Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers Pty Ltd

Smith Bay Marine Ecological Survey and Assessment

Prepared by: David Wiltshire and James Brook SEA Pty Ltd

6th September 2016 Table of Contents

SUMMARY 1 Introduction...... 1 2 Regional setting ...... 3 3 Marine biota of the development site...... 7 3.1 Methods...... 7 3.2 Habitat and biota descriptions...... 7 3.2.1 Intertidal beach habitat ...... 8 3.2.2 Mixed reef and seagrass habitat (to 10m depth)...... 8 3.2.3 Seagrass habitat (10-12 m)...... 9 4 Potential impacts and mitigation measures...... 13 4.1 EPBC listed species...... 13 4.1.1 Introduction...... 13 4.1.2 Assessment methods ...... 13 4.1.3 Listed marine species ...... 14 4.2 Direct seagrass loss ...... 15 4.3 Secondary seagrass loss via turbidity effects and erosion ...... 16 4.4 Provision of artificial reef...... 17 4.5 Mobilization of sediments by shipping operations...... 17 4.6 Longshore sand drift...... 17 4.7 Marine pests ...... 17 4.8 Land-based abalone aquaculture ...... 18 5 Environmental offsets ...... 18 6 Conclusions ...... 20 7 References...... 22

List of Appendices Appendix A: Photographs of typical biota and habitats observed during the survey Appendix B: Listed marine species: marine biological assessment List of Tables Table 1. Taxa recorded during the marine survey. Mixed habitat refers to mixed reef, seagrass and sand habitat in depths to 10m. Seagrass habitat refers to sparse Posidonia habitat over rubble and rhodolith substrate at depths of 10-12m. Abundances are expressed as categories: 1 = 1 or 2 individuals or small patches; 2 = 3-10 individuals or patches, 3 = >10 individuals or patches, or a continuous distribution. Common names have not been provided for macroalgae. Regional reef data from the Reef Life Survey program (Reef Life Survey 2016) have been provided for mobile invertebrates...... 10 List of Figures Figure 1. Smith Bay location map...... 2 Figure 2. The Smith Bay site showing the preliminary design of the infrastructure (source: Aztec Analysis 2016) (scale: the floating wharf is 120 m long)...... 2 Figure 3. Existing habitat mapping for Smith Bay (data source: DEWNR 2016a)...... 5 Figure 4. Existing habitat mapping for the central north coast of Kangaroo Island (data source: DEWNR 2016a). Blue dots indicate locations of independent reef survey sites (Reef Life Survey 2015)...... 6 Figure 5. Tracks for kayak-based underwater photo surveys. Orange = November 2015, Purple = August 2016. 8 Summary

This report provides a marine ecological assessment of the proposal to develop a deep water wharf at Smith Bay to export logs from timber plantations on Kangaroo Island. The principal ecological issues were considered to be:  the loss of seagrass during dredging of the wharf basin and approaches;  indirect effects on seagrass communities from increased turbidity and sediment fallout during dredging; and  potential impacts on water quality at the adjacent abalone farm during dredging.

The main findings of the assessment are as follows:  The marine communities at Smith Bay consist of mixed reef and seagrass communities. The seagrasses Posidonia sinuosa and Amphibolis spp. (A. antarctica and A. griffithii) occur in patches amongst rock bottom in depths up to 10m, and continuously, but sparsely, over a mixed substrate of sand, pebble and shell fragment at depths of 10-12 m.  With one exception, it is considered that none of the list marine species is at credible risk from the proposed development.  The marine listed Ring-backed Pipefish Stipecampus cristatus was found in Posidonia habitat in the area that will be dredged and is therefore at credible risk of being affected.  It is considered, however, that the loss of a small amount of pipefish habitat and potentially some pipefish during dredging will have a negligible effect upon their overall population and viability in the area.  Construction of the causeway will result in the direct loss of about 0.5 ha of mixed reef and seagrass habitat that supports dense communities of the seagrasses Posidonia sinuosa and Amphibolis spp.  Dredging will result in the direct loss of about 9 ha of relatively sparse seagrass consisting mainly of Posidonia sinuosa.  The ecological significance of the loss of these seagrass communities will be minor as there is a large amount of similar habitat within Smith Bay and elsewhere along the north coast of Kangaroo Island.  Indirect impacts on adjacent seagrass communities through turbidity and sedimentation effects are likely to be relatively minor as silt curtains will be used to ensure that sediment releases during dredging are minimal.  Potential effects on water quality at the intake for the abalone farm will be mitigated by moving the intake to a more distant location, and potentially installing additional sand filters at the abalone farm to remove sediment from the intake water.  Winnowing of sediments during shipping operations will be minor as the seafloor in the deep water in Smith Bay consists of rubble, coarse sand and shell grit. Effects on biota through increased turbidity and sediment fall-out will therefore be minor.  Should investigations reveal longshore drift to be a significant issue at Smith Bay, the first section of the causeway is likely to be replaced by a pier structure to allow sand to move along the shore.  BiosecuritySA will be consulted to determine the most appropriate wharf operating procedures (to be documented in a marine pest management plan) to minimize the risk of introducing marine pests to Smith Bay.  The loss of seagrass during construction of the causeway and dredging is likely to be offset by supporting programs to reduce nutrient inputs to the local marine environment. Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

1 INTRODUCTION

Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers (KIPT) proposes to develop a deepwater wharf at Smith Bay on the north coast of Kangaroo Island (Figure 1). The wharf will be capable of accommodating 30,000 DWT bulk carrier ships. Although the primary purpose of the wharf will be to export timber from plantations on the island, KIPT proposes to make it available for other shipping uses. The main features of the development at Smith Bay will be:  the construction of a causeway to a floating wharf moored approximately 250 m off- shore at a depth of 10 m at its seaward edge;  the dredging of a 200 x 50 m berthing pocket adjacent to the wharf to depth of 13 m;  the dredging of approaches approximately 600 x 150 m to a depth of 12 m (Figure 2). The on-shore component of the development at Smith Bay will entail constructing several level tiers over an area of approximately 8 ha to store logs, access roads and associated amenities. SEA undertook a preliminary marine ecological assessment of the Smith Bay site and an alternative wharf site at Ballast Head for KIPT in November 2015 as part of an investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of each site (LBW Environmental Projects 2016). Having confirmed that Smith Bay was the superior location for the wharf, KIPT commissioned the development of preliminary plans for the wharf by Aztec Analysis (2016), and further marine ecological studies at Smith Bay by SEA. The aims of the marine studies were to:  describe the marine ecology of Smith Bay in more detail;  assess the potential marine ecological impacts associated with the development, including on State and EPBC Act listed marine species;  provide recommendations on practical means of mitigating potential impacts; and  provide advice on a Significant Environmental Benefit (SEB) to offset the loss of seagrass. The principal ecological issues addressed in the assessment are:  the direct loss of seagrass and other marine communities as a result of the construction of the wharf and dredging operations;  indirect effects on seagrass and other marine communities during dredging operations and associated mobilization of sediments, increased turbidity and sediment fallout, and other possible effects on water quality;  indirect effects on seagrass and other benthic communities during shipping operations resulting from propeller wash and the winnowing of sediments by ships’ propellers;  potential effects on the adjacent abalone farm;  effects of the causeway on longshore sand drift; and  the potential introduction of marine pests to Smith Bay.

1 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure 1. Smith Bay location map.

Figure 2. The Smith Bay site showing the preliminary design of the infrastructure (source: Aztec Analysis 2016) (scale: the floating wharf is 120 m long).

2 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

2 REGIONAL SETTING

Smith Bay is located on the north coast of Kangaroo Island, about 20 km west of Kingscote, between Emu Bay and Cape Cassini. It lies within the Cassini biounit of the Gulf St Vincent bioregion (Edyvane 1999). The north coast of Kangaroo Island is a relatively moderate to low energy environment as it is largely sheltered from the prevailing south westerly swells in the Southern Ocean (Edyvane 1999). Nevertheless, it does at times receive relatively small westerly swells that refract around the island and decline in size and energy as they travel east along the north coast. The north coast is also sheltered from waves generated by strong south westerly winds in winter, and the prevailing south easterly winds and sea breezes in summer. It is, however, exposed to waves generated by occasional strong northerly winds. The relatively sheltered conditions along the north coast of Kangaroo Island have supported the development of isolated but extensive seagrass communities in sheltered bays where there is sandy substrate. Reef communities have developed in the areas with rocky substrate. The marine habitats of the region have been mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 using satellite imagery (DEWNR 2016, Edyvane 1999a, b). This mapping shows continuous reef habitat extending about 800 metres offshore, with bare sand further offshore (Figure 3). It is of limited use at the scale of the present study, however, as it does not capture any of the complexity of the mixed reef, sand and seagrass habitats at Smith Bay. Extensive seagrass communities have been mapped at a similar scale in Emu Bay, to the west of Smith Bay (Figure 4). This mapping shows the depth limit of seagrass in Emu Bay to be approximately 5-8 m. It should be noted that the bathymetry at Smith Bay (and possibly elsewhere) is poorly mapped as in reality the 10 m contour is only 200-250 m from shore rather than 1 km. Seagrass communities in South Australia are generally confined to relatively shallow water where there is sufficient light for photosynthesis. They are invariably denser and more robust in relatively shallow water (< 8 m), and decline in density in the deeper water (>8 m). The depth limit of the seagrasses Posidonia spp. and Amphibolis spp. in Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent are reported to be approximately 8 m (Irving 2014). On Kangaroo Island seagrass cover, diversity and epiphytic load have been studied by Southgate (2005) within several bays to the east of Smith Bay. The seagrass within Emu Bay was found to be in good health with good cover and relatively little epiphytic load. Seagrass further to the east in Nepean Bay, however, was found to be in poor health and showed signs of high epiphytic load and declining cover linked to high nutrient loads (Southgate 2005). Seagrass communities are generally thought to be a very important component of coastal marine ecosystems for the following reasons.  They are the primary source of productivity within the detritus-based food chain.  Seagrass leaves provide an enormous surface area for colonisation by epiphytic algae and epizoic fauna, which greatly increases the habitat diversity and productivity of the system.  The dense leaf canopy baffles the action of waves, thereby preventing erosion and the re-suspension of sediments. Suspended sediments tend to be trapped by seagrasses and bound by their fibrous roots, resulting in increased water clarity.  They are considered to support the larval, juvenile and adult life stages of a number of commercially and recreationally important fish species, such as King George Whiting Sillaginoides punctata, Southern Garfish Hyporhamphus melanochir and Western

3 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Australian Salmon Arripis truttacea (Edgar 2001, McDonald and Tanner 2002, Jones et al. 2008). The fauna associated with seagrass communities on Kangaroo Island were surveyed in Nepean Bay and two other bays further east using beam trawls in summer 2005/06 and winter 2006 (Kinloch et al. 2007). The fauna were found to be dominated by small shrimps (decapods), slaters (amphipods), sea lice (isopods) and snails, crabs, syngnathid fish (pipefish and seahorses), weedy whitings, scorpionfish and clingfish, plus the odd seastar, polychaete worm and sea cucumber.The study showed that the seagrass meadows support a diverse and abundant range of mobile epifauna with 70 species of fish and 87 species of mobile invertebrates being found. It was suggested that the Kangaroo Island seagrass meadows have relatively high species diversity compared with other temperate seagrass ecosystems, possibly due to the confluence of two major oceanic currents: the warm Leeuwin current originating in tropical Western Australia and the cold Flinders current flowing in from Tasmania (Kinloch et al. 2007). The rocky reef habitat along the northern coast of Kangaroo Island supports invertebrate communities that are generally diverse and extensive relative to other parts of the state. Reef fish, invertebrate and/or macroalgal communities have been surveyed on the north coast of Kangaroo Island (although not in Smith Bay) by various community-based programs supported by professional scientists (McArdle et al. 2015, Shepherd et al. 2002, Shepherd and Brook 2007, Reef Life Survey 2016). Reef species of particular conservation or commercial significance (McArdle et al. 2015) recorded during these surveys include Western Blue Groper Achoerodus gouldii, Harlequin Fish Othos dentex, Western Blue Devil Paraplesiops meleagris, Queen Snapper Nemadactylus valenciennesi, Long-snouted boarfish Pentaceropsis recurvirostris, Southern Rock Lobster Jasus edwardsii and Blacklip Abalone Haliotis rubra. The closest Marine Parks to Smith Bay are the Southern Spencer Gulf Marine Park to the west and the Encounter Marine Park to the east, each of which are about 20 km from Smith Bay.

4 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure 3. Existing habitat mapping for Smith Bay (data source: DEWNR 2016a). 5 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure 4. Existing habitat mapping for the central north coast of Kangaroo Island (data source: DEWNR 2016a). Blue dots indicate locations of independent reef survey sites (Reef Life Survey 2015). 6 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

3 MARINE BIOTA OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE

3.1 Methods A marine survey of the development site was undertaken on 3rd August 2016 by David Wiltshire and James Brook of SEA. Habitats in the vicinity of the development site were surveyed by divers using Scuba equipment and underwater cameras. Notes on marine communities were taken on waterproof paper. The approximate path followed by the divers during the survey is shown in Figure 5. Transects were swum perpendicular to the shore to a depth of approximately 10 m, followed by transects parallel to the shore at a depth of 11-12 m. The survey focused on the locations of the proposed causeway, the floating platform and the dredged pocket and approaches. The type and approximate percentage cover of habitats, and the identity and approximate abundance of organisms were noted. The presence of any introduced species was also noted. A species list was generated for fish, large mobile invertebrates, sessile invertebrates, macroalgae and seagrass. Taxa were generally identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible in the field (typically genus or species). It should be noted that the small (<0.5m) swell present during the survey caused significant re-suspension of sediment which reduced visibility to less than 5m. Reef fish typically shelter within the reef habitat rather than forage in the water column when visibilities are below this threshold (Barrett and Buxton 2002). The benthic communities in deeper water (10-12 m) were also surveyed from a kayak using a remotely operated underwater camera that was dropped to the seafloor at numerous locations on a cord. The track taken by the kayak is shown in Figure 5.

3.2 Habitat and biota descriptions The list of species recorded during the survey is given in Table 1. Photographs of habitats and organisms are given in Appendix A. The substrate at Smith Bay consists mainly of rock and reef with a relatively thin veneer of sand that has accumulated in places over the rock. The nearshore section of reef consists of both sheet silcrete reef and loose rock. Further off-shore (10-12 m) the seafloor consists of mixture of rubble and sand. The marine communities consist of mixed reef and seagrass communities. The seagrasses Posidonia sinuosa and Amphibolis spp. (A. antarctica and A. griffithii), which are long-lived species and considered to be particularly important ecologically, occur in patches amongst rock bottom in depths up to 10m, and continuously over a mixed substrate of sand, pebble and shell fragment at depths of 10-12 m. There are isolated, small patches of Zostera nigricaulis, which is a relatively short-lived primary coloniser that tends to recover from disturbance much more rapidly than Posidonia spp. and Amphibolis spp. In the zone less than 10 m deep the cover appears to be approximately 30% seagrass, 60% macro-algae and 10% bare rock or sand. In the deeper water (10-12 m) the cover appears to be sparse (< 40%) seagrass with the remainder be being a mixture of rubble, shell grit and sand. A single unidentified seal was seen approximately 100 m from shore in Smith Bay.

7 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure 5. Tracks for kayak-based underwater photo surveys. Orange = November 2015, Purple = August 2016. 3.2.1 Intertidal beach habitat The intertidal beach area of Smith Bay consists almost entirely of round rocks and boulders that have been weathered and smoothed by wave action. There is only one small section of beach where the rocks and boulders have been cleared to form a small area from which to launch boats. The intertidal communities typically consist mainly of molluscs including Nerita, Bembicium and Austrocochlea, the polychaete Galeolaria, and cructaceans including the barnacles Chthamalus, and the crabs Leptograpsus variegatus and Ozius truncates. 3.2.2 Mixed reef and seagrass habitat (to 10m depth) The subtidal habitats to 10 m depth were patchy with areas of reef, seagrass, bare sand and mixed reef/seagrass. Areas of reef to 3m depth consisted mainly of boulders with 0.5-1m relief that supported canopy-forming fucoid macroalgae including Cystophora siliquosa and Cystophora moniliformis, with an understorey including Osmundaria prolifera, Caulerpa flexilis and the red coralline Haliptilon roseum. Small patches of seagrass Posidonia sinuosa were also present.

8 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

From about 4 m depth there were areas of bare sand and dense stands of seagrass comprising Posidonia sinuosa, Amphibolis antarctica or A. griffithii, or mixed stands of pairs or all of those species. Posidonia coriacea was also observed. The seagrass communities are very healthy and vigorous, which probably reflects the normally clear water in the area. Further offshore to a depth of 10 m areas of platform reef and rubble supported a less dense but more diverse canopy of macro-algae consisting of several species of Cystophora, Scaberia aghardii and Sargassum spp. Patches of Lobophora variegata and the seagrass Amphibolis spp. occupied gaps in the canopy, and isolated, small patches of the Zostera nigricaulis were also present. The mobile invertebrate fauna was dominated by gastropods and echinoderms, particularly sea stars, and is typical of reefs in the area (Table 1). 3.2.3 Seagrass habitat (10-12 m) The substrate at depths of 10-12m consisted of rubble, rhodoliths and shell fragments, with a relatively sparse (<40%) cover of Posidonia sinuosa. The occurrence of Posidonia sinuosa in relatively deep water at Smith Bay (compared with communities in Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent) is probably due to the clearer water along the north coast of Kangaroo Island. The mobile fauna comprised species typically associated with reef, seagrass or both habitats, and was dominated by the Doughboy Scallop Mimachlamys asperrimus, Queen Scallop Equichlamys bifrons, Painted Lady Phasianella australis, Vermilion Biscuit Star Pentagonaster dubeni and Southern Sea Cucumber Australostichopus mollis. The most common sessile invertebrate was the stalked ascidian Pyura sp.

9 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Table 1. Taxa recorded during the marine survey. Mixed habitat refers to mixed reef, seagrass and sand habitat at depths to 10m. Seagrass habitat refers to sparse Posidonia habitat over rubble and rhodolith substrate at depths of 10-12m. Abundances are expressed as categories: 1 = 1 or 2 individuals or small patches; 2 = 3-10 individuals or patches, 3 = >10 individuals or patches, or a continuous distribution. Common names have not been provided for macroalgae. Regional reef data from the Reef Life Survey program (Reef Life Survey 2016) have been provided for mobile invertebrates.

Mixed Reef Photo habitat Seagrass Life Species Common name ref(s) (0-10 m) (10-12 m) Survey Macroalgae Acrocarpia paniculata 1 Caulerpa brownii 2 Caulerpa cactoides 1 Caulerpa flexilis 1 Caulerpa flexilis var. muelleri 1 Caulerpa sedoides 1 Codium pomoides 2 2 Cystophora brownii 1 Cystophora expansa 1 Cystophora monilifera A1 2 Cystophora moniliformis A2 2 Cystophora retorta 1 A1, Cystophora siliquosa A2 3 Dictyosphaeria sericea A19 2 Haliptilon roseum A3 2 Lobophora variegata A27 3 Metagonionlithon sp. 2 Osmundaria prolifera 1 Peyssonenelia spp. 1 Sargassum subgenus A4 Arthrophycus 2 Sargassum subgenus A5 Sargassum 2 Scaberia aghardii A4 2 Sporolithon durum Rhodolith A13 2 Seagrasses A8, Amphibolis antarctica Wire weed A9 2 2 Griffith's Sea A8 Amphibolis griffithii Nymph 2 Thin-leafed Posidonia coriacea Strapweed 1 A6- A9, A11- Posidonia sinuosa Smooth Strapweed A12 2 3 Black-stemmed A8 Zostera nigricaulis Eelgrass 1 1 Fishes Castelnau's Dotolabrus aurantiacus Wrasse 1 Brown-spotted Notolabrus parilus Wrasse 1

10 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Omegaphora armilla Ringed Toadfish A15 1 Pseudocaranx sp. Trevally 3 Siphonognathus Pencil Weed beddomei Whiting 1 Ringed-back A14 Stipecampus cristatus Pipefish 1 Tilodon sexfasciatus Moonlighter 2 Mobile invertebrates Amblypneustes sp. Egg Urchin 2 Anthaster valvulatus Mottled Seastar 1 2 Astralium squamiferum Seagrass Star 1 Southern Sea A20 Australostichopus mollis Cucumber 2 2 2 Centrostephanus Western Hollow- A21 tenuispinus spined Urchin 1 1 Eleven-armed A24 Coscinasterias muricata Seastar 2 Pale Mosaic Echinaster arcystatus Seastar 1 1 Echinaster glomeratus Orange Reef Star A23 1 2 1 Equichlamys bifrons Queen Scallop A18 1 2 Fusinis australis Southern Spindle 1 1 Stumpy pencil Goniocidaris tubaria urchin 1 1 Pagurid sp. Grey hermit 1 Haliotis laevigata Greenlip Abalone 1 Haliotis scalaris Grooved Abalone 1 2 1 Heliocidaris erythrogramma Purple Urchin 1 2 Gunn's Six-armed Meridiastra gunii Star 1 1 1 Mimachlamys A16 asperrimus Doughboy Scallop 2 3 Multi-spined Nectria pedicelligera Seastar 1 1 1 Southern Hermit Paguristes frontalis Crab 1 1 2 Vermilion Biscuit A22 Pentagonaster dubeni Star 3 3 2 Petricia vernicina Cushion Seastar 1 1 2 Phasianella australis Painted Lady A19 3 3 1 Swollen Pheasant Phasianella ventricosa Shell 1 1 Western Slate- Phyllacanthus irregularis pencil Urchin 1 1 Pinna bicolor Razorfish A17 1 1 Plectaster decanus Mosaic Seastar 1 1 1 Pleuroploca australasia Tulip Shell 1 2 3 Giant Australian Sepia apama Cuttlefish 1 1 Uniophora granifera Granular Seastar 1 2 Sessile invertebrates Undentified A29- Ascidiacea spp. ascidians A30 Botrylloides Magnificent A28 magnicoecum Ascidian 1 11 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Clavelina spp. A colonial ascidian 1 Encrusting Soft Erythropodium hicksoni Coral 1 Red-mouthed A25 Herdmania grandis Ascidian 2 2 Iodictyuum phoeniceum Purple Bryozoan 1 Orange Orthoscuticella Filamentous ventricosa Bryozoan 1 Phallusia obesa Obese Ascidian 1 Plesiastrea versipora Green Coral 1 Mauve-mouthed A27 Polycarpa viridis Ascidian 3 Pyura sp. Sea Tulip A26 2 2 A31- Porifera spp. Sponges A36 3 Sycozoa ceribriformis Brain Ascidian 2 Sycozoa murrayi Murray's Ascidian 2 2 Triphyllozoon moniliferum Lace Bryozoan 2

12 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1 EPBC listed species 4.1.1 Introduction Under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 the potential effect of the development on matters of national environmental significance (NES) must be considered. Three matters have been identified as pertaining to the potential effects of the development on the marine environment. These are:  listed threatened species and ecological communities;  listed marine species; and  listed migratory species. This assessment examines the effect the proposed development is likely to have on the relevant controlling provisions of the EPBC Act. Specifically it includes assessments of the:  the species listed in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Report;  their likelihood of occurring in the project area;  the significance of the habitat in the project area to the species;  the risk to each species posed by the development; and  the potential impacts on the species identified from the Protected Matters Report. 4.1.2 Assessment methods A literature review was undertaken of marine fauna, seagrasses, macroalgae and marine habitats recorded in the vicinity of the development. The major sources of information included:  Commonwealth Department of the Environment Protected Matters Search Tool (extracted February 2016) using a 20 km buffer;  Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources Biological Database of South Australia (BDSA);  Bryars, S 2003, An Inventory of Important Coastal Fisheries Habitats in South Australia, Fisheries Habitat Program, Department of Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia (PIRSA), Adelaide; and  Baker, JL 2004, Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, report to Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide. The following criteria were used in assessing the risk to each species (see Appendix B):  Mobility/Alternative habitat: a = mobile species, b = sedentary or not particularly mobile species, c = species with extensive alternative habitat in the area, d = species with limited alternative habitat in the area;  Distribution: 1 = regularly recorded in or near the study area, 2 = occasional records in or near the study area, 3 = rarely recorded in or near the study area; and  Credible Risk, which takes into account: o their occurrence in the Smith Bay region; o the availability of alternative suitable habitat around Smith Bay; o their mobility (i.e. ability to temporarily emigrate from the area of impact);

13 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

o the potential for construction activities to affect the habitat available to these species; and o the likely sensitivity of these species to construction impacts. 4.1.3 Listed marine species Forty-six listed threatened or listed migratory species were identified as potentially occurring near the study area (see Appendix B). These included:  8 threatened (endangered or vulnerable) marine species, which comprised mainly whales and turtles;  32 nationally listed marine species, which included three seal species, three turtles and 26 species of Syngnathid (seahorses and pipefish);  12 species of whale or dolphin; and  12 migratory marine species. The nationally threatened species included the Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis, Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae, Blue Whale Balaeniptera musculus, Australian Sea Lion Neophoca cinerea, Great White Shark Carcharodon carcharias, Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta, Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea and Green Turtle Chelonia mydas. In addition to the nationally listed species, state listed marine species potentially occurring in the area include the cetaceans Pygmy Right Whale Caperea marginata, Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps, Dusky Dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus and Strap-toothed Whale Mesoplodon layardii, all of which are listed as rare. 4.1.4 Effects on listed species The potential risk to each species is given in Appendix B. Twenty two of the listed species have only been recorded around Kangaroo Island on rare occasions. These include the Blue Whale, Killer Whale and Loggerhead Turtle. The likelihood of many of these species being in the study area at the time of construction is therefore remote. None of the listed species is considered to have limited alternative habitat in the study area. Therefore the temporary loss of habitat will comprise a minute proportion of the available intertidal, seagrass, and open water habitat available in the area, and will in no way affect the viability of any of the listed species. Twenty two of the listed species are highly mobile and will therefore be able to move from the area of impact to adjacent unaffected habitat. These include the threatened Humpback Whale, Southern Right Whale, Australian Sea-lion, Great White Shark and Green Turtle. The sessile or less mobile species include 26 species of Syngnathid (seahorses and pipefish). Syngnathids generally occur within relatively low energy seagrass environments such as American River and Pelican Lagoon. The Tiger Pipefish Filicampus tigris is an exception in that it inhabits sandy/muddy substrates rather than seagrass habitat (Baker 2008). During the marine survey the Ring-backed Pipefish Stipecampus cristatus was recorded in Posidonia seagrass habitat (see photo A14 in Appendix A). Population characteristics that may increase the vulnerability of this species include:  apparently restricted distribution of populations in SA (known mainly from the gulfs);  low population densities;  strong habitat association;  probably small home range and low mobility;

14 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

 probable monogamy; and  site-attached reproduction with small brood sizes (Reef Watch 2014).

Dredging will result in the loss of some seagrass habitat and the potential loss of some pipefish. Although pipefish have limited mobility, some are likely to have the ability to move a short distance away from the area of direct impact during construction. Furthermore, there is an abundance of similar habitat in Smith Bay, Emu Bay and other bays along the north coast of Kangaroo Island which would be expected to support a similar density of pipefish. The study of Kinloch et al. (2007), in which the mobile epi-fauna inhabiting seagrass meadows on the north coast of Kangaroo Island were investigated using beam trawls, recorded 119 pipefish comprising 10 species. Although the Ring-backed pipefish was not recorded, the overall density of pipefish within the seagrass meadows was found to be approximately one per 20 square metres. The loss of a very small amount of pipefish habitat and potentially some pipefish during construction will have a negligible effect upon the overall population or viability of pipefish in Smith Bay and on the north coast of Kangaroo Island. The assessment has shown there to be no reasonable or foreseeable possibility that construction and operation of the wharf at Smith Bay will fragment or decrease the size of populations of any of the listed species, affect critical habitat or disrupt breeding cycles. It is concluded therefore that the EPBC Act listed marine species will be at no credible risk from the construction and operation of the wharf at Smith Bay.

4.2 Direct seagrass loss The presence of rock and rubble on the seafloor will necessitate the use of a scallop rather than a cutter suction dredge at Smith Bay. The construction of a causeway and the dredging of the berthing pocket and approaches will result in the direct loss of about 10 ha of mixed habitat including the seagrasses Posidonia sinuosa, Amphibolis antarctica and A. griffithii, and associated invertebrate communities consisting mainly of gastropods, echinoderms, ascidians and sponges. Each of these communities and species is common in both a local and regional scale. The ecological significance of the loss of this habitat, and in particular the seagrass communities, will be minor as there is a large amount of similar habitat within Smith Bay, at Emu Bay and elsewhere along the north coast of Kangaroo Island. A further mitigating factor is that the seagrass (Posidonia sinuosa) in the deeper water (>10 m), which comprises approximately 90% of the seagrass that will be lost, is relatively sparse as it is approaching its depth limit due to the lack of light. Removal of seagrass during construction will require the loss to be offset as all native vegetation in South Australia (including seagrass) is protected under the provisions of the Native Vegetation Act 1991. Clearance of native vegetation is prohibited unless approved by the Native Vegetation Council (NVC). In most circumstances the NVC will approve the clearance of a small amount of native vegetation subject to the production of an acceptable management plan that describes a significant environmental benefit (SEB) to offset the vegetation loss (see Section 6).

15 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

4.3 Secondary seagrass loss via turbidity effects and erosion Secondary impacts on seagrass communities located adjacent to the development site are likely to result from sedimentation and increased turbidity during dredging, potentially ongoing erosion of the seafloor adjacent to the dredged basin and sediment run-off from the construction site on land. Increased water turbidity is likely to have a greater effect on the seagrass communities in the deeper water (>10 m) as they are already close to their depth limit due to lack of light. Turbidity effects are likely to be mitigated to some degree by the relatively coarse nature of the sediments in the areas where dredging will occur. At depths greater than 10 m the seabed at Smith Bay consists of rubble, coarse sand, shell grit and rhodoliths (which are red algae that deposit calcium carbonate in their cells and resemble coral) (see photos A12 and A15 in Appendix A) that will tend to rapidly settle to the sea floor after disturbance, and be relatively resistant to erosion after construction. Furthermore, measures will be taken to minimize silt release during dredging, including the placement of a silt curtain from the surface to the sea bed around the area being dredged. Whilst silt curtains are likely to be relatively effective during calm conditions, their effectiveness is likely to decline with increasingly rough conditions. Although it may not be feasible to time dredging operations to coincide with ebb tidal currents that take the silt plume away for the seawater intake, it may be feasible to pump excess seawater when water quality is good, and store the excess on-site for use when the seawater quality is poor. Similarly, best construction techniques on land will be adopted to minimize the amount of silt being discharged to Smith Bay from the construction site during rain storms. These will include the use of silt fences where appropriate, and the establishment of a suitably sized storm water retention basin adjacent to the shore where storm water run-off will be stored to remove sediment prior to discharge. The storm water retention basin will be retained after construction is completed to control sediment discharge from the log storage tiers to Smith Bay during the operational life of the facility. With the adoption of suitable mitigation measures, it is considered that secondary impacts on adjacent seagrass communities will be relatively minor and temporary. Adjacent seagrass communities may suffer some stress during construction, but recovery after construction is likely to occur, and further loss of seagrass resulting from ongoing erosion of the sea floor is likely to be minor. Dredging and construction management plans will be produced in consultation with government regulators prior to construction commencing. The dredging management plan will prescribe environmental management and monitoring procedures during dredging. Turbidity levels in Smith Bay will be closely monitored during the initial stages of dredging to ensure that the silt curtain proves to be effective in minimizing the release of sediments from the construction site. Should turbidity levels be found to be unacceptably high, the dredging plan will prescribe the actions that will be taken to control the silt release. The construction management plan will be prescribe the measures that will be adopted to minimize silt run-off from the construction site.

16 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

4.4 Provision of artificial reef Construction of the causeway will form additional reef habitat that will be colonized by a diversity of macroalgae and reef fauna, and may result in a more diverse and abundant reef community than currently existing at Smith Bay.

4.5 Mobilization of sediments by shipping operations Winnowing of sediments during ship berthing and departure operations will inevitably result in some degree of sediment mobilization at Smith Bay, which has the potential to adversely affect benthic communities, including seagrass, through increased turbidity and silt fallout. Effects on benthic communities are likely to be minor, however, as the sea floor at depths greater than 10m at Smith Bay consists of coarse sand, rubble, rhodoliths and shell grit (see photos A12 and A15 in Appendix A) that will rapidly settle to the sea floor after disturbance. Mobile species such as fish and crustaceans are likely to temporarily move from areas where sediments have been mobilized by shipping movements.

4.6 Longshore sand drift Development of coastal structures has the potential to interrupt the movement of sand and sediment along shores. At Smith Bay there may be a net easterly movement of sand along the coast in response to the prevailing wave direction. Should investigations reveal that the proposed causeway at Smith Bay is likely to interrupt longshore sand drift, a hybrid causeway and pier structure is likely to be constructed. This would entail replacing the first section of the causeway (approximately 100 m) with a pier structure that would allow sand to continue to move along the shore.

4.7 Marine pests Development of ports has the potential to promote the spread of marine pests via vessels arriving from infested areas. A number of exotic marine organisms have been introduced to ports around South Australia on the hulls of boats and ships and via the disposal of ballast water (Shepherd et al. 2008). The most important species are the European fan worm Sabella spalanzanii ,invasive seaweeds Caulerpa taxifolia and C. racemosa, the European shore crab Carcinus maenas, the New Zealand greenlip mussel Perna canaliculus, the ascidian Ciona intestinalis, the bryozoans Zoobotryon verticillatum and Bugula flabellata and the toxic dinoflagellates Gymnodinium spp. and Alexandrium spp. (Shepherd et al. 2008). Some of these species form extremely dense colonies on the seafloor or hard substrates and can displace native species. They can also damage aquaculture production by fouling infrastructure, reducing water circulation, competing for food and lowering growth rates (e.g. in oyster culture). In the context of Smith Bay and the existing abalone farm, it will be essential that measures are taken to ensure that any abalone related diseases are not introduced. The two most significant diseases are Abalone Viral Ganglioneuritis (AVG), which has been detected in wild abalone stock in Victoria and in abalone farms in Victoria and Tasmania (but not in South Australia), and the abalone parasite Perkinsus, which is already present in the wild abalone populations in South Australia around Port Lincoln.

17 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

No marine pest species have previously been recorded near Smith Bay, with the closest record of several pests, including the European fan worm, being Kingscote (Wiltshire et al. 2010). No pest species were observed in Smith Bay during the marine survey. BiosecuritySA will be consulted to determine the most appropriate operating procedures for shipping to minimize the risk of introducing marine pests to Smith Bay. These procedures are likely to focus on the appropriate disposal of ballast water, appropriate anti-biofouling protocols and records for ships’ hulls and potentially banning ship arrivals from ports where there are known abalone diseases. A marine pest management plan will be produced in consultation with BiosecuritySA prior to the commencement of shipping operations at Smith Bay.

4.8 Land-based abalone aquaculture The land-based abalone farm immediately to the east of KIPT’s development site in Smith Bay pumps seawater into the farm via an intake pipe positioned near the seafloor approximately 200 m offshore at a depth of 9 m. The wharf will be located approximately 700 m from the existing seawater intake and dredging of the eastern approach to the wharf will occur approximately 500 m from the intake. As discussed in Section 4.3, turbidity effects during dredging and shipping movements are likely to be mitigated to some degree by the relatively coarse nature of the sediments in the berthing pocket and approaches. Furthermore, a silt curtain will be placed around the area being dredged to minimize the release of sediment into the water column. Whilst this will substantially mitigate the release of sediments into the water column during dredging, it is inevitable that some sediment will escape, and average water turbidity within Smith Bay will increase during dredging. It is estimated that dredging operation in Smith Bay will occur for several months. In order to minimize the risk of adversely affecting the seawater quality at the abalone farm intake, KIPT proposes to investigate silt plume movement in Smith Bay, and potentially move the seawater intake to a location where water quality will not be affected by dredging. KIPT proposes to commission silt plume modelling in Smith Bay to determine the most appropriate strategy to avoid or minimize impacts on water quality at the abalone farm’s seawater intake. An additional measure to avoid potential impacts on the abalone farm may be the installation of state-of-the-art sand filters at the abalone farm to remove sediment from the intake water.

5 ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSETS

As discussed in Section 4.2, construction of the causeway and dredging operations at Smith Bay is likely to result in the loss of approximately 8 ha of seagrass. Much of this seagrass is sparse Posidonia sinuosa as it occurs in relatively deep water (>10 m), which is approaching the depth limit of this species (see photo A15). Approximately 0.5 ha is likely to be dense seagrass in the shallow water (<10 m). Under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 seagrass is protected and its clearance requires approval by the Native Vegetation Council (NVC). Should approval be given, the NVC will require the proponent to off-set the loss by proposing a strategy that will result in a significant environmental benefit (SEB). There appear to be a number of good opportunities along the north coast of Kangaroo Island to off-set the seagrass loss.

18 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

For example, Kinloch et al. (2007) has reported that the seagrass beds in Pelican Lagoon are exhibiting signs of poor health that are likely to be associated with rural run-off carrying high nutrient loads from fertilizer use on agricultural crops and animal and human waste. Similarly, in Nepean Bay (Western Cove) substantial seagrass loss has occurred as a result of agricultural run-off delivering high nutrient and sediment loads to Western Cove via the Cygnet River (e.g. Gaylard 2005). The ‘Catchment to Coast Project’ has been developed by Natural Resources Kangaroo Island (DEWNR) to arrest the decline and promote the regeneration of seagrass beds in Western Cove by reducing soil erosion and fertilizer runoff. The Project has developed a model of the Cygnet River catchment that predicts nutrient and sediment loads in its tributaries. The model identifies sites and priorities for on-ground works. Existing partners in the Project include land owners, recreational and commercial fishers, community groups, the EPA and SARDI Aquatic Sciences. Appropriate off-set strategies may therefore be to reduce nutrient inputs to the marine environment by either:  making a financial contribution to the ‘Catchment to Coast Project’; or  supporting a similar catchment plan for Smith Bay area.

19 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

6 CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions have been derived from the assessment. Effects on listed species  With regard to marine species, forty eight listed threatened species, listed migratory species and listed marine species potentially occur in the study area.  Of these, 22 of the listed species have only been recorded around Kangaroo Island on rare occasions, none is considered to have limited alternative habitat in the study area, and 22 are highly mobile and will therefore be able to move from the area of impact to adjacent unaffected habitat.  It is considered that none of these species is at credible risk from the proposed development.  The one possible exception is the marine listed Ring-backed Pipefish Stipecampus cristatus, which was found at the development site in Posidonia at a depth of about 11m during the marine survey. There is therefore a credible risk of individuals being impacted during dredging.  There is, however, an abundance of similar Posidonia habitat in Smith Bay, Emu Bay and other bays along the north coast of Kangaroo Island that would be expected to support a similar density of pipefish. It should also be noted that pipefish are not listed as rare.  The loss of a very small amount of pipefish habitat and potentially some pipefish during construction will have a negligible effect upon their overall population in the Smith Bay area. Direct seagrass loss  The construction of a causeway and the dredging of the berthing pocket and approaches will result in the direct loss of about 10 ha of mixed habitat including the seagrasses Posidonia sinuosa, Amphibolis antarctica and A. griffithii, and associated invertebrate communities  The ecological significance of the loss of this habitat, and in particular the seagrass communities, will be minor as there is a vast amount of similar habitat within Smith Bay, at Emu Bay and elsewhere along the north coast of Kangaroo Island.  Removal of seagrass during construction will require the loss to be offset by the provision of a strategy that provides a significant environmental benefit (SEB). Secondary seagrass loss via turbidity effects and erosion  Secondary impacts on seagrass communities located adjacent to the development site are likely to result from sedimentation and increased turbidity during dredging, and potentially ongoing erosion of the seafloor adjacent to the dredged basin.  The potential adverse effects on seagrass communities are likely to be mitigated by: o the relatively coarse nature of the sediments in the areas where dredging will occur; o the placement of a silt curtain around the area being dredged.  Adjacent seagrass communities may suffer minor stress from increased turbidity during construction, but recovery is likely to be rapid.

20 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Land-based abalone aquaculture  There is potential for dredging operations to result in seawater quality being compromised at the seawater intake for the adjacent land-based abalone farm in Smith Bay.  Effects on turbidity are likely to be mitigated to some degree by the relatively coarse nature of the sediments in the areas where dredging will occur.  KIPT will take the following measuring to minimize or avoid potential impacts on water quality:

o A silt curtain will be placed around the area being dredged to minimize the release of sediment into the water column.

o KIPT will move the seawater intake to a location where water quality will not be affected by dredging. The most appropriate location will be determined via silt plume modelling.

o KIPT will investigate the option of installing additional state-of-the-art sand filters at the abalone farm to remove sediment from the intake water. Other potential effects  Construction of the causeway will form additional reef habitat that will be colonized by a diversity of macroalgae and reef fauna.  Winnowing of sediments and effects on benthic communities during shipping operations will be minor as the proposed berthing area at Smith Bay consists of coarse material including rubble, rhodoliths, coarse sand and shell grit, which will quickly settle out.  Should investigations reveal that the proposed causeway at Smith Bay is likely to interrupt longshore sand drift, the first section of the causeway (approximately 100 m) will be replaced by a pier structure that will allow sand to continue to move along the shore.  BiosecuritySA will be consulted to determine the most appropriate wharf operating procedures (to be documented in a marine pest management plan) to minimize the risk of introducing marine pests to Smith Bay. Environmental offsets  The loss of approximately 8 ha of seagrass during construction of the port will require the preparation of an off-set strategy that will result in a significant environmental benefit (SEB).  Offset opportunities are provided by the seagrass beds in Nepean Bay and Pelican Lagoon exhibiting signs of poor health associated with high nutrient loads from agricultural and urban run-off entering the marine environment.  Appropriate off-set strategies may therefore be to reduce nutrient inputs to the marine environment by either: o supporting the existing ‘Catchment to Coast Project’ that aims to reduce nutrient inputs to Nepean Bay via the Cygnet River; or o supporting a similar catchment plan for Smith Bay area.

21 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

7 REFERENCES

Aztec Analysis 2016, Proposed Export Facility at Smith Bay: Preliminary Design Report. Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers, Adelaide.

Baker, JL 2004, Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, report to Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Baker, JL 2006, ‘Syngnathid fish (seahorses, seadragons, pipehorses and pipefishes)’, in The South-West Marine Region: Ecosystems and Key Species Groups, eds S McClatchie, J Middleton, C Pattiaratchi, D Currie, & G Kendrick, Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra, pp. 469–518.

Baker, JL 2008, Marine Species of Conservation Concern in South Australia: Volume 1 - Bony and Cartilaginous Fishes, report for the South Australian Working Group for Marine Species of Conservation Concern, Adelaide (J Baker, consultant), web version published by Reef Watch, Conservation Council of South Australia, Adelaide, viewed 26 March 2008, .

Barrett, NS & Buxton, C 2002, Examining underwater visual census techniques for the assessment of population structure and biodiversity in temperate coastal marine protected areas. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Technical Report Series 11, 1-114.

Bryars, S 2003, An Inventory of Important Coastal Fisheries Habitats in South Australia, Fisheries Habitat Program, Department of Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia (PIRSA), Adelaide.

Cheshire, AC, Collings, GJ, Edyvane, KS & Westphalen, G 2000, Overview of the Conservation Status of Australian Marine Macroalgae: A report to Environment Australia, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Adelaide.

Clapham, PJ, Young, SB & Brownell, RL Jr 1999, ‘Baleen whales: conservation issues and the status of the most endangered populations’, Mammal Review, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 35–60. CSIRO. 2007. Adelaide Coastal Waters Study. South Australian Environmental Protection Authority, Adelaide.

Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2010, Environmental, Economic and Social Values of the Encounter Marine Park, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia.

DEWNR 2012a, Encounter Marine Park Management Plan, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide, South Australia.

DEWNR 2012b, Activities and Uses in Marine Park Zones, FIS91945, viewed June 2015, http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/f8f0f2be-c992-40ca-8190-a12600ca5c20/mp-gen- marineparksactivitiesuses.pdf. Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide, South Australia.

22 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Edgar, G 2001, Australian Marine Habitats in Temperate Waters. Reed New Holland, Australia. 224p.

Edyvane, K 1999, Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia Part 2, Identification of Areas of High Conservation Value in South Australia, SARDI Report Number 39, PIRSA, F2007/000565-9. SARDI Research Report Series No. 816. 44pp.

Gaylard, S 2005, Ambient Water Quality of Nepean Bay, Kangaroo Island. Report No 1: 1999-2004. Environment Protection Authority.

Gill, PC, Ross, GJB, Dawbin, WH & Wapstra, H 2000, ‘Confirmed sightings of dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) in southern Australian waters’, Marine Mammal Science, vol. 16, pp. 452–459.

Irving, A 2014, Seagrasses of Spencer Gulf, in (Eds Shepherd, SA, Madigan, SM, Gillanders, BM, Murray-Jones, S & Wiltshire, DJ) Natural History of Spencer Gulf, Royal Society of South Australia.

Jones, GK, Connolly, RM & Bloomfield AL 2008, Ecology of fish in seagrass In CR Twidale, MJ Tyler & BP Webb (Eds.), Natural History of the Adelaide Region, Royal Society of South Australia, pp. 148-161.

Kinloch, MA, Brock, DJ, Kirkman, H & Laperousaz, T 2007, Seagrass Biodiversity on Kangaroo Island. KI NRM Board Coast and Marine Program Report No. CMP07/004.

Kuiter, RH 2003, Seahorses, Pipefishes and Their Relatives, A comprehensive guide to Syngnathiformes. Second edition, TMC publishing, Chorleywood, UK, 240 pp.

LBW Environmental Projects 2016, Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers Smith Bay Approvals. Draft report for KIPT Pty Ltd.

McArdle, A, Lashmar, K & Klein, H 2015, Diving deeper: a community assessment of Kangaroo Island’s rocky reefs. Final report, Caring for our Country Community Action Grants No. CEG-1217992-261. McDonald, B 2008, The influence of seagrass habitat architecture and integrity on associated faunal assemblages, PhD thesis, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide.

McDonald, B & Tanner J 2002, Investigating the Complexity of Seagrass Faunal Relationships in Spencer Gulf at Two Spatial Scales. In: Seddon, S., Murray-Jones, S. (eds) Proceedings of the Seagrass Rehabilitation and Restoration Workshop for Gulf St Vincent 15- 16 May, 2001. Department for Environment and Heritage and SARDI Aquatic Science, Adelaide.

PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012, Management Plan for the Pelican Lagoon Aquatic Reserve, The South Australian Fisheries Management Series Paper number 56. Primary Industries and Regions South Australia.

Reef Life Survey 2016, Reef Life Survey Data Portal, viewed March 2016, http://reeflifesurvey.imas.utas.edu.au/static/landing.html.

23 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Reef Watch 2014, Seadragons and their friends: a guide to Syngnathidae fishes in South Australia. Conservation Council of South Australia. Prepared by Janine Baker.

Reeves, RR, Smith, BD, Crespo, EA & Di Sciara GN 2003, Dolphins, Whales and Porpoises: 2002–2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World's Cetaceans’, International Union for the Conservation of Nature – Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) Cetacean Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, UK.

Shepherd, SA & Brook, JB 2007, Distribution and ontogenetic shifts in habitat and abundance of the temperate western blue groper, Achoerodus gouldii, Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 71, pp. 1–22.

Shepherd, SA, Brook, JB & Brown, A 2002, A preliminary survey of the western Blue groper on Kangaroo Island. Report for Reef Watch, Adelaide, South Australia.

Shepherd, SA, Bryars, S, Kirkegaard, P, Harbison, P & Jennings JT 2008, Natural History of Gulf St Vincent. Royal Society of South Australia Inc.

Southgate, R 2005, The health and cover of seagrass in the bays of eastern Kangaroo Island. Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board, Kingscote. 94 pp.

Wiltshire, K., Rowling, K. and Deveney, M 2010, Introduced marine species in South Australia: a review of records and distribution mapping. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000305- 1. SARDI Research Report Series No. 468. 232p.

24 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Appendix A: Photographs of typical biota and habitats observed during the survey

Figure A1. Reef habitat covered by Figure A2. Reef habitat covered by Cystphora spp.including Cystphora Cystphora spp.including Cystphora monilifera, Cystphora siliquosa (2-3 m moniliformis (centre) (3-4 m depth) . depth).

Figure A3. Reef habitat covered by Figure A4. Reef habitat covered by Cystphora spp. and coralline turfing algae Sargassum sp. subgenus Arthrophycus and including Haliptilon roseum (3-4 m depth). Scaberia aghardii (4-5 m depth)

Figure A5. Sargassum sp. subgenus Figure A6. Mixed reef and seagrass Sargassum (6-8 m depth) (Posidonia sinuosa). (6-7 m depth)

25 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure A7. Posidonia sinuosa adjacent to Figure A8. Posidonia sinuosa, Amphibolis sand (3 m depth). spp. and Zostera nigricaulis adjacent to rocky substrate (4-5 m depth).

Figure A9. Dense meadows of mixed Figure A10. Mixed seagrass with epiphytes Posidonia sinuosa and Amphibolis spp. (4-5 (5-6 m depth). m depth).

Figure A11. Dense meadows of Posidonia Figure A12. Sparse Posidonia sinuosa on sinuosa (6-7 m depth). rubble/sand substrate (10-12 m depth).

26 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure A13. Rhodolith Sporolithon durum Figure A14. Ring-backed Pipefish Stipecampus cristatus

Figure A15. Ringed Toadfish Omegaphora Figure A16. Doughboy Scallop Mimachlamys armilla asperrimus

Figure A17. Razorfish Pinna bicolor Figure A18. Queen Scallop Equichlamys bifrons

27 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure A19. Painted Lady Phasianella Figure A20. Southern Sea Cucumber australis near the green macroalga Australostichopus mollis Dictyosphaeria sericea

Figure A21. Western Hollow-spined Urchin Figure A22. Vermilion Biscuit Star Centrostephanus tenuispinus Pentagonaster dubeni

Figure A23. Orange Reef Star Echinaster Figure A24. Eleven-armed Seastar glomeratus Coscinasterias muricata

28 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure A25. Granular Sea Star Uniophora Figure A26. Sea Tulip Pyura sp. granifera and Red-mouthed Ascidian Herdmania grandis

Figure A27. Mauve-mouth Ascidian Figure A28. Magnificent Ascidian Polycarpa viridis near the brown macroalga Botrylloides magnacoecum Lobophora variegata

Figure A29. Unidentified compound ascidian Figure A30. Unidentified colonial ascidian

29 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Figure A31. Sponge Figure A32. Sponge

Figure A33. Sponge Figure A34. Sponge

Figure A35. Sponge Figure A36. Sponge

30 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment

Appendix B: Listed marine species: marine biological assessment Priority marine flora and fauna species include those species recognised by state or national (EPBC Act 1999) legislation. The table below lists the marine species identified from the database and literature searches. Birds are assessed elsewhere. Status Letters under column AUS = the category of threat listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, Mi = listed migratory species, Ma = listed marine species, W = whales and other cetaceans) and under column SA = the category of threat listed under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972) (E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, R = Rare) or Fisheries Management Act 2007 (P = Protected) Mobility/Alternative Habitat Letters under column Mobility/Alt. hab.: a = mobile species, b = sedentary or not particularly mobile species, c = species with extensive alternative habitat in the area, d = species with limited alternative habitat in the area. Distribution Numbers under column Distribution: 1 = regularly recorded in or near the study area, 2 = occasional records in or near the study area, 3 = rarely recorded in or near the study area. Credible Risk The potential risk to species was considered in terms of the following criteria:  their occurrence around Kangaroo Island;  their mobility;  the availability of alternative suitable habitat around Kangaroo Island;  the potential for construction activities to adversely affect key habitat of these species; and  the likely sensitivity of these species to construction impacts. Table references (see Section 7) Hab. Mobility Distribution risk? Credible Scientific name Common name Status Notes AUS SA /Alt.

Sharks and rays Carcharodon Great White Shark V, P Recorded in the region. Visits a, c 1 No carcharias Mi the area for feeding (e.g. snapper). Lamna nasus Mackerel Shark Mi P Species or species habitat known a, c 3 No to occur in area. Fish Acentronura Southern Pygmy Ma P The few records to date in SA b, c 3 No australe Pipehorse have mainly come from red /Idiotropiscis algae in southern Gulf St australis Vincent and Investigator Strait. (see Baker 2008 for summary of distribution and habitat, based on specimens recorded to date). Campichthys Tryon’s Pipefish Ma P Recorded in seagrass beds in b, c 2 No tryoni region (Baker 2006) Filicampus tigris Tiger Pipefish Ma P Three specimens had been b, c 3 No lodged at the South Australian Museum prior to 1982. Heraldia Upside-down Pipefish Ma P All SA records to date are from b, c 3 No nocturna southern part of the gulfs and Kangaroo Island. Similar habit and habitat to M. perserrata (see Baker 2008 for summary of SA records). Hippocampus Eastern Potbelly Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No abdominalis Seahorse to occur in area.

31 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment Hab. Mobility Distribution risk? Credible Scientific name Common name Status Notes AUS SA /Alt.

Hippocampus Short-head Seahorse, Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No breviceps Short-snouted to occur in area. Seahorse Histiogamphelus Rhino Pipefish, Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No cristatus Macleay’s Crested to occur in area. Pipefish Hypselognathus Knife-snouted Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No rostratus Pipefish to occur in area. Kaupus costatus Deep-bodied Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No to occur in area. Leptoichthys Brushtail Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No fistularius to occur in area. Lissocampus Australian Smooth Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No caudalis Pipefish to occur in area. Lissocampus Javelin Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 3 No runa to occur in area. Maroubra Sawtooth Pipefish Ma P All SA records to date are from b, c 3 No perserrata southernmost part of gulfs and Kangaroo Island. It utilises rocks, ledges, fissures/crevices and caves, resting on sponges, or sheltering behind sea urchins (see Baker 2008, for summary of SA records). Notiocampus Red Pipefish Ma P The few records from SA have b, c 3 No ruber been from lower Gulf St Vincent, Kangaroo Island and south-east SA (Baker 2008). Associated with filamenous red macroalgae, sponges, and possibly seagrasses (latter as indicated by records in eastern part of the southern Australian range). Phycodurus Leafy Seadragon Ma P See Baker 2008, for summary of b, c 2 No eques Leafy Seadragons in SA. Phyllopteryx Weedy Seadragon Ma P Possible (Baker 2005). b, c 3 No taeniolatus Pugnaso Pug-nosed Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No curtirostris to occur in area. Solegnathus Robust Pipehorse Ma P Almost all records from trawl, in b, c 3 No robustus a limited area of eastern Great Australian Bight – (see Baker 2008). Stigmatopora Spotted Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No argus to occur in area. Stigmatopora Wide-bodied Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No nigra to occur in area. Stipecampus Ring-backed Pipefish Ma P Individual found at Smith Bay b, c 2? No cristatus in Posidonia meadow during August 2016 (see summary of SA distribution in Baker 2008).

32 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment Hab. Mobility Distribution risk? Credible Scientific name Common name Status Notes AUS SA /Alt.

Urocampus Hairy Pipefish Ma P There are only two known b, c 3 No carinirostris records in SA to date, both from the eastern Great Australian Bight (1965 and 2004, SA Museum data). This is a very small and inconspicuous species (see Baker 2008, for summary of this species in SA). Vanacampus Mother-of-pearl Ma P There are few museum records b, c 3 No margaritifer Pipefish (SA Museum and Museum of Victoria) (see summary of SA distribution in Baker 2008). Vanacampus Port Phillip Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No phillipi to occur in area. Vanacampus Long-snouted Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No poecilolaemus to occur in area. Vanacampus Verco’s Pipefish Ma P Species or species habitat known b, c 2 No vercoi to occur in area. Mammals Arctocephalus Long-nosed Fur Seal Ma P Isolated records of stray a, c 2 No forsteri individuals. Not a significant habitat for this species, compared with other parts of SA. Arctocephalus Australian Fur Seal, Ma R, Most Australian fur seals found a, c 3 No pusillus Australo-African Fur P in SA occur off Kangaroo Island Seal and the southeast of SA, with occasional records from other locations (e.g. Encounter Bay, and southern Eyre Peninsula). Balaenoptera Minke Whale W P Records from near Port Lincoln, a, c 3 No acutorostrata south of Eyre Peninsula and in south-east SA. Balaenoptera Bryde’s Whale W, P Isolated records. Normally found a, c 3 No edeni Mi in offshore waters. Balaenoptera Blue Whale E, E, Very infrequently recorded a, c 3 No musculus W, P around Kangaroo Island. Mi Caperea Pygmy Right Whale W, R, Rarely recorded around a, c 3 No marginata Mi P Kangaroo Island. Occasional strandings occur. Delphinus Common Dolphin W P Throughout SA waters. Groups a, c 1 No delphis occupy home ranges, feeding on small fish and cephalopods. Eubalaena Southern Right Whale E, V, Sub-Antarctic waters during a, c 2 No australis W, P spring and summer, migrate Mi north in winter for calving, mating and nursing their young to Victor Harbor, the Great Australian Bight and the gulfs (Reeves et al. 2003).

33 Smith Bay Marine Ecological Assessment Hab. Mobility Distribution risk? Credible Scientific name Common name Status Notes AUS SA /Alt.

Grampus griseus Risso’s Dolphin W P Rarely recorded around a, c 3 No Kangaroo Island, including one record at Kingscote. Kogia breviceps Pygmy Sperm Whale W R, Isolated records in the area. a, c 2 No P Pygmy Sperm Whales normally occur in offshore waters. Lagenorhynchus Dusky Dolphin W, R, Most of the Australian sightings a, c 3 No obscurus Mi P to date come from around Tasmania (e.g. Gill et al. 2000). There are confirmed sightings from Backstairs Passage area near Kangaroo Island. Megaptera Humpback Whale V, V, Spend summer feeding in a, c 3 No novaeangliae W, P temperate and polar waters, and Mi winter calving and mating in warmer tropical waters. However this species is an infrequent visitor to SA coastal waters (Clapham et al. 1999). Mesoplodon Strap-toothed Whale W R, Isolated records (e.g. SA a, c 3 No layardii P Museum data, 1983) of stray individuals in the gulfs. Strap- toothed Whales are normally found in offshore waters. Neophoca Australian Sea-lion V V, Australian Sea-lions seasonally a, c 2 No cinerea P visit the gulfs to feed on cephalopods and fish, and are regularly observed (particularly during winter and spring). Breed on at least 50 islands off the coast of WA and SA. Orcinus orca Killer Whale, Orca Mi P Very rarely recorded around a, c 3 Kangaroo Island as stray individuals. Tursiops aduncus Indo-Pacific W P Throughout SA waters. a, c 1 No Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops Common Bottlenose W P Likely to occur in the region a, c 3 No truncatus Dolphin occasionally (it is more of an oceanic species than T. aduncus). Reptiles Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle E, E May potentially visit the region, a, c 3 No Mi, as stray individuals. Ma Chelonia mydas Green Turtle V, V Recorded uncommonly, as stray a, c 3 No Mi, individuals. Ma Dermochelys Leatherback Turtle E, V Sightings in southern gulfs. a, c 3 No coriacea Mi, Recently nominated for transfer Ma to Critically Endangered category under the EPBC Act 1999.

34