south australian fisheries management series … · management decisions must be made in an...

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SERIES

Ecological Assessment of the South Australian

Pilchard Fishery

Assessment Report Prepared for Department of Environment and Heritage, against the guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries

For the purposes of Part 13 and 13(A) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999

07 JUNE 2004

Prepared by Primary Industries & Resources South Australia in association with the pilchard industry and the South Australian Research and Development Institute. 25 Grenfell Street, Adelaide GPO Box 1625 ADELAIDE 5001

Ecological Assessment of the South Australian Pilchard Fishery of 51

Ecological Assessment of the South Australian Pilchard Fishery Assessment Report Prepared for Department of Environment and Heritage, against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. For the purposes of Part 13 and 13(A) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. April 2004

Steve Shanks Fisheries Manager Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Primary Industries & Resources South Australia GPO Box 1625 ADELAIDE SA 5001 www.pir.sa.gov.au ph (08) 8226 0364 fax (08) 8226 0434 e-mail: [email protected]


FOREWORD

The marine and freshwater fisheries resources of South Australia are community owned resources. The role of the Government, as custodian of these resources on behalf of the broader community and future generations, is to ensure that they are used in an ecologically sustainable and economically efficient manner, while at the same time maximising returns to the community.

Experience world-wide has demonstrated that where unrestricted use of marine and freshwater fisheries resources is allowed, there is little incentive for individuals harvesting the resource to conserve fish stocks. The resulting competition among and between user groups often leads to reduced biological and economic productivity. Left unmanaged, the increase in fishing effort that results from competition is reflected in lower individual catches in the recreational fishing sector, and over-capitalisation and reduced financial returns in the commercial fishing sector. Loss of these resources to the community can result in significant regional economic problems.

In managing fisheries resources, Governments have the primary responsibility of ensuring long term sustainability. Governments must also ensure that the basis for sharing fisheries resources among all users is clearly understood and accepted as equitable, and that the allocation of fisheries resources and their level of utilisation are consistent with the needs of present and future generations.

To facilitate better decision-making by the Government in managing South Australia’s fisheries resources, a number of fishery-specific stakeholder-based fishery management committees have been established to provide expertise-based advise to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. These committees are comprised of Government managers, research scientists, commercial and recreational fishers, fish processors, members of the general community; and are convened by an independent chairperson. Appointment of members and the terms of reference of the committees are embodied in the Fisheries (Management Committees) Regulations 1995.

Where there is considered to be threats of serious or irreversible damage to fisheries resources, or the environment upon which they depend, a lack of full scientific certainty or insufficient information will not prevent the Government from making a resource management decision. Where resource management decisions must be made in an environment of uncertainty the Government, in partnership with the fisheries management committee, will take a precautionary approach to the management of South Australia’s fisheries resources.

Rory McEwen MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND FISHERIES / /2004


PURPOSE OF REPORT This report has been prepared by the Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Division of the Department of Primary Industries and Resources, South Australia (PIRSA), in association with the pilchard industry in South Australia. The purpose of this report is to provide Department of Environment and Heritage with a detailed assessment of the management arrangements for the South Australian pilchard fishery, against the ‘Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries’, set out in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). It is intended that this report serve as the first step in the process to have species taken in the Pilchard fishery (i.e. Clupeidae and Engraulididae) from South Australian waters, placed on the list of exempt native species for export, under Part 13 and 13(A) of the EPBC Act, 1999.


CONTENTS

FOREWORD ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

PURPOSE OF REPORT ................................................................................................................................... 4

CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................ 6

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................................. 6

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY .................................................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 Consultation and co-management ...................................................................................................... 8 1.2 MANAGEMENT OF THE FISHERY.................................................................................................................. 9

1.2.1 Legislation managing the fishery ....................................................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Defining target species, by-product and bycatch ............................................................................. 10

2 ESD ASSESSMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT REGIME AGAINST PRINCIPLES 1 AND 2 ......... 11 2.1 PRINCIPLE 1.......................................................................................................................................... 12

2.1.1 Objective 1........................................................................................................................................ 12 2.1.1.1 Information requirements .......................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1.2 Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 14 2.1.1.3 Management responses.............................................................................................................. 21

2.1.2 Objective 2........................................................................................................................................ 26 2.1.2.1 Management responses.............................................................................................................. 26

2.2 PRINCIPLE 2.......................................................................................................................................... 28 2.2.1 Objective 1........................................................................................................................................ 28

2.2.1.1 Information requirements .......................................................................................................... 28 2.2.1.2 Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 29 2.2.1.3 Management responses.............................................................................................................. 30



3 LIST OF ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................. 40

4 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 41

APPENDIX 1: DETAILED SECTION MAPS .............................................................................................. 45

APPENDIX 2: PILCHARD FISHERY RESEARCH LOGBOOK ............................................................. 47

APPENDIX 3: PIRSA FISHERIES PILCHARD CATCH AND DISPOSAL FORM .............................. 48

APPENDIX 4: RISK MITIGATION TOOL-KIT......................................................................................... 49


LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: AREA OF JURISDICTION AND PRINCIPAL FISHING AREAS FOR THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PILCHARD FISHERY. 8

FIGURE 2: RETAINED SPECIES COMPONENT TREE FOR THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PILCHARD FISHERY. 12

FIGURE 3: TRENDS IN ANNUAL CATCH, EFFORT AND CPUE BETWEEN 1991 AND 2002. 19 FIGURE 4: FLOW DIAGRAM OF NON-RETAINED SPECIES AS DEVELOPED BY FLETCHER ET AL.

2002. 28 FIGURE 5: COMPONENT TREE FOR GENERAL ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS AS DEVELOPED BY

FLETCHER ET AL. 2002. 35

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT CONTROLS FOR THE PILCHARD FISHERY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA. 7 TABLE 2: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS USED TO SET THE ANNUAL TACC FOR THE FISHERY. 14 TABLE 3: ANNUAL LANDED COMMERCIAL CATCH RECORDED IN SARDI LOGBOOKS FROM 1992

TO 2002. 18 TABLE 4: MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR

THE PILCHARD FISHERY. 21 TABLE 5: TACC SETTING BASED ON BIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS. 23 TABLE 6: MANAGEMENT MILESTONES 23 TABLE 7: CATCHES OF BY-PRODUCT SPECIES FROM SARDI LOGBOOK RETURNS TAKEN ON AN

ANNUAL BASIS. 25 TABLE 8: SPECIES WITH WHICH BYCATCH INTERACTIONS MAY OCCUR. 29 TABLE 9: INFORMATION FROM SARDI RESEARCH LOGBOOKS ILLUSTRATING INTERACTIONS

WITH SEALS, SHARKS AND DOLPHINS. 32 TABLE 10: GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS USED THROUGHOUT THE REPORT AND THEIR

EXPANDED MEANINGS. 40


1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Description of the fishery

The South Australian pilchard fishery was established in 1991, and is now South Australia’s largest fishery by weight with a total allowable commercial catch (TACC) for 2004 of 40,000 tonnes (Ward et al. 2003; Knight et al. 2000). Annual catches in the fishery have fluctuated markedly and the development of the fishery has been impeded by the mass mortality events that began in South Australia in March 1995 and October 1998, and which eventually affected the entire southern Australian pilchard population (Fletcher et al. 1997; Griffin et al. 1997; Hyatt et al. 1997; Jones et al. 1997; Whittington et al. 1997; Ward et al. 1999, 2001a; 2001b; Gaughan et al. 2000). On each occasion, over 70% of the adult stock (spawning biomass) was killed and the TACC in the South Australian fishery was reduced accordingly (Ward et al. 1999, 2001). Large pilchard stocks occur in regions where pelagic productivity is enhanced by upwelling of nutrient rich water (e.g. Parrish et al. 1989; Kailola et al. 1993). In South Australia, upwelling events occur during summer and autumn and enhance productivity in shelf waters between Port MacDonnell and Fowlers Bay (e.g. Matthews et al.; Kampf et al.). Furthermore, frontal zones concentrate planktonic organisms at the entrances of Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent and in Investigator Strait (Bruce and Short 1990). The effects of these events on pelagic productivity are poorly understood, but the spawning season of pilchard coincides with the period during which upwelling occurs and frontal systems form (January-April). Significant quantities of pilchard eggs are usually found in shelf waters between the Head of the Great Australian Bight and the eastern tip of Kangaroo Island, with the highest densities usually recorded in southern Spencer Gulf and Investigator Strait (Ward and McLeay 1998; Ward et al. 1998, 1999, 2000). The management arrangements for the fishery are outlined in the interim Management Plan and the Scheme of Management (Marine Scalefish Fishery) 1989 (see www.parliament.sa.gov.au/leg/5_legislation.shtm). A general outline of the management controls for the fishery is detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Management controls for the pilchard fishery in South Australia.

Control Restriction Limited entry - Marine Scalefish Licences with access to species from the Clupeidae and Engraulididae families

14 licences

Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) TACC set annually based on stock assessment divided equally amongst the 14 licence holders with access. Quota may be traded on a temporary basis between licence holders within a calendar year. (2004 TACC – 40,000 tonnes)

Purse seine net dimension restrictions Max length – 1000 metres Max depth – 200 metres Min mesh size – 14 millimetres Max mesh size – 22millimetres

The area of jurisdiction of the commercial pilchard fishery includes all the waters adjacent to the State of South Australia out to the 200 nautical mile Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) (with the exception of aquatic reserves and netting closure areas). Netting closure areas have been introduced in a number of areas along the South Australian coast for reasons relating to resource sharing and a means of protecting significant juvenile fish habitats. While aquatic reserves are areas in which fishing activities are restricted or banned, these areas have generally been established to protect ecologically sensitive areas (e.g. fish nursery areas or significant fish habitat).


The legislative instrument defining the area of jurisdiction of the pilchard fishery is the 1996 Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements for scalefish species between South Australia and the Commonwealth. Under the OCS arrangements South Australia has jurisdiction for pilchards out to the AFZ (see figure 1). However, as part of these arrangements the Commonwealth have retained access to pilchards for live bait purposes in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (SBTF). An estimate of the quantities of pilchards taken for live bait purposes is incorporated into the stock assessment process and the subsequent setting of the TACC. Although it is not considered that these species are taken in quantities sufficient to influence the stock assessment or the setting of the TACC. Historically, fishing for pilchards has been undertaken in the waters adjacent to Port Lincoln. When the fishery commenced in 1991, fishers spent a large proportion of their fishing effort searching in Gulf St. Vincent, around Kangaroo Island and off western Eyre Peninsula. Between 1992 and 1995, most fishing was undertaken in Spencer Gulf near Port Lincoln. From 1996 to 1998, the grounds around the Coffin Bay area were fished on a more frequent basis. In the period 1999 to 2004 most fishing was conducted in southern Spencer Gulf. Figure 1 illustrates the principal areas of fishing.

Figure 1: Area of jurisdiction and principal fishing areas for the South Australian pilchard fishery. 1.1.1 Consultation and co-management Section 32 of the Fisheries Act 1982 establishes a set of powers to formalise a co-management process for fisheries management in South Australia. The Fisheries (Management Committees) Regulations 1995 formalise a set of co-management principles and establish a number of Fisheries Management Committees (FMCs) for key fisheries (see www.parliament.sa.gov.au/leg/5_legislation.shtm).


It is envisaged that a Pilchard Fishery Management Committee (PFMC) will be established in 2004. In the interim, a less formal Working Group has been established and operates in a similar framework as a Fishery Management Committee (FMC). To ensure all sectors of the community are represented on the committee, the PFMC will comprise the following members. Independent Chairperson (1) Commercial licence holders (3) Conservation/ Environment (1) Community representative (1) Principal pilchard scientist (1) Fisheries manager (1) South Australian Fishing Industry Council (SAFIC) (1) South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council (SARFAC) (1)

1.2 Management of the fishery 1.2.1 Legislation managing the fishery The Fisheries Act 1982 (the Fisheries Act) provides the broad statutory framework to ensure the ecologically sustainable management and development of South Australia’s marine and freshwater fisheries resources. In the administration of the Fisheries Act, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, the Director of Fisheries and all established Fisheries Management Committees must pursue the following objectives, outlined in Section 20 of the Act: (a) ensuring, through proper conservation, preservation and fisheries management measures,

that the living resources of the waters to which this Act applies are not endangered or overexploited; and

(b) achieving the optimum utilisation and equitable distribution of those resources. South Australia has management jurisdiction for pilchards, from the low water mark out to 200 nautical miles in the waters adjacent to South Australia, under an Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangement between the South Australian and Commonwealth Governments (see figure 1). An interim Management Plan for the pilchard fishery was completed in May 2003. The interim Management Plan covers commercial harvesting operations, biology, management of the fishery and setting of the annual Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) in the fishery within South Australian waters. This Management Plan will be reviewed in 2004 to incorporate the national ESD guidelines. The management of the pilchard fishery is not subject to any specific international or regional management regimes or legal instruments, except for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which the existing management regimes comply. The Management Plan provides a statement of the broad policy framework and harvest strategy employed to ensure the ecologically sustainable management of the pilchard fishery. The legislation that governs the management of the pilchard fishery is contained in the conditions on licences, the Scheme of Management (Marine Scalefish Fishery) Regulations 1989 and the Fisheries (General) Regulations 2000 (see www.parliament.sa.gov.au/leg/5_legislation.shtm).

It is important to note that a comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act is also currently being undertaken by PIRSA in consultation with key stakeholder groups. This review, is likely to result in changes to the principal objectives of the Fisheries Act, and in turn, the broad sustainability framework for the management of South Australia’s fisheries resources.


1.2.2 Defining target species, by-product and bycatch Within the handbook ‘Guidelines for the Ecological Sustainable Management of Fisheries’ the following definitions have been provided. Bycatch – species that are discarded from the catch or retained for scientific purposes, and that part of the “catch” that is not landed but is killed as a result of interaction with fishing gear. This includes discards of commercially valuable species. By-product – species that are retained because they are commercially valuable but are not the main target species. The principal target species in the pilchard fishery is pilchard (Sardinops sagax). However, pursuant to conditions contained on licences pilchards are defined as all species from the families Clupeidae and Engraulididae. Species were defined by this method for compliance purposes to prevent inaccurate recording on quota monitoring documentation. Within the assessment pilchard (Sardinops sagax) are defined as the target species and all other species from the families Clupeidae and Engraulididae are defined as by-product. These definitions are consistent with the scientific logbook information recorded for the fishery, upon which all biological assessments are made. However, it should be noted that by-product is not technically as per the definition contained in the handbook ‘Guidelines for the Ecological Sustainable Management of Fisheries’, as other species from the families Clupeidae and Engraulididae, with the exception of pilchards (Sardinops sagax), may be targeted by licence holders in the fishery. Historically targeting of these species has rarely occurred, due to the significant quantities of pilchard (Sardinops sagax) available (see table 6 & 1.1.8).


2 ESD ASSESSMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT REGIME AGAINST PRINCIPLES 1 AND 2

The following sections of this assessment report are presented to address “Guidelines for Assessing the Ecological Sustainability of Fisheries Management Regimes” approved by the Australian Government for the Environment in August 2000.

PRINCIPLE 1 OBJECTIVE 1

Ecological Assessment of South Australian Pilchard Fishery of 51

2.1 PRINCIPLE 1 A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing, or for those stocks that are over-fished, the fishery must be conducted such that there is a high degree of probability the stock(s) will recover.

2.1.1 Objective 1 The fishery shall be conducted at catch levels that maintain ecologically viable stock levels at an agreed point or range, with acceptable levels of probability.

2.1.1.1 Information requirements

2.1.1.1.1 There is a reliable information collection system in place appropriate to the scale of the fishery. The level of data collection should be based upon an appropriate mix of fishery independent and dependent research and monitoring. The following ‘retained species’ component tree was developed for the pilchard fishery using the National ESD Reporting Framework established by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA) Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) working group (Fletcher et al. 2002). A guide to the species that are retained as part of commercial pilchard fishing in South Australian waters is presented in Figure 2.

Pilchard(Sardinops sagax)

Primary Species

Sprats

Anchovies

Marays

Species from the familiesEngraulididae and Clupeidae

Byproduct species

Retained Species

Figure 2: Retained species component tree for the South Australian pilchard fishery. Discrete fishery dependent and independent data collection programs administered by the Aquatic Sciences division of the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) are in place in the fishery. Fisheries Dependent Data Commercial catch data have been collected in the fishery since an expression of interest was lodged to develop the commercial pilchard resource in 1983. Commercial catch and effort data are collected through a compulsory logbook system administered by SARDI. Logbook information includes total catch by weight and fishing area. The fishing areas are generally defined by one degree blocks of longitude and latitude (approximately 60nm2), except for those areas which are naturally constrained by the coastline and hence cover smaller areas (see Appendix 1). The logbook information is provided to SARDI.



Catch and effort data are entered promptly into the pilchard database upon receipt, and late returns are rigorously pursued to ensure high levels of data availability and quality. The pilchard database is a secure, modern, relational database that is professionally managed and maintained. All information specified in the logbook is on a per trip basis, with one logbook return required per fishing trip (see Appendix 2). Details currently recorded in the trip logbook include:

1. Licence number, vessel name, licence holder and skipper name

2. Date of landing and date of departure.

3. Individual shot information – sonar searching time, time shot started, shot position (longitude and latitude) and water temperature.

4. Estimated catch brailed and estimated catch lost.

5. Total trip weight declared for quota monitoring purposes.

6. Number of crew (including skipper).

7. Total engine hours for trip.

8. General information – no fish seen, fish not schooling, too rough, break down, net damage, sharks or dolphins seen, shot missed school.

9. Estimated weight of other bait species caught – anchovies, blue sprats, round herring and other.

10. Number of bycatch released and/or deceased – seals, sharks and dolphins. A copy of a pilchard fishery research logbook is included as Appendix 2. Licence holders are also required to keep daily Catch Disposal Record (CDR) information, as part of the quota monitoring requirements pursuant to the conditions listed on licences (see Appendix 3). These fishery dependent data provide catch verification and a means of monitoring the quantities of individual quota caught.

Prior to 1997 all catches of species from the families Clupeidae and Engraulididae were recorded in the marine scalefish fishery catch logbook. In 1997, a separate logbook for marine scalefish fishery licence holders with quota and pilchard nets endorsed on their licence was introduced. The principal changes with the introduction of the new logbook were the requirement for the Global Satellite Positioning (GPS) location of all shots and any incidental catches of non-target species to be reported in the logbook (see Appendix 2). Whilst recognising the natural limitations of fishery-dependent data, PIRSA Fisheries have a high level of confidence in the existing pilchard data and consider information collected to be very reliable and accurate. Fishery Independent Data Fishery independent sampling has been undertaken in the fishery since 1995. The number of pilchard eggs present is sampled on an annual basis for the purpose of deriving an estimate of spawning biomass. This sampling is undertaken by SARDI aboard the research vessel RV Ngerin. Sampling over the period 1995 to 1997 was undertaken as part of an FRDC project for the purpose of developing the egg sampling method as an independent sampling method for estimating spawning biomass. Since 1998, egg sampling has been used as the method for estimating spawning biomass and as a guide for setting the annual TACC. Between 1995 and 2002, 2-3 egg surveys of 10-15 day duration were conducted during the spawning season from the research vessel RV Ngerin. The size of the sampling area and the



level of sampling has varied between years. In 1995, the sampling area covered approximately 11,200 square kms, but only 97 sites were sampled. In years up to and including 2000, the size of the sampling area decreased with increased knowledge of the location of spawning areas. However, in 2001 the sampling area was increased to cover over 12,000 square kms with 359 samples being collected in order to check that the spawning areas had not changed over time and to maximise the precision and accuracy of the estimate of spawning biomass. For the purpose of verifying logbook records of bycatch, by-product and pilchards independent observers will be placed on vessels as part of the FRDC project “Assessing the potential ecological effects of the South Australian Sardine Fishery.” Within the project proposal, it has been identified that the independent observation of bycatch and by-product interactions in the fishery is required in order to address the principles of ecological sustainable development, outlined in Fletcher et al. (2002). 2.1.1.2 Assessment

2.1.1.2.1 There is a robust assessment of the dynamics and status of the species/fishery and periodic review of the process and the data collected. Assessment should include a process to identify any reduction in biological diversity and/or reproductive capacity. Review should take place at regular intervals but at least every three years. There is an independent annual stock assessment process in place for the pilchard fishery. This stock assessment is based upon the results of the egg sampling survey, which are applied to a model to determine an estimate of spawning biomass. The estimate of spawning biomass and the presence of age classes in the population are then measured against a set of TACC decision-making rules to determine the annual TACC. SARDI is part of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) and is a key research provider for the South Australian Government. SARDI are independent of the fisheries policy group, and are contracted by PIRSA Fisheries to complete an annual stock assessment and spawning biomass report. The most recent stock assessment reports for the pilchard fishery are available on the PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture website at www.pir.sa.gov.au Indicators used to set the annual TACC for the fishery are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Performance indicators used to set the annual TACC for the fishery.

Performance Indicator Description Measurement Estimate of Spawning Biomass

Reflects the number of individuals within the population that are estimated to be spawning on a particular day.

Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) formula.

Presence of Age Classes Reflects the percentage of different age classes present when sampling is undertaken.

Straight percentage of sample.

These two performance indicators are used as part of the TACC decision-making rules that are documented in the interim management plan and SARDI spawning biomass reports. The decision-making rules are used as guidelines only when setting the annual TACC. The decision-making rules are as follows.

1. If the estimate of spawning biomass is less than 100,000 tonnes, the TACC should be set at 10% of the spawning biomass or 5000 tonnes (which ever is greater).

2. If there is evidence that the 2 and 3 year old age classes are weak or of average strength (i.e. <40% of the catch) and the estimate of spawning biomass is between 100,000 and 150,000 tonnes, then the TACC should be set at 10% of the spawning biomass.



3. If there is evidence that the 2 and 3 year old age classes are strong (i.e. >40% of the catch) and the estimate of spawning biomass is between 100,000 and 150,000 tonnes then the TACC should be set at 12.5% of the spawning biomass.

4. If there is evidence that the 2 and 3 year old age classes are weak or of average strength (i.e. <40% of the catch) and the estimate of spawning biomass is between 150,000 and 250,000 tonnes, then the TACC should be set at 12.5% of the spawning biomass.

5. If there is evidence that the 2 and 3 year old age classes are strong (i.e. >40% of the catch) and the estimate of spawning biomass is between 150,000 and 250,000 tonnes then the TACC should be set at 15% of the spawning biomass.

6. If there is evidence that the 2 and 3 year old age classes are weak or of average strength (i.e. <40% of the catch) and the estimate of spawning biomass is greater than 250,000 tonnes, then the TACC should be set at 15% of the spawning biomass.

7. If there is evidence that the 2 and 3 year old age classes are strong (i.e. >40% of the catch) and the estimate of spawning biomass is greater than 250,000 tonnes, then the TACC should be set at 17.5% of the spawning biomass.

In isolation, individual performance indicators are not considered to provide robust measurements of the degree to which key management objectives are being achieved. As such, the key biological performance indicators in the fishery have been combined within the decision-making rules to enable levels of exploitation representative of the status of the stock to be achieved. The spawning biomass estimate is, however, considered to be the principal guide to setting the TACC, with the presence of individual age classes providing a further indication of the robustness of the stock, which in turn allows the TACC to be set higher. The TACC decision-making rules were introduced in the fishery in 2002. Prior to this, the TACC was set conservatively at 10% of the spawning biomass. The TACC has been set at this conservative level primarily to allow the stock to recover following the pilchard mass mortality events of 1995 and 1998. By creating specific TACC decision-making rules based on performance indicators that illustrate the robustness of the stock it is considered that higher levels of exploitation can be sustained. Consequently, in 2002 and 2003 TACCs of 17,750 tonnes and 36,000 tonnes respectively were set. These TACCs were based on the decision-making rules that illustrated a TACC of 12.5% and 15% could be harvested in 2002 and 2003 respectively. Given that exploitation rates in other Clupeoid fisheries are as high as 20-30% of the spawning biomass levels, of exploitation established through the decision making rules are still considered to be extremely conservative (Staunton, Smith and Ward 1998). Until such time as further scientific information is available on Sardinops sagax, exploitation rates will continue to be set in the range of 10% to 20% of the spawning biomass, as exploitation rates above 25% of the spawning biomass appear to have resulted in signs of overfishing in other pilchard and small pelagic teleost fisheries (Ward et al. 1998).

Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) The DEPM provides an estimate of the biomass of adult fishes that release batches of pelagic eggs throughout the spawning season. The method relies on the premise that spawning biomass can be calculated from estimates of the number of eggs produced per day in the spawning area (daily egg production) and the number of eggs produced per unit mass of population (daily fecundity). Spawning biomass (B) is calculated according to the equation:

SFRWAPB⋅⋅⋅⋅= ……… Equation 1



where P is mean daily egg production, A is the spawning area, W is the mean weight of mature females, R is the sex ratio (proportion of females by weight), F is the mean batch fecundity (number of oocytes in a batch) and S is the mean spawning fraction (proportion of mature females that spawn each night) (Lasker 1985; Parker 1985; Alheit 1993). A number of methods have been employed throughout the world to assess the biological status and determine exploitation rates for Clupeoid fisheries. Methods that have been used to estimate the relative or absolute abundance of stocks of small pelagic fishes in Australia and New Zealand include: visual surveys from boats and aeroplanes (e.g. Blackburn 1950); pelagic trawl surveys (Collins and Barron 1981; Stevens et al. 1984; Zmiyevskiy in Fletcher 1991a); hydroacoustic surveys using echo-sounders and sonar (Rapson 1953); various mathematical models (e.g. Fletcher 1992); and egg surveys (Fletcher et al. 1996a, b). Hydroacoustic survey methods have also been used extensively throughout the world to assess the biological status of Clupeoid stocks. In the last 20 years, the development of echo-sounder and sonar technology has resulted in this method becoming a more accurate technique of assessing population abundance. Hydroacaustic survey techniques have not been applied in the South Australian pilchard fishery, as the initial cost of obtaining the equipment required to undertake the surveys is considered too significant to justify the benefits. However, future investigation of this technique and its application to the fishery may warrant its use as a method for estimating population abundance.

Due to the short life span and highly fecund nature of Clupeoid species, populations of these stocks are generally extremely variable. Consequently, classical fisheries models that rely on fishery-dependent data have not been considered appropriate for estimating stock abundance in the South Australian pilchard fishery. In addition, the reliance on historical catch and effort data, and the relative unsuitability for schooling pelagic species such as Clupeoids, has meant that classical fisheries models are not considered appropriate for the South Australian pilchard fishery.

In the South Australian pilchard fishery the DEPM has been applied as the method for assessing the stocks status. The principal reason for utilising this method has been the relatively low cost when compared with other methods. In addition, this method may be used in conjunction with hydroacoustic surveys to obtain a more refined estimation of population abundance. The disadvantage of the DEPM is that estimates of parameters required for the method are subject to considerable sampling error and these errors are compounded by the multiplicative method used to calculate the biomass. However, by using conservative estimates of these parameters, as is the case when applying the method in the South Australian pilchard fishery, conservative estimates of the spawning biomass are achieved. This ensures management decisions made on the basis of this information do not allow for excessive levels of exploitation. In addition, by undertaking egg sampling an early warning of any extreme fluctuations in population abundance can be predicted in advance. Presence of age classes While the DEPM is the principal method for assessing the stock and setting the TACC, the strength or weakness of the age classes is used as a subsidiary assessment. Independent sampling of catches is undertaken by SARDI to determine the percentage estimates of age classes present. These estimates are then used as a guide to determine the strength of the population when setting the TACC.



Age structured model An age structured model is currently being developed by SARDI for the purpose of assessing the impact on the pilchard stock over time when applying varied levels of exploitation. Following the completion of this model, predictions of the impact on the stock when setting the TACC at varied levels will be established. Once the model has been completed, an assessment of the application of the model to the TACC decision-making rules will be undertaken. It is considered that the most appropriate application will be to set the TACC based on the stock abundance predicted by the model in future years. The robustness of this model will be assessed over time through the testing of the predictions made by the model against actual stock fluctuations demonstrated by catch and effort data recorded in logbooks, and other performance indicators in the fishery. Through the ongoing assessment and refinement of the model its application as a decision-making tool for setting the TACC will be established.

2.1.1.2.1 The distribution and spatial structure of the stock(s) has been established and factored into management responses. In Australia, pilchards are found mainly south of Hervey Bay, Queensland and Red Bluff, Western Australia (Fletcher 1990). Pilchards are most commonly encountered in shelf waters (Blackburn 1950; Neira et al. 1999). Pilchards appear to undergo seasonal migrations. For example, the species is not commonly encountered in waters of southern Queensland during summer, but form large breeding aggregations in this area during winter (Staunton Smith and Ward 1998; Ward and Staunton Smith, in review). Independent surveys undertaken over the last 7 years have revealed that pilchards are distributed throughout the waters adjacent to South Australia and no specific spatial pattern exists. When the fishery commenced in 1991 fishers spent a large proportion of their fishing effort searching in Gulf St. Vincent, around Kangaroo Island and off western Eyre Peninsula. More recently fishing activities have occurred predominately in Coffin Bay and Southern Spencer Gulf where large aggregations have been found (see Figure 1). The concentration of fishing effort in limited areas raises concern of localised depletion. However, the fact that vessels have not ventured further offshore also suggests that the stock may not be affected by localised harvesting activities. Should the fishery continue to expand, it is important that changes in patterns of distribution and abundance are monitored, through both the annual egg surveys and the spatial analysis of catch and effort data.

During surveying conducted aboard the SARDI research vessel large stocks of pilchards have been observed on the west coast and around Kangaroo Island. These stocks have not been fished due to logistical difficulties involved in transporting the catch to tuna farms and processors.

When considering intra-annual patterns of catch, effort and CPUE, it is noted that since 1996 there has been a consistent seasonal pattern in catch and effort, with peaks occurring mostly between December and July (Ward at al. 2001). It is suspected that during this period, upwellings occur that cause fish to aggregate in inshore areas, therefore increasing their vulnerability to capture.



2.1.1.2.3 There are reliable estimates of all removals, including commercial (landings and discards), recreational and indigenous, from the fished stock. These estimates have been factored into stock assessments and target species catch levels. All estimates of removals are factored into the annual stock assessment and are taken into account when setting the annual TACC for the fishery. The estimates of removals are recorded in both the SARDI commercial logbook and on the Catch Disposal Record (CDR) form. Information from the SARDI commercial logbook is used for research purposes. Primarily it provides a guide to the historical catch and illustrates trends in catch per unit effort (CPUE) in the fishery (see figure 3). Pursuant to the Fisheries Act 1982, licence holders are required to submit monthly SARDI research logbook returns. Removals by non-commercial licence holders (i.e. recreational anglers) have not been included in landings and discards, as this group are only able to take pilchards by line and it is not considered that incentive exists to target the species by this method.

Table 3: Annual landed commercial catch recorded in SARDI logbooks from 1992 to 2002.

Year Commercial catch

(tonnes) TACC set for the calendar year

1992 464.91 N/A 1993 1,463.02 N/A 1994 3,241.34 N/A 1995 2,459.93 3,500 1996 3,532.28 3,500 1997 3,025.86 3,500 1998 6,436.31 9,000 1999 3,548.56 4,700 2000 3,502.48 3,800 2001 4,547.87 9,100 2002 13,323.58 17,750 2003 26,161.14 36,000



1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Catch

Effort

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

C

PUE

(tonn

es p

er b

oat d

ay)

Year

Figure 3: Trends in annual catch, effort and CPUE between 1991 and 2002.



The CDR form is the compliance mechanism to monitor the catches taken by individual licence holders against their quota holding. The monitoring of the CDR form is effectively the compliance measure to ensure catches of the target species retained by licence holders remain within individual quota holdings and within the annual TACC for the fishery (see section 1.1.7).

Illegal activities During 2002, no infringements by commercial fishers or processors were recorded from 33 inspections. This information suggests that little, if any, illegal activity is being undertaken in the fishery. The primary identifiable illegal fishing activity in any quota managed fishery, is taking quantities of quota greater than individual allocations. Due to the significant increases in the TACC in recent years fishers have not been able to expand their operations at a rapid enough pace to harvest individual TACC allocations. However, as fishers have expanded their operations to increase their fishing capacity it is anticipated that there will be increased ability for fishers to harvest their quota allocations. Therefore, illegal activity and the ability to monitor the take from the fishery accurately will become an issue of increasing importance. 2.1.1.2.4 There is a sound estimate of the potential productivity of the fished stock/s and the proportion that could be harvested. Through the stock assessment measures that have been developed sound estimates of the potential productivity of the fish stocks and the proportion that should be harvested have been established. As a result of large variations in abundance (as illustrated by the mass mortality events of 1995 and 1998) low levels of commercial exploitation have been set to; 1) minimise the effect of commercial fishing activities on stock abundance; 2) to maximise the potential for ongoing recruitment; and 3) in recognition of pilchards being a food source for higher order predators (i.e. seals and dolphins). The level of commercial exploitation established through the annual setting of the TACC has historically been set at 10% of the spawning biomass. However, through the development of TACC decision-making rules, higher levels of exploitation have been set (12-15%) dependent on biological performance indicators in the fishery (see section 1.1.2). When compared with Clupeoid fisheries in other countries that have exploitation rates as high as 20-30% of the spawning biomass, the exploitation rate for the South Australian pilchard fishery is considered to be conservative. Classical fishery-dependent stock assessment models generally assume that there is a linear relationship between CPUE and abundance, and that the stock is at equilibrium. This relationship is defined by ongoing recruitment in a fishery that can be incorporated into the model to establish an estimate of abundance. In the case of pilchards and other highly mobile and schooling pelagic fishes that undergo large inter-annual variation in abundance, these assumptions are almost always violated. An example of the unsuitability of CPUE as an index of abundance was observed after the 1995 and 1998 mass mortality events, where CPUE in the fishery increased despite >70% reductions in the size of the pilchard stock. The spawning biomass estimate equation (see equation 1 in section 1.1.2) uses conservative estimates of the parameters in the equation to overcome the inaccuracy associated with the surveying methods. This methodology for determining an estimate of the spawning biomass, combined with the use of the presence of age classes within the population is considered to be a sound estimate of the proportion of the stock that can be harvested.



2.1.1.3 Management responses

2.1.1.3.1 There are reference points (target and/or limit) that trigger management actions including a biological bottom line and/or a catch or effort upper limit beyond which the stock should not be taken. The management strategies for the fishery described in table 4 link the annual stock assessment and spawning biomass reports to the TACC decision-making rules that have been established for the fishery. Reference points within the performance indicators have been developed for the fishery. These reference points trigger management actions that have been defined within the TACC decision-making rules. Environmental and economic management objectives have also been developed for the fishery. However, the primary emphasis is on the biological objectives that define the setting of the TACC.

Table 4: Management objectives, strategies and performance indicators for the Pilchard Fishery.

Management Objectives Management Strategies Performance Indicators Biological ! To maintain pilchard

populations at sustainable levels across the fishery; and ! Adopt a ‘precautionary

approach’ in the management of the pilchard resource.

! Set a sustainable TACC for the

fishery each year; ! Restrict the number of licences in

the fishery to a maximum of 14; and ! Develop further research to refine

stock assessment measures used in the fishery.

Fisheries Management ! Annual spawning biomass

estimate; ! Percentage composition

of age classes within the fishery; ! Annual analysis of catch

per unit effort (CPUE) data; and ! Analysis of the proportion

of the TACC taken annually.

Fisheries Compliance ! Analysis of the proportion

of the TACC taken annually.

Economic ! Ensure an equitable

allocation of the pilchard resource. ! To provide commercial

fishers with secure access to the pilchard resource. ! To maintain the economic

return from the fishery at a level which provides for fair and reasonable benefits to licence holders. ! Optimise yield from the

fishery.

! Provide an equal allocation of the

TACC set annually between the 14 licence holders; ! Develop harvest strategies which

minimise commercial fishing costs; ! Develop flexible management

arrangements; and ! Support cost effective compliance

strategies to protect the resource from illegal harvesting.

! Gross Value of Product

(GVP). ! cost of management

programs compared with GVP. ! return on Investment

(ROI). ! determination of any

major operating cost increases (eg possible future loss of fuel rebate).



! To provide for economic efficiency and flexibility in management arrangements by developing harvesting strategies that minimise costs. ! To protect the resource

through the provision of adequate compliance resources.

Fisheries Compliance ! Cost effective use of

compliance resources; ! Monitoring of the

percentage of the TACC harvested annually; and ! Reporting on the ability of

compliance to monitor individual quota allocations taken and the TACC.

Environmental ! To minimise the

environmental impact on habitat of pilchard fishing operations; ! To minimise bycatch in the

fishery; ! To remove and/or minimise

interactions with protected species; and ! Promote environmentally

sensitive fishing practices in the industry and promote actions that reduce fishery impacts.

! Identify the potential for conflict with

other marine resource users and determine strategies to reduce these conflicts; ! Monitor and collect information on

bycatch and other environmental impacts of fishing; and ! Develop research and/or research

programs that analyse the impact of pilchard fishing operations on bycatch and protected species.

! Interactions with protected

species quantified through observer program.

Reference Range Since 1995, the spawning biomass estimate determined on an annual basis has been the principal biological performance indicator used to establish the management actions for the fishery. Historically, the TACC has been set conservatively at 10% of the spawning biomass, as a precautionary measure following the 1995 and 1998 pilchard kills. However, in 2002 and 2003 the TACCs have been set at 12.5% and 15% of the spawning biomass respectively. In addition to the spawning biomass estimate, the percentage presence of individual age classes taken through fisheries independent sampling is also used to establish the management action for the fishery when setting the TACC. In 2002 decision-making rules were developed for the fishery. These decision-making rules are effectively the management actions and are based on the performance indicators for the fishery. The reference ranges of both the spawning biomass estimate and age class sampling are used in combination as a guide to set the TACC (see Table 5). Table 5 illustrates the suggested management action (% of spawning biomass to be harvested) to be taken within ranges of reference points for both spawning biomass estimates and the percentage presence of age classes within the population. Following the ongoing review of research in the fishery, these reference ranges may be modified and/or additional performance indicators added. It is generally considered that the decision-making rules will continue to be conservative until further research is able to illustrate that the stock is able to handle higher exploitation levels.



Table 5: TACC setting based on biological performance indicators.

Spawning biomass estimate

Presence of age classes TACC setting as % of spawning biomass

< 100,000 tonnes 10% or 500 tonnes (which ever is greater).

100,000 – 150,000 tonnes 2 and 3 year old age classes weak or of average strength (<40% of catch).

10%

100,000 – 150,000 tonnes 2 and 3 year old age classes strong (>40% of catch).

12.5%

150,000 – 250,000 tonnes 2 and 3 year old age classes weak or of average strength (<40% of the catch).

12.5%

150,000 – 250,000 tonnes 2 and 3 year old age classes strong or of average strength (>40% of the catch).

15%

>250,000 tonnes 2 and 3 year old age classes weak or of average strength (<40% of the catch).

15%

>250,000 tonnes 2 and 3 year old age classes strong or of average strength (>40% of the catch).

17.5%

2.1.1.3.2 There are management strategies in place capable of controlling the level of take. The current management strategy is based on controlling the total catch to within a predefined limit, through the establishment of a TACC, which is allocated in equal proportions to licence holders in the fishery. In addition, input controls in the form of gear restrictions, limited entry and a limit of one vessel per licence holder are in place in the fishery.

Table 6 illustrates the progression of management controls in the fishery since the fishery’s inception.

Table 6: Management milestones

Date Milestone 1991 Department of Fisheries sought expressions of interest in the pilchard fishery

from marine scalefish licence holders. 1992 Experimental pilchard fishery developed, TACC 1,200 tonnes. 1994 TACC of 6,000 tonnes, 3,500 tonnes to Australian Tuna Boat Owners

Association and 2,500 tonnes to marine scalefish licence holders. 1996 Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements between State and

Commonwealth giving South Australia management jurisdiction out to 200nm. 2000 Independent Allocation Panel established to resolve access arrangements for

pilchards. Findings of the panel subsequently adopted by the Minister were that 14 fishers be provided with access to the pilchard fishery; 7 by virtue of holding a commercial licence in the marine scalefish fishery; 7 by virtue of being nominees of the Australian Tuna Boat Owners Association.

2003 TACC set at 36,000 tonnes. The principal measure controlling the commercial catch is the TACC, which is reviewed annually. Since 1995 the TACC has been set at 10% of the spawning biomass. In recent years the TACC has been increased, following indications illustrated by the biological performance indicators, that stock abundance has increased. The integrity of these management strategies is dependent upon the ability of the compliance measures implemented to enforce management controls.



Compliance and Enforcement

PIRSA Fishwatch monitors the compliance of quotas and other regulations. The strategic aim of PIRSA Fishwatch is “to achieve optimal levels of compliance by all fishers.” Optimal compliance is that which holds the level of non-compliance at an acceptable level, which can be maintained at a reasonable cost for compliance services, whilst not compromising the integrity and sustainability of the fisheries resource. To achieve a level of optimal compliance PIRSA Fishwatch has developed a risk mitigation toolkit. This is a standard assessment that has been applied to all commercial fisheries to identify potential areas of non-compliance and implement strategies to address these risks. The assessment involves categorising identified areas of potential non-compliance in the fishery. This is undertaken by consulting directly with commercial licence holders once a year to review or modify the assessment. The key compliance risks are identified and listed, with estimates on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the greatest chance of occurrence or the greatest impact if the risk eventuates (see appendix 4). Following consideration of these compliance risks, the Pilchard FMC provides advice to PIRSA Fishwatch regarding the score estimates that have been provided to each of the identified compliance risks. The advice provided by the Pilchard FMC is considered prior to a final rating for each of the individual compliance risks being established by PIRSA Fishwatch (see appendix 4). The compliance Operational Plan is developed from the risk assessment and mitigation toolkit. Historically the key area of concern has been quota evasion. Quota evasion has historically taken the following forms: 1. Unnloading direct to tuna farms; 2. Failing to prior report (reporting prior to unloading catch); and 3. Dumping excess catch at sea. Incentive or ability to take quantities greater than individual quota allocations has not existed in recent years, as the catching capacity of individual licence holders and markets available to sell product have been limited. However, with larger vessels entering the fishery capable of taking significantly larger catches, compliance measures for preventing quota evasion are becoming an increasing priority. Though the annual application of the risk mitigation tool-kit the increasing need for additional compliance measures will be identified, which will lead to the implementation of compliance measures to address increased or emerging compliance risks. As part of the risk mitigation tool-kit specific strategies for addressing compliance risks have also been developed. These mitigation strategies are designed to prevent licence holders breaching legislation in the fishery. As the fishery has only recently been developed (ie. 5 years) a number of licence holders have not been aware of the specific interpretation of legislation associated with the fishery. Consequently, a primary mitigation strategy in the fishery has been the education of licence holders in regard to the specific interpretation of legislation. This method of mitigation has been particularly successful, primarily due to the small number of licence holders involved in the fishery. Other key compliance strategies for this fishery include at sea and on-land inspections, processor audits, and targeted investigations. As a further means of monitoring catch and providing additional compliance in the fishery the introduction of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) has also been proposed.



Catch Disposal Record (CDR) Forms The CDR forms specifically designed for the fishery (see appendix 3), is the means by which PIRSA Fishwatch monitors the take of pilchards. This form tracks the product from the point of landing to being received by the processor. This monitoring and subsequent recording of the quantities of product held and/or received provides Fishwatch with the means by which to monitor the quantities of pilchards taken. To add to the ongoing improvement of the CDR form further methods to improve the process of weighing and recording the harvested product are being investigated.

2.1.1.3.3 Fishing is conducted in a manner that does not threaten stocks of by-product species. Pursuant to licence conditions baitfish from the families Clupeidae and Engraulididae may be retained as by-product. However, licence holders directly target these species when found in commercial quantities, as they are sold and sent to the same markets as pilchards. As such, under the definition of by-product contained in the “Guidelines for the Ecological Sustainable Management of Fisheries” these species are not technically defined as by-product. However, for the purpose of this report, these species will be defined as by-product as they are not the principal target species.

Table 7: Catches of by-product species from SARDI logbook returns taken on an annual basis.

Year Species (estimated kg’s) Anchovies Bluesprats Marays Species other 1999 93,180 0 8,500 43,870 2000 610 1,000 19,300 0 2001 20,000 0 0 24,000 2002 7,500 0 0 9,000

The take of all by-product species is recorded in the SARDI research logbook (see Appendix 2). The data recorded in the logbook is unable to distinguish the number of other species in the category titled “other species” (see Table 7). However, independent observations by SARDI research staff have shown that the majority of species included in this category are maray and bluesprat species. As part of the logbook returns, fishers are required to, records of all by-product species taken. The accurate recording of by-product in logbooks is legislated pursuant to the Fisheries Act 1982. These records are monitored to ensure catches of by-product species do not increase significantly. Should the ongoing monitoring of these records suggest that catches of species have increased, then additional management controls may be considered to control catches. At present, it is not considered that excessive quantities of by-product species are being taken. However, the current logbook aggregates these species as other species (see Table 7). As part of the future SARDI study into the ecological affects of pilchard fishing a further independent analysis of by-product catches will be undertaken. This study will verify logbook recordings of the quantities of by-product species taken and the ecosystem effects of the take of these species.



2.1.1.3.4 The management response, considering uncertainties in the assessment and precautionary management actions, has a high chance of achieving the objective. Based on current assessments the fishery is considered to be performing at an acceptable level against the principal biological objective of maintaining pilchard populations at sustainable levels across the fishery. Spawning biomass estimates from the daily egg production method (DEPM) have steadily increased since the most recent pilchard kill in 1998, with these increases resulting in corresponding increases in the annual TACC. It is considered that this management response to the biological uncertainty of the performance indicators is evidence of a precautionary approach to management. Therefore, the management response of setting the TACC annually, is considered to have a high chance of achieving the objective of maintaining the biological sustainability of the fishery. In regard to the economic and social objectives established in the fishery, the substantial increases in the TACC that have occurred in recent years have resulted in a significant increase in the number of people directly employed as a result of fishing. As such, it is considered that the economic and social performance indicators are being achieved through a substantial increase in the financial return to the community. However, it should be noted that these economic and social performance indicators are directly related to the biological performance indicators through the setting of the annual TACC. The continued rebuilding of the stock since the 1998 pilchard kill also suggests that the economic and social performance indicators for the fishery will continue to be achieved and expanded. 2.1.2 Objective 2 Where the fished stock(s) are below a defined reference point, the fishery will be managed to promote recovery to ecologically viable stock levels within nominated timeframes.

2.1.2.1 Management responses 2.1.2.1.1 A precautionary recovery strategy is in place specifying management actions, or staged management responses, which are linked to reference points. The recovery strategy should apply until the stock recovers, and should aim for recovery within a specific time period appropriate to the biology of the stock. The staged management responses are linked to reference points, as defined in the decision-making rules (see section 1.1.2). The decision-making rules that have been set, based on the biological performance indicators established for the fishery, a staged approach has been developed that allows a higher level of exploitation based on the strength of these indicators. It is considered that this approach is precautionary in nature and allows the stock to rebuild in cases where the biological performance indicators illustrate that stock abundance may be down. As previously stated, the stock is susceptible to extreme fluctuations in abundance, as highlighted by the mass mortality events of 1995 and 1998 (Ward et al. 2001). Therefore, the degree to which these management responses aid in the rebuilding of the stock can only be speculated. However, it is considered that precautionary measures are being taken through the management responses (i.e. decision-making rules) to allow for these extreme fluctuations in abundance. The age structured model currently being developed by SARDI will provide a further performance tool to refine management responses in the fishery. This will aid in the ability of management responses to quantify the abundance of the stock present.



2.1.2.1.2 If the stock is estimated as being at or below the biological and/or effort bottom line, management responses such as a zero targeted catch, temporary fishery closure or a ‘whole of fishery’ effort or quota reduction are implemented. Pursuant to section 43 of the Fisheries Act 1982, the Director of Fisheries is able to take urgent action to protect the living resources in South Australian waters, in the form of closures and/or a prohibition on the take of a species. A closure and/or prohibition on the take of pilchards is considered to be the most extreme management response in cases where biological performance indicators illustrate stocks are unable to recover without this action. Whilst likely to aid in stock recovery, closures may not serve this purpose due to the extreme influence of environmental factors. However, as a precautionary measure to aid in stock recovery, a closure and/or a prohibition on the take of the species may be necessary. Closures of this nature were enacted following the 1995 and 1998 pilchard kills. The fishery was reopened in corresponding years, following the analysis of biological performance indicators illustrating that the stock had recovered to a level where commercial harvesting could again be undertaken.



2.2 PRINCIPLE 2 Fishing operations should be managed to minimise their impact on the structure, productivity, function and biological diversity of the ecosystem.

2.2.1 Objective 1

The fishery is conducted in a manner that does not threaten bycatch species.


Information presented in Figure 4 was developed using the process proposed by Fletcher et al. (2002), to provide a guide to non-retained species interactions across the fishery. Figure 4 details individual species, or groups of species, that are not retained as part of the commercial catch.

Figure 4: Flow diagram of non-retained species as developed by Fletcher et al. 2002. The definition of bycatch contained in the “Guidelines for the Ecological Sustainable Development Management of Fisheries” includes all species that are not retained and discarded dead. However, in the pilchard fishery the majority of the bycatch is released alive back into the water column and is not discarded dead. The release of bycatch back into the water column is made possible due to the use of a vacuum pump. The vacuum pump removes pilchards from the net therefore leaving bycatch

Protected Vulnerable Endangered

Sharks and rays

Finfish (approx.17 spp.)

Cephalopods(squid and octopus)

Crustaceans(sand crabs)

Other

Captured

Australianfur seal

Australiansea lion

New Zealandfur seal

Seals

Turtles

Dolphins

Whales

Great white shark

No or little interaction

No Capture

Non-retained species



species behind in the water, with further separation of smaller bycatch species occurring through a grid that prevents bycatch entering the storage hold.

Bycatch is generally defined as all species that are incidentally caught and not retained as part of the catch, a number of species including endangered and protected species are classified as bycatch pursuant to this definition. For the purpose of this assessment endangered and protected species will not be included within this definition of bycatch. Interactions of fishing operations with endangered and protected species (i.e. seals, dolphins and white sharks) are addressed in section 2.2. Table 8 shows the species that bycatch interactions occur with.

Table 8: Species with which bycatch interactions may occur.

Species Common Name Species Scientific Name Marine Scalefish Barracouta Thyrsites atun Cod Family Moridae Flathead Family Platycephalidae Flounder Family Pleuronectidae; Family Bothidae Garfish Hyporhamphus melanochir Horse mackerel Trachurus declivis Leather jacket Family Aluteridae Mackerel Scomber australasicus Morwong Family Cheilodactylidae Mullet Family Mugilidae Mulloway Argyrosomus hololepidotus Red mullet Upeneichthys porosus Salmon Arripis truttaceus Snapper Chrysophrys auratus Snook Sphyraena novaehollandiae Tommy ruff Arripis georgianus Trevally Usacaranx georgianus Whiting Family Sillaginidae Crustaceans Sand Crab Oualipes Australieusis Molluscs Cuttlefish Sepia spp. Octopus Octopus spp. Squid, calamary Sepioteuthis australis Squid, arrow Nototodarus gouldi Sharks All shark, skate and ray species (other than white pointer sharks)

Class Elasmobranchii

At present, an independent bycatch monitoring program is not in place for the fishery. However, as part of a research program being developed for the fishery by SARDI into the ecosystem effects of harvesting pilchards, quantification of all bycatch interactions will be determined. Random observer coverage of fishing operations will commence in 2005.

2.2.1.2 Assessment

2.2.1.2.1 There is a risk analysis of the bycatch with respect to its vulnerability to fishing



When undertaking commercial pilchard fishing operations using a purse seine net, only baitfish species from the families Clupeidae and Engraulididae may be taken. This legislation removes the incentive for bycatch to be taken, therefore removing its vulnerability to fishing. A risk assessment process of all bycatch has been undertaken by PIRSA Fisheries using the qualitative risk assessment approach suggested by Fletcher et al. (2002). The principal issues that have emerged are; 1) independent monitoring is required to quantify the potential interactions with bycatch species; and 2) modification of the current logbook is required to incorporate potential bycatch interactions with all species. Logbook information and independent observations from SARDI staff suggest that interactions and discards of bycatch are negligible, relative to other fisheries. However, it is considered that the adoption of the issues identified in the qualitative risk assessment approach will enable all bycatch interactions to be quantified. This quantification will provide the means for management action to be undertaken should it be required. Purse seine pilchard operations target large aggregating schools of fish, with the setting of the net occurring in a singular motion. Due to the nature of this operation interactions with non-target species are considered to be minimal. Through the introduction of the observer program these interactions will be quantified.


2.2.1.3.1 Measures are in place to avoid capture and mortality of bycatch species unless it is determined that the level of catch is sustainable (except in relation to endangered, threatened or protected species). Steps must be taken to develop suitable technology if none is available. As previously stated, purse seine operations are considered to be highly species selective. The principal concern in relation to bycatch species is the capture and/or mortality of medium to large finfish species and shark species. When feeding on pilchards, these species may become trapped within the purse seine. The entrapment of these species impedes operations, therefore when encircling the gear around pilchard aggregations all attempts are made to avoid capture within the purse. The entrapment of these species is only identified once the purse seine has been brought in close to the vessel. At this point bycatch species can be removed from the net by lowering the sides of the net. The lowering of the sides of the net is generally undertaken once pilchards have been removed from the net by the vacuum pump, thus preventing pilchards escaping. This practice has historically been undertaken by placing lead weights on a section of the net that enables the net to be lowered approximately 1 to 2 metres below the surface of the water. The length of net lowered is dependent on the size and/or quantity of bycatch. Following the analysis of this practice through future ecological research in the fishery, the formalisation of this practice through a ‘code of practice’ will be considered. The effectiveness of the code may then be monitored through observer programs associated with future research. This practice has generally been used throughout the fishery, as entanglement of bycatch species within the gear only impedes fishing operations. The practice of releasing shark species is illustrated in the logbook returns that show a large number of captures, with a subsequent small number of actual deceased animals (see Table 9). Industry is in the process of developing a Code of Practice to formalise the practice of releasing bycatch in the event of it becoming entrapped within the purse seine. Fisheries independent observations will be used when developing the Code of Practice.

2.2.1.3.2 An indicator group of bycatch species is monitored. No indicator groups of bycatch species are monitored in this fishery. The monitoring of bycatch through the current logbook program will continue to collect information on bycatch interactions.



The risk to bycatch species currently taken is considered to be minimal due to the low levels of take and interaction, relative to that of the target species. The risk to bycatch species will be monitored through a modified SARDI logbook incorporating interactions with all bycatch species and through fishery independent observations undertaken as part of the FRDC project “Assessing the Potential Ecological Effects of the South Australian Sardine Fishery.” 2.2.1.3.3 There are decision rules that trigger additional management measures when there are significant perturbations in the indicator species numbers. Following the formal evaluation of risk to bycatch species populations posed by commercial pilchard fishing operations, a more formal bycatch species management strategy will be considered. This may include performance indicators and reference limits. If an unacceptable level of risk is identified for any of the species taken as bycatch, PIRSA will introduce appropriate management measures to reduce the level of risk. In addition, the Fisheries Act 1982 provides the capacity for managers to respond swiftly to such risks. 2.2.1.3.4 The management response, considering uncertainties in the assessment and precautionary management actions, has a high chance of achieving the objective. The current objective for management of bycatch in the fishery is to maintain appropriately low levels of impact on bycatch species. The current recording of bycatch observed in logbook data indicates that a low level of risk is imposed upon these populations by pilchard fishing operations. A number of other factors are also considered to act as indirect methods of ensuring that the overall risk to bycatch species populations remains low: 1) the ability to release bycatch from the net without damage; 2) the high commercial value and volumes of the target species removes incentive to take bycatch species; 3) the fleet have not caught the annual TACC allocation in recent years; and 4) there is no provision to retain bycatch species under the legislation. Based on the low level of impact on bycatch species and on the strength of the range of measures that have been introduced to address bycatch issues, PIRSA considers that the performance of the fishery against established environmental objectives is acceptable and that the fishery is being conducted in a manner that does not threaten bycatch species. In addition, anecdotal reports from fishers suggest that there has been no discernible change to the bycatch composition over the last 8 years.



2.2.2 Objective 2

The fishery is conducted in a manner that avoids mortality of, or injuries to, endangered, threatened or protected species and avoids or minimises impacts on threatened ecological communities.


2.2.2.1.1 Reliable information is collected on the interaction with endangered, threatened or protected species and threatened ecological communities.

The potential exists for a number of protected marine species to interact with purse seine fishing operations. These species include seals, dolphins and white sharks. The degree to which fishers may encounter each of these species varies temporally and spatially. Information on these interactions has been collected through the SARDI research logbooks since 1999. Table 9 illustrates interactions with seals, dolphins and sharks over the last 4 years.

Table 9: Information from SARDI research logbooks illustrating interactions with seals, sharks and dolphins.

Year Released Deceased Seals Sharks Dolphins Seals Sharks Dolphins 1999 1 6 13 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2001 4 0 9 8 1 0 2002 7 14 21 0 2 0

* In all instances interactions recorded in Table 9 have been individual occurrences. Information on the interactions of pilchard purse seining operations with seals, dolphins and sharks has not been independently quantified. An independent quantification of these interactions will be undertaken as part of the FRDC project “Assessing the Potential Ecological Effects of the South Australian Sardine Fishery.”

2.2.2.2 Assessment

2.2.2.2.1 There is an assessment of the impact of the fishery on endangered, threatened or protected species. There has been no formal assessment of the vulnerability of endangered, threatened or protected species through pilchard fishing operations. However, the impact of the fishery on populations of these species is considered to be negligible. The on-board monitoring program to be undertaken as part of research into the ecosystem effects of pilchard fishing will provide further information to facilitate the SARDI logbook assessments being undertaken.

Seals

The pilchard fishery operates in waters adjacent to a number of seal breeding sites and specified critical habitats (Shaugnessy 1999). There are a number of major breeding colonies of Australian sea-lions and New Zealand fur seals throughout South Australia. Three locations in South Australia were estimated to account for 42% of the total Australian sea-lion population and most (77%) of the New Zealand fur-seal population in Australia exists in central South Australian waters. Whilst seal interactions appear to be rare, the most frequently reported interactions relate to seals feeding on pilchard aggregations within the purse seine net, while the net is being encircled towards the vessel. The impacts associated with these rare interactions include cuts and infections from the headline and death from drowning through becoming trapped in the net.



The mortality rate of seals associated with purse seine net interactions is considered to be negligible when compared to the natural mortality rate of the population. The current impact of pilchard fishing operations on seal populations is considered to be low. However, the frequency of seal interactions and the level of impact are considered to require further monitoring and investigation, as outlined above.

Dolphins

Dolphins have traditionally fed on aggregating schools of pilchards. This feeding behaviour has been known to result in dolphins becoming trapped inside the purse seine net. As previously highlighted in 2.1.3 the practice of lowering the side of the net to enable dolphins to be released back into the water column prevents any direct interaction resulting in injury to dolphins occurring. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this practice is being undertaken throughout the fishery. The assessment of the interactions with dolphins will be further substantiated following the completion of research into the ecological impacts of commercial pilchard fishing.

Sharks

The interactions with sharks occur when sharks feeding on pilchard aggregations inside the purse seine net become trapped. These interactions are considered to be infrequent, as observations show sharks generally move out of the net prior to it becoming encircled and the purse being drawn in. It is not considered that interactions are occurring with white sharks (Carcharodon carcharis). white sharks (Carcharodon carcharis) are a protected species pursuant to the Fisheries (General) Regulations 2000. Should a white shark be taken while engaging in pilchard fishing operations the offence must be reported to FISHWATCH. No reports of interactions with pilchard operations have been recorded. South Australia has also participated in a National Plan of Action (NPOA) for shark species. The NPOA outlines processes and procedures for monitoring the status and protection extended to shark species in waters adjacent to South Australia. The above-mentioned protection extended to white sharks and other shark species addresses the requirements detailed in the NPOA. 2.2.2.2.2 There is an assessment of the impact of the fishery on threatened ecological communities. There have been no specific assessments of pilchard fishing activities on ecological communities in South Australia. Funds have been secured from licence holders specifically for the purpose of undertaking ecosystem based research in the fishery. An ecosystem based project will be conducted by SARDI for at least three years at an annual cost of approximately $310,000. This project will focus on the ecological impacts of commercial pilchard fishing. The specific ecological impacts reported on in the project will include the following. • Operational interactions between marine predators and purse seine nets through an

observer program. • Operational interactions with endangered and protected species. • Correlations between populations of prey species (i.e. Southern Bluefin Tuna) and

pilchards.

• Interactions of the purse seine net with the benthos. This research will quantify and provide an understanding of the direct impact of pilchard fishing operations on the ecosystem. Once this assessment has been undertaken ecosystem impacts



can be considered as part of management actions and/or exploitation levels adopted in the fishery.


2.2.2.3.1 There are measures in place to avoid capture and/or mortality of endangered, threatened or protected species. A number of measures have been introduced to minimise the rare interactions with endangered, threatened or protected species. Economic incentive also exists when undertaking pilchard fishing operations to avoid these interactions as the entanglement of these species within the gear impedes operations, which directly relates to a financial cost. In addition, it is also considered that reductions in capture and/or mortality of endangered, threatened or protected species has been achieved, as a result of advances in gear technology and increases in the skills and knowledge of fishing crews (McNeely and Holts 1977; Coe et al. 1984). The method used to reduce the impact of interactions with seals and dolphins has been to lower sections of the purse seine headline rope to enable these species to move from the entrapped section of the net into the open water. Depending on the disbursement and quantities of pilchards contained in the net lowering of the headline may be undertaken prior to or after the pilchards are removed from the net by the vacuum pump. This method has worked particularly well in the case of dolphins, which is where the majority of interactions occur. However, it should be noted that in the majority of cases both seals and dolphins leap over the headline rope of the net prior to sections of the rope having to be lowered.

In the case of white sharks, methods of avoiding capture and/or mortality have not yet been identified. However, anecdotal evidence illustrates that interactions are not occurring and it is considered that once an independent observer program is implemented verification of these observations will be obtained. As part of the future research project “Assessing the Potential Ecological Effects of the South Australian Sardine Fishery” it has been identified that an observer program is required to monitor and quantify interactions with species for the purpose of developing mitigation strategies should they be required. It is considered that this component of the project will both quantify and develop mitigation strategies for protected species should they be required.



2.2.3 Objective 3 The fishery is conducted in a manner that minimises the impact of fishing operations on the ecosystem generally.

2.2.3.1 Information requirements 2.2.3.1.1 Information appropriate for the analysis in the assessment is collated and/or collected covering the fisheries impact on the ecosystem and environment generally. The following ‘general ecosystems effects’ component tree (Figure 5) has been developed to identify the range of potential wider ecosystem impacts that may be associated with pilchard fishing.

Figure 5: Component tree for general ecosystem effects as developed by Fletcher et al. 2002. No information specifically relating to the broader ecosystem impacts of pilchard fishing is currently regularly collected. However, as previously outlined, SARDI are undertaking research into the ecological effects of pilchard fishing. As part of this study further research will be conducted into the effect of changes in the abundance of pilchards on higher order predators. There is also a large body of literature containing information on the ecological role of Clupeoids in southern Australian waters. This literature deals specifically with the ecological interactions with finfish, seabirds and mammals (e.g. Dennis and Shaughnessy 1996, Kemper and Gibbs 1997, Barker and Vestjens 1990, Smith 1993, Grove-Jones and Burnell 1990, Bertoni 1997 and Cappo 1987 a,b).

biodiversitytrophic structure etcbait collection

Fishing

Corals

Other benthic types

Benthic biota, below low water

Seabirds

Removal of/damage to organisms

Discards

Additional/ movement of biological

Impacts on the biological community through

Fuel usage

Air quality

Debris - recycled

Oil discharge - recycled

Water quality

Broader Environment

General Ecosystem Effects



2.2.3.2 Assessment

2.2.3.2.1 Information is collected and a risk analysis, appropriate to the scale of the fishery and its potential impacts, is conducted into the susceptibility of each of the following ecosystem components to the fishery. Impacts on ecological communities • Benthic communities • Ecological related, associated or dependent species • Water column communities. Impacts on food chains • Structure • Productivity/ flows Impacts on the physical environment • Physical habitat • Water quality There has been no formal risk assessment or prioritisation of the ecosystem components listed above. However, considerable work has been carried out on the individual ecosystem interactions between specific species and Clupeoids (see 2.2.1). Impacts on food chains and ecological communities Fishes and cephalopods Pilchards, round herring and anchovies are commonly eaten by a large number of predatory fishes and cephalopods (Ward et al. 1998). No published data are available on the quantity of baitfishes utilised by predatory fishes or the effects of prey depletion on stocks of predatory fish in Australian waters. However, considerable documentation has been published in relation to the importance of baitfishes to higher order predators. Murphy (1977) noted that piscean predators utilise a wide range of prey presumably buffers populations from the effects of inter-annual fluctuations in the abundance of baitfishes. However, in high latitudes the opportunities to switch prey may be limited as food webs are often simple and include relatively few species of small planktivorous fishes. Therefore, in the low diversity environments of southern and eastern Australia (e.g. South Australia) the depletion of Clupeoid stocks on predatory species may be most apparent (Ward et al. 1998). Research has shown that juvenile southern bluefin tuna predominantly feed on Clupeoids (Sheard 1950, Serventy 1956 and Young et al. 1997). Pilchard stocks may thus be highly significant for juvenile southern bluefin tuna that appear to migrate between the Great Australian Bight and the southern Indian Ocean, before finally moving into their spawning grounds in Indonesia. Research on the closely related northern bluefin tuna suggests that local abundance of that species may be positively correlated with the local abundance of pilchards. This information suggests that the same relationship may exist between juvenile southern bluefin tuna and pilchards in the waters adjacent to South Australia. Aerial surveys in waters adjacent to South Australia show that areas in which Australian salmon are highly abundant coincide with areas where pilchards are highly abundant and spawn (Capo 1987b). In addition, preliminary data on Australian salmon suggests that this species may consume approximately 13,500 tonnes of pilchards annually (Jones et al. 1996). This information suggests that a direct relationship exists between Australia salmon and pilchard populations. Dimmlich and Jones (1997) have also documented that, in years in which large numbers of sub-adult Australian salmon are present in South Australian waters, stocks could be adversely affected by fishery-induced reductions in pilchard abundance.



Other research undertaken also illustrates that Clupeoids are also an important component of the diets of arrow squid (Nototodarus gouldii), snook (Sphyranena novahollandiae), ocean- jackets (Nelusetta ayrandi) and barracouta (Thyrsites atun). Seabirds Many of the 120 species of seabirds that occur in waters adjacent to South Australia feed on Clupeoids, but few data are available on the composition of their diets (Barker and Vestjens 1990, Smith 1993). The work that has been undertaken suggests seabirds eat a variety of fish species. Observations undertaken suggest that the feeding preferences of most seabirds are related to prey size and prey type (e.g. Blader et al. 1995). In terms of baitfish the literature illustrates that small birds feed on small Clupeoids such as anchovies, sprats and juvenile pilchards, while larger birds (e.g. gannets, albatrosses etc) commonly feed on adult pilchards and round herrings (Ross et al. 1996). Many overseas studies have identified the relationship between fluctuations in baitfish stocks and seabird populations (e.g. Furness and Cooper 1982, Crawford et al. 1983, Duffy 1983, Tovar et al. 1987). However, no specific studies of the relationships between seabird and pilchard populations have been undertaken. Although, it has been identified by Ward et al. (1998) that such studies are particularly critical for little fairy penguin colonies in South Australia, as few quantitative data have previously been collected and there is a relative paucity of alternative prey species. Mammals A number of studies have identified that Clupeoids are an important part of the diets of seals, dolphins and whales (Shaughnessy et al. 1995, Kemper and Gibbs, 1997 and Crawford et al. 1992). The direct interactions with these mammals have not been quantified, however, anecdotal evidence exists to illustrate these ecological interactions (Shaughnessy et al. 1995). Kearney et al. 2003 has highlighted a significant increase in seal numbers over the next 40 years, as simulated in models illustrating the change in population dynamics of species over time. This study suggests that pilchard populations may be effected by a significant increase in natural mortality, as a result of seal predation. However, quantification of the impact on pilchard populations remains untested, primarily due to the environmental variables that cannot be incorporated in the biological modelling (i.e. trophic interactions and species replacement) (Goldsworthy et al. 2002). As such, it is not considered that seal populations can continue to increase at an exponential rate, however consideration must be given to the results of the study and the ability of this change in population dynamics to impact on the pilchard biomass. Shaughnessy et al. 1996 observed high pupping mortalities at the breeding colonies for New Zealand fur seals on Neptune and Kangaroo Islands, which may have resulted from the mass mortality of pilchards that occurred in 1995. Considerable research has been undertaken on the breeding colonies of Australian fur seals and Australian sea lions in the waters adjacent to South Australia. As part of this research the ecological effects of expanding pilchard fisheries is being monitored on an ongoing basis. Studies of the gut contents of the common dolphin (D. delphinus) in South Australian waters suggests that cephalopods may be more commonly eaten than pilchards (Kemper and Gibbs 1997). Research undertaken in South Africa illustrated that the diet of the common dolphin is predominantly pilchards and anchovies (Crawford et al. 1992). It has been suggested that due to the opportunistic nature of these feeding habits the dependence of this species on pilchards is not significant. Southern humpback and southern right whales, have been observed feeding around schools of baitfish, but it is not known whether these whales were feeding on baitfish or plankton. Humpback whales have been observed feeding on schools of herring and capelin in the Northern Hemisphere (Baker et al. 1992). This information suggests that ecological interactions may be occurring, but they are yet to be quantified.



Impacts on the Physical Environment

Physical Habitat Research into the impact of pilchard fishing operations on physical habitat has not yet been undertaken. Physical interactions do occur when purse seine nets are operated in waters shallower than the depth of the net. Purse seine nets are not generally operated in waters shallower than the depth of the net as: 1) it is difficult to draw in the purse when hauled along the substrate; and 2) aggregations of pilchards have historically been located in waters greater than the depth of the net. As part of the FRDC project “Assessing the Potential Ecological Effects of the South Australian Sardine Fishery” quantification of any interactions between purse seine nets and the benthos when undertaking pilchard fishing operations will be undertaken. Water quality The impacts of pilchard fishing on water quality are considered to be low due to the small number of vessels operating across South Australia relative to the geographic expanse of the fishing grounds. Industry is in the process of developing a code of practice that will address the disposal of waste at sea.


2.2.3.3.1 Management actions are in place to ensure significant damage to ecosystems does not arise from the impacts described in 2.2.3.1.

The management arrangements for the fishery are aimed at controlling the total catch of pilchards through quota restrictions, to ensure ecological sustainable biomass levels are maintained. In addition, gear restrictions are in place to minimise the bycatch interactions. These management arrangements are considered to ensure the long-term sustainability of pilchard populations and minimise the overall impact on the ecosystem.

2.2.3.3.2 There are decision rules that trigger further management responses when monitoring detects impacts on selected ecosystem indicators beyond a predetermined level, or where action is indicated by application of the precautionary approach. Decision rules to trigger further management responses based on the monitoring of impacts of selected ecosystem indicators have not yet been developed for the fishery. Following the completion of the SARDI research project “Assessing the Potential Ecological Effects of the South Australian Sardine Fishery” ecosystem indicators may be considered. Decision rules that trigger ecological indicators have been identified as being highly relevant in the fishery due to: 1) the large number of species that prey on baitfish; and 2) the significant inter-annual variations in the abundance of pilchards. Furthermore, it has been identified that studies using stable isotopes to identify prey types and consumption/ metabolic rates are cost-effective and may provide particularly valuable insights into ecosystem trophodynamics (Gales and Green 1990). 2.2.3.3.3 Management actions are in place to ensure significant damage to ecosystems does not arise from the impacts described in 2.2.3.1. While a formal ecological risk assessment has not yet been undertaken, the impacts on the ecosystem associated with pilchard fishing operations are considered to be acceptable and inherently low, as previously discussed. It is considered that the majority of ecological risk is associated with environmental factors affecting the fishery (e.g. disease, water temperature etc). These are in effect factors which cannot be controlled.



However, in regard to the direct impact of commercial fishing operations PIRSA Fisheries considers that the fishery is being conducted in a manner that minimises the impact on the ecosystem generally. The future research program aimed at quantifying the ecosystem impacts associated with pilchard fishing operations in South Australia will provide scope to formally assess the extent to which this objective is being achieved.


3 LIST OF ACRONYMS

Table 10: Glossary of abbreviations used throughout the report and their expanded meanings.

Abbreviation Meaning CPUE Catch per Unit of Effort EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act FMC Fisheries Management Committee FRDC Fisheries Research and Development Corporation PIRSA Primary Industries and Resources South Australia SAFIC South Australian Fishing Industry Council SARDI South Australian Research and Development Institute SARFAC South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council DEPM Daily Egg Production Method TACC Total Allowable Commercial Catch


4 References

Alheit, J. (1993). Use of the daily egg production method for estimating biomass of Clupeoid fishes: A review and evaluation. Bull. Mar. Sci. 53(2): 750 - 767. Baker, C.S., Straley, J.M. and Perry, A. (1992). Population characteristics of individually identified humpback whales in Alaska: summer and fall 1986. Fish. Bull. 90(3): 429 – 437. Barker, R.D. and Vestjens, W.J.M. (1990). The food of Australian Birds. CSIRO Div. Wild. And Ecol., Canberra. Bertoni, M. (1997). Fishery, reproductive biology, feeding and growth of the snook (Sphyraenidae: Sphyraena novaehollandiae) in South Australia. M. Appl. Sci. (Fisheries) Unpublished Thesis, Australian Maritime College, Tasmania. 126pp. Blackburn, M. (1950). Studies on the age, growth, and life history of the sardine Sardinops neosardineus (Steindachner), in Southern and Western Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 1: 221 - 258. Bruce, B.D and Short, D.A. (1990). Observations on the distribution of larval fish in relation to a frontal system at the mouth of Spencer Gulf, South Australia. Bur. Rur. Res. Proc. 15: 124 -137. Cappo, M.C. (1987a). The biology and exploitation of Australian salmon in South Australia. SAFISH 12(1). 4 –14. Cappo, M.C. (1987b). The fate and fisheries biology of sub-adult Australian salmon in South Australian waters. FIRTA Report 84/75 162pp. Collins, S.P. and Barron, M.P. (1981). Demersal and pelagic trawling survey of the MT “Denabola” in southern Australian waters, 1979 – 80. Tasm. Fish. Res. 24:1-48.

Fletcher, W.J. (1990). A synopsis of the biology and exploitation of the Australian sardine, Sardinops neoplichardus (Steindachner). I: Biology. Fish. Res. Rep. West. Aust. 88: 1 - 45. Fletcher, W.J. (1991). A synopsis of the biology and exploitation of the Australian sardine, Sardinops neoplichardus (Steindachner) Part II: History of stock assessment and exploitation. Fish. Res. Rep. West. Aust. 91: 1 - 55. Fletcher, W.J. and Tregonning, R.J. (1992). Distribution and timing of spawning by the Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax neosardineus) off Albany, Western Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 43: 1437 - 1449. Fletcher, W.J., Lo, N.C.H., Hayes, E.A. Tregonning, R.J., Blight, S.J. (1996). Use of the daily egg production method to estimate the stock size of Western Australian sardines, Sardinops sagax. Mar. Freshw. Res. 47 (6): 819-825. Fletcher, W.J., Jones, B., Pearce, A.F., and Hosja, W. (1997) Environmental and biological aspects of the mass mortality of pilchards (Autumn 1995) in Western Australia. Fisheries Research Report No. 106. Fisheries Department of Western Australia. 112pp. Fletcher, W.J., Chesson, J., Sainsbury, K.J., Fisher, M., Hundloe, T., A.D.M Smith and Whitworth, B. (2002). National application of Sustainability Indicators for Australian Fisheries. Final Report FRDC project 2000/145, Canberra, Australia. 48pp. Gaughan, D.J., Mitchell, R.W. and Blight, S.J. (2000). Impact of mortality due to herpesvirus on pilchard Sardinops sagax along the south coast of Western Australia in 1998-1999. Mar Freshw Res 51 (6):601-612


Goldsworthy, S.D., Bulman, C., Xi., H., Larcome, J and Littman, C. (2002). Trophic interactions between marine mammals and Australian fisheries: An ecosystem approach. Draft Chapter for book “Trophic Interactions Between Fisheries and Marine Mammals”.

Griffin, D.A., Thompson, P.A., Bax, N.J., and Hallegraeff, G.M. (1997). The 1995 mass mortality of pilchards: no role found for physical or biological oceanographic factors in Australia. Mar. Freshw Res. 48(1): 27-58. Grove-Jones, R.P. and Burnell, A.F. (1990). Oceanjacket traps assessed. SAFIC 15(1):10 –11.

Hyatt, A.D., Hine, P.M., Whittington, D.A., Grifffin, D.A., and Bax, N.J. (1997). Mass mortality pilchard mortality in the pilchard (Sardinops sagax neopilchardus) in Australia and New Zealand in 1995. II. Identification of the herpesvirus in the gill epithelium. Dis. Aquat. Org, 28: 17-29. Jones, J.B., Hyatt, A.D., Hine, P.M., Whittington, D.A., Griffin, D.A., and Bax, N.J. (1997). Special Topic Review: Australasian Pilchard Mortalities. Wo. Jo. Micro. Biotech, 3: 383-392. Kailola, P.J., Williams, M.J., Stewart, P.C., Reichelt, R.E., McNee, A. and Grieve, C. (1993). Australian Fisheries Resources. Bureau of Resource Sciences, Dept. Primary Industries and Energy and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Canberra, Australia, 422 pp. Kampf, J., Griffin, D., Matthews, R. and Ward, T.M. Upwelling system of South Australia. Journal of Marine Systems. Kearney, B., Foran, B., Poldy, F., Lowe, D. (2003). Modelling Australia’s Fisheries to 2050: Policy and Management Implications. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, 27-28. Kemper, G.M. and Gibbs, S.E. (1997). A study of life history parameters of dolphins and seals entangled in tuna farms near Port Lincoln, and comparisons with information from other South Australian dolphin carcasses. Unpublished Report to Department of Environment and Heritage (Australian National Conservancy Agency). 49pp. Knight, M.A., Tsolos, A. and Doonan, A.M. (2000). South Australia Fisheries and Aquaculture Information and Statistics Report. SARDI Research and Report Series. No 49. Lasker, R. (1985). An egg production method for estimating spawning biomass of pelagic fish: application to northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS, 36: 1 – 99. Matthews, R.L., Kaempf, J., and Ward, T.M. Primary productivity in the Great Australian Bight is enhanced by a suite of hydrodynamic factors. Estu. Co. Sh. Sci. Neira, F.J., Sporcic, M.I. and Longmore, A.R. (1999). Biology and fishery of sardine, Sardinops sagax (Clupeidae), within a large south-eastern Australian bay. Mar. Freshw. Res. 50(1): 43-55. Parker, K. (1985). Biomass model for the egg production method. In: An egg production method for estimating spawning biomass of pelagic fish: application to northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. NOAA. Tech. Rep. NMFS, 36: 5 - 6. Parrish, R.H., Serra, R. and Grant, W.S. (1989). The Monotypic Sardines, Sardina and Sardinops, Their Taxonomy, Distribution, Stock Structure and Zoogeography. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 2019 - 2036. Rapson, A.M. (1953). Pilchard shoals in south-west Australia. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 4:234-249.


Serventy, D.L. (1956) The southern bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus maccoyii (Castlenau) in Australian waters. Aus. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 7: 1 – 43. Shaughnessy, P.D., Goldsworthy, S.D. and Libke, J.A. (1995). Changes in abundance of New Zealand fur seals, Arctocephalus forsteri, on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Will. Res. 22:201-215. Shaughnessy, P.D. (1999) The Action Plan for Australian Seals. Department of Environment and Heritage. 116pp. Shaughnessy, P.D., Dennis, T. and Seager, P. (1996). Abstract to Australian Wildlife Management Society. Sheard, K. (1950). Factors in the behaviour of pelagic fish shoals in South Australia and New South Wales. CSIRO Div. Of Fisheries Bull. 251: 72 –74. Smith, G.C. (1993). Feeding and breeding on crested terns at a tropical locality – comparison with sympatric black-naped terns. Emu. 93:65-70. Staunton Smith, J and Ward, T.M. (1998). Estimates of the 1997 Spawning Biomass of Sardines (Sardinops sagax) in Southern Queensland. QDPI Report. 15p. Stevens, J.D., Hausfeld, H.F. and Davenport, S.R. (1984). Observations on the biology, distribution and abundance of Trachurus declivis, Sardinops neoplichardus and Scomber australasicus in the Great Australian Bight. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Rep. 164. Tovar, H., Guillen, V. and Nakama, M.E. (1987). Monthly population size of three guano bird species off Peru, 1953 to 1982. (p. 208-233). In: Pauly, D. and Tsukayama, T. (Eds) The Peruvian Anchovetta and its Upwelling Ecosystem: Three Decades of Change. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 15. Ward, T.M., Kinloch, M., Jones G.K., and Neira, F.J. (1998). A Collaborative Investigation of the Usage and Stock Assessment of Baitfish in Southern and Eastern Australian Waters, with Special Reference to Sardines (Sardinops sagax). Final Report to FRDC. 324 pp. Ward, T.M. and McLeay, L.J. (1998). Use of the Daily Egg Production Method to Estimate the Spawning Biomass of Sardines (Sardinops sagax) in Shelf Waters of Central and Western South Australia in 1998. Report to the South Australian Sardine Working Group. 41p. Ward, T.M., Westlake, M., McLeay, L.J. and Jones, J.K. (1999). Pilchard Mortality Events in South Australia. Final report to the Joint Scientific Pilchard Working Group. 41p. Ward, T.M., McLeay., L.J, Dimmlich, W.F., and Rogers, P.J. (2000). Spawning Biomass of Sardine (Sardinops sagax) in Shelf waters of central and western South Australia in 2000. Report to PIRSA. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences).

Ward, T.M., Staunton Smith, J., Hoedt, F., McLeay, L.J., Dimmlich, W.F., Jackson, G., Kinloch, M., Rogers, P.J., and Jones, K. (2001a). Have the recent mass mortalities of Sardinops sagax in Australia facilitated an expansion of the distribution and abundance of Engraulis australis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 220: 241-251. Ward, T.M., Hoedt, F., McLeay, L.J., Dimmlich, W.F., Jackson, G., Kinloch, G., McGarvey, R., Rogers, P.J. and Jones, K. (2001). Effects on the South Australian populations of Sardinops sagax of mass mortality events in 1995 and 1998. ICES J. Mar. Sci.

Ward, T.M., Hoedt, F.E., McLeay, L.J., Dimmlich, W.F., Kinloch, M.W., Jackson, G., McGarvey, R., Rogers, P.J., and Jones, K. (2001b). Effects of the 1995 and 1998 mass mortalities on the spawning biomass of Sardinops sagax in South Australia. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 58(4): 830-841.


Whittington, R.J., Jones, J.B., Hine, P.M., and Hyatt, A.D. (1997). Mass mortality pilchard mortality in the pilchard (Sardinops sagax neopilchardus) in Australia and New Zealand in 1995. I. Pathology and Epizootilogy. Dis. Aquat. Org. 28: 1-15. Young, J.W., Lamb, T.D., L, S.D., Bradford, R.W. and Whitelaw, A.W. (1997) Feeding ecology and inter-annual variations in diet of southern bluefin tuna, Thunnus maccoyii, in relation to coastal and oceanic waters off eastern Tasmania, Australia. Env. Biol. Fishes. 50: 275 – 291.


Appendix 1: Detailed section maps

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

7

8A

14 15

9

10A

18

8B

10B

#Acraman's Creek

Bair d Bay

Ceduna

Haslam

Elliston

Smoky Bay

Laura BayThevenard

Venus Bay

Port Kenny

Fowlers Bay

Streaky Bay

#

16

#

17

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

21A

21B

#

20

23

22

21C

19

11

Cowell

Tickera

Whyalla

WallarooArno Bay

Lucky Bay

Port Pirie

Port Davis

Port Augusta

Douglas Point

Chinaman Creek

Port Broughton

Cowled Landing

Murninnie Landing

#

Point Lowly#

Northern Spencer Gulf

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

### #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

49

40B

45

33

44B

32

36

43

46

42

35

41

40C

40A

44A

Port Gawler

Port Noarlunga

NormanvilleWirrina

Cape JervisVictor Harbor

Ardrossan

Port MinlacowieHardwicke Bay

StansburyWool Bay

Coobowie

Point Souttar

Port Moorowie

Mu

rra

y

Riv

er

Goolwa

West Beach

St Kilda

Balgowan

y

Rapid Bay

PenneshawKingscote

Port Price

Moonta Bay

Port JuliaPine Point

Port Neill

Port GilesEdithburgh

Marion Bay

Cape Jaffa

Port Parham

Port Hughes

Corny Point

Port Elliot

Vivonne Bay

Kingston SE

Port VincentPort Rickaby

ln

Port Victoria

Port WillungaStenhouse Bay

Port Adelaide

Chinaman Wells

American River

Pondalowie Bay

O'sullivan Beach

Port Turton

West Coast

N

EW

S

South Australian Marine Fishing Areas (Detailed Section Maps)

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

####

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

38

39B

40B

30

29

3328

3227A

31

40A

39A 40C

Hardwicke Bay

27B

WallarooArno Bay

Balgowan

Wool Bay

Coobowie

Stansbury

Ardrossan

Louth Bay

Penneshaw

Kingscote

Port Price

Moonta Bay

Port Julia

Pine Point

Port Neill

Coffin Bay

Farm Beach

Port Giles

Edithburgh

Marion Bay

Port Hughes

Port Turton

Corny Point

Vivonne Bay

Port Vincent

Port Rickaby

Port Lincoln

Port Victoria

Point Souttar

Port Moorowie

Stenhouse Bay

Chinaman Wells

American River

Pondalowie Bay

Port Minlacowie

Gulf St. Vincent, KI and South Coast

Southern Eyre Peninsula, Southern Spencer Gulf and Investigator Strait.


#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

###

#

#

#

#

#

#

# ##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

# ##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

Hardwicke Bay

21C21BMurninnie Landing

764 5

8A

49

38

14

50

53

37

47

52 54

24 26

12

25

13

48

58

55

2

15

3

51

1

39A 40B

30

29

45

33

44B

28

32

36

23

22

9

27A

56

43

10A

46

42

35

19

34

41

18

39B

40A40C

#

8B

#

27B

Mur

r ay

Ri ve

r

#

57

#

10B

Lake Gairdner

Robe

Has lam

Cowel l

Goolwa

Tickera

Whyalla

West Beach

Wal larooArno Bay

Elliston

St Ki lda

Coobowie

Southend

Smoky Bay

Laura BayThevenard

Luc ky B ay

Venus Bay

Stansbury

Ardrossan

Rapid Bay

PenneshawKingscote

Beac hport

Port Price

Port PiriePort Davis

Port Kenny

Port Jul ia

Port Neill

Coffin Bay

Farm Beach

Edithburgh

Marion Bay

Cape Jaffa

Port Parham

Port Gawler

Streaky Bay

Port Hughes

Port TurtonCor ny Point

Port Elliot

Normanville

Cape Jervis

Vivonne Bay

Kingston SE

Nora Creina

Port Augusta

Port VincentPort Lincoln

Point Douglas

Port Victoria

Port Wil lunga

Port Moorowie

Port Adelaide

Chinaman Creek

Port Broughton

Cowled Landing

Chinaman W el ls

Port Noarlunga

American Riv er

Pondalowie Bay

Car penter Rocks

Port Macdonnell

Fowlers Bay

#

Victor HarborWirrina

Blac kfellows Cav es

#

11

#20

#21A

#

Lake Torrens

44A

#

16#

17

Ceduna

Port Wakefield

Tumby Bay

#

31

New

Sou

th W

ales

Vic

toria

South Australian Marine Fishing Areas (58)(refer to Detailed Section Maps if necessary)

N

EW

S

WA

100 0 100 200 Kilometers


Appendix 2: Pilchard fishery research logbook


Appendix 3: PIRSA Fisheries Pilchard Catch and Disposal Form

PF CDR

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (S.A.) FISHERIES Prior Report No.

PILCHARD CATCH AND DISPOSAL RECORDPART A

Vessel Name:

Licence Number:

Time of Unloading: : am/pm

Date of Unloading: / /

Port or Location of Unloading:

Does this CDR represent the entire catch landed: YES/ NO PLEASE CIRCLE

If NO, associated CDR no's:

Name of Receiving Processor:

Measured Total Weight: kgs

Method used:

PF TF no's associated with this catch:

I certify that the information recorded on Part A of this form is true and correct.

Signature of Licence Holder or Registered Master:_____________________________________________________

Print Full Name:___________________________________________________________________________________

Date: ______/______/______ Time:___________________________am/pm.

PART B

Name of Registered Fish Processor:

Accurate Weight of Pilchards: KGS

Approved Method used:

PF TF Numbers Received:

I Certify that the weight recorded on Part B of this form is true and correct.

Signature of Registered Processor: ________________________________________

Print Full Name:_____________________________________________________________________________

Processor/Farm Number:_________________ Date:______/______/______ Time:_________ am/pm.

Address of Premises or name of Carrier Vessel Delivered to:

Estimated weight reported

To be completed by the Registered Fish Processor and delivered to PIRSA Fishwatch, PO Box 282 Port Adelaide, 5015 within 7 days of taking delivery of Pilchards. Green copy required.

To be completed by licence holder or registered master immediately on completion of unloading and forwarded (PART A ONLY) to PIRSA Fishwatch, PO Box 282 Port Adelaide 5015, within 24 hours of unloading.


Appendix 4: Risk Mitigation Tool-kit

south australian fisheries management series … · management decisions must be made in an...

Documents