Baseline Final Report - Aquenal - Huon Aquaculture · Patterns of particle size distribution were indicative of a sedimentary environment with moderate-high agitation of seabed sediments

TRUMPETER BAY MF261 (Block SB3): BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DRAFT FINAL REPORT (VERSION 1.0) August 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 SB3

Document Distribution

Date Name Company Document

Type Version Copies

2/9/2019 Adam Smark Huon Aquaculture

Group Pty Ltd Electronic 1.0 1

2/9/2019 Mark Churchill EPA Electronic 1.0 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 SB3

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 ..................................................................................................................................... 21

8 Sediment Chemistry ................................................................................................................................................ 25 8.1 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 25 8.2 Redox Potential ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 8.3 Sulphide Analysis.................................................................................................................................................... 32 8.4 Particle Size Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 33 8.5 Organic Content ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 8.6 Heavy Metal Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 36

9 Targeted Gazameda gunnii Survey ......................................................................................................................... 37

10 Biological Analysis – Benthic Infauna ...................................................................................................................... 39

11 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 43

List of Figures Figure 1 Location and Survey Map – MF261 – SB3, Trumpeter Bay. Sites 1.1 – 10.3 indicate the 35 m compliance sites,

C3 and C5 indicate control sites; IF1-IF10 indicate internal sites. Red outline – zone boundary; black rectangle – lease boundary. ....................................................................................................................................................... 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 (February - April 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 – SB3. Red outline – zone boundary; black rectangle – lease boundary for MF261 – SB3............................................................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 5 Survey habitat map. Red outline – zone boundary; black rectangle – lease boundary for MF261 – SB3. ......... 16 Figure 6 Redox potential at 30 mm depth in sediment cores. Bars represent mean redox potential (± SE error) across

replicate cores (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites). ............................................ 31 Figure 7 Sulphide concentration in sediment core samples. Bars represent mean sulphide concentration (± SE error)

across replicate cores (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites). ................................. 32 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 (n=3), control (n=3) and internal farm (n=10) sites. ............................................................................................................................................................. 33

Figure 9 Mean particle size content (%) of the top 100 mm of sediment. Results represent % contribution of each sediment size category across replicate samples (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites). ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 10 Organic content in sediment core samples. Bars represent mean organic content (± SE error) across replicate cores (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites). ........................................................... 35

Figure 11 Location of grab samples taken during the targeted Gazameda gunnii survey for MF261 - Block SB3, highlighting the sample sites where dead shells were collected (G9, G11, G14, G17, G18, G21, G28, G29). ........ 37

Figure 12 Photograph of dead G. gunnii shells collected during the survey of MF261-Block SB3. .................................. 38

MF261 BLS SB3

Figure 13 Results of MDS analysis using benthic infauna data collected from benthic grabs for MF261 – SB3. Symbols represent data from individual replicate samples for compliance, control and internal farm sites. Ellipses indicate community similarity (%) based on cluster analysis................................................................................................ 40

Figure 14 Benthic infauna analysis of seabed samples at MF261 – SB3. K-dominance curves. Analysis based on pooled data for compliance (n=3), control (n=3) and internal farm (n=10) sites. .............................................................. 42

List of Tables Table 1 Summarised current velocity data (cm/s) for Trumpeter T2 (May 2014) and T4 (March 2014). ........................ 12 Table 2 Descriptions of dives performed at MF261 – Block SB3. ..................................................................................... 18 Table 3 Description of each ROV dive performed at Trumpeter Bay MF261 – Block SB3. Video analysis and

interpretation provided by Huon Aquaculture. ...................................................................................................... 22 Table 4 Visual description of sediment cores at MF261 – Block SB3. ............................................................................... 26 Table 5 Summary of heavy metal analysis of sediment samples and comparison with the ANZECC 2000 trigger values.

Results represent mean concentrations (± SE error) across replicate cores (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites). Raw data is provided in Appendix 6. ........................................................................ 36

Table 6 Summary of benthic faunal analysis. The category ‘other’ included brachiopods, nemerteans, nematodes, enteropneusta, anthozoans, platyhelminths, sipunculids, phoronids and chordates ............................................ 41

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 Survey coordinates for sediment sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55 (Datum GDA94) .................................................................................................................................................................... 44

Appendix 2 Survey coordinates for Gazameda gunnii sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55 (Datum GDA94) ....................................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix 3 Images of sediment cores .............................................................................................................................. 46 Appendix 4 Redox potential – raw data ........................................................................................................................... 50 Appendix 5 Sulphide concentration - raw data ................................................................................................................ 51 Appendix 6 Particle size analysis – raw data .................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix 7 Heavy metal analysis – raw data ................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 8 Raw data: Benthic Infauna ............................................................................................................................. 54

MF261 BLS SB3

6

1 Summary Trumpeter Bay Marine Farming Lease No. 261 Block SB3 (MF261 – SB3) 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. Seafloor video surveys and seabed monitoring activities for the baseline survey were conducted between 21/2/2019 and 19/3/2019. Current flow 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 approximately 1.4 km north of the SB3 lease boundary from 9th May 2014 to 27th June 2014 (“T2”; 55G 536334 5218175) and a second was deployed approximately 1.7 km south of the SB3 lease boundary (“T4”; 55G 536250 5213883) 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. Seabed ROV (video) survey Baseline information on the seafloor appearance at MF261 – SB3 was collected by Huon Aquaculture. As for the previous baseline surveys undertaken by Huon Aquaculture in the Storm Bay area, all sites shared the common features of rippled relatively coarse sand with shell grit and shell debris. At some sites occasional amorphous blackened deposits were observed on the seabed surface. The fauna was generally depauperate, consisting mainly of Maoricolpus roseus (New Zealand screw shell) and heart urchins (test fragments). There were also occasional brittle stars, hermit crabs, benthic crabs, sea anemones (suspected Edwardsiidae) and unattached sponges. There was only the occasional, reasonably randomly distributed fish recorded during the survey, including gobies, flathead, sea moths, flounder and gurnard. All sites contained drift algae, although some very fine algae were attached to old shells and occasionally on the sediment surface. Maoricolpus roseus appeared at many sites but were generally present in low densities. No live specimens were observed during the survey, but many were inhabited by hermit crabs. No other marine pests were identified during the ROV survey. No handfish or other threatened species were observed during any of the ROV dives. Stalked ascidians (Sycozoa sp.) were rare and observed at a single site (IF10).

MF261 BLS SB3

7

Gazameda gunnii survey Targeted sampling for the threatened mollusc Gazameda gunnii was undertaken using Van Veen grabs at 30 sites spread across the lease area. No live shells were detected during the survey. Fourteen individual dead shells/shell fragments of G. gunnii were collected and retained from eight sites. The shells were mostly small (<30 mm) and were generally scattered across the survey area. Three small (15-30 mm) live G. gunnii were also detected during the benthic infauna survey at sites 1.2, IF5 and C5.1. Based on the extremely low G. gunnii densities in the area and its widespread distribution, the development poses a negligible threat to G. gunnii populations. Sediment core visual assessment and chemistry Visual assessment showed that sediments were generally similar across sampling sites. Sediments were typically lighter in colour in the surface layers (brown/yellowish brown), grading to dark greyish brown or dark grey with increasing sediment depth. Dark patches, indicative of anoxic conditions, were evident in the deeper sections of many cores (usually below 20 mm). Such patterns are not considered evidence of organic enrichment, and are relatively common in circumstances where sandy, well compacted sediments are present. Sediment redox values measured at 30 mm sediment depth averaged 225 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 were indicative of well oxygenated sediments. Sulphide concentrations were generally very low at most sites, averaging 3.33 µM across all sites. Most sites recorded sulphide levels near zero or below detection and no sites exceeded concentrations typical of organically enriched sediments (i.e. > 100 µM). Patterns of particle size distribution were indicative of a sedimentary environment with moderate-high agitation of seabed sediments and associated low abundance of fine silt and clay fractions. Sediments across the area sampled were similar between sites and typically dominated by the ‘medium sand’ (0.25-0.5 mm; average 49.9% v/v across all sites) and ‘fine sand’ (0.125-0.25 mm; average 38.5% 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 2.7% across all sites). The organic content of the sediments was low across all sites (2.7%), as expected in sandy sediments. 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. Levels of Arsenic (As) approached the ANZECC ISQG ‘low’ trigger value (20 mg/kg) at some sites. For example, Arsenic values averaged 18.7 mg/kg for both compliance site 5 and control site C3. Heavy metal concentrations were generally similar to those recorded previously from sediment sampling in the Trumpeter Bay region. For both organic content and heavy metal analyses, there was only minor variation between sampling sites and no strong spatial patterns evident. Benthic infauna analysis Benthic infauna analysis revealed very high abundance and diversity, with a total of 9458 individuals from 144 families identified across the 46 samples. Similarly high abundance and diversity of benthic infauna was recorded during previous surveys of nearby leases in the Trumpeter Bay region. Faunal communities were dominated by crustaceans, accounting for 51.0% of individuals and 37.5% of families identified. The remaining fauna was mainly comprised of molluscs (29.3% of individuals and 27.8% of families), polychaetes (14.5% of individuals and 20.8% of families) and echinoderms (1.1% of individuals and 5.6% of families). Other fauna, including brachiopods, nemerteans, nematodes, enteropneusta, anthozoans, platyhelminths, sipunculids, phoronids, and chordates, were recorded in relatively low numbers. Across all sites, the most common families recorded included Anabathridae (gastropod mollusc, 24.0% of individuals),

MF261 BLS SB3

8

Philomedidae (ostracod, 7.1% of individuals), Ampeliscidae (amphipod, 6.4% of individuals), Spionidae (polychaete, 6.2% of individuals) and Photidae (amphipod, 5.6% of individuals). Low numbers of introduced species were observed during the survey. Four introduced taxa were recorded, including the American spider crab Pyromaia tuberculata (9 individuals), the bivalve Varicorbula gibba (3 individuals), the European shore crab Carcinus maenas (1 individual), and the bivalve Raeta pulchella (1 individual). The capitellid Mediomastus sp. was recorded in low densities across approximately half the sites (48 individuals in total). Two individuals of another capitellid, Heteromastus sp., were recorded at compliance sites 1.1 and 7.1. These particular capitellid taxa are common and widespread in south-east Tasmania and are not regarded as pollution indicator species. Multivariate analysis showed only minor variation between sites, with all of the compliance, control and internal farm sites grouping at the 40% similarity level. Based on the benthic faunal patterns present, potential future impacts to the benthos should be readily observable. Indicators of organic enrichment would be expected to include an increase in dominance patterns and decline in taxonomic diversity. Such patterns would be readily discernible, given the high taxonomic diversity evident in the baseline survey.

MF261 BLS SB3

9

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: 21/2/2019, 5/3/2019, 14/3/2019 – ROV survey

4/3/2019, 13/3/2019, 15/3/2019, 19/3/2019 – Seabed sampling

Weather: 21/2/2019 4/3/2019 5/3/2019 13/3/2019 14/3/2019 15/3/2019 19/3/2019

Wind: <10kn NW 10 kn S <10 kn <10 kn 15kn N 5-10 kn SSE

<10 kn

Sky: Cloudy Partly cloudy

Smoke haze

Partly cloudy

Clear Cloudy Partly cloudy

Rain: None None None None None None None

Sea: <1 m <1 m <1 m 2 m SW swell

<1 m <1 m <1 m

Current: Negligible Negligible 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 either a Blue-ROV-02 or a VideoRay Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV). A GoPro Hero 7 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 SB3

10

3 Location and Survey Maps

Figure 1 Location and Survey Map – MF261 – SB3, Trumpeter Bay. Sites 1.1 – 10.3 indicate the 35 m compliance sites, C3 and C5 indicate control sites; IF1-IF10 indicate internal sites. Red outline – zone boundary; black rectangle – lease boundary.

MF261 BLS SB3

11

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 approximately 1.4 km north of the SB3 lease boundary from 9th May 2014 to 27th June 2014 (“T2”; 55G 536334 5218175) and a second was deployed approximately 1.7 km south of the SB3 lease boundary (“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 SB3

12

Table 1 Summarised current velocity data (cm/s) 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 SB3

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 SB3

14

Figure 3 Polar plots of current velocity and direction, T4 (February - April 2014). The plots are read as if the current flow moves from the outer circle towards the centre of the graph.

MF261 BLS SB3

15

5 Bathymetric Profile

The bathymetry survey was conducted on 26 February and 3 March 2014, from the FRV Morana. A multibeam acoustic swath system (MBES) Kongsberg EM2040c was employed for data acquisition, with a Kongsberg MRU5+ used for motion compensation. The MBES system was mounted on a pole to the starboard side of the vessel with the Differential GPS aerials mounted on a cross bar above the transducer head. Positional information was acquired using a Kongsberg Seapath 320+ GPS receiver receiving RTCM differential corrections from a Cnav3050 DGPS receiver. Positional and motion data were streamed into the Kongsberg Seapath software, with this information being relayed to the Konsberg SIS software which was used for acquisition and navigation. The vessel was driven along a series of parallel transects ensuring 20% overlap in the acoustic swath. The bathymetry profile based on this survey is illustrated in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 Bathymetric profile for MF261 – SB3. Red outline – zone boundary; black rectangle – lease boundary for MF261 – SB3.

MF261 BLS SB3

16

6 Seabed Characteristics and Habitat Profile

Figure 5 Survey habitat map. Red outline – zone boundary; black rectangle – lease boundary for MF261 – SB3.

MF261 BLS SB3

17

7 Underwater Video Survey

7.1 Filming Summary The appearance of the seabed in the vicinity of MF261 – SB3 was recorded by filming spot dives of the sea floor using two different types of ROVs:

- A Blue-ROV-02 Remotely Operated Inspection System accompanied by two optimised LED arrays adjustable lights. The video recording was conducted using the Ocam software, however there were two different on-board ROV cameras setups – standard and widescreen.

- A VideoRay Remotely Operated Inspection System using a colour video camera with 180 degrees of tilt range, high resolution and 0.004 lux of sensitivity, accompanied by two optimised LED arrays (3,600 lumens) adjustable lights.

For both ROV systems a GoPro Hero 7 was mounted onto the ROV to capture high definition footage. The GoPro recording was the predominate footage used for habitat observations at all sites. 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 sites at least 200 m from the lease boundary (sites C3.1-C3.3, C5.1-C5.3). - Internal habitat sites consisting of ten evenly spaced locations within Block 3 (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 in Table 3 below. A hard drive containing the digital recording of all control, compliance and internal lease dive sites for MF261 – Block SB3 has been forwarded to EPA.

MF261 BLS SB3

18

Table 2 Descriptions of dives performed at MF261 – Block SB3.

SiteEasting (GDA94

MGA55)

Northing (GDA94

MGA55)Date Time Depth (m) Dive type Visibility (m)

Recording

method

1.1 536740 5216745 21/02/2019 12:02:51 AM 45 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

1.2 536761 5216738 21/02/2019 12:02:45 AM 45 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

1.3 536778 5216731 21/02/2019 12:02:17 AM 45 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

2.1 536973 5216672 21/02/2019 12:02:11 AM 46 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

2.2 536991 5216663 21/02/2019 12:02:30 AM 46 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

2.3 537013 5216660 21/02/2019 12:02:30 AM 46 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

3.1 537126 5216309 21/02/2019 12:02:25 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

3.2 537121 5216288 21/02/2019 12:02:25 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

3.3 537110 5216271 21/02/2019 12:02:02 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

4.1 537031 5216022 21/02/2019 12:03:04 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

4.2 537024 5216006 21/02/2019 12:02:41 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

4.3 537022 5215985 21/02/2019 12:02:12 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

5.1 536937 5215736 21/02/2019 12:02:47 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

5.2 536932 5215718 21/02/2019 12:02:31 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

5.3 536925 5215697 21/02/2019 12:02:57 AM 47 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

6.1 536631 5215482 21/02/2019 12:02:31 AM 46 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

6.2 536613 5215494 21/02/2019 12:02:35 AM 46 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

6.3 536590 5215498 21/02/2019 12:02:31 AM 46 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

MF261 BLS SB3

19

Table 2 (continued) Descriptions of dives performed at MF261 – Block SB3.

SiteEasting (GDA94

MGA55)

Northing (GDA94


Recording

method

7.1 536403 5215561 21/02/2019 12:02:19 AM 45 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

7.2 536383 5215563 21/02/2019 12:02:10 AM 45 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

7.3 536362 5215573 21/02/2019 12:02:35 AM 45 External 1.5 - 2 BR2

8.1 536243 5215921 5/03/2019 12:02:22 AM 44 External 1.5 - 2 BR2+

8.2 536253 5215940 5/03/2019 12:02:22 AM 44 External 1.5 - 2 BR2+

8.3 536264 5215957 5/03/2019 12:03:29 AM 43 External 1.5 - 2 PRO4

9.1 536340 5216205 5/03/2019 12:04:10 AM 43 External 1.5 - 2 PRO4

9.2 536347 5216226 5/03/2019 12:03:26 AM 43 External 1.5 - 2 PRO4

9.3 536355 5216245 5/03/2019 12:03:39 AM 43 External 1.5 - 2 PRO4

10.1 536433 5216492 5/03/2019 12:03:15 AM 43 External 1.5 - 2 PRO4

10.2 536439 5216509 5/03/2019 12:03:30 AM 43 External 1.5 - 2 PRO4

10.3 536443 5216527 5/03/2019 12:03:54 AM 43 External 1.5 - 2 PRO4

IF1 536682 5216578 14/03/2019 12:03:58 AM 44 Internal 1.5 - 2 PRO4







IF8 536612 5215870 14/03/2019 12:05:40 AM 45 Internal 1.5 - 2 BR2+widescreen



MF261 BLS SB3

20

Table 2 (continued) Descriptions of dives performed at MF261 – Block SB3.

SiteEasting (GDA94

MGA55)

Northing (GDA94


Recording

method

C3.1 538236 5216403 14/03/2019 12:04:18 AM 47 Control 1.5 - 2 PRO4

C3.2 538243 5216389 14/03/2019 12:04:10 AM 47 Control 1.5 - 2 PRO4

C3.3 538248 5216368 14/03/2019 12:04:28 AM 47 Control 1.5 - 2 PRO4

C5.1 535502 5215542 14/03/2019 12:03:30 AM 37 Control 1.5 - 2 PRO4

C5.2 535504 5215529 15/03/2019 12:02:59 AM 37 Control 1.5 - 2 BR2+

C5.3 535511 5215503 15/03/2019 12:02:20 AM 37 Control 1.5 - 2 BR2+

MF261 BLS SB3

21

7.2 Observations from Filming

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 farm sites. As for the previous baseline surveys undertaken by Huon Aquaculture in the Storm Bay area, all sites shared the common features of rippled relatively coarse sand with shell grit and shell debris. At some sites occasional amorphous blackened deposits were observed on the seabed surface. The fauna was generally depauperate, consisting mainly of Maoricolpus roseus (New Zealand screw shell) and heart urchins (test fragments). There were also occasional brittle stars, hermit crabs, benthic crabs, sea anemones (suspected Edwardsiidae) and unattached sponges. A single sycallarid crustacean (suspected Ibacus sp.) was observed at site 3.2. There were also occasional brittle stars, hermit crabs, benthic crabs, other crustaceans, sea anemones (suspected Edwardsiidae) and unattached sponges. There was only the occasional, reasonably randomly distributed fish sighted during the survey. These were composed of gobies, flathead, sea moths, flounder and gurnard. No handfish were observed during any of the ROV dives. Stalked ascidians (Sycozoa sp.) were rare and observed at a single site (IF10). Maoricolpus appeared at many sites but were generally present in low densities. No live specimens were observed during the survey, but many were inhabited by hermit crabs. No other marine pests or threatened species were identified during the survey. All sites contained drift algae, although some very fine algae were attached to old shells and occasionally on the sediment surface.

MF261 BLS SB3

22

Table 3 Description of each ROV dive performed at Trumpeter Bay MF261 – Block SB3. Video analysis and interpretation provided by Huon Aquaculture.

Site Observations

1.1

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), various crab species, unattached sponge Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells, occasional test fragments and sediment

1.2 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

1.3 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

2.1 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (many shells), heart urchin (test fragments), goby fish, hermit crabs Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

2.2 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (many shells), heart urchin (test fragments), crab Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

2.3 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (many shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crabs Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

3.1 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (many shells), heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

3.2

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (many shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crabs, small benthic fish (suspected goby), suspected Ibacus sp. Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

3.3

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (many shells), heart urchin (test fragments), small goby fish, brittle star Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

4.1

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), sea anemone (suspected Edwardsiidae) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

4.2 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), goby Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

4.3

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), goby Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

5.1 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), crab, gurnard, flounder, brittle star Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

5.2

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), gurnard, unattached sponge Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

5.3

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crab Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

6.1 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), sea moth Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

6.2

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), flathead, flounder, gurnard, hermit crab Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

6.3

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), goby fish, hermit crabs, unattached sponge Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

MF261 BLS SB3

23

Site Observations

7.1

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), few unattached sponges, goby fish, hermit crabs Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

7.2

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), gurnard, unattached sponge, goby fish Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

7.3

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), unattached sponge, gurnard Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

8.1

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), small benthic fish (suspected goby), hermit crabs, unattached sponge Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

8.2 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), gurnard Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

8.3 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), unattached sponge, hermit crab Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

9.1

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crabs, unattached sponge Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

9.2 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crabs Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

9.3

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), brittle star, hermit crabs Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

10.1

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crabs Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

10.2 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

10.3

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF1

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crabs, brittle star Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF2

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF3 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crabs, Australian fur seal Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF4 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments), brittle star, gurnard Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF5

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), sea anemone (suspected Edwardsiidae) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF6

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), crab Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF7

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps and occasional amorphous blackened deposits. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), brittle star Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

MF261 BLS SB3

24

Site Observations

IF8

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crab, many brittle stars Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF9 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

IF10

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), few sycozoan, hermit crabs, unattached sponge Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

C3.1

Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), brittle star, crabs, small benthic fish (suspected goby) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

C3.2 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

C3.3 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), brittle star Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

C5.1 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), hermit crabs Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

C5.2 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments) Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

C5.3 Seabed: Rippled sand with small aggregated lumps. Various scattered shells and shell debris Fauna: Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Maoricolpus (a few shells), heart urchin (test fragments), unattached sponge Flora: Consistent with all sites. Some drift algae and occasional fine algae on shells and sediment

MF261 BLS SB3

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 similar across sampling sites. Sediments were typically lighter in colour in the surface layers (brown/yellowish brown), grading to dark greyish brown or dark grey with increasing sediment depth. Dark patches were evident in the deeper sections of many cores, typically below 20 mm sediment depth. Sediment type typically consisted of sand that was uniform throughout the entire core profile. Coarse sand was noted at compliance sites 6.1, 6.2, 8.1, and sparse shell grit at 5.2, 3.2. Animals or evidence of their presence (i.e. burrows) were observed in the majority of sediment cores, with polychaetes, burrows, amphipods and gastropods most commonly noted. Sediment characteristics from the compliance, control and internal farm sites showed only minor variation, indicative of similar environmental conditions across the survey area. The only deviation from overall patterns was lighter and more uniform colouration at control site C3 compared to 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, indicative of anoxic patches in sediments. Such patterns are not considered evidence of organic enrichment, and are relatively common in circumstances where sandy, well compacted sediments are present. Images of sediment cores are included in Appendix 3.

MF261 BLS SB3

26

Table 4 Visual description of sediment cores at MF261 – Block SB3.

Site

Len

gth

(m

m)

Co

lou

r 1

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

1

De

pth

1 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 2

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

2

De

pth

2 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 3

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

3

De

pth

3 (

mm

)

Pla

nts

An

imal

s

Gas

Sme

ll

1.1 170 10YR/4/3 Brown, dark patches

0-80 mm Sand 170

Nil

Polychaetes and burrows 0-80 mm

Nil Nil

1.2 140 10YR/5/4 Yellowish brown Sand 40 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish

brown Sand 140

Nil Nil Nil Nil

1.3 155 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown,

black patch 0-40 mm, dark patches below 125 mm

Sand 155

Nil Gastropod on

surface Nil Nil

2.1 140 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, black patches 5-15 mm, faint dark patches below 25 mm

Sand 140

Nil Burrows 25-40

mm Nil Nil

2.2 130 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 35 10YR/5/4 Yellowish

brown Sand 70

10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark patch 90-110 mm

Sand 130 Nil Polychaete and

burrow 0-40 mm Nil Nil

2.3 120 10YR/4/3 Brown, black patches

55-75 mm Sand 120

Nil

Polychaete and burrows 0-30 mm

Nil Nil

3.1 140 10YR/5/4 Yellowish brown, faint dark patch 0-25 mm

Sand 25 10YR/4/1 Dark grey,

dark patches throughout

Sand 140

Nil Nil Nil Nil

3.2 130 10YR/5/4 Yellowish brown Sand 20 10YR/4/1 Dark grey,


Sand, sparse

shell grit 115-130

mm

130

Nil Burrow 10-50

mm Nil Nil

3.3 130 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, sparse dark patches below 20

mm Sand 130

Nil Burrows 0-70 mm Nil Nil

4.1 135 10YR/4/3 Brown, large black

patch 5-60 mm Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 135

Nil

Brittle star and amphipods on

surface, burrows 0-45 mm

Nil Nil

MF261 BLS SB3

27

Site

Len

gth

(m

m)

Co

lou

r 1

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

1

De

pth

1 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 2

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

2

De

pth

2 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 3

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

3

De

pth

3 (

mm

)

Pla

nts

An

imal

s

Gas

Sme

ll

4.2 130 10YR/5/4 Yellowish brown Sand 25 10YR/4/1 Dark grey,


Sand 130

Nil Burrows 0-35 mm and 110-130 mm

Nil Nil

4.3 130 10YR/4/3 Brown Sand 25 10YR/4/1 Dark grey,

faint dark patches throughout

Sand 130

Nil Burrow 0-10 mm Nil Nil



Sand 120

Nil Nil Nil Nil

5.2 150 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, black

patch 5-15 mm

Sand, sparse

shell grit 150

Nil

Polychaete and burrow 30-70

mm, amphipods on surface

Nil Nil



Sand 150

Nil Burrows 0-50 mm and 125-150 mm

Nil Nil

6.1 145 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown Coarse Sand

145


6.2 150 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, black patches 0-40 mm, dark

patches below 50 mm

Coarse Sand

150

Nil Burrows 10-80

mm, polychaete at 150 mm

Nil Nil

6.3 115

10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, core slightly lighter towards surface, black patches below

20 mm

Sand 115

Nil Burrows 25-35

mm Nil Nil

7.1 175 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown Sand 175

Nil Nil Nil Nil

7.2 120

10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, core slightly lighter towards

surface, dark patches below 20 mm

Sand 120


7.3 115 10YR/4/3 Brown, black patch

10-30 mm Sand 115

Nil

Polychaete 80-90 mm

Nil Nil

MF261 BLS SB3

28

Site

Len

gth

(m

m)

Co

lou

r 1

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

1

De

pth

1 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 2

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

2

De

pth

2 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 3

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

3

De

pth

3 (

mm

)

Pla

nts

An

imal

s

Gas

Sme

ll

8.1 120 10YR/4/3 Brown Coarse Sand

120

Nil Burrows and

polychaete 0-60 mm

Nil Nil

8.2 155 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark

patches 20-45 mm Sand 155

Nil

Polychaete and gastropod on

surface Nil Nil

8.3 135 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, black

patches below 50 mm Sand 135

Nil

Amphipods on surface,

polychaete and burrows 125-125

mm

Nil Nil

9.1 115 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown Sand 115

Nil Cnidarian on

surface Nil Nil

9.2 130 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown,

faint dark patch 15-30 mm, dark patches below 70 mm

Sand 130

Nil

Amphipod on surface,

polychaete and burrow 10-25

mm

Nil Nil

9.3 190 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, faint dark patches 45-75 mm

Sand 190

Nil Burrows 0-20 and

60-190 mm Nil Nil

10.1 100 10YR/4/3 Brown Sand 20

10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, black patches

throughout, dark patches 20-45 mm

Sand 100

Nil

Gastropod, holothurian and

bivalve on surface

Nil Nil

10.2 140 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, black patches 25-75 mm, faint

dark patches below 80 mm Sand 140

Nil

Amphipod on surface, burrows

40-80 mm Nil Nil

10.3 155 10YR/4/3 Brown Sand 30

10YR/4/1 Dark grey, black patches 30-65 mm, dark patches

below 80 mm

Sand 155

Nil Gastropod on

surface Nil Nil

C3.1 115 10YR/4/3 Brown, dark patch

below 95 mm Sand 115

Nil Nil Nil Nil

MF261 BLS SB3

29

Site

Len

gth

(m

m)

Co

lou

r 1

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

1

De

pth

1 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 2

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

2

De

pth

2 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 3

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

3

De

pth

3 (

mm

)

Pla

nts

An

imal

s

Gas

Sme

ll

C3.2 170 10YR/4/3 Brown Sand 170

Nil Burrows 0-100

mm Nil Nil

C3.3 115 10YR/4/3 Brown, core slightly

lighter towards surface Sand 115

Nil

Gastropod on surface

Nil Nil

C5.1 110 10YR/4/3 Brown Sand 20 10YR/4/1 Dark grey,


Sand 110


C5.2 150 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown,

core slightly lighter towards surface, dark patch 20-50 mm

Sand 150

Nil

Amphipods on surface,

polychaete and burrows 0-10 mm

Nil Nil

C5.3 150 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown,

core slightly lighter towards surface

Sand 150

Green algae

on surface

Amphipods on surface

Nil Nil

IF1 160

10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, core slightly lighter towards surface, black patches 0-10

mm, dark patches below 110 mm

Sand 160

Nil Amphipod on

surface Nil Nil

IF2 115

10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown, lighter brown patch 5-30 mm, large black patch 15-115 mm, black patches below 35 mm

Sand, fine silt

on surface

(~5 mm)

115

Nil Nil Nil Nil

IF3 170 10YR/4/2 Dark greyish brown,

faint dark patch 35-70 mm Sand 170

Nil Nil Nil Nil


dark patches 20-40 mm Sand 160



core slightly lighter towards surface, black patch 5-30 mm

Sand 140

Nil Nil Nil Nil

MF261 BLS SB3

30

Site

Len

gth

(m

m)

Co

lou

r 1

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

1

De

pth

1 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 2

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

2

De

pth

2 (

mm

)

Co

lou

r 3

(Mu

nse

ll

sco

re)

Sed

ime

nt

3

De

pth

3 (

mm

)

Pla

nts

An

imal

s

Gas

Sme

ll


black patch 5-35 mm, faint dark patches below 75 mm

Sand 150

Nil Polychaete and amphipod on

surface Nil Nil



Nil

Amphipod on surface

Nil Nil


core slightly lighter towards surface

Sand 165

Nil Nil Nil Nil


black patches 40-90 mm Sand 160

Nil

Polychaete and burrows 0-25 mm

Nil Nil



Nil

Polychaete on surface,

polychaete and burrows 0-80 mm

Nil Nil

MF261 BLS SB3

31

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 and Interpretation Sediment redox values at 30 mm sediment depth averaged 225 mV (Figure 6). 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 were 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. Bars represent mean redox potential (± SE error) across replicate cores (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites).

MF261 BLS SB3

32

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 commencing, using standards of known concentration. A calibration curve was produced using three standards of known concentration. Results and Interpretation Sulphide concentrations were generally very low at most sites and averaged 3.33 µM across all survey sites (Figure 7). No sites exceeded concentrations typical of organically enriched sediments (i.e. > 100 µM; Macleod and Forbes 2004) and sulphide concentrations were near zero for most samples, although slightly higher concentrations were measured at a small number of sites (e.g. site 1.1, 51.44 µM; site 3.2, 20.79 µM). These observations are also consistent with visual assessment results (Section 8.1) which showed darker anoxic patches that were evident in some sediment cores. Variation in sulphide concentration occasionally occurs when such anoxic patches are present and is considered a natural pattern. Raw data from sulphide analysis is included in Appendix 5.

Figure 7 Sulphide concentration in sediment core samples. Bars represent mean sulphide concentration (± SE error) across replicate cores (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites).

MF261 BLS SB3

33

8.4 Particle Size Analysis Methods The top 100 mm of each sediment core was homogenised and then 73-74 ml of sediment was sub-sampled for particle size determination. Results and Interpretation

Sediments across the area sampled were typically dominated by the ‘medium sand’ (0.25-0.5 mm; average 49.9% v/v across all sites) and ‘fine sand’ (0.125-0.25 mm; average 38.5% v/v across all sites) particle size fractions (Figure 8, Figure 9). Overall, the sediments contained a relatively low proportion of fine clay and silt fractions (i.e. <0.063 mm; average 2.7% across all sites). Patterns of particle size distribution were generally very similar between all compliance, control, and internal farm sites (Figure 8, Figure 9). Patterns of particle size distribution were indicative of a sedimentary environment with moderate-high agitation of seabed sediments and associated low abundance of fine silt and clay fractions. These patterns are considered typical of sediments in relatively deep (i.e. > 30 m) and exposed locations in the Storm Bay region. The similarity in particle size distribution between sites implies similar depositional environments. Raw data from particle size analysis is included in Appendix 6.

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 (n=3), control (n=3) and internal farm (n=10) sites.

MF261 BLS SB3

34

Figure 9 Mean particle size content (%) of the top 100 mm of sediment. Results represent % contribution of each sediment size category across replicate samples (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites).

MF261 BLS SB3

35

8.5 Organic Content

Methods A single undisturbed sediment core sample taken using a Perspex core with an internal diameter of at least 50 mm at each sample site specified in the survey 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 10. The organic content was low, ranging from 1.4% to 4.0%, with an average of 2.7% across all sites. These results are expected given the sandy sediments that typified sample locations. Organic content levels were consistent between sampling sites.

Figure 10 Organic content in sediment core samples. Bars represent mean organic content (± SE error) across replicate cores (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites).

MF261 BLS SB3

36

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 Results and Interpretation Results from the heavy metal analysis are summarised in Table 5. The ANZECC Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) trigger values were not exceeded for any of the analytes measured. Levels of Arsenic (As) approached the ANZECC ISQG ‘low’ trigger value (20 mg/kg) at some sites. For example, Arsenic values averaged 18.7 mg/kg for both compliance site 5 and control site C3. Heavy metal concentrations were generally comparable to those recorded previously from sediment sampling in the Trumpeter Bay region (e.g. Aquenal 2014, Aquenal 2015, Aquenal 2019a, Aquenal 2019b). Overall, there was no strong pattern of heavy metal concentration between compliance, control and internal farm sites for those heavy metals analysed. Raw data from heavy metal analysis is included in Appendix 6.

Table 5 Summary of heavy metal analysis of sediment samples and comparison with the ANZECC 2000 trigger values. Results represent mean concentrations (± SE error) across replicate cores (n=3 for compliance and control sites; n=10 for internal farm sites). Raw data is provided in Appendix 6.

Site Metal (mg/kg DMB)

As Cd Co Cr Cu Mn Ni Pb Zn

1 14.0 <0.5 1.0 13.3 1.3 59.0 3.0 11.3 24.3

2 13.7 <0.5 1.0 12.3 1.3 49.0 3.0 9.7 21.7

3 16.0 <0.5 1.0 14.0 1.3 63.7 3.0 11.0 23.7

4 17.0 <0.5 1.0 16.0 1.7 68.0 3.7 11.7 26.3

5 18.7 <0.5 1.0 17.0 2.0 64.7 3.3 12.0 27.7

6 17.0 <0.5 1.0 17.0 2.0 64.7 3.7 13.0 32.3

7 15.7 <0.5 1.3 17.0 2.0 72.7 3.7 13.3 33.0

8 14.7 <0.5 2.0 17.7 2.3 72.0 4.3 13.7 35.7

9 14.0 <0.5 2.0 17.0 2.3 75.7 4.0 13.7 38.7

10 14.3 <0.5 1.3 15.3 1.7 67.7 3.3 13.0 32.7

C3 18.7 <0.5 1.0 12.0 1.0 86.7 3.0 9.0 16.7

C5 6.0 <0.5 2.0 10.0 3.3 59.3 4.3 8.3 24.0

IF 16.5 <0.5 1.0 15.1 2.0 70.0 3.0 11.9 27.9

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 SB3

37

9 Targeted Gazameda gunnii Survey Methods A total of 30 sites were sampled for the targeted Gazameda gunnii survey. 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 11. No live shells were detected during the targeted G. gunnii survey. Fourteen individual dead shells/shell fragments of G. gunnii were collected and retained from eight sites. The shells were mostly small (<30 mm) and were generally scattered across the survey area (Figure 11, Figure 12). Three small live animals were also detected during the benthic infauna survey at site 1.2, IF5 and C5.1.

Figure 11 Location of grab samples taken during the targeted Gazameda gunnii survey for MF261 - Block SB3, highlighting the sample sites where dead shells were collected (G9, G11, G14, G17, G18, G21, G28, G29).

MF261 BLS SB3

38

The risk to Gazameda gunnii populations from aquaculture activities is considered to be negligible. Potential impacts to G. gunnii individuals inhabiting the lease area relate to installation of mooring infrastructure and organic enrichment of the benthos. However, such interactions are considered very unlikely due to the extremely low density of G. gunnii in the area. Furthermore, recent studies investigating the distribution of benthic molluscs have also found the species is more wide-spread than previously determined (Grove and Little 2014). Dredge surveys conducted across south east Tasmania concluded that G. gunnii ‘was by no means rare being recorded from almost half of all samples, generally as live individuals (Grove & Little, 2014).’ Overall, based on the extremely low densities in the area and widespread distribution of G. gunnii, the development poses a negligible threat to G. gunnii populations.

Figure 12 Photograph of dead G. gunnii shells collected during the survey of MF261-Block SB3.

MF261 BLS SB3

39

10 Biological Analysis – Benthic Infauna Methods Benthic infauna 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 internal, 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% buffered formalin. Benthic infauna were sorted and identified in the Aquenal laboratory. Benthic infauna 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). Grab samples were also aggregated and analysed for faunal dominance with K-Dominance Curves using the PRIMER software package (Clarke & Gorley 2001). Results and Interpretation

Abundance and patterns of diversity (family level richness) are summarised in Table 6 below (see Appendix 8 for raw data). The area possessed very high faunal diversity, with a total of 9458 individuals from 144 families identified across the 46 samples. Similarly high abundance and diversity of benthic infauna was recorded during previous surveys of nearby leases in the Trumpeter Bay region (Aquenal 2014, Aquenal 2015, Aquenal 2019a, Aquenal 2019b). Infauna communities were dominated by crustaceans, accounting for 51.0% of individuals and 37.5% of families identified. The remaining fauna was mainly comprised of molluscs (29.3% of individuals and 27.8% of families), polychaetes (14.5% of individuals and 20.8% of families) and echinoderms (1.1% of individuals and 5.6% of families). Other fauna, including brachiopods, nemerteans, nematodes, enteropneusta, anthozoans, platyhelminths, sipunculids, phoronids, and chordates, were recorded in relatively low numbers. Across all sites, the most common families recorded included Anabathridae (gastropod mollusc, 24.0% of individuals), Philomedidae (ostracod, 7.1% of individuals), Ampeliscidae (amphipod, 6.4% of individuals), Spionidae (polychaete, 6.2% of individuals) and Photidae (amphipod, 5.6% of individuals). Low numbers of introduced species were observed during the survey. Four introduced taxa were recorded, including the American spider crab Pyromaia tuberculata (9 individuals), the bivalve Varicorbula gibba (3 individuals), the European shore crab Carcinus maenas (1 individual), and the bivalve Raeta pulchella (1 individual). The capitellid Mediomastus sp. was recorded in low densities across approximately half the sites (48 individuals in total). Two individuals of another capitellid, Heteromastus sp., were recorded at compliance sites 1.1 and 7.1. These particular capitellid taxa are common and widespread in south-east Tasmania and are not regarded as pollution indicator species.

MF261 BLS SB3

40

The MDS analysis showed only minor variation between sites (Figure 13), with all of the compliance, control and internal farm sites grouping at the 40% similarity level (based on cluster analysis). At the 50% similarity level, two main groupings were evident. One group comprised all but one of the compliance and internal farm sites, along with control site C5. Two of the three replicates of control site C3 formed the second main grouping at the 50% similarity level. Control site C3 appeared to have a slightly higher proportion of crustaceans (64% of individuals) and a slightly lower proportion of molluscs (15% of individuals) compared to remaining sites.

Compliance site 2.3 formed a separate grouping to all other sites at the 50% similarity level. Both abundance and diversity were particularly low at site 2.3 (46 individuals, 20 families) compared to the remaining sites (average 209.2 individuals per site, average 43.2 families per site). Such a pattern is occasionally observed for individual grab samples due to inherent sampling and/or biological variability. The observed biological variation between control site C3 and the remaining sites is likely to be attributable to slight variation in depth and exposure, with this site located in a shallower depth than other sites. Dominance patterns as described by K-dominance plots are shown in Figure 14. Single taxa dominance patterns were low across all control, compliance and internal farm sites, ranging from 11.6% - 43.3%, with an overall average of 23.5%. These values fall within the range expected for unimpacted ecosystems, with relatively diverse communities and low levels of dominance by a single family (see Figure 14). 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 13 Results of MDS analysis using benthic infauna data collected from benthic grabs for MF261 – SB3. Symbols represent data from individual replicate samples for compliance, control and internal farm sites. Ellipses indicate community similarity (%) based on cluster analysis.

MF261 BLS SB3

41

Table 6 Summary of benthic faunal analysis. The category ‘other’ included brachiopods, nemerteans, nematodes, enteropneusta, anthozoans, platyhelminths, sipunculids, phoronids and chordates.

Site

Abundance

Diversity (Family level)

Cru

stac

ean

s

Mo

llusc

s

Po

lych

aete

s

Ech

ino

de

rms

Oth

er

Tota

l Ab

un

dan

ce

Ab

un

dan

ce p

er s

amp

le

Cru

stac

ean

s

Mo

llusc

s

Po

lych

aete

s

Ech

ino

de

rms

Oth

er

Tota

l tax

a

Nu

mb

er o

f ta

xa p

er

sam

ple

1 254 167 72 3 15 511 170.3

29 12 17 2 4 64 40.7

2 128 52 29 4 11 224 74.7

24 9 13 3 5 54 28.7

3 283 87 64 7 36 477 159.0

25 12 15 2 7 61 38.3

4 265 209 90 10 47 621 207.0

34 16 18 3 6 77 47.7

5 300 215 126 4 38 683 227.7

33 14 16 2 5 70 46.3

6 304 305 80 7 49 745 248.3

33 16 15 3 3 70 45.7

7 373 174 95 9 28 679 226.3

31 9 16 4 3 63 42.3

8 370 149 78 3 25 625 208.3

36 14 18 3 5 76 44.3

9 367 233 143 4 21 768 256.0

34 15 17 2 5 73 51.0

10 440 200 79 7 21 747 249.0

32 10 14 2 5 63 42.7

IF 1140 738 363 32 71 2344 234.4

41 23 21 7 8 100 45.0

C3 231 54 50 10 16 361 120.3

26 13 13 3 6 61 33.7

C5 365 191 99 5 13 673 224.3

34 18 16 2 4 74 42.7

Total 4820 2774 1368 105 391 9458 205.6

54 40 30 8 12 144 42.7

% 51.0 29.3 14.5 1.1 4.1 100.0

37.5 27.8 20.8 5.6 8.3 100

MF261 BLS SB3

42

Figure 14 Benthic infauna analysis of seabed samples at MF261 – SB3. K-dominance curves. Analysis based on pooled data for compliance (n=3), control (n=3) and internal farm (n=10) sites.

MF261 BLS SB3

43

11 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. Aquenal (2019a) Trumpeter Bay MF261 (Block SB2): Baseline environmental assessment. Final report (version 2.0). Report to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd. March 2019, 70pp. Aquenal (2019b) Trumpeter Bay MF281 – East of yellow Bluff: Baseline Environmental Assessment, Draft Final Report (version 1.0) June 2019, 97pp. 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 Grove S. and R. de Little (2014). Extensions for marine molluscs from dredging surveys off the Tasman and Forestier Peninsulas, south-east Tasmania. Kanunnah 7: 141-167.

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 SB3

44

Appendix 1 Survey coordinates for sediment sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55 (Datum GDA94)

Name Easting Northing


1.1 536742 5216746 IF1 536683 5216579

1.2 536761 5216739 IF2 536982 5216497

1.3 536780 5216733 IF3 536751 5216359

2.1 536973 5216671 IF4 536556 5216273

2.2 536992 5216665 IF5 536911 5216161

2.3 537011 5216659 IF6 536840 5215915

3.1 537126 5216311 IF7 536497 5216045

3.2 537119 5216292 IF8 536612 5215866

3.3 537113 5216272 IF9 536721 5215623

4.1 537032 5216024 IF10 536370 5215720

4.2 537026 5216005 C3.1 538239 5216408

4.3 537020 5215985 C3.2 538243 5216389

5.1 536940 5215739 C3.3 538248 5216368

5.2 536934 5215720 C5.1 535499 5215546

5.3 536927 5215701 C5.2 535504 5215526

6.1 536631 5215486 C5.3 535508 5215506

6.2 536612 5215492

6.3 536592 5215498

7.1 536400 5215561

7.2 536381 5215567

7.3 536362 5215573

8.1 536248 5215920

8.2 536254 5215939

8.3 536260 5215959

9.1 536341 5216207

9.2 536347 5216226

9.3 536353 5216246

10.1 536433 5216492

10.2 536440 5216511

10.3 536446 5216531

MF261 BLS SB3

45

Appendix 2 Survey coordinates for Gazameda gunnii sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55 (Datum GDA94)


G1 536606.2 5216659

G2 536908.4 5216563

G3 537021.5 5216351

G4 536721.2 5216446

G5 536508 5216342

G6 536815.7 5216248

G7 536919.5 5216034

G8 536841.7 5216125

G9 536606.2 5216155

G10 536400.5 5216025

G11 536715.6 5215921

G12 536819.4 5215725

G13 536519.1 5215816

G14 536309.6 5215712

G15 536619.2 5215610

G16 536773.1 5215562

G17 536469 5215654

G18 536352.2 5215869

G19 536669.3 5215769

G20 536869.5 5215884

G21 536574.7 5215973

G22 536446.8 5216198

G23 536647 5216073

G24 536769.4 5216084

G25 536971.4 5216196

G26 536667.4 5216292

G27 536554.3 5216505

G28 536875 5216401

G29 537075.3 5216511

G30 536765.7 5216607

MF261 BLS SB3

46

Appendix 3 Images of sediment cores

1.1-1.3 2.1-2.3

3.1-3.3 4.1-4.3

MF261 BLS SB3

47

5.1-5.3 6.1-6.3

7.1-7.3 8.1-8.3

MF261 BLS SB3

48

9.1-9.3 10.1-10.3

C1.1-C3.3 C5.1-C5.3

MF261 BLS SB3

49

IF1-3 IF4-6

IF7-9 IF10

MF261 BLS SB3

50

Appendix 4 Redox potential – raw data

Site Uncorrected Redox (mV)

Corrected Redox (mV)

1.1 -14 228

1.2 59 301

1.3 -39 203

2.1 -77 165

2.2 -49 193

2.3 -127 115

3.1 -108 134

3.2 33 275

3.3 10 252

4.1 96 338

4.2 -5 237

4.3 -24 218

5.1 -14 228

5.2 -77 165

5.3 -52 190

6.1 -42 200

6.2 -30 212

6.3 -108 134

7.1 -36 206

7.2 68 310

7.3 -40 202

8.1 61 303

8.2 59 301

8.3 -74 168

9.1 5 241

9.2 -11 225

9.3 -27 209

10.1 14 250

10.2 -17 219

10.3 85 321

C3.1 8 244

C3.2 105 341

C3.3 47 283

C5.1 24 260

C5.2 -83 153

C5.3 27 263

IF1 -5 231

IF2 -52 184

IF3 -72 164

IF4 -46 190

IF5 -52 184

IF6 57 293

IF7 58 294

IF8 -89 147

IF9 -96 140

IF10 14 250

MF261 BLS SB3

51

Appendix 5 Sulphide concentration - raw data

Site mV reading Sulphide (µM)

1.1 -724 51.44

1.2 -649 0.18

1.3 -684 2.51

2.1 -635 0.06

2.2 -656 0.30

2.3 -680 1.86

3.1 -695 5.76

3.2 -712 20.79

3.3 -683 2.33

4.1 -662 0.48

4.2 -692 4.59

4.3 -684 2.51

5.1 -686 2.92

5.2 -683 2.33

5.3 -695 5.76

6.1 -663 0.51

6.2 -644 0.12

6.3 -680 1.86

7.1 -691 4.26

7.2 -687 3.15

7.3 -646 0.14

8.1 -681 2.00

8.2 -672 1.02

8.3 -667 0.70

9.1 -677 1.12

9.2 -643 0.08

9.3 -680 1.41

10.1 -683 1.78

10.2 -665 0.45

10.3 -663 0.38

C3.1 -596 0.00

C3.2 -587 0.00

C3.3 -524 0.00

C5.1 -699 6.06

C5.2 -696 4.81

C5.3 -615 0.01

IF1 -695 4.46

IF2 -696 4.81

IF3 -693 3.82

IF4 -660 0.30

IF5 -679 1.31

IF6 -637 0.05

IF7 -671 0.71

IF8 -684 1.92

IF9 -681 1.52

IF10 -668 0.56

MF261 BLS SB3

52

Appendix 6 Particle size analysis – raw data

Sample No.

Vi V4 V2 V1 V0.5 V0.25 V0.125 V0.063 Volume of water

ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml 1.1 68.0 25.1 25.3 25.7 27.2 46.1 88.0 90.3 25

1.2 66.0 25.0 25.1 25.3 27.9 63.6 89.2 90.7 25

1.3 66.0 25.0 25.1 25.4 27.5 64.9 85.8 89.4 25

2.1 66.0 25.0 25.0 25.2 26.4 69.0 88.9 90.6 25

2.2 65.0 25.0 25.1 25.3 27.1 69.0 86.1 88.6 25

2.3 66.0 25.0 25.3 25.3 27.5 55.0 87.8 90.8 25

3.1 63.0 25.1 25.3 25.5 27.0 66.2 81.1 87.7 25

3.2 65.0 25.4 26.2 27.8 29.3 60.9 86.5 89.2 25

3.3 66.0 25.0 25.1 25.2 26.2 53.0 84.8 87.1 25

4.1 65.0 25.0 25.0 25.1 26.0 44.3 84.9 89.8 25

4.2 66.0 25.0 25.2 25.7 27.1 51.1 85.6 90.2 25

4.3 68.0 25.1 25.2 25.5 26.4 49.6 86.1 90.4 25

5.1 67.0 25.0 25.0 25.2 26.3 37.1 86.3 91.1 25

5.2 65.0 25.1 25.1 25.2 26.8 38.4 83.7 88.6 25

5.3 64.0 25.1 25.1 25.9 27.8 53.6 81.6 87.9 25

6.1 65.0 25.2 25.6 25.9 27.0 67.9 86.6 90.0 25

6.2 66.0 25.2 25.2 25.4 27.0 69.0 85.4 90.2 25

6.3 65.0 25.1 25.4 26.0 27.5 64.2 87.0 88.9 25

7.1 67.0 25.2 25.3 26.0 27.8 72.1 87.3 89.9 25

7.2 65.0 25.0 25.1 25.3 29.1 61.9 80.1 84.9 25

7.3 66.0 25.0 25.1 25.3 27.7 73.7 87.6 90.3 25

8.1 64.0 25.0 25.1 25.5 27.3 61.9 85.7 88.0 25

8.2 66.0 25.1 25.1 25.8 27.3 70.0 86.9 90.6 25

8.3 65.0 25.0 25.1 25.7 28.4 64.2 86.2 89.0 25

9.1 61.0 25.4 25.6 26.0 28.1 68.1 83.7 85.1 25

9.2 65.0 25.1 25.1 25.4 26.6 55.7 77.0 83.6 25

9.3 66.0 25.0 25.2 25.4 26.9 60.1 85.2 90.2 25

10.1 65.0 25.1 25.3 25.8 26.7 61.7 83.6 89.8 25

10.2 64.0 25.8 25.9 26.1 27.0 63.8 84.7 88.2 25

10.3 66.0 25.2 25.3 25.5 26.9 59.9 81.6 89.7 25

C3.1 65.0 25.0 25.1 25.3 26.9 54.4 85.2 87.8 25

C3.2 64.0 25.1 25.3 26.7 28.6 58.1 85.6 88.1 25

C3.3 65.0 25.0 25.0 25.2 26.1 69.0 87.2 89.9 25

C5.1 68.0 25.0 25.0 25.4 26.5 61.2 81.6 89.7 25

C5.2 66.0 25.0 25.0 25.5 27.1 53.7 85.0 87.9 25

C5.3 67.0 25.1 25.3 25.8 27.1 60.6 85.7 90.3 25

IF1 65.0 25.1 25.2 25.2 25.9 59.7 78.4 81.0 25

IF2 64.0 26.0 26.1 26.3 27.2 51.2 78.3 83.7 25

IF3 66.0 25.1 25.3 25.8 29.3 51.3 88.7 89.2 25

IF4 65.0 25.0 25.0 25.2 26.5 67.1 88.2 89.7 25

IF5 67.0 25.0 25.1 25.4 26.9 64.5 89.3 91.6 25

IF6 67.0 25.2 25.3 25.8 27.5 59.0 86.7 89.8 25

IF7 68.0 25.0 25.1 25.3 26.0 59.9 83.6 87.0 25

IF8 67.0 25.1 25.2 25.5 27.0 75.0 86.8 89.2 25

IF9 66.0 25.0 25.0 25.1 27.7 54.7 88.5 90.6 25

IF10 69.0 25.0 25.1 25.8 29.9 64.0 89.7 92.9 25

MF261 BLS SB3

53

Appendix 7 Heavy metal analysis – raw data

Site Metal (mg/kg DMB)

As Cd Co Cr Cu Mn Ni Pb Zn

1.1 14 <0.5 1 14 2 62 3 12 28

1.2 14 <0.5 1 12 1 63 3 10 21

1.3 14 <0.5 1 14 1 52 3 12 24

2.1 13 <0.5 1 12 1 44 3 9 20

2.2 13 <0.5 1 13 2 48 3 11 25

2.3 15 <0.5 1 12 1 55 3 9 20

3.1 17 <0.5 1 14 1 65 3 10 22

3.2 16 <0.5 1 14 1 75 3 11 24

3.3 15 <0.5 1 14 2 51 3 12 25

4.1 19 <0.5 1 18 2 89 5 13 31

4.2 16 <0.5 1 15 2 62 3 11 24

4.3 16 <0.5 1 15 1 53 3 11 24

5.1 18 <0.5 1 17 2 73 4 12 27

5.2 19 <0.5 1 17 2 60 3 12 28

5.3 19 <0.5 1 17 2 61 3 12 28

6.1 17 <0.5 1 17 2 70 3 13 32

6.2 18 <0.5 1 17 2 62 4 13 32

6.3 16 <0.5 1 17 2 62 4 13 33

7.1 16 <0.5 2 17 2 73 4 13 33

7.2 15 <0.5 1 17 2 80 4 14 35

7.3 16 <0.5 1 17 2 65 3 13 31

8.1 14 <0.5 2 19 3 67 5 13 36

8.2 15 <0.5 2 17 2 71 4 14 36

8.3 15 <0.5 2 17 2 78 4 14 35

9.1 14 <0.5 2 16 2 71 4 13 37

9.2 14 <0.5 2 18 3 75 4 14 41

9.3 14 <0.5 2 17 2 81 4 14 38

10.1 13 <0.5 2 16 2 68 4 14 37

10.2 14 <0.5 1 14 1 55 3 12 30

10.3 16 <0.5 1 16 2 80 3 13 31

C3.1 18 <0.5 1 12 1 80 3 9 16

C3.2 19 <0.5 1 12 1 92 3 9 17

C3.3 19 <0.5 1 12 1 88 3 9 17

C5.1 6 <0.5 2 10 4 68 4 9 26

C5.2 6 <0.5 2 11 3 56 5 9 25

C5.3 6 <0.5 2 9 3 54 4 7 21

IF1 17 <0.5 1 14 2 77 3 12 27

IF2 17 <0.5 1 14 2 78 3 13 25

IF3 17 <0.5 1 15 2 70 3 12 26

IF4 15 <0.5 1 16 2 72 3 13 31

IF5 17 <0.5 1 14 2 49 3 11 24

IF6 19 <0.5 1 16 2 79 3 11 25

IF8 14 <0.5 1 15 2 51 3 11 28

IF9 19 <0.5 1 16 2 62 3 11 28

IF10 15 <0.5 1 15 2 82 3 12 31

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 SB3

54

Appendix 8 Raw data: Benthic Infauna

Phylum 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

10

10

IF1

IF2

IF3

IF4

IF5

IF6

IF7

IF8

IF9

IF1

0

C3

.1

C3

.2

C3

.3

C5

.1

C5

.2

C5

.3

Total

Brachiopoda Brachiopoda (Phylum) 1 2 14 3 4 11 12 15 9 1 9 28 4 11 8 7 7 2 5 5 1 4 8 1 3 3 2 1 181

Arthropoda Ampeliscidae 8 17 3 7 2 5 20 10 6 3 8 17 22 11 8 14 18 11 24 17 13 26 6 21 11 26 20 18 11 10 9 17 10 12 11 10 23 29 9 24 1 2 18 23 11 602

Arthropoda Amphilochidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Arthropoda Aoridae 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 5 2 5 1 9 5 8 6 1 1 3 5 1 3 4 5 11 1 2 1 4 3 108

Arthropoda Corophidae 1 1 1 1 4 6 14

Arthropoda Dexaminidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 12

Arthropoda Eusiridae 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 5 5 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 53

Arthropoda Lysianassidae 3 5 4 5 3 2 1 11 2 2 5 4 7 2 5 3 9 4 11 1 3 1 1 10 11 7 4 6 4 5 5 4 6 10 2 5 4 4 5 4 4 9 9 5 3 220

Arthropoda Maeridae 2 1 1 1 5

Arthropoda Melitidae 2 1 1 4

Arthropoda Melphidippidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 11

Arthropoda Ochlesidae 1 1 2

Arthropoda Oedicerotidae 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16

Arthropoda Photidae 15 12 6 5 7 3 13 9 9 8 9 8 11 13 6 13 11 17 12 20 22 12 5 10 5 14 3 15 12 5 3 9 29 13 8 7 3 11 10 6 14 32 30 5 21 16 527

Arthropoda Phoxocephalidae 4 12 5 3 3 2 9 9 8 13 10 4 15 14 7 6 10 14 8 9 4 8 8 9 11 9 6 20 8 2 8 7 12 4 7 8 5 18 6 11 6 1 2 11 14 9 379

Arthropoda Platyischnopidae 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 5 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 4 1 3 4 3 1 2 49

Arthropoda Podoceridae 1 1 2

Arthropoda Synopidae 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 5 1 1 3 3 1 6 5 1 3 3 8 1 4 1 3 10 3 2 1 2 1 85

Arthropoda Urohaustoriidae 1 1 1 3

Arthropoda Leucosiidae 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 10

Arthropoda Inachoididae - Pyromaia tuberculata 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9

Arthropoda Portunidae - Carcinus maenis 1 1

Arthropoda Hexapodidae 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 14

Arthropoda Caprellidae 1 1 2

Arthropoda Crangonidae 1 1

Arthropoda Galatheidae 1 1

Arthropoda Munidopsidae 1 1

Arthropoda Palaemonidae 1 1

Arthropoda Paguridae 6 1 2 1 3 14 2 1 1 6 1 9 6 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 3 47 2 4 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 4 2 145

MF261 BLS SB3

55

Appendix 8 (continued) Raw data: Benthic Infauna

Phylum 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

10

10

IF

1

IF

2

IF

3

IF

4

IF

5

IF

6

IF

7

IF

8

IF

9

IF

10

C3

.1

C3

.2

C3

.3

C5

.1

C5

.2

C5

.3

Total

Arthropoda Pasiphaeidae 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 31

Arthropoda Arcturidae 1 3 1 2 2 3 5 1 7 5 2 3 7 2 1 2 3 9 3 6 1 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 5 1 4 7 2 102

Arthropoda Cirolanidae 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16

Arthropoda Paranthuridae 2 3 5 3 2 1 3 1 3 7 2 7 9 10 4 1 2 2 2 2 5 2 3 4 2 4 3 8 5 5 3 3 2 3 2 7 3 2 2 2 2 1 144

Arthropoda Serolidae 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 10

Arthropoda Sphaeromatide 1 1 2

Arthropoda Nebaliidae 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 1 6 2 1 2 3 1 3 4 67

Arthropoda Cylindroleberididae 2 1 1 1 2 20 1 2 7 1 2 2 5 6 3 5 5 5 2 3 2 4 1 1 3 2 1 4 2 7 4 3 1 2 3 3 119

Arthropoda Cypridinidae 3 6 4 2 4 1 1 3 8 4 2 3 4 1 10 1 4 15 9 4 11 1 10 3 11 5 10 11 6 1 4 7 2 9 6 6 8 13 7 4 5 5 6 6 246

Arthropoda Myodocopa (SCl.) 1 1

Arthropoda Philomedidae 14 9 22 15 10 10 14 20 17 21 19 18 13 17 14 8 14 4 10 5 5 11 11 14 8 14 10 11 17 16 5 12 23 3 27 30 4 13 19 9 20 18 15 29 29 22 669

Arthropoda Rutidermatidae 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 10 5 8 3 4 8 6 5 5 2 9 3 1 3 3 1 5 1 4 8 1 112

Arthropoda Sarsiellidae 3 6 1 1 3 2 4 1 1 4 1 7 2 4 2 5 3 3 7 4 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 4 95

Arthropoda Apseudidae 1 2 1 1 1 6

Arthropoda Kalliapseudidae 2 2 4 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 4 2 4 2 7 3 1 2 3 1 3 2 7 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 4 1 87

Arthropoda Leptocheliidae 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 10 1 1 3 9 2 2 1 1 43

Arthropoda Metapseudidae 2 1 3

Arthropoda Pagurapseudidae 1 1 1 1 4 12 1 12 1 12 31 7 3 2 8 28 46 21 48 23 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 276

Arthropoda Whiteleggiidae 3 9 2 2 2 2 11 3 5 3 3 7 10 4 4 1 17 9 4 7 17 18 10 6 2 4 4 1 2 1 3 1 8 5 5 8 6 2 211

Arthropoda Bodotriidae 2 5 3 2 1 1 6 11 1 4 4 3 9 3 1 4 8 4 3 8 4 6 2 2 1 12 5 6 7 4 2 6 3 14 4 1 14 2 5 2 7 3 13 208

Arthropoda Diastylidae 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 46

Arthropoda Gynodiastylidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 24

Arthropoda Lampropidae 1 1

Arthropoda Leuconidae 1 2 1 1 1 6

Arthropoda Nannastacidae 1 1

Arthropoda Pseudocumatidae 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 11

MF261 BLS SB3

56


Phylum 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

10

10

IF1

IF2

IF3

IF4

IF5

IF6

IF7

IF8

IF9

IF1

0

C3

.1

C3

.2

C3

.3

C5

.1

C5

.2

C5

.3

Total

Echinodermata Asterinidae 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 11

Echinodermata Loveniidae 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 38

Echinodermata Temnopleuridae 1 1

Echinodermata Cucumariidae 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8

Echinodermata Caudinidae 1 1

Echinodermata Synaptidae 1 1 1 3

Echinodermata Ophiuridae 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 41

Echinodermata Amphiuridae 1 1 2

Mollusca Anabathridae 40 57 42 20 10 5 23 22 22 53 58 55 81 42 53 103 103 58 59 40 47 45 16 56 77 67 36 69 55 49 12 16 140 31 111 75 39 38 101 51 4 18 13 61 52 42 2267

Mollusca Columbellidae 1 1 1 2 5 6 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 4 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 60

Mollusca Eatoniellidae 1 1 2

Mollusca Epitoniidae 1 1 2 1 1 6

Mollusca Facelinidae 1 1

Mollusca Marginellidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 14

Mollusca Muricidae 1 1 1 1 1 5

Mollusca Naticidae 1 1 2

Mollusca Olividae 1 2 3

Mollusca Pleurobranchaeidae 1 1

Mollusca Pyramidellidae 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 41

Mollusca Retusidae 1 1 1 1 1 5

Mollusca Terebridae 1 1

Mollusca Tornidae 1 1 2

Mollusca Turritellidae - Colpospira sp. 1 1

Mollusca Turritellidae - Gazameda gunnii 1 1 1 3

Mollusca Volutomitridae 1 1 1 1 4

Mollusca Chaetodermatidae 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 5 1 3 1 1 29

Mollusca Cardiidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Mollusca Carditidae 1 1 2

Mollusca Condylocardiidae 1 2 1 1 1 1 7

Mollusca Corbulidae 1 2 3

Mollusca Cuspidariidae 1 1 2

MF261 BLS SB3

57


Phylum 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

10

10

IF1

IF2

IF3

IF4

IF5

IF6

IF7

IF8

IF9

IF1

0

C3

.1

C3

.2

C3

.3

C5

.1

C5

.2

C5

.3

Total

Mollusca Galeommatidae 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 17

Mollusca Glycymerididae 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 23

Mollusca Hiatellidae 1 1

Mollusca Laternulidae 1 1

Mollusca Limidae 1 1

Mollusca Lucinidae 1 1

Mollusca Mactridae 1 1

Mollusca Myochamidae 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 9

Mollusca Mytilidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Mollusca Nuculanidae 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 7 6 4 3 4 6 5 1 1 2 4 6 3 6 5 3 2 3 1 1 30 2 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 136

Mollusca Nuculidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10

Mollusca Psammobiidae 1 1

Mollusca Tellinidae 1 1

Mollusca Thraciidae 1 1

Mollusca Trigoniidae 1 1

Mollusca Veneridae 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 3 1 44

Mollusca Gadilidae 5 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 4 2 1 1 4 7 7 3 2 52

Phoronida Phoronida (Phylum) 1 1 1 1 4

Platyhelminthes Platyhelminthes (Phylum) 1 1 2

Sipuncula Phascolionidae 2 1 2 5

Sipuncula Sipuncula (Phylum) 1 1

Cnidaria Actiniidae 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 4 2 41

Cnidaria Edwardsiidae 1 1 1 1 4

Chordata Larval Fish sp. 1 1

Hemichordata Ptychoderidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 13

Nematoda Nematoda (Phylum) 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 13

Nemertea Nemertea (Phylum) 3 4 5 4 1 2 5 8 3 5 1 3 3 3 2 5 3 4 3 3 1 1 2 7 2 1 3 1 2 6 4 5 1 4 3 1 6 4 1 125

MF261 BLS SB3

58


Phylum 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

10

10

IF1

IF2

IF3

IF4

IF5

IF6

IF7

IF8

IF9

IF1

0

C3

.1

C3

.2

C3

.3

C5

.1

C5

.2

C5

.3

Total

Annelida Oligochaeta 1 1

Annelida Ampharetidae 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 2 2 1 7 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 1 3 3 3 2 1 2 55

Annelida Amphinomidae 1 1 2

Annelida Capitellidae - Heteromastus sp. 1 1 2

Annelida Capitellidae - Mediomastus sp. 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 13 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 48

Annelida Chaetopteridae 4 1 5

Annelida Cirratulidae 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 4 3 1 5 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 5 2 1 64

Annelida Dorvilleidae 1 1

Annelida Flabelligeridae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Annelida Glyceridae 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 18

Annelida Hesionidae 1 1

Annelida Lumbrineridae 1 1 2

Annelida Magelonidae 1 1 1 3

Annelida Maldanidae 1 1 3 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 32

Annelida Nephtyidae 1 1 1 4 3 4 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 4 1 3 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 55

Annelida Nereidae 1 1

Annelida Onuphidae 3 9 1 1 3 7 3 4 5 5 5 10 5 2 5 2 4 3 4 2 2 5 1 7 11 2 6 9 3 9 3 5 10 4 6 4 6 4 1 6 5 11 203

Annelida Opheliidae 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 20

Annelida Orbiniidae 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 16

Annelida Oweniidae 1 1 1 1 4

Annelida Paraonidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 13

Annelida Pectinariidae 1 2 4 3 3 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 3 2 1 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 61

Annelida Phyllodocidae 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 19

Annelida Sabellidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7

Annelida Scalibregmatidae 2 2 1 1 6

Annelida Sigalionidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 16

Annelida Sphaerodoridae 1 1

Annelida Spionidae 7 8 14 8 1 4 5 7 9 6 15 17 19 17 17 7 4 22 22 26 10 14 9 9 13 28 16 9 17 4 3 12 22 7 15 13 22 19 15 28 4 2 13 5 33 14 591

Annelida Syllidae 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 3 1 6 4 1 1 61

Annelida Terebellidae 1 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 19

Annelida Trichobranchidae 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 35

159 197 155 111 67 46 153 189 135 203 205 213 304 216 163 238 301 206 277 222 180 268 93 264 244 299 225 265 279 203 93 136 432 140 295 291 170 266 267 254 96 125 140 207 264 202 9458

42 46 34 39 27 20 43 37 35 47 46 50 57 43 39 42 50 45 42 47 38 50 30 53 46 55 52 40 44 44 36 44 46 37 48 55 38 48 49 49 29 35 37 34 49 45 144

25.2 28.9 27.1 18.0 14.9 21.7 15.0 11.6 16.3 26.1 28.3 25.8 26.6 19.4 32.5 43.3 34.2 28.2 21.3 18.0 26.1 16.8 17.2 21.2 31.6 22.4 16.0 26.0 19.7 24.1 12.9 12.5 32.4 22.1 37.6 25.8 22.9 14.3 37.8 20.1 20.8 25.6 21.4 29.5 19.7 20.8 24.0

Abundance

Richness (Family)

Dominance (single family)

Documents

Baseline Final Report - Aquenal - Huon Aquaculture · Patterns of particle size distribution were indicative of a sedimentary environment with moderate-high agitation of seabed sediments