Wild abalone populations can be impacted through selectively bred animals recruiting into, and breeding with, wild abalone populations.

Potential genetic impacts to at-risk populations can be mitigated by means of minimising escapes from abalone sites and by farming with stock originating from the same genetic stock as the local wild populations surrounding the site.

Documentation demonstrating the origin of seed and that it originates from native wild broodstock.

Documentation has been presented demonstrating the origin of seed and that it originates from native wild broodstock.

Hatchery permits and import licences which demonstrate the source of the larvae.

If applicable, documentation that confirms crustacean production is extensive.

Hatchery permits and import licences are presented which demonstrate wild larvae is hatchery-raised.

If crustacean production is extensive and wild larvae are stocked, documents are presented demonstrating the exception in Indicator 2.3.8 is met.

Documentation (e.g. batch records) demonstrating the wild broodstock species is not listed as a Threatened Species.

The IUCN Red List can be used to check whether the wild broodstock species is listed as Threatened.

Evidence has been presented that wild broodstock is not a Threatened Species.

IUCN: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Batch records or other documentations are maintained to demonstrate stocked fish are hatchery-raised.

For Seriola/Cobia, where wild caught fingerlings are stocked, documentation demonstrating the species is not listed as a Threatened Species and records demonstrating the traceability of the fish.

The IUCN Red List can be used to check whether the species is listed as Threatened.

Traceability documentation should include the species, catch method and area in which the fish was caught.

Batch records or other documentation are presented to demonstrate stocked fish are hatchery-raised.

For Seriola/Cobia stocked from a wild fishery, adequate documentation is presented to demonstrate traceability back to the fishery and the certification of the originating fishery (to an ASC-recognised fisheries certification scheme).

IUCN: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Acoustic deterrence includes any device or method used in which acoustic (‘sound’/’noise’) is used to deter wildlife. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) and acoustic harassment devices (AHDs).

Records of the use of any aquatic acoustic deterrence, which includes the frequency and duration and duration of the deterrence.

If aquatic acoustic deterrence is used, scientific reports/publications are obtained which demonstrate that the deterrence does not result in significant stress, injuries to, or mortality of, the species impacted/targeted by the deterrence.

Records are provided to demonstrate whether any aquatic acoustic deterrence has been used.

If aquatic acoustic deterrence has been used, scientific reports/publications have been presented by the UoC to demonstrate that the deterrence does not result in significant stress, injuries to, or mortality of, the species impacted/targeted by the deterrence.

Records showing that the UoC has investigated each mortality incident and how the investigation has led to the implementation of appropriate actions to prevent recurrence.

Documents demonstrating the actions have been implemented and prevented recurrence.

Investigations have taken place following each mortality event.

Actions have been implemented to prevent recurrence of wildlife mortalities.

Indicator 2.1.1 and Appendix 3.1 outline the site-specific Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) following the Standardised Risk Methodology.

Mitigation measures may need to be implemented to manage Human-Wildlife Conflict within the site and in the area surrounding the site.

The risk level and identified mitigation measures (if applicable) should be identified in the ERA.

The ERA assesses the risk of Human-Wildlife Conflict. Evidence should be presented to demonstrate whether the risk is low.

Mitigation measures implemented to manage Human-Wildlife Conflict to maintain the low risk level.

The ERA has assessed the risk of Human-Wildlife Conflict and determined the risk level is low.

Mitigation measures are implemented (if required and recommended by the ERA) to maintain the low risk level.

Coastal barriers can be either artificial or natural and mitigate concerns relating to storm or flood risks. The ERA will assess the required width of the coastal barrier to mitigate these risks.

Communities can also access marine resources through the maintenance of a coastal barrier.

The UoC shall ensure the width of the coastal barrier is at least 100m, or greater if the ERA determines the coastal barrier needs to be wider.

The ERA has determined the suitable width of the coastal barrier.

The maintained coastal barrier has a minimum width of 100m or greater, as determined by the ERA.

Spatial data and maps can provide evidence of the width of the coastal barrier and its maintenance.

The ERA has assessed the width of the coastal barrier.

The coastal barrier is 100m or greater, as determined by the ERA.

Spatial data or maps are presented to demonstrate the width of the coastal barrier and that it is maintained.

Riparian zones provide a buffer between natural waterbodies and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems.

The ERA will determine the minimum width of the riparian zone which needs to be maintained to ensure the functioning of the zone.

The UoC shall ensure the width of the riparian zone is at least 15m, or greater if the ERA determines the buffer zone needs to be wider.

The ERA report demonstrates the required width of the riparian zone.

The site ensures the riparian zone is maintained and is at least 15m wide. The buffer zone shall be wider if determined by the ERA.

The ERA report has assessed the suitable width and functioning of the riparian zone.

The width of the riparian zone is at least 15m, or wider as determined by the ERA.

Evidence has been presented, e.g. spatial data and maps, demonstrating the riparian zone is maintained at 15m or greater (as determined by the ERA).

GIS portal: GIS portal – ASC International (asc-aqua.org)

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005): Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations: Riparian buffer width, vegetative cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness: A review of current science and regulations

Climate ADAPT (2023): Establishment and restoration of riparian buffers: Establishment and restoration of riparian buffers.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (2005): Review of Riparian Buffer Zone Effectiveness: Review of Riparian Buffer Zone Effectiveness.

Maintaining wildlife corridors mitigates impacts on biodiversity and allows for wildlife movement across larger landscapes within their habitats or natural ranges.

The ERA shall determine whether any wildlife corridors are present within the site and whether the site has taken adequate measures to maintain them.

The ERA demonstrates whether wildlife corridors are present within the site and whether the corridors are adequately maintained.

Spatial data and maps over a relevant timescale can determine if wildlife corridors are maintained.

Whether the ERA report has identified the presence of wildlife corridors within the site.

If present, the ERA determines the site is maintaining the wildlife corridors.

The UoC has presented maps or spatial data to demonstrate wildlife corridors have been maintained.

GIS portal: GIS portal – ASC International (asc-aqua.org)