r02/0881 - documenting the history of and providing

NORMAC

Report Number R02/0881

Documenting the history of and providing protocols

and criteria for changing existing or establishing new closures in the NPF

March, 2005

ii

Documenting the history of and providing protocols and criteria for changing existing and establishing new closures in the NPF: final report to AFMA. Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 1 876996 86 2. 1. Shrimp fisheries - Australia, Northern - Management. I. Kenyon, Robert Arnold. II. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. III. CSIRO. Marine Research. 333.95558099429

Published by CSIRO Marine Research

© Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Marine Research, 2005

This work is copyright. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of this publication may be reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of the copyright owners. Neither may information be stored electronically in any form whatsoever without such permission.

DISCLAIMER

The authors do not warrant that the information in this book is free from errors or omissions. The authors do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortious or otherwise, for the contents of this book or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. The information, opinions and advice contained in this book may not relate to, or be relevant to, a reader’s particular circumstances. Opinions expressed by the authors are the individual opinions of those persons and are not necessarily those of the publisher or research provider.

This publication should be cited as: Kenyon R.A., Jarrett A.E., Bishop J.F.B., Taranto T.J., Dichmont C.M., Zhou S. (2005). Documenting the history of and providing protocols and criteria for changing existing and establishing new closures in the NPF: Final Report to AFMA (AFMA Project R02/0881). AFMA Final Research Report. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. PO Box 7051, Canberra Business Centre, ACT, 2610. pp.157.

Formatted/designed by Australian Fisheries Management Authority and CSIRO Marine Research

Printed by CSIRO Marine Research.

iii

Kenyon, R.A.,

Jarrett, A.E., 1

Bishop, J.F.B.,

Taranto, T.J.,

Dichmont, C.M., and

Zhou, S. CSIRO Marine Laboratories 233 Middle Street Cleveland QLD 4163

1Pro-Fish Pty. Ltd. PO Box 756 Caloundra QLD 4551

iv

C O N T E N T S

CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................IV CHAPTER 1.......................................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 OUTCOMES/OUTPUTS ................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 3

1.3.1 Documenting historical data on current closures ................................................................................ 3 1.3.2 Development of an ORACLE and GIS database .................................................................................. 3 1.3.3 Industry Workshop ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.4 Closures criteria and protocols............................................................................................................ 3

1.4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 4 1.5 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 6 1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.7 PROJECT STAFF IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER ON SURNAME ............................................................................. 6 1.8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 CONTEXT OF CURRENT AND FUTURE CLOSURES................................................................................ 7

2.1 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 THE ‘CONTEXT’ OF CLOSURES....................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 An example of an ‘external driver’ for future closures ........................................................................ 9 2.2.2 The context of current closures ............................................................................................................ 9

2.3 BENEFITS / MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................... 10 2.4 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 10 2.5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 3........................................................................................................................................................ 11 REVIEWING HISTORICAL INFORMATION TO ESTABLISH THE REASONS FOR THE INSTIGATION OF CURRENT CLOSURES.................................................................................................. 11

3.1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 INTRODUCTION AND DATA SOURCES........................................................................................................... 11 3.3 TYPES AND AIMS OF CURRENT CLOSURES ................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Whole of DMZ and Daylight Closures ............................................................................................... 12 3.3.2 Protected Area closures ..................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.3 Seasonal Area closures ...................................................................................................................... 15

3.4 DATA TYPES THAT SUPPORT CURRENT CLOSURES OR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FUTURE CLOSURES............. 17 3.5 BENEFITS / MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES........................................................................................................ 18 3.6 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................. 18 3.7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 4........................................................................................................................................................ 20 ORACLE AND GIS DATABASE..................................................................................................................... 20

4.1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................... 20 4.2 DATA TEMPLATE......................................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 ORACLE DATABASE ................................................................................................................................. 21 4.4 GIS DATABASE ........................................................................................................................................... 22 4.5 BENEFITS / MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES........................................................................................................ 22

v

4.6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 5........................................................................................................................................................ 23 INDUSTRY WORKSHOP AND LIAISON ..................................................................................................... 23

5.1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................... 23 5.2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 23 5.3 INDUSTRY WORKSHOP................................................................................................................................ 23

5.3.1 Workshop participants ....................................................................................................................... 24 5.3.2 Workshop format................................................................................................................................ 24

5.4 INDUSTRY CONSULTATION IN CAIRNS......................................................................................................... 25 5.4.1 Industry liaison .................................................................................................................................. 25 5.4.2 Comments on Closure protocols ........................................................................................................ 25 5.4.3 Comments on Closure criteria ........................................................................................................... 26

5.5 BENEFITS / MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................... 27 5.6 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................. 27 5.7 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 6........................................................................................................................................................ 29 CRITERIA AND PROTOCOLS FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE CLOSURES ....................................... 29

6.1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................... 29 6.2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 29 6.3 CLOSURES PROTOCOL ................................................................................................................................. 30

6.3.1 Documentation of closures................................................................................................................. 31 6.3.1.a An example of the documentation of a closure ............................................................................................32

6.3.2 Industry consultation.......................................................................................................................... 33 6.3.3 Assessment and decision by the Closures Committee ........................................................................ 33 6.3.4 Prioritisation of review and reassessment of closures ....................................................................... 33 6.3.5 Ongoing Consideration and Review of Closures ............................................................................... 34

6.4 CLOSURES CRITERIA................................................................................................................................... 34 6.4.1 Closures Criteria................................................................................................................................ 34 6.4.2 Measurement Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 35

6.5 BENEFITS / MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................... 36 6.6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 36

CHAPTER 7........................................................................................................................................................ 38 PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE WORK....................................................................... 38

7.1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................... 38 7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................... 38 7.3 FUTURE WORK ............................................................................................................................................ 40 7.4 BENEFITS / MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................... 42 7.5 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 42

CHAPTER 8 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 43 8.1 APPENDIX ONE – NPF / DAYLIGHT CLOSURES ........................................................................................... 43 8.2 APPENDIX TWO – PROTECTED AREA CLOSURES......................................................................................... 63 8.3 APPENDIX THREE – SEASONAL CLOSURES................................................................................................ 103 8.4 APPENDIX FOUR - DATA TEMPLATE ......................................................................................................... 148 8.5 APPENDIX FIVE – INDUSTRY WORKSHOP AGENDA................................................................................... 149

vi

List of Tables.

Table 1: Key information about Whole of NPF closures and daylight closures. The closures are instigated under the AFMA NPF Directions 77 and 80. The areas (km2) given here have a possible error of up to 5%.....................................................................................13

Table 2: Key information about Protected Area closures in the NPF. The closures are instigated under the AFMA NPF Direction number 78. The areas (km2) given here have a possible error of up to 5%. ............................................................................................14

Table 3: Key information about current Seasonal Area closures in the NPF. The closures are instigated under the AFMA NPF Direction number 77. The areas (km2) given here have a possible error of up to 5%. ............................................................................................16

Table 4: Types of data used to support the instigation of current closures and verify their ongoing existence.............................................................................................................17

Table 5: Opinion of the size of small prawns, and assessment of their proportion in the catch, obtained from skippers and owners during port visits prior to the 2004 tiger prawn season...............................................................................................................................27

Table 6: Prawn sizes that may be used to define small prawns. Closures that are instigated to protect small prawns require a definition of a ‘small prawn’, which differs by species. (Size at first maturity from Kenyon et al. 2004)..............................................................36

vii

List of Figures.

Figure 1: A schematic of the design of the ‘closures database’ that has been established to house both historical data on the current closures and the data that emanate during the documentation of future closures.....................................................................................21

Figure 2: Protocol flow diagram for an “internal driver” for closures in the NPF. “P” is a facility for prioritisation of a closure proposal for review and resubmission to the Closures Committee; it also facilitates the five-yearly review of current closures and ensures the documentation of change. .............................................................................30

Figure 3: Protocol flow diagram for an “external driver” for closures in the NPF. The NORMAC secretary ensures that information about the closure is transferred to the Closures Committee and documented in the standard format of all NPF closures. ........31

1

C H A P T E R 1

S U M M A R Y A N D I N T R O D U C T I O N

R02/0881 Documenting the history of and providing protocols and criteria for changing existing and establishing new closures in the NPF

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: R.A. Kenyon ADDRESS: CSIRO Marine Research

233 Middle Street Cleveland QLD 4163 Telephone: 07 3826 7274 Fax: 07 3826 7222

CO-INVESTIGATOR: A. Jarrett ADDRESS: Pro-Fish Pty. Ltd.

PO Box 756 Caloundra QLD 4551 Telephone: 07 5437 0513 Fax: 07 5437 2226

2

1.1 Outcomes/Outputs The outputs of the project include:

• The results of a review of the historical information on the establishment of the current Protected Area and Seasonal closures in the Northern Prawn Fishery (Milestone 1);

• Two data templates; one to document the historical information for each closure (Milestone 2), and one to document the proposal and instigation of future closures,

• A GIS database that includes each current closure (Milestone 3);

• An ORACLE database that records the historical information on each closure and has the capacity to record information on future closures (Milestone 3);

• Industry workshop to determine criteria and protocols for closure management (Milestone 4);

• Criteria for the review or instigation of closures (Milestone 2);

• Two protocols for the proposal, documentation and implementation/review of closures; one protocol for closures that emanate from Industry or Science support of Industry (internal drivers), and one protocol for closures that are imposed on the NPF from external drivers (Milestone 2);

• Draft succinct Industry report that will be distributed to NPF stakeholders (Milestone 8);

• (Future) Presentation on the outcomes of the Closures Review Project to the NPF Closures Committee (Milestone 7).

1.2 Project objectives a. Identify the reasons for the designation of each closure and any information from

research surveys that are available to evaluate the reasoning (including instances where no information exists).

b. Develop agreed criteria to classify the different types of closures in the fishery.

c. Develop and document protocols and criteria to be used to review (change or remove) an existing closure.

d. Develop and document protocols and criteria to be used to establish new closures in the fishery.

e. Provide Industry with succinct information that allows the consideration of the implementation, success and future advantage of the current closures.

3

1.3 Non-technical Summary Four major initiatives have been undertaken as part of the ‘Closures Review’ project:

• a review of historical data to document the reasons when the closures were instigated and the reasons for the introduction of the closures;

• development of an ORACLE database and GIS of the current closures;

• Development of criteria and protocols for the classification and review of current closures and the establishment of new closures (including an Industry workshop that reviewed proposed criteria and protocols and incorporated Industry views into the final protocols).

• Production of an Industry Report that compiles the historical records of current closures and provides a summary of criteria and protocols for the review of current closures or closure proposals.

1.3.1 Documenting historical data on current closures

Annie Jarrett of ProFish Pty. Ltd. has undertaken a review of historical data to document the reasons why closures were established, the time that they were instigated and the process that led to their establishment. CSIRO documented the research projects (listing metadata and publications) that have been undertaken within the boundaries of current closures (or close by and relevant). The final document for each closure was developed as a Word document and then entered in an ORACLE database.

1.3.2 Development of an ORACLE and GIS database

An ORACLE database was established to store the historical information on current closures. A GIS of the current closures has been established with the facility to update the GIS annually to accommodate change in the geographic extent of closures.

1.3.3 Industry Workshop

An Industry Workshop was held on June 16th in Fremantle, in conjunction with NORMAC meeting #56. Eleven Industry and Science participants contributed to the workshop.

1.3.4 Closures criteria and protocols

Criteria have been developed that provide rigor to the decision process when assessing the proposal of a new closure or the review of a current closure. The criteria support the management of closures that are instigated to improve fishery productivity within the NPF (an internal context and driver). As well, the criteria are able to be used to gauge the impact on the NPF of possible closures to fishing instigated within an external context (e.g. Marine Protected Areas; an ‘environment and biodiversity’ context). In the case of ‘external’ closures, NORMAC will not be the agency managing the decision making process in regard to the closure and may not be able to provide final direction as to the criteria used to assess the closure. If possible, NORMAC should engage with the decision process and ensure that their NPF criteria are applied to the external decisions.

Two protocols have been developed to cater for the proposal, documentation and instigation or review of closures. The two protocols reflect closures that are instigated under different

4

contexts; internal and external drivers. Closures with external contexts include those instigated for reasons that are socio-cultural, support protection of environment and biodiversity or support competing infrastructure. Closures with an internal context represent the common historical closures that were instigated to achieve aims based around increasing fishery productivity.

1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 1. Conclusion: The primary aim of all current closures was to enhance the productivity

of the NPF, usually through protecting an early stage of the life history of prawns or through reducing effort on spawners or stocks.

2. Conclusion: The decision process that was used for many of the current closures was supported by qualitative data or sparse scientific data. The data-gaps remain and underpin current management. The rigour of the management of current closures could be improved by a strategic analysis of recently-collected data within the NPF (data from the NPF monitoring; 2002-2004). The analysis may best be undertaken a few years hence, as data continue to accumulate as collection is ongoing.

3. Recommendation: Document the process of implementation of closures in a consistent standard format using a data template document that records relevant information. The standard Closures Data Template supports a conceptual framework that allows a protocol and criteria to be used to review a proposed or current closure.

4. Recommendation: The Closures Review project makes a recommendation to NORMAC that:

• The criteria and protocols suggested in this project are adopted by the Closures Committee to underpin their decision making, and

• information on the future proposal and instigation of closures be recorded by a secretariat using the Closures Data Template supplied by this project, and

• CSIRO supply an ORACLE (or ACCESS) database to AFMA to house the data emanating from this project and all future closures information, and

• funds are provided to populate the database with current data and future data.

5. Recommendation: Record information about current and proposed closures in an ORACLE database. Make a new record when closures in new locations are proposed; or when changes are made to a current closure and those changes are made under a different context compared to the context that supported its instigation.

6. Recommendation: We propose that the status of all NPF closures should be considered at least every five years. The Closures Review project acknowledges that much new data were being collected in the NPF annually (particularly over the last three years). These data did not exist at the instigation of many closures, yet they may enable a more accurate assessment of the ongoing success of some closures. Presumably, new data will continue to be acquired and the possibility of an updated assessment of closures will arise anew. The review of many closures (e.g. Protected Area closures) will be perfunctory; they will be supported by a clear ongoing obligation. However, contentious and data-poor closures may be able to be assessed

5

using new data, combined with new techniques. Rigorous assessment may best be achieved as a scientific project that reports to the Closures Committee.

7. Recommendation (This recommendation did not arise solely from the Closures Review, but also from observations of the workings of the Closures Committee by the authors): NORMAC consider the current requirement for the Closures Committee to meet and we propose extending the duration between meetings to 3-5 years. The extension will facilitate the review of the status of current closures using new data. In conjunction with change to the frequency of meetings, NORMAC should conduct an internal review of the decision making process of the Closures Committee to ensure change is made that causes the committee to engage closure proposals more fully and seek options that make innovative use of all the information available to the committee to maximise the value of prawn stocks to Industry.

8. Recommendation: Use scientific data collected in recent years to verify that the aims of the current closures are being achieved and that benefits of current closures accrue to the NPF. In conjunction, engage Vessel Masters to collect data relevant to closures that will assist in the documentation of the need for closures; for example, collect size data (commercial count percentages) on prawns in areas suggested to be closed to demonstrate the presence of small prawns. Use innovative management such as closure-on/ closure-off to investigate at the outcomes of closure proposals or minor shifts in closure lines.

9. Recommendation: Scientific evaluation of the size of (small) prawns and percent of the catch that are deemed unacceptable to be caught. The size of prawns needs to be determined for each species and will depend, in part, on their size at first maturity. The evaluation may best be achieved by developing models that empirically examine the economic and biological consequence of taking catch at various sizes and the impact of the removal of those sized prawns on current catch (if they were allowed to grow) or recruitment the following year (if they failed to spawn).

10. Recommendation: Examine the biodiversity of ecosystems within current closures in the NPF and compare the ability of these closures to represent biodiversity that is identified as requiring conservation in the Northern Planning Area of the National Oceans Office, Northern Regional Marine Plan.

11. Recommendation: Consider the implications of VMS and the internet technology on the management of closures and the availability of information on closures, including:

• Real-time management of closures (including opening and closing) based on immediate assessment of prawn stocks through the use of electronic logbooks;

• Implementation of an internet accessible ‘read only’ information base to disseminate past and current knowledge of closures and possibly interface with onboard navigation systems.

12. Recommendation: That AFMA investigate ways of providing long term consistency in the documentation of future NPF ‘directions’ and the NPF Operations Manual through adherence to a nomenclature system. Approaches which could be investigated include using the same Schedule Numbers and/or Map Numbers for each closure over time. This will assist in the management of the database designed to record closure data and accessibility of the information contained therein.

6

1.5 Background A variety of closures have been implemented in the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) since it’s development in the early 1970’s. They have included Protected Area, Seasonal and Whole-of-DMZ and Daylight (seasonal) closures and many have changed through the years. The high cost of at-sea sampling has usually precluded the use of scientific surveys to determine whether closures should be imposed or to test their effectiveness. In many cases, the fishery has relied on anecdotal information provided by fishers for the location and timing of closures.

Much of the information on why closures were originally established has not been collated and some may not be documented. Also, the process in place to change the location or timing of existing closures, or establish new closures, is fairly ad hoc and in need of review. There is a need to document as fully as possible, the historical reasons that the current closures were implemented so that their effectiveness can be evaluated. It is also important to develop protocols and criteria that can be used to establish new and change existing closures in the NPF.

As well, the collation of this information will provide an important information base for consideration in the implementation of Marine Protected Areas in the fishery, including those under the National Oceans Office's Regional Marine Planning program.

1.6 Acknowledgements This project was funded by AFMA-MIRF (MAC-initiated) funds and CSIRO Marine Research. Industry has provided additional support for this research through their participation in the review workshop.

1.7 Project Staff in Alphabetical Order on Surname Janet Bishop (CSIRO – Marine Research)

Cathy Dichmont (CSIRO – Marine Research)

Annie Jarrett (ProFish Pty Ltd)

Robert Kenyon (CSIRO – Marine Research)

Tom Taranto (CSIRO – Marine Research)

Shijie Zhou (CSIRO – Marine Research)

1.8 References nil.

7

C H A P T E R 2

C O N T E X T O F C U R R E N T A N D F U T U R E C L O S U R E S

2.1 Summary We took a broad perspective on possible closures in the NPF and recognised that there were both ‘internal’ and ‘external’ drivers that cause an NPF closure to be instigated. We called these background issues of each closure the ‘context’ of the closure. We categorised ‘internal’ contexts as those that emanated from drivers within the fishery itself. The primary aim for these closures was to increase the quantity or value of the NPF target catch. These closures may assist other life stages of prawns than those fished or act over the long-term.

We categorised ‘external’ contexts as those that emanate from outside the fishery; from local areas adjacent to the fishery, for example, or from issues of a national perspective that impact the fishery.

2.2 The ‘context’ of closures We took a broad perspective on possible future closures in the NPF and recognised that they could be classified as originating from two categories of ‘drivers’: ‘internal’ and ‘external’ drivers - that might cause a closure to be instigated in the NPF. We categorised ‘internal’ drivers as those that emanated from the fishery itself. We categorised ‘external’ drivers as those that were put in place for reasons other than those related to NPF target catch. Furthermore, we suggested that a range of issues could be the drivers for a closure proposal and called these background issues the ‘context’ of the closure. Thus, both internal and external ‘contexts’ can be used to define a closure.

The primary aim for closures with an internal context is to increase the quantity or value of the NPF target catch (e.g. closures to protect small prawns). Internal closures may be put in place to enhance other life stages of prawns than those fished (e.g. Protected Area closures to protect nursery habitats) or act over the long-term (e.g. Seasonal closures to protect spawning stocks).

We postulated that external closures may become more frequent in the future of the NPF. External closures that impact the fishery negatively may be put in place as compelling reasons are seen to override any negative impact on fishery catch (e.g. fishing restrictions that are adjacent to urban infrastructure).

We quickly identified four simple ‘contexts’ for the characterisation of possible closures. Three were based on external drivers and one on an internal driver. The list of four is not

8

meant to be exhaustive (as unforeseen ‘contexts’ may arise); it is meant to demonstrate a method of classifying closures that assists dealing with closure protocols more effectively.

Our closure contexts and some examples of each are as follows:

1. Socio-Cultural, • Urban development • Indigenous interests • Recreational fishers • Multiple user conflict

2. Environment and Biodiversity, • Northern Regional Marine plan (biodiversity hot-spots) • Marine Protected areas • Conservation zones

3. Competing infrastructure, and • Undersea pipelines • Harbour infrastructure • Tourism infrastructure • Competing jurisdiction

4. Fishery productivity. • Fishery management (marketing, return-per-recruit) • Fishery Biology (protect spawners, protect sub-adults, protect nursery

habitats)

A quick glance at these closure contexts reveals that the first three are ‘external’ drivers; those that are not interpreted by fishery stakeholders as related to improving catch. To date, no closures have been instigated solely for aims which fall in the context of external drivers (the recent extension to the Port Essington Closure instigated at NORMAC 56 is the one exception). Some closures have been instigated with secondary aims that fall under an external driver: the socio-cultural context (indigenous interests).

The fourth example of a closure context (fishery productivity) is the context under which most current closures in the NPF have been instigated. Clearly the driver of this closure context is an internal driver. In the past, the proposal, assessment and instigation of all closures in the NPF have been undertaken by the Closures Committee (making a recommendation to NORMAC) or NORMAC. The instigation of these closures has been managed within the management structure of the NPF.

The delineation between internal and external drivers is crucial because it directly affects the protocols that should be used to assess and declare a closure. The source of most closures with external drivers is usually outside the management structure of the NPF. Thus, the closure is communicated directly to AFMA or NORMAC, not the Closures Committee. The aims and reasons for the closure may be overwhelming and managers may do little but agree to the closure and communicate it to Industry.

The recent extension to the Post Essington Protected Area Closure was instigated under an external context, yet it was managed by NORMAC (NORMAC 56, June 2004). The closure was extended to cover a greater area of the multiple-use marine section of the Gurig National Park to prevent ‘multiple-user conflict’ (a socio-cultural context). NORMAC did not

9

instigate this closure based on fishery productivity, thus, our closure criteria from Chapter Six will not well-fit the decision process, yet our closure protocols will.

2.2.1 An example of an ‘external driver’ for future closures

A clear example of an external driver that may result in the instigation of closures in the NPF is found in the context of Environment and Biodiversity. The National Ocean Office and the Department of Environment and Heritage have begun a process of developing a Northern Regional Marine Plan, incorporating the declaration of Marine Protected Areas. A draft Northern Regional Marine Plan is to be in place by December 2004, with declaration of protected areas in the future. The Plan is to incorporate an ‘ecosystem based management approach’ which will be supported by science.

NORMAC has signed off on the approach of the Northern Regional Marine Plan, including recognising the need for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Thus, at some future time, NORMAC will (most likely) receive proposals for the declaration of key areas of high biodiversity within the NPF as Marine Protected Areas. Clearly, the proposal and management of the implementation process of such a closure is outside the management structure of the NPF. Though the impact of an external closure may be considered by the Closures Committee and NPF Industry Organisations, neither body will have the capability of decision in regard to the closure.

Furthermore, current closures in the NPF may not satisfy the strictures of the Northern Regional Marine Plan. Although they may well protect prawns and enhance their catch, there is no guarantee that current closures also are areas of high biodiversity; areas likely protected under a system of Marine Protected Areas.

The criteria and protocols for the instigation of a Marine Protected Area within the NPF (effectively an NPF fishing closure) are different from those instigated under an internal driver. The criteria used to instigate an MPA may be in opposition to those that would optimise target catch in the NPF. However, in the national interest these criteria may be seen to take priority over fishing activities.

We consider it just as important to document criteria and protocols for external closures as those that emanate from within the NPF. A major component of our protocol for closure instigation is the documentation of the closure proposal and the process of consideration, decision and instigation (see Chapter 6). Aims, background and process of closures that are driven from the context of ‘socio-cultural’, ‘environment and biodiversity’ or ‘competing infrastructure’ need to be recorded as do those for closures that are driven by consideration of ‘fishery productivity’. Without documentation, the information on an ‘external’ closure probably would be lost more easily than one instigated from within the NPF. Historical information on internal closures can be gleaned from the collective memory of the NPF.

2.2.2 The context of current closures

The context of each of the current closures has been recorded in the ORACLE database. It has been interpreted from the results of the survey of historical data. The context of current closures is not recorded on the template that summarises historical data. Knowing the context of current closures assists in the understanding of the reasons for, and success of, current closures. It will assist in assessing how current closures fit the protocol that we have developed for the review or establishment of closures.

10

2.3 Benefits / Management Outcomes The development of the concepts of closure ‘drivers’ and closure ‘contexts’ has provided a conceptual framework that can be used to asses current and future closures. A conceptual framework is integral to the protocol for review and establishment of closures.

2.4 Conclusion 1. To date, internal issues have driven the implementation of all NPF closures. The

context of these issues has been fishery productivity.

2. Increasingly, the NPF is subject to external regulation, and impact from adjacent infrastructure development. Future restrictions on fishing may eventuate from issues that are external to the fishery. The external context of any restrictions to fishing that result in closures needs definition and documentation.

2.5 References National Oceans Office. 2004. Key Species: A description of Key Species Groups in the

Northern Planning Area. Background Paper. National Oceans Office, Hobart, Australia.

11

C H A P T E R 3

R E V I E W I N G H I S T O R I C A L I N F O R M A T I O N T O E S T A B L I S H T H E R E A S O N S F O R T H E I N S T I G A T I O N O F C U R R E N T C L O S U R E S

3.1 Summary A review of historical data was undertaken to document the reasons why current closures were established, as well as when and how they were instigated. CSIRO documented the research projects that have been undertaken within the boundaries of current closures, listing metadata and publications. The summary document for each closure was developed as a Word document and then entered in an ORACLE database.

3.2 Introduction and data sources Annie Jarrett of ProFish Pty. Ltd. has undertaken a review of historical data to document the reasons why closures were established, the time that they were instigated, and the process that led to their establishment. CSIRO documented the research projects that have been undertaken within the boundaries of current closures (or close by and relevant); listing metadata and publications.

Data sources for the historical review included: • NORPAC/ NORMAC agendas and minutes; 1982 – 2004. • Northern Fisheries Council documentation • Closures Task Force /Closure Committee minutes • Departmental Correspondence • Government Gazettes. • AFMA NPF Directions. • NPF publications (e.g. Pownall, 1994). • Meeting notes kept by some research representatives on the above committees.

The information obtained from the review has been gathered in a systematic way, using a data template to compile information for each closure. Key phrases are linked to each set of closure information so that the information can be queried in a database.

The compiled results of the review have been entered into an ORACLE database. As well, they are stored as WORD documents. The historical reviews of the closures are attached to this report as Appendix One (whole of NPF/Daylight closures), Appendix Two (Protected Area closures) and Appendix Three (Seasonal closures).

12

CSIRO documented the research projects that have been undertaken within the boundaries of current closures (or close by and relevant), listing metadata and publications. If recent research data are available, the final data entry for these closures includes a summary of the implication of the results of the scientific research for the closure.

Data sources for the science and research review included: • Search of the CSIRO metadata database- MarLIN. • Reference to published reports held by CSIRO and other government departments. • Reference to published paper in international journals. • The memory of principal investigators of key CSIRO projects, past and present.

3.3 Types and aims of current closures We identified three broad types of current closures. The closures were categorized on the duration (permanent and seasonal) and extent (whole of NPF). They currently are:

• Whole of NPF and daylight closures • Protected area closures • Seasonal area closures.

The original aims of these closures were identified and were broadly categorized.

3.3.1 Whole of DMZ and Daylight Closures

The aims that were identified for ‘Whole of NPF/Daylight’ closures included:

• Protect spawning stocks • Protect small prawns • Reduce effort on tiger prawns

The data that were used to assess the ability of the closure to support the aims were:

• Scientific survey data • Log Book data • Qualitative input from fishers.

To assist with setting optimal season dates for protecting small banana prawns, and spawning tiger prawns, and reducing effort on tiger prawns, several researchers have analysed all available information. The information included patterns of catch and effort according to logbook data, combined with knowledge of the geographic distributions of the species, and times of spawning according to scientific research.

A quick summary of these closures, including whether the area and timing of the closure have changed since instigation, can be found in Table 1.

13

Table 1: Key information about Whole of NPF closures and daylight closures. The closures are instigated under the AFMA NPF Directions 77 and 80. The areas (km2) given here have a possible error of up to 5%.

Closure Area (km2), map

NPF Direction / Schedule

Year instigated

Change in area

Change in timing

Comments

End of Season 515,466 map 40 77_2 1984 - Yes -

Goulburn Islands, First Season

2,112 map 30

80_2 2000 No Yes, with season Daylight

Goulburn Islands, Second Season

3,445 map 39

80_1_A 1999 No Yes, with season Daylight

Gulf of Carpentaria

355,556 map 39 80_1_B 1987 Yes Yes -

Mid Season 504,750 map 31 77_3 676 - Yes

Minor change , Anson Bay

3.3.2 Protected Area closures

The aims that were identified for ‘Protected Area’ closures included:

• Protect nursery areas/juvenile prawns • Protect biodiversity (perhaps species vulnerable to trawl nets) • Indigenous interests

The data that were used to assess the ability of the closure to support these aims were:


Many protected area closures were found in coastal embayments or coastal shallows and include the nursery habitats of NPF target species. Other diverse coastal habitats such as coral reefs and rocky reefs are also found within these closures.

The primary aim of the establishment of most protected area closures was to protect nursery habitats of target species (prawns). The aim was consistent with an ‘internal driver’ for the closure, i.e. to increase fishery production. A secondary aim was to protect ‘biodiversity’ which was generally used to refer to the complex seagrass and reef communities and the epibenthos that they supported (other than the fishery target species). As well, some of the species considered were large, high-profile species, such as dugong.

In some cases, a secondary aim was for ‘indigenous interests’, recognising the proximity of urban or rural aboriginal communities to the inshore shallow habitats and embayments that supported the penaeid prawn nursery habitats. These secondary aims were consistent with ‘external drivers’ for the closure; the secondary aims were not focussed on an increase in

14

fishery production. Rather, the secondary aims were consistent with the contexts of ‘environment and biodiversity’ and ‘socio-cultural’ interests.

The closures were almost all established in the 1980s, following scientific research on two complementary topics. Firstly, the basic biology and life cycle of the species was now understood, including the habitats required by the juveniles; and secondly, scientific surveys identified the locations of the crucial inshore nursery habitats (including seagrass and mangroves). The known seagrass locations became the basis of many of the protected area closures.

A quick summary of these closures, including whether the area and timing of the closure has changed since instigation, can be found in Table 2.

Table 2: Key information about Protected Area closures in the NPF. The closures are instigated under the AFMA NPF Direction number 78. The areas (km2) given here have a possible error of up to 5%.


NPF Direction / Schedule / Part

Year instigated

Change in area Comments

Alyangula 32 map 4 78_1_5 1983 No -

Arnhem Bay 1,202 map 10 78_1_12 1994 No -

Bartalumba Bay 35 map 4 78_1_4 1983 No -

Caledon Bay 130 map 3 78_1_1 1983 No -

Cape Shield to West Island

6,675 map 5 78_1_6 1983 Yes Coalescence of several

closures in 1988

Dalumba Bay 79 map 4 78_1_9 1988 No Dual contexts

Darwin to Point Blaze

1,347 map 7 78_1_8 1983 No -

Mornington Island 4,672 map 9 78_1_11 & 11a 1984 Yes -

North West Bay 82 map 4 78_1_3 1983 Yes -

Port Essington 202 map 8 78_1_10 1989 Yes Seasonal closures prior to

1989, history unclear

Port Langdon 261 map 4 78_1_2 1983 Yes -

Sir Edward Pellew Group

1,705 map 6 78_1_7 1983 Yes -

15

3.3.3 Seasonal Area closures

The aims that were identified for ‘Seasonal Area’ closures included:

• Protect sub adults • Protect spawning stocks • Protect juveniles • Reduce effort on tiger prawns

The data that were used to assess the ability of the closure to support these aims were:


The most common aim for the seasonal area closures was to protect sub-adults. Some bio-economic studies have been made; they confirm the obvious economic value of protecting the small prawns. Often though, few or no scientific data were available to support or verify these closures. However, since the introduction of some of the closures, scientific data have become available to investigate the likelihood of success of the aim of the closure. Even so, these data remain sparse. Significantly, major issues when setting and evaluating these sorts of closures remain. In the first instance, the high annual variability in the timing and location of the peak abundance of small prawns; and secondly, the occurrence of large and small prawns (usually of different species) together on the same grounds.

Three solutions to these issues have been proposed. Firstly, lifting closures (instigated to protect tiger prawns) during the day, so that banana prawns could be caught. Secondly, “real-time monitoring” and decision-making about when to close the grounds due to high abundance of small prawns; and thirdly, the use of larger cod-end mesh to reduce the take of small prawns while allowing the targeting of larger ones. In the past, the first of these has not gained unanimous industry acceptance, due to the difficulty in guaranteeing that no tiger prawns would be caught during the day. The other two possible solutions have not been developed to a state where they could be implemented, and it may be worthwhile to investigate their feasibility. VMS, electronic logbooks and email offer new opportunities for real-time monitoring.

Importantly, little data on the other biological resources within these closures are available. The distribution and abundance of few species other than target species within the geographic extent of the closures have been quantified. Some current projects (e.g. Brewer et al. 2003 and FRDC 2002/035 “Design, trial and implementation of an integrated long-term bycatch monitoring program, road tested in the NPF”) are adding to the known data. However, significant areas of untrawlable ground exist within some seasonal closures and the benthos within these areas is unknown. The lack of scientific data on the habitats represented by untrawlable ground, both on target species and other benthos is, by default, a weakness in our understanding of the biological resources of the closure areas.

A quick summary of the Seasonal Area closures, including whether the area and timing of the closure has changed since instigation, can be found in Table 3.

16

Table 3: Key information about current Seasonal Area closures in the NPF. The closures are instigated under the AFMA NPF Direction number 77. The areas (km2) given here have a possible error of up to 5%.


NPF Direction / Schedule

Year instigated

Change in area

Change in timing

Comments (replaced past closure)

Cambridge Gulf 7,910 map 37 77_14 2000 No Yes _

Fog Bay / Bynoe Harbour

1,277 map 27 77_11 2004 Yes - Replaced

Roche Reef

Joseph Bonaparte Gulf

22,127 map 24 77_7 1988 Yes No _

Lingi Point 507 map 28 77_13 2000 Yes No _

Native Point 67 map 38 77_15 2001 No Yes _

North West Vanderlin Island 8_3 Patch

1,344 map 35 77_10 1999 No No

Open to scientific

review

North West of Groote Eylandt

4,355 map 25 77_8 1995 Yes Yes _


4,904 map 34 77_5 1987 Yes Yes _

South West Corner

8,578 map 26 77_9 1999 Yes Yes Replaced

Maria Island

Sweers Island / Mornington Island

1,069 map 29 77_6 1989 Yes Yes _

Tarrant Point / Mornington Island / Bynoe River

10,027 map 33 77_4 1987 No Yes

_

Weipa Seasonal 1,795 map 36 77_12 1998 Yes Yes _

17

3.4 Data types that support current closures or the establishment of future closures As part of the documentation of each closure, we classified the types of data that existed and were used by the Closures Committee during the decision-making about the instigation of current closures (Table 4). The classification includes a comment on the rigor inherent in these data. The classification of the data facilitated the recording of the historical data and the provision of key-phrases for future database searches.

Table 4: Types of data used to support the instigation of current closures and verify their ongoing existence.

Type of data Information content

Comment Data rigor Extra information

Scientific survey data

Distribution, Abundance, Length frequency

Statistical –based experimental design

High _

Scientific observer data

Distribution, Abundance, Length frequency

Trawl sites not based on scientific design

Moderate _

Industry fishery dependent data

Distribution, Abundance, Length frequency (?)

No scientific design, no scientific oversight

Moderate Data are sparse

Log Book data Landings distribution and abundance, Commercial size count

Species group data (e.g. tiger prawns, banana prawns)

Moderate Some size data derived from commercial count

Fishers qualitative (written) input

Qualitative abundance by species group, Commercial size count

Species group data (e.g. tiger prawns, banana prawns)

Low Distribution data are not available

A description of the data types is as follows:

1. Scientific survey data – data collected from surveys where the movement of vessels is determined by the scientists onboard and optimally determined using a sample design which has been developed by consideration of the statistical independence of the samples.

2. Scientific observer data – data collected from commercial fishing vessels by on-board scientists where the movement of the vessel is determined by the fishing operation; the choice

18

of location and time of sampling will adhere best to scientific principles and the actual data will be collected using techniques that adhere to a scientific method.

3. Industry fishery dependent data – data that are collected from commercial fishing vessels by non-scientists where the movement of the vessel is determined by the fishing operation; scientific advice may have given rise to the choice of location and time of sampling to adhere best to scientific principles and the collection techniques used. However, the collection may have been devised by industry personnel.

4. Log book data – data from NPF logbooks; mostly catch data per species group by six nautical mile grid location. Some size data derived by commercial count data.

5. Qualitative input from fishers (including written submissions) – qualitative descriptive data provided by fishers. It may include catch rate or catch amount-per-night and commercial size count data.

3.5 Benefits / Management outcomes The review of historical information has identified that the decision process for many of the current closures was supported by qualitative data or sparse scientific data. Thus, the rigor of the management of current closures could be improved by a strategic analysis of recently-collected data from all major fishing areas within the Gulf of Carpentaria (data from the NPF Monitoring; 2002-2004). Until 2002, the collection of broad scale prawn distribution and abundance data within the NPF had not been undertaken. The analysis may best be undertaken following the completion of several years of the ongoing monitoring surveys as the understanding of annual and seasonal variation in prawn recruitment and abundance will be enhanced.

The review also shows that the primary aim of all current closures was to enhance the productivity of the NPF, usually through protecting an early stage of the life history of prawns or through reducing effort on spawners or stocks. We are aware that management processes that aim to conserve the biodiversity in marine ecosystems in northern Australia are currently being developed by Commonwealth agencies. The areas that are being considered overlap the NPF. It is possible that the implementation of Marine Protected Areas may close some areas of the NPF to fishing. The historical summary of the aims and management of current closures enhances the ability of NPF managers to understand the background and outcomes of current closures. In turn, they can apply this information to assess the likely impacts of closures that may be implemented from outside the management structure of the NPF. An improved understanding will allow NPF managers to best engage with any external process that imposes restrictions on fishing in the NPF.

3.6 Conclusions The primary aim of all current closures was to enhance the productivity of the NPF, usually through protecting an early stage of the life history of prawns or through reducing effort on spawners or stocks.

The decision process that was used for many of the current closures was supported by qualitative data or sparse scientific data. The data-gaps remain and underpin current management. The rigour of the management of current closures could be improved by a strategic analysis of recently-collected data within the NPF.

19

3.7 References Brewer, D.T., Heales, D.S., Milton, D.M., Taylor, B.T., Fry, G., Dell, Q., Austin, M., Eayers,

S., Day, G., Wakeford, J., Jones, P.N., Bird, B., Gough, C., Gregor, R., Sen, S., Stobutzki, I., Wang, Y-G., Boot, I., Carter, D., Jackson, P., LaMacchia, T., Lombardo, P., Lowe, L., Nelson, C., Nichols, J., O’Brien, M., Palmer, J., Sant, G. and Hegerl, E. 2003. Assessment and Improvement of TEDs and BRDs in the NPF. Final Report to FRDC. 405pp.

MarLIN, 2004. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Information Network (MarLIN). CSIRO Marine Research Data Centre, Hobart, Australia. (www.marine.csiro.au/marlin/)

Pownall, P.C. 1994. Australia’s Northern Prawn Fishery: the first 25 years. NPF25, Cleveland, Australia.

20

C H A P T E R 4

O R A C L E A N D G I S D A T A B A S E

4.1 Summary Both an ORACLE database and GIS of the current closures have been established. The GIS includes maps and attributes of all current DMZ, Protected Area and Seasonal closures. Given time and funding, it is possible to link the ORACLE database to the GIS and display ‘read-only’ information via the World Wide Web.

4.2 Data template We designed a template for the recording of data on the current closures. The template acted as a standard format for data collection. It facilitated the collection of data in a format that could be stored and queried in a database. A copy of the template is available in the appendices (see Protected Area closures in Appendix Two, for example).

Each closure had a template form completed using the historical information. The final compilation of information about each closure included:

• the title and a short description of the closure;

• the AFMA NPF Direction and Schedule relative to the closure;

• a map of the closure;

• the completed data template;

• a summary of the historical information about the closure; and

• information such as scientific research projects and publications that is relevant to the closure.

The templates have proved useful in presenting key information for the Industry report that summarises each current closure.

Furthermore, the historical-information template was modified to fulfil the requirement of a template that was useful to record information on future closures or the consideration of the status of current closures. It can record key information on proposed closures and would allow their tracking as the closure proposal was considered by the Closures Committee.

The current closures data template is integral to the protocol for the establishment of future closures (see Chapter Six). In hindsight, it seems inadequate that such a template had not been employed in the past to document the process of the instigation of closures. If a data template had been used, this project would not have been necessary, as key information

21

would have been recorded. The template provides the equivalent of a ‘recipe’ to follow; when filled out it ensures that the documentation of a closure proposal is completed. Completion of the ‘closures data template’ during the proposal, consideration and instigation of closures is proposed to be mandatory as part of the future closures instigation protocol.

4.3 ORACLE Database The ORACLE database has been constructed. The design of key tables reflects the data template which was used to record the historical information on the closures in a standard format. As well, the tables reflect the current data template that records data on closure proposals (Figure One). It includes ‘key words’ and ‘key phrases’ that can be used to query the database to ensure that it is of practical use into the future. Thus, the database stores information on both ‘past’ and ‘future’ closures.

The ORACLE database is linked to the CSIRO metadata database, MarLIN, which houses information on all CSIRO research projects and data coverage. Though it is outside the scope of this project, the database could be setup to be accessed via the World Wide Web, both for data input by the Closures Committee and viewing by interested parties, such as NPF operators.

Figure 1: A schematic of the design of the ‘closures database’ that has been established to house both historical data on the current closures and the data that emanate during the documentation of future closures.

22

The closures ORACLE database can also be linked to the Northern Prawn Fishery logbook data. The link will offer a benefit for future projects that will be able to identify whether particular locations were open or closed on any particular day. Having this utility allows the distinction between locations that were open, but un-fished, from other locations that were un-fished because they were closed. An example of when this distinction is important is when investigating the catch and effort history of some of the highly productive hotspots that have had severe declines in catch in recent years.

4.4 GIS database GIS maps of each of the current closures (DMZ, Protected Area and Seasonal) have been developed. Attribute tables for these maps currently contain information about each closure. Though it is outside the scope of this project, the historical data stored in the ORACLE tables could be linked to the GIS and ‘read-only’ maps and information could be made available to Industry via the World Wide Web.

4.5 Benefits / Management outcomes The ORACLE and GIS databases enable long-term storage of summary data on NPF closures (both historical information and data that are yet to be recorded). The databases can be made accessible via the World Wide Web. Both data entry of proposed or newly implemented closures (by those with password access) and ‘read-only’ information access can be made available to NPF stakeholders. These initiatives are beyond the scope of this project and would require considerable planning and development.

4.6 References MarLIN, 2004. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Information Network (MarLIN). CSIRO Marine

Research Data Centre, Hobart, Australia. (www.marine.csiro.au/marlin/)

23

C H A P T E R 5

I N D U S T R Y W O R K S H O P A N D L I A I S O N

5.1 Summary An Industry Workshop was undertaken on June 16th in Fremantle, the day prior to the NORMAC #56 meeting. Many of the participants at the workshop were the same as those attending NORMAC. The NORMAC meeting served to bring together many key players in the NPF, thus the costs of bringing together our workshop attendees were reduced. Twelve people attended the workshop.

The aim of the workshop was to incorporate Industry input into the protocols and criteria that will be used to review current closures and establish new closures. Discussion was encouraged and occurred regularly through out each section and at the conclusion of the workshop. The workshop seemed well received by both Industry and CSIRO/AFMA participants and verbal support and congratulations on the format and project work achieved were received. Refinements to closures criteria and protocols were produced and incorporated in this report.

Following the Workshop, NPF skippers and owners in Cairns (prior to the second season 2004) were consulted about the criteria and protocols that emanated from the project Workshop.

5.2 Introduction A key initiative of the project and a Milestone event was the consultation with Industry on the draft criteria and protocols that the project developed. The consultation took place at a Workshop in Fremantle in June 2004 and in Cairns in August 2004.

5.3 Industry Workshop We conducted a half-day workshop on the afternoon of June 16th from 1300 to approximately 1700. We considered who to invite to the workshop and thought that the members of the current Closures Committee were crucial to a good discussion, as well as a skipper of an NPF vessel. We invited Tony (Frank) Williams, skipper of the F.V. Dolphin Pearl, as the independent participant. Due to fishing commitments, Tony could not attend. However, Craig Warne, skipper of the F.V. Surefire attended in the company of Clayton Nelson and filled this role (Clayton hopes to transfer his duties on the Closures Committee to Craig).

24

Rob Kenyon, Annie Jarrett and Janet Bishop attended the Workshop in their capacity as project participants. Wade Whitelaw attended in his capacity as NPF Manager. Cathy Dichmont attended as a CSIRO representative. Several attendees are NORMAC advisors.

Invitations to each participant were followed by letters to all attendees which provided information on the aims, background documents and final arrangements of the workshop.

5.3.1 Workshop participants

The following participants were involved in the Industry workshop:

• Ean Casey (NT representative, NORMAC and Closures Committee).

• Janet Bishop (this project, CSIRO)

• Cathy Dichmont (CSIRO representative, NORMAC advisor).

• Tony Gofton (Qld representative, Closures Committee, NPF Skipper).

• Mick Haywood (CSIRO representative, Closures Committee).

• Annie Jarrett (this project, ProFish, NORMAC)

• Rob Kenyon (this project, CSIRO)

• Clayton Nelson (WA representative, NORMAC advisor, Closures Committee)

• Mike O’Brien (Qld Representative, NORMAC advisor, Closures Committee).

• Andy Prendergast (WA representative, Closures Committee).

• Wade Whitelaw (AFMA representative, NORMAC, Closures Committee).

• Craig Warne (NPF Skipper, F.V. Surefire)

5.3.2 Workshop format

The Workshop took the format of a PowerPoint presentation by CSIRO with continual opportunities to critique and review the proposals put by PowerPoint (agenda attached as Appendix Five). The presentation was divided in three sections:

• A summary of the outcomes of the review of the historical information on current closures,

• A consideration of the ‘context’ of possible future closures and some likely scenarios, and

• Proposals for Criteria and Protocols for consideration with respect to current and future closures.

At the end of each section, input was invited from the floor. Discussion occurred regularly through out each section and was encouraged (as long as it was relevant to the workshop aims). The Workshop seemed well received by both Industry and CSIRO/AFMA participants and verbal support and congratulations on the workshop format and project

25

achievements were received from Industry during the workshop (Mike O’Brien and nodding agreement from others).

Draft criteria and protocols for the review of current closures or the establishment of new closures were put forward and Industry contributed suggested-changes for final criteria and protocols. Janet Bishop took detailed minutes of the workshop and documented all suggestions put forward, both by Industry and science contributors.

The scope of the criteria and protocols that were suggested at the workshop seemed to be comprehensive and no significant gaps in criteria or protocols were recognised by Industry. Minor changes were suggested and will be implemented.

A key aspect of the closures protocol is for all closures to be documented in a standard format during the process of assessment by the Closures Committee. By chance, the next day at the NORMAC meeting, an extension to the Port Essington closure was instigated and it offered the opportunity to document the process using our suggested format and data template. This process showed up minor flaws in our format and was useful to test-run the documentation protocol that we are in the process of developing.

5.4 Industry consultation in Cairns

5.4.1 Industry liaison

Just prior to the commencement of the second season 2004 (tiger season), Rob Kenyon travelled to Cairns. Rob had been conducting ‘port visits’ for the Species Distribution project for about two years and had come to know some of the Cairns-based fishers well. He arranged to consult with them about the draft criteria and protocols for closures.

Rob took copies of draft documents which were discussed with fishers to obtain feedback on the ideas that were generated during the project and reviewed at the Industry Workshop in Fremantle. The draft documents were:

• Printout of draft protocols for closures (two --- internal and external drivers) • Printout of draft criteria for closures • Printout of proposed closure documentation template • A short version of the seminar delivered at the Fremantle Workshop.

Rob spoke to 6 skippers and 2 owners in Cairns and obtained their views on the draft protocol and criteria.

5.4.2 Comments on Closure protocols

The protocols for the instigation of closures were well received by all consultees. There were no comments that major considerations for an effective protocol had been missed. The protocol for ‘external drivers’ that coped with closure proposals that emanated from outside the fishery was well received.

Three significant comments about the ‘internal’ protocol were made:

• A ‘bypass’ of NPFIO bodies should be in place for high priority science-instigated closure proposals that were perceived as a ‘bitter pill’ for Industry. Such a closure might not be supported by Industry, but be a very sound management option. Under

26

the draft protocol, a science-instigated closure could be vetoed by NPFIOs and never reach the Closures Committee. (one consultee)

• A provision to email (via VMS) or fax all SFR holders that a closure proposal was before the Closures Committee. The Closures Committee Secretary was to provide the information before the proposal went to the Closures Committee. (This idea seemed to suggest that NPFIO organisations did not readily distribute information to all SFR holders all the time.) (six consultees)

• The provision of a tick-box providing a ‘review-flag’ on the closure documentation template. The ‘review-flag’ would indicate that, at the instigation of the closure, the committee considered a review of the status of the closure was warranted after a specific interval. This box would be supplemented by a detailed explanation on page 2 or 3 of the document. The consultee suggested that past closures had been instigated with a view to future review. However, the provision of review ‘gets forgotten’ over time and never occurs. Often, the review would seem to have been a natural flow-on from the instigation of the closure. The review might involve assessment of the ‘regeneration’ of an area or an assessment of improved catch in areas adjacent to the closure. Essentially, a review of the success or failure to achieve the original aim of the Closure. (one consultee)

A further comment was to request that closures (boundaries and corridors) be provided by digital format in C-Plot (specifying the datum- WGS84 or other) to enable quick up-load of closures on a vessels computing system. A skipper suggested that closures had to be entered on the vessel’s computer or plotter by hand and that all the closures information could be lost if the computer ‘crashed’; and then they had to be re-entered.

5.4.3 Comments on Closure criteria

Nobody suggested major new criteria that should be used, which indicated that we had covered most contingencies well. Based on their at-sea experience, skippers were asked to think about other ‘adverse consequences’ that might result from closures; no significant new adverse consequences were identified (other than those that were listed). One point that was made was that, due to limited season (DMZ Seasonal Closure), vessels will no longer explore new regions looking for prawns as they don’t have time to devote to an activity that does not result in a catch. Thus, due to the current short seasons, vessels cannot look for alternative grounds if they lose grounds to a closure, such as Protected Area or Seasonal closures.

The most active comments on closure criteria were in regard to the definition of what is a small prawn and at what percentage of the catch it should be unacceptable to catch them. All skippers suggested that < 30 count per pound prawns should be regarded as ‘small prawns’ and should not be caught (Table Five). They applauded the use of closures to prevent access to small prawns. Some suggested that < 20 count or < 25 count prawns might also be regarded as small and should not be caught. The definition of a small prawn and the quantity of small prawn in the catch are issues that could be determined by a team with the appropriate skills at the delegation of the Closures Committee.

27

Table 5: Opinion of the size of small prawns, and assessment of their proportion in the catch, obtained from skippers and owners during port visits prior to the 2004 tiger prawn season.

Species group Individual Percent by

Tigers Bananas Endeavours Kings

Volume < 30 count < 30 count < 30 count < 30 countSkipper 1

Approx 15 g 12 g 12 g 12 g

Skipper 2 Volume

<10-15%

< 30 (possibly 25) count

< 30 count < 30 count < 30 count

Skipper 3 _ < 30 count < 30 count < 30 count < 30 count

Numbers

<30%

< 30 (possibly 20) count

< 30 count < 30 count < 30 countSkipper 4

(22 g) _ 12 g 12 g

Skipper 5 _ < 30 count - < 30 count < 30 count

An adverse consequence of closures was suggested to be the ‘target-fishing’ of other species elsewhere. There was some talk of lifting closures (instigated to protect tiger prawns) during the day, so banana prawns could be sought and caught. However, it was suggested that access to closed areas during the day would result in ‘target fishing’ of banana prawns. Rob found it difficult to determine the key message from this whole conversation or how it could be rationally implemented.

5.5 Benefits / Management Outcomes The outcomes of the Closures Review project are meant to benefit Industry. It is crucial that Industry be consulted and their views be incorporated in the outputs of the project. In the absence of consultation, suggested refinements to the current protocols and criteria would not have been made.

An Industry Report will be distributed to NPF owners and skippers. It will contain significant Industry input through both the Workshop and liaison in ports.

5.6 Conclusions 1 Industry consultation did not show up glaring deficiencies in the criteria and protocols

suggest by the project. Minor refinement of suggested criteria and protocols did occur.

2 The definition of the size of a small prawn and the percentage of catch above which is deemed to be a too large amount of small prawns needs to be defined by the Closures Committee and incorporated into Closures Criteria. A clear definition is required for consideration when the aim of a proposed closure is to ‘protect small prawns’. The decision to close or not close a fishing area need not be proceeded by an argument about “what is a small prawn” or “what proportion of them in the catch is too high”.

28

5.7 References Nil.

29

C H A P T E R 6

C R I T E R I A A N D P R O T O C O L S F O R C U R R E N T A N D F U T U R E C L O S U R E S

6.1 Summary In the past, the documentation of a closure in a standard format did not occur. Information about the instigation of a closure was recorded in meeting minutes; but it was not documented in a manner that assisted the future assessment of current closures, or one that facilitated the use of a standard protocol to assess proposed closures. We propose two protocols for the review of current closures and future closure proposals. This first protocol assists the implementation of closures by the management of the NPF (‘internal’ closures). The second protocol assists the interpretation of closures that emanate from a decision structure outside the NPF (‘external’ closures).

6.2 Introduction The introduction of a protocol for closures provides a conceptual framework within which closures can be assessed. The protocol is supported by a categorisation of the context of a closure or a closure proposal. Defining the context of a closure assists in determining the criteria that should be applied as part of the closure protocol.

Our protocol for internal closures has five major components (Figure 2):

• Closure documentation enhanced by centralised receipt;

• Industry consultation;

• Assessment and decision by the Closures Committee;

• Prioritisation for review and resubmission; and

• Ongoing consideration and review (five yearly at most).

Historically, the documentation of the current closures as they were instigated did not occur. Information was recorded in the minutes of the Closures Committee and NORMAC. However, it was not recorded in a standard format that could be compared between closures or through time. There was no ‘conceptual model’ that provided a framework for the classification of the background and aims that were used to instigate the closure.

The lack of a conceptual model for the closures process did not allow a protocol to be developed for the assessment of a closure proposal and reduced the rigor that could be applied to closure instigation.

30

6.3 Closures protocol The draft closures protocols are provided below. Two protocols are provided. The first for closures that are implemented by the Closures Committee and NORMAC, closures with ‘internal drivers’ (Figure 2). The second for closures imposed on the NPF from external sources, those with ‘external drivers’ (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Protocol flow diagram for an “internal driver” for closures in the NPF. “P” is a facility for prioritisation of a closure proposal for review and resubmission to the Closures Committee; it also facilitates the five-yearly review of current closures and ensures the documentation of change.

Internal driver - Protocol flow diagram

Closures Committee Secretary

NPFIO


Closures Committee

Data template ---Page 2

Data template --- Page 1

PROPOSAL

NORMAC

N

CRITERIA• Biological principle and

outcome• Economic cost-

benefit• Other cases

• Adverse consequence

AFMA ‘VMS-invitation’ to submit a closure proposal

Y

Rejection/ proposal feedback

Review and resubmission

P

Closure instigation / NPF Direction

AFMA determination

Skippers and Unit holders

Science proposal supported by the

FAG

31

Figure 3: Protocol flow diagram for an “external driver” for closures in the NPF. The NORMAC secretary ensures that information about the closure is transferred to the Closures Committee and documented in the standard format of all NPF closures.

6.3.1 Documentation of closures

The critical component of our protocol for NPF closures is that of the consistent documentation of all future closures. As part of this project, we documented the aims,

External driver - Protocol flow diagram

NORMAC

AFMA Review

PROPOSAL

CRITERIA• Biological

principle and outcome

• Economic cost-benefit

• Other cases• Adverse

consequence

NPFIO


Data template --- Full documentation

Sec

Closures Committee

NPF Manager

SFR holders

32

decisions, dates, and locations etc. of the current closures. To do this we trawled historical information from a range of sources (see Chapter 2) and wrote down all reference to each closure. The decision processes in regard to the instigation of a closure could often be found in NORMAC Minutes. The context of the closure could often be determined and some of the reasoning behind the decisions could be identified. However, the extent of the information was limited and, optimally, more background information would have been recorded at the time.

It seems improbable that the comprehensive documentation a closure as it was proposed to the Closures Committee and assessed by them was not undertaken; yet a process was not in place. Although the considerations of the Closures Committee were recorded in the Committee minutes, the content of past minutes was limited and information about the process of the instigation of current closures was not recorded systematically. Had the background information been fully documented, this project (the Closures Review Project) would not have been required.

We propose a documentation process that uses a ‘standard format’ that is designed specifically for the purpose of documenting closures. We have developed a format and it is attached as Appendix 4 to this report. The Closures Data Template has been developed to record all aspects of the closure process: header information, closure context, closure aim, location, supporting data, etc.

6.3.1.a An example of the documentation of a closure

By chance, Rob Kenyon attended NORMAC Meeting #56 the day following the Closures Industry Workshop. During this meeting, NORMAC made a decision to extend the Port Essington Closure. Although the decision to extend the closure was recorded in the meeting minutes, only a limited set of data was recorded. As Rob was at the meeting, he used a prototype data template to document the proposal as the discussion took place within NORMAC. He interpreted the discussion to determine the context and aims of the closure, the data used to support it and to record ancillary information that we have suggested should be recorded. These data will now form the database entry for the extension of the Port Essington Closure.

As well, the process of documenting the Port Essington Extension showed up deficiencies in the prototype template; improvements have been made. Moreover, if the ‘context’ of a closure changes, it showed up the need for data storage tables that had the capacity to store multiple records for a closure in the same general location. In explanation, the extension of the Port Essington closure was instigated within a different context (i.e. socio-cultural, multiple user conflict) to the context of the original closure (fishery productivity, protection of nursery habitats and small prawns). Thus, the current closure extension is a ‘different’ closure to the original and the change in context needs to be recorded. It is not adequate to record this particular extension as part of the same record as that of the original closure.

Due to the practical example encountered at NORMAC #56, it became clear that the change of context of a closure required different data to be recorded than the initial or historical documentation of a closure. Thus, it requires a new record in the database. The documentation of changes in closures that are not instigated under a different context can be recorded in the narrative that is the ‘history’ of the closure as an update to one record in the database.

Also, it is interesting to note that, originally, there were secondary contexts associated with the Port Essington Closure; one of which partly matched the context of the extension that was

33

instigated at NORMAC 56. The secondary contexts included: environment and biodiversity (to protect dugong), and socio-cultural (indigenous interests). Clearly, the socio-cultural dimension of activities around the Coburg Peninsula has been impacting on the NPF since the 1970’s.

6.3.2 Industry consultation

Following receipt by the Closures Committee Secretary, the closure proposal will be sent to NPFIO organisations. If one organisation supports the closure, it will be documented by the Committee Secretary and sent to the Closures Committee. Documentation will take the form of completing the front page of the Closure Data Template. This page includes information on:

• Header information; • The proposer of the closure; • The context and aim of the proposed closure; • The target species of the proposed closure; • The location of the proposed closure; • The data that are available to support the closure.

After the documentation of the closure, the presence of a closure proposal and a short summary of the information about the proposed closure will be sent to all NPF skippers and Units Holders by mail (or VMS email if available). A general ‘mail-out’ to all NPF parties was seen as necessary by most skippers consulted. Not all skippers (for example) accessed the information distributed by NPFIOs; yet, the skippers wanted to know about proposed closures.

A closure that is instigated by the science community (working within the NPF) may need a method to bring a closure proposal to the attention of the Closures Committee, despite the NPFIOs not supporting it. An example where a proposed closure was seen as critical, based on the information provided by the science community, yet a ‘bitter pill’ to Industry would fulfil this need. Such a closure would be presented direct to NORMAC via the FAG. The accompanying provision for direct submission of a science-based proposal to the Closures Committee by the Committee Secretary would ensure rigorous ecosystem-based management is applied in the NPF, as well as full documentation of the closure.

6.3.3 Assessment and decision by the Closures Committee

The Closures Committee will consider the proposed closure against criteria as specified in Section 6.4. The ‘data template’ documentation’ of the proposed closure will facilitate the consideration of all information relevant to the closure. Together with this protocol, it will achieve this by providing a conceptual framework, within which to consider the context and aims of the closure against closure criteria.

6.3.4 Prioritisation of review and reassessment of closures

The Closures Committee may consider a proposed closure does not warrant instigation forthwith. However, the proposed closure’s aim, extent and likely outcome may be attractive to enhancing the productivity of the NPF. This report is not suggesting that a large percentage of closure proposals should be sent for review. However, we see a need for some closures to have further information gathered to support them. A facility of prioritisation for review is included in the protocol.

34

For example, if the closure was proposed by Industry and supported by qualitative data from fishers only, further information might include a rigorous scientific assessment using available survey data.

6.3.5 Ongoing Consideration and Review of Closures

We propose that the status of all NPF closures should be considered at least every five years. On-going review of closures was not supported by the majority at the Industry Workshop in Perth. We felt that we had to acknowledge that much new data were being collected in the NPF annually (particularly over the last three years). These data did not exist at the instigation of many closures, yet they may enable a more accurate assessment of the ongoing success of some closures. Presumably, new data will continue to be acquired and the possibility of an updated assessment of closures will arise anew. The review of many closures (e.g. Protected Area closures) will be perfunctory; they will be supported by a clear ongoing obligation. However, contentious and data-poor closures may be able to be assessed using new data, combined with new techniques. Rigorous assessment may best be achieved as a scientific project that reports to the Closures Committee.

Seasonal closures may be reviewed more often. For example, our summarised history of the North East Vanderlins 8_3 Patch closure shows that the Closures Committee considered that an analysis of scientific data available for the closure would enable an assessment of its success. However, at the time of its instigation the availability of rigorous data was slim. Over the life of the closure, it was envisaged that a change to its boundaries might occur. Moreover, it is clear that the data available to validate the aims and success of the 8_3 Patch closure have increased markedly in recent years; data have been collected during the CSIRO Monitoring Project (2002-2004 and ongoing) (see Dichmont et al. 2002; 2003). Thus, the ability to assess the achievement of the aims of the closure improves annually.

Furthermore, the Industry consultation in Cairns identified an addition to the closures data template which included a ‘flag’ to identify that a new closure was to be reviewed in the future. This flag would ensure that the original intention of future review would not be forgotten. A five-yearly review would be assisted by the use of a review flag.

6.4 Closures Criteria To ensure a high and consistent standard of review of closure proposals, the Closures Committee require criteria against which a proposal may be assessed. Likewise, the criteria can be used to review current closures. These criteria are useful for closures that are proposed under the Fishery Productivity context (as were most current closures).

In some cases, scientific analysis may be required to develop and support more detailed criteria, including specific measurement criteria. This is beyond the scope of the current project.

6.4.1 Closures Criteria

Criteria 1: A biological principle that is likely to contribute to the desired outcome underpins the aim of the closure.

• For example, a closure is introduced to protect a known life history stage; or spawning stocks are protected.

• Closures that rely on assumptions that biological evidence suggests are implausible should be discarded immediately.

35

Criteria 2: An economic cost/benefit is likely to favour an outcome that provides an overall benefit to the majority of the fleet (possible Strategy Evaluation). The cost of cessation of access to the closed area is likely outweighed by the ensuing overall benefits to the fishery.

• Economic consideration of what is a ‘small’ prawn and the low value per kilogram of smaller size grades need be considered.

Criteria 3: Other cases (either the NPF or other fisheries) indicate there is a high probability that the desired outcome of the closure is achieved.

• Prior evidence, including before/after comparisons, to indicate a positive outcome.

• Minimum requirement for a strong inference of a positive outcome.

Criteria 4: “Small” prawns are protected by closures until they reach a size where they can be fished. Consideration of the size, below which prawns should not be fished, would likely take into account both biological and economic criteria, such as:

• The prawns have reached a marketable size (acceptable commercial value, see Somers 1985 for discussion);

• The prawns have likely achieved a successful first spawning (see section 6.4.2).

Criteria 5: Good biological data are available to verify the aim of the closure can be achieved.

• Scientific survey data • Scientific observer data • Log-book data • Industry fishery-dependent data • Fishers written input.

Criteria 6: Adverse consequences are considered and likely scenarios discussed.

• A shift in effort due to a closure in one location that would have dramatic negative consequence elsewhere.

• Upon the loss of fishing ground to a closure, due to the current short seasons, vessels cannot look for alternative grounds if they lose known fishing grounds.

• Investigate adverse consequences of proposed closures using innovative means. For example, instigate proposed closures in a year-on/ year-off manner and engage keen fishers in a project that assesses the achievement of the closure aims without adverse consequences. Make permanent or discard the closure based on the outcomes of the assessment.

Criteria 7: Alternatives are considered.

6.4.2 Measurement Criteria

As many closures are put in place to ‘protect small prawns’, the definition of what size constitutes a small prawn and the setting of a level (percentage) of small prawns in the catch needs to be defined. The definition of a small prawn will differ between species (see Table 6 for size at first maturity). Catch rates that describe unacceptable rates of catch of small prawns and result in too high a percentage of small prawn in the catch should be avoided. The percent of catch can be calculated by numbers or by volume of catch. However, as many

36

small prawns comprise a small volume of the catch, we recommend a percent of catch based on numbers.

Industry operators in Cairns clearly suggested that prawns (all species) < 30 count were small and should be avoided (Table 6). One operator suggested that tiger prawns < 20 count were not worth catching and could be regarded as ‘small’. Some species of prawn at 30-count size have not reached reproductive maturity. Clearly, all endeavour prawns at a commercial count grade of 30 have reached the size of first maturity and likely have spawned. In contrast, tiger prawns at 30 count have not reached first maturity and would not have spawned. From a biological perspective, brown and grooved tiger prawns less than 25 and 20 count, respectively, may best be termed ‘small’ and closures arranged to minimize their proportion of the catch.

Table 6: Prawn sizes that may be used to define small prawns. Closures that are instigated to protect small prawns require a definition of a ‘small prawn’, which differs by species. (Size at first maturity from Kenyon et al. 2004).

Tiger prawns Banana prawns Endeavour prawns King prawns

Brown

Grooved

White

Red-legged

Blue tailed

Red tailed

Western

Red-spot

Commercial count suggested by fishers < 30 - < 30 - < 30 - < 30 -

Equivalent weight (g) < 15.0 < 12.0 < 12.0 - - -

Carapace Length at first maturity (mm) 26.0 30.0 26 - 23 21 26 24

Weight at first maturity (g)

16-17 21-22 - - 10 7 - -

Equivalent commercial count

~ 27 ~ 21 - - > 40 > 40 - -

6.5 Benefits / Management Outcomes The provision of criteria and protocols for the management of closures provides the Closures Committee with a rigorous conceptual framework to use to best manage the review of current closures or the implementation of future closures. NORMAC are able to use the same framework to assess the likely impact of restrictions to fishing (effectively a closure) imposed from processes external to the fishery.

6.6 References Dichmont, C.M., Burridge, C., Deng, A., Jones, P., Taranto, T., Toscas, P., Vance, D. and

Venables, W. 2002. Designing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF optimising costs and benefits. MIRF R01/1144.

37

Dichmont, C.M., Vance, D., Burridge, C., Pendrey, B., Deng, A., Ye, Y. and Loneragan, N. 2003. Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101.

Kenyon, R., Turnbull, C. and Smit, N. 2004. Prawns. In: National Oceans Office. Description of Key Species Groups in the Northern Planning Area. National Oceans Office, Hobart, Australia.

Somers, I.F. 1985. Maximising value per recruit in the fishery for banana prawns, Penaeus merguiensis, in the Gulf of Carpentaria. In: Rothlisberg, P.C., Hill, B.J. and Staples, D.J. (editors) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp. 185-191.

38

C H A P T E R 7

P R O J E C T R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S A N D F U T U R E W O R K

7.1 Summary The project points to future research in three categories:

• To investigate that the aim of the closure is achieved. For example, if a closure was implemented to protect small prawns, undertake a scientific evaluation of the consistently greater presence of small prawns within the closure than without.

• To investigate that the catch and value of prawns adjacent to current closures (e.g. Protected Area closures that protect juvenile and sub-adult prawns) has improved since the instigation of the closure.

• To investigate the biodiversity within current closures and assess their capability to protect and sustain high biodiversity on a regional basis as part of the Northern Regional Marine Plan; in comparison to the biodiversity identified as requiring conservation in Marine Protected Areas that may be proposed.

The data available on the biodiversity within the current closures are poor. Some inshore Protected Area closures have had science survey work undertaken within. However, the work focussed on a sub-set of both the habitats present (seagrass habitats) and the biota within the habitat (penaeid prawns) within the closures. Other habitats were not surveyed. Offshore closures, both Protected Area and Seasonal Area, have little or no quantitative data available on the biological resources within them. Prawn surveys have been conducted in limited areas of some closures. No comprehensive data on the total biodiversity exist.

7.2 Recommendations 1. Document the process of implementation of closures in a consistent standard format

using a data template document that records relevant information. The standard Closures Data Template supports a conceptual framework that allows a protocol and criteria to be used to review a proposed or current closure.

2. The Closures Review project makes a recommendation to NORMAC that:

• The criteria and protocols suggested in this project are adopted by the Closures Committee to underpin their decision making, and

• information on the future proposal and instigation of closures be recorded by a secretariat using the Closures Data Template supplied by this project, and

39

• CSIRO supply an ORACLE (or ACCESS) database to AFMA to house the data emanating from this project and all future closures information, and

• funds are provided to populate the database with current data and future data.

3. Record information about current and proposed closures in an ORACLE database. Make a new record when closures in new locations are proposed; or when changes are made to a current closure and those changes are made under a different context compared to the context that supported its instigation.

4. We propose that the status of all NPF closures should be considered at least every five years. The Closures Review project acknowledges that much new data were being collected in the NPF annually (particularly over the last three years). These data did not exist at the instigation of many closures, yet they may enable a more accurate assessment of the ongoing success of some closures. Presumably, new data will continue to be acquired and the possibility of an updated assessment of closures will arise anew. The review of many closures (e.g. Protected Area closures) will be perfunctory; they will be supported by a clear ongoing obligation. However, contentious and data-poor closures may be able to be assessed using new data, combined with new techniques. Rigorous assessment may best be achieved as a scientific project that reports to the Closures Committee.

5. NORMAC consider the current requirement for the Closures Committee to meet and we propose extending the duration between meetings to 3-5 years. The extension will facilitate the review of the status of current closures using new data. In conjunction with change to the frequency of meetings, NORMAC should conduct an internal review of the decision making process of the Closures Committee to ensure change is made that causes the committee to engage closure proposals more fully and seek options that make innovative use of all the information available to the committee to maximise the value of prawn stocks to Industry. (This recommendation did not arise solely from the Closures Review, but also from observations of the workings of the Closures Committee by the authors.)

6. Use scientific data collected in recent years to verify that the aims of the current closures are being achieved and that benefits of current closures accrue to the NPF. In conjunction, engage Vessel Masters to collect data relevant to closures that will assist in the documentation of the need for closures; for example, collect size data (commercial count percentages) on prawns in areas suggested to be closed to demonstrate the presence of small prawns. Use innovative management such as closure-on/ closure-off to investigate at the outcomes of closure proposals or minor shifts in closure lines.

7. Scientific evaluation of the size of (small) prawns and percent of the catch that are deemed unacceptable to be caught. The size of prawns needs to be determined for each species and will depend, in part, on their size at first maturity. The evaluation may best be achieved by developing models that empirically examine the economic and biological consequence of taking catch at various sizes and the impact of the removal of those sized prawns on current catch (if they were allowed to grow) or recruitment the following year (if they failed to spawn).

8. Examine the biodiversity of ecosystems within current closures in the NPF and compare the ability of these closures to represent biodiversity that is identified as

40

requiring conservation in the Northern Planning Area of the National Oceans Office, Northern Regional Marine Plan.

9. Consider the implications of VMS and the internet technology on the management of closures and the availability of information on closures, including:

• Real-time management of closures (including opening and closing) based on immediate assessment of prawn stocks through the use of electronic logbooks;

• Implementation of an internet accessible ‘read only’ information base to disseminate past and current knowledge of closures and possibly interface with onboard navigation systems.

10. That AFMA investigate ways of providing long term consistency in the documentation of future NPF ‘directions’ and the NPF Operations Manual through adherence to a nomenclature system. Approaches which could be investigated include using the same Schedule Numbers and/or Map Numbers for each closure over time. This will assist in the management of the database designed to record closure data and accessibility of the information contained therein.

7.3 Future work The project identifies future work which could be undertaken to further investigate closures. The work falls into three categories:

• Research to investigate that the aim of the closure has been achieved. For example, some Seasonal closures were instigated to protect sub-adult prawns migrating from inshore nursery habitats to offshore fishing zones. However, the instigation was based on written input from fishers, not scientific survey data. Thus, a quantitative assessment of the proportion of small prawns within the closure (that varies by month and year) has not been undertaken. Put simply, seasonal area closures could be sampled both during the closure and at other times, both inside and outside it, over several years, to estimate the percentage of small prawns within the closure compared to areas surrounding the closure. The project would include a scientific evaluation to determine what a ‘small prawn’ is and what percentage of catch is deemed to comprise too high a catch of small prawns (considering potential spawning and market value).

• Research to investigate that the catch of prawns adjacent to current closures has improved since the instigation of the closure. For example, the catch rates and value of prawns caught adjacent to the Protected Area closures near Groote and Mornington Islands could be compared before the instigation of the closures, shortly after their instigation and at present.

• Research to investigate the biodiversity within current closures and assess their capability to represent regional biodiversity in comparison to the aims of representation of the biodiversity of the Northern Planning Area within proposed Marine Protected Areas.

The first two of these proposals are common sense follow-on to the current project. The third proposal will benefit from further explanation.

41

A summary of the current closures can be made based on the information that supports them. Just over half (7) of the Protected Area closures have had significant habitat survey work undertaken within them. As well, several science projects based on trawl surveys, both for juvenile and adult prawns, have been undertaken in these areas. Relative to other closures, considerable information exists on the ecosystems within them. Some of the closures were proposed by science representatives and the instigation of the closure was supported by the scientific survey data (such as the presence of seagrass habitat or significant numbers of small prawns using the areas as migration pathways to offshore fishing areas). Despite some Protected Area closures having inventory surveys conducted within them, there remains a lack of data on non-prawn species and the habitats they use. Consequently, the biodiversity of these closures remains relatively unknown.

In contrast, five Protected Area closures have little information on the biodiversity that may be found within them. Some of these closures are found to the west of Cape Arnhem and a couple in the western Gulf of Carpentaria. The ones to the west of Cape Arnhem demonstrate the lack of basic inventory surveys that have been undertaken along this extensive area of the NPF coastline. Most of the Protected Area closures are associated with embayments and areas of sheltered coastline. Based on similar embayments elsewhere (that support the presence of key habitats in closures), it could be expected that these closures would contain crucial habitats such as seagrass and mangrove communities and shallow bank habitats, all of which support juvenile penaeid prawns.

Seasonal Area closures have little or no scientific data associated with them. More importantly, there are no similar closures for which there are quantitative data that may give support to their justification, through a simple comparison of situation. Many seasonal closures were instigated from written input from fishers (qualitative data) and although these data may represent a significant body of observation and years of experience at the location, the data are limited to prawn data. No data on other species are available and areas of un-trawlable ground (other habitat types) within the closures have no data at all.

As part of the Northern Regional Marine Plan (National Oceans Office), a national system of Marine Protected Areas will be implemented within the Northern Planning Area. The Northern Planning Area encompasses the Gulf of Carpentaria and areas of the Arafura Sea from Cape Arnhem to the Goulburn Islands; i.e. much of the NPF (National Oceans Office, 2004). The Northern Marine Plan will be ecosystem-based and will incorporate a Fisheries Management component, including recognition of fishing rights, certainty of operations and ecosystem sustainability. A representative system of science-based MPAs will contribute to ecosystem sustainability as part of the Northern Marine Plan. Currently, there is no link between the established NPF closures and the prospective MPAs. It is unknown how the process of MPA appraisal will recognise the existing NPF Closures and take the marine resources within them into account.

To take the initiative and investigate the biodiversity within current closures may provide NORMAC with a way to engage with the MPA process. It if could be shown that current Protected Area closures contain representative areas of the biodiversity that are found in the bio-regions in the Northern Planning Area, their incorporation into the system of MPAs may guarantee that least loss of fishing areas to MPAs. Furthermore, if seasonal closures can be shown to contain representative areas of high biodiversity, again, their conversion to permanent closures within MPAs would guarantee the least loss of fishing area to MPAs.

42

7.4 Benefits / Management Outcomes Closures exclude vessels from areas that were once accessible to fishing. Significant catches may continue to be made from within closures, if the closed areas were accessible. The overall benefits to the NPF from the presence of a closure may outweigh the net loss due to the inability of the fleet to access fishing grounds within that closure. However, the benefits of each closure must be verified empirically. For example, prawns may migrate through an area that is proposed to be closed as they grow. Despite traditionally high catches within the proposed closure, research may show that likely catch in the general area would not be affected by a closure; instead, there will be a shift in the location where most of the catch is taken and the size of the prawns caught will increase. The scenario could be tested.

In some cases, the evidence to support a closure is clear. For example, Protected Area closures to protect nursery habitats are supported by scientific evidence. In contrast, closures such as the North East Vanderlins 8_3 Patch are disputed within Industry and scientific evidence to support the closure is not available. Importantly, significant catches of prawns within the areas that are closed are being forgone in pursuit of the closure. Research that provides evidence that the aim of a closure such as the 8_3 Patch is being achieved would ensure the certainty of the decision to deny access by the fleet to the closed area.

As suggested above, an inventory of the biodiversity and habitats within current closures would assist to minimise the area of the fishing grounds that may be lost to the fleet due to the imposition of MPAs in the Northern Planning Area; which overlaps the NPF.

7.5 References National Oceans Office. 2004. Key Species: A description of Key Species Groups in the

Northern Planning Area. Background Paper. National Oceans Office, Hobart, Australia.

43

C H A P T E R 8 A P P E N D I C E S

8.1 Appendix One – NPF / Daylight Closures

44

End of Season

Seasonal Closure

NPF Direction # 77; Schedule 2 --- (77_2)

45

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2230-2200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77Schedule 2 Start 30/11/ 04; End 14/04/05.End of Season 2004 AFMA Map #: 40 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

1984 Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Whole of DMZ Time/Place: Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: nil Original Gazette:

Fisheries Notice 131 Data Source: Gazette Date:

November 1984 NORMAC 2,3,4,8,13,32,33,35,4549,51,55 agendas & minutes NPF Information Books 1988 – 2004 Closures Task Force/ Closures Committee minutes Darryl Grey notes Ministerial correspondence

Target Catch CAAB Code: Banana X Tiger X Endeavour King By-Product CAAB Code:

Squid Cuttlefish Bugs Scallops By-Catch CAAB Code: Turtles Sawfish Sharks Seasnakes Dolphin SeaEggs Sponge Coral PigFish

CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date instigated: Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: DMZ Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: ALL Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns Written input from fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - time No

Recent survey validation Yes: Stock Assessment Data available- Log Book;

Monitoring surveys

Confidence level: High

46

History:

The proposal to implement a total closure in the DMZ to replace various seasonal area closures was first discussed by the NFC Sub-committee in June 1983 but the proposal was rejected due to concerns about transferring fishing effort to the East Coast & Torres Strait during the closed period, and the impacts of ship yard facilities and crew.

Following a meeting of more than 200 NPF operators, a recommendation was made to NORMAC 2 (May 1984) by industry for the implementation of a total closure in the NPF/DMZ from 15 December 1984 to 15 February 1985. The proposal was the subject of vigorous debate at NORMAC 2 & 3, and following a recommendation of the NPF Closures Task Force, was adopted by NORMAC 4 (18/19 Sept 84)

Industry, science & government members of the Task Force and NORMAC all supported the proposal.

Doubts about the closure were expressed by some sectors. The closure was supported by industry however concerns were initially expressed by the Queensland Industry group regarding the possible impacts of the closure on the small boat operators working out of Karumba. This group subsequently supported the proposal for a total closure.

The principle of the end of season closure continues to be highly supported by industry however concerns have been expressed from time to time over the length of the closure; whether banana prawns are lost to the fishery if rainfall is early ( November/ December) and the closure is in place until April; and, subject to the timing of the commencement of the end of season closure, possible loss of access to the endeavour prawn fishery.

Implementation

On advice from the NPF Closures Task Force, the first total closure of the DMZ (Cape York to Cape Ford) was introduced at the end of 1984 for two months from 15 December 1984 to 15 February 1985. The total closure was also in place from Cape Ford to Koolan Island, encompassing the Kimberly Prawn Fishery and Joseph Bonaparte Gulf.

The end of season closure for the whole of the DMZ replaced a series of seasonal area closures which were in place in various parts of the fishery to protect juvenile banana and tiger prawns. The total closure approach was adopted as a more cost effective and successful method of protecting juvenile prawns than seasonal area closures as it reduced access of trawlers to the fishery and thus reduced surveillance costs.

In addition to the two month total closure, seasonal closures were also in place in various areas of the fishery between 15 November / 15 December 1984 and 15 February / 15 April 1985.

Once introduced, the total closure in place for the period from 15 December to 15 February 1984/85 was well supported by industry. However fishers found the combination of the total closure and the other seasonal area closures in place in different times to be confusing and it was agreed to replace the majority of seasonal closures with a total closure for 1985/86.

The timing of the end of season closure has changed over time in response to changes in fleet size, rainfall, banana prawn sampling programs and stock assessment advice on tiger prawns, as follows:

1984/85: 15 December to 15 February

NORMAC 2 (May 1984) – recommendation made by industry for total closure of NPF/DMZ for 2 months

NORMAC 3 (16/17 August 1984) commissioned a Closures Working Group to investigate the possibility of a total end of year closure in the DMZ.

NORMAC 4 (18/19 September 1984 Darwin) approved the implementation of the first total closure for the DMZ

1985/86: 1 December to 7 April

NORMAC 8 (27/12/85 Canberra) approved the extension of the timing of the total closure of the DMZ on (1) advice from CSIRO that log book data showed a marked declined in catches of tiger prawns in the western GOC

47

and an earlier closure would protect juvenile tiger prawns and (2) the opening of the banana prawn season should be based primarily based on economic factors to maximize the value of banana prawns.

1986/87– 1992/93 Inclusive: 1 December to 15 April

Implemented by NORMAC 13 (10/11/86 Canberra) and re-approved each year. The extension of the closure to 15 April was based on achieving an optimal banana prawn size for marketing purposes

1993/94: 1 December to 13 March

NORMAC 32 (14/15 December 1993 Canberra) approved the end of season closure from 1 December 1993 to 13 March 1994 to take account of the sentiment expressed by the majority of working groups at the Closures Review Workshop which took place in July 1993 that banana prawns were being lost to the fishery as a result of the April 15 opening. (Note: one industry member opposed this proposal).

In January 1994, industry members of NORMAC expressed concern about the lack of rainfall and the potential for a very short banana prawn season which could result in early, undesirable fishing effort on tiger prawns.

NORMAC 33 (10/2/94 Cairns) reviewed the decision of NORMA 32 in light of the prevailing drought conditions. It was agreed to retain the opening date of 13 March however the mid-year closing date was amended to ensure effort was not targeted at tiger prawns (refer Template NPFD 77 Schedule 3).

1994/95– 1998/99 inclusive: 1 December to 1 April

NORMAC 33 (10/2/ 94 Cairns) commissioned a discussion paper on options for seasonal and mid year and end of year closures for discussion by NORMAC, including possible flexible openings for banana prawns seasons.

NORMAC 35 (3/11/94 Canberra) agreed that the end of year closure should be in place from 1 December to 1 April to optimize protection of juvenile tiger and banana prawns and to achieve optimal economic return from the banana prawn fishery. These dates were intended to be in place as a long term strategy.

NORMAC 35 also approved an additional seasonal area closure to protect pre-spawning tiger prawns in the first half of the season in the area from the south eastern tip of Connexion Island due east to the mainland then following the coastline of Groote Eylandt to the north western tip of Chasm Island to the southern tip of Cape Shields to compliment the existing permanent closure around Groote Eylandt. The timing of the Bountiful Island closure was also amended to commence 3 weeks after the opening of the banana prawn season.

As a result of a decision taken by NORMAC 42 (14/11/97) in response to advice from the NPFAG that fishing effort in the tiger prawn fishery was greater than that required to achieve Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and that there was evidence that tiger prawn stocks were biologically overfished by the end of 1996, additional spatial closures were introduced for the 1998 tiger prawn season. This measure was adopted as an alternative to increasing the length of the mid and end of season closures.

1999/2000: 14 November to 1 April

In 1999 NORMAC 45 (14/2/99 Cairns) agreed to extend the end of year closure to reduce effort on tiger prawns. The use of the additional spatial closures introduced in 1998 was discarded in preference for the increase in seasonal closure lengths, as spatial closures had not been successful in reducing fishing effort on tiger prawns. (Note: when additional spatial closures were used as an alternative to increased seasonal closures in 1998, effective fishing effort increased by 19% on grooved tiger prawns and by 25% on brown tiger prawns in 1998 compared to 1997.)


NORMAC agreed out of session to increase the length of the end of year season closure to reduce effort on tiger prawns in response to stock assessment advice that tiger prawns continued to be overfished, and as the delay in the introduction of the gear unit system meant reductions in effort scheduled to take effort when gear units were introduced did not occur.


NORMAC 49 ( 28/27 November 2000 Coffs Harbour) agreed to retain the timing of this closure for 2001/02)

48


NORMAC 51 (15-17 August 2001 Fremantle) unanimously agreed to change the commencement of the end of year closure to 1 December in 2002 to complement the change in timing of the mid-season closure in place to reduce effort on tiger prawns.


NORMAC 55 unanimously agreed to amend the timing of the 2003 end of season closure so that the banana prawn fishery opened on 15 April 2004. This was allow to improve the profitability of the banana prawn fishery as market prices and demand for smaller prawns was an issue of concern, and deferring the opening of the season would allow the prawns to grow to a larger size, thus resulting in better prices being received.

Scientific research:

CSIRO-Industry Preseason Sampling (1983-1985)

CSIRO Commercial Catch Sampling (1988-90)

CSIRO: Species Distribution and Catch Allocation Project, 2002-2004.

CSIRO Monitoring surveys (2002- ongoing).

August 2002 to August 2004 and ongoing. 30 min trawls at about 300 sites in the fishing areas of Weipa, Karumba, Mornington, Vanderlins, Groote (reported in Dichmont et al. 2003).

CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry:

1601, 1622, 1666, 1681, 2921, 2926, 2928, 3203, 4683, 4870, 4945, 4971, 5918, 6308, 6309, 6310, 6311, 6314, 6315

Publications

Reports

Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101. Vance, DJ, Bishop, J, Dichmont, CM, Hall, N, McInnes, K & Taylor, BR (2003). Management of common banana prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria: separating the effects of fishing from those of the environment. Final Report to the AFMA (AFMA Project 98/0716). AFMA Report. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. PO. Box 7051 Canberra Business Centre, ACT, 2610. Journal publications Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54.

Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

49

Gulf of Carpentaria

Daylight Trawling Second Season

NPF Direction # 80; Schedule 1_Area B --- (80_1_B)

50

Seasonal (daylight) Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:

0830-2200utc Closure Name: NPFD 80Schedule 1_Area B Start 1/09/ 04; End 30/11/04. Gulf of Carpentaria 2004 AFMA Map #: 39 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

Gulf of Carpentaria Original Decision Taken: NORMAC 12

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Tiger Time & Place: Darwin 10/11/86

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette#: Fisheries Notice 183

Data Source: Gazette date: 4 June 1987 Agenda & Minutes of NORMAC 12, 14, 15, 29, 31 Closure Committee minutes NPF Information Books 1988-2004 “Australia’s Northern Prawn Fishery – The First 25 Years”

Target Catch CAAB Code: Banana Tiger X Endeavour King By-Product CAAB Code:


CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1/8/97 X Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: GOC Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: whole GOC Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND,

FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data

Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° .

Closure changed over time. Yes : Time and Area No Recent survey validation Yes:

No:- are there data available- N Confidence level: Medium

51

History

NORMAC 12 (Darwin 10/11/86) unanimously agreed to implement a daylight trawling ban from 0800 to 1800 (local time) in all NPF waters from Cape York west to Cape Van Diemen and a line from Cape Fourcray to Cape Ford from 1 August to 31 October 1987 as a means of protecting spawning tiger prawns.

There was no scientific basis for the closure, however anecdotal evidence from industry indicated that aggregations of spawning tiger prawns were resulting in increased effort on tiger prawns as a result of target fishing. There was broad industry support for the closure. Though no scientific data were available to support the closure, it was supported by the Scientific Member at NORMAC 12, 15, 31 on basis of being precautionary.

NORMAC 15 (Darwin 30/9/87 & 1/10/87) resolved to extend the closure for the entire period of the tiger prawn season (to 1 August to 1 December 1987).

In 1988 the Closures Committee considered removing the daylight ban West of the Wessels but rejected the proposal due to concerns that effort previously targeted on tiger prawns would be shifted to the banana prawn fishery due to the decline in tiger prawn stocks.

In November 1992, NORMAC 29 agreed to reduce the daylight trawl ban by two hours in 1993 to allow the benefits of the pending 30% compulsory reduction of units (i.e. reduction in fleet size) to flow on to the industry.

The NPF Closures Review workshops (July 1993) recommended the decision taken by NORMAC 29 to reduce the daylight trawl ban by two hours be reversed. The workshops also recommended the daylight ban apply only to NPF waters East of 132 degrees 49 minutes.

NORMAC 31 (Cairns 31/7/93) endorsed these changes for the 1993 season.

In 1999, NORMAC 45 (Cairns 15/2/99) agreed to amend the boundary of the daylight closure area to apply to waters East of the West of the Wessels (current boundary).

The Goulburn Islands daylight trawl ban for the tiger prawn season was also introduced in 1999 (NPFD 23).

These changes were made to allow access to the banana prawn fishery whilst still protecting tiger prawns.

The two areas in which the daylight trawl ban applies have not changed since 1999.

These two daylight trawl bans are implemented for the duration of the tiger prawn fishing season each year.

52






4683, 6308, 6309, 6310, 6311, 6314

Publications

Reports

Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101.

Journal publications


53

Seasonal Closure


54

Seasonal Closure AFMA Directive #: 77 Annual Duration:0200-0830utc Closure Name: Schedule 3 Start 27/05/ 04; End 01/09/04.Mid Season AFMA Map #: 31 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

Whole of DMZ Original Decision Taken: NORMAC 12

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: nil Time/Place: Oct/Nov 1986 Darwin/Canberra

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: NT S44 (also gazetted by Commonwealth & Qld)

Data Source: Gazette Date: 19 June 1987

Agenda & Minutes of NORMAC 12, 24,32,35,45,51,55 Closure Committee minutes NPF Information Books 1988-2004 “Australia’s Northern Prawn Fishery – The First 25 Years”

Target Species CAAB Code: Banana Tiger X Endeavour King By-Product CAAB Code:


CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced:

22 June 1987 X Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation

Gulf: DMZ Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: ALL Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce Effort on tiger prawns Written input from fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° .

Closure changed over time. Yes - time No Recent survey validation Yes:

No: - are there data available- Y Monitoring surveys


55

History:

On advice from CSIRO that tiger prawn stocks were in decline and that there was a need to protect pre-spawning tiger prawns from fishing, NORMAC 12 (Oct/Nov 1986) unanimously agreed to implement a mid-season closure. There was strong industry support for this proposal as a means of improving the tiger prawn stocks. Whilst the principle of the closure has been generally supported, the timing and length of the closure has been controversial from time to time.

The original mid-year closure was implemented from 22 June to 1 August 1987. Over time, the length of the closure has changed as the need to further protect tiger prawns has become obvious. The timing of this closure has varied in accordance with NORMAC decisions on appropriate opening dates for banana prawn seasons, and NORMAC’s stock rebuilding strategy for tiger prawns.

1987 – 1990 inclusive : 22 June to 1 August (opening of tiger prawn season)

NORMAC 12 (Oct/Nov 86) approves the implementation of an annual mid-year closure from 22 June to 1 August

1991- 1992 inclusive: 8 June to 1 August

In 1991, NORMAC 24 agreed to increase the length of the mid-year closure by an additional week in response to further protect pre-spawning tiger prawns in response to concerns about tiger prawn stocks

1993: 22 June to 1 August

NORMAC agrees to reduce the length of the mid-year closure at the recommendation of the Future Options Committee given that the compulsory surrender of units on 1 April 1993 will significantly reduce the size of the fleet


NORMAC 32 (14/15 November 1993 Canberra) agrees to a mid-year closures from 15 June to 1 August (1 industry member dissented)

NORMAC 33 ( 10/2/94 Cairns) unanimously agrees to amend the commencement of the mid-year closure to 7 June in response to prevailing drought conditions and concerns that fishing effort could be targeted on tiger prawns

1995 - 1998 inclusive: 15 June to 1 August

NORMAC 35 (3/11/94 Canberra) agrees to a fixed 6 week mid-year closure as an on-going strategy unless scientific advice indicates a need for a change.


NORMAC 45 (12/2/99 Cairns) to increase the length of the mid-year closure by two weeks as part of a package to reduce effort on both brown and grooved tiger prawns by approximately 15% in response to stock assessment advice.

2000/2001 inclusive: 27 May to 4 August

NORMAC agreed to an additional increase in the length of the mid-year closure in 2000 when the gear units system (including effort reduction) was not implemented on schedule.

2002/2003 inclusive: 13 May to 1 September

NORMAC agreed to further increase the length of the mid-year closure for 2002 as part of its stock rebuilding strategy agreed to at NORMAC 51 (15 -17 July 2001Fremantle).

2004: 27 May to 1 September

56

The dates of the 2004 mid-year closure resulted from a change being made to the opening date of the banana prawn season by NORMAC (NORMAC 55 Nov 03/ NORMAC Special Meeting February 2004) to improve the profitability of the banana prawn fishery as market prices and demand for smaller prawns was an issue of concern, and deferring the opening of the season would allow the prawns to grow to a larger size, thus resulting in better prices being received.

In 2004, Anson Bay was opened for fishing from 27 May to 01 September (the duration of the Mid-Season closure) as a trail to allow for the commercial catch of king prawns in the area. Effectively, Anson Bay was an exclusion to the normal area that is closured.


CSIRO Commercial Catch Sampling (1988-90)





2921, 2926, 2928, 3203, 4683, 4870, 4945, 4971, 5918, 6308, 6309, 6310, 6311, 6314

Publications

Reports

Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101.

Vance, DJ, Bishop, J, Dichmont, CM, Hall, N, McInnes, K & Taylor, BR (2003). Management of common banana prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria: separating the effects of fishing from those of the environment. Final Report to the AFMA (AFMA Project 98/0716). AFMA Report. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. PO. Box 7051 Canberra Business Centre, ACT, 2610.

Journal publications


57

Goulburn Islands

Daylight Trawling First Season


58

Seasonal (daylight) Closure AFMA Direction #:

Annual Duration: 2200-0200utc

Closure Name: NPFD 80 Schedule 2 Start 14/04/ 04; End 27/05/04. Goulburn Islands-First_S 2004 AFMA Map #: 30 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken#:

NORMAC Out of Session Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Goulburn Island Time/Place

February 2000 Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana Original Gazette:

NPFD 36 Data Source: Gazette Date:

17 March 2000 NORMAC 47 agenda & minutes Closures Committee minutesNPF Information Books 2000-2004

Target Species CAAB Code: Banana Tiger X Endeavour King By-Product CAAB Code: Squid Cuttlefish Bugs Scallops By-Catch CAAB Code: Turtles Sawfish Sharks Seasnakes Dolphin SeaEggs Sponge Coral PigFish CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 2000 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: TOPEND Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GOULBURN Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lat: ° . X Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Top_L Lon: ° . Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - timing No Recent survey validation Yes: No:- are there data available- N Confidence level: High

59

History:

This closure was unanimously approved by NORMAC out of session in 2000. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure.

The closures committee recommended this closure to protect tiger prawns from fishing during the banana prawn season.

The closure is also in accordance with NORMAC’s stock rebuilding strategy for tiger prawns.

There have been no changes to the area of the closures since its introduction.

The timing of the closure changes in accordance with the timing of the annual banana prawn season.


The northern Territory Government and the National Oceans Office are preparing to conduct a biological inventory in the coastal waters from Castlereagh Bay (west of the Wessel Islands and English Company islands) to the Goulburn Islands (July 2004).

Publications

Nil found.

60

Goulburn Islands

Daylight Trawling Second Season

NPF Direction # 80; Schedule 1_Area A --- (80_1_A)

61

Seasonal (daylight) Closure AFMA Direction #:

Annual Duration: 0830-2200 utc

Closure Name: NPFD 80Schedule 1_Area A Start 01/09/ 04 End 30/11/04.

Goulburn Islands-Second_S 2004 AFMA Map #: 39 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

Goulburn Island Original Decision Taken: NORMAC 45

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Tiger Time/Place 15 February 1999 Cairns

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: NPFD 23

Data Source: Gazette Date: 1999

NORMAC 45 agenda & minutes Closures Committee minutes NPF Information Books 1999-2004

Target Species CAAB Code: Banana Tiger X Endeavour King

By-Product CAAB Code: Squid Cuttlefish Bugs Scallops

By-Catch CAAB Code: Turtles Sawfi

sh Sharks Seasnakes Dolphin SeaEggs Sponge Coral PigFish

CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1999 X Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: TOPEND Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GOULBURN Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . X Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - timing No

Recent survey validation Yes: No:- are there data available- N


62

History: This closure was approved by NORMAC 45 (Cairns 19/2/99) on the unanimous recommendation of the closures committee. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. The closure was introduced to protect spawning tiger prawns and to reduce fishing effort on tiger prawns. The area of the closure has not changed since its introduction. The timing of the closure varies in accordance with the timing of the annual tiger prawn fishing season.

Scientific research: The northern Territory Government and the National Oceans Office are preparing to conduct a biological inventory in the coastal waters from Castlereagh Bay (west of the Wessel Islands and English Company islands) to the Goulburn Islands (July 2004). Publications Nil found.

63

8.2 Appendix Two – Protected Area Closures

64

Alyangula area

Protected Area Closure

NPF Direction # 78; Schedule 1, Part 5 --- (78_5)

65

Protected Area Closure AFMA Directive #: 78 Annual Duration: Closure Name: Part 5 Permanent. Alyangula area AFMA Map #: 4 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

NORPAC Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 Groote Eylandt Time/Place:

June/July 1983 Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana // Tiger Original Gazette:

NT S33 Data Source: Gazette Date:

14 October 1983 • Northern Fisheries

Committee Sub-committee minutes

• NT Fisheries Division correspondence

• NPF Information Books 1988-2004

• NT Government Gazette • “Australia’s Northern

Prawn Fishery – The First 25 Years”



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1983 Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GROOTE X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Written input from fishers Top_L Lon: ° . Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° .

Closure changed over time. Yes No X Recent survey validation Yes:

No:- are there data available- Historical only


66

History:

This closure was introduced in 1983 to protect nursery habitats and juvenile tiger prawns. The closure was implemented on the basis of outcomes from scientific research in the NPF and had broad Industry support.

The timing and area of the closure has not changed since its introduction in 1983.

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) April, 1983 part-circumnavigation of Groote Eylandt by CSIRO Marine Research (Dr. Ian Poiner). Charts marked with visual survey data from aerial survey prior to ground-truthing. Habitat (seagrass and algae) distribution and abundance data 1983-1985 (Milner Bay and Augurugu River mouth). Seagrass growth data at Angurugu River mouth. Fortnightly beam trawl sampling during 1983-1985 (Milner Bay and Augurugu River mouth) (reported in Loneragan et al., 1994). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 2921, 2922, 4683 Publications Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Loneragan, N.R. , R.A. Kenyon, M.D.E. Haywood and D.J. Staples. (1994). Population dynamics of juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in seagrass habitats of the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine Biology 119: 133-143. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195.

67

Arnhem Bay area



68

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 12 Permanent. Arnhem Bay area 2004 AFMA Map #: 10 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken #:

NORMAC 32 Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 East Top End Time/Place:

14 December 1993 Cairns

Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana // Tiger Original Gazette: NPFD 33


NORMAC 3,32 agenda & minutes Closures Task Force/ closures committee minutes NPF Information Book 1994 -2004 Darryl Grey notes

Target Species CAAB Code: Banana X Tiger Endeavour King By-Product CAAB Code:


CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1994 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: TOPEND X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: Arnhem ??? X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . X Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes No X

Recent survey validation Yes: No:- are there data available-

Historical only


69

History: This closure was first proposed by NT AFIC (industry organization) to protect juvenile banana prawns in 1984. The proposal was rejected by the Closures Task Force and NORMAC 3 due to lack of information on the area. It was agreed that until surveys of the Bay were undertaken, seasonal closures could protect undersize prawns inshore. In 1994, NORMAC 32 approved the permanent closure in Arnhem Bay on the basis that prawns in the Bay were juvenile and that the Bay constituted a nursery area. Aboriginal interests were also taken into account in this decision. In general, there was no disagreement against the need to close the area; however, opinions differed between 1984 and 1994 as to whether this area should be a permanent or a seasonal closure. The area has not changed since its introduction in 1994.

Scientific research: Nil found. Publications Nil found.

70

Bartalumba Bay area



71

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 4 Permanent. Bartalumba Bay area 2004 AFMA Map #: 4 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken #:

NORPAC Groote Eylandt Time/Place:

June/July 1983 Darwin Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana // Tiger Original Gazette:










CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date instigated: Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GROOTE X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° .


No:- are there data available- Historical only


History:

This closure was introduced in 1983 to protect seagrass and small tiger prawns. The closure was implemented on the basis of outcomes from scientific research in the NPF and had broad Industry support.

The timing and area of the closure has not changed since its introduction.

72

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) April, 1983 part-circumnavigation of Groote Eylandt by CSIRO Marine Research (Dr. Ian Poiner) Charts marked with visual survey data from aerial survey prior to ground-truthing. Seagrass survey of Bartalumba Bay (1984, 1985) (reported in Loneragan et al., 1998). Beam trawl sampling of seagrass communities at selected sites, 1985 (reported in Loneragan et al., 1998). Prawn survey (grid based sampling) from Cape Grey to North East Island and west to Blue Mud Bay, 1983-85 (reported in Crocos 1987, Somers et al. 1987). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 2921, 2922, 4683 Publications Crocos PJ (1987) Reproductive dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus, and a comparison with P. semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, M.D.E. Haywood and D.J. Staples. (1994). Population dynamics of juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in seagrass habitats of the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine Biology 119: 133-143. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Somers, IF (1994). Species composition and distribution of commercial penaeid prawn catches in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, in relation to depth and sediment type. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 317-35. Somers, IF & Kirkwood, GP (1991) Population ecology of the grooved tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: Growth, movement, age structure and infestation by the bopyrid parasite Epipenaeon ingens. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 349-367. Somers, IF, Crocos, PJ & Hill, BJ (1987). Distribution and abundance of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 63-78. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

73

Caledon Bay area



74

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 1 Permanent. Caledon Bay area 2004 AFMA Map #: 3 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken: Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 North West G. of Carpentaria NORPAC Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana // Tiger Time/Place:

June/July 1983 Data Source: Original Gazette:

NT S 33 • Northern Fisheries






Gazette Date: 14 October 1993

Target Species CAAB Code: Banana Tiger X Endeavour King X By-Product CAAB Code:


CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1983 Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GROOTE X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log books Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° .


No:- are there data available- Historical Only


History: The closure was introduced to protect seagrass beds and juvenile prawns. The closure was unanimously supported by all members of the Closures Committee and NORPAC. The timing and area of the closure have not changed since its introduction in 1983.

75

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) 1983 seagrass aerial survey of the Western Gulf of Carpentaria by CSIRO Marine Research (Dr. Ian Poiner). Probably never ground-truthed. Proposed aerial survey in 2004 by Dr. Rob Coles, Queensland Fisheries Research Centre, Cairns. Publications Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, M.D.E. Haywood and D.J. Staples. (1994). Population dynamics of juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in seagrass habitats of the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine Biology 119: 133-143. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195.

76

Cape Shield to West Island



77

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 6 Permanent. Cape Shield to West Is. 2004 AFMA Map #: 5 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

NORPAC Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 Western Gulf of Carpentaria Time/Place:


NT S33 Data Source:

Gazette Date: 14 October 1983

• Northern Fisheries Committee Sub-committee minutes





• NORMAC 8,12, & 15 agendas & minutes

• Closures committee minutes



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1983 Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits X Science fish-ind survey data F_Region:GROOTE, VAND X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - area No


Historical only


78

Narrative: This closure appears to have been originally introduced as the Blue Mud Bay closure. The current closure also appears to incorporate the areas introduced as the Limmen Bight and the Bickerton Island closures. These closures were introduced in 1983 to protect seagrass beds and tiger juvenile prawns. The introduction of these closures was supported by scientific research undertaken in the western Gulf of Carpentaria in the early 1980’s and they were unanimously supported by all members of the Closures Committee and NORPAC. The timing of this closure has not changed since 1983. The area of this closure has had several iterations over time. The original Blue Mud Bay permanent closure was introduced in the area from Cape Shield to the Northern Tip of Woodah Island and then 1 nm off the coast to the southern tip of Woodah Island then southerly to 2 nm off Cape Barrow (continuing south in accordance with the 2nm limits). In 1985 the closure was changed to run from Cape Shield to the Western Point of Nicoll Island then south to 1 nm off Cape Barrow. In 1986 the line was changed to run from Cape Shield to the Eastern tip of Burney Island then to the northern tip of Bickerton Island then west to Cape Barrow. The Limmen Bight permanent closure introduced in 1983 ran from 2 nm off Cape Barrow down the coast to the south western point of West Island (Edward Pellew Group) across to the Northern Territory coast line. This boundary did not change. The Bickerton Island permanent closure introduced in 1983 encompassed all waters of the Northern Territory within a line one nm offshore of Bickerton Island and including all the waters in North Bay and South Bay. In 1988 these closures became known as the Cape Shield to West Island permanent closure area when the boundaries were changed to incorporate all waters within the area from Cape Shield to the south western point of Connexion Island then south west to 14.30 S 136 E then due West to Edward Island. The area of this closure has not changed since 1988.

79

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) 1983 seagrass aerial survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria by CSIRO Marine Research (Ian Poiner). Charts marked with visual survey data from aerial survey prior to ground-truthing. Seagrass survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria (1984) (Mornington Island to Cape Barrow). CSIRO Effect of cyclones on seagrass communities and penaeid prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria (1985-1995) Post cyclone “Sandy” seagrass re-colonisation (seagrass and algae distribution and abundance data) 1985-1995 (West Island to Rantyirrity Point) (annually and biannually 1984 to 1990, and 1995) (reported in Poiner et al., 1993). Effects of Channel dredging at the MaCarthur River Mine Transipment Facility (seagrass and algae distribution and abundance data) 1994-1996 (West Island to Rosie Creek) (reported in Burridge et al.,1994; Kenyon et al.,1995, 1996, 1999). Beam trawl sampling of seagrass communities at selected sites, 1987-1995 (reported in Burridge et al., 1994; Kenyon et al., 1995, 1996, 1999). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 2922, 4683, 4868, 4871, 6322 Publications Reports Poiner, I.R., Conacher, C. A., Loneragan, N.R., Kenyon, R.A. and Somers, I. (1993). Effect of cyclones on seagrass communities and penaeid prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Burridge, C., Kenyon, R. and Poiner, I. (1994). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Pre-construction survey. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1995). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -1. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1996). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -2. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1999). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -3. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. International Journal Publications Crocos PJ (1987) Reproductive dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus, and a comparison with P. semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, M.D.E. Haywood and D.J. Staples. (1994). Population dynamics of juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in seagrass habitats of the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine Biology 119: 133-143. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195. Munksgaard, N.C, Lim, K and Parry, D.L. (2003). Rare earth elements as provenance indicators in north Australian estuarine and coastal sediments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 57, 399-409. Munksgaard, N.C, Moir, C.M and Parry, D.L. (2002). Bio-monitoring using lead isotope ratios in seagrass and

80

oysters. Marine Science and Technology Journal. 36 (1), 52-54. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2002). Metals, arsenic and lead isotopes in near-pristine estuarine and marine coastal sediments from northern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research. 53, 719-729. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2001). Trace metals, arsenic and lead isotope ratios in dissolved and particulate phases of north Australian coastal and estuarine seawater. Marine Chemistry, 75, 165-184. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2000). Anomalous lead isotope ratios and provenance of offshore sediments, Gulf of Carpentaria, northern Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 47, 771-777. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Somers, IF (1994). Species composition and distribution of commercial penaeid prawn catches in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, in relation to depth and sediment type. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 317-35. Somers, IF & Kirkwood, GP (1991) Population ecology of the grooved tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: Growth, movement, age structure and infestation by the bopyrid parasite Epipenaeon ingens. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 349-367. Somers, IF, Crocos, PJ & Hill, BJ (1987). Distribution and abundance of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 63-78. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia... pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

81

Dalumba Bay area



82

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 9 Permanent. Dalumba Bay area 2004 AFMA Map #: 4 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

NORMAC 16 Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 Groote Eylandt Time/Place:

17 February 1988 Cairns Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana // Tiger Original Gazette:

Fisheries Notice 207 Data Source: Gazette Date:

13 April 1988 • NORMAC 16 agenda &

minutes • Closures Committee

minutes • “Australia’s Northern


• NPF Information Books 1988 -2004

Target Species CAAB Code: Banana Tiger Endeavour King By-Product CAAB Code:


CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1988 Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas X Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits X Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GROOTE Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . X Indigenous Interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns Written input from fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes No X Recent survey validation Yes:

No:- are there data available- Historical Only


83

History: This closure was introduced in 1988 primarily to protect seagrass and prawn nursery grounds. Indigenous interests were also taken into account. The closure was, in part, supported by scientific research undertaken in the western Gulf of Carpentaria in the early 1980’s. The closure was unanimously supported by all members of the Closures Committee and NORMAC 16. The timing and area of the closure have not changed since its introduction in 1988.

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) 1983 seagrass aerial survey of the Western Gulf of Carpentaria by CSIRO Marine Research (Dr. Ian Poiner). Probably never ground-truthed. Proposed aerial survey in 2004 by Dr. Rob Coles, Queensland Fisheries Research Centre, Cairns. Publications Nil found.

84

Darwin to Point Blaze



85

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 8 Permanent. Darwin to Point Blaze 2004 AFMA Map #: 7 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

NORPAC Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 West Top End, Darwin Time/Place:

June/July 1983 Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana // Tiger Original Gazette

NT S33: Data Source: Gazette Date:




• Darryl Grey notes • NPF Information Books

1988-2004 • NT Government Gazette • “Australia’s Northern




CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: TOPEND X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: FOGG X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes No X


Historical Only


History:

This closure was introduced in 1983 to protect nursery habitats and small tiger prawns. The closure was implemented on the basis of outcomes from scientific research in the NPF and had broad Industry support.

The timing and boundaries of this closure have not changed since its introduction.

86


Darwin Harbour: Inventory of Introduced Marine Pests; 1998 and 1999.


5503, 5504

Publications

Kirkman H (1997). Seagrasses of Australia. Australia: State of the Environment. Technical Paper Series (Estuaries and the Sea), Department of the Environment, Canberra.

87

Mornington Island area


NPF Direction # 78; Schedule 1, Part 11 and 11a--- (78_11_11a)

88

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 11 and 11a Permanent. Mornington Island area 2004 AFMA Map #: 9 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pt Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

NORMAC 4 Date_Review: 30 / April /2004 Southern G. of Carpentaria Time/Place:

18 September 1984 Darwin Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana // Tiger Original Gazette:

Unknown Data Source: Gazette Date: 1/12/84

(recommended by NORMAC 4)• Darryl Grey notes • NORMAC 3,4, 44 & 45

Agenda & Minutes • Closures committee

Minutes • NPF Information Books

1988-2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1984 Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits X Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: MORNINGTON X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interest X Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Written input from fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - Area No

Recent survey validation Yes: Monitoring Surveys, 2002 - No:- are there data available-

historical–QDPI surveys, 1981-85


89

History: NORMAC 4 (September 1984) agreed to introduce the closure to protect small tiger prawns and nursery grounds. The closure was implemented on the basis of outcomes from scientific research in the NPF and had broad Industry support. Changes proposed by industry since (based largely on Log Book data) have been supported by scientific member on NORMAC. The original closure line ran from Tarrant Pt to South Sweers to North Sweers to Sydney Island to Pisonia Island and to Lingnoonganee (aka Linunganje) Island then 2 nm offshore to a point 10 nm north-east of Halls Point. NORMAC 12 (October 1986) accepted the recommendation of the Closures Committee that the closure be changed to incorporate the area defined by a line commencing at Bundella Creek to Gee Wee Pt then along the westerly shore of Mornington Island to Lowareah Pt then a westerly direction to a distance of two nautical miles easterly to Lingnoonganee Island, Pisonia Island, Cape Van Diemen, south to Raft Pt then across to the mainland at Tarrant Pt. This change was based on heavy fishing activity in 1982 and industry reports of large numbers of small prawns in the area. NORMAC 44 (July 1998) approved recommendations from the Closures Committee to amend the northern line of this closure so that instead of commencing at 139. 28 it commenced at Thargabun Pt to allow access for anchoring and mother-shipping activities. Transit corridors were also introduced at this time. NORMAC 45 (February 1999) approved the introduction of the Exempt Daylight Area in the current closure area to allow access to banana prawns between 1 April and 21 April. (Note: one member of the closures committee and one NORMAC member did not support the proposal). The timing of the Exempt Daylight Area changes each year in accordance with changes to the timing of the banana prawn season. The boundaries of this closure have not changed since 1998.

Scientific research: Queensland Department of Primary Industries prawn study of the southern Gulf of Carpentaria (1981-85). QDPI carried out three projects around Mornington Island; commercial catch sampling, fishery independent sampling, and a nursery habitats study (the latter reported in Coles and Lee Long, 1985). Publications Coles RG, Lee Long WJ (1985). Juvenile prawn biology and the distribution of seagrass prawn nursery grounds in the southeastern Gulf of Carpentaria. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 55-60. Kwan D. and Bell I. (2003). Response to community concerns about green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and dugong (Dugong dugon) in waters adjacent to the Wellesley Group of islands in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Report to the Mornington Shire Council (unpublished). Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

90

North West Bay area



91

Protected Area Closure AFMA Directive #: 78 Annual Duration: Closure Name: Part 3 Permanent. North West Bay area AFMA Map #: 4 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

NORPAC Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 Groote Eylandt Time/Place:






• Darryl Grey notes • NPF Information Books





CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits X Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GROOTE X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Written input from fishers Top_L Lon: ° . Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - Area No


Historical only


History: This closure was introduced in 1983 to protect nursery habitats and small tiger prawns. The closure was implemented on the basis of outcomes from scientific research in the NPF and had broad Industry support. The original closure line ran 1 nm offshore around the coast line inside Northwest Bay. In 1987 this was changed to the current boundary. This closure has not changed since 1987.

92

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) April, 1983 part-circumnavigation of Groote Eylandt by CSIRO Marine Research (Dr. Ian Poiner). Charts marked with visual survey data from aerial survey of nursery habitats prior to ground-truthing. Seagrass survey of North West Bay; species distribution and abundance, growth of selected species (1983-1987) (reported in Kenyon et al. 1997). Beam trawl sampling of seagrass communities at selected sites, 1983-1988 (reported in Loneragan et al. 1994; 1998). Prawn survey (grid based sampling) from Cape Grey to North East Island and west to Blue Mud Bay, 1983-85 (reported in Crocos 1987, Somers et al. 1987). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 2921, 2922, 4683, 6322 Publications Crocos PJ (1987) Reproductive dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus, and a comparison with P. semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Kenyon, R.A., Conacher, C.A. and Poiner, I.R. (1997). Seasonal growth and reproduction of Enhalus acoroides (L.f.) Royle in a shallow water embayment in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 335-342. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, M.D.E. Haywood and D.J. Staples. (1994). Population dynamics of juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in seagrass habitats of the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine Biology 119: 133-143. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Somers, IF (1994). Species composition and distribution of commercial penaeid prawn catches in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, in relation to depth and sediment type. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 317-35. Somers, IF & Kirkwood, GP (1991) Population ecology of the grooved tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: Growth, movement, age structure and infestation by the bopyrid parasite Epipenaeon ingens. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 349-367. Somers, IF, Crocos, PJ & Hill, BJ (1987). Distribution and abundance of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 63-78. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

93

Port Essington area



94

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 10 Permanent. Port Essington area 2004 AFMA Map #: 8 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

Unclear – refer ‘History’ Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 Coburg Peninsula Time/Place:

Unclear – refer ‘History’ Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Banana // Tiger Original Gazette:

Unclear – see ‘history’ Fisheries Notice NPF 3 (1989)

Data Source: Gazette Date: Unclear –1989

• Darryl Grey Notes • NORMAC 18 agenda &

minutes • NORMAC closures

committee records • NPF Information Books

1989-2004 • “Australia’s Northern




CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: Unknown Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: TOPEND X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: MelvilleEssington X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . X Indigenous Interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns Written input from fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - Time No


X


95

History: The full history of this closure is unclear. The closure was implemented on the basis of outcomes from scientific research in the NPF and had broad Industry support. Unofficial papers refer to this area being closed sometime during the 1970’s. References in ‘Australia’s Northern Prawn fishery – the First 25 Years’ indicate that seasonal closures were in place in this area between January and April 1982 to 1985 at which time a total closure of the fishery was introduced for that period. NORMAC 18 (November 1988) recorded that industry believed the area to be have been permanently closed for many years but that the legislative instrument supporting the closure had lapsed in 1980. NORMAC 18 (/11/88) unanimously agreed to formally reintroduce the permanent closure as the area was important for seagrass, dugong, and small prawns and was within the Coburg Marine Park. This was legislated in 1989. The area of the closure has not changed since 1989.

Scientific research: Coburg Peninsula (Black Point to Sandy Island 1). A small data set and no further than a few nautical miles offshore. Acoustic surveys and underwater video. No fish surveys. (unpublished). Neil Smit, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, NT. Fish Identification surveys using the 'BROV system' (refer Mike Capra, AIMS). Victor Gomelyuk ([email protected]) Publications Nil found.

96

Port Langdon area



97

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 2 Permanent. Port Langdon area 2004 AFMA Map #: 4 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

NORPAC Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 North West G. of Carpentaria Time/Place:


NT`S33 Data Source: Gazette Date:




• NORMAC 16 minutes • NORMAC Closure

Committee minutes • NPF Information Books





CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1983 Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits X Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GROOTE X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Written input from fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - Area No


Historical only


98

History: This closure was introduced in 1983 to protect seagrass and small tiger prawns. The original closure line ran from Scott Pt to Jagged Head and due west to Groote Eylandt. The closure was implemented on the basis of outcomes from scientific research in the NPF and had broad Industry support. The timing of the closure has not changed. NORMAC 16 (Feb 1988) agreed to a change to the current boundaries when the area between Jagged Head, Hawke Island and Scott Pt was added. The area of the closure has not changed since 1988.

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) April, 1983 part-circumnavigation of Groote Eylandt by CSIRO Marine Research (Dr. Ian Poiner). Charts marked with visual survey data from aerial survey of nursery habitats prior to ground-truthing. Seagrass survey and beam trawl sampling of seagrass communities at selected sites, 1984-1985 (reported in Loneragan et al. 1998). Prawn survey (grid based sampling) from Cape Grey to North East Island and west to Blue Mud Bay, 1983-85 (reported in Crocos 1987, Somers et al. 1987). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 2922, 4683 Publications Crocos PJ (1987) Reproductive dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus, and a comparison with P. semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, M.D.E. Haywood and D.J. Staples. (1994). Population dynamics of juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in seagrass habitats of the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine Biology 119: 133-143. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Somers, IF (1994). Species composition and distribution of commercial penaeid prawn catches in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, in relation to depth and sediment type. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 317-35. Somers, IF & Kirkwood, GP (1991) Population ecology of the grooved tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: Growth, movement, age structure and infestation by the bopyrid parasite Epipenaeon ingens. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 349-367. Somers, IF, Crocos, PJ & Hill, BJ (1987). Distribution and abundance of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 63-78. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

99




100

Protected Area Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Closure Name: NPFD 78 Part 7 Permanent. Sir Edward Pellew Group 2004 AFMA Map #: 6 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Original Decision Taken:

NORPAC Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 South West G. of Carpentaria Time/Place:






• NORMAC 44 minutes • NORMAC Closure

Committee minutes • NPF Information Books





CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1983 Protect spawner stocks X Science data instigation Gulf: GOC X Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) Protect early sub-adult recruits X Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: VANDERLINS X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) X Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns Written input from fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes – minor area change No


Historical only


101

History: This closure was introduced in 1983 to protect seagrass beds and juvenile prawns. It was originally referred to as the ‘Vanderlins/Edward Pellew’ closure and later was recorded as the Crocodile Pt – Goat Pt closure. The closure was formally recorded as the Sir Edward Pellew Group closure in 2000. The closure was implemented on the basis of outcomes from scientific research in the NPF and had broad Industry support. The closure was unanimously supported by all members of the Closures Committee and NORPAC. The timing of the closure has not changed since its introduction in 1983. The original closure included a line from Cape Pellew to Cape Vanderlin and did not exclude the general area between Kedge Point & Cape Vanderlin as is currently the case. NORMAC 44 (July 1998) approved minor changes for the area of the closure in 1999 to allow for corridors of passage for the second season. The area of this closure has not changed since in 1999.

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) 1983 seagrass aerial survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria, CSIRO Marine Research (Ian Poiner). Charts marked with visual survey data from aerial survey prior to ground-truthing. Seagrass survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria (1984) (Mornington Island to Cape Barrow). CSIRO Effect of cyclones on seagrass communities and penaeid prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria (1985-1995) Post cyclone “Sandy” seagrass re-colonisation (seagrass and algae distribution and abundance data) 1985-1995 (West Island to Rantyirrity Point) (annually and biannually 1984 to 1990, and 1995) (reported in Poiner et al., 1993). Effects of Channel dredging at the MaCarthur River Mine Transhipment Facility (seagrass and algae distribution and abundance data) 1994-1996 (West Island to Rosie Creek) (reported in Burridge et al.,1994; Kenyon et al.,1995, 1996, 1999). Beam trawl sampling of seagrass communities at selected sites, 1987-1995 (reported in Burridge et al., 1994; Kenyon et al., 1995, 1996, 1999). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 4868, 4871 Publications Reports Poiner, I.R., Conacher, C. A., Loneragan, N.R., Kenyon, R.A. and Somers, I. (1993). Effect of cyclones on seagrass communities and penaeid prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Burridge, C., Kenyon, R. and Poiner, I. (1994). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Pre-construction survey. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1995). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -1. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1996). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -2. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1999). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -3. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163.

102

International Journal Publications Crocos PJ (1987) Reproductive dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus, and a comparison with P. semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Munksgaard, N.C, Lim, K and Parry, D.L. (2003). Rare earth elements as provenance indicators in north Australian estuarine and coastal sediments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 57, 399-409. Munksgaard, N.C, Moir, C.M and Parry, D.L. (2002). Bio-monitoring using lead isotope ratios in seagrass and oysters. Marine Science and Technology Journal. 36 (1), 52-54. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2002). Metals, arsenic and lead isotopes in near-pristine estuarine and marine coastal sediments from northern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research. 53, 719-729. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2001). Trace metals, arsenic and lead isotope ratios in dissolved and particulate phases of north Australian coastal and estuarine seawater. Marine Chemistry, 75, 165-184. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2000). Anomalous lead isotope ratios and provenance of offshore sediments, Gulf of Carpentaria, northern Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 47, 771-777. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Somers, IF (1994). Species composition and distribution of commercial penaeid prawn catches in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, in relation to depth and sediment type. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 317-35. Somers, IF & Kirkwood, GP (1991) Population ecology of the grooved tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: Growth, movement, age structure and infestation by the bopyrid parasite Epipenaeon ingens. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 349-367. Somers, IF, Crocos, PJ & Hill, BJ (1987). Distribution and abundance of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 63-78. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

103

8.3 Appendix Three – Seasonal Closures

104

Cambridge Gulf

Seasonal Closure


105

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #:

NPFD 77 Schedule 14 Annual Duration: 2230-2200utc

Closure Name: 2004 Start 30/09/ 04; End 30/11/04. Cambridge Gulf AFMA Map # 37 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

Joseph Bonaparte Gulf Original Decision Taken: NORMAC

Date_Review: 30/ April /2004 Fishing Season: Tiger Time/Place: February 2000 Out of Session

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette#: NPFD 35

Data Source: Gazette date: 2000

NORMAC minutes Closures Committee minutes NPF Information Books 2000-2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 2000 X Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: JBG Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: JBG X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce Effort on Tiger Prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes: timing No


Confidence level: High Medium Low

History: The closure was agreed to by NORMAC on the recommendation of the Closures Committee to protect small and pre-spawning banana prawns during the tiger prawn season. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. There was broad industry support for the closure. However one member of the Closures Committee indicated that the area of the closure should be larger than that implemented. In its first year (2000), the closure was in place from 3 September to 8 November. In subsequent years the closure has been in place from 30 September to 30 November each year. The area of the closure has not changed. The timing of this closure changes in accordance with variances in the tiger prawn season dates.

106

Scientific research: Northern Territory Fisheries Joseph Bonaparte Gulf study (1990). A 12 months study of Penaeus indicus in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf. Analysis of logbook data and fishery independent survey data. CSIRO Study: The impact of changes in fishing patterns on the red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus) in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf: (FRDC Project 95/16). CSIRO study: The growth, mortality, movements and nursery habitats of red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus) in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf: FRDC Project 97/105. Tag-release-recapture experiment on Penaeus indicus in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, 1997/98 (reported in Kenyon et al. 2000; Loneragan et al. 2002). Survey of juvenile banana prawns using beam trawls at 286 selected sites, 1987/98 (reported in Kenyon et al. 2004). GIS analysis of mangrove and saltflat habitat data (AUSLig Topo250K) in coastal Joseph Bonaparte Gulf (reported in Manson et al. 2001). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 6417, 6418 Publications Reports Loneragan, N., R. Kenyon, D. Die, B. Pendrey and B. Taylor. (1997). The impact of changes in fishing patterns on the red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus) in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf: Final Report to the FRDC (FRDC Project 95/16). FRDC Report. Fisheries Research Development Corporation. PO. Box 222 Deakin West, ACT, 2600. Loneragan, N., D. Die, R. Kenyon, B. Taylor, D. Vance, F. Manson, B. Pendrey and W. Venables. (2002, March). The growth, mortality, movements and nursery habitats of red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus) in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf: Final Report to the FRDC (FRDC Project 97/105). FRDC Report. Fisheries Research Development Corporation. PO. Box 222 Deakin West, ACT, 2600. International Journal Publications Kenyon, R. A., D.J. Die and N.R. Loneragan (2000). Preliminary analyses of migration and movement of adult, red-legged banana prawns in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, Northern Australia. In Hancock, D.A., D.C. Smith and J.D. Koehn (eds). Fish Movement and Migration. Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop Proceedings, Bendigo, Victoria, September 1999. Australian Society for Fish Biology, Sydney. Kenyon, R.A., Loneragan, N.R., Manson, F.J., Vance, D.J., Venables, W.N. (2004) Allopatric distribution of juvenile red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus H. Milne Edwards, 1837) and juvenile white banana prawns (Penaeus merguiensis De Man, 1888) and inferred extensive migration in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, north-west Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 309:79-108. Manson F.M., I. McLeod, N.R. Loneragan and R.A. Kenyon. (2001) Assessing techniques for estimating the extent of mangroves: topographic maps, aerial photographs and Landsat TM images. Marine and Freshwater Research 52: 787-792. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54.

107

Fog Bay_Bynoe Harbour

Seasonal Closure


108

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2200-0200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 11 Start 14/04/ 04; End 27/05/04.Fog Bay Bynoe Harbour 2004 AFMA Map #: 27 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

NW TopEnd; Cox Peninsula Original Decision Taken: NORMAC

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Banana Time/Place: February 2004 Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette:

AFMA Directions NPFD 77 -11 Data Source: Gazette Date: February 2004 NORMAC agenda and minutes Closures Committee minutes NPF Information Book 2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 2004 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: TOPEND Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: FOG BAY X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes No X



History: The Fog Bay/ Bynoe Harbour closure was instigated by NORMAC as a result of a unanimous recommendation of the Closures Committee in February 2004 to protect the very small banana prawns which were being reported by fishers. Several closures were proposed to the committee by industry for this region due to the numbers of small prawns in the general area. The proposal recommended by the committee was selected as it effectively encompasses all know small prawn grounds, whilst still providing access to grounds that produce good quality banana prawns. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. The closure is in place for the duration of the banana prawn season. The area of this closure now encompasses a closure which was previously known as the Roach Reef closure. NORMAC 45 (15/2/99) approved the introduction of the Roach Reef closure in the area around Roach Reef in 1999 (NPFD 24-10) for the duration of the banana prawn season to protect small banana prawns. The Roach Reef closure no longer exists as such.

109

Scientific research: NT Fisheries juvenile prawn sampling in Fog Bay (late 1980’s). Beam trawls with a 5 m trawl (approx) from the NT Fisheries catamaran to determine the distribution of Penaeus merguiensis juveniles in inshore Fog Bay. Fog Bay/Bynoe Harbour marine habitat survey; Biodiversity Unit, DPIE., Northern Territory. The Fog Bay project described marine habitats and identified juvenile fish habitat for the Fog Bay region (Fog Bay and Bynoe Harbour). The project acoustically mapped substrate types (up to 10 nautical miles off shore in Fog Bay), conducted underwater video for identified substrates, characterised benthic fauna and sampled fish species in wide range of habitats using predominantly trammel nets and beam trawls (with some seine netting, hand lines! and rotenone). Samples were taken at over 180 sites, collected over 5000 specimens and roughly 250 species. The survey was later nicknamed 'the shark survey" for the obvious reasons! Publications Reports Smit, N. (in Preparation (at July, 2004)) Fog Bay/Bynoe Harbour marine habitat survey; Biodiversity Unit, DPIE., Northern Territory. International Journal Publications Nil found.

110

Joseph Bonaparte Gulf

Seasonal Closure


111

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2200-0830utc Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 7 Start 14/04/ 04; End 01/09/04. Joseph Bonaparte Gulf 2004 AFMA Map #: 24 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

Joseph Bonaparte Gulf Original Decision Taken: NORMAC 16

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Both Time/Place: 17 February 1988

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: Unknown

Data Source: Gazette Date: Unknown

NORMAC 16 agenda & minutes NORMAC out of session papers Closures Committee minutes Darryl Grey notes NPF Information Books 1988 - 2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced:1988 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: JBG Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: JBG Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - time and area No



History: The JBG closure was originally instigated by industry and approved by NORMAC 16 (17/2/88) to protect small banana prawns until the opening of the tiger prawn season. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. The original closure line was inside waters inside the closure line from Cape Ruhlieres to Cape Doombey. This closure line remained in place from 1988 to 1999 inclusive. In 1999, the closures committee recommended an additional area from 127.2 E to 13.42 S to 126.58 E be incorporated into the closure to ensure that small prawns are protected. This was approved by NORMAC out of session and introduced in 2000. The area of the closure has not changed since 2000. The closure timing varies with the annual banana and tiger prawn seasons, but remains in place until the opening of the tiger prawn season each year.

112

Scientific research: Northern Territory Fisheries Joseph Bonaparte Gulf study (1990). A 12 months study of Penaeus indicus in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf. Analysis of logbook data and fishery independent survey data. CSIRO Study: The impact of changes in fishing patterns on the red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus) in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf: (FRDC Project 95/16). CSIRO study: The growth, mortality, movements and nursery habitats of red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus) in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf: FRDC Project 97/105. Tag-release-recapture experiment on Penaeus indicus in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, 1997/98 (reported in Kenyon et al 2000; Loneragan et al. 2002). Survey of juvenile banana prawns using beam trawls at 286 selected sites, 1987/98 (reported in Kenyon et al. 2004). GIS analysis of mangrove and saltflat habitat data (AUSLig Topo250K) in coastal Joseph Bonaparte Gulf (reported in Manson et al. 2001). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 6417, 6418 Publications Reports Loneragan, N., R. Kenyon, D. Die, B. Pendrey and B. Taylor. (1997). The impact of changes in fishing patterns on the red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus) in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf: Final Report to the FRDC (FRDC Project 95/16). FRDC Report. Fisheries Research Development Corporation. PO. Box 222 Deakin West, ACT, 2600. Loneragan, N., D. Die, R. Kenyon, B. Taylor, D. Vance, F. Manson, B. Pendrey and W. Venables. (2002, March). The growth, mortality, movements and nursery habitats of red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus) in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf: Final Report to the FRDC (FRDC Project 97/105). FRDC Report. Fisheries Research Development Corporation. PO. Box 222 Deakin West, ACT, 2600. International Journal Publications Kenyon, R. A., D.J. Die and N.R. Loneragan (2000). Preliminary analyses of migration and movement of adult, red-legged banana prawns in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, Northern Australia. In Hancock, D.A., D.C. Smith and J.D. Koehn (eds). Fish Movement and Migration. Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop Proceedings, Bendigo, Victoria, September 1999. Australian Society for Fish Biology, Sydney. Kenyon, R.A., Loneragan, N.R., Manson, F.J., Vance, D.J., Venables, W.N. (2004) Allopatric distribution of juvenile red-legged banana prawns (Penaeus indicus H. Milne Edwards, 1837) and juvenile white banana prawns (Penaeus merguiensis De Man, 1888) and inferred extensive migration in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, north-west Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 309:79-108. Manson F.M., I. McLeod, N.R. Loneragan and R.A. Kenyon. (2001) Assessing techniques for estimating the extent of mangroves: topographic maps, aerial photographs and Landsat TM images. Marine and Freshwater Research 52: 787-792. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54.

113

Lingi Point

Seasonal Closure


114

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2200-0200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 13 Start 14/04/ 04; End 27/05/04.Lingi Point 2004 AFMA Map #: 28 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

Coburg Peninsula Original Decision Taken: NORMAC

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Banana Time/Place Out of Session February 2000

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette# AFMA Directions NPFD 33

Data Source: Gazette Date: 17 March 2000 NORMAC Out of Session Papers 2000/2004 NORMAC Agendas & Minutes - 47, 52, 53 Closures Committee minutes NPF Information Books 2000-2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 2000 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: TOPEND Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: Meville/Essington X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes: timing and area No


Confidence level: Medium

History: NORMAC unanimously approved the introduction of the Lingi Point closure in 2000 on the recommendation of the Closure Committee (meeting 29/11/99). No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. The purpose of the closure is to protect small banana prawns. An alteration was made to the northern end of the closure as a result of recommendation from the Closures Committee in February 2002, reducing the area of the closure that was in place during the 2002 & 2003 banana prawn seasons. NORMAC took a unanimous decision in February 2004 to revert the closure back to its original coordinates following reports to the closures committee that large numbers of small banana prawns were being caught in the area. The dates in which this closure applies change in accordance with the timing of the annual banana prawn fishing season.

115

Scientific research: Coburg Peninsula (Black Point to Sandy Island 1). A small data set and no further than a few nautical miles offshore. Acoustic surveys and underwater video. No fish surveys. (unpublished). Neil Smit, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, NT. Fish Identification surveys using the 'BROV system' (refer Mike Capra, AIMS). Victor Gomelyuk ([email protected]) Publications Nil found.

116

Native Point

Seasonal Closure


117

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration: Start-End Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 15 utc0830,01/09/04; 2230,28/09/04 Native Point 2004 AFMA Map #: 38 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

N.W. TopEnd; Cox Peninsula Original Decision Taken:NORMAC 49

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Tiger Time/Place: 22/23 November 2000 Coffs Harbour

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette #: AFMA Direction NPFD 53

Data Source: Gazette date: 17 May 2001 Agenda & Minutes NORMAC 49 Closures Committee minutes NPF Information Books 2001-2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 2001 X Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: TOPEND Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: FOG Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes: Timing No Recent survey validation Yes:

No:- are there data available- N Confidence level: High Medium Low

118

History: The Native Point closure was originally approved by NORMAC 49 and introduced for the period of August & September 2001 to protect small and spawning banana prawns. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. Versions of this closure were proposed on three different occasions before this proposal was adopted by the Committee and recommended to NORMAC. The reasons for the disputes over this closure appeared to be lack of knowledge of the area by some members and differences in opinion on banana prawn catches, and ways of addressing declines in the banana prawn stocks. One option proposed was to introduce a daylight trawl ban in the area but this was not supported by the Committee at the time. When the opening date of the tiger prawn season was shifted to 1 September in 2002, the dates of the closure were amended so that the closure was in force for the first 28 days of the tiger prawn season. The area of this closure has not changed since its introduction in 2001. The closure is currently in place for the first 28 days of the annual tiger prawn season.

Scientific research: Nil found. Publications Nil found.

119

North East Vanderlin Island 8_3 Patch

Seasonal Closure


120

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2230-2200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 10 Start 30/09/04; End 30/11/04. NE Vanderlin I. 8.3 Patch 2004 AFMA Map #: 35 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

South West G. of Carpentaria Original Decision Taken: NORMAC 45

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Tiger Time/Place: 12/2/99 Cairns

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: AFMA Directions NPFD 24-9

Data Source: Gazette Date: 2 March 1998 NORMAC 45 agenda and minutes Closures Committee minutes NPF Information Books 1999-2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1999 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: GOC Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: VANDERLINS Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests X Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Written input from fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - Time No

Recent survey validation Yes: No:- are there data available- Y

Monitoring surveys


121

History: The North East Vanderlin Island 8.3 Patch closure was agreed to by NORMAC 45 (15/2/99) on the unanimous recommendation of the Closures Committee to protect small tiger prawns. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. The general area of the Vanderlin Islands has historically been controversial with various interpretations on the numbers of small prawns in the surrounding areas and this closure has been reviewed a number of times since its introduction. The initial closure commenced one month after the tiger prawn season opening date and was in place from 1 October to 30 November 1999. The Closures Committee reviewed this closure in November 1999 due to concerns that the area was too large and that it restricted access to the Mackerel Mountain anchorage. The Committee did not recommend any changes to the area but agreed to allow transiting of this closure during specified daylight hours. The Committee again reviewed the area of this closure in November 2000. The Committee concluded it should not make changes to the closure until research was undertaken to identify areas carrying small prawns and to quantify spawning stock sizes. The matter was referred to the NORMAC Research & Environment Sub-committee for attention. The Committee reviewed this closure in February 2004 but did not agree to any changes. The area of this closure has not changed since its introduction. The timing of the closure is amended each year to commence one month after the opening date of the tiger prawn season.

Scientific research: CSIRO Monitoring surveys (2002- ongoing). August 2002 to August 2004 and ongoing. 30 min trawls at about 300 sites in the fishing areas of Weipa, Karumba, Mornington, Vanderlins, Groote (reported in Dichmont et al. 2003). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 6314 Publications Reports Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101.

Recent scientific assessment using available data (M. Haywood, CSIRO Marine Research): Commercial count data from AFMA logbooks (1991-1995) Moderate catches of subadult tigers were taken from within this closure during September. Catches increased in October and November inside the closure, and in the case of October, they were also quite high in the three 6 nm grids to the south-west of the closure. NPF monitoring data (Conducted within the GoC only) Catch rates of subadult brown tigers in the closure during the August/September surveys in 2002 & 2003 were relatively low, but as with the commercial count data from the 1991-5 data, high catch rates were taken outside the closure off the south-western corner. Recommendation – Based on the commercial count data this closure should stay and perhaps be extended towards the south-west to protect the small tigers being caught there.

122

North West of Groote Eylandt

Seasonal Closure


123

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2200-0200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 8 Start 14/04/ 04; End 27/05/04. NorthWest GrooteEylandt 2004 AFMA Map #: 25 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

North West G. of Carpentaria Original Decision Taken: NORMAC

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Banana Time/place: Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: NPFD 02-7 Data Source: Gazette Date: March 1995 NORMAC 34, 35, 45 agenda & minutes NPF Information Books 1995-2004 Closures Committee minutes



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1995 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: GOC Protect nursery areas X Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits X Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: GROOTE Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . X Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes – time and area No


Monitoring surveys


124

History: The concept of this closure was first endorsed by NORMAC 34 (8/7/94 Cairns) in response to concerns about tiger prawn stocks in general, and to protect small, pre-spawning tiger prawns in the area during the banana prawn season. There was strong scientific support for this closure as a means of reducing effort on tiger prawns. NORMAC 35 (3/9/94) considered boundaries proposed for a seasonal closure in the banana prawn season, including in the general area of the current closure. Due to concerns raised by small operators regarding the lack of tiger prawn fishing grounds available to them if the south western area of the Groote Eylandt fishery was closed during the first half, NORMAC 35 approved the introduction of a closure from North Point to Cape Shield to the Western side of Connexion Island then due east to western coast line of Groote Island. NORMAC 35 agreed not to close the area proposed for south of that boundary but to monitor the catches of small prawns in the area. In 1999, following a review of closures by the Closures Committee, NORMAC 45 (12/2/99 Cairns) approved the extension of the southern boundary of this closure to incorporate the waters south to South Pt then due south to 14.30S then due west to the commencement of the Cape Shield to West Island permanent closure. Transit corridors were incorporated into the closure at this time. In March 2000, NORMAC (with one industry member abstaining) approved the recommendation of the Closures Committee to amend the northern boundary of the closure to include the waters from Cape Shield to Cape Arrowsmith then south east to North East Islet then south to Scott Point to ensure all small tiger prawns are protected from fishing during the banana prawn season. The transit corridors were increased to include this area. The area of this closure has not changed since 2000. The timing of the closure changes in accordance with the timing of the annual banana prawn season.

Scientific research: Northern territory Fisheries survey of western Gulf of Carpentaria prawn closures (1983). Fishery independent survey of prawns in the western and south-western Gulf of Carpentaria to assist in defining closure boundaries. CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85). Seagrass survey of North West Bay and Blue Mud Bay; species distribution and abundance, growth of selected species in North West Bay (1983-1987). Beam trawl sampling of seagrass communities at selected sites around Groote Eylandt and in Blue Mud Bay, 1983-1988 (reported in Loneragan et al. 1994; 1998). Prawn survey (grid based sampling) from Cape Grey to North East Island and west to Blue Mud Bay, 1983-85 (reported in Crocos 1987, Somers et al. 1987). CSIRO Monitoring surveys (2002- ongoing). August 2002 to August 2004 and ongoing. 30 min trawls at about 300 sites in the fishing areas of Weipa, Karumba, Mornington, Vanderlins, Groote (reported in Dichmont et al. 2003). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 2926, 4683, 6314 Publications Reports Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101.

125

International Journal Publications Buckworth, RC (1992). Movements and growth of tagged blue endeavour prawns Metapenaeus endeavouri (Schmitt 1926), in the western Gulf of Carpentaria. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43: 1283-99. Crocos PJ (1987) Reproductive dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus, and a comparison with P. semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Kenyon, R.A., Conacher, C.A. and Poiner, I.R. (1997). Seasonal growth and reproduction of Enhalus acoroides (L.f.) Royle in a shallow water embayment in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 335-342. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, M.D.E. Haywood and D.J. Staples. (1994). Population dynamics of juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in seagrass habitats of the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine Biology 119: 133-143. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Somers, IF (1994). Species composition and distribution of commercial penaeid prawn catches in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, in relation to depth and sediment type. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 317-35. Somers, IF & Kirkwood, GP (1991) Population ecology of the grooved tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: Growth, movement, age structure and infestation by the bopyrid parasite Epipenaeon ingens. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 349-367. Somers, IF, Crocos, PJ & Hill, BJ (1987). Distribution and abundance of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 63-78. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

126


Seasonal Closure


127

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2230-2200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 5 Start 30/09/ 04; End 30/11/04. Sir Edward Pellew Group 2004 AFMA Map #: 34 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:


Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Time/Place: 30 November 1987 Cairns

Place_Review: Caloundra Fishing Season: Tiger Original Gazette: Fisheries Notice 193


NORMAC 15, 45 agenda and minutes Closures Committee minutes NPF Information Books 1988 -2004 Darryl Grey Notes



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1999 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: GOC Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: VANDERLINS Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - time and area No



History: The Sir Edward Pellew Group seasonal closure was originally known as the Vanderlins closure and was approved by NORMAC 15 (30/9/87 Perth) on the unanimous advice of the Closures Committee to protect small tiger prawns. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. The original closure boundary ran from the mainland at 15.15 S then due east to 137.10 E then due south to the mainland from 1 October until the end of the season. NORMAC 45 (12/2/99 Cairns) approved an amendment to the current boundaries of the closure to protect small tiger prawns whilst providing access to the Cape Vanderlin anchorage. (NPFD 24-4) The area of the closure has not changed since 1999. The closure commences one month after the opening of the tiger prawn season however the timing of the closure changes in accordance with changes to the timing of the annual tiger prawn season.

128

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) 1983 seagrass aerial survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria by CSIRO Marine Research (Ian Poiner). Charts marked with visual survey data from aerial survey prior to ground-truthing. Seagrass survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria (1984) (Mornington Island to Cape Barrow). CSIRO Effect of cyclones on seagrass communities and penaeid prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria (1985-1995) Post cyclone “Sandy” seagrass re-colonisation (seagrass and algae distribution and abundance data) 1985-1995 (West Island to Rantyirrity Point) (annually and biannually 1984 to 1990, and 1995) (reported in Poiner et al., 1993). Effects of Channel dredging at the McArthur River Mine Transhipment Facility (seagrass and algae distribution and abundance data) 1994-1996 (West Island to Rosie Creek) (reported in Burridge et al.,1994; Kenyon et al.,1995, 1996, 1999). Beam trawl sampling of seagrass communities at selected sites, 1987-1995 (reported in Burridge et al., 1994; Kenyon et al., 1995, 1996, 1999). CSIRO Monitoring surveys (2002- ongoing). August 2002 to August 2004 and ongoing. 30 min trawls at about 300 sites in the fishing areas of Weipa, Karumba, Mornington, Vanderlins, Groote (reported in Dichmont et al. 2003). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 4868, 4871, 6314 Publications Reports Burridge, C., Kenyon, R. and Poiner, I. (1994). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Pre-construction survey. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101. Hempel C and Smit, N (2000). Preliminary coastal and marine habitat mapping in the Gulf of Carpentaria using satellite and aerial remote sensing techniques. In: Identification and trialing of rapid and effective sampling methodologies for mapping marine substrates and habitats in the Northern Territory. Smit, N (ed). Technical Report No 67 (2000), Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, DIPE, Darwin, NT, Australia. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1995). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -1. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1996). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -2. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1999). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -3. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Poiner, I.R., Conacher, C. A., Loneragan, N.R., Kenyon, R.A. and Somers, I. (1993). Effect of cyclones on seagrass communities and penaeid prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. International Journal Publications Crocos PJ (1987) Reproductive dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus, and a comparison with P. semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195.

129

Munksgaard, N.C, Lim, K and Parry, D.L. (2003). Rare earth elements as provenance indicators in north Australian estuarine and coastal sediments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 57, 399-409. Munksgaard, N.C, Moir, C.M and Parry, D.L. (2002). Bio-monitoring using lead isotope ratios in seagrass and oysters. Marine Science and Technology Journal. 36 (1), 52-54. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2002). Metals, arsenic and lead isotopes in near-pristine estuarine and marine coastal sediments from northern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research. 53, 719-729. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2001). Trace metals, arsenic and lead isotope ratios in dissolved and particulate phases of north Australian coastal and estuarine seawater. Marine Chemistry, 75, 165-184. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2000). Anomalous lead isotope ratios and provenance of offshore sediments, Gulf of Carpentaria, northern Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 47, 771-777. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Somers, IF (1994). Species composition and distribution of commercial penaeid prawn catches in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, in relation to depth and sediment type. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 317-35. Somers, IF & Kirkwood, GP (1991) Population ecology of the grooved tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: Growth, movement, age structure and infestation by the bopyrid parasite Epipenaeon ingens. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 349-367. Somers, IF, Crocos, PJ & Hill, BJ (1987). Distribution and abundance of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 63-78. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

Recent scientific assessment using available data (M. Haywood, CSIRO Marine Research): Commercial count data from AFMA logbooks (1991-1995) Relatively high catches of subadults were taken from within this closure during September. Catches were much lower in October and November. NPF monitoring data (Conducted within the GoC only) Of the 11 sites sampled within this closure during Aug/Sep 2002 & 2003, 4 had significant catches of subadult brown tiger prawns. Recommendation – Based on these limited data, it would seem that this closure is activated a month too late; it should be active during September. The commercial count data suggests that the small prawns have either moved out of the area or grown to a reasonable size by the time the closure is active.

130

South West Corner

Seasonal Closure


131

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2200-0200utc Closure Name: NPD 77 Schedule 9 Start 14/04/ 04; End 27/05/04.South West Corner 2004 AFMA Map #: 26 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:


Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Banana Time/Place: 13 March 2000 Fremantle

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: AFMA Direction NPFD 35-9

Data Source: Gazette Date: 2000 NORMAC 45, 47,49 & 52 agendas and minutes Closures Committee minutes NPF Information Books 1998 - 2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 2000 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: GOC Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region:VAND, LIMMEN Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes – time and area No


Monitoring surveys


132

History: This closure replaced the closure known as the Maria Island closure. The Maria Island closure was approved by NORMAC 45 (12/2/99 Cairns) and introduced in 1999 (NPFD 24-8) to protect small banana prawns for the duration of the banana prawn season. In 1999 this closure was in place from 1 April to 8 May EST. The closures committee reviewed this closure in November 1999 and agreed to extend the closure to the South West corner. The new boundary of the closure included waters within the area from the mainland at 14.30 S then east to 136.00E then south to 15.15 S degrees then east to 136.57 E then south easterly to 15.45 S and 137.42 E then south to the mainland. This proposal was approved by NORMAC 47 (17/3/00 Fremantle) and the closure became known as the South West Corner closure. The closure was in place for the first 21 days of the banana prawn season (1 April to 5 May 2000 EST). No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. This area has historically been very controversial with varying opinions between fishers on the percent of small prawns in the catch and the areas containing high catches of small prawns Following a review of this closure by the Closures Committee in November 2000, NORMAC 49 (22/11/00 Coffs Harbour) agreed to amend the eastern boundary of the closure to 137.25 E and to retain the closure for the entirety of the banana prawn season. The Closures Committee reviewed this closure in June 2001 noting that there were differing views held on whether to open the closure during the banana prawn season. Issues of marketing and prawn size were considered. No changes were made to the closure. Following a further review of the closure by the Committee in February 2002, NORMAC 52 (14/2/02 Cairns) agreed to amend the boundaries of the closure to those currently in place. This amendment was to protect small prawns whilst allowing boats to target prawns of a commercial size. The area of the closure has not changed since 2002. The timing of the closure changes in accordance with the annual banana prawn season. The closure remains in force for the duration of the banana prawn season.

Scientific research: CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) 1983 seagrass aerial survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria by CSIRO Marine Research (Ian Poiner). Charts marked with visual survey data from aerial survey prior to ground-truthing. Seagrass survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria (1984) (Mornington Island to Cape Barrow). CSIRO Effect of cyclones on seagrass communities and penaeid prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria (1985-1995) Post cyclone “Sandy” seagrass re-colonisation (seagrass and algae distribution and abundance data) 1985-1995 (West Island to Rantyirrity Point) (annually and biannually 1984 to 1990, and 1995) (reported in Poiner et al., 1993). Effects of Channel dredging at the McArthur River Mine Transhipment Facility (seagrass and algae distribution and abundance data) 1994-1996 (West Island to Rosie Creek) (reported in Burridge et al.,1994; Kenyon et al.,1995, 1996, 1999). Beam trawl sampling of seagrass communities at selected sites, 1987-1995 (reported in Burridge et al., 1994; Kenyon et al., 1995, 1996, 1999). CSIRO Monitoring surveys (2002- ongoing). August 2002 to August 2004 and ongoing. 30 min trawls at about 300 sites in the fishing areas of Weipa, Karumba, Mornington, Vanderlins, Groote (reported in Dichmont et al. 2003).

133

CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 4868, 4871, 6314 Publications Reports Burridge, C., Kenyon, R. and Poiner, I. (1994). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Pre-construction survey. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101. Hempel C and Smit, N (2000). Preliminary coastal and marine habitat mapping in the Gulf of Carpentaria using satellite and aerial remote sensing techniques. In: Identification and trialing of rapid and effective sampling methodologies for mapping marine substrates and habitats in the Northern Territory. Smit, N (ed). Technical Report No 67 (2000), Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, DIPE, Darwin, NT, Australia. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1995). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -1. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1996). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -2. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Kenyon, R., Burridge, C. and Poiner, I. (1999). Impact of the Macarthur River Project Mine Transhipment Facility on the Marine Environment: Post-construction survey -3. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories. PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. Poiner, I.R., Conacher, C. A., Loneragan, N.R., Kenyon, R.A. and Somers, I. (1993). Effect of cyclones on seagrass communities and penaeid prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria. CSIRO Marine Laboratories Report. CSIRO, Division of Fisheries, Marine Laboratories PO. Box 120 Cleveland, Queensland, 4163. International Journal Publications Crocos PJ (1987) Reproductive dynamics of the tiger prawn Penaeus esculentus, and a comparison with P. semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 91-102. Loneragan, N.R., R.A. Kenyon, D.J. Staples, I.R. Poiner and C.A. Conacher. (1998) Recruitment and seagrass type affect the distribution and abundance of postlarval and juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus) in the western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 228: 175-195. Munksgaard, N.C, Lim, K and Parry, D.L. (2003). Rare earth elements as provenance indicators in north Australian estuarine and coastal sediments. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 57, 399-409. Munksgaard, N.C, Moir, C.M and Parry, D.L. (2002). Bio-monitoring using lead isotope ratios in seagrass and oysters. Marine Science and Technology Journal. 36 (1), 52-54. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2002). Metals, arsenic and lead isotopes in near-pristine estuarine and marine coastal sediments from northern Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research. 53, 719-729. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2001). Trace metals, arsenic and lead isotope ratios in dissolved and particulate phases of north Australian coastal and estuarine seawater. Marine Chemistry, 75, 165-184. Munksgaard, N.C and Parry, D.L. (2000). Anomalous lead isotope ratios and provenance of offshore sediments, Gulf of Carpentaria, northern Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 47, 771-777. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Somers, IF (1994). Species composition and distribution of commercial penaeid prawn catches in the

134

Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, in relation to depth and sediment type. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45: 317-35. Somers, IF & Kirkwood, GP (1991) Population ecology of the grooved tiger prawn, Penaeus semisulcatus, in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: Growth, movement, age structure and infestation by the bopyrid parasite Epipenaeon ingens. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 42: 349-367. Somers, IF, Crocos, PJ & Hill, BJ (1987). Distribution and abundance of the tiger prawns Penaeus esculentus and P. semisulcatus in the north-western Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38: 63-78. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

135

Sweers Island---Mornington Island

Seasonal Closure


136

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:2200-0200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77Schedule 6 Start 3/05/ 04; End 27/05/04.Sweers Is.-Mornington Is. 2004 AFMA Map #: 29 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

Southern G. of Carpentaria Original Decision Taken: NORMAC 18

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Banana Time/Place: 9 November 1988 Cairns

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: Fisheries Notice No. NPF 5


NORMAC 18 & 52 agendas and minutes Closures Committee minutes AFMA Correspondence NPF Information Books 1988 - 2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1989 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: GOC Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: MORNINGTON Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes – time and area No



137

History: It appears that the waters inside the Sweers/Mornington closure were first incorporated with the area known as the Tarrant Pt, Mornington Island, Bountiful Island, Middle Pt closure agreed to by NORMAC 18 (9/11/88 Cairns) and implemented in 1989 from 6 May to 22 June. This closure ran from Tarrant Pt to Raft pt to Cape Van Diemen to the eastern tip of Bountiful Island then southeast to Middle Pt. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. The purpose of that closure was to allow access to banana prawns for the first three weeks of the banana prawn fishing season, whilst protecting small tiger prawns thereafter. The name of this closure changed in 1998 to the Sweers Island/ Mornington Island closure when the area of the closure was amended to include waters from Cape Van Diemen to the western side of South Bountiful Is then south east to 17.08 S and 139.59.33 E then north west to the Western point of Sweers Island then to the vicinity of Raft Pt on Bentnick Island then north east to its commencements at Cape Van Diemen. (NPFD 20). At that time a transit corridor was also introduced. Closures in this area have been historically controversial with various proposals being put forward on boundaries and timing. NORMAC supported the change in 1998 as the original closure was implemented to protect small tiger prawns and the area south of 17.08 S was primarily a banana prawn fishery. Scientific advice on species distribution supported this premise. Those boundaries of the closure remained in place until 2002 when NORMAC 52 (14/2/02 Cairns) agreed to change the boundaries to those currently in place to provide additional access to the banana prawn fishery as a result of banana marks being spotted in 2001.(NPFD 62-6) The boundaries of this closure have not changed since 2002. The closure comes into force three weeks after the opening of the banana prawn season however the timing varies in accordance with the timing of the annual banana prawn season.

Scientific research: Queensland Department of Primary Industries prawn study of the southern Gulf of Carpentaria (1981-85). QDPI carried out three projects around Mornington Island; commercial catch sampling, fishery independent sampling, and a nursery habitats study (the latter reported in Coles and Lee Long, 1985). CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) Seagrass survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria (1984) (Mornington Island to Cape Barrow) (Dr. Ian Poiner). CSIRO Monitoring surveys (2002- ongoing). August 2002 to August 2004 and ongoing. 30 min trawls at about 300 sites in the fishing areas of Weipa, Karumba, Mornington, Vanderlins, Groote (reported in Dichmont et al. 2003). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 6314 Publications Reports Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101. Journal publications Coles RG, Lee Long WJ (1985). Juvenile prawn biology and the distribution of seagrass prawn nursery grounds in the southeastern Gulf of Carpentaria. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian

138

National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 55-60. Kwan D. and Bell I. (2003). Response to community concerns about green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and dugong (Dugong dugon) in waters adjacent to the Wellesley Group of islands in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Report to the Mornington Shire Council (unpublished). Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

139

Tarrant Point---Mornington Island---Bynoe River

Seasonal Closure


140

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:

2200-2200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 4 Start 30/09/ 04; End 30/11/04. Tarrant Point-Mornington-Bynoe River

2004 AFMA Map #: 33

Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography: Southern G. of Carpentaria

Original Decision Taken: NORMAC 15

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Tiger Time/Place: 30 September 1987 Darwin

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: Fisheries Notice No. 192


NORMAC 15 minutes Closures Committee minutes Darryl Grey Notes NPF Information Books 1988 -2004



CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1987 Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: GOC Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: KARUMBA X Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - time No


Monitoring surveys


History: The Tarrant Pt/ Bynoe River closure was unanimously agreed to by NORMAC 15 (30/9/87 - Darwin) to protect juvenile tiger prawns. No scientific data supported the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. The area of this closure has not changed over time. The timing of this closure changes in accordance with the timing of the annual tiger prawn season.

141

Scientific research: Queensland Department of Primary Industries prawn study of the southern Gulf of Carpentaria (1981-85). QDPI carried out three projects around Mornington Island; commercial catch sampling, fishery independent sampling, and a nursery habitats study (the latter reported in Coles and Lee Long, 1985). CSIRO Groote Eylandt Tiger Prawn Project (1983-85) Seagrass survey of the western Gulf of Carpentaria (1984) (Mornington Island to Cape Barrow) (Dr. Ian Poiner). Port of Karumba, seagrass baseline surveys; Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Northern Fisheries Centre (1994-2001). CSIRO Monitoring surveys (2002- ongoing). August 2002 to August 2004 and ongoing. 30 min trawls at about 300 sites in the fishing areas of Weipa, Karumba, Mornington, Vanderlins, Groote (reported in Dichmont et al. 2003). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 4864, 6314 Publications Reports Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101. Rasheed, M.A., Lee Long, W.J., McKenzie, L.J., Roder, C.A., Roelofs, A.J. and Coles, R.G. (1996). Port of Karumba Seagrass Monitoring, Baseline Surveys - Dry-Season (October) 1994 and Wet-Season (March) 1995. Ecoports Monograph Series No 4. (Ports Corporation of Queensland, Brisbane) 49pp Rasheed, M.A. and Thomas, R. (2000). ‘Port of Karumba Long Term Seagrass Monitoring, Progress Report – October 2000. Report to the Ports Corporation of Queensland. (Queensland Department of Primary Industries: Northern Fisheries Centre, Cairns) 9 pp Rasheed, M.A., Roelofs, A.J., Thomas, R. and Coles, R.G. (2001). ‘Port of Karumba Seagrass Monitoring - First 6 Years.’ EcoPorts Monograph Series No 20. (Ports Corporation of Queensland, Brisbane) 38 pp Rasheed, M.A. and Thomas, R. (2002). Port of Karumba Long Term Seagrass Monitoring, Progress Report - October 2001. Report to the Ports Corporation of Queensland. (Queensland Department of Primary Industries: Northern Fisheries Centre, Cairns) 10 pp Journal publications Coles RG, Lee Long WJ (1985). Juvenile prawn biology and the distribution of seagrass prawn nursery grounds in the southeastern Gulf of Carpentaria. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 55-60. Kwan D. and Bell I. (2003). Response to community concerns about green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and dugong (Dugong dugon) in waters adjacent to the Wellesley Group of islands in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Report to the Mornington Shire Council (unpublished). Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95.

142

Recent scientific assessment using available data (M. Haywood, CSIRO Marine Research): SE GoC surveys Approximately 20-30% of the brown tigers caught within this closure during Sep, Oct and Nov 1977 were either juveniles or subadults. Commercial count data from AFMA logbooks (1991-1995) Relatively high catch rates of small tiger prawns were taken by commercial vessels in this area in August & September during the period 1991-95. NPF monitoring data (Conducted within the GoC only) In contrast to the above, surveys conducted in this area during August/September in 2002 & 2003 have had catches of brown tigers (adult + subadult) up to 534 prawns/hour. The catch rate of subadult brown tigers was always less than 10% of the overall brown tiger catch rate of each shot. Recommendation – It is difficult to make a clear recommendation on this closure because the commercial count data indicates that moderately high catch rates of small tigers were taken before the closure comes into force (Aug/Sept). This contrasts with the CSIRO NPF monitoring data from Aug/Sept 02 & 03 which suggests that it the closure should not become active any earlier as the catch rates of small prawns is quite low at this time.

143

Weipa

Seasonal Closure


144

Seasonal Closure AFMA Direction #: Annual Duration:

2200-2200utc Closure Name: NPFD 77 Schedule 12 Start 30/09/04; End 30/11/04. WEIPA 2004 AFMA Map #: 36 Reviewer: Pro-Fish Pty Ltd Key geography:

North East G. of Carpentaria Original Decision Taken: NORMAC 43

Date_Review: 30/April /2004 Fishing Season: Tiger Time/Place: 13 March 1998 Cairns

Place_Review: Caloundra Original Gazette: AFMA Directions NPFD 21-9

Data Source: NORMAC 43 & 52, agendas and minutes Closure Committee minutes NPF Information Books 1998-2004

Target Species CAAB Code: Banana X Tiger X Endeavour King By-Product CAAB Code:


CLOSURE WHEN/WHERE WHY Key Phrase DATA SOURCE Key Phrase Date introduced: 1998 X Protect spawner stocks Science data instigation Gulf: GOC Protect nursery areas Industry data instigation (GOC, JBG, TOPEND) X Protect early sub-adult recruits Science fish-ind survey data F_Region: WEIPA Protect juveniles Science fish-dependent data (GTE, KBA, VAND, FOGG) Protect biodiversity Industry fish-dependent data Top_L Lat: ° . Indigenous Interests Log Book data Top_L Lon: ° . Reduce effort on tiger prawns X Qualitative input - fishers Bot_R Lat: ° . Bot_R Lon: ° . Closure changed over time. Yes - Time and Area No


Monitoring surveys


145

History: A closure in the Weipa area was approved by NORMAC 43 (11/3/98 Cairns) at industry’s instigation to protect small tiger prawns and spawning banana prawns. No scientific data was used to support the closure however the scientific member at NORMAC supported the closure. There were no Industry arguments against it. The initial closure was in place from 1 November to the end of the tiger prawn season (1 December 1998). That closure did not include the area inside Cullen Pt and Port Musgrave, and the western boundary of the closure from 12.34 S ran to 13.00 S and 141.31.5 E then south westerly to 13.15 S to 141.25 E then east to the mainland. The closure was completely removed in 1999, again at industry’s instigation. NORMAC 47 (17/3/00 Fremantle) reinstated the closure in 2000 for the same time and area as that in place in 1998. At NORMAC 52 (13/02/02 Cairns) it was agreed to amend the boundaries to those currently in place and to amend the timing of the closure to commence at 1 October to ensure that all small prawns were protected, and to allow access to anchorages. The boundaries of the closure have not changed since 2002. The closure is in place for the last month of the tiger prawn season however the timing of this closure changes in accordance with changes to the timing of the annual tiger prawn season. Special arrangements are in place to allow vessels to transit this area with their gear racked between 0800 and 1800 EST.

Scientific research: CSIRO Prawn surveys of Albatross Bay (1978-82). CSIRO Albatross Bay Study (1985-1992). Seagrass and mangrove surveys of the Embley River. Juvenile prawn surveys of the mangrove and seagrass habitats of the Embley River. Fishery independent surveys of adult prawns in Albatross Bay. CSIRO study: The role of coastal habitats in determining productivity of prawn populations (1992-1995). Habitat ‘carry capacity’ experiments, Embley River, 1992-1994. Queensland Fisheries Service, Northern Fisheries Centre and Ports Corporation, Queensland; Seagrass surveys of the Embley River (2000-2003). CSIRO Monitoring surveys (2002- ongoing). August 2002 to August 2004 and ongoing. 30 min trawls at about 300 sites in the fishing areas of Weipa, Karumba, Mornington, Vanderlins, Groote (reported in Dichmont et al. 2003). CSIRO MarLIN Metadata entry: 1361, 1561, 1663, 1682, 1702, 1703, 2921, 4862, 4863, 4875, 6314, 6422, 6454 Publications Reports Dichmont, CM, Vance, D, Burridge, C, Pendrey, B, Deng, A, Ye, Y & Loneragan, N (2003). Designing, implementing and assessing an integrated monitoring program for the NPF. FRDC 2002/101. Roelofs, A.J., Rasheed, M.A. and Thomas, R. (2001a). Port of Weipa Seagrass Monitoring Baseline Surveys, April & September 2000. Ecoports Monograph Series No 21. (Ports Corporation of Queensland, Brisbane) 38 pp. Roelofs, A.J., Rasheed, M.A. and Thomas, R. (2001b). Port of Weipa Seagrass Monitoring Surveys, April and September 2001. Interim Report to the Ports Corporation of Queensland. 22 pp

146

elofs, A.J., Rasheed, M.A. and Thomas, R. (2003). Port of Weipa Seagrass Monitoring, 2000 - 2002. EcoPorts Monograph Series No.22. Ports Corporation of Queensland. 32 pp. Vance, DJ, Bishop, J, Dichmont, CM, Hall, N, McInnes, K & Taylor, BR (2003). Management of common banana prawn stocks of the Gulf of Carpentaria: separating the effects of fishing from those of the environment. Final Report to the AFMA (AFMA Project 98/0716). AFMA Report. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. PO. Box 7051 Canberra Business Centre, ACT, 2610. International Journal Publications Conacher, C.A., C.J. O'Brien, J.L. Horrocks and R.A. Kenyon. (1996) Litter production and accumulation in stressed mangrove communities in the Embley River Estuary, North-eastern Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 737-743. Crocos, PJ & van der Velde TD (1995). Seasonal, spatial and interannual variability in the reproductive dynamics of the grooved tiger prawn Penaeus semisulcatus in Albatross Bay, Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia: the concept of effective spawning. Marine Biology 122: 557-570. Crocos, PJ, Park, YC, Die, DJ, Warburton, K & Manson, F (2001). Reproductive dynamics of endeavour prawns, Metapenaeus endeavouri and M. ensis, in Albatross Bay, Gulf of Carpentaria. Marine Biology 138:63-75. Haywood MDE, Vance DJ & Loneragan NR (1995). Seagrass and algal beds as nursery habitats for tiger prawns (Penaeus semisulcatus and P. esculentus) in a tropical Australian estuary. Marine Biology. 122: 213-223. Haywood MDE, Heales DS, Kenyon RA, Loneragan NR, Vance DJ (1998). Predation of juvenile tiger prawns in a tropical Australian estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 162: 201-214. Loneragan NR, Heales DS, Haywood MDE, Kenyon RA, Pendrey RC, Vance DJ (2001). Estimating the carrying capacity of seagrass for juvenile tiger prawns (Penaeus semisulcatus): enclosure experiments in high and low biomass seagrass beds. Marine Biology. 139: 343-354. Poiner, I.R., Staples, D.J. and Kenyon, R.A. (1987). Seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 38(1): 121-131. Rothlisberg, PC, Craig, PD & Andrewartha, JR (1996) Modelling penaeid prawn larval advection in Albatross Bay, Australia: Defining the effective spawning population. Marine and Freshwater Research, 47:157-168. Somers IF (1985). Maximising value per recruit in the fishery for banana prawns, Penaeus merguiensis, in the Gulf of Carpentaria. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 185-191. Staples DJ, Vance DJ, Heales DS (1985). Habitat requirements of juvenile penaeid prawns and their relationship to offshore fisheries. In: Rothlisberg, PC, Hill, BJ & Staples, DJ (eds) Second Australian National Prawn Seminar, NPS2. Cleveland, Australia. pp 47-54. Vance DJ, Haywood MDE, Heales DS & Staples DJ (1996). Seasonal and annual variation in abundance of postlarval and juvenile grooved tiger prawns, Penaeus semisulcatus, and environmental variation in the Embley River, Australia: a six-year study. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 135: 43-55. Vance, DJ, Haywood, MDE, Heales, DS, Kenyon, RA & Loneragan, NR (1998). Seasonal and annual variation in abundance of postlarval and juvenile banana prawns, Penaeus merguiensis, and environmental variation in two estuaries in tropical northeastern Australia: a six-year study. Marine Ecology Progress Series 163: 21-36. Vance, DJ, Haywood, MDE, Heales, DS, Kenyon, RA, Loneragan, NR & Pendrey, RC (2002). Distribution of juvenile penaeid prawns in mangrove forests in a tropical Australian estuary, with particular reference to Penaeus merguiensis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 228: 165-177. Wang, YG & Die DJ (1996). Stock-Recruitment relationships of the tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus and

147

Penaeus semisulcatus) in the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 47: 87-95. Theses Park, YC (1999). Reproductive dynamics, emergence behaviour, and stock assessment of endeavours prawns Metapenaeus endeavouri and Metapenaeus ensis in Albatross Bay, Gulf of Carpentaria: PhD thesis. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Recent scientific assessment using available data (M. Haywood, CSIRO Marine Research): Albatross Bay survey The highest catch rates of juvenile subadult grooved tigers and bananas in the Weipa were taken within the closure in November, but significant catches were also taken in October Commercial count data from AFMA logbooks (1991-1995) The catch rates of subadult tigers were all highest inside the closure during October and November, except for quite high catches about 20 km west of Pera Head during November. NPF monitoring data (Conducted within the GoC only) Catch rates of subadult tigers in the closure just prior to it being active (August/September) were relatively high. They were also high just to the west of the northern half of the closure line. Recommendation – This closure should remain and perhaps even be extended to include September.

148

8.4 Appendix Four - Data Template PROPOSED CLOSURE Closure type: Protected Area / Seasonal-

AFMA Directive #: Annual Duration:

Closure Name: Start h, / / . AFMA Map #: End h, / / . Closure code: NORMAC Decision: Fishing season: Instigation date: Date: / / Banana /// Tiger /// NPF Key Geography: Place: Proposal of Closure Context of Closure DATA SOURCE and

Confidence Proposer: Socio_Cultural: Science survey: Date_Prop: / /20 ? H / M / L Place: Environment_Biodiversity: Science fishery dependent: Source: ? H / M / L Industry: Competing Infrastructure: Industry Fishery dependent: ? ? H / M / L Science: Fishery: Log Book: ? Management: H / M / L Other Biology: Written input from Fishers: ? H / M / L List of evidence presented: 1. 2. REVIEW WARRANTED 3. CLOSURE WHERE TARGET CATCH Species WHY Key Phrase Gulf: CAAB Prawn Protect spawner stocks Banana: Protect nursery areas Fishing Region: Tiger: Protect early sub-adult recruits Endeavour: Seasonal high catch juveniles King: Protect biodiversity * Top_L Lat: ° . By-Product Fish non-overlapping species * Top_L Lon: ° . Indigenous interests * Bot_R Lat: ° . By-Catch Return-per-Recruit * Bot_R Lon: ° . Multiple user conflict * Centroid Lat: ° .

* Centroid Lon: ° . No biological target REVIEW WARRANTED Quick closure assessment. ‘COMMON SENSE’ closure? Information ‘POOR” closure? >>> Four questions below--- Go to Page 2 Is there broad Industry support?

Yes: No:

Is there broad Science support?

Yes: No:

Are there science survey data?

Yes: No:

Is compliance feasible? Yes: No:

* use a precision of ≤ 0.1 a

149

8.5 Appendix Five – Industry Workshop Agenda

CCLLOOSSUURREESS RREEVVIIEEWW PPRROOJJEECCTT :: WWOORRKKSSHHOOPP AAGGEENNDDAA

Developing Criteria and Protocols for the instigation of future Closures and the review of current Closures in the NPF: Industry Workshop

Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle. June 16th, 2004

Apologies: Tony Williams

1.1 Welcome 1.2 House keeping 1.3 Refreshments 2.0 Project outcomes to date

2.1 Current Closures (PowerPoint presentation # 1) 2.1.1 Closure types 2.1.2 Supporting data types 2.1.3 Closure data template 2.1.4 Conclusions of the Closure review (Closure documentation)

Input and Discussion 2.3 Future considerations (PowerPoint presentation # 2)

2.2.1 The ‘context’ of Closures 2.2.2 Internal and external drivers 2.2.3 Basic Closure criteria

Input and Discussion 2.3 Protocols and Criteria (PowerPoint presentation # 3)

2.3.1 Centralised Proposal receipt and documentation 2.3.2 Context and Criteria 2.3.3 Protocol flow diagram 2.3.4 ‘Common sense’ Closures and information ‘poor’ Closures 2.3.5 Management and Review

Input and Discussion

3.0 Discussion by all participants 4.0 Outcome documentation 5.0 Concluding comments and discussion

r02/0881 - documenting the history of and providing

Documents