A New Dam On The Mary???

[Mike Delisser]

Jim you make a lot of good points and know doubt know your subject well but I still feel I'm being conned by the "green side" of the anti Trav Dam movement to a certain extent.
I'm being told it will mean the end of the Lungfish (not by you) and I know thats not true. We will never see Mary Riv Cod again and I know that's thats not true either. It never gets enough water to fill, they're grasping at straws here. Arse breathing Turtles, well I concede that as I wouldn't recognise one if it bit me on my arse.
And I don't blame anyone displaced by the dam from protesting, sh#t I would if I was in their shoes.

I've seen a couple of sections of the Mary to be flooded and I'd hardly call them pristine, they showed the effects of many years of farming and even in one spot a farmer had strung barbed wire accross the river to keep his cattle in (not wishing to judge but true).
I have seen some truely pristine sections of the Mary and tributaries that do support reasonable populations of the cod and they're many miles away from the proposed dam and won't be effected.
In fact this whole process may force the Q Gov to let more hatcheries breed the cod because as it stands now they have only given out one licence to do so and supply is limited (I think, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong).
Every weekend in summer thousands of people flock to our dams in Qld for recreation. There were a couple of thousand spent Easter at Somerset, it was overflowing, house full sign was up, you and others might not think that sounds like fun but you know what, those campers did, and they'll be back again and again. A lot more people will use the dam than currently use the river.
I'm not pro the dam or against it, I don't believe any Gov Minister that says those 2 new dams and the water grid will drought proof us either. I just don't like the gov or greenies trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
Cheers

[Jim_Tait]

Mike,

you have presented a number of considerations concerning the dam that would justify a 'neutral' type attitude that probably is fairly representative of a lot of South East Queenslanders and I need to be honest in saying that until I got to know the system and issues in a bit more depth I was fairly ambivalent (although generally opposed to damming anymore rivers) about putting a dam on what I considered a fairly flogged river system. Responding to points you raised in turn:

Lungfish - I don't think this dam will be the end of them in the Mary River though I would lament the further loss of their natural riverine habitat in one of only two river basins they're endemic to

Never see Mary River Cod again? - I never claimed that, but I do believe that the proposed dam reach contains some of the best remnant habitat and populations in the main river channel and is critically important for the recovery prospects of the species in the main river system (i.e. not tributaries). As far as I'm concerned as a conservation biologist, if you are trying to recover a fish called the Mary River Cod - then the re-establishment of self sustaining populations in the Mary River is the ultimate goal for success. There are populations in tributaries (I’ve fished for them there too - legally under permit) - but these populations are not large, or secure and by no means guarantee the future of the species. The largest populations in Coondoo and Tinana Creeks are functionally isolated from the Mary River as the confluence of this creek system with the Mary (besides going past barrages) joins in the tidal estuary reach - so fish in this system cannot provide recruits to the main Mary River. The other tributary 'strongholds (sic)' - Six Mile Creek (small and has lack of flow issues) and Obi Obi Creek (upstream dam, water quality and aquatic weed issues) - also do not provide populations that secure the future of the species - events like disease outbreaks or catchment wide bushfires or water quality collapses could undermine the viability of these creek based populations - and their is some recent anecdotal information that not all of these creek populations are tracking as good as you would hope (why only anecdotal information? - because Governments - State and Federal have never fully funded their statutory recovery plan for the species and have bugger all good data on them!) - Interesting to note that the proposed dam reach and its cod habitat / populations lies equidistant between two of these sub catchment tributary cod populations (Six Mile and Obi Obi) - one could dare suggest that makes the populations and habitat concerned a critical asset for the recovery prospects of the species in the upper Mary River catchment.

Mary River Turtles - I'm not a turtle expert but I do know from talking to my turtle expert colleagues that similarly to the cod, the proposed dam reach represents the best remnant populations and habitat in the Mary River (reasons being the things that make it a good(?) dam site also make for good turtle and cod habitat - i.e. steeper sided valley=remnant riparian vegetation, snags & deeper holes, and base flow = better water quality and less exotic aquatic weed dominance), and also that this species forms breeding aggregations in key sites - the only documented good one to date being in the proposed dam reach) - to me the survival of a unique endemic aquatic animal species is the sort of constrain that human populations have to accept and work around if we are going to have a sustainable relationship with the earth - which in the end isn't about altruism but saving our own arses!

Pristine River reaches ? - I would be the first to agree that the Mary River is by no means 'pristine' - but I'm not particularly aware of anyone making that claim? - certainly not me - but what I do know after nearly 3 decades as a nature conservationist is that nature conservation value is all relative- when it comes to representative rivers in the South East Queensland bioregion we are not exactly over endowed with choices - I have flown and canoed the Mary from top to Bottom and many other rivers in the bioregions and I can post some photos (and I will) of reaches in the section to be affected by the dam which one could believe were 'near pristine' - and were complete in terms of still harboring threatened native species - certainly there is no other large SE Qld river system that still has the hydrological integrity of the Mary and as most Ausfishers would appreciate this is one of the key things that maintains aquatic biota - yes there are some truly 'near pristine' tributary reaches in the Mary River system but for reasons discussed above they do not provide representative and comprehensive conservation prospects for the broader Mary River - in terms of balance (which we always hear the development lobby saying 'we need a greater sense of') - isn't it fair enough to expect that we can keep one large river system in SE Qld 'free' flowing? - by the way have you really traveled the full length of the Mary River concerned or just had a bit of a squiz upstream and downstream from accessible road crossings? (like most people including many that have previously been involved in accessing it ecologically)

Cattle on River Banks - yes cattle on river banks can do ecological harm - but hey not all of the Mary River bank is subject to cattle grazing, some of it has been rehabilitated in the last couple of decades (the Mary River was where the Integrated Catchment Management ICM movement was born in Qld) and by the way total cattle exclusion can also be damaging where some of your worst ecological weeds are exotic pasture grasses - as I have witnessed on the Mary where Para grass dominates the water's edge or (hot fire generating) Guinea Grass / Green panic dominates the upper levee where cattle grazing has been totally excluded in some reaches - therefore don't write a system off just because it still has some cattle grazing the riparian zone - NB there are worst cattle flogged/ bank collapsed / sediment in filled reaches downstream and upstream of the dam reach.

Hatcheries to breed cod - well my response to this is a little bit like the old argument do you fix injuries received by people falling off a cliff by putting a fence at the top of the hill or an ambulance down in the valley?? Hatcheries are definitely the latter, still a necessary thing but no where near as valuable as re-establishing natural breeding and recruitment. Hatcheries should have been fully funded by Government anyway as part of their statutory commitment to the Mary River Cod Recovery Program - so to offer them know as some sort of sweetener for accepting the drowning of some of the best remnant main channel habitat and populations is a bit rich! Indications are that the reach concerned could with further management investment be one of the best places for re-establishing (if it is not already happening - we don't know because no one has looked hard enough) natural breeding and recruitment of the species - based on the fact that remnant populations appear to have hung on in it better!

Dams for recreation - Dams are great for recreation (not really my choice admittedly but keeps the masses happy) - but hey so are rivers!! They're what I grew up on and dare I suggest most of the other freshwater fishing Ausfishers over 35 years of age. By the way the fact that the Government has now purchased 75% of the land required for the dam (what ever happened to due process ?? - how can they proceed as though the dam is a goer when the IAS has not even been reviewed as yet or National Matters of Significance issues passed by the Feds??) - means that we could develop an outstanding State River recreational Park for all to enjoy (and rehabilitate) the Mary River once we knock the Traveston Dam on the head hey?? what do you reckon ?

Drought Proof SE Qld - well like you I think this is a crock of ka ka - the only way we could drought proof the SE Qld population would be to get them to live within the constraints of the regions natural resources - that means slowing the population influx for one - or if you are an advocate of growth (which I'm not!) do as the Qld Govt Opposition has suggested (only yesterday) and direct people to where the natural resource base including water and land isn't as constrained i.e. North Qld (sorry to my fellow NQ landers) .


Importantly lets keep the discussion about Traveston Dam going, communicate the issues to fellow Queenslanders - because when it comes down to the line (which it will soon) it is going to need a lot of us to stand up and be counted in opposition to the dam if we are going to tell Anna what to do with her dam proposal!!

Regards and happy river loving - Jim

[Jim_Tait]

For those that think the section of the Mary River to be drowned by the Traveston Dam Proposal is all clapped out cow paddock the following is an admittedly selected presentation of images from the affected reach - showing areas where riparian and instream habitat values are more there than not - with further managment investment this part of the upper Mary River could really be recovered to something truly representative of a natural south east Qld River for all to enjoy. NB at the time these photos were taken (December 2006) flows were really low and weed infestation rife - so these sites wwere not looking as good as they now would be after the recent flushing flood flow - enjoy Jim

[Jim_Tait]

More photos all heading downstream

[Jim_Tait]

and more...lots of good fishy habitat - beats an impoundment hands down!!

[Jim_Tait]

Continuing right along...

[Jim_Tait]

and there's more...

[Jim_Tait]

And for any red blooded, patriotic sweetwater Ausfisher - these guys should be the source of our committment to keep the river looking like what it does in the above photos

Regards and tight lines - Jim

[Mike Delisser]

Excellent stuff Jim, it's great to see such a combination of passion and knowlege, more power to you.
Cheers

[Jim_Tait]

Intersting media release from the Qld opposition today - if your going to have and need to service SE Qld population growth their proposal definiately needs assessment given the environmental, social and economic costs of Traveston!

see link http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...05/2235752.htm

[Metalstorm]

Not a rumor mate. Their already trying ways to farm the species of fish and other aquatic life. Lots of people up there are going to loose their homes, farms ect. Just another knee-jerk reaction form the Gov .Jays

[Straitened Out]

I'm an unabashed NIMBY, living on the banks of the Mary and enjoying fishing in the Sandy Strait [hence the moniker!]. The river where I live is certainly not in pristine condition, though it's getting better and I would suggest this is a good reason for opposing the Traveston Crossing dam. A 4% reduction in flow is still a reduction!!!

[Jim_Tait]

Hey Guys just a reminder that State Department (EPA, DPI, NRW) approval for this dam proposal has not yet come through and that the supplementary study to the impact assessment is about to hit the desk in the next couple of weeks - so keep talking to friends and colleagues and your local MP and media outlets about why this dam is a bad idea !!

Regards - Jim

[CHAPPY]

Last week the Frazer Coast Council was knocked back by the EPA for a proposed sewerage treatment plant on the banks of the Mary river. The reason given was that the EPA's own report suggests that at certain times of the year there will be NO FLOW due to the Traviston Dam. This is in total contradiction to the EPA released data which indicartes only a 4 percent decrease. This would also decimate the fruit and verg growers down stream and increase the cost of same to the Brisbane consumers.

The effect on fishing in the sandy straits will be the same as the study on the Clarence.

Rainwater tanks, stormwater management, are all more practical solutions.

This dam is not for recreational purposes this was stated publicy at a local meeting. So forget boating, sailing etc. on this dam.

This is strictly for Brisbanes water supply. How big a back yard does Brisbane need?

Chappy

[Lovey80]

"This is a democracy..if people want to live somewhere then they can"

I agree pinhead but does that really have to be at the cost of others?

The people of the Mary river area should NEVER have to have thier backyard dammed until every other avenue has been exhausted in the Brisbane Area. Has every house got a rain water tank? Has recycling been exhausted? (If anyone doesnt want to drink recycled water move to an area that can sustain itself) Has Desalination been exhausted? Of course the answer to these questions is NO so until the answer to all of these is YES then leave other area's of QLD alone.

Sure everyone has the right to live where they want. They also have the right to pay for that privelege (by way of the costs of the above solutions and level 6 water restrictions permenantly if need be). If the population is to double (fine) then those that wish to live in already saturated area's need to pay for the right.

The people of Brisbane (to which I am one) need to realise that they live in an area where currently water is not sustainable (without restriction) and if more development is intended then sacrifices have to be made. Plain and simple!

It annoys me that some people in Brisbane feel they have the right to live how they want at the expense of others. If they want to live in Brisbane they need to realise that they need to do certain things for that to happen...... One of those things isnt daming someone elses back yard!

I don't want to see endagered species die either but like pinhead I agree that people come first in most cases. If this was the last straw then i'd say "Go ahead and dam the Mary" but the fact is it's not the last straw and many other things can be done!

Cheers

Chris