9 MARINE FAUNA

Author: Paul O’NeillReviewers: Dr Kirstin Dobbs, Dr John Robertson

240 | Marine Fauna

THE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS CONDITIONShoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA or the Area) is important for its diversity and richness of marine fauna, particularly marine mammals, turtles and shorebirds. The marine habitats in Shoalwater Bay, including Port Clinton and Island Head Creek, are unusual for the east coast of Australia south of Cape York, in that the catchment is fully vegetated and is not impacted by urban development or rural industries. Available information on marine faunal assemblages in SWBTA is incomplete. There have been few studies on the marine invertebrate fauna for instance, but some quite detailed ongoing studies on marine turtle populations. Dugong and shorebird populations have also been surveyed. Defence maintains acute vigilance over the possible impacts of training activities on marine wildlife, particularly whales, dolphins, dugongs and turtles.

MAMMALS

Whales and Dolphins

Humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae, dwarf minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata, Australian snubfi n dolphins Orcaella heinsohni and Indo-Pacifi c humpback dolphins Sousa chinensis, are listed as priorities for management in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) (GBRMPA 2000). All but dwarf minke whales have been observed within SWBTA.

Humpback whales are the largest cetacean species known to regularly visit SWBTA waters, but they do not frequent Shoalwater Bay itself. Although humpbacks occur in all the world’s oceans, a specifi c population (part of the Antarctic Area V stock) migrates annually northwards to Queensland (Dawbin 1966). This east coast population of humpback whales spends the winter months from May to September in Great Barrier Reef waters where calving occurs (GBRMPA 2007). In 1998, the humpback whale was down-listed from endangered to vulnerable under the Australian Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 in response to observed population recovery. It remains as a vulnerable migratory and threatened species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ( EPBC Act). It is also listed as vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD).

Indo-Pacifi c humpback dolphins in Port Clinton

Marine Fauna | 241

Chittleborough (1965) estimated the pre-whaling east coast population of humpback whales to be about 10 000 animals, although this number was later revised to about 27 000 (Bannister & Headley 2001). Between 1949 and 1962, shore-based whaling on the east coast of Australia killed about 8 300 humpback whales (Australian Government 2008). More than 22 500 humpback whales from the Area V population were also killed by illegal Soviet whaling in the Southern Ocean between 1947 and 1973 (Clapham et al 2005). As a result the Group V population was reduced to less than 500 animals by 1962, and the eastern Australian component to less than 200 by the mid-1960s (Noad et al 2006, Bannister & Headley 2001). Since the International Whaling Commission banned humpback whaling in the Southern Hemisphere in 1963, the population increased at an annual rate of over 11% to reach about 4 000 individuals in 1998 (Vang 2002). More recent surveys estimate the population to be now over 7 000 (Noad et al 2006). With an increasing number of humpback whales, the potential for collisions or interactions with vessels also increases annually along the east coast.

Although the blue whale is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act, it is rarely found in Queensland waters (DoE 1997) and is not recognised as a threatened species under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD). In 1928, a blue whale Balaenoptera musculus stranded at Couti Outi near the western boundary of SWBTA, and in 1994 another blue whale stranded near St. Lawrence in Broad Sound. There are at least fi ve sets of old, bleached whale bones of undetermined species in Shoalwater Bay and Broadsound region dating from the 1920s.

Two of the dolphin species known from SWBTA waters are designated rare under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD), but are not listed under the EPBC Act. These are Australian snubfi n dolphins and Indo-Pacifi c humpback dolphins. Little is known of the population ecology or status of these species across their ranges, but both inhabit shallow coastal waters, including estuarine and riverine habitats. Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops sp and the common dolphin Delphinus delphis, are also often observed riding the bow waves of vessels in the Area. These species are not listed under the EPBC Act and they are scheduled as common under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD).

There are no records of vessel strike on whales or dolphins within SWBTA, but there are a few records of vessel interactions with whales in the wider Central Queensland region. A Royal Australian Navy vessel reported striking a whale off the Capricorn Coast in 2001, and two commercial charter vessels travelling at night to the Swain Reefs from Central Queensland ports made contact with whales in 2007.

Disturbance from human activities, pollution, habitat degradation and incidental catch in shark control nets and fi sh mesh nets are considered serious threats to both Australian snubfi n and Indo-Pacifi c humpback dolphins in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) (GBRMPA 2000). Of these, only fi sh mesh nets present a threat to these species in SWBTA waters, and primarily in Island Head Creek and Port Clinton. Food resource partitioning, based on proximity to river mouths, occurs between these two species, with Australian snubfi n dolphins generally found closer to river mouths than Indo-Pacifi c humpback dolphins (Parra et al 2006). This difference in habitat preference may place the snubfi n dolphin at greater risk from inshore mesh netting.

242 | Marine Fauna

A dugong and a turtle swimming over seagrass, Shoalwater Bay

Marine Fauna | 243

Dugong

Aerial surveys have confi rmed that Shoalwater Bay is the most important dugong sanctuary on the Queensland coast south of Cooktown, because it supports more than a quarter of the dugong in the region and impacts are tightly controlled (Marsh 2000; Marsh & Lawler 2001, 2006; Marsh et al 1996). Compared to most other areas in the region it has less tourism, recreational boating or commercial fi shing, and impacts from upstream land uses are minimal because only small creeks run into the Bay from adjacent coastal lands (Marsh 2000). Dugong are known to travel between Shoalwater Bay and Port Clinton, where gill and mesh netting is still permitted (Marsh 2000). It appears that the dugong population along the urban coast of Queensland has been reduced by many thousands of animals over the past four or fi ve decades due to human impacts (Marsh et al 2005).

SWBTA differs from other large embayments along the Queensland coast that support dugong populations, such as Moreton Bay, Hervey Bay and Cleveland Bay, because of the comparative lack of habitat alteration and human activity. In the past, areas such as Moreton Bay may have contained the largest dugong populations along the east coast of Australia. However, such heavily modifi ed catchments, with large adjacent human populations usually impact severely on wildlife populations (Dennison & Abal 1999). Dugong populations in these impacted areas may be reduced to a greater extent than in relatively unmodifi ed habitats like Shoalwater Bay. The dugong population in SWBTA is likely to become increasingly important as threats to dugong habitat and survival continue across their range.

In the early 1990s it became evident that dugong were regularly being killed in mesh fi shing nets in the Area. Combined with the results of the 1995 aerial surveys indicating declines in dugong populations along the Queensland coast, the evidence prompted decisions to reduce the threats to dugongs posed by mesh netting in key dugong habitat areas. A series of Dugong Protection Areas were declared under the Queensland Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No 11) 1997 (see Figure 2.3). Shoalwater Bay to Port Clinton were included in a Dugong Protection Area, and were also the subject of the Shoalwater Bay (Dugong) Plan of Management under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act). These measures effectively banned all forms of net fi shing within Shoalwater Bay itself, but allowed net fi shing, with some conditions, to continue in Island Head Creek and the creeks inside Port Clinton. Since that time, the numbers of dugong observed or reported dead in the Area have been minimal. An enforcement presence in SWBTA ensures that the legislative measures to protect dugong in SWBTA are effective.

Dugongs feeding in Port Clinton

244 | Marine Fauna

The conservation of dugong populations in Queensland began in the 1960s with the banning of the dugong oil industry (Marsh et al in review). Since then, a series of management interventions have occurred including:

• management partnerships with Aboriginal traditional owners;

• replacement of most shark nets with drum lines in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area;

• implementation of Dugong Protection Areas;

• voluntary vessel lanes and speed restrictions;

• review of the use of the herbicide diuron; • a marine wildlife carcass

salvage program; and • a dugong research strategy which

includes a dugong monitoring program based on aerial surveys (Marsh et al in review).

Even with these measures in place, it remains uncertain whether the southern populations of the dugong in Queensland are secure (Marsh 2000). It is now known that dugongs sometimes range across substantial distances in response to various environmental factors, although genetic studies suggest that if they disappear from an area it is unlikely to be recolonised quickly (Sheppard et al 2006; Marsh 2000).

SHOREBIRDS, SEABIRDS AND OTHER BIRDS USING MARINE HABITATS

Comprehensive surveys of shorebirds in SWBTA were undertaken in 1995 to nominate parts of SWBTA and Corio Bay as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. These surveys established that over 23 000 shorebirds utilise the Area; and that bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica, whimbrel Numenius phaeopus, eastern curlew Numenius madagascariensis, terek sandpiper Xenus cinereus, grey-tailed tattler Heteroscelus brevipes and pied oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris were present in numbers greater than 1% of the estimated East–Asian Australasian Flyway totals for each species (Driscoll 1996a, 1996b; O’Neill 1995). The occurrence of more than 20 000 birds in total, or a single species representing in numbers more than 1% of the fl yway population of that species, is enough justifi cation for nomination as a Ramsar wetland.

Migratory shorebirds depend on high quality feeding grounds and high-tide roosting sites throughout their fl yway. All intertidal fl ats in Shoalwater Bay, Island Head Creek, Port Clinton, around Leicester Island and on the western side of Townshend Island are utilised as feeding sites. Shorebirds are at their most dispersed during low tide periods when they are out feeding on these intertidal fl ats, some of which are more than a kilometre wide.

Cameron Mulville

Little terns in fl ight

Beach stone-curlew

Cameron Mulville

Marine Fauna | 245

Surveys in 1995 and 1996 identifi ed that beach-stone curlews Esacus neglectus are present in the Area in internationally signifi cant numbers (Figure 9.1). A total of 90 beach stone-curlews were recorded, well above the 1% fl yway threshold level of 50, based on an Australian estimate of 5 000 birds (Wetlands International 2006). The most important areas for this species in SWBTA are the northern islands including Leicester Island, which contain an ideal habitat mix of beach, headland, landward shelter and rocky intertidal areas. Beach stone-curlews feed almost exclusively on small crabs, which are locally abundant. The beach stone-curlew is listed as a vulnerable species under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD) and may have already declined on Queensland islands and in mainland areas where high levels of human disturbance occur (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

It is possible that SWBTA also contains signifi cant numbers of sooty oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosus, as they have been observed on many rocky headlands. Apart from two oystercatcher species and beach stone-curlews, the only other resident shorebird in the Area is the red-capped plover Charadrius rufi capillus. It is a common small bird of the foreshores and is often observed breeding at the top of sandy beaches or amongst samphire forblands and saltwater couch Sporobolus virginicus on saline mudfl ats.

Migratory shorebird species that are present within SWBTA in signifi cant numbers utilise varying habitats for roosting (Figure 9.2). Eastern curlew and bar-tailed godwit roost mainly in large aggregations sometimes totalling more than a thousand individuals of each species. These aggregations mostly occur on sand beaches or saline intertidal fl ats and generally include large numbers of other ground roosting species such as greater sand plover Charadrius leschenaultia, lesser sand plover Charadrius mongolus and red-necked stint Calidris rufi collis. Whimbrel, terek sandpiper and grey-tailed tattler tend to roost in smaller fl ocks scattered within mangroves, their signifi cant numbers only becoming apparent after tallying up counts from many small roosts. The two resident species behave differently, with pied oystercatchers forming into aggregated fl ocks when not breeding and beach-stone curlew remaining in pairs or small family groups all year round at or near to their breeding sites.

The only intertidal feeding habitat within SWBTA modifi ed by human activity is located adjacent to Triangular Island. This modifi cation is the result of underwater demolition training (Figure 9.3). This activity has had little or no effect on shorebird populations because of the irregular nature of the activity and because only relatively small areas are affected. In addition, the intertidal fl ats around Triangular Island have always been small and relatively unimportant for migratory shorebirds. Two pairs of beach stone-curlew live and breed annually on the tops of the beaches refl ecting the overall condition of this site.

246 | Marine Fauna

0 10 205 15

Kilometres

N

BEACH STONE-CURLEW SITES IN SWBTA (Mapped from 1995/96 surveys)

Mangrove forests / saline flats

1

2

3

4

Number of adults

FIGURE 9.1

Marine Fauna | 247

0 10 205 15

Kilometres

N

MIGRATORY SHOREBIRD ROOST SITES IN SWBTA(Mapped from 1995/96 surveys)

Large (>1000 birds)

Medium (100 - 999 birds)

Small (>100 birds)

Mangrove forests / saline flats

Roost size

FIGURE 9.2

248 | Marine Fauna

DETONATIONS

NO DETONATIONS

NO DETONATIONSDETONATIONS

0 190 380

Metres

Small boat harbour (old detonation site)

TRIANGULARISLAND (South)

TRIANGULARISLAND (North)

Channels and holes cut by detonations

Channels and holes cut by detonations

N

RESTRICTED AREAS ATTRIANGULAR ISLAND(2005 SPOT SATELLITE IMAGE)

FIGURE 9.3

Marine Fauna | 249

SWBTA is a useful benchmark for assessing the effects of habitat loss and mortality occurring in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway on migratory shorebird populations. This is because roosting and feeding areas remain intact in Shoalwater Bay compared to many other important shorebird areas in Australia. Some shorebird species are declining in number because of the loss of habitat at critical stopover locations on their migration routes (Gosbell & Clemens 2006). Such losses may eventually reduce the numbers of migratory shorebirds using Shoalwater Bay.

Australian pelicans Pelecanus conspicullatus nest on Akens Island and Pelican Rock, mostly during the summer months (O’Neill & Limpus in prep; Walker et al 1993). This colony is the only known pelican breeding colony on the Great Barrier Reef south of the tip of Cape York Peninsula (Walker et al 1993). In some years the colony exceeds 1000 breeding pairs, but more often comprises about 300–400 pairs. Pelicans are very susceptible to disturbance when breeding and the remoteness of these sites make them valuable breeding locations (O’Neill & Limpus in prep). Access to the island is prohibited by Defence, and height restrictions apply to aircraft.

A resident population of caspian terns Sterna caspia inhabit SWBTA and small numbers breed on Bay and Edward Islands annually during the winter months. Silver gulls Larus novaehollandiae are common and breed on many of the small islands in low numbers. Little terns Sterna albifrons are commonly seen throughout Shoalwater Bay feeding in the shallow coastal waters.

They are listed as endangered under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD), and their numbers during the summer months probably comprise a mixture of northern hemisphere breeding birds and a local breeding group. Although the species has not been observed nesting within SWBTA, small breeding colonies possibly form at times on exposed sand spits in locations such as Port Clinton and Island Head Creek. A small colony breeds at Sandy Point in Corio Bay immediately to the south of the Area, although this appears to be rarely successful due to continued disturbance from visitors in vehicles.

Little terns at Shoalwater Creek

Cameron Mulville

Mangroves, coastal cliffs and adjacent forests of SWBTA are important breeding areas for birds of prey. More than 50 nest sites of brahminy kite Haliastur indus, osprey Pandion haliaetus, white-bellied sea-eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster and peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus have been recorded (Figure 9.4). Only one white-bellied sea-eagle nest has been located, but at least six pairs of this species are known to reside in the Area. Their nests are diffi cult to locate, often well hidden in large trees a small distance from the coastline or creek banks. Other common birds of prey seen in the coastal areas of SWBTA are nankeen kestrels Falco cenchroides and whistling kites Haliastur sphenurus, but no nesting has yet been recorded.

250 | Marine Fauna

0 10 205 15

Kilometres

N

RECORDED RAPTOR NEST SITES(COASTAL AREAS ONLY)

Unknown species

Brahminy kite

Osprey

Peregrine falcon

White-bellied sea-eagle

Mangrove forests / saline flats

Species

FIGURE 9.4

Marine Fauna | 251

Herons and egrets are also common in marine habitats, with all Australian species represented in SWBTA. Great-billed herons Ardea sumatrana are near the southern extent of their range in SWBTA and only two have been sighted. The fi rst was observed in Shoalwater Creek in September 1971 (Nix 1972) and the second in the south-west part of East Creek in December 1995 (Driscoll 1996a). Eastern reef egrets Egretta sacra are common and probably breed on some of the smaller islands where stick nests have been observed.

Because of the importance of SWBTA for shorebirds, the Ramsar values pertaining to migratory shorebirds were re-assessed in 2007. It was determined that SWBTA remains an internationally important wetland for migratory shorebirds (Jaensch 2008). All original nomination criteria for Ramsar sites continue to be met. Importantly, no disturbances or threats to the shorebird populations in SWBTA were observed during these surveys, and no signifi cant loss of high-tide roost sites has occurred (Jaensch 2008). The 2007 surveys confi rm that the Area still supports at least 20 000 shorebirds, most of them migratory (Jaensch 2008). The surveys also confi rmed that at least six species of migratory shorebird still occur in numbers greater than 1% of their total population size. Major roost sites used in 1995 were still used in 2007.

Use of particular parts of intertidal fl ats by shorebirds is probably at least partly species dependant, because the various species employ different feeding strategies based on their size and bill shape. Major intertidal sand and mud fl ats of SWBTA are likely to support shorebird feeding at low tide, and all are regarded as ecologically important.

Brahminy kitePied oyster catchers in SWBTA

Cameron Mulville

Cameron Mulville

252 | Marine Fauna

REPTILES

Turtles

At least four species of marine turtle, including the green turtle Chelonia mydas, loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata, and fl atback turtle Natator depressus are known to forage in Shoalwater Bay, however the green turtle occurs in by far the greatest numbers (Limpus et al 2005). Shoalwater Bay is recognised as containing one of the largest and least impacted foraging populations of green turtles in eastern Australia (Limpus et al 2005). It is also one of the least disturbed coastal embayments along the east coast. For these reasons, Shoalwater Bay was chosen as a key index site for monitoring green turtle population dynamics (Limpus et al 2005). Studies of green turtle populations in the Area by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began in 1985 and are ongoing.

Over this period, only 1–2% of captured turtles in Shoalwater Bay exhibited some form of health problem compared with 10–20% of turtles captured in Moreton Bay (C. Limpus pers comm). Although no accurate population estimate for green turtles in Shoalwater Bay is available, observations suggest that about 500 turtles per kilometre may be present over at least 30 kilometres of mainland coastline during the winter months (C. Limpus pers comm).

Green turtles in Shoalwater Bay feed mostly on seagrass, but their diet also contains variable amounts of red algae and mangrove fruit. Many of the captured green turtles displayed strong site fi delity to the Area across decades, but some took up residency from other foraging areas in Queensland. Most (about 94%) of adult green turtles foraging in Shoalwater Bay are part of the southern Great Barrier Reef breeding population. The remainder come from breeding populations in the northern Great Barrier Reef, Coral Sea and New Caledonia (Limpus et al 2005).

Green turtles on seagrass in Shoalwater Bay

Cameron Mulville

Green turtle at low tide, Shoalwater bay

Marine Fauna | 253

There is some evidence of habitat partitioning amongst foraging green turtles based on age, with small immature turtles occurring mostly in the upper intertidal mangrove forests, rocky habitats and in drainage gutters across the intertidal fl ats. Green turtles foraging in Shoalwater Bay exhibit a strong growth spurt maximised when their midline curved carapace length (CCL) is between 60 and 70 cm. The resident green turtle population is strongly female-biased (Limpus et al 2005).

Only low-density marine turtle nesting has been observed on mainland and island beaches within SWBTA, although no comprehensive surveys have been undertaken. Small numbers of fl atback turtles have been observed nesting in SWBTA on the beaches of Akens Island and islands of the Skull Group such as Edward Island.

Crocodiles

Estuarine crocodile Crocodylus porosus numbers in SWBTA are thought to be small, although possibly increasing, indicated by more frequent sightings in recent times. Crocodiles up to four metres in length have been observed in Shoalwater Creek, with a few smaller animals also seen in Port Clinton. Although an unknown number of large animals were hunted from the area in the nineteenth century, the population appears to always have been small compared to populations in the Fitzroy River system to the south (Cosgrove 1996). This may indicate that SWBTA is sub-optimal breeding habitat for crocodiles.

Saltwater crocodile on Shoalwater Creek

254 | Marine Fauna

FISH AND INVERTEBRATES

Marine fi sh biodiversity was surveyed in Shoalwater Bay waters by the Australian and Queensland Museums in 1993 as part of scientifi c investigations for the 1994 Commission of Inquiry (Trnski et al 1993). A total of 428 marine species were collected, representing about 12% of the marine fi sh species of Australia (Trnski et al 1993). This high species diversity was found to be the result of both habitat diversity in the Area and an overlap of fauna regions. This latter point is illustrated by the large number of species found to be at or beyond their known range limits. Twenty were southern species at their northern range limit and 51 were northern species at their southern limit. Some range extensions are large, for example the mudskipper Periophthalmus novaeguineaensis was previously only known as far south as Townsville and Booth’s pipefi sh Halicampus boothae was only known in Australian waters from Lord Howe Island.

Trnski et al (1993) also suggest that the most important components of fi sh habitat diversity in SWBTA are the large number of headlands with rocky reefs, the extensive mangrove forests and seagrass meadows providing large nursery areas, and the high tidal range creating turbid water conditions. Headlands in the Area support the most extensive rocky reefs north of New South Wales (Trnski et al 1993). These fi ndings were confi rmed in further surveys (Ayling et al 1998). These fringing reefs have relatively high coral cover when compared to other fringing reefs within the strong tidal region between Mackay and Port Clinton (Ayling et al 1998).

Andrew McDougall

Feather star in Port Clinton

Marine Fauna | 255

As late as 1996 it was reported that the quantitative status of fi sh stocks in the Shoalwater Bay area were unknown (Fitzsimmons 1996). Most of Shoalwater Bay is now closed to fi shing under the GBRMP Zoning Plan 2003. The Capricorn Tag and Release Sportfi shing Club (Captag) has been collecting information on fi sh stocks in the creeks of southern Shoalwater Bay, with Defence support since 2000. Captag collects data on effort, catch, fi sh size, movement and growth (Sawynok & Platten 2007). Key species targeted are barramundi Lates calcarifer, pikey bream Acanthopagrus berda, yellowfi n bream Acanthopagrus australis, goldspotted cod Epinephelus coioides, barred javelin Pomadasys kaakan, mangrove jack Lutjanus argentimaculatus, golden snapper Lutjanus johnii, blue threadfi n Eleutheronema tetradactylum and king threadfi n Polynnemus sheridani.

As might be expected, a high proportion of most species caught in this study are above the legal size limit, indicating robust adult populations (Sawynok & Platten 2007). However, some reef species such as saddletail snapper Lutjanus malabaricus are mostly below the legal size limit. This indicates the Area is important for some juvenile reef fi sh, and many of the species found in the creeks in Shoalwater are known to spend part of their life cycle on the Great Barrier Reef (Sawynok & Platten 2007). While most recaptured fi sh were caught within two kilometres of where they were tagged in Shoalwater Bay, some have travelled further — a giant trevally Caranx ignobilis was recaptured near Bustard Head, 270 kilometres to the south.

There has been one scientifi c study of the diversity and abundance of marine invertebrates in SWBTA (Lewis et al 1981). This study was restricted to sampling from fi ve transects at Triangular Island. One hundred and sixty marine invertebrate species from at least 58 families were identifi ed (Lewis et al 1981). Given the abundance and diversity of both intertidal and subtidal habitat present in the Area, the overall abundance and diversity of marine invertebrates in SWBTA is probably much higher than indicated by this single restricted study.

Andrew McDougall

Colonial ascidian in Port Clinton

256 | Marine Fauna

MANAGED INTERACTIONSSWBTA supports commercial and recreational crabbing and fi shing industries. The remoteness of the Area and diffi culties of access means fi shing pressure is lower than in many other locations along the Queensland coast. However, marine parks and fi sheries agencies recognise the ongoing need for a strong management presence, particularly because of the ecological values of the Area.

COMMERCIAL FISHING

The activities of commercial fi shers, as with other users, can have detrimental effects on marine wildlife in SWBTA. To help understand the current level and type of commercial fi shing activity in the Area, information has been compiled on commercial fi shing catch and effort in Figures 9.5 and 9.6 (source DPI&F 2007). These data include areas outside SWBTA, up to Stanage Bay township in the north-west and down to and including Corio Bay in the south-east. Data are compiled in grid squares bounded by 150°–151° east and 22°–23° south. The Shoalwater Bay – Island Head Creek data are compiled from grid squares Q27, Q28, R27 and the Port Clinton – Corio Bay data from grid square R28. The total catch data are compilations from all four grid squares. When viewing these graphs it should be noted that netting is prohibited in all parts of the Dugong Protection Area in Shoalwater Bay west of Reef Point. Restricted netting is permitted in rivers and creeks in the remaining eastern parts including Island Head Creek and Port Clinton.

The amount of fi sh caught annually (tonnes) as reported by commercial net fi shermen in the Shoalwater Bay area dropped noticeably with the introduction of the Dugong Protection Area in 1999. After these reductions both the total catch recorded and the catches in eastern and western parts of SWBTA recovered to peaks in 2003, before dropping slightly to levels approximating those when recording began in 1988. This pattern is refl ected in the line fi shing effort data, although a slight overall decline in effort is apparent across this period. It is thought that the overall recovery in fi sh catch is the result of increased net fi shing effort in areas such as Island Head Creek, Port Clinton and Corio Bay.

The total mud crab Scylla serrata catch and effort have increased since the introduction of the Dugong Protection Area. This indicates a shift in emphasis away from the net fi shery to the crab pot fi shery in the Area.

Terek sandpipers in Head Creek

Marine Fauna | 257

0

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Year

Tonn

esTo

nnes

Tonn

esTo

nnes

1998 2000 2002 2004

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Year

1998 2000 2002 2004

5

10

20

15

25

30

35

40

0

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Year

1998 2000 2002 2004

10

20

30

40

50

90

60

70

80

0

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Year

1998 2000 2002 2004

10

20

30

40

50

80

70

60

Shoalwater Bay / Island Head Creek

Port Clinton / Corio BayDPA

Net fishing catch (all species)

Total net fishing catch (all species) Total mud crab catch

Shoalwater Bay / Island Head Creek

Port Clinton / Corio BayDPA

DPA

DPA

Mud crab catch

0

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Year

Day

sD

ays

Day

sD

ays

1998 2000 2002 2004

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Year

1998 2000 2002 2004

5

10

20

15

25

30

35

40

0

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Year

1998 2000 2002 2004

10

20

30

40

50

90

60

70

80

0

1988 1990 1992 1994 1996

Year

1998 2000 2002 2004

10

20

30

40

50

80

70

60

Shoalwater Bay / Island Head Creek

Port Clinton / Corio Bay

DPA

Days spent net fishing (all species)

Total days spent net fishing (all species) Total days spent catching mud crabs

Shoalwater Bay / Island Head Creek

Port Clinton / Corio Bay

DPA

DPA

DPA

Days spent catching mud crabs

Reported fi shing catch data from commercial net fi shing for all species (in blue) and mud crab fi sheries (in brown) in the Shoalwater Bay area from 1988 to 2005. (The vertical line on each graph highlights the year 1999 when the Shoalwater – Port Clinton Region Dugong Protection Area was declared.)

Reported fi shing effort data (as indicated by the number of days reported fi shing) from commercial net fi shing (in blue) and mud crab fi sheries (in brown) in the Shoalwater Bay area from 1988 to 2005. (The vertical line on each graph highlights the year 1999 when the Shoalwater – Port Clinton Region Dugong Protection Area was declared.)

FIGURE 9.5

FIGURE 9.6

258 | Marine Fauna

RECREATION

Recreational boating has markedly increased in the Area in recent years, probably due to a more fi nancially affl uent population able to afford the newer more powerful outboards and larger boats capable of covering greater distances. The increase in this type of boating activity is most notable in the eastern coastal areas with vessels travelling north from Rosslyn Bay Harbour, but some visits also originate from Stanage Bay.

In excess of 200 trailer boats are now launched daily from Rosslyn Bay in periods of fair weather. The estimated resident population of Livingstone Shire (now part of Rockhampton Regional Council) rose from about 22 000 in 1995 to over 30 000 by 2006 (DIP 2007). The number of boat registrations in the four local shires of Broadsound, Fitzroy, Livingstone and Rockhampton City also rose by over 25% between 2001 and 2007, reaching a total of over 8 000 (GBRMPA 2008).

Boat strike, particularly from fast vessels, presents a risk to whales, dolphins, turtles and dugongs across their distribution in Australia. This risk increases proportionately with numbers of animals, numbers of vessels and vessel speed. Turtles and dugongs are at particular risk from boat strike within SWBTA owing to their large numbers. However, boating activity is relatively low because of the Area’s remoteness, the fi shing closures in the GBRMP and Defence restrictions on access.

A recent study in Moreton Bay found that green turtles rely on visual cues rather than sound cues to avoid vessels, and even in relatively clear waters fl ight initiation distances were always less than 12 metres (Hazel et al 2007). In the often turbid waters of Shoalwater Bay the fl ight distances at which turtles respond to approaching vessels would be much less and inadequate to avoid a fast moving vessel. Limpus et al (2005) recorded 1.4% of 1 779 green turtles captured and released in Shoalwater Bay between 2000 and 2004 with fractures from previous interactions with boats and/or propellers. Although any human-induced mortality is cause for concern, this rate of injury is much less than recorded elsewhere (EPA 2007a).

Cruising yacht anchored at Freshwater Bay

Jennings (1997) reported that for the year from June 1995 to June 1996 the number of recreational boat use days for the Shoalwater Bay area was about 3 700, plus another 44 days for commercial tourist operators. Recreational boat use from Rosslyn Bay Harbour at Yeppoon has increased signifi cantly since 1996.

Marine Fauna | 259

TRADITIONAL HUNTING

Currently an unquantifi ed level of traditional hunting pressure on both dugong and green turtle occurs within SWBTA, although it is at a low level. Traditional hunting of both dugong and green turtle presents considerable threats to the viability of the Queensland populations of these two species (Heinsohn et al 2004; Limpus et al 2005; Marsh et al 1997, 2004). Both species are known to undertake large-scale movement, sometimes travelling thousands of kilometres and exposed to a wide variety of threats. The timing and extent of such movements are not yet fully understood, particularly for dugong.

Dugong numbers in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area south of Cooktown have been declining signifi cantly for decades for a complex range of reasons including accidental drowning in fi shing nets and shark nets, as well as traditional hunting (Marsh 2000). To facilitate recovery of the dugong population along the urban coast of Queensland (south of Cooktown) it has been recommended that, amongst other things, encouragement be continued for Traditional Owners not to hunt dugong in this region (Marsh & Lawler 2006). Annual human-related losses from the southern Great Barrier Reef green turtle stock are also probably unsustainable (Chaloupka 2002).

DEFENCE TRAINING

Military vessels – amphibious landings

One of the principal Defence training values of SWBTA is the ability to conduct amphibious landings. Practicing amphibious landings is important for offensive and defensive training purposes, and for humanitarian supply roles. Large amphibious operations only occur biennially at Freshwater Beach and Sabina Point, and specifi c approval must be obtained for all amphibious landings.

The number of Defence vessel days per year in SWBTA is less than 500, including ships, amphibious craft, small patrol vessels and tenders. These craft are generally not used in shallow waters or at high speeds. The sites most frequented are Sabina Point, Triangular Island, Supply Bay at the northern end of Townshend Island, and Freshwater Beach. A small outboard-powered Defence vessel is used for patrol work around inshore areas. This vessel compliments the regular sea patrols by Queensland Parks and Wildlife, Queensland Boating and Fisheries Patrol, and Water Police vessels, which total about 160 vessel days annually.

There are a number of reasons why amphibious landings do not harm marine wildlife such as dugong, turtles, dolphins, whales and shorebirds. Occurrence of these animals is sparse at Freshwater Bay and although humpback whales at times move past this section of coastline, they mostly travel further offshore. Humpback whales are most often seen during their southward migration from September to November, but are relatively easily spotted and avoided. Dugongs and marine turtles occur around Sabina Point, but amphibious landings only occur at high tide. At these times these animals are dispersed, feeding on the extensive seagrass beds of the intertidal zone. Defence takes a precautionary approach to ensure protection of whales during

260 | Marine Fauna

training exercises at sea. Comprehensive mitigation measures are contained in the Defence’s Maritime Activities Environmental Management Plan. The plan specifi es that all ships must maintain a watch for whales and when underway maintain a separation distance of at least 550 yards from any whales sighted. The locations of all whales sighted must be immediately reported to any other ships working in the area.

Military vessels – sonar

Sonar is an acronym for Sound Navigation and Ranging and there are two basic types. The fi rst are passive sonars which are essentially very sensitive underwater listening devices capable of determining the presence, characteristics and direction of marine noise sources. These devices only receive sound and are no threat to marine life.

Active sonars transmit sound and listen for the echoes to determine the relative positions of submerged objects including submarines, rocks, fi sh, mines and wrecks. Active sonar devices are used on all types of vessels from small recreational fi shing boats to commercial cargo and navy ships. They are important instruments for navigation because of their ability to detect sea depth. Active sonar comes in many forms including the recreational echo sounders used by fi shermen, commercial systems to map sea fl oor contours, and advanced high-powered military systems used for detecting submarines.

One commonly used military sonar type is Mid-Frequency Active Sonar (MFAS), which is fi tted to frigates and destroyers, and is used in sonobuoys dropped from aircraft. These are used during exercises with stringent mitigation measures. As these sonars emit sound into the water, there is the potential for the equipment to impact upon marine animals that use sound for communication and to hunt prey. It is thought that different species of cetacean are affected differently by various types and levels of underwater noise (GBRMPA 2000).

The use of active sonar on military vessels has been implicated in a small number of marine mammal stranding events (Evans & England 2001; Fernández et al 2005), primarily involving beaked whales. Since the widespread introduction of high-powered active sonars in the mid-1960s, only a handful of stranding events involving less than 100 whales have been tenuously linked to sonars on military ships worldwide (URS 2004). None of these events has involved Australian warships. However, the scale of the risk of impact to marine mammals remains unclear.

MFAS is not operated within shallow marine embayments such as Shoalwater Bay, except for occasional system function tests, during which ships are required to reduce transmitter source power levels to the lowest practicable level and keep transmissions to a minimum. MFAS is used in anti-submarine warfare exercises conducted in the Coral Sea and discussion of the mitigation strategies used during such exercises is included here for completeness.

Some high frequency types of military sonars are used in Shoalwater Bay. They are used to detect mine shapes and are somewhat comparable to commercial echo sounders. These systems have little impact on marine fauna, and have not been implicated in stranding events. Potential impact is managed using visual monitoring and mitigation procedures prescribing shut-down distances from the ship if a marine mammal is detected.

Mitigation measures employed during training exercises provide protection for baleen whales — such as humpback, southern right and blue whales — and beaked whales. Exercise plans specifi cally address the use of sonar systems on ships. When MFAS is being used during an exercise, a lookout and reporting system for whales is deployed on all participating ships, particularly if the exercise occurs during the humpback whale migration period.

Marine Fauna | 261

Baleen whales are relatively easily detected during daylight hours, and a lookout for them is maintained from ships out to a range of 4 000 yards for a minimum of 30 minutes before commencing any sonar transmissions. If a minimum separation of 4 000 yards cannot be maintained between ship and the nearest whale, transmissions are suspended.

Visual surveillance for beaked whales is less effective owing to their small size and extended dive profi les. As a result, mitigation measures rely on avoidance of potential or known habitat types during the exercise planning phase. For example, planners avoid features such as seamounts, canyons or trenches that are more likely to be beaked whale habitat. These features are especially avoided where steep bathymetry is relatively close to land, which mirrors conditions experienced in some stranding events overseas. If these conditions are subsequently encountered then sonar transmissions must be either blanked in that direction or attenuated.

Education of all exercise participants about the wildlife sensitivities of SWBTA occurs prior to and during all exercises. Instruction includes environmental induction training, compulsory viewing of an environmental awareness fi lm, issuing environmental awareness cards, reference to relevant instructions and orders, and instructional briefi ngs. Participants are briefed about the important natural values of SWBTA such as dugong populations, seagrass meadows, shorebird roosting sites and islands where seabirds breed. Briefi ngs are usually delivered by Queensland Parks and Wildlife offi cers.

Navy clearance diving

Triangular Island, located on the eastern side of SWBTA, is used to train Royal Australian Navy (RAN) clearance divers and other personnel in the techniques of mine warfare, explosive ordnance disposal and explosive demolitions. This is a fundamentally important role for these personnel who undertake these tasks routinely.

Training takes place on average three to four times per year. Training typically involves searching for explosive ordnance underwater, its relocation to a suitable detonation position, and its safe disposal by explosive destruction. These activities closely mimic actual disposal requirements. The explosive types, the weight of the charges and the deployment methods used are necessarily highly variable to maximize exposure to various real-life situations. Explosive types include ANFO (ammonium nitrate and fuel oil), HBX-3, plastic explosives, H-6, ETN (detonating cord), composition B, and hose charges. Personnel also practice safe disposal of torpedo warheads, artillery shells and aircraft bombs, plastic explosives and detonating cord. Total explosive charge weights equivalent to up to about 500 kilograms of TNT are sometimes discharged, but most detonations are much smaller.

Defence is very aware that explosives used in the marine environment has the potential to injure or kill marine animals if appropriate management is not in place. The explosive shock waves and noise have the potential to affect fi sh, turtles and marine mammals, due to the rapid change in pressure resulting from shock waves. Scientifi cally verifi ed data demonstrates that fi sh with swim bladders may be seriously injured out to 300 metres from a 750 kilogram underwater detonation (Dunstan & Lewis 1980). The safe distance for a porpoise calf (similar to a dolphin calf and amongst the most sensitive of marine mammals) is about 1 300 m for a 500 kilogram explosive. A close relative of the dugong, the North American manatee Trichechus manatus may be injured at distances of up to 40 metres for adults and 85 metres for calves (GBRMPA 1997). These distances have been assessed and are safely within the Defence monitoring radius of 2 000 yards.

262 | Marine Fauna

Conduct of underwater demolition training at Triangular Island is subject to a series of stringent conditions outlined in an agreement signed by Defence and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) in 1996. These procedures are embedded within SWBTA Standing Orders and the newly revised Environmental Management Procedures for Triangular Island.

A study in 1999 by the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) measured and analysed shocks from 14 different underwater blasts at Triangular Island, using various explosive charges (Box et al 2000). The results showed that the clearance diver training conducted at Triangular Island would not generate shock waves of signifi cant amplitude to be injurious to mammals at distances greater than one kilometre (Box et al 2000). GBRMPA commissioned an anonymous review of this study which indicated that although the study was well conducted and the one kilometre safe range was reasonable, it would be prudent practice in relation to marine mammals to apply a safety factor of two to any derived range. More recent assessments predict that the potential for underwater detonations to cause injury to dugong more than 250 metres from the detonation sites at Triangular Island is extremely unlikely (URS 2005).

Defence has adopted a conservative monitoring range of 2 000 yards for underwater explosives activities. Boat surveys commence with a survey the day before the detonations, and then continuous monitoring from one hour prior to each detonation. If marine mammals or other key marine fauna (including sharks, turtles or birds) are detected, the fi ring is delayed until the animal moves out of the area. A range of additional mitigation measures are in place, as described below.

Personnel are also required to keep a record of sightings of animals, which together with the detonation log are passed to Range Control staff for review. Range Control staff must also be immediately notifi ed of any incident involving key marine species, so that trained response personnel may intervene if necessary.

Defence mitigation measures used during underwater explosives activities include:• maintaining a 2 000 yard

monitoring radius, signifi cantly larger than necessary, to ensure a precautionary approach;

• commencing surveys the day before the detonations;

• continuing surveys throughout the detonation schedule, commencing one hour prior to the fi rst charge;

• placing explosives in scoured holes and channels. This practice greatly attenuates the effects of blasts, and limits substrate damage to existing blast holes;

• prohibiting explosives use at certain places around the island (Figure 9.3) including within 200 metres of the nearest seagrass, sponge bed, rocky reef or coral reef;

• limiting the size of explosives that may be detonated in locations deemed more sensitive, with large explosions confi ned to specifi c sites;

• conducting the ramp-up series of explosions from smallest to largest, with the largest always detonated last;

• recommencing the ramp-up of explosions as for a new activity if two high tides have passed;

• ensuring the various munitions used in each explosion do not explode simultaneously. This time separation broadens the size of the shock wave, further limiting impacts on marine animals (Box et al 2000);

• avoiding high speeds and violent manoeuvres in safety vessels to limit the likelihood of collision with marine mammals; and

• upholding mandatory reporting and incident response obligations.

Marine Fauna | 263

These mitigation procedures greatly reduce the likelihood of injury to marine mammals and turtles, and they are strictly adhered to for all underwater demolition operations.

Low-fl ying aircraft

Defence low-fl ying aircraft activities are mainly focused on the two aircraft target sites on Townshend Island. On average, aircraft fl y over these targets 100 days per year. These comprise fl ights by both jets and helicopters. As with any human disturbance, low-fl ying aircraft are known in some circumstances to cause shorebirds and seabirds to lift off from breeding, feeding and roosting sites (Hicks et al 1987; Retallick & Bolitho 1996). Such disturbance, if suffi ciently repetitive, can have signifi cant effects on breeding success and may affect survival of birds such as migratory shorebirds that rely on good body condition for enduring long migrations.

Defence aircraft fl y largely on east-west fl ight paths, which often bring them directly over Canoe Passage. Canoe Passage is host to medium numbers of feeding and roosting migratory shorebirds (Driscoll 1996a; Jaensch 2008; O’Neill 1995). Adjacent Leicester Island is host to a relatively high density of beach stone-curlews Esacus neglectus, which are listed as Vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD) and protected under the EPBC and GBRMP Acts.

Other Areas of Conditional Use are Akens Island, Bay Island and Leicester Island and Pelican Rock, which are identifi ed as fauna protection areas and have the same access restrictions applied. These areas also have over-fl ying restrictions to protect nesting seabirds and shorebirds.

It is well known that shorebirds and seabirds are susceptible to human disturbance (Burton et al 1996; Pfi ster et al 1992; Thomas et al 2003), with some evidence that many small disturbances are more detrimental than fewer, larger disturbances (West et al 2002). Continual disturbance can result in displacement from preferred roosting and feeding sites, abandonment of an area (Pfi ster et al 1992), and loss of physical condition resulting in mortality or inability to migrate and breed (West et al 2002).

In November 2000, tests were conducted on the west side of Townshend Island to investigate the response of shorebirds to over-fl ying jet aircraft (O’Neill & Holmes 2000). Sound level recordings and behavioural observations of shorebirds were made during a single fl ight overpass by a Singaporean Airforce A4 Skyhawk and 28 fl ight overpasses by Australian F-111 aircraft, fl ying typical low-level fl ight paths for the area. Eighteen overpasses occurred while the intertidal fl ats were exposed and shorebirds were feeding on them, and the remaining eleven overfl ights occurred at high tide while the shorebirds were roosting in nearby mangroves. On eight occasions, a response was observed in birds feeding on the mudfl ats as planes fl ew overhead. These responses were minor and temporary, with birds lifting into the air and circling around for less than one minute before landing and continuing to feed. No response was recorded from any bird roosting in mangroves. It was concluded that the present levels and type of aircraft use at Townshend Island cause only biologically insignifi cant disturbance to shorebirds in surrounding areas, and probably cause no more impact than boat traffi c. Due to the irregularity of fl ights over Townshend Island, it is unlikely that birds have become habituated to aircraft.

Given the documented condition and status of migratory shorebird and other bird populations in SWBTA it is considered that any threat posed by low-fl ying aircraft in the Area is minimal, and cannot be regarded as a current pressure.

264 | Marine Fauna

PRESSURESMARINE POLLUTION

Pollution from oil has been previously identifi ed as a pressure in Chapter 7. This pressure is as relevant to some fauna species as it is to marine vegetation and habitats. In particular, seabirds and shorebirds are susceptible to effects from oil spilled at sea.

Injury or fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris is a Listed Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act. Some pressure on marine fauna in SWBTA comes from the large amounts of discarded shipping and fi shing industry waste found in the waters and along the shoreline. Marine fauna particularly susceptible to entanglement and ingestion include birds, turtles and marine mammals (EPA 2000, 2007b; Keissling 2003; <http://www.ghostnets.com.au/>).

Defence personnel collected 600 kilograms of rubbish from a short two kilometre section of Freshwater Beach in April 2007 during an annual Australia Day volunteer beach clean-up. About 80% of the items collected were made of plastic or nylon, and mostly associated with fi shing. These fi gures did not include any of the larger piles of nets and ropes that were too heavy to remove by hand. Other major components of this rubbish included bottles, fi sh bins, buckets, plastic bait bags, light bulbs, oil and fuel containers, fi shing fl oats and bait holders. Although not measured, a sizable proportion of this fi shing industry discard displayed non-English text indicating it may originate from foreign vessels.

There are no current data to indicate whether the quantity of marine debris washed up in SWBTA is increasing or decreasing. Substantial amounts of litter are periodically exposed in the coastal sand dunes whenever they are eroded by rough seas indicating that debris has been washing ashore for some time. SWBTA shares the same marine debris issues as the remainder of the GBRMP.

Marine rubbish on the beach at Freshwater Bay

Marine Fauna | 265

RESPONSESMARINE POLLUTION

A complete discussion of the regulatory framework for marine pollution is given in Chapter 7. As SWBTA is an importer of marine rubbish rather than an exporter, there is little Defence can do to respond to the pressure of marine debris, other than to continue beach clean-ups and document the categories of debris for future trend analysis. Under Defence policy the discharge of garbage (including food waste) from naval vessels into waters of the GBRMP is prohibited. The discharge of some non-biodegradable garbage such as plastics and medical and sanitary waste is prohibited in any location.

RECOMMENDATIONS Marine fauna populations in SWBTA remain in good condition and many are regionally, nationally or internationally important. The following recommendations are aimed at maintaining the status of these populations, determining the status of some others, and ensuring Defence remains in a position to be able to report on their condition in the future.

1. Support and encourage research to improve understanding of marine fauna populations in SWBTA. Assessments of the status of shorebird, green turtle and dugong populations every three to fi ve years will provide ongoing information about these signifi cant migratory species in an Australia-wide context. In addition, more information about the distribution and abundance of Australian snubfi n and Indo-Pacifi c humpback dolphins is highly desirable. More extensive characterisation of other marine species populations may also be benefi cial, particularly pipefi sh, sea-horses, sea snakes and invertebrates.

2. Continue collaboration and close working arrangements with the GBRMPA and Queensland Environment Protection Agency. Working relationships between Defence, GBRMPA and the Queensland Environment Protection Agency has ensured good environmental outcomes in relation to a range of marine fauna issues. Formal contact occurs regularly through the Environmental Advisory Committee for SWBTA, and this relationship must continue in light of the increasing human pressures on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Australian pelicans on Pelican Rock

Dugongs near Akens Island

Cameron Mulville

266 | Marine Fauna

BIBLIOGRAPHYAyling, AM, Ayling, AL & Berklemans, R 1998, Shoalwater Bay fringing reef resource assessment, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

Bannister, JL & Headley, SL 2001, ‘Southern Hemisphere Group IV humpback whales: their status from recent aerial surveys’, Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, vol 47, no 2, pp 587–598.

Box, P, Marian, F & Wiese, D 2000, Shoalwater Bay Defence Training Area Dugong Research Program Underwater Blast Measurements, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Maritime Platforms Division, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Melbourne.

Burton, NHK, Evans, PR & Robinson, MA 1996, ‘Effects on shorebird numbers of disturbance, the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artifi cial island at Hartlepool, Cleveland’, Biological Conservation, vol 77, no 2–3, pp 193–201.

Chaloupka, M 2002, ‘Stochastic simulation modelling of southern Great Barrier Reef green turtle population dynamics’, Ecological Modelling, vol 148, pp 79–109.

Chittleborough, RG 1965, Dynamics of two populations of humpback whale, Megaptera nodosa (Bonnaterre), Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, vol 16: pp 33–128.

Clapham, P, Mikhalev, Y, Franklin, W, Paton, D, Baker, S & Brownell Jr, RL 2005, ‘Catches of Humpback Whales in the Southern Ocean, 1947–1973’, unpublished Paper SC/57/SH 6 to International Whaling Commission.

Cornelius, J 1987, ‘Waders along a section of the Great Barrier Reef’, The Stilt, vol 10, p 36.

——1988, ‘Waders in the Far Northern Great Barrier Reef’, The Stilt, vol 12, pp 54–55.

Cosgrove, B 1996, Shoalwater Bay, Settlers in a Queensland Wilderness, Central Queensland University Press, Rockhampton.

Dawbin, WH 1966, ‘The seasonal migratory cycle of humpback whales’, in KS Norris (ed), Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Dennison, WC & Abal, EG 1999, Moreton Bay Study: A Scientifi c Basis for the Healthy Waterways Campaign, South East Queensland Regional Water Quality Management Strategy, Brisbane 246 p.

Department of Environment 1997, Conservation and management of whales and dolphins in Queensland 1997–2001, Background information on whales and dolphins in Queensland, Department of Environment, Brisbane.

Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2007, Population and Housing Fact Sheet, Livingstone Shire, Department of Infrastructure and Planning, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2007, Chrisweb database, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Queensland.

DIP—see Department of Infrastructure and Planning

DoE—see Department of Environment

DPI&F—see Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries

Driscoll, PV 1996a, Survey of shorebird feeding areas and roosts in the Shoalwater Bay area, report on fi eldwork conducted in December 1995, for the Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane.

——1996b, The Distribution of Waders along the Queensland Coastline, report by Queensland Ornithological Society Inc & Queensland Wader Study Group for the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane.

Marine Fauna | 267

Dunstan, I & Lewis, J 1980, The Effects of Underwater Explosions on Marine Life in Shoalwater Bay, Queensland, Department of Defence.

Environmental Protection Agency 1999, Conservation and management of the dugong in Queensland 1999–2004, Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

——2000, ‘Litter causes rare whale’s death’, EQ, News from the Environmental Protection Agency & Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Issue 4, October 2000, Brisbane.

——2007a, ‘Boat strike impact on turtle and dugong in Moreton Bay’, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane, updated 30 May 2007, viewed 24 August 2008, available at <http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/parks_and_forests/ marine_parks/ moreton_bay_marine_park/ boat_strike_impact_on_turtle_and_dugong_in_moreton_bay/>.

——2007b, ‘StrandNet database’, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane, available at <http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/ nature_conservation/wildlife/caring_for_wildlife/ marine_strandings>.

EPA—see Environmental Protection Agency

Evans, DL & England, GR 2001, Joint Interim Report Bahamas Marine Mammal Stranding Event of 15-16 March 2000, joint report by US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and by US Department of the Navy.

Fernández, A, Edwards, JF, Rodríguez, F, Espinosa de los Monteros, A, Herráez, P, Castro, P, Jaber, JR, Martín, V & Arbelo, M 2005, ‘“Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome” Involving a Mass Stranding of Beaked Whales (Family Ziphiidae) Exposed to Anthropogenic Sonar Signals’, Veterinary Pathology, vol 42, pp 446–475.

Fitzsimmons, L 1996, Status of fi sheries and fi sheries resources in Shoalwater Bay, report by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Southern Fisheries Centre to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

Garnett, ST & Crowley, GM 2000, The Action Plan for Australian Birds, Environment Australia, Canberra.

GBRMPA—see Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Gosbell, K, & Clemens, R 2006, ‘Population monitoring in Australia: some insights after 25 years and future directions’, Stilt, vol 50, pp 145-157.

Grayson, J, Marsh, H & Hamann, M 2006, Information to assist Torres Strait Islanders manage their traditional fi sheries for dugongs and green turtles, Final Report for the Ocean Park Conservation Foundation, James Cook University, Townsville.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1981, Nomination of the Great Barrier Reef by the Commonwealth of Australia for inclusion on the World Heritage List, UNESCO, 37 pp.

—— 1997, Shoalwater Bay (Dugong) Plan of Management, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia.

—— 2000, Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: policy document, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

—— 2007, Operational Policy on Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, viewed 24 August 2008, available at <http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_fi le/0008/20132/whale__dolphin_operational_policy_mpa.pdf>.

268 | Marine Fauna

——2008, ‘Vessel Registration Levels for Great Barrier Reef Coastal Communities’, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, viewed 24 August 2008, available at <http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/tourism/gbr_visitation/rec_vessels/>.

Hazel, J, Lawler, IR, Marsh, H & Robson, S 2007, ‘Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle Chelonia mydas’, Endangered Species Research, vol 3, pp 105–113.

Heinsohn, GE, Marsh, H & Spain, AV 1976, ‘Extreme risk of mortality to dugongs (Mammalia: Sirenia) from netting operations’, Australian Wildlife Research, vol 3, pp 117–121.

Heinsohn, R, Lacy, RC, Lindenmayer, DB, Marsh, H, Kwan, D & Lawler, IR 2004, ‘Unsustainable harvest of dugongs in Torres Strait and Cape York (Australia) waters: two case studies using population viability analysis’, Animal Conservation, vol 7, pp 417–425.

Hicks, JT, King, BR & Chaloupka, MY 1987, Seaplane and vessel disturbance of nesting seabird colonies on Michaelmas Cay, Management Report, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.

Jaensch, R 2008, A condition assessment of wetlands and waterbirds in the Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Part 4: numbers of migratory shorebirds, report by Wetlands International for the Australian Government, Department of Defence, Brisbane.

Jennings, G 1997, Recreational Usage Patterns of Shoalwater Bay and Adjacent Waters, report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Rural Social and Economic Research Centre, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton.

Keissling, I 2003, Finding solutions: derelict fi shing gear and other marine debris in northern Australia, report prepared by the Key Centre for Tropical Wildlife Management at Northern Territory University, for the National Oceans Offi ce & Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Lewis, JA, Dunstan, IC & Forsyth, JR 1981, Biological survey of marine communities around Triangular Island (Shoalwater Bay, Queensland), Report MRL-R-810 by Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Materials Research Laboratories, Department of Defence, Melbourne.

Limpus, CJ, Limpus, DJ, Arthur, KE & Parmenter, CJ 2005, Monitoring Green Turtle Population Dynamics in Shoalwater Bay: 2000–2004, Research Publication No 83, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia.

Marsh, H 2000, ‘Evaluating management initiatives aimed at reducing the mortality of dugongs in gill and mesh nets in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area’, Marine Mammal Science, vol 16, no 3, pp 684–694.

——, Corkeron, P, Lawler, IR, Lanyon, JM & Preen, AR 1996, The status of the dugong in the southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Research Publication No 41, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia.

——, De’ath, G, Gribble, N & Lane, B 2005, ‘Historical marine population estimates: Triggers or targets for conservation? The dugong case study’, Ecological Applications, vol 15, pp 481–492.

——, Harris, ANM & Lawler, IR 1997, ‘The Sustainability of the Indigenous Dugong Fishery in Torres Strait, Australia / Papua New Guinea’, Conservation Biology, vol 11, no 6, pp 1375–86.

——& Lawler, IR 2001, ‘Dugong Distribution and Abundance in the Southern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Hervey Bay: Results of an Aerial Survey in October–December 1999’, Research Publication No 70, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville. viewed 24 August 2008, available at: <http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/research_publications/rp070/index.html>.

Marine Fauna | 269

——& Lawler, IR 2006, Dugong distribution and abundance on the urban coast of Queensland: a basis for management, Interim Projects 2005–06, Project 2, Final Report, Marine and Tropical Science Research Facility, James Cook University, Townsville.

——, Lawler, I, Kwan, D, Delean, S, Pollock, K & Alldredge, M 2004, Dugong distribution and abundance in Torres Strait, Final Report to Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Torres Strait Research Program, James Cook University, Townsville.

——, Lawler, IR, Hodgson, A & Grech, A in review, ‘Is dugong management in the coastal waters of urban Queensland effective species conservation?’, Animal Conservation.

Maritime Safety Queensland 2006, Recreational Boating Survey Report, Queensland Government, Maritime Safety Queensland, Brisbane.

MSQ—see Maritime Safety Queensland

Mulville, C 2006, Fox Baiting Program for Shorebird Protection, Shoalwater Bay, progress report for Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Rosslyn Bay.

Nix, HA 1972, ‘Fauna of the Shoalwater Bay Area’, in RH Gunn, RW Galloway, J Walker, HA Nix, JR McAlpine & DP Richardson, Shoalwater Bay Area, Queensland, Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation ( CSIRO), Division of Land Use Research, Technical Memorandum 72/10, Part VII, Canberra.

Noad, MJ, Paton, D, & Cato, DH 2006, ‘Absolute and relative abundance estimates of Australian east coast humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)’, paper SC/A06/HW27 presented to International Whaling Commission workshop on the comprehensive assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales, Hobart, 4–7 April 2006, 15 pp.

O’Neill, P 1995, A preliminary survey of the shorebirds of the Shoalwater Bay area, Central Queensland, report for Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, Rockhampton.

——& Holmes, N 2000, Responses of feeding and roosting shorebirds in Canoe Passage to low fl ying military aircraft using Townshend Island bombing range, report from Environmental Protection Agency to Department of Defence, Rockhampton.

——& Limpus, CJ in preparation, ‘Akens Island, Great Barrier Reef, Queensland’, Seabird Island series, Corella.

Parra, GJ, Schick, R & Corkeron, P 2006,’ Spatial distribution and environmental correlates of Australian snubfi n and Indo-Pacifi c humpback dolphins’, Ecography, vol 29, no 3, pp 396–406.

Paton, AD, Brooks, L, Burns, D, Franklin, T, Franklin, W, Harrison, P & Baverstock, P 2006, First abundance estimate of east coast Australian humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) utilising mark-recapture analysis and multi-point sampling, Paper SC/A06/HW32 to International Whaling Commission, 11 pp.

Pfi ster, C, Harrington, BA & Lavine, M 1992, ‘The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a migration staging area’, Biological Conservation, vol 60, no 2, pp 115–126.

Retallick, RWR & Bolitho, EE 1996, ‘Disturbance of Beach Thick-knee Esacus magnirostris by aircraft’, The Stilt, vol 29, pp 36–37.

Sawynok, B & Platten, J 2007, Shoalwater Bay, Fish Stocks in southern creeks entering Shoalwater Bay, Report 12, report to the Department of Defence, Infofi sh Services, Frenchville.

Sheppard, JK, Preen, AR, Marsh, H, Lawler, IR, Whiting, SD & Jones, RE 2006, ‘Movement heterogeneity of dugongs, Dugong dugon (Müller), over large spatial scales’, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol 334, pp 64–83.

Thomas, K, Kvitek, RG & Bretz, C 2003, ‘Effects of human activity on the foraging behaviour of Sanderlings Calidris alba’, Biological Conservation, vol 109, no 1, pp 67–71.

270 | Marine Fauna

Trnski, T, Bray, DJ, Leis, JM, McGrouther, MA, & Reader, SE 1993, Survey of Fishes of Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Queensland, Report by the Australian Museum to the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry, Shoalwater Bay, Capricorn Coast, Queensland.

URS 2004, Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, (Working) Draft Report prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd for Directorate of Environmental Stewardship, Department of Defence, Canberra.

URS 2005, The Effects of Defence Activities on Triangular Island and its Environment, Shoalwater Bay, Queensland, report prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd for Department of Defence, Canberra.

URS 2008

Vang, L 2002, Distribution, abundance and biology of Group V humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae: A review, Conservation Management Report, Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Walker, TA, Domm, SB, Limpus, CJ & Birtles, RA 1993, ‘Pelican Rock, Great Barrier Reef, Queensland’, Seabird Islands No 219, Corella, vol 17, no 5, pp 149–141.

Watkins, D 1993, A National Plan for Shorebird Conservation in Australia, Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne.

West, AD, Goss-Custard, JD, Stillman, RA, Caldow, RWG, le V dit Durell, SEA, & McGrorty, S 2002, ‘Predicting the impacts of disturbance on shorebird mortality using a behaviour-based model’, Biological Conservation, vol 106, no 3, pp 319–328.

Wetlands International 2006, Waterbird Population Estimates – Fourth Edition, Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.