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).
Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. 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.
3.2012 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.
Describe the threatening process in a way that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by reference to:
its biological and non-biological components;
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.
