Scoping Aquatic Ecological Investigations in

EIA: Matching Experimental Designs to

Environmental Challenges

Marcus Lincoln-Smith

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

 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)
 Pre-Approval: Levels of
Investigation

Increasing cost; increasing confidence

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 o’fall)
Level 4. a, b & c1.
(major port) d. Issue-oriented or process studies (e.g.
ecological manipulations, modeling)
Note: large projects: Levels 3 or 4 often cheaper
 Post-Approval - Monitoring

Increasing cost; increasing confidence

Level 1 Surveillance monitoring
Hypotheses 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
Case 1: Uptake of nitrogen isotope in macroalgae,
South Coast outfalls. Client: Shoalhaven Council

δ 15 N = N15 /N14 * 1000

indicator of anthropogenic source of nutrients
Kelp (Ecklonia radiata) Bubble weed (Phyllospora comosa)
 Gerroa
Jervis Bay Region

Pacific Ocean

Crookhaven Heads
Sydney
Jervis Bay
Penguin Head Coastal location

Kinghorn Point

Jervis Bay

Moona Moona

Scale (km)
Plantation Point

Bay location (Marine Park)
Hyams Beach
 South Coast Outfalls – Design Tree
Location Shoalhaven Coast Jervis Bay

Site (Location) Penguin Kinghorn Crookhaven Plantation Hyams Moona

Head Point Head Point Beach Moona

Species Kelp Bubble Kelp Bubble

Weed Weed
Plants
(=replicate) 4 4… …4 4

ANOVA:
• Main effects = Location, Site (Location), Species
• Interactions = Loc x Species; Site (Loc) x
Species
 Sites within Locations
(averaged across species of algae)

12 **

**
Mean value of δ 15N (± 1SE)

PH KP CH PP MM HB

Coast Jervis Bay

 Comparison of locations for each species (across sites)

Coast

12 Jervis Bay

Mean value of δ 15N (± 1SE)

**
**

Kelp Bubble Weed

 South Coast Outfalls: Conclusions

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

existing treatment of effluent

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

Bay than coastal samples

Management Implications:

• Existing impact identified – used as basis for monitoring the success

of effluent upgrade
• Enabled setting of performance criteria on basis of reduction in δ 15 N
• Upgrade has occurred & levels of δ 15 N have decreased as
predicted
 Case 2: Bioaccumulation of contaminants in oysters in the
Hunter River, central NSW. Client: BHP Billiton

Lincoln­Smith & Cooper (2004): MPB, 48: 873 ­ 883

Oyster zone

BHP Steelworks

Shoreline, South Arm

 Gradient Approach – Use linear regression

of contaminant in test organism

Mean concentration (+/- SE)

Putative
background

Distance from point source ( x 100 m)

Can be used to identify the extent of an impact

 Newcastle
Sydney

Upstream

Sampling in Hunter
Downstream Estuary (Newcastle)

Intervals = 500 m

5* = Putative
background
N
sites (BG)
n = 5 oyster composites/site
1 km
 Gradient Effects:
1.0 U/S: -ve ***; r2 = 0.90
Lead D/S: -ve ***; r2 = 0.81 regressions
Mean concentration mg/kg, ww (n = 5, ± 1

0.6

100 U/S: 0 ns; r2 = 0.09

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

6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 60

Upstream SW Downstream
20
6 All PAHs U/S: -ve ***; r2 = 0.70
D/S: -ve ***; r2 = 0.93
6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 Upstream SW Downstream

2
SE)

6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6

Upstream SW Downstream
 Point Source vs Putative Background
vs References

of contaminant in test organism

Mean concentration (+/- SE)
P1, 2 = Point source;
B1, 2 = Putative background

P1 P2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2
Impact Reference
Estuary Estuaries

To identify the presence & magnitude

of an impact & infer estuary-wide effects
 152 46’ E

▲ A
▲ B
▲ C
Sydney ■
32 55’ S

N
B. Hunter
1 km


151 15’ E
152 05’ E

33  35’ S

A. Pt Stephens C. Hawkesbury
 Multi-scale Effects:
1.0
ANOVA
Mean concentration mg/kg, ww (n = 5, ± 1 SE)

* Lead
0.6
Copper
80 *
0.2 *
*
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 40
SW BG PS HW
Hunter References *
20
6
All PAHs
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
4 SW BG PS HW
Hunter References

2
*

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
SW BG PS HW
Hunter References
 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

Management Implications:
• 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
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: 621–626 & 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

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

 o C h o i s e Arnavon
u l Islands S o l o m o n I s l a
7 S
Participating communities
Reference groups for
monitoring invertebrates
S a n t a I s a b e l

N e w
G i z o G e o r g i a

M a l a i t a
R u s s e F l ll o r i d a I s l a n d s
o
I s l a n d s
9 S

H o n i a r a

1 0 0 k m G u a d a l c a n a l
o
1 5 7 E 1 5 o9 E 1 6 o1 E
Temporal components: Before (3 surveys 1995), After (3 surveys 1998/9)

Spatial components:
Whagena Ysabel Suavanao
Group Arnavons.........Ref 1............Ref 2...........Ref 3

Island 1 2

Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Transect 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
(=replicate)
Two habitats sampled: Shallow reef terrace (0-3.5m), Deep slope (15-22m)
Analysis of data: Asymmetrical ANOVA (Winer et al. '91, Underwood '93)
 Trochus niloticus
2 0.8 Shallow habitat
Number per 100m
0.6

0.4

0.2

ao
el
na
n

Before
ab
vo

an
he
na

Ys

av
ag
Ar

After
Su
W

Group (av. across sites)

Before Trochus niloticus
2.0
After Arnavon Waghena
1.6
1.2
2
Number per 100m

0.8
0.4
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

2.0
Ysabel Suavanao
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Site
 Total holothurians
3 Deep habitat
2
Number per 250m

ao
el
na
n

Before
ab
vo

an
he
na

Ys

av
ag
Ar

After
Su
W

Group (av. across sites)

 Tridacna maxima
Shallow habitat
2 3
Number per 100m

ao
el
na
n

Before
ab
vo

an
he
na

Ys

av
ag
Ar

After
Su
W

Group (av. across sites)

 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)

Management Implications:

• 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
what’s happening inside
 Use of experimental
design in EIA
1. Appropriate experimental designs can and should be used to improve
the reliability of decision making in EIA (design trees really help)
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)
3. Post-Approval Phase:
• Surveillance & compliance monitoring can be inexpensive, but might
identify 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