DOCSLIB.ORG

Eighty-Mile Beach Ramsar Site, Report to the Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth, Western Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eighty-Mile Beach Ramsar Site, Report to the Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth, Western Australia Citation: Hale, J. and Butcher, R., 2009, Ecological Character Description of the Eighty-mile Beach Ramsar Site, Report to the Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth, Western Australia. Funding for the development of this document was sourced jointly from the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) and the State and Commonwealth contributions to the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP). NHT and NAP are jointly administered by the Australian Government departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and the WA Natural Resource Management Office. In-kind contributions were gratefully received from the organisations represented on the Technical Advisory Group. Expert Advice: Doug Watkins, Wetlands International Roger Jaensch, Wetlands International Danny Rogers, Australasian Wader Studies Group Halina Kobryn, Murdoch University Acknowledgements: Tamra Chapman – Department of Environment and Conservation Species and Communities Rob Clements – Australasian Wader Studies Group Michael Coote – Department of Environment and Conservation Wetlands Section Sharon Ferguson – Department of Environment and Conservation Kimberley Matt Fossey – Department of Environment and Conservation Marine Policy & Planning Rachel Green – Department of Fisheries Sarah Greenwood – Department of Environment and Conservation Planning & Estate Chris Hassell – Community representative Jennifer Higbid – Department of Environment and Conservation Wetlands Section Leanne Thompson – Department of Environment and Conservation Marine Policy & Planning John Lloyd – Department of Environment and Conservation Marine Policy & Planning Fiona Lynn – Department of Water Grant Pearson – Bennelongia Pty. Ltd. Andrew Silcocks – Birds Australia Troy Sinclair – Department of Environment and Conservation Kimberley Gareth Watkins – Department of Environment and Conservation Wetlands Section Judy Zuideveld – Department of Environment and Conservation Marine Policy & Planning 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. 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. Table of Contents Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... iii List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Site details........................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Statement of purpose ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Relevant treaties, legislation and regulations .................................................................. 4 1.4 Method ............................................................................................................................. 5 2. General Description of the Eighty-mile Beach Ramsar Site .................................................. 7 2.1 Location ............................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Land tenure ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Climate ........................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Wetland types ................................................................................................................ 13 2.5 Ramsar criteria ............................................................................................................... 16 2.5.1 Criteria under which the site was designated (1990) .............................................. 16 2.5.2 Assessment based on current information and Ramsar criteria ............................. 17 2.6 Overview of the site ....................................................................................................... 21 3. Critical Components and Processes ................................................................................... 23 3.1 Identifying critical components and processes .............................................................. 23 3.2 The Beach (Eighty-mile Beach coastal strip) ................................................................. 25 3.2.1 Geomorphology, geology and soils ......................................................................... 26 3.2.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................ 26 3.2.3 Primary productivity and nutrient cycling................................................................. 27 3.2.4 Invertebrates ........................................................................................................... 27 3.2.5 Fish .......................................................................................................................... 28 3.2.6 Waterbirds ............................................................................................................... 28 3.2.6 Marine turtles ........................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Mandora Salt Marsh ....................................................................................................... 33 3.3.1 Geomorphology, geology and soils ......................................................................... 33 3.3.2 Hydrology ................................................................................................................ 34 3.3.3 Water quality ........................................................................................................... 34 3.3.4 Primary productivity and nutrient cycling................................................................. 35 3.3.5 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 36 3.3.6 Invertebrates ........................................................................................................... 37 3.3.7 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 38 4 Critical ecosystembenefits and services .............................................................................. 41 4.1 Overview of benefits and services ................................................................................. 41 4.2 Identifying critical ecosystem services and benefits ...................................................... 42 4.3 Contains large wetland types and includes rare wetlands of special scientific interest. 42 4.4 Supports significant numbers of migratory birds ............................................................ 46 4.5 Supports waterbird breeding .......................................................................................... 48 4.6 Supports marine turtles .................................................................................................. 50 4.7 Supports tourism ............................................................................................................ 51 4.8 Provides significant indigenous cultural values ............................................................. 51 5. Threats to Ecological Character .......................................................................................... 53
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 7: Species Changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015)
    IUCN Red List version 2015.4: Table 7 Last Updated: 19 November 2015 Table 7: Species changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015) Published listings of a species' status may change for a variety of reasons (genuine improvement or deterioration in status; new information being available that was not known at the time of the previous assessment; taxonomic changes; corrections to mistakes made in previous assessments, etc. To help Red List users interpret the changes between the Red List updates, a summary of species that have changed category between 2014 (IUCN Red List version 2014.3) and 2015 (IUCN Red List version 2015-4) and the reasons for these changes is provided in the table below. IUCN Red List Categories: EX - Extinct, EW - Extinct in the Wild, CR - Critically Endangered, EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, LR/cd - Lower Risk/conservation dependent, NT - Near Threatened (includes LR/nt - Lower Risk/near threatened), DD - Data Deficient, LC - Least Concern (includes LR/lc - Lower Risk, least concern). Reasons for change: G - Genuine status change (genuine improvement or deterioration in the species' status); N - Non-genuine status change (i.e., status changes due to new information, improved knowledge of the criteria, incorrect data used previously, taxonomic revision, etc.); E - Previous listing was an Error. IUCN Red List IUCN Red Reason for Red List Scientific name Common name (2014) List (2015) change version Category Category MAMMALS Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter LC NT N 2015-2 Ailurus fulgens Red Panda VU EN N 2015-4
    [Show full text]
  • Nordmann's Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi
    Final Report Nordmann’s Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi Cipto Dwi Handono1, Ragil Siti Rihadini1, Iwan Febrianto1 and Ahmad Zulfikar Abdullah1 1Yayasan Ekologi Satwa Alam Liar Indonesia (Yayasan EKSAI/EKSAI Foundation) Surabaya, Indonesia Background Many shorebirds species have declined along East Asian-Australasian Flyway which support the highest diversity of shorebirds in the world, including the globally endangered species, Nordmann’s Greenshank. Nordmann’s Greenshank listed as endangered in the IUCN Red list of Threatened Species because of its small and declining population (BirdLife International, 2016). It’s one of the world’s most threatened shorebirds, is confined to the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (Bamford et al. 2008, BirdLife International 2001, 2012). Its global population is estimated at 500–1,000, with an estimated 100 in Malaysia, 100–200 in Thailand, 100 in Myanmar, plus unknown but low numbers in NE India, Bangladesh and Sumatra (Wetlands International 2006). The population is suspected to be rapidly decreasing due to coastal wetland development throughout Asia for industry, infrastructure and aquaculture, and the degradation of its breeding habitat in Russia by grazing Reindeer Rangifer tarandus (BirdLife International 2012). Mostly Nordmann’s Greenshanks have been recorded in very small numbers throughout Southeast Asia, and there are few places where it has been reported regularly. In Myanmar, for example, it was rediscovered after a gap of almost 129 years. The total count recorded by the Asian Waterbird Census (AWC) in 2006 for Myanmar was 28 birds with 14 being the largest number at a single locality (Naing 2007). In 2011–2012, Nordmann’s Greenshank was found three times in Sumatera Utara province, N Sumatra.
    [Show full text]
  • SOLONEC Shared Lives on Nigena Country
    Shared lives on Nigena country: A joint Biography of Katie and Frank Rodriguez, 1944-1994. Jacinta Solonec 20131828 M.A. Edith Cowan University, 2003., B.A. Edith Cowan University, 1994 This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The University of Western Australia School of Humanities (Discipline – History) 2015 Abstract On the 8th of December 1946 Katie Fraser and Frank Rodriguez married in the Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Derby, Western Australia. They spent the next forty-eight years together, living in the West Kimberley and making a home for themselves on Nigena country. These are Katie’s ancestral homelands, far from Frank’s birthplace in Galicia, Spain. This thesis offers an investigation into the social history of a West Kimberley couple and their family, a couple the likes of whom are rarely represented in the history books, who arguably typify the historic multiculturalism of the Kimberley community. Katie and Frank were seemingly ordinary people, who like many others at the time were socially and politically marginalised due to Katie being Aboriginal and Frank being a migrant from a non-English speaking background. Moreover in many respects their shared life experiences encapsulate the history of the Kimberley, and the experiences of many of its people who have been marginalised from history. Their lives were shaped by their shared faith and Katie’s family connections to the Catholic mission at Beagle Bay, the different governmental policies which sought to assimilate them into an Australian way of life, as well as their experiences working in the pastoral industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Keys to Identifying Little Curlew
    MIGRATION PATTERN Keys to identifying Little Curlew Little Curlewin winterquarters at Cairns, Queensland,Australia, November 1975. Photo/Toma• Pain Gardner Not surprisingly,no ornithologisthas seen both the Little and Eskimo curlews nutus)is a speciesheld by some This new speciesFor North heauthorsLittleto Curlew be conspecific(Numenius with mi- in the field. The only detailedpublished the Eskimo Curlew (N. borealis). It America can be readily comparisonis that based by Farrand breeds in northeastern Siberia (Labutin identified in flight and (1977) on the skins of both. He conclud- and others, 1982) and winters in Austra- producesa variety of vocal ed thatthe two formsare separablein the lasia. This speciesis regardedas "rare, and instrumental sounds field under ideal conditions, and writes: little-studied and threatened," rather than "The Eskimo Curlew is a more boldly "endangered,"in the U.S.S.R. (Banni- and coarselymarked bird, with heavier kov, 1978). Brett A. Lane, the wader streakingon the sides of the face and studiescoordinator for the Royal Austra- neck, and dark chevrons on the breast and lasian Ornithologists' Union (pets. flanks;the Little Curlewhas a relatively comm., December1982), saysthe spe- Jeffery Boswail morefinely streakedface and neck, and cies "possiblynumbers many thousands the breast is streaked rather than marked (10,000+ ?)." and with chevrons,the chevronsbeing few in The Little Curlew was recently ob- number and confined to the flanks. In served for the first time in North Amer- Boris N. Veprintsev bothspecies the underwing covertsand ica. The species'closest breeding ground axillaries are barred with dark brown, but to North America is only about 1250 in the Eskimo Curlew these feathers are a mileswest of the nearestpoint of main- rich cinnamon, while in the Little Curlew land Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • The Systematic Position of the Surfbird, Aphriza Virgata
    THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE SURFBIRD, APHRIZA VIRGATA JOSEPH R. JEHL, JR. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 The taxonomic relationships of the Surfbird, ( 1884) elevated the tumstone-Surfbird unit Aphriza virgata, have long been one of the to family rank. But, although they stated (p. most controversial problems in shorebird clas- 126) that Aphrizu “agrees very closely” with sification. Although the species has been as- Arenaria, the only points of similarity men- signed to a monotypic family (Shufeldt 1888; tioned were “robust feet, without trace of web Ridgway 1919), most modern workers agree between toes, the well formed hind toe, and that it should be placed with the turnstones the strong claws; the toes with a lateral margin ( Arenaria spp. ) in the subfamily Arenariinae, forming a broad flat under surface.” These even though they have reached no consensuson differences are hardly sufficient to support the affinities of this subfamily. For example, familial differentiation, or even to suggest Lowe ( 1931), Peters ( 1934), Storer ( 1960), close generic relationship. and Wetmore (1965a) include the Arenariinae Coues (1884605) was uncertain about the in the Scolopacidae (sandpipers), whereas Surfbirds’ relationships. He called it “a re- Wetmore (1951) and the American Ornithol- markable isolated form, perhaps a plover and ogists ’ Union (1957) place it in the Charadri- connecting this family with the next [Haema- idae (plovers). The reasons for these diverg- topodidae] by close relationships with Strep- ent views have never been stated. However, it silas [Armaria], but with the hind toe as well seems that those assigning the Arenariinae to developed as usual in Sandpipers, and general the Charadriidae have relied heavily on their appearance rather sandpiper-like than plover- views of tumstone relationships, because schol- like.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Character Description for Roebuck Bay
    ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER DESCRIPTION FOR ROEBUCK BAY Wetland Research & Management ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER DESCRIPTION FOR ROEBUCK BAY Report prepared for the Department of Environment and Conservation by Bennelongia Pty Ltd 64 Jersey Street, Jolimont WA 6913 www.bennelongia.com.au In association with: DHI Water & Environment Pty Ltd 4A/Level 4, Council House 27-29 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000 www.dhigroup.com.au Wetland Research & Management 28 William Street, Glen Forrest WA 6071 April 2009 Cover photographs: Roebuck Bay, © Jan Van de Kam, The Netherlands 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. 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Ramsar Site Guidelines
    AUSTRALIAN RAMSAR SITE NOMINATION GUIDELINES Module 4 of the National Guidelines for Ramsar Wetlands— Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia WAT251.0912 Published by While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population the contents of this publication are factually correct, the and Communities Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy GPO Box 787 or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable CANBERRA ACT 2601 for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication. Endorsement Endorsed by the Standing Council on Environment and Citation Water, 2012. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia 2012 and Communities (2012). Australian Ramsar Site Nomination Guidelines. Module 4 of the National Guidelines for Ramsar Information contained in this publication may be copied or Wetlands—Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia. reproduced for study, research, information or educational Australian Government Department of Sustainability, purposes, subject to inclusion of an acknowledgment of the Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. source. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: ISBN: 978-1-921733-66-6 Assistant Secretary The publication can be accessed at http://www.environment. Aquatic Systems Policy Branch gov.au/water/topics/wetlands/ramsar-convention/australian-
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogeological Assessment of the Fitzroy Alluvium
    Department of Water Government of Western Australia Hydrogeological Assessment of the Fitzroy Alluvium Hydrogeological Record Series REPORT NO. HG 16 MAY 2006 Hydrogeological Assessment of the Fitzroy Alluvium Prepared by R.P. Lindsay and D.P. Commander Water Resources Management Department of Water Department of Water Hydrogeological Record Series Report HG 16 May 2006 Hydrogeological assessment of the Fitzroy alluvium HG 16 Hydrogeological Record Series Acknowledgments This report was prepared by R.P. Lindsay, and D.P. Commander. For more information contact: Richard Lindsay or Philip Commander Department of Water Telephone 08 6364 6895 Recommended reference The recommended reference for this publication is: Lindsay R.P. and Commander, D.P., 2005, Hydrogeological assessment of the Fitzroy alluvium, Western Australia, Department of Water, Hydrogeological Record Series HG 16. We welcome your feedback A publication feedback form can be found at the back of this publication. ISSN 1329-542X Printed on recycled stock. May 2006 Cover photograph: Myroodah Crossing in June 2005 R.P. Lindsay ii Department of Water Hydrogeological Record Series Hydrogeological assessment of the Fitzroy alluvium HG 16 Contents Summary ..........................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • No. Area Metro/Rural Agent Year Dup ______
    J S Battye Library of West Australian History Collection No. Area Metro/Rural Agent Year Dup ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 ‘William Bay Farm’ Rural 205 Hectares – Rural Land John Garland & Co 1982 2 Narembeen Rural ‘Bega’ 660 Hectares – Farmland John Garland & Co 1982 3 Bruce Rock Rural ‘Mairin’ 883.8 Hectares – Ppn Avon Location John Garland & Co 1981 4 Middle Swan Metro ‘Vineyard House’ 4.27 Ha – Full River Frontage John Garland & Co 1981 5 Murchison Region Rural Meka Station 365,904 Ha – Sheep Station Joseph Charles Learmonth Duffy 19? 6 Goldfields Region Rural Sturt Meadows Station – Pastoral Station Elders 1982 7 Murchison Region Rural Nookawarra Station – Pastoral Station Elders 1982 8 Albany Rural Hotel & Bottle Shop John Garland & Co 1982 9 Esperance Rural Killara Downs 1514 Hectares Elders 1983 10 West Kimberley Rural Anna Plains Station – Cattle Station Joseph Charles Learmonth Region Duffy 19? 11 Serpentine Rural 174.43 Ha – Peel Estate Lots 159, 160 & 385 John Garland & Co 1982 12 Northam Rural 470 Hectares – Buckland Estate John Garland & Co 1982 13 Mount Barker Rural Genesta Estate 432 Hectares – Pastoral John Garland & Co 1982 14 Bald Rock Rural 525 Hectares John Garland & Co 1981 D 15 31 Kinkuna Way Metro Residence John Garland & Co 1982 16 West Wagin Rural Brentwood 875 Hectares John Garland & Co 1981 17 18 Hughenden, Quindanning -Boddington Rural 650 Hectares John Garland & Co 1982 19 Fitzgerald River Rural 5875 Ha – ‘Coladdie Farms’,’Korra Korrenga’ John Garland 1981 20 Kojonup Rural Cheviot Hills – 3136.438 Ha, 7750 acres John P. MacDermott 1981 21 Peppermint Grove Metro 51 Johnston St – Residential Mansion William Porteous 1982 22 Madora Bay Rural Seafront Land H & N Perry 19? PR11263 - 1 - Copyright SLWA 2010 J S Battye Library of West Australian History Collection No.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet: Eighty Mile Beach
    Fact Sheet: Eighty Mile Beach Region North Coast Summary Imagine an isolated beach of endless white sand, seashells and turquoise waters, stretching so far it would take more than a week to walk its length. Aptly named, Eighty Mile Beach is indeed long, stretching 220 kilometres and renowned as Australia's longest uninterrupted beach. With its midpoint halfway between Broome and Port Hedland, Eighty Mile Beach is like no other beach in Australia – where the desert (Great Sandy Desert) meets the sea (Indian Ocean). It differentiates itself from other beaches with its low windswept dunes, an almost continuous curving coastline, and large tidal ranges that expose some 60,000 hectares of sand and mudflats, widening the intertidal zone at low tide to almost four kilometres in some sections. Generated on 27/09/2021 https://marinewaters.fish.wa.gov.au/resource/fact-sheet-eighty-mile-beach/ Page 1 of 7 Figure 1. The wide expanse of the intertidal zone as the tide returns on Eighty mile beach (Image: Tahryn Thompson) The seascape is even more remarkable due to an extraordinary diversity of marine life, which includes up to 400,000 migratory shorebirds, rich benthic (mud) fauna, breeding turtles and the world’s largest stocks of wild pearl shell. The shorebirds and marine life of this wetland are recognised internationally under the Ramsar Convention. Eighty Mile Beach is sea country for the Karajarri people to the north, the Nyangumarta people over most of its length and the Ngarla people in the vicinity of Cape Keraudren. Mythological and ceremonial sites, Aboriginal art, shell middens and fish traps are found throughout the area and each group retains social, spiritual and cultural bonds with their traditional land and sea country.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Shorebirds Identification Sheet Department of the Environment Small Plovers and Turnstone and Water Resources No.1
    Australian Government Australian Shorebirds Identification Sheet Department of the Environment Small Plovers and Turnstone and Water Resources No.1 ORIENTAL PLOVER 25cm. M sparsely vegetated plains of arid large heavy bill inland and coastal mudflats and beaches of northern Australia adult breeding narrow bill adult male breeding adult adult non-breeding non-breeding long legs LARGE SAND PLOVER adult breeding 21cm. M coastal mudflats and bill short sandy intertidal zones and stout darker mask DOUBLE-BANDED PLOVER 19cm. M MONGOLIAN PLOVER 19cm. M coastal mudflats and adult breeding sandy intertidal zones RED-CAPPED PLOVER 15cm. R adult non-breeding rufous cap bill short and narrow winter visitor returning to New Zealand for summer adult non-breeding adult female coastal mudflats and sandy intertidal bare mudflats distinctive black markings zones, also open bare margins of inland and margins adult male on face and breastband of inland and freshwater and saline marsh, south-east coastal saline Australia wetlands BLACK-FRONTED DOTTEREL 17cm. R RED-KNEED DOTTEREL pairs or small family groups on dry margins of 18cm. R feshwater wetlands large or small feeds in shallow margins of inland short rear end freshwater wetlands including temporary shallows after rain black breast band and head, chestnut flanks, long legs with distinctive white throat pink upper half RUDDY TURNSTONE 23cm. M distinctive black hood and white wedge shaped bill collar uses stout bill to flip stones, shells, seaweed and drift- 21cm. R HOODED PLOVER wood on sandy or cobble sandy ocean beaches of beaches, rock platform or southern Australia, open short pink legs reef of coastal Australia edges of saltlakes in south-west Australia M = migratory .
    [Show full text]
  • Nth Past Memo June 2007.Pmd
    PastoralPastoral MEMOMEMO © State of Western Australia, 2007. Northern Pastoral Region PO Box 19, Kununurra WA 6743 Phone: (08) 9166 4019 E-mail: [email protected] June 2007 ISSN 1033-5757 Vol. 28, No. 2 CONTENTS Where has the rain been falling? ........................................................................................................... 2 Welcome from the Editor ....................................................................................................................... 3 Kimberley and Pilbara ‘wet’ season round-up ........................................................................................ 4 Halls Creek Judas Donkey Program ...................................................................................................... 5 Alan Lawford to attend Australian Rural Leadership Program ................................................................. 6 Profitability and sustainability of Indigenous owned pastoral businesses ................................................ 6 Increase in Pastoral Water Grants ........................................................................................................11 Road trip ...............................................................................................................................................11 Horse movements ................................................................................................................................12 Bush Nurse .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]