# Turtles, Lungfish, Cod doomed-Dam to go ahead



## expansa1 (Oct 11, 2007)

From Sunshine Coast Daily October 10th 2007. 
(at: http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2007/oct/10/govt-pushing-ahead-dam-plan/) 
Quote:
The environment impact statement for the controversial $1.7 billion Traveston Crossing Dam could be released as early as next week for public comment. 

Premier Anna Bligh told parliament today that the EIS had been provided to the Coordinator-General to confirm it addresses the Terms of Reference. 

"Subject to his confirmation that it does address the Terms of Reference the EIS will be publicly released as early as next week,'' Ms Bligh said. 

"After six weeks of public consultation the Coordinator General will then consider the response. If he approves the EIS it will then be placed before the Federal Minister for the Environment early in 2008. 

Ms Bligh acknowledged that any dam of the scale of the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam had the potential to create impacts that must be addressed. 

"Concern has been raised about the potential impact on the Queensland Lungfish, Mary River Turtle and Mary River Cod. These are extraordinary creatures already under stress with their populations in decline, and they deserve protection. 

"The project proponent, Queensland Water Infrastructure, proposes extensive measures to address these concerns. 

Ms Bligh announced a $35 million Freshwater Species Conservation Centre to be built near Gympie - adjacent to the Bruce Highway on the eastern shores of the dam - upstream of the dam wall. The funding will be sourced from the dam project. 

"Its prime goal is to ensure the survival and improve the status of Lungfish, Mary River Cod and Mary River Turtle. This proposal is about learning more about these species and ensuring that they just don’t survive – they thrive.'' 

The Conservation Centre will be run in partnership with the University of Queensland, and overseen by Australia’s leading science agency CSIRO. 

The world’s leading experts in the research of this field will be involved to provide independent advice – they include Professor Jean Joss of Macquarie University; Professor Gordon Grigg of The University of Queensland and Dr Col Limpus of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service have agreed to join the Centre’s Scientific Advisory Panel. 

"Professors Joss and Grigg have made their opposition to the construction of the Traveston Crossing Dam clear. I have no doubt their opinions have not changed but I thank them for supporting the project which is intended to achieve just one thing – the protection and sustainability of three wonderful species. '' 

"In April this year I visited Professor Joss’ research laboratory at Macquarie University in Sydney. I understand her passion and commitment to this extraordinary fish. The time I spent with Jean and her fish was a revelation. 

"The facilities proposed for the new centre include breeding tanks, fish and turtle ponds, research laboratories and researcher’s accommodation. 

"The centre is proposed to have 14 staff and provide an education and awareness focus for these species. 

The centre will provide Queensland’s first opportunity to show off this ‘living fossil’ - said to be more than 110 million years old. It is expected to attract visitors, students and scientists from Australia and overseas. 

The $35 million funding package includes resources for operational and research funding for the next 10 years, along with funding for implementation of research findings. 

Subject to the Commonwealth giving the dam final approval it is expected that detailed planning of the centre will commence by mid next year - with the first sod being turned by mid-2009. 


Wonderful isn't it! The experts are buckling to the pressure because a few bucks are being thrown their way, guaranteeing their staff’s jobs, as well as themselves, for at least another 10 years. 

It's incredible that ecologists in Australia (not a third world country) believe that conservation means a shiny new building, a few tourists and breeding lots of hatchlings of an endangered species and dropping them into a habitat that simply will NEVER be able to support them. 

ARE THESE PEOPLE STUPID for thinking that conservation is just breeding in Hatcheries for release into the river??? Even Zoo's aren't stupid enough to release animals into an unviable habitat. 

THEIR HABITAT MUST BE PROTECTED AT ALL COSTS! 

We need to contact world renowned ecologists (Those with more letters after their names than ours) and ask them for their comments on breed/release centres without having an ecosystem that can support them after they are released. 

IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE "DOING CONSERVATION" IN THE MEDIA'S AND PUBLICS EYES BUT THE FACTS ARE THEY ARE NOT!!! IT IS A SMOKESCREEN LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! 
All they are doing is providing a good food source for their natural predators! 

What happens after the ten years are up and everyone packs up their bags and goes home????? 

This ten year program will not help the Mary River turtle as hatchlings take 15-20 years to reach sexual maturity. All they will do is take gravid animals from the wild, induce them to lay, incubate the eggs and say look what a wonderful job we have done!! 

In our preliminary findings, we have noted that the Mary River turtle is doing very well in the upper catchment and does not need any unnecessary and costly intervention. We have noted that so far we have caught 66% juvenile MRT's which indicates that the population is sustainable. 

What we have found is that they prefer a very particular and unique habitat. That is what should be protected to ensure their survival, and that their numbers will increase! 

Limiting their habitat = Limiting their maximum population. The larger the population, the more stable it is genetically. 



HATCHERIES ARE NOTHING MORE THAN BAND-AID SOLUTIONS 

Regards,

Craig Latta-AFTCRA Inc.

BELOW IS A PAPER WRITTEN BY SOME OF THE EXPERTS THAT WORKED ON THE BURNETT RIVER 'PARADISE' (WHAT A JOKE) DAM RESEARCH ON EFFECTS ON TURTLES THAT DAMS HAVE ON THEM AND WHY BREEDING FACILITIES JUST WON'T WORK.

The Environmental Impacts of Dams on the regionally Endemic Turtles of the Mary River 
Scott Thomson 1,3 , Mark Hamann 2,3, Craig Latta 3, Gabrielle Latta 3. 

1. Institute of Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] 

2. School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811 
Australia. E-mail: [email protected] 

3. AFTCRA Inc. (Australian Freshwater Turtle Conservation and Research Association) PO Box 963, COOROY QLD 4563. E-mail: [email protected] 


The Mary River currently supports six species of freshwater turtle. Many of these are widespread in other drainages but two of the species, the Mary River Turtle (Elusor macrurus) and the Southern Snapping Turtle (Elseya albagula) are endemic to the region. Indeed, the Mary River Turtle is only found in this drainage, the Southern Snapping Turtle is also found in the Burnett and the Fitzroy drainages. 

The Mary River Turtle (Elusor macrurus) was described by Cann & Legler (1994) it is a monotypic genus representing a very old lineage of turtles that has all but disappeared from the evolutionary history of Australia. It is one of Australia’s largest species of turtles. Specimens in excess of 50cm carapace length have been recorded. Adult Mary River turtles have an elongated, streamlined carapace that can be plain in colour or beautifully patterned. Overall colour can vary from rusty red to brown and almost black. The plastron varies from cream to pale pink. The skin colouration is similar to that of the shell and often has salmon pink present on the tail and limbs. The iris can be pale blue. The species utilises bimodal respiration and are therefore capable of absorbing oxygen via the cloaca whilst underwater, however they do regularly come to the surface to breathe. A unique feature of Elusor is the tail, which in males, can measure almost two thirds of the carapace length. The tail has haemal arches, a feature lost in all other modern turtles. It is probably a derived feature but its function is not understood. Another unique feature is the exceptionally long barbels under the mandible. Proportionately, the Mary River turtle has the smallest head and largest hind feet of all the species within the catchment, which contributes to its distinction of being the fastest swimmer. This species is currently listed as endangered under Queensland and Federal legislation, plus the International conservation body, IUCN, lists it as endangered on the IUCN Redlist. 

The Southern Snapping Turtle (Elseya albagula) was described by Thomson et al. (2006) from the Mary, Burnett and Fitzroy drainages. Although Elseya is a relatively large genus it also represents an ancient group of reptiles with a significant fossil history in Australia. This is particularly true of the Queensland Elseya and is most evident in this species which in the current theory of relationships would be among the oldest surviving species (Georges & Thomson, 2006). It also is a very large species of Chelid and is slightly larger than Elusor with one 54cm and one 56cm female now measured. These sizes make it second only to the Mata Mata of South America as the largest species of Chelid turtle (Austro-South American Side Neck) in the world. In other words it is a true relic of the Australian megafauna. They are sexually dimorphic with males being considerably smaller than females. The carapace is oval to slightly elongated and, in adults, is typically charcoal to black in colour. The adult plastron is predominantly charcoal to black but can often be patterned with cream and black. The name albagula is derived from the white colouration, commonly seen on the throat of adult females. Hatchlings and juveniles are highly serrated, keeled and variable in colour. They are incredibly patterned with mottling and marbling ranging from cream to black. Also capable of cloacal breathing, this species can absorb oxygen efficiently from the surrounding water. The description of this species came out in July this year, as such, until this happened it has not been possible to have it assessed for threatened status. It is now in the process of being listed as endangered both at Federal and International levels. 

Within the Mary River the Southern Snapping Turtle has been found from the upper reaches of the river down to the freshwater brackish interface. While the Mary River Turtle has not been found throughout the river, the search effort by researchers has not covered the entire system. However, it is known to occur in the Mary River between Tiaro and Gympie, in the upper catchment at Kenilworth (Flakus 2002) and within the Traveston, Coolabine, and Cambroon areas (Latta & Latta, 2006). It is important to note that few freshwater turtle surveys have been conducted in the Mary River between Gympie and Kenilworth to describe the population structure, of either the Mary River or the Southern Snapping Turtles in this section of the river. Regardless of incomplete surveys within the Mary River drainage, the data that is available for both species indicates that populations are strongly biased towards adults, and that most adults breed every year (Tucker 1999; Limpus et al. 2002; Flakus 2002). These are worrying signs because this data implies that survival of eggs and/or the recruitment of hatchlings is poor. Both species reach maturity at around 20 years and the lack of juvenile turtles suggests that these threats have been occurring for decades. One of the priorities for developing management incentives for these two turtle species is to conduct systematic surveys in the Mary River and tributaries between Gympie and Conondale, to determine population structure and stability. 

The Mary River and Southern Snapping Turtles are river turtles and like many species of river turtles rely on a suite of river characteristics such as riffle zones, rapids and flowing rivers that are not impounded. They also rely on the constant remodelling of the river banks that take place in seasonal fluctuations on the river. Both species are omnivores but at different stages of life the percentage of plant and animal food changes. As adults they largely eat vegetation and fruit. Hence, it is important that their habitat has healthy growth of riparian vegetation that produces fruits they can eat, for example native figs. 

The Southern Snapping Turtle is found throughout the rivers in which it occurs however it is usually absent in areas of still water impounded by dams (Thomson et al., 2006). The species, as a cloacal breather, is intrinsically vulnerable to the effects of dams because of the loss of the riffle zones and rapids on which it relies to oxygenate the water (Legler and Georges 1993; Fitzgibbon 1998). Less is known about the impacts of dams and weirs on the Mary River Turtle, however it is not generally found within impounded areas (Tucker 1999; Mark Hamann and Craig Latta personal observations). The dams also have the effect of dividing or fragmenting populations because they cannot be easily travelled over by the turtles. Hence impoundment structures can impede the gene flow for the species causing a loss of diversity. In the description of the species it was suggested that the Southern Snapping Turtle was a sensitive indicator of riverine health (Thomson et al., 2006). 

On the Burnett River, in the wake of the building of the Paradise Dam, a turtle hatchery was developed. At this stage it is too early to tell if they have had any success because a nesting season has not been completed and eggs that have been placed into the hatchery are still incubating. A successful hatchery program must not just be about obtaining eggs and hatching them; there is more to it than this. For a hatchery program to work effectively there must be suitable riverine habitat to release hatchlings into; and hatchlings must have a better chance of survival than if nothing was done. Moreover, the incubation environment should be designed and managed so as not to compromise embryo development, hatchling phenotype, health or physical condition. Whether the Burnett River, with its loss of flows and few riparian zone management programs, is viable habitat for the species is not known and it will take years of monitoring to determine this. The hatchlings must be monitored, at least to determine immediate survival in the river, and it would be preferable to monitor them until they reach maturity. In long lived species such as the Mary River or Southern Snapping Turtles, this may take two decades or more. Hence, any use of this method on the Mary River would be another attempt of an untested process. 
In summary, experience from the world of sea turtles where hatcheries are commonly used to protect sea turtle clutches, shows us that hatcheries are expensive to set up, expensive to run/maintain and it is exceedingly difficult to measure success on a short term (<10 years). Another factor in the ultimate success of a hatchery program is the long term funding of the project. A hatchery could conceivably cost in the order of $500k to set up and then between $100k and $200k per year to run and maintain; especially if staff are hired to maintain it. This, over a generation of turtles equates to considerable expenditure. Whilst it is topical and highly rated, it will no doubt continue to receive funding but what happens 10 years down the track? Charismatic species such as Sea Turtles can only sometimes enjoy very long term funding and even this is rare. A ten year program may give the turtles another generation of survival but what then? If the species can no longer breed in the wild, because of the effects of the dam, then they will still not be breeding in 10 years. If funding runs out, we are back to where we started. In other words, a hatchery program may in the long term be nothing more than a temporary Band-Aid solution to a wider problem (e.g. Frazer 1992), and that problem is the loss of usable habitat for the turtles and distraction from the real issues of riparian zone management and predator control. 



Cann, J. and Legler, J.M. (1994). The Mary River Tortoise: a new genus and species of short-necked chelid from Queensland, Australia (Testudines; Pleurodira). Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1(2):81-96. 

Fitzgibbon, S. 1998. The diving physiology and dive behaviour of an undescribed turtle from the Mary River, Queensland (Elseya sp.). Thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Queensland. 

Flakus S (2002) The ecology of the Mary River turtle, Elusor macrurus. Masters thesis, The University of Queensland. 

Frazer NB (1992) Sea turtle conservation and halfway technology. Conservation Biology 6, 179. 

Georges A. and Thomson, S. (2006). Evolution and Zoogeography of the Australian Freshwater Turtles. In Merrick, J.R., Archer, M., Hickey, G. and Lee, M. (eds).Evolution and Zoogeography of Australasian Vertebrates. AUSCIPUB (Australian Scientific Publishing) Pty Ltd, Sydney. In press. 

Hamann M, Ibrahim K, Whittier JM (2000) Measuring the success of sea turtle hatcheries in Malaysia: Using emergence success, savethemaryriver ratios and hatchling performance as indicators. In '20th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation'. Orlando. (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477) 

Latta, C & Latta, G (2006) ‘Mary River Turtle Elusor macrurus photographic survey performed under Scientific Purposes Permit E4/001080/00/SAA’ 
Unpublished report compiled for Queensland Museum 

Legler, J.M. & Georges, A. 1993. Chelidae. In: Godsell, J. (Ed.). Fauna of Australia, Volume 2: Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves. Canberra: Australian Biological Resources Study, Dasett, pp. 142–152. 

Limpus C, Limpus D, Hamann M (2002) Freshwater turtle populations in the area to be flooded by the Walla Weir, Burnett River, Queensland: Baseline study. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 48, 155-168. 

Schäuble C, Ibrahim K, Kassim AR, Hamann M, Whittier J (2003) Monitoring hatchery success - What's worthwhile. In 'Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation'. (JA Seminoff (compiler)) Miami, Florida (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503. p 116. 

Thomson, S., Georges, A. and C. Limpus, (2006). A New Species of Freshwater Turtle in the Genus Elseya (Testudines: Chelidae) from Central Coastal Queensland, Australia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology. 5(1):74-86. 

Tucker AD, (Compiler) (1999) 'Cumulative Effects of Dams and Weirs on Freshwater Turtles: Fitzroy, Kolan, Burnett and Mary Catchments.' Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service., Unpublished report to the Queensland Department of Natural Resources.


----------



## wicked reptiles (Oct 11, 2007)

That was a very enlightening post, thanks for sharing this, what are you proposing people do to help the situation?


----------



## expansa1 (Oct 11, 2007)

wicked reptiles said:


> That was a very enlightening post, thanks for sharing this, what are you proposing people do to help the situation?



We're asking people to write letters or emails to Senator Malcolm Turnbull to help stop the dam from proceeding.

Gabrielle is drafting up a letter that just needs to be signed and posted or emailed to Malcolm Turnbull.

I will post up the draft letter as soon as she has finished. 
We could really use 5 minutes of everyone's time on this cause, fellow members!

Regards,

Craig-AFTCRA Inc.


----------



## herptrader (Oct 11, 2007)

Turnbull will probably approve the project and raise you a pulp mill.

All very sad really :-(


----------



## MrSpike (Oct 11, 2007)

What's the blokes e-mail? I'll send one in.

Kane


----------



## Radar (Oct 11, 2007)

Put up all the relavant contact details of where you want this stuff to go, so all people have to do is print it out and mail it. 
EXPANSA: If you don't mind could I copy and paste your entire post to send off to the head of the school of tropical bio. at JCU? Im working in the Freshwater Ecology lab on a side shoot to one of his (worldwide, National Geographic society funded) projects and he might be able to give me some relevant names of 'bigwig' ecologists for you to try and recruit. I have ****eall time atm, but If I can get you some names to contact could you do the hard stuff? Not to mention you're probably much more qualified and able to get them to listen than I am. 

Red


----------



## cris (Oct 11, 2007)

Great work Craig, i think that along with some input from fish ppl about the cod and lungfish and some stuff from engineers about the problems with building a dam in such a stupid place, there is a fair chance it will make a differance.

You have a much better chance with our environment minister than you do with the queensland government. Being a stupid idea from a labor government that they hate, i wouldnt be supprised if it isnt approved.


----------



## Hickson (Oct 11, 2007)

Craig,

I think you have misrepresented the scientists when you say



> Wonderful isn't it! The experts are buckling to the pressure because a few bucks are being thrown their way, guaranteeing their staff’s jobs, as well as themselves, for at least another 10 years.
> 
> It's incredible that ecologists in Australia (not a third world country) believe that conservation means a shiny new building, a few tourists and breeding lots of hatchlings of an endangered species and dropping them into a habitat that simply will NEVER be able to support them.
> 
> ARE THESE PEOPLE STUPID for thinking that conservation is just breeding in Hatcheries for release into the river??? Even Zoo's aren't stupid enough to release animals into an unviable habitat.



It clearly says in the arcticle that they have not changed their minds about the dam, all they have agreed to do is sit on the advisory board for the Centre which will be conducting research as well as conservation efforts. This isn't selling out, it's simply ensuring that the money spent on research is not unnecessarily wasted. I know both Profs Joss and Grigg are aware that you can't put animals back into habitat that is not available, but as far as lungfish goes, Jean Joss knows where all the remaining habitat exists

To say they have sold out for some money and a shiny new building is misrepresenting them in the extreme.



Hix


----------



## falcon69 (Oct 11, 2007)

whats wrong with the world...
can someone explain to me why this constructiion needs tobe built in the first place..
ill sign,send what ever needs to be done...
and hix you should know how the thses things work,..everything is not cut and dry and not a bed of roses...mayb they want they shiny new building you can only stay at a uni for so long...money can buy alot of things,,including people,politicans,,but not habitat,or the enviroment...


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 12, 2007)

falcon69 said:


> whats wrong with the world...
> can someone explain to me why this constructiion needs tobe built in the first place..



Something to do with the extreme shortage of water...

Often, the stupid greeny do gooders often attempt to prevent developments which really do need to go ahead. Unfortunately that means that when a project like this comes along, which really shouldn't go ahead, the powers that be are so used to hearing the pleas of the greenies that their cries fall on deaf ears, especially as the water issue is such a critical one. This is one of the projects which genuinely does need to be prevented, despite the massive need for the dam. Because of the massive water problem, and because of the do gooders' habit of crying wolf every time a blade of grass needs to be cut, stopping this one is going to be a mighty task.


----------



## alex_c (Oct 12, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> Something to do with the extreme shortage of water...
> 
> Often, the stupid greeny do gooders often attempt to prevent developments which really do need to go ahead. Unfortunately that means that when a project like this comes along, which really shouldn't go ahead, the powers that be are so used to hearing the pleas of the greenies that their cries fall on deaf ears, especially as the water issue is such a critical one. This is one of the projects which genuinely does need to be prevented, despite the massive need for the dam. Because of the massive water problem, and because of the do gooders' habit of crying wolf every time a blade of grass needs to be cut, stopping this one is going to be a mighty task.


exactly. i don't get why we just don't pipe water from the top end of the country during the wet season it certainly make's a lot more sense. or as some guy wrote to a new's paper flood some of the salt lake's with it to increase rainfall.


----------



## cris (Oct 12, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> Something to do with the extreme shortage of water...
> 
> Often, the stupid greeny do gooders often attempt to prevent developments which really do need to go ahead. Unfortunately that means that when a project like this comes along, which really shouldn't go ahead, the powers that be are so used to hearing the pleas of the greenies that their cries fall on deaf ears, especially as the water issue is such a critical one. This is one of the projects which genuinely does need to be prevented, despite the massive need for the dam. Because of the massive water problem, and because of the do gooders' habit of crying wolf every time a blade of grass needs to be cut, stopping this one is going to be a mighty task.



Good point, I actually think the environment minister is quite rational in his decision making. I would suspect highlighting the feasibility problems on a practical level would be key to stopping it. Are there any websites with details about the problems involved with the dam?

If im going to write a letter i want it to be worth reading, not just saying i think its bad without anything to back it up. I dont want it to be dismissed as ignorant greeny hype that would come from the type of ppl Sdaji talks about above(no offence to stupid greenies).


----------



## Kirby (Oct 12, 2007)

can you post up a letter, that we can print off, sign and send.. and get others to do the same..


----------



## expansa1 (Oct 14, 2007)

rednut said:


> Put up all the relavant contact details of where you want this stuff to go, so all people have to do is print it out and mail it.
> EXPANSA: If you don't mind could I copy and paste your entire post to send off to the head of the school of tropical bio. at JCU? Im working in the Freshwater Ecology lab on a side shoot to one of his (worldwide, National Geographic society funded) projects and he might be able to give me some relevant names of 'bigwig' ecologists for you to try and recruit. I have ****eall time atm, but If I can get you some names to contact could you do the hard stuff? Not to mention you're probably much more qualified and able to get them to listen than I am.
> 
> Red



Hi Red,
I didn't see this post previously. NO we don't mind. The more people that see it the better!

Cheers,

Craig


----------



## expansa1 (Oct 14, 2007)

Kirby said:


> can you post up a letter, that we can print off, sign and send.. and get others to do the same..



The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP 
PO Box 1840 
BONDI JUNCTION NSW 1355 

RE – Concerns regarding the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal and the environmental legislation that protects threatened species. 

Dear Sir, 

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the above proposal. 

This proposal threatens the very existence of at least three species, endemic only to this area. The time taken to collect data for this proposal can, at most, be only a ‘snap-shot’ of the diversity of the flora and fauna of this region. It would be unreasonable to expect the world’s leading Biologists and Ecologists to make such a vital decision with such limited data, let alone one person. Furthermore, fifteen days of data collection for an endangered species found nowhere else on the planet should not be acceptable for a project of this magnitude that will irreparably destroy a large percentage of its already restricted habitat. 

I urge that you move to amend the EPBC Act (1999) to include the importance and absolute necessity to undertake Population Viability Analysis (PVA) and Population and Habitat Viability Assessment (PHVA) of little known species with limited natural distribution. A lack of available data for any species should not be grounds to accept or approve a proposal involving matters of National Environmental Significance. The precautionary principle should be administered if data is not available for a species within a proposal site and the proposal should be halted until such time as the PVA and PHVA are satisfactorily completed and included in the Environmental Impact Statement. I am sure that the ecologists responsible for the data collected for the Traveston Crossing Dam Environmental Impact Statement would agree that this is not sufficient information and requires systematic sampling over a number of years to obtain the data necessary to make a truly informed decision. 

I also urge that if your position as Minister for the Environment changes before the decision is reached regarding the Traveston Dam proposal, that you forward this letter to the new Minister so he/she can consider these concerns when making the final decision. 

Yours sincerely, 


______________ 

Address 


________________________________ 

________________________________ 

________________________________ 

________________________________


----------



## aftcra (Oct 14, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> Something to do with the extreme shortage of water...
> 
> .......the massive need for the dam.


 
Hi Sdaji,

Did you really mean need for the dam or need for WATER?

We feel the Brisbane deserves a SECURE WATER SUPPLY not a dam that will only supply water IF it rains in the Mary River Catchment!

Regards,

Gab


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 16, 2007)

aftcra said:


> Hi Sdaji,
> 
> Did you really mean need for the dam or need for WATER?
> 
> ...



Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm on your side, I don't want the dam to go ahead.

I've just deleted a lengthy response as it would probably hurt the effort to prevent the dam. Let's just say that this is going to be one hard sell and we need to work hard.


----------



## aftcra (Oct 16, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm on your side, I don't want the dam to go ahead.
> 
> I've just deleted a lengthy response as it would probably hurt the effort to prevent the dam. Let's just say that this is going to be one hard sell and we need to work hard.


 
Hi Sdaji,

I don't think I misunderstood what you were saying and I fully appreciate you are on our side!

I was simply asking if you intended to say water instead of dam, that's all.....

You didn't necessarily have to delete the 'lengthy response', I would have been quite happy to hear your opinion on this matter. Please feel free to pm if you have anything you would like to say about it!

I hope all interested parties here will work with us to try prevent this environmental 'catastrophe', as it has already been a very difficult battle for us over the last 18 months and it is not going to go away any time soon.

Kind regards,

Gab


----------



## sebbie0983 (Oct 16, 2007)

Maybe the government's research centres should do more study into other avenues such as cloud seeding and desalination, although some of these avenues can be extremely expensive there has to be something more creative they can do other than always putting dams in place when they don't even know that rain will actually fall within these areas. Unfortunetly I think Craig is right when these people in a position of making decisions make them not because there thinking of a long term solution but rather looking at something that will make them look good in the spotlight.


----------



## croc_hunter_penny (Oct 16, 2007)

i thought they were building a desalination plant somewhere around here, what happened to that?


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 16, 2007)

aftcra said:


> Hi Sdaji,
> 
> I don't think I misunderstood what you were saying and I fully appreciate you are on our side!
> 
> ...



No, I did mean to say dam, unfortunately it is critically needed. The other solutions are either difficult to sell; people don't like to drink recycled sewage and although they claim to be interested in conservation, they'd just quietly rather drink rain water and let a few animals they'll probably never see in the flesh go extinct, or, they are too expensive, such as desalination plants or long distance pipelines. If you ignore the horrific environmental damage it would cause, the dam is probably the best option for the area's water supply. We might not be getting much rain by historical standards, but rain will always fall. Look at how much water is flowing along the Brisbane river at the moment and into the ocean. It's all being "wasted".

Ideally we'd have a doubled water system, with high quality drinking water to be used where it is needed, and lower quality water for other things. Ideally we'd be catching a lot more of the water that falls on the city itself, rather than having it run off our roof tops and roads and into drains which flow into the ocean. Ideally... well, a lot of things would be different. There are many solutions to the water problem without building the dam, either expensive or unappealing. Obviously in this case, the environmental impact of building a dam is just too severe to warrant it being built, but unfortunately I can't see an easy solution. I am realistic enough to understand that there are times when we need to allow a few species to go extinct in the name of 'progress', but this is one of the cases where we would be better off evacuating half of the city than killing the species in question (obviously that is a solution which is impossible to sell to the population). Whatever the alternative is, we just can't let this dam go ahead, but what is your proposed solution to the water issue?

What this issue boils down to is convincing the government (which involves convincing the wider community in order to convince the government that it will be a popular opinion) that the Mary River catchment is important enough to warrant spending extra money and/or drinking recycled water to avoid destroying it. Part of that will be identifying the best alternative water solution.

Also, it seems that most people just can't understand why these species are particularly important. Educating the public in this respect is probably almost impossible as most won't be able to properly grasp the concept of biodiversity (most will forever say "each species is equally important, isn't it?" and probably find it offensive if you suggest otherwise).

Perhaps another tact which would help is pointing out the people who will lose their homes and businesses. While I sympathise with those people, the reality is that the species are important enough to make them irrelevant, but perhaps not so in the eyes of the government and wider community.


----------



## sebbie0983 (Oct 16, 2007)

I agree with your point Sdaji, what people don't realise is that any water we drink, shower with or do whatever with is recycled water, whether it comes from the sky or out of a recycling plant. If people aren't given the facts and are plainly asked if they'd prefer recycled water or not recycled water it's quite obvious what their answer will be. They think new or old, clean or dirty, even though we do live in a democracy we can't always have our choice, that wouldn't be very economical, they should issue recycled water regardless of the opinion polls and do the right and logical thing, regardless of how the public views them


----------



## aftcra (Oct 17, 2007)

Hi again,

You might find it interesting that desal. has very little environmental impact......compared to all other water supply options, if powered by ‘green-energy’! The plant in Perth is a great example with water chemistry readings taken 50 m from the discharge pipe showing a salinity increase of only 1%, not much really. Apparently sea creatures congregate near the outlet as well, as the increase in water movement stirs up some food and nutrients. The Perth Desal. plant came in under budget and was completed well before the scheduled date. The good thing too is once a plant is completed the fresh water is available with the flick of a switch. (If approved, Beattie's dam will be completed by 2011 and then they have to wait for the next 'uncommon rainfall event’ to fill it......dams never fill with your usual seasonal rainfall as seepage, evaporation and other factors take the water as quickly as it falls)! 

The other thing with Desal is energy use. Perth's plant is completely powered by renewable energy in the form of a Wind Farm and they actually sell 1/2 to 2/3 the energy back to the Perth power grid. Being close to the sea though, other green power options could include tidal, current and wave turbines.

The way I look at it (this is very simplistic), the Earth is an enclosed system, water can't escape the atmosphere so the water that is here now is the same amount of water that was here when the planet was dominated by rainforest and the average rainfall all over the globe was much, much higher (provided the oxygen and hydrogen cycles have remained the same). If desalinated water was used to irrigate all the dry continents and rainforest was restored, theoretically the sea should still be within acceptable salinity levels. Also, Desal does exactly the same thing that the Sun does through evaporation.

The problem is with our rainfall. The trees that assisted the rainfall to reach further inland previously, are not as numerous as before and a lot of the rainfall falls out at sea. Additionally, the concrete jungles we create are usually close to or on the coast as everyone wants that ‘million dollar view’ and it is close to the beach for recreation. Often the hot air currents from our concrete jungles force the cloud to dump the rain too close to the coast, which then flows out to sea in the form of wasted storm water. 

 Food for thought!

The plant in Perth was constructed in an environmentally sensitive area but all testing has proven acceptable and within normal limits. Compare this to the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River, the possible extinction of the Yangtze River Freshwater Dolphin because of it and the fact that even the project leaders of the now completed dam admit that it is possibly going to cause an environmental 'catastrophe' for the sake of economic gain. 

For more info, please visit:

http://www.probeinternational.org/catalog/three_gorges_probe.php

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EC122p8.pdf

http://wivenhoesomersetrainfall.com/mary_val_travestonn.htm

http://www.water-technology.net/projects/perth/

Mr Beattie's dam legacy should never happen; the budget has increased to $2.7B from $1.7 (and rising). That's $1000 per man, woman and child in Queensland just to build it and then the cost per megalitre will be 3-4 times higher than the water obtained through the Perth Desal Plant.

A dam at Traveston Crossing would be on an alluvial flood plain……very leaky and large surface area. There is already a dam in a tributary of the Mary River, in a deep gorge and on good bedrock……not leaky and minimal evaporation. The other option is to raise this (Borumba dam), the land was purchased 40 years ago and there are no lungfish or endangered turtles to worry about!

The simple answer for Brisbane is to use a combination of rainwater storage and recycling for industry, rainwater storage and water-wise education for residents and top up the supply using Desal powered by ‘green-energy’ to alleviate water restrictions. Then, if still necessary, raise Borumba Dam.…..PROBLEM SOLVED!!(And all this would probably end up costing us [taxpayers] a lot less than one dam at Traveston) 

Take care and bye for now,

Gab


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 17, 2007)

Gab: that all sounds pretty good. Do you have a rough idea of the estimated costs of water from the dam as opposed to the desal plant? You say that the cost of water in QLD will be 3-4 times higher than the water obtained through the Perth desal plant, but how would the costs compare between a Brisbane desal plant and the proposed dam? Water is so ridiculously cheap, increasing the price by a factor of five wouldn't bother me, in fact, I am offended that we are charged so little for it - it's basically free, which gives no one (at least in the private market) a financial incentive to be careful with it. Realistically, they're probably more likely not to use green energy to fuel a desal plant if one is built, but in this case that wouldn't be something to worry too much about.

Presumably a desal plant is going to be much more expensive both to set up and to run. If what you say about the topography and geography of Traveston Crossing and Borumba is correct, why would they even bother thinking about building the proposed dam? Surely there is more to the story; even politians should be able to understand that a dam which is better _and_ cheaper (even ignoring the environmental impact) is a better dam to build!


----------



## Ozzie Python (Oct 17, 2007)

I agree with your points sdaji. Unfortunately the fact is Brisbane, and most of QLD, is contuining to grow rapidly in population and so is the demand for water. Whether it be now or in 10-15 years time there is going to be a need for another dam before we dry up what small supply we have, which in turn is going to result in destruction our native fauna and flora.

Gold Coast has allready started construction of a de-sal plant. If you do some research into it you will find that conservation groups have rallied against it due to the greenhouse effects it could cause due to the massive power demands required to run the plant. They have also looked into a plant at Pimpama and Coombabah which will utilise wastewater as an energy supply (basically produces gas).

There are many alternatives, pipelines are being built for recycling water and for those of us in the industry they are keeping us very busy. IMO what it comes down to is the government are finding alternatives to get the water, but also need somewhere to store it. I just hope they sort it before we are dry, and along the way the can minimise the environmental impact. Unfortunately they have more things to consider than just wildlife in the area, like human conservation, financial impacts to the economy etc etc.


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 17, 2007)

Ozzie Python said:


> I agree with your points sdaji. Unfortunately the fact is Brisbane, and most of QLD, is contuining to grow rapidly in population and so is the demand for water. Whether it be now or in 10-15 years time there is going to be a need for another dam before we dry up what small supply we have, which in turn is going to result in destruction our native fauna and flora.
> 
> Gold Coast has allready started construction of a de-sal plant. If you do some research into it you will find that conservation groups have rallied against it due to the greenhouse effects it could cause due to the massive power demands required to run the plant. They have also looked into a plant at Pimpama and Coombabah which will utilise wastewater as an energy supply (basically produces gas).
> 
> There are many alternatives, pipelines are being built for recycling water and for those of us in the industry they are keeping us very busy. IMO what it comes down to is the government are finding alternatives to get the water, but also need somewhere to store it. I just hope they sort it before we are dry, and along the way the can minimise the environmental impact. Unfortunately they have more things to consider than just wildlife in the area, like human conservation, financial impacts to the economy etc etc.



I'm no bleeding heart. I understand that people need to drink water, eat food, live in houses, etc, and I also understand that it is human nature to do things like squander resources on petrol-hungry cars, eat inefficiently produced foods, waste electricity in absurd ways, etc etc. I know that most people are almost impossible to educate and are extremely selfish. That's fine, I accept I can't change that and I don't jump up and down about it. By all means, build dams and send species extinct where necessary, but the lung fish really is something too special to lose - it's not that I personally think it's cute or have some special affection for it, it's that this fish is so unique. Biologically, it carries the conservation value of thousands of 'regular' species, it is such an important piece of world's biodiversity. I don't like seeing any species go extinct, but in most cases it doesn't really change much. I know it's difficult for most people to understand, but this isn't just a case of stupid hippy tree huggers wanting to save some obscure and unimportant species, this time it actually is important.


----------



## Ozzie Python (Oct 17, 2007)

If only you could get that through the premiers thick head.

Vote 1 for "Sdaji".

The thing i find annoying about them building a dam, apart from what they are going to potentially wipe out, is the fact that luck will have it that once it's built it will never rain anywhere near the dam again


----------



## aftcra (Oct 17, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> ......but the lung fish really is something too special to lose - it's not that I personally think it's cute or have some special affection for it, it's that this fish is so unique. Biologically, it carries the conservation value of thousands of 'regular' species, it is such an important piece of world's biodiversity. I don't like seeing any species go extinct, but in most cases it doesn't really change much. I know it's difficult for most people to understand, but this isn't just a case of stupid hippy tree huggers wanting to save some obscure and unimportant species, this time it actually is important.


 
I agree totally, the thing is that the turtle is almost as important and unique. Mary River turtles may not hold the key to curing any diseases or explain how our ancestors left the water but they still are recognized as one of the most ancient lineages of freshwater turtle and are definitely amongst the oldest within Australia.

We don't really know enough about them to write them off just yet. Breathing through your butt (instead of talking through it, like our politicians) is pretty amazing if you ask me!

The Mary River has a fish that breathes with lungs and a turtle that breathes with gills (bursae), there was obviously something very special happening here between 365 and 200 million years ago!

Kind regards,

Gab


----------



## Radar (Oct 17, 2007)

I've just posted that note online where a huge bunch of my friends will see it, most of them will probably send it on to their other friends as well. I've got a meeting with the head of school on monday, I'll bring it up with him then.


----------



## Recharge (Oct 17, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> Something to do with the extreme shortage of water...
> 
> Often, the stupid greeny do gooders often attempt to prevent developments which really do need to go ahead. Unfortunately that means that when a project like this comes along, which really shouldn't go ahead, the powers that be are so used to hearing the pleas of the greenies that their cries fall on deaf ears, especially as the water issue is such a critical one. This is one of the projects which genuinely does need to be prevented, despite the massive need for the dam. Because of the massive water problem, and because of the do gooders' habit of crying wolf every time a blade of grass needs to be cut, stopping this one is going to be a mighty task.



yes, as opposed to improving our current unsustainable usage, lack of recycling and treatment and other options... right? it's all the greenies and bleeding hearts!!! 
oh and the unchecked expansion of the human population, because we're the only thing that matters  bugger sustainability!


----------



## PhilK (Oct 17, 2007)

No way is this dam going to be stopped. No amount of 'No Dam' plastic triangley signs will stop it... 
Makes me sick that it is going ahead..


----------



## Sdaji (Oct 17, 2007)

Recharge said:


> yes, as opposed to improving our current unsustainable usage, lack of recycling and treatment and other options... right? it's all the greenies and bleeding hearts!!!
> oh and the unchecked expansion of the human population, because we're the only thing that matters  bugger sustainability!



The reality is, people living in western countries are going to squander resources. Recycling water might be a good option, but while alternatives exist, people won't accept it. Sure, the expanding human population is the underlying issue, but unfortunately we can't just snap our fingers and change that. The reality is that western civilisation is not curently sustainable. It's not a case of being able to stop western civilisation from destroying anything at all, the best we can hope to do is make sure that it doesn't destroy the most critical things, and unfortunately that sometimes means standing aside while they destroy some of the less important things. That's not a nice reality, but reality it is.

What do you mean by "it's all the greenies and bleeding hearts!!!"? The reason they're a problem here is that they are always crying wolf every time someone wants to build anything or step on a blade of grass. If they scream at the top of their lungs over nothing, people get used to it and they can't scream any louder when something genuinely bad happens. Unfortunately, they often don't even stop to think about what they're doing and it's not unusual for them to protest against things which in the bigger picture are actually beneficial for the planet, which even further kills their credibility.

If you can solve the problems by reducing Brisbane's population and/or convincing the population to drink recycled water, brilliant. If not, and you want to help, try to convince people to go for an alternative to this dam.


----------



## Wrasse (Oct 17, 2007)

Anyone feel like washing a dog ?


----------



## Radar (Oct 17, 2007)

Wrasse said:


> Anyone feel like washing a dog ?


 
Is that a metaphore for 'drown someone'? or do you really need a dog washed? :lol:


----------



## jack (Oct 17, 2007)

phil, don't be a defeatist, if enough people make enough noise than the dam can certainly be stopped.


----------



## PhilK (Oct 18, 2007)

I'll believe it when I see it mate.. If they don't listen to rhyme or reason, a bunch of foot stampers won't help..


----------



## mattmc (Oct 18, 2007)

i dont agree with the dam but the freshwater species program should still be underway. 
"WE WILL BUILD A FRESHWATER SPECIES PROGRAM FACILITY BUT ONLY IF WE BUILD A DAMN WHICH WILL IN TURN WIPE OUT THE SPECIES"
thats basically wat there saying.


----------



## falcon69 (Oct 19, 2007)

*dam busters*

yes i agree with jack,..come on Phil you shouldn't give up just like that..a lot of people of worked bloody hard to try and stop this bloody dam being built..if enough people make some noise someone has to listen,,have you signed the petition Phil, every signature doesn't count or have you printed and signed the letter to send..everyone here needs to sign it we, are a group of reptile lovers and love what we do,love our reptiles,all of them our snakes our turtles beardies etc..so those who haven't signed it really should if the love the reptiles they keep..and want something special,for the future..no one wants this to go ahead but we as a whole have to try and help were we can weather it be signing writing a letter it doesn't matter because it the end know that if the dam does go ahead ,and when my kids grow up i can say at least we tried and least i tried to do something...


----------



## hornet (Oct 22, 2007)

craig i will get that letter printed and off asap, this dam cant go ahead or it will be a huge loss to us all, we will lose species and we will never get them back, hatcheries can breed them but if the habitat is destroyed they will never reproduce them selves.


----------

