Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marcus Lincoln-Smith
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
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
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
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
12 Jervis Bay
Management Implications:
LincolnSmith & Cooper (2004): MPB, 48: 873 883
Oyster zone
BHP Steelworks
Putative
background
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
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
P1 P2 B1 B2 A1 A2 B1 B2
Impact Reference
Estuary Estuaries
▲ 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
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)
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
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
ao
el
na
n
Before
ab
vo
an
he
na
Ys
av
ag
Ar
After
Su
W
Management Implications: