Ecological Risk Assessment for the Western Coastal Board Eco Risk/Ecological Risk... · Ecological Risk Assessment for the Western Coastal Board 1. Introduction ... Australian Standard

1

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Western Coastal Board

1. Introduction

An ecological risk assessment of the marine environment was undertaken for the WesternCoastal Board in August 2004. A workshop format was used to provide an opportunity forstakeholders to voice their opinions on natural attributes of value and perceived threats tothose values. Two workshops were held, one for the Surf Coast, from Breamlea to CapeOtway on 12 August, and a second for the region from Cape Otway to the South Australianth

border on 19 August. Workshop participants included government agency staff, fishing andth

industry representatives, and local residents with interests in the natural environment (Appendix 1).

Each workshop commenced with a brief outline of the role of the Western Coastal Board incoordination of planning and management activities on the western coast of Victoria. Allparticipants then identified themselves and their particular interests in the marineenvironment. This was followed by an outline of the risk assessment process, and issueswhich need to be addressed to produce an honest and transparent assessment of stakeholdersopinions and concerns (Appendix 2).

The objectives of each day were• to identify valued attributes of the marine environment along the relevant section of

coast, and potential threats to those attributes, • to rank the importance of hazards using subjective assessments of likelihood and

consequence, • to develop a register of major hazards, and• to outline conceptual models for selected hazards.

2. Workshop 1 - Surf Coast

The geographic context for this workshop was the marine environment below mean highwater mark, from Breamlea to Cape Otway, and three nautical miles to seaward.

Attendance at this workshop was lower than anticipated, with last minute cancellationsresulting in only seven participants.

The first step of the elicitation process on the day was an unstructured brainstorming sessionto elicit concerns from participants. Each participant was asked to identify two threats ofconcern and the thing that they valued that could be affected by that threat. This strategyreflected a focus on single hazards. It resulted in an initial list of 25 hazards (Table 1).

To prompt a fuller consideration of hazards, and to identify values or threats that may havebeen overlooked, participants were then provided with a list of 17 natural values specific tothe region and a generic list of 84 potential threats to marine systems (Appendix 3).Combined in a hazard matrix, these two lists generate over 1400 possible hazards forconsideration. Participants considered the combinations, then added to their previous list of

2

hazards. This structured brainstorming process resulted in an additional 11 hazards beingidentified as of particular concern to at least one workshop participant (Table 2).

To minimize differences in interpretation among the participants, some hazards were moretightly defined at this stage (Tables 1 & 2). This process involved clarifying the value at risk,and the nature of the threat affecting that value, to the extent that a measurable endpoint mayhave been identified. Discussion of the hazards relating to management complexity wasassisted by the construction of a conceptual model to clarify relationships among the variousgroups and individuals with an interest in the marine environment (Fig. 1).

Table 1. Initial list of hazards nominated by participants, Surf Coast workshop.

Initial definition of hazard Subsequent definition, if hazard refined

Tourism affecting the marine environment.

Harvesting in the intertidal zone. Harvesting in the intertidal zone resulting in reduced

biodiversity, reduced populations and loss of habitat.

Increased runoff from urbanization affecting aquatic

and marine environment.

Increased runoff from urbanization affecting aquatic

and marine communities

Oils spill, grounding, ballast water discharge,

wastewater discharge or anchoring by commercial

shipping affecting near-shore environment.



shipping affecting marine communities.

Oil and gas exploration affecting benthos. Oil and gas exploration affecting benthos, pelagic

communities, birds and mammals.

Lack of appreciation/care affecting marine

communities.

Broad community apathy leading to lack of

awareness and unsustainable practices affecting

intertidal and estuarine communities.

Inappropriate coastal development affecting near-

shore environments.


shore and estuarine communities and habitats.

1) Complexity and inertia of stakeholders (including

agencies) affecting environmental values.

2) Single-focus management agencies leading to

decreased environmental values.

3) Well-informed management agency leading to

improved environmental values.

Three related hazards combined:

Management complexity affecting values of near-

shore and estuarine environments.

Commercial fisheries affecting habitat and non-target

species.

Artificial opening of estuaries resulting in changes to

nutrification, recruitment, sedimentation and near-

shore areas

Artificial opening of estuaries resulting in changes to

nutrification, recruitment, sedimentation and near-

shore areas, and thus affecting near-shore and

estuarine habitats and communities.

Lack of knowledge affecting marine environments.

Politics (funding and priorities) affecting marine

environments.

Pest species affecting (existing) biota.

3

Table 1 (cont.)


Litter from land or sea affecting biota.

Pollution from land or sea affecting biota.

Dredging of estuaries or small ports (i.e. not Channel

Deepening project in Port Phillip Bay) affecting

near-shore environments.

Harbour development in Apollo Bay affecting

marine environment.

Agricultural runoff with pesticides, nutrients and

sediment load affecting near-shore environments.


sediment load affecting near-shore habitats and

communities.

Eel aquaculture affecting estuarine communities.

Estuarine management affecting eel migration.

Pollution, groundings and anchoring from

recreational boating affecting marine environments.


recreational boating affecting marine communities

and habitats.

Oil and gas production affecting benthic and pelagic

communities.

Outfalls affecting near-shore and estuarine

communities and causing habitat change.

Table 2. Additional hazards identified during structured brainstorming session, Surf Coast workshop.


Terrorism affecting marine communities and

habitats.

Rupturing of oil/gas pipelines affecting marine

communities and habitats.

Runoff and sedimentation due to large fires in the

Otways affecting near-shore communities and

habitats.

Increased offshore/inwater aquaculture (i.e. not on-

shore ponds) affecting near-shore habitats and

communities.

Offshore wind farms leading to decreased benthos

(seabed obliterated by structures) and increased

epifauna (structures providing additional habitat)

Offshore tidal generators leading to loss of pelagic

organisms.

4

Table 2 (cont.)


Changed legislative status (of ????) affecting marine


Divers damaging benthic organisms.

Changes in sea level or water temperature due to

global climate change resulting in changes in

community composition.

Presence of jurisdictional boundaries for

management of (distant?) oil and gas resources and

fish stocks affecting (local?) marine communities.

Community focus on charismatic megafauna leading

to effects on other fauna.

Fig. 1 Potential influences of management agencies and other groups on the marine environment.

Workshop 1 (Surf Coast). Numbers denote the perceived relative influence of groups on one another,

the first number being the current state, the number in parentheses the ideal state for the benefit of the

marine environment.

The next step was to select a subset of hazards deemed to be of most concern by theworkshop participants. Each participant nominated their top four hazards. The final subset

5

(Table 3) consisted of the 16 hazards receiving the highest number of nominations. Table 3. Risk register, Workshop 1 (Surf Coast).

Bounds represent the range of opinion among the three groups of participants.

Hazard

(threat to value)

Likelihood Consequence Risk score Level of

Risk *

Harvesting in the intertidal zone resulting in

reduced biodiversity, reduced populations and loss

of habitat.

5 2 - 4 10 - 20 H - E

Increased runoff from urbanization affecting

aquatic and marine communities

4 - 5 3 - 4 12 - 20 H - E



shipping affecting marine communities.

2 - 3 3 - 5 6 - 12 M - E

Broad community apathy leading to lack of

awareness and unsustainable practices affecting

intertidal and estuarine communities.

4 - 5 3 - 5 12 - 25 H - E


shore and estuarine communities and habitats.

3 - 5 3 - 5 12 - 25 H - E

Management complexity affecting values of near-

shore and estuarine environments.

3 - 4 2 - 4 6 - 16 M - E

Commercial fisheries affecting habitat and non-

target species.

4 2 - 4 8 - 16 H - E

Artificial opening of estuaries resulting in changes

to nutrification, recruitment, sedimentation and near-

shore areas, and thus affecting near-shore and

estuarine habitats and communities.

4 - 5 3 - 5 12 - 25 H - E

Lack of knowledge affecting marine environments. 4 - 5 1 - 5 4 - 20 M - E

Pollution from land or sea affecting biota. 4 - 5 2 - 4 10 -20 H - E


sediment load affecting near-shore habitats and

communities.

3 - 4 3 9 - 12 H


recreational boating affecting marine communities

and habitats.

2 - 4 1 - 3 2 - 12 L - H

Outfalls affecting near-shore and estuarine

communities and causing habitat change.

4 - 5 3 - 5 12 - 20 H - E

Increased offshore aquaculture (i.e. not on-shore

ponds) affecting near-shore habitats and

communities.

2 - 3 2 - 3 4 - 9 L - H

Presence of jurisdictional boundaries for

management of (distant?) oil and gas resources and

fish stocks affecting (local?) marine communities.

3 - 4 2 - 3 6 - 12 M - H

Oil and gas exploration affecting benthos, pelagic

communities, birds and mammals.

3 - 4 2 - 4 6 - 16 M - E

* Level of risk is based on likelihood and consequence in accordance with AS4360 Appendix E (SA/SNZ 1999).

6

This subset of hazards was then ranked, broadly following the process outlined in theAustralian Standard for Risk Management, AS4360 (SA/SNZ 1999). Participants weredivided into three groups of two or three. Each group was as mixed as possible in terms ofthe interests and experiences of its members. Each group subjectively assigned values of thelikelihood of the hazard eventuating and the severity of the consequences should it do so.

Both likelihood and consequence were scored on a scale of 1 to 5, where a higher valueindicated a greater likelihood or a more severe consequence (Appendix 4). The results of thegroup assessments were entered into software designed to record, score and rank hazards.Participants were asked to record any instances in which their assessments differed from thatof another group by more than 2 points on the 5 point scales, for either consequence orlikelihood. The degree of agreement between groups was indicated by Spearman’s rankcorrelation coefficient, where positive one indicates perfect agreement in the rank order ofhazards for two groups, negative one denotes exactly reversed rank orders and values aroundzero indicate a basically random pattern.

In this case, correlations ranged from +0.15 to +0.40, with a median of +0.38. This prompteda discussion of the differences in ranks for particular hazards, and some substantivedifferences of opinion were identified and addressed.

i) Pollution, groundings and anchoring from recreational boating affecting marinecommunities and habitats

The number of boats was clearly an issue that affected the likelihood of the hazardeventuating, but individual perceptions of how many boats constituted “few” or “many”depended on the frame of reference used. For a participant using the number of boatsroutinely seen in Port Phillip Bay as a baseline, ten boats would seem to be “few”, but if theframe of reference was boats based at Torquay ten would constitute “many”.

In regard to the anchoring of boats, it may be useful to develop a measure of anchoringdisturbance; the number of anchorings per hectare per annum was suggested.

ii) Broad community apathy leading to lack of awareness and unsustainable practicesaffecting intertidal and estuarine communities

Initial discussion of this hazard focussed on whether the community in question was thepermanent local community or the broader one which included transient seasonal visitors.The former was seen as generally less apathetic than the latter, because permanent residentspresumably feel they have a more personal stake in local environmental conditions. Theinclusion of “broad” in the definition of this hazard indicated the latter community, and onthis basis, two groups revised their scores for likelihood upwards. The remaining differenceof opinion on this hazard was seen as a true difference of opinion, relatively free of language-based misunderstandings.

The role of vocal minorities in overcoming community apathy was also discussed; thecreation of marine national parks was presented as evidence that such groups can havesubstantial effects.

7

It was suggested that the consequences of community apathy may act in a multiplicativefashion, i.e. that the effects of apathy can generate further apathy, as valued attributes areperceived to already be impacted and thus not worthy of further action.

iii) Management complexity affecting values of near-shore and estuarine environments

By its very nature, this hazard was seen as a nebulous issue, but extended discussion of thecomplexities (Fig. 1) led to a surprising level of agreement on the final scores, in spite of thebroad nature of the potential consequences.

iv) Commercial fisheries and oil and gas exploration hazards

For both the commercial fisheries and the oil and gas exploration hazards, it was recognised thatexpert input on the extent of the threat and the severity of the consequences should be utilised tomake more informed judgements on the risks to natural values.

Following this discussion of selected hazards, some groups chose to revise some likelihood andconsequence scores. These were then entered in the ranking software and the risks and ranksrecalculated. The net result of the changes was an improvement in the level of agreement amonggroups over that of the first round, the median increasing to 0.63 (range: 0.39 - 0.75). The riskposed by each hazard was then recorded in the risk register (Table 3), where the range of valuesfor likelihood, consequence and risk for each hazard reflects the final range of opinion amongthe groups of participants (Appendix 5).

Three hazards scored the highest risk value possible (25) as the upper bound from at least onegroup of participants. These were• Broad community apathy leading to lack of awareness and unsustainable practices

affecting intertidal and estuarine communities.• Inappropriate coastal development affecting near-shore and estuarine communities

and habitats.• Artificial opening of estuaries resulting in changes in nutrification, recruitment,

sedimentation and near-shore areas and thus affecting near-shore and estuarine habitatsand communities.

An order of priority for these and the other hazards considered in the ranking exercise ispresented in Figure 2. The priority list of hazards is also presented with categorical levels of riskas shown in Appendix 5 of AS 4360 (SA/SNZ 1999)

8

Fig. 2. Priority hazards - Workshop 1 (Surf Coast). Hazards ordered firstly by maximum risk

score, then by minimum score and lastly by the median score among the three groups of

participants. Descriptions of hazards should be read in conjunction with the full definitions

given in the risk register (Table 3). Letters denote the median score for each group, while

horizontal lines indicate the full range of risk scores over all groups, i.e. the degree of

uncertainty about the risk associated with each hazard.

Fig. 3. Workshop 1 (Surf Coast) hazards ordered as in Fig. 2, showing level of risk based on

likelihood and consequence in accordance with AS 4360 Appendix E (SA/SNZ 1999).

9

3. Workshop 2 - Cape Otway to SA border

The geographic context for this workshop was the marine environment below mean highwater mark, from Cape Otway to the SA border, and three nautical miles to seaward.

Attendance at this workshop was higher than that of the Surf Coast, with a total of 20participants (Appendix 1). This may partly reflect the broader range of activities undertakenin the marine environment in this region.

In a related Parks Victoria workshop the previous day, elicitation of well-defined values hadproved difficult. Therefore, the first step in the elicitation process at this workshop was anunstructured brainstorming session to identify ecological attributes of the marineenvironment valued by the participants. Each participant was asked to identify two values(Table 4). Some values were very broad in nature but were later broken down into moretangible components. Working through the set of values, participants were then asked tonominate potential threats to selected values (Table 5). Discussion of possible threatsgenerated two conceptual models, one for water quality as a value (Fig. 4) and another forestuaries (Fig. 5). In the latter case, the interactions of components of the value with potentialthreats proved to be too complex for presentation in a simple table.

Table 4. Valued components of the marine environment, Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA border).

Value Components of value

Marine mammals

Marine and estuarine water quality for ecosystem maintenance

for swimming

for aquaculture

Estuaries water quality

nursery habitat

tidal flows

biodiversity (species richness of waders as an indicator)

ecosystem service of nutrient cycling fish populations

mixing zone for freshwater & marine species

Intertidal reefs flora

fauna

geological features

Ocean beaches

Viable fish populations

Biological communities in estuaries

Ecosystem health biodiversity

Sea and shore birds

Threatened species

Estuaries as fish nurseries

Marine and estuarine sediments

Seagrass

10

Table 4 (cont.)

Value Components of value

Benthic invertebrates

Marine biodiversity

Sponges

Kelp forests

Benthic primary producers

Turtles

Plankton

Marine archeological sites

Table 5. Potential threats to selected values, Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA border).

Value Components of value Potential threats

Marine and estuarine

water quality (Fig. 4)

for ecosystem maintenance

for swimming

for aquaculture

agricultural runoff

disease spread by aquaculture

escaped organisms from aquaculture

sediments from terrestrial runoff

volume & frequency of river flow

climate change

dredging or drilling operations

- sediments

- contaminants released

- habitat change

cooling water

oil or chemical spills

sewage, treated or otherwise

garbage

stormwater

algal blooms

oil or chemical spills

sewage, treated or otherwise

garbage

stormwater

algal blooms

Estuaries water quality

nursery habitat

tidal flows

biodiversity

(species richness of

waders as an indicator)

ecosystem service of

nutrient cycling

fish populations

mixing zone for freshwater

& marine species

see Figure 5

11

Table 5 (cont.)

Value Components of value Potential threats

Intertidal reefs flora

fauna

geological features

water quality

dogs

marine pest species

harvesting

management practices

human pressure - trampling

- development

- collecting

Ocean beaches pollution

seaweed harvesting

man-made constructions

bait collecting

Viable fish populations water quality

legal harvesting

illegal harvesting

food availability

destruction/modification of habitat

pest species

disease introduction

translocation (of species?)

Fig. 4. Components of the value “good water quality” and potential threats to those components.

Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA border).

12

Fig. 5. Potential threats to values associated with estuaries, Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA border).

As in the Surf Coast workshop, participants then were provided with pre-prepared lists toprompt thinking (Appendix 3). Combined in a hazard matrix, the lists of 29 natural valuesand 89 potential threats generate over 2500 possible hazards for consideration. Participantswere asked to consider the combinations, then add to the previous list of hazards if they sowished. In order to reduce all the hazards identified as potentially important by theparticipants to a manageable subset for a formal risk scoring exercise, participants wereasked to cast four votes for the hazards they deemed to be of most concern. Hazardsattracting two votes or more are listed in the risk register (Table 6), while hazards whichgained only single votes are recorded in Table 7.

Ranking of the top subset of hazards again broadly followed the process outlined in theAustralian Standard for Risk Management, AS4360 (SA/SNZ 1999). In this workshop therewere four groups of four or five participants, each group as mixed as possible in terms ofinterests and experience. Each group subjectively assigned values to the likelihood of thehazard eventuating and the severity of the consequences should it do so, both likelihood andconsequence on a scale of 1 to 5 (Appendix 4).

13

Table 6. Risk register, Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA border).

Bounds represent the range of opinion among the four groups of participants.

Hazard

(threat to value)

Likelihood Consequence Risk score Level of

Risk *

Illegal harvesting affecting the viability of

inshore populations of rock lobster and abalone

3 - 5 3 - 5 12 - 20 H - E

Lack of knowledge affecting ecosystem health 1 - 5 1 - 5 1 - 25 L - E

Pest species affecting marine and estuarine

biodiversity

2 - 5 1 - 5 4 - 20 M - E

Water quality affecting marine and estuarine

biodiversity

3 - 5 2 - 4 9 - 16 H - E

Physical destruction of more than 50% of

estuarine habitat affecting the viability of fish

populations

2 - 5 2 - 4 4 - 20 L - E

Volume and frequency of river flow affecting

marine and estuarine water quality

3 - 5 3 - 4 9 - 20 H - E

Treated sewage affecting benthic primary

producers

2 - 5 2 - 3 4 - 15 L - E

Trampling affecting seabirds and shorebirds 2 - 5 3 - 5 6 - 25 M - E

Littering affecting seabirds and shorebirds 2 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 15 L - E

Agricultural runoff affecting marine and

estuarine water quality

4 - 5 3 - 5 12 - 25 H - E

Stormwater affecting marine and estuarine

sediments

4 - 5 1 - 5 4 - 20 M - E

Development affecting marine and estuarine

biodiversity

2 - 5 1 - 5 3 - 25 L - E

Development affecting threatened species 2 - 5 1 - 5 3 - 25 L - E

Illegal harvesting affecting ecosystem health 2 - 5 3 6 - 15 M - E

Harvesting affecting threatened species 2 - 5 2 - 4 6 - 12 M - E

* Level of risk is based on likelihood and consequence in accordance with AS4360 Appendix E (SA/SNZ 1999).

14

Table 7. Hazards receiving only single votes, insufficient for promotion to the risk register. Workshop 2 (Cape

Otway to SA border).

Hazard

Stormwater affecting water quality for swimming.

Artificial opening of river mouths affecting marine and estuarine sediments

Artificial opening of river mouths affecting ecosystem health

Poor water quality affecting marine mammals

Stormwater affecting marine mammals

Water quality affecting marine and estuarine sediments

Loss of resources affecting marine mammals

Litter affecting shorebirds

Marine pest species affecting threatened species

Litter entangling marine mammals

Noise affecting marine mammals

Comparison of hazard ranking among the groups identified several major differences ofopinion:

i) Illegal harvesting affecting the viability of inshore populations of rock lobster andabalone

The value of concern in this hazard was initially the viability of “fish populations”. Thequestion quickly arose as to whether this referred to particular species or to targetted fish ingeneral. The latter would be too broad a category for sensible scoring of likelihood andconsequence, because scores might reasonably be expected to vary with species.

There appeared to be an underlying assumption that demersal fisheries in the region werecurrently robust and healthy.

To better focus the discussion, snapper and bream were suggested as species forconsideration. One participant commented that there was still insufficient information topermit sensible estimation of likelihood and consequence. Another, whose professional roleinvolved fisheries, emphasized that there were no signs of declining stocks at the moment,and believed this indicated minimal risk for either fishery, but conceded that moreinformation would be desirable for bream.

It was then decided to focus the harvesting threat on the inshore abalone and rock lobsterfisheries, take of the former being very high inshore. However, this change in definition tospecies believed to be more highly fished, resulted in very little change in opinion over theillegal harvesting hazard.

15

ii) Lack of knowledge affecting ecosystem health

This hazard produced a very wide range of scores, largely because lack of (ecological)knowledge is such a nebulous threat. The same criticism may also be directed at the value ofecosystem health, but participants were reluctant to be drawn on a tighter definition of thatconcept. There appeared to be difficulties in extrapolating from tangible but small-scaleevidence of ecological impact (e.g. effects on individual seabirds) to the broader notion ofecosystem health.

iii) Physical destruction of more than 50% of estuarine habitat affecting the viability of fishpopulations

Disagreements over this hazard centred on the scale of the destruction. Destruction wasexpected to be quite localised by one group, and thus expected to have no overall effect onfish populations. Another group only considered the impact on a single estuary. A decision todefine the hazard more tightly, as destruction of more than 50% of estuarine habitat,produced slightly better agreement on consequence.

iv) Treated sewage affecting benthic primary producers

Scores for this hazard ranged from 2 to 5 for likelihood, and 2 to 3 for consequence.Discussion revealed no great difficulties with interpretation of the hazard, so the large rangeof likelihood scores appears to represent genuine difference of opinion.

Following discussion of the hazards in some detail, groups were able to revise their scores ifthey wished. However, few revisions were made, and these resulted in a slight but notuniversal increase in agreement among the groups (Round 1: median correlation coefficient = +0.30, range -0.05 to +0.57. Round 2: median = +0.36, range -0.06 to +0.64). The final riskscores are presented in the risk register (Table 6) and individual group scores in Appendix 5.

Five hazards scored the highest risk value possible (25) as the upper bound from at least onegroup of participants, placing them at the top of the priority list of hazards shown in Figure 6.The top five hazards were• Agricultural runoff affecting marine and estuarine water quality• Trampling affecting seabirds and shorebirds• Development affecting threatened species• Development affecting marine and estuarine biodiversity• Lack of knowledge affecting ecosystem healthConsiderable uncertainty surrounded four of the top five hazards, with only the agriculturalrunoff hazard spanning less than two thirds of the possible range of risk scores (Fig. 6). Thepriority list of hazards is also presented with categorical levels of risk (Fig. 7) as shown inAppendix 5 of AS 4360 (SA/SNZ 1999)

It should be noted that during the discussion of hazards, one group stated that they preferredto assign scores for likelihood only on the basis of the threat occurring, rather thanconsidering the likelihood of the value actually being affected by the threat. This wascontrary to the instructions issued to all workshop participants, and may have served toincrease the uncertainty about risk scores beyond what might otherwise have existed.

16

Fig. 6. Priority hazards - Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA border). Hazards ordered firstly by

maximum risk score, then by minimum score and lastly by the median score among the four

groups of participants. Descriptions of hazards should be read in conjunction with the full

definitions given in the risk register (Table 6). Letters denote the median score for each group,

while horizontal lines indicate the full range of risk scores over all groups, i.e. the degree of

uncertainty about the risk associated with each hazard.

Fig. 7. Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA border) hazards ordered as in Fig. 5, showing level of

risk based on likelihood and consequence in accordance with AS 4360 Appendix E (SA/SNZ 1999).

17

As the workshop drew to a close, there was general discussion about the methods adoptedduring the day: • It was generally felt that more time was needed to undertake such an assessment,

perhaps with some sort of “roadshow” to provide participants with relevant informationprior to the workshop.

• There was concern expressed that the word “risk” brought negative connotations to theworkshop, and that its use in some way devalued the natural marine environment as itcurrently exists.

• One group suggested that the scale of scores for consequence should have beenexpanded, to create greater variation among scores and also to give more weight toconsequence than to likelihood. (Note: there are schemes for weighting that do exactlythis, for example, one British tabulation scores likelihood on a scale of 1 to 16, butconsequence on a scale of 1 to 1000 (ICE/FIA 1998).)

• The question was asked whether different group membership for the hazard scoringexercise would produce different outcomes.

Further comments by individual participants are presented in Appendix 6.

18

4. Summary of the two workshops

In total, 31 hazards were formally scored for likelihood and consequence in group exercises inthe two workshops. Of those hazards, six arose in only one of the two workshops: • Management complexity affecting values of near-shore and estuarine environments.

(Workshop 1, Surf Coast)• Increased offshore aquaculture (i.e. not on-shore ponds) affecting near-shore habitats

and communities. (Workshop 1, Surf Coast)• Presence of jurisdictional boundaries for management of (distant?) oil and gas

resources and fish stocks affecting (local?) marine communities. (Workshop 1, SurfCoast)

• Oil and gas exploration affecting benthos, pelagic communities, birds andmammals.(Workshop 1, Surf Coast)

• Illegal harvesting affecting the viability of inshore populations of rock lobster andabalone. (Workshop 2, Cape Otway to SA border)

• Pest species affecting marine and estuarine biodiversity. (Workshop 2, Cape Otway toSA border)

The two workshops were conducted independently in so far as the definition of hazards in thesecond workshop was not constrained in any way by definitions from the first. This resulted invarying degrees of overlap in definitions between the two workshops (Table 8).

Table 8. Comparison of hazards from the two Western Coastal Board workshops.

Workshop 1 (Surf Coast) hazards Relationship between

hazards?

Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA

border) hazards

Harvesting in the intertidal zone

resulting in reduced biodiversity,

reduced populations and loss of habitat.

Potential overlap where

intertidal species are

protected.

Potential overlap where

threatened species are

intertidal.

Illegal harvesting affecting ecosystem

health.

Harvesting affecting threatened

species.

Increased runoff from urbanization

affecting aquatic and marine

communities

Urban runoff may

contribute to reduced

water quality and affect

sediments.

Water quality affecting marine and

estuarine biodiversity.

Stormwater affecting marine and

estuarine sediments.

Oils spill, grounding, ballast water

discharge, wastewater discharge or

anchoring by commercial shipping

affecting marine communities.

Threats from Workshop

1 are one potential cause

of habitat destruction.

Physical destruction of more than 50%

of estuarine habitat affecting the

viability of fish populations.

Broad community apathy leading to

lack of awareness and unsustainable

practices affecting intertidal and

estuarine communities.

Trampling may result

from community apathy.

Trampling affecting seabirds and

shorebirds.

Inappropriate coastal development

affecting near-shore and estuarine


Very similar hazards,

with slightly more

specific values in

Workshop 2.

Development affecting marine and


Development affecting threatened

species.

19

Table 8 (cont.)

Workshop 1 (Surf Coast) hazards Relationship between

hazards?

Workshop 2 (Cape Otway to SA

border) hazards

Management complexity affecting

values of near-shore and estuarine

environments.

Commercial fisheries affecting habitat

and non-target species.

Non-target species may

included threatened

species.

Harvesting affecting threatened

species.

Artificial opening of estuaries resulting

in changes to nutrification, recruitment,

sedimentation and near-shore areas, and

thus affecting near-shore and estuarine

habitats and communities.

Workshop 2 hazard may

result from Workshop 1

threat, and subsequently

affect Workshop 1

value.

Volume and frequency of river flow

affecting marine and estuarine water

quality.

Lack of knowledge affecting marine

environments.

Very similar hazards. Lack of knowledge affecting

ecosystem health.

Pollution from land or sea affecting

biota.

Workshop 2 hazards are

specific examples of

Workshop 1 hazard.

Treated sewage affecting benthic

primary producers.

Littering affecting seabirds and

shorebirds.

Agricultural runoff with pesticides,

nutrients and sediment load affecting

near-shore habitats and communities.

Value from Workshop 2

represents an

intermediate step in

Workshop 1 hazard.

Agricultural runoff affecting marine

and estuarine water quality.

Pollution, groundings and anchoring

from recreational boating affecting

marine communities and habitats.

Threats from Workshop

1 are one potential cause

of habitat destruction.

Physical destruction of more than 50%

of estuarine habitat affecting the

viability of fish populations.

Outfalls affecting near-shore and

estuarine communities and causing

habitat change.

Workshop 2 hazards are

specific examples of

Workshop 1 hazard.

Treated sewage affecting benthic

primary producers.

Stormwater affecting marine and

estuarine sediments.

Increased offshore aquaculture (i.e. not

on-shore ponds) affecting near-shore

habitats and communities.

Presence of jurisdictional boundaries

for management of (distant?) oil and gas

resources and fish stocks affecting

(local?) marine communities.

Oil and gas exploration affecting

benthos, pelagic communities, birds and

mammals.

Illegal harvesting affecting the

viability of inshore populations of rock

lobster and abalone.

Pest species affecting marine and


20

The hazards may be broadly categorised as relating to either direct, tangible threats likepollution and exotic species, or to indirect, less obvious threats related to institutional activities,social issues or scientific knowledge. Those in the latter category constituted 16% of the 31formally-ranked hazards and involved the following threats: • Broad community apathy• Lack of (ecological) knowledge• Management complexity• Jurisdictional boundaries

The 31 hazards for which risk was formally scored in the two workshops are shown in anoverall priority order in Figure 8.

Fig. 8. Combined list of priority hazards for the two Western Coastal Board workshops. Hazards ordered firstly

by maximum risk score, then by minimum score and lastly by the median score among the groups of participants

for the relevant workshop. Descriptions of hazards should be read in conjunction with the full definitions given in

the risk registers (Tables 3 & 6). Letters denote the median score for each group within the workshop, while

horizontal lines indicate the full range of risk scores over all groups, i.e. the degree of uncertainty about the risk

associated with each hazard.

When considering this combined set of hazards, it should be remembered that participants fromeach workshop were not privy to discussions about hazards that occurred in the otherworkshop. Thus the overall ranking does not take into account any influence that thediscussions, or indeed the collective defining of the hazards within each workshop, may havehad on final outcomes.

21

The top hazards from the combined set were• Broad community apathy leading to lack of awareness and unsustainable practices

affecting intertidal and estuarine communities. (Workshop 1, Surf Coast)• Agricultural runoff affecting marine and estuarine water quality. (Workshop 2, Cape

Otway to SA border)• Inappropriate coastal development affecting near-shore and estuarine communities

and habitats. (Workshop 1, Surf Coast)• Artificial opening of estuaries resulting in changes to nutrification, recruitment,

sedimentation and near-shore areas, and thus affecting near-shore and estuarinehabitats and communities. (Workshop 1, Surf Coast)

5. References

ICE/FIA. (1998) RAMP: Risk analysis and management for projects. Institution of CivilEngineers and the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries. Thomas Telford, London.

SA/SNZ. (1999) Risk Management. (AS/NZS 4360:1999) Standards Australia InternationalLtd, Sydney, and Standards New Zealand, Wellington.

22

Appendix 1Workshop participants

1) Workshop 1 - Surf Coast

Position/Expertise Organization

Dale Antonysen local Ranger in Charge Parks Victoria

Dale Appleton Western Coastal Board

Anthony Boxshall Manager, Marine NationalParks Research Programs

Parks Victoria

Garry Kendall surf rider

Jen Lilburn Western Coastal Board

Steve McDougal flora & fauna Dept. of Sustainability & Environment

Paul Millar Senior Fisheries Officer Dept. of Planning & Industry

2) Workshop 2 - Cape Otway to SA border

Position/Expertise Organization

Dale Appleton Western Coastal Board

Helen Arundel estuaries & decision supportsystems

School of Ecology & Environment, Deakin University

Peter Farrell Biologist Woodside Energy Ltd

Linda Grant catchment management Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

David Gwyther Marine Scientist Enesar Consulting Pty Ltd

Antoinette Hanna rock lobster fishery Port Campbell Professional Fisherman’s Association

Ingrid Holliday policy Dept. of Sustainability & Environment

Laurie Laurenson fisheries biology School of Ecology & Environment, Deakin University

Jen Lilburn Western Coastal Board

Neil Martin traditional/cultural issues Framlingham Aboriginal Trust

Catriona McTaggart oil & gas industry Santos Ltd

Julie Mondon cetaceans School of Ecology & Environment, Deakin University

Craig Murdoch fisheries management Dept. of Planning & Industry

Natasha Powell Marine Ranger Parks Victoria

Dianne Rose water quality?? Environment Protection Authority

Mark Taylor Geophysicist Woodside Energy Ltd

John Turner catchment management Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

Nick sociologist and surfer

Rosia biologist

Steve ??????

Unable to attend workshop, but attended pre-workshop dinner:Lionel Harradine cultural heritage Framlingham Aboriginal Trust

John Sherwood estuarine chemistry School of Ecology & Environment, Deakin University

23

Appendix 2Background information on Ecological Risk Assessment

What is ecological risk assessment?

Risk is the chance of an adverse event with specific consequences occurring within a certain timeframe. Risk assessment is a tool to facilitate informed decision-making. The process of risk1

assessment helps us to make decisions when we are uncertain about future events, and the riskanalyst’s job is to evaluate and communicate the nature and extent of uncertainty in order toimprove the process of decision-making.

Risk assessment has been carried out in engineering and process industries for several decades, andsimilar procedures are now increasingly being applied to ecological questions. Ecological riskassessment is the process of estimating likelihoods and magnitudes of the effects of human actionsor natural events on plants, animals and ecosystems of ecological value, that is, the study of risks2

to the natural environment . Some of these risks may be biological in nature (e.g. predation,3

invasive species), while others may relate to the physical or chemical environment (e.g. drought,toxic chemicals). Still others may be social, political or economic in origin. Therefore, ecologicalrisk assessment must address a wide range of potential threats.

Examples of quantitative ecological risk assessment include the risk of disease transmission whenimporting animals and animal products and the effects of PCB contamination on breeding4

waterbirds . Subjective or qualitative assessments have been applied to waterway management in5 6

the USA and to the Western Rock Lobster fishery in Western Australia (Fig. 1). Risk-based7

protocols are currently being developed to manage irrigation impacts, river flows, salinity risks,fish kills and algal blooms in river systems around Australia.8

Fig. 1 Fishing activity risk distribution, Western Rock Lobster fishery. 7

In total, 33 hazards were identified, the majority of which were considered to present only low risk.

Stakeholder Involvement

Risk assessments have been criticized for alienating stakeholders, placing social decisions in thehands of the technical people who conduct the assessments. However, more advanced9,10

assessments specifically involve stakeholders and ensure that their views considered. The central11

24

idea is to create a system that stays faithful to the priorities of those who carry the burden of therisks, while at the same time making the full strength of technical risk analysis available to ensuremodels are consistent and that monitoring systems provide as much pertinent information aspossible.

Most commonly, stakeholder involvement is elicited through stakeholder workshops, the success ofwhich depends upon the knowledge base of the stakeholders, the mix of stakeholders attending, andthe way in which the workshop is facilitated. The stakeholders identify the ecological valuespotentially at risk, the stressors that threaten these values, the hazards or ecological issues that mayoccur, and the means (assessment endpoints) by which the various risks will be quantified. Theinvolvement of stakeholders generally results in a more thorough scoping of the issues and inensuring that important issues are not missed. Additionally, stakeholder workshops provide aformal opportunity for stakeholders to state what they want and why, and for them to gain someownership of the risk assessment process.

Hazard Identification

Individual attributes or values of the environment may be threatened by one or more hazards, ahazard being any source of potential harm, or any situation with potential to cause adverse effects.2

Hazards may be physical, chemical or biological entities (“stressors” ) or threatening processes12

such as the clearing of land or the discharge of waste.

Hazard identification is a formal process involving the development of conceptual models linkingecological processes and management practices to ecosystem condition. Models are abstractions,representing how we think the world works. They may exist only in our own minds, or may bepresented as diagrams or mathematical expressions to be more easily shared with other people. Adiagram is the simplest form of a conceptual model (e.g. Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Alternative conceptual models of the relationship between fish kills and the presence of

a toxic microorganism. Originally it was assumed that the toxic form of the micro-organism13

caused the fish kills (Model A), but the use of simple conceptual models highlighted alternative

explanations for the observed events. It now seems most likely that blooms of the toxic form of

the micro-organism develop in the presence of dead and decomposing fish (Model B).

A risk assessment is reliant on initial identification of all hazards relevant to the situation becausefailure to identify a particular hazard would result in its exclusion from further consideration. Thusit is essential that all potential sources of harm be identified, if only to be later flagged as of low

25

risk.14 A good hazard identification phase makes use of as many tools as possible, in an attempt toform as complete a list as possible. Checklists and unstructured brainstorming are among the mostcommon methods for assembling a list of hazards.

Hazard matrices are particularly helpful in identifying hazards that have multiple effects, andnatural values that are susceptible to multiple hazards. The matrix improves the probability that no interactions are overlooked, generating a more comprehensive list of hazards than brainstormingalone (Table 1).

Table 1. Part of a hazard matrix for a marina development. Crosses denote possible interactions between components of the surrounding ecosystem that we value and potential hazards.

Ecosystem component Activity

Con

stru

ctio

n of

brea

kwat

er

Incr

ease

d sm

all b

oat

activ

ity

Use

of a

ntifo

ulin

gpa

ints

Oil

spill

from

mai

nten

ance

faci

lity

Run

off f

rom

road

s/ca

rpar

ks

Incr

ease

d H

uman

activ

ity o

nsho

re

Seagrass beds X X X X

Water quality suitable for swimming X X X

Water quality suitable for marine life X X X

Populations of edible fish X X X X

Migratory seabirds X X X

Prioritizing Risks

The Australian Standard for Risk Management14 provides a basis for comparing and ranking therisks posed by hazards, so that risk managers can focus attention on the most severe risks first.Systems very like it are employed in construction and civil engineering, petroleum exploration,nuclear regulation, chemical processing and many other industries in Australia and elsewherearound the world.

Risk may be considered as the product of the likelihood of occurrence of an event and magnitude ofits consequences (Table 2). Values assigned to likelihoods and consequences may range from purelyqualitative and subjective to strictly quantitative, depending on the available information.

Perception of Risk

Perception of risk is very much an individual matter, and is affected by a variety of factors. Ourpersonal experience and beliefs15 have a strong influence on our perception of risk. Culturaldifferences also contribute substantially to perceptions and acceptance of risk, so that differentsocial groups react differently when confronted by the same hazards.16 Furthermore, individuals donot necessarily feel the same way about risk every day of their lives.17

26

Table 2. Categories of risk for a semi-quantitative assessment.14

Likelihood and consequence are each scored subjectively on a scale of 1 to 5. Risk ratings, as the product of likelihood

and consequence, are shown in the body of the table. In this particular scheme, risk ratings have then been categorized as

follows: 15 - 25 High (dark shading), 5 - 12 Moderate (light shading), and 1- 4 Low (unshaded).

Likelihood Consequence

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Almost certain (5) 5 10 15 20 25

Likely (4) 4 8 12 16 20

Moderately likely (3) 3 6 9 12 15

Unlikely (2) 2 4 6 8 10

Rare (1) 1 2 3 4 5

Other factors affecting our perception of risk include how much control we have over the hazard inquestion, how equitably the risk is distributed, and how well we understand the technical details.18

In general, the less control and understanding we have, the greater we perceive the risk to be.Additionally, people are generally poor judges of probabilistic events, tending to substantiallyunderestimate the risk of events that have a high probability of occurrence, and overestimate the riskof low probability events. There are also recognized cognitive biases that are often overlooked in19

subjective risk assessment, in particular, the following:20

• The presentation of an issue may influence our behaviour, even when the underlying outcomeis unchanged. 21

• People are generally overconfident in assessing the quality and reliability of their ownjudgements.22

• We have a tendency to be influenced by initial estimates, either our own or those of others.23

• Most people, including experienced scientists, draw inferences from data to an extent that canonly be justified with much larger samples.24

Uncertainty

For informed decision-making, a risk assessment should reduce uncertainties as much as possible,while honestly representing the concerns of stakeholders. The remaining uncertainty indicates therange of opinion that exists and may also be indicative of a need for additional information.

To best deal with uncertainty, it is helpful to recognize that it comes in different forms:25

• Uncertainties about data and information exist because of the limitations of measurementdevices, insufficient data, extrapolations and interpolations, and variability over time or space.There is a fact, but we don’t know it exactly. This is the domain of ordinary statistics andconventional scientific training.

• Uncertainty may also arise because natural language, including scientific vocabulary, is often underspecific, ambiguous, vague, context dependent, or indeterminate. This form ofuncertainty results from people using words differently or inexactly.

Vagueness and ambiguity may be particularly pervasive in workshops settings, where words andphrases used to describe hazards may be interpreted differently by participants, resulting indisagreement over the prioritizing of those hazards. Resolving of such disagreements is animportant step if genuine differences of opinion are not to be obscured.

27

After the ranking . . . ?

Hazards identified as priorities by stakeholders may subsequently be the subject of more detaileddiagrammatic or mathematical modelling to further characterize their modes of action and identifypossible management strategies, or to identify knowledge gaps where further information is needed.

References:1. Beer, T. & Ziolkowski, F. (1995) Environmental Risk Assessment: an Australian Perspective. Supervising Scientist

Report 102. Office of the Supervising Scientist, Commonwealth of Australia.

2. SA/SNZ (2000) Environmental risk management - principles and processes. (HB 203:2000) Standards Australia

International Ltd, Sydney, and Standards New Zealand, Wellington.

3. Barnthouse, L.W. & Suter, G.W., II. (Eds) (1986) User's Manual for Ecological Risk Assessment. ORNL-6251.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Cited in: Suter, G.W., II. (1993) Ecological Risk Assessment.

Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.

4. MacDiarmid, S.C. (1993) Risk analysis and the importation of animals and animal products. Revue Scientifique et

Technique de l Office International des Epizooties. 12: 1093-1107.

5. Matsinos, Y.G., DeAngelis, D.L. & Wolff, W.F. (1994) Using an object oriented model for ecological risk

assessment on a great blue heron colony. Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 20: 75-82.

6. Wenger, R.B., Harris, H.J. & DeVault, D.S. (2000) An assessment of ecosystem risks in the St. Croix National

Scenic Riverway. Environmental Management. 25: 599-611.

7. IRC. (2002) Western Rock Lobster Ecological Risk Assessment. IRC Environment, Project JOO-207. Report to the

Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, Western Australia.

8. Hart, B.T., Lake, P.S., Webb, J.A. & Grace, M.R. (2003) Ecological risk to aquatic systems from salinity increases.

Australian Journal of Botany. 51: 689-702.

9. O’Brien, M. 2000. Making better environmental decisions: an alternative to risk assessment. MIT Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

10. Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment. Duke University Press, Durham

11. Borsuk, M., Clemen, R., Maguire, L. & Reckhow, K. (2001) Stakeholder values and scientific modelling in the

Neuse River watershed. Group Decision and Negotiation. 10: 355-373.

12. US EPA. (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

D.C. Federal Register Vol. 63, no. 93, May 14, 26846-26924.

13. Stow, C.A. and Borsuk, M.E. (2003) Enhancing causal assessment of estuarine fishkills using graphical models.

Ecosystems 6, 11-19.

14. SA/SNZ. (1999) Risk Management. (AS/NZS 4360:1999) Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney, and

Standards New Zealand, Wellington.

15. Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B. & Gibson, R. (1992) Risk perception. In: Risk: Analysis, Perception

and Management. Report of a Royal Society Study Group. The Royal Society, London, UK. Ch. 5.

16. Rohrmann, B. (1994) Risk perception of different societal groups: Australian findings and cross-national

comparisons. Australian Journal of Psychology. 46: 150-163.

17. Bernstein, P.L. (1996) Against the Gods: the Remarkable Story of Risk. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., N.Y.

18. Morgan, M.G. (1993) Risk management and analysis. Scientific American. 269 (1): 24-30.

19. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. (1982) Lay foibles and expert fables in judgements about risk. American

Statistician. 36: 240-255.

20. Burgman, M.A. (2001) Flaws in subjective assessments of ecological risks and means for correcting them.

Australian Journal of Environmental Management. 8: 219-226.

21. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist. 39: 341-350.

22. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P. & Lichtenstein, S. (1977) Knowing with certainty: the appropriateness of extreme

confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 3: 552-564

23. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 185: 1124-1131.

24. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1971) Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin. 76: 105-110.

25. Regan, H.M., Colyvan, M. & Burgman, M.A. (2002) A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and

conservation biology. Ecological Applications. 12: 618-628.

28

Appendix 3Pre-workshop lists of possible values and potential threats


List of ecological values complied from Marine Coastal & Estuarine Investigation (ECC2000) and Marine Natural Values Study (Plummer et al. 2003)

Value Area

Sandy beach Pt Addis MNP

Intertidal rocky reef with rockpools Pt Addis MNP

Deeper water reef with abundant fish life Pt Addis MNP

Biota of Ingoldsby Reef, including leafy sea-dragon Pt Addis MNP

Seagrass beds - Amphibolis Pt Addis MNP

Subtidal soft sediments, with abundant epibenthos providing shelter for fish Pt Addis MNP

Pt Addis limestone - State geological significance Pt Addis MNP

Availability of biota for fishing and food collection by local Aboriginal people Pt Addis MNP

Presence of Australian Fur Seals and dolphins Pt Addis MNP

High wave-energy shoreline (suitable for surfing - Bells Beach) Pt Addis MNP

Varied geology (sandstone & basalt) with platforms, pools, fissures & boulder fields Eagle Rock MS

Diversity of invertebrates on rock platforms (intertidal and subtidal) Eagle Rock MS

Subtidal kelp forests Eagle Rock MS

Opisthobranch fauna - 96 species, 20% of which are undescribed Pt Danger MS

High invertebrate diversity on limestone substrate Pt Danger MS

Rock lobster (commercial fishery)

Abalone (commercial fishery)

List of potential threats modified from list provided by Ty Caling (PV Bairnsdale) which wasbased on SERMP report "Impacts - identifying disturbances"

Potential threat Disturbance category

Collecting of specimens by divers Biological interaction

Collection of specimens Biological interaction

Damage to habitats/organisms by divers Biological interaction

Deliberate harassment of wildlife Biological interaction

Discarding of fish Biological interaction

Disturbance by dogs Biological interaction

Disturbance to fauna by recreational boating Biological interaction

Disturbance to fauna by terrestrial vehicles Biological interaction

Illegal recreational fishing (theft) Biological interaction

Interactions with wildlife (e.g. rockpool ramble) Biological interaction

Introduction of fish bait Biological interaction

29


Predation by introduced species (e.g fox, cat) Biological interaction

Shooting Biological interaction

Unlicensed commercial fishing (theft) Biological interaction

Acts of terrorism Contaminants

Agricultural discharge (e.g. drains) Contaminants

Chemical spills from recreational activities Contaminants

Chemical spills from shipping Contaminants

Contaminants from antifouling (recreational) Contaminants

Contaminants from antifouling (shipping) Contaminants

Contaminants from ballast water discharge Contaminants

Contaminants from vessel maintenance Contaminants

Cooling water discharge from shipping Contaminants

Garbage discharges from recreational vessels Contaminants

Garbage discharges from shipping Contaminants

Grey water discharges from recreational vessels Contaminants

Grey water discharges from shipping Contaminants

Industrial discharge (e.g. dairy) Contaminants

Loss of containers Contaminants

Oil spill from shipping Contaminants

Oily waste from shipping Contaminants

Pollution from outboard operation Contaminants

Release of contaminants by dredging/disposal Contaminants

Release of contaminants from recreational groundings/sinkings Contaminants

Release of contaminants from ship groundings/sinkings Contaminants

Rupturing of gas pipelines Contaminants

Sewage discharges (recreational) Contaminants

Sewage discharges (shipping) Contaminants

Shore-based litter Contaminants

Treated wastewater (sewage) Contaminants

Urban discharge (e.g. stormwater) Contaminants

Exotic species via aquaculture stock Introduced marine species

Exotic species via ballast water discharge Introduced marine species

Exotic species via commercial fishing vessels Introduced marine species

Exotic species via feeding in aquaculture operations Introduced marine species

Exotic species via fish bait Introduced marine species

Exotic species via hull fouling of commercial shipping Introduced marine species

Exotic species via recreational vessels Introduced marine species

Exotic species via translocation of aquaculture pens Introduced marine species

Pathogens via shipping ballast water discharge Introduced pathogens

Acts of terrorism Mechanical change

30


Change to habitat by wrecked shipping Mechanical change

Damage to habitat by wrecked recreational vessels Mechanical change

Damage to habitat from anchoring of recreational vessels Mechanical change

Damage to habitat from anchoring of shipping Mechanical change

Damage to habitat from anchoring of tourism vessels Mechanical change

Damage to habitat from European artefact collection (e.g. from shipwrecks) Mechanical change

Damage to habitat from terrestrial vehicles Mechanical change

Damage/change to habitat from disposal of dredged material Mechanical change

Damage/change to habitat from dredging Mechanical change

Excavation for development Mechanical change

Injury/death of organisms from litter (e.g. fishing gear) Mechanical change

Obliteration of habitat from coastal construction Mechanical change

Propeller scour/damage from recreational vessels Mechanical change

Propeller scour/damage from shipping Mechanical change

Reclamation for development Mechanical change

Inappropriate off-site development (e.g. wind farms) Misc

Inappropriate on-site development (e.g. moorings, markers, signage) Misc

Infrastructure vandalism Misc

Noise from fishing boats Noise

Noise from recreational boating Noise

Noise from shipping Noise

Noise from tour boats Noise

Change in turbidity from agricultural discharge (e.g. drains) Turbidity / light

Change in turbidity/light from altered tidal flow Turbidity / light

Change in turbidity/light from coastal construction Turbidity / light

Change in turbidity/light from disposal of dredged material Turbidity / light

Change in turbidity/light from domestic waste disposal Turbidity / light

Change in turbidity/light from dredging Turbidity / light

Change in turbidity/light from erosion Turbidity / light

Change in turbidity/light from industrial discharge (e.g. dairy) Turbidity / light

Change in turbidity/light from sewage discharges Turbidity / light

Urban discharge (e.g. stormwater) Turbidity / light

Failure to document ecological change x

31


List of ecological values compiled from Marine Coastal & Estuarine Investigation (ECC2000) and Marine Natural Values Study (Plummer et al. 2003)

Value Area

Dramatic underwater arches and canyons with marine life striking in colour and shape 12 Apostles MNP

Imposing deep (16 - 55 m) sloping reefs offshore from Moonlight Head 12 Apostles MNP

Substrate complexity, including various geological rock types (limestone, calcarenite,

mudstone, sandstone)

12 Apostles MNP

Rocky habitats complex in form 12 Apostles MNP

Subtidal soft sediments 12 Apostles MNP

Highest diversity of intertidal and shallow subtidal invertebrates on limestone in Victoria 12 Apostles MNP

Sandstone intertidal rocky platforms around Moonlight Head, characterized by rich

intertidal an shallow subtidal invertebrate communities

12 Apostles MNP

Shoreline, rockstacks and islands providing breeding colonies for seabirds 12 Apostles MNP

Four species of threatened shorebirds (Blue Petrel, Hood. Plover, Little Egret, Wand.

Albatross)

12 Apostles MNP

Spectacular limestone arches and canyons in 19 - 25 m of water Arches MS

Invertebrates characteristic of deeper Bass Strait waters in 19 - 25 m of water Arches MS

Giant kelp forests providing important habitat for suite of marine animals Arches MS

Seabed at river mouth providing range of habitats and diverse marine life Merri MS

Rocky overhangs and canyons supporting variety of fish Merri MS

Penguin colonies (Merri & Middle Is) Merri MS

Frequent visitation by dolphins Merri MS

Flora and fauna traditionally accessed by local Aboriginal groups Merri MS

Nine species of threatened shorebirds Merri MS

Rock lobster (commercial fishery)

Abalone (commercial fishery)

Oil and gas resources

Gibsons Steps (local/regional geol/geomorph significance) Port Campbell

Twelve Apostles (National geol/geomorph significance)

Pebble Point (local/regional geol/geomorph significance) Princetown

Pt Ronald to Pt Margaret (local/regional geol/geomorph significance) Princetown

Clifton Beach (local/regional geol/geomorph significance) Princetown

Pt Ronald (local/regional geol/geomorph significance) Princetown

Loch Ard Gorge area (State geol/geomorph significance) Port Campbell

Port Campbell National Park (National geol/geomorph significance)

Note: during the workshop, several of these values were identified as lying above mean highwater mark, and therefore outside the area of interest defined for the workshop.

32

The list of potential threats used in Workshop 2 included all those listed previously for theSurf Coast, plus the following five threats:


Change in sea level due to global warming Physical change

Change in sea temperature due to global warming Physical change

Lack of co-ordination among multiple management agencies x

Lack of flexibility in management to respond to new hazards x

Single-focus management agencies x

References:

ECC. (2000) Marine Coastal & Estuarine Investigation. Final Report. Environment Conservation Council, East

Melbourne.

NOO. (2002) Impacts - identifying disturbances. The South-east Regional Marine Plan Assessment Reports.

National Oceans Office, Hobart.

Plummer, A, Morris, L, Blake, S & Ball, D (2003). Marine Natural Values Study, Victorian Marine National

Parks and Sanctuaries. Parks Victoria Technical Series No. 1, Parks Victoria, Melbourne.

33

Appendix 4Definitions of likelihood and consequence used in workshops

Likelihood

Highly likely (5): expected to occur in most circumstances

(more than 85% chance of occurring within specified time frame)

Likely (4): will probably occur in most circumstances

(50-85% chance of occurring within specified time frame)

Moderately likely (3): might occur at some time


Unlikely (2): could occur at some time


Very unlikely (1): not expected to happen

(less than 1% chance of occurring within specified time frame)

Ecological Consequences

Catastrophic (5): Major ecological kill, long-term or permanent disruption of ecological

processes, substantial ecological change.

Major (4): Likelihood of long-term or permanent, major ecological impact.

Moderate (3): Temporary ecological impact extending beyond originating

disturbance, some local or short-term ecologically important

consequences.

Minor (2): Temporary and non serious ecological impact.

Insignificant (1): No serious ecological impact.

After SA/SNZ 1999 and ICE/FIA 1998.

ICE/FIA. (1998) RAMP: Risk analysis and management for projects. Institution of Civil Engineers and the Faculty

and Institute of Actuaries. Thomas Telford, London.

SA/SNZ. (1999) Risk Management. (AS/NZS 4360:1999) Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney, and

Standards New Zealand, Wellington.

34

Appendix 5Raw data from final round of hazard ranking


Hazard Group A Group B Group C

Like Cons Risk Like Cons Risk Like Cons Risk

Harvesting in intertidal 5 3 - 4 15 - 20 5 2 10 5 3 - 4 15 - 20

Urban runoff 5 3 15 4 3 12 5 3 - 4 15 - 20

Commercial shipping 3 4 12 2 4 - 5 8 - 10 2 3 - 5 6 - 10

Community apathy 4 3 12 4 3 - 5 12 - 20 5 4 - 5 20 - 25

Inappropriate coastal

development

3 - 4 4 12 - 16 4 3 - 5 12 - 20 5 3 - 5 15 - 25

Management

complexity

3 2 - 3 6 - 9 3 - 4 2 - 3 6 - 12 4 3 - 4 12 - 16

Commercial fisheries &

habitats and non-target

species

4 3 12 4 2 - 4 8 - 16 4 3 - 4 12 - 16

Artificial opening of

estuaries

4 3 12 4 - 5 3 - 5 12 - 25 5 3 - 4 15 - 20

Lack of knowledge 5 2 - 3 10 - 15 4 1 - 5 4 - 20 5 4 20

Pollution 5 2 10 5 2 - 4 10 - 20 4 3 12

Agricultural runoff 4 3 12 3 3 9 3 - 4 3 9 - 12

Recreational boating 2 1 2 4 3 12 3 2 6

Outfalls 4 3 12 4 3 - 5 12 - 20 5 3 - 4 15 - 20

Offshore aquaculture 3 2 - 3 6 - 9 2 - 3 2 - 3 4 - 9 2 - 3 3 6 - 9

Jurisdictional

boundaries

3 2 - 3 6 - 9 3 2 - 3 6 - 9 4 2 - 3 8 - 12

Oil & gas exploration 3 - 4 2 6 - 8 4 2 - 3 8 - 12 4 3 - 4 12 - 16

35


Hazard GroupA Group B Group C Group D

Like Cons Risk Like Cons Risk Like Cons Risk Like Cons Risk

Illegal harvesting

& lobster and

abalone

4 3 12 4 5 20 3 4 12 5 3 15

Lack of

knowledge

1 - 5 1 - 5 1 - 25 5 3 15 3 3 9 5 3 15

Pest species 4 1 - 5 4 - 20 5 4 20 2 4 8 3 4 12

Water quality &

biodiversity

3 - 4 3 - 4 9 - 16 3 4 12 3 3 9 5 2 10

Habitat

destruction & fish

2 3 - 4 6 - 8 2 3 6 2 - 4 2 - 4 4 - 16 5 3 - 4 15 - 20

River flow &

water quality

4 3 12 5 4 20 3 3 9 5 3 15

Sewage & benthic

primary producers

2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 5 3 15

Trampling &

birds

4 - 5 4 16 - 20 5 5 25 2 3 6 5 5 25

Littering & birds 2 1 2 5 3 15 3 2 6 5 3 15

Agricultural

runoff

5 4 - 5 20 - 25 4 5 20 4 3 12 5 3 15

Stormwater &

sediments

4 1 - 5 4 - 20 5 4 20 4 3 12 5 4 20

Development &

biodiversity

3 - 5 1 - 5 3 - 25 3 4 12 2 4 8 5 4 20

Development &

threatened species

3 1 - 5 3 - 15 3 4 12 2 4 8 5 5 25

Illegal harvesting

& ecosystem

health

3 3 9 2 3 6 2 3 6 5 3 15

Harvesting &

threatened species

3 4 12 2 3 6 2 3 6 5 2 10

36

Appendix 6Comments by workshop participants


Was worthwhile letting group “freefall” through process to increase interest and engagement, whilealso ensuring that the objectives were achieved.

Would have been useful to view the collective ranking of the three groups.

Risk (hazard?) needs to be clearly identified and relatively narrow in focus.

Inputs and outputs (of workshop? or of individual hazards?) need to be identified.

Group size needs to be 15 - 25.

In the absence of a cross section of the community I think the outcomes of these types of workshopsleave themselves open to criticism.

Broader cross-section of communities needs to be involved in the process to better represent issues.

Larger group would have given wider knowledge; this could be achievable by holding workshopsout-of-hours.

Endeavour to run workshops out-of-hours or weekends to cater for members of the communitywho, whilst not apathetic, are otherwise unable to attend.

Potential for hard copy surveys to community: target community groups and sent out via shirenewsletters for community individuals.

Possible “achievability” parameters inputted into factors. i.e. “low hanging fruit” is easily achieved.

Anthropocentric values, explore own views.

Process good.

Very interesting day.

Day gave me a greater understanding of assessment process.


Scope is too big for one bite. For example, estuary issues could stand alone, as could the intertidalzone and the urban zone.

Risk assessment must include social and economic consequences also.

Not enough time to cover all aspects. May have been better to have been presented prior to themeeting with a list of assets and threats, and spend the day ranking risks.

Thought that the process could have benefitted from more precise scenarios for assessment. I think aconsiderable degree of non-correlation may have been due to individual interpretation.

Making the ERA process relevant to the area, e.g. with a conceptual diagram, perhaps even one fromSERMP, would have been useful to guide discussions.

Overall context seemed a little lost in the process of the day.

Hazard identification was the difficulty. Starting with a blank sheet is always a problem. Suggest thatmore specific hazards should be canvassed prior to the workshop and only additional ones developed

37

on the day. Risk assessment was problematic due to the variety of interpretations of nebulous hazards.

Definitions of terms, particularly likelihood, for the group work sessions was an issue.

I’m a bit concerned that the workshop has selected a rag bag of perceived threats. Nonetheless I thinkit’s worthwhile and interesting that the selected issues are real rather than headline-grabbing ones. Ithink the decision to do values first then threats, failed to get to the key issues quickly, although it didkeep the proceedings amicable!

The defining of values possibly required additional time to ensure the values were sufficiently tightlydefined as to ensure the threat/hazard assessment was meaningful, with all people defining thequestion/task in the same way. This would not reduce disagreement on likelihood and consequencebut would ensure all participants were in effect discussing the same issues.

Recommend though that the list of hazards could have been well defined beforehand so that more timecould have been spent actually determining the level of risk (based on likelihood and consequence) Inany case the workshop did identify key issues (irrespective of rank) for consideration by the Board.

Think that reiteration of the ranking process, i.e. the threat having the impact, not just the threatoccurring, may have assisted. Perhaps this could be achieved through some worked examples in thefirst instance.

There was not enough time to discuss the issues. Questions were not clear, and we lost time trying tounderstand what they meant. Walked out with feeling not much was achieved.

Lack of knowledge/integration/stakeholders etc as concepts seemed to be important issues, but it wasnot clearly ?????? how they fitted with this process.

The overall process of the day was also good but I think got a bit too reductionist in the details. i.e. wegot lost in the weeds and should have kept it at a higher level i.e. what are the real hot spots/areas ifany. The teams were therefore confronted with a bit too much vagueness to be really comparable andoverly negative. The main issues identified need to be discussed in more detail to sift out the realissues before doing the scoring process. It’s really a nice coast!

I believe the value of today was to identify the 15 or so issues that appear to be most pressing. Theexercise of likelihood and consequence while interesting, may not be as useful. If used theconsequences should be positive(?) drivers in developing future actions that may mitigate the effectsof a particular event that may occur - whatever the likelihood.

Group was unnecessarily large in my opinion. I appreciate stakeholder involvement but this bringswith it vested interests, bias and lack of a broad perspective. A core multi-agency NRM group couldwork up a draft for further development or scoring. More expert science is required. (This participantis an agency representative)

Good diversity of interest, profession and background among attendees.

Users/stakeholders as opposed to environmental impacts seemed not to gain muchprecedence/discussion.

Facilitation was competent and user-friendly.

Grounding and introduction to current risk assessment process was very good.

Keeping on track / to the agenda / moving along was a positive.

Presentation was comprehensive and informative. Well-constructed leading to desired outcomes.

The initial discussion on risks and risk assessment was good - highlighting problems of judgement andperception.

Temperament of the facilitator is conducive to equal participation.

38

Venue and food were fine.

Well done.

Great ??????!

Food was yummy - unless you were a vegie.

I gained a wider perspective of values and risks and our desire to be better managers.

A very useful exercise and opportunity to meet people with different ideas.

I am happy to contribute further within my capacity.

I will be interested to see how the output of this and other workshops feed in to defining specificthreats for research and management action. The next stages in quantifying risk as opposed to themore subjective approach would be an additional useful exercise but would require far more tightlydefined threats.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute an participate. It was an interesting exercise. A veryuseful process. The areas of concern expressed by the group should not be considered the onlypotential risks. Further expertise or experience should be garnered to make sure that the risksidentified are prioritised accurately.

The matrix system is interesting and hopefully will prove more detailed and therefore expansive reinformation and science. P.S. this is my first experience (of risk assessment? of workshops?) thereforeI can’t comment on the process of this workshop.

Ecological Risk Assessment for the Western Coastal Board Eco Risk/Ecological Risk... · Ecological Risk Assessment for the Western Coastal Board 1. Introduction ... Australian Standard

Documents