environmental impact assessment (msm3208) lecture notes 5-scoping investigation

8/9/2019 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (MSM3208) LECTURE NOTES 5-Scoping Investigation

1/27

Scoping Aquatic Ecological Investigations in

EIA: Matching Experimental Designs to

Environmental Challenges

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 5-8-04

Marcus Lincoln-Smith


2/27

Major Stages of EIA:

1. EIA approvals Predictive

Measures existing environmental indictors Measures existing impacts (e.g. other activities; upgrades)

2. EIA post-approval Tests predictions

Measures environmental indicators Distinguishes pre-existing impacts and natural variation from

new disturbance Audit of process (rarely)


3/27

Pre-Approval: Levels of

Investigation

Level 1. a. Existing information & consultation

(jetty upgrade) b. Location description and habitat inventory

Level 2. a & b.

(maintenance c. Quantitative spatial only (dev loc; 2 controls)

dredging)

Level 3. a & b.

(small resort c1. Quantitative space/ time (dev loc; 2 refs + 2 t)

tertiary ofall)

Level 4. a, b & c1.

(major port) d. Issue-oriented or process studies (e.g.

ecological manipulations, modeling)

Increasing c

ost;increa s

ing

confiden

ce

Note: large projects: Levels 3 or 4 oftencheaper


4/27

Post-Approval - Monitoring

Level 1 Surveillance monitoringHypotheses usually not stated

Often open ended (nothing to compare against)

Application: generate hypotheses?

Level 2 Compliance monitoring

Hypotheses can be stated, but often not

Compare results to standard (ANZECC;

rapid assessments)

Difficult to relate to ecology and/or specific location

Application: early warning (often only big effects apparent)

Level 3 Effects monitoring (e.g. Beyond-BACI/Gradient)

Hypotheses clearly stated

Results compared to control (baseline) conditions

Application: the only real way to measure impacts compared

to natural variation

Increa

sing

cost;

increasing

confid e

nce


5/27

Case 1: Uptake of nitrogen isotope in macroalgae,

South Coast outfalls. Client: Shoalhaven Council

15 N = N15 /N14 * 1000indicator of anthropogenic source of nutrients

Kelp (Ecklonia radiata) Bubble weed (Phyllospora comosa)


6/27

Crookhaven Heads

Penguin Head

Kinghorn Point

Scale (km)

Pacific Ocean

Moona Moona

Plantation Point

Hyams Beach

N

Jervis Bay

Gerroa

Coastal location

Bay location (Marine Park)

SydneyJervis Bay

Jervis Bay Region


7/27

Location

Site (Location)

Species

Plants(=replicate)

Shoalhaven Coast Jervis Bay

Penguin

Head

Kinghorn

PointCrookhaven

Head

Plantation

Point

Hyams

Beach

Moona

Moona

Kelp

4 4

Bubble

Weed

Kelp

4 4

Bubble

Weed

South Coast Outfalls Design Tree

ANOVA: Main effects = Location, Site (Location), Species Interactions = Loc x Species; Site (Loc) x

Species


8/27

**

**

Coast Jervis Bay

PH PPKP CH MM HB

Me

anvalueof

15N

(1SE)

3

6

9

12

Sites within Locations

(averaged across species of algae)


9/27

****

Meanvalueof

15N

(1SE)

3

6

9

12 Jervis Bay

Coast

Kelp Bubble Weed

Comparison of locations for each species (across sites)


10/27

South Coast Outfalls: Conclusions

1. Greater 15 N in macroalgae near outfalls than controls under pre-

existing treatment of effluent

2. Greater 15 N in either species of macroalgae from Jervis

Bay than coastal samples

Management Implications:

Existing impact identified used as basis for monitoring the successof effluent upgrade Enabled setting of performance criteria on basis of reduction in 15 N Upgrade has occurred & levels of 15 N have decreased as

predicted


11/27

Case 2: Bioaccumulation of contaminants in oysters in the

Hunter River, central NSW. Client: BHP Billiton

BHP Steelworks

Oyster zone

Shoreline, South Arm

Lincoln-Smith & Cooper (2004): MPB, 48: 873 - 883


12/27

Can be used to identify the extent of an impact

M

eanconcent r

atio

n(+/-SE

)

ofconta

minantintestor g

anism

Distance from point source ( x 100 m)

Putative

background

Gradient Approach Use linear regression


13/27

1 km

N

Upstream

Downstream

Sampling in Hunter

Estuary (Newcastle)

5* = Putative

background

sites (BG)

Intervals = 500 m

n = 5 oyster composites/site

Sydney

Newcastle


14/27

1 2 3 4 5 6123456

SWUpstream Downstream

0.2

0.6

1.0Lead

U/S: -ve ***; r2 = 0.90

D/S: -ve ***; r2 = 0.81

Meanc o

ncentrationm

g/kg,ww(n

=5,

1

SE)

1 2 3 4 5 6123456


2

4

6 All PAHs U/S: -ve ***; r2 = 0.70

D/S: -ve ***; r2 = 0.93

Copper

1 2 3 4 5 6123456


20

60

100 U/S: 0 ns; r2 = 0.09

D/S: +ve **; r2 = 0.31

Gradient Effects:

regressions


15/27

A1 A2 B1 B2P1 P2 B1 B2

Reference

Estuaries

Impact

Estuary

Point Source vs Putative Background

vs References

Meanconce

ntration(+/-SE)

ofcontaminanti n

testor g

anism

To identify the presence & magnitude

of an impact & infer estuary-wide effects

P1, 2 = Point source;

B1, 2 = Putative background


16/27

33 35 S

151 15 E

C. Hawkesbury

A. Pt Stephens

152 05 E

152 46 E

32 55 S

1 km

N

B. Hunter

sSydney

v A

v C

v B


17/27

Meanc

oncentrationm g

/kg,ww(n

=5,

1SE)

SW BG PS HW

Hunter References

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

0.2

0.6

1.0

Lead*

All PAHs

2

4

6

SW BG PS HWHunter References

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

*

Copper

20

40

80

*

**

*

SW BG PS HW

Hunter References

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Multi-scale Effects:

ANOVA


18/27

Newcastle: Conclusions

1. Strong negative gradients indicated Steelworks as a point

source of some bioavailable contaminants (e.g. lead, PAHs)

2. Gradient approach also identified other potential point

sources (e.g. copper)

3. Use of external references enabled measure of background

conditions


Knowledge of sources of bioavailable contaminants helped focus

on specific area of concern (i.e. steelworks) Justified and reinforced closure of specific area of the estuary to

consumption of wild oysters


19/27

Shallow terrace habitat (0 3.5 m) Deep slope habitat (15 22 m)

Case 3: Testing the effectiveness of a marine protected

area to replenish harvested invertebrates.

Client:GBRMPA & ACIAR; Collaborators: World Fish Centre; TNC; SIF.(Lincoln-Smith et al. (2000), Proceedings 9th ICRS, Bali: 621626 & GBRMPA Res. Pub. 69)

EIA in reverse looking at the effects of removing an impact (i.e. fishing)

Target species: trochus (top shell), sea cucumbers and giant clams


20/27

N e wG e o r g i a

G u a d a l c a n a l

R u s s e l lI s l a n d s

F l o r i d a I s l a n d s

C h o i s e u l

S a n t a I s a b e l

M a l a i t a

G i z o

H o n i a r a

1 0 0 k m

S o l o m o n I s l a7 S

o

9 So

1 5 7 Eo

1 5 9 Eo

1 6 1 Eo

Arnavon IslandsParticipating communities

Reference groups formonitoring invertebrates


21/27

Group

Island

Site

Transect(=replicate)

1 2

Arnavons.........Ref 1............Ref 2...........Ref 3

Whagena Ysabel Suavanao

66 66

5 6 7 8

Two habitats sampled: Shallow reef terrace (0-3.5m), Deep slope (15-22m)

1 2 3 4

6 6 66

Analysis of data: Asymmetrical ANOVA (Winer et al. '91, Underwood '93)

Temporal components: Before (3 surveys 1995), After (3 surveys 1998/9)

Spatial components:


22/27

Numb

erper100m

2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Arnavon

Waghe

na

Ysabe

l

Suavan

aoBefore

After

Trochus niloticus

(av. across sites)

Shallow habitat

Group


23/27

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0Arnavon Waghena

Ysabel Suavanao

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Number

per100m

2

Trochus niloticus

Site

Before

After


24/27

1

2

3

0

Numberper250m

2

Arna

von

Waghe

na

Ys

abel

Suavan

ao

Total holothurians

Group (av. across sites)

Deep habitat

BeforeAfter

Tridacna maxima


25/27

0

1

2

3

Arna

von

Wagh

ena

Ysab

el

Suavan

ao

Num

berper100m

2

Tridacna maxima

(av. across sites)

Shallow habitat

Before

After

Group


26/27

Arnavons MCA: Conclusions

1. Successful replenishment of trochus

2. Maintenance of abundance of holothurians in MCA despite

probable ongoing exploitation outside

3. Use of reference areas identified large-scale natural (?) patterns

(e.g. giant clam)


Different times likely to be required for different species Marine reserve may not be the most appropriate form of

management for some species Its as important to know what is happening outside a reserve as

whats happening inside


27/27

Use of experimental

design in EIA

2. Pre- Approval Phase: Good designs improve predictions of effects and generation of

hypotheses Can be used as the Before part of effects monitoring But, need to allocate adequate time for study & evaluation (both often

rushed)

1. Appropriate experimental designs can and should be used to improve

the reliability of decision making in EIA (design trees really help)

3. Post-Approval Phase:

Surveillance & compliance monitoring can be inexpensive, but mightidentify only a big (obvious) effect when its too late or expensive to fix.

Effects monitoring Measures natural variation Provides baseline for future comparisons Drawback need to have controls available

environmental impact assessment (msm3208) lecture notes 5-scoping investigation

Documents