Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions The …€¦ · 2 Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries e-systems Introduction

Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions

The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries

e-systems

May 2013

Stoklosa, R. 2013. Ecological Risk Assessment of Bird Interactions—The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries, prepared for the Southern Fishermen’s Association. E-Systems Pty Limited, Hobart. Revision A 23 April 2013 Draft for client review and input. Revision 0 17 May 2013 Incorporating client clarifications. Copyright © 2013 E-Systems Pty Limited, ABN 90065 135 051 This document has been prepared utilising systems, documents, designs and information, the Intellectual Property in which is vested in E-Systems Pty Limited. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work is subject to Australian Copyright Law and is not allowed without the permission of the copyright owner. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to E-Systems.

e-systems 205 Davey Street Hobart Tasmania 7000 AUSTRALIA (03) 6224 8870 [email protected] www.e-systems.com.au

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.e-systems.com.au/

e-systems Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 2

Selected assessment method 2

The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries 3

Consultation and workshop participants 4

Stakeholder Working Group 4

Technical Panel 5

Scoping phase 5

Level 1 SICA workshop 6

Scoring criteria and risk ranking 7

Boat-based fishing interactions 14

Shore-based fishing interactions 16

Risk management for bird interactions with the fishery 17

Conclusion 18

References 19

ii Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions

The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries e-systems

Attachments

Attachment 1 Scoping Phase Literature Search and Proposed Species List

Attachment 2 ERA Workshop Agenda and List of Participants

Attachment 3 Workshop Presentations

Attachment 4 SICA Results for Boat-based Fishing Interactions

Attachment 5 SICA Results for Shore-based Fishing Interactions


1

Executive Summary

An ecological risk assessment (ERA) was undertaken in March 2013 in support of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) re-certification of the commercial Lakes and Coorong fishery.

The ERA addresses Condition 25 of MSC certification of The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries, which was identified as a ‘major non-conformance’ in the 2012 MSC Surveillance Visit Report (SCS 2012). The requirement was to:

‘…conduct a risk assessment workshop with an appropriate range of stakeholders and that is focused on assessing the risks of the fishery to listed species of birds that inhabit the Coorong, and particularly the Fairy Tern. The client shall conduct an expert workshop to identify the key risks of the fishery to birds, and to establish a short list of research priorities to address research gaps related to those risks.’

A workshop procedure was developed using the methods of the CSIRO/AFMA Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Methodology (Hobday et al. 2007)—but only for the bird bycatch/threatened, endangered or protected (TEP) component of the assessment methodology.

The ERA undertaken on 20 March 2013 resulted in detailed outcomes which were documented in the risk assessment workshop record and communicated to all participants. All of the identified fishing industry interactions with listed bird species were assessed using the consultative and structured workshop procedure.

All of the threats to listed bird species were ranked negligible risk under present circumstances. As such, no specific management response is required to reduce the risk ranking of these threats. In particular, threats to the Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis) were considered and ranked negligible risk for shore-based fishing activities which might interact with this species.

Ongoing performance monitoring of the fishery should confirm that the risks to listed bird species remain negligible. In the event that circumstances of the fishery change or performance monitoring of the fishery detects impacts to specific bird species, the relevant threats should be re-assessed.

2 Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions


Introduction

An ecological risk assessment (ERA) was undertaken in March 2013 in support of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) re-certification of the commercial Lakes and Coorong fishery.

The ERA addresses Condition 25 of MSC certification of The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries, which was identified as a ‘major non-conformance’ in the 2012 MSC Surveillance Visit Report (SCS 2012). The requirement was to:

‘…conduct a risk assessment workshop with an appropriate range of stakeholders and that is focused on assessing the risks of the fishery to listed species of birds that inhabit the Coorong, and particularly the Fairy Tern. The client shall conduct an expert workshop to identify the key risks of the fishery to birds, and to establish a short list of research priorities to address research gaps related to those risks.’

The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries was certified by the MSC as a sustainable fishery in 2008. Continued certification relies, in part, on ecological risk assessment (ERA) of the interactions of fishing activities with the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem—supporting MSC Principle 2.

The Southern Fishermen’s Association engaged Mr Richard Stoklosa FIEAust CPEng NPER MAICD of E-Systems Pty Limited to undertake preparations for, facilitate and report on the required ERA.

This document is the report of the 20 March 2013 ERA of bird interactions with the fishery. The expected outcome of this ERA was to provide transparent and confident classification of risks associated with the interaction of fishing activities with listed bird species, and to assist with the identification of management strategies to control risk where necessary.

Selected assessment method

Information on fishing interactions with bird species was contained in a previous risk assessment undertaken in March 2011 (PIRSA 2011). The Certifying Body for the MSC, Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) subsequently required a more robust assessment of the risks of the fishery to listed species of birds as a condition of certification in its 2012 Surveillance Visit Report (SCS 2012).

To address the MSC requirement, a workshop procedure was developed using the methods of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)/Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Methodology (ERAEF) (Hobday et al. 2007). The procedure was developed to assess only the threatened, endangered or protected (TEP) bird component of the assessment methodology.

The ERAEF methodology generally calls for a Scoping effort, followed by a Level 1 Scale, Intensity, Consequence Analysis (SICA) type of analysis. Unless threats identified and assessed under the Level 1 SICA are deemed to be low risk or managed with mitigation measures, a Level 2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) could also be undertaken. However, the workshop procedure was developed with only the Scoping and Level 1 SICA approach in mind.


3

The results of the Scoping phase of the ERA and the Workshop Procedure (Stoklosa 2013) were distributed to stakeholders in February 2013 in preparation for the ERA workshop.

The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries

The Lakes and Coorong Fishery is a small-scale, multi-species, multi-method fishery.

The ‘Lakes and Coorong' includes the waters of the Coorong, Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert and the coastal waters out to 3 nautical miles from low water mark from the seaward extension of the Goolwa Beach Road to the jetty at Kingston in South Australia. Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, and the 3 kilometre wide Coorong lagoon are separated from the ocean by a ribbon of dunes along 140 kilometres of the coast. The Lakes and Coorong were declared a National Park in 1966 and was subsequently listed as a RAMSAR wetland of international importance in 1985. The Lakes and Coorong ecology is characterised by the mix of freshwater from the Murray River with seawater from the ocean, and the fishery operates within three distinct ecosystems (freshwater, estuarine and marine waters).

There are four target species:

Mulloway (Argyrosomus hololepidotus);

Golden Perch (‘Callop’) (Macquaria ambigua);

Yellow-Eyed Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri); and

Goolwa Cockles (‘Pipis’) (Donax (Plebidonax) deltoids).

A wide range of fishing gear types are allowed in the fishery. Depending on the target species, Cockle rakes and Cockle nets, mesh nets, swinger nets, hauling nets and drum nets are used. Fishing licences control the number and types of gear permitted for use.

The management of the fishery is undertaken by the South Australian Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries with the advice from:

Department of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA);

Inland Fisheries Management Committee;

South Australian Fishing Industry Council (SAFIC);

Lakes and Coorong Consultative Committee;

Wildcatch Fisheries South Australia (Peak Industry Body);

South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI); and

Southern Fishermen’s Association (SFA).



Consultation and workshop participants

A consultative and inclusive process was developed for the ERA, to ensure that all stakeholders were given early access to the Workshop Procedure (Stoklosa 2013) and the technical documents that were assembled to underpin the Scoping phase of the ERA. Substantial effort was made to seek the participation of a cross-section of bird and fishery ecologists who could provide high quality analysis of technical documentation and perform a qualitative Level 1 SICA risk analysis.

A Stakeholder Working Group and a Technical Panel of subject matter experts were proposed for the ERA workshop. The Stakeholder Working Group comprised a range of stakeholders.

Persons having management roles and non-technical officers of organisations were recognised as non-participating observers within the Stakeholder Working Group. The rationale for making this distinction was to enable a free exchange of technical views in the workshop, without real or perceived pressures for subordinates of management officers to adopt a particular technical position. Observers included representatives of the SCS Certifying Body.

The workshop organiser and facilitator was Richard Stoklosa of E-Systems, on behalf of the SFA. Preparation and conduct of the workshop was strictly guided by the workshop procedure (Stoklosa 2013) which was distributed to stakeholders in advance of the ERA workshop.

The composition and roles of the Stakeholder Working Group and the Technical Panel are elaborated below.

Stakeholder Working Group

A Stakeholder Working Group was invited by SFA to participate in the ERA workshop. Stakeholders included individuals, organisations, companies, government agencies and research scientists having an interest and/or technical expertise. The SFA identified a list of stakeholders who have expressed an interest in the MSC certification process for the Lakes and Coorong Fisheries, so that nominated participants could be informed of preparations for the workshop and be invited to attend.

The Stakeholder Working Group received summary information from the Scoping phase of the assessment and the proposed workshop procedure (Stoklosa 2013). There was an opportunity for any member of the Stakeholder Working Group to propose other published information to SFA for review by all participants prior to the workshop.

Efforts were made to invite stakeholders from non-government organisations (NGOs); however, none of their representatives accepted the invitation to participate. Representatives of the MSC Certifying Body (SCS) attended the workshop as observers.

Stakeholders represented the Lakes and Coorong fishermen, DEWNR, PIRSA, SARDI, Recfish SA, SFA and SCS.


5

Technical Panel

A Technical Panel was convened for the ERA, as a subset of the Stakeholder Working Group. Although there is no formula to obtain a ‘perfect’ mix of expert representation, the goal was to represent the range of stakeholder interests with persons who demonstrate recognised experience and qualifications in the subject matter, and have the capacity to provide high quality technical expertise for risk analysis.

The persons who served on the Technical Panel were:

Dr Daniel Rogers Bird Ecologist Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (SA)

Dr Greg Ferguson Fisheries Biologist South Australian Research and Development Institute

Mr Jonathan McPhail Acting Lakes & Coorong Manager, Fisheries Biologist Department of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia

The Technical Panel’s role in the workshop was to participate in the discussion of fishing interactions with listed bird species, and assess the spatial/temporal extent of the interaction, the likelihood and the consequences for these threats under existing circumstances. The assessment was based on consideration of published technical information and the management actions adopted by the Lakes and Coorong Fisheries and government wildlife officers acting under their statutory powers to protect and conserve TEP species.

Scoping phase

The Scoping phase of the assessment involved a literature search to identify the listed bird species that could be exposed to fishing activities in the Lakes and Coorong. Bird ecologists were contacted to request data and advice on the species that should be considered to address MSC Condition 25 (SCS 2012).

Special attention was given to the bird species identified as TEP species in the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC); and the rare, vulnerable or endangered species identified in the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Bird ecologists also recommended consideration of bird species that are listed under international migratory bird conservation agreements: Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement 1981 (JAMBA); China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement 1988 (CAMBA); Republic of South Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement 2007 (ROKAMBA); and Convention on Migratory Species 2003 (CMS).

A literature search was undertaken to determine which listed species are known to be present in the Lakes and Coorong, and to identify those which have the potential to interact with The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries. Published information included:

An Ecosystem Assessment Framework to Guide Management of the Coorong (Brookes et al. 2009).

Coorong and Lower Lakes Ramsar habitat mapping program (Seaman 2003).



Gear interaction of non-targeted species in the Lakes and Coorong commercial and recreational fisheries of South Australia (Ferguson 2010).

Monitoring the Ramsar status of the Coorong, Lakes and Murray Mouth: A case study using birds (O’Connor et al. 2012).

Understanding the potential interactions between commercial fishing and piscivorous birds of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth (Rogers and Paton 2012, unpublished personal communication).

Results of the literature search were documented for consultation with experts identified by SFA and government agencies. As a result of the consultation, a helpful summary of the listed bird species for the ERA was developed (Dr Jody O’Connor, SARDI, personal communication).

The results of the literature search and the advice provided by SARDI is presented in Attachment 1 for reference. The report of the 2011 ecological risk assessment (PIRSA 2011) was also referenced for information on the potential direct impacts to TEP species from fishing and the types of fishing gear types and activities used in the Lakes and Coorong Fisheries. These documents and reports address the documentation requirements of the ERAEF methodology for the Scoping phase of the ERA.

Level 1 SICA workshop

The workshop agenda and list of participants is presented in Attachment 2. The agenda and workshop procedure (Stoklosa 2013) were adopted by workshop participants.

[The agenda included a separate workshop in the afternoon session to discuss a risk-based framework for ecosystem assessment and to identify ecosystem research that could be considered in the scoring of ecosystem performance indicators under MSC guidelines—not included in this report of the ERA workshop for bird interactions.]

A presentation was made by the Southern Fishermen’s Association to review the status of MSC Condition 25 (SCS 2012) and the need for a qualitative risk assessment for listed bird interactions with the fishery. An overview of the Lakes and Coorong Fisheries was presented to provide background on the types of gear and effort, the environmental conditions where fishing activities occur and the avoidance of adverse interactions with bird species.

An overview of fisheries management, gear types and effort, logbook records, research programs and reporting of interactions with bird species was presented by PIRSA. The presentation noted that there were only two interactions recorded with birds in the 2007/08 and 2008/09 reporting periods. The SFA and PIRSA presentations are reproduced in Attachment 3 for reference.


7

The Scoping level information was discussed, and the workshop participants adopted the summary of listed species proposed by SARDI (Dr Jody O’Connor, personal communication—refer to last page of Attachment 1). The summary of listed species was grouped into three categories to assist with the assessment:

piscivorous bird species having potential direct impact on fish prey, or indirect impact through the removal of predators;

wader bird species having possible interactions with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels; and

shorebird species having possible indirect impacts through prey on macroinvertebrates.

It was suggested by workshop participants that these three categories of listed bird species could be considered in ‘groups’ with common interactions with the fishery and similar roles in the ecosystem. The adopted list of bird species addressed the listed species referenced in the EPBC Act (including the Fairy Tern mentioned in MSC Condition 25), the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act, and international migratory bird conventions. As such, it enabled a comprehensive identification of species that might be exposed to fishing activities, either directly or indirectly.

Scoring criteria and risk ranking

The SICA methodology relies on qualitative judgements by experts to score the scale, intensity and consequences of fishing interactions, in this case with TEP species. The scoring criteria used in the workshop are reproduced from the workshop procedure (Stoklosa 2013) in Tables 1 through 5, sourced from the ERAEF methodology (Hobday et al. 2007).

The results of the scoring were documented in a SICA worksheet, reproduced from the workshop procedure, sourced from the ERAEF methodology.



Table 1. Spatial scale of fishing activity (nautical miles).

Spatial extent of fishing (nm) < 1 1-10 10-100 100-500 500-1,000 > 1,000

Score 1 2 3 4 5 6

Table 2. Temporal scale of fishing activity (annual frequency).

Frequency of fishing

Decadal

(1 day every 10 yrs or so)

Every several years

(1 day every several yrs)

Annual

(1-100 days per yr)

Quarterly

(100-200 days per yr)

Weekly


Daily


Score 1 2 3 4 5 6

Table 3. Intensity score of activity.

Level Score Description

Negligible 1 Remote likelihood of detection at any spatial or temporal scale.

Minor 2 Occurs rarely or in few restricted locations and detectability even at these scales is rare.

Moderate 3 Moderate at broader spatial scale; or severe but local.

Major 4 Severe and occurs reasonably often at broad spatial scale.

Severe 5 Occasional but very severe and localized; or less severe but widespread and frequent.

Intolerable 6 Local to regional severity; or continuous and widespread.


9

Table 4. Consequence ratings for TEP species.

Sub-component

Score/level

1

Negligible

2

Minor

3

Moderate

4

Major

5

Severe

6

Intolerable

Population size Almost none are killed.

Insignificant change to population size/growth rate. Unlikely to be detectable against background variability for this population.

State of reduction on the rate of increase are at the maximum acceptable level. Possible detectable change in size/ growth rate (r) but minimal impact on population size and none on dynamics of TEP species.

Affecting recruitment state of stocks or their capacity to increase.

Local extinctions are imminent/immediate.

Global extinctions are imminent/immediate.

Geographic range No interactions leading to impact on geographic range.

No detectable change in geographic range. Unlikely to be detectable against background variability for this population.

Possible detectable change in geographic range but minimal impact on population range and none on dynamics. Change in geographic range up to 5 % of original.

Change in geographic range up to 10% of original.

Change in geographic range up to 25% of original.

Genetic structure No interactions leading to impact on genetic structure.

No detectable change in genetic structure. Unlikely to be detectable against background variability for this population.

Possible detectable change in genetic structure but minimal impact at population level. Any change in frequency of genotypes, effective population size or number of spawning units up to 5%.

Moderate change in genetic structure. Change in frequency of genotypes, effective population size or number of spawning units up to 10%.

Change in frequency of genotypes, effective population size or number of spawning units up to 25%.



Table 4. Consequence ratings for TEP species (continued).

Sub-component

Score/level

1

Negligible

2

Minor

3

Moderate

4

Major

5

Severe

6

Intolerable

Age/size/sex structure No interactions leading to change in age/size/sex structure.

No detectable change in age/size/sex structure. Unlikely to be detectable against background variability for this population.

Possible detectable change in age/size/sex structure but minimal impact on population dynamics.

Detectable change in age/size/sex structure. Impact on population dynamics at maximum sustainable level, long-term recruitment dynamics not adversely damaged.

Severe change in age/size/sex structure. Impact adversely affecting population dynamics. Time to recover to original structure up to 5 generations free from impact.

Impact adversely affecting population dynamics. Time to recover to original structure > 10 generations free from impact.

Reproductive capacity No interactions resulting in change to reproductive capacity.

No detectable change in reproductive capacity. Unlikely to be detectable against background variability for this population.

Possible detectable change in reproductive capacity but minimal impact on population dynamics.

Detectable change in reproductive capacity, impact on population dynamics at maximum sustainable level, long-term recruitment dynamics not adversely damaged.

Change in reproductive capacity, impact adversely affecting recruitment dynamics. Time to recover to original structure up to 5 generations free from impact.

Change in reproductive capacity, impact adversely affecting recruitment dynamics. Time to recover to original structure > 10 generations free from impact.

Behaviour/movement No interactions resulting in change to behaviour/ movement.

No detectable change in behaviour/ movement. Time to return to original behaviour/ movement on the scale of hours.

Possible detectable change in behaviour/ movement but minimal impact on population dynamics. Time to return to original behaviour/ movement on the scale of days to weeks.

Detectable change in behaviour/ movement with the potential for some impact on population dynamics. Time to return to original behaviour/ movement on the scale of weeks to months.

Change in behaviour/ movement, impact adversely affecting population dynamics. Time to return to original behaviour/ movement on the scale of months to years.

Change in behaviour/ movement. Impact adversely affecting population dynamics. Time to return to original behaviour/ movement on the scale of years to decades.


11

Table 4. Consequence ratings for TEP species (concluded).

Sub-component

Score/level

1

Negligible

2

Minor

3

Moderate

4

Major

5

Severe

6

Intolerable

Interaction with fishery

No interactions with fishery.

Few interactions and involving up to 5% of population.

Moderate level of interactions with fishery involving up to10 % of population.

Major interactions with fishery, interactions and involving up to 25% of population.

Frequent interactions involving ~ 50% of population.

Frequent interactions involving the entire known population negatively affecting the viability of the population.

Table 5. Confidence scores for consequences.

Confidence Score Rationale for the confidence score

Low 1

Data exists, but is considered poor or conflicting.

No data exists.

Disagreement among experts.

High 2

Data exists and is considered sound.

Consensus between experts.

Consequence is constrained by logical consideration.



Using the Technical Panel’s scoring of consequences and intensity, is was proposed in the workshop procedure (Stoklosa 2013) that risk could be ranked as a combination of the two scores as illustrated in the risk ranking matrix in Figure 1. ‘Intensity’ is used as a proxy for ‘likelihood’. The risk matrix is used to rank risk in one of five levels, consistent with the approach used in other ecologically sustainable reporting frameworks, and the AS/NZS ISO 31000 standard for risk management (Standards Australia 2009). An explanation of the likely reporting requirements and management response for each risk ranking is summarized in Table 6.

Consequence score

1 2 3 4 5 6

Inte

nsit

y sc

ore

1 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 2 4 6 8 10 12

3 3 6 9 12 15 18

4 4 8 12 16 20 24

5 5 10 15 20 25 30

6 6 12 18 24 30 36

Figure 1. Risk ranking matrix.

Table 6. Risk rankings and likely management response.

Risk ranking Risk outcome Likely reporting

requirements Likely management

response

Negligible Not an issue. Minimal. Nil.

Low Acceptable; no specific control measures needed. Justification required. No specific response.

Medium Acceptable; with current risk control measures in place (no new management required).

Full performance report. Specific management and/or monitoring

required.

High Not desirable; continue strong management actions or new and/or further risk control measures to be introduced in near future.

Full performance report. Increases to management activities needed.

Severe Unacceptable; major changes required to management in immediate future. Full performance report. Increases to management

activity needed urgently.


13

The participants chose to undertake the Level 1 SICA approach in two parts to reflect two distinct circumstances for interactions of the fishery with bird species:

1. Boat-based fishing, involving on-water activities which require fishermen to be operating from boats on the Lakes and Coorong waterways; and

2. Shore-based fishing, involving deployment of swinger nets from the beach and manual collection of cockles in sandy intertidal substrates.

The two parts of the assessment are discussed in subheadings below. The approach was to develop a conceptual model of fishing interactions, and then to systematically consider a wide range of potential impacts in a structured SICA worksheet. The proposed conceptual models and templates for the SICA worksheets were developed in advance by the facilitator.

During the workshop, the recording of workshop proceedings in a structured risk assessment template was digitally projected, to enable all workshop participants to observe the information that was captured from the discussions. All participants had the opportunity to clarify the technical record during the workshop to ensure accuracy and eliminate post-workshop word-smithing or revisions.



Boat-based fishing interactions

A conceptual model of boat-based fishing interactions was prepared prior to the workshop for discussion, and was adopted by participants (Figure 2). In the ERAEF terminology, the top tier in the diagram refers to the component of TEP species and the subcomponents of population size, geographic range, etc. The second tier represents natural processes and resources (growth…); the third tier direct impact of fishing activities (capture…); and the bottom tier fishing activities (fishing…).

Figure 2. Conceptual model of boat-based fishing interactions with TEP species.

Based on the conceptual model, the participants evaluated the interactions in the SICA worksheets and scored the spatial and temporal scales of the threat, identified the sub-component and unit of analysis (the particular bird species relevant to the interaction), and scored the intensity and consequences. Results of the SICA for boat-based fishing are presented in Attachment 4, which documents the rationale for the scoring.


15

The results show that only one type of interaction was considered a credible threat: the possibility of direct capture of diving birds when using fishing nets. Both the intensity and consequence of this type of interaction was considered to be negligible (scores of 1). This is classified as a negligible risk ranking (refer to Figure 1 and Table 6).

Interactions with Fairy Terns were explicitly considered in the SICA, but were not considered a credible threat for boat-based fishing operations (refer to Attachment 4).

Scoring of intensity and consequences was guided by the Technical Panel. The scoring reported for boat-based fishing interactions represents a consensus view.



Shore-based fishing interactions

Similar to the approach for boat-based fishing interactions, a conceptual model of shore-based fishing interactions was proposed and adopted by workshop participants (Figure 3). Vehicle access to fishing areas in the vicinity of bird habitats was considered in the assessment.

Figure 3. Conceptual model of shore-based fishing interactions with TEP species.

Results of the SICA for shore-based fishing are presented in Attachment 5, which documents the rationale for the scoring.


17

Two interactions were considered credible threats and were scored in the assessment:

Disturbance of nest sites or nesting behaviour from the presence of vehicles, resulting in potential impacts to reproductive capacity from the destruction of eggs or abandonment of nests. Potential impacts to the Hooded Plover were considered, but both the intensity and consequences were considered to be negligible (scores of 1), resulting in a negligible risk ranking.

Disturbance of nesting behaviour from the presence of vehicles was also considered for the Fairy Tern. The threat is characterised by temporary disturbance of brooding behaviour. Intensity was considered to be negligible (score of 1) and consequences were considered to be in the range of negligible to minor (score of 1-2), resulting in a negligible risk ranking.

Scoring of intensity and consequences was guided by the Technical Panel. The scoring reported for shore-based fishing interactions represents a consensus view.

Risk management for bird interactions with the fishery

Risk management for bird interactions with the Lakes and Coorong Fisheries involves low impact fishing practices and fishing gear, industry standards and codes of practice, legislation, and research and monitoring of management effectiveness.

The MSC Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fishing set out the standards for the certification program. MSC Principle 2 for sustainable fishing states:

Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

The MSC assessment criteria that has been addressed by this ERA for managing risk is:

The impacts of the fishery on protected, endangered, threatened, or icon species do not exceed acceptable levels.

Based on the results of the SICA, the risk to listed bird species from fishing activities is considered negligible. There is a high awareness of listed bird species in the Lakes and Coorong as a Ramsar wetland, and both fishermen and statutory authorities actively monitor and manage potential threats. Based on the negligible risk ranking, no further management response or mitigation measures were identified by participants.

Continued logbook recording of fishing interactions with TEP species and observations of wildlife officers will continue to monitor potential threats to listed bird species.



Conclusion

The ERA undertaken on 20 March 2013 resulted in only three interactions that were considered credible threats to listed bird species, all of which were ranked negligible risk. All of the potential interactions were assessed using a consultative and structured workshop procedure, addressing MSC Condition 25 for certification of the fishery. Consensus was reached on the expert judgements of the Technical Panel in this qualitative ERA.

All of the threats were ranked negligible risk under present circumstances. As such, no specific management response is required to reduce the risk ranking of these threats.

Ongoing performance monitoring of the fishery should confirm that these risks remain negligible. In the event that circumstances of the fishery change or performance monitoring detects an unexpected change, the relevant threats should be re-assessed.


19

References

Brookes, J.D., S. Lamontagne, K.T. Aldridge, S. Benger, A. Bissett, L. Bucater, A.C. Cheshire, P.L.M. Cook, B.M. Deegan, S. Dittmann, P.G. Fairweather, M.B. Fernandes, P.W. Ford, M.C. Geddes, B.M. Gillanders, N.J. Grigg, R.R. Haese, E. Krull, R.A. Langley, R.E. Lester, M. Loo, A.R. Munro, C.J. Noell, S. Nayar, D.C. Paton, A.T. Revill, D.J. Rogers, A. Rolston, S.K. Sharma, D.A. Short, J.E. Tanner, I.T. Webster, N.R. Wellman and Q. Ye 2009. An ecosystem assessment framework to guide management of the Coorong—Final report of the CLLAMMecology Research Cluster. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship, Canberra.

Ferguson, G.J. 2010. Gear interaction of non-targeted species in the Lakes and Coorong commercial and recreational fisheries of South Australia. Fisheries Research Development Corporation Final Report, Project No. 2005/061. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide.

Hobday, A.J., A. Smith, H. Webb, R. Daley, S. Wayte, C. Bulman, J. Dowdney, A. Williams, M. Sporcic, J. Dambacher, M. Fuller and T. Walker 2007. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing: Methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Marine and Atmospheric Division, Hobart.

O’Connor, J., D. Rogers and P. Pisanu, P. 2012. Monitoring the Ramsar status of the Coorong, Lakes and Murray Mouth: A case study using birds. South Australian Department for Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Phillips, W. and K. Muller 2006. Ecological character of the Coorong, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland of International Importance. South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

PIRSA 2011. Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) risk assessment of the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery. Draft. Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide.

Rogers, D.J. and D.C. Paton 2012. Understanding the potential interactions between commercial fishing and piscivorous birds of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. Unpublished paper prepared for stakeholders in the Marine Stewardship Council certification process. Personal communication with the authors.

Seaman R. 2003. Coorong and Lower Lakes Ramsar habitat mapping program. Conservation Programs, Department for Environment and Heritage South Australia, Adelaide.

SCS 2012. The Lakes & Coorong Fisheries South Australia—2012 MSC Surveillance Visit Report. Scientific Certification Systems, Emeryville, California.

Standards Australia 2009. Risk management—Principles and guidelines. AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009. Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand, Sydney.

Stoklosa, R 2013. Ecological Risk Assessment, The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries—Workshop Procedure: Fishing interactions and threats to listed bird species. Prepared for the Southern Fishermen’s Association. E-Systems Pty Limited, Hobart.


Attachment 1

Scoping Phase Literature Search and Proposed Species List

Literature Search Results

Proposed Species List (SARDI)

Bird species of The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries, South Australia Selection of EPBC-listed Species for Assessment Bird species observed to be present in the fishery are identified in:

CLLAMMecology Report (Brookes et al. 2009);

Ecological Character of the Coorong, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland of International Importance (Phillips and Muller 2006); and

Coorong and Lower Lakes Habitat Mapping Program (Seaman 2003);

Highlight species that are known to interact directly with the fishery. Four bird species are listed as Threatened, Endangered or Protected (TEP) under the EPBC Act 1999.

TEP species are often poorly listed by fisheries due to low frequency of direct interaction. Both direct (capture) and indirect (e.g. food source captured) interaction are considered in the ERAEF approach.

For each fishery, the list of TEP species is compiled by reviewing all available fishery literature. Species considered to have potential to interact with fishery (based on geographic range & proven/perceived susceptibility to the fishing gear/methods and examples from other similar fisheries across the globe) should also be included.

Bird species identified in the CLLAMMecology Report (Brookes et al. 2009).

Species number

EPBC Status

Family name Scientific name Common name

1 Not listed Australian Pelican

2 Not listed Pied Cormorant

3 Not listed Little Pied Cormorant

4 Not listed Great Cormorant

5 Not listed Little Black Cormorant

6 Not listed Breat Crested Grebe

7 Not listed Hoary-headed Grebe

8 Not listed Black Swan

9 Vulnerable Cereopsis novaehollandiae grisea Cape Barren Goose (south-western)

10 Not listed Australian Shelduck

11 Not listed Pacific Black Duck

12 Not listed Grey Teal

13 Not listed Chestnut Teal

14 Not listed Australasian Shoveler

15 Not listed Pink-eared Duck

16 Not listed Musk Duck

17 Not listed White-faced Heron

18 Not listed Great Egret

19 Not listed Little Egret

20 Not listed Australian White Ibis

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25978

21 Not listed Royal Spoonbill

22 Not listed Yellow-bellied Spoonbill

23 Not listed Eastern Curlew

24 Not listed Common Greenshank

25 Not listed Black-tailed Godwit

26 Not listed Bar-tailed Godwit

26 Not listed Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

28 Not listed Red-necked Stint

29 Not listed Curlew Sandpiper

30 Not listed Sanderling

31 Not listed Ruff

32 Not listed Pied Oystercatcher

33 Not listed Masked Lapwing

34 Not listed Banded Lapwing

35 Not listed Pacific Golden Plover

36 Not listed Red-capped Plover

37 Not listed Black-winged Stilt

38 Not listed Banded Stilt

39 Not listed Red-necked Avocet

40 Not listed Silver Gull

41 Not listed Whiskered Tern

42 Not listed Caspian Tern

43 Not listed Gull-billed Tern

44 Vulnerable Sternula nereis nereis Fairy Tern (Australian)

45 Not listed Crested Tern

Source: CLLAMMecology Report (Brookes et al. 2009).

TEP bird species G

oolw

a

Mun

doo

Ew

e Is

land

Pel

ican

Poi

nt

Mar

k P

oint

Lon

g P

oint

Noo

nam

eena

Par

nka

Poi

nt

Vill

a de

i Yum

pa

Jac

ks P

oint

Sal

t C

reek

Cape Barren Goose (south-western) Cereopsis novaehollandiae grisea

Fairy Tern (Australian) Sternula nereis nereis




Significant Bird Species recorded in the Ramsar Area (Seaman 2003).

Common name

Scientific name

National Parks and Wildlife

Act 1972 IUCN (1994)

JAMBA/ CAMBA Dedicated

Species

Watkins (1993)

Musk Duck Biziura lobata Rare

Australian Shoveler

Anas rhynchotis Rare

Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa

Vulnerable Least Concern

Blue-billed Duck

Oxyura australis Rare Least Concern

Cape Barren Goose

Cereopsis novaehollandiae

Rare

Great-crested Grebe

Podiceps cristatus

Rare

Intermediate Egret

Ardea intermedia

Rare

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus

Rare CAMBA

Baillon’s Crake Porzana pusilla Rare

Golden-headed Cisticola

Cisticola exilis Rare

Australasian Bittern

Botaurus poiciloptilus

Vulnerable Vulnerable (C2a)

Lewin’s Rail Rallus pectoralis Vulnerable Near Threatened: c

Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii

Vulnerable Least Concern CAMBA

Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis

Vulnerable Vulnerable (A1b)

CAMBA

Hooded Plover Charadrius rubricollis

Vulnerable Least Conern

Little Tern Sterna albifrons Vulnerable Least Concern CAMBA, JAMBA

Fairy Tern Sterna nereis Vulnerable Least Concern

Blue-winged Parrot

Neophema chrysostoma

Vulnerable

Rufous Bristlebird

Dasyornis broadbenti

Vulnerable Least Concern

Orange-bellied Parrot

Neophema chrysogaster

Endangered Critically Endangered

(C2b)

Southern Emu Wren (Mount Lofty Ranges)

Stipiturus malachurus intermedius

Endangered Critically Endangered

(B1 + 2 abcde)

Common name

Scientific name

National Parks and Wildlife

Act 1972 IUCN (1994)

JAMBA/ CAMBA Dedicated

Species

Watkins (1993)

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

Calidris acuminate

CAMBA, JAMBA

Coorong Int. Significant

Red-necked Stint

Calidris ruficollis

CAMBA, JAMBA


Pied Oystercatcher

Haematopus longirostris


Banded Stilt Cladorhynchus leucocephalus


Sanderling Crocethia alba CAMBA, JAMBA


Curlew Sandpiper

Calidris ferruginea

CAMBA, JAMBA


Common Greenshank

Tringa nedularia

CAMBA, JAMBA


Red-necked Avocet

Recurvirostra novaehollandiae


Red-capped Plover

Charadrius ruficapillus


Pacific Golden Plover

Pluvialis fulva Coorong Nat. Significant

Ramsar bird species (Phillips and Muller 2006).

Common name Scientific name J/CAMBA or CMS SA Status

Wetland-dependent birds

Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus

Australian Darter Anhinga melanogaster

Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos

Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius

Little Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris

Great Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo

Black Swan Cygnus atratus

Australasian Shoveler Anas rhynchotis

Musk Duck Biziura lobata

Australian Shelduck Tadoma tadornoides

Chestnut Teal Anas castanea

Sptless Crake Porzana tabuensis

Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa

Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio

Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus

Little Egret Ardea garzetta

Cattle Egret Ardea ibis

Great Egret Ardea alba

White-faced Heron Ardea novaehollandiae

Rufous Night Heron Nyctorcorax caledonicus

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus

Straw-necked Ibis Threskiomis spincollis

Australian White Ibis Threskiomis molucca

Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia

Yellow-billed Spoonbill Platalea flavipes

Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris

Hooded Plover Charadrius rubricollis

Red-capped Plover Charadrius ruficapillus

Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles

Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus

Red-necked Avocet Recurvirostra novaehollandiae

Fairy Tern Sterna nereis

Crested Tern Sterna bergii

Caspian Tern Hydropogne tschegrava (Hydroprogne caspia)

Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus

Pacific Gull Larus pacificus

Silver Gull Larus navaehollandiae


Great (Oriental) Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus

Little Grassbird Megalurus gramineus

Golden-headed Cisticola Cisticola exilis

Significant wader species

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata J/CAMBA, CMS

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea J/CAMBA, CMS

Common Sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos J/CAMBA, CMS

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis CAMBA, CMS

Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus (Tringa terek) J/CAMBA, CMS

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos JAMBA, CMS

Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis J/CAMBA, CMS

Sanderling Crocethia alba J/CAMBA, CMS

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia J/CAMBA, CMS

Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis J/CAMBA, CMS V

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica J/CAMBA, CMS

Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa J/CAMBA, CMS

Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris J/CAMBA, CMS

Red Knot Calidris canutus J/CAMBA, CMS

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres J/CAMBA, CMS

Ruff Philomachus pugnax J/CAMBA, CMS

Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris

Sooty Oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosa

Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola J/CAMBA, CMS

Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva CMS

Double-banded Plover Charadrius bicinctus CMS

Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus CMS

Oriental Plover Charadrius veredus CMS

Hooded Plover Charadrius rubricollis CMS V

Red-capped Plover Charadrius ruficapillus CMS

Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles CMS

Red-necked Dotterel Erthrogonys cinctus CMS

Banded Stilt Cladorhynchus ruficapillus CMS

Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus CMS

Red-necked Avocet Recurvirostra novaehollandiae CMS

Other significant waterbirds

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus R

Hoary-headed Grebe Podiceps poliocephalus

Cape Barren Goose Cereopsis CMS R

Grey Teal Anas gracilis CMS

Lewin’s Rail Rallus pectoralis V


Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii J/CAMBA, CMS V

Little Tern Sterna albifrons J/CAMBA V

Conservation and management plans relevant to listed bird species in the Lakes and Coorong Fisheries.

Conservation and management plans Web reference

SADEH 2000. Coorong, and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar Management Plan. South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage, September 2000.

Document states ‘Some 85 species of waterbirds have been recorded in the region (Carpenter 1995)’. In contrast there are 45 species listed in the CLLAMMecology Report.

It refers to ‘the endangered Little Tern’, which is not included in the CLLAMMecology Report.

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Conservation/Rivers_wetlands/Wetlands_of_SA/Ramsar_wetlands_in_SA/The_Coorong_and_Lakes_Alexandrina_and_Albert_wetland_Ramsar_site

Phillips and Muller 2006. Ecological Character of the Coorong, Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland of International Importance. South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage.

Lists Ramsar area bird species.

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Knowledge_Bank/Science_research/Seascapes_landscapes_and_communities/Ecological_community_mapping/Wetland_inventories_and_mapping/Ecological_Character_of_the_Coorong_Lakes_Alexandrina_and_Albert_Wetland

Recovery Plan for the Fairy Tern (Australian) reported to be ‘in preparation’ as at 29 March 2012.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/fauna-plans-being-prepared.pdf

Recovery Plan for the Australasian Bittern reported to be ‘in preparation’ as at 29 March 2012.


Recovery Plan for the Orange-bellied Parrot http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/pubs/orange-bellied-parrot-recovery.pdf

No Recovery Plans were found, or said to be in preparation, for the Cape Barren Goose.



















http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/pubs/orange-bellied-parrot-recovery.pdf



Coorong Lower Lakes Habitat Mapping:

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Knowledge_Bank/Science_research/Seascapes_landscapes_and_communities/Ecological_community_mapping/Wetland_inventories_and_mapping

Predicted habitats for native birds

Table 24. Significant bird species recorded in the Ramsar Area (p. 53).

Predicted habitat for waterbirds.

This literature search identifies the following listed bird species under the EPBA Act 1999:

Australasian Bittern;

Cape Barren Goose;

Fairy Tern (Australian); and

Orange-bellied Parrot.

Additional bird species are listed as rare, vulnerable or endangered under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australian legislation):

Musk Duck;

Australian Shoveler;

Freckled Duck;

Blue-billed Duck;

Great-crested Grebe;

Intermediate Egret;

Glossy Ibis;

Baillon’s Crake

Golden-headed Cisticola;

Lewin’s Rail;

Latham’s Snipe;

Painted Snipe;

Hooded Plover;

Little Tern;

Blue-winged Parrot;

Rufous Bristlebird; and

Southern Emu Wren (Mount Lofty Ranges).




The next step is to identify which of these listed species habitats interacts with fishing activities (eg fishing gear, vessel launching and movements, bait collection). These will be the species selected for the Ecological Risk Assessment.

*there is a large number of birds in this list, they need not all be considered separately, most of them (especially shorebirds) can be assesed as a group.

Family Genus species Common Name EPBC listing State listing Possible interactions (broad category) GroupSCOLOPACIDAE Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1SCOLOPACIDAE Tringa totanus Common Redshank ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1LARIDAE Thalasseus (Sterna) bergii Crested Tern JAMBA Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1LARIDAE Chlidonias leucopterus White-winged Black Tern JAMBA, CAMBA, EPBC Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1LARIDAE Hydroprogne (Sterna) caspia Caspian Tern CAMBA, EPBC Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1ARDEIDAE Ardea ibis Cattle Egret JAMBA, CAMBA, EPBC r Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1LARIDAE Sterna hirundo Common Tern ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA r Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1ANHINGIDAE Anhinga novaehollandiae (melanogaster) Darter r Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1ARDEIDAE Ardea modesta (alba) Eastern Great Egret, (White Egret) JAMBA, CAMBA, Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1LARIDAE Sternula (Sterna) nereis Fairy Tern VU e Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1ARDEIDAE Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret r Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1LARIDAE Larus dominicanus Kelp Gull r Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1ARDEIDAE Egretta garzetta Little Egret r Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1LARIDAE Sternula (Sterna) albifrons Little Tern ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA e Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1PROCELLARIIDAE Ardenna (Puffinus) tenuirostris Short-tailed Shearwater ROKAMBA, JAMBA Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1ACCIPITRIDAE Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle CAMBA, EPBC e Piscivore: possible direct impact on fish prey resources, or indirect impact through removal of predators (larger fish) 1ANATIDAE Anas rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler r Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2ANATIDAE Tadorna tadornoides Australian Shelduck CMS, EPBC Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2ACANTHIZIDAE Cygnus atratus Black Swan CMS Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2ANATIDAE Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck r Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2ANATIDAE Anas castanea Chestnut Teal CMS, EPBC Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2ANATIDAE Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck v Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2PODICIPEDIDAE Podiceps cristatus Great Crested Grebe r Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2COLUMBIDAE Anas gracilis Grey Teal CMS Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2ANATIDAE Biziura lobata Musk Duck r Possible interaction with fishing gear, or indirect interaction through removal of predators (fish) at higher trophic levels 2SCOLOPACIDAE Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper ROKAMBA, CAMBA, CMS Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3CHARADRIIDAE Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3CHARADRIIDAE Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Phalaropus fulicarius (fulicaria) Grey Phalarope CAMBA, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3CHARADRIIDAE Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Tringa (Heteroscelus) brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3CHARADRIIDAE Thinornis rubricollis Hooded Plover CMS, Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3CHARADRIIDAE Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Numenius minutus Little Curlew ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris minuta Little Stint ROKAMBA Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3CHARADRIIDAE Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover ROKAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3CHARADRIIDAE Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover ROKAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris canutus Red Knot ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3CHARADRIIDAE Erythrogonys cinctus Red-kneed Dotterel CMS Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Philomachus pugnax Ruff ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris alba Sanderling ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Tringa incana Wandering Tattler ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, CMS, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3SCOLOPACIDAE Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper ROKAMBA, JAMBA, CAMBA, EPBC Indirect- Shorebird feeding mainly on macroinvertebrates 3

Conservation significance codes1. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) Status Australian Conservation Status Codes

VU Vulnerable: facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

International Migratory agreements:Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA), Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA), the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), and the list of migratory species under the EPBC Act.

2. SA Status South Australian Conservation Status Codes. Codes based on the current listing of species under Schedules of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Schedule 7, 8, and 9. Reviewed 21/02/2008e Endangered: (Schedule 7) in danger of becoming extinct in the wild.v Vulnerable: (Schedule 8) at risk from potential or long-term threats, which could cause the species to become endangered in the future.r Rare: (Schedule 9) low overall frequency of occurrence (may be locally common with a very restricted distribution or may be scattered sparsely over a wider area). Not currently exposed to significant threats, but warrants monitoring and protective measures to prevent reduction of population sizes.


Attachment 2

ERA Workshop Agenda and List of Participants

e-systems

Agenda

Date 20 March 2013

Location Rockford Hotel 164 Hindley Street, Adelaide (08) 8211-8255

Facilitator Richard Stoklosa, E-Systems

Purpose Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions with the Lakes and Coorong Fishery and Risk-based Framework Assessment of Ecosystem Interactions

08:30 Welcome and introductions Neil MacDonald / Richard Stoklosa

08:45 Adoption of workshop agenda and procedure Richard Stoklosa —MSC Condition 25

09:00 Description of bird interactions with fishing activities Garry Hera-Singh —Fishery management plans and mitigations

09:20 Reported data for bird interactions Jonathan McPhail

09:50 Scoping level information Group discussion —Identification of species for assessment

10:10 SICA (Level 1) assessment of bird interactions Group discussion

10:30 Morning tea

10:45 Continue SICA (Level 1) assessment of bird interactions Group discussion

12:30 Short list of research priorities to address knowledge gaps Group discussion

13:00 Lunch break

13:30 Risk-based framework for ecosystem assessment Sabine Daume

14:00 Update of ecosystem research

14:30 Assessment of ecosystem component Sabine Daume —Community and trophic interactions with the fishery

17:00 Review progress and next steps – adjourn Richard Stoklosa / Neil MacDonald

ACN 065 135 051

Pty

Lim

ite

d

205 Davey StreetHobart Tasmania 7000Telephone (03) 6224 8870Facsimile (03) 6224 [email protected]

Southern Fishermens Association

ERA of Bird Interactions in the Lakes & Coorong Fishery

Workshop Participants 20 March 2013

Name Company Title / position

Participants

Delan Dennis Lakes & Coorong Fisher Owner/operator

Greg Ferguson South Australian Research and Development Institute

Fisheries Biologist

Ian Fitzgerald Recfish SA Secretary

Garry Hera-Singh Lakes & Coorong Fisher Owner/operator

Jase Higham Dept of Environment, Water and Natural Resources SA

Manager, Environmental Analysis

Gloria Jones Lakes & Coorong Fisher Manager, PA

Henry Jones Lakes & Coorong Fisher River Murray Advisory Board, MDBA Basin Community Committee, Environmentalist

Glen Hill Southern Fishermens Association, Fisher/processor

Director/operator

Neil MacDonald Southern Fishermens Association

Executive Officer

Jonathan McPhail Primary Industries and Regions SA

Acting Lakes & Coorong Manager

Dan Rogers Dept of Environment, Water and Natural Resources SA

Ecologist

Facilitator

Richard Stoklosa E-Systems ERA Workshop Facilitator

e-systems

e-systems

Name Company Title / position

Observers

Sabine Daume Scientific Certification Services (MSC Certifying Body Team)

Manager, Sustainable Seafood Certification

Mary Lack Shellack Pty Ltd (MSC Certifying Body Team)

Fisheries Management Consultant

Sandy Morison Morison Aquatic Sciences (MSC Certifying Body Team)

Fisheries Scientist

Trevor Ward Greenward Consulting (MSC Certifying Body Team)

Ecologist


Attachment 3

Workshop Presentations

24/04/2013

1

WelcomeSOUTHERN FISHERMEN’S ASSOC. INC.

Welcome

The SFA thanks you for your participation and attendance in p ppart of the 2013 Fishery Assessment Process

Condition 25

SOUTHERN FISHERMEN’S ASSOC. INC.

In this Condition, the client needs to provide evidence of a cooperative process that involves the RAMSAR and National Park managers and other stakeholders to assess, and as necessary mitigate, the level of trophic‐food web risks of the fishery (from bycatch or the removal of target species) to the ecosystem, habitats and non‐target species of the three main fishery areas (freshwater, Coorong lagoons, ocean beach). This might be best achieved through a qualitative risk assessmentThis might be best achieved through a qualitative risk assessment process conducted cooperatively with the park and fishery management agencies after the FRDC bycatch project has been completed, in a manner consistent with that of the AFMA/CSIRO risk assessment methodology – Level 1 (4 years). Condition 24 will resolve concerns about the impacts of bycatch from the fishery.

24/04/2013

2

THE FISHERY

SOUTHERN FISHERMEN’S ASSOC. INC.

Coorong Classified Area

LegendNo. Catch & effort reporting blocks

Coorong Classified Area

LegendNo. Catch & effort reporting blocks

Coorong Classified AreaCoorong Classified Area

17/05/2013

1

Ecological Risk Assessment for BirdsCondition 25. Client Action Plan

Southern Fisherman's Association20/03/13

•36 licenses •33 owner operators•GVP $6.6 million (2010)•GSV $30.3 million, •45 FTE’s, 44 Part time

17/05/2013

2

LOW IMPACT VESSELS

17/05/2013

3

LOW IMPACTMETHODS

Main Fishing Methods

• Static Set Nets (mullet, mulloway, golden h)perch)

• Swinger Net (mulloway)

• Cockle Rake

More than 90% of catch is by these methods

/1980/81‐ 4,571 com. nets in L&CF at 50 metres

2012/13 – 1,300 com. nets in L&CF at 50 metres

N.B. Recreational nets – more than 1500 @ 75 metres in length

17/05/2013

4

Tauwitchere Barrage

/2007/08

17/05/2013

5

17/05/2013

6

12 years of assisting Coorong bird counts

17/05/2013

7

Multi-SpeciesRotational harvest

4/24/2013

1

MANAGEMENT OF THE LAKES AND COORONG

FISHERY

D�� 19�3�2013

J�� M�P��

A�� L�� C��

F�� M��

ERA – B�� I��

Overview

• Fisheries Management Act 2007

• The Management Arrangements of the LCF

• Reporting of interactions with Threatened, Endangered and Protected species

4/24/2013

2

The Fisheries Management Act 2007

• Conserve & manage aquatic resources

• Protect aquatic habitat & ecosystems

• Share access so the whole community gets the maximum possible benefit

• Foster recreational & commercial fishing activities

Fisheries Management Principles

• Protect juveniles to ensure future recruitment to the fishable biomass (protection from growth over-fishing)

• Protect adequate fraction of the adult biomass to ensure sufficient reproduction of new recruits (protection from recruitment over-fishing)

• Protect nursery grounds and critical habitat to ensure long term fish stock health

• Protect against economic overfishing and over capitalisation

4/24/2013

3

• Small Scale, Multi-species, Multi-method

• 36 Licence holders

• Managed through input and outputs

•First LCF Management Plan implemented - 1998

Management of Lakes and Coorong Fishery

Management of Lakes and Coorong FisheryDevice Restriction Dimensions

Mesh nets (Coorong Area 1)

Small mesh monofilament Large mesh monofilament

Max length 50m, with a combined total length of 500m 50m, with a combined total length of 500m.

Min mesh size 50mm 115mm Max mesh size 64mm 150mm Maximum drop 33 meshes 2m Min break strain 5.5kg 7kg

Max number

The number endorsed on a licence, subject to: - A maximum of 11 mesh nets (50m) may be joined together and used a single net; and -If a net with a mesh size greater than 150mm is used, only 5 may be used at any one time.

Mesh nets (Coorong Area 2)

Small mesh monofilament Large mesh monofilament

Max length 50m, with a combined total length of 550m 50m, with a combined total length of 550m.

Min mesh size 50mm 115mm Max mesh size 64mm None

Maximum drop 50 meshes 2m

Min break strain 5.5kg 7kg

Max number

The number endorsed on a licence, subject to: - A maximum of 11 mesh nets (50m) may be joined together and used a single net; and - If a net with a mesh size greater than 150mm is used, only 5 may be used at any one time.

4/24/2013

4


Mesh nets (Coorong coastal waters)

Small mesh monofilament Large mesh monofilament Max length 50m, with a combined total length of 600m Min mesh size 50mm 115mm Max mesh size 64mm None

Maximum drop Max depth of 1m below water surface 2m

Min break strain 5.5kg 7kg

Max number The number endorsed on a licence, subject to: - One mesh net may be used at any one time.

Mesh nets (Lakes Alexandrina, Albert)

Max length 50m, with a combined total length of 550m Min mesh size 50mmMax mesh size NoneMaximum drop 5mMin break strain NoneMax number The number endorsed on a licence (max of 100) Max length 50m, with a combined total length of 550m

Swinger nets (Coorong coastal waters)

Max length 100mMin mesh size 120mm

Max mesh size None

Min break strain 9kg

Max rope length 600m

Max number 1


Hauling nets - Coorong Area 1 - Coorong Area 2 - Coorong coastal waters

Small mesh monofilament Large mesh monofilament Max length 400m - Coorong Area 1 – 240m

- Coorong Area 2 – 400m- Coorong coastal waters –600m

Min mesh size 50mm 95mm Max mesh size 64mm None Min ply 15 21 Max rope length 100m 50mMax number 1 Max number Maximum drop None Maximum drop Power hauling Not permitted Power hauling

Hauling nets (Lakes Alexandrina, Albert)

Max length Power hauling net - 600m- Manual hauling net - none

Min mesh size None Max mesh size None Maximum drop 10mMax number 1

Cockle nets Max number Number endorsed on licence; 1 per licensee and agent/s

Cockle rakes Max number Number endorsed on licence; 1 per licensee and agent/s

Crab rake Max number Number endorsed on licence; 1 per licensee and agent/s

Dab nets Max number Number endorsed on licence Drum nets Max number Number endorsed on licence Drop/hoop nets Max number Number endorsed on licence Bait net Max number 1 Yabbie trap Max number Number endorsed on licence,

maximum of 100 Shrimp trap Max number Number endorsed on licence Set line Max Length None

Max no. of hooks 400 hooks Razor fish tongs Maximum number Number endorsed on licence; 1 per licensee and agent/s Fish spear Maximum number Number endorsed on licence; 1 per licensee and agent/s

4/24/2013

5

Research for the Lakes and Coorong Fishery

• Stock Status

• Stock Assessment

• Other Research projects

TEP’s Species Log Book

• Implemented Threatened, Endangered and protected species logbook in 2007/08

• Three TEP’s reports produced

• Two interactions with birds 2007/08 and 2008/09


Attachment 4

SICA Results for Boat-based Fishing Interactions

Summary of SICA results – Boat-based fishing.

Direct impact of Fishing

Fishing Activity

Pre

senc

e (1

)

Abs

ence

(0)

Spat

ial s

cale

of

Haz

ard

(1-6

)

Tem

pora

l sca

le o

f H

azar

d (1

-6)

Sub-component Unit of analysis

Ope

rati

onal

ob

ject

ive

(fro

m S

2.1)

Inte

nsit

y Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

sequ

ence

Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

fide

nce

scor

e (1

-2)

Rationale

Direct capture

Bait collection 0

Fishing 1 3 5 Population size Diving birds: Great Crested Grebe, Musk Duck

1 1 2 Code of Conduct to avoid interactions with birds. These species do not greatly overlap areas of fishing effort. Nets have gaps to enable diving birds to avoid nets.

150m exclusion zones at barrages where birds congregate, excluding fishing activities.

Fishing 1 3 5 Population size Fairy Tern Fairy Tern forages for small fish near the surface, in shallow areas or places where schools of small fish are forced to shallow water, which do not overlap with areas of fishing effort. Even night time fishing for Mullet in shallow water does not overlap with the foraging time for Fairy Terns.

Not considered a credible threat.

Incidental behaviour

0

Direct impact without capture

Bait collection 0

Fishing 0

Provisioning 1 Behaviour/ movement

Pelicans, Silver Gulls (not listed species)

Not a threat to listed species.

Pelicans and Silver Gulls are not adversely impacted.

Activity/ presence on water

0


0


Fishing Activity

Pre

senc

e (1

)

Abs

ence

(0)

Spat

ial s

cale

of

Haz

ard

(1-6

)

Tem

pora

l sca

le o

f H

azar

d (1

-6)


Ope

rati

onal

ob

ject

ive

(fro

m S

2.1)

Inte

nsit

y Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

sequ

ence

Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

fide

nce

scor

e (1

-2)

Rationale

Addition/ movement of biological material

Translocation of species

0

On board processing

0

Discarding catch

0

Stock enhancement

0

Provisioning 1 3 5 Behaviour/ movement

Pelicans Not a threat to any listed species (Pelicans and Silver Gulls are not listed).

Organic waste disposal

0

Addition of non-biological material

Debris 1

Fishermen are a source of the removal of debris as a result of fishing activities.

Chemical pollution 0

Exhaust 0

Gear loss 0

Navigation/ steaming

0


0


Fishing Activity

Pre

senc

e (1

)

Abs

ence

(0)

Spat

ial s

cale

of

Haz

ard

(1-6

)

Tem

pora

l sca

le o

f H

azar

d (1

-6)


Ope

rati

onal

ob

ject

ive

(fro

m S

2.1)

Inte

nsit

y Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

sequ

ence

Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

fide

nce

scor

e (1

-2)

Rationale

Disturb physical processes

Bait collection 0

Fishing 1 Not considered a credible threat.

Boat launching 1 Not considered a credible threat.

Anchoring/ mooring

1



1


External hazards

(specify the particular example within each activity area)

Other fisheries 0

Aquaculture 0

Coastal development

0

Other extractive activities

0

Other non extractive activities

0

Other anthropogenic activities

0


Attachment 5

SICA Results for Shore-based Fishing Interactions

Summary of SICA results – Shore-based fishing.


Fishing Activity

Pre

senc

e (1

)

Abs

ence

(0)

Spat

ial s

cale

of

Haz

ard

(1-6

)

Tem

pora

l sca

le o

f H

azar

d (1

-6)


Ope

rati

onal

ob

ject

ive

(fro

m S

2.1)

Inte

nsit

y Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

sequ

ence

Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

fide

nce

scor

e (1

-2)

Rationale, management plans

Capture Bait collection 0

Fishing 1 6 3 Pipi fishing will be allowed year-round. Historically most of effort over summer period. m length).


0

Direct impact without capture

Bait collection 0

Fishing 1


1 6 3 Reproductive capacity from destruction of eggs or abandonment of nests.

Hooded Plover (nests above water line in dry sand)

1 1 2 Vehicle traffic on marked tracks across dunes to beach. Beach closure to recreational fishers Oct-Dec (Plovers nest after Dec). Wheel ruts encourage locations for Plover nests. Vehicles drive on firm sand of beach, avoiding interaction with nesting sites in softer dry sand. Only place where interaction is likely to occur is where the marked track meets the beach, where Plovers are not likely to be present due to vehicle and foot traffic. Range of nesting habitat extends for 100km along the beach.

Fishermen actively avoid nests, awareness of potential impacts is high.

Nesting behaviour and requirements have been the subject of scientific studies in Coorong and elsewhere (follow up with DEWNR, Parks Management Plans).2

Consensus of experts.


Fishing Activity

Pre

senc

e (1

)

Abs

ence

(0)

Spat

ial s

cale

of

Haz

ard

(1-6

)

Tem

pora

l sca

le o

f H

azar

d (1

-6)


Ope

rati

onal

ob

ject

ive

(fro

m S

2.1)

Inte

nsit

y Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

sequ

ence

Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

fide

nce

scor

e (1

-2)

Rationale, management plans


1 6 3 Behaviour/ movement (birds temporarily disturbed from brooding behaviour)

Fairy Tern 1 1 – 2 2 Fairy Terns nest on islands in the Coorong as preferred breeding habitat (proximity to food sources). Foxes and high water make nesting in dunes unsuccessful. Birds nest in dunes during extended periods of low or no flow—the reason being the food availability around preferred nesting sites was no longer there.

Nesting occurs in tight (dense) colonies, generally in open areas that are easily detected by drivers.

Areas adjacent to beach access are fenced by DEWNR to protect nesting areas (mainly from foxes), as part of the Threatened Species Recovery Plan.

Fishermen contribute to bird count studies and management of water flows into the L&CF. Strong advocacy for environmental improvements to the system.

Consensus of experts and data from observations.

Gear loss 0

Anchoring/ mooring

0


0

Activity/ presence on land

1 Bird behaviour does not appear to be impacted from the presence of fishers. Birds ‘acclimatize’ to the presence of fishermen.

Not considered a credible threat to TEP species.


Fishing Activity

Pre

senc

e (1

)

Abs

ence

(0)

Spat

ial s

cale

of

Haz

ard

(1-6

)

Tem

pora

l sca

le o

f H

azar

d (1

-6)


Ope

rati

onal

ob

ject

ive

(fro

m S

2.1)

Inte

nsit

y Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

sequ

ence

Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

fide

nce

scor

e (1

-2)

Rationale

Addition/ movement of biological material

Translocation of species

0

On board processing

0

Discarding catch

0

Stock enhancement

0

Provisioning (providing food source to other species)

1 Grading of pipis on the beach, which are recorded. Graded pipis are generally left below the water line. Occasional bycatch of small swimmer crabs.

Release of fish from swinger nets (non-retained species), which are very large due to large mesh size (not consumed by Pelicans). Methods avoid undersize fish.

Provisioning is not considered a credible threat to TEP bird species

Organic waste disposal

0

Addition of non-biological material

Debris 0

Chemical pollution

0

Exhaust 0

Gear loss 1 Not considered a credible threat to TEP bird species.

Navigation/ steaming 0


0


Fishing Activity

Pre

senc

e (1

)

Abs

ence

(0)

Spat

ial s

cale

of

Haz

ard

(1-6

)

Tem

pora

l sca

le o

f H

azar

d (1

-6)


Ope

rati

onal

ob

ject

ive

(fro

m S

2.1)

Inte

nsit

y Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

sequ

ence

Sc

ore

(1-6

)

Con

fide

nce

scor

e (1

-2)

Rationale

Disturb physical processes

Bait collection 0

Fishing 1 Not considered a credible threat to TEP bird species.

Boat launching 0

Anchoring/ mooring

0


0

External hazards

(specify the particular example within each activity area)

Other fisheries 0

Aquaculture 0

Coastal development

0

Other extractive activities

0

Other non extractive activities

0

Other anthropogenic activities

0

Documents

Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions The …€¦ · 2 Ecological Risk Assessment of Listed Bird Interactions The Lakes and Coorong Fisheries e-systems Introduction