baseline final report - aquenal - huon aquaculture · 2020. 2. 18. · trumpeter bay mf261 - block...

TRUMPETER BAY MF261 - Block SB2: BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DRAFT FINAL REPORT (VERSION 2.0) March 2019

Report to: Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd

Prepared by: AQUENAL PTY LTD

A Q U E N A L

www.aquenal.com.au

MF261 BLS SB2 March 2019

Document Distribution

Date Name Company Document

Type Version Copies

8 March 2019 Adam Smark Huon Aquaculture

Group Pty Ltd Electronic 1.0 1

8 March 2019 Mark Churchill EPA Electronic 1.0 1

18 March 2019 Adam Smark Huon Aquaculture

Group Pty Ltd Electronic 2.0 1

18 March 2019 Mark Churchill EPA Electronic 2.0 1

COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of

Aquenal Pty Ltd. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written

permission of Aquenal Pty Ltd constitutes an infringement of copyright.

DISCLAIMER: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Aquenal

Pty Ltd’s client and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement

between Aquenal Pty Ltd and its Client. Aquenal Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility

whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.


Contents

1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2 Operational Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 9

3 Location and Survey Maps ...................................................................................................................................... 10

4 Current Measurements ........................................................................................................................................... 11

5 Bathymetric Profile ................................................................................................................................................. 15

6 Seabed Characteristics and habitat profile ............................................................................................................. 16

7 Underwater Video Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 17 7.1 Filming summary ............................................................................................................................................. 17 7.2 Observations from filming ............................................................................................................................... 17

8 Sediment Chemistry ................................................................................................................................................ 25 8.1 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... 25 8.2 Redox Potential ............................................................................................................................................... 30 8.3 Sulphide Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 30 8.4 Particle Size Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 31 8.5 Organic Content .............................................................................................................................................. 33 8.6 Heavy Metal Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 33

9 Gazameda gunnii survey ......................................................................................................................................... 36

10 Biological Analysis - Benthic Fauna ......................................................................................................................... 38

11 Inshore Reef Surveys ............................................................................................................................................... 42

12 Deep Reef Surveys................................................................................................................................................... 48

13 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 51

List of Figures Figure 1 Location and Survey Map – MF261 – SB2, Trumpeter Bay. Sites 1.1 – 10.1 indicate the 35 m compliance

triplicates, c2n – c6 indicate control triplicates; IF1-IF10 indicate internal sites. Red line = zone boundary; black rectangle = amended SB2 lease boundary; dashed black rectangle = old SB2 lease boundary. Survey coordinates are included in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2. ........................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2 Polar plots of current velocity and direction, T2 (May – June 2014). The plots are read as if the current flow moves from the outer circle towards the centre of the graph. .............................................................................. 13

Figure 3 Polar plots of current velocity and direction, T4 (May – June 2014). The plots are read as if the current flow moves from the outer circle towards the centre of the graph. .............................................................................. 14

Figure 4 Bathymetric profile for MF261 – SB2. Green line indicates the lease boundary. ............................................... 15 Figure 5 Survey habitat map. Red outline – Zone boundary; black rectangle – Amended lease or block boundary for

MF261 – SB2............................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 6 Redox potential at 30 mm depth in sediment cores. ......................................................................................... 30 Figure 7 Sulphide concentrations in sediment core samples. .......................................................................................... 31 Figure 8 Particle size analyses of the top 100 mm of sediment. Lines represent mean percentage cumulative volume

for size fractions at each site, based on pooled replicates for compliance and control sites (n=3). For internal farm sites, lines represent cumulative volume based on a single sample from each site. ..................................... 32

Figure 9 Organic content in sediment core samples ........................................................................................................ 33 Figure 10 Location of grab samples taken during Gazameda gunnii survey for MF261 - Block SB2, highlighting the

sample sites where dead shells were collected (10, 19, 28, 30, 32, 37 and 38). Note that sites G1-G30 were sampled in July 2015, while G31-G38 were sampled in January 2019. .................................................................. 36


Figure 11 Photograph of dead G. gunnii shells collected during the survey of MF261-Block SB2, from 2015 (a) and 2019 (b) surveys. .............................................................................................................................................................. 37

Figure 12 Results of MDS analysis using benthic infauna data collected from three replicate grabs at each compliance and control site for MF261 – SB2. Green ellipses indicate community similarity at the level of 50%, based on cluster analysis. ....................................................................................................................................................... 39

Figure 13 Benthic faunal analysis of seabed samples – MF261 – SB2. K – dominance curves. Analysis based on pooled triplicate data for compliance and control sites and single samples taken at internal farm sites. ......................... 41

Figure 14 Survey map showing locations of Edgar-Barrett (R1-R3) and deep reef (R4a-R4b) survey locations. Black rectangle – Amended lease or block boundary for MF261 – SB2. .......................................................................... 43

Figure 15. Representative habitats along deep reef survey transect. .............................................................................. 48

List of Tables Table 1 Summarised current and velocity data for Trumpeter T2 (May 2014) and T4 (March 2014). ............................. 12

Table 2 Descriptions of dives performed at MF261 – Block SB2. ..................................................................................... 17

Table 3 Description of each ROV dive performed at Trumpeter Bay MF261 – Block SB2. Video analysis and interpretation provided by Huon Aquaculture. ...................................................................................................... 21

Table 4 Visual description of sediment cores at MF261 – Block SB2. .............................................................................. 26

Table 5 Results of heavy metal analysis of sediment samples and the ANZECC 2000 trigger values. .............................. 35

Table 6 Summary of benthic faunal analysis. The category ‘other’ included anthozoans, brachiopods, nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, platyhelminths and sipunculids. ..................................................................................... 40

Table 7 Summary of macroalgal survey results. Data represent mean % cover across 20 replicate 0.25 m2 quadrats per site. The column FG% represents the average % cover for each functional group. ............................................... 45

Table 8 Summary of fish survey results. Data represent total abundance for the 2000 m2 survey area at each site. .... 46

Table 9 Summary of invertebrates and cryptic fish survey results. Data represent total abundance for the 200 m2 survey area at each site. .......................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 10. Summary of seabed characteristics along deep reef survey transect. ............................................................. 49

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

GDA94). ................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Appendix 2 Survey coordinates for Gazameda gunnii sampling, based on the Mapping Grid of Australia Zone 55

(Datum GDA94). ...................................................................................................................................................... 53 Appendix 3 Images of sediment cores .............................................................................................................................. 54 Appendix 4 Redox potential, measured in millivolts from 3cm depth in the sediment cores. ........................................ 58 Appendix 5 Sulphide analysis, measured in sediments at 3 cm from sediment surface. ................................................. 59 Appendix 6 Particle size analysis – raw data .................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix 7 Raw Data: Benthic infauna ............................................................................................................................ 61 Appendix 8 Raw Data - Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Macroalgae percentage cover................................................................ 64 Appendix 9 Raw Data - Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Fish and invertebrates ............................................................................ 67 Appendix 10 Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Images of representative habitats at inshore reef sites R1, R2 and R3. ................. 68 Appendix 11 Deep reef survey: Images of representative habitats. ................................................................................ 69


1 Summary

Trumpeter Bay Marine Farming Lease No. 261 Block SB2 (MF261 – Block SB2) is located in Storm Bay in southeast Tasmania. In accordance with the EPA Schedule of Requirements for Salmonid Finfish Baseline Environmental Survey, a finfish baseline environmental survey was required prior to commencement of aquaculture operations. It should be noted that a baseline survey was conducted on the lease in 2015, however, the lease orientation and size has been amended since the 2015 survey. This interim baseline survey report incorporates information relating to the amended lease configuration for MF261 – Block SB2. Current flow data were collected by Huon Aquaculture. In order to measure localised current movement, an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) was deployed inside the boundary of MF261 – Block SB2 (“T2”) from 9th May 2014 to 27th June 2014 and approximately 4 km south of MF261 – Block SB2 (“T4”) from 15th February 2014 to 4th April 2014. Predominant flow direction over the range of depth bins for the survey periods differed from SW-NE for the May 2014 T2 deployment, through to more N-S for the March 2014 T4 deployment. It is not clear whether these differences were due to the positions of the ADCP deployments or to seasonal effects/prevailing weather. The currents closer to the surface appeared to be generally the opposite with a strong southerly component for the T4 deployment in March 2014 and a diffuse but more northerly directionality for the T2 deployment. Differences in current patterns also were evident in relation to depth. For T2 in May, currents from the SW direction were dominant in deeper depths (i.e. > 12 m), with NE flows also an important component of overall current patterns. Surface (i.e. < 12 m) currents in May at T2 tended to be more dominated by NW flows, presumably as a result of localised wind driven circulation. Depth related patterns were not as strong at T4 in March, although surface flows tended to be dominated by southerly flows, with a more even spread of opposing N-S flows measured in deeper depths. Baseline information on the seafloor appearance and sediments at MF261 – Block 2 was collected by Huon Aquaculture on 21-22nd January 2019. Filming of the seabed was conducted with a Remote Observation Vehicle (ROV). As for previous baseline surveys for Trumpeter Bay lease 261, all sites shared the common features of rippled relatively coarse sand with shell grit and the occasional dead mollusc shell. The fauna was generally depauperate, consisting mainly of Maoricolpus roseus (New Zealand screw shell), with the very occasional sycozoan and moderate numbers and spread of hermit crabs and other crabs. There were also brittle stars noted towards the NE of the lease (sites 2, 4 and 5) and at the northern control site. There were only the occasional, reasonably randomly distributed fish sighted during the survey, these were composed of a few small benthic fish (suspected gobies), flathead, sea moths, flounder and a skate. All sites contained drift algae, although some fine algae were attached to old shells and sediments. The only introduced species identified during the ROV survey were M. roseus and the Northern Pacific Seastar Asterias amurensis. A single A. amurensis was observed at sites 9.2 and 9.3 and Maoricolpus appeared at most sites but was most numerous at sites 8.1-8.3. There were no threatened species detected during the ROV survey. Visual assessment showed that sediments were generally very similar across sampling sites. Sediments were typically sandy and brown in colour in the surface layers, grading to dark grey with increasing sediment depth. Faint dark streaks were evident in the deeper sections of many cores. The sandy nature of the sediments indicates that wave action regularly influences the seabed sediments and the rate of deposition of finer sediment fractions is low. Dark patches were


evident in the deeper layers of cores at many sites. Dark patches were typically below 20 mm sediment depth, indicative of anoxic patches in deeper sections of core samples. Such a pattern is not considered evidence of organic enrichment, and is relatively common in circumstances where sandy, well compacted sediments are present. Sediment redox values at 30 mm sediment depth averaged 187 mV. There was no strong pattern of redox potential in relation to compliance, control or internal farm sites. The observed relatively high redox values at all sites are indicative of well oxygenated sediments. Sulphide concentrations were generally very low at most sites, averaging 9.74 µM across all sites. While no sites exceeded concentrations typical of organically enriched sediments (i.e. > 100 µM; Macleod and Forbes 2004), relatively high levels were measured at some sites (e.g. compliance site 4.2, IF1). These patterns are also consistent with visual assessment results showing darker anoxic patches that were evident in some cores. Patterns of particle size distribution were indicative of a sedimentary environment with moderate agitation of seabed sediments and associated low abundance of fine silt and clay fractions. Sediments across the area sampled were typically dominated by ‘medium sand’ (0.25 mm; average 41.5 % v/v across all sites) and ‘fine sand’ (0.125 mm; average 39.7 % v/v across all sites) particle size fractions. Overall, the sediments contained a relatively low proportion of fine clay and silt fractions (i.e. < 0.063 mm; average 4% v/v across all sites). Particle size distribution at control site C6 was different to the remaining sites, with a higher proportion of finer sized fractions. At site C6 the 0.063 mm and <0.063 mm size fractions accounted for 38% of sediment, compared to 8% across the remaining sites. It is likely these patterns reflect the slightly more sheltered location of site C6. Patterns of particle size distribution at all remaining compliance, control and internal farm sites were generally comparable. The organic content of the sediments was low at all sites (average 2.7%), as expected in sandy sediments. There was only minor variation between sampling sites, with no strong spatial patterns evident. Results from heavy metal analysis showed that the ANZECC Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) trigger values were not exceeded for any of the analytes measured. Targeted sampling for the threatened mollusc Gazameda gunnii was undertaken using van-veen grabs at 38 sites spread across the lease area. The survey included 30 sites from the 2015 survey, along with an additional 8 sites in 2019 that focused on regions in the amended lease area that were not covered in 2015. No live shells were detected during the targeted G. gunnii survey. Seven individual dead shells/shell fragments of Gazameda gunnii were collected and retained. The shells were mostly small (<30 mm) and were generally scattered across the survey area. Benthic fauna analysis revealed high diversity, with a total of 7974 individuals from 128 families identified across the 51 samples. Faunal communities were dominated by crustaceans, accounting for 55.4% of individuals and 38.3 % of families identified. The remaining fauna was mainly comprised of polychaetes (23.8% of individuals and 21.9 % of families), molluscs (16.6% of individuals and 27.3 % of families) and echinoderms (1.9% of individuals and 6.3 % of families). Other fauna, including anthozoans, brachiopods, nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, platyhelminths and sipunculids, were recorded in low numbers. The most common families recorded included Spionidae (polychaete, 10.1% of individuals), Anabathridae (gastropod mollusc, 9.6% of individuals), Ampeliscidae (amphipod, 7.1% of individuals), and Photidae (amphipod, 6.6% of individuals). Low numbers of introduced species were observed during the survey. Two introduced taxa were recorded, including the American spider crab Pyromaia tuberculata (10 individuals), and the bivalve Varicorbula gibba (9 individuals).


The capitellid Mediomastus australiensis was recorded in low densities across most survey sites. Mediomastus australiensis is common and widespread in south-east Tasmania and is not regarded as a pollution indicator species. A single Capitella sp. individual was also recorded at site 1. High numbers of Capitella sp. are known to be an indicator of organic pollution, but the extremely low number observed in the current survey is not considered evidence of organic enrichment. Whilst there was some variation in benthic community structure between sites, observed faunal patterns were within the range expected for an unimpacted ecosystem, with relatively diverse communities and low levels of dominance by single taxa. Based on the benthic faunal patterns present, any future benthic impacts should be readily detectable. Inshore reef surveys were conducted at three sites on the neighbouring North Bruny Island coastline. Surveys were conducted along transects at the 5 m depth contour using the Edgar-Barrett methodology. This methodology documents reef biodiversity and includes assessment of macroalgae, fish and invertebrate populations. Overall cover of canopy-forming algae was high and comparable between the three sites, averaging 94%. The relative abundance of different canopy-forming species varied between the sites, with Phyllospora comosa, Ecklonia radiata and Durvillea potatorum the main species recorded. Patterns of understorey algae were generally comparable between sites. Coverage of encrusting understorey algae was high, averaging > 50% across the three survey sites. Overall patterns of macroalgal diversity were comparable between the three sites surveyed. Fish species present across the three inshore reef sites were considered typical of shallow southern Tasmanian reefs, with wrasses (Family Labridae), leatherjackets (Family Monocanthidae) and weed whitings (Family Odacidae) amongst the most prominent groups recorded. The most abundant fish species across the survey was Trachinops caudimaculatus (blotch-tailed trachinops), which accounted for 45% of all fish observations. While T. caudimaculatus dominated overall abundance patterns it was patchy in distribution and not recorded from one of the survey sites. The wrasses Notolabrus tetricus (13.6% of all fish observations) and N. fucicola (8.8% of all fish observations) were the next most abundant species and these were observed in similar densities across the three sites. A total of 743 large mobile invertebrates were recorded from 14 species across the three inshore reef sites. The feather star Comanthus trichoptera was the most common invertebrate recorded, accounting for 79% of all macroinvertebrate observations. Cryptic fish were recorded in relatively low densities, with a total of five species recorded. A survey of deep reef habitat approximately 2.5 km north of the lease was undertaken along a 200 m transect line. The seabed was mainly low-profile reef with depth ranging from 32-38 m across the survey transect. Benthic coverage on the seafloor was dominated by red and green foliose algae, with low cover of sponges also present. A range of sponge morphologies were observed including arborescent, cup-shaped, finger and encrusting growth forms. A variety fish species were observed, with community structure considered typical of south-east Tasmanian reef systems. Fish species commonly recorded on the deep reef included Notolabrus tetricus (blue throat wrasse), Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse) and Caesioperca rasor (barber perch).


2 Operational Summary Contractor: AQUENAL PTY LTD ABN 74 151 011 157

244 Summerleas Road, Kingston, Tasmania 7050

Phone 03 6229 2334 Fax 03 6229 2335 Client: Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd

PO BOX 42, Dover, TAS 7117 T: 03 6295 8118 | F: 03 6295 8161

Field work: ROV filming: Huon Aquaculture Seabed sampling: Aquenal Pty Ltd

Dates of fieldwork:

21-22nd January 2019: ROV survey 21-22nd, 24th January 2019: Seabed sampling 4-5th January 2019: Reef surveys

Weather: 21/1/2019 22/1/2019 24/1/2019 4/3/2019 5/3/2019

Wind: SE 10-20 knots SE 5-15 knots NNE 5 – 15 knots Light Light

Sky: Clear Hazy Partly cloudy Partly cloudy Cloudy

Rain: Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

Sea: 1-2 m 0.5 – 1 m 0.5 m <0.5 m <0.5 m

Current: Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Laboratory Analysis: Video analysis by Huon Aquaculture

Heavy metals, organic content: Analytical Services Tasmania (AST). All other analysis by Aquenal Pty Ltd. Filming for this assessment was carried out by Huon Aquaculture with a VideoRay Remotely Operated Inspection System using a colour video camera with 170 degrees of tilt range, 350 lines of resolution and 0.5 lux of sensitivity, accompanied by two 20-watt adjustable halogen lights. A GoPro Hero 4+ was mounted onto the ROV and also used to capture seabed footage. A Nomad 800L mobile GIS unit with attached Novatel Smart Antenna Differential GPS was used to locate all filming sites. Seabed sampling was undertaken by Aquenal Pty Ltd using a Craib Corer and Van-veen grab. Positioning for seabed sampling was undertaken using a Garmin GPS in combination with a Novatel Smart Antenna Differential GPS, giving positions accurate to ~2m. The GPS systems were referenced to a State Permanent Mark (SPM) prior to commencement of fieldwork.


3 Location and Survey Maps

Figure 1 Location and Survey Map – MF261 – SB2, Trumpeter Bay. Sites 1.1 – 10.1 indicate the 35 m compliance triplicates, c2n – c6 indicate control triplicates; IF1-IF10 indicate internal sites. Red line = zone boundary; black rectangle = amended SB2 lease boundary; dashed black rectangle = old SB2 lease boundary. Survey coordinates are included in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.


4 Current Measurements Current flow data were collected by Huon Aquaculture. In order to measure localised current movement, Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) were installed on the seafloor in two separate deployments. One ADCP was deployed inside the boundary of SB2 from 9th May 2014 to 27th June 2014 (“T2”; 55G 536334 5218175) and a second was deployed approximately 4 km south of SB2 (“T4”; 55G 536250 5213883) from 15th February 2014 to 4th April 2014. The ADCPs were set to measure current velocity and direction throughout the water column every 30 minutes, with this data grouped into four metre depth bins. Each deployment lasted for approximately six weeks.

In Table 1 the current and velocity data for both meter deployments are summarised for average flow, minimum flow, maximum flow, percentage of flows less than 3 cms-1, percentage of flow less than 5 cms-1, and percentage of flow greater than 10 cms-1 for each depth bin. Polar plots of current velocity and direction are provided in Figures 2 and 3. The data shows that the flow velocities measured in the vicinity of the lease appear to be comparable to those measured in the lower D’Entrecasteaux Channel and significantly higher than those previously measured within the Huon River Estuary. This indicates that the lease should provide at least equivalent seafloor recovery conditions to those fish farm leases in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel. Predominant flow direction over the range of depth bins for the survey periods differed from SW-NE for the T2 deployment, through to more N-S for the T4 deployment. It is not clear whether these differences were due to the positions of the ADCP deployments or to seasonal effects/prevailing weather. The currents closer to the surface appeared to be generally the opposite with a strong southerly component at T4 in March and a diffuse but more northerly directionality at T2 in May 2014. Differences in current patterns also were evident in relation to depth. At T2 in May, currents from the SW direction were dominant in deeper depths (i.e. > 12 m), with NE flows also an important component of overall current patterns. Surface (i.e. < 12 m) currents in May at T2 tended to be more dominated by NW flows, presumably as a result of localised wind driven circulation. Depth related patterns were not as strong at T4 in March, although surface flows tended to be dominated by southerly flows, with a more even spread of opposing N-S flows measured in deeper depths.


Table 1 Summarised current and velocity data for Trumpeter T2 (May 2014) and T4 (March 2014).

T2 MAY 2014

Depth bins/cells Cell01 Cell02 Cell03 Cell04 Cell05 Cell06 Cell07 Cell08 Cell09 Cell10

Depth range (m) 40-36 36-32 32-28 28-24 24-20 20-16 16-12 12-8 8-4 4-surface

Mean 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.6 5.4 6.2

Max 12.4 12.2 17.9 19.7 12.3 18.2 22.4 24.7 20.9

Min 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

%flow<3cm/s 35.8 32.7 34.1 35.7 37.3 36.1 30.4 21.4 16.0

%flow<5cm/s 70.1 63.7 63.9 66.9 69.0 67.0 60.6 48.2 38.5

%flow>10cm/s 0.4 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.5 2.5 6.1 12.2

T4 March 2014

Depth bins/cells Cell01 Cell02 Cell03 Cell04 Cell05 Cell06 Cell07 Cell08 Cell09 Cell10

Depth range (m) 40-36 36-32 32-28 28-24 24-20 20-16 16-12 12-8 8-4 4-surface

Mean 5.6 6.1 6.6 7.1 7.6 8.1 8.6 9.2 9.1 9.3

Max 25.6 28.7 30.7 31.6 31.0 31.4 32.3 32.4 32.3 35.9

Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

%flow<3cm/s 25.8 25.2 24.3 19.8 16.5 16.0 14.6 12.5 14.0 8.9

%flow<5cm/s 49.9 46.8 43.5 40.5 35.9 33.5 31.6 29.8 30.2 24.8

%flow>10cm/s 11.5 17.1 20.5 23.2 26.3 29.6 33.7 37.8 36.7 35.5


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.


14

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


15

5 Bathymetric Profile Detailed bathymetry surveys were undertaken in Storm Bay by CSIRO using a WASSP S3 multibeam scanner. Survey in the vicinity of MF261 – Block SB2 were undertaken on 22/8/2018. The bathymetry profile based on this survey is illustrated in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4 Bathymetric profile for MF261 – SB2. Green line indicates the lease boundary.


16

6 Seabed Characteristics and habitat profile

Figure 5 Survey habitat map. Red outline – Zone boundary; black rectangle – Amended lease or block boundary for MF261 – SB2.


17

7 Underwater Video Survey

7.1 Filming summary The appearance of the seabed in the vicinity of MF261 – Block SB2 was recorded by filming spot dives of the sea floor using a VideoRay Remote Observation Vehicle (ROV) with a GoPro Hero 4+ mounted to the vehicle. Filming and interpretation of video footage was carried out by Huon Aquaculture. The spot dive locations were:

- Compliance sites at 35 m outside the lease boundary (sites 1.1-1.3, 2.1-2.3, 3.1-3.3, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.3, 6.1-6.3, 7.1-7.3, 8.1-8.3, 9.1-9.3, 10.1-10.3

- Control sits at least 200 m from the lease boundary (sites C2.1n-C2.3n, C6.1-C6.3). - Internal habitat sites consisting of ten evenly spaced locations within Block 2 (sites IF1-

IF10). Survey sites were located at positions specified by the EPA (Table 2). The positions of all dives were located or marked by DGPS using a Nomad 800L mobile GIS unit with attached Novatel Smart Antenna Differential GPS. Descriptions of video footage are summarised for each site below. A hard drive containing the digital recording of all control, compliance and internal lease dive sites for MF261 – Block SB2 has been forwarded to EPA.

7.2 Observations from filming

Table 2 Descriptions of dives performed at MF261 – Block SB2.

Site Easting (GDA94 MGA55)

Northing (GDA94 MGA55)

Date Time Depth

(m) Dive type

1.1 536266 5218790 22/01/2019 7:18:24 AM 41.3 35m

1.2 536286 5218785 22/01/2019 7:33:06 AM 41.5 35m

1.3 536303 5218781 22/01/2019 7:45:38 AM 41.5 35m

2.1 536496 5218715 22/01/2019 8:00:05 AM 42.1 35m

2.2 536514 5218711 22/01/2019 8:11:39 AM 42 35m

2.3 536537 5218703 22/01/2019 8:24:10 AM 42 35m

3.1 536648 5218357 22/01/2019 8:37:48 AM 42.6 35m

3.2 536642 5218340 22/01/2019 8:50:47 AM 42.7 35m

3.3 536635 5218321 22/01/2019 9:05:38 AM 42.6 35m

4.1 536552 5218066 22/01/2019 9:20:17 AM 42.7 35m


18



Date Time Depth

(m) Dive type

4.2 536551 5218048 22/01/2019 9:32:59 AM 42.6 35m

4.3 536539 5218028 22/01/2019 9:47:46 AM 42.7 35m

5.1 536461 5217781 22/01/2019 10:00:02 AM 42.9 35m

5.2 536456 5217762 22/01/2019 10:11:54 AM 42.8 35m

5.3 536449 5217742 22/01/2019 10:22:34 AM 42.7 35m

6.1 536151 5217531 22/01/2019 10:35:31 AM 42.2 35m

6.2 536136 5217539 22/01/2019 10:47:58 AM 41.8 35m

6.3 536111 5217543 22/01/2019 11:00:11 AM 41.9 35m

7.1 535922 5217604 22/01/2019 11:12:37 AM 41.2 35m

7.2 535903 5217613 22/01/2019 11:26:17 AM 41.1 35m

7.3 535884 5217619 22/01/2019 11:37:47 AM 41.1 35m

8.1 535769 5217964 22/01/2019 11:52:08 AM 40.3 35m

8.2 535777 5217985 22/01/2019 12:03:30 PM 40.1 35m

8.3 535783 5218003 22/01/2019 12:14:37 PM 40.1 35m

9.1 535862 5218247 22/01/2019 12:27:07 PM 40 35m

9.2 535868 5218266 22/01/2019 12:40:42 PM 40 35m

9.3 535873 5218287 22/01/2019 12:53:57 PM 40 35m

10.1 535958 5218537 22/01/2019 1:05:14 PM 40 35m

10.2 535961 5218556 22/01/2019 1:14:26 PM 40 35m

10.3 535968 5218576 22/01/2019 1:24:34 PM 41 35m

IF1 536188 5218646 21/01/2019 7:32:15 AM 41.4 Internal

IF2 536130 5218405 21/01/2019 7:48:15 AM 41.4 Internal


19



Date Time Depth

(m) Dive type

IF3 536025 5218188 21/01/2019 8:02:38 AM 41.2 Internal

IF4 535970 5217941 21/01/2019 8:17:29 AM 41.3 Internal

IF5 535916 5217774 21/01/2019 8:30:06 AM 41.3 Internal

IF6 536204 5217675 21/01/2019 8:44:44 AM 42.1 Internal

IF7 536272 5217853 21/01/2019 8:57:18 AM 42.2 Internal

IF8 536352 5218104 21/01/2019 9:12:40 AM 42.1 Internal

IF9 536423 5218332 21/01/2019 9:27:43 AM 42.2 Internal

IF10 536508 5218541 21/01/2019 9:44:12 AM 42 Internal

C2.1n 537271 5219833 21/01/2019 10:13:55 AM 42.7 Control

C2.2n 537266 5219847 21/01/2019 10:27:00 AM 42.4 Control

C2.3n 537274 5219869 21/01/2019 10:42:42 AM 42.6 Control

C6.1 534673 5217953 21/01/2019 11:00:38 AM 35.3 Control

C6.2 534673 5217934 21/01/2019 11:11:45 AM 35.3 Control

C6.3 534679 5217912 21/01/2019 11:24:48 AM 35.2 Control


20

Interpretation – general comments on spot dive locations Table 3 below provides a list of seabed sediment characteristics and fauna observations from the 46 ROV spot dives undertaken at the control, compliance and internal lease sites. As for previous baseline surveys for Trumpeter Bay lease 261 (e.g. Aquenal 2015), all sites shared the common features of rippled relatively coarse sand with shell grit and the occasional dead mollusc shell. The fauna was generally depauperate, consisting mainly of Maoricolpus roseus (New Zealand screw shell), with the very occasional sycozoan and moderate numbers and spread of hermit crabs and other crabs. There were also brittle stars noted towards the NE of the lease (sites 2, 4 and 5) and at the northern control site. There were only the occasional, reasonably randomly distributed fish sighted during the survey, these were composed of a few small benthic fish (suspected gobies), flathead, sea moths, flounder and a skate. The only introduced species identified during the ROV survey was the New Zealand screw shell Maoricolpus roseus and the Northern Pacific Seastar Asterias amurensis. A single Asterias amurensis (Pacific seastar) was noted at sites 9.2 and 9.3 and M. roseus appeared at most sites but was most numerous at sites 8.1-8.3. No live M. roseus specimens were observed during the survey, but many were inhabited by hermit crabs. All sites contained drift algae, although some fine algae were attached to old shells and sediments. There were no threatened species detected during the ROV survey.


21

Table 3 Description of each ROV dive performed at Trumpeter Bay MF261 – Block SB2. Video analysis and interpretation provided by Huon Aquaculture.



Date Time Depth

(m) Dive type

Visibility (m)

Comments

1.1 536266 5218790 22/1/2019 7:18:24 AM 41.3 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

1.2 536286 5218785 22/1/2019 7:33:06 AM 41.5 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

1.3 536303 5218781 22/1/2019 7:45:38 AM 41.5 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, small benthic fish Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

2.1 536496 5218715 22/1/2019 8:00:05 AM 42.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, possible brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

2.2 536514 5218711 22/1/2019 8:11:39 AM 42 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Hermit crabs, other crabs, Sycozoan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

2.3 536537 5218703 22/1/2019 8:24:10 AM 42 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

3.1 536648 5218357 22/1/2019 8:37:48 AM 42.6 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

3.2 536642 5218340 22/1/2019 8:50:47 AM 42.7 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

3.3 536635 5218321 22/1/2019 9:05:38 AM 42.6 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

4.1 536552 5218066 22/1/2019 9:20:17 AM 42.7 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

4.2 536551 5218048 22/1/2019 9:32:59 AM 42.6 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, large skate Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

4.3 536539 5218028 22/1/2019 9:47:46 AM 42.7 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

5.1 536461 5217781 22/1/2019 10:00:02 AM 42.9 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

5.2 536456 5217762 22/1/2019 10:11:54 AM 42.8 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment


22



Date Time Depth

(m) Dive type

Visibility (m)

Comments

5.3 536449 5217742 22/1/2019 10:22:34 AM 42.7 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, brittle stars, Sycozoan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

6.1 536151 5217531 22/1/2019 10:35:31 AM 42.2 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flounder, flathead Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

6.2 536136 5217539 22/1/2019 10:47:58 AM 41.8 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Crabs, flathead Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

6.3 536111 5217543 22/1/2019 11:00:11 AM 41.9 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

7.1 535922 5217604 22/1/2019 11:12:37 AM 41.2 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead, suspected poriferan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

7.2 535903 5217613 22/1/2019 11:26:17 AM 41.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Hermit crabs, crabs, Sycozoan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

7.3 535884 5217619 22/1/2019 11:37:47 AM 41.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

8.1 535769 5217964 22/1/2019 11:52:08 AM 40.3 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Numerous Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

8.2 535777 5217985 22/1/2019 12:03:30 PM 40.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Numerous Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, sea moth Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

8.3 535783 5218003 22/1/2019 12:14:37 PM 40.1 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Numerous Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

9.1 535862 5218247 22/1/2019 12:27:07 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

9.2 535868 5218266 22/1/2019 12:40:42 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, Asterias amurensis Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

9.3 535873 5218287 22/1/2019 12:53:57 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead, Asterias amurensis Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

10.1 535958 5218537 22/1/2019 1:05:14 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, sea moth Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment


23



Date Time Depth

(m) Dive type

Visibility (m)

Comments

10.2 535961 5218556 22/1/2019 1:14:26 PM 40 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, small benthic fish Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

10.3 535968 5218576 22/1/2019 1:24:34 PM 41 35m 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

IF1 536188 5218646 21/1/2019 7:32:15 AM 41.4 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, suspected poriferan, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

IF2 536130 5218405 21/1/2019 7:48:15 AM 41.4 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

IF3 536025 5218188 21/1/2019 8:02:38 AM 41.2 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment


IF5 535916 5217774 21/1/2019 8:30:06 AM 41.3 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, suspected poriferan Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

IF6 536204 5217675 21/1/2019 8:44:44 AM 42.1 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

IF7 536272 5217853 21/1/2019 8:57:18 AM 42.2 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment


IF9 536423 5218332 21/1/2019 9:27:43 AM 42.2 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, sea moth Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

IF10 536508 5218541 21/1/2019 9:44:12 AM 42 Internal 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, suspected brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

C2.1n 537271 5219833 21/1/2019 10:13:55 AM 42.7 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

C2.2n 537266 5219847 21/1/2019 10:27:00 AM 42.4 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, flathead Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment


24



Date Time Depth

(m) Dive type

Visibility (m)

Comments

C2.3n 537274 5219869 21/1/2019 10:42:42 AM 42.6 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, sea moth, brittle star Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

C6.1 534673 5217953 21/1/2019 11:00:38 AM 35.3 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

C6.2 534673 5217934 21/1/2019 11:11:45 AM 35.3 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. Few Maoricolpus, hermit crabs, small benthic fish Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment

C6.3 534679 5217912 21/1/2019 11:24:48 AM 35.2 Control 0.5 Seabed = Uniform across all sites. Rippled sand, some broken shells and shell grit Fauna = Consistent with most sites, depauperate. One Maoricolpus Flora = Consistent with most sites. Some drift algae and fine algae on shells and sediment


25

8 Sediment Chemistry

8.1 Visual Assessment Methods A Craib corer was used to collect 50 mm diameter sediment cores in transparent Perspex tubes. These were handled carefully and retained in a vertical orientation to minimise disturbance of the sediment surface until they were described and redox and sulphide readings taken. The cores were described in terms of length, colour (using a Munsell soil chart), plant and animal life, gas vesicles, and smell. Odour from hydrogen sulphide gas, if present, was noted after the water was removed from the core barrels. Results and interpretation Descriptions of the sediment cores are tabulated in Table 4. Visual assessment showed that sediments were generally very similar across sampling sites. Sediments were typically sandy and brown in colour in the surface layers, grading to dark grey with increasing sediment depth. Faint dark streaks were evident in the deeper sections of many cores. Sediment cores at all sites were characteristically well compacted, which was particularly evident when inserting the redox probe to the required 30 mm depth. Animals or evidence of their presence (i.e. polychaetes, amphipods, hermit crabs, burrows) were observed in most sediment cores. Sediment characteristics from the compliance and control sites showed minor variation, indicative of similar environmental conditions across the compliance and control sites. The exception was control site C2n where sediments were lighter in colouration compared to the remaining core samples. The sandy nature of the sediments indicates that wave action regularly influences the seabed sediments and the rate of deposition of finer sediment fractions is low. Dark patches were evident in the deeper layers of cores at many sites. Dark patches were typically below 20 mm sediment depth, indicative of anoxic patches in deeper sections of core samples. Such a pattern is not considered evidence of organic enrichment, and is relatively common in circumstances where sandy, well compacted sediments are present. Images of sediment cores are included in Appendix 3.


26

Table 4 Visual description of sediment cores at MF261 – Block SB2.

Site Length (mm)

Colour 1 (Munsell score) Sediment 1 Depth 1

(mm) Colour 2 (Munsell score) Sediment 2

Depth 2 (mm)

Plants Animals Gas Smell

1.1 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark

patches 20 - 60 mm Sand 160 Nil

Bivalve on sediment surface

Nil Nil


patches 60 - 100 mm Sand 190 Nil Burrows Nil Nil


patches 60 - 80 mm Sand 120 Nil Burrows Nil Nil

2.1 170 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 170

Nil Burrows Nil Nil

2.2 140 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 80 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, faint dark

patches below 30 mm Sand 140 Nil Burrows Nil Nil

2.3 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 100 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark patch

30-60 mm Sand 160 Nil Nil Nil Nil


patches 10-70 mm Sand 130 Nil Nil Nil Nil


patches 20-40 mm Sand 130 Nil Burrows Nil Nil

3.3 170 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 110 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark patch

20-30 mm Sand 170 Nil Burrows Nil Nil


patches below 20 mm Sand 160 Nil

Polychaete on sediment surface

Nil Nil



Burrows, amphipod on sediment surface

Nil Nil



Burrows, hermit crab on sediment surface

Nil Nil


27

Site Length (mm)



Depth 2 (mm)



patches below 10 mm Sand 160 Nil Nil Nil Nil



Burrows, polychaete on sediment surface

Nil Nil



6.1 120 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 20 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 120 Nil Burrows, amphipod on

sediment surface Nil Nil

6.2 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 40 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 160 Nil Burrows, polychaete,

amphipod on sediment surface

Nil Nil

6.3 160 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 50 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 160 Nil Burrows, amphipod on



patches 30 -100 mm Sand 130 Nil Burrows Nil Nil

7.2 140 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark

patch 100-140 mm Sand 140

Nil Burrows Nil Nil

7.3 170 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 170

Nil Burrows Nil Nil

8.1 160

10YR/4/1 Dark grey, cores slightly lighter

towards surface, faint dark patches below 60

mm

Sand 160

Nil Burrows, amphipod on


8.2 150 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, cores slightly lighter

towards surface Sand 150

Nil Burrows Nil Nil


28

Site Length (mm)



Depth 2 (mm)


8.3 160

10YR/4/1 Dark grey, cores slightly lighter

towards surface, faint dark patches below 80

mm

Sand 160

Nil Burrows Nil Nil

9.1 110 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 30 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 110 Nil Burrows Nil Nil

9.2 130 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 60 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 130 Nil Amphipod on sediment

surface Nil Nil

9.3 150 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 70 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 150 Nil Burrows Nil Nil



Nil Nil





C2.1n 140 10YR/5/4 light yellowish brown, faint dark patch

at 80 mm Sand 140

Nil Nil Nil Nil

C2.2n 150 10YR/5/4 light yellowish

brown Sand 70 10YR/2/1 Black Sand 150 Nil Burrows Nil Nil

C2.3n 160 10YR/5/4 light yellowish

brown, faint dark patches at 120 mm

Sand 160

Nil Burrows, polychaete on


C6.1 130 10YR/5/1 Grey Sand 130

Nil Burrows Nil Nil

C6.2 100 10YR/5/1 Grey

Sand, very fine silt on sediment

surface (~5 mm)

100

Nil Burrows Nil Nil


29

Site Length (mm)



Depth 2 (mm)


C6.3 170 10YR/5/1 Grey, faint

dark patches at 30 mm Sand 170

Nil Burrows Nil Nil

IF1 110 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 30 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, dark

streaks 30 - 50 mm Sand 110 Nil Burrows Nil Nil


streaks at 40 mm Sand 120 Nil Polychaete at 80 mm Nil Nil


streaks 30 - 100 mm Sand 140 Nil Burrows Nil Nil

IF4 150 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 80 10YR/4/1 Dark grey, fain dark

streaks at 70 mm Sand 150 Nil

Burrows, hermit crab on sediment surface

Nil Nil

IF5 160 10YR/5/3 Brown, faint

dark streaks 30-160 mm Sand 160

Nil

Burrows, polychaete on sediment surface

Nil Nil


streaks 5-130 mm Sand 130 Nil

Burrows, amphipod on sediment surface

Nil Nil


streaks 10-30 mm Sand 130 Nil Burrows Nil Nil


streaks 50-120 mm Sand 120 Nil Nil Nil Nil

IF9 135 10YR/5/3 Brown Sand 80 10YR/4/1 Dark grey Sand 135 Nil Worm tube on sediment

surface Nil Nil


streaks 60-120 mm Sand 120 Nil Burrows Nil Nil


30

8.2 Redox Potential Methods Redox potential was measured in millivolts at 30 mm below the sediment surface using a WTW pH 320 meter with a Mettler Toledo Ag/AgCl combination pH/Redox probe. Calibration and functionality of the meter were checked before each test using a Redox Buffer Solution (248 mV at 10 °C). Measurements were made within 3 hours of the samples being collected. Corrected Redox potential values were calculated by adding the standard potential of the reference cell to the measured redox potential and are reported in millivolts. Results Sediment redox values at 30 mm sediment depth averaged 187 mV (Figure 6). There was no strong pattern of redox potential in relation to compliance, control or internal farm sites (Figure 6). The observed relatively high redox values at all sites are indicative of well oxygenated sediments (Macleod and Forbes 2004). Raw data is presented in Appendix 4.

Figure 6 Redox potential at 30 mm depth in sediment cores.

8.3 Sulphide Analysis Methods Sediment sulphide was measured in accordance with the protocols outlined in Macleod and Forbes (2004). Measurements were made using a TPS uniPROBE Sulphide ISE and a WTW pH 320 meter. Using a modified syringe, 2 mL of sediment was removed at 30 mm depth from the core and mixed with 2 mL of reagent (sulphide anti-oxidant buffer, SAOB) in a small beaker. The sediment/SAOB mixture was carefully stirred with the probe for 15-20 seconds, until the reading stabilised. The accuracy and functionality of the meter and probe was assessed prior to analysis


31

commencing, using standards of known concentration. A calibration curve was produced using three standards of known concentration. Results The observed sulphide concentrations were generally very low at most sites, averaging 9.74 µM across all sites (Figure 7). While no sites exceeded concentrations typical of organically enriched sediments (i.e. > 100 µM; Macleod and Forbes 2004), relatively high levels were measured at some sites (e.g. compliance site 4.2, IF1). These patterns are also consistent with visual assessment results showing darker anoxic patches that were evident in some cores. As noted above, such patterns occur naturally when compacted hard sands are present. Raw data from sulphide analysis is included in Appendix 5.

Figure 7 Sulphide concentrations in sediment core samples.

8.4 Particle Size Analysis Methods The top 100 mm of each sediment core was homogenised and then ~70 ml of sediment was sub-sampled for particle size determination. Results and interpretation Sediments across the area sampled were typically dominated by ‘medium sand’ (0.25 mm; average 41.5 % v/v across all sites) and ‘fine sand’ (0.125 mm; average 39.7 % v/v across all sites) particle size fractions. Overall, the sediments contained a relatively low proportion of fine clay and silt fractions (i.e. < 0.063 mm; average 4% v/v across all sites). Particle size distribution at control site C6 was different to the remaining sites, with a higher proportion of finer sized fractions. At site C6 the 0.063 mm and <0.063 mm size fractions accounted for 38% of sediment, compared to


32

8% across the remaining sites. Patterns of particle size distribution at all remaining compliance, control and internal farm sites were generally comparable. Detailed results are presented in Figure 8, while raw data is included in Appendix 6. Patterns of particle size distribution were indicative of a sedimentary environment with moderate agitation of seabed sediments and associated low abundance of fine silt and clay fractions. These patterns are considered typical of sediments in deep (i.e. >20 m) and exposed locations in Storm Bay. Reasons for the apparent variation in particle size distribution evident at control site C6 remain speculative, since it is located at a comparable depth to other sites. It is likely that this site is positioned in a location that is slightly more sheltered from the prevailing SW ocean swells compared to the remaining sites, resulting in a different depositional environment.

Figure 8 Particle size analyses of the top 100 mm of sediment. Lines represent mean percentage cumulative volume for size fractions at each site, based on pooled replicates for compliance and control sites (n=3). For internal farm sites, lines represent cumulative volume based on a single sample from each site.


33

8.5 Organic Content Methods A single undisturbed sediment core sample was taken using a perspex core with an internal diameter of at least 50 mm at each sample site for the purposes of organic content analysis. The top 3 cm of each was oven dried at 60 °C prior to analysis of total organic carbon. Total organic carbon was measured by loss on ignition (450 °C in a muffle furnace for 4 hours) by AST.

Results and interpretation Results from the organic content analysis are presented in Figure 9. The organic content was low, ranging from 1.3% to 4.0%, with an average of 2.7% across all sites. The organic content of the sediments was low at all sites, as expected in the sandy sediments that typified the sample locations. Organic content levels were generally consistent between sampling sites.

Figure 9 Organic content in sediment core samples

8.6 Heavy Metal Analysis Methods Sediment cores of 50 mm diameter were collected and the top 30 mm of each core was transferred to a clean jar for metal analysis. Heavy metals analysed in sediment samples included: arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, lead and zinc. The analyses were conducted by AST using the test methods specified in the following Australian Standards: 2301-Soil: Metals in Soil, Sediment and Dust by ICPAES


34

Results and interpretation Results from the heavy metal analysis are presented in Table 5. The ANZECC Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) trigger values were not exceeded for any of the analytes measured. Arsenic levels approached the ANZECC ISQG ‘low’ trigger values at some sites (e.g. site C2n average 18 mg/kg). Heavy metal values were generally comparable to those recorded previously from sediment sampling in the Trumpeter Bay region (e.g. Aquenal 2014, Aquenal 2015). Overall, there was only minor variation between control, compliance and internal farm sites for those heavy metals analysed.


35

Table 5 Results of heavy metal analysis of sediment samples and the ANZECC 2000 trigger values.

Site Metal (mg/kg DMB)

As Cd Co Cr Cu Mn Ni Pb Zn

1.1 13 <0.5 2 14 2 67 4 15 38

1.2 12 <0.5 2 13 1 59 3 13 30

1.3 12 <0.5 2 13 2 63 3 13 30

2.1 15 <0.5 2 12 1 68 3 11 25

2.2 13 <0.5 1 11 <1 58 3 8 19

2.3 15 <0.5 2 12 1 66 3 11 23

3.1 17 <0.5 2 12 1 74 3 12 26

3.2 14 <0.5 2 12 2 58 3 12 26

3.3 12 <0.5 2 11 1 56 3 10 21

4.1 12 <0.5 2 13 2 58 4 13 31

4.2 10 <0.5 2 13 2 48 3 13 30

4.3 12 <0.5 2 13 2 53 3 13 32

5.1 12 <0.5 2 13 1 58 3 12 28

5.2 11 <0.5 2 13 2 54 3 13 33

5.3 11 <0.5 2 12 1 49 3 11 27

6.1 14 <0.5 2 16 2 74 4 16 45

6.2 13 <0.5 2 17 2 73 4 17 47

6.3 12 <0.5 2 17 3 69 4 17 46

7.1 13 <0.5 2 18 3 83 5 18 56

7.2 13 <0.5 2 16 3 79 4 17 49

7.3 10 <0.5 2 18 3 82 5 17 54

8.1 9 <0.5 2 16 3 78 4 18 56

8.2 10 <0.5 2 17 3 81 4 16 50

8.3 10 <0.5 2 17 3 74 5 18 52

9.1 11 <0.5 2 16 3 75 4 20 53

9.2 13 <0.5 2 16 2 81 4 18 49

9.3 12 <0.5 2 16 2 81 4 17 48

10.1 14 <0.5 2 17 2 69 4 18 53

10.2 12 <0.5 2 16 3 59 4 19 54

10.3 11 <0.5 2 16 2 66 4 17 49

C2.1n 17 <0.5 2 9 <1 63 2 11 16

C2.2n 18 <0.5 2 9 <1 84 2 12 17

C2.3n 19 <0.5 2 9 <1 75 2 12 17

C6.1 5 <0.5 2 13 5 62 5 15 50

C6.2 4 <0.5 2 12 5 58 5 13 44

C6.3 4 <0.5 2 12 5 61 5 14 49

IF1 14 <0.5 2 14 2 75 3 15 37

IF2 12 <0.5 2 14 2 61 3 16 41

IF3 9 <0.5 2 14 2 70 3 14 40

IF4 11 <0.5 2 15 3 73 4 17 50

IF5 9 <0.5 2 16 3 70 4 18 53

IF6 12 <0.5 2 15 2 65 4 15 44

IF7 12 <0.5 2 15 3 63 4 16 43

IF8 11 <0.5 2 12 1 62 3 11 29

IF9 13 <0.5 1 10 <1 71 2 9 21

IF10 16 <0.5 2 11 <1 75 3 10 24

ANZECC 2000 ISQG-Low (trigger value)

20 2 80 65 21 50 200

ANZECC 2000 ISQG-High (trigger value)

70 10 370 270 52 220 410


36

9 Gazameda gunnii survey Methods A total of 38 sites were sampled for the Gazameda gunnii survey. This included 30 samples from the 2015 survey (Aquenal 2015), along with an additional 8 samples collected in 2019 that focused on regions in the amended lease area that were not covered in 2015. These sample numbers were in accordance with G. gunnii survey specifications in the EPA Schedule of Requirements for Salmonid Finfish Baseline Environmental Survey. Samples were sorted through a 4 mm sieve. Dead shells were retained and examined by a taxonomic expert (J. Lane). Results and interpretation Results from the survey are presented in Figure 10. No live shells were detected during the survey. Seven individual dead shells/shell fragments of Gazameda gunnii were collected and retained (Figure 11). The shells were mostly small (<30 mm) and were generally scattered across the survey area (Figure 10). Several individuals of the closely related G. tasmanica were also detected during the survey.

Figure 10 Location of grab samples taken during Gazameda gunnii survey for MF261 - Block SB2, highlighting the sample sites where dead shells were collected (10, 19, 28, 30, 32, 37 and 38). Note that sites G1-G30 were sampled in July 2015, while G31-G38 were sampled in January 2019.


37

(a)

(b)

Figure 11 Photograph of dead G. gunnii shells collected during the survey of MF261-Block SB2, from 2015 (a) and 2019 (b) surveys.


38

10 Biological Analysis - Benthic Fauna Methods Macroinvertebrates were collected using a Van Veen grab which sampled a 0.07 m2 area of seabed. A single grab sample was collected at each of the compliance and control sites, with a total of 46 grabs collected. Grab samples were sieved in the field using 1 mm mesh sieve bags, with animal and sediment material retained in the mesh bags placed in 5-10% buffered formalin for preservation. The preserved material was returned to the laboratory for sorting and identification of infauna species under a dissecting microscope. Macrofaunal data from triplicate grabs were analysed using multidimensional scaling (MDS) in the PRIMER software package (Clarke & Gorley 2001). This analysis produces the best graphical depiction of faunal similarities between samples. For MDS analyses, the data matrix showing total abundance of species in each sample was fourth root-transformed and then converted to a symmetric matrix of biotic similarity between pairs of samples using the Bray-Curtis similarity index. These procedures follow the recommendations of Faith et al. (1987) and Clarke (1993) for data matrices with numerous zero records. The usefulness of the two dimensional MDS display of relationships between samples is indicated by the stress statistic, which, if <0.1 indicates that the depiction of relationships is good, and if >0.2 that the depiction is poor (Clarke, 1993). Triplicate grabs were also aggregated for each site and analysed for faunal dominance with K-Dominance Curves using the PRIMER software package (Clarke & Gorley 2001). Results and interpretation Abundance and patterns of family richness are summarised in Table 6 below (see Appendix 7 for raw data). The area possessed high faunal diversity, with a total of 7974 individuals from 128 families identified across the 51 samples. Faunal communities were dominated by crustaceans, accounting for 55.4% of individuals and 38.3 % of families identified. The remaining fauna was mainly comprised of polychaetes (23.8% of individuals and 21.9 % of families), molluscs (16.6% of individuals and 27.3 % of families) and echinoderms (1.9% of individuals and 6.3 % of families). Other fauna, including anthozoans, brachiopods, nemerteans, oligochaetes, phoronids, platyhelminths and sipunculids, were recorded in low numbers. The most common families recorded included Spionidae (polychaete, 10.1% of individuals), Anabathridae (gastropod mollusc, 9.6% of individuals), Ampeliscidae (amphipod, 7.1% of individuals), and Photidae (amphipod, 6.6% of individuals). Low numbers of introduced species were observed during the survey. Two introduced taxa were recorded, including the American spider crab Pyromaia tuberculata (10 individuals), and the bivalve Varicorbula gibba (9 individuals). The capitellid Mediomastus australiensis was recorded in low densities across most survey sites. Mediomastus australiensis is common and widespread in south-east Tasmania and is not regarded as a pollution indicator species. A single Capitella sp. individual was also recorded at site 1. High numbers of Capitella sp. are known to be an indicator of organic pollution, but the extremely low number observed in the current survey is not considered evidence of organic enrichment. The MDS analysis showed minor variation between sites (Figure 12). At the 50% similarity level (based on cluster analysis), two groupings were evident. One group comprised all compliance and internal farm sites, along with control site C6. Samples from control site C2 formed a separate grouping at the 50% similarity level. Whilst not forming a distinct cluster at the 50% similarity


39

level, samples from control site C6 also tended to show separation from the compliance and internal sites. Control site C2 was characterised by relatively high densities of crustaceans and relatively low polychaete density compared to remaining sites. In contrast, both crustaceans and polychaetes were recorded in higher densities at control site C6 relative to the remaining sites. The observed biological variation between control and compliance sites was also evident in samples collected in 2015 (Aquenal 2015) and is likely to be attributable to slight variation in the depth and exposure of sampling locations. For example, water depths at compliance sites were around 40 m, compared to 43 m for control site C2 and 36 m for control site C6. Control site C6 is also more sheltered from prevailing south-west swells compared to the remaining sites. Dominance patterns as described by K-dominance plots are shown in Figure 13. Single taxa dominance patterns were low across all control and compliance sites, ranging from 9.9 – 32.6 %, with an overall average of 16.6%. These values fall within ranges expected for unimpacted ecosystems, with relatively diverse communities and low levels of dominance by a single family (see Figure 13). Based on the benthic faunal patterns present, any future benthic impacts should be readily observable. Increases in dominance patterns, particularly for deposit feeders (e.g. polychaetes), would be one of the main indicators of organic enrichment. Such a pattern would be expected to be readily discernible, given their current relatively low levels at most sites.

Figure 12 Results of MDS analysis using benthic infauna data collected from three replicate grabs at each compliance and control site for MF261 – SB2. Green ellipses indicate community similarity at the level of 50%, based on cluster analysis.


40

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

Site

Abundance (No's per site)

Family diversity (No. families per site)

Cru

stac

ean

s

Mo

llusc

s

Po

lych

aete

s

Ech

ino

de

rms

Oth

er

tota

l

Cru

stac

ean

s

Mo

llusc

s

Po

lych

aete

s

Ech

ino

de

rms

Oth

er

Tota

l

1 365 105 98 17 3 588

29 13 17 2 2 63

2 202 115 51 11 3 382

25 10 13 3 1 52

3 192 28 62 9 6 297

27 11 14 3 3 58

4 283 90 99 23 8 503

29 10 15 3 3 60

5 310 127 124 6 14 581

27 16 16 2 4 65

6 332 84 216 8 27 667

28 13 18 4 4 67

7 264 71 128 7 8 478

25 13 17 2 4 61

8 238 51 156 8 28 481

24 11 17 3 6 61

9 223 44 148 7 23 445

26 10 17 5 3 61

10 237 55 208 5 13 518

26 13 20 2 3 64

C2 372 41 62 12 7 494

28 11 13 3 2 57

C6 382 155 233 4 16 790

21 19 17 2 3 62

IF1 98 37 19 5 2 161

19 4 8 2 2 35

IF2 97 26 47 1 1 172

21 8 12 1 1 43

IF3 82 16 40 0 2 140

15 6 9 0 2 32

IF4 63 9 30 8 1 111

14 4 10 4 1 33

IF5 55 30 45 4 5 139

18 6 12 3 2 41

IF6 101 18 32 7 4 162

20 5 10 2 3 40

IF7 91 32 22 3 1 149

20 8 7 2 1 38

IF8 178 59 27 5 4 273

24 11 7 2 2 46

IF9 152 99 26 0 2 279

21 5 9 0 1 36

IF10 100 33 27 1 3 164

21 6 8 1 1 37

Total 4417 1325 1900 151 181 7974

49 35 28 8 8 128

% 55.4 16.6 23.8 1.9 2.3 100

38.3 27.3 21.9 6.3 6.3 100


41

1 10 100

Species rank

0

20

40

60

80

100C

um

ula

tive D

om

inance%

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

C2

C6

IF1

IF2

IF3

IF4

IF5

IF6

IF7

IF8

IF9

IF10

Figure 13 Benthic faunal analysis of seabed samples – MF261 – SB2. K – dominance curves. Analysis based on pooled triplicate data for compliance and control sites and single samples taken at internal farm sites.


42

11 Inshore Reef Surveys Methods The Marine Protected Area (MPA) or ‘Edgar-Barrett’ methodology has been widely used for reef surveys in southern Australia and allows standardised collection of data for the repeated census of a set of sites within locations. The survey method involves 2 x 100 m transects, with the transects divided into 50 m blocks. Each pair of 100 m transects was separated by a distance of 20 m. The survey method utilises three census techniques to record descriptive information on reef biodiversity along the transect at different spatial scales:

(i) Fish abundance and size is surveyed in 5 m wide blocks, either side of the transect line by a diver swimming parallel to the transect line

(ii) Mobile invertebrates and cryptic fish are surveyed in a 1 m block by a diver swimming

adjacent to the transect line

(iii) The abundance of macroalgal species and sessile invertebrates is recorded by placing 0.25 m2 quadrats at 10 m intervals along the transect line (i.e. 5 quadrats each 50 m transect) and quantifying the percentage cover of these species. The quadrat is divided into a grid of 7 x 7 perpendicular wires, giving 50 points (including one corner). Cover is estimated by counting the number of times each species occurs directly under the 50 points on the quadrat (1.25 m2 for each of the 50 m sections of transect line).

Three reefs were surveyed using the Edgar-Barrett methodology. The locations are illustrated in Figure 14.


43

Figure 14 Survey map showing locations of Edgar-Barrett (R1-R3) and deep reef (R4a-R4b) survey locations. Black rectangle – Amended lease or block boundary for MF261 – SB2.

Results and interpretation General reef structure R1: Moderate profile reef was evident at this site, with patches of large (>1 m) boulders evident along some sections of the survey transect. R2: High profile reef, with depth varying between 3 and 6 m, with ridges and gutters along the survey transect. Durvillea potatorum (bull kelp) dominated the shallow areas at the top of ridges. R3: Low profile reef with flat sections of reef interspersed with patches of boulders (>1 m). Macroalgae The results of the survey were tabulated and summarised according to the taxa observed (Table 7). Overall cover of canopy-forming algae was high and comparable between the three sites, averaging 94%. The relative abundance of different canopy-forming species varied between the sites, with Phyllospora comosa, Ecklonia radiata and Durvillea potatorum the main species recorded. Phyllospora comosa was abundant at all sites, averaging 80.2% at R1, 58% at R2 and 54% at R3. Percentage cover of E. radiata varied from 8.4% at R1, 3.4% at R2 and 40.5 % at R3. Durvillea potatorum was not recorded at sites R1 and R3, but averaged 29.8% at R2. These patterns are likely to reflect variation in wave exposure and reef topography evident between the three sites.


44

Patterns of understorey algae were generally comparable between sites. Coverage of encrusting understorey algae was high, averaging > 50% across the three survey sites. Some minor variation was evident for the other algal groups. For example, cover of understorey brown algae was relatively high at site R1 (16.5%), while understorey red algae was most abundant at site R2 (24.9%). Cover of understorey green algae was low (average < 1%) at all three sites. Overall patterns of diversity were comparable between the three sites, with 22, 26 and 20 taxa recorded from sites R1, R2 and R3, respectively. Fish Results from the fish survey are summarised in Table 8. Abundance and diversity was highest at site R1 (327 individuals, 17 species) compared to site R2 (43 individuals, 12 species) and site R3 (196 individuals, 10 species). Fish species present across the three sites were considered typical of shallow southern Tasmanian reefs, with wrasses (Family Labridae), leatherjackets (Family Monocanthidae) and weed whitings (Family Odacidae) amongst the most prominent groups recorded. The most abundant fish species across the survey was Trachinops caudimaculatus (blotch-tailed trachinops), which accounted for 45% of all fish observations. While T. caudimaculatus dominated overall abundance patterns it was not recorded from site R2. The wrasses Notolabrus tetricus (13.6% of all fish observations) and N. fucicola (8.8% of all fish observations) were the next most abundant species and these were observed in similar densities across the three sites. Raw data from surveys using the Edgar-Barrett surveys is provided in Appendices 8-9. Representative imagery is included in Appendix 10.


45

Table 7 Summary of macroalgal survey results. Data represent mean % cover across 20 replicate 0.25 m2 quadrats per site. The column FG% represents the average % cover for each functional group.

Guild Species R1 FG% R2 FG% R3 FG%

Canopy-forming algae

Acrocarpia paniculata 0

90.3

2.6

96

0

94.7

Cystophora platylobium 0.5 1 0

Durvillea potatorum 0 29.8 0

Ecklonia radiata 8.4 3.4 40.5

Phyllospora comosa 80.2 58 54

Sargassum spp. 0.8 1.2 0.2

Sargassum vestitum 0.4 0 0

Understory brown algae

Carpoglossum confluens 3.3

16.5

0

9

5.1

10.2

Carpomitra costata 0 0.2 0

Colpomenia sinuosa 0 0.1 0

Halopteris paniculata 0.7 3.2 1.3

Xiphophora gladiata 0.2 0.8 0

Zonaria turneriana/angustata 12.3 4.7 3.8

Understory green algae

Chaetomorpha coliformis 0.2

0.9

0

0.6

0

0.1 Ulva spp. 0.7 0 0.1

Unidentified algae (filamentous green) 0 0.6 0

Understory red algae

Ballia callitricha 0.9

9.4

2

24.9

4.1

17.8

Ballia sp. (fine) 0.4 1.3 0.8

Callophyllis lambertii 0 0 0.2

Cheilosporum sp. 0 0.3 0

Euptilota articulata 0.5 1.5 0.2

Haliptilon roseum 0 2.1 0

Halopeltis australis 0.2 0.6 0

Laurencia elata 0 0.5 0

Lenormandia marginata 0.3 0.3 0

Phacelocarpus peperocarpos 1.1 5.1 1

Phacelocarpus spp. 1.5 0 0

Plocamium angustum 1.2 5 4.6

Plocamium dilatatum 0 2.1 0.5

Polyopes constrictus 0.8 2.3 0.4

Ptilonia australasica 0.1 0 2.5

Sarcodia marginata 0 0 0.6

Sonderopelta/Peyssonnelia 0 0.6 0.7

Stenogramme interrupta 0 0 0.6

Unidentified algae (red) 2.4 1.2 1.6

Encrusting algae

Unidentified algae (crustose coralline) 45.7 61.1

45.5 52.4

36.7 51.3

Unidentified algae (red rock) 15.4 6.9 14.6

Encrusting invertebrate

Unidentified sponge (encrusting) 7.1

7.1 2.8

2.8 7.4

7.4

Sessile invertebrate

Orthoscuticella spp. 1.6

2.2

1.1

1.4

2.3

4.1 Unidentified bryozoans (hard) 0 0.3 0.3

Unidentified bryozoans (soft) 0.6 0 1.5

Substrate

Bare rock (non - barrens) 0.6

3.4

1.7

6.1

0.7

13.9 Sand 0 4.4 13.2

Silt/sand on reef 2.8 0 0

Algal species richness 22 26 20


46

Table 8 Summary of fish survey results. Data represent total abundance for the 2000 m2 survey area at each site.

Species Site

R1 R2 R3

Acanthaluteres spilomelanurus (bridled leatherjacket) 1 1

Acanthaluteres vittiger (toothbrush leatherjacket) 16 3 55

Aplodactylus arctidens (marblefish) 1

Aracana aurita (Shaw's cowfish) 1

Cheilodactylus spectabilis (banded morwong) 1 1

Dinolestes lewini (long-finned pike) 10 4 9

Dotalabrus aurantiacus (Castelneau's wrasse) 3

Girella zebra (zebrafish) 2 1

Meuschenia australis (brown-striped leatherjacket) 6 3 1

Meuschenia freycineti (six-spined leatheracke) 1

Notolabrus fucicola (purple wrasse) 23 8 19

Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) 45 13 19

Odax cyanomelas (herring cale) 17 1

Pentaceropsis recurvirostris (longsnout boarfish) 2

Pictilabrus laticlavius (senator wrasse) 2 2

Scorpis aequipinnis (sea sweep) 1 4

Scorpis lineolata (sweep) 9

Siphonognathus beddomei (pencil weed whiting) 7 12

Trachinops caudimaculatus (blotch-tailed trachinops) 182 78

Upeneichthys vlamingii (red mullet) 1 1

Total Abundance 327 43 196

Species Richness 17 12 10

Invertebrates and cryptic fish A total of 743 large mobile invertebrates were recorded from 14 species across the three sites (Table 9). The feather star Comanthus trichoptera was the most common invertebrate recorded, accounting for 79% of all macroinvertebrate observations. Patterns of invertebrate density were very similar at sites R1 and R3, with relative high densities of C. trichoptera and Heliocidaris erythrogramma (purple urchin). These species were present in low densities at R2, likely due to the more exposed aspect at R2. Molluscs, echinoderms and crustaceans were recorded in comparable densities across the three sites. Cryptic fish were recorded in relatively low densities, with a total of five species recorded. There were no strong spatial patterns in relation to cryptic fish densities across the sites surveyed.


47

Table 9 Summary of invertebrates and cryptic fish survey results. Data represent total abundance for the 200 m2 survey area at each site.

Taxonomic group Species R1 R2 R3

Crustacean - crab Paguristes spp. 1

Plagusia chabrus 1 1 1

Crustacean - lobster Jasus edwardsii 8 3

Echinoderm - feather star Cenolia trichoptera 270 66 271

Echinoderm - sea star

Fromia polypora 2

Nectria ocellata 2 1 2

Petricia vernicina 1 6

Tosia australis 1

Echinoderm - sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma 45 2 34

Mollusc - gastropod

Cabestana spengleri 2

Dicathais orbita 1

Haliotis rubra 9 5 3

Ranella australasia 1 1

Turbo undulatus 3

Cryptic fish

Bovichtus angustifrons 1

Forsterygion varium 4 3

Heteroclinus johnstoni 1

Pempheris multiradiata 8

Trinorfolkia clarkei 9 1

Total Abundance 349 108 313

Invertebrate species richness 8 13 6


48

12 Deep Reef Surveys Methods A survey of deep reef was undertaken along a 200 m transect line as illustrated in Figure 12. Footage was captured with an ROV, with high definition footage recorded with a GoPro Hero4 camera attached to the ROV. In the laboratory footage was reviewed and the dominant habitats and taxa described. The transect was divided into 50 m sections for the purpose of video analysis. Results and interpretation The seabed was mainly low-profile reef with depth ranging from 32-38 m across the 200 m transect. There were occasional sections of more complex reef with larger boulders, mainly in the 100-150 m section of the transect. Benthic coverage on the seafloor was dominated by red and green algae, with low cover of sponges also present. A range of sponge morphologies were observed including arborescent, cup-shaped, finger and encrusting growth forms. A variety fish species were observed on the deep reef, with community structure considered typical of south-east Tasmanian reef systems. Fish species commonly recorded included Notolabrus tetricus (blue throat wrasse), Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse) and Caesioperca rasor (barber perch). Typical habitats are shown in Figure 15 below, while representative images taken along the transect are included in Appendix 11. Transect observations are summarised in Table 10.

(a) Mixed green and red algal assemblage

(b) Typical red algal cover

Figure 15. Representative habitats along deep reef survey transect.


49

Table 10. Summary of seabed characteristics along deep reef survey transect.

Distance Depth

(m) Description

0-50 32-33 m

Seabed: Low profile reef with some sand patches and occasional boulders (~ 1 m).

Flora: High and diverse cover of foliose red algae (e.g. Plocamium spp., Phacelocarpus sp., Ptilonia sp., Sonderopelta/Peyssonelia). Patchy and low cover of green algae, predominately Caulerpa trifaria. Occasional patch of crustose coralline algae. Patches of turf/sand on the reef surface.

Invertebrate fauna: Occasional sponges interspersed amongst red algae. A range of sponges present with varying colours and morphologies and including cup, encrusting, fan, finger and globular sponges. Other invertebrates recorded included lace bryozoans, Comanthus trichoptera (feather star) and Orthoscuticella sp. (bryozoa).

Fish fauna - species recorded included: Acanthaluteres vittiger (toothbrush leatherjacket) Caesioperca lepidoptera (butterfly perch) Caesioperca rasor (barber perch) Dotolabrus aurantiacus (Castelneau’s wrasse) Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse) Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) Helicolenus percoides (red gurnard perch)

50-100 32-33 m

Seabed: Low profile reef with some sand patches. Some sections of more complex reef with boulders (> 1 m).

Flora: High and diverse cover of foliose red algae (e.g. Plocamium spp., Phacelocarpus sp., Ptilonia sp., Sonderopelta/Peyssonelia). Patchy and low cover of green algae, predominately Caulerpa trifaria. Occasional patch of crustose coralline algae. Patches of turf/sand on the reef surface.

Invertebrate fauna: Occasional sponges interspersed amongst red algae. A range of sponges present with varying colours and morphologies and including cup, encrusting, fan, and globular sponges. Other invertebrates recorded included Comanthus trichoptera (feather star), Nectria ocellata (spotted seastar), Jasus edwardsii (southern rock lobster) and Parazoanthus sp. (yellow zoonthid).

Fish fauna - species recorded included: Caesioperca rasor (barber perch) Caesioperca lepidoptera (butterfly perch) Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) Pictilabrus laticlavius (senator wrasse)

100-150 32-34 m

Seabed: Low profile reef with some sand patches. Patches of more complex reef with larger boulders (>1 m).

Flora: Mixed green and red algal assemblage. Diverse range of red algae (e.g. Plocamium spp., Phacelocarpus sp., Ptilonia sp., Sonderopelta/Peyssonelia). Green algae predominately Caulerpa trifaria and C. flexilis. Patches of turf/sand on the reef surface.

Invertebrate fauna: Occasional sponges interspersed amongst algae. A range of sponges present with varying colours and morphologies and including cup, encrusting, fan, and globular sponges. Other invertebrates recorded included Comanthus trichoptera (feather star), Jasus edwardsii (southern rock lobster) Orthoscuticella sp. (bryozoa), Pteronisis sp. (orange gorgonian) and Parazoanthus sp. (yellow zoonthid).

Fish fauna - species recorded included: Cheilodactylus spectabilis (banded morwong) Latridopsis forsteri (bastard trumpeter) Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) Pictilabrus laticlavius (senator wrasse) Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse)


50

Distance Depth

(m) Description

150-200 34-38 m

Seabed: Low profile reef with some sand patches and occasional boulders (~ 1 m).

Flora: Moderate cover of foliose red algae with high diversity (e.g. Plocamium spp., Phacelocarpus sp., Ptilonia sp., Sonderopelta/Peyssonelia). Patchy and low cover of green algae, predominately Caulerpa trifaria. Occasional patch of crustose coralline algae. Patches of turf/sand on the reef surface.

Invertebrate fauna: Occasional sponges interspersed amongst algae. A range of sponges present with varying colours and morphologies and including cup, encrusting, fan, and globular sponges. Other invertebrates recorded included lace bryozoans, Comanthus trichoptera (feather star), Jasus edwardsii (southern rock lobster) Orthoscuticella sp. (bryozoa), and Parazoanthus sp. (yellow zoonthid).

Fish fauna - species recorded included: Caesioperca lepidoptera (butterfly perch) Nemadactylus macropterus (jackass morwong Notolabrus tetricus (blue-throat wrasse) Pseudolabrus rubicundus (rosy wrasse) Pseudophycis sp. (cod) Trachinops caudimaculatus (blotch-tailed trachinops)

.


51

13 References Aquenal (2014) Trumpeter Bay MF261 (Zone 1) Baseline Environmental Assessment, Report to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd. December 2014, 34pp. Aquenal (2015) Trumpeter Bay MF261 (Blocks 1 & 2): Baseline environmental assessment. Final report (version 1.0). Report to Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd. November 2015, 61pp. Clarke, K.R. (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117-143. Clarke, K.R. & Gorley, R.N. (2001) PRIMER v5: User Manual/Tutorial PRIMER-E: Plymouth. Faith, D.P., Minchin, P.R. and Belbin, L. (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69: 57-68 Macleod, C.K. and Forbes, S. (2004) Guide to the assessment of sediment condition at marine finfish farms in Tasmania. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute – University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 65 pp.


52

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

Name Easting Northing Name Easting Northing

1.1 536265 5218791 IF1 536189 5218649

1.2 536284 5218785 IF2 536131 5218407

1.3 536304 5218779 IF3 536027 5218191

2.1 536496 5218717 IF4 535972 5217941

2.2 536515 5218711 IF5 535918 5217774

2.3 536534 5218705 IF6 536206 5217674

3.1 536649 5218359 IF7 536272 5217853

3.2 536643 5218340 IF8 536352 5218107

3.3 536637 5218320 IF9 536422 5218332

4.1 536555 5218068 IF10 536510 5218541

4.2 536549 5218049 C2.1n 537272 5219834

4.3 536542 5218030 C2.2n 537268 5219849

5.1 536462 5217783 C2.3n 537275 5219871

5.2 536456 5217763 C6.1 534671 5217954

5.3 536450 5217744 C6.2 534673 5217934

6.1 536153 5217532 C6.3 534678 5217914

6.2 536134 5217538

6.3 536114 5217545

7.1 535924 5217606

7.2 535904 5217613

7.3 535885 5217619

8.1 535770 5217965

8.2 535777 5217985

8.3 535783 5218004

9.1 535862 5218248

9.2 535868 5218267

9.3 535875 5218286

10.1 535956 5218538

10.2 535962 5218557

10.3 535969 5218576


53

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

Name Easting Northing

G1 535965 5218520

G2 536287 5218587

G3 536149 5218458

G4 536012 5218327

G5 536331 5218416

G6 536131 5218558

G7 536053 5218167

G8 536374 5218243

G9 536234 5218104

G10 536406 5218066

G11 536094 5217986

G12 536261 5217928

G13 536444 5217887

G14 536126 5217813

G15 536303 5217761

G16 536195 5218299

G17 536033 5218430

G18 536268 5218487

G19 536174 5218380

G20 536075 5218267

G21 536317 5218320

G22 536204 5218197

G23 536105 5218084

G24 536336 5218143

G25 536242 5218022

G26 536149 5217909

G27 536390 5217966

G28 536282 5217847

G29 536189 5217721

G30 536428 5217789

G31 535910 5217934

G32 535931 5217838

G33 535977 5217718

G34 535873 5217775

G35 536446 5218616

G36 536309 5218626

G37 536531 5218394

G38 536401 5218496


54

Appendix 3 Images of sediment cores

1.1-1.3 2.1-2.3

3.1-3.3 4.1-4.3


55

5.1-5.3 6.1-6.3

7.1-7.3 8.1-8.3


56

9.1-9.3 10.1-10.3

C2.1n-C2.3n C6.1-C6.3


57

IF1-IF3 IF4-IF6

IF7-IF9 IF10


58

Appendix 4 Redox potential, measured in millivolts from 3cm depth in the sediment cores.

Site corrected

redox

1.1 134

1.2 78

1.3 103

2.1 232

2.2 75

2.3 134

3.1 182

3.2 78

3.3 274

4.1 235

4.2 169

4.3 166

5.1 152

5.2 225

5.3 141

6.1 178

6.2 248

6.3 263

7.1 188

7.2 232

7.3 269

8.1 281

8.2 219

8.3 254

9.1 254

9.2 244

9.3 274

10.1 197

10.2 241

10.3 244

C2.1n 273

C2.2n 251

C2.3n 200

C6.1 188

C6.2 163

C6.3 241

IF1 203

IF2 199

IF3 245

IF4 270

IF5 131

IF6 194

IF7 191

IF8 92

IF9 100

IF10 68


59

Appendix 5 Sulphide analysis, measured in sediments at 3 cm from sediment surface.

Site Sulphide (µM)

1.1 4.289110766

1.2 12.11586557

1.3 3.982482643

2.1 0.022142057

2.2 0.778860619

2.3 1.21545803

3.1 13.04871712

3.2 25.43830375

3.3 0.090630006

4.1 7.763797945

4.2 71.85803428

4.3 3.982482643

5.1 31.77812431

5.2 31.77812431

5.3 0.903413313

6.1 4.61934748

6.2 7.763797945

6.3 25.43830375

7.1 49.59164121

7.2 1.896794095

7.3 3.982482643

8.1 4.97501051

8.2 4.61934748

8.3 0.399520817

9.1 2.551958867

9.2 0.319815348

9.3 1.128565051

10.1 20.3632943

10.2 13.04871712

10.3 16.30076277

C2.1n 0.050068554

C2.2n 0.015280977

C2.3n 0.078134937

C6.1 9.69871807

C6.2 7.763797945

C6.3 10.44546325

IF1 53.40991066

IF2 0.399520817

IF3 1.309041266

IF4 3.187966734

IF5 2.551958867

IF6 1.21545803

IF7 1.21545803

IF8 16.30076277

IF9 1.896794095

IF10 1.40982987


60

Appendix 6 Particle size analysis – raw data

Sample Vi V4 V2 V1 V0.5 V0.25 V0.125 V0.063

No ml ml ml ml ml ml ml ml

1.1 70 25.1 25.4 26 27.5 41.2 86 90

1.2 73 25 25 25.2 26.1 45.1 87.3 91.6

1.3 72 25.4 25.6 26 27.8 51.3 88 92.5

2.1 71 25 25.1 25.9 31 67.9 94.2 95.8

2.2 67 25 25.2 25.8 31.2 60.5 89.2 91.6

2.3 67 25 25.2 25.9 28.3 53 90.5 91.2

3.1 71 25 25.8 26.1 31.9 66.1 84.5 93.6

3.2 70 25 25.1 25.7 30.3 58.4 93.2 94.3

3.3 69 25.2 25.6 25.9 32.8 68.5 92.6 93.5

4.1 69 25 25.3 25.8 26.8 55.1 90.1 93.2

4.2 70 25.2 25.5 25.9 27.1 42.6 91.6 92.7

4.3 69 25 25.2 25.8 28 63.5 91.3 93.2

5.1 73 25.3 25.7 26.1 42 63.3 92.7 96.8

5.2 71 25 25.7 26.7 64.2 76.6 91.3 94.7

5.3 70 25.1 25.3 26.3 30.8 70.1 90.2 92.9

6.1 71 25 25.6 25.9 27.7 54.9 90.2 94.2

6.2 72 25.5 25.6 25.7 32.9 74.1 91 93.2

6.3 70 25.4 25.7 26.4 28.2 53.3 87.1 92.8

7.1 65 25 25.4 26 35 62.9 82.7 89.2

7.2 69 25 25.2 25.7 30 43.6 83.6 88.8

7.3 68 25.1 25.5 25.8 50 75.1 88.6 92.2

8.1 71 25 25.1 25.6 34.2 64.1 85 92.6

8.2 69 25.2 25.6 25.8 27.7 56 85.2 92

8.3 69 25 25.8 26.3 29.3 49 83.9 90.9

9.1 72 25 25.8 26.2 29.3 55 87.5 94.2

9.2 71 25 25.2 26 27.5 72.9 90 95.2

9.3 70 25.8 25.9 26 28 60.2 89.9 93

10.1 70 25 25.2 25.6 27 67.7 88.7 91.9

10.2 69 25 25.1 25.4 27.1 53.6 83 89.2

10.3 72 25.1 26 26.1 30.5 66.6 82.5 93

C2.1n 69 25 25 25.1 26 67.2 92.2 93.4

C2.2n 72 25 25.1 25.7 27.5 70 88.6 91.5

C2.3n 69 25.6 26 26.2 28.8 65 93.4 94

C6.1 73 25.1 25.2 25.9 30.1 55 72 88.5

C6.2 71 25.1 25.2 26.3 30.4 38.2 64 81.6

C6.3 71 25.1 25.3 26.1 36.2 57 72.4 84.1

IF1 71 25 25.2 25.8 27.7 54.9 87.3 92.7

IF2 72 25 25.1 25.6 29 71.2 92.1 95.5

IF3 72 25 25.2 26 27 37.1 87.9 93.1

IF4 67 25.2 25.5 25.8 27.8 67.4 89.7 90.5

IF5 69 25 25.3 25.8 28.8 60.2 81.7 92

IF6 68 25 25.2 25.7 27.9 70 90.2 92.9

IF7 72 25.5 26 26.1 27 63.1 92.7 95

IF8 73 25 25.6 26.3 28.1 61.2 93.6 95.8

IF9 71 25.5 25.9 26.4 28.8 66.8 93.7 95.9

IF10 70 25.1 25.2 25.7 28.2 53.4 88.8 92.9


61

Appendix 7 Raw Data: Benthic infauna

Taxonomic group Family 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 IF1 IF2 IF3 IF4 IF5 IF6 IF7 IF8 IF9 IF10 C2.1 C2.2 C2.3 C6.1 C6.2 C6.3

Anthozoan Edwardsiidae 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 8 2 3 2 2 6 5 2 2 1 2 2 1

Brachiopod Terebratulida (Order) 1 1 1 9 1 2 4 1 1 1

Crustacean - amphipod Ampeliscidae 5 10 6 3 4 6 1 5 5 5 4 9 12 12 24 9 15 11 23 22 24 28 19 17 13 12 15 8 25 7 11 17 8 11 12 10 12 7 1 46 51 24

Crustacean - amphipod Aoridae 4 3 2 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 8 5 3 11 7 4 7 5 7 3 6 5 5 9 1 6 7 10 2 6 1 4 2 2 2 1 14 11 12

Crustacean - amphipod Atylidae 1 1 1 1

Crustacean - amphipod Corophiidae 1 2 3 5 1

Crustacean - amphipod Dexaminidae 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1

Crustacean - amphipod Eusiridae 4 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 1 6 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 1

Crustacean - amphipod Kuriidae 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 7 3 1

Crustacean - amphipod Liljeborgiidae 1 3

Crustacean - amphipod Lysianassidae 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 9 7 2 3 8 4 7 2 5 6 1 6 1 5 9 2 5 5 5 9 7 4 5 11 4 2 4 5 2 8 7 7 5 4 6 3 1

Crustacean - amphipod Melitidae 2 1 1 1 1

Crustacean - amphipod Melphidippidae 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 10 1

Crustacean - amphipod Oedicerotidae 1 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2

Crustacean - amphipod Photidae 17 9 9 10 12 16 14 14 20 6 27 8 12 21 8 16 17 11 6 14 5 2 7 5 10 5 17 6 10 9 8 9 10 3 8 14 6 20 21 16 24 14 20 6 6 1

Crustacean - amphipod Phoxocephalidae 8 20 7 4 10 9 12 13 11 15 21 10 21 10 13 12 14 6 3 8 2 9 15 3 1 3 4 6 16 2 7 11 4 7 13 21 2 2 3 5 3 1 5 2

Crustacean - amphipod Platyischnopidae 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 3 4 1 1 3 2

Crustacean - amphipod Podoceridae 1

Crustacean - amphipod Stenothoidae 1 1

Crustacean - amphipod Synopiidae 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

Crustacean - amphipod Urohaustoriidae 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 1

Crustacean - caprellid Caprellidae 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1

Crustacean - crab Hexapodidae 1 1 1

Crustacean - crab Hymenosomatidae 1

Crustacean - crab Porcellanidae 1 1 1

Crustacean - cumacean Bodotriidae 10 1 2 1 2 7 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 8 4 2 4 2 1

Crustacean - cumacean Diastylidae 17 6 4 8 3 5 2 4 10 13 13 1 4 14 6 15 3 11 1 7 7 4 1 5 5 3 4 3 3 4 10 2 4 4 6 9 4 18 14 10 9 10 13 6 15 2

Crustacean - cumacean Nannastacidae 1 1

Crustacean - fire crab Inachoididae (cf. Pyromaia tuberculata ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Crustacean - ghost shrimp Pasiphaeidae 1 1

Crustacean - isopod Anthuridae 6 1

Crustacean - isopod Arcturidae 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 5

Crustacean - isopod Cirolanidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1

Crustacean - isopod Gnathiidae 3

Crustacean - isopod Munnidae 1 1 1 1

Crustacean - isopod Paranthuridae 2 6 6 2 2 1 2 6 2 7 2 4 6 10 7 14 9 7 3 14 1 2 5 6 10 3 7 6 2 2 13 5 2 3 4 6 3 2 6 3 5 5 6 5

Crustacean - isopod Serolidae 1 1

Crustacean - isopod Sphaeromatidae 2 1

Crustacean - nebalid Nebaliidae 5 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 4 4 2 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 3 4 1 2 3 1

Crustacean - ostracod Cylindroleberididae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 1

Crustacean - ostracod Cypridinidae 19 3 2 15 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 4 4 3 2 9 2 7 3 2 2 3 3 2 5 6 6 2 12 5 7 4 1 6 6 15 5 7 4 9 35 2 4

Crustacean - ostracod Philomedidae 37 22 10 11 12 16 12 1 4 6 11 13 22 14 9 3 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 3 19 5 4 2 1 1 18 20 39 25 45 35 36

Crustacean - ostracod Sarsiell idae 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 5 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1


62

Appendix 7 (continued) Raw Data: Benthic infauna


Crustacean - pagurid Paguridae 6 3 2 10 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 2 7 7 1 9

Crustacean - pebble crab Leucosiidae 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Crustacean - spider crab Majidae 1

Crustacean - tanaid Apseudidae 1 2

Crustacean - tanaid Kalliapseudidae 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 4 4 3 2 1 2 12 4 6 9 3 3 4 1 4 1 5 2 1 15 3 4

Crustacean - tanaid Metapseudidae 1 1 1 3

Crustacean - tanaid Pagurapseudidae 26 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 5 20 19 12 2 2 1

Crustacean - tanaid Whiteleggiidae 1 2 12 1 5 2 5 1 2 15 7 13 17 24 15 17 20 2 9 6 2 12 2 8 3 7 5 6 14 6 6 1 25 50 19

Echninoderm - asteroid Asterinidae 1 1 1 1 1 1

Echninoderm - asteroid Astropectinidae 1

Echninoderm - echinoid Loveniidae 3 5 2 1 3 2 2 4 1 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 2

Echninoderm - holothurean Chiridotidae 1 1 1 3 1 1 2

Echninoderm - holothurean Cucumariidae 1 1 1 1 2 1

Echninoderm - ophiuroid Ophiuridae 6 1 1 2 1 6 5 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 4 2 4 2 3 7 1 1

Echninoderm - sea urchin Cidaridae 1 1 1

Echninoderm - sea urchin Echinometrid 1

Mollusc - bivalve Cardiidae 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 5 1 6 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 8 11 6

Mollusc - bivalve Carditidae 1

Mollusc - bivalve Condylocardiidae 1 1 1 1 1 1

Mollusc - bivalve Corbulidae - Corbula gibba 1 1 1 1 4 1

Mollusc - bivalve Cuspidariidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Mollusc - bivalve Galeommatidae 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Mollusc - bivalve Glycymerididae 1 1 1

Mollusc - bivalve Lucinidae 1 3 2

Mollusc - bivalve Myochamidae 1

Mollusc - bivalve Mytil idae 1 1

Mollusc - bivalve Nuculanidae 3 5 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 5 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 1 4 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 1 3

Mollusc - bivalve Nuculidae 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 8 2

Mollusc - bivalve Semelidae 1 1 1 2 5

Mollusc - bivalve Thyasiridae 1 2 6

Mollusc - bivalve Trigoniidae 1

Mollusc - bivalve Ungulinidae 1 1 8 15 4

Mollusc - bivalve Veneridae 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 4 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 4 2 5 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 8 9

Mollusc - gastropod Anabathridae 50 22 34 26 37 7 1 1 54 5 24 49 22 20 14 8 7 19 15 1 6 15 3 10 13 1 32 12 7 5 24 12 24 43 91 25 5 8 12 2 1 1

Mollusc - gastropod Cancellariidae 1 1

Mollusc - gastropod Columbellidae 5 3 4 4 1 1 2 6 5 2 1 1 1 2

Mollusc - gastropod Eatoniell idae 1 2

Mollusc - gastropod Epitoniidae 2 1 1 1 1

Mollusc - gastropod Fusinidae 1

Mollusc - gastropod Marginellidae 1 1 1 1 2 1 2

Mollusc - gastropod Muricidae 1 1 2 1

Mollusc - gastropod Nassaridae 1 2 4 3

Mollusc - gastropod Naticidae 1 1 1 1

Mollusc - gastropod Pyramidellidae 1 1 1 1 2

Mollusc - gastropod Retusidae 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1

Mollusc - gastropod Rissoidae 1 1 1 1 1

Mollusc - gastropod Trochidae 2

Mollusc - gastropod Volutidae 1 1 1 1

Mollusc - glisten worm Chaetodermatidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2

Mollusc - sea slug Pleurobranchidae 1 1 1 2 1 5 3

Mollusc - tusk shell Gadilidae 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3


63

Appendix 7 (continued) Raw Data: Benthic infauna


Nemertean Nemertea (Phylum) 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 8 1 1 1 2 3 2 6 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 6 2 4 3

Oligocheata (Subclass) Oligocheata 2 1 1 1

Phoronid Phoronida (Phylum) 4 2 1 1 1 1 1

Platyhelminth Platyhelminthes (Phylum) 1 1

Polychaete - ampharetid Ampharetidae 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 4 3

Polychaete - aphrodotid Aphroditidae 1 1 1

Polychaete - capitellid Capitellidae (Capitella sp. ) 1

Polychaete - capitellid Capitellidae (Mediomastus australiensis ) 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 4 1 1 1 3 14 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 2 2

Polychaete - cirratulid Cirratulidae 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 3 2 9 7 11 14 5 9 8 9 5 3 7 15 7 13 4 4 5 1 1 2 2 2 13 12 2

Polychaete - dorvilleid Dorvilleidae 1

Polychaete - flabelligerid Flabelligeridae 1 2 1 1 1 1 2

Polychaete - glycerid Glyceridae 3 1 1 1 1

Polychaete - goniadid Goniadidae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Polychaete - lumbrinerid Lumbrineridae 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 3 5 3

Polychaete - maldanid Maldanidae 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 6 3 3

Polychaete - nephtyid Nephtyidae 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 1

Polychaete - nereid Nereidae 1 1 1 1

Polychaete - oenonid Oenonidae 1

Polychaete - onuphid Onuphidae 3 3 12 1 2 8 1 4 2 8 9 10 22 8 6 6 10 3 1 2 1 1 5 2 4 4 7 17 8 17 2 4 8 2 7 1 4 4 6 7 1 1 1

Polychaete - ophelid Opheliidae 1 1

Polychaete - orbiniid Orbiniidae 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1

Polychaete - oweniid Oweniidae 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2

Polychaete - paraonid Paraonidae 2 1 1 1

Polychaete - pectinariid Pectinariidae 4 7 2 4 5 13 1 1 2 1 1 5 6 1 3 2 3 3 2 4 1 1 2 5 7 2 3 3 2 3 5 1 1 4 3 3 1 3 4

Polychaete - phyllodocid Phyllodocidae 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 2 2 3 5 1

Polychaete - polynoid Polynoidae 1

Polychaete - sabellid Sabellidae (Euchone variabilis ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1

Polychaete - scalibregmatid Scalibregmatidae 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2

Polychaete - sigalionid Sigalionidae 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2

Polychaete - spionid Spionidae 4 8 12 3 1 10 6 8 7 9 18 11 8 18 8 35 40 38 23 26 14 19 29 33 29 32 18 27 12 20 7 17 15 9 15 19 9 13 11 9 6 11 16 40 62 19

Polychaete - syll id Syllidae 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 2 5 8 1 3 1 1 1 2 5 5 4 3 1 1 4 1

Polychaete - terebellid Terebellidae 2 6 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 2 4 3 4 1 1 1 2

Pycnogonid Phoxichilidiidae 1

Sipunculid Phascolosomatidae (Phylum) 1 2 1 1

260 185 143 122 109 151 112 86 99 153 220 130 199 229 153 232 236 199 113 240 125 147 191 143 159 127 159 193 140 185 161 172 140 111 139 162 149 273 279 164 153 156 185 289 349 152

39 47 40 30 32 35 37 31 31 39 45 43 43 43 40 47 49 46 31 48 35 40 46 35 41 39 41 42 40 43 35 43 32 33 41 40 38 46 36 37 35 40 33 50 49 38

Total abundance

Family richness


64

Appendix 8 Raw Data - Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Macroalgae percentage cover

(a) R1

Site Block Distance Acr

ocar

pia

pani

cula

ta

Bal

lia c

allit

rich

a

Bal

lia s

p. (

fine

red

)

Bar

e ro

ck (

non

- ba

rren

s)

Callo

phyl

lis la

mbe

rtii

Carp

oglo

ssum

con

flue

ns

Carp

omit

ra c

osta

ta

Chae

tom

orph

a co

lifor

mis

Chei

losp

orum

sp.

Colp

omen

ia s

inuo

sa

Cyst

opho

ra p

laty

lobi

um

Dur

ville

a po

tato

rum

Eckl

onia

rad

iata

Eupt

ilota

art

icul

ata

Hal

ipti

lon

rose

um

Hal

opel

tis

aust

ralis

Hal

opte

ris

pani

cula

ta

Laur

enci

a el

ata

Leno

rman

dia

mar

gina

ta

Ort

hosc

utic

ella

spp

.

Phac

eloc

arpu

s pe

pero

carp

os

Phac

eloc

arpu

s sp

p.

Phyl

losp

ora

com

osa

Ploc

amiu

m a

ngus

tum

Ploc

amiu

m d

ilata

tum

Poly

opes

con

stri

ctus

Ptilo

nia

aust

rala

sica

Sabe

llid

spp.

Sand

Sarc

odia

mar

gina

ta

Sarg

assu

m s

pp.

Sarg

assu

m v

esti

tum

Silt

/san

d on

ree

f

Sond

erop

elta

/Pey

sson

nelia

Sten

ogra

mm

e in

terr

upta

Ulv

a sp

p.

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(cru

stos

e co

ralli

ne)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(red

roc

k)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(fila

men

tous

gre

en)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(red

)

Uni

dent

ifie

d br

yozo

ans

(har

d)

Uni

dent

ifie

d br

yozo

ans

(sof

t)

Uni

dent

ifie

d sp

onge

(en

crus

ting

)

Xiph

opho

ra g

ladi

ata

Zona

ria

turn

eria

na/a

ngus

tata

1 95 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 12 0 0 0 8 6 0 12

1 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 30 0 4 0 0 8 0 0

1 75 0 0 6 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 36

1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8 0 0 0 0 12 36 0 0 0 0 2 0 30

1 55 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 32 20 0 0 0 0 4 4 10

2 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 64 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 20

2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 4 28 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 32

2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 58 16 0 0 0 0 10 0 6

2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 90 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 16 0 10 0 0 12 0 12

2 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 20 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 46 16 0 0 0 0 16 0 4

3 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 10 0 8 0 0 4 0 4

3 15 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 30 100 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 18 14 0 0 0 0 12 0 0

3 25 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 80 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

3 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 80 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 12 0 0 0 0 16 0 12

3 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 16 0 0 0 0 12 0 8

4 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 18 0 4 0 4 0 0 12

4 65 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 0 6 0 28

4 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 28 20 0 6 0 0 16 0 8

4 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 8 0 6 0 0 12 0 6

4 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 76 6 0 4 0 0 6 0 4

R1


65

(b) R2


ocar

pia

pani

cula

ta

Bal

lia c

allit

rich

a

Bal

lia s

p. (

fine

red

)

Bar

e ro

ck (

non

- ba

rren

s)

Callo

phyl

lis la

mbe

rtii

Carp

oglo

ssum

con

flue

ns

Carp

omit

ra c

osta

ta

Chae

tom

orph

a co

lifor

mis

Chei

losp

orum

sp.

Colp

omen

ia s

inuo

sa

Cyst

opho

ra p

laty

lobi

um

Dur

ville

a po

tato

rum

Eckl

onia

rad

iata

Eupt

ilota

art

icul

ata

Hal

ipti

lon

rose

um

Hal

opel

tis

aust

ralis

Hal

opte

ris

pani

cula

ta

Laur

enci

a el

ata

Leno

rman

dia

mar

gina

ta

Ort

hosc

utic

ella

spp

.

Phac

eloc

arpu

s pe

pero

carp

os

Phac

eloc

arpu

s sp

p.

Phyl

losp

ora

com

osa

Ploc

amiu

m a

ngus

tum

Ploc

amiu

m d

ilata

tum

Poly

opes

con

stri

ctus

Ptilo

nia

aust

rala

sica

Sabe

llid

spp.

Sand

Sarc

odia

mar

gina

ta

Sarg

assu

m s

pp.

Sarg

assu

m v

esti

tum

Silt

/san

d on

ree

f

Sond

erop

elta

/Pey

sson

nelia

Sten

ogra

mm

e in

terr

upta

Ulv

a sp

p.

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(cru

stos

e co

ralli

ne)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(red

roc

k)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(fila

men

tous

gre

en)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(red

)

Uni

dent

ifie

d br

yozo

ans

(har

d)

Uni

dent

ifie

d br

yozo

ans

(sof

t)

Uni

dent

ifie

d sp

onge

(en

crus

ting

)

Xiph

opho

ra g

ladi

ata

Zona

ria

turn

eria

na/a

ngus

tata

1 95 42 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 96 8 16 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 4 2 0 6 0 22

1 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 20 4 16 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 80 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 18

1 65 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 20 6 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 100 36 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

1 55 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 6

2 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 0 8 0 24

2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 0

2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 6 12 6 0 100 6 6 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

3 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 100 16 0 0 0 0 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 4

3 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 16 0 0 0 0 2 6 0

3 35 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 10 0 4 0 0 8 0 0

3 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 8 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 4 0 0 0 0 2 10 0

4 55 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 20 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 10 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 65 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 100 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 10 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

4 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 12 0 0 0 0 10 0 0

4 85 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 46 12 4 0 0 0 6 0 0

4 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

R2


66

(c) R3


ocar

pia

pani

cula

ta

Bal

lia c

allit

rich

a

Bal

lia s

p. (

fine

red

)

Bar

e ro

ck (

non

- ba

rren

s)

Callo

phyl

lis la

mbe

rtii

Carp

oglo

ssum

con

flue

ns

Carp

omit

ra c

osta

ta

Chae

tom

orph

a co

lifor

mis

Chei

losp

orum

sp.

Colp

omen

ia s

inuo

sa

Cyst

opho

ra p

laty

lobi

um

Dur

ville

a po

tato

rum

Eckl

onia

rad

iata

Eupt

ilota

art

icul

ata

Hal

ipti

lon

rose

um

Hal

opel

tis

aust

ralis

Hal

opte

ris

pani

cula

ta

Laur

enci

a el

ata

Leno

rman

dia

mar

gina

ta

Ort

hosc

utic

ella

spp

.

Phac

eloc

arpu

s pe

pero

carp

os

Phac

eloc

arpu

s sp

p.

Phyl

losp

ora

com

osa

Ploc

amiu

m a

ngus

tum

Ploc

amiu

m d

ilata

tum

Poly

opes

con

stri

ctus

Ptilo

nia

aust

rala

sica

Sabe

llid

spp.

Sand

Sarc

odia

mar

gina

ta

Sarg

assu

m s

pp.

Sarg

assu

m v

esti

tum

Silt

/san

d on

ree

f

Sond

erop

elta

/Pey

sson

nelia

Sten

ogra

mm

e in

terr

upta

Ulv

a sp

p.

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(cru

stos

e co

ralli

ne)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(red

roc

k)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(fila

men

tous

gre

en)

Uni

dent

ifie

d al

gae

(red

)

Uni

dent

ifie

d br

yozo

ans

(har

d)

Uni

dent

ifie

d br

yozo

ans

(sof

t)

Uni

dent

ifie

d sp

onge

(en

crus

ting

)

Xiph

opho

ra g

ladi

ata

Zona

ria

turn

eria

na/a

ngus

tata

1 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 70 10 4 2 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 30 10 0 0 0 0 12 0 0

1 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 30 0 0 4 0 16 0 0

1 75 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 80 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 14

1 65 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 20 0 0 0 30 20 0 0

1 55 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 100 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 20 0 8 0 0 10 0 0

2 45 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 50 24 0 0 0 0 10 0 4

2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 8 0 10 0 0 6 0 0

2 25 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 2 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 10 30 0 0 2 0 24 0 0

2 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 20 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

2 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 66 14 0 0 0 0 14 0 2

3 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 24 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 12

3 15 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 24 0 0 0 0 10 0 6

3 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 35 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 16 0 4 0 0 4 0 0

3 45 0 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 22 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

4 65 0 0 6 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 14 0 6 0 0 0 0 4

4 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 20 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 8

4 85 0 12 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 4 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12

4 95 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 52 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 6

R3


67

Appendix 9 Raw Data - Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Fish and invertebrates

(a) Fish

Species

R1 R2 R3

Transect Block Transect Block Transect Block

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Acanthaluteres spilomelanurus 1

Acanthaluteres vittiger 5 4 5 2 1 1 1 3 31 7 6

Aplodactylus arctidens 1 1

Aracana aurita 1 1

Cheilodactylus spectabilis 1 1 1

Dinolestes lewini 2 5 2 1 2 2 4 3 1

Dotalabrus aurantiacus 3

Girella zebra 1 1 1

Meuschenia australis 1 5 1 1 1 3

Meuschenia freycineti 1

Notolabrus fucicola 1 4 7 11 2 1 5 8 3 6 6

Notolabrus tetricus 14 10 8 13 5 4 1 3 13 6 6 3

Odax cyanomelas 2 1 6 8 1 1

Pentaceropsis recurvirostris 1 1 2

Pictilabrus laticlavius 1 1 1 1 2

Scorpis aequipinnis 1 1 3 4

Scorpis lineolata 2 2 5

Siphonognathus beddomei 2 4 1 2 7

Trachinops caudimaculatus 50 50 45 37 28 15 35

Upeneichthys vlamingii 1 1

(b) Invertebrates

Species

R1 R2 R3

Transect Block Transect Block Transect Block

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Bovichtus angustifrons 1

Cabestana spengleri 1 1

Cenolia trichoptera 80 58 67 65 18 18 18 12 56 56 69 90

Dicathais orbita 1

Forsterygion varium 1 3 3

Fromia polypora 2

Haliotis rubra 3 4 2 2 2 1 2 1

Heliocidaris erythrogramma 12 4 11 18 2 1 11 12 10

Heteroclinus johnstoni 1

Jasus edwardsii 2 2 4 1 2

Nectria ocellata 1 1 1 1 1

Paguristes spp. 1

Pempheris multiradiata 4 4

Petricia vernicina 1 1 3 2

Plagusia chabrus 1 1 1

Ranella australasia 1 1

Tosia australis 1

Trinorfolkia clarkei 3 6 1

Turbo undulatus 3


68

Appendix 10 Edgar-Barrett Surveys: Images of representative habitats at inshore reef sites R1, R2 and R3.

R1 R1

R2 R2

R3 R3


69

Appendix 11 Deep reef survey: Images of representative habitats.

0-50 m 0-50 m

0-50 m 50-100 m

50-100 m 50-100 m


70

Appendix 11 (continued) Deep reef survey: Images of representative habitats.

100-150 m 100-150 m

100-150 m 150-200 m

150-200 m 150-200 m

baseline final report - aquenal - huon aquaculture · 2020. 2. 18. · trumpeter bay mf261 - block...

Documents