Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

Marine Produce Australia: 

Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture 

Environmental Monitoring & 

Management Plan (EMMP) 

December 2011

\\oce-per-fs1\projects\MarineProduceAustralia\864_01ConeBayAquacultureExpansion\001_APIPreparation\Reports\Report_1\MPA 

EMMP_864010011_Rev7_20111206.docm 

Marine Produce Australia: 

Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture 

Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan (EMMP) 

Prepared for 

Marine Produce Australia 

Prepared by 

Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd 

December 2011 

Report No. 864_01_001/1

Client: Marine Produce Australia 

Revisions history 

Revision Author 

A 

D. Payne 

(MPA) 

B G. Shiell 

C G. Shiell 

D G. Shiell 

E G. Shiell 

Rev0 G. Shiell 


Recipients 

DISTRIBUTION REVIEW 

No. copies & 

format 

Date Reviewer Intent Date 

G. Shiell 1 x .docx 27/1/11 G. Shiell 30/1/11 

D. Payne 

G. Westbrook 

D. Payne 

G. Westbrook 

D. Payne 

G. Westbrook 

MPA 

Oceanica 

MPA 

OEPA 

MPA 

K. Hillman 

Rev2 G. Shiell OEPA 





G. Shiell 


MPA 

OEPA 

MPA 

OEPA 

Oceanica 

MPA 

K. Hillman 

OEPA 

MPA 

Oceanica 

MPA 

K. Hillman 

OEPA 

MPA 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

MPA 

Oceanica 

1 x .pdf 17/2/11 M. Bailey 18/2/11 

1 x .pdf 18/2/11 

1 x .pdf 21/2/11 

1 x .pdf 9/3/11 

1 x .pdf 

2 x Hardcopy 

1 x .pdf 21/4/11 

1 x .pdf 

2 x Hardcopy 

D. Payne 

G. Westbrook 

D. Payne 

G. Westbrook 

MPA 

D. Payne 

K. Hillman 

18/2/11 

3/3/11 

8/3/11 

11/3/11 OEPA 1/4/11 

MPA 

K. Hillman 

21/4/11 

29/4/11 OEPA 2/5/11 

1 x .pdf 2/5/11 OEPA 6/5/11 

2 x Hardcopy 

1 x .pdf 

2 x Hardcopy 

2 x Hardcopy 

1 x .pdf 

2 x Hardcopy 

1 x .pdf 

1 x .pdf 

2 x Hardcopy 

16/5/11 

21/11/11 

17/11/11 

22/11/11 

MPA 

K. Hillman 

1 x .pdf 29/11/11 MPA 

10xHardcopy 

25 x .pdf 

K. Hillman 

1 x .pdf 

1 x .pdf 

2 x Hardcopy 

2 x Hardcopy 

1 x .pdf 

2 x Hardcopy 

1 x.pdf 

2 x Hardcopy 

1 x .pdf 

30/11/11 OEPA 

7/12/11 

Client 

Tech 

Client 

Tech 

21/11/11 

20/11/11

Quality Assurance 

The current version of this report has been subject to the following level of Quality Assurance: 

Level Definition Status 

A: Full 

B: Partial 

Underlying data, calculations and data entry have been checked. Report format has 

been checked and contents have been reviewed and signed off by Director. 

Some data and underlying calculations have been checked. Report format has been 

checked. Review has been undertaken by a third-party. 

C: Minimal No formal review completed. 

Status 

This report is “Draft” until the author and director have signed it off for final release. A “Draft” report should not be 

used for any purpose other than to be reviewed with the intention of generating a “Final” version. 

Approved for final release: 

Author: Dr Glenn Shiell Director: Dr Karen Hillman 

Disclaimer 

This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Marine Produce Australia, and is subject to 

and issued in accordance with the agreed terms and scope between Marine Produce Australia and 

Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd. Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility for it in respect of any 

use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. 

Copying this report without prior written consent of Marine Produce Australia or Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd is not 

permitted. 

Cover 

Main image: Barramundi sea cages, Cone Bay (Oceanica Consulting); 

Minor images: Barramundi stock in sea cage (Oceanica Consulting); Cone Bay sunset (Oceanica Consulting). 

The Oceanica logo is a registered trademark of Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd that is protected by law. You may not 

use this trademark without first obtaining the permission of Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd. 

© Copyright 2011 Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd

Contents 

1.� Purpose of this document: EMMP ..................................................................................... 1� 

1.1� Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 1� 

1.2� Implementation strategy ........................................................................................................ 2� 

2.� Background .......................................................................................................................... 5� 

2.1� Approvals history ................................................................................................................... 5� 

2.2� Benthic habitats of Cone Bay ............................................................................................... 5� 

2.2.1� Extent of habitats observed ......................................................................................... 5� 

2.3� Environmental factors considered ....................................................................................... 9� 

2.3.1� Site selection ............................................................................................................. 10� 

2.3.2� Benthic primary producing habitats ........................................................................... 10� 

2.3.3� Marine water quality .................................................................................................. 10� 

2.3.4� Marine sediments ...................................................................................................... 11� 

2.4� MPA environmental policy statement ................................................................................ 11� 

3.� Environmental Objectives ................................................................................................. 12� 

3.1� Best-practice marine farming .............................................................................................. 12� 

3.2� Best-practice environmental management ........................................................................ 12� 

3.3� Environmental performance indicators/criteria ................................................................ 12� 

4.� Marine Monitoring Program .............................................................................................. 14� 

4.1� Water quality monitoring ..................................................................................................... 14� 

4.1.1� Objectives .................................................................................................................. 14� 

4.1.2� Responsibility............................................................................................................. 14� 

4.1.3� Timing ........................................................................................................................ 14� 

4.1.4� Sampling regime ........................................................................................................ 14� 

4.1.5� Environmental Quality Criteria ................................................................................... 17� 

4.2� Sediment quality monitoring ............................................................................................... 22� 

4.2.1� Objectives .................................................................................................................. 22� 


4.2.3� Timing ........................................................................................................................ 22� 



4.3� Coral reef monitoring ........................................................................................................... 26� 

4.3.1� Objectives .................................................................................................................. 26� 


4.3.3� Timing ........................................................................................................................ 26� 



4.4� Sediment infauna monitoring .............................................................................................. 30� 

4.4.1� Objectives .................................................................................................................. 30� 


4.4.3� Timing ........................................................................................................................ 30� 



4.5� Biota monitoring and management .................................................................................... 34� 

4.5.1� Objectives .................................................................................................................. 34� 


4.5.3� Timing ........................................................................................................................ 34� 

Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan i

4.5.4� Implementation and management ..............................................................................34� 

5.� Marine Environmental Management Program ................................................................. 36� 

5.1� Assessing the EQG .............................................................................................................. 36� 

5.1.1� TSS and LAC .............................................................................................................36� 

5.1.2� Ammonia and DO .......................................................................................................38� 

5.1.3� Chlorophyll-a ..............................................................................................................39� 

5.1.4� Sediment quality .........................................................................................................39� 

5.2� Assessing the EQS .............................................................................................................. 40� 

5.2.1� Infauna species richness ............................................................................................40� 

5.2.2� Assessment of imagery ..............................................................................................41� 

5.2.3� LAC and TSS (LOI) ....................................................................................................41� 

5.3� Monitoring-management feedback loop ............................................................................ 41� 

5.4� Contingency management .................................................................................................. 43� 

5.4.1� Fallowing of sea-cages...............................................................................................43� 

5.4.2� Movement of stock .....................................................................................................44� 

5.4.3� Reduction of stocking densities ..................................................................................44� 

5.4.4� Reduction of feed input rates .....................................................................................44� 

5.5� Timelines for remedying the source of an exceedance ................................................... 44� 

6.� Auditing & EMMP review ................................................................................................... 45� 

6.1� Internal auditing ................................................................................................................... 45� 

6.2� EMMP review ........................................................................................................................ 45� 

7.� Stakeholder Consultation ................................................................................................. 46� 

7.1� Details of stakeholder consultation ................................................................................... 46� 

7.2� Feedback received ............................................................................................................... 47� 

8.� Additional information ....................................................................................................... 48� 

8.1� Proponent responsibilities .................................................................................................. 48� 

8.1.1� General Manager .......................................................................................................48� 

8.1.2� Farm manager ............................................................................................................48� 

8.1.3� Technical manager .....................................................................................................48� 

8.1.4� Site supervisor ............................................................................................................48� 

8.1.5� Farm attendant ...........................................................................................................49� 

8.2� Disease management and chemical usage ....................................................................... 49� 

8.3� Risk assessment .................................................................................................................. 50� 

8.4� Waste management plan ..................................................................................................... 53� 

8.5� Decommissioning plan ........................................................................................................ 53� 

9.� Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 55� 

10.� References .......................................................................................................................... 56� 

ii Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1� Location of the MPA aquaculture lease, Cone Bay, Western Australia ................... 1� 

Figure 2.1� Extent of coral and seagrass habitats observed during towed video surveys ......... 7� 

Figure 2.2� Hypothetical horizontal and vertical structure of a fringing coral reef ...................... 9� 

Figure 3.1� Management response protocol from EPA (2005a) with the relationship 

between the two types of EQC on the left hand side and the associated 

environmental condition on the right hand side ..................................................... 13� 

Figure 4.1� Environmental monitoring sites with existing and proposed ecological 

protection areas ..................................................................................................... 16� 

Figure 4.2� EQG and EQS in the context of likely cause-effect-pathways ............................... 17� 

Figure 4.3� Sampling protocol for MEPA sediment nutrients ................................................... 23� 

Figure 4.4� Coral health chart developed by the Coral Watch program ................................... 27� 

Figure 5.1� Decision scheme for applying the EQG relevant to 'gradient of effect' sites .......... 38� 

Figure 5.2� Narrative decision scheme for applying the EQC for water quality ........................ 42� 

Figure 5.3� Narrative decision scheme for applying the EQC for sediment quality .................. 43� 

Figure 8.1� Component Tree - Biological/Environmental Effects of the finfish sea-cage 

industry (vom Berg 2008, modified from Fletcher et al. 2004) ............................... 50� 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1� Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives to be applied in 

Western Australia’s coastal waters .......................................................................... 2� 

Table 1.2� Levels of Ecological Protection for EQO 1: Maintenance of Ecosystem 

Integrity .................................................................................................................... 2� 

Table 1.3� Proponent’s key management actions, targets and objectives and the 

evidence to be provided ........................................................................................... 2� 

Table 1.4� Additional actions and estimated completion dates ................................................. 4� 

Table 4.1� Suite of water quality parameters to be measured on each sampling 

occasion ................................................................................................................. 15� 

Table 4.2� EQG for water quality ............................................................................................ 18� 

Table 4.3� EQS for water quality ............................................................................................. 20� 

Table 4.4� Suite of sediment quality parameters to be measured on each sampling 

occasion ................................................................................................................. 22� 

Table 4.5� EQG for sediments ................................................................................................ 24� 

Table 4.6� EQS for sediments ................................................................................................. 25� 

Table 4.7� EQG for coral reef monitoring ................................................................................ 27� 

Table 4.8� EQS for coral reef monitoring ................................................................................ 28� 

Table 4.9� EQG for infauna monitoring ................................................................................... 31� 

Table 4.10� EQS for infauna monitoring ................................................................................... 33� 

Table 7.1� List of stakeholder groups contacted ..................................................................... 46� 

Table 7.2� Feedback received from stakeholder groups ......................................................... 47� 

Table 8.1� Risk matrix – numbers in cells indicate risk value, the colours/shades 

indicate risk rankings (from Fletcher et al. 2004). .................................................. 51� 

Table 8.2� Risk rankings and outcomes (from Fletcher et al. 2004) ....................................... 51� 

Table 8.3� Summary of issues & risk rankings ........................................................................ 51� 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A � Ministerial Statement 798� 

Appendix B � Method Statement: Geo-referenced Habitat Surveys� 

Appendix C � Sample Site Waypoints� 

Appendix D � Letter to Stakeholders� 

Appendix E � Responses to comments received on earlier versions of the EMMP 

� 

Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan iii

1. Purpose of this document: EMMP 

1.1 Objectives 

This document�the Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan (EMMP Rev5)�relates to 

the proposal by Marine Produce Australia (MPA) to culture up to 2000 tonnes/annum of 

Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) in Cone Bay, approximately 215 km north-northeast of Broome, 

Western Australia (Figure 1.1). The objective of the EMMP is to ensure the proposal is 

managed to achieve the relevant Environmental Values (EV) and Environmental Quality 

Objectives (EQO), as outlined by the Government of Western Australia (2003, 2004) and the 

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (2005a, 2005b). 

The EV and EQO for application in Western Australia’s coastal waters are provided in 

Table 1.1. Although MPA was required to consider each of the EQO in the context of the 

aquaculture proposal, not all of the EQOs were of direct relevance (i.e. maintenance of water 

suitable for industry is unlikely to ever be an issue in Cone Bay). To that end, the EMMP has 

been designed in the context of the EQO1�Maintenance of ecosystem integrity�as this is the 

EQO most likely to be adversely affected by the proposal. This is also a conservative 

approach as EQO1 has the most stringent requirements for environmental quality. 

Figure 1.1 Location of the MPA aquaculture lease, Cone Bay, Western Australia 

Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan 1

Table 1.1 Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives to be applied in 

Western Australia’s coastal waters 

Environmental Value Environmental Quality Objective 

Ecosystem Health EQO1 Maintenance of ecosystem integrity 

Fishing and Aquaculture 

Recreation and Aesthetics 

Industrial Water Supply 

EQO2 (i) Maintenance of aquatic life for human consumption 

EQO2 (ii) Maintenance of aquaculture 

EQO3 Maintenance of primary contact recreation values 

EQO4 Maintenance of secondary contact recreation values 

EQO5 Maintenance of aesthetic values 

EQO6 Maintenance of water suitable for industry use 

The environmental requirements for EQO1 vary according to the level of ecological protection 

assigned to an area (as per EPA 2005a). Three levels of ecological protection are relevant to 

this EMMP (Table 1.2). 

Table 1.2 Levels of Ecological Protection for EQO 1: Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity 

Level of Ecological 

Protection 

Contaminant concentration 

indicators 

Limit of acceptable change 

Maximum Protection No contaminants - pristine No detectable changes from natural variation 

High protection Very low levels of contaminants Some small changes from natural variation 

Moderate protection Elevated levels of contaminants Moderate changes from natural variation 

Environmental quality is assessed and managed based on two types of Environmental Quality 

Criteria (EQC): Environmental Quality Guidelines (EQG) and Environmental Quality 

Standards (EQS). If an EQG is exceeded there is uncertainty that the EQO is met, and this 

triggers further assessment against the EQS: if the EQS is also exceeded then the level of 

risk is considered unacceptable and management is triggered (refer also to Section 3.3). 

1.2 Implementation strategy 

The EMMP provides details of the type and extent of environmental monitoring to be 

undertaken, and outlines the management responses should the EQS be triggered. The 

results of the monitoring program, including the extent to which the EQC have been met, will 

be reported in the Annual Compliance Reports. 

Underpinning the EMMP is a requirement to meet the Proponent’s Commitments (PER 2007) 

and Conditions 5-1 to 5-5 of Ministerial Statement 798 (Appendix A). Table 1.3 provides 

details of these Conditions and Commitments and indicates the steps to be taken by the 

Proponent to ensure they’re met. 

Table 1.3 Proponent’s key management actions, targets and objectives and the evidence to be 

provided 

Key Management Action Target/Objective 

The Proponent shall submit to the CEO of 

the Department of Environment and 

Conservation1 Annual Compliance 

Reports annually reporting on the 

previous twelve months 

Prior to stocking on pens, the Proponent 

shall prepare and commence implementation 

of the EMMP to the requirements 

of the DEC1 and DoF 

The EMMP required by condition 5-1 shall 

include the monitoring of specific 

parameters within the water column and 

sediment as Environmental Quality 

Guidelines (EQG) indicators; set out the 

process for the development and 

application of Environmental Quality 

Standards (EQS) within three years, and 

specify the format for annual reporting of 

monitoring results. 

To fulfill Condition 4-1 

of Ministerial 

Statement 798. 




To develop an appropriate 

EMMP including a series of 

indicators and triggers, 

exceedance of which will 

require management and 

where necessary, 

restoration of 

environmental quality to 

comply with the specified 

level of ecological 

protection. 

OEPA 

reporting/evidence 

EMMP prepared and 

implemented to the 

requirements of DEC1 

and Department of 

Fisheries (DoF) 




and DoF 




and DoF. 

Annual compliance 

report (as 

appropriate). 

Laboratory test results. 

Status 

2 Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan

Key Management Action Target/Objective 

During the development of the EMMP, 

the proponent shall regularly monitor 

sediment and/or water column for the 

following parameters: chlorophyll-a 

concentration; light attenuation coefficient; 

dissolved nutrients; dissolved 

oxygen and redox discontinuity, to 

determine whether the interim EQGs are 

being achieved. 

The proponent shall meet the following 

Proponents Commitment’s as provided in 

the PER, and summarized in EPA 

Report 1035: 

Prepare a water quality management 

program as part of the EMMP; 

Prepare a benthic quality management 


Prepare a mangrove management 


Prepare a coral management program as 

part of the EMMP. 

In the event that a guideline “trigger” 

level referred to in condition 5-3 is 

exceeded, the proponent shall report the 

matter to the Department of 

Environment and Conservation1 within 

one working day of determining that this 

has occurred, and the proponent shall: 

initiate an investigation against the EQS 

into the cause of the exceedance in 

accordance with the framework 

developed in the State Water Quality 

Management Strategy No. 6: 

Implementation Framework for Western 

Australia for the Australian and New 

Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine 

Water Quality and Water Quality 

Monitoring and Reporting (Government 

of Western Australia, Report no. SWQ6), 

to the requirements of the Department of 

Environment and Conservation and the 

Department of Fisheries; and 

Specify required timeframes for 

determining and subsequently remedying 

the source of exceedance. 

In the event that an environmental 

quality standard referred to in 

condition 5-2 is exceeded, the proponent 

shall report the matter to the 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation1 within one working day of 

determining that this has occurred, the 

proponent shall: 

initiate a management response to 

determine the source and remedy the 

exceedance in accordance with the 

implementation framework for the 

National Water Quality Management 

Strategy, to the requirements of the 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation and the Department of 

Fisheries; and 

Specify required timeframes for 

determining and subsequently remedying 

the source of exceedance. 

Notes: 

1. Now the Office of the EPA. 

To fulfil Condition 5-3 



To fulfill the Proponent’s 

commitments outlined 

in the PER and summarised 

in the EPA 

Report 1305. 







OEPA 

reporting/evidence 


report (as 

appropriate). 

Laboratory test results. 




and DoF. It is noted 

that the mangrove 

management plan is no 

longer required (OEPA 

advice in the Scoping 

Guidelines) 


report 

(as appropriate). 


report 

(as appropriate). 

Status 


In addition to the Conditions and Commitments listed in Table 1.4, the Proponent has 

committed to the following actions. The actions are to be implemented as a condition of 

EMMP approval, with the proposed studies to support future revisions to the EMMP. 

Table 1.4 Additional actions and estimated completion dates 

Action 

Monitoring of trace elements in 

sediments 

Desktop study of the risks posed 

to wild fish from vaccinations 

and/or other treatments 

Study of the extent of spatial 

variability in sediment nutrient 

and TOC content 

Statistical power analysis of data 

on sediment infauna community 

composition 

Purpose 

To determine whether trace elements (particularly 

bioavailable metals) contained within aquaculture 

feeds are accumulating in sediments beneath 

and/or adjacent to the sea-cages. Results will be 

compared against the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) 

ISQG-low and ISQG-high trigger values. 

To determine whether vaccinations and/or other 

medications pose a risk to wild fish-fauna 

To determine whether the present level of sample 

replication is sufficient to derive meaningful 

estimates of nutrient and TOC concentrations 

To determine whether the present sampling design 

is a robust and suitable approach for application in 

Western Australia's north-west 

Estimated 

completion date 

Within 1-yr post 

implementation of 

the proposal, and 

then every three 

years thereafter 



the proposal 



the proposal 



the proposal 


2. Background 

2.1 Approvals history 

On 1 November 2005, Marine Produce Australia (the Proponent) received Department of 

Fisheries (DoF) approval (Aquaculture Licence 1465) to culture up to 1000 tonnes/annum 

(t/a) of Barramundi (Lates calcarifer). The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) deemed 

that the proposal required formal assessment in accordance with the Environmental 

Protection Act (1986), and set the level of assessment as Public Environmental Review (PER). 

The PER was submitted to the EPA in December 2007, and Ministerial approval granted on 

the 6 August 2009 (Ministerial Statement 798). 

On the 5 August 2011, MPA advised that it was seeking to expand operations from 1000 t/a 

to 2000 t/a. EPA advised it could assess a 2000 t/a proposal through an expedited process, 

and set the level of assessment as Assessment on Proponent Information (API). EPA further 

advised that it would consider a modified EMMP as the API document, with the expectation 

that the revised EMMP would accommodate the pressures associated with the expansion. 

2.2 Benthic habitats of Cone Bay 

Geo-referenced benthic habitat surveys were conducted in Cone Bay between the 21 and 24 

October 2011 (see Appendix B for detailed methods). Surveys focussed on habitats along 

the southern coast of Cone Bay, where MPA aquaculture activities are presently centred. 

Surveys were also conducted along the northern coast of Cone Bay. Surveys comprised 

multiple towed video transects, encompassing 47 transects within the licence area, and a 

further 41 transects outside of the licence area. 

2.2.1 Extent of habitats observed 

South-eastern Cone Bay 

The eastern end of Cone Bay was dominated by intermittent coral rubble, fine sands and 

patches of ephemeral seagrass (Halophila ovalis). H. ovalis was most abundant immediately 

south of Turtle Island and on the southern edge of Turtle Island. A large mangrove 

dominated inlet is situated approximately 2.3 km southeast of Turtle Island. The inlet, 

known as Snapper Cove, contributes plumes of turbid water to Cone Bay during outgoing 

tides (Figure 2.1). 

South-western Cone Bay 

The western end of Cone Bay was typical of fringing coral reefs (Figure 2.2): Moving 

seaward, habitats changed from mangroves (in some areas) to soft sediment, through 

increasing coverage of coral rubble to living coral, particularly at the fore reef slope. Fore 

reef habitats were characterised by a rapid increase in water depth (~8-13 m) over a 

relatively short distance (i.e. ~10 m). Habitats on the seaward side of the fore reef returned 

quickly to coral rubble followed by sediment dominated habitats. This was a pattern repeated 

almost ubiquitously along the western section of Cone Bay. 


Note: The habitats shown above are based on towed video transects conducted between the 21 and 24 October 2011. These data will be used in conjunction with GIS image processing to extrapolate the distribution of habitats across Cone Bay. 

Figure 2.1 Extent of coral and seagrass habitats observed during towed video surveys 


Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coral_reef_diagram.jpg 

Figure 2.2 Hypothetical horizontal and vertical structure of a fringing coral reef 

Turtle Island and isolated coral bombora 

The shoreline of Turtle Island was characterised by patches of live coral including 10% to 

30% cover at the far eastern end of the Island (Figure 2.1). This area of coral reef is located 

approximately 300 m southwest of the moderate ecological protection area (MEPA) boundary. 

A large coral bombora, characterised by extensive live coral (>50%) is located approximately 

1.9 km northwest of MEPA boundary. This bombora, together with a fringing coral reef 

(comprising 30%-50% live coral) located approximately 1.3 km southwest of the MEPA 

boundary, are the two major coral reef habitats nearest the sea-cages (Figure 2.1). 

Central Cone Bay 

Central Cone Bay, including the habitats of the MEPA, contained exclusively soft sediments, 

with no instances of hard substrate. Soft sediment habitats typically comprised micro-habitat 

features, including: soft sediments with filter feeders and soft sediments with evidence of 

extensive bioturbation. Soft sediments were, in most instances, characterised by the 

presence of microphytobenthos (MPB). MPB dominated habitats exhibit some resilience to 

disturbance and generally recover quickly following direct or indirect impacts (EPA 2009). 

Northern Cone Bay 

The northern coastline of Cone Bay, though not surveyed as extensively as southern Cone 

Bay, appeared to maintain a similar fringing reef structure to that observed along the 

southern coast. A series of islands, known as the Razor Islands, maintained a distinct acrossshore 

habitat gradient from coral rubble to Acropora spp dominated fringing reef. A large 

coral bombora was observed between the northern coast and the central Razor Island 

(Figure 2.1). Given the distance of these coral reef habitats from MPA's sea-cages, six sites 

within this region have been selected as coral reference sites. 

2.3 Environmental factors considered 

The EPA Report 1305 (EPA 2008) and the EPA Prepared Scoping Guideline (EPA 2011) 

identified a number of relevant environmental factors associated with MPA's sea-cage 

aquaculture proposal (summarised in Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.4). Each of the 

environmental factors has been considered carefully by the Proponent, and the EMMP 

designed such that the potential for adverse environmental effects (should they arise) can be 

managed appropriately. 


2.3.1 Site selection 

Aquaculture carries with it potential environmental concerns that need to be identified and 

managed accordingly. The specific environmental concerns relevant to sea-cage systems 

include: 

� Localised nutrient enrichment 

� Organic enrichment of sediments 

� Introduction of disease and/or parasites 

� Genetic and competitive effect on wild fish (upon escape of captive stock) and 

� Visual amenity 

2.3.2 Benthic primary producing habitats 

Benthic primary producer habitats (BPPH) consist of the benthic primary producer (BPP) 

communities and the substrata/seabed to which they are attached (EPA, 2004). The 

ecological value of BPPH varies depending on factors including, geographic location, species 

abundance and the contribution of productivity to the community. BPPs include marine 

plants (e.g. seagrass, mangroves and algae), coral reefs and MPBs. BPPs and the substrate 

to which they are attached provide a number of important functions, including, physicochemical 

interaction via photosynthesis, substrate, food and shelter for other marine biota, 

and physical stability to the seabed and coastline. 

Modelling undertaken by APASA (2006) found that for the minimum concentration threshold 

of 0.01 g/m 2 /day, the settlement distance for fish waste was estimated at 250 m downstream 

of the sea-cages (along the main tidal axis). It is noted that while coral and ephemeral 

seagrass (Halophila ovalis) communities are present within Cone Bay, the nearest seagrass 

beds are located 640 m and 1000 m from the MEPA boundary, while the nearest significant 

coral reef habitats are located approximately 1.9 km northwest and 1.3 km southwest of the 

MEPA boundary (Figure 2.1). A coral reef comprising approximately 10%-30% cover is 

situated approximately 300 m from the western MEPA boundary on the west coast of Turtle 

Island. 

In terms of BPPH, the EMMP focuses on the potential for impacts to the coral communities. 

The coral communities of Cone Bay are more widespread than ephemeral seagrass 

communities, and are more sensitive to light reduction and/or smothering relative to 

seagrass. 

2.3.3 Marine water quality 

Water quality refers to the state of health of a water body and is defined by its physical, 

chemical, biological and aesthetic characteristics. Fin-fish aquaculture in open water seacages 

may, in some instances 1 , cause some degree of deterioration in water quality locally 

due to the input of nutrients from fish faeces and uneaten feed. Any deterioration in water 

quality, however, is largely determined by the assimilative capacity of the local environment 

and/or the extent of flushing and water current circulation. 

A review of the literature found that hydrodynamics play a key role in reducing the potential 

for negative environmental effects of fish farms (Olsen et al. 2008). Cone Bay is 

characterised by rapid flushing of water with all sites experiencing over 90% flushing within 

two hours (i.e. 90% of water at the site is exchanged within 2 hours) (Brown and Root 

2000). 

The effect of inorganic nutrients on corals depends on the species of coral, and the dose and 

the duration of exposure to nutrients. Indirect effects may impart sub-lethal effects including 

epiphytic algal growth (Hatcher and Larkum 1983), reduced or increased productivity and/or 

interruption of coral reproductive processes (Koop et al. 2001). However, corals are also 

known to flourish under the influence of fish farm effluents (Atkinson et al. 1995), where they 

exhibit faster growth, enhanced reproductive fecundity and high survivorship (Bongiorni et al. 

2003a,b, Shahir et al. 2006, Amar & Rinkevich 2007, Shaish et al. 2008). 

1 Particularly during neap tides, or at times when rates of flushing are reduced. 


2.3.4 Marine sediments 

The Cone Bay sediment surface provides grazing habitat for large mobile invertebrates (i.e. 

seastars, holothurians, gastropods) while the upper oxygenated layers of sediment provides a 

habitat for marine infauna (i.e. crustaceans and polychaete worms). These organisms play 

an important ecological role through their movement, burrowing, ingestion and egestion 

(processes known collectively as bioturbation) (Shiell and Knott 2010). Bioturbation 

facilitates oxygen exchange and recycling of nutrients from their organic to inorganic form. 

Marine sediments also provide suitable habitats for colonisation by MPBs. 

Sea-cage aquaculture has the potential to impact the sediment when organic wastes settle 

beneath, or in close proximity to the sea-cages (Carroll et al 2003). However, case studies of 

sea-cage systems in Tasmania and Europe found that impacts were restricted to within 10- 

100 m of sea-cages (Carroll et al. 2003; Crawford 2003; Borja et al 2009) and that the 

magnitude of impact depended largely on the depth of the water and the rate of water 

movement through the site. 

Carroll et al. (2003) suggests that sites with current velocities of 3-6 cm/s are 'very sensitive' 

to 'moderately' sensitive to impact, while sites with current velocities of 10-25 cm/s are 'not 

sensitive' to impact. Similar findings are reported by Borja (2002), who suggested that sites 

with current speeds >15 cm/s represented 'good' sites; sites with current speeds 5-15 cm/s 

represented 'moderate' sites; and sites with current speeds

3. Environmental Objectives 

3.1 Best-practice marine farming 

Best practice environmental management depends on knowledge of the potential effects of 

sea-cage aquaculture together with an understanding of the host environment, including the 

extent and variety of benthic habitats (particularly BPPHs), the characteristic water quality 

and the extent of local biodiversity. Utilising this knowledge, proactive management 

strategies have been developed to maximise farming efficiency and to minimise the likelihood 

of adverse environmental impacts. Management strategies have been (and continue to be) 

developed by MPA through consultation with scientists, regulators and other marine farm 

operators. Further information on best practice marine farming can be read in the 

Department of Fisheries, Environmental Code of Practice for the Management of Western 

Australia’s Marine Finfish Industry, and The Scottish Executive (ASFA) 2003, which MPA has 

used as the basis for best practice marine farming. 

A key consideration in best practice marine farming is management of fish feeds, such that 

feed waste is minimised. The key proactive feed-wastage management strategies to be 

employed by the proponent are outlined below: 

� The company strategy is to minimise wasted feed through controlling overfeeding; 

� Stocking densities will be managed to maintain optimum biological stocking rates to 

promote fish health and growth, and to reduce the impact of fish and feed waste on the 

seabed in the immediate vicinity of each sea cage; 

� Fallowing practices will be used as required to facilitate restoration of sediment quality 

under the sea-cages so as to comply with the specified level of ecological protection; 

� Feed cameras and or pellet sensors will be used during fish feeding to determine optimum 

feed input rates and correct stop feeding signals, thereby reducing wasted feed; and 

� All farm fish mortalities will be removed from the sea-cages twice weekly. 

3.2 Best-practice environmental management 

The EMMP has been designed according to the framework developed by the National Water 

Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS): the Environmental Quality Management Framework 

(EQMF). The Government of Western Australian has endorsed the state-wide implementation 

of the EQMF on a priority basis (Government of Western Australia 2003, 2004). 

Consistent with the NWQMS, the EMMP has adopted a structured approach to management. 

MPA has agreed to maintain the EVs and EQOs (see Table 1.1) through adherence to 

appropriate EQG and EQS. The EQG and EQS criteria have been set in the context of EQO1: 

Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity. It is noted that risks posed by this aquaculture proposal 

are such that if the EQO for the EV Ecosystem Health is met, then all other EVs will also be 

protected. 

3.3 Environmental performance indicators/criteria 

EQG and EQS have been developed in the context of the Ecological Protection Zones specified 

in Schedule 1 of Ministerial Statement 798. 

Environmental Quality Guidelines (EQG): are threshold numerical values or narrative 

statements, that if met, indicate there is a high degree of certainty that the associated 

environmental quality objective has been achieved. If the guideline is not met, there is 

uncertainty as to whether the associated environmental quality objective has been achieved 

and a more detailed assessment against the EQS is triggered. 

Environmental Quality Standards (EQS): are threshold values or narrative statements 

that indicate a level beyond which there is a significant risk that the associated environmental 

quality objective has been not been achieved. The response would normally focus on 

identifying the cause (or source) of the exceedance and then reducing loads of the 

contaminant of concern (i.e. source control) and may also require in situ remedial work to be 

undertaken. EQS are generally equivalent to the water quality objectives described in 

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). 


For the EMMP, EQG have been developed according the approach defined in EPA (2005a) 

such that exceedance of an EQG is a ‘trigger’ for further investigation against the 

corresponding EQS. EQS have been developed according to the risk-based approach also 

defined in EPA (2005a). If an EQS is exceeded, it is considered that there is a significant risk 

that the associated EQO has not been achieved, investigation of the cause is needed and an 

adaptive management response is triggered if the exceedance continues. The management 

response protocol following EPA (2005a) is outlined in Figure 3.1. 

Notes: 

1. The conceptual diagram shows the intensity of management response triggered by exceeding an EQC depends 

on which type of EQC has been exceeded which in turn reflects the level of risk of whether or not there is an 

environmental problem 

Figure 3.1 Management response protocol from EPA (2005a) with the relationship between the 

two types of EQC on the left hand side and the associated environmental condition 

on the right hand side 


4. Marine Monitoring Program 

Fish-farming operations are presently restricted to the eastern end of the aquaculture lease. 

As operations at the western end of the lease are unlikely to recommence in the foreseeable 

future, the focus of the revised marine monitoring program is on the eastern part of the 

lease. MPA will inform the DoF and the OEPA immediately if sea-cages are re-deployed to the 

western end, or anywhere else within the lease. 

4.1 Water quality monitoring 

4.1.1 Objectives 

The objective of the water quality monitoring program is to assess whether the EQC have 

been met in the Moderate Ecological Protection Area (MEPA) and at the boundaries of the 

High (HEPA) and Maximum Ecological Protection Areas (MaxEPA). The water quality 

monitoring program includes the following analytes: total suspended solids (TSS) (organic 

and inorganic fraction), biologically available nutrients (dissolved inorganic nitrogen [DIN], 

comprising ammonia [NH3] and nitrite+nitrate [NO2 - + NO3 - ]), chlorophyll-a, light attenuation 

and dissolved oxygen. 

4.1.2 Responsibility 

Water quality management shall be the responsibility of the Proponent (Marine Produce 

Australia). The work may be delegated to a nominated third party to undertake on behalf of 

the Proponent. 

4.1.3 Timing 

The Cone Bay site experiences two major climatic cycles: the November-March wet season 

and the April-July dry season. The winter dry season is characterised by extended periods of 

dry sunny weather, while the summer wet season is characterised by frequent rain and 

periodic cyclone events. 

It is proposed that water quality sampling is conducted at monthly intervals (four times in 

total) between June and September to thus capture the winter-spring dry period, and then 

again at monthly intervals (four times in total) between December and March to thus capture 

the summer-autumn wet period. Sampling will be conducted on an incoming neap tide. 

The design, frequency and scope of the water quality monitoring program will be reviewed 

after the first two years of implementation in consultation with the OEPA (see Section 6). 

4.1.4 Sampling regime 

Sampling sites 

On each sampling occasion, duplicate water samples will be collected at 13 compliance sites 2 

(encompassing five sites within the MEPA and four sites within each of the High and 

Maximum Ecological Protection Areas) and eight reference sites (Figure 4.1) 3 . While each of 

the duplicate samples will be frozen, only one of the samples will be analysed immediately. 

The other sample will be analysed in the event that the EQG is exceeded. 

MEPA samples will be collected downstream of the sea-cages at fixed distance intervals (0 m, 

10 m, 50 m, 100 m and 200 m). The distance intervals will be positioned along a vector 

orientated in the direction of the prevailing current (as indicated by a surface drogue 4 ). The 

approach has two purposes: (i) to measure the extent of the contamination gradient (if any) 

2 While site Max4 has been included at the boundary of the HEPA/MAXEPA, this site may be characterised by 

different water quality given its proximity to a tidal (mangrove dominated) lagoon. Results obtained at this site may 

be eliminated from the data if it is found that the lagoon is artificially inflating the nutrient readings. 

3 It is noted that a single sample is to be taken at each site. Replication (i.e. multiple samples per site) is not 

important in the context of the Cone Bay water quality monitoring program as the program aims to determine if the 

EQG have been met at the edge of the respective ecological protection zones. Replication would only be important 

where the program aimed to test hypotheses about the extent of differences between sites and/or proximity from 

the sea-cages, which is not the aim of this program. 

4 Which on an incoming tide, is likely to be in an easterly direction. 


downstream of the sea-cages and (ii) to provide relevant data for assessment of the EQG. 

While this approach is designed for application in the MEPA on an incoming tide (when water 

flows east), the sampling program also enables inferences about possible effects on an 

outgoing tide (when water flows west) 5 , even though these conditions are not directly 

sampled. Under an outgoing tide, some (or all) of the distance intervals may be inferred to 

be in the high ecological protection zone. EQG for high and moderate ecological protection 

(or both) will therefore be applied depending on the position of the sea-cages relative to the 

MEPA/HEPA boundary. This is a conservative approach that ensures protection of sensitive 

fauna located at/or near the edge of the western HEPA boundary. For further details, 

including a flow diagram of the process for calculating the EQG, refer to Section 5.1.1. 

HEPA and MaxEPA sites will be sampled at the eastern boundaries of high and maximum 

ecological protection areas, respectively. To account for dispersal of contaminants from the 

sea-cages, these sites have been positioned widely along a ~700 m section of the ecological 

protection area boundaries. 

Reference sites have been established so as to be representative of water quality in Cone Bay 

while being beyond the influence of the sea-cages 6 . Some caution should be applied in 

interpreting results obtained at reference sites given the possible existence of an acrossshore 

(south-north) water quality gradient. The suitability of the reference sites will be 

reviewed, in consultation with the OEPA, in two years time. GPS coordinates for water 

quality sites are provided in Appendix C. 

Water quality parameters to be measured 

The suite of parameters to be measured on each sampling occasion is detailed in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1 Suite of water quality parameters to be measured on each sampling occasion 

Protection 

Zone 

TSS (LOI) 

Physical & chemical profiles Nutrients & chlorophyll-a 

LAC 

DO 

MEPA � N/A � � � N/A 

HEPA � � � � � � 

MaxEPA � � � � � � 

Reference � � � � � � 

Notes: 

* Monitored for contextual purposes only 

Physical chemical profile sampling methods 

DO measurements will be taken approximately 50 cm from the bottom using a calibrated 

water quality sensor. Light attenuation measurements will be conducted simultaneously at 

two depths with one sensor positioned 1 m below the surface and the second approximately 

7 m below the surface (this may vary depending on the depth of the water at each site). The 

light attenuation coefficient (LAC) will be calculated as the difference between the 

logarithim10 of irradiance values at each depth according to the equation: 

Light Attenuation Coefficient (LAC) = (log10I1 – log10I7 ) ÷ 6 

Nutrients, TSS and primary productivity sampling methods 

Measurements of TSS (LOI), DIN (total ammonia, nitrite+nitrate) and primary productivity 

(chlorophyll-a) will be undertaken using depth-integrated sampling. Additional 

measurements of TSS and total ammonia will also be undertaken approximately 50 cm from 

5 

Inferences are possible as currents are strongly shore-parallel under both incoming and outgoing tides (APASA 

2006). 

6 3 

Based on predicted dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations (g/m ) for neap tide in December 2005 

(after a 25 days continuous release of nutrients) and in June 2006 (after 20 days continuous release of nutrients) 

(APASA 2006). 

Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan 15 

Ammonia 

DIN* 

Chlorophyll-a

the bottom of the water column. Standard laboratory analytical procedures will be employed 

throughout and all sampling and analyses undertaken according to NATA-accredited methods. 

Figure 4.1 Environmental monitoring sites with existing and proposed ecological protection 

areas 


4.1.5 Environmental Quality Criteria 

EQC, encompassing EQG and EQS, have been developed for the following 

indicators/stressors: shading & smothering, algal growth potential, toxicants, phytoplankton 

biomass and other physical and chemical stressors. The EQC were developed in the context 

of the likely cause-effect-pathway shown in Figure 4.2. 

Effects�and�their�indicators 

Key 

Inorganic� 

nutrients 

� Algal�blooms 

Chlorophyll-a 

Shading 

%�Coral� 

mucous 

Effect EQG�Indicator 

Figure 4.2 EQG and EQS in the context of likely cause-effect-pathways 

Environmental Quality Guidelines 

The EQG for water quality are provided in Table 4.2. The EQG provide early warning of the 

potential for environmental impact, by focussing on primary indicators, TSS (LOI) and 

ammonia (as a toxicant), and secondary indicators, DO and chlorophyll-a. Although no EQG 

have been developed for inorganic nutrients, concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen 

(DIN) will be collected for contextual purposes. As DIN is rapidly assimilated by 

phytoplankton 7 , the potential for adverse effects resulting from inorganic nutrients will be 

assessed via the EQG for phytoplankton biomass (i.e. chlorophyll-a). 

For details on how to apply the EQG (particularly those listed beneath moderate protection), 

refer to Section 5.1. 

7 Microscopic algae in the water column 

Likely�Cause�Effect�Pathways:�Cone�Bay�Aquaculture 

Coral� 

pigment 

� Coral�health 

EQS�Indicator 

LAC 

Effects�and�their�indicators 

TSS�&�LAC 

Shading Sedimentation 

Nutrient� 

release 

Redox�discont. 

� Sediment� 

DO 

Changes/impact�to�sediment� 

infauna�communities 

� Sediment� 

ammonia 

Visual�changes�to� 

sediment�characteristics 

Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan 17 

DO 

TSS 

Sediment� 

nutrients 

DO 

Macrofauna 

mortality 

Bottom� 

ammonia 

Simpson� 

Index 

Image� 

analysis�

Table 4.2 EQG for water quality 

EQG Indicator 

Shading & 

smothering 

Algal growth 

potential 

TSS (LOI) 

LAC 

DIN 

Toxicants Ammonia 

Phytoplankton 

biomass 

Chlorophyll-a N/A 

Zone of Ecological Protection 

Moderate High Maximum 8 

(i) Median organic 

fraction of TSS 

calculated from pooled 

sites, on each sampling 

occasion, must be less 

than the 80%ile or 

95%ile of Reference 

Site data*, or 

(ii) Median organic 

fraction of TSS over a 

four month period, at 

any site, must be less 



Site data* 

(i) Median LAC 







(ii) Median LAC over a 





Site data* 

Collected for 

contextual purposes 

(i) 95%ile 9 of total 

ammonia (50 cm from 

bottom) calculated 

from pooled sites, on 

each sampling 

occasion, not to exceed 

1200 μg/L or 500 

μg/L*, or 

(ii) 95%ile of total 


bottom), at any site, 

calculated over a four 

month period, not to 

exceed 1200 μg/L or 

500 μg/L* 






than the 80%ile of 

Reference Site data, or 






Reference Site data 












Collected for 


(i) 95%ile of total 




each sampling 


500 μg/L, or 



bottom) at any site, 



exceed 500 μg/L 

Median chl-a calculated 


each sampling occasion 

must be less than 3 x 


Site data 

























Collected for 






each sampling 


250 μg/L, or 










must be less than 2 x 


Site data 

8 Note that the EQG for Maximum Ecological Protection (70 th percentile) has been modified (from that in Condition 5- 

3.3) in consultation with the OEPA (verbal advice 16/12/2010). While it is understood that the EQG trigger for 

Maximum protection needs to be more conservative than those for High and Moderate protection, the 70 th percentile 

is expected to lie within 1 standard deviation of the mean (given reasonable numbers of samples), and is therefore 

likely to be well within the range of natural variability. In using the 70 th percentile, there is considerable potential to 

make the equivalent of a Type I error (i.e. false positive), thus triggering the EQG for Maximum protection as a 

result of natural perturbations, and not those resulting from the proposal. To this end, it is recommended that the 

suitability of the EQG trigger for Maximum protection be evaluated at the end of the EMMP review period. 

9 It is noted that at least 20 samples is recommended for calculation of the 95th percentile (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 

2000). Calculation of the EQG following each sampling occasion, and for individual sites, should therefore be 

interpreted with caution. 


EQG Indicator 

Physical & 

chemical 

stressors 

DO 


Moderate High Maximum 8 

(i) Median bottom 

water DO on each 

sampling occasion 

must be greater than 

80% or 90% 

saturation*; or 

(ii) Median bottom 

water DO at any site 


month period must be 

greater than 80% or 

90% saturation* 

(i) Median bottom water DO on each sampling 

occasion must be greater than 90% saturation; 

or 

(ii) Median bottom water DO at any site over a 

four month period must be greater than 90% 

saturation 

Notes: 

* The actual percentile used will depend on the positioning of sea-cages relative to the MEPA/HEPA boundary (see 

Section 5.1) 

Environmental Quality Standards 

The EQS for water quality are provided in Table 4.3. EQS have been applied differently in 

recognition of the different benthic habitats in the MEPA compared to the HEPA and MaxEPA. 

For example, the potential for shading as indicated by levels of chlorophyll-a and/or LAC is 

unlikely to cause long-term harm to MEPA MPB communities. HEPA and MaxEPA coral 

communities are, on the other hand, relatively sensitive and may exhibit signs of stress 

following periods of shading. Following this logic, LAC and chlorophyll-a EQS have been 

developed for use in the HEPA and MaxEPA, but not in the MEPA. 

The EQS for the HEPA and MaxEPA are based on indicators of minor change, including: 

� Sediments 

� Conservative indices of infauna species richness (five x reduction) 

� Mortality of benthic macrofauna 10 

� Coral habitat 

� Loss of coral pigmentation 

� Presence of coral mucous 

The EQS for the MEPA are based on indicators of moderate to severe change in sediment 

communities, including: 

� Less conservative indices of infauna species richness (one x reduction) 

� Presence of bacterial mats 

� Bubbles of hydrogen sulphide 

� Mass mortality of benthic macrofauna 

� Reduction in animal tracks and/or the number of bioturbation burrows 

For details on how to apply the EQS (particularly those listed beneath moderate protection), 

refer to Section 5.1. 

10 

Although not a sensitive indicator relative to indices of infauna species richness, mass mortality of benthic 

macrofauna will be used as a supplementary indicator 


Table 4.3 EQS for water quality 

EQS Indicator 

Shading & 

smothering 

TSS (LOI) 

LAC 

Toxicants Ammonia 


Moderate High Maximum 

If EQG (i) and/or (ii) is exceeded and the 

exceedance is based on the moderate 

protection guideline (95%ile): 

(i) Sediment infauna community species 

richness, based on the Inverse Simpson 

Index, not to be five times less than 

background (indicative of moderate 

impact), or 

(ii) Evaluation of images taken beneath 

and within 10 m of the sea-cages must 

not indicate presence of white bacterial 

matts, black sediments, bubbles of 

hydrogen sulphide or a significant 

reduction in the presence of animal 

tracks, or bioturbator burrows, relative 

to reference sites 


exceedance is based on the high 


Proceed to EQS for high and maximum 

protection 



protection guideline (95%): 

No action required 




(i) Mean LAC over an 8 week period 

(based on fortnightly sampling) at coral 

monitoring sites in HEPA is assessed 

(Refer to EQS for HEPA/MaxEPA), and 

(ii) Evaluation of coral images taken at 

coral monitoring sites in HEPA triggered 

(Refer to coral EQS for HEPA/MaxEPA). 








impact), or 

(ii) Evaluation of images taken beneath 




hydrogen sulphide, mass mortalities of 

benthic macrofauna or a significant 


tracks, or bioturbator burrows, relative 

to reference sites 

(i) Sediment infauna 

community species richness, 

based on the Inverse 

Simpson Index, not to be half 

that of background (indicative 

of minor impact), or 

(ii) Mean TSS over an 8 week 

period (based on fortnightly 

sampling) at coral monitoring 

sites not to be significantly 

greater than at coral reef 

Reference Sites as assessed 

by ANOVA, and 

(iii) Evaluation of images 

taken at coral monitoring 

sites must not indicate 

elevated incidences of coral 

mucous or colour reduction, 

relative to coral reef 

Reference Sites 

(i) Mean LAC over an 8 week 


sampling) at coral monitoring 

sites not to be significantly 

greater than at coral reef 

Reference Sites as assessed 

by ANOVA, and 

(ii) Evaluation of images 







(i) Sediment infauna 

community species richness, 

based on the Inverse 

Simpson Index, not to be half 

that of background (indicative 

of minor impact) 

(ii) No observed mortalities of 

benthic macro-fauna 

attributable to ammonia 

toxicity 

(iii) Evaluation of images 








EQS Indicator 

Phytoplankton 

biomass 

Physical & 

chemical 

stressors 







protection 


DO 

(i) Mean LAC over an 8 week 


sampling) is not significantly 

greater than the mean of LAC 

at the coral reef Reference 

Sites, as determined by 

ANOVA, or 

(ii) Evaluation of images 







(i) Median bottom water DO on each sampling occasion must be greater 

than 60% saturation and not the result of a regional event as indicated by 

similar reductions in DO at the Reference Sites; or, 

(ii) Median bottom water DO at any site over a four month period must be 

greater than 60% saturation 


4.2 Sediment quality monitoring 


The objective of the sediment quality monitoring component is to assess whether the EQC 

have been met within the MEPA and at the boundaries of the HEPA and MaxEPA. The 

sediment monitoring program includes the following analytes: sediment nutrients (total 

Kjeldahl nitrogen [TKN], total phosphorus [TP], total organic carbon [TOC LOI]) and redox 

discontinuity. 


Sediment quality monitoring shall be the responsibility of the Proponent (MPA). The work 

may be delegated to a nominated third party to undertake on behalf of the Proponent. 

4.2.3 Timing 

Consistent with water quality sampling (refer Section 4.1.3) sediment sampling will be 

conducted at monthly intervals (four times in total) between June and September to capture 

the winter-spring dry period, and then again at monthly intervals (four times in total) 

between December and March to capture the summer-autumn wet period. 

The design, frequency and scope of the water quality monitoring program will be reviewed 

after the first two years of implementation in consultation with the OEPA. 


Sampling sites 

On each of the four dry season and four wet season sampling occasions, five replicate 

sediment cores will be collected from each of the 13 compliance sites 11 (encompassing five 

sites within the MEPA and four sites within each of the High and Maximum Ecological 

Protection Areas) and eight reference sites (Figure 4.1). While HEPA and MaxEPA site 

samples will be sampled at fixed locations at the boundaries of the respective Ecological 

Protection Areas, MEPA samples will be collected at fixed distances from the sea-cages on an 

incoming tide (Figure 4.1). Samples will be collected downstream of the sea-cages at 

distance intervals of 0 m, 10 m, 50 m, 100 m and 200 m in the direction of the prevailing 

current (as indicated by a surface drogue). 

A maximum of eight randomly allocated reference sites will be selected to the north of the 

lease, approximately half way between the maximum protection boundary and the Razor 

Islands. The suitability of the reference sites will be reviewed after the first two years of 

implementation in consultation with the OEPA. GPS coordinates for the compliance sites are 

provided in Appendix C. 

Sediment parameters to be measured 

The suite of sediment quality parameters to be measured on each of the four dry season 

sampling occasions is detailed in Table 4.4. 

Table 4.4 Suite of sediment quality parameters to be measured on each sampling occasion 

Protection 

Sediments 

Zone 

TKN TP TOC Redox discontinuity 

MEPA � � � � 

HEPA � � � � 

MaxEPA � � � � 

Reference � � � � 

Sediment sampling methods: TOC and nutrients 

Sediment samples will be collected from a vessel using a core sampler. Five cores samples 

incorporating the upper 2 cm of sediment will be taken at each site. Each of the five cores 

11 While site Max4 has been included at the boundary of the HEPA/MAXEPA, this site may be characterised by 

different sediment quality given its proximity to a tidal (mangrove dominated) lagoon. Results obtained at this site 

may be eliminated from the data if it is found that the lagoon is artificially inflating the results. 


shall be homogenised to form one sample as shown in Figure 4.3. Remaining sediment will 

be used to form a duplicate sample. While both samples will be frozen for transport to the 

laboratory, only one of the samples will be analysed immediately. The other sample will be 

analysed in the event that the EQG is exceeded. 

Figure 4.3 Sampling protocol for MEPA sediment nutrients 

Analyses will be undertaken by NATA-accredited laboratories. Sample analysis will achieve 

LORs equal to or less than the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) sediment quality guidelines. Where 

concentrations are less than LOR, the limits of reporting will be used in the calculations. 

Sediment sampling methods: redox discontinuity 

Sediment redox discontinuity will be sampled in the MEPA, HEPA and MaxEPA using an 

appropriately sensitive field probe. A written description will be made of each core taking 

note of the following parameters (DPIW 2008): 

� Length of core measured in millimetres; 

� Approximate depth (mm) of the redox discontinuity layer; 

� Visible animal and/or plant life; and 

� Any sediment odour indicating presence/absence of hydrogen sulphide. 


The EQG and EQS have been developed to provide early warning of the potential for adverse 

effects relating to sediment nutrients, organic enrichment, and sediment oxygen 

concentration. The EQC were developed in the context of the likely cause-effect-pathway 

shown in Figure 4.2. Monitoring against the EQG will proceed on an annual basis. 

Monitoring associated with the EQS will proceed only upon exceedance of the EQG. 


The EQG for sediment nutrients are outlined in Table 4.5. For details on how to apply the 

EQG (particularly those listed beneath moderate protection), refer to Section 5.1. 


Table 4.5 EQG for sediments 

EQG Indicator 

Sediment 

TKN 

TP 

TOC (LOI) 

Redox 

discontinuity 



(i) Median nutrient 

concentration calculated 


each sampling occasion, 

must be less than the 

95%ile or 80%ile of 

Reference Site data*, or 

(ii) Median nutrient 

concentration at any site 

over a four month period 



Reference Site data* 

(i) Median concentration 

of TOC calculated from 

pooled sites, on each 

sampling occasion, must 

be less than the 95%ile 

or 80%ile of Reference 


(ii) Median concentration 

of TOC at any site over a 

four month period must 


or 80%ile of Reference 

Site data* 

(i) Median depth of redox 

discont. layer calculated 



must be no less than the 



(ii) Median depth of 

redox discont. layer at 

any site over a four 

month must be no less 

than the 5%ile or 20%ile 

of Reference Site data* 


concentration, calculated 




80%ile of Reference Site 

data, or 






data 


of TOC, calculated from 


sampling occasion must 


of Reference Site data, or 





of Reference Site data 







data, or 













data, or 






data 


















data, or 







Notes: 


text in Section 5.1) 



The EQS for sediment nutrients are outlined in Table 4.6. 

Table 4.6 EQS for sediments 

EQS Indicator 

Sediments 

TKN 

TP 

TOC (LOI) 

Redox 

discontinuity 

Moderate 


High Maximum 




(i) Evaluation of images taken beneath 






tracks, or bioturbator burrows, relative to 

Reference Sites, or 

(ii) Sediment infauna community species 




impact), or 

(iii) Median bottom water DO on each 

sampling occasion must be greater than 

60% saturation and not the result of a 

regional event as indicated by similar 

reductions in DO at the Reference Sites, 

or 

(iv) Median bottom water DO at any site 

over a four month period must be greater 

than 60% saturation 





protection 




(i) Evaluation of images taken beneath 






tracks, or bioturbator burrows, relative to 

Reference Sites, or 

(ii) Sediment infauna community species 




impact), or 

(iii) Median bottom water DO on each 





or 

(iv) Median bottom water DO at any site 







protection 



Index, not to be less than half that of 

background (indicative of minor impact), 

or 

(ii) Median bottom water DO on each 





or 

(iii) Median bottom water DO at any site 





Index, not to be less than half that of 

background (indicative of minor impact), 

or 

(ii) Median bottom water DO on each 




reductions in DO at the Reference Sites; 

or, 

(iii) Median bottom water DO at any site 




4.3 Coral reef monitoring 


The aim of the coral reef monitoring plan (CRMP) is to meet the EPA objective for protection 

of benthic primary producer habitats as per EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 3 

(EPA 2009). The EPA's environmental objective for BPPHs is to protect BPPHs from 

developments that may cause irreversible loss or serious damage to BPPHs (EPA 2009). 

Gilmour et al. (2007) describes several sub-lethal indicators of coral health that may be used 

to infer early signs of stress in coral communities. The indicators, which are based on the 

effects of dredging (i.e. elevated TSS and decreases in LAC), can be assessed qualitatively or 

semi-quantitatively. Indicators based on coral mucous and pigmentation have been chosen 

for inclusion in the EMMP. The indicators are to be used in conjunction with other lines of 

evidence (i.e. parametric analysis of TSS and LAC between coral impact and coral reference 

sites) to measure potential for adverse effects to corals. 


Coral reef system management shall be the responsibility of the Proponent (MPA). The work 

may be delegated to a nominated third party to undertake on behalf of the Proponent. 

4.3.3 Timing 

The CRMP will be implemented as soon as reasonably practicable upon exceedance of the 

corresponding water quality EQG for TSS, LAC and/or chlorophyll-a (Table 4.7). 


Site selection 

Nine coral monitoring sites have been established: three potential impact locations, all 

located within the high ecological protection area, and six reference sites located around the 

Razor Islands (Figure 4.1). GPS coordinates for the coral sites are provided in Appendix C. 

Sampling method 

To mitigate risks associated with crocodiles, field methods will be developed to capture 

images of coral from a vessel. At each site, a high resolution digital camera will be lowered 

at n=10 randomly generated distances along a 20 m transect. The camera will be mounted 

on a frame such that the distance between the camera and the coral habitat is controlled. 

The extent of coral mucous coverage will be determined qualitatively, by assigning indices of 

relative coverage: 

1 = no visible mucous 

2 = light mucous (75%). 

The extent of pigmentation will be determined using semi-quantitative methods developed by 

the Coral Watch program http://www.coralwatch.org/web/guest. The Coral Watch program 

uses a colour-coded card to assess the level of pigmentation from normal (healthy) through 

to bleached (severely impacted) (Figure 4.4). Each colour square corresponds to a 

concentration of symbionts in the coral tissue, with the concentration of symbionts directly 

linked to the health of the coral. 

It is recommended that the coral health card is secured to the inside corner of the frame such 

that the card is in the camera's field of view. This will mitigate any ambiguity that may be 

caused by image brightness and/or contrast. 


How to use the Coral Health Chart 

1. Select a coral 

2. Ensure the image captures the lightest area, avoiding the tips of branching corals. 

3. Compare the colour chart with the selected area 

4. Record the matching colour code along with coral type on the data sheet 

5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 for the darkest area of the coral 

6. Continue survey with other corals 

Figure 4.4 Coral health chart developed by the Coral Watch program 


Monitoring against the EQG will proceed on an annual basis. Monitoring associated with the 

EQS will proceed only upon exceedance of the relevant EQG. 


The EQG for coral reef system health are outlined in Table 4.7. For details on how to 

interpret the EQG, 

Table 4.7 EQG for coral reef monitoring 

Indicator 

TSS (LOI) 

Moderate 


High Maximum* 

(i) Median organic fraction 

of TSS calculated from 



be less than the 80%ile or 


data*, or 


fraction of TSS over a four 

month period, at any site, 








be less than the 80%ile of 







data 












data 


Indicator 

Light attenuation 


Ammonia 


Moderate High Maximum* 

(i) Median LAC calculated 

from pooled sites, on each 


be less than the 80%ile or 


data*, or 


four month period, at any 

site, must be less than the 





bottom) calculated from 


sampling occasion, not to 

exceed 500 μg/L or 1200 

μg/L*, or 



bottom), at any site, 



exceed 500 μg/L or 

1200 μg/L* 










data 




be less than 3 x 50%ile of 







exceed 500 μg/L, or 
















data 




be less than 2 x 50%ile of 














Notes: 

* The EQG for Maximum Ecological Protection has been modified (from that included in Condition 5-3.3) in 

consultation with the OEPA. 


As per the multiple lines of evidence approach advocated in EPA (2005a), two indicators of 

coral reef system health are to be implemented (Table 4.8). To exceed the EQS, EQS (i) and 

(ii) must be exceeded for at least one of the indicators. 

Table 4.8 EQS for coral reef monitoring 

Indicator 

TSS 

Moderate 


High Maximum 

If EQG (i) and/or (ii) is exceeded 

and the exceedance is based on 

the moderate protection 

guideline (95%ile): 




the high protection guideline 

(80%ile): 

Proceed to EQS for high and 

maximum protection 

(i) Mean TSS over an 8 week period 


monitoring sites not to be significantly 

greater than at coral reef Reference Sites 

as assessed by ANOVA, and 

(ii) Evaluation of images taken at coral 

monitoring sites must not indicate 

elevated incidences of coral mucous or 

colour reduction, relative to coral reef 



Indicator 

LAC 






guideline (95%): 





(80%ile): 




Ammonia 









(80%ile): 





monitoring sites not to be significantly 

greater than at coral reef Reference Sites 

as assessed by ANOVA, and 







(based on fortnightly sampling) is not 

significantly greater than the mean of 

LAC at the coral reef Reference Sites, as 

determined by ANOVA, or 






(i) Evaluation of images taken at coral 






4.4 Sediment infauna monitoring 


The objective of the sediment infauna monitoring program is to assess whether the EQS for 

moderate, high and maximum protection have been met in the MEPA and at the boundaries 

of the HEPA and MaxEPA, respectively. The infauna monitoring program is based upon the 

requirements of the Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute (TAFI) (Crawford et al. 

2002). The suggested methods and triggers for management (i.e. Inverse Simpson Index) 

are based on the Tasmanian fish-farming industry. 

Indices of infauna diversity (encompassing species richness and abundance) can be 

correlated accurately with levels of impact beneath sea-cages. The Inverse Simpson Index is 

a sensitive indicator that can be used to infer a gradient of impacts from minor through to 

severe. For example, a halving of the Inverse Simpson Index relative to background is 

indicative of minor impact, whereas a five-fold reduction relative to background is indicative 

of moderate effects 12 . In recognition of the ecological protection zones applied in Cone Bay, 

indices for moderate and minor impact have been chosen for inclusion in the EMMP. 


Infauna monitoring shall be the responsibility of the Proponent (MPA). The work may be 

delegated to a nominated third party to undertake on behalf of the Proponent. 

4.4.3 Timing 

Infauna monitoring will be implemented as soon as reasonably practicable upon exceedance 

of the relevant EQG (Table 4.9). 


Site selection 

Upon exceedance of an EQG for moderate protection, sampling will be conducted beneath the 

sea-cages (two cages selected at random from all sea-cages). If the exceedance relates to 

the EQG for high/maximum protection, sampling will be undertaken at a sub-set of two 

high/maximum protection water quality sites (those with the highest contaminant 

concentration). 

Power analysis conducted on Tasmanian infauna found a total of 24 samples was required to 

detect a 50% change in species richness (equivalent to a halving of the Inverse Simpson 

Index). Based on these results, a preliminary infauna sampling program is to be established. 

Samples will be collected from two impact sites and two reference sites, with six replicate 

samples to be taken at each site i.e. 2x6+2x6=24. A study will be run within 12 months of 

implementation of the proposal to determine the number of samples required to detect a 

similar change (i.e. 50%) based on the infauna communities of Cone Bay (Table 1.4). 

Sampling method 

Six replicate samples will be collected at each of two impact and two reference sites i.e. 

6x2+6x2=24. Each replicate sample should consist of approximately 2 kg of the upper 

sediments, to be obtained by an Eckman Grab (or equivalent). Samples will be rinsed 

through a series of graded sieves. Fauna retained on a 1 mm sieve will be preserved in 70% 

ethanol and transported to an accredited laboratory for analysis to lowest taxonomic level. 


Monitoring against the EQG will proceed on an annual basis. Monitoring associated with the 

EQS will proceed only upon exceedance of the relevant EQG. 

12 Further written evidence in support of the robustness of this method was provided to OEPA on the 7/12/2011. It is 

also noted that MPA will conduct a power analysis following collection of baseline data within one year of the 

approval of the EMMP (see Table 1.4). The purpose of the analysis will be to determine whether the present 

sampling design is a suitable approach for application in Western Australia's north-west. 



The EQG for infauna monitoring are outlined in Table 4.9. 

Table 4.9 EQG for infauna monitoring 

Indicator 

TSS 

Ammonia 

TKN 

TP 

TOC (LOI) 

Redox 

discontinuity 

Moderate 


High Maximum* 

(i) Median organic fraction of 

TSS calculated from pooled 


occasion, must be less than 

the 80%ile or 95%ile of 


(ii) Median organic fraction of 

TSS over a four month 

period, at any site, must be 

less than the 80%ile or 


data* 

(i) 95%ile 13 of total ammonia 

(50 cm from bottom) 

calculated from pooled sites, 

on each sampling occasion, 

not to exceed 1200 μg/L or 

500 μg/L*, or 

(ii) 95%ile of total ammonia 

(50 cm from bottom), at any 

site, calculated over a four 

month period, not to exceed 

1200 μg/L or 500 μg/L* 


concentration calculated from 


sampling occasion, must be 



data*, or 


concentration at any site over 

a four month period must be 



data* 

(i) Median concentration of 

TOC calculated from pooled 


occasion, must be less than 

the 95%ile or 80%ile of 


(ii) Median concentration of 

TOC at any site over a four 

month period must be less 

than the 95%ile or 80%ile of 



discont. layer calculated from 


sampling occasion, must be 

no less than the 5%ile or 


data*, or 












data 
























data 
















be no less than the 20%ile 













data 
























data 


















13 It is noted that at least 20 samples is recommended for calculation of the 95th percentile (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 

2000). Calculation of the EQG following each sampling occasion, and for individual sites, should therefore be 

interpreted with caution. 


Indicator 


Moderate High Maximum* 

(ii) Median depth of redox 

discont. layer at any site over 

a four month must be no less 

than the 5%ile or 20%ile of 



discont. layer at any site 

over a four month must 




discont. layer at any site 

over a four month must 



Notes: 


Section 5.1) 



The EQG for infauna monitoring are outlined in Table 4.10. 

Table 4.10 EQS for infauna monitoring 

Indicators 

Sediment infauna and 

habitat 

Moderate 


High Maximum 





(i) Sediment infauna community 

species richness, based on the 

Inverse Simpson Index, not to 

be five times less than 

background (indicative of 

moderate impact), or 

(ii) Evaluation of images taken 

beneath and within 10 m of the 

sea-cages must not indicate 

presence of white bacterial 

matts, black sediments, bubbles 

of hydrogen sulphide or a 

significant reduction in the 

presence of animal tracks, or 

bioturbator burrows, relative to 

reference sites 




(80%ile): 



Sediment infauna community species 


Index, not to be half that of background 

(indicative of minor impact) 


4.5 Biota monitoring and management 


Prepare Biota management program as part of the EMMP that: 

� Minimises impacts on all biota at the proposed site and within the region; 

� Implements strategies to minimise attraction of fauna to sea cage system; 

� Minimise boating activity; 

� Promotes boating regulations and awareness of boating safety to protect mega fauna and 

other marine biota in the region; and 

� Records all negative interactions with sensitive marine fauna. 


Biota management shall be the responsibility of the Proponent (MPA). 

4.5.3 Timing 

Biota management will be undertaken whenever there are operational activities. 

4.5.4 Implementation and management 

The Biota management plan is devised to comply with Department of Fisheries (DoF) Marine 

Fish Farm Environmental Code of Practice (2009), and details key management strategies for 

preventing and managing adverse interactions with sensitive marine wildlife. 

Pro-active management strategies 

Predator exclusion systems will be mandatory on sea cages. The operation will utilise rigid 

fishnets (single barrier) and where needed external predator nets (double barrier) to avoid 

predation on farmed stock by sharks, crocodiles and dolphins. All net hangings will be 

maintained tight to avoid entanglements. All mesh sizes used on external predator nets are 

180 mm across the bar (or less). 

Reactive management strategies 

Reactive management strategies in event of negative interactions with marine wildlife 

include: 

� Marine farming equipment will be modified if an ongoing record of entanglement emerges, 

so as to alleviate further risk of entanglement; 

� If marine wildlife is discovered entangled in fish farming equipment, then, with due regard 

to workplace safety, all reasonable efforts will be made by farm staff to untangle the 

animal; and 

� All incidences of cetaceans or turtles entangled in MPA infrastructure will be reported 

immediately to DEC Wildcare Hotline on (08) 9474 9055 (24-hour emergency number) or 

the DEC Duty Officer on (08) 9334 0224. 

Interaction with sensitive marine wildlife 

� Staff and contractors will be fully trained and inducted in company policy to ensure they 

are fully aware of the correct manner in which to interact with wildlife. Personnel will also 

be held accountable for the interactions between themselves and wildlife; 

� Marine animals, such as sharks, crocodiles, cetaceans, dolphins and turtles, must not be 

allowed to “gain reward” from the aquaculture operation; 

� It is the responsibility of all crew to avoid, where possible, travelling in the vicinity of 

whales, turtles, crocodiles and dolphins; 

� Under no circumstances will any employee or contractor feed wildlife, or make available 

any dead stock for consumption by wildlife; 

� Feeding, touching or swimming with wildlife is not permitted; 

� All rubbish shall be placed in dedicated waste bins on vessels and work platforms for 

onshore disposal; 

� If turtles and/or cetaceans are sighted within 500 m of the sea pens or work vessel 

routes, a reduced speed should be adopted for all work vessels; 


� All staff and contractors will participate in the monitoring program and will be trained in 

species identification; and 

� Staff will be fully trained in farm and vessel operations. 

Introduction of disease and parasites 

A Barramundi Health Management and Emergency Plan (BHMEP) has been developed which 

includes procedures to prevent a disease and/or parasite outbreak. Management procedures 

include the following best-practice measures: 

� Development of a procedures manual for sea cage culture which includes conservative 

stocking densities, minimal handling, daily monitoring of fish health, regular net 

inspections and cleaning protocol; 

� Adherence to Fisheries WA translocation regulations; 

� No introduction of stock from overseas sources; 

� Any equipment or manufactured feed obtained from overseas sources will satisfy and 

comply to the standard Customs and Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) 

regulations and approvals; 

� Stringent disease testing before fish are transported to the Cone Bay land based facility; 

� Fingerlings to be sourced from an accredited hatchery (accreditation given by the states 

Animal Health Laboratory, Department of Agriculture or similar regulatory body); 

� Development of a procedures manual for land based culture which includes conservative 

stocking densities, minimal handling, daily monitoring of fish health, sterilisation and 

maintenance protocols of land based facility and associated equipment and improvement 

in hatchery techniques; 

� Development of a staff training program in fish handling, biology, behaviour and health 

monitoring; 

� Vaccination of fish to prevent disease; and 

� In the unlikely event of a disease outbreak, MPA will consult with the DoF Fish 

Pathologist/Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), the WA Fisheries Director (or representative) 

and the General Manger of the OEPA and development of a disease contingency plan in 

accordance to his/her recommendations. 

Escape of cultured fish 

Prevention is the management focus as there is no practical ‘post-escape’ contingency plan 

for open sea-cage systems. The sea-cage nets used by MPA are already tested and proven to 

be capable of withstanding adverse weather conditions and predators, so have proven worthy 

for continued use. Routine inspection will be conducted, and where necessary replacement of 

nets will occur. 

A “Procedures and Protocol” manual for net changing, fish transfer and fish harvesting 

activities has been developed to reduce fish escapes during these processes. The manual will 

be utilised during staff induction and training sessions and will be reviewed on a regular 

basis. The use of endemic broodstock, where possible, will also avoid any potential impacts 

associated with genetic variation of the wild stocks. 

Provision of aquaculture food sources to local biota 

For both environmental and economical reasons, the Cone Bay operation uses high quality 

manufactured feed that is closely scrutinised to ensure minimal feed wastage to the 

surrounding water. Feed rates will be managed through the use of feed and tide tables, and 

where possible feeding events will be monitored through the use of underwater video or 

pellet sensors. Feeding will be conducted on a daily basis and feed placement will be 

appropriate to the tidal movement. This will allow farmed fish ample time to consume the 

feed pellet before it is ‘swept’ out of the cages by tidal movement. All feed information will 

be recorded on a daily basis to allow further calculations of feed rates and feed conversion 

rates to ensure the operation is running at its optimum. 

Noise 

Boats are regularly serviced and maintained to reduce noise emissions. In addition, the 

aquaculture site is close to the Cone Bay land base and as a result boating hours will be kept 

to a minimum. All staff will be adequately trained and educated in correct boat handling 

procedures to ensure no unacceptable vessel manoeuvres will occur. 


5. Marine Environmental Management Program 

5.1 Assessing the EQG 

The EMMP has been developed to monitor for potential impacts downstream of the sea-cages, 

and at the boundaries of the moderate (MEPA), high (HEPA) and maximum (MaxEPA) 

ecological protection area boundaries. The approach has two purposes: (i) to measure the 

extent of the contamination gradient downstream of the sea-cages and (ii) to provide 

relevant data for assessment of the EQG. 

Integral to this approach is the collection of data at fixed distance intervals downstream of 

the sea-cages. While this approach is designed for application in the MEPA on an incoming 

tide (when water flows east), the sampling program also enables inferences about possible 

effects on an outgoing tide (when water flows west). Under an outgoing tide, some (or all) of 

the distance intervals may be inferred to be in the HEPA. EQG for high and moderate 

ecological protection (or both) will therefore be applied depending on the position of the seacages 

relative to the MEPA/HEPA boundary. Application of the EQG for high protection will be 

applied where sea-cages are located less than 200 m from the western MEPA/HEPA 

boundary—with the rationale that, on an outgoing tide, some or all of the gradient sites, 

could be inferred to lie within the high ecological protection area. This is a conservative 

approach that ensures protection of sensitive fauna located at/or near the edge of the 

western MEPA/HEPA boundary. Further details regarding the application of the EQG, 

particularly those related to distance interval sites, are provided below. 

5.1.1 TSS and LAC 

Sample medians will be calculated twice: once, after each sampling occasion and then again, 

following the completion of the four month sampling period. Assessment of the EQG at the 

completion of each sampling occasion allows for reactive management in response to ambient 

effects (larger scale); whereas, assessment of the EQG at the end of the extended sampling 

period allows for management of site specific effects (smaller scale). 

After each sampling occasion 

At the completion of each sampling occasion, TSS and LAC values obtained at the HEPA and 

MaxEPA boundaries respectively will be pooled and the sample median calculated (n=4). 

Similarly, at the completion of each sampling occasion, TSS and LAC values obtained at 

gradient sites will also be pooled and the sample median calculated. However, because the 

gradient sites may be inferred to be in the MEPA and/or the HEPA (see discussion above), 

assessment against the EQG will be undertaken as follows: 

� Where sea-cages are positioned greater than 200 m from the western MEPA/HEPA 

boundary 14 (such that all sites are positioned in the MEPA, irrespective of current 

direction), the median shall be calculated from pooled values obtained across individual 

sites (0 m-200 m) (n=5) and compared against the EQG for moderate protection. 

� Where sea-cages are positioned less than (or equal to) 200 m from the western 

MEPA/HEPA boundary (meaning some or all of the sites are inferred to be in the HEPA), 

medians shall be calculated separately e.g. MEPA - 0 m, 10 m and 50 m (n=3) and HEPA 

- 100 m and 200 m (n=2). MEPA and HEPA site medians shall be compared with the EQG 

for moderate and high protection, respectively. 

� Where sites are inferred to be in the MEPA and the HEPA, as in the above example, 

medians should not be calculated if the number of sites is less than n=3 (as a minimum of 

three samples is required to derive a meaningful estimate). In this case, additional 

samples shall be obtained such that the number of measurements is at least n=3. 15 

14 Distance calculated from the sea-cage cluster centroid. 

15 At the time of writing, sea-cages were positioned on the western MEPA/HEPA boundary (Figure 2.1). While seacages 

are located in that position, medians will be calculated from n=5 measurements and compared against the 

EQG for moderate and high protection. Comparison against the EQG for moderate protection will cover potential 

effects on an incoming tide, whereas comparison against the EQG for high protection will cover inferred effects in the 

high ecological protection area on an outgoing tide. Where practicable, future fallowing of sea-cages will ensure seacages 

are positioned at least 200 m from the western MEPA/HEPA boundary, so that issues with sample size (as 

described here) can be avoided. 


EQG, encompassing the 70th, 80th and 95th percentiles shall be calculated after each 

sampling occasion from n=8 Reference Sites. In the event the EQG is exceeded, spare 

samples collected on the same day as the original samples will be analysed. If the EQG is 

still exceeded following reanalysis, then monitoring shall be undertaken against the relevant 

EQS as soon as reasonably practicable. 

After completion of the four month sampling period 

At the completion of the four month sampling period, TSS and LAC values obtained at each of 

the HEPA and MaxEPA sites over the four sampling occasions will be pooled and the sample 

medians calculated. For example, the median for high protection site 1 (H1) will be 

calculated by pooling data obtained on sampling occasions 1, 2, 3 and 4. 


gradient sites will also be pooled and the sample median calculated: Where sea-cages are 

located greater than 200 m from the western MEPA/HEPA boundary (such that all sites are 

positioned in the MEPA, irrespective of current direction), medians will be calculated by 

pooling data obtained on occasions 1, 2, 3 and 4, and compared against the EQG for 

moderate protection. However, where sea-cages are located less than (or equal to) 200 m 

from the western MEPA/HEPA boundary (meaning some or all of the sites are inferred to be in 

the HEPA), the EQG will be assessed differently depending on the inferred position of the 

sites. For example, if a site falls outside the MEPA, then the EQG for high protection will be 

used, and if the site falls within the MEPA, then the EQG for moderate protection will be used. 

This approach is summarised in Figure 5.1. 

Medians will be compared to the EQG calculated from pooled Reference Site data 

(n=4x8=32) obtained over the four month sampling period. In the event the EQG for TSS is 

exceeded, spare samples collected on the same day as the original samples will be analysed. 

If the EQG is still exceeded following reanalyses, then monitoring shall be undertaken against 

the relevant EQS as soon as reasonably practicable. 


Monitor 

Are�any�sea-cages�within� 

or�equal�to�200�m�of�the� 

western�MEPA/HEPA� 

boundary? 

Figure 5.1 Decision scheme for applying the EQG relevant to 'gradient of effect' sites 

5.1.2 Ammonia and DO 

No 

Yes 

What�distance�are�sea-cages� 

from�the�western�MEPA/ 

HEPA�boundary? 

200�m 

100�m 

50�m 

10�m 

0�m 

Does�the�median�of�the�200�m,�100�m,� 

50�m,�10�and�0�m�sites�exceed�the�EQG� 

for�moderate�protection? 

Does�the�median�of�the�200�m�site� 

exceed�the�EQG�for�high�protection? 


10�m�and�0�m�sites�exceed�the�EQG� 

for�moderate�protection? 

Does�the�median�of�the�200�m�and� 

100�m�sites�exceed�the�EQG�for�high� 

protection? 

Does�the�median�of�the�50�m,�10�m� 

and�10�m�sites�exceed�the�EQG�for� 

moderate�protection? 

Does�the�median�of�the�200�m,�100�m� 

and�50�m�sites�exceed�the�EQG�for� 

high�protection? 

Does�the�median�of�the�10�m�and�0�m� 

sites�exceed�the�EQG�for�moderate� 

protection? 


50�m�and�10�m�sites�exceed�the�EQG� 

for�high�protection? 

Does�the�median�of�the�0�m�site� 

exceed�the�EQG�for�moderate� 

protection? 


50�m,�10�and�0�m�sites�exceed�the� 

EQG�for�high�protection? 

Sample percentiles (median and 95th) will be calculated twice: once, after each sampling 

occasion and then again, following the completion of the four month sampling period. 


For sites positioned at the HEPA and MaxEPA boundaries: ammonia and DO values obtained 

from the sites at the boundary of the respective ecological protection areas will be pooled and 

the sample median calculated (n=4). For gradient sites, the following protocol shall be used: 


boundary (such that all sites are positioned in the MEPA, irrespective of current 








38 Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Proceed�to�EQS�for� 

moderate��protection 


high�protection 


moderate�protection 














high�protection




samples shall be obtained such that the number of measurements is at least n=3 (see 

also footnote #15). 

Median DO values will be compared to the EQG calculated from n=8 Reference Sites. EQG, 

encompassing the 80th and 90th percentiles shall be calculated after each sampling occasion. 


At the completion of the four month sampling period, ammonia and DO values obtained at 

each of the HEPA and MaxEPA sites over the four sampling occasions will be pooled and the 

sample percentiles calculated. For example, the median for high protection site 1 (H1) will be 

calculated by pooling data obtained on sampling occasions 1, 2, 3 and 4.. 

Similarly, at the completion of each sampling occasion, ammonia and DO values obtained in 

the MEPA, or any gradient site located outside of the MEPA, will also be pooled and the 

sample median calculated: Where sea-cages are located greater than 200 m from the 

western MEPA/HEPA boundary (such that all sites are positioned in the MEPA, irrespective of 

current direction), medians will be calculated by pooling data obtained on occasions 1, 2, 3 

and 4, and compared against the EQG for moderate protection. However, where sea-cages 

are located less than (or equal to) 200 m from the western MEPA/HEPA boundary (meaning 

some or all of the sites are inferred to be in the HEPA), the EQG will be assessed differently 

depending on the inferred position of the sites. For example, if a site falls outside the MEPA, 

then the EQG for high protection will be used, and if the site falls within the MEPA, then the 

EQG for moderate protection will be used. This approach is summarised in Figure 5.1. 

For sites positioned at the HEPA and MaxEPA boundaries, sample percentiles will be 

calculated for each of the replicate sites (n=4): H1-H4 and Max1-Max4, respectively. Median 

DO values will be compared to the relevant EQG calculated from pooled Reference Site data 

(n=4x8=32) obtained over the four month sampling period. 

In the event the EQG for ammonia is exceeded, spare samples collected on the same day as 

the original samples will be analysed. If the EQG is still exceeded following reanalyses, then 

monitoring shall be undertaken against the relevant EQS as soon as reasonably practicable. 

5.1.3 Chlorophyll-a 

Sample medians will be calculated after each sampling occasion. Chlorophyll-a values 

obtained from the sites at the boundary of the HEPA will be pooled and the sample median 

calculated (n=4). In this case, the sample median will be compared against the EQF for high 

protection (80th percentile). Identical methods will be employed in the case of the MaxEPA: 

Chlorophyll-a values obtained from the sites at the boundary of the MaxEPA will be pooled 

and the sample median calculated (n=4). In this case, the sample median will be compared 

against the EQF for maximum protection (70th percentile). 

These data will be compared to the EQG calculated from n=8 Reference Sites. EQG should 

be calculated after each sampling occasion. In the event the EQG is exceeded, spare 


still exceeded following reanalyses, then monitoring shall be undertaken against the relevant 


5.1.4 Sediment quality 

Sample percentiles (median and 95th) will be calculated twice: once, after each sampling 

occasion and then again, following the completion of the four month sampling period. 


At the completion of each sampling occasion, TKN, TP, TOC and redox discontinuity values 

obtained at the HEPA and MaxEPA boundaries respectively will be pooled and the sample 

median calculated (n=4). Similarly, at the completion of each sampling occasion, TKN, TP, 

TOC and redox discontinuity values obtained at gradient sites will also be pooled and the 


sample median calculated. However, because the gradient sites may be inferred to be in the 

MEPA and/or the HEPA (see discussion above), assessment against the EQG will be 

undertaken as follows: 


boundary (such that all sites are positioned in the MEPA, irrespective of current 











samples shall be obtained such that the number of measurements is at least n=3 (see 

also footnote #15). 

EQG, encompassing the 70th, 80th and 95th percentiles shall be calculated after each 

sampling occasion from n=8 Reference Sites. In the event the EQG is exceeded, spare 


still exceeded following reanalysis, then monitoring shall be undertaken against the relevant 



At the completion of the four month sampling period, TKN, TP, TOC and redox discontinuity 

values obtained at each of the HEPA and MaxEPA sites over the four sampling occasions will 

be pooled and the sample medians calculated. For example, the median for high protection 

site 1 (H1) will be calculated by pooling data obtained on sampling occasion 1, sampling 

occasion 2, sampling occasion 3 and sampling occasion 4. 


gradient sites will also be pooled and the sample median calculated: Where sea-cages are 

located greater than 200 m from the western MEPA/HEPA boundary (such that all sites are 

positioned in the MEPA, irrespective of current direction), medians will be calculated by 

pooling data obtained on occasions 1, 2, 3 and 4, and compared against the EQG for 

moderate protection. However, where sea-cages are located less than (or equal to) 200 m 

from the western MEPA/HEPA boundary (meaning some or all of the sites are inferred to be in 

the HEPA), the EQG will be assessed differently depending on the inferred position of the 

sites. For example, if a site falls outside the MEPA, then the EQG for high protection will be 

used, and if the site falls within the MEPA, then the EQG for moderate protection will be used. 

This approach is summarised in Figure 5.1. 

Medians will be compared to the EQG calculated from pooled Reference Site data 

(n=4x8=32) obtained over the four month sampling period. In the event the EQG for TSS is 

exceeded, spare samples collected on the same day as the original samples will be analysed. 

If the EQG is still exceeded following reanalyses, then monitoring shall be undertaken against 

the relevant EQS as soon as reasonably practicable. 

5.2 Assessing the EQS 

5.2.1 Infauna species richness 

Upon exceedance of an EQG, MPA will undertake sediment infauna sampling as soon as 

reasonably practicable. If the exceedance relates to the EQG for moderate protection, 

sampling will be conducted beneath the sea-cages. If the exceedance relates to the EQG for 

high/maximum protection, sampling will be undertaken at the high/maximum protection 

water quality sites (in this case, sampling will be conducted at sites with the highest 

contaminant concentrations). 


To calculate the Inverse Simpson Index, the species richness of impact sites will be compared 

to the sediment quality Reference Sites. The Inverse Simpson Index is ideally suited as an 

EQS, as its sensitivity can be configured for either minor or moderate level impacts. 

5.2.2 Assessment of imagery 

Visual assessment of sediment condition beneath sea-cages is a rapid and simple method for 

quantifying unacceptable levels of change. For example, sea-cages in Tasmania are fallowed 

as soon as practicable following observation of hydrogen sulphide bubbles (Crawford 2003). 

However, such indicators are generally representative of moderate to severe levels of change 

(Crawford 2003), and are not suitable for application outside the MEPA. 

Upon exceedance of an EQG, MPA will undertake photographic surveys as soon as reasonably 

practicable. If the exceedance relates to the EQG for moderate protection, surveys will be 

conducted beneath the sea-cages. Images will be recorded and saved to a hard drive. The 

images will then be assessed qualitatively to determine whether there have been changes in 

key indicators. For the moderate protection area, these include: white bacterial mats, MPBs, 

black sediments, bubbles of hydrogen sulphide, mass mortality of benthic macrofauna, or a 

significant reduction in the presence of animal tracks and/or bioturbator burrows, relative to 

reference sites. 

If the exceedance relates to the EQG for high/maximum protection, photographic surveys will 

be undertaken as follows: at coral sites on an exceedance of the EQG for TSS, LAC and 

phytoplankton biomass. Photographic images will be analysed qualitatively for the presence 

of coral mucous, and/or a reduction in coral pigmentation. 

5.2.3 LAC and TSS (LOI) 

As per the multiple lines of evidence approach outlined in EPA (2005), EQS have been 

developed for TSS (LOI), and LAC. The intent is to use these indicators in conjunction with 

the indicators of coral health. 

Upon an exceedance of the EQG for TSS (LOI), LAC or phytoplankton biomass, sampling at 

each of the coral monitoring sites will commence as soon as reasonably practicable. The 

intent is to establish whether measures of TSS and/or LAC at the coral impact sites are 

beyond the range recorded naturally, as determined by ANOVA. Sampling will continue at 

the impact and reference sites two times per week over an eight week period, resulting in a 

sample size of n=16. Sampling will be timed to coincide with outgoing tides when coral 

impact sites are more likely to receive inputs from the sea-cages. 

5.3 Monitoring-management feedback loop 

The order of events following an exceedance of either the EQG or EQS for water and 

sediment quality is provided in Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3, respectively. 


EQG�(i)�or�(ii)� 

exceeded 

TSS�� 

Analyse spare samples: have any 

of the EQG been exceeded? 

Sediment� 

Infauna 

Image�analysis:� 

sea-cages 

Calculate: 

Median�individual�MEPA,�HEPA�and�MaxEPA�zones;�and 

95 th 80 th and�70 th percentiles�of�pooled�reference�site�data� 

Has the EQG for Moderate, High or Max 

protection been exceeded? 

No Yes 

Moderate Ecological�Protection 

LAC Ammonia DO 


exceeded 

No 

Sediment� 

Infauna 


exceeded 



Conduct�routine�monitoring 

Determine�which�EQG�has�been�exceeded�(note� 

that�more�than�one�can�be�exceeded) 


sea-cages 


exceeded 

EQS exceeded: Initiate�management�response�to� 

reduce�contaminant�loads�and�restore� 

environmental�quality�to�comply�with�the�EQOs� 

within�specified�time�frames�(see�Section�5�of� 

EMMP)� 

Figure 5.2 Narrative decision scheme for applying the EQC for water quality 

DO 

High and Maximum Ecological�Protection 

TSS�� Ammonia 

Chl-a LAC DO 

EQG�(i)�or�(ii)�� 

exceeded 



Sediment� 

Infauna 

Have any of the EQS been exceeded? 


WQ�Sites 

TSS� 

(ANOVA) 


coral�health 


exceeded 

42 Oceanica: Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture, Environmental Monitoring & Management Plan 

Yes 

Benthic� 

macro-fauna� 

mortality 

EQG�(i)�� 

exceeded 

EQG 

EQS 

EQG 



LAC� 

(ANOVA) 

Key 

Only�relevant�to�inferred� 

EQG�for�high�protection�on� 

an�outgoing�tide 


exceeded 


coral�health 

DO

Figure 5.3 Narrative decision scheme for applying the EQC for sediment quality 

5.4 Contingency management 

In the event that an EQS is exceeded, management will be undertaken to reduce the effect of 

contaminant(s) and restore environmental quality to comply with the specified level of 

ecological protection. Examples of management steps may include: 

5.4.1 Fallowing of sea-cages 

Fallowing (or movement) of sea-cages has been shown to be a highly effective method for 

reducing the point source impacts of aquaculture, particularly to sediments. Studies on the 

effects of fallowing indicate that the chemistry of sediments on impacted sites will return to 

original state after stock are removed. Time taken for redox readings to return to normal is 

site dependant and influenced by sediment particle size, and local flushing and scouring 

rates. Generally redox readings return to pre-stocking levels within a few months to a year 

of fallowing (e.g. MacLeod et al. 2002; Forrest et al. 2007). 


5.4.2 Movement of stock 

Movement or partial harvest of the stock may be considered as a temporary measure to 

reduce pressures on water or sediment quality, and to allow time for sediment and water 

quality indicators to comply with the specified levels of ecological protection. 

5.4.3 Reduction of stocking densities 

Reduction of stocking density through splitting cages and selective harvest may be 

implemented as a temporary measure to reduce pressures on water or sediment quality, and 

to allow time for sediment and water quality indicators to comply with the specified levels of 

ecological protection. 

5.4.4 Reduction of feed input rates 

Reduction of feed input rates may be implemented as a temporary measure to reduce 

pressures on water or sediment quality, and to allow time for sediment and water quality 

indicators to comply with the specified levels of ecological protection. 

5.5 Timelines for remedying the source of an exceedance 

In the event that an EQG trigger level is exceeded, the proponent will report the matter to 

the DoF and the OEPA within one working day of determining that this has occurred, and 

initiate investigation against the EQS as soon as reasonably practicable. 

In the event that an EQS is exceeded, the proponent will report the matter to the DoF and 

the OEPA within one working day of determining that this has occurred and will commence 

management to (i) reduce the effect and/or mitigate the source of the contaminants, and (ii) 

to restore environmental quality within the specified level of ecological protection. 

During the management phase, MPA will continue to monitor the impacted sites to measure 

the status of the recovery process. The level of recovery following an exceedance will be 

reported in the Proponents Annual Compliance Reports. Studies conducted in Tasmania 

found that physical chemical parameters in sediments beneath sea-cages recovered within 

two years of fallowing (Crawford 2003). 


6. Auditing & EMMP review 

6.1 Internal auditing 

MPA will conduct regular internal audits to ensure each of the components of the EMMP have 

been implemented and the results reported annually. 

6.2 EMMP review 

The EMMP will be reviewed two years following implementation, or earlier as required. The 

purpose of the review will be to assess the extent to which the EMMP and the existing EQC 

are appropriate. New EQC, and/or monitoring criteria and schedules may be developed in 

consultation with the OEPA. 


7. Stakeholder Consultation 

7.1 Details of stakeholder consultation 

A letter outlining MPA's plans to expand operations from 1000 t/a to 2000 t/a annual 

production was forwarded to major stakeholder groups on the 10 November 2011 

(Appendix D). The Stakeholder groups contacted are included in Table 7.1. 

Table 7.1 List of stakeholder groups contacted 

Name of Organisation 

Shire of Derby West 

Kimberley 

Name of Contact 

Person 

Shane Burge Both 

Posted or 

Emailed 

Kimberley Land Council Nolan Hunter Both None 

WAFIC Guy Leyland Both 

Recfishwest Andrew Matthews Both None 

The Wilderness Society Jenita Enevoldsen Both None 

Environs Kimberly Martin Prichard Both None 

Conservation Council Of WA Piers Verstengen Mail None 

Australian Marine 

Conservation Society 

Craige McGovern Both 

Tourism WA Neil Poh Both None 

Department of Fisheries Both None 

Department of Environment Kelran McNamara Both None 

Broome Fishing Club Jeff Cooper Both 

Mary Island Fishing Club Richard Macfarlan Emailed None 

Wanjina Wunggurr Aboriginal 

Corporation 

Bardi and Jawi Aboriginal 

Corporation 

Donny 

Woolagoodja 

Mail None 

Response 

John Albert Both None 

“At this time we do not have any 

comment to make on your planned 

proposal and are prepared to allow the 

EPA to assess your expansion plans as 

you have suggested.” 

“I wish to advise that Marine Produce 

has the full support of the Western 

Australian Fishing Council in its 

endeavours to expand production of 

barramundi. We appreciate the 

challenges in operating in such a 

remote area and we wish you well in 

regard to your future plans.” 

“Thanks for your email and attached 

letter. I’ve forwarded that on for you.” 

“The Broome Fishing Club sees 

aquacultured Barramundi as a more 

sustainable and environmentally 

amenable option to the wild caught 

product and as always you will have 

our full support.” 


7.2 Feedback received 

At 11:00 am on the 22 November 2011, MPA had received four responses to the letter. The 

responses are outlined in Table 7.2. 

Table 7.2 Feedback received from stakeholder groups 

Name of Organisation 

Shire of Derby West 

Kimberley 

Name of Contact 

Person 

Shane Burge Both 

Posted or 

Emailed 

Kimberley Land Council Nolan Hunter Both None 

WAFIC Guy Leyland Both 

Recfishwest Andrew Matthews Both None 

The Wilderness Society Jenita Enevoldsen Both None 

Environs Kimberly Martin Prichard Both None 

Conservation Council Of WA Piers Verstengen Mail None 

Australian Marine 

Conservation Society 

Craige McGovern Both 

Tourism WA Neil Poh Both None 

Department of Fisheries Both None 

Department of Environment Kelran McNamara Both None 

Broome Fishing Club Jeff Cooper Both 

Mary Island Fishing Club Richard Macfarlan Emailed None 

Wanjina Wunggurr Aboriginal 

Corporation 

Bardi and Jawi Aboriginal 

Corporation 

Donny 

Woolagoodja 

Mail None 

Response 

John Albert Both None 

“At this time we do not have any 

comment to make on your planned 

proposal and are prepared to allow the 

EPA to assess your expansion plans as 

you have suggested.” 

“I wish to advise that Marine Produce 

has the full support of the Western 

Australian Fishing Council in its 

endeavours to expand production of 

barramundi. We appreciate the 

challenges in operating in such a 

remote area and we wish you well in 

regard to your future plans.” 

“Thanks for your email and attached 

letter. I’ve forwarded that on for you.” 

“The Broome Fishing Club sees 

aquacultured Barramundi as a more 

sustainable and environmentally 

amenable option to the wild caught 

product and as always you will have 

our full support.” 


8. Additional information 

Additional information is provided in fulfilment of Department of Fisheries Guideline for 

preparation of Environmental Management Plans. 

8.1 Proponent responsibilities 

Ultimate responsibility for environmental compliance relating to Aquaculture Licence 1465 

rests with the proponent’s board of directors. MPA understands that the activities of a third 

party on the licensed site are ultimately the responsibility of the proponent (licensee) and 

that any agreement between the proponent and MPA does not transfer the legal responsibility 

for compliance with licence and ministerial conditions to MPA. The joint venture agreement 

between MPA provides the proponent with a legal instrument with which to make certain that 

MPA is aware of its obligations in operating at the site, and conduct aquaculture activities 

within the conditions of Aquaculture Licence 1465 and EPA Ministerial Statement 798. Under 

the joint venture agreement the board of directors of MPA is obligated to report on all 

activities and issues relating to environmental approvals and compliance to the proponent. 

The key roles and responsibilities relating to implementing this EMMP are outlined below: 

8.1.1 General Manager 

The General Manager reports to the MPA board or directors and is responsible for: 

� Reporting all instances of exceedances of trigger values relating to EQC directly to OEPA 

and DoF within one working day of determining this has happened. 

� Preparation and submission to OEPA and DoF, of Annual Environmental Compliance 

reports. 

� Maintaining environmental monitoring program database; 

� Implementation of all statutory requirements, policies and procedures detailed in this 

EMMP. 

� Regularly reviewing the EMMP and implementing improvements in consultation with DoF 

and OEPA; and 

� Proactive liaison and consultation with DoF and OEPA, and community stakeholders. 

8.1.2 Farm manager 

The Farm Manager reports to the General Manager and is responsible for: 

� Conducting day-to-day monitoring program in conjunction with farm staff. 

� Reporting all incidents of escape of fish to the General Manager and DoF within one 

working day of determining this has happened. 

� Reporting all incidents of entanglement of wildlife immediately to the General Manager, 

and DEC within one working day of determining this has happened. 

� Enacting appropriate reactive management measures in consultation with the General 

Manager. 

8.1.3 Technical manager 

The Technical Manager reports to the Farm Manager and is responsible for: 

� Oversee conduct of all routine quarterly sampling including recording and collation of 

results; and 

� Collecting and collating all daily environmental data and enter in to the company 

production database. 

8.1.4 Site supervisor 

The Site Supervisor reports to the Farm Manager and is responsible for: 

� Oversee collection of the daily monitoring requirements outlined in this EMMP. 

� Reporting all incidents of entanglement of wildlife, and escape of fish immediately to the 

Farm Manager and complete a company accident/incident report form and file it with the 

Farm Manager within 24 hours. 


8.1.5 Farm attendant 

The Farm Attendant answers to the Site Supervisor and Technical Manager and is responsible 

for: 

� Reporting all incidents of entanglement of wildlife and escape of fish immediately to the 

Site Supervisor. 

� Daily collection of field environmental data in accordance with this EMMP. 

8.2 Disease management and chemical usage 

MPA will manage all disease outbreaks and treatments in accordance with conditions outlined 

in DoF Aquaculture Licence 1465 and the Environmental Code of Practice for Management of 

Western Australia’s Marine Fin-fish Industry (DoF 2009), and the National Aquaplan (2005- 

2010) – Australian National Strategic Plan for Aquatic Animal Health (DoFF 2005), and 

procedures detailed in the national AQUAVETPLAN Enterprise Manual (DoFF 2009). 

The primary aim of disease mitigation at Marine Produce Australia is the promotion of fish 

health through sound husbandry practices. Disease prevention is considered to be the most 

economically, environmentally and socially sustainable approach to managing fish health. To 

manage fish health at MPA the key focus areas are: 

� Maintenance of optimum stocking densities relative to prevailing environmental conditions 

� Provision of adequate fish nutrition; 

� Reduction of factors causing fish stress; and 

� Continuous development and improvement husbandry practices and will strive for 

industry best-practice. 

The secondary focus of disease mitigation is aimed at managing the effects of disease 

through treatment. The MPA disease treatment strategy focuses on: 

� Fish husbandry measures (e.g. destocking, transferring); 

� Non prescribed therapeutants; and 

� Prescribed therapeutants. 

Monitoring farmed fish for signs of disease is an integral part of the MPA fish health program. 

Early detection of disease is essential for effective disease mitigation. The key tool for early 

identification of fish health issues is the routine observation of fish by farm technical staff. 

Farm staff will be trained to identify signs of disease in farmed fish, and to take appropriate 

action, including reporting of all suspected disease observations to management immediately. 

Typical signs of disease include: 

� Loss of appetite; 

� Poor feed response; 

� Presence of unexpected mortalities; 

� Erratic, lethargic or directionless swimming; 

� Gasping and coughing; and 

� Swimming on the surface. 

Fish health sampling for submission to Fish Health is conducted at MPA for the following 

reasons: 

� Routine submission of fish samples for bacteriology and histology; and 

� Submission of fish samples in response to disease observations, for diagnostic services. 

In implementing the BHMEP, MPA, in the event of disease outbreak, will: 

� Report all suspected disease outbreaks to DoF Aquaculture branch and the Principal 

Veterinarian at the WA Fish Health Laboratories; 


� Administer all prescribed medications and therapeutants under the strict guidance and 

authorisation of the Principal Veterinarian or Senior Fish Pathologist at the WA Fish Health 

Laboratories; 

� Keep comprehensive records of all prescribed and non-prescribed medications and 

therapeutants applied to fish on the aquaculture site including groups medicated, dose 

rates and duration; and 

� Maintain comprehensive record of all management responses, including alterations to fish 

husbandry practice, relating to observation of signs of disease. 

8.3 Risk assessment 

The risk assessment was conducted in consultation with DoF using the analysis tool outlined 

in the National ESD Framework for aquaculture (Fletcher et al. 2004, vom Berg 2008). The 

component tree used for identifying potential environmental effects of fish farms, and 

findings of the risk assessment are detailed in Appendix A. The risk assessment is used to 

evaluate commonly perceived risks of environmental impact that may result from marine 

farm operations. The environmental risks identified in this risk assessment were derived 

from: 

� The component trees outlined in Fisheries Management Paper 229 (vom Berg 2008); 

� Concerns arising from public and stakeholder consultation; and 

� Report and Recommendations of the OEPA (2008). 

The main aim of the risk assessment is to determine if the proposed management is 

sufficient, and the management strategies to be considered in determining consequence and 

likelihood levels (vom Berg 2008). Figure 8.1 provides an overview of the risks associated 

with sea-cage aquaculture as summarised in vom Berg (2008). The risk matrix and risk 

matrix outcomes are provided in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2. Results of the risk assessment are 

shown in Table 8.3. 

� 

1.1.1 Collection� 

Broodstock Collection� 

Genetics� 

Abundance� 

Grow-out Stock� 

1.1 Wild Stock� 

of Cultured species� 

1.1.2 Escape of� 

Cultured Species� 

Genetics� 

Disease� 

Competition� 

(eg. food space)� 

Other issues� 

1. Biological/Environment Effects of the 

Whole Finfish Marine Based Industry on 

Disease 

Transmission 

1.2 Cultured Stocks/Businesses 

(Husbandry) 

1.2.1 Genetics 

1.2.2 Disease 

Identification 

Responses 

1.2.3 Animal Welfare 

1.3 Other Species/Communities� 

Processes� 

1.3.1 Disease� 

Escape & Transmission� 

Escape of Cultured Species� 

(feral populations)� 

1.3.3 Feeds Composition� 

(Source and Sustainability)� 

1.3.4 Chemicals� 

1.3.5 Water Quality� 

1.3.6 Pests� 

Figure 8.1 Component Tree - Biological/Environmental Effects of the finfish sea-cage industry 

(vom Berg 2008, modified from Fletcher et al. 2004) 


Table 8.1 Risk matrix – numbers in cells indicate risk value, the colours/shades indicate risk 

rankings (from Fletcher et al. 2004). 

Consequence 

Likelihood Negligible Minor Moderate Severe Major Catastrophic 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

Remote 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 

Rare 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 

Unlikely 3 0 3 6 9 12 15 

Possible 4 0 4 8 12 16 20 

Occasional 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 

Likely 6 0 6 12 18 24 30 

Table 8.2 Risk rankings and outcomes (from Fletcher et al. 2004) 

Risk rankings Risk values Likely management response Likely reporting requirements 

Negligible 0 Nil Short Justification only 

Low 1 – 6 None specific Full justification needed 

Moderate 7 – 12 Specific management needed Full performance report 

High 13 – 18 

Possible increases to 

management activities 

Full performance report 

Extreme > 19 

Likely additional management 

activities 

Full performance report 

Table 8.3 Summary of issues & risk rankings 

Category Issue Consequence Likelihood 

Water quality 

Sediment 

quality 

Nutrient enrichment of 

water in immediate 

vicinity of cages (inside 

10m) due to farm 

activities 


water on the aquaculture 

site (outside 10m 

from cages) due to farm 

activities 


water outside aquaculture 

site due to farm 

activities 

Pollution from chemical 

inputs and fuel spills 


sediment in immediate 

vicinity of cages (inside 

30m) due to fallout from 

farm activities 


sediment on the 

aquaculture site (outside 

30m from cages) due to 

fallout from farm 

activities 


sediment outside 

aquaculture site due to 


activities 

Pollution of sediments 

from chemical inputs 

and fuel spills 

Risk 

Ranking 

Ranking 

0 5 0 Negligible 



1 1 1 Low 

3 4 12 Moderate 

2 1 2 Low 


1 1 1 Low 


Category Issue Consequence Likelihood 

Benthic 

fauna 

Coral 

communities 

Wildlife 

interactions 

Wild finfish 

Mangrove 

systems 

Impact on benthic 

communities in 

immediate vicinity of 

cages (inside 30m) due 

to fallout from farm 

activities 


communities on the 




activities 


communities outside the 




activities 

Increase in algae cover 

on adjacent coral reefs 

due to nutrient 

enrichment of water 

from marine farm 

activities 

Longer term changes in 

coral productivity due to 

marine farm activities 

Entanglement of marine 

wildlife in fish farming 

equipment 

Collision with marine 

wildlife and farm vessels 

Predation on farmed 

stock by sharks and 

seals 

Disease transmission to 

wild fish 

Effects of increased 

competition for food for 

wild finfish due to 

escaped cultured stocks 

Impact on genetics of 

wild finfish from escaped 

cultured stocks 

Increase in wild fish 

populations due to 

feeding on uneaten feed 

Parasite levels on wild 

fish being exacerbated 

through the high density 

presence of cultured fish 

(EPA bulletin 1109) 

Disturbance due to 

mooring equipment and 

hardware 

Enrichment due to fish 

farm wastes 

Risk 

Ranking 

4 4 16 High 

2 1 2 Low 

Ranking 




3 1 3 Low 

3 1 3 Low 

1 3 3 Low 

3 1 3 Low 

1 3 3 Low 


1 3 3 Low 

1 3 3 Low 




8.4 Waste management plan 

The project will seek to minimise the amount of waste material transported from the Derby 

shore-base to the site. Garbage generated on the site will include empty feed bags, staff 

domestic waste and, old ropes and net mesh. All non perishable garbage will be packed into 

empty one tonne bulk bags and brought back to Derby for disposal. Perishable garbage will 

be stored in sealed containers and stored for disposal in Derby. The operation will generate a 

small quantity of used oil from engine servicing which will be stored in a 44 gallon drum and 

capped, and returned to Derby for disposal. MPA will provide bunding for all oil, fuel, silage 

and other chemicals stored on Turtle Island. 

Sewage will be either treated for disposal at sea using an approved (by DoF and DEC) toilet 

treatment system, or stored in tanks on the accommodation vessel and pumped out for 

disposal when the vessel is in port. 

Fish mortalities will be removed from the cages two times per week and will be minced and 

stored in sealed drums as silage. The silage units use formic acid to liquefy fish waste and are 

commercially available. Fish silage equipment is in common usage on fish farms worldwide. 

The silage will be removed from the site when required and transported to Derby for reuse, 

or disposal if no use can be found. 

8.5 Decommissioning plan 

Should the operation be discontinued the infrastructure will be removed from the site. To 

achieve this, the following operations will be performed: 

� All fish will be harvested; 

� Fish nets will be stripped from the cages and taken to Derby; 

� Cages will be towed back to Derby and dismantled; and 

� Moorings will be removed and transported back to Derby. 

It is acknowledged that the decommissioning of aquaculture sites if not undertaken by the 

proponent, is completed by the Department of Fisheries with any costs incurred, recouped 

through legal means if necessary (pursuant to Fish Resources Management Regulations 1995 

(FRMR)). 


9. Acknowledgements 

This EMMP was prepared by Dr Glenn Shiell (Oceanica) and reviewed by Dr Karen Hillman 

(Oceanica), Justin Clarke, Daryn Payne and Desiree Allen (MPA). Desiree Allen (MPA) 

assisted with the literature review, and provided constructive comment on the draft EMMP. 

Ben Brayford (Geo-Oceans) and Alex Grochowski (Oceanica) undertook field surveys and 

provided geo-referenced habitat data. Spatial data processing, habitat maps and GPS 

waypoints were undertaken and prepared by Ashty Saleem and Dinesh Tuladhar 

(Oceanica). Report formatting was undertaken by Dennis Bothur (Oceanica). 


10. References 

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine 

Water Quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & 

Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, National 

Water Quality Management Strategy No. 4 & 7 

Amar KO, Rinkevich B (2007) A floating mid-water coral nursery as larval dispersion hub: 

Testing an idea. Marine Biology 151:713–718 

APASA (2006), A numerical modelling study of the proposed increase in Barramundi 

production in Cone Bay, Western Australia, December 2006, Report prepared for 

Maxima Pearling Company Pty Ltd, December 2006 

Atkinson S, Atkinson MJ, Tarrant AM (2003) Estrogens from sewage in Coastal Marine 

Environments. Environmental Health Perspectives 111 (4): 532-535 

Bongiorni L, Shafir S, Angel D, Rinkevich B (2003a) Survival, growth and reproduction of two 

hermatypic corals subjected to in situ fish-farm nutrient enrichment. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 253:137–144 

Bongiorni L, Shafir S, Rinkevich B (2003b) Effects of particulate matter released by a fish 

farm (Eilat, Red Sea) on survival and growth of Stylophora pistillata coral nubbins. 

Marine Pollution Bulletin 46:1120–1124 

Borja A, Rodriguez GJ, Black K, Bodoy A, Emblow C, Fernades TF, Forte J, Karakassis I, 

Muxika I, Nickell TD, Papageorgiou N, Pranovi F, Sevastou K, Tomassetti P, Angel D 

(2009) Assessing the suitability of a range of benthic indices in the evaluation of 

environmental impact of fin and shellfish aquaculture located in sites across Europe. 

Aquaculture 293: 231-240 

Brown & Root (2000), Hydrodynamic and ecological studies in Cone Bay, Report prepared for 

Maxima Pearling Company by Brown and Root Services Asia Pacific Pty Ltd, July 2000. 

Carroll ML, Cochrane S, Fieler R, Velvin R, White P (2003) Organic enrichment of sediments 

from salmon farming in Norway: environmental factors, management practices and 

monitoring techniques. Aquaculture 226: 165-180 

Crawford C, MacLeod C, Mitchell I (2002) Evaluation of techniques for environmental 

monitoring of salmon farms in Tasmania. Technical Report Series, TAFI, Hobart, 

Tasmania 

DoE (2006a) Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes-Environmental Values and 

Environmental Quality Objectives, Department of Environment, Government of 

Western Australia, Marine Series Report No 1 

DoE (2006b) Compliance Monitoring and Reporting - Guidelines for Proponents - Preparing 

Environmental Management Plans - DRAFT, Prepared by Department of Environment, 

Perth, Western Australia, May 2006 

DoFF (2005) Australian National Strategic Plan for Aquatic Animal Health, Department of 

Agriculture Forestry and Fishing 

DoFF (2009) AQUAVETPLAN�Australian Aquatic Veterinary Emergency Plan, Enterprise 

Manual Version 2.0, Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fishing 

DPIW (2008) Department of Primary Industries and Water, Schedule 3B to aquaculture 

license: Salmonid Finfish Environmental Baseline Survey. DPIW Hobart Tasmania 

EPA (2005a) Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Document for Cockburn Sound (2003- 

2004) - A supporting document to the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy 

2005, Prepared by Environmental Protection Authority, Report no. 20, Perth, Western 

Australia 

EPA (2005b) Manual of Standard Operating Procedures - For Environmental Monitoring 

against the Cockburn Sound Environmental Quality Criteria (2003 - 2004) - A 

supporting document to the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy 2005, 

Prepared by Environmental Protection Authority, Report no. 21, Perth, Western 

Australia, January 2005 


EPA (2008) Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority, 1,000 

tonnes per year production of Barramundi in Cone Bay, Shire of Derby-West Kimberly, 

Environmental Protection Authority, Perth Western Australia, Report 1305, November 

2008 

Fletcher WJ, Chesson J, Fisher M, Sainsbury KJ, Hundloe TJ (2004) National ESD reporting 

framework: The ‘how to’ guide for aquaculture, Version 1.1 FRDC, Canberra, Australia. 

88 pp 

Forrest B, Keeley N, Gillespie P, Hopkins G, Knight B, Govier D (2007) Review of the 

Ecological Effects of Marine Finfish Aquaculture, Final report prepared for Ministry of 

Fisheries. Cawthron Report No. 1285. 71p 

Gilmour JP, Cooper TF, Fabricius KE, Smith LD (2007) Early warning indicators of change in 

the condition of corals and coral communities in response to key anthropogenic 

stressors in the Pilbara, Western Australia 

Government of Western Australia (2003) Hope for the future, The Western Australian State 

Sustainability Strategy, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Perth 

Government of Western Australia (2004) State Water Quality Management Strategy No 6 - 

Implementation Framework for Western Australia for the Australian and New Zealand 

Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality and Water Quality Monitoring and 

Reporting (Guidelines Nos. 4 & 7: National Water Quality Management Strategy), 

Prepared by Government of Western Australia, Report no. SWQ 6, Perth, Western 

Australia 

Hatcher, BG & Larkum, AWD (1983), An experimental analysis of factors controlling the 

standing crop of the epilithic algal communities on a coral reef. Journal of 

Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 113: 39-59 

Koop K, Booth D, Broadbent AD, Brodie J, Bucher D, Capone D, Coll J, Dennison W, Erdmann, 

M, Harrison P, Hutchings O, Jones GB, Larkum AW, O’Neil J, Steven A, Tentori E, Ward 

A, Williamson J & Yellowlees D (2001) ENCORE: the effect of nutrient enrichment on 

coral reefs; synthesis of results and conclusions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42:91-120 

Macleod C, Crawford C, Mitchell I, Connell R (2002) Evaluation of sediment recovery after 

removal of finfish cages from Marine farm Lease No. 76 (Gunpowder Jetty), North 

West Bay, Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute Technical Report Series 13, 

54pp 

Macleod C, Forbes S, Bisset A, Burke C, Crawford C, Holdsworth D, Nichols P, Revill A, & 

Volkman J (2004) Guide to the assessment of sediment condition at marine finfish 

farms, Aquafin CRC Project 4.1 Extension report to FRDC. Tasmanian Aquaculture & 

Fisheries Institute 

Oceanica (2010) Survey of Marine Habitats in Crawford Bay, Prepared for Marine Produce 

Australia by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 832_001/1, Perth, Western 

Australia, May 2010 

Olsen LM, Holmer M, Olsen Y (2008) Perspectives of nutrient emissions from fish aquaculture 

in coastal waters: literature review with evaluated state of knowledge. The Fishery 

and Aquaculture Industry Research Fund, FHF project No. 542014 

PER (2007) Cone Bay 1,000 tonne Barramundi Production Proposal, Public Environmental 

Review, December 2007, Maxima Pearling Company Pty Ltd 

Shaish L, Levy G, Gomez E, Rinkevich B (2008) Fixed and suspended coral nurseries in the 

Philippines: establishing the first step in the ‘gardening concept’ of reef restoration. 

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 358:86–97 

Shafir S, Rijn VJ, Rinkevich B (2006) Steps in the construction of underwater coral nursery, 

an essential component in reef restoration acts. Marine Biology 149:679–687 

Shiell GR, Knott B (2010) Aggregations and temporal changes in the activity and bioturbation 

contribution of the sea cucumber Holothuria whitmaei (Echinodermata: 

Holothuroidea). Marine Ecology Progress Series 415:127-139 


vom Berg F 2008, Finfish Aquaculture in Western Australia: Final ESD Risk Assessment 

Report for sea-cage and land-based finfish aquaculture, Western Australian Fisheries 

Management Paper No. 229 


Appendix A 

Ministerial Statement 798

STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT 

This document has been produced by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as an electronic version of 

the original Statement for the proposal listed below as signed by the Minister and held by this Office. 

Whilst every effort is made to ensure its accuracy, no warranty is given as to the accuracy or 

completeness of this document. 

The State of Western Australia and its agents and employees disclaim liability, whether in negligence 

or otherwise, for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on the accuracy or completeness of this 

document. 

Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia. 

Reproduction except in accordance with copyright law is prohibited. 

Published on 6 August 2009 Statement No 798 

STATEMENT THAT A PROPOSAL MAY BE IMPLEMENTED 

(PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1986) 

VARIATION TO EXISTING AQUACULTURE LICENCE 1465 TO 

INCREASE PRODUCTION TO 1000 TONNES PER YEAR PRODUCTION OF 

BARRAMUNDI IN CONE BAY, 

SHIRE OF DERBY-WEST KIMBERLEY 

Proposal: To produce 1,000 tonnes per annum of Barramundi in 

Cone Bay, 215 kilometres north-northeast of Broome, 

Shire of Derby-West Kimberley, with the use of eight 

nursery and 20 grow out sea cages. 

The proposal is further documented in schedule 1 of this 

statement. 

Proponent: Maxima Pearling Company Pty Ltd 

Proponent Address: PO Box 843, BROOME WA 6725 

Assessment Number: 1642 

Report of the Environmental Protection Authority: Report 1305 

The proposal referred to in the above report of the Environmental Protection 

Authority may be implemented. The implementation of that proposal is subject to the 

following conditions and procedures: 

1 Proposal Implementation 

1-1 The proponent shall implement the proposal as assessed by the 

Environmental Protection Authority and documented and described in 

schedule 1 of this statement subject to the conditions and procedures of this 

statement.

2 Proponent Nomination and Contact Details 

2-1 The proponent for the time being nominated by the Minister for 

Environment under sections 38(6) or 38(7) of the Environmental Protection 

Act 1986 is responsible for the implementation of the proposal. 

2-2 The proponent shall notify the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the 

Department of Environment and Conservation of any change of the name 

and address of the proponent for the serving of notices or other 

correspondence within 30 days of such change. 

3 Time Limit of Authorisation 

3-1 The authorisation to implement the proposal provided for in this statement 

shall lapse and be void within five years after the date of this statement if the 

proposal to which this statement relates is not substantially commenced. 

3-2 The proponent shall provide the CEO of the Department of Environment and 

Conservation with written evidence which demonstrates that the proposal 

has substantially commenced on or before the expiration of five years from 

the date of this statement. 

4 Compliance Reporting 

4-1 The proponent shall submit to the CEO of the Department of Environment 

and Conservation environmental compliance reports annually reporting on 

the previous twelve-month period. 

4-2 The environmental compliance reports shall address each element of an audit 

program approved by the CEO of the Department of Environment and 

Conservation. 

4-3 The environmental compliance reports shall: 

1. be endorsed by signature of the proponent’s chief executive officer 

or a person, approved in writing by the CEO of the Department of 

Environment and Conservation, delegated to sign on behalf of the 

proponent’s chief executive officer; 

2. state whether the proponent has complied with each condition and 

procedure contained in this statement; 

3. provide verifiable evidence of compliance with each condition and 

procedure contained in this statement; 

4. state whether the proponent has complied with each action 

contained in any environmental management plan or program 

required by this statement; 

2

5. provide verifiable evidence of conformance with each action 

contained in any environmental management plan or program 

required by this statement; 

6. identify all non-compliances and non-conformances and describe 

the corrective and preventative actions taken in relation to each 

non-compliance or non-conformance; 

7. review the effectiveness of all corrective and preventative actions 

taken; and 

8. describe the state of implementation of the proposal. 

4-4 The proponent shall make the environmental compliance reports required by 

condition 4-1 publicly available in a manner approved by the CEO of the 

Department of Environment and Conservation. 

5 Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan 

5-1 Prior to the stocking of pens, the proponent shall prepare and commence 

implementation of an Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan to 

the requirements of the Department of Environment and Conservation and 

the Department of Fisheries. 

5-2 The Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan required by condition 

5-1 shall include the monitoring of specific parameters within the water 

column and sediment as Environmental Quality Guidelines (EQG) 

indicators; set out the process for the development and application of 

Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) within three years, and specify the 

format for annual reporting of monitoring results. 

The monitoring will occur at the reference sites (Table 2 of schedule 1) and 

appropriate sites within the “moderate”, “high” and “maximum” zones of 

ecological protection (Figure 1 of schedule 1). 

5-3 During the development of the Environmental Monitoring and Management 

Plan, the proponent shall regularly monitor sediment and/or water column 

for the following parameters: chlorophyll-a concentration; light attenuation 

co-efficient; dissolved nutrients; dissolved oxygen and redox discontinuity, 

to determine whether the following interim EQGs are being achieved: 

1. Within the zone of Moderate Ecological Protection (shown in Figure 1 of 

schedule 1), the proponent shall achieve median results no greater than the 

95 th percentile and no less than the 5 th percentile (no less than 60% 

saturation of dissolved oxygen) guideline ‘trigger’ levels of normal 

distribution for the parameters from the reference sites (Table 2 of 

schedule 1). 

3

2. Within the zone of High Ecological protection (shown in Figure 1 of 

schedule 1), the proponent shall achieve median results no greater than the 

80 th percentile and no less than the 20 th percentile (no less than 60% 

saturation of dissolved oxygen) guideline ‘trigger’ levels of normal 

distribution for the parameters from the reference sites (Table 2 of 

schedule 1). 

3. Within the Zone of Maximum Ecological Protection (shown in Figure 1 of 

schedule 1), the proponent shall detect no changes from the normal 

distribution of the reference sites (Table 2 of schedule 1) for the 

parameters. 

5-4 In the event that a guideline “trigger” level referred to in condition 5-3 is 

exceeded, the proponent shall report the matter to the Department of 

Environment and Conservation within one working day of determining that 

this has occurred, and the proponent shall: 

i. initiate an investigation against the EQS into the cause of the exceedance 

in accordance with the framework developed in the State Water Quality 

Management Strategy No. 6: Implementation Framework for Western 

Australia for the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and 

Marine Water Quality and Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting 

(Government of Western Australia, Report no. SWQ6), to the 

requirements of the Department of Environment and Conservation and 

the Department of Fisheries; and 

ii. Specify required timeframes for determining and subsequently 

remedying the source of exceedance. 

5-5 In the event that an environmental quality standard referred to in condition 

5-2 is exceeded, the proponent shall report the matter to the Department of 

Environment and Conservation within one working day of determining that 

this has occurred, the proponent shall: 

i. initiate a management response to determine the source and remedy the 

exceedance in accordance with the implementation framework for the 

National Water Quality Management Strategy, to the requirements of the 

Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of 

Fisheries; and 

ii. Specify required timeframes for determining and subsequently 

remedying the source of exceedance. 

Notes 

1. Where a condition states “on advice of the Environmental Protection 

Authority”, the Environmental Protection Authority will provide that advice 

to the Department of Environment and Conservation for the preparation of 

written notice to the proponent. 

4

2. The Environmental Protection Authority may seek advice from other 

agencies or organisations, as required, in order to provide its advice to the 

Department of Environment and Conservation. 

3. The Minister for Environment will determine any dispute between the 

proponent and the Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of 

Environment and Conservation over the fulfilment of the requirements of the 

conditions, with input from the Department of Fisheries. 

4. The proponent is required to apply for a Works Approval and Licence for 

this project under the provisions of Part V of the Environmental Protection 

Act 1986. Subsequently, should aquaculture be deregulated from Part V of 

the Environmental Protection Act 1986, this requirement would be 

superseded. 

5. Compliance reporting will be undertaken in accordance with the 

Environmental Code of Practice for the Management of Western Australia’s 

Marine Finfish Aquaculture Industry (2009) (a collaborative project between 

the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Environment and 

Conservation and industry). 

Hon Donna Faragher JP MLC 

MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT; YOUTH 

5

The Proposal (Assessment No. 1642) 

6 

Schedule 1 

The proposal involves the production of 1,000 tonnes of Barramundi per annum 

through the construction of 20 ‘grow-out’ and eight ‘nursery’ sea cages in an 

aquaculture operation in Cone Bay, Shire of Derby-West Kimberley. 

An area not more than 700 hectares of Cone Bay, currently licensed by the 

Department of Fisheries will be utilised for an aquaculture operation under licence no. 

1465. 

The proposal will include a: 

� maximum production of 1,000 tonnes per annum of Barramundi (Lates 

calcarifer); 

� maximum of 20 grow-out sea cages with circumference ranging between 40 

and 80 metres with 5 metres deep side walls and a maximum central depth of 8 

metres; and 

� maximum of 8 nursery cages at 6m x 6m x 5m with polyester knotless nets 

with mesh size of between 6 and 10mm. 

The proposal is described in the following document – Cone Bay 1,000 tonne 

barramundi production proposal – Public Environmental Review document Maxima 

Pearling Company Pty Ltd (April 2008). 

The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 1 below. A detailed 

description of the proposal is provided in sections 1.0 to 2.0 of the project public 

environmental review document. 

Summary Description 

A summary of the key proposal characteristics is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of key proposal characteristics 

Element Description 

General 

Life of Project � Increase production over 3 years to a maximum of 

1000 tonnes per annum 

� Ongoing 

Location � Aquaculture Licence Site 1465, Cone Bay, 

Buccaneer Archipelago, Western Australia, 

~215km NNE of Broome 

Species Cultured � Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) 

Expected Barramundi production 

� 1,000 tonnes per year maximum 

Sea Cage characteristics (mesh size, net type) 

� Nursery 

� Grow out 

Feed input 

� Source 

Waste produced (Nitrogen and Phosphorous in 

solid and dissolved form) 

� Maximum (based on Feed Conversion 

Ratio of 1.5 : 1) 

Figure and Table (attached) 

� Polyester knotless with mesh ranging between 6 & 

10mm 

� Outer net- 3.2mm galvanized steel wire or high 

density polyethylene (HDPE) 

� 50mm HDPE or nylon bird exclusion nets 

� HDPE floatation device, handrail and strachion 

� Nets of 2 different types will be utilized: 1 x 25mm 

(2.8mm gauge); 1 x 32mm (3.2mm gauge) 

constructed of marine wire 

� 1,500 tonnes per year maximum 

� Sinking pellets from an Australian feed 

manufacturer. 

7 

� 238 kilograms per day maximum 

Key 

kg/m 3 = kilograms per cubic metre 

Figure 1: Zones of ecological protection 

Table 2: Reference sites for determination of Environmental Quality Guidelines 

(EQG)

Figure 1: Zones of ecological protection. 

8

Table 2: Reference sites for determination of Environmental Quality Guidelines 

(EQG) 

Number Location Longitude Latitude Depth (m) 

1 SE Pearl Lease 123°33.9136�E 16° 28.6580�S 8.6 

2 Cone Bay SW 

Entrance 

123°29.025�E 16° 28.327�S 9.8 

3 Crawford bay 123°28.098�E 16° 29.029�S 10.5 

4 Gerald Bay 123° 32.481�E 16° 24.801�S 11.5 

9

Appendix B 

Method Statement: Geo-referenced Habitat Surveys

BENTHIC HABITAT ASSESSMENT 

Towed Video Survey Methods Report 


Prepared for Oceanica 

Rev A | 7 nd November 2011 

Document code: OCEMPA002 

Phone: (08) 92271013 

E-mail: admin@geooceans.com 

Address: 5/286 Fitzgerald St, Perth, WA 

Web: www.geooceans.com

Report No. OCEMPA001 

Rev A 

Revision history 

Revision Author 

Benthic Habitat Assessment 

Towed Video Survey Methods Report 


Prepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd 

Prepared by Geo Oceans Pty Ltd 

November 2011 

DISTRIBUTION REVIEW 

Recipients No. Copies & Format Date Reviewer Review type Date 

A B. Brayford G. Shiell 1 x e-copy 07/11/11 G. Shiell 

Technical 

Editorial 

Disclaimer 

Geo Oceans Pty Ltd (GO) has prepared this document following engagement by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd. This document 

is subject to and issued in accordance with the agreed terms and scope between the above listed companies. Geo Oceans 

Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third 

party. 

At the request of Oceanica this report is submitted to Oceanica as a draft (Revision A) without an internal Geo Oceans 

review. 

The contents of this report may not be reproduced without the consent of Geo Oceans. If the contents is reproduced it must 

be referenced with the following : 

Geo Oceans Pty Ltd (2011) Towed Video Survey, Methods Report. November 2011. Unpublished report. Submitted to Oceanica 

Consulting for Marine Produce Australia. 

2 of 13 

07/10/11

CONTENTS 

1.� Introduction ........................................................................................................... 4� 

2.� Methods ................................................................................................................. 4� 

2.1.� Field logistics.................................................................................................. 4� 

2.2.� Sampling plan ............................................................................................... 4� 

2.3.� Equipment ......................................................................................................5� 

2.3.1.� Topside Control Unit................................................................................ 5� 

2.3.2.� Spatial positioning.................................................................................. 5� 

2.3.3.� Video camera .......................................................................................... 5� 

2.3.4.� Depth data .............................................................................................. 5� 

2.4.� Video analysis ................................................................................................6� 

3.� Results..................................................................................................................10� 

TABLES 

Table 1 The estimated error for the spatial positioning of the towed camera 

relative to the GPS receiver (on the vessel) ......................................... 5� 

Table 2 Tide predictions for Derby (www.transport.wa.gov.au)................................... 6� 

Table 3 Data fields captured in the GO Video software analysis data.........................8� 

FIGURES 

Figure 1 Substrate and biota habitat classification hierarchy levels............................ 9� 

Figure 2 Depth data collected during the field survey ................................................ 11� 

Figure 3 Hard coral percent cover data.......................................................................12� 

APPENDICES 

Appendix 1: Video analysis biological community classification scheme...................13� 

Appendix 2: Video analysis substrate classification scheme ......................................14 

3 of 13

1. Introduction 

Geo Oceans was commissioned by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd (Oceanica) to 

conduct a towed video survey for Marine Produce Australia, at Cone Bay Barramundi 

Aquaculture Facility in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. Towed video 

methods were used to collect seafloor habitat point data to classify the benthic 

habitat types in the shallow subtidal areas (less than 30m below LAT). The habitat 

data will be used to classify habitat areas that were delineated using satellite 

imagery in GIS. 

This document provides details of the equipment and survey methods for the field 

operations and data analysis. 

2. Methods 

2.1. Field logistics 

The towed video field survey was conducted from the 22 nd to 25 th of October 2011 

aboard the vessel Lena, a ‘feeder boat’ for the MPA facility. The sea conditions and 

water currents during the survey were suitable for towed camera operations and the 

water visibility was greater than 5m for the majority of the survey. However some 

transects in the deeper waters of the bay had poor visibility (

2.3. Equipment 

2.3.1. Topside Control Unit 

The towed camera system was powered and controlled by a Topside Control Unit 

(TCU) and laptop computer that were mounted on the vessel. The TCU combined 

the GPS and depth data into one NMEA data stream then encoded the (GPS and 

depth) data to the audio and video tracks of the video footage. The TCU streamed 

the video footage and data to a laptop computer (in real-time) for recording and 

video analysis. The video footage was captured on the laptop computer at a 

resolution of 720 x 576 (lines) at 30 frames per second. The GPS and depth data 

(NMEA stream) were captured to the laptop using the ‘GO Video’ software (see 

section 2.4) 

2.3.2. Spatial positioning 

The video footage and video analysis data was geo-referenced with latitude and 

longitude coordinates from a Furuno GP 37 differential GPS system (accuracy of 10 m. 

Depth was recorded throughout the day during the period 22/10/2011 to 24/10/2011, 

at tide heights ranging from 2.97 to 9.24 metres above lowest astronomical tide 

(LAT). The depths were corrected to LAT using the tide predictions for Derby, WA 

minus 41 minutes (Point Usborne) (Table 2), using a method based closely on the 

‘Rule of Twelfths’, a tool commonly used in yachting to adjust depth for tides (see 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_twelfths). This rule assumes that the rate of 

flow of a tide increases smoothly to a maximum halfway between high and low tide 

5 of 13

efore smoothly decreasing to zero again and that the interval between low and 

high tides is approximately six hours. The rule states that in the first hour after low 

tide the water level will rise by one twelfth of the range, in the second hour two 

twelfths, and so on according to the sequence - 1:2:3:3:2:1. The rule, as generally 

applied, assumes that the period between high and low tides is six hours. For this 

project, the period varied between 5.3 and 7.2 hours. To improve accuracy, the rule 

was modified such that the water level is assumed to rise by one twelfth of the 

range during the first one sixth of the period between tides (approximately an hour), 

rather than during the first hour (precisely), and similarly for the remaining five 

sixths of the period between tides. In addition, a further offset of 0.5 m, consistent 

across the entire dataset, was added to the depth to account for the depth of the 

transceiver below the water. The rule of twelfths and transceiver depth corrections 

were calculated using a custom VBA Excel Macro. 

Table 2 Tide predictions for Derby (www.transport.wa.gov.au) 

Saturday 22nd Oct 2011 3.95m @ 1:46 AM 

8.31m @ 7:38 AM 

3.76m @ 2:31 PM 

8.14m @ 8:52 PM 

Sunday 23rd Oct 2011 4.19m @ 3:30 AM 

8.26m @ 9:52 AM 

3.69m @ 4:40 PM 

8.89m @ 10:58 PM 

Monday 24th Oct 2011 3.32m @ 5:33 AM 

9.24m @ 11:39 AM 

2.97m @ 6:03 PM 

2.4. Video analysis 

Geo Oceans customised Visual Basic software program ‘GO Video’ was used for 

video analysis that allowed the analyst to assign habitat attributes to the GPS 

location (position) where the video was recorded. A marine scientist trained in video 

analysis and habitat classification analysed the video footage in real-time (as the 

video is recorded). Position data were received at approximately 1-second intervals, 

and recorded in a database table, along with the biota and substrate attributes 

assigned using the GO Video software. These attributes include visually-assessed 

percentage cover estimates of the biota and substrate classes provided in Appendix 

1 and Appendix 2. Table 3 lists the attributes that were captured and geo-referenced 

using the video analysis software. Figure 1 shows the biota and substrate 

classification hierarchy used to group the attributes. 

The level of taxonomic detail recorded varied according to the video quality, which 

in turn was dependent on the environmental conditions (e.g. water visibility and sea 

state) and the speed at which the towed video was filmed. In all cases the video 

quality was adequate to make distinctions of the biota into the level 2 groups in 

Figure 1. 

6 of 14

The video analysis data was checked in Microsoft Access for blank fields and 

erroneous GPS positioning and habitat classifications. The data were then converted 

into a GIS shapefile (point data) and displayed in Arc GIS software for further error 

checking. The video analysis data were symbolised showing presence and absence 

of the major habitat categories (i.e. macroalgae, hard coral, filter feeders, soft coral 

and seagrass) at each survey site. The point data were reviewed for any habitat 

classifications that were not consistent with the surrounding point data. If the point 

data were considered to be erroneous the video footage was reanalysed using the 

same methods as the real-time analysis method. 

7 of 14

Table 3 Data fields captured in the GO Video software analysis data 

Field name Description 

FrameID Unique ID 

ProjectNam Project 

Subregion Project subregion 

Site_ID Transect or site name 

Lat Latitude (WGS 84 datum) 

Long Longitude (WGS 84 datum) 

Substrate Reef and/or sediment 

Reef_cover Percentage composition of reef and sediment substrate 

Reef_struct Reef particle size 

Reef_profil Reef profile 

Sediment_structure Sediment particle size 

Sediment_profile Sediment profile 

CA_Spp Canopy algae biota present 

CA_cover Canopy algae percentage cover 

CA_value Canopy algae percentage cover value 

SA_Spp Small algae biota present 

SA_cover Small algae percentage cover 

SA_value Small algae percentage cover value 

MA_value Macroalgae percentage cover value 

SG_Spp Seagrass biota present 

SG_cover Seagrass percentage cover 

SG_value Seagrass percentage cover value 

HC_Spp Hard coral biota present 

HC_cover Hard coral percentage cover 

HC_value Hard coral percentage cover value 

SC_Spp Soft coral biota present 

SC_cover Soft coral percentage cover 

SC_value Soft coral percentage cover value 

FF_Spp Filter-feeders biota present 

FF_cover Filter-feeders percentage cover 

FF_value Filter-feeders percentage value 

Other_biota Other biota attributes 

VideoQuality Quality of video recorded 

Video_Com Video comments 

Depth Depth (metres) (raw data, not corrected for tide) 

Rule12Dept Depth corrected for tide (using ‘rule of twelths’ 

Date Date of data capture 

Time Time of data capture (UTM) 

Video_Qual Video quality 

Interpreter Video analyst 

8 of 14

Figure 1 Substrate and biota habitat classification hierarchy levels 

9 of 14

3. Results 

A total of 27332 rows of depth data (Figure 2) and 18519 rows of habitat data 

(Figure 3 displays the hard coral percent cover) were captured during the field 

survey. All of the habitat and depth data collected during the field survey are 

submitted as Arc GIS point shapefiles separate to this report. 

10 of 14

Figure 2 Depth data collected during the field survey 

11 of 14

Figure 3 Hard coral percent cover data 

12 of 14

Appendix 1: Video analysis biological community classification scheme 

Biota classes Morphological groups Definitions and examples 

Other biota 

Recorded for 

presence/absence only 

Microphytobenthos (MPB) Thin film layer (low, medium, high) 

Crustose coralline algae (CCA) Encrusting algae 

Turfing algae Hair-like algae 20 mm 

Seagrass Separated into genus or species 

Macroalgae 

Small algae Macroalgae 20 mm to 20 cm 

Membrane, thin sheets Padina spp., Lobophora spp. 

Foliaceous, bushy Caulerpa spp. 

Lobed, flattened and rounded Halimeda spp. 

Fleshy or ball-like Codium spp. 

Canopy algae Macroalgae >20 cm 

Flat Ecklonia radiata 

Branching Cystophora spp., Sargassum spp., other fucoids 

Hard Coral 

Branching At least 20 branching (e.g. Seriatopora hystrix) 

Digitate Less than 20 branching (e.g. Acroporid digitifera) 

Tabular Horizontal flattened plates (e.g. Acroporid hyacinthus) 

Encrusting Major portion attached to substrate as a laminar plate (e.g. Poritid vaughani) 

Foliose Coral attached at one or more points, leaf-like appearance e.g. Turbinaria spp.) 

Massive Solid boulder or mound (e.g. Favites spp.) 

Submassive Tends to small columns, knobs or wedges 

Soft Coral (BPP) Photosynthetic soft corals (BPP) 

Filter feeders 

Ahermatypic animals (not defined as BPP) 

Soft Coral (non-BPP) Non-photosynthetic soft corals 

Sponges Can note morphological groups 

Ascidians 

Hydroids 

Sea whips 

Gorgonian fans 

Sea pens 

Stalked, encrusting, solitary 

Bryozoan Foliose, stalked 

Anemones 

Polychaetes 

Tube, solitary 

Percent cover classes Cover value Decision rules 

>80% 90 no substrate visible 

60–80% 70 some substrate is visible 

40–60% 50 substrate is clearly visible but biota dominates the image frame 

20–40% 30 substrate dominates most of the image frame 

10–20% 15 substrate dominates most of the image frame 

5–10% 7.5 substrate dominates most of the image frame 

1–5% 3 trace densities 

0–1% 0.5 no significant macro-biota 

13 of 14

Appendix 2: Video analysis substrate classification scheme 

Substrate type Decision rule 

Reef Substrate predominantly made up of particles of cobble size (>64 mm diameter) or larger 

Sediment Substrate predominantly made up of particles of pebble size (256 mm 

Rock (unbroken) Unbroken rock substrate 

Reef profile 

High >4 m rise over 2 m 

Medium 1–4 m rise over 2 m 

Low

Appendix C 

Sample Site Waypoints

Proposed Seagrass, water quality and sediments sampling sites at Cone Bay, 20111115 

Projection: UTM51 

Datum: GDA94 

AS, 20111122 

Site E N Descriptor 

CI2 556373 8176628 Proposed coral monitoring site (impact), 20111115 



CR4 557055 8181902 Proposed coral monitoring site (reference), 20111115 






R1 557140 8177576 Proposed water quality reference site, 20111115 








H1 558274 8176130 Proposed water quality and sediments monitoring site 




Max1 558495 8176013 Proposed water quality and sediments monitoring site 



Max4 558192 8175431 Proposed water quality and sediments monitoring site

Appendix D 

Letter to Stakeholders

Appendix E 

Responses to comments received on earlier versions of the EMMP

Appendix E Proponent’s responses to comments received by OEPA and DoF on earlier versions of the EMMP 

Version Author Authority Comment MPA response 

A 

MPA 

OEPA 

(Written) 

Comments received from OEPA 31/1/2011 

OEPA requested the following: 

� The need for greater clarity on the indicators that will be applied in the context of EQGs; 

� Provision of more detail on the procedures for monitoring those indicators (e.g. how, how 

often, for how long) and interpreting the monitoring data; 

� The need for the plan to most explicitly establish commitment to manage the proposal in 

the event that monitoring indicates management is necessary; and 

� Realigning the approach the proponent appears to be taking for developing the EQSs to be 

more consistent with the environmental quality management framework. 

B Version B was prepared as an internal document between MPA and Oceanica 

C 

Oceanica 

DoF 

(Written) 

Comments received DoF 23/2/2011 

1. A figure indicating the zones of ecological protection relevant to the operation (maximum, 

high, moderate and low) would be useful. 

2. Marine Monitoring and Management – there are no specific proactive management 

strategies noted in this section (e.g. for sediment, use of feed cameras or pellet sensors 

during fish feeding to in order to determine optimum feed input rates and correct ‘stop 

feeding’ signals, thereby reducing wasted feed; and cage sites may be fallowed post 

stocking etc). 

3. Sampling Regime – the number of replicate samples to be taken at each site is not 

indicated in this section. If replicate samples are not part of the proposed sampling regime, 

please indicate the reasoning behind this. 

4. Contingency Management – dot point two refers to reporting to DEC. The MoU recently 

signed between DoF and DEC places the environmental management and regulation of the 

Western Australian aquaculture industry with DoF. Therefore reports should be made to 

DoF. Depending on the significance of the report, DoF will then refer to DEC as appropriate. 

5. Additional Information in Fulfilment of DoF Guidelines – please add in a section here on 

disease monitoring and chemical usage. 

E, F Versions E and F were prepared as internal documents between MPA and Oceanica 

MPA response 

MPA commissioned Oceanica to prepare a revised version of the EMMP. 

Agreed changes to the EMMP 

A revised version of the EMP, addressing each of the OEPA’s comments, was 

submitted on the 11 th March 2011. 

MPA response 

MPA agreed that the comments were reasonable, with the exception of Comment 1. 

There was no need to include a Figure as version C of the EMMP already included at 

least two Figures showing the zones of ecological protection. Although the Figures 

were not included at the first reference to the management zones, they are included 

later in the EMMP. It was therefore not considered necessary to duplicate the Figure 

in the earlier stages of the EMMP. All other comments were addressed in the revised 

version of the EMMP. 


Comment 2: With regard to marine monitoring and management, MPA has updated 

the EMMP to include the requested proactive management strategies (see Section 3). 

Comment 3: Replication (i.e. multiple samples per site) is not important in the 

context of the Cone Bay water quality monitoring program, as the program aims 

simply to determine if the EQG have been met at the edge of the respective 

ecological protection zones. Replication would be important where the program 

aimed to test hypotheses about the extent of differences between sites and/or 

proximity from the sea-cages. This is not the aim of the program. 

Comment 4: According to the revised EMMP, DoF must be contacted following an 

exceedance of the EQC. 

Comment 5: Section 8.2 of the revised EMMP has been revised to include a section 

on disease monitoring and chemical usage.


Rev0 

Rev0 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

(Written) 

Comments received from OEPA 1/4/2011 

MPA response 

The timing of water and sediment sampling was considered in the context of long 

term data collected over a four year period. The intention was to undertake sampling 

when background nutrient levels were at their annual minimum, thus increasing the 

sensitivity of the EQG triggers. This approach is underpinned by statistical theory. 

For example, the sensitivity of any statistical test, particularly those looking to detect 

anthropogenic effects (if the effects exists), will be maximised when background 

concentrations are lowest. In statistical terms, this approach is analogous to 

increasing the ‘power’ of the monitoring program. A similar approach has been 

adopted in the Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Document for Cockburn 

Sound (EPA 2005), where the EQG are defined in terms of the ‘non-river flow 

period−when river and estuarine flows are weak’. 

The EMMP was developed specifically to determine whether the EQOs have been met. 

Further, there is no requirement in the Ministerial Statement that the EMMP must 

determine relationships/correlations between data sets−this is an exercise suited 

more to scientific research than it is to compliance monitoring. It also stands that 

sediments are long term indicators and as such, are unlikely to change quickly in 

response to changes in water quality parameters. 

Although there is potential for cyclones to disrupt/delay wet season monitoring, 

cyclone events are of such scale that all sites (impact and reference) will be affected 

equally. It is hence unlikely that sampling, if conducted in the weeks following the 

event, would be confounded by such events. 


OEPA and MPA agreed to the following compromise: Both sediment and water quality 

monitoring will be conducted over a four month period (July-October) during the 

winter dry season. The timing of sampling will allow monitoring to proceed when 

weather conditions are stable, and when background water quality concentrations of 

chlorophyll and nitrogen are lowest. The frequency and timing of monitoring will be 

reviewed 3 years following implementation of the EMMP. 

MPA response 

Additional reference sites were provided to capture the water quality gradient 

between the eastern and western ends of Cone Bay, and to overcome issues with the 

inappropriate positioning of existing reference sites (i.e. Cone Bay SW entrance). The 

additional reference sites included in the EMMP are expected to capture the range of 

water quality conditions in Cone Bay, while also being beyond the influence of the 

existing aquaculture operation (i.e. sites ER1-ER3 are 1.2 to 1.9 km from the nearest 

sea cages). It is important that the full range of water quality is captured so as to 

allow for a fair comparison of medians with higher percentiles. 

Oceanica’s understanding is that all of the additional reference sites are located well 

inside the Maximum Ecological Protection area, so on this basis alone, should not be 

affected by the barramundi aquaculture i.e. the criteria for the Maximum Ecological 

Protection Area there are to be no changes from the normal distribution. 


OEPA and MPA agreed to the following compromise: Reference sites located at the 

eastern end of the aquaculture lease are to be retained in their present locations. 

This is to ensure they capture the possible confounding effects of Snapper Cove, 

which is known to contribute significant levels of nutrients to Cone Bay during tidal 

exchanges, and following rainfall events. Reference sites located at the western end 

of the aquaculture lease are to be moved north west of their present location. This is 

to account for the fact that modelling was not undertaken for conditions at the 

western end of Cone Bay; it is therefore not certain whether the Reference sites at


Rev0 

Rev0 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

this end of the aquaculture lease are likely to be exposed to anthropogenic nutrients 

– particularly given the strong east-west direction of tidal flows. 

Additional changes 

As part of the review, Oceanica advised that it was appropriate to reduce the number 

of additional Reference sites from 12 to 8. Although decreasing the spatial coverage 

of the monitoring program, the reduction in the number of Reference sites was 

considered appropriate given the OEPA/MPA decision to increase in the number of 

monitoring occasions from 3 to 4, thereby increasing the number of measures from 

which the percentile values are calculated. It was considered that the reduction to 8 

Reference sites (4 at the western end and 4 at the eastern end) was sufficient to 

capture the extent of spatial variation within Cone Bay. 

MPA response 

Hydrodynamic modelling undertaken as part of the approvals process demonstrated 

that dispersion of fish faeces and waste feed would be restricted to within 250 m of 

the sea-cages (APASA 2006). 

Provided sea-cages are located at least 250 m from the MEPA boundary, it is 

therefore considered unlikely that wastes from sea cages will extend beyond the 

MEPA boundary, even under worst case conditions (APASA 2006). It therefore highly 

unlikely that the additional sediment reference sites, located some 1.5 km from the 

sea cages will be influenced by the aquaculture operation. See also comments above 

with respect to OEPA point 2. 


OEPA and MPA reached the same compromise as discussed above for water quality 

Reference sites. 

MPA response 

� The decision to monitor water and sediment quality in selected ecological 

protection zones (as opposed to all zones), was a strategic decision based on the 

objective to protect a number of different benthic primary producing habitats, 

which differ in their distribution. For example the water quality criteria were 

developed largely to protect coral and mangrove communities, which are 

distributed exclusively in the High and Max Ecological Protection Zones. EQG and 

EQS were thus developed to protect these habitats in these zones. 

� As the habitats within the MEPA are very different to those in the HEPA and 

MaxEPA, it was not considered necessary to replicate the same level and extent of 

water quality monitoring. It was considered that microphytobenthos, the major 

BPPH in the MEPA, and other benthic organisms would be protected by the EQG 

and EQS criteria developed for the sediment monitoring program. In this case, 

water quality monitoring is restricted to measures of DO and unionised ammonia, 

both of which are indicative of potential adverse effects to benthic communities. 

� It was correctly noted that the present EMMP does not include sediment 

monitoring sites within the HEPA or MaxEPA zones. Again this was a strategic 

decision aimed at concentrating sampling in the zone most likely to experience 

adverse effects to sediments. The decision was based on the results of far-field 

modelling which indicated that dispersion of fish faeces and waste feed would be 

restricted to within 250 m of the sea-cages under worst case conditions (APASA 

2006). Although the EMMP specified that standard monitoring would be restricted 

to the MEPA, it was indicated that in the unlikely event that the EQG for sediment 

was exceeded, additional monitoring would be undertaken to determine the extent 

to which the EQGs for High and Maximum Ecological Protection had been met. 

So, while the standard monitoring program does not include sites within the HEPA 

or MaxEPA zones, there is a commitment to expand monitoring in the unlikely


Rev0 

Rev0 

Rev0 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

event that the MEPA EQG are exceeded. 

� Oceanica is confident that the monitoring program included in the EMMP does not 

compromise the ability to determine whether the EQOs have been met, and 

believes that this should be the most important consideration when assessing the 

suitability of a monitoring program. 


OEPA and MPA agreed to the following compromise: water quality sampling sites to 

be located in MEPA for monitoring of dissolved biologically nutrients (Nitrate & Nitrite, 

Ammonia, DIN and Orthophosphate). Sediment quality sampling sites to be located 

in the HEPA and MaxEPA for monitoring of redox discontinuity. The EMMP should 

make it clear that the HEPA and MaxEPA sampling sites are located just outside MEPA 

and HEPA boundary. The agreed changes to the sampling regime required 

development of EQS for each of the ecological protection zones. For the MEPA water 

quality monitoring program, EQS were developed in the context of the organisms 

most likely to be adversely affected in that zone. In the absence of coral and 

mangrove communities, the organisms most likely to be affected are marine 

invertebrates at the sediment/water interface. The EQS was therefore developed in 

the context of dissolved oxygen availability. 

A similar approach was adopted with regard to the redox discontinuity criterion in the 

HEPA and MaxEPA zones. The rationale was that an exceedance of the EQS in the 

High and/or MaxEPA zones would indicate potentially unacceptable effects to marine 

invertebrates, including to coral and mangrove communities. It is therefore 

considered that the EQS for sediment monitoring in the High and MaxEPA zones is 

generally protective of marine organisms, and is thus an appropriate indicator for 

assessing whether the EQO has been met. 

MPA response 

See arguments for OEPA Comment 4 provided above. 


MEPA Water quality EQG and HEPA and MaxEPA sediment quality EQG to be included 

in the EMMP. 

MPA response 

Oceanica notes that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) outlined EPA (2005b) is 

relevant to toxicants in sediments, and that there are no EPA procedures for sampling 

of nutrients in sediments. However, in recognition of the considerable variability in 

sediment characteristics, Oceanica recommends that the EMMP is updated to include 

specific methods, including details of the level of replication. 


OEPA agreed that each replicate sample could be comprised of three cores but it must 

be clear in the EMMP. Section Error! Reference source not found. of the EMMP has 

been updated to provide more detail regarding sediment sampling methods, including 

MPAs intention to collect five cores at each site (i.e. two more than agreed upon). 

However, given the number of sites included in the program, it was not considered 

necessary to collect replicate samples at each site. This is consistent with the 

approach outlined on p 63 of the SOP (EPA 2005b). 

MPA response 

Agreed. 


All Tables and Figures have been updated in the revised EMMP to reflect the changes.


Rev0 

Rev1-2 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

(Written) 

Comments received from EPA on EMMP Rev3 

MPA response 

� The effects of shading (as potentially indicated by measures of TSS) pose low risk 

to MPB communities (the major constituent of the MEPA), but higher risk to coral 

communities (located in the HEPA and MaxEPA). Any increase in levels of shading 

in the HEPA and MaxEPA will be detected as a decrease in light attenuation 

(included as part of the WQ monitoring program). 

� Total nitrogen and TKN result in near identical measures of N. TN includes the 

nitrate and nitrite component of TN which has been shown to represent 1/1000th 

of the N fraction. There is therefore negligible benefit in choosing one measure 

over the other; however, note that TKN has been shown to be a more effective 

measure when organic content is high. 

� It is acknowledged that organic matter build-up in the sediments may be reflected 

in measures of TOC. Elevated levels of TOC may act to deoxygenate sediments, 

thus impacting marine invertebrate fauna. The MPA sediment quality monitoring 

program includes measures of water/sediment interface DO and unionised 

ammonia. These measures serve as a proxy measures for organic matter build-up 

in sediments. 

� Measures of total phosphorus are already included in the EMMP. 


Although the OEPA suggested these parameters were important indicators of organic 

enrichment they are not crucial for the approval of the EMMP so these issues are to 

be addressed at a later date. 

Minor editorial changes. 

MPA response 

The discussion in the EMMP is restricted to habitats and other elements (i.e. water 

quality) included in the marine monitoring program. 

MPA response 

Agreed. Section 2.3 (previously 2.3) includes sediment quality as a relevant 

environmental factor. 

MPA response 

Geo-referenced benthic habitat surveys were conducted in Cone Bay between the 21 

and 24 October 2011. Surveys focussed on habitats along the southern coast of Cone 

Bay, where MPA aquaculture activities are presently centred. Surveys were also 

conducted along the northern coast of Cone Bay. Surveys comprised multiple towed 

video transects, encompassing 47 transects within the licence area, and a further 41 

transects outside of the licence area. 

The revised EMMP includes a geo-referenced aerial photograph showing the position 

of individual video transects and the extent and type of habitat observed along the 

transects. This is a DRAFT habitat map, but it nevertheless provides an accurate 

assessment. The final ground-truthed map will be updated to include extrapolated 

habitat types based on image analysis and ground-truthed data.


Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

MPA response 

As discussed with OEPA on the 18 November 2011, the EQG are to be calculated 

following each sampling occasion (every four weeks). The intent is to reduce the 

chance of making the equivalent of a Type I error: i.e. concluding that an EQG has 

been exceeded, when the exceedance is due to natural perturbations in water quality. 

To facilitate this approach, the EMMP includes a large number of reference sites (n=8- 

32). 

MPA response 

It is now clearly stated in the EMMP that DO will be sampled at the bottom of the 

water column (~50 cm from the sea-floor). 

MPA response 

Agreed. As discussed with OEPA on the 18 November 2011, the EMMP now includes 

four sampling occasions in the wet season (every four weeks) and four sampling 

occasions in the dry season (every four weeks). 

MPA response 

The revised EMMP includes measures of LAC and bottom DO in each of the ecological 

protection areas. 

MPA response 

The revised EMMP includes scope for reactive management. EQGs are now calculated 

at the completion of each sampling occasion, and then, for individual sites, at the end 

of the four month monitoring program. Monitoring is now conducted downstream of 

the sea-cages in the eastern MEPA - which is the only MEPA presently housing seacages. 

MPA response 

The revised EMMP samples downstream of the sea-cages on an incoming tide. The 

purpose of sampling on an incoming tide is to mitigate the potential confounding 

effects of intertidal runoff. This has the effect of increasing the sensitivity of the 

program by sampling at times when background nutrients and TSS are likely to be 

lower (equivalent to increasing the power of the monitoring program).


Rev3 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

MPA Response 

Much thought has been given to the likely cause effect pathways. Following 

discussions with the OEPA on 18th November 2001, new indicators were introduced 

including in water measures of TSS and sediment TOC. 

The EMMP includes consideration of disease: A Barramundi Health Management and 

Emergency Plan (BHMEP) has been developed which includes procedures to prevent a 

disease and/or parasite outbreak in the unlikely event of an outbreak. Management 

procedures include the following best-practice measures: 

� Daily monitoring of fish health, regular net inspections and cleaning protocol; 

� Adherence to Fisheries WA translocation regulations; 

� No introduction of stock from overseas sources; 

� Any equipment or manufactured feed obtained from overseas sources will satisfy 

and comply to the standard Customs and Australian Quarantine and Inspection 

Service (AQIS) regulations and approvals; 

� Stringent disease testing before fish are transported to the Cone Bay land based 

facility; 

� Fingerlings to be sourced from an accredited hatchery (accreditation given by the 

states Animal Health Laboratory, Department of Agriculture or similar regulatory 

body); 

� Development of a procedures manual for land based culture which includes 

conservative stocking densities, minimal handling, daily monitoring of fish health, 

sterilisation and maintenance protocols of land based facility and associated 

equipment and improvement in hatchery techniques; 

� Development of a staff training program in fish handling, biology, behaviour and 

health monitoring; 

� Vaccination of fish to prevent disease; and 

� Consultation with the DoF Fish Pathologist/Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) and the 

WA Fisheries Director (or representative) and development of a disease 

contingency plan in accordance to his/her recommendations. 

The EQS has been updated to 60% saturation. The revised EMMP makes it clear that 

the EQG and EQS is to be assessed at each site, as well as across the ecological 

protection areas. 

The EQS for chlorophyll-a is intended to indicate presence of unacceptable algal 

bloom, the effects of which (shading) are most likely to be detected in sensitive 

indicators of coral health. Other trophic cascade effects of algal blooms would be 

difficult to elucidate. It is not clear how an EQS for unacceptable change resulting 

from trophic cascade effects could be developed or tested against. 

Section 4.3 and 4.4 for Coral Health and Sediment Infauna respectively provide 

detailed descriptions of the sampling protocols, including the sampling frequency 

upon exceedance of an EQG. Section 5.2 outlines the frequency of TSS and LAC 

monitoring following exceedance of an EQG


Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

MPA Response 

Section 4.3 and 4.4 for Coral Health and Sediment Infauna respectively provide 

detailed descriptions of the sampling protocols, including the sampling frequency 

upon exceedance of an EQG. Section 5.2 outlines the frequency of TSS and LAC 

monitoring following exceedance of an EQG. 

MPA Response 

Agreed. The sediment sampling regime has now been modified such that the EQG is assessed at the 

completion of each sampling occasion. Re-sampling immediately is also likely to be impracticable given the 

distance samples must be freighted and laboratory turnaround times. MPA propose to collect duplicate 

samples only one of which will be analysed initially. The remaining samples will be analysed only upon 

exceedance of the EQG. 

MPA response 

Table 1.4 of the EMMP includes a number of proponent commitments. One of the commitments, to be 

completed within one year of proposal implementation, is to undertake a risk assessment of the potential 

for adverse effects to wild fish fauna as a result of the use of vaccinations. 

MPA response 

Agreed. See response above for similar comment made with regard to water quality sampling. 

MPA response 

Agreed. The revised EMMP includes bottom water total ammonia as an indicator in each of the ecological 

protection areas, and at the Reference Sites. 

MPA Response 

Much thought has been given to the likely cause effect pathways. Following 

discussions with the OEPA on 18th November 2001, new indicators were introduced 

including in water measures of TSS and sediment TOC. The program covers both 

primary and secondary indicators of environmental stress including redox 

discontinuity, bottom water DO and total ammonia. 

Table 1.4 of the EMMP includes a list of proponent's commitments. The proponent has 

committed to a risk assessment to determine (i) whether trace elements contained 

within aquaculture feeds are accumulating in sediments beneath and/or adjacent to


the sea-cages and (ii) whether vaccinations may pose a risk to wild fish-fauna. It is 

expected that the results of the study will inform the timing and extent of future 

analyses. 

Sediment in fauna species richness has been chosen as the key indicator for sediment 

health. Infauna are sensitive to impacts from sea-cage aquaculture (including organic 

enrichment, ammonia toxicity, reduced DO etc) and can be correlated with minor to 

severe levels of degradation. 

'Ambient' value has been changed to 'median' value.


Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

MPA Response 

Agreed. Geo-referenced habitat surveys conducted in late October 2011 found coral 

habitats in close proximity to the aquaculture lease. These have been taken into 

consideration in the revised EMMP, and EQG developed in this context. For example, 

monitoring against the EQS for corals is triggered upon an exceedance of TSS or LAC 

at the MEPA site located 200 m downstream, of the sea-cages. If the EQG is 

triggered, and cages are less than 50 m from the MEPA/HEPA boundary, then it is 

considered that corals on the western end of Turtle Island may be at risk. 

MPA Response 

This metric of coral health has been removed from the revised EMMP. 

MPA Response 

Minor revision may be undertaken provided the changes do not affect the content of 

the Key Management Actions Table (Error! Reference source not found.) (DoE 

2006b). Any significant changes to the EMMP will be undertaken in consultation with 

the OEPA. 

Any exceedance of the EQG or EQS will be reported to the OEPA within one working 

day of determining that the exceedance has occurred. 

MPA Response 

The sentence has been removed from the revised EMMP. 

MPA Response 

This text and Figure have been removed from the revised EMMP.


Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

MPA Response 

Agreed. The revised monitoring program samples along a downstream gradient. 

All of the reference sites have now been placed north of the aquaculture lease. 

MPA Response 

In the revised EMMP, chlorophyll-a is to be sampled using the depth integrated 

method. The method is designed to capture the phytoplankton biomass occupying the 

photic zone of the water column. 

The revised EMMP will use Excel to calculate percentiles. 

MPA Response 

Agreed. The revised monitoring program samples along a downstream gradient. 

MPA Response 

Agreed. The sites chosen at random will be locked in for future sampling events. 

MPA Response 

Agreed. The revised EMMP has been updated to include total ammonia.


Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Rev3 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

MPA Response 

The proponent is aware that the sampling protocol is not consistent with the 

operating procedure for Cockburn Sound, but is rather based on this procedure (albeit 

with less replication). The proponent is unable to dive safely in the waters of Cone 

Bay and is therefore restricted logistically. Sampling must be undertaken from a 

vessel using a punch corer. The proponent has undertaken to run a pilot study 1 year 

post proposal implementation. The purpose of the study will be to determine the 

extent of inter and intra site variability and determine the number of cores required 

to yield precise measurements. 

MPA Response 

Agreed. The proponent will develop methods for sampling such that the integrity of 

the core is maintained. 

MPA Response 

Agreed. The inference to sediment/water interface has been updated to read 'bottom 

water' measurement. 

MPA Response 

This section has been removed from the revised EMMP. 

MPA Response 

Agreed. Mangroves have been removed from the monitoring program. 

MPA Response 

Geo-referenced habitat mapping has now been undertaken. See comments above. 

MPA Response 

Agreed. This reference has been omitted from the revised EMMP. 

MPA Response 

Quantitative coral monitoring is no longer included in the EMMP. The coral health 

monitoring program is now based on sub-lethal qualitative indicators of coral stress.


Rev3 

Rev4 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

MPA Response 

The proponent has committed to a risk assessment of the possible adverse effects of 

vaccinating aquaculture stock. The risk assessment will be completed one year post 

proposal implementation. 

Nil Major changes made to EMMP in response to comments received on Rev3. 

(Written) 

Comments received from OEPA 25 November 2011 on Rev5 

1. Section 3 should refer to the Environmental Values that are to be protected and the 

environmental quality objectives to be achieved in the waters surrounding the aquaculture 

facility. These are discussed in Section 1 and it may only need a reference back to Section 1. It 

is noted that the risks posed by this aquaculture proposal are such that if the environmental 

quality objectives for the environmental value of Ecosystem Health are met then all other 

Environmental Values will also be protected. 

Water quality 

2. Section 4.1.4 describes the sampling regime and suggests that TSS, nutrient and 

chlorophyll a measurements will be depth integrated. MEB is uncertain of the logic for depth 

integrated sampling of TSS and nutrients and would suggest that monitoring should sample 

bottom waters for these indicators, although there may some argument to undertake 

integrated sampling in the MEPA. It is noted later in the EMMP (Table 4.2) that ammonia will 

be sampled in bottom waters. Further explanation justifying the proposed sampling regime is 

required within the context of the cause-effect pathways. 

The sampling regime also needs to include a discussion on whether sampling will be 

undertaken on neap or spring tides, what time of day (particularly relevant for LAC and DO 

measurements), etc. 

This section also needs to describe how the various samples will be taken and stored, or 

measured. 

3. Figure 4.2 conceptualises the likely cause-effect pathways. Two additional EQS are 

recommended for triggering management action: (i) a coral mortality trigger as measured 

from the photographs; and (ii) mortality of benthic infauna in soft sediment habitats. 

Agreed. This section refers the reader back to Table 1.1. 

The following text has also been added to Section 3: 

‘The EQG and EQS criteria have been set in the context of EQO 1: Maintenance of 

Ecosystem Integrity—as this EQO has the most stringent environmental criteria. It is 

noted that risks posed by this aquaculture proposal are such that if the EQO for the 

EV Ecosystem Health is met, then all other EVs will also be protected.’ 

The EMMP has been revised so that it is very clear that TSS and ammonia will also be 

sampled in bottom waters. 

It has also been revised so that specific details are given regarding the timing of 

sampling i.e. It is proposed that water quality sampling is conducted at monthly 

intervals (four times in total) between June and September to thus capture the 

winter-spring dry period, and then again at monthly intervals (four times in total) 

between December and March to thus capture the summer-autumn wet period. 

Sampling will be conducted on an incoming neap tide. 

Although OEPA comments regarding the timing of LAC and DO measurements (i.e. 

morning vs noon) are noted, restricting MPA staff to specific 1-2 hr sampling windows 

will be logistically prohibitive. Instead, the time of day (and weather conditions) at 

the time of sampling will be noted. This will help account for any discrepancies that 

may arise as a result of the timing of sampling. 

Specific sampling details (i.e. details of sample preservation method) are considered 

beyond the scope of the EMMP. MPA will prepare a separate Standard Operating 

Procedure (SOP) outlining best practice sampling and preservation methods for the 

specified parameters. 

As discussed at the meeting between OEPA and Oceanica (24 November), the coral 

mortality EQS is already covered as part of the criteria used by the Coral Watch 

program i.e. a bleaching criteria is included. 

The inclusion of dead benthic-fauna is considered acceptable for the high and 

maximum protection areas, particularly with regard to potential toxicity from 

ammonia (Figure 4.2 has been updated to reflect this). However, the inclusion of this 

indicator as an EQS for moderate protection is not appropriate. As moderate 

protection infers small impacts to biota are acceptable, the use of observations of 

dead benthic-fauna should not be used as a trigger. The Inverse Simpson Index, 

which provide information on the likely reduction in species richness, is considered a 

superior EQS.


Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

4. Table 4.2 – EQG. The EQG i and ii for the MEPAs are not supported. Depending on how 

far cages are from the western MEPA boundary, the 5 transect sites should be compared to the 

MEPA EQG and the HEPA EQG. All 5 sites should meet the MEPA EQG and sites at distances 

greater than the cage distance from the western boundary should also meet the HEPA EQG, at 

both the single sampling occasion and for the 4 month seasonal assessment. If the MEPA EQG 

are exceeded then the MEPA EQS are triggered. If the HEPA EQG are triggered at the relevant 

sites then the inference is that the coral and infaunal communities may be impacted west of 

the MEPA and the HEPA EQS are triggered. This applies to all EQG except chlorophyll a. For 

chlorophyll a only HEPA EQG are relevant. 

The EQG for HEPA and MaxEPA also need to include both the single sampling occasion 

assessment and the 4 month seasonal assessment against the EQG 

The chlorophyll a EQG for the MEPA appears to be unnecessary and could be deleted (there are 

no EQS for it to trigger). 

The EQG for DO in the HEPA and MaxEPA should be 90% saturation, not 60% saturation 

5. Table 4.3 – EQS. The EQS for the MEPA need to be revised in light of comments above 

on the EQG. 

A rationale is required for selecting the proposed Inverse Simpson Index triggers for MEPA and 

HEPA (i.e. x 0.2 and x 0.5 of background respectively). 

Agreed. The EMMP has been revised so that the EQG for gradient sites is calculated 

for high and moderate protection as appropriate. 

These changes are reflected in Table 4.2 (EQG for water quality) and 

Agreed. The EMMP has been amended to address this comment. 

Agreed. Has been deleted. 

Agreed. This EMMP has been amended. 

Agreed. The EMMP has been amended. 

The rationale for selecting the Inverse Simpson Index is that the method is sensitive 

to a range of adverse effects, from very minor through to severe. Indices of infauna 

species richness can be correlated accurately with levels of impact beneath seacages. 

The Inverse Simpson Index is a sensitive indicator that can be used to infer a 

gradient of impacts from minor through to severe. In recognition of the ecological 

protection zones applied in Cone Bay, indices for moderate and minor impact have 

been chosen for inclusion in the EMMP. 

The wording for each EQS could be made more consistent across the range of EQG triggers. Agreed. EMMP has been amended so wording is consistent. 

Suggest that the EQS for exceedance of the ammonia EQG in HEPA and MaxEPA should include 

‘evaluation of coral images’. 

The wording for LAC EQS for HEPA and MaxEPA should be corrected (LAC vs TSS?) as should 

the DO EQS. 

Sediment quality 

6. The EMMP still does not contain a monitoring program for assessing the potential 

accumulation of trace contaminants (e.g. metals) under and adjacent to the Barramundi cages. 

This does not require regular monitoring as measurements would only be required every 2-3 

years. It is noted that in Table 1.4 the proponent has committed to a ‘Risk Analysis’ of the 

potential for trace elements in the feed to bioaccumulate, but there is no detail as to what this 

might involve. OEPA recommend that the EMMP include monitoring of metals under and 

adjacent to the cages and at suitable reference sites. 

7. Section 4.2.4. Table 6.3 is not in the document. OEPA expects the proponent to select 

an analytical laboratory that can deliver analytical limits of reporting that are below the 

relevant environmental quality criteria. 

Agreed. The EQS for ammonia now includes coral monitoring. 


Although monitoring for trace elements is not included as a standard component, 

Table 1.4 includes a commitment to undertake monitoring for trace elements within 

one year of the proposal’s implementation. Monitoring will be undertaken every three 

years thereafter. 

Agreed. The EMMP has been amended.


Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

8. The EMMP proposes using a TPS field probe for measuring redox discontinuity in 

sediment cores. How will this be done? And what is a TPS probe? (temperature, pressure, 

salinity?). 

9. Table 4.5 – sediment EQG. EQG for sediments refer to water quality reference site data. 

The EQG for MEPA, HEPA and MaxEPA need to include both the single sampling occasion 

assessment and the 4 month seasonal assessment against the EQG. 

Although it may be considered acceptable, use of loss on ignition to measure TOC is an outdated 

method. It should also be noted that TOC is already a measure of the organic fraction. 

Specific sampling details (i.e. details of sample preservation method) are considered 

beyond the scope of the EMMP. MPA will prepare a separate Standard Operating 

Procedure (SOP) outlining best practice sampling and preservation methods for the 

specified parameters. 


10. Table 4.6 – sediment EQS. The EQS for HEPA and MaxEPA should also include DO. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended. 

Coral Reef Monitoring 

11. Section 4.3.4. There are six proposed coral reference sites. 

12. Table 4.7. There is no coral in the MEPA so no coral EQG for the MEPA are necessary. 

13. Table 4.8. There is no coral in the MEPA so no coral EQS for the MEPA are necessary. See comments above 

Sediment infauna 

14. Section 4.4.4. Exceedance on an EQG for HEPA or MaxEPA will trigger EQS monitoring 

at two randomly selected HEPA or MaxEPA sites. OEPA recommend that the two sites selected 

should be those where the data exceed the EQG the most. 

15. It is stated that a study will be run within 12 months of approval to determine the 

number of infauna samples required to detect a 50% change. Please clarify what approval this 

refers to. 

TOC (LOI) has been used by the proponent previously. For future comparison with 

these data (particularly the reference data), it is recommended that TOC (LOI) is 

retained in the revised EMMP 

Agreed. EMMP now refers to six coral sites. 

The EQG are included because of the inferred impacts to coral under an outgoing tide. 

These EQG have been retained in the revised EMMP. 

Agreed. The EMMP has been updated to reflect this. 

This has been clarified in the EMMP. Approval refers to approval of the 2000 t 

proposal. 

16. Table 4.9. Sediment EQG should be added to the table. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended to reflect this. 

17. Section 4.5.4. The first sentence in this section is incomplete. 

This section lists best-practice measures that will be implemented through a Barramundi 

Health Management and Emergency Plan for the management and prevention of fish disease 

and parasites. The last procedure listed involves the development of a disease contingency 

plan in the event that there is a disease outbreak. This plan should also be developed with 

input from OEPA to ensure potential off-site impacts of the treatment plan are adequately 

considered and managed. OEPA suggest that it be changed from a dot point to standard text 

and re-worded as follows: “In the unlikely event of a disease outbreak, the proponent will 

consult with the DoF Fish Pathologist/Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), the WA Fisheries Director 

(or representative) and the General Manager OEPA (or representative) and develop a disease 

The EMMP has been updated as per OEPAs recommendation


Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev5 

Rev6 

Rev6 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

contingency plan in accordance to their recommendations. 

Marine environmental management program 

18. Discussion for the assessment of each indicator against the EQG needs to include both 

the individual sampling occasion assessment and the seasonal assessment for individual sites. 

For the latter assessment the EQG should be derived from the data for all relevant reference 

sites over all 4 months. 

19. The discussion under section “5.1.3 Chlorophyll a” is actually a repeat of the TSS and 

LAC discussion. A discussion on the assessment of chlorophyll a data against the EQG should 

be provided. 

20. The discussion in section 5.1.4 for Sediment quality is for seasonal assessment of 

individual sites, whereas the requirement in Table 4.5 was for assessment of data from 

individual sampling occasions. In fact both methods are appropriate and should be discussed 

here. 

21. Figure 5.1 will need to be updated as required in accordance with all the advice 

provided above. 

22. Section 5.5. In the event that an EQS is exceeded the matter should be reported to the 

OEPA and DoF within one day, including the management measures to be implemented to 

restore environmental quality. 

EMMP Review 

23. Any revision of the EMMP should be referred to the OEPA to determine whether the 

change is significant. 

Waste Management Plan 

24. The EMMP should commit the proponent to providing bunding for all oil, fuel, silage and 

other chemicals stored on the island. 

(Verbal) 

Comments received from OEPA 5 December 2011 on Rev6 

1. OEPA recommended that MPA consider using mortality of benthic macrofauna as an EQS 

indicator for moderate, high and maximum protection. 

2. OEPA argued that the original approach in Rev6 to defer calculation of the EQG until 

appropriate numbers of samples had been collected (i.e. n=3) was unacceptable. OEPA instead 

recommended that MPA look to collect additional samples so that the EQG could be assessed 

following each sampling occasion. 

Agreed. The EMMP has been updated. 

Agreed. The EMMP has been updated. 

Agreed. The EMMP has been updated. Both methods are now discussed. 

Agreed. The EMMP has been amended to reflect this. 




Agreed. MPA have included the following indicators relevant to ammonia toxicity: 

mass mortality of benthic macrofauna in the moderate ecological protection area and 

no observed mortalities of benthic macro-fauna that can be attributed to ammonia 

toxicity in the high and maximum ecological protection areas. 

Agreed. The EMMP has been updated to satisfy this recommendation. However, it is 

noted that while the EMMP has been modified so that additional samples will be 

taken, we have not provided details on how and where the additional samples will be 

taken. The rationale is that the scenario where additional sampling is required is 

unlikely to arise in the future given the present position of sea-cages. At the time of 

writing, sea-cages are positioned at the western MEPA/HEPA boundary, meaning all 

samples (n=5) collected on an incoming tide will be compared against the moderate 

protection EQG and all samples (n=5) inferred to be in the high protection area (on 

an outgoing tide) will be compared against the high protection EQG. If and when this 

becomes an issue, MPA will consult with OEPA on how to proceed. This has been 

explained in a footnote at the bottom of the relevant section.


Rev6 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

3. OEPA required further information and/or rationale to support the inclusion of the Inverse 

Simpson Index (ISI) as an EQS. OEPA were particularly interested in the rationale for selection 

of the halving and five-fold reduction in the ISI as triggers for high/max and moderate 

protection, respectively. OEPA also pointed to Appendix B of Perth’s Coastal Waters 

Environmental Values and Objectives: The Position of the EPA – A Working Document (EPA 

2000) as an outline of the accepted framework for determining what represents acceptable 

change. 

EPA (2000) outlines criteria for acceptable change in marine ecosystems. The level of 

acceptable change depends on the prescribed level of Ecological Protection. The levels 

of Ecological Protection relevant to Cone Bay are Maximum, High and Moderate. 

For Max and High levels of protection, ecosystem processes are to be maintained 

within limits of natural variation, whereas for Moderate protection, small changes in 

ecosystem processes are allowed. Similarly, for Max and High protection, abundance 

and biomass of marine life is not to change beyond natural levels, whereas for 

Moderate protection, small changes in abundance and biomass are acceptable. The 

criteria for biodiversity are slightly different: In this case, no change (beyond natural 

variation) in biodiversity is acceptable, irrespective of Moderate, High or Maximum 

Ecological Protection. 

The Inverse Simpson Index (ISI) uses measures of species richness and abundance 

as inputs. The method is particularly sensitive to reductions in species richness (a 

proxy for biodiversity) and increases in the abundance of selected species; in relative 

terms it is also more sensitive than other similar indices (e.g. Shannon-Wiener 

diversity index) to species with high abundance. It is therefore well suited to the 

changes expected under and in the vicinity of sea-cages, where one or two species 

may dominate at the expense of other species (i.e. in a typical nutrient-enrichment 

response, where the shift is towards larger numbers of fewer species). The method 

fulfils the EPA criteria described above, as it considers species richness in the context 

of species abundance i.e. it is effectively able differentiate between no detectable 

change (as required in high and maximum protection areas) and small change (as 

required in moderate protection areas). 

One caveat however is that the method is based on the experiences of the Tasmanian 

aquaculture industry, and the applicability of this model to tropical waters is presently 

unknown. A power analysis of baseline data will be conducted by the Proponent 

within 12 months of acceptance of the EMMP to determine whether the Index is 

appropriate for application in Western Australia’s north west. 

In the interim, and in the absence of infauna data from Cone Bay, Oceanica has 

reviewed the level of variation observed in the infauna communities of the deep basin 

sediments in the northern end of Cockburn Sound (as opposed to the middle or 

southern ends, which are more sheltered and less well flushed). 12 sites were 

chosen for inclusion in the analysis, with the rationale that this is the recommended 

sample size in Crawford et al. (2002), and it is also the sample size proposed for 

Cone Bay (i.e. 12 sites will be samples in the impact zone and 12 in the reference 

zone). 

Analysis of the ISI of infauna communities sampled at 12 sites in the deep basin of 

the northern end of Cockburn Sound (similar depths, similar sediments) found that 

there was a 4-fold difference in ISI (range 6.8–27.1) between sites. This level of 

natural spatial variation in the ISI is within the 5-fold reduction in ISI chosen as the 

EQS for moderate protection. It should therefore be capable of detecting small 

changes from background, provided replication is sufficient. Replication will act to 

smooth the variation, thus increasing the sensitivity of the index to change. 

Appropriate levels of replication will be important for the ISI trigger for high 

protection (based on a halving of ISI relative to background), particularly as the 

trigger is within the level of natural variation observed in Cockburn sound 

populations. The extent to which the ISI is appropriate as a trigger for high 

protection will be determined following completion of the power analysis.


Rev6 

Rev6 

Rev6 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

Oceanica 

OEPA 

OEPA 

OEPA 

4. OEPA recommended removal of the reference to the TPS probe. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended. 

5. OEPA suggested that MEPA EQG for coral communities are not required. 

6. OEPA suggested some small changes to the flow diagrams in Figure 5.2 and 5.3. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended. 

A further caveat however is that these comments are based on analysis of temperate 

infauna communities in a relatively sheltered embayment. It is presently not known 

how these communities may compare to tropical communities located in highly 

flushed water bodies of the Kimberley. 

As the EQG in the MEPA may also be used to infer impacts in the HEPA (on an 

outgoing tide), the EQG must be retained.

Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?