‘The Smallest Elephant in the Room’

should stygofauna be listed as threatened in parts of Queensland?

Presenter: Dr Ben Cook [email protected] Groundwater Ecosystems

• 97% of the world’s unfrozen freshwater resides in subterranean • groundwater historically viewed as ‘sterile’ water storages • ecological roles of groundwater are increasingly becoming recognised: • sustain wetlands, springs and base-flow stream ecosystems • intercept root zone of many dependent vegetation types • recognised as an ecosystem in their own right • diverse types of groundwater ecosystem (, alluvium, fractured rock) • unique and highly specalised (stygofauna) Introducing Stygofauna • Aquatic animals that live in aquifers (groundwater) • Dominated by invertebrates, especially crustaceans • Adaptations to subterranean life • Limited research to date, but key findings are: • high species diversity • narrow distributions • high endemism • when we look we tend to find them • Thought to provide ‘ecosystem services’ and maintain quality of groundwater Research Case Study: Burdekin River Alluvial

• 26 bores surveyed over a one week period • 6 bores contained stygofauna (23%) • Five species across two families were identified: • four of which were found in only a single bore • all of which likely belonged to a new genera

Source: Cook et al. (2012) Australian Journal of Zoology 60: 152-158. National Water Quality Management Strategy

‘Little is known of the lifecycles and environmental requirements of these quite recently-discovered [stygofaunal] communities, and given their high conservation value, the groundwater upon which they depend should be given the highest level of protection’ (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000. Box 1.2, page 1-2). What determines if a species is ‘threatened’?

• Threatened – ‘at risk of extinction’ • Risk factors: • threatening processes • trends in population size • narrow distribution • dependent on limited or specialised habitat What determines if a species is ‘threatened’?

• Threatened – ‘at risk of extinction’ • Risk factors: • threatening processes • trends in population size • narrow distribution • dependent on limited or specialised habitat • Other key factors relevant for conservation biology : • capacity for demographic recovery (generation time, fecundity) • population structure (social, spatial) Does stygofauna qualify as ‘threatened’? • Threatened – ‘at risk of extinction’ • Risk factors: • Threatening processes – aquifer drawdown • Trends in population size – unknown • Narrow distribution – narrow range endemic • Dependent on limited or specialised habitat – localised sections of groundwater ecosystems • Other key factors relevant for conservation biology : • Capacity for demographic recovery – unknown, thought to be low • Population structure – high degree of spatial population subdivision Does stygofauna qualify as ‘threatened’? • Threatened – ‘at risk of extinction’ – possibly, in some regions • Risk factors: • Threatening processes – aquifer drawdown • Trends in population size – unknown • Narrow distribution – narrow range endemic • Dependent on limited or specialised habitat – localised sections of groundwater ecosystems • Other key factors relevant for conservation biology : • Capacity for demographic recovery – unknown, thought to be low • Population structure – high degree of spatial population subdivision Cape Range Remipede Lasionectes exleyi • Listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC 1999 • Listed as ‘rare and likely to become extinct’ in WA’s Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 1998 • Reason for listing: • Endemic to Bundera , a specalised subterranean groundwater ecosystem • Identified threats: • Lack of formal protection of habitat • Impacts to water quality form visitors to the sinkhole • These reasons don’t appear unique to this species Compare Conservation of Springs

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: • ‘community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from GAB’ • ‘Endangered Ecological Community’ • several species that live in springs are listed as threatened (some also listed under NC Act) • salt pipewort

Underground Water Impact Report (UWIR) for Surat Cumulative Management Area – statutory instrument under the Water Act 2000: • Spring Impact Management Strategy (SIMS), including comprehensive survey of hydrological and ecological attributes of springs • Water Management Strategy, requires monitoring of groundwater pressure and quality across network of bores. • Ecological assessment of groundwater ecosystems not required

K UNW Legend ARA RA R OAD Surat Cumulative Management Area # Towns - Major Towns of Queensland

G R State Digital Road Network (QLD) E G O Major drainage networks (QLD) R Y

H Queenland I G H W ROCKHAMPTON New South Wales B A #R Y U C E AY EMERALD ORN HIGHW H CAPRIC I # BLACKWATER G H # D W A Y A W A Y B RU W S CE H O H IG G N I HW H A GLADSTONE R Y ² Y I # V R E O Surat Cumulative R C G B Y E O U WA R R H M IG N G H E N E SO T T W D T A D A R W H S I I O V G N E H H IG R W H A W A Y Y B R U D C AW E

SO H N I

Y HI G Management Area G A HW H W W AY

H A

Y G

I B UR

H N ETT

N H IGH O WA

V Y BUNDABERG

R # A

B N

R D R

U A A

C O C

E R

H S

I Y G R

A E H

W W D

H L I G A

I H Y H C • Multiple adjacent existing and

T D R A H DA H WS ON IC Y RIV E A ER L HW IG H IS IS proposed ‘users’ of

C A R N A R V O N H I groundwater G H W A Y

WARREGO HIGHWAY KINGAROY ROMA # WARREGO HIGHWAY# WARREGO HIGHWAY • Underground Water Impact

R IVE R NE L MI E A I ND C H Report CO H

A DALBY R # D

T

H

Y I G A

H

W

W

H

A G

I Y

H

N TOOWOOMBA

O # V AY • ecological assessment R HW A IG N H E R OR A Y G C A HW HIG IE ON MO BALONNE HIGHWAY ST GEORGE of springs #

Y A W WARWICK H # IG H BA E RW R ON R HI BAR O E GHW WO G IV AY N H R IGH A WA O Y GOONDIWINDI G L C # U R • no requirement for C A E R IV STANTHORPE N R A # E R N V NEW SOUTH WALES N O O N

L H

A I B G H

W

A Y LOCALITY MAP ecological assessment Surat Cumulative Management Area

NT Drawn By: Datum: GDA 1994 QLD WA Energy Assessments Unit, Vertical Datum: NA SA NSW EHP. ACT VIC 0 20 40 60 80 100 km Scale 1:2,000,000 Date: 4/4/2013 Job Number: pg13040302 TAS of groundwater Disclaimer: Whilst every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Sheet 1 of 1 makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness, or suitability, for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which the user may incur as a result of the product being inaccurate or incomplete in any way for any reason. Original A3 Challenges for Stygofauna Conservation

• The taxonomic impediment and the listing of a multitude of undescribed species • Survey effort required to detected stygofauna • high false-negative detection rate; adequate assessment requires multiple surveys • Adequacy of impact assessment requirements for stygofauna within ToRs for major resource development projects • often only desktop study is required; ‘difficult’ without a primary literature • assessments (when required) ask for presence of ‘significant’ stygofauna, which is undefined • commonly meant that detected stygofauna can be dismissed as ‘not significant’ • Focus of ecological assessment of groundwater on surface expression of groundwater (ie springs) • Recent move towards streamlining environmental approvals processes, rather than additional requirements for environmental assessment

Opportunities for Stygofauna Conservation

• Stygofauna and their habitat are recognised as having high conservation value in national policy • National Water Quality Guidelines (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) • The listing of stygofauna as ‘threatened ecological communities’ • overcome ‘taxonomic challenges’ of listing undescribed species • compare ‘ecological communities dependent on discharge of groundwater’ • needed so that groundwater is managed as an ecosystem rather than as a ‘sterile’ water supply • Widen existing groundwater monitoring initiatives to include assessment of stygofauna • assess adequacy of hydrogeological triggers for maintaining stygofauna Potential Consequences for those Impacting Groundwater

• Opportunity for those that already undertake monitoring of physical properties of groundwater to also monitor groundwater ecology • low additional cost • leading edge understanding of threatened ecological communities • Given Government’s current interest in GDEs, and if policy becomes mandated in legislation, it may become expected that • impact assessment of threatened communities is based on primary data • ongoing management of threatened communities is supported by baseline monitoring Conclusions Stygofauna: • a frontier for biological diversity discovery • likely threatened in areas where groundwater use is high, such as cumulative management areas • potential for listing as a threatened ecological community • empirical assessment within existing monitoring programs • protection can be achieved: • ecological trigger levels for groundwater • offsets (sensu WA guidelines for stygofauna assessment) • small investment in baseline assessment • let’s look after the ‘horse’ before it bolts