Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

Version Author Authority Comment MPA response
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.