professor gregory jenkins july 2013 - veac 2013 threat... · professor gregory jenkins july 2013 ....

DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, TECHNICAL REPORT

ASSESSMENT OF ANTHROPOGENIC THREATS TO MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN VICTORIA

1

Assessment of anthropogenic threats to priority areas in Victoria’s

marine environment – refined threat assessment approach

Professor Gregory Jenkins

July 2013



2

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 6

VEAC Marine Investigation ....................................................................................................................... 6

“Trialling the MACC approach” project .................................................................................................... 7

Assessment of anthropogenic threats.......................................................................................................... 7

Objective of this report ............................................................................................................................... 8

Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................................... 9

Refinement to Method ................................................................................................................................ 9

Method 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Method 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Justification of scoring .......................................................................................................................... 11

Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 14

Worked example of threat assessment Method 1 ................................................................................... 14

Worked example of threat assessment Method 2 ..................................................................................... 19

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................... 26

Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ 27

References .................................................................................................................................................... 28



3

List of Tables

Table 1. Consequence rating definitions for the three potential attributes for any marine asset .................. 12

Table 2. Probability ranges associated with Likelihood scores .................................................................... 12

Table 3. Risk scores for all combinations of Likelihood and Consequence ................................................. 13

Table 4. Range of risk scores associated with each risk category ................................................................ 13

Table 5. Data quality categories and associated definitions ......................................................................... 13

Table 6. Example of a threat consequence table for the attribute “Species/Populations” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 1 based on a 5 year time frame .................................................................... 15

Table 7. Example of a threat consequence table for the attribute “Communities/Habitats” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 1 based on a 5 year time frame .................................................................... 16

Table 8. Example of a threat consequence table for the attribute “Ecosystem Function” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 1 based on a 5 year time frame ............................................................................. 17

Table 9. Example of a threat consequence table for the attribute “Communities/Habitats” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 1 based on a 60 year time frame .................................................................. 18

Table 10. Example of a Likelihood table for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on 5 year time frame ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 11. Example of a risk table for the attribute “Species/Populations” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 5 year time frame .............................................................................................. 21

Table 12. Example of a risk table for the attribute “Communities/Habitats” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 5 year time frame .............................................................................................. 21

Table 13. Example of a risk table for the attribute “Ecosystem Function” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 5 year time frame .............................................................................................. 23

Table 14. Example of a Likelihood table for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 60 year time frame ..................................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 15. Example of a risk table for the attribute “Communities/Habitats” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 60 year time frame ............................................................................................ 25

Table 16. Example reporting requirements and associated management responses that could be applied in response to risk categories, based on Fletcher et al. (2005) ......................................................................... 26



4

Executive Summary A preliminary threat assessment approach for marine assets in Victoria was developed in 2011-12 by the then Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE)1, in collaboration with the CSIRO and the then Department of Primary Industries (DPI), based on Australian Standard risk assessment guidelines. This approach is hierarchical, and builds on the ecological risk assessment approach that has been successfully applied to of Australia’s federally managed fisheries. This report outlines refinements to this approach prior to application in the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) Investigation of Victoria’s marine protected areas.

The approach is based on a matrix of threat sources (urban, agriculture, industry etc.) and associated stressors (nutrients, sediments, toxicants etc.). Their implications for up to three ecological attributes of each marine asset (Species and populations, Communities and Habitats, Ecosystem Function) are assessed. The approach is hierarchical, with a Method 1 threat assessment providing scores that indicate each threat source / stressor’s level of threat consequence (Insignificant, Minor, Moderate, Major, Catastrophic) for each attribute. The individual scores indicate the level of threat consequence for each combination of source and stressor, while the row and column totals indicate the cumulative threat consequence from each source and stressor. The overall total gives a relative indication of the level of threat consequence to the attribute of the asset.

The Method 2 analysis builds on Method 1 and includes the same table of sources and stressors, but in this case the likelihood of each combination of source and stressor affecting the attribute of the asset is scored (Rare, Unlikely, Possible, Likely, Almost certain). The scores for threat consequence (from Method 1) and likelihood for each combination of source and stressor are then multiplied together to give a score that is translated into a risk level (Negligible, Low, Medium, High, Extreme). These risk levels could then be used to inform levels of management priority, depending on the purpose of the assessment and needs of the management agency.

In both Method 1 and Method 2 analyses, written justification of scoring is given so that other users can understand the rationale behind scoring decisions. Each analysis is also conducted in relation to a specific time frame (which is intended to be aligned with the aims of management but should also take into account any expected changes in threat sources over time). This is particularly important for sources such as climate change, where threats may be low at the scale of a few years, but increase greatly over longer time scales (decades).

VEAC’s investigation requires an assessment of anthropogenic (human) threats to the biodiversity and ecological outcomes of Victoria’s existing marine protected areas. These biodiversity and ecological outcomes relate to the purposes for which the marine protected areas were established. The refined approach will be applied to these areas to inform the VEAC assessment.

The potential applications of this threat assessment approach, however, extend well beyond the VEAC investigation. The approach could be applied to assessing environmental threats to any 1 Now the Department of Environment and Primary Industries



5

marine area in a resource-efficient manner, including, for example, threat assessments used to target strategies for managing catchments and associated investment. There are also clear linkages to the evolving national Ecosystem Based Management approach for marine assets. The hierarchical basis for this threat assessment approach helps to focus assessment resources on the more significant environment threats. It can be applied to poorly known marine areas as well as those that are well understood scientifically.



6

Introduction This report describes a threat assessment approach that has been refined particularly for use in the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC)’s Marine Investigation. This approach builds the preliminary hierarchical threat assessment approach (Smith et al. 2012) that was recently developed as part of the ex-Marine and Coastal Committee (MACC)’s trial of its developing national approach to ecosystem-based marine management (EBM). That preliminary threat assessment approach in turn built on the ecological risk assessment approach that has been successfully applied to of Australia’s federally managed fisheries. The potential applications of the threat assessment approach described in this report extend well beyond the VEAC investigation. The approach could be applied to assessing ecological threats to any marine area in a resource-efficient manner.

VEAC Marine Investigation The Minister for Environment and Climate Change has requested the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council to carry out an investigation into the outcomes of the establishment of Victoria's existing marine protected areas. The terms of reference for the investigation are:

Pursuant to section 15 of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Act 2001, the Minister for Environment and Climate Change requests the Council to carry out an investigation into the outcomes of the establishment2 of Victoria’s existing marine protected areas1.

The purpose of the marine investigation is to examine and provide assessment of:

(a) the performance and management of existing marine protected areas in meeting the purposes for which they were established, particularly the protection of the natural environment, indigenous flora and fauna and other natural and historic values; and

(b) any ongoing threats or challenges to the effective management of existing marine protected areas, particularly in relation to the biodiversity and ecological outcomes.

In addition to the considerations in section 18 of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Act 2001, the Council must take into account the following matters:

(i) all relevant State Government policies and strategies, Ministerial statements and reports by the Victorian Auditor‐General;

(ii) all relevant national and international agreements, policies and strategies, including ecosystem‐based management approaches; and

(iii) relevant regional programs, strategies and plans.

2 For this investigation, marine protected areas means the 13 marine national parks, 11 marine sanctuaries, and 6 marine parks, marine reserves or marine and coastal parks established under schedules seven, eight and four respectively of the National Parks Act 1975.



7

Three public submission periods are to be held and a discussion paper and a draft proposals paper are to be prepared. The Council must report on the completed investigation by February 2014.

The threat assessment approach described in this report is intended to assist VEAC to address term of reference (b) above.

“Trialling the MACC approach” project A preliminary hierarchical threat assessment approach for Victoria’s marine environment was developed as part of a trial of the ex-Marine and Coastal Committee’s national approach to EBM (Smith et al. 2012). This was a joint project between the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation (CSIRO), the then Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the Fisheries Research Branch (FRB) of the then Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI). Both DSE and DPI are now within the new Department of Environment and Primary Industries. Part of this project involved pilot threat assessments of priority marine assets in Port Phillip Bay and western Victoria.

Assessment of anthropogenic threats This report documents the first stage of a new project that aims to refine the preliminary hierarchical threat assessment approach, and use it to assess the nature and level of anthropogenic threats to agreed key areas within Victoria’s state marine waters. The project will add to the “library” of threat assessments that have already been conducted in the above “Trialling the MACC approach” project. It will be conducted in close consultation with the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC), as its outputs will inform the VEAC Marine Investigation.

This project will specifically inform VEAC’s assessment for term of reference (b) of the investigation (see above), by providing an assessment of anthropogenic threats to the biodiversity and ecological outcomes of the existing marine protected areas. These biodiversity and ecological outcomes relate to the purposes for which the marine protected areas were established.

Addressing term of reference (b) requires consideration of threats to each of Victoria’s existing marine protected areas. It also requires some consideration of threats to marine areas beyond the marine protected areas’ boundaries, due to the widely recognised connectedness of marine ecosystems. DEPI’s state-wide map of the marine environmental “assets” outside the marine protected areas3 will assist with identifying such areas.

Stage 1 of the project, forming the subject of this report, will refine the preliminary threat assessment approach of Smith et al. (2012) for this purpose, drawing on the outcomes of the pilot

3 See http://services.land.vic.gov.au/SpatialDatamart/dataSearchViewMetadata.html?anzlicId=ANZVI0803004772&extractionProviderId=1



8

threat assessments already conducted by FRB and additional expert review by Dr David Rissik of Griffith University and the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.

Stage 2 of the project will apply this refined threat assessment approach to locations including:

(i) Marine national parks and sanctuaries and other marine protected areas established under schedules 7, 8 and 4 of the National Parks Act 1975 and;

(ii) other key areas for marine biodiversity or ecological processes as identified in DEPI’s marine environmental asset map.

Objective of this report To document refinements to the preliminary hierarchical threat assessment approach for Victorian marine assets, drawing on the preliminary trials for Victorian marine assets, an expert external review, and in consultation with VEAC. The refined approach will be suitable for application to the VEAC marine investigation.



9

Materials and Methods The preliminary threat assessment approach of Smith et al. (2012) was refined on the basis of:

• The outcomes of the pilot assessments conducted by FRB on priority environmental assets in Port Phillip Bay and western Victoria as part of the original trialling of the MACC approach project (Smith et al. 2012)

• An expert review by Dr David Rissik (Rissik 2012) of the preliminary threat assessment approach documented in the final report of the trialling of the MACC approach project (Smith et al. 2012)

• Additional literature review of recent publications in relation to threat assessment methods in the estuarine and marine environment (Rissik et al. 2005; Braccini et al. 2006; Scheltinga and Moss 2007; Astles et al. 2009; Fletcher et al. 2010; Hadwen et al. 2011).

Refinement to Method

Method 1

Method 1 of the threat assessment involves a relatively rapid screening of assets for the consequences of individual identified threats (Smith et al. 2012). For each asset, up to three attribute classes are considered depending on the characteristics of the asset (Smith et al. 2012). The potential attributes are:

• species and populations

• communities and habitats

• ecosystem function.

Threat consequence assessments are conducted separately for each attribute class considered.

For each assessment there is a list of human activities as sources of potential threats grouped under the following sectors:

• Land based

• Infrastructure

• Marine

These threat sources were drawn from previously published lists (Carey et al. 2007; ICUN 2012), taking into account relevance to Victoria’s state waters. For each of these potential sources there is a corresponding list of potential stressors emanating from the source that can be assigned a threat (consequence) score. A refinement to the method based on the comments of external reviewer (Rissik 2012) is the inclusion of climate change as the fourth major category of potential threat. This refinement is closely tied to another refinement included on the basis of the external review, which is to have a clear statement of the time-scale of assessment. The time-scale of assessment will in turn depend on the management issues under consideration (i.e. short or long term). In considering an appropriate time-scale for assessment, it will also be important to consider whether any significant changes to threat sources are anticipated over time. Climate



10

change related stressors would be expected to rate much more strongly in assessments with a longer time-frame of consideration. In some cases, it may be desirable to undertake two assessments on the asset, one with a short time-scale of assessment (i.e. immediate threats, e.g. 5 year time scale) and one with a longer time-scale of assessment (i.e. long term threats, e.g. 60 year time scale).

The next step of Method 1 is to assign threat (consequence) scores to each combination of source and stressor for which some impact on the attribute is expected to occur (Smith et al. 2012). Consequence scores are specific to each of the three attributes (Table 1). A refinement from the method described in Smith et al. (2012) is that the definitions under “Species and Populations” relating to generation times have been removed and replaced with criteria relating to absolute time frames (Table 1). This is because consideration of generation times can be vastly different for species with long generation times (e.g. whales) compared to those with short generation times (e.g. anchovies). Definitions of consequence based on generation times are therefore not broadly applicable across the range of marine species. All time recovery criteria assume that the stressor has been mitigated (Table 1).

Method 2

Method 2 provides a more detailed assessment of risk and forms an additional step to the Method 1 analysis, making the overall analysis hierarchical (Smith et al. 2012). In Method 2, a likelihood score (Table 2) is multiplied by the existing consequence score from Method 1 to give a risk score (Table 3). The risk table is based on the Australian Standard (AS/NZS 2009) and previous methods (Carey et al. 2004; GBRMPA 2009). The likelihood ratings are the same as in Smith et al. (2012), however the risk ratings based on the multiplied scores have been refined (Table 3). This is because the original Table was biased towards low risk, for example, a rare event with a catastrophic consequence was assigned a low risk (Smith et al. 2012), and therefore may have been assigned a lower management priority than would be appropriate for a risk with potentially catastrophic consequences. Similarly, all threats with minor consequences were assigned a low risk, even if they were likely or almost certain to occur (Smith et al. 2012). The refined version of the risk table (Table 3) raises these risks to Medium, raising their priority for further consideration by managers.

Method 2 requires that a likelihood score is estimated (Table 2) for all consequences assessed as Minor or above in Method 1 (Table 1). Consequences assessed as negligible can only result in an insignificant risk, irrespective of their likelihood (Table 3, 4). This is modified from Smith et al. (2012) where likelihood was only assigned to “Moderate” consequences and above because of the revised risk ratings (Table 3, 4). Although the Method 1 threat assessment is carried out on up to three attributes (Table 1), only one likelihood assessment is necessary for Method 2 and this is applied across all attributes to determine risk.



11

Justification of scoring

It is important to provide a justification of scoring within each of these methods so that scoring can be re-assessed over time by different users/stakeholders. At the minimum, justification is required for consequence scores of “Moderate” or above (Smith et al. 2012), although in some cases a “Negligible” or “Minor” score may also need to be justified where other users may potentially consider the score contentious or if the uncertainty is high. Justification is also needed for likelihood scores.

An additional step recommended by Rissik (2012) is the inclusion of an estimate of the uncertainty attached to each assessment of consequence and likelihood. Uncertainty in this case relates to the quality of data available to make the assessment (Rissik 2012). In addition to scoring justifications, a rating of data quality from Low to High needs to be made on the basis of the definitions in Table 5 (Rissik et al. 2005; Rissik 2012).



12

Table 1. Consequence rating definitions for the three potential attributes for any marine asset

Attribute Consequence Rating

Insignificant

(0)

Minor

(1)

Moderate

(2)

Major

(3)

Catastrophic

(4)

Species and

Populations Less than 5% impact

on abundance

No detectable change

in abundance

5–10% impact on

abundance

Detectable change

in abundance but

no effect on

viability

10–30% impact on

abundance

Obvious change in

abundance and

detectable change

in viability

30–70% impact on

abundance

Obvious change in

abundance and in

viability

>70% impact on

abundance

Major change in

abundance and in

viability

Community/Habitat <5% loss of area and /

or level of

fragmentation of

habitat

Recovery of habitat in

<1 month

<5% change in

community

composition - loss of

diversity

5–10% loss of area

and / or level of

fragmentation of

habitat

Recovery of

habitat in <1 year

5–10% change in

community

composition - loss

of diversity


and / or level of

fragmentation of

habitat

Recovery of habitat

in 1–3 years

10–30% change in

community

composition - loss

of diversity


and / or level of

fragmentation of

habitat

Recovery of habitat

in 4–10 years

30–70% change in

community

composition - loss

of diversity

>70% loss of area

and / or level of

fragmentation of

habitat

Recovery of habitat

in >10 years if at all

>70% change in

community

composition - loss

of diversity

Ecosystem Function Within natural

variability.

Interactions may have

changed but unlikely

to be detectable

Changes to

ecosystem

components

without major

change in

function.

< 1 year recovery

Changes to

ecosystem

components with a

minor change in

function.

1–3 years recovery

Changes to

ecosystem

components with a

major change in

function.

4–10 years recovery

Long term and

possibly irreversible

damage to one or

more ecosystem

functions.

Recovery, if at all,

greater than 10

years

Table 2. Probability ranges associated with Likelihood scores

Likelihood

Probability of

occurrence

Rare (1) 0–5%

Unlikely (2) 6–30%

Possible (3) 31–70%

Likely (4) 71–95%

Almost certain (5) 96–100%



13

Table 3. Risk scores for all combinations of Likelihood and Consequence

Likelihood Consequence Rating

Insignificant

(0)

Minor

(1)

Moderate

(2)

Major

(3)

Catastrophic

(4)

Rare (1) 0 1 2 3 4

Unlikely (2) 0 2 4 6 8

Possible (3) 0 3 6 9 12

Likely (4) 0 4 8 12 16

Almost certain (5) 0 5 10 15 20

Table 4. Range of risk scores associated with each risk category

Risk Score Risk rating

Negligible 0 0

Low 1-3 1

Medium 4-7 2

High 8-11 3

Extreme 12-20 4

Table 5. Data quality categories and associated definitions

Data quality Definition

High High quality data collected according to excellent protocols, good temporal and spatial replication

Medium Good data, poor temporal or spatial replication

Low Data quality or replication questionable or of dubious quality, educated guesswork used



14

Results

Worked example of threat assessment Method 1

The following is a worked example of a threat assessment using Method 1 for the marine asset “Swan Bay”. The first decision to be made is what attributes should be considered for the asset (Table 1). For Swan Bay, all three attributes would be considered relevant. In relation to “Species and Populations”, the RAMSAR listing for species of migratory wading birds, as well as the FFG listed species of fish and invertebrates would be considered relevant. For “Community/Habitat”, the extensive seagrass beds and associated faunal community would be relevant. Finally, for “Ecosystem Function”, the fish nursery role of the Swan Bay ecosystem would be relevant (i.e. shallow water, extensive seagrass beds). A Method 1 threat assessment would therefore be applied to all three attributes separately. There also needs to be a statement of the time frame over which the assessment is considered.

The second decision to be made is the assessment timeframe. For this example, 5 year and 60 year timeframes were chosen. A template for a Method 1 analysis is then set up using a Microsoft Excel spread sheet for each attribute on which and any combination of threat source and stressor that could conceivably apply is highlighted in green (Tables 6–8). The relevance of some threat sources will depend on the time frame considered. For example, in the 5 year time frame, marine energy is not considered to be a relevant threat (and therefore no score is recorded), however, at longer time scales it may be (e.g. if tidal turbines were to be proposed at some future date for energy in Port Phillip Heads). Other sources such as Aquaculture, Mineral and Petroleum Exploration, and Artificial Reefs could feasibly become relevant sources over the long term; however there is no information currently available indicating that they actually will be a source of threat to any of these attributes of Swan Bay over these periods. In terms of incorporating climate change effects into the assessment, the source / stressor table explicitly includes direct effects of climate change, such as increased water temperature and acidity. Indirect effects of climate change (i.e. those that occur through climate change effects on other threat sources and their associated stressors) are accounted for by comparing the assessment outputs for those threat sources and stressors between the two assessment time frames; for example, nutrients from agricultural catchments would be expected to increase over the long-term under climate change with increased storm activity and associated runoff. It is important to note, however, that this comparison may incorporate long term temporal changes in the threat posed by these sources and stressors due to other causes – for example, long term changes in agricultural land use.

An example of a threat assessment over a 60 year time frame for the attribute “Communities and habitats” is given in Table 9. Here we can see that the threats for nutrients from agriculture runoff, and smothering by sediments from agriculture runoff, have increased by one level, in recognition of an expected increase in storm events and associated pulses of runoff under climate change over the next 60 years (Table 9). We also see that the threat scores for the climate change related stressors in the 60 year time frame have increased relative to the 5 year time frame (Table 9), recognising that these stressors will change over decades rather than years.



15

Table 6. Example of a threat consequence table for the attribute “Species/Populations” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 1 based on a 5 year time frame

SWAN BAY THREATS stressor

At tr

i but

e: S

p ec i

es/P

opul

a tio

ns

nutr

ient

s

sedi

me n

t - s

usp e

n de d

sed i

men

t - s

mo t

herin

g

heav

y m

e tal

s

oil /d

i sp e

rsan

t

pest

i cid

es &

he r

b ici

d es

endo

crin

e d i

srup

ter s

p ath

ogen

s

salin

ity

acid

ity

sea

lev e

l ris

e

incr

e as e

d U

VB

incr

e as e

d te

mp

p es t

pla

n ts

& a

n im

als

phys

i ca l

dis

turb

ance

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

a bo v

e w

ate r

l igh

t

d eb r

is

e xtr

actio

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise

Time frame 5 years F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X YSOURCES OF THREAT

5 land-based urban sewage 1 0 0 0 0 0 16 stormwater 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 47 forestry 08 agriculture 3 3 1 1 1 0 99 industry non-sewage 0 0 0 0 0

10 air quality 1 0 0 111 infrastructure coastal infrastructure 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 812 ports / channels / dredging 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1513 marine energy 014 artificial reefs 015 marine sectors commercial fisheries 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 416 shipping 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 717 petroleum / minerals exploration 018 tourism / recreation / boating 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 719 aquaculture 020 rec fishing 0 2 1 1 421 Climate Change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 8 5 2 7 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 3 4 3 3 2 1 60

Primarily concerns listed species, migratory birds, Ramsar Data qualityF5 Built up areas mostly sewered so low concentrations MediumF6 Some nutrients will enter with stormwater, localised effects on food chain to consumer species MediumG6 Some sediments will enter with stormwater, localised effects on food chain to consumer species MediumK6 Small amounts in stormwater may have effects on food chain LowN6 Freshwater from stormwater localised impacts on food chain after heavy rainfall LowF8 Nutrient input may lead to shift from seagrass to algal dominated system, 1 - 3 year scale of variability MediumG8 Sediment input may lead to shift from seagrass to algal dominated system, 1 - 3 year scale of variability MediumH8 Volumes of sediment expected to be low in terms of potential smothering MediumK8 Concentrations expected to be low - can bioaccumulate in birds LowN8 Salinity changes moderate only therefore minor consequence MediumF10 Low levels of nutrients from atmosphere MediumG11-H11 Some possible effects of coastal development on sedimentation patterns affecting seagrass food chain MediumT11 Small area affected by physical disturbance HighU11 Possible localised change to mud bank formation LowV11 Small effect of above water light on important bird species MediumF12 Release of nutrients from dredging small scale with low impact on food chain MediumG12-H12 Suspended and settled sediments from dredging impacts seagrass food chain in southern Swan Bay LowI12 Heavy metals released by dredging would have low impact on important species LowJ12 Oil/dispersant released from dredging could have localised impact on important species MediumK12 Pesticides/herbicides released from dredging would be very small in scale MediumT12 Small scale of effect (i.e. south entrance) MediumU12 Small scale of current changes in southern part of Swan Bay MediumV,W,Y12 Small scale impact in southern entrance area, minimal effect on important species HighJ15 Oil/dispersant released from commercial fishing vessels in harbour would be small in scale HighS15 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in moderate change to food chain (e.g. Asterias, Sabella) MediumT,V,W,Y15 Commercial fishing not allowed in Swan Bay so negligible consequence HighX15 Commercial fishing not allowed in Swan Bay but fishing near entrance could affect food chain LowJ16 Significant oil spill could enter Swan Bay with tides and have major impact on important species HighS16 Introduction of marine pests from ballast water could lead to irreversible change to food chain MediumF,I,J,T,V,W,Y18 Mainly related to marina so small scale of effect, low impact HighS18 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in moderate change to food chain (e.g. Asterias, Sabella) MediumS20 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in moderate change to food chain (e.g. Asterias, Sabella) MediumW20 Low impact of recreational fishing debris on important species MediumX20 Only small area of Swan Bay available for recreational fishing, low impact on important species MediumO,P,Q,R,S,T,U21 Insignificant change to species/populations from climate change at a time scale of 5 years or less Medium

Legend Cells shaded in green indicate all possible combinations of source and stressor affecting this asset Consequence ratings: 0 = Insignificant, 1 = Minor, 2 = Moderate, 3 = Major, 4 = Catastrophic



16

Table 7. Example of a threat consequence table for the attribute “Communities/Habitats” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 1 based on a 5 year time frame


At tr

ibut

e: C

o mm

u nit i

es/h

abita

ts

nutr

ient

s

sedi

me n

t - s

uspe

nded

sedi

me n

t - s

mot

h er in

g

heav

y m

e tal

s

oil /d

i sp e

rsan

t

pest

icid

es &

her

b ic i

des

e nd o

crin

e di

s ru p

ters

p ath

ogen

s

s ali n

ity

a ci d

ity

s ea

leve

l ris

e

inc r

e as e

d U

VB

incr

ease

d t e

mp

pest

pla

nts

& a

nim

a ls

phys

ica l

dis

tur b

a nc e

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

abov

e w

ater

lig h

t

debr

is

e xtr

actio

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise




8 9 7 0 7 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 3 3 0 0 2 0 52

This primarily concerns seagrass beds Data qualityF5 Built up areas mostly sewered so low concentrations MediumF6 Some nutrients will enter with stormwater, localised effects on algal growth reducing seagrass cover MediumG6 Some sediments will enter with stormwater, localised effects on light penetration reducing seagrass cover MediumH6 Sediment from stormwater settling on seagrass blades affects seagrass cover MediumK6 Small amounts in stormwater may have detectable localised effects on seagrass cover LowN6 Freshwater from stormwater localised impacts on seagrass cover LowF8 Nutrient input may lead to shift from seagrass to algal dominated system, 1 - 3 year scale of variability MediumG8 Sediment input may lead to shift from seagrass to algal dominated system, 1 - 3 year scale of variability MediumH8 Volumes of sediment expected to be low in terms of potential smothering MediumK8 Concentrations expected to be low LowN8 Salinity changes moderate only therefore low consequence MediumF10 Low levels of nutrients from atmosphere MediumG11-H11 Some possible effects of coastal development on sedimentation patterns affecting seagrass cover MediumT11 Small area affected by physical disturbance HighU11 Moderate change to wave/current exposure of seagrass beds, relatively localised LowF12 Release of nutrients from dredging small scale with low impact on seagrass cover MediumG12-H12 Suspended and settled sediments from dredging entrance to cut impacts seagrass in southern Swan Bay LowJ12 Oil/dispersant released from dredging would be small in scale and have low impact on ecosystem function MediumK12 Pesticides/herbicides released from dredging would be small in scale and have low impact on seagrass MediumT12 Small scale of effect (i.e. south entrance) MediumU12 Small scale of current changes in southern part of Swan Bay MediumJ15 Oil/dispersant released from commercial fishing vessels in harbour would be small in scale HighS15 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in minor change to seagrass cover (e.g. Asterias, Sabella)MediumT,V,W,Y15 Commercial fishing not allowed in Swan Bay so negligible consequence HighX15 Commercial fishing not allowed in Swan Bay but fishing near entrance influence top-down effects on seagrassLowJ16 Significant oil spill could enter Swan Bay with tides and cause major change in ecosystem function HighS16 Introduction of marine pests from ballast water could lead to irreversible change to ecosystem function MediumF,J18 Mainly related to marina so small scale of effect, low impact MediumI,M,V,W,Y18 Mainly related to marina so small scale of effect, negligible impact HighS18 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in minor change to seagrass cover (e.g. Asterias, Sabella)MediumT18 Small loss of cover from propeller scarring, boat moorings HighS20 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in minor change to seagrass cover (e.g. Asterias, Sabella)MediumX20 Only small area of Swan Bay available for recreational fishing, low top-down impact on seagrass cover MediumO,P,Q,R,S,T,U21 Insignificant change to habitat/communities from climate change at a time scale of 5 years or less Medium




17

Table 8. Example of a threat consequence table for the attribute “Ecosystem Function” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 1 based on a 5 year time frame


Attr

ibu t

e : E

cosy

ste m

Fu n

c tio

n

nutr

i en t

s

s ed i

men

t - s

u sp e

n de d

s ed i

men

t - s

mo t

herin

g

h ea v

y m

eta l

s

o il/ d

ispe

rsan

t

pest

i cid

es &

he r

b ici

des

e nd o

c rin

e di

s ru p

ters

p ath

ogen

s

s al in

it y

acid

i ty

sea

lev e

l ris

e

incr

ease

d U

VB

incr

e as e

d te

mp

pest

pla

nts

& a

nim

a ls

phys

ica l

dis

t urb

ance

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

a bo v

e w

ater

lig h

t

debr

is

e xtr

actio

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise




8 9 6 1 7 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10 2 3 0 0 2 0 54

This primarily concerns high primary/secondary productivity - fish nursery area Data qualityF5 Built up areas mostly sewered so low concentrations MediumF6 Some nutrients will enter with stormwater, localised effects on algal growth reducing seagrass productivity MediumG6 Some sediments will enter with stormwater, localised effects on light penetration reducing seagrass productivityMediumH6 Sediment from stormwater settling on seagrass blades less of an issue than turbidity MediumK6 Small amounts in stormwater may have detectable localised effects on seagrass productivity LowN6 Freshwater from stormwater localised impacts on seagrass productivity / fish habitat after heavy rainfall LowF8 Nutrient input may lead to shift from seagrass to algal dominated system, 1 - 3 year scale of variability MediumG8 Sediment input may lead to shift from seagrass to algal dominated system, 1 - 3 year scale of variability MediumH8 Volumes of sediment expected to be low in terms of potential smothering MediumK8 Concentrations expected to be low LowN8 Salinity changes moderate only therefore low consequence MediumF10 Low levels of nutrients from atmosphere MediumG11-H11 Some possible effects of coastal development on sedimentation patterns affecting seagrass MediumT11 Small area affected by physical disturbance MediumU11 Possible change to wave/current exposure of seagrass beds, relatively localised MediumF12 Release of nutrients from dredging small scale with low impact on ecosystem LowG12-H12 Suspended and settled sediments from dredging impacts seagrass in southern Swan Bay MediumI12 Heavy metals released by dredging would have low impact on mortality of plants and associated animals MediumJ12 Oil/dispersant released from dredging would be small in scale and have low impact on ecosystem function MediumK12 Pesticides/herbicides released from dredging would be small in scale and have low impact on seagrass MediumT12 Small scale of effect (i.e. south entrance) MediumU12 Small scale of current changes in southern part of Swan Bay MediumJ15 Oil/dispersant released from commercial fishing vessels in harbour would be small in scale HighS15 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in minor change to ecosystem function (e.g. Asterias, Sabella)MediumT,V,W,Y15 Commercial fishing not allowed in Swan Bay so negligible consequence HighX15 Commercial fishing not allowed in Swan Bay but fishing near entrance could affect fish breeding in Swan Bay LowJ16 Significant oil spill could enter Swan Bay with tides and cause major change in ecosystem function HighS16 Introduction of marine pests from ballast water could lead to irreversible change to ecosystem function MediumF,J18 Mainly related to marina so small scale of effect, low impact MediumI,T,V,W,Y18 Mainly related to marina so small scale of effect, negligible impact HighS18 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in minor change to ecosystem function (e.g. Asterias, Sabella)MediumS20 Translocation of existing pests in PPB, could result in minor change to ecosystem function (e.g. Asterias, Sabella)MediumX20 Only small area of Swan Bay available for recreational fishing, low impact on ecosystem function MediumO,P,Q,R,S,T,U21 Insignificant change to habitat/communities from climate change at a time scale of 5 years or less Medium




18

Table 9. Example of a threat consequence table for the attribute “Communities/Habitats” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 1 based on a 60 year time frame


At tr

ibut

e: C

o mm

u nit i

es/h

abita

ts

nutr

ient

s

sedi

me n

t - s

uspe

nded

sedi

me n

t - s

mot

h er in

g

heav

y m

etal

s

oil /d

i sp e

rsan

t

pest

icid

es &

her

b ic i

des

e nd o

crin

e di

s ru p

ters

p ath

ogen

s

s ali n

ity

a ci d

ity

s ea

leve

l ris

e

inc r

e as e

d U

VB

incr

ease

d t e

mp

pest

pla

nts

& a

nim

a ls

phys

ica l

dis

tur b

a nc e

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

abov

e w

ater

lig h

t

debr

is

e xtr

actio

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise




9 9 8 0 7 3 0 0 3 3 2 2 3 10 5 5 0 0 2 0 71

This primarily concerns seagrass beds - changes compared to 5 year time frame Data qualityF8 Increased storm runoff with climate change resulting in increased nutrients leading to algal smothering MediumH8 Increased storm runoff with climate change resulting in increased sediments smothering seagrass MediumO21 Expected increase in acidiity of seawater could affect grazers with calcareous shells, allowing algal overgrowthHighP21 Affect of expected sea level rise depends on amount of structure preventing landward migration of seagrass MediumQ21 Increased UVB known to have negative effects on seagrass HighR21 Increased temperature could be less optimal or exceed tolerances of exisitng seagrass species MediumS21 Introduction of marine pest plants due to changed environment under climate change could replace seagrass MediumT21 May be increase in physical dusturbance associated with increased storm activity under climate change MediumU21 Waves and currents affecting seagrass banks may be changed with altered wind conditions under climate changeMedium




19

Worked example of threat assessment Method 2 The Method 2 Analysis uses the results of the Method 1 threat/consequence analysis together with a table of likelihoods of the threat occurring applied to all consequences rated higher than “Insignificant” (Table 10). The Likelihood is the probability that the threat will affect the asset in some way and reflects the exposure of the asset to the threat (Table 2). These probabilities can be thought of in terms of frequencies. For example a “rare” impact of a threat may only occur once in a scale of decades, while “almost certain” may refer to a threat impacting on the asset many times per year. Again, short justifications of Likelihood scores are required.

The risk scores (Table 3) are determined by multiplying the Likelihood and Consequence scores. A risk table is generated in Excel where likelihood and consequence scores are retrieved from the respective Likelihood and Consequence tables, multiplied together to give a risk score (Tables 3, 4), and then converted automatically to a risk rating ranging from 0 to 4 (Table 4) using the VLOOKUP function (Tables 11–13).

A separate Likelihood table will need to be generated for each time frame considered. For example, the likelihood of climate change effects will increase with longer time frames. An example of a Likelihood assessment for Swan Bay at a 60 year time frame is given in Table 14. An example of the resulting risk scores based on threat consequence and Likelihood analysis for a 60 year time frame is also given for the attribute “Communities and Habitats” in Table 15.



20

Table 10. Example of a Likelihood table for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on 5 year time frame

SWAN BAY EXPOSURE stressor

nutr

ien t

s

sedi

me n

t - s

uspe

nded

s ed i

men

t - s

mo t

herin

g

heav

y m

e ta l

s

o il/d

ispe

rsa n

t

pest

icid

es &

her

b ic i

des

endo

crin

e d i

sru p

ter s

path

ogen

s

salin

ity

acid

i ty

sea

lev e

l ris

e

incr

e as e

d U

VB

inc r

e ase

d te

mp

p es t

pla

nts

& a

nim

a ls

p hy s

ical

di s

turb

ance

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

abov

e w

a te r

ligh

t

d eb r

is

extr

act io

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise


5 land-based urban sewage 36 stormwater 3 4 3 2 37 forestry8 agriculture 5 4 3 3 29 industry non-sewage

10 air quality11 infrastructure coastal infrastructure 4 4 4 4 312 ports / channels / dredging 3 5 5 3 3 2 1 4 4 3 3 313 marine energy14 artificial reefs15 marine sectors commercial fisheries 3 1 216 shipping 1 117 petroleum / minerals exploration18 tourism / recreation / boating 2 3 2 3 2 319 aquaculture20 rec fishing 3 3 321 Climate Change 2 3 2 3 2 2 2

Comments Data qualityF5 Some nutrients from sewage (i.e. black rock) - localised effect on Swan Bay (e.g. seagrass) possible LowF6 Stormwater from Queenscliff will have low nutrients - localised effect on Swan Bay (e.g. seagrass) possible LowG6-H6 Stormwater from Queenscliff will have sediments - likely localised effect on Swan Bay (e.g. seagrass) LowL6 Stormwater from Queenscliff will have low pesticides/hebicides - unlikely localised effect on Swan Bay (e.g. seagrass) LowN6 It is possible that lower salinity from stormwater could have localised effect on Swan Bay ecosystem LowF8 Nutrients from agricultural fertiliser are almost certain to affect Swan Bay (e.g. seagrass) MediumG8 Increased turbidity from sediments from agriculture are likely to affect Swan Bay (e.g. seagrass) MediumH8 Smothering from sediments from agriculture could possibly affect Swan Bay (e.g. seagrass) MediumK8 Pesticides and herbicides from agriculture could possibly affect Swan Bay (e.g. seagrass) LowN8 Salinity changes caused by agricultural practices relatively minor and unlikely to affect Swan Bay MediumG11-H11 Changes to sediment transport with coastal (e.g. marina, ferry terminal) are likely to affect Swan Bay ecosystem HighT11 Physical disturbance with coastal development (e.g. marina, ferry terminal) is likely to have localised impact MediumU11 Changes to waves/currents with coastal development (e.g. marina, ferry terminal) are likely to affect Swan Bay MediumV11 Changes to above water light (e.g. marina, ferry terminal) may possibly have localised effect (e.g. fish, plankton behaviour) LowF12 Possible that small amount of nutrients from dredging entrance to creek will have localised affect (e.g. seagrass) LowG12-H12 Suspended sediments entering Swan Bay when dredging entrance almost certain to affect (e.g. seagrass) HighI12 Heavy metals released through dredging/port activities could possibly have localised affect on Swan Bay LowJ12 Small amount of oil/dispersant released through dredging/port activities could possibly have localised affect on Swan Bay LowL12 Very small amount of pesticide/herbicide released through dredging/port activities unlikely to affect Swan Bay LowS12 An impact on Swan Bay due to pest plants and animals translocated by port activities/dredging would be a rare event MediumT12 Physical disturbance associated with dredging the entrance of Swan Bay is likely to affect the localised area HighU12 Altered wave/currents with dredging the entrance is likely to affect Swan Bay (changes to mud banks etc) MediumV12 Above water light associated with ports/dredging would have a possible affect on Swan Bay (eg listed birds) MediumW12 Debri associated with ports/dredging would have a possible affect on Swan Bay (eg listed birds) LowY12 Underwater noise associated with ports/dredging would have a possible affect on Swan Bay (eg fish movement) LowJ15 No commercial fishing in Swan Bay but oil/dispersant spill possible for commercial vessels in creek HighS15 No commercial fishing in Swan Bay but pest translocation by commercial vessels in creek rare occurrence MediumX15 No commercial fishing in Swan Bay but fish caught near entrances MediumJ16 Although rare, an oil spill related to ship movements entering/leaving PPB could occur and affect Swan Bay HighS16 Although rare, an invasion of a pest released with ballast water from ship movements entering/leaving PPB could occur MediumI18 Effects of heavy metals associated with recreational boats in harbour on Swan Bay would be unlikely LowJ18 Effects of oil/dispersants associated with recreational boats in harbour on Swan Bay would be possible MediumS18 It is unlikely that pests will be translocated by recreational boats in harbour and Swan Bay LowT18 It is possible that recreational boats could cause significant physical disturbance to Swan Bay (i.e. propeller scarring of seagrass)MediumV18 An effect of above water light from recreational boats in the harbour on Swan Bay is unlikely MediumW18 Possible that debris associated with recreational boating activities in the harbour/creek could affect Swan Bay (e.g. listed birds) MediumS20 It is possible that pests could be translocated by recreational fishing activities in Swan Bay MediumW20 It is possible that debri associated with recreational fishing activities could affect Swan Bay (e.g. listed birds) MediumX20 It is possible that extraction of fish by recreational fishing activities could affect Swan Bay (e.g. affect fish populations) LowO,Q,S,U21 Unlikely that these climate change impacts would have a measurable affect over a 5 year time frame due to slow rate of change MediumP,R21 Possible that these climate change impacts could have a measurable affect on Swan Bay over a 5 year time frame Medium

Legend Cells shaded in green indicate all possible combinations of source and stressor affecting this asset Likelihood ratings: 1 = Rare, 2 = Unlikely, 3 = Possible, 4 = Likely, 5 = Almost Certain



21

Table 11. Example of a risk table for the attribute “Species/Populations” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 5 year time frame

SWAN BAY RISK stressor

At tr

ibut

e: S

p ec i

e s/P

opul

ati o

n s

nutr

i en t

s

s ed i

men

t - s

u sp e

n de d

sedi

me n

t - s

mot

h er in

g

heav

y m

e ta l

s

o il/d

ispe

rsa n

t

pest

i cid

es &

he r

b ici

des

endo

cri n

e di

sru p

t er s

path

o ge n

s

salin

ity

a ci d

it y

sea

lev e

l ris

e

i nc r

ease

d U

VB

i nc r

ease

d te

mp

p es t

pla

nts

& a

n im

als

p hy s

ical

dis

turb

a nc e

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

abov

e w

a ter

lig h

t

d eb r

is

extr

a ct io

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise

Time frame 5 yearsSOURCES OF THREATland-based urban sewage 1 0 0 1

stormwater 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 5forestry 0agriculture 4 4 1 1 1 0 11industry non-sewage 0

air quality 0 0 0 0infrastructure coastal infrastructure 3 3 2 3 1 0 12

ports / channels / dredging 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 19marine energy 0artificial reefs 0

marine sectors commercial fisheries 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3shipping 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3petroleum / minerals exploration 0tourism / recreation / boating 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 7aquaculture 0rec fishing 2 1 1 4

climate change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 12 7 2 5 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7 5 6 3 3 2 1 65

CommentsPrimarily concerns listed species, migratory birds, Ramsar

Legend Cells shaded in green indicate all possible combinations of source and stressor affecting this asset Risk ratings: 0 = Negligible, 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High, 4 = Extreme



22

Table 12. Example of a risk table for the attribute “Communities/Habitats” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 5 year time frame


Att r

ibut

e : C

o mm

u nit i

es/h

abita

ts

n utr

ien t

s

sedi

me n

t - s

uspe

nded

sedi

me n

t - s

mot

h er in

g

h ea v

y m

eta l

s

o il/d

ispe

rsa n

t

p es t

icid

e s &

her

bic i

d es

e nd o

crin

e di

s ru p

ters

path

ogen

s

salin

ity

acid

i ty

sea

l ev e

l ris

e

inc r

e as e

d U

VB

incr

e as e

d te

mp

p es t

pla

n ts

& a

n im

als

p hy s

ical

dis

turb

a nc e

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

a bo v

e w

ate r

ligh

t

d eb r

is

e xt r

actio

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise






climate change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 13 9 0 5 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 0 2 0 58

CommentsPrimarily concerns seagrass beds and associated fauna




23

Table 13. Example of a risk table for the attribute “Ecosystem Function” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 5 year time frame


Att r

ibut

e : E

cosy

stem

Fun

ctio

n

n utr

ien t

s

s ed i

men

t - s

u sp e

n de d

sed i

men

t - s

mo t

heri

n g

h ea v

y m

eta l

s

o il/d

ispe

rsa n

t

p es t

icid

es &

he r

bici

d es

endo

crin

e d i

srup

ter s

path

o ge n

s

salin

ity

acid

ity

s ea

leve

l ris

e

incr

ease

d U

VB

incr

e as e

d te

mp

p es t

pla

nts

& a

n im

als

p hy s

ical

dis

turb

a nc e

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

abov

e w

a ter

lig h

t

d eb r

is

e xtr

actio

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise






climate change 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 13 8 1 5 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 4 5 0 0 2 0 59

CommentsThis primarily concerns high primary/secondary productivity - fish nursery area




24

Table 14. Example of a Likelihood table for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 60 year time frame

SWAN BAY EXPOSURE stressorwater & sediment quality

nutr

ien t

s

sedi

men

t - s

u sp e

n de d

s ed i

men

t - s

mo t

h er in

g

h ea v

y m

etal

s

o il/d

isp e

rsa n

t

pest

ici d

e s &

her

bici

d es

e ndo

cri n

e d i

srup

ters

path

o gen

s

s ali n

it y

a ci d

it y

s ea

lev e

l ris

e

inc r

e as e

d U

VB

incr

e ase

d t e

mp

p es t

pla

n ts

& a

n im

a ls

p hy s

i ca l

dis

t urb

a nc e

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

a bo v

e w

ater

lig h

t

d eb r

is

e xt r

a cti o

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise


5 land-based urban sewage 36 stormwater 3 4 3 2 37 forestry8 agriculture 5 4 3 3 29 industry non-sewage

10 air quality11 infrastructure coastal infrastructure 4 4 4 4 312 ports / channels / dredging 3 5 5 3 3 2 1 4 4 3 3 313 marine energy14 artificial reefs15 marine sectors commercial fisheries 3 1 216 shipping 1 117 petroleum / minerals exploration18 tourism / recreation / boating 2 3 2 3 2 319 aquaculture20 rec fishing 3 3 321 Climate Change 4 5 4 5 3 4 4

Comments Changes compared to likelihood for 5 year time frame Data qualityO21 Expected increase in acidiity of seawater over next 60 years HighP21 Sea level expected to rise significantly over this time frame HighQ21 UVB levels expected to rise significantly over this time frame MediumR21 Sea temperature expected to rise significantly over this time frame HighS21 It is possible that environmetal changes related to climate change will lead to introduction of marine pests LowT21 Increased storm activity under climate change is likely to lead to increased physical disturbance MediumU21 Waves and currents are likely to be affect by changes in wind patterns under climate change Low

Legend Cells shaded in green indicate all possible combinations of source and stressor affecting this asset Likelihood ratings: 1 = Rare, 2 = Unlikely, 3 = Possible, 4 = Likely, 5 = Almost Certain



25

Table 15. Example of a risk table for the attribute “Communities/Habitats” for the marine asset Swan Bay using Method 2 based on a 60 year time frame


Att r

ibut

e : C

o mm

u niti

es/h

a bi ta

t s

n ut r

ient

s

sedi

me n

t - s

usp e

n ded

sedi

me n

t - s

mo t

h er in

g

h ea v

y m

etal

s

oil/ d

ispe

rsan

t

pest

i cid

es &

he r

b ici

des

e nd o

c rin

e di

s rup

ters

path

ogen

s

salin

ity

a cid

ity

s ea

leve

l ri s

e

inc r

ease

d U

VB

incr

ease

d t e

mp

pest

pla

nts

& a

nim

a ls

p hy s

i ca l

di s

turb

ance

alte

red

wav

e / c

urre

nts

a bo v

e w

a te r

ligh

t

d eb r

is

ext r

a ctio

n

unde

rwat

er n

oise






climate change 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 238 13 9 0 5 3 0 0 3 4 3 3 4 8 8 8 0 0 2 0 81

CommentsPrimarily concerns seagrass beds and associated fauna




26

Discussion When interpreting the threat scores from Method 1 or the risk scores from Method 2, the individual scores for each combination of source and stressor are the most important to focus on. These scores would generally have a level of management action associated with them to reduce or maintain the current level of risk that is to some extent determined by particular needs of the management agency undertaking the assessment (Fletcher 2005). An example of possible management actions associated with risk levels from Method 2 adapted from Fletcher et al. (2005) is shown in Table 16.

For both Method 1 (Tables 6–8) and Method 2 (Tables 10–12) it may also be useful to look at the row (source) totals, either summed or averaged, to get an indication of the most threatening sources for the attribute/asset (Smith et al. 2012). Similarly, the column totals or averages give an indication of the most significant stressors for the attribute/asset (Smith et al. 2012). Summed totals are useful as they give an indication of the cumulative effects of sources and stressors. Finally, the grand total or average gives a relative measure of the degree of threat/risk that one attribute is subject to relative to another within an asset, and that one asset is subject to relative to another asset (Smith et al. 2012). In the case of the example of Swan Bay in this report, the attribute “Species and Populations” was found to be under slightly more overall threat than the attributes “Communities/Habitat” and “Ecosystem Function”.

Specifying the time frame under consideration and incorporating Climate Change as a source of threat are important refinements to the method of Smith et al. (2012). When the results of threat and risk analyses between a 5 year time frame and a 60 year time frame were compared we found that climate change was an unimportant threat/risk to Swan Bay at the scale of a few years, but became the most important source of threat/risk when a time-scale of decades was considered. Thus, depending on the time-scales considered in management plans and planning processes, specifying the time scale of assessments is very important.

Table 16. Example reporting requirements and associated management responses that could be applied in response to risk categories, based on Fletcher et al. (2005)

Risk Category Reporting Likely management response

Negligible Short justification only No direct management needed

Low Full justification No specific management actions needed

Medium Full performance report

Options for specific management response should be assessed, some additions to current levels possible

High Full performance report

Options for specific management response should be assessed; increases to current management activities probably needed

Extreme Full performance report

Options for specific management response should be assessed; significant additional management activities needed



27

Glossary Assets: Natural elements of the environment that are spatially defined. Assets have social, economic and/or environmental values. Marine environmental assets were defined in Victoria as the areas, outside the existing marine protected areas, that really matter for marine biodiversity or ecological processes at a statewide or bioregion-wide scale.

Attribute: An emergent property of the environment, in this case the attributes under consideration are Species and Populations, Communities and Habitats, and Ecosystem Function Source of threat: Human activities expected to impact the asset Stressor: The property emanating from the source that could impact on the asset Consequence: The level of impact of the source/stressor on the attribute. The scale and definitions of consequence depends on the particular attribute considered. Threat: For this methodology the threat is the combination of source and stressor for which the consequence of an effect on the asset/attribute is considered (where some impact on the asset/attribute is expected to occur) Likelihood: The probability that a particular combination of source/stressor will have some effect on an attribute. The same likelihood ratings are applied irrespective of the attribute considered. Risk: The combination of the likelihood of a threat event occurring together with the consequence of the threat event occurring



28

References AS/NZS (2009). ISO 31000: Risk management—principles and guidelines. Standards Australia, Sydney,

Australia. Astles, K. L., Gibbs, P. J., Steffe, A. S., and Green, M. (2009). A qualitative risk-based assessment of

impacts on marine habitats and harvested species for a data deficient wild capture fishery. Biological Conservation 142, 2759–2773.

Braccini, J. M., Gillanders, B. M., and Walker, T. I. (2006). Hierarchical approach to the assessment of fishing effects on non-target chondrichthyans: case study of Squalus megalops in southeastern Australia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 63, 2456-2466.

Carey, J. M., Boxshall, A., Burgman, M. A., Beilin, R., and Flander, L. (2007). State-wide synthesis of threats to natural values in Victoria’s Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries. Parks Victoria Technical Series No. 34, Parks Victoria, Melbourne.

Carey, J. M., Burgman, M. A., and Chee, Y. E. (2004). Risk Assessment and the Concept of Ecosystem Condition in Park Management. Parks Victoria, Parks Victoria Technical Series No. 13, Melbourne.

DSE (2011). Department of Sustainability and Environment Annual Report 2011 Fletcher, W. J. (2005). The application of qualitative risk assessment methodology to prioritize issues for

fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62, 1576-1587. Fletcher, W. J., Shaw, J., Metcalf, S. J., and Gaughan, D. J. (2010). An Ecosystem Based Fisheries

Management framework: the efficient, regional-level planning tool for management agencies. Marine Policy 34, 1226-1238.

GRMPA (2009). EAM Risk Management Framework. Hadwen, W. L., Capon, S. J., Poloczanska, E. S., Rochester, W., Martin, T., Bay, L., Pratchett, M., Green,

J., Cook, B., Berry, A., Lalonde, A., and Fahey, S. (2011). Climate change responses and adaptation pathways in Australian coastal ecosystems: Synthesis Report. Report to the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Australia. August 2011.

ICUN (2012). 'Unified classification of direct threats.' Rissik, D. (2012). Review report: Trialling the MACC national approach and its application to ecosystem

based management for the VIctorian marine environment. Report for Victoria's Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Rissik, D., Cox, M., Moss, A., Rose, D., Scheltinga, D., Newham, L. T. H., Andrews, A., and Baker-Finch, S. C. (2005). VPSIRR (Vulnerability - Pressure - State - Impact - Risk And Response): An Approach To Determine The Condition Of Estuaries And To Assess Where Management Responses Are Required. In 'MODSIM 2005 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Melbourne, Australia'. (Eds A. Zerger and R. M. Argent.) pp. 170-176.

Scheltinga, D. M., and Moss, A. (2007). A framework for assessing the health of coastal waters: a trial of the national set of estuarine, coastal and marine indicators in Queensland. Environmental Protection Agency Queensland, prepared for the National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Smith, A. D. M., Jenkins, G. P., and Klemke, J. (2012). Trialling the MACC national approach and its application to ecosystem based management for the Victorian marine environment. Final Report to the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. CSIRO, Australia.

VMVC (2011). Victorian Catchment Management Council Annual Report 2011.

professor gregory jenkins july 2013 - veac 2013 threat... · professor gregory jenkins july 2013 ....

Documents