Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

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.
Agreed changes to 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.