Key Threatening Process Nomination Form

Download 3.09 Mb.

Page	4/8
Date	20.10.2016
Size	3.09 Mb.
	#5688

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

* = 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^.^d^a^t^a^on^th^e^c^u^rreⁿ^t^s^t^a^t^u^sⁱⁿ^r^e^la^t^ion^to^th^e^cri^t^e^ria^f^or^lⁱ^s^tiⁿ^g;

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 threat category
8. SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER THREAT CATEGORY 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.^t^h^e^s^cⁱ^eⁿ^tⁱ^f^icⁿ^a^m^e^,^c^om^m^onⁿ^ame^(if^app^r^op^ria^t^e^),^ca^te^go^r^{y t}^h^at^th^eⁱ^t^e^m^is^c^u^rreⁿ^tly^li^s^t^e^dⁱⁿ^an^d^th^e

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^.^s^p^e^cⁱ^f^icⁱⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^t^ion^oⁿ^h^ow^th^e^th^r^e^a^t^eⁿⁱⁿ^g^p^r^o^c^e^s^s^s^ignifⁱ^caⁿ^tly^th^r^e^a^t^eⁿ^s^th^is^sp^e^ci^e^s^;^aⁿ^d

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 THREAT CATEGORY 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^.^d^a^t^a^on^th^e^c^u^rreⁿ^t^s^t^a^t^u^sⁱⁿ^r^e^la^t^ion^t^o^th^e^cri^t^e^ria^f^or^lⁱ^s^tiⁿ^g^(at^lea^s^t^oⁿ^e^cri^t^e^rion^for^t^h^e^c^u^rreⁿ^t^li^s^t^e^d

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.

Species	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	Total
Chelonia mydas	69	57	66	55	48	65	360
Caretta caretta	8	10	8	5	3	5	39
Dermochelys coriacea	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Eretmochelys imbricata	0	3	1	1	0	0	5
Lepidochelys olivacea	3	3	0	0	0	1	7
Natator depressus	0	0	0	0	1	0	1
Total	80	73	75	61	53	71	413

Directory: system -> files -> pages -> 87ef6ac7-da62-4a45-90ec-0d473863f3e6 -> files
pages -> Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox
pages -> Marine bioregional plan for the North Marine Region prepared under the
files -> Key Threatening Process Nomination Form
pages -> List of cites species for the Purposes of the Act as amended
pages -> Offshore pelagic shark and teleost surveys Objectives
pages -> Approved Green Army Projects to begin in the 2015/16 financial year
pages -> Australian Government
pages -> Assessment of the queensland marine aquarium fish fishery
pages -> 2012 Assessment Period Manta alfredi

Download 3.09 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8