Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

Recommendations

Info

Version Author Authority Comment MPA response 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. Agreed changes to the EMMP 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. Agreed changes to the EMMP 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
Version Author Authority Comment MPA response 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. Agreed changes to the EMMP 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
Page 1:
Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay
Page 5 and 6:
Client: Marine Produce Australia Re
Page 7 and 8:
Contents 1.� Purpose of this docu
Page 9:
List of Figures Figure 1.1� Locat
Page 12 and 13:
Table 1.1 Environmental Values and
Page 14 and 15:
In addition to the Conditions and C
Page 17:
Note: The habitats shown above are
Page 20 and 21:
2.3.1 Site selection Aquaculture ca
Page 22 and 23:
3. Environmental Objectives 3.1 Bes
Page 24 and 25:
4. Marine Monitoring Program Fish-f
Page 26 and 27:
the bottom of the water column. Sta
Page 28 and 29:
Table 4.2 EQG for water quality EQG
Page 30 and 31:
Table 4.3 EQS for water quality EQS
Page 32 and 33:
4.2 Sediment quality monitoring 4.2
Page 34 and 35:
Table 4.5 EQG for sediments EQG Ind
Page 36 and 37:
4.3 Coral reef monitoring 4.3.1 Obj
Page 38 and 39:
Indicator Light attenuation Chlorop
Page 40 and 41:
4.4 Sediment infauna monitoring 4.4
Page 42 and 43:
Indicator Zone of Ecological Protec
Page 44 and 45:
4.5 Biota monitoring and management
Page 46 and 47:
5. Marine Environmental Management
Page 48 and 49:
Monitor Are�any�sea-cages�wit
Page 50 and 51:
sample median calculated. However,
Page 52 and 53:
EQG�(i)�or�(ii)� exceeded T
Page 54 and 55:
5.4.2 Movement of stock Movement or
Page 56 and 57:
7. Stakeholder Consultation 7.1 Det
Page 58 and 59: 8. Additional information Additiona
Page 60 and 61: � Administer all prescribed medic
Page 62 and 63: Category Issue Consequence Likeliho
Page 65 and 66: 9. Acknowledgements This EMMP was p
Page 67 and 68: EPA (2008) Report and recommendatio
Page 69: Appendix A Ministerial Statement 79
Page 72 and 73: 2 Proponent Nomination and Contact
Page 74 and 75: 2. Within the zone of High Ecologic
Page 76 and 77: The Proposal (Assessment No. 1642)
Page 78 and 79: Figure 1: Zones of ecological prote
Page 81: Appendix B Method Statement: Geo-re
Page 84 and 85: Report No. OCEMPA001 Rev A Revision
Page 86 and 87: 1. Introduction Geo Oceans was comm
Page 88 and 89: efore smoothly decreasing to zero a
Page 90 and 91: Table 3 Data fields captured in the
Page 92 and 93: 3. Results A total of 27332 rows of
Page 94 and 95: Figure 3 Hard coral percent cover d
Page 96 and 97: Appendix 2: Video analysis substrat
Page 99: Proposed Seagrass, water quality an
Page 105: Appendix E Responses to comments re
Page 110 and 111: Version Author Authority Comment MP
Page 124: Version Author Authority Comment MP
show all

Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?