FRC News

As the science of ecology matures, details become increasingly important.  For example, in the field of reef ecology, we now know of numerous diseases of coral, some with distinct appearances, often characterised by colour and fine detail.  The accurate recording of what a diver observes is consequently increasingly important.

The equipment we use has also improved dramatically.  We currently use Sony’s A7r digital cameras underwater – they offer a wopping 42 MP resolution.  But to get the best results requires ongoing skills development.

In November, frc’s John Thorogood and Carol Conacher attended a 2 day workshop with world renown underwater photographer Kevin Deacon.  Kevin had taught John to dive in 1971, and the two had not met since!  Although the skies were overcast and the water chilly, both John and Carol picked up many new tips and tricks that will enhance both their underwater photography and scientific recording.

This week the Queensland Environment Minister, Dr Steven Miles, tabled the Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Bill 2016, stating that this ‘will mean a rigorous scientific assessment of the impact of mining projects on groundwater would be required before an environmental approval is issued for new mining projects’.

In frc environmental’s recent experience, EHP may require a comprehensive stygofauna survey, as per the Guideline for the Environmental Assessment of Subterranean Aquatic Fauna, before it is considered that the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for a mining project complies with Section 203 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994. In at least one recent case that we are aware of, failure to complete a comprehensive stygofauna survey within the EIS process resulted in a 12 month delay to the sign-off on the project EMP until a comprehensive stygofauna survey was completed to EHPs satisfaction.

Should the Environmental Protection (Underground Water Management) and Other Legislation Bill 2016 be passed, it is very likely that comprehensive stygofauna assessments will form a required component of the rigorous scientific assessment of impacts of a project on groundwater.

Please contact frc environmental if you would like further information.

We just love working with clients for whom environmental responsibility is not simply a slogan. Queensland Urban Utilities recently demonstrated their commitment to environmental responsibility when they contracted frc environmental to relocate freshwater turtles from sewage treatment ponds at Laidley, Forest Hill and Boonah. Using our custom-built fyke nets and turtle traps, frc environmental’s salvage team led by Ms Lauren Pratt and Dr Bob Bentley, relocated over 800 turtles representing four species to the Bremer River.

QUU supported a salvage effort dictated by the ‘real-time’ analysis of CPU (catch per unit of effort), ensuring the exercise was far more than ‘window dressing’.

Lauren, who needed to keep a close eye on the ‘freeboard’ afforded by her waders, commented that ‘whilst paddling around in a sewage treatment pond wasn’t what she’d envisaged when at uni, given QUU’s commitment and the great results achieved, the salvage has been immensely satisfying’. We are looking f

orward to relocating more turtles at Boonah next year, prior to maintenance works starting there.

I’m just back from a project in Tonga, studying the whale tourism industry.

The thing about ‘swimming with whales’ is you’re not simply swimming in the same ocean as the whales, you’re swimming with the whales. It’s very clearly a two-way interaction. The Tongan government rightly regulates the industry to manage the impact of tourism on the whales (much as Australian governments do): swimmers may not approach within 5m of a whale. But there are no such restrictions on the whales’ behaviour. Thirty five tonne, 17m long whales commonly approach and even gently nudge swimmers.

When a mother brings her 3 month old calf back, time and again to have a better look at you, there’s something going on. It’s all too easy to anthropomorphise and talk of making a ‘connection’(after all, we share >98% of their DNA). Are they simply curious? Are they consciously taking care not to injure you (it would certainly seem so)? Are they seeking to make a ‘connection’ with these pathetically flapping drop-ins (us)? We’re just so far from any real understanding.

The popularity of swimming with whales continues to grow, with around 150 people / day in the water with the whales that visit Vava’u over the winter and spring months (although these interactions are spread over a substantial area of ocean and the duration of many encounters is brief). The regulations, weather and of course the whales themselves ensure that encounters are carefully managed, and injuries to swimmers are apparently very rare. But where is this all heading? Is ‘swimming with whales’ simply another adventure tourism bucket-lister? For my money, the whales are far more powerful advocates for conservation of the oceans than any cute clownfish. In an environment where the whale is clearly in control and often ‘makes the first move’, there is enormous potential to benefit both species and the environment we share. We can’t afford to ignore it.

Swimming with whales is a privilege that most are willing to pay for. If only a small percentage of the dollars spent is channelled into management that ensure the whales’ wellbeing and research aimed at better understanding the whales’ interest in us, the positive influence on environmental management is likely to be substantial.

John Thorogood
Senior Principal Ecologist

The Neptune Islands are famous for their great white sharks that congregate to feed on the pups of New Zealand fur seals, and prior to their local extinction (likely in the mid 1900s), little penguins. But true to nature, the sharks don’t always appear ‘on cue’. After 4 days ‘in the cage’, in water much colder than I’m used to, with no sharks sighted it was time to head back to the office.

Whilst the sharks may have been fickle, the temperate waters surrounding North and South Neptune islands team with life. Near the surface silver trevally form dense schools occasionally parted by large yellowtail kingfish. Closer to the bottom were dense kelp beds covering rocky outcrops. Also near the bottom, 2m+ black stingrays and smaller bullrays mingle with 20kg blue groper, and schools of horseshoe leatherjacket are attracted to the cage.

The cage (and divers within) and the burley used under strict permit conditions undoubtably alter the behaviour of these fishes and also of the gulls that flock around the boat, but the quantities of burley used are not great and can’t be sustaining this rich ecosystem. Perhaps like me, lured to the Neptune Islands by the possibility of seeing a great white, the fishes and gulls are attracted simply by the possibility they might get a feed.

The Commonwealth’s $444 million grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation will ensure ongoing employment for a significant number of scientists (which is no bad thing), but will not save the reef.

Many reef scientists are doing an admirable impression of one or more of the 3 wise monkeys, and finding ‘purpose’ in looking for ‘the super-coral’, designing large shade sails or in the belief that endless monitoring of the inexorable decline of the reef will make a difference.

Even clearer than the evidence of climate change, is the evidence that the reef is in very serious decline, and that this decline in all likelihood cannot be reversed. The reef-scale surveys and meticulous piecing together of environmental information by Professor Terry Hughes and colleagues at the ARC Centre of Excellence – Coral Reef Studies make this abundantly clear.

In the 1980s serious bleaching events – the result of unusually warm waters – occurred about once every 25 years. Today, they occur about once every 6 or 7 years. A Porites ‘brain coral’ takes over 50 years to grow to a meter in diameter. Porites bommies 4, 5 and more meters in diameter are being killed by bleaching events. Do the math. As Assoc. Professor Tracey Ainsworth from the University of New South Wales said at last month’s Australian Coral Reef Society’s annual conference, ‘if you’re under 30, you’ve never seen a ‘normal’ reef’.

The climate is changing and the seas continue to warm. We are only just beginning to understand the ecological changes this trend of warming will have on the ecology of our oceans. Regardless of what changes we make in energy production, and regardless of what we spend on monitoring, research and mitigation, over your lifetime, and likely over your children’s lifetime, the seas will continue to warm and the reef will continue to decline. There will be less coral and less species of coral. There will be less species of fish and invertebrates, and in particular those that are dependent on corals for food and shelter. What effect will this have on animals higher up the food-chain and on fisheries? No one knows.

Unbelievably, there are still some who continue to say that there’ll always be a bit of reef somewhere to take the tourists. Based on the trend of increasing frequency of bleaching, it’s likely that you won’t be able to find an un-bleached reef for your holidays in as little as 15 – 20 years.

And here, we’ve only been considering the consequences of bleaching. You wouldn’t believe the varied ways ocean acidification (and yes, it’s clearly happening too) effect the ecology of the reef.

So what should the Great Barrier Reef Foundation be doing with its windfall? The Foundation’s web site makes clear that its priorities are supporting research and management that increase the resilience of the reef and the rate of its recovery, and supporting the development of ‘game changing breakthrough’. Given the growth rate of many corals and the scale of the reef (and of bleaching events), large-scale restoration remains a ‘pipe dream’. However, increasing the reef’s resilience (by decreasing environmental pressures) can buy time. A reef less stressed by the impacts of catchment run-off is more likely to survive temperature stress. And time is critical to innovation.

It’s likely that innovative approaches of any scale (the ones we really need to achieve other than ‘cosmetic’ benefit) will be quite radical – like the current proposal to increase the reflectiveness of clouds (thus reducing the amount of radiation that passes through the clouds to heat the sea). Are we ready to embrace such innovation? Do we have the political system capable of embracing it? An organisation like the Great Barrier Reef Foundation is ideally placed to sow the seeds for a change in thinking in Canberra. One thing we all agree on: there is no time to waste.

Photo credit: globalcoralbleaching.org

How many fish can you count in this photo?

I’m wondering why we need the reminder?  Its trite to say ‘the environment is all around us’, so we must realise the state it’s in.  The reality is that all things are relative and if there’s just a bit more litter today than we noticed last week, we’ll that’s not too bad is it?  It’s human nature, and it’s a characteristic of human nature that allows us to not see what’s often bleeding obvious: that little-by-little humanity is degrading the very environment it depends on.

Here at frc environmental we’re firm believers in the mantra that says ‘you can’t manage what you don’t measure’, so whilst monitoring alone won’t restore our environment, perhaps it’s necessary to clearly illustrate ‘the state of things’.  Is that just one more bit of litter I passed on the way to work, or does the trend show that since I’ve been coming to work that way, on average, I’m now walking past 11 more bits of litter?  Eleven sounds (and is!) a lot more than ‘just 1 more’.  But as I said, monitoring alone won’t restore the environment.  We have to pick up the litter (remove the weeds, fill the voids, filter out the contaminants, ….. ).

The current push to ban plastic straws and single-use plastic bags serves as a great example.  We know these items kill thousands of turtles and other marine life annually.  Both plastic straws and single-use plastic bags are ‘discretionary’ – there are readily available substitutes (I recently bought a very stylish set of ultra-compact shopping bags made from parachute nylon – I just have to remember to take them when I heading to the supermarket ….), so a ban makes sense.  But what about the millions of straws and bags floating around in our oceans and washing-up on our beaches.  How long would it take to make a significant ‘dent’ in their abundance if every time we went to the beach, we each brought home a handful?

 

 

 

 

Photo credit: Sergi Garcia / www.sgfoto.eu

Last week, frc environmental’s Dr Ben Cook lead a very productive native fish management workshop on behalf of Redland City Council.  Recognising the implications of the recently gazetted Biosecurity Act, Redlands City Council is keen to develop a clear framework that will support its response to its General Biosecurity Obligation, and allow that response to work synergistically with its existing initiatives focused on the sustainable management of wetlands and waterways.

With attendees from a number of other local authorities, Griffith University’s Australian Rivers Institute, the Quandamooka Yoolooburrabee Aboriginal Corporation, Seqwater, Department of Environment and Science, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and ANGFA, Ben lead discussions of the close relationship that exists between native fish populations, habitat quality and introduced fish populations, and of the range of actions Council might consider including those relating to policy, regulatory and on the ground actions.

The workshop’s consensus view was that actions aimed on ‘stacking the odds in favour of native species’ should be the theme around which future actions are prioritised.

For further information on managing native and / or introduced fishes and their habitat, please contact Ben at [email protected]; and for information relating to the obligations imposed on local authorities, developers and land owners by the Biosecurity Act 2014, please contact John Thorogood at [email protected].