queensland east coast inshore finfish fishery

Appendix 1 List of target, by-product and bycatch species in the East Coast Inshore Finfish Fishery. Species indicated with an asterisk are reported in commercial DPI&F logbooks. Shark species are grouped under either ‘Whaler shark’ or ‘Hammerhead shark’ in the logbooks.

FAMILY Species COMMON NAME Size Limit Rereational Bag Limit

TARGET SPECIES CARANGIDAE Scomberoides

commersonnianus Queenfish* NL NL

CARCHARHINIDAE Carcharhinus spp. Whaler sharks* NL NL

CENTROPOMIDAE Lates calcarifer Barramundi* >58cm and <120cm TL

5

HAEMULIDAE Pomadasys kaakan Spotted grunter* >30cm TL NL

HEMIRAMPHIDAE Hemirhamphus quoyi Garfish* NL NL

MUGILIDAE Mugil cephalus Sea mullet >30cm TL NL

POLYNEMIDAE Eleutheronema tetradactylum Blue threadfin* >40cm TL NL

POLYNEMIDAE Polydactylus macrochir King threadfin* >40cm TL NL

POMATOMIDAE Pomatomus saltatrix Tailor* >30cm TL 2030 (72h or more on Fraser Island)

SCIAENIDAE Nibea squamosa Jewelfish NL NL

SCIAENIDAE Protonibea (Johnius) diacanthus Black jew >45cm TL 10

SCOMBRIDAE Scomberomorus semifasciatus Grey mackerel* >50cm TL 10

SCOMBRIDAE Scomberomorus munroi Spotted mackerel* >60cm TL 5

SILLAGINIDAE Sillago ciliata Sand whiting >23cm TL NL

SPARIDAE Acanthopagrus australis Yellowfin bream* >23cm TL NL

SPHYRNIDAE Sphyrna mokarran Hammerhead sharks* NL NL

BYPRODUCT SPECIES CARANGIDAE Caranx ignobilis Giant trevally NL NL

CARANGIDAE Trachinotus blochi snub-nosed dart NL NL

CARANGIDAE Trachinotus botla swallow tail dart* NL NL

CARANGIDAE Trachinotus anak Oyster cracker NL NL

CHIROCENTRIDAE Chirocentrus dorab wolf herring NL NL

CLUPEIDAE Herklotsichthyskoningsbergeri herring NL NL

GERREIDAE Gerres oyeana Silver biddy* NL NL

HAEMULIDAE Pomadasys argenteus speckled grunter* >30cm TL NL

HAEMULIDAE Plectorhynchus gibbosus brown morwong / sweetlip NL NL

KYPHOSIDAE Girella tricuspidata. Luderick* >23cm TL NL

KYPHOSIDAE Kyphosus sp. Drummer NL NL

LACTARIIDAE Lacturus lacturus milk trevally NL NL

LEPTOBRAMIDAE Leptobrama muelleri beach salmon NL NL

LOBOTIDAE Lobotes surinamensis jumping cod NL NL

LUTJANIDAE Lutjanus johni Fingermark bream >35cm TL 10

MEGALOPIDAE Megalops cyprinoides tarpon / oxeye herring NL NL

MUGILIDAE Liza vaigiensis diamond-scaled mullet NL NL

MUGILIDAE Liza dussumieri green-backed mullet NL NL

MUGILIDAE Liza strongylocephalus Round-headed mullet NL NL

MUGILIDAE Mugil georgii Flicker mullet NL NL

MUGILIDAE Liza subviridis Flat-tailed mullet NL NL

MUGILIDAE Liza argentea Tiger mullet NL NL

MUGILIDAE Myxus elongatus Sand mullet NL NL

MUGILIDAE Valamugil buchanani buchanan's mullet NL NL

MUGILIDAE Valamugil seheli blue-tailed mullet NL NL

PLATYCEPHALIDAE Platycephalus fuscus dusky flathead >40cm and <70cm TL

5

PLATYCEPHALIDAE Platycephalus indicus bar-tailed flathead >30cm TL NL

POMADASYIDAE Plectorhynchus sp. blubberlip >25cm TL 5

SCATOPHAGIDAE Selenotoca multifasciatus striped butterfish* NL NL

SCOMBRIDAE Scomberomorusqueenslandicus school mackerel* >50cm TL 30

SCOMBRIDAE Sarda australis Australian bonito NL NL

SERRANIDAE Epinephelus coioides gold spot cod >35cm and <120cm TL

10

SIGANIDAE Siganus spp. Rabbitfish* NL NL

SILLAGINIDAE Sillago maculata Trumpeter whiting >23cm TL NL

SILLAGINIDAE Sillago analis Golden-lined whiting >23cm TL NL

SPARIDAE Acanthopagrus berda pikey bream >23cm TL NL

SPARIDAE Rhabdosargus sarba tarwhine >23cm TL NL

SPHYRAENIDAE Sphyraena jello Giant Seapike NL NL

BYCATCH SPECIES ARIIDAE Arius spp. Catfish* NL NL

BELONIDAE Tylosaurus sp. longtoms NL NL

BRACHYURIDAE Ranina ranina Spanner crab >10cm CL 20

BRACHYURIDAE Scylla serrata Mud Crab >15cm CW 5

BRACHYURIDAE Portunus pelagicus Blue Swimmer Crab >11.5cm CW (notch to notch)

NL

BRACHYURIDAE Thalamita crenata Love Crab NL NL

CARANGIDAE Decapterus sp. scad NL NL

CARANGIDAE Gnathanodon speciosus golden trevally NL NL

CHANIDAE Chanos chanos milkfish NL NL

CLUPEIDAE Nematalosa erebi bony bream NL NL

DASYATIDAE Dasyatis kuhlii Blue-spotted stingray NL NL

DASYATIDAE Gymnura australis Rat tail ray NL NL

DASYATIDAE Himantura uarnak long-tailed stingray NL NL

DREPANIDAE Drepane punctata sicklefish NL NL

ELOPIDAE Elops australis giant herring NL NL

EPHIPPIDAE Platax orbicularis batfish NL NL

LEIOGNATHIDAE Leiognathus sp. ponyfish NL NL

MONODACTYLIDAE Monodactylus argenteus diamond-fish / butterfish NL NL

MYCTOPHIDAE Lantern fish NL NL

ORECTOLOBIDAE Orectobolus ornatus Banded wobbegong NR NR

PLOTOSIDAE Plotosidae lineatus eel-tailed catfish NL NL

PRIACANTHIDAE Priacanthus sp. bullseye NL NL

RHINOBATIDAE Rhinobatus batillum shovelnosed ray NL NL

RHINOBATIDAE Rhinobatus typus Giant shovelnosed ray NL NL

RHYNCHOBATIDAE Rhynchobatus djiddensis white spotted guitarfish NL NL

RHINOPTERIDAE Rhinoptera neglecta Australian Cownose Ray NL NL

SCATOPHAGIDAE Scatophagus argus spotted butterfish* NL NL

SCIAENIDAE Nibea soldada silver jewfish >45cm TL 10

SCOMBRIDAE Rastrelliger kanagurta Long jaw mackerel NL NL

SOLEIDAE Soleidae sp. soles NL NL

SPHYRAENIDAE Sphyraena jello giant seapike NL NL

SPHYRAENIDAE Sphyraena obtusata. striped seapike NL NL

TETRAODONTIDAE Tetraodontidae sp. pufferfish NL NL

CHELONIDAE Chelonia midas green turtle Protected Species1 Protected Species1

CHELONIDAE Natator depressus flatback turtle Protected Species1 Protected Species1

CHELONIDAE Caretta caretta loggerhead turtle Protected Species1 Protected Species1

FORMIONIDAE Parastromateus niger black pomfret Protected Species2 Protected Species2

HYDROPHIIDAE Hydrophiidae sp. sea snake Protected Species1 Protected Species1

ODONTASPIDIDAE Carcharias taurus Grey Nurse Shark Protected Species1,3 ProtectedSpecies1,3

PHALACROCORACIDAE Phalacrocorax sp. shag Protected Species1 Protected Species1

PRISTIDAE Pristis microdon wide sawfish Protected Species1 Protected Species1

SERRANIDAE Epinephelus lanceolatus Qld Groper Protected Species3 Protected Species3

NotesProtected Species1 Listed Marine Species under the EPBCA 1999 Protected Species2 Species that cannot be taken under the OCS agreement of 1995 Protected Species3 Protected Species under the Qld Fisheries Act 1994 TL Total Length CL Carapace Length CW Carapace Width NL No limit prescribed under Qld Fisheries law

List of Species included in “Other Finfish” grouping (Table 1)

Other finfish spp Mackerel - Unspecified Flathead - All Pilchards - All Fish - Bait Queenfish Mackerel - School DartLuderickGrunter -All ScadCatfish - Fork ScatSilver Bidddies Ray - All Hardyheads Threadfin Herring Mackerel - Slimy Butter fish Triple Tail Jew - N Pomfret - black SteelbackCod - Estuary Sawfish Long Tom JewelTrumpeter Perch - Silver

Information sources The Queensland Fisheries Regulation 1995; Russell 1987; Magro et al. 1998; Halliday et al. 2001; Roelofs 2003 and Mark Doohan, DPIF, (pers. comm. 2005)

1

Appendix 2

Queensland Inshore Fishery

Trends from 1990 to 2003 Lew Williams

Working CopyPrint date: 31/08/2005

D:\Documents and Settings\willial\My Documents\RC & T2000\Inshore July 2004\Inshore fishery Qld.doc

3

Executive Summary

Background

The Inshore fishery of Queensland is defined in this analysis to include the harvest when using both the net and pot fishing methods. It does not include otter and beam trawl, line fishing or the harvest of spanner crabs.

The coast of Queensland is divided into three parts: Gulf of Carpentaria (not reported here) Northern Inshore Fishery – east of Cape York to Baffle Creek (10.5S to 24.5S) – effectively the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Southern Inshore Fishery – Baffle Creek to the New South Wales border (24.5S to 28.5S) – it includes both Moreton and Hervey Bays

The east coast inshore fishery is the sum of the Northern and Southern Inshore fisheries. Comparison of the means for the variables of interest for the 1990 to 1992 period and 2000 to

2003 period forms the basis for the analysis. Comparing these two time periods summarizes the effects of changes through time. The trends from 1989 to 2003 are often shown and plotted in this report.

Behaviour of Queensland non-trawl fishers

This analysis reviews fisher behaviour of all Queensland fishers who do not use trawl gear as reflected by the use of net, pots, spanner crab dillies and line fishing methods. About 60% of the non-trawl fleet uses net and/or pot fishing gear with about half of these boats using a combination of line and/or spanner crab pots with the net and pot gear during the year. This indicates that many fishers are “mixed gear fishers” rather than specialists using one gear type. (Section 1)

Implications for management are that processes need to be in place to minimize the transfer of effort from one fishing method to another when one avenue for earning an income is removed.

Queensland East Coast Inshore Fishery

East coast inshore harvest increased by about 45% from about 5000t to 7300t between the two periods. Fishing effort as days fished increased by about 44% to about 75 000 days while boats numbers reporting harvest increased by 5% and GVP by about 70% to $39 million. . (Section 5.1)

Net caught species increased by about 27% to about 5600t, days fished increased by 5% to about 36 000 days. Over the same period crab harvest (blue swimmer and mud) almost trebled to about 1700t an increase of about 180% with an almost doubling of fishing effort to 43 000 days and a 15% increase in the number of boats landing crabs

Moreton Bay dominates east coast harvest with about 26% of net caught and 29% of pot caught harvest (Figure 12)

Largest increases in harvest by species were from shark (almost trebled to 1100t), spotted mackerel (five fold increase to about 300t), Mud crab (more than doubled to 820t) and blue swimmer crab (almost trebled to 850t) (Table 11)

Northern Inshore Fishery

Production (net & pot harvests) doubled to about 2750t as a result of a 40% increase in fishing days and a slight increase in boat numbers. Mean income per boat doubled to about $32 000. (Section 6.2)

Using distributional analysis shows that 46% of the Northern Inshore fleet fished for less than 30 days each year. Also about half of the boats harvest product worth less than $5000 each year.

There has been an increase in the proportion of the boats harvesting more than $60 000 worth of product each year when the two period are compared. The increase was from 7% of the fleet to 18% of the fleet. (Section 6 2, Figures 15 & 16 and Table 14)

4

Specialist net fishing boats declined by 17% between the start and end of the study period while the number of specialist potters effectively doubled. Eighty five percent of this fleet used net fishing method and about 80% used pot fishing method during the later period of the study. Overall the number of fishing operations using net &/or pot methods increased by 32% to about 440 boats. (Section 6.3)

Net harvest doubled over the period to about 2000t, days fished remained about the same and boat numbers increased slightly. Mean daily net harvest increased by one third to about 110 kg/day while days fished by boat remained about the same. (Section 6.4)

Almost 60% of the boats used net fishing methods for less than 30 days each year with little change between the two periods. Also about 65% of the boats harvested earn less than $10 000 net caught income each year. There was an increase in boats earning more than $60 000 each year with about 8% in the 2000-02 period. (Section 6.5)

Largest increases in harvest by species were from shark (almost quadrupled to 900t), spotted mackerel (five fold increase to 100t), barramundi (30% increase to 220t) and mullet (50% increase to 180t). (Section 6.6)

Implications for management include minimizing the transfer of effort from one fishing method to another, minimizing the transfer of effort from the harvesting one species to another and a need for a review the level shark harvesting.

Southern Inshore Fishery

Production (net & pot harvests) increased by 23% to about 4600t as a result of a 40% increase in fishing days and no change in boat numbers. Mean income per boat doubled to about $56 000. (Section 7.2)

Using distributional analysis shows that 32% of the Northern Inshore fleet fished for less than 30 days in the 2000 period, a decrease from the 1990 period when 44% boats were in this category. . Also 32% of the boats harvest product worth less than $5000 in the 2000 period compared to 34% in the 1990 period.

There has been an increase in the proportion of the boats harvesting more than $60 000 worth of product each year when the two period are compared. The increase was from 21% of the fleet to 36% of the fleet. (Section 7 2, Figures 28 & 29 and Table 23)

Specialist net fishing boats declined by 27% between the start and end of the study period while the number of specialist potters effectively increased by half. Eighty five percent of this fleet used net fishing method and about 65% used pot fishing method during the later period of the study. Overall the number of fishing operations using net &/or pot methods increased by 15% to about 400 boats. (Section 7.3)

Net harvest remained about the over the period at about 3500t, days fished increased by about 11% and boat numbers declined slightly. Mean daily net harvest stayed about the same while days fished by boat increased by about18%. (Section 7.4)

Almost 50% of the boats used net fishing methods for less than 30 days each year with little change between the two periods. Also about 45% of the boats harvested earn less than $10 000 net caught income in the 2000 period. There was an increase in boats earning more than $60 000 each year with about 22% in the 2000-02 period. (Section 7.6)

Mullet harvest remained about the same when the two periods are compared (2,000t) as did net caught whiting (270t) Tailor increased by about 30% to 200t and shark harvest effectively doubled to 220t. Spotted mackerel increased sixfold over the study period to about 200t. (Section 7.5)

There are two parts to the Southern Inshore net fishery – the ocean beach part that operates from April to August and the part with non-ocean area during April to August and all of the areas from September to March.

The harvest from the Ocean beach sector declined by about 31% when the two periods are compared. (940t to 650t). Mean daily harvests declined by about 40% with the days fished and boats involved remaining about the same. The main cause for the decline was the level of mullet harvested with a 30% decline (840t to 570t) when the two period are considered. (Section 7.6.1)

5

The non-ocean beach sector harvest increased by 13% to about 2,800t in the 2000 period. The number of boats involved declined slightly while the days fished increased by about 10%. Mean daily harvest remained about the same at 180 kg while the mean days fished per boat increased by about 20% to 49 days. (Section 7.6.2)

The change in the level of species harvested by this sector is similar to the results for the Southern Inshore net fishery.

Implications for management include minimizing the transfer of effort from one fishing method to another, minimizing the transfer of effort from the harvesting one species to another and a need for a review the level shark harvesting. However compared to the Northern Inshore Fishery this fishery appears to be more stable.

6

Contents

Trends from 1990 to 2003 ...........................................1

1.0 Queensland Commercial Fisheries –An overview of behaviour of fishers as shown by the changes in their fishing activities ..............................................................................................................................8

1.1 Fishing method analysis - Queensland.............................................................................................8

1.2 Fishing category analysis – all non trawl .........................................................................................9

1.3 Fishing category analysis – excludes trawl, line only and Spanner crab (PotSp) only.................12

2.0 Queensland Inshore Fishery...............................................................................................................14

3.0 Queensland Inshore - Commercial Fishery .......................................................................................15

4.0 Queensland Inshore - Recreational Fishery.......................................................................................21

5.0 Queensland Inshore Fishery - East Coast ..........................................................................................22

5.1 Commercial inshore fishery ............................................................................................................22

6.0 Northern Inshore Fishery – East Coast..............................................................................................27

6.1 Background......................................................................................................................................27

6.2 Northern Inshore Commercial Fishery - Overview........................................................................27

6.3 Northern Inshore Fishery – Category Analysis..............................................................................31

6.4 Northern Inshore Fishery – Performance in individual sectors....................................................32

6.5 Northern Inshore Net Sector .........................................................................................................35

6.6 Northern Inshore Fishery – Species Analysis..............................................................................37

7.0 Southern Inshore Fishery ...................................................................................................................42

7.1 Background.....................................................................................................................................42

7.2 Southern Inshore Commercial Fishery ........................................................................................42

7.3 Southern Inshore Fishery – Category Analysis ...........................................................................47

7.4 Southern Inshore Fishery - Performance in Individual Sectors.................................................48

7.5 Southern Inshore Fishery – Species Analysis...............................................................................51

7.6 Southern Inshore – Net Sector ......................................................................................................537.6.1 Ocean beach sector- net harvest (April to August)....................................................................557.6.2 Non Ocean beach sector- Net harvest .......................................................................................58

8

1.0 Queensland Commercial Fisheries –An overview of behaviour of fishers as shown by the changes in their fishing activities

Essentially, four main fishing methods are used to harvest fish commercially in Queensland. They are trawling, and pot, line and net fishing. The latter three methods may all be used by a single fishing operation or the operation may specialise in one of the methods. Trawling is a specialised operation and these operators do not usually use other fishing methods. The exception to this is beam trawling. It occurs in estuaries and tidal sections of rivers and these fishers may use the other fishing methods as part of their business operation. In this analysis all trawl activities (both otter and beam) are not considered.

1.1 Fishing method analysis - Queensland

In order to simplify this analysis, species harvested were categorised by the method mainly used to harvest that species. Spotted mackerel for example has been mainly harvested by net with typically between 5% and 10% of the harvest being taken by line up to 2003. Hence this species was categorised as a net species. There are some species such as “trevally”, where, depending on location may be harvested by net or line. In this case the species was categorised as net. Similar judgements were made for other species that may be harvested by alternate methods. In the end, four categories were defined: Net, Line, spanner crabs with the mnemonic of PotSp and Pot for Blue swimmer and mud crabs.

The figure below shows the number of boats reporting any activity for each of the four classifications for each year since CFISH was introduced. A boat could operate in all of the classifications. The number of boats using Net, Pot and Line fishing methods all increased steadily over the 14 years examined. There was an initial increase in the number of boats harvesting spanner crabs. With the introduction of spanner crab quota, boat numbers have been rationalised and are steadily decreasing.

Number of boats by fishing method

0

400

800

1200

1600

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Boa

ts

Line Net Pot PotSp Total boats

Figure 1 Trend in number of boats by fishing method

The total number of boats involved in all fishing activities increased from around 1050 in 1990 to about 1480 boats in 2003, an increase of about 38 boats per year over the 14 years in the study. When the mean number of boats per year from 1990 to 1992 are compared to the mean boats from 2000 to 2003 are compared there has been an increase of almost 40%.

9

Table 1 Trends in boat numbers by fishing method

FishingMethod

Trend in boats by year

Mean number boats 90-92

Mean numberboats 00-02

Percent change innumber boats

Line 30.1 701 1022 46 Net 13.9 806 970 20 Pot 16.7 422 612 45

PotSp 4.3 98 160 64 Total boats 37.5 1023 1446 41

The number of boats using the line fishing method almost doubled over the 14 years increasing from about 700 to 1050 boats, an increase of about 30 boats each year. At the same time the number of boats using the net fishing method increased by about 20% to almost 1000 boats. The number of boats using the pot fishing method effectively doubled from 1990 to 2003 increasing to about 600 boats. As explained earlier the number of boats reporting spanner harvest has changed as a result of the introduction of quotas into that fishery.

1.2 Fishing category analysis – all non trawl

Fishing operations often use more than one fishing method as part of their overall operations. Potentially there are 15 combinations of fishing methods when the four fishing methods are considered. These combinations will be referred to as fishing categories.

The figure below shows the number of boats in the seven main fishing categories in Queensland. In addition, an “other“ category is used for those fishing categories that do not account for much activity. A further simplification was applied to the data analysis. If one of the fishing methods used by a fishing operation reported less than 10% of the annual harvest for that boat then that method was not included. For example if a boat in a year used net, pot and line fishing methods and the line harvest was less than 10% of the total harvest, then the fishing category recorded was NetPot.

0

Number of boats by fishing categories

0

400

800

1200

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Boa

ts

Line LineNet Net NetPot LineNetPot Pot Other PotSp

Figure 2 Trend in number of boats by all fishing categories

The figure shows an upward trend in the number of boats in the line fishing category. Summing the Line and LineNet categories shows an increase of about 260 boats for these two fishing categories, an increase of about 70% over the 14 years shown here.

When considering the Net and NetPot fishing categories the Net category shows a decline while the NetPot category increases resulting in no change in Net fishing activity. Combining the Pot and PotNet

10

fishing categories shows an increase of about 120 boats over the period, a 70% increase in the number of boats potting for crabs. Spanner crabs (PotSp) have been discussed previously.

A more detailed assessment of the data used in the figure is shown in the following table.

In absolute terms the numbers of Line category boats effectively doubled over the period and at the same time this fishing category increased from 27% to 34% of the fleet. In the LineNet category boat numbers increased by about four each year with a 55% increase over the period. The line only category boats remained about the same proportion of the fleet. The Net category boats were the only category to decline. Also, the net category boats declined as a proportion of the total fleet.

Table 2 Queensland (non trawl) fisheries – summary of boat behaviour

FishingCategory

Trend Boats

by year

MeanBoats

1990-1992

MeanBoats

2000-2003

PercentChangeIn boats

MeanPercentof fleet

1990-1992

MeanPercentof fleet

2000-2003Line 13.2 232 358 54 23 30

LineNet 2.1 139 170 23 14 14 LineNetPot 3.2 21 51 144 2 4

Net -11.5 333 225 -32 34 19 NetPot 3.4 115 151 31 12 13

Pot 1.2 66 79 19 7 7 PotSp 2.4 49 78 59 5 7 Other 2.5 38 72 89 4 6

Total boats 16.4 993 1184 19 100 100

The following two figures presents the mean proportion for the two indicator periods for the fleet as shown in the last two columns of the nearby table.

Percent Fleet Mean 1990-1992

Line23%

LineNet14%

LineNetPot2%

Net33%

NetPot12%

Pot7%

PotSp5%

Other4%

Line LineNet LineNetPot NetNetPot Pot PotSp Other

Figure 3 Proportion of boats by all fishing categories (mean 1990- 1992)

11

Percent of Fleet Mean 2000/02

Line30%

LineNet14%

LineNetPot4%

Net19%

NetPot13%

Pot7%

PotSp7%

Other6%

Line LineNet LineNetPot Net

NetPot Pot PotSp Other

Figure 4 Proportion of boats by all fishing categories (mean 2000 - 2003)

12

1.3 Fishing category analysis – excludes trawl, line only and Spanner crab (PotSp) only

This section examines the number of boats in fishing categories and excludes the boats that are trawl, Line only or Spanner crab (PotSp) only operations. The boats in these categories are essentially the boats operating in the inshore fishery throughout Queensland.

Number of boats by fishing categories (10%) - No Line or PotSp

0

400

800

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Boa

ts

Net LineNet NetPot Pot Other LineNetPot

Figure 5 Trend in fishing categories excluding both PotS and Line only categories.

The overall numbers of boats in the inshore fishery change from about 800 in 1990, declined to about 700 in 1992 and then increased steadily to about 930 fishing category operations in 2003. All combinations of fishing categories increased over the period apart from the net only operations where there was a declined in boat numbers.

Table 3 Fishing categories excluding trawl, PotS and Line only categories – summary of trends

Fishingcategory

Trend Number of boats

Mean boats 90-92

Mean boats 00-02

Percent change

Percent Fleet 90-92

Percent Fleet 00-02


Net -8.4 341 274 -19 47 31 NetPot 5.2 117 173 48 16 19

Pot 5.6 71 129 80 10 14 Other 2.5 39 70 81 5 8

Total boats 12.7 730 897 23 100 100

Overall, the total number of boats operating in the inshore fishery typically increased by about 13 boats each year from 1990 to 2003 which caused a 23% increase in boats over the period.

The specialist net category operations typically declined by about 8 boats each year, a decline of about 19% over the period. The specialist net category operation decreased as a proportion of the inshore fleet from about 47% to 31% of the fleet.

13

The specialist category of the crab potters increased by about 6 boats each year, almost doubling the number of boats in specialist potting category to about 130 boats. As a proportion of the inshore fleet the proportion increased from about 10% to 14% over the period.

When the categories including “net” are aggregated, the number of operations involved in “net” activities increased from about 620 operations to about 700, an increase over the period of about13% over the period. The “net’ aggregation proportion of the inshore fleet declined from about 85% to 80% over the period.

In the case of “line” as part of a “mixed” fishing operation, there was an increase from about 160 operations to about 250 operations, an increase of about 55%. As a proportion of the total inshore fleet, the proportion increased from about 22% to 28%.

The fishing operations where “pot” was involved showed the largest proportional change of about 70%, an increase in operations using net from about 210 boats to 360 boats. A proportion of the inshore fleet, the operations increased from about 30% to 40%of the inshore fleet engaging in potting for crabs.

14

2.0 Queensland Inshore Fishery

The inshore fishery in Queensland operates along the whole coastline from the Northern Territory border through the Gulf of Carpentaria around Cape York then south to the New South Wales border. This study focuses on the species mainly harvested by the net and pot fishing methods.

The inshore fishery operates in the estuaries, tidal sections of rivers and on the foreshore and adjacent waters. There are three important sectors involved in the inshore fishery. The sectors are:

commercial, recreational and indigenous.

The combined harvest from these sectors from these inshore fisheries is estimated to be about 14 500t of finfish and crabs each year.

In the commercial sector, nets and pots is the main fishing gear used to harvest finfish and crab. The recreational and indigenous sector use line to harvest finfish and pots to harvest crabs.

The inshore fishery of Queensland can be separated into three areas:

On the western side of Cape York is one area:

Gulf of Carpentaria: The Gulf Inshore fishery is managed as a separate entity to the East Coast with the boats essentially licensed to fishery in these waters only. This fishery harvests mainly tropical species such as the threadfins, barramundi, tropical shark, grey mackerel and mud crab.

Queensland East Coast can be divided into two areas:

Northern Inshore fishery: This fishery extends east from Cape York south to Baffle Creek (24.5 S). This inshore fishery harvests mainly tropical species such as the threadfins, barramundi, tropical shark and a high proportion of the East Coast harvest of grey and spotted mackerel and mud crab. Southern Inshore fishery: This fishery extends from Baffle Creek south to the New South Wales border. This inshore fishery harvests mainly sub-tropical finfish species such as mullet, tailor, whiting and bream as well as mud and blue swimmer crab. This inshore fishery includes both Hervey and Moreton bays.

The commercial sector has time series data from 1988 to 2003 for the east coast of Queensland and from 1990 from the Gulf of Carpentaria. In this analysis only data from 1990 to 2003 is used.

Also, in this analysis spanner crabs are not included nor are mainly line caught species such as spanish mackerel and reef fish (both coral reef and rocky reef).

There are only three years of data available for the recreational sector, 1997 and 1999 and 2001. Statewide catch estimates are not available for the inshore harvest by the indigenous sector.

15

3.0 Queensland Inshore - Commercial Fishery

The performance of the inshore commercial fishery of Queensland is examined in this section. This fishery is defined to include both the mainly net caught finfish species and pot harvested crabs. Harvest of spanner crabs is excluded. The areas include the east coast of Queensland and Gulf of Carpentaria.

Annual harvest from the Queensland inshore commercial fishery has increased by about 60% from about 6500t in 1990 to about 10 100t in the 14 years to 2003. Harvest declined slightly from 1990 to 1993 then increased through to 2003. In 2001 and 2003 harvest was about 10 000t mainly as the result of increases in mud and blue swimmer crab harvest and mullet and tropical shark harvest. The overall trend has been upward with harvest increasing on average by about 360t/year. The main increase in inshore harvest occurred from 1997 onwards with an increase of about 600t/year.

Over the same time fishing effort measured as days fished increased by about 2500 days each year from around 65 000 days in 1990 to about 91 000 days in 2003, about 40% increase over the period as shown in Table 4.

There was minimal change in the number of boats reporting fishing activity with approximately 870 boats operating each year.

GVP (Gross Value of Production is the price paid per kilogram at wharf for the species multiplied by the quantity sold) increased by about $2.6m each year (in constant 2003 dollars) from around $31m in 1990 to $58m in 2003, an increase of almost 90% over the period. Source D:\Documents and Settings\willial\My Documents\RC & T2000\Inshore July 2004\[Regional spp 07 04.xls]Summary/AA

Que ensland - Inshore - tre nds in key pe rformance indicators

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Har

vest

(t) o

r B

oats

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Day

s fis

hed

Harvest (T) Boats Days fished

Figure 6 Queensland Inshore fishery - trends in key performance indicators D:\Documents and Settings\willial\My Documents\RC & T2000\Inshore July 2004\[Regional spp 07 04.xls]Summary

16

Table 4 Queensland Inshore commercial fishery - total fishery indicators - summary

Item

Trend - Mean change

by year Mean

1990 -1992 Mean

2001 –2003PercentChange

Harvest (t) 360 6,464 10,191 58Boats 0.4 872 875 0

Days fished 2,482 64,724 91,355 41GVP ($m) 2.6 31 58 88

The fishing method profile of the inshore fishery is complex with about 10% of the fleet potting for crabs only, about 40% using net gear only and about 50% of the fleet using both crab and net gear. The percent of net only boats declined by about 20% (about 90 boats) while there was an increase in the number of boats that used both net & pot gear increased by about 20% (about 80 boats).

Queensland - Trends in inshore fishing - harvest by main methods

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Har

vest

(t)

Net Harvest (T) Pot Harvest (T) Inshore Harvest (T)

Figure 7 Trends in Queensland inshore fishery harvest when categorised by fishing method D:\Documents and Settings\willial\My Documents\RC & T2000\Inshore July 2004\[Regional spp 07 04.xls]Summary

Table 5 Queensland Inshore commercial fishery – net and pot fishing methods - summary

Activity Item Trend -

Mean change by year

Mean 1990-1992

Mean 2001-2003

Percentchange

Mean 1990-1992

% total

Mean 2001-2003

% total

Percent change

Net Harvest (T) 220 5804 7981 37 90 78 -13 Boats -1 806 789 -2 92 90 -2 Days fished 146 45,522 47,042 3 70 51 -27 GVP ($m) 1.3 25 38 54 80 65 -18

Pot Harvest (T) 139 660 2,210 235 10 22 112 Boats 8 437 534 22 50 61 22 Days fished 2532 25,842 53,079 105 40 58 46 GVP ($m) 1.3 6 20 220 20 35 70

Table 5 presents the summary results from the two fishing activities: net fishing and pot fishing. Four performance variables are shown for each of the fishing activities and the performance at the start and end of the study period are compared. In addition, the last three columns in the table show the percent contribution the net and pot fishing methods made to the Queensland Inshore Commercial fishery.

17

Mainly net caught fish contributed about 90% of harvest weight from the inshore fishery at the start of the study period. By the end of the 14-year period, although net harvest had increased by about 220t each year, net caught product declined to about 80% of the inshore fishery harvest. Net caught harvest increased by about 37% over the study period. Net harvest used about 70% of the days fished in this sector at the start of the period and declined to about 50% of the days fished by 2003. Net fishing effort measured as days fished remained stable over the 14-year study period as is shown in the nearby figure. The number of boats engaging in net fishing activity remained consistent at about 800 boats. GVP increased by about 50% over the 14 years, increasing to about $38m in the latter years. GVP typically increased by about $1.3m each year. Net harvest GVP declined from about 80% to around 65% of the inshore GVP over the study period.

The biggest changes in the inshore fishery occurred in the pot fishery with the harvest of mud and blue swimmer crabs. Pot harvest and the GVP in this sector of the inshore fishery almost quadrupled over the 14 years, pot fishing effort doubled while the number of boats reporting pot catch increased by about 20% overall. As a proportion of inshore fishery harvest pot harvest increased from about 10% by weight to 22%, effort increased from about 40% to 58% of all days fished and GVP increased from about 20% to 35% of the total value of the inshore fishery.

Trends in annual harvest and fishing effort are shown in figure nearby.

Queensland - Trends in inshore fishing - effort by main methods

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Day

s fis

hed

Net Days fished Pot Days fished Inshore Days fished

Figure 8 Trends in Queensland inshore fishery effort when categorised by fishing method

The next table summarises the changes that have occurred by major species groups over the study period. As well as summarising the trends in level of harvest for each of the species groups the contribution each species group makes to inshore harvest is shown.

Mullet is the main species group harvested by weight from the inshore commercial fishery. Mullets' relative importance has declined from about 40% of the finfish harvest at the start of the period to about 30% of the total harvest by weight in the latter part of the study period. Mullet harvest was highly variable ranging from about 2 700t in 2001 to a low of about 1 400t in 1993 with no clear upward or downward trend.

Shark harvest over the period trebled increasing from around 500t to 1 900t. This was an increase from about 10% of the total finfish harvest in the early 1990’s to about 20% in the later part of the period.

18

Barramundi harvest over the period increased by about 45% over the period and maintained its proportion of the total finfish harvest.

Spotted mackerel harvest increased dramatically over the period with a six-fold increase in harvest mainly due to very high landings in 2000. Harvest from 2001 onwards appears to be returning to mid nineties levels.. The very high commercial landings in 2000 resulted in significant changes in the commercial management practices for this species and will be discussed later.

Most of the other finfish species group harvests remained relatively stable.

Analyses later in the report will examine changes in selected species harvest in more detail.

Table 6 Queensland Inshore commercial fishery – species indicators – summary

Species

Trend - Mean change

by year (t/year)

Mean 1990-1992

Mean 2001-2003

PercentChange

Percent total group

harvest 1990 - 1992

Percent total group

harvest 2001 - 2003

Mullet* 6 2,274 2,214 -3 39 28 Shark* 103 507 1,688 233 9 21 Barramundi 28 626 902 44 11 11 Threadfin - King -5 564 494 -12 10 6 Mackerel - Grey 33 225 543 142 4 7 Whiting* 3 300 319 6 5 4 Bream* -2 208 174 -16 4 2 Threadfin - Blue 2 185 238 29 3 3 Tailor 2 157 165 5 3 2 Mackerel - Spotted 17 50 217 338 1 3 Gar* 10 81 197 142 1 2 Rabbitfish -2 118 74 -38 2 1 Fish - Bait -4 109 52 -52 2 1 Flathead* -1 73 56 -23 1 1 Queenfish 6 47 115 144 1 1 Pilchards* 1 64 53 -18 1 1 Mackerel - School 8 8 83 991 0 1 Dart 1 28 37 34 0 0 Other 12 133 293 119 2 4 Finfish total 220 5,804 7,981 37 100 100 Crab - Mud 60 414 1,042 152 63 47 Crab - Blue Swimmer 77 246 1,145 365 37 52 Crab - Total 139 660 2,210 235 100 100

* A number of species comprise the harvest Year trend data shown in Appendix A

Interesting changes occurred in the pot harvesting of mud and blue swimmer crabs. The mud crab harvest increased by about 150% over the period while the Blue swimmer crab harvest increased by about 360%. The increase in mud crab harvest was relatively consistent over the period typically increasing by about 60t each year. The blue swimmer crab harvest trend differs in that it increased relatively steadily from 1990 to 2000 then effectively doubled in 2001 and continues to increase. At the start of the study period about two thirds of the pot crab harvest was mud crab. In recent years the commercial harvest of the two species is about equal.

As indicated earlier, Queensland Inshore fishery can be separated into the Gulf of Carpentaria and the east coast of Queensland. On the east coast there are two logical areas when analysing fishery performance, the Northern Area that is north of 24.5 degrees South (effectively the coastal areas in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park) to the tip of Cape York and the Southern Area which is south from 24.5 degrees South to the NSW border.

Contribution from each of the three main fishing areas in Queensland is shown in the next table. There are four parts to the table. The first two columns define the area and the main fishing method used to harvest the inshore species. The word “inshore” combines the net and pot harvest for that area.

19

Columns three and four show the three-year mean harvest for the beginning and end of the study period. Columns five and six show the changes from 1990/1992 and 2001/2003 for each of the areas. The last two columns in the table show the contribution to harvest from each of the regions by fishing method.

In the Gulf of Carpentaria the proportion of pot caught species increased from 2% to 7% over the period and a commensurate relative decline in the net caught harvest even though total harvest almost doubles over the period. In the Northern area, although total harvest increased almost threefold the proportion of pot to net harvest remained the same. There was a substantial change in the Southern Area with net harvest remaining about the same and a fourfold increase in pot harvest. Southern Area net harvest declined from about 90% to about 70% of the total harvest weight.

In terms of total inshore harvest, the contribution from the Gulf of Carpentaria remained at about 20% of the Queensland inshore harvest. The Northern Area increased its relative proportion from 20% to about 30% with a decline in the proportionate contribution from the Southern area from about 60% to 50%.

Table 7 Contribution from the three inshore fishing area in Queensland by main fishing method

Area Fishing MethodMean

harvest (t) 1990 - 1992

Mean harvest (t)2001-2003

Percent Area1990 - 1992

Percent Area2001 - 2003

Method% State

1990 - 1992

Method% State

2001 - 2003 Net 1,211 2,062 98 93 21 26 Pot 31 158 2 7 5 7 Gulf

Inshore 1,242 2,221 100 100 19 22 Net 998 2,312 77 77 17 29 Pot 296 704 23 23 45 32 Northern

Inshore 1,294 3,016 100 100 20 30 Net 3,383 3,593 92 73 58 45 Pot 307 1,347 8 27 47 61 Southern

Inshore 3,690 4,940 100 100 57 48 Net 5,804 7,981 90 78 100 100 Pot 660 2,210 10 22 100 100 State

Inshore 6,464 10,191 100 100 100 100

The Gulf increased its proportional contribution to the net harvest by about 5% over the period studied with an increase in harvest of about 80%. Net harvest from the Northern Area increased from 17% to 29% of the Queensland inshore harvest with harvest level increasing by more than 100%. In the Southern area net harvest contribution declined from 58% to 45% with harvest remaining at about the same level.

Pot harvest from the Gulf increase from 5% to 7% of Queensland pot harvest with a five-fold increase in harvest level. The proportionate contribution from the Northern area declined from 45% to 32% of the Queensland total although the level of harvest from this area increased by a factor of two and one half times. The largest increase in Pot harvest occurred in the Southern Area with an increase from 47% at the start of the period to about 61% with an almost five-fold increase in level of pot harvest.

The next figure shows the changes in the proportion of inshore harvest between the three regions.

20

Changes in the proportion of inshore harvest between the three regions of Queensland

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Gulf

Northern

Southern

Percent total inshore harvest

% Mean 90-92 % Mean 01-03

Figure 9 Changes in the proportion of harvest between areas between 1990 and 2003

21

4.0 Queensland Inshore - Recreational Fishery

TO BE UPDATED

22

5.0 Queensland Inshore Fishery - East Coast

5.1 Commercial inshore fishery

Annual harvest from the Queensland East Coast inshore commercial fishery (net & pot fishing methods) has increased by about 60% from 1990 to 2003 with a typical increase in harvest of about 300t each year. At the same time total fishing effort measured as days fished increased by about 55% with an annual increase of about 2500 days. There was a small overall increase in the number of boats operating in the fishery with the number of boats peaking in 1997 at about 870. By 2003 the number had declined to about 780 boats. During the period being studied GVP increased by about 90%, from about $23m in 1990 to about $44m in 2003. This was a typical increase of about $2m each year.

Table 8 East coast Queensland - Inshore commercial fishery - trends - overall summary

ItemTrend -

Mean change by year

Mean 1990-1992

Mean 2000-2003

Percentchange

Inshore Harvest (T) 287 4,984 7,956 60Inshore Boats 1.71 768 784 2

Inshore Days fished 2,550 49,255 76,366 55Inshore GVP ($M) 2.00 23 44 93

While the fishing effort reported as days fished climbed steadily from 1990 to 2003, harvest followed a different pattern. Harvest level effectively declined slightly from 1990 to 1997 then increased steadily until 2003 at about 500t each year. There was a considerable increase in harvest in 2001 and 2003 as a result of higher than normal level of mullet harvest as well as increases in shark, spotted mackerel and blue swimmer crab in that year. Changes in these species groups will be discussed in a later section.

Qld East Coast - Inshore - trends in key performance indicators

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Har

vest

(t) o

r Bo

ats

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000D

ays f

ished


Figure 10 Queensland East Coast - Inshore commercial fishery - Overall Performance trends

The inshore fishery is complex with boats reporting harvest from different sectors of the east coast fishery. This analysis only examines the net and pot combinations and does not consider the additional activity of the boats that operate in other fisheries on the east coast such as spanner crab and line.

At the start of the study period only 8% of the inshore fleet reported using only the pot fishing method. This proportion did not change over the study period. There was a decrease in the number of net only boats from about 57% of the fleet to 42% of the fleet. This indicates that there was an increase in the number of boats jointly harvesting product in any one year using nets and pots.

23

Table 9 East Coast Queensland inshore commercial fishery - net & pot indicators - summary

Activity Item

Trend - Mean change

by year Mean

1990-1992Mean

2001-2003Percent change

% Mean 1990 – 1992

Total

% Mean 2000 – 2003

TotalNet Harvest (T) 158 4,381 5,906 35 88 74

Boats 0 706 700 -1 92 89 Days fished 323 31,568 34,867 10 64 46 GVP ($M) 0.9 17 26 50 75 58

Pot Harvest (T) 129 603 2,051 240 12 26 Boats 7 391 472 21 51 60 Days fished 2,278 22,563 46,992 108 46 62 GVP ($M) 1.2 6 19 222 25 42

The weight of net caught fish increased by about 35% over the period, an increase of about 1600t. This was an average increase of about 160t each year. As a proportion of total inshore east coast harvest net caught harvest declined from about 88% of the total harvest to 74% in the latter part of the study period.

At the same time pot harvest more than trebled increasing from about 600t to 2000t. As a proportion of total inshore landings, pot harvest increased from about 12% of inshore harvest to about 26%. Pot harvest typically increased by about 130t each year.

Fishing effort in the net fishery has remained relatively stable at about 33 000 days over the entire period as can be seen in Figure 10. At the same time pot fishing effort almost doubled to about 47 000 days.

Net fishing effort as a percent of total inshore fishing effort declined from about 65% at the start of the period to about 45%. During this time pot fishing effort increased from about 46% of total effort to about 62%. Pot effort typically increased by about 2200 days each year.

Trends in effort by main fishing methods and total harvest are shown in the next figure.

Queensland East Coast - Trends in inshore fishing - effort and harvest

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Day

s fis

hed

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Har

vest

(t)

Net Days fished Pot Days fishedInshore Days fished Inshore Harvest (T)

Figure 11 Queensland East Coast - Inshore fishery - trends in Pot & Net fishing effort D:\Documents and Settings\willial\My Documents\RC & T2000\Inshore July 2004\[Regional spp 07 04.xls]Summary total

The distribution of the inshore harvest along the Queensland east coast for the mean of the years 2001 to 2003 is shown in Figure 12. Moreton Bay area dominated harvests along this coastline with about 25%

24

of the east coast landings from the East Coast inshore fishery. Moreton Bay produced about 26% of the east coast net harvest and about 29% of the inshore pot (crab) harvest over these three years.

Harvest from Queensland East Coast Inshore fishery by hald degree bands - Mean 2001 to 2003

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

Cape York

Orford Bay

S helburne Bay

Temple Bay

Lloyd Bay

Cape S idmouth

Roberts Point

PCB

Cape Bedford

Cooktown

Bloomfield

Cape Tribulation

Cairns

Babinda

Mission Beach

Cardwell

Ingham

Townsville

Burdekin

Bowen

Repulse Bay

Mackay

Notch Point

S hoalwater Bay

Byfield

Yeppoon

Gladstone

S eventeen-seventy

Bundaberg

Hervey Bay

Tin Can Bay

Noosa

Mooloolaba

Moreton Bay

S outhport

Coolangatta

Tonne s

Net Pot

Figure 12 Harvest (t) for the East Coast inshore Fishery by half degree bands (mean of years 2001 to 2003)

25

The next figure shows the differences, usually increase in harvest that occurred between the 1990 to 1992 period and the 2000 to 2003 period. The largest gain occurred in the Moreton Bay half-degree band and the largest decline occurred in the Southport band. This may be a reporting effect in the logbooks.

Difference in harvest between 1990 - 1992 and 2001 - 2003 in half degree bands

-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

C ape York

O rford Bay

Sh e lburn e Bay

Te m ple Bay

Lloyd Bay

C ape S idm outh

Robe rts Poin t

PC B

C ape Be dford

C ooktown

Bloom fie ld

C ape Tribu lation

C airns

Babinda

Mission Be ach

C ardwe l l

In gham

Town svi l le

Burde kin

Bowe n

Re pu lse Bay

Mackay

Notch Poin t

Sh oalwate r Bay

Byfie ld

Ye ppoon

Gladstone

Se ve nte e n -se ve nty

Bundabe rg

He rve y Bay

Tin C an Bay

Noosa

Mooloolaba

More ton Bay

Southport

C oolangatta

Tonn e s

Net

Pot

Figure 13 Difference in harvest between 1990-92 and 2001-03 for the east Coast Inshore fishery by half degree bands

26

Table 10 summarises the trends in harvest by main species groups that are part if the East Coast Inshore Fishery. A table showing the trends is in Appendix A.

Mullet provided about 50% of the finfish harvest by weight at the start of the period and about 43% of the total harvest from this fishery at the end of the reporting period. At the end of the period, mullet made up about 37% of the finfish harvest and almost 30% of the total inshore harvest.

The east coast inshore fisheries provide almost all of the harvest of mullet, whiting, bream, tailor, spotted mackerel, rabbitfish, gar, and blue swimmer crabs and mud crabs. It provides a high proportion of the shark and blue threadfin. The Gulf of Carpentaria provides a substantial proportion of the barramundi and grey mackerel and about half of the blue threadfin harvest.

Table 10 Queensland East Coast Inshore commercial fishery - species indicators – summary

Species

TrendMean change

per year (t/year)

Mean1990-1992

Mean2001-2003

Percentchange

% Total group

harvest1990 - 1992

% Total group

harvest2001 - 2003

% State harvest

1990 - 1992

% State harvest

2001 - 2003

Mullet* 14 2182 2206 1 50 37 96 100 Shark* 86 303 1290 326 7 22 60 76

Whiting* 4 288 318 11 7 5 96 100 Barramundi 8 172 244 42 4 4 27 27

Mackerel - Spotted 18 49 217 343 1 4 99 100 Gar* 10 76 193 153 2 3 94 98

Bream* -1 195 173 -11 4 3 94 100 Tailor 2 154 164 6 4 3 98 99

Threadfin - Blue 2 112 157 40 3 3 61 66 Mackerel - Grey -3 190 144 -24 4 2 85 27 Threadfin - King 0 94 97 3 2 2 17 20

Queenfish 5 32 92 184 1 2 69 80 Mackerel - School 8 8 83 999 0 1 99 100

Rabbitfish -1 115 74 -36 3 1 97 100 Flathead* -1 71 56 -21 2 1 97 100 Pilchards* 1 64 52 -18 1 1 100 99 Fish - Bait -4 108 52 -52 2 1 99 99

Dart 1 25 37 45 1 1 91 99 Other 8 103 197 91 2 3 77 67

Finfish total 158 4381 5906 35 100 100 75 74

Crab - Mud 49 371 884 138 61 43 90 85 Crab - Blue Swimmer 78 232 1143 392 39 56 94 100

Crab - Total 129 603 2051 240 100 100 91 93

Inshore total 350 4984 7956 57 100 100 77 78 A number of species comprise the harvest Trend data is shown in Appendix A

27

6.0 Northern Inshore Fishery – East Coast

6.1 Background

The Northern Inshore Fishery on the east coast of Queensland stretches from Baffle Creek in the south northwards to the tip of Cape York, a distance of about 2000 km. The coastline and rivers abut the western side of the reefal lagoon inside the Great Barrier Reef.

The main species harvested in the Northern Inshore Fishery are barramundi, king and blue threadfin, tropical shark, grey and spotted mackerel, mullet and mud crabs. Other species such as grunter, gar, queenfish, pikey bream and tripletail cod are taken as incidental catches to the main species harvested.

The combined harvest from the commercial and recreational sectors is estimated to be about 4000t of crabs and finfish.

Two netting styles are used in the Northern Inshore Fishery.

The main style used is gill or mesh netting. This involves setting a net where fish are likely to be moving so the fish can swim into the net. Depending on the location and the species targeted, river set, foreshore set nets, offshore drift gill nets or ring gill nets may be used. This style is mostly used for species such as barramundi, the threadfins, tropical shark and lesser mackerels.

The second netting style used is haul or seine netting. This method is used from foreshore or beach areas. It is used occasionally in the Northern Inshore Fishery when compared to other methods. The net is deployed in an arc from the shoreline usually from a small boat and surrounds an area of water containing fish. The net is hauled to the shore. This technique is mainly used for mullet and other inshore species such as whiting.

Mud crabs are harvested using baited pots (crab traps) in the estuaries with mangrove habitats and tidal sections of the rivers.

The harvest of major species groups in the Northern Inshore Commercial Fishery show strong links to major river systems such as the Burdekin River near Townsville and the Fitzroy River with its mouth north of the Gladstone.

6.2 Northern Inshore Commercial Fishery - Overview

Annual total harvest from the Northern Inshore Fishery effectively doubled from 1990 to 2003 with a typical increase of about 160t each year. Fishing effort measured as days fished increased by about 450 days per year over the 14 years to almost 39 000 days, an increase of about one third. Boats reporting fishing activity increased only slightly to around 490. Increase in the number of boats over the period reporting fishing activity was 7%. The GVP from this fishery also increased by about 150% over the period to an annual value of around $20m.

Table 11 Northern Inshore Fishery - Commercial - trends - overall summary

Activity Indicator Trend -

Mean change by year

Mean 1990 - 1992

Mean 2000 – 2003

Percent change

Inshore Harvest (T) 156 1,294 3,016 133 Fleet Boats 3.9 457 487 7

Days fished 1,271 25,839 38,971 51 GVP ($M) 1.1 8 20 143 Kg/day 2.0 54 77 42 Days/boat 2.8 49 80 62 Harvest/boat (T) 0.3 3 6 132 GVP/day 15 345 511 48 GVP/boat/year 2,178 16,912 40,833 141

28

Over the period mean daily harvest per boat increased by about 2 kg/day, an overall increase of about 40% between the two periods. At the same time mean days fished per boat increased by about 60%. The changes in these two indicators resulted in doubling of the mean harvest each year per boat and a similar increase in the GVP per boat per year.

The trends for key indicators are shown are shown in Figure 14.

Northern - Inshore - trends in key performance indicators

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Har

vest

(t) o

r B

oats

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Day

s fish

ed


Figure 14 Northern Inshore Fishery - Commercial - Overall performance - trends

Two clear patterns emerge from the figure. Effort measured as days fished remained at about the same level from 1990 to 1996. Effort then increased by about 1 700 days a year from 1997 to 2003. Annual harvest followed a similar pattern increasing by about 270 tonne per year from 1997 onwards. This was the result of an increase in mean fishing effort by about 4 days per boat per year. Mean daily catch rate also increased from 1997 onwards.

Understanding how a fishery behaves requires more information than is provided by the mean performance results. Use of distributions as shown in the next table is one method that provides a better insight into how boats perform in the fishery.

The next table shows the distribution of the fleet based on the GVP estimated by boat. The data in this table is used to generate Figures 15 and 16.

29

Table 12 Comparison of distributions of number of boats and harvest by income categories for the Northern Inshore Fishery

Boats Boats (% Total) Harvest (t) Harvest (% total) GVPcategories Mean

90-92Mean 01-03

Mean 90-92 Percent

Mean 01-03 Percent

Mean 90-92

Mean 01-03

Mean 90-92 Percent

Mean 01-03 Percent

Less 2 th 118 123 28 25 19 14 2 0 2 - 5 th 74 47 17 10 54 29 5 1 5 –10 th 66 46 16 9 94 55 8 2

10 - 20 th 50 52 12 11 122 126 11 4 20 - 40 th 62 72 14 15 276 335 24 11 40 - 60 th 27 41 6 8 197 303 17 10 60 - 80 th 16 31 4 6 157 295 14 10

80 - 100 th 5 23 1 5 59 286 5 10 100 - 125 th 4 14 1 3 55 228 5 8 125 - 150 th 1 8 0 2 28 168 2 6 150 - 200 th 1 11 0 2 25 269 2 9 200 - 250 th 1 6 0 1 14 202 1 7 250 - 300 th 1 4 0 1 12 116 1 4 300 - 400 th 3 1 155 5

400 plus 1 6 0 1 23 411 2 14 428 488 100 100 1136 2991 100 100

Source: D:\Documents and Settings\willial\My Documents\RC & T2000\Inshore July 2004\[EC by province Y Distn.xls]Base\ck8

There are two parts to this table: the first part (columns two to five) shows the distribution measured by number of boats in each GVP category and the second part (columns six to nine) shows the level of harvest from each GVP category.

As a reference point in considering this table, the mean boat GVP for 1990 to 1992 was about $17 000 and for the 2000 to 2003 period was about $41 000.

The GVP distribution shows that the number of boats in the Northern Inshore Fishery landing less than $2 000 of product remained about the same at around one quarter of the fleet for the start and end of the study period with boat numbers in this category remaining about the same, at about 120 boats. In both periods the harvest from this category was less than 20 tonne.

The main changes that occurred between the two study periods is the decline in the number of boats in the $2 000 to $40 000 category range and an increase in the number of boats harvesting more than $40 000 of inshore product.

In the $10 000 to $40 000 categories in both periods the percent of boats in that category is about the same with 26% of the fleet. At the same time although the harvest in the two periods were approximately the same at about 400t to 450t, the harvest as a percent of total harvest declined from 25% to 15%.

In 1990-92 about 45% of the boats were in the less than $5000 income category and landed about 7% of the annual harvest. This changed in the 2001–03 period to where 35% of the boats were in the less than $5000 income category and harvested about 2% of the total harvest.

About 2% of the boats were in the $100 000 plus income categories in 1990-92 and harvested about 18% of harvest for that period. In 2001-03 about 11% of the boats were in the $100 000 plus income categories harvesting about 63% of the total harvest.

There are major differences between the two distributions – two elements are clear. Firstly the proportion of harvest landed by GVP category has moved to the right so fishers are increasing their harvest. The second point is the dominance in 2001-03 period of the GVP $400 000 plus category. This category contributed about 14% of the total harvest weight in that period.

30

Northern Inshore Fishery - GVP Distribution - Number boats

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Less 2th

2 - 5 th 5 -10 th 10 - 20th

20 - 40th

40 - 60th

60 - 80th

80 -100 th

100 -125 th

125 -150 th

150 -200 th

200 -250 th

250 -300 th

300 -400 th

400plus

GVP Grouping ($000)

Num

ber

boat

sMean 90-92 Mean 01-03

Figure 15 Northern Inshore Fishery - GVP distribution by number of boats – Comparison of 1990 to 2003

An alternate way of plotting this distribution is shown in Appendix B

Northern Inshore Fishery Changes in Harvest (t) by Income category ($000)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Less 2th

2 - 5th

5 -10th

10 - 20th

20 - 40th

40 - 60th

60 - 80th

80 -100 th

100 -125 th

125 -150 th

150 -200 th

200 -250 th

250 -300 th

300 -400 th

400plus

Har

vest

- T

onne

s by

cate

gory

Mean 90-92 Mean 01-03

Figure 16 Northern Inshore Fishery – Harvest (t) by GVP category comparing two periods

D:\Documents and Settings\willial\My Documents\RC & T2000\Inshore July 2004\[EC by province Y Distn.xls]Base\CM49

31

6.3 Northern Inshore Fishery – Category Analysis

The Northern Inshore Fishery is complex with boats reporting harvest from the two components of the fishery – net harvest and pot harvest. This analysis only examines the net and pot combinations and does not consider boats that operate solely in other fisheries on the east coast such as spanner crab and line. In order to clarify fishing category groups a boat was to required to harvest at least 5% of its annual income from a particular category before it was included in that category.

Specialist potting boats increased from 9% of the fleet to 11% in the inshore fleet with the numbers effectively doubling to 40 boats. The percent of boats using potting gear either as a specialist potter or in combination with other fishing methods increased from 51% to 59% of the fleet. This is an increase of about 60 boats using the pot method over the period, an increase of 36%.

Specialist net fishing boats declined from about 22% of the inshore fleet to about 13% in the later period, a decline of about 25 specialist netting boats. The percent of boats using net fishing gear declined from about 88% to 82% of the fleet that resulted in an increase of 23 boats using net fishing gear over the period.

Table 13 Northern Inshore Fishery - Combinations of use of fishing gear - summary of trends

Fishingcategory

Trend – boats by

year

Mean boats 1990-1992

Mean boats2001-2003

Percent changein boats

% inshore fleet1990-1992

% inshore fleet2001-2003


LinePot 1.27 10 23 138 3 6 Net -2.09 69 46 -33 22 13

NetPot -0.79 87 78 -11 27 21 Pot 1.11 29 40 38 9 11

Other 1 5 300 0 1 Total 4.73 319 370 16 100 100

The next figure shows the proportions (from the last column in Table 13) for each of the fishing method categories for the period 2001-03

32

Northern Inshore Fishery - percent of inshore fleet in 2001-03 using net and pot fishing categories

LineNet27%

LineNetPot21%

LinePot6%

Net Only13%

NetPot21%

Pot Only11%

Other1%

Figure 17 Northern Inshore Fishery - Combinations of use of fishing gear – Mean for 2001 to 2003

6.4 Northern Inshore Fishery – Performance in individual sectors

Two sectors make up the Northern Inshore Fishery – net fishing and pot fishing.

Net harvested finfish almost doubled over the study period increasing to about 2000t and representing about three quarters of the harvest weight from the Northern Inshore Fishery. This proportion did not change over the study period. At the same time net fishing effort in terms of days fished remained at about the same level at around 19 000 days. Numbers of boats using the net fishing method increased by about 13% over the period with an increase of boats using net fishing gear of about 50 boats. Net harvested GVP also effectively doubled over the period increasing to about $11m.

Mean net harvest each day increased by about 65% while mean days per boat increased by 13%. This resulted in an increase of almost 90% in the harvest by boat when the two periods are compared. At the same time GVP per boat almost doubled.

The pot component also increased dramatically, increasing by about 125% over the period to about 650t. At the seam time fishing effort measured as days fished almost double with an 83% increase in effort. The number of boats recording pot activity increased by about 17% and GVP also doubled.

33

The performance in the pot component of this fishery differ from the net component in that the mean daily harvest increased by about 17% over the period while the mean number of days increased by about 75%. This resulted in harvest per boat effectively doubling over the period with the mean annual GVP following a similar pattern.

Table 14 Northern Inshore Fishery - Net & Pot indicators - Summary

Activity Data Trend -

Mean change by year

Mean 1990 - 1992

Mean 2000 – 2003

Percent change

% Mean 1990 - 1992

Total Northern

% Mean 2000 - 2003

Total Northern

Net Harvest (T) 92 1035 2083 101 78 76 Days fished 42 19316 19401 0 68 49 Boats 6 443 500 13 93 91 GVP ($M) 0.5 5.1 10.9 114 62 61

Kg/day 4 67 109 64Days/boat 0.3 33 37 13Harvest/boat (T) 0.16 2.19 4.07 86GVP/day 22 330 575 74GVP/boat/year 895 10809 21388 98

Pot Harvest (T) 34 296 664 124 22 24 Days fished 1026 12790 23343 83 45 59 Boats 3 226 263 17 48 48 GVP ($M) 0.4 3.1 6.9 125 38 39

Kg/day 0.4 25 29 17Days/boat 4 51 88 72Harvest/boat (T) 0.12 1.26 2.54 101GVP/day 4 257 300 17GVP/boat/year 1269 13166 26500 101

The Figure 18 shows the trends in fishing effort for the net & pot components of the Northern Inshore Fishery. Net fishing effort, although varying between years has effectively remained consistent. At the same time effort applied to the pot component of the fishery increased by about 1000 days each year, increasing to about 23 000 days. As a result total effort in the fishery increased to about 40 000 days, an increase of about 1100 days for each year.

The total harvest from this fishery doubled over the 14 years in the study, with a mean increase in harvest of about 130t each year. However there were two phases, the first from 1990 to 1996, with an increase from about 1300t to 1600t. From 1997 to 2003 harvest increased by about 1000t. .

Northern Inshore fishery - trends - Net and pot - effort/harvest

0

15000

30000

45000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Day

s fis

hed

0

1000

2000

3000

Insh

ore

Har

vest

(t)

Net Days fished Pot Days fished Inshore Days fished Inshore Catch (T)

Figure 18 Northern Inshore Fishery - trends in fishing effort by sectors

34

Table 15 Northern Inshore Fishery - Trend data by sector

Activity Item 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Net Harvest (T) 1003 1016 1077 1014 1134 1151 1281 1284 1541 1461 1520 1937 2125 2185Net Days fished 17479 18390 22352 17206 18352 16504 17155 16946 20389 17563 17306 18900 19706 19597Net Boats 448 455 447 426 452 437 464 512 556 493 488 488 516 496Net GVP ($M) 5.2 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.6 5.6 6.1 6.2 7.8 7.4 7.8 10.3 11.2 11.4Net Kg/day 61 61 68 71 72 78 83 80 79 87 92 107 109 112Net Days/boat 36 36 33 29 30 32 32 31 34 34 33 35 37 39Net Harvest/boat (T) 2.18 2.20 2.26 2.10 2.18 2.53 2.68 2.47 2.73 2.92 3.06 3.76 4.07 4.39Net GVP/day 314 306 337 348 355 380 396 384 402 443 478 565 575 586Net GVP/boat/year 11252 10934 11239 10253 10786 12281 12743 11880 13815 14841 15833 19918 21380 22865Pot Harvest (T) 243 302 282 303 312 315 285 313 348 491 568 680 688 624Pot Days fished 10998 12067 12700 13602 15795 15710 14781 14992 17464 20148 22290 23719 23271 23040Pot Boats 225 236 244 198 233 230 220 235 253 240 260 259 268 263Pot GVP ($M) 2.5 3.2 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.6 5.1 5.9 7.1 7.2 6.5Pot Kg/day 23 25 24 24 22 21 20 21 20 25 26 29 30 27Pot Days/boat 47 49 47 58 58 62 66 63 68 84 86 90 87 88Pot Harvest/boat (T) 1.06 1.24 1.15 1.39 1.28 1.32 1.30 1.33 1.38 2.08 2.20 2.63 2.59 2.39Pot GVP/day 236 265 255 252 231 221 207 222 212 258 266 307 310 284Pot GVP/boat/year 11106 13010 11969 14520 13330 13788 13675 13986 14383 21691 23021 27554 26974 24972

Northern Inshore Fishery - Pot & Net harvest & daily harvest rate trends

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Mea

n da

ily ra

te (k

g or

day

s)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000H

arve

st (t

)

Net Catch (T) Pot Catch (T) Pot Kg/day

Net Kg/day Net Days/boat Pot Days/boat

Figure 19 Northern Inshore Fishery trends- Net & Pot - total harvest, mean daily harvest, mean days/boat/year

Figure 19 shows the trends referred to in Table 17 and presents different information to that shown in Figure 18.. It shows the changes from 1990 to 2003 in the performance in mean days fished per boat per year for the pot and net components of the Northern Inshore Fishery as well as the performance of mean harvest per boat per day.

35

6.5 Northern Inshore Net Sector

Summary data is shown in Table 16. The next table and two figures provide an alternative way of viewing the performance of players in this sector of the Northern Inshore Fishery.

Table 16 Northern Inshore Fishery - Net Sector - distribution of fishing income and fishing effort

1990 - 92 Days fished categoryIncome category 1 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 100 100 - 150 150 plus Boats Percent

Less 5 th 115 85 28 9 4 2 243 555 -10 th 9 27 25 10 3 1 76 17

10 - 20 th 13 24 15 2 1 57 1320 - 40 th 1 4 8 14 9 2 38 940 - 60 th 2 3 5 4 2 16 460 plus 1 2 6 1 11 2Boats 126 133 88 56 28 11 443

Percent 28 30 20 13 6 3

2000 - 02 Days fished category Income category 1 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 100 100 - 150 150 plus Boats Percent

Less 5 th 137 87 30 8 1 0 264 535 -10 th 3 22 16 6 0 48 10

10 - 20 th 1 18 23 15 4 0 62 1220 - 40 th 8 20 21 14 3 66 1340 - 60 th 1 5 7 6 2 21 460 Plus 0 2 7 13 10 4 40 8Boats 142 138 101 70 37 12 500

Percent 28 28 20 14 7 2

The number of boats in the 1 – 10 category for mean days fished over three years has increased but as a percent of the boats in the sector has remained the same at about 28% of the fleet. Across the fleet as a whole although boat numbers have increased the percent in each category of fishing effort measured as days fished has remained about the same.

When the groupings by income categories are examined, differences between the two periods become evident. While the proportion of the sector in the less than $5000 category has remained about the same at about 55%, there has been a trend towards boats generating higher levels on income from their net fishing activity. For example the percent of the fleet harvesting more that $40 000 in a year increased from about 6% at the start of the period compared to about 12% in the latter period. The number of boats increased from about 15 to 59 over that time.

The next two figures show for the two periods by income categories (GVP) the number of boats and the total net harvest respectively for the Northern Inshore net sector.

The Boat number by category figure represents the right hand column in the previous table.

The figure (19) where net harvest is shown indicates that with more than half of the boats in the less than $5000 GVP category they only produce around 100t of net caught product each year. The dramatic change tonnage of finfish net harvest is shown for the $100 000 plus GVP category with the weight of harvest going from about 100t to about 850t. Species analyses later will examine this increase in more detail.

These “net” boats could derive other parts of their income from either the pot or line sectors. With the category analysis showing that 65% of the boats in the Northern Inshore Fishery use fishing gear other than nets to harvest fish, the flow on effects of managing by a single gear type may have unexpected consequences in the pot and line sectors.

36

Northern Inshore Fishery - GVP distribution for net fleet harvest for two periods

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Less 5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100 100plus

GVP ($000)

Num

ber o

f boa

ts

Mean 90-92 Mean 00-02

Figure 20 Northern Inshore Net Fishery - Number of boats categorised by GVP

Northern Inshore Fishery - harvest by category when grouped by GVP category for fleet for two periods (Net)

0

100200

300400

500600

700800

900

Less 5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100 100 plus

GVP ($000)

Tonn

es

Mean 90-92 Mean 00-02

Figure 21 Northern Inshore Net Fishery – Harvest (t) categorised by GVP

37

6.6 Northern Inshore Fishery – Species Analysis

Tropical shark and mud crabs accounted for almost 60% of the harvest from the Northern Inshore Fishery in recent years. This was an increase from about 50% at the start of the study period.

Tropical shark harvest increased since 1990 by more than four times from around 200t to about 900t. As a proportion of net component harvest it increased from about 20% to 45% of net caught harvest. Currently Northern Inshore shark contributes about 80% of the east coast inshore shark harvest. There are essentially three phases to this increase in shark harvest: a steady increase from 1990 to 1997 with harvest effectively doubling during this period from 200t to 400t. In 1998 and 1999 harvest started to increase dramatically resulting in the third phase where the harvest peaked at about 1000t in 2001. A more detailed analysis of changes in the shark harvest is presented in a later section.

A similar pattern to that occurring with tropical shark occurred with changes in mud crab harvest. Mud crab harvest effectively doubled over the period from around 300t to 650t and provide almost 100% of pot harvest when spanner crab harvest is not considered. The Northern Inshore Fishery contributes almost 80% of the east coast commercial harvest. There are three phases to the development: from 1990 to 1997 harvest remained at around 300t, followed by a growth phase culminating in the final phase of 2000 to 2003 where harvest was around 650t. A more detailed analysis will be a later section. Northern Inshore Fishery contributes about half of the east coast crab harvest when spanner crabs are not included.

Table 17 Summary of trends in main species harvested in the Northern Inshore Fishery

Species name Trend -

Mean change by year

Mean1990 - 1992

Mean2000 - 2003

Percentchange

% group harvest 1990

- 1992

% group harvest 2000

- 2003

% EC harvest

Mean 1990 - 1992

% EC harvest

Mean 2000 -2003

Tropical Shark* 59 207 926 347 20 44 68 81 Barramundi 5 168 219 30 16 11 97 96

Mullet* 6 115 180 56 11 9 5 9 Threadfin - Blue 0 107 117 10 10 6 95 95 Threadfin - King 0 85 80 -6 8 4 91 90 Mackerel - Grey -2 89 71 -21 9 3 47 88

Trevally 7 17 84 380 2 4 77 77 Mackerel - Spotted 7 21 100 380 2 5 43 33

Gar* 4 16 62 286 2 3 21 40 Rabbitfish -6 62 1 -98 6 0 53 1 Whiting* 0 27 21 -25 3 1 9 7

Other 11 120 223 85 12 11 25 39 Finfish total 92 1035 2083 101 100 100 23 37

Crab - Mud 34 289 650 125 98 98 78 78

Crab - Blue Swimmer 1 7 14 92 2 2 3 2 Crab total 34 296 664 124 100 100 49 40

Total Inshore 126 1331 2747 106 30 49 26 38

Barramundi harvest increased steadily over the study period with an overall 30% increase. This fishery provides almost all of the east coast barramundi harvest. There are relatively small quantities of mullet harvested from estuaries along the Northern Inshore Fishery coastline with an almost 60% increase in reported harvest. This area provides less than 10% of the east coast of Queensland mullet harvest.

Two species make up the threadfin species group: king and blue. The blue threadfin are more estuary dependent than the king threadfin and tend to be caught more on the east coast that in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Blue threadfin harvest is typically about 60% of the total threadfin harvest each year.

There are two main species in the mackerel complex reported here, grey and spotted mackerel. There are some unspecified mackerel that have not been allocated to either of the two species. Harvest of both species has been highly variable between years. The level of harvest, at least for spotted mackerel appears to be market driven from 2000 onwards with fishers being able to sell most of the product landed as whole fish rather than in a filleted and frozen form.

Trevally is a general category for a variety of species and may apply to line caught fish from the reef although the quantity caught by line is estimated to be less than 30% of trevally harvest.

38

Trends in majors species groups harvested in the Northern Inshore Fishery are shown in the nearby figure and table.

Northern Inshore Fishery - Major species trends

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Tonn

es

Shark - All Barramundi Mullet - All Threadfin - allMackerel - All Crab - Mud Other

Figure 22 Northern Inshore Fishery - Trends in harvest of major species groups

The distribution of major species harvested along the coastline for the in the Northern Inshore Fishery for the years 2000 to 2003 is shown in the next figure. The higher harvest levels associated with the major rivers and estuaries is apparent with the influence of the Burdekin and Fitzroy very apparent as well as the effect of Princess Charlotte Bay.

39

Northern Inshore fishery - Mean harvest for 2000-02 by major species groups

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Cape York

Orford Bay

Shelburne Bay

Temple Bay

Lloyd Bay

Cape Sidmouth

Roberts Point

PCB

Cape Bedford

Cooktown

Bloomfield

Cape Tribulation

Cairns

Babinda

Mission Beach

Cardwell

Ingham

Townsville

Burdekin

Bowen

Repulse Bay

Mackay

Notch Point

Shoalwater Bay

Byfield

Yeppoon

Gladstone

Seventeen-seventy

Tonnes

Barramundi Crab - Mud Mackerel Mullet Other Shark Threadfin Whiting

Figure 23 Northern Inshore Fishery – Mean harvest for major species groups from 2000 to 2003 by half degree latitude bands

The next figure shows the changes in major species harvest that occurred between 1990/92 and 2000/02 in the Northern Inshore Fishery. The main influence is the increase in tropical shark harvested from the main producing areas.

40

Northern Inshore fishery - Change in mean harvest level from 1990-92 to 2000-02 by major species groups

-50 0 50 100 150 200 250

Cape York

Orford Bay

Shelburne Bay

Temple Bay

Lloyd Bay

Cape Sidmouth

Roberts Point

PCB

Cape Bedford

Cooktown

Bloomfield

Cape Tribulation

Cairns

Babinda

Mission Beach

Cardwell

Ingham

Townsville

Burdekin

Bowen

Repulse Bay

Mackay

Notch Point

Shoalwater Bay

Byfield

Yeppoon

Gladstone

Seventeen-seventy

Tonnes difference

Barramundi Crab - Mud Mackerel Mullet Other Shark Threadfin Whiting

Figure 24 Northern Inshore Fishery – Difference in mean harvest between 1990 – 92 and 2000 – 02 for major species groups by half-degree latitude bands (harvest differences of less than 5t were excluded from figure)

41

Seasonality of harvest for the mains species harvested is shown next.

Figure 25 Mean Monthly harvest (t) of main finfish groups from the Northern Inshore Commercial Fishery for 2000 - 2003

Northern Inshore Finfish - Mean Monthly harvest (t) 2000-2002

0

300

600

900

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Har

vest

(t)

Shark - All Barramundi Mullet - All Threadfin - Blue

Mackerel - Spotted Threadfin - King Mackerel - Grey Other

42

7.0 Southern Inshore Fishery

7.1 Background

The Southern Inshore Fishery on the Queensland east coast extends from Baffle Creek (24 30"S) south to the New South Wales border. This area includes the estuaries of Hervey Bay and Moreton Bay as well as the surf beaches from Fraser Island south to the border. Subtropical and temperate species are mainly harvested from this area.

The main species harvested by the commercial sector are sea mullet, bream, tailor, dusky flathead, whiting, dart, school and spotted mackerel and mud and blue swimmer crabs. The recreational sector harvests the same suite of species as the commercial sector except for sea mullet.

The combined commercial and recreational finfish and crab harvest from the Southern Inshore Fishery is estimated to be about 7200t.

There are two net fishing styles used by the commercial sector.

The style most used is haul or seine netting. This method is used from estuary and river foreshores or from ocean beaches. The net is deployed out in an arc usually from a small boat surrounding an area of water containing fish. The net is hauled to the shore. This technique is mainly used for mullet, tailor and other inshore species such as whiting.

The second most used style of net fishing is gill or mesh netting. This involves placing a net where fish are likely to be moving so the fish can swim into the net. In the Southern Inshore Fishery use of set nets (i.e. nets fixed in one place) is generally not permitted. Drift gill nets or ring gill nets are also used. This technique is used for most the species caught such mullet or lesser mackerels in the larger estuaries.

Both species of crabs are caught in baited pots (traps) although blue swimmer crabs may be harvested by tangle pot.

Within the Southern Inshore Fishery there are two components - the general inshore component and the ocean beach net component.

The general inshore component operates in the marine reaches of rivers, in estuaries and bays and along the ocean foreshores of the area. These fishers harvest the full range of finfish within the area and pot for crabs. Fishers in this area face many restrictions including a weekend closure to all forms of net fishing in the area.

The ocean beach net component operates from April to August. During this period only boats licensed (about 60 boats) to operate in this area are permitted to harvest from the ocean beaches from the New South Wales border to the northern most tip of Fraser Island. These boats mainly harvest mullet and tailor as these fish undertake their northern spawning run during this period. During the ocean beach fishery period and during the remainder of the year the ocean beach fishers may operate in the general inshore fishery.

7.2 Southern Inshore Commercial Fishery

Annual total harvest from the Southern Inshore Commercial Fishery has increased by almost a quarter from about 3700t in the early nineties to about 4500t in the early years of the decade beginning in 2000. The trend follows a “U” shape with the lowest producing years occurring in 1993 and 1994. Fishing effort (as days fished) followed an almost linear upward trend increasing by about 1000 days each year over the period studied. Boats reporting fishing activity have remained relatively consistent over the period examined. About 90% of the boats land net caught species and 60% of all boats use pots to harvest crabs. GVP has followed a similar pattern to that shown by total annual harvest. However, GVP showed a 46% gain over the study period.

43

Table 18 Southern Inshore Fishery - Total performance - summary

Activity Indicator Trend -

Mean changeby year

Mean 1990 - 1992

Mean 2000 – 2003

Percent change

Inshore Harvest (T) 76 3707 4571 23Fleet Days fished 1047 23628 35007 48

Boats -0.5 375 376 0 GVP ($M) 0.6 15 22 46

Kg/day c -2.6 156 129 -17Days/boat c 2.9 62 92 49

Harvest/boat (T) 0.2 10 12 24GVP/day c -2.0 623 613 -2

GVP/boat/year 1614 38601 56706 47

Changes in mean harvest per day (kg/day) are not significant in that mullet harvest dominates total landings. The important variable is the mean number of days per boat when harvesting occurs. This variable shows an effective 50% increase in effort being applied by boats in this fishery. This increased fishing effort is reflected in the increase in the mean harvest per boat (increased by about 25%) and the almost 50% increase in GVP per boat per year.

Table 19 Southern Inshore Fishery – Overall performance trends

Item 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Catch (T) 4262 3865 3196 4060 2884 3000 3523 3550 3245 4241 4489 4169 5507 4036 Days fished 24735 23787 24348 22750 26931 25355 26092 27644 30026 32513 33683 33591 36133 35298 Boats 409 379 380 367 390 373 384 404 405 392 380 367 373 388 GVP ($M) 16.68 15.39 13.47 15.45 12.24 12.02 13.85 14.52 13.69 17.48 19.67 18.85 25.16 20.68Kg/day 172 163 131 172 109 119 136 130 107 131 132 120 152 115Days/boat 60 63 63 60 64 65 67 67 74 81 87 90 96 90Catch/boat (T) 10.42 10.20 8.35 10.34 7.00 7.79 9.11 8.74 7.91 10.61 11.44 10.84 14.63 10.39GVP/day 675 649 556 665 466 480 536 531 455 542 583 553 697 588GVP/boat/year 40790 40621 35305 39877 29900 31369 35869 35762 33532 43884 50556 49783 67106 53230

Southern Inshore Fishery - Overall Performance - trends

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Har

vest

(t) &

Boa

ts

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Days fished

Inshore Catch (T) Inshore Boats Inshore Days fished

Figure 26 Southern Inshore fishery - Overall trends

The location of harvest of the major species groups within the Southern Inshore Commercial Fishery shows the effects of the mullet harvest especially and the level of harvest from the two major estuaries in the area, Moreton Bay and Hervey Bay.

44

Harvest in this fishery is dominated by Moreton Bay and the adjacent ocean beach harvests. This one half degree band produces about 40% of the commercial harvest the Southern Inshore Fishery. This estuary produces about 1900t of product each year from the inshore species harvest from 2000 onwards.

Hervey Bay and the Sandy Straits are shown in the three bands from Bundaberg to Tin Can Bay. This area also produces about 1200t of product but over a larger area than Moreton Bay.

Figure 27 Southern Inshore Fishery – Inshore harvest for main species groups – Mean 2000-02

Southern Inshore fishery - Location of harvest of main species groups - Mean 2000 -2002

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

Bundaberg

Hervey Bay

Tin Can Bay

Noosa

Mooloolaba

Moreton Bay

Southport

Coolangatta

Tonnes

Bream Crab - Blue Swimmer Crab - Mud

Mackerel Mullet Other

Shark Tailor Whiting

The two main species harvested in the Moreton Bay area are Mullet and blue swimmer crabs in 2000 to 2003.

Then next figure shows the increase in mean harvest by main species groups that occurred between 1990-92 and 2000-02. The species with the largest gain is the pot caught blue swimmer crab with and increase in harvest level of about 550t. Mullet harvest remained relatively consistent between the two periods although there was some movement in harvest levels between regions. Mackerel harvest increased between the two periods mainly as a result of an increase in spotted mackerel harvest in Moreton Bay. The harvest of tropical shark also increased between the two periods especially in the Bundaberg/Hervey Bay latitude bands.

45

Southern Inshore Fishery - Change in mean harvest level from 1990-92 to 2000-02 by major species groups

-400 -200 0 200 400 600 800

Bundaberg

Hervey Bay

Tin Can Bay

Noosa

Mooloolaba

Moreton Bay

Southport

Coolangatta

Tonnes

Bream Crab - Blue Swimmer Crab - Mud

Mackerel Mullet Other

Shark Tailor Whiting

Understanding how a fishery behaves often requires more than the mean performance data. Use of distributions as shown in the following figure provides better insight into how boats perform in the fishery. The mean boat GVP for 1990 to 1992 is about $39 000 and for the 2000 to 2003 period is about $57 000 as shown in the previous table.

When the two periods are compared a clear story emerges in the figure when the boat numbers in each GVP category are examined. Firstly, the proportion of the fleet earning less than $5000 in the two periods decreased from about 34% of the inshore fleet to about one quarter of the fleet. The $100 000 plus GVP category increased from about 14% of the fleet to around one fifth of the fleet, a doubling of the number of boats in this category (35 boats to 71 boats). Also the proportion on the fleet in the $20 000 to $40 000 class declined from 17% to 13% with more boats moving into higher income categories.

Secondly, when the less than $5000 category is excluded from the analysis there is an upward trend in the proportion of the fleet moving to higher GVP categories. The proportion of boats in the $5000 to $10 000 class declined from about 29% to 15%. In the $20 000 to $40 000 class the proportion remained about equal at about 26% while in the higher classes the proportion increased for example in the $80 000 to $100 000 class from 3% to 14% of the fleet. When the two periods are compared boats with a GVP in excess of $80 000 increased from 12 to 66. The effects of this increase can be seen in the following figure where the harvest by each GVP catch category is shown.

46

Southern Inshore Fishery - harvest by category when grouped by GVP category for fleet for two periods Net & Pot (n = 375)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Less 5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100 100 plus

GVP ($000)

Num

ber o

f boa

ts

Mean 90-92 Mean 00-02

Figure 28 Comparison of two periods for the Southern Inshore Fishery - GVP category by number of boats

Southern Inshore Fishery - harvest by category when grouped by GVP category for fleet for two periods Net & Pot

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Less 5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100 100 plusGVP ($000)

Tonn

es b

y ca

tego

ry

Mean 90-92 Mean 00-02

Figure 29 Comparison of two periods for the Southern Inshore Fishery - GVP category by Tonnes harvested by that group

The next table shows the changes that have occurred between the two indicator periods. Boat numbers are the indicator used for the two category types that have been used: Days fished and GVP category. Two major changes have occurred as reflected with the mean data in the previous table. Firstly there has been an increase in the number of boats increasing their annual fishing activity both in absolute and relative terms. The same comments apply to the GVP category analysis.

The other point to note is in the 150 plus days fished category that boat numbers have more than doubled in this group.

47

Table 20 Southern Inshore Fishery - Number of boats categorised by GVP and fishing effort for two study periods

1990 - 92 Days fished category Income category1 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 100 100 - 150 150 plus Boats Percent

Less 5 th 81 37 7 127 345 -10 th 16 10 30 8

10 - 20 th 9 13 10 42 1120 - 40 th 6 13 16 15 11 63 1740 - 60 th 6 7 11 9 37 1060 - 80 th 6 9 24 7

80 - 100 th 14 4100 - 150 th 6 6 18 5

150 plus 5 9 20 5Boats 89 75 59 49 50 49 371 100

Percent 24 20 16 13 13 13 100 2000-02 Days fished category Income category1 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 100 100 - 150 150 plus Boats Percent

Less 5 th 58 28 7 94 255 -10 th 12 11 29 8

10 - 20 th 10 13 11 44 1220 - 40 th 10 13 12 10 50 1340 - 60 th 6 10 16 39 1060 - 80 th 6 14 25 7

80 - 100 th 6 10 21 6100 - 150 th 7 16 29 8

150 plus 7 42 55 15Boats 63 57 53 49 53 110 373 100

Percent 17 15 14 13 14 30 100

7.3 Southern Inshore Fishery – Category Analysis

The Southern Inshore Fishery is complex with a potential combination of 15 fishing operation types. This analysis includes the pot, spanner crab, net and line fishing combinations and excludes those where the numbers are very small. Also in this analysis if a boat reported catching less that 10% by weight by one fishing method only the method catching the larger part of the harvest is assigned to that boat. For example, if a fishing operation harvested 8% of its total harvest weight by the line fishing methods and 92% from the net method then the fishing method would be recorded and net only.

Net fishing alone is the most popular fishing method in the Southern Inshore Fishery with about 58% using this method at the start of the period and 37% in the latter part. This is a decline of about 27% and a reduction by about 50 boats. At the same time the number of NetPot operations effectively doubled and increased from 10% of the inshore fleet to 20% in the latter part of the study period. Pot fishing only boats also increased by about one third as did the combination with line fishing.

Table 21 Southern Inshore Fishery - Combinations of use of Fishing gear – Summary of trends

Fishing category

Trend – boats by

year Mean boats

1990-92Mean boats

2000-02Percent change in boat numbers

% inshore fleet 1990-92

% inshore fleet 2000-02

LineNet 2.2 32 53 65 9 13 LineNetPot 1.0 6 15 137 2 4 LinePotSp -0.1 10 9 -10 3 2 Net -5.3 202 148 -27 58 37NetPot 4.7 36 82 127 10 20 Pot 2.7 41 62 50 12 15 PotPotSp 0.6 5 13 160 1 3 Other 0.0 17 21 25 5 5 Total 5.9 349 402 15 100 100

48

The data in the Table 24 and Figure 30 suggest that when reviewing management arrangements the net fishery consideration needs to be given to flow-on effects into fisheries where other fishing methods are used.

Southern Inshore Fisheries - percent inshore fleet using main fishing methods - Mean of 2000 - 2002

LineNet13%

LineNetPot4%

LinePotSp2%

Net38%

NetPot20%

Pot15%

PotPotSp3%

Other5%

Figure 30 Southern Inshore Fishery - mean use of fishing gear –2000- 2003

7.4 Southern Inshore Fishery - Performance in Individual Sectors

This section considers the performance of the Net and Pot sectors of the inshore fishery as independent activities.

Harvest from the net fishery remained consistent over the period while its contribution to the Southern Inshore Fishery declined from about 92% by weight to about 78%, mainly due to the increase in the Pot harvest. The effort applied to the Net fishery increased by about 11% to about 17 000 days and declined from about 64% of total effort to about half of the fishing effort in this fishery. Boats using net fishing gear declined by about 5% over the study period.

Mean daily net harvest remained about the same while the mean days per boat increased by about 18%. Mean annual GVP from the net operations increased by about 13% to about $39 000.

Pot harvest increased dramatically when the start and end of the periods are compared. There was a tripling of pot harvest with harvest increasing from about 300t to about 1000t. At the same time fishing effort as days fished effectively doubled and boat numbers increased by about 24%. Mean daily harvest increased by about 60% and mean number of days fished per boat each year increased from about 54 days to 90 days. Mean annual pot fishing income per boat increased to about $38 000 each year.

49

Table 22 Southern Inshore Fishery - Net & Pot indicators - Summary

Activity DataTrend -

Mean change by year

Mean 1990 - 1992

Mean 2000 – 2003

Percent change

% Mean 1990 - 1992

Total Southern

% Mean 2000 - 2003

Total Southern

Net Harvest (T) 12.4 3400 3553 5 92 78 Days fished 136.6 15036 16761 11 64 48 Boats -1.5 340 324 -5 91 86 GVP ($M) 0.1 12 13 7 82 60

Kg/day -1.2 226 210 -7 Days/boat 0.7 43 51 18Harvest/boat (T) 0.1 10 11 10GVP/day -3.0 806 774 -4 GVP/boat/year 365.2 34743 39342 13

Pot Harvest (T) 63.3 307 1017 231 8 22 Days fished 941.2 9785 19764 102 41 56 Boats 3.2 180 223 24 48 59 GVP ($M) 0.5 3 9 222 18 40

Kg/day 1.7 31 51 63Days/boat 3.5 54 89 63Harvest/boat (T) 0.3 2 5 167GVP/day 13.6 272 430 58GVP/boat/year 2139.9 14758 38220 159

Table 23 Southern Inshore Fishery – trends

Activity Item 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Net Catch (T) 3943 3559 2828 3813 2589 2720 3239 3206 2894 3703 3748 3505 4331 2823 Days fished 16184 15468 14981 14659 16761 15182 15047 15530 17148 17826 16571 16741 17137 16404 Boats 357 348 345 328 347 326 331 367 365 346 333 323 331 319 GVP ($M) 13.94 12.77 10.32 13.24 9.58 9.53 11.33 11.45 10.59 12.83 13.33 13.18 15.34 10.48 Kg/day 244 231 190 256 162 186 219 209 168 212 227 205 253 173 Days/boat 45 44 43 42 43 43 44 42 46 50 48 50 51 51 Catch/boat (T) 11.05 10.22 8.13 10.80 7.00 8.06 9.75 8.69 7.82 10.53 10.91 10.33 12.94 8.84 GVP/day 862 828 697 894 601 649 768 747 619 737 812 780 898 643 GVP/boat/year 39047 36697 29751 37781 25948 28212 34119 31068 28739 36552 38960 39285 45909 32832Pot Catch (T) 319 307 368 247 294 280 283 343 351 538 741 663 1176 1213 Days fished 9801 9391 10701 9263 12137 11179 11788 13195 14532 16267 18849 18455 20478 20360 Boats 218 175 191 174 195 186 194 185 210 214 226 213 222 234 GVP ($M) 2.74 2.62 3.15 2.22 2.65 2.50 2.52 3.07 3.09 4.65 6.34 5.67 9.82 10.20 Kg/day 33 33 34 27 26 25 24 26 24 33 40 36 57 60 Days/boat 45 53 56 53 58 60 60 70 69 75 83 86 92 87 Catch/boat (T) 1.46 1.75 1.93 1.43 1.50 1.52 1.46 1.85 1.68 2.51 3.27 3.10 5.29 5.23 GVP/day 280 280 295 240 232 226 215 235 215 288 338 308 480 503 GVP/boat/year 12584 14976 16500 12797 13567 13538 12984 16503 14814 21730 27945 26475 44204 43981

50

Southern Inshore Fishery - Trends

0

6000

12000

18000

24000

30000

36000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Day

s fis

hed

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Tonn

es

Net Catch (T) Pot Catch (T) Net Days fished

Pot Days fished Inshore Days fished

Figure 31 Southern Inshore Fisheries - Trends by Fishing Method

Trends by fishing method are shown in the adjacent figure. It clearly demonstrates that Net effort and harvest remained relatively consistent with little upward or downward trend. On the other hand pot-fishing effort increased substantially as well as pot harvest.

51

7.5 Southern Inshore Fishery – Species Analysis

Overall, annual net harvest from the Southern Inshore Fishery has declined slightly while harvest of crabs has effectively doubled. The decline in net harvested finfish is mainly the result of a decline in the mullet harvest. Harvest of the other net caught species has remained relatively consistent at about 1300t each year.

Mullet declined as a percentage of total harvest from around 60% to about 40% over the period with variation between years. At the same time crab harvest increased from about 8% to about 18% of annual harvest. The percentage contribution of finfish other than mullet varied around the 38% level.

Table 24 Southern Inshore Fishery - Summary of trends for the main species harvested

Species name Trend T/year

Mean1990-92

Mean 2000-02

Percentchange

Percenttotal harvest1990-1992

Percenttotal harvest2000-2003

% EC harvest Mean

1990 - 1992

% EC harvest Mean

2000 - 2003 Mullet* -9 2058 1888 -8 61 53 95 91 Whiting* 1 269 270 0 8 8 91 93 Tailor 1 153 206 34 5 6 100 100 Bream* -2 182 170 -7 5 5 94 94 Shark* 10 96 222 132 3 6 32 19 Mackerel - Spotted 14 28 199 607 1 6 57 67 Rabbitfish 4 54 87 62 2 2 47 99 Gar* 3 60 93 55 2 3 79 60 Flathead* -1 62 49 -21 2 1 96 99 Pilchards* 0 64 40 -37 2 1 99 99 Fish - Bait -11 103 22 -79 3 1 40 40 Mackerel - Grey -8 101 10 -90 3 0 53 12 Mackerel - School 5 6 62 1023 0 2 95 95 Dart 1 19 28 51 1 1 99 99 Luderick -2 36 14 -60 1 0 100 100 Other 8 109 199 82 3 6 23 35 Finfish total 13 3400 3560 5 100 100 77 63 Crab - Mud 9 82 179 118 27 18 22 22 Crab - Blue Swimmer 54 225 831 270 73 82 97 98 Crab - Total 63 307 1010 229 100 100 51 60 Total Inshore 76 3707 4571 23 74 62

Table 25 Southern Inshore Fishery – trends in main species harvested (t) Species name 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Mullet* 2317 2163 1627 2385 1303 1572 2064 1802 1373 2115 2278 1680 2519 1467Whiting* 301 284 258 265 257 205 216 254 330 308 295 234 311 266Tailor 242 168 127 165 112 188 131 167 143 193 139 249 253 116Bream* 220 213 165 169 137 128 209 149 180 141 156 180 184 145Shark* 121 111 75 100 184 143 152 191 146 190 178 242 204 220Mackerel - Spotted 4 4 21 59 96 64 97 120 157 48 117 279 237 80Rabbitfish 61 22 63 76 37 76 57 52 81 152 69 119 87 54Gar* 72 47 61 73 66 31 42 69 71 92 70 65 109 106Flathead* 79 71 61 56 54 51 44 52 58 57 68 54 46 48Pilchards* 51 19 6 167 44 6 110 100 124 46 33 61 25Fish - Bait 218 180 101 28 16 16 18 17 18 27 30 17 29 21Mackerel - Grey 108 123 100 81 28 12 11 17 25 23 27 7 12 10Mackerel - School 4 7 1 9 23 17 20 35 17 33 69 82 31 75Dart 22 16 8 33 25 51 21 41 17 34 22 38 24 24Luderick 46 41 47 20 16 9 13 16 36 24 15 19 12 12Other 77 90 111 128 190 156 137 116 145 144 170 221 216 161Finfish total 3943 3559 2828 3813 2590 2720 3239 3206 2895 3703 3750 3520 4333 2828 Crab - Mud 76 69 82 96 121 102 101 129 117 141 166 162 169 205Crab - Blue Swimmer 243 238 286 151 173 179 182 214 234 397 574 487 1005 1002Crab - Total 319 307 368 247 294 280 283 343 350 537 739 649 1174 1207 Total Inshore 4262 3865 3196 4060 2884 3000 3523 3550 3245 4241 4489 4169 5507 4036

52

Southern Inshore Fisheries - Trends major species groupings

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Tonnes

Mullet - All Other finfish Crabs

Figure 32 Southern Inshore Fisheries - Trends by main species groups

When mullet and the crab harvests are excluded from the analyses, whiting usually contribute about 20% of the finfish harvest, while bream and tailor each contribute about 12% of this harvest. Rabbitfish also known as black trevally, and shark each contribute about 9% and flathead, pilchards and garfish each contribute about 5% to this production. There is variability between the years due to the relative level of harvest for each of the species in any one-year.

Southern Inshore Fisheries - Trends for species excluding mullet & crabs

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Tonn

es

Whiting - All Tailor Bream - All Shark - All Mackerel - Spotted Other

Figure 33 Southern Inshore Fishery - Trends with species when Mullet and Crab harvests are excluded

53

The next figure shows the seasonality of main species groups harvest in the Southern inshore commercial fishery. The mean for the years 1998 to 2000 are shown because of the variation in yearly harvest of mullet in particular. Performance of the other species shown in the figure had relatively less variability.

During the ocean beach season from April to August the fishers licensed to operate from the ocean beaches typically harvest about 50% of the total inshore harvest, primarily landing mullet, tailor and dart. Peak months for mullet harvest tend to be June and July. At this time the ocean beach provides about 65% of the mullet harvest.

There are three phases throughout the year in harvest from this area.

Firstly, from January to May total monthly harvest is typically between 250t and 300t. Estuary mullet during this period provides about 30% of the harvest, blue swimmer crabs in March and April provide about 25% and the "other" category also provides about 30%. Within the "other" category are species such as flathead, shark, rabbitfish, gar and mud crab.

0

200

400

600

800

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Month

Har

vest

(t)

Bream Crab - Blue Swimmer Mackerel Ocean Beach MulletEstuary Mullet Other Tailor Whiting

Figure 34 Mean monthly harvest (t) for main species groups from the Southern Inshore Fishery from 1998 to 2000

The second phase is June and July. Mullet harvest dominates this period with typically about 70% of total harvest in each of these months with about half the monthly production coming from the ocean beaches.

The third phase is from August to December with a harvest of between 200t and 250t each month. Tailor harvest makes a substantial contribution to total harvest in August and September. The ocean beach fishers typically land about 85% of tailor harvest, the balance being harvested from estuaries as incidental harvest to other species such as mullet. August to October are the highest producing months for the whiting species group and these fish typically provide about 15% of total harvest during these months. Blue swimmer harvest commences to increase in September and the production tends to continue at about 50t each month through to May.

7.6 Southern Inshore – Net Sector

Within the Southern Inshore Fishery there are two sectors - the general inshore sector and the ocean beach net sector. The first part of this analysis treats the Southern Inshore Net fishery as a single entity. Later the two sectors will be examined separately.

54

The next table and the two associated figures provide an alternative way to view the performance of those taking part in the whole net sector of the Southern Inshore Net Fishery. The first part of the analysis presents an overview with the ocean beach fishers’ performance included with the other net fishers in this sector. Later analysis will separate out these two components.

The number of boats in the one to nine category (1 – 10) has declined between the two periods. At the same time the percent in that category declined from 31% to 26%. Overall the number and percent in the other categories remains about the same apart from the 150 plus days fished. In this category the numbers and the boats as a percent of the fleet effectively doubled. This indicates that effort as days fished by boat each year has increased as shown in table “Net & Pot indicators – summary” with an overall gain of about 18%. The table indicates that most of the gain came from a reduction in the number of boats in the 1 – 10 category with an overall increase in fishing effort by all boats

When the grouping by income categories is examined differences between the two periods can be seen. The proportion of boats in the less than $5000 category has declined from 40% to 34% At the same time the proportion of boats in the $100 000 plus GVP category has increased from 8% to 13% with a net increase of 13 boats in this group. The number of boats by GVP category for the two periods is shown in the next figure for the Southern Inshore Fishery Net sector.

Table 26 Southern Inshore Fishery - Net Sector - distribution of fishing income and fishing effort

1990 - 92 Days fished category Income category 1 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 100 100 - 150 150 plus Boats Percent

Less 5 th1 93 37 5 1 136 405 -10 th 4 17 10 31 9

10 - 20 th 3 9 12 7 2 34 1020 - 40 th 2 7 14 13 9 2 48 1440 - 60 th 5 6 8 8 2 29 960 - 80 th 1 1 4 6 3 3 19 6

80 - 100 th 1 2 2 3 1 10 3100 - 150 th 3 3 7 2 15 4

150 plus 0 0 2 4 5 3 14 4Boats 103 77 58 44 37 14 336 100

Percent 31 23 17 13 11 4 100

2000-02 Days fished category Income category 1 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 100 100 - 150 150 plus Boats Percent

Less 5 th 75 29 5 1 110 345 -10 th 4 15 13 2 34 11

10 - 20 th 3 13 13 10 2 42 1320 - 40 th 1 10 9 12 7 4 43 1340 - 60 th 3 6 5 5 2 22 760 - 80 th 1 3 3 6 4 18 5

80 - 100 th 0 2 4 4 3 14 4100 - 150 th 1 3 8 4 3 19 6

150 plus 0 2 3 4 3 8 21 7Boats 84 74 57 50 32 25 323 100

Percent 26 23 18 15 10 9 100 1 Thousand $

55

Southern Inshore Fishery - number of boats when grouped by GVP category for fleet for two periods Net

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Less 5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100 100 plus

GVP ($000)

Boa

ts

Mean 90-92 Mean 00-02

Figure 35 Southern Inshore Net Fishery - number of boats when grouped by income category

The next figure shows the amount of harvest by the GVP categories for the two periods examined. The influence of the mullet harvest can be seen with the $150 000 category and about 2000t being landed by this group of fishers.

Southern Inshore Fishery - harvest by category when grouped by GVP category for fleet for two periods Net

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Less 5 5 - 10 10 - 20 20 - 40 40 - 60 60 - 80 80 - 100 100 plusGVP ($000)

Tonn

es b

y ca

tego

ry

Mean 90-92 Mean 00-02

Figure 36 Southern Inshore Net Fishery - Harvest level when grouped by income category

7.6.1 Ocean beach sector- net harvest (April to August)

The analysis from here to the end uses preliminary 2003 data The ocean beach sector effectively extends from the New South Wales border to the top of Fraser Island. The boats that are endorsed to operate in this fishery (K symbol) have exclusive access to the ocean beaches only from April to August each year. During the remainder of the year other “net” boats may operate from the ocean beaches. Along the ocean beaches the area has been divided into zones where

56

only specified boats can work. This was one of the first fishery sectors to explicitly use zones for fishery management purposes.

There are other interesting features that apply to this fishery. The most interesting one is that fishers that own a “K” symbol often work as team rather than as individual fishers competing to harvest mullet and tailor schools as the schools work their way north during this part of the year. This approach has many benefits including being able to handle large quantities of fish quickly and efficiently.

Table 27 Ocean Beach sector - Summary of performance

Data Trend Mean 90-92

Mean 01-03

Percent change

Catch (t) -17.8 936 648 -31 Days 2.7 725 849 17

GVP ($m) -0.1 3 2 -31 Boats 0.3 33 40 21

Kg/day -27.1 1288 768 -40Days/boat -0.1 22 22 -3

T/boat -0.7 29 16 -43GVP/boat -2153 87653 49387 -44GVP/day -85 3919 2313 -41

The overall harvest trend has been downward by about 30% for the study period examined. At the same time the fishing effort reported as days fished has increased. It is unwise to draw the conclusion that applied fishing effort has increased over the study period, as there could have been a change in fisher behaviour with changes in the number and size of fishing teams. This is also reflected in the increase in the number of boats reporting harvest during the ocean beach sector fishing season

At the same time the mean harvest per day declined by about 40% with no effective change in the number of days fished per boat. The flow-on effect of lower mean daily harvest with mean days fished remaining about the same a decline in the tonnage harvest per boat and a decline in the mean income per boat both on an annual and daily basis.

The next figure plots the changes in total harvest and the mean daily harvest rate.

Ocean Beach Harvest

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Har

vest

(t)

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

2100

Mea

n da

ily h

arve

st (k

g)

Catch (t) Kg/day

Figure 37 Ocean beach sector - trends in total harvest and mean daily performance

57

Table 28 Ocean beach sector - trends in performance

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Catch (t) 855 685 1269 532 719 809 856 618 774 897 576 761 547 634 Days 620 750 806 800 995 979 1189 1037 812 748 584 797 880 871 GVP ($m) 2.60 2.10 3.83 1.61 2.17 2.45 2.58 1.87 2.33 2.70 1.74 2.29 1.65 1.91 Boats 32 34 32 37 42 44 48 51 38 34 32 41 42 36 Kg/day 1378 913 1574 666 723 826 720 596 953 1199 987 955 622 728 Days/boat 19 22 25 22 24 22 25 20 21 22 18 19 21 24 t/boat 26.7 20.1 39.6 14.4 17.1 18.4 17.8 12.1 20.4 26.4 18.0 18.6 13.0 17.6 GVP/boat 81377 61850 119731 43647 51715 55727 53795 36659 61224 79407 54307 55891 39321 52948 GVP/day 4200 2804 4754 2019 2183 2505 2172 1803 2865 3609 2976 2875 1877 2188

Mullet is the dominant species harvested from the Ocean beach sector of the Southern Inshore Fishery with about 90% of this sectors harvest. Mullet harvest declined by about 30% and this is reflected in the total harvest from third sector.

Table 29 Ocean Beach Sector - Summary of performance by major species

Species name Trend

Mean 90-92

Mean 01-03

Percentchange

Percent total Harvest 1990-92

Percent total harvest 2001-03

Mullet* -15.2 838 574 -31 90 89 Tailor -1.2 61 51 -16 7 8 Dart 0.0 7 7 -4 1 1

Bream* -0.8 13 3 -73 1 1 Other -0.5 17 12 -32 2 2 Total -17.8 936 648 -31 100 100

Tailor is the next most important species in the ocean beach sector with about 7% of the total landings. There was a decline in harvest of around 16% when the two indicator periods are considered.

The trends in harvest of the main species in this sector are shown on the next figure.

Ocean Beach sector - species harvest

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Tonn

es -

Non

mul

let s

peci

es

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Tonn

es M

ulle

t

Tailor Dart Bream - All Other Mullet - All

Figure 38 Ocean beach sector m- trends in main species harvested

58

Table 30 Ocean beach sector - trends in main species harvested

Species name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Mullet* 770 590 1154 440 611 684 727 514 651 832 500 663 499 561Tailor 47 52 85 61 87 81 95 65 87 46 58 79 33 42Dart 7 3 10 9 7 7 13 6 11 4 8 6 4 9Bream* 14 17 8 6 4 14 6 8 4 5 2 1 3 5Other 17 23 12 17 10 23 15 25 20 9 9 12 7 16Total 855 685 1269 532 719 809 856 618 774 897 576 761 547 634

7.6.2 Non Ocean beach sector- Net harvest

The non-ocean beach net sector extends south from Baffle Creek to the New South Wales border and includes the net harvest from the estuarine parts of the rivers in this area, the estuaries such as Hervey and Moreton Bays and the harvest from the ocean beaches from September to March. As such is a dynamic and complex fishery with many species harvested all generally focused on the local and other Australian markets.

This part of the Southern Inshore Net sector mainly harvests subtropical and temperate species such as mullet, tailor, “inshore” whiting such as yellow finned whiting and yellow finned bream. There are also neritic species such as spotted mackerel harvested from this area.

The overall trend is upwards with a 13% increase between the two study periods. At the same time boat numbers declined slightly by about 7% and total fishing effort measured as days fished increased by about 10%.

Mean daily harvest remained at about the same level at about 180 kg/day while the mean number of days per boat increased by about 20%..This resulted in the flow-on effect of higher income per boat both on an annual and daily basis.

Table 31 Non ocean beach part - Southern Inshore Fishery - summary of performance

Item Trend Mean 90-92

Mean 01-03

Percent change

Catch (t) 43.7 2464 2777 13 Boats -2.2 338 314 -7 Days 147.9 13863 15256 10

GVP ($m) 0.2 9 11 13 Kg/day 1.1 178 181 2

Days/boat 0.8 41 49 19T/boat 0.2 7 9 21

GVP/boat 727.3 27795 33715 21GVP/day 5.0 679 693 2

The overall trends and detail for this fishery are shown in the next figure and table.

Table 32 Non ocean beach part - Southern Inshore Fishery - net sector - trends

Item 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Catch (t) 2704 2144 2544 2057 2000 2431 2351 2276 2930 2952 2929 3578 2392 2361

Boats 345 343 327 345 323 326 363 358 344 329 320 327 314 300 Days 14761 13888 12939 14241 13201 13568 14047 15866 16307 15210 15555 16184 15557 14026

GVP ($m) 10 8 10 8 7 9 9 9 11 11 12 13 9 9 Kg/day 183 154 197 144 152 179 167 143 180 194 188 221 154 168

Days/boat 43 40 40 41 41 42 39 44 47 46 49 49 50 47T/boat 8 6 8 6 6 7 6 6 9 9 9 11 8 8

GVP/boat 29847 24315 29222 23529 23064 27627 24912 24917 30835 33876 36905 40856 29695 30593GVP/day 698 601 739 570 564 664 644 562 650 733 759 826 599 654

59

Southern Net Sector - Net harvest not including Ocean Beach Harvest

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Net

har

vest

(t)

0

100

200

300

400

Mea

n ca

tch

per d

ay (k

g)

Catch (t) Kg/day

Figure 39 Non ocean beach part - Southern Inshore Fishery - net sector - trends

This part of the Southern Inshore Fishery, the net sector, has about 14 species groups that are harvested. Mullet dominates with about 50% of the total harvest with the whiting complex providing about 10% of the net landings. Mullet harvest increased by about 11% over the study period while whiting harvest remained about the same. The next most important groups of species was bream, shark and tailor. Bream harvest decline f5om about 170 t at the start of the period to about 150t at the period end. At the same time shark harvest effectively doubled with most of this harvest coming from the northern part of the region from Hervey Bay north. Tailor from the estuaries and outside the ocean beach sector contributed about 4% of the total harvest with harvest around the 100t mark.

There were large changes in the spotted mackerel harvest with a threefold increase over the period.

The other species listed in the table contribute minor amounts to the commercial fishery.

Table 33 Non ocean beach part of the Southern Inshore Fishery - Net Sector - Summary of trends.

Species name Trend Mean 90-92

Mean 01-03

Percent change



Mullet* 17.2 1221 1355 11 50 49 Whiting* 1.5 263 270 2 11 10 Bream* -1.2 170 150 -12 7 5 Shark* 8.6 94 195 108 4 7 Tailor 3.0 92 108 18 4 4

Mackerel - Spotted 11.9 28 151 438 1 5 Gar* 3.0 59 91 54 2 3

Rabbitfish 2.5 53 62 16 2 2 Flathead* -1.1 62 44 -29 3 2 Fish - Bait -5.8 103 29 -71 4 1 Pilchards* -0.1 62 38 -39 3 1

Mackerel - Grey -6.6 101 13 -87 4 0 Mackerel - School 5.8 6 62 1019 0 2

Luderick -1.4 31 11 -66 1 0 Dart 0.6 12 20 63 0 1

Other 5.6 108 178 66 4 6 Total 43.7 2464 2777 13 100 100

60

Table 34 35 Non ocean beach pert of the Southern Inshore Fishery - Net Sector - Trends

Species name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Mullet* 1393 1037 1232 863 961 1380 1075 859 1464 1546 1180 1862 1081 1122Whiting* 281 249 259 254 201 207 248 326 304 292 233 308 263 238Bream* 199 148 161 131 124 195 143 171 137 150 178 183 142 124Shark* 108 74 100 184 143 152 190 146 190 178 242 204 219 161Tailor 120 75 80 52 102 50 72 77 107 93 191 174 83 68Mackerel - spotted 4 21 59 96 64 97 120 157 48 117 279 237 79 137Gar* 46 60 72 63 31 41 68 69 90 70 64 108 101 65Rabbitfish 22 63 75 37 76 57 52 81 151 69 119 87 54 44Flathead* 70 60 56 53 51 43 51 57 57 68 54 47 48 38Fish - Bait 180 101 28 16 15 16 16 16 25 27 16 29 21 39Pilchards* 17 5 166 39 0 2 108 95 116 46 33 61 25 28Mackerel - Grey 122 100 81 28 12 11 17 25 23 27 7 12 10 16Mackerel - School 7 1 9 23 17 20 35 17 33 69 82 31 75 81Luderick 37 38 18 14 9 12 15 32 20 13 17 10 11 11Dart 9 4 23 17 44 14 28 11 23 18 30 17 20 22Other 88 109 126 186 152 135 113 138 142 167 203 209 158 168Total 2704 2144 2544 2057 2000 2431 2351 2276 2930 2952 2929 3578 2392 2361

Southern Net Sector - excluding Ocean Beach harvest

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Tonn

es

Mullet - All Whiting - All Bream - All Shark - All Tailor Mackerel - Spotted

Figure 40 Non ocean beach part of the Southern Inshore Fishery - Net Sector - Trends

61

Appendix A – Trend Tables

Table 35 Queensland (TOTAL) inshore commercial fishery –trends in main species harvested (t)

Species name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Mullet* 2,295 1,776 2,750 1,532 1,777 2,349 2,016 1,514 2,275 2,514 1,846 2,704 1,817 2,122 Shark* 495 461 565 692 785 996 889 892 1,046 1,089 1,463 1,601 1,540 1,922 Barramundi 574 777 528 588 537 600 681 607 754 892 863 960 938 809 Threadfin - King 552 614 525 461 319 325 381 328 419 446 424 554 527 400 Mackerel - Grey 303 186 185 122 184 188 322 556 466 403 472 550 462 616 Whiting* 322 293 285 278 219 228 271 344 321 310 254 330 295 331 Bream* 233 181 209 150 137 223 161 192 153 167 202 194 156 171 Threadfin - Blue 175 186 193 201 220 183 191 168 147 152 135 209 219 288 Tailor 172 127 171 116 189 131 168 147 194 141 250 251 122 122 Mackerel - Spotted 37 28 84 133 70 121 149 232 118 153 425 285 187 180 Gar* 67 78 100 86 49 67 105 107 119 104 107 169 198 222 Rabbitfish 120 130 105 38 82 57 54 82 153 72 121 88 65 68 Fish – Bait* 185 106 36 19 23 26 22 28 42 46 29 40 35 82 Flathead* 79 72 68 63 57 53 58 66 63 76 60 54 56 58 Queenfish 54 42 45 51 50 50 55 59 62 57 59 80 96 168 Pilchards* 20 6 167 52 0 6 120 101 135 52 74 66 46 45 Mackerel - School 9 2 12 30 27 24 46 32 39 89 94 36 89 123 Dart 26 17 40 33 57 26 49 25 38 26 41 28 30 54 Other 142 183 224 272 280 281 273 337 248 249 307 362 337 383 Finfish total 5,859 5,265 6,289 4,917 5,062 5,934 6,013 5,820 6,792 7,039 7,225 8,562 7,216 8,164 Crab - Mud 412 397 432 464 447 453 534 590 672 804 997 1,000 992 1,134 Crab - Blue Swimmer 253 307 178 191 186 185 217 241 408 589 494 1,028 1,030 1,376 Crab - Total 665 704 611 655 634 638 752 831 1,081 1,395 1,506 2,029 2,028 2,574 *A number of species comprise the harvest D:\Documents and Settings\willial\My Documents\RC & T2000\Inshore July 2004\[Regional spp 07 04.xls]Base species/CP8

Table 36 Queensland EAST COAST Inshore commercial fishery - trends in main species harvested (t)

Species name 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Mullet* 2,257 1,761 2,528 1,416 1,727 2,296 2,004 1,505 2,252 2,511 1,844 2,699 1,804 2,114Shark* 289 276 342 491 463 509 535 584 699 725 1,071 1,227 1,149 1,493Whiting* 307 287 270 270 217 226 268 343 320 309 254 330 295 331Barramundi 154 219 142 165 156 155 150 171 195 231 251 233 199 300Bream* 224 178 183 145 135 220 159 191 153 167 197 194 156 170Tailor 168 127 167 113 189 131 168 143 194 140 249 251 118 122Mackerel - Spotted 35 27 84 132 70 121 149 232 118 153 425 285 186 180Mackerel - Grey 265 157 150 83 70 59 81 177 96 94 48 78 115 240Threadfin - Blue 99 130 106 134 131 105 98 115 78 91 94 142 136 192Gar* 66 75 88 77 47 64 102 106 118 104 105 165 194 220Threadfin - King 87 111 84 109 92 74 87 84 84 95 106 80 83 127Rabbitfish 117 126 102 37 76 57 52 81 153 72 121 88 65 68Fish - Bait 185 105 34 18 22 26 22 28 42 46 29 40 34 81Flathead* 77 71 64 62 57 53 58 66 63 76 60 54 56 58Pilchards* 20 6 167 44 0 6 111 101 129 52 41 65 46 45Queenfish 37 29 32 43 32 31 39 47 48 44 49 64 70 142Mackerel - School 9 2 12 30 25 24 46 32 39 89 94 36 89 123Dart 22 16 38 30 56 25 48 24 38 26 40 28 29 54Other 113 159 159 200 191 211 190 275 187 201 242 277 223 275Finfish total 4,531 3,862 4,751 3,600 3,757 4,395 4,366 4,307 5,006 5,227 5,320 6,336 5,047 6,334 Crab - Mud 412 397 432 464 447 453 534 590 672 804 997 1,000 992 1,134Crab - Blue Swimmer 253 307 178 191 186 185 217 241 408 589 494 1,028 1,030 1,376Crab - Total 665 704 611 655 634 638 752 831 1,081 1,395 1,506 2,029 2,028 2,574 Total harvest 5,197 4,566 5,361 4,255 4,390 5,033 5,118 5,138 6,087 6,621 6,826 8,366 7,075 8,908*A number of species comprise the harvest

62

Table 37 Northern Inshore Fishery Overall trends

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Harvest (T) 1290 1332 1260 1359 1376 1460 1498 1788 1817 1982 2524 2713 2721 3615Boats 487 469 415 416 409 439 450 499 465 476 486 505 480 477Days fished 26612 26265 24639 26447 25226 25241 25733 31520 31264 33715 36548 37023 36981 42908GVP ($m) 8.3 8.2 8.0 8.7 8.7 8.9 9.3 11.4 12.3 13.6 17.3 18.2 17.9 23.5 Kg/day c 52 56 56 55 58 60 59 58 59 60 69 74 74 85Days/boat c 50 49 48 53 55 54 56 61 66 69 72 73 77 89Harvest/boat (T) 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.1 5.0 5.3 5.7 7.6GVP/day ($) 332 345 356 356 366 364 367 370 402 410 481 495 485 552GVP/boat ($) 16764 16786 17187 18991 20272 19781 20528 22716 26472 28481 34778 35929 37248 49321

Table 38 Northern Inshore Fishery - Trends in species harvest

Species name 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Shark* 265 178 201 242 307 320 358 344 438 509 546 829 1022 928Barramundi 160 151 215 138 162 152 148 144 167 187 222 240 222 194Mullet* 87 93 134 118 112 156 232 202 131 136 132 162 172 205Threadfin - Blue 104 95 123 103 124 121 103 95 110 74 89 86 134 131Threadfin - King 65 76 103 78 92 81 67 80 75 73 85 93 73 74Mackerel - Grey 116 142 57 69 55 58 48 65 153 72 67 41 66 105Trevally 3 2 10 40 76 74 100 93 85 112 84 83 93 75Mackerel - Spotted 16 31 6 25 36 6 24 29 75 71 37 146 48 106Gar* 20 19 14 15 12 16 21 33 35 26 34 40 55 91Rabbitfish 61 95 63 27 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1Whiting* 15 24 28 30 13 12 10 14 13 12 14 18 18 26Other 92 110 121 130 145 156 170 185 258 189 206 196 224 249Finfish total 1003 1016 1077 1014 1134 1151 1281 1284 1541 1461 1520 1937 2125 2185 Crab - Mud 239 299 275 292 304 309 284 311 341 480 554 674 666 612Crab - Blue Swimmer 4 3 8 11 8 6 2 3 6 11 14 6 23 12Crab total 243 302 282 303 312 315 285 313 348 491 568 680 688 624 Total Inshore 1246 1318 1360 1316 1446 1467 1566 1597 1889 1952 2087 2617 2814 2809

63

Appendix B - Alternate way to plot distributions

Northern Inshore Fishery – total harvest

A different method of plotting the data in the previous figure provides more insights about behaviour in the fishery. The figure below plots the cumulative percent of boats sorted from the lowest to highest income category for the two periods. As shown in the previous table boats reporting inshore fishing activity increased from about 470 to 490, a 7% increase over the period.

This figure allows direct estimation of the changes, in this case over the two time periods examined.

The vertical line on the $20 000 to $40 000 GVP category shows that cumulative percentage of boats harvesting less that $40 000 of product declined from about 87% of the fleet in 1990/92 to 70% of the fleet in 2001/03, a decline of 17%. This line also shows that 13% of the fleet harvested more than $40 000 of product in 1990/02 while about 30% of the fleet harvested more than this amount in 2001/03.

The second vertical line is on the $80 000 to $100 000 category. It shows that 10% of the fleet in 2001/03 harvested more than $100 000 of product compared to 1990/02 when only about 3% of the fleet were in this category.

Using these cumulative functions allows predictions about the effects on management changes to be estimated easily.

Northern Inshore Fishery - Distribution of boat GVP - Cumulative %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Le ss2 th

2 - 5th

5 -10th

10 -20 th

20 -40 th

40 -60 th

60 -80 th

80 -100th

100 -125th

125 -150th

150 -200th

200 -250th

250 -300th

300 -400th

400plus

Cum

ulat

ive

%

Mean 90-92 Percent Cum Mean 01-03 Percent Cum

Figure 41 Northern Inshore Fishery - Number of boats by GVP categories for two periods – cumulative percent by category

App

endi

x 3.

Net

Lic

ence

End

orse

men

ts

Sym

bol

Perm

itted

fish

Net

type

N

et s

ize

Are

aM

isce

llane

ous

Cas

t net

s S

6M

ax. 6

m in

dia

met

er

Max

. 28m

m m

esh

Eas

t of L

ongi

tude

142

0 09’

Mes

h or

sei

ne

nets

S7(

1)

Max

. 600

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze fr

om 1

2mm

to

45m

m

Sou

th o

f a li

ne fr

om th

e N

orth

ban

k of

Bur

nett

R. t

o S

andy

Cap

e an

d E

ast t

o Q

ld. j

uris

dict

ion

line

Mes

h or

sei

ne

nets

S7(

2)

Max

. 400

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze fr

om 1

2mm

to

45m

m

Mor

eton

Bay

H

erve

y B

ay, G

reat

San

dy S

trait

betw

een

two

lines

: -

Sou

ther

n ba

nk o

f The

odol

ite

Cre

ek to

Arc

h C

liff o

n fra

ser

Isla

nd-

Eas

tern

tip

of In

skip

Poi

nt to

H

ook

Poi

nt o

n Fr

aser

Isla

nd

N6

(172

3)

Any

fish

exc

ept

barr

amun

di

Mes

h or

sei

ne

nets

S7(

3)

Max

. 200

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze fr

om 2

5mm

to

45m

m

Riv

ers

and

Cre

eks

A m

esh

or s

eine

net

use

d fro

m 1

Apr

il to

31

Aug

ust

mus

t hav

e a

max

imum

le

ngth

of 2

00m

and

mes

h si

ze fr

om 1

2mm

to 2

5mm

Sym

bol

Perm

itted

fish

Net

type

N

et s

ize

Are

aM

isce

llane

ous

Mes

h or

sei

ne

nets

S15

Max

. 800

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m

Sou

th o

f the

nor

ther

n ba

nk o

f B

affle

Cre

ek

A m

esh

or s

eine

net

mus

t not

be

use

d fro

m 1

Apr

il to

31

Aug

ust i

n th

e ar

ea o

f the

oc

ean

bean

net

fish

ery

N7

(7)

Any

fish

exc

ept

barr

amun

di

Mes

h or

sei

ne

nets

S16

Max

. 400

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m

Nor

th o

f the

nor

ther

n ba

nk o

f Baf

fle

Cre

ekN

o rin

g ne

ts n

orth

of t

he

sout

hern

ban

k of

End

eavo

ur

Riv

er

Sym

bol

Perm

itted

fish

Net

type

N

et s

ize

Are

aM

isce

llane

ous

Sei

ne n

et

S23

Max

. 25m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

25

mm

(onl

y to

take

pr

awns

)

Lake

Wey

ba

Mes

h ne

t S

24M

ax. 1

500m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

50

mm

Lake

s C

ooth

arab

a, C

ooro

ibah

and

W

eyba

Sei

ne n

et

S25

Max

. 100

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

45m

m

Nor

th o

f the

nor

ther

n ba

nk o

f Mar

y R

iver

Poc

ket n

ot m

ore

than

qua

rter

of n

et le

ngth

and

Mes

h si

ze a

t le

ast 3

1mm

Mes

h ne

t S

26M

ax. 6

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

88

mm

Wes

tern

hal

f of H

erve

y B

ay

Mes

h or

Sei

ne

nets

S28

Max

. 400

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m

Nor

th o

f the

nor

ther

n ba

nk o

f Baf

fle

Cre

ekN

o rin

g ne

ts n

orth

of t

he

sout

hern

ban

k of

End

eavo

ur

Riv

er

N1

(789

)

Any

fish

exc

ept

barr

amun

diea

st o

f Lo

ngitu

de14

20 09’

Onl

y ce

rtain

fis

h m

ay b

e ta

rget

edbe

twee

n th

e lo

ngitu

des

1420 31

’ 49”

&

1420 09

’(T

he B

amag

a re

gion

)

Mes

h or

Sei

ne

nets

S27

Max

. 800

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m

Sou

th o

f the

nor

ther

n ba

nk o

f B

affle

Cre

ek

Mus

t not

be

used

from

1 A

pril

to 3

1 A

ugus

t in

the

area

of t

he

ocea

n be

an n

et fi

sher

y

Mes

h ne

t S

29M

ax. 2

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

15

0mm

and

mus

t not

be

gre

ater

than

24

5mm

Offs

hore

wat

ers

of K

eppe

l Bay

Mes

h ne

t S

30M

ax. 6

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

15

0mm

and

mus

t not

be

gre

ater

than

24

5mm

Offs

hore

wat

ers

Two

nets

join

ed to

120

0m if

us

ed n

orth

of C

ape

Mor

eton

in

wat

ers

deep

er th

an 2

0m

Mes

h or

Sei

ne

nets

S31

Max

. 400

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m fo

r rin

g ne

t.

Max

. 200

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m fo

r rin

g ne

t.

Riv

ers

and

Cre

eks

Bot

h en

ds m

ay b

e fix

ed fo

r a

max

imum

of 1

hou

r if i

t is

used

bet

wee

n C

ape

Glo

uces

ter a

nd S

t Law

renc

e C

reek

and

has

a m

esh

of n

o gr

eate

r tha

n 75

mm

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S32

Max

. 120

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

150m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

215m

mM

ax. d

rop

of 5

0 m

eshe

s

Riv

ers

and

Cre

eks

betw

een

Kau

ri an

d B

affle

Cre

eks

N1

Any

fish

exc

ept

barr

amun

diea

st o

f Lo

ngitu

de14

20 09’

Onl

y ce

rtain

fis

h m

ay b

e ta

rget

edbe

twee

n th

e lo

ngitu

des

1420 31

’ 49”

&

1420 09

’(T

he B

amag

a re

gion

)

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S33

Max

. 600

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

88m

m

Wes

tern

hal

f of H

erve

y B

ay

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S34

Max

. 120

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

100m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

245m

mM

ax. d

rop

of 5

0 m

eshe

s

Fore

shor

es b

etw

een

the

north

ern

bank

of t

he B

urne

tt R

iver

and

the

north

ern

bank

of B

affle

Cre

ek

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S35

Max

. 200

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

150m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

245m

m

Offs

hore

wat

ers

of K

eppe

l Bay

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S36

Max

. 600

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

150m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

245m

m

Offs

hore

wat

ers

Two

nets

join

ed to

120

0m if

us

ed n

orth

of C

ape

Mor

eton

in

wat

ers

deep

er th

an 2

0m

Set

poc

ket n

ets

S37

Max

. 10m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

25

mm

Fitz

roy,

Kol

an, B

urne

tt, A

lber

t and

Lo

gan

Riv

ers

A s

ectio

n of

Mar

y R

iver

N1

Any

fish

exc

ept

barr

amun

diea

st o

f Lo

ngitu

de14

20 09’

Onl

y ce

rtain

fis

h m

ay b

e ta

rget

edbe

twee

n th

e lo

ngitu

des

1420 31

’ 49”

&

1420 09

’(T

he B

amag

a re

gion

)

Tunn

el n

ets

Max

. 170

0m in

leng

th

(exc

ludi

ng tu

nnel

) M

esh

at le

ast 4

4mm

ex

cept

400

m e

ach

side

of t

unne

l whi

ch is

at

leas

t 25m

m

Max

. Tun

nel 2

00m

M

esh

in T

unne

l not

gr

eate

r tha

n 50

mm

Par

ts o

f Mor

eton

Bay

, Tin

Can

Bay

an

d G

reat

San

dy S

trait

Sym

bol

Perm

itted

fish

Net

type

N

et s

ize

Are

aM

isce

llane

ous

Mes

h ne

t S

47M

ax. 6

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

88

mm

Offs

hore

wat

ers

of th

e w

este

rn h

alf

of H

erve

y B

ay

N8

(2)

Any

fish

exc

ept

barr

amun

diea

st o

f Lo

ngitu

de14

20 09’

Onl

y ce

rtain

fis

h m

ay b

e ta

rget

edbe

twee

n th

e lo

ngitu

des

1420 31

’ 49”

&

1420 09

’(T

he B

amag

a re

gion

)

Mes

h ne

t S

48M

ax. 6

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

15

0mm

and

mus

t not

be

gre

ater

than

24

5mm

Offs

hore

wat

ers

Two

nets

join

ed to

120

0m if

us

ed n

orth

of C

ape

Mor

eton

in

wat

ers

deep

er th

an 2

0m

Sym

bol

Perm

itted

fish

Net

type

N

et s

ize

Are

aM

isce

llane

ous

Mes

h or

Sei

ne

nets

S73

Max

. 800

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m

Wat

ers

betw

een

the

north

ern

bank

of

Baf

fle C

reek

and

the

sout

hern

ba

nk o

f Kau

ri C

reek

Mus

t not

be

used

from

1 A

pril

to 3

1 A

ugus

t in

the

area

of t

he

ocea

n be

an n

et fi

sher

y

Mes

h ne

t S

74M

ax. 6

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

15

0mm

and

mus

t not

be

gre

ater

than

24

5mm

Offs

hore

wat

ers

Two

nets

join

ed to

120

0m if

us

ed n

orth

of C

ape

Mor

eton

in

wat

ers

deep

er th

an 2

0m.

Mus

t not

be

used

from

1 A

pril

to 3

1 A

ugus

t in

the

area

of t

he

ocea

n be

an n

et fi

sher

y

Mes

h or

Sei

ne

nets

S75

Max

. 400

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m fo

r rin

g ne

t.

Max

. 200

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

50m

m fo

r rin

g ne

t.

Riv

ers

and

Cre

eks

N5

(4)

Any

fish

may

be

take

n

Mes

h ne

ts

S76

Max

. 600

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

88m

m

Wes

tern

hal

f of H

erve

y B

ay

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S77

Max

. 600

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

150m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

245m

m

Offs

hore

wat

ers

Two

nets

join

ed to

120

0m if

us

ed n

orth

of C

ape

Mor

eton

in

wat

ers

deep

er th

an 2

0m.

Mus

t not

be

used

from

1 A

pril

to 3

1 A

ugus

t in

the

area

of t

he

ocea

n be

an n

et fi

sher

y

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S78

Max

. 120

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

150m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

215m

mM

ax. d

rop

of 5

0 m

eshe

s

Riv

ers

and

Cre

eks

betw

een

Kau

ri an

d B

affle

Cre

eks

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S79

Max

. 600

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

88m

m

Wes

tern

hal

f of H

erve

y B

ay

N5

Any

fish

may

be

take

n

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S80

Max

. 120

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

100m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

215m

mM

ax. d

rop

of 5

0 m

eshe

s

The

fore

shor

es b

etw

een

the

north

ern

bank

of B

urne

tt riv

er a

nd

the

north

ern

bank

of B

affle

cre

ek

Mus

t not

be

used

from

1 A

pril

to 3

1 A

ugus

t in

the

area

of t

he

ocea

n be

an n

et fi

sher

y M

ust n

ot b

e us

ed b

etw

een

1 S

epte

mbe

r and

1 F

ebru

ary

Tunn

el n

ets

S81

Tunn

el n

ets

Max

. 170

0m in

leng

th (e

xclu

ding

tu

nnel

)M

esh

at le

ast 4

4mm

exc

ept 4

00m

ea

ch s

ide

of tu

nnel

whi

ch is

at

leas

t 25m

m

Max

. Tun

nel 2

00m

Mes

h in

Tun

nel

not g

reat

er th

an 5

0mm

Sym

bol

Perm

itted

fish

Net

type

N

et s

ize

Are

aM

isce

llane

ous

N2

(229

)

Any

fish

exc

ept

Cor

al re

ef

finfis

h an

d sp

otte

dm

acke

rel

Onl

y ce

rtain

fis

h m

ay b

e ta

rget

edbe

twee

n th

e lo

ngitu

des

1420 31

’ 49”

&

1420 09

’(T

he B

amag

a re

gion

)

Set

mes

h ne

t S

99M

ax. 6

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

10

0mm

and

mus

t not

be

gre

ater

than

21

5mm

Fore

shor

es b

etw

een

the

north

ern

bank

of B

affle

Cre

ek a

nd C

ape

Flat

tery

Set

mes

h ne

t S

100

Max

. 120

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

150m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

215m

mM

ax. d

rop

of 5

0 m

eshe

s

Riv

ers

and

Cre

eks

betw

een

the

sout

hern

ban

k of

Kau

ri C

reek

and

C

ape

Flat

tery

Mes

h ne

tsS

101

Max

. 600

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

150m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

Offs

hore

wat

ers

betw

een

the

north

ern

bank

of B

affle

Cre

ek a

nd

Cap

e Fl

atte

ry

Two

nets

join

ed to

120

0m if

us

ed in

wat

ers

deep

er th

an

20m

.

be g

reat

er th

an

245m

m

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S10

1AM

ax. 6

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

15

0mm

and

mus

t not

be

gre

ater

than

24

5mm

Offs

hore

wat

ers

betw

een

the

north

ern

bank

of B

affle

Cre

ek a

nd

Cap

e Fl

atte

ry

Two

nets

join

ed to

120

0m if

us

ed in

wat

ers

deep

er th

an

20m

.

N2

Set

mes

h ne

ts

S10

2M

ax. 1

20m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

15

0mm

and

mus

t not

be

gre

ater

than

21

5mm

Max

. dro

p of

50

mes

hes

Riv

ers

and

cree

ks n

orth

of C

ape

Flat

tery

Max

. 600

m in

leng

th

Mes

h si

ze a

t lea

st

100m

m a

nd m

ust n

ot

be g

reat

er th

an

215m

m

Fore

shor

es n

orth

of C

ape

Flat

tery

Sym

bol

Perm

itted

fish

Net

type

N

et s

ize

Are

aM

isce

llane

ous

K1

(5)

Qld

/NS

W b

orde

r to

sout

hern

tip

of

Sou

th S

tradb

roke

Isla

nd

K2

(5)

Sou

ther

n tip

of S

outh

Stra

dbro

ke

Isla

nd to

the

Nor

ther

n tip

of S

outh

S

tradb

roke

Isla

nd

K3

(8)

Sou

ther

n tip

of N

orth

Stra

dbro

ke

Isla

nd to

the

Nor

ther

n tip

of N

orth

S

tradb

roke

Isla

nd

K4

(5)

Sou

ther

n tip

of M

oret

on Is

land

to

Com

boyu

ro P

oint

K5

(13)

Sou

th E

spla

nade

on

Brib

ie Is

land

to

the

north

ern

tip o

f Brib

ie Is

land

K6

(4)

Kin

gs B

each

at C

alou

ndra

to P

oint

C

artw

right

at M

oolo

olab

a

K7

(6)

Any

fish

exc

ept

barr

amun

diS

eine

net

M

ax. 5

00m

in le

ngth

M

esh

size

at l

east

12

mm

and

mus

t not

be

gre

ater

than

70m

m

Dro

p of

at l

east

150

m

eshe

s fo

r at l

east

ha

lf of

the

leng

th

Poi

nt C

artw

right

at M

oolo

olab

a to

N

oosa

Hea

ds

Fish

may

onl

y be

take

n fro

m 1

A

pril

to 3

1 A

ugus

t inc

lusi

ve

K8

(17)

Noo

sa H

eads

to B

reak

sea

Spi

t

Appendix 4. The following extract from Zeller (1998) covers the environmental characteristics of the ECIFF area and provides a general summary of the diversity and condition of estuarine and coastal habitats that support fish species harvested by the ECIFF. Human pressures that impact upon ECIFF fishery habitats and fishery resources are also considered.

East Coast Streams The east coast of Queensland coast extends from Cape York (10.7¡S, 142.5¡E) to the Queensland-NSW border (28.2¡S) at Point Danger (153.5¡E). Coastal streams draining the eastern side of the Great Dividing Range empty into the South Pacific Ocean and collectively form the North-East Coast Drainage Division (covering about 450,000 km2) extending from Cape York to the Tweed River.Usually, east coast streams have permanent flows with high initial gradients, high annual but variable seasonal discharge, and both seasonal and shorter term fluctuations in turbidity and water quality (Merrick and Schmida 1984). With two exceptions, most major streams in this Division drain land receiving a minimum of 1,000 mm average annual rainfall; they are generally short and run more or less directly to the sea. These streams support species important to recreational and indigenous fishers, including barramundi, mangrove jack, sooty grunter, sleepy cod, Australian bass and saratoga.

The two major exceptions are the Fitzroy and Burdekin Rivers, which drain extensive areas of lower rainfall (500-800 mm annual average) in central Queensland. These streams have the largest catchments in the State (Table 1), rising in the coastal ranges but with very low gradients in their upper and middle reaches (Merrick and Schmida 1984). They are long winding rivers that flow indirectly to the sea. Their long courses have been extensively regulated for agriculture and urban water supplies; major dams and weirs creating an increase in the number of still water habitats. Consequently native fishes relying on access to flowing waters to breed are disadvantaged. Impounded waters do, however, support recreational fisheries for important species, including yellowbelly, silver perch, barramundi and saratoga.

Estuaries and the coast Estuaries are semi-enclosed bodies of water freely connected with the open sea and within which seawater is diluted with freshwater draining from the land (Pritchard 1967). The nature of fresh and salt water supply will affect the type and extent of fisheries habitats associated with an estuary (Saenger 1995). Tropical and subtropical Australian estuaries (including those occurring in Queensland waters) have characteristic warm, turbid water of variable salinity (Blaber 1997). Shallow tropical waters supporting mangrove habitats of open estuaries and nearshore coastal waters are vital nursery grounds and important habitats for the feeding or reproduction of a number of fish species (Blaber 1997). Quinn (1992) estimated 75% by weight and 80% by value of the Queensland commercial fish catch to be derived from species that spend part of their life in shallow marine waters associated with estuaries.

There are 171 estuaries and enclosed waters along the Queensland east coast. Estuaries support a diversity of fisheries habitats including open water, unvegetated tidal flats and channels, rock and point bars, saltmarsh, mangroves and seagrass beds. Intertidal mud banks of subtropical estuaries (e.g. the Brisbane River) support single-

celled algae (diatoms) and an associated community of microscopic animals (e.g. nematodes and copepods) at their surface. These habitats are important feeding areas for juvenile mullet (Hollaway and Tibbetts 1996). Muddy and sandy shores associated with estuaries also provide a soft and organically rich substrate for larger forms of epibenthic and burrowing invertebrates (e.g. prawns, sipunculid worms, soldier crabs and yabbies) which are consumed directly by important economic fishes including whiting and bream.

The estuaries of North-East Drainage Division streams lie in the East Cape York, Wet Tropic Coast, Lucinda-Mackay, Shoalwater Coast, Baffle Creek-Tin Can Bay, Fraser Island-Gold Coast and Moreton Bay bioregions (IMCRA Technical Group 1997). During normal stream flows, terrestrial sediment carried to the coast by rivers is trapped in estuaries without reaching the continental shelf (Wolanski 1994; Harris 1995), but during floods large amounts of sediment are supplied to the inner continental shelf. Along the low energy coastline adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, sediment may remain trapped along the coast, causing substantial build up of the coastline and intertidal environments (Wolanski 1994). Poor land use in stream catchments has contributed greatly to recent erosion and high sedimentation rates compared to historical levels (Arakel 1991).

For most of the time, movement of sediments occurs by tidal action across a range of tidal amplitudes according to location. For example the moderate tides of 2-4 m occurring in the Torres Strait and in Moreton Bay, and the very large tides resonating through the southern Great Barrier Reef that reach over 8 metres around Broad Sound on the central Qld coast (Harris 1995). Near the edge of the continental shelf off southern Queensland, the East Australian Current is responsible for a general southward transport of sand (Harris 1993). Here large submerged sand waves pile up and create surface features. Distinctive changes in the topography of the seabed may shelter or help to concentrate numbers of some pelagic and demersal species harvested in the ECIFF.

Occasionally, the actions of water movement driven by tropical storms (cyclones) sort and disperse the sediments supplied by the rivers so that their nearshore build is interrupted. Scouring by water currents causing the re-suspension and movement of bottom sediments is important in changing seabed topography and may impact upon inshore fisheries habitats including seagrass beds and fringing coral reefs. Cyclones are capable of generating strong near-sea bed currents (Church and Forbes 1983).These can erode the seabed out to the mid-shelf in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon and transport sediments over considerable distances (Gagan et al. 1990).

Sheltered foreshores and estuaries subject to low wave energy are the dominant coastal landforms constituting major inshore fisheries habitats. Rocky headlands and ocean beaches subjected to high wave energy are also important inshore habitats. The Great Barrier Reef provides protection from ocean swells for about 85% of Queensland's east coast. It supports a diverse array of fisheries habitats and is predominantly a feature of the mid- to outer continental shelf-although numerous coral and algal fringing reefs and continental islands lie close inshore.

A number of studies have identified the importance of interactions between estuarine habitats and finfish resources. Muddy and sandy substrates in shallow estuarine

waters (up to 3 m deep) have been reported as providing habitat for juvenile whiting in Moreton Bay (Weng 1983). In north east Queensland the widespread distribution of juvenile barramundi is related to extensive estuarine habitats (Russell and Garrett 1988). Relatively flat sandy intertidal areas may form broad expanses over which many species of fish feed or shelter from more open waters (e.g. dusky flathead, sand whiting.

Inshore fisheries habitats Queensland's inshore fisheries habitats consist of low energy sheltered muddy shores and estuaries supporting mangrove, saltmarsh/claypan, seagrass and shallowwater algal communities and high energy rocky and sandy shores, shallow-water banks and bars and fringing coral reefs.

Sheltered foreshores The east coast of Queensland is dominated by the Great Barrier Reef which acts as a wave break for the coast between Cape York and Gladstone. Foreshores on the western side of the Great Barrier Reef lagoon are sheltered from ocean swells and the largest waves generated by tropical cyclones. Further south, the large sand islands of Fraser, Moreton, Bribie and North and South Stradbroke Islands perform a similar function, dissipating the energy of ocean swells and allowing fine sediments deposited by coastal streams to accumulate in their wake.

Muddy shores Muddy shores dominate the north coast of Australia, either as wide tidal flats or under extensive mangrove stands (Fairweather and Quinn 1995). Mud flats make up about 1% of shorelines in Queensland (Table 2). Extensive mud flats occur near the mouths of rivers along the the Wet Tropic Coast, sheltered inlets and bays adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef (e.g. Trinity Inlet, Bowling Green Bay, Edgecumbe Bay and Repulse Bay) and in the lee of large islands close to the southern Queensland coast (e.g. Fraser Island and Bribie Island).

Muddy shorelines are formed by long-term deposit of soil and clay particles eroded from stream catchments and transported downstream in suspension to river mouths. Gradual build up of settled particles raises shorelines until they become exposed at low tide. Coarse-grained (sandy) particles eroded from rocky landforms are transported into estuaries and onto open shorelines as floods resuspend and push material downstream.

With long-term build-up and stabilisation, muddy and sandy shores often extend some distance seaward from the high water level as intertidal flats, providing a warm, nutrient-rich and well-lit substrate suitable for the establishment and growth of algae and some seagrasses (e.g. Zostera). Continued stability and sediment build up may result in a gradual establishment of mangroves, saltmarsh and, ultimately, fully terrestrial plants.

Muddy shores support the establishment of mangroves. Conservatively mangroves occupy about 20% of the Queensland shoreline. Sheltered sandy mud to muddy sand foreshores are ideal for the establishment of seagrasses.

MangrovesMangroves are trees and shrubs tolerant of intermittent flooding by salt water, living in the intertidal zone between Mean Sea Level and Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) bordering the banks of estuaries and foreshores along protected parts of the Queensland coastline. Areas of deposition of silt and mud at the mouths of rivers and creeks and in the lee of larger offshore islands (e.g.. Hinchinbrook, Curtis and North Stradbroke), protected from strong wave action, support the most extensive mangrove communities (Dowling and McDonald 1982).

Mangroves occur in nearly all Qld estuaries and are distributed discontinuously along more open shorelines. Galloway (1982) estimated the total area of mangroves in Queensland to be 4,602 km2 (Table 4) including 4,410 km2 of the mainland and islands <1 km offshore and 192 km2 of islands further offshore. In general, mangroves vary in height with rainfall (Macnae 1966) and in species diversity with latitude (Lear and Turner 1977). A greater number of species (>30) are recorded from the coastline of Cape York Peninsula and the Wet Tropic Coast, decreasing to 20 species in the Burdekin River delta, 18 species in Shoalwater Bay (Anon. 1994), 9 species in the Calliope River (McKinnon et al. 1995), and 7 species in Moreton Bay (Dowling 1986). The number of distinct community types (e.g. those described by Danaher 1995a) also varies with latitude, from 11 recorded on Cape York Peninsula to 4 in Moreton Bay.

The most extensive mangrove forests occur on the coast of Cape York Peninsula (e.g. 200 km2 in Newcastle Bay, Galloway 1982). A recent survey by Danaher (1995a) using remote sensing techniques estimated that 1,033 km2 of tidal land supports mangrove communities in Cape York Peninsula. The west coast of Cape York Peninsula supports 28% more mangrove communities than the east coast. Zonation patterns of mangrove communities on the east and west coasts of Cape York Peninsula are similar with the exception that Avicennia increases in abundance and mixes with Ceriops and Rhizophora communities on the west coast. Rhizophora attains its maximum size and abundance at sites dominated by freshwater on the east coast and from the tip of Cape York to Hey River on the west coast but is restricted to a narrow fringe along tidal channels on the south-west coast (Danaher 1995a).

Mangroves add a total of about 3.5 million tonnes of carbon annually to Queensland estuarine and marine waters (Robertson and Lee Long 1991). Production of fisheries resources in mangrove communities is affected by geographic and climatic conditions in addition to community structure. Halliday and Young (1996) reported low direct use of subtropical Rhizophora forest by fishes (Table _) in spite of its undisturbed state and proximity to a diverse range of other undisturbed fisheries habitats (including sandy intertidal flats, seagrasses and saltmarshes). This contrasts with much higher biomass and density of fishes using subtropical Avicennia forest and higher species richness in mixed mangrove communities of the tropical north east coast (Table _). Species richness, density and biomass of fishes were all found to decline with distance inside a tropical mangrove forest in the Embley River near Weipa (Vance et al. 1996). However these 'inland' mangroves are important in allowing small fishes to avoid larger predatory fishes which inhabit open channels.

The composition of mangrove fish communities also reflects these differences and supports dependent fisheries in different ways. As nursery and feeding areas,

subtropical mangroves support the intermediate carnivorous fishes making up a high percentage of the commercial and recreational catch (e.g. bream and whiting). Fishes inhabiting tropical mangroves (e.g. sardines and herring) eat plankton and small bottom-dwelling prey and support fisheries indirectly by providing a food source for larger pelagic species (e.g. mackerel, tuna, trevally and sharks) that may not use the forest directly (McPherson 1987; Cappo 1995; Halliday and Young 1996).

Values in parentheses represent percentage with economic value * units given in g m-3 in Robertson and Duke (1990) Source: Halliday and Young (1996) and Vance et al. (1996).

Saltmarshes and claypans Saltmarshes are communities of low growing herbs (e.g. Suaeda australis, Sarcocornia quinquineflora) and grasses (e.g. Sporobolus virginicus) tolerant of high salinity and poorly aerated soils growing in low-lying areas often between mangrove and terrestrial vegetation communities or bordering hypersaline claypans. Saltmarshes are estimated to cover 5,322 km2 of tidal land in Queensland estuaries (Table 3).Significant areas of claypan (saltflats) also occur along open shorelines (e.g. 1000 km2 in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria: Ridd et al. 1988). Detailed saltmarsh/claypan vegetation community information is available for only about 60% of the coastline (Table 6).

Table 6. Areas of saltmarsh / claypan in Queensland. LocationArea (km2) Study

South-east Gulf of Carpentaria 2 146 Danaher and Stevens (1995)

Cape York 682Danaher (1995a)

Bowling Green Bay to Cape Upstart 113Danaher (1995b)

Port Curtis 29Arnold (1996)

Tannum Sands to Noosa 88Hyland and Butler (1989)

Noosa River to Coolangatta50Hyland and Butler (1989)

In contrast to mangroves, saltmarsh plant species diversity and community complexity increase with latitude, being low in tropical Queensland compared with southern Queensland. Saltmarshes are frequently covered by high tides and may support dense mats of algae, which are important contributors to local fisheries productivity as an alternative food source to detritus (Adam 1995, p. 101). Shallow pools topped up intermittently with rainwater provide transitory feeding habitat for larval and juvenile fishes. Saltmarshes also support a variety of invertebrates that live in tidal pools, in or on the muddy substrate or amongst the vegetation itself. Some of these (including grapsid crabs, prawns and insects) are consumed directly by itinerant fishes (including bream). Juvenile bream enter tidal drains into the saltmarsh on flooding tides to feed and move back into the estuary as the tide recedes (Morton et al. 1987).

Where soil salinity exceeds the ability of even these hardy plants to grow, bare claypans may form. Claypans seldom provide direct habitat for fish due to high soil salinity and infrequent tidal flooding. However, summer high tides fill temporary shallow pools on extensive claypans of the Gulf of Carpentaria coast, providing refuges for juvenile fishes and important feeding areas for juvenile barramundi (Russell and Garrett 1983). Major flooding by freshwater run-off during the late monsoon season may completely inundate flat coastal land. At these times the water over claypans enables extensive migrations of juvenile and spawning fish moving along and among stream channels, tidal pools and coastal waters. Claypans also allow for landward mangrove colonisation due to a long-term rise in sea level.

Claypan development is most extensive in wide flat coastal plains subject to low rainfall. Examples include Princess Charlotte Bay, Cape York and the Fitzroy River delta. Nutrients (particularly orthophosphate and silicate) are exported from claypan areas during summer spring tides (Ridd et al. 1988). The effects on receiving estuaries and nearshore waters are considered to be important to ecological processes supporting juvenile prawns preyed upon by inshore fish species.

Seagrass beds Broad scale surveys of the distribution of inshore seagrasses have been conducted along nearly the entire Queensland coast.

In the Great Barrier Reef region, seagrass habitats occur in estuaries, shallow coastal bays and inlets, on fringing and platform reefs and in inter-reef areas to depths greater than 60 m (Lee Long and Coles 1997). The coast of Cape York Peninsula alone supports 2,266 km2 of seagrass, over 90% of which occurs along the east coast (Danaher 1995a) including large areas of deep water seagrasses (1,566 km2) from Barrow Point to Lookout Point (Lee Long et al. 1995).

Another extensive deepwater seagrass area is Hervey Bay where Lee Long et al. (1993) reported (1,026 km2) of seagrass (mainly Halophila species) based on data collected from a survey in October/November 1988 and prior to a major disturbance

from flooding associated with cyclonic activity). Seagrasses in inshore and estuarine waters of southern Queensland were reported to cover 267 km2 of tidal land based on data collected from August to December, 1987 (Hyland et al. 1989).

Seagrass communities adjacent to the GBR are made up of 14 species and spread over about 5 000 km2 in estuaries, shallow coastal bays and inlets, on fringing reefs and in inter-reef areas to depths greater than 60 m. These habitats are known to support a number of commercial fish species in the ECIFF area including king salmon, grunter and whiting and their associated prey species. There are 7 species that make up the seagrass habitats of southern Queensland, covering about 267km2 of intertidal flats and channels in sheltered waters and subtidal sand banks of Moreton Bay down to a depth of about 10 m. Seagrass beds are important feeding and growth areas for dusky flathead and yellowfin bream.

Lee Long et al. (1993) recognised three general depth zones of seagrass communities distributed in coastal waters between Cape York and Hervey Bay. All seagrass species that occur in this region have been found in relatively shallow water (less than 6 m below Mean Sea Level). In depths of 6 to 11 m pioneering Halophila and Halodule species are more common than other species while Halophila species appear to be the only seagrasses capable of growth in low light conditions at depths greater than 11 m. The depth range suitable for colonisation by seagrasses along the Queensland east coast varies with location, but may be extensive, with seagrasses found from 2.2 m above Mean Sea Level (Lee Long et al. 1993) to 58 m below Mean Sea Level (Lee Long et al. 1996a). Seagrasses may be restricted to a much narrower range in waters of diminished clarity (e.g. 0.7 m to 8.2 m below Mean Sea Level in Shoalwater Bay, Lee Long et al. 1996b) and in parts of Moreton Bay (cf. Section 13.2.3).

Seagrasses form dynamic marine plant communities that may undergo substantial change in response to environmental variability-showing distinct growth patterns (measured as standing crop) in response to changing seasonal factors (e.g. Coles et al. 1997). Air temperature, light intensity (Hillman et al. 1989) and depth, turbidity, salinity and substrate characteristics (Young and Kirkman 1975) appear to be important determinants of seagrass primary productivity and community distribution respectively. Changes to any of these factors may cause measurable changes in seagrass distribution, abundance and diversity. Disappearance of entire seagrass beds has been reported in tropical locations (e.g. Poiner et al. 1993; Birch and Birch 1984; Long et al. 1997) and subtropical locations (e.g. Preen et al. 1995; Kirkman 1978; Abal and Dennison 1996). Natural regeneration of seagrasses has also been observed (Birch and Birch 1984; Poiner et al. 1993), while long-term increase in area of seagrass beds in some localities has recently been reported (e.g. McLennan and Sumpton 1997) (see Section 13.2.3).

Seagrasses are important to coastal ecosystems because of their high rates of primary production and their ability to trap sediments and organic nutrients (Poiner and Peterken 1995). As fisheries habitats, seagrass beds are of special importance, supplying detritus to the food chains of coastal waters acting as substrate for enhanced primary productivity by epiphytic algae (Klumpp et al. 1989) and as critical nursery and feeding areas for penaeid prawns, recreational and commercial fishes (Dredge et

al. 1977; Coles et al. 1993), crabs (Coles et al. 1992, p.19) and marine crayfish (Pitcher 1992, cited in Kailola et al. 1993, p. 166) (Table 7).

Rocky shores Rocky shores make up only about 4% of the Queensland coast but are conspicuous features of the coastline. Rocky headlands signify points where the overlying strata have been pushed to the surface by movements in the earth's crust or that have been weathered for long periods by waves and wind to expose underlying rock outcrops.Changes between terrestrial and marine communities on the near-vertical slopes of rocky cliffs and wave cut platforms are more exaggerated than the more gradual transitions seen in other intertidal habitat types (e.g. sandy beaches and muddy shores).

Marked zonation of marine plants and animals at supratidal, intertidal and subtidal levels is evident, reflecting abilities of individual organisms to withstand alternating exposure to air and seawater, pounding wave action and biological factors (Fairweather and Quinn 1995). Rocky shorelines (some supporting corals) are a dominant littoral habitat of many of the 540 or so continental islands lying inshore from the Great Barrier Reef.

Rocky shorelines provide attachment for a rich algal flora (e.g. Ulva, Bryopsis, Sargassum and Ecklonia in southern Queensland and Calothrix, Rhizoclonium, Calaglossa and Cystoseira in north Queensland waters). The algae are grazed by a variety of invertebrates (including snails and sea urchins) and are important as food for herbivorous fishes captured in the ECIFF (e.g. luderick and drummer). In addition, firm substrate allows long-term attachment for immobile invertebrates (sponges, barnacles, oysters and tube worms) which thrive on plankton brought to them by surging water movements. Subtidal rocky substrates bordering major headlands provide important reef habitat to a variety of bottom-feeding fish (eg yellowfin bream) and pelagic fishes (eg tailor) attracted by the abundant shelter and food resources. Artificial rocky habitats, including river training walls and groynes, may modify existing shorelines but often provide diverse angling opportunities for recreational and indigenous fishers.

Sandy shores The length of the sandy shores is extensive-about 36% of Queensland's coastline. In southern Queensland between Sandy Cape and Point Danger sandy ocean beaches act as an impact absorbing buffer to high wave energy from breaking south-easterly ocean swells. Ocean beaches are subject to seasonal cycles of erosion and deposition of coarse, low density (quartzose) and fine, high density (mineral) sands. Along the tropical eastern Queensland coast, sandy shores are protected by the Great Barrier Reef and become more depositional in character and contain more silt generated by runoff from land. Notwithstanding localised anomalies in sediment transport, there is a persistent nearshore movement of sand from New South Wales northward along the coast of southern Queensland (Murray 1991) extending to Fraser Island.

Sandy beaches support communities of single-celled algae (diatoms) which provide food for zooplankton and filter-feeding invertebrates. Burrowing animals (e.g small crustaceans, worms, molluscs) and insects are also common. Major fish targeted by

recreational and commercial fishers in the ECIFF are whiting, bream, tailor, dart, flathead and mullet attracted to banks, gutters and holes in the surf zone.

Shallow-water banks and bars Formed near estuary mouths by movements of sediments under the influence of wind and tide, sand banks and bars modify the hydrology of estuarine and nearshore ocean waters. They provide habitat diversity in areas devoid of physical structures otherwise provided by mangroves, rocks or coral. Extensive intertidal and shallow subtidal sand flats are used by a variety of marine fishes. Pollock and Weng (1983) and Garrett (1988) reported seasonal movements of important species supporting major recreational and commercial catches in the ECIFF to sandbars in the surf zone (yellowfin bream) and near tropical estuary mouths (barramundi) where spawning occurs. Other important species, including juvenile sand whiting (Sillago ciliata), feed over and along the edges of sand banks off surf beaches (Morton 1987). Invertebrate bait species collected by recreational fishers inhabit intertidal and shallow subtidal banks of sheltered bays (e.g. worms) and estuaries (e.g. yabbies).

Fringing coral reefs In the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) region, fringing reefs are restricted to the inner continental shelf (Hopley and Partain 1987) and along the coastline where freshwater runoff from major rivers is minimal (Endean et al. 1956). The most extensive development of fringing coral reefs occurs on the mainland coast north of Cairns, adjacent to continental islands of the GBR lagoon (e.g. Whitsunday Islands) and in Torres Strait. The total area of fringing reefs associated with the Great Barrier Reef is small (350 km2) compared to that occupied by the mid-shelf and outer reefs of the GBR (about 20,000 km2). However 545 fully developed, and 213 poorly developed fringing reefs have been identified (Hopley and Partain 1987).

The biodiversity of tropical fringing reefs is very high, with both soft and hard corals well represented. Benthic communities associated with the Whitsunday and Lindeman Island groups have perhaps the highest species diversity of the entire Great Barrier Reef (Veron 1995). Tropical fringing reefs of continental islands (including the Cumberland and Keppel Island groups) support commercial fishing for mackerel (DPI unpublished data).

Fringing reefs south of about Mackay (21¼S) are less well developed than those further north (Hopley and Partain 1987). Coastal waters south of the GBR lack fringing coral reef development, mainly due to the mass transport of sand up the Queensland coast to about Fraser Island (Wolanski 1987). However small reefs made up of more than 40 species of hard coral (Harrison 1996) occur in the protected waters of Moreton Bay. Coral coverage in Moreton Bay was previously more extensive than it is today. Large limestone deposits underlay littoral areas of the western Bay in addition to Mud, St. Helena and Green Islands (Lovell 1989). Currently there is limited distribution of live hard corals in the vicinity of islands of the central Bay, (St Helena, Green and Peel Islands) and at Myora (Harrison 1996). However, these areas produce a range of fish species harvested by tunnel netting in the ECIFF. The relict reefs inside Moreton Bay are the southernmost live fringing coral reefs in Queensland.

Artificial reefs Artificial reefs have been placed at several inshore locations in southern Queensland to attract and aggregate fishes and other marine life in a localised area. Community group creation of artificial reefs by the placement of metal or concrete structures and vehicle tyres fastened together to make habitat modules in tidal waters is permitted under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. Artificial reefs provide shelter and food for reef and pelagic animals that colonise or are attracted to them (eg sponges, coral and fish). Currently there are several artificial reefs between Bundaberg and Moreton Bay. Periodic additions of further materials to the reef structures have occurred in recent years. These occurred at the Bundaberg reef between 1992 and 1996 and at Woodgate reef between 1993 and 1995.Experimental concrete reef modules were installed near Bundaberg by DPI Fisheries researchers in February 1998. In May 2004, the Qld Government made the decision to site the decommissioned ex-Royal Australian Navy guided missile destroyer HMAS Brisbane as an artificial reef off the Sunshine Coast just north of Brisbane.

Species harvested in the ECIFF known to inhabit southern Qld artificial reefs include bream, tarwhine, rabbitfish, whiting, trevally, dart, mackerel, tuskfish, moses perch, flathead and garfish (Jebreen 2001).

Offshore fisheries habitats Queensland's offshore fisheries habitats consist of the continental shelf seabed and shelf waters, some of which is fished for tropical pelagic species in the ECIFF (eg mackerel and trevally).

Continental shelf sea bed The area of continental shelf occupied by the GBR lies between 10¼S and 24¼S, is narrowest in the north off Cape Melville (24 km), widest in the south off Cape Townshend (290 km) and covers approximately 215,000 km2 (Maxwell 1968). The shelf is relatively flat inside the GBR, gradually increasing in depth toward the reefs of the outer shelf. In general the depth of the shelf increases from north to south (Maxwell 1968)

North of 16¼S the shelf lies in relatively shallow waters (depth <20 m) Between 16¼S and 21¼S on the coast and 20¼S at the shelf edge, waters are of intermediate depth (<55 m) Between 21¼S and 24¼S, the shelf generally lies in waters deeper than 55 m.

Sediments of the shelf in the GBR lagoon tend to be silty near the mainland, the result of the deposition of sediment from rivers with coarser calcium-rich sediments derived from coral, shells and calcareous algae dominant on the mid- to outer shelf (Harris 1995a). At the southern entrance to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon between the Swain Reefs and the Capricorn-Bunker Group of reefs lies a strip of gravel beds approximating to the 180 m contour with deep water canyons and patches of hard substrate further offshore to the south-east (Dredge and Gardiner 1984).

Sediments on the inner mid-continental shelf offshore from Fraser Island are silty and calcium-rich further offshore (Harris 1993). Along the shelf slope (300 m contour) between Noosa and Point Danger a number of submarine canyons (the remnants of

ancient stream channels) dissect the continental slope (Potter 1984). Sand dunes develop under the bed shearing forces of the East Australian Current to a depth of 40 m off the southern Queensland coast (Harris 1993). Near-seabed currents at depths from 36 to 80 m off Fraser Island flow strongly southward (up to 130 cm s-1 at 42 m depth between November and December) (Harris 1993). Submarine dune formations indicate a general southward transport of sand on the mid-continental shelf in southern Queensland - northern NSW waters (Harris 1993).

Continental shelf waters The temperature and salinity of continental shelf water of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are dominated by a deep (100-120 m) well mixed surface layer of nutrient-poor Coral Sea water (Wolanski 1994, p. 37). Water temperature fluctuates seasonally (20-30°C annual range) but short-lived stratification of the water column occurs as a result of upwelling along the shelf break and the extension of flood plumes along and across the shelf (Furnas and Mitchell 1997, p. 77). Most river runoff enters inshore waters in a few brief floods in summer (Wolanski 1994) and may persist as a turbid freshwater plume overlaying denser seawater well offshore-up to 60 km from the coast (Steven et al. 1996), before dispersing. Some catchments discharge more than 80% of their annual sediment and nutrient loads during these episodes (Furnas and Mitchell 1991). Deposition of nutrient-rich sediments and their subsequent re-suspension during windy conditions are responsible for higher nutrient levels in inshore waters relative to sites further seaward (Brodie et al. 1995 and references cited therein).

Localised impacts on shelf waters from strong winds, heavy rainfall and river runoff associated with tropical cyclones may be dramatic with sharp increases in turbidity and dissolved nutrient levels, phytoplankton blooms and decreased salinity (Furnas and Mitchell 1986). These changes appear to be short-lived. For example no direct effects from these conditions were observed on the outer GBR two weeks after the passage of severe tropical cyclone "Winifred" in February 1986 (Furnas and Mitchell 1986). However, freshwater flooding together with increased summer water temperatures may place considerable stress on inshore coral reefs which may sustain "bleaching " damage (see Section 13.2.8).

The South Equatorial Current (SEC) splits into northward and southward flowing branches (see Section 9.2.1), as it approaches the continental shelf between 13-20¼S (Burrage et al. 1996). The strength, displacement and timing of these currents may be important in the dispersion of coral and fish larvae, the spread of crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks (see Section 13.3.4.2) and upwelling of nutrient-rich bottom water onto the shelf where phytoplankton blooms and fisheries productivity are stimulated (Burrage et al. 1996).

Small pelagic fishes including garfish (Hemirhamphidae), scads (Carangidae) and sardines and pilchards (Clupeidae) inhabit surface waters of the continental shelf and support commercial bait fisheries. Scads are taken as bait for gamefishing, while other species (e.g. anchovies and sprats) are abundant close to coral reefs and have potential bait for tuna fisheries (McPherson 1997). Larger pelagics including several species of mackerel (Scomberomerus) are captured in commercial net and recreational and commercial line fisheries. Spanish mackerel (Scomberomerus commerson) spawn near offshore reefs inside the GBR north-east of Townsville (19¡S)

(McPherson 1993). Tropical shark species are also captured commercially using drifting nets and long-lines (Williams 1997). Oceanic pelagic fishes including sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus), juvenile black marlin (Makaira indica) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) may at times, appear in continental shelf waters inside the GBR (McPherson 1997).

The Great Barrier Reef The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the world's most extensive coral reef system, covering about 350,000 km2 off the north and central Queensland coastline. It extends 2,300 km from 10¡ S, at the eastern edge of the Torres Strait, to about 24¡ S, at Lady Elliott Island (Fig. 7). The reef tract follows an earlier coastline now submerged by rising sea levels since the end of the last Ice Age (about 17,000 years ago). Maximum water depth of the seafloor generally increases from north to south (see Section 7.2.1). About 2,900 reefs lie within the GBR Region. They vary in area from less than 1 ha to more than 100 km2, 300 coral cays and 600 continental islands, many with fringing reefs around their margins (e.g. Lizard Island, Magnetic Island and the Whitsunday and Keppel Island Groups), (Cannon et al. 1993).

A contiguous line of reefs makes up the outer GBR near the edge of the continental shelf, at distances varying from 32 km from the coast near Cape Melville to 260 km in the Swain Reefs off Mackay (Fig. 7). The reefs of the outer shelf are strongly influenced by oceanic waters, more so than those located closer to the mainland on the mid - to inner shelf. These inner reefs are dominated to a greater degree by events occurring on land (e.g. contact with freshwater and sediments discharged by flooding rivers) (see Sections 7.2.3 and 13.2.8).

The growth of the reef-building corals is affected by the salinity and turbidity of seawater, water depth and temperature (ideally above 20¼C) and nutrients. The temperature of the water passing through the GBR is influenced by the strength and direction of the northward flowing Hiri Current and the southward flowing East Australian Current - a surface drift of warmer, less saline, and less dense tropical water from the equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean, down the east Queensland coast (Pulsford 1993).

Individual reefs take a variety of forms based on the size and shape of the ancient limestone reef platforms on which they were built. Other factors are important to reef development including changes in sea level, waves and currents, and the vertical build-up of reef material by the biological community of the reef itself (Hopley 1983b). Several basic reef shapes are characteristic of specific parts of the GBR (Cannon et al. 1993). Long narrow wall reefs (e.g. the Ribbon Reefs) are located near deep water (up to 1,000 m) on the outer edge of the continental shelf north of Cairns (Fig. 7). The outer reefs near Torres Strait (e.g. Triangle Reef) and the massive reefs of the Pompey Complex develop a delta-like pattern (deltaic reefs) as strong tides sweep through deep narrow channels between them. Crescent-shaped reefs (e.g. Bramble, John Brewer and Hook Reefs) dominate the central section of the GBR, while platform reefs, some with sand cays and sheltered lagoons within a circular coral reef top (e.g. the Low Isles and Heron Island reefs), are distributed in both northern and southern parts of the GBR.

The GBR has an abundance of marine species, including over 4,000 molluscs, 1,500 fish, 400 hard and soft corals, thousands of species of sponges, crustaceans, echinoderms, worms and other invertebrates (Cannon et al. 1993). The distribution of this fauna shows a distinct cross-shelf pattern in response to changing depth, sediment quality, water salinity and turbidity (Veron 1995). The physical environment of the seafloor associated with the GBR is diverse. Maxwell (1968) reported mosaics of inshore (e.g. reef shoal, sand ridge, bar, bank, rock mass, scour channel, rip current deposit, estuary and river delta) and offshore (e.g. coral reef, lagoon, and bank) seabed formations. These provide a wide range of habitats that support fisheries resources as they feed, grow and breed.

Major reef fisheries of the GBR target bottom feeding fishes (e.g. emperors, groupers and snappers), pelagic fishes (e.g. mackerel and trevally), tiger, endeavour and red-spot king prawns and saucer scallops. A number of diverse minor fisheries also target trochus, beche-de-mer, tropical rock lobster, coral sand and 35 families of marine aquarium fish (Couchman and Beumer 1992).

Rocky subtidal reefs Rocky subtidal reefs occur sporadically along the entire eastern Queensland coast.Those inshore of the Great Barrier Reef are located in shallow water to 9 m in depth (Maxwell 1968, p.31). Other shallow water rocky reefs support hard and soft coral cover and include some small, relatively undisturbed estuaries inshore from the Bunker group of coral reefs (e.g. Pancake Creek near Bustard Head), rocky shorelines between Burnett Heads and the Elliot River and the islands of Hervey Bay. In southern Queensland offshore rocky reefs lie scattered across the continental shelf south from the Gardiner Banks (offshore from Fraser Island) to the southern Gold Coast. A number of these support hard coral cover or large seaweeds and are locally significant seabed features attracting large predatory fish species (e.g. mackerel, trevally, snapper and sweetlip) sought by recreational and commercial line fishers in the ECIFF area.

Macroalgal Habitats Extensive areas dominated by large brown algae (kelp) are common on temperate coastlines of Australia, but not in Queensland. However some isolated rocky reefs off the open coastline of southern Queensland support Ecklonia radiata [e.g. Henderson Shoal, 27.2¼S: J. Phillips, (pers. comm.) and Kirra Reef, about 28.2¼S (Wright 1990)]. At 1 to 1.5 m in height, it is the largest alga found in this State (Cribb 1996).E. radiata is a dominant plant of temperate subtidal kelp forests extending southward into New South Wales and Victoria and supports diverse forms of encrusting algae and invertebrate animals (including snails, sea urchins and octopus). Economically important fishes harvested in the ECIFF (including yellowfin bream, luderick and snapper) shelter and feed among its foliage as juveniles (Kennelly 1995).

Appendix 5.

Appendix 6. Dugong Protection Areas

DPAs Type “A” Area (km2) DPAs Type “B” Area (km2) Hinchinbrook To Be Advised Taylor’s Beach To Be Advised Cleveland Bay Bowling Green Bay Upstart Bay Upstart Bay Newry Edgecumbe BayInce Bay Repulse Bay Shoalwater Bay Sand Bay Port Clinton Llewellyn Bay Hervey Bay-Sandy Straits Clairview

Rodds Bay

App

endi

x 7.

Log

book

for t

he E

ast C

oast

Net

and

Cra

b Fi

sher

ies

Appendix 8

Industry responses to sustainability issues in the Queensland East Coast Net Fishery - The increasing role of Environmental Management Systems

By Kellie Williams, University of Queensland, Queensland EMS Pilot Project Manager

In December 2003 a group of net fishers from Moreton Bay made a commitment to developing an environmental management system (EMS) for their fishery, as part of a whole-of-region EMS for all fisheries in Moreton Bay. At around the same time, a group of net fishers from far north Queensland made a commitment to developing an EMS for all net fishers operating from Clump Point to Cape York. These EMS plans are industry-driven initiatives aimed at improving the environmental performance of fishers in their everyday activities.

In addition, several other groups of net fishers along the east coast of Queensland have developed or are in the process of developing EMS plans for their local region. The most notable EMS plans have been developed by fishers in the Mackay and Rockhampton regions.

Developing EMS plans has enabled ECIFF commercial net fishers to set goals and develop actions to achieve environmental management goals within realistic time frames. The goals and actions set out in the far north Queensland Net EMS are to be achieved within the next seven years. The Moreton Bay net fishers have set more long-term goals, with staggered timeframes for achieving various objectives.

As an important part of the process, fishers are identifying high risk areas where appropriate management strategies can lead to risk reduction, improving their environmental performance. While development of these actions and strategies is currently at the drafting stage, it is envisioned that invitations for public comment will be issued in late 2004.

By signing onto the far north Queensland or Moreton Bay Net EMS Plans, fishers are making a commitment to carry out a variety of actions which are aimed at minimizing impact on the structure, productivity, function and biological diversity of the ecosystem upon which their livelihoods depend. These actions are based on a risk assessment or analysis that has been carried out, specifically addressing:

1. Target species – maintaining the populations of target species, in addition to maintaining the biodiversity of target species;

2. Non-target species – specific actions are being developed to eliminate by-catch in the far north Queensland and Moreton Bay net fisheries;

3. Endangered, threatened or protected species – precautions have been put in place to eliminate the possibility of catching endangered or threatened species (including species that are ecologically linked to target species); and

4. Habitat Impacts – this issue is being addressed in terms of reducing impacts of fishing on benthic and pelagic habitats.

In addition to the above categories, other environmental matters of concern to fishers and other stakeholders (in addition to the addressing the perception of over-fishing) are being addressed by these EMS plans, for example the issue of marine debris. It is notable that the actions committed to in both the far north Queensland and Moreton Bay Net EMS Plans will address all nine of the ‘environmental matters of concern’ listed in Philips et al. (2003).

Appendix 09. Species of Conservation Interest logbook

Summarised Instructions

DIRECTION TO KEEP AND GIVE LOGBOOK RETURNS

Legislative requirements

All Queensland fisheries are managed under the Fisheries Act 1994 (the Act) and the Fisheries Regulation 1995 (the Regulation). Under other State and Commonwealth legislation, there is an obligation to report interactions with a range of species to the relevant Government Department. The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) requires that a person whose action results in the death or injury of any animal listed as threatened, migratory, marine or a cetacean under the EPBC Act in a Commonwealth Area to report to the Secretary, Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage.

The Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 and subordinate legislation require that a person report the accidental taking of a whale, dolphin or dugong to a conservation officer, Environmental Protection Agency.

In addition to these obligations, the ‘species of conservation interest’ logbook has been designed to report any interactions with species of conservation interest (SOCI).Reporting on this logbook does not fulfil obligations under the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) or the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. DPI Queensland Fisheries Service is collecting information regarding these interactions in order to report to Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage and other organisations on the sustainability of fishing practices in Queensland. For this purpose, sustainability relates to the effect of fishing practices on all species, not just those targeted by the fishery.

Direction

1. Use the logbook if you are the licenced commercial fisher operating the boat,or make the logbook available to the licenced commercial fisher in charge of the boat; 2. Keep the logbook (or ensure that the logbook is kept) in accordance with the instructions contained in the logbook and any written instructions the Chief Executive may, from time to time provide;and 3 Give the completed logbook (or ensure that the completed logbook is given) to the Chief Executive in accordance with the instructions contained in the logbook.This instruction requires that the completed logbook returns be forwarded to the Chief Executive within a specified time period after the fishing to which they relate has occurred. I further direct all holders of an authority to take, possess or sell fish (commercial fisher licence holders)in charge of a boat to:

1. Ensure that a logbook specific to the fishing activity to be undertaken under the relevant primary commercial fishing boat licence is available to be completed before commencing fishing activities. If the owner of the boat is unable to make a

logbook available, it is advised that you contact the Department directly to obtain a logbook before commencing fishing activities. Any logbook obtained from the Department must remain on the boat that it was issued to. Please note that under Section 118 of the Act, a person who fails to comply with an obligation to keep and give the logbook or other information about fisheries required by the Chief Executive is liable to prosecution for an offence against the Act (maximum penalty 500penalty units).

FILLING IN THE LOG FORM This logbook is to be used to report interactions you have with species of conservation interest during any fishing operations you undertake. It is not used to record any commercial catch, just interactions with species of conservation interest. Please record the fishing gear used and the number and species of all species of conservation interest you interacted with each day. The release condition must be recorded for each species.

POSITION REPORTING Please provide the position where you interacted with the species of conservation interest. This is to be given either as: 1.30 minute GRID and 6 minute SITE (using the charts in the front of QFS logbooks) or as 2.latitude and longitude. (Please advise if your readout is in decimal minutes)

Appendix 10. Conservation status of marine fish, reptiles and mammals of conservation interest likely to occur in the ECIF Fishery operational area.

Common name Species IUCNListing

Commonwealth Legislation(EPBC Act)

Queensland Legislation

(Nature Conservation

Act and Fisheries Act)

Likelihood of species

interacting with the ECIFF

Fish and Sharks Humphead Maori Wrasse Cheilinus undulatus EN Regulated by

species1, 4

Grey Nurse Sharks Carcharias taurus VU CE EN3 / Regulated by species2, 4

Nil [Within four Critical Habitat Sites within the

ECIFFmanagement area: see section 2.2.2]

Possible[elsewhere in the

fishery]

Great White Shark Carcharodon carcharias VU VU, LOMS Regulated by

species2, 4 Remote

Whale shark Rhinocodon typus VU VU, LOMS RemoteFreshwater sawfish Pristis microdon EN CE PossibleGreen sawfish Pristis zijsron EN RemoteSmalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata EN RemoteKnifetooth sawfish / narrow sawfish Anoxypristis cuspidate EN Remote

Speartooth shark (Glyphis sp) Glyphis glyphis EN CE Possible

Murray cod Maccullochella peelii peelii VU Regulated by

number and area6 Remote

Mary River cod Maccullochella peelii mariensis EN Regulated by

species6 Remote

Lake Eacham rainbowfish

Melanotaeniaeachamensis EN Regulated by

number6 Remote

Oxleyan pygmy perch Nannoperca oxleyana EN VU3 Remote

Red finned blue eye

Scaturiginichthys vermeilipinnis EN EN3 Remote

Honey blue eye Pseudomugil mellis VU VU3 Remote

Edgbaston goby Chlamydogobius squamigenus VU EN3

Remote

Elizabeth springs goby

Chlamydogobius mircopterus EN EN3

Remote

Flinders ranges gudgeon Mogurnda clivicola VU Remote

Lungfish Neoceratodus forsteri VU Regulated by species6 Remote

TurtlesGreen Chelonia mydas EN VU, LMS, LOMS VU3 RemoteLoggerhead Caretta caretta EN EN, LMS, LOMS EN3 RemoteFlatback Natator depressus DD VU, LMS, LOMS VU3 Remote

Hawksbill Eretmochelysimbricata CR VU, LMS, LOMS VU3 Remote

Olive Ridley or Pacific Ridley Lepidochelys olivacea EN EN, LMS, LOMS EN3 Remote

Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea CR VU, LMS, LOMS EN3 RemoteMary River tortoise Elusor macrurus EN EN EN3 RemoteFitzroy tortoise Rheodytes leukops VU VU3 RemoteGulf snapping tortoise Elseya lavarackorum EN VU3 Remote

Estuarine(saltwater) crocodile

Crocodylus porosus LMS, LOMS VU3 Remote








Freshwater crocodile Crocodylus johnstoni LMS Remote

Seasnakes Family Hydrophiidae LMS RemoteMammalsDugong Dugong dugon VU LMS, LOMS VU3 RemoteIndo-Pacific humpback dolphin Sousa chinensis DD LOMS Rare3 Remote

Irrawaddy dolphin Orcaella brevirostris DD LOMS Rare3 Remote

Humpback whale Megapteranovaeangliae VU VU, LOMS VU3 Remote

Southern Right whale Eubalaena australis LR-CD EN Remote

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus EN VU RemoteSei whale Balaenoptera borealis EN VU RemoteBlue whale Balaenoptera musculus EN EN, LOMS RemoteBottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus DD OccasionalBryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni DD RemoteCuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris DD Remote

Dense-beakedwhale

Mesoplodon densirostris DD Remote

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei DD RemoteKiller whale (orca) Orcinus orca LR-CD RemoteLongman’s beaked whale Mesoplodon pacificus DD Remote

Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata LR-NT Remote

Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata LR-CD LOMS Remote

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata DD RemoteRisso’s dolphin Grampus griseus DD RemoteRough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis DD Remote

Short-finned pilot whale

Globicephalamacrorhynchus LR-CD Remote

Sperm whale Physetermacrocephalus VU Remote

Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris LR-CD LOMS RemoteStrap toothed beaked whale Mesoplodon layardii DD Remote

Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba LR-CD RemoteFalse water rat Xeromys myoides VU VU3 RemoteMarine Birds FamilyDiomedeidae Remote

Wandering Albatross Diomedea exulans VU LMS, LOMS Remote

Yellow-nosedAlbatross

Thalassarche chlororhynchos LR-NT LMS Remote

Black-browed Albatross

Thalassarche melanophrys VU LMS Remote

FamilyProcellariidae(Petrels, Shearwaters)

Remote

Southern Giant Petrel Macronectes giganteus VU EN, LMS, LOMS Remote

Northern Giant Petrel Macronectes halli LR-NT VU, LMS, LOMS Remote

Gould’s petrel Pterodroma leucoptera VU EN, LMS, LOMS Remote

Herald petrel Pterodroma arminjoniana VU CR, lMS EN3 Remote

White necked petrel Pterodroma cervicalis VU LMS Remote

Providence petrel Pterodroma solandri VU LMS RemoteHuttons shearwater Puffinus huttoni EN LMS Remote








Fluttering Shearwater Puffinus gavia LMS Remote

Tahiti Petrel Psuedobulweria rostrata LR-NT LMS Remote

FamilyHydrobatidae (Storm Petrels)

LMS Remote

FamilyPhaethontidae (Tropicbirds)

Remote

Red-tailedtropicbird Phaethon rubricauda LMS VU3 Remote

White-tailed Tropicbird Phaethon lepturus LMS, LOMS Remote

Family Sulidae (Gannets, boobies) Remote

Brown Booby Sula leucogaster LMS, LOMS RemoteFamily Fregatidae (Frigatebird) Remote

Greater Frigatebird Fregata minor LMS, LOMS RemoteLeast Frigatebird Fregata ariel LMS, LOMS RemoteFamily Laridae (Gulls and Terns) Remote

Little Tern Sterna albifrons LMS, LOMS EN3 RemoteCaspian Tern Sterna caspia LMS RemoteCrested Tern Sterna bergii CR LMS RemoteSeahorses, Pipefish and Pipehorses Duncker’s pipehorse Solegnathus dunckeri VU LMS Regulated by

number5 Remote

Pallid pipefish Solegnathus hardwickii VU LMS Regulated by number5 Remote

Spiny pipehorse Solegnathus spinosissimus VU LMS Remote

Robust pipehorse Solegnathus robustus VU LMS RemoteGunther’s pipehorse Solegnathus lettiensis VU LMS Remote

IUCN Listings:

CR CRITICALLY ENDANGERED - A taxon is Critically Endangered when it is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to E).

EN ENDANGERED - A taxon is endangered when it is not Critically Endangered but is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to E).

VU VULNERABLE. - A taxon is Vulnerable when it is not Critically Endangered or Endangered but is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future, as defined by any of the criteria (A to E).

LR LOWER RISK - A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, does not satisfy the criteria for any of the categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can be separated into three subcategories.

DD DATA DEFICIENT - A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. A taxon in this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution is lacking. Data Deficient is therefore not a category of threat or Lower Risk. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that more information is required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will show that threatened classification is appropriate. It is important to make positive use of whatever data are available. In many cases great care should be exercised in choosing between DD and threatened status. If the range of a taxon is suspected to be relatively circumscribed, or if a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last record of the taxon, threatened status may well be justified.

EPBC Act and Queensland legislation

CE Critically Endangered

E Endangered V Vulnerable R Rare LMS Listed Marine Species LOMS List Of Migratory Species

1 Coral Reef Fin Fish Management Plan 2 Queensland Fisheries Regulation 19953 Queensland Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 19944 Under Section 65 of the Fisheries Regulation 1995 the take, possession or sale of regulated fish is prohibited. Section 65 does not apply to shark fishing contractors. 5 Queensland Fisheries (East Coast Trawl) Management Plan 1999 6 Queensland Fisheries (Freshwater) Management Plan 1999

Appendix 11 Risk assessment for seabirds in the Queensland ECIF FisheryCommon name Species Name Conservat

ion Status1Type of interaction

Family Diomedeidae Shy albatross Thalassarche cauta VU, LMS low risk of taking discards Yellow-nosed albatross Thalassarche

chlororhynchos LMS low risk of taking discards

Black-browed albatross Thalassarche melanophrys LMS low risk of taking discardsFamily Procellariidae (Petrels, Shearwaters) Fairy prion Pachyptila turtur LMS low risk of taking discards Gould’s petrel Pterodroma leucoptera EN, LMS,

LOMS low risk of taking discards

Great-winged petrel Pterodroma macroptera LMS low risk of taking discards Black-winged petrel Pterodroma nigripennis LMS low risk of taking discards Flesh-footed shearwater Puffinus carneipes LMS low risk of taking discards Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus LMS low risk of taking discards Huttons shearwater Puffinus huttoni LMS low risk of taking discards Fluttering shearwater Puffinus gavia LMS low risk of taking discards Wedge-tailed shearwater Puffinus pacificus LMS low risk of taking discards Short-tailed shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris LMS low risk of taking discards Family Hydrobatidae (Storm Petrels) Wilson’s storm-petrel Oceanites oceanicus LMS unlikely to interact White-faced storm-petrel Pelagodroma marina LMS unlikely to interact Family Phaethontidae (Tropicbirds) Red-tailed tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda LMS unlikely to interact Family Sulidae (Gannets, Boobies)Brown booby Sula leucogaster LMS,

LOMS may take discards

Masked booby Sula dactylatra LMS unlikely to interact Australasian gannet Morus serrator LMS unlikely to interact

Family Fregatidae (Frigatebird) Greater Frigatebird Fregata minor LMS,

LOMS may take discards

Lesser Frigatebird Fregata ariel LMS, LOMS

may take discards

Family Laridae (Noddies, Gulls and Terns) Black noddy Anous minutus LMS unlikely to interact Common noddy Anous stolidus LMS unlikely to interact White tern Gygis alba LMS unlikely to interact Long-tailed skua Stercorarius longicaudus LMS unlikely to interact Bridled tern Sterna anaethetus LMS unlikely to interact Sooty tern Sterna fuscata LMS unlikely to interact Common tern Sterna hirundo LMS may take discards White-fronted tern Sterna striata LMS unlikely to interact Black-naped tern Sterna sumatrana LMS may take discardsCaspian tern Sterna caspia LMS may take discardsGull-billed tern Sterna nilotica LMS may take discardsLesser Crested tern Sterna LMS may take discardsCrested tern Sterna bergii LMS may take discards

Note: Risk assessment compiled from information on species distributions and their likely relative abundance within the Stout Whiting Trawl Fishery area (Morecombe 2000), advice from Dr David Milton, CSIRO Marine Research, Cleveland, Qld, August 2003 and Mr Adam Butcher, DPI AFFS, Deception Bay, Qld, September 2003. 1 Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) LMS=Listed Marine Species under the EPBC ActLOMS= Listed Migratory Species under the EPBC ActEN / VU= Listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act / Listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act

Appendix 12: ECIFF Regions

Location Feature Min

Latitude Max

Latitude Min

LongitudeMax

Longitude Remote C. York to C. Flattery 10.30 15.00 142.30 155.00Northern Wet Cape Flattery to Paluma R 15.00 18.30 142.30 155.00Northern Dry Paluma R to C. Conway 18.30 20.30 142.30 155.00Swains C. Conway to C. Manifold 20.30 22.00 142.30 155.00Capricorn C. Manifold to Baffle Creek 22.00 24.30 142.30 155.00GBR Area Cape York to Baffle Creek 10.30 24.30 142.30 155.00

Fraser Burnett Baffle Creek to Rainbow Beach 24.30 26.00 142.30 155.00Moreton Rainbow Beach to NSW Border 26.00 28.30 142.30 155.00Southern Area Baffle Creek to NSW border 24.30 28.30 142.30 155.00

East coast 10.30 28.30 142.50 155.00Two major regions are used:

GBR Area which is a mainly “tropical” finfish species area Southern Area which is a mainly “subtropical” finfish species area