If the technology works, hopefully it will be applicable to Australia and help us deal with our water woes without building countless dams. see [link]^l1350&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Technology&

While you’re at the site there is a map of the dam area on p56. Also p57 shows the rainfall averages of the whole SEQ area. Part of the attraction of the Mary River is the higher rainfall, whereas the Wivenhoe is in a lower rainfall area. Also you can have a deluge in one part of the area, as when they had half a metre in one day on the Gold Coast last summer, when other parts are dry. So building dams north, centre and south gives some climatic diversity.

Wpd, there is a section on the environmental impact at the end from p83. It is superficial but it all sounds pretty negative to me. We have to understand that politically it is a choice between the Traveston Crossing site and the socalled Four dams option, which the Nats would give us. Assuming the Feds don’t block it, which I doubt they will. Most rural folks are quite keen on dams as long as they are somewhere else.

Wpd I think the article you were looking at was the Wikipedia one with this catchment map. The Traveston Crossing site is a bit south of Gympie. This shows that quite a lot of the Mary basin is below the site with other tributaries feeding in. I don’t know whether this would save the lungfish.

Steve is right in saying that the lungfish is only one of the concerns. It is also found in the Burnett River where the Paradise Dam has recently been built (about 20k northwest of Biggenden on the map, well south of Gin Gin, which is west of Bundaberg) which captures a fair proportion, if you look carefully, of the 32,000 sq km Burnett River basin. Beattie claims the lungfish has been OK there, but the dam is not long completed.

Tim Dunlop at Surfdom hosted a post by Mark White which identified also the Mary River cod (it’s the ‘cuddly’ pic further up the thread), the Mary River turtle, and the great barred frog. They may all be in even greater jeopardy.

For the former, this Catalyst transcript references an expert you could probably contact with a bit of googling. Here’s a summary of scientific findings from the Federal DoEaH. The Qld DoPIaF has a summary of a five year study into the lungfish population and spawning habits along the Burnett River, just so you can see how the data is collected.

Is that enough to be going on with?

I know I have no particular insight into river ecology. Never claimed any expertise.

All I was looking for was someone to tell me from where to get that information/scientific info.

Can you help?

In the same numbers? Are they breeding successfully? Are they slowly being displaced by exotics? And what about floodplain flora and fauna- are they impacted by the dam?

Nothing you have said so far leads me to believe you have any great insight into river ecology. If I’m wrong, please fill me in.

PS, I think you mean argument rather than arguement.

Actually, how about we quit with the tit for tat spelling thing. Its belittling and tedious.

Maybe it won’t. But it is a hardy bugger. And if it is under threat I will be at the barricades.

If you Google ‘Mary River Queensland’ and then click on the ‘Catchment Map’ you will see the extent of the Mary River catchment. It is huge, about 7 000 sq kls. {Sorry, I don’t know how to create links}.

On that map you will see the Borumba Dam. Lungfish still exist in this area. Personal experience.

I also accept your point about the importance of ‘hooks’. But I believe those ‘hooks’ are much better politically if have a solid basis.

PS, I think you mean affect rather than effect.

It isn’t just the lungfish that matters in issues like this and whether or not the lungfish is seriously effected or not is just one piece of the jigsaw. Most native fish etc do not like dams for various reasons, one being that the water at a depth of only a metre or two is too cold. As such the deep water ends up being a dead zone- it might as well be desert.

Dams also effect the proper seasonal flows of rivers, the crucial cycle of booms and busts and the inundation of floodplains. So the whole river ecology ends up being destroyed and this helps weed plants and feral fish which can then come to dominate the new ecology.

The lungfish is really just a “hook” on which environmentalists can rally public support to stop an unnecessary development (see previous post) that has far wider ramifications than the welfare of a single fish species.

I guess if the issue ever comes to the Senate we can assume that Steve Fielding will be keen to support the dams to rid the world of the evolutionary evidence.

Now the kids are back at school I’ll have a bit more time to chase up such resources for myself properly, but yesterday was just a tidge hectic in a “Mum where’s my pencilcase/lunchbox/saxamophone” kind of way.

That’s not what McGuaran said; he has half a point (if only half a one). Without doubt, wind farms are cleaner than coal. Where McGuaran is unfortunately quite correct is that they are not (with current technology) in any way able to replace coal at anything like a realistic cost.

That said, the Bald Hill windfarm decision was clearly about politics, not the environment.

It would seem you have jumped very quickly to unjustified conclusions. You seem to do so on the basis of a single spelling error for which I apologised.
.
On the other hand, you Emailed ‘the pollies’ about a river that was never going to be dammed and did so the basis of two links that were, to say the least, incestuous.

And by the way, you accepted that Email list as gospel.

I hope you are not in academe.

I will return the insult. Your inattention to detail:
“says all we need to know about your knowledge of Australian politics and geography’.

Generally, however, I agree with the points you make.

I don’t believe that a majority of bass coast local on a whole had a problem with windfarms.

The liberal/national party were behind a campaign that many would conclude was lead by Ted Bailleu and Peter McGauran (The guy who switched camps)

The liberal/nationals (and in McGaurans case he changed shirts from one to the other), are pushing out lies that wind energy is not cleaner than coal.

[link]

This is rubbish, as an engineer, (and refer to any electrical/aerospace/mechanical engineers for a proper understanding), I know that coal is a shockingly inefficient source of power generation.

It only has two things going for it. 1. Infrastructure already exists. 2. Lignite (Brown Coal) is in abundance.

Ian campbell’s use of Federal legislation to run a political campaign that compromises the environment, locally and globally will be shown to be a crime against humanity. When significant breakup of the antarctic ice sheet occurs, seriously raising water level of oceans around the world.

I hope there is some provision for forcing consistency, or using inconsistency over this issue of the lungfish to overturn the previous decision on the Bald Hill windfarm.

I should point out that I was opposed to Woolworths building at Maleny until I spoke to environmental scientists who put me straight.

By the way, the Email list includes one:(The Hon. Robert Evan, Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing, Queensland Government.)

It is wrong. The person is Robert Schwarten who in a previous life as an organiser for the Queensland Teachers’ Union crossed the Thompson, about 1100kms from Brisbane, many times a year.

As a committed conservationist, he would know that any dam across the Thompson would hasten the demise of the Coongie lakes in NSW.

But the EMAILS will give him a good laugh if he ever gets to see them.

I am still tending to the view that the lungfish is a great survivor. I know the area well and believe you me the water levels fluctuate enormously. Mary River floods are legendary.

Nevertheless I agree that sewerage ought to be recycled etc

As to their danger, they were listed as endangered before this dam proposal, so it certainly isn’t going to help.
From the post’s link to Pharyngula:

The adults usually live in deep pools, but they breed in shallow areas with lots of underwater vegetation. Because of the way water levels in dams fluctuate, you don’t get such shallow vegetated areas in dams, and accordingly there’s nowhere for the lungfish to breed. Downstream of the dam, reduced flow will lead to the drying out of established breeding areas, and because lungfish are very loyal to their old breeding sites - they often simply cease to breed if their old sites are lost - this is also likely to have a severe long-term impact on the population.

They’re not an especially resilient species, unfortunately.