Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel ... - Fremantle Ports

Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening -Reclamation at Rous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged MaterialCompliance Assessment Report 2012Rev 0 – November 2012

\\oce-perfs1\projects\FremantlePorts\977_InnerHarbourDredgingCAR2012\001_OriginalScope\Reports\CAR2012\FPIHDCAR2012_Rev0_20121101.docmFremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening - Reclamation atRous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged MaterialCompliance Assessment Report 2012Prepared forFremantle PortsPrepared byOceanica Consulting Pty LtdNovember 2012Report No. 977_001/1

Client: Fremantle PortsDocument historyDistributionRevision Author Recipients OrganisationNo. copies& formatDateA J. Anderson R. De Roach Oceanica 1 x .docm 17/09/12B J. Anderson M. Bailey Oceanica 1 x .docm 25/09/12CJ Anderson0 J. AndersonM. BaileyL. BanksOceanicaFremantle PortsL. Banks Fremantle PortsOceanica Consulting1 x .pdf 02/10/121 x .pdf2 x hardcopy01/11/12ReviewRevision Reviewer Intent DateA R. De Roach Technical review 20/09/12B M. Bailey Editorial review 26/09/12C L. Banks Client reviewQuality AssuranceThe current version of this report has been subject to the following level of Quality Assurance:Level Definition StatusA: FullUnderlying data, calculations and data entry have been checked. Report format hasbeen checked and contents have been reviewed and signed off by Director.B: PartialSome data and underlying calculations have been checked. Report format has beenchecked. Review has been undertaken by a third-party.C: Minimal No formal review completed.StatusThis report is 'Draft' until the author and director have signed it off for final release. A 'Draft' report should not beused for any purpose other than to be reviewed with the intention of generating a 'Final' version.Approved for final release:Author: Dr Jonathan AndersonDirector: Mark BaileyDate: 01/11/2012 Date: 01/11/2012

CoverMain image:Minor images:Gage Roads (Oceanica Consulting);Posidonia angustifolia, Gage Roads (Oceanica Consulting);Cornelis Zanen dredger with environmental monitoring vessel Assassin (Oceanica Consulting).DisclaimerThis report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Fremantle Ports, and is subject to and issuedin accordance with the agreed terms and scope between Fremantle Ports and Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd.Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon thisreport by any third party.Copying this report without prior written consent of Fremantle Ports or Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd is not permitted.The Oceanica logo is a registered trademark of Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd that is protected by law. You may notuse this trademark without first obtaining the permission of Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd.© Copyright 2012 Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd

ContentsExecutive Summary .................................................................................................................. iii1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 11.1 Background and project status ............................................................................................ 11.2 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 12. Compliance Summary ....................................................................................................... 43. Annual Survey Footprint of Offshore Disposal Ground ................................................. 94. Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Supplementary Monitoring .................................... 155. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 166. References ....................................................................................................................... 19Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012i

List of FiguresFigure 1.1 Dredge areas, reclaimed area, and offshore disposal area used duringProject works ........................................................................................................ 3Figure 3.1 Depths of disposal area after deposition of dredged material inDecember 2010 ...................................................................................................10Figure 3.2 Differences in bathymetry from post disposal December 2010 toDecember 2011 ...................................................................................................11Figure 3.3 Depths of the Offshore Disposal Area, one year after deposition of dredgedmaterials (December 2011) ..................................................................................12Figure 3.4 Wave heights at the Rottnest Waverider (November 2010 to August 2012) .........13List of TablesTable 1.1 Key elements of the Project .................................................................................. 1Table 2.1 Action implementation status (as defined by DEC 2009) ....................................... 4Table 2.2 Audit table ............................................................................................................. 5Table 5.1 Summary of relevant actions completed for the 2011 - 2012 monitoringperiod ...................................................................................................................17List of AppendicesAppendix A Ministerial Statement 801Appendix B Surface to surface volume reportAppendix C Supplementary Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Monitoringii Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

Executive SummaryProject StatusFremantle Ports’ Inner Harbour Deepening Project (the Project) involved the dredging ofapproximately 3.1 million m 3 of consolidated and unconsolidated material using acombination of a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) and a Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD).The dredged material was then used either to reclaim an area of seabed at Rous Head orplaced at an offshore spoil disposal area. The dredging was undertaken to deepen the DeepWater Channel, Entrance Channel and Inner Harbour to allow larger ships to utilise theFremantle Inner Harbour.The dredging and reclamation works were undertaken in two phases. Phase 1 involved an11-week dredging program to remove sand from the Inner Harbour, Entrance Channel andDeep Water Channel, with all of the sand placed into reclamation at Rous Head. This initialphase of dredging and reclamation commenced on 6 January 2010 and was completed on21 March 2010. Phase 2 of dredging was undertaken over a 12-week period between9 August and 31 October 2010 and involved the removal of rock from the Inner Harbour andthe Deep Water Channel and placement of this rock into the offshore disposal area. Phase 2included minor backhoe works carried out to remove a small amount of sediment(approximately 0.1% of the entire Project dredge volume) from some berth pockets of theInner Harbour between 13 December 2010 to 7 January 2011, and 25 March to12 April 2011.All works were completed by 13 April 2011.This report - Purpose and ScopeAs a requirement of Ministerial Statement 801 (WA Minister for Environment, 18 August2009), a Compliance Assessment Plan (CAP) for the Project was prepared to the satisfactionof the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority(OEPA), including an agreed audit table. Utilising the CAP and audit table as a basis forassessment, this Compliance Assessment Report documents the compliance status since thecompletion of Project works, in accordance with Condition 4.6 of the MinisterialStatement 801. Previous Compliance Assessment Reports covered Phase 1 (Oceanica 2010b)and Phase 2 (Oceanica 2011) of Project works. Copies of the Compliance Assessment Planand previous Compliance Assessment Reports can be found on Fremantle Ports website.It is noted that subsequent to approval of the CAP, Fremantle Ports received two separateapprovals under Section 45C of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to: (i) re-orientate theoffshore disposal area; and (ii) amend the duration of dredging works from “20-26 weeks” to“up to 30 weeks in aggregate” to incorporate the period of minor backhoe works(EPA 2011a,b). The EPA considered that these changes would “not result in a significant,detrimental, environmental effect in addition to, or different from, the effect of the originalproposal” (EPA 2011b); such that the CAP remains a valid basis for compliance assessment.Compliance SummaryA summary of the compliance status of audit elements defined by the CAP are provided in thecompleted audit table of this report (Table 2.1). Few action items remain which are stillrelevant for compliance reporting during this monitoring period. Only one item requiredactive monitoring the "Annual survey footprint of the offshore disposal grounds" (801:M5.5).There were zero non-compliance issues with the conditions of Ministerial Statement 801during the post Project works period of August 2011 - August 2012.Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012iii

Annual Survey Footprint of Offshore Disposal GroundIn accordance with Condition 5.5 of the Ministerial Conditions an annual survey of theoffshore spoil ground was conducted in December 2011. The post-dredging bathymetry datafor December 2010 showed an Offshore Disposal Area with relatively low relief (16-20 m)throughout the area and the December 2011 map was showed very similar bathymetry. Adifference in bathymetry map showed that some settling or redistribution of sedimentsoccurred from high spots to lower spots, but no significant excavation of disposed materialsoccurred out of the disposal ground. A one in five year storm event did not occur during thismonitoring period.Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Supplementary MonitoringSupplementary benthic primary producer habitat monitoring occurred at sites adjacent to theGage Roads Offshore Disposal Area during October to December 2011. This monitoringproject is entitled "Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project"(Appendix C). The purpose of the supplementary monitoring is to investigate the rate andcontrolling mechanisms of Posidonia angustifolia (Cambridge and Kuo) seagrass recoverywithin and surrounding the Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area, subsequent to the InnerHarbour and Channel Deepening (IHD) Project. Thus far, the baseline data has beencollected for the project with additional survey scheduled for November 2012.iv Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

1. Introduction1.1 Background and project statusFremantle Ports’ Inner Harbour Deepening Project (the Project) involved the dredging ofapproximately 3.1 million m 3 of consolidated and unconsolidated material and its disposal atan offshore spoil disposal area or its reuse in land reclamation (Table 1.1, Figure 1.1).Dredging was undertaken to deepen the Deep Water Channel, Entrance Channel and InnerHarbour to allow larger ships to utilise the Fremantle Inner Harbour. An area of seabed atRous Head has also been reclaimed using dredged material. A combination of a TrailingSuction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) was used.The dredging and reclamation works were undertaken in two main phases and a backhoedredge (BHD). Phase 1 involved an 11-week dredging program to remove sand from theInner Harbour, Entrance Channel and Deep Water Channel, with all of the sand placed intoreclamation at Rous Head. This initial phase of dredging and reclamation commenced on6 January 2010 and was completed on 21 March 2010.Phase 2 dredging was undertaken over a 12-week period between 9 August and31 October 2010 and involved the removal of rock from the Inner Harbour and the DeepWater Channel and placement of this rock into the Offshore Disposal Area. Minor backhoeworks were also carried out within Inner Harbour berth pockets between 13 December 2010and 7 January 2010 and 25 March and 12 April 2011.The key elements of the Project are provided in Table 1.1. A detailed description of theProposal is provided in Section 2 of the Public Environmental Review document (SKM 2009).Table 1.1 Key elements of the ProjectElementConstruction of a sea wallReclamationDredgingRelocation of dredged materialsDescription1000 m longApproximately 27 ha at Rous Head Inner Harbour, from a depth of RL –13.0 m to a depth of RL -15.0 m Low Water Mark Fremantle (LWMF). Entrance Channel from depths of RL -13.2 m to -13.4 m todepths between RL -16.0 m (LWMF) and RL -16.8 m (LWMF) toprovide adequate depth for turning ships. Deep Water Channel to a depth of RL -16.5 m (LWMF) onstraight sections and RL -18.0 m (LWMF) on bends, within anarea of approximately 169 ha. From the Inner Harbour (approximately 0.9 million m 3 ) and theinner section of Entrance Channel (approximately1.1 million m 3 ) to Rous Head. From the Deep Water Channel (approximately 1.1 million m 3 )to a proposed spoil ground located at Gage Roads (placementof approximately 1.45 million m 3 within an area ofapproximately 150 ha). From the Inner Harbour approximately 4,200 m 3(i.e. 0.0042 million m 3 ) of consolidated limestone will beexcavated and disposed of within the Inner Harbour.Timing Dredging of dredging works up to 30 weeks in aggregate1.2 ScopeOn 18 August 2009, the West Australian Minister for Environment granted environmentalapproval of the Project under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (MinisterialStatement 801). In fulfilment of Conditions 4.1 and 4.2 of Ministerial Statement 801(Appendix A), a Compliance Assessment Plan (CAP) (Oceanica 2010a) was prepared to thesatisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Office of the Environmental ProtectionAuthority (OEPA), with a letter of acceptance of the CAP received 18 March 2010. An agreedaudit table comprises the key component of the CAP.Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 1

Subsequent to approval of the CAP, Fremantle Ports received two separate approvals underSection 45C of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 to: (i) re-orientate the OffshoreDisposal Area (rationale for this change was provided in Section 4.1.2 of a previousCompliance Assessment Report; Oceanica 2010b); and (ii) amend the duration of dredgingworks from “20-26 weeks” to “up to 30 weeks in aggregate” (EPA 2011a,b). While majordredging works of Phase 1 and Phase 2 were completed within 23 weeks in aggregate, thelatter amendment was required to facilitate the minor backhoe works, comprising excavationof 0.1% of the entire dredge volume (Table 1.1). In line with the intent of a Section 45Capproval, the EPA considered that these changes would “not result in a significant,detrimental, environmental effect in addition to, or different from, the effect of the originalproposal” (EPA 2011a,b). Relevant monitoring requirements remained applicable throughoutperiod of minor backhoe works; and while acknowledging the re-orientation of the OffshoreDisposal Area and extended duration of the program, the CAP remains a valid basis forcompliance assessment.Utilising the CAP and audit table as the basis for assessment, this Compliance AssessmentReport is intended to document the compliance status of the Project against MinisterialStatement 801 for the post-Project completion period November 2011 to November 2012. ACompliance Assessment Report documenting the compliance status of Phase 1 and 2 ofProject works was previously submitted to the OEPA during November 2010(Oceanica 2010b) and 2011 (Oceanica 2011).A summary of compliance is provided in Section 2, which includes the audit table elementsand the status of those elements (Table 2.2). For some audit table elements more details areprovided in subsequent sections and appendices, and these are cross referenced in Table 5.1.More specifically, further detail on the compliance status of the annual survey footprint of theoffshore disposal ground is provided in Section 3. It is also noted that this document reportsresults from additional monitoring activities that are not specific requisites of MinisterialStatement 801; specifically supplementary benthic primary producer habitat (BPPH)monitoring (Section 4).Previous compliance reporting has satisfied the majority of reporting requirements(Oceanica 2010a, 2010b, 2011). The intent of this Compliance Assessment Report is tofacilitate assessment of the remaining compliance status of the Project works againstMinisterial Statement 801 during the period August 2011 to August 2012.2 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

Figure 1.1Dredge areas, reclaimed area, and offshore disposal area used during Project worksOceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 3

2. Compliance SummaryA summary of the compliance status of audit elements defined by the CAP are provided belowin the completed audit table (Table 2.2). The audit table contains each Ministerial Conditionseparated into audit elements for auditing purposes, and includes the following attributes asper DEC (2009a): Audit code: Ministerial Statement reference number Subject: The environmental subject/issue Action: What the proponent must do How: The way it must be done/Performance Criteria Evidence: Information or data collected to verify compliance, i.e. report/letter/siteinspection requirements Satisfy: Who will give approval Advice: Agencies whose advice must be considered as stipulated in the ministerialstatement Phase: Project phase When: Specific timing and/or location Status: Describes the current stage of implementation of each action (Table 2.1),including notes about the fulfilment of compliance. Reference: Link to source of further detailsNote that Table 2.2 is only a summary of conditions defined in Ministerial Statement 801 andthat the Statement should be referred to directly for matters requiring additional clarificationor information on procedural matters.There was zero non-compliance with the conditions of Ministerial Statement 801 as specifiedby the audit table (Table 2.2), during 2011-2012.Table 2.1 Action implementation status (as defined by DEC 2009)Status termSatisfactory during this periodIn processNot required at this stageNo longer relevantCompletedClearedOnly proponent to auditMonitored by another agencyDescriptionThe action has been satisfactorily implemented during the auditedperiod.Actions are in process of being implemented, but do not yet fully satisfythe requirements of the ministerial statement.The proponent was not required to implement the action during theaudited stage of the project.The action was not completed during the audited period, as the action isconsidered no longer relevant to the project.The action was satisfactorily completed during the audited period.Clearance for the action has been received from DEC.The action is only audited internally by the proponentThe action is audited by another agency.4 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

Table 2.2 Audit tableAuditCode801:M1.1801:M2.1801:M2.2Subject Action How Evidence Satisfy Advice Phase When Status Ref.ProposalImplementationProponentNomination andContact DetailsProponentNomination andContact DetailsThe proponent shall implement the proposal asdocumented and described in schedule 1 of thisstatement subject to the conditions and proceduresof this statementThe proponent for the time being nominated by theMinister for Environment under sections 38(6) or38(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 isresponsible for the implementation of the proposalThe proponent shall notify the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Department of Environment andConservation (CEO) of any change of the name andaddress of the proponent for the serving of noticesor other correspondence within 30 days of suchchange.Project implemented as describedin StatementProponent nominated toimplement the proposalWritten adviceAnnual ComplianceAssessment ReportProponent detailsas listed onMinisterialStatement 801Letter to CEOnotifying of changeof contact nameand addressMin for Env OverallMin for Env OverallCEO OverallFor the life of theProposalFor the life of theProposalWithin 30 days of suchchange.Satisfactory during this period.Proposal implemented. See statusof conditions below.Satisfactory during this period.Proponent is Fremantle Ports aslisted on Ministerial Statement801.Satisfactory during this period.No change in proponent.801:M3.1Time Limit ofAuthorisationThe authorisation to implement the proposalprovided for in this statement shall lapse and bevoid five years after the date of this statement if theproposal to which this statement relates is notsubstantially commencedWritten adviceComplianceAssessmentReports, writtennotificationMin for Env OverallCommenced by 18August 2014CompletedProposal was commenced withinfive years.Section 1.1801:M3.2801:M4.1801:M4.2Time Limit ofAuthorisationComplianceReportingComplianceReportingThe proponent shall provide the CEO with writtenevidence which demonstrates that the proposal hassubstantially commenced on or before the expirationof five years from the date of this statementThe Proponent shall prepare and maintain aCompliance Assessment Plan to the satisfaction ofthe CEOThe Proponent shall submit to the CEO, theCompliance Assessment Plan required by Condition4.1 within 6 months of the date of this StatementWritten advicePrepare Compliance AssessmentPlanThe Compliance Assessment Planshall indicate: 1. the frequency ofcompliance reporting; 2. theapproach and timing ofcompliance assessments; 3. theretention of complianceassessments; 4. reporting ofnon-compliances and correctiveactions taken; 5. the table ofcontents of ComplianceAssessment Reports; and 6.public availability of compliancereports.Letter to CEO ofOEPA outliningsubstantialcommencementComplianceAssessment PlanComplianceAssessment PlanDEC OverallCEOCEO DesignWithin one month ofcommencementFor the life of theProposalWithin 6 months of thedate of this Statement.That is by 18 February2010CompletedLetter sent 5 February 2010 andapproved 11 March 2010.CompletedCompliance Assessment Planprepared, maintained andapproved (18 March).CompletedDraft Compliance Assessment Plansubmitted to OEPA 16 February2010, and approved 18 March.Satisfactory during this period.ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 1(Oceanica 2010b)801:M4.3ComplianceReportingThe Proponent shall assess compliance withconditions in accordance with the ComplianceAssessment Plan required by Condition 4.1Follow Compliance AssessmentPlan when assessing complianceComplianceAssessmentReportsCEO Overall AnnuallyThis Compliance AssessmentReport assesses complianceagainst the ComplianceAssessment Plan.Satisfactory during this period.This document801:M4.4ComplianceReportingThe Proponent shall retain reports of all complianceassessments described in the ComplianceAssessment Plan required by Condition 4.1 and shallmake those reports available when requested by theCEOCompliance Assessment Reportswill be placed on Fremantle PortswebsiteReports on website CEO OverallWhen requested of theCEOCompliance Assessment Report:Phase 1 (Oceanica 2010b) madeavailable to the CEO and placed onFremantle Ports website and.Compliance Assessment Report:Phase 2 (Oceanica 2011) madeavailable to the CEO and placed onFremantle Ports website.ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 1(Oceanica 2010b)ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 2(Oceanica 2011)Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 5

AuditCodeSubject Action How Evidence Satisfy Advice Phase When Status Ref.Satisfactory during this period.801:M4.5801:M4.6801:M5.1801:M5.2801:M5.3ComplianceReportingComplianceReportingMarine Ecology– BenthicPrimaryProducerHabitatMarine Ecology– BenthicPrimaryProducerHabitatMarine Ecology– BenthicPrimaryProducerHabitatThe Proponent shall advise the CEO of any noncomplianceas soon as practicableThe Proponent shall submit to the CEO a ComplianceAssessment Report annually from the date of issueof this Statement addressing the previous twelvemonthperiod or other period as agreed by the CEO.The date of the first Compliance Assessment Reportshall be 15 months from the date of this Statement,with each subsequent report 12 months from thedate of the previous ReportPrior to dredging activities the proponent shallprepare maps showing the: 1. Gage Roads BenthicPrimary Producer Habitat Management Unit; 2.location and extent of the benthic primary producerhabitat types; 3. boundaries of the directdisturbance area and predicted levels of impact,including coordinates; 4. boundaries of the indirectdisturbance area and predicted levels of indirectimpact, including coordinates; 5. the spatiallydefined offshore spoil disposal ground, includingcoordinates; and 6. boundary of the Rous Headreclamation area, including coordinatesThe proponent shall ensure that there are no director indirect losses of coral or macroalgal BenthicPrimary Producer Habitat within the Gage Roadsmanagement unit (referred to in condition 5-1)caused by this dredging campaign and that losses ofseagrass BPPH within this management unit causedby the dredging campaign do not exceed 50hectaresThe proponent shall monitor and record the loss ofBenthic Primary Producer Habitat (seagrass,macroalgae, coral) within the Gage Roadsmanagement unit referred to in condition 5-1 for theduration of the dredging campaign and for sixmonths following the dredging campaign if impactsare within predicted levels, or for up to 5 years ifimpacts exceed predictions, to the requirements ofthe Department of Environment and ConservationA letter describing the noncompliancewill be sent to theCEO of OEPAThe Compliance AssessmentReport shall: 1. be endorsed bythe Proponent’s Chief ExecutiveOfficer or a person, approved inwriting by the Department ofEnvironment and Conservation,delegated to sign on the ChiefExecutive Officer’s behalf; 2.include a statement as towhether the Proponent hascomplied with the conditions; 3.identify all non-compliances anddescribe corrective andpreventative actions taken; 4. bemade publicly available inaccordance with the approvedCompliance Assessment Plan;and 5. indicate any proposedchanges to the ComplianceAssessment Plan required byCondition 4.1Prepare maps listed under ActioncolumnMeasurement of baseline coral,macro-algal and seagrass BPPHextent (801: M5.1) andcomparative post-dredging BPPHsurvey to ensure that there areno losses of coral or macroalgalBPPH and no more than 50 ha ofseagrass BPPHMeasurement of baseline coral,macro-algal and seagrass BPPHextent (801: M5.1) andcomparative post-dredging BPPHsurvey/s to ensure that there areno losses of coral or macroalgalBPPH and no more than 50 ha ofseagrass BPPHLetter to CEO ofOEPAAnnual ComplianceAssessmentReportsMaps to beprovided to OEPAwithin the firstComplianceAssessmentReport.ComplianceAssessment Reportincluding habitatloss calculationsComplianceAssessment Reportincluding habitatloss calculations;Monitoring resultsprovided to theCEO of OEPA asoutlined in M5.4CEO OverallCEO OverallMin for Env DesignMin for Env OverallCEO OverallWithin 72 hours of anon-compliance beingidentified (subsequent toprocessing of data)Annually with the firstreport due 15 monthsfrom the date of issue ofthis Statement. Thatwas on 18 November2010.Maps prepared prior todredging activities, to beprovided together withcomparative maps fromBPPH monitoringsurveys referred to in801:M5.2, 801:M5.3 and801:M5.4. Maps to beprovided within the firstCompliance AssessmentReport.Two months followingthe completion of theproposalThroughout the dredgingcampaign and for sixmonths following thedredging campaign ifimpacts are withinpredicted levels, or forup to 5 years if impactsexceed predictionsThere have been no noncomplianceswith the conditions ofMinisterial Statement 801 asspecified by this audit table todate.Satisfactory during this period.Compliance Assessment Report:Phase 1 (Oceanica 2010b)submitted 18 November 2010.Compliance Assessment Report:Phase 2 (Oceanica 2011)submitted by 18 November 2011.Compliance Assessment Report:2012 (this document) submitted by18 November 2012CompletedMaps and coordinates provided inCompliance Assessment Report:Phase 1 (Oceanica 2010b).CompletedPost-dredging BPPH surveydetermined no direct or indirectnet losses of coral, macroalgal orseagrass Benthic Primary ProducerHabitat within the Gage Roadsmanagement unit.CompletedPost-dredging BPPH surveydetermined no direct or indirectnet losses of coral, macroalgal orseagrass Benthic Primary ProducerHabitat within the Gage Roadsmanagement unit.This TableComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 1(Oceanica 2010b)ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 2(Oceanica 2011)This documentComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 1(Oceanica 2010b)ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 2(Oceanica 2011)ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 2(Oceanica 2011)801:M5.4Marine Ecology– BenthicPrimaryProducerHabitatTwo months following the conclusion of monitoringof each program referred to in condition 5-3 theproponent is to report to the CEO of the Departmentof Environment and Conservation the totalcumulative loss of each Benthic Primary ProducerHabitat type (seagrass, macroalgae, and coral) inthe Gage Roads management unit referred to incondition 5-1. The report is to include a mapshowing area and losses of benthic primary producerhabitat typeCalculate cumulative habitatlosses based on monitoringresults. Prepare a report withthese losses as well as a mapshowing area and losses of BPPH.ComplianceAssessment Reportincluding a mapand cumulativehabitat losscalculations foreach BPPH type;Report provided tothe CEO of OEPACEO OverallTwo months followingthe conclusion ofmonitoring of eachprogram referred to incondition 5-3CompletedPost-dredging BPPH surveydetermined no direct or indirectnet losses of coral, macroalgal orseagrass Benthic Primary ProducerHabitat within the Gage Roadsmanagement unit.ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 2(Oceanica 2011)6 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

AuditCodeSubject Action How Evidence Satisfy Advice Phase When Status Ref.Satisfactory during this period.801:M5.5801:M5.6801:M6.1801:M6.2801:M6.3Marine Ecology– BenthicPrimaryProducerHabitatMarine Ecology– BenthicPrimaryProducerHabitatMarine WaterQuality andSedimentQualityMarine WaterQuality andSedimentQualityMarine WaterQuality andSedimentQualityThe proponent shall annually survey the footprint(as per coordinates) of the offshore spoil ground fortwo years after completion of the disposal activitiesand after any severe storm event within the twoyear period exceeding a one in five year ARI for thepurposes of demonstrating that the dredging spoilhas remained within the footprint of the approveddredge spoil disposal groundThe future use of the offshore disposal site fordisposal outside the approved coordinates is notpermitted under this assessment and thereforerequires an additional consideration under the EP ActTo achieve the Environmental Quality Objectives(EQOs) established for the marine environment bythe Environmental Protection Authority in PerthCoastal Waters Environmental Values andObjectives, specifically for the ‘high’ EcologicalProtection Area adjacent to the reclamation returnwater discharge zone, the proponent shall prepareand implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program(WQMP) as a component of the Dredge SpoilDisposal Management Plan (DSDMP) to thesatisfaction of the CEO of the Department ofEnvironment and ConservationPrior to dredging activities causing sedimentdispersion into the marine environment theproponent shall prepare a map defining the levels ofEcological Protection that will apply for the durationof the dredging campaign including: 1. Theboundary of the Rous Head reclamation area andadjacent seabed where the level of ecologicalprotection is reduced to ‘moderate’ for the durationof the project implementation 2. The boundary ofthe Rous Head reclamation area and adjacentseabed where a high level of ecological protectionwill be met after completion of the dredgingcampaign 3. Identify environmental qualityindicators and associated ‘trigger’ levels, based onthe guidelines and recommended approaches in theAustralian and New Zealand Guideline for Fresh andMarine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000)and the Environmental Quality Criteria ReferenceDocument for Cockburn Sound (2003 – 2004) (EPA,2005), for assessing the performance of thedischarges in meeting the EQOs for the moderateecological protection areas and at the boundary ofthe ‘high’ Ecological Protection Area, both during andafter completion of the dredging campaign 4. Designand employ protocols and schedules for reportingperformance against the EQOs using theenvironmental quality ‘trigger’ levels for discharges5. Specify appropriate management and mitigationmeasures to be applied if monitoring demonstratesthat the environmental quality ‘trigger’ levels areexceeded at any point during the dredging andreclamation program, or if they are exceeded for ahigh level of ecological protection adjacent to RousHead after completion of the dredging campaignIf the Water Quality Monitoring Program required incondition 6-1 demonstrates that the environmentalquality ‘trigger’ levels (as determined in condition6.2) are not met, the proponent shall immediatelyreport to the CEO of the Department of Environmentand Conservation with the remedial managementand/or preventative actions to be implementedAnnually survey footprint ofoffshore disposal ground for twoyears after completion ofdisposal. Survey after anysevere storm event exceeding aone in five-year annualrecurrence interval within thetwo-year period.No offshore disposal will occur tothe site described in MS801 otherthan that approved under thisassessment.Implement the Water QualityMonitoring Program (WQMP).Prepare Water Quality MonitoringProgram (WQMP) to include: mapdefining levels of ecologicalprotection as described in actioncolumn; environmental qualityindicators and associated triggerlevels; protocols and schedulesfor reporting performanceagainst the EQOs; andmanagement and mitigationmeasuresProvide report to the CEO of theOEPA with the remedialmanagement and/or preventativeactions to be implementedfollowing the exceedance oftrigger levelsProvide surveydetails to OEPAwithin annualcompliance reportRecords of volumedumped will beprovided to theDEC in the annualreportsResults of theWater QualityMonitoring Programwill be provided inannual ComplianceAssessmentReports.Fortnightly WQMPdata reports to besubmitted to theOEPA.Min for Env OverallMin for Env Overall AnnuallyCEO OverallWQMP Min for Env DesignReport to the CEOof the OEPACEO OverallAnnually for two yearsafter completion of thedisposal activities andafter any severe stormevent within the twoyear period exceeding aone in five year ARICompliance assessmentreports to be submittedannually through thedredging campaign.Fortnightly WQMP datareports to be submittedto the OEPASubmit WQMP prior todredging activitiescausing sedimentdispersion into themarine environmentWithin 72 hours of anexceedance ofenvironmental quality‘trigger’ levels(subsequent toprocessing of data).The first annual survey of theoffshore spoil ground was duringDecember 2011.The second annual survey will bein 2012.A one in five-year storm has notyet occurred (as determined by anoffshore wave height of Hs > 8 m).Satisfactory during this periodThe spoil ground has not beenused by Fremantle Ports to receivematerial from unapproved sources.CompletedResults of the WQMP during bothphases of the Project works wereprovided fortnightly to the OEPAand posted on Fremantle Portswebsite, and have beensummarised in prior ComplianceAssessment Reports.CompletedWQMP (Oceanica 2010c) preparedto the requirements of Condition801:M6.2 and approved by theOEPA on 4 January 2010, prior todredging activities.CompletedAny exceedances were reported tothe OEPA within 72 hours, togetherwith intended managementmeasures, as required during theProject.Section 3This reportComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 2(Oceanica 2011)Water QualityManagement Plan(Oceanica 2010c)WQMP DataReportssubmitted toOEPA & postedFremantle PortswebsiteOceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 7

AuditCode801:M6.4Subject Action How Evidence Satisfy Advice Phase When Status Ref.Marine WaterQuality andSedimentQualityMonitoring shall be conducted for the duration of thedredging and disposal program and for six monthsfollowing completion of the program, or until it hasbeen demonstrated that the High EcologicalProtection values have re-established adjacent toRous Head. The results of monitoring shall bereported to the CEO of the Department ofEnvironment and ConservationThe Compliance AssessmentReport shall include the initialpredictions of the proponent asdescribed in the PublicEnvironmental Review andproponent’s response tosubmissions, and an analysis ofhow, and to what extent theresults of monitoring varied fromthe predictionsComplianceAssessment Reportsubmitted to theCEO of the OEPA.CEO OverallWithin two months ofcompletion of themonitoring and analysisCompletedCompliance Assessment ReportPhase 2 compared monitoringresults against the initialpredictions as described in thePublic Environmental Review andproponent’s response tosubmissionsComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 1(Oceanica 2010b)ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase 2(Oceanica 2011)8 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

3. Annual Survey Footprint of Offshore Disposal GroundThe first annual survey of the offshore spoil ground was undertaken in December 2011.Bathymetric data from this survey shows a disposal area with relatively low relief (16-20 m)throughout the whole area (Figure 3.3). The survey results show very similar relief to the2010 bathymetric survey.Changes in bathymetry from December 2010 until December 2011 show small (-0.2 to0.2 m) amounts of redistribution of seabed materials (Figure 3.2). The changes appear to befrom the settling or redistribution of materials from high spots in topography to lower 'trough'areas. As the area is within the shipping anchorage it is probable that this is due toanchoring activities. The majority of the map shows areas with fill volumes (decreaseddepth) and very limited areas of excavation (increased depth), again suggesting that thematerials deposited within the footprint have settled and are remaining within the footprint.Surface to surface volume calculations showed a net fill volume of 36,635 m 3 in the disposalgrounds area (Appendix B). This suggests that materials disposed of at the disposal groundsare remaining within the disposal ground footprint as a greater amount of materials are beingdeposited (fill) compared to materials being eroded away (excavation). The bathymetry datafor December 2010 shows an Offshore Disposal Area with relatively low relief (16-20 m)throughout the area, although a small area of depression (to 22 m depth) near the southwesterncorner was recorded (Figure 3.1).Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 9

Figure 3.1 Depths of disposal area after deposition of dredged material in December 201010 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

Figure 3.2 Differences in bathymetry from post disposal December 2010 to December 2011Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 11

Figure 3.3Depths of the Offshore Disposal Area, one year after deposition of dredgedmaterials (December 2011)12 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

A one in five year storm event (as determined by an offshore wave height of Hs > 8 m) has not occurred during the monitoring period of 1 November 2010 to 31 August 2012 (Figure 3.4).8Rottnest Directional Waverider7Significant Wave Height Hs (m)6543210Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12Figure 3.4 Wave heights at the Rottnest Waverider (November 2010 to August 2012)Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 13

4. Benthic Primary Producer Habitat SupplementaryMonitoringSupplementary benthic primary producer habitat monitoring occurred at sites adjacent to theGage Roads Offshore Disposal Area during October to December 2011 (Oceanica 2012). Thismonitoring project is entitled "Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project"(Appendix C). The purpose of the supplementary monitoring is to investigate the rate andcontrolling mechanisms of Posidonia angustifolia (Cambridge and Kuo) seagrass recoverywithin and surrounding the Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area, subsequent to the InnerHarbour and Channel Deepening (IHD) Project. The overall project is medium term (up to3 years) with planned surveys in 2012 and 2013 (subject to results from 2012).The specific objectives of the surveys, within and immediately surrounding the OffshoreDisposal area, are to:1. Define the spatial extent of seagrass habitat;2. Determine seagrass health, as indicated by P. angustifolia shoot density and percentagecover, within "undisturbed", "transitional" and "disturbed" zone specific sites; and3. Assess the sediment chemistry and physical characteristics of coincident sites, to enablespatial assessment of potential physicochemical controls on seagrass health.Fifteen permanent seagrass monitoring sites were set up in November 2011 surrounding theOffshore Disposal Area; with five sites in each undisturbed, transitional and disturbed "zone".These permanent sites have all been placed in locations where seagrass habitat existed priorto sediment disposal in depths of 18-21 m. Site determination consisted of semi-qualitativemethods of towed video to select undisturbed, transitional and disturbed seagrass "zones",within which monitoring sites were established based on initial survey data of seagrasspercentage cover and shoot density. This determination process created a robust three zoneexperimental design, capable of capturing changes in P. angustifolia cover and shoot density.'Undisturbed’ seagrass sites were located outside, but within 1600 m, of the OffshoreDisposal Area. These undisturbed sites included the use of reference monitoring sites used inthe WQMP (Oceancia 2010c) during the Project works. Transitional sites had seagrass coverwhich appeared impacted by dredging material, but not drastically disturbed. Disturbed siteswere located at the fringe of the transitional areas with low seagrass coverage and adjacentto barren areas with apparent deposition of dredge materials.The initial survey in 2011 collected baseline data and produced:1. an updated benthic habitat map;2. seagrass health (shoot density and percentage cover) data and baseline comparisons;and,3. physico-chemical properties at each site which showed no sediment parameters whichwould complicate seagrass recovery.Findings showed seagrass loss modelling were accurate within the zones of loss, potentialloss and potential effect. The second survey is scheduled for November 2012 and designedto measure for changes in percentage cover and shoot density after one year of recoverytime.Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 15

5. SummaryThere were zero non-compliance issues with the conditions of Ministerial Statement 801during the post Project works period in 2012. The relevant actions required and theircompliance status is summarised in Table 5.1.16 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012

Table 5.1 Summary of relevant actions completed for the 2011 - 2012 monitoring periodAuditCodeSubject Action How Evidence Satisfy Advice Phase When Status Ref.Satisfactory during this period.801:M4.3801:M4.4801:M4.5801:M4.6ComplianceReportingComplianceReportingComplianceReportingComplianceReportingThe Proponent shall assess compliance with conditionsin accordance with the Compliance Assessment Planrequired by Condition 4.1The Proponent shall retain reports of all complianceassessments described in the Compliance AssessmentPlan required by Condition 4.1 and shall make thosereports available when requested by the CEOThe Proponent shall advise the CEO of any noncomplianceas soon as practicableThe Proponent shall submit to the CEO a ComplianceAssessment Report annually from the date of issue ofthis Statement addressing the previous twelve-monthperiod or other period as agreed by the CEO. The dateof the first Compliance Assessment Report shall be 15months from the date of this Statement, with eachsubsequent report 12 months from the date of theprevious ReportFollow Compliance Assessment Plan whenassessing complianceCompliance Assessment Reports will beplaced on Fremantle Ports websiteA letter describing the non-compliance willbe sent to the CEO of OEPAThe Compliance Assessment Report shall:1. be endorsed by the Proponent’s ChiefExecutive Officer or a person, approved inwriting by the Department of Environmentand Conservation, delegated to sign onthe Chief Executive Officer’s behalf; 2.include a statement as to whether theProponent has complied with theconditions; 3. identify all non-compliancesand describe corrective and preventativeactions taken; 4. be made publiclyavailable in accordance with the approvedCompliance Assessment Plan; and 5.indicate any proposed changes to theCompliance Assessment Plan required byCondition 4.1ComplianceAssessment ReportsCEO Overall AnnuallyReports on website CEO OverallLetter to CEO ofOEPAAnnual ComplianceAssessment ReportsCEO OverallCEO OverallWhen requested ofthe CEOWithin 72 hours ofa non-compliancebeing identified(subsequent toprocessing of data)Annually with thefirst report due 15months from thedate of issue of thisStatement. Thatwas on 18November 2010.This Compliance AssessmentReport assesses complianceagainst the ComplianceAssessment Plan.Satisfactory during this period.Compliance Assessment Report:Phase 1 (Oceanica 2010b) madeavailable to the CEO and placedon Fremantle Ports website and.Compliance Assessment Report:Phase 2 (Oceanica 2011) madeavailable to the CEO and placedon Fremantle Ports website.Satisfactory during this period.There have been no noncomplianceswith the conditionsof Ministerial Statement 801 asspecified by this audit table todate.Satisfactory during this period.Compliance Assessment Report:Phase 1 (Oceanica 2010b)submitted 18 November 2010.Compliance Assessment Report:Phase 2 (Oceanica 2011)submitted by 18 November 2011.Compliance Assessment Report:2012 (this document) submittedby 18 November 2012Satisfactory during this period.ThisdocumentComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase1 (Oceanica2010b)ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase2 (Oceanica2011)This TableComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase1 (Oceanica2010b)ComplianceAssessmentReport: Phase2 (Oceanica2011)Thisdocument801:M5.5801:M5.6Marine Ecology –Benthic PrimaryProducer HabitatMarine Ecology –Benthic PrimaryProducer HabitatThe proponent shall annually survey the footprint (asper coordinates) of the offshore spoil ground for twoyears after completion of the disposal activities andafter any severe storm event within the two yearperiod exceeding a one in five year ARI for thepurposes of demonstrating that the dredging spoil hasremained within the footprint of the approved dredgespoil disposal groundThe future use of the offshore disposal site fordisposal outside the approved coordinates is notpermitted under this assessment and thereforerequires an additional consideration under the EP ActAnnually survey footprint of offshoredisposal ground for two years aftercompletion of disposal. Survey after anysevere storm event exceeding a one infive-year annual recurrence interval withinthe two-year period.No offshore disposal will occur to the sitedescribed in MS801 other than thatapproved under this assessment.Provide surveydetails to OEPAwithin annualcompliance reportRecords of volumedumped will beprovided to the DECin the annual reportsMin forEnvMin forEnvOverallOverall AnnuallyAnnually for twoyears aftercompletion of thedisposal activitiesand after anysevere storm eventwithin the two yearperiod exceeding aone in five yearARIThe first annual survey of theoffshore spoil ground was duringDecember 2011.The second annual survey will bein 2012.A one in five-year storm has notyet occurred (as determined byan offshore wave height of Hs >8 m).Satisfactory during this periodThe spoil ground has not beenused by Fremantle Ports toreceive material fromunapproved sources.Section 3This reportOceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 17

6. ReferencesDEC (2009) Guidelines for Proponents – Performance Review Reporting (Draft), Prepared byEnvironmental Regulation Division, Department of Environment and Conservation,February 2009EPA (2011a) Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Reclamation at RousHead and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material, Attachment 1 to MinisterialStatement 801 – A change to the location of offshore placement of dredged materialfrom Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, and related works, DrPaul Vogel, Chairman, Environmental Protection Authority, 6 August 2011EPA (2011b) Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Reclamation at RousHead and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material (Ministerial Statement 801) –Section 45C Application, Letter of Approval to Lyle Banks from Dr Paul Vogel,Chairman, Environmental Protection Authority, 24 March 2011Oceanica (2010a) Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening – Reclamation atRous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material: Compliance Assessment Plan,Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report no. 816_003/1,Perth, Western Australia, February 2010Oceanica (2010b) Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening – Reclamation atRous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material: Compliance AssessmentReport: Phase 1 Works, Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd,Report no. 816_003/2, Perth, Western Australia, November 2010Oceanica (2010c) Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening – Reclamation atRous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material: Water Quality MonitoringProgram, Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Oceanica Consulting, January 2010.Oceanica (2011) Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening - Reclamation at RousHead and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material: Compliance Assessment Report:Phase 2 Works, Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, ReportNo 816_003/4, Perth, Western Australia, November 2010Oceanica (2012) Fremantle Ports - Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass RecoveryProject, Phase I – Initial Survey, Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Oceanica ConsultingPty Ltd, Report No 910_001/1, Perth, Western Australia, May 2012SKM (2009) Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Reclamation at RousHead and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material, Public Environmental Review,Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Sinclair Knight Merz, January 2009Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening, Compliance Assessment Report 2012 19

Appendix AMinisterial Statement 801

STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENTThis document has been produced by the Office of the Appeals Convenor as an electronic version ofthe original Statement for the proposal listed below as signed by the Minister and held by this Office.Whilst every effort is made to ensure its accuracy, no warranty is given as to the accuracy orcompleteness of this document.The State of Western Australia and its agents and employees disclaim liability, whether in negligenceor otherwise, for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on the accuracy or completeness of thisdocument.Copyright in this document is reserved to the Crown in right of the State of Western Australia.Reproduction except in accordance with copyright law is prohibited.Published on 18 August 2009 Statement No 801STATEMENT THAT A PROPOSAL MAY BE IMPLEMENTED(PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THEENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1986)FREMANTLE PORTS INNER HARBOUR AND CHANNEL DEEPENING,RECLAMATION AT ROUS HEAD AND OFFSHORE PLACEMENT OF DREDGEDMATERIALProposal:The proposal is to deepen the Fremantle Inner Harbour,Entrance Channel and the Deep Water Channel by dredgingapproximately 3.1 million cubic metres to provide for furtherreclamation at Rous Head of approximately 27 hectares and foroffshore disposal.The proposal is further documented in schedule 1 of thisstatement.Proponent:Fremantle PortsProponent Address: 1 Cliff Street, Fremantle, WA 6160Assessment Number: 1621Report of the Environmental Protection Authority: Report 1330The proposal referred to in the above report of the Environmental Protection Authority maybe implemented. The implementation of that proposal is subject to the following conditionsand procedures:1 Proposal Implementation1-1 The proponent shall implement the proposal as documented and described inschedule 1 of this statement subject to the conditions and procedures of thisstatement.Published on:

2 Proponent Nomination and Contact Details2-1 The proponent for the time being nominated by the Minister for Environment undersections 38(6) or 38(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 is responsible forthe implementation of the proposal.2-2 The proponent shall notify the Chief Executive Officer of the Department ofEnvironment and Conservation (CEO) of any change of the name and address of theproponent for the serving of notices or other correspondence within 30 days of suchchange.3 Time Limit of Authorisation3-1 The authorisation to implement the proposal provided for in this statement shalllapse and be void five years after the date of this statement if the proposal to whichthis statement relates is not substantially commenced.3-2 The proponent shall provide the CEO with written evidence which demonstrates thatthe proposal has substantially commenced on or before the expiration of five yearsfrom the date of this statement.4 Compliance Reporting4.1 The Proponent shall prepare and maintain a Compliance Assessment Plan to thesatisfaction of the CEO.4.2 The Proponent shall submit to the CEO, the Compliance Assessment Plan requiredby Condition 4.1 within 6 months of the date of this Statement. The ComplianceAssessment Plan shall indicate:1. the frequency of compliance reporting;2. the approach and timing of compliance assessments;3. the retention of compliance assessments;4. reporting of non-compliances and corrective actions taken;5. the table of contents of Compliance Assessment Reports; and6. public availability of compliance reports.4.3 The Proponent shall assess compliance with conditions in accordance with theCompliance Assessment Plan required by Condition 4.1.4.4 The Proponent shall retain reports of all compliance assessments described in theCompliance Assessment Plan required by Condition 4.1 and shall make thosereports available when requested by the CEO.4.5 The Proponent shall advise the CEO of any non-compliance as soon as practicable.4.6 The Proponent shall submit to the CEO a Compliance Assessment Report annuallyfrom the date of issue of this Statement addressing the previous twelve month periodor other period as agreed by the CEO. The date of the first Compliance Assessment2

Report shall be 15 months from the date of this Statement, with each subsequentreport 12 months from the date of the previous Report. The ComplianceAssessment Report shall:1. be endorsed by the Proponent’s Chief Executive Officer or a person, approvedin writing by the Department of Environment and Conservation, delegated tosign on the Chief Executive Officer’s behalf;2. include a statement as to whether the Proponent has complied with theconditions;3. identify all non-compliances and describe corrective and preventative actionstaken;4. be made publicly available in accordance with the approved ComplianceAssessment Plan; and5. indicate any proposed changes to the Compliance Assessment Plan required byCondition 4.1.5 Marine Ecology – Benthic Primary Producer Habitat5-1 Prior to dredging activities the proponent shall prepare maps showing the:1. Gage Roads Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Management Unit;2. location and extent of the benthic primary producer habitat types;3. boundaries of the direct disturbance area and predicted levels of impact,including coordinates;4. boundaries of the indirect disturbance area and predicted levels of indirectimpact, including coordinates;5. the spatially defined offshore spoil disposal ground, including coordinates; and6. boundary of the Rous Head reclamation area, including coordinates.5-2 The proponent shall ensure that there are no direct or indirect losses of coral ormacroalgal Benthic Primary Producer Habitat within the Gage Roads managementunit (referred to in condition 5-1) caused by this dredging campaign and that lossesof seagrass BPPH within this management unit caused by the dredging campaign donot exceed 50 hectares.5-3 The proponent shall monitor and record the loss of Benthic Primary ProducerHabitat (seagrass, macroalgae, coral) within the Gage Roads management unitreferred to in condition 5-1 for the duration of the dredging campaign and for sixmonths following the dredging campaign if impacts are within predicted levels, orfor up to 5 years if impacts exceed predictions, to the requirements of theDepartment of Environment and Conservation.5-4 Two months following the conclusion of monitoring of each program referred to incondition 5-3 the proponent is to report to the CEO of the Department ofEnvironment and Conservation the total cumulative loss of each Benthic PrimaryProducer Habitat type (seagrass, macroalgae, and coral) in the Gage Roads3

management unit referred to in condition 5-1. The report is to include a mapshowing area and losses of benthic primary producer habitat type.5-5 The proponent shall annually survey the footprint (as per coordinates) of theoffshore spoil ground for two years after completion of the disposal activities andafter any severe storm event within the two year period exceeding a one in five yearARI for the purposes of demonstrating that the dredging spoil has remained withinthe footprint of the approved dredge spoil disposal ground.5-6 The future use of the offshore disposal site for disposal outside the approvedcoordinates is not permitted under this assessment and therefore requires anadditional consideration under the EP Act.6 Marine Water Quality and Sediment Quality6-1 To achieve the Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs) established for the marineenvironment by the Environmental Protection Authority in Perth Coastal WatersEnvironmental Values and Objectives, specifically for the ‘high’ EcologicalProtection Area adjacent to the reclamation return water discharge zone, theproponent shall prepare and implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program as acomponent of the Dredge Spoil Disposal Management Plan (DSDMP) to thesatisfaction of the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation.6-2 Prior to dredging activities causing sediment dispersion into the marine environmentthe proponent shall prepare a map defining the levels of Ecological Protection thatwill apply for the duration of the dredging campaign including:1. The boundary of the Rous Head reclamation area and adjacent seabed wherethe level of ecological protection is reduced to ‘moderate’ for the duration ofthe project implementation.2. The boundary of the Rous Head reclamation area and adjacent seabed where ahigh level of ecological protection will be met after completion of the dredgingcampaign.3. Identify environmental quality indicators and associated ‘trigger’ levels, basedon the guidelines and recommended approaches in the Australian and NewZealand Guideline for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC &ARMCANZ, 2000) and the Environmental Quality Criteria ReferenceDocument for Cockburn Sound (2003 – 2004) (EPA, 2005), for assessing theperformance of the discharges in meeting the EQOs for the moderateecological protection areas and at the boundary of the ‘high’ EcologicalProtection Area, both during and after completion of the dredging campaign.4. Design and employ protocols and schedules for reporting performance againstthe EQOs using the environmental quality ‘trigger’ levels for discharges.5. Specify appropriate management and mitigation measures to be applied ifmonitoring demonstrates that the environmental quality ‘trigger’ levels areexceeded at any point during the dredging and reclamation program, or if theyare exceeded for a high level of ecological protection adjacent to Rous Headafter completion of the dredging campaign.4

6-3 If the Water Quality Monitoring Program required in condition 6-1 demonstratesthat the environmental quality ‘trigger’ levels (as determined in condition 6.2) arenot met, the proponent shall immediately report to the CEO of the Department ofEnvironment and Conservation with the remedial management and/or preventativeactions to be implemented.6-4 Monitoring shall be conducted for the duration of the dredging and disposal programand for six months following completion of the program, or until it has beendemonstrated that the High Ecological Protection values have re-establishedadjacent to Rous Head. The results of monitoring shall be reported to the CEO of theDepartment of Environment and Conservation. The report shall include the initialpredictions of the proponent as described in the Public Environmental Review andproponent’s response to submissions, and an analysis of how, and to what extent theresults of monitoring varied from the predictions.Notes1. Where a condition states “on advice of the Environmental Protection Authority”, theEnvironmental Protection Authority will provide that advice to the Department ofEnvironment and Conservation for the preparation of written notice to theproponent.2. The Environmental Protection Authority may seek advice from other agencies ororganisations, as required, in order to provide its advice to the Department ofEnvironment and Conservation.3. The Minister for Environment will determine any dispute between the proponent andthe Environmental Protection Authority or the Department of Environment andConservation over the fulfilment of the requirements of the conditions.Donna Faragher JP MLCMINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT; YOUTH5

Schedule 1Table 1: BPPH assessmentThe table below is a summary of the project’s predicted footprint from dredging from direct(dredged area and spoil placement) and indirect (sediment plume dispersion and settlement).The proponent has modelled the zone of effect for indirect impacts as a result of sedimentplumes across two timing scenarios (November and January).BPPH Loss CalculationsTotal Size of Management Unit(ha)Types of Benthic PrimaryProducer HabitatHistorical Area of Total BPPH(ha)BPPH Management Unit (MU)Gage RoadsDeep WaterChannelCategory ECategory DNovember JanuaryCoastal UnitCategory C6825 10521 6411Dominant seagrass withmacroalgae and coralMacroalgaeon limestonepavement,occasionalseagrassDominantseagrass withmacroalgaeon limestonepavement1108 1532 642Current Area of Total BPPH (ha) 1050 1532 642EPA Category and LossThreshold (2004b)Potential Permanent SeagrassLoss due to Project (ha and %)Estimated Historic Seagrass Loss(ha and %)Potential Total CumulativeSeagrass Loss (Historical +this Project) (ha and %)Potential Permanent MacroalgalLoss due to Project (ha and %)Estimated Historic MacroalgalLoss (ha and %)Potential Total CumulativeMacroalgal Loss (Historical +this Project) (ha and %)Potential Permanent Direct CoralLoss due to Project (ha and %)Estimated Historic Coral Loss(ha and %)Potential Total CumulativeCoral Loss (Historical + thisProject) (ha and %)E 10% D 5% C 2%99.0 9.3% 69.0 6.5% 11.0 2.9% 0.0 0.0%47.0 4.4% 47.0 4.4% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%146.0 13.8% 116.0 10.9% 11.0 2.9% 0.0 0.0%0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 11.0 1.0% 0.0 0.0%11.0 25.0% 11.0 25.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%11.0 25.0% 11.0 25.0% 11.0 1.0% 0.0 0.0%0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%The Proposal (Assessment No. 1621)The main characteristics of the proposal are summarised in Table 2 below. A detaileddescription of the proposal is provided in Section 2 of the project referral document,Fremantle Ports Inner harbour and Channel Deepening, Reclamation at Rous Head andOffshore Placement of Dredged Material (PER, 2009).6

Table 2: Summary of key proposal characteristicsElementDescriptionGeneralConstruction of a sea wall1000 m longReclamationApprox 27 ha at Rous HeadDredging Inner Harbour, from a depth of RL -13.0 m to a depth of RL -15.0 m LowWater Mark Fremantle (LWMF) Entrance Channel from depths of RL-13.2 to 13.4 m to depths betweenRL -16.0 m (LWMF) and RL -16.8m (LWMF) to provide adequatedepth for turning ships Deep Water Channel to a depth ofRL -16.5 m (LWMF) on straightsections and RL -18.0 m (LWMF) onbends, within an area of approx169haRelocation of dredged materials From the Inner Harbour (approx 0.9Mm3) and the inner section ofEntrance Channel (approx 1.1 Mm3)to Rous Head from the Deep Water Channel(approx 1.1 Mm3) to a proposedspoil ground located at Gage Roads(placement of approx 1.45 Mm3within an area of approx 150ha)Timing Dredging campaign to commence inNovember for 20-26 weeks.KeyM metresM3 cubic metresFigures1. Fremantle Ports project location2. Fremantle Ports project location – Satellite3. Fremantle Ports project location – Inner Harbour dredging and reclamation4. Fremantle Ports project location – Rous Head extension7

Appendix BSurface to surface volume report

Fremantle Ports1 Cliff StreetFREMANTLE WAPh +618 9430 3444 Fax +618 9430 3450SURFACE TO SURFACE VOLUME REPORTProject: J:\FPADWGS\SURVEY\Hydrographic Surveys\107 Outer HarbourGeneral\Gage Roads Spoil Ground\DEC11\gageroads_dec11.proReport Generated:Thursday, 1 March 2012 12:06:46 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Where the second surface is above the first the volume is reported as fill.Where the second surface is below the first the volume is reported asexcavation.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shrinkage/swell factors: Excavation 1.0000 Fill 1.0000First Surface Number Second Surface NumberLayer Name of Points Layer Name of Points--------------------------- ----------- -----------------------------------DEPTHS_TXT_DEC10 167,324 DEPTHS_TXT_DEC11161,398Excavation Volume (m3)Fill Volume (m3)-------------------------------- ----------------------------55,887.4 92,521.9Net Difference: 36,634.5 m3 Borrow

Appendix CSupplementary Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Monitoring

Fremantle Ports – Gage RoadsOffshore Disposal Area SeagrassRecovery ProjectPhase I – Initial SurveyMay 2012

\\oce-per-fs1\projects\FremantlePorts\910_SeagrassSurvey\001_OriginalScope\Reports\Reports_PhaseI\GageRoadsSeagrassRecovery_9100011_Rev0_20120531.docmFremantle Ports – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area SeagrassRecovery ProjectPhase I – Initial SurveyPrepared forFremantle PortsPrepared byOceanica Consulting Pty LtdMay 2012Report No. 910_001/1

Client: Fremantle PortsRevisions historyRevAAuthorJ. AndersonDISTRIBUTIONNo. Copies &RecipientsFormatR. DeRoachL. Banks1 x docm1 x pdfREVIEWDate Reviewer Intent Date06/03/12 R. DeRoachTechnicalEditorial09/03/12B J. Anderson M. Bailey 1 x docm 18/04/12 M. Bailey Editorial 18/04/12C J. Anderson R. DeRoach 1 x docm 19/04/12 R. DeRoachTechnicalEditorial20/04/12D J. Anderson L. Banks 1 x pdf 24/04/12 L. Banks Client Review 24/05/120 J. AndersonL. BanksOceanica1 x pdf2 x hardcopy01/06/12Quality AssuranceThe current version of this report has been subject to the following level of Quality Assurance:Level Definition StatusA: FullB: PartialUnderlying data, calculations and data entry have been checked. Report formathas been checked and contents have been reviewed and signed off by Director.Some data and underlying calculations have been checked. Report format hasbeen checked. Review has been undertaken by a third-party.C: Minimal No formal review completed.StatusThis report is “Draft” until the author and director have signed it off for final release. A “Draft” report should not beused for any purpose other than to be reviewed with the intention of generating a “Final” version.Approved for final release:AuthorDirectorDisclaimerThis report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Fremantle Ports, and is subject to and issuedin accordance with the agreed terms and scope between Fremantle Ports and Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd.Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon thisreport by any third party.Copying this report without prior written consent of Fremantle Portsor Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd is not permitted.CoverMain image:Minor images:Gage Roads mooring area (Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd).Site 37D; Marine scientist collecting data in site 10T (Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd).The Oceanica logo is a registered trademark of Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd that is protected by law. You may notuse this trademark without first obtaining the permission of Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd.© Copyright 2012 Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd

ContentsAcronyms ...................................................................................................................................... iiiExecutive Summary ...................................................................................................................... v1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 11.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 11.2 Scope of this document ......................................................................................................... 11.3 Objectives - Phase I survey ................................................................................................... 41.4 Historical data ......................................................................................................................... 41.4.1 Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening Project .......................................................... 61.5 Current survey timing ............................................................................................................ 82. Methods ................................................................................................................................ 92.1 Benthic habitat surveys ......................................................................................................... 92.1.1 Towed video ................................................................................................................ 92.1.2 Benthic habitat map ..................................................................................................... 92.2 Seagrass recovery ............................................................................................................... 112.2.1 Permanent monitoring site set up .............................................................................. 112.2.2 Seagrass shoot density ............................................................................................. 132.2.3 Seagrass cover .......................................................................................................... 132.3 Sediment parameters ........................................................................................................... 142.3.1 Sediment collection ................................................................................................... 142.3.2 Sediment physicochemical characteristics ................................................................ 142.3.3 Sediment redistribution .............................................................................................. 162.4 Statistical analysis ............................................................................................................... 162.4.1 Overview of data presentation and statistical analyses ............................................ 162.4.2 Hypothesis - Phase I survey ...................................................................................... 162.4.3 Experimental design .................................................................................................. 162.5 QA/QC .................................................................................................................................... 172.5.1 Quality assurance and quality control in field sampling ............................................ 172.5.2 Laboratory analyses and procedures ........................................................................ 182.5.3 Quality assurance and quality control in data management ..................................... 183. Results ................................................................................................................................ 193.1 Benthic habitat map ............................................................................................................. 193.2 Seagrass recovery ............................................................................................................... 233.2.1 Seagrass density baseline data ................................................................................ 233.2.2 Percentage cover ...................................................................................................... 243.3 Sediment parameters ........................................................................................................... 253.3.1 Sediment field log ...................................................................................................... 253.3.2 Sediment physio-chemical properties ....................................................................... 253.3.3 Sediment redistribution .............................................................................................. 274. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 335. Future Surveys (Phases II and III) ..................................................................................... 346. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 357. References .......................................................................................................................... 36Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Surveyi

Figure 1.1Figure 1.2Figure 1.3Figure 1.4Figure 2.1Figure 2.2Figure 3.1Figure 3.2Figure 3.3Figure 3.4Figure 3.5Figure 3.6Figure 3.7List of FiguresGage Roads Offshore Disposal Area and Fremantle Port Authority mooringareas ........................................................................................................................ 2Gage Roads habitat map in 2009, prior to disposal ................................................. 3Bathymetry for Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area prior to sedimentdisposal from the Inner Harbour Deepening Project ................................................ 5Benthic habitat within Gage Roads 2011 ................................................................. 7Towed video ground truthing transects .................................................................. 10Permanent seagrass and sediment survey sites, Gage Roads ............................. 12Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area and surrounds post disposal benthichabitat map 2011 ................................................................................................... 20Benthic habitat post disposal within Gage Roads, December 2011 ...................... 21Changes in benthic habitat within Gage Roads between December 2009 andDecember 2011 ..................................................................................................... 22Baseline mean seagrass shoot counts .................................................................. 23Percentage cover by benthic categories ................................................................ 24Particle size distributions ....................................................................................... 26Differences in bathymetry from pre- to post-disposal (November 2009 toDecember 2010) within and surrounding the Offshore Disposal Area ................... 28Figure 3.8 Depths of disposal area after deposition of dredged material inDecember 2010 ..................................................................................................... 29Figure 3.9 Differences in bathymetry from post disposal December 2010 toDecember 2011 ..................................................................................................... 30Figure 3.10Depths of Offshore Disposal area after deposition of dredged materials inDecember 2011 ..................................................................................................... 31List of TablesTable 1.1Table 2.1Table 2.2Table 2.3Table 3.1Table 3.2Table 3.3Table 3.4Table 3.5Table 3.6Table 3.7Seagrass shoot count data from monitoring sites established for the InnerHarbour and Channel Deepening Project ................................................................ 8Seagrass sites, zone designation and distance to Offshore Disposal Areaboundary ................................................................................................................ 13Substrate categories used for estimates of seagrass percentage cover ............... 14Limits of Reporting (LOR) and Interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQG) fornutrients and metals .............................................................................................. 15Seagrass habitat loss with the Offshore Disposal Area, Zone of Potentialloss and Potential Effect ........................................................................................ 19PERMANOVA table of results for P.angustifolia shoot counts .............................. 24Pairwise post hoc tests for P.angustifolia shoot counts ......................................... 24PERMANOVA table of results for P.angustifolia percentage cover ....................... 25Pairwise post hoc tests for P.angustifolia percentage cover ................................. 25Correlation between whole sediment nutrients and metals vs P. angustifoliavariables or percentage cover ............................................................................... 26Data ranges and detection limits of sediment chemical parameters ..................... 27List of AppendicesAppendix A Geo Oceans ReportAppendix B GeoImage ReportAppendix C Seagrass Monitoring Site DiagramsAppendix D Chain of Custody FormsAppendix E Seagrass Shoot Count Data SheetsAppendix F Percentage CoverAppendix G Sediment Field LogAppendix H Particle Size DistributionsAppendix I Nutrient and Metals DataAppendix J Pore-water Nutrients, Whole Sediment Nutrient and Metals GraphsiiOceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

AcronymsASdfEDMGISGPShaICP-AESIHDISQGkmLORMAFRLMDDmgMSnNH 3NO 3PO 43QA/QCseSSTKNTPTOCTCAustralian StandardDegrees of freedomEnvironmental Data ManagementGeographic information systemGlobal positioning systemHectareInductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopyInner Harbour Deepening programInterim Sediment Quality GuidelinesKilometreLimit of reportingMarine and Freshwater Research LaboratoryMinimal detectable differenceMilligramMeans of squaresSample sizeAmmoniaNitratePhosphateQuality assurance/ quality controlStandard errorSum of squaresTotal Kjeldahl nitrogenTotal phosphorusTotal organic carbonTotal carbonOceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Surveyiii

Executive SummaryOceanica Consulting Pty Ltd (Oceanica) has been engaged by Fremantle Ports to investigatethe rate and controlling mechanisms of Posidonia angustifolia (Cambridge and Kuo) seagrassrecovery within and surrounding the Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area, subsequent to theInner Harbour and Channel Deepening (IHD) Project undertaken between January andOctober 2010. This report describes an initial (Phase I) survey of seagrass health, coverageand coincident sediment physicochemical data within and surrounding the Offshore DisposalArea. This data comprises a 'baseline' for a medium term (up to 3 years) investigation intoseagrass recovery. This report also collates relevant historical data and outlines methodsused for the Phase I survey, further intended for subsequent surveys to ensure a consistentstandard operating procedure for future assessment of seagrass recovery.The specific objectives of the initial Phase I survey, within and immediately surrounding theOffshore Disposal area, were to:1. Define the spatial extent of seagrass habitat;2. Determine seagrass health, as indicated by P. angustifolia shoot density and percentagecover, within "undisturbed", "transitional" and "disturbed" zone specific sites; and3. Assess the sediment chemistry and physical characteristics of coincident sites, to enablespatial assessment of potential physicochemical controls on seagrass health.A benthic habitat map was created using a satellite image and towed video ground-truthingdata to delineate the present spatial extent of seagrass within and surrounding the OffshoreDisposal Area. A decline in seagrass habitat of 19.9 ha was estimated in and adjacent to theOffshore Disposal Area, following the IHD Project. The majority (76%) of seagrass habitatloss occurred in the Offshore Disposal Area.Based on the ground-truthing data, fifteen permanent seagrass monitoring sites were set upin November 2011 surrounding the Offshore Disposal Area; with five sites in eachundisturbed, transitional and disturbed zone. These permanent sites have all been placed inlocations where seagrass habitat existed prior to sediment disposal in depths of 18-21 m.Site determination consisted of semi-qualitative methods of towed video to selectundisturbed, transitional and disturbed seagrass areas, within which monitoring sites wereestablished based on initial survey data of seagrass percentage cover and shoot density. Thisdetermination process created a robust three zone experimental design, capable of capturingchanges in P. angustifolia cover and shoot density. 'Undisturbed’ seagrass sites were locatedoutside, but within 1600 m, of the Offshore Disposal Area. Transitional sites had seagrasscover which appeared impacted by dredging material, but not drastically disturbed.Disturbed sites were located at the fringe of the transitional areas with low seagrass coverageand adjacent to barren areas with apparent deposition of dredge materials.The Phase I survey demonstrated that undisturbed sites of P. angustifolia had a mean shootdensity (257-407 shoots per m 2 ) that was within the range of natural seasonal variationrecorded from the three sites previously monitored for the IHD Project (284-732 shootsper m 2 ; Oceanica 2010a). Statistically significant differences were found amongst zones(undisturbed, transitional and disturbed) for both seagrass percentage cover and shootdensity. The percentage cover and shoot density of seagrass was: highest at undisturbedsites (34-67%; 257-407 shoots per m 2 ); lowest at disturbed sites (4-22%; 12-240 shoots perm 2 ); and intermediate at transition sites (17-27%; 100-293 shoots per m 2 ).Multivariate analysis of whole sediment nutrients and metals suggested that no combinationof chemical analytes was controlling the percentage cover or density (i.e. 'health') ofP. angustifolia. Further, nutrient concentrations in pore-waters were not statistically differentamongst zones (undisturbed, transitional and disturbed). Total organic carbonconcentrations of sediments were very low (

Bathymetric surveys of the Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area showed that sedimentredistribution (depostion or erosion) has potentially occurred subsequent to the IHD Project;however, quantitative analysis to determine whether this is actual sediment redistribution orwithin the bounds of survey accuracy could not be undertaken due to the limited spatialextent of bathymetric survey.This medium-term study has been designed to be completed in three phases. In summary,this report shows the methods and results from the Phase I survey and describes the'baseline' for comparison with subsequent surveys. The Phase II survey will be conducted inNovember-December of 2012 to assess seagrass recovery and potentially controllingsediment parameters within and surrounding the Offshore Disposal Area. A Phase III surveymay also be conducted in November-December 2013, subject to the outcomes of the Phase IIsurvey.viOceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

1. Introduction1.1 BackgroundThe Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area is located approximately 6 km from the entrance ofFremantle Harbour in Western Australia (Figure 1.1). The Offshore Disposal Area was utilisedduring 2010 to dispose of approximately 1.5 million m 3 of dredge material associated withthe Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening (IHD) Project. The site had not previously beenused as a disposal site, but it is used as an anchoring ground for commercial vessels awaitingcargo at the Fremantle Port facilities; and therefore has a history of seabed disturbance fromanchors.Prior to the IHD Project, it was estimated that approximately 15.4 ha of seagrass habitat waspresent within the Offshore Disposal Area (Figure 1.2) (Oceanica 2010a). Immediatelysurrounding the disposal area, it was estimated that a further 7.9 ha of seagrass habitat waspresent within a predicted zone of potential loss, plus 48.7 ha within a predicted zone ofpotential effect (from sediment deposition and light deprivation associated with the offshoredisposal plume from the IHD Project) (Oceanica 2010a).To facilitate an estimate of seagrass loss within the Gage Roads region post-completion of theIHD Project, a benthic habitat map was compiled. However, the actual loss within theOffshore Disposal Area or adjacent area to the south-west could not be confirmed (due to thepresence of an apparent algal bloom preventing visual penetration to the benthicenvironment and consequent inability to map habitats) (Oceanica 2010a).Seagrass habitat survey within and surrounding the Offshore Disposal Area subsequent to theIHD Project is being undertaken to facilitate seagrass impact assessment particularly toinform future disposal campaigns and complete a benthic habitat map for reference.Fremantle Ports seeks to investigate the rate and controlling mechanisms of recovery of theseagrass Posidonia angustifolia (Cambridge and Kuo) at the Offshore Disposal Area andsurrounding areas following disturbance (i.e. from burial, smothering and light deprivation).This study will aid Fremantle Ports' development of a long-term dredge material disposal planthrough a greater understanding of impacts upon seagrass after disposal of materials andthrough an updated benthic habitat map for the Gage Roads area.1.2 Scope of this documentThis document describes the initial (Phase I) survey of seagrass health, coverage andcoincident sediment physicochemical data, comprising a 'baseline' for a medium term (up to3 years) investigation into seagrass recovery within and around the Gage Roads OffshoreDisposal Area. This document collates relevant historical data and outlines methods used forthe Phase I survey, also intended for subsequent surveys, to ensure consistent standardoperating procedures in the assessment of seagrass recovery.Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 1

Figure 1.1Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area and Fremantle Port Authority mooring areas2 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Figure 1.2Gage Roads habitat map in 2009, prior to disposalOceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 3

1.3 Objectives - Phase I surveyThe objectives of the initial Phase I survey within and immediately surrounding the OffshoreDisposal Area were to:1. Define the spatial extent of seagrass habitat;2. Determine seagrass health, as indicated by shoot density and percentage cover ofP. angustifolia, within "undisturbed", "transitional" and "disturbed" zone specific sites(defined in Section 2.2.1); and3. Assess the sediment chemistry and physical characteristics of coincident sites, to enablespatial assessment of potential physicochemical controls on seagrass health.Comparison of the results of this Phase I survey to future surveys (see Section 5) willfacilitate an assessment of the recovery of seagrass into the Offshore Disposal Area, andpotential physicochemical controls, over time.1.4 Historical dataThe Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area, as surveyed in 2009 prior to the IHD Project, rangedin depth from 18-25 m and consisted of a relatively flat bottom with a distinct depressionrunning north-west from the south-east boundary (Figure 1.3). This area comprises anatural depression and accumulates significant concentrations of wrack. Along the north andsouth boundaries of the Offshore Disposal Area seagrass habitat has previously beenmapped, while the centre and majority of the Offshore Disposal Area was found to bedominated by bare sediments (Figure 1.2) (Oceanica 2010a).4 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Figure 1.3Bathymetry for Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area prior to sediment disposal fromthe Inner Harbour Deepening ProjectOceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 5

1.4.1 Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening ProjectThe IHD monitoring program was conducted during December 2009 to December 2010(Oceanica 2010b, 2011b). During this monitoring program, data relevant to the currentproject were collected including results of benthic habitat mapping and seagrass healthmonitoring (as measured by seagrass shoot count density).Benthic habitat mappingA baseline benthic habitat map was compiled for the Gage Roads area which included theGage Roads Offshore Disposal Area (Figure 1.2), prior to disposal of dredge materials(Oceanica 2010a). A benthic habitat map was also compiled to assess habitat losssubsequent to completion of offshore disposal, although the majority of the Offshore DisposalArea was unable to be accurately mapped due to the presence of an apparent algal bloomwhich prevented visual penetration to the benthic environment (Figure 1.4) (Oceanica2011b). For the purposes of habitat loss assessment for the IHD Project, this unmapped areawas conservatively assumed to be barren of seagrass.6 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Figure 1.4 Benthic habitat within Gage Roads 2011Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 7

Seagrass shoot countsPrior to disposal and as part of the baseline data collection for the IHD monitoring program,seagrass shoot count data were collected at locations 520 m north (SH50), 1200 m east(SH51) and 1600 m south (SH32) of the Offshore Disposal Area (Oceanica 2010a). Duringthe IHD program of sediment disposal, the seagrass shoot counts at these sites wererepeated as interim measurements on 17-25 March, 7-12 October and 3-12 November 2010(Oceanica 2010b). After the completion of sediment disposal on 30 October 2010, seagrassshoot counts were again measured during 7-15 December 2010 to determine if seagrasshealth was affected (Oceanica 2011a).Seagrass at the sites near the Offshore Disposal Area were reported as being P. sinuosaduring the IHD monitoring program, but samples have since been analysed and determinedto be P. angustifolia (M. Cambridge, personal communications). These two species are verysimilar (although P. sinsousa tends to be limited to shallower depths) and are difficult todistinguish in the field.Based on shoot counts during these periods, no adverse impacts to seagrass health weredetermined from dredging for any of these sites surrounding the Offshore Disposal Area.Seagrass shoot count means ranged from 284 shoot per m 2 (at site SH51 in January 2010) to732 shoot per m 2 (at site SH50 in December 2010) (Table 1.1). These data demonstrate thevariation in seagrass shoot counts within this area, both seasonally and between sites(Table 1.1).Table 1.1Seagrass shoot count data from monitoring sites established for the Inner Harbourand Channel Deepening ProjectSiteSH32Prior toDuring disposalPost disposaldisposalDec '09/Jan '10 March '10 October '10 November '10 December '10Mean (per m 2 ) 364 604 382 605 496Standard error 38.1 29.9 28.5 70.7 60.4n 14 14 14 14 14SH50*Mean (per m 2 ) 339 616 471 591 732Standard error 28.7 55.4 44.4 36.0 56.4n 14 14 14 14 14SH51Mean (per m 2 ) 284 471 500 602 630Standard error 13.0 24.8 59.1 51.2 42.4n 14 14 14 14 14Sites combined (SH32, SH50, SH51)Mean (per m 2 ) 329 564 451 599 620Standard error 28.3 40.6 45.0 51.4 56.5n 42 42 42 42 42Note:1. * SH50 is the combined data from SH50A and SH50B. This site was shifted during the IHD monitoring due to achange in Offshore Disposal Area boundary designation1.5 Current survey timingTowed video ground-truthing work was conducted by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd (Oceanica)and Geo Oceans Pty Ltd (Geo Oceans) on 11 and 12 October 2011. Permanent seagrassmonitoring sites surrounding the Offshore Disposal Area boundary were determined from theground-truthing data collected. Permanent site locations were located using towed videodata, in areas that were known to support seagrass prior to dredge material disposal,combined with spot dives by divers to determine overall site suitability. These sites weresetup on 14, 16 and 25 November 2011. Diver surveys to collect sediments, seagrass shootcounts and video footage were completed on 29 November, 12, 14 and 15 December 2011.These initial data were used to choose sites which were later refined for suitability using theinitial survey percentage cover and seagrass shoot count data.8 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

2. Methods2.1 Benthic habitat surveys2.1.1 Towed videoTowed video methods were used to accurately map the benthic habitat within the OffshoreDisposal Area, in areas immediately adjacent (within ~200 m of the Offshore Disposal Areaboundary) and areas south and southwest of the Offshore Disposal Area. Benthic habitatcoverage of the Offshore Disposal Area and surrounding areas was systematically surveyedby 102 targeted towed video ground-truthing transects (Figure 2.1).Remotely operated towed video system captured video footage that was geo-referencedusing GPS positioning locations. The video was analysed in real-time using Geo Ocean’s‘Geovideo’ software to classify the substrate and biota habitat characteristics while the videowas recorded. The quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process checked forerroneous data to ensure accuracy (Appendix A). Geo-referenced bathymetry data werecaptured throughout the field survey by a transponder attached to the survey vessel. Benthichabitat data were categorised according to substrate and biota as defined in Appendix A. Forthe purpose of this study and for the development of the benthic habitat map, habitatcategories were limited to: macroalgae, sand, wrack and seagrass.The benthic habitat ground-truthing data complements work already completed for the IHDmonitoring program and these data were combined to produce a benthic habitat map forGage Roads using a recent satellite image.2.1.2 Benthic habitat mapA remotely sensed image from the World View 2 (WV2) platform, with adequate waterpenetration, was located in the archives by GeoImage Pty Ltd. This true colour image has aspatial resolution of 2 m and was collected on the 25 December 2011.GeoImage Pty Ltd acquired this archived imagery and performed a geographic object-basedimage analysis in order to delineate benthic habitats and other substrate types in theimagery. Digital elevation, derived from a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) and groundtruthingdata, derived from classified video tows, were used to enhance or aid in theclassification of the spectral information contained in the WV2 imagery (Appendix B).Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 9

Figure 2.1Towed video ground truthing transects10 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

2.2 Seagrass recovery2.2.1 Permanent monitoring site set upA total of 15 permanent sites were set up (Figure 2.2). Five sites were designated in each ofthe zones: undisturbed, transitional and disturbed. Diagrams of transect start and end pointsfor all sites are located in (Appendix C). Sites are similar in depth and seabed substrate. Thesite naming convention consists of disturbed sites having labels ending in D, transition sitesending in T and undisturbed sites either ending in H or beginning in SH (from IHD program).'Undisturbed' seagrass sites were located outside, but within 1600 m, of the OffshoreDisposal Area (Table 2.1). Undisturbed sites had high seagrass cover ranging from 34-67%.Transitional sites had seagrass cover which appeared impacted by dredging material, but notdrastically disturbed (17-28% cover of seagrass). Disturbed sites were located at the fringeof the transitional areas with low seagrass coverage (4-22%) and adjacent to barren areaswith apparent deposition of dredge materials.Of the three zones, the seagrass shoot density and percentage cover of undisturbed sites willcomprise reference data (to represent the 'natural' state). Monitoring of seagrass shootdensity and cover at transition sites will measure recovery of seagrass from a semi-disturbedstate, and monitoring of the disturbed sites will measure seagrass recolonisation from ahighly disturbed state.Each site was set up with three 9 m transects marked with labelled permanent posts.Transects were randomly placed within the sites, although they were stratified to overlayseabed which had seagrass cover. Transects are considered independent of each other (sincethey do not abut or overlap), although attempts were made to keep each transect within10 m of the next nearest transect, due to logistical considerations (low underwater visibility).Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 11

Figure 2.2Permanent seagrass and sediment survey sites, Gage Roads12 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Table 2.1Seagrass sites, zone designation and distance to Offshore Disposal Area boundarySite Name Depth (m) Treatment12BTD 21 Disturbed 12837D 21 Disturbed 15474D 21 Disturbed 8836TD 21 Disturbed 510D 20 Disturbed 15674T 21 Transition 7610T 20 Transition 18211T 20 Transition 4912DT 20 Transition 15436DT 21 Transition 910H 20 Undisturbed 23636H 21 Undisturbed 49SH32 18 Undisturbed 1590SH50 20 Undisturbed 520SH51 20 Undisturbed 12202.2.2 Seagrass shoot densityNumber of quadrats per siteDistance to OffshoreDisposal Areaboundary (m)Baseline seagrass shoot density data from November 2010 was pooled from the IHD seagrasshealth monitoring sites (SH32, SH50 and SH51), and the minimum detectable difference(MDD) was statistically calculated. Baseline data (n=42, mean=599, se=51.4) showed thatwhen sampling 15 quadrats per site, the natural variability resulted in being able tostatistically determine a difference when a site had a mean which deviated from thepopulation mean by at least 32%. This was determined as an adequate sample size based onoperational constraints (diver bottom time) weighted against the diminishing returns (inMDD) of increasing the sample size.Shoot densityTransects were purposefully placed over patches of seagrass to ensure measurements ofseagrass shoot density. Along three permanent transects, five fixed quadrat positions (at1.5, 3.0, 4.5, 6.0, 7.5 and 9.0 m) were set for determination of seagrass shoot counts, i.e.totalling 15 shoot density quadrats per site. Divers took two photos of each quadrat (QA/QCpurposes) and recorded total shoot density per quadrat by vigorously waving their hand overthe quadrat to 'wash out' surface sediment (~0.002-0.003 m), thereby exposing shootswhich aids in separating out shoots from individual leaves. Shoot density quadrats haddimensions of 0.2 x 0.2 m for a 0.04 m 2 coverage area. Shoot densities were extrapolated toa per m 2 area by multiplying the shoot density by 25.Future seagrass shoot counts will be collected in the month of November, if logisticallypossible, following annual seed production to minimise the influence of seasonal variation.2.2.3 Seagrass coverTo estimate percentage cover of seagrass per site, five random 20 m video transects wererecorded at each site and analysed by 'TransectMeasure' software (SeaGIS, Bacchus MarshVictoria). Video transect starting points were allocated to permanent transect posts fromwhich the diver recorded 20 m of video by swimming out at a predetermined compassbearing. Compass bearings were random, but vetted to ensure that video transects did notintersect. Videos were recorded at approximately 0.84 m from the seabed to capture a 0.5 mwide transect belt. Panasonic Lumix cameras with underwater housings collected video at 25frames per second.Analysis of videos using 'TransectMeasure' consisted of a marine scientist removing beginningand end portions of the video that contained collection "noise" (i.e. divers recording slatelabels and retrieving cameras). Once the video was prepared for analysis, ten randomframes were selected by the computer with the only limiting parameter being that any twoOceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 13

frames must be >25 frames apart. The computer then overlaid ten random categorisationdots within the randomly selected frame. Each dot was categorised for cover as per thecategories in Table 2.2. As transects were located randomly within sites, 50 frames (n=50)recorded per site was considered suitable replication.Table 2.2 Substrate categories used for estimates of seagrass percentage coverSubstrateSandRockWrackOtherBiotaAlgaeSeagrass - Posidonia angustifoliaSeagrass - Posidonia coriaceaSeagrass - AmphibolisOther seagrassFauna2.3 Sediment parametersParameters which were hypothesised to have the potential to affect seagrass recovery withinthe Offshore Disposal Area were the sediment physio-chemical characteristics:particle size distribution (PSD);pore-water nutrients;whole sediment nutrients; andredistribution of sediments (erosion or deposition).2.3.1 Sediment collectionFive sets (n=5) (2 cores each set) of random sediment cores were collected at each site.Two cores were collected side by side at each site to ensure adequate material for pore-waterand whole sediment collection. Sediments were collected in 0.1 m diameter, 0.2 m longpolycarbonate cores. Cores were inserted to their full length to ensure no overlying waterabove the sediment column was captured. A rubber bung was inserted in the top and thecore was extracted upward. Just prior to the core being extracted completely, a bung wasinserted in the bottom of the core just below the sediment surface. Cores were returned tothe vessel upright and care was taken to ensure pore-water samples did not drain from thesediment column. Sediment samples were taken from the top 0.05 m of the cores. Porewatersediment samples were retained in 50 ml centrifuge tubes, kept cool in an ice box, andsent to Marine and Freshwater Research Laboratory (MAFRL) as soon as possible for analysis.Remaining sediment was collected for both total nutrients and metals in 70 ml plastic jars,and PSD in plastic Ziplock bags, and kept frozen until analysed. Samples for PSD were sentto Microanalysis Australia within one week of collection.2.3.2 Sediment physicochemical characteristicsSediment characteristics measured during the Phase I survey included:sediment particle size distribution (>2000, 1000, 500, 250, 106, 53 and < 53 μm);pore-water nutrient concentrations (NH 3 , PO 4 and [NO 3 +NO 2 ]); andwhole sediment total nutrient and metal concentrations: total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN); total phosphorous (TP); total organic carbon (TOC); total carbon (TC); and total extractable aluminium (Al), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), magnesium(Mg), molybdenum (Mo), lead (Pb), sulfur (S), and selenium (Se).Limits of reporting for pore-water and whole sediment nutrient and metals analysis are listedin Table 2.3 along with ISQG-low and ISQG-high values for reference.14 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Table 2.3Limits of Reporting (LOR) and Interim sediment quality guidelines (ISQG) fornutrients and metalsMetal ISQG - low ISQG - high MAFRL LORPorewater nutrients (μg L -1 )Ammonia (NH 3 ) * * 30Ortho-P (PO 4 ) * * 20Nitrate + Nitrite(NO 3 +NO 2 )* * 20Whole sediment nutrients (mg g -1 unless otherwise stated)TKN * * 0.04Total P * * 0.02TOC (%) * * 0.2TC (%) * * 0.2Whole sediment metals (mg kg -1 )Aluminium * * 20Cadmium 1.5 10 0.1Copper 65 270 0.2Iron * * 5Magnesium * * 2Molybdenum * * 0.5Lead 50 220 1Sulfur * * 10Selenium * * 2Note:1. * no sediment guidelineParticle size distributionsParticle size distributions (>2000, 1000, 500, 250, 106, 53 and < 53 μm) were measuredusing wet sieving techniques by Microanalysis Australia.Pore-water nutrientPore-water analyses were undertaken by MAFRL which consisted of pore-water extractionthrough filtration and centrifugation. If a low volume of pore-water was retrieved, sampleswere diluted to ensure an adequate aliquot for analysis. Pore-water was analysed forammonia (NH 3 ) (MAFRL Method 2000), nitrate+nitrite (NO 3 +NO 2 ) (MAFRL Method 2100), andphosphate (PO 3 4 ) (MAFRL Method 4100) using a Lachat Automated Flow Injection Analyser(Lachat Instruments, 6645 West Mill Road, Millwaaukee, WI 53218, USA). Results of porewaternutrient concentrations were corrected for dilutions, where necessary.Whole SedimentsNutrientsConcentrations of total nutrients (TKN, TP, TOC and TC) were determined from wholesediment samples by MAFRL. Samples for TKN (MAFRL Method 2600) and TP (MAFRL Method4500) were digested together and analysed with a Lachat Automated Flow Injection Analyserwith a digest as per Technicon Autoanalyser II Industrial Method No. 329-74 W/B (1977).Total organic carbon (MAFRL Method 6200) was determined using the Manual Combustion-NDIR Method as per Shimadzu Corporation Solid Sample Module SSM-5000A InstructionManual (Environmental Analysis Instruments Plant, Environmental Instrumentation Division:Tokyo, Japan).MetalsWhole sediment analysis (MAFRL Method: ICP 002)was conducted by MAFRL for totalextractable metals (Al, Cd, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mo, Pb, S, and Se) which were pre-treated by an aquaregia digestion (AS4479.1-1997 and AS4479.2-1997) to extract total metals from thesediment. Analysis of metals from the extract solution was undertaken using inductivelycoupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES; Varian (Vista AX) ICP-AES CCDSimultaneous Standards Australia).Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 15

2.3.3 Sediment redistributionRates of sediment erosion or deposition (redistribution) on the new seabed surface createdby the dredge materials may directly affect the recovery of seagrass within and surroundingthe Offshore Disposal Area. Depths of the Offshore Disposal Area will be assessed fordifferences in depth from preceding surveys and the permanent site locations will be overlaidto qualitatively determine if individual sites are being affected by erosion or deposition. Highrates of erosion or deposition (>0.1-0.2 m) may directly affect recovery or recolonisation ofseagrass. The necessary bathymetry data was collected via multi-beam sonar surveys duringDecember 2009, December 2010 and December 2011 (Fremantle Ports).2.4 Statistical analysis2.4.1 Overview of data presentation and statistical analysesSeagrass shoot density data are presented in graphs as means (n=15) encompassed withintwo standard errors (se). Percentage cover of seagrass and sediment PSD are presented asaccumulative bar graphs in which each portion of the bar illustrates the mean (n=50,percentage cover; n=5, sediment PSD). Sediment chemical data are presented in graphs asmeans (n=5) encompassed within two standard errors.Statistical analyses were performed using (PERMANOVA; Anderson et al 2008) and post hoctests were performed using (PRIMER, v. 6.0; Clarke and Gorley 2006).2.4.2 Hypothesis - Phase I surveyFor the Phase I survey, data were collected to produce a "baseline" for further surveys. Assuch the hypothesis for this survey was "sites within zones are not similar".The assessment of seagrass recovery is designed to be undertaken in three phases (seeSection 5). Future survey data will be tested against previous survey data and thus futuresurvey hypothesis testing will be that "sites are not similar between zones and betweenyears".2.4.3 Experimental designBenthic habitat mapsTo assess spatial extent of seagrass recovery, benthic habitat maps will be produced annuallyfrom satellite imagery and ground-truthed habitat data collected from video tows. Todetermine comparable coverage from survey to survey, towed video transects will start at thetarget location and follow the same trajectory and same distance, to the extent possible. Arepeat of approximately 70 towed video transects will be completed during each phase.Seagrass densityDuring this initial survey, shoot counts were analysed by zone, with sites being nested(n=15). Analysis was a three factor design: zone (undisturbed, transition or disturbed), site(1-5) and transects (1-5).In subsequent surveys, shoot counts are designed as fixed permanent quadrats which will beanalysed individually by repeated measures methods.Percentage cover seagrassPercentage cover measurements were derived from independent random 'quadrats' per site(n=50). Each of the ten random frames within the five random videos were consideredindependent and were used for the calculation of the mean and variation of each site. Forthis initial survey, analysis was a three factor design: zone (undisturbed, transition ordisturbed), site (1-5) and frame (1-10).In subsequent surveys, percentage cover will be analysed as a three factor design: time(year 1, 2 etc), zone (undisturbed, transition or disturbed) and site (1-5).16 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Sediment nutrients and metalsNutrient and metals data were analysed by zone, with sites being nested (n=5). Univariateanalysis was a two factor design: zone (undisturbed, transition or disturbed) and site (1-5).Multivariate analysis was conducted using 'BEST' analysis in PRIMER to assess the correlationof whole sediment nutrients and metals versus either a single variable (P. angustifolia shootdensity or percentage cover) or multiple variables (percentage cover of biota categories) (seeTable 2.2). Concentrations of whole sediment nutrient and metals were normalised andstandardised to positive values prior to running the 'BEST' analysis (Clarke and Gorley 2006).'BEST' analysis was limited to five best correlations using a stepwise comparison.2.5 QA/QCQuality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures were in accordance with thosedescribed in the EPA (2005) Manual of Standard Operating Procedures for EnvironmentalMonitoring against the Cockburn Sound Environmental Quality Criteria (2003 – 2004) (SOP)and ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring andReporting, as described below.2.5.1 Quality assurance and quality control in field samplingA QA/QC program was implemented prior to data collection and continued to the finalreporting stage, including procedures designed to prevent, detect and correct problems in theprocess of operations. It included processes to ensure adherence to protocols, calibration offield instruments and records of field observations.Method StatementsMethod Statements were produced to detail the sampling processes and assist futuresampling campaigns in the form of:dive operations gear list;site diagrams;sediment sampling logs;seagrass survey statement (outlines shoot counts and video procedures for divers); and'TransectMeasure' quick guide (outlines specific video processing tasks for this project).Recording of field proceduresComplete records of all field procedures were maintained, including:updated site locations (data for relocation with GPS coordinates);verification of data collected (number of video, photographs and data sheets);record of dive profile including personnel, gas used, time, date and site number;collection of metadata (general site photographs);daily operations reports (including record of safety meetings); anda field operations summary report.Any circumstances potentially affecting data collection procedures were documented andcorrected for future operations.Maintenance and calibration of field equipmentAll equipment and field instruments were kept clean and in good working order. Calibrations,preventative maintenance actions and pre-dive checks were carried out according to predefinedschedules and procedures. Video cameras were tested for required height (0.84 m)from seabed to produce a 0.5 m belt width along a transect (necessary due to the refractionof water). All camera settings (i.e. exposure, pixel quality, etc.) were verified as correct priorto the diver entering the water.Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 17

2.5.2 Laboratory analyses and proceduresAll analyses for sediment sampling were undertaken by NATA-certified laboratories (MAFRLand Microanalysis Australia). Chain of Custody (CoC) documents were used for transfer ofsamples from the field to the laboratories. Completed CoC documents are included inAppendix D.2.5.3 Quality assurance and quality control in data managementData management systemsThe data management system included the following components:procedures for recording results of analysis and field observations;procedures for systematic screening and validation of data;secure storage of information;a data retrieval system;data analysis protocols; andflexibility to accommodate additional information, e.g. metadata.Data entry protocolsAppropriate protocols for entering data were developed as part of the monitoring program toensure that the entry of data was accurate. A number of protocols were implemented tominimise error: templates for standardising datasheet formats that were provided to field staff prior tosampling to ensure all information required was collected; data were electronically transferred to the database where possible to preventtranscription errors; and the collector(s) of the data ensured that only correct and validated data were provided tothe database manager for uploading into the database.Responsibility for data managementA dedicated GIS and Environmental Data Management (EDM) team were responsible forproducing maps and managing the data, to ensure adherence to data management protocolsand accurate mapping. The EDM team adhere to a QA/QC protocol, and any changes to thedata and/or the database were appropriately implemented and tracked.Archive and back-up dataArchives of all original data files and associated metadata were maintained for futurereference. This included archiving of:raw data sheets from field and laboratory measurements and analyses; andelectronic copies of verified data files prior to uploading into the database.Regular backing up of the monitoring database occurs so that data are not lost in the case ofsystem or file failures.18 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

3. Results3.1 Benthic habitat mapA satellite image was taken on 25 December 2011 which had adequate coverage of theOffshore Disposal Area and surrounds. Benthic habitats were delineated using this image andground-truthing data to produce a localised post disposal benthic habitat map of the OffshoreDisposal Area (Figure 3.1).The total spatial extent of seagrass documented during the IHD baseline study was estimatedat a total of 71.9 ha of seagrass habitat within the Offshore Disposal Area and surroundingpredicted zone of potential loss, and predicted zone of potential effect (Section 1.1;Figure 1.2). This survey found an estimated total of 52.03 ha of seagrass habitat withinthese same areas (Table 3.1). This represents an estimated loss of 19.9 ha of seagrasshabitat. The majority (76%) of seagrass habitat loss occurred within the Offshore DisposalArea.The information from this benthic habitat map was combined with IHD post disposal benthichabitat map to update the benthic habitats in the Gage Roads area (Figure 3.2). Thechanges in benthic habitat areas are shown in Figure 3.3.Table 3.1Seagrass habitat loss with the Offshore Disposal Area, Zone of Potential loss andPotential EffectZoneOffshore Disposal Area(Direct loss)Pre disposal seagrasshabitat (ha) - Dec 2009Post disposal seagrasshabitat (ha) - Dec 201115.4 0.03 14.9Potential Loss 7.9 6.7 1.2Potential Effect 48.7 45.3 3.4Total Habitat 71.9 52.03 19.9Habitat loss (ha)Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 19

Figure 3.1Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area and surrounds post disposal benthic habitatmap 201120 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Figure 3.2 Benthic habitat post disposal within Gage Roads, December 2011Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 21

Figure 3.3Changes in benthic habitat within Gage Roads between December 2009 andDecember 201122 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

3.2 Seagrass recovery3.2.1 Seagrass density baseline dataDuring the Phase I survey, mean shoot counts for P. angustifolia ranged from 12 shoots perm 2 (at site 37D) to 407 shoots per m 2 (at site SH50) (Figure 3.4). Summarised seagrassshoot density data are included as a table within Appendix E.500450400350Shootcount(m 2 )300250200150100500Disturbed Transition UndisturbedBars indicate mean (n=15) ± 2 seFigure 3.4Baseline mean seagrass shoot countsSeagrass shoot density within each zone ranged from:12-240 shoots per m 2 at disturbed sites;100-293 shoots per m 2 at transition sites; and257-407 shoots per m 2 at undisturbed sites.Seagrass shoot density data from IHD baseline ('undisturbed') sites (SH32, SH50 and SH51)collected in November 2010 were between 591-605 shoots per m 2 , which are about twice thedensity recorded in the same undisturbed sites of this survey (257-407 shoots per m 2 ).Results from this survey are within the overall range in shoot densities (284-630 shoots perm 2 ) recorded throughout the IHD monitoring program at sites SH32, SH50 and SH51 and arecomparable and within the range of 'natural' variability in seagrass density previouslydescribed for this depth (Oceanica 2010c).Statistically significant differences (P values < 0.05) in mean seagrass shoot density occurredbetween all zones (undisturbed, transitional and disturbed) (Table 3.2 and Table 3.3).Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 23

Table 3.2PERMANOVA table of results for P.angustifolia shoot countsSource df SS MS Pseudo-F P valueZone 2 3441.1 1720.6 51.487 0.001Site(Zone) 12 1627.2 135.6 4.0577 0.001Transect(Site(Zone)) 30 1002.5 33.418 1.3884 0.118Total 224 10403Table 3.3Pairwise post hoc tests for P.angustifolia shoot countsGroups t P valueDisturbed, Transition 4.3207 0.001Disturbed, Undisturbed 12.046 0.001Transition, Undisturbed 5.1194 0.0013.2.2 Percentage coverPercentage cover of the seabed was dominated by sand (30-87%) at the disturbed andtransition sites (Figure 3.5). The undisturbed sites were dominated by cover of seagrassP. angustifolia (34-67%), although site 10H had a significant accumulation of wrack.Other Algae SandWrack SeagrassAmphibolis SeagrassPosidiniacoriaceaSeagrassPosidiniaangustifolia100908070%cover6050403020100Figure 3.5Percentage cover by benthic categoriesPercentage cover of P. angustifolia ranged from 4% (at site 37D) to 67% (at sites SH32 andSH50). Percentage cover of P. angustifolia within each zone ranged from:Disturbed Transition Undisturbed4-22% at the disturbed sites;17-27% at the transition sites; and34-67% at the undisturbed sites.Summarised percentage cover data are included as a table in Appendix F.Statistically significant differences (P values < 0.05) in the percentage of seagrass coveroccurred amongst all zones (undisturbed, transitional and disturbed) (Table 3.4 andTable 3.5).24 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Table 3.4PERMANOVA table of results for P.angustifolia percentage coverSource df SS MS Pseudo-F P valueZone 2 43.4 21.7 105.07 0.001Site(Zone) 12 13.425 1.1187 5.4165 0.001Transect(Site(Zone)) 63 13.015 0.20658 1.8055 0.001Total 774 150.5Table 3.5Pairwise post hoc tests for P.angustifolia percentage coverGroups t P valueDisturbed, Undisturbed 14.221 0.001Disturbed, Transition 4.3959 0.001Undisturbed, Transition 11.017 0.0013.3 Sediment parameters3.3.1 Sediment field logA sediment field log was used to document:site number;GPS location;photographs taken of cores;sediment samples collected and for which laboratories; andsample characteristics (texture, colour, shell content and presence of anoxic smell).The sediment log is included in Appendix G.3.3.2 Sediment physio-chemical propertiesParticle size distributionParticle size distributions at monitoring sites are illustrated in (Figure 3.6). Particle sizedistributions were generally similar amongst all sites, being dominated (30-64%) by finesands (250-106 μm). Sites SH50, SH51 and 12D also had a large fraction (34, 45 and 34%respectively) of medium sand (500-250 μm). Complete laboratory results from MicroanalysisAustralia are located in Appendix H. No differences in PSD which would affect seagrasshealth (e.g. particularly high clay or gravel content) occurred between sites or zones(undisturbed, transitional and disturbed).Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 25

1009080%ofsizedistribution7060504030202000100Disturbed Transition UndisturbedFigure 3.6 Particle size distributionsSediment multivariate analysisMultivariate analysis was conducted using 'BEST' analysis in Primer 6.0 to assess thecorrelation of whole sediment nutrients and metals versus either a single variable(P. angustifolia density or percentage cover) or multiple variables (percentage cover of biotacategories (see Table 2.2)). The analysis showed no correlation between any combination ofwhole sediment metals or nutrients occurred, against either seagrass density, percentagecover or the assemblage of biota percentage cover categories (Table 3.6).Table 3.6Correlation between whole sediment nutrients and metals vs P. angustifoliavariables or percentage coverVariable Correlation Best fit variablesP. angustifolia percentage cover 0.101 TP, Fe and SeP. angustifolia density 0.355 CuAll percentage cover categories 0.188 Al and CuPore-water nutrients, whole sediment nutrients and metalsData ranges from some Western Australian studies and laboratory detection limits forconcentrations of pore-water nutrients, whole sediment nutrients and whole sediment metalsare presented in Table 3.7. Full laboratory results from MAFRL for pore-water nutrient, wholesediment nutrient and metal data are provided in Appendix I; together with a table of meanconcentrations for pore-water nutrients, whole sediment nutrients and metals. These dataare also presented graphically in Appendix J.Nutrient concentrations in pore-waters were not statistically different amongst zones(undisturbed, transitional and disturbed). Total organic carbon concentrations of sedimentswere very low (

Table 3.7Data ranges and detection limits of sediment chemical parametersAnalyteData RangeRange fromliteratureDetection Limit CommentsPore-water nutrients (μg L -1 )Ammonia (NH 3 ) 125 - 2150 100-600 1 30 High variabilityOrtho-P (PO 3 4 ) 25 - 85 30-100 1 20 High variabilityNitrate + Nitrite(NO 3 +NO 2 )3.4 - 42.5 2-30 1 4 High variabilityWhole sediment nutrients (mg g -1 unless otherwise stated)TKN 0.20 - 0.57 0.078-03.15 2 0.04Total P 0.12 - 0.44 0.099-0.8 2 0.02TOC (%) 0.14 - 0.56 0.4-5 2 0.2TC (%) 3.5 - 10.2 1-100 0.2Whole sediment metals (mg kg -1 )Aluminium 550 to 1860 530-2600 3 20Cadmium 0.1 0.3-0.5 3 0.111 of 15 sites belowdetection limitsCopper 0.24 - 1.72 0.6-2.3 3 0.2Iron 500 - 1720 28-231 3 5Magnesium 3840 - 15200 3400-18300 4 2Molybdenum 0.5 - 0.7 No data found 0.56 of 15 sites belowdetection limitsLead 0.6 - 3.4 3.2-5.8 3 1Sulfur 960 - 3260 100-3900 4 10Selenium 3.2 - 4.8 No data found 2Notes:1. Data sourced from Cambridge and Kendrick 20092. Data sourced from Roshich et al 19943. Data sourced from DEP 1996 (Table 4.5.1, data from Harbours and Cockburn Sound not included)4. Data sourced from Burt et al 19953.3.3 Sediment redistributionThe difference in bathymetry from the period prior to offshore disposal (November 2009) tothe post disposal period (December 2010) is shown in Figure 3.7. Large decreases in waterdepth (3-7 m) occurred in the southern part of the disposal area with smaller changes (1-3 mdecreased depth) occurring in the northern part. These decreases in water depth are a resultof deposition of dredge material during 2010. Of particular significance is the filling in of thedeep portion which was present in the southern portion of the Offshore Disposal Area(Figure 1.3). Large accumulations of wrack frequented this area and this filling in of the areais expected to alter the occurrence of wrack accumulation.Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 27

Figure 3.7Differences in bathymetry from pre- to post-disposal (November 2009 to December2010) within and surrounding the Offshore Disposal Area28 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

The bathymetry data for December 2010 shows an Offshore Disposal Area with relatively lowrelief (16-20 m) throughout the area, although there is a small area of depression near thesouth-western corner where 16-22 m depths are recorded (Figure 3.8).Figure 3.8 Depths of disposal area after deposition of dredged material in December 2010Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 29

Changes in bathymetry from December 2010 until December 2011 show much smaller (-0.2to 2 m) redistribution of seabed materials (Figure 3.9). The changes appear to be from thesettling or redistribution of materials from high spots in topography to lower 'trough' areas.Figure 3.9 Differences in bathymetry from post disposal December 2010 to December 201130 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Bathymetry data from December 2011 show a disposal area with relatively low relief(16-20 m) throughout the area (Figure 3.10).Figure 3.10Depths of Offshore Disposal area after deposition of dredged materials in December2011Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 31

Due to the limited spatial area covered by the bathymetry surveys many of the permanentseagrass and sediment survey sites are not within the collected data area. As such, it is notpossible to ascertain changes in sediment redistribution for these sites. Some seagrassmonitoring sites (36TD, 36DT and 36H) which were within the data collection area showedpossible deposition of 0-0.02 m of materials during the time from December 2010 toDecember 2011. But, this amount of change is within the accuracy error of the bathymetricsurvey and thus is not reliable. As all sites are outside of the actual Offshore Disposal Area,the redistribution of sediments is expected to be minimal (

4. DiscussionWithin the Offshore Disposal Area, and surrounding zones of potential loss and effect fromthe IHD Project, 19.9 ha of seagrass loss was conservatively estimated to occur between preandpost-disposal habitat surveys. The majority of seagrass loss (76%) was within thebounds of the Offshore Disposal Area resulting from burial by disposed sediments. Seagrassloss in the surrounding area was likely due to plumes at the time of disposal and/or sedimentresuspension and redistribution of dredged materials causing indirect smothering and/or lightlimitation of seagrass.The selection of 15 permanent seagrass recovery monitoring sites within 'undisturbed','transitional' and 'disturbed' zones was validated with statistically significant differencesbetween zones in seagrass percentage cover and shoot density. Percentage cover ofP angustifolia ranged from 4-22% cover at disturbed sites, 17-27% at transition sites and 34-67% at undisturbed sites. The seabed was dominated by sand (30-87% cover) at disturbedand transition sites, while P. angustifolia dominated the coverage of the seabed atundisturbed sites. Wrack was also prominent at the transition site 11T and undisturbed site10H, and may be partially controlling the percentage cover of seagrass at these sites. Datafor undisturbed sites showed that mean shoot density (257-407 shoots per m 2 ) was withinthe range of natural seasonal variation recorded from the three sites monitored prior thissurvey (284-732 shoots per m 2 (Oceanica 2010a)). Seagrass density ranged from 12-407shoots per m 2 overall, which was within recorded variability for sites at this depth in thisarea. Seagrass density at disturbed sites ranged from 12-240 shoots per m 2 , at transitionsites ranged from 100-293 shoots per m 2 and undisturbed sites ranged from 257-407 shootsper m 2 . These statistically different values for both seagrass percentage cover and shootdensities represent a strong baseline data set to record potential future seagrass recoverywithin zones at these sites.Multivariate analysis of whole sediment nutrients and metals showed no combination ofchemical analytes was controlling the percentage cover or density of P. angustifolia.Sediment physicochemical data demonstrated no relevant differences in PSD, nutrients ormetals amongst zones which were considered to be able to affect seagrass health.Most (12 out of 15) permanent seagrass monitoring sites were not within bathymetry surveyarea. This was primarily due an expected lack of suitable seagrass sites within the OffshoreDisposal Area and the limited bathymetric survey area beyond the boundary of the OffshoreDisposal Area. Bathymetry data at the permanent seagrass monitoring sites which werewithin the survey area showed some sediment accumulation (0-0.02 m) during the pre- topost-disposal time frame (December 2010 to December 2011), but this level of accuracy iswithin the error of the bathymetric data and is not considered reliable. Although theavailable data does not allow for a quantitative analysis, it does highlight the possibility thatredistribution of sediments at disposal areas has the potential to affect seagrass recovery.Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 33

5. Future Surveys (Phases II and III)This initial Phase I survey was designed as a component of a medium-term study up to threeyears. Each year is designed to contain a single phase: 2011 - Initial survey - Phase I 2012 - 1st year survey - Phase II 2013 - 2nd year survey - Phase III (subject to outcomes of Phase II)The broad objectives for Phase II and Phase III will be to conduct surveys to compare dataagainst the Phase I survey, for the assessment of recovery of seagrass within andsurrounding the Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area, including potentially associatedsediment physicochemical controls.The Phase II survey is scheduled for November-December 2012 and Phase III survey inNovember-December 2013 (subject to outcomes of the Phase II study).34 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

6. AcknowledgementsThis report was prepared by Dr Jonathan Anderson with beneficial reviews and revisionsfrom Dr Robert De Roach and Mark Bailey (Oceanica), Lyle Banks (Fremantle Ports) andadministrative assistance from Dennis Bothur and Rachael Hillman (Oceanica). AshtySaleem, Anemutsa Tapera and Dinesh Tuladhar (Oceanica) designed figures andprepared geo-spatial information. Dr Tara Amita, Dr Glenn Shiell and Dr Julia Phillips(Oceanica) supplied experimental design and statistical analysis and input. Kristin Wouters(GeoImage) supplied the satellite image and produced the benthic habitat overlay files. BenBrayford (Geo Oceans) and Dr. Jonathan Anderson conducted towed videos and analysis;and Dr Jonathan Anderson, Antosh Sokol, Adelaide Bevilaqua, and Giuseppe Paccani(Oceanica) conducted diving and field operations.Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey 35

7. ReferencesAnderson M.J., Gorley R.N. & Clarke K.R. (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide toSoftware and Statistical Methods. PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UKANZECC, ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and MarineWater Quality. Volume 1: The Guidelines, Prepared by Australian and New ZealandEnvironment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Councilof Australia and New Zealand, Canberra, ACT, October 2000Burt JS, McCafferty PB, Pannell M (1995) Survey of organic pollutants and heavy metals inmussels and sediments of the southern metropolitan coastal waters of Perth, January1994 - DATA REPORT, Prepared by Department of Environmental Protection, ReportNo SMCWS ECOL-14, Perth, Western Australia, June 1995Cambridge M.L and G. A. Kendrick (2009) Contrasting responses of seagrass transplants(Posidonia australis) to nitrogen, phosphorus and iron addition in an estuary andcoastal embayment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 371 pg 34-41Clark, K.R. and R.N. Gorley (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial PRIMER-E: Plymouth,UKDEP (1996) Southern Metropolitan Coastal Waters Study (1991-1994), Prepared byDepartment of Environmental Protection, Report No 17, Perth, Western Australia,November 1996EPA (2005) Manual of Standard Operating Procedures - For Environmental Monitoring againstthe Cockburn Sound Environmental Quality Criteria (2003 - 2004) - A supportingdocument to the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy 2005, Prepared byEnvironmental Protection Authority, Report No 21, Perth, Western Australia, January2005Oceanica (2010a) Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour Deepening Project - Baseline BenthicHabitat Mapping and Potential Loss Estimates, Prepared for Fremantle Ports byOceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report No 816_004/1, Perth, Western Australia, July2010Oceanica (2010b) Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening – Reclamation atRous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material: Compliance AssessmentReport: Phase 1 Works, Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd,Report No 816_003/2, Perth, Western Australia, November 2010Oceanica (2010c) Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour Deepening Project: Seagrass HealthMonitoring Report – Baseline and Interim Surveys, Prepared for Fremantle Ports byOceanica Consulting Pty Ltd, Report No 816_005/1, Perth, Western Australia, May2010Oceanica (2011a) Fremantle Ports Inner Harbour Deepening Project: Seagrass HealthMonitoring Report – Post Dredge Survey, Prepared for Fremantle Ports by OceanicaConsulting Pty Ltd, Report No 816_005/4, Perth, Western Australia, February 2011Oceanica (2011b) Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening – Reclamation atRous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged Material: Compliance AssessmentReport: Phase 2 Works, Prepared for Fremantle Ports by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd,Report No 816_003/4, Perth, Western Australia, October 2011Rosich RS, Bastyan GR, Paling EI, Van Senden DC (1994) Perth Coastal Waters Study -Sediment Nutrient Processes, Prepared for Water Authority of Western Australia byScientific Services Branch Water Authority of Western Australia and Institute forEnvironmental Science Murdoch University, Environmental Sciences and EngineeringPty Ltd, Perth, Western Australia, December 199436 Oceanica: Fremantle Ports: FP – Gage Roads Offshore Disposal Area Seagrass Recovery Project, Phase I – Initial Survey

Appendix AGeo Oceans Report

BENTHIC HABITAT ASSESSMENTTowed Video Survey Methods ReportFremantle PortsPrepared for OceanicaRev 0 | February 2012Document code: OCE.FRE.TVS.001Phone: (08) 92271013E-mail: admin@geooceans.comAddress: 5/286 Fitzgerald St, Perth, WAWeb: www.geooceans.com

Benthic Habitat AssessmentTowed Video Survey Methods ReportFremantle PortsPrepared for Oceanica Consulting Pty LtdPrepared by Geo Oceans Pty LtdFebruary 2012Report No. OCE.FRE.TVS.001Rev 0Revision historyDISTRIBUTIONRevision AuthorRecipients No. Copies & Format Date ReviewerA B. Brayford J. Anderson 1 x e-copy 07/11/11 J. Anderson0 B. Brayford J. Anderson 1 x e-copy 07/02/12 Final copyREVIEWReviewtypeTechnicalEditorialDate07/11/11DisclaimerGeo Oceans Pty Ltd (GO) has prepared this document following engagement by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd. This document issubject to and issued in accordance with the agreed terms and scope between the above listed companies. Geo Oceans PtyLtd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any thirdparty.At the request of Oceanica this report is submitted to Oceanica as a draft (Revision A) without an internal Geo Oceans review.The contents of this report may not be reproduced without the consent of Geo Oceans. If the contents is reproduced it mustbe referenced with the following :Geo Oceans Pty Ltd (2011) Towed Video Survey, Methods Report. November 2011. Unpublished report. Submitted to OceanicaConsulting for Fremantle Ports.2 of 13

CONTENTS1. Introduction................................................................................ 42. Methods .................................................................................... 42.1. Field logistics ..................................................................... 42.2. Sampling plan .................................................................... 42.3. Equipment ......................................................................... 42.3.1. Topside Control Unit ............................................................................. 42.3.2. Spatial positioning ............................................................................... 42.3.3. Video camera ........................................................................................ 52.3.4. Depth data ........................................................................................... 52.4. Video analysis .................................................................... 63. Results ..................................................................................... 9TABLESTable 1 The estimated error for the spatial positioning of the towed camerarelative to the GPS receiver (on the vessel) ......................................... 5Table 2 Tide predictions for the Port of Fremantle (www.transport.wa.gov.au) ........ 6Table 3 Data fields captured in the GO Video software analysis data ........................ 7FIGURESFigure 1 Substrate and biota habitat classification hierarchy levels .......................... 8Figure 2 Depth data collected during the field survey ............................................... 10Figure 3 Seagrass percent cover data ........................................................................ 11APPENDICESAppendix 1: Video analysis biological community classification scheme ................. 12Appendix 2: Video analysis substrate classification scheme .................................... 133 of 13

1. IntroductionGeo Oceans was commissioned by Oceanica Consulting Pty Ltd (Oceanica) toconduct a towed video survey for Fremantle Ports, near Fremantle, WesternAustralia. Towed video methods were used to collect seafloor habitat point data toclassify the seafloor habitat types. The habitat data will be used to classify habitatareas that were delineated using satellite imagery in GIS and select sites that aresuitable for a seagrass monitoring and recovery survey.This document provides details of the equipment and survey methods for the fieldoperations and data analysis.2. Methods2.1. Field logisticsThe towed video field survey was conducted from the 11 th to 12 th of October 2011.The sea conditions and water currents during the survey were suitable for towedcamera operations and the water visibility was greater than 5 m for the majority ofthe survey. However some transects in the deeper waters of the bay had poorvisibility (

longitude coordinates from a Furuno GP 37 differential GPS system (accuracy of 10 m.Depth was recorded throughout the day during the period 11/10/2011 to 12/10/2011,at tide heights ranging from 0.55 to 0.93 metres above lowest astronomical tide(LAT). The depths were corrected to LAT using the tide predictions for the Port ofFremantle, WA (Table 2), using a method based closely on the ‘Rule of Twelfths’, atool commonly used in yachting to adjust depth for tides (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_twelfths). This rule assumes that the rate offlow of a tide increases smoothly to a maximum halfway between high and low tidebefore smoothly decreasing to zero again and that the interval between low andhigh tides is approximately six hours. The rule states that in the first hour after lowtide the water level will rise by one twelfth of the range, in the second hour twotwelfths, and so on according to the sequence - 1:2:3:3:2:1. The rule, as generallyapplied, assumes that the period between high and low tides is six hours. For thisproject, the period varied between 5.3 and 7.2 hours. To improve accuracy, the rulewas modified such that the water level is assumed to rise by one twelfth of therange during the first one sixth of the period between tides (approximately anhour), rather than during the first hour (precisely), and similarly for the remainingfive sixths of the period between tides. In addition, a further offset of 0.5 m,consistent across the entire dataset, was added to the depth to account for thedepth of the transceiver below the water. The rule of twelfths and transceiver depthcorrections were calculated using a custom VBA Excel Macro.5 of 13

Table 2 Tide predictions for the Port of FremantleTuesday 11th Oct 2011Wednesday 12th Oct2011(www.transport.wa.gov.au)2.4. Video analysis0.55m @ 3:43 AM0.72m @ 10:15 AM0.61m @ 2:07 PM0.89m @ 8:53 PM0.52m @ 4:14 AM0.70m @ 10:58 AM0.61m @ 2:23 PM0.93m @ 9:10 PMThe Geo Oceans customised Visual Basic software program ‘GO Video’ was used forvideo analysis that allowed the analyst to assign habitat attributes to the GPSlocation (position) where the video was recorded. A marine scientist trained in videoanalysis and habitat classification analysed the video footage in real-time (as thevideo is recorded). Position data were received at approximately 1-second intervals,and recorded in a database table, along with the biota and substrate attributesassigned using the GO Video software. These attributes include visually-assessedpercentage cover estimates of the biota and substrate classes provided in Appendix1 and Appendix 2. Table 3 lists the attributes that were captured and geo-referencedusing the video analysis software. Figure 1 shows the biota and substrateclassification hierarchy used to group the attributes.The level of taxonomic detail recorded varied according to the video quality, whichin turn was dependent on the environmental conditions (e.g. water visibility and seastate) and the speed at which the towed video was filmed. In all cases the videoquality was adequate to make distinctions of the biota into the level 2 groups inFigure 1.The video analysis data was checked in Microsoft Access for blank fields anderroneous GPS positioning and habitat classifications. Errors were removed thenthe data were converted into a GIS shapefile (point data) and displayed in Arc GISsoftware for further error checking. The video analysis data were symbolisedshowing presence and absence of the major habitat categories (i.e. macroalgae,hard coral, filter feeders, soft coral and seagrass) at each survey site. The point datawere reviewed for any habitat classifications that were not consistent with thesurrounding point data. If the point data were considered to be erroneous the videofootage was reanalysed using the same methods as the real-time analysis method.6 of 13

Table 3 Data fields captured in the GO Video software analysis dataField nameFrameIDProjectNamSubregionSite_IDLatLongSubstrateReef_coverReef_structReef_profilSediment_structureSediment_profileCA_SppCA_coverCA_valueSA_SppSA_coverSA_valueMA_valueSG_SppSG_coverSG_valueHC_SppHC_coverHC_valueSC_SppSC_coverSC_valueFF_SppFF_coverFF_valueOther_biotaVideoQualityVideo_ComDepthRule12DeptDateTimeVideo_QualInterpreterDescriptionUnique IDProjectProject subregionTransect or site nameLatitude (WGS 84 datum)Longitude (WGS 84 datum)Reef and/or sedimentPercentage composition of reef and sediment substrateReef particle sizeReef profileSediment particle sizeSediment profileCanopy algae biota presentCanopy algae percentage coverCanopy algae percentage cover valueSmall algae biota presentSmall algae percentage coverSmall algae percentage cover valueMacroalgae percentage cover valueSeagrass biota presentSeagrass percentage coverSeagrass percentage cover valueHard coral biota presentHard coral percentage coverHard coral percentage cover valueSoft coral biota presentSoft coral percentage coverSoft coral percentage cover valueFilter-feeders biota presentFilter-feeders percentage coverFilter-feeders percentage valueOther biota attributesQuality of video recordedVideo commentsDepth (metres) (raw data, not corrected for tide)Depth corrected for tide (using ‘rule of twelths’Date of data captureTime of data capture (UTM)Video qualityVideo analyst7 of 13

Figure 1 Substrate and biota habitat classification hierarchy levels8 of 13

3. ResultsA total of 27180 rows of depth data (Figure 2) and 20,940 rows of habitat data(Figure 3 displays the seagrass percent cover) were captured during the field survey.All of the habitat and depth data collected during the field survey are submitted asArc GIS point shapefiles separate to this report and have been filed in Oceanica datamanagement system.9 of 13

Figure 2 Depth data collected during the field survey10 of 13

Figure 3 Seagrass percent cover data11 of 13

Appendix 1: Video analysis biological community classification schemeBiota classes Morphological groups Definitions and examplesOther biotaRecorded forMicrophytobenthos (MPB) Thin film layer (low, medium, high)presence/absence only Crustose coralline algae (CCA) Encrusting algaeTurfing algaeHair-like algae 20 mmSeagrassSeparated into genus or speciesMacroalgae Small algae Macroalgae 20 mm to 20 cmMembrane, thin sheets Padina spp., Lobophora spp.Foliaceous, bushyCaulerpa spp.Lobed, flattened and rounded Halimeda spp.Fleshy or ball-likeCodium spp.Canopy algaeMacroalgae >20 cmFlatEcklonia radiataBranchingCystophora spp., Sargassum spp., other fucoidsHard Coral Branching At least 20 branching (e.g. Seriatopora hystrix)DigitateLess than 20 branching (e.g. Acroporid digitifera)TabularHorizontal flattened plates (e.g. Acroporid hyacinthus)EncrustingMajor portion attached to substrate as a laminar plate (e.g. Poritid vaughani)FolioseCoral attached at one or more points, leaf-like appearance e.g. Turbinaria spp.)MassiveSolid boulder or mound (e.g. Favites spp.)SubmassiveTends to small columns, knobs or wedgesSoft Coral (BPP)Photosynthetic soft corals (BPP)Filter feedersAhermatypic animals (not defined as BPP)Soft Coral (non-BPP)Non-photosynthetic soft coralsSpongesCan note morphological groupsAscidiansStalked, encrusting, solitaryHydroidsSea whipsGorgonian fansSea pensBryozoanFoliose, stalkedAnemonesTube, solitaryPolychaetesPercent coverCover valueDecision rulesclasses>80% 90 no substrate visible60–80% 70 some substrate is visible40–60% 50 substrate is clearly visible but biota dominates the image frame20–40% 30 substrate dominates most of the image frame10–20% 15 substrate dominates most of the image frame5–10% 7.5 substrate dominates most of the image frame1–5% 3 trace densities0–1% 0.5 no significant macro-biota12 of 13

Appendix 2: Video analysis substrate classification schemeSubstrate typeDecision ruleReefSubstrate predominantly made up of particles of cobble size (>64 mm diameter) or largerSedimentSubstrate predominantly made up of particles of pebble size (256 mmRock (unbroken)Unbroken rock substrateReef profileHigh>4 m rise over 2 mMedium1–4 m rise over 2 mLow

Appendix BGeoImage Report

Geoimage Final ReportWA12-0343Substrate mapping for Oceanica ConsultingFremantle Marine Region, Western Australia5 April 2012

Table of ContentsIntroduction.............................................................................................................................................. 3Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3Key Deliverables .................................................................................................................................. 3Study Site ............................................................................................................................................ 3Methods................................................................................................................................................... 5Inputs ................................................................................................................................................... 5Image Processing ................................................................................................................................ 5Data integration and classification ....................................................................................................... 5Project 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 6Project 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 6Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................... 7Results .................................................................................................................................................... 7Limitations and assumptions ................................................................................................................. 10Key Issues associated with substrate mapping ................................................................................ 10Imagery Acquisition Conditions ..................................................................................................... 10Spatial Scale .................................................................................................................................. 10Classification scale and automation .............................................................................................. 10Quality Assurance ............................................................................................................................. 10Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 11List of Figures and TablesFigure 1: Study site overview for substrate mapping near Fremantle, Western Australia ...................... 4Figure 2: Tier 1 classification results ....................................................................................................... 8Figure 3: Tier 2 classification results ....................................................................................................... 9Table 1: Overview of Image inputs and their specifications .................................................................... 5Table 2: Tier 1 marine substrate mapping classes ................................................................................. 6Table 3: Tier 2 marine substrate mapping classes ................................................................................. 7Specialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 2

IntroductionThe purpose of this project was to integrate satellite imagery and field data to identify marinesubstrates across a dredge deposit site off Fremantle Harbour, Western Australia. Geoimage, inconsultation with Oceanica, proposed a spatial solution involving the integration of satellite imageryfield data to estimate substrate types across a variety of sea-floor depths.Project ObjectivesAcquisition of archive WorldView-2 (WV-2) 8-band bundle digital data, captured on 25 thDecember 2011, over the Imagery Area of Interest (AOI) covering 27 sq kmSun glint reduction on imagery, if deemed necessary, to remove sun glint speckle coveringparts of the images;Generation of broad (Project 1) and detailed (Project 2) marine substrate classification mapsfrom the satellite imagery over the Imagery AOI using a combination of spectral and manualclassification methods based on supplied substrate field dataKey DeliverablesSupply of raw archive digital imagery (WV-2 8-band 2m resolution multispectral and 1-band50cm resolution panchromatic imagery over the whole Imagery AOI; GeoEye-1 (GE-1) 4-band 2m resolution multispectral and 1-band 50cm resolution panchromatic imagery over thenorthern part of the Imagery AOI)Supply of sun glint reduced multispectral WV-2 and GE-1 imagery (GeoTiffs,Datum/Projection GDA94/MGA50)Project 1 – Broad marine substrate classification (ESRI Shapefile)Project 2 – Detailed marine substrate classification (ESRI Shapefile)Substrate classification maps for Project 1 and Project 2 (A4 PDFs)Brief report detailing the project outcomes (this report)Study SiteThe study site comprised of a 20km 2 area near the Fremantle Harbour, Western Australia. Figure 1describes the imagery acquired over the region and also the analysis area for this project.Specialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 3

Figure 1: Study site overview for substrate mapping near Fremantle, Western AustraliaSpecialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 4

MethodsInputsThe choice of suitable archive imagery was difficult and limited given the availability of cloud freearchive imagery in combination with unknown turbidity levels and depths in the water column, whichcould only be assessed once imagery had been acquired over the AOI.After assessment, certain areas of the WV-2 imagery were deemed unsuitable for substrate mappingdue to high turbidity levels and significant water depths. An archive GE-1 4-band image, captured on5th December 2011, was additionally acquired over the northern part of the study site to supplementthe 8-band WV-2 imagery. While only available for a portion of the overall study site, the GE-1 imagewas deemed more suitable for mapping substrates due to less interference by sun glint, turbidity andwave conditions.The two image sources were used to complete this project where WV-2 data was used for thesouthern part of the Analysis AOI, while GE-1 was used for the northern part of the Analysis AOI(Figure 1). Due to the difference in spectral bands, spatial resolution, capture angles and imagedates, the WV-2 and GE-1 images were processed separately. Image details and specifications arecontained in Table 1.Table 1: Overview of Image inputs and their specificationsImage Source Capture Dates Area ResolutionWorldView-2 25th December 2011 27 sqkm 2m multispectralGeoEye-1 5th December 2011 25 sqkm 2m multispectralField data was also provided by Oceanica Consulting which included transect information onsubstrates and sea-floor cover (point based) and an extrapolated broad scale habitat map(raster/polygon based). This data was used as input to inform the classification.Image ProcessingGeoimage prepared the imagery for analysis using standard image processing tools.Sun glint reduction was performed on both WV-2 and GE-1 multispectral images using an algorithmutilising information from the Near Infrared bands.Upon completion of the sun glint reduction process, the data was clipped to the Analysis AOI basedon Figure 1 where GE-1 data took precedence over the WV-2 data. The clipped areas were uploadedinto a Geographic Object-Based Image Analysis (GEOBIA) environment for individual assessment.Data integration and classificationThe delivery of this project was divided into two parts, as specified in Geoimage’s product andservices quote, with Project 2 dependent on the outcomes of the preceding Project 1. Both projectswere completed using a combination of the spectral characteristics of the WV-2 and GE-1multispectral imagery along with manual assignment of marine substrate classes based on trainingdata, which consisted of georeferenced point-based locations and type of substrates as defined in thesupplied field data.Due to the possibility of spatial and temporal shifts inherent between the acquisition of the imageryand field data, as well as the potential refraction within the water column, the field data was used asan approximate indicator of the existence of certain substrates at a given location.Specialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 5

Project 1Project 1 aimed to generate a broad substrate classification (Tier 1 classification) to extractinformation based on the classes outlined in Table 2.Table 2: Tier 1 marine substrate mapping classesTier 1ClassesLightSubstrateDarkSubstrateOpen WaterTurbid WaterDescriptionIndicative of sandy substrates inshallow areasIndicative of biotic substrates andabiotic substrates such as Boulders,Rock, Pebbles, CobblesAll areas where water depthprevents the classification of the seafloorAll areas where suspended sedimentand plumes prevents theclassification of the sea floor.Limitations or assumptionsWater depth prevents classification beyond15mUncertainty of class with where water depthsare between 15-20m. Increased uncertaintywhere water depths are greater than 20m.Some variability can still be detected basedon context, field data integration, texture ofimagery.Areas deeper than 15m water depth wheresea-floor variability cannot be detecteddespite analysis of imagery context, textureand field data integration.Areas across the site where turbidity hasimpacted the imagery.Segmentation algorithms were tested and applied to separate objects of homogeneity based onstatistical relationships within the imagery. Classification algorithms were also trialled, but due tolimitations with water column depths, it was deemed necessary to export the statistical segments withonly the light substrate at depths shallower than 15m. All depths greater than 15m were required to bemanually classified based on the statistical objects and field data inputs.As part of the Tier 1 substrate mapping in Project 1, areas that could not be identified due to theexistence of turbidity plumes or at depths greater than 15 m were masked as either Turbid Water orOpen Water to distinguish regions that were not able to be processed further.Project 2Project 2 aimed to generate a more detailed substrate classification (Tier 2 classification) to extractinformation based on the classes outlined in Table 3. The segments exported in Project 1 were usedas a base to inform the manual attribution of shape context and texture in combination with field data.Specialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 6

Table 3: Tier 2 marine substrate mapping classesTier 2ClassesSandRockSeagrassOpen WaterTurbid WaterDarkSubstrateDescriptionIndicative of sandy substrates inshallow areasIndicative of abiotic substrates suchas Boulders, Rock, Pebbles,Cobbles, which are dark in surfacecolourIndicative of biotic substrates whichare dominated by SeagrasscommunitiesAll areas where water depthprevents the classification of the seafloorAll areas where suspended sedimentand plumes prevents theclassification of the sea floor.Dark substrate from Tier 1classification was not able to beseparated into a Tier 2 classLimitations or assumptionsWater depth prevents classification beyond15mMay include sub-dominance of algae speciesor algae/rock mixUncertainty of class where water depths arebetween 15-20m. Increased uncertaintywhere water depths greater than 20m. Somevariability can still be detected based oncontext, field data integration, texture ofimagery.Areas deeper than 15m water depth wheresea-floor variability cannot be detecteddespite analysis of imagery context, textureand field data integration.Areas across the site where turbidity hasimpacted the imagery.Water depth has impeded identification ofsubstrate to Tier 2 level.Quality AssuranceThe output classification has been checked for inconsistencies in the classification and for errors ofomission and commission. Geoimage undertook a system of evaluations within the OBIA process,which included a degree of adjustment of the segmentation algorithms applied prior to export into theGIS environment.ResultsSupply of deliverables includes the raw archive digital imagery and sun glint reduced imagery inGeoTIFF format along with Project 1 and Project 2 Tier 1 and Tier 2 substrate classifications in ESRIShapefile format.Results of Tier 1 classes for Project 1 are mapped in Figure 2. Only Light Substrate, Dark Substrate,Open Water and Turbid Water could be identified for this Project. Figure 3 shows the results for theProject 2 Tier 2 mapping. For Project 2, Light Substrate was identified as Sand; Dark Substrate wasidentified as either indicative of Rock dominance or Seagrass dominance. Open Water and TurbidWater could not be further analysed in Project 2. One area within the Tier 2 classification could not befurther analysed due to water depth. Variability could be detected so that a change in substrate colourcould be assigned; however, the substrate composition of this area could not be identified beyond theTier 1 classification. Water depth was the constraining factor in this case.Specialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 7

Figure 2: Tier 1 classification resultsSpecialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 8

Figure 3: Tier 2 classification resultsSpecialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 9

Limitations and assumptionsA number of limitations and assumptions were identified throughout the classification process asoutlined below.Key Issues associated with substrate mappingGeoimage appreciates that substrate mapping is dependent on the following conditions:Range and type of substrates throughout the area of interest;Preference for a light coloured, uniform substrate;Appropriate wind conditions to limit water surface glint;Appropriate swell conditions to limit wave refraction artefacts;Appropriate capture angle for the imagery i.e. 0 – 20 degrees off nadir likely to achieve goodbathymetric outcomes, with angles closer to nadir offering the best outcomes;Appropriate tidal conditions to limit turbidity due to tidal changes; and,Appropriate current movement to limit turbidity due to significant water flows.There are specific conditions, including capture angle and date of capture between the two scenes,which have caused some challenges for the substrate mapping between scenes.Imagery Acquisition ConditionsWater conditions at the time of acquisition are a critical factor in determining the level of detail whichcan be detected and classified. There were two scenes acquired over this site from two differentsensors across multiple dates. The acquisition conditions of the two scenes were variable. Theresultant colouring and contrast levels of submerged or emergent features at varying depths underdifferent water conditions at the time of the image acquisitions meant the two scenes were treatedseparately and could not be mosaicked.Where the GE-1 data was available over the site, the output classification was based on this data.The WV-2 data was only used in locations where it was the only available data source. While 8-bandinformation can detect substrates at greater depths than other sensors, this only applies in good waterquality and environmental conditions. For this site, the conditions at the time of acquisition were notfavourable for the discrimination of substrates at depths greater than 15m. The GE-1 scene was morefavourable to identify sea-floor features compared to the WV-2 scene and therefore became theprimary scene for analysis.Spatial ScaleTo reduce any influence of misregistration, a minimum mapping area of 3 x 3 pixels or 36 squaremetres was used, corresponding to nine pixels. This was carried out to improve the accuracy ofdetecting real substrate features and boundaries. The noise in the data generated by waves andremaining glint impacted the spatial scale of the classification.Classification scale and automationThe two tiers mapped in this hierarchical classification form a broad then detailed classification of thesubstrates in this region. Further refinement could be made should suitable archive satellite imagerybecome available over the site for future mapping at a more detailed classification scale. In somelocations, water depth prevented the classification from being assigned to the Tier 2 class and theTier 1 class was deemed the limit of the classification scale in these locations (usually at depthsgreater than 20m experiencing compounding artefacts such as sun glint, and/or wave refraction).While a range of substrates was observed in the field data, only Rock, Sand and Seagrass were ableto be detected and mapped with confidence given the depth of the overall site and the artefactsacross the imagery. This project required the manual assignment of Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes.Quality AssuranceAn independent review within the vector GIS environment was undertaken to visually assess theassignment of classes. Field data was not able to be used as an independent, quantitative accuracyassessment tool in this project as the field data became vital as input to the classification process dueto the artefacts existing in the imagery for this project. Metadata was also supplied which complieswith AZ/NZS ISO 19115:2005 standards.Specialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 10

Conclusions and RecommendationsThe substrates were classified into two tiers of information across the study area based on integratinginformation from both GE-1 and WV-2 imagery, GEOBIA analysis and field data integration. Waterconditions at the time of image acquisition impacted the overall classification in combination with thewater depth associated with the site. Derived classifications from optical sensors perform best whenanalysing substrates in shallow water environments where water depths do not exceed 15m. Siteswhere median depths are considered beyond the shallow water environment are more susceptible tosignificant impacts from imagery artefacts and there is an increased risk of not detecting true sea floorconditions. Turbidity, water quality, wave and current conditions, sun angle at the time of imagecapture and capture angle of the sensor all contribute to providing suitable conditions for opticalimagery analysis in marine environments.Uncertainty in the results increased with depth, particularly beyond the 20m depth contour and wherecompounding artefacts were present in the imagery. The GE-1 data in combination with the WV-2data was able to provide information on which to base the indicative extent of substrates.The Tier 1 substrate classification discriminated between light and dark substrates and the Tier 2classification was able to attribute the dark substrate into substrates either dominated by rock orseagrass communities. There may be other less dominant substrates present on the site such aspresence of algae on rock or finer pebble substrates, however, these were deemed beyond theclassification scale for this project given the overall limitations as discussed above.The integration of the field data with the satellite imagery enabled the derivation of the Tier 2classification from the Tier 1 classification. Segmenting the imagery based on spectral, shape andcontextual features significantly contributed to the capacity to derive the Tier 1 classification.Variability in the deeper parts of the imagery was able to be detected through the GEOBIA statisticalanalysis process to establish boundaries of homogeneity which were then used to inform both the Tier1 and Tier 2 classifications. Stretching the spectral properties of the imagery assisted in discriminatingthe dark and light substrates and the integration of the field data enabled the association of featuresto substrate types.Overall, the GEOBIA approach minimised the impacts of noise across the data and defined regions ofhomogeneity statistically and objectively for further integration with field data observations. Both Tier 1and Tier 2 classifications relied on the outputs from the GEOBIA segmentation process and the detailof the field data to map the substrates to the detail achieved in this project.DocumentAuthor Reviewer Dateversion1.0 K.Wouters A.Eustace 29 March 20122.0 K.Wouters A.Eustace 02 April 20123.0 A.Eustace N.Teffer 03 April 20124.0 A.Eustace K.Wouters 04 April 2012Specialists in Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Solutions | Commercial in confidence Page | 11

Appendix CSeagrass Monitoring Site Diagrams

Appendix DChain of Custody Forms

Appendix ESeagrass Shoot Count Data Sheets

Appendix FPercentage Cover

Appendix GSediment Field Log

Appendix HParticle Size Distributions

Appendix INutrient and Metals Data

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT AND POREWATER DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 22/12/2011Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 18/11/2011Address: PO Box 795, Wembley 6913 Our Reference: OCA11-67Your Reference: 901_001PorewaterMETHOD Sampling 2000 4100 2100 2600 4500 6200 6200SAMPLE CODE Date AMMONIA ORTHO-P NO3+NO2 TKN TOTAL P TOC TCμg.N/L μg.P/L μg.N/L mg.N/g mg.P/g % C % CReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT AND POREWATER DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 22/12/2011Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 18/11/2011Address: PO Box 795, Wembley 6913 Our Reference: OCA11-67Your Reference: 901_001PorewaterMETHOD Sampling 2000 4100 2100 2600 4500 6200 6200SAMPLE CODE Date AMMONIA ORTHO-P NO3+NO2 TKN TOTAL P TOC TCμg.N/L μg.P/L μg.N/L mg.N/g mg.P/g % C % CReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 22/12/2011Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 18/11/2011Address: Level 1 / 353 Cambridge St, Wembley, 6014 Our Reference: OCA11-67Your Reference: 901_001METHOD Sampling ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002SAMPLE CODE Date Total Ext Al Total Ext Cd Total Ext Cu Total Ext Fe Total Ext Mg Total Ext Mo Total Ext Pb Total Ext S Total Ext Semg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 22/12/2011Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 18/11/2011Address: Level 1 / 353 Cambridge St, Wembley, 6014 Our Reference: OCA11-67Your Reference: 901_001METHOD Sampling ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002SAMPLE CODE Date Total Ext Al Total Ext Cd Total Ext Cu Total Ext Fe Total Ext Mg Total Ext Mo Total Ext Pb Total Ext S Total Ext Semg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 2/02/2012Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 30/11/2011Address: PO Box 462, Wembley, WA 6913 Our Reference: OCA11-71Your Reference: 901_001PorewaterMETHOD Sampling 2000 4100 2100 2600 4500 6200 6200SAMPLE CODE Date AMMONIA ORTHO-P NO3+NO2 TKN TOTAL P TOC TCμg.N/L μg.P/L μg.N/L mg.N/g mg.P/g % C % CReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 2/02/2012Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 30/11/2011Address: PO Box 462, Wembley, WA 6913 Our Reference: OCA11-71Your Reference: 901_001PorewaterMETHOD Sampling 2000 4100 2100 2600 4500 6200 6200SAMPLE CODE Date AMMONIA ORTHO-P NO3+NO2 TKN TOTAL P TOC TCμg.N/L μg.P/L μg.N/L mg.N/g mg.P/g % C % CReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 2/02/2012Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 30/11/2011Address: PO Box 462, Wembley, WA 6913 Our Reference: OCA11-71Your Reference: 901_001PorewaterMETHOD Sampling 2000 4100 2100 2600 4500 6200 6200SAMPLE CODE Date AMMONIA ORTHO-P NO3+NO2 TKN TOTAL P TOC TCμg.N/L μg.P/L μg.N/L mg.N/g mg.P/g % C % CReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 2/02/2012Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 30/11/2011Address: PO Box 462, Wembley, WA 6913 Our Reference: OCA11-71Your Reference: 901_001METHOD Sampling ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002SAMPLE CODE Date Total Ext Al Total Ext Cd Total Ext Cu Total Ext Fe Total Ext Mg Total Ext Mo Total Ext Pb Total Ext S Total Ext Semg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 2/02/2012Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 30/11/2011Address: PO Box 462, Wembley, WA 6913 Our Reference: OCA11-71Your Reference: 901_001METHOD Sampling ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002SAMPLE CODE Date Total Ext Al Total Ext Cd Total Ext Cu Total Ext Fe Total Ext Mg Total Ext Mo Total Ext Pb Total Ext S Total Ext Semg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgReporting Limit

MarineandFreshwaterResearchLaboratoryEnvironmentalScienceTelephone:+61893602907Facsimile:+61893606613AccreditationNumber:10603ThisdocumentisissuedinaccordancewithNATA’saccreditationrequirements.AccreditedforcompliancewithISO/IEC17025.SEDIMENT DATAContact: Jonathon Anderson Date of Issue: 2/02/2012Customer: Oceanica Date Received: 30/11/2011Address: PO Box 462, Wembley, WA 6913 Our Reference: OCA11-71Your Reference: 901_001METHOD Sampling ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002 ICP002SAMPLE CODE Date Total Ext Al Total Ext Cd Total Ext Cu Total Ext Fe Total Ext Mg Total Ext Mo Total Ext Pb Total Ext S Total Ext Semg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kgReporting Limit

Appendix JPore-water Nutrients, Whole Sediment Nutrient and Metals Graphs