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]. History of Marine Habitat Mapping By Dr Gary Kendrick, University of Western Australia Marine Habitat Mapping: Advances in Technology By Paul Kennedy, Fugro Pty Ltd The Marine Futures Project: What it is and What it isn’t By Jessica Meeuwig, University of Western Australia The Marine Futures Project: Organisational Structure By Neil Blake, South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team 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.