Marine Produce Australia: Cone Bay Barramundi Aquaculture ...

Recommendations

Info

Version Author Authority Comment MPA response Rev5 Rev5 Rev5 Rev5 Rev5 Rev5 Rev5 Rev6 Rev6 Oceanica Oceanica Oceanica Oceanica Oceanica Oceanica Oceanica Oceanica Oceanica OEPA OEPA OEPA OEPA OEPA OEPA OEPA OEPA OEPA contingency plan in accordance to their recommendations. Marine environmental management program 18. Discussion for the assessment of each indicator against the EQG needs to include both the individual sampling occasion assessment and the seasonal assessment for individual sites. For the latter assessment the EQG should be derived from the data for all relevant reference sites over all 4 months. 19. The discussion under section “5.1.3 Chlorophyll a” is actually a repeat of the TSS and LAC discussion. A discussion on the assessment of chlorophyll a data against the EQG should be provided. 20. The discussion in section 5.1.4 for Sediment quality is for seasonal assessment of individual sites, whereas the requirement in Table 4.5 was for assessment of data from individual sampling occasions. In fact both methods are appropriate and should be discussed here. 21. Figure 5.1 will need to be updated as required in accordance with all the advice provided above. 22. Section 5.5. In the event that an EQS is exceeded the matter should be reported to the OEPA and DoF within one day, including the management measures to be implemented to restore environmental quality. EMMP Review 23. Any revision of the EMMP should be referred to the OEPA to determine whether the change is significant. Waste Management Plan 24. The EMMP should commit the proponent to providing bunding for all oil, fuel, silage and other chemicals stored on the island. (Verbal) Comments received from OEPA 5 December 2011 on Rev6 1. OEPA recommended that MPA consider using mortality of benthic macrofauna as an EQS indicator for moderate, high and maximum protection. 2. OEPA argued that the original approach in Rev6 to defer calculation of the EQG until appropriate numbers of samples had been collected (i.e. n=3) was unacceptable. OEPA instead recommended that MPA look to collect additional samples so that the EQG could be assessed following each sampling occasion. Agreed. The EMMP has been updated. Agreed. The EMMP has been updated. Agreed. The EMMP has been updated. Both methods are now discussed. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended to reflect this. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended to reflect this. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended to reflect this. Agreed. The EMMP has been amended to reflect this. Agreed. MPA have included the following indicators relevant to ammonia toxicity: mass mortality of benthic macrofauna in the moderate ecological protection area and no observed mortalities of benthic macro-fauna that can be attributed to ammonia toxicity in the high and maximum ecological protection areas. Agreed. The EMMP has been updated to satisfy this recommendation. However, it is noted that while the EMMP has been modified so that additional samples will be taken, we have not provided details on how and where the additional samples will be taken. The rationale is that the scenario where additional sampling is required is unlikely to arise in the future given the present position of sea-cages. At the time of writing, sea-cages are positioned at the western MEPA/HEPA boundary, meaning all samples (n=5) collected on an incoming tide will be compared against the moderate protection EQG and all samples (n=5) inferred to be in the high protection area (on an outgoing tide) will be compared against the high protection EQG. If and when this becomes an issue, MPA will consult with OEPA on how to proceed. This has been explained in a footnote at the bottom of the relevant section.
Version Author Authority Comment MPA response Rev6 Oceanica OEPA 3. OEPA required further information and/or rationale to support the inclusion of the Inverse Simpson Index (ISI) as an EQS. OEPA were particularly interested in the rationale for selection of the halving and five-fold reduction in the ISI as triggers for high/max and moderate protection, respectively. OEPA also pointed to Appendix B of Perth’s Coastal Waters Environmental Values and Objectives: The Position of the EPA – A Working Document (EPA 2000) as an outline of the accepted framework for determining what represents acceptable change. EPA (2000) outlines criteria for acceptable change in marine ecosystems. The level of acceptable change depends on the prescribed level of Ecological Protection. The levels of Ecological Protection relevant to Cone Bay are Maximum, High and Moderate. For Max and High levels of protection, ecosystem processes are to be maintained within limits of natural variation, whereas for Moderate protection, small changes in ecosystem processes are allowed. Similarly, for Max and High protection, abundance and biomass of marine life is not to change beyond natural levels, whereas for Moderate protection, small changes in abundance and biomass are acceptable. The criteria for biodiversity are slightly different: In this case, no change (beyond natural variation) in biodiversity is acceptable, irrespective of Moderate, High or Maximum Ecological Protection. The Inverse Simpson Index (ISI) uses measures of species richness and abundance as inputs. The method is particularly sensitive to reductions in species richness (a proxy for biodiversity) and increases in the abundance of selected species; in relative terms it is also more sensitive than other similar indices (e.g. Shannon-Wiener diversity index) to species with high abundance. It is therefore well suited to the changes expected under and in the vicinity of sea-cages, where one or two species may dominate at the expense of other species (i.e. in a typical nutrient-enrichment response, where the shift is towards larger numbers of fewer species). The method fulfils the EPA criteria described above, as it considers species richness in the context of species abundance i.e. it is effectively able differentiate between no detectable change (as required in high and maximum protection areas) and small change (as required in moderate protection areas). One caveat however is that the method is based on the experiences of the Tasmanian aquaculture industry, and the applicability of this model to tropical waters is presently unknown. A power analysis of baseline data will be conducted by the Proponent within 12 months of acceptance of the EMMP to determine whether the Index is appropriate for application in Western Australia’s north west. In the interim, and in the absence of infauna data from Cone Bay, Oceanica has reviewed the level of variation observed in the infauna communities of the deep basin sediments in the northern end of Cockburn Sound (as opposed to the middle or southern ends, which are more sheltered and less well flushed). 12 sites were chosen for inclusion in the analysis, with the rationale that this is the recommended sample size in Crawford et al. (2002), and it is also the sample size proposed for Cone Bay (i.e. 12 sites will be samples in the impact zone and 12 in the reference zone). Analysis of the ISI of infauna communities sampled at 12 sites in the deep basin of the northern end of Cockburn Sound (similar depths, similar sediments) found that there was a 4-fold difference in ISI (range 6.8–27.1) between sites. This level of natural spatial variation in the ISI is within the 5-fold reduction in ISI chosen as the EQS for moderate protection. It should therefore be capable of detecting small changes from background, provided replication is sufficient. Replication will act to smooth the variation, thus increasing the sensitivity of the index to change. Appropriate levels of replication will be important for the ISI trigger for high protection (based on a halving of ISI relative to background), particularly as the trigger is within the level of natural variation observed in Cockburn sound populations. The extent to which the ISI is appropriate as a trigger for high protection will be determined following completion of the power analysis.
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?