Trial of near shore artificial reefs to enhance pier based recreational fishing

Recreational Fishing Grants Program Research Report

Trial of near shore artificial reefs to enhance pier based recreational fishing

Paul Hamer and Kade Mills

December 2015

Recreational Fishing Grants Program Research Report

© The State of Victoria Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Printed by DEDJTR Queenscliff, Victoria Preferred way to cite this publication: Hamer, P., Mills, K. (2015) Trial of nearshore artificial reefs to enhance pier based recreational fishing. Recreational Fishing Grants Program Research Report

ISBN 978‐1‐74146‐830‐4 (Print)

Accessibility If you would like to receive this publication in an alternative format, please telephone the Customer Service Centre 136 186, email [email protected] , via the National Relay Service on 133 677 www.relayservice.com.au. This document is also available on the internet at www.economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au

Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program ii

Contents

Executive summary 1

Introduction 3

Methods 8

Results 19

Fish communities 19 Macro-inverts/exotics and fouling community 29 Angler surveys 33 Artificial reef physical resilience 44

Discussion 45

Conclusions 49 Recommendations 49

Acknowledgements 50

References 51

Data Appendices 53

BRUV and visual surveys 53 Recreational angler surveys 62

Other Appendices 68

Appendix 1 - Summary of consultation activities and responses 68 Appendix 2 – Creel and perception survey question sheets 71 Appendix 3 – Media articles 74 Appendix 4 – Fact sheets 86 Appendix 5 - Signage 90

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program iii

Executive summary

Habitat enhancement is viewed by recreational anglers as an important activity for sustaining and improving recreational fishing opportunities in Victoria. In Port Phillip Bay, there is a small amount of natural rocky reef habitat (less than 1% of the bay’s sub-tidal area). The large areas of biogenic reef (i.e. reef made of shellfish and other invertebrates and algae) that once existed have also been mostly lost over the last century due to a range of impacts (i.e. dredge fishing, chemical pollutants, sedimentation and exotic species introductions). It is thought that production, aggregation behaviour and diversity of recreational fishery species in Port Phillip Bay have been altered by changes to the availability and quality of reef type habitat. Well planned and designed artificial or ‘man-made’ reef habitat is one option to increasing reef habitat availability at local-scales, and can provide for enhanced recreational fishing opportunities. This project conducted the first trial of artificial reefs in shallow near shore waters (< 5 m depth) accessible to land-based anglers, in Port Phillip Bay. It follows the earlier trial of deeper water artificial reefs in Port Phillip Bay, and tests the feasibility of using near shore artificial reefs to provide increased fish diversity and improved fishing opportunities for land-based anglers. The trial, importantly also provides an evaluation of the positive and potentially negative impacts of near shore reefs, at a ‘low-risk’ small-scale, that will inform risk assessment, planning and design of any future application of near shore artificial reefs in Victorian marine and estuarine waters. This trial of near shore artificial reefs had the primary objectives of:  Enhancing fishing opportunities for land-based anglers;  Evaluating the benefits of near-shore fishing reefs to recreational anglers;  Involve anglers in the planning and evaluation of a localised fishing and habitat enhancement project; and  Assessing specified ecological risks associated with near-shore artificial reefs in Port Phillip Bay. The trial occurred at three locations: Altona Pier, Frankston Pier, and the rock wall section of Portarlington Pier. The Portarlington artificial reef was deployed in September 2012, the Altona reef in October 2012, and the Frankston reef in November 2012. At each location approximately 100 reef modules (combination of Reef Balls and Aqua Trees) were deployed as three adjacent sub-reefs of 33 modules each. Initially the modules were arranged to form a series of patch reefs approximately 40-50 m from the fishing platforms. However, after the first year of angler and visual surveys, feedback on snagging issues and tackle accumulation at the Altona and Portarlington sites, where long-casting surf rods are commonly used, guided a modification of the designs that involved moving the central portion of the reef at Altona, and the two end sections of the reef at Portarlington to a distance of 60-70 m out from the fishing platforms. This modification, along with installation of signage, resolved the snagging issue. The Frankston reef was not modified from the original lay-out as there were no immediate indications of enhanced snagging issues at this location. However, despite signage being added, recent follow up discussions with avid anglers at Frankston Pier suggest that a similar modification is warranted at Frankston to reduce angler snagging and tackle loss over the long-term. Because the reef modules are individual units, modification of reef lay-outs is relatively straight forward using divers and air lift bags. The monitoring and evaluation program involved a control - impact approach, along with a baseline survey of the control and impact sites prior to the artificial reefs being deployed. The ‘impact’ sites were the sites on which the reefs were deployed and the control sites were nearby similar areas of seabed sediment without reef and nearby natural reef comparison sites. The control/comparison sites were situated approximately 1-2 km from the artificial reef sites. The survey methods included: visual surveys of fish and invertebrate communities, baited remote underwater video (BRUV) sampling, and creel/perception surveys of anglers fishing on the three piers. The reefs were rapidly colonised by invertebrates and algae and the local fish communities clearly changed in response to the deployment of the artificial reefs. Depending on the locations, at 1-2 years post deployment, there were 4-9 times more species detected at the artificial reef areas after the reefs were deployed, compared to 2-3 times more species detected on the sediment controls and natural reef comparison sites over the same sampling periods. The near shore artificial reef fish community was a mixture of reef and sediment species more typical of a natural patch reef or reef edge community reflecting the patchy nature of the artificial reef design. Three of the top five species that drove the similarity across the three artificial reefs were recreational target species; Australian Salmon, Silver Trevally and Snapper. In particular, juvenile snapper were highly abundant around the artificial reef habitat, particularly the Frankston Pier reef, and Silver Trevally increased in abundance at the Portarlington artificial reef. Further, there were notable aggregations of Calamari squid observed on several occasions at the Frankston artificial reef. The creel and perception surveys connected with over 500 anglers, and along with follow up phone calls with avid anglers, indicated differing opinions as to changes in the fishing experience after the reefs were created. Support for

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 1

artificial reefs by pier-based anglers in general was overwhelmingly positive, consistent with previous surveys of boat- based anglers. Near shore artificial reefs have potential for enhancing local fish community diversity and abundance, and in-turn recreational fishing opportunities. Local context is however important in predicting ecological responses, and designing reefs for species targeting preferences and fishing methods. Importantly, this study showed no major negative or unintended consequences of the artificial reefs in the near shore environment, suggesting that when well-planned and designed, they can be a low risk option for enhancing near shore reef habitat availability at local-scales. While snagging was raised as an issue at some locations, this was relatively easily resolved by reconfiguration of reef layouts, made possible by using individual movable modules. The project outcomes provide a template for future near shore artificial reefs, including design aspects, reef module resilience and ecological responses to artificial reefs deployed in the near shore environment.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 2

Introduction

Artificial reefs are structures constructed of either man-made or natural products placed on the seafloor that can result in localised increases in the diversity and availability of recreational fishery target species. Artificial reefs may have the dual benefits to anglers of providing increased or more consistent catch rates or ‘strike rates’ at the local-scale while alleviating pressure from existing natural habitat features or over-crowding at traditional fishing marks. Furthermore, where population growth of a targeted species is limited by the availability of structural habitat itself, or the associated food resources, artificial reefs have the potential to increase fish production through facilitating increased growth and or survival rates. Net production benefits from artificial reefs will, ultimately, be determined by the species life-history, scale (habitat area) of the artificial reefs and the amount of exploitation of the target species occurring on the reefs (Grossman, Jones et al. 1997; Pickering 1997; Pitcher and Seaman 2000; Polovina 1991). Based on the processes of attraction and production that influence fish abundances on artificial reefs (Bohnsack 1989), small-scale artificial reefs aimed at recreational fisheries enhancement would be assumed to rely mostly on the fish attraction properties of the reefs to deliver enhanced fishing.

In Port Phillip Bay, there is a very small amount of natural rocky reef habitat (< 1% of the bay’s sub-tidal area) which is mostly distributed around the fringing shallow waters, and the large areas of biogenic reef (i.e. reef made of shellfish and other invertebrates and algae) that once existed in deeper waters have been mostly lost due to a range of past and ongoing impacts (i.e. dredge fishing, chemical pollutants, sedimentation and exotic species introductions). It is thought that production and diversity of recreational fishery species in Port Phillip Bay may now be limited by lack of structured benthic habitat. The creation of artificial or ‘man-made’ reef habitat is an option for increasing reef habitat availability at local-scales. Artificial reefs are not new to Port Phillip Bay. A number of reefs comprised of second use or ‘waste materials’ such as tyres, concrete pipes, and scuttled vessels were constructed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well as unintentional reefs created by vessel and aeroplane accidents (Beinssen 1976; Pollard 1989; Winstanley 1972). While some of these structures continue to provide popular recreational fishing sites today, others apparently quickly disappeared under the soft muds, and the structural status of most of these old artificial reefs is unknown. Furthermore, the social, ecological, and fishery benefits or impacts of these reefs were never assessed (Coutin 2001). There is much interest in the application of artificial reefs for fisheries enhancement in Victoria. However, decisions to invest in an expanded artificial reef building program need to be underpinned by understanding of the risks, costs and benefits. The best way to develop this understanding is through trial projects that test various aspects of reef performance in a controlled way, at a ‘low risk’ scale, and in different physical, ecological and fishing contexts.

Recently a trial of artificial reefs for enhancing boat based fishing in Port Phillip Bay was conducted using purpose designed reef modules – Reef Balls (Fig. 2) (http://www.reefballaustralia.com.au/) (Hamer et al. 2011). This study used a variety of methods at three locations in 11-12 m water depth to measure the responses of fish and macro invertebrate communities, and fishing performance to artificial reef creation. The result indicated that the creation of the Reef Ball reefs resulted in a substantial increase in local fish diversity (approximately 1.5 times higher number of species than sediment control sites) and overall higher fish abundance than both sediment controls and natural reef comparison sites. Abundance of the main local recreational target species, snapper Pagrus auratus, was enhanced above sediment controls, particularly for smaller juvenile and sub-adult snapper. The results of the trial also indicated that the Reef Balls were structurally resilient to anchoring and other hydrodynamic effects in those water depths and that there were no notable adverse impacts in relation to locally enhanced populations of exotic “pest” species, in particular the North Pacific seastar, Asterias ammurensis.

The generally positive results for this previous trial project supported the extension of artificial reef creation in Port Phillip Bay to near shore, shallow water environments accessible to land-based anglers. Artificial reefs built in shallow water are subject to increased wave action, water flow, light penetration, and are associated with different sediment characteristics and sediment movement dynamics. Further, they may be closer to natural reefs and or man-made hard structures. The different physical and environmental features of shallow water environments may lead to different physical, social and ecological outcomes from artificial reef creation. Further, the interaction between fishers casting laterally from land-based points and those fishing from boats, with artificial reefs may be different (e.g. snagging, tackle loss). Further, when working close to shore other factors such as navigation risk for vessels and other local planning issues, consultation requirements etc. may be important and or limit site selection, design and approval processes/success.

This project involved trialling artificial reefs created in shallow waters within casting distance of three popular land based fishing platforms in Port Phillip Bay: Altona Pier, Frankston Pier, and the Portarlington Pier – rock wall section (Fig. 1). The reefs were deployed between September - November 2012, after consultation with a range of stakeholder groups (appendix 1), the granting of approval under the Coastal Management Act 1995, and works authority approvals from Parks Victoria.

The objectives were:

1. To enhance fishing opportunities for land-based anglers through the deployment of three near-shore recreational fishing reefs in Port Phillip Bay.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 3

2. To involve angling groups in the planning and evaluation of a localised fishing and habitat enhancement program.

3. To provide an evaluation of the benefits of near-shore fishing reefs to recreational anglers.

4. To provide an assessment of specified ecological risks associated with near-shore man made reefs in Port Phillip Bay.

Each reef was comprised of 99 reef modules that were a combination of two different sized Reef Balls and a newly developed, more complex module design, called an ‘Aqua Tree’ (Fig. 2). Initially the modules were laid out in clusters arranged to form an arc approximately 40-50 m from the fishing platforms (i.e. see Frankston Pier layout, Fig. 3). However, after the first year of angler surveys, feedback on snagging issues at the Altona and Portarlington sites, where long-casting surf rods are often used, guided a modification of the designs that involved moving the central portion of the reef at Altona, and the two end sections of the reef at Portarlington to a distance of 60-70m out from the fishing platforms (as depicted in Figure. 3). The Frankston reef was not modified as there were no indications of enhanced snagging issues at this location at this time. The reefs were monitored by a number of techniques (outlined in the methods sections) for approximately 18 months after their deployment. This report primarily describes the outcomes of this monitoring and evaluation in relation to the above objectives.

Figure 1 Map of Port Phillip Bay (left) showing locations of the three piers where the near shore artificial reefs were trialled, and (right) images of the pier sections that the artificial reefs were placed adjacent to.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 4

Figure 2 Images and dimensions of reef modules used to create the near shore artificial reefs, (top) Reef Balls, (mid) Aqua Trees, Aqua Tree with Reef Ball (bottom).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 5

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs



6

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Figure 3 Diagrams of the artificial reef layouts at Altona Pier, Frankston Pier, and adjacent to the rock wall section of Portarlington Pier (top panes). Aerial view of the Frankston Pier with artificial reef (bottom right pane) and schematic of a reef section layout (bottom left pane).

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs



7

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Figure 4 Assorted images of the artificial reefs 1-2 years after deployment. a) Aqua Tree module one year post deployment – Portarlington, b) reef modules with juvenile Snapper – Frankston, c) cluster of reef modules with Goatfish (red mullet) - Frankston, d) baited video grab with reef modules, Silver Trevally and Globe fish (tail in foreground) – Portarlington, e) Aqua Tree one year post deployment– Altona, f) Aqua Tree two years post deployment– Altona, g) Reef Ball two years post deployment – Altona, h) baited video grab with reef modules, Goat fish and Bridled Leather Jackets – Frankston, i) baited video grab with reef modules, Silver Trevally and Smooth Ray (back left) – Portarlington, j) baited video grab with reef modules and juvenile Snapper – Frankston, k) baited video grab with reef modules and Calamari squid – Frankston, l) baited video grab with reef modules and Australian Salmon – Portarlington.

Methods

Choosing locations The three locations chosen for this project were selected based on consideration of the following 10 criteria:

1. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location will not create a boating or shipping hazard. 2. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location does not pose unacceptable risks to the environment. This includes recreational catch of listed species, interactions with protected marine life, birds and mammals, pollution, damage to existing significant areas of structural habitats such as reefs, seagrass beds, sponge gardens or other significant biogenic habitat, introduction of new exotic pest species. 3. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location does not impact on the cultural and heritage value of the site (i.e. ship wrecks, sites of significance to traditional owners). 4. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location has clear potential to meet the objectives of the reef installations. 5. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location will not unduly compromise other non-recreational fishing users of the waters, seabed or land-based fishing structure (i.e. pier/rock wall). 6. Establishment of the reefs at the specified site is supported by identified key stakeholders, managers, councils and user groups of the sites. 7. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location is acceptable by relevant state and local government agencies involved in approvals. 8. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location is consistent with the user capacity, longevity, integrity and ongoing upkeep of the land-based fishing structure. 9. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location does not conflict with other special management arrangements or planning schemes for the location. 10. Establishment of the reefs at the specified location is unlikely to result in undesirable impacts on sedimentation processes. The Portarlington Pier rock wall section, Altona Pier, and Frankston Pier sites (Fig. 1) were further supported through consultation with the then –DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment), PV (Parks Victoria), local councils and community groups, local angling groups and recreational fishing stakeholder representatives. The consultation details for each location are summarised in Appendix 1.

Reef construction materials

The three artificial reefs were constructed from a combination of ‘Reef Balls’ (Bay Balls and Mini Bay Balls) and a new artificial reef module called an ‘Aqua Tree’ (Fig. 2). These reef modules are made of marine suitable concrete which includes mineral additives to create a super-strong, abrasion-resistant structure with a pH similar to ocean waters. The modules do not have steel rebar but use river pebbles (Reef balls) and or coarse sand (Aqua Trees) as a binding matrix, which also provides a desirable rough surface texture. The components of the reef modules meet the requirements of the Australian Standard AS1379 (Specification and supply of concrete) and quality requirements to minimise permeability and increase strength and durability in the marine environment The concrete mixes do not contain industrial waste products that may have contained trace amounts of toxic substances. Estimated lifespan in seawater is in excess of 100 years.

Due to concerns from PV (managers of the three piers) in relation to navigation risks close to piers the reef height above the seabed had to be restricted to less than 0.8 m. Commercial fishing was excluded from the areas of the artificial reefs by a Fisheries Notice.

Reef design

Reefs were designed as three replicated reef sets (sections), with each section comprised of 7 clusters of reef modules (Fig. 3). The distances between the reef modules within each cluster was determined to ensure that the ratio of the total area of the reef module bases to the projection area of the cluster (i.e. including the interstitial sediments) was approximately 50%. The distances between the clusters within each reef section was determined to ensure that the area of the reef module bases was at least 10% of the total projection area of the reef sections. These ratios considered recommendations from earlier studies that artificial reef projection area should be no more than 20 times the sum of the individual seabed areas occupied by the reef modules (Nakamura 1985).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 8

Site descriptions

Portarlington Pier - rock wall

Portarlington Pier rock wall (Fig. 5 a, c) is part of the Portarlington Pier situated at the town of Portarlington on the Bellarine Peninsula (Melway 444 H6). The rock wall section of the pier is approximately 200 m in length and is comprised of basalt boulders. It has a sealed walkway along its entirety (Fig. 5 c). The pier precinct is well served with car parking and toilet facilities. The pier and rock wall are managed by Parks Victoria, and the coastal land adjacent to the pier is managed by the Bellarine Bayside Foreshore Committee who also manage the rubbish bins and rubbish collection on the pier.

Figure 5 Images of Portarlington Pier and rock wall

The rock wall section of the Portarlington pier is primarily used for recreational fishing and sightseeing/walking along the sealed walkway. Spear fishing and SCUBA diving may occur occasionally along the outer margin of the rock wall, and inside the harbour, although spearfishing is actually prohibited within 30 m of a pier or jetty in Victoria. The pier is a working port facility catering to the local fishing and aquaculture industry. As such vessels are permanently moored inside the rock wall section (Fig. 5 a) and vehicles access the pier for loading and unloading of vessels. Vessel docking occurs both on the western end of the pier section and at the piers lower landings inside the rock wall. The pier section is a popular recreational fishing site, and although officially prohibited, jumping off and swimming adjacent to the pier section is a common occurrence in the summer months. There are no bird nesting sites or marine mammal haul outs along the rock wall.

Sub-tidal environment-Portarlington Pier

The sub-tidal environment adjacent to and seaward of the rock wall is characterised predominantly by unvegetated firm sandy substrate with occasional sparse areas of mixed Halophila seagrass and Caulerpa sp., occasional Pyura stolonifera (cunji) and Seballa spallanzani (exotic Mediterranean fanworm), and the seastars, Coscinasterias muricata

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 9

(native 11 arm seastar), Asterias amurensis (exotic North Pacific seastar) and Tosia sp. (Fig. 6). Undaria pinnatifida (exotic wakame – Japanese seaweed) occurs on the pier and rock wall structures amongst mixed stands of Sargassum sp. and Ecklonia radiata. The nearest natural reef to Portarlington Pier is situated approximately 300 m to the east. The substrate is highly suitable to support the reef structures. The zone where the artificial reef is located has a depth range on the lowest astronomical tide of 4.0–4.6 m and for the lowest recorded tide of 3.6–4.0 m

Figure 6 Representative images of the seabed at the artificial reef location approximately 30-50 m off the Portarlington Pier rock wall section.

Altona Pier

Altona pier (Fig. 7) is located at the end of Pier Street, Altona (Melway 54 H12). The pier is approximately 240 m in length and is constructed of wood (Fig. 7). It has three lower landings, two of these are on either side of the pier at the seaward end, and another is on the western side of the pier about two thirds along the pier from the shoreline (Fig. 7 a). Most of the recreational fishing occurs from the end section of the pier (Fig. 7 b, c). The pier structure is managed by Parks Victoria and the pier is located within the jurisdiction of the Hobson’s Bay City Council. There are no rubbish bins on the pier; however parking, rubbish bins and toilet facilities are available on the adjacent shoreline.

The main uses of Altona Pier are recreational fishing and sightseeing/walking. Jumping off the pier and swimming adjacent to the pier is common in the summer months, although this activity is officially prohibited. Snorkelling, spear fishing and SCUBA diving are occasional occurrences under and around the pier structure – although spear fishing is officially prohibited within 30 m of the pier. There is facility for vessels to tie up to the pier at the lower landings. Vessel use of the pier is considered infrequent.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 10

Figure 7 Images of Altona Pier

Sub-tidal environment – Altona Pier

The sub-tidal environment off Altona Pier is characterised by a firm substrate comprised of unvegetated sand. Areas of detached algal/seagrass drift occur; however, attached macro-algae, seagrass or sessile macro invertebrates are uncommon (Fig. 8). Species of seastar; including the native 11 arm, Coscinasterias muricata and the exotic North Pacific Seastar, Asterias amurensis were observed in low numbers in the proposed reef area. The exotic Japanese wakame seaweed Undaria pinnatifida was observed on the adjacent pier structure along with Sabella spallanzana. Undaria is also common on the nearby natural reefs. The nearest natural reef habitat to the artificial reef site is approximately 350 m to the east. The substrate is highly suitable to support the reef structures. The height of the largest reef module resulted in a minimum depth above the reef complex at lowest astronomical tide of 2.4–2.9m.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 11

Figure 8 Representative images of the seabed at the artificial reef location approximately 40-50 m off the end of Altona Pier.

Frankston Pier

Frankston Pier (Fig. 9) is located at the Pier Promenade at the Frankston Waterfront (Melway 100A A9). The pier is approximately 240 m in length, is constructed of wood and has recently undergone a major refurbishment. It has two lower landings, one on either side of the pier at the seaward end (Fig. 9a). The pier structure is managed by Parks Victoria and the pier is located within the jurisdiction of the Frankston City Council. There are no rubbish bins on the pier; however, rubbish bins, toilets and parking are available on the adjacent shoreline.

The main use of Frankston Pier is recreational fishing and sightseeing/walking. Jumping off the pier and swimming adjacent to the pier is common in the summer months, although jumping off the jetty is officially prohibited. Snorkelling, spear fishing (although prohibited within 30 m of the pier) and SCUBA diving are occasional occurrences under and around the pier structure. There is facility for vessels to tie up to the pier at the two lower landings.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 12

Figure 9 Images of Frankston Pier.

Sub-tidal environment – Frankston Pier

The sub-tidal environment off Frankston Pier is characterised by a firm sand substrate. The substrate has no vegetation and or sessile macro-invertebrates. The seastars Coscinasterias muricata (native 11 arm) and the exotic North Pacific Seastar, Asterias amurensis were common in the area, and the exotic fan worm Sabella spallanzani was common on the pier piles. The exotic wakame seaweed, Undaria pinnatifida, was not observed on the pier structure or nearbye natural reef. The nearest natural reef habitat to the artificial reef site is approximately 1 km to the south. The substrate is highly suitable to support the reef structures. The minimum depth above the artificial reef complex at lowest astronomical tide is 2.6–3.3 m.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 13

Figure 10 Representative images of the seabed at the artificial reef location approximately 40-50 m off the end of Frankston Pier (dive transect reel included in left image).

Artificial reef deployment Reef module positions were mapped in ArcMap10 and a commercial contractor deployed the modules according to the specified layouts. Modules were deployed in clusters using a purpose designed 4 module deployment frame (see Figs. 2, 11). The Portarlington artificial reef was deployed in September 2012, the Altona reef October 2012, and the Frankston reef in November 2012. Each deployment took approximately 3 days.

Figure 11 Images of artificial reef modules a) being loaded to the deployment vessel at Portarlington Pier and b) being deployed to the sea bed off Altona Pier.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 14

Monitoring and evaluation

Design The monitoring and evaluation program involved a control - impact approach, along with a baseline survey of the control and impact sites prior to the artificial reefs being deployed. The ‘impact’ sites were the sites on which the reefs were deployed and the control sites were nearby similar areas of seabed (sediment habitat) without reef and nearby natural reef comparison sites. The control/comparison sites were situated approximately 1-2 km from the artificial reef sites. Qualitative (presence/absence surveys) were also conducted on the adjacent artificial structures (i.e. pier pylons, rock wall). The survey methods are discussed in more detail below, but included: visual surveys of fish and invertebrate communities, baited remote underwater video (BRUV) sampling, and surveys of anglers on the three piers. The schedule of sampling events is detailed in Table 1.

Table 1 Schedule of events for the monitoring and evaluation program of the near shore recreational fishing reefs.

Survey method Survey periods/dates Baseline - 2012 After deployment 1 - 2013 After Deployment 2 - 2014 Visual census 1 x replicate 1 x replicate 1 x replicate Portarlington Pier 24/5 7/2 7/2 Altona Pier 25/6 6/5 13/2 Frankston Pier 26/6 6/5 17/2 Baited Remote Underwater 3 x replicates 3 x replicates 3 x replicates Video Portarlington Pier 9/3, 11/4, 19/4 8/3, 26/3, 30/4 31/1, 12/2, 18/2 Altona Pier 13/3, 19/4, 16/5 8/3, 26/3, 30/4 31/1, 12/2, 18/2 Frankston Pier 13/3, 19/4, 16/5 8/3, 26/3, 30/4 31/1, 12/2, 18/2 Angler surveys Portarlington Pier 1 - 21/4 n=72 10/3 – 21/4 n=54 6/4 –11/5 n=50 Altona Pier 1 - 24/4 n=80 9 - 25/3 n=58 6/4 - 12/5 n=56 Frankston Pier 8/4 - 5/5 n=53 9/3 - 20/4 n=49 30/3 - 10/5 n=56

Visual surveys

Fish Each visual census of fish communities involved three 40 m transects at each artificial reef, natural reef comparison, sediment control site. For the artificial reefs the transect ran across each of the three replicate reef sections (see Fig. 3). For the control/comparison sites each transect started from approximately 10 m off a fixed central point. The first transect occurred on a random bearing, and then subsequent transects at bearings of approximately 90° intervals from each other. For each transect the first (same) diver (always P.A. Hamer) counted fish swimming out deploying the transect tape, while the second diver followed conducting counts of macro-invertebrates (always K. Mills). On the return swim the diver counting fish focussed on the sea-bed and the reef modules/natural reef to count smaller benthic and cryptic fishes living in or on the reef structure. Fish were identified to species (or in rare cases as genus or unidentified) and size estimates were recorded for key recreational target species, namely Snapper, Calamari, Silver Trevally and Flathead. Generally, numbers of all fish that were observed by the diver where estimated. For highly mobile schooling species that occur in high numbers and potentially even following the diver, counting individuals is difficult and there is a likelihood of double counting. For such species the diver made an estimate of the maximum number observed (i.e. MaxN) at any particular point along the transect. The MaxN metric was used for highly mobile schooling fish such as juvenile Snapper, Silver Trevally (Pseudocaranx georgianus), Yellowtail Scad (Trachurus novaezelandiae), and Australian Salmon (Arripis sp.). Southern Hula fish (Trachinops caudimaculatus) are a schooling species that occur in high numbers in the water column above reef structure in Port Phillip Bay. Unlike the other schooling species mentioned, schools of Southern Hula fish tend to remain in the same area above the reef and on approach by a diver seek refuge in the reef substrate or swim around the diver. Therefore, multiple discrete schools can be encountered during a particular transect swim. For this species the

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 15

diver estimated the number of fish in each school and these were summed to provide an estimate of the total number per transect. In general, water column and larger demersal fish were recorded from within a minimum of ~2-3 m either side of the transect tape (average minimum detection range based on visibility estimates). While visibility varied, we did not adjust data for visibility.

Macro-invertebrates / exotic species The main focus of the macro-invertebrate surveys was on risk of local enhancement of exotic species as highlighted in the risk assessment process. This is a potential undesirable impact of the creation of the artificial reefs. For each of the three 40 m transects macro-invertebrates were counted on the natural reef and sediment substrate controls in 4 x 5 m segments of 1 m width, each separated by 5 m intervals (i.e. 5-10, 15-20, 25-30, 35-40 m). Larger exotic species (predominantly Japanese seaweed Undaria pinnatifida, and the North Pacific Seastar Asterias ammurensis) were counted along the entire transects. For the artificial reefs all modules and sediments were counted for exotic species along each transect (i.e. reef section). Within each artificial reef section all Aqua Trees and Bay Balls (Fig. 2, 3) were surveyed for larger mobile macro- invertebrates and Undaria pinnatifida plants (sporophytes). The fouling community was qualitatively described from photographs. For the adjacent man-made structures (pier/rock wall) presence/absence of exotic species was recorded.

Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) Each of the artificial reef, natural reef comparison and sediment control sites were sampled by BRUV (see review in Mallet and Pelletier 2014) on three separate days within each of the one before and two after sampling periods (Table 1). Three BRUV systems were used to enable sampling of each group (location) of artificial reef, natural reef and sediment control sites at the one time. Each BRUV system consisted of a High Definition digital video camera (Canon HF100) with x 0.7 wide angle lens in an underwater housing fixed within an aluminium frame, with a 1.2 m bait pole extending out from the frame (Fig. 12). A rope and float system for retrieval and deployment was attached to the frame (Fig. 12). To attract fish into the camera field of view a bait pot was fixed to the end of each bait pole and filled with a mixture of crushed pilchards (Sardinops sagax), chicken feed pellets and tuna oil. Two strips of arrow squid (Nototodarus gouldi) (ca. 2 x 5 cm) were also attached to the outside of the bait cage to entice fish closer to the camera to aid in identification and allow for more accurate estimates of size class (i.e. snapper) (Fig.12). To assist with size classing of fish, two scale bars of 20 cm length each were fixed at either end of the bait cage (Fig. 12). Each BRUV deployment was within 10 m of the GPS coordinates for the centre point of the sample site/recreational fishing reef. Each BRUV deployment recorded activity for a minimum of 60 min, with the first 60 min being used for analyses. All BRUV sampling was done between 9 am and 4 pm to reduce bias from natural diurnal changes in fish behaviour (e.g. crepuscular peaks in feeding activity) (Willis and Babcock 2000), and the order of BRUV deployment on any particular day was randomised among artificial reef, sediment and natural reef control sites. BRUV footage was recorded onto secure digital (SD) cards and downloaded to a server at the end of each days field work. Footage was analysed by viewing with a time-code overlay in Pinnacle Studio 12®. The identity of each species (following Gomon et al. (2008)), time of arrival, index of relative abundance (MaxN) and time of MaxN were recorded. MaxN is the maximum number of individuals of a species recorded in the frame at any one time during the 60 minute recording period (Malcolm et al. 2007; Murphy and Jenkins 2010) and was the primary quantitative metric used in analysis.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 16

Figure 12 Images of baited remote underwater video (BRUV) set-up.

Angler surveys Angler surveys were conducted to collect information on species composition of fish targeted and captured from the piers and to obtain feedback on the performance and or other perceptions of the artificial reefs. The surveys also provided opportunity for extension information on the artificial reefs (layout, purpose, funding sources etc.) to local anglers. There were two modes of questioning conducted. The first involved collecting creel survey information on the angler’s fishing activity, including; target species, catch, gear, demographic group, postcodes (Other Appendices - 1a). The second involved questions more specifically related to the artificial reefs to measure awareness of the reefs, awareness of the funding source, perceptions on performance, and identify any issues (Other Appendices - 2 b,c). The artificial reef questionnaire was necessarily modified slightly for the before and after reef deployment survey periods (Appendix - other 2 b,c).

Data analysis and presentation The responses of the fish communities across the three artificial reef sites is synthesised from the visual census and BRUV data. The two techniques are complimentary for characterising the fish communities for species occurrence because BRUV does not measure cryptic and less bait attracted species that live closely associated with the reef structures, but visual census does detect these species. Visual census however can miss highly mobile and diver wary species that BRUV can measure more effectively. BRUV was also replicated more times due its greater economic efficiency.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 17

Data on fish species numbers detected by BRUV and visual surveys were compared across time, habitat (i.e. artificial reef, natural reef, sediment) and locations graphically. Changes in species composition over time (i.e. before/after reef deployment) and among habitats and locations were analysed using ‘Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling’ (NMDS) (Clark and Warwick 1994) of presence/absence transformed data pooled from the BRUV and visual surveys, and log (x+1) transformed mean MaxN data from the BRUV surveys only. SIMPER analysis (Clarke and Warwick 2001) of log (x+1) transformed mean MaxN data from BRUV surveys was used to identify the species that contributed most to dissimilarity and similarity between the three habitats (sediment control, natural reef and artificial reef) for the period after the artificial reefs were deployed. Percentage contributions to dissimilarity and similarity were plotted graphically for species with contributions of 5% or greater. For the five recreational target species measured by BRUV (i.e. Snapper, Sand Flathead, Australian Salmon, Silver Trevally), non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare raw MaxN data between habitats (pooled across locations) and between habitats within locations. The Mann-Whitney U tests were used as opposed to parametric ANOVA due to the number of zero data and the inability for data transformations to meet the assumption of ANOVA. Densities of macro-invertebrates (standardised to number m-2) and exotics (including Undaria pinnatifida, Japanese Seaweed) were tabulated for each location, habitat and sampling period. Data from the recreational creel surveys were presented using graphical displays and or tables.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 18

Results

Fish communities

Number of species detected Across all locations and habitat treatments (i.e. artificial reefs, sediment controls and natural reef comparisons) there was an increase in the number of fish species detected from the before to after sampling periods (Fig. 13). This increase was at least partly due to the greater sampling effort (i.e. one before sampling period and two after sampling periods) and differences in the timing (months) of the sampling events (Table 1). Due to these influences, interpretation of the before/after data is focussed on the relative differences in the number of species detected across the artificial reef, sediment control, and natural reef treatments. Across all the habitat treatments and sites, a total of 61 fish taxa were detected by the combined visual survey and BRUV sampling (Data Appendices - Table 1). For the artificial reef sites, after the reef deployments, a total of 39 species were detected by the BRUV and visual survey, with 9 of these species also being detected at artificial reef sites prior to the reef deployment. Altona Pier: At Altona Pier there was an approximate 7 fold increase in the number of species detected at the artificial reef site after the artificial reef was installed, compared to a 3-4 fold increase on the natural reef comparison and sediment control sites (Figs. 13 a, d). By the end of the monitoring 22 fish species had been detected at the artificial reef site, 11 at the sediment control site and 29 at the natural reef comparison site (Fig. 13 a). For the visual surveys only, there were 11 species detected at the Altona Pier end section, 15 detected at the artificial reef, 19 detected at the natural reef with only two detected at the sediment control site (Fig. 13 e). Frankston Pier: At Frankston Pier there was an approximate 4 fold increase in the number of species detected at the artificial reef site after the artificial reef was installed compared to a 1-2 fold increase on the natural reef and sediment control sites (Figs. 13 b, d). By the end of the monitoring 29 fish species had been detected at the artificial reef site, 12 at the sediment control site and 34 at the natural reef comparison site (Fig. 13 b). For the visual surveys only, there were 16 species detected at the Frankston Pier end section, 20 detected at each of the artificial reef and natural reef control sites, and only one taxa detected at the sediment control site (Fig. 13 e). Portarlington Pier: At Portarlington Pier there was an approximate 10 fold increase in the number of species detected at the artificial reef site after the artificial reef was installed compared to an approximate two fold increase on the natural reef and sediment control sites (Figs. 13 c, d). By the end of the monitoring 30 fish species had been detected at the artificial reef site, 19 at the sediment control site and 30 at the natural reef control site (Fig. 13 c). For the visual surveys only, there were 19 species detected at the rock wall, 19 detected at the artificial reef, 18 detected at the natural reef comparison site, and 11 detected at the sediment control site (Fig. 13 e).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 19

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs

 20

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Figure 13 Comparisons of the number or fish species detected across the artificial reef and control/comparison (sediment, natural reef) sites for the before, after and total survey periods by BRUV and visual census, d) comparisons of the increase (number species after as a multiple of number before reef deployment) in species detected across the artificial reef and control sites, e) total number of species detected by visual census only across the piers/rock walls, artificial reefs and controls.

Variation in fish community composition The multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot based on presence/absence data from BRUV and visual survey combined, showed that the artificial reef sites were more similar to the sediment control sites than natural reefs sites prior to reef deployment, but after reef deployment they were more similar to the natural reef sites than the sediment controls (Fig. 14). Analysis of the log transformed MaxN BRUV data (i.e. bait attracted species), similarly showed that the artificial reef sites were similar to the sediment controls sites prior to the reef deployment, but after reef deployment displayed a fish community that was intermediate between the sediment controls and the natural reef comparison sites (Fig. 15). SIMPER was performed only on BRUV data because of the greater replication and more reliable quantitative measurements of relative abundance obtained by this technique. The SIMPER analysis was performed on data collected only after the reefs were deployed. This analysis indicates which species contribute most to similarities and dissimilarities among sites and the artificial reef, sediment control and natural reef habitats. The top 5 species that contributed most to the similarity among the artificial reef sites after reef deployment were Australian Salmon, Silver Trevally, Little Weed Whiting, Snapper and Southern Goatfish (Fig. 16a). For the natural reef sites, Snapper, Silver Trevally, Southern Goatfish, Prickly Toadfish and Southern Hula Fish contributed most to similarity, and for the sediment control sites, Australian Salmon, Sand Flathead, Fiddler Ray (Banjo), Prickly Toadfish and Silver Trevally contributed most to similarity (Fig. 16 b,c). For the dissimilarity measures, the 5 species that contributed most to the dissimilarity between the artificial reefs and sediment control sites were Snapper (higher abundance on artificial reef), Sand Flathead (higher abundance on sediment controls), Bridled Leatherjacket (higher abundance on artificial reefs), Silver Trevally (higher abundance on artificial reefs) and Southern Goatfish (higher abundance on artificial reefs) (Fig. 17 a). The 5 species that contributed most to the dissimilarity between the artificial reef and natural reef sites were Southern Hula Fish (higher abundance on natural reef), Australian Salmon (higher abundance on natural reef), Bridled Leatherjackets (higher abundance on artificial reefs), Yellowtail Scad (higher abundance on natural reefs) and Snapper (higher abundance on artificial reefs – but note that mostly juveniles) (Fig. 17 b). The 5 species that contributed most to the dissimilarity between the natural reef and sediment control sites were Southern Hula Fish (higher abundance on natural reef), Australian Salmon (higher abundance on sediment controls), Silver Trevally (higher abundance on natural reefs), Sand Flathead (higher abundance on sediment controls) and Snapper (higher abundance on natural reefs) (Fig. 17 c).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 21

Figure 14 Multidimensional scaling plots showing the variation in fish community composition among sites and habitat treatments for a) before artificial reef deployment, and b) after artificial reef deployment. Data used were presence/absence from the combined BRUV and visual survey data sets.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 22

Figure 15 Multidimensional scaling plots showing the variation in fish community composition measured by BRUV among sites and habitat treatments for; a) before artificial reef deployment, and b) after artificial reef deployment.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 23

Figure 16 BRUV data: Comparisons of % contributions of fish species that contributed ≥5% to similarity between sites for each of the three habitat treatments after artificial reef deployment.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 24

Figure 17 BRUV data: Comparisons of % contributions of fish species which contributed ≥5% to dissimilarity between the three habitat treatments after artificial reef deployment. Capital letters above each bar indicate which habitat had the higher mean MaxN for each species (NR = natural reef, AR = artificial reef, S = sediment control).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 25

Recreational fishery species – BRUV only The BRUV sampling provided relative abundance data for several key recreational target species; Snapper, Silver Trevally, Australian Salmon and Sand Flathead. Comparisons of the mean MaxN data before and after artificial reef deployment showed negligible difference in Sand Flathead abundance for the artificial reef and natural reef sites, but an increase for the sediment controls (although the MaxN were low, 1-2 individuals per 1 hour BRUV drop) (Fig. 18 a). Snapper showed an increase in abundance after artificial reef deployment at both the sediment control and artificial reefs sites, but no change at the natural reef sites (Fig. 18 b). Increased abundance at the sediment control and artificial reef habitats was partly related to a significant recruitment pulse of small juvenile Snapper derived from the high spawning success during the summers of 2012/13 and 2013/14 (Fisheries Victoria, unpublished pre-recruit survey data). The increase in Snapper numbers was, however, relatively higher for the artificial reefs than sediment controls, indicating a greater attraction to the reefs (Fig. 18b). On both habitats, the size of snapper observed was generally estimated at less than 20 cm total length, with many less than 15 cm total length (1 year old), whereas on the natural reefs a broader range of snapper sizes was observed, with greater proportions of larger juvenile and legal sized fish recorded (i.e. > 28 cm total length, > 3 years old) (Fig. 20). Similar to Snapper, there was an increase in abundance of Silver Trevally across all habitats from the before to after artificial reef deployment periods (Fig. 18c). However, the relative increases in abundance were higher for the natural and artificial reefs than the sediment controls (Fig. 18c). Estimates of size from BRUV observations suggest that most Silver Trevally were above the legal minimum length of 20 cm total length. For Australian Salmon, the variation in abundance before and after artificial reef deployments was mixed across habitats, with no difference for the sediment controls, lower numbers for the after period for the artificial reefs, and no clear temporal differences for the natural reefs (Fig. 18 d).

Figure 18 Comparisons across habitats, and before/after artificial reef deployment of the mean MaxN (±SE) for important recreational fishery species measured by BRUV.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 26

At the individual locations for the survey periods after artificial reef deployment there was considerable variation in the abundances of the key recreational species, except for Sand Flathead. Snapper were more abundant at Frankston, Australian Salmon more abundant at Portarlington, and Silver Trevally more abundant at Portarlington and Frankston than Altona (Fig. 19 a-d). Differences in MaxN between the artificial reefs and the other habitats were statistically significant for snapper at Altona Pier (artificial reef > sediment control) and for sand flathead at Altona (sediment control > artificial reef) and Portarlington (sediment control > artificial reef and natural reef) (Data Appendices - Table 2b) (Table 2 b). At Altona natural reef snapper abundance was also significantly higher than the sediment control (Data Appendices - Table 2b). For Silver Trevally, natural reef was also significantly higher than the sediment control at Frankston and Portarlington (Data Appendices - Table 2b).

Figure 19 Comparison of mean MaxN (±SE) among habitats and sites for recreational target species measured by BRUV after the artificial reefs were deployed. S = sediment control, AR = artificial reef, NR = natural reef.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 27

Figure 20 Comparisons across habitats of the estimated age/length composition of snapper from BRUV sampling for the period after artificial reefs were deployed.

Calamari Calamari squid were observed by visual census in groups of up to 40 individuals over the Frankston artificial reef and on one occasion calamari eggs were observed deposited at the Altona artificial reef. The BRUV surveys also indicated increased abundance of calamari squid at the Frankston Pier artificial reef site after reef deployment (Fig. 21). Calamari squid were not observed by either BRUV or visual surveys at the other sites.

Figure 21 Comparison across habitats of the mean MaxN (±SE) of calamari measured by BRUV at the Frankston site before and after the artificial reefs were deployed

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 28

Macro-inverts/exotics and fouling community

The reef modules were rapidly colonised by macro-invertebrate and fouling species, but there were noticeable differences observed among the locations. Altona Pier: At Altona Pier the first macro-invertebrate species to move onto the reef modules were the 11 arm seastar (Coscinasterias muricata), purple sea urchin (Heliocidaris erythrogramma), and red rock crab (Nectocarcinus sp.) (Data Appendices - Table 3). By the end of the monitoring period (approximately 16 months after deployment) many of the reef modules were almost completely covered by the sea squirt, Pyura stolonifera, also called ‘cunjevoi’ along with a variety of macroalgae species, dominated by Ulva (sea lettuce), Codium sp. and filamentous red algaes. (Data Appendices - Table 4a, Fig. 22). The only exotic species detected on the artificial reef modules at Altona was the Japanese seaweed, Undaria pinnatifida, in low abundance (< 1 plant m-2) (Table 5a), that was also detected on the natural reef and nearby pier pylons (Data Appendicies - Table 3).

Frankston Pier: At Frankston Pier the artificial reef modules were rapidly colonised by red and brown filamentous algae, various species of seastar (Asteriidae, Data Appendices - Table 3), including the exotic North Pacific seastar (Asterias amurensis), purple sea urchins, and red rock crabs (Data Appendices - Table 3, Table 4b). Observations at 26 months post-reef deployment indicated a diverse fouling community had developed on the Frankston Pier reef modules, including a variety of sponge and ascidian species, blue mussels (Mytilus edulis galloprovinciaius), and native flat oysters (Ostrea angasi) (Fig. 23). The reef modules were surrounded by swarms of mysid shrimps (Fig. 23). Undaria pinnatifida was not observed on the reef modules, pier pylons, sediments or natural reef at Frankston (Data Appendices - Table 3). Asterias amurensis occurred in low numbers (< 1 individual m-2) (Data Appendices - Table 4b).

Portarlington Pier: At Portarlington Pier the reef modules were colonised by filamentous algae which continued to dominate the fouling community at the final inspection 17 months after deployment (Fig. 24). Similar to the other sites, the common macro-invertebrates observed associated with the reef modules were seastars (Asteriidae, Goniasteridae), with other species including brown sea cucumber (Australostichopus mollis), red rock crab (Nectocarcinus sp.), decorator crab (Microhalimus deflexifrons) and purple urchin (Data Appendices - Table 3). The North Pacific seastar was observed in low numbers (< 1 individual m-2) on the reef modules, and no Undaria pinnatifida sporophytes were observed on the reef modules despite being observed on the natural reef and the adjacent rock wall section of the pier (Data Appendices - Tables 3, 4c).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 29

Figure 22 Altona Pier artificial reef: Representative images of the artificial reef modules off Altona Pier at different times during the development of their fouling communities.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 30

Figure 23 Frankston Pier artificial reef: representative images of the artificial reef modules off Frankston Pier at different times during the development of their fouling communities.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 31

Figure 24 Portarlington Pier artificial reef: representative images of the artificial reef modules off Portarlington Pier rock wall at different times during the development of their fouling communities.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 32

Angler surveys

Over the 2012-2014 survey periods 505 anglers were interviewed across Altona Pier, Frankston Pier and Portarlington Pier. In 2012, before deployment of the artificial reefs, a total of 192 anglers were surveyed. In the two survey periods following reef deployment (2013 and 2014) 313 anglers were surveyed. Overall 29 angler surveys were incomplete due to seven having been questioned previously that survey period, 17 due to language difficulties, and the remaining five due to a refusal to participate, two of which indicated that refusal was due to being unhappy over the deployment of the artificial reefs. Following the deployment of the artificial reefs three additional questions were added to the surveys with the aim of determining if anglers were aware that recreational license fees had funded the reefs, if anglers had fished the location prior to the deployment of the reefs, and if so what was their view(s) on how the artificial reefs had altered their fishing experience. The survey results for each location are presented/discussed separately. Results for questions asked at all survey times are presented first, followed by results for questions asked only after the deployment of the artificial reefs. Note: One survey period occurred prior to artificial reef deployment (before period), and two survey periods (years) occurred after deployment (after period) – for simplicity data for the two ‘after’ deployment surveys are pooled for the graphical presentations unless indicated otherwise. Data figures of higher relevence to this evaluation are included within the text, with others included in the data appendices.

Question: What age group do you belong to? (derived from appendix 1a) Altona Pier: Surveyed anglers at Altona Pier represented a broad range of age groups, with results similar for the before and after reef deployment periods. Over 60% were aged 18-49, and 21-26% were aged 50-69 years (Data Appendices - Fig. 1). Frankston Pier: At Frankston Pier the majority of anglers surveyed were aged 18-49 (50-68%) and 50-69 years (30- 41%) for both the before and after sampling periods (Data Appendices -Fig. 1). Portarlington Pier: Before the deployment of the near shore reefs at Portarlington Pier 60% of anglers were aged 18-49 years, however, following reef deployment there was a 16% decrease in the number of anglers aged 18-49 years and an 11% increase in the 50-69 age group. For the after period the same percentage (44%) of anglers occurred in both the 18-49 and 50-69 years age groups (Data Appendices -Fig. 1).

Question: What is your postcode? (derived from appendix 1a) Altona Pier: The majority of anglers surveyed on Altona Pier lived in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne or near Altona Pier, although a few anglers had travelled from distant locations (i.e. Torquay, Kilmore, Seymour and Bright in Victoria, Launceston – Tasmania, Fig. 25a). Frankston Pier: The majority of anglers surveyed on Frankston Pier lived in the eastern and north eastern suburbs of Melbourne, although one angler had travelled from Geelong and another also from Launceston – Tasmania, Fig. 25b). Portarlington Pier: In contrast to the observations for Altona and Frankston Piers, many of the anglers surveyed at Portarlington Pier had travelled significant distances, mostly from the western and north western suburbs of Melbourne, with lesser numbers from the Geelong and Bellarine Peninsula (Fig. 25c). Anglers were also surveyed that had travelled from Swan Hill, Shepparton, Benalla, Bendigo and Orbost in Victoria, as well as Albury and Broken Hill in New South Wales, and Perth in Western Australia.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 33

Figure 25 Map showing post-code locations of surveyed anglers pooled across all survey periods; a) Altona Pier, b) Frankston Pier, c) Portarlington Pier. (Note: Map a) is not showing respondents from Seymour and Bright in Victoria as well as one person from Launceston Tasmania. Map b) is not showing a respondent from Launceston, Tasmania. Map c) is not showing respondents from Swan Hill, Shepparton, Benalla, Bendigo and Orbost in Victoria, as well as Albury and Broken Hill in New South Wales and Perth in Western Australia).

Question: What fish are you targeting today? (derived from appendix 1a) Target species preferences varied among the three piers, although at all piers a significant proportion of anglers indicated ‘anything’ (i.e. no specific target species) (Fig. 26 a-c). Altona Pier: At Altona the key target species both before and after artificial reef deployment were Australian Salmon, Snapper and Sand Flathead (Fig. 26 a). Frankston Pier: At Frankston Pier the key target species was garfish both before and after artificial reef deployment, with Snapper, Mullet and Australian Salmon as secondary target species (Fig. 26 b). Portarlington Pier: At Portarlington Pier rockwall a range of target species were indicated, including Snapper, Flathead, King George Whiting and Australian Salmon (Fig. 26 c).

Question: For anglers who had recorded catching fish, what fish have you caught today? (derived from appendix 1a) Altona Pier: The composition of fish caught by anglers who had actually landed one or more fish largely reflected the target species preference (Figs. 26, 27). Australian Salmon were the species most frequently caught at Altona Pier both before and after artificial reef deployment. There was an increase in the percentage of anglers that caught fish who landed Snapper, Flathead and Silver Trevally from the before to after artificial reef deployment survey periods (Fig. 27 a). A total of 6 and 8 species were recorded being captured at Altona Pier before and after reef deployment respectively (Data Appendices – Table 6).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 34

Frankston Pier: Garfish were the species most frequently caught at Frankston Pier after artificial reef deployment, with Mullet being more commonly caught before (Fig. 27 b). There was an increase in the percentage of anglers that caught fish who landed Snapper, Flathead and Fiddler Ray from the before to after artificial reef deployment survey periods (Fig. 27 b). A total of 5 and 8 species were recorded being captured at Frankston Pier before and after reef deployment respectively (Data Appendices – Table 6).

Portarlington Pier: Australian Salmon were the species most frequently caught at Portarlington Pier rockwall before and after artificial reef deployment, with Snapper, Flathead, Mullet, Silver Trevally and Squid being more commonly caught after reef deployment (Fig. 27 c). A total of 7 and 9 species were recorded being captured at Portarlington Pier rockwall before and after reef deployment respectively (Data Appendices – Table 6).

Figure 26 Comparisons of the percentage target preferences of surveyed anglers at the three piers before and after artificial reef deployment. (KGW = King George whiting)

Figure 27 Comparisons of the percentage occurrence of species in the creels of surveyed anglers who had landed one or more fish across the three piers, before and after artificial reef deployment. (KGW = King George whiting)

Question: How many visits have you made to fish at this location over the last year? (derived from appendix 1b) Altona Pier: The majority of surveyed anglers were either fishing Altona Pier for the first time or had fished it less than five times, irrespective of the survey period. Only a small number (10-15%) of surveyed anglers had fished the location 15 or more times (Data Appendices - Fig. 2 a).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 35

Frankston Pier: The majority of anglers had fished the Frankston Pier less than 5 times (48-46%) during both survey periods. After the deployment of the near shore recreational fishing reefs over 20% more anglers were recorded as fishing this location for the first time (Data Appendices - Fig. 2 b). Portarlington Pier: For both the before and after reef deployment periods the majority of respondents were either fishing Frankston Pier for the first time (34-49%) or had fished it less than five times (34-23%) before . The number of people fishing the location for the first time increasing by 15% after the reefs were deployed, with first time fishers comprising almost 50% of the anglers surveyed after reef deployment. The number of anglers that had visited the location five or more times decreased by 10% following reef deployment (Data Appendices - Fig. 2 c).

Question: Approximately when did you first fish this location (year/decade, i.e. 1960’s, 70’s, 2000’s etc. if they can’t remember)? (derived from appendix 1a) Altona Pier: The majority of surveyed angler’s at Altona Pier first fished the pier in the 2010’s. Anglers that had first fished the location in the 2000’s declined by 17% for the surveys after reef deployment. The earliest any of the surveyed anglers had fished the location was in the 1970’s (Data Appendices - Fig. 3 a). Frankston Pier: Before the reefs were deployed the number of surveyed anglers that had first fished the location in the 2000’s and 2010’s was the same (35%). Consistent with the increase in first time anglers recorded after reef deployment, those fishing the pier for the first time in the 2010’s increased by over 25% to 63%. Some anglers first fished the location in the 1960’s (Data Appendices - Fig. 3 b). Portarlington Pier: After reef deployment, there was a minor decline in anglers that had first fished the location in the 2000’s. Other than this, results were similar across the survey times, with some anglers first fishing the location in the 1960’s (Data Appendices - Fig. 3 c)

Question: How would you rate your fishing experience/s here?

Altona Pier: The majority of anglers surveyed at Altona Pier were satisfied with their fishing experience (Fig. 32 a). The percentage of satisfied anglers increased by 15% after the artificial reefs were deployed (Fig 32 a). The percentage of ‘unsure’ anglers decreased (Fig. 32 a). Frankston Pier: Overall, >50% of anglers surveyed were satisfied with their fishing experience at Frankston Pier. However, there was a 10% decrease in the number of surveyed anglers that indicated they were satisfied with their fishing experience after the artificial reefs were deployed (Fig. 32 b). The percentage of anglers who were ‘unsure’ of their fishing experience increased by 13% after the reefs were installed (Fig. 32 b). Portarlington Pier: Most respondents (75%) were satisfied with their fishing experience before the reefs were deployed (Fig. 32 c). However, after reef deployment the percentage of unsatisfied anglers surveyed increased by 25% to 47%, while the number of satisfied anglers dropped by 41% to 34% (Fig. 32 c).

Figure 28 Angler rating of their fishing experience at each location before and after the deployment of artificial reefs.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 36

Question: (And) why do you say that? How have the following influenced your fishing experience at this location? Factor that related to catch of desirable species – number and size of fish caught, availability of target species Altona Pier: The factors that influenced the fishing experience at Altona Pier that related to catch of desirable fish species changed relatively little between the before and after artificial reef deployment surveys. After reef deployment there were increases of approximately 10% in proportion of respondents that indicated size of fish caught had no influence on their fishing experience (Fig. 29 a, b). Frankston Pier: Anglers surveyed after reef deployment showed a slightly greater than 10% increase in the proportion that indicated number of fish caught had no influence on their fishing experience, or where unsure, and a slightly greater than 10% decrease in those that indicated it had a positive influence. For size of fish caught there was a slightly greater than 10% decrease in the proportion of respondents that indicated this had a positive influence, and a slightly greater than 10% increase in those that were unsure. For availability of target species there was an approximate 20% decrease in the proportion of surveyed anglers after reef deployment that indicated this had a negative influence, and an approximate 10% increase in those that were unsure (Fig. 29 c, d). Portarlington Pier: At Portarlington Pier anglers surveyed after artificial reef deployment showed a decrease of approximately 25% in the proportion who indicated that number of fish caught was a positive influence, and a similar increase in the proportion that indicated it was a negative influence on their fishing experience. For the surveys after reef deployment there was also an approximate 20% increase in the proportion of surveyed anglers that indicated that the size of fish was a negative influence on their fishing experience, and for availability of target species, a 15% decrease in the proportion that indicated this was a positive influence and a similar increase in proportion that indicated this was a negative influence (Fig. 29 e, f).

Other non-catch related factors – tackle loss, bycatch, crowd on pier, crowd in water Altona Pier: At Altona Pier there was little change in the survey results for the before and after survey periods. After the reef deployment there was a 15% increase in the proportion of surveyed anglers that indicated bycatch had no influence of the fishing experience, and a 10% decrease in the proportion that indicated it had a negative influence (Data Appendices - Fig. 4 a, b). Frankston Pier: At Frankston Pier the only difference between the before and after survey periods was for ‘people in the water’ where there was a 15% increase in the proportion of surveyed anglers who indicated this had no influence after reef deployment and a similar decrease in the proportion that indicated it had a negative influence (Data Appendices - Fig. 4 c, d). Portarlington Pier: At Portarlington Pier the only notable difference between the before and after survey periods was for ‘bycatch’ where there was an 11% increase in the proportion of surveyed anglers who indicated this had no influence on the fishing experience after reef deployment (Data Appendices - Fig. 4 e, f).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 37

Figure 29 Factors influencing anglers’ fishing experience that were related to catch of desirable species. No influence Positive influence Negative influence Unsure . (Arrows are used to indicate a direction of a 10% or greater change in percentage of respondents choosing that option)

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 38

Question: For those respondents who had a negative experience due to the crowd in the water was this due to;

Altona Pier: For Altona Pier, most surveyed anglers who indicted negative responses to ‘crowd in the water’ cited swimmers as the main source of annoyance both before (78%) and after (75%) reefs were deployed . Boats (6%) and Jet skis (17-13%) were also viewed negatively (Data Appendices - Fig. 5a) Frankston Pier: For Frankston Pier, most surveyed anglers who indicted negative responses to ‘crowd in the water’ cited swimmers (73%) and scuba divers (20%) as the main negative influence on their fishing experience before the reefs were deployed. After reef deployment, swimmers were still the main source of in water annoyance (80%) with only 7% indicating negative issues with scuba divers (Data Appendices - Fig. 5b). Portarlington Pier: For Portarlington Pier, most surveyed anglers who indicted negative responses to ‘crowd in the water’ cited water craft (boats 28-13% and jet skis 34-53%, before-after) and swimmers (13-20%, before -after) as the main negative influence of their fishing experience. There was an increase of approximately 10% in the negative influence of jet skis on the fishing experience from the before to after reef deployment period (Data Appendices - Fig. 5c).

Question: Will you fish this location again? Altona Pier: Before the artificial reef deployment 81% of surveyed anglers indicated they would fish the location again, and this increased to 97% for anglers surveyed following the reef deployment (Fig. 30 a). Frankston Pier: Before and after reef deployment, most surveyed anglers indicated they would fish the location again (Fig. 30 b). Portarlington Pier: Both before and after reef deployment most (89-95%) surveyed anglers indicated they would fish the location again. There was a minor decrease in the percentage of anglers that indicated they will fish the location again after the reefs were deployed (Fig. 30 c).

Figure 30 Percentage of responses to the question, will you fish this location again? (Note# Unsure was only provided as an option on the before surveys)

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 39

Question: Have you ever hooked or had your baits harassed by the following while fishing at this location? (This question was asked in order to assess any increase in these interactions after the reefs were deployed) Altona Pier: The majority of surveyed anglers had no interactions with sea life (marine mammals or birds) either before or after reef deployment (No interactions: 89% before, 96% after) while fishing at this location. Anglers reported interactions with seals (7%) and dolphins (4%) before reefs were deployed, but surveys following reef deployment only indicated interactions (<5% of anglers) with sea birds (Data Appendics - Fig. 6 a). Frankston Pier: At Frankston Pier before reef deployment 19% of surveyed anglers had experienced interactions with seals and 2% with dolphins, with the remaining anglers (79%) having no interactions with marine mammals or birds. Only a low percentage of interactions with birds (9% of anglers surveyed) were recorded in surveys following reef deployment (Data Appendices - Figure. 6 b). Portarlington Pier: Ten percent of surveyed anglers had experienced interactions with seals before reefs were deployed. After reef deployment only 1% had indicated an interaction with a bird with the remaining 99% reporting no interactions with marine mammals or seabirds (Data Appendices - Fig. 6 c).

Question: Are you aware of the new man-made recreational fishing reefs proposed/deployed at this location? Altona Pier: Approximately 8 months prior to deployment, 10% of anglers surveyed on Altona Pier were unaware that the reefs were to be deployed . Following deployment 39% of surveyed anglers were aware that the reefs had been deployed (Fig. 31 a). Frankston Pier: Approximately 9 months prior to reef deployment <10% of anglers surveyed on Frankston Pier were aware that the reefs were to be deployed (Fig. 38 b). After deployment, 39% of surveyed anglers were aware the reefs had been deployed (Fig. 31 b). Portarlington Pier: Approximately 8 months prior to deployment, 15% of anglers surveyed on Portarlington Pier were aware that the reefs were to be deployed (Fig. 31 c). After reef deployment, 28% of surveyed anglers were aware the reefs had been deployed (Fig. 31 c).

Figure 31 Percentage of respondents’ aware (yes) or not aware (no) that the artificial reefs were proposed to be deployed (before) or were deployed (after) at the location they were fishing.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 40

Question: What is your view on the deployment of man-made recreational fishing reefs at this location? Altona Pier: Respondents supported the reefs (90%), had no opinion (1%) or were unsure (9%) before the reefs were deployed with no anglers against the use of artificial reefs. Following the artificial reef deployment most respondents still supported the reefs (89%), while less than 2% did not support them (Fig. 32a). Frankston Pier: Before the artificial reefs were deployed 100% of anglers supported them . Following deployment 88% of respondents supported the reefs, 11% had no opinion and only 1% did not support them (Fig. 32 b). Portarlington Pier: The majority of respondents supported artificial reefs t (86% before, 87% after). No surveyed anglers indicated that they were against the deployment of artificial reefs, either before or after their deployment (Fig. 32 c).

Figure 32 Views of surveyed anglers on the deployment of the artificial reefs at each location (Note: Unsure was only provided as an option on the before surveys)

The following questions were only asked following the deployment of the artificial reefs.

Question: Are you aware the new reef was funded by recreational fishing license fees? (data presented for anglers who were aware of the reefs) Altona Pier: At Altona Pier 53% of surveyed anglers who were aware that the artificial reefs had been installed were aware that they were funded by recreational fishing license fees (Fig. 33 a). Frankston Pier: At Frankston Pier 47% of surveyed anglers who were aware that the reefs had been installed were also aware that they were funded by recreational fishing license fees (Fig. 33 b). Portarlington Pier: At Portarlington Pier 71% of surveyed anglers who were aware that the reefs had been installed were also aware that they were funded by recreational fishing license fees (Fig. 33 c).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 41

Figure 33 For anglers that were aware the artificial reefs had been installed: Percentage of anglers that were aware (yes) or unaware (no) that recreational fishing license fees funded the artificial reefs at the location they were fishing.

Question: Have you fished here before the recreational fishing reefs were deployed? Altona Pier: 70% of the surveyed anglers at Altona Pier had not fished the location before the reefs were deployed (Fig. 34 a). Frankston Pier: 54% of the surveyed anglers at Frankston Pier had not fished the location before the reefs were deployed (Fig. 34 b) Portarlington Pier: 67% of the surveyed anglers at Portarlington Pier, rockwall had not fished the location before the reefs were deployed (Fig. 34 c).

Figure 34 Percentage of surveyed anglers who had fished at the survey location before the artificial reefs were deployed.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 42

Question: Regarding the quality of the fishing experience at this location. Would you say that the deployment of the man-made near shore recreational fishing reefs has improved it, worsened it, had no effect on it, or are you unsure? Altona Pier: At Altona Pier, 43% of surveyed anglers were unsure if the reefs had changed the quality of their fishing experience. The remaining respondents were equally split (19%) in respect to whether the reefs had improved, worsened or had no impact on their fishing experience (Fig. 35 a). Frankston Pier: At Frankston Pier, most surveyed anglers believed their fishing experience had remained the same (39%) or were unsure (35%), due to the deployment of the artificial reefs. Few, (4%), of anglers thought the reef had improved their fishing experience, while approximately 20% believed it had worsened it (Fig. 35 b). Portarlington Pier: At Portarlington Pier, the majority of surveyed anglers (64%) believed that their fishing experience had remained the same after the deployment of the artificial reefs. While slightly more surveyed anglers thought that their fishing had improved (16%) rather than worsened (12%) (Fig. 35 c).

Figure 35 Comparisons of the percentage of respondents’ views on how the deployment of the artificial reefs had altered their fishing experience at the surveyed location.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 43

Angler feedback – phone/email follow ups

A total of 46 anglers (Altona Pier = 23, Frankston Pier = 12, Portarlington Pier = 11) provided contact details (phone or email) and indicted they were willing to receive follow contact by phone or email to discuss the artificial reefs. In April 2015, final follow-up phone or email attempts were made to all 46 anglers. Responses from phone discussion were received from 25 anglers (Altona Pier = 8, Frankston Pier = 9, Portarlington Pier = 8) and email (Altona = 3). Follow-up phone calls allowed for general discussions, but were prefaced with a question about how recently and regularly the angler had been fishing the location, what they had been targeting, and fishing methods. This was to get an impression of how informed or relevant the discussion was likely to be. The anglers were all asked if they had issues with snagging or had heard from other anglers on the pier about snagging issues as this was the negative issue most commonly raised in relation to reefs during surveys. The feedback from the one-on-one phone discussion and email responses is summarized below, and the comments recorded in: Data Appendices – Table 7. Altona Pier: The general consensus for Altona was the fishing had been consistent, with a suggestion of more diversity of species. Overall, the phone discussions provided support for the reefs, consistent the wider survey data. The modifications to the reef during year one after deployment had largely resolved the snagging issue. The main concerns of the anglers at Altona Pier were related to the lack of capacity at the end section of the pier (i.e. need for a lateral extension) and too many swimmers using/jumping off the pier in the summer months. Frankston Pier: Fishing experiences were mixed depending on targeting preference with many anglers targeting garfish with float rigs. Overall, the phone discussions provided support for the reefs, consistent the wider survey data. Those fishing bottom rigs commented on snagging as an issue and supported the reconfiguration of the reef to move the mid- section out as was done at Altona. Also suggestion that better signage would be good. The main issues with Frankston Pier were unrelated to the artificial reefs, but concerned the lack of parking or cost to park close to the pier, and the number of swimmers using/jumping off the pier in summer months. Portarlington Pier: The general consensus for Portarlington was that the fishing had been consistent, with a suggestion of more Silver Trevally, but perhaps too soon to comment on the performance of the reefs in terms of improved catches. Overall, the phone discussions provided support for the reefs, consistent the wider survey data. The modifications to the reef during year one after deployment had largely resolved the snagging issue. The signage was good, and many anglers fished next to it, resting their rods on it.

All locations At all piers anglers suggested more enforcement presence on piers was warranted, as too many undersized fish were perceived as being retained, however, this was a general perception that was not linked to the artificial reefs.

Artificial reef physical resilience Over the period of post-deployment observation (23 months at Frankston, 16-17 months at Altona and Portarlington) no reef modules had moved, been disturbed or damaged. Most of the reef modules had bedded into the sediments by about 10-15% of their height at all sites (Fig. 36 a-c). Five of the reef modules at the Frankston Reef, the most exposed site to prevailing westerly and south westerly winds, all from the most southerly cluster, had subsided significantly (at least 70% of their height buried) by the end of the first year post-deployment, but had remained stable for the second year (top images Fig. 36 a).

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 44

Figure 36 Images of reef modules at each of the artificial reefs showing levels of subsidence after 17-23 months post-deployment.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 45

Discussion

While artificial reefs have been used worldwide to enhance fishing opportunities, they have mostly been deployed in depths and distances offshore accessible only to boat-based fishers. Few examples exist where artificial reefs have been specifically installed to benefit land-based anglers. Interest in the use of artificial reefs to enhance land-based recreational fishing is, however, growing. During the life of this project a number of new near shore reef projects have been initiated in the USA, including artificial reefs under piers combined with shellfish restoration (http://news.maryland.gov/dnr/2013/10/07/new-oyster-reef-below-bill-burton-fishing-pier-completed-dedicated/), to enhance and recreate hard substrate to support fisheries damaged by oil spills (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MississippiArtificialReefF.pdf), and reefs associated with piers in estuarine systems (http://blog.nola.com/eastjefferson/2014/02/artificial_reef_aims_to_promot.html). In Australia, near shore reefs to benefit land-based anglers have not been trialled elsewhere to date. The growing interest in creating artificial reef habitats accessible to land-based anglers, and potentially combined with the provision of other services such as shoreline protection and habitat enhancement/restoration works, will be informed by trial projects with suitable evaluation programs. This project is the first project that we know of that both installs and evaluates the performance of near shore, shallow water artificial reefs for land-based anglers. In the Victorian context it is also the first project to test the logistical and regulatory requirements, and barriers, to establishing shallow water near shore artificial reefs or other forms of habitat enhancement that require modification of the seabed environment. This trial of near shore artificial reefs had the primary objectives of:  Enhancing fishing opportunities for land-based anglers,  Evaluating the benefits of near-shore fishing reefs to recreational anglers,  Involve anglers in the planning and evaluation of a localised fishing and habitat enhancement project,  Assessing specified ecological risks associated with near-shore artificial reefs in Port Phillip Bay.

Enhancing fishing opportunities for land-based anglers While most surveyed anglers at all three piers indicated they were happy to catch anything, reflecting the general nature of the pier based fishers (i.e. novice anglers, kids, families, tourists); there was a core of anglers that fish their local piers with strong target preferences. Snapper, Flathead and Australian Salmon were commonly targeted at all piers, and at Frankston Pier there was a high targeting preference for Garfish, a pelagic species unlikely to be influenced by addition of artificial reef habitat. The Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV), visual census, creel and angler satisfaction surveys indicated location dependent responses of targeted fish species and fisher perceptions to the artificial reef deployments. Depending on target species prior to reef deployment, in some locations installing artificial reefs may provide options for targeting of other species not typically targeted at a location (e.g. Silver Trevally at Portarlington), and or improve fishing for species that have always been target at the location (e.g. Snapper at Altona). Local fish communities clearly changed in response to the deployment of artificial reefs adjacent to piers in Port Phillip Bay. Depending on the locations there were 4-9 times more fish species detected at the artificial reef areas after the reefs were deployed compared to 2-3 times more species detected on the sediment controls and natural reef comparison sites. By the end of the 1-2 year post-deployment monitoring period between 22-30 fish species had been recorded at the artificial reef sites, compared to 11-19 at the sediment controls and 29-34 at the natural reef comparison sites. Similar to the recently created (2009) deeper water Reef Ball reefs in Port Phillip Bay, the shallower near shore artificial reef fish community was a mixture of reef and sediment species, more typical of a natural patch reef or reef edge community (Hamer et al. 2011). The ‘mixed’ community likely reflects the patchy nature of the artificial reef design, with clusters of reef modules interspersed with areas of sandy bottom. While many of the species detected are not recreational target species, three of the top five species that drove similarity across the three artificial reefs were recreational target species; Australian Salmon, Silver Trevally and Snapper. In particular, small juvenile snapper were abundant around the artificial reef habitat, particularly at the Frankston and Altona reefs. Aggregation of small snapper around artificial reefs was also observed for deeper water artificial reefs in Port Phillip Bay (Hamer et al. 2011). While small (<10 cm length, < 1 year age) juvenile snapper are commonly associated with sediment habitats in sheltered bays (Hamer and Jenkins 2004; Saunders 2009), larger juveniles are more commonly associated with structured habitats such as reefs, shellfish and rubble beds (Kingett and Choat 1981; Thrush et al. 2002; Hamer et al. 2011). The high attraction of juvenile snapper to the patch work of artificial reef modules in shallow water is consistent with their naturally observed patterns of habitat use, and may relate to a combination of increased availability

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 46

and diversity of food, and the predation refuges provided by the artificial reef structures (Francis 1995; Thrush et al. 2002). It was interesting that snapper observed on the artificial reefs were typically smaller than those observed on the natural reefs. This likely relates to the observations that snapper typically settle from the larval stage to sediment habitats in Port Phillip Bay (Hamer and Jenkins 2004), and suggests that isolated reef structures placed in areas of sediment are highly attractive to these small juveniles, possible offering them predation refuges and enhanced food availability. The low detection of legal sized (> 28 cm total length) and larger adult snapper observed by the survey methods may be due to the BRUV, visual and creel surveys being conducted at day time and generally on fine weather days to maximise water visibility and the number of interviews (i.e. more people fishing). However, larger snapper are more commonly captured in shallow waters off piers and rock walls around Port Phillip Bay at night and when the sea conditions are rough and the water is turbid (S. Brodie, expert recreational snapper angler, pers. comm.). It is expected that due to these behavioural habits large snapper will be more transient on the near shore reefs. A more complete understanding of whether snapper fishing is enhanced by near shore artificial reefs would require a more sophisticated research or diary angler approach, with the same anglers fishing different weather/sea conditions over a longer time period. For the other recreational target species, Silver Trevally showed a positive response to the deployment of the artificial reefs, particularly at Portarlington, although the anglers surveyed indicated that Silver Trevally was only a minor target species. Silver Trevally were recorded in the catches of surveyed anglers fishing from the Portarlington Pier rock wall after the reefs were deployed but not before, and feedback from follow up discussions with avid anglers indicated recent catches of larger Silver Trevally had occurred from the rock wall adjacent to the artificial reef (Table 7). Similar to the case for Silver Trevally, Calamari were observed by both BRUV and visual surveys to be abundant on the Frankston Pier artificial reef, but were not indicated as a target species at this pier, despite occurring in surveyed anglers’ catches both before and after reef deployment. Angler fishing methods, traditional target preferences, baits etc. may limit their benefit from enhanced opportunities to target Silver Trevally and Calamari at these locations.

Evaluating the benefits of near-shore fishing reefs to recreational anglers While the artificial reef deployments created localised increases in fish diversity and abundance at each site, the creel surveys did not collect sufficient data on catch rates before and after reef deployment to allow a valid quantitative assessment of whether catch rates of particular target species had increased significantly or not after reef deployment. A more sophisticated longer-term diary or research angler approach with avid anglers would be a more suitable approach for tracking changes in catch rates. It may take longer than the a 1-2 year period of post-reef deployment monitoring to detect consistent changes in catch rates of particular species, and informative perceptions of change are difficult to obtain when individual surveyed anglers vary from sampling events before and after reef deployment . Further, creel surveys of pier anglers don’t generally obtain data at the end of fishing trips as do boat-ramp creel surveys. Nonetheless the perception surveys and avid angler follow ups (appendix 6) provided information on the views on performance of the artificial reefs by recreational anglers and other issues that may have been created as a result of their deployment. Perceptions of the fishing experience influenced by catches of target species indicated no major changes in perceptions of surveyed anglers before and after the reef deployment, except for Portarlington where the anglers surveyed after reef deployment had higher proportions of ‘not satisfied’ responses regarding number of fish caught, size of fish caught and availability of target species. It is difficult to conclude whether this was related to the artificial reefs, other broader-scale factors influencing fish numbers, or a change in the experience levels of the surveyed anglers. The anglers surveyed after the reefs were deployed at Portarlington had a higher proportion that had not fished the location before (i.e. holiday makers). Follow up phone discussions with more experienced local anglers suggested a more positive response. In general the dominant perception was that it was still too soon after reef deployment to make clear judgements on whether fishing had noticeably improved or not. Consistent with this, by far the majority of anglers surveyed who had fished the Portarlington Pier rock wall before and after reef deployment, indicated that the fishing experience had remained the same. For anglers who had fished the locations both before and after artificial reef deployment, the perception of changes in the fishing experience were mixed across locations. This likely reflects differences in actual performance of the reefs and the natural dynamics of target species populations. For example, at Frankston more anglers indicated that the fishing experience had worsened, than improved, but this appeared due to the targeting preference being Garfish a species captured near the surface with float rigs and unlikely to be influenced by the artificial reefs. Follow-up conversations with regular Frankston Pier anglers indicated that Garfish numbers had been down in recent years. Overall, most anglers indicated that the fishing experience had remained the same or were unsure if it had changed. There are many processes occurring at larger-scales that could overwhelm the local-scale effects of an artificial reef; including broader recruitment dynamics and migratory behaviour. Further, the main target species indicated by anglers (Snapper, Australian Salmon, Garfish, Mullet, King George whiting, Silver Trevally, Calamari squid) are not considered permanent reef residents but would aggregate periodically around the artificial reefs. This makes detecting changes in fishing

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 47

performance from snap-shot creel or perception surveys more difficult, and hence the recommendation of more long- term structured diary/research angler approaches with avid anglers. Perceptions of enhanced fishing derived from creel/satisfaction surveys will be influenced by the local target preferences of surveyed anglers and their level of experience at the particular locations (i.e. ability to contrast between the before and after reef deployment experience). However, it was clear that most pier based anglers support artificial reefs in general (overall 90% of surveyed anglers support); irrespective of the survey locations, past experience, or timing (before/after reef deployment) and that this overwhelming support for artificial reefs was irrespective of other survey data on their perceptions of performance. For example, at Portarlington even though the proportion of dissatisfied anglers increased after reef deployment, there was no change in the high proportion (87%) of surveyed anglers that supported the artificial reefs. Further, most surveyed anglers indicated they would fish the locations again. This suggests that any dissatisfaction with the fishing experience was not necessarily related with the deployment of the artificial reefs, but likely related to other factors. Previous surveys of boat based anglers in Port Phillip Bay have also indicated similar strong support for artificial reefs, with 80% of surveyed boat anglers indicating they consider them beneficial (Hamer et al. 2011). Other, none catch related, issues that may impact negatively on perceptions of near shore artificial reefs by recreational anglers include; tackle loss, bycatch of undesired species, and increased crowding (both on the pier and in the water). The angler surveys suggested that there were no major changes in the perceived influences of these issues between the before and after reef deployment surveys. However, the follow-up discussions with avid local anglers and observations by the survey divers indicated that tackle loss was an issue with potential to grow, particularly at the Portarlington and Altona Pier reefs. It was for this reason that the reef layouts at these two locations were modified after the first round of post-reef deployment surveys. These modifications and the associated placement of signage with reef-layout diagrams (appendix 5) largely removed the snagging/tackle loss issues at these reefs. More recent discussions with avid anglers at the Frankston Pier suggest that similar modifications to those implemented at Altona would be beneficial at this location, and this is now being considered. The major concerns for Altona Pier anglers were unrelated to the artificial reef, i.e. swimmers jumping off the pier, and lack of space at the end section of the pier, which would require a lateral extension of the pier (i.e. T or L sections) to be resolved (appendix 6). There was no notable change in concerns related to SCUBA divers, spear fishers of snorkelers accessing the artificial reefs at any of the locations. Swimmers were also the main concern of anglers at Frankston Pier, but jet skis were the main concern of anglers fishing the rock wall at Portarlington. The incidence of swimmers and jet skis is not influenced by the creation of the artificial reefs, and is a broader management issue related to use of piers and their adjacent waters.

Involve anglers in the planning and evaluation of a localised fishing and habitat enhancement project Over 500 anglers were engaged as part of the evaluation/creel surveys. The follow up phone/email discussions with 28 anglers where important in supporting the diver observations of snagging issues at Portarlington and Altona, and in helping develop the reconfigured reef layouts and signage information. While the initial planning and consultation phase was extensive, it focussed heavily on organisations or agencies that had a role in approving or endorsing the construction of the reefs at the locations, or other groups that could perceive their use of the areas might be adversely impacted by the artificial reefs. While these consultation activities were necessary, they took significant time and resources away from activities that could have been more aimed at ‘a-prior’ identifying avid local pier anglers to involve in design and longer-term evaluation. While advertised public meetings/information sessions were held through each local council with the project leader, attendance by local pier anglers themselves was disappointingly lower than hoped. Despite signage with contact details for further information being placed at each location for a significant period prior to the reef deployment, information leaflets produced and circulated, and media articles published in local newspapers and online, very little response/enquiry or volunteering for diary angler participation was received from local anglers. Ultimately it was the creel/evaluation surveys that made the strongest connection with the main beneficiaries, the local, avid pier anglers. Irrespective of the views of the angler representative bodies or other individuals who perhaps don’t regularly fish the local piers, forging the connection with the local anglers through allowing time and resources for project staff to survey anglers and identify and develop relationships with the avid/experienced anglers to be involved in planning and monitoring is important for future land-based artificial reefs or other near shore habitat enhancement projects aimed at benefiting land-based anglers. Finally, follow-up discussion with anglers suggests there is clear potential to further enhance the reefs that have been created with additional modules, and or minor reconfigurations. This is a potential opportunity, since the areas of seabed have already been approved for the artificial reefs, and the local consultation and awareness building has occurred previously.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 48

Assessing specified ecological risks associated with near-shore artificial reefs in Port Phillip Bay

It is important to recognise that artificial reefs can potentially have unintended or undesirable consequences, both ecologically and socially. This is why informed risk assessments are required prior to projects being be implemented at a particular site. For near shore reefs in shallow water an obvious risk is to vessels, particularly, when the reefs are placed adjacent to jetties or piers that may also function for vessel landing points. In this case the height of the reef modules was restricted, with advice from local water way managers, to ensure this risk was eliminated prior to reefs being constructed. The size, shape and weight of the reef modules were such that movement, even under extreme storm events was highly unlikely to occur. Snagging, tackle loss and accumulation on the reefs were a clear risk with near shore reefs. Using moveable individual reef module was important in being able to ultimately modify the reef layouts to reduce this problem if it was recognised (as occurred for the Altona and Portarlington Reefs). While the physical risk can generally be ameliorated through design, ecological risks can be a bit unpredictable and require monitoring and a means of reaction if negative ecological impacts are detected (ultimately the reefs need to be able to be removed if necessary). The key ecological risks identified in the risk assessment process included accumulation of exotic species, offsite biodiversity impacts (i.e. attraction of reef dwelling fish species from nearby natural reefs to the artificial reefs), and increased interactions between anglers and protected marine wildlife (i.e. marine mammals, birds). The monitoring data did not indicate any significant accumulation of exotic species on the reef modules, although Asterias ammurensis were observed at very low densities on reef modules at Portarlington and Altona. There was no indication from creel survey catch data, BRUV or visual census of rapidly increased numbers of adult or older juvenile reef associated species (that would have had to have migrated or be ‘drawn’ from other natural reef areas) that would be vulnerable to, or targeted by recreational fishing gear (e.g. Wrasses, Leather Jackets). Finally, there was no indication that interactions between anglers and marine mammals or birds had changed/increased after reef deployment.

Conclusions Well planned and designed near shore artificial reefs for have potential to deliver benefits to land-based recreational fishers. Local context is however important in designing reefs, including understanding of targeting preferences, fishing methods, and design of reefs to fit with the architecture of the land-based fishing platform. Importantly, this study showed a consistent rapid response of biota, including increased fish diversity, and no major negative or unintended consequences of the artificial reefs adjacent to the piers. While snagging was raised as an issue, this was not unexpected and was relatively easily resolved by reconfiguration of reef layouts, made possible by using individual movable reef modules. The project outcomes provide a template for future near shore reefs, including risk assessment, design aspects, reef module resilience and ecological responses to artificial reefs deployed in the near shore environment.

Recommendations Feedback from anglers indicates the reef layouts at Altona and Portarlington are working well and could be enhanced by addition of more reef modules within and seaward of the current modules. The reef at Frankston should be modified by moving the central section to ~60 m out from the pier (replicating the successful Altona layout). This will remove most of the snagging issues. This modification could also include addition of more reef modules to increase the area of habitat and link the three resultant sub-reefs. Improved signage is recommended for Altona and Frankston, although this would require approval by Parks. It was clear that benefits from further expansion of the artificial reef at Altona would not be fully realised by the angling community without modifications to the pier end section to increase angler capacity.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 49

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by Recreational Fishing Licence fees under a commissioning grant. The authors would like to thank Brent Womersley, Pam Oliveiro, Andrew Both and Damien O’Mahony for their assistance with field work and angler surveys. The feedback and phone discussions with a number of local anglers from each location was much appreciated. We also acknowledge the assistance from the respective local councils/foreshore management committees: Hobsons Bay City Council, Frankston Foreshore Advisory committee (Frankston City Council) Bellarine Bayside Foreshore Committee, with organising public information sessions and venues. We also thank local Parks Victoria officers for providing valuable advice in the planning stages.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 50

References

Beinssen, K. (1976) Artificial reefs - the Victorian experience. Australian Underwater Federation, Brisbane.

Bohnsack, J. A. (1989). Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavioral preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 44, 631-645.

Clarke, K. P., and Warwick, R. M. (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd edition. (PRIMER-E Ltd, Plymouth, United Kingdom).

Coutin, P.C. (2001) Artificial Reefs - Applications in Victoria from a literature review. Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute, Report No. 31. Queenscliff, Victoria, pp. 62.

Francis, M.P. (1995) Spatial and seasonal variation in the abundance of juvenile snapper (Pagrus auratus) in the north- western Hauraki Gulf. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29, 565-579.

Gomon, M., Bray, D., and Kuiter, R. (2008). 'Fishes of Australia's southern coast.' (Reed New Holland: Sydney)

Grossman, G.D., Jones, G.P., and Seaman, W.J. (1997) Do Artificial Reefs Increase Regional Fish Production? A Review of Existing Data. Fisheries 22(4), 17-23.

Hamer, P.A. and Jenkins, G.P. (2004) High levels of spatial and temporal recruitment variability in the temperate sparid Pagrus auratus. Marine and Freshwater Research 55, 663-673.

Hamer, P., Mills, K., Grixti D., and Rogala, R. (2011) Trial of recreational fishing reefs in Port Phillip Bay. Fisheries Victoria Research Report Series No. 36.

Kingett, P.D. and Choat, J.H. (1981) Analysis of density and distribution patterns in Chrysophrys auratus (Pisces: Sparidae) within a reef environment: an experimental approach. Marine Ecology Progress Series 5, 283-290.

Pickering, H. (1997) Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the 'attraction versus production' debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fisheries Research 31, 39-59.

Pitcher, T.J., and Seaman, J.W. (2000) Petrarch's Principle: how protected human-made reefs can help the reconstruction of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Fish and Fisheres 1(1), 73-81.

Malcolm, H. A., Gladstone, W., Lindfield, S., Wraith, J., and Lynch, T. P. (2007). Spatial and temporal variation in reef fish assemblages of marine parks in New South Wales, Australia; baited video observations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 350, 277-290.

Mallet, D., and Pelletier, D. (2014) Underwater video techniques for observing coastal marine biodiversity: A review of sixty years of publication (1952-2012). Fisheries Research 154, 44-62.

Murphy, H.M. and Jenkins G.P. (2010). Observational methods used in marine spatial monitoring of fishes and associated habitats. Marine and Freshwater Research 61, 236-252.

Nakamura, M. 1985. Evolution of artificial reef concepts in Japan. Bulletin of Marine Science 37(1), 271-278.

Pollard, D.A. (1989) Artificial habitats for fisheries enhancement in the Australian region. Marine Fisheries Review 51(4), 11-26.

Polovina, J.J. (1991) Fisheries applications and biological impacts of artificial habitats. In Artificial habitats for marine and freshwater fisheries. (Eds. WJ Seaman and LM Sprague) pp. 154-176. (Academic Press: New York)

Saunders, R.J. (2009) The reproductive biology and recruitment dynamics of snapper, Chrysophrys auratus. PhD Thesis, University of Adelaide.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 51

Thrush, S.E., Schultz, D., Hewitt, J.E. and Taller, D. (2002) Habitat structure in soft-sediment environments and abundance of juvenile snapper Pagrus auratus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 245, 273-280.

Willis, T. J., and Babcock, R. C. (2000). A baited underwater video system for the determination of relative density of carnivorous reef fish. Marine and Freshwater Research 51, 755-763.

Winstanley, R.H. (1972) Recent developments on artificial reefs in Port Phillip Bay. Victorian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Melbourne.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 52

Data Appendices BRUV and visual surveys Table 1 Species detection list for the before and after artificial reef sampling periods. AR = artificial reef site, SC=sediment control, NRC = natural reef control, Pier-VS = pier/rock wall visual surveys only. For the AR, SC, NRC detections are from the combined BRUV and visual survey data. Locations where detections recorded indicated as: A=Altona, F=Frankston, P=Portarlington.

Family Before After Species Pier‐VS Common name AR SC NRC AR SC NRC Rhinobatidae Trygonorrhina fasciata A,F A,F,P P F,P A,F,P A,F,P P Fiddler ray Urolophidae Unidentifiable Urolophidae F F,P A,F,P P F,P A,P P Dasyatidae Dasyatis brevicaudata F F,P A,P A,F A,F,P Smooth Stingray Myliobatidae Myliobatis australis A A,F Southern Eagle Ray Clupeidae Hyperlophus vittatus A Sandy Sprat Engraulidae Engraulis australis F Australian Anchovy Ophidiidae Genypterus tigerinus P Rock Ling Mugiliformes Aldrichetta forsteri A,F Yellow Eye Mullet Atherinidae Unidentified Atherinidae F,P A,F Hardy Heads Hemiramphidae Hyporhamphus melanochir F Southern Garfish Syngnathidae Hippocampus bleekeri A A,F,P Potbelly Seahorse Hippocampus breviceps F Short‐head Seahorse Unidentified Pipefishes A Tetrarogidae Gymnapistes marmoratus F Soldierfish Triglidae Lepidotrigla papilio P Spiny Gurnard Platycephalidae Platycephalus bassensis P A,F,P F A,F,P A,F,P Sand Flathead Platycephalus laevigatus P F Rock Flathead Platycephalus speculator A,P P P Yank Flathead

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 53

Table 1. continued

Family Before After Species Pier‐VS Common name AR SC NRC AR SC NRC Caesioperca Caesioperca rasor P Barber Perch Plesiopidae Trachinops caudimaculatus A,F,P F,P A,F,P A,P Southern Hulafish Apogonidae Siphamia cephalotes A,F,P P A,P A,P,F Wood's Siphonfish Vincentia conspersa A,F,P A,F P Southern Cardinalfish Dinolestidae Dinolestes lewini F,P F P Longfin Pike Sillaginidae Sillaginodes punctata P P F,P King George Whiting Carangidae Pseudocaranx dentex P F A,F,P A,P A,F Silver/White Trevally Trachurus novaezelandiae F,P Yellowtail Scad Gerreidae Parequula melbournensis F F Melbourne Silverbelly Sparidae Acanthopagrus butcheri A Black Bream Pagrus auratus A,F,P A,F,P F,P A,F,P Snapper Mullidae Upenichthys vlamingii F,P F,P A,F,P F,P A,F,P A,F,P Southern Goatfish Arripidae Arripis georgianus P Australian Herring Arripis sp. Australian Salmon A,F,P A,F,P A A,F,P A,F,P F,P Girellidae Girella zebra A,P P Zebrafish Microcanthidae Tilodon sexfasciatum F Moonlighter Scorpis Scorpis aequipinnis F,P Sea Sweep

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 54

Table 1. continued

Family Before After Species Pier‐VS Common name AR SC NRC AR SC NRC Enoplosidae Enoplosus armatus F P Old Wife Cheilodactylidae Cheilodactylus nigripes F F,P Magpie Morwong Dactylophora nigricans A P A,P P Dusky Morwong Nemadactylus valenciennesi F F Queen Snapper Pomacentridae Parma victoriae F,P F,P Scalyfin Labridae Notolabrus tetricus A,F,P F Bluethroat Wrasse Pictolabrus laticlavius F Senator Wrasse Odacidae Neoodax balteatus P A,F,P A,F,P A,P A,F,P F,P Little Weed Whiting Bovichtidae Bovichtus angustifrons P P Dragonet Tripterygiidae Triplefins F F A,F A Blenniidae Blennies A,F,P A A,F,P A,F Clinidae Weedfishes A,F,P A A,P Callionymidae Eocallionymus papilio P Painted Stinkfish Gobiidae Gobies A,F,P P A,F,P A Sphyraenidae Sphyraena novaehollandiae P P F Snook Monacanthidae Acanthaluteres P F,P A,F,P A,P F,P spilomelanurus Bridled Leatherjacket Acanthaluteres vittiger A,F Toothbrush Leatherjacket Brachaluteres jacksonianus P A,F,P A P F,P Pygmy Leatherjacket Eubalichthys mosaicus A,F,P Mosaic Leatherjacket

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 55

Table 1. continued

Family Before After Species Pier ‐ Common name AR SC NRC AR SC NRC VS Meschenia freycineti F A F Sixspine Leatherjacket Meschenia hippocrepis A,F,P Horseshoe Leatherjacket Scobinichthys granulatus F,P A,F A,F,P Rough Leatherjacket Thamnaconus degeni F Degen's Leatherjacket Tetraodontidae Contusus brevicaudus F F A,P A,F,P A,F,P A,F,P Prickly Toadfish Tetractenos glaber F A,F,P A,F,P A,F A,F,P F,P Smooth Toadfish Diodon nicthemerus F F,P A,F,P A,F,P F,P A,F,P A,F,P Globe Fish

Other: Loliginidae Sepioteuthis australis Southern Calamary –adults F Southern Calamary ‐eggs A

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 56

Table 2 Results of Mann-Whitney U tests for difference in MaxN estimates after artificial reef deployment between; a) habitats, and b) habitats within locations for each of the recreational target species measured by the BRUV technique. * p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. S=sediment control, AR = artificial reef, NR = natural reef.

a)

Species Habitat Comparisons

AR v S AR v NR NR v S

Sand Flathead S>AR*** NS S>NR***

Snapper NS NS NS

Silver Trevally NS NS NR>S**

NS Australian Salmon NS NS

b)

Frankston Pier Altona Pier Portarlington Pier Species AR v S AR v NR NR v S AR v S AR v NR NR v S AR v S AR v NR NR v S

Sand NS NS NS S>AR* NS NS S>AR** NS S>NR** Flathead

Snapper NS NS NS AR>S** NS NR>S* NS NS NS

Silver NS NS NR>S** NS NS NS NS NS NR>S* Trevally

Aust. NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Salmon

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 57

Table 3 Macro-invertebrate/exotic* species presence/absence list for the before and after artificial reef sampling periods. AR = artificial reef site, SC=sediment control, NRC = natural reef control, Pier -VS=pier/rock wall visual surveys only, ARS = artificial reef sediments, ARM = artificial reef modules. Locations where detections recorded: A=Altona, F=Frankston, P=Portarlington

Family Before After Species Pier‐VS AR SC NRC ARS ARM SC NRC Actiniidae Epiactus sp. A P Sabellidae Myxicola infundibulum A,F,P A,F,P A A,F,P A,P A,F,P Sabella spallanzanii* A,F,P A,F,P A A,F,P A,P A A,F,P Echiuridae Ikeda sp. A,F,P A,F,P F,P F,P A,F,P Haliotidae Haliotis rubra A,F A,F,P Goniasteridae Tosia sp. F, P P A,F,P P Asteropsidae Petricia vernicina F Asteriidae Smilasterias irregularis A,P A,F Coscinasterias muricata A,F,P A,F,P A,F,P A,F A,F,P A,F,P A,F A,F,P Asterias amurensis* F F F,P F,P Uniophora granifera F,P A,F F,P Meridiastra gunnii A A,P P A,F P Meridiastra calcar A F A F Echinometridae Heliocidaris erythrogramma F A,F A,F,P A,F,P A A,F,P A,F,P Stichopodidae Australostichopus mollis P A,P P Ascidiidae Ascidella aspersa P Cionidae Ciona intestinalis* F Holozoidae Sycozoa pulchra A,P F Pyuridae Pyura stolinifera A,F,P A,F,P A,F P A A,F,P A,F A,F,P Herdmania grandis F F,P Styelidae Styela plicata* F P F,P F Styela clava* F P F,P F Portunidae Nectocarcinus sp. A,F,P Majidae Microhalimus deflexifrons A,P Alariacaea Undaria pinnatifida* P A A A,P

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 58

Table 4 Mean densities (scaled to number individuals m-2) of macro-invertebrates and exotic species estimated from visual surveys before and after artificial reef deployment. AR = artificial reef site, SC=sediment control, NRC = natural reef, Pier-VS=pier/rock wall - visual surveys only, ARS = artificial reef sediments, ARM = artificial reef modules. a) Altona, b) Frankston, c) Portarlington. Only species with standardised densities ≥ 0.01 individuals m-2 included.

a) Altona Family Before After ‐ 1 After ‐2 Species AR SC NRC ARS ARM SC NRC ARS ARM SC NRC Common name

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs Sabellidae Myxicola infundibulum 0.18 0.15 0.07 0.01 0.15 Brown fan worm Sabella spallanzanii* European Fan Worm Asteriidae Coscinasterias muricata 0.09 0.15 0.13 0.03 0.70 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.11 Eleven arm starfish

Asterias amurensis* 0.01  59

Recreational Fishing Grants Program Northern Pacific Seastar Echinometridae Heliocidaris erythrogramma 0.01 2.47 4.76 17.89 5.16 0.01 16.97 Purple Urchin Cionidae Ciona intestinalis* Pyuridae Pyura stolinifera 1.81 0.93 7.12 1.64 34.00 23.81 0.05 16.00 Sea squirt Styelidae Styela sp* Portunidae Nectocarcinus sp. 0.01 0.04 Red Rock Crab Alariacaea Undaria pinnatifida* 0.16 0.16 0.01 Japanese Seaweed

b) Frankston Family Before After ‐1 After ‐2 Species AR SC NRC ARS ARM SC NRC ARS ARM SC NRC Common name Sabellidae Myxicola infundibulum 0.01 0.01 0.01 Brown fan worm Sabella spallanzanii*

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs European Fan Worm Asteriidae Coscinasterias muricata 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.27 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Eleven arm starfish Asterias amurensis* 0.01 0.04 Northern Pacific Seastar Echinometridae Heliocidaris erythrogramma 0.01 0.01 2.69 0.04 2.75 0.79 3.43

Purple Urchin  60

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Cionidae Ciona intestinalis* 0.01 Pyuridae Pyura stolinifera 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.24 0.07 0.12 Sea squirt Styelidae Styela sp* 0.07 0.04 Portunidae Nectocarcinus sp. 0.04 Red Rock Crab Alariacaea Undaria pinnatifida* Japanese Seaweed

c) Portarlington Family Before After ‐ 1 After ‐ 2 Species AR SC NRC ARS ARM SC NRC ARS ARM SC NRC Common name Sabellidae Myxicola infundibulum 0.13 0.93 0.01 0.18 0.09 0.17 Brown fan worm Sabella spallanzanii*

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs European Fan Worm Asteriidae Coscinasterias muricata 0.03 0.60 0.07 0.31 0.19 0.23 Eleven arm starfish Asterias amurensis* 0.01 Northern Pacific Seastar Echinometridae Heliocidaris erythrogramma 2.15 2.96 0.16 2.27

Purple Urchin  61

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Cionidae Ciona intestinalis* Pyuridae Pyura stolinifera 0.01 0.31 0.13 0.20 0.63 Sea squirt Styelidae Styela sp* 0.03 0.03 0.01 Portunidae Nectocarcinus sp. 0.24 0.21 Red Rock Crab Alariacaea Undaria pinnatifida* 0.19 Japanese Seaweed

Recreational angler surveys

Table 2 Species recorded as landed by surveyed anglers at each of three locations before and after artificial reef deployment.

Family Before After Species Common name Altona Frankston Portarlington Altona Frankston Portarlington Rhinobatidae Trygonorrhina fasciata  Fiddler ray Triakidae Mustelus antarticus  Gummy Shark Mugiliformes Aldrichetta forsteri      Yellow Eye Mullet Hemiramphidae Hyporhamphus melanochir      Southern Garfish Platycephalidae Platycephalus spp.      Flathead Dinolestidae Dinolestes lewini  Longfin Pike Sillaginidae Sillaginodes punctatus      King George Whiting Carangidae Pseudocaranx dentex   Silver/White Trevally Trachurus novaezelandiae  Yellowtail Scad Sparidae Acanthopagrus butcheri  Black Bream Pagrus auratus       Snapper Arripidae Arripis sp.       Australian Salmon Girellidae Girella zebra  Zebrafish Other:

Loliginidae Sepioteuthis australis    Southern Calamari

Total 6 5 7 8 8 9

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 62

Table 7 Feedback from avid recreational anglers interviewed by phone.

Location Comments Altona Been catching trevally, salmon, pinky snapper and flatties, occasional gummy shark, no notable issues with snagging, pier needs to be extended by adding a T section on the end – not enough space in busy times. Fished 2 months ago – caught some just legal trevally, no negative comments, happy to have reefs. Poor fishing recently, odd flathead and trevally, too many swimmers, not concerned about snagging, bay needs more habitat. I have been fishing off at Altona pier for a long time and have found that since the reef has been there it seems the fishing is better with a greater variety of fish being caught , i personally havent had any issues with snagging . Expanding the end of the pier would be great , there have been many times that i have been there and people have actually been fighting(physically) over the end of the pier , i normally fish late at night now to avoid such issues. I would also like to note the lack of lighting on the pier , most times at night at least 2 or 3 lights aren't working and it takes weeks before they're fixed . Keep up the great work, all the fishos appreciate it Fishing at the pier has not been that good, but that is due to end of the season. With the reef being moved out, that was a good idea and the boys that i go fishing with have had no trouble with any snags. I feel with the next season for fishing of the pier will be more enjoyable with that being resolved. I do have a problem with people walking off the pier with under sized fish which i dont like to see, mostly happens at night. Thank you for your email. It has been quite some time since I have been out to Altona Pier. Not long after I completed your survey I had once again a few times been out there. I can't say I experienced any issues with snagging as you mentioned since the move of the reef itself. It certainly would be more enjoyable if the end of the pier was in a T shape as half the time it is a battle getting that prime position if there are 2 to 3 persons on the end. It actually tends to get quite crowded and possibly unsafe as I have seen lines get crossed . Other fisherman almost taking out the other either with their roda or sinkers when casting their lines. Food for thought I guess. Frankston Reefs are a great thing, perhaps a bit too close, can’t really say if improved fishing or not, some people have complained about snags, but he hasn’t had issues, has noted some people SCUBA diving on the reef. Has been catching some good garfish recently after slow summer, good salmon fishing in Nov/Oct, lots of smaller ‘undersize’ pinkies and has heard of some bigger snapper to 3 Kg being taken on rough days, not concerned about snagging. Support the reefs, but has problems with parking near pier, and pier was closed last time visited, not enough enforcement on pier, too many undersized fish kept. Mostly fishes for garfish, no issue with reef, its good, but parking cost too high for visitors, started to use a kayak now. Poor fishing recently for garfish, occasional snag when casting off end section. Been fishing Frankston Pier for 30 years, happy with reefs – but they are too close, should move the centre bit out as has been done at the other places. Fisheries is doing good work, reefs perhaps bit too close, biggest concern is take of of undersize fish and more than bag limits- more enforcement presence on Frankston Pier please. Portarlington Changes to reef layouts and signage has been great – no longer any snagging issues, jury still out on whether fishing has improved or not – need more time, has noted more trevally including some large ones taken from the rock wall, positive about the reefs. Son has been fishing there most weekends, been catching snapper, salmon and flathead, not sure about impact of reefs. Been catching a few small flatties, no issues with snagging, reefs are Ok. Fished off rock wall recently, caught salmon and trevally including a large one about 1kg, happy with reefs.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 63

Been catching flathead, trevally and some larger snapper last year, not concerned about reefs, must be a good thing.

Figure 1 Comparison of the percentage of anglers surveyed in different age groups, among the three piers and before and after artificial reef deployment.

Figure 2 Comparisons of the percentage of anglers that had fished different numbers of times at each of the piers in the previous year, before and after the deployment of the artificial reefs.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 64

Figure 3 Comparisons of the percentage of surveyed anglers that first fished the three piers in each decade since 1960.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 65

Figure 4 Factors influencing anglers’ fishing experience ‘not’ related to catch of desirable species. No influence Negative influence Unsure . (Arrows are used to indicate a direction of a 10% or greater change in percentage of respondents choosing that option). Note for these aspects no influence = that anglers suggested that this was not an issue that concerned or influenced their fishing experience. There was no option of ‘positive influence’ for these aspects.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 66

Figure 5 Comparisons of the percentage of survey responses indicating the negative influence of various in-water activities. Data are for surveyed anglers who indicated a negative influence due to the crowd in the water.

Figure 6 Percentage of respondents who had interactions with seals, birds or dolphins at the location they were fishing.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 67

Other Appendices

Appendix 1 - Summary of consultation activities and responses

Site Group/stakeholder Contact Method Response Portarlington Bellarine Bayside Vin McKay (CEO) Meeting, phone, email, Site/project endorsed, letter rock wall Foreshore Committee presentation of support provided

City of Greater Geelong Bruce Humphries/Ralph Meeting, phone, email Site/project endorsed Roob (Senior Environmental Engineer, Environment and Natural Resources) Port Business John Rae Advisory letter, phone, Site/project endorsed, no Development Association email issue raised Port Community John Turner Advisory letter, phone, Site/project endorsed, no Association email issues raised Port Safe Harbour Group John Rae Advisory letter, phone, Site/project endorsed, no email issue raised

Mussel Farmers Five active farmers using Advisory letters sent No issues raised Portarlington Pier

St Leonards and Bellarine Phil Walters/Mark Wells Phone, email Site/project endorsed, club Pirates Angling Club will be involved

Parks Victoria Steve McPhee, ranger in Meeting, phone , email Input to design and local risk charge assessments

Association of Geelong Jon Hotchin- Secretary, Advisory letter, phone, Site/project endorsed

and District Angling Clubs email VR Fish Christopher Collins (CEO) Phone, email, Site/project endorsed, letter presentation to ‘Access of support provided

Committee’

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 68

Altona Pier Hobsons Bay City Council Marg Scanlon (Manager Meeting, presentation, Site/project endorsed, letter Recreation), Karen Byrush phone, email of support provided (Foreshore Recreational Assets), Geoff Boyce (Team Leader: Recreational Projects and Foreshore)

Altona Life Saving Club Gillian Maynard advisory letter, email, No issues raised phone Western Suburbs Peter White advisory letter, email, No issues raised Triathlon Club phone Altona Yacht Club Scott McDonald email, phone No issues raised

Hobson Bay Sport and Charles Mangiardi phone Site/project endorsed, club Game Fishing Club will be involved Parks Victoria Edina Critch / Mark Meeting, phone , email, Input to design and local risk Morrissy - Rangers in assessment charge VR Fish Christopher Collins (CEO) phone, email, Site/project endorsed, letter presentation to ‘Access of support provided Committee’ Frankston Pier Frankston Foreshore Dennis Mason, Chairperson Phone, email, Site/project endorsed, letter Advisory committee Hannah Nicholas/Clare presentation of support provided (Frankston City Council) Warren (Biodiversity Coordinators), Lee Halkias (Foreshore and Natural Reserves Co-ordinator) Frankston Yacht Club Committee Phone, email, raised at No issues raised committee meeting Frankston Angling and Secretary phone No issues raised Boating Club

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 69

Parks Victoria Wayne Hill, Acting manager Meeting, phone , email, Input to design and local risk of operations, bays and risk assessment, design assessment maritime, local rangers BAYS AND MARITIME DIVISION VR Fish Christopher Collins (CEO) phone, email, Site/project endorsed, letter presentation to ‘Access of support provided Committee’

Other Parks Victoria Graeme Davis/Wayne Hill phone, emails, meetings, Members of project steering (Port Phillip Port program presentations group, significant input to managers) design and risk assessments

DSE Virginia Brook, Rachel phone, emails, meetings, Involvement in project Marchbank, Stephanie presentations steering group, development Spry, Jo Klempke of monitoring program, risk assessment Yachting (boating) Ross Kilbourn (CEO) phone, email, Reviewed proposal details, Victoria location/design review locations and designs, no major issues raised in relation to boating and yachting Transport Safety Victoria Geoffrey Swanton phone, email, Referred issue to PV as the (was Marine Safety Port managers Victoria)

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 70

Appendix 2 – Creel and perception survey question sheets

Appendix 2 a)

Appendix 2 b)

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 71

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 72

Appendix 2 c)

Appendix 3 – Media articles

Popular News articles

Seafood News - July 2012

Victorian Fishing Monthly – August 2013

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 74

Western Port News - July 2012

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 75

Frankston Standard Leader - January 2013

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 76

Echo - June 2012

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 77

Surf Coast Times – January 2013

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 78

Australian Fishing Tackle Retailer - February-March 2013

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 79

Shipmate News – January 2013 http://www.shipmate.com.au/news/Frankstonfishingimprovedwithrecreationalreef

Frankston fishing improved with recreational reef 29 January 2013 Recreational fishers at Frankston Pier should start to notice more fish in the area thanks to a new recreational reef recently installed by the Victorian Government.

The reef, along with another two installed in November in Port Phillip Bay, have been paid for with $400,000 of proceeds from the sale of recreational fishing licences.

The reef will attract more fish to the area by providing the right shelter and habitat. This is great news for recreational fishers who like to fish from Frankston Pier. The reefs should be rapidly colonised by marine life, providing immediate fishing opportunities this summer, but will take several years to reach their full angling potential.

Snapper are likely to be one of the main species attracted to the reefs. Other species likely to occur on the reefs periodically include leatherjackets, pike, flathead, King George whiting, yellowtail scad, salmon, squid and silver trevally.

The new reef is located in water three to four metres deep, within casting distance at the end of Frankston Pier. It consists of a total of 99 dome shaped concrete reef modules of different sizes. The reef modules range between 170 and 340 kilograms in weight and 50 to 60 centimetres in height. Each reef module has a number of holes and cavities in it to allow water flow and provide refuges for marine life.

The reef, established for land based fishers, complements three recreational fishing reefs previously established within the bay for boat‐based fishers.

Fisheries Victoria is committed to establishing another eight similar recreational fishing reefs in Victorian bays and estuaries over the next two years. Site selection for these reefs is underway and we welcome any suggestions for where they might go.

To suggest a potential site email: [email protected]

For more information on artificial reefs go to: www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/reefs

Back to News

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 80

General media release

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 81

Information session – media release

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 82

Webpage

Fisheries Victoria shore based reefs project web page: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/fishing-and-hunting/recreational- fishing/recreational-fishing-reefs/shore-based-reefs

Includes video footage of development of the Frankston Pier reef, also revised layouts after modifications at Altona and Portarlington.

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 83

Artificial reef for Frankston

16 Jan 2013

REC fishers at Frankston Pier are expected to reap the benefits of a new artificial reef recently installed by the Victorian Government, according to Member for Frankston Geoff Shaw. Mr Shaw said the reef, along with another two installed in November in Port Phillip Bay, had been paid for with $400,000 of proceeds from the sale of recreational fishing licences. "The reef attracts more fish to the area by simply providing the right shelter and habitat," Mr Shaw said. "This is great news for recreational fishers who like to fish from Frankston Pier. "The reefs should be rapidly colonised by marine life, providing immediate fishing opportunities this summer, but will take several years to reach their full angling potential. "Snapper are likely to be one of the main species attracted to the reefs. Other species likely to occur on the reefs periodically include leatherjackets, pike, flathead, King George whiting, yellowtail scad, salmon, squid and silver trevally." The new reef is located in water three to four metres deep, within casting distance at the end of Frankston Pier. It consists of a total of 99 dome shaped concrete reef modules of different sizes which are dropped into place. The reef modules range between 170 and 340 kilograms in weight and 50 to 60 centimetres in height. Each reef module has a number of holes and cavities in them to allow water flow and provide refuges for marine life. The reef, established for land based anglers, complements three recreational fishing reefs previously established within the bay for boat‐based anglers. Mr Shaw said Fisheries Victoria, within the Department of Primary Industries, was committed to establishing another eight similar recreational fishing reefs in Victorian bays and estuaries over the next two years. "Site selection for these reefs is underway and we welcome any suggestions for where they might go," Mr Shaw said. To suggest a potential site email: [email protected] More info at: www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/reefs

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 84

Victorian Fishing monthly - Advert

Trial of near shore artificial reefs  Recreational Fishing Grants Program 85

Appendix 4 – Fact sheets Fact sheet – first version Trial of nearshore artificial reefs

 86

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Fact Sheet - continued Trial of nearshore artificial reefs

 87

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Fact sheet – second version

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs

 88

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Fact sheet second version - continued

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs

 89

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Appendix 5 - Signage

Temporary signage – informing of imminent reef deployment works

Trial of nearshore artificial reefs

 90

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Fixed signage Portarlington Pier – two mounted signs along the rock wall Trial of nearshore artificial reefs

 91

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Altona Pier Frankton Pier and Altona Pier – one fixed sign each

Frankston Pier Trial of nearshore artificial reefs

 92

Recreational Fishing Grants Program

Customer Service Centre 136 186 www.ecodev.vic.gov.au