South East Marine Parks Working Group Final Report, 10 June 2009

The South East Marine Parks Working Group was established to provide advice to the Minister for Environment and Conservation with regards to preliminary zoning possibilities and consequential outer boundary amendments for proposed Marine Parks 18 and 19. It was also tasked to make recommendations in relation to local area management needs/principles that may be considered to facilitate implementation of the Marine Parks process of implementation.

In coming to the first working group meeting: The Seafood Industry (in conjunction with local recreational fisher organisations) and Local Government representatives were unable to support the proposed outer boundaries as released by the South Australian Government on 29 January 2009, nor were they able to agree to all the drivers adopted by the South Australian Government behind developing the proposed outer boundaries, particularly the need for large, general managed use zones; South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council (SARFAC) agreed to the outer boundaries but made a strong recommendation that access should be maintained to all beaches for the purposes of recreational fishing; The Conservation Sector agreed to discuss amendments to the proposed outer- boundaries if the Working Group could broadly agree on the size and location of significant sanctuary zones and habitat protection buffers. Local Government representatives were keen to maintain traditional arrangements valued by local communities especially as they relate to commercial and recreational fishing.

At the conclusion of discussions: The Working Group was unable to come to a single set of recommendations. The Working Group members acknowledged they had undertaken a valuable and essential process which allowed meaningful engagement by all relevant stakeholders and which should be maintained throughout the entirety of the management planning process. All working group members agreed that the South Australian Government’s proposed outer boundaries for marine parks 18 and 19 could be modified and have provided two versions with significant commonality but a range of major differences (See Map 1 and Map 2) and supporting statements from the commercial and recreational fishing and local government alliance and from the conservation sector (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). Both proposals embraced a combination of sanctuary zones and habitat protection zones but differ markedly on the proposed number and size of sanctuary zones and the need for buffer arrangements. Neither proposal contains general managed use zones nor do they include scientific reference areas. As expected, the size and location of sanctuary zones dominated discussions and presented the most difficulty and all agreed should be subject to more detailed analysis informed by all relevant information before being finalised.

Despite the differences a number of appropriate areas for enhanced protection under marine parks were identified. Two areas were agreed for investigation as potential sanctuary zones in the Coorong bioregion. One of these overlaps with an agreed aquaculture zone and will need further investigation from a policy perspective. Greater difficulty was experienced in the Otway bioregion. The commercial fishing alliance have proposed a number of habitat protection zones and some small sanctuary zones while the conservation sector have proposed larger sanctuary zones and a greater number of areas protected by a combination of habitat protection zones and sanctuary zones.

In relationship to the issue of displaced effort, the submission from the commercial and recreational fishers and local government alliance provides a detailed analysis from a fishing industries perspective. This was unfortunately not available until the end of the working group process but presents a major step forward in terms of understanding the potential impact of these discussions and providing some clarity for future discussions.

Progress made through the working group process has been considerable in terms of providing confidence that the South Australian Government will provide for genuine engagement of marine user stakeholder groups and local interests in marine park establishment. While the Working Group outcomes leave a range of issues open at this point, there is genuine intent by all stakeholders involved to continue to participate in a constructive dialogue and information sharing process with Government to achieve optimal outcomes.

The Working Group has constructively expended considerable time and effort and developed a valuable pool of knowledge about the region and specific issues related to establishing marine parks 18 and 19. The Working Group respectfully submits the outcomes of its initial deliberations and requests an ongoing opportunity to be reconvened and involved in future outer boundary and zoning discussions and management planning related to marine parks in the South East of South Australia.

Peter Alexander Chair – South East Marine Parks Working Group

Submission to the Minister of Environment

South East Marine Park Network Submission

5 June 2009

This submission has been prepared as a result the stakeholder working group process implemented to consider alternative marine park

boundaries. The proposal has been prepared by SARFAC, SELGA and the Commercial Fishing Industry and has the broad support of the Upper

and Lower South East Recreational Fishing Associations and the Pt MacDonnell Offshore Angling Club.

Contents

1. Executive Summary...... 4

National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA’s)...... 4

Commercial and Recreational Fishing and Local Government Revised Boundary Proposal ...... 5

Displacement Impacts and Estimated Buyout Costs ...... 6

2. Proposed Marine Parks in the South East of South Australia...... 7

Attachment 1 ...... 11

Marine Park Network Proposals – South East (Otway and Coorong)...... 11

Commercial, Recreational & Local Government Proposal...... 11

Marine Park Network Proposal – South East (Otway and Coorong) – ...... 15

Conservation Sector Proposal...... 15

Attachment 2 ...... 16

Conservation “Hot Spots”, Threats and South East Risk Assessment...... 16

1. Conservation “Hot Spots” ...... 16

2. Threats to the South East Marine Environment ...... 17

2.1 Climate change ...... 17

2.2 Illegal fishing...... 18

2.3 Introduced species/disease...... 18

2.4 Marine mammals...... 18

2.5 Ecological Effects of fishing ...... 19 3

2.6 Commercial Fishing ...... 20

3. Summary South East marine risk assessment...... 21

ATTACHMENT 3...... 26

Meeting the Objectives of the Marine Parks Act (2007) and the Guiding Principles and Criteria of the National Representative System of marine

protected Areas ...... 26

1. Proposed Marine Park: Piccaninnie Ponds ...... 28

2. Proposed Marine Park: Port MacDonnell ...... 33

3. Proposed Marine Park: Canunda ...... 38

4. Proposed marine Park: Little Dip ...... 43

5. Proposed marine Park: Guichen Bay/Baudin rocks ...... 48

6. Proposed Marine Park: The Granites/Lacepede Bay ...... 53

7. Proposed marine Park: Coorong Tea Tree Point ...... 59

8. Proposed Marine Park: Murray Canyons (State Waters) ...... 64

ATTACHMENT 4...... 69

Preliminary Displacement Buyout Estimates...... 69

1. Executive Summary

National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA’s)

1. DEH has confirmed that the primary purpose of marine parks in South Australia is to meet SA’s commitments to the National

Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPAs). The Marine Parks Act (2007) embodies such a purpose. This Stakeholder

group supports the Principles and Guidelines for implementing the NRSMPA’s system.

2. We believe however that the DEH proposed implementation of the NRSMPAs does not meet either the spirit or the objectives of the

NRSMPAs, as:

a. no threats have been identified to conservation values in the South East (even though representatives have asked for them to

be detailed); 1

b. no systematic consideration of the appropriate management response to any threats in the South East has been articulated ;

and

c. the fact that virtually all the habitat features listed by DEH for inclusion in Otway, are already represented in the NRSMPAs in

one or more of the Discovery Bay, 12 Apostles, The Arches, Merrie Marine Parks in Victoria, and have been ignored.

3. All members of this Stakeholder group expressed concerns about the process for changing zones once a management plan is in place,

and are seeking further clarification of the legislated process.

4. SARFAC is, and has been, seriously concerned at the continuing loss of access and opportunity over the past ten years for anglers in

South Australia and the marine park process further adds to this concern. The scope and detail of the conservation sectors wishes in

relation to sanctuary zones will be alarming for anglers. Any loss of access that is measurable will trigger a similar claim to the

commercial sector for compensation which may be in the form of de facto or default compensation, similar to that which was offered in

Queensland in relation to the Morten Bay Marine Park.

Baker (2004), part 1 supports this and says “The development of a representative MPA system in South Australia should consider

existing impacts and potential threats within and surrounding potential MPAs, from bioregional to local scales. Such information is

pertinent to MPA site selection, priorities for establishment, zoning, management and monitoring”. There also has to be a

prioritization of threats so that the management response is appropriate. Baker (2004), part 1, following the NRSMPA guidelines says:

“There is a need to develop a method of quantifying and ranking threats and impacts, to assist MPA site prioritization, management

planning and zoning”. This has not been done by DEH.

Commercial and Recreational Fishing and Local Government Revised Boundary Proposal

5. To demonstrate our support for the NRSMPAs, key impacted stakeholders have developed a proposal (Attachment 1) for a system of

marine parks in full recognition of the principles and guidelines of the National System. The representation of key habitats in existing

Otway Bioregion Marine parks has been accounted for in framing the Stakeholder proposal (Attachment 1).

6. The DEH listed benthic habitats, shoreline features and representative habitats are fully accounted for in the Stakeholder proposal in

terms of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of the National System. This is also presented (Attachment 1).

7. In Attachment 2 the 10 conservation “hot spots”, threats, risk assessment and current management arrangements have been assessed

and also taken into account the Stakeholder proposal.

8. The analysis in Attachment 3 shows that the proposed marine parks fully meet and often exceed the criteria for the NRSMPA and also

meet the objectives of the Marine Parks Act (2007). The different viewpoints regarding marine parks in South Australia are therefore a

matter of interpretation, not factual differences, with the Government’s current proposals being an extreme interpretation of NRSMPA

requirements that is both inconsistent with the well‐established NRSMPA process and out of step with the interpretation of this process

by other Commonwealth and State jurisdictions.

9. The Stakeholder proposal is considered to be an appropriate management response in terms of the threats to the ecosystems and

habitats of the bioregions and to the identified conservation values.

10. It should be noted that the case to exclude fishing from any marine park has not been made and as such the Stakeholders propose

that all areas in the revised marine parks be zoned habitat protection, except for a small area (50m ‐ 100m) around the boils at

Piccaninnie Ponds and Baudin Rocks and the area proposed for Pt MacDonnell which are all supported as sanctuary areas. In

addition, should the need for further sanctuaries be established within the proposed Parks, indicative minimum impact sanctuary zones

have been identified by the stakeholders as part of the proposal (Attachment 1).

11. The last available version of marine parks proposed by the Conservation stakeholders has also been included in Attachment 1. There was

agreement amongst all representatives that general use areas are rejected and parks should comprise areas of high level protection,

namely either habitat protection and/or sanctuary zones. The general location of revised parks was also agreed except Wrights Bay,

which would see unnecessary and substantial recreational and commercial displacement. Agreement could not be reached with the

conservation group on the outer boundary size and the size and location sanctuary zones within revised boundaries. 6

Displacement Impacts and Estimated Buyout Costs

12. Section 21 (a), Division 5 of the Marine Parks Act 2007 requires that compensation be paid to licence holders for the impacts of

displacement. A working group has been developing details of a fair and equitable approach. While the details are not finalized,

estimates have been made of the assumed as essential and fair elements of displacement buyout for the key fisheries in the South East

(lobster and abalone):

13. Habitat protection zoning of all proposals would see no displacement of commercial and recreational fishing. The indicative sanctuary

zones in this proposal are aimed at minimum recreational and commercial fishing displacement.

14. A preliminary assessment of commercial sector displacement buyout costs for both the Conservation and our Stakeholder proposals, is

presented (Attachment 4).

15. The preliminary displacement costs are estimated at $342,600 and $407,797 per tonne of abalone and lobster respectively. It should

also be noted that the marine scale and cockle industries will also potentially be impacted by the proposals depending on final zoning.

16. An estimate of the range in displacement tonnes and compensation costs, if the respective Stakeholder and Conservation sector

sanctuary proposals (Attachment 1) were implemented, is set out below:

Rec, Commercial & Local Govt Conservation

Low tonnes High tonnes Low tonnes High tonnes

Abalone Tonnes 3 3 44 49

Lobster Tonnes 7 14 159 212

Abalone displacement cost $856,500 $856,500 $15,074,400 $16,787,400

Lobster displacement cost $2,752,627 $5,709,153 $64,839,661 $86,452,881

Total Displacement Cost $3,609,127 $6,565,653 $79,914,061 $103,240,281

17. The potential compensation cost ranges from and estimated $3.6m ‐ $103m.

18. The commercial sector, local Government and recreational sector representatives wish to thank the Minister for the opportunity to

participate in this process. 7

2. Proposed Marine Parks in the South East of South Australia

As a result of the stakeholder taskforce process that was put in place to advise the Hon. Minister on Marine Park issues, including indicative

zoning, the following (Attachment 1) is the position and recommendations of the commercial fishing industry in the region, SARFAC and SELGA.

This position is also in broad agreement with the Upper and Lower South East Recreational Fishing Associations and the Pt MacDonnell Offshore

Angling Club.

The agreement has been reached following agreement by taskforce parties, including DEH that the primary purpose of marine parks in South

Australia is to meet SA’s commitments to the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPAs) which was agreed to

between the States, territories and Commonwealth in 1998. The Marine Parks Act (2007) embodies such a purpose.

The Stakeholders fully support the NRSMPAs and the Principles and Guidelines for implementing the system that was agreed to by all

2 3

jurisdictions in 1999 . Of critical importance are the first 4 steps of the NRSMPAs process, and the status with regards the DEH process, are:

NRSMPS’s Status

Step 1 Gather baseline data, including ecosystem mapping. Completed by DEH

Step 2 Identify a list of candidate areas within IMCRA regions to Completed by DEH

represent major ecosystems, using identification criteria

Step 3 Identify threatening processes. Not done for South East by DEH –

completed by SEPFA

Step 4 Identify gaps in the representation of ecosystems in existing Not done for Otway – ecosystems

MPAs within each IMCRA region. already represented in Victoria

ignored

We believe that the DEH proposed implementation of the NRSMPAs does not meet either the spirit or the objectives of the NRSMPAs but,

rather, is an attempt to use a legitimate process to impose an extremist protectionist view of marine conservation in the State, which will have

serious impacts on both important primary industries and regional communities in the State. Some of the evidence to support this is:

• No threats have been identified to conservation values in the South East (even though representatives have asked for them to be

detailed) and no systematic consideration of the appropriate management response to any threats in the South East has been

ANZECC, 1999, Guidelines for Establishing the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, Environment Australia, Canberra, 19pp.

ibid 8

articulated. DEH has consistently maintained that threats have been identified and are articulated in Baker (2004). However, this is

misleading. Baker (2004) is irrelevant for 3 reasons:

1. it does NOT address the threats to the conservation values of the bioregions but addresses threats to the integrity of the marine

parks after they have been established

2. the data is now at least 6 years out of date and

3. many of the ‘threats’ are generic, are factually incorrect, are not specific to the SE region and ignore current practices under 6

other legislation .

Threats to the conservation values MUST be addressed under the NRSMPA. Baker (2004), part 1 supports this and says “The development of a

representative MPA system in South Australia should consider existing impacts and potential threats within and surrounding potential MPAs,

from bioregional to local scales. Such information is pertinent to MPA site selection, priorities for establishment, zoning, management and

monitoring”. There also has to be a prioritization of threats so that the management response is appropriate. Baker (2004), part 1, following the

NRSMPA guidelines says: “There is a need to develop a method of quantifying and ranking threats and impacts, to assist MPA site

prioritisation, management planning and zoning”. This has not been done.

• The scale at which marine habitat protection is being promoted is inconsistent with the NRSMPAs and other States. For example, in

implementing their commitment to the NRSMPAs, Victoria recognizes marine habitats as comprising of Rocky reefs (intertidal and

subtidal), Kelp forests, Soft sediments (intertidal and subtidal), Seagrass beds, Mangroves and saltmarsh and Pelagic waters. These 6

broad categories may be compared with the more than 15 categories that have, at various times, been promoted by DEH in support of

the need for marine parks in South Australia. Also, some of the categories being proposed by DEH are land‐based (e.g. exposed cliffs,

sandy beaches etc) which do not form part of the NRSMPA criteria.

• DEH is has not taken account of other initiatives as part of the NRSMPAs. In particular, the Otway bioregion, which extends across State

borders of South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, already has representative examples of bioregional habitat protected, including 4

Baker, 2004, part 3, p. 262, which says in Section 9.2, Issues for Risk and Impact Assessment, “The following may be considered to have actual or potential

impact upon both the viability of Marine Protected Areas, and the areas surrounding MPAs”

For example, a large part is taken up with a consideration of ‘threats’ from aquaculture activities – there is currently no existing or planned marine aquaculture activities of significance in the region.

For example, part 3 states that “Mulloway are caught commercially, recreationally and as part of the bycatch of the shark fishery in the upper South‐East. The species has population characteristics that may make it vulnerable to overexploitation”

Step 3 of the NRSMPA process which is “identify threatening processes”.

Parks Victoria, 2002, Victoria’s system of marine national parks and marine sanctuaries, draft management strategy, p. 16 9

large marine parks in Victoria, one near to the SA/Victoria border. Despite DEH being requested to supply information on the extent to

which these parks already meet the requirements of the NRSMPAs in terms of Otway, no response was provided.

We can provide other examples if required.

We re‐iterate that the commercial fishing industry, recreational groups and local government are fully supportive of the National System of

Representative Marine Protected Areas and of South Australia’s full participation in this, but, as indicated above, we believe that this system is

being manipulated to implement alternative, extremist, agendas. Accordingly, to demonstrate our support for the NRSMPAs, we have developed

our proposal for a system of marine parks (Attachment 1) in full recognition of the principles and guidelines of the National System. (Also shown

in Attachment 1 is an alternative proposal by conservation representatives).

In order to meet the requirements of the National System, an independent scientific team, commissioned by SEPFA, 3 of the 4 Local South East

Councils and the local recreational bodies, has completed a risk assessment in terms of the threats to the South East marine environment

including the 10 “conservation hot spots” identified in the South East waters. As part of this process current management arrangements have also been considered (See Attachment 2). Hence the proposal covering size, location and zoning of the marine parks shown in Attachment 1 has

been developed taking into consideration this risk assessment and existing parks in the Otway Bioregion, and is considered to an appropriate

management response in terms of the threats to the ecosystems and habitat of the bioregions and to the identified conservation values.

Accordingly, we believe that the proposed marine parks outlined in Attachment 1 fully meet South Australia’s commitment to the NRSMPAs.

Attachment 3 provides a detailed analysis of this issue.

While the analysis in Attachment 3 details how the proposed marine parks meet the core CAR (Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and

Representativeness) principles, some specific comment on the issue of ‘adequacy’ is first needed since this has been a common argument that

DEH has used to justify the very large marine parks in South Australia.

The ANZECC guidelines on NRSMPAs require that adequacy (i.e. having large enough Marine Parks to ensure the ecological viability of

populations, species and communities) must be addressed as part of the core CAR principles of the national system. However, no precise basis

exists for determining exactly what ‘adequacy’ is and therefore the principle is often open to extremist interpretation.

While there is uncertainty as to a definition of ‘adequacy’, a core principle that has been agreed upon as part of the NRSMPA is that ‘adequacy’ 10

will be MPA‐specific and will depend on the conservation values, threats and the amount of information available . Information needs are

also linked to the need for a ‘precautionary approach’ since the greater the information, the less the need for a ‘precautionary’ approach.

Australian Government (2006) Guidance on achieving comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness in the Commonwealth waters component of the

NRSMPA, Scientific peer review panel for the NRSMPAs, Canberra, Dept. Environment, February 20 2006, p. 5 10

The ‘adequacy’ test is therefore not a simplistic calculation of how big or small the proposed marine parks are. Rather, any consideration of

‘adequacy’ must consider whether the proposed marine park is sufficient to ensure the ecological viability of populations, species and

communities, given the conservation values being protected, the threats to those conservation values and the amount of information available.

Therefore, in the following analysis, the issue of ‘adequacy’ has been assessed against the NRSMPAs principles through the risk assessment as

presented in Attachment 2 and not on the simplistic approach of how large the proposed marine park is.

The analysis in Attachment 3 shows that the proposed marine parks fully meet and often exceed the criteria for the NRSMPA and also meet

the objectives of the Marine Parks Act (2007). The different viewpoints regarding marine parks in South Australia are therefore a matter of

interpretation as noted above, not factual differences, with the Government’s current proposals being an extreme interpretation of NRSMPA

requirements that is both inconsistent with the well‐established NRSMPA process and out of step with the interpretation of this process by

other Commonwealth and State jurisdictions.

Finally as per the terms of reference of the stakeholder consultation process, the economic impacts of the proposal have been estimated. The

preliminary assessment is based on economic data (for 2007‐08) collected annually by PIRSA Fisheries. Details of the estimated displacement

costs are provided in Attachment 4.

In summary with abalone and lobster licence values in the range of $3m ‐ $8m, the preliminary displacement cost is estimated at $342,600 and

$407,797 per tonne of abalone and lobster respectively. It should also be noted that the marine scale and cockle industries will also potentially

be impacted by the proposals depending on final zoning and any displacement costs for these fisheries are not included in the analysis of

Attachment 4. The range in potential tonnes of displaced fishing and displacement cost is estimated for the no‐take areas proposed for each of

the Commercial and Conservation sector South East Marine Parks networks are summarized below.

Rec, Commercial & Local Govt Conservation

Low tonnes High tonnes Low tonnes High tonnes

Abalone Tonnes 3 3 44 49

Lobster Tonnes 7 14 159 212

Abalone displacement cost $856,500 $856,500 $15,074,400 $16,787,400

Lobster displacement cost $2,752,627 $5,709,153 $64,839,661 $86,452,881

Total Displacement Cost $3,609,127 $6,565,653 $79,914,061 $103,240,281

Australian Government (2006) Guidance on achieving comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness in the Commonwealth waters component of the

NRSMPA, Scientific peer review panel for the NRSMPAs, Canberra, Dept. Environment, February 20 2006, p. 6

Attachment 1 Marine Park Network Proposals – South East (Otway and Coorong)

Commercial, Recreational & Local Government Proposal

The Stakeholder proposal is shown on the following map and includes:

1. Murray Canyons – State Waters 2. Mid Coorong Tea Tree Point 3. Lacepede Bay & The Granites 4. Margret Brock Reef Lobster Sanctuary 5. Cape Jaffa – Lobster Sanctuary 6. Baudin Rocks/Guichen Bay – 100m sanctuary Baudin Rocks 7. Little Dip 8. Penguin Island ‐ sanctuary 9. Canunda 10. Pt MacDonnell ‐ sanctuary 11. Piccaninnie Ponds – includes a 50m sanctuary

The representative habitats identified by DEH have been included as follows: Otway Bioregion Proposed Park High‐energy sandy beaches and freshwater springs; Piccaninnie Various limestone reef formations (shore platforms, fringing and outcrops); Picannine, Canunda, Little Dip, Baudin/Guichen Kelp forests and dense seagrass meadows; Piccaninnie, Pt MacDonnell, Canunda, Productive natural processes such as the Bonney Upwelling; Entire network Two coastal Wetlands of National Importance (Ewens and Piccaninnie Picannine Ponds). Coorong Bioregion Proposed Park Long stretches of exposed, high energy sandy beaches backed by vast dune Tea Tree Point and systems; Lacepede Bay Occasional rocky headlands with wave‐cut shore platforms and fringing Not applicable for South reefs; East – Pt Elliot/Middleton Extensive limestone reef formations supporting kelp forests and offshore Margret Brock and limestone low platform reefs interspersed by sandy seafloor habitats; Lacepede Bay Natural processes such as the Bonney Upwelling; Entire network Dense seagrass beds mixed with sandy patches are found in the shallow Lacepede Bay & Tea Tree waters along Long Beach; and Point Sheltered bays, such as those at Robe and Kingston, and the numerous Robe is not in the small bays found within the park boundaries support different plant and Coorong Bioregion. animal communities, including habitats such as sheltered beaches, reefs, seagrasses and coastal wetlands. Lacepede Bay 12

The stakeholder proposal is that all areas be zoned as habitat protection (except Picannine boils, Pt MacDonnell, Baudin Rocks, Penguin Is & Margret Brock Reef sanctuaries), as the risks assessment does not indicate the need for higher levels of protection. In addition the case to exclude fishing from any marine parks has not been made.

That said, the stakeholders have considered potential areas for sanctuary zones (even though the need has not been identified). Should the need be identified indicative minimal impact sanctuary zones are also shown.

Marine Park Network Proposal – South East (Otway and Coorong) – Commercial, Recreational & Local Government

The Stakeholder Coorong and Otway Bioregion Marine Park Network ‐ DEH Listed Benthic Habitats & Shoreline Classes

SA SA Bioregion Stakeholder Bioregion Discovery Twelve The Stakeholder Benthic Habitats Coorong Proposal Otway Bay Apostles Merri Arches Proposal Sparse seagrass Medium seagrass Dense seagrass ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Dense seagrass patches Granite reef ♦ ♦ Heavy limestone ♦ or calcarenite reef ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Low profile ♦ platform reef ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Bare sand ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Shoreline Classes Saltmarsh Mangrove Mudflats and sand Intertidal Seagrass - shallow/ emergent Fine/medium sand beach ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Coarse sand beach ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Cobble/ pebble beach ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Mixed beach ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Bedrock platform ♦ N/A ♦ ♦ ♦ Cliff ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Boulder beach Sand dunes ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ KEY Not in the bioregion ♦ Present in bioregion and included in the network 15

Marine Park Network Proposal – South East (Otway and Coorong) – Conservation Sector Proposal11

11 Please note this is the last version provided by the Conservation representatives. Updated versions have not been provided. 16

Attachment 2

Conservation “Hot Spots”, Threats and South East Risk Assessment

1. Conservation “Hot Spots”

The “Hot spots” of high conservation value in Areas 18 and 19 were identified in the DEH documentation as:

1. Blackfellows Caves/Nene Valley,

2. Blanche Bay/Cape Northumberland,

3. Eight Mile Creek/Brown Bay/Green Point (and offshore reefs),

4. Ellards Creek/Piccaninnie Ponds,

5. Cape Banks/Canunda,

6. Lacepede Bay/Cape Jaffa/Margaret Brock Reef,

7. Guichen Bay/Baudin Rocks/Cape Dombey/Little Dip,

8. Nora Creina Bay,

9. Penguin Island/Cape Martin/Beachport, and

10. Coorong.

The broad potential risks to marine biodiversity have been stated (Borderwatch March 09) by DEH to be:

• Coastal marine discharges

• Coastal development

• Aquaculture development

• Fishing issues

• Introduced marine pests

• Oil spills

• Oil and mineral exploration and mining

• Marine debris and dumping of wastes

• Noise pollution

• Physical disturbance of habitats

2. Threats to the South East Marine Environment

2.1 Climate change

The coastal oceanography of 18 and 19 (the southeast region of SA) is dominated by the Bonney upwelling. The continental shelf comes close to

shore near Port MacDonnell. Prevailing SE winds in summer generated by high pressure systems situated in the Great Australian Bight cause

nutrient rich waters from the deep ocean to be introduced into surface waters stimulating productivity. This “Bonney upwelling” generally 12

affects the South Australian coastline under the influence of the westward flowing Flinders current . Important beneficiaries of the Bonney

upwelling include: blue whale populations which feed on surface krill swarms; the rocklobster fisheries of South Australia (particularly the

southern zone); and the southern zone abalone fishery.

In the case of rocklobster the productivity (sustainable annual catch) can be illustrated by comparing it to other fisheries targeting the same

species. The annual sustainable catch from the southern zone of South Australia (from some 100 km of coastline) is similar to that of the entire

New Zealand fishery (of some 2000 km). Upwellings in South Australian waters typically occur during summer. During winter, the coastal

oceanography in South Australia is dominated by the easterly flowing Leeuwin current bringing warm tropical waters from the West Australian

coast. Variation to coastal oceanography, particularly shore‐setting currents will influence recruitment patterns of rocklobster by transporting

pelagic larvae to suitable benthic habitat.

Climate change will affect coastal oceanography by influencing the position of high pressure systems in South Australia and subsequently the

frequency and duration of upwelling events. Changes to the Leeuwin and Flinders current will also occur by more general changes in water

temperature and salinity. These changes will particularly affect state waters (and influence the sustainable yields of fisheries, particularly lobster

and abalone) and commonwealth waters (particularly feeding opportunities for blue whales). Because of the unique association of bathymetry

and climate driving the Bonney upwelling, the habitat and species of the southeast coast of South Australia are arguably more vulnerable to

climate change than for other coastal regions.

These other regions will be affected by changes to habitat range primarily mediated by changes in sea surface temperature. In any case, marine

protected areas applied in state waters will not influence coastal oceanography and its impact on species and habitats. Clearly, MPAs will not

mitigate climate change impacts. Conservation strategies designed in an environment of changing climate need to take account of changing

12 Butler et al. 2002. Assessment of the Conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling Area. Report to Environment Australia December 2002 73pp. 18

species ranges and habitat shifts. This implies broader, whole of ecosystem approaches would be favoured over spatially fixed and isolated

MPAs.

2.2 Illegal fishing

Fish theft by definition is illegal. Marine protected areas, including “no take” zones will not deter illegal fishing. On the contrary, illegal fishing

presents a significant threat to high value species such as abalone and rocklobster but also to recreational species such as snapper and King

George whiting.

2.3 Introduced species/disease

Significant threats to habitats and species in South Australian waters are presented by introduced species. Species which have already been

shown to have a detrimental affect on ecological processes in the coastal waters of south east Australia include the Japanese sea star Asterias

amurensis and the seaweed Undaria pinnatifida. Typically, marine species are introduced by ships (as epibiota or in ballast water). Other vectors

include discards of aquarium species e.g. Caulerpa taxifolia. Other threats include diseases which have had a significant negative impact on

abalone fisheries (abalone viral ganglioneurits) and pilchard fisheries (herpes virus). In these examples, diseases have been attributed to poor

quarantine management of aquaculture facilities.

2.4 Marine mammals

Cetaceans (whales, dolphins) and pinnipedes (seals) are listed species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(EPBC Act). Under this act it is an offence to cause a negative impact on these animals. In particular, the Australian sea lion is considered to be 13

critically endangered, so much so that the human‐induced death of a single female can threaten the viability of the population . Quantitative

data on the level of mortality of Australian sea lions through entrapment in rocklobster pots is limited.

Rocklobster pots can trap female sea lions attracted to the bait in the neck of the pot . Effective mitigation strategies with mandatory seal

exclusion devices (SEDs) are employed by certified ‘Clean Green’ fishers (see below). However, unless all fishers apply SEDs there is a residual

Report of the Technical Working Group (2005). Fishing risk assessment for the Development of a representative system of marine protected areas in the

south-east marine region. October 2005. 14

McKenzie et al. (2005). Understanding the impediments to the growth of sea lion populations. Final report to the Department of Environment and Heritage

Migratory and Marine Species Section. 19

threat of drowning sea lions. Captures appear to be localized around breeding colonies and haul out sites . However, foraging distances can be 16

much greater (on average 80km from their colony) .

As well as the direct entrapment of sea lions in pots, sea lions also become entangled in marine debris associated with the rocklobster industry.

Such debris includes plastic straps used to bind bait boxes and rope from rocklobster pot floats (many such entanglements have been shown to 17

have originated from recreational rocklobster pots ). Again, effective mitigation strategies are mandatory for certified Clean Green fishers.

Whales can become entangled in rocklobster ropes and have been injured in this way in the adjacent Victorian fishery. Excess rope accumulates

on the surface and presents a risk to whales. The Clean Green program is a proactive system of mandatory work place standards aimed at

reducing or eliminating adverse environmental impact. Under the Clean Green program, certified fishers are required to set pots with minimal excess surface rope considerably reducing or eliminating the risk of surface entanglement of whales.

2.5 Ecological Effects of fishing

Implicitly, commercial fishing is a key threat to marine biodiversity and a key driver of MPA doctrine. Much media attention has been given to

“experts” promoting no‐take marine reserves as a necessary management option to address overfishing. Such experts typically come from

North America where examples of over fishing are abundant. Notably, the stated function of the National Representative System of Marine

Protected Areas is to conserve biodiversity not to protect fish stocks.

Similarly, abalone are opportunistic herbivores primarily feeding (as adults) on drift seaweed. Abalone do not influence the macroalgal

community composition of subtidal reefs and there is no evidence that sustainable fishing of abalone will affect reef community ecology.

More generally, the notion that MPAs provide “critical baselines to measure any changes to the state’s marine ecosystems that may arise over

time from, for example pollution or climate change” must be challenged. First, there are no quantitative base line data. Second, what changes

are to be measured? Presumably, changes to marine biodiversity are to be measured as maintenance of biodiversity is the primary conservation

ibid 16

Goldsworthy et al. (2007). Foraging ecology and diet analysis of Australian sea lions. Final report to the Department of the Environment and water

resources. 17

McKenzie et al. op cit. 18

McShane and Naylor (1995). Density independent growth of Haliotis iris (Mollusca:Gastropoda). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 190,

51−60. 19

Marine Park 19 Lower South East Marine Park Description (2008). Government of South Australia. 20

objective. Barriers to measurement (apart from a lack of baseline data) include: replication, degrees of freedom, and statistical power (to detect a significant change).

It is worth noting that data on many of these potential impacts are absent and the Government’s marine park proposals do not include any

process for collecting the data to monitor impacts. Unless this data is collected, there will be no way of knowing whether the proposed Marine

Parks, if they are introduced, actually achieve their stated aims of protecting marine biodiversity and habitats.

2.6 Commercial Fishing

Fisheries in South Australia are already well managed by international standards. The major rocklobster and abalone industries of the South East

region have been subject to previous environmental assessments, and is considered, at worst, a minor or negligible threat to marine biodiversity

and marine habitats because the industries are already effectively and sustainably managed.

With regards lobster fishing, however, there are issues that need addressing and these include (a) the entrapment threat, although minor, to sea

lions in pots (b) the threat, although minor, to turtles and whales of entanglement in ropes and (c) full implementation of previous

recommendations by DEWHA to install escape gaps in pots to allow escapement of finfish and undersized lobster. Marine Parks are not needed to deal with these industry management matters.

There is no shark fishing and/or trawling undertaken in State waters in the South East of South Australia.

3. Summary South East marine risk assessment

Assessment of the threats is fundamentally important to establishing the boundaries and zoning arrangements for marine parks. Significantly,

the only threat that has been proposed to be managed in the stakeholder process is that of fishing even when it is the only issue that has been

demonstrated by the Commonwealth Government’s environmental agency to be already ecologically sustainably managed in South Australia.

The following provides a preliminary risk assessment for the South East region.

What is at risk? What is the threat? Significance and management action

needed.

Inshore marine ecosystems Agricultural run‐off, effluent A significant threat. Creation of a

throughout the South‐east from agricultural drains and marine park does not address the

coastal area. polluted groundwater problem. Requires Local Government,

DEH and PIRSA to enforce existing

legislation regarding effluents.

Inshore marine ecosystems Ship pollution and rubbish A minor threat. Managed under

throughout the South‐east international shipping regulations

coastal area. through IMO. Creation of a marine

park does not address the problem

since this occurs in international

waters.

Commercial fish species, No significant threats Long history of sustainable

particularly southern although experiences from management and assessment under

rocklobster other States and studies federal environmental legislation as

show that creation of Marine conforming to ESD requirements.

Parks may be detrimental in Management and industry action is

well managed quota needed to address entanglement of

fisheries (see separate turtles and whale and sea‐lion

discussion below and section interactions. The recreational and

5) Moderate threats to commercial rocklobster fishery should

turtles, by‐catch species and adopt recommendations to install

sharks that need addressing. escape gaps in all pots. 22

What is at risk? What is the threat? Significance and management action

needed.

Leafy and weedy sea dragon Agricultural run‐off and A moderate threat. Proposed marine

populations at Rivoli Bay, Nora some illegal capture park does not address the problem,

Creina Bay and Cape Jaffa particularly at Rivoli Bay. Requires

Local Government, DEH and PIRSA to

enforce existing legislation regarding

effluents

Threatened fish species – Threat not known Reasons for population decline needs

Australian grayling identifying. Marine park may play a

part depending on the mobility life‐

history of the species (residency etc)

Wetland of National Groundwater pollution and A significant threat. Requires Local

Importance at Ewens Ponds reduced water availability Government, DEH and PIRSA to

and Eight Mile Creek that have due to irrigation enforce existing legislation regarding

potential for listing on The effluents and groundwater extraction.

National Estate. Wetlands at Marine park of little direct value.

Piccaninnie Ponds and Ellards

Creek. Piccaninnie Ponds

conservation park on the

Orange‐bellied parrot at Cape Occasional shore feeder and Protection already exists through the

Banks possibly impacted by marine creation of Butchers Gap, Little Dip

and coastal degradation if it Conservation Parks and Bernouilli

occurs. Conservation Reserve for this purpose.

Protection already exists through the

creation of Canunda National Park.

Insignificant residual threat. Marine

park creation would have marginal

impact. 23

What is at risk? What is the threat? Significance and management action

needed.

Australian sea lions at Penguin Physical disturbance Moderate threat. Protection of the

Island/Beachport and also at immediate vicinity of the haul‐out site

Baudin Rocks(haul‐out site) is the appropriate management

response

Little Penguins, Crested Terns, Physical disturbance to Protection already exists through the

Silver Gulls, Black Faced breeding area and creation of Baudin Rocks (Godfrey

Cormorants at Penguin agricultural drain run‐off at Islands) Conservation Park. Moderate

Island/Beachport. Little Long beach near Baudin residual threat. Protection of the

penguins and crested terns at rocks. immediate vicinity is the appropriate

Baudin Rocks. management response

Migratory waders ‐ Grey Plover, Physical disturbance Moderate threat. Protection of feeding

Mongolian Sand Dotterels, areas is appropriate but Marine Parks

Green Shanks, Bar‐tailed do not address the problem.

Godwits at Penguin

Island/Beachport

Four Conservation Parks at No threats identified Managed as National Parks. Creation of

Guichen Bay, Cape Thomas, marine park does not provide

Baudin Rocks and Little Dip on additional protection

the Register of the National

Estate. 24

What is at risk? What is the threat? Significance and management action

needed.

Southern Right Whale and No significant threats Already protected. Highly migratory and

other Cetaceans identified. Theoretical therefore a marine park only in state

possibility of entanglement waters provides no additional

in rocklobster pot ropes but protection.

threat considered

insignificant.

Hooded plover nesting sites at Lack of and quality of water Significant threat. Marine park creation

Coorong does not address the issue.

Internationally important Lack of and quality of water Significant threat. Marine park creation

breeding site for migratory does not address the issue.

waders and water birds at

Coorong

These ‘potential risks’ are taken verbatim from Baker (2004) and, as noted above, these are risks to the viability and integrity of a marine park

once established and are NOT threats to the habitat, ecosystems and conservation values of the marine environment in the South East. How the

Marine Parks will address each of these threats has not been described and in particular no fishing issues have been identified by DEH.

In the absence of a DEH risk assessment, the following have been identified as threats to these marine habitats, ecosystems and conservation

values. The threats have also been prioritized (as required under the NRSMPA process) by an independent scientific panel commissioned by

SEPFA and they concluded from this prioritization process that:

a) Significant threats to the marine biodiversity and the marine environment in the South‐east are:

¾ Agricultural run‐off, especially from drains, generally impacting the inshore marine ecosystem throughout the region

¾ Reduced water volumes and quality that impact on water bird and migratory wader breeding colonies in several areas and

also impact fish nursery areas, particularly in the Coorong. 25

b) Other threats, of a lesser significance, that were identified include the physical disturbance of sea lion haul‐out sites at Penguin

Island/Beachport and also at Baudin Rocks and physical disturbance of migratory wading bird and penguin breeding sites in

other areas of the South‐East, aside from the Coorong.

c) Commercial fishing activities are considered, at worst, a minor or negligible threat to marine biodiversity and marine habitats

because the industries are already effectively and sustainably managed, although there are issues that need addressing.

No evidence has been provided by DEH to the stakeholder process, to show how the proposed Marine Parks 18 and 19 in the South East will

contribute substantially to protecting and conserving marine biodiversity and marine habitats. However, where issues have been identified in

relation to the conservation hot spots, which can be addressed with a marine park, these have been included on the Stakeholder proposal.

ATTACHMENT 3

Meeting the Objectives of the Marine Parks Act (2007) and the Guiding Principles and Criteria of the National

Representative System of marine protected Areas

The following presents an analysis of how the proposed marine parks in the South East address the objectives of the Marine Parks Act (2007)

and also address the guiding principles and criteria of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPAs). These

proposals are in addition to existing marine protected areas in the south‐east (e.g. sanctuary areas at Margaret Brock reef and Rivoli Bay).

This analysis is based on the agreement by all parties that the prime objective of marine parks in South Australia is to meet SA’s commitment to

the NRSMPAs, as agreed to between the States and Commonwealth in 1998. This commitment is embodied in the Marine Parks Act (2007). This

Act also establishes (Section 1(b) (iv)) that allowing Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD) and use of the marine environment as a key

objective and it further defines a set of 11 principles that should be taken into account in achieving ESD.

The Objectives of the Marine Parks Act (2007) are set out in Section 8 of the Act and are as follows:

1. The objects of this Act are

(a) to protect and conserve marine biological diversity and marine habitats by declaring and providing for the management of a

comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine parks; and

(b) to assist in—

(i) the maintenance of ecological processes in the marine environment; and

(ii) the adaptation to the impacts of climate change in the marine environment; and

(iii) protecting and conserving features of natural or cultural heritage significance; and

(iv) allowing ecologically sustainable development and use of marine environments; and

(v) providing opportunities for public appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of marine environments.

Sections 2 and 3 of the Objectives of the Act then define how the principles of ESD are to be taken into account.

ANZECC, 1999, Guidelines for Establishing the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, Environment Australia, Canberra, 19pp, Table 1 27

The criteria for guidelines for establishing the NRSMPAs are the subject of an agreement between the States, Commonwealth and Territories in

1998 and are articulated in ANZECC, 1999 (see footnote 20).

The following provides details as to how each of the proposed marine parks addresses the NRSMPA criteria and also how the proposed parks

address the objectives of the marine Parks Act (2007).

In summary the analysis shows that the proposed marine parks fully meet and often exceed the criteria for the NRSMPA and also meet the

objectives of the Marine Parks Act (2007).

While the analysis details how the proposed marine parks meet the core CAR (Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and Representativeness)

principles, some specific comment on the issue of ‘adequacy’ is first needed since this has been a common argument that DEH has used to justify

the very large marine parks in South Australia.

The ANZECC guidelines on NRSMPAs require that adequacy (i.e. having large enough Marine Parks to ensure the ecological viability of

populations, species and communities) must be addressed as part of the core CAR principles of the national system. In addressing the adequacy

test, the NRSMPA has been implemented in other jurisdictions by adopting the principle that ‘adequacy’ will be MPA‐specific and will depend on 21

the conservation values, threats and the amount of information available . Information needs are also linked to the need for a ‘precautionary

approach’ since the greater the information, the less the need for a ‘precautionary’ approach.

Therefore, in the following analysis, the issue of ‘adequacy’ has been assessed against the NRSMPAs principles and not based on the simplistic

approach of how large or small the proposed marine park is.

Australian Government (2006) Guidance on achieving comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness in the Commonwealth waters component of the

NRSMPA, Scientific peer review panel for the NRSMPAs, Canberra, Dept. Environment, February 20 2006, p. 6

1. Proposed Marine Park: Piccaninnie Ponds

Bioregion: Otway

Ecosystems and identified conservation values: Freshwater input and offshore boils from ponds, high energy beach at Discovery Bay, sparse sea

grass, patchy reef, sand and adjacent to existing land‐based national park.

Identified threats: Nil

Area (Km ): To be calculated by DEH

How the proposed park meets the objectives of the Marine Park Act (2007):

The proposed park directly addresses objectives (a), (b)i, (b)ii and (b)v of the Act. The proposed park does not address adaptation to climate

change and only partly allows for sustainable development or use because the intention is for part of the area to be designated as a ‘no‐take’

sanctuary area, surround by a habitat protection zone.

How the proposed park meets the criteria of the NRSMPAs:

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Representativeness • The proposed park is part of the Otway bioregion, as Victoria has at least 4 marine parks

Will the area: defined in IMCRA, which includes Victorian State in the Otway bioregion, totaling in

• represent one or more ecosystems within an waters to Apollo Bay. excess of 10,000Ha and habitat

IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree; • The area represents sparse sea‐grass, high energy types that are representative of this

• add to the representativeness of the beach, patchy reef and sand ecosystems area are already included in these

NRSMPA, and to what degree. • Sea grass, reef and sand ecosystems are parks.

incorporated into the Discovery Bay marine park and This park contributes to the

the Apostles marine park in Victoria, both in the NRSMPA in the Otway bioregion.

Otway bioregion 29

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Comprehensiveness Yes: provides added coverage of sparse sea‐grass, high

Does the area: energy beach, patchy reef and sand ecosystems. These

• add to the coverage of the full range of ecosystems are also represented in other proposed and

ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale existing marine parks in the Otway bioregion, including

within and across each bioregion; the Discovery bay and Apostles marine parks in Victoria.

• add to the comprehensiveness of the

NRSMPA.

Adequacy There have been no significant threats identified to the A 50m sanctuary is proposed

Is the area sufficient to ensure the viability of conservation values of the area. In addition, there is around the boils which are unique.

populations, species and communities, given: considerable bio‐geographical information on the area,

• the conservation values identified, including the location of the unique fresh water ‘boils’

• the threats to those conservation and of the biota and habitat. The area of the proposed

values and park is therefore adequate to protect the most

• the amount of information available important, localized, conservation value of the

freshwater boils.

Ecological importance There are no known rare or endangered species in the

Does the area: area. The proposed park also does not include areas that

• contribute to the maintenance of essential have unique or important ecological features apart from

ecological processes or life‐support systems; the boils which are proposed for high level protection.

• contain habitat for rare or endangered species;

• preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species;

• contain areas on which species or other systems are dependent, e.g. contain nursery

or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for migratory species;

• contain one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self‐sustaining ecological unit. 30

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

International or national importance No current world or national heritage listings. The

• Is the area rated, or has the potential to be combined area, encompassing both the existing land‐

listed, on the world or a national heritage list based national park and the proposed marine park has

or declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject potential for national heritage listing on the basis of its

to an international or national conservation unique pond system and associated freshwater input to

agreement. the marine environment.

Uniqueness Yes, see above

Does the area:

• contain unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems;

• contain unique or unusual geographic features.

Productivity No

• Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity.

Vulnerability assessment High energy beaches subject to storm‐induced erosion

• Are the ecosystems and/or communities

vulnerable to natural processes.

Biogeographic importance Yes, see item above on international or national

• Does the area capture important importance biogeographic qualities.

Naturalness Medium impact tourist activities in the onshore ponds

• How much has the area been protected area. Most marine areas have a long history of low‐

from, or not been subjected to, human impact use. induced change. 31

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Economic interests Major area for rock lobster fishing and also abalone The take from recreational fishing is

Does the site: fishing. Important area for recreational fishing, including not clearly defined, however data is

• make an existing or potential contribution to

both boat fishing and beach fishing for marine scalefish, available from the following

economic value by virtue of its protection, e.g.

particularly Southern Bluefin and yellow fin tuna etc. sources:

for recreation or tourism, or as a refuge

or nursery area, or source of supply for

1. The National Recreational and economically important species;

Indigenous Fishing Survey (July

• have current or potential use for the

2003). FRDC Project No. 99/158.

extraction of or exploration for resources;

2. 2000‐01 National Recreational

• have importance for shipping and/or trade;

and Indigenous Fishing Survey.

• have usage by traditional users including

South Australian Regional commercial fishers;

Information. PIRSA Paper

• have value due to its contribution to local or

No.46 July 2005 regional employment and economic

3. The South Australian development.

Recreational Charter Boat

Fishery. SARDI Report Series

239. Publication Number

F2007/000847‐1

Recreational rock lobster catch is

bench marked at a maximum of

4.6% of the commercial catch.

Indigenous interests Yes

Does the site:

• have traditional usage and/or current

economic value;

• contain indigenous cultural values;

• have native title considerations. 32

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Social interests Yes. Major existing national economic interest from

• Does the site have existing or potential value commercial and recreational fishing. Also important

to the local, national or international tourist and indigenous site. communities because of its heritage, cultural, traditional aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values?

Scientific interests No

• Does the site have existing or potential value for research or monitoring?

Practicality/feasibility Broad community and fishing industry acceptance on Estimates of compensation

Does the site: the need to protect the area and no obvious payments using the methodology

• have a degree of insulation from external impediments to effective management. Because of the developed by the Displaced Effort

destructive influences; importance of the current commercial fishery, Working Group are shown in

• have social and political acceptability, and a compensation payments for displaced fishers may be Attachment 4. Reduction in

degree of community support; considerable, depending on the size of the sanctuary commercial fishing activity will also

• have access for recreation, tourism, area. impact the regional economy

education; through losses in exports, regional

• have compatibility between an MPA business and direct and indirect

declaration generally and existing uses; employment (see Attachment 4).

• have relative ease of management, and Recreational displacement may

compatibility with existing management occur.

regimes.

Vulnerability assessment None identified

• Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human induced changes and threatening processes?

Replication Ecosystem types are replicated in other proposed parks

• Will the site provide replication of in the bioregion ecosystems within the bioregion.

2. Proposed Marine Park: Port MacDonnell

Bioregion: Otway

Ecosystems and identified conservation values: Sea grass beds inside the breakwater at Port MacDonnell, patchy reef and sand, wreck of the

‘Tenterden’ off Port MacDonnell (sunk 1893). The sea grass beds are not features that are natural to the area but have grown after the Port

MacDonnell breakwater was extended.

Identified threats: Possible impact on sea grass beds due to urban runoff. Wreck of the Tenterden is already protected under the State Historic

Shipwrecks Act 1981 although it has been blasted by divers seeking relics

Area (Km ): To be calculated by DEH

How the proposed park meets the objectives of the Marine Park Act (2007):

The proposed park directly addresses objectives (a), (b)i, (b)ii and (b)v of the Act. The proposed park does not address adaptation to climate

change or allowing for sustainable development or use because the intention is for the area to be designated as a ‘no‐take’ sanctuary area.

How the proposed park meets the criteria of the NRSMPAs:

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Representativeness • The proposed park is part of the Otway bioregion, as Victoria has at least 4 marine parks

Will the area: defined in IMCRA , which includes Victorian State in the Otway bioregion, totaling in

• represent one or more ecosystems within an waters to Apollo Bay. excess of 10,000Ha and habitat

IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree;

• The area represents rocky reef, sea‐grass and sand types that are representative of this

• add to the representativeness of the

ecosystems area are already included in these

NRSMPA, and to what degree.

• Such ecosystems are also protected in the Discovery parks.

bay Marine in Victoria, which is part of the Otway This park contributes to the

bioregion. NRSMPA in the Otway bioregion. 34

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Comprehensiveness Yes: provides added coverage of sea‐grass, reef and

Does the area: sand ecosystems. These ecosystems are also

• add to the coverage of the full range of represented in other proposed marine parks in the

ecosystems recognized at an appropriate scale Otway bioregion, including the Discovery Bay marine within and across each bioregion;

park in Victoria.

• add to the comprehensiveness of the NRSMPA.

Adequacy Yes. There have been no significant threats identified to

Is the area sufficient to ensure the viability of the conservation values of the area and protection is

populations, species and communities, given: already provided to the historic wreck of the Tenterden.

• the conservation values identified, However, there is potential for urban runoff to impact

•

the threats to those conservation values sea grass beds inside the breakwater at Port

and

MacDonnell. In addition, there is considerable bio‐

• the amount of information available

geographical information on the area, including the

location of the wreck site and information on the biota

and habitat, including detailed information on abalone

stocks. The area is therefore adequate to protect the

most important, localized, conservation values.

Ecological importance There are no known rare or endangered species in the

Does the area: area. The proposed park also does not include areas that

• contribute to the maintenance of essential are have unique or important ecological features ecological processes or life‐support systems;

• contain habitat for rare or endangered species;

• preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species;

• contain areas on which species or other systems are dependent, e.g. contain nursery or juvenile

areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for

migratory species;

• contain one or more areas which are a

biologically functional, self‐sustaining ecological unit. 35

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

International or national importance No current world or national heritage listings.

• Is the area rated, or has the potential to be listed, on the world or a national heritage list or

declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject to an

international or national conservation agreement.

Uniqueness No

Does the area:

• contain unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems;

• contain unique or unusual geographic features.

Productivity No

• Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity.

Vulnerability assessment No

• Are the ecosystems and/or communities vulnerable to natural processes.

Biogeographic importance No

• Does the area capture important biogeographic qualities.

Naturalness Most marine areas have a long history of low‐impact

• How much has the area been protected from, or use. Major abalone fishing area although the industry

not been subjected to, human induced change. has been assessed under the Environmental Protection

and Biological Conservation Act (1998) as having

negligible impact on species other than abalone. 36

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Economic interests Major area for abalone fishing and also a minor area for The take from recreational fishing is

Does the site: rock lobster fishing. Important area for recreational not clearly defined, however data is

• make an existing or potential contribution to

fishing for marine scalefish, particularly Southern Bluefin available from the following

economic value by virtue of its protection, e.g. for

and yellow fin tuna etc. sources: recreation or tourism, or as a refuge

or nursery area, or source of supply for

1. The National Recreational and economically important species;

• have current or potential use for the Indigenous Fishing Survey (July extraction of or exploration for resources; 2003). FRDC Project No. 99/158.

• have importance for shipping and/or trade;

• have usage by traditional users including 2. 2000‐01 National Recreational commercial fishers;

and Indigenous Fishing Survey.

• have value due to its contribution to local or

South Australian Regional regional employment and economic development.

Information. PIRSA Paper No.46

July 2005

3. The South Australian Recreational

Charter Boat Fishery. SARDI Report

Series 239. Publication Number

F2007/000847‐1

Recreational rock lobster catch is

bench marked at a maximum of

4.6% of the commercial catch.

Indigenous interests Yes but extent unknown

Does the site:

• have traditional usage and/or current economic value;

• contain indigenous cultural values;

• have native title considerations. 37

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Social interests Yes. Existing cultural value of historic shipwreck. No

• Does the site have existing or potential value to known indigenous vale. Major existing national

the local, national or international communities economic interest from commercial and recreational

because of its heritage, cultural, traditional fishing.

aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.

Scientific interests No

• Does the site have existing or potential value for research or monitoring.

Practicality/feasibility Broad community and fishing industry acceptance on No commercial displacement

Does the site: the need to protect the area and no obvious expected.

• have a degree of insulation from external impediments to effective management. Because of the Some recreational displacement

destructive influences; importance of the current commercial fishery, may occur.

• have social and political acceptability, and a

compensation payments for displaced fishers will be degree of community support;

considerable.

• have access for recreation, tourism, education;

• have compatibility between an MPA declaration generally and existing uses;

• have relative ease of management, and

compatibility with existing management regimes.

Vulnerability assessment None identified

• Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human induced changes and threatening processes.

Replication Ecosystem types are replicated in other proposed parks

• Will the site provide replication of in the bioregion ecosystems within the bioregion.

3. Proposed Marine Park: Canunda

Bioregion: Otway

Ecosystems and identified conservation values: Low profile platform reef backed by extensive dune areas, patchy reef and sand areas offshore.

Identified threats: Possible impact on inshore reef areas as a result of agricultural drain input.

Area (Km ): To be calculated by DEH

How the proposed park meets the objectives of the Marine Park Act (2007):

The proposed park directly addresses objectives (a), (b)i, (b)ii and (b)v of the Act. The proposed park does not address adaptation to

climate change and may only partly address allowing for sustainable development or use, depending on the extent of the sanctuary zone.

How the proposed park meets the criteria of the NRSMPAs:

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Representativeness • The proposed park is part of the Otway bioregion, as Victoria has at least 4 marine parks

Will the area: defined in IMCRA, which includes Victorian State in the Otway bioregion, totaling in

• represent one or more ecosystems within an waters to Apollo Bay. excess of 10,000Ha and habitat

IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree;

• The area represents low profile platform reef, types that are representative of this

• add to the representativeness of the

patchy reef areas and sand ecosystems area are already included in these

NRSMPA, and to what degree.

• These ecosystems are also represented as part of parks.

the Discovery bay and Apostles marine parks in This park contributes to the

Victoria and are part of the Otway bioregion. NRSMPA in the Otway bioregion.

• The onshore‐offshore trajectory of the proposed

park to the limit of State waters will, by its design,

include representative samples of each ecosystem

by depth range. 39

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Comprehensiveness Yes: provides added coverage of platform reef and

Does the area: offshore reef and sand ecosystems. These ecosystems

• add to the coverage of the full range of are also represented in other proposed marine parks in

ecosystems recognized at an appropriate scale the Otway bioregion, including at least marine parks in within and across each bioregion;

Victoria that are part of the Otway bioregion.

• add to the comprehensiveness of the NRSMPA.

Adequacy Yes. The area, by having an onshore‐offshore trajectory

Is the area sufficient to ensure the viability of to the limit of State waters includes viable samples of

populations, species and communities, given: the component ecosystems. There have been no

• the conservation values identified, significant threats identified to the conservation values

•

the threats to those conservation values or ecosystems of the area apart from the possible threat

and

of agricultural drain run‐off. The area has also been

• the amount of information available

subject to habitat mapping and considerable bio‐

geographical information on the area is available.

Detailed information on commercial rock lobster and

abalone stocks is available. The area is therefore

adequate to protect the ecological viability of the

component ecosystems.

Ecological importance There are no known rare or endangered species in the

Does the area: area. The proposed park also does not include areas that

• contribute to the maintenance of essential are have unique or important ecological features ecological processes or life‐support systems;

• contain habitat for rare or endangered species;

• preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species;

• contain areas on which species or other systems are dependent, e.g. contain nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for migratory species;

• contain one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self‐sustaining ecological unit. 40

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

International or national importance No current world or national heritage listings.

• Is the area rated, or has the potential to be listed, on the world or a national heritage list or

declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject to an

international or national conservation agreement.

Uniqueness No

Does the area:

• contain unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems;

• contain unique or unusual geographic features.

Productivity No

• Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity.

Vulnerability assessment Exposed inshore platform reefs and backing beaches and

• Are the ecosystems and/or communities dunes may be exposed to impact by extreme weather

vulnerable to natural processes. events.

Biogeographic importance No

• Does the area capture important biogeographic qualities.

Naturalness Most marine areas have a long history of low‐impact use

• How much has the area been protected from, or for recreational and commercial fishing. The area

not been subjected to, human induced change. includes a significant rock lobster fishing area and also

some commercial abalone fishing. Both the commercial

rock lobster industry and the commercial abalone

industry have been assessed under the Environmental

Protection and Biological Conservation Act (1998) as

having negligible impact on species other than the target

species. 41

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Economic interests Significant area for commercial and recreational rock The take from recreational fishing is

Does the site: lobster fishing and some commercial abalone diving. not clearly defined, however data is

• make an existing or potential contribution to

Important area for recreational fishing, for marine available from the following

economic value by virtue of its protection, e.g. for

scalefish, particularly Southern Bluefin and yellow fin sources: recreation or tourism, or as a refuge or nursery area, or source of supply for tuna etc.

1. The National Recreational and economically important species;

• have current or potential use for the Indigenous Fishing Survey (July

extraction of or exploration for resources; 2003). FRDC Project No. 99/158.

• have importance for shipping and/or trade; 2. 2000‐01 National Recreational

• have usage by traditional users including and Indigenous Fishing Survey. commercial fishers; South Australian Regional

• have value due to its contribution to local or Information. PIRSA Paper No.46 regional employment and economic development. July 2005

3. The South Australian Recreational

Charter Boat Fishery. SARDI Report

Series 239. Publication Number

F2007/000847‐1

Recreational rock lobster catch is

bench marked at a maximum of

4.6% of the commercial catch.

Indigenous interests Yes but extent unknown

Does the site:

• have traditional usage and/or current economic value;

• contain indigenous cultural values;

• have native title considerations. 42

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Social interests Yes. Major existing national economic interest from

• Does the site have existing or potential value to commercial and recreational fishing. the local, national or international communities

because of its heritage, cultural, traditional

aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.

Scientific interests No

• Does the site have existing or potential value for research or monitoring.

Practicality/feasibility Broad community and fishing industry acceptance on Estimates of compensation

Does the site: the need to protect the area and no obvious payments using the methodology

• have a degree of insulation from external impediments to effective management. Because of the developed by the Displaced Effort

destructive influences; importance of the current commercial fishery, Working Group are shown in

• have social and political acceptability, and a

compensation payments for displaced fishers will be Attachment 4. Reduction in degree of community support;

considerable. commercial fishing activity will also

• have access for recreation, tourism,

impact the regional economy education;

through losses in exports, regional

• have compatibility between an MPA declaration

business and direct and indirect generally and existing uses;

• have relative ease of management, and employment (see Attachment 4).

compatibility with existing management regimes. Recreational displacement may

occur.

Vulnerability assessment None identified although run‐off from agricultural drains

• Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human may pose a general pollution threat to the area. induced changes and threatening processes.

Replication Ecosystem types are replicated in other proposed parks

• Will the site provide replication of in the bioregion ecosystems within the bioregion.

4. Proposed marine Park: Little Dip

Bioregion: Otway

Ecosystems and identified conservation values: Calcareous rocky reef with extensive cover of macroalgae, low profile platform reef and sand

ecosystems, backed on the shore by a complex and extensive dune and dune‐rock system.

Identified threats: Possible tourist and other human‐induced disturbance of the extensive inshore coastal areas including reefs. Run‐off from

agricultural drains is a general pollution threat to inshore areas of the region.

Area (Km ): To be calculated by DEH

How the proposed park meets the objectives of the Marine Park Act (2007):

The proposed park directly addresses objectives (a), (b)i, (b)ii and (b)v of the Act. The proposed park does not address adaptation to

climate change and only partly allows for sustainable development or use because of the possibility that part of the area may be

designated as a ‘no‐take’ sanctuary area, surround by a habitat protection zone.

How the proposed park meets the criteria of the NRSMPAs:

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Representativeness • The proposed park is part of the Otway bioregion, as Victoria has at least 4 marine parks

Will the area: defined in IMCRA, which includes Victorian State in the Otway bioregion, totaling in

• represent one or more ecosystems within an waters to Apollo Bay. excess of 10,000Ha and habitat

IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree;

• The area is representative of rocky reefs, low profile types that are representative of this

• add to the representativeness of the

platform reefs and sand ecosystems area are already included in these

NRSMPA, and to what degree.

• These ecosystems also are represented in the Otway parks.

bioregion in Victoria in the Discovery Bay and This park contributes to the

Apostles marine parks NRSMPA in the Otway bioregion.

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Comprehensiveness Yes: provides added coverage of sub‐tidal calcareous rocky

Does the area: reef, inshore platform reef and sand ecosystems. These

• add to the coverage of the full range of ecosystems are also represented in other proposed and

ecosystems recognized at an appropriate scale existing marine parks in the Otway bioregion. within and across each bioregion;

• add to the comprehensiveness of the NRSMPA.

Adequacy Yes. There is potential for disturbance to inshore reef

Is the area sufficient to ensure the viability of systems from tourist activities and therefore it is proposed

populations, species and communities, given: that a significant habitat protection zone be established to

• the conservation values identified, provide protection to the extensive macroalgae‐covered

•

the threats to those conservation values reef systems. If the need for additional protection can be

and

demonstrated, consideration might also be given to a 1km

• the amount of information available

wide sanctuary zone within this habitat protection zone.

No other significant threats have been identified that can

be addressed through the marine park process. The

majority of the area has been subject to habitat mapping

and therefore the level of knowledge of the area is high.

The area proposed is therefore adequate to protect the

component ecosystems of the area.

Ecological importance Yes. Extensive sub‐tidal calcareous reef systems support

Does the area: high densities of several species of macroalgae. There are

• contribute to the maintenance of essential no known rare or endangered species in the area. The

ecological processes or life‐support systems; proposed sanctuary zone and surrounding habitat

• contain habitat for rare or endangered species;

protection zones includes areas of calcareous reef that

• preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or

have important ecological features abundant in species;

• contain areas on which species or other systems are dependent, e.g. contain nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for migratory species;

• contain one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self‐sustaining ecological unit. 45

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

International or national importance No current world or national heritage listings.

• Is the area rated, or has the potential to be listed, on the world or a national heritage list or

declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject to an

international or national conservation agreement.

Uniqueness No

Does the area:

• contain unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems;

• contain unique or unusual geographic features.

Productivity Probably yes. Macroalgae are in high abundance.

• Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity.

Vulnerability assessment No

• Are the ecosystems and/or communities vulnerable to natural processes.

Biogeographic importance Yes. Extensive coastal reefs, backed onshore by a

• Does the area capture important complex and extensive dune system biogeographic qualities.

Naturalness Most marine areas have a long history of low‐impact

• How much has the area been protected from, or use, including recreational fishing and diving and

not been subjected to, human induced change. commercial fishing. 46

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Economic interests Major area for rock lobster fishing and significant area The take from recreational fishing is

Does the site: for abalone fishing. Important area for recreational not clearly defined, however data is

• make an existing or potential contribution to

fishing, including both boat fishing and beach fishing for available from the following

economic value by virtue of its protection, e.g. for

marine scalefish, particularly Southern Bluefin and sources: recreation or tourism, or as a refuge or nursery area, or source of supply for yellow fin tuna etc.

1. The National Recreational and economically important species;

• have current or potential use for the Indigenous Fishing Survey ( July

extraction of or exploration for resources; 2003 ). FRDC Project No. 99/158.

• have importance for shipping and/or trade; 2. 2000‐01 National Recreational

• have usage by traditional users including and Indigenous Fishing Survey. commercial fishers; South Australian Regional

• have value due to its contribution to local or Information. PIRSA Paper No.46 regional employment and economic development. July 2005

3. The South Australian Recreational

Charter Boat Fishery. SARDI Report

Series 239. Publication Number

F2007/000847‐1

Recreational rock lobster catch is

bench marked at a maximum of

4.6% of the commercial catch.

Indigenous interests Yes but extent unknown

Does the site:

• have traditional usage and/or current economic value;

• contain indigenous cultural values;

• have native title considerations. 47

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Social interests Yes. Major existing national economic interest from

• Does the site have existing or potential value to commercial and recreational fishing. the local, national or international communities

because of its heritage, cultural, traditional

aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.

Scientific interests No.

• Does the site have existing or potential value for research or monitoring.

Practicality/feasibility Adjoins the land‐based Little Dip Conservation Park, Estimates of compensation

Does the site: thereby adding to practicality of management. Broad payments using the methodology

• have a degree of insulation from external community and fishing industry acceptance on the need developed by the Displaced Effort

destructive influences; to protect the area and no obvious impediments to Working Group are shown in

• have social and political acceptability, and a

effective management. Because of the importance of Attachment 4. Reduction in degree of community support;

the current commercial fishery, compensation payments commercial fishing activity will also

• have access for recreation, tourism,

for displaced fishers may be considerable, depending on impact the regional economy education;

the size of the sanctuary. through losses in exports, regional

• have compatibility between an MPA declaration

business and direct and indirect generally and existing uses;

• have relative ease of management, and employment (see Attachment 4). compatibility with existing management regimes.

Vulnerability assessment None identified. Since the proposed park adjoins the

• Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human existing Little Dip Conservation Park, land‐based threats

induced changes and threatening processes. can be more effectively managed

Replication Ecosystem types are replicated in other proposed parks

• Will the site provide replication of in the bioregion ecosystems within the bioregion.

5. Proposed marine Park: Guichen Bay/Baudin rocks

Bioregion: Otway

Ecosystems and identified conservation values: Sub‐tidal calcareous reef, low profile platform reef and sand ecosystems. Sea lion haul‐out site at Baudin rocks.

Identified threats: Possible tourist and other human‐induced disturbance of sea‐lions at Baudin rocks. Run‐off from agricultural drains is a

general pollution threat to inshore areas of the region.

Area (Km ):

How the proposed park meets the objectives of the Marine Park Act (2007):

The proposed park directly addresses objectives (a), (b)i, (b)ii and (b)v of the Act. The proposed park does not address adaptation to

climate change and only partly allows for sustainable development or use because the intention is for part of the area to be designated as

a ‘no‐take’ sanctuary area, surround by a habitat protection zone.

How the proposed park meets the criteria of the NRSMPAs:

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Representativeness • The proposed park is part of the Otway bioregion, as Victoria has at least 4 marine parks

Will the area: defined in IMCRA, which includes Victorian State in the Otway bioregion, totaling in

• represent one or more ecosystems within an waters to Apollo Bay. excess of 10,000Ha and habitat

IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree;

• The area is representative of sub‐tidal calcareous types that are representative of this

• add to the representativeness of the

reefs, low profile platform reefs and sand area are already included in these

NRSMPA, and to what degree.

ecosystems parks.

• These ecosystems also are represented in the Otway This park contributes to the

bioregion in Victoria in the Discovery Bay and NRSMPA in the Otway bioregion.

Apostles marine parks

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Comprehensiveness Yes: provides added coverage of sub‐tidal and inshore

Does the area: platform reef and sand ecosystems. These ecosystems

• add to the coverage of the full range of are also represented in other proposed and existing

ecosystems recognized at an appropriate scale marine parks in the Otway bioregion. within and across each bioregion;

• add to the comprehensiveness of the NRSMPA.

Adequacy To address the potential threat of disturbance to sea

Is the area sufficient to ensure the viability of lions at Baudin Rocks, it is proposed that a 200m

populations, species and communities, given: sanctuary zone be established around this feature. No

• the conservation values identified, other significant threats have been identified that can be

•

the threats to those conservation values addressed through the marine park process. The

and

majority of the area has been subject to habitat mapping

• the amount of information available

and therefore the level of knowledge of the area is high.

The area is therefore adequate to protect the most

important, localized, conservation value of the sea lion

haul‐out site and also to provide effective protection to

the component ecosystems of the proposed park.

Ecological importance Yes. Australian sea lions inhabit the area and have a

Does the area: haul‐out site at Baudin Rocks. There are no other known

• contribute to the maintenance of essential rare or endangered species in the area. The proposed

ecological processes or life‐support systems; park also does not include areas that are have unique or

• contain habitat for rare or endangered species;

important ecological features

• preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species;

• contain areas on which species or other systems are dependent, e.g. contain nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for migratory species;

• contain one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self‐sustaining ecological unit. 50

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

International or national importance No current world or national heritage listings.

• Is the area rated, or has the potential to be listed, on the world or a national heritage list or

declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject to an

international or national conservation agreement.

Uniqueness No

Does the area:

• contain unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems;

• contain unique or unusual geographic features.

Productivity No

• Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity.

Vulnerability assessment No

• Are the ecosystems and/or communities vulnerable to natural processes.

Biogeographic importance Yes, Baudin rocks as an important biogeographic

• Does the area capture important feature. biogeographic qualities.

Naturalness Most marine areas have a long history of low‐impact

• How much has the area been protected from, or use, including recreational fishing and diving and

not been subjected to, human induced change. commercial fishing. 51

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Economic interests Major area for rock lobster fishing. Important area for The take from recreational fishing is

Does the site: recreational fishing, including both boat fishing for not clearly defined, however data is

• make an existing or potential contribution to rocklobster and marine scalefish.

available from the following

economic value by virtue of its protection, e.g. for

sources: recreation or tourism, or as a refuge or nursery area, or source of supply for

1. The National Recreational and economically important species;

• have current or potential use for the Indigenous Fishing Survey ( July

extraction of or exploration for resources;

2003 ). FRDC Project No. 99/158.

• have importance for shipping and/or trade;

• have usage by traditional users including

2. 2000‐01 National Recreational commercial fishers;

and Indigenous Fishing Survey.

• have value due to its contribution to local or

regional employment and economic development. South Australian Regional

Information. PIRSA Paper No.46

July 2005

3. The South Australian Recreational

Charter Boat Fishery. SARDI Report

Series 239. Publication Number

F2007/000847‐1

Recreational rock lobster catch is

bench marked at a maximum of

4.6% of the commercial catch.

Indigenous interests Yes but extent unknown

Does the site:

• have traditional usage and/or current economic value;

• contain indigenous cultural values;

• have native title considerations. 52

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Social interests Yes. Major existing national economic interest from

• Does the site have existing or potential value to commercial and recreational fishing. the local, national or international communities

because of its heritage, cultural, traditional

aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.

Scientific interests No, although monitoring of sea lion stocks at Baudin

• Does the site have existing or potential value for Rocks may contribute to a broader population census of

research or monitoring. the species.

Practicality/feasibility Adjoins the land‐based Guichen Conservation Park, Minimal displacement expected.

Does the site: thereby adding to practicality of management. Broad

• have a degree of insulation from external community and fishing industry acceptance on the need

destructive influences; to protect the area, particularly Baudin Rocks, and no

• have social and political acceptability, and a

obvious impediments to effective management. degree of community support;

• have access for recreation, tourism, education;

• have compatibility between an MPA declaration generally and existing uses;

• have relative ease of management, and

compatibility with existing management regimes.

Vulnerability assessment None identified. Since the proposed park adjoins the

• Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human existing Guichen Conservation Park, land‐based threats

induced changes and threatening processes. can be more effectively managed

Replication Yes. Ecosystem types are replicated in other proposed

• Will the site provide replication of parks in the bioregion ecosystems within the bioregion. 53

6. Proposed Marine Park: The Granites/Lacepede Bay

Bioregion: Coorong

Ecosystems and identified conservation values: Dense Sea grass beds, low profile platform reef with some granite reef and sand ecosystems.

Identified threats: Reduced water volumes and quality impacting water bird abundance. No other significant threats identified

Area (Km ): To be calculated by DEH

How the proposed park meets the objectives of the Marine Park Act (2007):

The proposed park directly addresses objectives (a), (b)i, (b)ii and (b)v of the Act. The proposed park does not address adaptation to

climate change and only partly allows for sustainable development or use because the possibility that part of the area may be designated

as a ‘no‐take’ sanctuary area, surround by a habitat protection zone.

How the proposed park meets the criteria of the NRSMPAs:

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Representativeness Yes. The proposed park is part of the Coorong bioregion, This park contributes to the

Will the area: as defined in IMCRA, which lies wholly within SA waters. NRSMPA in the Coorong bioregion.

• represent one or more ecosystems within an The area is representative of dense sea grass beds

IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree; granite reefs, low profile platform reefs and sand

• add to the representativeness of the

ecosystems. The entire depth range within state waters

NRSMPA, and to what degree.

is also covered, thereby protecting representative

examples of each ecosystem across all depths. 54

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Comprehensiveness Yes. The important sea grass beds are provided with

Does the area: protection and the more extensive granite and platform

• add to the coverage of the full range of reef systems are provided with added protection. The

ecosystems recognized at an appropriate scale onshore‐offshore orientation of the proposed park to within and across each bioregion;

the limit of SA’s territorial waters also provides a

• add to the comprehensiveness of the NRSMPA.

comprehensive coverage of ecosystems of the bioregion

in a range of depth categories. The component

ecosystems of the proposed park are also represented in

other proposed and existing marine parks in the

Coorong bioregion.

Adequacy Yes. To better protect the important sea grass beds, a

Is the area sufficient to ensure the viability of large sanctuary zone is proposed, buffered on either side

populations, species and communities, given: by 2km wide habitat protection zones. No other

• the conservation values identified, significant threats have been identified that can be

•

the threats to those conservation values addressed through the marine park process. The

and

majority of the area has been subject to habitat mapping

• the amount of information available

and therefore the level of knowledge of the area is high.

The area is therefore adequate to protect the most

important conservation values and component

ecosystems of the bioregion. 55

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Ecological importance Yes. Sea grass habitat is important for nursery and

Does the area: juvenile areas for a range of fish species and other

• contribute to the maintenance of essential marine biota. There are no other known rare or

ecological processes or life‐support systems; endangered species in the area.

• contain habitat for rare or endangered species;

• preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species;

• contain areas on which species or other systems are dependent, e.g. contain nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for migratory species;

• contain one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self‐sustaining ecological unit.

International or national importance No current world or national heritage listings.

• Is the area rated, or has the potential to be listed, on the world or a national heritage list or declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject to an international or national conservation agreement.

Uniqueness No

Does the area:

• contain unique species, populations, communities or ecosystems;

• contain unique or unusual geographic features.

Productivity No, although the extensive sea grass habitat contributes

• Do the species, populations, or significantly to local biological productivity communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity.

Vulnerability assessment No

• Are the ecosystems and/or communities vulnerable to natural processes. 56

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Biogeographic importance No.

• Does the area capture important biogeographic qualities.

Naturalness Most marine areas have a long history of low‐impact

• How much has the area been protected from, or use, including recreational fishing and diving and

not been subjected to, human induced change. commercial fishing.

Economic interests Some commercial rock lobster and abalone fishing. The take from recreational fishing is

Does the site: Significant area for recreational fishing, including both not clearly defined, however data is

• make an existing or potential contribution to boat fishing and beach fishing for marine scalefish,

available from the following

economic value by virtue of its protection, e.g. for particularly Southern Bluefin and yellow fin tuna etc.

sources: recreation or tourism, or as a refuge

or nursery area, or source of supply for

1. T he National Recreational and economically important species;

• have current or potential use for the Indigenous Fishing Survey (July

extraction of or exploration for resources; 2003). FRDC Project No. 99/158.

• have importance for shipping and/or trade; 2. 2000‐01 National Recreational

• have usage by traditional users including and Indigenous Fishing Survey. commercial fishers; South Australian Regional

• have value due to its contribution to local or Information. PIRSA Paper No.46 regional employment and economic development. July 2005

3. The South Australian Recreational

Charter Boat Fishery. SARDI Report

Series 239. Publication Number

F2007/000847‐1

Recreational rock lobster catch is

bench marked at a maximum of

4.6% of the commercial catch. 57

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Indigenous interests Yes but extent unknown

Does the site:

• have traditional usage and/or current economic value;

• contain indigenous cultural values;

• have native title considerations.

Social interests Yes. Existing national economic interest from

• Does the site have existing or potential value to commercial and recreational fishing. the local, national or international communities because of its heritage, cultural, traditional aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.

Scientific interests No, although monitoring of sea grass beds may

• Does the site have existing or potential value for contribute to a broader measure of marine ecosystem

research or monitoring. health.

Practicality/feasibility Broad community and fishing industry acceptance on Estimates of compensation

Does the site: the need to protect the area and no obvious payments using the methodology

• have a degree of insulation from external impediments to effective management. Likely developed by the Displaced Effort

destructive influences; compensation payments for displaced fishers are not Working Group are shown in

• have social and political acceptability, and a

considered significant and shown in Attachment 4. Attachment 4. Reduction in degree of community support;

Reduction in commercial fishing activity will also impact commercial fishing activity will also

• have access for recreation, tourism,

the regional economy through losses in exports, regional impact the regional economy education;

business and direct and indirect employment (see through losses in exports, regional

• have compatibility between an MPA declaration

Attachment 4). business and direct and indirect generally and existing uses;

• have relative ease of management, and employment (see Attachment 4).

compatibility with existing management regimes. Recreational displacement may

occur.

Vulnerability assessment None identified.

• Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human induced changes and threatening processes. 58

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Replication Ecosystem types are replicated in other proposed parks

• Will the site provide replication of in the bioregion ecosystems within the bioregion. 59

7. Proposed marine Park: Coorong Tea Tree Point

Bioregion: Coorong

Ecosystems and identified conservation values: Some low profile platform reef and extensive sand and beach ecosystems, backed by dunes.

Identified threats: Reduced water volumes and quality impacting water bird abundance. No other significant threats identified

Area (Km ): To be calculated by DEH

How the proposed park meets the objectives of the Marine Park Act (2007):

The proposed park directly addresses objectives (a), (b)i, (b)ii and (b)v of the Act. The proposed park does not address adaptation to

climate change but allows for sustainable development or use because the intention is for the area to be designated as a habitat

protection zone.

How the proposed park meets the criteria of the NRSMPAs:

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Representativeness Yes. The proposed park is part of the Coorong bioregion, This park contributes to the

Will the area: as defined in IMCRA, which lies wholly within SA waters. NRSMPA in the Coorong bioregion.

• represent one or more ecosystems within an The area is representative of extensive sand ecosystems

IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree; with some platform reef. The entire depth range within

• add to the representativeness of the

state waters is also covered, thereby protecting

NRSMPA, and to what degree.

representative examples of each ecosystem across all

depths. 60

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Comprehensiveness Yes. The component ecosystems are also represented in

Does the area: other proposed and existing marine parks in the

• add to the coverage of the full range of Coorong bioregion.

ecosystems recognized at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion;

• add to the comprehensiveness of the NRSMPA.

Adequacy Yes. This large area comprises a habitat protection zone

Is the area sufficient to ensure the viability of extending from the beach, offshore to the limit of SA’s

populations, species and communities, given: territorial waters. While no significant threats have been

• the conservation values identified, identified that can be addressed through the marine

•

the threats to those conservation values park process, consideration might also be given to a 1km

and

wide sanctuary zone within this habitat protection zone

• the amount of information available

if the need for additional protection can be

demonstrated. A portion of the area has been subject to

habitat mapping and therefore the level of knowledge of

the area is adequate. The area is therefore sufficient to

protect the most important conservation values and

component ecosystems of the bioregion.

Ecological importance No.

Does the area:

• contribute to the maintenance of essential ecological processes or life‐support systems;

• contain habitat for rare or endangered species;

• preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species;

• contain areas on which species or other systems are dependent, e.g. contain nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for migratory species;

• contain one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self‐sustaining ecological unit. 61

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

International or national importance Yes. The proposed park, at its landward boundary,

• Is the area rated, or has the potential to be adjoins the Coorong National Park and there is potential

listed, on the world or a national heritage list or to have the combined park listed as an internationally

declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject to an important site.

international or national conservation agreement.

Uniqueness No. However, the combined landward and marine areas

Does the area: comprise internationally important areas for migrating

• contain unique species, populations, wading birds. communities or ecosystems;

• contain unique or unusual geographic features.

Productivity No

• Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity.

Vulnerability assessment Yes. Coastal features are vulnerable to extreme weather

• Are the ecosystems and/or communities events, including sand and beach erosion by storms. vulnerable to natural processes.

Biogeographic importance Yes. Because of its location adjoining the Coorong

• Does the area capture important national Park, the combined area is of significant

biogeographic qualities. biogeographic importance.

Naturalness Mostly in a natural state because of the difficulty of

• How much has the area been protected from, or access. Marine areas have a history of limited low‐

not been subjected to, human induced change. impact use, although recreational fishing from the beach

areas is significant. There is some commercial fishing.

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Economic interests Limited commercial marine scale fishing and significant The take from recreational fishing is

Does the site: area for recreational fishing, particularly from beaches. not clearly defined, however data is

• make an existing or potential contribution to available from the following

economic value by virtue of its protection, e.g. for

sources: recreation or tourism, or as a refuge

or nursery area, or source of supply for

1. The National Recreational and economically important species;

• have current or potential use for the Indigenous Fishing Survey ( July extraction of or exploration for resources;

2003 ). FRDC Project No. 99/158.

• have importance for shipping and/or trade;

• have usage by traditional users including

2. 2000‐01 National Recreational commercial fishers;

and Indigenous Fishing Survey.

• have value due to its contribution to local or

South Australian Regional regional employment and economic development.

Information. PIRSA Paper No.46

July 2005

3. The South Australian Recreational

Charter Boat Fishery. SARDI Report

Series 239. Publication Number

F2007/000847‐1

Recreational rock lobster catch is

bench marked at a maximum of

4.6% of the commercial catch.

Indigenous interests Yes but extent unknown

Does the site:

• have traditional usage and/or current economic value;

• contain indigenous cultural values;

• have native title considerations. 63

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Social interests Yes. High level of community awareness of the need for

• Does the site have existing or potential value to protection of the Coorong area and adjacent marine

the local, national or international communities areas. Existing economic interest from commercial and

because of its heritage, cultural, traditional recreational fishing.

aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.

Scientific interests Yes. Monitoring of sea bird populations, including

• Does the site have existing or potential value for migratory waders. research or monitoring.

Practicality/feasibility Broad community and fishing industry acceptance on

Does the site: the need to protect the area and no obvious

• have a degree of insulation from external impediments to effective management. Likely

destructive influences; compensation payments for displaced marine scale

• have social and political acceptability, and a

fishers, which are not considered significant. degree of community support;

Reduction in commercial fishing activity will also impact

• have access for recreation, tourism,

the regional economy through losses in exports, regional education;

business and direct and indirect employment (see

• have compatibility between an MPA declaration

Attachment 4). . generally and existing uses;

• have relative ease of management, and

compatibility with existing management regimes.

Vulnerability assessment None identified.

• Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human induced changes and threatening processes.

Replication Ecosystem types are replicated in other proposed parks

• Will the site provide replication of in the bioregion ecosystems within the bioregion.

8. Proposed Marine Park: Murray Canyons (State Waters)

Bioregion: Coorong

Ecosystems and identified conservation values: Some low profile platform reef and extensive sand and beach ecosystems, backed by dunes.

Identified threats: Reduced water volumes and quality impacting water bird abundance. No other significant threats identified

Area (Km ):

How the proposed park meets the objectives of the Marine Park Act (2007):

The proposed park directly addresses objectives (a), (b)i, (b)ii and (b)v of the Act. The proposed park does not address adaptation to

climate change but allows for sustainable development or use because the intention is for the area to be designated as a habitat

protection zone.

How the proposed park meets the criteria of the NRSMPAs:

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Representativeness Yes. The proposed park is part of the Coorong bioregion, This park contributes to the

Will the area: as defined in IMCRA, which lies wholly within SA waters. NRSMPA in the Coorong bioregion.

• represent one or more ecosystems within an The area is representative of extensive sand ecosystems

IMCRA bioregion, and to what degree; with some platform reef. The entire depth range within

• add to the representativeness of the

state waters is also covered, thereby protecting

NRSMPA, and to what degree.

representative examples of each ecosystem across all

depths. The proposed park also directly links with the

Commonwealth’s Coorong Marine Protected Area,

thereby extending the representativeness beyond state

waters. 65

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Comprehensiveness Yes. By connecting the proposed park to the existing

Does the area: marine protected area in Commonwealth waters, the

• add to the coverage of the full range of full range of component ecosystems in all depth ranges

ecosystems recognized at an appropriate scale is covered. These component ecosystems are also within and across each bioregion;

represented in other proposed and existing marine parks

• add to the comprehensiveness of the NRSMPA.

in the Coorong bioregion.

Adequacy Yes. This large area comprises a habitat protection zone

Is the area sufficient to ensure the viability of extending from the beach, offshore to the limit of SA’s

populations, species and communities, given: territorial waters where it joins the existing

• the conservation values identified, Commonwealth marine protected areas. No significant

•

the threats to those conservation values threats have been identified that can be addressed

and

through the marine park process. A portion of the area

• the amount of information available

has been subject to habitat mapping and therefore the

level of knowledge of the area is adequate. The area is

therefore sufficient to protect the most important

conservation values and component ecosystems of the

bioregion.

Ecological importance No.

Does the area:

• contribute to the maintenance of essential ecological processes or life‐support systems;

• contain habitat for rare or endangered species;

• preserve genetic diversity i.e. is diverse or abundant in species;

• contain areas on which species or other systems are dependent, e.g. contain nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding or resting areas for migratory species;

• contain one or more areas which are a biologically functional, self‐sustaining ecological unit. 66

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

International or national importance Yes. The proposed park, at its landward boundary,

• Is the area rated, or has the potential to be adjoins the Coorong National Park and there is potential

listed, on the world or a national heritage list or to have the combined park listed as an internationally

declared as a Biosphere Reserve or subject to an important site.

international or national conservation agreement.

Uniqueness No. However, the combined landward and marine areas

Does the area: comprise internationally important areas for migrating

• contain unique species, populations, wading birds. communities or ecosystems;

• contain unique or unusual geographic features.

Productivity No

• Do the species, populations, or communities of the area have a high natural biological productivity.

Vulnerability assessment Yes. Coastal features are vulnerable to extreme weather

• Are the ecosystems and/or communities events, including sand and beach erosion by storms. vulnerable to natural processes.

Biogeographic importance Yes. Because of its location adjoining the Coorong

• Does the area capture important national Park, the combined area is of significant

biogeographic qualities. biogeographic importance.

Naturalness Mostly in a natural state because of the difficulty of

• How much has the area been protected from, or access. Marine areas have a history of limited low‐

not been subjected to, human induced change. impact use, although recreational fishing from the beach

areas is significant. There is some commercial fishing.

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Economic interests Limited commercial marine scale fishing and significant The take from recreational fishing is

Does the site: area for recreational fishing, particularly from beaches. not clearly defined, however data is

• make an existing or potential contribution to Significant Pipi harvesting area.

available from the following

economic value by virtue of its protection, e.g. for

sources: recreation or tourism, or as a refuge

or nursery area, or source of supply for

1. The National Recreational and economically important species;

• have current or potential use for the Indigenous Fishing Survey (July extraction of or exploration for resources;

2003). FRDC Project No. 99/158.

• have importance for shipping and/or trade;

• have usage by traditional users including

2. 2000‐01 National Recreational commercial fishers;

and Indigenous Fishing Survey.

• have value due to its contribution to local or

South Australian Regional regional employment and economic development.

Information. PIRSA Paper No.46

July 2005

3. The South Australian Recreational

Charter Boat Fishery. SARDI Report

Series 239. Publication Number

F2007/000847‐1

Recreational rock lobster catch is

bench marked at a maximum of

4.6% of the commercial catch.

Indigenous interests Yes but extent unknown

Does the site:

• have traditional usage and/or current economic value;

• contain indigenous cultural values;

• have native title considerations. 68

NRSMPA Criteria How the proposed marine park meets the NRSMPA Comments and notes

criteria

Social interests Yes. High level of community awareness of the need for

• Does the site have existing or potential value to protection of the Coorong area and adjacent marine

the local, national or international communities areas. Existing economic interest from commercial and

because of its heritage, cultural, traditional recreational fishing.

aesthetic, educational, recreational, or economic values.

Scientific interests Yes. Monitoring of sea bird populations, including

• Does the site have existing or potential value for migratory waders. research or monitoring.

Practicality/feasibility Broad community and fishing industry acceptance on No displacement expected.

Does the site: the need to protect the area and no obvious

• have a degree of insulation from external impediments to effective management. Proposed

destructive influences; zoning habitat protection.

• have social and political acceptability, and a degree of community support;

• have access for recreation, tourism, education;

• have compatibility between an MPA declaration generally and existing uses;

• have relative ease of management, and

compatibility with existing management regimes.

Vulnerability assessment None identified.

• Is the site vulnerable and susceptible to human induced changes and threatening processes.

Replication Ecosystem types are replicated in other proposed parks

• Will the site provide replication of in the bioregion ecosystems within the bioregion.

ATTACHMENT 4

Preliminary Displacement Buyout Estimates

Section 21 (a), Division 5 of the Marine Parks Act 2007 requires the Minister to compensate licence holders for the impacts of displacement. A

working group has been developing details of a fair and equitable approach. While the details are not finalized, the following are assumed as

essential elements of displacement buyout for the key fisheries in the South East.

1. Determine tonnes of catch lost fishing (abalone, rocklobster, marine scale, charter etc ) from no‐take zones

2. Determine displacement costs per tonne as follows:

• Tonnes/licence

• Licence costs/tonne

• Vessel and other gear cost/tonne

• Owner wages/tonne forgone for 3 years

• Relocation costs

Based on the most recent independent economic data collected by PIRSA the following displacement costs/tonne are estimated:

Item Abalone $/t Lobster $/t

Licence Value/tonne $320,000 $335,593

Boat Value/tonne $11,000 $42,712

Operator Income/tonne $9,600 $24,407

Relocation $2,000 $5,085

Total Cost/tonne $342,600 $407,797

Draft Economic Indicators for the South Australian Abalone Fishery 2007/08” EconSearch 2009 and “Draft Economic Indicators for the South Australian

Southern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery 2007/08” EconSearch 2009 70

Using the displacement cost/tonne the total cost across the proposed network can be estimated. Estimating tonnes lost on a fine spatial scale is difficult, hence a high low range has been used to provide a preliminary indication of the potential cost to Government. The eventual cost of

displacement will be determined by the extent of any sanctuaries that may be established and the following analysis is indicative for the examples included in the Stakeholder and Conservation proposals.

The estimated displacement costs for the proposed Stakeholder network (Attachment 1) are as follows:

Commercial Proposal Lobster Tonnes Lobster Displacement Cost Abalone Tonnes Abalone Displacement Cost

Low Loss High Loss Low Loss High Loss Low Loss High Loss Low Loss High Loss

Murray Canyon (State Waters) 0 0 ‐ ‐ $0 $0

Coorong Tea Tree Point ‐ ‐ $0 $0

Granites 1.75 2.00 713,644 815,593 0.5 0.5 $171,300 $171,300

Wrights Bay ‐ ‐ $0 $0

Baudin/Guichen Bay ‐ ‐ ‐‐ $0 $0

Little Dip 3 7 1,223,390 2,854,576 1 1 $342,600 $342,600

Canunda 2 5 815,593 2,038,983 1 1 $342,600 $342,600

Pt Mac ‐ ‐ $0 $0

Riddoch ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ $0 $0

Piccaninnie Ponds ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ $0 $0 ‐ ‐

Total 7 14 2,752,627 5,709,153 3 3 $856,500 $856,500

Total Commercial Proposal Low tonnes High tonnes

Lobster displacement cost $2,752,627 $5,709,153

Abalone displacement cost $856,500 $856,500

Total Displacement Cost $3,609,127 $6,565,653

The estimated displacement costs for the conservation group network proposal (Attachment 1) for marine parks are as follows:

Conservation Proposal Lobster Tonnes Lobster Displacement Cost Abalone Tonnes Abalone Displacement Cost

Low Loss High Loss Low Loss High Loss Low Loss High Loss Low Loss High Loss

Murray Canyon (State Waters)0 0 $0 $0 $0$ 0

Coorong Tea Tree Point 5 10 $2,038,983 $4,077,966 $0 $0

Granites 2.00 5.00 $815,593 $2,038,983 2 2 $685,200 $685,200

Wrights Bay 25 40 $10,194,915 $16,311,864 ‐‐ $0 $0

Baudin/Guichen Bay $0 $0 $0 $0

Little Dip 30 40 $12,233,898 $16,311,864 5 10 $1,713,000 $3,426,000

Canunda 50 60 $20,389,831 $24,467,797 5 5 $1,713,000 $1,713,000

Pt Mac $0 $0 $0 $0

Riddoch 2 7 $815,593 $2,854,576 31 31 $10,620,600 $10,620,600

Piccaninnie Ponds 50 60 $20,389,831 $24,467,797 1 1 $342,600 $342,600

Other $0 $0

Total 159 212 $64,839,661 $86,452,881 44 49 $15,074,400 $16,787,400

Total Conservation Proposal Low tonnes High tonnes

Lobster displacement cost $64,839,661 $86,452,881

Abalone displacement cost $15,074,400 $16,787,400

Total Displacement Cost $79,914,061 $103,240,281

Data used for estimation purposes is derived from “Draft Economic Indicators for the South Australian Southern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery

2007/08” EconSearch 2009 and “Draft Economic Indicators for the South Australian Abalone Fishery 2007/08” EconSearch 2009. These are

confidential reports as yet unpublished by PIRSA Fisheries. The relevant EconSearch tables 3.4 and 3.3 respectively shown below, are direct extracts from the draft reports.

Regional economic impacts are also prepared annually by EconSearch and the relevant EconSearch tables 3.5 and 3.7 for lobster an abalone respectively are also provided below. These costs are yet to be estimated.

EconSearch Table 3.4 Financial performance in the SA Southern Zone Rock Lobster fishery by return to capital quartile, 2007/08 (av per boat) Average per boat Second Third Lowest 25% Highest 25% All Boats Quartile Quartile (1) Total Boat Gross Income $382,700 $482,023 $517,328 $559,378 $486,656 Variable Costs Fuel $36,615 $37,693 $37,264 $45,788 $39,453 Repairs & Maintenance a $31,231 $26,423 $28,560 $21,626 $26,867 Bait/Ice $20,027 $16,760 $18,663 $19,561 $18,767 Provisions $51 $1,586 $500 $647 $695 Labour - paid $140,139 $124,891 $79,143 $88,605 $108,100 (2) Labour - unpaid b $16,822 $18,191 $26,976 $26,065 $22,085 Other $530 $826 $752 $666 $693 (3) Total Variable Costs $245,415 $226,369 $191,859 $202,958 $216,659 Fixed Costs Licence Fee $17,808 $18,445 $19,321 $21,532 $19,316 Insurance $7,055 $6,388 $6,154 $6,378 $6,492 (4) Interest $8,589 $37,121 $22,976 $35,034 $26,090 (5) Labour - unpaid b $5,712 $6,177 $9,161 $8,851 $7,500 (6) Leasing $0 $2,509 $3,750 $17,729 $6,203 Legal & Accounting $3,265 $3,476 $5,844 $2,856 $3,843 Telephone etc. $1,493 $1,453 $1,436 $2,649 $1,773 Slipping & Mooring $2,851 $2,549 $2,881 $3,076 $2,843 Travel $3,477 $2,449 $1,586 $1,167 $2,152 Office & Admin $3,498 $4,749 $3,431 $4,268 $3,992 (7) Total Fixed Costs $53,748 $85,316 $76,539 $103,541 $80,203 (8) Total Boat Cash Costs (3 + 7) $299,164 $311,685 $268,398 $306,499 $296,862 Boat Gross Margin (1 - 3) $137,285 $255,654 $325,469 $356,419 $269,997 (9) Total Unpaid Labour (2 + 5) $22,534 $24,369 $36,137 $34,916 $29,584 Gross Operating Surplus $61,002 $145,969 $212,793 $217,963 $160,210 (1 - 8 + 9) (10) Boat Cash Income (1 - 8) $83,536 $170,338 $248,930 $252,879 $189,794 (11) Depreciation $33,285 $49,304 $52,661 $34,761 $42,367 (12) Boat Business Profit (10 - 11) $50,251 $121,034 $196,268 $218,118 $147,427 (13) Profit at Full Equity (12 + 4 + 6) $58,840 $160,664 $222,994 $270,882 $179,720 Boat Capital (14) Fishing Gear & Equip $433,394 $422,215 $454,918 $367,586 $418,617 Licence Value $2,987,429 $3,323,000 $3,524,500 $3,254,633 $3,272,079 (15) Total Boat Capital $3,420,822 $3,745,215 $3,979,418 $3,622,219 $3,690,696 Rate of Return on Fishing Gear 13.6% 38.1% 49.0% 73.7% 42.9% & Equip (13 / 14 * 100) Rate of Return on Total Boat 1.7% 4.3% 5.6% 7.5% 4.9% Capital (13 / 15 * 100) c Average Number of Pots 64 77 79 81 76 73

EconSearch Table 3.3 Financial performance in the SA Abalone fishery, 2005/06 to 2007/08 a (average per boat)

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 Share Share Share Average per Average per Average per of of of Licence Licence Licence TBCC b TBCC b TBCC b

(1) Total Boat Gross Income $1,016,832 $946,859 $877,572 Variable Costs Fuel $15,470 3% $15,848 3% $14,517 3% Repairs & Maintenance c $37,974 8% $39,047 8% $20,576 5% Bait/Ice $297 0% $305 0% $133 0% Provisions $9,282 2% $9,544 2% $8,341 2% Labour - paid $259,742 56% $263,618 55% $243,287 56% d

(2) Labour unpaid $4,476 1% $4,331 1% $923 0% -

Other $10,593 2% $10,775 2% $4,766 1% (3) Total Variable Costs $337,833 72% $343,468 72% $292,542 67% Fixed Costs Licence Fee $65,408 14% $67,360 14% $70,361 16% Insurance $6,935 1% $7,054 1% $4,245 1%

(4) Interest $4,983 1% $5,347 1% $17,112 4% d (5) Labour - unpaid $18,882 4% $18,882 4% $19,453 4% Legal & Accounting $14,907 3% $15,162 3% $8,384 2% Telephone etc. $3,709 1% $3,773 1% $2,945 1% Slipping & Mooring $752 0% $765 0% $2,022 0% Travel $4,364 1% $4,438 1% $8,073 2% Office & Admin $9,153 2% $9,310 2% $8,708 2%

(6 ) Total Fixed Costs $129,093 28% $132,092 28% $141,304 33% (7) Total Boat Cash Costs (3 + 6) $466,927 100% $475,560 100% $433,846 100% Boat Gross Margin (1 - 3) $678,999 $603,391 $585,030 (8) Total Unpaid Labour (2 + 5) $23,358 $23,213 $20,376 Gross Operating Surplus $573,263 $494,512 $464,102 (1 - 7 + 8) (9) Boat Cash Income (1 - 7) $549,905 $471,299 $443,726

(10) Depreciation $66,117 $66,314 $38,839 (11) Boat Business Profit (9 - 10) $483,788 $404,985 $404,887 (12) Profit at Full Equity (11 + 4) $488,771 $410,332 $421,999 Boat Capital

(13) Fishing Gear & Equip $331,745 $332,732 $275,803 Licence Value $8,534,578 $7,947,273 $7,958,286 (14) Total Boat Capital $8,866,323 $8,280,005 $8,234,088 Rate of Return on Fishing 147.3% 123.3% 153.0%

Gear & Equip (12 / 12 * 100)

Rate of Return on Total Boat 5.5% 5.0% 5.1% Capital (12 / 14 * 100) 74

EconSearch Table 3.7 The economic impact of the SA Southern Zone Rock Lobster fishing industry in South Australia, 2007/08

Output Employment a Household Income Contribution to GSP Sector ($m) % (fte jobs) % ($m) % ($m) % Direct effects Fishing 75.7 39.6% 414 40.6% 21.4 41.2% 54.0 50.3% Processing 6.4 3.3% 19 1.9% 0.9 1.8% 1.5 1.4% Transport 10.9 5.7% 48 4.7% 3.6 6.8% 5.2 4.9% Retail 1.1 0.6% 15 1.5% 0.5 0.9% 0.5 0.5% Food services 2.5 1.3% 20 2.0% 0.6 1.2% 1.0 0.9% Capital expenditure b 2.6 1.4% 28 2.8% 0.9 1.7% 1.2 1.1% Total Direct c 99.3 50.5% 545 50.6% 27.9 52.0% 63.4 57.9% Flow-on effects Trade 13.3 7.0% 138 13.6% 5.0 9.6% 6.2 5.8% Manufacturing 20.0 10.5% 60 5.8% 2.9 5.6% 4.7 4.4% Business Services 9.8 5.1% 55 5.4% 3.6 6.9% 4.7 4.4% Transport 5.0 2.6% 22 2.1% 1.6 3.1% 2.4 2.2% Other Sectors 43.9 23.0% 205 20.1% 11.0 21.2% 26.2 24.4% Total Flow-on c 92.1 48.1% 480 47.1% 24.2 46.5% 44.1 41.1% Total c 191.3 100.0% 1,020 100.4% 52.0 100.2% 107.4 100.1% Total/Direct 1.9 - 1.9 - 1.9 - 1.7 - Total/Tonne $103,400 - 0.55 - $28,100 - $58,000 - 75

EconSearch Table 3.5 The economic impact of the Abalone fishing industry in South Australia, 2007/08

Output Employment a Household Income Contribution to GSP Sector ($m) % (fte jobs) % ($m) % ($m) % Direct effects Fishing 31.0 48.9% 90 35.4% 9.2 51.7% 25.6 62.6% Processing 2.1 3.3% 6 2.4% 0.3 1.7% 0.5 1.2% Transport 1.6 2.5% 7 2.7% 0.5 2.9% 0.8 1.9% Retail 0.0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% Food services 0.2 0.3% 2 0.6% 0.1 0.3% 0.1 0.2% Capital expenditure b 0.7 1.2% 5 1.8% 0.2 1.1% 0.3 0.7% Total Direct c 35.7 55.1% 110 41.2% 10.3 56.6% 27.2 65.9% Flow-on effects Trade 3.9 6.2% 42 16.2% 1.5 8.3% 1.8 4.5% Manufacturing 5.1 8.0% 15 5.9% 0.7 4.2% 1.2 2.9% Business Services 2.9 4.6% 16 6.4% 1.1 6.0% 1.4 3.4% Transport 1.3 2.1% 6 2.3% 0.4 2.4% 0.6 1.6% Other Sectors 14.5 22.9% 67 26.1% 3.8 21.4% 8.6 21.0% Total Flow-on c 27.8 43.8% 146 57.0% 7.5 42.3% 13.7 33.4% Total c 63.4 100.0% 256 100.0% 17.9 100.0% 40.8 100.0% Total/Direct 1.8 - 2.3 - 1.7 - 1.5 - Total/Tonne $71,300 - 0.29 - $20,000 - $45,900 -

South East Marine Parks Working Group Conservation Sector Statement

Summary

The South East Marine Parks Working Group (the Working Group) was unable to reach full agreement on indicative zoning arrangements and revised outer boundaries for Marine Parks 18 & 19, such that two different positions are being forwarded to the Minister for Environment & Conservation (the Minister) for consideration; one combined position from the Seafood Industry, Recreational Fishers and Local Government and a separate position from the Conservation Sector.

Despite ultimate differences in opinion regarding the extent of outer boundaries and indicative zoning arrangements within those boundaries, the entire Working Group was able to reach broad agreement that the following six areas of interest should be protected by a combination of sanctuary zones and habitat protection buffers:

1. Southern Coorong in the vicinity of Salt Creek; 2. Lacepede Bay; 3. Baudin Rocks/Guichen Bay (the Conservation Sector also includes Wright Bay); 4. Little Dip; 5. Canunda; and 6. Riddoch Bay/Piccaninnie Ponds.

Representatives from all sectors agreed that the Working Group process was invaluable in opening up a constructive dialogue between the various interest groups and that a similar process (subject to less restrictive time constraints) should be adopted for the remainder of the marine park network.

Explanation of Conservation Sector Map

At the commencement of negotiations, the Conservation Sector provided the Working Group with a map of the high conservation value marine areas in the South East (Appendix 1 – HCVA Map). The HCVA Map was not put forward as either an outer boundary or sanctuary zone proposal. Rather, the HCVA Map was provided to the Working Group as an indication of focus locations for potential sanctuary zones on the basis that these areas are ecologically worthy of sanctuary zone status. It was always envisaged that sanctuary zones would need to be buffered by habitat protection zones extending beyond the areas identified in the HCVA Map.

Throughout the Working Group process, the Conservation Sector made it very clear that their reason for being at the table was to obtain agreement regarding sanctuary zoning within Marine Parks 18 & 19. To this end, the Conservation Sector was willing to discuss the prospect of smaller outer boundaries in return for broad agreement on the size and location of significant sanctuary zones with large habitat protection buffers. The Conservation Sector also expressed a preference for sanctuary zones to be co-located adjacent to existing terrestrial parks wherever possible.

The attached map represents the Conservation Sector’s absolute bottom line in terms of reductions to the proposed outer boundaries for Marine Parks 18 and 19. These outer boundary reductions are a manifestation of the Conservation Sector making highly pragmatic decisions in order to deliver Ministerial advice containing at least some areas of broad agreement. Even a cursory comparison of our original HVCA Map and the Conservation Sector proposal attached to this statement will show that we made many difficult decisions with respect to areas of high conservation value. If it would be considered helpful for the Conservation Sector to provide more detailed information about why specific trades were made (i.e. why one area was chosen for protection over another), please let us know.

The Government’s proposed outer boundaries cover 77% and 67% of the Coorong and Otway bioregions respectively. The area of each bioregion included in the attached maps is 13% of Coorong and 43% of Otway. In the Otway, this represents a 36% reduction on the Government’s proposed outer boundaries. A similar analysis cannot yet be made for the Coorong Bioregion given that the Working Group’s Terms of Reference did not extend to considering that part of the Coorong Bioregion contained in the Encounter Marine Park.

The Conservation Sector strongly believes that any further reductions to the outer boundaries beyond those contained in the attached map would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the marine parks program in the South East. Pursuing a “middle path” between the Conservation Sector position and that submitted by the other Working Group members will mean that Marine Parks 18 & 19 do not deliver genuine marine conservation outcomes and would jeopardise the environmental credibility of the entire marine park network.

The overwhelming consensus of the global scientific community is that all nations must establish networks of highly protected no-take areas covering at least 20-30% of all marine habitat types within each bioregion. The attached map provides for sanctuary zones covering approximately 7% of the Coorong Bioregion (we expect this figure to increase significantly when once zoning arrangements within the Encounter Marine Park are considered) and 13% of the Otway Bioregion. Sanctuary zones of this size are at the bottom end of the “adequacy” scale. The Conservation Sector only supports such huge outer-boundary reductions (as contained in the attached map), on the basis that sanctuary zones of at least this size are included in Marine Parks 18 & 19, even if the precise location of the sanctuaries remains to be determined at a later date subject to more detailed analysis of all relevant information.

One of the barriers which prevented the Working Group from reaching full agreement on indicative zonings was the lack of accurate displaced effort data. The Conservation Sector’s aspirations for large sanctuary zones were continually rebutted with the assertion that anything other than very small sanctuaries would be totally unaffordable in terms of displaced effort. The Conservation Sector was not provided with any material against which to objectively test these assertions. Whilst the Conservation Sector is supportive of displaced effort payments being made to the commercial fishing industry where appropriate, we emphasise the need for an open, robust and informed discussion regarding this issue. If the working group process or some variation thereof is to be rolled out for the remainder of the marine park network, there needs to be some way for the working groups to obtain a relatively accurate picture of how much a sanctuary zone of a particular size in a particular area is likely to cost in terms of compensation for displaced effort. We suggest that PIRSA needs to work closely with industry to gather the data necessary for this information to be made available to future working groups.

Preliminary feedback from DEH in relation to the attached map indicates that seagrass meadows in the both the Coorong and Otway bioregions are not adequately represented. The Conservation Sector acknowledges that proper coverage of this important and vulnerable habitat type warrants further consideration. Areas within these bioregions where significant seagrass meadows are found include southern Lacepede Bay, Penguin Island and Port MacDonnell. At least one of these areas should be considered for inclusion in the network.

The Working Group was able to agree on the size and location of a significant sanctuary zone in Lacepede Bay which extends 8km along the coastline south of The Granites, the exact latitudes and longitudes of which are to be provided by the Seafood Industry (the Working Group was not able to reach full agreement on the precise extent of the habitat protection buffers surrounding this sanctuary zone). This agreed area of interest at least partially overlays an existing aquaculture policy zone, although there are no existing aquaculture leases in the area. The Minister has made a commitment that all existing aquaculture leases and zones will be accommodated within declared Marine Parks. The fact that this policy commitment has the potential to restrict any sanctuary zoning being placed within the entirety of Lacepede Bay was not fully explained to the Working Group members until the final day of negotiations.

All Working Group members have strongly recommended that the Lacepede Bay Policy Area be amended prior to the development of a management plan for Marine Park 18 in order to accommodate a sanctuary zone in this area. If PIRSA Aquaculture is unwilling to amend the northern boundary of the Lacepede Bay Policy Area, then serious consideration must be given to moving the Lacepede Bay sanctuary zone further up the coast (i.e. north of The Granites). In this scenario, it would be prudent to create one larger marine park area extending along the coastline from the northern boundary of the Salt Creek marine park to the southern boundary of the Lacepede Bay marine park. Within this amalgamated area, the Conservation Sector would still expect to see two 8km long sanctuary zones joined by a habitat protection buffer plus habitat protection buffers at the northern and southern ends of the park. At least one of these sanctuary zones would need to extend from median high water to the State Waters limit whilst the other could begin 200m seaward of median high water with a habitat protection buffer extending along the coastline to allow for recreational beach fishing.

The Minister has committed to amending the Marine Parks Act 2007 to ensure that any future changes to marine park management plans (i.e. change to zones within a marine park) will be subject to a parliamentary process. Whilst acknowledging that this commitment was made to allay fears held by other Working Group members relating to “boundary creep”, the Conservation Sector remains of the view that the current legislation already contains sufficient safeguards in this regard. In practical terms, the Minister’s commitment means that decisions made now in relation to zoning arrangements within South Australia’s marine parks will most likely remain with us for generations. Political processes dictate that obtaining approval from both Houses of Parliament for management plan changes will be virtually impossible without the support of all key stakeholders. This only reinforces the need to ensure that current zoning decisions are made with future conservation needs firmly in mind, noting that scientific knowledge and practice in the marine protected areas field is progressing at a rapid pace. There is a real risk that in trying to appease present (or even retired) users of the marine environment, current processes will lock-in a marine park network which fails to adequately protect our biodiversity assets for future generations. In light of the Minister’s commitment, significant sanctuary zones must be delivered from the beginning of the marine parks program.

Supplementary South East map

During discussions with the Minister for Environment and Conservation following provision of the South East Marine Parks Working Group’s final report, the commercial fishing, recreational fishing and local government sectors submitted the proposed boundary map attached below.

This map was accepted as an amended submission and considered by the Minister when he developed his recommendations about boundary amendments for marine parks 18 and 19. Attachment 1 - Draft Boundary Revision (confidential working draft) Combined Stakeholder Group Proposal, 1 July 2009.

Coorong Bioregion

Kingston SE

Cape Jaffa

Robe

Nora Creina

Beachport

Otway Bioregion Southend

Port MacDonnell

Industry Option Sanctuary Zone Coastline (median high water) Industry Option Habitat Protection Zone Coastal Waters of the State Produ ced by Coast and Marine Conservation Branch Industry Option General Managed Use Major Road Department for Environment and Heritage PO Box 1047 Existing DEH Network www.deh.sa.gov.au Data So urce DEH, PIRSA, Geoscience Australia Conservation Parks Compiled 3 July 2009 Projection Lambert Conformal Conic Conservation Reserves Datum Geocentric Datum of Australia, 1994 ©Copyright Department for Environment and Heritage 2009. All Rights Reserved. All works and information displayed are subject to Copyright. For Game Reserves the reproduction Or publication beyond that permitted by theCopyright Act 1968 (Cwlth) Adelaide 0 25 written permission must besought from the Department.

National Parks Although every effort has beenmade to ensure the accuracy of theinformation displayed, the Department, its agents, officers and employees makeno representations, either express Kms or implied, that the information displayed is accurate or fit for any purpose and expressly disclaims all liability for loss or damage arisingfrom reliance upon the informationdisplayed.

DEH MapID: 2009-2168

DEH Standard