DOCSLIB.ORG

Pest Fish Exclusion Screens a Case Study of the Effectiveness of Exclusion Screens in Preventing the Movement of Pest Fish Through Irrigation Networks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pest Fish Exclusion Screens a Case Study of the Effectiveness of Exclusion Screens in Preventing the Movement of Pest Fish Through Irrigation Networks CASE STUDY: Pest fish exclusion screens A case study of the effectiveness of exclusion screens in preventing the movement of pest fish through irrigation networks Introduction Regional Council, the Barron River Integrated The Mareeba-Dimbulah Water Supply Scheme Catchment Management Group, Mitchell River (MDWSS) is a network of piped siphons, Watershed Management Group, Tablelands balancing storages, weirs and concrete or Fish Stocking Society, Sunfish, Fisheries earth-lined channels located on the Atherton Queensland, the former Agency for Food and Tablelands in north Queensland. The network Fibre Sciences (now part of DAFF), Queensland was built during the 1950s to supply irrigation Conservation Council, Queensland Seafood water to the Barron, upper Mitchell and Industry Association, and SunWater. These Walsh river catchments. Water moves via this stakeholders also collaborated during the distribution network from Tinaroo Falls Dam screen design and construction phase. Screens on the Barron River in an easterly direction, were funded and installed by SunWater. while the Mitchell and Walsh river catchments Process flow in a westerly direction towards the Gulf A stakeholder committee with representatives of Carpentaria. from local and state government departments, Tinaroo Falls Dam is now home to a number of community and industry groups and water introduced fish species, including the invasive supply managers formed to work out the level Mozambique tilapia and the black mangrove of risk and potential management options for cichlid or spotted tilapia. Mozambique tilapia preventing the spread of tilapia from Tinaroo were first discovered in Tinaroo Falls Dam Falls Dam. The committee determined the during the late 1990s and black mangrove risk of tilapia being spread via the MDWSS cichlids were discovered a few years later. network to be very high and recommended Since their introduction, both species have a multi-faceted management approach. They rapidly colonised Tinaroo Falls Dam as well recommended increasing public awareness as most of the Barron River and its associated of the tilapia issue, further research into the tributaries. biology and ecology of both tilapia species, The presence of tilapia in Tinaroo Falls continued monitoring of westerly-flowing Dam has increased the risk of these species catchments for tilapia, and the installation of invading westerly-flowing Gulf of Carpentaria exclusion device(s) to stop the movement of catchments through the MDWSS network. Due tilapia through western parts of the irrigation to increased connectivity of Gulf systems network. during monsoonal flooding, tilapia have the A number of investigations and feasibility potential to rapidly colonise other parts of studies2 were done to determine the best the Gulf drainage, including environmentally exclusion device for the task. Physical and sensitive wetlands. Exclusion screens were electrical barriers were evaluated and possible trialled as a way to prevent the spread of installation sites were identified. The cost, tilapia species from Tinaroo Falls Dam into volume of water to be filtered, velocity of flow, western catchments via the MDWSS. physical size of the barrier, maintenance and Partners and management the size of the fish were important factors to A range of stakeholders contributed to a be considered. A decision was made to install tilapia risk assessment and management plan a static inclined screen, known as a Coandã- for the MDWSS in 20031 including several effect screen3, which was found to be the most local councils now operating as the Tablelands efficient and cost-effective screening device. CASE STUDY: Pest fish exclusion screens A case study of the effectiveness of exclusion screens in preventing the movement of pest fish through irrigation networks Features of the program • The self-cleaning function of the screen The main feature of this program was the use has helped keep ongoing maintenance of Coandã-effect self-cleaning screens. This costs to a minimum. was the first time that screens of this type had • The feeding of filtered material collected by been used in Australia for the exclusion of pest the screen into eastwards flowing sections fish. The screens are made up of horizontal, of the MDWSS has also worked to minimise stainless-steel wedge wires spaced at 0.5 mm the chance of tilapia spreading downstream intervals. Wires are tilted at an angle of 3–6 into western-flowing catchments. degrees toward the bottom of the screen panel • Extensive community consultation during to encourage the movement of debris down the screen design and construction the screen face. This configuration enables phase kept stakeholders informed of the self-cleaning function of the screen, and developments. This helped to increase reduces the need for mechanical cleaning. community confidence and support for the Coandã-effect screens are typically installed screening project. on the downstream face of an overflow weir, Other considerations so that water flows over and down the face of • Screens are relatively expensive to design, the screen panel. Filtered water falls through construct and install. the screen mesh and is collected in a channel • Material filtered by screens needs to be underneath the screen. Overflow water, debris disposed of at a sensible location to stop and fish are transported to a collection area possible downstream spread of fish. at the base of the panel and disposed of away from the original water source. • Screens need regular cleaning to prevent the build-up of calcifying algae that clog Results the screen and cause overflows. A 0.5 mm Hydro-Shear Coandã-effect self- • Ongoing surveillance programs are needed cleaning screen was installed on the West to ensure screens are working effectively. More info? Barron main channel in December 2004 at a cost of $1.3 million2. The 0.5 mm mesh was Conclusion selected to effectively exclude all tilapia In this case study, installation of a Hydro- Contact: life stages from the water, including eggs. Shear Coandã-effect screen successfully DAFF Queensland prevented the spread of tilapia through An interpretive sign was put up near the Primary Industries Bldg fish exclusion screen to give visitors a basic the Mareeba-Dimbulah Water distribution explanation of how the screen works and why network. This method may be applicable in 80 Ann St, Brisbane, it was installed. other circumstances where there is a need to Queensland, Australia So far, the exclusion screen has been control the movement of pest fish. GPO Box 46, Brisbane, successful in preventing the spread of tilapia References Qld through the MDWSS into western catchments. 1. Regional management plan for tilapia 13 25 23 (within Qld) or Recent fish surveys found black mangrove (Barron and Mitchell catchments). +61 7 3404 6999 cichlid juveniles immediately upstream of SunWater Annual Report the screens. However, no tilapia have been 2. SunWater (2005). Fax: +61 7 3404 6900 2004–2005 found in the channel system or the associated . [email protected] balancing storages below this point4. Ongoing 3. United States Department of the Interior annual fish surveys will continue to monitor (2003). Design Guidance for Coanda-Effect for tilapia both up and downstream of the Screens. exclusion screen. 4. Pearce MG, Shepherd L and Stewart R (2010). Pest Fish Exclusion Screens on What worked and why the Mareeba-Dimbulah Irrigation Scheme: • The mesh size and careful placement of the 2009-2010 Tilapia Surveys. Fisheries screen have been two important factors Queensland, Cairns. in the success of this program. Together, these worked to prevent the movement of Invasive Animals Ltd has taken care to validate the tilapia eggs and larvae, as well as juveniles accuracy of the information at the date of publication [April 2014]. This information has been prepared with and adults. care but it is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind, to the extent permitted by law. pestsmart.org.au TILCS2.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mountain Biking
    MOUNTAIN BIKING The Benefits of Mountain Biking to the Atherton Tablelands Great mountain bike trails don’t just satisfy local riders. They can also attract tourists from all over, revitalize local economies and put a destination on the map. International Mountain Bicycling Association April 2015 Tablelands Futures Corporation PO Box 156, Yungaburra QLD 4884 www.tablelandsfutures.com Facilitating sustainable prosperity Mountain Biking | The benefits to the Atherton Tablelands Executive Summary Where else on the planet can you mountain bike and be immersed in pristine World Heritage Rainforests, go from savannah to ocean to rainforest in one day and experience unique flora and fauna in one of the worlds most concentrated and bio-diverse natural environments? Tablelands Integrated Mountain Bike Alliance (TiMBa) – a subcommittee of Tablelands Futures Corporation have a vision and a plan to develop the Atherton Tablelands as a world class mountain biking destination. Over recent years, significant initiatives have been delivered to ensure this vision is a reality including a whole of region approach to make Tropical North Queensland the premier mountain bike destination in Australia and an internationally renowned world class facility. Funding was secured to obtain feasibility and mapping reports to develop the Atherton Tablelands trail network. These reports led to Local, State and Federal Government funding for construction of world class trails at the Atherton Forest Mountain Bike Park; Davies Creek Mountain Bike Park and the Atherton Tablelands Rail Trails corridor. In addition the ongoing development of the Sunny Savannah Project and expanded Rail Trail network will provide additional infrastructure to drive demand. Mountain bike trails constructed to world class standards are a viable tourism attraction for the Atherton Tablelands and provide a significant economic stimulus to the local economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Cretaceous Fossils from the Sources of the Barcoo, Ward And
    LOWER CRETACEOUS FOSSILS FROM THE SOURCE8 OF THE BARCOO, WARD AND NIV E RIVERS SOUTH OENTRAL QUEENSLA~D. PART II.l-CEPHALOPODA. By R. ETHERIDGE, JUNR., Curator. (Plates xxx.-xlix., and Fig. 8.) I.-IN'l'RODUC'l'ION. The" Ammonites" proper contained in Mr. H. \V. Blomfield's collection are few in nnmber', and will be noticed in a later part of this Memoir. The following descriptions of the "Crioceri" are offered with a considerable amsmnt of diffidence, and to arrive at these results I found it impemtive to undertake a general review of our Cretaceous forms hitherto associated with the names CTioceras and Ancylocera8; the outcome of this work, extending over many months, is t~ my mind, I regret to say, anything but satisfactory. This arises from two primary causes, the frag­ mentary state in which the fossils are frequently found, and the difficulty experienced in grouping ~uch portions, from many and "widely separated localities, in well dlefined species. A secondary cause is due to the fact that many of the hitherto described forms are based on portions of shells only, and in two instances at least the descriptions are so inadequate that recognition of the species is practically reduced to gue~s work. In no instance is this more apparent than in that of Cl·iocemB australe, Moore, the Australian type of the group. To render my investigations as complete as possible, I assembled all the specimens of the above two genera within my reach, and drew upon the following collections, as well as onr own :-The Mining and Geological, and Macleay Museums, ~ydney; National Museum, Melbourne; Geological Survey, and Queensland Museums, Brisbane; Geological Survey Collection, Adelaide; and the Sweet Collection, Melbourne.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Agricultural Potential of Soils in the Gulf Region, North Queensland
    REPORT TO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT (RID), NORTH REGION ON An Assessment of Agricultural Potential of Soils in the Gulf Region, North Queensland Volume 1 February 1999 Peter Wilson (Land Resource Officer, Land Information Management) Seonaid Philip (Senior GIS Technician) Department of Natural Resources Resource Management GIS Unit Centre for Tropical Agriculture 28 Peters Street, Mareeba Queensland 4880 DNRQ990076 Queensland Government Technical Report This report is intended to provide information only on the subject under review. There are limitations inherent in land resource studies, such as accuracy in relation to map scale and assumptions regarding socio-economic factors for land evaluation. Before acting on the information conveyed in this report, readers should ensure that they have received adequate professional information and advice specific to their enquiry. While all care has been taken in the preparation of this report neither the Queensland Government nor its officers or staff accepts any responsibility for any loss or damage that may result from any inaccuracy or omission in the information contained herein. © State of Queensland 1999 For information about this report contact [email protected] ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors thank the input of staff of the Department of Natural Resources GIS Unit Mareeba. Also that of DNR water resources staff, particularly Mr Jeff Benjamin. Mr Steve Ockerby, Queensland Department of Primary Industries provided invaluable expertise and advice for the development of the agricultural suitability assessment. Mr Phil Bierwirth of the Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO) provided an introduction to and knowledge of Airborne Gamma Spectrometry. Assistance with the interpretation of AGS data was provided through the Department of Natural Resources Enhanced Resource Assessment project.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission DR130
    To: Commissioner Dr Jane Doolan, Associate Commissioner Drew Collins Productivity Commission National Water Reform 2020 Submission by John F Kell BE (SYD), M App Sc (UNSW), MIEAust, MICE Date: 25 March 2021 Revision: 3 Summary of Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Current Situation / Problem Solution 3.0 The Solution 4.0 Dam Location 5.0 Water channel design 6.0 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act – Section 100 7.0 Federal and State Responses 8.0 Conclusion 9.0 Acknowledgements Attachments 1 Referenced Data 2A Preliminary Design of Gravity Flow Channel Summary 2B Preliminary Design of Gravity Flow Channel Summary 3 Effectiveness of Dam Size Design Units L litres KL kilolitres ML Megalitres GL Gigalitres (Sydney Harbour ~ 500GL) GL/a Gigalitres / annum RL Relative Level - above sea level (m) m metre TEL Townsville Enterprise Limited SMEC Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation MDBA Murray Darling Basin Authority 1.0 Introduction This submission is to present a practical solution to restore balance in the Murray Daring Basin (MDB) with a significant regular inflow of water from the Burdekin and Herbert Rivers in Queensland. My background is civil/structural engineering (BE Sydney Uni - 1973). As a fresh graduate, I worked in South Africa and UK for ~6 years, including a stint with a water consulting practice in Johannesburg, including relieving Mafeking as a site engineer on a water canal project. Attained the MICE (UK) in Manchester in 1979. In 1980 returning to Sydney, I joined Connell Wagner (now Aurecon), designing large scale industrial projects. Since 1990, I have headed a manufacturing company in the specialised field of investment casting (www.hycast.com.au) at Smithfield, NSW.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Lockyer Valley Water Supply Scheme Annual Network Service Plan
    Lower Lockyer Valley Water Supply Scheme Annual Network Service Plan December 2013 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. Scheme Details ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Scheme background and context ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 Infrastructure details ................................................................................................................ 3 2.3 Customers and water entitlements serviced ........................................................................... 4 2.4 Water availability and use ........................................................................................................ 4 2.5 Water trading ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.6 Irrigation Customer Consultation ............................................................................................. 5 2.7 Customer service standards .................................................................................................... 6 3. Financial Performance .......................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Tariffs ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 2 Review of Sunwater Administration Costs
    Queensland Competition Authority SunWater Administration Cost Review Phase 2 25 August 2011 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu ABN 74 490 121 060 550 Bourke Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Tel: +61 (0) 3 9671 7000 Fax: +61 (0) 3 9671 7700 www.deloitte.com.au John Hall The Chief Executive Officer Queensland Competition Authority GPO Box 2257 Brisbane QLD 4001 25 August 2011 Dear Mr Hall RE: SunWater Admin Costs – Phase2 Review Deloitte is pleased to submit this final report to the Queensland Competition Authority as part of the SunWater Irrigator Price Review process. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you wish to discuss. Yours sincerely Kumar Padisetti Partner Energy and Infrastructure Advisory 1 Contents Statement of Responsibility 3 1 Executive Summary 5 2 Introduction 7 2.1 Background to the Price Setting Review 7 2.2 Terms of Reference and Approach 7 3 SunWater‘s Administrative Costs 9 3.1 SunWater‘s Services 9 3.2 Provision of Services 12 3.3 Adminstrative Costs Summary 15 3.4 Assessment of SunWater‘s Administrative Costs 17 3.5 Local benchmarking 36 3.6 Cost Escalation 40 3.7 Insurance 42 3.8 Identified Efficiency Opportunities 44 4 Cost Allocation Methodology 45 4.1 SunWater‘s proposed CAM 46 4.2 Assessment of SunWater‘s Proposed Methodology 51 5 Conclusion 80 5.1 General Comments 80 5.2 Reasonableness and Prudency of Administrative Costs 80 5.3 Appropriateness of Cost Allocation Methodology 81 Appendix A – Case Studies 83 Appendix B – Worked examples of cost allocation to schemes 89 Appendix C – Worked examples of cost allocation to customer groups 98 Appendix D – Allocation of admin costs to Irrigator Service Contracts and Deloitte modelling results 104 Appendix E – MAE detailed analysis 110 2 Statement of Responsibility This report was prepared for the Queensland Competition Authority as part of the 2012-17 irrigation price review, for the purpose of assessing the efficiency of SunWater‘s proposed administration costs and the appropriateness of the allocation methodology used to apportion administration costs to irrigation customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Resources of Cape York Peninsula
    CAPE YORK PENINSULA LAND USE STRATEGY LAND USE PROGRAM SURFACE WATER RESOURCES OF CAPE YORK PENINSULA A.M. Horn Queensland Department of Primary Industries 1995 r .am1, a DEPARTMENT OF, PRIMARY 1NDUSTRIES CYPLUS is a joint initiative of the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments CAPE YORK PENINSULA LAND USE STRATEGY (CYPLUS) Land Use Program SURFACE WATER RESOURCES OF CAPE YORK PENINSULA A.M.Horn Queensland Department of Primary Industries CYPLUS is a joint initiative of the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments Recommended citation: Horn. A. M (1995). 'Surface Water Resources of Cape York Peninsula'. (Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy, Office of the Co-ordinator General of Queensland, Brisbane, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra and Queensland Department of Primary Industries.) Note: Due to the timing of publication, reports on other CYPLUS projects may not be fully cited in the BIBLIOGRAPHY section. However, they should be able to be located by author, agency or subject. ISBN 0 7242 623 1 8 @ The State of Queensland and Commonwealth of Australia 1995. Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, - no part may be reproduced by any means without the prior written permission of the Office of the Co-ordinator General of Queensland and the Australian Government Publishing Service. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Office of the Co-ordinator General, Government of Queensland PO Box 185 BRISBANE ALBERT STREET Q 4002 The Manager, Commonwealth Information Services GPO Box 84 CANBERRA ACT 2601 CAPE YORK PENINSULA LAND USE STRATEGY STAGE I PREFACE TO PROJECT REPORTS Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy (CYPLUS) is an initiative to provide a basis for public participation in planning for the ecologically sustainable development of Cape York Peninsula.
    [Show full text]
  • A Re-Examination of William Hann´S Northern Expedition of 1872 to Cape York Peninsula, Queensland
    CSIRO PUBLISHING Historical Records of Australian Science, 2021, 32, 67–82 https://doi.org/10.1071/HR20014 A re-examination of William Hann’s Northern Expedition of 1872 to Cape York Peninsula, Queensland Peter Illingworth TaylorA and Nicole Huxley ACorresponding author. Email: [email protected] William Hann’s Northern Expedition set off on 26 June 1872 from Mount Surprise, a pastoral station west of Townsville, to determine the mineral and agricultural potential of Cape York Peninsula. The expedition was plagued by disharmony and there was later strong criticism of the leadership and its failure to provide any meaningful analysis of the findings. The authors (a descendent of Norman Taylor, expedition geologist, and a descendent of Jerry, Indigenous guide and translator) use documentary sources and traditional knowledge to establish the role of Jerry in the expedition. They argue that while Hann acknowledged Jerry’s assistance to the expedition, his role has been downplayed by later commentators. Keywords: botany, explorers, geology, indigenous history, palaeontology. Published online 27 November 2020 Introduction research prominence. These reinterpretations of history not only highlight the cultural complexity of exploration, but they also During the nineteenth century, exploration for minerals, grazing demonstrate the extent to which Indigenous contributions were and agricultural lands was widespread in Australia, with expedi- obscured or deliberately removed from exploration accounts.4 tions organised through private, public and/or government spon- William Hann’s Northern Expedition to Cape York Peninsula sorship. Poor leadership and conflicting aspirations were common, was not unique in experiencing conflict and failing to adequately and the ability of expedition members to cooperate with one another acknowledge the contributions made by party members, notably in the face of hardships such as food and water shortages, illness and Jerry, Aboriginal guide and interpreter.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Framework December 2019 CS9570 12/19
    Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy Queensland bulk water opportunities statement Part A – Strategic framework December 2019 CS9570 12/19 Front cover image: Chinaman Creek Dam Back cover image: Copperlode Falls Dam © State of Queensland, 2019 The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication. For more information on this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The Queensland Government shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. Hinze Dam Queensland bulk water opportunities statement Contents Figures, insets and tables .....................................................................iv 1. Introduction .............................................................................1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Context 1 1.3 Current scope 2 1.4 Objectives and principles 3 1.5 Objectives 3 1.6 Principles guiding Queensland Government investment 5 1.7 Summary of initiatives 9 2. Background and current considerations ....................................................11 2.1 History of bulk water in Queensland 11 2.2 Current policy environment 12 2.3 Planning complexity 13 2.4 Drivers of bulk water use 13 3.
    [Show full text]
  • MYTHBUSTERS #2- Sale of Assets« Curtis Pitt MP :::State Member for Mulgrave Page 1 Of3
    MYTHBUSTERS #2- Sale of Assets« Curtis Pitt MP :::State Member for Mulgrave Page 1 of3 Home Media & Speeches Online Office Resources Photos & Videos Get In Touch Biography Mulgrave MYTHBUSTERS #2- Sale of Assets MYTH: The Government all of its assets. FACT: We aren't. In our total asset base is over billion. We are selling Forestry Plantations Queensland, Queensland Motorways Limited, Port of Brisbane Corporation, Abbot Point Coal Terminal, and the above and below rail coal business of Queensland Rail. The proposed sales will deliver proceeds of around $15 billion. But the government will still own a large number of businesses, including: • Queensland Investment Corporation • Energex Powerlink Erg on • CS Energy • Tarong Energy Stanwell Corporation Sunwater SEQWater • LinkWater • WaterSecure • Townsville Port Corporation • Far North Ports Corporation • North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation • Gladstone Port Corporation Queensland Rail's passenger network. We also continue to own billions of dollars worth of social infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. MYTH: The Government is off businesses that are tr.r.von>orfhe five businesses in about million in dividends and tax for the last financial year. However, over the next five years the businesses will require around $12 billion in investment, some of which will be spent on QR's operations in other states. http://www.curtispitt.eom.au/2009/09/02/mythbusters-2-%E2%80%93-sale-of-assets/ 5/03/2013 MYTHBUSTERS #2 - Sale of Assets « Curtis Pitt MP ::: State Member for Mulgrave Page 2 of3 That's $12 billion: • that will need to be borrowed • that can't be invested in hospitals, schools or highways.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Persistence of the Northern Quoll Dasyurus Hallucatus in Queensland
    Surviving the toads: patterns of persistence of the northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus in Queensland. Report to The Australian Government’s Natural Heritage Trust March 2008 Surviving the toads: patterns of persistence of the northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus in Queensland. Report submitted to the Natural Heritage Trust Strategic Reserve Program, as a component of project 2005/162: Monitoring & Management of Cane Toad Impact in the Northern Territory. J.C.Z. Woinarski1, M. Oakwood2, J. Winter3, S. Burnett4, D. Milne1, P. Foster5, H. Myles3, and B. Holmes6. 1. Department of Natural Resources Environment and The Arts, PO Box 496, Palmerston, NT, 0831. 2. Envirotek, PO Box 180, Coramba NSW 2450 3. PO Box 151, Ravenshoe Qld 4888; and School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville. 4. PO Box 1219, Maleny 4552; [email protected] Box 1219, Maleny, 4552 5. “Bliss" Environment Centre, 1023D Coramba Rd, Karangi NSW 2450 6. 74 Scott Rd, Herston 4006; [email protected] Photos: front cover – Northern quoll at Cape Upstart. Photo: M. Oakwood & P. Foster CONTENTS Summary 2 Introduction 4 relevant ecology 7 Methods 8 northern quoll Queensland distributional database 8 field survey 8 Analysis 10 change in historical distribution 10 field survey 11 Results 12 change in historical distribution 12 field survey 14 Discussion 15 Acknowledgements 19 References 20 List of Tables 1. Locations of study sites sampled in 2006-07. 25 2. Environmental and other attributes recorded at field survey transects. 27 3. Frequency distribution of quoll records across different time periods. 30 4. Comparison of quoll and non-quoll records for environmental variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Lands of the Mitchell-Normanby Area, Queensland
    IMPORTANT NOTICE © Copyright Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (‘CSIRO’) Australia. All rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO Division of Land and Water. The data, results and analyses contained in this publication are based on a number of technical, circumstantial or otherwise specified assumptions and parameters. The user must make its own assessment of the suitability for its use of the information or material contained in or generated from the publication. To the extend permitted by law, CSIRO excludes all liability to any person or organisation for expenses, losses, liability and costs arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in whole or in part) and any information or material contained in it. The publication must not be used as a means of endorsement without the prior written consent of CSIRO. NOTE This report and accompanying maps are scanned and some detail may be illegible or lost. Before acting on this information, readers are strongly advised to ensure that numerals, percentages and details are correct. This digital document is provided as information by the Department of Natural Resources and Water under agreement with CSIRO Division of Land and Water and remains their property. All enquiries regarding the content of this document should be referred to CSIRO Division of Land and Water. The Department of Natural Resources and Water nor its officers or staff accepts any responsibility for any loss or damage that may result in any inaccuracy or omission in the information contained herein.
    [Show full text]