Section Priority 1 Action is critical to prevent - Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia - Priority 1 Action is critical to prevent extinction or to provide information critical for setting recovery goals; | Zoe
Priority 1 Action is critical to preventPriority 1 Action is critical to prevent extinction or to provide information critical for setting recovery goals;
Start here
Get a plain-English read of Priority 1 Action is critical to prevent
Turn the raw legal text into a practical explanation grounded in Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia.
2. Customary harvest by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
This plan seeks to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the national recovery and management of marine turtles and to restore and maintain marine turtle populations at levels that can support a sustainable indigenous subsistence harvest of turtles and eggs.
Marine turtles play a diverse role in the lives of coastal indigenous peoples and are significant in the continuing culture of Australia’s indigenous communities. The relationship is interwoven into the fabric of everyday cultural, spiritual, social and economic practices and future conservation and management strategies require the involvement and cooperation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
This plan identifies the need for negotiated agreements to be made between indigenous communities and land management agencies that acknowledge customary and statutory law and promote the recovery of species.
Agreements should reflect local conditions and allow these to influence management regimes, with parties to the negotiation, fulfilling their respective roles of resource managers and community leaders. A combination of customary and State/Territory/Commonwealth law may be the best combination to achieve the objective of a customary harvest that ensures the long-term survival and recovery of marine turtles in the wild and which does not contribute to any further decline of marine turtles.
All Australian marine turtle populations, except loggerhead turtles, are affected by indigenous harvest of eggs. The following populations are also affected by harvest for meat:
– all green turtle populations;
– to a lesser extent hawksbill turtles from the north eastern Australian and Great Barrier Reef population;
– olive ridley turtles from the Northern Territory population;
– flatback turtles from the Gulf of Carpentaria and North West Shelf; and
– loggerhead turtles from the North West Shelf.
Turtles are of enormous cultural, spiritual and economic (subsistence) importance to indigenous people. Through a long association with turtles, indigenous people have developed a detailed body of traditional ecological knowledge that includes information on the natural history and ecology of turtles. Turtles have spiritual significance, which is found in the stories and accounts of the past in many coastal indigenous communities. They have economic value because they provide sustenance, particularly for isolated communities where a nourishing diet is essential but often difficult to attain due to isolation and the high cost of store bought food. Furthermore, resources such as turtles and other traditional foods reinforce the culture and demonstrate affiliation with tradition and traditional estates.
In ceremonies, turtles play different roles for many coastal indigenous people. In some areas the turtle forms part of creation stories and can be found in all aspects of spirituality, art and life. The activity of pursuing the turtle itself may have great significance and be an expression of continuance of a long cultural tradition. The importance of the hunting and butchering of the turtle is also expressed through the social sharing of the animal as food according to traditional kinship protocols. The hunt may also form an important part of a young male’s progression from boyhood to manhood when given the opportunity for his first hunt.
Indigenous hunting of turtles has traditionally been managed through customary law. However, recent improvements in technology and the disruption of culture have affected this management. In some areas customary law can be used to manage the harvest, utilising protocols such as:
who can catch and cut up turtles;
not allowing the take of nesting turtles from the beach;
restrictions on the take of eggs;
seasonal closures of beaches and hunting areas; and
traditional owners regulating hunting in their traditional areas.
To ensure the recovery of turtle populations, customary harvest needs to be managed in a culturally sensitive manner so that it is ecologically sustainable. Cooperative management agreements – that is management agreements jointly developed by the relevant indigenous community and the lead agency for that jurisdiction - can both ensure sustainability and provide for community aspirations. These agreements should be based on sound science and local indigenous knowledge. Importantly, such agreements can be initiated, monitored and implemented by the communities themselves. Management agreements should also support humane methods of killing.
Community based management with support from governments is a legitimate and potentially effective management mechanism. To establish itself as an effective management influence, community management regimes need committed and skilled community members, while recognition, support and commitment from governments is critical (Hunter and Williams, 1998, Birkhead et.al. 1996).
Indigenous groups have expressed interest in having greater control over resource use and this may prove to be more effective for the conservation of marine turtles than using a strict law enforcement approach. Local indigenous communities and/or indigenous land management authorities should be engaged in cooperative relationships for enforcement and monitoring rather than increasing government regulatory structures.
Management in the Torres Strait
Green turtles are a traditional part of Torres Strait Islander culture and are hunted from dinghies by hand capture or using the traditional spear. In some of the islands of the Torres Strait Protected Zone (TSPZ) they are still an important source of meat protein. Torres Strait Islanders also eat eggs from green and hawksbill turtles, generally collected where turtles nest close to communities. Turtles are taken at any time during the year. The estimated annual catch by Australian traditional inhabitants in the TSPZ since 1994 is about 2500 turtles per year (Harris 1997). Under the Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority (PZJA), management restricts hunting to traditional inhabitants using traditional spears and prohibits sale of meat, shell or any other product.
Turtles are also caught by Torres Strait Islanders living south of the TSPZ and by Papua New Guineans in the coastal villages of the Papua New Guinea Western Province but there are no estimates of the annual catch from these areas. The Torres Strait Fisheries Assessment Group prepares a stock assessment report annually. This report details the take of marine turtles for the year, data collection methods and other information relevant to the region. It does not include any take by Papua New Guinea but a Papua New Guinea fisheries officer has been trained by AFMA and the Torres Strait Island Coordinating Council to collect data from the Western Province villages.
AFMA monitors turtle catches in two ways. A field data collection officer visits all TSPZ communities to collect catch and effort data. All schools in the Torres Strait islands and on Cape York collect catch data using a special calendar and sticker program. Both methods record size and sex information. AFMA conducts an education program at all schools, with islander officers teaching children about the life cycle of turtles and the need for a conservative approach to their harvesting. Similar education of adult hunters occurs through community meetings and AFMA’s weekly fisheries radio program. AFMA has prepared posters, fact sheets and other material on turtle conservation in Torres Strait. AFMA has assisted the high schools with a flatback and green turtle tagging program and run a promotional drive in all communities to encourage the return of turtle tags.
The Island Coordinating Council (ICC) and some other communities believe that levels of indigenous harvest need to be based on sound scientific assessment of target stocks.
Native Title
The Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993acknowledges that native title rights and interests may include rights to hunt, gather and/or fish. Where this Recovery Plan envisages the doing of an act as ‘affecting’ native title, such acts will need to be done in accordance with the requirements in the Native Title Act.
Table 9. Prescribed research (R) and management (M) actions to facilitate co-management of marine turtles with indigenous communities
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
A.2.1. Management agreements to be established between lead agencies and indigenous communities which: recognise customary law and the cultural significance of marine turtles; (M) quantify existing harvest using the best available science and local indigenous knowledge; (R) identify and implement negotiated mechanisms that will ensure that customary harvest does not threaten recovery of marine turtles; (M) control marine turtle use within the communities’ area; (M) recognise that communities only carry out harvesting for traditional
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communitiesLead agencies AFMA
Community management agreements are agreed and in place in each jurisdiction.
use; (M) recognise endangered or critically endangered species and implement a zero take where possible; (M) identify the research requirements of indigenous communities regarding marine turtle conservation; (M) and increase awareness of marine turtle conservation issues through information exchange. (M)
3. Marine Debris
Marine debris causes the death and debilitation of marine turtles and other marine wildlife (Balazs 1985, Cawthorn 1985). Unattended, lost or discarded nets, bait box bands, monofilament fishing line, six-pack yokes, polystyrene and other buoyant plastics and tar balls (weathered petroleum) have been the main concern (Balazs 1985, Cawthorn 1985). Anecdotal reports have received wide press coverage on the marine turtle mortality caused by discarded fishing nets and other debris in northern Australia, particularly in Arnhem Land (Leitch 1997, 1998). Mounsey (1997) reported that on Groote Eylandt the largest proportion of beach-washed discarded netting was from foreign trawl and drift nets. The foreign trawl netting was also identified with the highest level of marine turtle mortality although the mortality was not quantified (Mounsey 1997).
Identifying the sources of marine debris, responding to stranding events and quantifying mortality caused by marine debris are identified as the primary actions to monitor and manage marine debris as a threat to turtles (Table 10).
Some assessment of impact of ingested debris should be determined through post-mortem examinations of stranded animals. The identification of the source of the debris that affects marine turtles will allow a more strategic approach to any follow-up activities with polluters, who could then be the target of compliance and/or education programs.
Shipping has been identified as one source of marine debris. To combat this problem Australia has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. In particular, Annex V relates to garbage from ships and came into force in Australia in November 1990.
The marine turtle populations affected by marine debris 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 (Queensland) Australian population; leatherback turtles; olive Ridley turtles from the Northern Territory; flatback turtles from Arnhem Land; and Western Australian populations (potential problem but not known at present).
Table 10. Prescribed research (R) and management (M) actions to mitigate incidental mortality resulting from marine debris
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
A.3.1. Lead agencies to: monitor mortality of marine turtles due to entanglement in marine debris; and identify the source of marine debris. (See also action C.1.3.) (R)
Lead agencies
The level of mortality is quantified and the source is identified.
A.3.2. NT agencies to determine the source of the nets entangling marine turtles and the magnitude of their mortality in the Cape Arnhem region. (R)
NTDPIF PWCNT
The source of netting entangling turtles at Cape Arnhem is identified
A.3.3. Lead agencies to undertake remedial action to prevent/reduce marine turtle mortality in stranding events caused by marine debris. (M)
Lead agencies
Lead agencies will respond to debris events.
A.3.4. Commonwealth, States and NT to implement legislation for the prevention of garbage discharge from vessels of all sizes. (M)
AMSAStates/NT
Legislation is brought into force in State/NT jurisdictions to prevent the discharge of garbage from vessels of all sizes.
4. Shark Control Activities
Marine turtle mortality in shark control activities has been identified as an issue both in New South Wales and Queensland waters. The death of marine turtles in shark control programs has been documented in Queensland by Paterson (1990) and Gribble et.al. (1998) and in New South Wales by Reid and Krogh (1992). The need to reduce the take and monitor future take is identified (Table11).
Shark control activities such as meshing and drumline placement have been identified as having a low or uncertain impact on marine turtle populations. Baited drumlines are reported to catch loggerhead turtles. During the period 1992
to 1996 the Queensland shark control program capture rate has averaged 84 per year of all species, but 87 per cent were released alive, including 90 per cent of all loggerhead turtles (Gribble et.al. 1998). A review of the Queensland shark control program (Department of Primary Industries 1998) identified the need to develop a hook that would catch fewer loggerhead turtles or bait that was less attractive to them. The report also identified the need to continue research into areas where performance could be improved such as baited line technology, acoustic alarms and monitoring of species catch (Department of Primary Industries 1998).
In New South Wales, Reid and Krogh (1992) identified a low rate of marine turtles caught in shark control nets. Between 1950 and 1993 a total of 56 turtles were caught with 84 per cent being caught in the Newcastle region.
Table 11. Actions to mitigate incidental mortality and monitor marine turtles in shark control activities
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
A.4.1. Develop and trial shark control methods that reduce marine turtle take. (R)
QDPI
Reduce catch of marine turtles by 10% per year:especially to reduce the take of loggerhead turtles below 10% and ultimately to 0%; and to reduce the take of green turtles significantly.
A.4.2. Determine the mortality and species composition of marine turtle bycatch in shark control activities. (R)
QDPINSW Fisheries
QDPI will liaise with QEPA and provide data on marine turtle bycatch in shark control activities.EA will liaise with New South Wales Fisheries and provide data on marine turtle bycatch in shark control activities.
5. Boat Strike
Marine turtle mortality due to boat strike has been identified as an issue in Queensland waters, principally in Moreton Bay and Hervey Bay. The need to restrict boat speed in areas of important marine turtle habitat is identified (Table 12) and opportunities for awareness raising and educative activities with boat users should be utilised.
The Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) Zoning Plan 1997 allows for the designation of turtle and dugong areas where a person must not (a) operate a speedboat in a planing or non-displacement mode; or (b) operate a boat, hovercraft or personal watercraft in a way or at a speed that could reasonably be expected to result in the striking of a sea turtle or dugong.
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 and Reimer 1994) where there are large numbers of boats and other pleasure craft. Data from beach-washed marine turtles can be used to identify areas and seasons where boat strike is significant.
Marine turtles suffering from disease or parasites may be debilitated, spending more time on the surface and taking shallower dives with longer post-dive resting periods. In such cases they are more exposed to boat strikes. Post- mortem examinations of boat-struck marine turtles may not identify the underlying cause of the death particularly if parasites or disease have debilitated the turtle. Veterinary pathologists should be used to establish the cause of death where their services are available.
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.
Table 12. Actions to mitigate incidental mortality and monitor the boat strike of marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
A.5.1. QEPA to identify areas of high boat strike. (R)
QEPA
Areas of high boat strike are identified.
A.5.2. QEPA to liaise with Queensland Transport to determine the feasibility of zoning boat speed restrictions where appropriate. (M)
QEPA
Restrictions are applied.
6. Pearl Farming and Other Aquaculture Activities
Concern has been expressed about the potential impact on marine turtles through light disturbance and entanglement in equipment used in pearl farming and aquaculture. There is no available evidence to suggest any mortality due to pearl farming and aquaculture but a precautionary approach is appropriate. Actions are identified in Table 13.
Table 13. Actions to mitigate incidental mortality resulting from pearl farming and aquaculture
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
A.6.1. Fisheries managers to encourage pearl farming and aquaculture licensees to use appropriate, non-disturbing, lighting technology. (M)
WACALMFisheries WA PWCNTNTDPIF
Appropriate lighting is used.
A.6.2. Operators to monitor any incidental mortality of marine turtles in aquaculture operations. (M)
WACALMFisheries WA PWCNTNTDPIF
Marine turtle mortality and bycatch is reported to lead agencies.
A.6.3. Develop less appealing craypot buoys to minimise leatherback entanglement in Tasmanian waters.
EA TDPIWE
Appropriate craypot buoys developed.
7. Defence Activities
Periodically the Department of Defence may undertake activities that could impact on marine turtles, such as the use of explosives or landing craft on beaches. The impact of Defence activities on marine turtles and their habitat is not known but can be inferred. Explosive ordnance, if not appropriately managed, is known to cause marine turtle deaths (Klima et.al. 1988, Gitschlag and Herczeg 1994) or to modify their behaviour (Lenhardt et.al. 1983).
Defence activities can be conducted in a manner that minimises the risk of ill effects on the surrounding environment. Examples of measures, which can be used to reduce the threats to marine turtles and their habitat, are:
minimising activities that have a potential impact on turtle rookeries during the nesting season;
pre-exercise surveys of beaches, sand flats and sea grass beds for marine turtles; and,
developing environmental management systems for relevant Defence training areas that include site-specific management plans for known and potential marine turtle rookery areas.
Actions to manage any potential impacts are identified in Table 14.
Table 14. Actions to mitigate mortality and monitor marine turtles in relation to Defence activities
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
A.7.1. In consultation with lead agencies, the Department of Defence is to ensure that environmental impact assessments and environmental management plans for Defence activities minimise any possible effects on turtle populations and habitats; (M) cooperate with lead agencies to develop management strategies for affected marine turtle populations including monitoring sites on selected Defence estate. (M/R)
Department of DefenceLead agencies
Assessments and plans recognise marine turtle conservation.Management strategies are developed.
Specific Objective B.
Develop programs and protocols to monitor marine turtle populations in Australian waters, assess the size and status of those populations and the causes of their mortality, and address information gaps.
Introduction
Long-term data sets for marine turtle populations are rare. The Queensland Turtle Research Project has provided much of the information identifying the continued decline of marine turtles in Australia, particularly the eastern Australian population of loggerhead turtles. The establishment of monitoring programs for key marine turtle populations is necessary to determine the status of marine turtles nationally, to detect change and to measure the effectiveness of management. Combined with a genetic analysis of the composition of populations on feeding grounds and the determination of the geographic range of breeding populations, key demographic parameters can be monitored over time to detect population trends. Adequate information will allow the development of future recovery plans based on population trends rather than the amelioration of threats.
Recent work has been able to identify genetically discrete populations of marine turtles in Australian waters and those of near neighbours in the Asia/Pacific region (Moritz et.al. 1998a). This allows the partitioning of some species into management units (Moritz et.al. 1998b). The Recovery Team recognises that to complete this picture it may be necessary to visit neighbouring countries to establish the level of harvest of Australian populations through the analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). This will enable management regimes between nations to be harmonised through agreed arrangements.
The educational benefits of monitoring can be significant. If access to beaches is managed intensively and extension services provided there is a visible educational benefit in exposing people to nesting marine turtles. Mon Repos Conservation Park on Queensland’s Bundaberg coast demonstrates this (Kay 1995).
1. Monitor Key Populations and Stranded Marine Turtles
The establishment of nationally consistent monitoring programs in each jurisdiction is critical (Table 31). Any long- term monitoring program must prioritise populations and ensure that data collection is consistent across species and jurisdictions. The establishment of a database in each jurisdiction will allow the collation of data on turtles that have been tagged, stranded marine turtles, the causes of mortality and nesting turtles. Data from monitoring programs should be published regularly and programs should be reviewed regularly. Data protocols allow the collation, critical review and management of data on stranded turtles, which is important in identifying the causes and level of mortality within populations.
A national monitoring program managed by the Commonwealth, States and the Northern Territory will need:
an agreed set of national guidelines for collecting information from stranded marine turtles;
a nationally agreed minimum set of key monitoring protocols for nesting and other marine turtles;
the identification of key marine turtle populations;
a database to record and analyse monitoring information; and
benchmarks for critical population parameters such as annual recruitment and hatching success.
Most monitoring is confined to nesting beaches because of the accessibility of the nesting females. Information is needed about migrations and behavioural ecology at sea to successfully manage them throughout their range.
There are two widely accepted ways to gather these data: flipper tagging and satellite telemetry. Tagging has provided much of the current knowledge of marine turtle behaviour and ecology and will continue to be the mainstay of any monitoring program. Recaptures of tagged individuals returning to the natal beach have provided valuable data on internesting interval, remigration interval, growth rates and reproductive output. Recaptures of juveniles and adults on feeding grounds have provided valuable data on growth, population size and structure. Recaptures of tagged turtles in places other than their site of original capture has also provided data on the distance travelled and the locations of nesting and/or feeding habitat. However, it can take many years before a turtle is recaptured and decades to build a database of migration destinations based on tag returns. Usually hundreds or thousands of tagged turtles only yields a few returns and successful return relies in the initiative, interest and understanding of the turtle capturer. Often there has been little investment in informing people about the use of tags and their meaning and many indigenous hunters, for example, will not return the tags for fear of reprisal. Whilst the tags are relatively cheap, capture and tagging large numbers of turtles often in remote localities can be expensive.
Satellite telemetry provides real time data on the movement behaviour, migration route and locations of habitats of turtles. Recent work by the Northern Territory University (NTU), Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation and the World Wild Fund for Nature involving 25 tracked green turtles provided a strong indication that
adult migrations of the Arnhem Land nesting green turtle population are confined to the waters of the Gulf. The project had enormous benefit in terms of public education and involvement of indigenous communities. Satellite tracking has much to offer but its utility beyond studying movement behaviour at an individual level will depend on achieving a sufficiently large sample size on which to make robust hypotheses.
The establishment of a national tagging database is advocated to assist jurisdictions to manage their programs.
A variety of diseases occur in marine turtles from different pathogens (Herbst and Jacobson 1995). Two diseases of particular concern are cutaneous fibropapillomatosis (George 1997, Limpus and Miller 1994) and digenean trematodes (Fischthal and Acholonu 1976, Glazebrook et.al. 1989, Greiner 1995; Greiner et.al. 1980). Diseases in turtles appear to occur more frequently in turtles that reside in poorly circulating, near-shore waters close to large human populations, although the link between disease and water quality is inferred. The monitoring of stranded turtles for these diseases may lead to a better understanding of the links between water quality and marine turtles strandings and death.
Table 15. Prescribed research (R) and management (M) actions to facilitate national monitoring of marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
B.1.1. Lead agencies to develop an agreed minimum set of key protocols cooperatively for: monitoring key nesting beaches; and collecting mortality data from stranded marine turtles or other sources. (M)
Lead agencies
Protocols are developed, agreed and implemented nationally.
B.1.2. Lead agencies to monitor key nesting beaches for marine turtle populations to develop population models in the longer term. (R)
Lead agencies
Complementary monitoring programs are established in each jurisdiction.
B.1.3. Lead agencies to: monitor marine turtle mortality to determine the levels, distribution and causes of that mortality; and conduct or support research on the prevalence and frequency of disease. (R)
Lead agencies Lead fishingagenciesLead agencies
Lead agencies have established a marine turtle mortality database.Mortality data is collected through bycatch quantification programs and compulsory reporting.Prevalence and frequency of disease in wild marine turtles is identified.
B.1.4. Lead Agencies to negotiate protocols for the management of national tagging, including satellite/radio tracking, and stranding data including the identification of an appropriate institution to house and manage the database. (M)
Lead Agencies NSW NPWS
A national marine turtle tagging and stranding database is established.Southern migration patterns determined.
B.1.5. Recovery Team to conduct a review of monitoring (actions C.1.2. and C.1.3.) to coincide with the review of the recovery plan. (M)
Recovery Team
A report of the review is prepared.
2. Measuring Recovery
There is sufficient information to identify the decline of 50 – 80 per cent over 10-15 years in the eastern Australian loggerhead population (Limpus and Reimer 1994). However, measuring recovery against population data is usually problematic, as historical data are not available to set recovery targets for all populations or populations. Monitoring and mortality information will be used to assess the status of marine turtles.
Information on populations of marine turtles should be drawn together from all Commonwealth, State and Northern Territory monitoring programs and other available sources. It should be collated within the first year of operation of this plan to provide a national snapshot of the current knowledge of marine turtles’ status and to identify gaps in demographic data. Such a snapshot should provide the basis for future monitoring effort that can deliver information to set recovery objectives for threatened populations (Table 16).
In the absence of large sets of ecological, behavioural and morphometric data for each marine turtle population, modelling can offer a method to make decisions about the status of populations. A model for the southern Great Barrier Reef population of green turtles is being developed and should explore the potential application for other species, the risk in such application, and the limits of interpretation on the outputs from the model.
The long-term goal of modelling is to produce decision-making tools for managers. Any model that fulfils the needs of managers should be built into a decision-making support system. The development of such models is not intended to supplant monitoring programs. The identification of characteristic population behaviours (those population parameters that give the model its greatest power of interpretation) of each population will make the data gathering more cost-effective.
Table 16. Prescribed management action to facilitate a national assessment of the status of marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
B.2.1. Assess the status of marine turtles in Australia. (M)
EA
A report of the assessment is made within the first year of operation of this plan.
B.2.2. Develop a population viability model for the southern GBR green turtle population that: identifies the population behaviours that give the model its predictive power; determines the risk in applying the model to other populations and species of marine turtle; and determines the limits to the interpretation on the outputs from such a model. (R)
EAQEPAGBRMPA
Such a model is developed within the second year of the plan.
3. Genetic Identification of Australian Marine Turtle Populations
Genetic sequencing is a tool for identifying different breeding populations. The word ‘population’ is used here to mean genetically distinct groups of marine turtles within a single species complex. Work to date has indicated that most species have distinct populations that can be managed as conservation units. The defining of these populations is still in progress and should be completed as a high priority.
The tracing of female lineages has allowed the identification of populations that nest in definable geographic areas and the identification of those populations where they mix in the feeding areas. As a tool it recognises shared populations and the need to manage populations regionally and in consultation with other jurisdictions. Moritz et.al. (1998b) have identified Australian populations that move in and out of the waters of Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Pacific Island nations.
The analysis of currently undocumented marine turtle populations in Australia and those shared with other Asia/Pacific nations is required (Table 17). The completion of this analysis will allow the identification of further priorities for management and the capacity to identify the composition of populations in feeding grounds. This is particularly important in identifying Australian breeding populations that are subject to harvests elsewhere. Moritz et.al. (1998b) identified and prioritised the information gaps in order as:
green turtle rookeries from east Arnhem Land, Sir Edward Pellew Islands and Indonesia;
loggerhead turtle rookeries from southern New Caledonia;
hawksbill turtle rookeries from the west Pacific; and
flatback turtle rookeries from the Kimberley region, east Arnhem Land and Gulf of Carpentaria.
An important component of this work will be to sample and analyse resident feeding ground populations to determine the relative composition of the representative populations. This information will be added to monitoring and mortality data to determine the impact of mortality on each population. Ultimately it will assist in judging the security of Australian populations in relation to the levels of mortality at any time.
Table 17. Prescribed action to complete genetic analysis of Australian marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
B.3.1 Complete the broad genetic analysis of Australian marine turtle populations to determine the: geographic range of identifiable populations. population composition of feeding populations; population size for each population; and proportion of Australian populations harvested in the waters of PNG and Indonesia. (R)
EA
Genetic analysis of Australian marine turtle populations is completed.
Specific Objective C.
Manage factors that affect successful marine turtle nesting.
Factors that have a negative impact on successful marine turtle nesting need to be managed to increase the survival rate of the eggs and hatchlings of some populations. In developing the Recovery Plan four factors were identified as having an impact on marine turtle nesting success: light pollution; tourism and recreational activities; vehicle damage; and faunal predation on marine turtle eggs.
1. Light Pollution
Lights that attract hatchlings or nesting marine turtles, on land and at sea, are likely to contribute to increased mortality (McFarlane 1963; Philibosian 1976; Witherington 1992). The identification of affected priority areas and the employment of appropriate strategies in consultation with relevant managers of the lighting systems are the priority actions to deal with the impact of artificial light (Table 18).
Some examples of problem light sources are oil production and processing plants, coastal and island development, and boats. Street lighting affects loggerhead turtles from the eastern Australian population; green turtles from the southern Great Barrier Reef population; and flatback turtles from Queensland. Lighting from industrial complexes affects flatback turtles from the North West Shelf; green turtles from the North West Shelf; and hawksbill turtles from the North West Shelf.
Streetlights of coastal towns are known to attract hatchling loggerhead turtles from the eastern Australian populations. Non-attracting lights (for example low-pressure sodium bulbs) have proven effective for loggerhead hatchlings but still attract other species (Witherington and Bjorndal 1991). As well, it may be possible to negotiate darkness zones in coastal areas with planning authorities.
Hick and Caccetta (1997) in studying the lights of the petroleum production facility on Varanus Island (Western Australia) concluded that those lights that were visible and a potential problem to turtles could be dealt with by relatively inexpensive means such as shielding, repositioning and installing timed light switching devices. An investigation of the impact of flares and facility lighting elsewhere in Western Australia has been carried out (Pendoley and Wilshaw 1996, Pendoley 1998). Preliminary results suggest that impacts are determined by the phase of the moon (mis-orientation is greatest on new moon nights) as well as brightness and wavelength of the light sources. Additional research is encouraged to further quantify and qualify the impacts of man-made light sources and to provide management guidelines for operations in marine turtle nesting areas.
Table 18. Prescribed research (R) and management (M) actions to manage the effects of light on marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
C.1.1. Identify nesting beaches affected by urban or industrial lighting. (R)
Lead agencies
Nesting beaches affected by lighting are identified.
C.1.2. Lead agencies to: encourage Local Government to employ light management practices that do not adversely affect marine turtles near nesting beaches; (M) address lighting problems on affected beaches with Local Government; (M) implement existing management practices such as zoning anchorage areas for boats; (M) support research into suitable lighting technology for boats; (R) support research into improved lighting technology and the impact of lights on turtles. (R)
Lead agenciesLocal GovernmentsTransport/boat ing authorities
Suitable lighting technology is developed and employed.
C.1.3. Develop and implement a code of practice to minimise the impact of lighting from petroleum facilities. (M)
CALM APPEA
A code of practice is developed with and adopted by APPEA.
C.1.4. CALM to liaise with petroleum companies operating on the North West Shelf regarding ongoing monitoring research programs (M).
CALM
Liaison between CALM and petroleum companies continues.
2. Tourism and Recreational Activities
Recreational activities on nesting beaches have the potential to impact on marine turtle hatching success. Where tour operators access beaches, a professional code of conduct needs to be developed. Where there is uncontrolled access to nesting beaches, some management of access needs to be implemented (Table 19).
Tourism operators working with native fauna must be licensed in Western Australia, Queensland and the GBRMP, but this is not the case in the Northern Territory. Tourists have been encouraged to visit a turtle rookery at Mon Repos near Bundaberg, and protocols have been established to ensure the visitor experience is enhanced and turtles are able to nest without undue disturbance. Turtle watching procedures are also in place at North West Cape in Western Australia. The management of tourists on nesting beaches may be critical for successful nesting outcomes. Mon Repos is a useful illustration on which a code of practice can be modelled.
The management of uncontrolled visitor activities is more difficult than formal tourism activities. Uncontrolled visitor access to nesting beaches includes activities such as beach fishing, camping and barbecues, and may include nature- based activities. With the increased use of boats and four-wheel drive vehicles, more of the coast is coming within range of such visitors.
The marine turtle populations affected by tourism have been identified as: all loggerhead turtle populations; green turtles from the North West Shelf and northern and southern Great Barrier Reef; hawksbill turtles in the northern Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait; flatback turtles from the eastern Australian and North West Shelf populations; and an undetermined proportion of all populations present in the Northern Territory.
Table 19. Prescribed research (R) and management (M) actions to manage the effects of tourism and recreational activities on marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
C.2.1. Lead agencies to: identify tour operators that currently access marine turtle nesting beaches; (M) identify nesting beaches that have uncontrolled access; (R) develop management arrangements for access and beach activities with relevant Local Government authorities and landowners to ensure conservation of marine turtles; (M) develop a nationally agreed code of conduct for tour operators with the Australian Eco-Tourism Association; and (M) implement these actions with particular reference to loggerhead turtles as a priority. (M)
Lead agencies
Nesting beaches and tour operators are identified.Management arrangements for access and beach activities are developedA code of conduct is developed and implemented with tourism industry representatives.
3. Vehicle Damage
Vehicles can damage marine turtle nests and nesting habitat by compacting sand, crushing nests and creating wheel ruts that impede or trap hatchlings. Management of vehicle access to nesting beaches outside protected areas needs to be negotiated by lead agencies with the land managers (Table 20). Intensively managed areas generally prohibit vehicles on beaches but in more remote areas access is uncontrolled. Much of the remote northern Australian coastline is used by Aboriginal communities to fish, hunt and collect food or visit outstations. Some of these activities may involve the use of four wheel drives to access beaches where they will gather food including marine turtle eggs.
The Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation, in Nhulunbuy, has taken steps to manage access through the positioning of fences with locked gates. This prevents both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal access to important nesting beaches. While this is not a solution in all areas, some placement of fences to prevent access will relieve pressure. Other measures such as the development of a code of conduct negotiated with potential user groups will assist.
The marine turtle populations affected by vehicle damage have been identified by the Recovery Team as: green turtles from Gulf of Carpentaria and Northern Territory populations; hawksbill turtles from the north eastern Australian population; olive ridley turtles from the Northern Territory; mainland nesting sites of the North West Shelf; and Torres Strait to Cape Dommet populations.
Table 20. Prescribed actions to manage the effects of vehicles on marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
C.3.1. For significant nesting beaches, lead agencies to: manage vehicle access to areas within their jurisdictions; and negotiate the management of access with Local Government and other land managers. (M)
Lead agencies
Arrangements are developed to manage access to significant nesting beaches.
4. Faunal Predation of Marine Turtle Eggs
Introduced and native fauna is known to prey upon marine turtle eggs. Feral pigs, foxes, feral dogs, dingoes, bandicoots and goannas have been identified as predators on marine turtle eggs in parts of mainland Australia, and goannas are thought to be a problem on some islands (Bustard 1972, Lemm 1996, Limpus and Reimer 1994, Morris 1987). The magnitude of the problem is not known across the whole range of marine turtle nesting habitat. Where populations are identified as a priority, control programs will be needed to increase nesting success.
Predation by the European red fox has been identified as a key threatening process. A threat abatement plan has been prepared by the Commonwealth to ameliorate the impact of foxes on native species (Environment Australia 1998b). Foxes are a significant predator on the central Queensland coast (loggerhead turtles especially) (Limpus and Reimer 1994) and mainland nesting sites in Western Australia (loggerhead and green turtles) (K. Morris pers. comm.). Lemm (1996) observed that, for nearly 75 per cent of all nests with some level of predation, the predators were foxes. Fox predation of loggerhead turtle (and some green turtle) nests occurs in Cape Range National Park adjacent to Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia. A program to control foxes and protect turtle nests takes 60-80 foxes annually (K. Morris pers. comm.). The establishment of a poison-baited buffer zone adjacent to the Cape Range National Park during the nesting season would increase the level of protection at a critical time.
Choquenot et.al. (1996) recognised that the major environmental impacts of feral pigs are predation on native species and habitat degradation. Feral pigs are responsible for high levels of nest predation on nesting beaches used by flatback turtles particularly on Cape York Peninsula.
Control activities in remote areas offer considerable scope for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to become involved. Technology for poisoning feral predators and excluding native predators is available and can be used where predation is particularly severe or where a priority has been identified, for example fox predation on east coast loggerhead nests. Some estimate of nest predation will be valuable in determining management actions for controlling feral pests and native predators of eggs.
The marine turtle populations affected by predation have been identified as: loggerhead turtles from the eastern and western Australian populations; green turtles from the southern Great Barrier Reef, Gulf of Carpentaria and North West Shelf populations; hawksbill turtles from the north-eastern Australian populations; olive ridley turtles from the Northern Territory; and flatback turtles from Arnhem Land, Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland and North West Shelf populations.
Table 21. Prescribed actions to manage the effects of predation on marine turtle eggs
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
C.4.1. Lead agencies, in consultation with landowners, to identify sites where predation is a problem and initiate or continue appropriate management actions. (R & M)
Lead agencies
More than 70% of nests, for affected population, produce hatchlings.
C.4.2. Minimise fox predation on loggerhead nests. (M)
QEPAWACALM
Fox predation of eggs and hatchlings approaches zero.
C.4.3. Minimise pig predation of flatback turtle nests on Cape York. (M)
QEPA
More than 70% of nests produce hatchlings.
Specific Objective D.
Identify and protect habitats that are critical to the survival of marine turtles.
Introduction
As marine turtles move through different stages of their life history they require different habitats. For the purposes of this plan, habitats are categorised as: natal beach; mating; internesting; feeding; and pelagic.
The EPBC Act specifies that recovery plans should identify the habitats that are critical to the survival of the species or community concerned and the actions needed to protect those habitats (Section 270(2)(d)). Table 32 identifies an initial list of places within Australia considered to be habitat critical to the survival of marine turtles. The habitat identified in Table 32 is not intended to be an exhaustive definition of habitat critical to the survival of marine turtles. A set of general actions has been prescribed (Table 23).
The habitat types and the threats to each type are outlined as follows.
Natal Beach
The natal beach should provide the environment for female turtles to lay eggs, for eggs to incubate, and for hatchlings to emerge and enter the water unencumbered by unnatural influences. Each beach will have characteristics that influence the nesting outcome, including the sex ratio of hatchlings. Alteration or development of the beach foreshores may prevent females from nesting, alter the sex ratio that the beach produces or result in light pollution that attracts hatchlings inland. Alteration of sand temperature could result in the temperature of the majority of nests moving beyond the pivotal temperature for that population. This will have consequences for the future adult population.
Development, vehicular activity and recreational activities have been identified as threats to the natal habitat. Threats to nesting habitat affect all Queensland populations but particularly those in the southern Great Barrier Reef (predation by feral animals, development, disturbance), some Arnhem Land nesting sites (customary harvest, predation by feral dogs, damage from vehicle); and all North West Shelf population (predation by foxes, vehicle damage to nests, disturbance).
Mating Habitats
Mating takes place in the marine environment and mating habitat needs to possess the elements that are important to mating turtles. The ability to aggregate and exercise mate choice is fundamental. During these gatherings marine turtles may be vulnerable. Threats to this habitat type are not well known. Populations affected by threats to mating habitat have not yet been identified.
Internesting Habitats
Internesting habitat is the area within a certain radius of the nesting beach that a breeding female turtle occupies during the nesting season between nesting events. During this time a female will grow the next clutch of eggs and will not feed. Hochscheid et.al. (1999) working in Cyprus suggest that the depth of dives of female green turtles is about 25 metres during the internesting interval and that the animals stay close to the coast. Hays et.al. (2000) working on Ascension Island suggest the depth is 18 –20 metres but do not reflect on the location of the animals. Repeated commercial trawling is known to threaten the integrity of the habitat (Poiner et.al. 1998) and to expose the females to the risk of capture. Otter trawling off the Queensland coast is known to cause mortality in nesting loggerhead turtles. Populations affected by threats to the internesting habitat are: all populations that nest on the Queensland coast but eastern Australian loggerhead turtles in particular. The loss of mature nesting females may have serious consequences for the breeding population.
Feeding Habitat
The species of marine turtle and its life stage will determine the feeding habitat it occupies. With the exception of flatback turtles, hatchlings grow in the open ocean and settle out to occupy developmental habitats as they continue to grow. Juvenile and sub-adults also have small home ranges. The range of threats is considerable, from tar balls and marine debris that threaten hatchlings to trawling and harvest by indigenous people both in Australia and in other national waters. All populations are at some risk except where specific provisions protect the habitat and prevent any take (including catch or capture).
Pelagic Habitat
The pelagic habitat is often in international waters or those of another nation. With the exception of the flatback turtle, marine turtles spend some of their life in the open ocean before settling into a range of habitats as juveniles and later as adults. Leatherback turtles spend most of their life in open oceans or passing through the seas of the Australian continental shelf. Threats are marine debris; trawling; entanglement in crab and crayfish pot floatlines. Populations identified as being threatened in the pelagic habitat are; all populations, particularly leatherback turtles and eastern Australian loggerhead turtles.
1. Land Use and Water Quality
The potential for land use practices to impact on marine turtles was identified as an issue particularly in eastern Australia, which is heavily populated and where the natural environment has undergone major changes. However, land clearing, urban and industrial development and their associated management Australia-wide are identified as an overall issue for concern.
The States and Territories have primary responsibility for the day-to-day regulation of land use. Land clearing in coastal areas for residential or industrial development has the potential to affect turtle populations at various times of the life cycle. It may directly deny nesting habitat or create light pollution that can disorient nesting adults and hatchlings (McFarlane 1963, Philibosian 1976, Witherington 1992). It may also alter the characteristics of the beach in terms of available nesting habitat and alter the pivotal temperature that will in turn alter the sex ratio of any hatchlings (Morreale et.al. 1982, Mrosovsky and Yntema 1995). Better management of catchments, urban runoff, effluent and discharges can improve water quality and hence the quality of seagrass meadows and reduce algae growth.
An increased human presence on nesting beaches is only desirable if it can be managed or harnessed in favour of the turtles (Johnson et.al. 1996). Coastal development brings impacts such as increased run-off from paved areas, increased turbidity in water and increased levels of chemicals. Sewage discharge may increase nutrient loadings, particularly levels of phosphates, and encourage algal growth. The effect of contaminants such as heavy metals and organochlorins on marine turtle habitat is not known and no link has been established between acid sulphate soils and the loss of marine turtle habitat.
Coastal land management should preferably be developed and implemented under legislation. One way of dealing with coastal land management issues is through the preparation of regional coastal plans. Such plans can identify where activities will impact on marine turtles, particularly on the coast and in the near-shore waters. The proposed management actions (Table 22) aim to maintain water quality, but further action is required to reduce the direct impact on beaches. In minimising the impact of development, cooperation should be sought from Local Government in affected areas. Lead agencies, in cooperation with local councils, can identify impacts and methods of ameliorating those impacts. This could lead to development of a best practice guide for other Local Government bodies whose activities may impact on marine turtle nesting success.
Table 22. Prescribed actions for land and water quality management
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
D.1.1. The Commonwealth to continue to assist communities with land management and use through appropriate funding programs. (M)
EA/AFFA
Community land management projects are funded annually, as approved under program guidelines.
D.1.2. Each jurisdiction to ensure that all activities that are likely to have an impact on marine turtles are subject to environmental impact assessment (such as EIS) and appropriate conditions. (M)
Lead agencies
The impact of development on turtles is adequately addressed and ameliorated through conditions.
D.1.3. States/NT to encourage local communities to become involved in land and catchment management in catchments adjacent to marine turtle habitat through Commonwealth programs. (M)
States/NT
Identified communities are involved with land and catchment management.
D.1.4. QEPA to manage the impact of coastal urbanisation and development on marine turtles through the development of best practice planning
QEPA
Best practice guidelines are produced.
guidelines with QLGA and councils across the State. (M)
QEPA
Best practice guidelines are produced.
2. Loss of Sea Grass or Benthic Habitat
Sea grass communities and other benthic feeding habitats of marine turtles are subject to a range of natural and man- made influences. Tropical cyclones and pollution can significantly affect seabed communities over wide areas (Preen et.al. 1993) and trawling can also alter significant areas.
Benthic Feeding Habitat
Trawling is the major human activity in the tropical areas with a sedimentary substrate. The patterns of prawn trawling in the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) show that trawlers avoid large reef outcrops but trawl over hard seabed capable of supporting attached animals. For example, in the NPF some areas such as north of Mornington Island support very large amounts of sponges and large catches of these in prawn nets are not uncommon. Studies by CSIRO, GBRMPA and QDPI in the Great Barrier Reef region show that the impact of trawling on these organisms is a function of the frequency of trawling, the distribution of seabed flora and fauna, and recovery times of the impacted animals and plants. There is presently no similar information available for the NPF and other trawl fisheries but it is expected that the principles would be the same.
The findings of the report on the environmental effects of prawn trawling in the GBR (Poiner et.al. 1998) have implications for the management of trawling impacts on the benthic environment. The implications of the results are outlined below.
1. Large areas of the GBR are subject to trawling. In 1996, effort was recorded in 1300 six minute grids, an area equivalent to approximately 160 000 km².
2. Trawling is aggregated within grids, consequently less area is actually trawled than is indicated by summing up six minute grids.
3. Aggregated trawling in high effort grids removes less benthos than if effort was distributed randomly or uniformly.
4. Each year, trawling removes between 4–15 per cent of seabed fauna from all trawled grids in the GBRMP.
5. Though 50-70 per cent of trawled grids have been trawled only lightly (less than 700–1000 hours) each year, over the last 20 years the cumulative effect of this has been that:
vulnerable types of fauna that is, those easily removed and/or slow to recover) have been severely depleted, thus causing substantial changes in the composition of the faunal community; and
the overall faunal biomass may have been reduced by approximately 20 per cent, but it would be dominated by ‘weedy’ species.
The overall effects of trawling are dependent on the distribution and intensity of effort, which is known to be patchy. The key experimental results were extended to estimate the depletion rate of attached fauna subject to a range of trawl intensities observed in the fishery; the total annual removal of fauna from the GBRMP; and the possible status of populations of attached fauna after 20 years of trawling. In attempting to estimate population status, it was necessary to add a simple model for possible recovery dynamics of fauna. Therefore caution is needed in accepting the conclusions because of the assumptions made to conduct the analysis. The actual situation could be better or worse than the conclusions presented above. However, it is clear that trawling does have a significant impact on seabed habitat in trawled areas.
Seagrass Feeding Habitat
Seagrass communities are essential habitats for several marine turtles but particularly green turtles. Tropical and sub- tropical Australia is one of the richest areas in the world with respect to seagrasses. Despite the extensive area and species diversity of seagrasses, there have been reports of declines in seagrasses in tropical and sub-tropical Australia. Changes in seagrass occur at a range of spatial and temporal scales due to man-made and natural causes and the complex interaction of the two. In 1985 cyclone Sandy caused a 183 km2 loss of seagrass in the Gulf of Carpentaria, which was 20 per cent of the seagrasses of the Gulf. After 12 years, much of the area had recovered to pre-cyclone levels but there is still a large area (20 km2) devoid of seagrass that previously supported seagrass communities (Poiner et.al. 1993). In 1992-93 an estimated 900 km2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay in Queensland disappeared. The cause of this loss is not known although it is thought that high turbidities, resulting from flooding of the Mary and Burrum Rivers, and run off from cyclone Fran three weeks later, were responsible (Preen et.al. 1993). Similarly 1199 km2 of seagrass in the Torres Strait was lost probably due to high turbidities, resulting from flooding of the Mai River (Long et.al. 1997).
Seagrass declines in Moreton Bay have been attributed to the deterioration of water quality from urbanisation, industrialisation and increased land use resulting in increases in nutrient loading, sedimentation, influx of contaminants and toxins or other detrimental effects on seagrass communities (Kirkman 1978, Hyland et.al. 1989, Abal and Dennison 1996).
Outbreaks of Lyngbya majuscula, a cynobacterium commonly known as mermaid’s hair or fireweed, can have major impacts on ecosystem health. In bloom conditions Lyngbya forms dense mats that cover the sea floor, smothering underlying seagrass meadows.
Seagrass systems do not readily recover. The plants require appropriate water quality and special conditions in the substrate that are not present in disturbed or most sandy substrates. Consequently, once an area has been denuded of seagrass, it may not recover or may take a long time.
Table 23. Prescribed action for identification and management of marine turtle habitat
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
D.2.1. Identify critical marine turtle benthic and sea grass habitats and nominate those places to the register of critical habitats under the EPBC Act. (M)
Lead Agencies Community
Critical habitat for marine turtles is listed on the register throughout the life of the plan.
D.2.2. Lead Agencies will protect critical marine turtle habitat using appropriate planning or zoning policies, regulations and laws as required. (M)
Lead AgenciesLead Fishing Agencies Planning Authorities
Habitat critical to the survival of marine turtles is protected.
D.2.3. Implementation of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Management Plan to establish mechanisms to ensure that trawling is ecologically sustainable in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. (M)
QFS GBRMPA
Trawling in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is conducted in an ecologically sustainable manner.
3. Oil Spills and Operational Discharges
Weathered petroleum, emanating from heavy crude oil, has been observed by Balazs (1985) to seal the mouth and nostrils of turtles. Tar balls being mistaken for food items by marine turtles at all life stages are one of the causes of turtle stranding and mortality (Balazs 1985). Oil produced from petroleum facilities on the North West Shelf near areas frequented by marine turtles is generally light crude. The Commonwealth Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources in only aware of one incident in Australia involving an unusual waxy crude, a single observed turtle and incomplete flaring. Management practices have been adapted to minimise the chance of this occurring through reduced flaring and other measures. Further, petroleum operations are currently assessed to ensure no adverse effects on marine turtles under the EPBC Act and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Regulations 1999.
It is estimated that 3.2 million tonnes of oil enter the world’s oceans each year, primarily from land based sources and shipping. Shipping discharge is regulated by the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) and its Protocol (1978) - MARPOL 73/78. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) administers MARPOL in Australian waters under the Commonwealth Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983.
Response to marine oil spills is managed by AMSA, with the States and the Northern Territory, through the National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances (AMSA 1996). The plan was developed cooperatively by the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory, shipping, exploration and petroleum industries and sets out the role and responsibilities of the major participants. The Plan identifies the potential effects on wildlife and the operations and procedures that should be put into place in the event of an oil spill.
Table 24 identifies actions where there is a need to assess impacts on turtles and their habitats.
Table 24. Prescribed actions for the management of oil spills and operational discharges
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
D.3.1. Lead agencies to respond to oil spills in accordance with the National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances. (M)
Lead agencies AMSA
Contingency plans are implemented in accordance with the national plan.
D.3.2. Proposals for oil and mineral exploration and exploitation are adequately assessed and, as appropriate, conditions imposed to ensure no adverse effects on marine turtles. (M)
Lead agencies
Proposals are adequately assessed and appropriate conditions imposed.
D.3.3. Lead agencies to provide AMSA with information relating to significant nesting sites for marine turtles. (M)
Lead agencies
Information is provided to AMSA for distribution.
4. Noise
Marine turtles do not have an external hearing organ. They can detect sound through bone conducted vibration with the skull and the shell being the receiving surfaces (Lenhardt et.al. 1983). Their response to sound varies with different frequencies and intensities of the sound. The available literature is inconclusive about the potential harm to marine turtles from persistent noise in the marine environment. Investigations into this issue may reveal more and will be assessed as the results become available (Table 25).
Under experimental conditions marine turtles can detect low frequency noise and modify their behaviour or, at least demonstrate a startle response (Lenhardt et.al. 1983). Seismic testing and explosive removals of platforms are identified as noise sources shown to impact on marine turtles (Minerals Management Service 1997). Effects on turtles have been observed in the Gulf of Mexico where explosive removal of platforms has resulted in the deaths of marine turtles from the explosions and drowning after being stunned (Minerals Management Service 1997). In Australia the method of platform removal is subject to the approval of the designated authority in each jurisdiction. The authority must make a judgement of the efficacy of the method and its potential impact on the environment.
Seismic surveys are an infrequent source of sound in Bass Strait, Western Australia and the Timor Sea. McCauley et.al. (2000) tested the effects of air gun seismic arrays on a green and loggerhead turtle. They were exposed to air gun shots and behavioural responses showed at a received level of 166 dB and avoidance behaviour at 175 dB. This was extrapolated to mean that behavioural changes would occur at 2 kilometres and avoidance at 1 kilometre for a seismic vessel with an air gun array in 100-120 metres depth of water that collected three dimensional data. Marine turtles are largely found in shallow water and McCauley et.al. (2000) speculated that sound would not carry as far in shallower water but noted that this also depends on the sound transmitting characteristics of the substrate. Turtles resting on the substrate are likely to be able to detect the vibration but the implications of this are not clear. Seismic operators are required by their environment plans under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Regulations 1999 to use soft start procedures in areas within the distribution of marine turtles.
Table 25. Prescribed action to determine the effect of noise on marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
D.4.1. On going action to ensure that soft start procedures to be implemented in seismic surveys that occur within the distribution of marine turtles.
APPEA EA
Soft start procedures implemented in seismic surveys.
D.4.2. Recovery Team and EA to monitor Australian and international literature on the effect of noise on marine turtles. (M)
EA/Recovery Team
Literature is collated and the results assessed.
Specific Objective E.
Communicate the results of recovery actions and involve and educate stakeholders.
1\. Communicate Results of Recovery Actions
The Recovery Plan Guidelines (Environment Australia 1998a) clearly identify the need for education, public awareness and community involvement. Information from actions, particularly those collating the impact of threat (for example, bycatch data) will be fed into the recovery plan process through annual reports from participants (Table 26). Information will be collated by EA for circulation to the Recovery Team, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) and the public.
The need to evaluate the plan was discussed in Part 1 and is identified as an action (Table 26). The operation of recovery plans is generally reviewed after five years. The evaluation will assess the relevance of the objectives and stated priorities; assess the effectiveness of the actions to determine what objectives were achieved; and identify whether there are better ways of achieving the objectives.
The resulting report will provide guidance for the next iteration of recovery planning.
Table 26. Prescribed action to communicate the results of recovery actions
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
E.1.1. Recovery Team to: review the recovery plan annually; and host two biennial meetings on marine turtle conservation and management. (M)
Recovery Team/EA
Annual reports are produced and made publicly availableTwo meetings are held within the life of the plan.
E.1.2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the Recovery Plan after five years of operation. (M)
Recovery Team/ Consultant
A report is provided to the Minister for Environment.
2. Education, Public Awareness and Community Involvement
Volunteers have an important role to play in monitoring populations of marine turtles. In Queensland and Western Australia people have volunteered to gather data in monitoring programs and provided interpretation for CALM and QEPA. The long-term benefit of such activities is the consistent training of numerous individuals who may well move on to work on marine turtles in other areas.
Specific actions for educating commercial fishers were identified during the course of the Recovery Team meetings. Commercial fishers should be targeted as a group requiring greater education and awareness development. Of particular interest is their awareness of appropriate disposal of ship-borne rubbish and endangered species issues.
Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has been promoting an Endangered Species Awareness Course that is part of a Trainee Master Fisherman’s Course and this can be developed for national application. The Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC) is well placed to develop such a program and negotiate with other fisheries industry councils about its implementation.
AMSA has carriage of compliance with MARPOL Annex V relating to the management of vessel-sourced garbage and has developed a range of educative material.
Table 27. Prescribed action to raise awareness and involve the community
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
E.2.1. Lead agencies to encourage the participation of volunteers in monitoring programs. (M)
Lead agencies
Volunteers trained and involved in monitoring programs
E.2.2. AFMA to coordinate the development of national guidelines on: minimising capture, and maximising the recovery of marine turtles taken in trawl, net and longline fisheries; eliminating the discard of fishing line and netting; and reporting and/or retrieving discarded netting when encountered. (M)
AFMA
Guidelines are prepared and implemented.
E.2.3. ASIC to liaise with other fishing industry councils to develop a national Threatened Species Awareness Course, (similar to the course currently conducted by QSIA). (M)
ASIC
A National Threatened Species Awareness Training Program is adopted by fishers’ organisations in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and the Commonwealth.
E.2.4. AMSA and lead agencies to promote compliance with laws restricting pollution from vessels.
AMSALead agencies
Material developed and distributed to fishers and other boat operators.
E.2.4. Lead agencies to require licensed fishers to record all interactions with marine turtles.
Lead agencies AFMAState and NT fisheries agencies
Identification charts and interaction logbooks developed by lead agencies and distributed by fisheries agencies. Fishers report to lead agencies.
E.2.5.Lead agencies to manage database on marine turtle mortality.
Lead agencies, community
Database established with reporting proforma on mortality.
E.2.6. Lead agencies to develop education material on ‘tell tale’ signs of nesting beaches.
Lead agencies
Material developed and distributed.
3. Indigenous Coastal Community Network
To support the participation of indigenous communities in northern Australia in marine turtle conservation and management, an indigenous coastal community network should be established (Table 28). The northern Australian coastline is not heavily developed and in many places is inhabited only by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who still use the marine and coastal environments for hunting, fishing and gathering food.
Management agreements agreed between indigenous communities and lead agencies will necessarily relate to local people and conditions, and there is a need to support the agreements through extension activities. An indigenous network that covers northern Australia, including Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland, would do this best. An indigenous network with a focus on marine resources should concentrate on management issues such as improve communication between indigenous communities, management agencies and technical experts; involve indigenous people and incorporate their cultural values in the monitoring and management of marine and coastal resources, in conjunction with lead agencies; facilitate training and employment opportunities for indigenous resources managers; develop information and education materials in culturally appropriate formats; and provide a forum for the discussion and exchange of information on issues of interest to the network.
Ideally such a network would be run external to any Commonwealth/State/Territory Government agencies by a specific coordinator/facilitator employed for that purpose.
Table 28. Prescribed action to raise awareness in northern Australian indigenous communities.
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
E.3.1. EA and lead agencies to support the establishment of an indigenous coastal community network to support communities’ management of marine turtles with lead agencies. (M)
Appropriate host institution
The network is established.
Specific Objective F.
Support and maintain existing agreements and develop new collaborative programs with neighbouring countries for the conservation of shared turtle populations.
1. Marine Turtle Conservation in the Asia/Pacific
Australia shares its marine turtle populations with other neighbouring countries in the Asia/Pacific region where turtles go to feed or breed. The cultures and management regimes within those nations will differ from Australia’s.
Australia has provided support for marine turtle management in the region, in particular under the Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region (SPREP) for its Regional Marine Turtle Program (RMTP). The RMTP was an Australian initiative to establish a regionally based program that would coordinate marine turtle conservation and management of shared marine turtle populations (Spring 1994). A review of the RMTP to evaluate its success would be valuable in determining if the program has achieved its conservation objectives.
Australia has recently agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats in the Indian Ocean and South East Asia (MoU) that will operate under the Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). This MoU provides the framework on which Australia can work cooperatively with regional neighbours on activities to improve the conservation status of shared marine turtle populations. The focus of the MoU is to provide protection for marine turtle habitat, manage direct harvest and trade, reduce threats and provide for research, education, information exchange and capacity building.
Table 29. Prescribed action to improve regional conservation of marine turtles
Prescribed Action
Managers
Criteria for Success
F.1.1. Commonwealth Government to maintain existing and develop new bilateral or multilateral agreements to ensure that international conservation and management of marine turtles is consistent with domestic policies and international treaty obligations. (M)
Commonwealth
Substantial progress is made in international cooperation and development of agreements to conserve marine turtles.
Part 3. Costs of Recovery
1. Estimated cost of recovery actions and implementation
The estimated costs are $5.640 million and are detailed in Table 30. An important corollary to the table of estimated costs of actions is that many of the costs will come from recurrent operational budgets of the organisations responsible for the activities. Any funding sought from EA will be subject to the approval of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The feasibility estimates the chance of success of each action. Although this is a subjective measure the success of any of the actions will be determined by many factors, some of which are outside the control of human endeavour. The priority assigned to each action has been identified according to the following criteria:
Priority 1 Action is critical to prevent extinction or to provide information critical for setting recovery goals;
Priority 2 Action prevents impact short of extinction; and