Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TRUMPETER BAY MF261 - Block SB2: BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DRAFT FINAL REPORT (VERSION 2.0) March 2019
Report to: Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd
Prepared by: AQUENAL PTY LTD
A Q U E N A L
www.aquenal.com.au
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
Document Distribution
Date Name Company Document
Type Version Copies
8 March 2019 Adam Smark Huon Aquaculture
Group Pty Ltd Electronic 1.0 1
8 March 2019 Mark Churchill EPA Electronic 1.0 1
18 March 2019 Adam Smark Huon Aquaculture
Group Pty Ltd Electronic 2.0 1
18 March 2019 Mark Churchill EPA Electronic 2.0 1
COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of
Aquenal Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written
permission of Aquenal Pty Ltd constitutes an infringement of copyright.
DISCLAIMER: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Aquenal
Pty Ltd’s client and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement
between Aquenal Pty Ltd and its Client. Aquenal Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility
whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
Contents
1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Operational Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 9
3 Location and Survey Maps ...................................................................................................................................... 10
4 Current Measurements ........................................................................................................................................... 11
5 Bathymetric Profile ................................................................................................................................................. 15
6 Seabed Characteristics and habitat profile ............................................................................................................. 16
7 Underwater Video Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 17 7.1 Filming summary ............................................................................................................................................. 17 7.2 Observations from filming ............................................................................................................................... 17
8 Sediment Chemistry ................................................................................................................................................ 25 8.1 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 25 8.2 Redox Potential ............................................................................................................................................... 30 8.3 Sulphide Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 30 8.4 Particle Size Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 31 8.5 Organic Content .............................................................................................................................................. 33 8.6 Heavy Metal Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 33
9 Gazameda gunnii survey ......................................................................................................................................... 36
10 Biological Analysis - Benthic Fauna ......................................................................................................................... 38
11 Inshore Reef Surveys ............................................................................................................................................... 42
12 Deep Reef Surveys................................................................................................................................................... 48
13 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 51
List of Figures Figure 1 Location and Survey Map – MF261 – SB2, Trumpeter Bay. Sites 1.1 – 10.1 indicate the 35 m compliance
triplicates, c2n – c6 indicate control triplicates; IF1-IF10 indicate internal sites. Red line = zone boundary; black rectangle = amended SB2 lease boundary; dashed black rectangle = old SB2 lease boundary. Survey coordinates are included in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2 Polar plots of current velocity and direction, T2 (May – June 2014). The plots are read as if the current flow moves from the outer circle towards the centre of the graph. .............................................................................. 13
Figure 3 Polar plots of current velocity and direction, T4 (May – June 2014). The plots are read as if the current flow moves from the outer circle towards the centre of the graph. .............................................................................. 14
Figure 4 Bathymetric profile for MF261 – SB2. Green line indicates the lease boundary. ............................................... 15 Figure 5 Survey habitat map. Red outline – Zone boundary; black rectangle – Amended lease or block boundary for
MF261 – SB2............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 6 Redox potential at 30 mm depth in sediment cores. ......................................................................................... 30 Figure 7 Sulphide concentrations in sediment core samples. .......................................................................................... 31 Figure 8 Particle size analyses of the top 100 mm of sediment. Lines represent mean percentage cumulative volume
for size fractions at each site, based on pooled replicates for compliance and control sites (n=3). For internal farm sites, lines represent cumulative volume based on a single sample from each site. ..................................... 32
Figure 9 Organic content in sediment core samples ........................................................................................................ 33 Figure 10 Location of grab samples taken during Gazameda gunnii survey for MF261 - Block SB2, highlighting the
sample sites where dead shells were collected (10, 19, 28, 30, 32, 37 and 38). Note that sites G1-G30 were sampled in July 2015, while G31-G38 were sampled in January 2019. .................................................................. 36
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
Figure 11 Photograph of dead G. gunnii shells collected during the survey of MF261-Block SB2, from 2015 (a) and 2019 (b) surveys. .............................................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 12 Results of MDS analysis using benthic infauna data collected from three replicate grabs at each compliance and control site for MF261 – SB2. Green ellipses indicate community similarity at the level of 50%, based on cluster analysis. ....................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 13 Benthic faunal analysis of seabed samples – MF261 – SB2. K – dominance curves. Analysis based on pooled triplicate data for compliance and control sites and single samples taken at internal farm sites. ......................... 41
Figure 14 Survey map showing locations of Edgar-Barrett (R1-R3) and deep reef (R4a-R4b) survey locations. Black rectangle – Amended lease or block boundary for MF261 – SB2. .......................................................................... 43
Figure 15. Representative habitats along deep reef survey transect. .............................................................................. 48
List of Tables Table 1 Summarised current and velocity data for Trumpeter T2 (May 2014) and T4 (March 2014). ............................. 12
Table 2 Descriptions of dives performed at MF261 – Block SB2. ..................................................................................... 17
Table 3 Description of each ROV dive performed at Trumpeter Bay MF261 – Block SB2. Video analysis and interpretation provided by Huon Aquaculture. ...................................................................................................... 21
Table 4 Visual description of sediment cores at MF261 – Block SB2. .............................................................................. 26
Table 5 Results of heavy metal analysis of sediment samples and the ANZECC 2000 trigger values. .............................. 35
Table 6 Summary of benthic faunal analysis. The category ‘other’ included anthozoans, brachiopods, nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, platyhelminths and sipunculids. ..................................................................................... 40
Table 7 Summary of macroalgal survey results. Data represent mean % cover across 20 replicate 0.25 m2 quadrats per site. The column FG% represents the average % cover for each functional group. ............................................... 45
Table 8 Summary of fish survey results. Data represent total abundance for the 2000 m2 survey area at each site. .... 46
Table 9 Summary of invertebrates and cryptic fish survey results. Data represent total abundance for the 200 m2 survey area at each site. .......................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 10. Summary of seabed characteristics along deep reef survey transect. ............................................................. 49
List of Appendices Appendix 1 Survey coordinates for sediment sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55 (Datum
GDA94). ................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix 2 Survey coordinates for Gazameda gunnii sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55
(Datum GDA94). ...................................................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 3 Images of sediment cores .............................................................................................................................. 54 Appendix 4 Redox potential, measured in millivolts from 3cm depth in the sediment cores. ........................................ 58 Appendix 5 Sulphide analysis, measured in sediments at 3 cm from sediment surface. ................................................. 59 Appendix 6 Particle size analysis – raw data .................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix 7 Raw Data: Benthic infauna ............................................................................................................................ 61 Appendix 8 Raw Data - Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Macroalgae percentage cover................................................................ 64 Appendix 9 Raw Data - Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Fish and invertebrates ............................................................................ 67 Appendix 10 Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Images of representative habitats at inshore reef sites R1, R2 and R3. ................. 68 Appendix 11 Deep reef survey: Images of representative habitats. ................................................................................ 69
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
1 Summary
Trumpeter Bay Marine Farming Lease No. 261 Block SB2 (MF261 – Block SB2) is located in Storm Bay in southeast Tasmania. In accordance with the EPA Schedule of Requirements for Salmonid Finfish Baseline Environmental Survey, a finfish baseline environmental survey was required prior to commencement of aquaculture operations. It should be noted that a baseline survey was conducted on the lease in 2015, however, the lease orientation and size has been amended since the 2015 survey. This interim baseline survey report incorporates information relating to the amended lease configuration for MF261 – Block SB2. Current flow data were collected by Huon Aquaculture. In order to measure localised current movement, an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) was deployed inside the boundary of MF261 – Block SB2 (“T2”) from 9th May 2014 to 27th June 2014 and approximately 4 km south of MF261 – Block SB2 (“T4”) from 15th February 2014 to 4th April 2014. Predominant flow direction over the range of depth bins for the survey periods differed from SW-NE for the May 2014 T2 deployment, through to more N-S for the March 2014 T4 deployment. It is not clear whether these differences were due to the positions of the ADCP deployments or to seasonal effects/prevailing weather. The currents closer to the surface appeared to be generally the opposite with a strong southerly component for the T4 deployment in March 2014 and a diffuse but more northerly directionality for the T2 deployment. Differences in current patterns also were evident in relation to depth. For T2 in May, currents from the SW direction were dominant in deeper depths (i.e. > 12 m), with NE flows also an important component of overall current patterns. Surface (i.e. < 12 m) currents in May at T2 tended to be more dominated by NW flows, presumably as a result of localised wind driven circulation. Depth related patterns were not as strong at T4 in March, although surface flows tended to be dominated by southerly flows, with a more even spread of opposing N-S flows measured in deeper depths. Baseline information on the seafloor appearance and sediments at MF261 – Block 2 was collected by Huon Aquaculture on 21-22nd January 2019. Filming of the seabed was conducted with a Remote Observation Vehicle (ROV). As for previous baseline surveys for Trumpeter Bay lease 261, all sites shared the common features of rippled relatively coarse sand with shell grit and the occasional dead mollusc shell. The fauna was generally depauperate, consisting mainly of Maoricolpus roseus (New Zealand screw shell), with the very occasional sycozoan and moderate numbers and spread of hermit crabs and other crabs. There were also brittle stars noted towards the NE of the lease (sites 2, 4 and 5) and at the northern control site. There were only the occasional, reasonably randomly distributed fish sighted during the survey, these were composed of a few small benthic fish (suspected gobies), flathead, sea moths, flounder and a skate. All sites contained drift algae, although some fine algae were attached to old shells and sediments. The only introduced species identified during the ROV survey were M. roseus and the Northern Pacific Seastar Asterias amurensis. A single A. amurensis was observed at sites 9.2 and 9.3 and Maoricolpus appeared at most sites but was most numerous at sites 8.1-8.3. There were no threatened species detected during the ROV survey. Visual assessment showed that sediments were generally very similar across sampling sites. Sediments were typically sandy and brown in colour in the surface layers, grading to dark grey with increasing sediment depth. Faint dark streaks were evident in the deeper sections of many cores. The sandy nature of the sediments indicates that wave action regularly influences the seabed sediments and the rate of deposition of finer sediment fractions is low. Dark patches were
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
evident in the deeper layers of cores at many sites. Dark patches were typically below 20 mm sediment depth, indicative of anoxic patches in deeper sections of core samples. Such a pattern is not considered evidence of organic enrichment, and is relatively common in circumstances where sandy, well compacted sediments are present. Sediment redox values at 30 mm sediment depth averaged 187 mV. There was no strong pattern of redox potential in relation to compliance, control or internal farm sites. The observed relatively high redox values at all sites are indicative of well oxygenated sediments. Sulphide concentrations were generally very low at most sites, averaging 9.74 µM across all sites. While no sites exceeded concentrations typical of organically enriched sediments (i.e. > 100 µM; Macleod and Forbes 2004), relatively high levels were measured at some sites (e.g. compliance site 4.2, IF1). These patterns are also consistent with visual assessment results showing darker anoxic patches that were evident in some cores. Patterns of particle size distribution were indicative of a sedimentary environment with moderate agitation of seabed sediments and associated low abundance of fine silt and clay fractions. Sediments across the area sampled were typically dominated by ‘medium sand’ (0.25 mm; average 41.5 % v/v across all sites) and ‘fine sand’ (0.125 mm; average 39.7 % v/v across all sites) particle size fractions. Overall, the sediments contained a relatively low proportion of fine clay and silt fractions (i.e. < 0.063 mm; average 4% v/v across all sites). Particle size distribution at control site C6 was different to the remaining sites, with a higher proportion of finer sized fractions. At site C6 the 0.063 mm and <0.063 mm size fractions accounted for 38% of sediment, compared to 8% across the remaining sites. It is likely these patterns reflect the slightly more sheltered location of site C6. Patterns of particle size distribution at all remaining compliance, control and internal farm sites were generally comparable. The organic content of the sediments was low at all sites (average 2.7%), as expected in sandy sediments. There was only minor variation between sampling sites, with no strong spatial patterns evident. Results from heavy metal analysis showed that the ANZECC Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) trigger values were not exceeded for any of the analytes measured. Targeted sampling for the threatened mollusc Gazameda gunnii was undertaken using van-veen grabs at 38 sites spread across the lease area. The survey included 30 sites from the 2015 survey, along with an additional 8 sites in 2019 that focused on regions in the amended lease area that were not covered in 2015. No live shells were detected during the targeted G. gunnii survey. Seven individual dead shells/shell fragments of Gazameda gunnii were collected and retained. The shells were mostly small (<30 mm) and were generally scattered across the survey area. Benthic fauna analysis revealed high diversity, with a total of 7974 individuals from 128 families identified across the 51 samples. Faunal communities were dominated by crustaceans, accounting for 55.4% of individuals and 38.3 % of families identified. The remaining fauna was mainly comprised of polychaetes (23.8% of individuals and 21.9 % of families), molluscs (16.6% of individuals and 27.3 % of families) and echinoderms (1.9% of individuals and 6.3 % of families). Other fauna, including anthozoans, brachiopods, nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, platyhelminths and sipunculids, were recorded in low numbers. The most common families recorded included Spionidae (polychaete, 10.1% of individuals), Anabathridae (gastropod mollusc, 9.6% of individuals), Ampeliscidae (amphipod, 7.1% of individuals), and Photidae (amphipod, 6.6% of individuals). Low numbers of introduced species were observed during the survey. Two introduced taxa were recorded, including the American spider crab Pyromaia tuberculata (10 individuals), and the bivalve Varicorbula gibba (9 individuals).
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
The capitellid Mediomastus australiensis was recorded in low densities across most survey sites. Mediomastus australiensis is common and widespread in south-east Tasmania and is not regarded as a pollution indicator species. A single Capitella sp. individual was also recorded at site 1. High numbers of Capitella sp. are known to be an indicator of organic pollution, but the extremely low number observed in the current survey is not considered evidence of organic enrichment. Whilst there was some variation in benthic community structure between sites, observed faunal patterns were within the range expected for an unimpacted ecosystem, with relatively diverse communities and low levels of dominance by single taxa. Based on the benthic faunal patterns present, any future benthic impacts should be readily detectable. Inshore reef surveys were conducted at three sites on the neighbouring North Bruny Island coastline. Surveys were conducted along transects at the 5 m depth contour using the Edgar-Barrett methodology. This methodology documents reef biodiversity and includes assessment of macroalgae, fish and invertebrate populations. Overall cover of canopy-forming algae was high and comparable between the three sites, averaging 94%. The relative abundance of different canopy-forming species varied between the sites, with Phyllospora comosa, Ecklonia radiata and Durvillea potatorum the main species recorded. Patterns of understorey algae were generally comparable between sites. Coverage of encrusting understorey algae was high, averaging > 50% across the three survey sites. Overall patterns of macroalgal diversity were comparable between the three sites surveyed. Fish species present across the three inshore reef sites were considered typical of shallow southern Tasmanian reefs, with wrasses (Family Labridae), leatherjackets (Family Monocanthidae) and weed whitings (Family Odacidae) amongst the most prominent groups recorded. The most abundant fish species across the survey was Trachinops caudimaculatus (blotch-tailed trachinops), which accounted for 45% of all fish observations. While T. caudimaculatus dominated overall abundance patterns it was patchy in distribution and not recorded from one of the survey sites. The wrasses Notolabrus tetricus (13.6% of all fish observations) and N. fucicola (8.8% of all fish observations) were the next most abundant species and these were observed in similar densities across the three sites. A total of 743 large mobile invertebrates were recorded from 14 species across the three inshore reef sites. The feather star Comanthus trichoptera was the most common invertebrate recorded, accounting for 79% of all macroinvertebrate observations. Cryptic fish were recorded in relatively low densities, with a total of five species recorded. A survey of deep reef habitat approximately 2.5 km north of the lease was undertaken along a 200 m transect line. The seabed was mainly low-profile reef with depth ranging from 32-38 m across the survey transect. Benthic coverage on the seafloor was dominated by red and green foliose algae, with low cover of sponges also present. A range of sponge morphologies were observed including arborescent, cup-shaped, finger and encrusting growth forms. A variety fish species were observed, with community structure considered typical of south-east Tasmanian reef systems. Fish species commonly recorded on the deep reef included Notolabrus tetricus (blue throat wrasse), Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse) and Caesioperca rasor (barber perch).
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
2 Operational Summary Contractor: AQUENAL PTY LTD ABN 74 151 011 157
244 Summerleas Road, Kingston, Tasmania 7050
Phone 03 6229 2334 Fax 03 6229 2335 Client: Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd
PO BOX 42, Dover, TAS 7117 T: 03 6295 8118 | F: 03 6295 8161
Field work: ROV filming: Huon Aquaculture Seabed sampling: Aquenal Pty Ltd
Dates of fieldwork:
21-22nd January 2019: ROV survey 21-22nd, 24th January 2019: Seabed sampling 4-5th January 2019: Reef surveys
Weather: 21/1/2019 22/1/2019 24/1/2019 4/3/2019 5/3/2019
Wind: SE 10-20 knots SE 5-15 knots NNE 5 – 15 knots Light Light
Sky: Clear Hazy Partly cloudy Partly cloudy Cloudy
Rain: Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Sea: 1-2 m 0.5 – 1 m 0.5 m <0.5 m <0.5 m
Current: Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible
Laboratory Analysis: Video analysis by Huon Aquaculture
Heavy metals, organic content: Analytical Services Tasmania (AST). All other analysis by Aquenal Pty Ltd. Filming for this assessment was carried out by Huon Aquaculture with a VideoRay Remotely Operated Inspection System using a colour video camera with 170 degrees of tilt range, 350 lines of resolution and 0.5 lux of sensitivity, accompanied by two 20-watt adjustable halogen lights. A GoPro Hero 4+ was mounted onto the ROV and also used to capture seabed footage. A Nomad 800L mobile GIS unit with attached Novatel Smart Antenna Differential GPS was used to locate all filming sites. Seabed sampling was undertaken by Aquenal Pty Ltd using a Craib Corer and Van-veen grab. Positioning for seabed sampling was undertaken using a Garmin GPS in combination with a Novatel Smart Antenna Differential GPS, giving positions accurate to ~2m. The GPS systems were referenced to a State Permanent Mark (SPM) prior to commencement of fieldwork.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
3 Location and Survey Maps
Figure 1 Location and Survey Map – MF261 – SB2, Trumpeter Bay. Sites 1.1 – 10.1 indicate the 35 m compliance triplicates, c2n – c6 indicate control triplicates; IF1-IF10 indicate internal sites. Red line = zone boundary; black rectangle = amended SB2 lease boundary; dashed black rectangle = old SB2 lease boundary. Survey coordinates are included in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
4 Current Measurements Current flow data were collected by Huon Aquaculture. In order to measure localised current movement, Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) were installed on the seafloor in two separate deployments. One ADCP was deployed inside the boundary of SB2 from 9th May 2014 to 27th June 2014 (“T2”; 55G 536334 5218175) and a second was deployed approximately 4 km south of SB2 (“T4”; 55G 536250 5213883) from 15th February 2014 to 4th April 2014. The ADCPs were set to measure current velocity and direction throughout the water column every 30 minutes, with this data grouped into four metre depth bins. Each deployment lasted for approximately six weeks.
In Table 1 the current and velocity data for both meter deployments are summarised for average flow, minimum flow, maximum flow, percentage of flows less than 3 cms-1, percentage of flow less than 5 cms-1, and percentage of flow greater than 10 cms-1 for each depth bin. Polar plots of current velocity and direction are provided in Figures 2 and 3. The data shows that the flow velocities measured in the vicinity of the lease appear to be comparable to those measured in the lower D’Entrecasteaux Channel and significantly higher than those previously measured within the Huon River Estuary. This indicates that the lease should provide at least equivalent seafloor recovery conditions to those fish farm leases in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel. Predominant flow direction over the range of depth bins for the survey periods differed from SW-NE for the T2 deployment, through to more N-S for the T4 deployment. It is not clear whether these differences were due to the positions of the ADCP deployments or to seasonal effects/prevailing weather. The currents closer to the surface appeared to be generally the opposite with a strong southerly component at T4 in March and a diffuse but more northerly directionality at T2 in May 2014. Differences in current patterns also were evident in relation to depth. At T2 in May, currents from the SW direction were dominant in deeper depths (i.e. > 12 m), with NE flows also an important component of overall current patterns. Surface (i.e. < 12 m) currents in May at T2 tended to be more dominated by NW flows, presumably as a result of localised wind driven circulation. Depth related patterns were not as strong at T4 in March, although surface flows tended to be dominated by southerly flows, with a more even spread of opposing N-S flows measured in deeper depths.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
Table 1 Summarised current and velocity data for Trumpeter T2 (May 2014) and T4 (March 2014).
T2 MAY 2014
Depth bins/cells Cell01 Cell02 Cell03 Cell04 Cell05 Cell06 Cell07 Cell08 Cell09 Cell10
Depth range (m) 40-36 36-32 32-28 28-24 24-20 20-16 16-12 12-8 8-4 4-surface
Mean 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.6 5.4 6.2
Max 12.4 12.2 17.9 19.7 12.3 18.2 22.4 24.7 20.9
Min 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
%flow<3cm/s 35.8 32.7 34.1 35.7 37.3 36.1 30.4 21.4 16.0
%flow<5cm/s 70.1 63.7 63.9 66.9 69.0 67.0 60.6 48.2 38.5
%flow>10cm/s 0.4 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.5 2.5 6.1 12.2
T4 March 2014
Depth bins/cells Cell01 Cell02 Cell03 Cell04 Cell05 Cell06 Cell07 Cell08 Cell09 Cell10
Depth range (m) 40-36 36-32 32-28 28-24 24-20 20-16 16-12 12-8 8-4 4-surface
Mean 5.6 6.1 6.6 7.1 7.6 8.1 8.6 9.2 9.1 9.3
Max 25.6 28.7 30.7 31.6 31.0 31.4 32.3 32.4 32.3 35.9
Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
%flow<3cm/s 25.8 25.2 24.3 19.8 16.5 16.0 14.6 12.5 14.0 8.9
%flow<5cm/s 49.9 46.8 43.5 40.5 35.9 33.5 31.6 29.8 30.2 24.8
%flow>10cm/s 11.5 17.1 20.5 23.2 26.3 29.6 33.7 37.8 36.7 35.5
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
13
Figure 2 Polar plots of current velocity and direction, T2 (May – June 2014). The plots are read as if the current flow moves from the outer circle towards the centre of the graph.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
14
Figure 3 Polar plots of current velocity and direction, T4 (May – June 2014). The plots are read as if the current flow moves from the outer circle towards the centre of the graph.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
15
5 Bathymetric Profile Detailed bathymetry surveys were undertaken in Storm Bay by CSIRO using a WASSP S3 multibeam scanner. Survey in the vicinity of MF261 – Block SB2 were undertaken on 22/8/2018. The bathymetry profile based on this survey is illustrated in Figure 4 below.
Figure 4 Bathymetric profile for MF261 – SB2. Green line indicates the lease boundary.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
16
6 Seabed Characteristics and habitat profile
Figure 5 Survey habitat map. Red outline – Zone boundary; black rectangle – Amended lease or block boundary for MF261 – SB2.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
17
7 Underwater Video Survey
7.1 Filming summary The appearance of the seabed in the vicinity of MF261 – Block SB2 was recorded by filming spot dives of the sea floor using a VideoRay Remote Observation Vehicle (ROV) with a GoPro Hero 4+ mounted to the vehicle. Filming and interpretation of video footage was carried out by Huon Aquaculture. The spot dive locations were:
- Compliance sites at 35 m outside the lease boundary (sites 1.1-1.3, 2.1-2.3, 3.1-3.3, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.3, 6.1-6.3, 7.1-7.3, 8.1-8.3, 9.1-9.3, 10.1-10.3
- Control sits at least 200 m from the lease boundary (sites C2.1n-C2.3n, C6.1-C6.3). - Internal habitat sites consisting of ten evenly spaced locations within Block 2 (sites IF1-
IF10). Survey sites were located at positions specified by the EPA (Table 2). The positions of all dives were located or marked by DGPS using a Nomad 800L mobile GIS unit with attached Novatel Smart Antenna Differential GPS. Descriptions of video footage are summarised for each site below. A hard drive containing the digital recording of all control, compliance and internal lease dive sites for MF261 – Block SB2 has been forwarded to EPA.
7.2 Observations from filming
Table 2 Descriptions of dives performed at MF261 – Block SB2.
Site Easting (GDA94 MGA55)
Northing (GDA94 MGA55)
Date Time Depth
(m) Dive type
1.1 536266 5218790 22/01/2019 7:18:24 AM 41.3 35m
1.2 536286 5218785 22/01/2019 7:33:06 AM 41.5 35m
1.3 536303 5218781 22/01/2019 7:45:38 AM 41.5 35m
2.1 536496 5218715 22/01/2019 8:00:05 AM 42.1 35m
2.2 536514 5218711 22/01/2019 8:11:39 AM 42 35m
2.3 536537 5218703 22/01/2019 8:24:10 AM 42 35m
3.1 536648 5218357 22/01/2019 8:37:48 AM 42.6 35m
3.2 536642 5218340 22/01/2019 8:50:47 AM 42.7 35m
3.3 536635 5218321 22/01/2019 9:05:38 AM 42.6 35m
4.1 536552 5218066 22/01/2019 9:20:17 AM 42.7 35m
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
18
Site Easting (GDA94 MGA55)
Northing (GDA94 MGA55)
Date Time Depth
(m) Dive type
4.2 536551 5218048 22/01/2019 9:32:59 AM 42.6 35m
4.3 536539 5218028 22/01/2019 9:47:46 AM 42.7 35m
5.1 536461 5217781 22/01/2019 10:00:02 AM 42.9 35m
5.2 536456 5217762 22/01/2019 10:11:54 AM 42.8 35m
5.3 536449 5217742 22/01/2019 10:22:34 AM 42.7 35m
6.1 536151 5217531 22/01/2019 10:35:31 AM 42.2 35m
6.2 536136 5217539 22/01/2019 10:47:58 AM 41.8 35m
6.3 536111 5217543 22/01/2019 11:00:11 AM 41.9 35m
7.1 535922 5217604 22/01/2019 11:12:37 AM 41.2 35m
7.2 535903 5217613 22/01/2019 11:26:17 AM 41.1 35m
7.3 535884 5217619 22/01/2019 11:37:47 AM 41.1 35m
8.1 535769 5217964 22/01/2019 11:52:08 AM 40.3 35m
8.2 535777 5217985 22/01/2019 12:03:30 PM 40.1 35m
8.3 535783 5218003 22/01/2019 12:14:37 PM 40.1 35m
9.1 535862 5218247 22/01/2019 12:27:07 PM 40 35m
9.2 535868 5218266 22/01/2019 12:40:42 PM 40 35m
9.3 535873 5218287 22/01/2019 12:53:57 PM 40 35m
10.1 535958 5218537 22/01/2019 1:05:14 PM 40 35m
10.2 535961 5218556 22/01/2019 1:14:26 PM 40 35m
10.3 535968 5218576 22/01/2019 1:24:34 PM 41 35m
IF1 536188 5218646 21/01/2019 7:32:15 AM 41.4 Internal
IF2 536130 5218405 21/01/2019 7:48:15 AM 41.4 Internal
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
19
Site Easting (GDA94 MGA55)
Northing (GDA94 MGA55)
Date Time Depth
(m) Dive type
IF3 536025 5218188 21/01/2019 8:02:38 AM 41.2 Internal
IF4 535970 5217941 21/01/2019 8:17:29 AM 41.3 Internal
IF5 535916 5217774 21/01/2019 8:30:06 AM 41.3 Internal
IF6 536204 5217675 21/01/2019 8:44:44 AM 42.1 Internal
IF7 536272 5217853 21/01/2019 8:57:18 AM 42.2 Internal
IF8 536352 5218104 21/01/2019 9:12:40 AM 42.1 Internal
IF9 536423 5218332 21/01/2019 9:27:43 AM 42.2 Internal
IF10 536508 5218541 21/01/2019 9:44:12 AM 42 Internal
C2.1n 537271 5219833 21/01/2019 10:13:55 AM 42.7 Control
C2.2n 537266 5219847 21/01/2019 10:27:00 AM 42.4 Control
C2.3n 537274 5219869 21/01/2019 10:42:42 AM 42.6 Control
C6.1 534673 5217953 21/01/2019 11:00:38 AM 35.3 Control
C6.2 534673 5217934 21/01/2019 11:11:45 AM 35.3 Control
C6.3 534679 5217912 21/01/2019 11:24:48 AM 35.2 Control
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
20
Interpretation – general comments on spot dive locations Table 3 below provides a list of seabed sediment characteristics and fauna observations from the 46 ROV spot dives undertaken at the control, compliance and internal lease sites. As for previous baseline surveys for Trumpeter Bay lease 261 (e.g. Aquenal 2015), all sites shared the common features of rippled relatively coarse sand with shell grit and the occasional dead mollusc shell. The fauna was generally depauperate, consisting mainly of Maoricolpus roseus (New Zealand screw shell), with the very occasional sycozoan and moderate numbers and spread of hermit crabs and other crabs. There were also brittle stars noted towards the NE of the lease (sites 2, 4 and 5) and at the northern control site. There were only the occasional, reasonably randomly distributed fish sighted during the survey, these were composed of a few small benthic fish (suspected gobies), flathead, sea moths, flounder and a skate. The only introduced species identified during the ROV survey was the New Zealand screw shell Maoricolpus roseus and the Northern Pacific Seastar Asterias amurensis. A single Asterias amurensis (Pacific seastar) was noted at sites 9.2 and 9.3 and M. roseus appeared at most sites but was most numerous at sites 8.1-8.3. No live M. roseus specimens were observed during the survey, but many were inhabited by hermit crabs. All sites contained drift algae, although some fine algae were attached to old shells and sediments. There were no threatened species detected during the ROV survey.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
21
Table 3 Description of each ROV dive performed at Trumpeter Bay MF261 – Block SB2. Video analysis and interpretation provided by Huon Aquaculture.
Site Easting (GDA94 MGA55)
Northing (GDA94 MGA55)
Date Time Depth
(m) Dive type
Visibility (m)
Comments
1.1 536266 5218790 22/1/2019 7:18:24 AM 41.3 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
1.2 536286 5218785 22/1/2019 7:33:06 AM 41.5 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
1.3 536303 5218781 22/1/2019 7:45:38 AM 41.5 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, small benthic fish Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
2.1 536496 5218715 22/1/2019 8:00:05 AM 42.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, possible brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
2.2 536514 5218711 22/1/2019 8:11:39 AM 42 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Hermit crabs, other crabs, Sycozoan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
2.3 536537 5218703 22/1/2019 8:24:10 AM 42 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
3.1 536648 5218357 22/1/2019 8:37:48 AM 42.6 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
3.2 536642 5218340 22/1/2019 8:50:47 AM 42.7 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
3.3 536635 5218321 22/1/2019 9:05:38 AM 42.6 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
4.1 536552 5218066 22/1/2019 9:20:17 AM 42.7 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
4.2 536551 5218048 22/1/2019 9:32:59 AM 42.6 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, large skate Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
4.3 536539 5218028 22/1/2019 9:47:46 AM 42.7 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
5.1 536461 5217781 22/1/2019 10:00:02 AM 42.9 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
5.2 536456 5217762 22/1/2019 10:11:54 AM 42.8 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
22
Site Easting (GDA94 MGA55)
Northing (GDA94 MGA55)
Date Time Depth
(m) Dive type
Visibility (m)
Comments
5.3 536449 5217742 22/1/2019 10:22:34 AM 42.7 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, brittle stars, Sycozoan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
6.1 536151 5217531 22/1/2019 10:35:31 AM 42.2 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flounder, flathead Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
6.2 536136 5217539 22/1/2019 10:47:58 AM 41.8 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Crabs, flathead Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
6.3 536111 5217543 22/1/2019 11:00:11 AM 41.9 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
7.1 535922 5217604 22/1/2019 11:12:37 AM 41.2 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead, suspected poriferan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
7.2 535903 5217613 22/1/2019 11:26:17 AM 41.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Hermit crabs, crabs, Sycozoan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
7.3 535884 5217619 22/1/2019 11:37:47 AM 41.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
8.1 535769 5217964 22/1/2019 11:52:08 AM 40.3 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Numerous Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
8.2 535777 5217985 22/1/2019 12:03:30 PM 40.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Numerous Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, sea moth Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
8.3 535783 5218003 22/1/2019 12:14:37 PM 40.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Numerous Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
9.1 535862 5218247 22/1/2019 12:27:07 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
9.2 535868 5218266 22/1/2019 12:40:42 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, Asterias amurensis Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
9.3 535873 5218287 22/1/2019 12:53:57 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead, Asterias amurensis Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
10.1 535958 5218537 22/1/2019 1:05:14 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, sea moth Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
23
Site Easting (GDA94 MGA55)
Northing (GDA94 MGA55)
Date Time Depth
(m) Dive type
Visibility (m)
Comments
10.2 535961 5218556 22/1/2019 1:14:26 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, small benthic fish Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
10.3 535968 5218576 22/1/2019 1:24:34 PM 41 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF1 536188 5218646 21/1/2019 7:32:15 AM 41.4 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, suspected poriferan, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF2 536130 5218405 21/1/2019 7:48:15 AM 41.4 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF3 536025 5218188 21/1/2019 8:02:38 AM 41.2 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF4 535970 5217941 21/1/2019 8:17:29 AM 41.3 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF5 535916 5217774 21/1/2019 8:30:06 AM 41.3 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, suspected poriferan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF6 536204 5217675 21/1/2019 8:44:44 AM 42.1 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF7 536272 5217853 21/1/2019 8:57:18 AM 42.2 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF8 536352 5218104 21/1/2019 9:12:40 AM 42.1 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF9 536423 5218332 21/1/2019 9:27:43 AM 42.2 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, sea moth Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
IF10 536508 5218541 21/1/2019 9:44:12 AM 42 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, suspected brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
C2.1n 537271 5219833 21/1/2019 10:13:55 AM 42.7 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
C2.2n 537266 5219847 21/1/2019 10:27:00 AM 42.4 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
24
Site Easting (GDA94 MGA55)
Northing (GDA94 MGA55)
Date Time Depth
(m) Dive type
Visibility (m)
Comments
C2.3n 537274 5219869 21/1/2019 10:42:42 AM 42.6 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, sea moth, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
C6.1 534673 5217953 21/1/2019 11:00:38 AM 35.3 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
C6.2 534673 5217934 21/1/2019 11:11:45 AM 35.3 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, small benthic fish Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
C6.3 534679 5217912 21/1/2019 11:24:48 AM 35.2 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
25
8 Sediment Chemistry
8.1 Visual Assessment Methods A Craib corer was used to collect 50 mm diameter sediment cores in transparent Perspex tubes. These were handled carefully and retained in a vertical orientation to minimise disturbance of the sediment surface until they were described and redox and sulphide readings taken. The cores were described in terms of length, colour (using a Munsell soil chart), plant and animal life, gas vesicles, and smell. Odour from hydrogen sulphide gas, if present, was noted after the water was removed from the core barrels. Results and interpretation Descriptions of the sediment cores are tabulated in Table 4. Visual assessment showed that sediments were generally very similar across sampling sites. Sediments were typically sandy and brown in colour in the surface layers, grading to dark grey with increasing sediment depth. Faint dark streaks were evident in the deeper sections of many cores. Sediment cores at all sites were characteristically well compacted, which was particularly evident when inserting the redox probe to the required 30 mm depth. Animals or evidence of their presence (i.e. polychaetes, amphipods, hermit crabs, burrows) were observed in most sediment cores. Sediment characteristics from the compliance and control sites showed minor variation, indicative of similar environmental conditions across the compliance and control sites. The exception was control site C2n where sediments were lighter in colouration compared to the remaining core samples. The sandy nature of the sediments indicates that wave action regularly influences the seabed sediments and the rate of deposition of finer sediment fractions is low. Dark patches were evident in the deeper layers of cores at many sites. Dark patches were typically below 20 mm sediment depth, indicative of anoxic patches in deeper sections of core samples. Such a pattern is not considered evidence of organic enrichment, and is relatively common in circumstances where sandy, well compacted sediments are present. Images of sediment cores are included in Appendix 3.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
26
Table 4 Visual description of sediment cores at MF261 – Block SB2.
Site Length (mm)
Colour 1 (Munsell score) Sediment 1 Depth 1
(mm) Colour 2 (Munsell score) Sediment 2
Depth 2 (mm)
Plants Animals Gas Smell
1.1 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches 20 - 60 mm Sand 160 Nil
Bivalve on sediment surface
Nil Nil
1.2 190 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 70 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches 60 - 100 mm Sand 190 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
1.3 120 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches 60 - 80 mm Sand 120 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
2.1 170 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 170
Nil Burrows Nil Nil
2.2 140 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 80 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark
patches below 30 mm Sand 140 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
2.3 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 100 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark patch
30-60 mm Sand 160 Nil Nil Nil Nil
3.1 130 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 90 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches 10-70 mm Sand 130 Nil Nil Nil Nil
3.2 130 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 100 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches 20-40 mm Sand 130 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
3.3 170 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 110 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark patch
20-30 mm Sand 170 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
4.1 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 100 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark
patches below 20 mm Sand 160 Nil
Polychaete on sediment surface
Nil Nil
4.2 120 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 50 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark
patches below 20 mm Sand 120 Nil
Burrows, amphipod on sediment surface
Nil Nil
4.3 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 90 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark
patches below 10 mm Sand 160 Nil
Burrows, hermit crab on sediment surface
Nil Nil
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
27
Site Length (mm)
Colour 1 (Munsell score) Sediment 1 Depth 1
(mm) Colour 2 (Munsell score) Sediment 2
Depth 2 (mm)
Plants Animals Gas Smell
5.1 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark
patches below 10 mm Sand 160 Nil Nil Nil Nil
5.2 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 100 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark
patches below 20 mm Sand 160 Nil
Burrows, polychaete on sediment surface
Nil Nil
5.3 100 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 90 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark
patches below 10 mm Sand 100 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
6.1 120 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 20 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 120 Nil Burrows, amphipod on
sediment surface Nil Nil
6.2 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 40 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 160 Nil Burrows, polychaete,
amphipod on sediment surface
Nil Nil
6.3 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 50 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 160 Nil Burrows, amphipod on
sediment surface Nil Nil
7.1 130 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 80 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches 30 -100 mm Sand 130 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
7.2 140 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patch 100-140 mm Sand 140
Nil Burrows Nil Nil
7.3 170 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 170
Nil Burrows Nil Nil
8.1 160
10YR/4/1 Dark grey, cores slightly lighter
towards surface, faint dark patches below 60
mm
Sand 160
Nil Burrows, amphipod on
sediment surface Nil Nil
8.2 150 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, cores slightly lighter
towards surface Sand 150
Nil Burrows Nil Nil
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
28
Site Length (mm)
Colour 1 (Munsell score) Sediment 1 Depth 1
(mm) Colour 2 (Munsell score) Sediment 2
Depth 2 (mm)
Plants Animals Gas Smell
8.3 160
10YR/4/1 Dark grey, cores slightly lighter
towards surface, faint dark patches below 80
mm
Sand 160
Nil Burrows Nil Nil
9.1 110 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 30 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 110 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
9.2 130 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 130 Nil Amphipod on sediment
surface Nil Nil
9.3 150 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 70 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 150 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
10.1 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 40 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches below 40 mm Sand 160 Nil
Nil Nil
10.2 150 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 30 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches below 10 mm Sand 150 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
10.3 140 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 30 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
patches below 10 mm Sand 140 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
C2.1n 140 10YR/5/4 light yellowish brown, faint dark patch
at 80 mm Sand 140
Nil Nil Nil Nil
C2.2n 150 10YR/5/4 light yellowish
brown Sand 70 10YR/2/1 Black Sand 150 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
C2.3n 160 10YR/5/4 light yellowish
brown, faint dark patches at 120 mm
Sand 160
Nil Burrows, polychaete on
sediment surface Nil Nil
C6.1 130 10YR/5/1 Grey Sand 130
Nil Burrows Nil Nil
C6.2 100 10YR/5/1 Grey
Sand, very fine silt on sediment
surface (~5 mm)
100
Nil Burrows Nil Nil
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
29
Site Length (mm)
Colour 1 (Munsell score) Sediment 1 Depth 1
(mm) Colour 2 (Munsell score) Sediment 2
Depth 2 (mm)
Plants Animals Gas Smell
C6.3 170 10YR/5/1 Grey, faint
dark patches at 30 mm Sand 170
Nil Burrows Nil Nil
IF1 110 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 30 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
streaks 30 - 50 mm Sand 110 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
IF2 120 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
streaks at 40 mm Sand 120 Nil Polychaete at 80 mm Nil Nil
IF3 140 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 50 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
streaks 30 - 100 mm Sand 140 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
IF4 150 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 80 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, fain dark
streaks at 70 mm Sand 150 Nil
Burrows, hermit crab on sediment surface
Nil Nil
IF5 160 10YR/5/3 Brown, faint
dark streaks 30-160 mm Sand 160
Nil
Burrows, polychaete on sediment surface
Nil Nil
IF6 130 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 70 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
streaks 5-130 mm Sand 130 Nil
Burrows, amphipod on sediment surface
Nil Nil
IF7 130 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 70 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
streaks 10-30 mm Sand 130 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
IF8 120 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 30 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
streaks 50-120 mm Sand 120 Nil Nil Nil Nil
IF9 135 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 80 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 135 Nil Worm tube on sediment
surface Nil Nil
IF10 120 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark
streaks 60-120 mm Sand 120 Nil Burrows Nil Nil
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
30
8.2 Redox Potential Methods Redox potential was measured in millivolts at 30 mm below the sediment surface using a WTW pH 320 meter with a Mettler Toledo Ag/AgCl combination pH/Redox probe. Calibration and functionality of the meter were checked before each test using a Redox Buffer Solution (248 mV at 10 °C). Measurements were made within 3 hours of the samples being collected. Corrected Redox potential values were calculated by adding the standard potential of the reference cell to the measured redox potential and are reported in millivolts. Results Sediment redox values at 30 mm sediment depth averaged 187 mV (Figure 6). There was no strong pattern of redox potential in relation to compliance, control or internal farm sites (Figure 6). The observed relatively high redox values at all sites are indicative of well oxygenated sediments (Macleod and Forbes 2004). Raw data is presented in Appendix 4.
Figure 6 Redox potential at 30 mm depth in sediment cores.
8.3 Sulphide Analysis Methods Sediment sulphide was measured in accordance with the protocols outlined in Macleod and Forbes (2004). Measurements were made using a TPS uniPROBE Sulphide ISE and a WTW pH 320 meter. Using a modified syringe, 2 mL of sediment was removed at 30 mm depth from the core and mixed with 2 mL of reagent (sulphide anti-oxidant buffer, SAOB) in a small beaker. The sediment/SAOB mixture was carefully stirred with the probe for 15-20 seconds, until the reading stabilised. The accuracy and functionality of the meter and probe was assessed prior to analysis
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
31
commencing, using standards of known concentration. A calibration curve was produced using three standards of known concentration. Results The observed sulphide concentrations were generally very low at most sites, averaging 9.74 µM across all sites (Figure 7). While no sites exceeded concentrations typical of organically enriched sediments (i.e. > 100 µM; Macleod and Forbes 2004), relatively high levels were measured at some sites (e.g. compliance site 4.2, IF1). These patterns are also consistent with visual assessment results showing darker anoxic patches that were evident in some cores. As noted above, such patterns occur naturally when compacted hard sands are present. Raw data from sulphide analysis is included in Appendix 5.
Figure 7 Sulphide concentrations in sediment core samples.
8.4 Particle Size Analysis Methods The top 100 mm of each sediment core was homogenised and then ~70 ml of sediment was sub-sampled for particle size determination. Results and interpretation Sediments across the area sampled were typically dominated by ‘medium sand’ (0.25 mm; average 41.5 % v/v across all sites) and ‘fine sand’ (0.125 mm; average 39.7 % v/v across all sites) particle size fractions. Overall, the sediments contained a relatively low proportion of fine clay and silt fractions (i.e. < 0.063 mm; average 4% v/v across all sites). Particle size distribution at control site C6 was different to the remaining sites, with a higher proportion of finer sized fractions. At site C6 the 0.063 mm and <0.063 mm size fractions accounted for 38% of sediment, compared to
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
32
8% across the remaining sites. Patterns of particle size distribution at all remaining compliance, control and internal farm sites were generally comparable. Detailed results are presented in Figure 8, while raw data is included in Appendix 6. Patterns of particle size distribution were indicative of a sedimentary environment with moderate agitation of seabed sediments and associated low abundance of fine silt and clay fractions. These patterns are considered typical of sediments in deep (i.e. >20 m) and exposed locations in Storm Bay. Reasons for the apparent variation in particle size distribution evident at control site C6 remain speculative, since it is located at a comparable depth to other sites. It is likely that this site is positioned in a location that is slightly more sheltered from the prevailing SW ocean swells compared to the remaining sites, resulting in a different depositional environment.
Figure 8 Particle size analyses of the top 100 mm of sediment. Lines represent mean percentage cumulative volume for size fractions at each site, based on pooled replicates for compliance and control sites (n=3). For internal farm sites, lines represent cumulative volume based on a single sample from each site.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
33
8.5 Organic Content Methods A single undisturbed sediment core sample was taken using a perspex core with an internal diameter of at least 50 mm at each sample site for the purposes of organic content analysis. The top 3 cm of each was oven dried at 60 °C prior to analysis of total organic carbon. Total organic carbon was measured by loss on ignition (450 °C in a muffle furnace for 4 hours) by AST.
Results and interpretation Results from the organic content analysis are presented in Figure 9. The organic content was low, ranging from 1.3% to 4.0%, with an average of 2.7% across all sites. The organic content of the sediments was low at all sites, as expected in the sandy sediments that typified the sample locations. Organic content levels were generally consistent between sampling sites.
Figure 9 Organic content in sediment core samples
8.6 Heavy Metal Analysis Methods Sediment cores of 50 mm diameter were collected and the top 30 mm of each core was transferred to a clean jar for metal analysis. Heavy metals analysed in sediment samples included: arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, lead and zinc. The analyses were conducted by AST using the test methods specified in the following Australian Standards: 2301-Soil: Metals in Soil, Sediment and Dust by ICPAES
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
34
Results and interpretation Results from the heavy metal analysis are presented in Table 5. The ANZECC Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) trigger values were not exceeded for any of the analytes measured. Arsenic levels approached the ANZECC ISQG ‘low’ trigger values at some sites (e.g. site C2n average 18 mg/kg). Heavy metal values were generally comparable to those recorded previously from sediment sampling in the Trumpeter Bay region (e.g. Aquenal 2014, Aquenal 2015). Overall, there was only minor variation between control, compliance and internal farm sites for those heavy metals analysed.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
35
Table 5 Results of heavy metal analysis of sediment samples and the ANZECC 2000 trigger values.
Site Metal (mg/kg DMB)
As Cd Co Cr Cu Mn Ni Pb Zn
1.1 13 <0.5 2 14 2 67 4 15 38
1.2 12 <0.5 2 13 1 59 3 13 30
1.3 12 <0.5 2 13 2 63 3 13 30
2.1 15 <0.5 2 12 1 68 3 11 25
2.2 13 <0.5 1 11 <1 58 3 8 19
2.3 15 <0.5 2 12 1 66 3 11 23
3.1 17 <0.5 2 12 1 74 3 12 26
3.2 14 <0.5 2 12 2 58 3 12 26
3.3 12 <0.5 2 11 1 56 3 10 21
4.1 12 <0.5 2 13 2 58 4 13 31
4.2 10 <0.5 2 13 2 48 3 13 30
4.3 12 <0.5 2 13 2 53 3 13 32
5.1 12 <0.5 2 13 1 58 3 12 28
5.2 11 <0.5 2 13 2 54 3 13 33
5.3 11 <0.5 2 12 1 49 3 11 27
6.1 14 <0.5 2 16 2 74 4 16 45
6.2 13 <0.5 2 17 2 73 4 17 47
6.3 12 <0.5 2 17 3 69 4 17 46
7.1 13 <0.5 2 18 3 83 5 18 56
7.2 13 <0.5 2 16 3 79 4 17 49
7.3 10 <0.5 2 18 3 82 5 17 54
8.1 9 <0.5 2 16 3 78 4 18 56
8.2 10 <0.5 2 17 3 81 4 16 50
8.3 10 <0.5 2 17 3 74 5 18 52
9.1 11 <0.5 2 16 3 75 4 20 53
9.2 13 <0.5 2 16 2 81 4 18 49
9.3 12 <0.5 2 16 2 81 4 17 48
10.1 14 <0.5 2 17 2 69 4 18 53
10.2 12 <0.5 2 16 3 59 4 19 54
10.3 11 <0.5 2 16 2 66 4 17 49
C2.1n 17 <0.5 2 9 <1 63 2 11 16
C2.2n 18 <0.5 2 9 <1 84 2 12 17
C2.3n 19 <0.5 2 9 <1 75 2 12 17
C6.1 5 <0.5 2 13 5 62 5 15 50
C6.2 4 <0.5 2 12 5 58 5 13 44
C6.3 4 <0.5 2 12 5 61 5 14 49
IF1 14 <0.5 2 14 2 75 3 15 37
IF2 12 <0.5 2 14 2 61 3 16 41
IF3 9 <0.5 2 14 2 70 3 14 40
IF4 11 <0.5 2 15 3 73 4 17 50
IF5 9 <0.5 2 16 3 70 4 18 53
IF6 12 <0.5 2 15 2 65 4 15 44
IF7 12 <0.5 2 15 3 63 4 16 43
IF8 11 <0.5 2 12 1 62 3 11 29
IF9 13 <0.5 1 10 <1 71 2 9 21
IF10 16 <0.5 2 11 <1 75 3 10 24
ANZECC 2000 ISQG-Low (trigger value)
20 2 80 65 21 50 200
ANZECC 2000 ISQG-High (trigger value)
70 10 370 270 52 220 410
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
36
9 Gazameda gunnii survey Methods A total of 38 sites were sampled for the Gazameda gunnii survey. This included 30 samples from the 2015 survey (Aquenal 2015), along with an additional 8 samples collected in 2019 that focused on regions in the amended lease area that were not covered in 2015. These sample numbers were in accordance with G. gunnii survey specifications in the EPA Schedule of Requirements for Salmonid Finfish Baseline Environmental Survey. Samples were sorted through a 4 mm sieve. Dead shells were retained and examined by a taxonomic expert (J. Lane). Results and interpretation Results from the survey are presented in Figure 10. No live shells were detected during the survey. Seven individual dead shells/shell fragments of Gazameda gunnii were collected and retained (Figure 11). The shells were mostly small (<30 mm) and were generally scattered across the survey area (Figure 10). Several individuals of the closely related G. tasmanica were also detected during the survey.
Figure 10 Location of grab samples taken during Gazameda gunnii survey for MF261 - Block SB2, highlighting the sample sites where dead shells were collected (10, 19, 28, 30, 32, 37 and 38). Note that sites G1-G30 were sampled in July 2015, while G31-G38 were sampled in January 2019.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
37
(a)
(b)
Figure 11 Photograph of dead G. gunnii shells collected during the survey of MF261-Block SB2, from 2015 (a) and 2019 (b) surveys.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
38
10 Biological Analysis - Benthic Fauna Methods Macroinvertebrates were collected using a Van Veen grab which sampled a 0.07 m2 area of seabed. A single grab sample was collected at each of the compliance and control sites, with a total of 46 grabs collected. Grab samples were sieved in the field using 1 mm mesh sieve bags, with animal and sediment material retained in the mesh bags placed in 5-10% buffered formalin for preservation. The preserved material was returned to the laboratory for sorting and identification of infauna species under a dissecting microscope. Macrofaunal data from triplicate grabs were analysed using multidimensional scaling (MDS) in the PRIMER software package (Clarke & Gorley 2001). This analysis produces the best graphical depiction of faunal similarities between samples. For MDS analyses, the data matrix showing total abundance of species in each sample was fourth root-transformed and then converted to a symmetric matrix of biotic similarity between pairs of samples using the Bray-Curtis similarity index. These procedures follow the recommendations of Faith et al. (1987) and Clarke (1993) for data matrices with numerous zero records. The usefulness of the two dimensional MDS display of relationships between samples is indicated by the stress statistic, which, if <0.1 indicates that the depiction of relationships is good, and if >0.2 that the depiction is poor (Clarke, 1993). Triplicate grabs were also aggregated for each site and analysed for faunal dominance with K-Dominance Curves using the PRIMER software package (Clarke & Gorley 2001). Results and interpretation Abundance and patterns of family richness are summarised in Table 6 below (see Appendix 7 for raw data). The area possessed high faunal diversity, with a total of 7974 individuals from 128 families identified across the 51 samples. Faunal communities were dominated by crustaceans, accounting for 55.4% of individuals and 38.3 % of families identified. The remaining fauna was mainly comprised of polychaetes (23.8% of individuals and 21.9 % of families), molluscs (16.6% of individuals and 27.3 % of families) and echinoderms (1.9% of individuals and 6.3 % of families). Other fauna, including anthozoans, brachiopods, nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, platyhelminths and sipunculids, were recorded in low numbers. The most common families recorded included Spionidae (polychaete, 10.1% of individuals), Anabathridae (gastropod mollusc, 9.6% of individuals), Ampeliscidae (amphipod, 7.1% of individuals), and Photidae (amphipod, 6.6% of individuals). Low numbers of introduced species were observed during the survey. Two introduced taxa were recorded, including the American spider crab Pyromaia tuberculata (10 individuals), and the bivalve Varicorbula gibba (9 individuals). The capitellid Mediomastus australiensis was recorded in low densities across most survey sites. Mediomastus australiensis is common and widespread in south-east Tasmania and is not regarded as a pollution indicator species. A single Capitella sp. individual was also recorded at site 1. High numbers of Capitella sp. are known to be an indicator of organic pollution, but the extremely low number observed in the current survey is not considered evidence of organic enrichment. The MDS analysis showed minor variation between sites (Figure 12). At the 50% similarity level (based on cluster analysis), two groupings were evident. One group comprised all compliance and internal farm sites, along with control site C6. Samples from control site C2 formed a separate grouping at the 50% similarity level. Whilst not forming a distinct cluster at the 50% similarity
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
39
level, samples from control site C6 also tended to show separation from the compliance and internal sites. Control site C2 was characterised by relatively high densities of crustaceans and relatively low polychaete density compared to remaining sites. In contrast, both crustaceans and polychaetes were recorded in higher densities at control site C6 relative to the remaining sites. The observed biological variation between control and compliance sites was also evident in samples collected in 2015 (Aquenal 2015) and is likely to be attributable to slight variation in the depth and exposure of sampling locations. For example, water depths at compliance sites were around 40 m, compared to 43 m for control site C2 and 36 m for control site C6. Control site C6 is also more sheltered from prevailing south-west swells compared to the remaining sites. Dominance patterns as described by K-dominance plots are shown in Figure 13. Single taxa dominance patterns were low across all control and compliance sites, ranging from 9.9 – 32.6 %, with an overall average of 16.6%. These values fall within ranges expected for unimpacted ecosystems, with relatively diverse communities and low levels of dominance by a single family (see Figure 13). Based on the benthic faunal patterns present, any future benthic impacts should be readily observable. Increases in dominance patterns, particularly for deposit feeders (e.g. polychaetes), would be one of the main indicators of organic enrichment. Such a pattern would be expected to be readily discernible, given their current relatively low levels at most sites.
Figure 12 Results of MDS analysis using benthic infauna data collected from three replicate grabs at each compliance and control site for MF261 – SB2. Green ellipses indicate community similarity at the level of 50%, based on cluster analysis.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
40
Table 6 Summary of benthic faunal analysis. The category ‘other’ included anthozoans, brachiopods, nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, platyhelminths and sipunculids.
Site
Abundance (No's per site)
Family diversity (No. families per site)
Cru
stac
ean
s
Mo
llusc
s
Po
lych
aete
s
Ech
ino
de
rms
Oth
er
tota
l
Cru
stac
ean
s
Mo
llusc
s
Po
lych
aete
s
Ech
ino
de
rms
Oth
er
Tota
l
1 365 105 98 17 3 588
29 13 17 2 2 63
2 202 115 51 11 3 382
25 10 13 3 1 52
3 192 28 62 9 6 297
27 11 14 3 3 58
4 283 90 99 23 8 503
29 10 15 3 3 60
5 310 127 124 6 14 581
27 16 16 2 4 65
6 332 84 216 8 27 667
28 13 18 4 4 67
7 264 71 128 7 8 478
25 13 17 2 4 61
8 238 51 156 8 28 481
24 11 17 3 6 61
9 223 44 148 7 23 445
26 10 17 5 3 61
10 237 55 208 5 13 518
26 13 20 2 3 64
C2 372 41 62 12 7 494
28 11 13 3 2 57
C6 382 155 233 4 16 790
21 19 17 2 3 62
IF1 98 37 19 5 2 161
19 4 8 2 2 35
IF2 97 26 47 1 1 172
21 8 12 1 1 43
IF3 82 16 40 0 2 140
15 6 9 0 2 32
IF4 63 9 30 8 1 111
14 4 10 4 1 33
IF5 55 30 45 4 5 139
18 6 12 3 2 41
IF6 101 18 32 7 4 162
20 5 10 2 3 40
IF7 91 32 22 3 1 149
20 8 7 2 1 38
IF8 178 59 27 5 4 273
24 11 7 2 2 46
IF9 152 99 26 0 2 279
21 5 9 0 1 36
IF10 100 33 27 1 3 164
21 6 8 1 1 37
Total 4417 1325 1900 151 181 7974
49 35 28 8 8 128
% 55.4 16.6 23.8 1.9 2.3 100
38.3 27.3 21.9 6.3 6.3 100
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
41
1 10 100
Species rank
0
20
40
60
80
100C
um
ula
tive D
om
inance%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C2
C6
IF1
IF2
IF3
IF4
IF5
IF6
IF7
IF8
IF9
IF10
Figure 13 Benthic faunal analysis of seabed samples – MF261 – SB2. K – dominance curves. Analysis based on pooled triplicate data for compliance and control sites and single samples taken at internal farm sites.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
42
11 Inshore Reef Surveys Methods The Marine Protected Area (MPA) or ‘Edgar-Barrett’ methodology has been widely used for reef surveys in southern Australia and allows standardised collection of data for the repeated census of a set of sites within locations. The survey method involves 2 x 100 m transects, with the transects divided into 50 m blocks. Each pair of 100 m transects was separated by a distance of 20 m. The survey method utilises three census techniques to record descriptive information on reef biodiversity along the transect at different spatial scales:
(i) Fish abundance and size is surveyed in 5 m wide blocks, either side of the transect line by a diver swimming parallel to the transect line
(ii) Mobile invertebrates and cryptic fish are surveyed in a 1 m block by a diver swimming
adjacent to the transect line
(iii) The abundance of macroalgal species and sessile invertebrates is recorded by placing 0.25 m2 quadrats at 10 m intervals along the transect line (i.e. 5 quadrats each 50 m transect) and quantifying the percentage cover of these species. The quadrat is divided into a grid of 7 x 7 perpendicular wires, giving 50 points (including one corner). Cover is estimated by counting the number of times each species occurs directly under the 50 points on the quadrat (1.25 m2 for each of the 50 m sections of transect line).
Three reefs were surveyed using the Edgar-Barrett methodology. The locations are illustrated in Figure 14.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
43
Figure 14 Survey map showing locations of Edgar-Barrett (R1-R3) and deep reef (R4a-R4b) survey locations. Black rectangle – Amended lease or block boundary for MF261 – SB2.
Results and interpretation General reef structure R1: Moderate profile reef was evident at this site, with patches of large (>1 m) boulders evident along some sections of the survey transect. R2: High profile reef, with depth varying between 3 and 6 m, with ridges and gutters along the survey transect. Durvillea potatorum (bull kelp) dominated the shallow areas at the top of ridges. R3: Low profile reef with flat sections of reef interspersed with patches of boulders (>1 m). Macroalgae The results of the survey were tabulated and summarised according to the taxa observed (Table 7). Overall cover of canopy-forming algae was high and comparable between the three sites, averaging 94%. The relative abundance of different canopy-forming species varied between the sites, with Phyllospora comosa, Ecklonia radiata and Durvillea potatorum the main species recorded. Phyllospora comosa was abundant at all sites, averaging 80.2% at R1, 58% at R2 and 54% at R3. Percentage cover of E. radiata varied from 8.4% at R1, 3.4% at R2 and 40.5 % at R3. Durvillea potatorum was not recorded at sites R1 and R3, but averaged 29.8% at R2. These patterns are likely to reflect variation in wave exposure and reef topography evident between the three sites.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
44
Patterns of understorey algae were generally comparable between sites. Coverage of encrusting understorey algae was high, averaging > 50% across the three survey sites. Some minor variation was evident for the other algal groups. For example, cover of understorey brown algae was relatively high at site R1 (16.5%), while understorey red algae was most abundant at site R2 (24.9%). Cover of understorey green algae was low (average < 1%) at all three sites. Overall patterns of diversity were comparable between the three sites, with 22, 26 and 20 taxa recorded from sites R1, R2 and R3, respectively. Fish Results from the fish survey are summarised in Table 8. Abundance and diversity was highest at site R1 (327 individuals, 17 species) compared to site R2 (43 individuals, 12 species) and site R3 (196 individuals, 10 species). Fish species present across the three sites were considered typical of shallow southern Tasmanian reefs, with wrasses (Family Labridae), leatherjackets (Family Monocanthidae) and weed whitings (Family Odacidae) amongst the most prominent groups recorded. The most abundant fish species across the survey was Trachinops caudimaculatus (blotch-tailed trachinops), which accounted for 45% of all fish observations. While T. caudimaculatus dominated overall abundance patterns it was not recorded from site R2. The wrasses Notolabrus tetricus (13.6% of all fish observations) and N. fucicola (8.8% of all fish observations) were the next most abundant species and these were observed in similar densities across the three sites. Raw data from surveys using the Edgar-Barrett surveys is provided in Appendices 8-9. Representative imagery is included in Appendix 10.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
45
Table 7 Summary of macroalgal survey results. Data represent mean % cover across 20 replicate 0.25 m2 quadrats per site. The column FG% represents the average % cover for each functional group.
Guild Species R1 FG% R2 FG% R3 FG%
Canopy-forming algae
Acrocarpia paniculata 0
90.3
2.6
96
0
94.7
Cystophora platylobium 0.5 1 0
Durvillea potatorum 0 29.8 0
Ecklonia radiata 8.4 3.4 40.5
Phyllospora comosa 80.2 58 54
Sargassum spp. 0.8 1.2 0.2
Sargassum vestitum 0.4 0 0
Understory brown algae
Carpoglossum confluens 3.3
16.5
0
9
5.1
10.2
Carpomitra costata 0 0.2 0
Colpomenia sinuosa 0 0.1 0
Halopteris paniculata 0.7 3.2 1.3
Xiphophora gladiata 0.2 0.8 0
Zonaria turneriana/angustata 12.3 4.7 3.8
Understory green algae
Chaetomorpha coliformis 0.2
0.9
0
0.6
0
0.1 Ulva spp. 0.7 0 0.1
Unidentified algae (filamentous green) 0 0.6 0
Understory red algae
Ballia callitricha 0.9
9.4
2
24.9
4.1
17.8
Ballia sp. (fine) 0.4 1.3 0.8
Callophyllis lambertii 0 0 0.2
Cheilosporum sp. 0 0.3 0
Euptilota articulata 0.5 1.5 0.2
Haliptilon roseum 0 2.1 0
Halopeltis australis 0.2 0.6 0
Laurencia elata 0 0.5 0
Lenormandia marginata 0.3 0.3 0
Phacelocarpus peperocarpos 1.1 5.1 1
Phacelocarpus spp. 1.5 0 0
Plocamium angustum 1.2 5 4.6
Plocamium dilatatum 0 2.1 0.5
Polyopes constrictus 0.8 2.3 0.4
Ptilonia australasica 0.1 0 2.5
Sarcodia marginata 0 0 0.6
Sonderopelta/Peyssonnelia 0 0.6 0.7
Stenogramme interrupta 0 0 0.6
Unidentified algae (red) 2.4 1.2 1.6
Encrusting algae
Unidentified algae (crustose coralline) 45.7 61.1
45.5 52.4
36.7 51.3
Unidentified algae (red rock) 15.4 6.9 14.6
Encrusting invertebrate
Unidentified sponge (encrusting) 7.1
7.1 2.8
2.8 7.4
7.4
Sessile invertebrate
Orthoscuticella spp. 1.6
2.2
1.1
1.4
2.3
4.1 Unidentified bryozoans (hard) 0 0.3 0.3
Unidentified bryozoans (soft) 0.6 0 1.5
Substrate
Bare rock (non - barrens) 0.6
3.4
1.7
6.1
0.7
13.9 Sand 0 4.4 13.2
Silt/sand on reef 2.8 0 0
Algal species richness 22 26 20
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
46
Table 8 Summary of fish survey results. Data represent total abundance for the 2000 m2 survey area at each site.
Species Site
R1 R2 R3
Acanthaluteres spilomelanurus (bridled leatherjacket) 1 1
Acanthaluteres vittiger (toothbrush leatherjacket) 16 3 55
Aplodactylus arctidens (marblefish) 1
Aracana aurita (Shaw's cowfish) 1
Cheilodactylus spectabilis (banded morwong) 1 1
Dinolestes lewini (long-finned pike) 10 4 9
Dotalabrus aurantiacus (Castelneau's wrasse) 3
Girella zebra (zebrafish) 2 1
Meuschenia australis (brown-striped leatherjacket) 6 3 1
Meuschenia freycineti (six-spined leatheracke) 1
Notolabrus fucicola (purple wrasse) 23 8 19
Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) 45 13 19
Odax cyanomelas (herring cale) 17 1
Pentaceropsis recurvirostris (longsnout boarfish) 2
Pictilabrus laticlavius (senator wrasse) 2 2
Scorpis aequipinnis (sea sweep) 1 4
Scorpis lineolata (sweep) 9
Siphonognathus beddomei (pencil weed whiting) 7 12
Trachinops caudimaculatus (blotch-tailed trachinops) 182 78
Upeneichthys vlamingii (red mullet) 1 1
Total Abundance 327 43 196
Species Richness 17 12 10
Invertebrates and cryptic fish A total of 743 large mobile invertebrates were recorded from 14 species across the three sites (Table 9). The feather star Comanthus trichoptera was the most common invertebrate recorded, accounting for 79% of all macroinvertebrate observations. Patterns of invertebrate density were very similar at sites R1 and R3, with relative high densities of C. trichoptera and Heliocidaris erythrogramma (purple urchin). These species were present in low densities at R2, likely due to the more exposed aspect at R2. Molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans were recorded in comparable densities across the three sites. Cryptic fish were recorded in relatively low densities, with a total of five species recorded. There were no strong spatial patterns in relation to cryptic fish densities across the sites surveyed.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
47
Table 9 Summary of invertebrates and cryptic fish survey results. Data represent total abundance for the 200 m2 survey area at each site.
Taxonomic group Species R1 R2 R3
Crustacean - crab Paguristes spp. 1
Plagusia chabrus 1 1 1
Crustacean - lobster Jasus edwardsii 8 3
Echinoderm - feather star Cenolia trichoptera 270 66 271
Echinoderm - sea star
Fromia polypora 2
Nectria ocellata 2 1 2
Petricia vernicina 1 6
Tosia australis 1
Echinoderm - sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma 45 2 34
Mollusc - gastropod
Cabestana spengleri 2
Dicathais orbita 1
Haliotis rubra 9 5 3
Ranella australasia 1 1
Turbo undulatus 3
Cryptic fish
Bovichtus angustifrons 1
Forsterygion varium 4 3
Heteroclinus johnstoni 1
Pempheris multiradiata 8
Trinorfolkia clarkei 9 1
Total Abundance 349 108 313
Invertebrate species richness 8 13 6
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
48
12 Deep Reef Surveys Methods A survey of deep reef was undertaken along a 200 m transect line as illustrated in Figure 12. Footage was captured with an ROV, with high definition footage recorded with a GoPro Hero4 camera attached to the ROV. In the laboratory footage was reviewed and the dominant habitats and taxa described. The transect was divided into 50 m sections for the purpose of video analysis. Results and interpretation The seabed was mainly low-profile reef with depth ranging from 32-38 m across the 200 m transect. There were occasional sections of more complex reef with larger boulders, mainly in the 100-150 m section of the transect. Benthic coverage on the seafloor was dominated by red and green algae, with low cover of sponges also present. A range of sponge morphologies were observed including arborescent, cup-shaped, finger and encrusting growth forms. A variety fish species were observed on the deep reef, with community structure considered typical of south-east Tasmanian reef systems. Fish species commonly recorded included Notolabrus tetricus (blue throat wrasse), Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse) and Caesioperca rasor (barber perch). Typical habitats are shown in Figure 15 below, while representative images taken along the transect are included in Appendix 11. Transect observations are summarised in Table 10.
(a) Mixed green and red algal assemblage
(b) Typical red algal cover
Figure 15. Representative habitats along deep reef survey transect.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
49
Table 10. Summary of seabed characteristics along deep reef survey transect.
Distance Depth
(m) Description
0-50 32-33 m
Seabed: Low profile reef with some sand patches and occasional boulders (~ 1 m).
Flora: High and diverse cover of foliose red algae (e.g. Plocamium spp., Phacelocarpus sp., Ptilonia sp., Sonderopelta/Peyssonelia). Patchy and low cover of green algae, predominately Caulerpa trifaria. Occasional patch of crustose coralline algae. Patches of turf/sand on the reef surface.
Invertebrate fauna: Occasional sponges interspersed amongst red algae. A range of sponges present with varying colours and morphologies and including cup, encrusting, fan, finger and globular sponges. Other invertebrates recorded included lace bryozoans, Comanthus trichoptera (feather star) and Orthoscuticella sp. (bryozoa).
Fish fauna - species recorded included: Acanthaluteres vittiger (toothbrush leatherjacket) Caesioperca lepidoptera (butterfly perch) Caesioperca rasor (barber perch) Dotolabrus aurantiacus (Castelneau’s wrasse) Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse) Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) Helicolenus percoides (red gurnard perch)
50-100 32-33 m
Seabed: Low profile reef with some sand patches. Some sections of more complex reef with boulders (> 1 m).
Flora: High and diverse cover of foliose red algae (e.g. Plocamium spp., Phacelocarpus sp., Ptilonia sp., Sonderopelta/Peyssonelia). Patchy and low cover of green algae, predominately Caulerpa trifaria. Occasional patch of crustose coralline algae. Patches of turf/sand on the reef surface.
Invertebrate fauna: Occasional sponges interspersed amongst red algae. A range of sponges present with varying colours and morphologies and including cup, encrusting, fan, and globular sponges. Other invertebrates recorded included Comanthus trichoptera (feather star), Nectria ocellata (spotted seastar), Jasus edwardsii (southern rock lobster) and Parazoanthus sp. (yellow zoonthid).
Fish fauna - species recorded included: Caesioperca rasor (barber perch) Caesioperca lepidoptera (butterfly perch) Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) Pictilabrus laticlavius (senator wrasse)
100-150 32-34 m
Seabed: Low profile reef with some sand patches. Patches of more complex reef with larger boulders (>1 m).
Flora: Mixed green and red algal assemblage. Diverse range of red algae (e.g. Plocamium spp., Phacelocarpus sp., Ptilonia sp., Sonderopelta/Peyssonelia). Green algae predominately Caulerpa trifaria and C. flexilis. Patches of turf/sand on the reef surface.
Invertebrate fauna: Occasional sponges interspersed amongst algae. A range of sponges present with varying colours and morphologies and including cup, encrusting, fan, and globular sponges. Other invertebrates recorded included Comanthus trichoptera (feather star), Jasus edwardsii (southern rock lobster) Orthoscuticella sp. (bryozoa), Pteronisis sp. (orange gorgonian) and Parazoanthus sp. (yellow zoonthid).
Fish fauna - species recorded included: Cheilodactylus spectabilis (banded morwong) Latridopsis forsteri (bastard trumpeter) Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) Pictilabrus laticlavius (senator wrasse) Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse)
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
50
Distance Depth
(m) Description
150-200 34-38 m
Seabed: Low profile reef with some sand patches and occasional boulders (~ 1 m).
Flora: Moderate cover of foliose red algae with high diversity (e.g. Plocamium spp., Phacelocarpus sp., Ptilonia sp., Sonderopelta/Peyssonelia). Patchy and low cover of green algae, predominately Caulerpa trifaria. Occasional patch of crustose coralline algae. Patches of turf/sand on the reef surface.
Invertebrate fauna: Occasional sponges interspersed amongst algae. A range of sponges present with varying colours and morphologies and including cup, encrusting, fan, and globular sponges. Other invertebrates recorded included lace bryozoans, Comanthus trichoptera (feather star), Jasus edwardsii (southern rock lobster) Orthoscuticella sp. (bryozoa), and Parazoanthus sp. (yellow zoonthid).
Fish fauna - species recorded included: Caesioperca lepidoptera (butterfly perch) Nemadactylus macropterus (jackass morwong Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse) Pseudophycis sp. (cod) Trachinops caudimaculatus (blotch-tailed trachinops)
.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
51
13 References Aquenal (2014) Trumpeter Bay MF261 (Zone 1) Baseline Environmental Assessment, Report to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd. December 2014, 34pp. Aquenal (2015) Trumpeter Bay MF261 (Blocks 1 & 2): Baseline environmental assessment. Final report (version 1.0). Report to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd. November 2015, 61pp. Clarke, K.R. (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117-143. Clarke, K.R. & Gorley, R.N. (2001) PRIMER v5: User Manual/Tutorial PRIMER-E: Plymouth. Faith, D.P., Minchin, P.R. and Belbin, L. (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69: 57-68 Macleod, C.K. and Forbes, S. (2004) Guide to the assessment of sediment condition at marine finfish farms in Tasmania. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute – University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 65 pp.
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
52
Appendix 1 Survey coordinates for sediment sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55 (Datum GDA94).
Name Easting Northing Name Easting Northing
1.1 536265 5218791 IF1 536189 5218649
1.2 536284 5218785 IF2 536131 5218407
1.3 536304 5218779 IF3 536027 5218191
2.1 536496 5218717 IF4 535972 5217941
2.2 536515 5218711 IF5 535918 5217774
2.3 536534 5218705 IF6 536206 5217674
3.1 536649 5218359 IF7 536272 5217853
3.2 536643 5218340 IF8 536352 5218107
3.3 536637 5218320 IF9 536422 5218332
4.1 536555 5218068 IF10 536510 5218541
4.2 536549 5218049 C2.1n 537272 5219834
4.3 536542 5218030 C2.2n 537268 5219849
5.1 536462 5217783 C2.3n 537275 5219871
5.2 536456 5217763 C6.1 534671 5217954
5.3 536450 5217744 C6.2 534673 5217934
6.1 536153 5217532 C6.3 534678 5217914
6.2 536134 5217538
6.3 536114 5217545
7.1 535924 5217606
7.2 535904 5217613
7.3 535885 5217619
8.1 535770 5217965
8.2 535777 5217985
8.3 535783 5218004
9.1 535862 5218248
9.2 535868 5218267
9.3 535875 5218286
10.1 535956 5218538
10.2 535962 5218557
10.3 535969 5218576
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
53
Appendix 2 Survey coordinates for Gazameda gunnii sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55 (Datum GDA94).
Name Easting Northing
G1 535965 5218520
G2 536287 5218587
G3 536149 5218458
G4 536012 5218327
G5 536331 5218416
G6 536131 5218558
G7 536053 5218167
G8 536374 5218243
G9 536234 5218104
G10 536406 5218066
G11 536094 5217986
G12 536261 5217928
G13 536444 5217887
G14 536126 5217813
G15 536303 5217761
G16 536195 5218299
G17 536033 5218430
G18 536268 5218487
G19 536174 5218380
G20 536075 5218267
G21 536317 5218320
G22 536204 5218197
G23 536105 5218084
G24 536336 5218143
G25 536242 5218022
G26 536149 5217909
G27 536390 5217966
G28 536282 5217847
G29 536189 5217721
G30 536428 5217789
G31 535910 5217934
G32 535931 5217838
G33 535977 5217718
G34 535873 5217775
G35 536446 5218616
G36 536309 5218626
G37 536531 5218394
G38 536401 5218496
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
54
Appendix 3 Images of sediment cores
1.1-1.3 2.1-2.3
3.1-3.3 4.1-4.3
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
55
5.1-5.3 6.1-6.3
7.1-7.3 8.1-8.3
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
56
9.1-9.3 10.1-10.3
C2.1n-C2.3n C6.1-C6.3
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
57
IF1-IF3 IF4-IF6
IF7-IF9 IF10
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
58
Appendix 4 Redox potential, measured in millivolts from 3cm depth in the sediment cores.
Site corrected
redox
1.1 134
1.2 78
1.3 103
2.1 232
2.2 75
2.3 134
3.1 182
3.2 78
3.3 274
4.1 235
4.2 169
4.3 166
5.1 152
5.2 225
5.3 141
6.1 178
6.2 248
6.3 263
7.1 188
7.2 232
7.3 269
8.1 281
8.2 219
8.3 254
9.1 254
9.2 244
9.3 274
10.1 197
10.2 241
10.3 244
C2.1n 273
C2.2n 251
C2.3n 200
C6.1 188
C6.2 163
C6.3 241
IF1 203
IF2 199
IF3 245
IF4 270
IF5 131
IF6 194
IF7 191
IF8 92
IF9 100
IF10 68
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
59
Appendix 5 Sulphide analysis, measured in sediments at 3 cm from sediment surface.
Site Sulphide (µM)
1.1 4.289110766
1.2 12.11586557
1.3 3.982482643
2.1 0.022142057
2.2 0.778860619
2.3 1.21545803
3.1 13.04871712
3.2 25.43830375
3.3 0.090630006
4.1 7.763797945
4.2 71.85803428
4.3 3.982482643
5.1 31.77812431
5.2 31.77812431
5.3 0.903413313
6.1 4.61934748
6.2 7.763797945
6.3 25.43830375
7.1 49.59164121
7.2 1.896794095
7.3 3.982482643
8.1 4.97501051
8.2 4.61934748
8.3 0.399520817
9.1 2.551958867
9.2 0.319815348
9.3 1.128565051
10.1 20.3632943
10.2 13.04871712
10.3 16.30076277
C2.1n 0.050068554
C2.2n 0.015280977
C2.3n 0.078134937
C6.1 9.69871807
C6.2 7.763797945
C6.3 10.44546325
IF1 53.40991066
IF2 0.399520817
IF3 1.309041266
IF4 3.187966734
IF5 2.551958867
IF6 1.21545803
IF7 1.21545803
IF8 16.30076277
IF9 1.896794095
IF10 1.40982987
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
60
Appendix 6 Particle size analysis – raw data
Sample Vi V4 V2 V1 V0.5 V0.25 V0.125 V0.063
No ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml
1.1 70 25.1 25.4 26 27.5 41.2 86 90
1.2 73 25 25 25.2 26.1 45.1 87.3 91.6
1.3 72 25.4 25.6 26 27.8 51.3 88 92.5
2.1 71 25 25.1 25.9 31 67.9 94.2 95.8
2.2 67 25 25.2 25.8 31.2 60.5 89.2 91.6
2.3 67 25 25.2 25.9 28.3 53 90.5 91.2
3.1 71 25 25.8 26.1 31.9 66.1 84.5 93.6
3.2 70 25 25.1 25.7 30.3 58.4 93.2 94.3
3.3 69 25.2 25.6 25.9 32.8 68.5 92.6 93.5
4.1 69 25 25.3 25.8 26.8 55.1 90.1 93.2
4.2 70 25.2 25.5 25.9 27.1 42.6 91.6 92.7
4.3 69 25 25.2 25.8 28 63.5 91.3 93.2
5.1 73 25.3 25.7 26.1 42 63.3 92.7 96.8
5.2 71 25 25.7 26.7 64.2 76.6 91.3 94.7
5.3 70 25.1 25.3 26.3 30.8 70.1 90.2 92.9
6.1 71 25 25.6 25.9 27.7 54.9 90.2 94.2
6.2 72 25.5 25.6 25.7 32.9 74.1 91 93.2
6.3 70 25.4 25.7 26.4 28.2 53.3 87.1 92.8
7.1 65 25 25.4 26 35 62.9 82.7 89.2
7.2 69 25 25.2 25.7 30 43.6 83.6 88.8
7.3 68 25.1 25.5 25.8 50 75.1 88.6 92.2
8.1 71 25 25.1 25.6 34.2 64.1 85 92.6
8.2 69 25.2 25.6 25.8 27.7 56 85.2 92
8.3 69 25 25.8 26.3 29.3 49 83.9 90.9
9.1 72 25 25.8 26.2 29.3 55 87.5 94.2
9.2 71 25 25.2 26 27.5 72.9 90 95.2
9.3 70 25.8 25.9 26 28 60.2 89.9 93
10.1 70 25 25.2 25.6 27 67.7 88.7 91.9
10.2 69 25 25.1 25.4 27.1 53.6 83 89.2
10.3 72 25.1 26 26.1 30.5 66.6 82.5 93
C2.1n 69 25 25 25.1 26 67.2 92.2 93.4
C2.2n 72 25 25.1 25.7 27.5 70 88.6 91.5
C2.3n 69 25.6 26 26.2 28.8 65 93.4 94
C6.1 73 25.1 25.2 25.9 30.1 55 72 88.5
C6.2 71 25.1 25.2 26.3 30.4 38.2 64 81.6
C6.3 71 25.1 25.3 26.1 36.2 57 72.4 84.1
IF1 71 25 25.2 25.8 27.7 54.9 87.3 92.7
IF2 72 25 25.1 25.6 29 71.2 92.1 95.5
IF3 72 25 25.2 26 27 37.1 87.9 93.1
IF4 67 25.2 25.5 25.8 27.8 67.4 89.7 90.5
IF5 69 25 25.3 25.8 28.8 60.2 81.7 92
IF6 68 25 25.2 25.7 27.9 70 90.2 92.9
IF7 72 25.5 26 26.1 27 63.1 92.7 95
IF8 73 25 25.6 26.3 28.1 61.2 93.6 95.8
IF9 71 25.5 25.9 26.4 28.8 66.8 93.7 95.9
IF10 70 25.1 25.2 25.7 28.2 53.4 88.8 92.9
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
61
Appendix 7 Raw Data: Benthic infauna
Taxonomic group Family 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 IF1 IF2 IF3 IF4 IF5 IF6 IF7 IF8 IF9 IF10 C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C6.1 C6.2 C6.3
Anthozoan Edwardsiidae 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 8 2 3 2 2 6 5 2 2 1 2 2 1
Brachiopod Terebratulida (Order) 1 1 1 9 1 2 4 1 1 1
Crustacean - amphipod Ampeliscidae 5 10 6 3 4 6 1 5 5 5 4 9 12 12 24 9 15 11 23 22 24 28 19 17 13 12 15 8 25 7 11 17 8 11 12 10 12 7 1 46 51 24
Crustacean - amphipod Aoridae 4 3 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 8 5 3 11 7 4 7 5 7 3 6 5 5 9 1 6 7 10 2 6 1 4 2 2 2 1 14 11 12
Crustacean - amphipod Atylidae 1 1 1 1
Crustacean - amphipod Corophiidae 1 2 3 5 1
Crustacean - amphipod Dexaminidae 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1
Crustacean - amphipod Eusiridae 4 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 1 6 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 1
Crustacean - amphipod Kuriidae 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 7 3 1
Crustacean - amphipod Liljeborgiidae 1 3
Crustacean - amphipod Lysianassidae 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 9 7 2 3 8 4 7 2 5 6 1 6 1 5 9 2 5 5 5 9 7 4 5 11 4 2 4 5 2 8 7 7 5 4 6 3 1
Crustacean - amphipod Melitidae 2 1 1 1 1
Crustacean - amphipod Melphidippidae 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 10 1
Crustacean - amphipod Oedicerotidae 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2
Crustacean - amphipod Photidae 17 9 9 10 12 16 14 14 20 6 27 8 12 21 8 16 17 11 6 14 5 2 7 5 10 5 17 6 10 9 8 9 10 3 8 14 6 20 21 16 24 14 20 6 6 1
Crustacean - amphipod Phoxocephalidae 8 20 7 4 10 9 12 13 11 15 21 10 21 10 13 12 14 6 3 8 2 9 15 3 1 3 4 6 16 2 7 11 4 7 13 21 2 2 3 5 3 1 5 2
Crustacean - amphipod Platyischnopidae 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 3 4 1 1 3 2
Crustacean - amphipod Podoceridae 1
Crustacean - amphipod Stenothoidae 1 1
Crustacean - amphipod Synopiidae 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Crustacean - amphipod Urohaustoriidae 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 1
Crustacean - caprellid Caprellidae 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1
Crustacean - crab Hexapodidae 1 1 1
Crustacean - crab Hymenosomatidae 1
Crustacean - crab Porcellanidae 1 1 1
Crustacean - cumacean Bodotriidae 10 1 2 1 2 7 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 4 2 4 2 1
Crustacean - cumacean Diastylidae 17 6 4 8 3 5 2 4 10 13 13 1 4 14 6 15 3 11 1 7 7 4 1 5 5 3 4 3 3 4 10 2 4 4 6 9 4 18 14 10 9 10 13 6 15 2
Crustacean - cumacean Nannastacidae 1 1
Crustacean - fire crab Inachoididae (cf. Pyromaia tuberculata ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Crustacean - ghost shrimp Pasiphaeidae 1 1
Crustacean - isopod Anthuridae 6 1
Crustacean - isopod Arcturidae 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 5
Crustacean - isopod Cirolanidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
Crustacean - isopod Gnathiidae 3
Crustacean - isopod Munnidae 1 1 1 1
Crustacean - isopod Paranthuridae 2 6 6 2 2 1 2 6 2 7 2 4 6 10 7 14 9 7 3 14 1 2 5 6 10 3 7 6 2 2 13 5 2 3 4 6 3 2 6 3 5 5 6 5
Crustacean - isopod Serolidae 1 1
Crustacean - isopod Sphaeromatidae 2 1
Crustacean - nebalid Nebaliidae 5 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 4 4 2 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 4 1 2 3 1
Crustacean - ostracod Cylindroleberididae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1
Crustacean - ostracod Cypridinidae 19 3 2 15 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 4 4 3 2 9 2 7 3 2 2 3 3 2 5 6 6 2 12 5 7 4 1 6 6 15 5 7 4 9 35 2 4
Crustacean - ostracod Philomedidae 37 22 10 11 12 16 12 1 4 6 11 13 22 14 9 3 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 3 19 5 4 2 1 1 18 20 39 25 45 35 36
Crustacean - ostracod Sarsiell idae 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 5 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
62
Appendix 7 (continued) Raw Data: Benthic infauna
Taxonomic group Family 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 IF1 IF2 IF3 IF4 IF5 IF6 IF7 IF8 IF9 IF10 C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C6.1 C6.2 C6.3
Crustacean - pagurid Paguridae 6 3 2 10 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 7 7 1 9
Crustacean - pebble crab Leucosiidae 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Crustacean - spider crab Majidae 1
Crustacean - tanaid Apseudidae 1 2
Crustacean - tanaid Kalliapseudidae 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 2 1 2 12 4 6 9 3 3 4 1 4 1 5 2 1 15 3 4
Crustacean - tanaid Metapseudidae 1 1 1 3
Crustacean - tanaid Pagurapseudidae 26 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 5 20 19 12 2 2 1
Crustacean - tanaid Whiteleggiidae 1 2 12 1 5 2 5 1 2 15 7 13 17 24 15 17 20 2 9 6 2 12 2 8 3 7 5 6 14 6 6 1 25 50 19
Echninoderm - asteroid Asterinidae 1 1 1 1 1 1
Echninoderm - asteroid Astropectinidae 1
Echninoderm - echinoid Loveniidae 3 5 2 1 3 2 2 4 1 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 2
Echninoderm - holothurean Chiridotidae 1 1 1 3 1 1 2
Echninoderm - holothurean Cucumariidae 1 1 1 1 2 1
Echninoderm - ophiuroid Ophiuridae 6 1 1 2 1 6 5 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 4 2 4 2 3 7 1 1
Echninoderm - sea urchin Cidaridae 1 1 1
Echninoderm - sea urchin Echinometrid 1
Mollusc - bivalve Cardiidae 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 5 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 11 6
Mollusc - bivalve Carditidae 1
Mollusc - bivalve Condylocardiidae 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mollusc - bivalve Corbulidae - Corbula gibba 1 1 1 1 4 1
Mollusc - bivalve Cuspidariidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mollusc - bivalve Galeommatidae 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mollusc - bivalve Glycymerididae 1 1 1
Mollusc - bivalve Lucinidae 1 3 2
Mollusc - bivalve Myochamidae 1
Mollusc - bivalve Mytil idae 1 1
Mollusc - bivalve Nuculanidae 3 5 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 5 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 1 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 1 3
Mollusc - bivalve Nuculidae 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 8 2
Mollusc - bivalve Semelidae 1 1 1 2 5
Mollusc - bivalve Thyasiridae 1 2 6
Mollusc - bivalve Trigoniidae 1
Mollusc - bivalve Ungulinidae 1 1 8 15 4
Mollusc - bivalve Veneridae 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 8 9
Mollusc - gastropod Anabathridae 50 22 34 26 37 7 1 1 54 5 24 49 22 20 14 8 7 19 15 1 6 15 3 10 13 1 32 12 7 5 24 12 24 43 91 25 5 8 12 2 1 1
Mollusc - gastropod Cancellariidae 1 1
Mollusc - gastropod Columbellidae 5 3 4 4 1 1 2 6 5 2 1 1 1 2
Mollusc - gastropod Eatoniell idae 1 2
Mollusc - gastropod Epitoniidae 2 1 1 1 1
Mollusc - gastropod Fusinidae 1
Mollusc - gastropod Marginellidae 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
Mollusc - gastropod Muricidae 1 1 2 1
Mollusc - gastropod Nassaridae 1 2 4 3
Mollusc - gastropod Naticidae 1 1 1 1
Mollusc - gastropod Pyramidellidae 1 1 1 1 2
Mollusc - gastropod Retusidae 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1
Mollusc - gastropod Rissoidae 1 1 1 1 1
Mollusc - gastropod Trochidae 2
Mollusc - gastropod Volutidae 1 1 1 1
Mollusc - glisten worm Chaetodermatidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2
Mollusc - sea slug Pleurobranchidae 1 1 1 2 1 5 3
Mollusc - tusk shell Gadilidae 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
63
Appendix 7 (continued) Raw Data: Benthic infauna
Taxonomic group Family 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 IF1 IF2 IF3 IF4 IF5 IF6 IF7 IF8 IF9 IF10 C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C6.1 C6.2 C6.3
Nemertean Nemertea (Phylum) 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 8 1 1 1 2 3 2 6 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 6 2 4 3
Oligocheata (Subclass) Oligocheata 2 1 1 1
Phoronid Phoronida (Phylum) 4 2 1 1 1 1 1
Platyhelminth Platyhelminthes (Phylum) 1 1
Polychaete - ampharetid Ampharetidae 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 4 3
Polychaete - aphrodotid Aphroditidae 1 1 1
Polychaete - capitellid Capitellidae (Capitella sp. ) 1
Polychaete - capitellid Capitellidae (Mediomastus australiensis ) 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 4 1 1 1 3 14 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 2 2
Polychaete - cirratulid Cirratulidae 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 2 9 7 11 14 5 9 8 9 5 3 7 15 7 13 4 4 5 1 1 2 2 2 13 12 2
Polychaete - dorvilleid Dorvilleidae 1
Polychaete - flabelligerid Flabelligeridae 1 2 1 1 1 1 2
Polychaete - glycerid Glyceridae 3 1 1 1 1
Polychaete - goniadid Goniadidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Polychaete - lumbrinerid Lumbrineridae 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 3 5 3
Polychaete - maldanid Maldanidae 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 3 3
Polychaete - nephtyid Nephtyidae 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 1
Polychaete - nereid Nereidae 1 1 1 1
Polychaete - oenonid Oenonidae 1
Polychaete - onuphid Onuphidae 3 3 12 1 2 8 1 4 2 8 9 10 22 8 6 6 10 3 1 2 1 1 5 2 4 4 7 17 8 17 2 4 8 2 7 1 4 4 6 7 1 1 1
Polychaete - ophelid Opheliidae 1 1
Polychaete - orbiniid Orbiniidae 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1
Polychaete - oweniid Oweniidae 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2
Polychaete - paraonid Paraonidae 2 1 1 1
Polychaete - pectinariid Pectinariidae 4 7 2 4 5 13 1 1 2 1 1 5 6 1 3 2 3 3 2 4 1 1 2 5 7 2 3 3 2 3 5 1 1 4 3 3 1 3 4
Polychaete - phyllodocid Phyllodocidae 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 2 2 3 5 1
Polychaete - polynoid Polynoidae 1
Polychaete - sabellid Sabellidae (Euchone variabilis ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1
Polychaete - scalibregmatid Scalibregmatidae 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2
Polychaete - sigalionid Sigalionidae 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
Polychaete - spionid Spionidae 4 8 12 3 1 10 6 8 7 9 18 11 8 18 8 35 40 38 23 26 14 19 29 33 29 32 18 27 12 20 7 17 15 9 15 19 9 13 11 9 6 11 16 40 62 19
Polychaete - syll id Syllidae 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 2 5 8 1 3 1 1 1 2 5 5 4 3 1 1 4 1
Polychaete - terebellid Terebellidae 2 6 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 2 4 3 4 1 1 1 2
Pycnogonid Phoxichilidiidae 1
Sipunculid Phascolosomatidae (Phylum) 1 2 1 1
260 185 143 122 109 151 112 86 99 153 220 130 199 229 153 232 236 199 113 240 125 147 191 143 159 127 159 193 140 185 161 172 140 111 139 162 149 273 279 164 153 156 185 289 349 152
39 47 40 30 32 35 37 31 31 39 45 43 43 43 40 47 49 46 31 48 35 40 46 35 41 39 41 42 40 43 35 43 32 33 41 40 38 46 36 37 35 40 33 50 49 38
Total abundance
Family richness
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
64
Appendix 8 Raw Data - Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Macroalgae percentage cover
(a) R1
Site Block Distance Acr
ocar
pia
pani
cula
ta
Bal
lia c
allit
rich
a
Bal
lia s
p. (
fine
red
)
Bar
e ro
ck (
non
- ba
rren
s)
Callo
phyl
lis la
mbe
rtii
Carp
oglo
ssum
con
flue
ns
Carp
omit
ra c
osta
ta
Chae
tom
orph
a co
lifor
mis
Chei
losp
orum
sp.
Colp
omen
ia s
inuo
sa
Cyst
opho
ra p
laty
lobi
um
Dur
ville
a po
tato
rum
Eckl
onia
rad
iata
Eupt
ilota
art
icul
ata
Hal
ipti
lon
rose
um
Hal
opel
tis
aust
ralis
Hal
opte
ris
pani
cula
ta
Laur
enci
a el
ata
Leno
rman
dia
mar
gina
ta
Ort
hosc
utic
ella
spp
.
Phac
eloc
arpu
s pe
pero
carp
os
Phac
eloc
arpu
s sp
p.
Phyl
losp
ora
com
osa
Ploc
amiu
m a
ngus
tum
Ploc
amiu
m d
ilata
tum
Poly
opes
con
stri
ctus
Ptilo
nia
aust
rala
sica
Sabe
llid
spp.
Sand
Sarc
odia
mar
gina
ta
Sarg
assu
m s
pp.
Sarg
assu
m v
esti
tum
Silt
/san
d on
ree
f
Sond
erop
elta
/Pey
sson
nelia
Sten
ogra
mm
e in
terr
upta
Ulv
a sp
p.
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(cru
stos
e co
ralli
ne)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(red
roc
k)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(fila
men
tous
gre
en)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(red
)
Uni
dent
ifie
d br
yozo
ans
(har
d)
Uni
dent
ifie
d br
yozo
ans
(sof
t)
Uni
dent
ifie
d sp
onge
(en
crus
ting
)
Xiph
opho
ra g
ladi
ata
Zona
ria
turn
eria
na/a
ngus
tata
1 95 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 12 0 0 0 8 6 0 12
1 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 30 0 4 0 0 8 0 0
1 75 0 0 6 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 36
1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 12 36 0 0 0 0 2 0 30
1 55 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 32 20 0 0 0 0 4 4 10
2 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 64 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 20
2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 28 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 58 16 0 0 0 0 10 0 6
2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 90 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 16 0 10 0 0 12 0 12
2 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 20 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 46 16 0 0 0 0 16 0 4
3 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 10 0 8 0 0 4 0 4
3 15 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 30 100 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 18 14 0 0 0 0 12 0 0
3 25 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 80 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
3 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 80 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 12 0 0 0 0 16 0 12
3 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 16 0 0 0 0 12 0 8
4 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 18 0 4 0 4 0 0 12
4 65 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 0 6 0 28
4 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 28 20 0 6 0 0 16 0 8
4 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 8 0 6 0 0 12 0 6
4 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 76 6 0 4 0 0 6 0 4
R1
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
65
(b) R2
Site Block Distance Acr
ocar
pia
pani
cula
ta
Bal
lia c
allit
rich
a
Bal
lia s
p. (
fine
red
)
Bar
e ro
ck (
non
- ba
rren
s)
Callo
phyl
lis la
mbe
rtii
Carp
oglo
ssum
con
flue
ns
Carp
omit
ra c
osta
ta
Chae
tom
orph
a co
lifor
mis
Chei
losp
orum
sp.
Colp
omen
ia s
inuo
sa
Cyst
opho
ra p
laty
lobi
um
Dur
ville
a po
tato
rum
Eckl
onia
rad
iata
Eupt
ilota
art
icul
ata
Hal
ipti
lon
rose
um
Hal
opel
tis
aust
ralis
Hal
opte
ris
pani
cula
ta
Laur
enci
a el
ata
Leno
rman
dia
mar
gina
ta
Ort
hosc
utic
ella
spp
.
Phac
eloc
arpu
s pe
pero
carp
os
Phac
eloc
arpu
s sp
p.
Phyl
losp
ora
com
osa
Ploc
amiu
m a
ngus
tum
Ploc
amiu
m d
ilata
tum
Poly
opes
con
stri
ctus
Ptilo
nia
aust
rala
sica
Sabe
llid
spp.
Sand
Sarc
odia
mar
gina
ta
Sarg
assu
m s
pp.
Sarg
assu
m v
esti
tum
Silt
/san
d on
ree
f
Sond
erop
elta
/Pey
sson
nelia
Sten
ogra
mm
e in
terr
upta
Ulv
a sp
p.
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(cru
stos
e co
ralli
ne)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(red
roc
k)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(fila
men
tous
gre
en)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(red
)
Uni
dent
ifie
d br
yozo
ans
(har
d)
Uni
dent
ifie
d br
yozo
ans
(sof
t)
Uni
dent
ifie
d sp
onge
(en
crus
ting
)
Xiph
opho
ra g
ladi
ata
Zona
ria
turn
eria
na/a
ngus
tata
1 95 42 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 96 8 16 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 4 2 0 6 0 22
1 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 20 4 16 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 80 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 18
1 65 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20 6 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 100 36 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
1 55 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 6
2 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 0 8 0 24
2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 0
2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 6 12 6 0 100 6 6 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
3 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 100 16 0 0 0 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 4
3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 16 0 0 0 0 2 6 0
3 35 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 10 0 4 0 0 8 0 0
3 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 8 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 4 0 0 0 0 2 10 0
4 55 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 65 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 100 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
4 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 12 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
4 85 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 46 12 4 0 0 0 6 0 0
4 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
R2
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
66
(c) R3
Site Block Distance Acr
ocar
pia
pani
cula
ta
Bal
lia c
allit
rich
a
Bal
lia s
p. (
fine
red
)
Bar
e ro
ck (
non
- ba
rren
s)
Callo
phyl
lis la
mbe
rtii
Carp
oglo
ssum
con
flue
ns
Carp
omit
ra c
osta
ta
Chae
tom
orph
a co
lifor
mis
Chei
losp
orum
sp.
Colp
omen
ia s
inuo
sa
Cyst
opho
ra p
laty
lobi
um
Dur
ville
a po
tato
rum
Eckl
onia
rad
iata
Eupt
ilota
art
icul
ata
Hal
ipti
lon
rose
um
Hal
opel
tis
aust
ralis
Hal
opte
ris
pani
cula
ta
Laur
enci
a el
ata
Leno
rman
dia
mar
gina
ta
Ort
hosc
utic
ella
spp
.
Phac
eloc
arpu
s pe
pero
carp
os
Phac
eloc
arpu
s sp
p.
Phyl
losp
ora
com
osa
Ploc
amiu
m a
ngus
tum
Ploc
amiu
m d
ilata
tum
Poly
opes
con
stri
ctus
Ptilo
nia
aust
rala
sica
Sabe
llid
spp.
Sand
Sarc
odia
mar
gina
ta
Sarg
assu
m s
pp.
Sarg
assu
m v
esti
tum
Silt
/san
d on
ree
f
Sond
erop
elta
/Pey
sson
nelia
Sten
ogra
mm
e in
terr
upta
Ulv
a sp
p.
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(cru
stos
e co
ralli
ne)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(red
roc
k)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(fila
men
tous
gre
en)
Uni
dent
ifie
d al
gae
(red
)
Uni
dent
ifie
d br
yozo
ans
(har
d)
Uni
dent
ifie
d br
yozo
ans
(sof
t)
Uni
dent
ifie
d sp
onge
(en
crus
ting
)
Xiph
opho
ra g
ladi
ata
Zona
ria
turn
eria
na/a
ngus
tata
1 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 70 10 4 2 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 30 10 0 0 0 0 12 0 0
1 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 30 0 0 4 0 16 0 0
1 75 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 80 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 14
1 65 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 20 0 0 0 30 20 0 0
1 55 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 100 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 20 0 8 0 0 10 0 0
2 45 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 50 24 0 0 0 0 10 0 4
2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8 0 10 0 0 6 0 0
2 25 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 10 30 0 0 2 0 24 0 0
2 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 20 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
2 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 66 14 0 0 0 0 14 0 2
3 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 24 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 12
3 15 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 24 0 0 0 0 10 0 6
3 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 35 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 16 0 4 0 0 4 0 0
3 45 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 22 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
4 65 0 0 6 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 14 0 6 0 0 0 0 4
4 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 20 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 8
4 85 0 12 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 4 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12
4 95 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 52 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 6
R3
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
67
Appendix 9 Raw Data - Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Fish and invertebrates
(a) Fish
Species
R1 R2 R3
Transect Block Transect Block Transect Block
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Acanthaluteres spilomelanurus 1
Acanthaluteres vittiger 5 4 5 2 1 1 1 3 31 7 6
Aplodactylus arctidens 1 1
Aracana aurita 1 1
Cheilodactylus spectabilis 1 1 1
Dinolestes lewini 2 5 2 1 2 2 4 3 1
Dotalabrus aurantiacus 3
Girella zebra 1 1 1
Meuschenia australis 1 5 1 1 1 3
Meuschenia freycineti 1
Notolabrus fucicola 1 4 7 11 2 1 5 8 3 6 6
Notolabrus tetricus 14 10 8 13 5 4 1 3 13 6 6 3
Odax cyanomelas 2 1 6 8 1 1
Pentaceropsis recurvirostris 1 1 2
Pictilabrus laticlavius 1 1 1 1 2
Scorpis aequipinnis 1 1 3 4
Scorpis lineolata 2 2 5
Siphonognathus beddomei 2 4 1 2 7
Trachinops caudimaculatus 50 50 45 37 28 15 35
Upeneichthys vlamingii 1 1
(b) Invertebrates
Species
R1 R2 R3
Transect Block Transect Block Transect Block
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Bovichtus angustifrons 1
Cabestana spengleri 1 1
Cenolia trichoptera 80 58 67 65 18 18 18 12 56 56 69 90
Dicathais orbita 1
Forsterygion varium 1 3 3
Fromia polypora 2
Haliotis rubra 3 4 2 2 2 1 2 1
Heliocidaris erythrogramma 12 4 11 18 2 1 11 12 10
Heteroclinus johnstoni 1
Jasus edwardsii 2 2 4 1 2
Nectria ocellata 1 1 1 1 1
Paguristes spp. 1
Pempheris multiradiata 4 4
Petricia vernicina 1 1 3 2
Plagusia chabrus 1 1 1
Ranella australasia 1 1
Tosia australis 1
Trinorfolkia clarkei 3 6 1
Turbo undulatus 3
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
68
Appendix 10 Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Images of representative habitats at inshore reef sites R1, R2 and R3.
R1 R1
R2 R2
R3 R3
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
69
Appendix 11 Deep reef survey: Images of representative habitats.
0-50 m 0-50 m
0-50 m 50-100 m
50-100 m 50-100 m
MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019
70
Appendix 11 (continued) Deep reef survey: Images of representative habitats.
100-150 m 100-150 m
100-150 m 150-200 m
150-200 m 150-200 m