Freshwater wells with a conductivity or chloride concentration above the thresholds in Indicator 2.7.4 will demonstrate that salinisation has taken place.

Specific conductance or chloride concentration should be monitored at a frequency adapted to fluctuations due to natural factors, such as seasonal rains.

Records of specific conductance of freshwater wells on, or in proximity to the site (within 1km radius).

Regulatory records obtained where applicable, to demonstrate well-monitoring is not permitted by law.

Monitoring records are available for freshwater wells in proximity to the site, which demonstrate either conductivity or chloride concentration is below the relevant threshold specified in Indicator 2.7.4.

Monitoring has taken place at least every six months and considered natural factors, such as seasonal rains.

Regulatory records are available for instances where well-monitoring is not permitted by law.

The records demonstrate conductivity testing has taken place.

Hand-held refractometers can be used to measure salinity. These devices are appropriate for salinities of approximately 2 or 3 ppt, but they are not sensitive enough to determine if sites are causing the salinisation of freshwater bodies.

The quickest and easiest method to evaluate salinity of water is to measure specific conductance with a conductivity meter. An alternative method is a chloride test kit, which is typically cheaper.

Salinity levels are: Freshwater (limnetic; <0.5 ppt), slightly saline (oligohaline; 0.5-4.9 ppt), moderate saline (mesohaline; 5-17.9 ppt), highly saline (polyhaline; 18-29.9 ppt) and seawater (euhaline; 30-34.9 ppt).

River estuaries are an example of a waterbody that have periodic varying salinity levels. These can also be referred to as poikilohaline waterbodies.

Salinity testing of effluent water in the receiving waterbody or natural wetlands should be conducted.

Salinity levels in the receiving waterbody or natural wetlands may be obtained from credible sources, e.g. results of government monitoring.

To comply with the exception in the indicator, salinity testing in the waterbody or natural wetland should take place. Alternatively, test results can be obtained from credible sources, e.g. scientific or government body.

Results of salinity testing for effluent water and in the receiving waterbody or natural wetlands.

If applicable, reports or measurements determining whether waterbodies and natural wetlands have naturally varying salinity levels.

Salinity test results have been presented which determine one of the following:

The location and/or route of the discharge of brackish or saltwater effluent to demonstrate discharge does not take place over land.

Examples of evidence may include maps/plans of the discharge locations/routes.

Evidence has been presented, such as maps/plans, to demonstrate brackish or saltwater effluent is not discharged over land.

Brackish water has a salinity of 0.5-29.9 ppt, while seawater has a salinity of > 29.9 ppt.

Low permeable liners include liners made from:

Records demonstrating the installation and maintenance of low permeable liners in ponds.

Low permeable liners have been installed and maintained in ponds.

The UoC should initially determine the depth of the waterbody in comparison to the depth of the cage.

Measurements should take place at the lowest water level and from the bottom of the cage.

Depth should also be measured from the outer circumference of the culture containment space, i.e. excluding predator nets, mortality collection chambers etc.

In tidal systems, the depth should be measured at mean low water spring tide (MLWS).

If the depth of the water column (surface to seafloor) is less than 10m or less than double the cage depth, the UoC should measure the current velocity below the cage to determine whether the >0.1 m/s threshold is met.

Results of measurements which demonstrate that all cages in the UoC meet the depth/current velocity requirements in Indicator 2.6.4.

The UoC has provided evidence demonstrating that all cage systems meet the siting requirements outlined in Indicator 2.6.4.

If mean current velocity is used to meet the requirement, the UoC has provided evidence that measurements were taken during periods with >75% peak biomass.

An example of how to measure current velocity below cages can be found under Section 2.1 of the following document: Marine Scotland (2015): A Technical Standard for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture.

This Indicator requires the UoC to take efforts to mitigate genetic risks associated with releasing hatchery-raised bivalve seed into the environment.

Any of the following:

In relationship to the items listed under ‘Evidence of implementation’:

This indicator requires the UoC to log (i.e. register) all handling and containment incidents, including near misses, in order to inform the risk assessment (see Indicator 2.4.3) and the training (2.4.4) on situations that could result, or have resulted, in registered escapes.

A documented register of all handling and containment incidents and near misses.

Presence of the register.

Interviews with employees to confirm that employees are aware of the register and that it is being used.

Training and handling procedures includes:

Training documents and records of staff attendance.

Presence of relevant procedures/protocols.

Training documents and records of staff attendance.

Presence of relevant procedures/protocols.

Interviews with staff.

This Indicator requires the UoC to conduct a site-specific risk assessment to proactively identify and mitigate risks associated with handling and containment of cultured animals. The Indicator emphasises the need for tailored evaluation rather than a generic approach as site-specific circumstances might require different responses. Management approval ensures that the assessment is formally reviewed, acknowledged and integrated into wider management structures.

Documentational evidence of a risk assessment, the identification of appropriate risk levels and any mitigation actions taken (including the implementation thereof). The evidence should also include proof of management approval and periodic review of the risk assessment to ensure that it remains relevant.

Presence of a documented risk assessment, which:

That the risk assessment identifies: