Key Threatening Process Nomination Form
for amending the list of key threatening processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
2012 Assessment Period
This nomination form is designed to assist in the preparation of nominations of threatening processes consistent with
the Regulations and EPBC Act. The listing of a key threatening process under the EPBC Act is designed to prevent native
species or ecological communities from becoming threatened or prevent threatened species and ecological communities
from becoming more threatened.
Many processes that occur in the landscape are, or could be, threatening processes, however priority for listing will be
directed to key threatening processes, those factors that most threaten biodiversity at national scale.
For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. If there is
insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this
in your nomination under the relevant question.
Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A.
If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).
Nominated key threatening process
1.
NAME OF KEY THREATENING PROCESS
Fatal injury to marine mammals, reptiles, and other large marine species through boat strike on the Australian coast.
2.
CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING
Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or ecological
Criterion A
community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation
dependent.
Criterion B
Criterion C
3.
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or
ecological community to become eligible for listing in another category representing a
higher degree of endangerment.
Evidence that the threatening process adversely affects two or more listed threatened
species (other than conservation dependent species) or two or more listed threatened
ecological communities.
2012 CONSERVATION THEME: Corridors and connecting habitats (including freshwater
habitats)
Is the current conservation theme relevant to this key threatening process? If so, explain how.
The conservation theme is not relevant to the key threatening process being nominated.
4.
THREAT STATUS
Is the key threatening process listed under State/Territory Government legislation? Is the threat recognised under other
legislation or intergovernmental arrangements?
The nominator is not aware of marine specie mortality caused by boat strike being listed under any State or Territory
Government legislation, or under any intergovernmental arrangements.
Description of the key threatening process
5.
DESCRIPTION
Describe the threatening process in a way that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by reference to:
a. its biological and non-biological components;
b. the processes by which those components interact (if known).
Within Australian waters, boat strikes are responsible for injuries and death to marine turtles, dugongs, whales and
sharks to differing degrees. Direct contact with propellers or hulls of boats may sever tissue and/or organs causing
immediate death, debilitating the animal, or transmitting infection leading to a slower and more distressing death.
Feeding and breeding grounds may also be disturbed as a result of boat access within a region (Hodgson & Marsh,
2007). Populations may be restricted to feeding areas with high vessel traffic, limiting their habitat and increasing
competition for limited resources (Hazel et al., 2007).
The Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) of Queensland keeps a Stranding and Mortality
Database for dugongs, cetaceans and pinnipeds, and marine turtles, with data published in Annual Reports indicating
the proportion of mortality of each group and species due to boat strike. However, exact mortality figures from boat
strikes of marine species are unknown. Many carcasses do not wash ashore and are therefore not accounted for on the
mortality database. Many carcasses are also unidentifiable at time of finding, or the cause of death unable to be
determined. It can therefore be expected that a greater incidence of fatalities occurs, than is recorded, but the true
extent is unknown.
Marine animals are most at risk in areas of sizeable urban coastal populations, such as the Gold Coast and Sunshine
Coast in Queensland. These areas contain the most frequent and abundant amount of boat traffic, including both
commercial and recreational craft. There has also been a high level of boat activity in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
over the last four decades, with a rapid post-war expansion of visitors to the Great Barrier Reef through 1970s and
1980s. According to data compiled by Queensland Transport in 2003, there has been a steady increase in the number of
motorboats registered in Queensland waters. Additionally, visitor days have increased from 1,100,000 in 1985 to
1,600,000 in 2000 (Harriot, 2002).
Both commercial and recreational boats have been responsible for striking marine animals. Recreational vessels,
however, account for 96.9% and commercial vessels only 0.001% of registered vessels in Queensland in 2003 (MSIAR,
2003). Small sailing boats (carrying <20 people) pose little threat to marine animals due to their slow speed, and allow
evasive responses in marine animals (Preen, 2000). Recreational windsurfers, speed boats, as well as large catamarans,
which can hold more than 400 people, operate at faster speeds and leave lesser time for the animal to react and are
therefore most likely to strike marine mammals.
Boat type and the circumstance of the strike can be estimated, given the measurements of propeller depth, length,
distance between and number of cuts to the carcass. This information assists in recognizing which category of boat has
been most inclined to strike marine animals. Data collected from dugong carcasses in Moreton Bay suggest that the
majority of boats involved in strikes are not small recreational boats powered with outboard motors, but rather larger
recreational and commercial vessels in twin propeller configurations (Limpus, 2002). Strikes by small recreational
vessels including jet skis have also been recorded.
Despite much of Queensland’s coastal waters being protected in marine parks of some form (e.g. Great Barrier Reef,
Great Sandy Bay, Moreton Bay), this does not ensure the protection of marine mammals from boat strike. Within the
last decade, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service together with Queensland Transport have installed 18 ‘go-slow’ signs
within Moreton Bay Marine Park as a response to high mortality figures of turtles and dugongs from boat strikes.
However, no binding mechanism limits boat traffic and speed limits and as a result the voluntary speed limits that are
set are ineffective (Hazel et al., 2007).
Within the Townsville-Cardwell (Hinchinbrook Channel/ Missionary Bay) region, inhabited by large populations of turtles
and dugongs, speedboats and other large planing vessels make up a total of 76% and 84% respectively of all boat
movement in the area (Preen, 2000). Small to large speedboats make up 80% of boat traffic in the Hinchinbrook region
(Preen, 2000). With the predicted construction of the two marinas in the Hinchinbrook area, (Oyster Point and
Dungeness), boat traffic and consequently boat strikes are also expected to increase, with an escalating interest in vessel
numbers and boating activity in the region.
Criterion A: non-EPBC act listed species/ecological communities
6.
SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed species that, due to the impact of the key threatening process,
could become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. For each species please include:
a.
the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;
c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this species; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria
for listing.
Dugong (Dugong dugon)
Could become eligible for listing as Vulnerable.
Australian conservation status:
National: Listed as a Marine and Migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act,
1999.
New South Wales: Listed as Vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.
Northern Territory: Listed as Protected Wildlife under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2001.
Queensland: Listed as Vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act, 1992.
Western Australia: Listed as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1950
International conservation status:
Listed on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Listed as Vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red
List of Threatened Species.
Listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
Although there remains large uncertainty about accurate population figures, a decline in dugong numbers since the
1970s is apparent (Preen, 2000). Marsh et al. (2005) reports on four decades of decline in dugong abundance in
Queensland waters through a 40-year assessment of dugong catch per unit effort (CPUE) data in Queensland’s shark
control nets, which found that the CPUE in 1999 was only 3% of that in 1962, which indicating a large decline in dugong
populations over that period. Population decline measured in Queensland waters between the 1960s and mid-1990s
would, if robust and extrapolated to the entire population, qualify the dugong for listing as “Critically Endangered”
worldwide (Marsh, 2008).
The dugong is a long-lived mammal with a lifespan of 50-60 years and a low reproductive rate, the minimum prereproductive period for the dugong is roughly 9-10 years for both sexes, with one calf every 3-7 years (Marsh et al.
1984). Mammals with these life history parameters (long-lived, low reproductive rate, long generation time and large
investment in each offspring) must sustain a high survival rate to maintain population numbers and are vulnerable to
human induced mortality. Population simulations suggest that dugong populations are unlikely to increase by more
than 5% per year, with sustainability relying on high levels of adult survivorship. This model was simulated using optimal
life history parameters including low natural mortality rates and no human-induced mortality. Therefore, the slightest
decline of adult dugong survivorship may see a population crash (Marsh e. al. 1984).
Boat strikes pose a direct threat to dugong populations. The shallow water habitat of the dugong subjects the species to
high contact with human populations, and further constrains dugongs ability to avoid boats by diving (Hodgson & Marsh,
2007; Maitland et al., 2006). There are also concerns that frequent boat activity can displace dugongs from their
preferred habitats (Hodgson & Marsh, 2007). Hodgson (2004) showed that it's likely dugongs initiate their response to
approaching vessels appears as a function of distance rather than speed, meaning that when a boat approaches quickly
the response may be too slow to avoid an impact.
One of the largest populations and feeding grounds of dugongs in Australia is found in the Townsville/Cardwell area.
The Hinchinbrook region provides habitat for approximately half of all dugongs in the Great Barrier Reef south of
Cooktown. Oyster Point is sheltered by the Hinchinbrook Channel and retains the world’s largest dugong population. As
boat traffic in this area has increased since the 1970’s, the incidence of boat strike on dugongs has also increased and
the areas in which they commonly aggregate has decreased (Preen, 2000). Boat traffic in the Hinchinbrook region is
increasing due to development and increasing tourist activities, and is likely to continue to grow. This predicted increase
in boat traffic can be expected to result in an increase in boat strikes (Preen, 2000).
Moreton Bay is home to the southernmost distribution of dugong on east coast of Australia. It is also an area of high
boat usage adjacent to Brisbane and a region of high tourism activity. Dugong population size has increased in this area
since the cessation of hunting for oil to a most recent estimate of 500 mammals. This small population size, combined
with seagrass beds in close proximity to Brisbane leaves this dugong population especially vulnerable to continued
anthropogenic effects.
The Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) of Queensland formerly kept an annual stranding
and mortality database for dugongs, which included data on mortality due to boat strike. These annual reports, the
most recent of which is Biddle et al. (2011), show the known level of dugong mortality as a result of boat strike between
the years of 1996-2010, with a summary of this data being shown in the following table (Table 1). It can be reasonably
assumed that the actual mortality rate is significantly higher, due to not all incidences being detected, further incidences
not being reported, and many instances not being able to be officially assessed and have cause of mortality confirmed.
Table 1: Dugong mortalities caused by boat strike in Queensland waters for the period 1996-2010
Year
Mortalities
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
3
4
2
0
3
4
7
3
5
4
2
2
2
3
4
A more detailed table, including data on all known causes of dugong mortality, is listed in the appendices as Figure 1.
When taking into account natural causes of mortality (such as disease and ill health), incidences where the cause of
mortality could not be determined, and incidences which were unable to be confirmed, a more accurate picture of the
proportion of additional impact on dugong populations boat strike has can be determined (Table 2). With a total of 46
dugong mortalities attributed to boat strike, the process was notably the leading cause of anthropogenic mortality in 7
of the 15 years data has been recorded.
Table 2: Proportion of anthropogenic mortalities of dugongs attributable to boat strike for the period 1996-2010
Year
Total confirmed mortality
Natural causes
Anthropogenic
% anthro. boatstrike
1996
16
3
13
23.1
1997
20
7
13
30.8
1998
9
4
5
40.0*
1999
25
10
15
0.0
2000
33
23
10
30.0
2001
18
11
7
57.1*
2002
15
5
10
70.0*
2003
14
6
8
37.5*
2004
15
2
13
30.8*
2005
10
3
7
28.6
2006
5
0
5
40.0*
2007
10
2
8
25.0
2008
10
3
7
28.6*
2009
21
10
11
27.3
2010
34
16
18
22.2
* = boat strike caused more than or as many deaths than any other anthropogenic activity recorded
Data collected from carcasses in Moreton Bay suggests that the majority of boats involved in strikes on dugongs are not
small recreational boats powered with outboard motors, but rather larger recreational and commercial vessels with twin
propeller configurations (Limpus, 2002). Particularly at risk are regionally important Dugong populations in extensive
shallow areas close to areas of high boat traffic (Marsh et al., 2002). On the urban coast of Queensland, areas of high
recreational use such as the Hinchinbrook Island area, Cleveland Bay, Hervey Bay and Moreton Bay are of greatest
concern (Marsh et al., 2002). Hodgson (2004) discusses mortality data and possible threat abatement measures for
several priority areas of dugong habitat.
The plight of the dugong, as recognised through Marine Species and Migratory Species listings under the EPBC Act, as a
protected species under New South Wales, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australian law, and
international obligations with the species listed on Appendix I of CITES, Appendix II of the CMS and as Vulnerable on the
IUCN Red list, clearly illustrates the high sensitivity of this species and the resulting need for a proactive and vigorous
management approach. The above demonstrates that the threat posed by boat strike to Australia’s dugong population
could be a significant contributing threat causing it to become eligible for listing under the EPBC Act as Vulnerable. Not
only is the current known rate of boat strikes on dugong a cause for concern, but also the projection of that rate into the
future, as boat traffic increases due to the growth in coastal human populations in key areas.
Australian snubfin dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni)
Could become eligible for listing as Vulnerable.
Australian conservation status:
National: Listed as a Cetacean under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.
International conservation status:
-
Listed as Orcaella brevirostris on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of
Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
In 2005 the Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) was discovered to be two separate species, with one species
retaining the original name and the other described as the Australian snubfin dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni). In Reeves et
al. (2008), it is cited that Australian snubfin dolphins inhabit coastal, shallow waters of the tropical and subtropical zones
of Australia, and possibly some parts of New Guinea (Beasley et al., 2005). In Australia, they occur from Broome,
Western Australia, north and east to the Brisbane River, Queensland. The range along the northern Australian coast and
New Guinea is poorly documented (Parra et al., 2002).
As many national and international conservation agreements and pieces of legislation are yet to assess the Irrawady and
Australian snubfin dolphins as separate species, various conservation statuses do not yet accurately reflect these species
individual situations. It logically follows however, that when a threatened population is split, the status of the remaining
populations become even more critical and vulnerable to anthropogenic threats. The effects of ongoing loss of only a
small proportion of individuals from such small and possibly geographically isolated populations can be as severe as
extinction over a relatively short time-frame (Thiele, 2010).
Thiele (2010) studied injuries in a population of 161 snubfin dolphins in Roebuck Bay, on the Western Australia
Kimberley Coast, of which 124 had suitable images for determining whether an injury was present and its likely cause.
Instances of boat strike were inferred from blunt trauma marks or propeller cuts, and it was found that there was
evidence of vessel strike alone for 12 individuals (9.7% of those with suitable photographs) , and of vessel strike and
fishing gear combined in 14 individuals (11.3% of those with suitable photographs). Therefore, of the 124 Australian
snubfin dolphins in Roebuck Bay for which imaging was available, approximately 26.1% had evidence of being struck by
boats.
These figures represent conservative figures of interactions as snubfin dolphins that have died following a boat strike are
unlikely to be found in an area of such high tidal fluxes, with the high incidence of non-fatal interactions suggesting
mortality is likely to occur (Thiele, 2010). Thiele (2010) goes on to hypothesise that the high rate of vessel related
snubfin dolphin injuries is likely attributable to the concentrated and active socialising behaviour of the species, during
which they appear much less aware of their surroundings and may be unable to react quickly enough to avoid
approaching boats.
7.
ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed ecological communities that, due to the impact of the key
threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category. For each ecological community please include:
a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;
c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this ecological community; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation
to the criteria for listing.
The nominator it not aware of any ecological communities that could become eligible for listing as a result of the
nominated key threatening process.
Criterion B: Listing in a higher category of endangerment
8.
SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER CATEGORY OF
ENDANGERMENT AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened species that, due to the impacts of the threatening
process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each
species please include:
a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category that the item is currently listed in and the
category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed
category has been previously met);
c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this species; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria
for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the species was previously listed.
It is possible that some of the species listed in Section 14 (below) may be pushed into a higher category of conservation
threshold as a result of the nominated key threatening process. However, a lack of accurate population data has led to
Criterion C more accurately reflecting the impact this key threatening process has.
9.
ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER
CATEGORY OF ENDANGERMENT AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened ecological communities that, due to the impacts of the
threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of
endangerment. For each ecological community please include:
a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category that the item is currently listed in and
the category it could become eligible for listing in;
b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed
category has been previously met);
c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this ecological community; and
d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation
to the criteria for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the ecological community
was previously listed.
The nominator it not aware of any ecological communities that could become eligible for listing in a higher category as a
result of the nominated key threatening process.
Criterion C: Adversely affected listed species or ecological communities
10. SPECIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide a summary of species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, that are considered to be adversely affected by
the threatening process. For each species please include:
a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and
b. justification for each species that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.
Marine turtles
Australian waters are home to six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle. These species are all protected under
the EPBC Act and listed under the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) and the Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS). Five of the species found within eastern
Australian waters are also listed as endangered and critically endangered under the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List 2011 (IUCN, 2011). A marine turtle may take up to 30–50 years to mature
(Marine Species Section, 2003), making them extremely vulnerable to impacts on population size.
It is stated within the Federal Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia (Marine Species Section, 2003) that "Marine
turtles are vulnerable to boat strikes when at the surface to breathe and rest between dives. This is particularly an issue
in waters adjacent to large urban populations (Limpus & Reimer, 1994) where there are large numbers of boats and
other pleasure craft... The marine turtle populations affected by boat strike have been identified as: loggerhead turtles
from the eastern Australian population; green turtles from the southern Great Barrier Reef population; hawksbill turtles
from the north-eastern Australian populations; and flatback turtles from Queensland." Records illustrate the olive ridley
turtle to be victim to boat strike on occasion (e.g. Haines & Limpus, 2001). Furthermore, boat strike is regularly
mentioned in a review of impacts ‘of greatest relevance to turtle populations in the World Heritage Area’ of the Great
Barrier Reef (Dobbs, 2001).
Australia is home to some of the largest nesting sites of the green, loggerhead and hawksbill turtles in the Indo-Pacific
region, and the only nesting sites of the flatback turtle (Marine Species Section, 2003). A summary of the numbers of
turtles known to have been killed by boat strike in Queensland between 1998 and 2002 is presented in Table 3, with
data being obtained from the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) Marine
Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Reports.
Table 3: Marine turtle mortalities cause by boat strike in Queensland waters between 1999-2004
Species
Chelonia mydas
Caretta caretta
Dermochelys coriacea
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys olivacea
Natator depressus
Total
1999
69
8
0
0
3
0
80
2000
57
10
0
3
3
0
73
2001
66
8
0
1
0
0
75
2002
55
5
0
1
0
0
61
2003
48
3
1
0
0
1
53
2004
65
5
0
0
1
0
71
Total
360
39
1
5
7
1
413
From 1998-2002, confirmed boat strike accidents accounted for an average of 80 annual turtle mortalities along the
Queensland shoreline alone, although this is probably an underestimation since cause of death could not be determined
in 57% of cases, plus we can assume many carcasses are not discovered. The majority of those killed were green turtles.
Boat strikes have proven to be one of the leading causes of turtle fatality from human-induced causes. Between 1999
and 2002 an annual average of 36.8% of all sea turtle mortalities in which cause of death could be determined (15% of
all strandings and mortalities) within Queensland waters were due to boat strikes, with injuries consistent with propeller
damage and fractures (Table 4).
Table 4: Records of documented turtles mortalities for Queensland waters from 1998-2002 showing the percentage of
confirmed mortalities attributed to boat strike
Year
Total number of
dead or stranded
marine turtles
Number for which
cause of mortality
could be determined
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total
554
495
529
526
527
574
3,205
195
172
168
172
140
173
1,020
Number of turtles
killed due to
anthropomorphic
causes
150
130
139
149
117
156
841
Number attributed
to boat strike
% of confirmed
deaths due to boat
strike
84
78
83
65
60
75
445
56.0*
60.0*
59.7*
43.6*
51.3*
48.1*
52.9*
* = boat strike caused more than or as many deaths than any other anthropogenic activity recorded
It is worth noting that were cause of mortality proportions to remain consistent throughout the marine turtle strandings
which were unconfirmed or had an unidentifiable cause of death, the number that would be attributable to boat strike
(currently 445/1,020) would rise to approximately 1,400 individuals. Even this figure, focusing only on mortality on the
Queensland coastline, is likely to represent only a fraction of actual mortality rates due to many instances going
undetected or unreported. When considering this, it is clear that boat strike is a key threatening process to EPBC Act
listed marine turtles in Australia.
The impact of boat strike on turtles is recognised in the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan (2003) as being particularly
significant in the Moreton Bay and Harvey Bay areas. The Recovery Plan aims to increase turtle populations in the wild
by reducing human induced mortality. Incidence of boat strike on marine turtles is of significance not only in Moreton
Bay and Harvey Bay, but also in the Hinchinbrook area which is of increasing concern due to marine traffic and
consequent injuries to turtles increase with increasing development (Limpus et al., 2002).
The impact of boat strike on green and loggerhead turtle populations is most evident through the data outlined in Table
3, and these species will be focused on in more depth later in this nomination. This will also be the case with the
leatherback turtle, which warrants closer scrutiny due to its conservation status as Critically Endangered internationally
(IUCN, 2011) and listing under all State / Territory with coastline (ACT being the only exception) threatened species
legislation.
Flatback (Natator depressus), olive-ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles are
recognised as threatened Federally under the EPBC Act, Internationally through CMS, IUCN and CITES, and under various
State / Territory laws. They are uncommon in the Great Barrier Reef region and data is correspondingly lacking in
DERM’s Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Reports, thus little data is available regarding cause of
mortality. However, these Annual Reports, the most recent of which is Greenland et al. (2006), show that between
1999-2004 one flatback, five hawksbill, and seven olive ridley turtles were recorded as stranded or killed by boat strike
on the Queensland coast. Thus, even though data that fulfils the criteria for inclusion in the KTP is not comprehensive, it
should be considered that three additional rare turtles in Australian waters are affected by this process, and may be
more severely in other areas throughout their Australian range where they are more common.
Green turtle (Chelonia mydas)
Australian conservation status:
National: Listed as Vulnerable, Marine and Migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act, 1999.
New South Wales: Listed as Vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.
Queensland: Listed as Vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act, 1992.
Western Australia: Listed as Vulnerable under the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1950
International conservation status:
Listed on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Listed as Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red
List of Threatened Species.
Listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
According to Queensland Government’s Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Reports (see Table 3),
green turtles account for approximately 87.2% of boat strike mortalities to marine turtles in Queensland. Annual
mortality rates attributable to boat strikes surpass mortality rates from any other cause, including all natural causes
combined and such anthropogenic impacts as shark net entanglement and traditional hunting.
Of the total confirmed green turtle mortalities where the cause of death could be determined contained within the
Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Reports, greater than 50% (360/705) featured fractures and
injuries consistent with boat strike and propeller damage (Table 5). Comparatively, only 15.2% of cause of death
confirmed stranding and mortalities were due to natural causes such as disease and depredation, a figure which
indicates the severe stress boat strike incidents are placing on non-impacted green turtle population dynamics.
Table 5: Records of reported green turtle mortalities in Queensland waters from 1998-2002 showing the percentage of
confirmed mortalities attributed to boat strike
Year
Total confirmed mortality
Natural causes
Anthropogenic
Boat Strike
% anthro. boatstrike
1999
134
26
108
69
63.9*
2000
108
22
86
57
66.3*
2001
125
20
105
66
62.9*
2002
118
20
98
55
56.1*
2003
108
16
92
48
52.2*
2004
112
3
109
65
59.6*
Total
705
107
598
360
60.2
* = boat strike caused more than or as many deaths than any other anthropogenic activity recorded
It is worth noting that boat strike was the leading confirmed cause of mortality of reported incidents on the Queensland
coast in all of the six years for which data was collected, significantly higher than any other factor. It is stated within
Hazel et al. (2007) that “Individual green turtles are known to maintain long-term fidelity to their coastal foraging areas,
with only brief absences during breeding migrations spaced several years apart (Limpus et al. 1992, 1994). Thus, for
each individual turtle in a foraging area that receives vessel traffic, the risk of collision persists over decades”. This
behavioural trait may be a significant factor in why instances of boat strike on green turtles are so common.
The severity of the threat of boat strike to green turtles is rivalled only by that of Indigenous traditional hunting. It is
however a threat that is relatively straightforward to abate compared to the indigenous use. If the threat of boat strike
were to continue the species will continue to decline. Together with the loggerhead turtle (below), it meets the KTP
listing criterion that the threatening process adversely affects an EPBC Act listed species.
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta)
Australian conservation status:
National: Listed as Endangered, Marine and Migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act, 1999.
New South Wales: Listed as Endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.
Northern Territory: Listed as Endangered under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2001.
Queensland: Listed as Endangered under the Nature Conservation Act, 1992.
Western Australia: Listed as Rare or likely to become extinct under the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1950
International conservation status:
Listed on Appendix I & II of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora
(CITES).
Listed as Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red
List of Threatened Species.
Listed on Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
It has been acknowledged at many levels of government that the loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, is under significant
threat. The species is recognised under the EPBC Act as an Endangered species, acknowledging the fact that if the
species’ survival remains threatened, it may become extinct, and the recovery of the population of loggerhead turtles in
Queensland is threatened most significantly by boat strike (see Table 6). Loggerhead mortality as a result of boat strike
appears to be increasing, which means that boat strike has the capacity to endanger the recovery of this reduced
population (XXXX XXXX pers. comm.).
The loggerhead turtle is a relatively long-lived animal, with a life expectancy of at least 50 years and sexual maturity
reached at between 8 and 15 years, with non-annual, periodic egg-production (NSW Scientific Committee, 2001).
During the last two decades, loggerhead populations have been decreasing faster than any other marine turtle species,
and it has lost up to 80% of its nesting population on the east coast (Parish, 2001).
Population models were developed using long-term mark-recapture data from loggerhead turtles feeding in the Heron
Island region. These models indicate that small declines in annual survival rates of adult and sub-adult loggerheads can
have an extreme impact on population dynamics. It is predicted that a loss of a few hundred loggerhead turtles can lead
to the extinction of the eastern Australia population within a century (Heppell et al., 1996).
Anthropogenic effects and disturbances on loggerhead population growth are difficult to measure due to the large time
frame taken for maturity in this and other turtle species. There is therefore a lag time between the cause and effect of
declining population numbers. For this reason, immediate and drastic action must be taken to significantly reduce
mortality by means of anthropogenic causes, in particular boat striking. This also demonstrates that the precautionary
approach must be used here.
The Department of Environment and Resource Management of the Queensland Government compiles ongoing
stranding and mortality databases for marine wildlife. From 1998 until 2004, boat strike was the principal
anthropogenic cause of stranding and mortality of loggerheads in Queensland (Table 6), with the Annual Reports
indicating that the annual mortality rates due to boat strikes (total of 39 between 1999-2004) out-number mortality
rates from all natural causes combined (5) significantly. Of the total confirmed loggerhead turtle mortalities where the
cause of death could be determined contained within the Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual
Reports, approximately 35.8% (39/109) featured fractures and injuries consistent with boat strike and propeller damage
(Table 6). Comparatively, only 22.9% of cause of death confirmed stranding and mortalities were due to natural causes
such as disease and depredation, a figure which, as was the case with the green turtle, indicates the severe stress boat
strike incidents are placing on non-impacted green turtle population dynamics.
Table 6: Records of reported loggerhead turtle mortalities in Queensland waters from 1998-2002 showing the
percentage of confirmed mortalities attributed to boat strike
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total
Total confirmed mortality
Natural causes
Anthropogenic
Boat Strike
% anthro. boatstrike
28
6
22
8
36.4*
27
9
18
10
55.6*
17
3
14
8
57.1*
12
0
12
5
41.7*
12
5
7
3
42.9*
13
2
11
5
45.5*
109
25
84
39
46.4
* = boat strike caused more than or as many deaths than any other anthropogenic activity recorded
It is therefore clear that this threat is adversely affecting this EPBC Act listed species, as it threatens the recovery of the
species from its severe status of decline that resulted from years of being caught in trawling nets. The listing of ‘Fatal
injury to marine mammals, reptiles, and other large marine species through boat strike on the Australian coast’ as a Key
Threatening Process and development of a Threat Abatement Plan are essential to avoid the recovery of the species
being compromised.
Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
Australian conservation status:
National: Listed as Endangered, Marine and Migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act, 1999.
New South Wales: Listed as Endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.
Northern Territory: Listed as Endangered under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 2001.
Queensland: Listed as Endangered under the Nature Conservation Act, 1992.
South Australia: Listed as Vulnerable under National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972.
Tasmania: Listed as Vulnerable under Threatened Species Protection Act, 1995.
Victoria: Listed as Threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, 1988.
Western Australia: Listed as Rare or likely to become extinct under the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1950
International conservation status:
Listed on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Listed as Critically Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.
Listed on Appendix I & II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
Boat strike is relatively (when compared to green and loggerhead turtles) uncommon for leatherback turtles, with data
from the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management’s Stranding and Mortality Database
Annual Reports listing just one instance of leatherback boat strike mortality between 1999-2004 (Table 7). However,
this low figure for boat strike for this species reflects its rarity in Australia, and it should be noted that only four
mortalities from any cause were recorded in the databases – boat strike effectively being the cause of 25% of known
cause mortality. Although this number appears very low, to a population reported to be in danger of extinction within
less than 10 years (Science Daily, 2004) it is still a dangerous number of unnecessary deaths which, as was the case with
previously mentioned species, is likely highly understated due to unreported or undetected incidents.
Table 7: Records of reported leatherback turtle mortalities in Queensland waters from 1998-2002 showing the
percentage of confirmed mortalities attributed to boat strike
Year
Total confirmed mortality
Natural causes
Anthropogenic
Boat Strike
% anthro. boatstrike
1999
1
0
1
0
0.0
2000
1
0
1
0
0.0
2001
0
0
0
0
0.0
2002
0
0
0
0
0.0
2003
1
0
1
1
100.0*
2004
1
0
1
0
0.0
Total
4
0
4
1
25.0
* = boat strike caused more than or as many deaths than any other anthropogenic activity recorded
Other species affected by boat strike which may not meet EPBC Act criteria
Although the species described below may not meet the prescribed criteria for inclusion as part of the Key Threatening
Process due to limited data being accessible to the nominator, they are included here in an attempt to provide a more
complete picture of the impact of boat strike on marine wildlife.
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Australian conservation status:
National: Listed as Vulnerable, Cetacean and Migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act, 1999.
New South Wales: Listed as Vulnerable under the Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.
Queensland: Listed as Vulnerable under the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation, 2006.
South Australia: Listed as Vulnerable under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972.
Tasmania: Listed as Endangered under the Threatened Species Protection Act, 1995.
Victoria: Listed as Threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, 1988.
Western Australia: Listed as Rare or likely to become extinct under the Wildlife Conservation Act, 1950
International conservation status:
Listed on Appendix I of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Listed on Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
It is likely that many ship strikes on whale species go undetected or unreported as they may occur in remote areas, the
impact may not be detected, animals may be struck and passed over without being observed, or struck whales may drift
out to sea, thus the actual number of strikes is undoubtedly greater than confirmed data shows (Jensen & Silber, 2004).
According to Jensen & Silber (2004), humpback whales are the second most impacted upon whale species by boat strike
throughout the world (with finback whales having the highest boat strike mortality count), with 44 being recorded as
boat strike mortalities from the earliest record in 1885 up to 2002, with entries being highly varied chronilogically
throughout that range.
As a characteristically coastal species of whale (Jensen & Silber, 2004), humpbacks are likely at greater risk of boat strike
in areas of higher boat use than other migratory Australian species. In Australia, there is an east and a west coast
population of migratory humpback whales that are considered to be genetically distinct (Baker et al., 1998), and there
are records of humpback whales that have been found stranded and killed in Queensland (Greenland et al., 2005).
Although confirmed cases with cause attributed to boatstrike are few and far between, to a small population of longlived and large animals this still represents a threat. Furthermore, boat strikes on humpback whales are likely to
increase if the humpback population continues to recover on the east coast and as boat traffic increases.
Whale shark (Rhincodon typus)
Australian conservation status:
National: Listed as Vulnerable and Migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act, 1999.
South Australia: Listed as Vulnerable under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, 1972.
Tasmania: Listed on the Fisheries (General and Fees) Regulations, 2006 under the Living Marine Resources Management
Act, 1995.
Western Australia: Listed as a totally protected fish under the Conservation and Land Management Act, 1984 and the
Fish Resources Management Act, 1994.
International conservation status:
Listed on Appendix II of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Listed as Vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red
List of Threatened Species.
Listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
Listed on Annex I (Highly Migratory Species) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Rodger et al. (2010) states that whale sharks are vulnerable to boat strikes, with individuals observed to actively
approach boats, possibly being attracted to bubbles created by idling engines. Stevens (2007) goes as far as saying that
whale shark mortality related to human activity (other than fishing) occurs mainly through boat strikes.
Whale sharks spend a lot of time close to the surface, resulting in an increased chance of incidences of boat strikes,
evidenced by a typical scarring pattern on the animals (Norman, 1999; Mau, 2006; Stevens, 2007). The incidence of fin
damage and scarring on whale sharks observed during ecotourism activities, so common that such markings are used
along with natural colouration to identify whale sharks through computer algorithms (Arzoumanian et al., 2005),
suggests that non-fatal collisions, probably with smaller vessels, are not uncommon (Stevens, 2007). It is thought this
may have further adverse impacts on the species, by resulting in whale sharks showing a higher level of boat avoidance
behaviours, including the avoidance of areas which may be critical habitats (Mau, 2006).
According to Stevens (2007), Gudger (1940) documented many instances of collisions between whale sharks and large
vessels and there have been several reports of whale sharks impaled on the bows of steamships earlier this century
(Stead, 1963). With regard to modern shipping, large vessels are probably not aware of striking whale sharks, leading to
the extent of such mortality to be unknown (Norman, 1999). The rarity of beached whale shark specimens, which would
allow increased analysis of whale shark mortality and cause of mortality in Australian waters, suggest that R. typus tends
to sink rapidly after death (Tubb, 1948).
11. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION
Provide a summary of ecological communities listed as threatened under the EPBC Act that are considered to be
adversely affected by the threatening process. For each ecological community please provide:
a.
the complete title (exactly as listed) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and
b.
justification for each ecological community that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.
The nominator it not aware of any ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act that are adversely impacted upon
by the nominated key threatening process.
Threat Abatement
12. THREAT ABATEMENT
Give an overview of how threats posed by this process are being abated by current (or proposed) activities. Identify who
is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date.
Australian snubfin dolphin
Thiele (2010) lists conservation strategies required to protect Australian snubfin dolphins throughout their distribution
across northern tropical Australia including: rapid population assessment and spatial habitat modelling as recommended
by the Conservation on Migratory Species (CMS) to identify all critical habitat areas; protection of the areas identified
through the appropriate designation of sanctuaries, Indigenous Protected Areas or other management frameworks;
simple behavioural changes such as reduced boat speeds and minimising sudden changes of direction in critical areas;
and uplisting current conservation status of the species to Threatened under the EPBC Act.
Dugong
The Recovery Plan for the conservation of the Dugong (D. dugon) in Queensland 1999-2004 proposes three main
management approaches. These include prohibiting high speed boat races in areas which coincide with dugong habitat;
restricting vessel operation in particular regions such as Moreton Bay Marine Park; and monitoring boat traffic in areas
such as these and restricting vessel speed limits where necessary in conjunction with the Department of Transport. The
plan also identifies boat strike as a significant threat to the species, particularly in shallow waters and where fast boats
are used (Queensland EPA, 1999).
Future management of this region must focus on the reduction of boat strike incidence by creating additional “go slow”
zones. Five “go slow” zones were introduced in Moreton Bay in 1997 whereby regulated speeds are prescribed for
recreational vessels. Currently it appears that these zones are ineffective, with four out of five dugongs struck by boats
in 2004 within the Moreton Bay Marine Park (Greenland & Limpus, 2005).
Vessel transit lanes have been installed in Missionary Bay with the use of 3 beacons and 3 navigation buoys. Speed
limits of 10 knots over seagrass beds and 25 knots within these transit lanes are encouraged. This aims to create speed
regulated lanes in deeper waters, away from shallow water feeding grounds, and in turn reduce incidence of boat strike,
however it is unclear how these aims will be policed and enforced.
Hodgson (2004) found that the majority (64%) of boats observed travelling close to dugong herds on Moreton Banks
were exceeding planning speeds, while Groom (2003) found that voluntary transit lanes and speed limits in the
Hinchinbrook area had an even lower compliance rate (74% and 80% respectively).
Turtles
Actions to mitigate incidental mortality and monitor the boat strike of marine turtles recommended in the Federal
Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia (Marine Species Section, 2003) can be found in Figure 2. Hazel et al. (2007)
state that “Management authorities have sought to mitigate vessel-related injuries to wildlife by identifying locations of
particular importance for vulnerable species. Vessel operators are urged to increase vigilance within these areas, where
recommended or obligatory routes and speed restrictions may apply. Other protective measures such as acoustic
warning devices have been proposed (e.g. Gerstein, 2002) but their utility in the wild remains uncertain.”
13. DEVELOPMENT OF THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN
Would the development of a threat abatement plan be a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process?
What other measures could be undertaken?
Yes, lower boat speeds and avoidance of known ‘hot-spots’ of impacted species, see section 18 for more details.
However, with regard to green turtles, Hazel et al. (2007) identified the trade-off between minimising potential
inconvenience to vessel operators and optimal protection for marine wildlife as a management challenge, reinforced by
results which indicated a very slow speed (around 4km/h) is necessary to assure ‘turtle-safe’ transit across shallow
foraging sites.
14. ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN
If the threatening process is recommended for listing under the EPBC Act, what elements could a threat abatement plan
include?
A Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) is an essential and effective means by which to administer a dedicated response to the
threat of boat strikes on marine species. The ultimate goal of the TAP should be to minimise boat strike to marine
animals along the eastern coast of Australia, by public awareness, legislation and a comprehensive system of
enforceable speed limits along the coast.
Alternatives to speed reduction such as propeller guards are likely to be ineffective without speed limits, serving to limit
damage to the boat but not reducing the sheer force of impact on the hit animal. Whether by a turning propeller or a
stationary propeller guard, the issue causing injury is simply the speed of the vessel. Designating ‘go-slow’ zones has
limited effect, as shown by the continued high levels of turtle boat strike in Moreton Bay.
This also illustrates that effective enforcement of speed restrictions is necessary. A TAP is needed to assess speed limits,
formulating a system on water such as exists effectively and safely on our roads – with areas of high, moderate and slow
speeds depending on the extent of marine life in danger of boat strike and general disturbance in the area. It has
proven politically difficult to impose speed limits on water, despite wildlife experts and authorities calling for them.
Listing boat strike as a KTP will help to strengthen arguments by state wildlife authorities that such limits are necessary,
and a TAP would help to introduce them. With modern technology it will also be possible to enforce these limits as it
has not been in the past – there are speed guns which work on water, GPS tracking systems and most boats have
speedometers on them.
The installation of precautionary signage near Dugong Protected Areas and areas with resident turtle populations are an
important form of public awareness, administered by the GBRMPA and the Hinchinbrook Regional Marine Resource
Advisory Committee. These management options should be acknowledged and extended in a TAP for this threatening
process.
Recognition of boat strikes as a major anthropogenic cause of injury and mortality of listed marine species, and the
potential for unlisted species to become listed warrants action. A public awareness campaign is being conducted by the
GBRMPA, incorporating advising the public to reduce boating speeds within the Marine Park via televised community
service announcements (GBRMPA). Legal requirements as well as Best Environment Practices have also been developed
by GBRMPA in order to educate vessel operators on the threat to marine species, and could be included in the TAP for
this key threatening process.
Listing this KTP will help enforce practices such as speed zones, signage, posting information to local coastal residents as
well as legislation and fines. The preparation of a TAP would be facilitate further co-operation between Queensland and
Commonwealth agencies and stakeholders to abate this key threat which is projected to increase with increasing boat
traffic.
15. ADDITIONAL THREAT ABATEMENT INFORMATION
Is there other information that relates to threat abatement that you would like to provide?
No.
Indigenous Values
16. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
Is the key threatening process known to have an impact on species or country culturally significant to Indigenous groups
within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.
Species impacted upon by the nominated key threatening process, such as marine turtles and dugongs, are culturally
significant to Indigenous groups within Australia, and are traditionally hunted.
Reviewers and Further Information
17. REVIEWER(S)
Has this nomination been reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include
their names and current professional positions.
This nomination has been reviewed by Humane Society International staff.
18. MAJOR STUDIES
Identify major studies that might assist in the assessment of the nominated threatening process.
Groom, R.A. (2003) The efficacy of the voluntary vessel transit lanes in Missionary Bay, Hinchinbrook Island for dugong
conservation management. Honours thesis, School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography. James Cook
University, Townsville.
Hazel, J., Lawler, I.R., Marsh, H. & Robson, S. (2007) Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle Chelonia
mydas. Endangered Species Research 3: 105-113.
Hodgson, A.J. (2004) Dugong behaviour and responses to human influences. PhD thesis, School of Tropical Environment
Studies and Geography. James Cook University, Townsville.
Maitland, R.N., Lawler, I.R. & Sheppard, J.K. (2006) Assessing the risk of boat strike on Dugongs Dugong dugon at Burrum
Heads, Queensland, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 12: 321-26.
Norman, B. M. (1999) Aspects of the biology and ecotourism industry of the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) in northwestern Australia. MSc Thesis, Murdoch University, 115 pp.
Thiele, D. (2010) Collision course: Snubfin dolhpin injuries in Roebuck Bay. World Wildlife Fund Australia.
19. FURTHER INFORMATION
Identify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national
park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.).
Federal recovery plans developed by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities are available for the humpback whale, whale shark, and all marine turtle species.
20. REFERENCE LIST
Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.
Baker, C.S., Florez-Gonzalez, L., Abernethy, B., Rosenbaum, H.C., Slade, R.W., Capella, J. & Bannister, J.L. (1998)
Mitochondrial DNA variation and maternal gene flow among humpback whales of the Southern Hemisphere. Marine
Mammal Science 14 : 721-737
Beasley, I., Robertson, K.M. & Arnold, P. (2005) Description of a new dolphin, the Australian snubfin dolphin Orcaella
heinsohni sp. n. (Cetacea, Delphinidae). Marine Mammal Science 21(3): 365-400.
Biddle, T.M., Boyle, M. & Limpus, C.J. (2011) Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2009 and
2010. Dugong. Conservation Technical and Data Report 2010 (2):1-59.
Dobbs, K. (2001) Marine turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority, Townsville.
Gerstein, E.R. (2002) Manatees, bioacoustics and boats. American Scientist 90(2): 154-163.
Greenland, J.A., Limpus, C.J., Currie, K.J. & Brieze, I. (2005) Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual
Report 2003, II. Cetacian and Pinniped. Queensland Environment Protection Agency.
Groom, R.A. (2003) The efficacy of the voluntary vessel transit lanes in Missionary Bay, Hinchinbrook Island for dugong
conservation management. Honours thesis, School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography. James Cook
University, Townsville.
Gudger, E.W. (1940) Whale sharks rammed by ocean vessels. How these sluggish leviathans aid in their own
destruction. New England Naturalist 7: 1-10.
Haines, J.A. & Limpus, C.J. (2001) Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2000, III. Marine
Turtles. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.
Harriot, V.J. (2002) Marine Tourism Impacts and their Management on the Great barrier Reef. Cooperative Research
Centre Reef Research Centre Technical Report No 46. Cooperative Research Centre Reef, Townsville.
Hazel, J., Lawler, I.R., Marsh, H. & Robson, S. (2007) Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle Chelonia
mydas. Endangered Species Research 3: 105-113.
Heppell, S.S., Limpus, C.J., Crouse D.T., Frazer, N.B. & Crowder, L.B. (1996) Population model analysis or the loggerhead
sea turtle, Caretta caretta, in Queensland. Wildlife Research. 23 (2): 143-59
Hodgson, A.J. (2004) Dugong behaviour and responses to human influences. PhD thesis, School of Tropical Environment
Studies and Geography. James Cook University, Townsville.
Hodgson, A.J. & Marsh, H.M. (2007) Response of dugongs to boat traffic: The risk of disturbance and displacement.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 340: 50-61.
IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (2011) IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Jefferson, T.A. (2000) Population biology of the Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphin in Hong Kong waters. Wildlife
Monographs. 144:65.
Jensen, A.S. & Silber, G.K. (2003) Large Whale Ship Strike Database. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum. NMFS-OPR-, 37 pp.
Limpus C.J., Miller, J.D., Parmenter, C.J., Reimer, D., McLachlan, N. & Webb, R. (1992) Migration of green (Chelonia
mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles to and from eastern Australian rookeries. Wildlife Research 19: 347–
358.
Limpus, C.J., Couper, P.J. & Read, M.A. (1994) The green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in Queensland: Population structure in a
warm temperate feeding area. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 35(1): 139–154.
Limpus, C., Currie, K.J. & Haines, J.A. (2002) Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report 2002, II
Cetacean and Pinniped. Queensland Environment Protection Agency.
Maitland, R.N., Lawler, I.R. & Sheppard, J.K. (2006) Assessing the risk of boat strike on Dugongs Dugong dugon at Burrum
Heads, Queensland, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 12: 321-26.
Marine Species Section. (2003) Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia. Approvals and Wildlife Division,
Environment Australia.
Marsh H., Heinshon, G.E. & Marsh L.M. (1984) Breeding cycle, life history and population dynamics of the Dugong,
Dugong dugon (Sirenia: Dugongidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 32: 767-88.
Marsh, H., Penrose, H., Eros, C. & Hugues, J. (2002) Dugong Status Report and Action Plans for Countries and Territories.
United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
Marsh, H., De'ath, G., Gribble, N. & Lane, B. (2005) Historical marine population estimates: triggers or targets for
conservation? The dugong case study.
Marsh, H. (2008) Dugong dugon. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.
<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 18 March 2012.
Mau, R. (2006) Managing for conservation and recreation: The Ningaloo whale shark experience. Western Australia
Department of Environment and Conservation. 2nd International Wildlife Tourism Conference, Freemantle, Western
Australia.
MSIAR - Marine Safety Incident Annual Report. (2003) Published for Maritime Safety Queensland.
NSW Scientific Committee. (2001) Loggerhead turtle – endangered species listing final determination.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/LoggerheadTurtleEndSpListing.htm
Norman, B. M. (1999) Aspects of the biology and ecotourism industry of the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) in northwestern Australia. MSc Thesis, Murdoch University, 115 pp.
Parish, J. (2001) Col Limpus and His Turtle Cowboys. International Wildlife.
Parra, G., Azuma, C., Preen, A.R., Corkeron, P.J. & Marsh, H. (2002) Distribution of Irrawaddy dolphins, Orcaella
brevirostris, in Australian waters. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 10: 141-154.
Preen, T. (2000) Dugongs, boats, dolphins and turtles in the Townsville-Cardwell region and recommendations for a boat
traffic management plan for the Hinchinbrook Dugong Protection Area. Great Barrier Marine Park Authority. Research
publication 67.
Queensland Environment Protection Agency (EPA). (1999) Conservation and management of the dugong in Queensland
1999-2004.
Reeves, R.R., Jefferson, T.A., Karczmarski, L., Laidre, K., O’Corry-Crowe, G., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E.R., Slooten, E.,
Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y. & Zhou, K. (2008) Orcaella heinsohni. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 18 March 2012.
Rodger, K., Smith, A., Newsome, D., Patterson, P. & Davis, C. (2010) A framework to guide the sustainability of wildlife
tourism operations: examples of marine wildlife tourism in Western Australia. Cooperative Research Centre for
Sustainable Tourism. pp. 23-25.
Science Daily. (2004) Pacific Leatherback Turtle could go extinct tin 10 years.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040226063928.htm
Stead, D.G. (1963) ‘Sharks and Rays of Australian Seas’ (Angus and Robertson, Sydney.) 278pp.
Stevens, J.D. (2007) Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) biology and ecology: A review of the primary literature. Fisheries
Research. 84 pp. 4-9.
Thiele, D. (2010) Collision course: Snubfin dolhpin injuries in Roebuck Bay. World Wildlife Fund Australia.
Tubb, J.A. (1948) Whale sharks and Devil rays in North Borneo. Copeia 3, 222.
21. APPENDIX
Please place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can
provide them as an attachment.
Figure 1. Summary of dugong strandings and mortality by year and identified sources of mortality for Queensland,
1996-2010 (Biddle et al., 2011)
Figure 2. Actions to mitigate incidental mortality and monitor the boat strike of marine turtles (Marine Species Section,
2003).