Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

Recommendations

Info

Version Author Authority Comment MPA response 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. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended. 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.
Version Author Authority Comment MPA response 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. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended. 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
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 108 and 109: Version Author Authority Comment MP
Page 124: Version Author Authority Comment MP
show all

Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?