General Science Library
This page accesses a cache of historical documents authored by seismologists from the University of Queensland. Drs J.P. Webb, J.M. Rynn and Mr R.C. Cuthbertson were staff members of QUAKES or ESSC, a SRC unit within the Department of Geology & Mineralogy (now SEES). These documents include material that explains why the Queensland Government began monitoring for earthquakes around their dams and infrastructure. QSN is indebted to Michael Turnbull, Adjunct Research Fellow, CQU, for scanning these materials and Col Lynam, QSN Coordinator, for facilitating.
All files have been rendered searchable. To reduce the size of the files and downloading time, some have been “optimised” which causes a reduction in visual quality. However, every optimised file is accompanied by an original.
Wivenhoe Dam Seismic Surveillance
Discussion Paper 1981 (31.4MB)
Interim Status Report 1983 (5.0MB)
Reports to the Queensland Government WDSSP from 1 of 1977- to 7 of 1984:
WDSSP-1 (27.8MB) WDSSP-2 (21.6MB) WDSSP-3 (63.6MB) WDSSP-4 (12.2MB) WDSSP-5 (11.0MB) WDSSP-6 (7.6MB) WDSSP-7 (23.9MB)
Accelerograph recommendations 1984 (optimised, 5.3MB) Accelerograph recommendations 1984 (original, 14.7MB)
Burdekin Falls and Other Dams
Monitoring of Proposed Burdekin Dam 1982 (optimised, 4.8MB) Monitoring of Proposed Burdekin Dam 1982 (original, 11.8MB)
Burdekin Preliminary 1988 (optimised, 1.6MB) and Burdekin Preliminary 1988 (original, 4.2MB)
Burdekin Proposed 1989 (optimised, 2.3MB) and Burdekin Proposed 1989 (original, 6.5MB)
Awoonga Report 1994 (optimised, 1.4MB) Awoonga Report 1994 (original, 3.5MB)
Seismic Surveillance of Dams 1994 (original, 6.5MB)
Seismic Risk
Seismic Risk Study:
QSRS-1 1985 (optimised, 3.1MB) QSRS-1 (original, 7.9MB) QSRS-2 1986 (optimised, 2.6MB) QSRS-2 (original, 6.1MB)
Seismic Risk Estimates 1989 (22.3MB)
Earthquake Activity
Regional Seismic Network 1994-5 (4.3MB)
Earthquake activity to 1994 (18.7MB)
Seismograph records, 1866-2007
See also a series of annual reports originating in Central Queensland University.
Earthquake Engineering Workshops
Introduction Nov. 1984 (optimised, 45.2MB) Introduction Nov. 1984 (original, 108.3MB)
Second Workshop Nov. 1987 (optimised, 18.7MB) Second Workshop Nov. 1987 (original, 53.4MB)
Third Workshop Nov. 1989 Volume 1 (optimised, 22.4MB) Third Workshop Volume 1 (original, 53.4MB)
Third Workshop Nov. 1989 Volume 2 (original, 41.1MB)
Related Images:
In two articles in volume 124 of the Proceedings of The Royal Society of Queensland, David Marlow, member of the Society, and Jason Alexandra wrote of the destruction of a number of public agencies and programs dedicated to improving knowledge of the natural environment and resources. In this post we supplement that thoroughly documented account with personal observations by the two primary Queensland-based principals of the National Land and Water Resources Audit. We will add other observations if people with first hand knowledge provide them.
NLWRA
Paul Sattler, Society member, awarded the OAM for services to biodiversity conservation, wrote of his experience:
“I reconvened the original Audit team, including Commonwealth officers, to see how we could build on the first report for a second review, Audit II. We were keen to further quantify assessments where possible, add other components such as soil biota, and to start a process to more empirically assess trend, but there was no Commonwealth support for a comprehensive follow up. This burnt considerable jurisdictional goodwill across the States and Territories. Similarly, Col Creighton’s push for a separate national resource monitoring and assessment body to be permanently established was never acted upon. The National Land and Water Resources Audit program, and then Land and Water Australia, a successful body providing natural resource management advice to rural Australia, were closed down by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests. Subsequently, the Australian National Reserve System Program was closed down. The waste in setting up and then closing these successful Commonwealth programs was staggering” (Sattler, 2014).
In a personal communication to David Marlow on 28 June 2018, he mused sadlythis on how the successes were wasted and opportunities were squandered:
“The NLWRA’s Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment (ATBA) was a very successful exercise in describing the condition and trend of a number of biodiversity elements across species and ecosystems for each bioregion, in identifying threatening processes, and biodiversity conservation opportunities and priorities for management. Fourteen case studies were also completed across the range of ‘Landscape Health’ scenarios to provide detailed insight into the specific mix of management responses required.
“This experience informed the Humane Society International submission for a new approach in regional planning. Despite significant goodwill by all States and Territories at the time to further expand on the Audit’s work, (it is estimated that the States and Territories contributed an additional $2m on top of the $1m allocated by the Federal government for the ATBA), thefederal government of the day did not show leadership in this regard or accept the Humane Society’s submissions for a new cost-effective approach to regional planning upon which to further roll out the Natural Heritage Trust program and its subsequent incarnations. Today little legacy exists of what was one of Australia’s most expensive environment initiatives at that time.” (Sattler, personal communication to David Marlow on 28 June 2018).
Queenslander Col Creighton, awarded the OAM for “significant service to environmental and natural resource management”, was the manager of the National Land and Water Resources Audit and remembers the highs and bitter lows of the period:
“In Audit 1 we rigorously made sure that data management was to the Australian standard. Much of it via ANZLIC [Australia New Zealand Land Information Council] ended up with nominated custodians, but as to whether these custodians have had the resources to keep data management going…? The proof [of the success of Audit 1] was in the follow-on investment. The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality plus much of the follow on NHT [Natural Heritage Trust] investment were all based on Audit findings. There was of course an ANAO [Australian National Audit Office] review. The Audit came through according to ANAO as the best single investment of that NHT phase. I used to visit ANAO offices about every three months and we always made sure we were 100% compliant with their standards. As for the demise of Audit 1 – well the agencies that were supposed to build policy off our evidence felt we had too much control. The latest State of Environment Reporting is also still using Audit 1 data – an indictment of the current state of NRM – but then there is NO SENIOR NRM AGENCY. This should be Australia-wide, possibly ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics], but more usefully perhaps Geoscience Australia). It [NRM] requires a national approach” (Creighton, 2018).
Sattler, P.S. 2014. Five million hectares – a conservation memoir – memoir 1972-2008.
Land and Water Australia
Land & Water Australia was established in 1990 as one of the rural research and development corporations which foster innovation in Australia’s agricultural production systems. Land and Water Australia’s unique charter was to invest in generating and managing new knowledge, focused on the sustainability of Australia’s productive agricultural landscapes. Its portfolio of work over 19 years ranged across the key challenges to both the productivity and sustainability of Australia’s land and water resources.
In May 2009, the Government decided to cease funding Land and Water Australia.
On 10-12 November 2009, Trove captured the LWA website with its extensive archive of knowledge reports.
Related Images:
This report summarises knowledge as at 1998 of the potential threat posed by storm tides along the Queensland coast.
As single catastrophic events, extreme storm tides generated by tropical cyclones have been responsible for the largest known loss of human life from natural disasters. The report provides an overview of the issues associated with storm tides, an introduction to the physical mechanisms at work, an historical perspective and a summary of results from some of the numerous technical studies done up to the date of publication, 1998. Aspects explored include coastal zone planning, infrastructure design and community forecasting including shelter and evacuation issues. Data from existing studies is examined in terms of its currency, accuracy and applicability and recommendations for ongoing or updated analyses and research are presented.
The report is by Dr Brian Harper, then of the Coastal Management Branch, Department of Environment and Heritage. Copyright is held by the Queensland Government. QSN has been unable to locate a digital copy on any official website.
Storm Tide Threat in Queensland: History, Prediction and Relative Risks.
Related Images:
This post is based upon a presentation by robotics engineer John Griffiths and Alicia Dunn at the Norfolk Island Knowledge and Learning Centre, Norfolk Island, on 5 July 2024. It is re-published here because of the potential of this technology for cost-competitive environmental management, the control of Crown of Thorns Starfish in Queensland being just one example. For an article on COTS, see https://scienceqld.org/2024/08/20/cots/
History
Underwater drones or ROVs, short for “remotely operated vehicles”, first saw commercial use in the oil and gas industry for inspecting oil rig structures. They were giant machines the size of a large vehicle that took multiple people to deploy and control. By the 1980s, they were well recognised as being safer, more cost-effective and – with tools mounted on them – more capable than sending down divers, particularly to the depths at which most of the work required of them was conducted. However, the cost of such machines was so great that only very few industries or institutes could afford one. A few companies realised the potential of building smaller and smaller units. The cost of research and development and the low production numbers meant that they were very expensive so the uptake and awareness of their availability was very low.
The development of aerial drones saw miniaturisation of the electronic systems needed to fly them. It quickly became apparent that with changes to the software, much of those electronics could control underwater motors and could stream video to a screen through a tether, usually consisting of twisted pairs of copper inside protective casing. While these units were limited to just being able to send video with tethers less than 100 metres, and were often subject to failure-prone electronics or leaky housings, it put the price within the range of the average consumer and sparked the interest of hobbyists all over the world.
Our personal journey
Our personal journey into the world of underwater drones started on Norfolk Island at about that time – in 2015. The Island had been through a particularly bad patch of weather with very few fresh fish being caught. Frustrated with the fish options being Nile Perch or Bass freighted from the other side of the world, John Griffiths had the idea he could make a remotely controlled submarine of some sort with a spear gun on it that he could use off the rocks on the sheltered sides of the Island. He could see that the concept had considerable merit if it could be implemented. It would mean selective targeting of only the fish the user wanted, with no bycatch, providing a dependable source of high-grade protein that was environmentally sustainable and had a far lower carbon footprint than anything shipped in from overseas. It was obvious that a spear gun on an underwater drone could also be used for tagging sharks or collecting DNA for research. The problem was that nothing remotely capable of firing a spear was on the market so he set about trying to make one.
After more than a year of frying numerous electronics components in leaking PVC tubes from Bunnings and trying to find motors that would work, a guy in a backyard garage in California put some waterproof motors he had designed on Kickstarter and in the months later started making waterproof tubes, an improved motor and various components including a robotic claw. Suddenly, everything needed to make a functional underwater drone capable of firing a spear gun was available. Lots of trial and error followed with various types of spear guns and actuators. It very soon became apparent that the system that could fire a spear gun also could control any number of mechanical tools. John took the approach that his underwater drones and tools should be designed to allow for tools to be changed in matter of minutes like a tractor changing from having a post hole borer to a rotary hoe or even carrying multiple tools for various functions at the same time. What followed was year after year of constant research and development where tools as varied as pneumatic drills, golf ball collectors and crown-of-thorns starfish injectors to name a few were developed. Fast forward to now, as well as being the only makers in the world of a spear gun attachment for underwater drones, our firm designs and builds underwater drones for any purpose that has an environmental benefit. One of our designs won a NSW design award and is the most hydrodynamic industrial grade underwater drone in the world and features artificial intelligence for anomaly detection on ship hulls.
Now we are finishing the world’s first marine debris-collecting underwater drone complete with twin disc cutters and deployable grappling hook designed to remove abandoned fishing nets and lobster pots, sunken vessels, tyres or anything else damaging marine environments. All over the world, businesses that previously relied on divers to do their work, now realise that an underwater drone with the right tool is a far cheaper and more effective way to perform multiple functions at the same time.
While we focus primarily on design and building specific use underwater drones, a number of other companies have developed sophisticated electronics for these small drones so that now plug and play sonar, position holding, location tracking, temperature and depth gauges are just off-the-shelf upgrades many underwater drones are equipped with. The potential uses of underwater drones are expanding by the day and the market is increasing at a rapid rate.
Just some of things an ROV can do
1. Data collection such by high resolution video, sonar and lidar images, laser measurements, temperature and depth gauges, are now standard capabilities.
2. Food harvesting such as spearfishing, sea cucumber, sea urchin, crayfish, scallops, hook and line fishing can all be done with an ROV.
3. Also with a spear gun mounted on an ROV, shark tagging and DNA collection could be done with far less trauma and physical damage to the shark than current methods allow.
4. Invasive marine species control. An ROV equipped with our Crown of Thorns Starfish injector or the tool we have developed for rogue urchin eradication would go a long way to solving the problems that devastate large sections of the Great Barrier Reef and the kelp beds of much of NSW, Victoria, Tasmania. These are just two of the problems caused by invasive marine species world-wide. There are many other ROV-mountable tools that could be developed to address these problems.
5. Marine debris collection. Marine debris comes in many shapes and forms but we know that the breakdown of the debris is filling the ocean with tiny particles that are ending up in the entire food chain, including the seafood that we eat. A suitably equipped ROV can cut cables, wires, rope, retrieve large items with a trapping hook and airbag.
6. Infrastructure inspection for cracks from dam walls to oil rigs pylons to jetties.
7. Fish-farm net repair and removal of dead fish.
8. Search and rescue. An ROV with an air tank can power pneumatic tools such as hammers to smash into submerged vehicles or boats, while robotic arms can extricate a person. The quick deployability of an ROV makes them far better suited for the role, particularly where depth and water temperature are factors.
9. Subsea mining for the very high value minerals found concentrated on parts of the ocean floor.
10. Ship hull inspection for anomalies like cracks or even contraband and also biofouling detection.
Reducing bycatch when fishing
Fish are a great source of healthy protein and societies all over the world that have high levels of sea food in their diet tend to be in better health and live longer. Here is where an ROV equipped with either a spear gun or a hook and line can be of great assistance. A spear gun allows you to select the fish you want and if your aim is right, you almost certainly have secured dinner. A rod mounted onto the ROV with the bait dangled in front of particular fish that you see is quite effective as well. This is a tool that we have just developed.
Potential for misuse
Like any technology the potential for misuse is high and we have at times destroyed prototypes of tools developed for one purpose when we realised they could be used in a very different and destructive way in unregulated fisheries around the world. It doesn’t take much imagination to see a future where 10,000 small AI-enhanced underwater drones, with just a few extra lines of code in the software, can be thrown over the side of a vessel in international waters, with that extra code telling them all to surface next Wednesday having grabbed everything they see of a certain size and colour.
They also can be armed relatively easily and something programmed for patrolling a submarine pen could easily be directed to sink a vessel. We are watching the emergence of this type of utilisation in the Ukraine/ Russia war and no doubt it will be part of any military arsenal of the future just as aerial drones are now.
Subsea mining is another area where great harm through misuse of this technology in fragile environments could occur.
This means that our firm is very careful about what we develop, what we show and what we make available. We are very cautious about who our buyers are and what is the intended usage of that underwater drone or tool design. Like the internet or nuclear arms, in the wrong hands, the world becomes a worse place. We design and build only things that we think can make the world a better place.
Down Deep Drones
info@downdeepdrones.com
www.downdeepdrones.com
26 July 2024
Related Images:
QSN member body The Moreton Bay Foundation has appealed for help to develop and maintain a Knowledge Hub to guide research, action and advocacy.
Moreton Bay is one of Australia’s most important coastal and cultural resources. It is an international treasure known for its biodiversity and breathtaking beauty. The Bay is a popular recreational destination due to its diversity of wildlife, habitats and seascapes. It supports diverse industries including fisheries, aquaculture, port services and tourism.
The Moreton Bay community asked for a comprehensive report on what is needed to ensure a healthier Bay by 2035. The MBF commissioned a project in late 2023 to identify gaps in the management and protection of the Bay in response to this community need. The Moreton Bay 2035 report has been received by TMBF and it has identified significant threats to the health and sustainable use of Moreton Bay.
In response to these significant threats, TMBF has developed a strategic plan to guide research, action and advocacy for the Bay. The major initiative on which TMBF will immediately commence work is the creation of a consolidated Knowledge Hub to support research, planning and management decisions.
More information on https://moretonbayfoundation.org/what-we-do/strategic-plan/the-knowledge-hub/ and to donate, click here: https://moretonbayfoundation.org/get-involved/donate/
Related Images:
Dr Sean Foley B.Sc.(Hons.); PhD; FRGS and Member of The Royal Society of Queensland has forwarded an authoritative paper on aircraft noise problems.
He has written “I’m on the committee of the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA). My contribution to our work has been to estimate the extent and severity of aircraft noise on Brisbane residents and, more recently, make an analysis of aircraft noise metrics.
“I’ve attached a briefing note I submitted to the Senate Inquiry into the impacts of aircraft noise as part of BFPCA’s submission to the inquiry.”
Read Australia – Aircraft Noise Metrics here.
Related Images:
The collective Royal Societies of Australia (RSA) has endorsed a proposal by The Royal Society of Queensland to run an initiative called “Identifying the pre-conditions of well-being”. The project aims to develop a model for transitioning the population to sustainable well-being, element by element, through focused essays and scientific articles. The model aims to apply scientific method systematically to a complex problem that has metaphysical, biophysical, socio-cultural, economic and governance dimensions.
In short, it aims to bridge disciplinary boundaries and bring the evidence into policy recommendations.
The forum for the first series of writings is The Mandarin national online newsletter of public administration. By mid July 2024, ten articles had appeared. Click here for a pdf with hotlinks to those ten.
The RSA is keen to hear from anyone who would like to contribute resources in one form or another – time, talents, money – to raise the profile of this initiative. Contact health AT SYMBOL royalsocietyqld.org.au.
Related Images:
Context
For an introduction to ACRIS, see the QSN parent page https://scienceqld.org/2023/11/20/condition-and-trend/.
For its contemporary website (as at 3 October 2021), see Reporting Change in the Rangelands.
This official website states that “Extreme climatic variability in the rangelands makes it difficult to separate change resulting from seasonal climate variation from that driven by human activities. New ground in documenting change and its causes has been broken by the creation of the Australian Collaborative Rangeland Information System (ACRIS), which was first mooted in the 2001 report, Tracking Changes in the Rangelands. The ACRIS represents a new and important contribution to rangeland management and capacity to monitor change through scientifically rigorous data and information.”
This information system has not been active for several years and is not readily available. The DCCEEW rangelands/ACRIS website was last updated on 10 October 2021. Given governments’ piecemeal approaches to the management of rangelands, being manifestly inadequate given the wide-ranging implications of climate change, there is still a powerful need for an extensive rangeland information system.
The ABC published an informative story in 2014: “Acris-rangelands-funding-cut” (live link) or captured version (PDF). It ought to be a public scandal that tools like this suffer budget cuts. However, by that date, some immensely valuable reports had been produced.
ACRIS report 2001: Rangelands – Tracking Changes
175+ page Rangelands – Tracking Changes, September 2001. Bib ID: 419563 Call Number: NMT 4566 ISBN: 0642371148
QSN thanks the National Library of Australia for unearthing this significant document. This material has been provided pursuant to section 49 of the Copyright Act 1968 for the purpose of research or study. The Library has advised that this work is under copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process without the written permission of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Note: As the original file is 283 MB, it has been split into several parts and “optimised” with some loss of crispness. QSN holds a copy of the original file and this can be made available on request.
Summary (2.6 MB)
Pages 1-50, 38 MB (actual pages front cover-34)
Pages 50-100, 49 MB (actual pages numbers 34-84)
Pages 100-150, 43 MB (actual pages numbers 84-134)
Pages 150-196, 29 MB (actual pages numbers 134-175+)
Readme file accompanying the Rangelands Monitoring CD.
ACRIS report 2013: Reporting Change in the Rangelands
The Australian Collaborative Rangelands Information System (ACRIS): Reporting Change in the Rangelands. 2013.
Rangelands: The Heart of Australia – Main report
Reporting Change in the Rangelands – 2007 – WA Information for the National Report
Reporting Change in the Rangelands – 2007 – NT Information for the National Report
Related Images:
Liza Balmain of Glendon Station, Nangwee, has drawn QSN’s attention to a critique of the ‘adaptive management’ approach to mopping up the deleterious effects of mining.
Australia’s ‘learning by doing’ approach to managing large mines is failing the environment
Published: June 4, 2024 6.06am AEST
“A fantastic article by Professors Matthew Currell & Adrian Werner, highlighting how ‘adaptive management’ – or learning by doing – is not appropriate for large coal and gas mining developments.
Despite ongoing monitoring, often the environmental damage is identified once it is too late, rendering the damage irreversible, especially in regards to groundwater where so much scientific uncertainty exists at the project approval stages.
Mechanisms and clear steps to prevent the damage from occurring or getting worse, when the red flags appear through monitoring and/or modelling upgrades, are abjectly lacking, as is ongoing consultation with affected stakeholders.
The Condamine Alluvium, which is at great risk from Arrow Energy’s Surat Gas Project, is a case in point. There appears to be no mechanisms or plans in place to prevent damage once impacts start to occur other than the wholly inadequate Make Good framework.
You cannot compensate your way out of destroying a critical water source, which is fundamental to agricultural production and town/residential water supplies on the Darling Downs.
As stated by the experts in this article, “more precautionary approaches should be adopted when there is a long interval between the mining activity and potentially irreversible damage.”
The Queensland Government needs to apply common sense to this situation, as they have done with the carbon capture and storage in the GAB proposals, and enact comprehensive watertight preventative measures to ensure this unique and existential water source is not subjected to the depletion and contamination harms it is likely to suffer once widespread CSG mining takes place.”
Related Images:
There are strategies and strategies.
Animated by concern by graziers about declining financial profitability and declining condition of the natural resource base in the 1980s and early 1990s, regional plans were instituted in a few regions, notably the Mulga Lands of South-west Queensland, the Gascoyne and Cape York Peninsula.
Concern about these issues was widespread so during the 1990s, regional catchment bodies were established in all states, some with a statutory constitution, others (as in Queensland) as community groups. The federal government resolved to fund natural resource management and instituted the National Heritage Trust. In its early days, after about 1997, a strategic plan was required of each regional natural resource management group. The intention was to place public investment by the State and federal governments on a robust, well consulted and scientifically valid foundation.
After the Rudd government was elected in 2007, the focus of federal investment shifted to a project by project basis and strategic plans lost pre-eminence. In the new millennium, concern about the health of the Great Barrier Reef grew and considerable federal and Queensland funding was steered towards the catchment groups operating in the regions upstream of the Reef. But inland, in the unimproved pastoral estate, funding has remained tight, to the extent that three groups in South-west Queensland combined to save on administrative costs; and The Royal Society of Queensland has been unable to find $150,000 to support its Rangelands Policy Dialogue.
Correspondence from Ross Blick in 1998 explaining the need for a land-use strategy has surfaced from the archives and is reproduced here is a tribute to Ross’s vision and as a reminder of the scope of the forwardthinking needed to establish policy for the Rangelands.
Since 2007, even if less so beforehand, the regional NRM strategy plans have had the targeting of direct NRM investment as their primary purpose. And land-use planning of the Crown estate by the Department of Lands/Natural Resources/ has long tended to be driven by applications, one pastoral holding at a time. Ross Blick’s correspondence sets a standard that has yet to be reached.
An earlier consultancy by Ross Blick produced a report which led to the adding of a program to pipe the bore drains to the Great Artesian Basin bore capping program. That report and that program have been enormously influential in improving the health of the GAB lands.