Acoustic deterrence includes any device or method used in which acoustic (‘sound’/’noise’) is used to deter wildlife. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) and acoustic harassment devices (AHDs).

Records of the use of any aquatic acoustic deterrence, which includes the frequency and duration and duration of the deterrence.

If aquatic acoustic deterrence is used, scientific reports/publications are obtained which demonstrate that the deterrence does not result in significant stress, injuries to, or mortality of, the species impacted/targeted by the deterrence.

Records are provided to demonstrate whether any aquatic acoustic deterrence has been used.

If aquatic acoustic deterrence has been used, scientific reports/publications have been presented by the UoC to demonstrate that the deterrence does not result in significant stress, injuries to, or mortality of, the species impacted/targeted by the deterrence.

Records showing that the UoC has investigated each mortality incident and how the investigation has led to the implementation of appropriate actions to prevent recurrence.

Documents demonstrating the actions have been implemented and prevented recurrence.

Investigations have taken place following each mortality event.

Actions have been implemented to prevent recurrence of wildlife mortalities.

Indicator 2.1.1 and Appendix 3.1 outline the site-specific Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) following the Standardised Risk Methodology.

Mitigation measures may need to be implemented to manage Human-Wildlife Conflict within the site and in the area surrounding the site.

The risk level and identified mitigation measures (if applicable) should be identified in the ERA.

The ERA assesses the risk of Human-Wildlife Conflict. Evidence should be presented to demonstrate whether the risk is low.

Mitigation measures implemented to manage Human-Wildlife Conflict to maintain the low risk level.

The ERA has assessed the risk of Human-Wildlife Conflict and determined the risk level is low.

Mitigation measures are implemented (if required and recommended by the ERA) to maintain the low risk level.

The ratio of Clearance Time (CT) and Retention Time (RT) demonstrate whether the carrying capacity of a waterbody for bivalve production has been exceeded.

Primary Production Time (PPT) is calculated when cultured bivalves may negatively impact the carrying capacity of a waterbody.

The method used to calculate CT, RT and PPT, in accordance with Appendix 5.

Results demonstrating the ratio of CT over RT, or CT over PPT.

A modelling study has been conducted to demonstrate the carrying capacity of the waterbody, if the method outlined in Appendix 5 has not been followed.

Methods and results have been presented demonstrating the ratio of CT over RT, or CT and PPT depending on whether CT over RT > 1, in accordance with Indicator 2.11.

A modelling study has been conducted to demonstrate the carrying capacity of the waterbody, if the method outlined in Appendix 5 has not been followed.

The Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) will determine whether there are sensitive habitats within the vicinity of the site and the risk drivers that increase the likelihood of negative impacts on any sensitive habitats.

Appendix 3.3 outlines the risk factors that shall be considered as a minimum when conducting the ERA.

An ERA report has been completed, which assesses the risk of negative impacts on any relevant sensitive habitats.

The ERA report demonstrates whether the risk of negative impacts on sensitive habitats is ‘low’.

An ERA has been completed, which includes at a minimum the risk factors outlined in Appendix 3.3.

The ERA determined whether sensitive habitats are located within the vicinity of the site.

GIS portal: GIS portal – ASC International (asc-aqua.org)

In accordance with Indicator 2.2.2, the ERA report will identify whether critical habitats are located within the boundaries of the site.

The size and biodiversity characteristics of critical habitats should either remain the same since the ERA was conducted or have increased/improved.

The ERA report has identified the presence of critical habitats within the boundaries of the site.

Documented measures and outcomes, which demonstrate critical habitats have been preserved, and that their size and biodiversity has not decreased.

Whether critical habitats have been identified in the ERA report.

If critical habitats are present, evidence has been provided to demonstrate measures to preserve the documented critical habitats.

Outputs of preservation measures should also be available where appropriate.

GIS portal: GIS portal – ASC International (asc-aqua.org)

The Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) will determine whether there are critical habitats within the vicinity of the site and the risk drivers that increase the likelihood of negative impacts on any critical habitats.

An ERA report has been completed, which assesses the risk of negative impacts on any relevant critical habitats.

The ERA report demonstrates whether the risk of negative impacts on critical habitats is ‘low’.

In cases where the risk level is not ‘low’, the ERA report identifies the risk drivers.

In cases where the risk level is ‘medium’ or ‘high’, the site demonstrates the actions taken to reduce the risk level to ‘low’.

Whether there are critical habitats in the vicinity of the site. If so, evidence has been provided in the ERA that the risk of negative impacts on the critical habitats is minimal.

Conditional allowances to the siting in Protected Areas (PA) have been taken from the ASC species standards while work is ongoing to develop updated conditional allowances.

Whether the site is in a PA and if so, provide evidence that the PA meets the conditional allowances specified in Appendix 4. This includes the demonstration of the Protected Areas Management Plan.

Whether the site is in a PA. If so, evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the site meets the conditional allowances in Appendix 4 (4.2).

Protected Planet: World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA): Explore the World’s Protected Areas.

An independent person is required to conduct the ERA for larger, more complex sites. However, small-scale or extensive aquaculture sites are not expected to contract an independent person to conduct the ERA.

To demonstrate competence, personnel conducting the ERA for small-scale or extensive aquaculture sites should be able to:

Documents outlining the person conducting the ERA has experience and competences that are relevant to the size and complexity of the site.

For larger, more complex sites, documents outlining the qualifications and experience of the independent person conducting the ERA.

Evidence and documents have been presented to demonstrate the person conducting the ERA has the necessary experience, competencies and qualifications.

Auditor discretion is permitted to determine whether the experience, competences and qualifications are suitable for the size of the site.

[empty]

[empty]

[empty]

[empty]

[empty]