Objection Based on Interpretation of the Consensus Statement and Supporting Chapters Into the Water Quality of Farm Run Off Onto

Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Supporting material on the conflicting presentation of reporting on water quality, silt and nutrients.

Presented is both a current and historical view of what is considered the relationship of nutrients on both land and within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park environment.

Current Position.

Farmers for the last 30 years have been challenged to conduct best practice. Many of these practices are covered in other areas but the focus here is the use of fertilisers, pesticides and run off be it silt or nutrients. Farmers have an important role to play in the economy by providing food for the community both here in Australia and overseas. That role is an essential activity in maintaining the health, vitality and good nutrition. To do that various aspects have to be determined at any area within Qld to arrive at a suitable position whereby food can grown or stock can be maintained at optimum health.

Due to the varying quality of soil types each area will need specific treatments. Some areas require agricultural lime to improve the Ph of the soil which helps with water retaining properties. These soils also may need fertilisers to improve the nutritional value of the land to ensure plants and pastures provide the best quality of the varying products produced. The expectations over the years, has meant increased pressure to deliver the same quality of product and volume but with less water and less nutrients (silt and erosion not covered here). At some point this creates an imbalance in what is achievable under government regulations, to what is best practice to deliver what is best for the economy. The viability becomes untenable based on either excessive regulations or economically unviable due to restrictions on best practice.

Given a farmer on average feeds 600 people, that is a huge expectation placed on farmers of which governments appear not to have any sound policy to manage policies that ensure farming is a viable entity.

It is our view point that all ecosystems whether on the land or in the ocean require nutrients with some, more than others, depending on the position and composition at any place in time. To assume that nutrients are not required in the ocean or required to be restricted from land based when islands on the Great Barrier Reef have been pouring huge volumes of nutrients from Coral Cays, with tonnes of guano through the thousands of years, creates a severe contradiction as to what the farmers use and what tests have shown to be evident in the water samples.

How are we viewed as causing detriment to coral, fish and other marine creatures when tests show nutrient values are significantly diluted by the time the water flows reach near the mouth and then to a point of being negligible within 20 meters off shore????

How are we viewed as causing detriment if the Scientific Panel clearly state they do not to this date fully understand the relationship between inorganic nutrients and coral on the Reef??

Given farmers use the exact same nutrients as nature does, which leaches out in copious amounts, one has to ask the question, how come the birds win over the farmers when their nutrients are of a far higher concentration into the ocean? Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

How are we viewed as causing detriment if the organic nutrients are carried via floods and out of the control of anyone?

If soft corals expel organic nutrients along with decomposing marine creature tissue not eaten, then how can you assess accurately what is from land and what is from the sea? Better still, how can anyone control those levels at all???

For the life time of the Great Barrier Reef it has been subjected to floods, nutrient run off, and destruction from coral bleaching, storms and cyclones, tectonic movements and lowering of the sea levels. The simple case of high winds over the ocean can create waves of such a velocity that causes damage to the Reef. It repairs and has grown to the position of where it is today.

And man is so arrogant he states he can save it??

So where does man arrive at the position, that he knows oh so much about the Reef when he still has no idea how nutrients affect the corals?

The coral and seagrass areas on the Great Barrier Reef are no different to the paddocks of pastures and lands cultivated to create food. Farmers oversee the type of stock for selected pastures and the quality of stock management for the area on which they graze. Crop farmers also make decisions on when to plant and when not to plant depending on the cycles of drought and monsoon.

We can visually see what farmers do but we cannot visually see what happens in the oceans. The vision of massive floods, are adherent to many, with its size, volume and discolouration. Yet is this bad for the Reef?

Just like new shoots after rain and growth of pasture grasses cattle improve and quality. Our native creatures on the land hold off breeding if conditions don’t suit. Prolonged drought will see kangaroos withhold the embryo until rains come. Fish so the same. If you don’t have the rains and floods you don’t have the food supply on the land and you don’t have the food supply in the sea. The organic nutrients that flow into the sea are food for the fish. Breeding of barramundi, need a 20/80% mix of fresh and salt for spawning on our headlands. If not then, they hold off until it rains or absorb the eggs until next time. The female absorbs the nutrients from the eggs.

What the eye does not see the heart cannot grieve.

The vision of clear ocean waters with beautiful coloured corals is the attractor of emotion but not all corals are pretty and no all creatures are viewed as vital to the ecosystem. Some have been seriously hit with the ugly stick but are the hardest workers in the system. Oysters, which are found mostly on the rocks and shorelines, filter 189 litres per day. So any unpalatable coloured water is filtered over time to be cleaner with nutrients and elements removed.

Mangroves and brackish waters are smelly, full of mozzies, midges and sandflies yet is the ideal breeding ground for estuarine and inshore fish. Some of these fish travel long distances to fringe reefs and return to breed for juveniles to migrate up into the fresh systems to return as adults. Without flood waters and regular fresh flows from up stream off farms etc. this cannot be achieved. Our fish stocks both offshore and inshore depend on the organic nutrients from the floods. Mullet an ugly little sole is a very important fish which not only helps to keep rivers and streams clean of algae and moss but also is seen on coral out crops cleaning the moss off coral. Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Their numbers have been decimated with dams, weirs and barrages which is no different to the regulations that governments have imposed on farmers. Being hamstrung continually eventually means reduction of fish stocks and reduction of farmers who provide food for the community.

Floods and normal tides pick up the Bat and other bird poop from mangroves and carry up the coast keeping inshore to lay the nutrients over the sea grass beds. If there are no floods, the seagrass don’t get the nutrients. How ever the Bats from mangroves areas provide a significant amount of guano and taken out on tides especially on Full and New moon as the higher tides collect it from areas that regular tides don’t get to.

These are the same type of nutrients that farmers use so why are bats treated better than a farmer?

The current bird hatcheries and migratory habitats with in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are noted as follows:

The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (World Heritage Area) is of international importance to seabirds and shorebirds, providing breeding and roosting habitat, feeding grounds and migratory pathways to at least 23 seabird species and 32 shorebird species. To date, analyses have been conducted on Atlas data of some key breeding sites of the Great Barrier Reef (Michaelmas Cay, Heron Island, the Swain reefs and Raine Island), which have revealed significant declines in populations of some of the most common seabird species (Turner et al. 2006). Wider analysis of the Atlas and other related databases is required to determine whether this trend extends throughout the World Heritage Area. In addition, seabirds have been identified as a highly vulnerable species group under a changing climate (Congdon et al. 2007).”

Lady Musgrave Island is the southern most island of the Bunker Group of islands and also part of the region known as the Capricorn Bunker Group which contains 73–75 percent of all seabird biomass of the entire Great Barrier Reef. Lady Musgrave Island is identified as a significant seabird breeding island that provides habitat for thousands of nesting seabirds including the white-capped noddy terns that nest in abundance in the Pisonia trees whilst bridled terns, black-naped terns and silver gulls nest on the ground in more open areas closer to the beach. Birds create poop and all this poop washes into the fringing coral around the islands. These nutrients in fact promote faster growth and recovery of reef and also attract fish to the system. So again I would ask as to why the nutrients from farmers even minute is classed as detrimental when higher levels of nutrients are delivered by the birds excrement??

Given the history of the Great Barrier Reef, there appears to be a substantial omission of information in relation to bird numbers, hatcheries and migrating habitats. The historical data is relevant to the current position of the Reef. Its health and the cause of certain issues, and will show that Farmers have been demonised significantly for all the wrong reasons. Those managing and researching the reef have omitted the history of nutrient deposits harvested there.

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

“LEST WE FORGET”

When Captain Cook first saw our beautiful Reef he must have seen a far more beautiful reef than it is today. Over the years extensive mining was conducted on the Reef in particular the inshore Reefs and Bunker groups from as early as 1862 to 1960. The valued item found on the Reef is bird guano. Guano is the accumulated excrement of seabirds and bats. As manure, guano is a highly effective fertilizer due to its exceptionally high content of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium: key nutrients essential for plant growth. Not only that but coral reef structures next to coral cays where birds are nesting are shown to be in far better condition and have a faster recovery rate than those that do not have an abundance of guano.

The mining of this product and coral for agricultural lime was extensive and removed thousands of tonnes of guano over the years. In the early stages the worst degraded island was North West Island of the Bunker Group. From 1898 to Feb 1900 they had extracted 4, 146 tonnes of guano had been extracted and shipped to New Zealand. Add on the subsequent years and other coral cay islands from the Northern sector of the Great Barrier Reef and down to the Bunker Group clearly shows that the collective mounds of guano nutrients on the Reef far exceeds what any farmer or community is likely to even get out past the estuaries.

The significance is not just about the degradation that happened but to point out that the Reef prior to the mining has a large load of nutrients on the coral cays showing that the Reef was already being exposed to high levels of guano nutrients and must have been in far better shape prior to the mining. This degradation of the coral cays obvious have interfered with the migratory birds and habitats have been lost or able to be returns but need to get migrating birds to return to restore the guano nutrients for better health of the Great Barrier Reef.

The history of the mining of guano in Queensland is found in the following.

Mining the Reefs and Cays: Coral, Guano and Rock Phosphate Extraction in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, 1844–1940 BEN DALEY

The contents of the Article, is extensive and would be lengthy to detail the key points. Below have presented the abstract:

ABSTRACT

{Scholarly attention has recently focused on the extent of the deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef and several authors have attempted to place that decline into historical context. We present documentary and oral history evidence that the extent and severity of mining in the Great Barrier Reef has been hitherto neglected in environmental histories of the ecosystem. Extraction of phosphatic sandstone, guano, rock phosphate and coral from many islands, cays and coral reefs have resulted in extensive transformations of some habitats. In particular, Raine, Lady Elliot, Lady Musgrave, North West and Holbourne Islands experienced intensive mining for guano and rock phosphate, while more sustained guano mining took place at Upolu, Oyster and Michaelmas Cays prior to 1940.

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Coral mining – which has not previously been documented for the Great Barrier Reef – also occurred in at least twelve locations between 1900 and 1940 with the result that thousands of tons of coral were removed from some reefs and pulverised to produce agricultural and industrial lime. This account suggests that historical mining in the Great Barrier Reef has left impacts in the landscape of several islands and cays. Further scientific research and monitoring is required to elucidate the impacts of coral mining, although comparisons with coral mining sites elsewhere in the world suggest that it is reasonable to presume that the impacts of that activity were severe for parts of several reefs, including Snapper Island, Kings and Alexandra Reefs.}

Extending further, we can view the position, of how well, the restoration of areas have been since this degradation, and consider that nutrients played an important role in that restoration.

Raine Island

Despite the history of guano mining and green turtle factory it continues be relative to original state with cemented guano with little or no vegetation. There is no fresh water supply but still remains an important Migrating Bird habitat and one of the largest Green Turtle nesting areas. It is noted that the harvesting of Tridacna and Hippopus clams which were initially for food for travelling sailors, but later in the mid 1960’s when shell collecting was popular and used as souvenirs of the Reef has had a significant impact.

The physical degradation following extraction of tens of thousands of tonnes of guano has left a depression in the centre of the cement layer of guano. Tens of thousands of tonnes of guano has been noted as being removed in a short period. Given it is still a bird migrating habitat one would have to recognise that nutrient run off from the island is playing an important part in the ecology of the surround reef. If inorganic nutrients are of such a concern then the eradication of the birds would be a must given all facts taken into consideration given the goals and objectives of the Reef Report and Reef Regulations. Farmers would recognise the importance of nutrients and would view this position as no different to the land based run off that never reaches these areas.

Wreck Reef and Cato’s Bank Pre 1860 some guano extraction was done but this was before licensing was introduced. These positions are not within the GBRMP but to the south east of the Southern Sector. It shows that numerous islands and cays had build up of substantial layers of guano. 100 tonnes was taken from Wreck Reef and loaded but the ship was wrecked on the Reef.

This area is popular for Charter Boat operators for Recreational Fishing and Scuba Diving. No known lasting degradation known. However the nutrients from guano are still releasing to the ocean waters.

Lady Elliot Island

Based on 2.5 meter depth of guano removed off approx 40 hectares it is calculated that 60,000 tonnes of guano was removed off the island. Most of the remnant vegetation was removed. It was severely degraded from its original form. Mining ceased on Lady Elliot Island in 1873. The island is a vegetated shingle cay, which is uncommon. Typically these types of cays are too narrow to retain freshwater or too mobile for vegetation to take hold. Pisonia grandis grew naturally on the island. Guano mining almost completely destroyed the tree population. Its

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019 regeneration naturally has been slow but more recent events have shown considerable progress. A Resort had been established in 1960 and then in 1980 Peter Gash took over the lease in 1980. The Island once trees were established attracted the birds thus adding the guano that was once taken. Scuba diving and snorkelling was the attracting factor even though the Island lay relatively bare for many years.

{While Peter always believed the revegetation would be good for the island and the many birds that come to roost and nest, he has since discovered it's also good for the coral.

"Birds come back to the trees, their poo falls to the ground, mixes with the vegetation and soaks down into the sub-strata which is quite a porous," he said.

"Scientists have always thought nutrients are bad for coral, but we're finding that in these very fine concentrations, it is very good for corals."

Peter said the island now has "better coral than anyone could have imagined".

"We have now started to learn that the sea water comes in and meets the freshwater which is rich in nutrients — nitrogen and phosphorous — and this is then taken out in very fine concentrations. "Scientists have always thought nutrients are bad for coral, but we're finding that in these very fine concentrations, it is very good for corals."

Peter said the island now has "better coral than anyone could have imagined".}

ABC Welcome to Lady Elliot Island — the postcard-sized gem brought back from the brink. September 9th 2019

This transformation has been improved on from the pre mining era as not much vegetation was there naturally before. However it has attracted the birds back to the idea to continue the build up of guano on the island. The significance of the relationship of the guano nutrients for the better health of the corals shows that inorganic nutrients are vital for the Reef and the demonising of farmers in relation to the scaremongering and “Precautionary Principle” leaves one wondering how such eminent scientists could get it so wrong. If the scientists are not ignorant of the facts re nutrients on the Reef as one would expect then there must be an agenda to this position.

These same scientists are advising governments and telling farmers what they can and can’t do because they are damaging the Reef appears to be a complete and utter farce?? The moral position to forward false and misleading positions on the nutrients can only be viewed as an act to denigrate and destroy the life of farming. I would consider they have known of this all along given notations that there is no evidence to suggest that inorganic nutrients affect the Reef??

I would also consider that given the large volume of guano on a multiple of islands in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park historically, that inorganic nutrients have always been present and played an important role in maintaining the Reef. It would be an important factor to assist in recovering quickly following coral bleaching, growth after damage during cyclones and also the nutrients to grow specific algae that provide the nutrients for herbivorous fish, which feed off algae that are then food for carnivores.

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

North Fairfax Island, North West Island and Lady Musgrave Island.

These islands were also mined for guano but showed less evidence of degradation than Lady Elliot but still show signs of degradation from the past. North Fairfax Island was the worst affected with an estimated extraction of guano being 4,146 tonnes exported to New Zealand. Lady Musgrave fared better with reasonable vegetation cover that remains the bird habitat for migrating birds.

There are numerous other coral cays that were mined for guano. Other mining was for phosphate and lime. Coral was mined to create agricultural lime to improve the acidic soils on the mainland. Most of the lime is believed to have been used for cane farming. Lime is calcium carbonate used as a buffer in acid soils and helps retain moisture.

Presented below is the conclusion to the detailed article.

CONCLUSION Relating to the Article on Mining in the Cays.

{We have presented evidence of considerable mining activity in the Great Barrier Reef spanning almost a century, from 1844 to 1940, and focused on four types of industry: phosphatic sandstone, guano, rock phosphate and coral mining. Each type has marked specific environments of the Great Barrier Reef in particular ways. The prolonged period of guano mining at Upolu, Oyster and Michaelmas Cays, from 1901 to 1940, for instance, contrasted with the intensive plunder of phosphatic sandstone and guano from Raine Island in 1844 and from 1892 to 1900, the exploitation of Lady Musgrave Island between 1863 and 1873, and the extraction of rock phosphate from Holbourne Island from 1918 to 1921. Considerable variability also existed in the coral mining industry, with parts of some reefs (especially Snapper, Upolu, North Barnard, Kings and Alexandra Reefs) being intensively mined and, most likely, dramatically modified. Since the GBRWHA is the largest coral reef complex in the world and has been protected as a result of its ʻ superlative natural phenomenaʼ , the condition of the coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef is of critical importance. In addition, because the dates and locations of coral mining have been established with relative precision, these sites could also be used as test sites for scientific monitoring of the recovery of coral reefs from mining, if suitable control sites can be identified. Thus these sites may function as valuable indicators of coral reef resilience or vulnerability. In any case, the extent of historical mining in the Great Barrier Reef suggests the importance of ʻ assessing and actively managing resilienceʼ and of maintaining effective marine no-take areas (NTAs) in the GBRWHA, in which all extractive industry is prohibited. Hence, these findings support the call by Bellwood et al. for a range of ʻ more vigorous, innovative and adaptive management strategiesʼ for the Great Barrier Reef. }

Return to Current Position The position at present under the new Reef regulations compromises the farmers’ ability to manage their operations in producing food. For best practice they have fine tuned the use of fertilisers to the point that zero run off can be obtained.

For example: One cane farmer in the Bundaberg area has a cane farm of 400 acres. His use of fertiliser is 205kgs to the acre. That is 100 tonnes for the 400 acres. His productivity is 60-80 tonnes of cane at that level. Water run off is collected in ponds before being released or being reused. Water Quality Testing by the Burnett Water Authority showed there was no nutrient run to be found. The Burnett Water Authority added nutrients to one of the pond to test the calibration of the test and found that the initial test was correct. If one was to assess from a compliance point of view this example is one

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019 of optimum level of water quality and optimum level of nutrient crop ratio delivery.

The Reef Regulations do not take into consideration what is required to produce food at the optimum. To legislate on not using fertilisers given the soil types that Queensland has to deal with shows complete lack of comprehension of the activities of farming. It also shows a complete lack of recognition that farm runoff is neither being detected within any parameters of coral both inshore and outer reef, as well as not recognising the history of the nutritional loads on the Great Barrier Reef and that the natural loads exceed that nutrients getting to the Outer Reef which is 99% of the total coral area in the GBR Marine Park.

If science can get it right in getting the balance between nutrient load on farms and production without leaving residue at risk of farm run off then surely they can determine just what exactly nutrients play in the ecosystem on the Reef . It appears there is a huge agenda and security of supply of food for the community is not one of them. If anything, this history lesion in the mining on the Great Barrier Reef shows the there is indeed an agenda, not to present the past mining nor the evidence of huge loads of guona over the centuries providing nutrients.

One would consider that scientists have been studying these coral cays and have historical data to show where these nutrient loads are. If this is known then there is an agenda here and the truth is not one of them.

If however they are following the consensus that activists and scientists are following the position of no mainland nutrients in farm run off and restricting nutrient levels on the reef then one has to consider:

 That the historical mining of guano on the GBR fits their agenda in removing inorganic nutrients. Thousands of tonnes of it.

 That the mining of coral removes carbon from the GBR and sequests the carbon into the soil.

 The addition of calcium carbonate on farms assists in the alteration of Ph in the soils and any run off of such material will be a buffer when Rain has a Ph of 6 and needs to be 8.1 go prevent any further acidification they claim is occurring in ocean waters.

When viewing the history of the mining on the GBR the addition of relevant information that was omitted in these ongoing Water Quality Reef Reports, find there is no logic, conflicting scientific statements and total disregard in viewing all stakeholders and influences affecting any water that may or may not the Coral on the GBR. I also wonder how the fish feel as they are totally neglected in any assessment of the GBR and unfortunately you can’t eat coral nor can you do much except look at it and say how pretty it is. As a farmer the value is in the production of food and must take priority over the agendas of those who appear to have a total disregard for security of supply to the community.

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Floods create the conflict of who and what create the silt.

Presented below are photos taken of parts of the lower section of the Fitzroy River showing the before and after photos of the magnitude of what a Major flood can do by causing considerable desrtruction to river banks and the silt left deposited well before the mouth of the river. These photos are from the Eden Ban Weir to Etna Creek Boat Ramp which is approximately 45 klm downstream of Eden Ban Weir and 42 klms upstream of the Rockhampton barrage. That’s is over 100 klms upstream of the mouth of the Fitzroy River Catchment.

15klm below Etna Creek Boat Ramp. Banks earthen and Showing recent and ongoing erosion 20/09/2013ng erosion.

From this point and below to the mouth there is are banks up to 7-8 meters high where they have been reduced each time there is a flood. Many of these areas are under the management of DNR . Little or no cattle were seen along these banks during our travels during the 42 klm tour from Etna Creek Boat Ramp to the Rockhampton Barrage. The highest and most affected point in this section is the turn in the river at Pink Lily which is close to Ridgelands Road. There is only a few meters left before reaching the fence boundary of that section. This road is a significant link to the Alton Downs community NNW of Rockhampton. The Mayor seems to want to ignore this significant issue where as a hydrologist was happy to point out to me the urgency of this section of the Fitzroy over and above the southside levee.

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Section from Eden Ban Weir to Rocky Ford approx 25klms downstream from Eden Ban Weir. Post major flood of the Fitzroy Catchment which had three major systems in flood 2010-2011. The photos are in sequence of travel to a point above Yaamba. Can explain in detail the structures seen along this sector at public hearings. Eden Ban Weir River Trip October 2011

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Alligator Creek to the "Everglades" 30/11/2012 Paddle from Alligator Creek to the "Everglades" which is just below Yaamba. This was a 16 klm return paddle starting at the Etna Creek boat ramp (42klms upstream from the Rockhampton Barrage).

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Map of the Fitzroy just below the Township of Yaamba… Below is a map showing how sand is being deposited on sections of the banks where the river velocity decreases at that point while gouging out the bank on the opposite side where the velocity of flow increases. Long meandering rivers, high earthen banks and base, with high volume of water in short periods creates high velocity which causes significant erosion and increases turbidity within the river course itself.

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Silt made up of decomposed and partially decomposed matter …a nutrient story being ignored.

BALANCE OF VEGETATION LITTER BETWEEN LAND AND SEA

Burning ground cover is not complicated, but, understanding vegetation in relation to its decomposition and why it needs to be managed at times with reduction burn off is….to most.

Here is my opinion based on reading numerous science articles of our soil types and vegetation.

Australia's vegetation is quite varied throughout the climatic zones. Without termites and borers etc, we would never see the break down of our hardy vegetation in areas that don't have the heavy rainfalls. But then you don't get that type of vegetation in the heart of tropical wetlands either, do you? The soils are mostly acidic limiting microbe activity so what exactly can you do?

Irrespective of what type of vegetation you are looking at, it decomposes faster when you apply water to the soils. Time + water content = greater decomposition of vegetation = increased available nutrients into the soil for future growth. An area of land under irrigation will always have higher decomposition rates of vegetative matter than areas of land that do not. It will create liquid nutrients faster than none irrigated land areas.

The Ph of the soil is also important. You can add water but if you don't reduce the acidity, and you don't increase the microbe activity within the soil to any great extent. Large areas of Australia have acidic soils, which means there is low microbe activity and low moisture retention capability. By adding lime to the soil you improve the Ph, increase microbe activity and water retention with a result of increased decomposition of dead vegetative matter within the soils. Cattle grazing, assists in keeping the topsoil aerated and allowing moisture into the soils even though the Ph has not been enhanced with agro lime.

Some graziers have been doing deep ploughing of their pastures to improve conditions and increase vegetation content. Without the addition of products such as lime and access to water, the outcome re decomposition of vegetation is lower than what it could be. Graziers could also be adding agro lime to pastures to improve vegetation decomposition as well as improve water retention, nutrient release, creating better pasture grass volume and nutrients. So whats all the hype of restricting additives ‘to pastures and irrigated land??

Now the one thing that buggers this all up is the lack of water on a consistent basis. Low rainfall areas and prolonged droughts create a build-up of vegetation that has not decomposed and the acidic soils mean no microbe activity to break it down in the dry seasons and prolonged droughts. Over time the build up of vegetation can do a few things. It smothers new growth should some rain appear, becomes a fire hazard with intensity to not only burn off the litter but kill the trees, along with fauna and flora losses.

The potash and coals left behind do have available nutrients but if the soil has been heated to an intense level you basically sterilised the topsoil. A prime example of that is an area of the Blackdown Tableland where massive big trees were cooked some 60 years ago and now still standing with only sickly looking grass and no new trees to take their place. The soil has to be treated and seeded to return it to its natural wonder. But because it is a National Park, restoration is off the table and it costs money. Yet they can spend $443 million to restore the Reef!! That won’t happen as you will see below. Neglect in management caused it and neglect in management will only see more like it.

Now if a fire doesn't get to the huge build up of dried out vegetation and heavy rains do, the severely dried loose vegetation is easily picked up by flowing water, running into watercourses out to sea or into dams. Once in these dams and watercourses it does decompose and create nutrients for fish and other aquatic creatures. However, initially, it is a disadvantage as floods are a trigger for fish to breed and time has not been allowed for decomposition to create nutrients for photosynthesis.

Submission Joanne Coulter Senate Inquiry – Water Quality – Great Barrier Reef -November 2019

Creating food for juvenile fish from land vegetation is part of the cycle that we appear to ignore. It is not rubbish nor is it pollution but the level has to be recognised and its timing. Over the years vegetative sediment has accumulated in our rural waterways, which is why our native fish stock is so abundant post floods along with the introduction of our water infrastructure. But it is the reducing volumes of our dams and waterways along with heat, little or no rainfall, and lack of fish migration that create the environment of blue-green algae and fish kills. Historically river flushes even small reduced this process.

So what about the Great Barrier Reef? Floods clean out our large catchment of the build-up of decomposing and partially decomposing vegetation. It also causes huge erosion of our earthen river banks which historically are laden with non-decomposed vegetation matter. So along with mineral/soil silt, we have a large amount of vegetation silt. Most of the soil silt is dumped along the way but it is the fine particles and large floating vegetative matter that ends up in the lower catchments. The Delta of the Fitzroy is a massive big garbage dump of vegetation which has come down from past floods. Over time with the addition of water it never had before, the vegetation can now decompose and creates a mega food supply for inshore and estuary fish.

Vegetation decomposes and becomes liquid nutrients flowing into the ocean waters, triggering fish breeding for off shore fish species as well. Without a flood or river flush, you do not trigger fish breeding. If a flood or river flush triggers breeding we can still end up with the same outcome of fish breeding in their multitudes yet the nutrients they need have not yet come to the point, ready for photosynthesis. Over the years we do have build up of vegetation of past floods but the longer the drought and less stored supply of decomposing matter is available to create nutrients for the fish. The knee jerk reaction is to keep our waterways clean of silt...but is it? 12 months down the track the then, non decomposing nutrients, become decomposing nutrients providing the needed food supply for the next breeding cycles. Natures timing is sometimes off. When there is a drought on the land there is a drought in the sea. A flood on the land sees us unable to produce one year but the next is also a good harvest.

Decomposed vegetation not only provides nutrients for the land but also the creatures of the sea. The polyps, in the coral, need algae to grow on the coral structures as well as it is food for fish and provides nutrients for the polyps. Without a certain type of algae you also do not give the coral its colour. So don't be alarmed at seeing vegetation flow down the river...some is put in storage so to speak for decomposition and deliver later down the track while decomposed nutrients from the rivers and dams are instant food fest for breeding fish and other creatures…even the crown of Thorns Star Fish but its predators are low in numbers still.

So does it appear I have a double message here??....No!!...Our management must incorporate both good management of the land and also the sea. One is dependent on the other and to ignore that the oceans and fish need our land based vegetation and nutrients is to do so with folly. But at the same time ignoring the fact that water on the land plays a huge important part in the life cycle of our vegetation decomposition is also folly. Improve the soil even if you are not irrigating to improve vegetation litter decomposition. Improve the soil types to increase microbe activity and water retention. Recognise that periods of long dry spells are neither good for the land nor good for estuary and ocean life. Reducing the ground cover on a regular basis along with improving soil condition and improved vegetation decomposition, helps reduce risk factors and gives balance to the land and the sea.

Jo Coulter

Submission Joanne Coulter