Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board

Date

REPORT TITLE

Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board

December 2010

KANGAROO ISLAND BEACH RUBBISH SURVEY 2009

KANGAROO ISLAND BEACH RUBBISH SURVEY

2009

Coast and Marine Program

A report prepared for the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board

Kym Lashmar Martine Kinloch

Daniel Brock

December 2010

iii

Coast and Marine Program The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this report are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. The Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report. Project Officer Contact Details Martine Kinloch Coast and Marine Program Manager Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board 35 Dauncey Street Kingscote SA 5223 Phone: (08) 8553 4312 Fax: (08) 8553 4399 Email: martine.kinloch@kinrm.com.au Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board Contact Details Jeanette Gellard General Manager 35 Dauncey Street Kingscote SA 5223 Phone: (08) 8553 4340 Fax: (08) 8553 4399 Email: jeanette.gellard@kinrm.com.au © Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board This document may be reproduced in whole or part for the purpose of study or training, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and to its not being used for commercial purposes or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than those given above requires the prior written permission of the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board. For bibliographic purposes this paper should be cited as: Lashmar, KG, Kinloch, MA and Brock, DJ (2010). Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey 2009. KI NRM Board Coast and Marine Program Report No. CMP10/009. Front cover images: Australian Sea Lion entangled in net and rope at West Bay. Photo: Colin Wilson Discarded light truck tyre at Red House Bay. Photo: Kym Lashmar

iv

Foreword

This project is a component of the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board’s ‘Here to Stay’ Investment Strategy. The following Program Outcomes, Actions, Resource Condition Targets and Management Action Targets from the Strategy are relevant to the project.

Program Oceans of Blue: Managing marine, coastal and estuarine biodiversity on Kangaroo Island

Program outcome A scientifically rigorous and integrated system of measuring and reporting on the state of marine, coastal and estuarine environments of Kangaroo Island that relates trends in the condition of biodiversity assets to changes in human uses of land and seascapes, provides advice on targeting management action to mitigate anthropogenic impacts where required and empowers the public to respond to threats to natural resource condition and values.

Relevant Resource Condition Targets 8.5 D An enhancement in the condition of natural biodiversity in marine, coastal and estuarine systems through protection and management of key biodiversity assets and areas.

Relevant Management Action Targets 8.5.1 Establish benchmarks and monitoring program for marine and estuarine water quality, terrestrial and marine coastal biodiversity and condition of fisheries stocks. 8.5.2 Establish representative monitoring program for terrestrial and marine coastal biodiversity focusing on areas subject to water contamination and other threatening processes.

v

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we heartily thank all our volunteer “garbos” for their dedicated and

excellent work:

Albert Zepf, Colin Wilson, Kenita Williamson, Paul White, Mia Vickery, Fraser Vickery,

Tanja Thomsen, Kathie Stove, Deb Sleeman, Dennis Shearing, Peter Scott, Sandie

Scott, Gareth Scott, Kieran Scott, Helen Palmer, Michael Oakes, Mark Morris, Sue

Morris, Robyn Morcom, Penny Moon, Manfred Meidert, Bev Maxwell, Allyson Marlow,

Peter Magill, Trish Leeuwenberg, Tim Leeuwenberg, Carol Lee, Wren Lashmar, Heiri

Klein, Corinna Klein, Kerry Kaye Boss, Sarah-Jane Jones, Cherry Hobbs, Jenni Harris,

John Grey, Judith Giraldo, Alwyn Francis, Brenton Florance, Tania Ellison, Sabina

Douglas-Hill, Lyn Dohle, Christian Clolus, Dave Clarke, Tom Churchill-Brown, Mark

Capon, Gail Capon, Kate Buck, Tim Buck, Pat Brooksby, Zachary Beer-Clarke,

Veronica Bates, Phyll Bartram, Tony Bartram, Libby Barrios and Helen Achurch.

Additional garbos Tony Flaherty and Carolyn Taylor were generously donated by the

Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board; we thank

them for their partnership and in-kind support of this project.

A very kind thanks to the Kangaroo Island Council for their continued invaluable

support of the beach rubbish survey; and in particular, Council staff at the Resource

Recovery Centre who generously provided space and materials for sorting rubbish.

The Clean Up Australia organisation supplied collecting materials for all our volunteers,

which were greatly appreciated.

Finally we thank our reviewer Tony Flaherty and editor Kathie Stove for their helpful

input and improvements to this report.

vi

Contents

Foreword ..................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... v

Contents ...................................................................................................................... vi

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Methods ........................................................................................................................ 3

Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 3

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 7

Results ......................................................................................................................... 9

Rubbish Quantity ....................................................................................................... 9

Rubbish Composition .............................................................................................. 11

Marine Debris .......................................................................................................... 15

Beach Relationships ................................................................................................ 17

Rubbish Trends ....................................................................................................... 20

Discussion .................................................................................................................. 22

Rubbish Quantity ..................................................................................................... 22

Rubbish Composition .............................................................................................. 23

Marine Debris .......................................................................................................... 24

Terrestrial Litter ....................................................................................................... 25

Future Monitoring .................................................................................................... 26

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 27

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 28

References ................................................................................................................. 29

Appendices ................................................................................................................. 31

vii

Tables

Table 1: List of Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey sites. ..................................... 3 Table 2: Standard Beach Rubbish Categories and Subcategories. ............................... 6 Table 3: Subcategories of Marine Debris and Terrestrial Litter. ..................................... 8 Table 4: Weight and composition of beach rubbish per site. ......................................... 9 Table 5: Major groupings of beach sites identified by hierarchical cluster analysis. ..... 17 Table 6: Degree of correlation between rubbish subcategories and ordination axes. .. 19

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey sites. ................................... 4

Figure 2: Density of beach rubbish per site. ................................................................ 10

Figure 3: Proportions of rubbish categories. ................................................................ 11

Figure 4: Geographic patterns in weight and composition of beach rubbish on KI. ...... 12

Figure 5: Interesting items found during beach rubbish survey. .................................. 14

Figure 6: Proportion of Marine Debris per beach. ........................................................ 15

Figure 7: Geographic distribution of Marine Debris and Terrestrial Litter. .................... 16

Figure 8: Dendrogram of beach sites generated by hierarchical cluster analysis. ....... 17

Figure 9: nMDS ordination of beach relationships. ...................................................... 19

Figure 10: Trends in weights and relative proportions of rubbish categories on KI. ..... 20

Figure 11: Trends in beach rubbish density per site. ................................................... 21

Appendices

Appendix 1: Example rubbish collection datasheet. .................................................... 31

Appendix 2: Example site map. ................................................................................... 32

Appendix 3: Beach dimensions. .................................................................................. 33

Appendix 4: Personnel and search effort. ................................................................... 34

Appendix 5: Description of standard rubbish categories. ............................................. 36

Appendix 6: Example rubbish analysis datasheet. ...................................................... 37

1

Introduction

Kangaroo Island (KI) has over 450 kilometres of largely unspoilt coastline (KI NRM

Board 2009) that is vital to the Island’s social, economic and environmental fabric.

Around 180,000 domestic and international tourists and holiday-makers visit the Island

each year. Over 60% of them go fishing or swimming and three-quarters visit the

Australian sea lion colony at Seal Bay (Colmar Brunton Research 2009). Kangaroo

Island’s beaches and coastal waters are a major source of recreational pleasure and

enjoyment for locals as well, as evidenced by KI having the highest per capita boat

ownership in the State (Jones 2005).

Kangaroo Island’s large and varied coastal environment is also home to a number of

iconic species of animals that are threatened on mainland South Australia (SA) such as

the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), White-bellied Sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster),

Hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis) and Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea).

These species are listed either as vulnerable or endangered on the State Threatened

Species Schedule (South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972). Thirty

percent of South Australia’s Sea-eagles and 25% of its Hooded Plovers reside on KI

and the third-largest breeding colony of sea lions in the State is located on the Island’s

south coast. Kangaroo Island also boasts large, visible colonies of New Zealand fur

seals and Little Penguins and regular sightings of dolphin pods and migrating whales,

which support local marine tour businesses.

Rubbish along the shoreline of Kangaroo Island is therefore a serious concern, not only

spoiling the scenic and amenity values of the Islands’ valuable beaches but also being

potentially harmful to its significant coastal wildlife. Around the world, thousands of

marine animals choke, drown and starve every year as a result of becoming entangled

in or ingesting discarded rubbish (NOAA 2009). The situation has become so severe

that marine debris has been listed by the Australian Government as a key threatening

process for marine wildlife under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (DEWHA 2009). Research by Page et al. (2004) demonstrated

that entanglement rates for the Australian sea lion and the New Zealand fur seal on KI

were the third and fourth highest reported globally for any seal species. The chief

culprits of these entanglements were discarded packing tape, monofilament gillnets,

trawl net fragments and rope (Page et al. 2004).

2

In 2005, the Coast and Marine Program of the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources

Management Board (KI NRM Board) initiated a community program to monitor levels of

beach rubbish around Kangaroo Island’s shores, in order to assess the scope of the

problem and develop and evaluate management responses. The program started with

a small pilot study in 2005 to trial methods and gauge community interest, and was

timed to coincide with the annual ‘Clean Up Australia Day’ (CUAD) event (Bartram

2005). Following the success of the pilot trial, the KI NRM Board coordinated the first

rigorous, Island-wide, community beach rubbish survey on CUAD 2007 to provide a

baseline condition report for KI (Kinloch & Brock 2007). The current report documents

the second Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey carried out on CUAD 2009. On this

occasion, an emphasis was placed on understanding the marine debris component of

KI beach rubbish as a contribution to the development of a Marine Debris Threat

Abatement Plan for Gulf St Vincent by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges (AMLR)

NRM Board. As part of this collaboration, a number of AMLR NRM Board staff travelled

to KI to assist in collecting and sorting rubbish.

In addition to cleaning up coastal areas to reduce pollution and dangers to marine

wildlife, beach rubbish surveys on KI provide information about the distribution,

composition and amounts of rubbish occurring around the shoreline. This information

can be used to set priorities for on-ground works, and to identify community and

industry sectors to target with education programs to reduce littering. Continued

biennial rubbish surveys will provide data for monitoring trends in ‘Presence and Extent

of Litter’, a recommended national indicator for the Estuarine, Coastal and Marine

Matter for Target within the regional NRM reporting framework (Scheltinga et al. 2004).

The specific objectives of the 2009 Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey were:

1. to establish the amount, type and distribution of beach rubbish on KI in 2009;

2. to investigate recent trends in types and amounts of beach rubbish on KI by

comparing the results of the 2009 survey with that of 2007;

3. to provide regional data for national state of the environment reporting on

‘Presence and Extent of Litter’;

4. to determine the quantity of marine debris on KI’s beaches and attempt to

identify some of its sources;

5. to clean up beach rubbish on KI and reduce dangers to marine and coastal

wildlife; and

6. to evaluate potential threats to Kangaroo Island’s marine and coastal wildlife

from rubbish discarded on its beaches.

3

Methods

Data Collection Eighteen beaches on Kangaroo Island were chosen as sites for the collection and

analysis of beach rubbish, 12 on the north coast and six on the south (Table 1, Figure

1). Collectively, these represent most of the accessible sandy beaches on the Island.

Volunteer rubbish collectors were recruited via advertisements in the local paper as

well as through community networks, and were allocated to sites according to proximity

to their residence and collection effort required. Team leaders were appointed at each

site to distribute materials and coordinate group search effort. Rubbish collecting gear

such as sacks and gloves were supplied by the Clean Up Australia organisation.

Each team was given a datasheet for recording site and collection details, and general

observations on beach rubbish at the site (Appendix 1). They were also provided with a

site map, comprising an aerial photograph of their section of the foreshore marked with

a search area boundary line demarcating the site limits (Appendix 2). This measure

ensures that rubbish is collected from a consistent portion of the shoreline in every

survey, allowing trends in rubbish quantities over time to be properly distinguished.

Rubbish densities can also be calculated (as area is known), removing the effect of

beach size on rubbish quantity and standardising comparisons among sites.

Table 1: List of Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey sites.

Site No.

Site Name (North Coast)

Site No.

Site Name (South Coast)

1 Western River Cove 13 Windmill Bay

2 Snellings Beach 14 Pennington Bay

3 Stokes Bay 15 Flour Cask Bay

4 Emu Bay 16 D'Estrees Bay

5 Boxing Bay 17 Vivonne Bay

6 Bay of Shoals 18 Hanson Bay

7 Brownlow Beach

8 Western Cove

9 Christmas Cove

10 Hog Bay

11 Antechamber Bay

12 Red House Bay

4

Figure 1: Map of Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey sites.

5

Surveys were conducted at low tide on Sunday 1 March 2009 (Clean Up Australia

Day). Each site was searched for between one and four hours, depending on the size

of the search area (Appendix 3) and the number of personnel (Appendix 4). Search

areas comprised mainly sandy beaches down to the water’s edge, sand dunes

(especially foredunes) and small areas of rocky shore. Other adjacent habitats were

also searched to varying degrees depending on location; these included: estuarine

inlets, low rocky headlands, beachside parking and visitor areas, informal beach

camping sites, coastal walking trails and mounds of seagrass wrack.

Participants collected and bagged all beach rubbish within the search area boundary

with the exception of very large, heavy, or unsanitary items and small fragments less

than 3 cm square. Driftwood was not collected as the sheer volume of it at some

locations was beyond the capacity of people to carry. Tyres likewise were deemed too

heavy for collection and were counted instead. Participants were advised not to collect

toilet rubbish but to record its presence on the datasheet. Rubbish sacks were

transported to the KI Resource Recovery Centre at Kingscote for processing.

Rubbish collections from each site were sorted into eight standard categories and

numerous subcategories (Table 2) as outlined in the World Wildlife Fund Marine Debris

Survey Information Manual (White 2005a). Complete descriptions of these categories

are provided in Appendix 5. Each subcategory of rubbish was weighed to the nearest

100 grams using a hand-held spring balance and some items were also counted, such

as bait straps and buoys, as these will be the target of threat abatement actions

developed by the AMLR NRM Board. Plastic bags were counted as it was thought

useful to monitor the effectiveness of the plastic shopping bag ban that came into effect

in South Australia on 1 May 2009, on the occurrence of plastic bags in beach rubbish.

Some rubbish items were photographed, particularly those that were significant,

unusual, or of foreign origin.

6

Table 2: Standard Beach Rubbish Categories and Subcategories.

CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY

HARD PLASTIC

Plastic bottles Plastic oil drums & containers Plastic water drums & containers Bait baskets Oyster racks & baskets Buoys & fishing pots Fishing lures & floats Brushes Cigarette lighters Hard plastic fragments Other hard plastic

SOFT PLASTIC

Food wrappers Whole plastic shopping bags Other plastic bags & bag fragments Palette wrappers & tarpaulins

GLASS Glass bottles & jars Light bulbs

METAL

Tin cans Spray cans Metal drums & containers Fire extinguishers Other metal

PAPER/FABRIC Paper & cardboard Cloth & fabric

ROPE

Marine rope/line Terrestrial rope/line Fishing line Fishing net Packing tape

FOAM/RUBBER

Foam floats Polystyrene Footwear Gloves Other rubber

OTHER Fibreglass Building materials Composite materials1

1 Weights of items in the composite materials sub-category were added to the category of the dominant

material in that item e.g. a computer monitor contains Hard Plastic, Glass and Metal, but its weight is

included in the Hard Plastic category because that was the dominant material.

7

Data Analysis The total weight of each standard category of rubbish (Hard Plastic; Soft Plastic; Glass;

Metal; Rope; Foam/Rubber; Paper/Fabric) at each beach was calculated by summing

all the component subcategory weights. These data were used to examine the

distribution of rubbish and the relative composition (by category) at each site. Category

weights were also divided by site collection area to derive rubbish densities in grams

per square metre (g/m2). These data were used to compare rubbish quantities among

sites. In addition, rubbish density data from nine sites surveyed in both 2007 and 2009

were used to examine any temporal changes in rubbish quantities. These sites were:

Stokes Bay, Emu Bay, Boxing Bay, Brownlow Beach, Hog Bay, Pennington Bay,

D'Estrees Bay, Vivonne Bay and Hanson Bay. Graphs, tables and maps with

embedded pie charts summarise and display local and regional patterns in rubbish

composition.

To examine the scope and potential impact of marine debris (rubbish that originates

from the sea) on KI, each subcategory of rubbish was classified as either marine debris

or terrestrial litter, according to its probable source (Table 3). Some subcategories were

relatively simple to classify such as bait baskets, fishing nets and deck rope, which are

clearly marine debris, or paper, cardboard and bricks, which come from land-based

littering. Other items such as plastic bottles and polystyrene, which can either float

ashore or be left on a beach, were not so straightforward to classify and may even be

of multiple origin. For the purpose of this report, ambiguous items were classified as

terrestrial litter so as not to overestimate quantities of marine debris. Items in the

composite materials subcategory were classified according to the nature of the item

itself and the location where it was found; for example, the computer monitor found at

the far end of the beach at Hanson Bay is more likely to have been thrown overboard

from a vessel and then washed ashore, than to have been carried to that place and

dumped. Again, where doubt existed, items were classified as terrestrial. The

proportions of marine versus terrestrial rubbish at each beach were calculated by

summing all the component subcategory weights for either category. These have been

displayed as pie charts on a map.

Hierarchical cluster analysis and non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (nMDS) were

used to statistically examine differences and similarities in rubbish composition among

sites, and determine if any distinct groupings, or relationships, emerged (PRIMER-E,

Clarke and Warwick 2001). The similarity matrix was generated using the raw data on

rubbish subcategory weights per site and the Bray-Curtis similarity coefficient. Western

8

River Cove was excluded from the analysis as the total rubbish collected from this

beach was less than 1 kilogram. Group-average linking based on the Bray-Curtis

similarities was used to create a dendrogram (a diagram similar to a family tree) from

the cluster analysis to display relationships among beaches. Fifty runs with real data on

six axes were undertaken to select the appropriate dimensionality and starting

configuration for the final nMDS. The suitability of the final ordination to accurately

represent, graphically, the relationships among sites is indicated by the stress value,

where < 0.1 = good depiction of the relationships and > 0.2 = poor depiction of

relationships (Clarke 1993).

Table 3: Subcategories of Marine Debris and Terrestrial Litter.

MARINE DEBRIS TERRESTRIAL LITTER Plastic oil drums & containers Plastic Bottles

Plastic water drums & containers Cigarette lighters

Bait baskets Brushes

Oyster racks & baskets Other hard plastic

Buoys & fishing pots Food wrappers

Fishing lures & floats Whole plastic shopping bags

Hard plastic fragments Other plastic bags & bag fragments

Metal drums & containers Palette wrappers & tarpaulins

Fire extinguishers Glass bottles & jars

Marine rope/line Light bulbs

Fishing line Cans

Fishing net Spray cans

Bait straps Other metal

Foam floats Paper & cardboard

Fibreglass Cloth & fabric

Composite materials Terrestrial rope/line

Polystyrene

Footwear

Gloves

Other rubber

Building materials

Composite materials

9

Results

Rubbish Quantity A total of 500 kilograms (kg) of beach rubbish was collected from 18 beach sites on KI

(Table 4). Sixty-one people participated in the clean-up providing 163 person-hours

(pers-hr) of effort (Appendix 4); this equates to a collection rate of 3.1 kg/pers-hr. The

largest collection of rubbish, representing nearly 20% of the total, was 87 kg from

Brownlow Beach (Table 4). Large collections (> 50 kg) were also obtained at Red

House Bay (68 kg), Flour Cask Bay (60 kg) and Bay of Shoals (53 kg). Together, these

four sites accounted for over 50% of all rubbish collected. At the other end of the scale,

the smallest amount of rubbish was 0.4 kg collected at Western River Cove, but

collections from three other north coast beaches, (Stokes Bay, Snellings Beach and

Antechamber Bay) were all less than 7 kg (Table 4).

Table 4: Weight and composition of beach rubbish per site.

Location Rubbish Weight (kg)

TOTAL Overall % Hard

Plastic Glass Metal Rope Other Foam/ Rubber

Paper/ Fabric

Soft Plastic

Brownlow Beach 16.6 16 15.8 0.1 10 4.1 20 4.5 87.1 17.4 Red House Bay 33 5.3 9 8.8 1.7 7.6 0.4 2.5 68.3 13.7 Flour Cask Bay 27.7 1.5 1 19.8 0.3 6.1 0.1 3.6 60.1 12.0 Bay of Shoals 3.8 10.7 27.8 3.6 3.4 1.8 0.8 1 52.9 10.6 Boxing Bay 16.8 1.7 6 8.6 0 6.8 0.3 1.5 41.7 8.3 Emu Bay 9.2 5.4 1.1 1.3 13.5 1.2 1.6 2 35.3 7.1 D'Estrees Bay 1.2 9 5.3 3.6 10 0.7 1.6 0.6 32 6.4 Hanson Bay 17.8 0.9 0.3 4.9 0 0.5 0.8 0.7 25.9 5.2 Pennington Bay 1.3 5.3 1.8 5 0 0.1 1.3 1.2 16 3.2 Western Cove 3 8.4 2.9 0.2 0 0.4 0.1 0.3 15.3 3.1 Windmill Bay 5.3 0 0 6.2 0.4 1.3 0 0.6 13.8 2.8 Christmas Cove 3.2 5 1.4 0.1 0 0.5 2.1 1 13.3 2.7 Hog Bay 3.3 3 0.8 0.3 0 1.7 1.3 1.7 12.1 2.5 Vivonne Bay 2.5 1.3 1.2 0.3 0 2.1 2.2 1.8 11.4 2.3 Snellings Beach 0.5 2 0.8 1.2 0 0.3 1.5 0.6 6.9 1.4 Stokes Bay 2.1 1.3 0.2 0.6 0 0.3 0.3 0.2 5 1.0 Antechamber Bay 1.3 0 0 0.3 0 0.7 0 0.2 2.5 0.5 Western R. Cove 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1

TOTAL 148.7 76.8 75.4 64.9 39.3 36.2 34.5 24.2 500 kg Overall % 29.7 15.4 15.1 13.0 7.9 7.2 6.9 4.8

10

However, although some sites yielded only small total weights of rubbish, they had

much higher quantities per unit area (and vice versa). Collection areas ranged in size

from less than one hectare (ha) at Christmas Cove to 38 ha at Emu Bay (Appendix 3),

and beach rubbish density (the standardised metric that accounts for differences in the

size of the rubbish collection area) ranged one-hundred-fold from 0.02 – 2.0 grams (g)

per square metre (m2) (Figure 2), with an average of 0.4 g/m2.

Although it ranked only 12th in terms of total collection weight, Christmas Cove (the

smallest site) recorded by far the highest density of beach rubbish at 2.0 g/m2. Red

House Bay recorded the second highest rubbish density of 1.3 g/m², which is also

significantly higher than the average (Figure 2), however there were marked

differences between these two sites in rubbish composition. Christmas Cove had high

proportions of Glass and Paper/Fabric whereas at Red House Bay there were high

proportions of Rope and Hard Plastic (Table 4). High densities of rubbish were also

recorded at Brownlow (3rd highest) and Bay of Shoals (4th), the two beaches adjacent to

Kingscote, with Western Cove next in rank (5th). The lowest density of rubbish (0.02 g /

m²) was found at Antechamber Bay (Figure 2).

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Christm

as C

ove

Red Hou

se Bay

Brownlo

w Bea

ch

Bay of

Shoals

Western

Cove

Boxing B

ay

Windmill

Bay

D'Estree

s Bay

Hog Bay

Hanson B

ay

Flour C

ask B

ay

Stokes B

ay

Pennin

gton B

ay

Emu Bay

Snellin

gs Bea

ch

Vivonne

Bay

Western

River C

ove

Antech

ambe

r Bay

Rub

bish

Den

sity

(g/m

²)

Figure 2: Density of beach rubbish per site.

11

Rubbish Composition By weight, Hard Plastic accounted for the greatest proportion of the Islands’ beach

rubbish, with 149 kg collected (Table 4), representing 30% of the total (Figure 3). Glass

(77 kg), Metal (75 kg) and Rope (65 kg) were the next largest set of categories, each

contributing a similar amount (13 – 15%) to the total rubbish collection weight.

Foam/Rubber, Paper/Fabric and “Other” comprised the next group of categories,

contributing 7 – 8% (35 – 40 kg) each. Soft Plastic was the smallest contributor by

weight, with slightly less than 5% of all litter in this category (Figure 3).

0%

10%

20%

30%

Hard Plasti

cGlas

sMeta

lRope

Other

Foam / R

ubbe

r

Paper

/ Fab

ric

Soft P

lastic

Per

cent

age

of T

otal

Rub

bish

Figure 3: Proportions of rubbish categories.

All categories of rubbish were cosmopolitan, being collected at every site, (except in

the case of beaches with very small rubbish collections), but proportional composition

varied at each site and there were differences in the distribution of beach rubbish

categories (Figure 4). For example, Rope was generally more prevalent on the south

coast of KI, with 30% (20 kg) of Rope collected solely from Flour Cask Bay and other

large quantities (>5 kg) collected at Hanson, Pennington and Windmill Bays (Table 4;

Figure 4). Two sites on the north coast did, however, have large Rope collections:

Boxing and Red House Bays.

.

12

Figure 4: Geographic patterns in weight and composition of beach rubbish on KI.

13

Large collections of Rope were often accompanied by large amounts of Hard Plastic.

Thus, over 40% of Hard Plastic came from Red House and Flour Cask Bays (Table 4),

with other substantial Hard Plastic collections at Boxing and Hanson Bays (Figure 4).

Foam/Rubber was also found in greatest amounts at Boxing, Red House, and Flour

Cask Bays as well as at Vivonne Bay (Figure 4).

More than a third (35%) of all Glass was collected from the three beaches closest to

Kingscote – Brownlow Beach, Western Cove and Bay of Shoals (Figure 4). There were

also relatively large collections of Glass made at Hog Bay and Christmas Cove, near

Penneshaw, on the north coast. Other large Glass collections came from informal

camping sites such as at D’Estrees and Pennington Bays (Figure 4). The majority of

the Glass category was comprised of beer bottles.

Metal, mainly in the form of wire, corrugated iron and chairs, came predominantly from

Brownlow Beach and Bay of Shoals. Brownlow Beach was also notable for a

disproportionate collection of Paper/Fabric (Figure 4) comprising 20 kg of cardboard

(Table 4). Soft Plastic was relatively more abundant at Hog Bay and Vivonne Bay than

at other sites. The ‘Other’ category of rubbish was largely made up of building materials

such as bricks or other material such as fibreglass and was found sporadically at only

six locations, most notably at Emu Bay, D’ Estrees Bay and Brownlow Beach (Figure

4).

Some notable items of rubbish found were a longline from Pennington Bay, computer

monitors from Hanson and Red House Bays, an Asian toothpaste tube from Boxing

Bay and 15 tyres from Brownlow Beach (Figure 5).

14

(a) Longline from Pennington Bay (b) Computer monitor from Hanson Bay

(c) Asian toothpaste tube from Boxing Bay (d) Tyres from Brownlow Beach

(e) Toy gun from Stokes Bay (f) Fridge door at Red House Bay

Figure 5: Interesting items found during beach rubbish survey.

15

Marine Debris Of the 500 kg of rubbish collected during the survey, 195 kg or 40% was classified as

marine debris. The category was dominated by two main components; marine rope (65

kg) and hard plastic fragments (62 kg). It also included 104 whole bait baskets (as well

as numerous fragments), most notably from Flour Cask and Red House Bays, and 8 kg

of oyster baskets that were collected from Brownlow Beach. The total weight of fishing

net found was 7 kg and it was found at only three locations (Boxing, Flour cask and

Hanson Bays).

The relative proportion of marine debris on each beach varied enormously, from almost

none (2%) at D’Estrees Bay to almost all (94%) at Windmill Bay (Figures 6 and 7).

Hanson and Flour Cask Bays both had high percentages (> 70%) of marine debris and

other sites with significant amounts of marine debris (40 – 55%) were Emu, Boxing,

Red House and Pennington Bays. The remainder of the beaches had between 15 and

25% of marine debris in their rubbish collections (Figures 6 and 7).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Windmill

Bay

Hanson B

ay

Flour C

ask B

ay

Boxing B

ay

Emu Bay

Red Hou

se Bay

Pennin

gton B

ay

Snellin

gs Bea

ch

Vivonne

Bay

Western

River C

ove

Hog Bay

Antech

ambe

r Bay

Stokes B

ay

Christm

as C

ove

Brownlo

w Bea

ch

Western

Cove

Bay of

Shoals

D'Estree

s Bay

Per

cent

age

of M

arin

e D

ebris

Figure 6: Proportion of Marine Debris per beach.

16

Figure 7: Geographic distribution of Marine Debris and Terrestrial Litter.

17

Beach Relationships Three main groups of beaches were detected by the cluster analysis at the 35%

similarity level (Table 5). The relationships between and within these groups is

illustrated by the dendrogram or ‘family tree’ (Figure 8) which displays degree of

closeness or ‘relatedness’ of beaches. For example it shows that Christmas Cove and

Hog Bay are the two most closely related beaches in Group 2, and have a high degree

of similarity in rubbish composition, whereas Stokes and Hanson Bays are somewhat

different to the remainder of this group. Antechamber Bay appears to be an outlier

‘grouped’ by itself (Figure 8).

Table 5: Major groupings of beach sites identified by hierarchical cluster analysis.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Red House Bay Stokes Bay Emu Bay Flour Cask Bay Hanson Bay Brownlow Beach Windmill Bay Vivonne Bay Western Cove Boxing Bay Christmas Cove Bay of Shoals

Hog Bay D'Estrees Bay

Pennington Bay

Snellings Beach

Ante

cham

ber B

ay

Wind

mill B

ay

Flour

Cas

k Bay

Boxin

g Ba

y

Red

Hous

e Ba

y

Stok

es B

ay

Hans

on B

ay

Vivo

nne

Bay

Chris

tmas

Cov

e

Hog

Bay

Penn

ingto

n Ba

y

Snell

ings B

each

Emu

Bay

Brow

nlow

Beac

h

Wes

tern

Cov

e

Bay o

f Sho

als

D'Es

trees

Bay

Samples

100

80

60

40

20

0

Simi

larity

Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

Figure 8: Dendrogram of beach sites generated by hierarchical cluster analysis.

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Sites

18

An analysis of the rubbish collected from Group 1 beaches revealed it to be

predominantly (> 80%) composed of Hard Plastic, Rope and Foam, which are largely

marine debris components (see Table 3). This is consistent with the evidence from

Figures 6 and 7 that Group 1 beaches comprise a cluster of sites with high levels of

marine debris. The rubbish collected from beaches in Group 3, by contrast, was

predominantly (> 60%) Metal, Glass and Other, which is largely dumped on beaches

not at sea, and Figures 6 and 7 reveal that this group had high proportions of terrestrial

forms of litter. Intermediate between these two groups was a large cluster of beaches

(Group 2) where the major rubbish types were Hard Plastic, Rope and Glass. Beaches

classified in Group 2 also had the lowest overall quantities of rubbish, with an average

weight of 13 kg per beach compared with 46 and 45 kg per beach for Groups 1 and 3

respectively. Antechamber Bay had by far the least amount of rubbish of all sites;

which is probably why it was grouped by itself in the dendrogram (Figure 8).

The nMDS ordination plot (Figure 9) depicts a two-dimensional ‘map’ of beach

relationships, where proximity of sites is related to degree of similarity of rubbish

composition. The stress value of 0.09 indicates the ordination represents beach

relationships well. The two axes of the plot represent gradients in the data related to

the source of the rubbish. Correlation analysis revealed that Axis 1 of the ordination is

positively correlated with the five major terrestrial litter subcategories, while the top five

marine debris subcategories are positively correlated with Axis 2 (Table 6). The

ordination confirms the results of both the marine debris and cluster analyses, with

Group 1 beaches (Flour Cask, Windmill, Boxing and Red House Bays) clustering

together in the top section of the plot with high values on Axis 2. Meanwhile, Group 3

sites with high amounts of terrestrial litter like Brownlow Beach, D’Estrees Bay and Bay

of Shoals are found together at the bottom right of the ordination (Figure 9). The Group

2 beaches don’t score as high on either axis, being characterised by a mix of both

types of rubbish. Hanson Bay lies closest to Group 1, however, because of its high

marine debris component, while Pennington Bay, Hog Bay and Christmas Cove lie

closest to Group 3.

19

Figure 9: nMDS ordination of beach relationships.

Table 6: Degree of correlation between rubbish subcategories and ordination axes.

Axis 1 Correlation Coefficient Subcategory

Axis 2 Correlation Coefficient Subcategory

0.8 Bottles & jars 0.8 Marine rope

0.7 Cans 0.8 Plastic floats & pots

0.7 Other metal 0.7 Plastic fragments

0.6 Building materials 0.7 Bait baskets

0.6 Palette wrappers & tarps 0.7 Foam floats

Note: Dashed ellipses denote groupings from cluster analysis (Table 5)

Axi

s 2

Axis 1

20

Rubbish Trends Rubbish collections from the nine repeated sites totalled 155 kg in 2007 and 246 kg in

2009. The extra 91 kg of rubbish represents an increase of almost 60%. At the same

time, however, there was also a rise in search effort at these beaches from 98 to 114

person-hours. Increased quantities of all types of rubbish were collected except for

Glass, which dropped slightly, but there was a particularly large rise in the amount of

Hard Plastic, with quantities almost tripling (Figure 10). As a result, while the relative

proportions (percentage contribution) of rubbish categories remained very similar in

both years for Metal, Rope, Foam/Rubber, Paper/Fabric and Soft Plastic, the order of

rank of Hard Plastic and Glass was reversed (Figure 10).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Glass

Hard Plasti

cMeta

l

Paper/

Fabric

Rope

Foam/R

ubber

Soft P

lastic

Wei

ght (

kg)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Percentage of Total R

ubbish

Weight 2007

Weight 2009

% 2007

% 2009

Figure 10: Trends in weights and relative proportions of rubbish categories on KI.

These patterns were repeated at the site level, with consistently larger overall

collections, but similar relative quantities of rubbish types, collected at each site in the

two surveys (Figure 11). In both years, the largest collections came from Brownlow

Beach and Hog Bay, the smallest ones from Emu and Pennington Bays and

intermediate ones from D’Estrees and Hanson Bays (Figure 11). The only exception

was at Vivonne Bay, where there was a marked decrease in the quantity of rubbish

21

collected from 2007 to 2009. However, there was also a substantial drop in search

effort from 10 to only two people between the two years.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Stokes B

ay

Emu Bay

Boxing B

ay

Brownlo

w Bea

ch

Hog Bay

Pennin

gton B

ay

D'Estree

s Bay

Vivonne

Bay

Hanson B

ay

Rub

bish

Den

sity

(g/m

²)

2007

2009

Figure 11: Trends in beach rubbish density per site.

Whilst at most sites, increases in rubbish density from the first survey to the second

were small to moderate, quantities of rubbish collected at Brownlow Beach and at

Boxing Bay were significantly larger (Figure 11). At Boxing Bay, this was a function of a

quadrupling in search effort and large expansion of the search area, but at Brownlow a

genuinely large increase occurred, particularly in the amounts of building-related

materials collected, such as palette wrappers and cardboard.

22

Discussion

During the 2009 Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey, half a tonne of rubbish was

removed from most of the major beaches on the Island, significantly improving the

public amenity of these locations, while simultaneously reducing the threats posed to

local wildlife through ingestion and entanglement. In addition, the 2009 survey

improved on the previous one in 2007 by formalising methods, providing repeat data

for some sites and establishing a baseline report for nine new, previously unsurveyed

sites. It also provided the first robust baseline estimates of marine debris on KI’s

shores, and identified sites that appear to be significant collection points or sinks for

ocean flotsam. Information from this study can contribute to state and national

environmental reporting and can be used to inform the development of local threat

abatement plans or industry codes of practice, such as those the AMLR NRM Board is

currently pursuing.

Rubbish Quantity Overall beach rubbish density on KI was low, at less than 1 gram per square metre

(g/m2), however, in order to draw comparisons with other beach rubbish surveys

conducted around Australia it is necessary to convert the results into kilograms

collected per linear kilometre (kg/km). Using this measure, rubbish density on KI was

estimated at 10.1 kg/km (Appendix 3). This is comparable to amounts of beach rubbish

recorded from annual monitoring at Anxious Bay, in the eastern Great Australian Bight,

where levels of beach rubbish between 1991 and 2000 averaged 8 kg/km (Edyvane et

al. 2004). Rubbish composition at Anxious Bay was also similar to KI, with Hard Plastic,

Glass and Rope accounting for the majority of rubbish collected (Edyvane et al. 2004).

The same can be said for the composition of rubbish collected at Long Beach, near

Robe in the south-east of South Australia between 1997 and 2005; however the

density of rubbish at this location was twice that of KI at 21.7 kg/km (Eglinton et al.

2006).

In 2009 there was an increase in the total amount of rubbish collected from most sites

compared with 2007. This was largely due to increased and better coordinated search

effort as well as, in some cases, increases in the search area. Until methods are fully

standardised, and the data series is longer, it is premature to draw conclusions about

real trends in rubbish quantities.

23

Rubbish Composition The beach rubbish found in the 2009 survey was comprised very largely of fragments

of Hard Plastic of varying sizes, glass bottles, and a significant quantity of Rope, which

is consistent with earlier findings (Kinloch and Brock 2007). Hard Plastic was

particularly prevalent, comprising one third of the total and more than twice as much as

any other category. This is a common finding in beach rubbish surveys, highlighting the

ubiquity of this material in modern society. Unfortunately, Hard Plastic is highly durable

and non-biodegradable, i.e. it does not decay into organic matter. Instead, it

photodegrades, breaking up into smaller and smaller pieces as a result of exposure to

sunlight (Tangaroa Blue 2010). These fragments will persist in the marine environment

for hundreds of years and can be ingested by seabirds, fish, turtles and marine

mammals. This is a massive worldwide problem and can only be addressed in a small

way locally.

Glass and Metal by contrast are far less likely to pose serious threats to marine wildlife

but are certainly not without dangers to human health and well-being. Rope, naturally,

is of concern, posing entanglement risks to Kangaroo Island’s colonies of seals and

penguins, which forage in surrounding waters. It was encouraging however to note the

paucity of fishing nets found in the survey, in contrast to the situation that occurs in the

north of Australia, where fishing net is the commonest item and contributes the greatest

weight to beach rubbish collections (White 2005b).

All rubbish types occurred in varying quantities, right around KI. The composition and

total quantity of rubbish varied among sites according to a number of interrelated

factors such as the proximity of the beach to urban centres, the amount of recreational

activity at the beach, beach aspect relative to prevailing onshore winds and ocean

currents, and degree of exposure to commercial fishing fleets or other marine-based

industries. Thus, concentrations of Glass and Metal were found around recreational or

urban sites and nets, rope and foam predominated at exposed and particularly

southeasterly-facing south or north coast beaches.

Geographic variations in rubbish composition resulted in three main types, or

groupings, of beach based on amount and source of rubbish. Group 1 beaches were

characterised by large rubbish collections dominated by marine debris (e.g. Windmill

and Flour Cask Bays). Group 3 beaches also had large amounts of rubbish but were

dominated by items of terrestrial origin (e.g. Brownlow Beach and Bay of Shoals).

Lastly, the Group 2 beaches were characterised by small amounts of rubbish of mixed

24

terrestrial and marine origin (e.g. Stokes and Vivonne Bays). The difference in rubbish

sources between beaches has important implications for management of the problem.

Marine Debris This survey demonstrated that marine debris is a significant component of the rubbish

deposits on KI’s beaches, contributing almost 40% of the total collection. Miscellaneous

fishing gear, including rope, bait baskets and fishing floats were the most common

component of the marine debris. These items probably originated from the state and

commonwealth commercial fishing fleets that operate around the KI coastline (rock

lobster, abalone, scalefish and shark), particularly along the south coast. This is

supported by the fact that the largest percentages of marine debris came from three

south coast locations; Windmill Bay, Hanson Bay and Flour Cask Bay. However,

marine debris can potentially drift for thousands of kilometres so it is also possible that

some items (for example floats) have come from farther afield. Pots lost overboard

from Northern Zone rock lobster vessels are likely to be the source of the more than

104 bait baskets and numerous plastic fragments from the broken “redneck” of pots.

The longline found at Pennington Bay exhibits short ‘snoods’ of monofilament line

attached to a rope mainline, suggesting that it is part of an automatic longline or ‘auto-

longline’ (pers. comm. Nathan Bicknell, OceanWatch Australia). This type of gear is

distinctly different from that used by South Australian marine scalefish fishers in state

waters to target snapper. Auto-longlines are used by the Gill, Hook and Trap sector of

the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark fishery, but are also

common to fisheries of South America, Antarctica, New Zealand and South Africa

(pers. comm. Nathan Bicknell, OceanWatch Australia).

Fishing gear is valuable, therefore the majority of gear found on beaches has been lost

at sea accidentally due to bad weather or rough sea conditions. However, 15 whole

bait packaging straps were found, mostly on south coast beaches, including at Vivonne

Bay adjacent to Seal Bay. These items enter the sea via either deliberate or accidental

littering and have been known to cause deaths of Australian sea lions and New

Zealand fur seals on Kangaroo Island through entanglement (Page et al. 2004). The

practice of cutting packing straps significantly reduces the damage they can cause to

marine wildlife so should continue to be strongly promoted amongst relevant industry

sectors. Bait straps have been discontinued in South Australian fisheries for at least

five years (pers. comm. Nathan Bicknell, OceanWatch Australia), so the source of

these particular items is uncertain, and may even include foreign fishing fleets.

25

Nearly 25 kilograms of soft plastic was collected, including quite large amounts at Red

House and Flour Cask Bays. These two beaches are relatively remote and

inaccessible and appear to be sinks for marine debris. Therefore it is likely that these

items had previously been drifting in the sea, representing a threat to marine wildlife. It

is of concern that Vivonne Bay, adjacent to Seal Bay, recorded the second highest

percentage of soft plastic, including whole plastic bags, which are known to have

caused deaths of Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals on KI through

entanglement and ingestion (Page et al. 2004). Plastic shopping bags have recently

been banned in South Australia and this may result in long-term reductions in this

component.

Five sites emerged clearly as being significant collection points for marine debris; these

were: Boxing and Red House Bays on the north coast, and Hanson, Flour Cask and

Windmill Bays on the south coast. These sites could be considered for a long-term

monitoring program for this key threatening process.

Terrestrial Litter The dominant types of terrestrial beach litter collected were beer ‘stubbies’, scrap

metal, paper and cardboard, plastic bottles and palette wrappers. This type of litter is

typical of the normal waste associated with urban areas and recreational activities. Not

surprisingly therefore, the largest amounts of terrestrial litter came from locations close

to the townships of Kingscote and Penneshaw such as Bay of Shoals, Brownlow

Beach, Western Cove, Hog Bay and Christmas Cove. While Christmas Cove did not

have a large total amount of rubbish, the density of rubbish at this site was between

two and four times greater than any other site, with glass bottles and paper comprising

a large component. Given that there are currently three bins at Christmas Cove, this

implies either that the current waste disposal facilities are inadequate or that visiting

yachties, recreational fisherman or day picnickers, are deliberately littering.

Beach sites close to towns were also characterised by concentrations of large items, as

a result of ‘urban dumping’. For example, there were 15 tyres collected from Brownlow

Beach as well as a quantity of building material, including bricks and palette wrappers,

apparently associated with building activities around the Nepean Pines Estate. At Bay

of Shoals there was a large amount of Metal collected, primarily corrugated iron, chair

frames and car parts, which again has been deliberately dumped. This would suggest a

lack of care for some parts of our coastline, particularly parts that are seldom seen by

most members of the community.

26

Popular recreational sites, such as Stokes Bay and Snellings Beach on the north coast

or Vivonne Bay on the south, were also dominated by high percentages of terrestrial

litter, although not necessarily large quantities. D’Estrees Bay, which had the highest

proportion of terrestrial litter of all sites, is a popular surfing and fishing spot with locals

and visitors alike. Consequently there are numerous informal camping areas dotted

along its coastline. These areas accumulate significant quantities of broken beer

bottles. Currently there are no waste disposal facilities at this site for the use of visitors,

although there is a rural bin bank for residents (pers comm. Joseph Sullivan, KI NRM

Board).

Lack of facilities may be partially contributing to the build-up of litter on beaches, but it

also means that people are not taking their rubbish away with them for later disposal.

The causes of littering are many and varied, ranging from carelessness, poor practices,

laziness, lack of appropriate facilities, accidents and criminal acts. Ongoing education

and awareness programs will be needed to combat littering behaviour but this study

identified sites that could benefit from more direct actions. Collaboration with local

council to identify areas that may benefit from rubbish bins or signage, especially in

areas subject to camping, is required. It is also possible that a targeted policing

campaign to impose fines for littering is warranted.

Future Monitoring It is important to continue regular beach rubbish surveys on KI using the standard

protocols developed through this program since 2005 and documented in this report.

The use of consistent methods ensures the collection of spatially and temporally

comparable data from which trends and geographic patterns in littering and sea

dumping can be accurately determined and valid assessments made. This will enable

the effectiveness of public awareness campaigns and activities such as the beach

rubbish survey in modifying littering behaviour to be evaluated.

The separation of beach rubbish into marine and terrestrial components in the 2009

survey demonstrated clear differences in rubbish characteristics among sites and was

extremely useful in discriminating KI beaches. In future, methods of data recording will

be refined to include noting signs of foreign identity such as labels, or recording

features such as international bar codes that can be used to identify an item’s country

of origin.

27

The use of weight as the measure of rubbish quantity creates a bias towards heavy

items such as metal drums, chairs and bricks over lighter but more common items like

plastic bags and wrappers. This may lead to an underestimate of their importance in

terms of potential impact in the marine environment. Items such as plastic bags that

are ubiquitous, and present a real danger to wildlife, do not feature prominently in the

analyses because of their light weight. Conversely, a few large metal items can

overemphasise the occurrence of this category, generally. This needs to be taken into

account when interpreting the results of this and future rubbish surveys and

emphasises the value of counting as well as weighing some items.

Another factor that may affect survey results is that at certain sites there are regular

beach-goers who collect rubbish during their recreational walks. This applies in

particular to Emu and Pennington Bays. These inconsistencies will best be ironed out

over time but it may be that these beaches are less appropriate for monitoring

purposes.

Conclusions

The 2009 Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey has established a viable, effective

and regular community beach rubbish monitoring project which has expanded from an

initial group of 33 volunteers collecting 84 kg of rubbish from eight beaches in 2005 to

60 volunteers collecting 500 kg of rubbish from 18 beaches in 2009, indicating

increased community stewardship of the Island’s coastal and marine environment.

This study has provided high-quality data for evaluating progress towards regional

targets, as well as for state and national State of the Environment reporting. It also

delivered information to improve public awareness and collective management of

littering and its consequences locally. The 2009 survey provided a benchmark regional

spatial dataset of the amount and distribution of beach rubbish on KI, and consolidated

and documented procedures for conducting beach rubbish surveys to provide

consistent data for reporting on regional trends as well as addressing site-specific

issues.

It appears that waste disposal facilities at some locations may be inadequate and

addressing this issue will require consultation with other management agencies. It is

also clear that initiating and supporting local education and awareness campaigns

28

targeted at reducing beach littering is important. However, it is equally clear that

rubbish originating from the sea continues to present a danger to marine wildlife

particularly around the Island’s southern shoreline. It is therefore also important to raise

awareness of this issue and to support and encourage industry practices to reduce

these threats.

Recommendations

As a result of this project, the following recommendations are made:

1. Conduct a review of waste disposal facilities, particularly at key recreational

locations, and collaborate with the KI Council and other stakeholders to

improve amenities.

2. Collaborate with the AMLR NRM Board in the development of a Marine

Debris Threat Abatement Plan for Gulf St Vincent and a Code of Practice for

marine industries.

3. Develop local education and awareness campaigns targeting littering on

and around beaches, possibly through improved signage at key recreational

sites and enforcement of penalties for littering where appropriate.

4. Repeat the Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Survey in 2011 using the

standardised methods described in this report, although with some

refinement to data recording to better identify rubbish origin.

5. Identify priority sites for the long-term monitoring of marine debris in

consultation with the Kangaroo Island Coastal Issues Working Group and

the AMLR NRM Board.

29

References

Attorney-General’s Department, South Australian Legislation, National Parks and

Wildlife Act 1972, viewed 31 July 2009.

<http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/NATIONAL%20PARKS%20AND%20WI

LDLIFE%20ACT%201972/CURRENT/1972.56.UN.PDF>

Bartram, H. 2005. Kangaroo Island Beach Rubbish Study, 2005. Kangaroo Island

Natural Resources Board. Unpublished Technical Report, 7pp.

Clarke, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community

structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117-143.

Clarke, K.R. and Warwick R.M. 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to

statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.

Colmar Brunton Research 2009. TOMM Kangaroo Island Visitor Exit Survey

2008/2009. Adelaide.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2009, EPBC Listed Key

Threatening Processes, viewed 4 August 2009.

< http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl>

Duka, T. & Jack, E. 2004. Tourism Optimisation Management Model, Kangaroo Island:

Case Study. KI TOMM, Kingscote.

Edyvane, K.S., Dalgetty, A., Hone, P.W., Higham, J.S. and Wace, N.M. 2004. Long-

term marine litter monitoring in the remote Great Australian Bight, South

Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48: 1060-1075.

Eglinton, Y.M., Wear, R.Y., Teil, M.J. and O’Loughlin, E.J. 2006. Marine Debris

Monitoring in South Australia: A Report on the 2005 Annual Robe Litter Survey.

South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences).

Adelaide.

Jones, K., and Doonan, A. 2005. 2000 - 01 National Recreational and Indigenous

Fishing Survey: South Australian Regional Information. South Australian

Fisheries Management Series. Adelaide, Primary Industries and Resources SA.

Paper No. 46: 99.

Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board 2009. Here to Stay – for our

children and grandchildren: A natural resources management plan for the

Kangaroo Island region (Introduction to the Plan). Kangaroo Island Natural

Resources Management Board.

30

Kinloch, M.A. & Brock, D.J. 2007. Kangaroo Island Beach Litter Survey 2007.

Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board, Coast and Marine

Program Report No. CMP07/002.

Kruskal, J. B. 1964. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a

nonmetric Hypothesis. Psychometrika 29:1-27.

Laist D.W. (1987) Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris

in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 18, 319-326

Mather, P. M. 1976. Computational methods of multivariate analysis in physical

geography. J. Wiley & Sons, London. 532 pp.

NOAA Marine Debris Program 2009, Impacts of Marine Debris, viewed 14 July 2009.

<http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/impacts.html>

Page, B., McKenzie, J., McIntosh, R., Baylis, A., Morrissey, A., Calvert, N., Haase, T.,

Berris, M., Dowie, D., Shaughnessy, P. and Goldsworthy, S. D. 2004.

Entanglement of Australian sea lions and New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing

gear and other marine debris before and after Government and industry attempts

to reduce the problem. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49: 33-42.

Sheltinga, D.M., Counihan, R., Moss, A., Cox, M. and Bennett, J. 2004. Users’ Guide to

Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Indicators for Regional NRM Monitoring.

Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary & Waterway

Management, Indooroopilly, Australia.

Short, A.D. 2001. Beaches of the South Australian Coast and Kangaroo Island: A guide

to their nature, characteristics, surf and safety. Coastal Studies Unit, School of

Geosciences, University of Sydney.

Tangaroa Blue 2010, Fact Sheet 2: How Long Does Marine Debris Take To

Breakdown?, viewed 21 December 2010.

<http://www.oceancare.org.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&

id=49:fact-sheet-2-how-long-does-marine-debris-take-to-

breakdown&catid=91:marine-debris-education&Itemid=137>

White, D. 2005a. Marine Debris Survey Information Manual. 2nd edition, WWF Marine

Debris Project, Arafura Ecoregion Program, WWF Australia.

White, D. 2005b. Marine Debris in Northern Australian Waters 2004. Department of the

Environment and Heritage. WWF Australia.

31

Appendices

Appendix 1: Example rubbish collection datasheet.

32

Appendix 2: Example site map.

33

Appendix 3: Beach dimensions.

Site No. Location Beach Length (km)

Beach Area (ha)

1 Western River Cove 0.189 1.6

2 Snellings Beach 0.719 8.7

3 Stokes Bay 0.508 3.4

4 Emu Bay 4.940 38.1

5 Boxing Bay 2.019 10.4

6 Bay of Shoals 4.582 7.4

7 Brownlow Beach 3.573 11.5

8 Western Cove 1.270 3.6

9 Christmas Cove 0.388 0.7

10 Hog Bay 1.964 4.8

11 Antechamber Bay 4.170 15.1

12 Red House Bay 2.255 5.4

13 Windmill Bay 0.994 3.6

14 Pennington Bay 1.421 11.0

15 Flour Cask Bay 10.045 37.3

16 D'Estrees Bay 2.710 9.7

17 Vivonne Bay 6.067 30.5

18 Hanson Bay 1.526 10.8

Totals 49.3 213.7

34

Appendix 4: Personnel and search effort.

Location Name of Participant # People Search time (hrs) Person hours

Antechamber Bay & Red House Bay

Kym Lashmar 2 3.25 6.5 Wren Lashmar

Bay of Shoals

Trish Leeuwenberg

6 3 18

Tim Leeuwenberg Allyson Marlow Penny Moon Mark Capon Gail Capon

Boxing Bay

Martine Kinloch

5 2.5 12.5 Manfred Meidert Helen Palmer Paul White Danny Brock

Brownlow Beach

Colin Wilson

6 2.5 15

Lyn Dohle Helen Achurch Jenni Harris Bev Maxwell Brenton Florance

D'Estrees Bay

Mark Morris

5 2.5 12.5 Sue Morris Heiri Klein Corinna Klein Pat Brooksby

Emu Bay

Tania Ellison

5 2.75 13.75 Alwyn Francis Mia Vickery Fraser Vickery Veronica Bates

Flour Cask Bay Deb Sleeman

3 2.75 8.25 Dennis Shearing Tanja Thomsen

Hanson Bay

Sarah-Jane Jones

4 4 16 Michael Oakes Tony Flaherty Carolyn Taylor

Penneshaw (Jacks Creek, Christmas Cove, Hog Bay)

Kathie Stove 3 2.25 6.75 Libby Barrios

Cherry Hobbs

35

Pennington Bay

Phyll Bartram

9 3 27

Tony Bartram Dave Clarke Zachary Beer Clarke Christian Clolus Kenita Williamson Tom Churchill-Brown Kerry Kaye Boss John Grey

Snellings Beach Carol Lee 2 2.5 5 Peter Magill

Stokes Bay Kate Buck 2 1 2 Tim Buck

Vivonne Bay Sabina Douglas-Hill 2 4 8 Judith Giraldo

Western Cove

Peter Scott

4 1.5 6 Sandie Scott Gareth Scott Kieran Scott

Western River Cove Danny Brock 2 1.5 3 Robyn Morcom

Windmill Bay Albert Zepf 1 2.5 2.5

Total 61 162.75

36

Appendix 5: Description of standard rubbish categories.

CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORY DEFINITION OF LITTER TYPE

HARD PLASTIC

Plastic bottles plastic bottles and bottle caps (but not including oil bottles) Plastic oil bottles plastic bottles, containers and drums used to carry oil or fuel Plastic drums & water containers

other large plastic drums (not including oil drums); and plastic 'jerry cans' used to carry water

Bait baskets burley pots; bait baskets from crayfish pots Oyster racks & baskets plastic oyster racks or baskets

Plastic floats & pots plastic floats (eiter whole or fragments) as well as whole or fragments of 'red neck' cray pots

Fishing lures & floats recreational fishing lures, floats and squid jigs Brushes any type of brush i.e. tooth, hair, paint etc. Cigarette lighters cigarette or BBQ/fire lighter

Plastic fragments any unidentifiable plastic fragment regardless of size that cannot be accurately categorised

Other plastic any type of hard plastic not included in another category

SOFT PLASTIC

Food wrappers soft plastic domestic food wrappers

Whole plastic shopping bags whole or nearly whole supermarket 'check-out' style shopping bag

Other plastic bags & fragments any other type of whole plastic bag (not including supermarket shopping bags) as well as fragments of all types of plastic bags (including supermarket shopping bags)

Palette wrappers & tarps plastic pallet wrapping or plastic tarpaulin

GLASS Bottles & jars glass bottles and jars, either whole or broken Light bulbs light globes and fluorescent tubes

METAL

Cans aluminium or tin cans Spray cans aerosol spray cans e.g. deodorant, flyspray, lubricant Metal drums whole or clearly identifiable fragments of large metal drums Fire extingushers any type of fire extinguisher

Other metal any other type of metal not included in any other category i.e. tyre rims, sheet metal, wire

PAPER/FABRIC Paper & cardboard any paper or cardboard product i.e. boxes, cartons Cloth & fabric any type of cloth or fabric i.e. clothing, rags

ROPE

Marine rope any nautical rope, cord or line such as mooring line, anchor warp, deck rope, craypot line etc.

Terrestrial rope any type of non-maritime rope e.g. bailing twine

Fishing line any type of fishing line i.e. long lines and recreational fishing line (monofilament and gelspun/braid)

Fishing nets any type of fishing net Packing tape bait straps or other packing tape, including fragments

FOAM/RUBBER

Foam floats whole or identifiable fragments of foam floats Polystyrene polystyrene products e.g. styrofoam boxes, cups, eskies etc. Footware thongs or shoes Gloves gloves of any type

Other rubber any type of rubber not included in another category e.g. tennis balls, piping insulation

OTHER

Fibreglass any fibreglass product i.e. bits of boats, surf boards etc. Building materials e.g. bricks, pavers and ceramic tiles

Composite materials items constructed from significant components of more than one material, e.g. computer monitors

37

Appendix 6: Example rubbish analysis datasheet.

38

39

40