DOCSLIB.ORG

APP201153 APP201153 Decision.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
APP201153 APP201153 Decision.Pdf DECISION Date 13 March 2012 Application code APP201153 To import into containment any new organism under section Application type 40(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited Applicant (NIWA) Date application received 21 December 2011 Consideration period 23 February 2012 to 13 March 2012 Considered by Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) To hold 13 aquatic plant species in containment for scientific Purpose of the application research purposes Blyxa aubertii Blyxa japonica Butomus umbellatus Egeria najas Elodea nuttallii Lagarosiphon cordofanus The new organisms approved are Lagarosiphon madagascariensis Myriophyllum sibiricum also known as Myriophyllum exalbescens Myriophyllum heterophyllum Najas indica Najas tenuifolia . Najas marina Ottelia alismoides also known as Ottelia japonica www.epa.govt.nz 2 Decision: APP201153 1. Summary of decision 1.1 Application APP201153 to import into containment 13 aquatic plant species for scientific research purposes is approved, with controls set out in the Appendix. 1.2 The organisms approved for importation are the new organisms described in control 1 2. Legislative criteria for application 2.1 The application was lodged under section 40(1) of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the Act). 2.2 The application was considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and of the HSNO (Methodology) Order 1998 (the Methodology). The consideration followed the process described in the decision path for applications to import new organisms into containment under section 45 of the Act (EPA Decision Path Protocol, Figure 12). 3. Application process Application Receipt 3.1 The EPA considered that it had sufficient information to assess the application. To the extent the application may not meet any legislative information requirements, the EPA waives these requirements. Notification 3.2 The EPA has discretion as to whether to publicly notify an application to import into containment any new organism. The application was not publicly notified because no exceptional circumstances warranting public notification were identified, and significant public interest in this application was not anticipated. 3.3 As required by the Act and Methodology, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and Department of Conservation (DOC) were notified and provided with the opportunity to comment on the application. DOC had no comments on the application. Comments from MAF were taken into consideration. Information available for the consideration 3.4 The information available for the consideration comprised: The application form; Internal EPA advice; and Comments received from MAF/DOC. 3 Decision: APP201153 4. Sequence of the consideration 4.1 In its consideration of the application as per the requirements in the Act and the Methodology, the EPA considered whether: The application is for one of the purposes specified in the Act. The EPA is satisfied that the new organisms (NOs) can be adequately contained and the controls set provide for matters specified in Schedule 3 (Part 2) of the HSNO Act. The beneficial effects of having the NOs in containment outweigh the adverse effects of the NOs (after taking into account all the effects of the NOs, the ability of the NOs to escape from containment and their ability to establish undesirable self-sustaining populations and the ease with which the NO could be eradicated of it established an undesirable self-sustaining population). 4.2 Each point is addressed in the following sections of this decision. 4.3 The application was considered on 23 February 2012. The EPA adjourned the consideration of the application until 8 March 2012, to seek additional information on: reproductive strategies of each plant species; particularly around the size, longevity of seeds and pathways of seed escape; containment of seeds disposed in the soak hole; and disposal of seeds (new organisms) in the soak hole. 5. Purpose of the application and scope of the approval 5.1 The applicant (NIWA) seeks approval to import into containment 13 aquatic plant species (described in control 1, Table 3) for scientific research. These species are ornamental aquatic plants that are in the international aquarium and pond trade but are not present in New Zealand. The approval will allow NIWA to conduct research on these NOs in a secure containment facility, in order to assess the potential to become weeds in the New Zealand environment. It will also allow NIWA to develop appropriate management responses for biosecurity should there be an incursion in the future. 5.2 The EPA noted that the use of this approval has not been limited to the applicant. Therefore other persons could use this approval provided that their intended imports comply with the approved organism description (control 1) and meet the purpose of this approval (for scientific research), and the NOs are maintained as per the containment controls placed on this approval. As this approval is not limited to the applicant, control 5 has been imposed requiring any person using this approval for the first time to notify the EPA and the MAF Inspector responsible for supervision of their containment facility of their intention to do so in writing. 4 Decision: APP201153 5.3 The EPA noted that Najas marina is listed as an unwanted organism and notifiable organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993. The applicant is required to seek MAF approval before carrying out any research on an unwanted organism. 5.4 The EPA is satisfied that the purpose of this application falls within the scope of section 39(1)(h) of the Act: such other purposes as the Authority thinks fit, being research. 6. Adequacy of the containment regime 6.1 To evaluate the adequacy of containment, the EPA assessed the ability of NOs to escape from containment by considering: the biological characteristics of the NOs that relate to containment; the containment regime; and the potential pathways for the escape of the NOs from the containment facility. Biological characteristics of NOs that relate to containment 6.2 The EPA notes that the 13 aquatic plant species are adapted to living submerged or partially submerged in freshwater. These plants are susceptible to drying out and can only grow in water or in soil that is permanently saturated with water, and are reliant on water for structural support. 6.3 The EPA notes that the NOs reproduce largely by fragmentation and through specialised stems (rhizomes, stolons, and tubers), and also sexually, where floral pollination results in seed formation. In this form of vegetative reproduction, a portion of the the plant or specialised stem (rhizome) or roots is broken off (fragmented) and carried by water to other areas where the plant fragments grow into new plants. Plant fragments may also be dispersed by birds, animals and/or boats and transported. For those NOs that reproduce sexually, pollination may occur in the water (submerged), or in the air for those species whose flowers mature at or above the water surface. The resulting seeds are small ranging from 1 to 7 mm and fruit are indehiscent i.e. fruit that do not open at maturity in a defined way but rely on predation or decay to release the seeds. 6.4 The EPA considers the approved description of the NOs in control 1 is defined enough to allow people to know whether the organisms they wish to import are covered under this approval. The proposed containment regime 6.5 The EPA considered that the 13 NOs are to be imported into containment and must therefore be held within a defined containment facility (control 7). The EPA considered that within a containment facility there will be one or more containment areas (specified places and/or conditions) that will be suitable for containing these NOs. The EPA impose controls 8 and 9 relating to containment areas. The EPA 5 Decision: APP201153 requires all reasonably practicable measures be taken to ensure that people entering and exiting containment areas do not compromise containment of the new organisms (control 10). 6.6 The EPA noted that NOs may be moved between containment areas within a containment facility, or be moved between containment facilities (with appropriate approval under the Biosecurity Act 1993). Therefore the EPA imposes controls 11 and 12, relating to moving NOs. 6.7 Controls 13-16 relate to access to the containment facility, including requiring that all entrances be lockable, and locked when not in active use, and all reasonably practicable measures be taken to prevent unauthorised entry into the facility and accidental or deliberate release of NOs. 6.8 Controls 17 and 18 require that any waste or equipment that may carry or contain a NO, or heritable material from a NO, must be treated or decontaminated (killing the NOs and any heritable material) prior to waste disposal or equipment being used for another purpose or removal from the containment facility. 6.9 Control 19 requires that all persons entering the containment facility must be instructed on containment practices relevant to their responsibilities. This includes members of the public who visit the facility, who may be instructed verbally or through signs about areas that they may or may not access; and staff who will have a higher level of training about the specific containment requirements for those NOs. 6.10 Contingency plans, outlining actions to be taken in the event of a breach of containment or other unexpected event, are required to be documented (control 20), and implemented if there is reason to believe a NO has escaped or been released from its containment area (control 21). In addition, the containment facility must maintain the capability to eradicate any NOs in the event of escape (control 20). 6.11 Inspection and monitoring of containment areas is important in maintaining containment and therefore regular inspections (control 22) are required, along with ad-hoc inspections following any events that could compromise the containment regime (control 23).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southern Gulf, Queensland
    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Species List What is the summary for and where does it come from? This list has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. The list was produced using the AustralianAustralian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. For each family of plant and animal covered by ANHAT (Appendix 1), this document gives the number of species in the country and how many of them are found in the region. It also identifies species listed as Vulnerable, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act. A biodiversity summary for this region is also available. For more information please see: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/anhat/index.html Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are notnot included included in in the the list. list. • The data used come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect. All species names have been confirmed as valid species names, but it is not possible to confirm all species locations.
    [Show full text]
  • GROUP C: OTHER GROUND-DWELLING HERBS (Not Grasses Or Ferns)
    Mangrove Guidebook for Southeast Asia Part 2: DESCRIPTIONS – Other ground-dwelling herbs GROUP C: OTHER GROUND-DWELLING HERBS (not grasses or ferns) 327 Mangrove Guidebook for Southeast Asia Part 2: DESCRIPTIONS – Other ground-dwelling herbs Fig. 52. Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl. (a) Habit, (b) bud, and (c) flower. 328 Mangrove Guidebook for Southeast Asia Part 2: DESCRIPTIONS – Other ground-dwelling herbs ACANTHACEAE 52 Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl. Synonyms : Unknown. Vernacular name(s) : Sea Holly (E), Jeruju (hitam) (Mal.), Jeruju (Ind.), Ô rô (Viet.), Trohjiekcragn pkapor sar, Trohjiekcragn slekweng (Camb.), Ngueak plaamo dok muang (Thai) Description : Acanthus ebracteatus resembles Acanthus ilicifolius (see next page), but all parts are smaller. Flowers measure 2-3 cm and are (usually) white; the fruit is shorter than 2.0 cm; seeds measure 5-7 mm. Flowers have only one main enveloping leaflet, as the secondary ones are usually rapidly shed. The species described by Rumphius as the male specimen of Acanthus ilicifolius was later identified by Merrill as Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl. Some authors regard Acanthus ebracteatus, Acanthus ilicifolius and Acanthus volubilis as one highly variable species (e.g. Heyne, 1950). Note that in Acanthus young leaves or leaves on the ends of branches may be unarmed (i.e. without spines), while older specimens may be armed. Ecology : Where this species occurs together with Acanthus ilicifolius the two seem distinct in the characters used in the descriptions, but they are often confused. Flowering usually occurs in June (in Indonesia). True mangrove species. Distribution : From India to tropical Australia, Southeast Asia and the west Pacific islands (e.g. Solomon Islands).
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Aquatic Invertebrates of Nimalarragan Wetland North of Broome
    A survey of aquatic invertebrates of Nimalarragan wetland north of Broome Adrian Pinder1, Kirsty Quinlan1, Russell Shiel2 and Loretta Lewis1 1. Ecosystem Science Program, DBCA 2. Environment Institute, University of Adelaide. July 2019 Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions Nimalarragan aquatic invertebrate survey Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions Locked Bag 104 Bentley Delivery Centre WA 6983 Phone: (08) 9219 9000 Fax: (08) 9334 0498 www.dbca.wa.gov.au © Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions on behalf of the State of Western Australia 2019 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Questions regarding the use of this material should be directed to: Ecosystem Science Program Leader Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions Locked Bag 104 Bentley Delivery Centre WA 6983 Email: [email protected] The recommended reference for this publication is: Pinder AM, Quinlan K, Shiel RJ and Lewis, L. 2019. A survey of aquatic invertebrates of Nimalarragan wetland north of Broome, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Perth. Cover image (sampling location 5) by
    [Show full text]
  • Tropical Australian Water Plants Care and Propagation in Aquaria
    Tropical Australian Water Plants Care and propagation in Aquaria Dave Wilson Aquagreen Phone – 08 89831483 or 0427 212 782 Email – [email protected] 100 Mahaffey Rd Howard Springs NT 0835 Introduction There is a growing interest in keeping native fishes and plants. Part of the developing trend in keeping aquaria and ponds is to set up a mini habitat for selected species from the one place and call it a biotope. Some enthusiasts have indicated that in recent times there is not much technical information for beginners about native Australian aquatic plant growing. Generally, if you can provide good conditions for the plants, the other inhabitants, fish, crustaceans and mollusc will be happy. This will set out water quality management, fertiliser and its management, describe an aquarium system that incorporates technology to achieve a nice aquarium. The fourth part will describe some native plants that can be trialled in the aquarium. Soft water plants Hard Water plants Part 1 - Water Quality - Measuring and Management Most people are familiar with pH, alkalinity, hardness, salinity and temperature. The system described here needs control over these parameters which link in with the fertilisers required for good plant growth. A couple of others that can be measured are phosphate and nitrate. Fertilisers produced from feeding fish can be used and are calculated into the system but are usually in the wrong proportions for good plant growth management. A fresh water planted aquarium does better with a 25% to 50% water change per week, test the water you use for the change to make sure that it is better than the water you have already.
    [Show full text]
  • Sites of Botanical Significance Vol1 Part1
    Plant Species and Sites of Botanical Significance in the Southern Bioregions of the Northern Territory Volume 1: Significant Vascular Plants Part 1: Species of Significance Prepared By Matthew White, David Albrecht, Angus Duguid, Peter Latz & Mary Hamilton for the Arid Lands Environment Centre Plant Species and Sites of Botanical Significance in the Southern Bioregions of the Northern Territory Volume 1: Significant Vascular Plants Part 1: Species of Significance Matthew White 1 David Albrecht 2 Angus Duguid 2 Peter Latz 3 Mary Hamilton4 1. Consultant to the Arid Lands Environment Centre 2. Parks & Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory 3. Parks & Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory (retired) 4. Independent Contractor Arid Lands Environment Centre P.O. Box 2796, Alice Springs 0871 Ph: (08) 89522497; Fax (08) 89532988 December, 2000 ISBN 0 7245 27842 This report resulted from two projects: “Rare, restricted and threatened plants of the arid lands (D95/596)”; and “Identification of off-park waterholes and rare plants of central Australia (D95/597)”. These projects were carried out with the assistance of funds made available by the Commonwealth of Australia under the National Estate Grants Program. This volume should be cited as: White,M., Albrecht,D., Duguid,A., Latz,P., and Hamilton,M. (2000). Plant species and sites of botanical significance in the southern bioregions of the Northern Territory; volume 1: significant vascular plants. A report to the Australian Heritage Commission from the Arid Lands Environment Centre. Alice Springs, Northern Territory of Australia. Front cover photograph: Eremophila A90760 Arookara Range, by David Albrecht. Forward from the Convenor of the Arid Lands Environment Centre The Arid Lands Environment Centre is pleased to present this report on the current understanding of the status of rare and threatened plants in the southern NT, and a description of sites significant to their conservation, including waterholes.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Plants of the Townsville − Burdekin
    WETLAND PLANTS OF THE TOWNSVILLE − BURDEKIN Dr Greg Calvert & Laurence Liessmann (RPS Group, Townsville) For Lower Burdekin Landcare Association Incorporated (LBLCA) Working in the local community to achieve sustainable land use THIS PUBLICATION WAS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE SUPPORT OF: Burdekin Shire Council Calvert, Greg Liessmann, Laurence Wetland Plants of the Townsville–Burdekin Flood Plain ISBN 978-0-9925807-0-4 First published 2014 by Lower Burdekin Landcare Association Incorporated (LBLCA) PO Box 1280, Ayr, Qld, 4807 Graphic Design by Megan MacKinnon (Clever Tangent) Printed by Lotsa Printing, Townsville © Lower Burdekin Landcare Association Inc. Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted under the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without prior permission of LBLCA All photographs copyright Greg Calvert Please reference as: Calvert G., Liessmann L. (2014) Wetland Plants of the Townsville–Burdekin Flood Plain. Lower Burdekin Landcare Association Inc., Ayr. The Queensland Wetlands Program supports projects and activities that result in long-term benefits to the sustainable management, wise use and protection of wetlands in Queensland. The tools developed by the Program help wetlands landholders, managers and decision makers in government and industry. The Queensland Wetlands Program is currently funded by the Queensland Government. Disclaimer: This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of publication. The authors and funding bodies hold no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Recovery in Inland Wetlands: an Australian Perspective
    Vegetation recovery in inland wetlands: an Australian perspective J. Roberts, M.T. Casanova, K. Morris, P. Papas May 2017 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series Number 270 Acknowledgements This project was funded by the Water and Catchments Group (WCG) of the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria (DELWP). Tamara van Polanen Petel and Janet Holmes (WCG, DELWP), and Freya Thomas and Claire Moxham (Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, DELWP) are thanked for reviewing the draft and providing valuable feedback. David Meagher (Zymurgy Consulting) is thanked for editing the report. Authors Jane Roberts1, Michelle Casanova2, Kay Morris3 and Phil Papas3 1 Ecological Consultant, PO Box 6191, O’Connor, Australian Capital Territory 2602 2 Charophyte Services, PO Lake Bolac, Victoria 3351 3 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, 123 Brown Street, Heidleberg, Victoria 3084 Citation Roberts, J., Casanova, M.T., Morris, K. and Papas, P. (2017). Vegetation recovery in inland wetlands: an Australian perspective. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Technical Report Series No. 270. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Victoria. Photo credit Southern Cane Grass Eragrostis infecunda establishing on exposed bed of former Lake Mokoan, at Winton Wetlands in October 2016. (Dylan Osler, via Jane Roberts) © The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, May 2017 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo and the Arthur Rylah Institute logo.
    [Show full text]
  • Rangelands, Western Australia
    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Species List What is the summary for and where does it come from? This list has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. The list was produced using the AustralianAustralian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. For each family of plant and animal covered by ANHAT (Appendix 1), this document gives the number of species in the country and how many of them are found in the region. It also identifies species listed as Vulnerable, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act. A biodiversity summary for this region is also available. For more information please see: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/anhat/index.html Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are notnot included included in in the the list. list. • The data used come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect. All species names have been confirmed as valid species names, but it is not possible to confirm all species locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Purnululu National Park
    World Heritage Scanned Nomination File Name: 1094.pdf UNESCO Region: ASIA AND THE PACIFIC __________________________________________________________________________________________________ SITE NAME: Purnululu National Park DATE OF INSCRIPTION: 5th July 2003 STATE PARTY: AUSTRALIA CRITERIA: N (i)(iii) DECISION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE: Excerpt from the Report of the 27th Session of the World Heritage Committee Criterion (i): Earth’s history and geological features The claim to outstanding universal geological value is made for the Bungle Bungle Range. The Bungle Bungles are, by far, the most outstanding example of cone karst in sandstones anywhere in the world and owe their existence and uniqueness to several interacting geological, biological, erosional and climatic phenomena. The sandstone karst of PNP is of great scientific importance in demonstrating so clearly the process of cone karst formation on sandstone - a phenomenon recognised by geomorphologists only over the past 25 years and still incompletely understood, despite recently renewed interest and research. The Bungle Bungle Ranges of PNP also display to an exceptional degree evidence of geomorphic processes of dissolution, weathering and erosion in the evolution of landforms under a savannah climatic regime within an ancient, stable sedimentary landscape. IUCN considers that the nominated site meets this criterion. Criterion (iii): Superlative natural phenomena or natural beauty and aesthetic importance Although PNP has been widely known in Australia only during the past 20 years and it remains relatively inaccessible, it has become recognised internationally for its exceptional natural beauty. The prime scenic attraction is the extraordinary array of banded, beehive-shaped cone towers comprising the Bungle Bungle Range. These have become emblematic of the park and are internationally renowned among Australia’s natural attractions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ex-Situ Conservation of Plant Species in Indonesia with a Focus on Wallacea
    Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Alfred Russel Wallace and the Wallacea Wakatobi - Indonesia, 10–13 November 2013 TAPROBANICA, ISSN 1800–427X. May, 2015. Vol. 07, No. 03: pp. 157–169, pl. 8–9. © Research Center for Climate Change, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia www.taprobanica.org EX-SITU CONSERVATION OF PLANT SPECIES IN INDONESIA WITH A FOCUS ON WALLACEA Ismayadi Samsoedin1, Kuswata Kartawinata2,3 and Ugi Sugiarti4 1 Climate Change & Policy Research and Development Center, Ministry of Environment & Forestry, Jl. Gunung Batu 5, Bogor 16610, Indonesia; E-mail: [email protected] 2 Integrative Research Center, The Field Museum, 1400 Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, USA 3 Herbarium Bogoriense, Research Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jl. Raya Jakarta-Bogor Km 46, Cibinong 16911, Indonesia; E-mail: [email protected] 4 Center for Plant Conservation, Bogor Botanic Gardens, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Bogor, Indonesia; E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Biodiversity conservation is a national priority in Indonesia as a part of the implementation of sustainable development. Both in-situ and ex-situ conservation should be practised so as to make certain that biodiversity can be conserved, studied and sustainably utilized. The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and Ministry of Environment & Forestry (KLHK) are responsible for the conservation of biodiversity as the scientific authority and management authority, respectively. Several pathways of ex-situ conservation may be undertaken through restoration of degraded ecosystems, improvement of fallows, development of arboreta, botanical gardens (BG), city parks, and biodiversity parks, planting road-side trees and rehabilitation of degraded lands using indigenous species, particularly rare and protected species.
    [Show full text]
  • Cover Page of ERMP
    9 Existing environment—aquatic flora and fauna The proposed development allows for all rivers, streams and natural wetlands in the Project Area to be contained within conservation areas, and to be isolated from land development. This chapter describes the flora and fauna associated with surface water features within and near the Project Area. Other chapters of relevance are Chapter 5, which describes the existing and potential changes to the hydrology and water quality of these surface water features; Chapter 6, which describes the existing and potential groundwater scenarios, and effects that changes in groundwater may have on surface water; and Chapter 10, which describes the conservation strategy for the Project, potential impacts from development, and proposed management measures. 9.1 OVERVIEW Relative to other areas of Australia there is limited literature available on the aquatic systems of the Kimberley region. Lane and McComb (1988) described the wetlands of the region in broad ecological terms, and Benson (1997) identified the wetlands within the Project Area. Molluscs have been studied by Wilson and Stoddart (1979); fish have been investigated by Allen (1982), Hutchins (1981) and Larson (1995, 1996, 1999); and waterbirds have been studied by Jaensch (1994). A marine biological survey of the eastern Kimberley has been undertaken by the Western Australian Museum and the University of Western Australia (Walker et al. 1996). As described by Lane and McComb (1988), the types of natural wetland found in the Kimberley region include: · perennial or intermittent rivers (mostly freshwater); · estuaries subject to large seasonal changes in salinity brought about by the balance between seasonal intrusion of marine water, evaporation, rainfall and river discharge; · ephemeral wetlands on rock outcrops; · seasonal lakes and associated swamps.
    [Show full text]
  • Cop13 Prop. 22
    CoP13 Prop. 22 CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENT OF APPENDICES I AND II A. Proposal Inclusion of Carettochelys insculpta in Appendix II, in accordance with Article II, paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention and Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP12), Annex 2 a, paragraph B. i). B. Proponent Indonesia in accordance with the consensus recommendations of the CITES-sponsored Technical Workshop on Conservation of and Trade in Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises in Asia, held in Kunming, China in March 2002, and the Animals Committee Working Group on Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles. C. Supporting statement 1. Taxonomy 1.1 Class: Reptilia 1.2 Order: Testudines (Chelonia) 1.3 Family: Carettochelyidae 1.4 Genus: Carettochelys Ramsay, 1886 Species: Carettochelys insculpta Ramsay, 1886 Subspecies: Carettochelys insculpta insculpta Ramsay, 1886 Carettochelys insculpta canni Wells, 2002 1.5 Scientific synonyms: None 1.6 Common names: English: pig-nosed turtle, Fly River turtle, New Guinea plateless turtle, pitted-shell turtle French: carettochélyde d’Australasie Spanish: Aboriginal (Daly River): yirrin Aboriginal (Kakadu): warradjan Bahasa Indonesia: kura-kura irian, labi-labi moncong babi German: Neuguinea-Weichschildkröte 1.7 Code numbers: --- 2. Biological parameters 2.1 Distribution Australia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea. Australia: Carettochelys has been recorded from the Victoria, Daly, and Alligator river systems of the Northern Territory (Georges and Rose 1993, Cann 1998). Anecdotal but presently unconfirmed reports exist from several other rivers in the Northern Territory and from the Wenlock River of Queensland (Georges and Rose 1993). Indonesia: The species inhabits the Seketwa, Heron and other rivers in southern West Papua; an old record from Lake Jamur is probably in error (Georges and Rose 1993).
    [Show full text]