Environmental Impact Assessment
Cultivation of Corals – Kosrae, FSM
Prepared for: Micronesia Management and Marketing Enterprises for the Kosrae State Government
Funded by: Secretariat of the Pacific Communities (SPC)
Prepared by: Stephen Lindsay, Marine Consultant 71 Walsh Street, Cairns, QLD, Australia Email: [email protected]
CONTENT
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS ...... 3 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 2.1 BACKGROUND - AQUACULTURE ...... 5 2.2 LEGISLATION...... 6 2.3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT...... 6 2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT...... 7 3.0 THE PROPONENT ...... 8 3.1 MMME BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PLAN – THE PROJECT...... 8 3.2 CITES REQUIREMENTS...... 10 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENT ...... 12 4.1 LOCATION & FARM DESCRIPTION ...... 12 4.2 GENERAL SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OF THE FIELD SITES...... 14 5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES ...15 5.1 INTRODUCTION...... 15 5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK...... 15 5.2.1 Identification of Risk...... 15 5.2.2 Risk Analysis ...... 15 5.2.3 Likelihood and Consequence...... 15 5.2.4 Calculation of Risk Level...... 15 5.2.5 Determination of Options for Treatment of Risks ...... 16 5.3 GENERAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 16 5.4 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK...... 17 5.5 CONSTRUCTION & DEPLOYMENT OF FIELD EQUIPMENT ...... 19 5.6 OPERATIONAL PHASE...... 20 6.0 CONCLUSIONS & SUMMARY OF ISSUES...... 22 6.1 CONSTRUCTION & DEPLOYMENT OF FIELD EQUIPMENT PHASE ....22 6.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE...... 22 7.0 REFERENCES ...... 23 8.0 APPENDICES...... 24 8.1 Appendix 1. Photographs of Trash at the Experimental Site ...... 24 8.2 APPENDIX 2. Photographs of Coral Culture Tables ...... 25 8.3 APPENDIX 3 Threat Criteria and Consequence Scales and Risk Management ...... 26
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 2 ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMS Environmental Management Standard ERLI Environmental Risk and Likely Impact FSM Federated States of Micronesia KIRMA Kosrae Island Resource Management Authority KSG Kosrae State Government MES Matters of Environmental Significance MMME Micronesia Management & Marketing Enterprises MRD Marine Resources Division NAC National Aquaculture Center PRL Primary Risk Level SCUBA Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Communities SRL Secondary Risk Level TOR Terms of Reference
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 3 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been commissioned by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) on behalf of the “Micronesia Management & Marketing Enterprises (MMME) for the Kosrae State Government (KSG) to assess the environmental impacts associated with the development of a commercial hard and soft coral aquaculture operation. The information detailed in this report is based on the business plan and data provided to the consultant by MMME through email correspondence over the duration of the assessment. The EIA has been designed to meet the environmental legislative requirements of the State of Kosrae as well as provide a template for SPC to assist other commercial operations within the Pacific member states associated with this regional agency.
The EIA was based on the environmental regulations of the State of Kosrae with supplementary international Environment Management Standards (EMS) utilising environmental significance issues. Summary of the EIA funding are;
The MMME business plan and experimental site does not have any significant impacts of matters of environmental significance (World Heritage Areas, Ramsar Sites, Listed endangered/vulnerable species, Migratory species listed under international treaties and Traditional Heritage Sites).
All perceived environmental impacts associated with the construction and deployment of the field equipment is temporary, completely reversible and is of a very low significance.
The majority of perceived operational and maintenance impacts associated with the general operational functions of a coral farm including the deployment of the coral fragments themselves are expected to be temporary, completely reversible and are of low significance.
One high and one medium risk environmental impact was recorded for the expected daily operational functions of a coral farm. The required removal of hard and soft coral fragments directly from wild coral colonies and the use of broken and/or loose wild coral fragments located on the sea floor to initiate a coral farm were rated as a high and medium environmental impact risks, respectively. In each case, the impact risk issues are directly associated with the use of coral fragments obtained from wild corals and are applicable to any field site within the State of Kosrae.
These highlighted impact risks associated with the operational phase of the company are temporary and over a time scale of one or two years fully reversible and will result in almost minimal impacts to the environment under correct mitigation procedures. International fragmentation collection protocols as detailed by MMME business plan will mitigate these risks. The requirement of obtaining coral fragment from wild sources will be completely removed once the orginal fragments have been on-grown to a size that fragments can be removed. Thus creating through aquaculture, a sustainable and continued source of coral fragments.
Photographic data of host wild colonies before and after fragments are removed and again several months later should be included in a monitoring program to evaluate
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 4 these highlighted impacts. Corrective measures should be imposed if mortality rates of host colonies are documented.
Conclusion drawn from this EIA originating from the data provided supports in principal the business development proposal by MMME to cultivate hard and soft corals in the inshore reefs associated with the five municipalities of Kosrae.
It is however recommended that throughout the construction, deployment and daily operational activities associated with MMME coral aquaculture programs due diligence and careful management of the systems are undertaken. It is recommended for the further development of additional field sites, either directly executed by MMME and/or associated community based coral farms a precautionary approach should be adopted with special considerations to reduce and mitigate potential impacts associated with all aspects of this business. 2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 BACKGROUND - AQUACULTURE Aquaculture has been the focus of technical development attention in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) for well over a decade with each state undertaking numerous aquaculture programs. These programs were designed to provide a means of economic development for the nation through increased local employment opportunities in the private sector and to increase natural stocks of certain species through nationwide restocking initiatives. The vast majority of past and current aquaculture programs for the nation have been developed and undertaken through funding support programs from a wide range of regional and international donor agencies and managed through both government and educational institutions. Private sector aquaculture developed during this time period both within Kosrae State and the nation was limited with neither long- term economic sustainability nor profitability attained (Lindsay, 2002).
Aquaculture has been highlighted by the national and state governments of the nation as a potential economic avenue that could provide economic benefits, including local job creation, increasing domestic protein sources, increase biological stock populations and increasing economic exports (FSM Government 2000 and 2002). Each state government acknowledged that there are three broad categories to which aquaculture can be undertaken which include;
Subsistence. Commercial. Restocking – Reseeding.
Through information documented and endorsed at the 2002 FSM Coastal Fisheries Consortium (FSM, 2002) the national and state governments acknowledge that they have a leading role in promoting the development of a sustainable aquaculture industry and support and encourage private sector development. These roles are to ensure that polices are in place to allow and promote an aquaculture industry and to provide a legal mechanism to effectively regulate the industry as it develops. The commissioning of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) is an integral tool that the state governments
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 5 can use to maintain their environmental integrity whilst providing a realistic platform for the aquaculture industry to develop.
On a regional scale the development of coral farming has been highlighted as a priority mariculture commodity at the first regional aquaculture meeting of the Secretariat of the Pacific Communities (SPC) and remains a development area for the region.
2.2 LEGISLATION The Marine Resources Act of 2000 under Title 19 of the Kosrae State Code (Kosrae State, 2000) is designated to “improve the management, conservation and development of marine and aquatic resources and the associated environmental matters within the fisheries waters of the state”. All aquaculture activities are regulated by this Act and specific permits are required to be granted before such operations can be approved. Under this Act is the provision for the Director to request an EIA to identify any significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposal and to nominate mitigation options to ameliorate these issues. Thus this provision has been requested to be undertaken to assess the business plan submission for Micronesia Management and Marketing Enterprises (MMME) marine based aquaculture ventures for the state of Kosrae.
The Kosrae Island Resource Management Authority (KIRMA) has the regulative task of managing all EIA’s on behalf of the KSG and through their mandate have developed a standard Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) formate. This formate will be used in this EIA and includes, but not limited to;
Summary of the Environmental Impacts Assessment; Description of the Purpose, Scope and Need for the Project; Description of the Environmental Setting; Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project; and Mitigation Options.
In addition, this EIA will include environmental issues that significantly impact on Matters of Environmental Significance (MES) on a large scale which includes;
World Heritage Areas; Ramsar Wetland Sites of International Significance; Listed Endangered/Vulnerable Species; Migratory Species Protected under International Treaties, and Legislated Marine Protected Areas (Kosrae State, FSM and International).
2.3 SCOPE OF THIS REPORT The scope of works for this EIA is defined by the MMME business plan and the Terms of Reference (TOR) as supplied to the consultant. Copies of MMME business plan have been forwarded to all agencies responsible for the regulative process within the State of Kosrae and additional copies can be requested through the company’s director Mr Martin Selch on the contact numbers highlighted in section 3.0 of this report.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 6 This EIA has been commissioned by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) on behalf of the MMME for the KSG to assess the environmental impacts associated with the development of a commercial hard and soft coral aquaculture operation. The information detailed in this report is based on the business plan and data provided to the consultant by MMME through email correspondence over the duration of the assessment. The EIA has been designed to meet the environmental legislative requirements of the State of Kosrae as well as provide a template for SPC to assist other commercial operations within the member states associated with this regional agency. All activities associated with the business plan are to be undertaken in the inshore waters associated with the island of Kosrae. The exact commercial field site locations have yet to be defined and are currently being finalised between MMME and the designated responsible KSG agencies. Information pertaining to the current experimental field site will be documented and use to provide a number of generic environmental issue that can be used as a platform to assess future hard and soft coral farm locations. Information documented for the existing experimental site will be directly applicable to other marine growout site locations within Kosrae. As such, an assessment of the following environmental issues and considerations pertinent to the development of a commercial hard and soft coral farm have been identified: Hard and Soft Coral Fragment Collection, Flora and Fauna Disturbance (marine), Impacts on the Receiving Environment (near by reef areas). Artificial Structure Deployment and insitu Placements, Endangered or Protected Species/Habitats, Historical and/or social cultural sites, Water Quality Issues, and Hazardous and/or Chemical Materials. Therefore the main purpose of this EIA is to: Identify the potential environmental impacts from the activities associated with the cultivation of hard and soft corals, and To nominate mitigation measures to ameliorate potential impacts.
2.4 LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT The information detailed in this report is based on the business plan and data provided to the consultant by MMME through email correspondence over the duration of the assessment. The consultant due to project budgetary constraints did not visit Kosrae, the field sites nor meet with the proprietor, government agencies nor community stakeholders. The consultant clearly acknowledges that the authenticity of the data provided by MMME is taken at face value and the creditability of this information resides with MMME. The consultant has made every effort to verify the authenticity and
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 7 accuracy of the data. Therefore the information documented in this assessment to the best of the consultant’s knowledge is correct. 3.0 THE PROPONENT Mr. Martin Selch President Micronesia Management and Marketing Enterprises (MMME) PO Box 807, Tofol, Kosrae, FM 96944 Federated States of Micronesia PH: +691 370 2069 Fax: +691 370 2651 Cell: +691 970 1578 Email: [email protected]
3.1 MMME BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PLAN – THE PROJECT Micronesia Management and Marketing Enterprises (MMME) is a Kosrae State registered business that has been registered to culture and trade in a range of aquaculture commodities. The main focus of MMME is to culture marine commodities destined for the international marine aquarium industry. This includes the cultivation of giant clams (Tridacna gigas, T. derasa, T. squamosa, T. maxima and T. crocea), the Stony corals (Scleractinian or hard corals) common genius includes Montipora sp., Acropora sp., Poccilopora sp., Porities sp., Hydnopora sp., Goniopora sp., Euphyllia sp., Plerogyra sp., Turbinaria sp., Seriatopora sp., and the Octocorals especially the Alcyonaceans (soft corals) including Sinularia sp., Sarcophyton sp., Lobophyton sp., Xenia sp. and Lemnalia sp. This business permit provides a provision for additional species of hard and soft corals to be added to the commodity list if required through specific regulative protocols.
All giant clams are cultured through standard sexual reproduction protocols utilised at the FSM National Aquaculture Center (NAC) which is situated in Lelu were MMME has a formal relationship to cultivate, purchase and export cultured giant clams. Giant clams have been cultured for well over a decade at this centre and have been reared both within the facility as well as at a number of inshore field sites located around the island of Kosrae associated with variety of growout steel cages. The centre maintains broodstock of most giant clam species which originate from a mixture of endemic and imported cultured stock (Lindsay, 2002). The cultivation of giant clams for MMME business purposes are undertaken in conjunction with the NAC and therefore all environmental protocols instigated and approved for this centre by the Kosrae State and national governments have been adopted by MMME. Therefore no specific environmental requirements have been requested to be addressed by this EIA associated with the culture of giant clams. However, issues highlighted in this EIA associated with the culture of aquaculture commodities at field sites on steel cages are pertinent to the culture of giant clams as well as other species and should be considered for inclusion for all new farming sites. Subsequently, this report focuses on MMME business plan associated with hard and soft coral cultivation.
The cultivation of hard and soft corals has been undertaken for well over a decade throughout the tropics with culture practices well understood and replicatable. Hard and
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 8 soft corals have been previously cultured in Kosrae associated with the NAC, albeit on a small scale as well as other states within the FSM (Lindsay, 2002). MMME president has been involved in the cultivation of hard and soft corals for well over a decade and has been involved in the international aquarium industry for much of his professional life throughout Asia and the Pacific region.
Coral cultivation is based on asexual reproduction “the fragmentation method” where a small fragment (piece) of coral is reattached to an artificial substrate and cultivated until the fragment has reattached itself and growth is apparent. The artificial substrate utilised by MMME is a mixture of cement and crushed calcium carbonate derived from terrestrial sources. The growout period differs between species, environmental parameters and ranges between 3 -12 months before commodities can be traded on the international aquarium market. There are three main sources of coral fragments, these include;
Broken loose fragments located on the ocean floor resulting from natural damage (e.g. storm, fish) or anthropogenic sources (e.g. snorkel/divers, fisherman, anchors), Directly removed from a natural insitu coral colonies, Directly removed from a cultured coral colony.
MMME business goal is to cultivate both hard and soft corals utilizing coral fragments from MMME cultivated stock. To develop this goal, fragments removed from wild coral colonies and broken loose fragments will be required initially to develop the farms “broodstock”. MMME requires less than 15 percent of coral fragments from any host colony whether they are derived from a wild or cultured coral ensuring survival and continued growth of the host coral whilst maximizing coral fragment reattachment and growth. The arbitrary figure of 15% is an industry standard that ensures complete recovery of the host colony. These initial wild collected fragments are to be cultivated on purposely built steel framed cages on the inshore reefs of Kosrae to ensure maximum survival and growth (refer section 4.2). These initial fragments or “cuttings” will be on- grown continuously to provide the companies future coral broodstock that will, in time supply the entire coral fragment requirements of the company. Once this is attained the initial requirement of obtaining coral fragments from wild coral colonies and/or loose coral fragments will be removed, resulting in the development of a long-term sustainable and self replenishing operation.
MMME has indicated that this goal should be achievable within the first several years of operation once commercial production is attained. Each subsequent coral fragment (new generation) removed from the culture products will in turn be utilised to provide additional fragments culminating in domesticated corals. The NAC facility will be utilised by MMME in some circumstances to culture corals as well as be utilised as storage and packaging facility for all aquaculture commodities (clams and corals) destined for the international aquarium market.
MMME wish to collect corals from the outer reef slope, reef flat and lagoonal areas within all five municipalities of the state, however initially the company will focus on the reefs in close proximity to the NAC and the Lelu harbour experimental field site. Initially 2000 hard coral and 500 soft coral fragments per month are required to develop the cultured broodstock needed to supply the fragments for commercial operations. It is the intention of MMME in time to develop a cottage based industry associated with the culture of a range of aquaculture commodities. This would include the development of a number of business relationships with individuals and/or family groups within all
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 9 municipalities to instigate coral farms where training is supplied and the product is cultured and sold back to MMME. Thus in time, providing alternative livelihood and income generating options for the communities of Kosrae.
In addition, MMME has indicated that 10 percent of the total number of cultured corals exported will be made available to the Kosrae States Marine Resources Division (MRD) to be used to reseed reefs (their deployment and locations are at the discretion of the MRD). MMME draft permits states “10% of the export volume from the fragments of the wild corals will be returned to the waters of Kosrae State. Such 10% shall be determined by piece not by weight and such selection made by MMME”. Furthermore, the business plan clearly identifies that the company is more than happy for the state government regulatory agencies to observe and monitor the companies activities and will provide any data requested.
3.2 CITES REQUIREMENTS In 1973, the international community adopted CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species), which is an international agreement to regulate international trade (import, export and re-export) of specific wildlife species that are classified as threatened (FAO, 2003). The aim of agreement is to protect wildlife by ensuring trade does not threaten the survival of a species in the wild, prevent further decline in wildlife populations, and ensure that international trade is based on sustainable use (Bruckner, 2001). Nations have the option to become a signatory of CITES and therefore adopt through regulations all CITES mandates or become a non member. The FSM is not a signatory to CITES, however has adopted the protocols recommended by the CITES convention that are associated with the export and trade in Appendix II animals. CITES convention provides for three levels of trade control (annexes) depending on the conservation status of the species, and each level of protection has different permit requirements (Bruckner, 2001 & FAO, 2003). The provisions of all annexes apply to species of fauna and flora, whether dead or alive, and also parts or products derived from these species (e.g. shell of a giant clam) (FAO, 2003). These are:
Appendix I: Identifies immediately endangered species and all international trade in these species is totally prohibited (e.g. tigers). Appendix II: Lists species that risk becoming endangered within a short period of time. International trade for these species is strictly regulated through licenses or permits (e.g. all giant clams & hard corals). Appendix III: Lists species that are endangered on the territory of one or more countries and are regulated by specific measures that aim to prevent or reduce their exploitation.
There are several hundred species listed in Appendix I and over 20,000 species listed on Appendix II (FAO, 2003). Table 1 provides a list of CITES registered invertebrate organisms relevant to the marine ornamental trade associated with the MMME business development plan.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 10 Table 1. A list of CITES invertebrates relevant to the marine ornamental trade associated with MMME Business Plan (adopted from FAO, 2003).
SPECIES CITES APPENDIX Giant Clams Hippopus Hippous, H. porcellanus. II Tridacna gigas, T. derasa, T. maxima, T. squamosa, T. crocea, II T. tevoroa Coral Like Animals Class Anthozoa Order Coenothecalia II Order Antipatharia II Order Stolonifera (Tubiporidea sp.) II Order Scleractinia II Class Hydrozoa Order Mileporina (Mileporidae sp. & Milepora sp.) II Order Stylasterina (Stylasteridae sp.) II
The international marine ornamental industry currently trades in both cultured and wild collected species that are registered in Appendix II throughout the Indo-Pacific region, including the FSM. As a non-signatory nation to trade in these species an exporting permit from the government of the FSM stating that trade in these species is legal and is not detrimental to the species survival is required. This documentation has been finalised well over a decade ago for the export of cultured products within the FSM (originally developed for giant clams) with the National Aquaculture Centre (NAC) acting as the national governments representative regulative agent in the State of Kosrae. Therefore, to export the cultured aquaculture products outlined in MMME business plan the company will require these permits to be issued with each shipment of these commodities.
For CITES signatory countries (and those nations that have adopted the protocols but have not become a signatory e.g. FSM) all aquacultured commodities of Appendix II organisms (refer Table 1 above) are termed “captive bred” and therefore requires this information to be clearly noted in all CITES export permits. Captive bred status infers that species have been raised in captivity, are removed from wild populations and do not require continued harvesting from wild population stocks to maintain broodstock (Bruckner, 2001). A CITES listed animal that is captive bred to the F2 generation level (an animal that has been cultured from cultured parents) and all subsequent generations can be traded without a CITES export permit, providing the captive breeding facility is certified by CITES (in this case this would be the NAC). It is this last statement that MMME business plan addresses with F2 and subsequent generations of soft and hard coral being the goal of the business so that only F2 and subsequent generations are utilised for broodstock and commodities destined for trade.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 11 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENT
4.1 LOCATION & FARM DESCRIPTION The current experimental coral growout site is located on the east side of the Lelu Harbour mouth situated at N05019.603 and E163001.867 and is approximately one mile (1.5 kilometers) from the Lelu town center. The coastal shoreline is basaltic in origin with sand and coral rubble along the foreshore interspersed with larger coral rubble and boulders originating from the reefs within the harbour mouth, its inshore and outside reef areas. The foreshore is a low to medium wave energy zone which is dominated by oceanic waves entering the mouth of the harbour. In periods of high energy, storm waves do enter the foreshore adjacent to the farm site location.
During periods of heavy rainfall there is a freshwater lens on the surface of the water above the experiential site which varies in depth of approximately one 1 inch to a foot (3- 30 cm) under which full salinity water is present. Freshwater is located within the vicinity of the experimental site directly through the discharge of water from the harbour and its associated catchments, as runoff directly off the surface of the land adjacent to the site and from underground seepage.
The experimental site is periodically inundated with sediments originating from the Lelu harbour and its catchment areas especially during periods of high rainfall. These finer terrestrial based sediments due to wave and tidal current movements are deposited away from the foreshore and deposited in areas of less energy, most of which is either discharge out to sea or in the shallow areas of the harbour. Anecdotal information indicates that suspended sediments associated with the Lelu harbour has increased over the past several decades as well as increases in anthropogenic sources of waste (trash, sewage and storm water). Trash is unfortunately a common occurrence on the reef flat and slope associated with the experimental coral site which includes large objects such as car tires and steel drums to smaller more regular seen objects such as diapers, plastic bags and bottles (refer Appendix 1). Similarly, the water dynamics of the Lelu harbour and its catchment areas have been dramatically altered over the past 5 decades of development (e.g. causeway, land reclamation, vegetation removal) which is believed to have contributed to the increased sediment levels recorded.
Land reclamation along the foreshore adjacent to the experimental site has been and remains a common occurrence albeit at a non commercial scale with most reclamation projects utilizing coral rubble and in some cases live corals (especially of the large massive corals) as land fill. The use of live corals for these purposes was a past activity and is not used today.
The experimental coral farm site is situated in approximately 8-15 feet (3-5 meters) of water (depth depends on tide) and is approximately 90 feet (35 meters) from the shore. The site is influenced by diurnal tides that reach maximum fluctuations of less than five feet (1.5 meters) with water clarity (turbidity) fluctuating at the site due to tidal movements (incoming tides are less turbid than outgoing tides) and prevailing weather conditions. The average water temperature range at the site is 24-28 0C.
The farm site is situated in the shallow sections of the inshore sub tidal reef slope of Lelu harbour. The reef profile at this location consists of the foreshore (refer above for
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 12 details), intertidal reef flat which is composed of coral sand and rubble interspersed with large boulders and branching corals and the reef slope which can be broken down into two sections. The shallow reef slope which consists of hard and soft corals colonies interspersed with areas of coral rubble and sand (location of the farm site) which terminates in the deeper reef slope that enters the harbour proper which continues to the harbour bottom.
The shallow reef flat is dominated by hard corals with an equal distribution of the massive (e.g. porities) and branching coral forms (e.g. Acropora and Porities) whilst soft coral colonies are present which are dominated by species of Sinularia, and Sarcophyton. The coral diversity at this location is moderate which is expected of an area located within a harbour mouth with coral growth controlled vertically by the freshwater lens, water temperatures and exposure to air and horizontally by coral competition, species growth parameters and sedimentation. Interspersed between the coral stands are areas devoid of hard and/or soft coral which are dominated by sediments. These sediments vary in particle size and origin. The majority are derived from coral (sand and rubble) however finer terrestrial based sediments are present. These sediments are continually moved and reworked due to water currents driven by the tide and wave surges and therefore physically smother hard substrates within these areas which must reduce coral settlement. It is these sand/sediment areas that MMME utilise to deploy their cages and cultivate corals.
The standard MMME steel framed coral culturing table is 47 inches wide (1.2 metres) and 105 inches (2.67 metres) in length which is composed of a double layer that allows two levels of coral fragments to be cultured. Positioned onto each layer are three (3) smaller coral growout frames that are secured onto the table. All coral fragments are attached directly onto an artificial substrate (cement and coral rubble) and held in place by black cable tires onto one of six culture frames which are in turn secured onto the steel table. The coral culturing tables are made out of steel reinforcing rod (rebar) wielded together for strength and held in place via a concrete pad on each of the four legs of the table and positioned directly onto the sea floor (Appendix 2). The rebar has been specifically used and designed to provide the structural integrity of the table whilst providing a design to maximize water exchange through the table and allow light to penetrate through to the sea floor. The design of the table was based primarily on the steel frame cages utilised by the NAC to culture giant clams and from internationally accepted coral culturing protocols. Currently there is one coral table in use covering an area of less than six square feet. It is anticipated that a maximum of ten 6 x 6 feet units are to be deployed at this site which covers an area of 120 square feet (40 square meter) in total along this reef flat. There are ample locations within the site to house 10 tables situated onto sand/sediment areas.
The coral culturing tables have been specifically designed to be moveable underwater (free diving or SCUBA) and can be completely removed from the site if required. The standard table size can be altered (at the design phase) to accommodate the specific requirements of each site location. The tables are moved to the field sites via a small boat and are deployed into the water directly into the areas to be used. Care is taken not to damage live coral during this process. The site location of the coral farms are such that they are not affected by storm activity and therefore there is minimal if any issues associated with potential damage to the existing coral reef during natural storm events from that coral culturing tables.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 13 The development of additional MMME field growout sites and/or community coral farms associated with MMME will utilise the same basic coral table frame structure and deployment protocols.
4.2 GENERAL SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES OF THE FIELD SITES A summary of the natural resource and environmental values of MMME’s field sites and commodities are presented below.
The field site location has a low ecological productivity and value on a state wide scale. The site location has been disturbed whilst the harbour and its associated catchment which directly affect the site have been altered progressively over a considerable period of time due to the physical and social development of the Lelu township. This includes land reclamations, causeways developments, catchment alterations, vegetation removal, coral extraction and town growth and infrastructures (e.g. sewage, trash, waste water runoff). Nevertheless, the marine environment associated with the MMME experiential site supports a sound and functioning ecosystem providing habitats for a wide range of marine organisms that contribute to the biodiversity of the island as well as food security for the communities. There have been no endangered species documented that utilise this area although turtles have been reported to have been seen swimming in the Lelu harbour periodically (they do not nest next to the area) nor have there been any reports of any red listed threatened species associated with MMME experimental site location.
The experimental site nor the eastern side of the Lelu harbour are not designated state or national conservation areas and are not associated with wetland nor are they designated areas of significant biological biodiversity (e.g. sea grass beds, mangroves) within the state or nation.
There are no known local cultural or historical heritage values associated with the neither experimental site nor adjacent shore line or shallow water marine locations.
No industrial activities have been undertaken at this site, however the site has for many years been the recipient of waste water from vessels utilising the Lelu port through tidal water exchange.
The mouth of the harbour is the Lelu townships sewage outfall location however the flow of the waste is seaward and therefore does not affect the experimental site location.
Due diligence using a precautionary approach is required to be implemented when additional MMME and community based coral growout farms are developed in other areas of the State. The principals and protocols highlighted by MMME’s operational procedures in accordance with State government regulations should be followed.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 14 5.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASURES
5.1 INTRODUCTION This EIA considers impacts in terms of the development and maintenance activities of the MMME field based coral (hard and soft) aquaculture farms as outlined in this report and in the company’s business plan. A range of impacts relevant to these aspects were considered including;
Hard and soft coral fragment collection, Wildlife disturbance and habitat integrity (marine), Steel tables insitu deployment, Water Quality, and Historical and/or social cultural sites,
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK The environmental risk for the project has been based on modified Australian best practices Environmental Risk Management Framework. This approach is based on the following:
5.2.1 Identification of Risk This includes identification of all relevant risks must follow a systematic process, which comprehensively addresses all known activities and related environmental aspects.
5.2.2 Risk Analysis An important feature is recognition of the fact that an event’s consequence extends beyond the environment. This methodology ensures that the full consequences of events are visible to risk owners and managers, and that community effects are considered, understood and treated. Each class of consequence is rated a score of 0-5. An analysis of each risk is undertaken to determine an environmental event’s likelihood of occurrence and its consequences. A five-level qualitative description of the likelihood and consequences for each risk enables a semi-quantitative method to be used to calculate a ‘score’ for each risk.
5.2.3 Likelihood and Consequence Definitions for Consequences are shown in Table 3 and definitions for Likelihood are shown in Table 4 in Appendix 3.
5.2.4 Calculation of Risk Level Two levels of risk are used:
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 15 The Primary Risk Level (PRL) is a conservative measure of risk, based on the most severe consequences across all the relevant criteria. PRL is calculated according to the equation: Primary Risk Level (PRL) = Likelihood Rating X Maximum Consequence Rating
The Secondary Risk Level (PRL) is a less conservative measure of risk, which incorporates all relevant criteria, not just the most severe ones. SRL is calculated according to the equation: Secondary Risk Level (SRL) = Likelihood Rating X Average Consequence Rating
In most circumstances PRL should be the preferred measure, as it is more conservative.
Risk scores are banded into risk levels which provide a ‘plain English’ view of the risk.
Scores will always be visible to enable prioritisation within bands. Appendix 3, Table 5 shows the bands, their threshold values and indicative management action.
5.2.5 Determination of Options for Treatment of Risks Following the analysis of a risk it is necessary to investigate the options available for risk treatment and then determine the option or options that provide the greatest cost benefit. Risks may be treated in one or a combination of ways:
i. Avoiding a risk by preventing the activity that leads to the risk eventuating. ii. Reducing the likelihood of the risk eventuating. iii. Reducing the consequences if the risk does eventuate. iv. Transfer the risk. v. Retaining the risk.
5.3 GENERAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT The impact assessment is based on an Environmental Risk and Likely Impact approach (“ERLI”). This approach is used to justify the risk ratings assigned to each of the elements identified. For each potential impact on the environment identified in this report, two key areas in the impact assessment process have been addressed:
1. Environmental Risk - This essentially considers the risk of irreversible change to natural ecological processes and community interaction; and 2. Likely Impact - This considers the likely impact of the project, as modified and undertaken in accordance with mitigation strategies (including any environmental management plan if required).
The significance of the impacts is placed in an appropriate context in which to justifiably determine the impact’s significance. In particular, the duration of the impact (temporary versus permanent) and reversibility has been considered and the ability of natural systems (including population, communities and ecosystems) to accept or assimilate impacts is addressed.
Mitigation strategies are listed for each aspect recording a risk level. Both risk and likely impact have been ranked according to the below Environmental Risk Management Framework.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 16 5.4 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
Table 2. Risk Management Framework
Consequence Rating Risk Level Environmental Description of Risk Likelihood Aspect Maximum Average High (PRL) Average (SRL)
World Heritage Not Applicable. 0 0 0 0 0 Areas
Ramsar sites Not Applicable. 0 0 0 0 0
Listed Giant clams. 0 0 0 0 0 endangered/vuln Vulnerable species, erable species However all clams are cultured therefore not applicable.
Migratory Not Applicable. 0 0 0 0 0 species listed under international treaties
Traditional Not Applicable. 0 0 0 0 0 Heritage Cultural Sites
Site Not Applicable. 0 0 0 0 0 contamination – sea bed sediments
Site Not Applicable. 0 0 0 0 0 contamination – Shore (Beach) based sediments
Site No issues relating to 0 0 0 0 0 contamination – affect of flora and Farming fauna from oxidation equipment (Steel of steel frames, Tables) therefore Not Applicable.
Site Constructed out of 0 0 0 0 0 contamination – cement and dead Farming coral rubble from equipment coral quarry, therefore Not attachment plugs Applicable.
Site Very Minor to no 1 1 1 1 1 contamination – issues relating to Deployment of possible increase in Farming sedimentation whilst Low Risk Low Risk equipment (Steel deploying tables. Tables)
Site Very minor to no 1 1 1 1 1 contamination – issues relating to Deployment of possible physical Farming damage (boat Low Risk Low Risk equipment using grounding and a power boat humans) of existing reef whilst deploying
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 17 Consequence Rating Risk Level Environmental Description of Risk Likelihood Aspect Maximum Average High (PRL) Average (SRL) tables.
Site Not from project, 0 0 0 0 0 contamination – therefore not land based applicable. sewage – septic Toxic release of sewage from Lelu township has minor if no direct impact on the aquacultured products at the farm sites.
Sea Water No chemical used at 0 0 0 0 0 Quality field site. Therefore contamination – not Applicable Project based chemical usage. All glues used at NAC in controlled environment.
Sea Water Very minor to no 1 1 1 1 1 quality – issues relating to contamination –– possible physical fuel oil release damage of existing Low Risk Low Risk from work boat. reef whilst deploying tables.
Sea Water Not Applicable. 0 0 0 0 0 quality – contamination –– sedimentation turbidity.
Sea Water Not Applicable. 0 0 0 0 0 quality – contamination –– Thermal (water temperature) changes
Air and Noise Only from small out 1 1 1 1 1 board motor (>40 hp) during table deployment Low Risk Low Risk Very unlikely to affect wildlife above or below water.
Flora – terrestrial Not Applicable 0 0 0 0 0 vegetation
Flora – marine Negligible as tables 0 0 0 0 0 vegetation will be placed in sand areas, therefore Not Applicable However tables may increase algal growth through increased habitat available for settlement.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 18 Consequence Rating Risk Level Environmental Description of Risk Likelihood Aspect Maximum Average High (PRL) Average (SRL)
Fauna - Not Applicable 0 0 0 0 0 terrestrial
Fauna – Aquatic Negligible as tables 0 0 0 0 0 will be placed in sand Except corals areas, therefore Not Applicable
Fauna – Aquatic Initial use of wild hard 2 1 5 10 5 and soft coral Hard/Soft Corals broodstock for High Risk High Risk Collection of fragments. Potential fragments from death of host (most Wild Colonies unlikely). Risk completely removed once culture broodstock replace wild stock
Fauna – Aquatic Initial use of broken 1 1 5 5 5 loose fragments from Hard/Soft Corals wild hard and soft Medium Medium Risk Collection of corals for fragments. fragments from Risk completely Risk Broken Loose removed once culture Fragments broodstock replace wild stock
Fauna – Aquatic Fragments from 0 0 0 0 0 cultured farm stock, Hard/Soft Corals therefore no impact Culture Stock on wild population. Not Applicable
5.5 CONSTRUCTION & DEPLOYMENT OF FIELD EQUIPMENT The construction of all field equipment including the tables and frames are erected on land at a registered steel fabrication shop, the grounds of the NAC or at MMME residence. Similarly, the construction of the cement and coral rubble (terrestrial calcium carbonate) attachment plugs are erected on land. In all cases there are neither environmental impacts associated with the construction of the field equipment nor impacts associated with the coral farming site. The recommended construction materials detailed in the MMME business plan are supported and should be utilised. The deployment of this farm equipment has been identified as a potential low impact risk. These issues include the use of a small power boat to delivery the tables to the field site which could create noise pollution that may affect bird life, release oil and\or fuel into the water and physically damage the reef structure if a collision occurred. These events are very unlikely to occur. Secondly, the deployment of the tables from the boat to the water may increase turbidity in the water from the divers and/or physically damage the coral reef whilst locating these tables on the sea floor. These impacts are very minor however due diligence and careful management protocols should be employed to minimise any negative impacts. In any case, all minor environmental impacts associated
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 19 with the deployment of field tables are very temporary, completely reversible and are of very low impact significance. Access to the coral growout tables for routine cleaning and maintenance is usually undertaken from the shore and utilise snorkelling protocols. Impacts associated with the weekly maintenance activities do not impact the environment adjacent to the field tables. The physical presence of the tables in the water at this site is not expected to have any impact on the sessile or mobile marine organisms that reside and travel through this section of the Lelu harbour. The current table dimensions utilise 36 square feet (4 meters squared) is negligible when compared to the reef area of the harbour. The estimated maximum use of 10 tables at this site, located along the reef in suitable positions is expected to have minimal if any impacts. The presence of the tables may indeed increase marine life through the creation of additional habitats. Certainly this is the case for corals. This site is not used by the island tourist operators and therefore does not affect the islands aesthetic appearance associated with the Kosrae Island tourism. The reef area is periodically utilised for line and/or spear fishing however the location of the tables are not expected to create any negative impacts to the fishers. The over whelming presence of trash in the water along this reef flat and slope should be a priority issue of the KSG. A community base awareness program addressing this issue should be further developed whilst a physical clean up of the area should be instigated (refer Appendix 1).
5.6 OPERATIONAL PHASE As part of an overall assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the business development plan of MMME and its marine field aquaculture site a brief review of the main operational activities has been discussed in section 3.1. All identified environmental impacts (Table 2) associated with the daily operations are discussed below. The information available to delineate MMME daily operational activities have been obtained from documents supplied by the MMME, direct email correspondence with the companies President and the consultants knowledge of marine ecosystems and coral aquaculture. The environmental impacts associated with the majority of operational and maintenance activities associated with the normal functions of hard and soft coral farm as outlined by the MMME business plan including the deployment of the coral fragments themselves are temporary, completely reversible and are of low significance. Continued due diligence associated with staff training and maintenance programs will limit negative environmental impacts associated with the daily operational activities of this farm. However, the environmental impact assessment (Table 2) highlighted one high level risk and one medium level risk impact associated with the current and proposed culture practises. The high risk impact issue involves the collection and use of hard and soft coral fragments removed directly from wild coral colonies to be used to initiate the coral cultivation cycle, whilst the collection and subsequent use of broken and/or loose wild coral fragments located on the sea floor to be used to initiate the coral cultivation cycle was highlighted as a medium impact risk. These risk impacts if undertaken using standard international coral cultivation protocols as outlined in the MMME business plan
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 20 are temporary over a time scale of one or two years, fully reversible and will result in almost minimal impacts to the environment under correct mitigation procedures. These two impacts are a necessary prerequisite for the development of any coral farm and are standard international procedures. In each case, the impact risk issues are directly associated with the use of coral fragments obtained from wild host colonies. The highest risk impact is directly related to the potential mortality associated with the host colonies once fragments are removed. This risk and its potential mortality are justifiable in a risk matrix as used in this report. However, if coral fragments are removed from the host coral utilising international best practises of coral culturing the incidence of coral host mortality should be completely removed. The business plan of MMME indicated that the proprietor is aware of these protocols and that these will in fact be standard operating procedures for all coral culturing associated with fragments obtained from host colonies. Nevertheless a precautionary approach should be undertaken and it is therefore suggested that a monitoring program be instigated to follow the survival of each wild host colony utilised by MMME. This program should be executed in a timely manner with simple photographic evidence of the host colony taken before and after the fragments are removed and subsequently rephotographed 3-4 months latter to document survival and growth regeneration. Permanent tags identifying each coral fragment host colonies should be used. This monitoring program should be implemented in conjunction with MMME. The impact from the use of broken or loose wild coral fragments resulted in a medium risk as it is normal practise that a high proportion of broken fragments of coral located on the sea floor will perish and therefore resulting in less of an impact if used for aquaculture practises. It therefore can be argued that by utilising these broken fragments the coral has an improve chance of survival. In both cases, the use of wild fragments are to provide the initial seed stock to culture enough coral to, in time, take over the role of supplying a continued number of coral fragments to the farm. It has been estimated by MMME that this will take between one and two years once commercial operations are underway. The time frame suggested by MMME is accurate under the assumption that the operation is undertaken at the commercial levels MMME has indicated and that no unforseen events occur (e.g. typhoons). The information provided by MMME associated with the use of up to 15% (maximum) of a coral colony for the initial coral fragments are realistic and acceptable using the international protocols. Similarly, the monthly coral fragments required by MMME to commercialise the companies operations and to expand into community based farms are also realistic and are supported with the assumption that the above mentioned protocols are instigated. The offer of MMME to provide 10 percent of the total number of cultured corals exported to the government of Kosrae to be used for the states coral reef reseeding programs appears to be genuine and should be used to support on going coral reef management programs.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 21 6.0 CONCLUSIONS & SUMMARY OF ISSUES This section presents a brief summary of the environmental issues and impacts associated with the development of MMME business plan to artificially culture hard and soft corals on the Island of Kosrae for export into the international marine aquarium industry. The summary analysis has been partitioned in two sections, construction and deployment of all field equipment and the daily operational phase. Each phase is discussed below.
The business development plan of MMME does not have any significant impacts of matters of environmental significance (World Heritage Areas, Ramsar Sites, Listed endangered/vulnerable species, Migratory species listed under international treaties and Traditional Heritage Sites).
6.1 CONSTRUCTION & DEPLOYMENT OF FIELD EQUIPMENT PHASE This phase includes all activities undertaken to construct the field tables required for the project and the deployment of these structures to the field site. There were no environmental impacts designated for the construction of the field tables whilst minor impact potentials were associated with the potential sedimentation caused by divers during the deployment of the tables in the water and the potential physical damage that could be caused by the boat grounding and/or releasing oil and/or fuel. These environmental impacts are minor in nature with a very low potential of occurring. They are temporary, completely reversible and are of very low significance.
6.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE This phase involves the environmental assessments of daily operational and maintenance activities undertaken by MMME at the field site based on discussions with the company’s president
The majority of operational and maintenance impacts associated with the general operational functions of the coral farm including the deployment of the coral fragments themselves are expected to be temporary, completely reversible and are of low significance. This is on the assumption that protocols outlined in the MMME business plan are executed and due diligences is undertaken for all new farm sites.
The required removal of hard and soft coral fragments directly from wild coral colonies and the use of broken and/or loose wild coral fragments located on the sea floor to be used to initiate the coral farm were rated as a high and medium environmental impact risks, respectively. These risk impacts if undertaken using standard international coral cultivation protocols as outlined in the MMME business plan are temporary and over a time scale of one or two years fully reversible and will result in almost minimal impacts to the environment under correct mitigation procedures. The requirement of obtaining coral fragments from wild sources will be completely removed once the orginal fragments have been on-grown to a size that fragments can be removed. Thus creating through aquaculture a sustainable and continued source of coral fragments.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 22 7.0 REFERENCES Bruckner, A. 2001. The Convention on the trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Background, requirements and application of the treaty to coral reef species. In Sustainable Management of the Marine Aquarium Trade – Pacific Regional Workshop proceedings. SPREP Publication. FAO, 2003. The Ornamental Fish Market. FAO Publication. FSM Government Report. 2000. The FSM Planning Framework: 1999-2002. FSM National Government. 239pp.
FSM Government Report. 2002. The FSM Coastal Fisheries Consortium – Report of Proceedings. FSM National Government. 102pp.
Kosrae State, 2000. Title 19 of the Kosrae State Code “Marine Resources Act of 2000”. Kosrae State Government.
Lindsay, S. R., 2002. FSM National Aquaculture Profile. SPC Publication.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 23 8.0 APPENDICES
8.1 Appendix 1. Photographs of Trash at the Experimental Site
All photos supplied by MMME.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 24 8.2 APPENDIX 2. Photographs of Coral Culture Tables
All photos supplied by MMME.
EIA MMME Coral Farming Project – Kosrae FSM DRAFT 25
8.3 APPENDIX 3 Threat Criteria and Consequence Scales and Risk Management
Table 3 – Threat Criteria and Consequence Scales.
Rating Capability & Mission Environment Community & Safety Compliance & Financial Sustainability (Staff & Public) Reputation All activities cease. No A long term Significant, extensive, Multiple fatalities, large Sustained detrimental Extreme resumption for at least 12 environmental harm. detrimental long-term impacts number of major injuries or national or state media financial loss months. Major Permanent on the community or public occupational illness (acute or reports. Subject of (>$10m) to unacceptable delays in irreparable damage is health. Irreparable damage to chronic). Public exposed to a parliamentary committee remedy. delivery of capability caused to the highly valued structures or severe, adverse long-term hearing. Sustained
5 occurring at critical times. environment. locations of cultural health impact or life- community outrage. Unable to conduct significance or sacred value. threatening hazard. Potential large-scale missions. Failure to achieve Permanent and significant loss class action or Catastrophic critical performance goals. of scarce environmental prosecution with resources. significant fine or imprisonment. All normal activities Significant Significant detrimental impacts Single fatality or serious non- Numerous detrimental Major curtailed. No resumption of environmental on the community or public recoverable injury, several national or state media financial loss normal activities for damage with health. Major damage to highly major injuries. Permanent reports. Subject of a ( $0.5-10m) between 6 and 12 months. widespread impacts. valued structures or locations disablement. Public exposed number of parliamentary to remedy. Major delays of capability Damage may be of cultural significance or to a hazard that could cause questions or ministerials. 4 delivery but at non-critical permanent. sacred value. Significant loss injuries or moderate adverse Organised community Major times. Unable to conduct of scarce environmental health effects. concern. High profile missions. Failure to achieve resources. legal challenge or some performance targets. prosecution with heavy fine. Most activities affected. No Moderate violation of Detrimental impacts on the A number of safety incidents Detrimental national or Moderate resumption of normal regulation or guideline community or public health. requiring treatment by a state media reports. financial loss activities for up to 6 months. with moderate Damage to valued structures physician. Exposure of public Subject of parliamentary ($0.05-0.5m)
Significant delays resulting damage to the or locations of cultural to a hazard that could cause questions or ministerials. to remedy. 3 in some reduction in environment and significance or sacred value. minor injuries or minor Community concerns
Moderate performance. significant clean-up Loss of scarce environmental adverse health effects. Illness and complaints. Some cost. resources. requiring treatment. legal constraints imposed minimal fine.
EIA MMME CoralFarming Project –KosraeFSM DRAFT 0 1 2 Nil Insignificant Minor
No impactonschedules. impact. performance delays. Negligible necessary. Insignificant planned activitiesmay be to Some minormodification degradation. performance Minor delays. Minor activities canbeexpected. Modification toplanned
No environmental No environmental impact. contained on-site. Immediately and smallclean up. to theenvironment with minimaldamage regulation orguideline Minor violationof the environment. the environment. on permanent impact recoverable with no damage isfully The is non-reportable. contained on-siteand damage thatis Negligible releaseor environmental resources. environmental resources. value. Negligible loss of cultural significanceorsacred of structures orlocations Negligible damagetovalued Negligible social impact. environmental resources. value. Minorlossof cultural significanceorsacred of structures orlocations valued Minor damageto health. community orpublic Minor impactonthe environmental resources. environmental resources. sacred valueorlossof of culturalsignificanceor valued structuresorlocations No socialimpact, damageto the public.Nolostworktime. Negligible impact onstaffor Minor ofsafetyonly. incidents affect healthadversely. injuryor that doesnotcause toahazard public Exposure of qualified firstaid person. by a requiring treatment incidents A numberofsafety No incidents. No impact. legal impact or breach. legal impactorbreach. community. Negligible complaints fromthe Trivial substantiated local mediareports. Possibility ofdetrimental or breach. technical legalchallenge community. Minor complaints fromthe Random substantiated government action. of local reports. Subject Detrimental localmedia No cost impact. to remedy. to remedy. (<$0.005m) financial loss Insignificant remedy. 0.05m) to ($0.005- financial loss Minor 27 Table 4: Likelihood Table.
Rating LIKELIHOOD The potential for risks to occur and lead to the assessed consequences 5 Almost Very high, may Probability A similar outcome has arisen certain occur at least over 0.8 several times per year in the same several times per location, operation or activity year 4 Likely High, may arise Probability A similar outcome has arisen about once per year 0.5 - 0.8 several times per year in Defence 3 Possible Possible, may arise Probability A similar outcome has arisen at about once in a one 0.1 - 0.5 some time previously in Defence to ten year period 2 Unlikely Not impossible, Probability A similar outcome has arisen at likely to occur during 0.04 - 0.1 some time previously in Defence, the next ten to but action has been taken to twenty-five years reduce the chance of recurrence 1 Rare Very low, very Probability A similar outcome has arisen unlikely during the less than world-wide next twenty-five 0.04 years
Table 5: Risk Levels & Management Action (example).
Risk Level Descriptor Indicative Management Action (PRL or SRL) 16 - 25 Extreme Immediate action required, senior management will be involved 9 - 15.9 High Senior management attention needed and management responsibilities specified for further action 4 - 8.9 Medium Manage by specific monitoring or response procedures, develop more detailed actions as resources allow 1 - 3.9 Low Manage by routine procedures, unlikely to need specific application of resources