DOCSLIB.ORG

5 Potential Impacts and Mitigation – Water Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
5 Potential Impacts and Mitigation – Water Quality 5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION – WATER QUALITY The approach adopted for this study to evaluate potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed discharge relied on the application and interpretation of calibrated far-field, two-dimensional hydrodynamic (HD) and advection dispersion (AD) modelling tool built using MIKE21. This modelling was supported, guided and informed by a range of data and other relevant information. These data, the work conducted, and key findings are presented below. 5.1 Numerical Modelling Numerical modelling was used to simulate the transport, dilution and dispersion of the proposed discharge at Gunn Point and surrounding waters. The proposed discharge was modelled (see Appendix A) as a conservative tracer. This allows the dilution and dispersion of the effluent to be understood. The numerical modelling, and therefore the modelled tracer concentrations, can be considered conservative for the following reasons: Biological and physical processes such as the deposition of particulate material or the take up of bioavailable nutrients or absorption by sediments and algal mats (microphytobenthos) growing on the sediments of the significant intertidal areas in and around Shoal Bay are not included in the modelling. Three-dimensional turbulent dispersion associated with wave action has not been included in the modelling. Because the model was very computationally demanding, all scenarios were undertaken in 2D. However, during the model calibration and sensitivity testing, 3D simulations were carried out to confirm the mixing processes were resolved appropriately. The strong tidal currents and shallow water mean the site is well mixed, and the 3D modelling did not provide significantly different results. 5.1.1 Simulation Scenarios The model was run for two separate years: June 2005 – May 2006 inclusive May 2016 to April 2016 inclusive Whilst tropical conditions are highly variable, 2005-2006 was considered a ‘typical’ wet season, and 2016- 2017 a season with higher than average rainfall. The modelling indicated less dilution of the tracer occurred in the vicinity of the intake site during high flood events. Thus the 2016-2017 simulation scenario allowed an assessment of worse than average discharge mixing conditions. 5.2 Dispersion & Dilution of Discharge 5.2.1 Discharge Characteristics The modelled intake and discharge locations are displayed in Figure 5-1. The intake is located at -4 m AHD; the discharge -7 m AHD. The proposed discharge will have the following characteristics: Average daily flow rate of 954 kL/day. Salinity +/- 5PSU of the ambient intake water 26_R01v04_GunnPt_NOI - Temperature +/- 5°C if the ambient intake water 3894 Seafarms Group Limited | October 2017 Stage 1 Hatchery Coastal Environment and Impact Assessment Page 66 The proposed facility will have operating conditions and discharge characteristics similar to the existing Seafarms Hatchery operations at Flying-Fish Point (FFP), Innisfail in North Queensland. As such, Seafarms propose to adopt the water quality licence conditions for that facility set by the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (QLD DEHP). The median concentrations for the key nutrients assessed in the modelling exercise are equal to the median licence conditions and are displayed in Eight samples were collected over May and June 2017 at the existing Seafarms hatchery at Flying-Fish Point near Innisfail in North Queensland (this facility is only required to monitor twice per year and only if the ponds are in operation. The sampling was undertaken once a week for eight weeks to investigate the water quality exiting the hatchery and then leaving the settlement ponds). These results indicate that the effluent quality is typically significantly better than the median licence conditions. Table 5-1. Eight samples were collected over May and June 2017 at the existing Seafarms hatchery at Flying-Fish Point near Innisfail in North Queensland (this facility is only required to monitor twice per year and only if the ponds are in operation. The sampling was undertaken once a week for eight weeks to investigate the water quality exiting the hatchery and then leaving the settlement ponds). These results indicate that the effluent quality is typically significantly better than the median licence conditions. TABLE 5-1 LICENCE DISCHARGE CONDITIONS Median (g/L) Total Nitrogen 2000 Total Nitrogen FFP performance 1250 Total Phosphorous 400 Total Phosphorus FFP performance 110 Chlorophyll a 20 Chlorophyll a FFP performance 1 g/L 26_R01v04_GunnPt_NOI - 3894 Seafarms Group Limited | October 2017 Stage 1 Hatchery Coastal Environment and Impact Assessment Page 67 FIGURE 5-1 MODELLED DISCHARGE AND INTAKE POINTS; FACILITY FOOTPRINT 5.2.2 Feasibility Investigation Water Technology undertook a feasibility assessment of the intake / discharge locations. In total, this involved assessing over 20 different intake and discharge configurations. The location of the source point within the model was reviewed to determine any improvement in position of the proposed discharge. As expected, there was greater initial dilution when the discharge was placed in deeper water. Placement of the discharge in deeper waters also resulted in less “bank attached” flow where the discharge material was higher along the inshore zone. The feasibility assessment covered four stages. The aim was to minimise the potential environmental impact, as well as the risk of recirculation through the intake pipe: Initially, modelling of the discharge was completed over a period of four weeks for the wet season, dry season and astronomical tidal conditions. The discharge location was tested at 6 locations to review the impact at different locations within the proposed footprint. Two locations were selected to assess in 3-month simulation scenarios. The preferred scenario from the 3-month simulations was run for the 2016-2017 year. The full year results provided more clarity around the behaviour of the plume. As a result, a further 13 intake / discharge configurations were assessed using the full year simulation. The final three intake / discharge configuration options were then modelled for both the 2005-2006 and 2016-2017 years. Modelling both years ensured the prevailing conditions from a single year did not 26_R01v04_GunnPt_NOI - influence the locations. 3894 Seafarms Group Limited | October 2017 Stage 1 Hatchery Coastal Environment and Impact Assessment Page 68 All scenarios tested resulted in minimal increases in nutrient concentrations. The final assessment allowed the optimal configuration to be selected in terms of environmental impact, economics of construction of the intake and discharge pipes, operation of the pumps, and intake recirculation. 5.2.3 Performance Objectives As discussed in Section 3.2, the water quality objectives applied in this study are presented in Table 5-2. This indicates the background mid-estuary chlorophyll a concentration is above the corresponding water quality objective. When defining performance objectives, in accordance with National Guidelines (ANZECC 2000), there is an accepted hierarchy of documentation in this regard. This hierarchy requires that where there are no locally specific guidelines (which would require comprehensive local water quality data collection typically spanning at least a 1 to 2-year period) that management decisions should default to relevant State based guidelines, and in their absence to National guidelines. In this instance, local monitoring has been undertaken to obtain the background concentration. Given the Darwin Harbour WQO is assigned to the full harbour system, it is proposed that the WQO objective be adjusted at this location for the purposes of this assessment. The upper-estuary Darwin Harbour WQO is 4 g/L, and the mid-estuary WQO 2g/L. Examination of the available water quality data indicates an 80th percentile value of 3.4g/L. Using the 80th percentile as an objective is in line with the recommendations in the National Guidelines. This value sits between the mid and upper WQOs, which appears to be a reasonable interim trigger value to adopt on this basis. A less geographically relevant set of tropical water quality objectives are presented in DERM 2010 for Trinity Inlet, Cairns. These set the chlorophyll a water quality guideline concentration for mid-estuary to be 3 g/L, similar to the 80th percentile value provided above. It is proposed to adopt an alternative WQO of 3.4 g/L for the purposes of this assessment. This value is included in Table 5-2 in brackets. Further investigation will be conducted going forward to refine this value. In the analysis presented in Section 5.2.5, the background concentration is added to the discharge concentration, and compared to the water quality objective for mid and outer estuary respectively. TABLE 5-2 MEDIAN BACKGROUND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS Parameter Background Concentration (g/L) Darwin Harbour WQO (g/L) Mid Estuary TN 230 270 TP 15 20 Chlorophyll a 2.1 2 (3.4) Outer Estuary TN 160 440 TP 8 20 Chlorophyll a 0.5 1 5.2.4 Initial Mixing / Near-field Mixing Upon discharge into the ocean, rapid initial dilution of the discharge water will occur at the discharge location. 26_R01v04_GunnPt_NOI The actual initial mixing will be determined by the ultimate design of the outfall structure. The structure should - be designed to achieve an initial dilution which ensures the discharge water plus the existing background water 3894 Seafarms Group Limited | October 2017 Stage 1 Hatchery
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Public Environmental Report
    Darwin 10 MTPA LNG Facility Public Environmental Report March 2002 Darwin 10 MTPA LNG Facility Public Environmental Report March 2002 Prepared for Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd Level 1, HPPL House 28-42 Ventnor Avenue West Perth WA 6005 Australia by URS Australia Pty Ltd Level 3, Hyatt Centre 20 Terrace Road East Perth WA 6004 Australia 12 March 2002 Reference: 00533-244-562 / R841 / PER Darwin LNG Plant Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd ABN 86 092 288 376 Public Environmental Report PUBLIC COMMENT INVITED Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Company, proposes the construction and operation of an expanded two-train Liquefied Natural Gas facility with a maximum design capacity of 10 million tonnes per annum (MTPA). The facility will be located at Wickham Point on the Middle Arm Peninsula adjacent to Darwin Harbour near Darwin, NT. The proposed project will include gas liquefication, storage and marine loading facilities and a dedicated fleet of ships to transport LNG product. A subsea pipeline supplying natural gas from the Bayu-Undan field to Wickham Point and a similar, but smaller 3 MTPA LNG plant were the subject of a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment process and received approval from Commonwealth and Northern Territory Environment Ministers during 1998. The environmental assessment of the expanded LNG facility is being conducted at the Public Environmental Report (PER) level of the Northern Territory Environmental Assessment Act and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The draft PER describes the expanded LNG facility with particular emphasis on its differences from the previously approved LNG facility and addresses the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project.
    [Show full text]
  • New PPGIS Research Identifies Landscape Values and Development
    Mapping Community Landscape Values and Development Preferences in and around Darwin Harbour Tom D. Brewera,b, Michael M. Douglasc a Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia ([email protected]). b Australian Institute of Marine Science, Arafura Timor Research Facility, 23 Ellengowan Dr., Brinkin, Northern Territory, 0810, Australia. a Research Institute of Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia. Background Results Darwin Harbour is a highly val- Development Preferences ued and contested place; the A total of 647 development ‘Jewel in the Crown’ of the preference sticker dots were Northern Territory. placed on the supplied maps by 80 respondents. The catchment is currently ex- periencing significant develop- ‘No development’ was, by far, ment and further industrial and the highest scoring develop- tourism development is ex- ment preference (Figure 7). pected, as outlined in the cur- rent draft Regional Land Use Plan1 (Figure 1) tabled by the Northern Territory Planning Figure 1. Darwin Harbour sec- Figure 7. Average scores (of a possi- tion of the development plan ble 100) for each of the development Commission. overview map1 Results preferences. Landscape Values Despite its obvious iconic value and significant use by locals Preference for industrial and visitors alike, there is no representative baseline data on To date 136 surveys have been returned from the mail-out question- development is clustered what the residents living within the catchment most value in naire to 2000 homes. Preliminary data entry and analysis for spatial around Palmerston and and around Darwin Harbour. landscape values and development preferences has been conduct- East Arm (Figure 8).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Date 28/09/2021 05:31:59
    Dugong Status Report and Action Plans for Countries and Territories Item Type Report Authors Eros, C.; Hugues, J.; Penrose, H.; Marsh, H. Citation UNEP/DEWA/RS.02-1 Publisher UNEP Download date 28/09/2021 05:31:59 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/317 Figure 5.1 – The Palau region in relation to the Philippines and Indonesia. used to give dugong ribs to a carver who had died performed mainly at night from small boats powered with recently. Locally crafted jewellery from dugong ribs was outboard motors (>35hp). Most dugongs are harpooned on sale at a minimum of four stores in Koror in 1991. At after being chased. A hunter who used to dynamite least two of the retailers knew that this was illegal (Marsh dugongs (Brownell et al. 1981) claimed that he had et al. 1995). This practice had stopped by 1997 (Idechong ceased this practice in 1978. The hunters interviewed in & Smith pers comm. 1998). 1991 maintained that nets are never used to catch The major threat to dugongs in Palau is poaching. dugongs, although some of them knew that netting is an Although hunting is illegal, dugongs are still poached effective capture method. All the hunters were aware that regularly in the Koror area and along the western coast of killing dugongs is illegal. Their overwhelming motive for Babeldaob (Figure 5.2). The extent and nature of hunting hunting is that it is an exciting way to obtain meat. The was investigated by Brownell et al. (1981) and Marsh et illegality adds to the thrill.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin Harbour Region Other Projects and Monitoring 2011
    Darwin Harbour Region Other Projects and Monitoring 2011 www.greeningnt.nt.gov.au Darwin Harbour Region Other Projects and Monitoring 2011 This report was edited by Julia Fortune and John Drewry. Articles were provided by staff at the following: (1) Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, (2) the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, (3) the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, (4) Charles Darwin University (CDU) and (5) the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). Aquatic Health Unit. Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport. Palmerston NT 0831. Website: www.nt.gov.au/nreta/water/aquatic/index.html This report can be cited as: J. Fortune and J. Drewry (Editors). 2011. Darwin Harbour Region Research and Monitoring 2011. Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport. Report number 18/2011D. Palmerston, NT, Australia. Specifi c articles can be cited as: Paper author (2011). Paper Title in “Darwin Harbour Region - Research and Monitoring” edited by Julia Fortune and John Drewry pp. Report 18/2011D. Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport. Palmerston, NT, Australia. Disclaimer The information contained in this report comprises general statements based on scientifi c research and monitoring. The reader is advised that some information may be unavailable, incomplete or unable to be applied in areas outside the Darwin Harbour region. Information may be superseded by future scientifi c studies, new technology and/or industry practices. © 2011 Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport. Copyright protects this publication. It may be reproduced for study, research or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source and no commercial use or sale.
    [Show full text]
  • 8 Oceanic Process and Natural Features
    EAW Expansion Project DEIS 8 8 Oceanic Process and Natural Features This chapter reports on the local physical oceanographic processes (Section 8.1); the potential impacts that the proposed dredging and coastal construction works are expected to impose on the oceanographic processes (Section 8.2); the management of impacts (Section 8.3); and project commitments (Section 8.4). The understanding of the potential impacts is mainly based on interpretation of hydrodynamic and wave model outcomes, as well as on numerical simulations of dredging and spoil disposal activities. 8.1 Existing Environment Darwin Harbour (Figure 8-1) is a large ria system, or drowned river valley, formed by post-glacial marine flooding of a dissected plateau. The Harbour was formed by rising sea levels about 6000 to 8000 years ago. The Harbour has a surface area of about 500 km2. In its southern and south-eastern portions, the harbour has three main components: East, West and Middle Arms, which merge into a single unit, along with the smaller Woods Inlet, before opening into Beagle Gulf to the north. The harbour extends for more than 30 km along this north-north-east – south-south-westerly oriented axis. The Elizabeth River flows into East Arm, while the Darwin and Blackmore rivers flow into Middle Arm. Freshwater inflow into the Harbour occurs from January to April, when estuarine conditions prevail in all areas (Hanley, 1988). The Darwin region is in general characterised by low, flat plateaus with an average elevation of about 15 m AHD, and occasional rises of up to 45 m AHD.
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Offset Strategy
    Coastal Offset Strategy Strategy Document No.: X075-AH-STR-0001 Security Classification: Unrestricted Issued for Use Revision Date Issue Reason Prepared Checked Endorsed Approved 8 25/06/2021 Issued for Use B Davis J Carle D Robotham V Ee This document has been approved and the audit history is recorded on the last page. Coastal Offset Strategy RECORD OF AMENDMENT Revision Section Amendment 1 - Re-issue for information 2 - Re-issue for information 3 - Re-issue for information 4 - Re-issue for information 5 - Revision withdrawn Tables 3-1 and 3-6 Update completion status of Long-term monitoring of coastal 6 Sections 3.3 and dolphins in Darwin Harbour and the abundance and 3.3.1 distribution of dugongs in the Northern Territory Revised to reflect approved variation to Condition 11a, Table 3-1 and 3-8 changing “Conservation management of marine megafauna in Sections 3.1.1 and the western Top End” to “Conservation management of 3.4.2 dugongs, cetaceans and threatened marine matters of 7 national environmental significance in the Top End”. Updated to reflect current status and planned works for Section 4 Conditions 11b and 11c Sections 1.2,2,4 Updated to reflect Conditions 11b and 11c variation 23 June 8 Figure 4.1 2021 Issued for Use Document No: X075-AH-STR-0001 ii Security Classification: Unrestricted Revision: 8 Last Modified: 25/06/2021 Coastal Offset Strategy DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION Copy Name Hard Electronic no. copy copy 00 Document Control X X 01 Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment X 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 NOTICE All information contained within this document has been classified by INPEX as Unrestricted and must only be used in accordance with that classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Modelling the Tidal and Sediment Dynamics in Darwin Harbour, Northern Territory, Australia
    Modelling the Tidal and Sediment Dynamics in Darwin Harbour, Northern Territory, Australia Li Li School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences The University of New South Wales Canberra, ACT, 2600, Australia A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 2013 ii ABSTRACT The suspended-sediment dynamics in Darwin Harbour, Northern Territory Australia, were investigated using a combination of field measurements and numerical modelling. After analysing the harbour’s geophysical characteristics from the field data and an extensive literature review, a hydrodynamic model for the harbour was built using the Finite Volume Coastal Ocean Model (FVCOM), a model suited to coastal ocean simulation. This model was then coupled in this study to the estuarine suspended- sediment model (ESSed) of Wang (2002) to produce the FVCOM-ESSed model. Both the hydrodynamic and sediment-transport components were calibrated using the field data on sea-surface level, current velocity and suspended-sediment concentration. The sediment-transport model focuses on suspended sediments, with improvements that allow wetting-drying processes, different bathymetry types and a variable thickness of the fine-sediment layer on the harbour bed to be included. The combined hydrodynamic and sediment model provides a reasonable simulation of the tidal and suspended-sediment dynamics in the harbour. Numerical experiments using this model were then designed to determine the effect of the mangrove areas and tidal flats in Darwin Harbour on the tides and tidal asymmetry, and subsequently, on the suspended-sediment dynamics. This study shows that the hydrodynamics of Darwin Harbour are driven mainly by tides, with the effects of wind and rivers small.
    [Show full text]
  • EPBC Act Referrals, and Have Adhered to Any Conditions Set out in Those Approvals
    Submission #2997 - Darwin Port Maintenance Dredging, Darwin Harbour Title of Proposal - Darwin Port Maintenance Dredging, Darwin Harbour Section 1 - Summary of your proposed action Provide a summary of your proposed action, including any consultations undertaken. 1.1 Project Industry Type Transport - Water 1.2 Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including all proposed activities. This text is taken from the attached supporting information document where additional information relating to the proposed action can be found. Darwin Port Operations Pty Ltd (Darwin Port) operates port facilities within Darwin Harbour, Northern Territory (NT); these include Fort Hill Wharf, East Arm Wharf and the Marine Supply Base (MSB). A brief introduction to these facilities is presented below. Fort Hill Wharf Fort Hill Wharf is Darwin Port’s cruise ship and defence vessel facility. The precinct includes a purpose-built cruise ship terminal which is capable of handling complete passenger changeovers for smaller cruise vessels whilst providing a transit lounge for more infrequent larger international cruise ships. Frequent naval ship visits to Darwin are catered for at the wharf, with secure and efficient port facilities and services provided. Berthage for tugs and pilot boats used within Darwin Harbour is also provided. The wharf was originally constructed in during World War II, though bioerosion by Teredo worms led to the collapse of some two thirds of the structure. It was partially reconstructed with steel pipes and another two wharves (the Navy Boom Wharf and the Navy Repair Wharf) were added in 1941, the latter to facilitate repairs to Navy vessels. Over the years the land abutting the wharf has been used for pre-export stockpiling of iron ore and zinc concentrate and a Navy refuelling facility has also operated across the wharf.
    [Show full text]
  • Kunmanggur, Legend and Leadership a Study of Indigenous Leadership and Succession Focussing on the Northwest Region of the North
    KUNMANGGUR , LEGEND AND LEADERSHIP A STUDY OF INDIGENOUS LEADERSHIP AND SUCCESSION FOCUSSING ON THE NORTHWEST REGION OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA Bill Ivory Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Charles Darwin University 2009 Declaration This is to certify that this thesis comprises only my original work towards the Ph.D., except where indicated, that due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other materials used, and that this thesis is less than 100,000 words in length excluding Figures, Tables and Appendices. Bill Ivory 2009 ii Acknowledgements I wish to thank my supervisors Kate Senior, Diane Smith and Will Sanders. They have been extremely supportive throughout this research process with their expert advice, enthusiasm and encouragement. A core group of Port Keats leaders supported this thesis project. They continually encouraged me to record their stories for the prosperity of their people. These people included Felix Bunduck, Laurence Kulumboort, Bernard Jabinee, Patrick Nudjulu, Leo Melpi, Les Kundjil, Aloyisius Narjic, Bede Lantjin, Terence Dumoo, Ambrose Jongmin. Mathew Pultchen, Gregory Mollinjin, Leo Melpi, Cassima Narndu, Gordon Chula and many other people. Sadly, some of these leaders passed away since the research commenced and I hope that this thesis is some recognition of their extraordinary lives. Boniface Perdjert, senior traditional owner and leader for the Kardu Diminin clan was instrumental in arranging for me to attend ceremonies and provided expert information and advice. He was also, from the start, very keen to support the project. Leon Melpi told me one day that he and his middle-aged generation are „anthropologists‟ and he is right.
    [Show full text]
  • Cairns: Azooxanthellate Scleractinia of Australia 261
    © Copyright Australian Museum, 2004 Records of the Australian Museum (2004) Vol. 56: 259–329. ISSN 0067-1975 The Azooxanthellate Scleractinia (Coelenterata: Anthozoa) of Australia STEPHEN D. CAIRNS Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012, United States of America [email protected] ABSTRACT. A total of 237 species of azooxanthellate Scleractinia are reported for the Australian region, including seamounts off the eastern coast. Two new genera (Lissotrochus and Stolarskicyathus) and 15 new species are described: Crispatotrochus gregarius, Paracyathus darwinensis, Stephanocyathus imperialis, Trochocyathus wellsi, Conocyathus formosus, Dunocyathus wallaceae, Foveolocyathus parkeri, Idiotrochus alatus, Lissotrochus curvatus, Sphenotrochus cuneolus, Placotrochides cylindrica, P. minuta, Stolarskicyathus pocilliformis, Balanophyllia spongiosa, and Notophyllia hecki. Also, one new combination is proposed: Petrophyllia rediviva. Each species account includes an annotated synonymy for all Australian records as well as reference to extralimital accounts of significance, the type locality, and deposition of the type. Tabular keys are provided for the Australian species of Culicia and all species of Conocyathus and Placotrochides. A discussion of previous studies of Australian azooxanthellate corals is given in narrative and tabular form. This study was based on approximately 5500 previously unreported specimens collected from 500 localities, as
    [Show full text]
  • West Kimberley Place Report
    WEST KIMBERLEY PLACE REPORT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY ONE PLACE, MANY STORIES Located in the far northwest of Australia’s tropical north, the west Kimberley is one place with many stories. National Heritage listing of the west Kimberley recognises the natural, historic and Indigenous stories of the region that are of outstanding heritage value to the nation. These and other fascinating stories about the west Kimberley are woven together in the following description of the region and its history, including a remarkable account of Aboriginal occupation and custodianship over the course of more than 40,000 years. Over that time Kimberley Aboriginal people have faced many challenges and changes, and their story is one of resistance, adaptation and survival, particularly in the past 150 years since European settlement of the region. The listing also recognizes the important history of non-Indigenous exploration and settlement of the Kimberley. Many non-Indigenous people have forged their own close ties to the region and have learned to live in and understand this extraordinary place. The stories of these newer arrivals and the region's distinctive pastoral and pearling heritage are integral to both the history and present character of the Kimberley. The west Kimberley is a remarkable part of Australia. Along with its people, and ancient and surviving Indigenous cultural traditions, it has a glorious coastline, spectacular gorges and waterfalls, pristine rivers and vine thickets, and is home to varied and unique plants and animals. The listing recognises these outstanding ecological, geological and aesthetic features as also having significance to the Australian people. In bringing together the Indigenous, historic, aesthetic, and natural values in a complementary manner, the National Heritage listing of the Kimberley represents an exciting prospect for all Australians to work together and realize the demonstrated potential of the region to further our understanding of Australia’s cultural history.
    [Show full text]
  • DARWIN HARBOUR Public Toilets Library Restricted Access Darwin Cinema Supermarket
    G IL R U T Frances Bay Map A - Darwin City T S EE H George Brown T R D U T A A S Attractions and accommodation options located outside the city are shown on T O R Botanic Gardens R I G MAP B - Darwin City and Suburbs. T E F K E I SH A H R For further information and bookings for accommodation, attractions, tours, VE U C E GARDENS HILL CRES D fishing charters, cruises and vehicle hire call in to the Visitor Information D A R N 17 INA E M Fishermans Wharf H B Centre. You can find us at 6 Bennett Street, Darwin City. U ST B AN E GERANIUM R S E Tel:1300 138 886 / (08) 8980 6000 or online: www.tourismtopend.com.au N N FR P A A L H N NC E I S Attractions in Darwin City G D 1 H Aquascene / Doctors Gully 12 Indo Pacific Marine T RI S W V 2 E B USS Peary / USAAF Memorial 14 Stokes Hill Wharf Mindil Beach E A L Y 20 M A L 3 I I Y Leichardt Memorial 15 Crocosaurus Cove R V A 28 CASINO DRIVE L 4 The Cenotaph 16 Burnett House - Myilly Point E M CHIN QUANRD B HARVEY STREET 5 Lyons Cottage (B.A.T House) GARD EE 17 M Framed - The Darwin Gallery G EN NA D 6 S S R I I Chinese Temple and Museum T ST V 18 Wave Lagoon, Beach & Water Recreation L E R CAREY 7 Parliament House / NT Library 19 Darwin Convention Centre R O 1 FINNISS ST U A STREETBARNESON 8 D 1 2 MAVIE ST Deckchair Cinema 20 Darwin Amphitheatre T 9 H McMINN STREET Government House 21 Chan Contemparary Art Space CASHMAN T 3 10 Survivors Lookout 22 E Darwin Entertainment Centre T BUFFALOST ST 7 ST ST 12 E 11 E WWII Oil Storage Tunnels CT CRT R E MANTON GARDINER T A Gardens Park FOELSCHE McMINN STREET
    [Show full text]