Designated Exchange Areas Project – Providing informed decisions on the discharge of Ballast Water in Australia (Phase 2)

Full text

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report i
Designated Exchange Areas Project –
Providing informed decisions on the
discharge of Ballast Water in Australia
(Phase 2)
Emma Knight, Simon Barry, Rupert
Summerson, Scott Cameron and Rebecca
Darbyshire

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report ii
© Commonwealth of Australia 2007
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted
under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced
by any process without prior written permission from the
Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning
reproduction and rights should be addressed to the
Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney
General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National
Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at
http://www.ag.gov.au/cca.
The Australian Government acting through the Bureau of
Rural Sciences has exercised due care and skill in the
preparation and compilation of the information and data
set out in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Bureau of
Rural Sciences, its employees and advisers disclaim all
liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss,
damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as
a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the
information or data set out in this publication to the
maximum extent permitted by law.
Postal address:
Bureau of Rural Sciences
GPO Box 858
Canberra, ACT 2601

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report iii
Executive Summary
Invasive Marine Pests
and Ballast Water
Invasive marine pests pose a threat to Australian marine
environments and to industries dependent on these environments.
Exchanging ballast water is one mechanism for the introduction and
translocation of marine pests. The Australian Government requires
the management of internationally sourced ballast water. However,
there are no arrangements in place for the management of
domestically sourced ballast water except for Victoria.
The Convention
The International Convention for the Control and Management of
Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the Convention) provides for a
globally consistent approach to the management of marine pests in
ballast water and sediment.
Ballast Water
Management
Arrangements
The Australian Government, States and the Northern Territory agreed
to apply the Convention in the development of nationally consistent
Ballast Water Management Arrangements as part of the National
System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest
Incursions. Risk management of domestically sourced ballast water
by the implementation of exchange areas is an interim measure while
onboard treatment systems are being introduced. These systems are
being phased in over the next 10 years and will be mandatory on all
ships by 2016.
Designated Exchange
Areas Project
In general, ships entering Australian ports from international
locations can exchange ballast water at a distance greater than 200
nautical miles from the coastline and in waters deeper than 200
metres, adhering to international regulations. However, ships
travelling between Australian ports will generally be unable to
comply with the regulations without deviating from or delaying their
original voyage. Under the Convention, Australia can designate
ballast water exchange areas for ships that would have to deviate
from their usual route or delay their intended arrival to comply with
the regulations.
The aim of this project was to identify locations that could be
designated as areas for ships on domestic routes to undertake ballast
water exchange. This was achieved by evaluating the overall risk of
pest establishment and cost to the shipping industry of different
management strategies. Three options for designated boundaries
were investigated; 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles from the coast.
Questionnaire Based
Risk Assessment
A questionnaire was developed from information gathered in
previous work (Phase 1 of this project) and was completed by experts
in marine pests and invasion biology. Experts were asked to estimate
the risk of pests establishing from ballast water discharge at a number
of locations around Australia, relative to the risk of establishment
from discharge in a nearby port environment. The experts scored risk
based on latitude, longitude, distance from the coast, depth and larval
survivability. These results were used to model the risk around

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report iv
Australia.
Analysis of
Environmental Risk The results indicate that the risk of establishment depends on:
• depth
• distance from the coast
• water movement and
• latitude
Risk decreases with depth and distance from the coast. The risk
extends further to the north of Australia, however the volume of ships
carrying domestically sourced ballast water is significantly lower in
these areas.
Balancing
Environmental Risk
and Cost to Industry
The areas of concern are those where the risk of establishment is high
and where ships carrying domestically sourced ballast water are
operating. The further the boundary from the coast, the greater the
environmental protection, however this is coupled with a greater cost
to the shipping industry due to ships being required to deviate from
their route.
A boundary of 3 nautical miles provides an average risk reduction of
60% and will have a minor impact on the shipping industry. A
boundary of 12 nautical miles provides greater environmental
protection with an average risk reduction of 75%, and will have a
relatively moderate impact on the shipping industry. A boundary of
24 nautical miles reduces the average risk by a further 10%, but
comes at a significant cost to industry.
Torres Strait and Great
Barrier Reef to be
Considered Separately
Due to the high risk recorded through the Torres Strait and Great
Barrier Reef and the environmental sensitivity of these areas, it is
recommended that these areas be examined separately when
designating ballast water exchange areas.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report v
1 Contents
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................iii
1 Contents.....................................................................................................................................v
2 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................7
2.1 Background .........................................................................................................................7
2.2 The Problem........................................................................................................................8
2.3 Previous Work .....................................................................................................................8
2.4 Objectives of DEAP Project (Phase 2)................................................................................9
2.5 Structure of this Report......................................................................................................10
3 METHODS.................................................................................................................................11
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................11
3.2 Expert Questionnaire.........................................................................................................11
3.2.1 Development of the Questionnaire............................................................................12
Scenario locations....................................................................................................................12
Selection of Experts .................................................................................................................12
Evaluation of Risk.....................................................................................................................12
Larval Baselines.......................................................................................................................13
Scenarios .................................................................................................................................14
Answer Sheet...........................................................................................................................16
3.2.2 Analysis of the Questionnaire Results.......................................................................17
Mapping the Risk......................................................................................................................18
3.3 Economic and Practical Impacts .......................................................................................19
3.3.1 Shipping data.............................................................................................................19
Identifying ballast water carrying ships on domestic routes.....................................................20
Generalised route.....................................................................................................................20
Overlays of risk and shipping data...........................................................................................21
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................................21
4.1 Risk Analysis - Expert Questionnaire................................................................................21
4.2 Shipping Data....................................................................................................................27
4.3 Risk versus Cost................................................................................................................30
Ballast water exchange area boundaries.................................................................................30
Summary of the estimated risk of establishment at 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles .....................30
Maps of the estimated risk at 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles .......................................................32
Acceptance of a certain level of risk.........................................................................................36

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report vi
4.4 Examples...........................................................................................................................40
4.4.1 Brisbane – Sydney ....................................................................................................40
4.4.2 Sydney – Melbourne..................................................................................................44
4.4.3 Western Australia ......................................................................................................47
4.4.4 Northern Territory ......................................................................................................49
4.4.5 Further examples.......................................................................................................52
5 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................53
References .......................................................................................................................................55
Appendix A: Questionnaire............................................................................................................56
Email sent to experts asking them to participate in the study..................................................56
The email sent to participants containing the questionnaire....................................................57
The cover letter ........................................................................................................................57
Information document...............................................................................................................58
Scenarios .................................................................................................................................64
Answer Sheet...........................................................................................................................70
Shipping Map ...........................................................................................................................73
Appendix B: Participants................................................................................................................74
Appendix C: Additional Maps ........................................................................................................75
Appendix D: Great Barrier Reef & Torres Strait Examples.........................................................80

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 7
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
This report is the result of the Designated Exchange Areas project conducted by the Bureau of
Rural Sciences (BRS) for the Invasive Marine Species Programme (IMSP), Corporate Policy
Division, Australian Government Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry. The project
aims to inform decisions on the development of designated ballast water exchange areas for the
National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions (National System)
Ballast Water Management Arrangements.
Invasive marine species pose a significant threat to Australia’s marine industries and environment.
Marine pests may be introduced into Australian waters and translocated around the country by a
range of human and natural means. One of the potential vectors for introduction and translocation
is through ballast water, carried by commercial ships to ensure stability, trim and structural
integrity.
Since July 2001, the Australian Government has had in place requirements for the management of
internationally sourced ballast water that apply to all ships arriving from overseas. The Australian
Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is the lead agency for the management of ballast water
sourced from overseas. Part of AQIS’ charter is to ensure that foreign ballast water has been
managed in accordance with the requirements before permitting its discharge inside Australia’s
territorial sea. Any ballast water that has been exchanged at sea by an approved method is deemed
to be acceptable for discharge in Australian ports and waters. However, AQIS ballast water
management does not regulate ballast water sourced from inside Australia’s territorial sea. The
Victorian Government has had requirements for the management of domestically sourced ballast
water in place since July 2004.
The Australian Government was instrumental in developing the International Convention for the
Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the Convention), to ensure a
globally consistent approach to the management of marine pests in ballast water and sediment. The
text of the Convention was agreed at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Diplomatic
Convention in February 2004. Australia signed the Convention on 27 May 2005, subject to
ratification. Australia is considering ratification of the Convention (bringing the Convention into
force within Australia) as part of the process of developing National Ballast Water Management
Arrangements.
A High Level Officials Group (HLG) of Australian Government, States and Northern Territory
officials agreed to the development of the National System to manage domestic ballast water as
part of a single consistent national ballast water management system. The new ballast water
arrangements will provide for a single set of requirements and a single coordinating contact centre.
The requirements will be implemented under Australian Government legislation for international
ballast water and state/territory legislation for domestic ballast water.
The National Introduced Martine Pest Coordination Group (NIMPCG) is responsible for the
development of the National System. Through the National System, the Australian, Northern
Territory and state governments are developing nationally consistent ballast water management
arrangements. These requirements will be consistent with the Convention and allow Australia to
manage the risk from marine pest introductions from both internationally and domestically sourced
ballast water.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 8
The Convention provides for the management of ballast water through two main mechanisms –
exchange and treatment. The designation of ballast water exchange areas is an interim solution for
approximately 10 years. Introduction of ballast water treatment systems are to be phased from
2009 and will be mandatory for all ships by 2016. These systems will provide a high level of risk
mitigation and annul the need for ships to undertake ballast water exchange at sea. This project
investigates the designation of ballast water exchange areas to reduce the risk of translocating
harmful aquatic organisms around Australia’s marine environment until onboard treatments
become available.
2.2 The Problem
Australia intends to ratify the Convention through the development of the National System’s
Ballast Water Management Arrangements (BWMA). Therefore, the BWMA must be consistent
with the Convention and, as such ships must comply with the Convention’s Regulation B-4.1.
Regulation B-4.1 specifies that a ship conducting ballast water exchange shall:
.1 whenever possible, conduct ballast water exchange at least 200 nautical miles from the
nearest land and in water at least 200 metres in depth
.2 where a ship is unable to meet point 1. above, conduct ballast water exchange as far from
nearest land as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land and
in water at least 200 metres in depth.
Regulation B-4.2 of the Convention has provision for Australia to designate ballast water exchange
areas for ships that would have to deviate from their usual route or delay their intended arrival to
meet Regulation B-4.1. Regulation B-4.2 states that:
‘in sea areas where the distance from the nearest land or depth does not meet the
parameters described in paragraph 1.1. or 1.2, the port State may designate
areas, in consultation with adjacent or other States, as appropriate, where a ship
may conduct Ballast Water exchange, taking into account the Guidelines
described in paragraph 1.1.’
Due to Australia’s geographical layout and location, ships entering Australian ports from foreign
ports will generally be able to comply with Regulation B-4.1. However, ships travelling between
Australian ports will generally be unable to comply with Regulation B-4.1 without deviating from
or delaying their original voyage. This presents a significant cost for industry to comply with the
exchange requirements and may lead to increased safety concerns. Hence it is important that
Australia designate sufficient ballast water exchange areas for these ships.
2.3 Previous Work
Previous work in this area has concentrated on two key areas. Hobday et al. (2002) modelled
particle dispersal and produced baselines of risk which calculated the percent of particles that
reached “suitable” habitat, defined by depth. While this work allowed the bounding of the risks
associated with ballast water exchange, the conversion between a particular baseline and the actual
risk was not defined due to the complexity of the underlying processes. Barry et al. (unpublished)
considered the diluting effects of exchange and port discharge. They argued that exchanging in
open coastal waters offers a significant reduction in the risk of marine pests establishing compared
to discharge without treatment in port, due to the effects of dilution and dispersal. This project uses
expert understandings of these issues to calibrate these results.
The Designated Exchange Areas project (DEAP) contains two phases. Phase 1 of this project
involved the identification and collation of information to be considered in designating a ballast

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 9
water exchange area(s). The information was complied into a Geographic Information System
(GIS). The data included distance contours, Marine Protected Areas, Fisheries areas and existing
shipping routes. The data were used in Phase 2 to assess the risks of marine pest incursions via
ballast water discharged, as well as to assist in determining areas which may be suitable for ballast
water exchange. The information obtained from Phase 1 is presented below in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Data collected from Phase 1 of the project, including depth, shipping,
shipping traffic, marine protected areas and levels of commercial fisheries
catch.
2.4 Objectives of DEAP Project (Phase 2)
The objective of this project (DEAP Project Phase 2) is to inform decisions on locations that
Australia could designate as areas for ships to undertake ballast water exchange as per the
requirements of the Convention. The risk posed by ships conducting ballast water exchange within
a designated area was assessed. This was achieved by minimising any threat or harm to the
environment, human health, property or resources. In determining the designated ballast water
exchange areas for Australia, minimising additional costs imposed on the shipping industry to
comply with the Convention was also considered.
The designation of ballast water exchange areas must be consistent with the Convention and
consider a combination of biological risks, economic costs and practical issues to reach a final
conclusion.
• Biological Risks
― Different species are likely to pose different risks from port to port depending on
factors such as temperature, water depth, currents and physiology. Determining
the risk of all invasive marine species currently inhabiting Australian ports would
be time consuming and would result in different exchange zones being proposed

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 10
for each species. Experts on marine pest incursions were consulted throughout
this project to determine biological risks.
• Economic Costs
― Requiring ships to undertake ballast water exchange in areas off their original
routes will increase the costs associated with transportation of goods via sea. The
potential delays and extra costs to be imposed on the industry to obtain the
required environmental protection is an important factor when considering
exchange areas.
• Practical Areas
― Areas deemed practical to be designated for ballast water discharge zones can be
identified from the information gathered in Phase 1 of this project.
2.5 Structure of this Report
There are two main sections to this report, namely the ‘methods’ and ‘results and discussion’. The
‘methods’ section describes the processes used to develop the expert questionnaire and carry out
the risk analysis. It describes how practical issues as well as economic impacts on the shipping
industry were considered. The ‘results and discussion’ section presents the relationship between
risk and the variables used in the model and uses this relationship to map risk around Australia.
The influences of shipping routes and traffic density on risk are discussed. The associated cost to
industry of imposing designated exchange areas is also outlined in this section.
Four appendices are also attached. These contain the questionnaire provided to the experts, a list of
the experts who participated, additional maps describing risk and maps investigating the risk to the
Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 11
3 METHODS
3.1 Introduction
This report considers the biological, economic and practical impacts of designating exchange areas.
The information collated in Phase 1 was used to develop a questionnaire to quantify and assess the
biological risk of ballast water exchange in coastal environments. The questionnaire was
completed by a panel of experts in marine pests and invasion biology. To evaluate the economic
and practical impacts of designated exchange areas, shipping routes and densities were
investigated.
3.2 Expert Questionnaire
The use of a questionnaire to conduct risk assessment has been employed by previous studies. For
example, Cunningham et al (2003) used a survey of experts to estimate the feasibility and costs of
eradication for a range of weeds. This was achieved by asking experts to examine 15 hypothetical
weed profiles based on specific plant attributes. Experts then estimated the probability of
eradication across 8 broad price ranges. The results obtained from this questionnaire highlighted
which characteristics of a species posed the greatest risk of infestation, according to the experts.
As a result, 10 species of weed were identified as high risk and were marked for eradication
(Cunningham et al 2003). The use of questionnaires in this study was found to be transparent,
scientifically objective and efficient. The success of this case was ensured by the use of widely
accepted principles and methods that have previously been subject to peer review in the scientific
community (Cunningham et al 2003).
Modelling the biological risk explicitly is an alternate method to an expert questionnaire. Upon
considering the development of such a model, several issues became apparent. Firstly, previous
approaches, such as that of Hobday et al (2002), have highlighted certain physical processes which
are relevant to the biological risk. They were, however unable to provide estimates of the risk due
to the complexity and uncertainty in the knowledge of the processes involved. The second, more
practical constraint to this approach is the time required to produce such a complex model. Policy
makers have committed to urgent action on this issue and a decision on designated ballast water
exchange areas is to be made over the coming months.
In order to conduct an assessment of the biological risk of ballast water exchange, a set of
hypothetical scenarios were developed and experts were asked to assess the risk at certain
locations. This methodology was favoured for several reasons. Firstly, it efficiently and
holistically utilises the information collated in Phase 1 of this project. Secondly, this method could
be completed in a timely manner. Thirdly, the questionnaire was developed to focus explicitly on
the risk of exchange, which is of interest to management.
The methodology employed in this report, specifically the incorporation of an expert based
questionnaire, posed several potential difficulties. The most notable being the swift compliance of
the experts in completing the survey. An added complexity was ensuring that enough data was
collected from different areas around Australia. It was important to include enough locations and
variables to ensure that sufficient data was obtained to draw conclusions. However, it was also
important to not include too many variables, as this would have required a large number of
scenarios to cover all comparisons. This may have affected the response rate as it would be time
consuming for the experts.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 12
3.2.1 Development of the Questionnaire
Scenario locations
Twelve locations around the Australian coastline were chosen as scenarios (see Figure 2). The
locations were selected to cover a range of environments, depths, distances from land and areas
with high levels of domestic shipping activity.
Figure 2: Scenario locations and domestic shipping activity.
Selection of Experts
Experts with scientific experience in marine pest and invasion biology were invited to complete the
questionnaire. As the results of this project are to be presented to NIMPCG to provide a
framework for designating areas for ballast water exchange, NIMPCG members from each state
were asked to nominate experts from their jurisdiction.
Evaluation of Risk
Currently, ships are allowed to discharge domestic ballast water (ballast water that originates from
an Australian port or within the territorial sea of Australia) into Australian ports and waters (except
in Victoria). The risk evaluated in this report was measured relative to the current practice.
Experts were asked to estimate the risk of discharging ballast water at each location relative to the
risk of discharging in a nearby port environment.
For every scenario, each expert was asked to assess the risk of discharging ballast water at a
number of sites. The experts were asked to consider the set of species that would establish if the
ballast water was discharged in a nearby port environment and then estimate the percentage of
these species that would establish if the ballast water was discharged at each site. For example, a

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 13
score of 10 indicates that the expert thinks that 10% of the species that would have established if
discharged in port would establish if discharged at the particular site in question. In this context,
establishment refers to an organism being able to find suitable habitat and survive.
The experts were additionally asked to assume that the ballast water originated from a similar
latitude to the discharge location (which provides a conservative assessment). A further
assumption for the amount of ballast water discharged at a location was also implied, asking the
experts to mentally average the amount of water that would be discharged in normal ballast water
exchange activities. The experts were also asked to average over possible port environments.
They were asked to further assume that the suite of species involved is the suit of species that they
think are being translocated between Australian ports in ballast water, now and in the future.
While it is logical that the experts would want to consider variables such as the species involved,
source of water, discharge amount, wave energy, habitat type and other variables, it was beyond the
scope of this project, the available data, the timeline for the decision process and the nature of the
decision for these options to be included. The designated exchange areas will not be defined
differentially based on organisms or ship characteristics, instead it is intended that a single zone
will be defined. It will be a zone that potentially needs to protect against introductions in the future
as well as for translocations of species currently present. Thus, the experts were asked to mentally
average over the unspecified components, based on their understanding of the complex processes
involved.
Larval Baselines
The larval baselines were developed in a study conducted by CSIRO Marine Research aimed at
providing a scientific framework for selecting ballast water uptake and discharge zones around the
Australian continent (Hobday et al, 2002). In this study, combinations of biological species
information, ocean current estimates and modelled larval trajectories were examined to produce a
series of estimated risk contours around the Australian coastline. These baselines were built based
on large and small scale water movement and therefore they were included in this study as a proxy
for currents and tides.
Hobday et al (2002) modelled larval trajectories using geostrophic and wind-driven current
estimates. The larval trajectories were then used to calculate the probability that larvae from any
off shore cell would arrive at the coast within a larval duration time. The estimates of the discharge
baselines based on modelled trajectories are dependent on both the larval duration and depth limits.
The baselines were developed using biological species information (estimated maximum depth,
duration and planktonic period) for the 12 target species currently used in the Ballast Water
Decision Support System. Although a limited set of pest species were used to develop these
baselines, the combination of maximum depth and larval duration used resulted in 15 unique life
history combinations, and these should be applicable to additional pest species as management
considers necessary.
The baselines are displayed in the form of (a)wk (b)m (c)%, where (a)wk refers to larval duration
in weeks, (b)m refers to maximum settlement depth in metres and (c)% is the percentage of larvae
discharged at that line that will reach the maximum settlement depth within the larval duration
time. In the questionnaire used in this study, three larval baselines were chosen to cover the range
of discharge sites within the 50 nautical mile, 200 metre depth zone. All three have a settlement
depth of 50 metres, and a survival percentage of 50%, and differ in the larval duration, covering 1,
2 and 4 weeks. A 4th baseline is also included in some of the scenarios, which covers the “worst
case” of 12 week larval duration and settlement depth of 200m for a 50% survival percentage.
Figure 3 shows the location of the selected larval baselines.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 14
Figure 3: Selected larval baselines from Hobday et al. (2002)
The 1wk 50m 50% larval baseline can be interpreted as: for a species that has a larval duration of 1
week and can establish at a depth of 50m, 50% of the larvae discharged at this line will cross the
50m isobath within a week. For points within this baseline, more than 50% of the larvae will cross
the 50m isobath within a week and for points outside the baseline, less than 50% of the larvae will
cross the 50m isobath within a week.
Hobday et al (2002) built a very detailed model accounting for the settlement depth and larval
duration for a range of species as well as for the complexities of tides and currents. However, this
model does not take dilution effects into account (Barry et al. unpublished), nor does it represent
other factors such as habitat suitability, temperature and predation. This emphasizes the difficulty
in building a detailed model for the risk, highlighting the reasons why an expert based risk
assessment was used in the current project. The larval baselines from Hobday et al (2002) were
included so that the experts could consider them together with the other factors which they feel are
important in assessing biological risk.
Scenarios
The scenarios were presented to the experts in the form of 12 maps. Figure 4 shows the map for
the scenario located off the coast near Robe, Figure 5 the map for the scenario located off the coast
near Darwin and Figure 6 the map for the scenario located off the coast near Brisbane. Maps for
all scenarios can be found in the questionnaire attached in Appendix A.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 15
Figure 4: Scenario 8 - Robe
Figure 5: Scenario 6 – Darwin

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 16
Figure 6: Scenario 7 - Brisbane
Each map shows the following:
• Coast
• 12 and 50 nautical mile distances from the Australian coastline as defined by the Territorial
Sea Baseline (http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/mapping/marbound/bndrs.jsp#tsb)
• 50 and 200 metre isobath. These define the area in which ballast water exchange areas can be
designated.
• Bathymetry of the offshore region. This comprised a digital elevation model (DEM) overlain
(with a transparency 50%) over a hillshaded DEM which gave both a perspective view of the
seabed and a sense of the water depth.
• Selected larval baselines from Hobday et al (2003) (explained below).
• The scenario discharge points, each of which was annotated with the water depth at that point
and its unique number.
It is important to note that the discharge sites within each scenario were not actual sites proposed
for ballast water exchange, rather they were hypothetical for the purpose of informing the
assessment of biological risk.
Answer Sheet
The answer sheet provided in the questionnaire contained the longitude, latitude, distance to coast
and depth for each discharge site within each location. An excerpt of this table is presented in
Table 1. The complete answer sheet can be found in the questionnaire attached in Appendix A.
Experts were asked to enter their estimate of the relative risk of discharge of ballast water for each
site within each location. The experts were advised that their responses could be made public
however the identity of the respondents would remain confidential.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 17
Table 1: Answer sheet used by experts to record their estimate of the risk for
each discharge site for each scenario.
Scenario Location Exchange
Site Coordinates Depth
(m)
Distance
offshore
(nm) Risk of Ballast Water Discharge (%)
144.348 E 1
-39.168 S
72 32.52
145.471 E 2
-39.216 S
74 32.63
146.749 E 3
-39.221 S
67 9.26
147.944 E
1 Bass Straight
4
-39.034 S
62 36.27
116.751 E 1
-20.295 S
42 6.02
116.584 E 2
-20.010 S
58 25.44
116.368 E 3
-19.732 S
65 45.13
116.107 E
2 Dampier
4
-19.513 S
120 61.33
3.2.2 Analysis of the Questionnaire Results
The results of the questionnaire were entered into a database and loaded into the statistical package
R (R Development Core Team, 2006) for analysis. The data provided to the experts for
consideration in estimating the risk at each discharge site was:
• Latitude
• Longitude
• Distance from coast
• Depth
• Larval survivability
The aim of the analysis was to model the risk as estimated by the experts as a function of the above
variables. For each discharge site, the distance to coast, depth, longitude, latitude and the risk as
estimated by the expert were known. A measure of the larval baseline needed to be included in the
analysis. This was obtained by giving the coast a score of 0, the first baseline a score of 10, the 2nd
baseline a score of 20, the 3rd baseline a score of 30 and the 4th baseline a score of 40. The
TOPOGRID routine in ArcGIS was used to interpolate between the baselines. It was necessary to
modify the baselines before using TOPOGRID as some lines crossed each other in the vicinity of
East Timor and east of Papua New Guinea.
Figure 7 contains the map for the scenario located off the coast near Robe. The numbers in the
white boxes show the values assigned to the coast and the larval baselines. The numbers in the
pink boxes show the values of the derived larval baseline measure obtained by interpolating
between baselines.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 18
Figure 7 Values of the larval baseline measure at the exchange sites in the
Robe scenario.
Mapping the Risk
The risk model was determined using the estimated risk provided by the experts for each discharge
point within each scenario. The risk was then modelled using as a generalised additive mixed
model in R (R Development Core Team, 2006) using the gamm function in the mgcv package
(Wood, 2006). The risk was treated as pseudo binomial (using the quasibinomial family in the
gamm function). The variables that were considered in the generalised additive mixed model for
the risk were:
• Depth
• Distance from coast
• Derived larval baseline measure
• Latitude
• Longitude
These variables were fitted as smooth terms using smoothing splines. Expert was fitted as a
random effect in the model to account for differences in the estimates of risk between experts.
The initial model fitted to the risk data was
gamm(risk~s(depth)+s(distance)+s(larval.baseline)+s(latitude)
+s(longitude), family=quasibinomial, random=list(expert=~1))

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 19
This fits a model of the form
longitude)()latitude(eline)larval.bas()distance()depth(
1
log)(ogit 54321 fffff
p
p
pl +++++=
⎟
⎟
⎠
⎞
⎜
⎜
⎝
⎛
−
=
α
where p is the risk and f represents a smooth function.
Risk around the Australian coast was estimated using this model. A GIS grid was created for each
variable in the model and was loaded into R. The risk for each grid point was estimated using the
risk model based on the value of the latitude, depth, distance to coast and derived larval baseline
measure at that grid point. The estimates of the risk of establishment for each grid point were then
imported into ArcInfo GRID for integration with the GIS datasets for analysis and mapping.
3.3 Economic and Practical Impacts
Requiring ships to complete ballast water exchange in a designated area may require ships to delay
and/or deviate from their shipping route. This could represent a significant cost to the shipping
industry.
A number of studies have previously been conducted to estimate the cost impact on Australian
shipping of ballast water exchange management strategies for domestic voyages. Blias and
Delforce (2003) assessed the costs (direct government costs and direct commercial shipping costs)
of implementing a Decision Support System risk-based Ballast Water Management regime and
Mandatory Ballast Water exchange for all ships. O’Keeffe (2005) built on the work of Blias and
Delforce (2003) to consider the marginal cost of managing coastal shipping for a variety of target
species. Bax et al. (2006) analysed the impact of ballast water management on southeast
Australian shipping. The Centre for International Economics have prepared a draft Regulation
Impact Statement looking at the costs of various designated ballast water exchange areas based on
the earlier work conducted by ABARE, BRS and CSIRO.
Initially this project was to extend this work and produce a grid of the additional cost of exchange
for deviations from usual shipping routes. However, a number of complexities need to be
considered to extend this work to a spatial level such as, type and size of ship, the ship route and
speed, the amount of ballast water and the method of discharge. To produce a universal cost
surface would require a large number of assumptions. Given the diversity of the shipping industry,
these assumptions would be difficult to create and justify. Due to the time constraints of the
decision process, the development a cost surface was beyond the scope of this project. To
overcome this issue, shipping data was analysed to determine the routes typically travelled by
ballast water carrying ships. This information was considered with the biological risk to
investigate the practical and economic issues related to designating areas for ballast water
exchange.
3.3.1 Shipping data
There are a number of sources of data on shipping movements in Australia. Lloyds Register of
Shipping Movements is compiled from data provided by the ports management authorities.
However, it is not easy to derive spatial data from this register. Customs and Quarantine compile
records of international ships arrivals but do not maintain records of domestic shipping. Australian
Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) operates the Australian Ship Reporting System (AUSREP)
whereby all ships, including domestic shipping, report their position every 24 hours while they are
within the AUSREP area (an area much bigger than the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone).
The purpose of the AUSREP system is to track ships to assist with the management of shipping
accidents including for search and rescue missions. All ships operating into and between

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 20
Australian ports are required to report their positions at designated reporting points. The AUSREP
data provides daily position reports as well as ship information such as ship type, size, speed and
heading for at least 97% of ships over 50 metres in length operating within Australian waters.
Each voyage is assigned a unique identifier and the position reports along each route indicate the
origin and destination of the voyage.
AUSREP data includes descriptions of the ship and voyage. The ship description includes ship
type, ship length and tonnage. Voyage description include origin, destination, the type of report
(start of voyage, position reports en route, end of voyage report), date and time of the report, speed
at the time of the report and heading.
The daily position reports in the AUSREP data allow spatial expression of shipping traffic around
Australia, however the exact route between the reporting positions is not known. Drawing straight
lines between position reports result in a number of voyages being represented as travelling
overland. Another issue using 24 hourly position reports is that some ships tend to report at certain
locations on their voyage (such as near waypoints), hence the position reports under-represent the
volume of shipping traffic on sections of the voyage where ships do not report.
Identifying ballast water carrying ships on domestic routes
The aim of this research was to identify ballast water exchange areas for shipping that cannot meet
the ballast water exchange requirements of the Convention. Ships were identified as domestic if
they engaged in domestic voyages and exchanged ballast water from one Australian port to
another.
There are two broad categories of ships that carry ballast water; bulkers and tankers and container
and general cargo ships. Identification of ship type is important as different ships carry and
manage ballast water differently. Bulkers and tankers typically transport goods one-way on their
cargo leg and then take on ballast water for their return trip. This ballast water then needs to be
discharged to accommodate cargo for the next cargo leg. The second type of ship includes
container ships, general cargo ships, car carriers and cruise ships. These ships typically do
repetitive routes, loading and unloading cargo along the way. These ships usually carry both cargo
and ballast water on most legs, taking on and discharging relatively small amounts of ballast water
at a succession of ports. Ships with ballast water holding capacity smaller than 50 metres were
excluded from this analysis.
Many ships arrive in Australia from international waters and then move between domestic ports
either on a single or continuous voyage permit. Identifying domestic voyages involves the
identification of voyages whose origin and destination are Australian ports. Hence, position reports
for ships whose origin or destination were entry or exit into the AUSREP region were excluded.
The presence of missing data in the origin and destination fields for a position report complicated
this approach. For position reports where this data was not provided, the missing information was
determined by tracing the voyage back to its origin using the unique voyage identifier.
Generalised route
To summarise the information from the AUSREP data about the routes typically travelled by
ballast water carrying ships, an in-shore route around Australia was created. Origin position
reports were grouped into 19 major port groupings. For example, Sydney, Botany Bay, Newcastle
and Port Kembla were grouped. A generalised route linking the ports was determined, as well as
the frequency of ships travelling on each leg of the route.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 21
Overlays of risk and shipping data
To consider the implications of various limits for the designation of areas for ballast water
exchange, a series of maps with shipping data superimposed on risk were developed. In
consultation with the IMSP, it was decided to define designated areas by distance from coast.
Designated areas defined by distances of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles from the Australian territorial
sea baseline were considered. A designated area of beyond 12 nautical miles implies that ships
would be required to exchange ballast water at least 12 nautical miles from the coast.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Risk Analysis - Expert Questionnaire
The questionnaire was sent to 25 experts. Of these, a total of 13 completed the questionnaire
within the required timeframe. All nominated NIMPCG members returned a completed answer
sheet. A list of the respondents is provided in Appendix B.
One of the responses was not included in the analysis as the answers were not completed in a
manner that reflected the methodology outlined in the instructions. Figure 8 displays the results of
the 12 questionnaires that were used to develop the risk model. The estimated risk is plotted for
each expert for each discharge location within each scenario. There are separate panels for each
scenario. The estimated risk is shown on the vertical axis and the discharge site number is on the
horizontal axis. Each line represents the response of a different expert.
As expected, there is variation in the risk estimated between the different experts. There is
however, a general trend in the responses. Note the risk decreases for all scenarios as the discharge
site number increases for all sites other than Torres Strait and Darwin. All of discharge locations at
the other sites are numbered in order from the closest to furthest from the coast. The risk drops off
as distance from coast increases, which is accompanied by an increase in depth. The discharge sites
for the Torres Strait and Darwin scenarios are numbered differently, with sites 2 and 3 closest to
the coast and hence the shallowest, having higher risk.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 22
Figure 8 The results of the Expert Questionnaire used to develop the risk
model.
Figure 9 contains plots of the various components of the model. These plots show the effect of
each of the explanatory variables on risk. The solid line represents the smooth function between
risk and each explanatory variable, while the dashed lines represent two standard errors above and
below the estimate of the smooth function.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 23
Figure 9: Effect of each explanatory variable in the initial model on the
estimated risk.
A decreasing linear relationship is observed between the estimated risk and depth, as depth
increases the estimated risk decreases. Similarly, the relationship between the estimated risk and
the derived larval baseline measure is a decreasing linear trend. There is a positive linear
relationship between the estimated risk and latitude. The estimated risk decreases with increasing
distance from coast. This relationship is non linear, flattening out at a distance of approximately 60
nautical miles. Longitude does not appear to influence the estimated risk. Distance from coast is
the only term in the model that has a non-linear relationship with the estimated risk.
The significance of each term in the model was assessed using Wald tests (Wood, 2006). The
output obtained from the function anova.gam is presented in Table 2. Longitude was not a
significant term in the model and was removed.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 24
Table 2 The results of Wald tests of the significance of each term in the full
model.
Approximate significance of smooth terms:
edf Est.rank F p-value
s(depth) 1.000 1.000 9.249 0.00247
s(distance) 2.728 6.000 15.062 <0.0001
s(larval.baseline) 1.000 1.000 104.538 <0.0001
s(latitude) 1.000 1.000 17.471 <0.0001
s(longitude) 1.000 1.000 1.827 0.17706
The final model fitted to the risk data was:
gamm(risk~s(depth)+s(distance)+s(larval.baseline)+s(latitude),
family=quasibinomial, random=list(expert=~1))
Figure 10 contains plots of the components of the final model. Table 3 contains the results of the
Wald tests for significance of each term in the mode. All terms in the final model were significant.
Figure 10 Effect of each explanatory variable in the final model on the
estimated risk.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 25
Table 3 The results of Wald tests of the significance of each term in the final
model.
Approximate significance of smooth terms:
edf Est.rank F p-value
s(depth) 1.000 1.000 11.567 0.000720
s(distance) 2.477 5.000 16.038 <0.00001
s(larval.baseline) 1.000 1.000 124.517 <0.00001
s(latitude) 1.724 4.000 5.807 0.000139
The final model was used to estimate the risk for each grid point based on the value of the latitude,
depth, distance to coast and derived larval baseline measure at that grid point. The estimated risk
for each grid point was then exported into ASCII arrays and imported into ArcInfo GRID for
integration with the GIS datasets for analysis and mapping. The map of the estimated risk is
provided in Figure 11.
Figure 11 Map of the estimated risk on a continuous scale.
The map in Figure 11 displays the risk on a continuous scale. For ease of interpretation, the risk
was grouped into discrete intervals. Intervals of 10% were used from 0% to 50%, that is 0-10%,
11-20% and so forth. Data above 50% were put into a single group, labelled 50+. Figure 12
displays the risk in terms of these discrete intervals.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 26
Figure 12 Map of the estimated risk using discrete intervals.
The risk was modelled as a function of the depth, distance from coast, derived larval baseline
measure and the latitude. While the risk decreases as the distance from coast increases, the rate at
which it decreases is not constant around the Australian coastline. The risk extends further in the
north than in the south due to the combined effect of latitude, the derived larval baseline measure
and the depth. Note that the water is generally shallower in the north as seen in Figure 13.
The risk at a location is an estimate of the risk of discharging ballast water at that location relative
to the risk of discharging in a nearby port environment. The list of species that could establish in a
port environment to the north of Australia will be different to the list of species that could establish
in a port environment to the south of Australia. The higher risk in the north indicates that, of the
species that could establish if discharged in a nearby port environment in this area, a high
percentage of these would establish if discharged off the coast. It does not necessarily indicate that
a greater number of species are likely to establish in the north. It does however indicate that
relative to the species that would establish if discharged in a nearby port environment, a higher
percentage of these species would establish in the north than in the south. This is reflected by the
significance of latitude in the model.
There is a sharp decline in the risk off the southeast coast. This is largely driven by the derived
larval baseline measure and depth. Depth increases rapidly off the southeast coast (as seen in
Figure 13) and the larval baselines are very close to each other on the southeast coast (as seen in
Figure 3).
Risk does not increase towards the coasts of countries that lie to the north of Australia (Papua New
Guinea, Indonesia and East Timor) shown in Figure 12. This is a consequence of the risk being
modelled relative to the Australian coastline only.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 27
Figure 13 Water depth in metres
4.2 Shipping Data
Figure 14 displays the daily position reports of all ships from the 2005 AUSREP data. Ships which
used and exchanged ballast water with an Australian origin and destination were selected. Figure
15 displays the position reports for the selected voyages from the AUSREP 2005 data. To
superimpose shipping data on the risk, an in-shore route around Australia was determined. This
generalised route and the frequencies of ships travelling on each leg of the route are displayed in
Figure 16. Figure 44 in Appendix C displays the same map with the names of the ports used to
develop the generalised route.
The position reports in Figure 15 suggest that the southeast coast of Australia has the highest
volume of ships carrying domestic ballast water. This is also reflected by the frequencies in Figure
16 where the busiest section is the first half of the leg between Sydney and Melbourne
(approximately 2170 voyages in 2005). The ship position reports (represented by dots) cannot be
used to infer shipping density as many ships will travel along the same route and report their
position from the same reporting points along the route. The position reports for the Sydney to
Melbourne and Bass Strait leg are very close to each other as they are required to use a designated
traffic separation scheme. Conversely, there are no ship routeing measures in the Brisbane to
Sydney leg and the position reports are more spread out.
The volume of ships carrying domestic ballast water is greatest off the southeast coast of Australia
between Brisbane and Melbourne (in excess of 2500 trips in 2005). In 2005, a reasonable amount
of ships carrying domestic ballast water did so off the Queensland coast, petering out in the north.
Similarly there was a reasonable number of ships carrying domestic ballast water between
Melbourne and Geraldton, decreasing to the west. There is a much smaller volume of ships
carrying domestic ballast water off the northwest coast of Australia, with only 30 domestic ballast

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 28
water carrying ships travelling between Geraldton and Darwin and 33 between Darwin and Wiepa
in 2005.
Figure 14 2005 AUSREP daily position reports.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 29
Figure 15 2005 AUSREP daily position reports for domestic ballast water
carrying voyages only.
Figure 16 Generalised route and frequencies of domestic ballast water
carrying voyages over each section of the route, overlayed on the position
reports for domestic ballast water carrying ships from the 2005 AUSREP data.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 30
4.3 Risk versus Cost
Ballast water exchange area boundaries
To consider the implications of designated areas for ballast water exchange, a series of maps of the
risk with the shipping data superimposed were developed. The designated areas considered were
areas outside of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles from the Australian territorial sea baseline. These
boundaries were chosen for administrative reasons as they define Australia’s maritime zones as
prescribed under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention 1982. Following the Offshore
Constitutional Settlement, the Commonwealth and the States/Northern Territory have agreed that
the first 3 nautical miles adjacent to the territorial sea baseline is the outer limit of the Coastal
Waters. In general, the adjacent State or Territory has primary responsibility for water within these
waters. The Commonwealth has jurisdiction over the territorial waters (12 nautical miles from the
Territorial Sea Baseline), the Contiguous Zone (24 nautical miles from the Territorial Sea Baseline)
and out to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone and, in some cases, to the continental shelf.
Summary of the estimated risk of establishment at 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles
Figure 17 shows the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile distance contours. The estimated risk of
establishment is dependent on location and as a result, it varies along the 3, 12 and 24 nautical
miles lines. Figure 18 contains a graphical summary of the estimated risk at 1 kilometre spacings
along the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile lines, and Table 4 contains a numerical summary.
Figure 17 Map of the estimated risk displaying the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile
lines from the territorial sea baseline.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 31
Table 4: Summary of the estimated risk along the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile
distance contours.
Figure 18 Box plots of the estimated risk along the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile
lines.
The above box plots indicate that the range spanned by the estimated risk decreases with distance
from the coast, along with the median estimated risk. At a distance of 3 nautical miles from the
territorial sea baseline, the estimated risk ranges from 2% to 53%. Whereas along the 12 and 24
nautical mile lines, the risk ranges from 1% to 43% and 0% to 41% respectively. The range is very
similar for the 12 and 24 nautical mile lines. 75% of the estimated risk values along the 24 nautical
mile line are less than 25%, whereas along the 12 nautical mile line, less than half of the estimated
risk is less than 25%.
It is important to note that these summaries do not take into account the location and therefore do
not represent variation of coastal characteristics or quantity of shipping. As discussed in the next
section, the risk is particularly high through the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait and this area
needs to be considered separately when designating ballast water exchange areas. The estimates of
the risk presented in the above summaries are inflated by the high risks through these regions.
Distance Minimum 1st
Quartile Median Mean 3rd
Quartile Maximum
3 nm 1.95 31.51 39.98 37.77 45.47 53.10
12nm 0.67 15.65 27.77 24.64 34.75 42.66
24nm 0.30 2.09 9.17 12.68 22.77 41.19

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 32
Maps of the estimated risk at 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles
The designated boundary areas of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles were superimposed on the risk map
as shown in Figures 19, 20 and 21 respectively. In these maps, the area on the inside of the
boundary is shown in white. For example, in Figure 20, a boundary of 3 nautical miles was
designated, ships would not be able to discharge ballast water within 3 nautical miles from the
territorial sea baseline. The designated ballast water exchange area becomes focussed on all of the
area outside 3 nautical miles.
There is a dark orange band outside of the 3 nautical mile line in some areas along the northern
coastline in Figure 19. The estimated risk in these areas is between 40 and 50%. This equates to a
50 to 60% reduction in risk from the current practices. Off the southwest coast, the highest risk
outside of 3 nautical miles is between 30 and 40% as indicated by the light orange band. This is
equivalent to a risk reduction between 60 and 70%. Off the southeast coast, the highest risk outside
of 3 nautical miles is between 20 and 30%, equating to a 70 to 80% reduction in risk from the
current practice.
Along some parts of the northern coastline, the estimated risk outside of 12 nautical miles is
between 30 and 40%, as indicated by the light orange areas in Figure 20. This equates to an
estimated reduction in risk of 60 to 70% from current practices. Along the southern coast of
Australia, the highest risk outside of 12 nautical miles is between 20 and 30%. The risk along the
majority of the southern coast is less than 20%, providing an 80% reduction of risk.
Figure 21 illustrates that outside of 24 nautical miles, there is a very small area through the Torres
Strait where the risk is between 30 and 40%. Along the rest of the north coast, the highest risk
outside of 24 nautical miles is between 20 and 30%. The highest risk outside of 24 nautical miles
along the south coast is between 10 and 20% with the majority of the risk along the south coast
being less than 10%.
Figure 19 Estimated risk outside of 3 nautical miles from the territorial sea
baseline.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 33
Figure 20 Estimated risk outside of 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea
baseline.
Figure 21 Estimated risk outside of 24 nautical miles from the territorial sea
baseline.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 34
The risk noticeably decreases with distance from the coast. The further the boundary of the
designated exchange is from the coast, the greater the impact on the shipping industry. To explore
the risk in relation to current shipping routes, the shipping reports of domestic ballast water
carrying ships from the 2005 AUSREP data were overlayed on the map of the risk, shown in
Figure 22. This map highlights that although the risk is higher along the northern coast, there is a
relatively low density of ships carrying domestic ballast water in this area. However, it is difficult
to ascertain the risk in the areas of high shipping density due to the risk being masked out by the
dots representing the position reports. This was resolved by summarising the shipping information
by the use of the generalised route and frequencies as discussed in 4.2. Figure 22 displays the
generalised route and frequencies of domestic ballast water carrying voyages on each leg of the
route for the 2005 AUSREP data, overlayed on the map of the estimated risk. Figure 45 in
Appendix C displays the same map with the names of the ports used to develop the generalised
route.
The areas of concern are those where risk of establishment is high and where ships carrying
domestic ballast water are operating. The risk is reasonably low, less than 10% in most places off
the southeast coast of Australia, where the volume of ships carrying domestic ballast water is
greatest (1-3,000 voyages per year). The risk increases to between 20 and 30% through Bass Strait
and along the South Australian coast. However, the majority of ships travel off the coast rather
than in the higher risk areas along the coast. The risk is higher along the west coast of Australia
but the volume of ships is lower (approximately 640 voyages per year). Again, the majority of the
ships travel off the coast in this region, rather than in the higher risks areas along the coast. The
southwest corner of Western Australia and the coast near Darwin are areas of concern as ships
travel very close to the coast. There is a moderate amount of domestic ballast water carrying
shipping off the southwest corner. The volume of shipping traffic is particularly low near Darwin
relative to the rest of Australia (approximately 30 voyages in 2005).
The area of greatest concern is through Torres Strait and the Great Barrier Reef. There is a
moderate amount of domestic ballast water carrying shipping travelling through this area and the
estimated risk of establishment is as high as 50%, only offering a 50% reduction in risk from
current practices. Australia argued for the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait to be classed as
‘nearest land’ in the Convention, preventing any ballast water from entering this marine
environment. In order to be consistent with the Convention, it is important that a ballast water
exchange area is not designated within the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait. Accordingly, it is
recommended that these areas be considered separately when determining designated areas for
ballast water exchange.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 35
Figure 22 2005 AUSREP daily position reports for domestic ballast water
carrying ships overlayed over the estimated risk.
Figure 23 The estimated risk and generalised route and frequencies of
domestic ballast water carrying voyages over each section of the route from
the 2005 AUSREP data.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 36
Acceptance of a certain level of risk
To further explore the areas of concern, another two series of overlays were developed based on an
acceptance of a certain level of risk. The first series assumes a 10% acceptance of risk of the
chance of establishment in a port environment. Figures 24, 25 and 26 display the areas where the
risk is greater than 10% outside 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles respectively, with the generalised route
and frequencies overlayed to determine the areas of concern. Appendix C contains the same series
of maps with the domestic ballast water carrying voyages position reports from the 2005 AUSREP
data overlayed.
Figure 24 indicates that if a boundary of 3 nautical miles was designated, there are areas off the
northern coast were the estimated risk of establishment is as high as 50%. However, there are very
few domestic ballast water carrying ships operating in these areas. In 2005 there were only 33
domestic ballast water carrying voyages that travelled the section of water between Weipa and
Darwin, and only 30 voyages between Darwin and Dampier. The exception to this is the Great
Barrier Reef and Torres Strait, where there were as many as 728 voyages along the section of coast
between Gladstone and Mackay. This area however, is to be considered separately. Along the
coast of Western Australia, where the traffic density is high, there are areas where the risk is a high
as 40%. In the very high ship operational region off the south eastern coast there are areas where
the risk is as high as 30%.
Figure 25 indicates that if a boundary of 12 nautical miles was designated, the highest risk off the
northern coast would be reduced to less than 40%, to less than 30% off the western coast and to
less than 20% off the south eastern coast. Figure 26 shows that if a boundary of 24 nautical miles
was designated, the highest risk off the northern coast would be reduced to less than 30%, except
through the Torres Strait. At the 12 nautical mile boundary, there are limited areas around the rest
of the coast where the risk reaches 20%.
It is important to take the amount of domestic ballast water carrying ships operating in an area into
account when considering the risk. Figure 24 suggests that if a boundary of 3 nautical miles was
designated and a 10% level of risk was accepted, one of the areas of concern is off the coast
between Adelaide and Melbourne. In 2005 there were over 900 domestic ballast water carrying
voyages along this section and the risk in the area of the generalised route is between 10% and
30%. However, recall from Section 4.2 that the generalised route is an inshore route. Figure 16
illustrates that through this section, a lot of the domestic ballast water carrying voyages travel
further out from the coast than the generalised route, in an area where the risk is less than 10%,
suggesting that this area is not of great concern (this can also be seen in Figure 46 in Appendix C).
If the designated area boundary was set at 12 nautical miles, ships would have to exchange ballast
water outside of the 12 nautical mile line. Figure 25 indicates that in the area off the coast between
Adelaide and Melbourne, the risk outside of 12 nautical miles in the area that ships are operating is
less than 20%. This equates to an 80% reduction in the risk from the current practice. Figure 26
suggests that if a boundary of 24 nautical miles is designated and a level of risk of 10% is accepted,
there are very few areas of concern along this route. Additionally, in these areas the risk is only as
high as 20%, which means an 80% reduction in risk from the current practice.
Another area of concern is the coast off Western Australia, especially the south western corner
where ships tend to travel close to the coast. If a boundary of 3 nautical miles was designated and a
10% level of risk was accepted, Figure 24 suggests that the risk is as high as 40% in some areas.
Note the generalised route is an inshore route and the majority of ships travel further from the coast
than this route suggests (see also Figure 46 in Appendix C). If a boundary of 12 nautical miles was
designated, Figure 25 indicates that this risk reduces to a maximum of 30%. If a boundary of 24
nautical miles was designated, Figure 26 suggests that this risk is reduced to less than 20%.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 37
Figure 24 Map showing areas outside of 3 nm with estimated risk greater than
10%, with the generalised route and frequencies.
Figure 25 Map showing areas outside of 12 nm with estimated risk greater
than 10%, with the generalised route and frequencies.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 38
Figure 26 Map showing areas outside of 24 nm with estimated risk greater
than 10%, with the generalised route and frequencies.
The second series of maps assumes a 20% acceptance of risk of chance of establishment in a port
environment. This equates to an acceptance of an 80% reduction in risk from the current practice.
Figures 27, 28 and 29 display the areas outside 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles respectively where the
risk is greater than 20%, with the generalised route and frequencies overlayed. Appendix C
contains the same series of maps with the domestic ballast water carrying voyages position reports
from the 2005 AUSREP data overlayed.
Figure 27 indicates that if a boundary of 3 nautical miles was designated, and a 20% level of risk
was accepted, then the areas of greatest concern other than the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait
are the northern and western coastline. The estimated risk of establishment is as high as 40% in
some areas along the western coastline and as high as 50% in some areas along the northern
coastline. However, the amount of ships carrying domestic ballast water is relatively low in these
areas, particularly along the northern coast. Figure 28 illustrates that the risk is reduced to less than
30% along the western coastline and to less than 40% along the northern coastline, if a boundary of
12 nautical miles is designated. When this boundary is increased to 24 nautical miles, there are
very few areas of concern, as indicated in Figure 29.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 39
Figure 27 Map showing areas outside of 3 nm with estimated risk greater than
20%, with the generalised route and frequencies.
Figure 28 Map showing areas outside of 12 nm with estimated risk greater
than 20%, with the generalised route and frequencies.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 40
Figure 29 Map showing areas outside of 24 nm with estimated risk greater
than 20%, with the generalised route and frequencies.
4.4 Examples
To closely assess the impact of requiring ships to travel outside of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles to
exchange ballast waster, several examples were considered. The examples focus on areas of high
volumes of domestic ballast water carrying ships and/or high risk regions. The first two examples
focus on areas that have a high density of ships carrying domestic ballast water. The first example
looks at a section between Brisbane and Sydney where 1543 domestic ballast water carrying
voyages were recorded in 2005. The second looks at a section between Sydney and Melbourne
where there were 2170 voyages. The third focuses on an area off the northwest corner of Australia,
where the shipping traffic is less with 640 voyages, yet the risk of establishment is greater. The
final example considers an area near Darwin where the shipping density is much lower with only
33 voyages, with higher risk.
In each example, the location of the domestic ballast water carrying ships position reports was
considered in relation to the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile boundaries to determine the distance the
ships would have to deviate. The estimated risk at the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile line was then
determined. This information was used to investigate the relationship between the reduction in risk
achieved and the impact on shipping by placing the designated area boundary further from the
coast.
4.4.1 Brisbane – Sydney
This example focuses on the area with the highest concentration of ships carrying domestic ballast
water – the region between Brisbane and Sydney. Figure 30 shows the area considered in this

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 41
example. Figure 31 provides a close up of this area and displays the location of the position reports
of ships carrying domestic ballast water in relation to the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile boundaries.
This map indicates that ships roughly follow the 12 nautical mile line, however some ships travel
as close as 3 nautical miles and others travel further than 24 nautical miles from the coast. Very
few ships would have to deviate to travel outside of 3 nautical miles, a number of ships would have
to deviate to travel outside of 12 nautical miles, while a very large proportion of ships would have
to deviate to travel outside of 24 nautical miles.
To understand the level of environmental protection that boundaries of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles
provide, the risk was overlayed to produce Figure 32. To further investigate the risk in this area, it
was necessary to zoom in on the area, as the density of the position report, if very high, mask out
the risk. The black box in Figure 32 shows the area that was focused on and Figure 33 is a map of
this area. The estimated risk and 95% confidence interval for the risk at the location represented by
the black line are provided for 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles. These numbers are also presented in
Table 5.
The estimated risk from the model at 3 nautical miles is 32.87%, with 95% confidence that the true
risk lies between 20.35% and 45.39%. If the ballast water exchange boundary is pushed out to 12
nautical miles, the risk drops to 6.47%. This is a significant decrease in the risk, as evidenced by
the confidence interval for 3 nautical miles (20.35,45.39) not overlapping with the confidence
interval for 12 nautical miles (2.74,10.19). If the boundary is pushed out to 24 nautical miles, the
risk drops to 1.22%. Again, this is a significant drop in risk, as shown by the lack of intersection of
the confidence intervals.
A designated ballast water exchange area of 3 nautical miles would have a minimal impact on the
shipping industry and provides an estimated 67.13% reduction in risk from the current practice.
Extending the designated area boundary to 12 nautical miles provides an estimated 95.53% risk
reduction and would have a moderate impact on the shipping industry. Stretching this boundary to
24 nautical miles would provide a risk reduction of 98.78%. The extra 5.25% reduction in risk
achieved between the 12 out to 24 nautical miles comes with a major impact on the industry, with
the majority of ships needing to deviate from their routes. The 95.53% reduction in risk achieved
by setting the ballast water exchange area boundary at 12 nautical miles provides a high level of
environmental protection without imposing a high cost on the shipping industry.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 42
Figure 30 Area between Brisbane and Sydney to be considered.
Figure 31 Shipping position reports between Brisbane and Sydney relative to
the 3,12 and 24 nautical miles lines.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 43
Figure 32 Overlay of the risk along the Brisbane to Sydney route.
Figure 33 Estimated risk with 95% confidence interval for 3, 12 and 24 nautical
miles.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 44
Table 5 Estimates of the risk of establishment along with 95% confidence
intervals at 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles for the location shown in Figure 33.
95% confidence interval
Distance
(nautical miles)
Estimated
Risk Lower limit Upper limit
3 32.87% 20.35% 45.39%
12 6.47% 2.74% 10.19%
24 1.22% 0.31% 2.13%
4.4.2 Sydney – Melbourne
This example focuses on a section between Sydney and Melbourne where there were 2170
domestic ballast water carrying voyages in 2005. Figure 34 shows the area considered in this
example. Figure 35 provides a close up of this area, and displays the location of the domestic
ballast water carrying ships position reports in relation to the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile boundaries.
This map indicates that ships roughly follow the 12 nautical mile line from Sydney down the coast,
cutting closer near Cape Howe and then head out beyond 24 nautical miles from the coast towards
Wilsons Promitory.
Very few ships would have to deviate to travel outside a designated ballast water exchange area of
3 nautical miles. A number of ships would have to deviate to travel outside of 12 nautical miles,
particularly around Cape Howe. The majority of ships would need to deviate to travel outside of
24 nautical miles.
To understand the level of environmental protection that boundaries of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles
provide, the risk was overlayed to produce Figure 36. To take a closer look at the risk in this area,
it was necessary to zoom in. The black box in Figure 36 shows the area that was focused on and
Figure 37 is a map of this area. The estimated risk and 95% confidence interval for the estimated
risk at the location represented by the black line are provided for 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles.
These numbers are also presented in Table 6. The estimated risk from the model at 3 nautical miles
is 28.02%. If the ballast water exchange area boundary is pushed out to 12 nautical miles, the risk
drops to 5.43%. This is a significant decrease in the risk, as evidenced by the lack of intersection
of the confidence intervals. If the boundary is extended to 24 nautical miles, the risk drops to
0.89%. Again this is a significant drop in the risk, as evidenced by the non-crossing of the
confidence intervals.
A designated ballast water exchange area of 3 nautical miles would have a minimal impact on the
shipping industry, and provides an estimated reduction in risk of 71.98%. Extending the
designated area boundary to 12 nautical miles provides an estimated 94.57% risk reduction and
would have a moderate impact on the shipping industry. Further extension of this boundary to 24
nautical miles provides a risk reduction of 99.11%. The extra 4.54% reduction in risk achieved by
pushing the boundary from 12 to 24 nautical miles comes with a major impact on the industry, with
the majority of ships deviating significantly from their route. The 94.57% reduction in risk
achieved by setting the ballast water exchange area boundary at 12 nautical miles provides a high
level of environmental protection without having an overly large an impact on the shipping
industry.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 45
Figure 34 Area between Sydney and Melbourne to be considered.
Figure 35 Shipping position reports between Sydney and Melbourne relative to
the 3,12 and 24 nautical mile lines.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 46
Figure 36 Overlay of the risk along the Sydney to Melbourne route.
Figure 37 Estimated risk with 95% confidence interval for 3, 12 and 24 nautical
miles.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 47
Table 6 Estimates of the risk of establishment along with 95% confidence
intervals at 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles for the location shown in Figure 37.
95% confidence interval
Distance
(nautical miles)
Estimated
Risk Lower limit Upper limit
3 28.02% 16.30% 39.73%
12 5.43% 2.26% 8.61%
24 0.89% 0.16% 1.61%
4.4.3 Western Australia
This example focuses on the southwest corner of Western Australia where there were 640 domestic
ballast water carrying voyages in 2005. Figure 38 shows the area considered. Figure 39 provides a
close up of this area and displays the location of the domestic ballast water carrying ships position
reports in relation to the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile boundaries. This map indicates that ships
roughly follow the 12 nautical mile line as they have in the previous examples. Very few ships
would have to deviate to travel outside of 3 nautical miles, a number of ships would have to deviate
to travel outside of 12 nautical miles, while a very large number of ships would have to deviate to
travel outside of 24 nautical miles.
To understand the level of environmental protection that boundaries of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles
provide, the risk was overlayed to produce Figure 40. The estimated risk and 95% confidence
interval for the estimated risk at the location represented by the black line are provided for 3, 12
and 24 nautical miles. These numbers are also presented in Table 7. The estimated risk from the
model at 3 nautical miles is 35.16%. If the ballast water exchange area boundary is increased to 12
nautical miles, the risk drops to 20.05%. This is a significant decrease in the risk, as evidenced by
the non-overlapping confidence intervals. If the boundary is further increased to 24 nautical miles,
the risk drops to 4.64%. Again this is a significant drop in the risk, as evidenced by the lack of
intersection of the confidence intervals.
A designated ballast water exchange area of 3 nautical miles would have a minimal impact on the
shipping industry, providing an estimated 64.84% reduction in risk from the current practice.
Pushing the designated area boundary to 12 nautical miles provides an estimated 79.95% risk
reduction and would have a moderate impact on the shipping industry. Extending this boundary to
24 nautical miles would provide a risk reduction of 95.36%. By pushing the boundary from 3 to 12
nautical miles, the risk is reduced by 15.11%, and by pushing the boundary to 24 nautical miles, the
risk is reduced by a further 15.42%. In the two previous examples, 12 nautical miles provided a
risk reduction of at least 90%. In this example, 12 nautical miles only provides an 80% reduction,
and it is necessary to go out to 24 nautical miles to achieve a reduction of over 90%. However, an
80% reduction at 12 nautical miles is still a significant reduction and provides a high level of
environmental protection without imposing an excessively high a cost on the shipping industry.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 48
Figure 38 Area in southwest Western Australia to be considered.
Figure 39 Shipping position reports around southwest Western Australia
relative to the 3,12 and 24 nautical mile lines.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 49
Figure 40 Estimated risk with 95% confidence interval for 3, 12 and 24 nautical
miles.
Table 7 Estimates of the risk of establishment along with 95% confidence
intervals at 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles for the location shown in Figure 40.
95% confidence interval
Distance
(nautical miles)
Estimated
Risk Lower limit Upper limit
3 35.16% 22.13% 48.19%
12 20.05% 11.10% 29.00%
24 4.64% 2.00% 7.27%
4.4.4 Northern Territory
This example focuses on an area along the northern coast near Darwin where there were 33
domestic ballast water carrying voyages in 2005. Figure 41 shows the area considered in this
example. Figure 42 provides a close up of this area and displays the location of the domestic
ballast water carrying ships’ position reports in relation to the 3, 12 and 24 nautical mile
boundaries. This map shows that ships travel a number of different routes through this section.
Ships coming and going to the west either travelling close to the coast to Darwin, or go around
Melville Island if they are not coming from or going to Darwin. Ships coming or going to the east
travel close to the coast if they are coming from or going to Weipa, or travel beyond 24 nautical

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 50
miles if they are coming from or going through the Torres Strait. Most ships travel outside of 3
nautical miles, unless they are entering or exiting Darwin. Ships are unlikely to be conducting
ballast water exchange while entering or exiting a port, and will generally wait until they are in
open water. Hence, once in open water, very few ships would have to deviate to travel outside of 3
nautical miles, a small number of ships would have to deviate to travel outside of 12 nautical miles,
and a slightly greater number of ships would have to deviate to travel outside of 24 nautical miles.
To understand the level of environmental protection that boundaries of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles
provide, the risk was overlayed to produce Figure 40. The estimated risk and 95% confidence
interval for the estimated risk at the location represented by the black line are provided for 3, 12
and 24 nautical miles. These numbers are also presented in Table 7. The estimated risk from the
model at 3 nautical miles is 46.70%. If the ballast water exchange area is set at 12 nautical miles,
the risk drops to 33.58%. Note that this is not a significant decrease in the risk, as evidenced by the
overlapping confidence intervals. If the boundary is further increased to 24 nautical miles, the risk
drops to 21.15%. This is not a significant drop in the risk from 12 nautical miles, as evidenced by
the overlapping confidence intervals, but is a significant decrease from 3 nautical miles.
It is important to note that there were only 33 domestic ballast water carrying voyages through this
section in 2005, and off these, approximately half travelled beyond 24 nautical miles on their way
to or from the east, in an area where the risk is less than 20%. If the ballast water exchange
boundary is set at 3 nautical miles, the ships that do travel close to the coast will be travelling in
area where the risk is as high as 50%. If they boundary is pushed out to 12 nautical miles, this risk
is reduced to less than 40%. The risk of establishment could be further reduced to less than 30% if
the boundary was pushed out to 24 nautical miles. However, this could impact greatly on the
shipping industry in other areas around Australia.
Figure 41 Area in the north to be considered.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 51
Figure 42 Shipping position reports in the north relative to the 3, 12 and 24
nautical mile lines.
Figure 43 Estimated risk with 95% confidence interval for 3, 12 and 24 nautical
miles.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 52
Table 8 Estimates of the risk of establishment along with 95% confidence
intervals at 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles for the location shown in Figure 43.
95% confidence interval
Distance
(nautical miles)
Estimated
Risk Lower limit Upper limit
3 46.70% 32.05% 61.35%
12 33.58% 20.78% 46.39%
24 21.15% 11.56% 30.74%
4.4.5 Further examples
The Invasive Marine Species Programme requested that BRS consider two examples focusing on
marine protected areas as these are of concern for the designation of ballast water exchange areas.
A series of maps were produced focusing on the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait, showing the
risk, domestic ballast water carrying ship position and shipping exclusion areas. These maps were
produced to inform the process of designating ballast water exchange areas for ships travelling
through the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait. A second series of maps were produced focusing
on the Commonwealth Marine Reserves for Australia’s South-east Marine Region. Both sets are
presented in Appendix D.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 53
5 CONCLUSION
This report aims to provide information to assist in the designation of ballast water exchange areas
to reduce the risk of translocating marine pests around Australia’s marine environment until
onboard treatments become available. Biological risk was first assessed followed by the impact on
the shipping industry for the environmental protection obtained.
Data collected in Phase 1 of this project were used to construct a questionnaire which was
distributed to experts in the field of marine pests and invasive biology. Results from the
questionnaire were then used to assess risk around the Australian coastline. The risk was modelled
as a function of depth, distance from coast, larval baseline measure (proxy for water movement)
and latitude (proxy for temperature). The limits considered for ballast water exchange areas were
outside of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline.
The estimates of risk reported do not represent absolute risk. The risk at a location is an estimate
of the risk of discharging ballast water at that location relative to the risk of discharging in a nearby
port environment. Estimates of absolute risk would need to consider additional factors including
habitat suitability, temperature tolerances and predation for every species as well as ship ballast
water exchange practices.
Analysis of the dependence of risk on the modelled variables found that risk extended further in the
north and decreased with larval baseline, depth and distance from the coast. These results highlight
the reliance of risk on specific coastal characteristics and location.
The designated areas considered were areas outside of 3, 12 and 24 nautical miles from the
Australia territorial sea baseline. It was found that for a 3 nautical mile limit on ballast water
exchange, the risk of establishment relative to the risk of establishment from discharge in a port
environment was approximately 40-50% in some parts of northern Australia, 30-40% in the
southwest, 20-30% in the southeast and approximately 20% in the southern parts.
At 12 nautical miles, the risk in the north was reduced to 30-40%, 20% for parts of the southwest
and the south and less than 20% elsewhere. When the boundary was extended to 24 nautical miles,
the highest risk in the northern regions was 20-30%, very few areas reached 20% in the southwest
and southern parts of Australia and less than 10% was recorded for most other coastal areas. A
noticeable exception is the Great Barrier Reef and the Torres Strait, where risk was recorded at
levels above 20% in some areas, even at the 24 nautical mile boundary.
The high risk found through the environmentally sensitive areas of the Great Barrier Reef and the
Torres Strait is of concern. A moderate amount of ships carrying domestic ballast water travel
through this area (approximately 728 trips in 2005). It is recommended that these areas be
considered separately when determining designated areas for ballast water exchange.
The areas of concern are those where the risk of establishment is high and where ships carrying
domestic ballast water are operating. The risk to Australia associated with marine pest
establishment was evaluated in conjunction with impact on the shipping industry. Deviations from
typical shipping routes are an important factor to consider when setting designated areas due to the
potential cost to the industry. Maps of risk were combined with shipping position reports, allowing
for the impact on the shipping industry of each of the boundaries to be assessed in terms of traffic.
To further investigate the impact of designated areas on shipping, four areas were examined
separately. For the Brisbane – Sydney and Sydney – Melbourne examples, very few ships would
have to deviate from their normal shipping routes to travel outside of 3 nautical miles. A number
of ships would have to deviate to travel outside of 12 nautical miles, while a large number of ships
would have to deviate to travel outside of 24 nautical miles. The level of risk reduction from
current practices at 12 nautical miles was greater than 90% for both routes.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 54
The level of risk reduction for the west coast example at 12 nautical miles was approximately 80%,
while an approximate 95% reduction of risk occurred at the 24 nautical mile mark. Although the
risk is greater at 12 nautical miles than for the east coast examples, 80% is considered to be a
significant reduction.
The estimated risk in the northern Australia example remains relatively high at all 3 boundaries.
This region, however, receives very little traffic. Only 33 trips were recorded in 2005. If a 12
nautical mile boundary is set, risk in this region is less than 40%. A 24 nautical mile limit would
reduce this risk to less than 20%. A 24 nautical mile boundary may however have a large impact
on the shipping industry in other areas of Australia.
A designated ballast water exchange area of 3 nautical miles would have minimal impact on the
shipping industry across most coastal areas. Extending the designated area boundary to 12 nautical
miles significantly increases the environmental protection obtained and would have a moderate
impact on the shipping industry. Further increasing this boundary to 24 nautical miles provides a
high level of risk reduction. However, the extra reduction in risk achieved by extending the
boundary from 12 to 24 nautical miles comes with a major impact on the industry, with the
majority of ships deviating significantly from their route. The reduction in risk achieved by setting
the ballast water exchange area boundary at 12 nautical miles provides a high level of
environmental protection without having a large impact on the shipping industry.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 55
References
Barry S, Dommisse M, Lawrence E, Jenkins G, Hough D, Hatton D and Black K. (unpublished).
Managing ballast on short coastal trips: The environmental risk of
coastal exchange. Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Melbourne.
Bax N, et. al. (2006).
Evaluation of National Control Plan management options for the
North Pacific Sea-star Asterias amurensis, CSIRO, Hobart.
Blias A. and Delforce R. (2003).
Ballast Water Management: a Comparison of Alternative
Approaches, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, Canberra.
Cunningham DC, Woldendorp G, Burgess MB and Barry SC. (2003).
Prioritising sleeper weeds for eradication: Selection of species
based on potential impacts on agriculture and feasibility of
eradication. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra
Hobday A, Hewitt C, Condie S, Cahill M, Mansbridge J and Ling S (2002).
Mapping the Australian Ballast Water Uptake and Discharge
Contingency Zones, CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart.
O’Keefe M. (2005).
Cost Analysis Tool for the Management of Invasive Marine Pest
Species, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
R Development Core Team (2006).
R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-
900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
Wood S.N, (2006)
Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, Chapman
and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 56
Appendix A: Questionnaire
This appendix contains the following documents;
• the email sent to experts asking them to participate in the study,
• the email sent to participants containing the questionnaire, and
• the documents included in the questionnaire;
o the cover letter,
o an information document,
o maps of each scenario,
o the answer sheet, and
o a map summarising the ships carrying domestic ballast water movements.
Email sent to experts asking them to participate in the study
Dear Colleagues,
The Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) is currently undertaking the Designated Exchange Areas
Project (DEAP) to inform the development of deballasting zones for Australia (designated ballast
water exchange areas). The Project will consider the practical, economic and biological impacts of
particular options and will provide a framework to explore balances between the various factors
being considered.
The project has been broken down into two phases. Phase 1 involved the identification and
collation of various factors into a Geographic Information System (GIS) data set. Phase Two of this
project requires a risk assessment to be conducted on the information collated in Phase 1 in order to
determine the factors posing the greatest risk for marine pest infestations, this will inform decisions
on appropriate ballast discharge zones for the national Ballast Water Management Arrangements.
As part of the assessment, the biological risk will be considered by expert assessment. As part of
this process we are seeking suitable experts to participate in a questionnaire of 12 scenarios,
assessing risks of marine pest incursions. It is anticipated that the questionnaire will take around
three hours in total to complete.
Given your field of expertise, we would like to invite you to be involved in the questionnaire. Your
input would be acknowledged, but the survey results would be confidential. The range of expert
assessments will be presented in a report. A major milestone of this project requires the submission
of all results into a peer-reviewed publication, which could potentially require the assistance of
experts and co-authors, and all results will be made available upon request. Also, if there are any
other experts that you feel should be involved, can you please contact us with their contact details.
It is anticipated that the questionnaire will be emailed to you on Friday 23rd June. It would be
appreciated if you could complete and return the questionnaire by Friday the 30th June. We
apologise for the late notice. If you are unable to complete the questionnaire within the week,
please contact us to discuss an achievable timeframe.
Yours Faithfully
Scott Cameron

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 57
The email sent to participants containing the questionnaire
Dear Colleagues,
Scott Cameron has recently contacted you regarding participating in a BRS project to develop
designated areas for ballast water exchange. I am writing to provide the details of your
involvement.
• Cover letter.doc gives an overview of the project, including your role as a participant in the
questionnaire
• Information.doc contains information to help you complete questionnaire
• Scenarios.pdf contains the maps for each of the 12 scenarios. On each map you will find 4 or 5
red stars marking the location of the sites to assess the risk of discharge. On each map you will also
see lines marking 12 and 50 nautical miles from nearest land, 50 and 200 metre depth isobaths and
3 or 4 larval baselines. The larval baselines are described in Information.doc.
• Answer sheet.xls contains the longitude, latitude, distance and depth for each site within each
location. Please enter your estimate of the relative risk of discharge of ballast water (as explained in
Information.doc) for each site within each location. It is important that you do this for all sites
within each location. Please return your completed answer sheet to Scott Cameron
(scott.cameron@brs.gov.au) by Friday 7th July.
• Shipping.pdf contains a map showing shipping activity inferred from the daily ship reporting
positions dataset (AUSREP) maintained by AMSA.
• Barry et al (unpublished), Cunningham et al (2003) and Hobday et al (2002) are the papers cited
in Information.doc. The views expressed in these publications do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Australian Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Note that
Barry et al has not been peer reviewed at this stage and so should not be cited or distributed.
My apologies for posting this to people who do not want to be involved. In addition I apologise for
the short time frames available, which have been dictated by the policy process. Your contribution
will be important to the decision making process, and I thank you for your contribution. You will
be acknowledged in any products that are produced from this work.
If you have any queries please contact Scott Cameron (scott.cameron@brs.gov.au) or myself.
Yours Faithfully
Simon Barry
The cover letter
Dear Expert,
As part of the development of the National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine
Pest Incursions, the National Introduced Marine Pest Coordination Group (NIMPCG) is developing
national Ballast Water Management Arrangements (BWMA) to mitigate the risk of marine pest
incursions via ships’ ballast water into and between Australian ports. The BWMA will be
consistent with the requirements of the International Convention for the Control and Management
of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the Convention).
Under the Convention ships must conduct ballast water exchange at least 200 nautical miles from
the nearest land and in water at least 200 metres deep. If ships cannot meet this, they must conduct
exchange at least 50 nautical miles from land and in water at least 200 metres deep. This poses a
significant problem for ships undertaking domestic voyages, as they would need to deviate from
their usual routes to meet these regulations. However, the Convention has provision for Australia to
designate areas for ballast water exchange for ships that cannot meet the distance and depth
requirements set out in the Convention without deviating and delaying.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 58
The Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) is undertaking a study for the Invasive Marine Species
Programme of the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries to inform the development of
designated exchange areas for ships discharging ballast water in Australian waters (“Designated
Exchange Areas Project (DEAP)”).
The project has been broken down into two phases. The first phase, now completed, involved
identification and collation of various data sources into a Geographic Information System (GIS)
data set. The second phase of this project seeks to use the first phase information, along with other
research, to produce data sets and a framework that can be used by policy makers to determine
appropriate risk-based ballast water exchange areas.
As part of this process we are seeking your participation to assess biological risk of marine pest
incursions using 12 scenarios in the format of a questionnaire. You have been selected because of
your expertise in marine pests and invasion biology and/or you were nominated by your NIMPCG
State/Territory Member. It is anticipated that the questionnaire will take around three hours to
complete. Responses may be made public but the identity of the respondent will remain
confidential.
The 12 scenario sites have been selected as representative of regions with high levels of domestic
shipping activity. In terms of ballast water exchange it is important to note that these scenario sites
are not actual sites proposed for ballast water exchange, rather they are hypothetical for the
purposes of informing the biological risk assessment.
The information obtained from the questionnaire will be interpolated with the data collected during
Phase 1 of this project and will be used to assist in the selection of ballast water exchange areas
from a range of alternatives. This will allow development of management options that aim to
achieve a practical balance between economic and biological impacts.
The timeframe for responses is unfortunately very short, thus we would require all completed
questionnaires to be returned by COB Friday 7 July 2006 at the latest, but we would greatly
appreciate an earlier reply. All responses and queries should be directed to Scott Cameron
(scott.cameron@brs.gov.au +61 2 6272 4657) or myself.
I thank you for taking the time to read this, and hope that you will be able to provide your expertise
on this very important project. I look forward to working with you in the future.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Barry
Manager, Information and Risk Sciences
Bureau of Rural Sciences
Australian Government Department of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry
Information document
Background:
This study is being undertaken to provide an expert based assessment of the biological risk of
ballast water exchange activities in coastal environments. While it may be preferable to attempt to
model this process more explicitly, several issues arise. First, previous attempts to model this risk
have been useful for providing bounds on the risk of ballast water exchange activities, but have
been less successful at determining the absolute risk of exchange. While we discuss this in more
detail below, the point to note here is that modelling approaches have not been able to provide
unbiased estimates of real risk because of the complexity and uncertainty in the knowledge of the
processes involved. The approaches used to date have highlighted certain physical processes
which are relevant to risk but have not mapped these to actual risk. The second more practical
constraint on a modelling approach is that policy makers have committed to action on this issue
and will finalise the designated ballast water exchange areas over the coming months. This project

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 59
seeks to compile informed expert opinion as an input into deciding designated areas for ballast
water exchange.
To understand what opinions we are asking you to provide, it is helpful to consider how the
information will be used. We will use regression modelling approaches to relate the given
scenarios to the experts’ responses. The effect of each expert will be included as an additive term
in the regression modelling approach. The analysis will therefore summarise the relative scores
averaged across the experts as well as the overall average effect for the scenarios. Thus we accept
that different experts will have different views about the average level of risk, and the analysis will
accommodate this. Within each expert’s response the interest will lie in the relative scores for each
scenario. Note that the analysis will explicitly report all sources of variation for use by policy
makers. This approach has been successfully applied in assessing the eradication of sleeper weeds
(Cunningham et al. 2003).
Previous work
Previous work in this area has concentrated on two key areas. Hobday et al. (2002) modelled
particle dispersal and produced baselines of risk which calculated the percent of particles that
reached “suitable” habitat, defined by depth. While this work allowed the bounding of the risks
associated with ballast water exchange, the conversion between a particular baseline and the actual
risk is not defined, due to the complexity of the underlying processes. Barry et al. (unpublished)
considered the diluting effects of exchange and port discharge and argued that exchanging in open
coastal waters offers a significant reduction in the risk of marine pests establishing compared to
discharge without treatment in port because of the effects of dilution and dispersal. These reports
are provided on the web page. In discussions there have been other arguments about the inshore
environment being unsuitable for many species adapted to the estuarine environment, and that the
concentration on depth (due to its availability as a data set) gives biased estimates of risk of inshore
exchange. This project aims to use the experts’ understandings of these issues to calibrate these
results. Key baselines from Hobday et al. (2002) are included in the scenarios presented, and a
further description of these baselines is provided below. The experts should also factor in their
understanding about the impacts of dilution and habitat suitability into their assessments.
Current study:
In the assessments, we ask that you estimate the relative risk of a marine pest incursion and
establishment when discharging ballast water at a location. At the outset, we note the difficulties in
defining a detailed scenario. While it is logical to immediately want to consider questions such as
the species involved, source of water, journey duration, amount discharged, wave energy, sediment
type, habitat type and so on, it is beyond both the resources of this project, the available data, the
timelines for the decision process and the nature of the decision being taken. The deballasting
zones will not be defined differentially based on organisms and a ships characteristics, instead it is
intended that a single zone will be defined. It will be a zone that potentially needs to protect
against introductions in the future as well as for translocations of species currently present. Thus
we are attempting a higher order analysis. In this analysis you will need to mentally average over
the unspecified components, based on YOUR understanding of their likelihood.
For each scenario we ask you to assess the proportional risk of discharging a quantum of ballast
water at the location, compared to discharging it in an Australian port environment at a similar
latitude to the indicated discharge site, for ballast waters originating from a similar latitude. The
quantum of water you should consider is the amount of water that would be discharged in normal
ballasting activities, mentally averaging over what these quanta may be. Similarly you should
average over the possible port environments. Again, the species involved is the suite of species that
you, as an expert, consider will be being translocated in ballast water. Note that as the zones will
be used by ships undertaking domestic voyages (as the 200metre 200nm and 200metre 50nm zones
defined by the IMO can be reached by the majority of international ships), consider the suite of
species that may be found in Australian ports, now and in the future.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 60
We ask that you provide your estimate of relative risk, without any undue optimism or
conservatism and without consideration of cost, protected areas and knowledge of previous
incursions. The final policy process, where the risk will be traded off against cost and practicality,
is the appropriate place to address issues of precaution.
We ask that the risk be measured relative to the expected number of species that could successfully
establish if the water was discharged in a port environment. Your scores should be expressed as a
percentage. For example a score of 100 means that you think that the expected number of species
that would establish for ballast water exchanged at the discharge point is the same as the expected
number of species that would establish for ballast water exchanged in the port. A score of 10 would
indicate that you expect 10% of the number of species that would have established if the water was
discharged in the port would establish if the water was exchanged at the discharge point. We accept
that there will be uncertainty in your assessment of the risk of each scenario. If you would like to
incorporate uncertainty in your estimates, please provide the percentage in the risk column and then
the range in the comments column.
We note several issues that complicate the analysis. Firstly, there is some belief that it is the
accumulation of species that leads to incursions rather than single discharge events. If you, as an
expert believe this, note this on your form and present your results for an annual period of activity
rather than a single event, using worst case estimates of shipping activity. Map A shows the
shipping activity around Australia.
Another concern may be that the species establishing in the port environments will be different to
those in the open coastal environment and thus the relative risk may refer to different species. We
argue that while there is potential for this to occur it is most likely that the species involved in
ballast water translocation will be strongly associated with the port environment. While we are sure
that other issues may arise, we request that experts consider this project for what it is – an
assessment of broad patterns of relative risk, and a means of calibrating the research work done to
date in a format that can be used for decision making. Future projects could assess some of the
more complicated issues.
Finally, we stress that the results of this component will not decide the contingency deballasting
zones but rather will be an input to a policy process to trade off costs, practicality and biological
risk. This process will be coordinated by NIMPCG, and does not eliminate further scientific
inputs.
Information Provided in each Scenario
Larval Baselines:
The larval baselines referred to in these scenarios were developed in a study conducted by CSIRO
Marine Research aimed at providing a scientific framework for selecting ballast water uptake and
discharge zones around the Australian continent (Hobday et al, 2002). In this study, combinations
of biological species information, ocean current estimates, and modelled larval trajectories were
examined to produce a series of estimated risk contours around the Australian coastline.
Larval trajectories were modelled using geostrophic and wind-driven current estimates. The larval
trajectories were then used to calculate the probability that larvae from any off shore cell would
arrive at the coast within a larval duration time. The estimates of the discharge baselines based on
modelled trajectories are dependent on both the larval duration and depth limits. The baselines
were developed using biological species information (estimated maximum depth, duration and
planktonic period) for the 12 target species currently used in the Ballast Water Decision Support
System. Although a limited set of pest species has been used to develop these baselines, the
combination of maximum depth and larval duration used results in 15 unique life history
combinations, and these should be applicable to additional pest species as management considers
necessary.
The baselines are displayed in the form of (a)wk (b)m (c)%, where (a)wk refers to larval duration
in weeks, (b)m refers to maximum settlement depth in metres and (c)% is the percentage of larvae

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 61
discharged at that line that will reach the maximum settlement depth within the larval duration
time.
In this questionnaire, 3 larval baselines have been chosen to cover the range of discharge sites
within the 50 nautical mile 200 metre depth zone. All three have a settlement depth of 50 metres,
and a survival percentage of 50%, and differ in the larval duration, covering 1, 2 and 4 weeks. A
4th baseline is also included in some of the scenarios, which covers the “worst case” of 12 week
larval duration and settlement depth of 200m for a 50% survival percentage.
For example, the 1wk 50m 50% larval baseline can be interpreted as:
For a species that has a larval duration of 1 week and can establish at a depth of 50m,
50% of the larvae discharged at this line will cross the 50m isobath within a week. For points
within this baseline, more than 50% of the larvae will cross the 50m isobath within a week and for
points outside the baseline, less than 50% of the larvae will cross the 50m isobath within a week.
Distance From Coast and Depth
On each scenario, you will notice 4 additional lines that represent the 50 metre and 200 metre depth
isobaths, and 12 and 50 nautical mile distances from coast. These have been chosen for a specific
reason, as outlined below. Note that the distances from the coast are measured from the Territorial
Sea Baseline.
Under Section 3.2.1.2 of the National System’s Ballast Water Management Arrangements,
permission is granted for ships to exchange ballast water as close as 50 nautical miles offshore,
providing that a depth of 200m is also observed. As ships have provision to exchange ballast water
in this zone, we are mainly concerned with the risk of exchange within distances of 50nm and
depths of 200m. The 12nm line represents the limit of the Commonwealth Territorial Waters, and
has no bearing on the National System’s Ballast Water Management Arrangements, rather it has
been included for reference.
Example:

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 62
Figure 1: Example Scenario
As a hypothetical example, an expert considers the scenario shown in Figure 1. The following text
is an example of how an expert may work out the relative risk for each of the sites. Note that these
comments are not facts or our beliefs, they are hypothetical. The risk for each site is relative to the
risk of discharging the ballast water (sourced from a similar latitude) in a port environment at a
similar latitude to the discharge site. This expert believes that 100% of species would establish if
discharged in a port environment.
Point 8.5: As this point is beyond 200m depth the expert believes that there is no chance of
immediate settlement. This point is well beyond the 4 week larval baseline, hence considerably less
than 50% of particles will reach a depth of 50 metres within 4 weeks. The point is beyond 50
nautical miles. The expert considers only 1% of the organisms that could establish in the port could
establish when discharged here, as there would be considerable dilution and the environments are
unsuitable.
Point 8.3: This point sits between the 4 and 2 week larval baselines. Thus at least 50% of
particles would reach a depth of 50 metres within 2 to 4 weeks. 2 weeks would result in major
dilutions so the expert argues that only asexual species would be a risk. The expert argues that only
5% of species would survive the depth of release and of those only about half could survive the
environment at the discharge site as it is sufficiently different to the port. The expert considers that
asexual species make up 15% of introductions in the port environment but that only a third would
make it to the suitable inshore environment. Hence the expert believes that 2.5% of species would
establish at the discharge site and a further 5% would establish inshore of this site, resulting in
7.5% of the species that would establish if the water was discharge in port establishing if
discharged at this point.
Scenario Location Exchange Coordinates Depth Distance
Site (m) offshore
(nm)
Risk of Ballast Water Discharge (%)
139.238 E
1
-36.560 S
49 27.19 …
138.720 E
2
-36.721 S
60 53.43 …
138.575 E
3
-36.789 S
60 61.28 7.5
138.234 E
4
-36.923 S
75 62.27 …
137.786 E
8 Robe
5
-37.200 S
2877 69.67 1
References:
Barry S, Dommisse M, Lawrence E, Jenkins G, Hough D, Hatton D and Black K
(unpublished) Managing ballast on short coastal trips: The environmental risk of
coastal exchange. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 63
Cunningham DC, Woldendorp G, Burgess MB and Barry SC (2003) Prioritising sleeper
weeds for eradication: Selection of species based on potential impacts on agriculture
and feasibility of eradication. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra
Hobday A, Hewitt C, Condie S, Cahill M, Mansbridge J and Ling S (2002) Mapping the
Australian Ballast Water Uptake and Discharge Contingency Zones. CSIRO Marine
Research, Hobart.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 64
Scenarios

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 65

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 66

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 67

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 68

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 69

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 70
Answer Sheet
Scenario Location Exchange Coordinates Depth Distance Comments
Site (m) offshore (nm) Risk of Ballast Water Discharge (%)
144.348 E
1 -39.168 S 72 32.52
145.471 E
2 -39.216 S 74 32.63
146.749 E
3 -39.221 S 67 9.26
147.944 E
1 Bass Strait
4 -39.034 S 62 36.27
116.751 E
1 -20.295 S 42 6.02
116.584 E
2 -20.010 S 58 25.44
116.368 E
3 -19.732 S 65 45.13
116.107 E
2 Dampier
4 -19.513 S 120 61.33
114.870 E
1 -33.851 S 47 6.43
114.678 E
2 -33.849 S 134 17.93
114.521 E
3 -33.843 S 165 27.34
114.29 E
3 Bunbury
4 -33.857 S 1046 42.76
150.068 E
1 -37.035 S 77 7.19
150.151 E
2 -37.034 S 92 10.76
150.273 E
3 -37.035 S 124 17.33
150.497 E
4 Eden
4 -37.019 S 3264 30.26

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 71
138.548 E
1 -10.511 S 57 111.14
141.296 E
2 -10.592 S 20 36.78
143.587 E
3 -10.504 S 27 8.29
144.928 E
5 Torres Strait
4 -10.524 S 1504 63.42
129.639 E
1 -12.147 S 60 31.15
130.423 E
2 -12.139 S 42 18.46
131.679 E
3 -11.729 S 33 17.35
131.611 E
4 -10.833 S 63 25.03
131.620 E
6 Darwin
5 -10.467 S 72 44.26
153.599 E
1 -27.340 S 72 4.11
153.728 E
2 -27.327 S 180 11.18
153.925 E
3 -27.324 S 734 22.66
154.260 E
7 Brisbane
4 -27.323 S 4141 42.63
139.238 E
1 -36.560 S 49 27.19
138.720 E
2 -36.721 S 60 53.43
138.575 E
3 -36.789 S 60 61.28
138.234 E
4 -36.923 S 75 62.27
137.786 E
8 Robe
5 -37.200 S 2877 69.67

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 72
153.680 E
1 -28.683 S 56 2.52
153.800 E
2 -28.638 S 99 9.68
154.031 E
3 -28.641 S 1443 23.59
154.383 E
9 Yamba
4 -28.665 S 3320 44.74
146.054 E
1 -16.892 S 41 3.31
146.608 E
2 -16.789 S 1367 36.87
146.873 E
3 -16.729 S 1628 53.17
147.297 E
10 Cairns
4 -16.562 S 1489 79.27
151.435 E
1 -23.665 S 21 8.05
152.567 E
2 -23.665 S 340 26.34
153.010 E
3 -23.665 S 445 48.63
153.859 E
11 Gladstone
4 -23.215 S 410 79.27
115.484 E
1 -32.387 S 41 12.47
115.345 E
2 -32.387 S 41 19.74
115.070 E
3 -32.470 S 148 34.36
114.828 E
12 Fremantle
4 -32.469 S 498 45.80

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 73
Shipping Map

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 74
Appendix B: Participants
Michaela Dommisse
Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment
Victoria
Dr Piers Dunstan
CSIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research
Tasmania
John Gilliland
South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Resources
South Australia
Dr Tim Glasby
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
New South Wales
Dr Keith Hayes
CSIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research
Tasmania
Dr Robert Hilliard
URS Corporation
Western Australia
Dr Emma Johnston
University of New South Wales
New South Wales
Dr Alice Morris
Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries and Water
Tasmania
Dr Kerry Neil
CRC Reef Research Centre
Queensland
Vic Neverauskas
South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Resources
South Australia
Dr Naomi Parker
New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
New Zealand
Dr Richard Willan
Museum & Art Gallery of the Northern Territory
Northern Territory

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 75
Appendix C: Additional Maps
Figure 44 Generalised route and frequencies of domestic ballast water
carrying voyages over each section of the route, overlayed on the position
reports for domestic ballast water carrying ships from the 2005 AUSREP data,
with the names of the ports used to determine the generalised route.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 76
Figure 45 The estimated risk and generalised route and frequencies of
domestic ballast water carrying voyages over each section of the route from
the 2005 AUSREP data, with the names of the ports used to determine the
generalised route.
Figure 46

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 77
Figure 47
Figure 48

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 78
Figure 49
Figure 50

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 79
Figure 51

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 80
Appendix D: Great Barrier Reef & Torres Strait Examples
The following figures display a series of maps focusing on the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait.
These maps were produced to inform the process of designating ballast water exchange areas for
ships travelling through the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait.
Figure 52 Map showing the area focused on for the Great Barrier Reef and
Torres Strait.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 81
Figure 53 Map showing the boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
and the Torres Strait Protected Zone.
Figure 54 Map showing the 2 areas that will be focused on; the northern Great
Barrier Reef (GBR) and the southern GBR.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 82
Figure 55 Map of the southern GBR showing the shipping exclusion areas.
Figure 56 Map of the southern GBR showing the shipping exclusion areas and
the position reports for bulkers and tankers travelling between Australian ports
from the 2005 AUSREP data.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 83
Figure 57 Map of the southern GBR showing the shipping exclusion areas and
the position reports for cargo, container and cruise ships travelling between
Australian ports from the 2005 AUSREP data.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 84
Figure 58 Map of the southern GBR showing the shipping exclusion areas and
the position reports for all domestic ballast water carrying voyages from the
2005 AUSREP data.
Figure 59 Map of the northern GBR showing the shipping exclusion areas.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 85
Figure 60 Map of the northern GBR showing the shipping exclusion areas and
the position reports for bulkers and tankers travelling between Australian ports
from the 2005 AUSREP data.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 86
Figure 61 Map of the northern GBR showing the shipping exclusion areas and
the position reports for cargo, container and cruise ships travelling between
Australian ports from the 2005 AUSREP data.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 87
Figure 62 Map of the northern GBR showing the shipping exclusion areas and
the position reports for all domestic ballast water carrying voyages from the
2005 AUSREP data.
Figure 63 Map showing the area between Townsville and Cairns to be focused
on in more detail.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 88
Figure 64 Map of the area between Townsville and Cairns showing the
shipping exclusion zones.
Figure 65 Map of the area between Townsville and Cairns showing the
shipping exclusion zones and the position reports for bulkers and tankers from
the 2005 AUSREP data.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 89
Figure 66 Map of the area between Townsville and Cairns showing the
shipping exclusion zones and the position reports for cargo, container and
cruise from the 2005 AUSREP data.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 90
Figure 67 Map of the area between Townsville and Cairns showing the
shipping exclusion zones and the position reports for all domestic ballast water
carrying voyages from the 2005 AUSREP data.
The following figure and table were produced to provide information on the number of voyages
through the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait, and their capacity to perform ballast water
exchange outside of this area. This was determined by assuming an average speed of 14 knots and
average time to perform ballast exchange of 36 hours. Figure 68 displays the zone in which ships
will not be able to complete full exchange before entering the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and
Torres Strait Protected Zone. These assumptions are conservative and hence the number of voyages
that would not be able to complete full exchange may be higher than the true value.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 91
Figure 68 Map displaying the zone in which ships will not be able to complete
full exchange before entering the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Torres
Strait Protected Zone
Table 9 The number of domestic ballast water carrying voyages from the 2005 AUSREP data that
do and do not travel through the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait (GBR & TS) broken down in
to those that can and cannot exchange their ballast water outside of the GBR & TS.
Able to exchange
outside of GBR &
TS
Travel only
within GBR &
TS
Travel within
and outside
GBR & TS
Do not travel
through GBR
& TS Total
Yes 680 10539 11219
No 408 709 1117
Total 408 1389 10539 12336
The next series of maps were produced to inform the process of consideration of designated ballast
water exchange areas on the Commonwealth Marine Reserves for Australia’s South-east Marine
Region.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 92
Figure 69 Map showing the South-east Marine Area to be focused on.
Figure 70 Map of the South-east Marine Region showing the Marine Protected
Areas.

Designated Exchange Area Project Final Report 93
Figure 71 Map of the South-east Marine Region showing the Marine Protected
Areas and the position reports for domestic ballast water carrying voyages
from the 2005 AUSREP data.