The University of Western Australia:
Environmental Planning, Management and Sustainability EART3304
Examination of Fish Assemblages within
Sanctuary and Non-Sanctuary Zones
of Marmion Marine Park, Western Australia:
PROPOSAL
Matt Frapple
Stephanie Marjanovich
Derek Miller
Jacey Mills
Jeremy Payet
August 2008
Examination of Fish Assemblages within Sanctuary and NonSanctuary Zones of Marmion Marine Park, Western Australia.
Marmion Marine Park lies at the southern end of one of the largest reef systems in South Western
Australia. All fishing and collecting, both recreational and commercial, is officially prohibited from three
sanctuary zones in the Marine Park. Little Island is located one kilometre West of Hillarys Boat Harbour.
The little Island reefs are biologically rich, housing several rare and endangered species like cowries, sea
lions and many pelagic and demersal fish. In 1999 Little Island was made a no take fishing sanctuary
zone.
According to the Marmion Marine Park Management Plan (1992), a sanctuary zone should encompass
1/3 of all the bioregions in the area. However, the Little Island Sanctuary zone includes only 5% of the
bioregions of the park (DEC 2008). Additionally, these sanctuary zones account for only 0.44% of the
Marine Park’s area. The reef and lagoons of little Island provide intrinsic beauty and aesthetic value to
many recreational divers, boaters and swimmers. Since 1965 the increase in housing and population on
the Marmion Marine Park coastline has impacted on the park. Qualitative studies during the 1980’s
discovered a decline in several marine species contributed to by this.
The zonation of sanctuary areas contained within the Marmion Marine Park is an essential part of the
Marmion Marine Park Management plan (1992) (DEC 1999). In 2004, marine parks and reserves
conducted transect dives and baited camera counts of pelagic fish within Little Island. Information sharing
offers have been extended to DEC and have been welcomed.
Aims




Develop a Pelagic Fish Count Database inside and outside of a sanctuary zone.
Examine the effects of total fishing bans on fish stocks.
Account for the effectiveness of sanctuary zones within marine parks.
Examine the feasibility of extending sanctuary zones.
Commercial and non-commercial fishing activities constantly draw on the ocean as a source of
income and recreation. This places considerable pressures on the environment and targeted fish species,
which can easily experience population collapse. As the environment is static and constantly changing,
particularly close to anthropogenic activities, it is important to periodically evaluate structures that protect
and offer refuge to selected species. Our research will evaluate the effectiveness of marine sanctuaries;
important no fishing zone refuges, in offering protection and allowing the eventual replenishment of fish
stocks to the surrounding areas.
We will generate new knowledge on the long term benefits of a marine sanctuary in the Southwest region.
The research will help to quantitatively identify whether marine sanctuaries provide a real refuge for
targeted fish species from consumptive fishing activities. Outcomes from the research will provide marine
resource managers with the information needed to assess the value of such establishments, and whether
it is worth extending these sanctuary zones to boost fish stocks. This can also be combined with primary
data on current fish abundances to develop future marine protected areas, within the Marmion Marine
Park and adjacent areas.
Being a comparative study, two plots have been selected (Sanctuary and Non-Sanctuary) with similar site
characteristics. Should the research find it beneficial for the extension of a sanctuary, our “non-sanctuary”
site can serve as an example of a characteristic area that can be rezoned.
There is limited modification of the techniques and methodology as the project draws on these from
previous comparative marine studies in the area. These were carried out the Department of Environment
and Conservation (Dec, formerly CALM) through the use of live baited cameras, and transect dives. We
plan to use the same techniques, but with a greater number of replicate dives to generate a more precise
estimation of pelagic fish numbers.
A survey will be conducted to examine the fish assemblages of Little Island Sanctuary within
Marmion Marine Park to a selected Non-Sanctuary area within the Park. Transects measuring
approximately 300 m will be laid to transect prominent, shore-parallel limestone ridges which form
extensive reefs systems separated by sandy depressions in 3-10 m depth (Searle and Semeniuk, 1985)
over the length of the Sanctuary. These will be replicated three times approximately 50 m apart to
encompass the Sanctuary’s width. Identification of fish species in situ will be provided via video footage
1
from an underwater camera held underwater using SCUBA apparatus; video recording will be done using
a Sony miniDV recorder with frames being linked at 10 second intervals along each transect. Boat
position, heading and speed are to be logged from a differential GPS while water depth will be accessed
from the vessel’s echo sounder. Complementary diving to collect specimens will occur in the chances to
resolve ambiguities if any misinterpretations occur during analysis of video footage. A description of the
proposed research plan is highlighted below:
Research Plan
Field Work Supervisor
Unit of study/Research/Project etc
Field work description
Dates of field work
Transport arrangements
What will be the contact arrangement with the
University or other reputable contact?
What shall University staff/reputable contact do
if no contact is made?
Dr. Bryan J. Boruff (Primary)
Environmental Planning, Management and
Sustainability EART3304
Collect fish assemblage and habitat data using
underwater cam recorders towed by boat and
scuba
22/09/08 – 10/10/08
Drive to Hilary’s Boat Harbour. Launch boat at
Harbour. Conduct research in ocean from boat
Will contact primary (or alternate when primary
unavailable) field work supervisor every day in
field by phone or email
Attempt to contact field work leader direct to
personal phone or nominated contact point
(Field Work Supervisor will be advised of this
contact point within accompanying Field Work
Plan)
The park is exposed to west and south-west oceanic swells year round; precautions will be taken to
ensure work in the field is carried out on calm, sunny days. Dates of field work are expected to span over
a three week period falling between 22/09/09 to 10/10/08; five full days expected to be undertaken.
Budget
TRAVEL
Toyota Corolla
Ford Longreach Ute
Boat
Scuba Set Hire
Scuba Tanks
CONTRIBUTIONS
Equipment Provided
Access to Computers
Printing
BALANCE






PER
DAY
TOTAL
(5 days)
JUSTIFICATION
$20.00
$45.00
$50.00
$30.00
$5.00
$100.00
$225.00
$250.00
$450.00
$75.00
~ 40 km (Perth Hilary’s Return)
Tow Boat
~10 km (round trip of Study Site)
Field work; three sets
Refill with Oxygen (2 dives per day);
three scuba tanks
($1 100.00)
Record footage
Accumulate and analyse data
Produce a document
-
Contacts
Geography must be contacted ASAP if any situation occurs that requires emergency procedures.
Contacts are, in prioritized order:
Bryan Boruff:
Hans Lambers: 6488 7381
Plant Biology secretary: 6488 2206
Decompression Chamber - Fremantle Hospital PH: (08) 9431 3333
Diving Emergency Service; national emergency assistance: 1800 088 200
Water Police: 9442 8600
Ambulance and Police: 000 (landline) or 112 (mobile)
Radio Contact for Sea rescue State Wide:
Marine 27MHz Band:
27.90 & 27.88
Marine VHF:
Ch 16 & Ch 73
MF/HF: (monitored 0730-0530 daily,
2182, 4125, 4146, 6125, 8291
or by appointment)
2
The research conducted on the Marmion Marine Park has the potential to result in economic and
social benefits on both a local and national level. The project is expected to conclude that diversity and
abundance of fish species is higher in the ‘no-take’ sanctuary zone in comparison to the general use
zone, thus showing clear benefits for conserving fish species. Economic benefits are expected due to the
‘spill over effects’ associated with sanctuary zones, which can considerably increase the size and
abundance of commercially targeted species. Social benefits stem for an increased level of protection for
endemic and threatened species. ‘No-take’ zones provide an improved opportunity for ecotourism and
passive recreational activities, such as dive charters run within the zone. Marine parks also represent an
opportunity for research and community education.
Although the research is clearly specific to the local region and its pressures, Marine Parks and Marine
Protected Areas have been established throughout Australia, and the number is expected to increase as
conservation becomes a major issue. The research can be used as a starting point to encourage similar
studies in other locations, including the investigation of sanctuary zone size requirements to provide
maximum benefit and sufficient buffer area. There is the expectation that the research may make
planners, policy makers and the community more aware of the benefits of sanctuary zones as a method
of preserving the marine environment and therefore influence the upgrade of new and existing Marine
Park general use zones to sanctuary zones. Although this may cause an initial catch decline as
fishermen are restricted from the zone, long-term positive economic benefits are expected due to the
increased sustainability of the fishing industry. Thus fishing can be improved with sensible placement of
sanctuary areas. Protecting marine biodiversity through an integrated ecosystem-based management
plan is essential for preservation and recovery of all species and habitats.
The research that is to be collected will be a combination of previous data from the Department of
Environment if attainable along with a collection of our own results taken from the field. The results will be
presented to the wider public by providing a detailed report that will summarise the major findings. To
further communicate the major findings and concepts explored, information will be presented as a website
that will be easy to access and use. A public forum will also be set to provide an open opportunity to
discuss within the wider community the aim of the project and results along with public feedback.
The majority of the project will comprise an equal workload ethic and responsibilities to be carried
by each member of the group. However, as for example, data collection will require boat and scuba
qualifications, members in the group that have these individual requirements will partake in these
activities. Subsequently those that do not have their diver’s ticket, contributions will be made by putting in
extra computational time entering data or other such tasks. Overall group dynamics range widely, and
have their own fields of expertise covering a diverse range of interests and areas of management (as can
be seen below).
Participant Summary
PERSON
FAMILY
NUMBER
NAME
1
Frapple
2
Marjanovich
3
Miller
INITIALS
M. J.
S.
D. J.
4
Mills
J. L.
3
Payet
J. L. T.
4
Boruff
B. J.
COURSE/SCHOOL
ROLE
Marine & Coastal Management
Marine Science & Zoology
Conservation Biology &
Environmental Management
Geography & Environmental
Management
Conservation Biology &
Management
Geography
Student
Student
Student
Student
Student
Supervisor
REFERENCES
Searle, D. J. and Semeniuk, V. (1985). The natural sector of the inner Rottnest Shelf coast adjoining the Swan
Coastal Plain. J. R. Society of Western Australia. Volume 67 pp 116-136.
Department of Conservation and Land Management and the National Parks and Nature
Conservation Authority. (1992). Marmion Marine Park Management Plan 1992 - 2002.
Management Plan No. 23. CALM, Perth.
Edwards, C. (1999). DEC.
Justin, S. (2008). Marmion Marine Park Ranger. DEC.
3
JSEA No:
Job Safety Environmental Analysis (JSEA) Part (A)
Revision No:
1
Name of person preparing JSEA: Euan Harvey
Signature:
Date: 22/08/08
Date issued:
18/08/08
Approval: Project Manager Name: Hans Lambers
Signature:
Date: 22/08/08
Job Description:
Marmion Camera Fish Surveys
Location:
Marmion Marine Park
PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE: BPRM, PGD Dip Marine Science, PhD Marine Science, 20 years of commercial and recreational boating experience, 14 years
of Scientific Boating experience.
PLANT/EQUIPMENT: Sea Wanderer, UWA Stereo-BRUVS, Hydraulic pot hauler, navigation software and hardware
REFERENCES: – Drawings, Specifications, Documents (attach) Applicable Legislation, Licences, Permit Type, Acts, Regulations, Standards, Codes and Procedures.
SKM Risk Matrix
Determine the Consequence (C )
5
People Local treatment with short
recovery - minor short term
health effects.
Environment Onsite release, containable with
minimal damage. Localised
impact on energy usage.
Determine the
Likelihood
Community Workforce concern
4
3
Medical treatment required or short
term acute health effects.
2
1
Lost Time Injury (off work recovery
required) or short / medium term
health issues.
Major onsite release with some
Offsite release, no significant
damage, no offsite damage. Numerous environmental damage. Remediation
and/or widespread but small scale
in terms of weeks.
impacts on energy and waste.
Remediation in terms of days.
Extensive injuries or chronic health issues.
Single fatality or permanent disability.
Major offsite release, short to medium term
environmental damage. Remediation in
terms of months.
Major offsite release, long term
environmental damage. Remediation in
terms of years.
Local community concern
Widespread reputation loss to single
business unit, widespread community
outcry.
Widespread reputation loss to more than
one business unit, extreme community
outcry nationally.
Regional concern
A
Almost
certain
Medium
High
Very High
Very High
Very High
B
Probable
Medium
Medium
High
Very High
Very High
C
Possible
Low
Medium
Medium
High
Very High
D
Unlikely
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
High
E
Very
unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Step 1
Step 2
Determine the severity of the consequences
Determine the likelihood that the hazard will cause an incident
Step 3
Step 4
Analyse the TRUE RISK (Very High, High, Medium,
Low
Develop control measures, using hierarchy of control
Step 5
Note:
Determine RESIDUAL RISK (Steps 1-3 above)
Significant risks are those determined as being Very High or High
Risk Levels
Actions
Very High
Very High: Risks are intolerable for OHS. Do not commence or continue at this risk level for OHS risks. Implement control measures to ensure the risk level is reduced. Communicate and consult thoroughly on nonHSEC risks to ensure the positive benefits outweigh the negative impacts.
High
High risk: Risk is undesirable. Verify, and where possible quantify, the accuracy and certainty for the existing risk level. Implement control measures to ensure risk level is reduced to or is confirmed to be As Low As
Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). Operation at this level requires management approval.
Medium
Medium risk: Are only tolerated if examination proves them to be ALARP. Implement management plans to prevent the occurrence and monitor for changes. Reduce to Low Risk if the benefits outweigh the cost.
Low
Low risk: Are acceptable. Review at next review interval.
4
JSEA No:
Job Safety Environmental Analysis (JSEA) Part (B)
Stage 1
Break the activity into steps. Each of the stage should be logical and describe the step in simple terms.
Stage 2
Identify the hazards associated with each step. Consider uncontrolled sources such as Gravity, Electrical, Mechanical, Manual Handling, Pressure, etc.
Stage 3
Using the risk ranking as defined in Part A. Rank the Consequence and Likelihood of the hazard becoming actual. C =Consequence: L =Likelihood: R = Risk.
Stage 4
Develop controls necessary to manage the hazards. Consider the Hierarchy of Controls starting at Elimination to Personnel Protective Equipment.
Stage 5
Using the risk rankling as defined in Part A Re-rank the Consequence and Likelihood to determine if the controls have reduced the risk to an acceptable level.
Stage 6
Nominate the person responsible for managing / working to the controls as nominated
S3: RISK
RATING
Stage 1
Job Step
Stage 2
EHS Hazards
S5:RISK
RATING
C
L
R
Stage 4
Solution / Control Measures
C
L
R
Stage 6
Res: person
Travel to and from launching facilities
Traffic Accident / Incident
3
C
M
Follow 8 golden safety rules and ensure
competent drivers
5
D
L
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper)
Setup of Scuba gear onto research
vessel
Heavy weight of gear may cause
back strain
5
C
L
Reduce loads to smallest component. Make
people aware of weight and encourage correct
carrying procedures
5
D
L
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper)
Daily mobilisation and demobilisation
on vessel
Crushing of limbs
3
C
M
Mobilise and demobilise in sheltered waters
and at proper facilities. Crew to follow
instructions of team leader and skipper
4
E
L
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper)
Damage to gear, equipment or
vessel
5
D
L
Launch and recover in sheltered waters and at
proper facilities. Crew to follow instructions of
skipper
5
D
L
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper)
Harm from marine Life, e.g.
possible contact with Stingers
5
C
L
Supply gloves cotton gloves, ensure an
appropriate first aid kit on board
5
D
L
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper) and crew
Crushed feet from camera or
other heavy items
4
C
M
Ensure all persons are wearing suitable
footwear
4
E
L
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper) and crew
Sea sickness resulting in
dehydration
5
C
L
Ensure that those personnel prone to sea
sickness take medication prior to going out on
the water and that tasks involving looking at the
screen and computer are minimised for those
people
5
D
L
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper) and crew
Sunburn and dehydration
5
C
L
Ensure people have sunhats, sunscreen and
adequate drinking water and shelter from sun.
5
D
L
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper) and crew
Man overboard and potential
drowning
1
E
M
Ensure adequate life jackets on board vessel
and that all crew are wearing Personal
Floatation Devices. Skipper to ensure head
counts and clear communication between deck
person and skipper
1
E
M
Team leader: Matt Frapple
(skipper) and crew
5