Avitourism and Australian Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas.

Formal protected areas will not provide adequate protection to conserve all biodiversity, and are not always designated using systematic or strategic criteria. Using a systematic process, the Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) network was designed to highlight areas of conservation significance for birds (i.e. IBA trigger species), and more recently general biodiversity. Land use activities that take place in IBAs are diverse, including consumptive and non-consumptive activities. Avitourism in Australia, generally a non-consumptive activity, is reliant on the IBA network and the birds IBAs aim to protect. However, companies tend not to mention IBAs in their marketing. Furthermore, avitourism, like other nature-based tourism has the potential to be both a threatening process as well as a conservation tool. We aimed to assess the current use of IBAs among Australian-based avitour companies' marketing, giving some indication of which IBAs are visited by avitourists on organised tours. We reviewed online avitour itineraries, recorded sites featuring in descriptions of avitours and which IBA trigger species are used to sell those tours. Of the 209 avitours reviewed, Queensland is the most featured state (n = 59 tours), and 73% feature at least one IBA. Daintree (n = 22) and Bruny Island (n = 17) IBAs are the most popular, nationally. Trigger species represent 34% (n = 254 out of 747) of species used in avitour descriptions. The most popular trigger species' are wetland species including; Brolga (n = 37), Black-necked Stork (n = 30) and Magpie Goose (n = 27). Opportunities exist to increase collaboration between avitour companies and IBA stakeholders. Our results can provide guidance for managing sustainability of the avitourism industry at sites that feature heavily in avitour descriptions and enhance potential cooperation between avitour companies, IBA stakeholders and bird conservation organisations.

Decline in recycled water quality during short-term storage in open ponds.

Changes were assessed in urban wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent quality during short-term storage in open surface ponds. Water quality was monitored over five years at the inlets and outlets of open storage ponds located at three biological nutrient removal plants. Pond influent temperature, rainfall and sewage inflow were not found to be major factors. However, there was a trend for water temperature to be correlated negatively with nitrogenous nutrient and positively with faecal coliform values. The observed increases in faecal coliforms, nutrients and chemical oxygen demand were most likely caused through avian faecal contamination. These increases challenge the notion that pond storage has a positive or negligible effect on effluent quality. The observed one to two orders of magnitude increase in faecal coliforms may affect reuse scheme viability by limiting the range of uses under Australian water recycling guidelines. Potential improvements to short-term recycled water storage management at WWTPs could include the integration of monitoring requirements in WWTP discharge licences and recycling guidelines and the monitoring of all water quality parameters, including microbiological ones, at the point of entry into the recycled water distribution system, after WWTP storage, rather than directly post-disinfection.