Mitchell, P., 1990. The home ranges and social activity of koalas - a quantitative analysis. In A. Lee, K.
Handasyde, & G. Sanson, eds. Chipping Norton, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons, pp. 171–188.
Narayan, E.J. et al., 2013. Non-invasive evaluation of physiological stress in an iconic Australian marsupial:
The Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). General and Comparative Endocrinology, 187, pp.39–47. Available
at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016648013001536.
Noosa Council, 2016. Noosa Shire Koala Conservation Plan 2016, Noosa: Noosa Council. Available at:
http://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/documents/40217326/40227890/Noosa Conservation Plan.
Polak, T. et al., 2014. Optimal planning for mitigating the impacts of roads on wildlife J. Frair, ed. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 51(3), pp.726–734. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/1365-2664.12243.
Possingham, H.P. et al., 2001. Making smart conservation decisions. In M. E. Soule & G. Orians, eds.
Conservation Biology: Research Priorities for the Next Decade. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 225–
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 48
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 58
244.
Preece, H.J., 2007. Monitoring and modelling threats to koala populations in rapidly urbanising landscapes:
koala coast, south east Queensland, Australia. University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Ramp, D. & Croft, D.B., 2006. Do wildlife warning reflectors elicit aversion in captive macropods? Wildlife
Research, 33(7), p.583. Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR05115.
van der Ree, R. et al., 2011. Effects of roads and traffic on wildlife populations and landscape function: road
ecology is moving towards larger scales. Ecology and Society, 16(1), p.48. Available at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art48/.
Ree, R. van der et al., 2007. Overcoming the Barrier Effect of Roads-How Effective Are Mitigation Strategies?
In C. Leroy Irwin, D. Nelson, & K. P. McDermott, eds. Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference
on Ecology and Transportation. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North
Carolina State University, pp. 423–431. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/66j8095x.
van der Ree, R. et al., 2008. Review of Mitigation Measures used to deal with the Issue of Habitat
Fragmentation by Major Linear Infrastructure, Report for Department of Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, DEWHA.
Rhodes, J.R. et al., 2014. A Few Large Roads or Many Small Ones? How to Accommodate Growth in Vehicle
Numbers to Minimise Impacts on Wildlife C. A. Ouzounis, ed. PLoS ONE, 9(3), p.e91093. Available at:
http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091093.
Rhodes, J.R. et al., 2011. Using integrated population modelling to quantify the implications of multiple
threatening processes for a rapidly declining population. Biological Conservation, 144(3), pp.1081–
1088. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320710005367.
RHODES, J.R. et al., 2006. Modeling Species’ Distributions to Improve Conservation in Semiurban Landscapes:
Koala Case Study. Conservation Biology, 20(2), pp.449–459. Available at:
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00330.x.
Rodriguez, A., Crema, G. & Delibes, M., 1996. Use of non-wildlife passages across a high speed railway by
terrestrial vertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology, 33, pp.1527–1540.
RTA, 2009. Use of fauna passage structures on RTA roads. Summary report prepared by Environmental
Planning and Assessment, Sydney: Roads and Traffic Authority.
Seabrook, L. et al., 2011. Drought-driven change in wildlife distribution and numbers: a case study of koalas
in south west Queensland. Wildlife Research, 38(6), p.509. Available at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR11064.
Sushinsky, J.R. et al., 2013. How should we grow cities to minimize their biodiversity impacts? Global Change
Biology, 19(2), pp.401–410. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/gcb.12055.
Taylor, B.D. & Goldingay, R., 2009. Can road crossing structures improve population viability of an urban
gliding mammal? Ecology and Society, 14(13).
Taylor, B.D. & Goldingay, R.L., 2003. Cutting the carnage: wildlife usage of road culverts in north-eastern New
South Wales. Wildlife Research, 30(5), p.529. Available at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR01062.
Taylor, B.D. & Goldingay, R.L., 2010. Roads and wildlife: impacts, mitigation and implications for wildlife
management in Australia. Wildlife Research, 37(4), p.320. Available at:
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 49
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 59
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR09171.
Teixeira, F.Z. et al., 2013. Canopy bridges as road overpasses for wildlife in urban fragmented landscapes.
Biota Neotropica, 13(1), pp.117–123. Available at:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1676-
06032013000100013&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en.
Thorne, J.H. et al., 2009. Integration of regional mitigation assessment and conservation planning. Ecology
and Society, 14(1), p.47. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art47/.
Veenbaas, G. & Brandjes, J., 1999. Use of fauna passages along waterways under highways. In G. L. Evink et
al., eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation.
Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Transportation, pp. 253–258.
White, N.A., 1999. Ecology of the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in rural south-east Queensland, Australia.
Wildlife Research, 26(6), p.731. Available at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=WR98002.
Wilson, K.A., Carwardine, J. & Possingham, H.P., 2009. Setting Conservation Priorities. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 1162(1), pp.237–264. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1749-
6632.2009.04149.x.
Yanes, M., Velasco, J.M. & Suárez, F., 1995. Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates: The importance
of culverts. Biological Conservation, 71, pp.217–222.
Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 50
Noosa Council
17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 60
6. List of Abbreviations Abbreviation Definition DTMR Department of Transport and Main Roads EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System GRC Gympie Regional Council LGA Local Government Area MSES Matter of State Environmental Significance NC Act Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992 SCC Sunshine Coast Council SEQC South East Queensland Catchments SPRP South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions USC University of the Sunshine Coast Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page 51 Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
Section 61
Appendix A Figures Figure 1 Locality Figure 2 Noosa Koala Habitat Mapping Figure 3 Koala habitat value and surrounds (2km buffer into neighbouring shires) Figure 4 Core koala habitat Figure 5 Koala habitat connectivity and indicative regional and local links Figure 6 Collated records and collisions Figure 7 Combined density analysis of sightings and records of koala vehicle strike Figure 8 Total road risk (combination of connectivity & density of sightings/HBC) Figure 9 Hotspot areas Figure 10 Existing hard koala infrastructure Figure 11 Existing koala/wildlife signage Figure 12 Overall proposed koala exclusion fencing and retrofitting of passageways Figure 13 Overall proposed koala climbing structures Figure 14 Hotspot assessments – hard and soft infrastructure Figure 15 Hotspot assessments – soft measures only Koala Infrastructure Audit & Feasibility Report Page A Noosa Council 17SUN-0087/1700860
The text continues on section 62.