Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...
Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ... Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...
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 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 110 and 111: Version Author Authority Comment MP
- Page 112 and 113: Version Author Authority Comment MP
- Page 114 and 115: Version Author Authority Comment MP
- Page 116 and 117: Version Author Authority Comment MP
- Page 118 and 119: Version Author Authority Comment MP
- Page 122 and 123: Version Author Authority Comment MP
- Page 124: Version Author Authority Comment MP
Version Author Authority Comment MPA response<br />
Rev5<br />
Rev5<br />
Rev5<br />
Rev5<br />
Rev5<br />
Rev5<br />
Rev5<br />
Rev5<br />
Rev5<br />
Oceanica<br />
Oceanica<br />
Oceanica<br />
Oceanica<br />
Oceanica<br />
Oceanica<br />
Oceanica<br />
Oceanica<br />
Oceanica<br />
OEPA<br />
OEPA<br />
OEPA<br />
OEPA<br />
OEPA<br />
OEPA<br />
OEPA<br />
OEPA<br />
OEPA<br />
8. The EMMP proposes using a TPS field probe for measuring redox discontinuity in<br />
sediment cores. How will this be done? And what is a TPS probe? (temperature, pressure,<br />
salinity?).<br />
9. Table 4.5 – sediment EQG. EQG for sediments refer to water quality reference site data.<br />
The EQG for MEPA, HEPA and MaxEPA need to include both the single sampling occasion<br />
assessment and the 4 month seasonal assessment against the EQG.<br />
Although it may be considered acceptable, use of loss on ignition to measure TOC is an outdated<br />
method. It should also be noted that TOC is already a measure of the organic fraction.<br />
Specific sampling details (i.e. details of sample preservation method) are considered<br />
beyond the scope of the EMMP. MPA will prepare a separate Standard Operating<br />
Procedure (SOP) outlining best practice sampling and preservation methods for the<br />
specified parameters.<br />
Agreed. The EMMP has been amended.<br />
10. Table 4.6 – sediment EQS. The EQS for HEPA and MaxEPA should also include DO. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended.<br />
Coral Reef Monitoring<br />
11. Section 4.3.4. There are six proposed coral reference sites.<br />
12. Table 4.7. There is no coral in the MEPA so no coral EQG for the MEPA are necessary.<br />
13. Table 4.8. There is no coral in the MEPA so no coral EQS for the MEPA are necessary. See comments above<br />
Sediment infauna<br />
14. Section 4.4.4. Exceedance on an EQG for HEPA or MaxEPA will trigger EQS monitoring<br />
at two randomly selected HEPA or MaxEPA sites. OEPA recommend that the two sites selected<br />
should be those where the data exceed the EQG the most.<br />
15. It is stated that a study will be run within 12 months of approval to determine the<br />
number of infauna samples required to detect a 50% change. Please clarify what approval this<br />
refers to.<br />
TOC (LOI) has been used by the proponent previously. For future comparison with<br />
these data (particularly the reference data), it is recommended that TOC (LOI) is<br />
retained in the revised EMMP<br />
Agreed. EMMP now refers to six coral sites.<br />
The EQG are included because of the inferred impacts to coral under an outgoing tide.<br />
These EQG have been retained in the revised EMMP.<br />
Agreed. The EMMP has been updated to reflect this.<br />
This has been clarified in the EMMP. Approval refers to approval of the 2000 t<br />
proposal.<br />
16. Table 4.9. Sediment EQG should be added to the table. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended to reflect this.<br />
17. Section 4.5.4. The first sentence in this section is incomplete.<br />
This section lists best-practice measures that will be implemented through a <strong>Barramundi</strong><br />
Health Management and Emergency Plan for the management and prevention of fish disease<br />
and parasites. The last procedure listed involves the development of a disease contingency<br />
plan in the event that there is a disease outbreak. This plan should also be developed with<br />
input from OEPA to ensure potential off-site impacts of the treatment plan are adequately<br />
considered and managed. OEPA suggest that it be changed from a dot point to standard text<br />
and re-worded as follows: “In the unlikely event of a disease outbreak, the proponent will<br />
consult with the DoF Fish Pathologist/Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), the WA Fisheries Director<br />
(or representative) and the General Manager OEPA (or representative) and develop a disease<br />
The EMMP has been updated as per OEPAs recommendation
Change language