Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1694841324761.pdf (Malta)
IT-TLETTAX-IL LEĠIŻLATURA P.L.

2922 Dokument imqiegħed fuq il-Mejda tal-Kamra tad-Deputati fis-Seduta Numru 198 tat-18 ta’ Frar 2019 mill-Ministru għall-Enerġija u l- Immaniġġar tal-Ilma, f’isem il-Ministru għall-Ambjent, Żvilupp Sostenibbli u Tibdil fil-Klima.

___________________________ Raymond Scicluna Skrivan tal-Kamra MELLIEĦA U SAN PAWL IL-BAĦAR – FISH FARMS 8827.

L-ONOR.
L-ONOR.

ROBERT CUTAJAR staqsa lill- Ministru għall-Ambjent, Żvilupp Sostenibbli u Tibdil fil-Klima: Jista’ l-Ministru jpoġġi fuq il-Mejda tal-Kamra studji li setgħu saru mill-awtoritajiet konċernati dwar l-impatt ambjentali dwar żieda ta’ aktar żoni għal fish farms fl-ibħra fl-akkwati tal-Mellieħa u San Pawl il-Baħar?

12/02/2019 ONOR.
12/02/2019 ONOR.

JOSÈ HERRERA: Ninforma lill-Onorevoli Interpellant li l-istudji dwar l-impatt ambjentali dwar żieda ta’ aktar żoni għal fish farms fl-ibħra fl-akkwati tal-Mellieħa u San Pawl il-Baħar ġew mħejjija.

Qed inpoġġi kopja ta’ dan l-istudju fuq il-Mejda tal-Kamra.
L-istudji huma pubbliċi u jinstabu fuq il-link elettroniku https://era.org.mt/en/Pages/GF00250_07.aspx Seduta 198 18/02/2019 GF00250/07: PROPOSAL FOR A NEW AQUACULTURE ZONE IN THE NORTH OF MALTA, ZONE OFFSHORE MALTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT VOLUME 3: TECHNICAL APPENDICES Version 1: November 2018 Report Reference: Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2018.

GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta.
Environmental Impact Assessment Report – Technical Appendices.

San Gwann, November 2018.

THIS IS A DIGITAL COPY OF THE REPORT.
RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT – KEEP IT DIGITAL CONTENTS Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements Technical Appendix 2A: Multibeam Echosounder and Backscatter Survey Report 2016 Technical Appendix 2B: Side Scan Sonar Survey Report 2017 Technical Appendix 2C: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018 Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report Technical Appendix 6: Cultural Heritage Baseline Report GF00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Technical Appendix 1 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND METHOD STATEMENTS Supporting Documents for Environmental Impact Assessment Report TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ___________________________________________________________________________ February 2018 1 Note 1: Note 2: Note 3: Note 4: Note 5: Note 6: Note 7: Note 8: The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) reserves the right to modify these Terms of Reference according to any relevant environmental and planning considerations that may emerge at any relevant stage of the EIA or the permit application process, as well as in the event of any changes or updates to the proposed development.
ERA also reserves the right to request additional or amended studies should the findings of the EIA be insufficient to adequately inform the decision-making process or if the EIA identifies matters which should be subject to further investigation.

Unless otherwise agreed with ERA, all requirements set out in these Terms of Reference are to be complied with.
If there are any aspects that the consultants deem irrelevant to this study, or if at any stage the consultants discover any environmentally-relevant aspect (not included in these Terms of Reference) that needs to be studied, the consultants shall inform ERA immediately, justifying their reasoning.

Difficulties, including technical difficulties and lack of information, encountered by the consultants in compiling the required information shall be made clear in the EIA.
All references to published works and sources of information shall be duly acknowledged in a manner that enables tracing of the information source and verification.

No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the consultation period and thereafter, and for record-keeping and unhindered perusal by ERA.

Any material which is based on unavailable proprietary data shall not be incorporated by reference.
Any requirement for confidentiality of any section or detail of the EIA must be strongly justified and a formal request in this regard must be submitted to ERA.

Should ERA grant confidentiality, alternative material that is still adequate for proper assessment, public consultation and decision-making must be provided.

Agreement on method statements, and ancillary liaison with ERA, is not mandatory but is recommended.
Nevertheless, ERA reserves the right to disagree with the methodology proposed, including proposed areas of influence, and with the EIA submissions in general, and to factor such disagreement in its critique of the EIA.

During review of the EIA, ERA will submit comments for the consultants’ consideration, as relevant.

Following the consultants’ response to ERA satisfaction, a revised second draft of the EIA, addressing the comments, will normally be required.
This may take the form of a complete resubmission or of an Addendum detailing the revisions to the previous submissions, as deemed most expedient by ERA, taking into account continuity and traceability of the information, and overall user-friendliness vis-à-vis subsequent review, presentation, public consultation, record-keeping and decision-making.

A complete resubmission will generally be required if changes are numerous or complex, whereas an Addendum may be preferred if changes are more limited.
The consultants are not exonerated from obtaining any formal authorisation from ERA, and from other relevant entities, vis-à-vis any activity ancillary to the EIA (e.g.

collection, sampling, capture, or waiver of access restrictions) wherever such authorisation is legally required.

These Terms of Reference, and all ancillary correspondence, are issued without prejudice to the ERA position on the project and to ERA’s final decision.
Accordingly, their issuing (even when customised to address specific project details) should not be construed as evidence in favour or against the project or any component thereof, unless the contrary is clearly stated.

Note 9: Wherever relevant, references to land also include the sea, and ancillary terms such as land-take, ground cover, landscape, vehicles, access roads, etc.

should be interpreted accordingly.


2 Note 10: Wherever any baseline studies required by these Terms of Reference is covered by already-existing data, such data should be used in preference to unnecessary duplication of baseline studies, unless the consultants or ERA or both are of the opinion that the existing data is unavailable, incorrect, outdated, unreliable, insufficient, or otherwise inadequate for the purpose of the EIA.
An Environmental Impact Assessment Report is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta as required by Schedule I, Category I, Section 8.2.1.1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017 (S.L.

549.120).

The required components of the EIA are: i. ii.

iii.

iv.

A Coordinated Assessment Report, in conformity with the following Sections of these Terms of Reference.
This report should assess the project in its totality; [Note: The coordinated assessment should seek to analyse and integrate the main considerations emerging from the technical reports, rather than just reproducing excerpts from the reports.]
A separate Appendix (or Appendices) containing all technical studies and original survey reports as prepared by the individual specialist consultants for specific topics; [Note: Experts contributing to the EIA should be specifically asked to consider impact interactions and cross-cutting issues, and to communicate information between each other accordingly].

A separate Non-Technical Summary of the EIA, in both the Maltese and English languages.
This should have enough details for the public to understand the project and the related environmental considerations, and should be written in reader-friendly language (e.g.
avoiding unnecessary technical jargon); A declaration of conformity with regards to the identification of consultants and contributors, and conflict of interest, in accordance with sub-regulations 17(3) of the EIA Regulations (refer to Appendix 1 to these Terms of Reference); and v. An addendum detailing the feedback received from stakeholders, from the public, and from ERA during the relevant consultation stages of the EIA, and how they were addressed.
Wherever relevant and appropriate, all components of the EIA should include tables and figures (e.g.

maps, plans, photographs, photomontages, charts, graphs, diagrams, cross-sections) and quantifications.

The complete EIA report (including all the above components) should be submitted as a printable digital copy (in .pdf format, with copying fully enabled throughout) and as a printed copy.
Likewise, in case further revision are made to the EIA Report both a printable digital copy (in .pdf format, with copying enabled throughout) and a printed copy of the concluded EIA Report, or an Addendum, is to be submitted to ERA.

Wherever any other study not forming part of the EIA (e.g.

Appropriate Assessment) is also envisaged, this is to be submitted separately from the EIA.
Cross-referencing between the EIA and any such study should be clear and reasonably limited, such that both of the following considerations are duly satisfied: 1.

Alerting the reader to the fact that the aspect in question is also being addressed in another parallel study; and 2.

Enabling the reader to easily follow both the EIA and the other studies as stand-alone documents.

More detailed specifications are identified in the following pages.
3 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ITS CONTEXT The description of the proposal is to include the aspects outlined below, and should take into account the entire proposal and any ancillary facilities and infrastructure connected with, or arising due to, the project.

1.1 Justification for the Proposal 1.1.1 Objectives The purpose and objectives of the proposal and whether these are related to current legal obligations, policies or plans.
1.1.2 Demand The current and expected requirement or demand for the proposed North Aquaculture Zone, also explaining how the proposal will address the requirement/demand.
1.2 Description of the Physical Characteristics of the Whole Project and the Land Use Requirements during the Construction, Operational and Decommissioning Phases The following aspects should be addressed for all phases of the project, clearly distinguishing between aspects relating to construction phase, operational phase, decommissioning phase, or more than one phase.
References to construction phase and decommissioning phase also include ancillary site preparation, clearing, dismantling, and site reinstatement works, as relevant.
1.2.1 General characteristics Description of the proposed facilities together with a site plan drawn to scale including:        Proposed location, including location of cage sites and service ship/s (including geographical co-ordinates of both), within the aquaculture zone;  Total area and volume of the zone and cages  Maximum number, size, type and configuration of cages located within the zone and the distances between cages;  A cross section elevation of the farm showing super structure and sub surface components of the farm relative to mean sea level including outer perimeter buoys, moorings/ anchors;  Height above sea surface and proposed elevations of cages/ installations;  General design including colour scheme materials and texture of structures/ installations;  Boundary demarcation arrangements;  Method of construction/deployment of installations;  Specifications for mooring technologies used during operations.
These should be discussed and recommendations on the favoured option should be made;  Any site which will be used on a temporary basis during the operation phase, e.g.

during the transfer of wild caught tuna to the permanent cage site; and  Storage, packing and servicing facilities. The description is to be consistent with the details submitted in the relevant permit applications, throughout both the EIA process and the development permission application process.
1.2.2 Construction, Operational and production processes The relevant operational and production processes and their main characteristics, including:   The nature and quantity of materials used or generated;  The source, type, quantity, composition and concentration of residues and emissions including water, noise (including impulsive underwater noise), vibration, light, etc. 4 resulting from the proposed project; the parameters to be reported should be in line with relevant EU policy;  The expected annual and total emissions, including Greenhouse Gases (GHG), and the contribution to total national GHG emission on an annual basis; and  A description of the tuna penning process including:  An overview of the process of penning of tuna from the wild;  Measures to limit or reduce accidental trapping or killing of non-target species;  Transport of wild stock to on-growing location;  Management and use of any chemicals / medicinal utilised (antifouling and cleaning agents, feed supplements, chemicals, and antibiotics) and their impact on the surrounding environment;  Overview of feed management techniques and feeding mechanisms on the environment according to the fish feed properties;  Details describing the type and quantity of feed to be used as well as feeding frequency and feed conversion ratio should also be included;  Overview of methods for harvesting, processing, packing and export;  Storage of feed bait, and packing materials;  Types of wastes generated during the various phases of the operation and an estimate of the quantities of each waste produced;  Methodology and frequency of net cleaning;  Details regarding any fallow period of the site; and  Any activities on land, if relevant.           1.2.3 Project management   An indicative framework outlining the key parameters and site management arrangements during construction, operation and decommissioning phases, including:  Works methodology;  Expected duration of all phases, as well as season, frequency and duration of interventions; and  Types and quantities of raw materials and primary resources to be consumed, including water, energy and other resources, and measures to reduce such consumption. 1.2.4 Access, transportation and related infrastructure A forecast of the type, quantity and size of vessels envisaged during each phase and their respective frequency of use, as well as an identification of the routes that vessels will use to/from and within the site.
The required arrangements should also be compared with the relevant existing situation.

Interventions that would need to be carried out to accommodate the required vessels, and sites/structures/features likely to be affected as a result, should be identified accordingly.

1.2.5 Waste management 1.


A sufficiently detailed indication of the waste management implications likely to arise from the project, including wastes generated by ancillary facilities and wastes which may arise from accidental spillages and leakages and from repair works.

Wastes should be subdivided according to the relevant project phases.

2.
2.

Management of solid and liquid wastes (including an estimate of domestic wastes, fish offal, mortalities, feed and uneaten feed, fish wastes, and other wastes generated by the service ship) and methods for their disposal and/or re-use.

3.

The type, impact and mitigation from the wastes generated on site should be assessed.

4.
The following information is to be provided for each waste stream, as relevant to each phase:     Identification of processes or activities that would result in waste generation;   European Waste Catalogue Codes for each waste stream, as per relevant legislation;  The projected quantities and rate of generation for each type of waste;   The method of transportation and frequency. Information on waste handling and storage, on site as well as off site; and 5 This information should be presented in table format as follows, and should also include cross-references to the relevant regulations, particularly The Waste Regulations, 2011 (S.L.549.63): Phase Type of waste EWC Code H-Code Activity (e.g.
sanding, scraping, power washing etc.)

Estimated quantities Final permitted disposal location 5.

The envisaged waste management arrangements using the Best Practicable Environmental Options (BPEO) available, and the envisaged efforts to minimise waste generation and to divert waste to reuse or recycling rather than disposal.
1.2.6 Longer-term developments Additional future developments, sea uses and other commitments that are ancillary or consequent to the project or are likely to arise in relation to the same project or its expansion, as well as longer-term needs of the proposal, including: ancillary infrastructure not accounted for in the previous sections; any consequent interventions/arrangements required to accommodate the development; any foreseeable extensions or updates to the proposal; any displacement of existing uses; and decommissioning.
2.0 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES An outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for this choice, taking into account the relevant environmental effects and their prevention (or optimisation) at source.
The following alternatives need to be duly considered, as relevant to the development itself (or to one or more phases thereof) and its requirements and constraints: 2.1 Alternative sites 2.2 Alternative technologies (including mooring, collection of uneaten fish and oily slick/scum) 2.3 Alternative layouts (including configuration and layout of cages, different mooring configurations etc.)

2.4 Downscaling of the project, or elimination of project components 2.5 Zero option (do-nothing scenario) - i.e.
an assessment of the way the site would develop in the absence of the proposed project.

Note: The zero option should be considered in sufficient detail as a plausible scenario in the EIA, wherever relevant, and not discarded upfront without proper discussion of its implications.

2.6 Hybrids/combinations of the above The findings of the assessment of alternatives should be summarised in a table format for ease of comparison.

3.0 A DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS (I.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE) The existing environmental features, characteristics and conditions, in and around the proposed development site as well as in all locations likely to be affected by the development or by ancillary interventions and operations, are to be identified and described in sufficient detail, with particular attention to the aspects elaborated further in the next sections.

6 The consultants should also identify (and justify) wherever relevant: 1.

The geographic area (e.g.


viewshed or other area of influence) that needs to be covered by each study; 2.

The relevant sensitive receptors vis-à-vis the environmental parameter under consideration (e.g.

natural ecosystems, specific populations of particular species, or individual physical features); 3.

The location of the reference points or stations (e.g.
viewpoints, monitoring stations, or sampling points (including depth of multiple sampling points at a single sampling point in the case of water media and sediment, where applicable) to be used in the study; and 4.

Other methodological parameters of relevance, also noting that the assessment will normally require both desk-top studies and on-site investigations (including visual observations and sampling, as relevant).
Note: It is recommended that these details are discussed in advance with the Environment and Resources Authority prior to commencement of the relevant parts of the studies, in order to pre-empt (as much as possible) later-stage issues.
Wherever relevant to the environmental aspects under discussion, reference to legislation, policies, plans (including programmes and strategies) standards and targets, should also be made, such that the compatibility (or otherwise) of the proposal therewith is also factored into the assessment required by Section 4 below.

The discussion should cover the following aspects, in the appropriate level of detail:  Supra-national (e.g.
European Union; United Nations; or other international or regional) legislation, directives, policies, conventions, protocols, treaties, charters, plans and obligations;   National legislation, policies and plans (e.g.

Structure Plan; National Environment Policy); and  Sub-national legislation, policies and plans (e.g.
local plans, site-specific regulations, action plans, management plans, and protective designations such as scheduling or Natura 2000). Note: In addition to already in-force legislation, policies and plans, the discussion should also cover any foreseeable future updates (or new legislation, policies and plans) likely to be fulfilled, affected or compromised by the proposed project.

Furthermore, it should be noted that some cross-cutting legal/policy instruments (e.g.
Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive) may need to be factored into more than one aspect of the discussion.

3.1 Sea cover and Sea Uses A description of the present uses of the proposed site together with a description of other uses located within the area of influence from the site.

Details including nature, magnitude, proximity to site, etc.

should be included.
should be included.

The assessment shall first consider the proposed development in isolation and asses the impacts arising from the proposed development.
These include impacts of the proposal on the adjacent sea uses including any existing sensitive receptors/uses with particular reference to (i) bunkering sites and related activities (ii) navigational routes (international and local) (ii) fisheries, (iii) shipping and yachting (iv) diving and tourism, and (v) candidate Marine Conservation Areas, during construction and operation.
3.2 Marine environment 3.2.1 Hydrodynamical modelling and impacts on water quality A detailed wave and hydrodynamic model that includes mathematical modelling adopted for the determination of: 1.

The best design for all the components of the proposed project shall be undertaken; 2.

The effects of the proposal on water circulation; 3.

Dispersion models, including:  Dispersal of oil slicks/ fish oils and nutrients  Settlement of uneaten feed   Impact on the coast Impact on the underlying sediment 4.
Wave statistical characteristics (including probability tables for extreme conditions).

7 and shall include physico-chemical parameters, such as prevailing and local currents and their velocity; wave exposure; water depth/bathymetry and sea-bottom type.

3.2.2 Ecology (including Marine Ecology and Avifauna) 1.

A full benthic survey of the existing benthic environment on and around the area that will potentially be affected shall be undertaken prior to starting operations.

The study shall include: a.


Offshore bathymetric maps; b. Aerial imagery of the area; c. Details and maps of any services / utilities; d. Description of the sea-bed morphology and of the sediment characteristics of the site; 2.

A survey of the area defined by the cage moorings and the area to be potentially affected by the fish farm and dispersal of nutrients, consisting of a detailed survey with adequate maps, plans, diagrams, photographs of the marine biotopes/habitats types of the area; 3.
An investigation of the ecology of the site and its surroundings (including, as relevant: flora, fauna, avifauna, fish and other aquatic organisms (including marine mammals and turtles), benthic, burrowing and pelagic organisms, their habitats and ecosystems), duly covering the relevant seasons to ensure adequate coverage of all relevant species and ecosystem components; 4.
A Noise and vibration study providing sufficient detailed information on any impacts on sensitive receptors (fauna and avifauna, natural ecosystems) due to increase in pressure in the area, and the cumulation with other existing sources including maritime vessel traffic and with other predicted sources such as new developments; 5.
A reporting of the conservation status and ecological condition of the area and the state of 6. health of its habitats, species and ecological features; Identification of all relevant species and assemblages (e.g.

protected species or habitats, key species relevant to habitat characterisation, and monitoring indicators), and assess their abundance and distribution patterns as well as the species’ ecological niches.

The findings should be supported by adequate maps and photographs.
Classification of habitat types and species should be conducted in accordance with recognised classification systems (e.g.

EUNIS and Palaearctic), to ERA satisfaction; 7.

A reporting of all protected, endangered, rare, unique, endemic, high-quality, keystone, invasive/deleterious, or otherwise important species, habitats, ecological assemblages, and ecological conditions found in the area under study; 8.
A prediction of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the ecology of the site and its surroundings, including loss, damage or alteration of habitats and species populations (including potential increases in ambient noise levels in the marine environment) including alteration in the habitats and species’ condition/state of health as measured through indicators used/specified for assessment of status in relevant EU policy; 8.
The nature of the changes (whether temporary or permanent) and effects of such changes on the ecological features; and 9.

Other relevant environmental features Note 1: Should the proposal fall within (or be likely to have significant impact on) a Natura 2000 Site, Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or Special Protection Area (SPA), a stand-alone Appropriate Assessment in terms of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations may be required.
In such instances, separate Terms of Reference are issued for the Appropriate Assessment.

3.3 Marine Archaeology and related Material Assets Refer to Appendix 2.
3.4 Infrastructure and Utilities The assessment should also identify any existing or projected infrastructural services located within the area of influence of the development (even if not related to the demands of the development) that might be affected by the development or which may need to be displaced or diverted as a consequence of the development or its ancillary operations and interventions.
8 3.5 Other relevant environmental aspects and features Other relevant environmental features or considerations not identified in the preceding sections should also be identified and described, as relevant.

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS The proposed area is considered to be totally exposed, therefore the level of risk needs to be assessed and the practical feasibility of the project discussed.
All likely significant effects and risks posed by the proposed project on the environment during all relevant phases (including construction, operation and decommissioning) should be assessed in detail, taking into account the information emerging from Sections 1, 2 and 3 above.

Apart from considering the project on its own merits (i.e.
if taken in isolation), the assessment should also take into account the wider surrounding context and should consider the limitations and effects that the surrounding environmental constraints, features and dynamics may exert on the proposed development, thereby identifying any incompatibilities, conflicts, interferences or other relevant implications that may arise if the project is implemented.
In this regard, the assessment should address the following aspects, as applicable for any category of effects or for the overall evaluation of environmental impact, addressing the worst-case scenario wherever relevant: 1.

An exhaustive identification and description of the envisaged impacts; 2.

The magnitude, severity and significance of the impacts; 3.
The geographical extent/range and physical distribution of the impacts, in relation to: site coverage; the features located in the site surroundings; whether the impacts are short-, medium- or long-range; and any transboundary impacts (i.e.

impacts affecting other countries); 4.

The timing and duration of the impacts (whether the impact is temporary or permanent; short-, medium- or long-term; and reasonable quantification of timeframes); 5.
Whether the impacts are reversible or irreversible (including the degree of reversibility in practice and a clear identification of any conditions, assumptions and pre-requisites for reversibility); 6.

A comprehensive coverage of direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts, including:     interactions (e.g.
summative, synergistic, antagonistic, and vicious-cycle effects) between impacts; interactions or interference with natural or anthropogenic processes and dynamics;   cumulation of the project and its effects with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments, activities and land uses and with other relevant baseline situations; and  wider impacts and environmental implications arising from consequent demands, implications and commitments associated with the project (including: displacement of existing uses; new or increased pressures on the environment in the surroundings of the project, including pressures which may be exacerbated by the proposal but of which effects may go beyond the area of influence; and impacts of any additional interventions likely to be triggered or necessitated by situations created, induced or exacerbated by the project); 7.
Whether the impacts are adverse, neutral or beneficial; 8.

The sensitivity and resilience of resources, environmental features and receptors vis-à-vis the impacts; 9.

Implications and conflicts vis-à-vis environmentally-relevant plans, policies and regulations; 10.

The probability of the impacts occurring; and 11.

The techniques, methods, calculations and assumptions used in the analyses and predictions, and the confidence level/limits and uncertainties vis-à-vis impact prediction.
The impacts that need to be addressed are detailed further in the sub-sections below and should be presented in summary chart format.

9 4.1 Effects on the environmental aspects identified in Section 3 The assessment should thoroughly identify and evaluate the impacts and implications of the project on all the relevant environmental aspects identified in Section 3 above, also taking into account the various considerations outlined in the respective sections.
4.2 Environmental risk The assessment should also address, in sufficient detail, any relevant environmental risk (including major-accident scenarios such as contamination, emissions, major spillages, etc.)

likely to result in environmental damage or deterioration.

The range of accident scenarios considered should exhaustively cover, as relevant: 1.

One-time risks (e.g.

during construction or decommissioning works); 2.


Recurrent risks during project operation (including risk of disease transmission); and 3.

Risks associated with extreme events (e.g.

oil spills, fish mortality rates or natural disasters on the project).

The assessment should include, as relevant: a quantification of the risk magnitude and probability; and risk analysis vis-à-vis any hazardous materials stored, handled, or generated on site or transported to/from the site.
Note: Should the proposal fall within the scope of the Seveso/COMAH regulations, a stand-alone Risk Assessment may be required, to the satisfaction of the relevant Competent Authority.

In such instances, separate Terms of Reference are issued for the Risk Assessment.

4.3 Effects on Human Populations resulting from impacts on the environment This assessment should also identify any impacts of the development on the surrounding and visiting population that may result from impacts on the environment.
4.3.1 Effect on public health The EIA shall include a detailed description of the measures envisaged to prevent, minimise and where possible offset any significant adverse health effects, including cumulative impacts of the development on the general public, their social activities and on the area affected by the proposed development.

This should include details of the monitoring programmes that may be proposed.
The EIA shall also identify, describe and discuss in detail the possible health effects of any residual impacts that cannot be mitigated.

This shall be presented as a separate Section/Chapter in the EIA.

In the case of health-related effects, reference should be made to published epidemiological and other studies, as relevant, and the views of the Environmental Health Directorate should be sought.
4.4 Other Environmental Effects Any other environmental effects deemed relevant to the project but not fitting within any of the above sections should also be identified and assessed.
REQUIRED MEASURES, IDENTIFICATION OF RESIDUAL IMPACTS, AND MONITORING 5.0 PROGRAMME 5.1 Mitigation Measures A clear identification and explanation of the measures envisaged to prevent, eliminate, reduce or offset (as relevant) any significant adverse effects of the project during all relevant phases including construction, operation and decommissioning [see Section 1.2.3 above].
Such measures could include technological features; operational management techniques; enhanced site-planning and management; aesthetic measures; conservation measures; reduction of magnitude of project; and health and safety 10 measures.

Particular attention should be given to mitigation of impacts on the marine resources and of conflicts between the different uses on site.
Mitigation measures for accident/risk scenarios should be packaged as a holistic plan that includes the integration of failsafe systems into the project design as well as well-defined contingency measures.

The recommended measures should be feasible, realistically implementable to the required standards and in a timely manner, effective and reliable, and reasonably exhaustive.
They should not be dependent on factors that are beyond the developer’s and ERA’s control or which would be difficult to monitor, implement or enforce.

The actual scope for, and feasibility of, effective prevention or mitigation should also be clearly indicated, also identifying all potentially important pre-requisites, conditionalities and side-effects.

Management plans for the site including measures on how to control biomass, spreading of diseases, etc.
These should include a framework for the:  Environmental Management Plan (including provisions to be taken in case of deterioration of water quality and disruption to the benthos).   Waste Management Plan  Risk assessment and contingency planning for disasters and other contingencies (high mortality, oil spills from bunkering area.

)  Risk assessment for accidents by oncoming shipping traffic. 5.2 Residual Impacts Any residual impacts [i.e.
impacts that cannot be effectively mitigated, or can only be partly mitigated, or which are expected to remain or recur again following exhaustive implementation of mitigation measures] should also be clearly identified.

5.3 Additional Measures Compensatory measures (i.e.

measures intended to offset, in whole or in part, the residual impacts) should also be identified, as reasonably relevant.

Such measures should be not considered as an acceptable substitute to impact avoidance or mitigation.
If the assessment also identifies beneficial impacts on the environment, measures to maximise the environmental benefit should also be identified.

In both instances, the same practical considerations as indicated vis-à-vis mitigation measures should also apply.

5.4 Decommissioning Plan A decommissioning plan (DP) should also be proposed to address the following circumstances, as relevant: 1.
Removal of any temporary or defined-lifetime development (or of any structures, infrastructure or land use required temporarily in connection with it) upon the expiry of their permitted duration; and 2.

Removal of the development (or of any secondary developments, infrastructure or land use ancillary to it) in the event of redundancy, cessation of operations, serious default from critical mitigation measures, or other overriding situations that may emerge in future.
The DP should also include, as relevant, a phasing-out plan, proposals for site remediation or decontamination, and methodological guidance on site reinstatement or appropriate after-use.

5.5 Monitoring Programme A realistic and enforceable programme for effective monitoring of those works envisaged to have an adverse or uncertain impact.

The monitoring programme should include: 1.

Details regarding type and frequency of monitoring and reporting, including spot checks; 11 2.
The parameters that will be monitored, their units of measurement, the monitoring indicators to be used; and standard analytical methods in line with relevant EU policy; 3.

An effective indication of the required action to address any exceedances, risks, mitigation failures or non-compliances for each monitoring parameter; 4.

An evaluation of forecasts, predictions and measures identified in the EIA; and 5.
An indication of the nature and extent of any additional investigations (including EIAs or ad hoc detailed investigations, if relevant) that may be required in the event of any contingencies, unanticipated impacts, or impacts of larger magnitude or extent than predicted.

The programme should address all relevant stages, as follows: (a) Where relevant, monitoring of preliminary on-site investigations that may entail significant disturbance or damage to site features (e.g.
marine environment in terms of the benthos;, or any works that require prior site clearance or any significant destructive sampling); [Note: Official written consent from the competent authorities (e.g.

Superintendence of Cultural Heritage) may also be required for such interventions.]
(b) Monitoring of the construction phase, including the situation before initiation of works (including site clearance), during appropriate stages of progress, and after completion of works; (c) Monitoring of the operational phase, except where otherwise directed by ERA (e.g.
where monitoring would be more appropriately integrated into an operating permit) (including monitoring of the marine environment in terms of the benthos, water quality and other sensitive receptors); and (d) Where relevant, monitoring of the decommissioning phase, including the situation before initiation of works, during appropriate stages of progress, and after completion of works.
5.6 Identification of required authorisations The assessment should also identify all environmentally-relevant permits, licences, clearances and authorisations (other than the development permit to which this EIA is ancillary) which must be obtained by the applicant in order to effectively implement the project if development permission is granted.

Any uncertainty, as to whether any of these pre-requisites is applicable to the project, should be clearly stated.
Note on Sections 5.1 to 5.6 above: The expected effects, the proposed measures, the residual impacts, the proposed monitoring etc.

should also be summarised in a user-friendly itemised table that enables the reader to easily relate the various aspects to each other.

An indicative specimen table is attached in Appendix 3.
12 APPENDIX 1 REQUIRED DECLARATIONS [EIA REGULATIONS, 2017] Identification of consultants and contributors This declaration is to be submitted with each environmental survey report forming part of the EIA.

Attn: Director of Environment and Resources (ERA).


I ______________________________________, who carried out the study (or part thereof) on ______________________________________ proposed _______________________________________________________________, hereby declare that I take responsibility for any statement and conclusion contained therein.

EIA the the for for Date Signature 13 Conflict of interest Extract from the EIA Regulations, 2017 (S.L.

549.120) 17.
549.120) 17.

(3) The consultants shall be required to sign a declaration that they have no conflict of interests that may affect any aspect covered by these regulations.

Such declaration shall follow the terms and specifications established by the Authority Signed declaration in accordance with sub-regulation 17(3): This declaration is to be submitted with each environmental survey report forming part of the EIA.

Attn: Director of Environment and Resources (ERA).


I, ______________________________________, hereby declare that I have no personal or financial interest in the proposed development.

Moreover, I declare that I am not in any way associated with any individual, company, association or grouping that has any direct or indirect, personal, professional or financial interest in the proposed development.
Date Signature 14 APPENDIX 2: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY (AS PROVIDED BY THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE, AS REVISED IN OCTOBER 2013) 1.0 Preamble The proposed project would involve development over an extensive area and may lead to intensification of activity over a larger area.

Potential impacts may occur within the footprint of the project, in the immediate environs, and along access routes to the site.
Potential impacts may include direct and immediate material impacts, as well as subsequent impacts that might arise from the modification of the existing situation.

2.0 Scope and Definitions of the EIA For the purposes of this document, cultural heritage is defined by Article 2 of the Cultural Heritage Act (2002).

This includes movable or immovable objects of artistic, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnographic, palaeontological and geological importance.
2.1 The study area shall include the total footprint of the proposed development.

2.2 In the context of this particular application, cultural heritage considerations may include features of archaeological value and potential; The above cultural heritage definitions and considerations are not to be considered as exhaustive.

The EIA must consider all other forms of cultural heritage, both known and unknown.
2.3 The Environmental Impact assessment will: - Describe the Cultural Heritage assets within the study area; - Assess the physical, spatial and visual impacts of the proposed development on the cultural heritage assets; and - Propose corrective measures for the protection of the cultural resources.
3.0 Methodology In quantifying the cultural heritage assets within the study area, and assessing the impacts of the proposed development, the EIA will undertake: - Description and assessment of the property; - Desktop and archival research limited to the study area; - Fieldwork and research, topographic survey and remote sensing as may be necessary within the site.
All fieldwork has to be authorised by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage as defined below under point 4; - Consultations with any relevant bodies, including the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, Heritage Malta, the University of Malta, NGOs and Local Councils; - Compilation of an inventory of the cultural heritage assets identified within the study area.
The features of cultural heritage are to be described and plotted with grid references, on Data Capture Sheets, the design of which should be approved in advance by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.

The Data Capture Sheets will be presented as an appendix to the EIA.

The analysis of the features will be included in the main report; and - A cultural heritage Risk Assessment Map examining the various impacts of the proposed project is to be included in the EIA.
4.0 Authorisation by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage As per Cultural Heritage Act 2002, any form of investigation or prospection required for the identification of cultural heritage (including topographic survey and remote sensing) may only be undertaken by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage or with its written approval.

15 ERA PTOTECTIVE INVENTORY OF THE MALTESE CULTURAL HERITAGE HERITAGE DATA CAPTURE SHEET Ref.

No.
No.

Location Category Type Site Location ( Address ) Eastings Northings Feature Period - Year S.S. No.

1 S.S. No.

2 Description S.S. No.

3 S.S. No.

4 Date Negative No.

Film No.

Present Utilization Existing Legal Protection GN.

Number GN.
Date Comments Buffer Zone Eastings Northings Site Map A B C D E Others Scale 1 : 2500 Archaeological Characteristics – Sketch/Scaled drawings: Condition: Degree of Protection: State of Security: Proposed Utilization: Basic Bibliography: Compiled by: Checked by: Date: Revised by: Checked by: Date: 16 APPENDIX 3: SPECIMEN IMPACT TABLE Impact type and source Impact receptor Effect & scale Impact type Specific intervention leading to impact Project phase (construction/ operation/ decommissioning) Receptor type Sensitivity & resilience toward impact Direct/ Indirect/ Cumulative Beneficial/ Adverse Severity Physical / geographic extent of impact Short- /medium-/ long-term Temporary (indicate duration)/ Permanent Reversible (indicate ease of reversibility) / Irreversible Probability of impact occurring (Inevitable, Likely, Unlikely, Remote, Uncertain) Overall impact significance Proposed mitigation measures Residual impact significance Other requirements (monitoring, authorisations, etc) [Insert definition of relevant criteria used to describe the impacts] 17 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW AQUACULTURE ZONE IN THE NORTH OF MALTA MARINE ENVIRONMENT METHOD STATEMENT INTRODUCTION 1.
2.

3.

This method statement provides information on the marine environment (including marine ecology) input to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta.

The proposal that is being assessed comprises the development of an aquaculture zone that would be able to house a total biomass of 6,000 tonnes of tuna within a 1.5km x 3km quadrant.
Terms of Reference The Terms of Reference provided by the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) are: 3.0 A DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS (I.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE) The existing environmental features, characteristics and conditions, in and around the proposed development site as well as in all locations likely to be affected by the development or by ancillary interventions and operations, are to be identified and described in sufficient detail, with particular attention to the aspects elaborated further in the next sections.

The consultants should also identify (and justify) wherever relevant: 2.

1.

The geographic area (e.g.


viewshed or other area of influence) that needs to be covered by each study; The the environmental parameter under consideration (e.g.

natural ecosystems, specific populations of particular species, or individual physical features); receptors vis-à-vis relevant sensitive 3.

The location of the reference points or stations (e.g.
viewpoints, monitoring stations, or sampling points (including depth of multiple sampling points at a single sampling point in the case of water media and sediment, where applicable) to be used in the study; and 4.

Other methodological parameters of relevance, also noting that the assessment will normally require both desk-top studies and on-site investigations (including visual observations and sampling, as relevant).
Note: It is recommended that these details are discussed in advance with the Environment and Resources Authority prior to commencement of the relevant parts of the studies, in order to pre-empt (as much as possible) later-stage issues.
Wherever relevant to the environmental aspects under discussion, reference to legislation, policies, plans (including programmes and strategies) standards and targets, should also be made, such that the compatibility (or otherwise) of the proposal therewith is also factored into the assessment required by Section 4 below.

The discussion should cover the following aspects, in the appropriate level of detail:  Supra-national (e.g.
European Union; United Nations; or other international or regional) legislation, directives, policies, conventions, protocols, treaties, charters, plans and obligations;  National legislation, policies and plans (e.g.

Structure Plan; National Environment Policy); and  Sub-national legislation, policies and plans (e.g.

local plans, site-specific regulations, action plans, management plans, and protective designations such as scheduling or Natura 2000).
Note: In addition to already in-force legislation, policies and plans, the discussion should also cover any foreseeable future updates (or new legislation, policies and plans) likely to be fulfilled, affected or compromised by the proposed project.

Furthermore, it should be noted that some cross-cutting legal/policy instruments (e.g.

Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive) may need to be factored into more than one aspect of the discussion.
3.2 Marine environment 3.2.1 Hydrodynamical modelling A detailed wave and hydrodynamic model that includes mathematical modelling adopted for the determination of: 1.

The best design for all the components of the proposed project shall be undertaken; 2.

The effects of the proposal on water circulation; 3.

Dispersion models, including:  Dispersal of oil slicks / fish oils and nutrients  Settlement of uneaten feed   Impact on the coast Impact on the underlying sediment 4.
W ave statistical characteristics (including probability tables for extreme conditions) And shall include physic-chemical parameters, such as prevailing and local currents and their velocity, wave exposure, water depth/bathymetry and sea-bottom type.

3.2.2 Ecology (including Marine Ecology and Avifauna) 1.

A full benthic survey of the existing benthic environment on and around the area that will potentially be affected shall be undertaken prior to starting operations.

The study shall include: a.


Offshore bathymetric maps; b. Aerial imagery of the area; c. Details and maps of any services / utilities; d. Description of the sea-bed morphology and of the sediment characteristics of the site; 2.

A survey of the area defined by the cage moorings and the area to be potentially affected by the fish farm and dispersal of nutrients, consisting of a detailed survey with adequate maps, plans, diagrams, photographs of the marine biotopes/habitats types of the area; 3.
An investigation of the ecology of the site and its surroundings (including, as relevant: flora, fauna, avifauna, fish and other aquatic organisms (including marine mammals and turtles), benthic, burrowing and pelagic organisms, their habitats and ecosystems), duly covering the relevant seasons to ensure adequate coverage of all relevant species and ecosystem components; 4.
A noise and vibration study providing sufficient detailed information on any impacts on sensitive receptors (fauna and avifauna, natural ecosystems)due to increase in pressure in the area, and the cumulation with other existing sources including maritime vessel traffic and with other predicted sources such as new developments.

5.

A reporting of the conservation status and ecological condition of the area and the state of health of its habitats, species and ecological features; 6.
Identification of all relevant species and assemblages (e.g.

protected species or habitats, key species relevant to habitat characterisation, and monitoring indicators), and assess their abundance and distribution patterns as well as the species’ ecological niches.

The findings should be supported by adequate maps and photographs.

Classification of habitat types and species should be conducted in accordance with recognised classification systems (e.g.

EUNIS and Palaearctic), to ERA satisfaction; 7.


A reporting of all protected, endangered, rare, unique, endemic, high-quality, keystone, invasive/deleterious, or otherwise important species, habitats, ecological assemblages, and ecological conditions found in the area under study; 8.
A prediction of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the ecology of the site and its surroundings, including loss, damage or alteration of habitats and species populations (including potential increases in ambient noise levels in the marine environment) including alteration in the habitats and species’ condition/state of health as measured through indicators used/specified for assessment of status in relevant EU policy; 9.
The nature of the changes (whether temporary or permanent) and effects of such changes on the ecological features; and 10.

Other relevant environmental features Note 1: Should the proposal fall within (or be likely to have significant impact on) a Natura 2000 Site, Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or Special Protection Area (SPA), a stand-alone Appropriate Assessment in terms of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations may be required.
In such instances, separate Terms of Reference are issued for the Appropriate Assessment.

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS The proposed area is considered to be totally exposed, therefore the level of risk needs to be assessed and the practical feasibility of the project discussed.
All likely significant effects and risks posed by the proposed project on the environment during all relevant phases (including construction, operation and decommissioning) should be assessed in detail, taking into account the information emerging from Sections 1, 2 and 3 above.

Apart from considering the project on its own merits (i.e.
if taken in isolation), the assessment should also take into account the wider surrounding context and should consider the limitations and effects that the surrounding environmental constraints, features and dynamics may exert on the proposed development, thereby identifying any incompatibilities, conflicts, interferences or other relevant implications that may arise if the project is implemented.
In this regard, the assessment should address the following aspects, as applicable for any category of effects or for the overall evaluation of environmental impact, addressing the worst-case scenario wherever relevant: 1.

An exhaustive identification and description of the envisaged impacts; 2.

The magnitude, severity and significance of the impacts; 3.
The geographical extent/range and physical distribution of the impacts, in relation to: site coverage; the features located in the site surroundings; whether the impacts are short-, medium- or long-range; and any transboundary impacts (i.e.

impacts affecting other countries); 4.

The timing and duration of the impacts (whether the impact is temporary or permanent; short-, medium- or long-term; and reasonable quantification of timeframes); 5.
W hether the impacts are reversible or irreversible (including the degree of reversibility in practice and a clear identification of any conditions, assumptions and pre-requisites for reversibility); 6.

A comprehensive coverage of direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts, including:  interactions (e.g.
summative, synergistic, antagonistic, and vicious-cycle effects) between impacts;  interactions or interference with natural or anthropogenic processes and dynamics;  cumulation of the project and its effects with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments, activities and land uses and with other relevant baseline situations; and  wider impacts and environmental implications arising from consequent demands, implications and commitments associated with the project (including: displacement of existing uses; new or increased pressures on the environment in the surroundings of the project, including pressures which may be exacerbated by the proposal but of which effects may go beyond the area of influence; and impacts of any additional interventions likely to be triggered or necessitated by situations created, induced or exacerbated by the project); 7.
W hether the impacts are adverse, neutral or beneficial; 8.

The sensitivity and resilience of resources, environmental features and receptors vis-à-vis the impacts; 9.

Implications and conflicts vis-à-vis environmentally-relevant plans, policies and regulations; 10.

The probability of the impacts occurring; and 11.

The techniques, methods, calculations and assumptions used in the analyses and predictions, and the confidence level/limits and uncertainties vis-à-vis impact prediction.
The impacts that need to be addressed are detailed further in the sub-sections below and should be presented in summary chart format.

4.1 Effects on the environmental aspects identified in Section 3 The assessment should thoroughly identify and evaluate the impacts and implications of the project on all the relevant environmental aspects identified in Section 3 above, also taking into account the various considerations outlined in the respective sections.
5.0 REQUIRED MEASURES, IDENTIFICATION OF RESIDUAL IMPACTS, AND M ONITORING PROGRAMME 5.1 Mitigation Measures A clear identification and explanation of the measures envisaged to prevent, eliminate, reduce or offset (as relevant) any significant adverse effects of the project during all relevant phases including construction, operation and decommissioning [see Section 1.2.3 above].
Such measures could include technological features; operational management techniques; enhanced site-planning and management; aesthetic measures; conservation measures; reduction of magnitude of project; and health and safety measures.

Particular attention should be given to mitigation of impacts on the marine resources and of conflicts between the different uses on site.
Mitigation measures for accident/risk scenarios should be packaged as a holistic plan that includes the integration of failsafe systems into the project design as well as well-defined contingency measures.

The recommended measures should be feasible, realistically implementable to the required standards and in a timely manner, effective and reliable, and reasonably exhaustive.
They should not be dependent on factors that are beyond the developer’s and ERA’s control or which would be difficult to monitor, implement or enforce.

The actual scope for, and feasibility of, effective prevention or mitigation should also be clearly identifying all potentially important pre-requisites, conditionalities and side-effects.

indicated, also Management plans for the site including measures on how to control biomass, spreading of diseases, etc.
These should include a framework for the:  Environmental Management Plan (including provisions to be taken in case of deterioration of water quality and disruption to the benthos).

 W aste Management Plan  Risk assessment and contingency planning for disasters and other contingencies (high mortality, oil spills from bunkering area.)

 Risk assessment for accidents by oncoming shipping traffic.

5.2 Residual Impacts Any residual impacts [i.e.


impacts that cannot be effectively mitigated, or can only be partly mitigated, or which are expected to remain or recur again following exhaustive implementation of mitigation measures] should also be clearly identified.

5.3 Additional Measures Compensatory measures (i.e.

measures intended to offset, in whole or in part, the residual impacts) should also be identified, as reasonably relevant.
Such measures should be not considered as an acceptable substitute to impact avoidance or mitigation.

If the assessment also identifies beneficial impacts on the environment, measures to maximise the environmental benefit should also be identified.

In both instances, the same practical considerations as indicated vis-à-vis mitigation measures should also apply.

5.4 Decommissioning Plan A decommissioning plan (DP) should also be proposed to address the following circumstances, as relevant: 1.
Removal of any temporary or defined-lifetime development (or of any structures, infrastructure or land use required temporarily in connection with it) upon the expiry of their permitted duration; and 2.

Removal of the development (or of any secondary developments, infrastructure or land use ancillary to it) in the event of redundancy, cessation of operations, serious default from critical mitigation measures, or other overriding situations that may emerge in future.
The DP should also include, as relevant, a phasing-out plan, proposals for site remediation or decontamination, and methodological guidance on site reinstatement or appropriate after-use.

5.5 Monitoring Programme A realistic and enforceable programme for effective monitoring of those works envisaged to have an adverse or uncertain impact.

The monitoring programme should include: 1.

Details regarding type and frequency of monitoring and reporting, including spot checks; 2.
The parameters that will be monitored, their units of measurement, the monitoring indicators to be used; and standard analytical methods in line with relevant EU policy; 3.

An effective indication of the required action to address any exceedances, risks, mitigation failures or non-compliances for each monitoring parameter; 4.

An evaluation of forecasts, predictions and measures identified in the EIA; and 5.
An indication of the nature and extent of any additional investigations (including EIAs or ad hoc detailed investigations, if relevant) that may be required in the event of any contingencies, unanticipated impacts, or impacts of larger magnitude or extent than predicted.

The programme should address all relevant stages, as follows: (a) W here relevant, monitoring of preliminary on-site investigations that may entail significant disturbance or damage to site features (e.g.
marine environment in terms of the benthos;,or any works that require prior site clearance or any significant destructive sampling); [Note: Official written consent from the competent authorities (e.g.

Superintendence of Cultural Heritage) may also be required for such interventions.]
(b) Monitoring of the construction phase, including the situation before initiation of works (including site clearance), during appropriate stages of progress, and after completion of works; (c) Monitoring of the operational phase, except where otherwise directed by ERA (e.g.
where monitoring would be more appropriately integrated into an operating permit) (including monitoring of the marine environment in terms of the benthos, water quality and other sensitive receptors); and (d) W here relevant, monitoring of the decommissioning phase, including the situation before initiation of works, during appropriate stages of progress, and after completion of works.
5.6 Identification of required authorisations The assessment should also identify all environmentally-relevant permits, licences, clearances and authorisations (other than the development permit to which this EIA is ancillary) which must be obtained by the applicant in order to effectively implement the project if development permission is granted.

Any uncertainty, as to whether any of these pre-requisites is applicable to the project, should be clearly stated.
Note on Sections 5.1 to 5.6 above: The expected effects, the proposed measures, the residual impacts, the proposed monitoring etc.

should also be summarised in a user-friendly itemised table that enables the reader to easily relate the various aspects to each other.

An indicative specimen table is attached in Appendix 3.

AREAS OF INFLUENCE 4.

The Area of Influence (A of I) for the marine environment (including marine ecology) baseline studies is shown in Figure 1.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Surveyors 5.


The studies will be undertaken as follows:  Hydrodynamic Modeling: Artelia Eau et Environnement of France: Engineer Franck Mazas BSc (Science), MSc (Fluid Mechanics & Energetics), Grad.

Engineer and Dr Anne Levasseur MSc (Earth Sciences), pg Dip.

(Ocean Atmosphere & Environment), PhD (Oceanography) ;  Marine Ecology & Marine Environment: Prof. Joseph A. Borg BSc (Chemistry & Biology), MSc (Biology), PhD (Marine Ecology); and  Avifauna: Mr John J Borg.
Study methodology 6.
The marine environment study will comprise:  Hydrodynamic modeling as described below;  A description of the benthic habitats including a description of indicator species relevant to the characterisation of the ecological quality and conservation status of the study area;  A description of the biotic assemblages and communities present within the Area of Influence, and an indication of their protected status (if any);  An assessment of populations of other aquatic fauna noted during the surveys, including demersal and pelagic fauna;  An assessment of the impact of the development of the aquaculture zone on the ecology in the A of I and an evaluation of the significance of these effects;  A description of mitigation measures designed to minimise adverse impacts on ecology and enhance the ecological features of the site where possible; and  Preparation of a monitoring framework for the Project, if required.
7.

The Study will be undertaken by taking into consideration the Terms of Reference provided by ERA.

It is proposed that the ToR will be satisfied as set out in the methodology below.

Figure 1: Area of Study BASELINE SURVEY METHODOLOGY Literature Search 8.

A desk-top study will be carried out and a summary of previous survey work undertaken within the study area will be provided as context to the results of the current survey work.

Field Survey Hydrodynamic modelling 9.


The Modelling study will have two tasks:  Task A: wave study: o o offshore wave modelling, establishment of local wave climate and extreme waves,  Task B: hydrodynamic study: o o set up of the hydrodynamic model, hydrodynamic modelling: o current hydrodynamic situation, o model for oil slicks and nutrients, o settlement of uneaten feed, o assessment of the expected impact on water quality, o dispersion of a fish oil spill from the fish farm.

10.

11.
10.

11.

In order for the model to be produced, the following data will be required: (i) bathymetry, (ii) nature of the seabed, (iii) characteristics of the oil, (iv) characteristics of the uneaten feed (nature, volume, settlement velocity, etc.

), (v) location of the farm.

Wave Study ARTELIA has carried out a wave modelling study around the Maltese archipelago spanning the modelling period 1992-2015 (24 years).

Several output points have been set around the archipelago.
For this study, the closest grid point will be exploited.

Its location is illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Location of wave output point 12.

The wave modelling consists of a full wave hindcast study over the Mediterranean Sea.

Sea states are modelled through the 3rd-generation, state-of-the-art models Wave Watch III and SWAN.
In particular, these codes enable the modelling of the following physical phenomena:  wave propagation in time and space of the wave spectrum,  depth-induced refraction;  bottom friction;  wave breaking due to depth and steepness;  diffraction, transmission and reflection by obstacles; 13.

14.

Satellite measurements are used for validating and calibrating wind fields used as input of the models and sea states output from the models (see Figure 3).
At the output point, the wind speed and direction will be interpolated from the CFSR field and the sea state spectra will be processed to get the hourly time series from January 1992 to December 2015 (24 years) of the wind and spectral wave parameters:  wind: o wind velocity at 10 m, averaged over 10 min (m/s), o wind direction (°N),  sea states: o spectral significant wave height Hm0 (m); o peak period Tp (s); o peak direction Øp (°N); o directional spreading ∂ (°) or equivalently the spreading parameter (exponent of the cosine function) s (-) ; o peak enhancement factor y (-) based on the assumption of a JONSWAP-type spectrum.
15.

In addition, a spectral partitioning of sea states will be carried out in order to separate the different wave systems (wind waves, swell) and the associated spectral parameters will be provided for each wave system.

Figure 3: Validation of sea states around the Maltese Islands with respect to satellite measurements 16.
The local wave climate will be established with the following plots:  directional wave roses in Hm0 and Tp;  scatter diagrams Hm0/ Øp, Hm0/ Tp and Tp/ Øp;  exceedance frequency curves for Hm0 and Tp;  histogram of the frequency of occurrence of Hm0 and Tp;  correlograms Hm0/ Øp, Hm0/ Tp and Tp/ Øp.

17.

Figure 4 below illustrates the wave rose in significant wave height Hm0 off Valletta.

Figure 4: Wave rose off Valletta (Artelia, 2017) 18.

19.

20.
19.

20.

Extreme wave heights will be estimated for the different directional sectors (in particular gregale and majjistral sectors) identified through the assessment of the wind and wave climates.

This estimation will be performed through a statistical extrapolation.

Task B: Hydrodynamic modelling The study will be based on the set up of a 3D numerical model using the TELEMAC- MASCARET system (www.opentelemac.org).
TELEMAC-3D is part of the TELEMAC-MASCARET system, and is designed to study environmental processes in free surface transient flows.

The hydrodynamic model will be set up over the fish farm area and extended far enough offshore to introduce tidal level conditions at the offshore boundary.

Adaptation will be made on the existing model of the coastal sea around Malta, available at ARTELIA.

The model will comprise between 7 plans to 10 plans on the vertical.
Size of the triangular mesh will be adjusted to represent in detail the study area.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

The bathymetry will be constructed from the available data and from information provided through the remote sensing survey undertaken as part of this EIA.

Tidal currents are minimal in this area, so flows are dominated by wind-induced currents and global circulation in the Mediterranean Sea.
Consequently, hydrodynamics and flushing simulations will consider typical spring and neap tide conditions, associated to wind conditions typical of calm regimes.

It is to be noted that hydrodynamic modelling will not consider extreme water levels, wave conditions and the associated currents that may be generated under storm conditions.

It will be based on simulations of typical spring and neap tide conditions and will reproduce operational conditions.
A calibration and validation of the hydrodynamics results will be done based on water levels.

The calculation period will last 15 days in order to cover the largest tidal range, and two identified prevailing regimes of calm wind conditions will be taken into account per simulation.

Results will be presented by means of maps and time-series of the velocity in the water column on the project site.

Uneaten feed will be modelled as particles with a specific density and fall velocity.
The simulation will represent the settlement of the particles depending on the water circulation in the future fish farm location.

The numerical model will be run over a 2 week period.

Two scenarios will be simulated, corresponding each to specific wind conditions.

Deliverables will include maps of the uneaten feed deposit, and time- series of the thickness of the deposit at several locations in the vicinity of the fish farm.
Fall velocity will be determined according to the size of the feed and the literature.

Percentage of uneaten feed from the feed supplied will be obtained from fish farm operators.

Feed conversion factor will also be estimated from the literature and/or information from the clients.

Assessment of the expected impact on water quality The simplest approach consists of introducing a passive tracer in the tuna fish farm and run the model for a 2-week period, with adequate forcing (tide, currents, wind).
The passive tracer represents the release of inorganic nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) by metabolic waste from the fishes.

The aim is to model the nutrient plume dispersion.

Results will give the increase of nutrient concentration generated by the fish farm in its surrounding water, compared to the background level.

28.

Nutrient enrichments in the fish farm is influenced by numerous factors like fish numbers, life stage, size, rearing system and diet.
To estimate the nutrient loads from the fish farm, assumption will be made on the discharge generated using information provided by the client on the project (fish concentration and characteristics, water quality data sets if available) and the literature.

29.

Four scenarios will be simulated, to test two wind conditions and two types of tracers: nitrogen and phosphorus.

30.

Deliverables will include maps and time-series of the phosphorus concentration at several locations within the model domain.

31.
31.

Fish oil originated from the feed of the tuna will be modelled using the oil spill dispersion model included in TELEMAC.

The oil contained in the fish feed will be modelled as a set of particles released continuously from the feeding cages.

The numerical model will be run over a 2 week period.

Two scenarios will be simulated, corresponding each to specific wind conditions.

32.

Results of the scenarios will be mapped, to assess the area of deposition and the amount of oil deposited.

33.
33.

The following inputs will be required for this study:  volume and density of the fish oil contained in the feed;  feed consumption of the fish farm; and  viscosity of the fish oil.

34.

In addition to hydrodynamic modeling, the impact of water quality will also be assessed through an analysis of data from monitoring of existing tuna farms.

Ecology – Benthic survey 35.

A survey of the seabed within the Area of Study will be undertaken.
The survey will be mainly aimed at establishing the gross physical and biological characteristics of the seabed using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) that will be deployed from a vessel equipped with a full complement of navigational and positioning equipment.

A Seaview Systems Raptor ROV will be used.

36.


Data will be collected along parallel transects which will have a maximum spacing of 200 m. The video footage will indicate the geographical location of the deployed ROV and water depth throughout the recording to enable easy referencing.

37.

The video footage collected from the field will be analysed in the laboratory.

Analysis of data will enable determination of the spatial distribution of marine benthic habitats within the area surveyed.
The assessment will also identify the main relevant species and assemblages (e.g.

protected species or habitats, key species relevant to habitat characterisation) recorded from the survey area.

The conservation importance of habitats and species recorded from the survey sites will be identified by reference to appropriate legislation, including EU and Maltese legislation.
Special attention will be given to protected species, endemic species, and species that have a conservation and/or ecological importance.

38.

A report giving details of the methodology used during the survey, findings and appraisal, together with maps showing the distribution of marine benthic assemblages within the area surveyed, will be submitted.

The report will be accompanied by the video footage collected (on DVD).

39.

40.

41.

42.
39.

40.

41.

42.

Ecology – avifauna The study on avifauna will be based on data accumulated over a 35-year period by the consultant, related to breeding species, as well as migrant and wintering species.

Published as well as unpublished records/data will also be consulted and incorporated in the final report.

The assessment will include impacts on avifauna including (but not restricted to) disturbance, noise, vibration, loss of habitat, shadow flicker and lighting, collision risks.
The impact of the fish pens as barriers/hazards to movement shall be assessed in terms of the seabird colonies and other marine avifauna.

The impact on prey availability for breeding and “visiting” seabirds shall also be assessed.

The assessment shall analyse the disruption of ecological links between feeding, breeding and roosting areas.

An assessment of collision risks for seabirds shall be taken into account.

43.
43.

The assessment shall also investigate the annual change in populations of birds if necessary through modelling and the decline in territory occupancy.

IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS 44.

The sensitive receptors will be identified as part of the baseline survey.
The potential impacts of the Aquaculture Zone on the marine environment are likely to include:  Potential impacts on the wave climate due to the installations within the zone;   Impacts from fish oil from fish feed; Impacts on avifauna from farm operations including light and noise;  Direct loss of habitats and decimation of biota through the installation of the mooring system;  Disturbance to the benthic environment during the farming operations from the loss of materials, the settlement of uneaten baitfish on the seafloor, and settlement of fish faeces.
The settlement of organic matter on the seabed would typically attract benthic scavengers to the area, which could affect the natural environment of the seabed; and  Changes in ecological relationships and trophic linkages to attraction of species to the site.

PREDICTION OF IMPACTS 45.

Each of the potential impacts listed above will be examined.

The baseline survey information will be entered into a Geographical Information System (GIS).
This system will enable the following analysis to be undertaken (where relevant):  Map areas of permanent habitat loss;  Indicate proximity to sensitive habitats; and  Proximity to areas sensitive to disturbance.

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE 46.
The analysis of the significance of each potential impact identified (positive or negative) will include:  Description of impact;  Policy importance of the impact (local, national, international);  Extent of impact;  Duration of impact (temporary or permanent);  Adverse or beneficial effect of impact;  Reversible and irreversible effects of impact;  Sensitivity to impacts;  Probability of impact occurring (certain, likely, uncertain, unlikely, remote); and  Scope for mitigation/enhancement (very good, good, fair, none).
47.

The above criteria will enable the determination of the significance of each impact in respect of the studies described above.

The impacts will be described as not significant, of minor or major significance:  Not significant (e.g.

no material change in habitat quality and/or extent);  Minor significance (e.g.

small-scale loss/disturbance of habitat that is unlikely to affect the ecological integrity of the marine environment or ); and  Major significance (e.g.
large-scale loss/disturbance of the marine assemblages that is likely to affect the ecological integrity of the A of I).

MITIGATION 48.

49.

The Study will describe measures that can be put in place to prevent, minimise, and where possible, offset any significant adverse effects resulting from the project.

The Study will also comprise a monitoring programme to monitor any sensitive habitats or species within the A of I and to evaluate the impacts that the project may have on them.
Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd February 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED NEW AQUACULTURE ZONE IN THE NORTH OF MALTA MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY METHOD STATEMENT INTRODUCTION 50.

51.

This method statement provides information on the marine archaeology input to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta.
The proposal that is being assessed comprises the development of an aquaculture zone that would be able to house a total biomass of 6,000 tonnes of tuna within a 1.5 km x 3 km quadrant.

Terms of Reference 52.

The Terms of Reference provided by the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) are: 3.0 A DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS (I.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE) The existing environmental features, characteristics and conditions, in and around the proposed development site as well as in all locations likely to be affected by the development or by ancillary interventions and operations, are to be identified and described in sufficient detail, with particular attention to the aspects elaborated further in the next sections.

The consultants should also identify (and justify) wherever relevant: 2.

1.

The geographic area (e.g.


viewshed or other area of influence) that needs to be covered by each study; The the environmental parameter under consideration (e.g.

natural ecosystems, specific populations of particular species, or individual physical features); receptors vis-à-vis relevant sensitive 3.

The location of the reference points or stations (e.g.
viewpoints, monitoring stations, or sampling points (including depth of multiple sampling points at a single sampling point in the case of water media and sediment, where applicable) to be used in the study; and 4.

Other methodological parameters of relevance, also noting that the assessment will normally require both desk-top studies and on-site investigations (including visual observations and sampling, as relevant).
Note: It is recommended that these details are discussed in advance with the Environment and Resources Authority prior to commencement of the relevant parts of the studies, in order to pre-empt (as much as possible) later-stage issues.
Wherever relevant to the environmental aspects under discussion, reference to legislation, policies, plans (including programmes and strategies) standards and targets, should also be made, such that the compatibility (or otherwise) of the proposal therewith is also factored into the assessment required by Section 4 below.

The discussion should cover the following aspects, in the appropriate level of detail:  Supra-national (e.g.
European Union; United Nations; or other international or regional) legislation, directives, policies, conventions, protocols, treaties, charters, plans and obligations;  National legislation, policies and plans (e.g.

Structure Plan; National Environment Policy); and  Sub-national legislation, policies and plans (e.g.

local plans, site-specific regulations, action plans, management plans, and protective designations such as scheduling or Natura 2000).
Note: In addition to already in-force legislation, policies and plans, the discussion should also cover any foreseeable future updates (or new legislation, policies and plans) likely to be fulfilled, affected or compromised by the proposed project.

Furthermore, it should be noted that some cross-cutting legal/policy instruments (e.g.

Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive) may need to be factored into more than one aspect of the discussion.
3.3 Marine Archaeology and related Material Assets Refer to Appendix 2.

4.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS The proposed area is considered to be totally exposed, therefore the level of risk needs to be assessed and the practical feasibility of the project discussed.
All likely significant effects and risks posed by the proposed project on the environment during all relevant phases (including construction, operation and decommissioning) should be assessed in detail, taking into account the information emerging from Sections 1, 2 and 3 above.

Apart from considering the project on its own merits (i.e.
if taken in isolation), the assessment should also take into account the wider surrounding context and should consider the limitations and effects that the surrounding environmental constraints, features and dynamics may exert on the proposed development, thereby identifying any incompatibilities, conflicts, interferences or other relevant implications that may arise if the project is implemented.
In this regard, the assessment should address the following aspects, as applicable for any category of effects or for the overall evaluation of environmental impact, addressing the worst-case scenario wherever relevant: 1.

An exhaustive identification and description of the envisaged impacts; 2.

The magnitude, severity and significance of the impacts; 3.
The geographical extent/range and physical distribution of the impacts, in relation to: site coverage; the features located in the site surroundings; whether the impacts are short-, medium- or long-range; and any transboundary impacts (i.e.

impacts affecting other countries); 4.

The timing and duration of the impacts (whether the impact is temporary or permanent; short-, medium- or long-term; and reasonable quantification of timeframes); 5.
W hether the impacts are reversible or irreversible (including the degree of reversibility in practice and a clear identification of any conditions, assumptions and pre-requisites for reversibility); 6.

A comprehensive coverage of direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative impacts, including:   interactions (e.g.
summative, synergistic, antagonistic, and vicious-cycle effects) between impacts; interactions or interference with natural or anthropogenic processes and dynamics;  cumulation of the project and its effects with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable developments, activities and land uses and with other relevant baseline situations; and  wider impacts and environmental implications arising from consequent demands, implications and commitments associated with the project (including: displacement of existing uses; new or increased pressures on the environment in the surroundings of the project, including pressures which may be exacerbated by the proposal but of which effects may go beyond the area of influence; and impacts of any additional interventions likely to be triggered or necessitated by situations created, induced or exacerbated by the project); 7.
W hether the impacts are adverse, neutral or beneficial; 8.

The sensitivity and resilience of resources, environmental features and receptors vis-à-vis the impacts; 9.

Implications and conflicts vis-à-vis environmentally-relevant plans, policies and regulations; 10.

The probability of the impacts occurring; and 11.

The techniques, methods, calculations and assumptions used in the analyses and predictions, and the confidence level/limits and uncertainties vis-à-vis impact prediction.
The impacts that need to be addressed are detailed further in the sub-sections below and should be presented in summary chart format.
4.1 Effects on the environmental aspects identified in Section 3 The assessment should thoroughly identify and evaluate the impacts and implications of the project on all the relevant environmental aspects identified in Section 3 above, also taking into account the various considerations outlined in the respective sections.5.0 REQUIRED MEASURES, IDENTIFICATION OF RESIDUAL IMPACTS, AND M ONITORING PROGRAMME 5.1 Mitigation Measures A clear identification and explanation of the measures envisaged to prevent, eliminate, reduce or offset (as relevant) any significant adverse effects of the project during all relevant phases including construction, operation and decommissioning [see Section 1.2.3 above].
Such measures could include technological features; operational management techniques; enhanced site-planning and management; aesthetic measures; conservation measures; reduction of magnitude of project; and health and safety measures.

Particular attention should be given to mitigation of impacts on the marine resources and of conflicts between the different uses on site.
Mitigation measures for accident/risk scenarios should be packaged as a holistic plan that includes the integration of failsafe systems into the project design as well as well-defined contingency measures.

The recommended measures should be feasible, realistically implementable to the required standards and in a timely manner, effective and reliable, and reasonably exhaustive.
They should not be dependent on factors that are beyond the developer’s and ERA’s control or which would be difficult to monitor, implement or enforce.

The actual scope for, and feasibility of, effective prevention or mitigation should also be clearly identifying all potentially important pre-requisites, conditionalities and side-effects.

indicated, also Management plans for the site including measures on how to control biomass, spreading of diseases, etc.
These should include a framework for the:  Environmental Management Plan (including provisions to be taken in case of deterioration of water quality and disruption to the benthos).

 W aste Management Plan  Risk assessment and contingency planning for disasters and other contingencies (high mortality, oil spills from bunkering area.)

 Risk assessment for accidents by oncoming shipping traffic.

5.2 Residual Impacts Any residual impacts [i.e.


impacts that cannot be effectively mitigated, or can only be partly mitigated, or which are expected to remain or recur again following exhaustive implementation of mitigation measures] should also be clearly identified.

5.3 Additional Measures Compensatory measures (i.e.

measures intended to offset, in whole or in part, the residual impacts) should also be identified, as reasonably relevant.
Such measures should be not considered as an acceptable substitute to impact avoidance or mitigation.

If the assessment also identifies beneficial impacts on the environment, measures to maximise the environmental benefit should also be identified.

In both instances, the same practical considerations as indicated vis-à-vis mitigation measures should also apply.
5.5 Monitoring Programme A realistic and enforceable programme for effective monitoring of those works envisaged to have an adverse or uncertain impact.

The monitoring programme should include: 1.

Details regarding type and frequency of monitoring and reporting, including spot checks; 2.

The parameters that will be monitored, their units of measurement, the monitoring indicators to be used; and standard analytical methods in line with relevant EU policy; 3.
An effective indication of the required action to address any exceedances, risks, mitigation failures or non-compliances for each monitoring parameter; 4.

An evaluation of forecasts, predictions and measures identified in the EIA; and 5.

An indication of the nature and extent of any additional investigations (including EIAs or ad hoc detailed investigations, if relevant) that may be required in the event of any contingencies, unanticipated impacts, or impacts of larger magnitude or extent than predicted.
The programme should address all relevant stages, as follows: (a) W here relevant, monitoring of preliminary on-site investigations that may entail significant disturbance or damage to site features (e.g.

marine environment in terms of the benthos;,or any works that require prior site clearance or any significant destructive sampling); [Note: Official written consent from the competent authorities (e.g.

Superintendence of Cultural Heritage) may also be required for such interventions.]
(b) Monitoring of the construction phase, including the situation before initiation of works (including site clearance), during appropriate stages of progress, and after completion of works; (c) Monitoring of the operational phase, except where otherwise directed by ERA (e.g.
where monitoring would be more appropriately integrated into an operating permit) (including monitoring of the marine environment in terms of the benthos, water quality and other sensitive receptors); and (d) W here relevant, monitoring of the decommissioning phase, including the situation before initiation of works, during appropriate stages of progress, and after completion of works.
5.6 Identification of required authorisations The assessment should also identify all environmentally-relevant permits, licences, clearances and authorisations (other than the development permit to which this EIA is ancillary) which must be obtained by the applicant in order to effectively implement the project if development permission is granted.

Any uncertainty, as to whether any of these pre-requisites is applicable to the project, should be clearly stated.
Note on Sections 5.1 to 5.6 above: The expected effects, the proposed measures, the residual impacts, the proposed monitoring etc.

should also be summarised in a user-friendly itemised table that enables the reader to easily relate the various aspects to each other.

An indicative specimen table is attached in Appendix 3.
APPENDIX 2: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY (AS PROVIDED BY THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE, AS REVISED IN OCTOBER 2013) 1.0 Preamble The proposed project would involve development over an extensive area and may lead to intensification of activity over a larger area.

Potential impacts may occur within the footprint of the project, in the immediate environs, and along access routes to the site.
Potential impacts may include direct and immediate material impacts, as well as subsequent impacts that might arise from the modification of the existing situation.

2.0 Scope and Definitions of the EIA For the purposes of this document, cultural heritage is defined by Article 2 of the Cultural Heritage Act (2002).

This includes movable or immovable objects of artistic, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnographic, palaeontological and geological importance.
2.1 The study area shall include the total footprint of the proposed development.

2.2 In the context of this particular application, cultural heritage considerations may include features of archaeological value and potential; The above cultural heritage definitions and considerations are not to be considered as exhaustive.

The EIA must consider all other forms of cultural heritage, both known and unknown.
2.3 The Environmental Impact assessment will: - Describe the Cultural Heritage assets within the study area; - Assess the physical, spatial and visual impacts of the proposed development on the cultural heritage assets; and - Propose corrective measures for the protection of the cultural resources.
3.0 Methodology In quantifying the cultural heritage assets within the study area, and assessing the impacts of the proposed development, the EIA will undertake: - Description and assessment of the property; - Desktop and archival research limited to the study area; - Fieldwork and research, topographic survey and remote sensing as may be necessary within the site.
All fieldwork has to be authorised by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage as defined below under point 4; - Consultations with any relevant bodies, including the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, Heritage Malta, the University of Malta, NGOs and Local Councils; - Compilation of an inventory of the cultural heritage assets identified within the study area.
The features of cultural heritage are to be described and plotted with grid references, on Data Capture Sheets, the design of which should be approved in advance by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.

The Data Capture Sheets will be presented as an appendix to the EIS.

The analysis of the features will be included in the main report; and - A cultural heritage Risk Assessment Map examining the various impacts of the proposed project is to be included in the EIA.
4.0 Authorisation by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage As per Cultural Heritage Act 2002, any form of investigation or prospection required for the identification of cultural heritage (including topographic survey and remote sensing) may only be undertaken by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage or with its written approval.

ERA PTOTECTIVE INVENTORY OF THE MALTESE CULTURAL HERITAGE HERITAGE DATA CAPTURE SHEET Ref.

No.
No.

Location Category Type Site Location ( Address ) Eastings Northings Feature Period - Year S.S. No.

1 S.S. No.

2 Description S.S. No.

3 S.S. No.

4 Date Negative No.

Film No.

Present Utilization Existing Legal Protection GN.

Number GN.
Number GN.

Date Comments Buffer Zone Eastings Northings Site Map A B C D E Others Archaeological Characteristics – Sketch/Scaled drawings: Scale 1 : 2500 Condition: Degree of Protection (Structure Plan policies UCO7 or ARC 2): State of Security: Proposed Utilization: Basic Bibliography: Compiled by: Checked by: Date: Revised by: Checked by: Date: 53.

The Terms of Reference have been taken into consideration in formulating this Method Statement.

54.
In meeting these ToR the Marine Archaeology Study will comprise:  A desk-top review of existing data / information on the marine archaeology of the site;  A Side Scan Sonar survey of the entire study area to identify and map possible archaeological / cultural heritage artefacts;  Review of video footage undertaken for the marine ecology surveys for any presence of archaeological / cultural heritage artefacts encountered;  A description of any archaeological / cultural heritage artefacts encountered;  An assessment of the impacts resulting from the proposed aquaculture zone and the increased human activity in the area on the archaeological / cultural heritage artefacts and an evaluation of the significance of these effects; and  Description of mitigation measures designed to minimise adverse impacts on potential archaeological / cultural heritage artefacts.
55.

The Study will be undertaken in accordance with the Terms of Reference provided by ERA.

It is proposed that the ToR will be satisfied as set out in the methodology below.

BASELINE SURVEY METHODOLOGY 56.

The surveys described above will be undertaken between February and April 2018, depending on weather / sea conditions.

Survey Area 57.

The area of survey is as shown in Figure 1.

Potential Impacts 58.


Potential impacts on marine archaeology are:  Direct loss of artefacts through placement of mooring blocks or anchors;  Disturbance of single artefacts through sediment scouring or accumulation resulting from the presence of the structures; and  Disturbance to artefacts from increased activity in the area (e.g.

anchoring).

Field Survey Methodology Literature Search 59.


Based on literature searches and the consultants’ knowledge of the area, a summary of previous survey work undertaken within the study area will be provided as context to the results of the current survey work.

This will include review of existing literature, old manuscripts, and reports of earlier discoveries.

Field Surveys 60.

61.


The remote sensing survey of the area of study will consist of a side scan sonar and multibeam survey of the area coupled with the video footage that will be taken for the marine ecology survey.

The remote sensing surveys will be undertaken by Geomara Limited of Ireland under license from the Continental Shelf Department.
The main aims of the remote sensing survey are:  To map the seabed within the area of study;  Produce a bathymetric map of the area of study; and  To locate and map possible objects on the seabed.

62.
62.

This survey will assist in the baseline study of both the marine ecology and marine archaeology for the area and will provide:  Offshore Bathymetry data;  Location and nature of any subsea obstructions;  Seabed ecology;  Seabed Morphology;  Sediment characteristics; and  Archaeological Remote sensing.

63.

Table 1 lists the software that will be used for the data capture and analysis.
Table 1: Software Technique Proposed Software Multibeam Acquisition & Processing Teledyne PDS (2000) Side Scan Sonar Acquisition Side Scan Sonar Processing Sound Velocity Profiler Acquisition & Processing Sonar Pro Sonarwiz 7 Data Link 64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

The survey will be undertaken onboard a suitable local commercial vessel with ample deck space for operations and a dry cabin to house all sensitive electronic equipment being used.
The vessel will be fully licensed and insured with all appropriate safety and navigational equipment.

The sidescan sonar will be towed from the stern of the vessel with appropriate layback for sea conditions and water depth.

The Reson T50R multibeam sonar shall be mounted midships on the vessel using a bespoke over the side scan sonar mount and pole.

The sonar pole is specifically manufactured to contain the sonar head, the system motion reference unit and positional antenna.
This specific design reduced the potential for offset measurement errors created by non co-located devices.

For Multibeam survey line spacing will be arranged in such a manner that 25% overlap will be recorded for all survey lines and object detection shall be in line with IHO Special Order.

During mobilisation, system calibrations will be completed.

These will be undertaken in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.
Teledyne Reson PDS2000 software will be used to provide helmsman’s displays to the vessel skipper.

The displays will include real-time positional updates as well as any cross track error distances.

It will also provide the on-line surveyor with real time information relating to the ping density of the survey.

For Side Scan Sonar survey, line spacing will be arranged in such a manner that 50% overlap will be recorded for all survey lines.
The side scan sonar transducer settings (beam width and depression) will be optimum for the operating water depth and range settings used.

During mobilisation, system calibrations will be completed.

These will be undertaken in accordance with manufacturer specifications.

69.

A GPS Position Check will be carried out prior to the commencement of the survey.

The position check will be recorded as a scatterplot over a period of 5 minutes recording positional variations over a fixed location.

70.
70.

Preliminary interpretation and processing of the data collected is anticipated to be undertaken on-board the survey vessel.

71.

All raw data will be stored in its raw state by the survey software.

Filtering, damping, prediction or gating of raw data may only take place with the prior consent of the Engineer and then only in the post-processing.

72.

For all surveys, the ‘raw’ soundings will be selected, no depth averaging or bias will be applied during field operations.
Processing of depth data will include all of the raw soundings; they will not be averaged, gated or thinned in any way.

73.

The survey data will be processed in a variety of post processing software packages.

74.

The foremost aim of this survey is to gather data that will enable to produce the following:  A bathymetric chart of area of study; and  Target location within the sediments in the survey area c/w geo-referenced target list.
Any objects captured by the Side Scan Sonar will be recorded and plotted on a digital map (location will include x and y coordinates).

No archaeological / cultural heritage material shall be removed from the seabed or in any way disturbed.

A detailed report of survey (complete with photographs, maps and other notes) will be compiled and included as a Technical Appendix to the EIA.
The report of survey will include details on the methodology used during the survey, data cards, findings, and interpretation, together with a map showing the distribution of any archaeological artefacts or deposits in the survey area as described hereunder Evaluation Archaeological or cultural heritage artefacts recorded will be identified as far as possible and their conservation importance given with reference to appropriate legislation, standards and guidance.
These will include the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands, the Cultural Heritage Act, 2002, as well as international conventions / treaties / standards applicable in Malta.

The results of the survey will be mapped in a GIS and catalogued following ERA’s standard system.

Copies of all documents and photographs related to this survey as well as the final report will also be deposited at the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage.
IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS The sensitive archaeological / cultural heritage receptors will be identified as part of the baseline survey.

An assessment of the potential impact will be made in accordance with the Terms of Reference.

The potential impacts of the Scheme on these sensitive receptors are likely to include: 75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.


During construction During operation o o o loss of artefacts through removal of sediment during works; loss of or damage to artefacts during operation covering of artefacts due to alterations to currents and sediment movement around the structures; o disturbance to artefacts from increased activity.

PREDICTION OF IMPACTS 81.

Each of the potential impacts listed above will be examined.
The marine archaeology baseline survey information will be entered into a Geographical Information System (GIS).

This system will enable the following analysis to be undertaken:  Map cultural heritage or archaeological features within the Area of Influence;  Map identified targets within the Area of Influence; and  Indicate proximity of these features to any structures likely to be a source of disturbance.

IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE 82.
This section will include, for each potential impact, the following information:  Description of impact;  Policy importance of impact (Local, National, International);  Extent of effect (Parts of site, whole site, site plus adjacent areas, site plus wide area);  Duration of impact (temporary/permanent);  Adverse or beneficial impact;  Reversible/irreversible impact;  Sensitivity of receptor (Protected species, rare/endemic species, conservation importance etc);  Probability of impact occurring (certain, likely, uncertain, unlikely, remote); and  Scope for mitigation/enhancement (very good, good, none).
83.

Based on the above criteria, a summary of the significance of the impact will be judged in terms of whether the impact is considered not significant, of minor significance, or of major significance.

MITIGATION 84.

The GIS will be used to map any archaeological artefacts or deposits recorded in the area of study.

The study will describe measures that can be put in place to prevent, minimise and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects resulting from the Project.
Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd February 2018 Figure 1: Area of Study GF00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Technical Appendix 2A MULTIBEAM ECHOSOUNDER AND BACKSCATTER SURVEY REPORT 2016 Prepared by Geomara Ltd (Ireland) Supporting Documents for Environmental Impact Assessment Report FIELD REPORT Multibeam Echo Sounder and Backscatter Survey Mellieha Bay, Malta On Behalf of Ecoserv Environmental Consultants Ltd Geomara Job Number: G16032 Author: Finn Delaney Reviewed By: Eoghan Kieran Date: 30 November 2016 Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Table of Contents 1.1 1.2 1.3 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Survey Location......................................................................................................................................... 4 Ground Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 4 2 3 Survey Design .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Survey ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 General ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Survey Vessel ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Positioning and Heading ............................................................................................................................ 6 Vessel Navigation ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Multibeam Echo Sounder .......................................................................................................................... 7 Motion Reference Unit .............................................................................................................................. 8 Sound Velocity Measurements .................................................................................................................. 8 Calibration and Data Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 9 Drop Down Camera ................................................................................................................................. 10 4 Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 12 Multibeam ............................................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 4.2 4.3 Backscatter .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Coarseness ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Table of Figures Figure 1.
Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.
Subject Site ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Survey Lines ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Survey Vessel ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Trimble SPS461 Heading and Position GPS system ............................................................................. 7 Reson 28125 Multibeam ....................................................................................................................... 7 Teledyne MAHRS Motion Reference Unit ........................................................................................... 8 Valeport Mini SVP ................................................................................................................................ 9 Data Acquisition station on board survey vessel ................................................................................... 9 Survey area with spot heights .............................................................................................................. 14 Survey area with contours ................................................................................................................... 15 Survey area backscatter image ............................................................................................................ 16 Survey area sediment hardness............................................................................................................ 17 Seabed hardness and camera drop locations ....................................................................................... 18 Table of Tables Table 1.
Acoustic noise source from MBES............................................................................................................ 8 Table 2.
Table of calibration values used .............................................................................................................. 10 Table 3 Drop camera locations and depth ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 4 Drop down camera system ...................................................................................................................... 11 Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Geomara were commissioned by Ecoserv Environmental Consultants to undertake a multibeam echo sounder and backscatter survey of an area to the north of Mellieha Bay, Malta.
The survey was undertaken as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment of a proposed Tuna Farm site.

1.2 Survey Location The survey area was located to the north east of Mellieha Bay on the northern shore of Malta (Figure 1).

It was situated north of both Sikka Il Bajda bunkering area and an existing tuna farm in charted water depths of 46 to over 100m* (Figure 2).
The survey area was irregularly rectangular shaped, measuring 5.86km along its longest NW – SE axis and 1.826km along its longest SW – NE axis.

The total survey area measured 8,566.18 km².

Figure 1.

Subject Site 1.3 Ground Conditions The survey area (Figure 1) was generally free from any obstacles such as vessel traffic and fishing gear.

Charts of the area indicated that water depths in the survey zone ranged from 46 to over 100m.
The recorded depths were 48.2 to 120 m. * All depths in this report are referenced to Chart Datum Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

4 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Survey Design 2 The survey design ensured that all of the survey area which could be accessed was ensonified to a high standard.
In general, planned survey lines were orientated northwest - southeast parallel to the seafloor contours.

This orientation of the line plan took advantage of the swell direction at the time of the survey.

Lines were planned and run in order to obtain 10% – 15% overlap (Figure 2).

3 Field Survey Figure 2.

Survey Lines 3.1 General The multibeam survey was undertaken on Tuesday 22nd November 2016.

Weather conditions during the survey were moderate with light winds and a low swell being encountered.
Depths encountered in the survey area ranged from 48.2 to 120 m. In general the prepared line pan was adhered to, but in area where a large depth variation was encountered, a variation to the line Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

5 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey spacing was required in order to obtain a 10% - 15% overlap.
100% ensonification was achieved in all surveyed areas.

3.2 Survey Vessel The survey vessel was the ‘Super Runner’, a 35ft Tal-Qalfat fishing vessel (Figure 3).

The layout of the vessel provided ample deck space for operations and a dry cabin to house all of the sensitive electronics equipment being used.

The vessel was fully licensed and insured, had all necessary safety and navigational equipment.

The multibeam system was side pole mounted with a heavy bracket to eliminate any unwanted movement.
The vessel was skippered by a local.

His experience and advice was taken into account at all times during the survey.

Figure 3.

Survey Vessel 3.3 Positioning and Heading Vessel and equipment positioning was provide by a Trimble SPS 461 GPS Heading and positioning antennas.

The Trimble SPS 461 is a dual frequency receiver which provides DGPS accuracy position from SBAS, OmniSTAR VBS, and or an external RTCM DGPS correction.
The SPS461 computes the precise vector between the two antennas to provide a highly accurate heading and positioning values.

The positional antenna was placed at a height with clear views of the sky, directly over the sonar transducer.

The vertical offset height from the positional antenna to the transducer was measured and inputted in the acquisition software.

A second antenna, the heading reference antenna, was placed 2.1 m from the positional antenna.
This separation was required to ensure accurate heading referencing throughout the survey.

The mounting of the GPS antenna and offset calculations ensured the most accurate heading and position.

Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

6 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Figure 4.
Trimble SPS461 Heading and Position GPS system 3.4 Vessel Navigation Vessel navigation was provided by the Trimble SPS461 receivers through the PDS 2000 software.

A helmsman’s display monitor provided the vessel skipper with navigation and a coverage map.

This allowed for the vessel to stay on course throughout the duration of the survey and provided the required accuracy of coverage.

3.5 Multibeam Echo Sounder The MBES system used for the survey was the Reson Seabat 8125.
The 8125 system is renowned worldwide for its high resolution and variety of applications such as pipeline surveys, wreck surveys and, of course, general hydrographic surveys.

The system uses a frequency of 455 kHz and measures a 120° swath across the seafloor.

It is highly accurate and delivers a depth resolution of 6 mm, which is well inside IHO Special Order and U.S Army Corps of Engineers Special Order requirements.
The 8125 system has the capacity to acquire both bathymetric and backscatter data and both these functions were used during the survey.

Figure 5.

Reson 28125 Multibeam Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

7 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey The 8125 uses its own processor system which is interfaced with a high performance desktop computer.
All survey set up and data acquisition is carried out via the processor using PDS 2000 software.

The MBES was mounted on the side of the survey vessel using a purpose built bracket mount.

The GPS system was mounted in line with the sonar head and the motion reference unit was offset to the central axis point of the vessel.

1 2 3 4 Position of Data Source Date of Operations Source Level (at full power) Frequency Pole Mounted (over the side) 22nd November 220dB re 1μPa @ 1m 455Khz Table 1.
Acoustic noise source from MBES 3.6 Motion Reference Unit To ensure accurate bathymetric data heave, pitch and roll values must be integrated into the survey setup.

To provide heave, pitch and roll a Teledyne TSS MAHRS MRU (Motion Reference Unit) and gyrocompass were employed (Figure 6).

This system provides real time data, which is integrated directly with the multibeam system and the PDS 2000 acquisition software.

The MRU was located along the centreline of the vessel and close to the waterline.
The MRU was fully aided by the Trimble SPS461, which again improves the accuracy of the system and, subsequently, the bathymetric data set.

Figure 6.

Teledyne MAHRS Motion Reference Unit 3.7 Sound Velocity Measurements To ensure the accuracy of the acquired data and correction for differing water column densities, sound velocity profiles were taken at various stages throughout the survey.

These were then applied to the multibeam data.


A Valeport mini sound velocity probe (SVP) was mounted alongside the MBES sonar head.

This provided real time sound velocity data at the head to the PDS 2000 acquisition software.

At the beginning, middle and end of the survey, sound velocity profiles were taken using a Valeport SIFT SVP (Figure 7).

This provided the survey with full profile measurements from the surface to the deepest sections of the survey area.
These profiles are subsequently imported into PDS 2000 to assist in the calibration of the MBES system.

Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

8 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Figure 7.

Valeport Mini SVP 3.8 Calibration and Data Acquisition PDS 2000 is the proprietary software of Teledyne Reson.
It allows for seamless integration of all systems throughout the survey including MBES, Backscatter, GPS and MRU.

It is a powerful software with a wide variety of applications and is ideally suited to marine bathymetric surveys.

PDS 2000 allows for real time data interrogation, which ensures good quality data at all times throughout the survey.

Vessel navigation is also provided through PDS 2000.
PDS 2000 allows the surveyor to send a helmsman’s display screen to a VDU located adjacent to the vessel skipper (Figure 8).

This screen provides the vessel skipper with real time updates on critical data such as position, speed, heading and data coverage.

The provision of the helmsman’s display to the vessel skipper ensures that the required area is surveyed to the highest level of accuracy possible.

Figure 8.
Figure 8.

Data Acquisition station on board survey vessel Prior to any data acquisition, the MBES system is calibrated.

The calibration procedure requires the survey vessel to travel across a patch of seafloor in overlapping opposing directions over both flat and sloping ground.

This allows the software to calculate the equipment heave, pitch and roll offsets and apply calibration values to correct for these.
Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

9 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Table 2.

Table of calibration values used The acquired multibeam and backscatter data was processed using PDS 2000 using a HP Intel i5-3210M processor.

This process involved applying a number of external data sources and filters.

These included equipment offsets and calibration values.
Tidal values from the Transport Malta, Tide Gauge at Marsaxlokk was used to correct for tidal variations.

Once completed, the data was reviewed to identify any outlying erroneous acoustic artefacts that may be contained in the data.

These erroneous artefacts are then removed and the resultant data is gridded to the required density.

For backscatter applications, the data is gridded using intensity values.
The quality of the MBES survey data from the survey area was high and the statistical filter removed most outlying points.

Consequently, there was a minimal amount of cleaning to be carried out.

All processed data has been presented in depths relating to Chart Datum.

3.9 Drop Down Camera A series of sea floor videos and stills were acquired at 13 locations within the survey area (Figure 13).

Drop No.
Time Easting Northing Lat Long Depth (M CD) Drop 1 Drop 2 Drop 3 Drop 4 Drop 5 Drop 6 Drop 7 Drop 8 Drop 9 Drop 10 Drop 11 Drop 12 Drop 13 10:13:00 449318.3 3984791 36.00628 14.43763 10:39:00 448927.7 3985048 36.00857 14.43327 11:08:00 447463.5 3986138 36.01833 14.41696 11:17:00 445888.8 3987406 36.02967 14.39939 11:38:00 445950.6 3987921 36.03432 14.40004 12:00:00 446701.8 3987426 36.02989 14.40842 12:11:00 446604.9 3986972 36.0258 14.40737 12:40:00 447567 3986951 36.02566 14.41805 12:55:00 448795.6 3986382 36.02059 14.43172 13:13:00 447707.1 3986433 36.021 14.41964 13:27:00 448566.9 3985686 36.01431 14.42923 13:43:00 449874.6 3985866 36.016 14.44373 14:17:00 449764.2 3984964 36.00786 14.44256 Table 3 Drop camera locations and depth 51 51 59 70 76 77 68 73 71 63 57 69 57 Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.
10 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey The video and stills were used to characterise the seafloor at these locations and to refine the results of the backscatter survey.
The following equipment was used; Description Quantity Seatronics Digital Stills Camera Frame Insite Pegasus 1366 Colour Zoom Camera Seatronics SeaLED DC LED Lamp Seatronics Drop Camera Surface Control & Download Box Seatronics 200m Multifunction Umbilical Cable Digital Edge Subsea, Edge DVR topside Survey Laptop Table 4 Drop down camera system 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 The entire subsea camera and light system was housed in an aluminum subsea frame.

This frame had 4 no.

LED underwater lights which were moveable.


For the purpose of the survey, the lights were mounted looking forward and slightly down.

Each of the four underwater lights were controlled individually via a surface survey laptop and Seatronics lamp control software V 1.0.0.

The colour zoom camera was mounted towards the top of the camera and light frame, forward and slightly downward facing.

It too was controlled via a surface survey laptop and Insite control software V 3.2.5.
The Insite control software allowed the operator to zoom the camera.

The Drop down camera subsea positioning was recorded using an Applied Acoustics Easytrak USBL system which was integrated with Hypack survey software.

A transponder was placed on the camera frame and a topside transducer was mounted on the starboard side of the survey vessel.

It provided real time positioning of the camera when underwater.

All video imagery was recorded using a Digital Edge Subsea, Edge DVR topside data recorded.
It allowed annotation and recording of all subsea imagery.

Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

11 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Results 4 The multibeam and backscatter survey was undertaken Tuesday 22nd November 2016.

A total of 14 survey lines were sailed and 56977 swathes recorded, which amounted to 13,674,480 individual xyz points.
During processing 7.89 % of the points were rejected by all filters; of these, 4.48 % were rejected by a statistics filter and 3.14 % were rejected manually.

4.1 Multibeam For bathymetric purposes, a 2 m grid model (Figure 9) was created from the surveyed points, which had 13,674,480 cells and covered an area of 8,566,180 m².

The multibeam survey of the subject site provided detailed information relating to the site.
It indicated that water depths in the surveyed area ranged from 48.2 to 120 m, with the average being 63m (Figure 9).

As detailed on the navigation charts, the overall survey area appeared to have a distinct northern facing slope.

The shallowest area was a small ridge, located along the south east of the survey area.

From here the seafloor descended gradually as it travelled northward until it reached the submarine cliff which bounded the northern edge of the survey area.
The deepest points in the survey were recorded off this long submarine cliff.

It ran along the northern boundary of the site in a northwest – southeast direction.

At the edge of the cliff, water depths descended from c. 74m to over 120m.

4.2 Backscatter The Backscatter imagery of the survey area indicates that there is very little variation in substrate type (Figure 11).

The acoustic backscatter indicated that the central survey area was homogenous with little variation in the bedform intensity noted.
A number of very low seafloor contours were noted in the shallow central and southeastern sections.

These were visible radiating in a northerly direction from the southern edge of the survey area.

These contours were visible in the backscatter as slightly darker patches.

They were not pronounced differences, as is often seen with reef and cliff edges.

The intensity difference in this area was very low thus indicating that the variation was very subtle.
The steep cliff descent along the northern boundary of the survey area was very noticeable.

Six small gorge inlets were also noted.

These small indents travelled in a roughly north – south direction for 10- 20m, although the backscatter indicated that two shallow depressions associated with these gorges continued for a greater a distance.

Video imagery appeared to correspond with these findings.
4.3 Coarseness Both Figure 12, acoustic backscatter and Figure 13, seafloor hardness indicate that there is very little variation in seabed hardness throughout the survey area.

Figure 12 is an acoustic backscatter image of the survey area.

Areas of high reflectivity, such as sand and rock are represented as light shades and areas of low reflectivity are darker.

Figure 13 is an image of seafloor hardness or coarseness based on the recorded backscatter.
It is graduated from 0.7 to 8.3, where 8.3 is low reflectivity and 0.7 is high Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

12 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey reflectivity.

We know from the video survey that the majority of the survey area is comprised of coarse unconsolidated Maerl, with various degrees of sand inclusions.
Both images indicate the sea cliff along the northern boundary of the site.

It is clearly represented as an area of low reflectivity, thereby indicating that the substrate at the base is most likely of a muddy sand texture.

As with the video survey, the acoustic backscatter indicates that the majority of the survey area is comprised of uniform coarse low reflectivity unconsolidated material, maerl.

A small blue area in the south of the survey area indicates the presence of a more consolidated material.
The high ground noted on the bathymetric data, in the southern end of the survey area is also noted in the backscatter and hardness data.

It is represented as an area of less coarse material than the majority of the survey area.

This reduction in coarseness can be attributed to a higher sand or mud content.

A similar area of less coarse substrate is noted on the western end of the survey area.

It too can be attributed to a higher sand/mud content in the maerl substrate.
Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

13 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Figure 9.

Survey area with spot heights Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

14 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Figure 10.
Survey area with contours Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

15 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Figure 11.

Survey area backscatter image Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

16 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Figure 12.
Survey area sediment hardness Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

17 G16032 Mellieha Multibeam and Backscatter Survey Figure 13.

Seabed hardness and camera drop locations Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.
18 GF00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Technical Appendix 2B SIDE SCAN SONAR SURVEY REPORT 2017 Prepared by Geomara Ltd (Ireland) Supporting Documents for Environmental Impact Assessment Report G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta FIELD REPORT Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore Is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta On Behalf of Geomara Job Number: G16032 Author: Eoghan Kieran Reviewed By: Finn Delaney Date: 01 August 2017 Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta Table of Contents 1 2 3 4 1.1 1.2 1.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Background ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Survey Location ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Ground Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Survey Design ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Field Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 General ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Survey Vessel ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Positioning and Heading ............................................................................................................................ 7 Vessel Navigation ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Side Scan Sonar ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Sonar Winch .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Data Acquisition and Processing ............................................................................................................... 8 Results ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Table of Figures Survey Area Location ............................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 1.
Planned Survey Lines ............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2.

Survey Vessel ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3.

Trimble SPS461 Heading and Position GPS system ............................................................................... 7 Figure 4.
Edgetech 4125 Side scan sonar ............................................................................................................. 8 Figure 5.

DT Marine, 1020 Electro-hydraulic sonar winch ................................................................................... 8 Figure 6.

Side scan sonar data processing flowchart ........................................................................................... 9 Figure 7.
Survey track line .................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 8.

Typical sonar data from main rippled sand area ................................................................................. 10 Figure 9.

Figure 10.
Figure 10.

Mosaic of SSS data .............................................................................................................................. 11 Sonar data from Area 1, differentiated area ....................................................................................... 11 Figure 11.

Sonar data in reef area ........................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 12.

Table of Tables Table 1.


WGS84 UTM 33N co-ordinates for Area 1 .................................................................................................... 4 Table 2.
WGS84 UTM 33N co-ordinates for Area 2 ................................................................................................. 4 Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Geomara were commissioned by Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd to undertake a side scan sonar survey of a proposed fish farm relocation in an area offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta.
1.2 Survey Location The survey area comprised two adjoining survey blocks which extended from the southern and eastern sides of an existing tuna farm (recently relocated from the South Comino Channel).

Survey Area 1 was partially located in the northeastern corner of is-Sikka il-Bajda bunkering area.

The second survey area was entirely located in the Sikka il-Bajda bunkering area, immediately to the west of Area 1.

Water depths in the area are charted as between 42 m and 53 m (Figure 1).
Co-ordinates for the two survey areas are given in Tables 1 and 2.

Easting 449079.8 448630.8 449172.6 450235.8 Northing 3985191 3983957 3983551 3984823 Table 1.

WGS84 UTM 33N co-ordinates for Area 1 The perimeter of Area 1 measured 4861.7m and it encompassed an area of 1,356,618.2 m² Northing 47262.11 447194.6 448637.6 448808 Easting 3985016 3984894 3983932 3984450 Table 2.
WGS84 UTM 33N co-ordinates for Area 2 The perimeter of Area 2 measured 4064.7m and it encompassed an area of 568,811.8 m² Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

4 G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta Figure 1.
Survey Area Location 1.3 Ground Conditions As previously detailed, the survey areas were situated around the southern and eastern perimeters of the existing Tuna farm.

Although there was a working fish farm immediately adjacent, the survey areas (Figure 1) were generally free from obstacles such as vessel traffic and fishing gear.

Survey Design 2 The survey design ensured that all of the survey area that could be accessed was ensonified to a high standard.
In Area 1, all survey lines were orientated in a North – South orientation whilst in Area 2 they were orientated East – West.

These line orientation plans were required to ensure that the survey vessel and equipment did not encounter any of the existing fish farm equipment such as net anchors and moorings.

Lines were planned and run in order to obtain 10% – 20% overlap (Figure 2).

The Project geodetic parameters were WGS84 UTM 33N.
Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

5 G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta 3 Field Survey Figure 2.

Planned Survey Lines 3.1 General The side scan sonar survey was undertaken on Thursday 3rd August 2017.

Weather conditions during the survey were moderate with light winds and a negligible swell was encountered.
A total of 17 survey lines were recorded which amounted to 19.533 linear km of side scan sonar data.

Depths encountered in the survey area ranged from 42 to 55 m. In general the prepared line plans were adhered to, but in areas where a large depth variation was encountered, a variation to the line spacing was required in order to obtain a 10% - 15% overlap.

100% ensonification was achieved in all surveyed areas.

3.2 Survey Vessel The survey vessel was the working vessel Awrata (Figure 3).
The layout of the vessel provided ample deck space for operations and a dry cabin to house all sensitive electronic equipment being used.

The vessel was fully licensed and insured, had all necessary safety and navigational equipment.

The side scan sonar system was deployed from the stern of the vessel.

The sonar winch was situated at the centre of the back deck.

A tow cable pulley sheave was mounted on an elevated hiab arm at the stern of the vessel.
This sheave ensured that the tow cable was sufficiently elevated so that it did not catch on the vessel stern.

The vessel was skippered by a local.

His experience and advice was taken into account at all times during the survey.

Figure 3.

Survey Vessel Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.
6 G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta 3.3 Positioning and Heading Vessel and equipment positioning was provide by a Trimble SPS 461 GPS Heading and positioning antennas (Figure 4).

The Trimble SPS 461 is a dual frequency receiver which provides DGPS accuracy position from SBAS, OmniSTAR VBS, and or an external RTCM DGPS correction.

The SPS461 computes the precise vector between the two antennas to provide a highly accurate heading and positioning values.
The positional antenna was placed at a height with clear views of the sky, directly over the sonar transducer.

The vertical offset height from the positional antenna to the transducer was measured and inputted in the acquisition software.

A second antenna, the heading reference antenna, was placed 2.1 m from the positional antenna.

This separation was required to ensure accurate heading referencing throughout the survey.
The mounting of the GPS antenna and offset calculations ensured the most accurate heading and position.

Figure 4.

Trimble SPS461 Heading and Position GPS system 3.4 Vessel Navigation Vessel navigation was provided by the Trimble SPS461 receivers through the Hypack 2017 software.

A helmsman’s display monitor provided the vessel skipper with navigation and a coverage map.

This allowed for the vessel to stay on course throughout the duration of the survey and provided the required accuracy of coverage.
3.5 Side Scan Sonar The side scan sonar system used for the survey was the Edgetech 4125 (Figure 5).

EdgeTech’s 4125 Side Scan Sonar System was designed with both the Search & Recovery (SAR) and shallow water survey communities in mind.

The 4125 utilizes EdgeTech’s Full Spectrum CHIRP technology, which provides higher resolution imagery at ranges up to 50% greater than non CHIRP systems operating at the same frequency.
This translates into more accurate results and faster surveys, thus cutting down on costs.

Dual simultaneous frequency sets of 400/900 kHz are the transducer sets used in our system.

This is the perfect tool for shallow water survey applications, providing an ideal combination of range and resolution.

Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.
7 G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta Figure 5.

Edgetech 4125 Side scan sonar The 4125 system can be powered by both AC and DC for added versatility and is delivered in portable rugged cases for ease of transport from site-to-site.

As is standard with all of EdgeTech’s towed side scan systems, the 4125 comes with a safety recovery system which will prevent the loss of a towfish if it becomes snagged on an obstacle during a survey.
A standard 4125 System comes with a choice of towfish and a portable water resistant topside processor with a splash-proof, drop & shock resistant laptop computer including EdgeTech’s easy-to-use Discover acquisition software.

3.6 Sonar Winch To ensure that the side scan sonar reached appropriate depths to enable proper ensonification of the seafloor, a sonar winch was required.

Geomara used their DT Marine 1020 Electro Hydraulic sonar winch (Figure 6).
The winch was situated in the central stern section of the survey vessel.

Offset measurements were then taken from the winch location to the GPS, thereby enabling offset measurements to be imputed into the survey software.

Figure 6.

DT Marine, 1020 Electro-hydraulic sonar winch 3.7 Data Acquisition and Processing Edgetech’s Discover proprietary software was used to set the survey parameters and record the resultant data.
All side scan sonar data was recorded using Edgetech’s .jsf proprietary format and Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

8 G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta standard industry XTF format.

Simultaneous dual frequency of 445 and 900 kHz were recorded during the survey.

The gains and frequency were not subjected to any change during the survey.
Subsea positioning was also provided by catenary calculations in the Discover software.

The Remontec T- Count sheave counter system recorded that amount of tow cable paid out by the sonar winch.

This data was then transmitted to the Discover software where it was used in conjunction with the recorded height of the side scan towfish above the seafloor to calculate the position.

Secondary positional checks were later undertaken to ensure correct subsea positioning.
All side scan sonar data was processed using Chesapeake Technology, Sonarwiz 7 software.

Geomara have a defined side scan sonar process which has been developed in conjunction with the Sonarwiz 7 software manufacturer.

This process ensures that all data is processed to the highest quality and that the maximum data is recovered from each sonar trace.

Details of this staged process are explained in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Side scan sonar data processing flowchart Results 4 The side scan sonar survey was undertaken on Thursday 3rd August 2017.

A total of 17 survey lines were recorded which amounted to 19.533 linear km of side scan sonar data (Figure 8.

The data indicated that the seabed in the subject site comprised mainly of flat homogenous rippled sand (Figure 9).

Two disparate areas of change were noted on the sonar data (Figure 10).
These were; the southeastern corner of Area 1 and the southern and western ends of Area 2.

Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.
9 G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta The seafloor in the southeastern corner of Area 1 appeared to comprise of the same shallow rippled sand as the adjoining area but this was interspersed with areas of less dense acoustic reflection (Figure 11).

It was not possible to discern the exact composition of the varying seafloor material from the sonar data.
However it was considered that these areas of less dense reflection could represent the terminus of the nearby maerl beds or a low reflectivity silty seabed substrate.

The seafloor variation noted in the southern and western ends of Area 2 appeared to comprise reef outcrop (Figure 12).

This outcrop feature was clearly discernible and it had visible rippled sand pockets interspersed.

The side scan sonar survey did not record the presence of any potential cultural heritage.

Figure 8.
Figure 8.

Survey track line Figure 9.

Typical sonar data from main rippled sand area Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.

10 G16032 Side Scan Sonar Survey Offshore is-Sikka il-Bajda, Malta Figure 10.

Mosaic of SSS data Figure 11.

Sonar data from Area 1, differentiated area Figure 12.
Sonar data in reef area Geomara, Cois Cuain, Ballynamanagh, Clarinbridge, Co. Galway, H91 V1Fh, Ireland Tel: +353(0)91 485790, Email: info@geo-mara.com, Web: www.geo-mara.com Page No.
11 GF00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Technical Appendix 2C REMOTE SENSING SURVEY REPORT 2018 Prepared by Seastar Surveys Ltd (UK) Supporting Documents for Environmental Impact Assessment Report Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey ADI Associates – Environmental Consultants Ltd Malta Environmental Baseline: Acoustic and Camera Surveys April / May 2018 Survey Report 19th June 2018 Seastar Survey Ltd. Project Number – J/18/516 For further information please contact Steven Dewey Seastar Survey Ltd., Ocean Quay, Belvidere Road, Southampton, SO14 5QY Email: sdewey@seastarsurvey.co.uk Please cite this report as: MacMillan, A., O’Dell, J., and Dewey, S. (2018).
Malta Environmental Baseline: Acoustic and Camera Surveys.

A report to ADI Associates by Seastar Survey Ltd., 15 pages.
Signed Declaration Attn: Director of Environment and Resources Environment and Resources Authority Malta I, Steven Dewey, who carried out the remote sensing surveys (or part thereof) for the marine environment study for the EIA for the proposed North Aquaculture Zone off Is-Sikka l-Bajda, San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta, hereby declare that such study was solely carried out by me on behalf of Seastar Surveys Ltd and the company takes responsibility for any statement and conclusion contained therein.
30 November 2018 Date Signature Signed Declaration Attn: Director of Environment and Resources Environment and Resources Authority Malta I, Abigail MacMillan, who carried out the remote sensing surveys (or part thereof) for the marine environment study for the EIA for the proposed North Aquaculture Zone off Is-Sikka l-Bajda, San Pawl il- Baħar, Malta, hereby declare that such study was solely carried out by me on behalf of Seastar Surveys Ltd and the company takes responsibility for any statement and conclusion contained therein.
30 November 2018 Date Signature Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey Contents 1 2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 ACOUSTIC SURVEY .................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Mobilisation ............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Survey Equipment................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Survey Plan ............................................................................................................ 3 Bathymetric Survey .......................................................................................... 3 Sidescan Sonar Survey ................................................................................... 4 2.4 Deployment............................................................................................................. 4 2.5 Horizontal control .................................................................................................... 5 2.6 Vertical control ........................................................................................................ 5 Tides ................................................................................................................ 5 Speed of Sound Profiles .................................................................................. 6 Vessel Motion Reference ................................................................................. 6 2.7 Processing .............................................................................................................. 7 Bathymetric Survey .......................................................................................... 7 Sidescan Sonar Survey ................................................................................... 7 2.8 Survey Success and Weather ................................................................................. 8 Bathymetric Survey .......................................................................................... 8 Sidescan Sonar Survey ................................................................................. 10 3 CAMERA SURVEY ..................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Mobilisation ........................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Survey Equipment................................................................................................. 11 3.3 Camera Survey Plan ............................................................................................. 11 3.3.1 Deployment ................................................................................................... 12 Survey Success and Weather ........................................................................ 12 3.3.2 2.8.1 2.8.2 2.7.1 2.7.2 ii Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey List of Figures Figure 1.1: Areas surveyed by Seastar as part of the 2018 baseline survey: Area 1 - offshore area (red box) and Area 2 – area inshore of existing fish farm (green box).
The area in blue was surveyed previously.

Existing fish farm indicated in black box.

...................................... 2 Figure 2.1: Proposed bathymetry line plans for the two survey areas.

Fish farm indicated in green and red.

Blue hashed area and white area surveyed previously.
................................. 4 Figure 2.2: Navigation check being performed alongside Fekruna Quay ............................... 6 Figure 2.3: Bathymetric survey track plots for all successful survey lines in area 1 ............... 9 Figure 2.4: Bathymetric survey track plots for all successful survey lines in area 2 ............... 9 Figure 3.1: Targets of potential features of interest identified from the sidescan sonar data.
The blue hashed area was surveyed during a previous drop-down camera survey.
............ 11 Figure 3.2: Track plots of the camera transects across all the identified target locations of interest and along the length of the existing fish farm .......................................................... 13 List of Tables Table 2.1: Daily progress during the acoustic surveys........................................................... 8 Table 3.1: Daily progress and weather during the camera survey ....................................... 13 iii Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey 1 INTRODUCTION Seastar Survey Ltd (‘Seastar’) were contracted by Adi Associates – Environmental Consultants Ltd (‘ADI’) to undertake hydrographic and environmental survey work in an area of seabed located approximately 5 km off St Pauls Bay, on the northeast coast of Malta.
The objectives of the surveys were to collect bathymetric data to inform a numerical model and to collect sidescan sonar data to identify seabed features and sediment types, which would be ground-truthed during a subsequent environmental survey using a drop-down camera system.

For the bathymetric survey work two areas were to be surveyed; an offshore area (area 1) indicated by the red box in Figure 1.1, and an area close to an existing fish farm (area 2), which is indicated by a green box in Figure 1.1.
Existing sidescan sonar data was available courtesy of Professor T. Gambin from the University of Malta for the majority of area 1, and therefore, during this survey, data was only collected to infill 2 gaps in the existing coverage for area 1, and to collect data from area 2.

The survey area for the drop-down camera work was slightly different, with the offshore area (area 1) being larger and covering both the red and some of the blue box shown in Figure 1.1, as well as all of area 2.
1 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey Area 1 Area 2 Figure 1.1: Areas surveyed by Seastar as part of the 2018 baseline survey: Area 1 - offshore area (red box) and Area 2 – area inshore of existing fish farm (green box).

The area in blue was surveyed previously.

Existing fish farm indicated in black box.


2 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey 2 ACOUSTIC SURVEY 2.1 Mobilisation Seastar transported all equipment and personnel from Southampton to Malta by road between Thursday 19th and Monday 23rd April 2018.

All survey operations were conducted from MV Awrata, a 14 m, steel workboat owned and operated by Azzopardi Fisheries.

Throughout the project the vessel worked out of Fekruna Quay, Xemxija.
The acoustic survey equipment was mobilised and tested on MV Awrata on Monday 23rd April 2018.
2.2 Survey Equipment The following equipment was used during the acoustic surveys;  Hemisphere GNSS V320 GPS and vector compass  Marimatech E-Sea Sound 206 single-beam echosounder (33 & 200 kHz)  TSS motion reference unit (MRU)  Valeport 606 CTD  Edgetech 4125 dual frequency sidescan sonar (400 and 700 kHz)  Cable counter and block  DT Marine Products Inc. hydro-electric winch  Co-axial armoured cable  Helmsman display  Hypack survey management software  Edgetech Discover software 2.3 Survey Plan Prior to the fieldwork, line plans were created in the two survey areas shown in Figure 1.1 using the survey management software Hypack.
2.3.1 Bathymetric Survey For the bathymetric survey of area 1, 62 main survey lines were planned at 100 m line spacing, in a NE-SW direction.

These were intersected by 13 perpendicular cross-lines; 8 were at a line spacing of 300 m and 5 lines were run at 150 m line spacing within the south- west corner of the survey area.
The 150 m cross-line spacing was used in order to obtain higher resolution data of a sub-sea channel identified from sidescan sonar data collected previously by Professor Gambin from the University of Malta.

For area 2, 34 main lines were planned at 100 m line spacing in a NE-SW direction.

These were intersected by 10 perpendicular cross-lines at 75 m line spacing.

The bathymetry line plans for both survey areas are shown in Figure 2.1.
3 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey Figure 2.1: Proposed bathymetry line plans for the two survey areas.

Fish farm indicated in green and red.

Blue hashed area and white area surveyed previously.

2.3.2 Sidescan Sonar Survey As sidescan sonar data had already been collected for the majority of area 1, and only two lines were required as infill, no line plan was created during the initial planning stage.
For area 2, the sidescan sonar survey was restricted by the anchors and ropes that hold the current fish farm cages in place.

As a result, only 2 of the bathymetry survey lines on the south west of the area were run using the sidescan sonar.

2.4 Deployment The echosounder transducer was pole mounted and secured to the port side of MV Awrata.

To create a rigid fixing point two horizontal scaffold poles where welded to the boat and the transducer pole was attached to these using scaffold clamps.
In addition, fore and aft guy ropes were used to secure the transducer head to the boat to prevent any vibration.

The transducer was positioned 0.5 m below the water line this point then acted as the 0,0- reference point from which all offsets were measured.

The Hemisphere GPS was mounted on the roof of the wheel house, inboard and forward of the echosounder transducer.

The GPS offsets were entered into Hypack so that recorded positions were for the location of the echosounder transducer.
4 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey The winch and block for the sidescan sonar were aft of the echosounder transducer and the block was suspended from the vessel’s crane; once the offsets to the block were measured and entered into Hypack, the crane remained in the same position throughout the duration of the sidescan sonar survey.

A helmsman’s display feed from Hypack, showing the survey lines and vessel position, was set up to assist the vessel skipper in driving the survey lines.
During the bathymetry survey the vessel skipper set up on the bearing of the chosen line and vessel speed was reduced to 4.5 knots.

The echosounder was used in dual frequency mode and recorded soundings at both 33 and 200 Hz.

This ensured best quality data was achieved when moving between shallow and deep water in area 1.

For the sidescan survey the vessel set up on the bearing of the chosen line approximately 500 m before the start of line and speed was reduced to approximately 3 knots.
The Edgetech 4125 was deployed from the stern of the vessel and winch wire was paid out until the fish altitude (height above seabed) was approximately 10 m. 2.5 Horizontal control Survey navigation was achieved through the use of a Hemisphere GNSS V320 GPS and vector compass, which has a positional accuracy of ± 0.3 m. Raw data from the GPS was input into Hypack and positions were recorded in WGS84 latitude and longitude and converted to UTM grid (UTM North, zone 33 (12 - 18° E)).
For the sidescan sonar the amount of winch wire payed-out was recorded using a cable counter block.

The amount of cable out was then entered into Hypack, which used a catenary factor, along with the vessel speed, heading, fish altitude, water depth and the measured offset for the block, to calculate a layback position of the tow-fish relative to the echosounder transducer.
The layback was checked by comparing the position of an obvious target within the survey area and adjustment made to the catenary factor.

Navigation checks were performed daily throughout the acoustic surveys against a known location alongside the quay in Xemxija (Figure 2.2).

2.6 Vertical control 2.6.1 Tides Raw soundings were reduced to local chart datum using tide corrections applied during post- processing.
Tidal data from a gauge in the Port of Marsaxlokk were downloaded from https://malta.port-log.net/live/Display.php at the end of the survey period.

Tide times were converted from local time to GMT and tidal curves were created, which were then imported into Hypack.

5 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey 2.6.2 Speed of Sound Profiles A Valeport 606 CTD was used to measure the speed of sound through the water column at various locations within both area 1 and area 2.
The raw bathymetric data was recorded with a default setting of 1500 m/s and corrections for speed of sound were applied to the raw data during post-processing.

2.6.3 Vessel Motion Reference The heave, pitch, and roll of the vessel were measured using a TSS motion reference unit (MRU) and these data were input directly into the Marimatech echosounder.
The raw data was then corrected in real time for vessel motion within the echosounder and the corrected depth, along with the raw data from the MRU, were recorded within Hypack.

Figure 2.2: Navigation check being performed alongside Fekruna Quay 6 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey 2.7 Processing 2.7.1 Bathymetric Survey The raw bathymetry data were processed in Hypack using the Single Beam Editor tool.
All spikes, multiple returns, and other erroneous data were removed before applying draught, sound velocity, and tidal corrections.

Edit soundings, relative to local chart datum, were then saved before being sorted to a 2 m grid.

Data quality control checks were made against the paper trace, and by comparing edited depths at all of the main survey lines and cross lines “crossover points”.
In total there were 339 intersections checked with a mean difference between main lines and cross lines of 0.13 m. 2.7.2 Sidescan Sonar Survey The raw sidescan data were recorded in the Discover software and saved as .jsf files.

These were converted into a Hypack compatible format (.hsx files) and processed in Hypack.

The recorded layback was checked by identifying targets on adjacent lines and cross checking their position.
7 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey 2.8 Survey Success and Weather Table 2.1 provides a summary of the survey success and weather for the acoustic surveys.

Table 2.1: Daily progress during the acoustic surveys 2.8.1 Bathymetric Survey The bathymetry survey was carried out on the 24th, 25th, 26th, and 30th April 2018.

Strong winds and unfavourable sea conditions at the survey site prevented working between Friday 27th and Sunday 29th of April 2018.
In total, across the two sites, 103 bathymetry lines were run, including lines that were re-run due to poor data quality.

In area 1 a total of 74 lines of good quality data were achieved, with one less cross line surveyed than originally planned.

Figure 2.3 shows the track plot for all achieved survey lines in area 1.

In area 2 a total of 23 lines of good quality data were achieved.

The survey plan for this area had to be altered during the fieldwork due to the prevailing wind and sea conditions.
This meant fewer NE-SW main lines were run, but additional cross lines were added.

Figure 2.4 shows the track plot for the achieved bathymetric survey lines in area 2.
8 DateSurvey TypeSurvey Success24/04/2018Bathymetry21 lines25/04/2018Bathymetry28 lines26/04/2018Bathymetry27 lines27/04/2018WEATHER DAY28/04/2018WEATHER DAY29/04/2018WEATHER DAY30/04/2018Bathymetry27 lines01/05/2018Sidescan sonarTECHNICAL DAY02/05/2018WEATHER DAY03/05/2018WEATHER DAY04/05/2018Sidescan sonarWEATHER DAY05/05/2018STAND-DOWN DAY06/05/2018Sidescan sonar3 lines Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey Figure 2.3: Bathymetric survey track plots for all successful survey lines in area 1 Figure 2.4: Bathymetric survey track plots for all successful survey lines in area 2 9 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey 2.8.2 Sidescan Sonar Survey The sidescan sonar survey was attempted on the 1st May 2018 but work was prevented by a power supply issue between the vessel’s generator and the winch.
Strong winds and rough seas then prevented survey working between Wednesday 2nd and Friday 4th May 2018; survey work was attempted on the 4th May 2018 but once on site the residual swell was too large to collect good data (2 – 3 m swell with intermittent wave heights of > 3 m).

Sidescan sonar survey work was carried out on the 6th May 2018 (See Table 2.1).
During the sidescan sonar survey three lines were run in area 1 (two lines of infill, one of which was run in two directions to check layback) and two survey lines were run in area 2.

Due to the location of the anchors and anchor lines for the existing fish farm, only two sidescan sonar lines were run in area 2 (lines SBX13 and SBX14).

It was deemed too dangerous to run the sidescan over these anchor lines due to the high risk of snagging the tow-fish.
10 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey 3 CAMERA SURVEY 3.1 Mobilisation Following the completion of the acoustic surveys, the sidescan sonar equipment was demobilised on Monday 7th May 2018 and the camera system was mobilised and tested.
3.2 Survey Equipment  Kongsberg 14-208 camera and flash  Four video LED lights  Seastar Survey camera frame  EdgeDVR Digital video recorder with overlay  300 m umbilical 3.3 Camera Survey Plan The sidescan data collected by Seastar along with the data supplied by Professor Gambin were analysed in order to identify potential features of interest; in total 26 features of interest were identified.

Target positions for these were plotted in Hypack (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1: Targets of potential features of interest identified from the sidescan sonar data.

The blue hashed area was surveyed during a previous drop-down camera survey.

11 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey 3.3.1 Deployment The camera and lights were set up on the camera frame so as to optimise field of view and video lighting.
The field of view was measured using a calibrated field survey tape measure when the camera frame was on deck and this information assisted with the analysis of the video and stills data acquired.

At each site the vessel set up on the target location and was taken out of gear so as to determine the direction and speed of drift.
Once the drift direction was determined the vessel moved ~ 300 m from the target location in the direction of drift, and turned so that the camera transect was driven into the current.

Figure 3.2 shows the vessel track for each of the camera deployments.

At the start of line the vessel slowed to between 0.5 and 1.0 knot.

The camera frame was deployed using the DT winch and the vessel’s crane.

The camera frame was attached to the winch wire used during the sidescan sonar survey.
The vessel’s crane was used to lift the camera frame off the deck and slew it outboard over the stern.

Once the cable counter block was in position at the stern of the vessel the camera frame was lowered by paying out on the winch.

The camera umbilical was bulldog taped to the winch wire at regular intervals to prevent it streaming out in the water column, as this could affect how the camera frame flew through the water and result in poor quality data.
As with the sidescan sonar a layback position was calculated and recorded in Hypack, and an output of layback position and GPS time (GMT) was sent to the video overlay and recorded along with the video using the EdgeDVR software.

At regular intervals (approximately every minute) the camera frame was landed on the seabed and a high resolution still image was taken of the seabed.

These still images were saved on the camera and uploaded at the end of each survey day.
The position of the still images was recorded by noting the time of the photograph with the layback position from the navigation log for the same time.

3.3.2 Survey Success and Weather The camera survey took place on the 8th, 10th, 15th and 16th of May 2018.

The Seastar survey team stood down between the 11th and 14th May 2018 due to the poor weather forecast and restarted when the weather had improved, on the 15th May 2018.
Table 3.1 provides a summary of the survey success and weather for the camera survey.

12 Seastar Survey – J/18/516 ADI – Malta Baseline Survey Table 3.1: Daily progress and weather during the camera survey A total of 25 deployments were completed; all 26 targets were surveyed (at some locations two targets were surveyed during the same deployment) and an additional transect running along the length of the fish farm within area 2 was also undertaken.
Figure 3.2: Track plots of the camera transects across all the identified target locations of interest and along the length of the existing fish farm 13 DateSurvey SuccessWeather07/05/2018CAMERA MOBILISATION08/05/201810 Deployments11 LinesLight breeze (Force 2) from W, sea state calm09/05/2018WEATHER DAYSea state too rough to work; 1 - 2 m wave heights, long period swell10/05/20183 DeploymentsSurvey day cut short as sea state worsened; 1 - 2 m wave heights, increasing white caps11/05/201812/05/201813/05/201814/05/201815/05/20186 DeploymentsCool light breeze (Force 2 - 3) from NE, sea state smooth16/05/20186 Deployments8 LinesGentle breeze (Force 3) and moderate sea state in morning, improved throughout dayPoor weather forecast for these days so Seastar's survey team stood downSTANDBY PERIOD GF00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Technical Appendix 3 WAVE STUDY, HYDRODYNAMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING REPORT Prepared by Artelia Eau et Environnement (France) Supporting Documents for Environmental Impact Assessment Report NEW AQUACULTURE ZONE IN THE NORTH OF M ALTA W A V E S T U D Y , .
2 ARTELIA Eau & Environnement 6 rue de Lorraine 38130 - Echirolles Tel.
: +33 (0) 4 76 33 40 00 Fax : +33 (0) 4 76 33 43 33 DATE : NOVEMBER 2018 REF : 871 4641 Signed Declaration Attn: Director of Environment and Resources Environment and Resources Authority Malta I, Dr Franck Mazas, who carried out the study (or part thereof) on wave studies, hydrodynamic and environmental modelling for the EIA for the proposed North Aquaculture Zone off Is-Sikka l-Bajda, San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta, hereby declare that such study was solely carried out by me on behalf of Artelia Eau et Environnement, and the company takes responsibility for any statement and conclusion contained therein.
30 November 2018 Date Signature Signed Declaration Attn: Director of Environment and Resources Environment and Resources Authority Malta I, Dr Anne Levasseur, who carried out the study (or part thereof) on wave studies, hydrodynamic and environmental modelling for the EIA for the proposed North Aquaculture Zone off Is-Sikka l-Bajda, San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta, hereby declare that such study was solely carried out by me on behalf of Artelia Eau et Environnement, and the company takes responsibility for any statement and conclusion contained therein.
30 November 2018 Date Signature ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 N° 871 4641 - New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta – Rev.
2 2 1 0 Version After comments from clients FMS/DLS/PCU After comments from clients FMS/DLS/PCU ALR ALR ALR FMS FMS FMS 07/11/2018 12/09/2018 20/08/2018 Interim report Description FMS/DLS/PCU Redaction Checked Approved Date | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 I ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Task A: Wind and wave modelling A numerical model of wave generation and propagation was set up over the Mediterranean Sea to produce sea states off Malta in the study area.

The model was forced by wind fields from the global reanalysis CFSR, calibrated and validated by satellite wind speed measurements in the wave generation zone.

Sea states were simulated from January 1992 to December 2015 (24 years).
Satellite measurements of wave height were used for calibration and validation of the model, granting a very high level of reliability of the final data (negligible bias and correlation coefficient in the range 0.92-0.95 around the Maltese archipelago).

Sea states and wind were analysed at an output point located offshore Saint Paul’s Bay and Mellieha Bay, approximately 56 m deep, close to the temporary tuna farms location.

The wind and wave roses are illustrated below.


The wind and wave climate can be described as follows:  wind: the NW sector (majjistral) is predominant.

However the largest wind speeds (more than 20 m/s) may occur not only from this sector but also from a wide NE (gregale) to SE (sirocco or xlokk) sector.
Two directional sectors may then be defined:  ESE sector [0°N, 202.5°N[: 39.8% of occurrences (the wind rose and the wind velocity / direction scatterplot do not allow to distinguish the NE and SE winds),  NW sector [202.5°N, 360°N[: 60.2% of occurrences,  sea states: the NW sector (majjistral) is still predominant (around 45% of sea states).

However, it is seen that a significant part of the sea states come from NE, E and SE directions.
The following sectors can be distinguished:  NE sector [0°N, 67.5°N[: 14.0% of sea states;  E sector [67.5°N, 112.5°N[: 13.9% of sea states;  SE sector [112.5°N, 157.5°N[: 19.9% of sea states;  SW sector [180°N, 275°N[: 2.4% of sea states;  NW sector [275°N, 360°N[: 49.7% of sea states.

The following figure splits the exceedance frequency curve in 𝐻𝑚0 according to these sectors.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 1 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Extreme wind speeds and significant wave heights are as per the tables below.
Sector Return period (year) Wind speed (m/s) Best estimation 90% confidence interval ESE [0°N, 202.5°N[ NW [202.5°N, 360°N[ 1 5 10 50 100 1 5 10 50 100 17.4 19.4 20.1 21.6 22.3 19.4 21.5 22.3 24.2 24.9 17.1 - 17.8 18.7 - 20.0 19.3 - 20.9 20.5 - 23.0 20.9 - 23.8 19.1 - 19.8 20.8 - 22.2 21.5 - 23.2 22.9 - 25.6 23.5 - 26.6 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 2 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 Sector Return period (year) 𝑯𝒎𝟎 (m) Best estimation 90% confidence interval NE [0°N, 67.5°N[ E [67.5°N, 112.5°N[ NW [275°N, 360°N[ - 3.59 4.16 - 4.95 4.51 - 5.55 5.27 - 6.98 5.57 - 7.61 3.45 - 3.90 4.70 - 5.67 5.11 - 6.45 5.70 - 8.50 5.82 - 9.53 4.36 - 4.58 4.91 - 5.33 5.09 - 5.63 5.45 - 6.30 5.59 - 6.57 𝑻𝒑 (s) 7.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 11.5 8.5 - 12.0 9.5 - 13.0 9.5 - 13.0 7.5 - 11.5 9.0 - 13.0 9.5 - 14.0 10.5 - 15.0 10.5 - 15.5 8.5 - 11.5 9.0 - 12.5 9.5 - 12.5 9.5 - 13.0 10.0 - 13.5 Task B: Hydrodynamic modelling In a first stage, a hydrodynamic numerical model covering the Sicily Channel is constructed.
This numerical model aims at simulating the water circulation around the Maltese Islands and more specifically currents in the Malta channel.

Results from the model represent the specific features of the water circulation, in particular the Atlantic Ionian Stream flowing from the Northwest to the Southeast in the Malta Channel.

The numerical model also reproduces the water level variations.

In a second stage, a set of environmental simulations is carried out to assess the impact of the NAZ.
Meteorological conditions and ocean hydrodynamics is representative of August 2015, which is periods with light to moderate wind, always below 10 m/s, and varying wind directions.

The impact of the fish cages on the currents is taken into account by a drag force exerted along the netting, from surface to -35 m depth.

The cages act as obstacles and reduce the velocity field by approximately 15% after each cage.
A cumulative effect is observed due to the presence of several | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 3 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 cages in series.

On the location of the NAZ farms, currents are very low, always below 15 cm/s during the simulation period.
Therefore, the impact of the flow reduction ranges from 5 cm/s to 2 cm/s and is limited to the vicinity of the cages.

12 August 2015, 20h Baseline situation Evolution of current velocity with the cages Nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) are modelled as passive tracers using the same period.

Currents towards the southeast are predominant during the simulation period, and therefore the nutrients plumes are orientated towards the Southeast.
The threshold of 0.1 mg/L of total nitrogen is reached about 0.5 km southeast of the last cages.

The threshold of 0.02 mg/L of total phosphorus is restricted to the vicinity of the cages.

Uneaten baitfish are not transported offshore, and are deposited below the cages.

The deposit of uneaten feed reaches at maximum 0.1 cm after 30 days of simulation, under the assumption that no biodegradation or consumption by small scavengers occurs.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 4 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Two scenarios of dispersion of fish oil are simulated, corresponding to various wind conditions:  Scenario 1: starting on 2 August 2015 (wind initially from the South and then predominantly from the North-West);  Scenario 2: starting on 27 August 2015 (wind predominantly from the East).
The fish oil slick drift intensity is in the range of 5 cm/s to 15 cm/s in the scenarios simulated.

It can be inferred from the two scenarios that the oil slicks are subject to a wide range of trajectories, depending on the hydro meteorological conditions prevailing on site.

Wind significantly influences the trajectories near the fish farm.
Scenario 1 Scenario2 oOo | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 5 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _____________________________________________ 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY __________________________________________ 9 DEFINITIONS AND CONVENTIONS _______________________________ 11 1.
TASK A: WAVE STUDY ________________________________________ 12 1.1.

WIND AND WAVE MODELLING _________________________________________ 12 1.1.1.

METHODOLOGY ______________________________________________________ 12 1.1.2.

WIND FIELDS _________________________________________________________ 13 1.1.2.1.

Atmospheric model ______________________________________________________ 13 1.1.2.2.

Validation of wind forcing _________________________________________________ 14 1.1.3.
SEA STATE MODELLING _______________________________________________ 18 1.1.3.1.

Modelling software ______________________________________________________ 18 1.1.3.2.

Bathymetry _____________________________________________________________ 18 1.1.3.3.

Model parameterization ___________________________________________________ 20 1.1.3.4.

Validation of sea states ___________________________________________________ 20 1.1.3.5.

Model output ___________________________________________________________ 25 1.2.
ANALYSIS OF WINDS AND WAVES ____________________________________ 26 1.2.1.

METHODOLOGY FOR EXTREMES _______________________________________ 26 1.2.2.

WIND ________________________________________________________________ 27 1.2.2.1.

Wind climate ____________________________________________________________ 27 1.2.2.2.

Extreme winds __________________________________________________________ 29 1.2.3.

WAVES ______________________________________________________________ 29 1.2.3.1.
Wave climate ___________________________________________________________ 29 1.2.3.2.

Extreme waves __________________________________________________________ 31 2.

TASK B: HYDRODYNAMIC STUDY ____________________________ 33 2.1.

DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUACULTURE ZONE ________________________ 33 2.1.1.

AQUACULTURE ZONE LOCATION AND STRUCTURE _______________________ 33 2.1.2.

LOCAL BATHYMETRIC SURVEY _________________________________________ 33 2.1.3.
FISH FARM CHARACTERISTICS AND WASTE PRODUCTS ___________________ 33 2.2.

HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL_______________________________________________ 34 2.2.1.

PRESENTATION OF THE MODELLING SOFTWARE _________________________ 34 2.2.2.

MODEL MESH AND BATHYMETRY _______________________________________ 35 2.2.3.

DRAG FORCE ________________________________________________________ 39 2.2.4.

FORCING DATA_______________________________________________________ 41 2.2.5.
PERIOD SELECTED FOR THE HYDRODYNAMIC SIMULATIONS ______________ 42 2.2.6.

BASELINE SITUATION AND MODEL VALIDATION __________________________ 43 IMPACT OF THE FISH CAGE ON THE VELOCITY FIELD _____________________ 46 2.2.7.

2.3.

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING ________________________________________ 50 2.3.1.

ENRICHMENT IN DISSOLVED NUTRIENTS ________________________________ 50 2.3.1.1.

Input data and hypotheses ________________________________________________ 50 2.3.1.2.
Methodology ___________________________________________________________ 51 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 6 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 2.3.1.3.

Results ________________________________________________________________ 51 2.3.2.
SETTLEMENT OF UNEATEN FEED _______________________________________ 53 Input data and hypotheses ________________________________________________ 53 2.3.2.1.

2.3.2.2.

Methodology ___________________________________________________________ 54 2.3.2.3.

Results ________________________________________________________________ 54 2.3.3.

DISPERSION OF FISH OIL ______________________________________________ 55 Input data and hypotheses ________________________________________________ 55 2.3.3.1.

2.3.3.2.
2.3.3.2.

Methodology ___________________________________________________________ 55 2.3.3.3.
Results ________________________________________________________________ 55 REFERENCES ______________________________________________________ 61 APPENDIX A OFFSHORE WINDS AND WAVES ___________________ 1 TABLES Table 1 – Set-up and parameterization of the wave models ............................................................................ 20 Table 2 – Location of output points .................................................................................................................. 25 Table 3 – Beaufort scale in m/s, km/h and knots ............................................................................................. 28 Table 4 – Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wind speeds ....................................................... 29 Table 5 – Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wave heights ...................................................... 32 Table 6 – Drag force parameters ...................................................................................................................... 40 Table 7 – Velocity reduction in the wake of cages ........................................................................................... 41 Table 8 –Dissolved nutrient leached from Bluefin tuna faeces ........................................................................ 50 Table 9 – Soluble fraction of nitrogen and phosphorus in uneaten baitfish ..................................................... 51 Table 10 – Uneaten feed particle characteristics ............................................................................................. 54 Table 11 – Oil physical parameters .................................................................................................................. 55 FIGURES Figure 1.
Location of the study (source: ESRI World Topographic Map, ERA) ................................................. 9 Figure 2.

Proposed location of the cages ......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3.

Computational domains for sea state generation .............................................................................. 13 Figure 4.
Example of wind field over Domain #1 .............................................................................................. 14 Figure 5.

Tracks of altimetric measurements over Domains #1 to #3 .............................................................. 15 Figure 6.

Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for wind velocity validation within Domain #1 ........................ 16 Figure 7.
Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for wind velocity validation within Domain #2 ........................ 17 Figure 8.

Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for wind velocity validation within Domain #3 ........................ 17 Figure 9.

Bathymetry of the four computational domains ................................................................................. 19 Figure 10.

Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for sea state validation at the boundaries of Domain #2 ..... 22 Figure 11.
Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for sea state validation at the boundaries of Domain #3 ..... 24 Figure 12.

Location of the “Mellieha / St Paul” output point ............................................................................. 26 Figure 13.

Wind rose off Valletta ...................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 14.
Wave rose off Valletta ..................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 15.

Exceedance frequency curves off Valletta: omnidirectional and per directional sector .................. 31 Figure 16.
Bathymetric survey (2016-2018) ..................................................................................................... 33 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 7 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 17.

Schematic of the food chain and the by-products of the fish rearing .............................................. 34 Figure 18.
Model extent and bathymetry .......................................................................................................... 36 Figure 19.

Model bathymetry around Malta ...................................................................................................... 37 Figure 20.

Global model mesh ......................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 21.
Zoom on the project area ................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 22.

Flow field on a vertical plane along the cages with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.

Locations of the six cages are indicated by the dotted lines.

...................................................................................................... 41 Figure 23.
Time-series of the wind intensity and direction (meteorological convention) on the study site ...... 42 Figure 24.

Wind roses on the NAZ location (wind direction in meteorological convention) ............................. 43 Figure 25.

Comparison of water levels ............................................................................................................. 44 Figure 26.
Comparison of the velocity fields at 2 m under the sea surface ..................................................... 45 Figure 27.

Current velocity at the NAZ (baseline siuation).

Location is indicated by the red point on the map ................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 28.
Current field in baseline configuration (left) and impact of the NAZ area on the current velocity (right) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 29.
Maximum intensity of the velocity field in the baseline situation with no cage (top) and in the future configuration with 24 cages (bottom) at 2 m depth .......................................................................................... 48 Figure 30.
Maximum intensity of the velocity field in the baseline situation with no cage (top) and in the future configuration with 24 cages (bottom) at 5 m depth .......................................................................................... 49 Figure 31.

Maps of maximum nitrogen (top) and phosphorus (bottom) concentration .................................... 52 Figure 32.

Time-series of the nutrient concentrations.


Location of the point is indicated by a red dot on the map .......................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 33.

Thickness of uneaten feed after 30 days ........................................................................................ 54 Figure 34.

Location of the particles depending on time elapsed in scenario 1.
Initial time is 1/08/2015 ......... 58 Figure 35.

Location of the particles depending on time elapsed in scenario 2.

Initial time is 27/08/2015 ....... 60 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 8 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY In 2016, the Planning Authority revoked all licenses of inshore tuna farms and requested that these operations be relocated to aquaculture zones further offshore.

The two tuna farms in the north of Malta - Malta Mariculture Limited (originally operating south of Comino), and AJD Tuna Ltd (originally operating off St Paul's Bay), were required to relocate further offshore but an aquaculture zone in the north of the island did not exist.
For this reason, the Department of Fisheries has applied to the Planning Authority for the establishment of a North Aquaculture Zone (NAZ), similar to the SE Aquaculture Zone off Marsaskala.

This application is subject to an EIA process.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Location of the study (source: ESRI World Topographic Map, ERA) In this context, Malta’s Environment & Resources Authority (ERA) has required a set of studies constituting an Appropriate Assessment and an Environmental Impact Assessment regarding the activities proposed at the NAZ.

The proposed location of the 34 cages in the NAZ is illustrated on Figure 2 below.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 9 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 2.
Proposed location of the cages Adi Associates, hereinafter referred to as the Client, has been awarded the Environmental Impact Assessment and has requested ARTELIA to carry out the wave and hydrodynamic modelling studies, in particular the following tasks:  Task A: wave study:  offshore wave modelling,  establishment of local wave climate and extreme waves,  Task B: hydrodynamic study:  set up of the hydrodynamic model,  hydrodynamic modelling:  baseline hydrodynamic situation,  settlement of uneaten feed,  dispersion of dissolved nutrients,  dispersion of a fish oil spill from the fish farm.
The present document is the report of the study.

It presents the methodologies and the results of the analyses and models carried out to meet the above requests.

oOo | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 10 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 DEFINITIONS AND CONVENTIONS The following definitions are used in the study:  sea states:  𝐻𝑚0 or 𝐻𝑠 (m): spectral significant wave height, defined as 𝐻𝑚0 = 4√𝑚0, where 𝑚0 is the 0th moment of spectral density,  𝑇𝑝 (s): peak period, defined as the reciprocal of the most energetic frequency of the wave spectrum after directional summing,  𝜃𝑝 or 𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑝 (°N): peak direction, defined as the most energetic direction of the frequency bin corresponding to 𝑇𝑝,  𝜎 (°): directional spreading or, equivalently, spreading parameter (exponent of the cosine function) 𝑠 (-),  𝛾 (-): peak enhancement factor of the frequency spectrum, calculated assuming a JONSWAP-type spectrum,  wind:  𝑊𝑠 (m/s): wind velocity at 10 m height, averaged over 10 minutes,  𝑊𝑑𝑖𝑟 (°N): wind direction associated to 𝑊𝑠,  current:  𝑉𝑐𝑢𝑟 (m/s): current velocity,  𝐷𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑟 (°N): current direction.
Following the nautical convention, the directions are:  direction from which waves come;  direction from which the wind blows;  direction to which the current goes.

oOo | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 11 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 1.

TASK A: WAVE STUDY 1.1.

WIND AND WAVE MODELLING 1.1.1.
Methodology The main stages of the methodology used to produce sea states and wind off Malta are summarized as follows:  model construction:  definition of computational domains,  collection of bathymetric data and construction of model bathymetry,  wind:  extraction of wind fields over the wave generation area from the global reanalysis CFSR1 (NCEP2) from January 1992 to December 2015,  calibration and validation of the wind fields by satellite wind speed measurements in the wave generation zone,  offshore sea states:  construction of the third generation wave model WaveWatch III (v4.18) in order to simulate the generation and propagation of offshore sea states,  simulation of offshore sea states from January 1992 to December 2015, over the Mediterranean Sea,  validation of sea states at the borders of the propagation domains by satellite wave height measurements,  nearshore sea states:  construction of the third generation model SWAN (v40.91) at regional scale in order to propagate the offshore sea states generated,  simulation of the generation and propagation of sea states around the Maltese archipelago.
Four computational nested domains are set up from a regional scale (Mediterranean Sea) to local scale with a spatial resolution progressively refined.

Their footprints are illustrated in Figure 3 below.

1 Climate Forecast System Reanalysis 2 National Centers for Environmental Prediction | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 12 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 Figure 3.

Computational domains for sea state generation 1.1.2.

Wind fields 1.1.2.1.

Atmospheric model Wind fields used in this study for wave generation are extracted over the wave generation area (Mediterranean Sea) from the reanalysis of the American atmospheric model CFSR of the NCEP.
Wind fields are described by the two following parameters:  wind velocity 𝑊𝑠 (m/s), 10 m above the reference level (mean sea level) and averaged over 10 min;  wind direction 𝑊𝑑𝑖𝑟 (°N) associated to the mean velocity.

The spatial resolution is 0.3° x 0.3° between 1992 and 2010 and 0.2° x 0.2° between 2011 and 2015.

The time step is 1 hour.

The accuracy of the data is 0.1 m/s for the velocity and 1° for the direction.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 13 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 4 illustrates an example of wind field over the computation Domain #1.

Figure 4.

Example of wind field over Domain #1 1.1.2.2.

Validation of wind forcing A.


Methodology Satellite measurements of wind velocity are used for validation of the wind fields over the three first domains set up for the wave generation / propagation model (see Figure 5 below).

The fourth domain is too small for performing the calibration / validation by satellite measurements, but benefit from the calibration applied on the larger domains.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 14 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 5.

Tracks of altimetric measurements over Domains #1 to #3 Within each computational domain, available satellite data (tracks represented in Figure 5 above) are compared with the associated value from the model wind fields (closest value in space and time).
A scatterplot3 and a quantile-quantile plot4 are performed in order to visualize the difference between 3 A scatter plot displays values for two variables for a set of data, as a collection of points, each of which corresponding to a given time and having the value of one variable determining the position on the horizontal axis and the value of the other variable determining the position on the vertical axis.
4 A quantile-quantile plot is a probability plot for comparing two probability distributions by plotting their quantiles against each other.

First, the set of intervals for the quantiles is chosen (typically 1/100).

A point (x, y) on the plot corresponds to one of the quantiles of the second distribution (y-coordinate) plotted against the same quantile of the first distribution (x-coordinate).
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 15 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 the distributions of measured and modelled wind speeds.

If the discrepancy between the two distributions is too important, a calibration coefficient is determined and applied to the model wind field within the domain.

B.
B.

Wind field validation – Domain #1 Figure 6 below shows the scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot in Domain #1.

Figure 6.

Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for wind velocity validation within Domain #1 The plots show very good agreement between the model and the observations up to the 99% percentile: the wind fields are validated in Domain #1.

C. Wind field validation – Domain #2 Figure 7 below shows the scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot in Domain #2.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 16 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 7.

Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for wind velocity validation within Domain #2 The plots show very good agreement between the model and the observations over the full range of measurements: the wind fields are validated in Domain #2.
D. Wind field validation – Domains #3 and #4 Figure 8 below shows the scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot in Domain #3.

Figure 8.

Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for wind velocity validation within Domain #3 The plots show very good agreement between the model and the observations over the full range of measurements: the wind fields are validated in Domain #3, and by extension in Domain #4.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 17 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 1.1.3.

Sea state modelling 1.1.3.1.

Modelling software Sea states were simulated through the use of two wave generation and propagation modelling software:  WaveWatch III v4.18 was used for the first two domains.
This state-of-the-art, 3rd-generation code, developed at the NOAA/NCEP, is dedicated to the simulation of offshore wave generation and propagation, accounting for the following phenomena:  energy dissipation,  wind-wave interactions,  wave-wave interactions,  bottom-wave interactions,  SWAN (Simulating WAves Nearshore) v40.91 was used for the local domains (Domains #3 and #4).
This state-of-the-art, 3rd-generation code, developed at the University of Delft (the Netherlands), is more specifically dedicated to the wave propagation in coastal waters, accounting for the phenomena associated with wave transformation in shallow water:  refraction,  shoaling,  diffraction,  reflection,  wave breaking.

The different computation grids are fully nested: the wave boundary conditions for Domain 2 (resp.

3, 4) are issued from the output of Domain 1 (resp.

2, 3).

1.1.3.2.
2, 3).

1.1.3.2.

Bathymetry The bathymetry used for Domains #1 and #2 was sourced from the GEBCO5 global bathymetric database at a base resolution of 1’, while the bathymetry used for Domains #3 and #4 was sourced from the SRTM6 bathymetric database at a base resolution of 15”.

The bathymetry was subsequently interpolated to the same resolution as was used in the model simulations (see Table 1).

The resulting bathymetry is illustrated in Figure 9 below.
5 GEneral Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans - http://www.gebco.net/ 6 Shuttle Radar Topography Mission - http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/ | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 18 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 9.
2 Figure 9.

Bathymetry of the four computational domains | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 19 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 The version of WaveWatch III (4.18) used in this study is also capable of integrating obstruction data to improve the simulation results of wave propagation around islands and other land forms that are smaller than the spatial resolution of the model and are thus not considered as land.

A percentage value is given to each grid point for both zonal and meridian propagation which determines roughly how much of each component passes through the given grid point.

1.1.3.3.
1.1.3.3.

Model parameterization The configuration of the four models is detailed in Table 1 below.
Table 1 – Set-up and parameterization of the wave models Modelling software WaveWatch III v 4.18 SWAN v 40.91 Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 Domain 4 Projection North limit South limit West limit East limit Computation grids WGS84 DMS 45°N 30°N 5°W 37°E 38°30’N 30°00’N 10°00’E 20°30’E 36°54’N 35°18’N 13°30’E 15°42’E 36°14’56”N 35°39’36”N 14°05’06”E 14°40’12”E Spatial resolution 1° x 1° 0.25° x 0.25° 0.1° x 0.1° 0.02° x 0.02° Directional bin Frequency Breaking Number Range (Hz) Formula Parameters Bottom friction Parameterization 10° 32 0.0373 – 0.7159 Battjes et Janssen (1978) 𝛼 = 1, 𝛾 = 1.26 SHOWEX Input and forcing 𝛼 = 1, 𝛾 = 0.73 Madsen et al.
(1984) Modelling period 01/01/1992 – 31/12/2015 (24 years) Bathymetry Sea level Source Wind Resolution Waves: boundary conditions Time step Source Resolution Time step GEBCO 1’ SRTM 15" Constant Mean Sea Level (0 m MSL = 0.7 m CD) CFSR 1992-2010: 0.3° x 0.3° 2011-2015: 0.2° x 0.2° 1 h - - - Domain 1 Domain 2 Domain 3 1° 1 h 0.25° 1 h 0.1° 1 h 1.1.3.4.

Validation of sea states A.

Methodology Satellite measurements of significant wave height are used for validation of the sea states.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 20 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Around the boundaries of the nested domains 2 and 3, available satellite data (see Figure 5) are compared with the associated co-located value from the model (closest value in space and time).
A scatterplot and a quantile-quantile plot are performed in order to visualize the difference between the distributions of measured and modelled 𝐻𝑚0.

If the discrepancy between the two distributions is too important, a linear calibration coefficient is determined and applied to sea state spectra energies entering the nested domain.

Domain 4 is too small for performing the calibration / validation by satellite measurements, but benefits from the calibration applied on the larger domains.
B. Sea-state validation – Boundary conditions for Domain #2 Figure 10 below shows the scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot along the boundaries of Domain #2.

Three zones have been defined for the validation:  Zone 1: sea states coming from NW, generated in the Western Mediterranean Sea;  Zone 2: sea states coming from the NNE, generated in the Ionian Sea;  Zone 3: sea states coming from the E, generated in the western part of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 21 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 10.
2 Figure 10.

Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for sea state validation at the boundaries of Domain #2 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 22 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 The plots show good agreement between the model and the observations, in particular for the prevailing NW sector: the sea states generated in Domain #1 are validated along the boundaries of Domain #2.

C. Sea-state validation – Boundary conditions for Domain #3 Figure 11 below shows the scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot along the boundaries of Domain #3.
Three zones have been defined for the validation:  Zone 1: sea states coming from W, generated in the Western Mediterranean Sea;  Zone 2: sea states coming from the S, generated in the central part of the Mediterranean Sea;  Zone 3: sea states coming from the E, generated in the western part of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Ionian Sea.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 23 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 11.

Scatterplot and quantile-quantile plot for sea state validation at the boundaries of Domain #3 The plots show very good agreement between the model and the observations for all sectors: the sea states generated in Domain #2 are validated along the boundaries of Domain #3.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 24 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 1.1.3.5.

Model output The output of the models consists of the hourly time series of sea state spectra (spectral density as a function of the direction and frequency) computed at each point of the grids and saved at the grid boundaries.
In addition, the sea state spectra are archived at 13 output points illustrated in Figure 9 above and summed up in Table 2 below.
Table 2 – Location of output points Name Gozo W Gozo N Comino NE Mellieha / St Paul San Marku Valletta Marsaskala Marsaxlokk Filfla Ras Id-Dawwara Ras Il-Pellegrin Comino SW Gozo S Longitude (°E) Latitude (°N) Depth (m CD) In the frame of this study, only the “Mellieha / St Paul” output point is processed.
It is located nearly 6 km north-north-west of St Paul’s Islands (Figure 12), in water depths of approximately 56 m. Its location is chosen so as to be free of nearshore effects and relevant for being used for studies in the vicinity of Mellieha Bay and St Paul’s Bay.

In particular, this point is considered fully representative of the wind and wave conditions at the fish farm.
At this point, the wind speed and direction are interpolated from the CFSR field and the sea state spectra are processed to get the hourly time series from January 1992 to December 2015 (24 years) of the wind and spectral wave parameters:  wind:  wind velocity at 10 m, averaged over 10 min 𝑊𝑠 (m/s),  wind direction 𝑊𝑑𝑖𝑟 (°N),  sea states:  spectral significant wave height 𝐻𝑚0 (m) ;  peak period 𝑇𝑝 (s) ;  peak direction 𝜃𝑝 (°N) ;  directional spreading 𝜎 (°) or equivalently the spreading parameter (exponent of the cosine function) 𝑠 (-) ;  peak enhancement factor 𝛾 (-) based on the assumption of a JONSWAP-type spectrum.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 25 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 In addition, a spectral partitioning of sea states is carried out in order to separate the different wave systems (wind waves, swell) and the associated spectral parameters are provided for each wave system.

Figure 12.

Location of the “Mellieha / St Paul” output point 1.2.
ANALYSIS OF WINDS AND WAVES 1.2.1.

Methodology for extremes Extreme wind speeds and wave heights are estimated for the different directional sectors (wind and wave populations) identified through the assessment of the wind and wave climates.

This estimation is performed through a statistical extrapolation.

Its methodology is as follows:  determination of homogeneous (identically distributed) wind or wave populations, based on directional criteria or others (e.g.
wave steepness);  declustering of the time series (over a 𝐾-year duration) using the Peaks-Over-Threshold (POT) approach:  identification and extraction from the time series of storm events exceeding a “physical threshold” 𝑢𝑝 set so as to get 𝜆𝑝 = 5-10 storm events per year in average,  Selection of the wind speed / wave height peaks of the storm events for setting up a sample of 𝑁𝑝 independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.)
data (𝜆𝑝 = 𝑁𝑝/𝐾),  statistical extreme value analysis applied to the i.i.d.

sample: | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 26 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2  determination of a “statistical threshold” 𝑢𝑠: the 𝑁 peaks exceeding this threshold are considered as extreme values (𝜆 = 𝑁/𝐾 peaks per year in average),  fitting of statistical distributions (GPD, Weibull, Gamma, Exponential) to these extreme peaks,  determination of the best-fitting distribution using a statistical test (such as 𝜒2 or Kolmogorov- Smirnov),  computation of quantiles (return values) for a set of return periods (e.g.
1, 5, 10, 50, 100 years),  computation of 90% confidence intervals using the parametric bootstrap method.

ARTELIA presented this state-of-the-art methodology in several presentations in international congresses (both coastal engineering- and statistics-oriented) and in several papers published in international peer-reviewed journals7,8,9,10.

1.2.2.

Wind 1.2.2.1.

Wind climate The local wind climate is established in order to identify the different wind populations.
The following plots are provided in the Appendix A:  directional wind roses;  scatter diagrams speed / direction;  exceedance frequency curve for wind speed.

The wind rose, in Beaufort scale, is provided in Figure 13 below.

7 Hamm, L.; Mazas, F.; Garcia, N. & Bailly, B., 2010.

Réconcilier théorie et pratique dans la détermination des houles extrêmes.

European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 14(2), 127-148.

8 Mazas, F., Hamm, L., 2011.


A multi-distribution approach to POT methods for determining extreme wave heights.

Coastal Engineering, 58, 385-394.

9 Bernardara, P., Mazas, F., Kergadallan, X., Hamm, L., 2014.

A two-step framework for over-threshold modelling of environmental extremes.

Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 14, 635–647.

10 Mazas, F., Garat, P., Hamm, L., 2014.

Questioning MLE for the estimation of environmental extreme distributions.

Ocean Engineering 92, 44–54.


| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 27 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 13.

Wind rose off Valletta Table 3 provides the description of the Beaufort scale.
Table 3 – Beaufort scale in m/s, km/h and knots Beaufort scale Description Calm Light air Light breeze Gentle breeze Moderate breeze Fresh breeze m/s < 0.3 0.3 – 1.5 1.6 – 3.3 3.4 – 5.4 5.5 – 7.9 8 – 10.7 Strong breeze 10.8 – 13.8 High wind, near gale 13.9 – 17.1 Gale, fresh gale 17.2 – 20.7 Strong / severe gale 20.8 – 24.4 Wind speed range km/h < 1 1 – 5 6 – 11 12 – 19 20 – 28 29 – 38 39 – 49 50 – 61 62 – 74 75 – 88 Storm, whole gale 24.5 – 28.4 89 – 102 Violent storm 28.5 – 32.6 103 – 117 Hurricane force ≥ 32.7 ≥ 118 knots < 1 1 – 3 4 – 6 7 – 10 11 – 16 17 – 21 22 – 27 28 – 33 34 – 40 41 – 47 48 – 55 56 – 63 ≥ 64 0 However the largest wind speeds (more than 20 m/s) may occur not only from this sector but also from a wide NE (gregale) to SE (sirocco or xlokk) sector.
Two directional sectors may then be defined: | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 28 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2  ESE sector [0°N, 202.5°N[: 39.8% of occurrences (the wind rose and the wind velocity / direction scatterplot do not allow to distinguish the NE and SE winds);  NW sector [202.5°N, 360°N[: 60.2% of occurrences.

1.2.2.2.
1.2.2.2.

Extreme winds The extreme wind speeds are extrapolated following the methodology presented in section 1.2.1 for the two directional sectors identified above.

The extrapolation plots are presented in Figures A-4 and A-5 and the results summed up in Table 4 below.
Table 4 – Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wind speeds Sector Return period (year) Wind speed (m/s) Best estimation 90% confidence interval 1 5 10 50 100 1 5 10 50 100 17.4 19.4 20.1 21.6 22.3 19.4 21.5 22.3 24.2 24.9 17.1 - 17.8 18.7 - 20.0 19.3 - 20.9 20.5 - 23.0 20.9 - 23.8 19.1 - 19.8 20.8 - 22.2 21.5 - 23.2 22.9 - 25.6 23.5 - 26.6 ESE [0°N, 202.5°N[ NW [202.5°N, 360°N[ 1.2.3.

Waves 1.2.3.1.
Waves 1.2.3.1.

Wave climate The local wave climate is detailed in the Appendix A with the following plots:  directional wave roses in 𝐻𝑚0 and 𝑇𝑝;  scatter diagrams 𝐻𝑚0/𝜃𝑝, 𝐻𝑚0/𝑇𝑝 and 𝑇𝑝/𝜃𝑝;  exceedance frequency curves for 𝐻𝑚0 and 𝑇𝑝;  histogram of the frequency of occurrence of 𝐻𝑚0 and 𝑇𝑝;  correlograms 𝐻𝑚0/𝜃𝑝, 𝐻𝑚0/𝑇𝑝 and 𝑇𝑝/𝜃𝑝.

Figure 14 below illustrates the wave rose in significant wave height 𝐻𝑚0.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 29 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 14.

Wave rose off Valletta The NW sector (majjistral) is still predominant (around 45% of sea states).

However, it is seen that a significant part of the sea states come from NE, E and SE directions.
Figure 15 splits the omnidirectional 𝐻𝑚0 exceedance frequency curve (in black) into curves for each directional sector that may be distinguished:  NE sector [0°N, 67.5°N[: 14.0% of sea states;  E sector [67.5°N, 112.5°N[: 13.9% of sea states;  SE sector [112.5°N, 157.5°N[: 19.9% of sea states;  SW sector [180°N, 275°N[: 2.4% of sea states;  NW sector [275°N, 360°N[: 49.7% of sea states.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 30 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 15.

Exceedance frequency curves off Valletta: omnidirectional and per directional sector 1.2.3.2.

Extreme waves The extreme wave heights are extrapolated following the methodology presented in section 1.2.1 for the main directional sectors E, NE and NW as identified above.
The extrapolation plots are presented in Figures A-14 to A-19 and the results summed up in Table 5 below.

In addition, the ranges of peak periods 𝑇𝑝 associated to the extreme wave heights are estimated by interpolating power laws that keep the wave steepness constant (see Figure A-15 for an illustration).
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 31 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 Table 5 – Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wave heights Sector Return period (year) 𝑯𝒎𝟎 (m) Best estimation 90% confidence interval NE [0°N, 67.5°N[ E [67.5°N, 112.5°N[ NW [275°N, 360°N[ - 3.59 4.16 - 4.95 4.51 - 5.55 5.27 - 6.98 5.57 - 7.61 3.45 - 3.90 4.70 - 5.67 5.11 - 6.45 5.70 - 8.50 5.82 - 9.53 4.36 - 4.58 4.91 - 5.33 5.09 - 5.63 5.45 - 6.30 5.59 - 6.57 𝑻𝒑 (s) 7.0 - 10.0 8.0 - 11.5 8.5 - 12.0 9.5 - 13.0 9.5 - 13.0 7.5 - 11.5 9.0 - 13.0 9.5 - 14.0 10.5 - 15.0 10.5 - 15.5 8.5 - 11.5 9.0 - 12.5 9.5 - 12.5 9.5 - 13.0 10.0 - 13.5 Although the NW sector is the predominant sector in terms of size, the largest wave heights come from the E sector.
However, the large width of the confidence interval associated to the extrapolation of this sector shows a large uncertainty for the highest return periods.

oOo | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 32 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 2.

TASK B: HYDRODYNAMIC STUDY 2.1.

DESCRIPTION OF THE AQUACULTURE ZONE 2.1.1.


Aquaculture Zone location and structure The proposed NAZ is located approximately 4.5 km offshore and will be composed of 34 cages, composed of two groups of 12 cages and one group of 10 cages.

Each cage is circular with a diameter of 50 m. The distance between the sides of the nets from the cages is 30 m. The mesh size of the net is 70 x 70 mm and the twine diameter is 5 mm.

2.1.2.
2.1.2.

Local bathymetric survey Two bathymetric surveys have been carried out in 2016 and 2018 for the general project area, including the site currently temporarily occupied by the AJD Tuna Ltd / MML tuna farms off is-Sikkal Bajda and the entire sea area offshore up to the proposed location for the NAZ.

The resulting bathymetry is illustrated in Figure 16 below (the generalised location of the fish farms in the NAZ is illustrated in green).

The bathymetry on site is at minimum 100 m depth.

Figure 16.
Figure 16.

Bathymetric survey (2016-2018) 2.1.3.

Fish farm characteristics and waste products The tunas will be distributed in 34 cages.

Each cage will contain approximately 132.35 tons of fish.

The farmed tuna are fed defrosted baitfish once a day, which are distributed until satiation of the tuna.

The baitfish is composed of whole sardine, mackerel and herring.

Approximately 5,294 kg of baitfish per day is provided to each cage to feed the farmed tuna.
The waste product from tuna fattening includes fish oil released from baitfish feed, uneaten baitfish, and solid and dissolved waste excreted by the tuna (Figure 17).

Uneaten baitfish, solid and liquid wastes are a source of nitrogen and phosphorus to the marine environment.

The uneaten baitfish and the tuna faeces are subject to degradation in the water column and therefore release nutrients in dissolved form in the marine environment.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 33 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 17.

Schematic of the food chain and the by-products of the fish rearing The following assumptions are made for the daily baitfish feed (source: AJD Tuna Ltd):  0.5% passes through the net uneaten;  5% is lost as fish oil per day;  94.5% is ingested by tuna.
Therefore, the amount of uneaten baitfish represents 26.5 kg/day/cage, the mass of fish oil released is 264.7 kg/day/cage, and the food intake by tuna is 5,002.8 kg/day/cage.

2.2.

HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL 2.2.1.

Presentation of the modelling software The study is based on the set up of a 3D numerical model using the TELEMAC-3D modelling software.

TELEMAC-3D is part of the TELEMAC-MASCARET system (www.opentelemac.org) and is designed to study environmental processes in free surface transient flows.
TELEMAC-3D solves three-dimensional hydraulic equations and transport-diffusion equations for intrinsic values such as temperature, salinity and other tracer concentrations (with possible settling velocity).

TELEMAC-3D makes use of the flexibility of unstructured grids, which allows increasing the number of computational grid points near areas of interest or of complex features (irregular coastline and bathymetry, harbour for example).
The main results obtained at each point of the computational grid are the water level, the velocity in the three directions and the concentration of tracers like salinity, temperature, pollutants, etc.

The main applications of TELEMAC-3D are in free-surface maritime or estuarine hydraulics.
The model can consider the following phenomena: | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 34 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2  influence of temperature and/or salinity on density;  bottom friction;  influence of the Coriolis force;  influence of meteorological conditions (wind, pressure);  heat exchanges with the atmosphere;  fluid and momentum sources and sinks within the domain;  simple or complex turbulence models including effects of Archimedes’ forces (buoyancy);  wetting and drying of coastal areas (tidal flats);  tracer transport and diffusion by the current, with source and sink terms.
TELEMAC-MASCARET system was developed by the National Hydraulics and Environment Laboratory, a department of Electricité de France’s Research and Development Division.

TELEMAC- MASCARET is managed by a consortium of organisations, among which ARTELIA.

The system is constantly updated by the members of the core group to improve its performances and its capabilities to treat complex engineering situations.
The model takes into account all the different requirements applicable to the present study, such as the detailed characteristics of the topography near the coasts and the required hydro-meteorological forcing.
TELEMAC presents the advantage to use an unstructured mesh as it is based on a finite element technique, which allows the size of the triangular mesh to be adjusted to represent in detail any important bathymetry, or shoreline features such as channels, tidal flats, dredged area, as well as structures like harbours or dikes.

2.2.2.

Model mesh and bathymetry The 3D model used for this study represents the Mediterranean Sea between Sicily and the Tunisian and Libyan coasts.
Its characteristic dimensions are 460 km in the West-East direction and 500 km in the North-South direction (Figure 18).

| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 35 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 18.
2 Figure 18.

Model extent and bathymetry The Digital Elevation Model (grid of bathymetric and topographic values constructed using raw data) is based on:  GEBCO database (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans);  digitized Shom (French Naval Hydrographic and Oceanographic Service) Charts n° 6606 (Canal de Sicile) and n° 7339 (Malta et Ghawdex);  results of bathymetric surveys carried out on the project area in 2016 and 2018 (Figure 16).
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 36 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 19.

Model bathymetry around Malta The altimetric references of all these data have been standardised at the Mean Sea Level (MSL).

The unstructured computation grid, called mesh, is composed of triangles of different sizes according to interest zones.
In the present study, the size of the mesh is greater than 8 km offshore and is reduced to less than 5 m around the fish pens.

The horizontal grid is composed of approximately 36 000 nodes and 70 000 elements (Figure 20 and Figure 21).

The horizontal mesh is then reproduced on the vertical to create the three-dimensional mesh consisting of triangular-based prismatic elements.

The lower plane follows the bathymetry while the upper plane follows the evolution of the free surface over time.
The three-dimensional mesh is composed of 13 horizontal planes.

| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 37 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 20.
2 Figure 20.

Global model mesh | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 38 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 21.

Zoom on the project area 2.2.3.

Drag force The flow around the fish pen is reduced by the cage net.

This influence is represented by a drag force applied locally on the fish pen.
The drag force takes the form of the Morrison equation: 𝐹𝑥 = 1 2 𝜌 𝐴𝑝 𝐶𝑑 |𝑉|𝑉⃗ where:  𝜌 water density (kg/m3);  𝐶𝑑 drag coefficient;  𝑉 flow velocity (m/s);  𝐴𝑝 projected area of all threads (m2).
𝐴𝑝 is calculated using the total area of the outline area of the mesh net 𝐴 and the solidity ratio 𝑆: 𝐴𝑝 = 𝑆 × 𝐴 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 (1) (2) 39 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , The solidity ratio depends on the twine diameter 𝑑 and the mesh size 𝑎: 𝑆 = 2 𝑎 𝑑 − 𝑑2 𝑎2 REV.

2 (3) The drag force is applied from 0 to 35 m depth.
The drag coefficient 𝐶𝑑 is expressed for a knotted net as a function of the twine diameter 𝑑 and the mesh size 𝑎 (Milne, 1970): 𝐶𝑑 = 1 + 3.77 𝑑 𝑎 + 9.37 ( 2 ) 𝑑 𝑎 (4) In the present case, 𝑑 = 5 mm and 𝑎 = 70 mm.

A summary of the parameter value is given in Table 6.

Other parameters, which can influence the flow reduction like the degree of fouling and the stocking density are not accounted for in the parameterization.
Table 6 – Drag force parameters Parameter 𝑎 𝑑 𝑆 𝐶𝑑 Value 0.07 m x 0.07 m 0.005 m 0.138 1.32 Source AJD Tuna Ltd AJD Tuna Ltd calculated calculated A series of tests have been carried out by Aarsnes et al (1990) for different solidity ratio values to study the velocity distribution within net cage systems.

It concluded that the velocity reduction from cage to cage is estimated to be 20% (19.7% solidity), 30% (40.8% solidity) and 58% (58.8% solidity) with an inlet velocity of 1 m/s.
Some tests are also performed in this study to ensure that the numerical model can simulate correctly the flow field around the project.

For these simulations, the bathymetry of the fish farms region is defined as constant (-140 m MSL).

A constant current is imposed upstream of the farm, with a constant direction along net cages.

The flow fields near the cages are investigated with different upstream velocities: 10 cm/s, 50 cm/s and 1 m/s.
Figure 22 presents the calculated flow field on a vertical plane through the first row of six cages with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.

The flow velocity continuously decreases along the flow direction due to the drag force exerted by the netting.

A slight increase of the flow velocity is also observed beneath the first net cages.

These observations are consistent with the laboratory experiments.
The attenuation of flow velocity in the wake of the first three cages is given in Table 7, at 10 m below the surface.

The simulated velocity reduction is about 15% from one cage to the next cage, which is consistent with the Aarsnes et al (1990) experiments for the same range of the solidity ratio.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 40 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 22.

Flow field on a vertical plane along the cages with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.

Locations of the six cages are indicated by the dotted lines.
Table 7 – Velocity reduction in the wake of cages Source Solidity ratio Upstream velocity Velocity behind the cage (% of upstream velocity) Wake of 1st cage Wake of 2nd cage Wake of 3rd cage Aarsnes et al, 1990 0.197 calculated 0.138 1 m/s 1 m/s calculated 0.138 0.5 m/s calculated 0.138 0.1 m/s 80% 85% 84% 83% 64% 73% 71% 71% 51% 65% 65% 66% 2.2.4.
Forcing data The regional model above is forced at its boundaries with inputs from the following available datasets:  spatial and temporal varying wind datasets from IFREMER CERSAT available from the COPERNICUS marine environment monitoring services.

The IFREMER CERSAT Global Blended Mean Wind Fields include wind components (meridional and zonal), wind module, wind stress.
They are estimated from scatterometers ASCAT and OSCAT retrievals and from ECMWF operational wind analysis with a horizontal resolution of 0.25 x 0.25 degrees.

They are available at synoptic time 00:00; 06:00; 12:00; 18:00 since 1st January 2015;  results from a numerical model of the Mediterranean Sea, namely products MEDSEA_REANALYSIS_PHY_006_004 with a resolution of 1/16° degree, from the COPERNICUS marine environment monitoring.
The 72-level vertical discretization retained for this system has 1 m resolution at the surface, decreasing to 450 m at the bottom, and 22 levels within the upper 100 m. This product makes use of data assimilation of Sea Surface Temperature, Sea Level and In situ Temperature and Salinity profile.
This product includes daily mean files of potential temperature, salinity, currents, sea level, horizontal currents from the top to the bottom over the whole Mediterranean Sea;  tidal elevations from the FES 2012 atlas.

FES 2012 is based on the resolution of the tidal barotropic equations in a spectral configuration using T-UGO model, developed by LEGOS, NOVELTIS and CLS (company based in Toulouse, France), in collaboration with CNES (French Spatial agency) in Toulouse, France.
The numerical solution is improved by | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 41 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 assimilating long-term altimetry data (Topex/ Poseidon, Jason-1, Jason-2, ERS-1, ERS-2 and ENVISAT) through an improved assimilation method.

FES 2012 provides 32 tidal constituents distributed on a grid with a resolution of 1/16°.

2.2.5.
2.2.5.

Period selected for the hydrodynamic simulations The direction and intensity of the wind from CERSAT on the NAZ from June to September 2015, are plotted in Figure 23 and Figure 24.

Winds blowing from the northwest are predominant.

In June and September 2015, periods of wind intensity above 10 m/s occurred.

A lower dispersion of the pollutants occurs when wind intensity is the lowest, therefore July and August represent the most unfavourable conditions over the whole summer period.
The wind field from the 1st to 31st August 2015 is selected for the simulations, as it is characterised by:  light to moderate wind condition with a wind intensity below 10 m/s;  varying direction of the wind, and more specifically a period of time with a persistent wind blowing from East to West from 25th to 30th August 2015.

These time series are representative of typical summer wind conditions.

Figure 23.
Figure 23.

Time-series of the wind intensity and direction (meteorological convention) on the study site | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 42 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 JUNE 2015 JULY 2015 AUGUST 2015 SEPTEMBER 2015 Figure 24.

Wind roses on the NAZ location (wind direction in meteorological convention) 2.2.6.
Baseline situation and model validation A first simulation was carried out over August 2015, without taking into account the fish pens of the NAZ farms.

This calculation validates the model and it will serve as a reference state for calculating the hydrodynamic impact of the pens.

Figure 25 shows the comparison of the water levels calculated by the model to the predictions provided by the Shom (French national hydrographic service) at the port of Valletta.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 43 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 25.

Comparison of water levels Changes in tidal water levels are very low in Valletta.

The maximum tidal range is about 0.2 m. The model accurately reproduces the variation in tidal range between neap tide and spring tide.

No current measurement is available in the project area.
The following maps (Figure 26) show the current fields from the model (on the right) at different moments of the simulation and at 2 m below the surface, compared to those extracted from the MyOcean model (on the left), which serve as forcing conditions.

Results of the MyOcean model are provided on a 1/16 degree resolution grid (5.63 km x 6.94 km).

Due to the coarse model resolution, it does not correctly represent the hydrodynamics close to the coast, and especially in the project area.
The general circulation around the island of Malta is comparable to the global ocean model Myocean.

More specifically, the following specific features are represented:  the Atlantic Ionian Stream on the Malta channel flowing from the Northwest to the Southeast direction is represented;  presence of mesoscale features like eddies and meanders, whose positions vary.

Current intensity are lower in the Telemac model by 5 cm/s compared to the global model on some areas.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 44 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 6 August 2015 - MyOcean 6 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D 15 August 2015 - MyOcean 15 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D 28 August 2015 - MyOcean 28 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D Figure 26.
Comparison of the velocity fields at 2 m under the sea surface | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 45 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 2.2.7.
2 2.2.7.

Impact of the fish cage on the velocity field Figure 27 shows the temporal evolution of the current velocity at 2 m below the surface, at a point of the project area (red point on the figure below), for the simulation without the fish pens.

This graph shows that the current velocity on site is always below 10 cm/s.

Due to the global currents offshore, the main direction of the current in the project area is South.

The influence of the tide on currents (velocity and direction) is low.
Figure 27.

Current velocity at the NAZ (baseline siuation).

Location is indicated by the red point on the map Figure 28 below shows the current field in the project area at different times for the reference state with no cage (left) and the difference of velocity between the cases with and without fish pens (right).

Given the low speed of the ambient currents, the impact of the fish pens on the current velocity is less than 5 cm/s (in absolute value) and remains in the immediate vicinity of the cages.
Figure 29 shows the maximum current velocity reached at each computational node during the simulation, at 2 m below the surface.

Figure 30 displays the maximum current velocity at 5 m depth.

Dashed lines represent the bathymetry isolines.

These figures demonstrate that current velocity does not exceed 10 cm/s during the simulation in the reference situation (with no cage) and the future configuration in the project area.
The influence of the cages is not visible on the maximum velocity reached during the simulation and it can be deemed negligible.

| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 46 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 12 August 2015, 20h Baseline situation Evolution of current velocity with the cages 15 August 2015, 6h Baseline situation Evolution of current velocity with the cages Figure 28.

Current field in baseline configuration (left) and impact of the NAZ area on the current velocity (right) | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 47 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 Baseline situation Future situation with fish farm Figure 29.

Maximum intensity of the velocity field in the baseline situation with no cage (top) and in the future configuration with 24 cages (bottom) at 2 m depth | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 48 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Baseline situation Future situation with fish farm Figure 30.
Maximum intensity of the velocity field in the baseline situation with no cage (top) and in the future configuration with 24 cages (bottom) at 5 m depth | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 49 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 2.3.

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING 2.3.1.

Enrichment in dissolved nutrients 2.3.1.1.


Input data and hypotheses The fish farm generates an increase of nutrient loads (Nitrogen N and Phosphorus P) into the water column.

Dissolved nutrients originate from three sources (Figure 17):  liquid wastes excreted directly by the fish metabolism;  dissolved nutrients leached by tuna solid wastes;  dissolved nutrients leached by uneaten feed.
For the assimilated food, the following amount of nutrients is estimated to be excreted directly by the Bluefin tuna metabolism as dissolved wastes: 51.69 mg P/kg fish/day and 694.27 mg N/kg fish/day in average (Aguado-Gimenez et al, 2006).

For a cage of approximately 132.35 tons of fish, the total amount of N and P in dissolved form per day is evaluated as:  91.89 kg N/cage/day;  6.84 kg P/cage/day.
For the dissolved nutrients originating from the degradation of solid wastes, the estimation of the dissolved nutrients leached is based on the calculation of the total contents in nutrients in the solid wastes per cage (Table 8).

The calculation gives the following values:  2.29 kg N/cage/day;  1.58 kg P/cage/day.
Table 8 –Dissolved nutrient leached from Bluefin tuna faeces Parameter Nitrogen Phosphorus source Nutrient contents in faeces per day and per fish 49.45 mg /kg fish/day 70.01 mg/kg fish/day Aguado-Gimenez et al, 2006 Nutrient contents in faeces per day in a cage 6.54 kg/cage/day 9.27 kg/cage/day Aguado-Gimenez et al, 2006 Percentage of nutrient contents available for leaching in faeces 35% 17% Fernandez et al, 2007 nutrient contents from faeces available for leaching 2.29 kg/cage/day 1.58 kg/cage/day calculated A total of 26.5 kg of baitfish remains uneaten per day in a cage, as mentioned in section 2.1.3.
As the water content of baitfish is 71% (Fernandez et al, 2007), the dry mass of uneaten baitfish is therefore 7.7 kg.

The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus released by uneaten baitfish is then calculated from the nitrogen content available for leaching in the remaining baitfish (Table 9).

Therefore, the final amount of nitrogen and phosphorus contents leached by uneaten feed is the following:  0.36 kg N/cage/day;  0.03 kg P/cage/day.
| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 50 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 Table 9 – Soluble fraction of nitrogen and phosphorus in uneaten baitfish Parameter Nitrogen Phosphorus source Total nutrient contents in baitfish Total nutrient contents in baitfish per cage 111 mg N /g DW11 852.07 g N /cage/day 21 mg P /g DW 161.20 g P /cage/day Fernandez et al, 2007 calculated Percentage of nutrient contents available for leaching 41% 21% Fernandez et al, 2007 nutrient contents available for leaching 0.35 kg N/cage/day 0.03 kg P/cage/day calculated Therefore, the final release of nutrient contents in dissolved form in each cage of the tuna farm is the sum of all sources of nutrients (degradation of uneaten baitfish, solid wastes and liquid wastes).
The final estimation of the dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus loads is:  94.53 kg N/cage/day;  8.45 kg P/cage/day.

2.3.1.2.

Methodology Each nutrient category (Nitrogen and Phosphorus) is represented in the model by a passive tracer (a tracer with no impact on hydrodynamics).

The tracer injection is done at one point in the centre of each fish pen, at -5 m MSL, with a constant flow of 5.74.10-5 m3/s.

The concentrations injected are:  Nitrogen: 19.05 kg/m3;  Phosphorus: 1.70 kg/m3.

2.3.1.3.
2.3.1.3.

Results Figure 31 shows the plume of maximum nutrient concentration reached at each point during the simulation.

In the project area, currents come mainly from North-West, so the nutrient plume is orientated towards the Southeast.

The maximum concentration is located at the centre of the pens, where the tracer is injected.

The threshold of 0.1 mg/L of total nitrogen is reached about 0.5 km southeast of the cages.
The threshold of 0.02 mg/L of phosphorus is restricted to the vicinity of the cages.

11 DW: dry weight | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 51 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 31.
2 Figure 31.

Maps of maximum nitrogen (top) and phosphorus (bottom) concentration | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 52 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 The graph in Figure 32 shows the evolution of the concentration of dissolved nutrients during the simulation, near the cages and at -5 m MSL.

The maximum nitrogen concentration reached is 0.28 mg/L.
The threshold of 0.1 mg/L is exceeded by 40% over the total simulation time.

The maximum concentration of phosphorus is 0.025 mg/L.

Figure 32.

Time-series of the nutrient concentrations.

Location of the point is indicated by a red dot on the map 2.3.2.

Settlement of uneaten feed 2.3.2.1.

Input data and hypotheses Pieces from uneaten baitfish feed remaining in the water are approximately 1 cm to 2 cm big.
The settling rate of these baitfish pieces is 7.2 cm/s as measured by experiments in water columns (Fernandes et al, 2007).

0.5% of the daily feed passes through the net uneaten (source: AJD Tuna Ltd).

Therefore, it is assumed that 26.5 kg of baitfish reaches the sea bottom per day.

It is assumed that the density of uneaten feed is close to neutral, just above the specific density of seawater as it is the case for small alive pelagic fish.
Therefore, its value is the density of fresh fish muscle (Waterman, 1971).

The final uneaten feed characteristics are given in Table 10.

| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 53 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 Table 10 – Uneaten feed particle characteristics Parameter Density of uneaten feed Uneaten feed per day Typical uneaten baitfish size Settling rate Value 1,054 kg/m3 26.5 kg 1 cm – 2 cm 7.2 cm/s source Waterman, 1971 AJD Tuna Ltd AJD Tuna Ltd Fernandes et al, 2007 2.3.2.2.

Methodology The uneaten baitfish passing through the net is considered as a cohesive sediment with the characteristics described in Table 10.
The calculation parameters have been adjusted so that once deposited, the particles are not subject to resuspension by the ambient currents, as uneaten baitfish undergo a fast biodegradation on the bottom.

Biodegradation is not taken into account.

2.3.2.3.

Results Figure 33 shows the thickness of uneaten feed deposited at the bottom at the end of the simulation.

After 30 days of simulation, the uneaten feed deposit remains located under the fish pens and its thickness is less than 0.1 cm.
This result is explained by the settling rate.

For a water depth of 100 m, the time necessary for a particle to reach the bottom is 24 minutes.

These results do not take into account the natural degradation of the feed.

Figure 33.

Thickness of uneaten feed after 30 days | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 54 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 2.3.3.
2 2.3.3.

Dispersion of fish oil 2.3.3.1.

Input data and hypotheses It is estimated that 5% of the gross weight of the feed is lost as fish oil, which represents 264.7 kg of fish oil released per cage every day.

Contrary to petroleum hydrocarbon, little is known about the fate of non-petroleum hydrocarbon in the marine environment.

The fish oil is subject to drifting, spreading, and advection.
The biodegradation and evaporation is not taken into account, as too many uncertainties exist on this process in the marine environment and no laboratory data is available to parameterise these processes.

The parameter values are described in Table 11.

Table 11 – Oil physical parameters Parameter Kinematic Viscosity (20°C) Density (25°C) Value 65.2 mm2/s 920.0 kg/m3 Source Young, 1986 Young, 1986 The volume of fish oil released for the whole farm (34 cages) is 10 m3 per day.

2.3.3.2.
2.3.3.2.

Methodology The oil slick is represented as a set of particles.

Each particle is subject to drifting, spreading, and advection, while biodegradation and evaporation are not taken into account.

961 particles are released for each scenario; the whole set of particles represents 9.8 m3 of fish oil released for the whole NAZ area (34 cages) per day.
Two scenarios are simulated, corresponding to various wind conditions:  Scenario 1: starting on 1 August 2015 (wind initially from the South and then predominantly from the North-West);  Scenario 2: starting on 27 August 2015 (wind predominantly from the East).

2.3.3.3.

Results Snapshots of the particle position at various times are shown in Figure 34 for scenario 1 and in Figure 35 for scenario 2.

A dashed line delineates the trajectory of the fish oil slick.
Both the velocity field and the wind field influence the slick trajectory.

Near the fish farm, the velocity field has an intensity in the range of 5 cm/s to 10 cm/s.

The wind drift component of the slick velocity is 3.6% of the wind, which means around 0.15 cm/s for a wind intensity of 5 m/s.

In this area, wind intensity is the major contributor of the slick trajectory.

The slick drift is in the range of 5 cm/s to 15 cm/s in the scenarios simulated.
In scenario 1, the oil slick moves first towards the South, before changing its direction completely and travels north.

Then it is transported by the Atlantic Ionian Stream offshore and moves southward.

After two days, the slick changes its direction towards the Maltese coast.

It is deposited after 3 days and 18 hours on the beach.

In scenario 2, the oil slick flows westward, along the southern coast of Gozo.

It is deposited on the coast after 17 hours.


| 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 55 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 56 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 57 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 34.

Location of the particles depending on time elapsed in scenario 1.
Initial time is 1/08/2015 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 58 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 59 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 Figure 35.
2 Figure 35.

Location of the particles depending on time elapsed in scenario 2.

Initial time is 27/08/2015 oOo | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 60 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.

2 REFERENCES Aarsnes JV, H Rudi and G Loland, 1990.

Current forces on cage, net deflection.

Engineering for offshore fish farming.


Proceedings of a conference organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Glasgow, UK, 17-18 October 1990., pp 137–152.

Aguado-Gimenez F., Garcia-Garcia B., Hernandez-Lorente M. D., and Cerezo-Valverde J.

2006.

Gross metabolic waste output estimates using a nutritional approach in Atlantic Bluefin tuna (Thunnus Thynnus) under intensive fattening conditions in western Mediterranean Sea.
Aquaculture Research (37) pp 1254:1258 Fernandes M., Angove M., Sedawie T. Cheshire, 2007.

Dissolved nutrient release from solid wastes of southern Bluefin tuna (Thunnus Maccoyii, Castelnau) aquaculture.

Aquaculture Research 38 pp 388-397.

Milne, P. H., 1970.Fish farming: a guide to the design and construction of net enclosures.

31 p. Marine research.

Waterman J., J.

1979.

Measures, stowage rates and yields in fishery products.

Department of Scientific and industrial research.


Torry research station, advisory notes n°17.

FAO publications.

Young, 1986.

The chemical and physical properties of crude fish oils for refiners and hydrogenators.

Fish Oil Bulletin n°18.

18 p. | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 61 ADI ASSOCIATES New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta W a v e S t u d y , REV.
2 APPENDIX A OFFSHORE WINDS AND WAVES | 871 4641 | FMS / ALR | NOVEMBER 2018 1 New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta Wave and hydrodynamic modelling for the EIA Figures A Offshore winds and waves ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-1 Location of output point ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 WIND ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.
2 2 Figure A-3 Scatterplot wind speed / wind direction, wind speed exceedance frequency curve, wind roses in m/s and Beaufort scale ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-4 Exceedance frequency curves of Hm0 for the directional sectors ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-5 Extreme wind speeds – ESE sector [N0, N202.5[ ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.
2 Figure A-6 Extreme wind speeds – NNW sector [N202.5, N360[ ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 SEA STATES ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 7 Figure A-8 Wave roses of Hm0 and Tp ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-9 Time series of wave height and scatterplots wave height / period / direction ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.
2 Figure A-10 Exceedance frequency curves and histograms of occurrence frequency for Hm0 and Tp ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-11 Correlogram Hm0/Dirp ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-12 Correlogram Hm0/Tp ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-13 Correlogram Tp/Dirp ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.
2 Figure A-14 Exceedance frequency curves of Hm0 for the directional sectors ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-15 Extreme wave heights – NE sector [N0, N67.5[ ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-16 Peak periods associated to extreme wave heights – NE sector [N0, N67.5[ ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-17 Extreme wave heights – E sector [N67.5, N112.5[ ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.
2 Figure A-18 Peak periods associated to extreme wave heights – E sector [N67.5, N112.5[ ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-19 Extreme wave heights – NW sector [N275, N360[ ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.

2 Figure A-20 Peak periods associated to extreme wave heights – NW sector [N275, N360[ ARTELIA – 8 71 4641 – FMS – November 2018 – Rev.
2 GF00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Technical Appendix 4 MARINE ECOLOGY BASELINE REPORT Prepared by Ecoserv Ltd (Malta) Supporting Documents for Environmental Impact Assessment Report Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Prepared by Joseph A. Borg BSc MSc PhD (Plymouth) CBiol MIBiol MMBA FIBMS Logistic & Technical Support: 12, Sir Arthur Borton Street Mosta, MST1881 MALTA Telephone: (+356) 2143 1900 Fax: (+356) 21424 137 www.ecoserv.com.mt ECOSERV’S REPORT REFERENCE NO: 066-18 JULY 2018 Signed Declaration Attn: Director of Environment and Resources Environment and Resources Authority Malta I, Joseph A. Borg, who carried out the study (or part thereof) on marine ecology for the EIA for the proposed North Aquaculture Zone off Is-Sikka l-Bajda, San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta, hereby declare that such study was solely carried out by me on behalf of Ecoserv Ltd, and the company takes responsibility for any statement and conclusion contained therein.
30 November 2018 Date Signature Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta 1.

INTRODUCTION 1.
INTRODUCTION 1.

Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd (hereafter ‘ADI’) have been awarded a tender for the provision of services in relation to the compilation of an Appropriate Assessment and an Environmental Impact Assessment, and their presentation to stakeholders, as per the ERA requirements for the planning application for a proposed new offshore aquaculture zone (OAZ) located off the northeastern coast of Malta; see Figure 1.
In turn, ADI have commissioned Ecoserv Ltd to undertake an ecological assessment of the areas of interest.

The main aims of the assessment are to collect and analyse data on general physico-chemical attributes of the sediments and water column, and on the ecological characteristics of the concerned areas, and to provide ADI with the findings and assist the consultants with predicted potential impacts of aquaculture activities on the ecology of the site.
Ultimately, the present document will feed into the Environment Impact Assessment for the concerned project; i.e.

GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta.

Figure 1.

Map showing the areas of interest that are the subject of the present assessment.

Map source: Tender document 99/2017.

2.

The areas of interest that are the subject of the required studies have been selected on the basis of: (i) Technical requirements (i.e.
deployment of cages in water deeper than 50 m but not exceeding 100 m); (ii) Constraints associated with existing marine uses off the north and east coasts of the island; (iii) Constraints associated with the relocation as specifically – 2 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta directed by relevant Authorities or entities.
The proposed North OAZ will be located at a minimum distance of 4.5 km from the shore and the main scope is for use for capture-based aquaculture, in particular of Thunnus thynnus (Atlantic Bluefin Tuna).

Utilisation of the site for other finfish is likely to be limited, although there is the possibility of farming Seriola dumerili (Amberjack) within the area.

3.
3.

A survey of the marine benthic habitats present within an area that forms part of the areas that are the subject of the present assessment was carried out in May 2017 (Borg & Evans, 2017); see the area enclosed by the blue boundary in Figure 2.
Part of the area currently occupied by AJD Tuna Ltd’s 12 tuna cages, and where a further 12 cages are planned to be deployed, falls within the area surveyed by Borg & Evans in May 2017, however, the area delineated by the green boundary and area delineated by the orange boundary had not yet been surveyed (see Figure 2).
A main aim of the present study was to map the marine benthic assemblages present within these two areas using data from a survey by Seastar Survey Ltd undertaken in May 2018, and from Borg & Evans’ survey made in May 2017.

Furthermore, the present document also reports on data of physico-chemical attributes of the water column, and of the soft sediment seabed in the vicinity of the area currently occupied by AJD Tuna’s cages (Figure 2).
A further aim was to sample the soft sediment habitat in the vicinity of the area currently occupied by AJD Tuna’s cages (Figure 2) to establish the species of benthic flora and fauna present.

4.
4.

The findings from the survey made in May 2017 that was undertaken using a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) and which entailed collection of underwater footage of the seabed along transects within part of the area bounded by blue (Figure 2) indicated the following (see Borg & Evans, 2017):  In terms of physical characteristics, the bottom within the area surveyed consisted predominantly of coarse mobile sediments.
A drop-off (some 10 m – 25 m high) is present just outside the study area on its northeastern side.

What are usually referred to as ‘maerl1 beds’ but which are more properly termed ‘rhodolith beds’ occupied a large part of the study area, which were more dense and continuous in the northeastern (and deeper) (outer) half of the survey area; in many places, the rhodolith beds were interspersed with a bare sand bottom that supported sparse rhodoliths2.
“Rhodolith beds were densest in the central parts of the study area but the rhodolith density varied, such that they were less dense in the southwestern (shallower) parts of the survey area.

A large stretch of predominantly bare sand was present in the southwesterly extreme part of the study area.
Depth varied between 46 m and 72 m. The underwater visibility was good (25 – 30 m) throughout the study area, and an appreciable current was noted close to the seabed along some of the transects; as evidenced by debris and other material originating from benthic vegetation that were seen being moved rapidly on the bottom.

1 ‘Maerl’ is a term used to describe calcareous sediments dominated by coralline algae.
Maerl as used here describes sedimentary habitats in which living or dead unattached calcareous rhodophytes are a dominant component.

These algae may take the form of nodules (rhodoliths) or fragmented thalli.

However, according to Basso et al.


(2016), ‘rhodolith beds’ should be identified and delimited as those areas of the sea floor with >10% cover of live rhodoliths over a minimum surface of 500 m2, while the term “maerl” refers to a specific type of rhodolith bed that is composed of non-nucleated, unattached growths of branching, twig-like coralline algae.

‘Maerl’ as used here conforms to the definition of Basso et al.

(2016).
(2016).

2 Rhodoliths consist either of free-living calcareous rhodophytes (red algae), or else of an inner nucleus, such as stone or shell, encrusted by calcareous rhodophytes.
– 3 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Some anthropogenic items were observed during the survey; these included glass and plastic beverage bottles, fish traps and other unidentified items.
 In terms of biological characteristics, the following two main biotic assemblage types were recorded from the study area (see Figure 2): (i) Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (EUNIS code A5.515)3 Infralittoral coarse sediment (EUNIS code A5.13)4 (ii) The association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents was present as two subtypes: one which was characterised by a rhodolith-rich bottom in which the proportion of rhodoliths covering the bottom was dense, constituting a well developed rhodolith bed, sensu Basso et al.
(2016).

This association subtype was present in the deeper parts (> 60 m) of the survey area (Figure 2).

The other subtype consisted of a rhodolith bed in which the density of rhodoliths was sparser and in which the rhodoliths formed accumulations or were dispersed as single rhodoliths amongst other sediment components; this association subtype was present in areas having an intermediate water depth (50 m – 60 m); see Figure 2.
Although no samples of rhodoliths were collected from the survey area, it is well established that a variety of coralline algal species that completely coat coarse sediment granules to form ‘cored rhodoliths’, contribute to local rhodolith beds; these include Lithophyllum incrustans, Lithothamnion valens, Mesophyllum alternans and Sporolithon ptychoides.
Where present in the survey area, the rhodolith-rich bottom appeared to comprise a pseudo-hard substratum that supported macroalgae; the predominant alga being Flabellia petiolata.

The main megafaunal species that was recorded from this association is the cidariid sea urchin Stylocidaris affinis.
The rhodolith beds occupied the greater part of the area surveyed but the density of the rhodoliths varied greatly, with the general tendency being for the beds to be less dense with a decrease in water depth and on moving from the northeastern parts of the study area to the southwestern parts.

Where dense, the rhodolith beds supported the alga Flabellia petiolata and, in places, an unidentified filamentous alga.
The most abundant megafaunal species recorded from this association were the cidariid sea urchin Stylocidaris affinis, the Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus, and the Long-Spined Urchin Centrostephanus longispinus.

Individuals of the crinoid Antedon mediterranea, and single individuals of the seastar Luidia ciliaris and of the seaslug Pleurobranchia meckeli were also recorded from this assemblage.

Burrows of the Common Octopus Octopus vulgaris were recorded in some places.
The infralittoral coarse sediment assemblage occurred at the southwestern part of the area surveyed, where the water depth was some 46 m – 50 m. In places, the sediment bottom supporting this assemblage type had current ripples; in places the trough of such ripples had small accumulations of rhodoliths or sparse rhodoliths.

Detached algal and plant (seagrass) material was present in places on the seabed where this assemblage occurred but no attached fleshy algae or seagrasses were present.
The epifauna associated with this assemblage was impoverished; the only recorded macrofauna comprised the Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus and groups of the Purple Urchin Sphaerechinus granularis.

3 Equivalent to RAC/SPA ‘Association with Rhodoliths’; code III.3.2.2.

4 Equivalent to RAC/SPA ‘Biocoenosis of coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents; code III.3.2.
– 4 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta 5.

The present submission comprises a report surveys of the main marine benthic habitats present within the three areas indicated in Figure 2.
A survey of benthic diversity and water quality, undertaken in the vicinity of the area that is currently being used by AJD Tuna Ltd for tuna farming is also reported on in the present document.

Video footage collected during the underwater videographic component of the present survey is appended to the present document and is titled ‘Video transects of the seabed in an area off Mellieha Bay proposed for designation as an offshore aquaculture zone, made in May 2018’.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Map showing: the three areas (orange, blue and green boundaries) from where environmental data were collected and are assessed in the present report.

The location of the tuna farm site that is currently being used by AJD Tuna Ltd is also shown.

Map source: Seastar Survey Ltd, UK.


– 5 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta 2.

METHODOLOGY SEDIMENT AND WATER QUALITY 6.

7.

8.

9.

Fieldwork in relation to the water quality survey was undertaken on 4th April 2018.
The day during which fieldwork was made was chosen at random but subject to good sea conditions to ensure successful undertaking of fieldwork and data collection.

Fieldwork was carried out using a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.

The locations of the six sampling stations, A – D and R1 and R2, and shown in Figure 3, and their geographical coordinates and water depth are given in Table 1.
The list of physico-chemical attributes that were included in the water quality survey are given in Table 2.

Measurements of temperature, salinity, turbidity and dissolved oxygen in water were made in-situ at each of the six stations using a YSI 650 MDS meter connected to a 6920 V2 multi-parameter probe.

The meter was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions immediately before use.

Measurements using the in-situ meter were made at the surface (0.5 m below the surface).
Two replicate measurements were taken at each of the six stations A – D, and R1 and R2.

Two replicate samples of seawater were then collected from each of the same six stations; samples were collected at a depth of 0.5 m, from each of the six stations using a standard Van Dorn water sampler of 3 L volume.

All water samples were transported in a cooler box and maintained at a temperature of 4oC.
Estimates of current velocity and direction at the two reference stations (R1 and R2; see Figure 3) were made using drogues according to the La Grange method.

The drogues employed for this purpose had four rectangular perspex vanes, each of which has a surface area of 0.2 m2.

The drogues were suspended from an inflatable surface float by means of a length of twine which was 1 m long.

The position of the release point (determined using the GPS) and time of the release were recorded.
After allowing the drogues to float for a given period of time, the position of the collection point and the time of collection were recorded.

For sediment granulometric and chemical studies, samples were collected using a 0.1 m2 van Veen grab that was deployed from a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.

Two replicate grab samples were collected from each of six stations A – D, and R1 and R2; see Figure 3 and the corresponding geographical coordinates given in Table 1.
The list of physico- chemical attributes that were included in the water quality survey are given in Table 3.

BENTHIC DIVERSITY 10.

To collect data for benthic diversity studies, a grab sample was taken from each of the four stations A – D using a 0.1 m2 Van Veen grab that was deployed from a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.
After the grab was brought on board, surplus seawater was drained from the sample by placing it on a 1mm-mesh sieve; the retained sediment and biota were temporarily preserved in 10% formaldehyde in seawater.

In the laboratory, each sample was first washed to remove the fine sediment (<0.5 mm fraction) and the preservative, and it was then sorted to separate out all macrofauna (animals larger than 0.5 mm).

The motile macrofauna was then identified as far as possible.
Where identification to species level was – 6 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta not possible, the different species present were labelled using an alphabetical code (e.g.

Mysidacea sp.

A, etc.).

Figure 3.


Map showing the six stations used for collecting samples for sediment and water quality, and benthic diversity.

Stations A – D are located in the vicinity of the farm cages, while Stations R1 and R2 are reference sites.

Map source: Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. BENTHIC HABITATS MAP 11.
Fieldwork in relation to the videographic survey to map the distribution of benthic habitats in those areas had not been surveyed by Borg & Evans (2017) was undertaken by personnel from Seastar Survey Ltd (UK) using the Maltese registered vessel MV Awrata, a 14 m steel workboat owned and operated by Azzopardi Fisheries.
During the survey, a towed underwater camera system was used, which had the following specifications:  Kongsberg 14-208 camera and flash  Four video LED lights  Seastar Survey camera frame  EdgeDVR Digital video recorder with overlay  300 m umbilical – 7 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Table 1 Latitude/longitude coordinates and depth of the six sampling stations shown in Figure 3.
In the field, readings were taken using the boat’s Global Positioning System (GPS)5 set.

Station Latitude / Longitude Depth (m) A B C D R1 R2 36° 00.584’ / 14° 25.780’ 36° 00.131’ / 14° 26.127’ 36° 00.163’ / 14° 25.508’ 36° 00.567’ / 14° 25.367’ 36° 00.848 / 14 24.474’ 35° 59.597 / 14 26.815’ 50 m 48 m 45 m 48 m 46 m 48 m 12.

The camera and lights were set up on the camera frame so as to optimise field of view and video lighting.
At each site, the vessel was manoeuvred to the transect position and first taken out of gear so as to determine the direction and speed of drift.

Once the drift direction was determined, the vessel was manoeuvred to a distance of around 300 m from the transect position in the direction of drift, and then turned so that the camera transect was driven into the current.

The positions of the video transects are shown in Figure 4; a total of twenty six (26) transects were used in the survey.
No transects were made within the area occupied by AJD Tuna Ltd’s cages since the cages and mooring lines prevented deployment of the video camera along transects, but in any case most of the area had already been surveyed in 2017 (Borg & Evans, 2017).

At the start of a transect, the vessel slowed to between 0.5 and 1.0 knot.
The camera frame was deployed using the DT winch, wire tow-line and the vessel’s crane, and the camera umbilical was bulldog taped to the winch wire at regular intervals to prevent it streaming out in the water column.

During deployment, a layback position was calculated and recorded in Hypack, and an output of layback position and GPS time (GMT) was sent to the video overlay and recorded along with the video using EdgeDVR software.
At regular intervals (approximately every minute), the camera frame was landed on the seabed and a high resolution still image was taken of the seabed.

The still images were saved on the camera and downloaded at the end of each survey day.

The position of the still images was recorded by noting the time of the photograph with the layback position from the navigation log for the same time.

13.
13.

Video footage and photographs of the benthic assemblages and species encountered along the transects were recorded on a PC hard drive and later analysed in the laboratory.

Photographs taken during the survey were used to illustrate the present report.

14.

Characterisation of the benthic assemblages was made using the scheme of Borg et al.

(2013), which is based on the EUNIS typology that has been adapted for local use.

5 Chart datum set to European 1950; accuracy degeneration = ca 15m.
– 8 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Figure 4.

Map showing the locations of the 26 video transects that were used to survey the marine benthic habitats present in the areas of interest.

Map source: Seastar Survey Ltd (UK).


The area already surveyed in May 2017 (Borg & Evans, 2017) is indicated by the green hatching.

Table 2.

List of physico-chemical attributes, together with the corresponding method of analysis, which were considered in the water quality studies.
Parameter Temperature Salinity Dissolved Oxygen Turbidity Turbidity (Secchi Depth) pH Chlorophyll a Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Total Carbon Method In-situ / Portable Meter In-situ / Portable Meter In-situ / Portable Meter In-situ / Portable Meter Secchi Disk pH meter APAT CNR IRSA 9020 Man 29 2003 APAT CNR IRSA 5030 Man 29 2003 + APAT CNR IRSA 4040 A1 Man 29 2003 + APAT CNR IRSA 4050 Man 29 2003 APAT CNR IRSA 4110 Man 29 2003 UNI EN 1484:1999 Total suspended matter APAT CNR IRSA 2090 B Man 29 2003 Units °C psu %, mg/l NTU m pH units µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l – 9 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Table 3.
List of physico-chemical attributes, together with the corresponding method of analysis, which were considered in the sediment quality studies.

Method Buchanan 1984 UNI EN 13137:2002 CNR IRSA 2 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 CNR IRSA 12 Q 64 Vol 3 1986 CNR IRSA 1 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 CNR IRSA 6 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 DM 13/09/1999 SO n°185 GU n°248 21/10/1999 Met XV.I Units (on D.M.)

g % mV µg pH units mg/g mg/g Parameter Granulometry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Redox Potential Sulphide pH Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus 3.
RESULTS 15.

16.

Ecoserv’s laboratory report reference for the present document is 066-18.
The sample reference codes for the water quality and sediment surveys are as follows: - Water in-situ parameters: W-158-18 - Secchi depth readings: W-159-18 - Water chemical parameters: W-160-18 to W-171-18 - Sediment chemical parameters: S-063-18 to S-074-18 - Sediment granulometry: S-051-18 to S-062-18 - Benthic diversity: S-075-18, S-077-18, S-079-18 and S-081-18 - Video footage: D-025-18 to D-031-18 SEDIMENT AND WATER QUALITY 17.

18.

19.
18.

19.

The results of the water quality survey are given in Tables 4 to 6, while those for the sediment quality survey are given in Table 7.

The results of granulometric analysis are given in Table 8.

The results of in situ measurement of physico-chemical parameters of the water column indicate temperature values and levels of salinity, water transparency and dissolved oxygen that are expected of local pristine offshore coastal waters during spring.
The Secchi Disc measurements indicated a high water transparency of between 24 m and 29 m. Detectable but low levels of total organic carbon (TOC), total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen, and total phosphorous were recorded from the sampling stations, while levels of Chlorophyll a were below the limit of detection, thereby indicating a low phytoplankton abundance.

– 10 – Table 4.
– 10 – Table 4.

Mean values (± standard deviation) of physico-chemical attributes recorded from the water column at the six sampling stations.
Parameter Temperature (°C) Salinity (ppt) Station Mean SA1 SA2 SB1 SB2 SC1 SC2 SD1 SD2 R1a R1b R2a R2b 15.82 15.79 15.89 15.86 15.91 16.05 15.96 15.92 15.83 15.83 15.86 15.85 ± SD 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mean 37.80 37.81 37.95 37.95 37.96 37.97 37.96 37.95 37.94 37.94 37.95 37.88 ± SD 0.28 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 Turbidity (NTU) Mean 0.28 0.28 0.36 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.18 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.26 Dissolved Oxygen (%) ± SD 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.04 Mean 99.94 99.80 100.32 100.30 100.38 100.60 100.40 100.30 100.16 100.10 100.06 100.00 ± SD 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.07 Table 5.
Mean values (± standard deviation) in metres for water transparency recorded from the six sampling stations using the Secchi Disc method.
Station A Station B Station C Station D Station R1 Station R2 Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD 24.00 0.00 29.25 0.35 25.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 26.00 0.00 26.25 0.35 Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Table 6.
Mean values (± standard deviation) of chemical parameters recorded from water samples collected from the six sampling stations.
Parameter TOC TSS pH Chlorophyll a Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Units mg/L mg/L µg/L mg/L µg/L Station A Station B Station C Station D Station R1 Station R2 Mean 0.75 0.20 8.50 < 0.01 3.94 6.90 ± SD 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.85 Mean 0.50 0.20 8.50 < 0.01 4.30 10.10 ± SD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.42 Mean 0.55 0.20 8.55 < 0.01 4.03 10.85 ± SD 0.35 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.71 0.35 Mean 0.60 0.20 8.55 < 0.01 3.50 12.95 ± SD 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.10 2.05 Mean 0.90 0.20 8.55 < 0.01 3.51 8.25 ± SD 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 Mean 0.60 0.20 8.45 < 0.01 3.96 7.00 ± SD 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.42 Table 7.
Mean values (± standard deviation) of chemical parameters recorded from sediment samples collected from the six sampling stations.
Parameter pH TOC Sulphide Total nitrogen Total Phosphorous Redox Potential Units unit % mg/kg % S.S. % S.S. mV Station A Station B Station C Station D Station R1 Station R2 Mean 8.75 0.45 < 2 0.04 0.02 266.05 ± SD 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.58 Mean 8.75 1.90 < 2 0.04 0.02 245.65 ± SD 0.35 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.04 Mean 9.30 0.80 < 2 0.04 0.02 233.15 ± SD 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.60 Mean 9.00 0.36 < 2 0.04 0.02 227.50 ± SD 0.14 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.54 Mean 8.90 0.58 < 2 0.05 0.03 202.30 ± SD 0.14 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.34 Mean 8.85 0.63 < 2 0.06 0.03 167.15 ± SD 0.21 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.03 Table 8.
Mean values (± standard deviation) of grain size and sorting, together with classification of sorting and sediment classification for sediment samples collected from the six sampling stations.

Station Ecoserv sample ref.
Mean sediment grain size (mm) Wentworth grade classification Mean Sorting (Ø) Degree of sorting A B C D R1 R2 S-051-18 / S-052-18 S-053-18 / S-054-18 S-055-18 / S-056-18 S-057-18 / S-058-18 S-059-18 / S-060-18 S-061-18 / S-062-18 0.716 ± 0.042 0.550 ± 0.055 0.751 ± 0.082 0.693 ± 0.072 0.763 ± 0.023 0.937 ± 0.222 Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Sand Coarse Sand – 12 – 2.11 ± 0.09 2.29 ± 0.04 1.95 ± 0.10 2.14 ± 0.05 1.74 ± 0.10 2.14 ± 0.33 Very Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted Poorly Sorted Very Poorly Sorted 20.
21.

22.

A weak southeasterly surface sea current having a speed of between 0.11 m/s and 0.13 m/s was recorded at the two reference stations R1 and R2.

The results of chemical analysis of sediments from the sampling stations indicated detectable but low levels of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen, and total phosphorous, while levels of sulphide were below the limit of detection.

Values of pH and redox potential were of an order that is expected of background levels for local offshore sediments.
The results of granulometric analysis indicate that the sediments characterising the six sampling stations comprise poorly sorted coarse sand having a mean grain size of between 0.55 mm and 0.95 mm.

BENTHIC DIVERSITY 23.

A classified list of species, and respective abundance, recorded from the four grab samples collected from Stations A – D (Figure 3) is given in Table 9.

A total of 1,897 individuals comprising 111 macrofaunal species were recorded.
The Polychaeta and Crustacea were the most common taxonomic groups, both in terms of total number of species and in abundance of individuals.

Table 2 Classified list of species recorded from the respective stations, and respective abundance (number of individuals per 0.1 m2 grab sample).

Station Classified Species List Ecoserv Sample no.


SIPUNCULIDA Aspidosiphon muelleri MOLLUSCA Gastropoda Ascobulla fragilis Caecum armorium Caecum auriculatum Cerithidium submamillatum Euspira nitida Haminoea hydatis Opistobranchia sp.

Parthenina interstincta Parvioris ibizenca Sticteulima jeffreysiana Vitreolina sp.
Volvarina mitrella A S-075-18 B S-077-18 C S-079-18 D S-081-18 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Table 2.

Continued… Classified Species List Ecoserv Sample no.
Polyplacophora Acanthochitana fascicularis Callochiton calcatus Chiton corallinus Ischnochiton rissoi Leptochiton cancellatus Parachiton africanus Bivalvia Astarte fusca Coripia corbis Digitaria digitaria Diplodonta trigona Gari costulata Glans trapezia Gonilia calliglypta Hiatella arctica Loripes orbiculatus Modilula phaseolina Musculus costulatus Papillicardium papillosum Thracia phaseolina Timoclea ovata NEMERTEA Nemertea sp.

POLYCHAETA Ampharetidae sp.

Aphroditidae sp.

Lepidonotus Capitellidae sp.


Cirratulidae sp.

Dorviliidae sp.

Eunice sp.

Marphysa sp.

Glycera sp.

Glyceridae sp.

Lacydoniidae sp.

Lumbrineridae sp.

A Lumbrineridae sp.
A Lumbrineridae sp.

B Station A S-075-18 B S-077-18 C S-079-18 D S-081-18 7 32 1 1 5 4 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 30 5 11 4 1 1 13 2 – 14 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Table 2.
Continued… Classified Species List Ecoserv Sample no.

Lumbrineridae sp.

C Maldanidae sp.

A Maldanidae sp.

B Nematonereis unicornis Nephtydae sp.

A Nephtydae sp.

B Nephtydae sp.

C Nereidae sp.

Nereis rava Notomastus sp.

Opheliidae sp.

Orbiniidae sp.

Paraonidae sp.

Pectinaridae sp.

Phyllodocidae Polychaeta sp.

Polynoinae sp.

Sabellidae Scalibregmidae sp.

Sthenlais sp.

Syllidae Terebellidae sp.

CRUSTACEA Leptostraca Nebalia bipes Decapoda Achaeus sp.

Alpheus dentipes Anapagurus sp.


Cestopagurus timidus Galathea intermedia Ilia nucleus Liocarcinus sp.

Parthenope sp.

Processa sp.

Mysidacea Mysidacea sp.

B Tanaidacea Apseudes sp.
Leptochelia savignyi Station A S-075-18 B S-077-18 1 C S-079-18 D S-081- – 15 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Table 2.
Continued… Classified Species List Ecoserv Sample no.

Station A S-075-18 B S-077-18 C S-079-18 D S-081-18 Isopoda Anthuridae sp.

Cymodoce sp.

Eurydice sp.

Gnathia sp.

Janiridae sp.

Synisoma sp.

Amphipoda Amphilochus sp.

Aoridae sp.

Apherusa bispinosa Caprellidae sp.

Cheirocratus sundevallii Elasmopus sp.

Harpinia sp.

Hippomedon oculatus Leptocherius sp.

Leucothoe spinicarpa Lysianassa sp.

Maera sp.

Melita sp.

Monoculodes sp.

F Pereionotus testudo Phoxocephalidae sp.


Socarnes filicornis Stenothoe sp.

Urothoe sp.

Cumacea Cumacea sp.

ECHINODERMATA Echinoidea Genocidaris maculata Spatangus purpureus Stylocidaris affinis CEPHALOCORDATA Branchiostoma sp.
– 16 – Ecoserv Ltd VIDEO SURVEY Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Physical characteristics of the seabed 24.
The bottom within the area surveyed consisted predominantly of coarse mobile sediments in its southwestern half and very fine mobile sediments in its northeastern half.

A drop-off (some 10 m – 25 m high) characterised by rock exposed to sedimentation separates the two aforementioned soft sediment bottoms and runs along a northwest – southeast direction.

25.
25.

Water depth varied between around 43 m and over 145 m. The underwater visibility was good (25 – 30 m) but flocculate material was noted in the water column in places.

A current was present in places close to the seabed, as evidenced by debris and other material originating from benthic vegetation that were seen being moved on the bottom.

26.

What are usually referred to as ‘maerl6 beds’ but which are more properly termed ‘rhodolith beds’ occupy a great part of the area surveyed.
In the shallower parts of the area surveyed, the rhodolith beds were interspersed with a bare sand bottom that supported sparse rhodoliths7.

In the southwestern half of the survey area, the rhodolith density varied such that they are less dense in the shallower part (45 m – 50 m) of the survey area, where large expanses of bare sand that supported little or no rhodoliths were present.
Overall, the seabed had physical features that corresponded with the bathymetry: coarse sand with sparse accumulations of rhodoliths (0 % - 20 % rhodolith cover) was present at a water depth of between 43 m and 50 m; coarse sand and denser rhodolith accumulations (20 % - 50 % rhodolith cover) were present within the 50 m to 55 m depth range; and dense rhodolith beds (50 % - 100 % rhodolith cover) were present in waters deeper than 55 m. Beyond the rocky drop-off, at water depths exceeding 100 m, the seabed mainly consisted of bare muddy sand.
27.

Some anthropogenic items were observed during the survey.

These included glass and plastic beverage bottles, abandoned fish traps and fishing lines, and other unidentified items.

However, no remains of tuna, fish used to feed tuna or any other item that may have originated from tuna farming activities, was recorded on the seabed during the survey.

BENTHIC ASSEMBLAGES 28.


The main outcome of the benthic survey carried out in May 2018, in combination with data from the survey carried out by Ecoserv in May 2017 (Borg & Evans, 2017) is a map showing the distribution of the main benthic habitats and assemblages (Figure 5) present in the survey area.

6 ‘Maerl’ is a term used to describe calcareous sediments dominated by coralline algae.
Maerl as used here describes sedimentary habitats in which living or dead unattached calcareous rhodophytes are a dominant component.

These algae may take the form of nodules (rhodoliths) or fragmented thalli.

However, according to Basso et al.


(2016), ‘rhodolith beds’ should be identified and delimited as those areas of the sea floor with >10% cover of live rhodoliths over a minimum surface of 500 m2, while the term “maerl” refers to a specific type of rhodolith bed that is composed of non-nucleated, unattached growths of branching, twig-like coralline algae.

‘Maerl’ as used here conforms to the definition of Basso et al.

(2016).
(2016).

7 Rhodoliths consist either of free-living calcareous rhodophytes (red algae), or else of an inner nucleus, such as stone or shell, encrusted by calcareous rhodophytes.

– 17 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, proposed for designation as an offshore tuna penning site Figure 5.

Map showing the main benthic habitats present in the areas of interest.
Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, proposed for designation as an offshore tuna penning site 29.
The following four main biotic assemblage types were recorded from the study area (see Figure 5): (i) Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (EUNIS code A5.515) Infralittoral coarse sediment (EUNIS code A5.13) (ii) (iii) Mediterranean communities of muddy detritic bottoms (EUNIS code A5.38) (iv) Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock (EUNIS code A4.3) A description of each of the above four assemblage types follows.
Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents 30.

This association was present as two subtypes: one which was predominantly characterised by a rhodolith-rich bottom in which the proportion of rhodoliths covering the bottom was dense (50 % - 100 % cover; see Figure 6) and constituted a well-developed rhodolith bed, sensu Basso et al.

(2016).
(2016).

This association subtype (see the brown shaded area in Figure 5) was mostly present within the 55 m – 80 m water depth range.

The other subtype mainly consisted of a rhodolith bed in which the density of rhodoliths was sparser and predominantly formed accumulations such that the overall rhodolith cover was around 20 % - 50% (see Figure 7); this association subtype (see the orange shaded area in Figure 5) was mainly present within the 50 – 55 m water depth range.

31.
31.

Preliminary examination of rhodoliths that were retrieved from sediments collected by grab from Stations A, B and D (see Figure 3) indicated that the algal species that contribute to the include species from the following genera: Lithophyllum, Lithothamnion, rhodoliths Mesophyllum and Sporolithon (see Lanfranco et al., 1999; Borg and Schembri 2002; Sciberras et al., 2009).

32.
32.

Where present, the dense rhodolith beds appeared to comprise a pseudo-hard substratum that supported macroalgae; the predominant alga being Flabellia petiolata (Figure 6) and Zonaria tournefortii but other algae including Halimeda tuna, Peyssonnelia squamaria, Dictyota sp.

and unidentified filamentous forms, were also recorded in places.

33.
33.

The most abundant megafaunal species recorded from this association are the cidariid sea urchin Stylocidaris affinis and the Purple Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus (Figure 8); other megafaunal species that were recorded during the survey included several species of sponges and bryozoans (including Sertella sp.
), the Long-spined Urchin Centrostephanus longispinus (Figure 9), the Red Seastar Echinaster sepositus (Figure 10), the crinoid Antedon mediterranea, the crab Inachus sp., and the seastar Luidia ciliaris.

Furthermore, the presence of openings to numerous burrows in places indicated an associated rich infauna.
Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Figure 6.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 5, showing a close-up of a dense rhodolith bed.

The green alga visible in the photo is Flabellia petiolata.

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 12, showing a close-up of a sparse rhodolith bed.

– 20 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Figure 8.
Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 5, showing a close-up of a rhodolith bed intermixed with bare sediment.

The five orange coloured long-spined urchins visible in the photo are individuals of Stylocidaris affinis.

The large purple coloured urchin on the right hand side of the photo is an individual of the Purple Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus.

Figure 9.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 3, showing a close-up of a rhodolith bed.
An individual of the Long- spined Urchin Censtrostephanus longispinus is visible at the top right hand corner of the photo adjacent the alga Flabellia petiolata (green).

– 21 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Figure 10.
Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 5, showing a close-up of a rhodolith bed.

An individual of the urchin Stylocidaris affinis and another of the Red Seastar Echinaster sepositus are visible on the right side of the photo.

Infralittoral coarse sediment 34.


This assemblage type occurred at the southwestern part of the study area (see the yellow- brown shaded area in Figure 5), where the water depth was some 43 m – 50 m. In places, the sediment bottom supporting this assemblage type had small accumulations of rhodoliths or sparse rhodoliths, such that, where present, their cover was some 1 – 20% (see Figures 11 - 14).
Detached algal and plant (seagrass) material was present in places on the seabed where this assemblage occurred but no attached fleshy algae or seagrasses were present.

The epifauna associated with this assemblage was impoverished; the most abundant macrofaunal species was the Purple Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus (Figure 15) and groups of the Purple Urchin Sphaerechinus granularis.

However, the presence of openings to burrows present in many places indicated the presence of a rich infauna.
– 22 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Figure 11.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 2, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.

Figure 12.
Figure 12.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 2, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.

An individual rhodolith is visible at the centre of the photo.

– 23 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Figure 13.
Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 11, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.

Individual rhodoliths are visible in places in the photo.

Figure 14.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 11, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.

Three narrow strips with rhodoliths are visible in the photo.
– 24 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Figure 15.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 11, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.
A few individual rhodoliths (Purple colour) – most of them having a very small size (few mm) – and an individual of the Purple Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus, are visible in the photo.

35.
Although in general the area surveyed mainly supported the assemblage types and subtypes as described above and as depicted in Figure 5, parts within the shaded areas shown in the habitat map (Figure 5) supported patches with a different assemblage type, such that: - The area which supported the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (dense rhodolith bed) had, in places, patches with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) ; - The area which supported the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) had, in places, patches with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (dense rhodolith bed) or patches with the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment; - The area which supported the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment had, in places, the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed).
Furthermore, comparison between data from video transects made during Borg & Evans’ 2017 survey and data from the survey made by Seastar Survey Ltd in May 2018 indicate some – 25 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta differences in the spatial distribution of the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment and the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed); these differences are discussed in the discussion section below.
Mediterranean communities of muddy detritic bottoms 36.

This assemblage type was recorded from the northeastern half of the study area (Figure 5) at a water depth exceeding 100 m and occurred at the base of the 10 m – 25 m high drop-off from where it extended further into deeper waters (Figure 16).

No macroflora was recorded from this assemblage type, although detached macroalgae (mainly Zonaria tournefortii) were present on the sediment surface in various places.
No macrofauna was recorded from this assemblage type but the presence of openings to burrows indicated an associated rich infauna.

Figure 16.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 21, showing a close-up of a Mediterranean community of muddy detritic bottoms.
– 26 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock 37.
This assemblage type was recorded along a band running along a northwest – southeast direction in the central part of the area surveyed (Figure 5) and is associated with the drop-off that is some 10 m – 25 m high and which separates the assemblage of coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents and the assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediments (Figure 17).

The associated macroalgae mainly comprised Zonaria tournefortii and unidentified coralline algae (Figure 17).
The associated macrofauna mainly comprised sponges, bryozoans, and other sessile macrobenthic species.

Individuals of the echiuran worm Bonellia viridis were recorded in places from this assemblage type.

Figure 17.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 21, showing a close-up of a Mediterranean community of muddy detritic bottoms.

Demersal and pelagic fauna 38.

The demersal fish fauna recorded during the survey mainly comprised large shoals of Picarel Spicara sp.
and individuals of the Comber Serranus cabrilla.

Several individuals of the Mauve Stinger Pelagia noctiluca were recorded in the water column during the survey.

– 27 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta 4.

APPRAISAL SEDIMENT AND WATER COLUMN 39.


The results of the sediment and water quality surveys indicate physico-chemical characteristics that are typical of marine waters and the seabed off the northeastern coast of Malta.

Water depth varies between around 43 m and just over 100 m. The underwater visibility was good (25 – 30 m) throughout the study area but flocculate material (of unknown origin) was present in the water column along some of the transects.
A weak southeasterly surface sea current having a speed of between 0.11 m/s and 0.13 m/s was present in the study area.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SEABED 40.

The bottom within the area surveyed consists predominantly of coarse mobile sediments; in the vicinity of the site currently used by AJD Tuna Ltd, the seabed comprises poorly sorted coarse sand having a mean grain size of between 0.55 mm and 0.95 mm.
A drop-off, some 10 m – 25 m high, and characterised by rock exposed to sedimentation is present in the northwestern part of the study area.

The base of this drop-off is characterised by a bare muddy sand bottom.

A large part of the seabed in the study area comprises rhodolith beds, which are more dense and continuous beyond the 55 m depth contour.
The density of the rhodolith beds varies such that they are less dense within the 45 m – 50 m depth range, where large expanses of bare sand that supported little or no rhodoliths are present.
Overall, the seabed has physical features that correspond with the bathymetry: coarse sand with sparse accumulations of rhodoliths (0 % - 20 % rhodolith cover) is present at a water depth of between 43 m and 50 m; between a water depth of 50 m and 55 m, the seabed comprises coarse sediment having denser rhodolith accumulations (20 % - 50 % rhodolith cover); and in waters deeper than 55 m, the seabed mainly consists of dense rhodolith beds (50 % - 100 % rhodolith cover).
A current was present in places close to the seabed, as evidenced by debris and other material originating from benthic vegetation that were seen being moved on the bottom.

41.

Some anthropogenic items were observed during the survey.

These included glass and plastic beverage bottles, abandoned fish traps and fishing lines, and other unidentified items.
However, no remains of tuna, feed fish used in tuna farming, or any other item that may have originated from tuna farming activities, was recorded on the seabed during the survey.

BENTHIC DIVERSITY 42.

Analysis of the grab samples showed the presence of macrofauna that is typical of the benthic biotic assemblages that characterisize the lower infralittoral to circalittoral transition zone and the upper circalittoral zone that occurs off the northeastern coast of the Maltese islands.

(cf.
(cf.

Borg et al., 1998; Schembri 1998; Sciberras et al., 2009).
A high diversity of macrobenthic fauna was recorded from the grab samples; the two most represented – 28 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta taxonomic groups, in terms of species richness and abundance, were the polychaetes and the crustaceans.
No protected species were recorded from any of the grab samples.

BENTHIC ASSEMBLAGES 43.

44.

45.

Overall, the benthic biotic assemblages in the study area are characteristic of ones present in the infralittoral and circalittoral zones off the northeastern coast of the Maltese Islands (e.g.

Borg et al., 1998; Schembri 1998; Sciberras et al., 2009; Schembri, 2011).
Four main biotic assemblage types were recorded from the study area: (i) Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (EUNIS code A5.515); (ii) Infralittoral coarse sediment (EUNIS code A5.13); Mediterranean community of muddy detritic bottoms (EUNIS code A5.38); and Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock (EUNIS code A4.3).
The former association was present as two assemblage subtypes: (i) dense rhodolith beds (having a rhodolith cover of between 50 % and 100 %), some of which may possibly be classified as maerl (sensu Basso et al., 2016), which are present in water deeper than 55 m; and (ii) sparser rhodolith beds (having a rhodolith cover of between 20 % and 50 %), present within the 50 m – 55 m depth range.
The assemblage of infralittoral sediment was present in the shallower (< 45 m – 50 m) parts of the area surveyed and in places supported sparse rhodolith accumulations (having a rhodolith cover of between 1 % and 20 %).

The Mediterranean community of muddy detritic bottoms and the assemblage of Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock were present at around a water depth of 100 m and beyond.
It is emphasised that although the area surveyed mainly supported the assemblage types and subtypes described above, parts within the different areas that represent different habitats (Figure 5) support patches with a different assemblage type, for example within the 43 m – 55 m depth range: - The area which supported the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (dense rhodolith bed) had, in places, patches with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed); - The area which supported the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) had, in places, patches with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (dense rhodolith bed) or patches with the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment; - The area which supported the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment had, in places, the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed).
Furthermore, differences in the spatial distribution of the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment and of the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) were evident when comparing data from video transects made during Borg & Evans’ 2017 survey with data from the survey made by Seastar Survey Ltd in May 2018.
These differences, which are mostly applicable to the – 29 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta shallower (43 m – 55 m) parts of the study area indicate that the soft sediment seabed there is dynamic and undergoes changes that involve shifting of accumulations of rhodoliths from one place to another, possibly even over large distances of several hundred metres.
Such changes would happen during very strong wave action, typically during strong northeasterly winds, such as ones that characterised autumn 2017 and winter 2018.

As a result, the spatial distribution of the aforementioned two habitat types changes.
Although video footage collected from the present survey enabled recording of several macroalgal species, including Flabellia petiolata and Zonaria tournefortii which appeared to be the most abundant, several other algal species are known to be associated with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (see Borg et al., 1998; Borg & Schembri, 2008; Schembri, 2011).
Likewise, apart from the megafauna, including the urchin Stylocidaris affinis, the Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus, the crinoid Antedon mediterranea and the Needle-Spined urchin Centrostephanus longispinus, and other species recorded from the present survey, numerous other mega- and macrofaunal species occur in association with the rhodolith habitats (see Borg et al., 1998; Borg & Schembri, 2008; Schembri, 2011).
Apart from these mega- and large macrofaunal species, rhodolith beds support numerous small macrofaunal species including polychaete, mollusc, crustacean, and echinoderm taxa (e.g.

Schembri, 2011).

No fleshy algae were recorded from the assemblage of infralittoral sediment but very sparse accumulations of rhodoliths or single rhodoliths were present in places, especially in the troughs formed by the current ripples.
The megafauna recorded from this assemblage type comprised the Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus and the Purple Urchin Sphaerechinus granularis.

However, this assemblage undoubtedly supports a rich infauna as evidenced by the macrofaunal species (Table 9) recorded from the grab samples collected from Stations A – D (Figure 3).
The recorded species are typical of the assemblage of infralittoral to circalittoral coarse sediment assemblages present of the northeastern coast of Malta within the 45 m to 80 m depth range.

The study area is located within the boundaries of the ‘MT0000105 Marine Area in the Northeast of Malta’ Special Area of Conservation of International Importance declared by Government Notice 851 of 20108 under the provisions of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006.
This area forms part of the European Union’s NATURA 2000 network.

In Maltese waters, the main rhodolith-forming algae in rhodolith/maerl beds are Lithothamnion corallioides and Phymatolithon calcareum/Lithothamnion minervae9 with Peysonnelia rosa-marina, Mesophyllum sp., and Neogoniolithon brassica-florida constituting a minor component (Lanfranco et al., 1999).
Associations with rhodoliths are a habitat type that qualifies sites for inclusion in national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest as required by the Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD) of the Barcelona Convention10.

Furthermore, the coralline algae 46.

47.

48.

49.

8 Malta Government Gazette No.18,633, 17 August 2010.
9 It is not possible to distinguish between Phymatolithon calcareum and Lithothamnion minervae using gross morphology alone.

10 The Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (the Barcelona Convention) was adopted on 16th February 1976.
A number of protocols were adopted under this convention, amongst which is the Protocol – 30 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta 50.

32.
32.

Lithothamnion corallioides and Phymatolithon calcareum are listed in Annex V (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures) of the European Union’s ‘Habitats Directive’ as amended11.

Both species probably occur in the rhodolith beds in the present study area; however, only microscopic examination of samples of rhodoliths collected from the area will confirm this.
Lithothamnion corallioides, Phymatolithon calcareum, together with Lithothamnion minervae are listed in Schedule III (Animal and plant species of national interest whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation), and the first two named also in Schedule VII (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures) of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006 as amended12, which transpose the requirements of the EU’s Habitats Directive to local legislation.
Rhodolith and maerl beds are included in the UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA “Reference list of marine habitat types for the selection of sites to be included in the national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest” (UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA, 2006) while an action plan for their conservation has been formulated (UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA, 2008), both within the ambit of the Barcelona Convention.
Within European legislation, Council Regulation (EC) 1967/2006, concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, bans the use of specific fishing gear (trawl nets, dredges, shore seines or similar nets) on coralligenous or maerl beds13.
In order to conform to the requirements of EC 1967/2006, the local ‘Implementation and Enforcement of Certain Fisheries Management Plans Order’ (Legal Notice 354 of 2013) amends Zones C and G referred to in Annex V of EC concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas done at Geneva on 3 April 1982.

The parties later amended this protocol and its name changed to Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD).

Malta ratified this new Protocol on 28th October 1999.
A draft reference list of habitat types for the selection of sites to be included in the National Inventories of Natural Sites of Conservation Interest was drawn up at the Fourth Meeting of National Focal Points for Specially Protected Areas (Tunis, 12-14 April 1999) [see UNEP(OCA)/MED WG.154/7].
The most recent ‘Classification of benthic habitat types of the Mediterranean’ dated 2006 is available from the UNEP RAC/SPA at http://rac-spa.org/sites/default/files/doc_fsd/lrhm_en.pdf 11 The European Union's Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora is known as the 'Habitats Directive'.

Annexes I and II of this Directive have been amended by Council Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997.
Annex I of the Habitats Directive lists natural habitats whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation.

Annex II lists species of plants and animals whose habitats must be protected for their survival.

Annex III lists criteria for selecting sites eligible for consideration as "Sites of Community Importance" and designation as Special Areas of Conservation, while Annex IV lists species of Union interest in need of strict protection.
Annex V lists species of plants and animals of Union interest whose taking from the wild and exploitation is subject to management, and Annex VI lists prohibited methods and means of capture and killing of mammals and fish, and prohibited modes of transport.

In anticipation of the 2004 enlargement of the EU, the Annexes of the Habitats Directive were modified by the Act of Accession signed in Athens on 16th April 2003, to take into account the expanded geographical area of the EU15+10.
The annexes were further amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 in anticipation of Bulgaria and Romania joining the European Union in 2007 and then again by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 due to the accession of the Republic of Croatia.

12 These regulations were last amended by the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats (Amendment) Regulations, 2013 (Legal Notice 322 of 2013).
13 According to this Regulation, ”Mäerl is a collective term for a biogenic structure due to several species of coralline red algae (Corallinaceae), which have hard calcium skeletons and grow as unattached free living branched, twig-like or nodule corallines algae on the seabed, forming accumulations within the ripples of mudflats or sandflats seabed.

Maerl beds are usually composed of one or a variable combination of red algae, in particular, Lithothamnion coralloides and Phymatolithon calcareum”.
In this definition, ‘maerl’ is used in the wider sense to refer to ‘rhodolith beds’ as defined by Basso et al.

(2016); true maerl is a particular type of rhodolith bed.
– 31 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta 1967/2006 that originally overlapped with rhodolith beds as well as closed to trawling all areas where conclusive evidence exists for the presence of such beds (see Figure 44 in LN 354/2013).

32.
32.

The Needle-spined sea-urchin, Centrostephanus longispinus is listed in the Habitats Directive under Annex IV (Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection), in Appendix II of the Bern Convention14, and in Annex II of the SPA/BD Protocol)15.
This species is also protected locally under the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006 as amended, where it is listed in Schedule V (Animal and Plant Species of Community Interest in need of Strict Protection).

5.

IMPACTS ON MARINE ECOLOGY 51.


The present assessment of impacts will consider the following phases: (i) Cage deployment phase (ii) Operational (tuna farming) phase Where details on the proposed activity are not available or insufficiently detailed, hence resulting in a degree of uncertainty, the ‘precautionary principle’ is applied and the worse case scenario is considered.

The present assessment of impacts considers the study area within which the ecological assessment described above was made.

52.
52.

- - - In making the present assessment of impacts, the procedure will be as follows: - The main source of impact will be identified and described, and specifically established as adverse or beneficial.

The likely severity and extent, as well as the receptors and sensitivity of the latter will be described.

Any possible mitigation measures will be indicated.
The following criteria will be used to determine the level of overall impact: o Insignificant: no impact or change is predicted in space and time; o Low: low level of impact that is localised in space, i.e.

within the area of interest (AoI), and occurring over a short time period of a few days to a few weeks, and which may be mitigated.
o Moderate: moderate level of impact that may extend beyond the area of influence and occurring over a longer time period of several months, and which may not necessarily be mitigated.

14 The Bern Convention is the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.

Malta acceded to this Convention on the 26th November 1993.
Appendix II of the Bern Convention lists strictly protected species of fauna and the Convention prohibits the deliberate capture, the destruction of breeding or resting sites, the deliberate destruction, and the deliberate killing of, and trade in, these species.

15 A number of species are listed in annexes to the SPA/BD Protocol: Annex II lists endangered or threatened species and Annex III lists species whose exploitation is regulated.
– 32 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta o High: high level of impact that may extend well beyond the area of influence, which will probably leave some permanent/residual effects, and which may not necessarily be mitigated.
- The duration of the impact and residual effects will be considered.

The above procedure will be adopted using knowledge of marine ecology of the study area as baseline.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING THE CAGE DEPLOYMENT PHASE Source of impact  Disturbance to marine fauna resulting from increased vessel activity during deployment of cage moorings, ropes and tuna pens  Accidental and/or deliberate spillage of toxic substances and contaminants from vessels used to deploy cage moorings  Deployment of cage moorings Disturbance to marine fauna resulting from increased vessel activity during deployment of cage moorings, ropes and tuna pens 53.

54.

55.
54.

55.

An increase in vessel activity is envisaged in the vicinity of the tuna penning site to enable deployment of the cage moorings, mooring ropes and tuna pens.

This is expected to result in disturbance to pelagic fauna present in the general area where the new tuna pens will be deployed.

Although detailed data on the pelagic fauna that occur within the study area are lacking, it is expected that several species of pelagic fish, turtles and cetaceans migrate in its vicinity.
Such fauna will be exposed to disturbance from the increased vessel activity and from deployment of the cage moorings, ropes and tuna pens.

However, the fauna that are expected to be affected are mobile and will swim away from the affected area such that there will be a small deviation of the migratory route without significant adverse effects to the animals.

Good practice and measures to reduce disturbance to a minimum are the only mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts.
Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact is predicted to be insignificant to low.

56.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impacts will be temporary and effective during deployment of the cage moorings, ropes and tuna pens.
– 33 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Accidental and/or deliberate spillage of toxic substances and contaminants from vessels used to deploy cage moorings 57.

58.

59.
58.

59.

Given that vessels, including ones used to deploy the cage moorings, ropes and tuna pens, will be used during installation of the pens, there is a potential for introduction of hazardous substances and chemicals, whether deliberate, accidental or indirect into the marine environment.
However, excepting an accident, whether such introduction of hazardous substances and chemicals into the marine environment will actually occur will largely depend on good management and work practices, and effectiveness of environmental protection measures.
The introduction of hazardous substances and chemicals (for example, fuel and lubricants, amonsgt others) may have toxic effects on the marine flora and fauna, which could include reduction in reproductive potential and capacity, fertilisation success, development and physiological function.
However, the site concerned is located in deep offshore waters that are characterised by a high hydrodynamic regime, hence any small spillage of hazardous substances and chemicals will be rapidly dispersed and are not expected to have a significant impact on the marine biota present in the vicinity.
Any introduction of toxic substances and contaminants will depend heavily on application of precautionary measures, and on the toxicity and levels of substances and contaminants potentially introduced to the marine environment.

Therefore, good practice and measures to reduce spillage into the marine environment, hence ones that prevent the introduction of toxic substances and contaminants to the marine enviroment will be important to mitigate potential adverse impacts.

60.
60.

Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact is predicted to be insignificant unless there is large accidental or deliberate spillage, in which case the level of impact is predicted to be low to medium.

61.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impact of potential introduction of toxic substances and contaminants will be temporary and of very short duration (few days), as long as there is no large accidental or deliberate spillage.
Deployment of cage moorings 62.

Deployment of the cage mooring is expected to impact the benthic habitat when the concrete block ends up resting on the seabed as there will be direct physical contact with the latter, although the area of the seabed that will be significantly impacted is that which will be occupied by the mooring block.

All benthic flora and fauna, the latter mostly comprising sessile and slow moving invertebrates, that will end up underneath the mooring block will be decimated.
The more motile fauna, such as fast moving invertebrates and fishes are expected to move away rapidly from a mooring block that is being deployed and will not be affected adversely.

63.

On making contact with the soft sediment seabed, disturbance of the latter will lead to suspension of sediment in the water column.
Settling of the suspended sediment on the bottom will lead to smothering of flora and sessile fauna, resulting in potential adverse – 34 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta effects on such organisms, although the concerned species are usually adapted to disturbance from suspended sediment and will recover quickly, while the high energy environment of the area will help rapid removal of any sediment particles that may have been deposited on the biota.
Good practice and measures to reduce the adverse impact of deployment of the mooring on the seabed, for example, by avoiding dragging the mooring block on the seabed during deployment, are the only mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts.
Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact is predicted to be high within the area that will be occupied by the mooring block, but insignificant to low on the sessile benthic species present in the vicinity (a few metres away) of the deployed mooring block.

64.

65.

66.
64.

65.

66.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impact on the flora and fauna that will end up beneath the mooring clock will be permanent, while impacts on the flora and sessile fauna present in the immediate vicinity of the block will be temporary and of very short duration (few days).
POTENTIAL IMPACTS DURING THE OPERATIONAL (TUNA FARMING) PHASE Source of impact  Disturbance to marine fauna resulting from increased vessel activity during tuna farming  Accidental and/or deliberate spillage of toxic substances and contaminants from vessels used in connection with the tuna penning operations  Decreased light reaching the seabed as a result of shading by the tuna cages  Increased nutrient input, originating from the farmed tuna’s waste and feed fish, to the water column  Deposition of organic matter, originating from the farmed tuna’s waste and feed fish, on the seabed  Generation of a surface slick comprising fish oils released from the feed fish  Littering of the seabed underneath the tuna cages and in their vicinity  Attraction of wild fauna to the tuna farm Disturbance to marine fauna resulting from increased vessel activity during tuna farming 67.
An increase in vessel activity is envisaged in the vicinity of the tuna penning site in connection with the tuna farming activity.

A number of vessels are expected to operate in the vicinity of the tuna penning site in connection with the farming activity.

These include work boats that will be used to transport the feed fish and to feed the caged tuna, boats used for general maintenance of the tuna pens, and vessels used during the period when the tuna are harvested.
The latter vessels will be the largest ones used in connection with the tuna farming activity but will only be present during the 2 – 3 month period during which harvesting of the tuna will be carried out and normally anchor some distance offshore from – 35 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta the tuna farm.
The presence of vessels is expected to result in disturbance, mainly through generation of underwater noise, to pelagic fauna present in the general area where the new tuna pens will be deployed.

Although detailed data on the pelagic fauna that occur within the study area are lacking, it is expected that several species of pelagic fish, turtles and cetaceans migrate in its vicinity.
Such fauna will be exposed to disturbance, mainly through generation of underwater noise, from the increased vessel activity in the vicinity of the tuna farm.

However, the fauna that are expected to be affected are mobile and will swim away from the tuna penning site such that there will be a small deviation of the migratory route without significant adverse effects to the animals.

68.

69.
68.

69.

Good practice and measures to reduce disturbance to a minimum are the only mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts.

Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact is predicted to be insignificant to low.

70.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impacts will be effective throughout the period when tuna farming is carried out.
Accidental and/or deliberate spillage of toxic substances and contaminants from vessels used in connection with the tuna penning operations 71.

72.

73.

A number of vessels are expected to operate in the vicinity of the tuna penning site in connection with the farming acvitiy.

These include work boats that will be used to transport the feed fish and to feed the caged tuna, boats used for general maintenance of the tuna pens, and vessels used during the period when the tuna are harvested.
The latter vessels will be the largest of the ones used in connection with the tuna farming activity but will only be present during the 2 – 3 month period during which harvesting of the tuna will be carried out.
Because of the regular presence of such vessels in the vicinity of the tuna penning site, there is a potential for accidental or deliberate introduction of hazardous substances and chemicals (for example, fuel and lubricants, amonsgt others), whether deliberate, accidental or indirect, into the marine environment.
However, excepting an accident, whether such introduction of hazardous substances and chemicals into the marine environment will actually occur will largely depend on good management and work practices, and effectiveness of environmental protection measures.

The introduction of hazardous substances and chemicals may have toxic effects on the marine flora and fauna, which could include reduction in reproductive potential and capacity, fertilisation success, development and physiological function.
However, the site concerned is located in deep offshore waters that are characterised by a high hydrodynamic regime; hence, any small spillage of hazardous substances and chemicals will be rapidly dispersed and are not expected to have a significant impact on the marine biota present in the vicinity.
Any introduction of toxic substances and contaminants will depend heavily on application of precautionary measures, and on the toxicity and levels of substances and contaminants potentially introduced to the marine environment.
Therefore, good practice and measures to reduce spillage into the marine environment, hence ones that prevent the introduction of – 36 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta toxic substances and contaminants to the marine enviroment, will be important to mitigate potential adverse impacts.
74.

Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact is predicted to be insignificant unless there is a large accidental or deliberate spillage, in which case the level of impact is predicted to be low to medium.

75.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impact of potential introduction of toxic substances and contaminants will be temporary and of very short duration (few days), as long as there is no large accidental or deliberate spillage.
Decreased light reaching the seabed as a result of shading by the tuna cages 76.

77.

78.

Tuna cages typically have a diameter of around 50 m and support a cage net that is some 35 m high.

The cage net and the tuna they hold are expected to produce a shading effect and reduce the amount of light reaching the seabed.
The reduced light availability will have an adverse effect on any rhodoliths present on the seabed, even if these are present in small accumulations or are sparsely distributed on the bottom, given that the photosynthetic capacity of the algae making up the rhodoliths will be decreased such that they will stop growing or die.
With regard to any associated megafauna and macrofauna; the sparse rhodolith accumulations recorded from the site identified for tuna penning are not known to support a high diversity of associated fauna, at least compared to dense rhodolith beds, while the fauna that occurs in association with such habitat is more typical of lower infralittoral and upper circalittoral coarse sediments.

Therefore, the main adverse impact is expected to be mostly on the rhodoliths.
The shading effect cannot be mitigated unless the cages are removed and is a consequence of the presence of a floating structure – the tuna pen - which cannot be modified or replaced by another structure that does not cause shading.

Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact is predicted to be high on any rhodoliths present within the area that will be occupied by a tuna cage, but insignificant in other areas at the tuna penning site.

79.
79.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impact will be effective throughout the period when the tuna pens are in place (c. 6 months); however, once the latter are removed, recovery (which will require at least a few months) is expected since coralline algae will rapidly recolonise any rhodoliths whose algal component would have demised.

Increased nutrient input, originating from the farmed tuna’s waste and feed fish, to the water column 80.
The tuna farming operations are expected to result in some nutrient and organic loading of the water column; the nutrients and organic matter will mainly originate from faecal matter excreted by the farmed tuna and from decomposition of any uneaten feed fish that will end – 37 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta up on the seabed.
Water quality surveys have been carried out at local tuna penning sites since the early 2000’s.

During these surveys, standard water quality attributes, namely dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, turbidity, nitrates, phosphates, Chlorophyll a, ammonia, and counts of intestinal bacteria, as well as sea currents, were measured at a number of sampling stations located in the immediate vicinity of the tuna farms and at up- current and down-current reference stations.
The results of such surveys indicate that, very rarely, lowered levels of oxygen, reduced water transparency and elevated nutrient (nitrates and/or phosphates and/or ammonia) levels were recorded from the tuna penning sites during the farming season (July – December).

However, the observed changes in the monitored attributes were often sporadic and not statistically significant, and have not resulted in appreciable alteration of water quality.
Elevated counts of intestinal bacteria have also been occasionally recorded but since such organisms do not originate from the tuna but from sewage, their presence were not attributed to the tuna penning activities per se, although there is the possibility that large ships (e.g.

the processing ships present during harvesting of the tuna) may be the source of such contamination through discharge of sewage from their holding tanks.
Such favourable results with respect to water quality are attributed to the high energy environment, particularly strong sea currents present, that characterise the offshore area where the proposed tuna penning site is located, and which lead to rapid and effective dispersal of nutrients that may originate from the tuna farming activity.
Nevertheless, good practice and measures to reduce loading of the water column with nutrients and organic matter are recommended; in particular excessive loading by organic matter can be reduced by ensuring that overfeeding is avoided, such that the amount of uneaten feedfish that are introduced to the marine environment will be minimal.

Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact of nutrient and organic matter loading of the water column on water quality and associated biota (e.g.
plankton) is predicted to be insignificant to low.

81.

82.

83.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impact will be effective throughout the period when tuna farming is carried out (4 - 6 months), with progressively reduced effects as the tuna is harvested and the reared biomass reduced.

Deposition of organic matter, originating from the farmed tuna’s waste and feed fish, on the seabed 84.

85.
85.

The tuna farming operations are expected to result in organic loading of the seabed; the organic matter will mainly originate from decomposition of uneaten feed fish that may end up on the seabed.

Such organic loading is expected to have a large impact on benthic habitat, which would result in changes to sediment quality and to the species composition of biotic assemblages associated with lower infralittoral/upper circalittoral coarse sediment habitat.
In cases where the impact is large and adverse, loss of habitat and biodiversity may occur.

Video surveys of the seabed underneath tuna cages have been undertaken regularly at local tuna since the early 2000’s.

The main aim of such surveys was to gather qualitative and semi- quantitative data, using direct observation, on the physical and biological characteristics of the seabed underneath the tuna pens.
The results of these surveys have indicated that – 38 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta towards the end of each penning season (in autumn) considerable amounts of uneaten feed fish littered the seabed in the area lying directly below the tuna pens, but not in areas beyond the perimeter of the tuna pens.
This resulted in alterations in the physical and biological characteristics of the seabed under the pens, namely: (i) changes in biological characteristics, which typically consist of high population densities of detritus-feeding and scavenging benthic (i.e.
associated with seabed) fauna, and whose occurrence is unusual considering the benthic habitat type present at the tuna penning sites surveyed; (ii) alterations in physical characteristics, which typically consist of the presence of large quantities of fish bones and baitfish that are gradually consumed by scavengers or eventually decompose.
The results of the video surveys also indicated that the amount of uneaten feed fish present varied considerably between the different pens, and between different farms, with some only having a few feed-fish beneath them and others having multiple layers of decomposing feed-fish.

Once the tuna farming season is over (late winter), a negligible amount of uneaten feed-fish remain on the seabed below the pens.
However, thick layers of fish bones and of decomposing organic material persist under some of the pens.

These observations indicate a consistent pattern, with the volume of uneaten feed-fish on the seabed decreasing only when the tuna have been harvested (and therefore there is no further addition of feed-fish).

Any uneaten fish remaining on the seabed at this time will continue to decompose slowly and, if present in large numbers, form a continuous layer of decomposing organic material.
Sometimes, following storms and possibly due to strong bottom currents, this layer is admixed with the underlying mobile sediment.

In places where the decomposition process is complete, the only remains are fish bones that eventually disperse in the sediment leaving little or no trace of the original uneaten fish on the surface.
Once the source of the impact (periodic addition of new uneaten food) is removed, slow recovery to the original state is characterised by the re-appearance of certain megafaunal species (e.g.

the irregular sea urchin Spatangus purpureus and the crinoid Antedon mediterranea) that form part of the original fauna that characterise the bare muddy sand bottom of the areas where the tuna farms are located.

86.
86.

Monitoring of sediment quality at local tuna penning sites has also been carried out regularly since the early 2000’s.

The main aim of such monitoring is to assess the levels of organic carbon content and organic nitrogen content of the sediments, as well as sediment granulometric characteristics.

Moreover, at least one survey involving assessment of levels of pollutants, including heavy metals and organic pollutants, was carried out at some of the extant tuna penning sites.
The monitoring design of the surveys to assess organic carbon content and organic nitrogen content of the sediments, and sediment granulometric characteristics, was based on a Beyond BACI16 layout, in which the results of quantitative analyses of sediment samples collected from the tuna farming site and from a number of control sites before the start of the farming operations are compared with those obtained after a farming season using advanced statistical analyses.
Overall, the findings from surveys that were aimed at assessing organic carbon content and organic nitrogen content of the sediments, and sediment granulometric characteristics, indicated ‘pulse’ (i.e.

short duration) changes in the physico-chemical properties of the sediment following some but not all of the 16 Before After Control Impacted; see Underwood (1992): Underwood, A. J.

(1992) Beyond BACI: the detection of environmental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 161: 145 –178.
– 39 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta tuna penning seasons; when these changes were recorded they were restricted to the seabed area located in the immediate vicinity of the tuna pens and/or in the general area occupied by the pens but no significant permanent alterations of the sediment characteristics at the operational sites have been recorded to date.
Where significant changes were detected, these appeared to have resulted from accumulation of large amounts of uneaten feed-fish in the vicinity of the tuna pens, which decompose slowly causing alterations in the physico-chemical properties of the sediments.

The results of the surveys aimed at assessing levels of heavy metals and pollutant organics indicated that no elevated levels were present in the sediments in the vicinity of the tuna farms.

87.
87.

Monitoring of benthic diversity at local tuna penning sites has also been carried out regularly since the early 2000’s.

The main aim of such monitoring is to assess for potential changes in benthic species populations and habitat that may result from the tuna penning activities.
The monitoring design was based on assessing total species richness and total abundance of selected benthic faunal species, as these are deemed good indicators of the overall state of species and habitats associated with the seabed.
As in the case of the physico-chemical attributes monitoring component, the design for monitoring of benthic diversity was based on a Beyond BACI layout, in which the results of quantitative analyses of samples collected from the tuna farming site and from a number of control sites before the start of the farming operations are compared with those obtained after a farming season using advanced statistical analyses.
Overall, the findings from monitoring of benthic diversity indicate a significant ‘press‘ (i.e.

long-lasting) adverse impact (manifested as a significant decrease in total macroinvertebrate species richness and/or decrease in the abundance of one or more of the indicator species) following some but not all of the tuna penning seasons; when these changes were recorded they were restricted to the seabed area located in the immediate vicinity of the tuna pens and/or in the general area occupied by the pens.
Furthermore, enhanced productivity in the general area of the tuna farms and beyond, as a result of the tuna-penning activities, was evident from significant increases in the abundance of some of the indicator species recorded in some of the monitoring sessions.
These observations are a strong indication that, where present, adverse impacts on the benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and habitat at the tuna penning sites have resulted from processes that are mainly attributed to accumulation of large amounts of uneaten feed-fish and slow decomposition of same, in the vicinity of the tuna pens.
The uneaten feed-fish attract scavengers and other opportunistic fauna that cause changes to the original species composition of the benthic assemblages, while slow decomposition of the accumulated material causes alterations in the physico-chemical properties of the sediments, and presumably of the sediment-water interface, leading to adverse conditions for the biota originally present.
A number of scientific publications, which present detailed results – mainly as described above - of the influence of local tuna penning activities on marine benthic habitat, are available; see Manion et al (2014; 2017; 2018).

88.

Good practice and measures to reduce excessive loading of the seabed by organic matter are the main mitigation measures that can be adopted to avoid or at least reduce adverse impacts on the benthic biota and habitat present in the vicinity of the tuna penning site.
Essentially, good feed management procedures will be very important to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from organic loading of the seabed.

The following measures are deemed particularly important: (i) Feeding of the tuna should be carefully monitored and stopped as soon as the fish are satiated, in order to avoid as much as possible uneaten feed ending up on the bottom.
The tuna operators may want to implement a procedure to ensure proper – 40 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta feed management by having random checks of the seabed below the tuna pens made by an independent environmental monitor; (ii) In the case of accident, should an inordinate amount of dead uneaten feed-fish end up on the bottom, every attempt should be made to recover as much of the material as possible using techniques that do not have an adverse effect on the seabed habitat.
89.

Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact of organic matter loading of the seabed, and hence on benthic biota and habitats present at the tuna penning site, is predicted to be medium to high within the seabed area directly underneath the cages; and insignificant to low in the seabed area beyond.

90.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impact will be effective throughout the period when tuna farming is carried out.
Generation of a surface slick comprising fish oils released from the feed fish 91.

92.

93.

The tuna farming activity is expected to generate oils and fats that are released from the thawing feed-fish when these are fed to the tuna.

Release of such substances occurs when the semi-frozen feed fish are introduced in the tuna pens, and when uneaten feed-fish end up outside the fish cages.
The resulting floating slick of fatty substances that accumulate on the surface may be transported offshore or inshore, depending on sea current strength and direction.

Such substances, commonly known as ‘fish farm slime’, have caused much public concern and outcry.
Although they are not deemed to have any toxic effects on pelagic marine species and habitats, they are aesthetically unpleasing and a nuisance to bathers, divers and coastal recreational activities, because of their sheer presence in the water and since they deposit on the shore and on artificial surfaces (e.g.

boat hulls etc.).
boat hulls etc.).

The deposition of such substances on the shore is not envisaged to have any large adverse effects on marine species and habitats, given that they will rapidly biodegrade; however, this has not yet been assessed given the complete lack of studies that deal specifically with this aspect.

Good practice and measures to reduce the release of oils and fats from the feed fish, restrict their presence to the immediate vicinity of the tuna farm (e.g.
by using booms), and carrying out immediate collection of the substances (e.g.

using skimmers) when appreciable amounts of them are released to the marine environment, are the main mitigation measures that can be adopted to avoid or at least reduce their presence on the surface in coastal areas close to the fish farms and inshore.
Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact when floating oily and fatty substances originating from the feed fish end up on the surface in offshore waters and are potentially transported inshore, is predicted to be medium to high from the aesthetics and water quality for recreational activities points of view, but insignificant to low with respect to adverse impacts on marine ecology, including shore habitat where they may be deposited.
– 41 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Littering of the seabed underneath the tuna cages and in their vicinity 94.

95.

96.
95.

96.

The results of video surveys made below tuna cages at local tuna penning sites have indicated that, in places, a considerable amount of anthropogenic items is present below the pens that appear to originate from the farm operations; these include concrete weights with ropes attached, sheets and sacks of fabric and other material, car tyres, lengths of rope and other unidentified items.
While plastic items are known to be hazardous to marine life, items deposited on the seabed lead to physical alteration of the bottom leading to potential changes to the benthic habitat present in the vicinity of the fish farm.

Good practice and measures to reduce littering of the seabed by anthropogenic items originating from the tuna penning activities are the main mitigation measures that can be adopted to avoid littering of the seabed.
Should any items originating from the fish farm accidentally end up in the sea, whether floating or deposited on the seabed, these should be recovered immediately.

Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact when anthropogenic items originating from the fish farm end up in the sea, whether floating or deposited on the seabed, is predicted to be low to medium.

Attraction of wild fauna to the tuna farm 97.


Fish farms, including tuna ranches, are known to attract a variety of wild marine pelagic fauna.
These include: shoals of small pelagic fish (such as Clupeid species) which eat the fragments of feed fish that are released in the water, and the biota growing on the tuna pen nets; medium-sized predators such as Coryphaena hippuris and Seriola dumerilii which feed on the small pelagic fish that aggregate in the vicinity of the tuna cages; large pelagic predators including cetaceans (namely dolphins), which feed on the medium-sized predators and uneaten feed fish present outside the tuna pens; and wild tunas that are attracted to the caged tuna and also feed on uneaten feed fish that end up outside the tuna pens.
Such aggregations of wild pelagic fauna are not envisaged to be adversely affected by the tuna penning activities per se, since they will be acquiring food that will potentially lead to enhanced local production.
However, the aggregations tend to attract fishermen who carry out fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farm such that they will harvest the wild fish present there; indeed because of such ‘facilitated’ harvesting of wild fish, fish farms have been described by marine ecologists as serving as ‘ecological traps’.
The problem at local tuna farms gets more complicated since fishermen who target the wild tunas and carry out their activities in the vicinity of the farms may actually be the cause of whole dead tunas ending up on the seabed in the vicinity of the tuna farms.

This problem is highlighted in Arechavala-Lopez et al.

(2015); fishermen deploy fishing lines in the vicinity of the tuna farms with an aim to catch wild tuna that aggregate there.
Any tunas that are caught may: (i) either break free but will have the hook and a length of fishing line attached to their mouth, which may eventually become entangled against the cage mooring ropes, such that the fish will be restricted in its ability to swim or get exhausted trying to break free but in both cases will end up dying; or (ii) become entangled against the cage mooring ropes and, being unable to – 42 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta retrieve them, the fishermen17 cut the tuna, however, the hook and length of fishing line attached to their mouth may, again, eventually become entangled against the cage mooring ropes, leading to (i) as stated previously.
Fishermen have also been observed to clean tunas they would have caught and discard the head and offal overboard.

Prohibition/strict control of fishing activities in the vicinity of the tuna farms is the main mitigation measure that can be adopted to avoid detrimental (and sometimes) illegal harvesting of wild fish, including tunas) in the vicinity of the fish farms.
Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact of uncontrolled fishing activities that are aimed at harvesting pelagic wild fauna, including tunas, which aggregate in the vicinity of the tuna farms, leading to the adverse effects described in para 100 above, is predicted to be low.

98.

99.

6.

REFERENCES Arechavala-Lopez P., Borg J.

A., Sˇegvic´-Bubic´ T., Paolo Tomassetti P., Özgül A.. & Sanchez-Jerez P., 2015.
Aggregations of wild Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus L.) at Mediterranean offshore fish farm sites: Environmental and management considerations.

Fisheries Research 164: 178-1 Basso D., Babbini L., Kaleb S., Bracchi V.A., Falace A.

(2016).

Monitoring deep Mediterranean rhodolith beds.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(3), 549-561; DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2586 Borg J.A., Howege H.M., Lanfranco E., Micallef S.A., Mifsud C. & Schembri P.J., 1998.
The macrobenthic species of the infralittoral to circalittoral transition zone off the northeastern coast of Malta (Central Mediterranean).

Xjenza 3(1): 16-24.

[Malta].

Borg J.A., Knittweis L. & Schembri P.J.

(2013) Compilation of an interpretation manual for marine habitats within the 25 NM Fisheries Management Zone around the Republic of Malta.

[MEPA tender reference: T2/2013].

MEPA, Malta; 218pp.

Borg J.

A.

& Schembri P. J., 2008.


Report on a marine benthic survey using remote underwater videography in an area off eastern Comino.

Malta: Ecoserv Ltd; 26pp.

Borg J.

A., Howege H.M., Lanfranco E., Micallef S. A., Mifsud C. & Schembri P.J., 1998.

The macrobenthic species of the infralittoral to circalittoral transition zone off the northeastern coast of Malta (Central Mediterranean).

Xjenza 3(1): 16-24.

[Malta].

Lanfranco, E.; Rizzo, M.; Hall-Spencer, J.; Borg, J.A.

& Schembri, P.J.
& Schembri, P.J.

(1999) Maerl-forming coralline algae and associated phytobenthos from the Maltese Islands.

The Central Mediterranean Naturalist 3(1): 1-6.

17 According to the site managers, the wild tuna caught by the amateur fishermen are sometimes cut free on being approached by fisheries officers who make regular site visits to the fish farms using a vessel owned by the local fisheries department.
– 43 – Ecoserv Ltd Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Mangion M., Borg J.

A., Thompson R. & Schembri P. J., 2014.

Influence of tuna penning activities on soft bottom macrobenthic assemblages.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 79; 164-174.

Mangion M., Borg J.
Mangion M., Borg J.

A., Sanchez Jerez P & Schembri P. J., 2017.

Assessment of benthic biological indicators for evaluating the environmental impact of tuna farming.

Aquaculture Research 48: 5797 – 5811.

Mangion M., Borg J.

A., Sanchez-Jerez P., 2018.

Differences in magnitude and spatial extent of impact of tuna farming on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages.

Regional Studies in Marine Science 18: 197 – 207.

Schembri P. J., 1998.

Maerl ecosystems of the Maltese islands.

In: Dandria, D.

[ed.]


Biology abstracts MSc, PhD 1998 and contributions to marine biology: pp.35-37.

Msida, Malta: Department of Biology, University of Malta; iv+38pp.

[Malta].

Schembri P. J., 2011.

North offshore aquaculture zone - report on an ecological survey within an area off eastern Comino, proposed for designation as an offshore aquaculture zone, made in January - February 2011.

Malta: Ecoserv Ltd; 24pp.

Sciberras M., Rizzo M., Mifsud J. R., Camilleri K., Borg J.
A., Lanfranco E. & Schembri P. J., 2009.

Habitat structure and biological characteristics of a maerl bed off the northeastern coast of the Maltese Islands (central Mediterranean).

Marine Biodiversity 39: 251 - 264.

UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA (2006).

Reference list of marine habitat types for the selection of sites to be included in the national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest.

UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA; 5pp.


UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA (2008) Action Plan for the conservation of the coralligenous and other calcareous bio-Concretions in the Mediterranean Sea.

UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 21pp.
– 44 – GF00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Technical Appendix 5 AVIFAUNA BASELINE REPORT Prepared by John J. Borg Supporting Documents for Environmental Impact Assessment Report [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Baseline study on Avifauna Prepared by John J. Borg Independent Consultant Logistic Support: 12, Sir Arthur Borton Street Mosta, MST14 Malta Telephone: (+356) 2143 1900 Fax: (+356) 21424 137 e‐mail: info@ecoserv.com.mt APRIL 2018 Ecoserv Report Reference: 046-18 Borg John J.
| 1 Signed Declaration Attn: Director of Environment and Resources Environment and Resources Authority Malta I, John J. Borg, who carried out the study (or part thereof) on avifauna for the EIA for the proposed North Aquaculture Zone off Is-Sikka l-Bajda, San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta, hereby declare that such study was solely carried out by me and take responsibility for any statement and conclusion contained therein.
30 November 2018 Date Signature [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 CONTENTS 1.1 Terms of Reference....................................................................................................................3 1.2 Scope of this work......................................................................................................................3 1.3 Area of Influence........................................................................................................................4 1.4 Competence of Consultant.........................................................................................................4 2.0 Study methodology....................................................................................................................4 3.0 Study Area..................................................................................................................................6 Ramla tat-Torri/Rdum tal-Madonna area MT0000009.......................................................6 Kemmuna, Kemmunett, il-Ħaġriet ta' Bejn il-Kmiemen MT0000017……………………….………7 il-Gzejjer ta’ San Pawl (Selmunett) MT0000022..................................................................8 il-Bahar madwar Ghawdex MT0000112..............................................................................9 il-Bahar tal-Grigal MT0000107............................................................................................9 4.0 Marine IBAs..............................................................................................................................10 4.1 Marine SPAs………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11 4.2 Types of Marine IBAs/SPAs…………………………………………………………………………………………………12 4.3 Why Marine IBAs/SPAs?.........................................................................................................13 5.
Prioritisation and Zonation Modelling for the three Procellariiformes………………………………….15 5.1 Breeding Species………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 5.1 Scopoli`s Shearwater ……………………………………………………………………………………………..18 5.2 Yelkouan Shearwater ……………………………………………………………………………………………..19 5.3 European Storm-Petrel …………………………………………………………………………………………..20 5.2 Daily movements by Procellariiformes…………………………………………………………………………………21 5.3 Rafting ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 5.4 Fish pens: A supplementary food source for seabirds………………………………………………………….24 6.0 Threats …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25 6.1 Light Pollution ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25 6.2 Sound pollution…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…25 6.3 Possible entanglement in pens……………………………………………………………………………………………..25 6.4 Mitigation Measures ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..26 7.
Summary of impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..27 7.1 Criteria used to describe impacts ………………………………………………………………………………………….28 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………31 Borg John J.
| 2 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta as required by Schedule IA Section 6.3.1.1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2007 (S.L.

549.46).
549.46).

May 2017 3.3 to 3.7 Light, noise and vibration: with respect to possible impacts on avifauna The impacts on avifauna including (but not restricted to) disturbance, noise, vibration, loss of habitat, shadow flicker and lighting, collision risks.

The impact of the fish pens as barriers/hazards to movement shall be assessed in terms of the seabird colonies and other marine avifauna.

The impact on prey availability for breeding and “visiting” seabirds shall also be assessed.
The assessment shall analyze the disruption of ecological links between feeding, breeding and roosting areas.

An assessment of collision risks for seabirds shall be taken into account.

The assessment shall also investigate the annual change in populations of birds if necessary through modeling and the decline in territory occupancy.
1.2 SCOPE OF THIS WORK The scope of this work is to present an updated report on any possible direct and indirect interactions and impacts by the fish pens on the avifauna, particularly the breeding pelagic seabirds.

If any such impacts are identified, the report will propose mitigation measures.

Borg John J.
Borg John J.

| 3 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 1.3 AREA OF INFLUENCE The North Aquaculture Zone will be located at a minimum distance of 4.5 km from the shore and the main scope of the zone would be for capture-based aquaculture.
The area lies in a straight line of sight from two Natura 2000 shearwater colonies which are; Ramla tat-Torri/Rdum tal-Madonna area MT0000009, Kemmuna, Kemmunett, il-Ħaġriet ta' Bejn il-Kmiemen u l-Iskoll ta' Taħt il-Mazz MT0000017 and il-Gzejjer ta’ San Pawl (Selmunett) MT0000022 as well as two Marine N2K sites; il-Bahar madwar Ghawdex MT0000112 and il-Bahar tal-Grigal MT0000107.
1.4 COMPETENCE OF CONSULTANT This report was prepared by John J. Borg: • Senior Curator of the Natural History Unit (Heritage Malta); • Member of the Royal Society of Biologists UK (2013 - ) • • Licensed Bird Ringer BirdLife Malta (1981 - ) ISPRA (Italian Ringing Scheme 2010 - ) Researcher in the fields of Ornithology and animal ecology, author of over 100 scientific papers and books; • Participated in numerous local and foreign E.I.A.s and technical reports related to Ornithology and other vertebrates; and • Holds a number of posts in local and foreign scientific institutions.
2.

STUDY METHODOLOGY 2.1 Desk Study: This assessment is based on accumulated data obtained from long-term observations on the breeding biology and ecology of Malta’s breeding seabirds (1982-2018).

Published and unpublished reports from three EU LIFE funded projects: EU LIFE+ Progett Garnija (2006-2010) EU LIFE+ Malta Seabird Project (2012-2016) and EU LIFE funded Arcipelagu Garnija (2016-2020) Borg John J.
| 4 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig.

1 Area of influence.

3 STUDY AREA Ramla tat-Torri/Rdum tal-Madonna area MT0000009 Rdum tal-Madonna (35°59'28.76"N, 14°22'15.02"E) is located along the north-east coast of Malta, situated on the l-Ahrax tal-Mellieha promontory.
The geological formations are composed entirely of Upper Coralline Limestone formations, with the result that the cliffs are honey-combed with caves, crevices and fissures as well as extensive rubble scree.

There are stretches of karst garrigue and patches of woodland.

One also finds remnants of sand-dune habitat at White-tower bay.

The are holds the most important Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan colony in the Maltese Islands as well as a small colony of Scopoli`s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea.
In 2016 the Mediterranean Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis was found breeding inside one of the numerous caves in the area.

Other breeding bird species are the Blue Rock Thrush Monticola solitarius, Short-toed Lark Calandrella brachydactyla Sardinian Warbler Sylvia melanocephala and Spectacled Warbler Sylvia conspicillata.

Borg John J.
Borg John J.

| 5 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig 2.
Area of influence at Ramla tat-Torri and Rdum tal-Madonna Kemmuna, Kemmunett, il-Ħaġriet ta' Bejn il-Kmiemen u l-Iskoll ta' Taħt il-Mazz MT0000017 Kemmuna u l-Gzejjer ta' Madwarha (Comino and its islets) Kemmuna is a small island lying mid-way between Malta and Gozo surrounded by a number of small islets known as Kemmunett, Il-Hagriet ta' Bejn il-Kmiemen and l-Iskoll ta' Taht il-Mazz.

The cliff sides in the southern area of Kemmuna are characterised by scarps and boulders.
The cliffs, especially areas that are shady, support the Cliff Groundsel (Senecio leucanthemifolius - a very rare species having a restricted distribution in the Maltese Islands as well as the Mediterranean, protected under national legislation.

Cliffs are colonised by typical rupestral vegetation.

The coastline between the northern and western areas of Kemmuna is indented with coves and inlets.
The eastern coast is of particular interest for this study as it supports breeding colonies of Yelkouan and Scopoli`s Shearwaters.

Borg John J.
Borg John J.

| 6 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig.3 = C.diomedea & P. yelkouan = P. yelkouan il-Gzejjer ta’ San Pawl (Selmunett) MT0000022 Il-Gzejjer ta’ San Pawl (Selmunett) (35°57'54.40”N; 14°24'06.35”E) lie about 85 metres off the coast of Malta.

The “islands” are linked by a shallow and narrow isthmus whose depth varies according to the sea level.
Geologically the island is made up of Upper Coralline Limestone.

The vegetation consists of a mixture of maritime garigue dominated by Golden Samphire, Maltese fleabane and various other species.

The eastern side is more exposed and has less vegetation than the main island.

A population of the land snail Trochoidea spratti can be found on the islands.

Wild rabbits used to live on the island but the population died off due to Myxomatosis and overhunting.
The endemic population of the Maltese wall lizard Podarcis filfolensis kieselbachi has not been recorded since 2005.

In the last decade, a small colony of Yelkouan Shearwaters has been re-discovered breeding on the island.

Borg John J.

| 7 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig 4.
Il-Gzejjer ta` San Pawl / Selmunett • • il-Bahar madwar Ghawdex MT0000112 il-Bahar tal-Grigal MT0000107.

Borg John J.

| 8 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig 5.

Marine Special Protection Area (SPA), designated under Govt.

Notice 1311 of 2016.

4.


Marine IBAs Seabirds face a wide range of threats during their lifecycles and have undergone one of the most rapid declines of any bird group in the past 20 years (Lascelles 2007).

This has been recognised by the European Union and consequently, all Member States have a duty to designate Marine Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive by 2008 (European Commission 2004).

Borg John J.
Borg John J.

| 9 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Malta is a particular hotspot for seabirds.

The island of Filfla is home to the largest colony of breeding European Storm-petrels1 in the Mediterranean.
The Maltese Islands also host approximately 10% of the world’s population of breeding Yelkouan Shearwaters and approximately 5% of the Mediterranean population of Cory’s Shearwaters.

This gives Malta a high global responsibility for the conservation of seabirds.
Furthermore, the Gozo Channel is very important for Ferruginous Ducks (Aythya nyroca), with over 1% of the global population passing through the channel annually, as well as a range of other species of conservation concern (Coleiro, unpublished data).

Aythya nyroca is classified as globally Near Threatened by BirdLife International, the official authority on birds for the IUCN Red List.
In order to assist the Government in the task of identifying and designating Marine SPAs, one of the primary outputs of the EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project is to produce a report outlining the mechanisms being used to develop Marine SPA programmes across Europe.

The report will also propose a roadmap for the designation of Marine SPA sites in the Maltese Islands, in order to protect these critically important seabird populations.

The following document presents this research.


The scope of the report includes Marine SPAs only and does not address Marine Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).
For both marine and terrestrial IBAs, the function of the Important Bird Areas (IBAs) programme of BirdLife International is ‘to identify and protect a network of sites, at a biogeographic scale, critical for the long-term viability of naturally occurring bird populations, across the range of those bird species for which a sites-based approach is appropriate’.
IBAs are chosen using quantitative, standardised, globally agreed criteria (in the case of Marine IBAs this is still in the process of being agreed – see Annex One for a full description of current criteria).

The selection of IBAs has been a particularly effective way of identifying terrestrial conservation priorities across Europe.

Marine IBAs are intended to extend this protection to the marine environment.
Marine IBAs will do one (or more) of three things: - Hold significant numbers of one or more globally threatened species - Be one of a set of sites that together hold a suite of restricted-range species or biomerestricted species - Have exceptionally large numbers of migratory or congregatory species (Lascelles & Fishpool 2007) Borg John J.
| 10 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Malta already has 11 terrestrial IBAs of European importance (five of which are of international importance, namely Filfla, Ta’Cenc, Rdum tal-Madonna, Buskett and Comino), nine of which are identified for breeding seabirds.
Marine IBAs are the next step and will provide protection for shearwaters, petrels and migratory seabirds in Maltese waters.

4.1.

Marine SPAs SPAs are areas of international importance for the conservation of wild birds, classified under the EU Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the ‘Birds Directive’).

They are usually, but not always, based on IBAs.

To date, only terrestrial SPAs have been designated in Malta.
Marine SPAs will provide protection to marine birds in accordance with the provisions of the Birds Directive2 in the inshore and offshore marine environment.

Once a site is designated as an SPA the legal protective requirements defined in Article 6 (2) (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive apply to it.
Member States must send to the Commission all relevant information so that it may take appropriate initiatives to ensure that the SPA network forms a coherent whole 4.2 Types of Marine IBA / SPA The classification for Marine SPAs by BirdLife International currently focuses on four types of Marine IBAs: - Seaward extensions of breeding colonies - Non-breeding coastal concentrations - Migratory bottlenecks - Areas for pelagic species (BirdLife International 2007c) Annex One presents a full description of the current proposed Marine IBA criteria.
Borg John J.

| 11 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 4.3 Why Marine IBAs/SPAs?

Seabirds are under pressure worldwide from human activity and consequently many species are now threatened with extinction.

They face a multitude of threats both at sea and during their land-based breeding period (BirdLife International 2007a).
As a group, seabirds have deteriorated in IUCN Red List status faster than other group of bird species.

Until recently, seabird protection across Europe, as in Malta, has tended to focus principally on land- based threats such as habitat loss, introduced predators and disturbance, because these threats are easier to identify and address than issues in the wider marine environment.
However, while legal protection has been extended to some breeding seabird colonies on land through the terrestrial SPA network, birds using the marine environment have remained unprotected.

Since most seabirds spend the vast majority of their time away from breeding sites at sea, and with pressures increasing in the marine environment, there is an urgent need to move towards protecting areas of importance for birds at sea (SPEA 2007, Lascelles 2007).
One of the primary threats at sea is by-catch by long-line fisheries.

There is insufficient data on levels of seabird by catch in the Mediterranean, but preliminary results suggest that this could be a serious threat particularly for Scopoli`s Shearwaters (Dimech et al 2008, Cooper et al 2003).

However, this can be addressed relatively easily using existing technology if the political will to do so exists (Ardron & Burfield 2006).
Marine IBAs/SPAs can contribute to solving this problem through the requirement of appropriate fisheries management within SPA boundaries.

Seabirds utilising the marine environment adjacent to colonies face direct threats such as oil pollution and fishing gear entanglement.

There are also indirect threats such as disturbance due to recreational activities (Harding & Riley 2000, Tasker & Leaper 1993, Borg & Cachia-Zammit 1998).
In Malta in particular, hunting at sea is a serious threat (Sultana 1986, Armed Forces of Malta 2008).

Unless action is taken to limit these threats, many seabird populations are likely to continue to seriously decline (Lascelles 2007).

Again, Marine IBAs/SPAs will identify the key areas that require additional protection Borg John J.
| 12 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 and will suggest which areas are inappropriate for heavy recreational use or offshore wind-farms for example.
The identification of Marine IBAs will make a vital contribution to global initiatives to gain greater protection and sustainable management of the oceans, including towards the designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) of which Marine SPAs will form a large part.

The intention is that Marine IBAs will be the precursors for Marine sites of the Natura 2000 network (Lascelles 2007).

There is a clear obligation that EU Member States classify appropriate SPAs in the marine environment (see sections 4 & 5).
In Malta, the identification of Marine SPAs is of particularly pressing importance because the limited land resources and high population density of the Maltese Islands have made the coastal zone and adjacent contiguous marine area a focal point for resource use conflicts (MEPA 2005).

To ensure that these conflicts are resolved in a sustainable way, Marine SPAs and SACs will be an invaluable tool.

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Following years of field work and data compiling, BirdLife Malta in 2012 presented to BirdLife International a report in proposing the highlighted area for the Malta-Gozo Channel Marine Important Bird Area.

Borg John J.
Borg John J.

| 13 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 PRIORITISATION AND ZONATION MODELLING FOR THE THREE PROCELLARIIFORMES (From Metzger et al 2015) Figure 6-8 present the results of the prioritisation modelling of core areas of seabird distribution inside the Maltese EFZ, including the zonation approach with a moderately low 0.01 border length penalty.
Shown are the 10% and 15% core areas within the Maltese EFZ resembling the areas of highest importance for each of the three species.

For the Maltese breeding population of P. yelkouan, three main hotspot areas are identified, one around Gozo, including the Gozo Channel and along the west- and southwest coast of Malta, a second one offshore in the northeast of Malta and a third one offshore in the southwest of Malta (see Fig.

7).
7).

For the Maltese breeding population of C. diomedea, we identified five priority areas in the Maltese EFZ, the first one around and north of Gozo and a second one along the west and southwest coast of Malta.

Additionally to that, three offshore areas are found east, southeast and south of Malta (see Fig.

8).

For H. pelagicus melitensis breeding in the Maltese islands the core area is covering a coastal zone around Malta and a larger area of sea east of the island.
Additionally, a small area is found in the Pantelleria channel northwest of Gozo and several fragmented squares are spread over an area southwest of Malta (see Fig.

9).

Borg John J.

| 14 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig 7.

Priority areas for P. yelkouan within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15%.

Fig 8.
Fig 8.

Priority areas for C. diomedea within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15%.

Borg John J.

| 15 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig 9.

Priority areas for H. pelagicus melitensis within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15%.
5.1 BREEDING SPECIES The Maltese coastal cliffs support four seabird species, namely: Scopoli’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea, Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan, Mediterranean Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis, and the Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis.

The Storm Petrel and the Yellow-legged Gull have not been recorded breeding in the Ghar Lapsi area in the last 50 years but both the Scopoli’s and the Yelkouan shearwaters still breed in the area.
Shearwaters are members of the Order Procellariformes which includes also the albatrosses and petrels.

They are pelagic species with the characteristic tube-noses on the base of the upper mandible.

They visit land during the breeding season and do so under cover of darkness.

A single egg is laid in a deep crevice or burrow or under loose boulders and vegetation.

Sometimes, rabbit burrows are also used as breeding sites.

Borg John J.
Borg John J.

| 16 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 5.1 Scopoli’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea Scopoli’s Shearwater is a breeding visitor to the Maltese islands.

The first birds make landfall in the last ten days of February.

The single egg is laid in a crevice, fissure, or under boulders and vegetation in the latter half of May.
Incubation lasts 52 day (Cachia-Zammit & Borg 1986) and the chicks hatch in mid-July.

By the end of October all the colonies are deserted (Tab 1).

The estimated breeding population of this bird in the Maltese Islands has been estimated at less than 5,000 pairs (Sultana et al.

2011) and the Ghar Lapsi cliffs and boulder scree hold about 51-100 breeding pairs (Borg & Sultana 2002, Raine et al 2009).
Because of increasing human pressure (direct persecution, noise and lights pollution on the cliffs) these birds are being pushed down the more inaccessible cliff sites.

In the last 10 years several “accessible” nest sites located on the top parts of the cliffs have been deserted.

Every evening from March to October, streams of flying birds, coming from their feeding grounds, pass within 1-4km offshore on their way to their breeding colonies.
The distance from land is conditioned by climatic factors mainly the presence or absence of strong winds.

At certain times of the year; especially during the incubation and the fledging period, the two species of shearwaters frequent specific areas for feeding and these areas lie primarily off the south-eastern coast of Malta at distances ranging from 12 to 500km away.

Fig 10 Scopoli`s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea Borg John J.
| 17 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 5.2 Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan The Yelkouan Shearwater is endemic to the central and eastern Mediterranean.

The world population is estimated at 13.000-33,000 breeding pairs with Malta holding an estimated population of 1,500 pairs that is 10% of the global population (Borg et al 2010).
The population at Ghar Lapsi has been estimated at 10 to 50 pairs (Borg & Sultana 2004, Raine et al 2009).

The first birds start to visit the colonies in October and egg laying takes place from the last days of February through the first two weeks of March.

Chicks hatch in mid-May and by the third week of June the chicks start to abandon the nesting sites.

The colonies are deserted by mid-July (Tab.1).


Ringing recoveries and satellite tracking of young birds, have shown that Maltese birds head towards the Aegean and Black Seas in the post breeding period while observations confirmed that an unknown number of adult birds remain around the Maltese Islands to moult their feathers (Borg et al.

2002).

Fig 11.

Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan Borg John J.
| 18 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 5.3 European Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis Filfla island lies just 5km off the Ghar Lapsi shore and holds the largest known breeding population of this tiny seabird in the Mediterranean with an estimated breeding population of 5,000 to 8,000 pairs (Raine et al 2009, Sultana et al 2011).
Birds visit the colonies at night, from February to late October (Tab.1), and like its larger cousins, under the cover of darkness.

On Filfla, egg laying is asynchronous which is quite unusual in the procellariiformes.

On Filfla the Yellow-legged Gull is the main predator of Storm petrels while rats influence the breeding on the main islands (Sultana et al.

2011).

Fig 12.

Mediterranean Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis Borg John J.
| 19 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Arrival at colonies Puffinus yelkouan mid October Egg laying early February Hatching Fledging early May mid June/early July Calonectris diomedea end February end May mid July mid October Hydrobates pelagicus end February April-June May-August August to October Table 1: Synthesis of breeding biology and ecology of P.yelkouan, C.diomedea & H.pelagicus Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Calonectris diomedea Puffinus yelkouan Hydrobates pelagicus Table 2 Presence in Colonies by the three pelagic seabird species 5.2.
Daily movements by Procellariiformes Shearwaters travel vast distances to and from their breeding colonies in search of food.

During the breeding season of P. diomedea, large numbers can be seen flying offshore in an east to west direction.

Distance from land is conditioned by wind direction and strength.

During strong North-westerly winds the shearwaters can be seen flying at a distance of less than 50 metres from the coast.
The same area is also used by Yelkouan Shearwaters, especially birds originating from the Rdum tal- Madonna colony (Borg et al 2002, Borg et al 2010, Raine et al 2010, 2011 and 2012).

Another regular visitor to the study area and immediate whereabouts is the Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis.

This resident breeding is present almost all year round and double figures normally congregate in and around the fish farm off the South-west coast of Comino.
The terminal area is frequented by birds coming from the breeding colonies at Filfla and Dingli Cliffs, heading towards the fish farm and vice-versa.

Borg John J.

| 20 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig 12.

Daily evening movements by the two Procellariids from their feeding grounds to the breeding colonies.

5.3.
5.3.

Rafting Rafting is the convergence of birds on water, normally in the vicinity of their breeding colonies.

During calm afternoons these congregations of birds can reach impressive numbers with several hundreds of birds waiting for darkness.

Birds start assembling about two to three hours before sunset and commence to dissipate around dusk when the whole congregation is within a few hundred metres from the cliffs.

Borg John J.
Borg John J.

| 21 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Fig 13 Rafting C. diomedea Borg John J.
| 22 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 5.4 Fish Pens: Supplementary food source for seabirds Borg (2012) presented some preliminary results on Tuna farms as a supplementary food source for Storm-Petrels.
In July and August of 2006, very small numbers of storm-petrel were reported to the author, while an increase was noted in July 2007, but with fewer numbers in autumn.

In the summer of 2008, again in the months of July and August, single birds where noted almost daily with up to 30 counted on several occasions.

The use of raw, unwashed fish food is fundamental in attracting storm petrels closer to these tuna pens.
The same food supply has attracted a constant presence of small fish around the pens which in-turn attract gulls and terns, especially the Black Tern Chlidonias niger.

Observations have shown that the majority of storm petrels frequenting the area are adult birds undergoing primary wing moult, suggesting breeders, probably not venturing far away from the colonies during the chick rearing period.
The planned use of radio tags on storm petrels from the Filfla colony in summer of 2012 will provide more information on this aspect.

A smaller number of birds seen during the site visits where juvenile birds covered in a fresh coat of dark plumage.

These young birds are present from the latter part of August to early September.

Tuna penning is locally carried out during the summer and autumn months (mid-July to December).
Further investigations will aim to identify if this reliable food source has any effect on the breeding success and fledglings survival in storm petrels.

While adult storm petrels regularly fall prey to yellow- legged gulls on Filfla (Borg et al.

1992-94, Sultana et al 2011) no interactions between gulls and storm petrels were ever noted near the tuna pens.
Further research is required to determine the extent of dependency by storm petrels on this food source, especially if feeding regulations are enforced and the baitfish is washed before fed to the tuna.

Borg John J.

| 23 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 6.

THREATS 6.1 LIGHT POLLUTION The use of light sources from land and at sea is of particular concern.
It is known that light interferes with the behaviour of birds and other animal groups, including bats.

In those areas where electricity has been installed especially close to seabird colonies, birds have completely deserted the site.

Birds and other animals found close to light sources are known to behave in an abnormal way; several species of birds remain active during night time.
Light also disrupts the normal cycle of other vertebrates as well as numerous species of invertebrates making them susceptible to predation.
In some cases, seabird breeding colonies have been abandoned when electricity was introduced in the area, places like Xlendi Bay, Hal-Far, Ghar Lapsi and Wied iz-Zurrieq where colonies of both Scopol’s and Yelkouan Shearwaters have been negatively effected 6.2 SOUND POLLUTION Sound over water travels longer distances than on land; therefore, any noise generated during the operational phase needs to be minimised.

Noise also affects the normal patterns of incoming shearwaters.
When a boat passes close by to a breeding colony, all activity stops until the boat is out of “earshot”.

6.3 POSSIBLE ENTANGLEMENT IN PENS In some cases, as the larger members of the procellariiformes need a long “runway” for takeoff, sometimes they get entangled in the netting surrounding the fish pens, or in some cases, there is not enough space for take-off and so birds remain trapped inside the pens.
This is most likely to occur during the fledging periods but in some cases can also affect adult birds as can be seen in Fig 14.

Borg John J.

| 24 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 FIg 14.

Streaked Shearwaters Calonectris leucomelas inside fish pens in the Sea of Japan.
6.4 MITIGATION MEASURES Avoid the use of artificial lighting units whenever and wherever possible, in this particular case more so as the site is located in front of seabird colonies.

Avoid perimeter nets around the fish pens, thus reducing possible entanglement by the shearwaters.

Borg John J.

| 25 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 7.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Impact type and Source Impact type Specific intervention leading to impact Light Pollution from land and sea Noise pollution from land and sea Un-shaded white shades spilling over and beyond the area of influence Maintain Low noise level Project phase Construction/Installation works Yes Operations Yes Impact Receptor Receptor type Sensitivity and resilience toward impact Effect and Scale of Impact Installation works NA Installation works Direct/Indirect Cumulative Beneficial/Adverse Severity Physical/geographic extent Short/Medium/Long Term Temporary/Permanent if temporary indicate duration Reversible/Irreversible if reversible indicate ease of reversibility Operations Yes Operations Direct by disturbing the avifauna, especially the pelagic seabirds.
Increase predation by Yellow- legged Gulls smaller avian species.

Adverse High Long Term Permanent if not addressed Use of proper directional lamps and/or shading of lamps can significantly reduce impacts.

Borg John J.
| 26 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Probability – Significance – Mitigation – Residual Impacts – Other Requirements Construction/Installation works Operations Probability of impact occurring Inevitable, likely, remote uncertain Significance overall Impact Inevitable Medium to High Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance Residual Impact Monitoring Authorizations Development Permission under the Environment and Development Planning Act (Cap 504) Use of proper directional lamps and/or shading of lamps.
Abandonment of area by some species.

Increase predation by Yellow-legged Gulls on Storm- petrels and other smaller avian species in the area Monitoring program to be formulated, setup and implemented.
Seasonal visits for all three seabird species  Development Permission under the Environment and Development Planning Act (Cap 504)   Operations Permit under the Industrial Emissions (Integrated Pollution and Control) Regulations (SL504.54; LN10/03)   Approval of major accident prevention policy document under the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations (SL424.19; LN37/03)  Borg John J.
| 27 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 7.1 CRITERIA USED TO DESCRIBE IMPACTS Beneficial/Adverse Level High Criteria Moderate Disturbance marine avifauna during operational stages Low Neutral Severity Level High Moderate Low xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Criteria Light spill-off leading to disorientation by seabird fledglings xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Neutral Probability of impact occurring xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Level Criteria High Unless mitigated both light and noise pollution will have a negative impact on the seabird colonies on both sides of the development.
Borg John J.

| 28 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Probability of impact occurring Level Moderate Low Neutral Criteria Light and sound pollution as well as excessive noises over an extended period of time will have a negative effect on the avifauna present in the area and the immediate surroundings.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Significance: Overall Impact Level High Moderate Low Neutral Criteria Light Pollution will affect the seabird colonies on the mainland as well as on St.Paul’s Island and Comino.

Including increased predation by Yellow-legged Gulls on Storm- petrels and other similar sized birds.

Lighting also adds to the disorientation by fledging seabirds.

Mitigation measures addressing this issue can reduce the overall impact on the seabirds.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Borg John J.

| 29 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Significance: Residual Level High Moderate Criteria Same as above.

Shaded and directional lights should reduce the light pollution issue.
Impact type and source Impact receptor Effect and Scale 6 Specific interventio n leading to impact Project phase Recepto r type Sensitivit y and resilienc e toward impact Direct Indirect Cumulativ e Benefici al Adverse Severity Physical geographic extent of impact Short medium long term Temporary Permanent Reversible Irreversible Probabilit y of impact occurring Overall impact significanc e Propose d mitigatio n measure s Residual impact significanc e Other requiremen ts construction operation decommissioni ng if temporar y indicate duration if reversible indicate ease of reversibility Inevitable likely unlikely remote uncertain Monitoring authorisations Disruptio n of normal behaviou r in avifauna Including predatio n by YLG on Storm- petrels and other small avian species.
Disruption of normal behaviour by seabirds.

Disruption of normal behaviour by seabirds.
Light spillage Noise Vibratio ns Throughout all phases High Direct Advers e High Immediat e area as well as along the entire coastline Long term Permane nt Throughout all phases Mediu m Direct impacts on the local fauna Advers e Mediu m Immediat e area Long term Permane nt Construction phase High Direct Advers e High Immediat e area Mediu m term Temporar y but for some species it may be permane nt Reversible if mitigation measures are taken and recommend ed lighting units are installed Reversible only if low noise generators are used.
inevitable Moderate to high Avoid light spillage inevitable Moderate Inevitable High Low noise generators Operations are not prolonged over a long period of time Borg John J.

| 30 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Bibliography: Barbara, N., B. Metzger, J. Sultana & J. J. Borg.

2015.
2015.

The importance of the marine IBAs network and marine protected areas for the conservation of Mediterranean seabird species: 152-155.

Conservation of Marine and Coastal Birds in the Mediterranean.

Proceedings of the unep-rac/spa symposium, Hammamet - TUNISIA - 20 to 22 February 2015 Borg, J.J. 2012.

Tuna Farms – A seasonal supplementary food source for storm-petrels Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis.

Avocetta 36: 91-94.

Borg, J.J. & R. Cachia-Zammit.

1995.


Monitoring Cory's Shearwater Calonectris diomedea colonies in a Hostile Environment - Malta.

in Walmsley, J., V. Goutnier, A. el Hili & J. Sultana (Eds) Seabird Ecology & Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean.

Hammamet, Tunisia.

Borg, J.

& M. Mallia.

1995.

Cory's Shearwater Calonectris diomedea found breeding on the North- Eastern coast of Malta.

il-Merill 28: 23.

Borg, J.J., H., Raine, A.F.

Raine, & N. Barbara, 2010.


Protecting Malta's wind chaser: The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project Report.

Malta: EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project.

30pp.

Borg, J.J. & J.Sultana, 2000.

Aspects on the Breeding Biology of the Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea in the Maltese islands.

Die Vogelwarte 40: 258-264.

Borg.

J.J. & J. Sultana.

2002.

Status and Distribution of the Breeding Procellariiformes in Malta.

il-Merill 30: 10-14.

Borg, J.J. & J. Sultana.

2012.


The Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan at l-Irdum tal-Madonna, Malta.

(Pp 48-53).

In Yésou, P., Baccetti, N. & Sultana, J.

(Eds.

), Ecology and Conservation of Mediterranean Seabirds and other bird species under the Barcelona Convention - Proceedings of the 13th Medmaravis Pan-Mediterranean Symposium.

Alghero (Sardinia) 14-17 Oct. 2011.

Medmaravis, Alghero.

Cachia-Zammit, R. & J. Borg.

1987.


Notes on the Breeding Biology of the Cory's Shearwater in the Maltese Islands.

il-Merill 24: 1-9.

Meirinho, A.

& 06NAT/MT/000097.

Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Lisboa.

I. Ramirez.

2010.

Marine IBAs in Malta.

Preliminary results.

Project LIFE Raine, A.F.

2010.

Proposal for the creation of the Malta-Gozo Channel Marine Important Bird Area.

Unpublished Report.

BirdLife Malta 11pp.

Raine, H. J.J. Borg, & A. Raine.

2008.


Marine Special Protection Areas - A report outlining national mechanisms being used to develop IBA / SPA programmes across Europe with recommendations for Malta.

BirdLife Malta - Heritage Malta.

the Marine Borg John J.

| 31 [SEABIRD REPORT - An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to be prepared for GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta April, 2018 Raine, H., J.J. Borg, A. Raine, S. Bairner, M. Borg-Cardona.
2007.

Light Pollution and its effects on Yelkouan Shearwaters in Malta: causes and effects.

BirdLife Malta Raine, A., J.J. Borg, H. Raine & R.A. Philips.

2012.

Migration Strategies of the Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan.

Journal of Ornithology 154: 411.422.

Raine, A., H. Raine, J.J. Borg & A. Merinho.

2011.

Post-fledging dispersal of Maltese Yelkouan Shearwaters Puffinus yelkouan.

Ringing & Migration Vol.26 (2): 94-100.

Raine, A., H. Raine, A. Meirinho & J.J. Borg.

2010.
2010.

Rafting behaviour of Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan breeding at Rdum tal-Madonna, Malta.

Il-Merill 32: 26-30.

John J. Borg Independent Consultant 18/04/2018 Borg John J.
| 32 GF00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Technical Appendix 6 CULTURAL HERITAGE BASELINE REPORT Prepared by Christian Dalton Supporting Documents for Environmental Impact Assessment Report Cultural Heritage Baseline Study for GF 00250/07 Report on Archaeology and Cultural Heritage for the proposed development of the North Aquaculture Zone off Is-Sikka l-Bajda, San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta.
April 2018 Mr Christian Dalton Signed Declaration in accordance with sub-regulation 17 (3) Attn: Director of Environment and Resources Environment and Resources Authority Malta I, Christian Dalton, who carried out the study (or part thereof) on archaeology and cultural heritage for the EIA for the proposed development of a North Aquaculture Zone off Is-Sikka l-Bajda, San Pawl il-Baħar, Malta, hereby declare that I take responsibility for any statement and conclusion contained therein.
19 April 2018 Date Signature Page | 1 Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………….

Page 3 Terms of Reference ………………………………………………………… Page 3 Area of Study ………………………………………………………………..

Page 3 Legislation and Statutory Protection ……………………………………… Page 3 Aims of Assessment ………………………………………………………..

Page 4 Historical Background and Archaeological Context ……………………..

Page 4 Baseline Survey ……………………………………………………………..

Page 5 Methodology ………………………………………………………………….


Page 5 Cultural Heritage Assets Inventory ………………………………………… Page 5 Environmental Features ……………………………………………………..

Page 6 Sea Uses ……………………………………………………………………… Page 6 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………… Page 6 References …………………………………………………………………….

Page 7 Figures ………………………………………………………………………….


Page 8 Page | 2 Introduction This project is being undertaken by Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment requested by the Environmental and Resources Authority.

The project is proposed by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and aims to establish an Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta to complement the existing Aquaculture Zone already established in the South of the island.
This additional Northern zone will satisfy the Government’s policy for aquaculture development and growth (p. 10, Project Description Statement, 1.16).

The proposed site is located east of Comino and northeast of the Sikka l-Bajda reef.

Terms of Reference The Terms of Reference provided by the ERA for the marine archaeology topic area state that the project will quantify the cultural heritage assets within the area and assess the potential impacts of the proposed development (Sections 2.3 and 3.0).
“The Environmental Impact assessment will: Describe the Cultural Heritage assets within the study area; assess the physical, spatial and visual impacts of the proposed development on the cultural heritage assets; and propose corrective measures for the protection of the cultural resources.” Area of Study The area of study in this proposal is located off the northeast coast of Malta and covers almost 21.5 square kilometres (see Figure 1).
Any areas of archaeological significance in proximity to the study area and relevant to the proposed development will be mentioned.

The study area is located approximately 1km northeast of Sikka l-Bajda reef with the closest landfall at Aħrax Point (4.1 km) and Ras il-Qala, Gozo (4.3 km).

Legislation and Statutory Protection Cultural Heritage in Malta is protected and managed through the Cultural Heritage Act (2002), which covers both underwater and terrestrial sites of archaeological interest.
This Act defines an object as cultural heritage if it is “movable or immovable objects of artistic, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnographic, palaeontological and geological importance and includes information or data relative to cultural heritage pertaining to Malta or to any other country”1 (Part 1.2).

Page | 3 The two main international conventions relevant to this report include: 1.

UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, Paris, 2001.
Arguably one of the most relevant pieces of legislation in underwater archaeology, the convention aims to better protect cultural heritage within a purely underwater context.

Although Malta has not yet ratified the Convention, the management and protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage (UCH) described by the Convention are applicable to submerged sites in Malta.
Some of the main aims of the Convention include the in-situ preservation of UCH as a first option and that “recovered underwater cultural heritage shall be deposited, conserved and managed in a manner that ensures its long-term preservation”2 (Convention Objectives 5 & 6).

2.

European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised), Valletta, 16.I.1992.
One of the major elements of this Convention is designed to “protect the archaeological heritage as a source of the European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientific study”3 (Article 1.1).

Within this framework, archaeological remains underwater are included in the definition of the archaeological heritage (Article 1.3).

Although Malta is yet to become a signatory to the Convention, much of the context is relevant to this study.
Aims of Assessment The aim of this investigation is to examine the possible impacts on potential cultural heritage assets and marine archaeology within the study area.

Additionally, the archaeological importance of targets identified by the remote sensing survey will be considered.

Historical Background and Archaeological Context The desk-based investigation did not discover any prior knowledge of archaeological features or finds present in the study area.
This includes the Cultural Heritage Inventory Management System (CHIMS), the Malta Scheduled Property Register (MSPR) and Museums Annual Reports.

The Malta Maritime Museum was also consulted regarding any previous archaeological finds or known sites of cultural heritage interest within the study area.

Page | 4 Historically, the area provided a good access to several of Malta’s bays and would have served as a useful shipping route.
Indeed, the shipwreck of St Paul is believed by some to be located nearby, with a bay and island being named after the potential shipwreck site.

Although there is disagreement on the location of the shipwreck, it is conceivable that shipwrecks may be present in the area.

Moreover, archaeological evidence has been discovered in the nearby bays4 suggesting previous use of the sea in proximity to the study area.
Ancient anchors have also been found off Qawra, Għallis, St Paul’s Bay and Salina Bay5, yet all located outside of the study area.

With reference to relatively more modern sites of cultural heritage, the WW2 submarine HMS Stubborn lies almost 1.5 km away from the southern-most point of the study area.

As discussed in Gambin and Burgess (2011)6 there appears to be two airplane wrecks located in proximity to the study area, one North and one South.
These are, however, both located outside of the study area.

Baseline Survey Methodology A side scan sonar was employed to survey the seabed in order to investigate the presence of any underwater archaeological features or those of cultural heritage interest.

The data was collected in June 2017.

The side scan frequency was 450kHz with a range of 100m and each tow line spaced 180m from the previous.
Previous seabed investigations in the study area have focussed on surveying of the bathymetry or habitat mapping yet have made no mention of any archaeological finds or those of cultural heritage significance7,8.

Cultural Heritage Assets Inventory The remote sensing survey has identified one target of interest within the study area and another two targets lying immediately next to the site (see Figure 2).
Target 275 at coordinates (36° 2'14.12"N, 14°25'10.86"E) is considered to be a non-dispersed sonar target possibly related to a crashed aircraft site (see Figure 3) and is located towards the northern section of the study area.

Target 277 at coordinates (36° 1'1.47"N, 14°27'34.23"E) is considered to be a large debris field consisting of possibly crashed aircraft remains (see Figure 4) and is located 170 m from the eastern-most point of the study area.
Target 0000 is also outside of the study area at coordinates (36° 0'35.02"N, 14°25'17.35"E) and is considered to be likely of cultural significance (see Figure 5).

No other cultural heritage assets of likely archaeological or cultural heritage significance were identified.

Page | 5 Environmental Features Sea Uses Significantly, the main environmental feature in proximity to the site is the Sikka l-Bajda reef, a marine Natura 2000 site and the largest reef in Malta.
The reef is home to numerous fish species and colonised by seagrass mattes of Posidonia oceanica8.

Both the study area and reef are located within marine protected areas (Special Area of Conservation: Żona fil-Baħar fil-Grigal ta’ Malta, and Specially Protected Area: Il-Baħar ta’ madwar Għawdex).

As outlined in the Project Description Statement (p.40), “the main biotic assemblage type…was a biocoenosis of coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents”.
The biocoenosis is characterised by two main associations namely as association with maerl and the other with rhodoliths.

Human activity is also apparent in proximity to the study area, with the Sikka l-Bajda reef used as the largest bunkering zone in Malta.

Furthermore, the reef is also visited by both divers and fishermen9.

Conclusions The desk-based investigation discovered no knowledge of archaeological features or finds within the study area.
This lack of knowledge was also apparent in the reports, registers and museum collections that were consulted.

The remote sensing investigation discovered one target of potential cultural heritage interest, at 36° 2'14.12"N, 14°25'10.86"E, and is possibly the remains of a crashed aircraft site.
Two other sites of interest are located next to the study area at 36° 1'1.47"N, 14°27'34.23"E and 36° 0'35.02"N, 14°25'17.35"E. These are both considered to be likely of cultural heritage interest and thus should be avoided when placing any moorings.

An avoidance zone of 100 m around the contacts is therefore suggested to be established, with no mooring blocks to be placed within this radius (see Figure 6).

Page | 6 References 1.

Cultural Heritage Act, (2002).


Available at: <https://www.eui.eu/Projects/International ArtHeritageLaw/Documents/NationalLegislation/Malta/chapt445.pdf>, [Date Accessed: 30/04/18].

2.

UNESCO, (2001).

Available at: <http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/ underwater-cultural-heritage/2001-convention/official-text/>, [Date Accessed: 30/04/18].

3.

Council of Europe, (1992).

Available at: <https://rm.coe.int/168007bd25>, [Date Accessed: 01/05/18].

4.

Gambin, T, (2004).


Malta and the Mediterranean Shipping Lanes in the Middle Ages.

Rotte e Porti del Mediterraneo Dopo la Caduta dell'Impero Romano d'Occidente: Continuità e Innovazioni Tecnologiche e Funzionali, Genova.

115-133.

5.

Azzopardi, E, Gambin, T, Zerafa, R, (2009).

Ancient Anchors from Malta and Gozo.

Malta Archaeological Review, Issue 9, pp.

22-31.

6.

Gambin, T, & Burgess, A, (2011).

The underwater aviation heritage of the Second Siege of Malta.
Malta Archaeological Review, Issue 10, pp.

53-60.

7.

Sciberras, M, et al, (2009).

Habitat structure and biological characteristics of a maerl bed off the northeastern coast of the Maltese Islands (central Mediterranean).

Marine Biodiversity, 39:4, pp.

251-64.

8.

Angeletti, L, et al, (2012).

Linking coastal and seafloor morphological features along the eastern side of the Maltese archipelago.
Quarto Simposio Internazionale "Il Monitoraggio Costiero Mediterraneo: Problematiche e Tecniche di Misura", Livorno.

237-246.

9.

Calypso Sub-Aqua Club, (2018).

Sikka l-Bajda.

Available at: <http://www.calypso sac.org/component/spidercatalog/showproduct/0/29/0/Sikka-l-Bajda>, [Date Accessed: 20/04/18].

Page | 7 Figures Figure 1.

Location of the area of study.

Figure 2.

Location of the three targets of interest.

Page | 8 Figure 3.
Page | 8 Figure 3.

Target 275 of a non-dispersed sonar target possibly related to a crashed aircraft site.

Figure 4.

Target 277 of a large debris field possibly related to crashed aircraft remains.

Page | 9 Figure 5.

Side-scan data of target 0000 which is of likely cultural significance.

Figure 6.

Study area with the three targets of likely cultural heritage significance.

100m avoidance zone recommended for each target (red rings).
Page | 10 GF00250/07: PROPOSAL FOR A NEW AQUACULTURE ZONE IN THE NORTH OF MALTA, ZONE OFFSHORE MALTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY Version 1: November 2018 Report Reference: Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2018.

GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta – Non-technical Summary.

San Gwann, November 2018; ii + 20 pp.

THIS IS A DIGITAL COPY OF THE REPORT.
RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT – KEEP IT DIGITAL i Quality Assurance Revision Schedule GF 00250/07 Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Non-Technical Summary to EIA Report Rev Date Details Written by: Checked by: Approved by: 00 Nov 2018 Submission to ERA Adrian Mallia Managing Director Rachel Xuereb Director Rachel Xuereb Director Report for: Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture File ref: G:\_Active Projects\EIA\DFA003 - North Aquaculture Zone\EIA Report\NTS English.docx This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Adi Associates’ appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment.
It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Adi Associates’ client.

Adi Associates accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided.

Except as provided for by legislation, no person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of Adi Associates.
Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole.

The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.

It is pointed out that ISO14001 certification covers the management system only and not the contents of this report.

© Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd 2018 ii Kappara Business Centre 113 Triq Birkirkara San Gwann SGN 4197 MALTA Tel.
/ Fax: 21378172 - 77 Email: info@adi-associates.com Web: www.adi-associates.com 1.

2.

3.

4.

INTRODUCTION This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report was commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture to support the proposal to set up a new aquaculture zone in the north of Malta.

A Project Description Statement (PDS) for the proposed development was submitted to the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) in February 2017.
ERA subsequently determined that the development required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in accordance with Schedule 1, Category I Section 8.2.1.1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017 (S.L.

549.46) as amended.

Hereafter in this EIA Report, the proposed development is referred to as ‘the Scheme’.

A detailed description of the Scheme is provided in Chapter 3 of the EIA Report.

Purpose of the EIA Report The purpose of this EIA Report is to present the findings of the EIA.
EIA is the process of systematically assessing the likely significant environmental impacts of development proposals.

EIA also ensures that the significance of these impacts, and the scope for reducing them, is clearly understood by the public, and by ERA and the Planning Authority (PA) before a decision is made on whether or not the development should be approved.

5.

6.

7.
5.

6.

7.

1 Background to the Scheme The aquaculture industry in Malta saw its beginning in the late 1980s, with the establishment of an aquaculture centre at Fort St Lucian in Marsaxlokk.

The initial trials and experiments with tilapia, followed by the setting up of the P2M fish farm growing sea bream at Mistra Bay were a success, which saw a number of farms setting up in the early 1990s – including at Marsaskala, Marsaxlokk, Mellieha Bay, Salini, and Xemxija.
All these farms were breeding sea bream and were largely successful but things changed in the late 1990s, with two farms closing down.

The late 1990s also saw the advent of tuna penning with two of the remaining fish farms converting most of their production capacity to tuna penning operations (in the process moving the farms further offshore) and a further three farms were set up.

Malta soon became the leader in tuna penning operations in the Mediterranean.
To cater for this demand, the south-east aquaculture zone was set up in 2006 with a capacity of 9,000 tonnes of fish.

The south-east aquaculture zone was established in 2006 and has since accommodated three tuna penning installations, the first started operations in 2006, followed by a second in 2007 and a third installation that set up and operated only in 2008.

Between them, these three farms had a production capacity of 4,500 tonnes, or 50% of the total production capacity of the zone.

8.

9.
8.

9.

Following the success of the south-east aquaculture zone and the persistent complaints from coastal users on the tuna farming operations in St Paul’s Bay, in 2011, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture embarked upon a plan to establish an aquaculture zone in the north, which would allow the relocation of the tuna farms there (i.e.

off St Paul’s Bay and the tuna penning farm formerly located in the South Comino Channel), to a more offshore location.
The proposed north aquaculture zone would have an area (at sea surface) of 3 km x 1.5 km and would be capable to support fish farming units for a total production of some 4,500 – 5,000 tonnes of fish.

To this end, in 2011, the DFA embarked upon a site selection exercise to identify a possible location for the establishment of the NAZ.
The exercise included detailed marine surveys, as well as a sieving exercise to identify suitable locations for the zone based on technical, environmental, and social criteria.

However, following the preparation of the site selection exercise in 2011, the process for establishing the NAZ was stalled and temporarily shelved in view of conflicts with the offshore wind farm being proposed at the time and difficulties in terms of conflicts with other coastal users.

10.
In September 2016, following several reports over the summer months related to pollution from fish slime in most of the eastern seaboard of Malta, led the Planning Authority to revoke all tuna penning permits and to order all tuna farms to relocate further offshore and into existing aquaculture zones by May 2017 in order to mitigate the impacts from the farming operations on the marine environment, including social impacts related to amenity and nuisance from odour and water quality at affected areas of the coast.
The PA’s decision resulted in the relocation of the two southern tuna farms to the south-east aquaculture zone (see above), which led to this zone, which already included another farm, reaching its allocated biomass of 9,000 tonnes.

This meant that the tuna farms located in the north (south Comino Channel and St Paul’s Bay) could not relocate to the SAZ.
In view of this, the tuna operators in the north submitted development permit applications to relocate to a site further offshore to meet the 4.5 – 5 km criterion set by the PA; while the DFA re- activated the process to establish a NAZ.

This EIA Report assesses the proposal to establish a NAZ in the general area north of Is-Sikka l-Bajda.

The EIA considered a wide area of sea, which was identified by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for further studies and marine surveys (see Figure 1).
Terms of Reference The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EIA were prepared by ERA, in consultation with the relevant Government Departments.

The final version of the ToR is available in Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements.

11.

12.

13.

2 Figure 1: Area of Search and final proposed Scheme location 3 14.

The ToR were formulated following a scoping exercise, undertaken by ERA, to identify the issues to be considered in the EIA.
The ToR focused on those impacts ERA considered likely to be significant and, therefore, requiring further assessment.

The ToR also described the various components of the EIA.

Method Statements 15.

Method Statements were prepared to assess the impacts of the Scheme in respect of the topic areas: marine environment (including including bathymetry, sonar and video surveys, and marine ecology), and cultural heritage / marine archaeology 16.

17.
17.

The Method Statements outlined the baseline survey work to be carried out, the methodology to be used to assess the predicted impacts, and the means by which the significance of the impacts would be determined.

The Method Statements are reproduced in Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements.

EIA Approach Baseline surveys were undertaken within the marine area subject of the application.
These included: remote sensing surveys (bathymetry, side scan sonar, benthic video survey), sediment and water quality sampling, benthic diversity and habitats mapping, avifauna, and cultural heritage, having regard to an ‘Area of Influence’ (A of I) 18.

19. for each topic area, agreed in consultation with ERA.
A detailed assessment of the Scheme’s impact on the features present on / within the Scheme site and the A of I was undertaken, and any potential environmental benefits of the Scheme were identified.

Significance of Impacts Assessment of the significance of impacts arising from the Scheme is a key stage in the EIA process.

This judgement is critical in informing the decision-making process.

However, defining significance can be difficult.


In general terms, environmental significance involves assessing the amount of change to the environment perceived to be acceptable to the community (Sippe, 1999).

20.
20.

The following criteria were used in the EIA to assess the significance of an impact:  type of impact (adverse / beneficial);  extent and magnitude of impact;  direct or indirect impact;  duration of impact (short term / long term; permanent / temporary);  comparison with legal requirements, policies and standards;  sensitivity of receptor (residential dwellings, hotel, 4 recreational areas, etc.
);  probability of impact occurring (certain, likely, uncertain, unlikely, remote);  reversibility of impact;  scope for mitigation / enhancement (very good, good, none); and  residual impacts.

21.
21.

Using these criteria, the significance of the negative impacts arising from the Scheme was categorised, as follows:  not significant, where the impact is environmentally acceptable;  minor significance, where the impact is manageable; and  major significance, where the impact is environmentally damaging and requires redesign or mitigation measures to minimise it.

22.
22.

The EIA Report includes an assessment of the significance of predicted impacts and, following the implementation of any proposed mitigation measures, the significance of any residual impacts.

A summary of the identified significant impacts is included in Chapter 9 of the EIA Report.

The recommended mitigation measures, and residual impacts, are described in respect of each topic area, at the end of the relevant chapter (see Chapters 5 to 8 of the EIA Report) as well as in Chapter 9.

23.
23.

An Environmental Risk Assessment was also conducted, and is presented as Volume 2 of the EIA Report.

Uncertainty 24.

The EIA process is designed to enable good decision- making based on the best possible information about the environmental implications of a proposed development.

However, there will always be some uncertainty as to the exact scale and nature of the environmental impacts.
This arises through shortcomings in information, doubts, or lack of certainty on the likelihood that an incidence will occur, and/or due to the limitations of the prediction process itself.

Where uncertainties have arisen, and where they remain, this is clearly stated in the EIA Report.

Consultation 25.

During the process of the EIA, consultation meetings were organised with several stakeholders.
These included: Transport Malta, Environmental Health Directorate, Malta Tourism Authority, the Armed Forces of Malta, Mellieha Local Council, St Paul’s Bay Local Council, Nature Trust – FEE Malta, Birdlife (Malta), the Amateur Fishermen Association, the Professional Diving Schools Association, and the environmental group ‘Stop the Slime’.

Notes from these meetings are reproduced in Appendix 1 to 5 28.
Following identification of the search area, the following studies were carried out under licence from the Continental Shelf Department of the Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure:  Multibeam echo sounder and back scatter survey within the search area; and  Initial video surveys of the benthic environment to identify benthic habitats in the area.

29.
29.

The benthic habitat survey revealed that the southern part of the search area included maerl/rhodolith beds and coarse sand with rhodoliths, whereas the area further north and characterised by deeper water, consisted of a muddy detritic seabed.

The proposed site was therefore located over the muddy detritic habitat to minimise environmental impacts on the more sensitive rhodolith beds, as shown in Figure 2.

26.

27. the EIA Report; the issues raised are also discussed in Chapter 8.
Assessment of Alternatives Alternative Sites The current operational site at sea was identified following a selection exercise, as described hereunder.

To begin with, the site previously identified for the north aquaculture zone (for which planning approval had not been concluded) was reviewed.

This site was, however, no longer considered to be suitable for consideration as a search area for the fish farm.
This was mainly due to the fact that the proposed site also lies relatively close to the coast thereby potentially not fulfilling the spirit of the permit revocation and the PA conditions.

Discussions with the ERA and the Planning Authority indicated that a minimum distance of 4.5 – 5 km from the shore was expected for all relocated farms.
To this end, it was considered that an appropriate approach would be to identify a suitable search area within which to study parameters in order to identify a final relocation site for the cages.

Figure 1 identifies the search area that was studied.

This is located north of Is- Sikka l-Bajda.


This search area was chosen based on (i) a desk-top analysis using GIS overlays to identify the various marine uses off the north and east coast of the islands; and (ii) any constraints associated with the relocation as specifically directed by relevant Authorities or entities.

6 Figure 2: Site identified for the establishment of the aquaculture zone 7 Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which will remain the owner and manager of the NAZ.
Each farm will operate a number of vessels, which will provide all the services required on the farm, and will include:  Feeding vessels used to transport the feed to the cages;  Service boats for the transportation of staff, materials, and wastes;  Cleaning vessels (often third party operated) deployed to collect fish oils and slime during the feeding season; and  Vessels for transportation of offal waste offshore (see below).

33.
33.

In addition to the vessels owned and operated or contracted by the tuna farm, the farmers’ main clients also send over their own processing ships where the harvested fish are transferred and processed.

These large processing vessels are typically present for a period of two – three months and would anchor seaward of the NAZ in deeper waters further from the shore.

30.

31.
30.

31.

DESCRIPTION OF SCHEME As explained, the Scheme aims to establish a permanent aquaculture zone in the north of Malta that would substitute the temporary farming areas established in 2017.

Figure 3 illustrates the location of the temporary farms, which are located approximately 5 km offshore from Malta’s northwest coast.

The location identified for the Scheme, following the findings of this EIA and discussion with stakeholders, is that shown in Figure 4.
This location respects the main criteria set out and most importantly the minimum distance for shore as established by the authorities, while respecting most of the environmental and social criteria or minimising the effects on others.

.

The Scheme will occupy an area of approximately 4.5 km2 for a biomass of approximately 4,500-5,000 tonnes.

The number of cages that would be deployed may vary in view of ICCAT caging requirements.
The layout of the cages is therefore also not set and could change from year to year, although the overall area occupied by the NAZ will not change.

Each cage is a circular area with a diameter of 50 metres.

The distance between the sides of the nets from the cages is 30 metres.

The mesh size of the net is 70 x 70 mm and the twine diameter is 5 mm.

32.

The operators within the Scheme will operate in the same way as the current operators of tuna farms on Maltese waters.
Each outfit will operate under license from the 8 Figure 3: Location of temporary tuna farms off Mellieha and St Paul’s Bay 9 Figure 4: Proposed Scheme location in relation to the AFM firing arc and the bunkering zone 10 SCHEME OPERATION – THE TUNA PENNING PROCESS Tuna capture and transfer to farm 34.

Tuna are caught by purse seining on the high seas.

This activity is allowed under ICCAT rules for a restricted time during the year as the fish are migrating through the Mediterranean Sea.
There are no Maltese purse seiners and therefore the fish are caught by foreign vessels from whom the Applicant purchases stock.

35.

The tuna caught in the purse seines normally range in size from 50 to 300 kg, with the vast majority of the fish being between 100 and 200 kg.

36.

Once the tuna are caught in the purse seines and the required amounts are purchased, they are led through openings in the purse seine into the farm’s towing cages.
Once the cages are filled with the required stock, they are slowly towed to the on-growing site1 where they are anchored in position to the mooring system that would have already been deployed at the site.

37.

The entire operation is overseen by ICCAT international observers.

1 Towing speeds rarely exceed 1 knot, with the transfer taking a number of weeks (depending on the distance between the catch area and the farm).

11 Penning 38.
11 Penning 38.

Once on the farm, the tuna are fed and fattened, largely a process of conditioning, through which the fat-to-protein ratio is adjusted through a high fat diet.

The tuna are kept in the pens for between 3 and 7 months, after which they are harvested and sold to the Japanese market.

39.

40.

Feeding and feed management techniques The tuna are fed small pelagic fish, usually, herring, mackerel, anchovy, sardines, etc.
It is estimated that it takes 10-25 kg of baitfish to produce 1 kg of tuna.

Approximately 5,500 kg of baitfish per day are provided to each cage to feed the farmed tuna.

Each farm typically orders the feed from a number of international suppliers and reefer containers with feed arrive in Malta on a daily basis; these are stored at the Freeport or at land bases.

At the land bases, the feed fish are transferred to jumbo bags and allowed to partially thaw in preparation for feeding the tuna.
The process of feed fish thawing needs very careful management and containment of thaw water by the individual operators so as to minimise the loss of thaw water to the environment, whether on land, during the loading process, or at sea 41.

During the penning season, feed fish are loaded onto service boats early in the morning for ferrying to the farm.

The tuna are fed once a day, at dawn.


Semi-frozen baitfish are normally placed in small feeding cages floated at the 42. centre of the pen, and once they have been thawed enough, the central cage is opened by divers and the fish dispensed into the pen.

The divers monitor the tuna and control the amount of feed released into the pen to minimise wastage.

Once the tuna are satiated, the diver stops feeding.
The process may be repeated two hours later; however, if the tuna are satiated, any remaining fish can be lifted from the pen and transferred to other cages.

An alternative method of feeding the tuna involves the near complete thawing of the baitfish and their placement in the cages by the spadeful through the use of a feeding tube.
In order to optimise feeding efficiency it is necessary to ensure that when fed to the tuna the baitfish are not completely defrosted so that the high calorific oils are ingested too and not lost from the feed.

Nonetheless, the process does involve the development of an oily slick originating from the semi-frozen feed.
In order to address this issue, a number of measures have been taken throughout the past season by the various farms and the ones proven to be successful should be enforced on all operators.
These include:  Use of impermeable jumbo bags for the transport of baitfish from the land bases to the farm in order to contain the thaw water;  The permanent deployment of oil booms inside each cage to contain any fish oils that may be released from the feed;  The use of proprietary oil skimmers to collect release fish oil when still inside the cage.

Use of the skimmers to start as soon as the baitfish are placed in the pen;  Collection of fish oil in IBCs placed on deck.
Oil- water suspension allowed to separate out and the water decanted.

Decanted water to be monitored to ensure that no oil is released.

 Collected oil transferred to land for onward transmission to a waste oil recycling company;  Feeding to be monitored by divers and stopped before the tuna are satiated to minimise loss of baitfish; and  Monitoring of seabed to collect uneaten feed settling on the bottom.

43.
43.

The efficiency of the above measures is currently being assessed by the Environment & Resources Authority through the monitoring undertaken at the various tuna farms; improvements may need to be proposed to address lacunae in the process.
These measures may include deploying additional skimmers (setting a minimum number of skimmers per farm); complete thawing of the baitfish and containing the thaw water prior to feeding the tuna, and deploying further oil slick collection measures outside 12 the farm (e.g.

a cleaning vessel), for any oil that escapes from the farm area.

Harvesting and processing 44.

Harvesting of fresh tuna is largely on demand, although the vast proportion of the tuna is today being harvested for the frozen fish market.
45.

When harvesting occurs, the bottom of the net is raised to a degree, forcing the fish closer to the surface.

Slaughtering is particularly delicate since the amount of stress the fish are subjected to must be kept low because if the fish are stressed their body temperature rises sharply, which would compromise the quality of the meat.

Slaughtering is carried out by divers who enter the cage and harvest the tuna one by one by shooting them in the head.

46.
46.

The tuna are transferred to a service vessel by crane from where they are then quickly transported by service boats to a waiting processing vessel anchored further out at sea.

Onboard the ship, the tuna are weighed, heads and tails are cut off and the guts removed.

Currently, the head, tails and guts are a waste by-product.

These are currently being disposed of at sea beyond the 12 nautical mile limit as directed by the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Regulation Department.
The option of incinerating the material was discounted as the abattoir incinerator is too small to handle the volume of waste generated by the tuna farms; the incinerator operator has rejected this possible waste stream.
Other options are being discussed by the newly set up Federation of Aquaculture Producers with a view to identify alternative options for the re-use rather than the disposal of this material, also as part of the conditions in the environment permits of the individual tuna farms.. Post-harvest 47.

Following harvesting, between November and May, individual tuna farmers are allowed to keep up to 15% of the stock in the cages for research purposes.
The fish so retained are fed between two and three times a week during this period.

This carry-over must be properly supervised to ensure that the farms are truly undertaking research and not simply keeping small sized fish over winter to fatten them and fetch a better price the following year.

Waste Management 48.


Wastes generated by the Scheme are likely to include:  Packaging waste from importation of baitfish;  Thaw water from baitfish preparation;  Oily slick (from baitfish);  Uneaten feed;  Fish excreta; 13  Dead tuna;  Blood (during slaughtering);  Wastewater from onboard processing of fish (mixture of blood, water, and offal);  Offal (gutted heads, tails, and internal organs);  Algal and other net fouling marine growth; and  Marine litter.

49.
49.

Details on each waste stream and measures employed for its management are provided in the EIA Report.

Environmental Management Programme (EMP) to achieve them;  Defined roles and responsibilities for all employees;  A training and awareness programme;  Procedures to control activities with a significant environmental impact (also in relation to the EMP);  A controlled system of records;  Periodic auditing to ensure effective operation; and  A formal review by senior management.
Environmental Management System Employment 50.

In order to fulfil the environmental permit conditions, the individual operators will need to devise an Environmental Management System (EMS) that will be integrated with the current operational system.

The EMS will include: 51.


 An assessment of how the operational processes might affect the environment including (i) the evaluation of significant environmental aspects; (ii) development of a register of environmental aspects; and (iii) development of a register of legislation;  The development of an environmental policy;  Developing objectives and targets and setting up an The level of employment at the North Aquaculture Zone will depend on the number of operators it would accommodate.
The northern farms, which would be relocated to the NAZ, currently employ 55 full-timers and 40 part-timers.

Employees include divers, boatmen, handymen, and drivers.

If the NAZ is fully occupied, the employment complement is expected to increase to 75 – 80 full-time employees and 60 - 75 part-timers.

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 52.

The predicted impacts of the Scheme were assessed on a topic area basis, in accordance with the ToR.
Particular 14 attention was given to the predicted principal impacts and how these could be mitigated.

53.

The potential, unmitigated major impacts identified during the assessment related solely to benthic ecology, arising from the placing of mooring blocks on the seabed.

Other impacts may be of major significance under certain circumstances, but a degree of uncertainty or a range of possible conditions do not allow the impact to be conclusively defined.
These include:  Water Quality impacts: o Deterioration in water quality from increased nutrient loads from uneaten feed and tuna carcasses in the case of unmitigated mortalities; o Operational discharges of oil and bilge waters from maritime traffic associated with the Scheme; o Discharge of sewage from processing vessels; o Marine pollution from ship litter;  Impacts on Marine Ecology:  Impacts on avifauna: o Disturbance to avifauna for light pollution; o Impacts from changes in prey abundance on the population of H. pelagicus; o Predation impacts on seabirds from increased gull population; o Impacts on birds from ingestion of marine debris;  Archaeology impacts: o Potential damage or disturbance to unknown buried artefacts from moorings;  Effects on humans and their activities: o Deterioration of inshore waters and impact on local recreation, including diving, from discharge of fish oils and slime; o Impacts on tourism and tourism activities from fish oil and slime in coastal areas.
o Loss of habitats through settlement of uneaten feed; o Impacts from littering of the seabed from items lost overboard; Benthic Ecology 54.

The impact on benthic habitats from the placement of moorings is considered to be of major negative significance for those sessile fauna and flora located beneath the mooring blocks.

15 55.

Benthic habitats are also affected by the uneaten feed settling on the seabed.
This impact could be major for the area of seabed directly beneath the cages but reduces to not significant with distance from the cages.

The extent of this impact depends on the effectiveness of feed management and the amount of feed actually lost / uneaten.

Good feed management can significantly reduce this effect.
Likewise, impact from littering as a result of items lost overboard could be minor or major depending on the effectiveness of the housekeeping measures on board the vessels and the promptness in collecting any items lost overboard.

Water Quality 58.

56.


It is considered that the Scheme may have a major negative impact on marine water quality from increased nutrient loading resulting from uneaten feed settling on the seabed (or, in the case of mortalities, loss of tuna carcasses), operational discharges of oil and bilge waters, discharge of sewage from marine vessels, and discharge of marine litter or loss of anthropogenic items overboard.

57.

Most of these impacts are either uncertain or can vary depending on a number of factors.
Impacts from uneaten feed will depend on the amount of such material settling on the seabed, with the impact likely to be higher directly under the cages and reducing in extent with distance from the cages.

Impacts from the loss of tuna carcasses will depend on the promptness of mitigatory action to minimise mortalities.
Impacts from oil or bilge losses 16 depend on the amount of pollutant lost; likewise the impacts from sewage, which will also depend on the maintenance of available containment or treatment measures on board (e.g.

holding tanks or sewage treatment plant).

The impact from marine litter can be severe, both on avifauna and on benthic species.

Evidence of considerable amount of anthropogenic material at and near tuna farms has been recorded in past monitoring reports.
Effective action to minimise such accidental losses or deliberate discharges are required to mitigate this impact.

Avifauna The Scheme has the potential to create impacts of major significance on the breeding seabird populations.

Impacts can result from increased light pollution, a change in prey abundance, predation effects from gulls attracted to the farm, and ingestion of marine debris.

All these impacts depend on the extent of intervention, e.g.
amount of lights and intensity thereof applied to cages, or amount of marine litter lost; the impact from gull predation depends on whether the gull population does increase as a result of the Scheme, and whether the gulls actually do attack the other seabirds or compete with them for food and nesting sites.

The effect on the seabird populations, especially the smaller population of Hydrobates pelagicus from the presence of increased prey opportunities is not known but can be major.

59.

60.

61.
59.

60.

61.

Archaeology The Scheme could impact archaeology either through direct impact of the identified target or through exposure of as yet unknown buried artefacts.

The impact is unlikely for the former since no targets were identified within the Scheme site, and uncertain for the latter since it depends on the presence or otherwise of such artefacts.

Effects on Human Populations The effects on humans and their activities are largely from the discharge of fish oils and slime.
The unmitigated discharge of fish oils and slime can affect inshore waters, as has been registered in recent years.

This would impact bathing, yachting, diving, and related recreation, tourism, and the general quality of life of coastal residents and visitors.

The significance of the impact will depend on the amount of fish oil released into the marine environment during feeding and the amount of oils that escape the farm and the collection systems deployed to counteract this issue.

Mitigation 62.
Mitigation 62.

Where appropriate, mitigation measures have been identified and agreed to by the Applicant.

These mitigation measures are described at the end of each topic area chapter, and are listed in Chapter 9 of the EIA Report.

The following is the list of recommended mitigation measures.

It would be appropriate for, and it is 17 recommended that, these mitigation measures be taken account of in the conditions of any eventual development permit.
 Mooring design to be optimised to the site conditions to ensure against drifting during storms;  Tuna feeding to be supervised by divers to avoid overfeeding and loss of feed;  Deployment of permanent oil booms inside each cage and use of oil skimmers to collect oil released in each cage;  Use of flat-form cartons as packaging material;  Control of marine discharges from processing vessels in line with MARPOL Regulations.
 Good practice during moorings deployment to ensure against dragging of blocks on the seabed;  Good project management to minimise operational losses of oils and fuels from maritime vessels and their consequent water quality effects;  Good project management and use of proper mooring technology to minimise sediment re- suspension;  Good feed management to minimise carbon loading in sediments from uneaten feed and nutrient loadings in the water column, namely: o Careful monitoring of tuna feeding to avoid overfeeding; experiment with stopping feeding before satiation to minimise food loss; o o Implementing a procedure to ensure proper feed management by having random checks of the seabed below the tuna pens made by an independent environmental monitor; In the case of accident, should an inordinate amount of dead uneaten feed-fish end up on the bottom, every attempt should be made to recover as much of the material as possible and as quickly as possible after the event in order to minimise the adverse effects on the seabed habitat;  Avoidance of large stocking densities;  Consider the possibility of thawing and washing of baitfish on shore prior to placement in the impermeable jumbo bags and transfer to the farm to reduce the amount of fish oils and mucus released into the marine environment;  Use skimmers with improved efficiency to those deployed until now; 18  Availability of additional oil collection services outside the farm to ensure immediate collection of any slick escapes from the farm to avoid wide dispersal of same;  Consider the deployment of additional oil booms on the farm perimeter if acceptable from a navigational safety point of view (partial deployment in the direction of the prevailing currents could also be considered);  Appropriate contingency planning including ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of their responsibilities in the event of an accident;  Ensuring that offal and dead tuna remains are managed in line with EC Regulation 1069 of 2009;  Macerate offal prior to disposal at sea;  Deployment of nets on cage collars to be done as late as possible just before the arrival of the towing cages and once the tuna from a cage is harvested, the net should be removed immediately in order to minimise the length of time with net shading effects on the seabed;  Good practices aboard ships to minimise discharges, noise, light, and littering;  Preparation and enforcement of waste management plan to ensure proper disposal of wastes onshore.
Staff to be trained on the need of eliminating marine litter from the Scheme operations; digital camera monitoring to monitor which bird species are visiting the cages and their behaviour at the farm;  Screen vessel scuppers to prevent loss of material  Use visual bird deterrents; overboard;  Immediate recovery of any items that may accidentally end up in the sea (whether floating or deposited on the seabed) and collection of any third party marine litter that may float towards the farm;  Prohibition / strict control of fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farms.
 Minimise use of lights to the minimum required for navigational safety purposes and on vessels use only downward-facing shaded light sources;  Adopt seasonal lighting plan, with all internal cage lights (i.e.
not the external navigational lights) to be switched off after the harvesting period when the nets are empty or only cage collars are present on site;  Minimise requirements to operate at night and remove the need for vessels to be in the area at night;  Set up a seabird monitoring programme, including  Remove dead fish from cages immediately;  Monitoring of gull colonies annually if observed feeding at the farm;  To reduce risk of entanglement, nets should be kept taut, mesh size should be within the 6-7 cm range and nets should be well-maintained (any holes should be repaired);  Reduce lines and riggings on vessels;  Train staff in appropriate bird handling and reporting; and  Ensure regular maintenance of farm infrastructure.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT 63.

An environmental risk assessment was carried out for the Scheme operation (Volume 2 of the EIA Report).

The risk assessment:  Describes and evaluates the risks to the environment associated with the Scheme, mainly the risks arising from the operations at the farm; and 19 64.

 Describes the measures which will be undertaken to mitigate such risks, and evaluates the residual risk levels.
The Scheme includes measures to minimise the likelihood and consequences of an accident, such as proper navigational marking and optimising of mooring arrangements to withstand storms.

As a result, environmental risks will be reduced from high and extreme to low and very low with some moderate risk related to operational discharges from vessels, “external” impacts from oil spills generated outside the Scheme, and impacts from uneaten feed settling on the seabed.
20 GF00250/07: PROPOSTA GĦAL ŻONA TA' AKKWAKULTURA ĠDIDA FIT-TRAMUNTANA TA' MALTA, ŻONA OFFSHORE MALTA RAPPORT DWAR L-ISTUDJU TAL-IMPATT AMBJENTALI SUNT MHUX TEKNIKU Verżjoni 1: Novembru 2018 Referenza tar-Rapport: Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2018.

GF00250/07: Proposta għal żona ta' akkwakultura ġdida fit-Tramuntana ta' Malta, Żona offshore Malta – Sunt Mhux Tekniku.

San Ġwann, Novembru 2018; ii + 22 pp.

DIN HIJA KOPJA DIĠITALI TAR-RAPPORT.
IRRISPETTA L-AMBJENT – ŻOMMHA DIĠITALI i Assigurazzjoni tal-Kwalità Skeda tar-Reviżjoni GF 00250/07 Proposta għal żona ta' akkwakultura ġdida fit-Tramuntana ta' Malta, Żona offshore Malta Sunt Mhux Tekniku tar-Rapport dwar l-iSIA Rev Data Dettalji Miktub minn: Iċċekkjat minn: 00 Lulju 2018 Sottomess lill- ERA Adrian Mallia Direttur Maniġerjali Rachel Xuereb Direttur Approvat minn: Rachel Xuereb Direttur Rapport għal: Dipartiment tas-Sajd u Akkwakultura File ref: G:\_Active Projects\EIA\DFA003 - North Aquaculture Zone\EIA Report\NAZ_NTS_Malti.docx This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Adi Associates’ appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment.
It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Adi Associates’ client.

Adi Associates accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided.

Except as provided for by legislation, no person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of Adi Associates.
Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole.

The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.

It is pointed out that ISO14001 certification covers the management system only and not the contents of this report.

© Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd 2018 ii Kappara Business Centre 113 Triq Birkirkara San Gwann SGN 4197 MALTA Tel.
/ Fax: 21378172 - 77 Email: info@adi-associates.com Web: www.adi-associates.com 1 2 3 4 INTRODUZZJONI Dan ir-Rapport dwar l-iStudju fuq l-Impatt Ambjentali (SIA) tqabbadna nagħmluh mid-Dipartiment tas-Sajd u Akkwakultura b'appoġġ għall-proposta li ssir żona ġdida ta' akkwakultura fit-Tramuntana ta' Malta.

Dikjarazzjoni Deskrittiva tal-Proġett (DDP) għall- iżvilupp propost kienet sottomessa lill-Awtorità tal- Ambjent u r-Riżorsi (ERA) fi Frar 2017.
L-ERA, imbagħad, iddeċidiet li l-iżvilupp kien jeħtieġ Studju dwar l-Impatt Ambjentali (SIA) skont l-Iskeda 1, Kategorija I, Taqsima 8.2.1.1 tar-Regolamenti dwar l- Istudju dwar l-Impatt Ambjentali, 2017 (S.L.549.46), kif emendat.

Minn hawn 'il quddiem f'dan ir-Rapport dwar l-iSIA, l- iżvilupp propost qed jissejjaħ 'l-iSkema'.

Deskrizzjoni ddettaljata tal-iSkema qed tingħata f'Kapitlu 3 tar- Rapport dwar l-iSIA.
Skop tar-Rapport dwar l-iSIA L-iskop ta' dan ir-Rapport dwar l-iSIA huwa li jiġu ppreżentati r-riżultati tal-iSIA.

L-iSIA huwa l-proċess li bih l-impatti ambjentali importanti li probabbli joħorġu mill-proposti ta’ żvilupp ikunu studjati b’mod sistematiku.
SIA jiżgura wkoll li s-sinjifikat ta’ dawn l-impatti, u x’possibbiltà hemm li jitnaqqsu, jinftehmu b’mod ċar kemm mill-pubbliku u kemm mill-ERA u l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar (PA) qabel ma tittieħed deċiżjoni dwar jekk l-iżvilupp għandux jiġi approvat 5 6 7 1 jew le.

Sfond tal-iSkema L-industrija tal-akkwakultura f'Malta rat il-bidu tagħha lejn l-aħħar tas-snin 1980, meta twaqqaf ċentru ta' akkwakultura fil-Forti San Luċjan f'Marsaxlokk.
Il- provi u esperimenti inizjali bit-tilapia, segwiti mit- twaqqif tal-P2M fish farm li kien ikabbar l-awrat fil- Bajja tal-Mistra kienu suċċess, u kmieni fis-snin 1990 rajna jitwaqqfu għadd ta' farms – inkluż f'Marsaskala, Marsaxlokk, il-Bajja tal-Mellieha, is-Salini, u x- Xemxija.

Dawn il-farms kolha kienu qegħdin ikabbru l-awrat u fil-biċċa l-kbira għamlu suċċess, iżda lejn l-aħħar tas- snin 1990 l-affarijiet inbidlu, u żewġ farms għalqu.
L- aħħar tas-snin 1990 raw ukoll il-wasla tat-trobbija tat- tonn fil-gaġeġ bi tnejn mill-farms li kien fadal jaqilbu l- biċċa l-kbira tal-produzzjoni tagħhom għat-trobbija tat-tonn fil-gaġeġ (u fil-proċess ċaqalqu l-farms iżjed 'il barra mill-kosta) u twaqqfu tliet farms oħra.

Malta malajr telgħet quddiem nett fejn jidħlu operazzjonijiet ta' tkabbir tat-tonn fil-gaġeġ fil-Mediterran.

Biex taqdi din id-domanda, twaqqfet iż-żona tal-akkwakultura tax-xlokk fl-2006 b'kapaċità ta' 9,000 tunnellata ta' ħut.
Iż-żona tal-akkwakultura tax-xlokk twaqqfet fl-2006 u sa issa takkomoda tliet installazzjonijiet għat-tkabbir tat-tonn fil-gaġeġ, l-ewwel waħda bdiet topera fl-2006, segwita mit-tieni waħda fl-2007 u mit-tielet 8 9 installazzjoni li twaqqfet u bdiet topera fl-2008.

Bejniethom, dawn it-tliet farms kellhom kapaċità ta' produzzjoni ta' 4,500 tunnellata, jew 50% tat-total ta' kapaċità ta' produzzjoni taż-żona.
Wara s-suċċess taż-żona tal-akkwakultura tax-xlokk u t-tgergir kontinwu minn dawk li jużaw il-kosta dwar l-operazzjonijiet tat-tkabbir tat-tonn f'San Pawl il- Baħar, fl-2011, id-Dipartiment tas-Sajd u Akkwa- kultura vara pjan biex tkun stabbilita żona tal- akkwakultura fit-tramuntana (ŻAT), li tkun tippermetti ċ-ċaqliq tal-gaġeġ tat-tonn minn hemm (i.e.

'il barra minn San Pawl il-Baħar u mill-gaġeg li qabel kien hemm fil-Fliegu tan-Nofsinhar ta' Kemmuna), lejn post iżjed 'il barra mill-kosta.
Iż-żona proposta tal- akkwakultura tat-tramuntana jkollha medda (f'wiċċ il- baħar) ta' 3 km x 1.5 km u tkun tista' tilqa' fiha unitajiet ta' farms għat-tkabbir tal-ħut għal produzzjoni totali ta' xi 4,500 – 5,000 tunnellata ħut.

Għal dan il-għan, fl-2011, id-DSA beda eżerċizzju ta' għażla ta' sit biex jidentifika post fejn ikun possibbli li titwaqqaf iż-ŻAT.
Fl-eżerċizzju sar stħarriġ iddettaljat tal-baħar, kif ukoll eżerċizzju ta' tgħarbil biex ikunu identifikati postijiet addattati għaż-żona ibbażati fuq kriterji tekniċi, ambjentali u soċjali.

Iżda, wara t- tħejjija tal-eżerċizzju għall-għażla tas-sit fl-2011, il- proċess biex tkun stabbilita ż-ŻAT waqaf u kien twarrab temporanjament minħabba konflitti mal- offshore wind farm li kien qed jiġi propost dak iż- żmien u diffikultajiet fis-sens ta' konflitti ma' nies 10 11 oħrajn li kienu jużaw il-kosta.
Il-bosta rapporti matul ix-xhur tas-sajf b'rabta mat- tniġġis mill-ħmieġ tal-ħut fil-biċċa l-kbira tal-baħar mal-kosta tal-lvant ta' Malta, wasslu biex f'Settembru 2016 l-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar tirrevoka l-permessi kollha għat-tkabbir tat-tonn fil-gaġeġ u tordna li l-farms kollha tat-tonn jiċċaqalqu iżjed 'il barra mill-kosta u f'żoni ta' akkwakultura eżistenti sa Mejju 2017 biex jitnaqqsu l-impatti mill-operazzjonijiet tat-tkabbir tal- ħut fuq l-ambjent tal-baħar, inklużi impatti soċjali marbutin mas-sbuħija tad-dehra u d-dwejjaq mill- irwejjaħ u l-kwalità tal-ilma f'meded tal-kosta milquta.
Id-deċiżjoni tal-Awtorità tal-Ippjanar irriżultat fiċ-ċaqliq taż-żewġ farms tat-tonn tan-Nofsinhar lejn iż-żona tal- akkwakultura tax-xlokk (ara fuq), li fisser li din iż- żona, fejn kiem hemm diġà farm ieħor, laħqet il- bijomassa allokata lilha ta' 9,000 tunnellata.

Dan kien ifisser li l-farms tat-tonn li kien hemm fit-Tramuntana (il-Fliegu tan-Nofsinhar a' Kemmuna u San Pawl il- Baħar) ma setgħutx jiċċaqalqu lejn iż-ŻAX.
Minħabba f'hekk, l-operaturi tat-tonn fit-Tramuntana issottomettew applikazzjonijiet għal-permessi ta' żvilupp biex imorru f'sit iżjed 'il barra mill-kosta biex jobdu l-kriterju ta' 4.5 – 5 km stabbilit mill-Awtorità tal- Ippjanar; waqt li d-DSA irriattiva l-proċess biex tkun stabbilita ŻAT.

12 Dan ir-Rapport dwar l-iSIA jiżen il-proposta li tkun stabbilita ŻAT fl-inħawi ġenerali fit-Tramuntana tas- Sikka l-Bajda.
L-iSIA kkonsidra medda wiesgħa ta' 2 baħar, li kienet identifikata mid-Dipartiment tas-Sajd u Akkwakultura għal iżjed studju u stħarriġ tal-baħar (ara Fig.

1).

3 Fig.

1: Medda tat-Tiftix u pożizzjoni finali proposta għall-iSkema 4 Termini ta' Referenza Kif sar l-iSIA It-Termini ta’ Referenza (TtR) għall-iSIA tħejjew mill- ERA, b’konsultazzjoni mad-Dipartimenti tal-Gvern li għandhom x’jaqsmu.

Il-verżjoni finali tat-TtR tinsab f’Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements.

17 13.
17 13.

14 15 16 It-TtR ġew ifformulati wara li l-ERA għamlet eżerċizzju dwar l-ambitu biex ikunu identifikati s-suġġetti li għandhom jiġu eżaminati fl-iSIA.

It-TtR ffokaw fuq dawk l-impatti li l-ERA kkunsidrat li aktarx ikunu importanti u, għalhekk, jeħtieġu iżjed studju.

It-TtR ddeskrivew ukoll id-diversi komponenti tal-iSIA.
Dikjarazzjonijiet ta' Metodu Tħejjew Dikjarazzjonijjiet ta’ Metodu kif ikunu studjati l-impatti tal-iSkema fejn jidħlu l-oqsma ta’: ambjent tal-baħar (inklużi batimetrija, stħarriġ bis-sonar u l- vidjow, u ekoloġija marina), u wirt kulturali / arkeoloġija marina.
Id-Dikjarazzjonijiet ta' Metodu jiddeskrivu fil-qosor ix- xogħol ta' stħarriġ bażiku li jrid jitwettaq, il- metodoloġija li trid titħaddem biex jiġu studjati l- impatti mbassrin, u l-mezzi li bihom kellha tiġi ddeterminata l-importanza tal-impatti.

Id- Dikjarazzjonijiet ta' Metodu huma riprodotti f'Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference & Method Statements.

Sar stħarriġ bażiku fil-medda baħar li hija s-suġġett tal-applikazzjoni.
Dan kien jinkludi: remote sensing surveys (batimetrija, side scan sonar, stħarriġ tal- organiżmi tal-qiegħ bil-vidjow (benthic video survey), ġbir ta’ kampjuni ta’ sediment u kwalità tal-ilma, immappjar tad-diversità tal-habitats u l-organiżmi tal- qiegħ, avifawna, u wirt kulurali, skont ‘Area ta’ Influwenza’ (A ta’ I) għal kull qasam ta’ suġġett, bi qbil u konsultazzjoni mal-ERA.
Sar studju ddettaljat tal-impatt li l-Iskema jkollha fuq il-karatteristiċi preżenti fis-Sit tal-iSkema u l-A ta’ I, u ġie identifikat kull benifiċċju ambjentali possibbli tal- Iskema.

Importanza tal-Impatti L-istudju tal-importanza tal-impatti li jirriżultaw mill- Iskema huwa stadju ewlieni fil-proċess tal-iSIA.

Huwa dan il-ġudizzju li jħoll u jorbot biex il-proċess ta’ teħid ta’ deċiżjonijiet ikun wieħed infurmat.

Iżda jista' jkun diffiċli tiddefinixxi din l-importanza.
F'termini ġenerali, l-importanza ambjentali tfisser li tistudja u tiżen l-ammont ta' tibdil ambjentali meqjus aċċettabbli għall-komunità (Sippe, 1999).

18 19 20 Il-kriterji li ntużaw fl-iSIA biex jiġi studjat kemm huwa importanti impatt huma dawn:  tip tal-impatt (negattiv/benefiku); 5   firxa u kobor tal-impatt; impatt dirett jew indirett;  importanza kbira, fejn l-impatt jagħmel ħsara lill- ambjent u jeħtieġ disinn mill-ġdid jew miżuri mitigatorji biex jitnaqqas kemm jista' jkun.
 kemm idum jinħass l-impatt (żmien qasir/fit- tul;  permanenti/temporanju); 22  tqabbil ma' dak li jitolbu l-liġi, il-policies l-istandards;  kemm hu sensittiv dak li jintlaqat minnu (djar, lukanda, inħawi ta' rikreazzjoni, eċċ.

);  probabbiltà li l-impatt iseħħ (ċert, aktarx, inċert, aktarx le, remota);  kemm hu reversibbli l-impatt;  kemm hemm possibbiltà ta' mitigazzjoni/titjib (tajba ħafna, tajba, xejn); u  impatti residwi.
21 Meta ntużaw dawn il-kriterji, l-importanza tal-impatti li jirriżultaw mill-Iskema tqiegħdet f'kategoriji kif ġej:  mhux importanti, fejn l-impatt huwa ambjentalment aċċettabbli;  importanza żgħira, fejn l-impatt jista' jkun ikkontrollat; Ir-Rapport dwar l-iSIA jinkludi studju tal-importanza tal-impatti mbassrin u, wara l-implimentazzjoni ta' miżuri mitigatorji proposti, tal-importanza ta' xi impatti residwi.
Ġabra fil-qosor tal-impatti importanti identifikati tinsab f'Kapitlu 9 tar-Rapport dwar l-iSIA.

Il-miżuri ta’ mitigazzjoni rrakkomandati, u l-impatti residwi, huma deskritti, għal kull qasam ta' suġġett, fl-aħħar tal-kapitlu rilevanti (ara Kapitli 5 sa 8 tar- Rapport dwar l-iSIA) kif ukoll f’Kapitlu 9.
23 Sar ukoll Studju tar-Riskji Ambjentali, u huwa ppreżentat bħala Volum 2 tar-Rapport dwar l-iSIA 24 Inċertezza Il-proċess tal-iSIA huwa mfassal b'mod li jagħmilha possibbli li jittieħdu deċiżjonijiet tajbin ibbażati fuq l-aħjar informazzjoni possibbli dwar l-implikazzjonijiet ambjentali ta' żvilupp propost.

Madankollu, dejjem ikun hemm xi inċertezza dwar il-kobor u n-natura eżatta tal-impatti ambjentali.
Dan jiġi minn nuqqasijiet fl-informazzjoni, dubji, jew nuqqas ta' ċertezza fuq kemm hemm probabbiltà li ħaġa tiġri, u/jew minħabba l-limitazzjonijiet tal-proċess tat- tbassir innifsu.

Fejn qamu inċertezzi, u fejn baqgħu, jintqal b'mod ċar fir-Rapport dwar l-iSIA.

6 Konsultazzjoni mix-xatt.

25 Matul il-proċess tal-iSIA, kienu organizzati laqgħat ta' informazzjoni ma' ħafna li għandhom interess fih.
Dawn kienu jinkludu: Transport Malta, id-Direttorat tas-Saħħa Ambjentali, l-Awtorità Maltija tat-Turiżmu, il-Forzi Armati ta' Malta, il-Kunsill Lokali tal-Mellieħa, Il-Kunsill Lokali ta' San Pawl il-Baħar, Nature Trust – FEE Malta, Birdlife (Malta), L-Għaqda Sajjieda Dilettanti, il-Professional Diving Schools Association, u l-grupp ambjentali ‘Stop the Slime’.

Notamenti minn dawn il-laqgħat jinsabu riprodotti f’Appendiċi 1 tar-Rapport dwar l-iSIA; il-problemi li tqajmu huma diskussi wkoll f'Kapitlu 8.
Studju tal-Alternattivi Siti Alternattivi 26 Is-sit operazzjonali fil-baħar fejn hu bħalissa kien identifikat wara eżerċizzju ta’ għażla, kif deskritt hawn taħt.

Nibdew billi ngħidu li s-sit identifikat qabel għaż- żona tal-akkwakultura tat-Tramuntana (li għaliha kienet għadha ma ġietx konkluża l-approvazzjoni tal- ippjanar) ġie rivedut.

Dan is-sit, però, ma kienx baqa’ meqjus tajjeb biex ikun ikkunsidrat bħala post ta’ għażla għat-tkabbir tal-ħut.
Dan kien l-aktar minħabba l-fatt li s-sit propost jinsab ukoll relattivament qrib ix-xatt u b’hekk possibilment ma jissodisfax l-ispirtu tar-revoka tal-permess u l- kundizzjonijiet tal-PA. Diskussjonijiet mal-ERA u mal- Awtorità tal-Ippjanar indikaw li kien mistenni li l-farms kollha rilokati jżommu distanza minima ta’ 4.5 – 5 km 27 Għal dan il-għan, kien meqjus li jkun iżjed f’loku li tiġi identifikata medda ta’ tiftix addattata u fiha jkunu studjati l-parametri biex jingħażel sit finali għar- rilokazzjoni tal-gaġeġ.
Fig.

1 turi l-medda ta’ tiftix li kienet studjata.

Din qiegħda fit-Tramuntana tas-Sikka l-Bajda.

Din il-medda intgħażlet fuq il-bażi ta' (i) analiżi ta’ informazzjoni eżistenti bl-użu ta’ Geographic Information Systems biex ikunu identifikati l-użi varji tal-baħar ‘il barra mill-kosta tat- Tramuntana u tal-Lvant tal-gżejjer; u (ii) limitazzjonijiet assoċjati mar-rilokazzjoni kif speċifikament mogħtijin mill-Awtoritajiet jew entitajiet rilevanti.
28 Wara li kienet identifikata l-medda ta’ tiftix, saru dawn l-istudji taħt liċenzja mid-Dipartiment tal-Blata Kontinentali fil-Ministeru tat-Trasport u l-Infrastruttura:  Multibeam echo sounder u back scatter survey ġol-medda ta’ tiftix; u  Stħarriġ inizjali bil-vidjow tal-ambjent ta’ qiegħ il-baħar biex ikunu identifikati l- habitats tal-qiegħ fl-inħawi.
29 L-istħarriġ tal-habitat ta’ qiegħ il-baħar wera li l-parti tan-Nofsinhar tal-medda tat-tiftix kien fiha qigħan ta’ ramel ħaj (maerl/rhodoliths) u ramel oħxon bir-rodoliti waqt li l-parti iżjed lejn it-Tramuntana, ikkaratterizzata minn ilma iżjed fond, kienet magħmula minn qiegħ 7 b'tajn u detriti.

Is-Sit propost għalhekk iċċaqlaq għal fuq il-habitat ta' tajn u detriti biex kemm jista’ jkun jitnaqqsu l-impatti ambjentali fuq il-qigħan tar- rodoliti iżjed sensittivi, kif muri f’Fig.

2.
2.

8 Fig 2: Sit identifikat għat-twaqqif ta’ żona ta’ akkwakultura 9 30 31 DESKRIZZJONI TAL-ISKEMA Kif spjegajna, l-iSkema għandha l-għan li tistabilixxi żona ta' akkwakultura permanenti fit-Tramuntana ta' Malta li tieħu post il-meded temporanji għat-tkabbir tal-ħut stabbiliti fl-2017.

Fig.

3 turi fejn huma l-farms temporanji, li jinsabu madwar 5 km 'l barra mix-xatt tal-Majjistral ta' Malta.
Il-post identifikat għall-iSkema, wara r-riżulat ta' dan l-iSIA u d-dikussjonijiet ma' min kien interessat, huwa dak muri f'Fig.

4.

Dan il-post jirrispetta l-kriterji ewlenin mitluba u, iżjed importanti, id-distanza minima mix-xatt kif stabbilit mill- awtoritajiet, waqt li jimxi mal-biċċa l-kbira tal-kriterji ambjentali u soċjali jew inaqqas kemm jista' jkun l- effetti fuq oħrajn.

L-iSkema tkun tinfirex fuq medda ta' madwar 4.5 km2 għal bijomassa ta' bejn wieħed u ieħor 4,500-5,000 tunnellata.
In-numru tal-gaġeġ li jitqiegħdu jista' jvarja minħabba r-rekwiżiti tal-ICCAT dwar gaġeġ.

Kif jitqieħdu l-gaġeġ, għalhekk, mhix ħaġa fissa u jista' jkun hemm tibdil minn sena għal sena, għalkemm il- medda komplessiva okkupata miż-ŻAT ma tinbidilx.

Kull gaġġa hija medda ċirkolari b'dijametru ta' 50 metru.

Id-distanza bejn il-ġnub tax-xbieki u l-gaġeġ hija 30 metru.

Id-daqs tal-malja tax-xibka huwa 70 x 70 mm u d-dijametru tal-ispaga 5 mm.
32 L-operaturi fl-iSkema jaħdmu l-istess bħalma jaħdmu l-operaturi kurrenti tal-farms tat-tonn fl-ibħra Maltin.

10 Kull kumpanija topera b'liċenzja mid-Dipartiment tas- Sajd u Akkwakultura li jibqa' s-sid u manager taż-ŻAT.
Kull farm iħaddem għadd ta' vapuri, li jipprovdu s- servizzi kollha meħtieġa fil-farm, u jkunu jinkludu:  Vapuri tal-għalf użati biex iġorru l-għalf lejn il- gaġeġ;  Dgħajjes għas-servizzi biex iġorru ħaddiema, materjali, u skart;  Vapuri tat-tindif (spiss imħaddmin minn terzi persuni) li joħorġu biex jiġbru ż-żjut tal-ħut u ż- żlieġa matul l-istaġun tal-għalf; u  Vapuri għat-trasport tal-ġewwieni skartat tal-ħut 'il barra mix-xatt (ara hawn taħt).
33 Minbarra l-vapuri li l-farm tat-tonn iħaddem, tiegħu stess jew mikrija, il-klijenti prinċipali tal-propjetarji tal- gaġeġ ukoll jibagħtu l-vapuri tal-ipproċessar tagħhom biex il-ħut, wara li jinqatel u jinġabar ikun ittrasferit fuqhom fejn jiġi pproċessat.

Dawn il-vapuri kbar tal- ipproċessar ikunu ġeneralment preżenti għal perjodu ta' tnejn jew tliet xhur u jankraw 'l hinn miż-ŻAT f'baħar iżjed fond 'il barra mill-kosta.

Fig.
Fig.

3: Pożizzjoni tal-farms tat-tonn temporanji 'l barra mill-Mellieha u San Pawl il-Baħar 11 Fig.

4: Pożizzjoni proposta tal-iSkema f'relazzjoni mal-ark tal-isparar tal-FAM u l-bunkering zone 12 34 TĦADDIM TAL-ISKEMA – IL-PROĊESS TAT-TQEGĦID TAT-TONN FIL-GAĠEĠ Qbid tat-tonn u trasferiment lejn il-farm It-tonn jinqabad bit-tartarun (purse seine) bejn sema u ilma.
Din l-attività hija permessa taħt ir-regoli tal- ICCAT għal żmien ristrett matul is-sena meta l-ħut ikun għaddej minn naħa għal oħra tal-Baħar Mediterran.

Ma hemmx sajjieda Maltin li jaħdmu b’dan il-metodu ta’ sajd u għalhekk il-ħut jinqabad minn vapuri barranin li l-Applikant jixtri l-istokk mingħandhom.

35 It-tonn li jinqabad fil-purse seines normalment ivarja fid-daqs bejn 50 u 300 kg, bil-biċċa l-kbira sew tal-ħut ikun jiżen bejn 100 u 200 kg.
36 Meta t-tonn jinqabad u jinxtraw l-ammonti meħtieġa, il-ħut jingħadda minnn fetħiet fix-xbik għal ġol-gaġeġ tal-irmunkar tal-farm.

Meta l-gaġeġ jimtlew bl-istokk meħtieġ, jiġu rmunkati bil-mod lejn is-sit tat-tkabbir1 fejn jiġu ankrati fil-pożizzjoni tas-sistema tal-irmiġġ li tkun ġa tqiegħdet fis-sit .

37 Ix-xogħol kollu jsir taħt is-superviżjoni ta’ osservaturi internazzjonali tal-ICCAT.
Tkabbir fil-gaġeġ 38 Ladarba jkun fil-farm, it-tonn jiġi mitmugħ u 1Il-veloċità waqt l-irmunkar rari taqbeż 1 knot, u t-trasferiment jieħu għadd ta’ ġimgħat (skont id- distanza bejn fejn jinqabad il-ħut u l-l-gaġeġ).

39 40 msemmen, li fil-biċċa l-kbira huwa proċess ta’ kondizzjonament, li bih ir-rapport bejn xaħam u proteina jinbidel permezz ta’ dieta b’ammont għoli ta’ xaħam.

It-tonn jinżamm fil-gaġeġ għal bejn 3 u 7 xhur, meta mbagħad jinqatel u jinġabar u jinbiegħ fis- suq Ġappuniż .
L-għalf u t-tekniki tal-immaniġġjar tiegħu It-tonn jiġi mitmugħ ħut żgħir pelaġiku, normalment aringi, kavalli, inċova, sardin, eċċ.

Huwa stmat li trid 10-25 kg ta’ ħut tal-lixka (baitfish) biex tipproduċi kilogramm tonn.

Madwar 5,500 kg ta’ lixka jiġu pprovduti lil kull gaġġa kuljum biex jingħalef it-tonn imkabbar fil-gaġeġ.
Kull farm tipikament jordna l-għalf mingħand għadd ta' fornituri internazzjonali u kontejners imkessħin jaslu Malta bl-għalf kuljum; dawn jinħażnu l-Port Ħieles jew f'bażijiet fuq l-art.

Fil-bażijiet fuq l-art, il-ħut tal-għalf jiġi ttrasferit f'boroż kbar u jitħalla biex titniżżlilhom parzjalment il-friża bi tħejjija biex jitimgħuh lit-tonn.
Il-proċess biex il-ħut tal-għalf titneħħielu l-friża irid ikun immaniġġjat b'ħafna attenzjoni u l-ilma tal-friża maħlula jrid jintlaqa' biex l- operaturi individwali jnaqqsu kemm jista' jkun il-ħruġ tal-ilma tal-friża fl-ambjent, kemm fuq l-art, waqt il- proċess tat-tagħbija, kif ukoll fil-baħar.

41 Fl-istaġun tat-tkabbir fil-gaġeġ, ħut tal-għalf jitgħabba fuq dgħajjes tas-servizz kmieni filgħodu biex jittieħed lejn il-farm.

It-tonn jingħalef darba kuljum, maż- 13 42 żernieq.
Il-lixka semi-ffriżat titqiegħed normalment f’gaġeġ żgħar tal-għalf li jżommu fil-wiċċ f’nofs il- gaġġa tat-tonn, u malli jkun inħall biżżejjed, il-gaġġa tan-nofs tinfetaħ mill-għaddasa u l-ħut jinxteħet fil- gaġġa tat-tonn.

L-għaddasa jgħassu fuq it-tonn u jikkontrollaw l-ammont ta’ għalf li jitħalla jidħol fil- gaġġa biex tonqos kemm jista’ jkun il-ħela.

Meta t- tonn ikunu xeba’, l-għaddas jieqaf jagħlef.
Il-proċess jista’ jirrepeti ruħu sagħtejn wara; madankollu, jekk it- tonn ikun xeba’ jiekol, kull ħut li jibqa’ jista’ jintrefa’ mill-gaġġa u jittieħed lejn gaġeġ oħrajn.

Metodu alternattiv kif jingħalef it-tonn jinvolvi t-tneħħija kważi totali tal-friża mill-ħut tal-għalf li mbagħad jiġi impalat għal ġol-gaġeġ bl-użu ta' tubu tal-għalf.
Biex ikun hemm l-aħjar effiċjenza fl-għalf hemm il- ħtieġa li jkun assigurat li meta wieħed jitmagħhom lit- tonn il-lixka ma tkunx inħallitilhom il-friża kollha biex iż-żjut ta’ valur kalorifiku għoli jinbelgħu ukoll u ma jintilfux mill-għalf.

B’danakollu, il-proċess jinvolvi l- iżvilupp ta’ żlieġa żejtnija li toħroġ mill-għalf semi- ffriżat.
Biex wieħed jilqa' għal din il-problema, matul l- istaġun li għadda ttieħdu għadd ta’ miżuri mid-diversi farms u dawk li kienu ta' suċċess bil-provi għandhom isiru obbligatorji għall-operaturi kollha.
Dawn jinkludu:  Il-lixka jinżamm fil-boroż kbar impermeabbli waqt il- ġarr mill-bażijiet fuq l-art lejn il-farm biex jinżamm l- ilma tal-friża hi u tinħall;  Ilqugħ taż-żejt jitqiegħed permanentement ġo kull gaġġa biex iżomm kull żejt tal-ħut li jista’ joħroġ mill- għalf;  L-użu ta' xkumaturi biex jinġabar iż-żejt tal-ħut li joħroġ meta jkun għadu fil-gaġeġ.

L-użu tal- ixkumaturi jrid jibda malli l-ħut tal-għalf jitpoġġa fil- gaġġa;  Ġbir ta' żejt tal-ħut ġo IBCs imqegħdin fuq il-gverta.
Titħalla s-sospensjoni ta' żejt-ilma biex jingħażlu minn xulxin u l-ilma jitferragħ f'kontenitur.

L-ilma mferragħ jkun monitorat biex żgur ma joħroġ ebda żejt fih.

 Iż-żejt li jinġabar jittieħed lejn l-art biex jingħata lil kumpanija li tirriċikla żejt skartat;  L-għalf ikun ikkontrollat minn għaddasa u jitwaqqaf qabel ma t-tonn jixba' għalkollox biex ħut tal-għalf jintilef mill-inqas; u  Monitoraġġ ta' qiegħ il-baħar biex għalf mhux mikul li jkun spiċċa hemm jinġabar.
43 L-effiċjenza tal-miżuri ta' hawn fuq bħalissa qiegħda tkun studjata mill-Awtorità tal-Ambjent u r-Riżorsi permezz ta' monitoraġġ li qed isir fid-diversi farms tat- tonn; jista' jkun hemm bżonn li jiġi propost titjib biex jissewwew nuqqasijiet fil-proċess.
Dawn il-miżuri jistgħu jinkludu t-tqegħid ta' iżjed xkumaturi ( jiġi deċiż l-inqas numru ta' xkumaturi f'kull farm); li l-friża tal- lixka tinħall kompletament u li l-ilma tal-friża jinġabar f'kontenituri qabel jingħalef it-tonn, u tlestija ta' miżuri 14 oħrajn barra l-farm biex tinġabar iż-żlieġa żejtnija (e.g.

vapur tat-tindif), f''każ li jiskappa xi żejt mill- medda tal-farm.
Qatla/Ġbir u pproċessar 44 Tonn frisk jinġabar skont id-domanda fil-biċċa l-kbira tal-każi, għalkemm illum proporzjon vast tat-tonn qed jinġabar għas-suq tal-ħut tal-friża.

45 Meta jsir il-ġbir, il-qiegħ tax-xibka jintrefa’ ftit ‘il fuq, biex iġiegħel il-ħut jersaq eqreb lejn wiċċ l-ilma.
Il- qatla hija partikolarment delikata billi l-ammont ta’ stress li għalih jiġi suġġett il-ħut irid jinżamm baxx għaliex jekk il-ħut ikun stressjat it-temperatura ta’ ġisimhom togħla ħafna, u dan jikkomprometti l-kwalità tal-laħam.

Il-qatla ssir minn għaddasa li jidħlu fil- gaġġa u joqtlu t-tonn waħda waħda billi jisparawlhom f’rashom.
46 It-tonn jiġi ttrasferit minn fejn hu bil-krejn għal fuq vapur tax-xogħol imbagħad jinġarr malajr minn dgħajjes tax-xogħol lejn vapur tal-ipproċessar li jkun jistenna ankrat iżjed ‘il barra fil-baħar.

Abbord il- vapur, it-tonn jintiżen, l-irjus u d-dnub jinqatgħu u jitneħħa l-ġewwieni.

Bħalissa, ir-ras, id-denb u l- ġewwieni huma fdal skartat.

Dawn bħalissa qed jintremew fil-baħar ‘il barra mil-limitu ta’ 12-il mil nawtiku kif jordna d-Dipartiment tar- Regolamentazzjoni Veterinarja u Fitosanitarja.
L- opzjoni li jinħaraq il-materjal ġiet skartata għax l- inċineratur tal-biċċerija huwa żgħir wisq biex jieħu l- volum ta’ skart iġġenerat mill-farms tat-tonn; l-operatur tal-inċineratur ma aċċettax dan it-tip ta’ skart possibbli.
Opzjonijiet oħrajn qed ikunu diskussi mill-Federazzjoni tal-Produtturi tal-Akkwakultura li għadha kif twaqqfet bl-iskop li jinstabu opzjonijiet alternattivi biex dan il-materjal jerġa' jintuża minflok jintrema, ukoll bħala parti mill-kundizzjonijiet fil- permessi ambjentali tal-farms individwali.

Wara l-ġbir/qatla 47 Wara l-ġbir/qatla, bejn Novembru u Mejju, il- proprjetarji individwali tal-farms tat-tonn għandhom permess iżommu sa 15% tal-istokk fil-gaġeġ għal skop ta’ riċerka.
Il-ħut hekk miżmum jingħalef bejn tnejn u tliet darbiet fil-ġimgħa matul dan il-perjodu.

Dan l-ammont miżmum irid ikun sorveljat kif jixraq biex wieħed ikun żgur li l-farms tassew qegħdin jagħmlu riċerka u mhux sempliċement iżommu ħut ta' daqs żgħir matul ix-xitwa biex isemmnuh u jġibu prezz aħjar is-sena ta' wara.
Immaniġġjar tal-iskart 48 Skart iġġenerat mill-iSkema ikun aktarx jinkludi:  Skart tal-materjal tal-ippakkjar mill-importazzjoni tal- lixka;  Ilma meta tinħall il-friża fit-tħejjija tal-lixka;  Żlieġa żejtnija (mill- lixka); 15  Għalf li ma jittikilx;  Ħmieġ tal-ħut;  Tonn mejjet;  Demm (waqt il-qatla);  Ilma maħmuġ mill-ipproċessar tal-ħut abbord (taħlita ta’ demm, ilma u fdal tal-ħut);  Fdal (irjus minfuda, dnub, u organi interni);  Alka u materjal ieħor tal-baħar li jħammeġ ix-xibka; u  Żibel fil-baħar.
49 50 Dettalji fuq kull kwalità ta’ skart u miżuri użati għall- immaniġġjar tiegħu qed jingħataw fir-Rapport dwar l- iSIA.

Sistema ta' Immaniġġjar Ambjentali Biex jimxi mal-kundizzjonijiet tal-permess ambjentali, kull operatur ikun irid ikollu Sistema ta' Immaniġġjar Ambjentali (Environmental Management System (EMS)) li tkun integrata mas-sistema operazzjonali li għandu bħalissa.
L-EMS tkun tinkludi:  Studju ta' kif il-proċessi operazzjonali jistgħu jolqtu l-ambjent inklużi (i) il-valutazzjoni ta' aspetti ambjentali importanti; (ii) l-iżvilupp ta' reġistru tal-aspetti ambjentali; u (iii) l-iżvilupp ta' reġistru tal-leġiżlazzjoni;  L-iżvilupp ta’ politika ambjentali;  L-iżvilupp ta’ objettivi u miri u t-tfassil ta’ Programm ta’ Immaniġġjar Ambjentali (Environmental Management Programme (EMP)) biex dawn jintlaħqu;  Rwoli u responsabbiltajiet definiti għall- impjegati kollha;  Programm ta’ taħriġ u għarfien;  Proċeduri biex ikunu kkontrollati l-attivitajiet b’impatt ambjentali importanti (ukoll b’rabta mal-EMP);  Sistema kkontrollata ta’ records (reġistrazzjoni?
);  Awditjar perjodiku li jassigura operazzjoni effettiva; u  Reviżjoni formali mill-membri għoljin tal- management.

Impjiegi 51 Il-livell tal-impjiegi fiż-Żona tal-Akkwakultura tat- Tramuntana jkun jiddependi mill-għadd ta' operaturi li tkun tesa'.

Il-farms tat-Tramuntana, li jkunu rilokati fiż-ŻAT, bħalissa jimpjegaw 55 full-timers u 40 part- timers.

L-impjegati jinkludu għaddasa, barklori, handymen, u sewwieqa.
Jekk iż-ŻAT tkun okkupata 16 52 53 kollha, in-numru ta' ħaddiema mistenni jiżdied għal 75 – 80 impjegati full-time u 60 - 75 part-timers.

IMPATTI AMBJENTALI IMPORTANT U MITIGAZZJONI L-impatti mbassrin tal-iSkema ġew studjati qasam qasam, skont it-TtR.

Ingħatat attenzjoni partikulari lill- impatti prinċipali mbassrin u kif dawn setgħu jkunu mitigati.
L-impatti potenzjali kbar, jekk mhux mitigati, li ġew identifikati waqt l-istudju kellhom x’jaqsmu biss mal- ekoloġija ta’ qiegħ il-baħar, b’riżultat tat-tqegħid tal- blokok tal-irmiġġ f’qiegħ il-baħar.

Impatti oħrajn jistgħu jkunu ta’ importanza kbira taħt ċerti ċirkustanzi, iżda ammont ta’ inċertezza jew firxa ta’ kundizzjonijiet possibbli ma jippermettux li l-impatt ikun definit b’mod konklussiv.
Dawn jinkludu:  Impatti fuq il-Kwalità tal-Ilma: o Deterjorament fil-kwalità tal-ilma li jitgħabba b’żieda ta’ nutrijenti mill-għalf mhux mikul u karkassi tat-tonn fil-każ ta' mwiet bla miżuri ta' mitigazzjoni; o Ħruġ waqt l-operazzjoni ta’ żjut u ilma tas- sentina mit-traffiku marittimu assoċjat mal- iSkema; o Ħruġ ta’ drenaġġ mill-vapuri tal-ipproċessar; 17 o Tinġiż tal-baħar minn skart tal-vapuri;  Impatti fuq l-Ekoloġija Marina: o Telf ta' habitats minħabba l-għalf mhux mikul li jissetilja fil-qiegħ; o Impatti mit-tħammiġ ta' qiegħ il-baħar minn affarijiet li jaqgħu mill-vapuri; o Impatti fuq l-avifawna: o Tfixkil għall-avifawna mill-effetti tad-dwal; o o Impatti minn tibdil fl-abbundanza tal-priża fuq il- popolazzjoni tal-H. pelagicus; Impatti ta’ ħtif ta’ tjur tal-baħar minn żieda fil- popolazzjoni tal-gawwi; o Impatti fuq it-tajr meta jibilgħu skart marittimu;  Impatti arkeoloġiċi: o Ħsara potenzjali jew tħarbit ta’ artefatti midfunin mhux magħrufa mill-irmiġġi;  Effetti fuq bnedmin u attivitajiet tagħhom: o Deterjorament tal-ilma qrib ix-xatt u impatt fuq rikreazzjoni lokali, inkluż l-għadis, mill-ħruġ ta’ żlieġa u żjut tal-ħut; o Impatti fuq it-turiżmu u attivitajiet turistiċi miż- żjut tal-ħut u żlieġa f’inħawi kostali.
57 54 55 56 Ekoloġija ta’ Qiegħ il-Baħar L-impatt fuq il-habitats ta’ qiegħ il-baħar mit-tqegħid tal-irmiġġi huwa meqjus ta’ importanza negattiva kbira għal dawk il-fawna u flora sessili li jinsabu taħt il- blokok tal-irmiġġ.

Il-habitats ta’ qiegħ il-baħar jintlaqtu wkoll mill-għalf mhux mikul li jissetilja fil-qiegħ.

Dan l-impatt jista’ jkun kbir fil-medda ta’ qiegħ il-baħar direttament taħt il-gaġeġ, imma jonqos għal mhux importanti bid- distanza minnhom.
Il-kobor ta’ dan l-impatt jiddependi minn kemm ikun effettiv l-immaniġġjar tal- għalf u mill-ammont ta’ għalf li fil-fatt jintilef/ma jittikilx.

Immaniġġjar tajjeb tal-għalf jista’ jnaqqas sewwa dan l-effett.

Bl-istess mod, l-impatt mill-iskart li jirriżulta minn affarijiet li jaqgħu minn abbord jista' jkun żgħir jew kbir skont l-indafa li tinżamm abbord il-vapuri u kemm jinġabru fil-pront l-affarijiet li jaqgħu fil-baħar.
Kwalità tal-ilma Huwa maħsub li l-iSkema jista’ jkollha impatt negattiv kbir fuq il-kwalità tal-ilma baħar minħabba li jitgħabba żżejjed bin-nutrijent li jirriżulta mill-għalf mhux mikul li jissetilja fil-qiegħ (jew, f'każ ta' mwiet, telf ta' karkassi tat-tonn), ħruġ ta’ żejt u ilma tas-sentina waqt l- operazzjoni, ħruġ ta’ drenaġġ minn vapuri, u ħruġ ta’ skart fil-baħar jew affarijiet antropoġeniċi li jaqgħu il- baħar minn abbord.
Il-biċċa l-kbira ta’ dawn l-impatti huma jew inċerti jew jistgħu jvarjaw skont għadd ta’ fatturi.

Impatti minn għalf mhux mikul ikun jiddependi minn kemm minn dan il-materjal jissetilja f’qiegħ il-baħar, bl-impatt aktarx ikun ogħla direttament taħt il-gaġeġ u jonqos fil-kobor mad-distanza minnhom.

Impatti minn telf ta' karkassi tat-tonn ikunu jiddependu minn kemm tkun pronta l-azzjoni mitigatorja biex jitnaqqsu kemm jista' jkun l-imwiet.
Impatti minn tnixxijiet ta’ żejt jew mis- sentina jiddependu minn kemm jintilef materjal li jniġġes; hekk ukoll l-impatti mid-drenaġġ, li jkunu jiddependu wkoll mill-manutenzjoni tal-miżuri disponibbli abbord għall-konteniment u trattament (p.eż.

tankijiet jew impjant għat-trattament tad- drenaġġ).

L-impatt ta’ żibel fil-baħar jista’ jkun sever, kemm fuq l-avifawna u kemm fuq speċi ta’ qiegħ il- baħar.
Xhieda ta’ ammont konsiderevoli ta’ materjal antropoġeniku fil-farms tat-tonn jew ħdejhom instabet u ġiet irreġistrata f’rapporti passati ta’ monitoraġġ.

Hija meħtieġa azzjoni effettiva biex jonqos kemm jista’ jkun dan it-telf aċċidentali jew rimi apposta ħalli jkun mitigat dan l-impatt.

Avifawna 58 L-iSkema għandha l-potenzjal li toħloq impatti ta’ importanza kbira fuq il-qtajja’ ta’ għasafar tal-baħar li jbejtu.
Jista’ jkun hemm impatti minn iktar tinġis ta’ dawl, tibdil fl-abbundanza tal-priża, effetti ta’ ħtif mill- gawwi li jinġibed lejn il-farm, u meta jittiekel żibel mill- baħar.

Dawn l-impatti kollha jiddependu mill-kobor tal-intervent, p.eż.
l-ammont u l-intensità tad-dwal 18 mal-gaġeġ, jew l-ammont ta’ żibel li jispiċċa l-baħar; l- impatt tal-ħtif mill-gawwi jiddependi minn jekk tikbirx il-popolazzjoni tal-gawwi minħabba l-iSkema, u minn jekk il-gawwi fil-fatt jattakkax tajr ieħor tal-baħar jew jikkompetix magħhom għall-ikel u mkejjen fejn ibejtu.

L-effett fuq il-popolazzjonijiet ta' għasafar tal-baħar, speċjalment dik iżgħar tal-Hydrobates pelagicus, mill- preżenza ta' żieda fl-opportunitajiet ta' priża mhux magħruf iżda jista jkun kbir.
Arkeoloġija L-iSkema tista’ tħalli impatt fuq l-arkeoloġija jew b’impatt dirett fuq artefatti identifikati jew billi tesponi artefatti midfunin li għadna ma nafux bihom.

L-impatt fl-ewwel każ ma huwiex probabbli billi ma ġie identifkat xejn fis-sit tal-iSkema, u inċert fit-tieni billi jiddependi minn jekk hemmx jew le dawn l-artefatti.

Effetti fuq Popolazzjonijiet Umani L-effetti fuq il-bnedmin u l-attivitajiet tagħhom jiġu fil- biċċa l-kbira mill-ħruġ ta’ żjut tal-ħut u żlieġa.
Il-ħruġ mhux mitigat ta’ żjut tal-ħut u żlieġa jista’ jolqot l-ilma baħar qrib ix-xatt, kif instab fi snin reċenti.

Dan jolqot l-għum, il-yachting, l-għadis, u passatempi bħalhom, it-turiżmu, u l-kwalità ġenerali tal-ħajja tar- residenti ta’ mal-kosta u l-viżitaturi.

L-importanza tal- impatt tkun tiddpendi mill-ammont ta’ żejt tal-ħut li joħroġ fl-ambjent tal-baħar waqt l-għalf u l-ammont ta’ żjut li jaħrab mill-farm u mis-sistemi ta’ ġbir imqegħdin biex jilqgħu għal din il-problema.
59 60 61 62 Mitigazzjoni Fejn kien xieraq, kienu identifikati miżuri ta' mitigazzjoni bi qbil mal-Applikant.

Dawn il-miżuri mitigatorji huma deskritti fl-aħħar tal-kapitlu ta' kull suġġett, u jidhru elenkati f'Kapitlu 9 tar-Rapport dwar l-iSIA.

Din li ġejja hija l-lista ta' miżuri mitigatorji rrakkomandati.
Ikun xieraq, u huwa rrakkomandat, li dawn il-miżuri ta' mitigazzjoni jingħata kashom fil- kondizzjonijiet ta' kull permess ta' żvilupp li jista' joħroġ:  Disinn tal-irmiġġi ottimizzat skont il-kundizzjonijiet tas-sit biex jassigura li ma jkunx hemm ċaqliq waqt maltempati;  L-għalf tat-tonn isir taħt is-superviżjoni tal- għaddasa biex ikun evitat l-għalf żejjed u t-telf ta' għalf;  Jitqiegħed ilqugħ taż-żejt permanenti ġo kull gaġġa u jintużaw xkumaturi taż-żejt biex jinġabar iż-żejt li joħroġ f’kull gaġġa;  Użu ta’ kartun ta’ forma ċatta bħala materjal tal- ippakkjar;  Kontroll ta’ x’joħroġ fil-baħar mill-vapuri tal- ipproċessar skont ir-Regolamenti tal-MARPOL;  Prattika tajba waqt it-tqegħid tal-irmiġġi biex ma jkunx hemm tkaxkir tal-blokok mal-qiegħ tal-baħar; 19    Immaniġġjar tajjeb tal-proġett biex jitnaqqas kemm jista’ jkun il-ħruġ ta’ żjut u fjuwils waqt il- ħidma tal-vapuri marittimi u l-effetti konsegwenti tagħhom fuq il-kwalità tal-ilma; Immaniġġjar tajjeb tal-proġett u użu ta’ teknoloġija tal-irmiġġar xierqa biex tkun minimizzata r-ri- sospensjoni tas-sediment; Immanniġjar tajjeb tal-għalf biex ikunu minimizzati d-dħul ta’ karbon fis-sedimenti mill-għalf mhux mikul u ta’ nutrijent fil-kolonna tal-ilma, jiġifieri; o Monitoraġġ attent meta t-tonn jiġi mitmugħ biex ma jkunx hemm ikel żejjed; esperimenta t-twaqqif tal-għalf qabel il-ħut jixba’ għalkollox biex jonqos kemm jista’ jkun it-telf ta’ għalf; o Implimentar ta’ proċedura li tassigura immaniġġjar xieraq tal-għalf billi jkun hemm iċċekkjar għal għarrieda ta’ qiegħ il-baħar taħt il-gaġeġ tat-tonn minn spettur ambjentali indipendenti; o F’kas ta’ inċident, jekk ammont eċċessiv ta’ ħut tal- għalf mejjet mhux mikul jispiċċa fil-qiegħ, irid isir kulma jista’ jsir biex jinġabar kemm jista’ jkun mill- materjal u malajr kemm jista’ jkun wara l-inċident biex ikunu minimizzati l-effetti ħżiena fuq il-habitat ta’ qiegħ il-baħar;  Ikunu evitati densitajiet kbar ħafna ta’ stokk; 20  Tkun ikkunsidrata l-possibbiltà li l-lixka titwaqqagħlu l-friża u
 jinħasel fuq l-art qabel ma jitqiegħed fil-boroż kbar impermeabbli u jinġarr lejn il-farm biex jitnaqqas l-ammont ta’ żjut tal-ħut u mukus li joħroġ fl-ambjent tal-baħar;  Użu ta’ xkumaturi b’effiċjenza aħjar minn ta’ dawk użati sa issa;    Ikun hemm disponibbli servizzi addizzjonali ta’ ġbir ta’ żejt barra mill-farm biex ikun assigurat il-ġbir immedjat ta’ kull żlieġa li taħrab mill-farm ħalli ma titferrixx; Ikun ikkunsidrat li jitqiegħdu lqugħ taż-żejt addizzjonali mad-dawra tal-farm jekk dan ikun aċċettabbli minn punto di vista ta’ sigurtà navigazzjonali (tqegħid parzjali fid-direzzjoni tal- kurrenti prevalenti jista’ jiġi kkunsidrat ukoll); Ippjanar xieraq għall-kontinġenzi inkluża assigurazzjoni li kull min għandu x’jaqsam ikun konxju tar-responsabbiltà tiegħu f’kas ta’ inċident;  Assigurazzjoni li l-interjuri u fdal tat-tonn mejjet ikunu immaniġġjati skont ir-Regolament KE 1069 tal-2009;  Maċerazzjoni tal-ġewwieni/fdal li jkun sa jintrema l- baħar;  It-tqegħid tax-xbieki mal-kullar tal-gaġeġ isir kemm jista’ jkun tard eżatt qabel ma jaslu l-gaġeġ tal- irmonk u darba t-tonn minn gaġġa jkun inqatel u nġabar, ix-xibka għandha titneħħa immedjatament biex jitnaqqas kemm jista’ jkun it-tul ta’ ħin li fih ix- xbieki jitfgħu dell fuq qiegħ il-baħar;  Prattika tajba abbord il-vapuri biex jonqsu kemm jista’ jkun it-tnixxijiet, il-ħsejjes, id-dawl, u t-tfigħ ta’ żibel;  Tħejjija u infurzar ta’ pjan tal-immaniġġjar tal-iskart biex ikun ċert li l-iskart qed jintrema fejn hu xieraq fuq l-art.
Il-ħaddiema għandhom jitħarrġu dwar il- bżonn li jkun eliminat żibel fil-baħar mill- operazzjonijiet tal-iSkema;  Jitgħattew il-fetħiet fil-vapuri biex minnhom ma jaqax materjal minn abbord għall-baħar;  Irkupru immedjat ta’ kull oġġett li jista’ aċċidentalment jispiċċa fil-baħar (kemm jekk jgħum fil-wiċċ u kemm jekk jaqa’ fil-qiegħ) u ġbir ta’ kull skart ta’ terzi mormi l-baħar li jista’ jgħum lejn il-farm;  Projbizzjoni / kontroll strett ta’ attivitajiet ta’ sajd qrib il-gaġeġ tat-tonn;  Naqqas l-użu ta’ dwal għall-minimu meħtieġ għal skopijiet ta’ sigurtà navigazzjonali u fuq il-vapuri uża biss sorsi ta’ dawl bix-xejd li jħarsu ‘l isfel; 21  Adotta pjan ta’ tidwil staġjonali, bid-dwal kollha interni tal-gaġeġ (i.e.
mhux id-dwal navigazzjonali esterni) jintfew wara l-perjodu tal-ġbir u qatla meta x-xbieki huma battala jew hemm biss fis-sit il- kullari tal-gaġeġ;  Naqqas kemm jista’ jkun il-ħtieġa ta’ xogħol billejl u neħħi l-bżonn li l-vapuri jkunu fl-inħawi billejl;  Agħmel programm ta’ monitiraġġ tat-tajr tal-baħar, inkluż monitoraġġ b’kamera diġitali biex tara liema speċi ta’ tajr qed iżuru l-gaġeġ u l-imġieba tagħhom fil-farm;  Uża metodi viżwali biex iżżomm ‘il bogħod it-tajr;  Neħħi l-ħut mejjet mill-gaġeġ immedjatament;  Monitoraġġ tal-kolonji tal-gawwi kull sena jekk osservati jieklu fil-farm;  Biex jitnaqqas ir-riskju ta’ taħbil, ix-xbieki għandhom jinżammu stirati, il-qies tal-malja għandu jkun bejn 6-7 ċm u x-xbieki għandhom jinżammu fi stat tajjeb ta’ manutenzjoni (jekk ikun hemm toqob għandhom jissewwew);  Naqqas il-ħbula u l-armar fuq il-vapuri;  Ħarreġ ħaddiema fuq kif jittrattaw mat-tajr u jirrapurtaw dwarhom; u  Assigura manutenzjoni regolari tal-infrastruttura tal-farm.
STUDJU TAR-RISKJI AMBJENTALI 63 Sar studju tar-riskji ambjentali għat-tħaddim tal- iSkema (Volum 2 tar-Rapport dwar l-iSIA).

L-istudju tar-riskji:  Jiddeskrivi u jevalwa r-riskji għall-ambjent assoċjati mal-iSkema, l-aktar ir-riskji marbuta mal-operazzjonijiet fil-farm; u  Jiddeskrivi u jevalwa l-miżuri li sa jittieħdu biex dawn ir-riskji jkunu mitigati, u jevalwa l-livelli tar-riskji residwi.
64 L-iSkema fiha miżuri biex titnaqqas kemm jista’ jkun il-probabbiltà ta’ inċident u l-konsegwenzi tiegħu, bħal immarkar xieraq għan-navigazzjoni u arranġamenti tal-irmiġġi bl-aħjar mod biex jifilħu għall-maltempati.
Bħala riżultat, ir-riskji ambjentali jitnaqqsu minn għoljin u estremi għal baxxi u baxxi ħafna b’xi ftit riskju moderat marbut ma’ tnixxijiet waqt it-tħaddim tal-vapuri, impatti “esterni” minn tixrid ta’ żejt iġġenerat ‘il barra mill-iSkema, u impatti minn għalf mhux mikul li jissetilja fuq qiegħ il-baħar.
22 GF00250/07: PROPOSAL FOR A NEW AQUACULTURE ZONE IN THE NORTH OF MALTA, ZONE OFFSHORE MALTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Version 1: November 2018 Report Reference: Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2018.

GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta.

Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

San Gwann, November 2018; xvi + 229pp + 1 Appendix.

THIS IS A DIGITAL COPY OF THE REPORT.
RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT – KEEP IT DIGITAL i Quality Assurance GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Environmental Impact Assessment Report November 2018 Report for: Department for Fisheries and Aquaculture Revision Schedule Rev Date Details Written by: Checked by: Approved by: 00 Nov 2018 Submission to Client Adrian Mallia Director Krista Farrugia Senior Consultant Rachel Xuereb Director File ref: G:\_Active Projects\EIA\DFA003 - North Aquaculture Zone\EIA Report\North Aquaculture Zone EIA_Master.docx This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Adi Associates’ appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment.
It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Adi Associates’ client.

Adi Associates accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided.

Except as provided for by legislation, no person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of Adi Associates.
Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole.

The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.

© Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd 2018 iii Kappara Business Centre 113 Triq Birkirkara San Gwann SGN 4197 MALTA Tel.
/ Fax: 21378172 - 77 Email: info@adi-associates.com Web: www.adi-associates.com CONTRIBUTORS Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd prepared this Environmental Impact Assessment Report in association with the specialist consultants listed below: Specialist Consultant: Dr Franck Mazas Dr Anne Levasseur Prof. Joseph A. Borg Mr John J. Borg Mr Christian Dalton Mr Steven Dewey Ms Abigail MacMillan Topic responsible for: Wave studies, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Marine ecology Water and sediment quality Avifauna Marine Archaeology Remote sensing surveys (Echosounder, Side Scan Sonar, Videography) Adi Associates staff was involved in the following parts of this EIA Report: Staff Member: Adrian Mallia Krista Farrugia Andrea Pace Chantal Cassar Rachel Decelis Rachel Xuereb Eilis McCullough Area responsible for: EIA Coordination Project Description & Alternatives Marine Environment Marine Ecology Public health Cumulative, Secondary, Interaction of Impacts Mitigation Measures, Residual Impacts, Decommissioning Plan Monitoring Programme EIA Coordination Project Management Waste Management Landscape Avifauna Cumulative, Secondary, Interaction of Impacts Mitigation Measures Land / Sea uses Access, transport, and infrastructure Public Access Human populations Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Environmental risk Climate Change Climate Change Cumulative, Secondary, Interaction of Impacts Mitigation Measures Noise Social Aspects v CONSULTANTS’ DECLARATION Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, Malta, prepared this Environmental Impact Assessment Report.
The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017 (S.L.

549.46), Section 17(3) requires that each of the Consultants declares that they have no conflict of interest that may affect any aspect covered by the Regulations.

We declare that Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd has no conflict of interest in the proposed development.
Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd has coordinated this EIA and has provided technical input to specific parts of the EIA Report as identified in the previous page.

Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd takes responsibility for statements and conclusions contained in the parts of the report prepared directly by its staff.
However, statements made and conclusions drawn by the independent sub-consultants who prepared the baseline studies reproduced in the Technical Appendices and which informed the Environmental Impact Assessment Report remain the responsibility of the individual sub- consultants.
Adrian Mallia Managing Director, Adi Associates vii The undersigned consultants and contributors hereby declare that they carried out the study or part thereof as identified on page v, that they have no personal or financial interest in the proposed development, and that they are not in any way associated with any individual, company, association or grouping that has any direct or indirect personal, professional or financial interest in the proposed development.
John J. Borg Dr Joseph A. Borg Chantal Cassar Christian Dalton Rachel Decelis Steven Dewey Krista Farrugia Dr Anne Levasseur Abigail MacMillan Adrian Mallia Dr Franck Mazas ix Eilis McCullough Andrea Pace Rachel Xuereb x CONTENTS 1.
Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the EIA Report ....................................................................................................................... 1 Background to the Scheme ....................................................................................................................... 1 Development of Aquaculture Zones ...................................................................................................... 2 Site Selection ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Recent developments ................................................................................................................................. 9 Structure of the EIA Report ................................................................................................................... 10 2.
EIA Methodology .............................................................................. 19 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 19 The EIA Process ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................................. 19 Method Statements ................................................................................................................................... 19 EIA Approach ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Stakeholder Consultation ........................................................................................................................ 20 Significance of Impacts .............................................................................................................................. 21 Uncertainty ................................................................................................................................................. 22 Presentation of the EIA Report ............................................................................................................. 22 3.
Description of the Scheme and the Site ......................................... 25 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 25 Purpose of the Scheme ............................................................................................................................ 25 Background to the Scheme ..................................................................................................................... 25 Operations – the Tuna Penning Process ............................................................................................. 25 Site Description and Location ................................................................................................................ 37 Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 Marine uses ................................................................................................................................................. 37 Description of the Scheme ..................................................................................................................... 45 Waste management .................................................................................................................................. 45 Employment ................................................................................................................................................ 49 4.
Policies and Legislation .................................................................... 51 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 51 Aquaculture ................................................................................................................................................ 51 International ............................................................................................................................................... 51 EU Aquaculture Priorities ....................................................................................................................... 52 National policies and legislation ............................................................................................................. 52 Planning ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development, 2015 .......................................................... 54 Development Planning Act (Act VII of 2016) ..................................................................................... 55 xi Environment ............................................................................................................................................... 57 International ............................................................................................................................................... 57 European ..................................................................................................................................................... 59 National ....................................................................................................................................................... 60 Cultural Heritage / Archaeology ............................................................................................................ 64 International legislation ............................................................................................................................ 64 National ....................................................................................................................................................... 65 5.
Marine Environment ........................................................................ 67 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................................. 68 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 68 Desk Studies ............................................................................................................................................... 68 Field surveys ............................................................................................................................................... 68 Side Scan Sonar .......................................................................................................................................... 71 Data Processing – Bathymetric Survey ................................................................................................ 72 Data processing – Side Scan Sonar ....................................................................................................... 73 Data processing – video and stills ......................................................................................................... 73 Wave and Hydrodynamic Modelling Studies ...................................................................................... 75 Wave Study ................................................................................................................................................ 75 Analysis of Winds and Waves ................................................................................................................ 76 Hydrodynamic Study ................................................................................................................................ 79 Water and Sediment Quality .................................................................................................................. 96 Benthos ..................................................................................................................................................... 101 Benthic diversity ..................................................................................................................................... 101 Benthic habitats map ............................................................................................................................. 101 Demersal and Pelagic Fauna ................................................................................................................. 107 Nature protection .................................................................................................................................. 107 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 109 Potential impacts .................................................................................................................................... 109 Prediction and significance of impacts ............................................................................................... 110 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................. 126 Residual Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 128 6.
Avifauna ........................................................................................... 143 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 143 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................... 143 Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................................... 143 Area of Influence .................................................................................................................................... 143 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 144 Baseline Survey Results ......................................................................................................................... 147 Determining Impact Significance ......................................................................................................... 159 Assessment of impacts .......................................................................................................................... 159 Description and assessment of impacts ............................................................................................ 159 Prediction and significance of impacts ............................................................................................... 160 xii Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................... 164 Residual Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 165 7.
Marine Archaeology ....................................................................... 169 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 169 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................................................... 169 Objectives of the Assessment ............................................................................................................. 169 Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................................... 169 Area of Study .......................................................................................................................................... 169 National Policy and Legislation............................................................................................................ 170 Structure Plan 1990 policies ................................................................................................................ 170 Literature search .................................................................................................................................... 173 Field survey .............................................................................................................................................. 173 Determining impact significance ......................................................................................................... 174 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 182 Prediction and significance of impacts ............................................................................................... 182 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................... 183 Residual Impacts ..................................................................................................................................... 183 8.
Effects on Human Populations ...................................................... 185 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 185 Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................................... 185 Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 185 Consultations .......................................................................................................................................... 185 Effects on Human Populations ............................................................................................................ 186 Information derived through consultations ...................................................................................... 186 Assessment of Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 190 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................... 195 Neutral ..................................................................................................................................................... 196 9.
Summary of key impacts, interaction between impacts and mitigation ........................................................................................ 201 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 201 Summary of Key Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 201 Benthic Ecology ...................................................................................................................................... 202 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 202 Avifauna .................................................................................................................................................... 203 Archaeology............................................................................................................................................. 203 Effects on Human Populations ............................................................................................................ 203 Interaction of Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 204 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 204 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................................. 204 Required Authorisations....................................................................................................................... 207 xiii FIGURES Figure 1.1: Results of site selection exercise using technical criteria only (2011)........................ 6 Figure 1.2: “Long List” areas of search (2011) ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 1.3: Second cycle of site sieving exercise including environmental, planning and social criteria (2011) .................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 1.4: Proposed general location for further consideration (red polygon) (2011) .......... 15 Figure 1.5: Area of Search and final proposed Scheme location (2018) ...................................... 17 Figure 3.1: Frozen feed ........................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3.2: Loading of semi-frozen baitfish into feeding cage ......................................................... 28 Figure 3.3: Schematic of the food chain and by-products of fish-rearing .................................... 29 Figure 3.4: Tuna harvesting .................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.5: Service boat transferring tuna to processing vessel..................................................... 32 Figure 3.6: Processing vessel .................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 3.7: Area of Search for establishment of North Aquaculture Zone ................................ 35 Figure 3.8: Location of temporary tuna farms off Mellieha and St Paul’s Bay ............................. 39 Figure 3.9: Proposed location of Scheme and surrounding marine uses ..................................... 41 Figure 3.10: Marine protected areas within which the Scheme lies ............................................. 43 Figure 5.1: Bathymetric survey track plots for all successful survey lines in Area 1 ................. 70 Figure 5.2: Targets of potential features of interest (DVxx) identified from the sidescan sonar data.
The hatched area was surveyed during the 2017 drop-down camera survey.
...... 71 Figure 5.3: Track plots of the camera transects across identified targets................................... 72 Figure 5.4: Bathymetry ............................................................................................................................ 74 Figurer 5.5: Location of the “Mellieha/St Paul” output point ......................................................... 76 Figure 5.6: Wind rose ............................................................................................................................. 77 Figure 5.7: Wave rose off Valletta ........................................................................................................ 78 Figure 5.8: Global model mesh and zoom on project area ............................................................ 81 Figure 5.9: Flow field on a vertical plane along the cages with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.
Locations of the six cages are indicated by the dotted lines ..................................... 82 Figure 5.10: Comparison of water levels ............................................................................................ 83 Figure 5.11: Comparison of the velocity fields at 2 m under the sea surface ............................ 84 Figure 5.12: Maps of maximum nitrogen (left) and phosphorous (right) concentration .......... 88 Figure 5.13: Time-series of the nutrient concentrations ................................................................ 89 Figure 5.14: Thickness of uneaten feed after 30 days ...................................................................... 91 Figure 5.15: Location of particles depending on time elapsed in Scenario 1 .............................. 94 Figure 5.16: Location of particles depending on time elapsed in Scenario 2 .............................. 95 Figure 5.17: Location of sampling stations .......................................................................................... 97 Figure 5.18: Benthic habitats mapping Area of survey ................................................................... 103 Figure 5.19: Map showing the main benthic habitats present within the survey area ............ 105 Figure 6.1: Avifauna Area of Influence ............................................................................................... 145 xiv Figure 6.2: Area of importance for seabird colonies at Rdum tal-Madonna ............................. 151 Figure 6.3: Seabird colonies on Comino ........................................................................................... 153 Figure 6.4: Maps showing priority areas for breeding Procellariiformes ................................... 155 Figure 7.1: Marine archaeology Area of Survey............................................................................... 175 Baseline Survey Results ......................................................................................................................... 177
177 Figure 7.2: Location of three targets of potential cultural heritage significance ...................... 179 Figure 7.3: Side-scan data of target 0275, which is a likely crashed aircraft site ..................... 181 Figure 7.4: Side-scan data of target 0277; large debris field possibly related to crashed aircraft remains............................................................................................................................................. 181 Figure 7.5: Side-scan data of target 0000 which is of likely cultural significance...................... 182 Figure 8.1: View of Scheme site from coast road at Il-Madliena ................................................. 191 Figure 8.2: Location of designated trawling zones and approximate location of Scheme site ........................................................................................................................................................... 193 TABLES Table 1.1: Site selection criteria for identification of a potential site for the North Aquaculture Zone (2011) ................................................................................................................. 8 Table 5.1: Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wind speeds ............................... 77 Table 5.2: Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wave heights .............................. 79 Table 5.3: Velocity reduction in the wake of cages .......................................................................... 82 Table 5.4: Dissolved nutrient leached from Bluefin tuna faeces .................................................... 86 Table 5.5: Soluble fraction of nitrogen and phosphorous in uneaten baitfish ............................ 87 Table 5.6: Characteristics of uneaten feed particles ........................................................................ 90 Table 5.7: Oil physical parameters ....................................................................................................... 92 Table 5.8:
92 Table 5.8: Geographical coordinates and water depths at the water and sediment quality sampling stations .............................................................................................................................. 96 Table 5.9: Physico-chemical parameters for water quality analysis .............................................. 99 Table 5.10: Physico-chemical parameters for sediment quality analysis .................................... 100 Table 5.11: Summary of impacts ......................................................................................................... 129 Table 6.1: Breeding biology and ecology of P. yelkouan, C. diomedea, and H. pelagicus ........... 147 Table 6.2: Presence in colonies of the three pelagic breeding seabird species ........................ 148 Table 6.3: Summary of Impacts on Avifauna ................................................................................... 166 Table 7.1: Impact Significant Criteria ................................................................................................. 174 Table 7.2: Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................................... 184 Table 8.1: Socio-economic data derived through consultation ................................................... 187 Table 8.2: Summary of Impacts on Human Populations ................................................................ 196 Table 9.1: Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................................... 208 xv APPENDIX Appendix 1: Summary notes from stakeholder consultation meetings xvi 1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1.

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report was commissioned by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture (DFA) and is required as part of its planning application for a proposal to establish a new aquaculture zone in the north of Malta.

1.2.

A Project Description Statement was submitted to the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) in February 2017, as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment screening process.
A development permit application is still to be submitted to the Planning Authority (PA) as the location for the proposed North Aquaculture Zone (NAZ) will be determined through this EIA.

1.3.

ERA has determined that the Application requires an EIA in accordance with Schedule 1, Category I Section 8.2.1.1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017 (S.L.

549.46) as amended.

1.4.


Hereafter, in this EIA Report, the proposed development is referred to as ‘the Scheme’ and the DFA is referred to as ‘the Applicant’.

A full description of the Scheme is provided in Chapter 3.

PURPOSE OF THE EIA REPORT 1.5.

The purpose of this EIA Report is to present the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

EIA is the process of systematically assessing the likely significant environmental impacts of the proposal.
EIA also aims to ensure that the significance of these impacts, and the scope for reducing them, is clearly understood by both the public and the ERA before a decision is made on whether or not the Scheme should be approved.

It is important that the findings of the EIA are clearly presented to the decision-making authority, i.e.

the PA Board in accordance with the spirit of the EIA Directive (2014/52/EU).

BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME 1.6.


The aquaculture industry in Malta saw its beginning in the late 1980s, with the establishment of an aquaculture centre at Fort St Lucian in Marsaxlokk.

The initial trials and experiments with tilapia, followed by the setting up of the P2M fish farm growing sea bream at Mistra Bay were a success, which saw a number of farms setting up in the early 1990s – including at Marsaskala, Marsaxlokk, Mellieha Bay, Salini, and Xemxija.

1.7.
1.7.

All these farms were breeding sea bream (a couple also had a smaller sea bass production) and were largely successful but things changed in the late 1990s, with two farms closing down.

The late 1990s also saw the advent of tuna penning with two of the remaining fish farms converting most of their production capacity to tuna penning operations (in the process moving the farms further offshore) and a further three farms were set up.
Malta soon became the leader in tuna penning operations in the Mediterranean.

To cater for this demand, the south-east aquaculture zone was 1 set up in 2006 with a capacity of 9,000 tonnes of fish.

1.8.

As a result of this upsurge in demand for tuna penning units and interest in other fish farming activities, the National Policy on Aquaculture (NPA) was formulated in 2004 to also supplement the fish farming guidelines that had been formulated by the Planning Authority in 1994.
The NPA had two objectives:  To formalise Government’s policy with respect to the aquaculture industry; and  To provide a holistic national strategy with respect to aquaculture development in Malta.

1.9.

The NPA gave an overview of the development of aquaculture in Malta, identified the requirements of the industry and the environmental constraints/impacts, and emphasised the need for the proper conduct of operations.
The NPA’s Strategy was based on procedural matters, development, and the management of installations.

Development of Aquaculture Zones 1.10.

Once fish farming became an established industry in Malta, the identification of suitable marine sites for the rearing of the fish (as opposed to land based tank or pond facilities), became a priority.

The fish farming guidelines of 1994 provided the first such guidance on site identification.
These guidelines provided technical and planning/environmental criteria and identified “search zones” for such installations.

The technology and the know-how at the time was such that these farming units had to be located in shallow and sheltered waters, which led to considerable conflicts with other coastal uses, including swimming, fishing, diving, yachting, and boating.

1.11.
1.11.

The development of tuna penning in the late 1990s, with its need for larger cages and heavier nets coupled with the advancement in mooring technologies, provided a spring board for a re-think of the need to have fish farming units in shallow and sheltered waters.

Indeed, most of the existing fish farming units were relocated to more exposed and deeper waters (c. 50 m depth) as a result of this process.
Following the establishment of the first tuna penning installations in the early 2000s, the demand for more farms and user conflicts from the tuna farms considered to be too close to land led to the development of an aquaculture zone off the south-east coast of Malta approximately 6 km offshore and in water depths ranging between 78 and 92 metres.

1.12.
1.12.

This south-east aquaculture zone was established in 2006 and has since accommodated three tuna penning installations, the first started operations in 2006, followed by a second in 2007 and a third installation that set up and operated only in 2008.

Between them, these three farms had a production capacity of 4,500 tonnes, or 50% of the total production capacity of the zone.

1.13.
1.13.

Although the farms in this aquaculture zone experienced some losses due to mooring 2 failures1 and navigational incidents with ships ramming the farms due to incorrect nautical charts on board, the zone itself has largely been a success even though the operating conditions are more difficult than those experienced inshore.
When originally set up in 2006, this aquaculture zone was also intended to house the two tuna penning installations located in inshore waters (one at Munxar Reef in Marsaskala and the other off Il-Hofriet in Marsaxlokk), which relocation was a condition of their development permission.
This relocation was however resisted for several years until the Planning Authority revoked all tuna penning development permits in September 2016 in response to sustained episodes of fish slime in coastal waters during that summer.

The PA’s decision allowed existing farming operations to relocate to existing aquaculture zones located at a minimum distance of 4.5 – 5 km from the shore.

The tuna penning operations from the two southern farms relocated to the south-east aquaculture zone in 2017.

1.14.
1.14.

Following the success of the south-east aquaculture zone and the persistent complaints from coastal users on the tuna farming operations in St Paul’s Bay, in 2011, the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture embarked upon a plan to establish an aquaculture zone in the north, which would allow the relocation of the tuna farms there (i.e.

off St Paul’s Bay and the tuna penning farm formerly located in the South Comino Channel), to a more offshore location.
The proposed north aquaculture zone would have an area (at sea surface) of 3 km x 1.5 km and would be capable to support fish farming units for a total production of some 4,500 – 5,000 tonnes of fish.

Site Selection 1.15.

To this end, in 2011, the DFA embarked upon a site selection exercise to identify a possible location for the establishment of the NAZ.
The exercise included detailed marine surveys, as well as a sieving exercise to identify suitable locations for the zone based on technical, environmental, and social criteria2.

1.16.

In identifying potential areas for the development of the NAZ, a two-phased approach was used to identify potential sites and then short-list them.

The initial phase (Phase 1) identified a ‘long list’ of potential sites that are likely to meet the necessary technical requirements of the aquaculture zone.
In the second phase, these potential sites were short-listed and categorised into ‘suitable’, ‘potentially suitable’ and ‘unsuitable’ by subjecting each site to further scrutiny on the grounds of the potential planning, environmental, social and economic benefits/dis-benefits associated with each location.

1.17.
1.17.

In all cases, ultimate testing of the environmental and planning suitability of a preferred site would require scrutiny of the development permit application process, 1 This was due to a wrong design of the mooring system; (Dr Gruppetta pers.

comm., 2011.)

2 Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2011.

Proposed Aquaculture Zone, North East Malta.

Alternative Site Assessment and Project Description Statement (Version 1) San Gwann, May 2011; v + 25pp.
3 including any necessary Environmental Impact Assessment.

The site selection exercise was intended to guide the decision making process and to provide a clear rationale to the identification of a preferred site by the Applicant.

The site selection exercise is described in more detail hereunder.

Phase 1 – Identifying and classifying potential sites for development of an aquaculture zone 1.18.
As mentioned, a ‘site sieving’ technique was used to identify all sites north of the Grand Harbour that have realistic technical potential.

This Phase assessed the sites against geographically specific technical criteria (such as minimum distance from other aquaculture units and minimum and maximum water depths and a maximum distance of 8km from the coast).
By identifying such areas the site selection exercise highlighted ‘Residual Areas of Search’ (RAS) within which potential sites (that would form the “Long List”) were identified.

Areas outside the ‘RAS’ were excluded from any further consideration.

1.19.
The technical criteria used in the identification of the Residual Areas of Search (“Long List”) are listed below:  Potential site to be located in the north of the island;  Potential site to be located in water depths ranging from 50 m ± 5 m to 100 m3;  Potential site to be located at a minimum distance of 1 km from other aquaculture units;  Potential site to be able to accommodate an aquaculture zone of at least 3 km x 1.5 km; and  Potential site not to be located further than 8 km from the shore.
1.20.

Figure 1.1 maps all the “excluded” areas based on the technical criteria above.

The remaining “residual areas of search” in the north of the island that could technically accommodate the Scheme, including an indication of whether they would accommodate a 3 km x 1.5 km aquaculture zone, are highlighted in Figure 1.2.
These areas therefore show the potential preliminary areas of search (“Long List”) that meet the technical criteria without any consideration of planning, environmental, or social constraints.

Phase 2 – Short-listing against planning, environmental, and social criteria 1.21.
Following this first sieving exercise based on the technical criteria alone, the exercise was repeated to also include the planning, environmental, and social criteria listed in 3 This maximum water depth was based on the experience in 2011.

The deployment of tuna cages in waters deeper than 100 m is today possible through the use of appropriate mooring technology and the required redundancy in equipment.

4 Table 1.1.

1.22.
4 Table 1.1.

1.22.

The results of the additional scrutiny of the “Long List” sites taking into consideration relevant planning and/or environmental policy considerations and how these might be relevant to the development of the NAZ at each potential site; as well as the relative merits of each location in terms of potential social implications as identified in the criteria above are shown in Figure 1.3.

1.23.
1.23.

On the basis of this site sieving exercise and the criteria outlined above, the only area that in 2011 was considered suitable for further consideration for the development of the aquaculture zone was the area east of Comino and Qala Point and just north of the Sikka l-Bajda (between 50 m and 100 m depth of water) – see Figure 1.4.
The Site Selection Exercise noted that there could be scope to consider areas further to the east, overlapping with the current bunkering zone at Is-Sikka l-Bajda, if this activity is relocated (or curtailed) from this location, especially in view of the offshore wind farm that was being proposed at the time at this location.

1.24.
1.24.

The site selection exercise also noted that the proposed site lies within a Marine Protected Area designated by MEPA4 and hence, guidance would be required from MEPA prior to further consideration of this area for the development of the aquaculture zone.

1.25.

The exact location for the development of the NAZ would depend on the findings of detailed benthic studies that would help characterise the seabed.

1.26.
1.26.

Following the preparation of the site selection exercise in 2011, the process for establishing the NAZ was stalled and temporarily shelved in view of conflicts with the offshore wind farm being proposed at the time and difficulties in terms of conflicts with other coastal users.

4 The former MEPA has since been split into two separate entities: the Planning Authority (PA), and the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA); the latter is responsible for marine protected areas.
5 Figure 1.1: Results of site selection exercise using technical criteria only (2011) 6 Figure 1.2: “Long List” areas of search (2011) 7 Table 1.1: Site selection criteria for identification of a potential site for the North Aquaculture Zone (2011) Social criteria Potential site to be located outside areas used regularly for artisanal fisheries (especially kannizzatti deployment areas used for lampuki fishing) Potential sites to be located away from important (official5) diving sites Potential sites to be located well clear of harbours, coves, bays, and other shore areas of importance for the yachting industry Potential site to be located up-current from other important uses (for the prevailing surface current) Technical criteria Planning criteria Potential site to be located in the north of the island Potential site to be located at a minimum distance of 1km from the coast Environmental criteria Potential sites to be located away from important bird breeding sites Potential sites to be located away from important seabird rafting areas Potential sites to be located outside areas supporting protected marine habitats (especially Posidonia oceanica meadows and maerl beds6) Potential site to be located at least 1 km from control sites used for environmental monitoring of other aquaculture units Potential site to be located outside of areas protected for cultural heritage reasons Potential site to be located in water depths ranging from 50m ± 5m to 100m Potential site to be located at a minimum distance of 1km from other aquaculture units Potential sites to be located away from sewage discharge points (min.
1km) Potential site to be located downstream of the intake points of reverse osmosis plants Potential site to be able to accommodate an aquaculture zone of at least 3km x 1.5 km Potential sites to be located at a distance from shore to minimize impacts on designated Areas of High Landscape Value Potential site not to be located further than 8km from the shore Potential sites to be located at a sufficient distance from the shore so as not to negatively impact important tourism zones Potential sites to be located outside the field of view of the filming facility at Rinella Potential sites to be located a minimum of 500 m from the landward side of bunkering areas and well clear of the approaches on the seaward side Potential sites to be located outside areas reserved for maritime traffic, including harbour access points, bunkering areas, waiting areas, 5 Official diving sites are those recognised as such by the Malta Tourism Authority.
6 Maerl is a term used to describe calcareous sediments dominated by coralline algae.

Maerl beds describe sedimentary habitats in which living or dead unattached calcareous rhodophytes are a dominant component.

Sparse maerl-forming organisms interspersed on a sandy bottom do not qualify as maerl beds.
8 Technical criteria Planning criteria Environmental criteria Social criteria and sea lanes Potential sites to be located outside restricted areas (including Armed Forces of Malta shooting ranges and cable areas) Potential sites to be located outside areas identified for offshore wind farm development Recent developments 1.27.
In September 2016, following several reports over the summer months related to pollution from fish slime in most of the eastern seaboard of Malta, led the Planning Authority to revoke all tuna penning permits and to order all tuna farms to relocate further offshore7 and into existing aquaculture zones by May 2017 in order to mitigate the impacts from the farming operations on the marine environment, including social impacts related to amenity and nuisance from odour and water quality at affected areas of the coast.
1.28.

The PA’s decision resulted in the relocation of the two southern tuna farms to the south-east aquaculture zone (see above), which led to this zone, which already included another farm, reaching its allocated biomass of 9,000 tonnes.

This meant that the tuna farms located in the north (south Comino Channel and St Paul’s Bay) could not relocate to the SAZ.
In view of this, the tuna operators in the north submitted development permit applications to relocate to a site further offshore to meet the 4.5 – 5 km criterion set by the PA; while the DFA re-activated the process to establish a NAZ.

1.29.

This EIA Report assesses the proposal to establish a NAZ in the general area north of Is-Sikka l-Bajda.
The EIA considered a wide area of sea, which was identified by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for further studies and marine surveys (see Figure 1.5).
The various marine studies undertaken for this EIA and those for a separate EIA undertaken for the temporary relocation of the tuna cages operated by AJD Tuna Ltd (see Adi Associates, 20188), as well as extensive stakeholder consultations undertaken throughout the EIA process, led the present consultants to identify a preferred location that could accommodate the proposed c. 4.5 km2 zone, while minimising conflicts with other marine uses and environmental considerations 7 Farms were required to relocate to not less than 4.5 – 5 km from the shore.
8 Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2018.

PA 02175/18 - Proposal to consolidate temporary tuna farming area at a parcel of sea approximately 5 kilometers from the shore (in general area approved for PA/03072/17 and PA/05858/17) for a total biomass of 3,300 tonnes of fish.

Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

San Gwann, July 2018; xvi + 236pp + 2 Appendices 9 (see Figure 1.5).
The final preferred location on which this EIA assessment is based, is located at the northwestern corner of the Area of Survey but may need to extend slightly to the west of the original Area of Survey to accommodate a 4.5 km2 zone (see dotted line in Figure 1.5); however, the environmental conditions in this area are identical to those in the adjacent locations, as described further in the baseline survey reports.

1.30.
1.30.

An overview of the baseline surveys and other studies undertaken as part of this assessment are described in subsequent chapters.

STRUCTURE OF THE EIA REPORT 1.31.


Following this introduction, the EIA Report is structured as follows:  Chapter 2: EIA Methodology  Chapter 3: Description of Site and Scheme  Chapter 4: Legislation and Policy Context  Chapter 5: Marine Environment  Chapter 6: Avifauna  Chapter 7: Marine Archaeology  Chapter 8: Effects on Human Populations  Chapter 9: Key Impacts, Cumulative Effects and Summary of Mitigation  Appendix 1: Summary notes from stakeholder consultation meetings 1.32.
The Environmental Risk Assessment is presented as Volume 2 of the EIA Report.

1.33.
The EIA Report also contains the following Technical Appendices (compiled separately as Volume 3 of the EIA Report):  Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements  Technical Appendix 2A: Multibeam Echosounder and Backscatter Survey Report 2016  Technical Appendix 2B: Side Scan Sonar Survey Report 2017  Technical Appendix 2C: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018  Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report  Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report 10  Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report  Technical Appendix 6: Cultural Heritage Baseline Report 1.34.
The EIA Report includes a Non-Technical Summary in Maltese and English.

11 Figure 1.3: Second cycle of site sieving exercise including environmental, planning and social criteria (2011) 13 Figure 1.4: Proposed general location for further consideration (red polygon) (2011) 15 Figure 1.5: Area of Search and final proposed Scheme location (2018) 17 2.

EIA METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION 2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

This chapter sets out the broad method that is used in the EIA for the proposed Scheme.
It sets out the key stages that were followed in line with EIA best practice.

This chapter also provides a section on how the significance of impacts was assessed, and describes how this was a consistent process throughout the EIA.

THE EIA PROCESS The current guidance on the EIA process is contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2017.
ERA has indicated that an EIA is required for the Scheme under Category I Section 8.2.1.1 of Schedule 1: “Aquaculture establishments for any type of aquatic organism (including fish farms, hatcheries, tuna pens, shellfish or crustacean farms, seaweed production units, or similar establishments), or extensions to an existing establishment if covering an area of 2 ha or more and located within 6km of the coast”.
TERMS OF REFERENCE The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the EIA were prepared by ERA in consultation with relevant Government Departments.

The final ToR were issued by ERA in February 2018 and are reproduced in Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements.

The ToR for the EIA were formulated following a scoping exercise organised by the ERA to identify the issues to be considered in the EIA.
The ToR focus on those impacts of the proposal that ERA considers to be significant and, therefore, require further assessment, avoiding the examination of all potential environmental impacts.

They also set out the various components of the EIA.

METHOD STATEMENTS 2.5.

As required by the EIA Regulations, the Consultants who prepared this EIA Report were approved by ERA9.

2.6.

For the main topic areas to be covered by the EIA Report (i.e.
marine environment, including bathymetry, sonar and video surveys, marine ecology, and cultural heritage), the Consultants undertaking the work, in collaboration with Adi Associates, produced a Method Statement.

The Method Statements outline the baseline survey work to be carried out, the methods used to assess the predicted impacts of the Scheme, and the means by which their significance would be determined.
The Method Statements include the following information: 9 E-mails from ERA EIA Team dated 5thFebruary and 20th April 2018.

19  Introduction listing the objectives of the survey and reference to the ToR;  Details of baseline survey methodology;  Area of Influence;  Field survey methodology;  Analytical methodology;  Evaluation of data;  Identification of potential impacts;  Prediction of impacts;  Impact significance; and  Mitigation.

2.7.

All Method Statements were accepted by ERA.


The accepted Method Statements are included in Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference & Method Statements.

The Method Statements were then used as the basis for carrying out the EIA.

EIA APPROACH 2.8.

Good practice advises that EIA should be treated as an iterative process, rather than a one-off, post-design environmental appraisal.
In this way, the findings from the EIA can be fed into the design process, leading to the production of a more environmentally sensitive project.

This approach was adopted for this EIA.

2.9.

The specialist sub-consultants used existing information, where available, and carried out further baseline surveys, where required, of the Scheme site and its immediate surroundings (as established in the ToR).

This was based on the Area of Influence agreed with ERA for each topic area.
In this way, important or sensitive features could be identified for protection and avoided during deployment.

2.10.

A detailed assessment of the Scheme’s impact on the features present on site and in its environs was undertaken and any potential environmental benefits of the Scheme identified.

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 2.11.

During the process of the EIA, consultation meetings were organised with several stakeholders.
These included: Transport Malta, Environmental Health Directorate, Malta Tourism Authority, the Armed Forces of Malta, Mellieha Local Council, St Paul’s Bay Local Council, Nature Trust–FEE Malta, Birdlife (Malta), the Amateur Fishermen Association, the Professional Diving Schools Association, and the environmental group ‘Stop the Slime’.

Notes from these meetings are reproduced in Appendix 1 to the EIA Report; the issues raised are also discussed in Chapter 8.

20 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS 2.12.


Assessment of the significance of impacts arising from the Scheme is a key stage in the EIA process.

It is this judgement that is key in informing the decision-making process.

However, defining what is significant is not a simple task.

In general terms, environmental significance involves assessing the amount of change to the environment perceived to be acceptable to the community (Sippe, 199910).

2.13.
2.13.

The following criteria have been used to assess the significance of an impact:  Type of impact (adverse/beneficial);  Extent and magnitude of impact;  Direct or indirect impact;  Duration of impact (short term/long term; permanent/temporary);  Comparison with legal requirements, policies and standards;  Sensitivity of receptor (residential dwellings, hotel, recreational areas, etc.
);  Probability of impact occurring (certain, likely, uncertain, unlikely, remote);  Reversibility of impact;  Scope for mitigation / enhancement (very good, good, none); and  Residual impacts.

2.14.

Using these criteria, the significance of the impacts arising from the Scheme has been categorised throughout the EIA Report, as follows:  Not significant;  Minor significance; and  Major significance.

2.15.
2.15.

Definitions of the meaning of the “significance categories” above in relation to each topic area are included in the topic chapters.

2.16.

The EIA Report contains an assessment of the significance of predicted impacts and, following the proposed mitigation measures, the significance of any residual impacts.

A residual impact is any remaining impact that would exist following the implementation of proposed mitigation measures.
Mitigation measures and residual 10 Sippe R (1999) ‘Criteria and Standards for Assessing Significant Impact’ in Petts J ‘Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Volume 1.

21 impacts are addressed in the chapter of the EIA Report that deals specifically with the source of the significant effect.

A summary of mitigation measures are tabulated at the end of each chapter and a summary of significant impacts is included in Chapter 9.

UNCERTAINTY 2.17.
UNCERTAINTY 2.17.

The EIA process is designed to enable good decision-making based on the best possible information about the environmental implications of a proposed development.

However, there will always be some uncertainty as to the exact scale and nature of the environmental impacts.

This arises through shortcomings in information, doubts, or lack of certainty on the likelihood that an incidence would occur, or due to the limitations of the prediction process itself.
It is stated in the EIA Report where particular uncertainties have arisen and where they remain.

PRESENTATION OF THE EIA REPORT 2.18.

The EIA Report is divided into three main sections after the Introduction and this chapter providing the EIA Methodology.
Part 1 comprises Chapter 3 and Chapter 4:  Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the Scheme (including waste management issues) as well as of the site location and its surroundings, including information on land and sea uses; and  Chapter 4 summarises the relevant legislation and policy context.

2.19.

Part 2 of the EIA Report (Chapter 5 to Chapter 7) describes the potential environmental impacts of the Scheme in relation to a number of different topic areas.
These topic areas were identified in the ToR.

The information in each of these chapters is structured in a consistent way, as follows:  Introduction: identifying key issues and how the chapter relates to the requirements of the ToR;  Assessment Methodology: a summary of the methods used (desk study, surveys, consultations, etc.)
in undertaking the EIA Report topic chapter;  Existing Conditions: a summary of the baseline situation and trends irrespective of the development proposals; and  An assessment of impacts associated with the operation of the Scheme, following the headings below: o Potential impacts: a summary of the potential impacts of the Scheme; o Prediction and significance of impacts: a prediction of the likely impacts of the Scheme against the baseline situation and an assessment of the significance of the impacts; 22 o Mitigation measures: a summary of potential mitigation / enhancement measures to offset any identified adverse impacts of the Scheme; o Residual impacts: a clear statement of those impacts that still have an impact following mitigation, indicating the significance of the residual impact; and o Summary: a summary table of the impacts.
2.20.

Part 3 of the EIA Report (Chapter 8 and Chapter 9) addresses the effects on human populations, and the cumulative effects of the Scheme, and presents a summary of the impacts and proposed mitigation measures.

23 3.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME AND THE SITE INTRODUCTION 3.1.

This chapter describes the Scheme.

It explains the purpose of the Scheme and includes a description of the Application Site and its surroundings.

A more detailed description of the marine environment is included in Chapter 5.
PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME 3.2.
The purpose of the Scheme is:   to establish a new aquaculture zone in the north of the island that would consolidate all tuna farming operations in this part of the island in one location (as has happened in the south); to ensure that these operations are located as far as possible from the shoreline to minimise possible impacts from the operations while freeing up nearshore coastal areas from similar installations; and  allowing expansion of the sector through provision of additional biomass space within the aquaculture zone than the current rearing capacity in the temporary farms off Mellieha and St Paul’s Bay.
BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME Operations – the Tuna Penning Process Tuna capture and transfer to farm 3.3.

Tuna are caught by purse seining on the high seas.

This activity is allowed under ICCAT11 rules for a restricted time during the year as the fish are migrating through the Mediterranean Sea.

There are no Maltese purse seiners and therefore the fish are caught by foreign vessels from whom the Applicant purchases stock.

3.4.
3.4.

The tuna caught in the purse seines normally range in size from 50 to 300 kg, with the vast majority of the fish being between 100 and 200 kg.

3.5.

Once the tuna are caught in the purse seines and the required amounts are purchased, they are led through openings in the purse seine into the farm’s towing cages.
Once the cages are filled with the required stock, they are slowly towed to the on-growing site12 where they are anchored in position to the mooring system that would have already been deployed at the site.

3.6.

The entire operation is overseen by ICCAT international observers.

11 ICCAT is the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

12 Towing speeds rarely exceed 1 knot, with the transfer taking a number of weeks (depending on the distance between the catch area and the farm).
25 Penning 3.7.

Once on the farm, the tuna are fed and fattened, largely a process of conditioning, through which the fat-to-protein ratio is adjusted through a high fat diet.

The tuna are kept in the pens for between 3 and 7 months, after which they are harvested and sold to the Japanese market.

3.8.

The transhipment of tuna to fattening pens is considered to be a landing operation and the catches involved must comply with regulations in force13 as well as ICCAT requirements.
Feeding and feed management techniques 3.9.

The tuna are fed small pelagic fish, usually, herring, mackerel, anchovy, sardines, etc (Figure 3.1).

It is estimated that it takes 10-25 kg of baitfish to produce 1 kg of tuna (EC, 2004)14.

Approximately 5,500 kg of baitfish per day are provided to each cage to feed the farmed tuna.

3.10.
3.10.

Each farm typically orders the feed from a number of international suppliers and reefer containers with feed arrive in Malta on a daily basis; these are stored at the Freeport or at land bases.

At the land bases, the feed fish are transferred to jumbo bags and allowed to partially thaw in preparation for feeding the tuna.
The process of feed fish thawing needs very careful management and containment of thaw water by the individual operators so as to minimise the loss of thaw water to the environment, whether on land, during the loading process, or at sea.

3.11.

During the penning season, feed fish are loaded onto service boats early in the morning for ferrying to the farm.

The tuna are fed once a day, at dawn.


Semi-frozen baitfish15 are normally placed in small feeding cages floated at the centre of the pen (Figure 3.2), and once they have been thawed enough, the central cage is opened by divers and the fish dispensed into the pen.

The divers monitor the tuna and control the amount of feed released into the pen to minimise wastage.

Once the tuna are satiated, the diver stops feeding.
The process may be repeated two hours later; however, if the tuna are satiated, any remaining fish can be lifted from the pen and transferred to other cages.

An alternative method of feeding the tuna involves the near complete thawing of the baitfish and their placement in the cages by the spadeful through the use of a feeding tube.

3.12.
3.12.

In order to optimise feeding efficiency it is necessary to ensure that when fed to the tuna the baitfish are not completely defrosted so that the high calorific oils are ingested too and not lost from the feed.
Nonetheless, the process does involve the 13 Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 14 European Communities, 2004.

Tuna: a global fishing activity.

Fishing in Europe No.

23.

Directorate-General for Fisheries, European Commission, September 2004; 15 Herring, sardines, mackerel.
26 development of an oily slick originating from the semi-frozen feed.

In order to address this issue, a number of measures have been taken throughout the past season by the various farms and the ones proven to be successful should be enforced on all operators.
These include:  Use of impermeable jumbo bags for the transport of baitfish from the land bases to the farm in order to contain the thaw water;  The permanent deployment of oil booms inside each cage to contain any fish oils that may be released from the feed;  The use of proprietary oil skimmers to collect release fish oil when still inside the cage.

Use of the skimmers to start as soon as the baitfish are placed in the pen;  Collection of fish oil in IBCs placed on deck.
Oil-water suspension allowed to separate out and the water decanted.

Decanted water to be monitored to ensure that no oil is released.

 Collected oil transferred to land for onward transmission to a waste oil recycling company;  Feeding to be monitored by divers and stopped before the tuna are satiated to minimise loss of baitfish; and  Monitoring of seabed to collect uneaten feed settling on the bottom.

3.13.
3.13.

The efficiency of the above measures is currently being assessed by the Environment & Resources Authority through the monitoring undertaken at the various tuna farms; improvements may need to be proposed to address lacunae in the process.
These measures may include deploying additional skimmers (setting a minimum number of skimmers per farm); complete thawing of the baitfish and containing the thaw water prior to feeding the tuna, and deploying further oil slick collection measures outside the farm (e.g.

a cleaning vessel), for any oil that escapes from the farm area.

27 Figure 3.1: Frozen feed Figure 3.2: Loading of semi-frozen baitfish into feeding cage 28 Food conversion 3.14.
The following approximations are made for the daily baitfish feed (source: AJD Tuna Ltd & MFF Ltd16): o 0.5% passes through the net uneaten; o 5% is lost as fish oil per day; o 94.5% is ingested by tuna.

3.15.

Therefore the amount of uneaten baitfish represents 26.5 kg/day/cage, the mass of fish oil released is 264.7 kg/day/cage, and the food intake by tuna is 5,002.8 kg/day/cage.
Assuming the Scheme will have a total of 34 cages, the totals would equate to 900 kg of uneaten baitfish per day, 9 tonnes of fish oil released daily, and 170 tonnes of food ingested by the tuna on a daily basis.

3.16.

Figure 3.3 provides a schematic diagram of the food chain and by-products of fish- rearing.
Figure 3.3: Schematic of the food chain and by-products of fish-rearing Source: Artelia, 2018 16 There are no specific studies on these; the calculations were made over several years of observations during feeding of the tuna and have been confirmed by different local tuna farm operators.

The figures provided are for herring; whereas in the case of sardines or mackerel, the amount of oil lost is calculated to be less (at around 3%).
Hence, the figures used here (which are for herring) are considered to be a worse case situation.

29 Harvesting and processing 3.17.

Harvesting of fresh tuna is largely on demand, although the vast proportion of the tuna is today being harvested for the frozen fish market.

3.18.

When harvesting occurs, the bottom of the net is raised to a degree, forcing the fish closer to the surface.
Slaughtering is particularly delicate to ensure food quality since the amount of stress the fish are subjected to must be kept low because if the fish are stressed their body temperature rises sharply, which would compromise the quality of the meat17.

Slaughtering is carried out by divers who enter the cage and harvest the tuna one by one by shooting them in the head.

3.19.
3.19.

The tuna are transferred to a service vessel by crane (Figure 3.4) from where they are then quickly transported by service boats (Figure 3.5) to a waiting processing vessel anchored further out at sea (Figure 3.6).

Onboard the ship, the tuna are weighed, heads and tails are cut off and the guts removed.

Currently, the head, tails and guts are a waste by-product.
These are currently being disposed of at sea beyond the 12 nautical mile limit as directed by the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Regulation Department.

The option of incinerating the material was discounted as the abattoir incinerator is too small to handle the volume of waste generated by the tuna farms; the incinerator operator has rejected this possible waste stream.
Other options are being discussed by the newly set up Federation of Aquaculture Producers with a view to identify alternative options for the re-use rather than the disposal of this material, also as part of the conditions in the environment permits of the individual tuna farms.

Post-harvest 3.20.

Following harvesting, between November and May, individual tuna farmers are allowed to keep up to 15% of the stock in the cages for research purposes.
The fish so retained are fed between two and three times a week during this period.

This carry-over must be properly supervised to ensure that the farms are truly undertaking research and not simply keeping small sized fish over winter to fatten them and fetch a better price the following year.

Stocking Density 3.21.

The stocking density of the fish in the cages is a crucial factor in aquaculture that has an important bearing on mortality and the quality of the fish produced.
With respect to the Scheme, each cage is proposed to contain approximately 1,150 fishes with an average mass of 115 kg, which means that each cage contains around 132.35 tons of fish.

This will equate to a total biomass of 4,500 tonnes within the aquaculture zone.

17 Tuna maintain body temperatures between 15 and 20 degrees centigrade above that of the surrounding water.

However stress will lead to an alarm reaction and secretion of hormones in preparation for emergency action.
As part of the process, the body temperature can rise up to 40 degrees centigrade above the surrounding water, compromising the redness of the flesh once the fish has been slaughtered (See http://www.niri.co.jp/agroup/maguro3.pdf).

30 3.22.

The emphasis on biomass rather than number of cages is important in view that ICCAT Regulations do not allow mixing of tuna caught under different jurisdictions / certification.
Hence, individual farms require a degree of flexibility in the number of cages that they can deploy within the approved farm area to cater for their approved biomass.

Antifouling and net cleaning 3.23.

No anti-fouling or other chemicals are used on tuna nets, since unlike the nets of traditional finfish aquaculture units, which remain in the water for an extended time period, the tuna nets are removed at the end of the season for drying.

Feed supplements, chemicals and antibiotics 3.24.


Tuna are only fed baitfish.

No feed supplements or other chemicals or vitamins are used to date.

Equally, since the tuna are effectively wild and only kept on site for fattening, i.e.

they are not actually farmed18, no chemicals or antibiotics are used19.

Mortalities are more effectively controlled by lowering stocking densities and monitoring the fish for any signs of stress.

Storage of feed and packing materials 3.25.


Feed and packaging material are typically stored at land bases.

The Environment and Resources Authority also insists on tuna farms having such ancillary facilities to avoid encroaching on unbuilt coastal land.

18 The process is more appropriately called tuna ranching than tuna farming.

19 Had these to be used, they would be similar to those already in use in the other finfish aquaculture operations.
31 Figure 3.4: Tuna harvesting Figure 3.5: Service boat transferring tuna to processing vessel 32 Figure 3.6: Processing vessel Alternative Sites 3.26.

The Scheme site was identified following a selection exercise, as described hereunder.

To begin with, the site identified in 2011 for the north aquaculture zone (for which planning approval had not been concluded) was reviewed (See Chapter 1).
This site was, however, no longer considered to be suitable for consideration as a search area for the aquaculture zone.

This was mainly due to the fact that the proposed site also lies relatively close to the coast thereby potentially not fulfilling the spirit of the permit revocation and the PA conditions.

Discussions with the ERA and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture indicated that a minimum distance of 4.5 – 5 km from the shore was expected for all relocated farms20.

3.27.
3.27.

To this end, it was considered that an appropriate approach would be to identify a suitable area of search within which to study parameters in order to identify a final location for the NAZ, within which the cages from the farms in the north of Malta would be relocated ad possibly also accommodate additional operators.
The identification of the area of search was based on the technical, social and environmental criteria considered in the 2011 study (see Chapter 1), but with the following amendments in view of technological advances and experiences in the intervening period: 20 Meeting Adi Associates, ERA and Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; October 2016.
33  The minimum depth of 50 m was retained but the maximum depth of 100 m was not, in view that technological options for the anchoring or mooring of tuna cages in waters deeper than 100 m do exist;  Minimum distance from the shore to be 5 km; and  Zone to be on the seaward side of bunkering areas and to keep a buffer of at least 500 m from the bunkering area.

3.28.

Figure 3.7 identifies the area of search that was the subject of these studies and of the current EIA.
This is located north of Qawra Point, St Paul’s Bay.

The studies were undertaken over a period of one year, with the areas closer to the bunkering zone and the AFM danger area studied first (in 2017 – Area A in Figure 3.7) in conjunction with the surveys for the temporary relocation of the tuna farms in the South Comino Channel and at St Paul’s Bay (Adi Associates, 2018).

The studies were extended in 2018 to cover the outer area extending to depths of around 150 m (Area B in Figure 3.7).

3.29.
3.29.

Following identification of the search area, the following studies were carried out under licence from the Continental Shelf Department of the Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure:  In 2017: o Multibeam echo sounder and back scatter survey within the search area; o Initial video surveys of the benthic environment to identify benthic habitats in the area; and o Side Scan Sonar survey of part of the search area.
 In 2018: o Side Scan Sonar surveys21; o Bathymetric surveys; and o Video surveys of the seabed.

3.30.

The benthic habitat surveys (see Chapter 5) revealed that the shallower part of the search area (50 – 90 m depth), and hence that closer to shore, included maerl/rhodolith beds and coarse sand with rhodoliths.

On the other hand, the outer, deeper areas consisted of muddy seabed sediment.
21 Most of the Side scan sonar survey data already existed; the surveys undertaken as part of this EIA were aimed at filling gaps in the existing data.

34 Figure 3.7: Area of Search for establishment of North Aquaculture Zone 35 SITE DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Location 3.31.

As described earlier, the Scheme aims to establish a permanent aquaculture zone in the north of Malta that would substitute the temporary farming areas established in 201722.
Figure 3.8 illustrates the location of the temporary farms, which are located approximately 5 km offshore from Malta’s northwest coast.

The location identified for the Scheme, following the findings of this EIA and discussion with stakeholders, is that shown in Figure 3.9.

This location respects the main criteria set out and most importantly the minimum distance for shore as established by the authorities, while respecting most of the environmental and social criteria or minimising the effects on others.
The findings and associated impact assessments on the seabed, water column, wildlife, cultural heritage, and social aspects are presented in the subsequent chapters of this EIA.

Marine uses 3.32.

The location of the Scheme site takes into consideration and avoids any overlap with the bunkering area located off the northeast coast of Malta as well as the 8 nm AFM firing arc danger area (see Figure 3.9).
Figure 3.10 illustrates that the Scheme location lies within marine protected areas (Special Area of Conservation: Żona fil- Baħar fil-Grigal ta’ Malta, and Specially Protected Area: Il-Baħar ta’ madwar Għawdex).

The area of search was also surveyed through remote sensing for the presence of any marine archaeology features, refer to Chapter 7.

3.33.

There are no other known designated uses or infrastructure at the Scheme site.
Other general maritime uses in the vicinity of the site include yachting / navigation and (in view of the presence of the temporary farms) also recreational fishing.

The location of the NAZ as well as the individual farms / cages with the zone will have to be appropriately marked by special marker buoys and navigational aids as instructed by Transport Malta.

The zone will also be charted on navigational charts.

3.34.

The Scheme site is located around 5.1 km from the nesting sites at Rdum tal- Madonna23.
As explained in Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report the area in front of the nesting cliffs and up to 5 – 7 km offshore (and including the Scheme site), are often used by the nesting seabirds for rafting.

22 These temporary locations for the relocation of the former South Comino and St Paul’s Bay tuna farms operated by AJD Tuna Ltd and Malta Mariculture Limited have been approved in their current location for a period of time not exceeding the establishment of the new NAZ.
Once the NAZ is established, the temporary farms will have to relocate to the established zone.

23 Note that the distance is to the edge of the Scheme site as shown on the figures; the cages will likely not be located on the boundary of this site so that the effective distance will be greater.
37 Figure 3.8: Location of temporary tuna farms off Mellieha and St Paul’s Bay 39 Figure 3.9: Proposed location of Scheme and surrounding marine uses 41 Figure 3.10: Marine protected areas within which the Scheme lies 43 DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEME 3.35.

The Scheme will occupy an area of approximately 4.5 km2 for a biomass of approximately 4,500-5,000 tonnes.

The number of cages that would be deployed may vary in view of ICCAT caging requirements (see earlier).
The layout of the cages is therefore also not set and could change from year to year, although the overall area occupied by the NAZ will not change.

Each cage is a circular area with a diameter of 50 metres.

The distance between the sides of the nets from the cages is 30 metres.

The mesh size of the net is 70 x 70 mm and the twine diameter is 5 mm.

3.36.

The operators within the Scheme will operate in the same way as the current operators of tuna farms on Maltese waters.
Each outfit will operate under license from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which will remain the owner and manager of the NAZ.
Each farm will operate a number of vessels, which will provide all the services required on the farm, and will include:  Feeding vessels used to transport the feed to the cages;  Service boats for the transportation of staff, materials, and wastes;  Cleaning vessels (often third party operated) deployed to collect fish oils and slime during the feeding season; and  Vessels for transportation of offal waste offshore (see below).

3.37.
3.37.

In addition to the vessels owned and operated or contracted by the tuna farm, the farmers’ main clients also send over their own processing ships where the harvested fish are transferred and processed.

These large processing vessels are typically present for a period of two – three months and would anchor seaward of the NAZ in deeper waters further from the shore.

Waste management 3.38.


Wastes generated by the Scheme are likely to include:  Packaging waste from importation of baitfish;  Thaw water from baitfish preparation;  Oily slick (from baitfish);  Uneaten feed;  Fish excreta;  Dead tuna;  Blood (during slaughtering);  Wastewater from onboard processing of fish (mixture of blood, water, and offal); 45  Offal (gutted heads, tails, and internal organs);  Algal and other net fouling marine growth; and  Marine litter.
Packaging waste and thaw water 3.39.

This waste stream is generated as a result of the importation of baitfish.

The operators of the individual farms will have a contract with a licensed waste contractor who would take the packaging waste away for reuse.

Thaw water at the land base is typically collected in culverts and directed to the sewer, but each land base may have a different arrangement, which will be governed by the environmental permit conditions for the operators.
The environmental permits would typically also require the operators to implement adequate containment measures to collect and appropriately dispose of thaw water, ensuring that its release into the environment is minimised.

Oily slick 3.40.

The oily slick generated at tuna farms is essentially a combination of fish oils, melting ice, body fluids, and fish mucus released from the baitfish as it thaws in the feeding cage.
Although this oily slick can extend over a considerable area as it is carried on the surface of the water by surface currents, it is restricted to the immediate surface of the sea and does not dissolve into the rest of the water column, until it is dispersed or evaporates.

In summers of 2016, 2017 and 2018 there were numerous complaints from other marine users (especially bathers, divers and boaters) who made specific reference to the amount and consistency of the oily slick.

3.41.
3.41.

Following the fact that pollution persisted in 2016 and all tuna farming permits were revoked by the Planning Authority, all inshore tuna farms relocated to sites further offshore and have been implementing various measures to contain and attempt to collect this fish oil immediately after feeding to avoid it reaching the shores.

The ERA has also been actively inspecting farming operations throughout the 2018 season and insisting on improvement in farming performance.
A major improvement in this sense has been the deployment of permanent oil booms inside each cage at each tuna farming operation, and the use of proprietary skimmers for the collection of fish oil after feeding.

Uneaten feed 3.42.
Uneaten feed 3.42.

In addition to adding to the costs of the fish farming operation, uneaten feed (especially the baitfish used in tuna penning operations) passes through the net and settles on the seabed, which, depending on the amounts lost in unit time, can result in overloading of the scavenging community and an accumulation of organic carbon 46 and nitrogen in the sediment beneath the cages or in the direction of the prevailing currents.

3.43.
3.43.

Uneaten baitfish that deposits on the bottom of the sea will start to decompose, releasing gases such as hydrogen sulphide24 and ammonia.

These gases are insoluble in seawater and therefore rise through the water column until they reach the surface where they produce unpleasant odours, which, depending on the prevailing wind currents at the time, could be blown towards the coast.

3.44.
3.44.

The capacity of the environment to assimilate the pollutants settling on the seabed depends largely on the amount of settlement of material and the capability of seabed bacteria and scavengers to utilise this material.

3.45.
3.45.

Data from past environmental monitoring at local tuna farming sites has shown that in the early years of tuna farming operations (between 2001 and 2004) towards the end of each penning season, significant amounts of dead fish were recorded littering the seabed in the area lying directly below the pens.

As summarised by Borg (2014)25, this resulted in changes to the physical and biological characteristics of the seabed.
By the end of the penning season little of the uneaten dead fish remained although thick layers of fish bones and decomposing organic material were recorded by Borg (2014).

Borg (2014) observed that once the source of the impact was removed, i.e.

following harvesting, the benthic environment eventually largely returned to its original state, as attested to by the shift in species that dominate the benthic environment, i.e.
during feeding the area is dominated by scavenger and detritus feeders, once the uneaten fish is gone, the site returns to its previous ecology and species typical of a bare sand habitat are again noted.

3.46.

With respect to sediment analysis, the results indicate that the parameters tested for, i.e.
sediment grain size, organic carbon content, organic nitrogen content and recently organic phosphorus content, as well as heavy metals and organic compounds were not altered as a result of the tuna penning activities (Borg et al, 2013)26.

3.47.
3.47.

With regards to water quality, Borg & Evans (2016)27 concluded that overall, the tuna penning activities do not appear to have affected the water quality in the vicinity of the farms in terms of the parameters tested for; however, a fishy odour was recorded and a film of fish oil and residues at the water surface were recorded at two of the five monitoring stations.

24 Hydrogen sulphide is also very poisonous to farmed fish.

25 Borg, J.A.

2014.


Azzopardi Fisheries Tuna Penning Project: Report on a video survey of the seabed in the vicinity of the tuna-pens made in April-July 2014.

Ecoserv.

26 Borg, J.A., Debono, S., Evans, J.

2013.

Azzopardi Fisheries Tuna Penning Project: Environmental Monitoring Programme (Sediments) – Report on analyses of sediment samples collected in October 2012 from Azzopardi Fisheries’ tuna penning site and control sites, off the St Paul’s Bay/Qawra coast.

Ecoserv.

27 Borg, J.A., Evans, J.


2016.

Azzopardi Fisheries Ltd Tuna Penning Activities: Report of a water quality survey at Azzopardi Fisheries Ltd’s tuna penning site off the St. Paul’s Bay/Qawra area, made in July 2016.

Ecoserv.

47 3.48.

Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report includes results from a model that analysed the settlement of uneaten feed for the Scheme.

See also Chapter 5.

Fish excreta 3.49.


Like uneaten feed, fish excreta contain or release ammonia, nitrates, and phosphate in soluble form.

These nutrients can enhance the growth of marine plants and algae (including phytoplankton).

Some of these nutrients are taken up by algae and net- fouling assemblages and also by benthic dwellers and scavengers.

Faeces are nitrogen depleted and phosphorus enriched compared with feed (Fernandes et al., 2007)28.
Fernandes et al (2007) studying dissolved nutrient release from solid wastes of southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) identified that the phosphorus available for leaching from baitfish and faeces of baitfish-fed tuna was around 17-21% whereas the proportion of soluble nitrogen was 35-43%.

They concluded that more than 90% of nitrogen loads and approximately 50% of phosphorus are likely to be released into seawater before solid wastes reach the seafloor.
Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report includes results from a model that analysed the dispersal of fish excreta for the Scheme.

See also Chapter 5.

Dead tuna 3.50.

Tuna deaths are mainly a result of stress or panic, especially when the nets billow under strong currents.

The number of deaths is limited as far as possible by closely monitoring the tuna and culling any fish that shows signs of stress or are moribund.

Hence, few deaths actually occur.


Blood 3.51.

As explained, the tuna have to be killed in a very short time interval so as to avoid a sudden increase in body temperature that would negatively affect the quality of the meat.

Some blood is released into the sea when the fish are killed and handled prior to being transported to the processing vessel.

Wastewater from onboard processing of fish (tuna) 3.52.
The further processing of the tuna onboard the service vessels invariably results in the generation of wastewaters mixed with blood and possibly some offal.

The processing vessels typically have holding tanks where wastewater is collected or recycling plants.

Offal 3.53.

Tuna processing creates a substantial amount of offal, which is composed of the internal organs, the tails, and the heads of the tuna.

During harvesting, each farm 28 Fernandes, M., Angove, M., Sedawie, T., Cheshire, A.

2007.
2007.

Dissolved nutrient release from solid wastes of southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii, Castelnau) aquaculture.

Vol 36 (4).

Aquaculture Research.

48 generates several tonnes of offal per day.

Despite an initial policy and regulatory direction to transport this waste back to land for incineration, the incinerator at the abattoir in Marsa does not have the capacity to process the amount of waste generated during this period and thus no longer accepts this waste.
In view of this, the accepted practice has returned to offshore offal disposal29.

A VMS-equipped vessel30 takes the waste from the processing vessel and transports it further offshore to a dumping site as agreed with the Competent Authorities.

The vessels are monitored by the Fisheries Department to ensure that the offal is dumped at the designated sites.
The possibility of identifying alternative options for the disposal of the offal is a condition of ERA’s environment permit of all operational tuna farms and the issue is being actively studied by the Federation of Aquaculture Producers and will be discussed in detailed with the relevant authorities as part of that process.

Net fouling marine growth 3.54.

Marine growth on tuna nets is removed through air drying on the collars and later by scraping on land.
The growth that is removed on land is disposed of as organic waste (see earlier).

Marine litter 3.55.

Other wastes generated by the farms could include anthropogenic material such as rope, boxes, and municipal-type wastes from the service vessels that may occasionally find their way overboard.

The tuna farm monitoring reports have repeatedly made reference to the presence on the sea bed of anthropogenic waste associated with the fish farm operations.
Any such material will need to be collected and disposed onshore.

In addition, the environment permit issued by ERA for the current operations also includes an obligation for the operators to collect any floating anthropogenic materials in the farm area, whether they originate from the operations or from outside.

It is expected that the same conditions will apply for the NAZ operators.

Employment 3.56.
Employment 3.56.

The level of employment at the North Aquaculture Zone will depend on the number of operators it would accommodate.

The northern farms, which would be relocated to the NAZ, currently employ 55 full-timers and 40 part-timers.

Employees include 29 Offal is disposed beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

30 VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) is a satellite surveillance system primarily used to monitor the location and movement of commercial fishing vessels and other craft.
The system uses satellite-based communications from on-board transceiver units, which certain vessels are required to carry.

The transceiver units send position reports that include vessel identification, time, date, and location, and are mapped and displayed on the end user’s computer screen.

Each vessel typically sends position reports once an hour, but these can be increased when the vessel is approaching an environmentally sensitive area.
Alerts can be sent to the VMS technicians and other personnel when a particular vessel location might require additional inquiry or contact with the vessel operator.

VMS allows enforcement to use advanced technologies to monitor compliance, track violators, and provide substantial evidence for prosecution.

(see www.nmfs.noaaa.gov).

49 divers, boatmen, handymen, and drivers.


If the NAZ is fully occupied, the employment complement is expected to increase to 75 – 80 full-time employees and 60 - 75 part-timers.

50 4.

POLICIES AND LEGISLATION INTRODUCTION 4.1.

This chapter considers the relevance of international and national legislation, and Maltese planning policy, and the compatibility of the Scheme with this legislation / policy.
It highlights and assesses the policies of Government Ministries, where relevant, and outlines those European Union (EU) Directives and Regulations and other international obligations that are applicable to the Scheme.

4.2.

The legal basis for ERA’s request for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) stems from the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017 (S.L.

549.46).

AQUACULTURE International 4.3.


United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) came into force on 16th November 1994 and establishes nations’ rights as well as duties with regards to the use of the world’s oceans.

These duties include environmental protection31 and sustainable management of natural resources.
With regards to the latter, Articles 61 and 62 relate to the conservation and utilisation of living resources respectively, referring to stocks within States’ exclusive economic zone and the need to ensure that these are managed sustainably.

Article 64 considers the management of highly migratory species (as listed in Annex I of the Convention).

Thunnus thynnus is one of these species.


Article 64 states that: The coastal State and other States whose national fish in the region for the highly migratory species listed in Annex I shall cooperate directly or through appropriate international organisations with a view to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimum utilisation of such species throughout the region, both within and beyond the exclusive economic zone.
Implications for the Scheme: o The tuna fish quotas that may be allocated to the Scheme are regulated by ICCAT (see below).

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 4.4.

The International Commission of the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) was set up in 1966 to coordinate international research and management of highly migratory tunas and billfish in the north Atlantic.
The Commission adopts 31 Article 194(1) States are required to take “…all measures consistent with [the] Convention that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from any source”.

51 Recommendations and Resolutions aimed at maintaining the populations of ICCAT species, including Bluefin Tuna, at levels which will permit maximum sustainable catch.
The Compendium on Management Recommendations and Resolutions adopted by ICCAT for the Conservation of Tunas and Tuna-like Species 2016 provides a complete set of currently active ICCAT Recommendations and Resolutions.

4.5.

ICCAT’s regulations are binding; however, enforcement is under the remit of the individual country members.

If a member does not comply, ICCAT may enact quota reductions for overages or, as a last resort, authorize trade restrictive measures.
Implications for the Scheme: o The activities of all operators that will set up their farms in the NAZ will be regulated within this framework.

EU Aquaculture Priorities 4.6.

At EU level, aquaculture is a key component of both the Common Fisheries Policy and the Blue Growth agenda and the main are to:  Simplify administrative procedures;  Ensure access to space through coordinated spatial planning;  Enhance the competitiveness of EU aquaculture; and  Promote a level playing field for EU operators.
4.7.

Funding to support the sustainable development of aquaculture is available through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMMF).

The EU also published Strategic Guidelines for sustainable aquaculture in 2013 (COM/2013/229).

The Guidelines provide a framework for national plans in sustainable aquaculture.

Implications for the Scheme o The Scheme and the individual tuna farms it will include, will operate within the legal context established in Malta.
National policies and legislation Aquaculture Strategy for the Maltese Islands: Towards Sustainability 2014- 2025 4.8.

Malta’s National Aquaculture Strategy requires that all aquaculture activities must be carried out within designated Aquaculture Zones and declares all existing cage locations as Aquaculture Zones (subject to adherence with the carrying capacity limits established through regulatory and environmental monitoring measures).
All Aquaculture Zones are the property of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and fish farming operations require a license / permit from the Department to be able to operate.

52 4.9.

The Strategy addresses sustainable growth of aquaculture with specific mention to the identification of new search areas.

It requires that future farms for capture based species will need to be sited at water depths of 50 metres or more within areas identified as Aquaculture Zones.
Implications for the Scheme: o The Scheme site has been identified for the establishment of an official Aquaculture Zone.

Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Cap.

425) 4.10.

The Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Cap.

425) makes provisions for the regulation, conservation, and management of fisheries and aquaculture in Malta.
It defines, among other things, the fishing waters of Malta, and aquaculture, and provides for the:  Conservation of naturally occurring fish stocks;  Protection of fish stocks from pollution;  Assessment of fish stocks and collection of appropriate fisheries statistics (including catches and fishing fleet);  Monitoring, control, and surveillance of fishing operations (including aquaculture);  Issue and management of permits and licences; and  Safeguarding of protected species.
Implications for the Scheme: o All aquaculture operations that will be accommodated within the Scheme will require a permit from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture in accordance with this Act.

Aquaculture Operations Regulations, S.L.

425.12 4.11.

Legal Notice 157 of 2017 establishes the need for a permit for any aquaculture operation that will be issued by the Director of Aquaculture.
Implications for the Scheme: o All aquaculture operations that will be accommodated within the Scheme will require a permit from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

The aquaculture permits remain valid for 25 years or until such time as the period of validity of the planning permit expires, whichever comes first.

PLANNING 4.12.

The planning policy relevant to the Scheme is set out in the Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED), 2015.
53 Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development, 2015 4.13.

The Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development (SPED) outlines “proposals for the future spatial distribution of development and the protection of the environment on land and sea in a manner that is consistent with national policies and integrates Government's social, economic and environmental objectives”.
The SPED identifies distinct spatial areas, including the Coastal Zone (up to 12 nautical miles), and the Marine Area (between 12 and 25 nautical miles); the island of Gozo is also identified as a distinct spatial area.

4.14.
4.14.

The vision for the Coastal Zone and Marine Area is described as follows: “The Coastal Zone and Marine Area shall maximise the potential for sustainable socio-economic growth and renewable energy infrastructure, shall accommodate legitimate compatible uses, sustain the livelihood of the fishing community, remain rich in biodiversity and visually striking and become pollution free and accessible for public enjoyment.
It shall play a significant enabling role for the Maltese Islands to reduce their impact on climate change and strengthen their capacity to adapt to climate change”.

4.15.

The SPED outlines a National Spatial Framework (NSF) for the Maltese Islands.

The General Principles of this NSF advocates the sustainable use of resources and the efficient use of available space.
In relation to the Coastal Zone and Marine Area, the NSF outlines a planning framework “to integrate socio-economic growth and environmental management”.

4.16.

In relation to guiding socio-economic development, and with relevance to the Scheme, Thematic Objective 1 of the NSF advocates: “To manage the available potential space and environmental resources on land and sea sustainably to ensure that socio-economic development needs are met whilst protecting the environment by: .. 5.
Achieving a wider mix of compatible uses on land and sea”.

4.17.

In relation to protecting the environment, and with relevance to the Scheme, Thematic Objective 8 of the NSF advocates: “To safeguard and enhance biodiversity, cultural heritage, geology and geomorphology by: .. 2.

Safeguarding protected areas, including SACs, SPAs and MPAs whilst enabling activities aimed at enhancing their management objectives”.
Implications for the Scheme: o The impacts of the Scheme in respect of the marine environment 54 (including marine ecology), avifauna, and cultural heritage are described in Chapter 5, Chapter 6, and Chapter 7, respectively.

4.18.
4.18.

In relation to the Coastal Zone and Marine Area, and with relevance to the Scheme, Coastal Objective 1 of the NSF advocates: “To prioritise uses that necessitate a location in the Coastal Zone and Marine Area in a manner which minimises user conflicts, does not accelerate coastal erosion, protects biodiversity, cultural heritage, landscapes and visual access to them, public access and use and increases resilience to climate change impacts”.
Implications for the Scheme: o The Scheme is a use which necessitates a location in the Marine Area.

The impacts of the Scheme in respect of biodiversity (marine ecology and avifauna) and cultural heritage are described in Chapter 5, Chapter 6 and Chapter 7, respectively.

4.19.
4.19.

Coastal Objective 3 of the NSF advocates: “To ensure that existing coastal recreational resources are protected, enhanced and accessible and to facilitate the provision of new recreational facilities which do not restrict or interfere with physical and visual public access of the coast and in a manner which does not have an unacceptable adverse impact on protected areas, species and areas of high landscape sensitivity by: .. 4.
Protecting designated beaches and swimming zones and identified diving sites from conflicting uses”.

Implications for the Scheme: o Impacts on the marine environment and therefore impacts on beaches, swimming zones and protected areas are assessed both in Chapter 5 and Chapter 8.

Development Planning Act (Act VII of 2016) 4.20.

This Act is the second act that replaces the Environment and Development Act X, 2010.
The Act makes “provision for sustainable planning and management of development and for the establishment of an authority with powers to that effect and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto”.

4.21.
Various duties fall to the Government: 3(a) to preserve, use and develop land and sea for this and future generations, whilst having full regard to environmental, social and economic needs; 3(b) to ensure that national planning policies are unambiguous, accessible and clear to the general public; 3(c) to deliver regular plans in accordance with the needs and exigencies from time to time; 55 3(d) to identify regional planning shortcomings and address any problems found in relation thereto; 3(e) to apply scientific and technical knowledge, resources and innovation for the effective promotion of development planning; and 3(f) to consider public values, costs, benefits, risks and uncertainties involved when taking any decisions.
4.22.

The Act makes provision for the establishment of an authority to implement the duties of Government under the Act – the Planning Authority.
The functions of the Planning Authority with relevance to the Scheme include:       to formulate, implement and update plans and policies relating to the promotion of proper land and sea use, both public and private; development planning of land and at sea, both public and private; and such other matters as may be necessary, ancillary, incidental or conducive to the better carrying out of the provisions of this Act, whilst taking into account the protection and management of the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources; to enforce the control of such development in accordance with plans, policies and permissions in terms of this Act; to seek the co-operation of, or make arrangements with, other entities or persons to enable it to better monitor the implementation of, and compliance with, the provisions of the Act; to advise the Minister on the making of guidelines and regulations under the Act; to provide support and advisory services, relating to development planning on land and at sea in a sustainable manner, to Government and local authorities in relation to the performance of their functions; and to undertake research and conduct consultations with Government departments, non-governmental organisations, private organisations and international organisations and other persons relating to the development of planning methods and models relating to development planning on land and at sea and any other related matters.
4.23.

In determining an application for development permission, the Planning Authority is required to have regard to:  Development plans;  Planning policies;  Representations from the public; and 56  Any other material consideration the Authority deems relevant.

4.24.
4.24.

In making an application for development permission, an applicant must certify to the Planning Authority that s/he is the owner of the site, or that s/he has notified the owner of his intention to apply for development permission, and that the owner has granted his consent to the development, or s/he is authorised to carry out the development under any other law or through an agreement with the owner.

4.25.
4.25.

The Act X also empowers the Planning Authority to issue Scheduling Orders in respect of “areas, buildings, structures and remains of geological, palaeontological, cultural, archaeological, architectural, historical, antiquarian, artistic or landscape importance”, as well as “areas of natural beauty, of ecological or scientific value”.
Implications for the Scheme: o The development plans and planning policies relevant to the Scheme are explained below, and their implications in respect of the Scheme are described.

ENVIRONMENT International Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, 1976 4.26.
This Convention, known as the Barcelona Convention, requires the Contracting Parties to “…individually or jointly take all appropriate measures in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and those Protocols in force to which they are party to prevent, abate, combat and to the fullest possible extent eliminate pollution of the Mediterranean Sea Area and to protect and enhance the marine environment in that Area so as to contribute towards its sustainable development” (UNEP, 200432).
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) 73/78 4.27.

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes.

The MARPOL Convention was adopted on 2 November 1973 at IMO33.

The Protocol of 1978 was adopted in response to a spate of tanker accidents in 1976-1977.
As the 1973 MARPOL Convention had not yet entered into force, the 1978 MARPOL Protocol absorbed the parent Convention.

The combined instrument (73/78) entered into force on 2 October 1983.

In 1997, a Protocol was adopted to amend the Convention and a new Annex VI was added which entered into force on 19 May 32 http://www.unep.ch/seas/main/med/medconvii.html 33 International Maritime Organization.

57 2005.

MARPOL has been updated by amendments through the years.

4.28.
4.28.

The Convention includes regulations aimed at preventing and minimizing pollution from ships, both accidental pollution and that from routine operations, and currently includes six technical Annexes as listed hereunder34.

Special Areas with strict controls on operational discharges are included in most Annexes.
 Annex I: Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Oil (entered into force 2 October 1983) o This Annex covers prevention of pollution by oil from operational measures as well as from accidental discharges; the 1992 amendments to Annex I made it mandatory for new oil tankers to have double hulls and brought in a phase-in schedule for existing tankers to fit double hulls, which was subsequently revised in 2001 and 2003.
This Annex is based on the principle that oil and water do not mix and are therefore easily separated.

It contains requirements regarding the operation, construction and equipment of ships.

The operational requirements stipulate the conditions under which ships may discharge water/oil mixtures into the sea.
 Annex II: Regulations for the Control of Pollution by Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk (entered into force 2 October 1983)  Annex III: Prevention of Pollution by Harmful Substances Carried by Sea in Packaged Form (entered into force 1 July 1992)  Annex IV: Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships (entered into force 27 September 2003) o This Annex contains requirements to control pollution of the sea by sewage; the discharge of sewage into the sea is prohibited, except when the ship has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant or when the ship is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system at a distance of more than three nautical miles from the nearest land; sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected has to be discharged at a distance of more than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.
 Annex V: Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships (entered into force 31 December 1988) o This Annex seeks to eliminate and reduce the amount of garbage being discharged into the sea from ships.

It deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the manner in which they may be disposed of; the most important feature of the Annex is the complete ban 34 Annexes relevant to the Scheme are described.

58 imposed on the disposal into the sea of all forms of plastics.
The Annex also obliges Governments to ensure the provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of garbage without causing undue delay to ships, and according to the needs of the ships using them.
 Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships (entered into force 19 May 2005) o This Annex sets limits on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances; designated emission control areas set more stringent standards for SOx, NOx and particulate matter.

A chapter adopted in 2011 covers mandatory technical and operational energy efficiency measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ships.
Implications for the Scheme: o The vessels operating in support of the Scheme, especially the processing vessels will need to conform to the requirements of this Convention, as they apply to the different sizes and classes of vessels.

European 4.29.
European 4.29.

The Treaty establishing the European Community (Article 174) indicates that members should pursue the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, aim at a high level of environmental protection and apply policies “….based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source”.35 4.30.
The relevant EU Directives include Directive 85/337/EEC (amended by Directive 97/11/EU) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, that has been promulgated by the Maltese Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2017, and various Directives that relate to waste, water quality and noise have been transposed into national legislation and are enforced by 35 Article 174 (ex Article 130r): 1.
Community policy on the environment shall contribute to pursuit of the following objectives: - Preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment; - Protecting human health; - Prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources; - Promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems.

2.
2.

Community policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Community.

It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.
In this context, harmonisation measures answering environmental protection requirements shall include, where appropriate, a safeguard clause allowing Member States to take provisional measures, for non-economic environmental reasons, subject to a Community inspection procedure.

59 ERA.

4.31.

The Birds Directive 2009/147/EC (as amended) and the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) are relevant given that the Scheme site lies within both a marine Special Protection Area and a Special Area of Conservation.
In this regard, ERA requested an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive, which was also submitted together with the EIA for consideration by the authorities.

4.32.

Waste generated as a result of operations will need to be managed in line with the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended by Dir 91/156/EEC, and Commission Decision 96/350/EC).

This Directive lists disposal operations in Annex IIA, which include release into seas / oceans, but (Art.
4) requires Member States to “... take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.” 4.33.

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) is also applicable, insofar as it covers coastal waters, which are defined as surface waters on the landward side of a line within one nautical mile from the coast.
The Directive defines “pollution” as the “direct or indirect introduction, as a result of human activity, of substances or heat into the air, water or land which may be harmful to human health or the quality of aquatic ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems directly depending on aquatic ecosystems, which result in damage to material property, or which impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment”.
The Directive further requires Member States to take “all appropriate steps not to increase pollution of marine waters”.

The main thrust of the Directive remains the protection of surface and ground waters to ensure that the quality of these waters does not deteriorate and, where it is below an acceptable standard, it is improved.

4.34.
4.34.

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) aims to provide more effective protection of the marine environment around Europe, aiming to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020.

It adopts an ecosystem approach to environmental protection and sustainable use.

Member States are required to develop a Marine Strategy that will be reviewed periodically every six years.

4.35.
4.35.

The Directive also lists priority substances (pollutants) that should be eliminated from the surface waters of the Community.

Other substances that are not on the Priority List but which may “prevent Member States from achieving the objectives for the bodies of surface water” should also be progressively controlled.

National The Constitution of Malta Declaration of Principles 4.36.
The Constitution of Malta (Section 9) declares that the State shall safeguard the landscape and the historical and artistic patrimony of the Nation.

These are the only aspects of the environment referred to in the Constitution, underlining the importance of the landscape and historical heritage.

60 Environment Protection Act (Act 1 of 2016) 4.37.

This Act is one of two that replaces the Environment and Development Act X, 2010.
The Act makes “provision for the protection of the environment and for the establishment of an authority with powers to that effect and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto”.

The Act stipulates that “It shall be the duty of every person and entity, whether public or private, to protect the environment and to assist in the taking of preventive and remedial measures to protect the environment and manage natural resources in a sustainable manner.” 4.38.

Various duties fall to the Government.
Those relevant to the Scheme are: 4(a) to manage the environment in a sustainable manner by integrating and giving due consideration to environmental concerns in decisions and policies on land use, socioeconomic, educational and other matters; 4(b) to take such preventive and remedial measures as may be necessary to address and abate the problem of pollution and any other form of environmental degradation in Malta and beyond, in accordance with the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle; 4(e) to apply scientific and technical knowledge and resources in determining matters that affect the environment; 4(f) to ensure the sustainable management of waste, to promote the reduction of waste and the proper use, reuse and recovery of matter; 4(g) to safeguard biological diversity; 4(h) to combat all forms of pollution and environmental degradation; 4(i) to consider the environment as the common heritage and common concern of mankind; and 4(j) to provide incentives leading to a higher level of environmental protection”.
4.39.

The Act makes provision for the establishment of an authority to implement the duties of Government under the Act – the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA).
ERA’s principle duties include: 4(b) to formulate and implement policies relating to the protection and management of the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources, and on such other matters as may be necessary for the better carrying out of the provisions of this Act; 61 4(c) to carry out and or commission surveys, studies, assessments, investigations, audits, monitoring and promote research on any matter relating to the environment and the natural resources regulated by or under this Act; 4(e) to establish measures for the protection of the environment and to promote the efficient use of natural resources in, and through, the practices, operations, activities and functions regulated by or under this Act; 4(f) to ensure that national and international obligations relative to the matters regulated by or under this Act are entered into force and complied with; 4(g) to permit, assess, investigate, audit, monitor, and take action on, any activity, intervention, project, operation or land use that may have an effect on the environment; and 4(j) to carry out, review or request others to carry out environmental assessments, environmental audits and environmental monitoring of activities and works having an impact on the environment.
4.40.

The Authority will authorise activities or operations relating to or affecting the environment.
Activities and operations requiring authorisation are included in the Schedule of the Act and include the following: a) in relation to biodiversity and other natural features; (xii) carry out any activity which goes counter to the principles of ecological, geological, geomorphological, hydrology and landscape restoration or of good- practice conservation and management of biodiversity, natural features, landscapes and protected areas, as may be prescribed, including but not limited to: 1. activities which are expected to cause permanent or prolonged or otherwise significant alterations; 3. activities expected to generate, intensify or modify ambient noise, vibrations, light pollution, currents or other disturbances to the environment; 4. activities considered to have an effect on biological diversity, on the physical aspect of the site, or on the integrity of the site and the landscape; (xiii) modify, endanger the stability of or demolish any natural physical features, or any rural structures affording a habitat for flora and fauna or otherwise contributing to the integrity of the landscape or the physical environment, as may be prescribed; 62 b) in relation to waste management (i) store, treat, collect, transfer, recover or otherwise manage or handle such waste as may be prescribed.
4.41.

In addition to issuing environmental permits, ERA regulates according to specific legislation as already noted.

This includes S.L.
549.47 (Legal Notice 152 of 2007) European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (EPRTR) Reporting Regulations the implementation of which aim to fulfil reporting obligations under the EC Regulation No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register for which the potential production volumes of the farms accommodated within the Scheme will ensure that this operation lies within the remit of reporting requirements in accordance with this legislation.
Implications for the Scheme: o The Scheme and the individual farms accommodated within it must operate in accordance with permits issued by ERA and other competent authorities.

Legal Notices 4.42.

A number of legal notices related to environmental protection are in force, issued under the Environment Protection Act.

Waste Management  Legal Notice 106 of 2007, S.L.

549.45: Waste Management (Activity Registration) Regulations and Legal Notice 184 of 2011 (as amended), S.L.

549.63: The Waste Regulations.


These Regulations regulate the production and disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.

The Regulations aim to control all operations relating to the production and management of waste and promote sound waste management practices so as to safeguard human health and the environment.
Implications for the Scheme: o As described above, the Scheme and the individual farms it accommodates must operate under an environment permit, the conditions of which include requirements to ensure that waste generated is managed in line with legislation and must also be reported on every year through the submission of an Annual Environmental Report.

Biodiversity  Legal Notice 311 of 2006 (as amended), S.L.

549.44: Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations.
These Regulations set up a national ecological network of special areas of conservation (SACs).

Until recently, five Marine Protected Areas were designated.

An additional eight areas were designated in 63 June 2018 located mainly along and off the western coast of Malta, designated for their importance in supporting examples of marine caves and coral reefs.

The Regulations also declare a number of natural habitats, the conservation of which requires the designation of special areas of conservation.
The Regulations include a number of planning provisions that help to integrate these Regulations into the local development control process.

The Regulations introduce the precautionary principle in relation to SACs.

The Regulations also deal with other issues, including the re-introduction of species into the wild, the control of alien species affecting Maltese biodiversity, surveillance and monitoring of biodiversity and environmental education.

 Legal Notice 79 of 2006 (as amended) S.L.


549.42: Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations.

These Regulations transpose the Birds Directive and call for the provision of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) to be designated with respect to certain bird species.

The legislation covers additional aspects relating to handling and taking of birds, naming bird sanctuaries, etc.

Implications for the Scheme: o The Scheme lies within both a marine SAC and a marine SPA.
The impacts of the Scheme on marine biodiversity are described in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 and in the Appropriate Assessment prepared separately for the Scheme.

Water  Legal Notice 345 of 2015, S.L.

549.100: Water Policy Framework Regulations.

These Regulations establish a framework for the protection of coastal waters, as well as inland surface waters, transitional waters and groundwater.
The framework is intended to prevent further deterioration, and to protect, enhance, and restore the status of aquatic systems.

Implications for the Scheme: o Impacts on water quality are assessed in Chapter 5.

Marine environment  Legal Notice 73 of 2011, S.L.

549.62: Marine Policy Framework Regulations transposes the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and names ERA as the Competent Authority for technical implementation of the Directive.
Implications for the Scheme: o Impacts on the marine environment are assessed in Chapter 5.

CULTURAL HERITAGE / ARCHAEOLOGY International legislation 4.43.

From an international perspective there are two main conventions that are relevant 64 to this study:  The Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, 2001; and  The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) Valletta, 1992.
The Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, 2001 4.44.

Although this convention has been ratified by UNESCO, Malta is not yet a signatory.

Despite this, the elements contained within this convention are to be taken as guidelines for the management and protection of underwater cultural heritage.

This is done in numerous European states.

4.45.


Article 2.5 of this convention states: “The preservation in situ of underwater cultural heritage shall be considered as the first option before allowing or engaging in any activities directed at this heritage”.

4.46.

Also relevant is Article 2.6, which states: “Recovered underwater cultural heritage shall be deposited, conserved and managed in a manner that ensures its long-term preservation”.
European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised) Valletta, 1992 4.47.

Despite this convention being signed in Valletta, Malta is yet to be included as a signatory.

The Convention aims to protect the archaeological heritage as a source of the European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientific study (Article 1.1).

Archaeological remains underwater are included within the definition of the archaeological heritage (Article 1.3).
The Convention also aims to integrate preservation and conservation of cultural heritage into planning policy and sets guidelines in this regard.

The Monitoring Committee seeks to strengthen and coordinate archaeological heritage policies across Europe.

National Cultural Heritage Act, 2002 4.48.


This Act provides overall protection to “...all movable or immovable objects of artistic, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnographic, palaeontological, and geological importance...” and includes information and data relative to cultural heritage in Malta.

It also includes “archaeological, palaeontological or geological sites and deposits, landscapes, groups of buildings…which have an historical value”.

4.49.
4.49.

The Act also controls interventions that may be made on cultural property, all of which require a permit from the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage and are subject to tests, examinations or investigations.

Furthermore, “archaeological or palaeontological excavations or explorations on land as well as in the territorial waters or in the contiguous zone of Malta can only be made by the Superintendent, or with written permission of the Superintendent” [Section 43(1)].
Chance discoveries of archaeological remains are also regulated by the Act: “Any person who, even accidentally, discovers any 65 object, site or building to which this Act applies in accordance with article 3, shall immediately inform the Superintendent, keep the object found in situ, and shall not for a period of six working days after informing the Superintendent proceed with any work on the site where the object of cultural property is discovered”.
The details about rights and obligations by all parties in the eventuality of an archaeological discovery are described in Sections 43(3), 43(4), 43(5), 43(6), and 43(7).

Implications for the Scheme: o In the case of the Scheme, the marine archaeology survey undertaken as part of the EIA Report identified a few potential artefacts within the Area of Survey (see Chapter 7).

The Scheme location was chosen to avoid completely these artefacts.

66 5.

MARINE ENVIRONMENT 5.1.

5.2.


This chapter focuses on a description of the marine environment, including: (i) the physical conditions at the Scheme site and the general Area of Survey, including bathymetry, sediment and water quality, and a description of the wave and hydrodynamic modelling that was carried out for this EIA; and (ii) the biological components at the site.
The findings and the bearing these findings are likely to have with regards to potential effects on the marine environment during the Scheme operations are assessed.
This Chapter is based on existing information, on direct observations of the EIA team, on the remote sensing surveys undertaken for this EIA by Seastar Surveys Ltd of the UK (see Technical Appendix 2B: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018) and two baseline studies: the wave and hydrodynamic modelling studies performed on the preferred location for the aquaculture zone subject of this EIA by Artelia Eau et Environnement of France (see: Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report) and the marine benthos study undertaken by Ecoserv Ltd (see Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report) 5.3.
The potential key issues of the Scheme on the marine environment include: Key Issues:  Change to the water dynamics at the Scheme site from the presence of tuna penning cages  Reduction in water quality as a result of fish oils, mucus, blood and offal  Increased nutrient levels in the water column from re-suspension of pollutants, fish wastes, uneaten feed, etc  Burial of seabed habitats under farm mooring blocks  Disturbance to habitats and species through sand scouring resulting from the presence of the moorings  Effects on seabed habitats from settlement of uneaten feed and faeces  Attraction of pelagic species (including predatory fish) to the farm because of the presence of food and prey species and including changes in ecological relationships  Changes in species composition of benthic assemblages as a result of changes in sediment and attraction of scavengers / benthic predators 67  Changes in species composition of benthic assemblages (especially algae) from shading effects of the cages  Disturbance to habitats and species from increased human activity in the area  Increased pollution risks (oils, fuels, sewage, litter) as a result of increased maritime traffic  Possible marine littering from items lost overboard  Potential introduction of alien species and diseases via baitfish.
Terms of Reference 5.4.

The Terms of Reference provided by ERA require a description of the site and its surroundings, hydrodynamic modelling, and an assessment of the impacts on water quality and marine ecology.

The Terms of Reference for the various studies as well as the Method Statements are found in Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements.

METHODOLOGY 5.5.

The study on the marine environment of the Scheme site and its general surroundings is based on desk and field studies.
Desk Studies 5.6.

Aerial / satellite imagery of the Scheme site and its surroundings were reviewed as part of the desk study.

Existing side scan sonar data was available for much of the area and this was reviewed in order to pre-assess the site, identify any lacunae in the data that needed addressing, and to plan the detailed videographic / photographic survey for the benthic ecology studies.
Data from previous backscatter, echosounder (bathymetric data), and video surveys (undertaken by Geomara Ltd and Ecoserv Ltd in 2017) for part of the Scheme site was also reviewed.

5.7.

Following the remote sensing surveys (see below) and the identification of the final preferred Scheme location, extensive desk studies involving wave and hydrodynamic modelling were conducted for the Scheme site (see Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report).
The findings of the modelling studies are reported upon below.

Field surveys 5.8.

In addition to the desk study, field data was also gathered as follows (see Technical Appendix 2B: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018):  Bathymetric data (echosounder) to inform the hydrodynamic models; and 68  Side scan sonar data to identify seabed features and sediment types.

5.9.
5.9.

A videographic / photographic survey of the benthic areas not previously surveyed was also undertaken, which was used for the detailed benthic ecology study (see Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report).

5.10.

Fieldwork in relation to the water and sediment quality survey was undertaken on 4th April 2018.

This day was chosen at random but subject to good sea conditions to ensure successful undertaking of fieldwork and data collection.
Fieldwork was carried out using a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch (see Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report).

Remote sensing surveys 5.11.

The objectives of the surveys were to collect additional bathymetric data to inform a numerical model and to collect additional side scan sonar data to identify seabed features and sediment types, which would be ground-truthed during a subsequent environmental survey using a drop-down camera system.
The data used in this EIA Report were sourced either from existing survey data for the Area of Survey (see Technical Appendix 2A: Multibeam Echosounder and Backscatter Survey Report 2016) or from new data collected purposely for this study.

5.12.
5.12.

Additional bathymetric data for the southern part of the Area of Survey (the area temporarily occupied by the AJD Tuna Ltd farm) had also already been collected in previous surveys undertaken for development permit applications PA/03072/17 and PA/05858/17 as well as surveys to the west, north, east, and southwest of the cages as part of the separate EIA undertaken for the proposal by AJD Tuna Ltd to consolidate the temporary tuna farming site (Adi Associates, 2018).

5.13.
5.13.

The acoustic survey equipment was mobilised and tested on the MV Awrata on Monday 23 April 2018.

5.14.

Prior to the fieldwork, line plans for the various surveys were created using the survey management software Hypack.

The survey design ensured that all of the survey area was ensonified to a high standard.

Bathymetric Survey 5.15.

For the bathymetric survey, 62 main lines were planned at 100 m line spacing in a NE-SW direction.
These were intersected by 13 perpendicular cross-lines; 8 at a line spacing of 300 m and 5 lines at 150 m line spacing within the south-west corner of the survey area.

The 150 m cross-line spacing was used in order to obtain higher resolution data of a sub-sea channel identified from side scan sonar data collected previously by Dr Gambin from the University of Malta.

The bathymetric survey was carried out on the 24, 25, 26 and 30 April 2018.
Strong winds and unfavourable sea conditions at the survey site prevented working between Friday 27th and Sunday 29th April 2018.

A total of 74 lines of good quality data were achieved, with one less cross line surveyed than originally planned.

Figure 5.1 shows the track plot for all achieved survey lines.

Further details on the survey method are available in Technical Appendix 2C: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018.
69 Figure 5.1: Bathymetric survey track plots for all successful survey lines in Area 1 70 Side Scan Sonar 5.16.

As explained, much of the area had already been previously surveyed and data was made available for this EIA.

Only three lines were run in the Area of Survey (two lines of infill, one of which was run in two directions to check layback).
Additionally surveys were also undertaken to the south west of the temporary fish farm area as part of the separate EIA undertaken for AJD Tuna Ltd. Further details on the survey methodology employed are available in Technical Appendix 2C: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018.

Camera Survey 5.17.

Following the completion of the acoustic surveys, the camera system was mobilised and tested on 7 May 2018.

5.18.
5.18.

The sidescan data available from previous surveys and the additional side scan data collected by Seastar as part of this EIA were analysed in order to identify potential features of interest; in total 26 features of interest were identified: 22 in the Area of Survey for the Scheme and an additional four targets36 south of the AJD Tuna Ltd temporary farm site.

Target positions were plotted in Hypack (Figure 5.2).
Further details on the survey methodology employed are available in Technical Appendix 2C: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018.

Figure 5.2: Targets of potential features of interest (DVxx) identified from the sidescan sonar data.

The hatched area was surveyed during the 2017 drop-down camera survey.

36 Targets DV01, DV02, DV03, DV13 in Figure 5.2.

71 5.19.
71 5.19.

All targets were surveyed (at some locations, two targets were surveyed during the same deployment) and an additional transect running along the length of the fish farm was also undertaken.

Figure 5.3 shows the track plots of the camera transects across the identified target locations of interest (shown in Figure 5.2 above) and along the length of the existing fish farm.

Figure 5.3: Track plots of the camera transects across identified targets Data Processing – Bathymetric Survey 5.20.
The raw bathymetry data were processed in Hypack using the Single Beam Editor tool.

All spikes, multiple returns, and other erroneous data were removed before applying draught, sound velocity, and tidal corrections.

Edit soundings, relative to local chart datum, were then saved before being sorted to a 2 m grid.

Data quality control checks were made against the paper trace, and by comparing edited depths at all of the main survey lines and cross lines “crossover points”.
In total there were 339 intersections checked with a mean difference between main lines and cross lines of 0.13 m. 5.21.

The bathymetric map for the Area of Survey is shown in Figure 5.4.

As shown, the water depth in the Area of Survey ranges from 55 m in the shallower southwestern area and progressively gets deeper until it reaches approximately 85 / 90 m at the edge of the drop off; the drop off plunges to a depth of 135 m at its foot.
The water depth then deepens gradually in the Area of Survey to approximately 150 m in the northwestern area of the Area of Survey.

The Scheme site is generally flat with a shallow slope towards the north.

72 Data processing – Side Scan Sonar 5.22.

The raw sidescan data were recorded in the Discover software and saved as .jsf files.

These were converted into a Hypack compatible format (.hsx files) and processed in Hypack.
The recorded layback was checked by identifying targets on adjacent lines and cross checking their position.

The output from the side scan sonar was used to guide the camera survey and also for marine archaeology / cultural heritage assessment (see Chapter 7).

Data processing – video and stills 5.23.


The output from the camera survey was first analysed by Seastar to identify general polygon areas and then by Ecoserv Ltd who derived a benthic habitats map for the Area of Survey (see section on Benthic Ecology below and Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report).

73 Figure 5.4: Bathymetry 74 WAVE AND HYDRODYNAMIC MODELLING STUDIES 5.24.
The wave and hydrodynamic modelling studies for this EIA Report were conducted by Artelia Eau et Environnement of France.
These were intended to satisfy the requirements of the Terms of Reference (see Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements) and involved the following tasks:  Task A: wave study: o offshore wave modelling; and o establishment of local wave climate and extreme waves;  Task B: hydrodynamic study: o set up of the hydrodynamic model; o hydrodynamic modelling: o baseline hydrodynamic situation; o settlement of uneaten feed; o dispersion of dissolved nutrients; and o dispersion of a fish oil spill from the fish farm.
Wave Study Wind and wave modelling 5.25.

The methodology for the wind and wave modelling is described in Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report.
This involved model construction, extraction of wind fields over the wave generation area, calibration and validation of wind fields, construction of third generation wave model, simulation of offshore sea states and validation of same, and construction of third generation model for nearshore sea states and simulation of the generation and propagation of sea states around Malta.

5.26.
5.26.

From the 13 output points for sea state spectra around the Maltese Islands, only one is relevant for this study – “Mellieha/ St Paul” located at 14.457°E and 36.007°N and a water depth of 56 m (see Figure 5.5).

75 Figurer 5.5: Location of the “Mellieha/St Paul” output point Analysis of Winds and Waves 5.27.

Extreme wind speeds and wave heights are estimated for the different directional sectors (wind and wave populations) identified through the assessment of the wind and wave climates.
The estimation is performed through statistical extrapolation and is described in Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report.

5.28.

Figure 5.6 presents the wind rose off Valletta.

The largest wind speeds (> 20 m/s) occur from a wide NE (gregale) to SE (sirocco or xlokk) sector.
For the study, therefore, two directional sectors were defined:  ESE sector [0°N, 202.5°N[: 39.8% of occurrences (the wind rose and the wind velocity / direction scatterplot do not allow to distinguish the NE and SE winds);  NW sector [202.5°N, 360°N[: 60.2% of occurrences.

76 Figure 5.6: Wind rose 5.29.

Table 5.1 presents the data from the statistical extrapolation of extreme wind speeds.
Table 5.1: Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wind speeds Sector ESE [0°N, 202.5°N[ NW [202.5°N, 360°N[ Return period (year) 1 5 10 50 100 1 5 10 50 100 Wind speed (m/s) Best estimation 17.4 19.4 20.1 21.6 22.3 19.4 21.5 22.3 24.2 24.9 90% confidence interval 171 – 17.8 18.7 – 20.0 19.3 – 20.9 20.5 – 23.0 20.9 – 23.8 19.1 – 19.8 20.8 – 22.2 21.5 – 23.2 22.9 – 25.6 23.5 – 26.6 5.30.

Figure 5.7 illustrates the wave rose for Malta in significant wave height.
The NW sector (majjistral) is still predominant (around 45% of the sea states); however, a significant part of the sea states come from the NE, E, and SE directions.

77 Figure 5.7: Wave rose off Valletta 5.31.


The following directional sectors can be distinguished:  NE sector [0°N, 67.5°N[: 14.0% of sea states;  E sector [67.5°N, 112.5°N[: 13.9% of sea states;  SE sector [112.5°N, 157.5°N[: 19.9% of sea states;  SW sector [180°N, 275°N[: 2.4% of sea states;  NW sector [275°N, 360°N[: 49.7% of sea states.

5.32.

The extreme wave heights for the main directional sectors relevant to the study (E, NE, and NW) as extrapolated are shown in Table 5.2.

5.33.
5.33.

As can be seen from Table 5.2, although the NW sector is the predominant sector in terms of size, the largest wave heights come from the E sector.

However, the large width of the confidence interval associated to the extrapolation of this sector shows a large uncertainty for the highest return periods.
78 Table 5.2: Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wave heights Hm0 (m) Tp (s) Best estimation 3.41 4.54 5.01 6.07 6.51 3.66 5.16 5.75 6.99 7.47 4.47 5.12 5.35 5.85 6.05 90% confidence interval 3.24 – 3.59 4.16 – 4.95 4.51 – 5.55 5.27 – 6.98 5.57 – 7.61 3.45 – 3.90 4.70 – 5.67 5.11 – 6.45 5.70 – 850 5.82 – 9.53 4.36 – 4.58 4.91 – 5.33 5.09 – 5.63 5.45 – 6.30 5.59 – 6.57 7.0 – 10.0 8.0 – 11.5 8.5 – 12.0 9.5 – 13.0 9.5 – 13.0 7.5 – 11.5 9.0 – 13.0 9.5 – 14.0 10.5 – 15.0 10.5 – 15.5 8.5 – 11.5 9.0 – 12.5 9.5 – 12.5 9.5 -13.0 10.0 – 13.5 Sector Return period (year) NE [0°N, 67.5°N[ E [67.5°N, 112.5°N[ NW [275°N, 360°N[ 1 5 10 50 100 1 5 10 50 100 1 5 10 50 100 Hydrodynamic Study Input data 5.34.
In undertaking the hydrodynamic study the structural characteristics of the Scheme (distance from shore, number and size of cages, net mesh size and twine diameter), as well as the details of the local bathymetry, the farming details (stocking density, average weight of fish, number of fish in each cage, amount of baitfish fed to each cage, and total feed per day), and the waste products released from the farm were taken into consideration.

5.35.
5.35.

As described in Chapter 3, the waste products from tuna fattening includes fish oil released from baitfish feed, uneaten baitfish, and solid and dissolved waste excreted by the tuna (see Figure 3.7).

Uneaten baitfish, solid and liquid wastes are a source of nitrogen and phosphorus to the marine environment.

The uneaten baitfish and the tuna faeces are subject to degradation in the water column and therefore release nutrients in dissolved form in the marine environment.

5.36.
5.36.

The following assumptions with regards to the baitfish fed to the tuna were made:  0.5% passes through the net uneaten;  5% is lost as fish oil per day; and  94.5% is ingested by tuna.

(Source: AJD Tuna Ltd) 5.37.

Therefore, the amount of uneaten baitfish represents 27.5 kg/day/cage, the mass of fish oil released is 275 kg/day/cage, and the food intake by tuna is 5,197.5 kg/day/cage.

79 Hydrodynamic Model 5.38.


This study is based on the set up of a 3D numerical model using the TELEMAC-3D modelling software.

This makes use of the flexibility of unstructured grids, which allows increasing the number of computational grid points near areas of interest or of complex features (irregular coastline, bathymetry, harbours, etc).
The main results obtained at each point of the computational grid are the water level, velocity in three directions, and the concentration of tracers like salinity, temperature, pollutants, etc.

Further details on the modelling software and the methodology applied in the study can be found in Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report.

5.39.

The unstructured computation grid, called mesh, is composed of triangles of different sizes according to interest zones.
In the present study, the size of the mesh is greater than 8 km offshore and is reduced to less than 5 m around the fish pens.

The horizontal grid is composed of approximately 36,000 nodes and 70,000 elements (Figure 5.8).

The horizontal mesh is then reproduced on the vertical to create the three-dimensional mesh consisting of triangular-based prismatic elements.

The lower plane follows the bathymetry while the upper plane follows the evolution of the free surface over time.
The three-dimensional mesh is composed of 13 horizontal planes.

Analysis of drag force for cages 5.40.

The flow around the fish pens is reduced by the cage net.

This influence is represented by a drag force applied locally on the fish pen.

Model details are provided in Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report.

The study included a series of tests to ensure that the model can correctly simulate the flow field around the project.
The flow fields near the cages were investigated with different upstream velocities: 10 cm/s, 50 cm/s, and 1 m/s.

5.41.

Figure 5.9 presents the calculated flow field on a vertical plane through the first row of six cages with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.

The flow velocity continuously decreases along the flow direction due to the drag force exerted by the netting.

A slight increase of the flow velocity is also observed beneath the first net cages.
These observations are consistent with the laboratory experiments (Aarsnes et al, 199037).

5.42.

The attenuation of flow velocity in the wake of the first three cages is given in Table 5.3, at 10 m below the surface.

The simulated velocity reduction is about 15% from one cage to the next cage, which is consistent with figures quoted in the literature (e.g.

Aarsnes et al, 1990) for experiments for the same range of the solidity ratio.

37 Aarsnes JV, H Rudi and G Loland, 1990.


Current forces on cage, net deflection.

Engineering for offshore fish farming.

Proceedings of a conference organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Glasgow, UK, 17-18 October 1990., pp 137–152.

80 Figure 5.8: Global model mesh and zoom on project area Source: Artelia, 2018 NOTE: The general location, arrangement, and orientation of the cages shown in this figure are only indicative and used for modelling purposes.
The final set- up will depend on other constraints; however, the findings of the modelling study will not be affected.

81 Figure 5.9: Flow field on a vertical plane along the cages with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.
Locations of the six cages are indicated by the dotted lines Source: Artelia, 2018 Table 5.3: Velocity reduction in the wake of cages Source Solidity ratio Upstream velocity Aarsnes et al, 1990 calculated calculated calculated 0.197 0.138 0.138 0.138 1 m/s 1 m/s 0.5 m/s 0.1 m/s Velocity behind the cage (% of upstream velocity) Wake of 2nd cage 64% Wake of 1st cage 80% Wake of 3rd cage 51% 85% 84% 83% 73% 71% 71% 65% 65% 66% Period selected for the hydrodynamic simulations 5.43.
The direction and intensity of the wind from available datasets on the Scheme site from June to September 2015 were plotted.

Winds blowing from the northwest are predominant.

In June and September 2015, periods of wind intensity above 10 m/s occurred.

A lower dispersion of the pollutants occurs when wind intensity is the lowest, therefore July and August represent the most unfavourable conditions over the whole summer period.
The wind field from the 1st to 31st August 2015 is selected for the simulations, as it is characterised by:  light to moderate wind condition with a wind intensity below 10 m/s; and  varying direction of the wind, and more specifically a period of time with a persistent wind blowing from East to West from 25th to 30th August 2015.

These time series are representative of typical summer wind conditions.

82 Baseline situation and model validation 5.44.


A first simulation was carried out over August 2015, without taking into account the fish pens to be deployed at the Scheme site.

This calculation validated the model and serves as a reference state for calculating the hydrodynamic impact of the pens.

5.45.

Figure 5.10 shows the comparison of the water levels calculated by the model to the predictions provided by the Shom (French national hydrographic service) at the port of Valletta.
Figure 5.10: Comparison of water levels 5.46.

Changes in tidal water levels are very low in Valletta.

The maximum tidal range is about 20 cm.

The model accurately reproduces the variation in tidal range between neap tide and spring tide.

5.47.

No current measurement is available at the Scheme site.
The maps in Figure 5.11 show the current fields from the model (on the right) at different moments of the simulation and at 2 m below the surface, compared to those extracted from the MyOcean model (on the left), which serve as forcing conditions.

The results of the MyOcean model are provided on a 1/16 degree resolution grid (5.63 km x 6.94 km).

Due to the coarse model resolution, it does not correctly represent the hydrodynamics close to the coast, and especially in the project area.

5.48.
5.48.

The general circulation around the island of Malta is comparable to the global ocean model MyOcean.

More specifically, the following specific features are represented:  the Atlantic Ionian Stream on the Malta channel flowing from the Northwest to the Southeast direction is represented; and  presence of mesoscale features like eddies and meanders, whose positions vary.

Current intensity is lower in the Telemac model by 5 cm/s compared to the global model in some areas.
83 Figure 5.11: Comparison of the velocity fields at 2 m under the sea surface 6 August 2015 - MyOcean 6 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D 15 August 2015 - MyOcean 15 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D 28 August 2015 - MyOcean 28 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D 84 Impact of the fish cages on the velocity field 5.49.

The model considered the temporal evolution of the current velocity at a point within the Scheme site at 2 m below the sea surface.

The data shows that the current velocity on site is always below 10 cm/s.
Due to the global currents offshore, the main direction of the current in the project area is South.

The influence of the tide on currents (velocity and direction) is low.

5.50.

In analysing the effect of the cages on the current field, comparison between the reference state (no cages) and the “with cages” scenario was made for different times.
Given the low speed of the ambient currents, the impact of the fish pens on the current velocity is less than 5 cm/s (in absolute value) and remains in the immediate vicinity of the cages.

At no stage during the simulation did the current velocity exceed 10 cm/s in the reference situation (no cages) and the future configuration of the Scheme site.

The influence of the cages is therefore not visible on the maximum velocity reached during the simulation and was deemed to be negligible by the modellers.
Environmental Modelling 5.51.

Three environmental models were run as part of the study:  Enrichment in dissolved nutrients;  Settlement of uneaten feed; and  Dispersion of fish oil.

Enrichment in dissolved nutrients 5.52.

The fish farming operation results in an increase of nutrient loads (Nitrogen N and Phosphorus P) into the water column.
Dissolved nutrients originate from three sources (see Figure 3.7):  liquid wastes excreted directly by the fish metabolism;  dissolved nutrients leached by tuna solid wastes; and  dissolved nutrients leached by uneaten feed.

5.53.
5.53.

For the assimilated food, the following amount of nutrients is estimated to be excreted directly by the Bluefin tuna metabolism as dissolved wastes (Aguado- Gimenez et al, 200638):  51.69 mg P/kg fish/day; and 38 Aguado-Gimenez F., Garcia-Garcia B., Hernandez-Lorente M. D., and Cerezo-Valverde J.

2006.

Gross metabolic waste output estimates using a nutritional approach in Atlantic Bluefin tuna (Thunnus Thynnus) under intensive fattening conditions in western Mediterranean Sea.
Aquaculture Research (37) pp 1254:1258 85  694.27 mg N/kg fish/day on average.

5.54.

For a cage of approximately 132.35 tonnes of fish, the total amount of N and P in dissolved form per day is estimated as:  91.89 kg P/cage/day;  6.84 kg N/cage/day.

5.55.

For the dissolved nutrients originating from the degradation of solid wastes, the estimation of the dissolved nutrients leached is based on the calculation of the total contents in nutrients in the solid wastes per cage (Table 5.4).
The calculation gives the following values:  2.29 kg N/cage/day;  1.58 kg P/cage/day.
Table 5.4: Dissolved nutrient leached from Bluefin tuna faeces Parameter Nutrient contents in faeces per day and per fish Nutrient contents in faeces per day in a cage Percentage of nutrient contents available for leaching in faeces nutrient contents from faeces available for leaching Nitrogen 49.45 mg /kg fish/day Phosphorous 70.01 mg/kg fish/day Source Aguado-Gimenez et al, 2006 6.54 kg/cage/day 35% 2.29 kg/cage/day 9.27 kg/cage/day 17% Aguado-Gimenez et al, 2006 Fernandez et al, 200739 1.58 kg/cage/day calculated 5.56.
As mentioned earlier, a total of 26.5 kg of baitfish remains uneaten per day in a cage.

As the water content of baitfish is 71% (Fernandez et al, 2007), the dry mass of uneaten baitfish is therefore 7.7 kg.

The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus released by uneaten baitfish is then calculated from the nitrogen content available for leaching in the remaining baitfish (see Table 5.5).
Therefore, the final amount of nitrogen and phosphorus contents leached by uneaten feed is the following:  0.36 kg N/cage/day; and  0.03 kg P/cage/day.

39 Fernandes M., Angove M., Sedawie T. Cheshire, 2007.

Dissolved nutrient release from solid wastes of southern Bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii, Castelnau) aquaculture.
Aquaculture Research 38 pp 388-397 86 Table 5.5: Soluble fraction of nitrogen and phosphorous in uneaten baitfish Parameter Total nutrient contents in baitfish Total nutrient contents in baitfish per cage Percentage of nutrient contents available for leaching nutrient contents available for leaching Nitrogen 111 mg N /g DW40 852.07 g N /cage/day 41% Phosphorous 21 mg P /g DW 161.20 g P /cage/day 21% Source Fernandez et al, 2007 calculated Fernandez et al, 2007 0.35 kg N/cage/day 0.03 kg P/cage/day calculated 5.57.
The final release of nutrient contents in dissolved form in each cage of the tuna farm is the sum of all sources of nutrients (degradation of uneaten baitfish, solid wastes and liquid wastes).

Hence, the final estimation of the dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus loads is:  94.53 kg N/cage/day; and  8.45 kg P/cage/day.

5.58.

In the model, each nutrient category (nitrogen and phosphorous) is represented by a passive tracer (i.e.

a tracer with no impact on hydrodynamics).


The tracer injection is done at one point in the centre of each fish pen at -5 m MSL and at a constant flow.

The evolution of the tracer is followed throughout the simulation.

5.59.

Figure 5.12 shows the plume of maximum nutrient concentration reached at each point during the simulation.

At the Scheme site, currents come mainly from the North-West, so the nutrient plume is orientated towards the South-East.
The maximum concentration is located at the centre of the pens, where the tracer is injected.

The threshold of 0.1mg/L of total nitrogen is obtained about 0.5 km southeast of the last cages.

The threshold of 0.02 mg/L of phosphorus is restricted to the vicinity of the cages.

5.60.

The simulation also considered the evolution of the concentration of dissolved nutrients near the cages and at -5 m MSL (see Figure 5.13).
At this distance from the cages (see black point in Figure 5.13), the maximum nitrogen concentration reached was 0.28 mg/L but the threshold of 0.1 mg/L is exceeded by 40% over the total simulation time.

The maximum concentration of phosphorous is 0.025 mg/L.
40 DW = dry weight 87 Figure 5.12: Maps of maximum nitrogen (left) and phosphorous (right) concentration Source: Artelia, 2018 NOTE: The general location, arrangement, and orientation of the cages shown in this figure are only indicative and used for modelling purposes.

The final set- up will depend on other constraints; however, the findings of the modelling study will not be affected.
88 Figure 5.13: Time-series of the nutrient concentrations Source: Artelia, 2018 NOTE: The general location, arrangement, and orientation of the cages shown in this figure are only indicative and used for modelling purposes.

The final set-up will depend on other constraints; however, the findings of the modelling study will not be affected.

Settlement of uneaten feed 5.61.

Pieces of uneaten baitfish feed remaining in the water are approximately 1 - 2 cm in size.
The settling rate of these baitfish pieces is 7.2 cm/s as measured by experiments in water columns (Fernandes et al, 2007).

According to local tuna farm operators41, 0.5% of the daily feed passes through the net uneaten; this means that, for each cage, 41 Communication with AJD Tuna Ltd and Malta Fish Farming Ltd. 89 26.5 kg of baitfish reach the seabed each feeding day.
Assuming that the density of uneaten feed is close to neutral, just above the specific density of seawater as is the case for small living pelagic fish, its value can be taken as the density of fresh fish muscle (Waterman, 197142).

On this basis, the final uneaten feed characteristics are given in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Characteristics of uneaten feed particles Parameter Density of uneaten feed Uneaten feed per day Typical uneaten baitfish size Settling rate Value 1,054 kg/m3 26.5 kg 1 – 2 cm 7.2 cm/s Source Waterman, 1971 AJD Tuna Ltd / MFF Ltd AJD Tuna Ltd Fernandes et al, 2007 5.62.

The above characteristics were inputted into the model, which considered the uneaten baitfish passing through the net as a cohesive sediment.
The calculation parameters were also adjusted so that once deposited the particles are not subject to re-suspension as uneaten baitfish undergo fast biodegradation on the bottom.

5.63.

After 30 days of simulation, the uneaten feed deposit remains located under the tuna pens and its thickness is less than 0.1 cm (Figure 5.14).

This result is explained by the settling rate.

For a water depth of 100 m, the time necessary for a particle to reach the bottom is 24 minutes.
These results do not take into account the natural degradation of the feed.

42 Waterman J. J.

1979.

Measures, stowage rates and yields in fishery products.

Department of Scientific and industrial research.

Torry research station, advisory notes n°17.

FAO publications.

90 Figure 5.14: Thickness of uneaten feed after 30 days Source: Artelia, 2018 NOTE: The general location, arrangement, and orientation of the cages shown in this figure are only indicative and used for modelling purposes.
The final set-up will depend on other constraints; however, the findings of the modelling study will not be affected.

5.64.

Dispersion of fish oil In modelling the dispersion of the fish oil, the following were taken into consideration:  It is estimated that 5% of the gross weight of the feed is lost as fish oil; this represents 264.7 kg of fish oil released per cage every day.

 Contrary to petroleum hydrocarbon, little is known about the fate of non- petroleum hydrocarbon in the marine environment.
 The fish oil is subject to drifting, spreading, and advection.

91  The biodegradation and evaporation is not taken into account, as too many uncertainties exist on this process in the marine environment and no laboratory data are available to parameterise these processes.

5.65.

Table 5.7 lists the physical parameters of the fish oil considered in the model.
Table 5.7: Oil physical parameters Parameter Kinematic Viscosity (20oC) Density (25oC) Value 65.2 mm2/s 920.0 kg/m3 Source Young, 1986 Young, 1986 5.66.

The volume of fish oil released by the whole farm43 is 10 m3 per day.

5.67.

In the model, the oil slick is represented as a set of particles.

Each particle is subject to drifting, spreading, and advection, while biodegradation and evaporation are not taken into account44.
For each modelled scenario, 961 particles are released; the whole set of particles represents 9.8 m3 of fish oil.

5.68.

Two scenarios were simulated, which correspond to different wind conditions:  Scenario 1: starting on 1 August 2015 (wind initially from the South and then predominantly from the North-West); and  Scenario 2: starting on 27 August 2015 (wind predominantly from the East).

5.69.

The results show that the velocity field and the wind field both influence the trajectory of the slick.
Near the fish farm, the velocity field has an intensity in the range of 5 cm/s to 10 cm/s.

The wind drift component of the slick velocity is 3.6% of the wind, which means around 0.15 cm/s for a wind intensity of 5 m/s.

In this area, wind intensity is the major contributor of the slick trajectory.

The slick drift is in the range of 5 cm/s to 15 cm/s in the scenarios simulated.

5.70.

In Scenario 1, the oil slick moves first towards the South, before changing its direction completely and travels North.
Then it is transported by the Atlantic Ionian Stream offshore and moves southward.

After two days, the slick changes its direction towards the Maltese coast.

After 3 days and 18 hours it hits the coast.

5.71.

In Scenario 2, the oil slick flows westward, along the southern coast of Gozo.

It hits the coast after 17 hours.

5.72.

Figures 5.15 and 5.16 reproduce snapshots of the particle position at various times for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively.
A dashed line delineates the trajectory of the fish oil slick in both cases.

43 This is assumed to be 34 cages for modelling purposes.

44 Biodegradation and evaporation would act to reduce the size or concentration of the slick; hence, their omission constitutes a worse case scenario.

92 5.73.
92 5.73.

It must be emphasised that depending on the hydrodynamic conditions, a wide range of trajectories can be obtained and since the tuna are fed each day, a new oil slick could be generated daily and each one could be under the influence of different winds and currents and follows a different trajectory.

The scenarios can therefore be very complex.


The outputs from these models are therefore not absolute and represent a qualitative assessment showing a high variability due to wind and are mostly useful for comparisons.

A quantitative assessment, on the other hand, will require a long modelling duration and must be carefully chosen to consider also previous problematic spills.

5.74.
5.74.

What can be inferred from the two scenarios, therefore, is that the oil slicks are subject to a wide range of trajectories, depending on the hydro meteorological conditions prevailing on site.

Wind significantly influences the trajectories near the fish farm, and the oil slick reaches the coast in under 4 days from release under NW wind conditions and in less than a day for Easterly wind conditions in the worst case scenario with no containment, collection and under calm sea conditions.
93 Figure 5.15: Location of particles depending on time elapsed in Scenario 1 Source: Artelia, 2018 94 Figure 5.16: Location of particles depending on time elapsed in Scenario 2 Source: Artelia, 2018 95 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY 5.75.

Fieldwork in relation to the water quality survey was undertaken on 4th April 2018 as part of the EIA for the temporary relocation of the AJD Tuna Ltd cages (see Adi Associates, 2018).
The day during which fieldwork was undertaken was chosen at random but subject to good sea conditions to ensure successful undertaking of fieldwork and data collection.

Fieldwork was carried out using a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.

The locations of the six sampling stations, A – D and two reference sites (R1 and R2), are shown in Figure 5.17 and their geographical coordinates and water depths are given in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8: Geographical coordinates and water depths at the water and sediment quality sampling stations Station A B C D R1 R2 Latitude / Longitude 36° 00.584’ / 14° 25.780’ 36° 00.131’ / 14° 26.127’ 36° 00.163’ / 14° 25.508’ 36° 00.567’ / 14° 25.367’ 36° 00.848 / 14 24.474’ 35° 59.597 / 14 26.815’ Depth (m) 50 m 48 m 45 m 48 m 46 m 48 m 5.76.
The sites were chosen to provide data on the quality of the water and sediments in locations close to an operational farm, as well as in locations away from the farm.

The latter would double up also as a baseline situation for the Scheme site, which is currently devoid of any tuna cages.

96 Figure 5.17: Location of sampling stations 97 5.77.

Table 5.9 lists the physico-chemical parameters that were analysed for the water samples.
Measurements of temperature, salinity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen in water were made in-situ at each of the six stations using a YSI 650 MDS meter connected to a 6920 V2 multi-parameter probe.

The meter was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions immediately before use.

Measurements using the in-situ meter were made at the surface (0.5 m below the surface).

Two replicate measurements were taken at each of the six stations A – D, and R1 and R2.
Two replicate samples of seawater were then collected from each of the same six stations; samples were collected at a depth of 0.5 m using a standard Van Dorn water sampler of 3 L volume.

All water samples were transported in a cooler box and maintained at a temperature of 4oC.
Table 5.9: Physico-chemical parameters for water quality analysis Parameter Temperature Salinity Method In-situ / Portable Meter In-situ / Portable Meter Dissolved Oxygen In-situ / Portable Meter Turbidity In-situ / Portable Meter Turbidity (Secchi Depth) Secchi Disk pH Chlorophyll a Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Total Carbon pH meter APAT CNR IRSA 9020 Man 29 2003 APAT CNR IRSA 5030 Man 29 2003 + APAT CNR IRSA 4040 A1 Man 29 2003 + APAT CNR IRSA 4050 Man 29 2003 APAT CNR IRSA 4110 Man 29 2003 UNI EN 1484:1999 Total suspended matter APAT CNR IRSA 2090 B Man 29 2003 Units °C psu %, mg/l NTU m pH units µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l 5.78.
Estimates of current velocity and direction at the two reference stations were made using drogues according to the La Grange method.

The drogues employed for this purpose had four rectangular perspex vanes, each of which has a surface area of 0.2 m2.

The drogues were suspended from an inflatable surface float by means of a length of twine which was 1 m long.

The position of the release point (determined using the GPS) and time of the release were recorded.
After allowing the drogues to float for a given period of time, the position of the collection point and the time of collection were recorded.

5.79.

As regards sediment quality, samples were collected using a 0.1 m2 Van Veen grab that was deployed from a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.

Two replicate grab samples were collected from each of the six stations.

Samples were tested for chemical composition and granulometry.
Table 5.10 lists the physico- chemical attributes that were included in the sediment quality survey.

99 Table 5.10: Physico-chemical parameters for sediment quality analysis Parameter Granulometry Method Buchanan 1984 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) UNI EN 13137:2002 Redox Potential CNR IRSA 2 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 Sulphide pH Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus CNR IRSA 12 Q 64 Vol 3 1986 CNR IRSA 1 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 CNR IRSA 6 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 DM 13/09/1999 SO n°185 GU n°248 21/10/1999 Met XV.I Units (on D.M.)
g % mV µg pH units mg/g mg/g 5.80.

The results for the water and sediment quality analysis are given in Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report.

The results of in situ measurement of physico-chemical parameters of the water column indicate temperature values and levels of salinity, water transparency and dissolved oxygen that are expected of local pristine offshore coastal waters during spring.

The Secchi Disc measurements indicated a high water transparency of between 24 m and 29 m. 5.81.
Detectable but low levels of total organic carbon (TOC), total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen, and total phosphorous were recorded from the sampling stations, while levels of Chlorophyll a were below the limit of detection, thereby indicating low phytoplankton abundance.

5.82.

A weak southeasterly surface sea current having a speed of between 0.11 m/s and 0.13 m/s was recorded at the two reference stations R1 and R2.

5.83.
5.83.

As regards sediment quality, the results indicated detectable but low levels of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen, and total phosphorous, while levels of sulphide were below the limit of detection.

Values of pH and redox potential were of an order that is expected of background levels for local offshore sediments.
The results of granulometric analysis indicate that the sediments characterising the six sampling stations comprise poorly sorted coarse sand having a mean grain size of between 0.55 mm and 0.95 mm.

5.84.

For the full set of results see Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report.

100 BENTHOS 5.85.

The studies of the benthos included both benthic diversity studies using grab samples and benthic habitat mapping.

Benthic diversity 5.86.


To collect data for benthic diversity studies, a grab sample was taken from each of the four stations A – D using a 0.1 m2 Van Veen grab that was deployed from a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.

After the grab was brought on board, surplus seawater was drained from the sample by placing it on a 1 mm-mesh sieve; the retained sediment and biota were temporarily preserved in 10% formaldehyde in seawater.
In the laboratory, each sample was first washed to remove the fine sediment (<0.5 mm fraction) and the preservative, and it was then sorted to separate out all macrofauna (animals larger than 0.5 mm).

The motile macrofauna was then identified as far as possible.

Where identification to species level was not possible, the different species present were labelled using an alphabetical code (e.g.

Mysidacea sp.

A, etc.).

5.87.


A classified list of species and their respective abundance as recorded from the four grab samples collected from Stations A – D is available in Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report.

A total of 1,897 individuals comprising 111 macrofaunal species were recorded.
Analysis of the grab samples showed the presence of macrofauna that is typical of the benthic biotic assemblages that characterise the lower infralittoral to circalittoral transition zone and the upper circalittoral zone that occurs off the northeastern coast of the Maltese islands.

(cf.

Borg et al., 199845; Schembri 199846; Sciberras et al., 200947).
A high diversity of macrobenthic fauna was recorded from the grab samples; the two most represented taxonomic groups, in terms of species richness and abundance, were the polychaetes and the crustaceans.

No protected species were recorded from any of the grab samples.

Benthic habitats map 5.88.


Fieldwork in relation to the videographic survey was undertaken in two parts – an initial phase undertaken by Ecoserv Ltd using ROV in May 2017 (Area “A” in Figure 5.18), and a later part undertaken by Seastar Surveys Ltd of the UK in May 2018 (Area “B” in Figure 5.18).

The data collected was used to characterise the benthic 45 Borg J.A., Howege H.M., Lanfranco E., Micallef S.A., Mifsud C. & Schembri P.J., 1998.
The macrobenthic species of the infralittoral to circalittoral transition zone off the northeastern coast of Malta (Central Mediterranean).

Xjenza 3(1): 16-24.

[Malta].

46 Schembri P. J., 1998.

Maerl ecosystems of the Maltese islands.

In: Dandria, D.

[ed.]

Biology abstracts MSc, PhD 1998 and contributions to marine biology: pp.35-37.

Msida, Malta: Department of Biology, University of Malta; iv+38pp.

[Malta].

47 Sciberras M., Rizzo M., Mifsud J. R., Camilleri K., Borg J.
A., Lanfranco E. & Schembri P. J., 2009.

Habitat structure and biological characteristics of a maerl bed off the northeastern coast of the Maltese Islands (central Mediterranean).

Marine Biodiversity 39: 251 - 264.

101 assemblages using the scheme of Borg et al.

(2013)48, which is based on the EUNIS typology that has been adapted for local use.

The findings from both surveys and the methods used are reported in Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report.

5.89.
5.89.

In summary, the seabed in the Area of Survey consisted predominantly of coarse mobile sediments in the southwestern half and very fine mobile sediments in the northeastern half.

A 10 – 25 m high drop-off characterised by rock exposed to sedimentation separates the two sections of the Area of Survey and runs along a north-west – southeast direction.
The water depth varied from 43 m to over 145 m. Underwater visibility was good (25 - 30 m) throughout the Area of Survey but flocculate material was noted in the water column in places.

A current was present in places close to the seabed, as evidenced by debris and other material originating from benthic vegetation that were seen being moved on the bottom.

5.90.

What are usually referred to as ‘maerl49 beds’ but which are more properly termed ‘rhodolith beds’ occupy a large part of the Area of Survey.
In the shallower parts, the rhodolith beds were interspersed with a bare sand bottom that supported sparse rhodoliths50.

In the southwestern half of the survey area, the rhodolith density varied such that they are less dense in the shallower part (45 m – 50 m) of the survey area, where large expanses of bare sand that supported little or no rhodoliths were present.
Overall, the seabed had physical features that corresponded with the bathymetry: coarse sand with sparse accumulations of rhodoliths (0% - 20% rhodolith cover) was present at a water depth of between 43 m and 50 m; between a water depth of 50 m and 55 m, the seabed comprised coarse sediment having denser rhodolith accumulations (20% - 50% rhodolith cover); and in waters deeper than 55 m, the seabed mainly consisted of dense rhodolith beds (50% - 100% rhodolith cover).
Beyond the rocky drop-off, at water depths exceeding 100 m, the seabed mainly consisted of bare muddy sand.

48 Borg J.A., Knittweis L. & Schembri P.J.

(2013) Compilation of an interpretation manual for marine habitats within the 25 NM Fisheries Management Zone around the Republic of Malta.

[MEPA tender reference: T2/2013].

MEPA, Malta; 218pp.

49 ‘Maerl’ is a term used to describe calcareous sediments dominated by coralline algae.
Maerl as used here describes sedimentary habitats in which living or dead unattached calcareous rhodophytes are a dominant component.

These algae may take the form of nodules (rhodoliths) or fragmented thalli.

However, according to Basso et al.


(2016), ‘rhodolith beds’ should be identified and delimited as those areas of the sea floor with >10% cover of live rhodoliths over a minimum surface of 500 m2, while the term “maerl” refers to a specific type of rhodolith bed that is composed of non-nucleated, unattached growths of branching, twig-like coralline algae.

‘Maerl’ as used here conforms to the definition of Basso et al.

(2016).
(2016).

50 Rhodoliths consist either of free-living calcareous rhodophytes (red algae), or else of an inner nucleus, such as stone or shell, encrusted by calcareous rhodophytes.

102 Figure 5.18: Benthic habitats mapping Area of survey 103 5.91.
The main outcome of the benthic survey carried out in May 2018, in combination with data from the survey carried out by Ecoserv in May 2017 is a map showing the distribution of the main benthic habitats and assemblages present in the area surveyed (see Figures 5.19).

5.92.
5.92.

The following biotic assemblage types were recorded from the Area of Survey:  Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (EUNIS code A5.515);  Infralittoral coarse sediment (EUNIS code A5.13);  Mediterranean communities of muddy detritic bottoms (EUNIS code A5.38); and  Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock (EUNIS code A4.3).

5.93.
5.93.

A description of each of these assemblages is available in Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report.

104 Figure 5.19: Map showing the main benthic habitats present within the survey area 105 5.94.
It must be emphasised that although in general the area surveyed mainly supported the assemblage types and subtypes as described above and as depicted in Figure 5.19, parts within the shaded areas shown in the habitat map supported patches with a different assemblage type, such that:  The area which supported the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (dense rhodolith bed) had, in places, patches with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) ;  The area which supported the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) had, in places, patches with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (dense rhodolith bed) or patches with the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment; and  The area which supported the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment had, in places, the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed).
5.95.

Furthermore, differences in the spatial distribution of the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment and of the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) were evident when comparing data from video transects made during Borg & Evans’ 2017 survey with data from the survey made by Seastar Survey Ltd in May 2018.
These differences, which are mostly applicable to the shallower (43 m – 55 m) parts of the Area of Survey indicate that the soft sediment seabed there is dynamic and undergoes changes that involve shifting of accumulations of rhodoliths from one place to another, possibly even over large distances of several hundred metres.

Such changes would happen during very strong wave action, typically during strong northeasterly winds, such as ones that characterised autumn 2017 and winter 2018.
As a result, the spatial distribution of the aforementioned two habitat types changes.

Demersal and Pelagic Fauna 5.96.

The demersal fish fauna recorded during the survey mainly comprised large shoals of Picarel Spicara sp.

and individuals of the Comber Serranus cabrilla.

Several individuals of the Mauve Stinger Pelagia noctiluca were recorded in the water column during the survey.

NATURE PROTECTION 5.97.


As mentioned in Chapter 3, the Area of Survey is located within the boundaries of the ‘MT0000105 Marine Area in the Northeast of Malta’ Special Area of Conservation of International Importance declared by Government Notice 851 of 2010 under the provisions of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2013.

This area forms part of the European Union’s NATURA 2000 network.

107 5.98.
107 5.98.

In Maltese waters, the main rhodolith-forming algae in rhodolith/maerl beds are Lithothamnion corallioides and Phymatolithon calcareum/Lithothamnion minervae.

with Peysonnelia rosa-marina, Mesophyllum sp., and Neogoniolithon brassica-florida constituting a minor component (Lanfranco et al., 1999).
Associations with rhodoliths are a habitat type that qualifies sites for inclusion in national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest as required by the Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD) of the Barcelona Convention.
Furthermore, the coralline algae Lithothamnion corallioides and Phymatolithon calcareum are listed in Annex V (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures) of the European Union’s ‘Habitats Directive’ as amended.

Both species probably occur in the rhodolith beds in the present Area of Survey; however, only microscopic examination of samples of rhodoliths collected from the area will confirm this.

5.99.
Lithothamnion corallioides, Phymatolithon calcareum, together with Lithothamnion minervae are listed in Schedule III (Animal and plant species of national interest whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation), and the first two named also in Schedule VII (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures) of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2013, which transpose the requirements of the EU’s Habitats Directive to local legislation.
5.100.

Rhodolith and maerl beds are included in the UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA “Reference list of marine habitat types for the selection of sites to be included in the national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest” (UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA, 2006) while an action plan for their conservation has been formulated (UNEP/MAP/RAC- SPA, 2008), both within the ambit of the Barcelona Convention.
Within European legislation, Council Regulation (EC) 1967/2006, concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, bans the use of specific fishing gear (trawl nets, dredges, shore seines or similar nets) on coralligenous or maerl beds.
In order to conform to the requirements of EC 1967/2006, the local ‘Implementation and Enforcement of Certain Fisheries Management Plans Order’ (Legal Notice 354 of 2013) amends Zones C and G referred to in Annex V of EC 1967/2006 that originally overlapped with rhodolith beds as well as closed to trawling all areas where conclusive evidence exists for the presence of such beds (see Figure 44 in LN 354/2013).

5.101.
5.101.

The Needle-spined sea-urchin, Centrostephanus longispinus is listed in the Habitats Directive under Annex IV (Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection), in Appendix II of the Bern Convention, and in Annex II of the SPA/BD Protocol).

This species is also protected locally under the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2013, where it is listed in Schedule V (Animal and Plant Species of Community Interest in need of Strict Protection).
108 IMPACT ASSESSMENT Potential impacts 5.102.

The potential impacts on the marine environment associated with the proposed Scheme may result from the deployment works and the farming operations on site.

5.103.
The impacts that may be experienced as a result of the activities undertaken on site (as described in Chapter 3) include: Marine environment (Water Quality):  During Deployment: o Increased potential for oil pollution due to increased maritime traffic (deployment craft) in the area; o Reduction in bottom water transparency due to re-suspension of sediment particulates by mooring blocks;  Operational Phase: o Reduction in water quality of surface waters due to release of fish oils and mucus from baitfish during feeding; o Deterioration in water quality due to increased nutrient loads from fish waste and uneaten feed; o Deterioration in water quality and transparency from blood and offal released during culling, harvesting, and processing; o Pollution from operational release of petroleum hydrocarbons and bilge waters, and from litter and sewage from vessels associated with the Scheme; Benthic Ecology:  During Deployment: o Loss of habitats through burial under the mooring blocks; and o Damage or disturbance to habitats and species in the Area of Influence through increased human presence.
 Operational Phase: o Loss of habitats through permanent burial under the mooring blocks; o Disturbance to habitats and species through sand scouring as a result of alteration to currents and sediment movement around the mooring blocks; 109 o Loss of habitats and decimation of biota from settlement of uneaten feed and faeces on the seabed; o Disturbance to habitats and species from increased organic input in the area; o Availability of new habitat space for colonisation; o Availability of new food sources, shelter, etc.
; o Disturbance to habitats and species from increased human activity, including littering; o Attraction of pelagic and benthic species (including predators and scavengers) as a result of the presence of food and prey fish; o Potential introduction of alien species and disease-causing organisms via baitfish; and o Changes in ecological relationships and succession.

5.104.
The effect of the Scheme on the benthic assemblages and the marine environment (water quality) will depend on:         the importance and sensitivity of the habitats and species in the A of I; the type of interventions envisaged; the method of deployment; the extent of farming activities planned / amount of biomass kept on site; the condition of the craft used for deployment and the ships and support vessels used during the fattening and harvesting stages; the effectiveness of monitoring and management of operations, in particular the feeding; the diligence adopted by the individual operators of the installations and the seriousness of their management operations; and the effectiveness of the mitigatory / enforcement measures put in place.
Prediction and significance of impacts Marine Environment – Water quality 5.105.

The impacts of the Scheme on water quality resulting from the deployment and operational phases are of two types:  Reduction in water quality or transparency; and  Increased potential for pollution from oils, sewage, and litter.

110 5.106.
In assessing the significance of the potential impacts on the marine environment arising from the Scheme, the following criteria were used:  Not significant – no material change in water quality;  Minor significance - Small-scale or temporary material change in water quality within the Scheme site and its immediate environs or a moderate to large scale or a long-term51 change that can be mitigated; and  Major significance - Moderate / large-scale or long-term material change in water quality within the Scheme site, its immediate environs, and beyond.
5.107.

The concept of “material change” needs to be viewed in the context of the Scheme, as described in Chapter 3.

In terms of water quality, material change is considered to be a change that is of sufficient duration and magnitude as to permanently affect sensitive receptors.

5.108.
5.108.

In applying the above criteria the Consultants are mindful of the fact that the disturbance of certain species is prohibited by law, in which case, even small-scale changes or alterations that may disturb a legally protected species or its habitat would be a major impact.

5.109.

In the following sections, the significance of each impact is based on the criteria outlined above.
Impact: Reduction in water quality or transparency During Deployment Reduction in bottom water transparency due to re-suspension of sediment particulates by mooring blocks 5.110.

Cages are anchored on site by means of mooring blocks.

The placement of these structures on the sea bed results in the re-suspension of sediment particulates and entrapped nutrients, leading to a temporary reduction in water transparency and potentially increased productivity.
However, in view of the considerable depth of water at the Scheme site, this impact will be limited in vertical extent to the bottom layers, and it will be temporary and largely localised.

The impact is therefore considered to be not significant.

During Operations Reduction in water quality of surface waters due to release of fish oils and mucus from baitfish during feeding 51 “Long-term” is here taken to mean more than one tuna season (i.e.
water / sediment quality conditions do not return to baseline levels following one fallowing period).

111 5.111.

Experience from local tuna farming operations indicates that considerable amounts of natural fish oils and mucus may be released from the frozen baitfish.

These natural oils are released into the marine environment when they are fed to the tuna.
Once released into the water column, unless contained, these oils quickly spread out over the sea surface forming sheens, which normally take the shape of extended narrow stripes (or windrows) spread over a few kilometres, parallel to the wind direction.

5.112.

Surface oils will disperse, dissolve, and /or form emulsions.

The spatial extent that may be impacted upon by such natural oils will depend on the strength and direction of prevalent surface sea currents as well as on the amount of oils released.
As described above, the oil slicks would be subject to a wide range of trajectories, depending on the hydro meteorological conditions prevailing on site, with wind significantly influencing the trajectories near the fish farm.

The modelling undertaken for this EIA shows that the winds and currents at the Scheme site vary and any uncontained oil released from the eventual farms would reach the coastline.

5.113.
5.113.

These oils typically emit bad odour and their presence is aesthetically unpleasant, they additionally leave an oily slime over anything they come into contact with (including divers and bathers when the oil reaches inshore areas).

It is acknowledged that the aesthetic impacts of the oily sheen, the odours, and the impacts on bathers and recreational users of the sea are a considerable nuisance52.
However, given that these oils are natural products and that they rapidly biodegrade, impacts on marine ecology, including shore habitat where they may be deposited are considered to be minor to not significant.

Deterioration in water quality due to increased nutrient loads from fish excreta and uneaten feed 5.114.
Fish waste (soluble excreta and faeces) and uneaten baitfish may potentially lead to enhanced nutrient levels in the area, increased biochemical oxygen demands of the water column (as well as within sediments), and increased sedimentation rates of organic particulates.

Dissolved and particulate waste from fish excretion and uneaten feed may potentially expose the water column to increased nutrient levels and reduced water transparencies.

5.115.
5.115.

Data from past monitoring programmes at local operational tuna farm sites show that nutrient levels within the water column at all stations exhibit wide fluctuations, 52 This impact on humans is considered to be of major significance and is dealt with elsewhere in this EIA Report (see Chapter 8).

It is here not considered further as it is not a significant water quality issue.
However, it is to be recalled that the release of oils is directly proportional to the amount of feed, which in turn is directly proportional to the amount of tuna stocked.

Hence, a lower stocking density should lead to a lower release of oils per cage.

Likewise, the impact of oil release decreases as harvesting progresses (and the number of tuna in the cages decreases), being completely eliminated when all the tuna are harvested.
Obviously, the release of oils is at its peak in summer, which is when the marine environment has its greatest social use.

Mitigation measures aimed at minimising the release and maximising the collection of these oils before they disperse into the marine environment is of utmost importance.

112 mostly due to natural causes.


Nonetheless, evidence of occasional nutrient enrichments (nitrates and phosphates) near the tuna pens as a result of the tuna penning operations themselves (rather than natural fluctuations) does exist.

The modelling on the dispersal of fish excreta undertaken for this EIA (see above) confirms this, with the threshold for nitrogen reached within 0.5 km of the last cage, and that for phosphorous restricted to the vicinity of the cages.
The spatial extent of these impacts are hence limited and transient in nature, such that the impact of such increased nutrients from fish waste is considered to be minor.

5.116.

Based on monitoring experience at local tuna farms, the water transparency at the surface layers is not expected to suffer any long-term reduction.
However, in view of the impacts of uneaten baitfish settling on the sea bed beneath the cages, it is expected that the water transparency at bottom layers would be severely affected through the release of organic material from the decomposing flesh.

This impact has been modelled as part of this EIA Report (see above), which has shown that after 30 days of simulation, the uneaten feed deposit remains located under the tuna pens and its thickness is less than 0.1 cm.
This impact is directly proportional to the amount of uneaten baitfish lost (often a function of feed management) and the extent and efficiency of scavenging.

The impact is therefore uncertain, though the modelling and the monitoring data shows that it is likely to be minor to major beneath the cages becoming minor to not significant with increasing distance from the cages.

Deterioration in water quality and transparency from blood and offal released during culling, harvesting, and processing 5.117.
As described in Chapter 3, a considerable amount of blood is released when the tuna are culled and processed.

Culling takes place in the pens, and processing takes place on board ships, the latter resulting in blood and offal (heads, tails, and internal organs).

The blood is mostly released immediately into the marine environment, whereas the offal is stored and disposed at sea, under instructions from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
Current permit conditions require local tuna farming operators to dispose of the offal outside territorial waters (12 nautical miles); however, stakeholder reports of offal turning up on shores in the vicinity of tuna farms raises concerns that either this waste is not being disposed of far enough or the method of disposal is not as effective as originally thought53.
It is, therefore, important that offshore offal disposal as currently permitted is properly monitored and permit conditions enforced or an alternative to offshore dumping identified and enforced54.

This would ensure that the impact from offal dumping is minor to not significant.
53 However, there is also the possibility that this offal that ends up beached on the shore is not originating from the tuna farms per se, but from wild tuna caught by amateur fishermen attracted to the tuna farm (see below and Arechavala-Lopez et al.

(2015) in Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report.

54 The Federation of Aquaculture Producers has commissioned a study to study the possibility of implementing an alternative to offshore disposal of offal, turning the waste into a resource.
Results from this study are expected towards the beginning of 2019 (personal communication, Dr C. Gouder, Federation of Aquaculture Producers).

113 5.118.

In order to eliminate the possibility of gas-filled and buoyant internal organs reaching the coastline or inshore waters, the competent authorities should consider imposing a requirement for the operators to macerate the offal prior to its disposal into the marine environment.
This would ensure that only liquid waste is released into the sea allowing its easier dispersal offshore.

5.119.

While offal and blood disposal in the sea has conjured images of shark attraction in local media, no such evidence exists to date, although vigilance should be maintained in this respect.

Alternatives to blood disposal are few, if any.

Culling of the tuna must happen rapidly in order for the quality of the fish not to deteriorate through an increase in body temperature and stress.
This means that the release of blood into the sea at culling cannot be avoided.

This blood is rapidly dispersed and being biodegradable, its impact on water quality is minor to not significant.

Disposal of dead tuna 5.120.

Under normal circumstances some mortalities are expected to occur, mainly as a result of stress, such as that caused by the billowing of nets and enclosure of the tunas.
The actual percentage of tuna loss will vary according to a number of factors, but under normal conditions it is generally expected to be between 1 and 2%.

Therefore, as much as 45 to 90 tonnes of tuna may be expected to be lost from the Scheme site (maximum production) over a single year.

5.121.

In the event of death from stress as a result of net damage during strong storms, a much larger percentage of tuna loss may be expected.
Disposal of the resultant dead tuna will be through incineration at the Thermal Facility in Marsa under supervision of the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Regulation Department.

Operators are required by the environment permit issued by the Environment and Resources Authority to prepare contingency plans in case of large scale mortalities.

The impact is considered to be major to minor depending on the scale of the deaths.

5.122.
5.122.

The formulation of contingency plans to deal with such eventualities is an important first step; however, it is important that the persons concerned are aware of their responsibilities under the plans to ensure timely action in time of need.
A proper contingency plan (which is periodically updated and which requires properly trained personnel) can ensure a quick and effective response in case of an emergency, so as to reduce and possibly prevent marine environmental impacts arising from the need to dispose of large amounts of dead fish.

Impact: Increased potential for pollution 5.123.

Most operational pollution generated by maritime transport is common to all types of ships, including the tuna service ships and deployment craft.
Some are related to propulsion plant, including: atmospheric emissions, oily water, and wastes collected in the machinery space bilge tanks, nitrogen acid, and other gaseous pollutants in machinery exhaust fumes.

5.124.

Other potential impacts are related to the crew activities, including generation of sewage and garbage, and incidences of marine litter.

114 During Deployment Increased oil pollution due to increased maritime traffic (deployment craft) in area 5.125.
Cages are towed to the individual farm sites within the Scheme site by means of tug boats or similar craft.

These operations are bound to increase the presence of maritime traffic in the area, which may give rise to marine contamination by diesels/lubricants and other petroleum products.

Such impacts are considered to be temporary and given the small volume of traffic associated with the Scheme, not significant to minor except in the case of a large spill, in which case the impact would be minor to major.
Furthermore, the deployment craft will only be on site for a short period of time, and in the event of a spill, the extent of coastline that may be exposed to such impacts is very small.

5.126.

Nonetheless, it is important that good operational practice and proper project management is adhered to in order to minimise the potential for such operational releases of diesels/lubricants.
Furthermore, the individual farm operators will have a contractual agreement with a spill response company in the event of accidental release of oils.

During Operations Pollution from operational release of petroleum hydrocarbons and bilge waters, and sewage from vessels associated with the Scheme Oil (operational losses and bilge waters) 5.127.
The individual farms will make use of a number of vessels, including:  Processing Vessels (from end September till end November) – probably two per farm;  Feeder Vessels – likely five per farm; and  Support Vessels (to assist divers and general farm operations) – probably two per farm; and  Oil collection vessels (to recover fish oil from cages and surrounding sea areas) – probably two per farm.

5.128.
5.128.

Operational losses of oils and fuels from the smaller craft are possible, as with all marine craft; however, as long as the craft are maintained in a good condition and good working practices are adopted, these impacts are expected to be temporary and not significant to minor given the relatively low amount of vessels.

Only in the unlikely event of a larger spill would the impact be of minor to major significance.

5.129.
5.129.

Impacts from the larger processing vessels are bound to be more significant, especially if reconditioned vessels (often more than 10 years old) are used.

It has been estimated that this type of vessel would produce roughly 15m3 of oily bilge water per year, which bilge water could contain up to 5% by volume, lubricating oils 115 and other petroleum products (Axiak, 200555).

The impact could therefore be potentially major.

5.130.
5.130.

According to MARPOL regulations 73/78, the discharge of bilge waters with an oil content in excess of 15ppm prior to dilution is not allowed anywhere within the Mediterranean (which is designated as a Special Area under MARPOL).
If the bilge water generated by such processing vessels will have oily contents in excess of this legal limit, then no discharge of such bilge waters will be allowed and the ships are to have adequate holding tanks and they would be required to transfer the bilge waters to a port reception facility.

In this scenario the management of bilge waters reduces the impact on the marine environment to one of minor significance.

Sewage 5.131.
Sewage 5.131.

It is estimated that approximately 156 litres of sewage per crew member is produced daily on non-passenger ships (Helmepa, 198756).

Therefore, it is estimated that between 187,000 and 280,000 litres of sewage are generated by each processing vessel assuming they will be present on site for 2 months.

5.132.
5.132.

According to Annex IV of MARPOL regulation 73/78 (applying to all ships above 200 GRT carrying 10 persons or over), the processing vessel will not be allowed to discharge such sewage effluents within 4 nautical miles from land, unless it is equipped with an approved sewage treatment plant.

5.133.

Release of sewage from the ships57 close to the tuna pens is counterproductive to the farm’s operations; discharge further offshore, in line with MARPOL regulations, would be more advisable.
This would also help mitigate impacts of such discharges, effectively rendering them minor.

Pollution from ship litter and loss of packaging waste into the marine environment Packaging waste 5.134.

Following processing on board the factory vessels, the tuna are packed in purpose made carton boxes lined with plastic.

The boxes are loaded at the harbour.

A considerable amount of cartons and packaging material will be required per harvesting season.
Axiak (200058) estimated that approximately 4,000 cartons are used by a 500-tonne tuna production unit.

Provided that all cartons and other packaging material are supplied to the service vessel in flat-pack form, then no carton cuttings or plastic off-cuts will be produced on board the service vessel.

Therefore, 55 Axiak, V., 2005.

Water Quality Baseline Study.

Prepared in support of the Environmental Impact Statement for PA 00087/04 – Development of an Aquaculture Zone East of Malta.
EIS coordinated by Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. 57 pp.

56 Helmepa (1987) Guide against ship generated pollution.

Commission of European Communities.

41pp.

57 Both the factory ships and other vessels sailing in the vicinity of the Scheme site.

58 Axiak, V. 2000.

A Contribution to An Environmental Impact Statement For The Proposed Tuna Penning Farm Off Selmunett, NE Malta With Special Reference to Risks of Marine Contamination.

April 2000.
April 2000.

116 no risks of marine contamination by paper or plastic litter will arise from such packaging operations.

Nonetheless, the operators must be vigilant to ensure that none of this material ends up overboard (accidentally or otherwise) and staff and crew are to be made aware of the environmental impacts of marine litter.

The environmental permits for the current tuna farming operations in Malta include provisions aimed at addressing marine littering and its monitoring.
It is assumed that environmental permits for any farming operations at the Scheme site will be likewise conditioned.

Litter 5.135.

Axiak (2000), citing other literature sources, has estimated that for merchant ships and fishing vessels, approximately 0.8 kg of garbage will be produced per crew member per day.
Therefore, assuming that processing ships will carry a crew of 20- 30 people, it may be estimated that a total of 1 to 1.5 tonnes of galley litter will be produced per processing ship assuming they will be on site for two months.

5.136.

According to Annex V of MARPOL regulation 73/78, marine discharges of all types of galley litter, except for food remains, is prohibited within the Mediterranean.

Food remains may be discharged beyond 12 nautical miles from the nearest land.
Competent authorities are to ensure that these regulations are adhered to by the factory vessels in line with Malta’s international obligations.

As long as these are adhered to, the impacts from discharge of galley litter are expected to be minor.

5.137.
5.137.

The results of video surveys made below tuna cages at local tuna penning sites have indicated that, in places, a considerable amount of anthropogenic items is present below the pens that appear to originate from the farm operations; these include concrete weights with ropes attached, sheets and sacks of fabric and other material, car tyres, lengths of rope and other unidentified items.
While plastic items are known to be hazardous to marine life, items deposited on the seabed lead to physical alteration of the bottom leading to potential changes to the benthic habitat present in the vicinity of the fish farm.

5.138.

Good practice and measures to reduce littering of the seabed by anthropogenic items originating from the tuna penning activities are the main mitigation measures that can be adopted to avoid littering of the seabed.
Should any items originating from the farming operations at the Scheme site accidentally end up in the sea, whether floating or deposited on the seabed, these should be recovered immediately.

5.139.
5.139.

The overall level of impact when anthropogenic items originating from the fish farm end up in the sea, whether floating or deposited on the seabed, is predicted to be minor to major depending on the type of items and whether they can be transported away from the site if not removed imminently Benthic Ecology 5.140.
As explained, the benthic biotic assemblages at the Scheme site and the Area of Survey are characteristic of the ones present in the infralittoral and circalittoral zones off the northeastern coast of the Maltese Islands.

The two most represented 117 taxonomic groups, in terms of species richness and abundance, were the polychaetes and the crustaceans.

5.141.
5.141.

The only protected species recorded from the Scheme Site were the sea urchin Centrostephanus longispinus and the coralline algae Phymatholithon calcareum and Lithothamnion minervae.

Associations with rhodoliths are a habitat type that qualifies sites for inclusion in national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest as required by the Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD) of the Barcelona Convention59.
Furthermore, the coralline algae Lithothamnion corallioides and Phymatolithon calcareum are listed in Annex V (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures) of the European Union’s ‘Habitats Directive’ as amended60.

Both species probably occur in the rhodolith beds in the present Area of Survey; however, only microscopic examination of samples of rhodoliths collected from the area will confirm this.

5.142.
5.142.

The Needle-spined sea-urchin, Centrostephanus longispinus is listed in the Habitats Directive under Annex IV (Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection), in Appendix II of the Bern Convention61, and in Annex II of the 59 The Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (the Barcelona Convention) was adopted on 16th February 1976.
A number of protocols were adopted under this convention, amongst which is the Protocol concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas done at Geneva on 3 April 1982.

The parties later amended this protocol and its name changed to Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD).

Malta ratified this new Protocol on 28th October 1999.
A draft reference list of habitat types for the selection of sites to be included in the National Inventories of Natural Sites of Conservation Interest was drawn up at the Fourth Meeting of National Focal Points for Specially Protected Areas (Tunis, 12-14 April 1999) [see UNEP(OCA)/MED WG.154/7].
The most recent ‘Classification of benthic habitat types of the Mediterranean’ dated 2006 is available from the UNEP RAC/SPA at http://rac-spa.org/sites/default/files/doc_fsd/lrhm_en.pdf 60 The European Union's Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora is known as the 'Habitats Directive'.

Annexes I and II of this Directive have been amended by Council Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997.
Annex I of the Habitats Directive lists natural habitats whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation.

Annex II lists species of plants and animals whose habitats must be protected for their survival.

Annex III lists criteria for selecting sites eligible for consideration as "Sites of Community Importance" and designation as Special Areas of Conservation, while Annex IV lists species of Union interest in need of strict protection.
Annex V lists species of plants and animals of Union interest whose taking from the wild and exploitation is subject to management, and Annex VI lists prohibited methods and means of capture and killing of mammals and fish, and prohibited modes of transport.

In anticipation of the 2004 enlargement of the EU, the Annexes of the Habitats Directive were modified by the Act of Accession signed in Athens on 16th April 2003, to take into account the expanded geographical area of the EU15+10.
The annexes were further amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 in anticipation of Bulgaria and Romania joining the European Union in 2007 and then again by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 due to the accession of the Republic of Croatia.

61 The Bern Convention is the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.

Malta acceded to this Convention on the 26th November 1993.
Appendix II of the Bern Convention lists strictly protected species of fauna and the Convention prohibits the deliberate capture, the destruction of breeding or resting sites, the deliberate destruction, and the deliberate killing of, and trade in, these species.

118 SPA/BD Protocol)62.


This species is also protected locally under the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006 as amended, where it is listed in Schedule V (Animal and Plant Species of Community Interest in need of Strict Protection).

5.143.

Impacts on the protected species or assemblages would, from a policy/legislation point of view, be considered to be of major significance, irrespective of the extent of the impact.
However, when assessed in the context of the Scheme, and taking account of proposed mitigation, the potential impact on the protected species or habitats may range from major to minor significance.

Impacts will depend on (i) the actual status of the species63, (ii) the extent of the impact64, (iii) the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, and (iv) the adoption of good working practices (especially with regards to deployment of moorings and in feed management65).

5.144.
5.144.

In the following sections, the significance of each impact is based on the criteria outlined above.

Impact: Habitat loss Loss through burial under the mooring blocks 5.145.

Placement of the mooring blocks on the seabed will lead to a direct impact on the seabed within their footprint.

All benthic flora and fauna, the latter mostly comprising sessile and slow moving invertebrates, that will end up underneath the mooring block will be decimated.
The more motile fauna, such as fast moving invertebrates and fishes are expected to move away rapidly from a mooring block that is being deployed and will not be affected adversely.

5.146.

As the mooring block makes contact with the seabed, sediment disturbance will lead to its suspension into the water column.

Upon re-settling, the suspended sediment can smother flora and sessile fauna, resulting in potential adverse effects on such organisms (depending on the extent of smothering).
These sessile organisms are typically adapted to disturbance from suspended sediments and will recover quickly, while the high energy environment of the area will help to rapidly remove sediment particles that may have been deposited on the biota.

62 A number of species are listed in annexes to the SPA/BD Protocol: Annex II lists endangered or threatened species and Annex III lists species whose exploitation is regulated.
63 For example, although the sea urchin Centrostephanus longispinusis included in the Habitats Directive Annex IV, and is therefore a protected species locally, it is actually a common species in Maltese waters (unlike, for example, France), so that the impact of the Scheme on this species in Maltese waters, is not considered to be high.

64 For example, occasional churning of sediment containing maerl-forming coralline algae is actually beneficial, as shown in local research (BIOMAERL).
However, burying of the coralline algae under considerable amounts of uneaten feed would lead to their decimation.

65 It has been shown that the occasional settlement of small number of uneaten baitfish does not cause a significant impact on the benthos, but the deposition of layers of uneaten and decomposing fish will destroy the benthic communities.

119 5.147.
119 5.147.

Good practice approaches in the deployment of the mooring blocks to reduce adverse effects on the seabed especially through dragging of blocks, would minimise the effects of such deployment on the seabed habitats.

5.148.
5.148.

The impact of mooring block deployment is of major significance for the biota located beneath the blocks, which will be decimated, as explained; however, considering that the surface area of the mooring blocks is limited compared to the extent of the farm area, and assuming that there will be no movement / dragging of blocks, the overall impact is expected to be minor on the general sessile benthic species within the farm area.

5.149.
5.149.

The impact of mooring block placement also depends on the type of habitat it impacts.

The seabed at the Scheme site (beyond the drop-off) consists of Mediterranean communities of muddy detritic bottoms.
This habitat type is typically impoverished of benthic biota; indeed, no macroflora or macrofauna were recorded from this assemblage type, although detached macroalgae (mainly Zonaria tournefortii) were present on the sediment surface in various places, and the presence of openings to burrows indicated an associated rich infauna.

The impact from the placing of moorings on this habitat is therefore considered to be of minor significance.
Loss of habitats and decimation of biota from settlement of faeces and uneaten feed on the sea bed 5.150.

Impact from fish wastes (urine and faeces) is considered to be not significant in terms of its impacts on habitats since the urine will be diluted and the faeces readily disintegrate in water66.
Any such waste will mostly disperse or disintegrate in the water column and any waste that does reach the bottom will do so over a wide area where it should be readily decomposed by microbial organisms in the sediment, especially given the usually nutrient-limited conditions of local waters.

5.151.
5.151.

As described above and in Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report, impacts on the sediment from uneaten feed are restricted to the area immediately beneath the tuna pens.

The model indicated that over a 30 day simulation, the feed accumulation is not more than 0.1 cm.
This is corroborated by the monitoring data available from operational farms to date (see Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report) and though largely dependent on feed management, increasing controls at the tuna farms, coupled with environmental permit conditions, helps to reduce these impacts further.
These impacts are therefore judged to be of minor to major significance directly under the cages and minor to not significant in the area outside the seabed occupied by the tuna farm, depending on the level of feed management (in the case of the uneaten baitfish) and the stocking density (fish faeces).

5.152.

It is therefore crucial that strict management of feed is adopted at the Scheme site.
Regular monitoring and close supervision and/or the use of new technologies, 66 Impact on water quality from fish wastes is addressed in the water quality section above.

120 including underwater video cameras, and greater liaison between the environmental monitors, the regulators (ERA, PA and DFA), and the farm operators are required, as are more prompt actions by the individual farm operators and their staff in rectifying over-feeding or loss of baitfish.

5.153.
5.153.

Equally important is the training and sensitising of the staff on the farms to the impacts associated with over-feeding and the settlement of uneaten baitfish.

Specific training programmes should be run to target the various operators and to ensure that all the staff is knowledgeable of the impacts the operation can cause and how these can be minimised through best practice on the farm.

Impact: Damage or disturbance to habitats or species Change in currents and sediment movement 5.154.
In addition to the smothering of the portion of seabed under the mooring blocks, the presence of the blocks on the seabed can produce alterations in the surrounding substratum as a result of modifications in the bottom current and, as a consequence, variations in the sediment size distribution and the silting rate around the structures (Badalamenti & D’Anna, 199667).
Such mooring blocks have the same effects as those brought about by artificial reefs, so that studies undertaken on the latter can inform us on the potential impacts of the former.

5.155.

Few studies have been carried out on the infaunal community surrounding artificial reefs, and how these structures have affected the communities, and these studies have produced different results.

Some report modifications of both sediment texture and community structure (e.g.
Fricke et al., 198668; Ambrose & Anderson, 199069; Lindquist et al., 199470; Nelson et al., 199471), whereas others did not find any significant differences (e.g.

Davis et al., 198272; Jensen et al., 199473).

67 Badalamenti, F., and D’Anna, G., 1996.

Monitoring techniques for zoobenthic communities: influence of the artificial reef on the surrounding infaunal community.

In: Jensen, A.C. [ed].


Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the European Artificial Reef Research Network; Ancona, Italy, 26-30 March 1996; pp 347-358.

68 Fricke, A.H., Koop, K., and Cliff, G., 1986.

Modification of sediment texture and enhancement of interstitial meiofauna by an artificial reef.

Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa.

46 (1): 27-34.

69 Ambrose, R.F., and Anderson, T.W., 1990.

Influence of an artificial reef on the surrounding infaunal community.
Marine Biology, 107: 41-52.

70 Lindquist, D.G., Cahoon, L.B., Clavijo, I.E., Posey, M.H., Bolden, S.K., Pike.

L.A., Burk, S.W., and Cardullo, P.A., 1994.

Reef fish stomach contents and prey abundance on reef and sand substrata associated with adjacent artificial and natural reefs in Onslow Bay, North Carolina.

Bulletin of Marine Science, 55 (2-3): 308- 318.

71 Nelson, W.G., Neff, T., Navratil, P., and Rodda, J., 1994.
Disturbance effects on marine infauna near stabilised oil-ash reefs: spatial and temporal alteration of impacts.

Bulletin of Marine Science, 55 (2-3): 1348.

72 Davis, N., VanBlaricom, G.R., and Dayton, P.K., 1982.

Man-made structures on marine sediments: effects on adjacent benthic communities.

Marine Biology, 70: 295-303.

73 Jensen, A.C., Collins, K., Lockwood, A.P.M., Mallison, J.J., and Turnpenny, W.H., 1994.
Colonisation and fishery potential of a coal-ash artificial reef, Poole Bay, United Kingdom.

Bulletin of Marine Science, 55 (2-3): 1263-1276.

121 5.156.

These studies, however, seem to indicate that there is a close relationship between changes in sediment characteristics and distance from the reef, such that the greatest difference occurs within 1m of the reef edge.

5.157.

The muddy nature of the sea bed would probably result in settlement or burying of the mooring blocks.
In the event that the mooring blocks remain proud of the seabed, they might experience scour on the side of the block under the action of the prevailing bottom currents and accumulation on the opposite side.

Such scour or settlement is not expected to have any significant impact on the stability of the cages or on the seabed, more than the actual placement of the blocks themselves will.

Disturbance to habitats and species from increased organic input in the area 5.158.
As explained above the increased organic input from fish excreta is not expected to create a significant impact in view that fish excreta are either diluted immediately or readily disintegrate to disperse over wide areas.

5.159.
5.159.

This is expected to hold true even in the case of the Scheme, which presents a scenario where a total biomass of 4,500 tonnes could be potentially kept in a relatively confined area, but, due to the highly oligotrophic nature of the sea in the central Mediterranean, would not be expected to overload the system.
The modelling (see earlier) showed that following release of the fish wastes in the pens, the thresholds of nitrogen would be reached within a maximum of 0.5 km from the easternmost cages and that of phosphorous remains confined to the cages (see also Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report).

5.160.
5.160.

As also reported in Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report, water quality surveys have been carried out at local tuna penning sites since the early 2000s.
During these surveys, standard water quality attributes, namely dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, turbidity, nitrates, phosphates, Chlorophyll a, ammonia, and counts of intestinal bacteria, as well as sea currents, were measured at a number of sampling stations located in the immediate vicinity of the tuna farms and at up- current and down-current reference stations.
The results of such surveys indicate that, very rarely, lowered levels of oxygen, reduced water transparency, and elevated nutrient (nitrates and/or phosphates and/or ammonia) levels were recorded from the tuna penning sites during the farming season (July – December).

However, the observed changes in the monitored attributes were often sporadic and not statistically significant, and have not resulted in appreciable alteration of water quality.
Obviously good practice and measures to reduce loading of the water column with nutrients and organic matter will be important.

These impacts are therefore expected to be not significant to minor and mostly restricted to the farming period, with progressively reduced effects as the tuna are harvested and the reared biomass reduced.

Availability of new habitat, food, shelter, etc.

5.161.
5.161.

The presence of new structures (mooring blocks, chains, ropes, and the cages themselves), in a previously “barren” area, compounded by the presence of food 122 (uneaten baitfish and increased plankton production as a result of the presence of added organic nutrients), has the potential to attract marine life to the area.
Indeed, existing tuna farms are known to attract both fish life, especially wild tuna and smaller pelagics (such as amberjack Seriola dumerilii, spicarel Spicara spp., and bogue Boops boops, amongst others), as well as a considerable amount of scavengers and detritus feeders, attracted by the uneaten food accumulating on the sea bed, and sessile organisms that grow on the mooring blocks, ropes, chains, and nets.

In this respect these structures can function in the same way as artificial reefs.

5.162.
5.162.

This attraction of marine life and the barrier to fishing within the area (in view of the maze of cages, ropes and chains), can in itself provide additional shelter to the fish, and thereby lead to a decrease in exploitable biomass.

The Scheme site (which is of considerable size), will thus serve as a no-fishing zone74, which may help to provide a safe haven to marine organisms in the area and an overall minor beneficial impact.
Attraction of new species and changes in ecological relationships 5.163.

The presence of uneaten feed on the seabed will attract a host of species, from scavengers and detritus feeders (both invertebrates and vertebrates), as well as predators, attracted to the site by the presence of the scavenging population and the tuna themselves.
Though the potential for the tuna farms to attract sharks has often been touted as an impact of such developments, there has been no firm evidence to date (in Malta and abroad) of such attractions.

Locally, pelagic predators attracted to tuna farms have included wild tuna, dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippuris) and amberjack (Seriola dumerilii), amongst other smaller pelagics.

Cetaceans (namely dolphins) have also been recorded in the vicinity of the tuna farms.

5.164.
5.164.

Such aggregations of wild pelagic fauna are not envisaged to be adversely affected by the tuna penning activities per se, since they will be acquiring food that will potentially lead to enhanced local production.
However, the aggregations tend to attract fishermen who carry out fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farm such that they will harvest the wild fish present there; indeed because of such ‘facilitated’ harvesting of wild fish, fish farms have been described by marine ecologists as serving as ‘ecological traps’.

Indeed, anecdotal evidence from local amateur fishermen points to increased catches in the vicinity of tuna farms.
The problem at local tuna farms gets more complicated since fishermen who target the wild tunas and carry out their activities in the vicinity of the farms may actually be the cause of whole dead tunas ending up on the seabed in the vicinity of the tuna farms.

This problem is highlighted in Arechavala-Lopez et al.

(2015) (see Technical Appendix 4: Marine Ecology Baseline Report).

This impact on pelagic wild species is expected to be of minor significance.

5.165.
5.165.

The presence of the several species attracted to the farms could affect the ecological relationships in the area in view of the presence of a higher number of predators than 74 Nonetheless, amateur fishermen regularly congregate around the tuna farms targeting the wild fish attracted to the farm.

123 is normally expected, and the effects of a high number of scavengers on the original benthic assemblages.
The impacts of such changes in ecological relationships and increased scavenging or predation depends on the exact number of species attracted and their effects on the assemblages at the site, which would result in an insignificant to minor impact.

5.166.

Changes to benthic assemblages (especially algae) could also result from shading effects caused by the presence of the cages themselves.

Such a phenomenon was reported from at least one operational site that was located in around 45 m depth of water.
It is likely that similar impacts occur at the other sites; although this impact is often masked by the more important changes to the benthic assemblages resulting from the settlement of uneaten feed (see above).

At the Scheme site, the water depth (in excess of 130 m), the reduced light availability, and the muddy detritic bottom, which is devoid of benthic flora, are such that the impact of shading is not expected to be significant.

5.167.
5.167.

One aspect that is often overlooked is the effect of the deployment of new structures in the marine environment on the surrounding infauna, in particular fish predation on the infaunal assemblages.

Studies on artificial reefs seem to indicate the presence of a strong trophic linkage between natural outcrops and the adjacent soft bottom habitats, with a “halo” of decreased prey abundance adjacent to predator refuges.

Nelson et al.
Nelson et al.

(1994) found an infaunal reduction within 1 m of the edges of small artificial reefs, which was attributed to the synergism of direct predation and physical disturbance on the sediment by the reef fish.

Changes in the sediment size distribution and infaunal community structure where also recorded by Ambrose and Anderson (1990).

5.168.
5.168.

Whether the Scheme will result in such impacts or not will depend on a number of factors, including the type of species present in the area, the number and type of species attracted to the area, the strength of current and whether it would aid or impede settlement, and the type of community that would eventually establish itself.

5.169.
5.169.

At this stage of the assessment it is difficult to predict what the outcome would be; however, in the case of the Scheme, where the greatest impact on the benthic communities is a result of the settlement of uneaten feed, the impact on infauna from the attraction of species into the area is considered to be minor to not significant.

Damage or disturbance to habitats and species from increased human presence 5.170.
Deployment of the farms does not only attract fish but also humans, in the form of farm operators and staff, divers, and ship crew.

Increased human activity in the area could negatively affect habitats and/or species by taking of specimens (e.g.

octopuses and fish), increased pollution (oil, sewage, foul water, etc.

), anchoring activities by the processing vessels, etc.

These activities are not expected to result in a material change to habitat quality or extent and are therefore not significant.
5.171.

During the deployment of the cages and ancillary tackle, as well as during the operations of the farm (both during fattening and harvesting), the concentration of vessels and human activity is expected to result in some disturbance to pelagic fauna 124 present in the general area of the farm, mainly through the generation of underwater noise.
Although detailed data on the pelagic fauna that occur within the Area of Survey are lacking, it is expected that several species of pelagic fish, turtles, and cetaceans migrate in its vicinity.

Such fauna will be exposed to disturbance, mainly through the generation of underwater noise, from the increased vessel activity and from deployment of the cage moorings, ropes, and tuna pens.
However, such fauna, being highly mobile, will swim away from the affected area such that there will be a small deviation of the migratory route without significant adverse effects to the animals.

This impact is therefore expected to be temporary in nature and not significant to minor.

5.172.

The use of vessels has the potential to introduce hazardous substances and chemicals into the marine environment (whether deliberately, accidentally, or indirectly).

Such chemicals can include fuels and lubricants.


However, except in the case of accidents, such introductions are expected to be minimal in nature and will depend on work practices, such that good management and work practices on the farm will significantly minimise such incidents.
Nonetheless, the introduction of such chemicals into the marine environment may have toxic effects on marine flora and fauna, which could include reduction in reproductive potential and capacity, fertilisation success, and development and physiological functions.
However, the location of the Scheme site in deep offshore waters characterised by a high hydrodynamic regime, is expected to result in a rapid dispersal of any such small spill so that the impact on the marine biota present in the vicinity of the farm will be not significant to minor and of a temporary and very short duration.

5.173.
5.173.

The results of video surveys made below tuna cages at local tuna penning sites have indicated that, in places, a considerable amount of anthropogenic items is present below the pens that appear to originate from the farm operations; these include concrete weights with ropes attached, sheets and sacks of fabric and other material, car tyres, lengths of rope and other unidentified items.
While plastic items are known to be hazardous to marine life, items deposited on the seabed lead to physical alteration of the bottom leading to potential changes to the benthic habitat present in the vicinity of the fish farm.

The impact on the seabed habitats from littering is considered to be of minor to major significance depending on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures applied.

Impacts from the introduction of alien species and disease-causing organisms 5.174.
An issue that is rarely considered in the debate on tuna farm development is the potential for the introduction of alien species or disease-causing organisms with the baitfish.

It is reported that most of the local tuna farms import baitfish from outside the Mediterranean.

This could be a source of algal material as well as parasites or viruses from a different region.

Although this can be considered to be a remote possibility, it cannot be discounted.
One event in South Australia that resulted in the decimation of the population of pilchards by a virus, was blamed on the importation of pilchards as baitfish for tuna farms (Earthbeat, 2002), although the connection was not conclusively proven.

WWF (2005) also sounded the alarm on the potential impacts of this practice and called on the European Union to ban the use of non- 125 Mediterranean fish as feed in tuna farming (WWF, 200575).

1.157.
1.157.

Should such an event occur, the significance of this impact could be major or it could be insignificant depending on whether the connection mentioned above is proven and on the severity of the ‘outbreak’.

In such circumstances it is not possible to assign impact significance.

However, even though it is very unlikely to happen, the precautionary principle is paramount and the environmental monitoring programme for the farms must include an early warning system.

MITIGATION 5.175.
MITIGATION 5.175.

As explained above, most of the negative impacts of the Scheme (and the individual farms within it) can be mitigated through good operational practices, which in turn will be supervised through the environmental permit conditions for each farm.

In particular, the requirement for the establishment and implementation of an environmental management system is expected to assist in implementation of mitigation.

5.176.
5.176.

The most important mitigation measures are those linked to the improved management of feeding practices and the containment and collection of fish oils before these leave the farm area76.
The mitigation measures proposed are listed hereunder:  Deployment Stage: o Good practice during the deployment of moorings to ensure against dragging of blocks on the seabed; o Ensuring that the design of the mooring equipment and layout is optimal to ensure against drifting of the farm under storm conditions; o Good project management to minimise operational losses of oils and fuels from maritime vessels and their consequent water quality effects; o Good project management and use of proper mooring technology to minimise sediment re-suspension;  Operational Stage: o Good feed management to minimise carbon loading in sediments from uneaten feed and nutrient loadings in the water column, namely: 75 WWF Mediterranean Programme, 2005.
Risk on local fish populations and ecosystems posed by the use of imported feed fish by the tuna farming industry in the Mediterranean; April 2005.

- http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/wwfonenvironmentalriskoftunafarming.doc 76 Extensive implementation of such mitigation measures by the farms and enforcement by the environment authorities over Summer 2018 has resulted in significant improvements at various local tuna farms.
126 o Feeding of the tuna should be carefully monitored and stopped as soon as the fish are satiated, in order to avoid as much as possible uneaten feed ending up on the bottom.
o o Implementing a procedure to ensure proper feed management by having random checks of the seabed below the tuna pens made by an independent environmental monitor; In the case of accident, should an inordinate amount of dead uneaten feed-fish end up on the bottom, every attempt should be made to recover as much of the material as possible and as quickly as possible after the event in order to minimise the adverse effects on the seabed habitat; o Avoidance of large stocking densities; o Consider the benefits of thawing and washing of baitfish on shore prior to feeding to reduce the amount of fish oils and mucus released into the marine environment; o Deployment of permanent oil booms inside all tuna pens to contain any released fish oils inside the cages and the use of oil skimmers or similar equipment to collect the released fish oils from within the cages.
o Availability of additional oil collection services outside each farm to ensure immediate collection of any slick escapes from the farms to avoid wide dispersal of same; o Consider the deployment of additional oil booms (to the permanent ones within the cages) on the farms’ perimeters if acceptable from a navigational safety point of view (partial deployment in the direction of the prevailing currents could also be considered); o Appropriate contingency planning including ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of their responsibilities in the event of an accident; o Ensuring that offal and dead tuna remains are managed in line with EC Regulation 1069 of 2009; o Use of flat form cartons as packaging material and proper disposal of wastes at shore-side facilities; o Deployment of nets on cage collars to be done as late as possible just before the arrival of the towing cages and once the tuna from a cage is harvested, the net should be removed immediately in order to minimise the length of time with net shading effects on the seabed; o Good practices aboard ships to minimise discharges, noise, light, and littering; 127 o Proper control of marine discharges in line with MARPOL Regulations; o Immediate recovery of any items that may accidentally end up in the sea (whether floating or deposited on the seabed) and collection of any third party marine litter that may float towards the farm; and o Prohibition / strict control of fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farms.
RESIDUAL IMPACTS 5.177.

Assuming that the Scheme is approved and good working practices are adopted at each individual farm, and legislation enforced, residual impacts of minor significance are foreseen on the water quality at the Scheme site.

Enforcement of permit conditions by the Competent Authorities is a crucial requisite, as is the continued and improved monitoring of operations and environmental impacts in order to address the issues at source.
As regards impacts on the benthic ecology, the location of the Scheme in deep waters over muddy detritic bottoms and completely avoiding the rhodolith beds results in residual impacts of mostly minor significance, some of which may also be beneficial to benthic communities.
The only impacts of potentially major significance are those related to direct impacts on the seabed from the placement of mooring blocks, the settlement of uneaten feed, or the loss of litter overboard, all of which have a limited spatial extent.
128 Table 5.11: Summary of impacts Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Reduction in Water Quality or Transparency Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Adverse Deploy’t Site Direct S term Temp.

Revers.
Revers.

Likely Re-suspension of sediment particles by mooring blocks WQ changes from fish oils / mucus from baitfish during feeding Deterioration in WQ from increased nutrient loads from fish excreta Adverse Oper’n Local Direct S term (twice daily during fattening) Adverse Oper’n Site Direct S term Temp.

(as long as tuna are present on site) Temp.

(as long as tuna are present on site) Revers.

Certain Revers.
Likely Minor Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant Minor to Not significant77 Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant Not significant to Minor Minor to Not significant Proposed Mitigation Measures Deployment of oil booms and collection of fish oils using skimmers from inside the cages to minimise release outside of farm area Optimise stocking density in cages not to overload the water column 77 As explained above, this refers to the impact of fish oils on water quality and the natural environment.
Aesthetic and nuisance effects are considered to be of major significance and are considered in Chapter 8.

129 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Adverse Oper’n Site Direct L term Possibly Revers.

Perm.

?
(depen ds on amount of uneate n feed settling on seabed) Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Uncertain (likely to be minor to major under the cages becoming minor to not significant with distance from the cages) Minor to not significant Proposed Mitigation Measures Strict feed management; monitoring of tuna feeding (possibly using new technologies), greater liaison with regulators, prompt action by farmers to collect sinking baitfish, lengthening of statutory fallowing period Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Uncertain Minor to Not significant Deterioration in WQ from increased nutrient loads from uneaten feed Impacts from release of blood during culling, harvesting and processing Adverse Oper’n Site (of discharge ) Direct S term Temp.
Revers.

Likely 130 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Adverse Oper’n Impacts from release of offal during culling, harvesting and processing Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Site (of discharge ) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Direct S term Temp.

Revers.
Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Minor Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Minor to not significant (if disposal is controlled and carried out over a wide area to avoid overloading) Proposed Mitigation Measures Collection, handling and management of this waste stream to be in line with the provisions of EC Regulations on handling of fishery products and animal by-products; Monitoring and supervision l to ensure disposal beyond 12 nautical miles; maceration of offal prior to disposal 131 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Organic loading from tuna carcasses Adverse Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Site (of disposal) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Direct L term Perm.
?

Possibly Revers.

Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Unlikely Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant (as long as provisions of Reg 1069 / 2009 are observed and rapid response in case of mortalities).
Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Uncertain (can range from major to minor depending on effectiveness of response in case of mortalities) Proposed Mitigation Measures Prohibit disposal of tuna carcasses at sea and manage in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1069 of 2009; Farm operators to ensure recovery of carcasses in the event of accidents / mass mortality during storms.
Prohibit / strictly control fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farms 132 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Increased potential for pollution from oils, sewage, and litter Oil and bilge waters from maritime traffic Adverse Both Local Direct S term Temp.

Revers.
Revers.

Unlikely Sewage from ships Adverse Oper’n Local Direct S term Revers.
Unlikely Temp (while factory vessels are on site) 133 Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to minor (for small craft) (minor to major in the case of an accidental large spill) Minor to Major (for larger processing vessels) Minor to Major (depending on measures available on vessel) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant (small craft) Minor (larger processing vessels) Minor Good operational practices; Adherence to MARPOL Regulations (oil content, prohibition of discharge, holding tanks, etc); Ensure craft is in good working order; Availability of oil spill response capabilities Good operational practices; Adherence to MARPOL Regulations Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Pollution from packaging waste Adverse Oper’n Site Direct S term Revers.
Temp.
(during harvest ing) Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Remote Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to minor Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant Use of flat-pack cartons for packaging; Good operational practices; Adherence to MARPOL Regulations; collection of marine litter 134 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Pollution from ship litter Adverse Oper’n Site Direct S term Revers.
Temp.
(especi ally during harvest ing) Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Minor (galley litter) Minor to Major (other litter and anthropogen ic items lost overboard) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Minor to Not significant (galley litter) Minor (other litter) Good operational practices; Adherence to MARPOL Regulations; Immediate collection of any items lost overboard (whether floating or on the seabed); collection of marine litter; monitoring of seabed condition 135 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Habitat Loss Loss through burial under mooring blocks Adverse Deploy’t Site Direct L term Revers.
Likely Perm.
(as long as blocks remain in place) Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Major for sessile fauna and flora under blocks; Minor to not significant for general sessile benthic species in farm area Minor ( for muddy detritic bottoms) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Major for sessile fauna and flora under blocks Not significant to Minor for general farm area Minor ( for muddy detritic bottoms ) Good practice approaches in the deployment of the mooring blocks to reduce adverse effects on the seabed especially to eliminate dragging of blocks Optimise mooring design to ensure against drifting 136 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Unlikely Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant Optimise stocking density Not significant Revers.
Loss through settlement of faeces Loss through settlement of uneaten food Adverse Oper’n Local Direct S term (for duration of fattening) Adverse Oper’n Site Direct L term Temp.

(as long as farm is in operati on) Perm.

?

(depen ds on amount of feed) 137 Possibly Revers.
Likely Minor to Not significant Minor to Major (seabed directly under cages) Minor to Not significant on seabed in general farm area Strict feed management; monitoring of tuna feeding (possibly using new technologies), greater liaison with regulators, prompt action by farmers to collect sinking baitfish, lengthening of statutory fallowing period; staff training Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Damage / Disturbance to habitats and species Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Changes in currents and sediment movement Adverse Oper’n Site Direct L term Uncert ain Revers.
Uncertain Not significant Not significant Disturbance from increased organic input Adverse / Beneficial Oper’n Local Direct Temp.

Revers.

Unlikely S term (for as long as the fish are on site) Beneficial Oper’n Site Direct L term Availability of new habitat, food, shelter, etc.

Revers.
Revers.

Likely Perm (as long as area remain s in use) 138 Not significant to minor (during farming period with reduced effects as harvesting progresses) Potential minor beneficial due to oligotrophy Minor beneficial Good practice farm management to reduce loading of water column with nutrients and organic matter.
Control stocking density in each cage None Not significant to minor beneficial Minor beneficial Attraction of new species and changes in ecological relationships Changes to benthos from shading effects by cages Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Adverse / Beneficial Oper’n Local Direct L term Revers.
Perm (as long as area remain s in use) Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Uncertain Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to Minor Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Minor Monitor colonisation process and change in community structure from attraction of new species (scavengers and predators) Revers./ Irrevers.
Likely Not significant for muddy detritic bottoms Not significant (for muddy detritic bottoms ) Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm (during farming as long as area remain s in use) 139 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Increased human presence Adverse Both Site Indirect L term Temp Revers.
Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to Minor (noise from vessels and release of chemicals) Minor to Major (effects of littering on seabed) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Minor (noise from vessels and release of chemicals) Minor (effects of littering on seabed) Monitor human activities on site; implement EMS through the environmental permit conditions.
Regular monitoring of seabed condition and retrieve any lost items deposited on the seabed Prohibit / strictly control fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farms.

140 Adverse Oper’n National Indirect L term Perm / Temp Revers.

/ Irrevers.

Remote (low risk) Uncertain Introduction of alien species and disease- causing organisms Uncertain Monitor for evidence of introductions and act accordingly 141 6.

AVIFAUNA INTRODUCTION 6.1.


This chapter describes the avifauna within the Area of Influence (A of I) and an assessment of the potential impacts and risks posed by the Scheme on the avifauna therein.

This assessment draws on the avifauna baseline report prepared by John J Borg (Ecoserv Ltd) for this EIA Report- (see Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report).

6.2.
The potential key issues with regards to avifauna are outlined below: Key Issues:  Competition for sea space between the Scheme site and operations and the ecology of breeding Procellariiformes  Disturbance due to light pollution interfering with seabird behaviour  Disturbance due to noise pollution that may result in impacts on breeding population behaviour  Change in prey abundance at the Scheme site providing an additional food source  Increasing population of Yellow-Legged Gull that may result in competition for nesting space and predation on other breeding seabird species that are listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive  Entanglement in nets when seabirds dive for food resulting in drowning  Accidental ingestion of marine debris that can affect both individuals and their young Terms of Reference 6.3.
The Terms of Reference for the avifauna assessment were provided by ERA and are reproduced in Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Area of Influence 6.4.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the A of I for the avifauna study.
The A of I included the original Area of Survey for the aquaculture zone as identified by eth Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but, as explained in Chapter 1, the final preferred option for the Scheme location, which resulted from the findings of the marine surveys and 143 the feedback from the stakeholders, was shifted slightly northward and westward, which resulted in the Scheme location extending outside the original A of I.

However, the findings of the avifauna study remain valid.
Methodology 6.5.

The avifauna study took the form of:  Desk-top study of the ornithological features of interest in the A of I and bird groups and species that have been recorded within the A of I;  Description of the findings;  Assessment of the impacts resulting from the Scheme on the avifauna and an evaluation of the significance of these effects; and  Description of mitigation measures designed to minimise adverse impacts on avifauna.
144 Figure 6.1: Avifauna Area of Influence 145 Desk-top study 6.6.

This assessment is based on accumulated data obtained from long-term observations on the breeding biology and ecology of Malta’s breeding seabirds (1982-2018) as well as published and unpublished reports from three EU LIFE funded projects:  EU LIFE+ Progett Garnija (2006-2010);  EU LIFE+ Malta Seabird Project (2012-2016); and  EU LIFE funded Arcipelagu Garnija (2016-2020).

6.7.
6.7.

The technical report is reproduced in Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report.

BASELINE SURVEY RESULTS Breeding seabirds in the Maltese Islands 6.8.

6.9.

The Maltese coastal cliffs support four breeding seabird species, namely Scopoli’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan), Mediterranean Storm-petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis), and the Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis).
Shearwaters are members of the Order Procellariiformes which includes also the albatrosses and petrels.

They are pelagic species with the characteristic tube-noses on the base of the upper mandible.

They visit land during the breeding season and do so under cover of darkness.

A single egg is laid in a deep crevice or burrow or under loose boulders and vegetation.

Sometimes, rabbit burrows are also used as breeding sites.

6.10.
6.10.

Table 6.1 illustrates the breeding cycle of the three pelagic breeding seabird species and Table 6.2 indicates their presence at the colonies throughout the year.
Table 6.1: Breeding biology and ecology of P. yelkouan, C. diomedea, and H. pelagicus Arrival at colonies Puffinus yelkouan mid October Egg laying early February Hatching early May Fledging mid June/early July Calonectris diomedea end February end May mid July mid October Hydrobates pelagicus end February April-June May-August August to October 147 Table 6.2: Presence in colonies of the three pelagic breeding seabird species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Calonectris diomedea Puffinus yelkouan Hydrobates pelagicus Importance of areas of ornithological conservation interest in the A of I 6.11.
The following summarises the importance of the areas of conservation present within the A of I:  Ramla tat-Torri/Rdum tal-Madonna area MT0000009: This area holds the most important Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) colony in the Maltese Islands as well as a small colony of Scopoli's Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea).

Figure 6.2 shows the cliff area occupied by the seabird colonies.
In 2016 the Mediterranean Storm-petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis) was found breeding inside one of the numerous caves in the area.

Other breeding bird species are the Blue Rock Thrush (Monticola solitarius), Short-toed Lark (Calandrella brachydactyla), Sardinian Warbler (Sylvia melanocephala) and Spectacled Warbler (Sylvia conspicillata).
 Kemmuna, Kemmunett, il-Ħaġriet ta' Bejn il-Kmiemen u l-Iskoll ta' Taħt il-Mazz MT0000017: The eastern coast is of particular interest for this study as it supports breeding colonies of Yelkouan and Scopoli`s Shearwaters, see Figure 6.3.

  Il-Gżejjer ta’ San Pawl (Selmunett) MT0000022: In the last decade, a small colony of Yelkouan Shearwaters has been re-discovered breeding on the island.
Il-Baħar madwar Għawdex MT0000112 and il-Baħar tal-Grigal MT0000107: Two marine conservation areas identified during the EU Life funded project Malta Seabird Project (2012-2016) for their importance as feeding grounds for the three pelagic species, namely Calonectris diomedea, Puffinus yelkouan and Hydrobates pelagicus.

Priority areas in the marine environment for the three Procellariiformes 6.12.
Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report makes reference to the IBA Inventory, 2015 (Metzger et al., 2015), which provides additional detail on how each breeding seabird species uses the marine environment.

This report helped to provide the basis for the designation of marine SPAs.

6.13.
6.13.

For the Maltese breeding population of P. yelkouan, three main hotspot areas 148 were identified, one around Gozo, including the Gozo-Comino Channel and along the west- and southwest coast of Malta, a second one offshore in the northeast of Malta and a third one offshore in the southwest of Malta (see Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report).
For the Maltese breeding population of C. diomedea, five priority areas were identified in the Maltese Exclusive Fishing Zone (EFZ), the first one around and north of Gozo and a second one along the west and southwest coast of Malta.

In addition, three offshore areas were identified east, southeast, and south of Malta (see Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report).
For H. pelagicus melitensis breeding in the Maltese Islands the core area covers a coastal zone around Malta and a larger area of sea east of the island.

Additionally, a small area is found in the Pantelleria channel northwest of Gozo as well as an area southwest of Malta (see Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report).

Figure 6.4 depicts these priority areas.
149 Figure 6.2: Area of importance for seabird colonies at Rdum tal-Madonna 151 Figure 6.3: Seabird colonies on Comino 153 Figure 6.4: Maps showing priority areas for breeding Procellariiformes Priority areas for P. yelkouan within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15% Priority areas for C. diomedea within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15% Priority areas for H. pelagicus melitensis within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15% Source: Metzger et al., 2015 155 Daily movements by Procellariiformes 6.14.
Shearwaters travel vast distances to and from their breeding colonies in search of food.

During the breeding season of C. diomedea, large numbers can be seen flying offshore in an east to west direction.

Distance from land is conditioned by wind direction and strength.

During strong north-westerly winds the shearwaters can be seen flying at a distance of less than 50 metres from the coast.

6.15.
6.15.

The same area is also used by Yelkouan Shearwaters, especially birds originating from the Rdum tal-Madonna colony (Borg et al, 200278, Borg et al, 201079, Raine et al, 201080, 201181 and 201282) and more recently from the St. Paul’s Islands (Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report).

Other bird species 6.16.

Another regular visitor to the study area and immediate whereabouts is the Yellow- legged Gull (Larus michahellis).

This resident breeding bird is present almost all year round.
Rafting 6.17.

Rafting is the convergence of birds on water, normally in the vicinity of their breeding colonies.

During calm afternoons these congregations of birds can reach large numbers with several hundreds of birds waiting for darkness.

Birds start assembling about two to three hours before sunset and then start to dissipate around dusk when the whole congregation is within a few hundred metres from the cliffs.
The main reason for birds rafting is to rest, and it is safest to do this in large numbers when many birds are looking out for danger.

For example, both the Scopoli’s and Yelkouan Shearwaters raft offshore in the evenings, waiting to return to their breeding colonies under the safety of darkness.

Rafting is a time to socialise, and is an important aspect of a seabird’s life.
As noted in Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report, it has also been hypothesised that seabirds use these congregations to assess the health of their population, although this is now highly disputed considering the fact that individual birds from other colonies in other countries form part of these rafts.

Fish pens: supplementary food source for seabirds 6.18.

Borg (2012) presented some preliminary results from studies into tuna farms acting 78 Borg.

J.J. & J. Sultana.

2002.


Status and Distribution of the Breeding Procellariiformes in Malta.

(30) Il- Merill.

79 Borg, J.J., H., Raine, A.F.

Raine, & N. Barbara, 2010.

Protecting Malta's wind chaser: The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project Report.

Malta: EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project.

80 Raine, A., H. Raine, A. Meirinho & J.J. Borg.

2010.

Rafting behaviour of Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan breeding at Rdum tal-Madonna, Malta.

(32) Il-Merill.
(32) Il-Merill.

81 Raine, A., H. Raine, J.J. Borg & A. Merinho.

2011.

Post-fledging dispersal of Maltese Yelkouan Shearwaters Puffinus yelkouan.

Vol.26 (2) Ringing & Migration.

82 Raine, A., J.J. Borg, H. Raine & R.A. Philips.

2012.

Migration Strategies of the Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan (154) Journal of Ornithology.

157 as a supplementary food source for storm petrels.
It was noted that the use of raw, unwashed fish food is fundamental in attracting storm petrels closer to these tuna pens, in view of the birds' strong olfactory sense.

The same food supply attracts a constant presence of small fish around the pens which in turn attract gulls and terns, especially the Black Tern (Chlidonias niger).

6.19.
6.19.

Observations have shown that the majority of storm petrels frequenting the Area of Influence are adult birds undergoing primary wing moult, suggesting breeders, probably not venturing far away from the colonies during the chick rearing period.

A smaller number of birds seen during the site visits were juvenile birds covered in a fresh coat of dark plumage.

These young birds are present from the latter part of August to early September.
Tuna penning is locally carried out during the summer and autumn months (mid-July to November / December).

6.20.

Past studies recommended that further investigations should focus to identify if this reliable food source has any effect on the breeding success and fledglings survival in storm petrels.
While adult storm petrels regularly fall prey to Yellow-legged Gulls on Filfla (Borg et al., 1992-94, Sultana et al, 2011) no interactions between gulls and storm petrels were ever noted near the tuna pens to date.

Further research is required to determine the extent of dependency by storm petrels on this food source provided by the tuna farms.

Threats Light pollution 6.21.

The use of light sources from land and at sea is of particular concern.
It is known that light interferes with the behaviour of birds and other animal groups, including bats.

In those areas where electricity has been installed especially close to seabird colonies, birds have completely deserted the site.

Birds and other animals found close to light sources are known to behave in an abnormal way; several species of birds remain active during night time.
Light also disrupts the normal cycle of other vertebrates as well as numerous species of invertebrates making them susceptible to predation.

6.22.

In some cases, seabird breeding colonies have been abandoned when electricity was introduced in the area, places like Xlendi Bay, Ħal-Far, Għar Lapsi and Wied iż- Żurrieq, where colonies of both Scopoli’s and Yelkouan Shearwaters have been negatively affected.

Noise 6.23.
Noise 6.23.

Noise has a negative effect on the normal patterns of incoming shearwaters during night time.

Birds tend to fly away from any sound source as was observed on numerous occasions.

When a boat passes close to a breeding colony, all activity stops until the boat (noise source) is no longer audible.

158 DETERMINING IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE 6.24.


In assessing the significance of the potential negative impacts arising from the Scheme on the avifauna conservation interest in the area, the following criteria have been used:  Not significant - no material change in site integrity83 and / or conservation status84 of habitats and species of conservation interest in particular Annex I habitats and species listed in the Birds Directive.
No material change expected to other species of ecological value and conservation in terms of range, population and habitat important for the ecology of the species;  Minor significance - small-scale loss / disturbance including to species populations / extent of habitat that is unlikely to affect the integrity of the overall site/habitat and species populations of conservation interest; and  Major significance - large-scale loss / disturbance / change in habitat that is likely to affect the ecological integrity and/or species populations’ viability whereby the conservation status of the habitat and/or species is likely to be compromised within the Natura 2000 area of interest.
6.25.

The concept of ‘material change’ needs to be viewed in the context of the Scheme.

For a change to be material, it must affect the long-term interactions of the species present at the site more than they would be affected by impacts from natural processes or by the continuation of the uses already extant in the area and to which the ecology may be accommodated.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS Description and assessment of impacts 6.26.
The significant impacts and risks posed by the proposed project on the avifauna were assessed.

The impacts include:  Impinging on sea area that is used by the seabirds for activity including rafting, social interaction, potentially feeding, etc; 83 Integrity is not defined in the Habitats Directive, although it is introduced under Article 6.
Official guidance on nature conservation in the UK provides a definition in relation to European sites that can be applied more generally: ‘The integrity of a site is the coherence of its ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables it to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and / or the levels of populations of the species for which it was classified.’ (Box, J.

2006.

A guide to Ecological Impact Assessment.

Town and Country Planning).
84 Conservation status for a natural habitat is defined under Article 1 (e) as follows: ‘...the sum of the influences acting on a natural habitat and its typical species that may affect its long-term natural distribution, structures and functions as well as the long-term survival of its typical species within the territory...’ Conservation of a species means: ‘...the sum of the influences acting on the species concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory...’.
159  Disturbance due to light pollution;  Disturbance due to noise pollution;  Change in prey abundance;  Increasing population of Yellow-Legged Gull (predator);  Entanglement; and  Ingestion of marine debris.

Prediction and significance of impacts Competition for sea space 6.27.

As described in Chapter 3, importantly, the Scheme falls within the SPA Il-Baħar ta’ madwar Għawdex, which was designated on account of its importance for the ecology of C. diomedea and P. yelkouan breeding populations.
Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report reports on the priority marine areas identified that are used by the three species of Procellariiformes (see also Figure 6.4) and upon which the eventual designation of the marine SPAs was based (refer also to Malta’s IBA Inventory Report, 2015)85.

These first maps show too that the sea space in this SPA is also used by H. pelagicus melitensis.
As described in Malta’s IBA Inventory Report, 2015, each species has been recorded spending time in the marine environment close to their colonies before entering the colonies.

They use these areas for gathering, rafting, social interaction, and possibly also sometimes foraging.

These areas are therefore considered to be seaward extensions to the terrestrial breeding colonies.
The extent of these areas used is species-specific and considered by Metzger et al (2015)86 to be as follows:  Puffinus yelkouan up to 7 km;  Calonectris diomedea up to 4km; and  Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis up to 1km.

6.28.

It is also noted that these areas are used by prospective individuals that may not yet have bred as well as other non-breeding species.

6.29.

Additionally, these three breeding seabird species carry out pelagic foraging in areas further offshore.
Such areas were also identified as part of the 2015 IBA Inventory.

6.30.

Thus, analysing the importance of Il-Baħar ta’ Madwar Għawdex SPA for each of the 85 Metzger, B., Oppel, S., Carroll, M., Merihnho, A., Dias, M., Barbara, N., Lago Barreiro, P. 2015.

Malta Marine IBA Inventory Report.

EU LIFE+ Malta Seabird Project.

LIFE10 NAT/MT/090.

Creating an inventory of marine IBAs for Puffinus yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea, and Hydrobates pelagicus in Malta.

86 Ibid.
86 Ibid.

160 species and how they use this area allows for a better understanding of the potential impact on each species.

6.31.

The Scheme is located approximately 5.1km from the Rdum tal-Madonna seabird colonies at its closest point, and 6.5 km from the eastern Comino colonies.

Thus, the Scheme is located in an area that lies within the seaward boundary of the P. yelkouan breeding colony.
According to the maps as reproduced in Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report, the Scheme site does not lie within a priority area for C. diomedea and H. pelagicus.

6.32.

Although the Scheme lies within an area of importance, in particular for P. yelkouan, the Scheme takes up an area of approximately 4.5 km2, the sea surface area occupied by cages will be much less and in the order of 0.3 km2.
Considering that this species has a relatively extensive seaward colony extension and considering also that P. yelkouan prefers to raft in relatively small groups87, the presence of the Scheme is not expected to disrupt the behaviour of P. yelkouan to such an extent that could affect the breeding success of the identified colonies on the coast.

Similarly with regards to foraging within this area, Forrest et al.
(2007)88 noted that if any adverse effects of habitat exclusion occurred, then their significance will depend on the spatial scale of the aquaculture facility in relation to the distribution and abundance of prey species.

The impact is therefore considered to be of minor significance.

Impacts on seabirds from light pollution 6.33.


As noted in Technical Appendix 5: Avifauna Baseline Report, light poses a threat to birds, affecting their behaviour, sometimes to such an extent that can affect breeding colonies and therefore, possibly also breeding success.

Lights can cause disorientation, collision, and death of seabirds transiting through the site at night due to inappropriate navigation or vessel level lighting.

6.34.
6.34.

The addition of the Scheme will include lights as a safety precaution to alert mariners to the presence of the cages at night time.

A number of solar-powered navigational lights will be installed at the periphery of the aquaculture area (probably between six and eight), as instructed by Transport Malta.

In addition, other solar marine lights may be fixed to each cage for security reasons; the number of such lights is not yet known as it would also depend on the individual operators.
The Scheme is located not far from the bunkering area; another artificial light source.

It is considered that the Scheme will potentially contribute cumulatively to the existing light pollution seaward of the breeding sites.

It is difficult to assess the extent of this impact in the absence of data related to how the existing situation affects seabirds and to what extent.

It is also noted that the lights are not downward facing, which could help 87 Raine, A., Raine, H., Merinho, A., Borg.

J.J. 2010.
J.J. 2010.

Rafting behaviour of Yelkouan Shearwater, Puffinus yelkouan breeding at Rdum tal-Madonna, Malta.

32.

Il-Merill.

88 Forrest, B.M, Keeley, N., Gillespie, P., Hopkins, G., Knight, B., Govier, D. (2007).

Review of the ecological effects of marine finfish aquaculture: Final report.

Prepared for Ministry of Fisheries.

Cawthron Report 1285.

Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.

161 mitigate the extent of impact.


In light of this, the impact is judged to be of minor to major significance reflecting the uncertainty on the impact to the breeding seabird populations.

If only the navigational lights (not the cage lights) remain on during the breeding season, the impact may be more likely to be minor.

Monitoring would be required in order to provide a more robust understanding of the extent of the impact on each of the species’ breeding populations.
Impacts on seabirds from noise pollution 6.35.

The Scheme will be a potential source of noise generally as a result of the movement of the boats which will intensify during fattening and harvesting operations.

Thus, the increase in noise will mostly be during the day time when the seabirds are away from their colonies.

Moreover, Puffinus yelkouan would have already left the colonies by the time harvesting operations start (refer to Table 6.1 and Table 6.2).
The impact of noise as a result of Scheme operations on the breeding seabirds is thus considered to be not significant to minor.

Change in the abundance of prey 6.36.

Aquaculture facilities can act as fish aggregating devices / "artificial reefs" and increases in abundance and diversity of small fish species looking for shelter and foraging on falling food pieces is well documented (e.g.

Forrest, 2007)89.

All of the breeding seabirds include fish as part of their diet.
Consequently, the birds may be attracted to the area occupied by the Scheme and benefit from an increased abundance of prey as well as a reduction in the energy spent in order to obtain the prey.
It is considered, however, that further studies are required in this regard because it is not certain to what degree this is exploited by the seabirds in the area and the P. yelkouan breeding population is particularly large so it is unlikely that the population as a whole is sustained by the presence of the fish farm90.

Moreover, it is also noted that P. yelkouan leaves the colony by the beginning of the fattening season.
The impact is considered to be minor to not significant in the absence of any further data.

H. pelagicus melitensis may also be attracted, the smaller population and the presence of the species during fattening time could result in at least a minor and potentially a major impact if all birds in the colony frequent the site regularly, noting, however, that these birds are not exclusively piscivorous.

Increasing population of increaser species – Yellow-Legged Gull 6.37.
During stakeholder consultation, BirdLife Malta raised the concern of the potential increased vulnerability of, in particular, storm petrels to seagulls that may also be attracted to the farm and are known to predate on the much smaller storm petrels.

However, evidence of predation has been recorded locally largely on nesting petrels.

89 Ibid.

90 Indeed, in recent experiences on trawlers (A Mallia pers.

obs.
obs.

), the seabirds, in particular P. yelkouan, C. diomedea, and L. michahellis are attracted in large numbers to fishing vessels as these haul their nets.

During the fishing only a handful of birds are visible but as soon as the gear starts to be hauled up, the birds congregate around the boat only to disappear once the net is deployed once again.

162 It is not clear at this stage whether gulls would actively hunt storm petrels aggregating in a similar area.
Monitoring is required and therefore the impact is considered to be uncertain.

6.38.

The presence of the farms may provide particular opportunity for the increaser species91, the Yellow-legged Gull.

The farms use semi-defrosted bait fish to feed the tuna.

This provides an additional food source for foraging seabirds.

Gulls are particularly likely to take advantage of this food source.
This, together with the additional prey available as a result of the farm acting as an FAD (fish aggregating device), may serve to increase the success of this species resulting in an increase in its population.

Moreover, gull species are also known to feed around lights, further enhancing the benefits that this species may obtain from the presence of the Scheme (Surman & Dunlop, 2015)92.
If these introduced opportunities result in an increase in the gull population, this could directly and indirectly impact upon the breeding population of the other breeding seabirds through increased predation and competition for nesting sites.

Such a scenario could ultimately result in a major significant negative effect if the breeding success of the colonies of the Annex I seabirds is reduced as a result.
However, although the Scheme occurs at a new site, the proposed degree of operation is not new as the North Aquaculture Zone will most likely be occupied by cages relocated from the temporary zone currently occupied by AJD Tuna Ltd some 2.1 km south-east of the Scheme site.

However, the additional cages93 will introduce additional capacity for subsidising the diet of gulls and subsequently potentially increasing their breeding / population success.
The conservation status assessment of the breeding colonies along the east coast of the north of Malta and Comino, as described in the respective Management Plans, does not indicate an increase in gull populations that could be threatening to the other seabird populations.

Therefore, with the data currently available, the actual impact is considered to be uncertain.

Entanglement 6.39.
Entanglement 6.39.

Shearwaters and the Storm Petrel are all diving birds and therefore risk entanglement in the fish farm nets, resulting in drowning.

Entanglement from any lost ropes or netting as well as other marine debris from operations is also a risk.

Further data is required locally to provide a better understanding of the extent of this problem for the populations of breeding seabirds in the Maltese Islands.
Consultant John J. Borg has noted that no such incidences have yet been reported (personal communication).

Impact is considered to be not significant to minor with the limited data available.

91 Increaser species are more generalist in their requirements.

Some may also benefit from modification of habitat and increase in abundance.

Decreaser species, on the other hand, are more sensitive to changes.

92 Surnam, C., Dunlop, J.N.

2015.


Impact Assessment of aquaculture on seabird communities of the Abrolhos Islands, to support the Mid West Aquaculture Development Zone proposal.

Halfmoon Biosciences for Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries.

93 The Scheme will relocate 24 cages (3,300 tonnes) form the AJD temporary fish farming site but will also include space for an additional 1,200 tonne s(c. 10 cages).

163 Ingestion of marine debris 6.40.


Ingestion of marine litter, particularly plastics, is common among seabirds and can cause death by dehydration, blockage of the digestive tract, or toxins released in the intestines (Sagar, 2013)94.

Ingestion of plastics by adults may also be passed on to chicks when being fed through regurgitation.

Fish farms could be a source of such marine debris.
If unmanaged, this impact could range from minor to major depending on the number of birds affected and the extent of marine litter.

MITIGATION MEASURES 6.41.

The way the fish farm is managed will have an important influence on the significance of any residual impacts.
The following lists mitigation measures that should be put in place to ensure that as far as possible there are few or no residual impacts:  If feasible, consider relocation outside of priority areas for breeding Procellariiformes species;  Minimise use of lights to the minimum required for navigational safety purposes and on vessels use only downward-facing shaded light sources;  Adopt seasonal lighting plan, with all internal cage lights (i.e.
not the external navigational lights) to be switched off after the harvesting period when the nets are empty or only cage collars are present on site;  Minimise requirements to operate at night;  Remove the need for vessels to be in the area at night;  Set up a seabird monitoring programme, including digital camera monitoring to monitor which bird species are visiting the cages and their behaviour at the farm;  Use visual bird deterrents;  Improve the control on the feed rate to reduce feed waste;  Remove dead fish from cages immediately;  Prepare and implement waste management plan – all wastes, including food scraps should be disposed of on-shore;  Monitoring of gull colonies annually if observed feeding at the farm;  To reduce risk of entanglement, nets should be kept taut, mesh size should be within the 6-7 cm range and nets should be well-maintained (any holes should be 94 Sagar P. 2013.
Literature Review of Ecological Effects of Aquaculture: Chapter 6 Seabird Interactions.

Cawthorn Institute & NIWA Taihoro Nukurangi for Ministry of Principal Industries, Mahatu Ahu Matua.

164 repaired);  Reduce lines and riggings on vessels;  Train staff in appropriate bird handling and reporting;  Ensure regular maintenance of farm infrastructure; and  Screen vessel scuppers to prevent loss of material overboard.

RESIDUAL IMPACTS 6.42.


Residual impacts will depend upon the implementation of mitigation measures.

Monitoring will be an important aspect of identifying any long term impacts that may be accrued as described above and summarised in Table 6.3.
165 Table 6.3: Summary of Impacts on Avifauna Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse / Neutral Nature, scale and type of impact Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term / L term Perm / Temp Revers / Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote, Uncertain) Significance of impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Competition for sea space Disturbance to avifauna from light pollution resulting from the Scheme Disturbance to avifauna from noise resulting from the Scheme Change in the abundance of prey Increase in population of Larus michahellis Adverse Oper'n Local Direct L term Perm Revers Likely Minor Adverse Oper'n Local Direct L term Temp/Perm Revers Likely Adverse Both Local Direct L term Temp/Perm Revers Likely Beneficial Oper'n Site Indirect L term Temp/Perm Revers Likely Adverse Oper’n National Indirect L term Perm Revers Uncertain 166 Minor to major Not significant to Minor Minor to Not significant (P. yelkouan) Minor to Major (H. pelagicus) Not significant to Major Proposed mitigation measures (If feasible), relocation outside of priority areas for Procellariiformes Minimise use of lights to minimum required for navigational safety and on vessels use only downward- facing shaded light sources Adopt seasonal lighting plan Minimise requirements to operate at night Remove the need for vessels to be in the area at night Seabird monitoring, including digital camera monitoring to monitor which bird species are visiting the cages and their behaviour at the farm Use visual bird deterrents Control feeding rate to reduce feed waste Significance of residual impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Not significant Minor Not significant Not significant to Major Not significant to Major Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse / Neutral Nature, scale and type of impact Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term / L term Perm / Temp Revers / Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote, Uncertain) Significance of
 impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Entanglement Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers Uncertain Not significant to minor 167 Significance of residual impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Not significant to minor Proposed mitigation measures Remove dead fish from cages Prepare and implement waste management plan – all wastes, including food scraps should be disposed of on-shore Digital camera monitoring to monitor which bird species are visiting the cages and their behaviour at the farm Monitoring of gull colonies annually if observed feeding at the farm To reduce risk of entanglement, nets should be kept taut, mesh size should be within 6-7 cm range, and nets should be well-maintained (any holes should be repaired) Reduce lines and riggings on vessels Train staff in appropriate bird handling and reporting Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse / Neutral Nature, scale and type of impact Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term / L term Perm / Temp Revers / Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote, Uncertain) Significance of impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Proposed mitigation measures Significance of residual impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Ingestion of marine debris Adverse Oper’n National Indirect L term Perm Irrevers Likely Minor to Major (depending on number of birds affected) Waste management plan Ensure regular maintenance of farm infrastructure Minor Screen vessel scuppers to prevent loss of material overboard 168 7.
MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY INTRODUCTION 7.1.

This chapter describes the findings of the marine archaeology/cultural heritage survey carried out for the Scheme site and its surroundings.
The study included a desk study on the archaeology and cultural heritage of the Scheme site, which is also based on the remote sensing data collected for this EIA (see Technical Appendix 2C: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018) and assesses the impacts on potential finds that may arise as a result of the implementation of the Scheme.

7.2.

The potential key issues are outlined below.


Key Issues  Potential damage to buried artefacts from mooring deployment  Loss, damage, or disturbance to artefacts from increased human activity Terms of Reference 7.3.

The ToR formulated by ERA require the consideration of potential impacts on marine archaeology and material assets; the ToR are found in Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements.

OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT 7.4.
The objectives of the marine archaeology and cultural heritage assessment were to:  Identify the potential for archaeological remains in the area based on desk study research;  Identify in the field the presence of any artefacts through remote sensing;  Assess the impact of deploying additional moorings for the proposed additional cages and evaluate the significance of these effects;  Describe any mitigation measures designed to minimise any adverse impacts; and  Describe appropriate monitoring.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Area of Study 7.5.

The Area of Study (AoS) is shown in Figure 7.1 and includes (at the southeastern boundary) the area currently occupied by the AJD Tuna Ltd cages.

169 National Policy and Legislation 7.6.

Guidance on the protection of cultural heritage in the context of planning was taken from the Cultural Heritage Act 2002, the Strategic Plan for Environment and Development (SPED), and the former Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands.
The latter includes specific policies that help in assigning importance to archaeological artefacts and therefore, in the absence of any newer similar direction (the SPED takes a more strategic approach) these policies are considered to remain relevant and have been drawn upon to assist in this impact assessment.

Cultural Heritage Act, 2002 7.7.


This Act provides overall protection to all movable or immovable objects of artistic, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnographic, palaeontological and geological importance and includes information or data relative to cultural heritage pertaining to Malta or to any other country (section 2).

It also includes archaeological, palaeontological or geological sites and deposits, landscapes, groups of buildings…which have an historical value.
In section 3 it also specifies that For the purposes of this Act, an object shall not be deemed to form part of the cultural heritage unless it has existed in Malta, including the territorial waters thereof, or in any other country, for fifty years, or unless it is an object of cultural, artistic, historical, ethnographic, scientific or industrial value, even if contemporary, that is worth preserving.

7.8.
7.8.

No person shall make any interventions on such cultural property or classes thereof without first having obtained a permit therefore from the Superintendent (Section 44.3).
Applications are determined subject to the results of prior investigation: Before determining an application under sub-article (3) hereof the Superintendent may require such information including the results of such tests, examinations or inspection by such persons accredited under this Act for the purpose as may be required by the Superintendent (Section 44.4).

7.9.
7.9.

The restrictions on archaeological excavations are stated in Section 43(1) whereby Archaeological or palaeontological excavations or explorations on land as well as in the territorial waters or in the contiguous zone of Malta can only be made by the Superintendent, or with written permission of the Superintendent.
Chance discoveries of archaeological remains are also regulated by Section 43(2): Any person who, even accidentally, discovers any object, site or building to which this Act applies in accordance with article 3, shall immediately inform the Superintendent, keep the object found in situ, and shall not for a period of six working days after informing the Superintendent proceed with any work on the site where the object of cultural property is discovered.
The details about rights and obligations by all parties in the eventuality of an archaeological discovery are described in Sections 43(3), 43(4), 43(5), 43(6), and 43(7).

Structure Plan 1990 policies 7.10.

The former Structure Plan contained policies that refer to the grading of archaeological sites and buildings.

This classification applied only to terrestrial sites and the Structure Plan did not provide an equivalent grading system for marine archaeological sites.
Indeed, the only policy referring to marine archaeology in the 170 Structure Plan is Policy MCO 2, which states, “The Planning Authority will, as far as possible, include marine archaeological sites and structures within the boundaries of Marine Conservation Areas.

Access to archaeological sites and wrecks will be strictly regulated”.

7.11.
7.11.

Though not completely applicable, in the absence of a marine archaeology-specific classification, the PA and ERA have been using the same grading system adopted by the Structure Plan for terrestrial sites even for marine sites (see for example GN 402/96).

This classification system is outlined in Policy ARC 2, and Policies ARC 3, ARC 6, and ARC 7 provide further guidance.

7.12.
7.12.

Structure Plan Policy ARC 2, indicates that if an area is considered for top priority conservation (i.e., Class A) no development will be allowed that would adversely affect the natural setting of the monuments or sites.

A development-free buffer zone of at least 100 metres will be established around the periphery of the monument or site.

7.13.

Features qualifying for Class B protection under Structure Plan Policy ARC 2 are regarded as very important and should be preserved at all costs.
Adequate measures to be taken to preclude any damage from immediate development and, for features that are listed as Class C, every effort must be made for preservation, but may be covered up after proper investigation, documentation and cataloguing.

Provision for subsequent access shall be provided.

Class D features are those of which there are numerous examples, and they may be covered or destroyed after recording.

7.14.
7.14.

The allowable effects of the development on archaeological remains are controlled by policy ARC 3.

… development affecting ancient monuments and important archaeological areas and sites, including areas and sites having such potential, will normally be refused if there is an overriding case for preservation.
Where there is no overriding case for preservation, development of such sites will not normally be permitted until adequate opportunities have been provided for the recording and, where desirable, the excavation of such sites.

7.15.

All of the catalogued archaeological features may be included in the National Protective Inventory of MEPA according to Policy ARC 7 for which protection is granted by means of Policy ARC 6.

Policy Importance of Archaeological Features 7.16.


The classification of archaeological features according to their policy importance is guided by legislation, including the Cultural Heritage Act 2002, Structure Plan policies, and Government or Legal Notices regarding specific cultural features.

Each of these assigns its own degree of importance and remedies.
In applying these to the EIA process three categories are used:  Features of International Importance (major importance);  Features of National Importance (major importance); and  Features of Local Importance (minor importance).

171 7.17.
The laws, policies, grades, etc., pertaining to the conservation of archaeological artefacts or deposits, as applied by the PA to marine sites have been assigned to these categories of policy importance for the purposes of this EIA as follows: Features of International Importance  Cultural features of ‘international importance’ are those: o Protected specifically by legislation; o Qualifying for Class A priority conservation under Structure Plan Policy ARC 2; or are o Similarly identified by the Minister responsible for cultural heritage or the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage.
Features of National Importance  Features of international importance would also be of national importance.

Cultural features of ‘national importance’ are additionally those protected under: o Structure Plan Policy ARC 2 Class B, and are especially important and should be preserved at all costs; or are o Similarly identified by the Minister responsible for cultural heritage or the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage.
Features of Local Importance  Cultural features of ‘local importance’ are those protected by: o Structure Plan Policy Arc 2 Class C. They are protected in so far as every effort must be made for their preservation, but may be covered up after proper investigation, documentation and cataloguing.
Provision for subsequent access shall be provided; o Structure Plan Policy Arc 2 Class D. They may be covered or destroyed after recording; or are o Similarly identified by the Minister responsible for cultural heritage or the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage.

Remaining Features 7.18.


All catalogued cultural features (including marine archaeological sites) may be included in the National Protective Inventory (NPI), and those not already protected will be afforded protection under Structure Plan Policy ARC 6, which indicates that all sites listed in the NPI will be protected in accordance with the Development Planning Act powers and by reference to the ratings given in Policy ARC 2.

7.19.
7.19.

Developments in cultural heritage protection in later years have seen the emergence of a new category, Class E: these are features that have been referred to in historical documents but have yet to be re-identified.

Although such a precautionary category 172 would have very valid applications in the marine environment (especially for areas in the approaches to ports and harbours), it has yet to be used in this context.
For terrestrial sites, the PA currently assigns a substantial buffer (100 metres) around such designated areas.

No development is permitted in the buffer before the appropriate archaeological investigations are completed.

In the event that the proposed development is affected by a Class E feature, it will be necessary to actively search for the feature in order to determine its location and appropriate protection status.

This may require the permission of the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage.
If and when the feature is re-discovered, it will be assessed and re-classified accordingly and a new grade / class assigned to it.

Literature search 7.20.

The desk-based investigation did not unearth any previous knowledge of archaeological finds or features present in the Area of Study.

This includes the Cultural Heritage Inventory Management System (CHIMS), the Malta Scheduled Property Register (MSPR), and Museums Annual Reports.
The Malta Maritime Museum was also consulted in relation to any potential archaeological finds or known sites of cultural heritage interest within the Area of Study.

7.21.

As described in Technical Appendix 6: Cultural Heritage Baseline Report, historically, the area would have served as a shipping route with access to several of Malta’s bays.
Indeed, the general Area of Study is believed by some to be the site of St Paul’s shipwreck, with a bay and island being named after the potential site of the shipwreck.

Despite some disagreement on the location of the shipwreck it is conceivable that shipwrecks may have occurred in the area, possibly during storm conditions.

Furthermore, archaeological evidence has been discovered in the nearby bays suggesting previous use of the sea in proximity to the Area of Study.
Ancient anchors have also been found off Qawra, Għallis, St Paul’s Bay, and Salina Bay; yet all located outside of the Area of Study.

7.22.

The closest known cultural heritage feature is the wreckage of the WW2 submarine HMS Stubborn.

This site lies almost a kilometre-and-a-half from the southernmost point of the Area of Study.

As discussed in Gambin and Burgess (2011)95 there appear to be two airplane wrecks located in proximity to the Area of Survey, one North and one South.
These are, however, both located outside of the Area of Survey.

Field survey 7.23.

A Side Scan Sonar was deployed to survey the seabed and investigate the presence of any underwater archaeological features in June 2017.

The frequency of the side scan was 450 kHz with a range of 100 m. The spacing for each line was 180 m. Details of this survey are presented in Technical Appendix 2B: Side Scan Survey Report 95 Gambin, T, & Burgess, A, (2011).

The underwater aviation heritage of the Second Siege of Malta.
Malta Archaeological Review, Issue 10, pp.

53-60.

173 2017.

This survey was supplemented by a further side scan sonar survey aimed at collecting data for previously unsurveyed seabed areas.

This latter survey was undertaken in May 2018 and is reported upon in Technical Appendix 2C: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018.

Determining impact significance 7.24.


The significance of the impacts of the Scheme on the marine archaeology of the Area of Study is dependent upon the archaeological importance assigned to each of the features identified, either through legislation or by the Consultant Archaeologists, and the degree of disturbance or damage likely to arise from the construction or operation of the Scheme.

7.25.
7.25.

The assessment of the significance of potential negative impacts of the Scheme on the marine archaeology of the Site assigns the following levels: not significant, minor significance, and major significance.

The assessment criteria applicable to each of these levels are described in Table 7.1, which correlates the protection ratings adopted by the Structure Plan and cultural significance with significance of impact.
Table 7.1: Impact Significant Criteria Potential damage or destruction to features / class or grade of feature No material change to the archaeological feature or setting Small scale changes, such as alterations to the archaeological feature or deposit that are unlikely to affect its integrity or setting Loss of or disturbance to the archaeological feature or deposit that is likely to affect its integrity or setting Class A Class B Class C or D No Class Cultural significance Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Major Minor Minor Insignificant Major Major Minor Insignificant 174 Figure 7.1: Marine archaeology Area of Survey 175 Baseline Survey Results 7.26.
The remote sensing survey has identified three targets of potential cultural heritage significance (see Figure 7.2).

Only one of these targets - Contact 0275 at coordinates (36° 2'14.12"N, 14°25'10.86"E) - is located within the Area of Survey (but outside the Scheme site).

This is possibly the remains of a crashed aircraft site (see Figure 7.3).
The other two are located just outside the Area of Survey96; Contact 0277 at 36° 1'1.47"N, 14°27'34.23"E (Figure 7.4) and Contact 0000 at 36° 0'35.02"N, 14°25'17.35"E (Figure 7.5).

These are both considered to be likely of cultural heritage interest (possibly crashed aircraft sites).

No other cultural heritage assets of likely archaeological significance were identified.

96 Although Contact 0000 is located within the AJD Tuna Ltd temporary farming site – see Adi Associates, 2018.
177 Figure 7.2: Location of three targets of potential cultural heritage significance 179 Figure 7.3: Side-scan data of target 0275, which is a likely crashed aircraft site Figure 7.4: Side-scan data of target 0277; large debris field possibly related to crashed aircraft remains 181 Figure 7.5: Side-scan data of target 0000 which is of likely cultural significance IMPACT ASSESSMENT Prediction and significance of impacts 7.27.
Three artefacts of potential cultural heritage significance were identified during the survey – one inside the Area of Survey and two outside.

As noted in the baseline report (see Technical Appendix 6: Cultural Heritage Baseline Report), the recommendation is to designate a 100 m exclusion zone around the targets to ensure there would be no disturbance to these sites.

7.28.
7.28.

In the absence of further detail about the targets, there is a degree of uncertainty on their actual value; however, since they are all located outside the Scheme site footprint, the impacts from the proposed Scheme are considered to be not significant.

7.29.

Although only one target was spotted within the Area of Survey, it cannot be ruled out that other objects could be present, buried in the area.
There are numerous moorings to be deployed as part of the Scheme and, therefore, if there are more artefacts in the area, these could be damaged during the deployment of the cages.

Such an impact would result in a major impact if damage occurs to a Class A or Class B artefact.

In the absence of further information, however, the impact is judged to be remote but uncertain.

182 MITIGATION MEASURES 7.30.


The placement of moorings should be supervised to ensure that no other targets (which may currently be buried) are present in the Scheme site.

RESIDUAL IMPACTS 7.31.

If the mitigation measures identified are employed, no residual impacts are expected on known targets.

Possible residual impacts could arise in the event that unknown (buried) artefacts are exposed following deployment of the moorings.
The significance of the residual impact would depend on the type and importance of the exposed artefacts.
183 Table 7.2: Summary of Impacts Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper'n Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Extent of impact (National / Local / Site) Local Potential damage to buried artefacts from moorings Loss, damage or disturbance to identified targets from moorings Loss, damage or disturbance to unidentified target/s from moorings Adverse Deploy’t Direct L term Perm Irrevers.
Uncertain but Remote Not significant to Major Adverse Deploy’t Local Direct L term Perm Irrevers.

Remote Minor Adverse Deploy’t Local Direct L term Perm Irrevers.
Unlikely Not significant to Major 184 Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant, Neutral) Not significant to Major Not significant Not significant Monitor areas around moorings once yearly and after major storms Supervise deployment of moorings to ensure that farms are deployed in the correct location within the Scheme site and hence away from the identified targets Monitoring during deployment 8.

EFFECTS ON HUMAN POPULATIONS INTRODUCTION 8.1.


This Chapter deals with the effects of the Scheme and its operations on human populations.

Though not strictly environmental in nature, the ToRs require an identification of the impacts of the development on the surrounding and visiting population that may result from impacts on the environment.
In addition, the EIA is to include a detailed description of the measures envisaged to prevent, minimise and where possible offset any significant adverse health effects, including cumulative impacts of the development on the general public, their social activities and on the area affected by the proposed development.

This should include details of the monitoring programmes that may be proposed.
The EIA shall also identify, describe and discuss in detail the possible health effects of any residual impacts that cannot be mitigated (see Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements).

8.2.

In addressing these issues, the EIA has considered a number of impacts as described in Chapters 5 to 7 above.

Most of these are direct environmental impacts that do not have direct impacts on human populations.
The main effects of the Scheme are those impacting:  Amenity / views from the shore;  Bunkering activities;  AFM firing practice;  Navigation;  Amateur fishing;  Diving and related recreational pursuits;  Bathing and similar recreational pursuits;  Tourism; and  The potential for attracting large predatory fish.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Data Sources 8.3.


In compiling this assessment, data was obtained from various sources, including Maltese tuna farm operators, public authorities, baseline surveys undertaken for the current and other EIAs or environmental investigations, and various stakeholders.

Consultations 8.4.

Throughout the compilation of this EIA Report, consultations were held with various relevant stakeholders.
These included: 185  Government Authorities: o Environmental Health Directorate o Transport Malta o Malta Tourism Authority o Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture o Armed Forces of Malta.

 Local Authorities: o Mellieha Local Council o St Paul’s Bay Local Council  Non-governmental Organisations: o Nature Trust-FEE Malta o Birdlife Malta o Professional Diving Schools Association o Amateur Fisherman Association o “Stop the Slime” Campaign.

EFFECTS ON HUMAN POPULATIONS 8.5.


The potential impacts of the Scheme on humans and their activities relate to the perceived effects that it may have on:  Peoples’ way of life – how they live, work, play, and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis;  Their culture – shared beliefs, customs and values; and  The quality of their environment – the quality of air and water, safety and fears about security, etc.

Information derived through consultations 8.6.


Information gathered through the consultation process that is relevant to the assessment of the Scheme’s impact on humans and their activities are described in Table 8.1.

Summary notes of stakeholder consultation meetings are available in Appendix 1.
186 Table 8.1: Socio-economic data derived through consultation Subject Amenity / views from the shore Bunkering activities AFM firing practice Socio-economic data The Scheme site is located a substantial distance from the shore (5.1 km from Rdum tal-Madonna and 7.8 km from Qawra Point), which is an improvement (in terms of views from the shore) over the previous inshore sites as well as on the temporary site currently occupied by AJD Tuna Ltd97.
The further offshore move is supported from a tourism and recreation point of view as well.

The Mellieha Local Council also prefers a more northwesterly move of the Scheme site as it would move away from Mellieha Bay; but as long as the zone will not be too large and only one zone is set up (i.e.

the temporary location for the AJDTuna Ltd farms will cease to be used once the NAZ is set up – all AJD cages are to be relocated to the new zone).
The oily sheen from the farms operating at the Scheme may be visible more than the cages themselves, especially under certain atmospheric conditions and when viewed from high ground (e.g.

High Ridge).

The further distance from shore of the NAZ to the site occupied temporarily by AJD Tuna Ltd will help in this regard, albeit to a small extent.
The Scheme will be located further north of the largest bunkering zone in the Maltese Islands - that at Is-Sikka l-Bajda – than the site temporarily occupied by AJD Tuna Ltd.

The relocation of the latter to the NAZ will also remove the moorings that are currently located at the boundary of the bunkering zone and increase the distance between the bunkering zone and the tuna cages, which is beneficial to both activities.
It is imperative that all the navigational aids (special marker buoys and navigational lights) are maintained by the specific farm operators throughout the use of the site.

The farming activities at the Scheme site are not expected to affect the economic activities related to bunkering.

However, any accidents in the bunkering area could affect the Scheme in view of their close proximity.
The Scheme site is set to be located completely outside the AFM’s Pembroke High firing practice arc, unlike the site temporally used by AJD Tuna Ltd, which overlaps with this firing arc.

The AFM indicated that they do not have any objection to the use of the site as long as it is outside the danger area.
Navigation There are three principal directions from which the majority 97 In the case of Gozo, the westernmost point of the Scheme site is approximately 4 km from the coast at Qala Point; which though less than the 4.5-5 km range indicated by the Planning Authority, is an uninhabited area.

The distance of the Scheme site to the eastern coast of Comino is approximately 6.5 km.
187 Subject Amateur fishing Diving and related recreational pursuits Socio-economic data of shipping to Malta approaches: North (down the coast) from the east and from the southeast.

The Scheme site is situated along the approach to the Grand Harbour from the north and west.

TM advised that the proposed location of the Scheme is acceptable but the orientation of the same zone to be extended more to the north than to the west98.
The relocation of the temporary cages of AJD Tuna from the inner location to the Scheme site will also increase the distance of the farms from the bunkering zone, improving the navigational safety.

The location of the North Aquaculture Zone further to the north is preferred from a safety of navigation point of view.

The approaches to Mellieha Bay / St Paul’s Bay for the north must remain unencumbered for free navigation.
Amateur fishermen tend to use sites situated 1 to 1.5 km from the coast, although some may also venture further offshore.

Tuna farms are a recognised fishing attraction.

Fish farms typically act as a magnet for fish.

This is especially in view of the presence of uneaten feed, which could attract wild fish to the area, with the possibility that fisheries could be enhanced.
However, such a concentration of fish from other areas could also lead to over-fishing and depletion of stocks in the same way that artificial reefs may make the fish more easily caught.

Fishermen observed that the attraction of wild fish to the pens can depopulate other areas.

Fishermen also highlighted the problem with wild tuna attracted to the farm pens and remaining in local waters.

These tuna would then prey on the smaller fish, which would typically be targeted by the amateur fishermen.
Fishermen claim to have seen a drastic reduction in prey species in certain areas; others attribute the increase in fish in their area to the presence of the farm.

The Scheme proposal is not deemed to affect fisheries as long as the site temporarily used by AJD Tuna Ltd is vacated and all farming paraphernalia removed once the NAZ is setup at the Scheme site and the cages relocated.
The nearest “official” dive site to the Scheme site is the wreck of the HMS Stubborn, which is located approximately 4 km to the south of the Scheme site.

Fish farming and diving activities are not really compatible but acknowledging that fish faming is also a legitimate use of the marine environment, the diving industry highlights the need for enforcement of regulations and permit conditions by all concerned.
Operational management on farms also needs to improve to minimise impacts on dive 98 Discussions with the Harbour Master’s Office on the exact location and orientation may result in some changes to the final Scheme boundary.

188 Subject Bathing and similar recreational pursuits Tourism The potential for attracting large predatory fish Socio-economic data sites.
The location of the NAZ further offshore than the temporary site used by AJD Tuna Ltd and the relocation of the AJD Tuna Ltd cages to the NAZ will serve to increase the distance of the tuna farming activity from the official dive sites in the area and is preferable.

Local recreation comprises the use of the coastal areas and adjacent waters by pleasure craft and the use of the coastal lands for recreation.
Two issues are relevant to socio-economics: a) the current use of waters close to the Scheme site by pleasure craft, and b) the effect that the operation of the Scheme may have on users of the coast.

The latter includes considerations such as the likelihood of currents carrying fish oils and detritus to the coast, and the visual impact of the farms on the users of the coast.
The dispersal of fish oils was modelled as part of this EIA Report (see Chapter 5) and shown to impact the coastline within 4 days of release (NW winds) and less than 1 day (NE winds), unless contained and collected.

Disposal of offal, even if beyond the 12 nautical mile limit, may still impact the coastline if the entrails float and are carried by the current.

Pleasure craft typically operate within 800 metres of the coast although very occasionally they are seen 1.5 -2 Km from the coast.
It is unlikely that pleasure craft traverse / frequent the Scheme site.

Farm discharges (uneaten feed, fish oils, fish wastes (excreta), litter, and operational discharges from craft can all impact the quality of the water (see Chapter 5).

Such discharges need to be controlled and appropriately managed to minimise nuisance and inconvenience to coastal users, especially from oily slicks and fish slime in the water, odours from decomposing / uneaten fish, offal, or carcasses.
The Mellieha/St Paul’s Bay area is an important tourism zone and the relocation of the cages from the South Comino Channel and inner waters at St Paul’s Bay to the temporary site 5 km offshore was a positive move.

Further offshore relocation to the Scheme site once the North Aquaculture Zone is set up would be a further improvement.

The main concern from a tourism/recreation point of view is the oil/slime problem encountered in recent years.
The MTA would like all farms to commit to positive and practical measures to minimise these impacts (including possibly R&D initiatives).

The farming activity should not impact diving or marine archaeological sites.

Since fish farms are reported to attract wild tuna and other fish, it is possible that they might also attract other predator species, such as sharks.
Although current fish farm operators have not reported that their operations have attracted predator fish, there is evidence abroad that sharks have been 189 Subject Socio-economic data attracted to tuna cages when under tow99.

The same source indicates that “there is no scientific proof that (white pointer) sharks are attracted to tuna cages.

There has been no scientific research done into whether sharks are attracted to tuna cages.
But there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that sharks are appearing around tuna cages, and I believe that the decision makers should be exercising caution.” Assessment of Impacts Amenity / views from the shore 8.7.

8.8.
8.8.

The Scheme will be located a substantial distance from the shore, which is an improvement on the previous inshore sites, which were so visible from the shore, and, in the case of viewpoints from Malta, also with respect to the temporary site currently occupied by AJD Tuna Ltd, which is some 2 km closer to the coast from the proposed Scheme site.

The largest part of the Scheme is located underwater and hence is not visible from shore.
The only visible items are the cage collars, which, being black and low-lying, are invisible from most of the coastline and under most atmospheric conditions, and the marker buoys, which, of necessity have to be visible to passing boats.

Figure 8.1 is a photograph of the Scheme site and the temporary site occupied by AJD Tuna Ltd taken from the coast road at Il-Madliena.

The photograph was taken on 2 February 2018.


The vessels in the photo are located within the bunkering zone and are not related to the fish farm itself.

The AJD Tuna Ltd temporary site is located beyond these and the Scheme site further out.

At the time the photo was taken, twelve tuna cages deployed under PA/03072/17 and PA/05858/17 were present at the temporary site used by AJD Tuna Ltd; however, these were not visible from this location.
Cages at the Scheme site would be even less visible, being located 2 km further to the northwest.

8.9.

Views from the coastline will likely be even less prominent in view of the shallower angle of view.

8.10.

Views from Gozo will be comparable to these, especially form the inhabited area s of Qala.

The distance of the Scheme site to the coast at Qala Point will be less, but the low-lying nature of the coastline will make the cages less prominent.
99 Parliament of South Australia, Environment, Resources and Development Committee, 29th Report, Aquaculture.

30 June 1998 190 Figure 8.1: View of Scheme site from coast road at Il-Madliena 8.11.

In consultation meetings with stakeholders, a point was raised that the oily sheen from the fish oils will be very visible from this general location.
While this may be true, if the oil is not effectively contained and collected (see mitigation measures proposed in Chapter 5), the visual amenity issues are not deemed to be significant.

Indeed, as can be seen in the photo in Figure 8.1, which was taken when there were no fish in the cages, the sea surface exhibits different hues and sheens as a result of natural phenomena, including currents and temperature changes.
The impact on visual amenity is therefore considered to be not significant , while the further offshore relocation of the cages is considered to be beneficial from a visual impact point of view.

Bunkering activities 8.12.

The establishment and operation of the North Aquaculture Zone at the Scheme site should not affect the activities in the bunkering zone, especially since the distance of the tuna farms from the bunkering zone would be increased from the current situation.
The cages at the temporary site are located around 250 m from the northern boundary of the zone, whereas those at the Scheme site would be located approximately 1.2 km from the northern boundary of the bunkering zone.

The zone and all cages will be appropriately charted and marked on site, including with navigational lights as required by maritime regulations.
The biggest concern with regards to the presence of the bunkering zone is more the impact that this activity could have on the Scheme itself in the case of any accidents in the bunkering area.

AFM firing practice 8.13.

Following discussions with the Armed Forces of Malta, the Scheme site has been chosen so as to completely avoid the AFM’s Pembroke High firing practice arc and danger area.
In a consultation meeting with the AFM, it was made clear that the 191 Scheme cannot must maintain an adequate distance from the danger area for safety reasons – not only of the farmers themselves but also in view of the farm’s attraction to amateur fishermen who congregate around tuna farms to target the wild fish attracted to the farm (see also Chapter 5).

As a result, the impact of the Scheme on the AFM firing practice area is not significant.

Navigation 8.14.
Navigation 8.14.

The location of the Scheme site on the approaches to the Grand Harbour from the north and west creates some navigational concerns.

However, as long as the farm is properly charted and marked by means of special marker buoys, and all navigational aids are maintained by the farm operators, the risks to navigation should be contained.

From a navigational point of view, Transport Malta favours the setting up of the North Aquaculture Zone at the Scheme site, i.e.
further offshore, away from the bunkering zone, and in deeper waters; as long as the zone is properly marked and charted, navigation will adjust.

Impacts on navigation are therefore considered to be minor and as long as the right navigational aids are deployed at the Scheme site, the residual impacts would be minor to not significant.

Amateur fishing 8.15.

In the absence of the Scheme, the Scheme site is not a particularly popular fishing area, being located substantially offshore and in open waters.
It is also not a designated trawling zone (see Figure 8.2).

However, once the zone is set up, as has happened with other tuna farms, it is expected to attract a number of amateur fishermen who target the wild fish attracted to the cages (see also Chapter 5).

8.16.

As confirmed by some amateur fishermen, the presence of the tuna cages at the site contributes beneficially to fish life through the provision of nutrients/uneaten baitfish; as long as the marine system is not overloaded.
Fishermen from the St Paul’s Bay area attribute the increase in fish numbers and their catches to the presence of the farms.

Other fishermen (e.g.

those from Ġnejna), however, claim that the farms attract fish from a wider area leading to depopulation of other sites located away from the farm.

8.17.
8.17.

The attraction of wild fish, in particular wild tuna, to the farms, and especially when these remain in local waters in view of the availability of feed, creates concerns to the fishermen since, these predatory fish prey on the smaller fish that the fishermen would normally target.
During the stakeholder consultation meeting, there wasn’t consensus on the impact of the farms on the fish stocks, with some fishermen praising the tuna farms and others blaming them for a reduction in fish species (see Appendix 1).

192 Figure 8.2: Location of designated trawling zones and approximate location of Scheme site Bathing, diving and related recreational pursuits 8.18.

Local boating recreation is not likely to be affected by the Scheme’s location in view of its considerable distance from shore.
Pleasure craft do not regularly frequent this area and there is no reason to conclude that they will be attracted to the Scheme site.

Yachts and boats sailing between Mata and Gozo typically stay closer to shore.

8.19.

The Scheme also does not directly impact any established diving sites; the nearest being the wreck of the HMS Stubborn and, though not an official dive site due to its designation as a bunkering zone, the nearby Is-Sikka l-Bajda.

8.20.
8.20.

The main impact of the Scheme on bathing, diving, and similar marine recreational pursuits is the release of fish oil and slime from the farming operation.

This impact reached alarming proportions in the summer of 2016, when large swathes of sea were reported to be impacted by fish slime.

This led the Planning Authority to revoke all tuna farm permits and to order the relocation of the farms to established Aquaculture Zones (see Chapter 3).

8.21.
8.21.

In the meantime, the Environment and Resources Authority has also processed environmental permit applications for all the local tuna farms.

These permits require 193 the establishment of specific procedures and adherence to best practice in farm management in order to minimise impacts on the environment, and, indirectly, on human populations.
Amongst the measures required, the farm operators are to: (i) provide a report on the containment of baitfish residue and other wastes on board the service vessels, (ii) submit and implement a monitoring plan, (iii) enter into an agreement with third party contractors to provide cleanup operations extending beyond the farm to collect any oils that escape the cages, (iv) provide a proposal on the alternative disposal of offal, (v) consider alternative feeding methods to reduce impacts on the surrounding environment, and (vi) prepare and implement an environmental management system for the farm operations.
It is expected that the farms operating from the North Aquaculture Zone will likewise have environmental permits with similar conditions.

8.22.

If all the mitigation measures are put in place and maintained, the impact from the fish oils should be contained and greatly reduced, thereby eliminating or greatly mitigating the nuisance factor from the farms.

8.23.

Another impact that affects bathing areas and similar recreational activities is the disposal of offal.
This is currently collected and disposed of beyond the 12 nautical mile limit, as instructed by the Veterinary authorities.

Unfortunately, entrails, tuna heads, and whole carcasses have often washed up on shores to the great annoyance and inconvenience to bathers and other coastal users.

This matter needs to be better managed.

At the moment, such disposal is carried out under instruction from the Veterinary authorities.
Nonetheless, if such disposal is to continue, then the possibility of macerating the offal prior to disposal to reduce the possibility of such matter floating inshore, should be actively investigated and enforced100.

8.24.

The source of such offal, however, is not necessarily the farming operation.
The farm operators claim (and there has been some confirmed evidence to this effect; see Arechavala-Lopez et al., 2015) that some of this material is originating from wild tuna caught (legally or otherwise) by amateur fishermen who then either gut and process the fish while throwing the entrails overboard, or, in some cases, losing the large tuna, complete with hook and line, which eventually dies and gets washed ashore.
A number of such tuna carcasses with hooks in their mouth have been recorded in the past years.

To this end, it is important that the authorities prohibit or strictly control fishing activities around the farms.

Tourism 8.25.

Tourism has benefited from the relocation of the tuna farms from their previous inshore locations to the temporary site occupied by AJD Tuna Ltd (in the north) and to the South Aquaculture Zone (in the case of the southern farms).
This freed up 100 The Federation of Aquaculture Producers is currently studying the possibility of adopting alternative methods of disposal / re-use of the offal.

Results from these studies are expected early in 2019 (Dr Ch.
Gouder, personal communication) 194 the inshore waters for other recreational pursuits, while moving the cages to a location where they are much less visible (especially in the case of the AJD farms in the north, since the southern locations are still being used to rear smaller finfish like sea bream and sea bass).

From a tourism point of view, the major concern is the fish oil/slime problem especially that encountered in recent years.
The mitigation measures to counter this problem, if successful, could improve the tourism product as well.

Potential attraction of large predatory fish 8.26.

EIA Reports prepared for past tuna farming proposals in Malta also indicated that there was no evidence of sharks being attracted to the fish farms operating in Maltese waters.

Vigilance and monitoring was recommended.

The same recommendation would be appropriate for the Scheme.
The elimination of offal disposal at sea, if possible, would further reduce the possibility of predator attraction.

Mitigation Measures 8.27.

The mitigation measures described for the environmental impacts in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 above, would be equally important to mitigate effects on human populations.
195 Table 8.2: Summary of Impacts on Human Populations Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Beneficial Both Neutral Views from shore Bunkering activities AFM Firing Practice arc Navigation Adverse Both National Direct L term Temp Revers.
Likely Not significant Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Temp Revers.

Unlikely Minor Direct L term Perm Revers.

Likely Not significant Not significant Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Local Local recreation Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Likely Minor to Major (depending on amount of discharges) 196 Not significant Minor to Not significant Minor to Not significant (depending on success of mitigation measures) Maintain navigational aids and markers; farm to be officially charted; Relocation of AJD cages to NAZ Deploy oil mitigation measures in the form of oil booms, skimmers, collection of oil, stand-by oil spill contractor; Maceration of offal prior to Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Proposed Mitigation Measures disposal at sea; disposal beyond 12 nautical miles and in different locations to avoid overloading; Consider prohibiting disposal of offal at sea; Training of personnel Deploy oil mitigation measures in the form of oil booms, skimmers, collection of oil, stand-by oil spill contractor; Maceration of offal prior to Minor to Not significant (depending on success of mitigation measures) Minor to Major (depending on amount of discharges) Diving Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Likely 197 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Proposed Mitigation Measures disposal at sea; disposal beyond 12 nautical miles and in different locations to avoid overloading; Consider prohibiting disposal of offal at sea; Training of personnel Deploy oil mitigation measures in the form of oil booms, skimmers, collection of oil, stand-by oil spill contractor; Maceration of offal prior to Minor to Not significant (Adverse) / Minor (Beneficial) Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Unlikely (Adverse); Likely (beneficial) Minor to Major (Adverse) / Minor (Beneficial) Tourism Adverse (impacts from fish oils and slime on coastal areas) / Beneficial (relocation of inshore cages) 198 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Amateur fishing within and in the vicinity of the Scheme Site Adverse / Beneficial Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Likely Minor (Adverse) / Minor (Beneficial) disposal at sea; disposal beyond 12 nautical miles and in different locations to avoid overloading; Consider prohibiting disposal of offal at sea; Training of personnel Regulate fishing around the Scheme to minimise adverse impacts; Monitor impact of tuna farms on wild stock Minor (Adverse) / Minor (Beneficial) Impact of the attraction of Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Remote Not significant Keep vigilant lookout and Not significant 199 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) predator fish Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Proposed Mitigation Measures inform authorities immediately in the unlikely event of such attractions 200 9.
SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS, INTERACTION BETWEEN IMPACTS AND MITIGATION INTRODUCTION 9.1.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a summary of the key environmental impacts, their interaction and cumulative effects, and their mitigation.

The chapter addresses the requirements set out in the Terms of Reference (ToR) to describe mitigation measures to “prevent, eliminate, reduce or offset (as relevant) the identified significant adverse effects of the project” and to identify cumulative and residual impacts.
The chapter concludes with a summary of the mitigation measures proposed in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report as well as a description of the required authorisations.

SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS 9.2.

Chapters 5 to 8 of the EIA Report describe the predicted impacts of the Scheme in relation to marine environment (including marine ecology), avifauna, cultural heritage / marine archaeology, and effects on human populations, in accordance with the topic areas identified in the ToR.

9.3.
9.3.

For each predicted impact, an assessment has been made as to whether the impact is likely to be of major or minor significance, or of no significance; the criteria that were used to judge significance are described in each of the chapters.

Predicted major and minor impacts have been identified, and, in the case of negative impacts, there is a description of how these could be mitigated.

All the residual impacts identified are summarised in Table 9.1 at the end of this Chapter.

9.4.
9.4.

The unmitigated major impacts identified during the assessment relate solely to benthic ecology, arising from the placing of mooring blocks on the seabed.

9.5.

Other impacts may be of major significance under certain circumstances, but a degree of uncertainty or a range of possible conditions do not allow the impact to be conclusively defined.
These include:  Water Quality impacts: o Deterioration in water quality from increased nutrient loads from uneaten feed and tuna carcasses in the case of unmitigated mortalities; o Operational discharges of oil and bilge waters from maritime traffic associated with the Scheme; o Discharge of sewage from processing vessels; o Marine pollution from ship litter;  Impacts on Marine Ecology: 201 o Loss of habitats through settlement of uneaten feed; and o Impacts from littering of the seabed from items lost overboard;  Impacts on avifauna: o Disturbance to avifauna for light pollution; o Impacts from changes in prey abundance on the population of H. pelagicus; o Predation impacts on seabirds from increased gull population; o Impacts on birds from ingestion of marine debris;  Archaeology impacts: o Potential damage or disturbance to unknown buried artefacts from moorings;  Effects on humans and their activities: o Deterioration of inshore waters and impact on local recreation, including diving, from discharge of fish oils and slime; o Impacts on tourism and tourism activities from fish oil and slime in coastal areas.
9.6.

These impacts, relevant mitigation measures, and the residual impacts are discussed hereunder.

Benthic Ecology 9.7.

9.8.

The impact on benthic habitats from the placement of moorings is considered to be of major negative significance for those sessile fauna and flora located beneath the mooring blocks.

Benthic habitats are also affected by the uneaten feed settling on the seabed.
This impact could be major for the area of seabed directly beneath the cages but reduces to not significant with distance from the cages.

The extent of this impact depends on the effectiveness of feed management and the amount of feed actually lost / uneaten.

Good feed management can significantly reduce this effect.
Likewise, impact from littering as a result of items lost overboard could be minor or major depending on the effectiveness of the housekeeping measures on board the vessels and the promptness in collecting any items lost overboard.

Water Quality 9.9.
Water Quality 9.9.

It is considered that the Scheme may have a major negative impact on marine water quality from increased nutrient loading resulting from uneaten feed settling on the seabed (or, in the case of mortalities, loss of tuna carcasses), operational discharges of oil and bilge waters, discharge of sewage from marine vessels, and discharge of 202 marine litter or loss of anthropogenic items overboard.

9.10.
9.10.

Most of these impacts are either uncertain or can vary depending on a number of factors.

Impacts from uneaten feed will depend on the amount of such material settling on the seabed, with the impact likely to be higher directly under the cages and reducing in extent with distance from the cages.

Impacts from the loss of tuna carcasses will depend on the promptness of mitigatory action to minimise mortalities.
Impacts from oil or bilge losses depend on the amount of pollutant lost; likewise the impacts from sewage, which will also depend on the maintenance of available containment or treatment measures on board (e.g.

holding tanks or sewage treatment plant).

The impact from marine litter can be severe, both on avifauna and on benthic species.

Evidence of considerable amount of anthropogenic material at and near tuna farms has been recorded in past monitoring reports.
Effective action to minimise such accidental losses or deliberate discharges are required to mitigate this impact.

Avifauna 9.11.

The Scheme has the potential to create impacts of major significance on the breeding seabird populations.

Impacts can result from increased light pollution, a change in prey abundance, predation effects from gulls attracted to the farm, and ingestion of marine debris.

All these impacts depend on the extent of intervention, e.g.
amount of lights and intensity thereof applied to cages, or amount of marine litter lost; the impact from gull predation depends on whether the gull population does increase as a result of the Scheme, and whether the gulls actually do attack the other seabirds or compete with them for food and nesting sites.

The effect on the seabird populations, especially the smaller population of Hydrobates pelagicus from the presence of increased prey opportunities is not known but can be major.

Archaeology 9.12.
Archaeology 9.12.

The Scheme could impact archaeology either through direct impact of the identified target or through exposure of as yet unknown buried artefacts.

The impact is unlikely for the former since no targets were identified within the Scheme site, and uncertain for the latter since it depends on the presence or otherwise of such artefacts.

Effects on Human Populations 9.13.

The effects on humans and their activities are largely from the discharge of fish oils and slime.

9.14.
9.14.

The unmitigated discharge of fish oils and slime can affect inshore waters, as has been registered in recent years.

This would impact bathing, yachting, diving, and related recreation, tourism, and the general quality of life of coastal residents and visitors.

The significance of the impact will depend on the amount of fish oil released into the marine environment during feeding and the amount of oils that escape the farm and the collection systems deployed to counteract this issue.
203 INTERACTION OF IMPACTS 9.15.

The interaction of impacts with the current baseline is described in Chapters 5 to 8 of the EIA Report.

The interactions are summarised in Table 9.1 below.

The interaction between impacts describes the potential cumulative or reactive nature of the various disturbances caused by the Scheme during deployment and operation.

9.16.
9.16.

During deployment, the only impacts of major significance identified in the EIA relate to impacts on benthic assemblages from the placing of the mooring blocks; this impact can then interact with the operational impacts that directly affect the benthic habitats, especially the settling of uneaten baitfish and marine litter sinking to the seabed.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 9.17.


Cumulative impacts are those that result from incremental changes caused by other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions together with the Scheme.

9.18.

The various impacts identified in Chapters 5 to 8 of the EIA Report were assessed in the context of the existing baseline (encompassing the past and present context).
No major developments were noted to be underway in the immediate area of the Scheme site during the baseline surveys, and there are no known committed major developments in the area.

The tuna cages at the site operated by AJD Tuna Ltd on a temporary basis will be removed and relocated once the NAZ is set up.

9.19.

The Scheme involves the deployment of cages within the identified area, with the amount of fish kept on site regulated by the ICCAT quota allotted to the various operators.
At this stage there are no evident consequential developments on site because of the Scheme.

9.20.

The operation of the Scheme, however, does have potential cumulative effects with other external activities.
Of particular concern are:  Cumulative effects of operational discharges of oil with possible spills from the bunkering zone located approximately 1 km further south; and  Cumulative light pollution effects from the navigational markers and additional cage lights with lighting from vessels present at the bunkering zone.

MITIGATION 9.21.

The EIA Report, including its supporting Technical Appendices, reports the findings of the EIA, in accordance with the ToR.
Where appropriate, mitigation measures have been recommended and these have been agreed to by the Applicant.

These mitigation measures are described at the end of each topic area chapter, and are summarised in Table 9.1.

9.22.

The following is the list of recommended mitigation measures.

It would be appropriate for, and it is recommended that, these mitigation measures be taken account of in the conditions of any eventual development permit.
204  Mooring design to be optimised to the site conditions to ensure against drifting during storms  Tuna feeding to be supervised by divers to avoid overfeeding and loss of feed;  Deployment of permanent oil booms inside each cage and use of oil skimmers to collect oil released in each cage;  Use of flat-form cartons as packaging material;  Control of marine discharges from processing vessels in line with MARPOL Regulations.
 Good practice during moorings deployment to ensure against dragging of blocks on the seabed;  Good project management to minimise operational losses of oils and fuels from maritime vessels and their consequent water quality effects;  Good project management and use of proper mooring technology to minimise sediment re-suspension;  Good feed management to minimise carbon loading in sediments from uneaten feed and nutrient loadings in the water column, namely: o Careful monitoring of tuna feeding to avoid overfeeding; experiment with stopping feeding before satiation to minimise food loss; o o Implementing a procedure to ensure proper feed management by having random checks of the seabed below the tuna pens made by an independent environmental monitor; In the case of accident, should an inordinate amount of dead uneaten feed- fish end up on the bottom, every attempt should be made to recover as much of the material as possible and as quickly as possible after the event in order to minimise the adverse effects on the seabed habitat;  Avoidance of large stocking densities;  Consider the possibility of thawing and washing of baitfish on shore prior to placement in the impermeable jumbo bags and transfer to the farm to reduce the amount of fish oils and mucus released into the marine environment;  Use skimmers with improved efficiency to those deployed until now;  Availability of additional oil collection services outside the farm to ensure immediate collection of any slick escapes from the farm to avoid wide dispersal of same;  Consider the deployment of additional oil booms on the farm perimeter if 205 acceptable from a navigational safety point of view (partial deployment in the direction of the prevailing currents could also be considered);  Appropriate contingency planning including ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of their responsibilities in the event of an accident;  Ensuring that offal and dead tuna remains are managed in line with EC Regulation 1069 of 2009;  Macerate offal prior to disposal at sea;  Deployment of nets on cage collars to be done as late as possible just before the arrival of the towing cages and once the tuna from a cage is harvested, the net should be removed immediately in order to minimise the length of time with net shading effects on the seabed;  Good practices aboard ships to minimise discharges, noise, light, and littering;  Preparation and enforcement of waste management plan to ensure proper disposal of wastes onshore.
Staff to be trained on the need of eliminating marine litter from the Scheme operations;  Screen vessel scuppers to prevent loss of material overboard;  Immediate recovery of any items that may accidentally end up in the sea (whether floating or deposited on the seabed) and collection of any third party marine litter that may float towards the farm;  Prohibition / strict control of fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farms.
 Minimise use of lights to the minimum required for navigational safety purposes and on vessels use only downward-facing shaded light sources;  Adopt seasonal lighting plan, with all internal cage lights (i.e.
not the external navigational lights) to be switched off after the harvesting period when the nets are empty or only cage collars are present on site;  Minimise requirements to operate at night and remove the need for vessels to be in the area at night;  Set up a seabird monitoring programme, including digital camera monitoring to monitor which bird species are visiting the cages and their behaviour at the farm;  Use visual bird deterrents;  Remove dead fish from cages immediately;  Monitoring of gull colonies annually if observed feeding at the farm;  To reduce risk of entanglement, nets should be kept taut, mesh size should be 206 within the 6-7 cm range and nets should be well-maintained (any holes should be repaired);  Reduce lines and riggings on vessels;  Train staff in appropriate bird handling and reporting; and  Ensure regular maintenance of farm infrastructure.
REQUIRED AUTHORISATIONS 9.23.

The required authorisations are referred to in the relevant topic area chapters (Chapters 5 to 8).

9.24.

An environmental permit / registration will be required from the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) for each operator at the NAZ.

9.25.

The farms will also require an aquaculture permit from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture in order to be able to operate.

In addition, all necessary ICCAT certification will also be required.

9.26.
9.26.

The establishment of the Scheme and the deployment of the farms’ individual cages will also require clearance from Transport Malta.

The Authority will also set out the requirements of special markers and other navigational aids to be installed at the Scheme site and maintained by the applicant.

The vessels operating at the Scheme will also require licences and certification in line with maritime legislation.

9.27.

Waste carriers servicing the Scheme will require licences and permits from the ERA.
207 Table 9.1: Summary of Impacts Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Reduction in Water Quality or Transparency Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Revers.
Certain WQ changes from fish oils / mucus from baitfish during feeding Deterioration in WQ from increased nutrient loads from fish excreta Adverse Oper’n Local Direct S term (twice daily during fattening) Adverse Oper’n Site Direct S term Temp.

(as long as tuna are present on site) Temp.

(as long as tuna are present on site) Revers.
Likely Minor Significanc e of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Minor to Not significant101 Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Minor Minor to Not significant Proposed Mitigation Measures Deployment of oil booms and collection of fish oils using skimmers from inside the cages to minimise release outside of farm area Optimise stocking density in cages not to overload the water column 101 As explained above, this refers to the impact of fish oils on water quality and the natural environment.
Aesthetic and nuisance effects are considered to be of major significance and are considered in Chapter 8.

208 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Adverse Oper’n Site Direct L term Possibly Revers.

Perm.

?
(depen ds on amount of uneate n feed settling on seabed) Significanc e of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Uncertain (likely to be minor to major under the cages becoming minor to not significant with distance from the cages) Minor to not significant Proposed Mitigation Measures Strict feed management; monitoring of tuna feeding (possibly using new technologies), greater liaison with regulators, prompt action by farmers to collect sinking baitfish, lengthening of statutory fallowing period Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Uncertain Minor to Not significant Deterioration in WQ from increased nutrient loads from uneaten feed Impacts from release of blood during culling, harvesting and processing Adverse Oper’n Site (of discharge ) Direct S term Temp.
Revers.

Likely 209 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Adverse Oper’n Impacts from release of offal during culling, harvesting and processing Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Site (of discharge ) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Direct S term Temp.

Revers.
Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Minor Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significanc e of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Minor to not significant (if disposal is controlled and carried out over a wide area to avoid overloading) Proposed Mitigation Measures Collection, handling and management of this waste stream to be in line with the provisions of EC Regulations on handling of fishery products and animal by-products; Monitoring and supervision l to ensure disposal beyond 12 nautical miles; maceration of offal prior to disposal 210 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Organic loading from tuna carcasses Adverse Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Site (of disposal) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Direct L term Perm.
?

Possibly Revers.

Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Unlikely Significanc e of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Uncertain (can range from major to minor depending on effectiveness of response in case of mortalities) Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant (as long as provisions of Reg 1069 / 2009 are observed and rapid response in case of mortalities).
Proposed Mitigation Measures Prohibit disposal of tuna carcasses at sea and manage in line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1069 of 2009; Farm operators to ensure recovery of carcasses in the event of accidents / mass mortality during storms.
Prohibit / strictly control fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farms 211 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Increased potential for pollution from oils, sewage, and litter Oil and bilge waters from maritime traffic Adverse Both Local Direct S term Temp.

Revers.
Revers.

Unlikely Sewage from ships Adverse Oper’n Local Direct S term Revers.
Unlikely Temp (while factory vessels are on site) 212 Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant (small craft) Minor (larger processing vessels) Proposed Mitigation Measures Good operational practices; Adherence to MARPOL Regulations (oil content, prohibition of discharge, holding tanks, etc); Ensure craft is in good working order; Availability of oil spill response capabilities Minor Good operational practices; Adherence to MARPOL Regulations Significanc e of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to minor (for small craft) (minor to major in the case of an accidental large spill) Minor to Major (for larger processing vessels) Minor to Major (depending on measures available on vessel) Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Pollution from packaging waste Adverse Oper’n Site Direct S term Revers.
Temp.

(during harvest ing) Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Remote Significanc e of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to minor Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant Proposed Mitigation Measures Use of flat-pack cartons for packaging; Good operational practices; Adherence to MARPOL Regulations; collection of marine litter Pollution from ship litter Adverse Oper’n Site Direct S term Revers.
Likely Temp.
(especi ally during harvest ing) Minor to Not significant (galley litter) Minor (other litter) Minor (galley litter) Minor to Major (other litter and anthropogen ic items lost overboard) Good operational practices; Adherence to MARPOL Regulations; Immediate collection of any items lost overboard (whether floating or on the seabed); collection of marine litter; monitoring of seabed condition 213 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Habitat Loss Loss through burial under mooring blocks Adverse Deploy’t Site Direct L term Revers.
Likely Perm.
(as long as blocks remain in place) Major for sessile fauna and flora under blocks Not significant to Minor for general farm area Minor ( for muddy detritic bottoms ) Major for sessile fauna and flora under blocks; Minor to not significant for general sessile benthic species in farm area Minor ( for muddy detritic bottoms) Good practice approaches in the deployment of the mooring blocks to reduce adverse effects on the seabed especially to eliminate dragging of blocks Optimise mooring design to ensure against drifting 214 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Loss through settlement of uneaten food Adverse Oper’n Site Direct L term Possibly Revers.
Perm.

?
(depen ds on amount of feed) Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Minor to Not significant Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Minor to Major (seabed directly under cages) Minor to Not significant on seabed in general farm area Proposed Mitigation Measures Strict feed management; monitoring of tuna feeding (possibly using new technologies), greater liaison with regulators, prompt action by farmers to collect sinking baitfish, lengthening of statutory fallowing period; staff training 215 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Damage / Disturbance to habitats and species Disturbance from increased organic input Adverse / Beneficial Oper’n Local Direct Temp.
Revers.

Unlikely S term (for as long as the fish are on site) Beneficial Oper’n Site Direct L term Availability of new habitat, food, shelter, etc.

Revers.

Likely Perm (as long as area remain s in use) 216 Not significant to minor (during farming period with reduced effects as harvesting progresses) Potential minor beneficial due to oligotrophy Minor beneficial Good practice farm management to reduce loading of water column with nutrients and organic matter.
Control stocking density in each cage None Not significant to minor beneficial Minor beneficial Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Adverse / Beneficial Oper’n Local Direct L term Attraction of new species and changes in ecological relationships Revers.
Perm (as long as area remain s in use) Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Uncertain Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to Minor Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Minor Proposed Mitigation Measures Monitor colonisation process and change in community structure from attraction of new species (scavengers and predators) 217 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Increased human presence Adverse Both Site Indirect L term Temp Revers.
Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Minor (noise from vessels and release of chemicals) Minor (effects of littering on seabed) Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to Minor (noise from vessels and release of chemicals) Minor to Major (effects of littering on seabed) Proposed Mitigation Measures Monitor human activities on site; implement EMS through the environmental permit conditions.
Regular monitoring of seabed condition and retrieve any lost items deposited on the seabed Prohibit / strictly control fishing activities in the vicinity of tuna farms.

218 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Adverse Oper’n National Indirect L term Perm / Temp Revers.

/ Irrevers.
Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Remote (low risk) Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Uncertain Introduction of alien species and disease- causing organisms Avifauna Competition for sea space Adverse Oper'n Local Direct L term Perm Revers Likely Minor 219 Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Uncertain Not significant Proposed Mitigation Measures Monitor for evidence of introductions and act accordingly (If feasible), relocation outside of priority areas for Procellariifor mes Disturbance to avifauna from light pollution resulting from the Scheme Disturbance to avifauna from noise resulting from the Scheme Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Adverse Oper'n Local Direct L term Temp/P erm Revers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Minor to major Adverse Both Local Direct L term Temp/P erm Revers Likely Not significant to Minor 220 Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Minor Not significant Minimise use of lights to minimum required for navigational safety and on vessels use only downward- facing shaded light sources Adopt seasonal lighting plan Minimise requirements to operate at night Remove the need for vessels to be in the area at night Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Change in the abundance of prey Beneficial Oper'n Site Indirect L term Temp/P erm Revers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Minor to Not significant (P. yelkouan) Minor to Major (H.
 pelagicus) Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Major Proposed Mitigation Measures Seabird monitoring, including digital camera monitoring to monitor which bird species are visiting the cages and their behaviour at the farm 221 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Increase in population of Larus michahellis Adverse Oper’n National Indirect L term Perm Revers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Uncertain Significa nce of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significa nt) Not significan t to Major Significanc e of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to Major Proposed Mitigation Measures Use visual bird deterrents Control feeding rate to reduce feed waste Remove dead fish from cages Prepare and implement waste management plan – all wastes, including food scraps should be disposed of on-shore Digital camera monitoring to monitor which bird species are visiting the cages and their behaviour at the farm Monitoring of gull colonies annually if observed feeding at the farm 222 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Entanglement Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Uncertain Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Not significant to minor Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Not significant to minor Proposed Mitigation Measures To reduce risk of entanglement, nets should be kept taut, mesh size should be within 6-7 cm range, and nets should be well- maintained (any holes should be repaired) Reduce lines and riggings on vessels Train staff
 in appropriate bird handling and reporting 223 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial /Adverse Deplo’t /Oper’n Extent of Impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers/ Irrevers Ingestion of marine debris Adverse Oper’n National Indirect L term Perm Irrevers Probability of Impact Occurring (Certain / Likely / Unlikely / Remote / Uncertain) Likely Significance of Impact (Major / Minor /Not Significant) Minor to Major (depending on number of birds affected) Proposed Mitigation Measures Significance of Residual Impact (Major / Minor / Not Significant) Waste management plan Minor Ensure regular maintenance of farm infrastructure Screen vessel scuppers to prevent loss of material overboard 224 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper'n Extent of impact (National / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Adverse Marine Archaeology Potential damage to buried artefacts from moorings Loss, damage or disturbance to identified targets from moorings Adverse Deploy’t Local Direct L term Perm Irrevers.
Uncertain but Remote Not significant to Major Deploy’t Local Direct L term Perm Irrevers.

Remote Minor Adverse Deploy’t Local Direct L term Perm Irrevers.
Unlikely Not significant to Major Loss, damage or disturbance to unidentified target/s from moorings 225 Monitor areas around moorings once yearly and after major storms Supervise deployment of moorings to ensure that farms are deployed in the correct location within the Scheme site and hence away from the identified targets Monitoring during deployment Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant, Neutral) Not significant to Major Not significant Not significant Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Effects on human populations Navigation Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Temp Revers.
Unlikely Minor Local recreation Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Likely Minor to Major (depending on amount of discharges) Maintain navigational aids and markers; farm to be officially charted; Relocation of AJD cages to NAZ Deploy oil mitigation measures in the form of oil booms, skimmers, collection of oil, stand-by oil spill contractor; Maceration of offal prior to disposal at sea; disposal beyond 12 nautical miles and in different locations to avoid overloading; Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Minor to Not significant Minor to Not significant (depending on success of mitigation measures) 226 Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Diving Adverse Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Likely 227 Minor to Major (depending on amount of discharges) Minor to Not significant (depending on success of mitigation measures) Consider prohibiting disposal of offal at sea; Training of personnel Deploy oil mitigation measures in the form of oil booms, skimmers, collection of oil, stand-by oil spill contractor; Maceration of offal prior to disposal at sea; disposal beyond 12 nautical miles and in different locations to avoid overloading; Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Unlikely (Adverse); Likely (beneficial) Minor to Major (Adverse) / Minor (Beneficial) Tourism Adverse (impacts from fish oils and slime on coastal areas) / Beneficial (relocation of inshore cages) 228 Minor to Not significant (Adverse) / Minor (Beneficial) Consider prohibiting disposal of offal at sea; Training of personnel Deploy oil mitigation measures in the form of oil booms, skimmers, collection of oil, stand-by oil spill contractor; Maceration of offal prior to disposal at sea; disposal beyond 12 nautical miles and in different locations to avoid overloading; Nature, Scale and Type of Impact Predicted Impact Beneficial/ Adverse Deploy’t / Oper’n Extent of impact (Nat / Local / Site) Direct/ Indirect S term/ L term Perm/ Temp Revers./ Irrevers Probability of impact occurring (Likely, Unlikely, Remote) Significance of Impact (Major, Minor, Not significant) Significance of Residual Impact (Major, Minor, Insignificant) Proposed Mitigation Measures Amateur fishing within and in the vicinity of the Scheme Site Adverse / Beneficial Oper’n Local Direct L term Perm Revers.
Likely Minor (Adverse) / Minor (Beneficial) Consider prohibiting disposal of offal at sea; Training of personnel Regulate fishing around the Scheme to minimise adverse impacts; Monitor impact of tuna farms on wild stock Minor (Adverse) / Minor (Beneficial) 229 Appendices Appendix 1: Summary notes from stakeholder consultation meetings Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Environmental Health Directorate Date of Meeting: 16 April 2018 Present: Mr Charles Bonnici, Marie Angele Magro Issues discussed: The EHD representatives explained that they had already highlighted the Directorate’s concerns in a consultation letter to ERA (copy provided).
The main issues are listed hereunder:       Effects on water quality during operations; Need for a detailed waste management plan addressing packaging waste, thaw water, oily slick, uneaten feed, fish excreta, dead tuna, blood and wastewater from onboard processing of tuna; Need for monitoring and implementation of mitigation measures to reduce / avoid the amount of dead fish and uneaten feed littering the seabed; To look into possible containment of thaw water on vessels; Social and cumulative impacts on the general public, especially bathers and coastal users; Require details of measures to be taken to prevent nuisances at all stages of the project, especially with regards to odours from decomposing / uneaten fish, oil slick from baitfish, etc on bathing areas and the coastline in general.
Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Transport Malta Date of Meeting: 17 April 2018 Present: Capt.
David Bugeja, Capt.

Fritz Farrugia, Mr Joe Bianco Issues discussed: AJD Tuna Ltd: • • • • TM’s main concern is that the farms are not maintaining the special marker buoys at the surface showing the area for exclusive use.

TM’s interest is in navigational safety.

To this end, it is imperative that the outer perimeter of the farm / Aquaculture Zone must be marked with special marker buoys.
The operators are to shoulder responsibility for the maintenance on navigational aids (TM monitors the position of the farms and the maintenance of navigational aids) Current AJD site (5 km) is “too close for comfort” from a safety of navigation point of view.

The position of the moorings inside the bunkering zone is only being tolerated.

However, the surface marker buoys must be located outside the bunkering zone.
North Aquaculture Zone: • • • Location of the survey area is close to the approaches to Mellieha / St Paul’s Bay for the north, which must remain unencumbered for free navigation Extensions preferred to be located further outward >100 m depth with industry good practice moorings DFA should push for the industry to work in deeper waters • • Designated NAZ should be located in the outer area (> 100 m depth), well clear of the bunkering area.
This outer area should be also discussed with the AFM in view of the firing arcs Locating the NAZ further offshore should not be a problem from a navigation point of view as long as the farms are properly marked and charted.

Navigation will adjust.
Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Nature Trust FEE Malta Date of Meeting: 17 April 2018 Present: Vincent Attard Issues discussed: The meeting focused on the overall environmental impacts of tuna farming in Malta.
The main issues pointed out by Nature Trust FEE Malta were: • • • Nature Trust does not see much of an issue with the NAZ being located so far offshore, especially in view of the presence of the bunkering area in between the shore and the NAZ location.

The main issues remain noise, vibrations, light pollution, especially their effects on the avifauna.

Also, concerned at the oil and slime discharges and the dumping of offal at sea.
Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Malta Tourism Authority Date of Meeting: 24 April 2018 Present: Perit Kevin Fsadni, Stephanie Attard Issues discussed: The main issues discussed at the meeting highlighted the importance of the area for tourism in its wider sense, and includes social effects, as follows: • • • • • • The Mellieha – St Paul’s Bay area is an important tourism zone The location of the NAZ further out at sea should not create visual issues (the further out the better) Sport diving should not be negatively impacted by the farming activities (the NAZ should be located away from known sites, e.g.
the HMS Stubborn wreck) Archaeology should also not be impacted The main concern from a tourism/recreation point of view is the oil/slime problem encountered in recent years MTA would like the farms to commit to positive and practical measures (e.g.
R&D initiatives re: feeding to minimise these impacts) Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Malta Amateur Fishermen Association Date of Meeting: 21 May 2018 Present: Dr Joe Carabot Damato, Mr Frank Abela, Mr Reno Falzon, Mr Angelo Attard, Mr Tony Cauchi, Me=r Victor Chircop Issues discussed: The meeting was attended by representatives of different amateur fishing associations located in different parts of Malta.
In view of this, there were distinct positions from the different fishermen, depending on their personal experiences (which depends on the areas that they fish).

The main issues raised were: • • • Fish farms are typically a magnet for fish.

These can affect other areas as they attract fish to the farm, depopulating other areas.

Fishermen are seeing problems with wild tuna remaining in local waters as they are attracted to the pens.
These wild tuna then prey on the smaller fish that the fishermen would normally target.

As a result they claim to have seen a drastic reduction in numbers of prey species in certain areas.

Other fishermen praised the farms as they attribute the increase in fish to their presence.

AJD Tuna Ltd:  With regards to AJD’s proposal to increase the number of cages, the Association members found no objection as long as the area taken up (enclosed by the outer perimeter buoys) does not increase.
Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Birdlife Malta Date of Meeting: 21 May 2018 Present: Nicholas Barbara, Janina Laurent Issues discussed: The meeting focused mainly on the potential impacts of tuna farming off the north eastern coast of Malta and the impacts these can have on the breeding seabird colonies in the north of the island.
• • • • • • • According to international criteria, rafting is considered to take place within 7 km from the nesting sites .

This has been modelled over 2 years, which has shown that the areas in front of the colonies are important for rafting and possibly also feeding.

Tuna farms as proposed might result in the displacement of the rafting birds (no hard and fast evidence as yet).

Birdlife is also looking into the attraction of gulls to the fish farms.
Gulls are predators of seabirds and hence, if they are attracted in large numbers the predation pressures on the breeding seabird colonies may increase.

Light and increased traffic are also of concern (though Birdlife acknowledged that the activity in the bunkering zone may be a greater source of impacts, even if the two together can lead to further cumulative concerns).

Seabirds have a very well developed olfactory sense – they might be attracted to the farm from the oils or feed.
Birdlife wants to avoid displacement of seabirds, which could lead to the abandonment of nests.

Recently seabirds have recolonised Selmunett and Rdum tal- Madonna is recovering from rat eradication.

The biggest threats to seabird populations are light pollution, coastal development and increased shipping activity (including noise).

• Birdlife requests the establishment of a proper monitoring regime to determine the impacts on the seabird communities.
Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: ‘Stop the Slime’ Campaigners Date of Meeting: 23 May 2018 Present: Nicolai Abela and Mark Gatt Issues discussed: Mr Abela and Mr Gatt represented the ‘Stop the Slime’ campaign, which was launched to raise awareness and counteract the effects of emissions from fish farms operating in St Paul’s Bay.
The main issues raised were: • • • • • • • • The main concern is with the oil slicks from the tuna farms in St Paul’s Bay.

They have met the fish farmers over the past months but they have seen very little progress to date.

The group’s focus and interest is St Paul’s Bay.

They claim that the odour from the farms can be smelt even from the St Paul’s Bay by-pass.

Also, they claim that the oil sheen from the farms would likely be very visible from high places such as High Ridge.
In discussing environmental issues, they recognised that maerl (which is found growing in extensive areas of seabed off Is-Sikka l-Bajda is important but they consider the Sikka l-Bajda itself and its surroundings, including caves that used to be full of marine life (including Groupers), is more important.

The Group appreciate that the AJD cages have been moved outwards but they would like to see them moved further offshore, away from Is-Sikka l-Bajda, either along or beyond the drop-off.
They are also concerned at the processing vessel and its activities.

This vessel should be located well offshore and further out at sea than the cages.

They claim that in past years it has often been located on Is-Sikka l-Bajda itself.

The Group provided copies of reports they had produced on this matter.
Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Armed Forces of Malta Date of Meeting: 28 May 2018 Present: AFM: Brig.
Jeffrey Curmi, Col. Clinton J. O’Neill, Jonathan Borg, James Grech, AJD: Charles Azzopardi Issues discussed: The main issues discussed at the meeting focused on the location of the AFM firing arcs at the Pembroke Rifle Ranges and in particular the Pembroke High danger area and the impact this has on the location of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd and the selection of the location of the proposed North Aquaculture Zone.
• • The Brigadier made it clear that the ranges cannot be touched and the Arcs of fire established in the navigational charts (both the inner and the outer live practice firing arcs) cannot be moved.

These have been established through detailed studies and are also recognised by the control tower.

Activities such as fish farming, bunkering, etc., inside these areas are prohibited.
AJD Tuna Ltd: • • • AFM had acceded to a 1 year tolerance for the AJD Tuna Ltd farm but this cannot be extended also in view that the farm attracts amateur fishermen that can be put in danger.

The AFM strongly recommended that AJD reconfigure the cages layout so as to push all the cages outside of the danger area.

Brigadier asked if tuna farms had considered pooling resources to check moorings of all fish farms by using a team, of specialised technical divers.
Cages can be checked normally as they do not go deeper than 35 m, but the moorings require technical divers.

North Aquaculture Zone: • • • AFM insists that the NAZ must be located outside the danger area as well.

AFM commented that there aren’t many places within 50 – 60 m depth of water.

For this reason, the tuna farming industry should be looking into deeper waters > 80 – 100 m. This would require purposely designed moorings.
Most of the work can then be done remotely and farms should stop using sport divers in any case.

It would be advisable for farms to team up and commission a commercial diving outfit to carry out all maintenance on the cages etc using special gas mixes or a direct surface air supply.

Most divers working with fish farms at the moment are sport divers and should not be doing this work at such depth.

A lot of the work can be done remotely by video and use of cranes.
This will require investment but by teaming up the cost can be shared and the liability passed on to the contractors.
Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Professional Diving Schools Association Date of Meeting: 11 June 2018 Present: Simon Sciberras, President Issues discussed: The meeting focused on the effects of fish farming in general and its impacts on the marine environment and the diving industry particularly.
The main issues raised were:  PDSA are against fish farming in general as an activity but they understand that the operators of these establishments need to work.

 They however insist that regulations are followed and enforced and breaches rectified immediately.

 Authorities must ensure that the permit conditions (planning, environment and aquaculture permits) are followed and honoured by all operators.

If not, then the permits should be revoked.


 Operational management on the farms must also be improved to eliminate the external effects on the surrounding seas and the other legitimate activities.
Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: Mellieha Local Council Date of Meeting: 18 June 2018 Present: Mellieha Council Members Issues discussed: The following were the main issues raised at the meeting:  In principle the Mellieha Local Council agrees with the proposals (i.e.
the extension of the AJD Tuna Ltd farm as long as the amount of fish (biomass) is not increased, and the location of the North Aquaculture Zone to contain the tuna farms).

 Re: AJD Tuna Ltd’s proposal, the Council asked whether the number of cages and the biomass would increase if the ICCAT increases the catch quotas for the tuna (it was explained that the farm quotas are established through the aquaculture permits and the change in catch quotas does not lead to an increase in farm quotas).
 The Council would support a northward relocation of the farms.

 The Council would prefer the zone not to be too large.

They would expect this to be the minimum size required for the amount of biomass being planned.

 They also expect there to be only one zone in the north, with the AJD Tuna Ltd farm being relocated to the North Aquaculture Zone if this is established at a different location.
 The Mellieha Council prefers (and will support) the location of the NAZ further to the northwest away from Mellieha Bay Proposed development by the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of a North Aquaculture Zone off is-Sikka l-Bajda, St Paul’s Bay Proposed extension of the temporary tuna farm operated by AJD Tuna Ltd off Is- Sikka l-Bajda through the addition of 12 cages to increase the number of cages to 24 without increasing the amount of fish farmed (PA/02175/18) Stakeholder Consultation during the formulation of the EIA Report Consultee: St Paul’s Bay Local Council Date of Meeting: 4 July 2018 Present: Executive Secretary Issues discussed: The following were the main issues raised at the meeting: AJD Tuna Ltd:  The Council supports the relocation of the AJD Tuna Ltd farm from its previous site off St Paul’s Bay to its current (temporary) site.
 The Council also does not object to the increase in the number of cages but the farm must eventually move to the North Aquaculture Zone once this is set up.

North Aquaculture Zone:   If the Department of Fisheries opt for an “inshore” site (e.g.
where AJD Tuna Ltd is currently operating temporarily), for the establishment of the NAZ, the Council would not object if this is found through the assessment to be the best site; however, they would object to the establishment of a NAZ and AJD remains outside of it.

Two sites will not be acceptable to the Council.

If it is technically possible for the NAZ to be located further out at sea it would be preferable.
This also in view of congestion of maritime uses and the close proximity of the bunkering zone to the temporary site used by AJD Tuna Ltd.  Council suggested that if the cost of relocating the AJD Tuna Ltd farm to a deeper location is greater, but the best NAZ location is found to be the deeper one beyond the drop-off, then the Department of Fisheries could consider assisting financially in meeting the difference in the expense of relocating the farm GF00250/07 PROPOSAL FOR A NEW AQUACULTURE ZONE IN THE NORTH OF MALTA, ZONE OFFSHORE MALTA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT VOLUME 2: ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT Version 1: November 2018 Report Reference: Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2018.
GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta.

Environmental Impact Assessment Report: Volume 2: Environmental Risk Assessment.

San Gwann, November 2018; v + 22 pp.

THIS IS A DIGITAL COPY OF THE REPORT.

RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT – KEEP IT DIGITAL i Quality Assurance GF00250/07: Proposal for a new aquaculture zone in the North of Malta, Zone offshore Malta Environmental Impact Assessment Report: Vol.
2 - Risk Assessment November 2018 Report for: Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Revision Schedule Rev Date Details Written by: Checked by: Approved by: 00 Nov 2018 Submission to ERA Rachel Decelis Consultant Rachel Xuereb Director Adrian Mallia Managing Director File ref: G:\_Active Projects\EIA\LDC003 - Petrol Station Attard\EPS\VOL 2 - Environmental Risk Assessment.doc This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Adi Associates’ appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment.
It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Adi Associates’ client.

Adi Associates accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided.

Except as provided for by legislation, no person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of Adi Associates.
Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole.

The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.

It is pointed out that ISO14001 certification covers the management system only and not the contents of this report.

© Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd 2018 iii Kappara Business Centre 113 Triq Birkirkara San Gwann SGN 4197 MALTA Tel.
/ Fax: 21378172 - 77 Email: info@adi.com.mt Web: www.adi-associates.com CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................................... 1 Assessment Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 1 Scheme Phases ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Risk Assessment Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 4 Overview....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Identification of Potential Releases........................................................................................................ 12 Identification of Migration Pathways ..................................................................................................... 13 Identification of Potential Receptors .................................................................................................... 14 Risk Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................... 17 FIGURES Figure 1: Source-pathway-receptor Model............................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Protected areas within which the Scheme lies ................................................................. 16 TABLES Table 1: Criteria for Assessing Environmental Consequences ......................................................... 4 Table 2: Measure of Likelihood ................................................................................................................ 4 Table 3: Risk Matrix .................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 4: Pollution Pathway Identification and Mitigation Measures ................................................. 6 Table 5: Pollution Pathway Identification and Mitigation Measures for Extreme Events / Major Accident Scenarios ............................................................................................................................. 9 Table 6: Environmental Risk Levels Without Mitigation ................................................................. 17 Table 7: Risk Levels With Mitigation ................................................................................................... 19 v 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT INTRODUCTION 1.1.

Volume 2 of the EIA Report presents an environmental risk assessment for the Scheme.

Terms of Reference 1.2.

The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the environmental risk assessment, issued by the Environment and Resources Authority (ERA), are reproduced in Technical Appendix 1: Terms of Reference and Method Statements).

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Scheme Phases 1.3.


The Scheme will involve three phases, as follows:  Construction (deployment of moorings and cages);  Operation; and  Decommissioning (when the North Aquaculture Zone (NAZ) is closed down and the farms removed).

Deployment (Construction) Phase 1.4.

The construction phase is described in Chapter 3 of the EIA Report (Volume 1).
It is not foreseen that construction will present significant environmental risk, given that the materials making up the individual farms that will be operating from the NAZ (mooring blocks, ropes, chains, cage collars, and nets), will be inert / non-hazardous in nature and the cage deployment phase follows standard marine placement methods.

The only environmental risks would be related to:  Operational discharges of fuels and lubes from deployment vessels (tug boats, barges, etc.
); and  Erroneous placement of mooring blocks on sensitive habitats instead of the planned location(which is a very remote possibility in view of the location of the Scheme site).

1.5.
1.5.

Operational losses of oils and fuels from the smaller craft are possible, as with all marine craft; however, as long as the craft are maintained in good condition and good working practices are adopted, these impacts are expected to be not significant (see also Chapter 5), especially when taking into account the fact that the Scheme site is 1 located close1 to the largest bunkering zone in the Maltese Islands that is regularly used for such operations by larger vessels.
Furthermore, the deployment craft will only be on site for a short period of time, and in the unlikely event of a spill, the extent of coastline that may be exposed to such risks is very small.

Furthermore, all local tuna farm operators (including any that would relocate to the NAZ), have a contractual agreement with a spill response company in the event of accidental release of oils.

1.6.
1.6.

Nonetheless, it is important that good operational practice and proper project management are adhered to in order to minimise the potential for such operational releases of diesels/lubricants.

1.7.

Therefore it is considered that the environmental risk from this phase does not need to be further assessed.

1.8.

1.9.
1.8.

1.9.

Decommissioning Phase The Scheme is intended to consolidate the position of tuna farms located in the North of Malta in a similar way to the South-east Aquaculture Zone located around 6 km off the Marsaskala coast, which has grouped the tuna farms that had been operating in the south.
Once the NAZ is set up, all tuna farms that have been operating form temporary locations in the north fo the island will have to relocate; the decommissioning of the farms at these temporary locations was the subject of a separate Environmental Risk Assessment and is therefore outside the scope of this Report.
Ifg and when the NAZ is decommissioned, the individual farms and their cages and ancillary structures will be removed in a reverse order to the deployment, with the nets removed first, followed by the cage collars, ropes, chains, and mooring blocks.

Finally, the navigational lights and any marker buoys or perimeter indicating paraphernalia will be also removed.

The entire NAZ can be decommissioned in approximately six weeks.

If required, a Decommissioning Plan will be provided.
Since the Scheme does not involve the use or storage of any hazardous materials, the decommissioning would not generate any wastes other than generated by normal operation, and considering that the procedures that would apply in decommissioning of the individual farms are identical to the procedures applied each year in undertaking maintenance on the cages, no significant risks are expected from this process and the environmental risk from this phase does not need further assessment.
1 The bunkering zone at Is-Sikka l-Bajda, one of Malta’s most busy bunkering areas, is located around 1.2 km south of the Scheme site.

2 Objectives 1.10.
2 Objectives 1.10.

This Report, therefore presents a detailed environmental risk assessment of the Scheme operations by:  Describing and evaluating the risks to the environment associated with the Scheme operations (including risks associated with potential accidents / extreme events); and  Describing the measures which will be undertaken to mitigate such risks, and evaluating the residual risk levels.

Methodology 1.11.
Methodology 1.11.

The methodology used for the environmental risk assessment is based on IEC/ISO 31010: Risk management: Risk assessment techniques.

1.12.

An environmental risk occurs when there is a means by which a hazard can result in a deleterious impact on the surrounding environment, that is, receptors.

The presence of a hazard alone does not constitute a risk.

A risk is only present if there is a pathway which links the source (hazard) to the receptor.
This is known as the source-pathway-receptor linkage.2 1.13.

Environmental risk assessment is the process by which source-pathway-receptor linkages are identified and evaluated.

If any of the three elements are absent then there is no complete linkage, and thus no unacceptable risk.

To illustrate this, Figure 1 shows a basic source-pathway-receptor model.
Figure 1: Source-pathway-receptor Model Effect on a Valued Component Source: Environment Canada3 2 Defra (2002) Groundwater Protection Code: Petrol Stations and other Fuel Dispensing Facilities involving Underground Storage Tanks.

3 Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 3 Risk Assessment Criteria 1.14.
If a source-pathway-receptor linkage is found, the magnitude of a risk is a function of the potential consequences arising from the particular activity and the likelihood that this consequence will occur.

The combination of consequence and likelihood produces an estimate of the risk associated with a particular issue.

1.15.

The risk criteria applied in this assessment is based on a matrix consistent with ISO 31010: Risk management: Risk assessment techniques.

1.16.
1.16.

Table 1 presents the criteria used for assessing environmental consequences; Table 2 presents the criteria used for assessing the likelihood of the event occurring.

The overall risk level is then determined by combining the two factors, using the matrix in Table 3.

Table 1: Criteria for Assessing Environmental Consequences Severity Level Effects on Natural Environment 1: Negligible 2: Minor 3: Moderate 4: Major 5: Catastrophic Very insignificant impacts.
Unlikely to be even measurable at the scale of the stock/ecosystem/community against the natural background variability.

Minor effects on biological or physical environment.

Possibly detectable but minimal impact on structure/function or dynamics.

Moderate effects on biological or physical environment (e.g.

air, water) but not affecting ecosystem function.

Maximum appropriate/acceptable level of impact (e.g.

full assimilation rate of nutrients).


Serious environmental effects with some impairment of ecosystem function.

Relatively widespread medium-long term impacts.

Relatively long timeframe likely to be needed to restore to acceptable level.

Very serious environmental effects with impairment of ecosystem function.

Long term, widespread effects on significant environment (e.g.

national park).

Unlikely to be ever fixed (e.g.

extinctions).
Table 2: Measure of Likelihood Level Descriptor Description Guideline Frequency A B Almost Certain Consequence is expected to occur in most circumstances Occurs more than once per month Likely Consequence will probably occur in most circumstances Occurs once every 1 month - 1 year C Occasional Consequence should occur at some time D Unlikely Consequence could occur at some time Occurs once every 1 year - 10 years Occurs once every 10 years - 100 years E Rare Consequence may only occur in exceptional circumstances Occurs less than once every 100 years 4 Table 3: Risk Matrix Likelihood A: Almost Certain Environmental Consequence 1: Negligible 2: Minor 3: Moderate 4: Major 5: Catastrophic Low Moderate Extreme Extreme Extreme No Pollutant Linkage B: Likely Low Moderate High Extreme Extreme C: Occasional Very low Moderate High High Extreme None D: Unlikely Very low Low Moderate High High E: Rare Very low Low Moderate Moderate High Overview 1.17.
The Scheme will involve the rearing of wild-capture bluefin tuna in 50 m diameter cages anchored at the Scheme site between 5 and 8 km off the northeast coast of Malta.

As described in the EIA Report (Volume 1), the rearing of the tuna will involve feeding using baitfish, assimilation of feed in the fattened tuna and excretion by the fish, harvesting of tuna, and disposal of offal.

1.18.
1.18.

Potential pollution sources are summarized in Table 4, which also identifies the respective pathway to the relevant receptor.

The table also describes the mitigation measures that will be adopted to mitigate such risks, distinguishing between elements incorporated into the Scheme by design and operational / procedural mitigation measures.
It is to be noted that all the mitigation measures in the table will be implemented as part of the Scheme and several of these will likely also be a requirement of the eventual environmental permits for the individual tuna farming operations at the Scheme.

1.19.

Table 5 identifies source-pathway-receptor linkages for extreme events / major accident scenarios, such as oil spills, mass mortality, disease, or natural disasters.
5 Table 4: Pollution Pathway Identification and Mitigation Measures Source Pathway Receptor Mitigation Measures Designed into the Scheme Operational Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Feeding of tuna: release of fish oils Direct release into the marine environment; migration through water currents  Sea  Coast, including bathing areas  Permanent deployment of oil booms inside each cage Feeding of tuna: settlement of uneaten feed Through water column down to seabed  Seabed  Benthic habitats  NIL  Ensure permanent oil boom is present and in good condition inside each cage (when tuna are present)  Deploy skimmers in each cage to collect the oil while still inside the cage  Deploy third party oil spill response vessels in the event of a larger release of fish oil  Spill kit available on site  Training of personnel in basic oil spill response  Good feed management (including monitoring by divers to control amount of baitfish given to tuna and training of personnel)  Monitoring of seabed and feeding practices  Prompt action to rectify over-feeding or loss of baitfish Feeding of tuna: excretion of fish waste (organic loading) Direct contamination  Water column  NIL  Avoid large stocking densities in cages 6 Source Pathway Receptor Mitigation Measures Designed into the Scheme Tuna harvesting: release of blood Tuna harvesting and processing: offshore disposal of offal (12 nautical miles from shore) Direct release into the marine environment Direct release into the marine environment; settlement through water column; water currents  Sea  NIL  Sea  Seabed  Benthic habitats  Inshore waters  Coast, including bathing areas  NIL Mitigation Measures Operational Mitigation Measures  Quick slaughtering required to keep body temperature down so as not to compromise meat quality;  Immediate transfer to processing vessel and collection of blood mixed with waste water  Collection of all offal on board vessels  Disposal at different locations beyond the 12 nautical mile limit so as not to overload one
 area  Vessel monitoring system to ensure correct disposal  Consider alternative methods of offal disposal that do not include offshore disposal Operational discharges / spills (oil, bilge water) from farm support vessels Direct release into the marine environment  Sea  Marine species (turtles, cetaceans, seabirds)  NIL  Regular and appropriate maintenance of all vessels  Spill kits available on board  Training of personnel in correct operation and spill management Operational discharges / spills (oil, bilge water, process wastewater, sewage) from processing vessels Direct release into the marine environment  Sea  Marine species (turtles, cetaceans, seabirds)  Coast, including bathing areas  Vessel equipped with adequate holding tanks  Regular and appropriate maintenance of all vessels  Adherence to MARPOL Regulations  Use of Port Reception Facilities for waste  Spill kits available on board  Training of personnel in correct operation and spill management 7 Source Pathway Receptor Mitigation Measures Designed into the Scheme Operational Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures Loss of items overboard (marine litter) from vessels Direct release into the marine environment; settlement through water column  Sea  Sea bottom (including important habitats)  Marine species (turtles, cetaceans, seabirds)  Screen vessel scuppers to reduce chances of items falling overboard  Use of flat form cartons as packaging material and ensure proper disposal of wastes at shore-side facilities  Immediate recovery of any items that may accidentally end up in the sea (whether floating or deposited on the seabed)  Good practices aboard ships to minimise littering, including training of personnel 8 Table 5: Pollution Pathway Identification and Mitigation Measures for Extreme Events / Major Accident Scenarios Mitigation Measures Scenario Source Pathway Receptor Mitigation Measures Designed into the Scheme Severe storm causing mass mortality of farmed fish Dead fish
 Through water column down to seabed  Sea  Seabed  Appropriate mooring of cages Ship collision with the Scheme causing mass mortality of farmed fish Dead fish Through water column down to seabed  Sea  Seabed  Appropriate mooring of cages  Appropriate navigational marker buoys and lights Operational Mitigation Measures  Professional design of mooring systems in view of the increased depth of the Scheme location compared to other extant farming sites  Optimise stocking density  Nets kept taut to eliminate billowing  Regular checking and maintenance on mooring system (including blocks, ropes, chains, etc).
 Thorough equipment check after major storms  Preparation of contingency plan for large- scale mortalities  Regular checking and maintenance on mooring system (including blocks, ropes, chains, etc.
 Ensuring lights are always functioning and in line with navigational safety requirements  Charting of tuna farm on navigational charts  Preparation of contingency plan for large- scale mortalities 9 Mitigation Measures Scenario Source Pathway Receptor Mitigation Measures Designed into the Scheme Oil spill from external vessels / bunkering zone causing mass mortality of farmed fish Dead fish Through water column down to seabed  Sea  Seabed  Permanent deployment of oil booms inside each cage (to prevent intake of oil into the cage) Disease causing mass mortality of farmed fish Dead fish Marine environment  Sea  Seabed  Wild fish stocks  NIL 10 Operational Mitigation Measures  Ensure permanent oil boom is present and in good condition inside each cage (when tuna are present)  Training of personnel in Tier One Oil Spill Response  Contractual arrangements for third party oil response service up to Tier Three  Deployment of oil booms in direction of spill to safeguard farm  Towing away of cages  Preparation of contingency plan for large- scale mortalities  Keep farm away from sources of contamination  Control source of baitfish to ensure good quality  Appropriate storage of baitfish in accordance with food safety legislation  Monitoring of farmed tuna for signs of stress or disease  Optimise stocking density  Culling of stressed / diseased individuals and removal from cages  Ensure source of good quality baitfish  Preparation of contingency plan for large- scale mortalities Scenario Source Pathway Receptor Mitigation Measures Designed into the Scheme Failure of moorings leading to net collapse Dead fish Through water column down to seabed  Seabed  Appropriate mooring of cages Operational Mitigation Measures  Nets kept taut to eliminate billowing  Regular checking and maintenance on mooring system (including blocks, ropes, chains, etc).
 Thorough equipment check after major storms  Preparation of contingency plan for large- scale mortalities Mitigation Measures 11 Identification of Potential Releases 1.20.

The main potential emissions from the Scheme under normal operation, as described, relate to the feeding of the tuna.

This results in the release of fish oils from the baitfish, fish wastes excreted by the fish, and settlement of uneaten baitfish on the seabed, which can lead to organic loading.
A number of mitigation measures will be in place on site to minimise emissions associated with the Scheme operations, as described below, and in Table 4 and Table 5.

Most mitigation measures are operational in nature, and will be regulated by the environmental permit for the individual farm operations.

1.21.

The feeding process requires proper and effective management to ensure against overfeeding of the tuna and hence minimise the loss of uneaten feed, which settles on the seabed.
The amount of baitfish given to the tuna will be controlled and the feeding itself supervised by divers.

Prompt action will also be taken to rectify over- feeding or loss of baitfish.

1.22.

Controlling the amount of fish stocked in each cage will also help reduce the organic loading per cage at the Scheme site by distributing the fish among more cages and hence over a larger volume of water and a greater seabed area within the Scheme boundaries.

1.23.
1.23.

Without mitigation, the Scheme will also potentially release contaminants in the form of oils and bilge water from operational vessels, and also sewage and process wastewater from the processing vessels.

The former would be restricted to the rearing period (c. 5 – 6 months), while the latter would be restricted to the harvesting period (c. 2 months).

1.24.
1.24.

However, vessels to be used at the Scheme site or to service the Scheme will have the necessary certification and will be regularly maintained to minimise the potential for operational discharges of oil and bilge water.

Likewise, the processing vessels will follow the relevant MARPOL regulations with regards to discharges at sea (including availability of holding tanks or sewage treatment plants on board, and, where appropriate, make use of port reception facilities.

1.25.
1.25.

The vessel scuppers will be appropriately screened (but not blocked) to minimise the possibility of items falling overboard and into the sea.

Personnel will be instructed not to leave litter lying around on the deck, to immediately recover any material lost overboard, as well as to collect any floating marine litter that reaches the farm.

Training in correct operational practice and in spill management (to Tier One) will also be provided to staff.

1.26.
1.26.

Other discharges relate to the fish harvesting and processing activities.

These activities release blood into the marine environment, which easily disperses and does not generate environmental risks.

The release of blood during harvesting cannot be mitigated as this process has to take place in a very short time to ensure the quality of the meat.
The only mitigation would be the immediate transfer of the culled tuna to the processing vessel where any additional blood drained from the fish would be 12 collected with the process waste water in holding tanks on board.

1.27.

Fish processing generates offal (entrails, fins and heads), which at the moment are collected and dumped at sea beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

In order not to overload one area, this organic waste is discharged in different locations.
The option of macerating the offal prior to discharge should be actively investigated to minimise the possibility of entrails floating inshore with the currents.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in conjunction with all local tuna farm operators, should also consider alternative (non-marine) disposal options in consultation with the Veterinary authorities.

1.28.

Extreme events / major accident scenarios are of two types: “external” events or "internal" events.
"External" events are events such as oil spills, ship collisions, disease (from wild fish or external sources of contamination), or natural disasters (e.g.

storms) that may affect the individual farms potentially leading to the death of the tuna, which in turn could affect the environment at the Scheme site.
“Internal” events, including failure of moorings that could lead to net collapse, lack of navigational signage that could lead to ship collisions, or tuna deaths from disease from stress or bad farming conditions.

All these events ultimately lead to mass mortality of the tuna.

Measures will be taken to reduce the likelihood and severity of an incident, as described in Table 5.

1.29.
1.29.

To reduce the risk of damage to the farm, which can lead to mass mortality of the tuna, the mooring layout and technology for the farm will be properly assessed to ensure against dragging or drifting.

Once deployed, the farm area will be marked with appropriate navigational markers and lights in conformity with navigational safety requirements, as requested by Transport Malta.

The farm will also be officially charted on the navigational charts.
The mooring system will also be regularly checked and any maintenance required undertaken without delay to safeguard the cages.

The entire system will also be thoroughly checked after each major storm.

1.30.

The tuna will also be regularly monitored for any signs of disease or stress.

Any stressed or diseased individuals will be culled and removed from the farm to reduce the risk of mass mortality events.

1.31.
1.31.

Additionally, the operators will be required by their Environmental Permits to prepare contingency plans in case of large scale mortalities.

Such contingency plans will include measures for immediate removal of dead fish to avoid contamination of the seabed and the marine environment.

Identification of Migration Pathways Without Mitigation 1.32.
In view of the nature of the Scheme, the main pathway is the marine environment, with currents and the water column playing an important role, and with some of the releases settling down to the seabed.

1.33.
1.33.

Most pathways involve a direct release into the marine environment, for example, 13 fish excreta released into the water column, fish oils released from the cages and operational discharges from vessels dispersed by surface currents, uneaten baitfish falling through the cages and settling on the seabed, and offal discharged directly into the sea and settling to the bottom (or floating and carried by surface currents).

With Mitigation 1.34.


In order to counteract the release of fish oils and to minimise nuisance to other coastal users, permanent oil booms will be deployed in each cage to contain any released oils.

The oil will then be collected by means of surface skimmers and transferred to IBCs, from where the water phase will be decanted and the oil phase sold to waste recycling contractors.
Deployment of additional oil booms at the Scheme site perimeter to collect any oils that manage to escape from the individual farms can also be considered, together with the deployment of oil spill response contractors and the use of spill kits by trained personnel.

1.35.

Any marine litter that accidentally falls overboard from the Scheme vessels will also be recovered immediately.
The vessel scuppers will be screened to minimise the potential for items to fall off the deck, while staff will be trained on the importance of eliminating marine litter and to keep the decks free from rubbish and unnecessary items.

1.36.

Offal will be collected on board the processing vessels and transferred to service vessels for offshore disposal, as per instructions from the Veterinary authorities.

The offal is dumped beyond the 12 nautical mile limit in areas characterised by muddy sandy bottoms.
In order not to overload one area, the offal is disposed of in different locations.

Operators should remain vigilant in the case of any offal becoming buoyant and floating to the surface, which may result in beaching, including on popular bathing areas.

Such items should be collected and macerated prior to dumping.

In addition, the possibility of adopting a non-marine disposal route for this waste should be actively considered, in line with current environmental permit conditions for active farms.
Identification of Potential Receptors 1.37.

Due to the nature of the Scheme the main environmental receptor is the marine environment.

The first interaction will always be with the water column; fish oils and operational discharges of fuels from vessels will float and mainly impact the surface waters.

In the unmitigated scenario, these oils will leave the farm and be dispersed by surface currents; the extent of the area affected will depend on the direction and strength of currents and waves.
Fish excreta will be released within the water column, affecting a wider volume (rather than just surface waters), but they will be readily dispersed and their effect restricted to the vicinity of the cages.

The release of fish excreta cannot be mitigated.

1.38.

Uneaten baitfish and marine litter have the potential to sink to the bottom of the sea, where they can negatively affect the benthic habitatse.
In the unmitigated scenario, approximately 28 kg of baitfish per cage per day fall through the cage and settle on the seabed.

The impact is mainly restricted to the area directly beneath the cages 14 and reduces to insignificant with distance from the cages.

The settlement of uneaten feed is a chronic impact with additional amounts settling each day, which can lead to overloading of the benthic ecosystem.
The location of the Scheme and hence then individual farm cages, on a muddy detritic seabed helps to minimise the impact, but additional mitigation in the form of a strict feed management regime to minimise losses will always be important.

1.39.

Litter can float and be dispersed over wide areas, potentially affecting coastal areas (including bathing sites) much removed from the Scheme site or even marine species (cetaceans, turtles, and seabirds) that ingest such items thinking them food.
Other litter and various anthropogenic items can rapidly settle to the bottom, littering the seabed and physically impacting the benthic habitats.

1.40.

The Scheme is located within two protected areas: Specially Protected Area: Il-Baħar ta’ madwar Għawdex and Special Area of Conservation: Żona fil-Baħar fil-Grigal ta’ Malta (see Figure 2).

In the case of the latter, the Scheme boundary only overlaps slightly but the farm cages will likely be located outside of this zone 1.41.
Though located well offshore, the Scheme is still located in front of important coastal bathing areas, including Mellieha Bay, St Paul's Bay, and Bugibba.

The dispersal of fish oils under the action of surface currents can affect an even wider area of coast, as shown in Chapter 5 of the EIA Report (Volume 1).

15 Figure 2: Protected areas within which the Scheme lies 16 Risk Evaluation 1.42.
The various risks on the environment have been assessed using the evaluation criteria described above (Table1 to Table 3).

The risks associated with both the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios are evaluated.

However, it should be noted that the Scheme envisages including all of the mitigation measures described in Table 4 and Table 5.

Without Mitigation 1.43.

Table 6 presents risk levels for each source without the implementation of any mitigation measures.
Table 6: Environmental Risk Levels Without Mitigation Source Environmental Consequences Likelihood of Consequence Resultant Risk Level Feeding of tuna: release of fish oils Minor Almost certain Moderate Feeding of tuna: settlement of uneaten feed (beneath cages) Feeding of tuna: settlement of uneaten feed (away from cages) Feeding of tuna: excretion of fish waste (organic loading) Major Almost certain Extreme Minor to Negligible Occasional Moderate Minor Almost certain Moderate Tuna harvesting: release of blood Negligible Moderate Likely4 Likely5 Low High Tuna harvesting and processing: offshore disposal of offal Operational discharges / spills (oil, bilge water) from farm support vessels Operational discharges / spills (oil, bilge water, process wastewater, sewage) from processing vessels Loss of items overboard (marine litter) from vessels Severe storm causing mass mortality of farmed fish Ship collision causing mass mortality of farmed fish Minor Likely Moderate Moderate Moderate Likely6 Likely Major Occasional Moderate Occasional High High High High 4 Likelihood of consequence is "Likely" not "Almost certain" in view that harvesting takes place over a 2 month period and not throughout the year.
5 Ditto 6 Likelihood of consequence is "Likely" not "Almost certain" in view that the processing vessel is only present during harvesting, which takes place over a 2 month period and not throughout the year.
17 Source Environmental Consequences Likelihood of Consequence Resultant Risk Level Third-party oil spill causing mass mortality of farmed fish Disease causing mass mortality of farmed fish Failure of moorings leading to net collapse and death of tuna Major Moderate Moderate Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely High Moderate Moderate 1.44.

The release of fish oils from the baitfish has a minor impact on the natural environment as the oils themselves are not hydrocarbon based but natural fish oils.
Without mitigation, this impact will routinely arise and the likelihood has therefore been classified as almost certain.

1.45.

Impacts from the settlement of uneaten feed and impacts from fish wastes (excretion) are likewise classified as almost certain.

Risks from the settlement of uneaten feed are considered to be moderate; whereas those from the fish wastes are classified as minor since the modelling shows that the impacts would be quite limited and localised.

1.46.
1.46.

During harvesting, blood and offal are released.

The release of blood has a negligible impact as it is a natural material and readily disperses and biodegrades.

The impact from the dumping of offal at sea is considered to be moderate in view of the amounts potentially dumped in a single area over a short period of time.
Though these impacts will definitely take place during harvesting, the likelihood of these impacts occurring is classified as "Likely" and not "Almost certain" in view that the harvesting takes place over a two-month period and not throughout the year.

1.47.

The risk of operational discharges from vessels servicing the farms at the Scheme without any mitigation has been considered as potentially having a minor adverse impact on the marine environment.
The likelihood has been classified as likely, since such wastes are regularly generated from vessels and, without appropriate mitigation, would be discharged to sea.

1.48.

Unmitigated operational discharges from the larger processing vessels would have the same effect, though potentially to a bigger extent, and thus this has been designated as a moderate impact.

As in the case of the blood and offal (see above) the likelihood has been classified as "likely".

1.49.
1.49.

The loss of items overboard, which contributes to marine litter, is being classified as a moderate but likely impact, since such losses are fairly common.

1.50.

Natural disasters, such as a major storm that could impact the farm, are considered to be occasional events; nonetheless, the environmental consequences could be major in the unmitigated scenario due to the potential for damage to the farm and potential loss of tuna leading to mass mortality and consequent impacts on the seabed.

18 1.51.
18 1.51.

The possibility of a ship collision is also considered occasional without mitigation; nevertheless, the environmental consequences would be moderate since it is unlikely that the incident would result in death of all the tuna reared at the Scheme.

1.52.

The possibility of an oil spill reaching the farm and causing mass mortality, though unlikely would be an event of major consequence as a result of mass mortality at the Scheme7.
Though not generated by the Scheme itself, this effect is considered in view of the location of the farm close to a bunkering zone and the possibility of a spill happening through interaction / collision with the farm is a possibility.

1.53.

Like an oil spill, a disease outbreak leading to a mass mortality event is considered to be an unlikely scenario; however, the environmental consequences, if these were to occur, would be moderate in the unmitigated scenario.

1.54.
1.54.

The failure of the moorings leading to net collapse and tuna mortality are likewise considered to be unlikely events of moderate consequence.

However, the proper and professional design of the moorings / anchoring systems for the farms at the Scheme site (in view of the greater water depths involved) will be crucial.

With Mitigation 1.55.

Table 7 presents risk levels for each source with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.
Table 7: Risk Levels With Mitigation Source Feeding of tuna: release of fish oils Feeding of tuna: settlement of uneaten feed (beneath cages) Feeding of tuna: settlement of uneaten feed (away from cages) Feeding of tuna: excretion of fish waste (organic loading) Tuna harvesting: release of blood Tuna harvesting and processing: offshore disposal of offal Operational discharges/ spills (oil, bilge water) from farm support vessels Environmental Consequences Likelihood of Consequence Resultant Risk Level Negligible Occasional Very Low Minor Almost certain Moderate Negligible Rare Very Low Minor Almost certain Moderate Negligible Minor Minor Likely Likely Low Moderate Occasional Moderate 7 The environmental consequences of the oil spill itself are outside the scope of this assessment as the Scheme would not be the source of the spill.
19 Source Operational discharges / spills (oil, bilge water, process wastewater, sewage) from processing vessels Loss of items overboard (marine litter) from vessels Severe storm causing mass mortality of farmed fish Ship collision causing mass mortality of farmed fish Third-party oil spill causing mass mortality of farmed fish Disease causing mass mortality of farmed fish Failure of moorings leading to net collapse and death of tuna Environmental Consequences Likelihood of Consequence Resultant Risk Level Minor Occasional Moderate Negligible Occasional Very Low Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Unlikely Rare Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Low Low Low Low Low 1.56.
The effects from tuna rearing, especially feeding, are the main source of environmental concern and there is much scope for improving current operational procedures at tuna farms generally.

The mitigation measures incorporated in the Scheme design and, especially, the operational mitigation measures proposed are expected to significantly reduce the environmental risk from these activities.
Regular monitoring, supervision, and reporting on activities, and training of personnel will be crucial to ensure that the operational measures remain in place throughout the tuna fattening period.

1.57.
1.57.

The deployment of permanent oil booms inside each cage and the collection of the contained fish oils by means of proprietary oil skimmers, coupled with the collection of any escaped oils through the deployment of additional booms and collection by oil spill contractors and training of personnel, will reduce the impact to negligible under normal operating conditions as all the oil will be contained.
Even in the event of a breach of the oil mitigation system (such as failure of the oil booms or delay in spill response), only minor environmental effects are expected as most of the spill would still be collected; such a scenario is expected only occasionally.

The resultant environmental risk is deemed to be very low.

1.58.

The settlement of uneaten feed is another of the major sources of contamination.
The fact that the feeding is supervised by divers and the expense of the baitfish militate against over-feeding.

The further training of personnel will further reduce the risk by ensuring that the uneaten feed is kept to a minimum.

The environmental risk is considered to be minor under the cages and reducing to negligible with distance from the cages.

The likelihood is almost certain for the impact under the cages since this release is routinely generated, and rare for areas away from the cages.
The resultant environmental risk is moderate under the cages and very low away from the cages.

20 1.59.

The reduction in the stocking density of each cage will help to reduce the impact from fish wastes (excreta) at each cage location by distributing the fish in a larger volume of sea.

This will help disperse the excreta more effectively such that the environmental consequences will be reduced to minor from the unmitigated scenario.
However, the likelihood is almost certain since this release is routinely generated and cannot be eliminated from this type of activity.

The resultant environmental risk is classified as moderate.

1.60.

As explained, the release of blood cannot be mitigated for food quality reasons.

Hence the environmental risk for this impact remains the same as the unmitigated risk.
However, since the blood disperses quickly and is biodegradable, and considering that the harvesting activity is restricted to approximately two months, the risk is deemed to be low.

1.61.

The proposal to macerate the offal prior to disposal will reduce the environmental consequences at the Scheme site to minor but likely such that the environmental risk would be moderate.
However, if an alternative disposal route is finally agreed, and the offal is landed for use as a by-product, then the pathway linkage would be eliminated.

1.62.

In view of the nature of marine vessels, the impact from operational discharges, even with the implementation of the mitigation measures, will still result in minor environmental consequences from occasional accidental releases, resulting in a moderate risk to the environment.
The operational discharges from the processing vessels are more easily contained due to the installation of holding tanks and/or sewage treatment plants on board; therefore the environmental consequences of any accidental releases are also classified as minor; the probability of such events occurring is also considered to be occasional.

1.63.
1.63.

As regards the control of marine litter, the proposed mitigation measures will go a long way in mitigating these impacts such that the environmental consequence can be reduced to negligible even in the event of an occasional release.

The mitigated risk is deemed to be very low.

1.64.
1.64.

While the probability of major storms affecting the Scheme remains occasional, the mitigation incorporated in the farm through better mooring layouts and redundancy in equipment, will reduce the likelihood of damage to the farms and mass mortality to unlikely.

The environmental consequences of mass mortality events are also reduced to minor following the implementation of the Scheme’s contingency plan, which it is understood will include provision for immediate collection and removal of dead fish.
The environmental risk is therefore deemed to be low.

1.65.

The probability of a mass mortality event from ship collision is reduced to rare in view of the various mitigation measures employed, including with the official charting of the Scheme’s location on navigational charts, and the deployment of appropriate special marker buoys and navigational lights on site.
The environmental consequences would still be minor since the probability of such a collision impacting all the farms at the Scheme or several cages is not high.

The environmental risk is 21 deemed to be low.

1.66.

The likelihood of an external oil spill causing mass mortality is reduced (though remaining unlikely) with the mitigation in place.

Nevertheless, as mentioned the environmental consequences of mass mortality would be reduced to minor.

1.67.
1.67.

Based on past experience, which includes the proposed mitigation including the daily presence of personnel on the farm and the supervision of the tuna, the probability of disease outbreaks is also considered to be unlikely.

Similar to the previous scenario, the environmental consequences of mass mortality are minor.

The environmental risk is low.

1.68.


Considering the additional mitigation, including professional design of the mooring / anchoring systems, improved moorings, regular maintenance and checking of equipment, the possibility of moorings failing, leading to the collapse of nets and the death of the tuna is also considered to be unlikely and leading to a minor impact.

The environmental risk is low.

1.69.


In conclusion, as a result of the mitigation measures envisaged to be implemented, environmental risks from the Scheme are considered to have been reduced to low or very low, and some moderate risk related to operational discharges from vessels (including litter), impacts from the disposal of offal at sea, and impacts from uneaten feed settling on the seabed and fish excreta.
22 PROPOSAL FOR A NEW AQUACULTURE ZONE IN THE NORTH OF MALTA APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT Version 1: November 2018 Report Reference: Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2018.

Proposal for a New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta.

Appropriate Assessment.

Version 1.

San Gwann, November 2018; vii + 128pp + 3 Appendices.

THIS IS A DIGITAL COPY OF THE REPORT.
RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT – KEEP IT DIGITAL i Quality Assurance Proposal for a New Aquaculture Zone in the North of Malta Appropriate Assessment November 2018 Report for: Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Revision Schedule Rev Date Details Written by: Checked by: Approved by: 00 Nov 2018 Submission to Client Krista Farrugia Senior Environmental Consultant Rachel Xuereb Director Adrian Mallia Managing Director File ref: G:\_Active Projects\AA\DFA004 - North Aquaculture Zone AA\Report\Appropriate Assessment NAZ_FINAL.docx This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Adi Associates’ appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment.
It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Adi Associates’ client.

Adi Associates accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided.

Except as provided for by legislation, no person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of Adi Associates.
Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole.

The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.

It is pointed out that ISO14001 certification covers the management system only and not the contents of this report.

© Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd 2018 iii Kappara Business Centre 113 Triq Birkirkara San Gwann SGN 4197 MALTA Tel.
/ Fax: 21378172 - 77 Email: info@adi-associates.com Web: www.adi-associates.com CONTENTS 1.
Introduction ........................................................................................ 1 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................................................... 1 Background to the Scheme ....................................................................................................................... 3 Demand for the Scheme ............................................................................................................................ 3 Previous exploration for a North Aquaculture Zone ......................................................................... 4 Alternative Sites ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Appropriate Assessment Objectives ................................................................................................... 23 Area & Scope of Study ............................................................................................................................ 23 Benthos ....................................................................................................................................................... 23 Avifauna ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 Methodology.............................................................................................................................................. 29 Baseline studies ......................................................................................................................................... 29 Desk Studies .............................................................................................................................................. 29 Field surveys .............................................................................................................................................. 29 Data Processing – Bathymetric Survey ................................................................................................ 32 Data processing – video and stills ........................................................................................................ 32 Wave and hydrodynamic modelling studies ....................................................................................... 32 Water and sediment quality ................................................................................................................... 45 Benthos ....................................................................................................................................................... 49 Impact Assessment Criteria ................................................................................................................... 50 2.
Scheme Description ......................................................................... 51 Waste management ................................................................................................................................. 55 Employment ............................................................................................................................................... 59 3.
Description of the SAC/SPA............................................................ 61 Marine ......................................................................................................................................................... 61 Northeast of Malta Marine SAC ........................................................................................................... 61 Il-Baħar Ta’ Madwar Għawdex SPA ..................................................................................................... 63 Terrestrial .................................................................................................................................................. 63 L-Inħawi tar-Ramla tat-Torri u tal-Irdum tal-Madonna SPA ........................................................... 63 Kemmuna u l-Gzejjer tal-Madwarha SPA ............................................................................................ 65 Selmunett SAC .......................................................................................................................................... 65 Others......................................................................................................................................................... 65 4.
Baseline studies ................................................................................. 73 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 73 Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 73 Marine and terrestrial Special Protection Areas ............................................................................... 98 5.
Assessment ..................................................................................... 109 Appropriate Assessment, Conservation Objectives and Significance ........................................ 109 Potential impacts - prediction and significance ................................................................................ 109 v Mitigation .................................................................................................................................................. 127 FIGURES Figure 1.1: Results of 2011 site selection exercise using technical criteria only........................... 7 Figure 1.2: 2011 “Long List” areas of search ........................................................................................ 9 Figure 1.3: Site proposed for a north AZ in 2011 site selection exercise showing also environmental, technical, planning and social criteria (constraints) ...................................... 11 Operations – the Tuna Penning Process ............................................................................................. 13 Figure 1.4: Schematic of the food chain and by-products of fish-rearing ..................................... 16 Figure 1.5: Area of Search for establishment of North Aquaculture Zone ................................. 21 Figure 1.6: Marine ecology Area of Study ............................................................................................ 25 Figure 1.7: Avifauna Area of Influence .................................................................................................. 27 Figure 1.8: Bathymetric survey track plots for all successful survey lines in Area 1 .................. 31 Figurer 1.9: Location of the “Mellieha/St Paul” output point .......................................................... 33 Figure 1.10: Wind rose ............................................................................................................................ 34 Figure 1.11: Wave rose off Valletta ....................................................................................................... 35 Figure 1.12: Global model mesh and zoom on project area ........................................................... 38 Figure 1.13: Flow field on a vertical plane along the cages with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.
Locations of the six cages are indicated by the dotted lines ...................................... 39 Figure 1.14: Comparison of water levels ............................................................................................. 40 Figure 1.15: Comparison of the velocity fields at 2 m under the sea surface ............................. 41 Figure 1.16: Location of sampling stations ........................................................................................... 47 Figure 2.1: Temporary location of AJD tuna cages and the proposed Scheme location .......... 53 Figure 3.1: Northeast of Malta Marine Special Area of Conservation and site boundary ........ 67 Figure 3.2: Il-Baħar ta’ Madwar Għawdex Special Protection Area and site boundary ............ 69 Figure 3.3: Terrestrial Natura 2000 sites and site boundary .......................................................... 71 Figure 4.1: Bathymetry ............................................................................................................................. 74 Figure 4.2: Maps of maximum nitrogen (left) and phosphorous (right) concentration ............. 77 Figure 4.3: Time-series of the nutrient concentrations .................................................................... 78 Figure 4.4: Thickness of uneaten feed after 30 days.......................................................................... 79 Figure 4.5: Location of particles depending on time elapsed in Scenario 1 ................................. 81 Figure 4.6: Location of particles depending on time elapsed in Scenario 2 ................................. 82 Figure 4.7: Map showing the main benthic habitats present within the survey area .................. 85 Figure 4.8: Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (Source: Borg, 2018) ........................................................................................... 89 Figure 4.9: Infralittoral coarse sediment (Source: Borg, 2018) .......................................................... 93 Figure 4.10: Muddy detritic bottoms (Source: Borg, 2018) ............................................................... 95 Figure 4.11: Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock ........................................ 96 Figure 4.12: Area of importance for seabird colonies at Rdum tal-Madonna ........................... 103 vi Figure 4.13: Seabird colonies on Comino ......................................................................................... 105 Figure 4.14: Maps showing priority areas for breeding Procellariiformes ................................. 107 Figure 5.1: Location of Scheme in relation to benthic habitats .................................................... 121 TABLES Table 1.1: Velocity reduction in the wake of cages ........................................................................... 39 Table 1.2: Dissolved nutrient leached from Bluefin tuna faeces ..................................................... 43 Table 1.3: Soluble fraction of nitrogen and phosphorous in uneaten baitfish ............................. 43 Table 1.4: Characteristics of uneaten feed particles ......................................................................... 44 Table 1.5: Oil physical parameters ........................................................................................................ 45 Table 1.6: Geographical coordinates and water depths at the water and sediment quality sampling stations ............................................................................................................................... 46 Table 1.7: Physico-chemical parameters for water quality analysis ............................................... 48 Table 1.8: Physico-chemical parameters for sediment quality analysis ......................................... 49 Table 4.1: Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wind speeds ................................ 75 Table 4.2: Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wave heights ............................... 75 Table 4.3: Breeding biology and ecology of P. yelkouan, C. diomedea, and H. pelagicus .............. 99 Table 4.4: Presence in colonies of the three pelagic breeding seabird species ........................... 99 APPENDIX Appendix 1: 2011 Site Selection Criteria Appendix 2: Marine Ecology Baseline Report Appendix 3: Avifauna Baseline Report vii 1.
INTRODUCTION 1.1.

1.2.

This Appropriate Assessment (AA) has been prepared following a request by the Environment & Resources Authority (ERA) in connection with a proposal for a new Aquaculture Zone in the north of Malta.

This development is hereinafter referred to as the ‘Scheme’.

In addition to an Appropriate Assessment, ERA also requested an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report.

This document makes reference to the EIA Report as appropriate.

1.3.
1.3.

This Appropriate Assessment is based on Terms of Reference (ToR) prepared by the ERA.

TERMS OF REFERENCE 1.4.

The ToR required that the Appropriate Assessment should address the following: The Appropriate Assessment report should follow the following format: 1.

Executive Non-Technical Summary A description of the salient points of the AA study including surveys, impacts and their significance, proposed mitigation measures, and any residual impacts.

2.
2.

Project Description A description of the proposed project, with particular emphasis on those elements that are likely to give rise to potentially significant effects on the integrity of the protected site, or on its habitats, species and ecosystems.

The description shall also address any foreseeable consequential requirements or implications of the proposal (e.g.

need for new or altered access or infrastructure).

3.
3.

Site Description A general description of the site environment within the area of influence, with particular emphasis on the salient features of the site and its species, habitats and ecosystems.

Any other aspects of the physical environment and its processes that may in any way interact with the development or its impacts shall also be described.

The description shall also address any other constraints relevant to the site, including statutory legal protection, any relevant management plan framework.
4.

Impact Assessment vis-a-vis the integrity of the site and its species, habitats and ecosystems 1 An evaluation of the way in which the integrity of the site and its species, habitats and ecosystems are likely to be affected by the project.

Impact assessment should clearly indicate all foreseeable direct and indirect impacts, and their expected timeframes (short/long-term, etc).

Any impact interactions (e.g.

accumulation, synergy, interaction with natural forces) shall also be identified and assessed.
The significance of all AA-relevant impacts must also be discussed.

Impact assessment shall also take into account practical implications (e.g.

conflicts with site protection or management plan implementation, any foreseeable constraints on future management plan formulation, etc).

5.

Mitigation Measures Where possible, measures should be identified to eliminate and/or mitigate adverse effects on the integrity of the site as well as on the relevant habitats and species.
In this regard, the AA should include:  A reasonably detailed identification of the measures to be introduced for all relevant phases of the project;  An explanation of how the measures will eliminate and/or mitigate adverse effects;  Evidence of how the mitigation measures will be tangibly implemented and by whom;  Evidence of the degree of confidence in their likely success;  A timescale, relative to the project, when they will be implemented;  An explanation of any proposed monitoring scheme and how any mitigation failure will be addressed; and  Proposals for decommissioning as may be appropriate.
6.

Residual Impacts The report should include a prediction of residual impacts and implications of the proposal on the site and its species habitats and ecosystems, following the implementation of the mitigation measures.

The report shall also evaluate the significance of such residual impacts and implications.

Residual impacts are to be evaluated individually as 2 well as holistically.

7.

Alternative solutions A list of alternatives to the proposal is to be submitted.
Examples of alternatives may include, but not necessarily limited to, alternative technologies, alternative layouts, and relocation or downsizing of the project.

The zero-option (do-nothing scenario) should also be considered.

Each alternative is to be thoroughly assessed by comparing it with the original proposal and clearly indicating the relative effects on the site’s listed habitats and species.

BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME Demand for the Scheme 1.5.

1.6.
1.6.

Following extensive complaints of oily scum in coastal waters throughout the summer months, in September 2016, four existing operators had ten permits revoked by the Planning Authority (PA) due to various infringements related to siting, number of cages, and environmental performance.

However, the PA made an allowance for these farms to relocate their operations to alternative suitable aquaculture zones located further offshore.
The Authority also required that relocation happens within a specific timeframe, prior to the start of the 2017 summer season.

In fact, as part of this order, all cages, moorings, chains and other tackle were removed from the current farming locations by the end of May 2017.

Two of the operators that operated off Marsaskala and Marsaxlokk, respectively, have since obtained concessions to operate within the South-east Aquaculture Zone (SAZ).
The additional biomass from these relocated farms brought the SAZ to operate to its permitted full capacity at 9,000 tons1.

Hence, for the other two companies (operating from the north of the island and managed by the same operator), there was no longer any adequate space available to operate from the SAZ.
The development of an additional aquaculture zone (AZ) was therefore required to satisfy the Government’s policy for aquaculture development and growth and is actually in demand amongst existing operators and would be required for the operators in the north of the island to satisfy the PA’s orders and relocate to a permitted AZ further offshore.

1.7.
1.7.

In addition, the strategic direction for the industry was always to ensure that there would be more than one AZ to avoid siting the entire industry in one location; indeed, the National Aquaculture Strategy (NAS) refers to all permitted operational sites as “Aquaculture Zones”, the management of which would be regulated by Government.
The designation of existing sites as AZs is subject to adherence with the carrying capacity limits established through regulatory and environmental 1 There were already two other farms operating from within the Southeast Aquaculture Zone.

3 monitoring measures.

1.8.


Although extending the SAZ could be an option in terms of sea use planning, having all tuna penning operations in one location provides a greater risk of losses that could then significantly affect the industry as a whole in situations that, for example, include accidental oil spills from maritime traffic, disease outbreak, accidental vessel strike, etc.
Thus, in terms of ensuring the sustainability of the industry and individual insurance coverage, it is preferable that at least one additional AZ that could support tuna penning operations would be set up to allow for increased security of the industry.

1.9.

With the 2016 decision requiring tuna fish farm operators to relocate further offshore, the identification of a new AZ again become a priority following the attempts made in 2011 (see below).

Previous exploration for a North Aquaculture Zone 1.10.
In 2011 a site selection exercise (SSE) was carried out to identify an AZ off the northern coast of the islands.

Part of the aim of this SSE was to allow for the relocation of certain fish farming units in the north of Malta to a site that would result in fewer conflicts with other users and potentially fewer environmental impacts.

This project was being pursued by the then Veterinary Affairs and Fisheries Regulation Division (VAFRD) of the then Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs (MRRA).

1.11.
1.11.

The SSE was undertaken in two phases.

The initial phase (Phase 1) identified a ‘long list’ of potential sites that are likely to meet the necessary technical requirements of the AZ.

In the second phase, these potential sites were short-listed and categorised into ‘suitable’, ‘potentially suitable’ and ‘unsuitable’ by subjecting each site to further scrutiny on the grounds of the potential planning, environmental, social and economic benefits/dis-benefits associated with each location.

1.12.
1.12.

A ‘site sieving’ technique was used to identify all sites north of the Grand Harbour2 that have realistic technical potential.

This Phase assessed the sites against geographically specific technical criteria (such as minimum distance from other aquaculture units, minimum and maximum water depths, and a maximum distance of 8 km from the coast).

By identifying such areas the SSE highlighted ‘Residual Areas of Search’ (RAS) within which potential sites (that will form the “Long List”) were identified.
Areas outside the RAS were excluded from any further consideration.

1.13.

The outcome of Phase 1 is shown in Figure 1.1, which maps all the “excluded” areas based on the technical criteria only.
The remaining “residual areas of search” in the north of the island that could technically accommodate a new AZ, including an indication of whether they would accommodate a 3km x 1.5km AZ3, are highlighted 2 The scope of the SSE was to develop an aquaculture zone in the north of the island; hence, even if suitable locations exist in the south of the island, these were not considered for the scope of the assignment 3 This was the size of AZ indicated as being required by the Fisheries Department.
4 in Figure 1.2.

These areas therefore show the potential preliminary areas of search (“Long List”) that met the technical criteria without any consideration of planning, environmental, or social constraints.

1.14.

Phase 2 of the SSE consisted of a short-listing exercise during which the sites identified in Phase 1 were assessed against planning, environmental, and social criteria (see Appendix 1).
From this exercise, the only area that was identified as potentially suitable for further consideration for the development of the north aquaculture zone (NAZ) at the time was the area east of Comino and Qala Point and north of is-Sikka l-Bajda (between water depths of 50 m and 100 m) (see Figure 1.3).

Figure 1.3 also shows the constraints in accordance with the selection criteria that were developed using GIS.
The site selection exercise also identified at the time that there may be scope to consider areas further to the east, overlapping with the current bunkering zone at Is-Sikka l-Bajda, if this latter activity were to be relocated (or curtailed) from this location.
It must be noted that in the first stage of the SSE undertaken in 2011, the area north of the bunkering zone was identified as being technically suitable; however, it was subsequently eliminated from further consideration in view of the Government’s plans at the time to establish an offshore wind farm in this area.

This project has since been abandoned.

1.15.


Following the SSE and a subsequent Project Description Statement for the identified site, the development of this area into a NAZ never materialised.
5 Figure 1.1: Results of 2011 site selection exercise using technical criteria only 7 Figure 1.2: 2011 “Long List” areas of search 9 Figure 1.3: Site proposed for a north AZ in 2011 site selection exercise showing also environmental, technical, planning and social criteria (constraints) 11 Operations – the Tuna Penning Process Tuna capture and transfer to farm 1.16.

Tuna are caught by purse seining on the high seas.


This activity is allowed under ICCAT4 rules for a restricted time during the year as the fish are migrating through the Mediterranean Sea.

There are no Maltese purse seiners and therefore the fish are caught by foreign vessels from whom the Applicant purchases stock.

1.17.

The tuna caught in the purse seines normally range in size from 50 to 300 kg, with the vast majority of the fish being between 100 and 200 kg.

1.18.
1.18.

Once the tuna are caught in the purse seines and the required amounts are purchased, they are led through openings in the purse seine into the farm’s towing cages.

Once the cages are filled with the required stock, they are slowly towed to the on-growing site5 where they are anchored in position to the mooring system that would have already been deployed at the site.

1.19.

The entire operation is overseen by ICCAT international observers.

Penning 1.20.
Penning 1.20.

Once on the farm, the tuna are fed and fattened, largely a process of conditioning, through which the fat-to-protein ratio is adjusted through a high fat diet.

The tuna are kept in the pens for between 3 and 7 months, after which they are harvested and sold to the Japanese market.

1.21.

The transhipment of tuna to fattening pens is considered to be a landing operation and the catches involved must comply with regulations in force6 as well as ICCAT requirements.
Feeding and feed management techniques 1.22.

The tuna are fed small pelagic fish, usually, herring, mackerel, anchovy, sardines, etc.

It is estimated that it takes 10-25 kg of baitfish to produce 1 kg of tuna (EC, 2004)7.

Approximately 5,500 kg of baitfish per day are provided to each cage to feed the farmed tuna.

1.23.
1.23.

Each farm typically orders the feed from a number of international suppliers and reefer containers with feed arrive in Malta on a daily basis; these are stored at the Freeport or at land bases.

At the land bases, the feed fish are transferred to jumbo bags and allowed to partially thaw in preparation for feeding the tuna.

The process of 4 ICCAT is the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
5 Towing speeds rarely exceed 1 knot, with the transfer taking a number of weeks (depending on the distance between the catch area and the farm).

6 Council Regulation (EU) 2016/72 of 22 January 2016 fixing for 2016 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/104 7 European Communities, 2004.

Tuna: a global fishing activity.

Fishing in Europe No.

23.


Directorate-General for Fisheries, European Commission, September 2004; 13 feed fish thawing needs careful management and containment of thaw water by the individual operators so as to minimise the loss of thaw water to the environment, whether on land, during the loading process, or at sea.

1.24.

During the penning season, feed fish are loaded onto service boats early in the morning for ferrying to the farm.

The tuna are fed once a day, at dawn.


Different operators take different approaches to feeding, some using feeding cages, whereas others directly pump the baitfish into cages.

Semi-frozen baitfish8 are normally placed in small feeding cages floated at the centre of the pen, and once they have been thawed enough, the central cage is opened by divers and the fish dispensed into the pen.

The divers monitor the tuna and control the amount of feed released into the pen to minimise wastage.
Once the tuna are satiated, the diver stops feeding.

The process may be repeated two hours later; however, if the tuna are satiated, any remaining fish can be lifted from the pen and transferred to other cages.

An alternative method of feeding the tuna involves the near complete thawing of the baitfish and their placement in the cages by the spadeful through the use of a feeding tube.

1.25.
1.25.

In order to optimise feeding efficiency it is necessary to ensure that when fed to the tuna the baitfish are not completely defrosted so that the high calorific oils are ingested too and not lost from the feed.

Nonetheless, the process does involve the development of an oily slick originating from the semi-frozen feed.
In order to address this issue, a number of measures have been taken throughout the past season by the various farms and the ones proven to be successful should be enforced on all operators.
These include:  Use of impermeable jumbo bags for the transport of baitfish from the land bases to the farm in order to contain the thaw water;  The permanent deployment of oil booms inside each cage to contain any fish oils that may be released from the feed;  The use of proprietary oil skimmers to collect release fish oil when still inside the cage.

Use of the skimmers to start as soon as the baitfish are placed in the pen;  Collection of fish oil in IBCs placed on deck.
Oil-water suspension allowed to separate out and the water decanted.

Decanted water to be monitored to ensure that no oil is released.

 Collected oil transferred to land for onward transmission to a waste oil recycling company;  Feeding to be monitored by divers and stopped before the tuna are satiated to minimise loss of baitfish; and 8 Herring, sardines, mackerel.

14  Monitoring of seabed to collect uneaten feed settling on the bottom.

1.26.
1.26.

The efficiency of the above measures is currently being assessed by the Environment & Resources Authority through the monitoring undertaken at the various tuna farms; improvements may need to be proposed to address lacunae in the process.
These measures may include deploying additional skimmers (setting a minimum number of skimmers per farm); complete thawing of the baitfish and containing the thaw water prior to feeding the tuna, and deploying further oil slick collection measures outside the farm (e.g.

a cleaning vessel), for any oil that escapes from the farm area.

Food conversion 1.27.


The following approximations are made for the daily baitfish feed (source: AJD Tuna Ltd & MFF Ltd9): o 0.5% passes through the net uneaten; o 5% is lost as fish oil per day; o 94.5% is ingested by tuna.

1.28.

Therefore, the amount of uneaten baitfish represents 26.5 kg/day/cage, the mass of fish oil released is 264.7 kg/day/cage, and the food intake by tuna is 5,002.8 kg/day/cage.
Assuming the Scheme will have a total of 34 cages, the totals would equate to 900 kg of uneaten baitfish per day, 9 tonnes of fish oil released daily, and 170 tonnes of food ingested by the tuna on a daily basis.

1.29.

Figure 1.4 provides a schematic diagram of the food chain and by-products of fish- rearing.

9 There are no specific studies on these; the calculations were made over several years of observations during feeding of the tuna and have been confirmed by different local tuna farm operators.
The figures provided are for herring; whereas in the case of sardines or mackerel, the amount of oil lost is calculated to be less (at around 3%).

Hence, the figures used here (which are for herring) are considered to be a worse case situation.

15 Figure 1.4: Schematic of the food chain and by-products of fish-rearing Source: Artelia, 2018 Harvesting and processing 1.30.
Harvesting of fresh tuna is largely on demand, although the vast proportion of the tuna is today being harvested for the frozen fish market.

1.31.

When harvesting occurs, the bottom of the net is raised to a degree, forcing the fish closer to the surface.

Slaughtering is particularly delicate since the amount of stress the fish are subjected to must be kept low because if the fish are stressed their body temperature rises sharply, which would compromise the quality of the meat10.
Slaughtering is carried out by divers who enter the cage and harvest the tuna one by one by shooting them in the head.

1.32.

The tuna are transferred to a service vessel by crane from where they are then quickly transported by service boats to a waiting processing vessel anchored further out at sea.

Onboard the ship, the tuna are weighed, heads and tails are cut off and the guts removed.

Currently, the head, tails and guts are a waste by-product.
These are currently being disposed of at sea beyond the 12 nautical mile limit as directed by the Veterinary and Phytosanitary Regulation Department.

The option of incinerating the material was discounted as the abattoir incinerator is too small to handle the volume of waste generated by the tuna farms; the incinerator operator has rejected 10 Tuna maintain body temperatures between 15 and 20 degrees centigrade above that of the surrounding water.
However stress will lead to an alarm reaction and secretion of hormones in preparation for emergency action.

As part of the process, the body temperature can rise up to 40 degrees centigrade above the surrounding water, compromising the redness of the flesh once the fish has been slaughtered (See http://www.niri.co.jp/agroup/maguro3.pdf).

16 this possible waste stream.


Other options are being discussed by the newly set up Federation of Aquaculture Producers with a view to identify alternative options for the re-use rather than the disposal of this material, also as part of the conditions in the environment permits of the individual tuna farms.

Post-harvest 1.33.

Following harvesting, between November and May, individual tuna farmers are allowed to keep up to 15% of the stock in the cages for research purposes.
The fish so retained are fed between two and three times a week during this period.

This carry-over must be properly supervised to ensure that the farms are truly undertaking research and not simply keeping small sized fish over winter to fatten them and fetch a better price the following year.

Stocking Density 1.34.

The stocking density of the fish in the cages is a crucial factor in aquaculture that has an important bearing on mortality and the quality of the fish produced.
With respect to the Scheme, each cage is proposed to contain approximately 1,150 fishes with an average mass of 115 kg, which means that each cage contains around 132.35 tons of fish.

This will equate to a total biomass of 4,500 tonnes within the aquaculture zone.

1.35.

The emphasis on biomass rather than number of cages is important in view that ICCAT Regulations do not allow mixing of tuna caught under different jurisdictions / certification.
Hence, individual farms require a degree of flexibility in the number of cages that they can deploy within the approved farm area to cater for their approved biomass.

Antifouling and net cleaning 1.36.

No anti-fouling or other chemicals are used on tuna nets, since unlike the nets of traditional finfish aquaculture units, which remain in the water for an extended time period, the tuna nets are removed at the end of the season for drying.

Feed supplements, chemicals and antibiotics 1.37.


Tuna are only fed baitfish.

No feed supplements or other chemicals or vitamins are used to date.

Equally, since the tuna are effectively wild and only kept on site for fattening, i.e.

they are not actually farmed11, no chemicals or antibiotics are used12.

Mortalities are more effectively controlled by lowering stocking densities and monitoring the fish for any signs of stress.

Storage of feed and packing materials 1.38.


Feed and packaging material may be stored at land bases, although not all operators have land bases.

11 The process is more appropriately called tuna ranching than tuna farming.

12 Had these to be used, they would be similar to those already in use in the other finfish aquaculture operations.

17 Alternative Sites 1.39.

The Scheme site was identified following a selection exercise, as described hereunder.
To begin with, the site identified in 2011 for the north aquaculture zone (for which planning approval had not been concluded) was reviewed (see above).

This site was, however, no longer considered to be suitable for consideration as a search area for the aquaculture zone.

This was mainly due to the fact that the proposed site also lies relatively close to the coast thereby potentially not fulfilling the spirit of the permit revocation and the PA conditions.
Discussions with the ERA and the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture indicated that a minimum distance of 4.5 – 5 km from the shore was expected for all relocated farms13.

1.40.

To this end, it was considered that an appropriate approach would be to identify a suitable area of search within which to study parameters in order to identify a final location for the NAZ, within which the cages from the farms in the north of Malta would be relocated ad possibly also accommodate additional operators.
The identification of the area of search was based on the technical, social and environmental criteria considered in the 2011 study, but with the following amendments in view of technological advances and experiences in the intervening period:  The minimum depth of 50 m was retained but the maximum depth of 100 m was not, in view that technological options for the anchoring or mooring of tuna cages in waters deeper than 100 m do exist;  Minimum distance from the shore to be 4.5 km; and  Zone to be on the seaward side of bunkering areas and to keep a buffer of at least 500 m from the bunkering area.
1.41.

Figure 1.5 identifies the area of search that was the subject of these studies and of the current EIA.

This is located north of Qawra Point, St Paul’s Bay.

The studies were undertaken over a period of one year, with the areas closer to the bunkering zone and the AFM danger area studied first (in 2017 – Area A in Figure 1.5) in conjunction with the surveys for the temporary relocation of the tuna farms in the South Comino Channel and at St Paul’s Bay (Adi Associates, 201814).
The studies were extended in 2018 to cover the outer area extending to depths of around 150 m (Area B in Figure 1.5).

1.42.

Following identification of the search area, the following studies were carried out under licence from the Continental Shelf Department of the Ministry for Transport 13 Meeting Adi Associates, ERA and Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; October 2016.

14 Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd, 2018.
PA 02175/18 - Proposal to consolidate temporary tuna farming area at a parcel of sea approximately 5 kilometers from the shore (in general area approved for PA/03072/17 and PA/05858/17) for a total biomass of 3,300 tonnes of fish.

Environmental Impact Assessment Report.


San Gwann, July 2018; xvi + 236pp + 2 Appendices 18 and Infrastructure:  In 2017: o Multibeam echo sounder and back scatter survey within the search area; o Initial video surveys of the benthic environment to identify benthic habitats in the area; and o Side Scan Sonar survey of part of the search area.

 In 2018: o Side Scan Sonar surveys15; o Bathymetric surveys; and o Video surveys of the seabed.

1.43.
1.43.

The benthic habitat surveys (see Chapter 5) revealed that the shallower part of the search area (50 – 90 m depth), and hence that closer to shore, included maerl/rhodolith beds and coarse sand with rhodoliths.

On the other hand, the outer, deeper areas consisted of muddy detritic seabed sediment.

15 Most of the side scan sonar survey data already existed; the surveys undertaken as part of this EIA were aimed at filling gaps in the existing data.
19 Figure 1.5: Area of Search for establishment of North Aquaculture Zone 21 APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES 1.44.

The aim of the Appropriate Assessment is to determine whether the Scheme will result in likely significant effects to the habitats and species for which the Natura 2000 site was protected.
This will thus be determined on the basis of identifying reasonable links between the Scheme’s effects and the qualifying interests of the Specially Protected Area (SPA) Il-Baħar ta’ Madwar Għawdex as well as on the Northeast of Malta marine Special Area of Conservation (SAC), with which the Scheme boundary slightly overlaps.

1.45.
1.45.

The ecology of breeding seabirds includes a reliance on the sea cliffs and therefore when considering potential impacts on avifauna, the context of the terrestrial SPAs upon which the breeding seabirds are also dependant will be considered insofar as it is within the scope of this impact assessment.
Of note in the context of the Scheme and the marine conservation area within which it is located, is the SPA Ramla tat- Torri / Rdum tal-Madonna, located along the north east coast of Malta, on the L- Aħrax tal-Mellieha promontory, Kemmuna, Kemmunett, il- Ħaġriet ta’ bejn il- Kmiemen u l-Iskoll ta’ Taħt il-Mazz, and Selmunett.

AREA & SCOPE OF STUDY Benthos 1.46.

The Area of Survey (AoS) for benthos is shown in Figure 1.6.

The site lies partially within the marine SAC of the Northeast of Malta.
Avifauna 1.47.

The Area of Influence (A of I) of relevance in terms of avifauna is illustrated in Figure 1.7.

The A of I lies within two marine Natura 2000 areas as identified above and therefore both these marine Natura 2000 sites fall within the scope of the assessment.

In the case of the avifauna assessment, certain coastal SPAs will also be considered insofar as they support breeding seabird colonies.
This is because any impacts identified on the marine SPAs with regard to seabirds could impact the conservation status of the breeding colonies for which these terrestrial sites have been designated.

The terrestrial sites of particular importance and located in the A of I include Kemmuna, Kemmunett, il- Ħaġriet ta’ bejn il-Kmiemen u l-Iskoll ta’ Taħt il-Mazz, Ramla tat-Torri / Rdum tal-Madonna, Selmunett, L-Inħawi tal-Imġiebah tal- Miġnuna, and L-Inħawi tal-Għadira.
23 Figure 1.6: Marine ecology Area of Study 25 Figure 1.7: Avifauna Area of Influence 27 METHODOLOGY Baseline studies 1.48.

A number of baseline studies on the marine environment were carried out as part of the EIA for the Scheme, these are summarised below.

The findings of these studies are summarised in Chapter 4.

Desk Studies 1.49.

Aerial / satellite imagery of the Scheme site and its surroundings were reviewed as part of the desk study.
Existing side scan sonar data was available for much of the area and this was reviewed in order to pre-assess the site, identify any lacunae in the data that needed addressing, and to plan the detailed videographic / photographic survey for the benthic ecology studies.

Data from previous backscatter, echosounder (bathymetric data), and video surveys (undertaken by Geomara Ltd and Ecoserv Ltd in 2017) for part of the Scheme site was also reviewed.

1.50.
1.50.

Following the remote sensing surveys (see below) and the identification of the final preferred Scheme location, extensive desk studies involving wave and hydrodynamic modelling were conducted for the Scheme site (see EIA Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report).

1.51.
1.51.

The avifauna study was based on accumulated data obtained from long-term observations on the breeding biology and ecology of Malta’s breeding seabirds (1982- 2018) as well as published and unpublished reports from three EU LIFE funded projects:  EU LIFE+ Progett Garnija (2006-2010);  EU LIFE+ Malta Seabird Project (2012-2016); and  EU LIFE funded Arcipelagu Garnija (2016-2020).

1.52.

The technical report is reproduced in Appendix 2.

Field surveys 1.53.
Field surveys 1.53.

In addition to the desk study, field data was also gathered as follows (see EIA Technical Appendix 2A: Multibeam Echosounder and Backscatter Survey Report 2016 and Technical Appendix 2B: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018):  Bathymetric data (multibeam and single beam echosounder) to inform the hydrodynamic models; and  Side scan sonar data to identify seabed features and sediment types.

1.54.
1.54.

A videographic / photographic survey of the benthic areas not previously surveyed was also undertaken, which was used for the detailed benthic ecology study (see Appendix 3).

29 1.55.

Fieldwork in relation to the water and sediment quality survey was undertaken on 4th April 2018.

This day was chosen at random although subject to good sea conditions to ensure successful undertaking of fieldwork and data collection.
Fieldwork was carried out using a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch (see Appendix 3).

Remote sensing surveys 1.56.

The objectives of the surveys were to collect additional bathymetric data to inform a numerical model and to collect additional side scan sonar data to identify seabed features and sediment types, which would be ground-truthed during a subsequent environmental survey using a drop-down camera system.
The data were sourced either from existing survey data for the Area of Survey (see EIA Technical Appendix 2A: Multibeam Echosounder and Backscatter Survey Report 2016) or from new data collected purposely for this study.

1.57.
1.57.

Additional bathymetric data for the southern part of the Area of Survey (the area temporarily occupied by the AJD Tuna Ltd farm) had also already been collected in previous surveys undertaken for development permit applications PA/03072/17 and PA/05858/17 as well as surveys to the west, north, east, and southwest of the cages as part of the separate EIA undertaken for the proposal by AJD Tuna Ltd to consolidate the temporary tuna farming site (Adi Associates, 2018).

1.58.
1.58.

The acoustic survey equipment was mobilised and tested on the MV Awrata on Monday 23 April 2018.

1.59.

Prior to the fieldwork, line plans for the various surveys were created using the survey management software Hypack.

The survey design ensured that all of the survey area was ensonified to a high standard.

Bathymetric Survey 1.60.

For the bathymetric survey, 62 main lines were planned at 100 m line spacing in a NE-SW direction.
These were intersected by 13 perpendicular cross-lines; 8 at a line spacing of 300 m and 5 lines at 150 m line spacing within the south-west corner of the survey area.

The 150 m cross-line spacing was used in order to obtain higher resolution data of a sub-sea channel identified from side scan sonar data collected previously by Dr Gambin from the University of Malta.

The bathymetric survey was carried out on the 24, 25, 26 and 30 April 2018.
Strong winds and unfavourable sea conditions at the survey site prevented working between Friday 27th and Sunday 29th of April 2018.

A total of 74 lines of good quality data were achieved, with one less cross line surveyed than originally planned.

Figure 1.8 shows the track plot for all achieved survey lines.

Further details on the survey method are available in the EIA Technical Appendix 2C: Remote Sensing Survey Report 2018.
30 Figure 1.8: Bathymetric survey track plots for all successful survey lines in Area 1 31 Camera Survey 1.61.

Following the completion of the acoustic surveys, the camera system was mobilised and tested on 7 May 2018.

Data Processing – Bathymetric Survey 1.62.

The raw bathymetry data were processed in Hypack using the Single Beam Editor tool.

All spikes, multiple returns, and other erroneous data were removed before applying draught, sound velocity, and tidal corrections.
Edit soundings, relative to local chart datum, were then saved before being sorted to a 2 m grid.

Data quality control checks were made against the paper trace, and by comparing edited depths at all of the main survey lines and cross lines “crossover points”.

In total there were 339 intersections checked with a mean difference between main lines and cross lines of 0.13 m. Data processing – video and stills 1.63.
The output from the camera survey was first analysed by Seastar to identify general polygon areas and then by Ecoserv Ltd who derived a benthic habitats map for the Area of Study (see Chapter 4).

Wave and hydrodynamic modelling studies 1.64.

The wave and hydrodynamic modelling studies for this study were conducted by Artelia Eau et Environnement of France.
These involved the following tasks:  Task A: wave study: o offshore wave modelling; and o establishment of local wave climate and extreme waves;  Task B: hydrodynamic study: o set up of the hydrodynamic model; o hydrodynamic modelling: o baseline hydrodynamic situation; o settlement of uneaten feed; o dispersion of dissolved nutrients; and o dispersion of a fish oil spill from the fish farm.

Wave study Wind and wave modelling 1.65.


The methodology for the wind and wave modelling is described in EIA Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report.
32 This involved model construction, extraction of wind fields over the wave generation area, calibration and validation of wind fields, construction of third generation wave model, simulation of offshore sea states and validation of same, and construction of third generation model for nearshore sea states and simulation of the generation and propagation of sea states around Malta.

1.66.
1.66.

From the 13 output points for sea state spectra around the Maltese Islands, only one is relevant for this study – “Mellieha/ St Paul” located at 14.457°E and 36.007°N and a water depth of 56 m (see Figure 1.9).

Figurer 1.9: Location of the “Mellieha/St Paul” output point Analysis of winds and waves 1.67.

Extreme wind speeds and wave heights are estimated for the different directional sectors (wind and wave populations) identified through the assessment of the wind and wave climates.
The estimation is performed through statistical extrapolation and is described in EIA Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report.

1.68.

Figure 1.10 presents the wind rose off Valletta.

The largest wind speeds (> 20 m/s) occur from a wide NE (gregale) to SE (sirocco or xlokk) sector.
For the study, therefore, two directional sectors were defined: 33  ESE sector [0°N, 202.5°N[: 39.8% of occurrences (the wind rose and the wind velocity / direction scatterplot do not allow to distinguish the NE and SE winds);  NW sector [202.5°N, 360°N[: 60.2% of occurrences.

Figure 1.10: Wind rose 1.69.

Figure 1.11 illustrates the wave rose for Malta in significant wave height.
The NW sector (majjistral) is still predominant (around 45% of the sea states); however, a significant part of the sea states come from the NE, E, and SE directions.

34 Figure 1.11: Wave rose off Valletta 1.70.


The following directional sectors can be distinguished:  NE sector [0°N, 67.5°N[: 14.0% of sea states;  E sector [67.5°N, 112.5°N[: 13.9% of sea states;  SE sector [112.5°N, 157.5°N[: 19.9% of sea states;  SW sector [180°N, 275°N[: 2.4% of sea states;  NW sector [275°N, 360°N[: 49.7% of sea states.

Hydrodynamic study 1.71.


Input data In undertaking the hydrodynamic study the structural characteristics of the Scheme (distance from shore, number and size of cages, net mesh size and twine diameter), as well as the details of the local bathymetry, the farming details (stocking density, average weight of fish, number of fish in each cage, amount of baitfish fed to each cage, and total feed per day), and the waste products released from the farm were taken into consideration.

35 1.72.
35 1.72.

The following assumptions with regards to the baitfish fed to the tuna were made:  0.5% passes through the net uneaten;  5% is lost as fish oil per day;  94.5% is ingested by tuna.

(Source: AJD Tuna Ltd & MFF Ltd) 1.73.

Therefore, the amount of uneaten baitfish represents 27.5 kg/day/cage, the mass of fish oil released is 275 kg/day/cage, and the food intake by tuna is 5,197.5 kg/day/cage.

Hydrodynamic model 1.74.


This study is based on the set up of a 3D numerical model using the TELEMAC-3D modelling software.

This makes use of the flexibility of unstructured grids, which allows increasing the number of computational grid points near areas of interest or of complex features (irregular coastline, bathymetry, harbours, etc).
The main results obtained at each point of the computational grid are the water level, velocity in three directions, and the concentration of tracers like salinity, temperature, pollutants, etc.

Further details on the modelling software and the methodology applied in the study can be found in the EIA Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report.

1.75.
1.75.

The unstructured computation grid, called mesh, is composed of triangles of different sizes according to interest zones.

In the present study, the size of the mesh is greater than 8 km offshore and is reduced to less than 5 m around the fish pens.

The horizontal grid is composed of approximately 36,000 nodes and 70,000 elements (Figure 1.12, showing hypothetical cages as considered by the model).
The horizontal mesh is then reproduced on the vertical to create the three-dimensional mesh consisting of triangular-based prismatic elements.

The lower plane follows the bathymetry while the upper plane follows the evolution of the free surface over time.

The three-dimensional mesh is composed of 13 horizontal planes.

Analysis of drag force for cages 1.76.

The flow around the fish pens is reduced by the cage net.

This influence is represented by a drag force applied locally on the fish pen.
Model details are provided in the EIA Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report.

The study included a series of tests to ensure that the model can correctly simulate the flow field around the project.

The flow fields near the cages were investigated with different upstream velocities: 10 cm/s, 50 cm/s, and 1 m/s.

1.77.

Figure 1.13 presents the calculated flow field on a vertical plane through the first row of six cages (i.e.
zooming into one of the groups of cages shown in Figure 1.12) with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.

The flow velocity continuously decreases along the flow direction due to the drag force exerted by the netting.

A slight increase of the flow velocity is also observed beneath the first net cages.

These observations are 36 consistent with the laboratory experiments (Aarsnes et al, 199016).

1.78.
1.78.

The attenuation of flow velocity in the wake of the first three cages is given in Table 1.1, at 10 m below the surface.

The simulated velocity reduction is about 15% from one cage to the next cage, which is consistent with figures quoted in the literature (e.g.

Aarsnes et al, 1990) for experiments for the same range of the solidity ratio.

16 Aarsnes JV, H Rudi and G Loland, 1990.

Current forces on cage, net deflection.

Engineering for offshore fish farming.


Proceedings of a conference organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Glasgow, UK, 17-18 October 1990., pp 137–152.

37 Figure 1.12: Global model mesh and zoom on project area Source: Artelia, 2018 NOTE: The general location, arrangement, and orientation of the cages shown in this figure are only indicative and used for modelling purposes.

The final set- up will depend on other constraints; however, the findings of the modelling study will not be affected.
38 Figure 1.13: Flow field on a vertical plane along the cages with an upstream velocity of 50 cm/s.
Locations of the six cages are indicated by the dotted lines Source: Artelia, 2018 Table 1.1: Velocity reduction in the wake of cages Source Solidity ratio Upstream velocity Aarsnes et al, 1990 calculated calculated calculated 0.197 0.138 0.138 0.138 1 m/s 1 m/s 0.5 m/s 0.1 m/s Velocity behind the cage (% of upstream velocity) Wake of 2nd cage 64% Wake of 1st cage 80% Wake of 3rd cage 51% 85% 84% 83% 73% 71% 71% 65% 65% 66% Period selected for the hydrodynamic simulations 1.79.
The direction and intensity of the wind from available datasets on the Scheme site from June to September 2015 were plotted.

Winds blowing from the northwest are predominant.

In June and September 2015, periods of wind intensity above 10 m/s occurred.

A lower dispersion of the pollutants occurs when wind intensity is the lowest, therefore July and August represent the most unfavourable conditions over the whole summer period.
The wind field from the 1st to 31st August 2015 is selected for the simulations, as it is characterised by:  light to moderate wind condition with a wind intensity below 10 m/s;  varying direction of the wind, and more specifically a period of time with a persistent wind blowing from East to West from 25th to 30th August 2015.

These time series are representative of typical summer wind conditions.

39 Baseline situation and model validation 1.80.


A first simulation was carried out over August 2015, without taking into account the fish pens to be deployed at the Scheme site.

This calculation validated the model and serves as a reference state for calculating the hydrodynamic impact of the pens.

1.81.

Figure 1.14 shows the comparison of the water levels calculated by the model to the predictions provided by the Shom (French national hydrographic service) at the port of Valletta.
Figure 1.14: Comparison of water levels 1.82.

Changes in tidal water levels are low in Valletta.

The maximum tidal range is about 20 cm.

The model accurately reproduces the variation in tidal range between neap tide and spring tide.

1.83.

No current measurement is available at the Scheme site.
The maps in Figure 1.15 show the current fields from the model (on the right) at different moments of the simulation and at 2 m below the surface, compared to those extracted from the MyOcean model (on the left), which serve as forcing conditions.

The results of the MyOcean model are provided on a 1/16 degree resolution grid (5.63 km x 6.94 km).

Due to the coarse model resolution, it does not correctly represent the hydrodynamics close to the coast, and especially in the project area.

1.84.
1.84.

The general circulation around the island of Malta is comparable to the global ocean model MyOcean.

More specifically, the following specific features are represented:  the Atlantic Ionian Stream on the Malta channel flowing from the Northwest to the Southeast direction is represented; and  presence of mesoscale features like eddies and meanders, whose positions vary.

Current intensity is lower in the Telemac model by 5 cm/s compared to the global model in some areas.
40 Figure 1.15: Comparison of the velocity fields at 2 m under the sea surface 6 August 2015 - MyOcean 6 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D 15 August 2015 - MyOcean 15 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D 28 August 2015 - MyOcean 28 August 2015 - TELEMAC-3D 41 Impact of the fish cages on the velocity field 1.85.

The model considered the temporal evolution of the current velocity at a point within the Scheme site at 2 m below the sea surface.

The data shows that the current velocity on site is always below 10 cm/s.
Due to the global currents offshore, the main direction of the current in the project area is South.

The influence of the tide on currents (velocity and direction) is low.

Environmental Modelling 1.86.

Three environmental models were run as part of the study:  Enrichment in dissolved nutrients;  Settlement of uneaten feed; and  Dispersion of fish oil.

Enrichment in dissolved nutrients 1.87.


The fish farming operation results in an increase of nutrient loads (Nitrogen N and Phosphorus P) into the water column.

Dissolved nutrients originate from three sources (see Figure 1.4):  liquid wastes excreted directly by the fish metabolism;  dissolved nutrients leached by tuna solid wastes; and  dissolved nutrients leached by uneaten feed.

1.88.
1.88.

For the assimilated food, the following amount of nutrients is estimated to be excreted directly by the Bluefin tuna metabolism as dissolved wastes (Aguado- Gimenez et al, 200617):  51.69 mg P/kg fish/day; and  694.27 mg N/kg fish/day on average.

1.89.

For a cage of approximately 132.35 tons of fish, the total amount of N and P in dissolved form per day is estimated as:  91.89 kg P/cage/day;  6.84 kg N/cage/day.

1.90.
1.90.

For the dissolved nutrients originating from the degradation of solid wastes, the estimation of the dissolved nutrients leached is based on the calculation of the total 17 Aguado-Gimenez F., Garcia-Garcia B., Hernandez-Lorente M. D., and Cerezo-Valverde J.

2006.

Gross metabolic waste output estimates using a nutritional approach in Atlantic Bluefin tuna (Thunnus Thynnus) under intensive fattening conditions in western Mediterranean Sea.
Aquaculture Research (37) pp 1254:1258 42 contents in nutrients in the solid wastes per cage (Table 1.2).

The calculation gives the following values:  2.29 kg P/cage/day;  1.58 kg N/cage/day.
Table 1.2: Dissolved nutrient leached from Bluefin tuna faeces Parameter Nutrient contents in faeces per day and per fish Nutrient contents in faeces per day in a cage Percentage of nutrient contents available for leaching in faeces nutrient contents from faeces available for leaching Nitrogen 49.45 mg /kg fish/day Phosphorous 70.01 mg/kg fish/day Source Aguado-Gimenez et al, 2006 6.54 kg/cage/day 35% 2.29 kg/cage/day 9.27 kg/cage/day 17% Aguado-Gimenez et al, 2006 Fernandez et al, 200718 1.58 kg/cage/day calculated 1.91.
It was determined that a total of 26.5 kg of baitfish remains uneaten per day in a cage.

As the water content of baitfish is 71% (Fernandez et al, 2007), the dry mass of uneaten baitfish is therefore 7.7 kg.

The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus released by uneaten baitfish is then calculated from the nitrogen content available for leaching in the remaining baitfish (see Table 1.3).
Therefore, the final amount of nitrogen and phosphorus contents leached by uneaten feed is the following:  0.36 kg N/cage/day; and  0.03 kg P/cage/day.
Table 1.3: Soluble fraction of nitrogen and phosphorous in uneaten baitfish Parameter Total nutrient contents in baitfish Total nutrient contents in baitfish per cage Percentage of nutrient contents available for leaching nutrient contents available for leaching Nitrogen 111 mg N /g DW19 852.07 g N /cage/day 41% Phosphorous 21 mg P /g DW 161.20 g P /cage/day 21% Source Fernandez et al, 2007 calculated Fernandez et al, 2007 0.35 kg N/cage/day 0.03 kg P/cage/day calculated 18 Fernandes M., Angove M., Sedawie T. Cheshire, 2007.
Dissolved nutrient release from solid wastes of southern Bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii, Castelnau) aquaculture.

Aquaculture Research 38 pp 388-397 19 DW = dry weight 43 1.92.

The final release of nutrient contents in dissolved form in each cage of the tuna farm is the sum of all sources of nutrients (degradation of uneaten baitfish, solid wastes and liquid wastes).

Hence, the final estimation of the dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus loads is:  94.53 kg N/cage/day; and  8.45 kg P/cage/day.

1.93.
1.93.

In the model, each nutrient category (nitrogen and phosphorous) is represented by a passive tracer (i.e.

a tracer with no impact on hydrodynamics).

The tracer injection is done at one point in the centre of each fish pen at -5 m MSL and at a constant flow.

The evolution of the tracer is followed throughout the simulation.

Settlement of uneaten feed 1.94.

Pieces of uneaten baitfish feed remaining in the water are approximately 1 - 2 cm in size.
The settling rate of these baitfish pieces is 7.2 cm/s as measured by experiments in water columns (Fernandes et al, 2007).

According to local tuna farm operators20, 0.5% of the daily feed passes through the net uneaten; this means that, for each cage, 26.5 kg of baitfish reach the seabed each feeding day.
Assuming that the density of uneaten feed is close to neutral, just above the specific density of seawater as is the case for small living pelagic fish, its value can be taken as the density of fresh fish muscle (Waterman, 197121).

On this basis, the final uneaten feed characteristics are given in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4: Characteristics of uneaten feed particles Parameter Density of uneaten feed Uneaten feed per day Typical uneaten baitfish size Settling rate Value 1,054 kg/m3 26.5 kg 1 – 2 cm 7.2 cm/s Source Waterman, 1971 AJD Tuna Ltd / MFF Ltd AJD Tuna Ltd Fernandes et al, 2007 1.95.

The above characteristics were inputted into the model, which considered the uneaten baitfish passing through the net as a cohesive sediment.
The calculation parameters were also adjusted so that once deposited the particles are not subject to re-suspension as uneaten baitfish undergo fast biodegradation on the bottom.

1.96.

Dispersion of fish oil In modelling the dispersion of the fish oil, the following were taken into consideration:  It is estimated that 5% of the gross weight of the feed is lost as fish oil; this 20 Communication with AJD Tuna Ltd and Malta Fish Farming Ltd. 21 Waterman J. J.

1979.
1979.

Measures, stowage rates and yields in fishery products.

Department of Scientific and industrial research.

Torry research station, advisory notes n°17.

FAO publications.

44 represents 264.7 kg of fish oil released per cage every day.

 Contrary to petroleum hydrocarbon, little is known about the fate of non- petroleum hydrocarbon in the marine environment.

 The fish oil is subject to drifting, spreading, and advection.
 The biodegradation and evaporation is not taken into account, as too many uncertainties exist on this process in the marine environment and no laboratory data are available to parameterise these processes.

1.97.

Table 1.5 lists the physical parameters of the fish oil considered in the model.

Table 1.5: Oil physical parameters Parameter Kinematic Viscosity (20oC) Density (25oC) Value 65.2 mm2/s 920.0 kg/m3 Source Young, 1986 Young, 1986 1.98.
The volume of fish oil released by the whole farm (34 cages) is 10 m3 per day.

1.99.

In the model, the oil slick is represented as a set of particles.

Each particle is subject to drifting, spreading, and advection, while biodegradation and evaporation are not taken into account22.

For each modelled scenario, 961 particles are released; the whole set of particles represents 9.8 m3 of fish oil.

1.100.
1.100.

Two scenarios were simulated, which correspond to different wind conditions:  Scenario 1: starting on 1 August 2015 (wind initially from the South and then predominantly from the North-West);  Scenario 2: starting on 27 August 2015 (wind predominantly from the East).

Water and sediment quality 1.101.

Fieldwork in relation to the water quality survey was undertaken on 4th April 2018 as part of the EIA for the temporary relocation of the AJD Tuna Ltd cages (see Adi Associates, 2018).
The day during which fieldwork was made was chosen at random although subject to good sea conditions to ensure successful undertaking of fieldwork and data collection.

Fieldwork was carried out using a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.

The locations of the six sampling stations, A – D and two reference sites (R1 and R2), are shown in Figure 1.16 and their geographical coordinates and water depths are given in Table 1.6.
22 Biodegradation and evaporation would act to reduce the size or concentration of the slick; hence, their omission constitutes a worse case scenario.

45 Table 1.6: Geographical coordinates and water depths at the water and sediment quality sampling stations Station A B C D R1 R2 Latitude / Longitude 36° 00.584’ / 14° 25.780’ 36° 00.131’ / 14° 26.127’ 36° 00.163’ / 14° 25.508’ 36° 00.567’ / 14° 25.367’ 36° 00.848 / 14 24.474’ 35° 59.597 / 14 26.815’ Depth (m) 50 m 48 m 45 m 48 m 46 m 48 m 1.102.
The sites were chosen to provide data on the quality of the water and sediments in locations close to an operational farm, as well as in locations away from the farm.

The latter would double up also as a baseline situation for the Scheme site, which is currently devoid of any tuna cages.

46 Figure 1.16: Location of sampling stations 47 1.103.

Table 1.7 lists the physico-chemical parameters that were analysed for the water samples.
Measurements of temperature, salinity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen in water were made in-situ at each of the six stations using a YSI 650 MDS meter connected to a 6920 V2 multi-parameter probe.

The meter was calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions immediately before use.

Measurements using the in-situ meter were made at the surface (0.5 m below the surface).

Two replicate measurements were taken at each of the six stations A – D, and R1 and R2.
Two replicate samples of seawater were then collected from each of the same six stations; samples were collected at a depth of 0.5 m using a standard Van Dorn water sampler of 3 L volume.

All water samples were transported in a cooler box and maintained at a temperature of 4oC.
Table 1.7: Physico-chemical parameters for water quality analysis Parameter Temperature Salinity Method In-situ / Portable Meter In-situ / Portable Meter Dissolved Oxygen In-situ / Portable Meter Turbidity In-situ / Portable Meter Turbidity (Secchi Depth) Secchi Disk pH Chlorophyll a Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Total Carbon pH meter APAT CNR IRSA 9020 Man 29 2003 APAT CNR IRSA 5030 Man 29 2003 + APAT CNR IRSA 4040 A1 Man 29 2003 + APAT CNR IRSA 4050 Man 29 2003 APAT CNR IRSA 4110 Man 29 2003 UNI EN 1484:1999 Total suspended matter APAT CNR IRSA 2090 B Man 29 2003 Units °C psu %, mg/l NTU m pH units µg/l µg/l µg/l µg/l mg/l 1.104.
Estimates of current velocity and direction at the two reference stations were made using drogues according to the La Grange method.

The drogues employed for this purpose had four rectangular perspex vanes, each of which has a surface area of 0.2m2.

The drogues were suspended from an inflatable surface float by means of a length of twine which was 1m long.

The position of the release point (determined using the GPS) and time of the release were recorded.
After allowing the drogues to float for a given period of time, the position of the collection point and the time of collection were recorded.

1.105.

As regards sediment quality, samples were collected using a 0.1m2 Van Veen grab that was deployed from a 12m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.

Two replicate grab samples were collected from each of the six stations.

Samples were tested for chemical composition and granulometry.
Table 1.8 lists the physico-chemical attributes that were included in the sediment quality survey.

48 Table 1.8: Physico-chemical parameters for sediment quality analysis Parameter Granulometry Method Buchanan 1984 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) UNI EN 13137:2002 Redox Potential CNR IRSA 2 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 Sulphide pH Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Benthos CNR IRSA 12 Q 64 Vol 3 1986 CNR IRSA 1 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 CNR IRSA 6 Q 64 Vol 3 1985 DM 13/09/1999 SO n°185 GU n°248 21/10/1999 Met XV.I Units (on D.M.)
g % mV µg pH units mg/g mg/g 1.106.

The studies of the benthos included both benthic diversity studies using grab samples and benthic habitat mapping.

Benthic diversity 1.107.

To collect data for benthic diversity studies, a grab sample was taken from each of the four stations A – D using a 0.1 m2 Van Veen grab that was deployed from a 12 m vessel equipped with hoisting jib and winch.
After the grab was brought on board, surplus seawater was drained from the sample by placing it on a 1mm-mesh sieve; the retained sediment and biota were temporarily preserved in 10% formaldehyde in seawater.

In the laboratory, each sample was first washed to remove the fine sediment (<0.5 mm fraction) and the preservative, and it was then sorted to separate out all macrofauna (animals larger than 0.5 mm).

The motile macrofauna was then identified as far as possible.
Where identification to species level was not possible, the different species present were labelled using an alphabetical code (e.g.

Mysidacea sp.

A, etc.).

Benthic habitats map 1.108.

Fieldwork in relation to the videographic survey was undertaken in two parts – an initial phase undertaken by Ecoserv Ltd using ROV in May 2017 (Area “1” in Figure 1.5), and a later part undertaken by Seastar Surveys Ltd of the UK in May 2018 (Area “2” in Figure 1.5).
The data collected was used to characterise the benthic assemblages using the scheme of Borg et al.

(2013)23, which is based on the EUNIS typology that has been adapted for local use.

23 Borg J.A., Knittweis L. & Schembri P.J.

(2013) Compilation of an interpretation manual for marine habitats within the 25 NM Fisheries Management Zone around the Republic of Malta.

[MEPA tender reference: T2/2013].

MEPA, Malta; 218pp.

49 Impact Assessment Criteria 1.109.


The Terms of Reference for the AA require ‘An evaluation of the way in which the integrity of the site and their species, habitats and ecosystems are likely to be affected by the project...’.

There is also a requirement to discuss the significance of relevant impacts.

1.110.
1.110.

In assessing the significance of the potential negative impacts arising from the Scheme on the marine habitats and species of conservation interest in the area, the assessment is carried out with the ethos that the site integrity and conservation status should be maintained and there should not be a conflict with conservation objectives.

1.111.
1.111.

The following criteria24 for determining significance have been used to guide the assessment:  Areas of important habitat are destroyed or modified;  Major and measurable change in the physico-chemical status of the marine environment;  Invasive species are introduced.

1.112.
1.112.

In terms of species, in particular the breeding seabirds, impacts would be considered likely to be significant if:  Any modification (including fragmentation, altering nutrient cycles or other physico-chemical dynamics) occurs to habitat/s of importance to the species’ ecology;  Introduces invasive species into a habitat that is important for the species;  Seriously disrupts the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of the species’ population.
24 Developed with reference to the Methodological Guidance on the provisions of Article 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive published by the European Commission in 2001.

50 2.

SCHEME DESCRIPTION 2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

The Scheme aims to establish a permanent aquaculture zone in the north of Malta that would substitute the temporary farming areas established in 201725.

Figure 2.1 illustrates the location of the temporary farms, which are located approximately 5 km offshore from Malta’s northwest coast.
The location identified for the Scheme, developed through the findings of the desk and field surveys as well as discussion with stakeholders, is also shown in Figure 2.1.

This location respects the main criteria set out and the minimum distance for shore as established by the authorities26, while respecting most of the environmental and social criteria or minimising the effects on others.

The Scheme will occupy an area of approximately 4.5 km2 for a biomass of approximately 4,500 – 5,000 tonnes.
The number of cages that would be deployed may vary in view of ICCAT caging requirements.

The layout of the cages is therefore also not set and could change from year to year, although the overall area occupied by the NAZ will not change.

Each cage is a circular area with a diameter of 50 metres.

The distance between the sides of the nets from the cages is 30 metres.

The mesh size of the net is 70 x 70 mm and the twine diameter is 5 mm.
The operators within the Scheme will operate in the same way as the current operators of tuna farms on Maltese waters.

Each outfit will operate under license from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which will remain the owner and manager of the NAZ.
Each farm will operate a number of vessels, which will provide all the services required on the farm, and will include:  Feeding vessels used to transport the feed to the cages;  Service boats for the transportation of staff, materials, and wastes;  Cleaning vessels (often third party operated) deployed to collect fish oils and slime during the feeding season; and  Vessels for transportation of offal waste offshore (see below).

2.4.
2.4.

In addition to the vessels owned and operated or contracted by the tuna 25 These temporary locations for the relocation of the former South Comino and St Paul’s Bay tuna farms operated by AJD Tuna Ltd and Malta Mariculture Limited have been approved in their current location for a period of time not exceeding the establishment of the new NAZ.

Once the NAZ is established, the temporary farms will have to relocate to the established zone.
26 Distance from Qawra Point is 7.8 km, from Rdum Tal-Madonna, 5.1 km, from Comino east coast, 6.6 km.

The distance of the westward extension boundary of the Scheme to Qala Point is 4 km; however, if this westward extension does take place, the actual cages will not be located at the border and the fact that the Qala Point coast is so remote and uninhabited, the distance was considered to be acceptable.
51 farm, the farmers’ main clients also send over their own processing ships where the harvested fish are transferred and processed.

These large processing vessels are typically present for a period of two – three months and would anchor seaward of the NAZ in deeper waters further from the shore.

52 Figure 2.1: Temporary location of AJD tuna cages and the proposed Scheme location 53 WASTE MANAGEMENT 2.5.
Wastes generated by the Scheme are likely to include:  Packaging waste from importation of baitfish;  Thaw water from baitfish preparation;  Oily slick (from baitfish);  Uneaten feed;  Fish excreta;  Dead tuna;  Blood (during slaughtering);  Wastewater from onboard processing of fish (mixture of blood, water, and offal);  Offal (gutted heads, tails, and internal organs);  Algal and other net fouling marine growth; and  Marine litter.

Packaging waste and thaw water 2.6.

2.7.


This waste stream is generated as a result of the importation of baitfish.

The operators of the individual farms will have a contract with a licensed waste contractor who would take the packaging waste away for reuse.

Thaw water at the land base is typically collected in culverts and directed to the sewer, but each land base may have a different arrangement, which will be governed by the environmental permit conditions for the operator.
The environmental permits would typically also require the operators to implement adequate containment measures to collect and appropriately dispose of thaw water, ensuring that its release into the environment is minimised.

Oily slick The oily slick generated at tuna farms is essentially a combination of fish oils, melting ice, body fluids, and fish mucus released from the baitfish as it thaws in the feeding cage.
Although this oily slick can extend over a considerable area as it is carried on the surface of the water by surface currents, it is restricted to the immediate surface of the sea and does not dissolve into the rest of the water column, until it is dispersed or evaporates.

In summers of 2016, 2017 and 2018 there were numerous complaints from other marine users (especially bathers, divers and boaters) who made specific reference to the amount and consistency of the oily slick.

55 2.8.
55 2.8.

Following the fact that pollution persisted in 2016 and all tuna farming permits were revoked by the Planning Authority, all inshore tuna farms relocated to sites further offshore and have been implementing various measures to contain and attempt to collect this fish oil immediately after feeding to avoid it reaching the shores.

The ERA has also been actively inspecting farming operations throughout the 2018 season and insisting on improvement in farming performance.
A major improvement in this sense has been the deployment of permanent oil booms inside each cage at each tuna farming operation, and the use of proprietary skimmers for the collection of fish oil after feeding.

Uneaten feed 2.9.
Uneaten feed 2.9.

In addition to adding to the costs of the fish farming operation, uneaten feed (especially the baitfish used in tuna penning operations) passes through the net and settles on the seabed, which, depending on the amounts lost in unit time, can result in overloading of the scavenging community and an accumulation of organic carbon and nitrogen in the sediment beneath the cages or in the direction of the prevailing currents.

2.10.
2.10.

Uneaten baitfish that deposits on the bottom of the sea will start to decompose, releasing gases such as hydrogen sulphide27 and ammonia.

These gases are insoluble in seawater and therefore rise through the water column until they reach the surface where they produce unpleasant odours, which, depending on the prevailing wind currents at the time, could be blown towards the coast.

2.11.
2.11.

The capacity of the environment to assimilate the pollutants settling on the seabed depends largely on the amount of settlement of material and the capability of seabed bacteria and scavengers to utilise this material.

2.12.
2.12.

Data from past environmental monitoring at local tuna farming sites has shown that in the early years of tuna farming operations (between 2001 and 2004) towards the end of each penning season, significant amounts of dead fish were recorded littering the seabed in the area lying directly below the pens.

As summarised by Borg (2014)28, this resulted in changes to the physical and biological characteristics of the seabed.
By the end of the penning season little of the uneaten dead fish remained although thick layers of fish bones and decomposing organic material were recorded by Borg (2014).

Borg (2014) observed that once the source of the impact was removed, i.e.

following harvesting, the benthic environment eventually largely returned to its original state, as attested to by the shift in species that dominate the benthic environment, i.e.
during feeding the area is dominated by scavenger and 27 Hydrogen sulphide is also very poisonous to farmed fish.

28 Borg, J.A.

2014.

Azzopardi Fisheries Tuna Penning Project: Report on a video survey of the seabed in the vicinity of the tuna-pens made in April-July 2014.

Ecoserv.

56 detritus feeders, once the uneaten fish is gone, the site returns to its previous ecology and species typical of a bare sand habitat are again noted.

2.13.
2.13.

With respect to sediment analysis, the results indicate that the parameters tested for, i.e.

sediment grain size, organic carbon content, organic nitrogen content and recently organic phosphorus content, as well as heavy metals and organic compounds were not altered as a result of the tuna penning activities (Borg et al, 2013)29.

2.14.
2.14.

With regards to water quality, Borg & Evans (2016)30 concluded that overall, the tuna penning activities do not appear to have affected the water quality in the vicinity of the farms in terms of the parameters tested for; however, a fishy odour was recorded and a film of fish oil and residues at the water surface were recorded at two of the five monitoring stations.

2.15.
2.15.

Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report of the EIA includes results from a model that analysed the settlement of uneaten feed for the Scheme.

See also Chapter 4.

Fish excreta 2.16.

Like uneaten feed, fish excreta contain or release ammonia, nitrates, and phosphate in soluble form.

These nutrients can enhance the growth of marine plants and algae (including phytoplankton).
Some of these nutrients are taken up by algae and net-fouling assemblages and also by benthic dwellers and scavengers.

Faeces are nitrogen depleted and phosphorus enriched compared with feed (Fernandes et al., 2007)31.
Fernandes et al (2007) studying dissolved nutrient release from solid wastes of southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) identified that the phosphorus available for leaching from baitfish and faeces of baitfish-fed tuna was around 17-21% whereas the proportion of soluble nitrogen was 35-43%.

They concluded that more than 90% of nitrogen loads and approximately 50% of phosphorus are likely to be released into seawater before solid wastes reach the seafloor.
The EIA’s Technical Appendix 3: Wave study, hydrodynamics and environmental modelling Report includes results from a model that analysed the dispersal of fish excreta for the Scheme.

See also Chapter 4.

29 Borg, J.A., Debono, S., Evans, J.

2013.

Azzopardi Fisheries Tuna Penning Project: Environmental Monitoring Programme (Sediments) – Report on analyses of sediment samples collected in October 2012 from Azzopardi Fisheries’ tuna penning site and control sites, off the St Paul’s Bay/Qawra coast.
Ecoserv.

30 Borg, J.A., Evans, J.

2016.

Azzopardi Fisheries Ltd Tuna Penning Activities: Report of a water quality survey at Azzopardi Fisheries Ltd’s tuna penning site off the St. Paul’s Bay/Qawra area, made in July 2016.

Ecoserv.

31 Fernandes, M., Angove, M., Sedawie, T., Cheshire, A.

2007.

Dissolved nutrient release from solid wastes of southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii, Castelnau) aquaculture.

Vol 36 (4).

Aquaculture Research.

57 Dead tuna 2.17.


Tuna deaths are mainly a result of stress or panic, especially when the nets billow under strong currents.

The number of deaths is limited as far as possible by closely monitoring the tuna and culling any fish that shows signs of stress or are moribund.

Hence, few deaths actually occur.

Blood 2.18.


As explained, the tuna have to be killed in a very short time interval so as to avoid a sudden increase in body temperature that would negatively affect the quality of the meat.

Some blood is released into the sea when the fish are killed and handled prior to being transported to the processing vessel.

Wastewater from onboard processing of fish (tuna) 2.19.
The further processing of the tuna onboard the service vessels invariably results in the generation of wastewaters mixed with blood and possibly some offal.

The processing vessels typically have holding tanks where wastewater is collected or recycling plants.

Offal 2.20.

Tuna processing creates a substantial amount of offal, which is composed of the internal organs, the tails, and the heads of the tuna.

During harvesting, each farm generates several tonnes of offal per day.
Despite an initial policy and regulatory direction to transport this waste back to land for incineration, the incinerator at the abattoir in Marsa does not have the capacity to process the amount of waste generated during this period and thus no longer accepts this waste.

In view of this, the accepted practice has returned to offshore offal disposal32.
A VMS-equipped vessel33 takes the waste from the processing vessel and transports it further offshore to a dumping site as agreed with the Competent Authorities.

The vessels are monitored by the Fisheries Department to ensure that the offal is dumped at the designated sites.
The possibility of identifying alternative options for the disposal of the offal is a condition of ERA’s environment permit of all operational tuna farms and the issue is being actively studied by the Federation of Aquaculture Producers and 32 Offal is disposed beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.

33 VMS (Vessel Monitoring System) is a satellite surveillance system primarily used to monitor the location and movement of commercial fishing vessels and other craft.
The system uses satellite- based communications from on-board transceiver units, which certain vessels are required to carry.

The transceiver units send position reports that include vessel identification, time, date, and location, and are mapped and displayed on the end user’s computer screen.

Each vessel typically sends position reports once an hour, but these can be increased when the vessel is approaching an environmentally sensitive area.
Alerts can be sent to the VMS technicians and other personnel when a particular vessel location might require additional inquiry or contact with the vessel operator.

VMS allows enforcement to use advanced technologies to monitor compliance, track violators, and provide substantial evidence for prosecution.

(see www.nmfs.noaaa.gov).

58 will be discussed in detailed with the relevant authorities as part of that process.

Net fouling marine growth 2.21.


Marine growth on tuna nets is removed through air drying on the collars and later by scraping on land.

The growth that is removed on land is disposed of as organic waste (see earlier).

Marine litter 2.22.

Other wastes generated by the farms could include anthropogenic material such as rope, boxes, and municipal-type wastes from the service vessels that may occasionally find their way overboard.
The tuna farm monitoring reports have repeatedly made reference to the presence on the sea bed of anthropogenic waste associated with the fish farm operations.

Any such material will need to be collected and disposed onshore.

In addition, the environment permit issued by ERA for the current operations also includes an obligation for the operators to collect any floating anthropogenic materials in the farm area, whether they originate from the operations or from outside.
It is expected that the same conditions will apply for the NAZ operators.

Employment 2.23.

The level of employment at the North Aquaculture Zone will depend on the number of operators it would accommodate.

The northern farms, which would be relocated to the NAZ, currently employ 55 full-timers and 40 part- timers.

Employees include divers, boatmen, handymen, and drivers.
If the NAZ is fully occupied, the employment complement is expected to increase to 75 – 80 full-time employees and 60 - 75 part-timers.

59 3.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAC/SPA MARINE Northeast of Malta Marine SAC 3.1.

The site partly falls within SAC MT0000105 Zona fil-Baħar fil-Grigal ta’ Malta (Marine Area in the Northeast of Malta).

The extent of this marine Natura 2000 site is illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Given the relatively large size of this SAC, the seabed geomorphology within this site is particularly heterogeneous giving rise to a number of varied seascapes, bottom types, and a number of different habitat types.

Quality and importance of the SAC 3.2.


Three Annex 1 habitats have been described within this SAC:  Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time (Habitat 1110) – There is little data available regarding this habitat type in the Maltese Islands and the Standard Data Form (SDF) specifies that the extent of this habitat type is not known.
However, sandbanks with associations of Cymodocea nodosa have been recorded and the following subtypes occur: o Sandbanks with associations of Cymodocea nodosa on well-sorted fine sands; o Sandbanks with associations of Cymodocea nodosa on superficially muddy sands in sheltered waters; and o Facies with Cymodocea nodosa occurring within coarse sands and gravels with more or less mud.
 Posidonia beds (Habitat 1120) – This SAC hosts a large variety of Posidonia sub-types and the SDF considers that the representativity of each is relatively superior.
Subtypes noted to be present as reported in the SDF include: o Posidonia settled on matte, whose meadows are normally continuous and having a high density; o Posidonia settled on rock, showing a reticulate distribution of dense strands; o Posidonia settled on sand, with continuous beds generally showing low densities and variable percentage cover; o Mosaic morphology, intermixed between Posidonia oceanica, Cymodocea nodosa and coarse sand, showing a reticulate structure; and 61 o Ecomorphosis of ‘barrier reef’ Posidonia meadows.
The Posidonia within this SAC is described as having a high connectivity and percentage coverage.

MEPA’s Posidonia Baseline Survey carried out in 2002 revealed that Posidonia in various parts of this SAC are healthy and abundant.

The meadows are dense and show a high degree of shoot density, particularly in White Tower Bay, which, as reported in the SDF, seemingly hosts perhaps the highest shoot density in the Mediterranean.
Records for the deepest areas where Posidonia has been recorded are held within this SAC, specifically off the south coast of Comino.

Signs of regression of the meadows have, however, been reported at, for example, Mistra Bay and Mellieha Bay as a result of anthropogenic activities.

Gibbula nivosa, considered as the only endemic marine mollusc of the Maltese Islands is associated with this SAC and has been found on Posidonia leaves as well as under stones.
 Reefs (Habitat 1170) – During the 2002 survey, reefs of the following subtypes were identified within this SAC: o Reefs with associations of Dictyopteris polypodioides; o Reefs with associations of Halopteris scoparia and Padina pavonica; o Reefs with associations of Flabellia petiolata and Peyssonnellia squamaria; and o Reefs with associations of Cystoseira spp.

 Partially submerged caves (Habitat 8330) – These are mostly located along the coast of Comino.
Species of conservation interest associated with this habitat type include Lithothamnion minervae.

Pressures on and vulnerability of the SAC habitats 3.3.
Threats, pressures and activities that result in impacts on the site as listed in the SDF include:  Water pollution / pollution from run-off as a result of fertilisation, use of biocides, hormones and chemicals, household waste / recreational facility waste / discharges;  Leisure and recreation facilities / recreational activities / nautical sports;  Noise pollution;  Collapse of terrain;  Hunting / fishing / collecting activities;  Professional fishing; 62  Acid rain;  Ports;  Invasive, non-native species; and  Shipping lanes.
Il-Baħar Ta’ Madwar Għawdex SPA 3.4.

3.5.

3.6.

3.7.

I-Baħar ta’ Madwar Għawdex surrounds Gozo and Comino and the northern tip of Malta as shown in Figure 3.2.

The SPA covers an area of approximately 556.7 km2.

This SPA was included in the Maltese marine Important Bird Area (IBA) inventory as a result of the EU LIFE+ Malta Seabird Project (LIFE10NAT/MT/090) due to its importance for Calonectris diomedea, and Puffinus yelkouan during the breeding season.
The Standard Data Form reports a population of 7,300 for Calonectris diomedea and a population ranging from 3,270 to 4,650 birds for Puffinus yelkouan.

TERRESTRIAL Figure 3.3 shows the terrestrial sites located on the eastern coast of the islands.

Those being considered within the scope of this AA in view of the populations of breeding seabirds within each, are discussed in more detail below.

L-Inħawi tar-Ramla tat-Torri u tal-Irdum tal-Madonna SPA 3.8.
As reported in the Management Plan (2015), this site supports between 366 and 544 breeding pairs of Puffinus yelkouan, an Annex I species (Birds Directive).

L-Irdum tal-Madonna supports the largest colony of breeding Yelkouan Shearwaters in the Maltese Islands.

This species belongs to the family Procellariidae, whose characteristic feature is a pair of tube-like nostrils on the end of their beak to filter out salt.

P. yelkouan feeds mainly on small fish, crustaceans and cephalopods.
The birds start to arrive at the colony to breed in October, flying in at night.

Eggs are laid at the end of February- beginning March.

The egg is laid on bare ground in a burrow or crevice.

Nesting sites are located from 2-120 m above sea level, although some nests are closer to the top of the cliffs.

Incubation is carried out for about 50-52 days, and both partners participate.

Chicks hatch in the third week of April.

The birds leave the colony at the end of July.


Birds reach breeding maturity in their third or fourth year, although some juveniles may return to the colony in the meantime.

This species breeds alongside Calonectris diomedea at this site although only 8-10 breeding pairs of C. diomedea make use of this site.

Direct competition is avoided because breeding seasons do not overlap exactly.

P. yelkouan begin breeding earlier than C. diomedea.
Each species is then 63 3.9. undertaking different aspects of this phase and in this way competition for food is minimised, e.g.

when P. yelkouan are feeding the young, C. diomedea are incubating.

However, cases of nest eviction of P. yelkouan by C. diomedea have been recorded (Sultana et al, 2011).

Fishermen have been known to take these birds at sea to use as bait.

Between 2000 and 2006 the main cause of Yelkouan mortality was rat predation.
Other causes included predation by domestic ferrets Mustela putorius furo and/or possibly wild weasels.

Increased human disturbance results in reduced numbers returning to the breeding colony in following years.

Another threat to this species is light sources on the mainland.

Attracted by the light fledglings have been recovered inland where they were found to be disoriented (Sultana et al, 2011).

In 2008, IUCN and Birdlife International revised this species’ status from Secure to Near Threatened.
The Management Plan assigns a conservation status of A (favourable) for P. yelkouan at this site.

C. diomedea is also an Annex I seabird of the family Procellariidae.

This species makes its first landfall just prior to breeding in late February.

By the second week of March, many of the birds have reached the colony, paired up, set up nest and mating begins.

A single egg is then usually laid at the end of May.
The egg is laid on bare ground, although this is often surrounded by material such as dry twigs, feathers, and pebbles.

All females lay their eggs within a few days of each other.

Both parents incubate the eggs, with the male taking the first incubation sitting, which on average lasts 4.5 days (Sultana et al, 2011).

Incubation lasts up to 52 days.

The main fledging period is the first half of October, and the colony is generally deserted by the end of October.
Males start to breed aged 4-6, whilst females reach maturity in their 5th or 6th year.

This species exhibits strong site tenacity, with pairs using the same nests year after year.

Lifespan can exceed 25 years.

C. diomedea prefers nesting sites with extensive vegetation cover (Sultana et al, 2011).

Breeding success in the Maltese Islands is deemed to be relatively low and is attributed to direct human persecution and predation by rats, cats, and dogs.
This species has been provisionally rated as Vulnerable by Birdlife International.

The Management Plan assigns a conservation status of B (inadequate) to C. diomedea at this site.

3.10.

Metzger et al (2015) also reported the presence of a small breeding colony of the Storm Petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis34) at Rdum tal-Madonna of about 1-10 breeding pairs.
As reported by Sultana & Borg (2011)35, the Mediterranean Storm Petrel is asynchronous in its breeding behaviour whereby the egg-laying period spans four months (April to July) and courtship 34 This is a Mediterranean subspecies of the European Storm Petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus).

35 Sultana, J. Borg, J.J. 2011.

The Mediterranean Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis in Malta.

Part 2: Ecology and Conservation of Mediterranean Storm-petrel and Mediterranean Shag.
Proceedings of the 13th Medmaravis Pan.Mediterranean Symposium 64 is still at its peak in mid-May.

The latest birds leave by October.

3.11.

As noted in the Management Plan as well as Appendix 2 to this report, the marine environment in front of the colonies used for rafting is also an important consideration in the ecology of these seabirds and their breeding success.

Kemmuna u l-Gzejjer tal-Madwarha SPA 3.12.


Kemmuna u l-Gżejjer ta’ Madwarha is a Special Protection Area because of the important breeding P. yelkouan and Calonectris diomedea seabird populations located along the cliffs as well as other breeding species such as the Short-toed Lark which are ground nesting birds.

3.13.

50-60 breeding pairs of P. yelkouan have been recorded from this site as noted in the Management Plan.

Colonies are found on Cominotto, north of Comino and west of Comino.
Comino is an Important Bird Area of global importance based on this population.

P. yelkouan colonies have a wider distribution than C. diomedea within this SPA.

The Management Plan reports the conservation status of P. yelkouan as ‘A’ within this SPA.

3.14.

40-60 breeding pairs of C. diomedea occur in the northwest of Comino and its conservation status in this SPA is considered to be favourable.

Selmunett SAC 3.15.
Selmunett SAC 3.15.

Selmunett is not an SPA, however, as noted in Appendix 2, in the last decade, a small colony of Yelkouan Shearwaters has been re-discovered breeding on the island.

Others 3.16.

Whilst the Għadira and L-Inħawi tal-Imġiebah Natura 2000 sites lie within the A of I, they do not support breeding populations of the Annex I seabirds and therefore they do not fall within the scope of this AA.
65 Figure 3.1: Northeast of Malta Marine Special Area of Conservation and site boundary 67 Figure 3.2: Il-Baħar ta’ Madwar Għawdex Special Protection Area and site boundary 69 Figure 3.3: Terrestrial Natura 2000 sites and site boundary 71 4.

BASELINE STUDIES INTRODUCTION 4.1.

This Chapter presents the findings of all studies carried out as described in Chapter 1.

It also evaluates the significance of the site in terms of ecological dynamics, conservation status, and applicable policies.
The evaluations for the marine environment are based on field studies and literature reviews whilst the evaluation of avifauna is based largely on existing data gathered over a period of time.

FINDINGS 4.2.

The findings from the surveys carried out are presented in detail in Appendix 1 and 2.

Bathymetry 4.3.

The bathymetric map for the Area of Study is shown in Figure 4.1.
As shown, the water depth in the Area of Survey ranges from 55 m in the shallower southwestern area and progressively gets deeper until it reaches approximately 85 / 90 m at the edge of the drop off; the drop off plunges to a depth of 135 m at its foot.

The water depth then deepens gradually in the Area of Survey to approximately 150 m in the northwestern area of the Area of Survey.

The Scheme site is generally flat with a shallow slope towards the north.

73 Figure 4.1: Bathymetry 74 Wind and waves 4.4.


Table 4.1 presents the data from the statistical extrapolation of extreme wind speeds.
Table 4.1: Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wind speeds Sector ESE [0°N, 202.5°N[ NW [202.5°N, 360°N[ Return period (year) 1 5 10 50 100 1 5 10 50 100 Wind speed (m/s) Best estimation 17.4 19.4 20.1 21.6 22.3 19.4 21.5 22.3 24.2 24.9 90% confidence interval 171 – 17.8 18.7 – 20.0 19.3 – 20.9 20.5 – 23.0 20.9 – 23.8 19.1 – 19.8 20.8 – 22.2 21.5 – 23.2 22.9 – 25.6 23.5 – 26.6 4.5.
The extreme wave heights for the main directional sectors relevant to the study (E, NE, and NW) as extrapolated are shown in Table 4.2.

4.6.

As can be seen from Table 4.2, although the NW sector is the predominant sector in terms of size, the largest wave heights come from the E sector.

However, the large width of the confidence interval associated to the extrapolation of this sector shows a large uncertainty for the highest return periods.
Table 4.2: Results of the statistical extrapolation of extreme wave heights Sector Return period (year) NE [0°N, 67.5°N[ E [67.5°N, 112.5°N[ NW [275°N, 360°N[ 1 5 10 50 100 1 5 10 50 100 1 5 10 50 100 Hm0 (m) Tp (s) 90% confidence interval 3.24 – 3.59 4.16 – 4.95 4.51 – 5.55 5.27 – 6.98 5.57 – 7.61 3.45 – 3.90 4.70 – 5.67 5.11 – 6.45 5.70 – 850 5.82 – 9.53 4.36 – 4.58 4.91 – 5.33 5.09 – 5.63 5.45 – 6.30 5.59 – 6.57 7.0 – 10.0 8.0 – 11.5 8.5 – 12.0 9.5 – 13.0 9.5 – 13.0 7.5 – 11.5 9.0 – 13.0 9.5 – 14.0 10.5 – 15.0 10.5 – 15.5 8.5 – 11.5 9.0 – 12.5 9.5 – 12.5 9.5 -13.0 10.0 – 13.5 Best estimation 3.41 4.54 5.01 6.07 6.51 3.66 5.16 5.75 6.99 7.47 4.47 5.12 5.35 5.85 6.05 75 Hydrodynamic model 4.7.
4.8.

4.9.

Drag force on cages In analysing the effect of the cages on the current velocity field, comparison between the reference state (no cages) and the “with cages” scenario was made for different times.

Given the low speed of the ambient currents, the impact of the fish pens on the current velocity is less than 5 cm/s (in absolute value) and remains in the immediate vicinity of the cages.
At no stage during the simulation did the current velocity exceed 10 cm/s in the reference situation (no cages) and the future configuration of the Scheme site.

The influence of the cages is therefore not visible on the maximum velocity reached during the simulation and was deemed to be negligible by the modellers.

Environmental Model Enrichment in dissolved nutrient Figure 4.2 shows the plume of maximum nutrient concentration reached at each point during the simulation.
At the Scheme site, currents come mainly from the North-West, so the nutrient plume is orientated towards the South-East.

The maximum concentration is located at the centre of the pens, where the tracer is injected.

The threshold of 0.1mg/L of total nitrogen is obtained about 0.5 km southeast of the last cages.

The threshold of 0.02 mg/L of phosphorus is restricted to the vicinity of the cages.
The simulation also considered the evolution of the concentration of dissolved nutrients near the cages and at -5m MSL (see Figure 4.3).

At this distance from the cages (see black point in Figure 4.3), the maximum nitrogen concentration reached was 0.28 mg/L whilst the threshold of 0.1 mg/L is exceeded by 40% over the total simulation time.
The maximum concentration of phosphorous is 0.025 mg/L 76 Figure 4.2: Maps of maximum nitrogen (left) and phosphorous (right) concentration Source: Artelia, 2018 NOTE: The general location, arrangement, and orientation of the cages shown in this figure are only indicative and used for modelling purposes.

The final set- up will depend on other constraints; however, the findings of the modelling study will not be affected.
77 Figure 4.3: Time-series of the nutrient concentrations Source: Artelia, 2018 NOTE: The general location, arrangement, and orientation of the cages shown in this figure are only indicative and used for modelling purposes.

The final set-up will depend on other constraints; however, the findings of the modelling study will not be affected.

Settlement of uneaten feed 4.10.


After 30 days of simulation, the uneaten feed deposit remains located under the tuna pens and its thickness is less than 0.1 cm (Figure 4.4).

This result is explained by the settling rate.

For a water depth of 100 m, the time necessary for a particle to reach the bottom is 24 minutes.

These results do not take into account the natural degradation of the feed.
78 Figure 4.4: Thickness of uneaten feed after 30 days Source: Artelia, 2018 NOTE: The general location, arrangement, and orientation of the cages shown in this figure are only indicative and used for modelling purposes.

The final set-up will depend on other constraints; however, the findings of the modelling study will not be affected.

Dispersion of fish oil 4.11.

The results form this model show that the velocity field and the wind field both influence the trajectory of the slick.
Near the fish farm, the velocity field has an intensity in the range of 5 cm/s to 10 cm/s.

The wind drift component of the slick velocity is 3.6% of the wind, which means around 0.15 cm/s for a wind intensity of 5 m/s.

In this area, wind intensity is the major contributor of the slick trajectory.

The slick drift is in the range of 5 cm/s to 15 cm/s in the scenarios simulated.

4.12.

In Scenario 1, the oil slick moves first towards the South, before changing its 79 direction completely and travels North.
Then it is transported by the Atlantic Ionian Stream offshore and moves southward.

After two days, the slick changes its direction towards the Maltese coast.

After 3 days and 18 hours it hits the coast.

4.13.

In Scenario 2, the oil slick flows westward, along the southern coast of Gozo.

It hits the coast after 17 hours.

4.14.

Figures 4.5 and 4.6 reproduce snapshots of the particle position at various times for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively.
A dashed line delineates the trajectory of the fish oil slick in both cases.

4.15.

It must be emphasised that depending on the hydrodynamic conditions, a wide range of trajectories can be obtained and since the tuna are fed each day, a new oil slick could be generated daily and each one could be under the influence of different winds and currents and follows a different trajectory.

The scenarios can therefore be very complex.


The outputs from these models are therefore not absolute and represent a qualitative assessment showing a high variability due to wind and are mostly useful for comparisons.

A quantitative assessment, on the other hand, will require a long modelling duration and must be carefully chosen to consider also previous problematic spills.

4.16.
4.16.

What can be inferred from the two scenarios, therefore, is that the oil slicks are subject to a wide range of trajectories, depending on the hydro meteorological conditions prevailing on site.

Wind significantly influences the trajectories near the fish farm, and the oil slick reaches the coast in under 4 days from release under NW wind conditions and in less than a day for Easterly wind conditions in the worst case scenario with no containment, collection and under calm sea conditions.
80 Figure 4.5: Location of particles depending on time elapsed in Scenario 1 Source: Artelia, 2018 81 Figure 4.6: Location of particles depending on time elapsed in Scenario 2 Source: Artelia, 2018 Sediment and water quality 4.17.

The results for the water and sediment quality analysis are given in Appendix 3.
The results of in situ measurement of physico-chemical parameters of the water column indicate temperature values and levels of salinity, water transparency and dissolved oxygen that are expected of local pristine offshore coastal waters during spring.

The Secchi Disc measurements indicated a high water transparency of between 24 m and 29 m. 4.18.
Detectable although low levels of total organic carbon (TOC), total suspended solids (TSS), total nitrogen, and total phosphorous were recorded from the sampling stations, while levels of Chlorophyll a were below the limit of detection, thereby indicating a low phytoplankton abundance.

4.19.

A weak southeasterly surface sea current having a speed of between 0.11 m/s and 0.13 m/s was recorded at the two reference stations R1 and R2.

82 4.20.
82 4.20.

As regards sediment quality, the results indicated detectable but low levels of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen, and total phosphorous, while levels of sulphide were below the limit of detection.

Values of pH and redox potential were of an order that is expected of background levels for local offshore sediments.
The results of granulometric analysis indicate that the sediments characterising the six sampling stations comprise poorly sorted coarse sand having a mean grain size of between 0.55 mm and 0.95 mm.

4.21.

For the full set of results see Appendix 3.

Benthic diversity 4.22.

A classified list of species and their respective abundance as recorded from the four grab samples collected from Stations A – D is available in Appendix 3.
A total of 1,897 individuals comprising 111 macrofaunal species were recorded.

Analysis of the grab samples showed the presence of macrofauna that is typical of the benthic biotic assemblages that characterise the lower infralittoral to circalittoral transition zone and the upper circalittoral zone that occurs off the northeastern coast of the Maltese islands (cf.

Borg et al., 199836; Schembri 199837; Sciberras et al., 200938).
A high diversity of macrobenthic fauna was recorded from the grab samples; the two most represented taxonomic groups, in terms of species richness and abundance, were the polychaetes and the crustaceans.

No protected species were recorded from any of the grab samples.

Benthic assemblages 4.23.

In summary, the seabed in the Area of Survey consisted predominantly of coarse mobile sediments in the southwestern half and very fine mobile sediments in the northeastern half.
A 10 – 25 m high drop-off characterised by rock exposed to sedimentation separates the two sections of the Area of Survey and runs along a north-west – southeast direction.

The water depth varied from 43 m to over 145 m. Underwater visibility was good (25 - 30 m) throughout the Area of Study although flocculate material was noted in the water column in places.
A current was present in places close to the seabed, as evidenced by debris and other material originating from benthic vegetation that were seen being moved on the bottom.

36 Borg J.A., Howege H.M., Lanfranco E., Micallef S.A., Mifsud C. & Schembri P.J., 1998.

The macrobenthic species of the infralittoral to circalittoral transition zone off the northeastern coast of Malta (Central Mediterranean).

Xjenza 3(1): 16-24.

[Malta].

37 Schembri P. J., 1998.

Maerl ecosystems of the Maltese islands.


In: Dandria, D.

[ed.]

Biology abstracts MSc, PhD 1998 and contributions to marine biology: pp.35-37.

Msida, Malta: Department of Biology, University of Malta; iv+38pp.

[Malta].

38 Sciberras M., Rizzo M., Mifsud J. R., Camilleri K., Borg J.

A., Lanfranco E. & Schembri P. J., 2009.

Habitat structure and biological characteristics of a maerl bed off the northeastern coast of the Maltese Islands (central Mediterranean).

Marine Biodiversity 39: 251 - 264.


83 4.24.

What are usually referred to as ‘maerl39 beds’ which are, however, more properly termed ‘rhodolith beds’ occupy a large part of the Area of Survey.

In the shallower parts, the rhodolith beds were interspersed with a bare sand bottom that supported sparse rhodoliths40.
In the southwestern half of the survey area, the rhodolith density varied such that they are less dense in the shallower part (45 m – 50 m) of the survey area, where large expanses of bare sand that supported little or no rhodoliths were present.
Overall, the seabed had physical features that corresponded with the bathymetry: coarse sand with sparse accumulations of rhodoliths (0% - 20% rhodolith cover) was present at a water depth of between 43 m and 50 m; between a water depth of 50 m and 55 m, the seabed comprised coarse sediment having denser rhodolith accumulations (20% - 50% rhodolith cover); and in waters deeper than 55 m, the seabed mainly consisted of dense rhodolith beds (50% - 100% rhodolith cover).
Beyond the rocky drop-off, at water depths exceeding 100 m, the seabed mainly consisted of bare muddy sand.

4.25.

The main outcome of the benthic survey carried out in May 2018, in combination with data from the survey carried out by Ecoserv in May 2017 is a map showing the distribution of the main benthic habitats and assemblages present in the area surveyed (see Figures 4.7).

4.26.
4.26.

The following biotic assemblage types were recorded from the Area of Study:  Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (EUNIS code A5.515);  Infralittoral coarse sediment (EUNIS code A5.13);  Mediterranean communities of muddy detritic bottoms (EUNIS code A5.38); and  Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock (EUNIS code A4.3).

39 ‘Maerl’ is a term used to describe calcareous sediments dominated by coralline algae.
Maerl as used here describes sedimentary habitats in which living or dead unattached calcareous rhodophytes are a dominant component.

These algae may take the form of nodules (rhodoliths) or fragmented thalli.

However, according to Basso et al.


(2016), ‘rhodolith beds’ should be identified and delimited as those areas of the sea floor with >10% cover of live rhodoliths over a minimum surface of 500 m2, while the term “maerl” refers to a specific type of rhodolith bed that is composed of non-nucleated, unattached growths of branching, twig-like coralline algae.

‘Maerl’ as used here conforms to the definition of Basso et al.

(2016).
(2016).

40 Rhodoliths consist either of free-living calcareous rhodophytes (red algae), or else of an inner nucleus, such as stone or shell, encrusted by calcareous rhodophytes.

84 Figure 4.7: Map showing the main benthic habitats present within the survey area 85 Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents 4.27.
This association was present as two subtypes: one which was predominantly characterised by a rhodolith-rich bottom in which the proportion of rhodoliths covering the bottom was dense (50% - 100% cover, see Figure 4.8a) and constituted a well developed rhodolith bed, as described by Basso et al.

(2016)41.

This association subtype was mostly present in the deeper, northeastern half of the survey area within the 55 m – 80 m water depth range.
The other subtype mainly consisted of a rhodolith bed in which the density of rhodoliths was sparser and predominantly formed accumulations such that the overall rhodolith cover was around 20 % - 50% (see Figure 4.8b); this association subtype was mainly present as a band in the central parts of the survey area within the 50 – 55 m water depth range.

4.28.
4.28.

Preliminary examination of rhodoliths that were retrieved from sediments collected by grab from Stations A, B and D indicated that the algal species that contribute to the rhodoliths include species from the following genera: Lithophyllum, Lithothamnion, Mesophyllum and Sporolithon (see Lanfranco et al., 1999; Borg and Schembri 2002; Sciberras et al., 2009).

4.29.
4.29.

Where present, the dense rhodolith beds appeared to comprise a pseudo- hard substratum that supported macroalgae; the predominant alga being Flabellia petiolata (see Figure 4.8a) and Zonaria tournefortii.

Other algae including Halimeda tuna, Peyssonnelia squamaria, Dictyota sp.

and unidentified filamentous forms, were also recorded in places.

4.30.
4.30.

The most abundant megafaunal species that were recorded from this association are the cidariid sea urchin Stylocidaris affinis and the Purple Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus (see Figure 4.8c); other megafaunal species that were recorded during the survey included several species of sponges and bryozoans (including Sertella sp.
), the Long-spined Urchin Centrostephanus longispinus (see Figure 4.8d), the Red Seastar Echinaster sepositus (see Figure 4.8e), the crinoid Antedon mediterranea, the crab Inachus sp., and the seastar Luidia ciliaris.

Furthermore, the presence of openings to numerous burrows in places indicated an associated rich infauna.

41 Basso D., Babbini L., Kaleb S., Bracchi V.A., Falace A.

(2016).

Monitoring deep Mediterranean rhodolith beds.

26(3).

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.
87 Figure 4.8: Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (Source: Borg, 2018) 42 a.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 5, showing a close-up of a dense rhodolith bed.

The green alga visible in the photo is Flabellia petiolata.

b.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 12, showing a close-up of a sparse rhodolith bed.
c. Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 5, showing a close-up of a rhodolith bed intermixed with bare sediment.

The five orange coloured long-spined urchins are individuals of Stylocidaris affinis.

The large purple coloured urchin is a the Purple Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus d. Photograph of the seabed at a point along Transect 3, showing a close- up of a rhodolith bed.

A Long-spined Urchin Censtrostephanus longispinus is visible adjacent the alga Flabellia petiolata (green).
e. Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 5, showing a close-up of a rhodolith bed.

An individual of the urchin Stylocidaris affinis and another of the Red Seastar Echinaster sepositus are visible on the right side of the photo.

42 Borg, J.A.

2018.


Report on an ecological assessment of an area off the northeastern coast of Malta, proposed for designation as an offshore tuna penning site, undertaken as part of the Environment Impact Assessment in connection with PA 02175/18: Extension to an existing tuna farm operation off the North East coast of Malta.

Ecoserv Ltd. 89 Infralittoral coarse sediment 4.31.
This assemblage type occurred as a band at the southwestern part of the Area of Study, where the water depth was some 43 m – 50 m. In places, the sediment bottom supporting this assemblage type had small accumulations of rhodoliths or sparse rhodoliths, such that where these were present their cover was some 1 – 20% (see Figure 4.9a to Figure 4.9d).
Detached algal and plant (seagrass) material was present in places on the seabed where this assemblage occurred; however, no attached fleshy algae or seagrasses were present.

The epifauna associated with this assemblage was impoverished; the most abundant macrofaunal species was the Purple Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus (see Figure 4.9e) and groups of the Purple Urchin Sphaerechinus granularis.

However, the presence of openings to burrows present in many places indicated the presence of a rich infauna.
4.32.
It must be emphasised that although in general the area surveyed mainly supported the assemblage types and subtypes as described above and as depicted in Figure 4.7, parts within the shaded areas shown in the habitat map supported patches with a different assemblage type, such that:  The area which supported the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (dense rhodolith bed) had, in places, patches with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) ;  The area which supported the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) had, in places, patches with the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (dense rhodolith bed) or patches with the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment; and  The area which supported the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment had, in places, the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed).
4.33.

Furthermore, differences in the spatial distribution of the assemblage of coarse infralittoral sediment and of the association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents (sparse rhodolith bed) were evident when comparing data from video transects made during Borg & Evans’ 2017 survey with data from the survey made by Seastar Survey Ltd in May 2018.
These differences, which are mostly applicable to the shallower (43 m – 55 m) parts of the Area of Study indicate that the soft sediment seabed there is dynamic and undergoes changes that involve shifting of accumulations of rhodoliths from one place to another, possibly even over large distances of several hundred metres.

Such changes would happen during strong wave action, typically during strong northeasterly winds, such as ones that characterised autumn 2017 and winter 2018.
As a result, the spatial distribution of the aforementioned two habitat types changes.

91 Figure 4.9: Infralittoral coarse sediment (Source: Borg, 2018) a.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 2, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.

b.

Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 2, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.

An individual rhodolith is visible at the centre of the photo.
c. Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 11, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.

Individual rhodoliths are visible in places in the photo.

d. Photograph of the seabed taken at a point along Transect 11, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.

Three narrow strips with rhodoliths are visible in the photo.

e. Photograph of the seabed along Transect 11, showing a close-up of an assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediment.
A few individual rhodoliths (Purple colour) – most of them having a very small size (few mm) – and an individual of the Purple Heart Urchin Spatangus purpureus, are visible in the photo.. 93 Mediterranean communities of muddy detritic bottoms 4.34.

This assemblage type was recorded from the northeastern half of the study area at a water depth exceeding 100 m and occurred at the base of the 10 m – 25 m high drop-off from where it extended further into deeper waters (Figure 4.10).
No macroflora was recorded from this assemblage type, although detached macroalgae (mainly Zonaria tournefortii) were present on the sediment surface in various places.

No macrofauna was recorded from this assemblage type although the presence of openings to burrows indicated an associated rich infauna.

Figure 4.10: Muddy detritic bottoms (Source: Borg, 2018) Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock 4.35.
This assemblage type was recorded along a band running in a northwest to southeast direction in the central part of the Area of Study and is associated with the drop-off that is approximately 10 m to 25 m high and which separates the assemblage of coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents and the assemblage of infralittoral coarse sediments (see Figure 4.11).

The associated macroalgae mainly comprised Zonaria tournefortii and unidentified coralline algae (Figure 4.11).
The associated macrofauna mainly comprised sponges, bryozoans, and other sessile macrobenthic species.

Individuals of the echiuran worm Bonellia viridis were recorded in places from this assemblage type.

95 Figure 4.11: Atlantic and Mediterranean low energy circalittoral rock Demersal and pelagic fauna 4.36.

The demersal fish fauna recorded during the survey mainly comprised large shoals of Picarel Spicara sp.

and individuals of the Comber Serranus cabrilla.


Several individuals of the Mauve Stinger Pelagia noctiluca were recorded in the water column during the survey.

Ecological appraisal 4.37.

In Maltese waters, the main rhodolith-forming algae in rhodolith/maerl beds are Lithothamnion corallioides and Phymatolithon calcareum/Lithothamnion minervae43 with Peysonnelia rosa-marina, Mesophyllum sp., and Neogoniolithon brassica-florida constituting a minor component (Lanfranco et al., 1999)44.
Associations with rhodoliths are a habitat type that qualifies sites for inclusion in national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest as required by the Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD) of the Barcelona Convention45.

Furthermore, the 43 It is not possible to distinguish between Phymatolithon calcareum and Lithothamnion minervae using gross morphology alone.

44 Lanfranco, E.; Rizzo, M.; Hall-Spencer, J.; Borg, J.A.

& Schembri, P.J.

1999.


Maerl-forming coralline algae and associated phytobenthos from the Maltese Islands.

3(1).

The Central Mediterranean Naturalist.

45 The Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (the Barcelona Convention) was adopted on 16th February 1976.

A number of protocols were adopted under this convention, amongst which is the Protocol concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas done at Geneva on 3 April 1982.
The parties later amended this protocol and its name changed to Protocol for Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD).

Malta ratified this new Protocol on 96 coralline algae Lithothamnion corallioides and Phymatolithon calcareum are listed in Annex V (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures) of the European Union’s ‘Habitats Directive’ as amended46.
Both species probably occur in the rhodolith beds in the present study area; however, only microscopic examination of samples of rhodoliths collected from the area will confirm this.

4.38.
Lithothamnion corallioides, Phymatolithon calcareum, together with Lithothamnion minervae are listed in Schedule III (Animal and plant species of national interest whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation), and the first two named also in Schedule VII (Animal and plant species of Community interest whose taking in the wild and exploitation may be subject to management measures) of the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006 as amended47, which transpose the requirements of the EU’s Habitats Directive to local legislation.
4.39.

Rhodolith and maerl beds are included in the UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA “Reference list of marine habitat types for the selection of sites to be included in the national inventories of natural sites of conservation interest” (UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA, 2006) while an action plan for their conservation has been formulated (UNEP/MAP/RAC-SPA, 2008), both within the ambit of the Barcelona Convention.
Within European legislation, Council Regulation (EC) 1967/2006, concerning management measures for the sustainable exploitation 28th October 1999.

A draft reference list of habitat types for the selection of sites to be included in the National Inventories of Natural Sites of Conservation Interest was drawn up at the Fourth Meeting of National Focal Points for Specially Protected Areas (Tunis, 12-14 April 1999) [see UNEP(OCA)/MED WG.154/7].
The most recent ‘Classification of benthic habitat types of the Mediterranean’ dated 2006 is available from the UNEP RAC/SPA at http://rac- spa.org/sites/default/files/doc_fsd/lrhm_en.pdf 46 The European Union's Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora is known as the 'Habitats Directive'.

Annexes I and II of this Directive have been amended by Council Directive 97/62/EC of 27 October 1997.
Annex I of the Habitats Directive lists natural habitats whose conservation requires the designation of Special Areas of Conservation.

Annex II lists species of plants and animals whose habitats must be protected for their survival.

Annex III lists criteria for selecting sites eligible for consideration as "Sites of Community Importance" and designation as Special Areas of Conservation, while Annex IV lists species of Union interest in need of strict protection.
Annex V lists species of plants and animals of Union interest whose taking from the wild and exploitation is subject to management, and Annex VI lists prohibited methods and means of capture and killing of mammals and fish, and prohibited modes of transport.

In anticipation of the 2004 enlargement of the EU, the Annexes of the Habitats Directive were modified by the Act of Accession signed in Athens on 16th April 2003, to take into account the expanded geographical area of the EU15+10.
The annexes were further amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006 in anticipation of Bulgaria and Romania joining the European Union in 2007 and then again by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 due to the accession of the Republic of Croatia.

47 These regulations were last amended by the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats (Amendment) Regulations, 2013 (Legal Notice 322 of 2013).
97 of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea, bans the use of specific fishing gear (trawl nets, dredges, shore seines or similar nets) on coralligenous or maerl beds48.
In order to conform to the requirements of EC 1967/2006, the local ‘Implementation and Enforcement of Certain Fisheries Management Plans Order’ (Legal Notice 354 of 2013) amends Zones C and G referred to in Annex V of EC 1967/2006 that originally overlapped with rhodolith beds as well as closed to trawling all areas where conclusive evidence exists for the presence of such beds (see Figure 44 in LN 354/2013).

4.40.
4.40.

The Needle-spined sea-urchin, Centrostephanus longispinus is listed in the Habitats Directive under Annex IV (Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection), in Appendix II of the Bern Convention49, and in Annex II of the SPA/BD Protocol)50.
This species is also protected locally under the Flora, Fauna and Natural Habitats Protection Regulations, 2006 as amended, where it is listed in Schedule V (Animal and Plant Species of Community Interest in need of Strict Protection).

Marine and terrestrial Special Protection Areas Breeding seabirds in the Maltese Islands 4.41.
The Maltese coastal cliffs support four breeding seabird species, namely Scopoli’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan), Mediterranean Storm-petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis), and the Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis).

4.42.

Shearwaters are members of the Order Procellariformes which includes also the albatrosses and petrels.

They are pelagic species with the characteristic tube-noses on the base of the upper mandible.
They visit land during the breeding season and do so under cover of darkness.

A single egg is laid in a deep crevice or burrow or under loose boulders and vegetation.

Sometimes, rabbit burrows are also used as breeding sites.

4.43.
4.43.

Table 4.3 illustrates the breeding cycle of the three pelagic breeding seabird 48 According to this Regulation,”Mäerl is a collective term for a biogenic structure due to several species of coralline red algae (Corallinaceae), which have hard calcium skeletons and grow as unattached free living branched, twig-like or nodule corallines algae on the seabed, forming accumulations within the ripples of mudflats or sandflats seabed.
Maerl beds are usually composed of one or a variable combination of red algae, in particular, Lithothamnion coralloides and Phymatolithon calcareum”.

In this definition, ‘maerl’ is used in the wider sense to refer to ‘rhodolith beds’ as defined by Basso et al.

(2016); true maerl is a particular type of rhodolith bed.

49 The Bern Convention is the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.

Malta acceded to this Convention on the 26th November 1993.
Appendix II of the Bern Convention lists strictly protected species of fauna and the Convention prohibits the deliberate capture, the destruction of breeding or resting sites, the deliberate destruction, and the deliberate killing of, and trade in, these species.

50 A number of species are listed in annexes to the SPA/BD Protocol: Annex II lists endangered or threatened species and Annex III lists species whose exploitation is regulated.
98 species and Table 4.4 indicates their presence at the colonies throughout the year.
Table 4.3: Breeding biology and ecology of P. yelkouan, C. diomedea, and H. pelagicus Arrival at colonies Puffinus yelkouan mid October Egg laying early February Hatching early May Fledging mid June/early July Calonectris diomedea end February end May mid July mid October Hydrobates pelagicus end February April-June May-August August to October Table 4.4: Presence in colonies of the three pelagic breeding seabird species Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Calonectris diomedea Puffinus yelkouan Hydrobates pelagicus Daily movements by Procellariiformes 4.44.
Shearwaters travel vast distances to and from their breeding colonies in search of food.

During the breeding season of C. diomedea, large numbers can be seen flying offshore in an east to west direction.

Distance from land is conditioned by wind direction and strength.

During strong North-westerly winds the shearwaters can be seen flying at a distance of less than 50 metres from the coast.

4.45.
4.45.

The same area is also used by Yelkouan Shearwaters, especially birds originating from the Rdum tal-Madonna colony (Borg et al, 200251, Borg et al, 201052, Raine et al, 201053, 201154 and 201255) and more recently from the St 51 Borg.

J.J. & J. Sultana.

2002.

Status and Distribution of the Breeding Procellariiformes in Malta.

(30) Il-Merill.

52 Borg, J.J., H., Raine, A.F.

Raine, & N. Barbara, 2010.

Protecting Malta's wind chaser: The EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project Report.
Malta: EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project.

53 Raine, A., H. Raine, A. Meirinho & J.J. Borg.

2010.

Rafting behaviour of Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan breeding at Rdum tal-Madonna, Malta.

(32) Il-Merill.

54 Raine, A., H. Raine, J.J. Borg & A. Merinho.

2011.

Post-fledging dispersal of Maltese Yelkouan Shearwaters Puffinus yelkouan.

Vol.26 (2) Ringing & Migration.

99 Paul’s islands (see Appendix 2).

Other bird species 4.46.


Another regular visitor to the study area and immediate whereabouts is the Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis).

This resident breeding bird is present almost all year round.

Rafting 4.47.

Rafting is the convergence of birds on water, normally in the vicinity of their breeding colonies.

During calm afternoons these congregations of birds can reach impressive numbers with several hundreds of birds waiting for darkness.
Birds start assembling about two to three hours before sunset and then start to dissipate around dusk when the whole congregation is within a few hundred metres from the cliffs.

The main reason for birds rafting is to rest, and it is safest to do this in large numbers when many birds are looking out for danger.

For example, both the Scopoli’s and Yelkouan Shearwaters raft offshore in the evenings, waiting to return to their breeding colonies under the safety of darkness.
Rafting is a time to socialise, and is an important aspect of a seabird’s life.

As noted in Appendix 2, it has also been hypothesised, that seabirds use these congregations to assess the health of their population, although this is now highly disputed considering the fact that individual birds from other colonies in other countries form part of these rafts.

Fish pens: supplementary food source for seabirds 4.48.
Borg (2012) presented some preliminary results from studies into tuna farms acting as a supplementary food source for storm petrels.

It was noted that the use of raw, unwashed fish food is fundamental in attracting storm petrels closer to these tuna pens.

The same food supply attracts a constant presence of small fish around the pens which in turn attract gulls and terns, especially the Black Tern (Chlidonias niger).

4.49.
4.49.

Observations have shown that the majority of storm petrels frequenting the IBA are adult birds undergoing primary wing moult, suggesting breeders, probably not venturing far away from the colonies during the chick rearing period.

A smaller number of birds seen during the site visits were juvenile birds covered in a fresh coat of dark plumage.

These young birds are present from the latter part of August to early September.
Tuna penning is locally carried out during the summer and autumn months (mid-July to November / December).

4.50.

It was recommended that further investigations should focus to identify if this reliable food source has any effect on the breeding success and fledglings 55 Raine, A., J.J. Borg, H. Raine & R.A. Philips.

2012.

Migration Strategies of the Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan (154) Journal of Ornithology.

100 survival in storm petrels.


While adult storm petrels regularly fall prey to yellow-legged gulls on Filfla (Borg et al., 1992-94, Sultana et al, 2011) no interactions between gulls and storm petrels were ever noted near the tuna pens.

Further research is required to determine the extent of dependency by storm petrels on this food source.

Threats Light pollution 4.51.

The use of light sources from land and at sea is of particular concern for seabirds.
It is known that light interferes with the behaviour of birds and other animal groups, including bats.

In those areas where electricity has been installed especially close to seabird colonies, birds have completely deserted the site.

Birds and other animals found close to light sources are known to behave in an abnormal way; several species of birds remain active during night time.
Light also disrupts the normal cycle of other vertebrates as well as numerous species of invertebrates making them susceptible to predation.

4.52.

In some cases, seabird breeding colonies have been abandoned when electricity was introduced in the area, places like Xlendi Bay, Ħal-Far, Għar Lapsi and Wied iż-Żurrieq, where colonies of both Scopoli’s and Yelkouan Shearwaters have been negatively affected.

Noise 4.53.
Noise 4.53.

Noise has a negative effect on the normal patterns of incoming shearwaters during night time.

Birds tend to fly away from any sound source as was observed on numerous occasions.

When a boat passes close to a breeding colony, all activity stops until the boat (noise source) is no longer audible.

Importance of areas of ornithological conservation interest in the A of I 4.54.
The following summarises the importance of the areas of conservation importance within the A of I:  Ramla tat-Torri/Rdum tal-Madonna area MT0000009: This area holds the most important Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan) colony in the Maltese Islands as well as a small colony of Scopoli`s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea).

Figure 4.12 shows the cliff area occupied by the seabird colonies.
In 2016 the Mediterranean Storm-petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis) was found breeding inside one of the numerous caves in the area.

Other breeding bird species in this SPA are the Blue Rock Thrush (Monticola solitaries), Short-toed Lark (Calandrella brachydactyla), Sardinian Warbler (Sylvia melanocephala) and Spectacled Warbler (Sylvia conspicillata).
 Kemmuna, Kemmunett, il- Ħa ġriet ta' Bejn il-Kmiemen u l-Iskoll ta' Taħt il-Mazz MT0000017: The eastern coast is of particular interest for this study as it supports breeding colonies of Yelkouan and Scopoli`s 101 Shearwaters, see Figure 4.13.

  Il-Gżejjer ta’ San Pawl (Selmunett) MT0000022: In the last decade, a small colony of Yelkouan Shearwaters has been re-discovered breeding on the island.
Il-Baħar madwar Għawdex MT0000112 and il-Baħar tal-Grigal MT0000107: Two marine conservation areas identified during the EU Life funded project Malta Seabird Project (2012-2016) for their importance as feeding grounds for the three pelagic species, namely Calonectris diomedea, Puffinus yelkouan and Hydrobates pelagicus.

Priority areas in the marine environment for the three Procellariiformes 4.55.
Appendix 2 makes reference to the IBA Inventory, 2015 (Metzger et al., 2015) which provides additional detail about how each breeding seabird species uses the marine environment.

This report helped to provide the basis for the designation of marine SPAs.

4.56.
4.56.

For the Maltese breeding population of P. yelkouan, three main hotspot areas were identified, one around Gozo, including the Gozo-Comino Channel and along the west- and southwest coast of Malta, a second one offshore in the northeast of Malta and a third one offshore in the southwest of Malta (see Appendix 2).
For the Maltese breeding population of C. diomedea, five priority areas were identified in the Maltese Exclusive Fishing Zone (EFZ), the first one around and north of Gozo and a second one along the west and southwest coast of Malta.

In addition, three offshore areas were identified east, southeast, and south of Malta (see Appendix 2).

For H. pelagicus melitensis breeding in the Maltese Islands the core area covers a coastal zone around Malta and a larger area of sea east of the island.
Additionally, a small area is found in the Pantelleria channel northwest of Gozo as well as an area southwest of Malta (see Figure 4.14 and Appendix 2).
102 Figure 4.12: Area of importance for seabird colonies at Rdum tal-Madonna 103 Figure 4.13: Seabird colonies on Comino 105 Figure 4.14: Maps showing priority areas for breeding Procellariiformes Priority areas for P. yelkouan within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15% Priority areas for C. diomedea within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15% Priority areas for H. pelagicus melitensis within the Maltese EFZ, dark blue squares: 10%, light plus dark blue squares: 15% Source: Metzger et al., 2015 107 5.
ASSESSMENT APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT, CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES AND SIGNIFICANCE 5.1.

As described above, an Appropriate Assessment was requested to determine whether the effects of the Scheme are likely to result in potentially significant impacts.

In determining impacts on SACs and SPAs, an Appropriate Assessment is restricted to the effects of the plan or project on the conservation objectives of the specific SAC or SPA.
However, specific conservation objectives for the marine SACs / SPAs have not yet been determined.

ERA is currently working on management plans for the marine sites, during which process conservation objectives are likely to be developed.
In the meantime, in the absence of specific objectives, therefore, the overall conservation objective is to ensure the long-term conservation of the habitat and species of conservation interest with a view to improving their conservation status or maintaining a favourable status as relevant.
In identifying potential likely significant effects, the assessment aims to ensure that there is no conflict between the general conservation objective and any outcomes from the Scheme as described in Chapter 1, which also includes a list of criteria to guide the assessment.

5.2.

Potential secondary impacts on the conservation status of habitats and species of interest were also considered when referring back to the EIA.
The EIA assessed the following impacts, finding them to be not significant and therefore were not considered further as potential threats (through secondary effects) to the habitats and species of interest:  Reduction in bottom water transparency due to re-suspension of sediment particulates by mooring blocks;  Reduction in water quality of surface waters due to release of fish oils and mucus from baitfish during feeding;  Deterioration in water quality and transparency from blood and offal released during culling, harvesting, and processing; and  Change in current and sediment movement.
Potential impacts - prediction and significance Direct loss of benthic habitat 5.3.

Deployment of the cage mooring is expected to impact the benthic habitat when the concrete block is deployed on the seabed.

All benthic flora and fauna, the latter mostly comprising sessile and slow moving invertebrates, that will end up underneath the mooring block will be decimated.
The more motile fauna, such as fast moving invertebrates and fishes are expected to move away rapidly from a mooring block that is being deployed.

109 5.4.

On deployment, the moorings hitting the seabed will lead to suspension of sediment in the water column.
Settling of the suspended sediment on the bottom will lead to smothering of flora and sessile fauna, resulting in potential adverse effects on such organisms, although the concerned species are usually adapted to disturbance from suspended sediment and will recover quickly, while the high energy environment of the area will help rapid removal of any sediment particles that may have been deposited on the biota.

5.5.
5.5.

The seabed at the Scheme site (beyond the drop-off) consists of Mediterranean communities of muddy detritic bottoms.

This habitat type is typically impoverished of benthic biota; indeed, no macroflora or macrofauna were recorded from this assemblage type, although detached macroalgae (mainly Zonaria tournefortii) were present on the sediment surface in various places, and the presence of openings to burrows indicated an associated rich infauna.
The impact from the placing of moorings on this habitat is not considered likely to result in a significant impact on the integrity of the SAC given the benthic assemblage to be affected.

Disturbance to marine fauna resulting from increased vessel activity 5.6.

An increase in vessel activity is envisaged in the vicinity of the tuna penning site to enable deployment of the cage moorings, mooring ropes and tuna pens and then during operation.
This is expected to result in disturbance to pelagic fauna present in the general area where the new tuna pens will be deployed.

Although detailed data on the pelagic fauna that occur within the Area of Study are lacking, it is expected that several species of pelagic fish, turtles and cetaceans migrate in its vicinity.

Such fauna will be exposed to disturbance from the increased vessel activity and from deployment of the cage moorings, ropes and tuna pens.
However, the fauna that are expected to be affected are mobile and will swim away from the affected area such that there could be a small deviation of the migratory route whereby significant adverse effects to the animals would not be expected.

5.7.

Good practice and measures to reduce disturbance to a minimum are the only mitigation measures to reduce potential adverse impacts.

5.8.

The overall level of impact is considered unlikely to be significant.
Contaminants from vessels used in connection with the tuna penning operations reaching the marine environment 5.9.

A number of vessels are expected to operate in the vicinity of the tuna penning site in connection with the farming acvitiy.

These include work boats that will be used to transport the feed fish and to feed the caged tuna, boats used for general maintenance of the tuna pens, and vessels used during the period when the tuna are harvested.
The latter vessels will be the largest of the ones used in connection with the tuna farming activity although they will only be present during the 2 – 3 month period during which harvesting of the tuna will be carried out.

Because of the regular presence of such vessels in 110 the vicinity of the tuna penning site, there is the potential for accidental or deliberate introduction of contaminants such as fuel or lubricants to reach, the marine environment.
However, excepting an accident, whether such introduction of hazardous substances and chemicals into the marine environment will actually occur will largely depend on good management and work practices, and effectiveness of environmental protection measures.

5.10.

Contaminants may have toxic effects on the marine flora and fauna, which could include reduction in reproductive potential and capacity, fertilisation success, development and physiological function.
However, the site concerned is located in deep offshore waters that are characterised by a high hydrodynamic regime; hence, any small spillage of hazardous substances and chemicals will be rapidly dispersed.

The impact is not considered likely to result in significant effects, although this would likely be different in case of a larger spill where a significant impact on the integrity of the SAC could be felt.

5.11.
5.11.

Any introduction of toxic substances and contaminants will depend heavily on application of precautionary measures, and on the toxicity and levels of substances and contaminants potentially introduced to the marine environment.

Therefore, good practice and measures to reduce spillage into the marine environment will be important to mitigate potential adverse impacts.

5.12.
5.12.

Impacts from the larger processing vessels are bound to be more significant, especially if reconditioned vessels (often more than 10 years old) are used.

It has been estimated that this type of vessel would produce roughly 15m3 of oily bilge water per year, which bilge water could contain up to 5% by volume, lubricating oils and other petroleum products (Axiak, 200556).

The impact could therefore be potentially significant.

5.13.
5.13.

According to MARPOL regulations 73/78, the discharge of bilge waters with an oil content in excess of 15ppm prior to dilution is not allowed anywhere within the Mediterranean (which is designated as a Special Area under MARPOL).

If the bilge water generated by such processing vessels will have oily contents in excess of this legal limit, then no discharge of such bilge waters will be allowed and the ships must have adequate holding tanks.
They would be required to transfer the bilge waters to a port reception facility.

In this scenario the management of bilge waters minimises potential significant effects.

Sewage It is estimated that approximately 156 litres of sewage per crew member is 5.14.

56 Axiak, V., 2005.

Water Quality Baseline Study.

Prepared in support of the Environmental Impact Statement for PA 00087/04 – Development of an Aquaculture Zone East of Malta.

EIS coordinated by Adi Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. 57 pp.
111 produced daily on non-passenger ships (Helmepa, 198757).

Therefore, it is estimated that between 187,000 and 280,000 litres of sewage are generated by each processing vessel assuming they will be present on site for 2 months.

5.15.
5.15.

According to Annex IV of MARPOL regulation 73/78 (applying to all ships above 200 GRT carrying 10 persons or over), the processing vessel will not be allowed to discharge such sewage effluents within 4 nautical miles from land, unless it is equipped with an approved sewage treatment plant.

5.16.
5.16.

Release of sewage from the ships58 close to the tuna pens is counterproductive to the farm’s operations; discharge further offshore, in line with MARPOL regulations, is preferable from an operational point of view.

This would also limit significance of impacts from such discharges within the SAC.

Increased nutrient input, originating from the farmed tuna’s waste and feed fish, to the water column 5.17.
The tuna farming operations are expected to result in some nutrient and organic loading of the water column.

The nutrients and organic matter will mainly originate from faecal matter excreted by the farmed tuna and from decomposition of any uneaten feed fish that will end up on the seabed.

Water quality surveys have been carried out at local tuna penning sites since the early 2000s.
During these surveys, standard water quality attributes, namely dissolved oxygen, temperature, salinity, turbidity, nitrates, phosphates, chlorophyll a, ammonia, and counts of intestinal bacteria, as well as sea currents, were measured at a number of sampling stations located in the immediate vicinity of the tuna farms and at up-current and down-current reference stations.
The results of such surveys indicate that, rarely, lowered levels of oxygen, reduced water transparency and elevated nutrient (nitrates and/or phosphates and/or ammonia) levels were recorded from the tuna penning sites during the farming season (July – December).

However, the observed changes in the monitored attributes were often sporadic and not statistically significant, and have not resulted in appreciable alteration of water quality.
Elevated counts of intestinal bacteria have also been occasionally recorded, these originate from sewage, not tuna farming, therefore their presence was not attributed to the tuna penning activities directly, although there is the possibility that large ships (e.g.

the processing ships present during harvesting of the tuna) may be the source of such contamination through discharge of sewage from their holding tanks.
Such favourable results with respect to water quality are attributed to the high energy environment, particularly strong sea currents present, that characterise the offshore area where the proposed Aquaculture Zone is located, and which lead to rapid and 57 Helmepa (1987) Guide against ship generated pollution.

Commission of European Communities.

41pp.

58 Both the factory ships and other vessels sailing in the vicinity of the Scheme site.
112 effective dispersal of nutrients that may originate from the tuna farming activity.

5.18.

The modelling on the dispersal of fish excreta undertaken for this study confirm these observations, with the threshold for nitrogen reached within 0.5 km of the last cage, and that for phosphorous restricted to the vicinity of the cages (see Chapter 4).
The spatial extent of these impacts are hence limited and transient in nature, such that the impact of such increased nutrients from fish waste is not considered to significantly affect the integrity of the SAC.

5.19.

Based on monitoring experience at local tuna farms, the water transparency at the surface layers is not expected to suffer any long-term reduction.
However, in view of the impacts of uneaten baitfish settling on the sea bed beneath the cages, it is expected that the water transparency at bottom layers would be severely affected through the release of organic material from the decomposing flesh.

This impact has been modelled as part of this study (see Chapter 1 and Chapter 4), which has shown that after 30 days of simulation, the uneaten feed deposit remains located under the tuna pens and its thickness is less than 0.1 cm.
This impact is directly proportional to the amount of uneaten baitfish lost (often a function of feed management) and the extent and efficiency of scavenging.

The impact is therefore uncertain, though the modelling and the monitoring data shows that it is likely to be restricted to the area beneath the cages and reducing in significance with increasing distance from the cages.
However, in view that the habitats at the Scheme site consist of muddy detritic bottoms with no benthic macroflora or macrofauna assemblages, the impact on this seabed is expected not to be significant.

5.20.

Good practice and measures to reduce loading of the water column with nutrients and organic matter are recommended.

Excessive loading by organic matter can be reduced by ensuring that overfeeding is avoided.

5.21.
5.21.

With respect to the duration of impact and residual effects; the impact will be effective throughout the period when tuna farming is carried out (4 - 6 months), with progressively reduced effects as the tuna is harvested and the reared biomass reduced.

However, uneaten bait fish on the sea bed is likely to persist beyond this timeframe;the duration of which will depend on the thickness of the layer.
Deposition of organic matter, originating from the farmed tuna’s waste and feed fish, on the seabed 5.22.

The tuna farming operations are expected to result in organic loading of the seabed.

The organic matter will mainly originate from decomposition of uneaten feed fish that may end up on the seabed.

Such organic loading is expected to impact the benthic habitat, which would result in changes to sediment quality of the upper circalittoral muddy detritic sediment habitat.

113 5.23.
113 5.23.

Video surveys of the seabed underneath tuna cages have been undertaken regularly at local tuna farms since the early 2000s.

The main aim of such surveys was to gather qualitative and semi-quantitative data, using direct observation, on the physical and biological characteristics of the seabed underneath the tuna pens.
The results of these surveys have indicated that towards the end of each penning season (in autumn) considerable amounts of uneaten feed fish littered the seabed in the area lying directly below the tuna pens, although not in areas beyond the perimeter of the tuna pens.
This resulted in alterations in the physical and biological characteristics of the seabed under the pens, namely (i) changes in biological characteristics, which typically consist of high population densities of detritus-feeding and scavenging benthic (i.e.
associated with seabed) fauna, and whose occurrence is unusual considering the benthic habitat type present at the tuna penning sites surveyed; (ii) alterations in physical characteristics, which typically consist of the presence of large quantities of fish bones and baitfish that are gradually consumed by scavengers or eventually decompose.
The results of the video surveys also indicated that the amount of uneaten feed fish present varied considerably between the different pens, and between different farms, with some only having small amounts of feed-fish beneath them and others having multiple layers of decomposing feed-fish.

Once the tuna farming season is over (late winter), a negligible amount of uneaten feed-fish remain on the seabed below the pens.
However, thick layers of fish bones and of decomposing organic material persisted under some of the pens.

These observations indicate a consistent pattern, with the volume of uneaten feed- fish on the seabed decreasing only when the tuna have been harvested (and therefore there is no further addition of feed-fish).

Any uneaten fish remaining on the seabed at this time will continue to decompose slowly and, if present in large numbers, form a continuous layer of decomposing organic material.
Sometimes, following storms and possibly due to strong bottom currents, this layer is admixed with the underlying mobile sediment.

In places where the decomposition process is complete, the only remains are fish bones that eventually disperse in the sediment leaving little or no trace of the original uneaten fish on the surface.
Once the source of the impact (periodic addition of new uneaten food) is removed, slow recovery to the original state is characterised by the re-appearance of certain megafaunal species (e.g.

the irregular sea urchin Spatangus purpureus and the crinoid Antedon mediterranea) that form part of the original fauna that characterise the bare muddy sand bottom of the areas where the tuna farms are located.

5.24.
5.24.

Monitoring of sediment quality at local tuna penning sites has also been carried out regularly since the early 2000s.

The main aim of such monitoring is to assess the levels of organic carbon content and organic nitrogen content of the sediments, as well as sediment granulometric characteristics.

Moreover, at least one survey involving assessment of levels of pollutants, including heavy metals and organic pollutants, was carried out at some of the extant tuna penning sites.
The monitoring design of the surveys to assess organic carbon content and organic nitrogen content of the sediments, and 114 sediment granulometric characteristics, was based on a Beyond BACI59 layout, in which the results of quantitative analyses of sediment samples collected from the tuna farming site and from a number of control sites before the start of the farming operations are compared with those obtained after a farming season using advanced statistical analyses.
Overall, the findings from surveys that were aimed at assessing organic carbon content and organic nitrogen content of the sediments, and sediment granulometric characteristics, indicated ‘pulse’ (i.e.

short duration) changes in the physico-chemical properties of the sediment following some of the tuna penning seasons.
When these changes were recorded they were restricted to the seabed area located in the immediate vicinity of the tuna pens and/or in the general area occupied by the pens; however, no significant permanent alterations of the sediment characteristics at the operational sites have been recorded to date.
Where significant changes were detected, these appeared to have resulted from accumulation of large amounts of uneaten feed-fish in the vicinity of the tuna pens, which decompose slowly causing alterations in the physico- chemical properties of the sediments.

The results of the surveys aimed at assessing levels of heavy metals and pollutant organics indicated that no elevated levels were present in the sediments in the vicinity of the tuna farms.

5.25.
5.25.

Monitoring of benthic diversity at local tuna penning sites has also been carried out regularly since the early 2000s.

The main aim of such monitoring is to assess for potential changes in benthic species populations and habitat that may result from the tuna penning activities.
The monitoring design was based on assessing total species richness and total abundance of selected benthic faunal species, as these are deemed good indicators of the overall state of species and habitats associated with the seabed.
As in the case of the physico-chemical attributes monitoring component, the design for monitoring of benthic diversity was based on a Beyond BACI layout, in which the results of quantitative analyses of samples collected from the tuna farming site and from a number of control sites before the start of the farming operations are compared with those obtained after a farming season using advanced statistical analyses.
Overall, the findings from monitoring of benthic diversity indicate a significant, long-lasting adverse impact (manifested as a significant decrease in total macroinvertebrate species richness and/or decrease in the abundance of one or more of the indicator species) following some of the tuna penning seasons; when these changes were recorded they were restricted to the seabed area located in the immediate vicinity of the tuna pens and/or in the general area occupied by the pens.
Furthermore, enhanced productivity in the general area of the tuna farms and beyond, as a result of 59 Before After Control Impacted; see Underwood (1992): Underwood, A. J.

(1992) Beyond BACI: the detection of environmental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world.

161.

Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 115 the tuna-penning activities, was evident from significant increases in the abundance of some of the indicator species recorded in some of the monitoring sessions.
These observations are a strong indication that, where present, adverse impacts on the benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and habitat at the tuna penning sites have resulted from processes that are mainly attributed to accumulation of large amounts of uneaten feed-fish and slow decomposition of same, in the vicinity of the tuna pens.
The uneaten feed-fish attract scavengers and other opportunistic fauna that cause changes to the original species composition of the benthic assemblages, while slow decomposition of the accumulated material causes alterations in the physico- chemical properties of the sediments, and presumably of the sediment-water interface, leading to adverse conditions for the biota originally present.
Mangion et al (2014; 2017; 2018)60 similarly describe the influence of local tuna penning activities on marine benthic habitat.

5.26.

Good practice and measures to reduce excessive loading of the seabed by organic matter are the main mitigation measures that can be adopted to avoid or at least reduce adverse impacts on the benthic biota and habitat present in the vicinity of the tuna penning site.
Essentially, good feed management procedures will be very important to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from organic loading of the seabed.

5.27.
5.27.

Taking the above into consideration, the overall level of impact of organic matter loading of the seabed, and hence on benthic biota and habitats present at the Scheme site, is predicted to likely be significant within the seabed area directly underneath the cages (depending on the feed management practices) and not significant on the seabed area beyond the cages.
However, in view of the location of the Scheme on a muddy detritic seabed with no macrofloral or macrofaunal benthic assemblages, the ecological impact on the seabed is considered not to be significant in the long term.

5.28.

The impact may persist even after the cages are removed until all introduced organic matter has decomposed or been scavenged.

Generation of a surface slick comprising fish oils released from the feed fish 5.29.
The tuna farming activity is expected to generate oils and fats that are released from the thawing feed-fish when these are fed to the tuna.

Release 60 Mangion M., Borg J.

A., Thompson R. & Schembri P. J., 2014.

Influence of tuna penning activities on soft bottom macrobenthic assemblages.

79.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 79.

Mangion M., Borg J.

A., Sanchez Jerez P & Schembri P. J., 2017.

Assessment of benthic biological indicators for evaluating the environmental impact of tuna farming.

48.
48.

Aquaculture Research.

Mangion M., Borg J.

A., Sanchez-Jerez P., 2018.

Differences in magnitude and spatial extent of impact of tuna farming on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages.

18.

Regional Studies in Marine Science.

116 of such substances occurs when the semi-frozen feed fish are introduced in the tuna pens, and when uneaten feed-fish end up outside the fish cages.
The resulting floating slick of fatty substances that accumulate on the surface may be transported offshore or inshore, depending on sea current strength and direction.

Such substances, commonly known as ‘fish farm slime’, have caused much public concern and outcry.

Although they are not deemed to have any toxic effects on pelagic marine species and habitats, they are aesthetically unpleasing and a nuisance to bathers, divers and coastal recreational activities.
A modelling exercise was carried out as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment that is concurrently being prepared for this development permit application whereby it was determined that, in effect; such oily slicks can in fact have a wide trajectory around the Maltese Islands, even crossing between the Malta – Gozo channel to the west coast.
The deposition of such substances on the shore is not envisaged to have any large adverse effects on marine species and habitats also because they will rapidly biodegrade.

However, it should be noted nonetheless this has not yet been thoroughly assessed given the lack of studies that deal specifically with this aspect.

5.30.

Good practice and measures to reduce the release of oils and fats from the feed fish, restrict their presence to the immediate vicinity of the tuna farm (e.g.
by using booms), and carrying out immediate collection of the substances (e.g.

using skimmers) when appreciable amounts of them are released to the marine environment, are the main mitigation measures that can be adopted to avoid or at least reduce their presence on the surface in coastal areas close to the fish farms and inshore.

5.31.
5.31.

The overall level of impact when floating oily and fatty substances originating from the feed fish end up on the surface in offshore waters and are potentially transported inshore is considered not likely to be significant with respect to adverse impacts on marine ecology, including shore habitat where they may be deposited.

Littering of the seabed underneath the tuna cages and in their vicinity 5.32.
The results of video surveys made below tuna cages at local tuna penning sites have indicated that, in places, a considerable amount of anthropogenic items are found below the pens that appear to originate from farm operations.

These include concrete weights with ropes attached, sheets and sacks of fabric and other material, car tyres, lengths of rope and other unidentified items.
While plastic items are known to be hazardous to marine life, items deposited on the seabed lead to physical alteration of the bottom leading to potential changes to the benthic habitat present in the vicinity of the fish farm.

Items such as ropes also provide a risk of entanglement to marine life.

5.33.
5.33.

Good practice and measures to reduce littering of the seabed by anthropogenic items originating from the tuna penning activities are the main mitigation measures that can be adopted to avoid littering of the seabed.

Should any items originating from the fish farm accidentally end up in the sea, 117 whether floating or deposited on the seabed, these should be recovered immediately.

5.34.
5.34.

The overall level of impact when anthropogenic items originating from the fish farm end up in the sea, whether floating or deposited on the seabed, may be significant depending on the type of items and whether they can be transported away from the site if not removed imminently.

Attraction of wild fauna to the tuna farm 5.35.

Fish farms, including tuna ranches, are known to attract a variety of wild marine pelagic fauna.
These include shoals of small pelagic fish (such as Clupeid species) which eat the fragments of feed fish that are released in the water, and the biota growing on the tuna pen nets; medium-sized predators such as Coryphaena hippuris and Seriola dumerilii which feed on the small pelagic fish that aggregate in the vicinity of the tuna cages; large pelagic predators including cetaceans (namely dolphins), which feed on the medium-sized predators and uneaten feed fish present outside the tuna pens; and wild tunas that are attracted to the caged tuna and also feed on uneaten feed fish that end up outside the tuna pens.
The site therefore acts as a fish aggregating device and can change the composition of the ecology within the area.

This can have an impact on throughout the food chain; refer also to impact assessment on avifauna below.

5.36.
5.36.

The attraction of fish to the Scheme site also attracts fishermen who carry out fishing activities in the vicinity of the tuna farms, targeting the wild fish present there; indeed because of such ‘facilitated’ harvesting of wild fish, fish farms have been described by marine ecologists as serving as ‘ecological traps’.
Prohibition/strict control of fishing activities in the vicinity of the tuna farms is the main mitigation measure that can be adopted to avoid detrimental (and sometimes illegal) harvesting of wild fish, including tunas, in the vicinity of the fish farms.

Changes in ecological relationships 5.37.


The presence of the several species attracted to the farms could affect the ecological relationships in the area in view of the presence of a higher number of predators than is normally expected, and the effects of a high number of scavengers on the original benthic assemblages.
The impacts of such changes in ecological relationships and increased scavenging or predation depends on the exact number of species attracted and their effects on the assemblages at the site, the significance of the impact is therefore uncertain.

5.38.

Changes to benthic assemblages (especially algae) could also result from shading effects caused by the presence of the cages themselves.

Such a phenomenon was reported from at least one operational site that was located in around 45 m depth of water.
It is likely that similar impacts occur at the other sites; although this impact is often masked by the more important changes to the benthic assemblages resulting from the settlement of uneaten 118 feed (see above).

At the Scheme site, the water depth (in excess of 130 m), the reduced light availability, and the muddy detritic bottom, which is devoid of benthic flora, are such that the impact of shading is not expected to be significant.

5.39.
5.39.

Another consideration is the effect of the deployment of new structures in the marine environment on the surrounding infauna, in particular from fish predation.

Studies on artificial reefs seem to indicate the presence of a strong trophic linkage between natural outcrops and the adjacent soft bottom habitats, with a “halo” of decreased prey abundance adjacent to predator refuges.

Nelson et al.
Nelson et al.

(1994) found an infaunal reduction within 1 m of the edge of artificial reefs, which was attributed to the synergism of direct predation and physical disturbance on the sediment by reef fish.

Changes in the sediment size distribution and infaunal community structure were also recorded by Ambrose & Anderson, 1990.

5.40.
5.40.

Whether the Scheme will result in such impacts or not will depend on a number of factors, including the type of species present in the area, the number and type of species attracted to the area, the strength of current and whether it would aid or impede settlement, and the type of community that would eventually establish itself.

5.41.
5.41.

At this stage of the assessment it is difficult to predict what the outcome would be; however, in the case of the Scheme, where the greatest impact on the benthic communities is a result of the settlement of uneaten feed, the impact on infauna from the attraction of species into the area is considered unlikely to be significant.

5.42.
5.42.

Impacts from the introduction of alien species and disease-causing organisms It is reported that most of the local tuna farms import baitfish from outside the Mediterranean.

This could be a source of algal material as well as parasites or viruses from a different region.
One event in South Australia that resulted in the decimation of the population of pilchards by a virus, was blamed on the importation of pilchards as baitfish for tuna farms (Earthbeat, 2002), although the connection was not conclusively proven.

WWF (2005) also sounded the alarm on the potential impacts of this practice and called on the European Union to ban the use of non-Mediterranean fish as feed in tuna farming (WWF, 200561).

1.157.
1.157.

Should such an event occur, the significance of this impact could be major, in particular if the introduced species is invasive.

.

61 WWF Mediterranean Programme, 2005.

Risk on local fish populations and ecosystems posed by the use of imported feed fish by the tuna farming industry in the Mediterranean; April 2005.

- http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/wwfonenvironmentalriskoftunafarming.doc 119 Figure 5.1: Location of Scheme in relation to benthic habitats 121 Impacts on seabirds 5.43.
The Scheme could result in a number of impacts on seabirds, including:  Impinging on sea area that is used by the seabirds for activity including rafting, social interaction, potentially feeding, etc;  Disturbance due to light pollution;  Disturbance due to noise pollution;  Change in prey abundance;  Increasing population of Yellow-Legged Gull (predator);  Entanglement; and  Ingestion of marine debris.

Competition for sea space 5.44.


As described in Chapter 3, importantly, the Scheme falls within the SPA Il- Baħar ta’ Madwar Għawdex which was designated on account of its importance for the ecology of C. diomedea and P. yelkouan breeding populations.

Appendix 2 reports on the priority marine areas identified that are used by the three species of Procellariiformes and upon which the eventual designation of the marine SPAs was based (refer also to Malta’s IBA Inventory Report, 2015).
These first maps show too that the sea space in this area is also used by H. pelagicus melitensis.

As described in Malta’s IBA Inventory Report, 2015, each species has been recorded spending time in the marine environment close to their colonies before entering the colonies.

They use these areas for gathering, rafting, social interaction, and possibly also sometimes foraging.

These areas are therefore considered to be seaward extensions to the terrestrial breeding colonies.
The extent of these areas used is species-specific and considered by Metzger et al (2015) to be as follows:  Puffinus yelkouan up to 7 km;  Calonectris diomedea up to 4 km; and  Hydrobates pelagicus up to 1 km.

5.45.

It is also noted that these areas are used by prospective individuals that may not yet have bred as well as other non-breeding species.

5.46.

Additionally, these three breeding seabird species carry out pelagic foraging in areas further offshore.
Such areas were also identified as part of the 2015 IBA Inventory.

5.47.

Thus, analysing the importance of Il-Baħar ta’ Madwar Għawdex SPA for each 123 of the species and how they use this area, allows for a better understanding of the potential impact on each species.

5.48.

The Scheme is located approximately 5.1 km from the Rdum tal-Madonna seabird colonies and 6.5 km from the eastern Comino colonies.
Thus, the Scheme is located in an area that lies within the seaward boundary of the P. yelkouan breeding colony.

According to the maps as reproduced in Appendix 2, the Scheme site does not lie within a priority area for C. diomedea and H. pelagicus.

5.49.

Although the Scheme lies within an area of importance, in particular for P. yelkouan, the Scheme takes up an area of approximately 4.5 km2, the sea surface area occupied by cages will be much less and in the order of 0.3 km2.
Considering that this species has a relatively extensive seaward colony extension and considering also that P. yelkouan prefers to raft in relatively small groups62, the presence of the Scheme is not expected to disrupt the behaviour of P. yelkouan to such an extent that could affect the breeding success of the identified colonies on the coast.

Similarly, with regards to foraging within this area, Forrest et al.
(2007)63 noted that if any adverse effects of habitat exclusion occurred, then their significance will depend on the spatial scale of the aquaculture facility in relation to the distribution and abundance of prey species.

Impacts on seabirds from light pollution 5.50.

As noted in Appendix 2, light poses a threat to birds, affecting their behaviour, sometimes to such an extent that can affect breeding colonies and therefore, possibly also breeding success.
Lights can cause disorientation, collision, and death of seabirds transiting through the site at night due to inappropriate navigation or vessel level lighting.

5.51.

The addition of the Scheme will include lights as a safety precaution to alert mariners to the presence of the cages at night time.

A total of six solar- powered navigational lights will be installed at the periphery of the aquaculture area, as instructed by Transport Malta.
In addition, one solar marine light will be fixed to each cage for safety reasons, providing approximately 34 additional lights.

During consultation, Transport Malta, stated that the six navigational lights must always be switched on whereas the additional cage lights are not required in terms of navigational safety.

The Scheme is located close to a bunkering area, another artificial light source.
It is considered that the Scheme will potentially contribute cumulatively to the 62 Raine, A., Raine, H., Merinho, A., Borg.

J.J. 2010.

Rafting behaviour of Yelkouan Shearwater, Puffinus yelkouan breeding at Rdum tal-Madonna, Malta.

32.

Il-Merill.

63 Forrest, B.M, Keeley, N., Gillespie, P., Hopkins, G., Knight, B., Govier, D. (2007).

Review of the ecological effects of marine finfish aquaculture: Final report.

Prepared for Ministry of Fisheries.

Cawthron Report 1285.


Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.

124 existing light pollution seaward of the breeding sites.

It is difficult to assess the extent of this impact in the absence of data related to how the existing situation affects seabirds and to what extent.

It is also noted that the lights are not downward facing, which could otherwise help mitigate the extent of impact.
In light of this the impact is judged to potentially be significant reflecting the uncertainty on the impact to the breeding seabird populations.

If only navigational lights (six lights) remain on during the breeding season, the likelihood of a significant impact is expected to be reduced.

Monitoring would be required in order to provide a more robust understanding of the extent of the impact on each of the species’ breeding populations.

Impacts on seabirds from noise pollution 5.52.


The Scheme will be a source of noise generally as a result of the movement of the boats which will intensify during fattening and harvesting operations.

Thus, the increase in noise will mostly be during the day time when the seabirds are away from their colonies.

Moreover, Puffinus yelkouan would have already left the colonies by the time harvesting operations start (refer to Table 4.1 and Table 4.2).
The impact of noise as a result of Scheme operations on the breeding seabirds is thus considered not likely to be significant.

Change in the abundance of prey 5.53.

Aquaculture facilities can act as artificial reefs and increases in abundance and diversity of small fish species looking for shelter and foraging on falling food pieces is well documented (e.g.

Forrest, 2007)64.

All of the breeding seabirds include fish as part of their diet.
Consequently, the birds may be attracted to the area occupied by the Scheme and benefit from an increased abundance of prey as well as a reduction in the energy spent in order to obtain the prey.
It is considered, however, that further studies are required in this regard because it is not certain to what degree this is exploited by the seabirds in the area and the P. yelkouan breeding population is particularly large so it is unlikely that the population as a whole is sustained by the presence of the fish farm.

Moreover, it is also noted that P. yelkouan leaves the colony by the beginning of the fattening season.

The impact is considered not likely to be significant.
H. pelagicus melitensis may also be attracted, the smaller population and the presence of the species during fattening time could result in at least a minor and potentially a major impact if all birds in the colony frequent the site regularly, noting, however, that these birds are not exclusively piscivorous.

Increasing population of increaser species – Yellow-Legged Gull 5.54.
During stakeholder consultation, BirdLife Malta raised the concern of the potential increased vulnerability of, in particular, storm petrels to seagulls that may also be attracted to the farm and are known to predate on the much 64 Ibid.

125 smaller storm petrels.

However, evidence of predation has been recorded locally largely on nesting petrels.

It is not clear at this stage whether gulls would actively hunt storm petrels aggregating in a similar area.
Monitoring is required and therefore the impact is considered to be uncertain.

5.55.

The presence of the farms may provide particular opportunity for the increaser species65, Yellow-legged Gull.

The farms use semi-defrosted bait fish to feed the tuna.

This provides an additional food source for foraging seabirds.

Gulls are particularly likely to take advantage of this food source.
This, together with the additional prey available as a result of the farm acting as an FAD (fish aggregating device), may serve to increase the success of this species resulting in an increase in its population.

Moreover, gull species are also known to feed around lights, further enhancing the benefits that this species may obtain from the presence of the Scheme (Surman & Dunlop, 2015)66.
If these introduced opportunities result in an increase in the gull population, this could directly and indirectly impact upon the breeding population of the other breeding seabirds through increased predation and competition for nesting sites.

Such a scenario could ultimately result in a major significant negative effect if the breeding success of the colonies of the Annex I seabirds is reduced as a result.
However, although the Scheme application occurs at a new site, the proposed degree of operation is not new and therefore, the Scheme does not introduce additional capacity for subsidising the diet of gulls and subsequently increasing their breeding / population success.
The conservation status assessment of the breeding colonies along the east coast of the north of Malta and Comino, as described in the respective Management Plans, does not indicate an increase in Gull populations that could be threatening the other seabird populations.

Therefore, with the data currently available, the actual impact is considered to be uncertain.

Entanglement 5.56.
Entanglement 5.56.

Shearwaters and the storm petrel are all diving birds and therefore risk entanglement in the fish farm nets, resulting in drowning.

Entanglement from any lost ropes or netting as well as other marine debris from operations is also a risk.

Further data is required locally to provide a better understanding of the extent of this problem for the populations of breeding seabirds in the Maltese Islands.
Consultant John J. Borg has noted that no such incidences have yet been reported (personal communication).

Impact is considered 65 Increaser species are more generalist in their requirements.

Some may also benefit from modification of habitat and increase in abundance.

Decreaser species, on the other hand, are more sensitive to changes.

66 Surnam, C., Dunlop, J.N.

2015.


Impact Assessment of aquaculture on seabird communities of the Abrolhos Islands, to support the Mid West Aquaculture Development Zone proposal.

Halfmoon Biosciences for Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries.

126 unlikely to be significant with the limited data available.

5.57.
5.57.

Ingestion of marine debris Ingestion of marine litter, particularly plastics, is common among seabirds and can cause death by dehydration, blockage of the digestive tract, or toxins released in the intestines (Sagar, 2013)67.

Ingestion of plastics by adults may also be passed on to chicks when being fed through regurgitation.

Fish farms could be a source of such marine debris.

If unmanaged, this impact could be significant depending on the number of birds affected.

MITIGATION 5.58.
MITIGATION 5.58.

The way the fish farms at the Scheme will be managed will have an important influence on the significance of any residual impacts.
The following lists mitigation measures that should be put in place to ensure that as far as possible there are few or no significant residual impacts:  Dragging the mooring block on the seabed during deployment should be avoided;  Ensuring that the design of the mooring equipment and layout is optimal to ensure against drifting of the farm under storm conditions;  Good project management to minimise operational losses of oils and fuels from maritime vessels and their consequent water quality effects;  Good project management and use of proper mooring technology to minimise sediment re-suspension;  Feeding should be carefully monitored and stopped as soon as (or just before) the fish are satiated.
Regular checks of the seabed below the tuna pens should be carried out by an independent environmental monitor;  Large stocking densities should be avoided;  Oil booms should be in place throughout the season to contain any fish feed oils which should then be immediately collected using skimmers and transported to land for recycling or disposal;  Ensuring that offal and dead tuna remains are managed in line with EC Regulation 1069 of 2009;  Marine litter should be strictly avoided, and any materials that fall 67 Sagar P. 2013.
Literature Review of Ecological Effects of Aquaculture: Chapter 6 Seabird Interactions.

Cawthorn Institute & NIWA Taihoro Nukurangi for Ministry of Principal Industries, Mahatu Ahu Matua.
127 overboard should be collected immediately and on a daily basis (whether floating or settling on the seabed;  Deployment of nets on cage collars to be done as late as possible just before the arrival of the towing cages and once the tuna from a cage is harvested, the net should be removed immediately in order to minimise the length of time with net shading effects on the seabed;  Development of a monitoring programme to re-evaluate impacts during operation;  Minimise use of lights to the minimum required for navigational safety purposes and on vessels use only downward-facing shaded light sources;  Adopt seasonal lighting plan, with all internal cage lights (i.e.
not the external navigational lights) to be switched off after the harvesting period when the nets are empty or only cage collars are present on site;  Minimise requirements to operate at night;  Remove the need for vessels to be in the area at night;  Digital camera monitoring to monitor which bird species are visiting the cages and their behaviour at the farm;  Use visual bird deterrents;  Control feed rate to reduce feed waste;  Remove dead fish from cages;  Prepare and implement waste management plan – all wastes, including food scraps should be disposed of on-shore;  Monitoring of gull colonies annually if observed feeding at the farm;  To reduce risk of entanglement, nets should be kept taut, mesh size should be within the 6-7 cm range and nets should be well-maintained (any holes should be repaired);  Reduce lines and riggings on vessels;  Train staff in appropriate bird handling and reporting; and  Ensure regular maintenance of farm infrastructure;  Screen vessel scuppers to prevent loss of material overboard.
128 APPENDIX 1: 2011 SITE SELECTION CRITERIA APPENDIX 2: AVIFAUNA BASELINE REPORT APPENDIX 3: MARINE ECOLOGY BASELINE REPORT