waterways/wetlands – Page 33

Landline: War of the Willows

Jun 192013

Transcript from broadcast (16/06/2013)

Reporter: Adrienne Francis

Video available at Landline

PIP COURTNEY, PRESENTER: Here is a story about a war over willow trees. They used to be planted to stabilise river banks and eroded gullies. But more recently, many species of willow have been outlawed for their destructive behaviour. Whilst millions are being spent to remove the trees from waterways across the nation, some farmers are now risking everything to plant them back. They've also attracted the support of an Australian icon who shares their unorthodox views on farm regeneration. Adrienne Francis reports.

War of the Willows

PETER MARSHALL, FORESTER & FARMER: We've had every kind of reception from armed conflict and judgemental activity to people crossing the road so they don't have to walk past me in town, to complete approval. It's been an interesting 16 years.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS, REPORTER: Peter and Kate Marshall left Canberra in 1991. What they're doing on this land near Braidwood is so sensitive they didn't want to reveal the address and they even contemplated moving to New Zealand.

PETER MARSHALL: We wanted to restore broken landscape. So we were looking for a broken old dairy farm, somewhere that was really, really worn out so that we could experiment with restoration techniques.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Their techniques attracted a hostile reception. Unwittingly, the Marshalls became embroiled in a controversy dubbed the "War of the Willows".

PETER MARSHALL: One of my concerns about the eradication efforts of willows is that it's convinced people that they're a bad species in any environment. Here, they're an environmental benefit.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: The trained forester describes the daily pruning, or coppicing, of these New Zealand fodder willows as restoration forestry.

PETER MARSHALL: What we're doing is we're applying old European forestry techniques - coppicing is the big one - where we're actually managing the willows out of the environment in the places where they could cause trouble in the future and we're respecting those that have been strong enough over all these years to hold this place together. We had cracked willow, which is the one that causes trouble in streams because it breaks up and propagates downstream, but we don't have any near the streams on this property. They're only grown in the uplands where they can't spread. We're gradually getting rid of those.

Willows overgrowing the Molonglo River near Canberra, ACT.
RiverSmart Australia

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Most species of willow, including the crack willow, are among the worst weeds in the nation. It is illegal to sell and distribute those willows.

PETER MARSHALL: We tried originally to restore the native casuarinas. It was a big failure. The property has been so disturbed that they just couldn't survive the compaction, the frost and the feral animals. So, we realised we'd actually have to use imported species which have been brought into Australia without their pests so they're actually much more productive and fast-growing. So, we actually started propagating from the trees that are on site on the basis that if they'd survive this terrible experience, they might be the ones to go with. And, well, you're standing under a 20-metre tree that wasn't here 12 years ago. It's a willow that was planted by someone's grandma long, long ago to stabilise the gullies. It worked, it was inexpensive, it was on site, so we used it. Now we can actually re-establish the casuarinas, teatrees, blackwood and so forth.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: The property attracts the interest of Canberra forestry students and the allegiance of unorthodox farmer Peter Andrews.

PETER ANDREWS, FARMER: And just by knowing that plants make soils and all plants contribute to that process, they've got an amazing outcome. ... It is absolutely remarkable in that they've been able to do it just with plants.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: The Hunter Valley farmer, racehorse breeder and author attracted notoriety when he was featured by ABC TV's Australian Story.

PETER FITZSIMONS, JOURNALIST (Australian Story): There is no doubt Peter Andrews is an extremely good horseman. He has this belief that you can't create a great racehorse without having the right environment.

Weeping willows lining the banks of the Murray River at Mannum, South Australia.
CSIRO

PETER MARSHALL: Andrews is a visionary. He can see the landscape, he can half-close his eyes and see the landscape as it was before white man arrived and he can look around and he can tell you what it should look like in the future.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Peter Andrews was awarded the Order of Australia medal in 2011. For many decades his approach to repairing landscapes has been dismissed and ridiculed.

PETER ANDREWS: It is, yeah, beyond frustrating.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: You've been described as an antagonist of mainstream science and agriculture. Are you?

PETER ANDREWS: No. I'm just telling 'em the truth. You know, if they see that as antagonism, well I hope I get worse.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Peter Andrews is also a long-time advocate for willows. He's stepping up campaigning against their removal across Australia.

PETER ANDREWS: Well we're here on the Molonglo River, which a couple of years ago, I came and it was beautifully vegetated. Today, it's open to winds, evaporation rate is soaring and there are no plants to really prevent that from esculating even further.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: We have had many years of dry. Many people accuse the willows being greedy with the water.

PETER ANDREWS: Look, it's really false science.

STEVE TAYLOR, PARKS AND CONSERVATION SERVICE: That's just not true. There is a lot of science.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Steve Taylor co-ordinates wheat control across the ACT's parks and nature reserves.

STEVE TAYLOR: The CSIRO has shown that when you remove willows from a river system, you increase the numbers of native fish because the numbers of native insect life in the creeks and rivers goes up because you're returning more aeration to the river. Willows are a declared pest species in the ACT. They're a noxious weed in NSW. The Federal Government also classes them as a weed of national significance, which is just another way of saying it's another serious weed for the country. And the seriousness comes from not only their ability to smother native vegetation along waterways, but to build up willow chokes and damage infrastructure.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Over the last three decades the ACT Government has spent close to $3 million removing willows. Critics say the practice is ad hoc and misguided.

PETER MARSHALL: Willow management around Lake Burley Griffin, extraordinary business. Millions of dollars spent in tearing out mature trees out of the environment, allowing the river banks to drop into Lake Burley Griffin and quite likely cause blue-green algae downstream seems to me a misallocation of resources, you might say.

STEVE TAYLOR: In the normal year, for the ACT, willow control only represents between 10 to 20 per cent of our budget. Most of our budget gets taken up on blackberry control.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: This year, the ACT Government is spending $800,000 removing them. Steve Taylor says critics should be more patient with the process.

STEVE TAYLOR: I guess initially things look stark 'cause you've gone from a green vegetation to virtually none. But that will change rapidly as these planted plants grow and as the native reeds come in.

ADRIENNE FRANCIS: Critics also blame political correctness.

PETER ANDREWS: It is the most disgraceful environmental process that's ever been instigated in landscape, no question. It's crazy that we believe that some plants shouldn't be around when the plants that they discriminated against have got seeds that blow everywhere, travel in the wind, on the animals. The process of the environment is as many seeds as possible spread as widely as possible and humans have got the opposite view. It doesn't make any sense. There's absolutely no scientific reason for an idea that native means anything.

PETER MARSHALL: Stop being prescriptive about the control of so-called noxious weeds, stop demonising particular species.

PETER ANDREWS: Peter Andrews, the Marshalls and their supporters are calling for an urgent independent review of willow policy and more research.

PETER MARSHALL: It would be to see if these trees can be managed for social benefit and environmental good, rather than just a drain on national resources.

KATE MARSHALL, FORESTER & FARMER: It's hard to be brave, but I think out of the experimental work that we've done, there is a lot of value and a lot that can be learnt and unless we're brave enough to do - to experiment with our own funds, our own time, our own toil, then we may not be able to learn the lessons.

PETER MARSHALL: I think what will happen is people will look at this environment and realise that the law needs a bitta tweaking.

KATE MARSHALL: I'm glad we stayed 'cause we loved here, we love this community and we love this particular piece of land and it's our life's work.

Willow impacts. Melbourne Water

Maps reveal Prom’s underwater secrets

Interest, waterways/wetlands

Jun 192013

Original story by Bridie Smith, The Standard

Until now, the landscape under the waves at Wilsons Promontory has been a mystery. But the sea floor's secrets have been uncovered by researchers from Deakin University and Parks Victoria.

Marine ecologists and engineers spent six weeks surveying the seabed using multi-beamed sonar mapping technology.

What's beneath Wilson's Promontory

They found unexpected features such as a 30-metre-high underwater sand dune and holes in rock up to 90 metres deep. Ancient waterways dating back 20,000 years, when the area was above water and linked the mainland to Tasmania, have also been found 60 to 70 metres below the surface.

Deakin University marine scientist Daniel Ierodiaconou said the findings were unexpected.

''The amount of structure and variation in the detail surprised us all,'' he said. ''We expected to see something but we just didn't expect it to be so visually incredible.''

Butterfly Perch (Caesioperca lepidoptera) on rocky reefs at Wilsons Promontory.
Photo: Mary Malloy, DEPI Vic

Parks Victoria marine science manager Steffan Howe said he was interested to learn that not all of the sea floor was composed of sand. ''It looks like we have large areas of reef, which is potentially important because with a hard bottom we have the potential for more plants and animals,'' he said. ''You can get really diverse communities of sponges, hard and soft corals and sea squirts.''

Among the creatures to call the area home are the Australian fur seal, the southern sand octopus, red velvet fish and orange sponge.

The maps generated from the sea floor survey will inform the management of the 15,580 hectare site, Victoria's largest marine national park.

''This information is filling a really important gap,'' Dr Howe said. ''We need to know what's down there to understand how to manage the park better.''

For example, marine ecologists know that the northern Pacific seastar - one of Australia's biggest marine pests, which was found in Tidal River last year - prefers to live in a sandy environment. The survey allows targeted monitoring of sandy habitat.

Shaped by strong currents from the north and west, the seascape supports a diverse range of species, including fish, seaweed and small invertebrates. For more than 120 of them, the marine park is the furthest part of their distribution range.

Trashy tales from the ocean depths

environment, waterways/wetlands

Jun 172013

Original story by Peter Hannam, Sydney Morning Herald

The accumulation of rubbish near the ocean surface is well known, such as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” which could extend over a region twice the size of Australia.

Ocean trash: Coke bottle located at depth of 1,727m. Source: MBARI.

Much less is known about how much trash is ending up on the ocean floor. A recent study by researchers at the US-based Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute probed depths as low as 4000 metres in regions stretching from Canada's Vancouver Island to the Gulf of California and west to Hawaii.

They found debris collected in more than 1000 sites, mostly where currents flow past rocky outcrops or other obstacles, often in deeper regions.

Oil drum located 2892m down, in the Monterey Canyon. Source: MBARI.

Plastics accounted for about a third of the litter, half of which were plastic bags that can smother or choke organisms. Metals were found in 23 per cent of the litter sightings, which took in 22 years of surveys in the greater Monterey Bay area off California.

The lack of sunlight, near-freezing conditions and low oxygen levels at those depths - below 2000 metres - limit the growth of bacteria or other organisms that can break the trash down. Plastic bags and aluminium cans may last for decades.

"The most frustrating thing for me is that most of the material we saw - glass, metal, paper, plastic - could be recycled," Kyra Schlining, lead author on this study, said in a report on the institute's website.

Tyre found 868m below the surface on a ledge in the Monterey Canyon. Source: MBARI.

The cost of retrieving the rubbish meant the most cost-effective solution is to prevent the litter entering the marine environment in the first place, Ms Schlining said.

Australia failing to protect reef

government, waterways/wetlands

Jun 162013

Original story at The Australian

AUSTRALIA hasn't done enough to stop UNESCO listing the Great Barrier Reef as "in danger", a new report by conservationists says.

Hardy Reef, aerial view. Great Barrier Reef & Coral Sea, Australia / ©: Jürgen Freund / WWF-Canon

The World Heritage Committee will meet in Cambodia this week to consider a draft decision to place the reef on its "danger list" in 2014 unless the Queensland and federal governments clean up their act.

Requests include that no more developments are approved along the Queensland coast that would impact individually or cumulatively on the reef.

Other major concerns include escalating ship traffic through the reef and poor water quality resulting from coastal development.

The WWF and the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) have released a scorecard, which shows there has been no improvement in managing the impacts of ports and port development along the Great Barrier Reef coast.

They have "major concern" that the Australian and federal governments haven't developed a policy to contain port development to existing sites, and a number of proposals are progressing through the federal government's environmental assessment processes.

The governments have also failed to set conservation targets and increase funding enough to stop pollution from catchments. A long-term strategy for sustainability is also overdue.

The WWF's Great Barrier Reef campaign director Richard Leck says Australia could become the only developed country unable to meet its World Heritage obligations.

"Australian governments now have a firm deadline for action to avoid the global icon being placed on an international list of shame," he said.

"The eyes of the world will be on the Australian and Queensland governments and the decisions they make in the coming year."

WWF and the AMCS want tens of thousands of people around the world to create a 24-hour "Twitter Storm" on Monday to show global support to protect the reef.

Comment is being sought from Queensland's State Development Minister Jeff Seeney and the Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke.

Govt recommended to halt port developments near Reef

government, waterways/wetlands

Jun 142013

By Daniel Burdon, Byron Shire News

Greens Senator Larissa Waters, who introduced the original bill, said it was good to see government reaction, but it was “too little, too late”.

A SENATE committee has recommended the Federal Government hit the pause button on port developments near the Great Barrier Reef until a major strategic assessment is completed.

The government is currently undertaking the strategic assessment in response to the World Heritage Committee's recommendations made last year.

While the Senate inquiry did not recommend passing a Greens bill to implement the WHC's recommendations in Commonwealth law, it has recommended a halt on new port developments.

Such projects, outside of existing major port areas, would include the proposed ports in the Fitzroy Delta on Balaclava Island and Port Alma in Central Queensland.

Greens Senator Larissa Waters, who introduced the original bill, said it was good to see government reaction, but it was "too little, too late".

"The World Heritage Committee, which meets next week to decide the Great Barrier Reef's fate, is telling us we shouldn't have any new ports in pristine areas at all," she said.

"Rather than permanently protecting these pristine areas, the Senate committee has only recommended a two-year pause on new ports, until a strategic assessment on the Great Barrier Reef is completed in 2015."

Numerous stakeholders, including port authorities, the resources industry, environmentalists, scientists and the fishing and tourism industries, spoke to the committee.

"The committee acknowledges that there are a number of factors impacting on and contributing the current decline in the health of the Great Barrier Reef," the report reads.

"However, the committee is not convinced by arguments that the contribution of ports and associated activities is minor and localised."

The report also revealed the committee was persuaded by evidence that "sea dumping of dredge spoil should not occur in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area".

It recommended a review of the government's Sea Dumping Act and how it relates to the reef, measures to strengthen the Commonwealth's existing environmental regime.

The committee also said it was "not convinced by evidence from the ports industry that ports in the Great Barrier Reef region have been well managed to date from an environmental perspective".

"The committee particularly noted evidence given about Gladstone Harbour, and the considerable debate as to the causes of impacts on the health of the aquatic environment," the report reads.

Rivers project wrapped up

community, environment, government, waterways/wetlands

Jun 132013

Original story from Conservation Queensland

As of 1 July and despite Queensland Conservation protests, funding for the ‘Queensland Conservation Rivers Project’ has been cancelled.

Since the project commenced in the mid–1990s, the Project has enabled environment groups to participate in planning water reforms, and associated natural resource issues in Queensland. It has given a voice for the environment in water planning reforms.

As a wrap up to the Rivers Project we’d like to share some of the key outcomes that have been achieved over the years.

Picture Kerry Trapnell

Water Resource Plans: Queensland Conservation has represented the conservation sector on hundreds of Community Reference Panels attached to the development of Water Resource Plans. These plans are crucial to ensuring surface and groundwater resources are managed sustainably.

We have focused on returning flows to rivers, to improving water quality and water allocations in a time of rapid climate change. For instance, as a result of Queensland Conservations involvement, dam operators in the Fitzroy Basin must now match downstream water quality conditions before being allowed to release water. Spawning conditions in many estuaries have been enhanced due to increased freshwater flows and climate change is now taken far more seriously in water resource planning.

Urban Sustainability Goals: Through working closely with the former Urban Land Development Authority, Queensland Conservation was successful in getting sustainability goals included in Planning Schemes for SEQ Urban Development Areas. Those schemes now aim to have development using water sensitive urban design, zero emissions housing, support community agriculture and have zero emission electric vehicle ready suburbs.

Coal Seam Gas: In 2008, Queensland Conservation was the only organisation raising concerns about environmental impacts potentially caused by the Coal Seam Gas industry. Through our lobbying, we were successful in getting evaporation ponds banned and requiring Coal Seam Gas water to be treated to acceptable standards, prior to it being used for beneficial purposes.

Capping Urban Water Consumption: In response to the SEQ water crisis, Queensland Conservation called for the Government to introduce a daily per capita urban water consumption cap. In 2006, when average per capita use was above 300 litres per day, we proposed a 150 litre per person cap. The Government told us to go away and get realistic. A year later, the 140 litres per person cap was officially introduced. Since then, the community has shown that we were right–people do understand the preciousness of water and have changed their water- use behaviour.

Murray Darling Basin Plan: In collaboration with national and interstate environment groups, we were successful in getting the Australian Government to commit to returning an additional 450 GL of water to environmental flows to the river system. It’s not enough, but at least a start has been made.

Protecting Queensland’s Wild Rivers: The Wilderness Society, with support from Queensland Conservation, were instrumental in the development of the Wild Rivers Act. The Wild Rivers legislation is one of only three pieces of legislation in the world that protect wild rivers. Since its introduction, 13 river systems across the State have been protected under the Act, whilst still allowing ecologically sustainable development.

The Rivers Project delivered not just a voice for the environment but many real improvements to water management. It supported genuine participation in the processes. Queensland Conservation is very proud of our achievements over the last decade.

Perturbed and extremely disappointed that the State Government has chosen to cut a project that has delivered such positive outcomes, and in all previous assessments by the Government has provided significant value for money.

Queensland Conservation would like to acknowledge the past and present Rivers Project Officers for their outstanding efforts in achieving so many positive outcomes for Queensland.

Impacts of salinity on fish

environment, waterways/wetlands

Jun 122013

Original story from ABC News: Research team investigates impact of salinity on fish

A Deakin University research team is investigating how fish are affected by increases to ocean salinity caused by desalination plants, fracking and global warming.

The research at the university's Warrnambool campus is being funded through online donations.

Dr Julie Mondon, Senior Lecturer
Marine and Freshwater Science

The lead researcher, Dr Julie Mondon, says ocean creatures can only tolerate a narrow range of salinity.

She says the researchers will begin by observing the effect of increased salinity in the lab.

"We're looking for... those sorts of changes in the biochemistry of the animal, the behaviour of the animal or even the structure of the animal," she said.

"We use those markers then to go back into the field to see whether or not there's evidence of those markers being present."

Dr Mondon says the results could influence the approval of future energy and desalination projects.

For example she says fracking is a major issue.

"How do we deal with the waste, the very salty waste water from there, and yes the managers will be looking very carefully at this sort of research," she said.

Plunging fish numbers linked to dam releases

fisheries, waterways/wetlands

Jun 122013

Original story from Griffith University.

Murray River

A significant decline in the numbers of native fish in the Murray-Darling Basin may be linked to released dam water being too cold for breeding.

This is just one of the findings from a Griffith University led study which found current water releases back into the Murray-Darling system limit fish reproduction and therefore impact freshwater biodiversity.

Griffith University Research Fellow Dr Rob Rolls said the results, published inFreshwater Biology, throw cold water on the notion that large dam releases compensate for the effects of interrupting natural water flows. And it’s not just seasonal flooding which is important; the natural low flow periods matter too.

“Golden perch an iconic species that significant value for recreational fishing and it is often assumed that large floods are necessary to initiate spawning and recruitment of golden perch and many other fish,” Dr Rolls said.

“But we found that more than 90% of golden perch juveniles occurred in unregulated lowland rivers in the northern Murray-Darling Basin, which naturally stop flowing for weeks or months, while regulated reaches now flow constantly.

“Restoring these natural low flow periods is critical because it is these shallow, warm reaches of waterways which produce the food fish depend upon.”

The team also found that releases from the Pindari Dam on the Severn River did not encourage fish spawning because the water is much colder compared with nearby unregulated rivers.

“Stream temperature has a significant effect on spawning opportunities for fish, and cold water released from the bottom of dams may limit the benefits of environment flows,” Dr Rolls said.

Golden perch (Macquaria ambigua). Image: DPI Vic

Golden perch/Yellowbelly (Macquaria ambigua). Image: DPI Vic

“The negative impact of this could be minimised by modifying dams so the warmer water from the surface of reservoirs is released rather than from the bottom.”

This research was undertaken in conjunction with the New South Wales Office of Water, the Queensland Government and the University of New England.

Journal reference: Robert J. Rolls, Ivor O. Growns, Tariq A. Khan, G. Glenn Wilson, Tanya L. Ellison, Andrea Prior, Caroline C. Waring. Fish recruitment in rivers with modified discharge depends on the interacting effects of flow and thermal regimes. Freshwater Biology, 2013; DOI: 10.1111/fwb.12169

Barely a vote to spare, marine reserve patchwork saved

fisheries, government, waterways/wetlands

Jun 112013

Original story by Andrew Darby, the National Times - With barely one vote to spare, marine reserve patchwork was saved

The vote was about as close as they get in this Federal Parliament. It was 71 for keeping the system of marine reserves that had taken 20 years' work to achieve, and 70 against.

Just 5.6 per cent of Australia's biodiverse continental shelf waters will be protected.
Photo: Richard Herman

Backing Labor were the independents Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie, plus Craig Thomson and the Greens' Adam Bandt. Backing the Coalition's disallowance motion were Bob Katter and Peter Slipper.

This vote, coming as it did a few days before World Oceans Day, gives pause for reflection.

Our oceans are acidifying, depleted of fish, and increasingly polluted. The US National Oceans and Atmospheric Administration chose Oceans Day to publish an eye-opening illustration of the time it takes for marine debris to break down.

Happy World Oceans Day in 2413, when a plastic six-pack ring dropped in the sea today finally will have decomposed.

Among such problems, a bright light on the horizon for Australia is our network of marine reserves – 3.1 million kilometres of waters around the country beyond the three nautical mile state waters boundary.

Yet this system is not perfect.

Analysis by the Sydney-based Centre for Conservation Geography shows just 5.6 per cent of Australia's shallower ocean, its continental shelf waters, will be fully protected. By contrast, 16.1 per cent of our less biodiverse deep-ocean domain is in sanctuaries.

But it's also the only game in town.

The system was developed from the early 1990s through a process basically unaltered by either Labor or Coalition governments, and has been argued about exhaustively since then.

Which makes all the more curious the Tony Abbott-led opposition's decision to oppose the system, and spring a disallowance motion at five minutes to midnight before the reserves became law.

Coalition agriculture spokesman John Cobb claimed to be acting on behalf of aggrieved recreational and commercial fishers.

This would seem to be fertile ground for the Coalition. As academic analysis has pointed out, these fishers can often see little point in marine parks.

But when it comes to the Commonwealth reserve system, there is actually no grassroots revolution from fishers.

Instead the "Keep Australia Fishing" group that put its name to a rally before the vote leans heavily on industry figures: fishing gear and outboard motor sellers, according to its website.

Far short of the 1000 predicted, the rally itself in Torquay, Victoria drew a handful to listen to Coalition politicians and fishing stalwart Rex Hunt.

Small beer compared to the popular uprising against the entry of the super trawler Margiris into Australian waters last year.

Environment Minister Tony Burke quickly grasped the antipathy of fishers to that ship, while the Coalition was left to unconvincingly argue the science.

Map of Australia's network of Commonwealth marine reserves. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Caught on the wrong side of this debate, the Coalition may have hoped the marine reserves disallowance would win back favour with fishers. Forget that much of the work to get the reserves system was done under the Howard government.

It may also be an indication of a more general approach by a future Abbott government.

With state Liberal leaders opening national parks on land to hunting and grazing, is more fishing to follow?

How long until it’s gone?

environment, waterways/wetlands

Jun 112013

NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tweeted this timely reminder about the refuse that enters our waterways and oceans on World Oceans Day (June 8) this year. Lets hope their message gets heard.

How long until it's gone? A trash guide to the oceans by NOAA

Older Entries Newer Entries