ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (ESD) RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LAKES AND COORONG FISHERY

JUNE 2011

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 8

1.1 Fishery Management Plans and ESD Reporting ........................... 9

1.2 The ESD Risk Assessment and Reporting Process ................... 10

2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 13

2.1 Description of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery .......................... 13 2.1.1 Location of the Fishery ............................................................. 13 2.1.2 Access to the Fishery ............................................................... 14

2.1.3 Fishing Methods ....................................................................... 15 2.1.4 Retained Species ..................................................................... 15 2.1.5 Non-Retained Species .............................................................. 18

2.2 Summary of Management Arrangements and Objectives ......... 18 2.2.1 History of the Fishery ................................................................ 18 2.2.2 Legislation ................................................................................ 19 2.2.3 Management Arrangements ..................................................... 20

2.2.4 Aboriginal Traditional Involvement in the Fishery ..................... 22 2.2.5 Catch and Effort Reporting ....................................................... 22

2.3 Biology of Species......................................................................... 22

2.3.1 Biology of Target Native Species.............................................. 22 2.3.2 Current Biological Status .......................................................... 28

2.3.3 Exotic Species .......................................................................... 31 2.4 Major Environments ...................................................................... 31

2.4.1 Physical Environment ............................................................... 31 2.4.2 Socio-Economic Environment .................................................. 32

2.5 Research Strategy ......................................................................... 37 2.5.1 Recent / Current Research ....................................................... 37 2.5.2 Proposed Future Research ...................................................... 37

3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 38

3.1 Scope .............................................................................................. 38 3.2 Overview ......................................................................................... 39

3.3 Issue Identification (component trees) ........................................ 40 3.4 Risk Assessment and Prioritisation of Issues ............................ 41

3.5 Performance Reports for Higher Risk Issues ............................. 44 3.6 Overview Table .............................................................................. 45

4 PERFORMANCE REPORTS ................................................................. 49

4.1 Retained Species ........................................................................... 49 4.1.1 Primary Species ....................................................................... 50 4.1.2 By-product Species .................................................................. 67

4.2 Non-Retained Species ................................................................... 71

4.2.1 Captured by Gear ..................................................................... 71

4.2.2 Direct Interaction but No Capture ............................................. 73 4.3 General Ecosystem Impacts of Fishing ....................................... 75

3

4.3.1 Impacts on Trophic Structure ................................................... 76 4.3.2 Habitat disturbance ................................................................... 79 4.3.3 Broader Environment ................................................................ 79

4.4 Community ..................................................................................... 81 4.4.1 Fishing Industry Community ..................................................... 81 4.4.2 Dependent Communities – Regional Centres .......................... 84 4.4.3 Non-Dependent Communities – City Centres ........................... 87

4.5 Governance .................................................................................... 89

4.5.1 Fisheries Council ...................................................................... 89 4.5.2 PIRSA – Policy and Management ............................................ 90 4.5.3 PIRSA – Legal framework ........................................................ 91 4.5.4 Other agencies ......................................................................... 92

4.5.5 Others (NGOs etc.) ................................................................... 93 4.6 External Factors Affecting Performance of the Fishery ............. 94

4.6.1 Ecological Impacts on the Fishery – Biophysical Environment . 94 4.6.2 Ecological Impacts on the Fishery – Human Induced Changes 96

4.6.3 Impacts of Other Drivers – Economic ....................................... 98 4.6.4 Access .................................................................................... 100

4.7 Aboriginal Community ................................................................ 102 4.7.1 Economic ................................................................................ 102

4.7.2 Employment ........................................................................... 102 4.7.3 Community Viability ................................................................ 102

4.7.4 Cultural Values ....................................................................... 102

5 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 103

6 APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 108

6.1 Appendix 1: Likelihood and Consequence Tables ................... 108

4

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Process for preparing a Fishery Management Plan ....................... 10 Figure 2. Area of the SA Lakes and Coorong Fishery (Figure taken from Sloan

2005) ...................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3. Catch of higher volume species in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery,

1992/93 to 2008/09. (Figure taken from EconSearch 2010) ................... 15 Figure 4. Catch of lower volume species in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery,

1992/93 to 2008/09 a. (Figure taken from EconSearch 2010) ................. 16 Figure 5. Catch and gross value of production (GVP) of all Lakes and

Coorong fishery species, South Australia, 1992/93 to 2009/10. (Figure taken from EconSearch 2011) ................................................................ 33

Figure 6. Summary of the ESD reporting framework processes .................... 40

Figure 7. Example of a component tree specific to the Lakes and Coorong Fishery. ................................................................................................... 41

49 Figure 8. Component Tree for Retained Species ........................................... 49 Figure 9. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for pipi between 1984-85 and

2009-10 showing: (a) total catch (MSF, LCF); and for the LCF; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2000-01 (<5 t). (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011) ........... 51

Figure 10. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for bony bream between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch; and for large mesh gill nets; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. There was no effort targeted at bony bream between 2006-07 and 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011) .............................................................................. 53

Figure 11. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for yellow-eye mullet between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch (LCF, recreational); and for small mesh gill nets; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011) ........................................................ 55

Figure 12. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for golden perch between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch; and for large mesh gill nets: (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011) ........... 57

Figure 13. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for black bream between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch; and for large mesh gill nets (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011) ........... 60

Figure 14. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for greenback flounder between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch; and for large mesh gill nets; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. NB estimate of CPUE in 2008-09 may be unreliable due to low effort. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011) ...................................................................................................... 62

Figure 15. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for mulloway between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch (MSF, LCF, recreational); and for large mesh nets; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. For swinger nets: (d) target catch; target effort; and (e) CPUE. Estimates of

5

recreational catch available for 2000-02 and 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011) ...................................................................................... 65

Figure 16. Component tree for non-retained species ..................................... 71

Figure 17. Component tree for general ecosystem impacts of fishing ........... 75 81 Figure 18. Component tree for community ..................................................... 81 Figure 19. Component tree for governance ................................................... 89 Figure 20. Component tree for external factors affecting performance of the

fishery ..................................................................................................... 94 Figure 21. Component tree for Aboriginal community .................................. 102

6

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Permitted Species in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery ..................... 17 Table 2. Key performance indicators and biological reference points for the

Lakes and Coorong Fishery. (Table taken from Sloan 2005).................. 21 Table 3. Annual commercial catch composition (%) for the Lakes and Coorong

Fishery between 2005-06 and 2009-10. The estimates for pipi and mulloway include catches from both the LCF and MSF. (Table taken from Ferguson 2011) ...................................................................................... 29

Table 4. Annual commercial catch composition of finfish (%) for the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery from 2005-06 and 2009-10. The estimate for mulloway includes catches from both the LCF and MSF. (Table taken from Ferguson 2011) ......................................................... 29

Table 5. Lakes and Coorong fishery catch and value of catch in SA, 2005/06 to 2009/10 a. (Table taken from EconSearch 2011) ................................ 34

Table 6. Cost of management of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery from 1996/97 to 2009/10a. (Table taken from EconSearch 2010) ................... 35

Table 7. Economic rent in the SA Lakes and Coorong Fishery from 2002/03 to 2008/09a. (Table taken from EconSearch 2010) ..................................... 36

Table 8. Primary ESD Components ............................................................... 39 Table 9. Risk ranking definitions .................................................................... 43 Table 10. Overview of the ESD Risk Assessment for the Lakes and Coorong

Fishery .................................................................................................... 45 Table 11. Performance indicators for pipi and current status levels for 2009-10

(yellow shading highlights biological performance indicator below the lower reference point). (Table taken from Ferguson 2011) ..................... 51

Table 12. Performance indicators for golden perch and current status levels for 2009-10. (Table taken from Ferguson 2011) ..................................... 58

Table 13. Performance indicators for black bream and current status levels for 2009-10. Because no target catch of this species was reported in 2009-10 there is no estimate of CPUE or 4-year CPUE trend (yellow shading highlights biological performance indicator below the lower reference point). (Table taken from Ferguson 2011)............................................... 61

Table 14. Performance indicators for greenback flounder and current status levels for 2009-10 (yellow shading highlights biological performance indicator below the lower reference point). (Table taken from Ferguson 2011) ...................................................................................................... 63

Table 15. Performance indicators for mulloway and current status levels for 2009-10 (yellow shading highlights biological performance indicator below the lower reference point). (Table taken from Ferguson 2011) ............... 66

Table A1. Likelihood Definitions ................................................................... 108 Table A2. Consequence categories for the Major Retained/Non-Retained

Species ................................................................................................. 108 Table A3. Consequence categories for the By-Product Species/Minor Non-

retained species .................................................................................... 109 Table A4. Consequence levels for the impact of a fishery on Protected

species.................................................................................................. 109

Table A5. Consequence levels for the impacts of a fishery on habitats ....... 110

Table A6. Consequence levels for the impact of a fishery on the general ecosystem/trophic levels ....................................................................... 111

7

Table A7. Consequence levels for impacts of management of a fishery at a political level ......................................................................................... 112

Table A8. The General Consequence Table for use in ecological risk assessments related to fishing .............................................................. 113

8

1 INTRODUCTION

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) principles are the basis of fisheries and aquatic resource management in South Australia. Within the South Australian Fisheries Management Act 2007, ESD is described as “the use, conservation, development and enhancement of the aquatic resources of the State in a way, and at a rate, that will enable people and communities to provide for their economic, social and physical well-being”. The Fisheries and Aquaculture Division of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) is responsible for fisheries management under the Act and must:

sustain the potential of aquatic resources of the State to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;

safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the aquatic resources of the State; and

avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of activities on the aquatic resources of the State.

Similar ESD-based management objectives are now widely accepted as the foundation of Australian State and Commonwealth fisheries and environmental management legislation, and ESD principles also underpin key international fisheries treaties and agreements. These include the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. ESD principles also drive key fisheries aspects of the Australian Government’s overarching Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This legislation requires that all Commonwealth, State and Territory fisheries that export some or all of their catch are assessed against fisheries sustainability criteria before being licensed for export. This EPBC Act assessment process is focussed on the ecological impacts of fishing to ensure that management outcomes avoid overfishing and recover overfished stocks; maintain biodiversity; and minimize adverse impacts on ecosystem structure, function, and productivity. Achieving strong ESD outcomes for commercial fisheries is a complex balancing act. It requires careful integration of immediate, medium, and long term resource use priorities with the full range of environmental, economic and social considerations facing business and communities. South Australia’s commercial and recreational fisheries are a significant part of the State’s identity and are very important both economically and culturally. The commercial wild catch fishing sector has an annual production value of $202 million (Knight and Tsolos 2011) and it is estimated that around 236,000 South Australians enjoy recreational fishing each year (Jones 2009). The viability of these important commercial and recreational activities relies on healthy and productive ecosystems, supported by an efficient regulatory and business framework.

9

1.1 Fishery Management Plans and ESD Reporting

The Fisheries Management Act 2007 has been in place since 1 December 2007. Since then, the Fisheries Council of South Australia has been established and is the peak advisory body to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. The primary functions of the Fisheries Council are to prepare fisheries management plans under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and to advise the Minister for Fisheries on key aspects of fisheries and aquatic resource management. To coincide with these changes, Fishery Management Committees (FMCs) were discontinued from 1 July 2007 and PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture has signed communication protocols with the relevant representative industry association(s) for each commercial fishery sector. For the Lakes and Coorong Fishery net and pipi sector the industry association is the Southern Fishermen’s Association (SFA). PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture also has a communication protocol with the Goolwa Pipi Harvesters Association (GPHA). Management plans are a significant instrument, guiding decisions on annual catch or effort levels, the allocation of access rights, and establishing the tenure of valuable commercial licences. The Fisheries Management Act 2007 also describes the nature and content of fishery management plans including mandatory requirements. Among other things, management plans must describe the biological, economic and social characteristics of a fishery. Management plans must also include a risk assessment of the impacts or potential impacts of the fishery on relevant ecosystems. These risk assessments are then used to develop management strategies that will best pursue fishery-specific ESD objectives. The broad process is outlined in Figure 1.

10

ESD RISK ASSESSMENT Preliminary assessment by PIRSA/SARDI

Stakeholder risk assessment workshop PIRSA prepares risk assessment report

FORMULATE OBJECTIVES OF MANAGEMENT PLAN PIRSA and industry association

DEVELOP HARVEST STRATEGY PIRSA and industry association

DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN Further iterations developed by PIRSA in consultation with industry association

PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN Fisheries Council to approve for statutory consultation process

MANAGEMENT PLAN AND EXPLANATORY REPORT RELEASED Fisheries Council

Figure 1. Process for preparing a Fishery Management Plan The Fisheries Management Act 2007 specifies that management plans may remain in force for up to 10 years from commencement. For developmental fisheries they may remain in force for up to 3 years. To ensure that management plans remain relevant, efficient, and focussed on the legislative and policy objectives of the day, the Fisheries Council must conduct a detailed review of the operation of a management plan soon after five years of commencement. This process will include a review of the ESD risk assessment.

1.2 The ESD Risk Assessment and Reporting Process

To efficiently meet its ESD accountabilities under both State and Commonwealth legislation, PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture has adopted the

11

National ESD Reporting Framework for Fisheries1. This approach, developed in Australia, has been extensively used to analyse and report on the ESD performance of commercial fisheries, and has the potential to drive substantial performance improvements. When applied appropriately the national framework will:

substantially improve knowledge about the environmental, economic, and social issues relevant to the ESD performance of a fishery;

enable consistent and comprehensive analysis and reporting of the current and strategic operating environment for fisheries (this may also usefully inform industry strategic and business planning initiatives);

engage industry, key fishery stakeholders, managers and scientists in a proven, transparent, and clearly defined collaborative process to understand and improve fisheries management performance; and

improve the efficiency and quality of performance reporting against a range of public and private sector accountabilities (such as the EPBC Act Strategic Assessment process, or industry business planning initiatives).

In January 2011, PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture arranged an ESD risk assessment workshop with key Lakes and Coorong Fishery stakeholders. An independent facilitator was engaged to run the workshop process. The workshop built upon earlier scoping work by the fisheries manager, scientists, and industry to identify the majority of management issues facing the fishery and to start the process of developing detailed fishery-specific ESD component trees. The key steps undertaken at the broader stakeholder workshop are outlined below: 1. The generic ESD component trees were modified through an iterative

process with stakeholders into a set of trees specific to the fishery. This process was used to identify all of the issues relevant to ESD performance of the fishery.

2. A risk assessment of the identified issues (or components) was completed

based on the likelihood and consequence of events that may undermine or alternatively contribute to ESD objectives. This was an iterative process involving managers, scientists, industry and key stakeholders.

3. Risks were then prioritised according to their severity. For higher level

risks a detailed analysis of the issue, associated risks, and preferred risk management strategies was completed. For low risk issues, the reasons for assigning low risk and/or priority were recorded.

1 The National ESD Reporting Framework was initially developed under the Standing

Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture. The framework was then finalised under FRDC Project 2000/145. See Fletcher et al. (2002); or www.fisheries-esd.com for

details.

12

4. For higher level risks a full ESD performance report in the context of specific management objectives was prepared. This includes operational objectives, indicators, data required, performance measures, and preferred management responses.

5. A detailed fishery-specific background report was also prepared to guide

the identification of issues, risks and management strategies. This report includes the history of the fishery and its management, the areas of operation and their biological and physical characteristics, target species and by-product and bycatch species, and other relevant information.

The full ESD reporting process outlined above provides a logical framework for managers and stakeholders to identify, prioritise, and efficiently manage risks to achieve agreed ESD objectives. Where there are substantial knowledge gaps, the process informs cost effective and efficient research strategies targeted to high risk areas.

13

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Description of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery

2.1.1 Location of the Fishery

The area of water encompassed by the Lakes and Coorong Fishery include the waters of three separate, but closely linked, ecosystem components. These are: (i) the northern and southern lagoons; (ii) the freshwater lower lakes of Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert; and (iii) the adjacent coastal marine waters along the Sir Richard and Younghusband Peninsulas. The fishery boundaries are described in detail in the Fisheries Management (Lakes and Coorong Fishery) Regulations 2009. For the purposes of management, the fishery is divided into four main areas (Figure 2):

Area 1 – Defined as the waters of the Coorong separated from the lower Murray and Lake Alexandrina by the Goolwa, Mundoo, Boundary Creek, Ewe Island and Tauwitchere Barrages and by a straight line drawn westerly from Pelican Point to Gnurlung Point and separated from the ocean by the Murray Mouth;

Area 2 – Defined as the waters of the Coorong commencing from a straight line drawn westerly from Pelican Point to Gnurlung Point, then extending south easterly to the most southerly limit of the southern Coorong lagoon;

Area 3 – Defined as the freshwater component, which includes Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert, downstream from the punt at Wellington to the barrages; and

Area 4 – Defined as the Coorong coastal waters, extending out to three nautical miles from the low water mark, from the Goolwa beach road (latitude 35º 31.3' south, longitude 138º 46.3' east) and south easterly along the Sir Richard and Younghusband Peninsulas to the Kingston jetty (latitude 36º 49.7' south, longitude 139º 51.1' east).

14

Figure 2. Area of the SA Lakes and Coorong Fishery (Figure taken from Sloan

2005) 2.1.2 Access to the Fishery

Access to the fishery is limited to holders of a current Lakes and Coorong Fishery licence, renewed annually by the Director of Fisheries under section 34 of the Fisheries Act, subject to certain requirements. The Fisheries Management (Lakes and Coorong Fishery) Regulations 2009 preclude the Director of Fisheries from granting any additional fishing licences in the fishery. There are currently 36 licences issued in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery, all of which have a variety of different gear entitlements. All licences issued in the fishery are fully transferable. Prior to February 2004, the scheme prevented the Director from granting more than one licence to an individual operating in the fishery. A review of all State fisheries legislation against National Competition Policy guidelines led to amendments to the previous Scheme of Management (Scheme of Management (Lakes and Coorong Fishery) 1991) to allow the Director of Fisheries to grant multiple licences to an individual.

All licence holders must be present when fishing operations are being undertaken, consistent with the owner operator provisions in place for the fishery, except in circumstances where the holder of a licence also holds another licence in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery or another fishery. In this case, the licence holder must be the registered master on at least one of the licences. Historically, the owner operator provisions have had the dual role of limiting effort expansions and maintaining the regional development nature of the fishery. All licence holders may nominate a relief master for up to 28 days each year.

15

2.1.3 Fishing Methods

A variety of fishing methods are used in the LCF, reflecting the diversity of species and habitat types across the fishery. Sloan (2005) provides a detailed description of these methods. Commercial fishers are permitted to use the fishing devices that are registered and endorsed on their licence, subject to various regulations, conditions and industry codes of practice (Sloan 2005). The main methods pertinent to the current ESD risk assessment are mesh, swinger, hauling, drum, and dab nets, and cockle rakes and nets. 2.1.4 Retained Species

The fishery is based on the capture and retainment of multiple species, although there are eight main target species: Mulloway, Black Bream, Yellow-eye Mullet, Greenback Flounder, Pipi (or Goolwa cockle), Golden Perch (or callop), Bony Bream, and European Carp (Figures 3 and 4). Table 1 lists all species that are permitted to be taken by the Fisheries Management (Lakes and Coorong Fishery) Regulations 2009.

Source: Knight et al. (2004) and SARDI Aquatic Sciences.

Figure 3. Catch of higher volume species in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery,

1992/93 to 2008/09. (Figure taken from EconSearch 2010)

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

ton

ne

s

Bony Bream Callop European Carp

Goolwa Cockle (Pipi) Yellow-Eye Mullet Mulloway

16

a Note that Redfin catch was not published separately in 2003/04 to 2008/09 and has been included in the ‘other species’ category. Source: Knight et al. (2004) and SARDI Aquatic Sciences.

Figure 4. Catch of lower volume species in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery, 1992/93 to 2008/09 a. (Figure taken from EconSearch 2010)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ton

ne

s

Australian Salmon Black Bream Flounder

Redfin Other Species

17

Table 1. Permitted Species in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery

Annelids

Bloodworm (Class Polychaeta)

Tubeworm (Class Polychaeta)

Crustaceans

Crab of all species (Family Portunidae)

Freshwater Prawn (Macrobrachium australiensis)

Yabby (Cherax spp.)

Molluscs

Southern Calamary (Sepioteuthis australis)

Cockle (Anadara & Katelysia spp)

Mussels (Mytilus spp.)

Freshwater Mussels (Family Hyriidae)

Pipi (Donax spp.)

Gould's Squid (Nototodarus gouldii)

Scalefish

Australian Anchovy (Engraulis australis)

Barracouta (Thyrsites atun)

Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri)

Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi)

Carp of all species (Family Cyprinidae)

Cod of all marine species (Family Moridae)

Congolli (Pseudaphritis urvilli)

Dory of all species (Family Zeidae)

Flathead (Platycephalus spp.)

Flounder of all species (Family Bothidae or Pleuronectidae)

Garfish (Hyporhamphus melanochir)

Australian Herring (Arripis georgianus)

Mullet of all species (Family Mugilidae)

Mulloway (Argyrosomus hololepidotus)

Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii)

Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua)

Redfin (Perca fluviatilus)

Bight Redfish (Centroberyx gerrardi)

Redfish (Centroberyx affinis)

Western Australian Salmon (Arripis truttaceus)

Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax)

Snapper (Pagrus auratus)

Snook (Sphyraena novaehollandiae)

Southern Sole (Aserragodes haackeanus)

Swallowtail (Centroberyx lineatus)

Sea Sweep (Scorpis aequipinnis)

Blue-eye Trevalla (Hyperoglyphe antarctica)

Trevally (Family Carangidae)

Brown Trout (Salmo trutta)

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Whiting of all species (Family Sillaginidae)

Bluethroat Wrasse (Notolabrus tetricus)

Shark

Rays of all species (Class Elasmobranchii)

Shark of all species (Class Elasmobranchii) other than White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias)

Skate of all species (Class Elasmobranchii)

18

2.1.5 Non-Retained Species

A number of finfish, crustacean, and bird species are captured as bycatch in nets and then released in the LCF (Ferguson 2010b). However, the level of interaction with non-target species is relatively low. The main bycatch issue for the LCF appears to be poor rates of post-release survival in undersized mulloway that are captured in gill nets (Ferguson 2010b). Some types of fishing gear used in the LCF (e.g. cockle rakes) will by design result in very low levels of interaction with non-target species.

2.2 Summary of Management Arrangements and Objectives

2.2.1 History of the Fishery

Sloan (2005) provides a detailed history of the commercial LCF in the management plan for the fishery. Fishing enterprises have been carried out in the lower Murray Lakes and Coorong region since early European settlement and have been documented from as early as 1846. During this early period of development, the fishery was characterised by artisanal and subsistence operations, with most fishers operating on a seasonal basis (Sloan 2005). Commercial fishing developed slowly during this early period due mainly to the increased focus on agricultural and pastoral activities, but also because of inadequate transport infrastructure and poor storage facilities. The main species taken from the region during this period were mulloway, bream, yellow-eye mullet, Australian salmon and tommy-ruff. Fishing equipment used included locally built, naturally aspirated wooden vessels, set lines and various net designs with different lengths and mesh sizes, all constructed from natural fibres (Olsen 1991). A number of unique methods have been developed over time by commercial fishers, including swinger nets and cockle rakes used to target mulloway and Goolwa cockles respectively, on the ocean beaches of the Sir Richard and Younghusband Peninsulas. Although modern technologies and materials (such as motor powered aluminium fishing vessels and synthetic fibres used to construct fishing nets) have been adopted, changes to fundamental fishing practices have been relatively superficial, when compared to the advances made in many other commercial fisheries. This reflects the unique characteristics of the Lakes and Coorong region and a desire from the commercial industry and Government to contain effective fishing effort levels within historical and sustainable limits (Sloan 2005). In 1896, there were approximately 30 full time commercial fishers operating in the Lakes and Coorong region, based mainly at Goolwa and Milang. The South Australian Government introduced a requirement in 1906 for all commercial fishers to hold a commercial fishing licence. In 1915, there were 15 licensed commercial fishers operating in the Lakes and Coorong region, however, the number of unlicensed fishers may have been significantly greater at times, particularly during the depression years and when the steamer trade through Goolwa slowed due to low river flows (Sloan 2005).

19

In 1940, following barrage construction in the Coorong, there were 64 fishing licences issued in the Lakes and Coorong region. This number dropped to 13 by 1970, evidently due to military enlistments and regulations on the number of additional agents (persons assisting fishing operations) permitted. Following this, records indicate that the number of licensed commercial fishers in the fishery rose to a maximum of 106 fishers in 1972 (Olsen 1991), before being substantially reduced with the introduction of new licensing criteria. 2.2.2 Legislation

The Fisheries Management Act 2007 provides the broad statutory framework to provide for the conservation and management of South Australia’s aquatic resources. In the administration of the Act, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries must pursue the following objectives, outlined in Section 7 of the Act:

(1) An object of this Act is to protect, manage, use and develop the aquatic resources of the State in a manner that is consistent with ecologically sustainable development and, to that end, the following principles apply:

(a) proper conservation and management measures are to be implemented to protect the aquatic resources of the State from over-exploitation and ensure that those resources are not endangered;

(b) access to the aquatic resources of the State is to be allocated between users of the resources in a manner that achieves optimum utilisation and equitable distribution of those resources to the benefit of the community;

(c) aquatic habitats are to be protected and conserved, and aquatic ecosystems and genetic diversity are to be maintained and enhanced;

(d) recreational fishing and commercial fishing activities are to be fostered for the benefit of the whole community;

(e) the participation of users of the aquatic resources of the State, and of the community more generally, in the management of fisheries is to be encouraged.

(2) The principle set out in subsection (1)(a) has priority over the other principles.

(3) A further object of this Act is that the aquatic resources of the State are to be managed in an efficient and cost effective manner and targets set for the recovery of management costs.

20

(4) The Minister, the Director, the Council, the ERD Court and other persons or bodies involved in the administration of this Act, and any other person or body required to consider the operation or application of this Act (whether acting under this Act or another Act), must—

(a) act consistently with, and seek to further the objects of, this Act; and

(b) insofar as this Act applies to the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary, seek to further the objects and objectives of the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005; and

(c) insofar as this Act applies to the River Murray, seek to further the objects of the River Murray Act 2003 and the Objectives for a Healthy River Murray under that Act; and

(d) insofar as this Act applies to areas within a marine park, seek to further the objects of the Marine Parks Act 2007.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), ecologically sustainable development comprises the use, conservation, development and enhancement of the aquatic resources of the State in a way, and at a rate, that will enable people and communities to provide for their economic, social and physical well-being while—

(a) sustaining the potential of aquatic resources of the State to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of the aquatic resources of the State; and

(c) avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects of activities on the aquatic resources of the State,

(taking into account the principle that if there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to the aquatic resources of the State, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent such damage).

The regulations that govern management of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery are the Fisheries Management (Lakes and Coorong Fishery) Regulations 2009 for the commercial fishery and the Fisheries Management (General) Regulations 2007 for the recreational fishery. 2.2.3 Management Arrangements

Commercial Fishery A management plan for the LCF was developed in 2005 for a five-year period from 2005 to 2010 inclusive (see Sloan 2005). The current management plan outlines a number of management objectives and strategies in accordance with the now defunct South Australian Fisheries Act 1982. PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture will be developing a new management plan during 2011

21

following the introduction of the Fisheries Management Act 2007. To contribute towards a more robust assessment of the fishery, a number of performance indicators and biological reference points were developed in the 2005 management plan (Table 2). These indicators and reference points will also be reviewed as part of the development of a new management plan. The commercial LCF is currently managed using a complex mix of input and output controls aimed at matching harvesting capacity with resource availability and controlling growth in aggregate harvesting capacity. Existing controls include limitations on the number of licences, a wide range of gear restrictions, spatial and temporal closures, restrictions on the number of commercial agents permitted to assist fishing operations and legal size limits for individual species. The majority of the management controls used today have been in place for many years (Sloan 2005). Table 2. Key performance indicators and biological reference points for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery. (Table taken from Sloan 2005) Species Total catch (tonnes) CPUE (kg/day)* Total catch

trend (t) CPUE trend (kg/day)**

Upper Lower Upper Lower 3-4 years 3-4 years

Mulloway total catch (all sectors)

118 31 - - (±) 27 (4 yrs) -

Mulloway (mesh nets)

- - 28 5 - (±) 7

Mulloway (swinger nets)

- - 57 6 - (±) 16

Goolwa cockles 1,500 800 1,200 850 (±) 226 (3 yrs) (±) 240

Yellow-eye mullet

312 124 93 47 (±) 45 (4 yrs) (±) 13

Golden perch (lakes)

177 20 13 2 (±) 56 (4 years) (±) 4

Black bream 47 3 12 3 (±) 15 (4 years) (±) 4

Flounder 54 4 23 6 (±) 22 (4 years) (±) 5

Recreational Fishery The Lakes and Coorong region supports a significant recreational fishery (Sloan 2005). The most sought after species are mulloway, yellow-eye mullet and pipis (Sloan 2005). A range of gear types is used including rod and line, nets within the Coorong lagoons, and hand collection for pipis on the ocean beach. The most recent recreational fishing survey (undertaken in 2007/08) estimated that of the total number of mulloway harvested by the recreational sector across SA, 50% was taken from the Coorong lagoons (Jones 2009). The majority of the State’s recreational harvest of pipis comes from Goolwa Beach (Jones 2009).

22

2.2.4 Aboriginal Traditional Involvement in the Fishery

Many Aboriginal communities have a long history of fishing in what are now known as South Australian waters. Each community’s fishing activities and cultural practices are distinct. Information about these activities and practices will be described in each Aboriginal Traditional Fishing Management Plan. These plans are currently being developed through the South Australian Government process of negotiating Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) with the native title claimants, and will be available as the plans are finalised. This process will help in quantifying the level of Aboriginal fishing across all fisheries in South Australia. Sloan (2005) provides a brief history of aboriginal fishing in the Lakes and Coorong region. The physical character, natural resource base and overall health of the Lakes and Coorong region, including the River Murray Mouth, harbours significant cultural and spiritual importance for the Ngarrindjeri people (Hemming et al. 2002, cited in Sloan 2005). Ngarrindjeri people still practice traditional fishing and food gathering in the Lakes and Coorong region.

2.2.5 Catch and Effort Reporting

Catch and effort data are collected through compulsory monthly logbook returns. Separate logbooks exist for pipi and finfish. SARDI Aquatic Sciences maintains a comprehensive catch and effort database for the fishery using data collected from these returns. To collect more detailed catch information, the LCF is divided into 16 areas (Knight and Tsolos 2011). Data provided for finfish includes: catch, effort (man days, nets), location (i.e., area), species targeted, species caught (kg), and port of landing. Discards are recorded for pipi and will also soon be added to the finfish logbooks.

2.3 Biology of Species

2.3.1 Biology of Target Native Species

The LCF targets seven main native species: mulloway, black bream, yellow-eye mullet, greenback flounder, pipi, golden perch, and bony bream. The biology of each of these species is described in the literature reviews in the relevant stock assessments (mulloway, Ferguson and Ward 2003; black bream, Ferguson and Ye 2008; yellow-eye mullet, Higham et al. 2005; greenback flounder, Ferguson 2007; pipi, Ferguson and Mayfield 2006; golden perch, Ye 2004). More brief descriptions are provided in the following sections. Mulloway The mulloway, Argyrosomus japonicas, occurs in both the northern and southern hemispheres, where it is found along the east coast of southern

23

Africa and from the Chinese coast from Hong Kong to Japan, as well as in Australia (Ferguson et al. 2008). In Australia, it occurs south from North West Cape in Western Australia right around to the Burnett River in Queensland (Kailola et al. 1993). Mulloway are known to be associated with estuaries in both Australia and South Africa (Ferguson et al. 2008; Griffiths 1996). In South Australia, juveniles are most commonly found in estuaries, whereas adults are found mainly in the high-energy surf zone (Ferguson et al 2008). The South Australian mulloway population is managed using a precautionary approach as a self-recruiting population, with recruitment considered to be dependent upon local spawning within South Australian waters (Sloan 2005). However, it is likely that mulloway in western and eastern South Australia comprise different populations because there are differences between regions in: (i) elemental concentrations in otoliths; (ii) shape of otoliths (Ferguson et al. 2011); and (iii) growth rates. This is supported by results of a DNA-based study of mulloway in South Australia (Dixon 1988). Similar sub-structuring occurs in the population of mulloway in Western Australia (Farmer 2008). The life history strategy of mulloway is thought to involve an early phase of rapid growth and delayed maturity, followed by prolonged longevity to ensure sufficient egg production over time (Ferguson and Ward 2003). Mulloway attain a maximum age of about 41 years and a maximum size of about 2 m Griffiths and Hecht 1995; Ferguson 2010c). The size at which 50% of individuals are mature in south-eastern Australia is 812 mm TL for females and 811 mm TL for males (Ferguson 2010c). Age at 50% maturity is 5 years for males and 6 years for females, while age at 100% maturity is 8 years for males and 9 years for females (Ferguson 2010c). In eastern South Australia spawning of mulloway likely occurs in spring-summer adjacent the mouth of the Murray River (Ferguson 2008). Because maturity is delayed juvenile mulloway utilise protected habitat in the Murray River estuary for at least five years after which time they occur in nearshore marine waters (Ferguson 2008). The proportion of the total population that uses the Coorong estuary as juvenile habitat is unclear (Ferguson and Ward 2003) Black bream In Australia, Acanthopagrus butcheri is distributed in temperate waters from Myall Lake, New South Wales to the Murchison River, Western Australia (Rowland 1984), where it is common in estuaries and river mouths (Norriss et al. 2002). Within South Australia black bream are found from the bottom of Eyre Peninsula eastwards to the State border, including the Coorong lagoons, the Onkaparinga River and the estuaries on Kangaroo Island (Norriss et al. 2002, Kailola et al. 1993, Bryars 2003).

24

Black bream are considered to be an estuarine resident species that complete their life cycle within estuarine waters (Gomon et al. 1994). Movement between estuaries and other sheltered bays is limited and usually only occurs during periods of flooding (Hall 1984, Kailola et al. 1993, Cashmore et al. 2000, cited in Sloan 2005). There is a current study of stock structure of black bream in South Australia (Judith Wingate, PhD, Southern Seas Laboratories, University of Adelaide). Black bream are a bottom dwelling species that usually occur in areas where hard substrates, snags or structures provide shelter (Kailola et al. 1993). They can withstand a wide range of salinities and often move into the freshwater Lower Lakes and the lower reaches of the River Murray (Sloan 2005). The population of black bream in the Coorong is currently managed as a distinct unit stock, reliant on local spawning events within the Coorong lagoons for successful recruitment (Sloan 2005). There are limited data on the stock structure of black bream in SA, but it is likely that there is limited movement between the Coorong region and other estuaries around the State. Overall, black bream grow slowly and can reach a maximum age of at least 29 years (Morison et al. 1998, Cashmore 2000) and a size of 60 cm (Kailola et al. 1993) Growth rates of A. butcheri in Victoria (Morison et al. 1998) and Western Australia (Morison et al. 1998, Sarre 1999, Hoeksema et al. 2006) vary greatly between estuaries. Anecdotal evidence from populations in estuaries on Kangaroo Island, South Australia, supports the hypothesis of an inverse relationship between population density and growth (Ferguson and Ye 2008). Size and age at maturity vary between locations, but are generally >15 cm and >2 years, respectively (Ferguson and Ye 2008). Spawning of black bream generally occurs from spring to summer (Ferguson and Ye 2008). Recruitment strength may be related to freshwater flows (Sloan 2005, Ferguson and Ye 2008). Yellow-eye mullet The yellow-eye mullet, Aldrichetta forsteri, is distributed in bays, estuaries and open coastline from Shark Bay in Western Australia, throughout the southern coastline including Tasmania, to Newcastle in New South Wales (Kailola et al. 1993). Yellow-eye mullet live in brackish and inshore coastal waters and beaches over sandy and muddy bottom in depths to about 20 m (Kailola et al. 1993). The estuarine waters of the Coorong offer an ideal habitat for this species. Two separate populations are considered to exist between the western and eastern seaboards (Kailola et al. 1993). South Australian populations are considered to form part of the western stocks (Pellizzari 2001, cited in Sloan 2005). Yellow-eye mullet are categorised as estuarine opportunists because they regularly utilise estuaries during part of their life cycle but do not need access

25

to estuaries to complete their life cycle (Higham et al. 2005). However, the importance of the Coorong estuarine system to the life history of yellow-eye mullet is currently uncertain due to conflicting information about gonad condition and early life history from the region (Higham et al. 2005). Numbers of yellow-eye mullet appear to have increased in the Coorong lagoons in the absence of freshwater flows over the past few years. Yellow-eye mullet are a fast growing, short-lived species attaining a maximum age of 5 years (Thomson 1957, cited in Sloan 2005) and a maximum size of about 40 cm (Kailola et al. 1993) Female yellow-eye mullet from the Coorong mature at about 23 cm caudal fork length (CFL), whilst males mature slightly smaller at 22 cm CFL, approximately in their third year of age (Harris 1968, cited in Sloan 2005). Greenback flounder Greenback flounder, Rhombosolea tapirina, belong to the family Pleuronectidae, commonly known as the right-eyed flounders. In Australia, they occur in sheltered bays, estuaries and coastal waters from southern Western Australia across to southern New South Wales and around Tasmania (Kailola et al. 1993, Gomon et al. 1994). They also occur in New Zealand (Gomon et al. 1994). Significant genetic differences exist between Australian and New Zealand populations, and between regions within Australia (Ferguson 2007). The stock structure of South Australian greenback flounder populations has not been studied (Ferguson 2007). However, it has been suggested that the Coorong population is isolated from adjacent coastal waters and that it can complete its life cycle within the sheltered waters of the Coorong lagoons (Sloan 2005). Based on this understanding, the greenback flounder population in the Coorong is managed as a distinct unit stock, reliant on local spawning events within the Coorong lagoons for successful recruitment (Sloan 2005). Greenback flounder are usually found over non-vegetated, sandy or muddy bottom, where they are well camouflaged (Kailola et al. 1993, Ferguson 2007). They have a wide temperature and salinity tolerance (Kailola et al. 1993). Adults feed on rising tides at night on shallow mud banks (Kailola et al. 1993). Limited information is available on the growth and age characteristics of greenback flounder populations in SA (Ferguson 2007). They appear to be a fast growing species, reaching a maximum length of 40 cm at 3–4 years of age (Kailola et al. 1993). Limited information is available on the reproductive biology of greenback flounder in SA.

26

Pipi The pipi or Goolwa cockle, Donax deltoides, is found on surf beaches from southern Queensland to Eyre Peninsula in SA, including Tasmania (King 1985, McLachlan et al. 1996). The population found in the Coorong along the Sir Richard and Younghusband Peninsulas is likely to represent the largest population of the species found in Australia (King 1976). The Coorong population of D. deltoides is managed as a self-recruiting population distinct from other stocks distributed throughout other South Australian ocean beaches (Sloan 2005). Pipi are a fast-growing, short-lived, highly fecund species that attain a maximum size of between 60–80 mm and reach sexual maturity at about 13 months of age and about 36 mm shell length (Murray-Jones and Johnson 2003). Maximum age is estimated to be about 4 years. The spawning season was thought to be continuous throughout the year, but with a number of peaks during September–October and in January (King 1976, Murray-Jones and Johnson 2003). Recent work has indicated that peak spawning occurs in spring-summer. Juvenile pipi tend to be located in the intertidal zone while adults are found on the lower shore and in the surf zone, although the adult distribution is probably centred on the low tide swash zone (Sloan 2005). Large natural fluctuations in population abundance are a characteristic of cockle populations worldwide (Murray-Jones and Johnson 2003). King (1976) suggested that such fluctuations are likely to be driven by surface winds or hydrological processes, including upwelling. Goolwa cockles are thought to feed mainly on surf diatoms, which are common on the Coorong ocean beaches (King 1976). Productivity of the Coorong population of D. deltoides is likely to benefit significantly from elevated primary production of phytoplankton due to freshwater outflows from the River Murray (Murray-Jones and Johnson 2003). Golden perch The golden perch or callop, Macquaria ambigua ambigua, is a freshwater fish that is distributed throughout most of the Murray-Darling Basin (Lintermans 2007). Within SA it occurs in the River Murray and Lower Lakes (Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina). Golden perch prefer lowland, warmer, turbid, slow flowing rivers (Lintermans 2007). Golden perch favour deep pool habitats because of the refuge and dimensionality provided by dead trees, snags, undercut ledges and river banks. They are well adapted to the dynamic flood conditions of the Murray-Darling system and can withstand significant changes in temperature (4–37ºC) and salinity (Harris and Rowland 1996, cited in Sloan 2005). Similar to many other freshwater native species, the natural range of distribution and abundance of golden perch has declined since European settlement (Sloan 2005, Lintermans 2007). One of the main causes for this decline is habitat degradation, due to the construction of numerous dams and

27

weirs, causing barriers to natural migration patterns and altering natural water flow and temperature regimes (Sloan 2005). The population structure of golden perch has been genetically defined throughout its range of distribution (Sloan 2005). Within South Australia, two separate stocks exist, which are considered to be the ‘central stock’ and the ‘Lakes stock’ (Sloan 2005). As their ranges overlap considerably, both stocks are relevant to the management of the LCF. The Lakes stock could represent a separate stock, which has increased in abundance since barrage construction and the resulting habitat modification (enlargement of freshwater habitat in the Lakes). Alternatively, the Lakes stock may have evolved to become a separate, self sustaining stock since barrage construction in the 1940s (Ye 2004). However, due to the similar morphology and overlapping occurrence of the central and Lakes stocks, the golden perch resource of the lower Murray River and Lakes is managed as a unit stock (Sloan 2005). The golden perch is a long lived species that can reach a maximum size of about 76 cm (Lintermans 2007). The known maximum age is about 26 years (Ye 2004). Growth rates are highly variable between individual populations (Sloan 2005). Samples of golden perch from the River Murray and the Lower Lakes have indicated considerable variability in growth rates of individual fish. For example, faster-growing one year old fish may be larger than slow growing five year olds (Ye 2004). Spawning occurs during spring and summer in response to river flooding or rising water levels when temperature exceeds about 20ºC (Lintermans 2007). Females mature at 4 years and males at 2 years (Lintermans 2007). Bony bream The bony bream or bony herring, Nematalosa erebi, is a freshwater fish that has a widespread distribution throughout northern and central Australia, including the Murray-Darling basin. It inhabits a variety of habitats including open water (Bice 2010). The biology of the bony bream is lesser known than the other target species in the LCF. It is apparent that bony bream have a wide temperature tolerance and high salinity tolerance (Bice 2010). In the lower River Murray, the bony bream matures in its second or third year, and is highly fecund (Puckridge and Walker 1990). Spawning occurs in Lake Alexandrina in late spring and summer at temperatures of >20°C (Bice 2010). Spawning is not reliant on flooding (Puckridge and Walker 1990). The bony bream grows to about 48 cm and lives to only about 3 years of age (Puckridge and Walker 1990). An estimate of growth rate is not available for bony bream, but low maximum age and early age of maturity indicate a likely opportunistic life history strategy (Ferguson et al. 2010).

28

2.3.2 Current Biological Status

The LCF is a multi-species, multi-gear fishery. Stock assessments for each of the individual target species have been published (Ferguson 1999, Ye, 2004, Higham et al. 2005, Ferguson and Mayfield 2006, Ferguson 2007, Ferguson and Ye 2008, Ferguson 2010c). In 2010 an assessment of the status of all species in the fishery, based on historical trends in catch and effort over the 25 years, life-history, and demographic information was completed (Ferguson et al. 2010). Annual catch and effort in the lower Murray River system were stable for 25 years but proportional contribution from each of freshwater, estuarine and adjacent marine habitats, and the species within them, varied. Fish assemblages generally differed between subsequent 5-year periods, with the exception of 1989-93 when floods occurred in 4 out of 5 years, and the following 5-year period (1994-98). Species richness declined steeply over 25 years in freshwater and estuarine habitat, and species diversity (Hill’s H2) also declined after 2001 in estuarine habitat. Species with rapid growth and early maturation (opportunistic strategists) increasingly dominated catches while species with slow growth and late maturation (periodic strategists) declined. Truncated population age structures suggested longevity overfishing of three periodic strategist species; golden perch (Macquaria ambigua), black bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), and a fourth species with an intermediate strategy, greenback flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina). In addition to stock assessments a stock status report on the performance of the fishery has been published annually since 2006. The most recent such report by Ferguson (2011) considered the status of seven species: black bream, golden perch, greenback flounder, mulloway, pipi, yellow-eye mullet, and bony bream. Each of these species (except bony bream) has biological performance indicators (PI’s) and reference points (RP’s) as prescribed in the Management Plan (Sloan 2005). Bony bream have been included in the last two status reports (Ferguson 2010a, 2011) at the request of PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture, due to a recommendation by DEH (2005) in the last ecological assessment (see PIRSA 2008). Ferguson (2011) reported that for the key species in 2009-10 there were six PIs below the lower RP (indicating poor performance) and one above the upper RP (indicating good performance):

Catch (t) for black bream was 63% below the lower RP;

Catch (t) for greenback flounder was 75% below the lower RP;

Catch (t) for mulloway was 7% below the lower RP;

Catch (t) for pipi was 62% below the lower RP;

CPUE (kg.day-1) for pipi was 56% below the lower RP;

3-year total catch trend for pipi was 5% below the lower RP; and

CPUE (kg.fisher day-1) of yellow-eye mullet was 23% above the upper RP.

It should be noted that the catch and CPUE PIs for pipi were affected by other factors (Ferguson 2011). In addition to the PIs for individual species, an

29

environmental RP for net annual freshwater flow was below the lower RP (Ferguson 2011).

In 2009-10 the greatest contribution to the total catch was from yellow-eye mullet (51%), with the second greatest from pipi (35%, Table 3). From 2005-06 to 2009-10 the contribution of pipi to the total catch of all key species has declined from 78% to 35% (Table 3). During this period the contribution from yellow-eye mullet has increased from 9% to 51%.

Table 3. Annual commercial catch composition (%) for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery between 2005-06 and 2009-10. The estimates for pipi and mulloway include catches from both the LCF and MSF. (Table taken from Ferguson 2011)

The catch of key finfish species comprised in order of decreasing contribution; yellow-eye mullet (72%), golden perch (17%), mulloway (10%), greenback flounder (<1%) and black bream (<1%) (Table 4). From 2005-06 to 2009-10 the contribution to the total finfish catch by yellow-eye mullet increased, while that from golden perch declined (Ferguson 2011).

Table 4. Annual commercial catch composition of finfish (%) for the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery from 2005-06 and 2009-10. The estimate for mulloway includes catches from both the LCF and MSF. (Table taken from Ferguson 2011)

Year Black bream Golden perch Greenback flounder Mulloway Pipi Yellow-eye mullet

% % % % % %

2005-06 0.5 9.2 0.5 3.2 77.5 9.2

2006-07 0.3 11.3 0.4 3.7 73.9 10.5

2007-08 0.4 11.9 0.2 3.9 61.6 22.0

2008-09 0.2 10.8 0.2 4.2 58.5 26.1

2009-10 0.2 8.4 0.2 4.9 35.2 51.2

Year Black bream Golden perch Greenback flounder Mulloway Yellow-eye mullet

% % % % %

2005-06 2.1 40.6 2.1 14.2 40.9

2006-07 1.3 43.2 1.5 14.0 40.0

2007-08 1.1 31.0 0.5 10.1 57.3

2008-09 0.5 26.1 0.4 10.0 62.9

2009-10 0.4 17.2 0.3 10.0 72.1

30

Ferguson (2011) highlighted that uncertainty around the PIs used to assess the performance of the fishery is centred on several key areas:

The most significant source of uncertainty around the PIs is the reliance on fishery-dependent data. The only estimate of relative abundance for each of the key species is provided by estimates of CPUE from the commercial fishery.

Additionally, data on recreational catches are limited to several years (i.e. 2000-01, 2007-08) and estimates are not available for all species in these years.

Biological information on reproduction, growth, mortality and population age structures for South Australian populations of several target species is limited.

The structure of the PI and RP within the Management Plan provide limited scope for accurate assessment. RPs are limited to a fixed time period (Sloan 2005) and do not allow for the inclusion of data from later years. Further, the catch-trend and CPUE-trend PIs have widely separated upper and lower RPs that do not provide informative criteria for the accurate assessment of the species. Consequently, the assessment of these species would be improved through a review of these PI and RPs (Ferguson 2011).

Further points made by Ferguson (2011) were:

Definitive assessments of fish stocks based on changes in patterns of fishery-dependent measures of catch, effort and CPUE are problematic. Additional sources of information including a time series on the biological and demographic status of these stocks (e.g. age structures and estimates of growth) would reduce the uncertainty in these assessments and is essential for more accurately interpreting trends in CPUE for mulloway, black bream, greenback flounder and golden perch.

Historically high CPUE for mulloway, combined with historically low catch (small mesh nets, kg per day) may indicate hyper-stability of CPUE. This may have occurred as individuals aggregate in response to environmental conditions caused by drought that occurred throughout 2009-10.

In summary, Ferguson (2011) considered that “Based on the assessment of specific PIs against the range of RPs defined in the Management Plan the status of pipi, black bream, mulloway, and greenback flounder are of most concern”. However, following the 2009-10 fishing year, some positive management changes have been made to the LCF and this is partly reflected in the outcomes of the ESD risk assessments for each species (see Section 4).

31

2.3.3 Exotic Species

The following exotic fish species are established in the Lower Lakes (Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert): European carp (Cyprinus carpio), Goldfish (Carassius auratus), Gambusia (Gambusia holbrooki), Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Redfin perch (Perca fluviatilis), Brown trout (Salmo trutta), and Tench (Tinca tinca) (Sloan 2005). The abundance, distribution and characteristics of some exotic species continue to cause damage to native fish populations and habitats (Sloan 2005). The Murray-Darling Basin Native Fish Strategy identifies exotic fish species as one of eight key threatening processes to native fish management in the Basin. The main threats to native fish management posed by exotic species are related to predation, competition, disease introduction, habitat destruction and reduced water quality. There are also threats posed by future introductions of other exotic species, especially from the aquarium fish trade (MDBC 2003b, cited in Sloan 2005). The focus of exotic species management is on minimising and controlling impacts rather than on complete eradication (Sloan 2005). European carp are one of the primary target species and are harvested commercially from the waters of Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert. Commercial harvesting is currently the most direct method available to minimise the ecological impact of carp populations in the Lakes and Coorong region (Sloan 2005).

2.4 Major Environments

2.4.1 Physical Environment

The LCF is currently conducted in three major physical components: the Lower Lakes, Coorong lagoons, and ocean waters. The Lower Lakes includes Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and the adjoining waters above the barrages. The Lower Lakes are mainly freshwater but some saltwater incursion does occur through the barrages. The Coorong lagoons component includes the North and South Lagoons and the waters between the barrages and the Murray Mouth. The Coorong lagoons are highly dynamic and vary from freshwater when flows are occurring through estuarine to hyper saline conditions when river flows cease for extended periods. The ocean component includes the waters outside of the Murray Mouth which are characterised by a high energy surf beach that fronts the Southern Ocean. Sloan (2005) provides a detailed description of the physical environment in which the LCF operates. Of particular relevance to the current ESD assessment, is the fact that the physical environment has undergone major changes since European settlement and must be considered as a highly modified system. In addition, the LCF is highly reliant upon sufficient

32

‘environmental’ freshwater flows which stimulate spawning in several of the key species and maintain access between the open ocean and the estuarine waters (Sloan 2005). In recent years there has been a severe lack of freshwater flows with the water levels in the Lower Lakes becoming dangerously low and the waters in the Coorong lagoons becoming hyper saline. At the time of writing this report, major freshwater flows had returned to the region, filling the Lower Lakes and flowing out through the Murray Mouth. It is hoped that these flows will revitalise the system and stimulate spawning in many of the commercially-targeted species. Environmental Issues The overall environmental impacts associated with the LCF are considered to be low. The LCF was assessed by the Australian Government’s Department of Environment and Heritage in 2005 (DEH 2005) against the ‘Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries’, which are set out in the Australian Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The LCF was provided with a five-year exemption from the export controls of the Act, subject to 10 recommendations (see DEH 2005). The 2005 exemption was subsequently given two extensions, and a new application for export approval has just been submitted to the Australian Government’s Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC). 2.4.2 Socio-Economic Environment

The total catch in the LCF in 2009/10 was 1,916 tonnes with a total gross value of production (GVP) of almost $7.3 million (EconSearch 2011, Figure 5). Since 1992/93 the total catch has fluctuated between about 1,600 and 2,600 tonnes. However, since 2002/03 the GVP has trended upwards until 2009/10 when it decreased slightly from 2008/09 (Figure 5).

33

Figure 5. Catch and gross value of production (GVP) of all Lakes and Coorong fishery species, South Australia, 1992/93 to 2009/10. (Figure taken from EconSearch 2011)

Of the total GVP of $7.3 million in 2009/10, the highest value species was the pipi (or Goolwa cockle) at $4 million or 55% of the total (Table 5). The next most valuable species were the golden perch (or callop), yellow-eye mullet, and European carp (Table 5) The black bream and greenback flounder contributed relatively little to the total GVP.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

$ m

illio

ns

(no

min

al)

ton

ne

s

Total Catch GVP

34

Table 5. Lakes and Coorong fishery catch and value of catch in SA, 2005/06 to 2009/10 a. (Table taken from EconSearch 2011)

a SARDI’s estimates of GVP for 2005/06 to 2009/10 have been revised based on updated readjustments factors derived from 2005/06 market prices and market weightings from the 2010 licence holder survey. Information provided by licence holders in the 2010 survey suggests that re-valued estimates of GVP for some species may have been overstated in previous years.

Source: SARDI Aquatic Sciences and EconSearch analysis

The LCF generates direct and indirect employment, contributes to regional development, and supports many small businesses in direct fishing enterprises as well as various support industries, primarily in regional South Australia (EconSearch 2011). PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture collects licence fees from commercial operators under the South Australian Government’s cost recovery policy for the management of commercial fisheries. Licence fees contribute to the costs of management, compliance, and research. The costs of management of the LCF are provided in Table 6 below. In 2009/10 the Lakes and Coorong Fishery licence fees were comprised of a base fee of $3,749 (applicable to 36 licences), a marine scale net fee of $1,782 (applicable to 19 licences), a Goolwa Cockle base fee of $1,000 (applicable to 32 licences) and a Pipi unit fee of $204 per unit (applicable to 32 quota holders) (EconSearch 2010). The Fees/GVP and Average Fees/Licence Holder for the LCF are both at the lower end of the scale in comparison to other commercial fishing sectors in SA.

catch value catch value catch value catch value catch value

tonnes $,000 tonnes $,000 tonnes $,000 tonnes $,000 tonnes $,000

Australian Salmon 3 4 4 6 6 10 10 22 10 22

Black Bream 7 69 4 51 4 41 2 18 1 15

Bony Bream 318 318 382 382 416 416 425 425 573 235

Callop 69 1,094 152 2,297 117 2,055 87 1,832 49 1,040

European Carp 731 952 697 884 713 1,141 792 863 710 646

Goolwa Cockle 1,024 2,757 989 2,662 605 2,807 437 4,157 292 3,983

Flounder 7 62 5 51 2 20 1 16 1 12

Yellow-Eye Mullet 126 310 141 401 216 621 210 705 207 895

Mulloway 38 231 44 286 32 239 30 240 26 187

Other Species 29 127 25 123 35 194 29 134 47 220

Total 2,352 5,924 2,443 7,143 2,146 7,544 2,023 8,412 1,916 7,256

2009/102005/06

Species

2008/092007/082006/07

35

Table 6. Cost of management of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery from 1996/97 to 2009/10a. (Table taken from EconSearch 2010)

a In addition to licence fees collected, $40,000 in drought relief funds were received in both 2003/04 and 2004/05 from the SA Government to assist in the management of the fishery (Alice Fistr PIRSA, pers comm.).

b Comprised of base licence fees, marine scale net fees, Goolwa cockle base fees and pipi unit fees in 2008/09 and 2009/10.

c Includes South Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program (SASQAP) fee incurred by licence holders with access to Pipis.

Source: PIRSA Fisheries, SARDI Aquatic Sciences.

Economic rent is a measure of the economic efficiency with which a resource is utilised. The economic rent generated in the SA LCF over the period 2002/03 to 2008/09 is outlined in Table 7. The economic rent generated in the LCF was estimated to be approximately $1.5 million in 2008/09, a 7 per cent increase compared to the previous year (EconSearch, 2010).

($’000) ($’000) (%) (‘000kg) ($/kg) (no.) ($/licence)

1996/97 136 4,747 2.9% 2,354 $0.06 39 $3,478

1997/98 171 4,756 3.6% 2,465 $0.07 39 $4,395

1998/99 150 5,107 2.9% 2,102 $0.07 38 $3,940

1999/00 173 4,689 3.7% 1,807 $0.10 38 $4,549

2000/01 179 5,525 3.2% 2,013 $0.09 38 $4,698

2001/02 175 4,502 3.9% 1,640 $0.11 38 $4,595

2002/03 185 4,466 4.1% 1,979 $0.09 37 $5,001

2003/04 c 197 5,382 3.7% 2,180 $0.09 37 $5,315

2004/05 c 243 5,495 4.4% 2,258 $0.11 37 $6,562

2005/06 c 265 5,924 4.5% 2,440 $0.11 37 $7,175

2006/07 c 299 7,143 4.2% 2,443 $0.12 37 $8,094

2007/08 282 7,544 3.7% 2,146 $0.13 37 $7,614

2008/09 437 8,412 5.2% 2,023 $0.22 36 $12,144

2009/10 393 n.a. - n.a. - 36 $10,918

Gross Value of

Production Fees/GVP Catch

Licence

Feesb Fees/Catch Licence

Holders

Average Fees/

Licence Holder

36

Table 7. Economic rent in the SA Lakes and Coorong Fishery from 2002/03 to 2008/09a. (Table taken from EconSearch 2010)

a Adjusted for bias.

Source: EconSearch analysis.

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

Gross Income 4,466 5,382 5,495 5,924 7,143 7,544 8,412

Less Labour 1,972 2,087 2,259 2,168 2,709 2,715 3,363

Less Cash Costs (materials and

services less labour and interest) 1,530 1,591 1,717 1,785 2,013 2,034 2,424

Less Depreciation 504 519 650 556 725 819 711

Less Opportunity Cost of Capital

(@10%) 303 312 391 375 489 552 391

Economic Rent 156 872 479 1,039 1,206 1,423 1,522

Economic Rent ($'000)

37

2.5 Research Strategy

2.5.1 Recent / Current Research

At the time of writing of the management plan the LCF was considered a ‘data poor fishery’, with only limited quantitative information available to managers during annual decision-making processes (Sloan 2005). Consequently, Sloan (2005) developed a strategic research and monitoring plan to increase the amount of quantitative information available for management of the fishery. Since 2005, a considerable amount of biological research has been completed in the Lakes and Coorong region, including:

Several single-species stock assessments, including black bream (Ferguson and Ye 2008), greenback flounder (Ferguson 2007), and pipi (Ferguson and Mayfield 2006);

Five multi-species stock status reports (Ferguson 2006a,b, 2008, 2010a, 2011);

A multi-species stock assessment (Ferguson et al. 2010);

A major bycatch study (Ferguson 2010b); and

Research related to freshwater flows and resultant impacts on the ecosystem and fishery (Noell et al. 2009, Ferguson et al. 2008, Ferguson 2011).

Research projects currently underway include:

Ongoing fishery independent monitoring of relative biomass and demography of pipi (PIRSA/SARDI Service Level Agreement);

Development of a harvesting plan for pipi (FRDC);

Current application to extend the harvest plan study (FRDC);

PhD (Jason Earle, Supervisor Tony Fowler) on the biology and ecology of greenback flounder R. tapirina;

PhD (Judith Wingate, Supervisor Bronwyn Gillanders) on biology of black bream A. butcheri;

PhD (Thomas Barnes, Supervisor Bronwyn Gillanders) on the biology of mulloway A. japonicas; and

Telemetry studies of fish movement (Brenton Zampatti, SARDI). 2.5.2 Proposed Future Research

The next stock status report is due out in 2011 (G Ferguson, pers. comm.). Single species stock assessments are planned for mulloway (2010-11), pipi (2011-12), and golden perch (2011-12) (G Ferguson, pers. comm.). The next management plan, which is due for completion in June 2013, will have a schedule of stock assessments. Industry has expressed an intention to provide otoliths of golden perch to enhance the stock assessment in 2011-12 with new age structure data – this has been written into the PIRSA/SARDI SLA for 2011-12 (G Ferguson, pers. comm.). Further research on age structure data for all long-lived exploited species is recommended (G Ferguson, pers. comm.).

38

3 METHODOLOGY

The current series of PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture ESD performance reports have been prepared to ensure that South Australian fisheries management is both effective and efficient in the context of achieving ESD outcomes. In addition to meeting the statutory requirements of the Fisheries Management Act 2007, and national environmental legislation, this approach will also provide the fishing industry, key stakeholders, and the broader community with an ongoing opportunity to contribute to, and influence, fisheries management outcomes. The reports will also provide the basis for the development of statutory management plans required under the Fisheries Management Act 2007. On behalf of the SA Fisheries Council, PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture has used the comprehensive issue identification and subsequent risk assessment and priority setting process to collaboratively develop more effective management arrangements under the new Act. Where necessary this may include development of fishery-specific harvest strategies, and related research and monitoring programs for each of the fisheries assessed. The issue identification, risk assessment, and reporting process described in detail below, as well as the final report format, is closely based on the National ESD Framework How To Guide (see www.fisheries-esd.com), as well as the Department of Fisheries Western Australia ESD performance reports pioneered by Dr Rick Fletcher and other WA Fisheries staff.

3.1 Scope

The present ESD report describes “the contribution of the South Australian commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery to ESD” in the context of South Australian Fisheries legislation and policy. The report is based on preliminary scoping and issue identification work by PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture staff in conjunction with Lakes and Coorong Fishery industry representatives. This initial scoping was then refined and validated through a broader stakeholder workshop on 21 January 2011. The scope of the assessment was contained to issues relevant to the commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery. The recreational catch in the Lakes and Coorong region will be assessed separately through an ESD assessment of South Australian recreational fishing. The assessment process examined an extensive range of issues, risks and opportunities identified by stakeholders. The identification of issues was informed by the generic ESD component tree approach with each fishery component tree refined specifically for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery. Each major component tree reflects the primary components of ESD, and the ESD report assesses the performance of the fishery for each of the relevant ecological, economic, social and governance issues facing the fishery (Table). The process also identifies where additional (or reduced) management or research attention is needed, and identifies strategies and performance

39

criteria to achieve management objectives to the required standard. Table 8. Primary ESD Components

3.2 Overview

The steps followed to complete this Lakes and Coorong Fishery Report are detailed below: 1. A set of “Generic ESD Component Trees” were modified through an

iterative process with stakeholders into a set of trees specific to the fishery. This process identified the issues relevant to ESD performance of the fishery under the categories described in Table above.

2. A risk assessment of the identified issues (or components) was completed

based on the likelihood and consequence of identified events that may undermine or alternatively contribute to ESD objectives. This was an iterative process involving managers, scientists, industry, and key stakeholders.

3. Risks were then prioritised according to their severity. For higher level

risks - where an increase in management or research attention was considered necessary - a detailed analysis of the issue, associated risks, and preferred risk management strategies was completed. For low risk issues, the reasons for assigning low risk and/or priority were recorded.

4. For higher level risks a full ESD performance report was prepared (Section

4 of the current report). This was completed in the context of specific management objectives and includes operational objectives, indicators and performance measures.

5. A background report providing context and necessary supporting

information about the fishery was also prepared to guide the identification of issues, risks and management strategies. The current report includes the history of the fishery and its management, the areas of operation and their biological and physical characteristics, target species and by-product and bycatch species, and other relevant information.

Retained Species

Non-Retained Species Ecological Wellbeing

General Ecosystem

Community Wellbeing

Aboriginal Community Human Wellbeing

Governance

External Factors Affecting Ability to Achieve Fishery Performance

40

The process is illustrated in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6. Summary of the ESD reporting framework processes (Source: ESD Reporting How To Guide; Fletcher et al., 2002).

3.3 Issue Identification (component trees)

The Lakes and Coorong Fishery ESD reporting component trees are a refined version of the generic trees suggested in the National ESD Reporting Framework (see Table Section 3.1). The generic trees and the issues that they encompass were the result of extensive consideration and refinement during the initial development of the National Fisheries ESD approach. The trees were designed to be very comprehensive to ensure that all of the conceivable issues facing a fishery would be considered during the workshop process. The fishery-specific component trees developed after expert and stakeholder consideration provide a more realistic and practical illustration of the issues facing a particular fishery. The generic component trees have been used as the starting point to ensure thorough, consistent, and rigorous identification and evaluation of ESD issues across all of the South Australian Fisheries being assessed. When developing each of the major fishery-specific component trees, each primary component is broken down into more specific sub-components for which operational objectives can then be developed. For example, the component tree identifying ‘retained species’ during the Lakes and Coorong risk assessment workshop is shown below.

Report on

Justification for Risk

Rating Only

Low Risk/Priority

Develop Objectives

Indicators

Performance limits

Report Current Status

> Low Risk/Priority

Risk Assessment

ESD Component

Trees

(issues identified)

PLUS

GENERAL

BACKGROUND

INFORMATION

=

ESD REPORT

Use Data for

other

purposes

For

example,

Applications

to EA

41

Figure 7. Example of a component tree specific to the Lakes and Coorong

Fishery. (Different coloured components reflect different risk ratings – see later for further details).

3.4 Risk Assessment and Prioritisation of Issues

Once the fishery-specific component trees were developed and reviewed by stakeholders, the focus moved to the assessment and prioritisation of risks and opportunities facing the fishery. These have been considered in the context of the specific management objectives for each fishery being assessed. The higher level management objectives and desired ESD

Pipi

European carp

Bony bream

Yellow-eye mullet

Yabby

Golden perch

Black bream

Greenback flounder

Mulloway

Primary Species

Sand crab

Coorong crab

Freshwater shrimp

Crustaceans

Rays and skates

Gummy

Seven gill

Bronze whaler

Sharks

Jumper mullet

Congolli

Murray cod

Australian salmon

Other Schedule 1 spp

Scalefish

By-product Species

Retained Species

42

outcomes are those described in the Fisheries Management Act 2007. Risks and opportunities are also evaluated against more detailed fishery-specific objectives - such as those articulated in the fishery’s management plan. The risk assessment of issues identified for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery has been done on the basis of existing management which is currently managing risks to the fishery. Hence the risk assessment conducted during the stakeholder workshop considered the residual risk after the existing risk treatments were taken into account. For example, PIRSA’s current compliance program for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery is itself based on a separate compliance risk assessment process. This process identifies the greatest compliance risks in the context of the fishery’s management objectives, and then develops and applies strategies to mitigate those risks. The ESD assessment and reporting process works across the full suite of fishery ESD objectives in a similar way. Risk assessment applied under the national ESD framework has been designed to be consistent with the Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4360:1999 for Risk Management. Subject matter experts and key fishery stakeholders consider the range of potential consequences of an issue, activity, or event (identified during the component tree development process) and how likely those consequences are to occur. The estimated consequence of an event is multiplied by the likelihood of that event occurring to produce an estimated level of risk.

ESD workshop participants worked methodically through each component tree from the top down and conducted a qualitative risk assessment of each issue. An estimate of the consequence level for each issue was made and scored from 0–5, with 0 being negligible and 5 being catastrophic/irreversible (see Appendix 1 for details of the risk consequence tables). The consequence estimate was based upon the combined judgement of workshop participants who had considerable expertise in the issues being assessed.

What is Risk Analysis? “Risk analysis involves consideration of the sources of risk, their consequences and the likelihood that those consequences may occur.”

Australian and New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS) 4360 – 1999 (NB. AS/NZS 4360-1999 has since been superseded by AS/NZS 4360:2004, which was then superseded by AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009)

43

The level of consequence was estimated at the appropriate scale and context for the issue in question. For the target species the consequence assessment was based at the population not the individual level. Killing one fish is catastrophic for the individual but not for the population. Similarly, when assessing possible ecosystem impacts this was done at the level of the whole ecosystem or at least in terms of the entire extent of the habitat, not at the level of an individual patch or individuals of non-target species2. The likelihood of that consequence occurring was assigned to one of six levels from remote (1) to likely (6). This was based on a judgement about the probability of the events - or chain of events - occurring that could result in a particular adverse consequence. This judgement about conditional probability was again based on the collective experience and knowledge of workshop participants. See Appendix 1 for details of the likelihood table. From the consequence and likelihood scores, the overall risk value (Risk = Consequence x Likelihood), was calculated. On the basis of this risk value each issue was assigned a Risk Ranking within one of five categories (see Table 8). Table 9. Risk ranking definitions

RISK

Rank Likely Management Response Reporting

Negligible

0 Nil Short Justification Only

Low

1 None Specific Full Justification needed

Moderate

2 Specific Management Needed

Full Performance Report

High

3

Possible increases to management activities needed

Full Performance Report

Extreme

4

Likely additional management activities needed

Full Performance Report

Where a more detailed and/or quantitative risk assessment and management process was in place for the fishery - such as a robust quantitative stock assessment for a target species - the resultant risk score could be expected to

2 These descriptions and detailed guidance about developing consequence and likelihood

scores for fishery issues are provided in the ESD How To Guide at www.fisheries-esd.com.

44

be moderate to low. The risk score in this example reflects the fact that the risk is being managed effectively through existing arrangements. The national ESD reporting framework suggests that only those issues scored at moderate, high and extreme risk, which require additional management attention, need to have full ESD performance reports completed. This is the approach that has been used in the current ESD report. The rationale for scoring other issues as low or negligible risk has also been documented and forms part of the current report. This approach encourages transparency and should help stakeholders to understand the basis for risk scores and the justification for no further management, or for additional management action if necessary. The process is summarised earlier in this section (Figure).

3.5 Performance Reports for Higher Risk Issues

As noted above, a comprehensive ESD performance report has only been prepared for higher risk/priority issues that require additional management attention (see Section 4 of the current report). The content of these performance reports is based on the standard subject headings recommended in the ESD Framework’s How To Guide. The full performance report for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery was developed by PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture using information from both the initial consultation with industry and the ESD workshop held in Adelaide on 21 January 2011. A preliminary draft ESD report was sent to industry members and other stakeholders for review before finalisation.

45

3.6 Overview Table

The following table provides a summary of the material presented in the performance reports (see Section 4). Table 10. Overview of the ESD Risk Assessment for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery N = Negligible; L = Low; M = Moderate; H = High; N/A = Not applicable; H (M) indicates discrepancy at the workshop; * = Review under new Management Plan, scheduled for 2013; ** = Review at next major ESD assessment, scheduled in 5 years. Coloured cells reflect final risk ratings from the ESD risk assessment workshop (see Section 4).

Issue Risk /

Priority Objective Developed

Indicator Measured

Performance Measure

Current Performance

Robustness Actions

Retained Species

Pipi M Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High *

European carp L No No No N/A N/A **

Bony bream L Yes No No N/A N/A *

Yellow-eye mullet L Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High *

Yabby L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Golden perch H (M) Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium *

Black bream H Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium *

Greenback flounder H Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium *

Mulloway H (M) Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium *

Crustaceans N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Rays and skates N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Sharks N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Jumper mullet L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Congolli L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Murray cod L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Australian salmon N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Other Schedule 1 species N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Non-Retained Species

Pelican N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

Cormorant N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

Turtles N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

Murray crayfish N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

46

Issue Risk /

Priority Objective Developed

Indicator Measured

Performance Measure

Current Performance

Robustness Actions

Catfish N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

Silver perch N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

Crustaceans N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Toadfish N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Anchovy N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Seabirds L Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

Australian sea lion N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

New Zealand fur seal L Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

Dolphins N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

Great white shark N Yes Yes Yes Acceptable High **

General Ecosystem Impacts of Fishing

Fishing – Freshwater H (M) Yes No No N/A N/A *

Fishing – Estuarine H (M) Yes No No N/A N/A *

Fishing – Marine M Yes No No N/A N/A *

Ghost fishing N No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Discarding (bycatch) L No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Introduced marine pests / aquatic diseases

M Yes No No N/A N/A *

Habitat disturbance – Freshwater

N No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Habitat disturbance – Estuarine

N No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Habitat disturbance – Marine (net fishing, lost gear, anchoring, pipi raking)

N No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Habitat disturbance – Marine (vehicular)

L No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Air quality – Greenhouse gas / carbon emissions

N No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Water quality – Rubbish / debris

N No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

47

Issue Risk /

Priority Objective Developed

Indicator Measured

Performance Measure

Current Performance

Robustness Actions

Water quality – Fuel, oil and bilge discharge

N No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Community

Profit H Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium **

Employment H Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium **

OHS&W M Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium **

Relationship with community

H Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium **

Asset value H Yes Yes Yes Acceptable Medium **

Ecological value H Yes No No N/A N/A **

Lifestyle M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Employment M Yes No No N/A N/A **

GRP and GSP L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Re-Investment L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Recreational fishers M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Non fishers M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Community well being M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Transport N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Economic value N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Health / food L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Research / knowledge M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Identity L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Tourism L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Infrastructure N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Governance

Fisheries Council H Yes No No N/A N/A **

Management effectiveness M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Strategic policy M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Research / information M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Compliance M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Legal framework M Yes No No N/A N/A **

SA Govt: DENR M Yes No No N/A N/A **

48

Issue Risk /

Priority Objective Developed

Indicator Measured

Performance Measure

Current Performance

Robustness Actions

Aust Govt: SEWPAC M Yes No No N/A N/A **

MDBA M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Others (NGOs etc.) M Yes No No N/A N/A **

External factors affecting performance of the fishery

Oceanographic L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Climate change M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Temperature L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Upwellings L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Rainfall / flows M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Diseases M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Flow regulation (including acid sulphate soils and hypersalinity)

E Yes No No N/A N/A **

Sewage N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Agricultural runoff L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Stormwater N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Algal blooms N Yes No No N/A N/A **

Development L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Dredging H Yes No No N/A N/A **

Barrages E Yes No No N/A N/A **

SE Drainage L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Exotic species E Yes No No N/A N/A **

Gear interference L Yes No No N/A N/A **

Fuel price M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Other fisheries M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Marketing M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Labour (availability/cost) M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Other fishing costs M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Interest rates M Yes No No N/A N/A **

Marine parks E Yes No No N/A N/A **

Aboriginal community

To be completed

49

4 PERFORMANCE REPORTS

Red, pink and yellow boxes indicate that the issue was considered of high enough risk/priority at the January 2011 workshop to warrant having a full report on performance. Green and blue boxes indicate that the issue was rated as a low risk or negligible risk, respectively, and no specific management is required – only a justification is presented.

4.1 Retained Species

Figure 8. Component Tree for Retained Species

Pipi

European carp

Bony bream

Yellow-eye mullet

Yabby

Golden perch

Black bream

Greenback flounder

Mulloway

Primary Species

Sand crab

Coorong crab

Freshwater shrimp

Crustaceans

Rays and skates

Gummy

Seven gill

Bronze whaler

Sharks

Jumper mullet

Congolli

Murray cod

Australian salmon

Other Schedule 1 spp

Scalefish

By-product Species

Retained Species

50

4.1.1 Primary Species

The LCF is a multi-species fishery and the workshop considered that there were nine primary target species (Figure 8). Each of those species is discussed below. Pipi

Objective

Ensure the pipi resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits. Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors, and thereby maintain the spawning stock at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (MODERATE) The pipi is a native mollusc species that is found in the surf beaches of the LCF region. The fishery for the pipi has changed in recent times with most of the catch being used for human consumption rather than the traditional use as bait for recreational fishers. Due to the increased demand because of higher prices, the catches of pipis increased during the 2000’s and up to 2008 the fishery showed signs of being over fished (i.e., harvest levels are not sustainable and/or yields may be higher in the long term if catch or effort levels are reduced in the short term, or the stock may still be recovering from previous excessive fishing pressure. Classification of a stock as over fished may be due to recruitment or growth or overfishing and/or as a result of habitat degradation. Recovery strategies will be developed for all over fished stocks to reduce fishing pressure and ensure that stocks recover to acceptable levels within agreed timeframes) with a consistent decline in CPUE (Figure 9). The most recent stock status report by Ferguson (2011) showed that 3 of the 4 performance indicators were below the lower reference point, but that the 3-year trend for CPUE was within the reference limits (Table 11). However it is important to note that catch (PI) was constrained by the Total Allowable Catch. Relative abundance (fishery CPUE) increased in 2009-10, suggesting recovery of the resource. It was felt that the current level of take of pipis would be having a moderate (C2) consequence on the population and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore MODERATE (12).

51

Figure 9. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for pipi between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch (MSF, LCF); and for the LCF; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2000-01 (<5 t). (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011)

Table 11. Performance indicators for pipi and current status levels for 2009-10 (yellow shading highlights biological performance indicator below the lower reference point). (Table taken from Ferguson 2011)

Performance IndicatorUpper reference

point

Low er reference

point2009-10

Within range of reference

points

Total catch (t) 1500 800 300.5 N

CPUE (kg.day-1) 1200 850 374.8 N

3-year total catch trend (t.year-1) 226 -226 -237.9 N

3-year CPUE trend (kg.day -1) 240 -240 12.0 Y

a

To

tal ca

tch

(t)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400 Lakes and Coorong Fishery

Marine Scale Fishery

Recreational Fishery

TACC

b

Ta

rge

t ca

tch

(t)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Eff

ort

(d

ays)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Catch

Effort

c

19

84

-85

19

85

-86

19

86

-87

19

87

-88

19

88

-89

19

89

-90

19

90

-91

19

91

-92

19

92

-93

19

93

-94

19

94

-95

19

95

-96

19

96

-97

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

CP

UE

(kg

.da

y-1)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

52

Indicators

Total catch

CPUE

3-year total catch trend

3-year CPUE trend Performance measures

Total catch is within upper and lower reference points

CPUE is within upper and lower reference points

3-year total catch trend is within upper and lower reference points

3-year CPUE trend is within upper and lower reference points European carp ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (LOW) The European carp is an introduced freshwater fish species that has a high biomass in the region. The species is categorised as a noxious fish under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and it is illegal to release them alive. Consequently, any negative impact on the breeding population would actually be a positive outcome for the health of the ecosystem. It was felt that the take of European carp was relatively low, and that the consequence of this take on the population would be minor (C1) and is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6). Bony bream Objective

Ensure the bony bream resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors, and thereby maintain the spawning stock at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (LOW) The bony bream is a native freshwater fish species which spawns every year and has a relatively high biomass in the region. Despite their high abundance, bony bream are not heavily targeted due to their relatively low sale price. The CPUE for bony bream has been consistent for the past 15 years (Figure 10), and there is no indication that the resource is being over fished. It was felt that the current level of take of bony bream would be having only a

53

minor (C1) consequence on the population and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6).

Figure 10. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for bony bream between

1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch; and for large mesh gill nets; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. There was no effort targeted at bony bream between 2006-07 and 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011)

Indicators

None Performance measures

None

a

Tota

l catc

h (

t)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

b

Targ

et

catc

h (

t)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Targ

et

eff

ort

(fisher

days)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Target catch

Target effort

c

1984

-85

1985

-86

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

CP

UE

(kg.f

isher

day

-1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

54

Yellow-eye mullet Objective

Ensure the yellow-eye mullet resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors, and thereby maintain the spawning stock at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (LOW) The yellow-eye mullet is a native estuarine/marine fish species which is tolerant of changing environmental conditions, has a relatively high biomass in the region, and is considered to be under fished (i.e., is underutilised and has the potential to sustain harvest levels higher than those currently being taken). Catch of yellow-eye mullet has been stable while CPUE has increased over 25 years (Figure 11) and there are no indications of overfishing (Ferguson et al. 2010). In fact, during drought conditions over the past few years, the area where this species thrives has increased and thus the catch has also increased. It was felt that the current level of take of yellow-eye mullet would be having only a minor (C1) consequence on the population and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6). Indicators

Total catch

CPUE

4-year total catch trend

4-year CPUE trend Performance measures

Total catch is within upper and lower reference points

CPUE is within upper and lower reference points

4-year total catch trend is within upper and lower reference points

4-year CPUE trend is within upper and lower reference points

55

Figure 11. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for yellow-eye mullet

between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch (LCF, recreational); and for small mesh gill nets; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011)

Yabby Objective

Ensure the yabby resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and

a

Catc

h (

t)

0

100

200

300

400LCF

Rec.

b

Ta

rge

t ca

cth

(t)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Ta

rgte

t e

ffo

rt (

fish

er

da

ys)

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000Target catch

Target effort

c

19

84

-85

19

85

-86

19

86

-87

19

87

-88

19

88

-89

19

89

-90

19

90

-91

19

91

-92

19

92

-93

19

93

-94

19

94

-95

19

95

-96

19

96

-97

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

CP

UE

(kg

.fis

he

r d

ay

-1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

56

other environmental factors, and thereby maintain the spawning stock at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (LOW) The yabby is a native freshwater crustacean species whose numbers fluctuate greatly depending on environmental conditions. Numbers of yabbies are currently very low compared to historical levels (probably due to drought conditions) and they are only targeted when abundant. Targeted effort has not happened for many years. It was felt that the current level of take of yabbies would be having only a minor (C1) consequence on the population and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6). Indicators

None Performance measures

None Golden perch Objective

Ensure the golden perch resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors, and thereby maintain the spawning stock at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (MODERATE – HIGH) The golden perch is a native freshwater fish species that is considered to be environmentally-limited as spawning only occurs during increased freshwater flows. The most recent stock status report by Ferguson (2011) that included data up to 2009-10 did not highlight major concerns based upon CPUE and performance indicators (Figure 12, Table 12). However, with limited flows over the past 10 years and increased catches in the past 5 years, there is evidence that the population in Lake Alexandrina has a truncated age structure indicating longevity overfishing (Ferguson et al. 2010). Populations of golden perch in Lake Alexandrina and the Murray River may comprise different stocks because age structures are different. The overall population in the region is considered to be at least fully fished (i.e., harvest levels are at, or close to, optimum sustainable levels and current fishing pressure is considered sustainable, but any increase in catch or fishing pressure may lead to overfishing in the long term) with the possibility of it being over fished. However, it must be noted that fishing for golden perch no longer occurs in the

57

river part of the overall population. There was considerable debate at the workshop over the final risk rating for golden perch with industry arguing that the current level of take of golden perch would be having a moderate (C2) consequence on the population and that this will occasionally (L5) continue into the future. However, the scientific evidence suggests that the current level of take of golden perch would be having a severe (C3) consequence on the population and that this will occasionally (L5) continue into the future. Due to the precautionary nature of the ESD risk assessment process, the higher risk rating of HIGH (15) was recorded and used for this performance report.

Figure 12. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for golden perch between

1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch; and for large mesh gill nets: (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011)

a

To

tal ca

tch

(t)

0

50

100

150

200

250LCF

Rec.

b

Ta

rge

t ca

tch

(t)

0

50

100

150

Ta

rge

t e

ffo

rt (

fish

er

da

ys)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000Target catch

Target effort

c

19

84

-85

19

85

-86

19

86

-87

19

87

-88

19

88

-89

19

89

-90

19

90

-91

19

91

-92

19

92

-93

19

93

-94

19

94

-95

19

95

-96

19

96

-97

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

CP

UE

(kg

.fis

he

r d

ay

-1)

0

10

20

30

58

Table 12. Performance indicators for golden perch and current status levels for 2009-10. (Table taken from Ferguson 2011)

Indicators

Total catch

CPUE

4-year total catch trend

4-year CPUE trend Performance measures

Total catch is within upper and lower reference points

CPUE is within upper and lower reference points

4-year total catch trend is within upper and lower reference points

4-year CPUE trend is within upper and lower reference points Black bream Objective

Ensure the black bream resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors, and thereby maintain the spawning stock at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (HIGH) The black bream is a native estuarine/marine fish species that is considered to be vulnerable to overfishing. The majority of the State’s commercial catch comes from the LCF. The recreational catch is also significant in the Coorong

Performance IndicatorUpper reference

point

Low er reference

point2009-10

Within range of reference

points

Total catch (t) 177 20 49.2 Y

CPUE (kg.f isher day-1) 13 2 6.1 Y

4-year total catch trend (t.year-1) 56 -56 -33.8 Y

4-year CPUE trend (kg.f isher day -1) 4 -4 -2.1 Y

59

region and across the State. Commercial catches were highest in the 1980’s, but have been relatively low for the past 20 years (Figure 13). The population size of black bream is considered to be naturally low compared to some other fish species in the Coorong region. The most recent stock status report by Ferguson (2011) showed: (i) that there was a steep decline in catch from 1985-86 to 1989-90; and that (ii) in 2009-10 the catch was 63% below the lower reference point (Table 13). CPUE has increased over the past 25 years (Figure 13). However, the spatial distribution of catches over time further suggests that the population of black bream in the Coorong lagoons has contracted northwards since 1993-94 and, in recent years occurs mostly in the area near Goolwa barrage (Ferguson and Ye, 2008). Furthermore, recent data shows that the age structure of the population is heavily truncated, which is indicative of longevity overfishing (Ferguson et al. 2010) and a decreased capacity for egg production. Nonetheless, the current minimum size limit is conservative and should therefore allow fish to spawn before being captured for the first time. Industry felt that there had been a shift in effort away from black bream and that this has contributed to decreased catches. Industry also believes that the black bream resource is environmentally-limited and that the risk to the stock is greatest from the recreational sector. Nonetheless, it was agreed that the black bream resource in the region is fully fished. While it was agreed that the current level of take of black bream would be having a severe (C3) consequence on the population, there was disagreement as to the likelihood of this level being likely (L6) or occasional (L5) (industry view) into the future. Nonetheless, whatever likelihood level is used, the final risk rating is HIGH (15 or 18). Indicators

Total catch

CPUE

4-year total catch trend

4-year CPUE trend Performance measures

Total catch is within upper and lower reference points

CPUE is within upper and lower reference points

4-year total catch trend is within upper and lower reference points

4-year CPUE trend is within upper and lower reference points

60

Figure 13. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for black bream between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch; and for large mesh gill nets (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011)

a

To

tal catc

h (

t)

0

10

20

30

40

50 LCF

Rec.

b

Ta

rge

t catc

h (

t)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ta

rge

t eff

ort

(fishe

r da

ys)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Target catch

Target effort

c

19

84

-85

19

85

-86

19

86

-87

19

87

-88

19

88

-89

19

89

-90

19

90

-91

19

91

-92

19

92

-93

19

93

-94

19

94

-95

19

95

-96

19

96

-97

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

CP

UE

(kg.f

ishe

r da

y-1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

20

09

-10

61

Table 13. Performance indicators for black bream and current status levels for 2009-10. Because no target catch of this species was reported in 2009-10 there is no estimate of CPUE or 4-year CPUE trend (yellow shading highlights biological performance indicator below the lower reference point). (Table taken from Ferguson 2011)

Greenback flounder Objective

Ensure the greenback flounder resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors, and thereby maintain the spawning stock at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (HIGH) The greenback flounder is a native marine fish species that is fast growing, has a moderate life span (~7 years), and is quick to reach maturity. The abundance (and catch) of greenback flounder varies greatly between years in the Coorong region (Figure 14). The catch is comprised only of females that are 1 to 2 years old, but it is unknown where the males are located. Flounder have a minimum legal size limit of 25 cm. Reproduction commences at 1 year of age. There has been a decline in the population but the reason for this is debatable. Industry believes that environmental events have caused large fish kills and that this (rather than overfishing) has been the main contributor to the observed population decline. The annual CPUE has fluctuated widely (Figure 14) and thus provides little insight into the possible impacts of fishing. The most recent stock status report by Ferguson (2011) showed that the 2009-10 catch was 75% below the lower reference point for the species (Table 14). A low level of effort in recent years suggests that the population size is also low. Industry felt that recreational spearing is having a large impact on the

Performance IndicatorUpper reference

point

Low er reference

point2009-10

Within range of reference

points

Total catch (t) 47 3 1.1 N

CPUE (kg.f isher day-1) 12 3 NA NA

4-year total catch trend (t.year-1) 15 -15 -1.2 Y

4-year CPUE trend (kg.f isher day -1) 4 -4 NA NA

62

population, as there is no minimum size limit for recreational fishers in the Coorong. In addition, ‘high-grading’ occurs whereby smaller fish that have been speared and killed are discarded when larger fish are subsequently captured, such that recreational fishers can remain within the bag/boat limits. It was agreed that because of the population decline and that only females are being captured, the current take of greenback flounder would be having a severe (C3) consequence on the population and that this will occasionally (L5) continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore HIGH (15).

Figure 14. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for greenback flounder

between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch; and for large mesh gill nets; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. NB estimate of CPUE in 2008-09 may be unreliable due to low effort. Estimate of recreational catch available for 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011)

a

To

tal ca

tch

(t)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

LCF

Rec.

b

Ta

rge

t ca

tch

(t)

0

20

40

60

Ta

rge

t e

ffo

rt (

fish

er

da

ys)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Target catch

Target effort

c

19

84

-85

19

85

-86

19

86

-87

19

87

-88

19

88

-89

19

89

-90

19

90

-91

19

91

-92

19

92

-93

19

93

-94

19

94

-95

19

95

-96

19

96

-97

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

CP

UE

(kg

.fis

he

r d

ay

-1)

0

5

10

15

20

25

63

Table 14. Performance indicators for greenback flounder and current status levels for 2009-10 (yellow shading highlights biological performance indicator below the lower reference point). (Table taken from Ferguson 2011)

Indicators

Total catch

CPUE

4-year total catch trend

4-year CPUE trend Performance measures

Total catch is within upper and lower reference points

CPUE is within upper and lower reference points

4-year total catch trend is within upper and lower reference points

4-year CPUE trend is within upper and lower reference points Mulloway Objective

Ensure the mulloway resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

Meeting this objective should ensure sufficient spawning stock to continue recruitment at levels that will replenish what is taken by fishing, predation and other environmental factors, and thereby maintain the spawning stock at or above a level that minimizes the risk of recruitment overfishing. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (MODERATE – HIGH) The mulloway is a native estuarine-associated marine fish species that grows to a large size (2 m TL) and is one of the key primary species for the LCF. There is new evidence that separate stocks exist across SA with the Coorong fish belonging to a SE sub-population (Ferguson et al. 2011). Mulloway in the south east population reach maturity at a size of around 82 cm and 6 years of

Performance IndicatorUpper reference

point

Low er reference

point2009-10

Within range of reference

points

Total catch (t) 54 4 1.0 N

CPUE (kg.f isher day-1) 23 6 7.0 Y

4-year total catch trend (t.year-1) 22 -22 -1.3 Y

4-year CPUE trend (kg.f isher day -1) 5 -5 1.1 Y

64

age. Commercial fishers target fish in two separate habitats – the Coorong lagoons, and the nearshore marine environment adjacent the Murray River mouth during freshwater flows in spring-summer where seeding/spawning aggregations occur. These aggregations are also targeted by recreational fishers with large mulloway being a prized catch. Mulloway in estuarine and marine habitat have different size/age structures. Those in the estuary (< 600 mm TL, < 5 years old) are sexually immature whilst large, older (> 700 mm TL, >7 years) individuals in the marine environment are sexually mature. Because mulloway have delayed maturity and thus a protracted juvenile period they require protected habitat such as occurs in the Murray River estuary. Due to the size differences between the two habitats, two separate legal minimum size limits exist – 46 cm for the lagoons and 75 cm elsewhere in the State. Thus, fish taken within the lagoons are mostly sexually immature. While annual catch and CPUE vary widely in the LCF (Figure 15), the most recent stock status report by Ferguson (2011) showed that the 2009-10 catch was 7% below the performance reference limit for the species (Table 15). There is also evidence that the age structure of the population is truncated due to longevity overfishing (Ferguson et al. 2010) and therefore egg production may be compromised. Industry disagreed that there is an issue with the level of immature fish captured in the lagoons and argued that numbers fluctuate naturally due to environmental conditions (from year to year and even day to day). There is some evidence that the population in the Coorong is environmentally-limited, with strong freshwater flows sometimes being correlated with strong year classes (Ferguson et al. 2008). Industry also believes that larger fish are found in the lagoons and that many more are located offshore of the Murray mouth but that their gear is not designed to capture them. Thus they feel that the scientific catch sampling program is biased towards smaller fish and does not reflect the true situation. Nonetheless, industry feels that the resource is being fully fished. There was considerable debate at the workshop over the final risk rating of mulloway with industry arguing that the current level of take would be having a moderate (C2) consequence on the population and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future (risk rating = MODERATE (12)). However, the most recent scientific evidence suggests that the current level of take would be having a severe (C3) consequence on the population and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future. Due to the precautionary nature of the ESD risk assessment process, the higher risk rating of HIGH (18) was recorded and used for this performance report. Nonetheless, the views and concerns of industry have been noted.

65

Figure 15. Inter-annual trends in catch and effort for mulloway between 1984-85 and 2009-10 showing: (a) total catch (MSF, LCF, recreational); and for large mesh nets; (b) target catch, target effort, and (c) CPUE. For swinger nets: (d) target catch; target effort; and (e) CPUE. Estimates of recreational catch available for 2000-02 and 2007-08. (Figure taken from Ferguson 2011)

a

Ca

tch

(t)

0

50

100

150

200

250LCF

MSF

Rec

b

Ta

rge

t ca

tch

(t)

0

50

100

Ta

rge

t e

ffo

rt (

fish

er

da

ys)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000Target catch

Target effort

c

CP

UE

(kg

.fis

he

r d

ay

-1)

0

10

20

30

40

d

Ta

rge

t ca

tch

(t)

0

10

20

30

Ta

rge

t e

ffo

rt (

fish

er

da

ys)

0

200

400

600

800Target catch

Target effort

e

19

84

-85

19

85

-86

19

86

-87

19

87

-88

19

88

-89

19

89

-90

19

90

-91

19

91

-92

19

92

-93

19

93

-94

19

94

-95

19

95

-96

19

96

-97

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

CP

UE

(kg

.fis

he

r d

ay

-1)

0

20

40

60

80

66

Table 15. Performance indicators for mulloway and current status levels for 2009-10 (yellow shading highlights biological performance indicator below the lower reference point). (Table taken from Ferguson 2011)

Indicators

Total catch

Total catch: 4-year total catch trend

Mesh net: 4-year CPUE trend

Swinger net: CPUE

Swinger net: 4-year CPUE trend Performance measures

Total catch is within upper and lower reference points

Total catch: 4-year total catch trend is within upper and lower reference points

Mesh net: 4-year CPUE trend is within upper and lower reference points

Swinger net: CPUE is within upper and lower reference points

Swinger net: 4-year CPUE trend is within upper and lower reference points

Performance IndicatorUpper reference

point

Low er reference

point2009-10

Within range of reference

points

Total catch (t) 118 31 28.6 N

Total Catch: 4-year total catch trend

(t)27 -27 -6.7 Y

Mesh net: CPUE (kg.f isher day-1) 28 5 22.3 Y

Mesh net: 4-year CPUE trend

(kg.f isher day-1)7 -7 -2.6 Y

Swinger net: CPUE (kg.f isher day-1) 57 6 29.3 Y

Swinger net: 4-year CPUE trend

(kg.f isher day-1)16 -16 -4.0 Y

67

4.1.2 By-product Species

Due to the different gear types used and the different habitats fished, a variety of by-product species are also captured in the LCF. These include crabs, shrimps, rays, skates, sharks, and a number of finfish. Crustaceans Objective

Ensure the crustacean resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (NEGLIGIBLE) The main crustaceans captured and retained as by-product are the sand crab (Ovalipes australiensis, in marine waters), Coorong crab (Paragrapsus gaimardii, in estuarine waters), and the freshwater shrimp (Macrobrachium, in freshwaters). However, the take of each of these species was considered to be negligible (C0) compared to the overall population sizes and that this level of take is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators

None Performance measures

None Rays and skates Objective

Ensure the ray and skate resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (NEGLIGIBLE) A few different species of marine ray and skate are occasionally captured and retained as by-product in the LCF. However, the take of each of these species was considered to be negligible (C0) compared to the overall population sizes and that this level of take is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators

None

68

Performance measures

None Sharks Objective

Ensure the shark resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (NEGLIGIBLE) A few different species of marine shark (including bronze whaler, seven gill, and gummy) are occasionally captured and retained as by-product in the LCF. However, the take of each of these species was considered to be negligible (C0) compared to the overall population sizes and that this level of take is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators

None Performance measures

None Jumper mullet Objective

Ensure the jumper mullet resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (LOW) The jumper mullet (Liza argentea) is a native estuarine/marine fish that is occasionally captured and retained as by-product in the LCF. However, the take of this species was considered to be minor (C1) compared to the overall population size and that this level of take is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6). Indicators

None Performance measures

None

69

Congolli Objective

Ensure the congolli resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (LOW) The congolli (Pseudaphritis urvilli) is a native estuarine fish that is occasionally captured and retained as by-product in the LCF. The species is environmentally-limited and requires freshwater flows for successful spawning. It has also been identified in the SA Native Fish Action Plan as being of conservation concern. However, the take of congolli was considered to be minor (C1) compared to the overall population size and that this level of take is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6). It is important to note that congollis likely represent a remnant population and are of conservation concern, and that they have been severely impacted by drought. Until recently they were targeted within the LCF. There is no reason why they may not be targeted again. Indicators

None Performance measures

None Murray cod Objective

Ensure the Murray cod resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (LOW) The Murray cod (Maccullochella peelii) is a native freshwater fish that is occasionally captured and retained as by-product in the LCF. The species is environmentally-limited by freshwater flows, and has been identified in the SA Native Fish Action Plan as being of conservation concern. There is a seasonal closure on the taking of Murray cod, and the recreational fishery is currently a ‘catch-and-release’ fishery only. The take of Murray cod by the LCF was considered to be minor (C1) compared to the overall population size and that this level of take is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6).

70

Indicators

None Performance measures

None Australian salmon Objective

Ensure the Australian salmon resource is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (NEGLIGIBLE) The Australian salmon (Arripis truttaceus) is a native marine fish that is occasionally captured and retained as by-product in the LCF. However, the level of take of this species was considered to be negligible (C0) compared to the overall population size (and take by other fishery sectors) and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators

None Performance measures

None Other fish species Objective

Ensure the resource of other fish species is harvested within ecologically sustainable limits.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding population (NEGLIGIBLE) A few different species of fish are occasionally captured and retained as by-product in the LCF. However, the take of each of these species was considered to be negligible (C0) compared to the overall population sizes and that this level of take is likely (L6) to continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators

None Performance measures

None

71

4.2 Non-Retained Species

Figure 16. Component tree for non-retained species (TEPS = Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species)

4.2.1 Captured by Gear

TEPS – Australian pelican, little black cormorant, short- and long-necked turtle, Murray crayfish, freshwater catfish, and silver perch There are a number of threatened, endangered and protected species (TEPS) listed under State and/or Australian Government legislation. These species are not permitted to be taken and must be released immediately if accidental capture occurs.

Australian pelican

Little black cormorant

Birds

Long neck

Short neck

Turtles

Murray crayfish

Catfish

Silver perch

Scalefish

TEPS

Crustaceans

Toadfish

Australian anchovy

Scalefish

Other

Capture

Other sea birds

Australian sea lion

New Zealand fur seal

Dolphins

Great white shark

TEPS

Direct Interaction but No Capture

Non Retained Species

72

All licence holders in South Australian commercial fisheries are required to record all interactions with TEPS using a ‘wildlife interaction’ logbook, which are then provided to SARDI Aquatic Sciences. Objective

Minimise fishery interactions with threatened, endangered, and protected species.

ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding populations (NEGLIGIBLE) A number of different TEPS are occasionally captured in the LCF. These include the Australian pelican (Pelecanus conspicillatus), little black cormorant (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris), short- and long-necked turtle (Chelodina spp.), freshwater catfish (Tandanus tandanus), and silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus). However, as the number of interactions is likely to be low, the impact on these species’ populations was considered to be negligible (C0) and that this will occasionally (L5) occur into the future. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators

Level and nature of interactions on TEPS reporting log sheets. Performance measure

Zero mortalities of TEPS Other species – crustaceans, toadfish, and Australian anchovy Objective

Minimise fishery impacts on bycatch species. ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding populations (NEGLIGIBLE) A few other species are captured and released in the LCF, including various crustaceans (crabs), toadfish (Tetractenos spp.), and Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis) (see Ferguson et al. 2010b). The level of interactions with crustaceans and Australian anchovy is relatively low such that the impact on these species’ populations was considered to be negligible (C0) and that this will occasionally (L5) occur into the future. While the level of interaction with toadfish is relatively high, it was felt that because fish are released alive and the population is very large, the impact on toadfish populations was negligible (C0) and that this will likely (L6) occur into the future. The overall risk rating for all of these ‘other species’ was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators

None

73

Performance measures

None 4.2.2 Direct Interaction but No Capture

Sometimes there may be a direct interaction (without capture) of a TEPS. All licence holders in South Australian commercial fisheries are required to record all interactions with TEPS using a ‘wildlife interaction’ logbook. Objective

Avoid fishery interactions with threatened, endangered and protected species.

Other seabirds ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding populations (LOW) The Coorong is recognised as a wetland of international significance for seabirds and it is no surprise that a number of different species are regularly seen by fishers in the LCF. However, the fishers have no direct interaction with these birds other than the birds occasionally getting a ‘free feed’ from discarded by-catch. Consequently, it was considered that the impact on seabird populations was minor (C1) and that this will likely (L6) continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6). Australian sea lion ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding populations (NEGLIGIBLE) The Coorong region is at the eastern-most extent of the range for the Australian sea lion, which is listed as a threatened species under both State and Federal legislation. The nearest breeding colony for the Australian sea lion is The Pages islands ~60 km away. Consequently, the fishers in the LCF have never observed an Australian sea lion, although the possibility exists that they may occasionally be in the area. It was considered that the impact on the Australian sea lion was negligible (C0) and that this will occasionally (L5) continue to occur. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). New Zealand fur seal ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding populations (LOW) The New Zealand fur seal is a native pinniped species that has been increasing in population size since harvesting was banned in southern Australia in the 1900’s. Fishers in the LCF have regular interactions with fur

74

seals which ‘steal’ fish from their set-nets and cause damage by ripping the nets. While no fur seals ever become entangled in the nets, they are becoming an increasing problem for the LCF. As the fishers have no direct negative interaction with the fur seals, it was considered that the impact on New Zealand fur seal populations was minor (C1) and that this will likely (L6) continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6). Dolphins ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding populations (NEGLIGIBLE) Dolphins are rarely seen by fishers in the LCF as they apparently do not venture into the Coorong lagoons and are most likely to be present in the oceanic part of the fishery. Consequently, it was considered that the impact on dolphins was negligible (C0) and that this will possibly (L4) continue to occur. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Great white shark ERA Risk Rating: Impact on breeding populations (NEGLIGIBLE) The great white shark is listed as a TEPS under Federal and State legislation. While the potential exists for a great white shark to interact with fishers in the oceanic part of the LCF, no interactions have ever been observed or recorded. Consequently, it was considered that the impact on the great white shark was negligible (C0) and that this might remotely (L1) continue to occur. The risk rating was therefore NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicator

Level of interactions on TEPS reporting log sheets. Performance measure

The level of capture of these TEPS remains at zero.

75

Freshwater

Estuarine

Marine

Fishing

Ghost fishing

Removal of/damage to organisms by

Discarding (by-catch)

Introd. marine pests/aquatic diseases

Addition/movement of biological material

Impacts on trophic structure

Net fishing

Lost gear

Anchoring

Yabby nets

Freshwater

Net fishing

Lost gear

Anchoring

Estuarine

Net fishing

Lost gear

Anchoring

Pipi raking

Vehicular

Marine

Habitat disturbance

Greenhouse gas / carbon emissions

Air quality

Rubbish / debris

Fuel, oil and bilge discharge

Water quality

Broader environment

General ecosystem impacts of the fishery

4.3 General Ecosystem Impacts of Fishing

Figure 17. Component tree for general ecosystem impacts of fishing

76

4.3.1 Impacts on Trophic Structure

Objective

Minimise fishery impacts on the ecosystem. In some fisheries there may be trophic impacts caused by the removal of high volumes of certain species. Research on trophic structure and possible impacts from South Australian fisheries (including the LCF) is limited, although recent work in the Coorong has furthered our understanding of trophodynamics in this region (Deegan et al. 2010). Removal of/damage to organisms by fishing – Freshwater and Estuarine ecosystems ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the freshwater and estuarine ecosystems (MODERATE – HIGH) The LCF has historically targeted mainly golden perch, bony bream, European carp, mulloway, black bream, yellow-eye mullet, and greenback flounder in the freshwater/estuarine ecosystems of the Coorong region. Due to the abundance, size, and habits of each of these species (see species descriptions earlier in Section 2.3.1), they are likely to play an important role in the local ecosystem. Thus, the potential exists to have an impact on the freshwater/estuarine ecosystems by extraction of these seven species. However, as the European carp is an introduced species, its removal is probably having a positive impact on the freshwater ecosystem. It was acknowledged by all stakeholders at the workshop that some changes have occurred to the freshwater and estuarine ecosystems with reductions in the numbers of some species (or ecosystem ‘components’) outside of their historical range. It was agreed that there had been no significant loss of components from the freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. It was also agreed that these changes were due to a combination of environmental and fishing effects. It was further agreed that the Coorong ecosystem could no longer be considered a natural system due to the construction of both barrages in the lower lakes and weirs upstream in the Murray River, and the proliferation of pest species such as the European carp. However, there was disagreement amongst stakeholders as to the relative severity of environmental versus fishing effects on the Coorong ecosystem, and this affected their ability to agree upon a consequence level. Industry thought that environmental effects had played a larger role than the effects of fishing. The Coorong region has been under severe environmental stress for the past 10 years due to a prolonged drought and a lack of freshwater inflows from the Murray River and surrounding catchments. During this time the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert had extremely low water levels (post-2008 only), and the Coorong lagoons became hypersaline due to evaporation and a lack of freshwater inflow. There was a short period in the early 2000’s when the

77

Mouth silted up, but this was rectified by the MDBA through an ongoing dredging program that maintained a high level of mouth opening to ensure there was good passage of marine inflows to maintain the core function of the Coorong. These flows also facilitated good access for the movement of key species including mulloway to move into and out of the Coorong throughout the bulk of the 2000’s. While there were local inflows of water to the Lakes during the drought, major rainfall events occurred in 2010 throughout the catchment and consequently there were major freshwater inflows into the two lakes and the Coorong lagoon. In summary, the freshwater/estuarine ecosystems have experienced major fluctuations in the past 10 years due to environmental conditions. Industry felt that the consequence of fishing on the freshwater and estuarine ecosystems was moderate (C2) and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future. Thus the industry risk rating was MODERATE (12). However, other stakeholders felt that fishing had caused severe (C3) changes to the freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and that this is likely (L6) to continue into the future; thus resulting in a risk rating of HIGH (18). Based upon current knowledge, it is not possible to separate the historical effects of the environment versus fishing. However, it must be acknowledged that the current Coorong ecosystem is vastly different to that which occurred prior to European settlement and development of the region, and that the area needs to be managed carefully to support the ecological components that are important to the LCF and the environment in general (i.e. in an ESD framework). Indicators and performance measures

To be determined Removal of/damage to organisms by fishing – Marine ecosystem ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the marine ecosystem (MODERATE) The main species ‘components’ of the marine ecosystem that are affected by the LCF are pipis and mulloway. Each of these species is likely to be an important component of the local ecology. The pipi is highly abundant in the surf zone where it filter feeds principally on diatoms (Ferguson and Mayfield 2006). The pipi is probably preyed upon by fishes, crabs, and wading birds. The mulloway is the largest finfish species found in the region and is the apex predator in the estuary, feeding on smaller fishes and crabs. In the marine habitat larger mulloway would likely be preyed upon only by large sharks such as the bronze whaler. The pipi fishery is currently managed in a sustainable manner, while the catch of mulloway by the LCF from the marine ecosystem is relatively small. It was therefore agreed that the consequence of fishing on the marine ecosystem was moderate (C2) and that this will occasionally (L5) occur in the future. Thus the risk rating was MODERATE (10).

78

Indicators and performance measures

To be determined Removal of/damage to organisms by ghost fishing ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the ecosystem from ghost fishing (NEGLIGIBLE) The impacts of the continued fishing of lost gear or ‘ghost fishing’ may be significant in some fisheries and is often difficult to quantify. As industry stated that gear loss does not occur in the LCF, it was agreed that the consequence of ghost fishing on the ecosystem is negligible (C0) and this will possibly (L4) occur into the future. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0). Addition / movement of biological material caused by discarding bycatch ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the ecosystem from discarding of bycatch (LOW) A small level of bycatch discarding does occur in the LCF (see Ferguson 2010b). However, the current level of bycatch discarding is relatively minor. It was considered that the impact on the ecosystem from bycatch discarding was minor (C1) and that this will likely (L6) continue into the future. The risk rating was therefore LOW (6). Addition / movement of biological material caused by the introduction of marine pests / aquatic diseases Objective

Minimise potential for translocation of exotic plants and animals by the fishery.

ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the ecosystem by the introduction of marine pests / aquatic diseases (MODERATE) The LCF is a localised fishery with no movement of vessels between remote ports. Thus the likelihood of inadvertently transporting marine pests or aquatic diseases by the LCF into the Coorong from other locations is highly unlikely. It was noted that a potentially larger threat comes from recreational boats. It was considered that the impact on the ecosystem due to the introduction by the LCF of marine pests or aquatic diseases could be major (C4) but that under current practices this is unlikely (L3) to occur. The risk rating was therefore MODERATE (12). Indicators and performance measures

79

To be determined 4.3.2 Habitat disturbance

Freshwater and Estuarine ecosystems ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the freshwater and estuarine ecosystems from habitat disturbance by fishing (NEGLIGIBLE) None of the various types of fishing gear used by the LCF were considered to be capable of causing measurable damage to habitats within the freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. It was therefore agreed that the consequence of habitat disturbance by the LCF to the freshwater and estuarine ecosystems was negligible (C0) and that this will occasionally (L5) occur into the future. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0). Marine ecosystem – net fishing, lost gear, anchoring, and pipi raking ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the marine ecosystem from habitat disturbance by net fishing, lost gear, anchoring, and pipi raking (NEGLIGIBLE) None of the various types of fishing gear used by the LCF were considered to be capable of causing measurable damage to habitats within the marine ecosystem. It was therefore agreed that the consequence of habitat disturbance by the LCF to the marine ecosystem was negligible (C0) and that this will occasionally (L5) occur into the future. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0). Marine ecosystem – vehicular ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the marine ecosystem from habitat disturbance by vehicles (LOW) A study in eastern Australia showed that pipis can be killed by heavy off-road vehicle traffic (Schlacher et al. 2008). While vehicular usage by the LCF was considered to be capable of causing measurable damage to the Coorong beaches, due to the relatively low level of use the impact on the marine ecosystem would be minor (C1) and is likely (L6) to continue into the future. Thus the risk rating was LOW (6). 4.3.3 Broader Environment

Air Quality – greenhouse gas / carbon emissions

80

ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the air quality of the broader environment from greenhouse gas / carbon emissions (NEGLIGIBLE) Due to the small number of operators and the small size of vessels, it was agreed that the consequence of greenhouse gas / carbon emissions by the LCF on the air quality of the broader environment was negligible (C0) and that this will occasionally (L5) occur into the future. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0). Water Quality - Rubbish / debris ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the water quality of the broader environment from rubbish / debris (NEGLIGIBLE) Due to the small number of operators and the compliance of operators with State legislation on pollution, it was agreed that the consequence of rubbish / debris by the LCF on the water quality of the broader environment was negligible (C0) and that this will occasionally (L5) occur into the future. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0). Water Quality – fuel, oil and bilge discharge ERA Risk Rating: Fishery impacts on the water quality of the broader environment from fuel, oil and bilge discharge (NEGLIGIBLE) Due to the small number of operators and the compliance of operators with State legislation on pollution, it was agreed that the consequence of fuel, oil and bilge discharge by the LCF on the water quality of the broader environment was negligible (C0) and that this will occasionally (L5) occur into the future. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0).

81

Profit

Employment

OHS&W

Relationship with community

Asset value

Lifestyle

Ecological value

Fishing industry

Employment

GRegP & GStateP

Re-Investment

Economic value

Recreational fishers

Non fishers

Community well being

Social capital

Transport

Infrastructure

Regional Centres

Dependent communities

Economic value

Health / food

Research / knowledge

Identity

Tourism

Social value

Infrastructure

City Centres

Non-dependent communities

Community

4.4 Community

Figure 18. Component tree for community Due to the nature of the ‘Fishing industry’ branch of the Community component tree, it was not possible to assign a risk rating to each component using the consequence and likelihood tables. Rather, issues (or components) were assigned a risk rating by industry based upon their overall feel for how important an issue was. Thus, consequence and likelihood values are not shown in Section 4.4.1 below. 4.4.1 Fishing Industry Community

Broad objective

Maintain a flow of benefit from the fishery to the broader community.

82

Profit ERA Risk Rating: The importance of profit to the fishing industry (HIGH) Profit is of primary importance to licence holders and is one of the key factors affecting the economic viability of the fishery. EconSearch Pty Ltd conducts annual detailed analyses of the economic status of the LCF. The average Gross Operating Surplus (GOS, calculated excluding imputed wages for operator and family members) in 2008/09 was estimated by EconSearch (2010) to be approximately $122,000. Profit at full equity is a measure of the profitability of an individual licence holder, assuming the licence holder has full equity in the operation (EconSearch 2010). It is a useful absolute measure of the economic performance of fishing firms. Profit at full equity in 2008/09 ($50,578) was less than the previous year ($59,835), a decrease of around 15% (EconSearch 2010). Indicator

Delivery of annual economic surveys assessing economic performance of the fishery

Performance measure

Maintain surplus, income and profit at equity levels of 2008/09 Employment ERA Risk Rating: The importance of employment to the fishing industry (HIGH) The provision of employment to those people directly involved in the fishery is considered to be very important to the fishing industry as mostly it is owner/operators. In 2009/10, the LCF was responsible for the direct employment of around 54 full-time equivalent (fte) jobs (EconSearch 2011). Indicator

Level of full-time equivalent employment provided by the fishery Performance measure

Maintain numbers of fte jobs at level of 2009/10. Occupational health, safety and welfare

83

ERA Risk Rating: The importance of good OHS&W practices to the fishing industry (MODERATE) The safety of licence holders and crew during fishing activities is paramount for those involved in the fishery. There are significant Occupational, Health, Safety and Welfare (OHS&W) standards and requirements for training, activities and record keeping that are enforced by the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI). It is important for the industry to maintain adherence to existing OHS&W requirements and procedures Indicator

Number of reportable incidents/near misses Performance measure

No incidents/near misses Relationships with community ERA Risk Rating: The importance of positive relationships with the community to the fishing industry (HIGH) Building and maintaining positive relationships with the broader community were identified as being important for the fishery. Political lobbying can have significant impacts on the operations of a commercial fishery and the fishing community. Indicator

Level of acceptance of fishing and management arrangements within the community

Performance measure

General acceptance of the fishery and management arrangements within the community

Asset value ERA Risk Rating: The importance of asset value to the fishing industry (HIGH) The importance of maintaining the value of assets was rated highly by the industry. Assets may include fishery licences, vessels, businesses, gear, etc. For many fishers, their assets are their ‘superannuation fund’. Average total investment in fishing gear and licence in the Lakes and Coorong Fishery in 2008/09 was estimated to be approximately $376,000 per fisher (EconSearch 2010). This value included the licence holder’s estimate of the value of their licence (almost $273,000) and estimated investment in boats and fishing gear (approximately $103,000 per licence) (EconSearch 2010).

84

Indicators

Investment in fishing gear and licence

Licence value

Delivery of annual economic surveys assessing economic performance of the fishery

Performance measure

Asset value of the fishery remains at 2008/09 levels Ecological value ERA Risk Rating: The importance of ecological value to the fishing industry (HIGH) The importance of maintaining the value of the ‘ecological asset’ (i.e. a healthy Coorong ecosystem) was rated highly by industry. Industry feels that the future of their fishery and future profits are dependent on maintaining the ecological health of the ecosystem. Lifestyle ERA Risk Rating: The importance of lifestyle to the fishing industry (MODERATE) Operators in the LCF do not consider themselves as lifestyle fishers. The impact on ‘lifestyle’ as a result of changes in the fishery was not considered to be a threat by the industry. 4.4.2 Dependent Communities – Regional Centres

Broad objective

Maintain a flow of benefit from the fishery to the broader community. Economic value of employment ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to the economic value of employment in regional centres (MODERATE) In 2009/10, the LCF was responsible for the direct employment of around 54 fte jobs, and downstream activities created employment of around 39 fte jobs State-wide. Flow-on business activity was estimated to generate a further 80 jobs State-wide (21 in the Murray/Mallee region and 11 in the Fleurieu/KI region) (EconSearch 2011).

85

Industry felt that the impact of employment loss would be high in a town such as Meningie where there are 20 fishers in a population of around 800. The impact would be lower in places such as Goolwa and Murray Bridge where the population is larger. The loss of the LCF would likely (L6) have a moderate (C2) consequence on the economic value of employment in regional centres. Thus the risk rating was MODERATE (12). Economic value of GRP and GSP ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to the economic value of GRP and GSP in regional centres (LOW) In 2009/10, the total LCF industry-related contribution to GSP in South Australia was $16.1 million ($5.4 million in the Murray/Mallee region and $3.4 million in the Fleurieu/KI region), with $5.2 million generated by fishing directly, $2.6 million generated by downstream activities and $8.2 million generated in other sectors of the State economy (EconSearch 2011). The economic impact on the loss of the LCF to regional centres would be greater in small centres such as Meningie than it would be in larger centres like Goolwa and Murray Bridge. The loss of the LCF would likely (L6) have a minor (C1) consequence on the economic value of GRP and GSP in regional centres. Thus the risk rating was LOW (6). Economic value of re-investment ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to the economic value of re-investment in regional centres (LOW) It was acknowledged that the LCF is responsible for some re-investment into the regional centres but that this was relatively minor and most of the re-investment goes into non-fishery areas such as vineyards, pubs, and real estate. The loss of the LCF would likely (L6) have a minor (C1) consequence on the economic value of re-investment in regional centres. Thus the risk rating was LOW (6). Social capital of recreational fishers ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to the social capital of recreational fishers in regional centres (MODERATE)

86

The impact of recreational fishers on the LCF was acknowledged by industry – for example, recreational fishers have significant take of shared resources such as mulloway. However, the contribution of the LCF to the social capital of recreational fishers was less clear. Nonetheless, it was agreed that the loss of the LCF would possibly (L4) have a moderate (C2) consequence on recreational fishers’ social capital in regional centres. Thus the risk rating was MODERATE (8). Social capital of non-fishers ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to the social capital of non-fishers in regional centres (MODERATE) While the potential for conflict between the LCF and non-fishers (e.g. conservation groups) was acknowledged by industry, it was felt that the LCF generally has a good rapport with non-fishers. The LCF contributes positively to the social capital of non-fishers by being a part of social networks within the local community. The loss of the LCF would possibly (L4) have a moderate (C2) consequence on non-fishers’ social capital in regional centres. Thus the risk rating was MODERATE (8). Social capital of community well being ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to the social capital of community well being in regional centres (MODERATE) The LCF contributes positively to the social capital of community well being by being a recognisable and functioning part of the local community. The loss of the LCF would possibly (L4) have a moderate (C2) consequence on community well being in regional centres. Thus the risk rating was MODERATE (8). Transport infrastructure ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to transport infrastructure in regional centres (NEGLIGIBLE) The LCF has contributed little to transport infrastructure in the region. However, industry did identify that the lack of good transport avenues to markets was a risk for the LCF. The loss of the LCF would likely (L6) have a negligible (C0) consequence on transport infrastructure in regional centres. Thus the risk rating was

87

NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators and Performance measures To be determined 4.4.3 Non-Dependent Communities – City Centres

Broad objective

Maintain a flow of benefit from the fishery to the broader community. Economic value ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to economic value in city centres (NEGLIGIBLE) In 2009/10, the total LCF industry-related contribution to GSP in South Australia was $16.1 million (EconSearch 2011). In comparison to the total GSP for 2009/10 of ~$80 billion, the contribution by the LCF is relatively minor. The impact from the loss of the LCF would likely (L6) have a negligible (C0) consequence on the economic value of GSP in city centre communities. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0). Social value – Health / Food ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to social value through health / food (LOW) The LCF provides healthy seafood products (such as Coorong mullet) that provide an important contribution to social value in city centres. However, due to the relatively small amount of product, the impact from the loss of the LCF on the social value through health / food in city centre communities would likely (L6) be of a minor (C1) consequence. Thus the risk rating was LOW (6). Social value – Research / Knowledge ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to social value through research / knowledge (MODERATE) The LCF provides an important contribution to research and knowledge that benefits social value in city centres. This contribution comes in the form of logbook catch returns, TEPS interaction reports, and assistance with research

88

projects. For example, the LCF has contributed to one of the longest running datasets on catch history anywhere in the world. Thus the impact from the loss of the LCF on social value through research / knowledge in city centre communities would likely (L6) be of a major (C2) consequence. Therefore the risk rating was MODERATE (12). Social value – Identity ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to social value through identity (LOW) Some people will identify with the Coorong region through products from the LCF such as Coorong mullet. However, it was felt that the impact from the loss of the LCF on the social value through identity in city centre communities would likely (L6) be of a minor (C1) consequence. Thus the risk rating was LOW (6). Social value – Tourism ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to social value through tourism (LOW) Tourists from city centres do visit the Coorong region and may observe activities of the LCF such as fishing or landing the catch. Thus there is a contribution to social value through tourism. Nonetheless, it was felt that the impact from the loss of the LCF on the social value through tourism in city centre communities would likely (L6) be of a minor (C1) consequence. Thus the risk rating was LOW (6). Social value – Infrastructure ERA Risk Rating: Contribution by the fishery to social value through infrastructure (NEGLIGIBLE) The LCF has contributed little to infrastructure in the Coorong region where it is based, and does not contribute to infrastructure in city centres. Therefore the loss of the LCF would likely (L6) have a negligible (C0) consequence on social value through infrastructure in city centre communities. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0). Indicators and Performance measures To be determined

89

Management plan

Allocation

Consultation

Other

Fisheries Council

Management Effectiveness

Resources

Owner operator

Strategic policy

Research / Information

Compliance

Policy & Management

OCS arrangementsOther laws

Access rights

Compensation

Legal Framework

Information

Participation

Inter-agency coordination

Consultation

Reporting

PIRSA

Water management

SA Govt - DENR

Aust Govt - SEWPAC

DTEI

MDBA

Other Agencies

Government

Codes of Conduct

Communication/Participation

Industry Association

Access Security

Compensation

Principles

Marine Parks Issues

Industry

Participation

NGO

Others (NGOs etc)

Governance

4.5 Governance

Figure 19. Component tree for governance Note: No generic components have been removed from the tree but only those boxes that are highlighted will be reported on.

Unlike other component trees in the workshop, not every component of the governance tree was assessed for risk. Rather, some components were identified specifically by stakeholders for discussion and risk assessment (i.e., those components highlighted in Figure 19). Furthermore, the usual process of consequence and likelihood assignment was not employed for the risk assessment, but instead industry assigned a risk rating based on their overall feeling for the issue. 4.5.1 Fisheries Council

Fisheries Council – Management plan, Allocation, Consultation, Other Under the Fisheries Management Act 2007, the Fisheries Council has a significant involvement throughout the process of developing a new management plan, which includes allocation for all sectors and a public consultation period. The Fisheries Management Act 2007 requires that fishery management plans explicitly allocate resource shares to the commercial,

90

recreational and Aboriginal traditional sectors of the fishery. Objective

Manage the impact of the Fisheries Council on the Lakes and Coorong Fishery

ERA Risk Rating: Importance of the Fisheries Council in delivering outcomes for the LCF Industry (HIGH) Management plans for each fishery sector are developed by PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture based upon a rotational schedule that has been agreed upon by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Nonetheless, a new management plan for the LCF is a key requirement for the fishery as it will not only provide a framework for the sustainable management of the resource but it will also give certainty to the industry about how future management decisions will be made. During the workshop the LCF industry highlighted several issues including the lack of a new management plan, failure to deliver on a Primary Industries Funding Scheme (PIFS), and a general lack of timeliness in delivering outcomes. The importance of the Fisheries Council in delivering outcomes for the LCF industry was therefore ranked as a HIGH risk. Indicators and performance measures

To be determined 4.5.2 PIRSA – Policy and Management

Broad objective

Manage the LCF resource in an efficient and cost-effective manner, in line with the SA Government’s cost-recovery policy.

Management effectiveness ERA Risk Rating: Importance of PIRSA management effectiveness to the LCF industry (MODERATE) During the workshop, industry stated that they felt that management had improved in recent years. Nonetheless the importance of effective management by PIRSA remains as a MODERATE risk to the LCF industry. Strategic policy ERA Risk Rating: Importance of PIRSA strategic policy to the LCF industry (MODERATE)

91

During the workshop, industry stated that they want strategic policies to deal with issues such as transferability of licences within families, owner/operator rights, and changes in regulations. Therefore the importance of strategic policy by PIRSA was ranked as a MODERATE risk to the LCF industry. Research / information ERA Risk Rating: Importance of PIRSA research and information to the LCF industry (MODERATE) A stock status report and a stock assessment for one of the key species are produced on an annual basis. Stock assessment for key species are scheduled in the management plan and produced by SARDI Aquatic Sciences for PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. These reports provide a literature review of fisheries biology and an assessment of biological indicators for fisheries managers to gauge performance of the fishery. It is important for stakeholders to be able to access and understand key information about the fishery. The industry voiced concern that the multi-species stock assessment was not “what they had paid for”. It was made clear by SARDI that the Service Level Agreement is between PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture and SARDI, and that much of the research in question was undertaken at no cost to the industry. Furthermore, the management costs of the LCF have been subsidised for many years due to hardship brought about by the drought. Similarly research costs were subsidised up to and including 2010-11. The importance of research and information to the industry was rated as a MODERATE risk. Compliance ERA Risk Rating: Importance of PIRSA compliance to the LCF industry (MODERATE) During the workshop, industry stated that they felt that improvements in compliance are required, including getting written agreements so that the relationship with industry could be improved. Thus the importance of compliance by PIRSA is a MODERATE risk to the LCF industry. Indicators and performance measures

To be determined 4.5.3 PIRSA – Legal framework

Legal framework

92

Objective

Manage the impact of the PIRSA legal framework on the Lakes and Coorong Fishery

ERA Risk Rating: Importance of PIRSA legal framework to the LCF industry (MODERATE) During the workshop, industry stated that they had no issues with the current legal framework. Nonetheless, the legal framework under PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture is a MODERATE risk to the LCF industry. Indicators and performance measures

To be determined 4.5.4 Other agencies

SA Government DENR – water management Objective

Manage the impact of SA DENR on the Lakes and Coorong Fishery ERA Risk Rating: Importance of SA DENR to the LCF industry (MODERATE) During the workshop, industry stated that they had engaged in the consultation process and had a good relationship with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in terms of water management issues. Nonetheless, a continued good relationship with DENR regarding water management is important to the LCF and is therefore a MODERATE risk. Indicators and performance measures

To be determined Australian Government SEWPAC Objective

Manage the impact of SEWPAC on the Lakes and Coorong Fishery ERA Risk Rating: Importance of SEWPAC to the LCF industry (MODERATE) During the workshop, industry stated that the Australian Government’s

93

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC) represented a threat to the LCF if they didn’t get their export approval. While only one species is exported (i.e., pipis), industry felt that SEWPAC was a MODERATE risk to the LCF. Indicators and performance measures

To be determined MDBA Objective

Manage the impact of the MDBA on the Lakes and Coorong Fishery ERA Risk Rating: Importance of the MDBA to the LCF industry (MODERATE) During the workshop, industry stated that they had a good relationship with the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) and that this was important to the LCF. A continued good relationship is therefore a MODERATE risk to the LCF. Indicators and performance measures

To be determined 4.5.5 Others (NGOs etc.)

Others (NGOs etc.) Objective

Manage the impact of NGOs on the Lakes and Coorong Fishery ERA Risk Rating: Importance of other agencies to the LCF industry (MODERATE) During the workshop, industry stated that they currently had no issues with other agencies. Nonetheless, other agencies may represent a MODERATE risk to the LCF industry. Indicators and performance measures

To be determined

94

4.6 External Factors Affecting Performance of the Fishery

Figure 20. Component tree for external factors affecting performance of the

fishery 4.6.1 Ecological Impacts on the Fishery – Biophysical Environment

Broad objective

Understand and manage negative impacts on the LCF from external physical and biological influences

Physical – Oceanographic events including upwellings ERA Risk Rating: Impact of oceanography and upwellings on the LCF (LOW) The potential exists for oceanographic events (including upwellings) to have an impact on the marine area of the LCF. For example, the Bonney upwelling (which is one of the largest upwellings in SA) occurs relatively close by to the Coorong beaches. Species such as pipis that rely directly on primary production are most likely to be influenced by such events. It was considered that oceanography could occasionally (L5) have a minor (C1) consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was LOW (5). However, the impact of oceanography on the LCF is poorly understood and it is possible that oceanography has a more important role than the risk value reported here.

Oceanographic

Climate change

Temperature

Upwellings

Rainfall / Flows

Physical

Diseases

Biological

Biophysical environment

Hypersalinity

Acid sulphate soils

Flow regulation

Sewage

Agricultural runoff

Stormwater

Algal blooms

Water Quality

Development

Dredging

Barrages

SE drainage

Habitat Modification

Exotic species

Gear interference

Human induced changes

Ecological Impacts on the Fishery

Fuel price

Other fisheries

Demand

Market Forces

Marketing

Market Access

Labour (availability/cost)

Other fishing costs

Interest rates

Economic

Impacts of Other Drivers

Marine parks

Access

External Factors Affecting Performance of the Fishery

95

Physical – Climate change ERA Risk Rating: Impact of climate change on the LCF (MODERATE) The potential exists for climate change to have an impact on the LCF through factors such as sea level rise and reduced freshwater flows (see below). However, it was considered that in the context of the next 5 years climate change could occasionally (L5) have a moderate (C2) consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was MODERATE (10). Physical – Temperature ERA Risk Rating: Impact of temperature on the LCF (LOW) The potential exists for temperature to have an impact on the LCF. Due to the shallow nature of the Lakes and Coorong lagoons, water temperature is strongly influenced by air temperature, and this may in turn influence productivity of the LCF. It was considered that temperature could occasionally (L5) have a minor (C1) consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was LOW (5). Physical – Rainfall / flows ERA Risk Rating: Impact of rainfall / flows on the LCF (MODERATE) It is well accepted that the LCF is strongly influenced by rainfall in the catchment and subsequent freshwater flows into the Lakes, Coorong lagoons, and adjacent sea. Many of the primary species are reliant upon freshwater flows for spawning. Given the unpredictable but important nature of rainfall, it was considered that rainfall / freshwater flows could possibly (L4) have a severe (C3) consequence on the LCF over the next 5 or so years. Thus the risk rating was MODERATE (12). Biological – Diseases ERA Risk Rating: Impact of diseases on the LCF (MODERATE) The potential always exists for an outbreak of a translocated disease that may damage a commercial fishery. The herpes-like viral disease that devastated the abalone fishery in Victoria is a poignant example. During the workshop, several potential disease sources were identified including, ships releasing ballast water and refuse in the seas adjacent to the Coorong, introduced baits used by fishers, and aquaculture operations upstream of the Coorong. Given the unpredictable but serious nature of disease, it was considered that disease could possibly (L4) have a severe (C3) consequence on the LCF

96

over the next 5 or so years. Thus the risk rating was MODERATE (12). Indicators and performance measures

To be determined 4.6.2 Ecological Impacts on the Fishery – Human Induced Changes

Broad objective

Understand and manage negative ecological impacts on the LCF from human induced changes

Flow regulation (including acid sulphate soils and hyper-salinity) ERA Risk Rating: Impact of flow regulation on the LCF (EXTREME) It is well accepted that the LCF is strongly influenced by freshwater flows into the Lakes, Coorong lagoons, and adjacent sea. Flow is not just a function of upstream rainfall (see above), but is also dependent on flow regulation throughout the Murray-Darling basin – acid sulphate soils and hyper-salinity (which are themselves symptoms of poor flow regulation) are included in the flow regulation component of the risk assessment. Industry felt that flow regulation over recent years had resulted in ‘no flows’ at the Murray Mouth. A lack of flow is probably the greatest single threat to the future of the LCF. Industry felt that the system recovers quickly once flows are re-established. Based upon past experience with flow regulation and the importance of flow to the LCF, it was felt that flow regulation would likely (L6) continue to have a major (C4) consequence for the LCF over the next 5 or so years. Thus the risk rating was EXTREME (24). Water quality – Sewage, Stormwater, and Algal blooms ERA Risk Rating: Impact of sewage, stormwater, and algal blooms on the LCF (NEGLIGIBLE) While the leakage of sewage and urban stormwater run-off can each affect the quality of receiving waters, they were not identified as issues in the Lakes and Coorong region; probably due to the low level of urban development surrounding the Lakes and Coorong region. Likewise, while some algal blooms do occur, they have not been linked to fish kills and are not considered to be an issue. It was therefore considered that sewage, stormwater, and algal blooms might occasionally (L5) have a negligible (C0) consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was NEGLIGIBLE (0).

97

Water quality – Agricultural run-off ERA Risk Rating: Impact of agricultural run-off on the LCF (LOW) While agricultural run-off can affect the quality of receiving waters, it was not identified as an issue in the Lakes and Coorong region. Nonetheless, because much of the surrounding catchment is agricultural land, it was considered possible (L4) that agricultural run-off could have a minor (C1) consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was LOW (4). Habitat modification – Development ERA Risk Rating: Impact of development on the LCF (LOW) Coastal developments such as marinas and breakwaters have the potential to impact on habitats that are important to fisheries species. While there is some development in the Lakes and Coorong region, it was considered possible (L4) that it could have a minor (C1) consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was LOW (4). Habitat modification – Dredging ERA Risk Rating: Impact of dredging on the LCF (HIGH) Due to a lack of freshwater flows, the Murray Mouth almost closed during the 2000’s and the Coorong lagoons became hyper-saline. In order to reopen the mouth to marine tidal flows, dredging was successfully undertaken. This action helped to maintain the LCF. Thus the habitat modification caused by the dredging was seen to have a positive impact on the LCF. While it is hoped that with improved flow regulation the mouth will not close over again, it was considered that dredging may occasionally (L5) have a severe (C3) positive consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was HIGH (15). It should be noted that this risk rating relates to a positive (rather than negative) impact from dredging. Habitat modification – Barrages ERA Risk Rating: Impact of barrages on the LCF (EXTREME) It is clear that the construction of the barrages in the lower lakes has permanently modified the estuary habitat of the Coorong; effectively reducing the estuary area by 89% (Ferguson et al. 2008). Construction of the barrages has also likely influenced catches in the LCF (Ferguson et al. 2008). The barrages have also affected freshwater flows and movement of fish, although the management of these flows has been improved and fish passage ways have been installed.

98

As the barrages are a permanent structure, it was felt that the barrages would likely (L6) continue to have a major (C4) consequence for the LCF into the future. Thus the risk rating was EXTREME (24). Habitat modification – SE drainage ERA Risk Rating: Impact of SE drainage on the LCF (LOW) The SE drainage scheme has modified the level of freshwater flows into the Coorong lagoons and thus modified the habitats in that area. The impacts of this habitat modification on the LCF are difficult to quantify. However, as the SE drainage scheme is permanent, it was considered likely (L6) that it would continue to have a minor (C1) consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was LOW (6). Exotic species ERA Risk Rating: Impact of exotic species on the LCF (EXTREME) Exotic species can impact on ecosystems and in turn commercial fisheries. The Lakes region itself has been dramatically impacted by the introduction of several fish species, most notably the European carp. These species are likely to have had a negative impact on native freshwater fishes, and thus a negative impact on the LCF. The chance of new exotic species becoming pests in the estuarine and marine ecosystems into the future can also not be discounted. As there is little chance of eradicating exotic fishes such as European carp, it was felt that exotic species are likely (L6) to continue having a major (C4) consequence for the LCF. Thus the risk rating was EXTREME (24). Gear interference ERA Risk Rating: Impact of gear interference on the LCF (LOW) The potential exists for gear interference by non-commercial fishers (e.g. raiding of nets) to have a negative impact on the LCF. However, it was considered that gear interference could occasionally (L5) have a minor (C1) consequence on the LCF. Thus the risk rating was LOW (5). Indicators and performance measures

To be determined 4.6.3 Impacts of Other Drivers – Economic

99

Broad objective

To minimise the impacts of economic drivers on the Lakes and Coorong Fishery

Fuel prices ERA Risk Rating: Impact of fuel prices on the LCF (MODERATE) Increasing fuel prices have negatively affected the profitability of many fisheries across SA. The LCF has also been affected, but because they use small boats and can be economical with their fuel usage, the relative impact on the LCF has been lower than in some other sectors. Thus it was felt that fuel prices would occasionally (L5) continue having a moderate (C2) consequence for the LCF into the future, with a final risk rating of MODERATE (10). Market forces – Other fisheries ERA Risk Rating: Impact of market forces on the LCF (MODERATE) The profitability of the LCF can be influenced by fluctuating fish prices that are caused by other fisheries. For example, when product is available from the Cooper Creek, the price of golden perch is brought down. Industry also felt that illegal recreational sales may also be influencing prices. Thus it was felt that market forces are likely (L6) to continue having a moderate (C2) consequence for the LCF into the future, with a risk rating of MODERATE (12). Market access – Marketing ERA Risk Rating: Impact of market access on the LCF (MODERATE) Due to the owner/operator status of the LCF, there are minimal numbers of suppliers marketing their product. Industry felt that this was a hindrance to the economic viability of the fishery. Thus it was felt that marketing was likely (L6) to continue having a moderate (C2) consequence for the LCF into the future, with a risk rating of MODERATE (12). Labour (availability / cost)

100

ERA Risk Rating: Impact of labour availability and cost on the LCF (MODERATE) Like many other fishery sectors in SA, the LCF is competing with other industries (such as mining) for suitable labour. This makes it difficult to find regional employees. It was felt that labour availability and costs were likely (L6) to continue having a moderate (C2) consequence for the LCF into the future, with a risk rating of MODERATE (12). Other fishing costs, and interest rates ERA Risk Rating: Impact of other fishing costs and interest rates on the LCF (MODERATE) Like many other fishery sectors and businesses in SA, the LCF is faced with other costs and rising interest rates. It was felt that other fishing costs and interest rates were likely (L6) to continue having a moderate (C2) consequence for the LCF into the future, with a risk rating of MODERATE (12). Indicators and performance measures

To be determined 4.6.4 Access

Objective

To minimise the impact of reduced access by marine parks on the Lakes and Coorong

Marine parks ERA Risk Rating: Impact of reduced access by marine parks on the LCF (EXTREME) The South Australian Government proclaimed 19 new marine parks in 2010, under the South Australian Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (SARSMPA). Other Australian States, as well as the Australian Government, are also developing systems of marine protected areas that are representative of marine life in other parts of Australia. Collectively, this Australia-wide effort will contribute to the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.

101

All 19 marine parks are located within the State’s waters, generally within 3 nautical miles from the coast and including the gulfs and offshore islands. The South Australian marine parks will be zoned for multiple-uses. They will be sectioned into four zones, with varying levels of use and conservation. Most activities, such as recreational and commercial fishing, will still be allowed within a marine park. There will, however, be particular zones or periods of time, where some activities will not be permitted. Following the introduction of the Marine Parks Act 2007, the outer boundaries of the marine parks have been proclaimed but the zones have not yet been determined. Management plans with zoning for each marine park will be developed in consultation with the community and industry during 2011. As one of the marine parks lies within the Coorong region, there is potential for loss of fishing access by the LCF. Industry feels that they are already spatially-limited and that further loss of areas will be potentially catastrophic for them. At present, the potential impacts of the marine parks on access to State waters by the LCF are unknown. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the placement of no-take zones, the LCF considered the issue of reduced access in marine parks to be likely (L6) to have a major (C4) impact on the RLF, with a final risk rating of EXTREME (24). However, it should be noted that several factors have been announced by the State government that will mitigate the risk to industry, including a maximum of 5% economic impact, a fair and reasonable compensation, and an end result of leaving some stock in the water. Thus the risk rating of extreme that is reported here would be lowered if these mitigation measures are implemented. Indicators and performance measures

To be determined

102

Aboriginal Community

Economic Employment Community viability

Traditional fishing

Access / allocation

Continuation of activities

Cultural values

Aboriginal Community

4.7 Aboriginal Community

This section will be completed through a separate Aboriginal Traditional ESD Workshop.

Figure 21. Component tree for Aboriginal community 4.7.1 Economic

4.7.2 Employment

4.7.3 Community Viability

4.7.4 Cultural Values

103

5 REFERENCES

Bice, C. (2010) Literature Review on the Ecology of Fishes of the Lower Murray, Lower Lakes and Coorong. Report to the South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide, 81 pp. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000031-1. Bryars, S. (2003) An Inventory of Important Coastal Fisheries Habitats in South Australia. Fish Habitat Program, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia. Deegan, B.M., Lamontagne, S., Aldridge, K.T., Brookes, J.D. (2010) Trophodynamics of the Coorong - Spatial variability in food web structure along a hypersaline coastal lagoon. CSIRO - Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, pp. 1-52. DEH (2005) Assessment of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery. Assessment of the Ecological Sustainability of Management Arrangements for the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage. 31 pp. Dixon, P.I. (1988) Stock Identification and discrimination of mulloway in Australian waters. Centre for Marine Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney. EconSearch (2010) Economic Indicators for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery 2008/09. A Report Prepared for Primary Industries and Resources South Australia. EconSearch Pty Ltd, Adelaide. EconSearch (2011) Preliminary Economic Indicators for the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery, 2009/10. EconSearch Pty Ltd, Adelaide. Farmer, B.M. (2008) Comparisons of the biological and genetic characteristics of the Mulloway Argyrosomus japonicus (Sciaenidae) in different regions of Western Australia. PhD. Centre for Fish and Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, 217 pp. Ferguson, G. (2006a) The South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery: Fishery Stock Status Report for PIRSA Fisheries. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. RD04/0099-2. SARDI, Adelaide. Ferguson, G. (2006b) The South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery: Fishery Stock Status Report for PIRSA Fisheries. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. RD04/0099-3. SARDI, Adelaide. Ferguson, G. (2007) The South Australian Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina) Fishery. Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA Fisheries. SARDI (Aquatic Sciences) Adelaide. Report No. F2007/000315-1, 29 pp.

104

Ferguson, G. (2008) The South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery: Fishery Stock Status Report for PIRSA Fisheries. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. F2007/000722-2. SARDI Research Report Series No.263. 14 pp. Ferguson, G. (2010a) The South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery. Fishery Stock Status Report for PIRSA Fisheries. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide, F2009/000669-1. SARDI Research Report Series No. 421. pp15. Ferguson, G.J. (2010b) Gear interaction of non-targeted species in the Lakes and Coorong commercial and recreational fisheries of South Australia. Canberra, SARDI Aquatic Sciences. Ferguson, G. (2010c) Impacts of river regulation, drought and exploitation on the fish in a degraded Australian estuary, with particular reference to the life-history of the sciaenid, Argyrosomus japonicus. PhD. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 159 pp. Ferguson, G. (2011) The South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery. Fishery Stock Status Report for PIRSA Fisheries. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide, F2011/000000-0. SARDI Research Report Series No. 421. pp18 Ferguson, G. and Ward, T. (2003) Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus) fishery. Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA Fisheries for the Inland Waters and Marine Scalefish Fishery Management Committees. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. RD03/0040, 55 pp. Ferguson, G. and Mayfield, S. (2006) The South Australian Goolwa Cockle (Donax deltoides) Fishery. Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA Fisheries. SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. Report No. RD06/0005-1, 30 pp. Ferguson, G. and Ye, Q. (2008) Black bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri). Stock Assessment Report for PIRSA Fisheries. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences) Sciences, Adelaide, F2008/000810-1. SARDI Research Report Series No. 310, 32 pp. Ferguson, G.J., Ward, T.M. and Geddes, M.C. (2008) Do recent age structures and historical catches of mulloway, Argyrosomus japonicus (Temminck & Schlegel, 1843), reflect freshwater inflows in the remnant estuary of the Murray River, South Australia? Aquatic Living Resources 21: 145-152. Ferguson, G.J., Ward, T.M., Ye, Q., Geddes, M.C. and Gillanders, B.M. (2010) Impacts of drought, flow regime and fishing on the fish assemblage in southern Australia’s largest temperate estuary. Fishery Stock Assessment Report for PIRSA Fisheries. SARDI Research Report Series. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide, 32 pp.

105

Ferguson, G.J., Ward, T.M. and Gillanders, B.M. (2011) Otolith shape and elemental composition: Complimentary tools for stock discrimination of mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus) in southern Australia. Fisheries Research (in press). Fletcher, W.J., Chesson, J., Fisher M., Sainsbury, K.J., Hundloe, T., Smith, A.D.M. and Whitworth, B. (2002) National ESD Reporting Framework for Australian Fisheries: The 'How To' Guide for Wild Capture Fisheries. FRDC Project 2000/145, Canberra, Australia. Gomon, M.F., Glover, C.J.M. and Kuiter, R.H. (Eds.) (1994) The Fishes of Australia's South Coast. Adelaide: State Print. Griffiths, M.H. (1996) Life history of the Dusky kob Argyrosomus japonicus (Sciaenidae) off the east coast of South Africa. South African Marine Science 17: 135-154. Griffiths, M.H. and Hecht, T. (1995) Age and growth of South African dusky kob Argyrosomus japonicus (Sciaenidae) based on otoliths. South African Marine Science 16: 119-128. Higham, J., Ferguson, G. and Ye, Q. (2005) Lakes and Coorong Yellow-eye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri) Fishery. Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA Fisheries for the Inland Waters and Marine Scalefish Fishery Management Committees. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. RD04/0162, 43 pp. Hoeksema, S.D., Chuwen, B.M., Hesp, S.A., Hall, N.G. and Potter, I.C. (2006) Impact of environmental changes on the fish faunas of Western Australian south-coast estuaries. Centre for Fish and Fisheries Research, Murdoch University, Perth, pp. 1-191.

Jones, K. (2009) South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey. South Australian Fisheries Management Series Paper No 54. PIRSA Fisheries, Adelaide, 84 pp. Kailola, P.J., Williams, M.J., Stewart, P.C., Reichelt, R.E., McNee, A. and Grieve, C. (Eds). (1993) Australian Fisheries Resources. Canberra, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Primary Industries and Energy and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. King, M. (1985) The life history of the Goolwa cockle, Donax (Plebidonax) deltoides (Bivalvia: Donacidae), on an ocean beach, South Australia. South Australian Department of Fisheries, Internal report 85. Knight, M.A. and Tsolos, A. (2011) South Australian Wild Fisheries Information and Statistics Report 2009/10. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2008/000804-3. SARDI Research Report Series No. 521. 60 pp.

106

Lintermans, M. (2007) Fishes of the Murray-Darling Basin: An introductory guide. Murray-Darling Basin Commission. 167 pp. McLachlan, A., Dugan, J.E., Defeo, O., Ansell, A.D., Hubbard, D.M., Jaramillo, E. and Penchaszadeh, P.E. (1996) Beach clam fisheries. Oceanography Marine Biology Annual Review 34: 163-232. Morison, A.K., Coutin, P.C. and Robertson, S.G. (1998) Age determination of black bream, Acanthopagrus butcheri (Sparidae), from the Gippsland Lakes of south-eastern Australia indicates slow growth and episodic recruitment. Marine and Freshwater Research 49: 491-498. Murray-Jones, S. and Johnson, J. (2003) Goolwa Cockle (Donax deltoides). Adelaide, SARDI Aquatic Sciences: 1-54. Noell, C.J., Ye, Q., Short, D.A., Bucater, L.B. and Wellman, N.R. (2009) Fish assemblages of the Murray Mouth and Coorong region, South Australia, during an extended drought period. CSIRO: Water for Healthy Country National Research Flagship and South Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. Olsen, A. M. (1991) The Coorong: A Multi-species Fishery. Part 1 – A History and Development. Fisheries Resources Paper. Department of Fisheries, South Australia. No.22, 37 pp. PIRSA (2008) Ecological Assessment of the Lakes and Coorong Fishery. Reassessment Report. Prepared for the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. For the purposes of Part 13 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Prepared by the Fisheries Division of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide. 28 pp. Puckridge, J.T. and Walker, K.F. (1990) Reproductive biology and larval development of a gizzard shad, Nematalosa erebi (Günther) (Dorosomatinae: Teleostei), in the River Murray, South Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 41: 695–712. Sarre, G.A. (1999) Age compositions, growth rates, reproductive biology and diets of the black bream Acanthopagrus butcheri in four estuaries and a coastal saline lake in south-western Australia. PhD. Murdoch University, Perth. Schlacher, T.A., Thompson, L.M.C. and Walker, S.J. (2008) Mortalities caused by off-road vehicles (ORVs) to a key member of sandy beach assemblages, the surf clam Donax deltoides. Hydrobiologia, 610: 345–350. Sloan, S. (2005) Management Plan for the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery. South Australian Fisheries Management Series Paper No. 44, PIRSA Fisheries, Adelaide, 135 pp.

107

Ye, Q. (2004) Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua). Fishery Assessment Report to PIRSA Fisheries for the Inland Fishery Management Committee. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. RD04/0167. SARDI Research Report Series No. 71. 75 pp.

108

6 APPENDICES

6.1 Appendix 1: Likelihood and Consequence Tables

Table A1. Likelihood Definitions

Level Descriptor

Likely (6) It is expected to occur

Occasional (5) May occur

Possible (4) Some evidence to suggest this is possible here

Unlikely (3) Uncommon, but has been known to occur elsewhere

Rare (2) May occur in exceptional circumstances

Remote (1) Never heard of, but not impossible

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

Table A2. Consequence categories for the Major Retained/Non-Retained Species

Level Ecological (Retained: target/Non-retained: major)

Negligible (0) Insignificant impacts to populations. Unlikely to be measurable against background variability for this population.

Minor (1) Possibly detectable, but minimal impact on population size and none on dynamics.

Moderate (2) Full exploitation rate, but long-term recruitment/dynamics not adversely impacted.

Severe (3) Affecting recruitment levels of stocks/or their capacity to increase.

Major (4) Likely to cause local extinctions, if continued in longer term (i.e. probably requiring listing of species in an appropriate category of the endangered species list (e.g. IUCN category).

Catastrophic (5) Local extinctions are imminent/immediate

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

109

Table A3. Consequence categories for the By-Product Species/Minor Non-retained species

Level Ecological (RETAINED: By-product/Non-retained:

other)

Negligible (0) The area where fishing occurs is negligible compared to where the relevant stock of the species resides (< 1%).

Minor (1) Take in this fishery is small (< 10%), compared to total take by all fisheries and these species are covered explicitly elsewhere. Take and area of capture by this fishery is small, compared to known area of distribution (< 20%).

Moderate (2) Relative area of, or susceptibility to capture is suspected to be less than 50% and species do not have vulnerable life history traits.

Severe (3) No information is available on the relative area or susceptibility to capture or on the vulnerability of life history traits of this type of species. Relative levels of capture/susceptibility suspected/known to be greater than 50% and species should be examined explicitly.

Major (4) N/A Once a consequence reaches this point it should be examined using Table A6.

Catastrophic (5) N/A (See Table A6).

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

Table A4. Consequence levels for the impact of a fishery on Protected species

Level Ecological

Negligible (0) Almost none are impacted

Minor (1) Some are impacted but there is no impact on stock

Moderate (2) Levels of impact are at the maximum acceptable level

Severe (3) Same as target species

Major (4) Same as target species

Catastrophic (5) Same as target species

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

110

Table A5. Consequence levels for the impacts of a fishery on habitats

Level Ecological (HABITAT)

Negligible (0) Insignificant impacts to habitat or populations of species making up the habitat – probably not measurable levels of impact. Activity only occurs in very small areas of the habitat, or if larger area is used, the impact on the habitats from the activity is unlikely to be measurable against background variability. (Suggestion- these could be activities that affect < 1% of original area of habitat or if operating on a larger area, have virtually no direct impact)

Minor (1) Measurable impacts on habitat(s) but these are very localised compared to total habitat area. (Suggestion – these impacts could be < 5% of the original area of habitat)

Moderate (2) There are likely to be more widespread impacts on the habitat but the levels are still considerable acceptable given the % of area affected, the types of impact occurring and the recovery capacity of the habitat. (Suggestion – for impact on non-fragile habitats this may be up to 50% [similar to population dynamics theory] - but for more fragile habitats, to stay in this category the percentage area affected may need to be smaller, e.g. 20%)

Severe (3) The level of impact on habitats may be larger than is sensible to ensure that the habitat will not be able to recover adequately, or it will cause strong downstream effects from loss of function. (Suggestion - Where the activity makes a significant impact in the area affected and the area > 25 - 50% [based on recovery rates] of habitat is being removed)

Major (4) Substantially too much of the habitat is being affected, which may endanger its long-term survival and result in severe changes to ecosystem function. (Suggestion this may equate to 70 - 90% of the habitat being affected or removed by the activity)

Catastrophic (5) Effectively the entire habitat is in danger of being affected in a major way/removed. (Suggestion: this is likely to be in range of > 90% of the original habitat area being affected).

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

111

Table A6. Consequence levels for the impact of a fishery on the general ecosystem/trophic levels

Level Ecological (ECOSYSTEM)

Negligible (0) General - Insignificant impacts to habitat or populations, Unlikely to be measurable against background variability. Ecosystem: Interactions may be occurring but it is unlikely that there would be any change outside of natural variation.

Minor (1) Ecosystem: Captured species do not play a keystone role – only minor changes in relative abundance of other constituents.

Moderate (2) Ecosystem: measurable changes to the ecosystem components without there being a major change in function. (no loss of components).

Severe (3) Ecosystem: Ecosystem function altered measurably and some function or components are locally missing/declining/increasing outside of historical range &/or allowed/facilitated new species to appear. Recovery measured in years.

Major (4) Ecosystem: A major change to ecosystem structure and function (different dynamics now occur with different species/groups now the major targets of capture). Recovery period measured in years to decades.

Catastrophic (5) Ecosystem: Total collapse of ecosystem processes. Long-term recovery period may be greater than decades.

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

112

Table A7. Consequence levels for impacts of management of a fishery at a political level

Level SOCIAL - POLITICAL

Negligible (0) No impact - would not have any flow-on impacts to the local community. No fisheries department staff would need to make a statement.

Minor (1) May have minor negative impact on the community (for example, small number of job losses) but these impacts would be easily absorbed.

Moderate (2) Some increase in unemployment and decrease in overall income to which the community will adjust over time. Some community concern, which may translate to some political action or other forms of protest.

Severe (4) Significant reductions in employment and income associated with the fishery. Significant employment and income flow-on effects to other community businesses, as reduced income and increased unemployment in fishing works its way through the local economy. Significant levels of community concern over the future of the community, which may translate to political action or other forms of protest.

Major (6) High level of community impacts which the community could not successfully adapt to without external assistance. Significant level of protest and political lobbying likely. Large-scale employment and income losses in the fishing sector of the local economy. Significant flow-on effects in terms of increasing unemployment and income reductions as a consequence of changes to the fishery. Decline in population and expenditure-based services (e.g. schools, supermarkets, bank). Population declines as families leave the region looking for work.

Catastrophic (8) Large-scale impacts well beyond the capacity of the community to absorb and adjust to. Likely to lead to large-scale rapid decline in community income and increase in unemployment in areas directly and indirectly related to fishing. May lead to large-scale and rapid reduction in population as families leave the region. Likely to lead to high levels of political action, protest and conflict. Significant reduction in access to private and public sector services, as businesses become unviable and target populations needed to attract government and commercial services decline below threshold levels.

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)

113

Table A8. The General Consequence Table for use in ecological risk assessments related to fishing

Level General

Negligible (0) Very insignificant impacts. Unlikely to be even measurable at the scale of the stock/ecosystem/community against natural background variability.

Minor (1) Possibly detectable but minimal impact on structure/function or dynamics.

Moderate (2) Maximum appropriate/acceptable level of impact (e.g. full exploitation rate for a target species).

Severe (3) This level will result in wider and longer term impacts now occurring (e.g. recruitment overfishing).

Major (4) Very serious impacts now occurring with relatively long time frame likely to be needed to restore to an acceptable level.

Catastrophic (5) Widespread and permanent/irreversible damage or loss will occur – unlikely to ever be fixed (e.g. extinctions)

(Source: Fletcher et al., 2002)