DOCSLIB.ORG

Kooragang Ramsar Wetland Ecological Character Description

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kooragang Ramsar Wetland Ecological Character Description Kooragang Ramsar Wetland Ecological Character Description Citation Brereton, R., and Taylor-Wood, E., 2010, Ecological Character Description of the Kooragang Component of the Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar Site. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC), Canberra. Acknowledgments The Steering Committee provided information and support to the ECD preparation: Chris Herbert and Ann Lindsey, Hunter Bird Observers Club Alison Curtin, Waters and Wetlands Strategy Unit, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Jo Erskine, Parks & Wildlife Group, OEH Simon Godschalx, Wetlands Section, SEWPAC Peggy Svoboda, Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project, Hunter-Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority The ECD development was funded by SEWPAC. Introductory Notes This Ecological Character Description (ECD Publication) has been prepared in accordance with the National Framework and Guidance for Describing the Ecological Character of Australia’s Ramsar Wetlands (National Framework) (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2008). The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) prohibits actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland unless the Commonwealth Environment Minister has approved the taking of the action, or some other provision in the EPBC Act allows the action to be taken. The information in this ECD Publication does not indicate any commitment to a particular course of action, policy position or decision. Further, it does not provide assessment of any particular action within the meaning of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), nor replace the role of the Minister or his delegate in making an informed decision to approve an action. 1 The Water Act 2007 requires that in preparing the [Murray-Darling] Basin Plan, the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) must take into account Ecological Character Descriptions of declared Ramsar wetlands prepared in accordance with the National Framework. This ECD Publication is provided without prejudice to any final decision by the Administrative Authority for Ramsar in Australia on change in ecological character in accordance with the requirements of Article 3.2 of the Ramsar Convention. Disclaimer While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the contents of this ECD are correct, the Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities does not guarantee and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to the currency, accuracy, completeness, reliability or suitability of the information in this ECD. Note: There may be differences in the type of information contained in this ECD publication, to those of other Ramsar wetlands. Photo Credits OEH – Red Flowers at Kooragang wetlands, NSW OEH – Water and Mangroves at Kooragang wetlands, NSW Geoff Woods© – Kooragang wetlands at Stockton, NSW OEH – Water and Mangroves at Kooragang wetlands, NSW 2 Executive summary This ecological character description (ECD) is for the Kooragang component of the Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site which is located in the estuary of the Hunter River at Newcastle on the central coast of New South Wales. The purpose of the ECD is to provide a baseline description of the site at the time of Ramsar listing, such that changes in ecological character can be assessed. The Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site is comprised of the Kooragang component of the Hunter Wetlands National Park (formerly Kooragang Nature Reserve) which was listed in 1984 and Shortland Wetlands (now called the Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia) which was added to the Ramsar site in 2002. The Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia is a small (42 hectare) complex of wetlands located approximately 2.5 kilometres south west of Kooragang. Kooragang Nature Reserve was included in the Hunter Wetlands National Park which was gazetted in 2006. The Kooragang component of the Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site is located approximately seven kilometres north of the Newcastle central business district on the ‘North Arm’ of the Hunter River and covers an area of 2926 hectares. The Ramsar site is comprised of the bed of Fullerton Cove, the northern part of Kooragang Island (including the Kooragang Dykes) and the eastern section of the Tomago Wetlands (Figure 2-1). The Tomago Wetlands are an area of former wetlands converted to grazing land by drains and levees which lie to the west of Fullerton Cove. The Ramsar site also includes the fringing mangroves and islands within Fullerton Cove and part of the North Arm, as well as Stockton Sandspit and the Kooragang Dykes. On Kooragang Island, the site is bounded by Ash Island to the west and State owned undeveloped land to the south (Figure 2-1). The undeveloped parts of Kooragang Island which includes Ash Island and the Ramsar site are bounded by a rail line which separates them from the southern industrial area. Ramsar listing criteria The entire Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site (i.e. the Kooragang component and Hunter Wetlands Centre Australia) was re-assessed against the current Ramsar criteria in 2010 which identified that the wetland met Criteria 2, 4 and 6. The Kooragang component of the Hunter Estuary Wetlands contributes to all of these as outlined below: • Criterion 2. One wetland bird species (Australasian bittern; Botaurus poiciloptilus), listed as Endangered under both the EPBC Act and on the IUCN Red List (Version 2009.1), a fish species (Estuary Stingray; Dasyatis fluviorum) listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (Version 2009.1) 3 and a frog (green and golden bell frog; Litoria aurea) listed as Vulnerable on the EPBC Act have been recorded within the Kooragang component; • Criterion 4. The Kooragang component is an important foraging and roosting site for migratory shorebirds, and supports waterbirds at critical stages in their life cycles, including breeding, migration stop-over, roosting and drought refuge; and • Criterion 6. The Kooragang component regularly supports more than 1% of the East Asian- Australasian Flyway population of eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) and more than 1% of the Australian population of red-necked avocets (Recurvirostra novaehollandiae). Wetland types The Kooragang component of the Hunter Estuary Wetland contains five Ramsar wetland types: • estuarine waters (F) • inter-tidal mud, sand or salt flats (G) • Inter-tidal marshes; includes salt marshes, salt meadows, saltings, raised salt marshes; includes tidal and brackish marshes (H) • Inter-tidal forested wetlands; includes mangrove swamps, tidal and freshwater swamp forests (I) • tree-dominated wetlands (Xf) Critical components and processes The critical ecosystem components, sub-components and processes that describe the ecological character of the Kooragang component at the time of listing have been determined to be: • waterbirds, particularly migratory shorebirds • the green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea), a nationally listed threatened species • Sarcocornia saltmarsh which supports migratory shorebirds • intertidal mudflats which provide foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds • hydrology (tidal regime and freshwater inflows) which is a major influence on the distribution and extent of saltmarsh and mangroves A brief description of the ecosystem components and processes present at the time of listing is provided in Table E1. 4 Table E1. Components and processes within the Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site Component/process Summary description Geomorphology The Hunter Estuary is a “mature barrier estuary” which is characterised by an extensive river system with a high sediment load. Hydrology Large catchment (22 000 kilometres2), with stream inflows of approximately 1800GL/yr. There is no strong pattern of seasonal freshwater flows into the estuary. The majority of inflow and outflows in the estuary are tidal fluxes. The annual tidal inflow and outflow for the Hunter Estuary have been estimated to be 18 250GL. Water quality Water quality data at time of listing was limited, however the indications are that: • salinity is variable and typical of an estuary where salinity is affected by freshwater inflow events • estuary waters are well oxygenated and are likely to be maintained by the strong tidal movements in the lower estuary • turbidity levels in the estuary are generally moderate, with short-term increases after rain events • nutrient levels (nitrogen and phosphorus), particularly phosphorus, are relatively high in the estuary • heavy metals are not particularly concentrated in the North Arm and Fullerton Cove • the phytoplankton is typical for an estuary of the mid-east coast of Australia and is dominated by diatoms and dinoflagellates with a total of 20 taxa Vegetation The vegetation communities within the site are predominantly wetland types, including mangrove forests, saltmarsh, and brackish swamps. Successional changes were happening in the vegetation within the site at the time of listing, in particular, the expansion of mangroves and decline in saltmarsh. Birds The Hunter Estuary Wetlands supports an abundance and diversity of wetland birds including migratory and non-migratory shorebirds. The Hunter Estuary Wetlands supports waterbirds at all stages in their life cycles, including breeding, migration stop-over, roosting and drought refuge which is one of the main reasons why the Hunter Estuary Wetlands
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar Site Is Located in the Lower Hunter River Estuary, Along the Central Coast of New South Wales
    The Hunter Estuary Wetlands Ramsar site is located in the lower Hunter River estuary, along the central coast of New South Wales. Tomago Wetland lies immediately to the west of Fullerton Cove. As part of the Williamtown - Long Bight - Tomago Drainage Scheme, the levee bank, ring drain and other internal drains were enlarged by the NSW Public Works Department between 1968 and 1980 (MacDonald et al. 1997). These engineering works, including the installation of floodgates at the tidal boundary, ensured that tidal waters are excluded from Tomago Wetlands (i.e. the site drains via one- way tidal floodgates). The drainage and exclusion of tidal waters within Tomago Wetland degraded the salt marsh ecosystem and fostered the growth of non-salt marsh species. Lowering of the groundwater table also oxidised sub-surface acid sulfate soils causing soil acidification. Grazing and other users of the site further degraded the previous ecosystem and reduced migratory wading bird habitat. Tidal inundation was restored to the western portion of the site in 2007, with a culvert restricting exchange between the eastern and western sides installed as part of these works. As such the western half of Tomago Wetlands remains in an unrestored state. This study aimed to determine the impact of restoring tidal exchange at the eastern floodgates of Tomago Wetlands. Benefits of tidal restoration would include increased fish habitat, reduced weed growth, increase salt marsh habitat, improved bird roosting and feeding conditions and minimise acid sulfate soil impacts. Two-Dimensional (2D) numerical modelling hydrodynamic tools were used to simulate the reintroduction of tidal exchange at the site and to determine the optimal configuration of on-ground structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Combined Effects of Urbanization and Connectivity on Iconic Coastal Fishes
    Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2016) 22, 1328–1341 BIODIVERSITY Combined effects of urbanization and RESEARCH connectivity on iconic coastal fishes Elena Vargas-Fonseca1, Andrew D. Olds1*, Ben L. Gilby1, Rod M. Connolly2, David S. Schoeman1, Chantal M. Huijbers1,2, Glenn A. Hyndes3 and Thomas A. Schlacher1 1School of Science and Engineering, ABSTRACT University of the Sunshine Coast, Aim Disturbance and connectivity shape the structure and spatial distribution Maroochydore DC, Qld 4558, Australia, 2 of animal populations in all ecosystems, but the combined effects of these fac- Australian Rivers Institute – Coast & Estuaries, School of Environment, Griffith tors are rarely measured in coastal seascapes. We used surf zones of exposed University, Gold Coast, Qld 4222, Australia, sandy beaches in eastern Australia as a model seascape to test for combined 3Centre for Marine Ecosystems Research, effects of coastal urbanization and seascape connectivity (i.e. spatial links School of Natural Sciences, Edith Cowan between surf zones, estuaries and rocky headlands) on fish assemblages. University, Perth, WA 6027, Australia Location Four hundred kilometres of exposed surf beaches along the eastern coastline of Australia. A Journal of Conservation Biogeography Methods Fish assemblages were surveyed from surf zones of 14 ocean-exposed sandy beaches using purpose-built surf baited remote underwater video sta- tions. Results The degree of coastal urbanization and connectivity were strongly cor- related with the spatial distribution of fish species richness and abundance and were of greater importance to surf fishes than local surf conditions. Urbaniza- tion was associated with reductions in the abundance of harvested piscivores and fish species richness. Piscivore abundance and species richness were lowest on highly urbanized coastlines, and adjacent to beaches in wilderness areas where recreational fishing is intense.
    [Show full text]
  • Kooragang Wetlands: Retrospective of an Integrated Ecological Restoration Project in the Hunter River Estuary
    KOORAGANG WETLANDS: RETROSPECTIVE OF AN INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECT IN THE HUNTER RIVER ESTUARY P Svoboda Hunter Local Land Services, Paterson NSW Introduction: At first glance, the Hunter River estuary near Newcastle NSW is a land of contradictions. It is home to one of the world’s largest coal ports and a large industrial complex as well as being the location of a large internationally significant wetland. The remarkable natural productivity of the Hunter estuary at the time of European settlement is well documented. Also well documented are the degradation and loss of fisheries and other wildlife habitat in the estuary due to over 200 years of draining, filling, dredging and clearing (Williams et al., 2000). However, in spite of extensive modification, natural systems of the estuary retained enough value and function for large areas to be transformed by restoration activities that aimed to show industry and environmental conservation could work together to their mutual benefit. By establishing partnerships and taking a collaborative and adaptive approach, the project was able to implement restoration and related activities on a landscape basis, working across land ownership and management boundaries (Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project, 2010). The Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (KWRP) was launched in 1993 to help compensate for the loss of fisheries and other wildlife habitat at suitable sites in the Hunter estuary. This paper revisits the expectations and planning for the project as presented in a paper to the INTECOL’s V international wetlands conference in 1996 (Svoboda and Copeland, 1998), reviews the project’s activities, describes outcomes and summarises issues faced and lessons learnt during 24 years of implementing a large, long-term, integrated, adaptive and community-assisted ecological restoration project.
    [Show full text]
  • Hunter Valley: Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones Submission 8 November 2013
    Director Assessment Policy, Systems & Stakeholder Engagement Department of Planning and Infrastructure Hunter Valley: Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones Submission 8 November 2013 Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones Submission: Hunter Valley This page was intentionally left blank 2 Coal Seam Gas Exclusion Zones Submission: Hunter Valley Foreword Closing the loop on CSG Mining in the Hunter Valley When it comes to coal seam gas (CSG) mining, protecting Australia’s most visited wine tourism region in its entirety - not in parts - is of paramount importance. And the time to do it is now. The NSW State Government should be recognised for delivering on its pre-election promises to preserve the Hunter Valley wine tourism region from CSG mining by confirming exclusion zones around the villages of Broke and Bulga as well as around significant areas defined as Viticulture Critical Industry Clusters (VCIC). But protecting most of the region, while leaving several critical areas open for CSG exploration and mining, could have devastating consequences for the iconic Hunter region as a whole – and undo the Government’s efforts thus far. While mining is obviously a legitimate land use and an important revenue source, this can’t justify allowing mining activities in areas where other existing, profitable industries would be adversely affected. Put simply, winemaking, tourism and CSG mining are not compatible land uses. The popularity and reputation of the Hunter Valley wine tourism region is fundamentally connected to the area’s natural beauty and landscape – and that natural beauty will fast disappear if the countryside is peppered with unsightly gas wells. Research reveals 80%1 of Hunter Valley visitors don’t want to see gas wells in the wine and tourism region, with 70%2 saying if gas wells are established they’ll just stop coming.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Bathytoshia Brevicaudata (Hutton, 1875)
    FAMILY Dasyatidae Jordan & Gilbert, 1879 - stingrays SUBFAMILY Dasyatinae Jordan & Gilbert, 1879 - stingrays [=Trygonini, Dasybatidae, Dasybatidae G, Brachiopteridae] GENUS Bathytoshia Whitley, 1933 - stingrays Species Bathytoshia brevicaudata (Hutton, 1875) - shorttail stingray, smooth stingray Species Bathytoshia centroura (Mitchill, 1815) - roughtail stingray Species Bathytoshia lata (Garman, 1880) - brown stingray Species Bathytoshia multispinosa (Tokarev, in Linbergh & Legheza, 1959) - Japanese bathytoshia ray GENUS Dasyatis Rafinesque, 1810 - stingrays Species Dasyatis chrysonota (Smith, 1828) - blue stingray Species Dasyatis hastata (DeKay, 1842) - roughtail stingray Species Dasyatis hypostigma Santos & Carvalho, 2004 - groovebelly stingray Species Dasyatis marmorata (Steindachner, 1892) - marbled stingray Species Dasyatis pastinaca (Linnaeus, 1758) - common stingray Species Dasyatis tortonesei Capapé, 1975 - Tortonese's stingray GENUS Hemitrygon Muller & Henle, 1838 - stingrays Species Hemitrygon akajei (Muller & Henle, 1841) - red stingray Species Hemitrygon bennettii (Muller & Henle, 1841) - Bennett's stingray Species Hemitrygon fluviorum (Ogilby, 1908) - estuary stingray Species Hemitrygon izuensis (Nishida & Nakaya, 1988) - Izu stingray Species Hemitrygon laevigata (Chu, 1960) - Yantai stingray Species Hemitrygon laosensis (Roberts & Karnasuta, 1987) - Mekong freshwater stingray Species Hemitrygon longicauda (Last & White, 2013) - Merauke stingray Species Hemitrygon navarrae (Steindachner, 1892) - blackish stingray Species
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Fish Conservation Global Evidence for the Effects of Selected Interventions
    Marine Fish Conservation Global evidence for the effects of selected interventions Natasha Taylor, Leo J. Clarke, Khatija Alliji, Chris Barrett, Rosslyn McIntyre, Rebecca0 K. Smith & William J. Sutherland CONSERVATION EVIDENCE SERIES SYNOPSES Marine Fish Conservation Global evidence for the effects of selected interventions Natasha Taylor, Leo J. Clarke, Khatija Alliji, Chris Barrett, Rosslyn McIntyre, Rebecca K. Smith and William J. Sutherland Conservation Evidence Series Synopses 1 Copyright © 2021 William J. Sutherland This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the work and to make commercial use of the work providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information: Taylor, N., Clarke, L.J., Alliji, K., Barrett, C., McIntyre, R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine Fish Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Selected Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Further details about CC BY licenses are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cover image: Circling fish in the waters of the Halmahera Sea (Pacific Ocean) off the Raja Ampat Islands, Indonesia, by Leslie Burkhalter. Digital material and resources associated with this synopsis are available at https://www.conservationevidence.com/
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Risk and Conservation of the World's Sharks and Rays
    RESEARCH ARTICLE elife.elifesciences.org Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays Nicholas K Dulvy1,2*, Sarah L Fowler3, John A Musick4, Rachel D Cavanagh5, Peter M Kyne6, Lucy R Harrison1,2, John K Carlson7, Lindsay NK Davidson1,2, Sonja V Fordham8, Malcolm P Francis9, Caroline M Pollock10, Colin A Simpfendorfer11,12, George H Burgess13, Kent E Carpenter14,15, Leonard JV Compagno16, David A Ebert17, Claudine Gibson3, Michelle R Heupel18, Suzanne R Livingstone19, Jonnell C Sanciangco14,15, John D Stevens20, Sarah Valenti3, William T White20 1IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; 2Earth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada; 3IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, NatureBureau International, Newbury, United Kingdom; 4Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, United States; 5British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom; 6Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia; 7Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Panama City, United States; 8Shark Advocates International, The Ocean Foundation, Washington, DC, United States; 9National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand; 10Global Species Programme, International Union for the Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Study-Newcastle-Lonely-Planet.Pdf
    Produced by Lonely Planet for Study NT NewcastleDO VIBRAne of Lonely Planet’s Top 10 Cities in Best in Travel 2011 N CREATIVE A LANET Y P ’S EL TO N P O 1 L 0 F TOP C O I T TOP E I E N S O 10 CITY I N 10 CITY ! 1 B 1 E 0 S 2 2011 T L I E N V T A R 2011 PLANE LY T’S NE T O O P L F 1 O 0 C E I N T I O E S ! 1 I 1 N 0 B 2 E L S E T V I A N R T LANET Y P ’S EL TO N P O 1 TOP L 0 F TOP C O I T 10 CITY E I E N S O 10 CITY I N ! 2011 1 B 1 E 0 LAN S P E 2 Y T 2011 T L L ’ I S E N E V T A R N T O O P L F 1 O 0 C E I N T I O E S ! 1 I 1 N 0 B 2 E L S E T V I A N R T E W RE HANI AKBAR st VER I » Age 22 from Saudi Arabia OL » From Saudi Arabia » Studying an International Foundation program What do you think of Newcastle? It’s so beautiful, not big not small, nice. It’s a good place for students who are studying, with a lot of nice people.
    [Show full text]
  • Newcastle Fortresses
    NEWCASTLE FORTRESSES Thanks to Margaret (Marg) Gayler for this article. During World War 2, Newcastle and the surrounding coast between Nelson Bay and Swansea was fortified by Defence forces to protect the east coast of New South Wales against the enemy, in case of attack from the Japanese between 1940 and 1943. There were the established Forts along the coastline, including Fort Tomaree, Fort Wallace (Stockton), Fort Scratchley, Nobbys Head (Newcastle East) and Shepherd’s Hill (Bar Beach) and Fort Redhead. The likes of Fort Tomaree (Nelson Bay), Fort Redhead (Dudley) and combined defence force that operated from Mine Camp (Catherine Hill Bay) came online during the Second World War to also protect our coast and industries like BHP from any attempt to bomb the Industries as they along with other smaller industries in the area helped in the war effort by supplying steel, razor wire, pith hats to our armed forces fighting overseas and here in Australia. With Australia at war overseas the Government of the day during the war years decided it was an urgency to fortify our coast line with not only the Army but also with the help of Navy and Air- Force in several places along the coast. So there was established a line of communication up and down the coast using all three defence forces involved. Starting with Fort Tomaree and working the way down to Fort Redhead adding a brief description of Mine Camp and the role of the RAAF, also mentioning where the Anti Aircraft placements were around Newcastle at the time of WW2.
    [Show full text]
  • A3-Port-Aerial-Map-Low-Res.Pdf
    18 KOORAGANG PRECINCT 17 Kooragang 4, 5, 6, 7 Berths 18 Kooragang 8, 9, 10 Berths 19 18 17 MAYFIELD PRECINCT 11 9 Mayfield 4 Berth 11 Mayfield 7 Berth 13 10 10 BHP 6 16 WALSH POINT PRECINCT 18 9 15 15 Kooragang 2 Berth 16 Kooragang 3 Berth 11 8 7 CARRINGTON PRECINCT 1 West Basin 3 Berth 5 Channel Berth 2 West Basin 4 Berth 6 Dyke 1 Berth 3 East Basin 1 and 2 Berths 7 Dyke 2 Berth 6 4 Towage services 8 Dyke 4 and 5 Berths 18 KEY Port of Newcastle Boundary 2 as per the State Environmental 3 18 North / South Rail Corridor Planning Policy (Three Ports) 5 1 Mayfield Site Boundary 19 To M1 Motorway, Golden Highway and New England Highway Arterial road access 20 Port of Newcastle Head Office 4 Rail lines 4 20 BERTH INFORMATION CARRINGTON PRECINCT WALSH POINT PRECINCT Berth Details Facilities Cargo/Commodity Operators Berth Details Facilities Cargo/ Operators Commodity West Basin 3 Design depth: 11.6m 4 ship loaders Grains Common user Channel depth: 12.8m Loading height max: 17.1m Orange juice 1 Kooragang 2 Design depth: 11.6m 2 gantry type grab unloaders Bulk cargo Common user Loading outreach max: 26.5m concentrate Predominant user: Channel depth: 15.2m Bulk liquids Travel distance: 213.4m GrainCorp 15 1 ship loader General cargo New state-of-the-art crane Design throughput: 1,000tph Storage area adjacent to Containers and conveyor infrastructure berths due for completion in 2019. West Basin 4 Design depth: 11.6m Berth-face rail line Machinery Common user 2 Channel depth: 12.8m 1.5ha wharf storage area Project cargo Dolphins at either end allow
    [Show full text]
  • Acanthobothrium Urolophi Sp. N., a Tetraphyllidean Cestode (Oncobothriidae) from an Australian Stingaree
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of 1973 Acanthobothrium urolophi sp. n., a Tetraphyllidean Cestode (Oncobothriidae) from an Australian Stingaree Gerald D. Schmidt University of Northern Colorado Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs Part of the Parasitology Commons Schmidt, Gerald D., "Acanthobothrium urolophi sp. n., a Tetraphyllidean Cestode (Oncobothriidae) from an Australian Stingaree" (1973). Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology. 693. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs/693 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Schmidt in Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington (1973) 40. Copyright 1973, Helminthological Society of Washington. Used by permission. Acanthobothrium urolophi sp. n., a Tetraphyllidean Cestode (Oncobothriidae) from an Australian Stingaree GERALD D. SCHMIDT Deparbnent of Biology, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, Colorado 80631 ABSTRACT: Acanthobothrium urolophi sp. n. is described from a common stingaree, Urolophus testa­ cet/s, from South Australia. It differs from all other species in being apolytic and acraspedote, in having hooks 105-115 fJ- long, one accessory sucker 80-90 wide on each bothridinm, and 40-72 testes in two longitudinal rows. This report is based upon four specimens on anterior end of each bothridium, each with recovered from the spiral valve of a common single accessory sucker 80 to 90 wide.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan Cover Photos (Main Image, Clockwise): Hunter Estuaries (DECC Estuaries Unit) Mother and Baby Flying Foxes (V
    Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan Cover photos (main image, clockwise): Hunter estuaries (DECC Estuaries Unit) Mother and baby flying foxes (V. Jones, DECC) Lower Hunter estuary, Hunter Wetlands National Park (G. Woods, DECC) Sugarloaf Range (M. van Ewijk, DECC) Published by: Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 59 Goulburn Street PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks information and publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au © Copyright State of NSW and Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW. The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water and State of NSW are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced for educational or non-commercial purposes in whole or in part, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specifi c permission is required for the reproduction of photographs and images. The material provided in the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan is for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice in relation to any matter, whether particular or general. This document should be cited as: DECCW 2009, Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney. ISBN 978 1 74232 515 6 DECCW 2009/812 First published April 2009; Revised December 2009 Addendum In the Gwandalan Summerland Point Action Group Inc v. Minister for Planning (2009) NSWLEC 140 (Catherine Hill Bay decision), Justice Lloyd held that the decisions made by the Minister for Planning to approve a concept plan and project application, submitted by a developer who had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Deed of Agreement with the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment were invalid.
    [Show full text]