Survey set to prove northern fish disease-free

 Australian native freshwater species, fisheries, research, waterways/wetlands
Mar 052014
 

Original story by  , Science Network WA

A JOINT study about to begin, will determine whether populations of freshwater catfish in the country’s tropical and sub-tropical regions are free of the Edwardsiella ictaluri bacterium.
Prof Lymbery says the study will give some insight into northern freshwater fish populations. Photo: David Gardiner

Prof Lymbery says the study will give some insight into northern freshwater fish populations. Photo: David Gardiner

The bacterium can cause 'Enteric Septicemia of Catfish' and is potentially deadly to populations of freshwater fish in northern Australia.

Affected fish appear disorientated and can chase their tails.

Murdoch University’s Alan Lymbery says the study will investigate high risk localities in the Kimberley, Northern Territory and northern Queensland and was prompted by reports of the bacterium in imported fish and aquarium facilities.

“As far as we know through passive surveillance it’s not in wild populations, but there hasn’t been an active survey at all—if it’s here we think it would have come in with imported ornamental aquarium fish,” Professor Lymbery says.

“The survey is a targeted design which is looking at high risk populations or high risk localities for the bacterium.

“We’re looking at rivers which have major population centres on them and we’re targeting our particular sites around major towns or immediately downstream from major towns.”

Prof Lymbery says the survey for the study was designed in collaboration.

“We use a bacterial test first … if it looks like we’ve got the bacterium then we’ll go back and we’ll do some DNA testing of that fish,” he says.

“Given some assumptions, if we do not find the bacteria in around 20 fish from a number of high risk sites across northern Australia then we can be confident that native fishes are disease free.”

Prof Lymbery says the study will give some insight into northern freshwater fish populations.

“The disease caused by the bacterium can be quite severe in fish populations and can be devastating to aquaculture,” he says.

“The bacterium can have a quite high mortality and it can kill the fish rapidly.

“There is a big ornamental fish trade over the world … so it has some economic importance for Australia to be disease free.

“Australia has also got a very unique freshwater fish fauna, if there is anything we can do to keep exotic diseases out of our natural water ways it’s going to help with the conservation of our freshwater fish fauna.”

Prof Lymbery says he hopes the study will also raise awareness of the disease so fishers or fish owners can report it if they see it.

The surveys are expected to be completed by the end of the year.

Notes:

The study, funded by the federal Department of Agriculture, is being conducted by Murdoch University’s Freshwater Fish Group and Fish Health Unit with help from the WA Department of Agriculture and Food, Northern Territory Department of Resources, CSIRO and James Cook University.

Fish depth limited by biochemistry

 Interest, research, waterways/wetlands
Mar 042014
 

Original story by Rachel Sullivan, ABC

The ability of deep sea fish to plumb new depths may be constrained by biochemistry, new research by an international team has found.
This photo of hadal snailfish, snapped at 7500 metres down, is the second deepest observation of a live fish

This photo of hadal snailfish (Pseudoliparis amblystomopsis), snapped at 7500 metres down, is the second deepest observation of a live fish.

The research, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, explains why there are no known fish species below 8400 metres, despite the presence of other marine animals such as anemones, crustaceans and sea cucumbers.

Based on previous work, the researchers, led by biologist Professor Paul Yancey from Whitman College, Washington believed that the depth limits of fish were related to levels of osmolytes present in their bodies.

Osmolytes are soluble organic compounds that counteract the effects of pressure on proteins by altering water structure so that the tendency for pressure to force water molecules into the interior of cells is reduced and the cells can keep functioning.

Gelatinous texture

To test their theory, the researchers captured five specimens of the second deepest known fish, the hadal snailfish (Notoliparis kermadecensis), from a depth of 7000 metres in the Kermadec Trench to the north east of New Zealand.

"The Kermadec Trench is one of the deepest in the world, and no hadal snailfish had been caught there since the 1950s," says Dr Ashley Rowden from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in Wellington, New Zealand, who was part the study team.

The fish were captured from a 28-metre boat and bringing them to the surface took more than three hours in rough seas, requiring determination and strong stomachs from those on board.

"Out of their natural environment, snail fish feel like water-filled condoms," says Rowden. "Like other fish from the deepest hadal zone [region below 6000 metres] their gelatinous texture is an adaptation to extreme pressure (around 10Mpa or 1000 times the surface atmospheric pressure)."

"They are relatively delicate organisms and don't survive the journey to the surface, possibly due to the pressure changes they experience as they journey up from 7000 metres below," Rowden says.

Osmolyte levels

Once back on dry land, the researchers compared the levels of the osmolyte trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) in the hadal snailfish with that in other bony fishes from a range of bathymetric zones in the ocean.

The concentration of TMAO present in the muscle tissue of the snailfish was significantly higher than for fish living at shallower depths.

When they extrapolated their findings, the researchers found that it is unlikely that bony fish could survive below 8,200 metres, because the high concentrations of TMAO that would be required to combat the effects of pressure can also reverse cellular osmosis gradients — the difference between the salinity levels inside and outside the cells.

"Other research has shown a general increase in TMAO levels from shallow water dwellers to fish living at 5000 metres," Rowden adds.

"The snailfish came from 2000 metres below where previous samples had been taken, and represented a big jump in TMAO levels."

Early days

Bony fish are one of the largest animal groups on Earth and have exploited most available habitats, Rowden explains.

"There is the potential for organisms to get to every corner of the world's environment, but the deepest oceans are yet to be colonised by bony fish.

"This research indicates that they are biochemically constrained from inhabiting the deepest parts of the ocean, but as deep-sea fish evolved only relatively recently, geologically speaking, over time they may evolve further adaptations to cope with the unique demands of the hadal environment."

Global warming felt to deepest reaches of ocean

 environment, research, waterways/wetlands
Mar 032014
 

Media release from McGill at AlphaGalileo

Climate change has put a freshwater lid on the Antarctic ocean, trapping warm water in ocean depths.

In the mid-1970s, the first available satellite images of Antarctica during the polar winter revealed a huge ice-free region within the ice pack of the Weddell Sea. This ice-free region, or polynya, stayed open for three full winters before it closed.

Subsequent research showed that the opening was maintained as relatively warm waters churned upward from kilometres below the ocean's surface and released heat from the ocean's deepest reaches. But the polynya -- which was the size of New Zealand -- has not reappeared in the nearly 40 years since it closed, and scientists have since come to view it as a naturally rare event.

Now, however, a study led by researchers from McGill University suggests a new explanation: The 1970s polynya may have been the last gasp of what was previously a more common feature of the Southern Ocean, and which is now suppressed due to the effects of climate change on ocean salinity.

The McGill researchers, working with colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania, analyzed tens of thousands of measurements made by ships and robotic floats in the ocean around Antarctica over a 60-year period. Their study, published in Nature Climate Change, shows that the ocean's surface has been steadily getting less salty since the 1950s. This lid of fresh water on top of the ocean prevents mixing with the warm waters underneath. As a result, the deep ocean heat has been unable to get out and melt back the wintertime Antarctic ice pack.

"Deep ocean waters only mix directly to the surface in a few small regions of the global ocean, so this has effectively shut one of the main conduits for deep ocean heat to escape," says Casimir de Lavergne, a recent graduate of McGill's Master's program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and lead author of the paper.

The scientists also surveyed the latest generation of climate models, which predict an increase of precipitation in the Southern Ocean as atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. "This agrees with the observations, and fits with a well-accepted principle that a warming planet will see dryer regions become dryer and wetter regions become wetter," says Jaime Palter, a professor in McGill's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and co-author of the study. "True to form, the polar Southern Ocean - as a wet place - has indeed become wetter. And in response to the surface ocean freshening, the polynyas simulated by the models also disappeared." In the real world, the melting of glaciers on Antarctica - not included in the models - has also been adding freshwater to the ocean, possibly strengthening the freshwater lid.

The new work can also help explain a scientific mystery. It has recently been discovered that Antarctic Bottom Water, which fills the deepest layer of the world ocean, has been shrinking over the last few decades. "The new work can provide an explanation for why this is happening," says study co-author Eric Galbraith, a professor in McGill's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and a fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. "The waters exposed in the Weddell polynya became very cold, making them very dense, so that they sunk down to become Antarctic Bottom Water that spread throughout the global ocean. This source of dense water was equal to at least twice the flow of all the rivers of the world combined, but with the surface capped by freshwater, it has been cut off."

"Although our analysis suggests it's unlikely, it's always possible that the giant polynya will manage to reappear in the next century," Galbraith adds. "If it does, it will release decades-worth of heat and carbon from the deep ocean to the atmosphere in a pulse of warming."

The research was supported by the Stephen and Anastasia Mysak Graduate Fellowship in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery programme, by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) and by computing infrastructure provided by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and Compute Canada.

Reference: 'Cessation of deep convection in the open Southern Ocean under anthropogenic climate change'; Casimir de Lavergne, Jaime B. Palter, Eric D. Galbraith, Raffaele Bernardello and Irina Marinov; advance online publication on Nature Climate Change's website March 2, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2132

95% of world’s fish hide in mesopelagic zone

 fisheries, research, waterways/wetlands
Mar 032014
 

Original story by , Science Network WA

AN INTERNATIONAL team of marine biologists has found mesopelagic fish in the earth’s oceans constitute 10 to 30 times more biomass than previously thought.
Most mesopelagic species tend to feed near the surface at night, and move to deeper layers in the daytime to avoid birds. Pictured: The mesopelagic ‘ocean sunfish’ (Mola mola). Photo: Chris Zielecki

Most mesopelagic species tend to feed near the surface at night, and move to deeper layers in the daytime to avoid birds. Pictured: The mesopelagic ‘ocean sunfish’ (Mola mola). Photo: Chris Zielecki

UWA Professor Carlos Duarte says mesopelagic fish – fish that live between 100 and 1000m below the surface – must therefore constitute 95 per cent of the world’s fish biomass.

“Because the stock is much larger it means this layer must play a more significant role in the functioning of the ocean and affecting the flow of carbon and oxygen in the ocean,” he says.

Prof Duarte led a seven-month circumnavigation of the globe in the Spanish research vessel Hesperides, with a team of scientists collecting echo-soundings of mesopelagic fish.

He says most mesopelagic species tend to feed near the surface at night, and move to deeper layers in the daytime to avoid birds.

They have large eyes to see in the dim light, and also enhanced pressure-sensitivity.

“They are able to detect nets from at least five metres and avoid them,” he says.

“Because the fish are very skilled at avoiding nets, every previous attempt to quantify them in terms of biomass that fishing nets have delivered are very low estimates.

“So instead of different nets what we used were acoustics … sonar and echo sounders.”

The findings have significant implications.

The sheer amount of biomass means they may respire about 10 per cent of primary production in deep waters.

Prof Duarte says research into the five ocean gyres, where vast amounts of flotsam collect, turned up surprising results.

“We actually called them oceanic deserts,” he says.

“They are not desert at all, they are very vibrant ecosystems that support a very high biomass.

“The largest fish stock in the ocean is not in the coastal areas … but actually in the central gyres of the oceans.

“The food web … in the central gyres of the ocean … it’s a lot more efficient than we thought.”

He says the survey also showed the oceans were healthier than previously thought.

“This very large stock of fish that we have just discovered, that holds 95 per cent of all the fish biomass in the world, is untouched by fishers,” he says.

“They can’t harvest them with nets.

“In the 21st Century we have still a pristine stock of fish which happens to be 95 per cent of all the fish in oceans.

“And that also changes our views on ocean health.”

Notes:

Professor Duarte is the Director of the Oceans Institute at UWA in Perth, and also holds a post at the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies, Spain, where he leads the Department of Global Change Research.

This article is based on an interview with Prof Duarte and the paper by lead author Prof Xabier Irigoien, who is director of the Red Sea Research Center at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Saudi Arabia.

Let’s dump Great Barrier Reef dredging myths: authority chief

 community, government, waterways/wetlands
Mar 032014
 

By Russell Reichelt, James Cook University at The Conversation

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s recent decision to allow 3 million cubic metres of dredge material to be disposed of 25 kilometres off Abbot Point in north Queensland has attracted passionate commentary around the world.
Already operating as a coal port, the disposal of dredge material from expanding Abbot Point is now the subject of a legal challenge. Photo: GBRMPA

Already operating as a coal port, the disposal of dredge material from expanding Abbot Point is now the subject of a legal challenge. Photo: GBRMPA

Millions of people from Australia and overseas have a fierce desire to protect one of the world’s most beautiful natural wonders. As the independent body managing the Great Barrier Reef for future generations, all of us at the Authority understand and share that desire: it’s what makes us want to come to work every day.

An aerial shot of coral reefs. Photo: GBRMPA

An aerial shot of coral reefs. Photo: GBRMPA

But the debate about Abbot Point has been marked by considerable misinformation, including claims about “toxic sludge”, dumping coal on the reef and even mining the reef. Late last week, it was confirmed that our decision to allow the dredge disposal will be challenged in court.

So what’s true, and what’s not? I hope with this article, I can clear up some of those misunderstandings on behalf of the Authority, particularly about our role, the nature and scale of the dredge disposal activity, and its likely environmental impacts.

If you still have questions at the end of this article, I and others from our team at the Authority will be reading your comments below and we’ll do our best to reply to further questions on The Conversation.

A sizeable challenge

At 344,400 square kilometres, the Marine Park is roughly the same area as Japan or Italy.

The Great Barrier Reef, relative to other parts of the world. Photo: GBRMPA

The Great Barrier Reef, relative to other parts of the world. Photo: GBRMPA

Of this vast and richly diverse expanse, one-third is highly protected; some places are near pristine, while others are feeling the effects of centuries of human uses.

But rather than locking the entire area away, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s (GBRMPA) role — as set out under Australian law — is to protect the region’s ecosystem, while also ensuring it remains a multiple-use marine park open to sustainable use. This includes tourism, commercial fishing, shipping and other operations.

While there are five major ports in the region, to this day only 1% of the World Heritage Area is set aside for ports. Most of the region’s 12 ports existed long before the Marine Park was created in 1975, and nearly all fall inside the World Heritage Area, but outside the park itself.

Responding to “toxic” claims

Among the many claims made about the Abbot Point decision is the assertion that the “Reef will be dredged” and that “toxic sludge” will be dumped in marine waters.

Both of those claims are simply wrong, as are suggestions that coal waste will be unloaded into the Reef, that this natural wonder is about to be mined, or that Abbot Point is a new coal port.

The Abbot Point port, looking out to the terminal and beyond. Photo: GBRMPA

The Abbot Point port, looking out to the terminal and beyond. Photo: GBRMPA

The reality is that disposal of dredge material of this type in the Marine Park is not new. It has occurred off nearly all major regional centres along the reef’s coastline before now.

It is a highly regulated activity and does not allow material to be placed on coral, seagrass or sensitive marine environments.

The material itself in Abbot Bay is about 60% sand and 40% silt and clay, which is similar to what you would see if you dug up the site where the material is to be relocated.

In addition, testing by accredited laboratories shows the material is not toxic, and is therefore suitable for ocean disposal.

Limiting new port development

Abbot Point’s location on Queensland’s coast, with the boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park marked in red. Photo: GBRMPA

Abbot Point’s location on Queensland’s coast, with the boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park marked in red. Photo: GBRMPA

As Queensland’s population has grown over the past 150 years, so too have the size and number of ports along the Great Barrier Reef coastline.

We recognise the potential environmental risks posed at a local level by this growth, which is why we have strongly advocated limiting port development to existing major ports — such as Abbot Point — as opposed to developing new sites.

This will produce a far better outcome than a proliferation of many, albeit smaller, ports along the coastline. And that’s not just our view: it’s a view shared by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, which oversees the Great Barrier Reef’s listing as one of Australia’s 19 World Heritage sites.

Given Abbot Point has been a major port for the past 30 years, our approval of the dredge disposal permit application from North Queensland Bulk Ports is entirely consistent with this position.

The added benefit of the port is its access to naturally deep waters, meaning it requires less capital dredging than other ports. It also has a much lower need for maintenance dredging.

What’s being done to protect the reef?

With this as our backdrop, we analysed the potential impacts and risks to the Great Barrier Reef from disposing dredge spoil off Abbot Point within the Marine Park.

In this case, we reached the conclusion that with 47 stringent conditions in place, it could be done in a way that makes us confident there will be no significant impact on the reef’s world heritage values.

These safeguards are designed specifically to ensure potential impacts are avoided, mitigated or offset, and to prevent harm to the environmental, cultural or heritage values associated with the nearby Holbourne Island fringing reef, Nares Rock, and the Catalina World War II wreck.

Our conditions are in addition to those already imposed by the federal government in prior approvals.

Holbourne Island. Photo: GBRMPA

Holbourne Island. Photo: GBRMPA

Is “dumping on the reef” allowed?

Again, just to clear up any confusion: the dredge material will not be “dumped on the reef”.

Instead, we are looking at an area within the Marine Park that is about 25 kilometres east-northeast of the port at Abbot Point, and about 40 kilometres from the nearest offshore reef.

When the dredge disposal occurs, the material will only be allowed to be placed in a defined 4 square kilometre site free of hard corals, seagrass beds and other sensitive habitats.

If oceanographic conditions such as tides, winds, waves and currents are likely to produce adverse impacts, the disposal will not be allowed to proceed.

As an added precaution, the activity can only happen between March and June, as this falls outside the coral spawning and seagrass growth periods. As the sand, silt and clay itself will be dredged in stages over three years, the annual disposal volume will be capped at 1.3 million cubic metres.

Compared with other sites in this region, it is much less than has been done in the past. For example, in 2006 there were 8.6 million cubic metres of similar sediments excavated and relocated in one year at Hay Point, near Mackay. Scientific monitoring showed no significant effects on the ecosystem.

The dredge disposal from Abbot Point will be a highly managed activity — and it will not, as some headlines have suggested, mean the Great Barrier Reef will become a sludge repository or that tonnes of mud will be dumped on coral reefs.

This is not Gladstone Harbour all over again

I have often heard during this debate that Abbot Point will become “another Gladstone”.

I can assure you that GBRMPA understands strongly the need to learn the lessons from past port developments, including ones like Gladstone that fall outside of the Marine Park. This is why the recommendations from an independent review into Gladstone Harbour have been factored into our conditions.

Much of the criticism of the development at Gladstone Harbour centred on monitoring and who was doing it. This is why one the most common questions we’ve heard at GBRMPA about Abbot Point is “Who is going to make sure this is all done properly?”

The answer is: there will be multiple layers of independent oversight. Indeed, past authors on The Conversation have used Townsville’s port as a good example of how local impacts can be managed safely through transparent, independent monitoring and reporting, and active on-site management.

The Port of Townsville. Photo: GBRMPA

The Port of Townsville. Photo: GBRMPA

This is why we will have a full-time staff member from GBRMPA located at the port to oversee and enforce compliance during dredge disposal operations. This supervisor has the power to stop, suspend or modify works to ensure conditions are met.

In addition, an independent technical advice panel and an independent management response group will be formed. Membership of both these bodies will need the approval of GBRMPA.

Importantly, the management response group will include expert scientists as well as representatives from the tourism and fishing industries, and conservation groups. Together, GBRMPA and those other independent scrutineers will be overseeing the disposal, and will have the final say — not North Queensland Bulk Ports, which operates Abbot Point, or the coal companies that use the port.

Water quality monitoring will take place in real-time to measure factors such as suspended solids, turbidity and light availability. This is in addition to a long-term water quality monitoring program that will run for five years — much longer than what is normally required.

It’s vital that there is utmost transparency and scrutiny of what happens. We believe that with our staff on the job, plus independent oversight that includes the community, it will be a highly transparent process.

What are limits of the Authority’s powers?

It is true to say that despite all these safeguards, placing dredge material on land rather than in the Marine Park remains our preferred choice, providing it does not mean transferring environmental impact to sensitive wetlands connected to the reef ecosystem.

Indeed, land-based disposal is an option that must always be examined under national dredging guidelines.

But we recognise onshore disposal is not always immediately practical. Some of the challenges include finding suitable land, the need for dredge settlement ponds and delivery pipelines, and potential impacts on surrounding environments.

Ultimately, what occurs on land is outside of GBRMPA’s jurisdiction. We do not make decisions about mines, railways and loading facilities, and have never had the power to compel a port authority to place dredged material onshore or to build an extension to existing jetties.

Nor do we have the ability to stop dredge disposal from occurring in port limits that fall inside the World Heritage Area, but outside of the Marine Park.

Our legislative powers simply enable us to approve or reject a permit application for an action in the Marine Park, or to approve it with conditions.

Based on the considerable scientific evidence before us, we approved the application for Abbot Point with conditions, on the basis that potential impacts from offshore disposal were manageable and that there would be no significant or lasting impacts on the reef’s world heritage values.

Improving protection for the reef

Our recent assessments show the dominant risks to the health of the reef are the effects of climate change, excess sediment and nutrient run-off (such as from widespread floods), outbreaks of coral-eating starfish, extreme weather, and some types of fishing.

Coastal development such as ports are assessed as significant but local in their effects. However, many small impacts can accumulate and we take the risks posed by local developments very seriously. Each proposal is assessed on its merits and an approval at Abbot Point does not mean the same action would be approved elsewhere.

It is GBRMPA’s strong view that the current situation where governments and agencies make decisions on individual parts of individual projects – in the absence of a larger strategic plan – needs to change.

Assessing development applications on a case-by-case basis creates unnecessary uncertainty for local communities as well as the ports sector. But it also heightens environmental risks. As a previous Conversation article explained, when we only consider development applications in isolation, we increase the danger of potential cumulative environmental impacts on the reef over a wide geographic area not being properly assessed.

This was highlighted in our strategic assessment and can be readily addressed through master planning of port infrastructure and operations, as proposed by the Australian Government’s National Ports Strategy 2011.

We support the intention of the Queensland Government’s draft Ports Strategy to keep future port development within existing designated port areas. However, the next step should be to incorporate consistent reef protection measures into the master plans for each port, as part of a much-needed strategy that considers cumulative impacts for the entire Great Barrier Reef region.

Russell Reichelt does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Anglers gutted: Lake Macquarie misses proposed artificial reef

 community, fisheries, government, waterways/wetlands
Mar 022014
 

Original story by Damon Cronshaw, Newcastle Herald

 LAKE Macquarie fishos have hit the roof after the NSW government snubbed them over a planned artificial fishing reef off the coast.

GUTTED: Jason Nunn had hoped Lake Macquarie would get an artificial fishing reef. Photo: Brock Perks

GUTTED: Jason Nunn had hoped Lake Macquarie would get an artificial fishing reef. Photo: Brock Perks

‘‘We’ve been stiffed,’’ Jason Nunn, of Fisherman’s Warehouse at Marks Point, said.

NSW Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson announced that a  $900,000 offshore artificial reef would be built off the coast of Port Macquarie.

Fishermen said the government had promised Lake Macquarie would get the next reef and the decision appeared to be political.

‘‘How ridiculous to take it to Port Macquarie,’’ Mr Nunn said.

‘‘Port Macquarie has a lot of reef structures within its inshore grounds as it is.

‘‘The whole idea is to create habitat, not to put habitat where it already is.’’

He said the coast from Redhead to Swansea had ‘‘a lot of sand’’.

‘‘For years we’ve copped it sweet with the giant anchors of coal ships grinding our reefs to a pulp,’’ he said.

‘‘We’ve lost a lot of habitat this way and it would have been a great thing to put that back.’’

In 2010, the former Labor government said reefs were planned off the coasts of Lake Macquarie, Sydney and the south coast to improve recreational fishing.

Reefs were built off Vaucluse and Shoalhaven, but Lake Macquarie missed out.

Fishos said the Coalition government had made promises the Lake Macquarie plan would proceed, but the minister said a north coast site had been the target since the 2011 election.

The Lake Macquarie plan involved installing on the seabed – 3.6kilometres off Blacksmiths Beach – four 12-metre high artificial reefs made of steel.

Swansea MP Garry Edwards said he had never been lobbied on the matter.

‘‘If somebody had bothered to speak to me about it maybe I could have intervened,’’ Mr Edwards said.

Ms Hodgkinson said the offshore artificial reef program, funded through fishing fees, had been ‘‘enormously successful and is expected to continue in future’’.

She said the Department of Primary Industries had deployed the first purpose-built artificial reef inside Lake Macquarie in 2005, which was expanded in 2007.

However, this was a separate program for artificial reefs in estuaries.

The minister said  ‘‘two fish aggregating devices’’ were deployed off Swansea and Newcastle Harbour each year, leading to ‘‘terrific recreational fishing opportunities’’.

Crocodile reported around Bulimba Creek in Brisbane’s south

 community, threatened species, waterways/wetlands, wildlife
Mar 012014
 

Original story by Daryl Passmore, Courier Mail

RESIDENTS around Bulimba Creek on Brisbane’s southside are keeping their eyes peeled after a report of a freshwater crocodile emerging from the waterway.

A listener rang radio station 4BC on Friday night to say he spotted the reptile creeping out of the creek near Banika St in Mansfield.

Locals were yesterday startled — and cynical — about the suggestion that a man-eater may have moved into the neighbourhood.

Mark Kenway, whose house backs onto the bush corridor around the creek, was cool about the possible threat.

“I’ve lived here eight years and never seen anything,’’ he said.

“Well there are some pretty big goannas around here — and some mighty pythons.’’

“Let me guess,’’ asked Terry Vogan. “The bloke who rang the radio had a Kiwi accent and was actually looking at a four-foot lizard.

“We’ve got a couple of those, some vicious wallabies and a few savage cane-toads. But I can guarantee there ain’t no ‘gators.’’

Turns out, however, that Terry’s wife Lesley has got history when it comes to croc-spotting in the suburbs.

“I grew up on Norman Creek and there were always stories that a crocodile was in there. We survived that one too.’’

Crocodiles are rarely spotted south of central Queensland but rangers captured a 3.1-metre saltie in the Mary River near Maryborough last November and a 3.5m giant is still believed to be on the loose in the same area.

Wildlife officials caught a 1.6m freshwater crocodile in Logan City in 2009. They said there were signs it had previously been held in captivity and released 1300km from its natural environment.

The Courier-Mail carried a photograph of a 3.8m crocodile which was shot in the Logan River in 1905.

Conservation group seeks to overturn reef dump plan

 community, environment, government, waterways/wetlands
Feb 272014
 

ABC NewsOriginal story by Jessica Nairn, ABC News

An environmental lobby group says it has a strong legal case against the agency that oversees the Great Barrier Reef over the planned dumping of dredge spoil.

Abbot Point coal terminal in Queensland. The expansion of Abbot Point will generate millions of cubic metres of dredge spoil. Photo: ABC

Abbot Point coal terminal in Queensland. The expansion of Abbot Point will generate millions of cubic metres of dredge spoil. Photo: ABC

The North Queensland Conservation Council (NQCC) is trying to overturn the approval to dump three million cubic metres of spoil in the marine park as part of the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority gave the go ahead last month.

Jeremy Tager from NQCC says they have taken the matter to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane, citing several concerns.

"The assessment undertaken by the marine park authority has failed to adequately look at alternatives at sea, dumping inside the marine park and that the impacts of dumping are far greater than the assessment," he said.

Yesterday, construction firm Lend Lease withdrew its bid from the tender process for the Abbot Point expansion and allowed its partnership with rail company Aurizon to lapse.

Aurizon says it will continue with the tender process.

 Older Entries  Newer Entries