R. Mawbey’s pic of a giant freshwater crayfish, from Tasmania’s Parks and Wildlife Service, HERE
The giant freshwater crayfish habitat
RE: Public comment on the draft national recovery plan for Giant Freshwater Lobster (Astacopsis gouldi)
The Federal Government has recently closed a public consultation about the draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Freshwater Lobster (Astacopsis gouldi). This is the last roll of the dice for this lobster. It is found only within the small coastal strip on the North East and North West of Tasmania.
These lobsters are the largest freshwater invertebrates on the planet. The evidence has established conclusively that sediment in their waterways is by far the biggest killer of this threatened species. This lobster is highly sensitive to the large increase in sediment that follows habitat disturbance and run-off from logging.
The actions in the Recovery Plan for the Giant Freshwater Lobster (Astacopsis gouldi), and the manner in which it is implemented over the next 10 years, will spell the continuation or extinction of this unique creature. Unless the Plan provides immediate and definite targets and performance measures to guide action, the giant freshwater lobster will disappear from the planet forever.
The previous 2006-2010 Recovery Plan
We note the review of the 2006-2010 Recovery Plan that was conducted. The team who undertook this review proposed two new objectives. These were to:
• Increase forestry streamside protections in key upstream habitats
• Increase the total area of reserves.
They proposed three actions to meet these objectives:
1. Develop a strategic approach, at the catchment level, to capture issues related to flow of impacts from upstream to downstream. This may be best achieved by first identifying and confirming key areas … where stricter prescriptions would apply to upstream areas (e.g. classify entire catchments as ‘high’ suitability habitat in areas containing key Astacopsis gouldi populations and habitat).
2. Consider extending class 4 stream protections to 50m in whole catchments upstream of key areas identified for A. gouldi (under FPA). The team noted that “This is the key action needed to secure A. gouldi populations, and is considered vital to the success of any future recovery plan”’.
3. Consider protecting key areas and reserves in pristine high quality catchments supporting healthy lobster populations. The Team noted that:
“Todd Walsh* identified that protection of approximately 30,000 ha of key habitat would result in significant conservation wins for the species”, and that:
“If this action was achieved it may greatly reduce the need for any active management of the species in the future”.
The 2016 Draft Recovery Plan
The objectives and strategies proposed in the 2016 Draft Recovery Plan are aligned to the findings of the previous recovery. These are to:
• Conserve, protect and manage identified key habitats to support increasing populations of lobsters with a healthy demographic structure.
• Address threats and improve habitat quality across the species’ range.
The relevant strategies to achieve these objectives are proposed to be:
• Strategy 1: Increase the reservation status and improve the quality of identified key habitat for the giant freshwater lobster.
• Strategy 2: Prevent or minimise the degradation of giant freshwater lobster habitat.
Given these strategies, and the known now-critical survival status of the lobster, it is painful to read that the proposed actions in the Draft Recovery Plan fall well short of what is need to meet these strategies and objectives.
With regard to Strategy 1, the most relevant actions listed are:
• Action 1b: Identify priority sub-catchments for improved habitat protection to support and maintain healthy lobster populations
• Action 1c: Increase the total area of giant freshwater lobster habitat that is reserved.
With regard to Action 1b, the review of the 2006-2010 Plan clearly stated that Objective 3.3 (to “Identify and document key areas for protection”) had been completed.
What is still missing is a commitment to protect these areas.
This Draft Plan proposes to “explore opportunities” for reserves so that the total area of lobster habitat “increases”. It does not specify which high priority areas will be protected. Without specifying where reserves will be located, and the timeframe in which they’ll be established, the Plan effectively does not make a real commitment to protecting this threatened and vulnerable species.
Similarly, within Strategy 2 the proposed actions fall far short of being decisive enough to meet the strategy. Action 2c is particularly vague. It sounds positive that “Habitat managers and regulators work cooperatively to identify and implement methods for strengthening habitat protections, or reducing forestry impacts, in upstream reaches of priority sub-catchments.”
However, the performance criteria for assessing Action 2c are wholly inadequate. These are:
• to “consider” the recommendations of Davies et al (2016) that forestry management practices include measures to minimise downstream impacts in areas that support optimal habitat for both juvenile and adult lobsters;
• to “investigate” methods for increasing habitat protection, or reducing adverse impacts, in upstream reaches of priority sub-catchments;
• to identify the “most appropriate” method for increasing protections, or improving management, in upstream reaches of priority sub-catchments.
Who determines what is the ‘most appropriate’? How will this differ from the ‘most effective’?
These performance criteria will not ensure that substantial change – of the type and level required to save this species from extinction – actually occurs. The actions in the Plan do not meet the objectives and strategies of the Plan itself.
The actions need to take up the recommendations of the team who reviewed the 2006–2010 Plan. In particular, to:
• Extend Class 4 stream protections to 50m in whole catchments upstream of key areas, and
• Protect key areas and reserves in pristine high quality catchments supporting healthy lobster populations, through reserving approximately 30,000 ha of key habitat.
In short, the action needs to be to stop logging prime giant freshwater lobster habitat and the areas upstream of such habitat. According to the 2006-2010 reviewers, this single action would result in significant conservation wins for the species, and would likely reduce the need for any active management of the species in the future.
Recommended changes need to the 2016 Lobster Recovery Plan
The headwaters and catchments of a number of specific Tasmanian rivers need to be protected in order for the giant freshwater lobster to survive. Regardless of the creation of reserves and buffer zones downstream, if the headwaters of the lobster’s habitat are not protected then sediment from land clearing run-off will flow downstream and finish off the remaining intact systems of the lobsters.
In the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement, signed by the Prime Minister and Tasmanian Premier in 2011, the Forest Industry and Environment Groups agreed that particular riverine areas would be protected.
To protect the lobster from likely extinction, we propose that the Draft Recovery Plan be amended to incorporate these specific actions:
1. Declare no-go logging zones around the headwaters and riverways of: the Forester River in eastern Tasmania; the Black River, the Frankland/Horton/Lindsay rivers, and the Flowerdale/Hebe rivers in western Tasmania. Alternatively, or in any case, these areas should have buffer zones of at least 50m.
2. Declare no-go logging zones around the headwaters and riverways of the Dip River and all water tributaries on the Dip Range, as these feed critical habitat for the lobster. Alternatively, or in any case, these areas should have buffer zones of at least 50m.
We also note that in the review of the 2006–2010 Plan numerous actions were not carried out due to limited resources being made available to the threatened species program. This is unacceptable. It is symptomatic of the lack of status that has been given to recovery plans by successive governments. If we are serious about protecting this threatened species, we need well-resourced Recovery Plans. We recommend that the Plan specify the need for government to commit the resources that are needed to implement the actions.
It is rare that the recovery plan for a species is so clear and so achievable. There are usually many complex factors driving the decline of a species. In the case of the giant freshwater lobster the actions required are highly specific and feasible. Without these actions being addressed with alacrity, the timeframe for extinction is similarly clearly projected. Barely a decade stands between the survival of this amazing large lobster and extinction.
We have written to Minister Hunt and asked him to hasten and take the steps needed to save it.
*Dr Rosalie Woodruff MP is the Member for Franklin, and Tasmanian Greens Environment spokesperson
*Senator Janet Rice is Australian Greens spokesperson for Forests.
*Todd Walsh profile on LinkedIn HERE
• Pete Godfrey in Comments: It seems that we have had a Draft recovery plan for the lobsters forever. Surely someone within government will have the spine to actually do something soon. 50 metre buffers on class 4 streams are a good step, then they will have to look at other major sources of silt. Eg Roading. There needs also to be a ban on logging on sensitive Karst areas. I have photos of the Lobster Rivulet and the Honeycomb caves running with mud rather than water after two logging actions on Karst areas above them. Like the Bees the Astacopsis are a sign that things are not well. We need our rivers and streams to be pristine. We need to replant riparian vegetation on lowlands also to prevent the rivers silting up and to keep large stock out of the water.
• Andrew Ricketts in Comments: The ridiculous and unsustainable Forestry stream classification system and prescriptions have been imported into the Draft State Planning Provisions. They have no basis in science. The adequate and responsible management of threatened species continues to evade Tasmania. Warriner’s (#7) comments over who should pay are worthy of detailed discussion. In truth we all have a responsibility, including the public purse. For too long Tasmania has hidden behind this inexcusable excuse, while allowing irreplaceable natural assets to continue to go down the gurgler … It is far worse than post 17 suggests …
John Hawkins, Comment 50
John Hawkins, Comment 50
• Claire Gilmour in Comments: … Who knows where they go in droughts, fires, floods? I do! Who has followed them in such scenarios? I have! Have you ever seen dozens of astacopsis gouldi walking down a creek going back to their homes after a drought or fire? I have. Have you ever seen them hide in high floods and come up in low floods? I have …
