Marine Futures:

Site Selection Workshop Report

Contents:

1. INTRODUCTION 2

OBJECTIVE OF THE WORKSHOP 2 FORMAT OF THE WORKSHOP 2 SUMMARY OF THE CANDIDATE SITES 3 SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL SITES: 3

2. OVERVIEW OF THE MARINE FUTURES PROJECT 5

INTRODUCING MARINE FUTURES 5 MAJOR DISCUSSION POINTS FROM PARTICIPANTS ON THE DAY - 5

3. THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS: SELECTION CRITERIA 6

SITE SELECTION CRITERIA: 6 • COMMUNITY PRIORITIES 6 • RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RESEARCH AND FUNDING 6 • CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC OUTCOMES 6 • REPRESENTATION 6 • COSTS AND LOGISTICS 6 COMMENTS ON CRITERIA/ ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FROM THE WORKSHOP 7

4. SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS AND NEXT STEPS 8

BREAKING INTO WORKING GROUPS: PROCESS 8 ABROLHOS ISLANDS 9 CENTRAL WEST COAST 10 LEEUWIN-NATURALISTE 11 WA SOUTH COAST 13 EUCLA 15

5. CONCLUSIONS 17

APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE SITES BOOKLET 18 APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY OF SITES FOR THE WORKSHOP 19 APPENDIX 3: OUTCOMES OF THE WORKING GROUPS 21 APPENDIX 4: ATTENDANCE LIST 29

1

1. Introduction

Objective of the Workshop The objective of the workshop was to provide input to the Marine Futures project team on site selection for the habitat mapping and biodiversity surveys in the marine waters associated with the participating NRM regions (SCRIPT, southern Rangelands, SWCC, SWAN, and NACC). More than 50 participants attended, representing a wide range of marine resource managers and users including representatives from regional groups, Government agencies, stakeholders and scientists were invited to the workshop. The workshop was designed so that a wide range of expertise, knowledge and varied viewpoints would be collectively conveyed through a working group structure on the day.

Format of the workshop The format for the day was designed to maximize the input from the various participants through the prioritization process, while also providing the participants with background on the project, the nominated sites and the criteria against which the sites would be selected. The workshop was facilitated by Coma Keating, from Dinkum Results.

Prior to the workshop, participants were asked to provide the Marine Futures team with candidate areas to be considered on the day. This request was facilitated by the distribution of a site nomination form, which (in summary) requested an outline of the nominated site (GIS data, key values) and an assessment of the candidate area with respect to the selection criteria (please see criteria listed in section 3). Nomination forms were collated to develop a summary booklet of candidate areas which was distributed to all participants on the day, along with a table that provided additional information on regions and size of nominations (see Appendix 1).. Ideally, this would have been circulated previously but this was not possible as most nominations were late and received only one working day prior to the workshop. The briefing document included a summary of the points that were raised in nominating each site with respect to ecological values, human use etc. We also included a map of each of the 15 areas which typically showed the larger region along with the specific candidate sites within it. A summary matrix was also provided for these sites, illustrating the geographic regions (IMCRA and NRM) within which each were found and the areas of the proposed sites.

As the project team had gained some input on the selection criteria and the candidate areas before the workshop, the workshop briefly introduced the project and the candidate sites to the delegates in the morning. Over the lunch period, participants were also able to provide additional sites and these were integrated into a GIS if they believed the areas should be flagged as potential gaps for the project team.

Following morning briefings and discussion, participants were organized into six working groups to assess the candidate areas and rank priorities. Each working group was supported by a facilitator and scribe so that the participants were able to focus on the task at hand. The workshop closed with each of the table groups reporting back to the wider workshop on their priority areas.

2 Summary of the Candidate Sites More than 50 candidate sites were nominated prior to the workshop. The nominations ranged from small, specific sites (e.g. Suomi Island, Abrolhos (3 km2)) to large areas such as the Fitzgerald Region from Cheyne Bay to Hopetoun (≈ 600 km2). The total area of nominated sites was approximately 8,000 km2 (with the project estimating that approximately 900 km2 will be ultimately surveyed. In addition to specific sites, there were also some generic recommendations such as “all estuaries” and “onshore areas associated with offshore mapping conducted by the Southern Surveyor”.

To facilitate consideration of the candidate areas, they were grouped into 15 geographic sites, beginning with the Abrolhos in the north and running to the south eastern most nomination at Eyre Coast. The grouped sites were:

1 Abrolhos 9 Albany (West Cape Howe to Cape 2 Oakagee Deep Water Port 10 Vancouver) 3 Sandy Bay and Beagle Islands 11 Fitzgerald Biosphere 4 Dongara 12 Shoal Cape 5 Jurien Bay 13 Recherche Archipelago 6 Greater Perth Area 14 Baxter Cliffs 7 Southern Geographe Bay / Cape 15 Twilight Cove to Cape 16 Eyre Coast 8 Walpole/ Denmark (incl. Broke Inlet)

Summary of Additional Sites: Another 18 sites were proposed at the workshop, these nominations have been summarized in Table 2. With the exception of the South West and western South coast, most of these sites extended previously proposed sites. All of the below sites, were briefly illustrated (via PowerPoint) to all the groups before the afternoon prioritization process began.

Please note that SWCC nominations were developed at a regional marine workshop held on Friday, 3 March 2006 and were unable to be included in the workshop briefing document given the public holiday on 6 March. We have here included the rankings for these sites provided by the regional working group.

Table 2: Sites nominated at the workshop. No. Site Name Proponent Approx Key reasons for nomination/ ranking area (ranks provided by SWCC) where (km2) provided 1 Broke Inlet Murdoch 37 University 2 Cape Naturaliste SWCC 123 (2a) High fishing impacts/ pressure, varying depth/ currents/biotic communities etc. and will complement SWCC benchmark study 3 Cape Clairault SWCC 105 (2b) Indigenous heritage, complexity of habitats/ temporal comparison and will complement SWCC benchmark study. 4 Cape Leeuwin & Flinders SWCC 141 (CL), (1) Least amount of knowledge, highest Bay 148 (FB) complexities, where 2 oceans mix,

3

whales, high rec & commercial fishing, Catchment and (potential) development impacts. 5 Cliffy Head MCCN 254 Low current knowledge 6 D’entrecastauux SWCC 2588 (3b) low pressure area (comparison), proposed MP 7 East of Point Culver MCCN 129 8 Eucla MCCN 155 Low current knowledge 9 Geographe Bay SWCC 147 Complement Geocatch study, seagrass communities 10 Greater Perth (inshore) Murdoch 534 University 11 Kidney Patch Western 144 Area where fishing occurs Rock Lobster Council 12 Low Sandy Shores MCCN 156 Low current knowledge 13 Peel to Bunbury SWCC 2801 (4a) High population pressures & development (comparison) 14 Point Hillier MCCN 184 Low current knowledge 15 Rottnest MCCN 193 Inclusion of Western side (addition) 16 Swan River Murdoch 22 University 17 Twilight Cove MCCN 180 Low current knowledge 18 Wilson Inlet Murdoch 39 University

4

2. Overview of the Marine Futures Project

Introducing Marine Futures One of the key objectives of the workshop was to provide a platform to showcase the Marine Futures project to the variety of participants. There were over 50? participants from Esperance to Geralton who gained a much better understanding of the key objectives and outputs of the project.

The morning session was essentially comprised of a series of presentations from each of the Project Management Team (PMT) members. Copies of these presentations can be obtained by contacting the marine futures team at [email protected].

ƒ History of Marine Habitat Mapping By Dr Gary Kendrick, University of Western Australia

ƒ Marine Habitat Mapping: Advances in Technology By Paul Kennedy, Fugro Pty Ltd

ƒ The Marine Futures Project: What it is and What it isn’t By Jessica Meeuwig, University of Western Australia

ƒ The Marine Futures Project: Organisational Structure By Neil Blake, South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team

ƒ Introducing the Candidates By Jessica Meeuwig, University of Western Australia

Major Discussion Points from Participants on the Day -

1. There was general support for the process from the participants and a clear understanding that they were providing input to the Marine Futures team as opposed to determining the sites on the day. 2. There was significant discussion as to what areas should be the focus of the habitat mapping. Specifically, there were questions raised about the relative importance of working in inshore coastal waters highly influenced by catchment activities and population pressures versus deeper waters (15m-100m) that are affected by more diffuse pressures such as fishing. 3. There was also concern that the project was driven by technology (e.g. work in deeper waters because that is the gear available. 4. The Project Management Team clarified that (1) it was seeking input on where to work and that could include shallow or deeper waters and (2) that a wide range of technology is available and that the technology choice would be matched to the area(s) in which the project was working.

5

3. The Site Selection Process: Selection Criteria

Site Selection criteria: The following selection criteria were developed and provided to guide the workshop participants in proposing candidate sites.

• Community priorities Sites may be proposed because they are areas where (1) there are existing concerns, (2) where future developments are proposed, or (3) are considered to be of significant ecological or social value by the community.

• Relationship to other research and funding Sites may be proposed in light of other work that is currently being conducted in the area and / or work that has been completed historically. Specifically, the degree to which field work undertaken within the Marine Futures project would complement existing / past work should be considered.

• Contribution to strategic outcomes Sites may be proposed because they contribute to the strategic outcomes of the project. In order to meet the strategic objective of providing resource condition indicators to the regions, it is necessary to sample across a gradient of human activity from high to relatively low. Areas subjected to relatively low levels of human activity are often excluded from lists of priority sites. However, such areas should also be included.

• Representation Sites may be proposed to ensure that there is reasonable representation across the regions and habitats of the west and south coasts of WA.

• Costs and Logistics The final selection of sites will aim to obtain maximum spatial and temporal coverage given the available resources and research requirements. This assessment will be done by the Marine Futures project team based on the survey estimation techniques.

6

Comments on Criteria/ Additional Criteria from the workshop Some participants felt that the criteria were not sufficiently clear. For instance, is the existence of other research a reason to work in the area because of complentarity (high priority) or is it a reason not to work there as there has already been work completed (low priority). Hence, two of the working groups developed additional/ complementary criteria for the Marine Futures team to consider; these are outlined below and were used on the day in the decision processes for the working groups/ tables indicated.

Additional criteria from Orange Group – High priority should be given to: 1. areas with a range of habitats and pressures on these (e.g. fisheries, recreation, community impacts) i.e. some high and some low usage areas, and 2. areas which link with the National Oceans Office survey areas. 3. a selection of ‘Reference Areas’ (marine parks, exclusion zones, FHPAs, observation areas etc.)

Additional criteria from Red Group 1. Sites chosen should be representative (of habitats) in each bioregion: 3 sites per bioregion AND within bioregions: one site should be representative, one should be unique. 2. Project team needs to ensure that key people (managers and users) are consulted to choose specific sites within bioregions.

7

4. Summary of Workshop Findings and Next Steps

Breaking into working groups: Process The afternoon session began with the participants joining their working groups. Within working groups there was a range of participants’ expertise/ knowledge and regional representation. Each table was also provided with a table facilitator to guide the process and a scribe to record the prioritisation session.

There was variability among the six working groups with respect to how they tackled the ranking exercise and the degree to which they found the selection criteria useful. Some groups directly used the selection criteria to rank candidate areas; other groups used them as a basis to explore what they felt should be guiding principles (e.g. that each bioregion should include an “impacted” and “non-impacted” sites). Additionally, some groups developed new or additional guiding principles, as mentioned in section 3.

A summary from each working group is attached as Appendix 3, outlining the participants at the table, the process that they used and the scores (if provided for the top 7-10 sites. Table 4.1 is a summary of the priorities indicated on the day from the working groups, indicating the top 7-10 sites, and the specific priority area(s) within this that the group felt were most important.

Table 4.1 – Summary of Table priorities (indicated by 9) Size Site Working Group (km2)

Red Orange Green Blue Lime Black

1 Abrolhos 484 9 9 9 9 Deep 9

2 Oakagee Deep Water Port 1.7

Sandy Bay and Beagle 3 72 Islands

4 Dongara

5 Jurien Bay 495 9 Deep 9 9 Deep 9

Rotto Rotto=> 6 Greater Perth Area 700 9 Rotto Rotto Rotto Deep Inshore Southern Geographe Bay 1 or 2 SGB + C. 7 912 9 C. Nat C. Nat and Cape to Cape sites C. Nat Leeuw Walpole, Denmark (incl. 8 1419 9 9 Broke Broke 2nd tier Broke Inlet) Albany from West Cape Harbour King 9 2538 9 Howe to Cape Vancouver / KGS GS Doubt 10 Fitzgerald Biosphere 778 9 9 9 ful

11 Shoal Cape 39 2nd tier

8

9 12 Recherche Archipelago 679 9 9 East East East

13 Baxter Cliffs 24 2 x 1 x 1 x Rep Rep of Rep of 1 Rep, 14 Twilight Cove 26 of Eucla nd Eucla Eucla 2 tier Coast Coast Coast 15 Eyre Coast 31

TOTAL AREA (km2) 8,199

There was also concern within some groups that they did not have sufficient information in some cases, particularly with respect to existing research. The Project Management Team indicated that it would take the ranking as indicative and then compile additional information to ensure that the Marine Futures project would complement existing work.

Most groups examined the sites by looking at sites within the individual IMCRA bioregions, and finding high value, representative and strategic sites within these. The below list is a discussion of the findings from the workshop, looking at individual bioregions (from north to south) and the proposed sites within these areas in relation to the selection criteria.

Abrolhos Islands The Abrolhos Islands site was one of the most widely supported. Every table recommended that the proposed Abrolhos area (the large green section on Figure 4.1) be included as a priority site for the Marine Futures project. There were also two tables that were keen to see the deeper water to the east and west of the Islands and one table that recommended that 2-3 larger sites be undertaken, instead of 6 smaller sites. It was also noted by several groups that this area was hard to score in terms of representation, as it is a unique habitat and has its own bioregion, so it is both essential to include for these reasons.

Figure 4.1 – Proposed candidate site in Abrolhos IMCRA bioregion.

9

There was also wide acknowledgement that there are many different sources of information and studies that have occurred in the area, and although some participants had some knowledge on the specifics of the area, and there was a brief summary of information provided, it seemed that overall tables felt they did not have enough information (and perhaps time) to identify areas within the Abrolhos that are priorities for the project. Therefore it was generally agreed that (1) A comprehensive collation of existing biological and human use data is required for identification of the specific survey areas. (2) Additional consultation will be required to further define the specific survey areas within this large (~500km2) area . (3) Once the specific sites within the Abrolhos have been identified, the appropriate surveying tools can be ascertained to undertake the required work. (As mentioned previously, due to the shallow waters and numerous islands in the area as a whole, another form of technology may be more appropriate and cost efficient to use for the area, such as the LIDAR.)

Central West Coast The Central west coast bioregion extends from Kalbarri (onshore) south of the Metropolitan area – including the eastern side of Geographe Bay (to Dunsborough). Within this area, there were a number of candidate sites or areas that were considered at the workshop. There was overwhelming support (each table/ working group) for two large areas within this bioregion; Jurien Bay and the Greater Perth area, however, these areas are still relatively large ‘blocks’ that have been supported.

In the case of Jurien Bay, there was very little comment on the various smaller site proposals within the larger area, apart from two groups recommending that the survey area also include ‘deep’ areas off the Jurien region, and another recommending that cross-shelf transects are surveyed in representative areas to ensure best coverage of habitats and human use. Hence it is recommended further work is required, through regional workshops with key marine resource users and managers, to further identify the specific sites to be surveyed in the Jurien area.

The Greater Perth Area (including sites proposed at Rottnest, Marmion and Shoalwater) was also supported as a priority area by all six groups at the workshop. Following on from this, five of the six tables recommended that Rottnest was the priority area (within the Greater Perth area) for survey. It was suggested that all areas surveyed should complement existing studies and the area was important to identify effects of human activities. Other site recommendations from the groups included: ƒ Rottnest → offshore areas, linked with NOO areas (two tables) ƒ Rottenest area as the main site and very reduced areas within Marmion and Shoalwater ƒ Rottnest → inshore transect (one table) and ƒ All sanctuary and proposed sanctuary zones in the Greater Perth area (one table) Hence, at a glance the Rottnest, Greater Perth area site was recommended as a clearly supported site throughout the site selection workshop.

Other areas in the Central West Coast Bioregion that were not nominated in time for the workshop prioritisation process, are the areas in Geographe Bay which were considered as part of the Cape Naturaliste nomination and the areas nominated by SWCC around the Peel to Bunbury region. Two groups specifically mentioned that 3 Mile reef/ Geographe Bay was an important site in this Bioregion (SWCC priority 3a) as it links to other research and has important seagrass communities in the deeper areas, and 1 group ranked the Peel/ Bunbury region (ranked 8th overall).

10

Figure 4.2 – Nominated sites in the Central West Coast IMCRA region

Leeuwin-Naturaliste Within the Leeuwin Naturaliste bioregion, there was an array of sites nominated for the Marine Futures project, as highlighted in Figure 4.3. It was generally noted from several groups that there should be 1-2 sites in this area from the 4 ‘Capes’ nominations.

11

The Cape Naturaliste area was a strongly supported recommendation with 3 of the 6 working groups identifying it as their preferred sites. The reasons provided included that the area has high biodiversity/ habitat complexity, high (and increasing) human impacts/ pressure, and this area links with both the Southern Surveyor (NOO) data and includes areas proposed as no take areas in the state marine reserve planning process.

The other site that was specifically mentioned by one group was Cape Leeuwin. It should also be noted that the SWCC number 1 priority was the Hardy Inlet/ Flinders bay area. Reasons provided by SWCC for suggesting this area included the lack of data/ knowledge about the area, its high complexity due to the mixing of two oceans, high potential threats, whale calving area and it is an area that high interaction between conservation interest groups and recreational and commercial interest groups. This area also has sections that have been proposed as no-take areas in the proposed Marine Park.

In summary, there was general acknowledgement that the Cape Naturaliste area was supported by a majority of the workshop participants, and Cape Leeuwin/ Flinders Bay area was the next most supported site. More work will need to be done with the key parties involved, i.e SWCC and government agencies to evaluate these two sites.

12

Figure 4.3 –Leeuwin Naturaliste bioregion and associated nominations.

WA South Coast

On the south coast, there was generally less consensus across the working groups as to both the large areas in which the habitat mapping should be done as well as specific areas. One area that came out as a clear priority in the WA south coast bioregion was the Recherche Archipelago, recognizing that any such additional work needed to build on that previously down by UWA. This recommendation came from 5 out of 6 tables. Other areas that received much support were; the Walpole/ Denmark/ Broke Inlet area (4 out of 6), the Fitzgerald Biosphere (3 out of 6) and the Albany area from West Cape Howe to Cape Vancouver (2 out of 6). Within these areas there was limited time to debate the specific priorities; however some tables did provide clarification on the specific priorities within these large areas.

13

Figure 4.4 – WA South Coast Bioregion and associated nominated sites.

14

Within the Recherche Archipelago, 3 of the 5 groups that indicated that this area is a priority also indicated that the eastern section is the area which should be a priority for survey. It was acknowledged that the Recherche Archipelago is an area that has high biodiversity values, and has an array of existing information which would complement the Marine Futures project. The area also supports commercial fishing (scallops) and recreational fishing (near Esperance) which were considered as potential pressures.

Within the Walpole/ Denmark/ Broke area – 2 of the 4 groups suggested the Broke was the priority area within this region. The reasons provided included that the area is representative, has relatively low amounts of impacts and hence would be a good ‘reference’ site.

In the Albany area, King George Sound/ nearshore Albany was supported as the smaller site for both of the groups for that site. The reasons provided for this choice was primarily that this transect would be representative and also provide the Marine Futures project with a measure of human use over a gradient as the area around Albany has a high level of human pressure.

The Fitzgerald biosphere was the only site which provided little direction as to the specific area within this that would be the best area to survey. One group did nominate the Doubtful Island area, however it would be recommended that this area, if surveyed would need more thorough examination by SCRIPT and the Government agencies before completion.

It is clear that there is support for the Marine futures project to undertake work in a number of areas, however there needs to be an effective mechanism of narrowing the areas which areas as well! down to sizes that are much smaller. This further narrowing of the priorities should be done after there has been a collation of existing information for the area in conjunction with SCRIPT and the key marine management agencies and stakeholder groups.

Eucla

The Eucla Bioregion contained several candidate areas, however most groups chose to merge the sites in this bioregion, (as they believed the candidates here were similar in many ways,) and consider the whole area,. Interestingly, the Eucla sites – as a merged group were on the priority list for 3, and second tier for 1 - out of the 6 groups. The other 2 groups did not consider merging the sites. Of the groups that recommended that this area be surveyed in the Marine Futures project, 3 recommended that just one site in the Eucla bioregion be complete, and one table recommended that 1 OR 2 site be undertaken. The only clear recommendation was from one table, recommending that Baxter cliffs were the most interesting and biodiverse in the area.

Figure 4.5 – Eucla Bioregion

It was also noted that information regarding this site needs to be collated for work done within the South Australian boarder (as well as within WA), to effectively link in/ assist with site selection in this isolated area.

16

5. Conclusions

Overall, the six working groups provided guidance on which of the large areas they felt should be worked on. The rankings / priorities from each group are provided in Table 1. Based on these inputs, there was unanimity across the groups for work in (1) the Abrolhos, (2) Jurien Bay, (3) The Greater Perth Area and (4) Southern Geographe Bay / Cape to Cape. On the South Coast, the priorities were patchier: Walpole/Denmark/Broke and the Recherche were a priority for 5 of the 6 groups, Fitzgerald regions having support from 3 of 6 groups. The Eucla bioregion was a priority for 3 of the 6 groups but groups simply indicated they would like 1 or 2 regions down in this area without specifying which areas.

This greater variability along the South Coast may reflect less familiarity with the area by the participants and indicates that the Project Team needs to do additional consultation with respect to which of these large areas should be included. In essence, further consultation will be required with the NRM regions and the key government agencies in regards to both the broader areas on the south coast and the finer scale areas on the west coast which will be surveyed in the project. This will be undertaken in conjunction with a more thorough collation of existing information on the biological and human use information for the particular sites of interest.

To this end, the Marine Futures team would like to particularly thank (1) all the groups who took the time to nominate candidate areas and (2) thank all the participants for their time, effort and expertise on the day.

17

Appendix 1: Summary of Candidate Sites Booklet

(Please see separate attachment)

18

Appendix 2: Summary of Sites for the Workshop

Please note: For each site, the NRM region, IMCRA bioregion and Offshore marine bioregion are indicated. The size of the large area ("big box") is provided along with the individual sizes of specific areas within the big box. The total area of individual sites within the big boxes is also provided. Where offshore data has been collected by the Southern Surveyor, this is also noted.

Big NRM IMCRA Associated Offshore Sites Southern Site Box 2 Region Meso-scale Marine Bioregion 2 (km ) Surveyor (km ) Central Western 1 Abrolhos NACC Abrolhos 484 1251 Yes Province a Rat Island (Easter Group) 7 b Suomi Island (Easter Group) 3 Reef Observation Area - Easter c 32.5 Group d North Island 75 includes shallows and e Easter Group 325 island includes shallows and f Pelsaert Group 598 island includes shallows and g Wallaby Group 210 island

Central West Central Western 2 Oakagee Deep Water Port NACC 1.7 1.7 Coast Province

Central West Central Western 3 Sandy Bay and Beagle Islands NACC 72 30 Coast Province

Central West Central Western 4 Dongara NACC Coast Province

Central West Central Western 5 Jurien Bay NACC 495 95 Yes Coast Province a Fisherman Island 18 b Boullanger Island 14 c Seaward Ledge 15 d Cervantes Island 15 e Seaward and SW of Nambung 15 f Green Island 18 Central Western Central West 6 Greater Perth Area SWAN Province and 700 550 Yes Coast Southwest Transition a Rottnest 27 b Marmion 173 c Shoalwater 350 Southern Geographe Bay and Leeuwin 7 SWCC Southwest Transition 912 250 Cape to Cape Naturaliste a Three Mile Reef (within SGB) 8 b Southern Geographe Bay 150 c Cape Naturaliste 5 Yes d Cape Clairault 23 e Cape Freycinet 17

19

f Cape Leeuwin 26 g Flinders Bay 21

Walpole, Denmark (incl. Broke SCRIPT/ WA South 8 Southwest Transition 1419 Inlet) SWCC Coast a Broke Inlet 50 b Walpole area 100 Albany from West Cape Howe WA South 9 SCRIPT Southern Province 2538 258 to Cape Vancouver Coast a West Cape Howe 73 b Albany Harbour 109 Yes c Cape Vancouver 76

WA South 10 Fitzgerald Biosphere SCRIPT Southern Province 778 83 Coast a Doubtful Islands 40 b Hammersley 43

WA South 11 Shoal Cape SCRIPT Southern Province 39 39 Coast

WA South 12 Recherche Archipelago SCRIPT Southern Province 679 679 Coast a Inshore near Esperance 150 b Cape Le Grande 183 c Wharton 50 d Eastern Recherche 296

southern 13 Baxter Cliffs Eucla Southern Province 24 24 R'lands

southern 14 Twilight Cove Eucla Southern Province 26 26 R'lands

southern 15 Eyre Coast Eucla Southern Province 31 31 R'lands

TOTAL AREA (km2) 8,199 6,633

20

Appendix 3: Outcomes of the Working groups

LIME Table

Members: Nic Dunlop, Dylan Cleave, Christine Lamont, Alan Bradley, Chris Gunby, Halina Krobyn and Fiona Valencini. Assisted by Kris Waddington and Dianne Watson Process Members gave their thoughts on what areas were important from their perspective and why. The group then went through the prioritisation process (starting from the south). They then found it more effective to examine the areas via bioregion, and then from within this identify the area(s) which are most appropriate for this study and provide reasoning. From this, the group identified the top 10 sites (please see summary table below) and also allocated approximate area figures to these sites – providing an indication of relatively how much/ how large the sites are which they were supporting. Summary of table prioritization process: Top 10 (from north Explanatory Notes Approx to south) sites area (km2) Abrolhos Focus on deeper sites to the west of the islands and 150 middle channel between Wallabi and Easter Is. Jurien Deep-water areas 50 Rottnest Island Around the Island and west (deeper) into the canyon 50 Cape Naturaliste From the 20 - 100 m depth in this area 20 Capes region Choose one site between Clairault and Freycinet, and 100 extend this transect north-south instead of east west - concentrate 20 - 50 m depth. King George Instead of Oyster Harbour. Impacted site to compare 110 Sound to Broke Inlet (pristine) and Fitzgerald national park Broke Inlet Pristine, inaccessible. 50 Fitzgerald Doubtful Islands: since between Bremer and Hopetoun 40 Biosphere (growing high impact). Good comparison to King George Sound Recherche To the East of Esperance and deeper off Warton. Un- 250 impacted reference site. Comparison to Eucla site. Eucla (one site Extend sites offshore to 100 m, little known here. 50 only) TOTAL AREA 870

21

ORANGE Table Members Kevin Bancroft, Martin Heller, Jo Huges Dit Ciles, Kevin Giles, Harriet Davies, Gary Hooley and Nick Caputi. Assisted by Euan Harvey and Renae Hovey. Process The group provided rankings for the key areas listed as candidates, and this information is summarized below. They also developed new criteria to assist in their site prioritization process. The additional criteria considered was as follows – 1. Reference Areas (marine parks, exclusion zones, FHPAs, observation areas etc.) 2. Areas with a range of habitats and pressures on these (e.g. fisheries, recreation, community impacts) i.e. some high and some low usage areas 3. Areas which link with the National Oceans Office site areas. They also indicated that they would like transects to run inshore to offshore, to link information from the inshore habitats to the NOO work. Summary of table prioritization process Site: Top 7 presented to the Score Rationale/ Comment workshop are bolded (/12) Jurien Bay 12 Interest in Deeper water. Prefer cross shelf transects in representative areas (1nth, 1sth) Greater Perth Area 12 Existing versus proposed sanctuary zones. Geographe Bay and Cape to 12 Cape Fitzgerald Biosphere 12 Recherche Archipelago 12 Build on existing data, extend offshore. Abrolhos Is. 9* *No score for representation due to low representation due to unique habitat – but important for this reason. Eucla region: *(includes 6* No scores for community priority and research – this area Baxter Cliffs, Twilight Cove would give a relatively pristine baseline, hence considered and Eyre coast) important. Lake Clifton to Leschenault 10 Needs more research in this area. Potentially high impacts in this are with developments. Note priority 4a from SWCC. Albany from West Cape Howe 10 Split vote – research related to estuaries more than to Cape Vancouver marine, unsure if area is representative of south coast. Sandy Bay/ Beagle Is. 8.5 One of the few sealion breeding islands, high community (indigenous) priority Shoal Cape 6 *no score for research. Representative of western end of Recherche. Okagee Deep Water Port 5.5 Will increase if Port goes ahead, however developer should pay for research/ assessment. Dongara 4 Agreed not unique

22

GREEN Table Members John Braid, Helen Heydenrych, John Keesing, Joanne Wann, Dan Machin, Sasha Taylor and Andrew Hill. Assisted by Suzanne Gattrell and Marion Cambridge Process The group went through the process of prioritizing each [broader] site within the bioregions, using the selection criteria provided, however they struggled with the ambiguity with some of the criteria. They started in the south and worked north, hence more detail is provided with the south east areas. Summary of table prioritization process Site (from north to Scores Reasoning/ Comments south) provided Abrolhos 12

Jurien Bay 12 Greater Perth Area 12 To include all areas suggested so Rottnest into coast but with significantly reduced areas around Shoalwater and Marmion (about 35km2 for both). Southern Geographe 12 High scores for 3 Mile/ southern Geographe (12), Cape Bay and Cape to Cape to Cape (11) and Flinders (9)

Walpole, Denmark 10 (incl. Broke Inlet) Albany from West 11 Harbour area is likely to be representative impacted Cape Howe to Cape area compared to other part in region Vancouver Fitzgerald Biosphere 9 The option 1 size not feasible. Note that Hammersley inlet is high priority for CALM within this area. Shoal Cape 4

Recherche 8 Additional research wouldn’t add value compared to Archipelago other sites where information is low. Comment re strategic focus - does/does not facilitate dev RCTs. However Eastern Recherche (11). Eucla (incl. Baxter, 8 Whole Eucla area poorly known, but very low impact so Twilight& Eyre) form a good baseline. Consider information on similar habitat research in SA. Costs and Logistics - Great strategic priority but concerns raised over cost of doing such vast area quite far from other areas.

23

BLUE Table Members Duncan Peter, Kristel Weinziker, George Ebbott, Paul Bowers, Steven Gill, Di Walker and Luke Smith. Assisted by Fred Wells and Neil Blake. Process All members briefed the group on their site of interest or where their expertise/ experience was predominantly. From this point the group prioritizing the sites individually, however due to the limited time available the group decided to simply identify (with justification) their top 7 priority areas (broadscale) within each bioregion (see below table). If specific sites within these were able to be identified by the group this was also noted with justification. Summary of table prioritization process Rank Site Reasoning provided/ Comments 1 Abrolhos Is. Need to ensure a good range of habitats are captured – Include deep water to the east 2 Jurien Jurien is the priority for the central west coast bioregion 3 Southern Geographe Bay This area should include Naturaliste reefs – and extend and Cape to Cape - Cape from Cape Leeuwin out to the deeper water. Leeuwin. 3 Recherche Archipelago High biodiversity and interest in scallop fishery – eastern Recherche. Look at existing mapping data. Some human Impacts near Esperance. 4 Greater Perth Area - Needs inclusion due to high pressure from metropolitan Rottnest area. Should focus on the deep water off of Rottnest. Marmion and Shoalwater sites are reasonably well represented already. 5 Walpole/ Denmark - Broke This site should also extend out to beyond Cow and Calf Inlet (reefs?) and down to Point Nuyts. 6 Fitzgerald Biosphere Pristine site, currently low impacts (except around Hopetoun)

24

RED Table Members Mark Lane, Paula Tomkins, Emily Huges Dit Ciles, Linda Bellchambers, Brett Dal Pozzo, Edwina Davies-Ward. Assisted by Ben Radford and Karen Holmes. Process This group went through and ranked each site according to the selection criteria provided, also outlining the rationale for the scores given (see summary table below). They also provided some clear additional criteria for the project team to consider – (1) Sites chosen should be representative (of habitats) in each bioregion: 3 sites per bioregion AND within bioregions: one site should be representative, one should be unique. (2) Project team needs to ensure that key people (managers and users) are consulted to choose specific sites. Summary of table prioritization process Site (top 7 bolded) Score Rationale/ Comments (/12) Abrolhos 11 Critical for fishing, not as critical for broader community, but tourism will be increasing; better to do 2 or 3 large areas rather than 6 small areas. Jurien Bay 12 Increasing population, new Marine Park; lots of ongoing research; representative of central coast. Greater Perth Area 12 Rather than those proposed areas, focus on deeper water to piggy back on existing information. Sites chosen should be new, representative area(s): instead of re-doing areas which already have information. Southern 12 Increasing social values, increasing impacts; less research Geographe Bay available than in metro area. Critical in terms of bioregion and Cape to Cape & tracking long term impacts, a bioregion in and of itself. Choose 2 or 3 sites that make sense scientifically that link up over the area. See SWCC priorities. Walpole, Denmark 12 Low impacts here, could be used as reference site, but is it (incl. Broke Inlet) relevant to other sites? Unsure of representativeness. Could be good for the SW coast bioregion. Transition zone. No existing offshore information. Recherche 12 Don't reinvent the wheel - lots of information here already, Archipelago but if scientists feel there are gaps, then prioritize sites there as well. EUCLA REGION 12 Unique, could be important in future, very little information (Eyre Coast and known so hard to prioritise. Eucla separate region unique Eucla combined) and high fishing pressure 2 of the fore most appropriate Baxter cliffs with This site was not ranked, but it was noted that these areas Twilight cove should be combined. Shoal Cape 4 Probably similar to Walpole, Denmark area, not as critical to get Fitzgerald Biosphere 4 Probably similar to Walpole, Denmark area, not as critical to get Albany from West 4 Probably similar to Walpole, Denmark area, not as critical Cape Howe to Cape to get Vancouver Dongara 4 Sandy Bay and 4

25

Beagle Islands Oakagee Deep 4 Water Port

26

BLACK Table Members Lynnath Beckley, Ian Taylor*, David Sutcliff, Nick Detchon, Barbara Pedersen and Chris Simpson*. Assisted by Des Lord and Heather Taylor. Process Starting in the south, the group went through the prioritization process using the criteria provided. They provided rankings for sites in each bioregion and looked at both the broader and finer scales within the bioregions. Due to time constraints however, the group ran out of time to do each of the smaller scale areas and then spent the remainder of the time looking at the broader areas and ranking these. Summary of table prioritization process Site Score Rationale/ Comments (/12) Abrolhos: 12 The whole of the Abrolhos could be done with LIDAR – Long Island this opportunity should be taken if available. A benchmark could be attained for areas with trawl scars & lobster (fished) areas. Priority area would be Long Island due to the proposed resort. Jurien Bay 12 Sites within still to be selected Greater Perth Area: 12 From the proposed areas within this, Rottnest is the Rottnest highest priority and extended west/ deeper. Then Shoalwater (2) and Marmion (3) within Greater Perth. Southern Geographe 12 One site should be chosen here from Cape – Cape (as Bay and Cape to they are similar): preferred site is Cape Naturaliste (P1) Cape: Cape due to links with NOO, high biodiversity and mix of Naturaliste currents. 11 The area has high biodiversity and is representative. Tier 1 Albany from West Transect from Albany Harbour to deeper would give Cape Howe to Cape good impact/use gradient. If the area is too large then Vancouver: Albany keep external (deep) areas. Note: leverage for Port Harbour transect management. 10 CALM sites (within) have been put forward to value add Recherche to previous work. Rankings within this area: Eastern Archipelago: Eastern Recherche (10), Inshore Esperance (9), Cape Le Grand Recherche (9) and Wharton (8.5) 9.5 Major CALM biological survey & a priority for MPRA. Hopetown redevelopment pressure may increase on the Fitzgerald Biosphere area. Sites within this: Doubtful Is (9.5) and Hammersley (9.5) Shoal Cape (paired 8.5 CALM - for rep of exposed site of recherche (no with hopetown- islands), similar to hopetown. A lot of life. Good stock, similar environ) low useage, gd reference site 8.5 Choose one site within this area – Baxter Cliffs recommended due to highest biodiversity/ most Tier 2 Eucla (sites 13-15) interesting. Overall the area is important but hard to rank due to low level of information and low level of use/ community.

* indicates members left for other engagements at afternoon tea break

27

Not Important for Representation in this area – due to time Walpole, Denmark scored limitations this was not scored, but noted that it should (incl. Broke Inlet) be included in the second tier. Oakagee Deep Not Will be highly impacted with the port. Not the Water Port scored responsibility to do the work. Lowest community priority Sandy Bay and Not ID in Wilson report, but not a priority for other reasons Beagle Islands scored Tier 3 Dongara Not Not high community priority only one sector. Not high in scored other selection criteria

28

Appendix 4: Attendance List First Name Surname Company/ Department Nic Caputi Department of Fisheries

Linda Bellchambers Department of Fisheries

Andrew Hill Department of Fisheries

Kevin Bancroft Department of Conservation and Land Management

Chris Simpson Department of Conservation and Land Management

Barbara Pedersen Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Sasha Taylor Department of Environment

Chris Gunby Department of Environment

Alan Bradley Northern Agricultural Catchments Council

Duncan Peter Northern Agricultural Catchments Council

Nick Detchon Northern Agricultural Catchments Council

John Braid Northern Agricultural Catchments Council

Brett Dal Pozzo Swan Catchment Council

Kristel Wenziker Southern Metro Coastcare Officer

Christine Lamont North Metro Coastcare Officer

Megan McGuire Cockburn Sound Management Group

Emily Huges Dit Ciles South West Catchments Council

Gary Hooley South West Catchments Council

Jo Huges Dit Ciles South West Catchments Council

Neil Blake South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team

Helen Heydenrych South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team

George Ebbett South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team

Dyan Cleave South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team

Suzanne Gattrell State Strategic Coastal and Marine Facilitator

Martin Heller Australian Government NRM Team

29

Edwina Davies-Ward WA Marine and Coastal Community Network

Kevin Giles Swan Catchment Council

Paul Bowers Indigenous Land Corporation Western Division

Max Ball Western Australian Fishing Industry Council

Ian Taylor Abalone Association WA

Dave Sutcliff Abalone Fisherman

Steven Gill Western Rock Lobster Council

Dan Machin Aquaculture Council of Western Australia

Nic Dunlop Conservation Council of WA

Di Walker Marine Parks and Reserves Authority

Paula Tomkins National Ocean’s Office

Mark Lane Surfing WA

Joanne Wann Australian Defense Force

Harriet Davies Rottnest Island Authority

John Keesing CSIRO

Luke Smith AIMS

Fiona Valencini Murdoch University

Lynnath Beckley Murdoch University

Halina Kobryn Murdoch University

Colma Keating Dinkum Results

Des Lord UWA

Gary Kendrick University of Western Australia

Paul Kennedy Fugro

Christian Peranovic Fugro

Fred Wells Department of Fisheries

Jessica Meeuwig University of Western Australia

Karen Holmes University of Western Australia

30

Ben Radford University of Western Australia

Euan Harvey University of Western Australia

Justin McDonald University of Western Australia

Di Watson University of Western Australia

Marion Cambridge University of Western Australia

Kris Waddington University of Western Australia

Renae Hovey University of Western Australia

Heather Taylor University of Western Australia

31