ADP 2015 Fish Survey Adelaide Aqua Pty Ltd ADP Autumn BRUVS survey report | Rev A 29/6/2015 Document history and status [ Revision IDate IDescr iption IBy IReview IApproved A 29/6/2015 Draft for client review G Barbara A Horan G Barbara Distribution of copies [ Revision ~~~Date issued ~~~ -C_o_m__ m_ e_n_ts________________________________ __ ________ approved ____________________________ ------------------------------------------ A 30/6/2015 VAyala For client review and approval ADP Autumn BRUVS survey report ~ACOBS~ ADP 2015 Fish Survey Project no: IW089000 Document title: ADP Autumn BRUVS survey report Document No.: IW0089000-00.K.K07/0001 Revision: Rev A Date: 29 June 2015 Client name: Adelaide Aqua Pty Ltd Client no: PR-PLN-01-A5 Project manager: Greg Barbara Author: Dr Greg Barbara File name: I :\1E \Projects\IW089000\Deliverables\Reports\Autumn ADP Fish Survey_RevA.docx Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Limited ABN 37 001 024 095 Level 6, 30 Flinders Street Adelaide SA 5000 Australia T +61 8 8113 5400 F +61 8 8113 5440 www.jacobs.com ©Copyright 2015 Jacobs Group (Australia) Ply limited. The concepts and infonnation contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written penn iss ion of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs' Client. and is subject to. and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for. or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party. IW0089000-00.K.K07/0001 ADP Autumn BRUVS survey report ~ACOBS~ Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 1 1. lntroduction ................................................................................................................................................4 1.1 Statistical comparison with past surveys ..................................................................................................... 5 2. Materials and methods .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Survey sites ................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 BRUV systems .......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 BRUVS analysis using MaxN estimates .................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Statistical Analysis data ............................................................................................................................. 12 3. Results ......................................................................................................................................................13 3.1 Fish Communities in the DPR and reference reefs' survey area .............................................................. 13 3.2 Multivariate Analysis of fish community assemblages at DPR. ................................................................... 3 3.3 Differences in fish age or sex across sites .................................................................................................. 2 3.4 Total relative abundance and number of species across Seasons and Years ........................................... 3 4. Discussion .................................................................................................................................................2 5. References .................................................................................................................................................3 Appendix A. Catalogue of Species A.1 Still images of typical fish species identified in BRUVS autumn 2015 Appendix B. Method for statistical analysis Appendix C. Community analysis Appendix D. Species annual presence or absence IW0089000-00.K.K07/0001 ADP Autumn BRUVS survey report ~ACOBS~ Executive Summary As part of an environmental monitoring program associated with construction and operation of a seawater desalination plant at Port Stanvac, Jacobs was engaged to update and undertake the fish assemblage monitoring. The survey locations were modified from the four previous survey sites from 2008-2012, in accordance with approvals and requests from the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to focus on subtidal reef habitats at the saline diffuser reef and four reference reefs within the Adelaide metropolitan waters. Baited remote underwater video systems (BRUVS) were used to collect data for this 2015 autumn survey. This autumn survey will become the new baseline of fish assemblage data as the previous monitoring locations were all outside of the area of known hypersaline plumes. The new monitoring locations include the diffuser reef at Port Stanvac as the impact site (DPR) and four reference reefs (two to the north and two to the south). The reference reefs of Glenelg Tyre Reef, Seacliff Reef, Port Noarlunga Reef (PNR) and Port Noarlunga Tyre Reef­ Lumbs were selected to capture a spread of sites that represented artificial and natural reefs in similar depths to the DPR. The PNR site is also protected under the Marine Parks Act 2007 as a Sanctuary Zone and should therefore have the same level of protection from fishing as the DPR which lies within the Adelaide Desalination Plant Exclusion Zone. During this study, a total of 2950 fish were counted and 44 species identified from 29 families. The most prevalent family of fish across the survey were the Monacanthidae or leatherjackets. They were also the most abundant fish. By focusing on the subtidal reef communities rather than continuing to include soft-bottom seagrass habitats, some of the variability between reference sites has been removed. There was still however differences between reef types of artificial or natural reef assemblages as well as preferences of some species for southern over northern reefs. This was most evident for the juveniles of the species T. novaezelandiae P. me/bournensis M. hippocrepis and Pempheris sp. as well as all stages of the Bluefin leatherjacket T. degeni which were present in high numbers. There were no observations of Port Jackson sharks (Heterodontus portusjacksoni) as there had been in previous years and this may be due to the change from monitoring soft bottom communities to focusing on reef habitats. By focusing on deeper water (15-20 m) reef habitats, the likelihood of recording different species to previous years has increased; the spring survey will confirm whether there are seasonal differences between surveys sites or if there is a real shift in fish assemblages within the Adelaide metropolitan subtidal reefs. Based on the results of this autumn survey, there were no statistically significant differences between the DPR impact site and the reference reefs fish assemblages. The total abundance of fish recorded at DPR was however significantly higher than any of the reference reefs and is likely a result of the reduced fishing pressure at the site due to the Exclusion Zone. There appeared to be no detrimental effects of the ADP discharge on the fish assemblages at DPR and the artificial reef appears to be enriching the fish assemblages in its immediate area. IW0089000-00.K.K07/0001 ADP Autumn BRUVS survey report ~ACOBS~ Important note about your report The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Jacobs is to characterise the assemblages of fish associated with the Adelaide Desalination Plant diffuser reef and compare any differences in the reef fish assemblages within the brine discharge impact area to those of four reference reefs; the Glenelg Tyre Reef, Seacliff Reed, Port Noarlunga Reed and the Noarlunga Tyre Reef/Lumbs sites in accordance with the scope of services set out in the contract between Jacobs and the Client. That scope of services, as described in this report, was developed with the Client and approved by the South Australian Environmental Protection Authority. In preparing this report, Jacobs has relied upon, and presumed accurate, any information (or confirmation of the absence thereof) provided by the Client and/or from other sources. Except as otherwise stated in the report, Jacobs has not attempted to verify the accuracy or completeness of any such information. If the information is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that our observations and conclusions as expressed in this report may change. Jacobs derived the data in this report from information sourced from the Client and/or available in the public domain at the time or times outlined in this report. The passage of time, manifestation of latent conditions or impacts of future events may require further examination of the project and subsequent data analysis, and re­ evaluation of the data, findings, observations and conclusions expressed in this report. Jacobs has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession, for the sole purpose described above and by reference to applicable standards, guidelines, procedures and practices at the date of issue of this